Green Day: The 21st Century Queen?

thunderbolt 31742 25.02.2010 00:34	Hear me out. I'll list the parallels step-by-step. Both bands start out as groups appealing to a particular demographic, and as such, they develop a rabid fanbase. In 1980, ten years after emerging onto the music scene, Queen releases The Game, which dramatically changes their sound. Their old fanbase feels alienated, but that's ok, because they now have millions and millions of new fans who know every single word to Another One Bites the Dust and Crazy Little Thing Called Love, but would be hard-pressed to identify older standards like Liar and In the Lap of the Gods...Revisited as even being by the same group. In 2004, Green Day releases American Idiot, which, aside from the track St. Jimmy, sounds almost nothing like previous Green Day work. The old Green Day fans largely condemn the new direction the band has taken, and the abrupt left turn towards pop that they've made. That's cool, because the band now has millions and millions of new fans who have somehow managed to memorize the lyrics to the epic, 10-minute Jesus of Suburbia to the point that they can recite the entire song--backwards and in Pig Latin. After The Game, Queen starts to slide away from the smaller concert halls they'd traditionally played, and throughout the '80s, they're touring larger arenas and stadiums with a bigger lightshow and more special effects that the (by comparison) more stripped-down rock shows of the mid-to-late '70s. After American Idiot, Green Day shifts from touring smaller arenas and amphitheaters to gigantic stadiums. Their special effects, which had previously been limited to a few lights and a flashpot or two, have expanded to include gigantic LED TV screens behind the stage, a lightshow that makes the Magic Tour rig look like something you'd see at the community theatre, massive explosions at the beginning and end (and sometimes in the middle) of virtually every song, and a rain of sparks from above during ballads. In 2002, Queen releases We Will Rock You: The Musical in an effort to capitalize on its greatest hits. In 2010, Green Day sends American Idiot: The Musical to Broadway, to capitalize on the popularity of the album of the same name, and to add a few "greatest hits" to the mix as well. By the way, did I mention that Billie Joe Armstrong is openly bisexual, Green Day often covers We Are the Champions as the last song of their first encore, the title/opening track of 21st Century Breakdown is basically a punk cover of Bohemian Rhapsody (listen to the song's progression carefully, and if that doesn't convince you, watch a live performance of it on Youtube), and Billie Joe's relentless chanting of "day-o" and general mimicry of Freddie Mercury's stage antics, and try and convince me that Green Day isn't the 21st century Queen. Any questions?
pittrek 25.02.2010 02:54	In 2004, Green Day releases American Idiot, which, aside from the track St. Jimmy, sounds almost nothing like previous Green Day work. Sorry, what ? What do you mean with "previous Green Day work" ? Because American Idiot is actually a return to Green Day's punk roots and is very similar to original Green Day work
ILoveQueen20 25.02.2010 07:00	I get your points & can see why you think this but No just No. No-ones like Queen :) theyc an be influenced by Queen but their certainly not the new 21st centuty Queen. (IMO)
FriedChicken 25.02.2010 08:00	Come on, you must be joking. Green Day keep coming back to the same stuff over and over again, they obviously have no clue what they are doing, musically.
The Real Wizard 25.02.2010 10:49	I see where you're coming from, and on some points you're certainly correct. But without strong musicianship and innovation, they're nowhere near being the new Queen. If any band these days can be called the new Queen, it's Muse.
thunderbolt 31742 25.02.2010 12:15	Maybe I wasn't exactly clear on some points. My wife and I actually had a spirited debate about this, which ended with us watching a live video of 21st Century Breakdown and her saying, "Yeah, I can kind of hear it." That is, until the pyro went off, and she said, "Oh my God, you're right!" I wasn't so much saying that Green Day is the new Queen musically in so much as the parallels their careers have taken are pretty astounding. American Idiot could well prove to be Green Day's Game album. As to American Idiot being a return to their punk roots, eh, maybe. Billie Joe Armstrong's even gone on record and said that the key difference is that, on AI, they really let the guitars fly, did much more technical guitar work, and cranked them up considerably higher in the mix than they typically had in the past. IMO, that equates basically to a shift from a punk, garage-sounding band to a true pop-rock band, and that's the shift that plenty of Green Day fans have complained about. You see the complaints about that change in style more often in reviews of 21st Century Breakdown, because even though the switch happened with AI, even the people who wanted to hate it seem to have admitted in their reviews that AI was just a damn good album start to finish. While 21CB is also a damn good album, it's got a few flaws that AI didn't have, and the reviewers who've been fans since the pre-Dookie days are picking up on it.
The Real Wizard 25.02.2010 12:19	In that sense, you're definitely on the right track then.
lalaalalaa 25.02.2010 12:38	The 21 century Queen is Dream Theater, without a doubt. Very good instrumentalists.
The Real Wizard 25.02.2010 13:12	I'd say Dream Theater are more like a 21st century Yes. DT and Queen are from pretty opposite ends of the playing field, I think.
Sebastian 25.02.2010 13:34	And the DT blokes play waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than Queen. I adore Green Day, but I don't see much similarity between them and Queen. We could draw parallels between virtually any two bands if we look hard enough.
PauloPanucci 25.02.2010 14:25	could be Queen+PR, they are the 21st century oh, i know, this is no funny. omg, why i said that?
Bo Alex 25.02.2010 14:44	Sir GH wrote: I see where you're coming from, and on some points you're certainly correct. But without strong musicianship and innovation, they're nowhere near being the new Queen. If any band these days can be called the new Queen, it's Muse. I second that.
mooghead 25.02.2010 15:31	If you look hard enough parallels can be made between any group ever. As a casual Green Day fan (own a couple of albums and a few singles) they sound just the same now as they ever did, a few more 'slower' songs now and then but the overall sound is the same.
lalaalalaa 25.02.2010 17:24	Sir GH wrote: I'd say Dream Theater are more like a 21st century Yes. DT and Queen are from pretty opposite ends of the playing field, I think. Not entirely. Just depends on how you view it. Songwriting wise, both bands are very diverse and creative. They both make good use of harmony and they both have knowledge in a wide range of music.
Jimmy Dean 26.02.2010 00:28	I'm probably the biggest Queen/Green Day fan around... obviously I lean more to the Queen side... but both bands are an integral part of what I listened to when growing up... i'm 25 now. Besides Billy Joe being the closest 21st century showman to Freddie Mercury, both bands have absolutely NOTHING in common.... 1) Green Day are 100% punk rock... but have creative ways of delivering it... ie. Insomniac / Warning / American Idiot... each of these are punk rock albums...with their own little twists... Insomniac is Green Day playing like Green Day, Warning is Green Day bringing the Kinks to the 21st century, and American Idiot is Green Day playing like The Who in the 21st century 2) Each of Queen's albums play like a musical spectrum... almost - Hot Space, The Miracle and A Kind of Magic are the exceptions. If you listen to A Night At The Opera, News of the World, Jazz or The Works... you'd have no clue what Queen's influences were... they created their own style, and reinvented themselves album after album 3) Green Day have a knack for doing what they can to come off as rebels. 4) Umm, Queen... lol... no....really no.... I mean Freddie never officially came out on record besides saying he's as gay as a daffodil... and that could have been perceived as a joke... the other three were hardly out of the norm... 5) Green Day always strive to appear to a young crowd 6) Queen's music was never defined by an age group 7) Green Day's lyrics are 99.9% written by Billy Joe... 8) Queen were very close to a 25/25/25/25 split... ok, maybe more like 30/30/20/20 9) Green Day's live show are all about "mixing in" with the crowd and telling stories... Billy Joe get people on stage and has them perform/sing with the band... 10) Freddie Mercury was the puppetmaster... he meticulously controlled the entire event as if his life depended on it... he was the centrepiece and the main event. Not putting the rest of the band down... it's just, he could have been a show on his own if he wanted to... the voice, theatricals, charmed the crowd, etc... Where both bands come together is that BOTH put on an INCREDIBLE live show, and as I said earlier.. Billy Joe is the 21st cenutry version of Freddie Mercury when places in a live setting.... but that's as far as the similarities go, in my opinon.
The Real Wizard 26.02.2010 03:07	lalaalalaa wrote: Sir GH wrote: I'd say Dream Theater are more like a 21st century Yes. DT and Queen are from pretty opposite ends of the playing field, I think. Not entirely. Just depends on how you view it. Songwriting wise, both bands are very diverse and creative. They both make good use of harmony and they both have knowledge in a wide range of music. Very true. So once again, you can find a link between any two bands if you look hard enough, and differences if you look hard enough.
Vali 26.02.2010 05:34	Bo Alex wrote: Sir GH wrote: I see where you're coming from, and on some points you're certainly correct. But without strong musicianship and innovation, they're nowhere near being the new Queen. If any band these days can be called the new Queen, it's Muse. I second that. and I third it
Amazon 26.02.2010 06:52	Sir GH wrote: lalaalalaa wrote: Sir GH wrote: I'd say Dream Theater are more like a 21st century Yes. DT and Queen are from pretty opposite ends of the playing field, I think. Not entirely. Just depends on how you view it. Songwriting wise, both bands are very diverse and creative. They both make good use of harmony and they both have knowledge in a wide range of music. Very true. So once again, you can find a link between any two bands if you look hard enough, and differences if you look hard enough. While I do agree with Sir GH that Dream Theater are more like Yes than Queen, Dream Theater's covers of the SHA songs remain IMO among the all-time great Queen covers. Sebastian wrote: "And the DT blokes play waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than Queen." John and Roger perhaps (although I think that way is a massive exaggeration), but not Brian.
Sebastian 26.02.2010 09:18	Brian's a great guitarist. But Petrucci's a hell of a lot better.
Amazon 26.02.2010 09:47	Sebastian wrote: Brian's a great guitarist. But Petrucci's a hell of a lot better. Sorry, I don't agree.
Sebastian 26.02.2010 10:30	And you don't have to. This is a forum, where people may have different opinions, and often do.
Amazon 26.02.2010 10:38	Sebastian wrote: And you don't have to. This is a forum, where people may have different opinions, and often do. I know. If you're referring to my saying sorry, it's simply something that I do.
QUEEN+PAULRODGERS 26.02.2010 11:56	green day new queen? oh please! ots a horrible band! bands like muse or dream theater its more like queen,not green day
The Real Wizard 26.02.2010 12:41	Amazon wrote: While I do agree with Sir GH that Dream Theater are more like Yes than Queen, Dream Theater's covers of the SHA songs remain IMO among the all-time great Queen covers. Absolutely agreed. They were a colossal achievement.
thunderbolt 31742 26.02.2010 22:22	Sir GH wrote: Amazon wrote: While I do agree with Sir GH that Dream Theater are more like Yes than Queen, Dream Theater's covers of the SHA songs remain IMO among the all-time great Queen covers. Absolutely agreed. They were a colossal achievement. I'll third that. They sound absolutely incredible.
philip storey 01.03.2010 15:27	I don't ever remember Queen starting life as a a punk rock band. They don't sound anything like each other,so i am afraid the answer to your question is Nooooooooooooooooo !!!
lalaalalaa 01.03.2010 15:42	What's so great about Muse. Personally, I hate them.
The Real Wizard 01.03.2010 20:49	What do you hate about them? They are strong musicians, and one of the very few rock bands in the mainstream who are continuously growing and trying out new sounds, instead of churning out the same old predictable crap like virtually everyone else on the radio. They are one of my very favourite bands right now.
Sheer Brass Neck 01.03.2010 21:36	"With all the production values in the world, a record is still about the singer and the song." Brian May, Feb. 27/10. So even if John Petrucci is a better guitarist than Brian, so what? 99% of the population wouldn't know a note of John Petrucci's music. My parents, and most of yours, and grandparents have heard WWRY guitar solo and can probably hume it note by note, plus Bohemian Rhapsody's solo. Whenever these threads turn into who plays like what, I don't get it. It's not like Brian is Bruce Springsteen or Billy Joe Armstrong on guitar, he's a certifiable guitar hero. Thousands of kids on YouTube are "better" than Brian. BFD. As a casual Green Day fan, I see the point of the thread. They've changed, and change is always good musically. Queen's fist was a fantastic album, would hate to see KYA clones on NOTW, The Game, AKOM etc., and apart from a few retries (Tear it Up trying to recapture WWRY) they were always into new things, to the dismay of long time fans, but did capture new fans.
john bodega 01.03.2010 22:51	lalaalalaa wrote: What's so great about Muse. Personally, I hate them. I heard them playing for free at the start of the month, as I live over the road from the Big Day Out venue. They were good at recreating their sound in a live environment, but I think they must have picked all of their most derivative songs to play, or something. Honestly sounded like someone was covering The Wall. With some "Was It All Worth It" thrown in.
Sebastian 01.03.2010 23:08	> So even if John Petrucci is a better guitarist than Brian, so what? So what? This: if John Petrucci is a better guitarist than Brian, then John Petrucci is a better guitarist than Brian, simple as that. > 99% of the population wouldn't know a note of John Petrucci's music. So what? > My parents, and most of yours, and grandparents have heard WWRY guitar solo and can probably hume it note by note Good for them. Which doesn't change that if John Petrucci is a better guitarist than Brian, then John Petrucci is a better guitarist than Brian, simple as that. > It's not like Brian is Bruce Springsteen or Billy Joe Armstrong on guitar Saying he's not the best is not the same as saying he's not very good. A person who's 6 ft tall is not a dwarf, but he's not the tallest person in the world. There are literally millions of people who can play guitar and none of them can hold a candle to Brian; but there are also several people (dozens?, hundreds? several in any case) who can play better than him. And Petrucci's one of them. > Thousands of kids on YouTube are "better" than Brian. Not thousands, but some may be, and he's kind and clever enough to accept so.
Sheer Brass Neck 01.03.2010 23:41	Sebastian wrote: > So even if John Petrucci is a better guitarist than Brian, so what? So what? This: if John Petrucci is a better guitarist than Brian, then John Petrucci is a better guitarist than Brian, simple as that. So what? John Petrucci isn't as good a guitarist as Nuno Bettencourt. Does this mean Extreme is more similar to Queen, or Green Day, than DT. The thread is about Queen and Green Day similarities, or lack thereof. > 99% of the population wouldn't know a note of John Petrucci's music. So what? So what? Why does John Petrucci allegedly being a better guitarist than Brian have anything to do with Queen and Green Day? > My parents, and most of yours, and grandparents have heard WWRY guitar solo and can probably hume it note by note Good for them. Which doesn't change that if John Petrucci is a better guitarist than Brian, then John Petrucci is a better guitarist than Brian, simple as that. Which has nothing to do with Queen and Green Day, or the fact that John Petrucci is not as good a guitarist as Nuno Bettencourt. > It's not like Brian is Bruce Springsteen or Billy Joe Armstrong on guitar Saying he's not the best is not the same as saying he's not very good. A person who's 6 ft tall is not a dwarf, but he's not the tallest person in the world. There are literally millions of people who can play guitar and none of them can hold a candle to Brian; but there are also several people (dozens?, hundreds? several in any case) who can play better than him. And Petrucci's one of them. John Petrucci may be tall or short. Brain May is tall. Nuno Bettencourt is short. Billy Joe Armstrong is short also. Nuno Bettencourt is a better guitarist than either of them. So what? > Thousands of kids on YouTube are "better" than Brian. Not thousands, but some may be, and he's kind and clever enough to accept so. Maybe millions, you don't have the data to dispute my statement.
Mercuryking 02.03.2010 03:28	Sir GH wrote: I see where you're coming from, and on some points you're certainly correct. But without strong musicianship and innovation, they're nowhere near being the new Queen. If any band these days can be called the new Queen, it's Muse. You must be kiddin. Muse sound NOTHING like queen ,by you saying that shows me that you know little about queen. Their song starlight sounds like the cardigans for gods sake.
ParisNair 02.03.2010 13:12	link
Sebastian 02.03.2010 13:21	> So what? John Petrucci isn't as good a guitarist as Nuno Bettencourt. Does this mean Extreme is more similar to Queen, or Green Day, than DT. Now, Extreme are indeed more similar to Queen than GD or DT, but that's not directly related to Nuno's expertise. > The thread is about Queen and Green Day similarities, or lack thereof. However, you wrote a long-winded message dealing with other aspects. > Why does John Petrucci allegedly being a better guitarist than Brian have anything to do with Queen and Green Day? Why does John Petruci allegedly being a better guitarist than Brian allegedly having anything to do with Queen and Green Day have anything to do with Queen and Green Day? > Which has nothing to do with Queen and Green Day, or the fact that John Petrucci is not as good a guitarist as Nuno Bettencourt. So what? > John Petrucci may be tall or short. Brain May is tall. Nuno Bettencourt is short. Billy Joe Armstrong is short also. Nuno Bettencourt is a better guitarist than either of them. So what? If Nuno's better than them, then Nuno's better than them. > Maybe millions, you don't have the data to dispute my statement. So what? I don't have the data to say Billie Joe is a man, for all we know he could be a crocodile dressed as a man, and as none of us (as far as I know) has analysed his DNA, then none of us can guarantee he's not a crocodile, or a penguin, etc. Sure, penguins have feathers, but maybe Billie Joe is the one penguin that has hair instead. Or maybe the hair was purchased via p-bay (Penguin's bay). As I haven't got any way to prove that's false, then it must be true... There are YT people who play better than Brian, and I seem to remember he did acknowledge it once or twice. But not millions.
The Real Wizard 02.03.2010 15:41	Mercury SingerOfLife wrote: Sir GH wrote: If any band these days can be called the new Queen, it's Muse. You must be kiddin. Muse sound NOTHING like queen ,by you saying that shows me that you know little about queen. Where did I say Muse sounds like Queen? That shows me that you know little about reading comprehension. Furthermore, if you're using only one example to illustrate your point, that shows me that you know little about Muse. There are elements of their sound and approach that are influenced by Queen.
Jimmy Dean 02.03.2010 15:53	Sir GH wrote: Mercury SingerOfLife wrote: Sir GH wrote: If any band these days can be called the new Queen, it's Muse. You must be kiddin. Muse sound NOTHING like queen ,by you saying that shows me that you know little about queen. Where did I say Muse sounds like Queen? That shows me that you know little about reading comprehension. Furthermore, if you're using only one example to illustrate your point, that shows me that you know little about Muse. There are elements of their sound and approach that are influenced by Queen. Agreed with Sir GH... a good example is "Muscle Museum" on their debut album... Queen influenced...but not like Queen at all. I find the vocal line, melody and song structure to be very Queen influenced with a tinge of Radiohead over-dramatization.
Mercuryking 02.03.2010 17:21	sir GH: When you say that they are the next queen , what does that automatically mean? that they must SOUND like queen , how else are they the next queen? Just having some influence from queen doesnt make them the next queen.
The Real Wizard 02.03.2010 18:31	Mercury SingerOfLife wrote: sir GH: When you say that they are the next queen , what does that automatically mean? that they must SOUND like queen , how else are they the next queen? Michael Jackson is considered to be my generation's Elvis. Did MJ's music sound anything like Elvis? There's more to music than what's on the surface. To me, Muse certainly are worthy of being called the next Queen (if such a thing exists, conceptually or literally) for many reasons: a) They are all strong musicians b) They have progressed from one record to the next, bringing in new influences, taking risks by exploring different genres, and never doing the same thing twice c) Their albums are bringing them success, not just their singles d) They did two nights at Wembley on their last tour e) They didn't start off with a smash record or two, which allowed them to build their sound and reputation over time, and didn't leave them having to meet a standard with each subsequent record f) After their fifth record, they are now doing the big arenas in North America - just like Queen after A Day At The Races. How many other bands in the mainstream meet these qualifications? Very few, if any at all.
Jimmy Dean 02.03.2010 19:01	Sir GH wrote: Mercury SingerOfLife wrote: sir GH: When you say that they are the next queen , what does that automatically mean? that they must SOUND like queen , how else are they the next queen? Michael Jackson is considered to be my generation's Elvis. Did MJ's music sound anything like Elvis? There's more to music than what's on the surface. To me, Muse certainly are worthy of being called the next Queen (if such a thing exists, conceptually or literally) for many reasons: a) They are all strong musicians b) They have progressed from one record to the next, bringing in new influences, taking risks, and never doing the same thing twice c) Their albums are bringing them success, not just their singles. d) They did two nights at Wembley on their last tour. e) After their fifth record, they are now doing the big arenas in North America How many other bands in the mainstream meet these qualifications? Very few, if any at all. Actually... Green Day fits your letters A through E perfectly.... a) They are all strong musicians... maybe not Billie Joe on the guitar...he's ok... but Dirnt and definitely Tre Cool are very proficient musicians... I mean Tre Cool is hands down better than Roger... without exception... listen to Jesus of Suburbia or Burnout (on the their 3rd album)... A-class drumming. b) Green Day's progression is definitely more varied than Muse... Showbiz and Resistance aren't nearly as varied as Dookie and Warning are., or even American Idiot.... so if anything Green Day fits that description better c) Green Day's albums are more recognizeable than Muse's, if anything... everyone owns a copy of Dookie and American Idiot... every Green Day fan owns a copy of Insomniac (their cult classic) d) Green Day is an American band... and they filled Wembley for 1 night, with other venues in the country during the same week.. e) Green Day began to grow on people by their 4th record (Nimrod) with Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)... a major hit... [Boh Rhap on Queen's 4th album, anyone?]... and they achieved recognition with Warning/Minority on their 5th album [Somebody to Love/Tie Your Mother Down] and finally got their anthem on their 6th album with American Idiot/Boulevard of Broken Dreams [We Will Rock You/We Are The Champions] I don't think those 5 criteria really fit the bill... Green Day is NOT the next Queen... and I very much doubt Muse is either. But I can easily throw any other band's name out there and we can sit and go through all the reasons why or why not... Coldplay has the same thing going for them... but since someone already dubbed them the next U2... they aren't compared to Queen.
Sebastian 02.03.2010 19:36	I beg to differ (or maybe dream and differ) about Tre Cool vs Roger. I'm not a Taylor maniac or anything, I do know there are several drummers who play better than Rog, but IMO Tre Cool's not one of them. And regarding the 'anthem' thing, IMO Basket Case is still their signature track, not BBoBD, though I adore them both. Same with the AI eponymous track. And indeed, many bands have all members as strong musicians.
Jimmy Dean 02.03.2010 20:50	Sebastian wrote: I beg to differ (or maybe dream and differ) about Tre Cool vs Roger. I'm not a Taylor maniac or anything, I do know there are several drummers who play better than Rog, but IMO Tre Cool's not one of them. And regarding the 'anthem' thing, IMO Basket Case is still their signature track, not BBoBD, though I adore them both. Same with the AI eponymous track. And indeed, many bands have all members as strong musicians. good pickup on the basket case... but not recognizable to the average music fan as much as boulevard and good riddance... to the average rock fan... yes Basket Case would be it.... and tre cool is definitely more proficient than roger... if anyone's heard each of the bands albums 100 times over like I have... they should all agree that tre cool outshines roger. of course there are better drummers than either of them... bonham, peart, carey, bruford, krupa, etc...
The Real Wizard 02.03.2010 21:44	Jimmy Dean wrote: b) Green Day's progression is definitely more varied than Muse... Showbiz and Resistance aren't nearly as varied as Dookie and Warning are., or even American Idiot.... so if anything Green Day fits that description better Excellent post overall. I certainly agree with most of your comparisons, but I have to disagree about Green Day's music progressing and never doing the same thing twice. The last two records, great as they are, are very formulaic. Most songs are 5 chords and cliche. They even used Pachebel's Canon in Jesus of Suburbia. Muse are the far more adventurous and diverse band. Their last two records have been all over the map. The trumpet solo in City of Delusion was daring and unexpected, and the melodies and chord progressions in Knights of Cydonia are more interesting and progressive than anything in Green Day's catalogue, as far as I'm concerned. And that's even before mentioning all the classical influences.. ! Green Day, however, is far more accessible, at least in North America. They may use every cliche in the book, but they do it perfectly and everyone cheerfully eats it up. They've earned it.
Jimmy Dean 02.03.2010 22:09	Sir GH wrote: Jimmy Dean wrote: b) Green Day's progression is definitely more varied than Muse... Showbiz and Resistance aren't nearly as varied as Dookie and Warning are., or even American Idiot.... so if anything Green Day fits that description better Excellent post overall. I certainly agree with most of your comparisons, but I have to disagree about Green Day's music progressing and never doing the same thing twice. The last two records, great as they are, are very formulaic. Most songs are 5 chords, and they use every cliche in the book. They even used Pachebel's Canon in Jesus of Suburbia. Muse are the far more adventurous and diverse band. Their last two records have been all over the map. The trumpet solo in City of Delusion was daring and unexpected, and the melodies and chord progressions in Knights of Cydonia are more interesting and progressive than Green Day's entire catalogue combined, as far as I'm concerned. I never said Green Day doesn't do the same thing twice.... they've actually done every album twice, lol! Kerplunk=Dookie, Insomniac=Nimrod, Warning=Stop, Drop & Roll!, American Idiot=21 Century Breakdown... however, the styles of each of these groupings are different .... bubblegum punk rock, punk rock, kinks/garage rock, the who/emo rock The problem with Muse.. is that, if you listen to each of their albums in a row... the "sound" is the same... the overdramatic chord progressions, the heavy usage of minor chords, the wailing, etc... it's used in every one of their albums... again, great great albums, and yes, Knights of Cydonia is a great track... and yes very progressive an interesting chord changes... something Green Day never does... they keep it tight and concise in most cases... and I agree, they do not take chances with their chord progressions... but they have thrown some unexpected stuff our way.... the trumpet solo in King For a Day, lol...sorry.. you brought it up... to sum up... Muse does outweigh Green Day in the pushing music forward category, because Green Day does not do that, they don't try to push the envelope, they just take what's been done and they try to do their own version of it... and they are good at that, at least. Alas, both bands, i don't think are the "next Queen" in any way....esecially not Green Day! I find Muse a little more similar to Queen in the pushing the enveolope sense... that absolutely goes to them.. Queen, more than most bands, especially since the Beatles, tried to diversify music....and achieved their own "sound" in doing so. Muse has their own "sound", unlike most bands of today. I just find them a little too overbearing for my taste.
Sheer Brass Neck 02.03.2010 23:08	Sorry to jump on you Seb, but I just here too much of the "Brian's not as good as...", and I think it's ridiculous. Here's Steve Vai talking about Brian. "I don't think enough is really said about the brilliance of Brian May's guitar playing, inthe sense that it's overshadowed by the music itself. The Queen II album was one of those pivotal moments that just nailed me to the wall. "He's probably one of the top identifiable guitar players, even more so than Beck, Page, and Clapton. They're all so identifiable, but Brian May has such a tone in his head and in his fingers. It speaks volumes. His contribution to orchestrated guitars is unprecedented. There was nothing like it before him. To me, it was like when Edward Van Halen came along and reshaped the sound of electric guitar. That's what I heard in Brian May's playing. It's something that's inherent in the brain of the guitar player. "I remember working with Frank Zappa for the first time. I had just moved out to Los Angeles, and nobody knew me. I was 21. I went out to the Rainbow Bar and Grill, and Brian May was there. I couldn't believe it. I mustered up every little bit of courage and went up to him and said, 'Thank you so much for everything you've done. I play guitar. I'm here in town with Frank Zappa.' He said 'Oh really? Why don't you come down to our rehearsal?' "I went down and he brought me up on the stage, and he let me play the guitar-the guitar that he built with his dad [the "Red Special"]. I couldn't even believe that I was touching this instrument! He was so kind and so warm, and for who? This kid, you know? And I played his guitar, and it sounded like Steve Vai. Then when he played it, it sounded just like Brian May. It was very apparent to me that his tone is in his fingers and his head. "He's a class act from head to toe, and it shows in his playing. I can listen to any player and pantomime their sound, but I can't do Brian May. He's just walking on higher ground." Maybe John Petrucci is walking on a higher ground than Brian, but virtually nobody in the world of guitar who values originality in tone and playing would think of John Petrucci in the same breath as Brian May. Maybe John Petrucci is faster, cleaner, more diverse (don't know if any of that is true), but those are components of guitar playing. If you dismiss originality, tone and orchestration as creations of the mind and not the act of playing guitar, I understand. But to me, you can't separate the two, which makes Brian no better or worse, just more unique than virtually anyone. Again, Billy Sheehan can (probably and reputation wise) play circles around John Deacon, but can't write therfore play melodic lines like Deacon, which makes Deacon a more pleasing (although maybe not as flash) player than Sheehan, same with Brain and Petrucci.
Sebastian 02.03.2010 23:22	First of all, many of the guitar parts Brian played were not necessarily written by him, which makes the whole 'originality' point quite ambiguous, same for John and bass parts, etc. (and of course, same for Petrucci, Beck, etc.). The thing is, as I've already written, claiming that 'x' is better than 'y' is not the same as claiming 'y' sucks. Is Brian great? Yes Is he really great? Yes Excellent? Yes Famous? Yes Influential? Yes Marvellous? Yes May-estic? Yes The best ever? No Are there millions of guitarists better than him? No Thousands? No Hundreds? Don't think so Many? Maybe, maybe not Several? Probably Some? Yes Is Petrucci one of those some? Yes
Sheer Brass Neck 02.03.2010 23:36	"Is Petrucci one of those some? Yes." In your opinion, which is based on your criteria, which appears to be technical and physical. Tiger Woods' physical gifts are greater than some (hits the ball a long way), but his imagination is unparaleled, which is a huge, huge factor in his success. Guys who enter long drive events hit the ball miles farther than Tiger Woods. Does this make them better drivers? No, because shaping the ball, positioning it where you want, controlling the spin etc. are equally important. You've decided that Petrucci is a better guitar player, but based on what? I don't know which aspects of playing (speed, cleanliness, string skipping) make John Petrucci a better player than Brian May. So tell me, is guitar playing (or any musical activity) a strictly physical act? If so, Mike Mangini is the best drummer in the world as he can do 1000 plus drum strokes in one minute. Therefore he's better than Neil Peart or Buddy Rich? Or are Neil Peart's and Buddy Rich's imaginations irrelevant to the conversation of good drummers? If you believe that, and I think you are super intelligent Sebastian, then you dismiss soul and brains as part of the package. You can't have one without the other, or else it's all scales. And the parts written by others is ridiculous. Brian May's sounds and orchestrations are Brian May's sounds and orchestrations. I don't care who may have hummed a few bars in the studio, his guitar playing (the thing he's okay at) brought them to life. Who cares who created the bass line for Under Pressure? John Deacon made it come alive. If Under Pressure were on TCR with Brian, Roger or Paul playing bass it would have been a much lesser tune as they can't play bass. Personality counts too.
The Real Wizard 02.03.2010 23:37	Jimmy Dean wrote: The problem with Muse.. is that, if you listen to each of their albums in a row... the "sound" is the same... the overdramatic chord progressions, the heavy usage of minor chords, the wailing, etc... it's used in every one of their albums... Yeah, I can totally understand how that can be a bit much. To each his own ! Myself, I find it a breath of fresh air compared to anything else that's on the radio. but they have thrown some unexpected stuff our way.... the trumpet solo in King For a Day, lol...sorry.. you brought it up... Crap, of course.. how could I forget ?!? I really should listen to Nimrod again. to sum up... Muse does outweigh Green Day in the pushing music forward category, because Green Day does not do that, they don't try to push the envelope, they just take what's been done and they try to do their own version of it... and they are good at that, at least. Agreed. And they can keep doing it until they retire, and they'll become U2 without the political posturing. Green Day make their political statements like artists in the late 60s did.. they're not self-serving about it, and it makes for good art. In terms of technical ability, Petrucci is probably the finest electric guitarist ever. But to his detriment, the fact that he's so reliably perfect at all times removes the danger factor and emotion from most of his performances. But his way of seeing the electric guitar like a student writes their Ph.D. is something that every guitarist should at least admire. That said, with a gun to my head, I'd still pick Brian May for the originality in his approach to the instrument. Petrucci may be the whole package, but Brian May created a significant part of it.
Sheer Brass Neck 02.03.2010 23:47	Further Seb, if Petrucci is a better guitarist (not denying he is, just unsure of what the criteria is), then for tone and vibrato there is no freakin' way he is in Brain May's league. Those are physical criteria as Steve Vai says, Brian's tone isn't from his amp, it's from his fingers. These qualities are physical and exclude brains, and you can argue until you're blue in the face, but his tone and vibrato are not close to Brian's. And I posted after Sir GH did, but whether Petrucci is a better technical player than everybody does not make him a better player. Rock is not classical music, it's danger and excitement. You can't dismiss those elements when rating players, and Brian's diverse wildness and beauty have to count for something.
Sebastian 03.03.2010 10:05	> In your opinion, which is based on your criteria, which appears to be technical and physical. Well, yes, sort of... some things are indeed blatantly obvious, and I go to my height example again: my favourite footballer is Del Piero. Should I argue that he scored more international goals than Maradona? I could, but it's ridiculous, since 34 > 27, full stop. Now, of course I could argue (though in this particular case it'd also be ridiculous) that the 27 goals he scored were against tougher defenders and keepers, etc. and hence they should count for more. Or I could argue that for many of the 91 matches he played (so far?) he only came in at the end, making his minute count smaller and maybe (maybe) his average (counting per minute played, not per game) as good as Diego's or maybe higher. Actually, I would like to get those stats, but that's another topic... The thing is, I admit that in these cases establishing an absolute (if there is one) is very tough because: * The music John's played is either written by him or for him, and hence in his comfort zone, which probably Brian wouldn't enable. * The music Brian's played is either written by him or for him, and hence in his comfort zone, which probably John wouldn't enable. * People take music as a religion, and they're devoted to their (semi-)gods way too strongly. > Tiger Woods' physical gifts are greater than some (hits the ball a long way), but his imagination is unparaleled In your opinion, which is based on your criteria. Again, there's no way to measure it (and hence, no way to establish whether Brian's more creative than John). > which is a huge, huge factor in his success. Of course. Brian's got a lot of things on his side: his voice, his arrangements, the arrangements others made for him, the interplay between him and Roger's drums, between him and John's bass, between him and Freddie's piano, between him and John's guitar (when that happened), between him and his own rhythm guitars, between each of his multi-tracked bits, between him and Freddie's vocals, between him and his own piano (when that happened), etc. But when it comes to guitar playing, though excellent, Petrucci's better, and I'm sure Brian would be the first to admit it if asked. > Guys who enter long drive events hit the ball miles farther than Tiger Woods. Does this make them better drivers? No, because shaping the ball, positioning it where you want, controlling the spin etc. are equally important. They could be more important indeed. > You've decided that Petrucci is a better guitar player, but based on what? I don't know which aspects of playing (speed, cleanliness, string skipping) make John Petrucci a better player than Brian May. Very roughly put, the fact that he can play things Brian couldn't. Of course, that's a completely theoretical point, but keep in mind that a lot of academic conclusions are based on solid theories (as opposed to mere guesswork or speculations). Or do you think the Everest's height was measured by a bloke climbing it with a flexible ruler and marking spots every four inches? Somewhere in your message you mention classical music. Indeed, in that case, it's tad easier to see who's 'better' as they often play (for some extent) certain things of the same repertoire. For instance, there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of professional pianists who have done Chopin's etudes, and that way we can compare each of them doing the exact same notes (for some extent), etc. and see who cut the mustard and who didn't. And there, imagination counts as well, because no two performers play the same thing the same way even if they didn't write it. Same for conductors, etc. Of course, the only way to be 100% sure is if we had Brian playing all of Petrucci's recordings and vice versa and see if they could do it. And even if they couldn't, we'd be able to establish excuses: equipment, string make, muscle pain that day, etc. But, just as the Everest wasn't measured via a guy climbing it with flexible ruler, we can measure whether a guitarist's better than another one, especially in cases where the difference is big. For instance, could I argue that Roger's better than Brian because his Man on Fire simple limited-chord rhythm and riff have, in my opinion, more 'feeling'? > So tell me, is guitar playing (or any musical activity) a strictly physical act? If it were, MIDIs would have replaced us a long time ago. But tell me, is a person who's technically great, automatically not creative? Because they aren't: Vai is VERY creative, VERY original, he plays LOADS of different things; same for Satch, Malmsteen, Petrucci, Bettencourt, etc. > If so, Mike Mangini is the best drummer in the world as he can do 1000 plus drum strokes in one minute. Therefore he's better than Neil Peart or Buddy Rich? Or are Neil Peart's and Buddy Rich's imaginations irrelevant to the conversation of good drummers? What about Mike Mangini's imagination? > If you believe that, and I think you are super intelligent Sebastian, then you dismiss soul and brains as part of the package. John Petrucci also has brains. > You can't have one without the other, or else it's all scales. Petrucci is WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY more than scales. Same for Vai, Satch, etc. > then for tone and vibrato there is no freakin' way he is in Brain May's league. Which are the criteria? > Those are physical criteria as Steve Vai says, Brian's tone isn't from his amp, it's from his fingers. And that's indeed a point many people ignore: yes, the Red Special is great; yes, the combination of the RS, the Vox, the booster and the coin is great. But the sound comes from Brian's fingers, not his equipment. Same for virtually any professional guitarist. > These qualities are physical and exclude brains, and you can argue until you're blue in the face, but his tone and vibrato are not close to Brian's. In your opinion, which is based on your criteria. Tone and vibrato are very personal to a guitarist. May couldn't do Clapton's and Clapton's couldn't do May's. Same for Vai, Satch, Petrucci, etc. > And I posted after Sir GH did, but whether Petrucci is a better technical player than everybody does not make him a better player. Actually, it does. But I don't think he's technically better than everybody. He's better than most (Brian included) though. > Rock is not classical music But they're both music. Same: Del Piero's goals aren't the same as Maradona's, but they're both goals. And 34>27 which means Diego scored more. >, it's danger and excitement There's a lot of danger and excitement in classical music. Loads of the subtle changes a conductor makes to a symphony mean a lot, and they do take loads of risks. > You can't dismiss those elements when rating players Of course I can. I would be making a huge mistake if I did it, but of course I can. > and Brian's diverse wildness and beauty have to count for something. So do John's. Now, the whole 'danger and excitement' point must not be mistaken for sloppiness (and I'm not saying you do). You can play unexpected things and still do it right, and Brian's an expert in that. In terms of personality, both Brian and John have a lot in their favour. And as that's personal, it can't actually be compared in terms of 'better' or 'worse'. Which leaves technical ability as the only measurable criterion. And according to that criterion, May's great, excellent, marvellous, may-estic... but not the best ever. Some guitarists are better than he is, and John Petrucci is one of them. I'm sure Brian would be the first to acknowledge it if asked.
Sebastian 03.03.2010 10:21	> And the parts written by others is ridiculous. It's not, as there are people able to write parts they can't play or sing. John Deacon's not a singer, but he's great at writing vocal parts; Fred wasn't a guitarist, but he was great at composing parts for guitar. Brian doesn't (AFAIK) play clarinet, trombone or bows, but he surely could score great things for any of those instruments. And that's important as not everybody can do it. > Brian May's sounds and orchestrations are Brian May's sounds and orchestrations. Not necessarily. He played them, but he didn't necessairly write them. So, the beauty of those melodies shouldn't always be used as a factor in his favour. Same for parts Petrucci didn't write, etc. > I don't care who may have hummed a few bars in the studio, his guitar playing (the thing he's okay at) brought them to life. They're both (the composer and the player) instrumental there. > Who cares who created the bass line for Under Pressure? I do. And other people do or it would've never been discussed here. > John Deacon made it come alive. Which is a big, important and fundamental part of the work. But anotherbig, important and fundamental part of the work is creating it, whichhe didn't. > If Under Pressure were on TCR with Brian, Roger or Paul playingbass it would have been a much lesser tune as they can't play bass. Indeed, which means that performance is a big, important and fundamental part of the work. But another big, important and fundamental part of the work is creating. > Personality counts too. As does the personality of the composer/arranger.
john bodega 03.03.2010 10:22	You can keep writing these Yes/No spreadsheets until the cows come home, but what is 'better' will always be governed the criteria of the individual. If it were otherwise, then yours would be the only posts in this thread, other than "I agree Seb".
Sebastian 03.03.2010 10:25	There are loads of things that aren't absolute. There are loads of things which opinions may and should differ about because they're in grey or coloured areas, but there are loads of things which are indeed B/W. Some people may think Fred sang better on Hang on in There than Show Must Go On, some people may think otherwise. That's open to debate. If some people think he sang better on one, other think he sang better on the other, and others think he sang equally great on both, each of the people in each of the groups has reasons to believe that, and absolutely nobody's 'right' or 'wrong' there. But if some people think Fred sang a higher peak note on HOIT than TSMGO, other think he sang a higher peak note on TSMGO than HOIT and other think both songs peak on the same note, then invariably, two of the three groups are wrong, full stop. Because that aspect can be measured.
Amazon 03.03.2010 10:28	Sheer Brass Neck wrote: Sorry to jump on you Seb, but I just here too much of the "Brian's not as good as...", and I think it's ridiculous. Here's Steve Vai talking about Brian. "I don't think enough is really said about the brilliance of Brian May's guitar playing, inthe sense that it's overshadowed by the music itself. The Queen II album was one of those pivotal moments that just nailed me to the wall. "He's probably one of the top identifiable guitar players, even more so than Beck, Page, and Clapton. They're all so identifiable, but Brian May has such a tone in his head and in his fingers. It speaks volumes. His contribution to orchestrated guitars is unprecedented. There was nothing like it before him. To me, it was like when Edward Van Halen came along and reshaped the sound of electric guitar. That's what I heard in Brian May's playing. It's something that's inherent in the brain of the guitar player. "I remember working with Frank Zappa for the first time. I had just moved out to Los Angeles, and nobody knew me. I was 21. I went out to the Rainbow Bar and Grill, and Brian May was there. I couldn't believe it. I mustered up every little bit of courage and went up to him and said, 'Thank you so much for everything you've done. I play guitar. I'm here in town with Frank Zappa.' He said 'Oh really? Why don't you come down to our rehearsal?' "I went down and he brought me up on the stage, and he let me play the guitar-the guitar that he built with his dad [the "Red Special"]. I couldn't even believe that I was touching this instrument! He was so kind and so warm, and for who? This kid, you know? And I played his guitar, and it sounded like Steve Vai. Then when he played it, it sounded just like Brian May. It was very apparent to me that his tone is in his fingers and his head. "He's a class act from head to toe, and it shows in his playing. I can listen to any player and pantomime their sound, but I can't do Brian May. He's just walking on higher ground." Maybe John Petrucci is walking on a higher ground than Brian, but virtually nobody in the world of guitar who values originality in tone and playing would think of John Petrucci in the same breath as Brian May. Maybe John Petrucci is faster, cleaner, more diverse (don't know if any of that is true), but those are components of guitar playing. If you dismiss originality, tone and orchestration as creations of the mind and not the act of playing guitar, I understand. But to me, you can't separate the two, which makes Brian no better or worse, just more unique than virtually anyone. Again, Billy Sheehan can (probably and reputation wise) play circles around John Deacon, but can't write therfore play melodic lines like Deacon, which makes Deacon a more pleasing (although maybe not as flash) player than Sheehan, same with Brain and Petrucci." I couldn't agree with you more. Hear hear! I came across that quite by Steve Vai a while ago, and I love it so much, that I actually bookmarked it. Fantastastic quote and a superb post!
Soundfreak 03.03.2010 11:12	I do not understand why some people always have to compare and rate each and everything. Is this a board of school teachers? Or eternal pupils? And it really becomes strange when it comes to comparing individual musicians. You cannot compare musicians at all. Especially musicians from different generations. They all learn from each other, they start on the grounds that others have built for them. Brian May learned from Hank Marvin, Eddie Van Halen learned from Brian May and so on... But to say that Eddie is better than Brian or Brian is better than Hank is pointless. They were all outstanding in their field and in their times. So enjoy their music, their sound, be grateful for the inspiration. That's what music is about.
Sebastian 03.03.2010 11:47	> I do not understand why some people always have to compare and rate each and everything. Not each and everything is being compared. Some things, many things. But not everything. > Is this a board of school teachers? Or eternal pupils? Neither. But the universe won't implode if a person who's not a school teacher or eternal pupil compares. People who are neither school teachers nor eternal pupils can also compare. > And it really becomes strange when it comes to comparing individual musicians. You cannot compare musicians at all. Of course you can: there are similar and different aspects. Once you contrast them, you do some action which can be designed with a verb... what's it called? what's it called? Oh yes: TO COMPARE. > Especially musicians from different generations. Of course you can: there are similar and different aspects. Once you contrast them, you do some action which can be designed with a verb... what's it called? what's it called? Oh yes: TO COMPARE. > They all learn from each other, they start on the grounds that others have built for them. Yes. But it doesn't mean they can't be compared. > Brian May learned from Hank Marvin, Eddie Van Halen learned from Brian May and so on... Hank also may have learnt from May, May may have also learnt from van Halen, etc. > But to say that Eddie is better than Brian or Brian is better than Hank is pointless. No, not pointless, as it may bring interest discussions. If you don't want to be involved in them, then don't be. Simple as that. > They were all outstanding in their field and in their times. Not 'all' were outstanding. Some were, indeed, and of course May and van Halen are amongst them. > So enjoy their music, their sound, be grateful for the inspiration. That's what music is about. In your opinion, which is based on your criteria. If you don't want to read or participate in threads comparing them, don't. But those who want to are entitled to. I don't give a damn about architecture, but am I entering to architecture forums to ask them not to discuss the topic and instead just enjoy the buildings they live in? People are different. Some like to discuss about music, some don't. I can't and shouldn't ask you to engage in technical debates if that's not your thing; but likewise, you have absolutely no right to ask people not to discuss something we find interesting. So enjoy their music, their sound, be grateful for the inspiration, and let those who enjoy technical discussions and apple-orange comparisons do so. That's what a discussion forum is about.
john bodega 03.03.2010 12:01	Sebastian wrote: But if some people think Fred sang a higher peak note on HOIT than TSMGO, other think he sang a higher peak note on TSMGO than HOIT and other think both songs peak on the same note, then invariably, two of the three groups are wrong, full stop. Because that aspect can be measured. But that's not what is being measured, in the case of The People Vs. Brian May. If your assertion is 'are there players who are faster than Brian May', then it really ought to be worded that way for clarity. You (and others) have been throwing the word 'better' at various guitar players in this thread, and it's not fitting at all. "Better" is wholly a subjective term. To make any pretense at objectivity while using 'better' in a discussion is just plain silly.
Sebastian 03.03.2010 12:37	So, should we say that there's no way Brian's a better guitarist than Roger because that's subjective? Is Fred just as good pianist as Fred Mandel, Rick Wakeman, Lang Lang? Is Slash equally great on vocals as Freddie?
lalaalalaa 03.03.2010 12:40	Jimmy Dean wrote: Sir GH wrote: Mercury SingerOfLife wrote: sir GH: When you say that they are the next queen , what does that automatically mean? that they must SOUND like queen , how else are they the next queen? Michael Jackson is considered to be my generation's Elvis. Did MJ's music sound anything like Elvis? There's more to music than what's on the surface. To me, Muse certainly are worthy of being called the next Queen (if such a thing exists, conceptually or literally) for many reasons: a) They are all strong musicians b) They have progressed from one record to the next, bringing in new influences, taking risks, and never doing the same thing twice c) Their albums are bringing them success, not just their singles. d) They did two nights at Wembley on their last tour. e) After their fifth record, they are now doing the big arenas in North America How many other bands in the mainstream meet these qualifications? Very few, if any at all. Actually... Green Day fits your letters A through E perfectly.... a) They are all strong musicians... maybe not Billie Joe on the guitar...he's ok... but Dirnt and definitely Tre Cool are very proficient musicians... I mean Tre Cool is hands down better than Roger... without exception... listen to Jesus of Suburbia or Burnout (on the their 3rd album)... A-class drumming. b) Green Day's progression is definitely more varied than Muse... Showbiz and Resistance aren't nearly as varied as Dookie and Warning are., or even American Idiot.... so if anything Green Day fits that description better c) Green Day's albums are more recognizeable than Muse's, if anything... everyone owns a copy of Dookie and American Idiot... every Green Day fan owns a copy of Insomniac (their cult classic) d) Green Day is an American band... and they filled Wembley for 1 night, with other venues in the country during the same week.. e) Green Day began to grow on people by their 4th record (Nimrod) with Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)... a major hit... [Boh Rhap on Queen's 4th album, anyone?]... and they achieved recognition with Warning/Minority on their 5th album [Somebody to Love/Tie Your Mother Down] and finally got their anthem on their 6th album with American Idiot/Boulevard of Broken Dreams [We Will Rock You/We Are The Champions] I don't think those 5 criteria really fit the bill... Green Day is NOT the next Queen... and I very much doubt Muse is either. But I can easily throw any other band's name out there and we can sit and go through all the reasons why or why not... Coldplay has the same thing going for them... but since someone already dubbed them the next U2... they aren't compared to Queen. Pffff. Roger Taylor is a far better drummer than Tre Cool. (Matter of opinion, like always)
john bodega 03.03.2010 13:05	Sebastian wrote: So, should we say that there's no way Brian's a better guitarist than Roger because that's subjective? Is Fred just as good pianist as Fred Mandel, Rick Wakeman, Lang Lang? Is Slash equally great on vocals as Freddie? Your style of debating is hit and miss at best, I'm afraid. Roger isn't even a guitarist, Slash ain't a singer. As for Freddie vs. other pianists, it comes down to them being able to do stuff that Freddie couldn't, same as Petrucci being able to do stuff that Brian can't. But the reverse is true. Those players who are technically inferior have qualities that are arguably absent in their 'betters'. Again, if that weren't the case then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. I hate semantics as much as the next guy but that's what this is, unfortunately. I think what I was trying to intimate is that the word 'better' hinges on what your criteria are. To be painfully basic about it, faster does not equal better. What if we compared someone who played slow blues (but never made a mistake) vs. someone who was a superbly fast 80's shredder (but made the odd mistake now and then)? You'll find a lot of people on the internet who'll say Malmsteen is a better guitarist than David Gilmour, but he makes rafts of mistakes. Especially now that he's fat and rich, he's sloppier than a pizza that's just been dropped in a bucket.
john bodega 03.03.2010 13:07	I want to add; I am enjoying this thread.
Soundfreak 03.03.2010 13:22	Sebastian wrote: In your opinion, which is based on your criteria. If you don't want to read or participate in threads comparing them, don't. But those who want to are entitled to. I don't give a damn about architecture, but am I entering to architecture forums to ask them not to discuss the topic and instead just enjoy the buildings they live in? People are different. Some like to discuss about music, some don't. I can't and shouldn't ask you to engage in technical debates if that's not your thing; but likewise, you have absolutely no right to ask people not to discuss something we find interesting. So enjoy their music, their sound, be grateful for the inspiration, and let those who enjoy technical discussions and apple-orange comparisons do so. That's what a discussion forum is about. Don't worry, I do not participate in any of these endless ranking and rating topics. They are deadly boring and lead to nothing at all. But there are so many of those topics here that made me wonder if this is a meeting place of school teachers.....
Sebastian 03.03.2010 13:28	> Your style of debating is hit and miss at best, I'm afraid. If I'm able to reduce a statement to something absurd, it's because the statement's already absurd to begin with. Which means I'm not reducing it to something absurd to begin with... > Roger isn't even a guitarist, Slash ain't a singer. According to which criteria? Roger has recorded 40-50 guitar parts, and has played guitar on stage on many gigs as well... Slash has sung (even if only BV's) many times as well (or at least several), etc. > As for Freddie vs. other pianists, it comes down to them being able to do stuff that Freddie couldn't, same as Petrucci being able to do stuff that Brian can't. But the reverse is true. Those players who are technically inferior have qualities that are arguably absent in their 'betters'. Maybe, but that's a delicate matter. Loads of people who play guitar a hell of a lot better than Fred ever could (Brian amongst them) haven't been able to do the CLTCL intro the way Fred did. Does it mean Fred's as good as them? No. Because for the remaining thousands of songs, they'd do a way better job than Fred. > I think what I was trying to intimate is that the word 'better' hinges on what your criteria are. To be painfully basic about it, faster does not equal better. I agree. But it doesn't mean that 'better' doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean that speed doesn't count. Speed is A criterion, not THE criterion. And speed's not the only aspect Petrucci's better than Brian on. > What if we compared someone who played slow blues (but never made a mistake) vs. someone who was a superbly fast 80's shredder (but made the odd mistake now and then)? The thing would be trying to get each to play the other's stuff. > You'll find a lot of people on the internet who'll say Malmsteen is a better guitarist than David Gilmour, but he makes rafts of mistakes. Especially now that he's fat and rich, he's sloppier than a pizza that's just been dropped in a bucket. Sure, but even making those mistakes, he's still playing stuff Gilmour couldn't. Again, I haven't got a way to prove it as I don't own home videos of Dave trying to play Yngwie's songs and failing (and even that wouldn't be an absolute proof as it could be blamed on the equipment or whatever), but again, not every scientific, academic or mathematical conclusion has to be physically and practically measured. Or how do you think we know the Earth's volume? Did the NASA put the planet inside a giant syringe? How do we know Saturn's less dense than water? Did a scientist take it with giant gloves, put it inside a giant bathub and claim 'oh, it floats!'? How do we know the Earth's diametre? Was there a guy walking it with a set square? How did he walk over the ocean? All those things have been calculated via theoretical scientific formulae and mathematical operations and estimations, which isn't the same as merely guessing or speculating. Same case here: it can be known if Brian could play Vai's most difficult solos, it can be known if Roger could compose Innuendo, it can be known if Fred could hit Bo Rhap's highest note, etc. > I do not participate in any of these endless ranking and rating topics. You already did, rendering the previous statement false. > They are deadly boring and lead to nothing at all. In your opinion, which is based on your criteria. But others have different POVs, and are entitled to. Or do you think that because you consider those debates to be boring, they automatically are? If so, then it is YOU who would benefit from an introspection, not us; if so, then it is YOU with the superiority complex, not us. > But there are so many of those topics here that made me wonder if this is a meeting place of school teachers... I've never seen school teachers debating over guitarists, but of course that doesn't mean they don't. If they do, does it mean only they can do it? Newsflash: you don't have to be a school teacher to debate. You don't have to be an oncologist to say the word 'cancer'. You don't have to be a solicitor to understand habeas corpus. You don't have to be an IT expert to turn on and off the computer. You don't have to be a mechanic to tell the difference between a car and a goose.
Holly2003 03.03.2010 13:42	Sebastian wrote: Or how do you think we know the Earth's volume? Did the NASA put the planet inside a giant syringe? How do we know Saturn's less dense than water? Did a scientist take it with giant gloves, put it inside a giant bathub and claim 'oh, it floats!'? How do we know the Earth's diametre? Was there a guy walking it with a set square? How did he walk over the ocean? All those things have been calculated via theoretical scientific formulae and mathematical operations and estimations, which isn't the same as merely guessing or speculating. Good point. And using that as a guide, I theorize that when you're not stating the obvious or nit-picking on Queenzone, you spend your days arguing with parrots: "It's not enough to want a cracker Polly, you've got to earn it."
Sebastian 03.03.2010 13:47	About twenty years ago I wanted a parrot. I saved my allowance and when I finally had the money, it cost three times what I'd saved. So I never got that damn bird. I prefer dogs now, but I don't owe one - haven't got the time or money to support it. My daughter does have some puppies at her mum's, and she adores them (more than us, as it's usual for kids).
john bodega 03.03.2010 13:52	"If I'm able to reduce a statement to something absurd, it's because the statement's already absurd to begin with." There's nothing absurd in what I've said, so I'll let this one go through to the others in the thread! "I agree. But it doesn't mean that 'better' doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean that speed doesn't count." The speed that someone plays their instrument can be measured, with some agreed upon scale in place. (Say, notes per second or whatever). But there is no such scale for 'better'. 'Better' is a judgement that the individual makes, having taken things into consideration. No matter how objective we try to be, a totally unbiased judgement is impossible. We might all agree with said judgement, which would lend it some semblance of credibility I suppose ... but even then, it's really a consensus of opinions, and not an actual measurement. 'Better' only exists as a concept. There is no universal standard in place for such comparisons. I'm all ears if anyone wants to establish said universal standards, though!
Sebastian 03.03.2010 13:56	I see your point Zeb, but the thing about Slash vs. Fred still exists. If there weren't actual measurements for 'better', then we could say Slash sings as well as Fred, or Rog plays guitar as well as Brian, etc.
Soundfreak 03.03.2010 14:12	Sebastian wrote: > I do not participate in any of these endless ranking and rating topics. You already did, rendering the previous statement false. > They are deadly boring and lead to nothing at all. In your opinion, which is based on your criteria. But others have different POVs, and are entitled to. Or do you think that because you consider those debates to be boring, they automatically are? If so, then it is YOU who would benefit from an introspection, not us; if so, then it is YOU with the superiority complex, not us. > But there are so many of those topics here that made me wonder if this is a meeting place of school teachers... I've never seen school teachers debating over guitarists, but of course that doesn't mean they don't. If they do, does it mean only they can do it? Newsflash: you don't have to be a school teacher to debate. You don't have to be an oncologist to say the word 'cancer'. You don't have to be a solicitor to understand habeas corpus. You don't have to be an IT expert to turn on and off the computer. You don't have to be a mechanic to tell the difference between a car and a goose. I did not participate, I did not rate any guitarplayer. As it's pointless. Even if some John Petrucci is a better guitar-player (whatever that means...) what is the point? Would Queen have benefitted from that, if he had been there instead of Brian May? I don't think so. Without Brian May no Queen. Without The Edge no U2. Without Jimmy Page no Led Zeppelin. Simple as that. It doesn't matter who is faster...or whatever. It's about personality, it's all about chemistry. You can't rate that.
Jimmy Dean 03.03.2010 14:20	Soundfreak wrote: Sebastian wrote: > I do not participate in any of these endless ranking and rating topics. You already did, rendering the previous statement false. > They are deadly boring and lead to nothing at all. In your opinion, which is based on your criteria. But others have different POVs, and are entitled to. Or do you think that because you consider those debates to be boring, they automatically are? If so, then it is YOU who would benefit from an introspection, not us; if so, then it is YOU with the superiority complex, not us. > But there are so many of those topics here that made me wonder if this is a meeting place of school teachers... I've never seen school teachers debating over guitarists, but of course that doesn't mean they don't. If they do, does it mean only they can do it? Newsflash: you don't have to be a school teacher to debate. You don't have to be an oncologist to say the word 'cancer'. You don't have to be a solicitor to understand habeas corpus. You don't have to be an IT expert to turn on and off the computer. You don't have to be a mechanic to tell the difference between a car and a goose. I did not participate, I did not rate any guitarplayer. As it's pointless. Even if some John Petrucci is a better guitar-player (whatever that means...) what is the point? Would Queen have benefitted from that, if he had been there instead of Brian May? I don't think so. Without Brian May no Queen. Without The Edge no U2. Without Jimmy Page no Led Zeppelin. Simple as that. It doesn't matter who is faster...or whatever. It's about personality, it's all about chemistry. You can't rate that. Actually... without Queen... no one would have heard of Brian May... Without U2... the Edge would not be recognized... and Jimmy Page was a renown session guitarist before starting Led Zeppelin, mind you, he already made his name with the Yardbirds... Agreed on the personality/style point... so Petrucci, like Page, are renown outside their band's duties... whereas Brian May and The Edge are not...
Sebastian 03.03.2010 14:28	> I did not participate, I did not rate any guitarplayer. That's not the only way to participate. > As it's pointless. In your opinion, which is based on your criteria. But it's not more valid than anyone else's. If you think otherwise, then it's you with the God complex, not us. > Even if some John Petrucci is a better guitar-player (whatever that means...) what is the point? That, exactly. > Would Queen have benefitted from that, if he had been there instead of Brian May? Not really. Brian's much more than the guitarist: he's one of the band's songwriters, singers, producers, keyboard players, arrangers, entertainers, etc. His input was much more than just his guitar skills (which are great of course, but not his only aspect). > It doesn't matter who is faster...or whatever. It doesn't matter to YOU, in your opinion, which is based on your criteria. But it's not more valid than anyone else's. If you think otherwise, then it's you with the God complex, not us. > It's about personality, it's all about chemistry. It's not 'all' about chemistry. That's a very important factor, crucial, fundamental, but not 'all' of it. > You can't rate that. Of course I can, and anybody else can. It'd be (IMO of course) quite ambiguous to do so, but of course it can be done. And if you don't care, why are you still reading and replying? Maybe you do care and don't want to accept it.
ParisNair 03.03.2010 14:49	Jimmy Dean wrote: Actually... without Queen... no one would have heard of Brian May... Without U2... the Edge would not be recognized... and Jimmy Page was a renown session guitarist before starting Led Zeppelin, mind you, he already made his name with the Yardbirds... Agreed on the personality/style point... so Petrucci, like Page, are renown outside their band's duties... whereas Brian May and The Edge are not... You think Brian would be teaching Astrophysics if Queen had not happened? Brian was making music before Queen and he would have definitely continued even if Queen had not happened.
Jimmy Dean 03.03.2010 14:55	ParisNair wrote: Jimmy Dean wrote: Actually... without Queen... no one would have heard of Brian May... Without U2... the Edge would not be recognized... and Jimmy Page was a renown session guitarist before starting Led Zeppelin, mind you, he already made his name with the Yardbirds... Agreed on the personality/style point... so Petrucci, like Page, are renown outside their band's duties... whereas Brian May and The Edge are not... You think Brian would be teaching Astrophysics if Queen had not happened? Brian was making music before Queen and he would have definitely continued even if Queen had not happened. I think Brian clearly stated in many interviews that if things didn't pick up with the band he would have gone to finish his phd... years earlier. They struggled miserably in their first few years... they were going nowhere... but that wasn't my point. I'm just saying, Brian May, would not have had they name he does... as a guitar hero anyways, if it wasn't for Queen. Sure he would have made music, but he may not have made millions ($) in the process...
ParisNair 03.03.2010 14:59	Jimmy Dean wrote: ParisNair wrote: Jimmy Dean wrote: Actually... without Queen... no one would have heard of Brian May... Without U2... the Edge would not be recognized... and Jimmy Page was a renown session guitarist before starting Led Zeppelin, mind you, he already made his name with the Yardbirds... Agreed on the personality/style point... so Petrucci, like Page, are renown outside their band's duties... whereas Brian May and The Edge are not... You think Brian would be teaching Astrophysics if Queen had not happened? Brian was making music before Queen and he would have definitely continued even if Queen had not happened. I think Brian clearly stated in many interviews that if things didn't pick up with the band he would have gone to finish his phd... years earlier. They struggled miserably in their first few years... they were going nowhere... but that wasn't my point. I'm just saying, Brian May, would not have had they name he does... as a guitar hero anyways, if it wasn't for Queen. Sure he would have made music, but he may not have made millions ($) in the process... You never know for sure [img=/images/smiley/msn/regular_smile.gif][/img]
Jimmy Dean 03.03.2010 15:06	ParisNair wrote: Jimmy Dean wrote: ParisNair wrote: Jimmy Dean wrote: Actually... without Queen... no one would have heard of Brian May... Without U2... the Edge would not be recognized... and Jimmy Page was a renown session guitarist before starting Led Zeppelin, mind you, he already made his name with the Yardbirds... Agreed on the personality/style point... so Petrucci, like Page, are renown outside their band's duties... whereas Brian May and The Edge are not... You think Brian would be teaching Astrophysics if Queen had not happened? Brian was making music before Queen and he would have definitely continued even if Queen had not happened. I think Brian clearly stated in many interviews that if things didn't pick up with the band he would have gone to finish his phd... years earlier. They struggled miserably in their first few years... they were going nowhere... but that wasn't my point. I'm just saying, Brian May, would not have had they name he does... as a guitar hero anyways, if it wasn't for Queen. Sure he would have made music, but he may not have made millions ($) in the process... You never know for sure [img=/images/smiley/msn/regular_smile.gif][/img] true... but the odds would have been against Brian May... Smile didn't make it big... Queen did... and that's cuz he needed Freddie Mercury to front his band. Would Freddie Mercury have made it on his own?... maybe, maybe not.... he may not have a reason to develop his vocal skills and theatrics without Brian and Roger (and later John) to back him...
Sheer Brass Neck 03.03.2010 20:12	Very good thread, but far too confusing for me. So we can certifiably state with acceptable criteria, that John Petrucci is a better guitarist than Brain May, but stating that Deep Purple's influence in North America was equal to or lesser than Kansas, or Styx or REO Speedwagon holds no merit? How so Seb? You use imponderable intangibles to state Deep Purple's case by stating we don't know how many people they've influenced, but happily use defined criteria to state Petrucci is a better player than Brian May. You intelligently dismissed my rationale for stating Deep Purple as being a middling act in North America by throwing out things that cannot be answered, so how can you decide Petrucci is better than May? If Petrucci is greater than May, then Foreigner is certainly more influential than Deep Purple, no?
Sebastian 03.03.2010 20:32	There's no way to know how many people certain artist's influenced, but there are ways to know if certain guitarist is better than another. Those are two completely different cases.
Matias Merçeauroix 03.03.2010 22:55	John Petrucci is an INSANELY AMAZING guitar player. The only thing I see in him as a thing that could use a little more practice is that his phrasing is not as good as his more technical side. Which doesn't mean his phrasing is not good, at all. His phrasing is GRRRRRRRRRRREAT but somewhat weak compared to other sides of his playing... which means it could be better, of course. But I think he is not ONE OF A KIND. He certainly is one of the best rock players... but I always thought he kind of falls into a stereotype sometimes. The way he plays, the techniques he uses and all. Kinda clichè, sometimes. On the other hand, Brian May's 74-76 era is, IMO, one of a kind. No doubt about it. Actually, I'd take me much longer to explain myself.
john bodega 04.03.2010 01:11	Funky Horsie wrote: Actually, I'd take me much longer to explain myself. I think it's pretty easy to sum up with two words. "Good Company".
Unblinking Eye 04.03.2010 01:56	This thread is extremely funny and enjoyable!! It has really cheered me up!! Danke peoples, Danke!! On Green Day vs Queen: Please? On John Petrucci vs Brian May: John is technically a better guitar player. Notice the word technically. That does not necessarily mean that you like him more than you do Brian May, it just means that he has the technicalities down better. Please. People. When somebody states that someone is technically better than another, and a person comes back saying that they don't like them as much, check your dictionary meanings please. They, in my opinion, are both amazing. As they are also very different styles, it is hard to compare, but I think I'll pass on Bri's 20 minutes solos thanks. They both write amazing songs, based on various experiences that they have had. It is hard for me to compare. Definition of better: of superior quality or excellence. Notice the definition is not whether you enjoy it better or not. Oh and the fact that taste is taste also does not need backing up, whether someone likes another musician better than another one. Let me put a hypothetical to you. Someone says that arabians are gorgeous and thoroughbreds are disgusting. That is untrue technically, but that person thinks that, and that is their opinion, but it is not necessarily the truth, but it is the truth for them. (By the way, I love both arabs and thoroughbreds. I own one of each breed.) So, just because John is better technically than Bri, doesn't mean you have to enjoy his playing. I personally know that John is better technically, but I enjoy them as much as the other. I can't choose which one I like better.
Soundfreak 04.03.2010 05:20	Sebastian wrote: In your opinion, which is based on your criteria. But it's not more valid than anyone else's. If you think otherwise, then it's you with the God complex, not us. ...it's YOU taking the high God-like position to rate people and their abilities and personalities - not me..;-) .
Sebastian 04.03.2010 20:40	Soundfreak wrote: Sebastian wrote: In your opinion, which is based on your criteria. But it's not more valid than anyone else's. If you think otherwise, then it's you with the God complex, not us. ...it's YOU taking the high God-like position to rate people and their abilities and personalities - not me..;-) . Rating a person's abilities is not taking a God-like position. Deeming a thread 'pointless' or 'boring' because you think it's pointless or boring is taking a God-like position. Therefore, it is you who's got the God complex, not any of us. And again, if you don't care about this discussions, why are you still reading? Maybe you do care and you're not able to accept it.
mike hunt 04.03.2010 21:57	Who's more original?....brian may..Who's had the bigger Influence....Brian may.......Every member Of queen are more original than DT.
Matias Merçeauroix 04.03.2010 22:26	mike hunt wrote: Who's more original?....brian may..Who's had the bigger Influence....Brian may.......Every member Of queen are more original than DT. But Queen is a 40 year old band, its influence can never be the same as Dream Theater's, a much newer band. I don't think influence can count as a musical quality parameter, at all.
Sebastian 04.03.2010 23:11	Influence and prestige have a lot to do with how old the act or piece is. When 'Innuendo' came out people there were people who thought of it as 'good, but it's not a classic as "II" or "Opera".' Now, it is ranked there for some, as it's almost 20 years old. Maybe, fifty years from now, people will look back to DT and Queen and see them as part of the same era, even if now we look at them as being completely different. I suppose that back in early 1600s, loads of people must have told Shakespeare: 'Hey Will, that play about the Danish prince is fine but it'll never be as famous as Aeschylus' Agamemnon.'
mike hunt 04.03.2010 23:44	It doesn't take a genious to realize DT isn't on the level of queen as far as originality. DT are more complex than queen doesn't make them better....if that was the case DT would be light years better than the beatles. for me the most important thing in music is being original. Queen were among the best in doing that. That's why all these great players will never be what hendrix was unless they create new sounds the way he did........Brian did that, he has his own sound and style of playing.... I still never heard a guitar player sound like a brian may, or a singer who could pull off a freddie. In turn, These more complex bands like rush (who i love) and DT (who I don't love) are easier to pull off. From what I'v heard.
mike hunt 04.03.2010 23:55	Funky Horsie wrote: mike hunt wrote: Who's more original?....brian may..Who's had the bigger Influence....Brian may.......Every member Of queen are more original than DT. But Queen is a 40 year old band, its influence can never be the same as Dream Theater's, a much newer band. I don't think influence can count as a musical quality parameter, at all. true, but do you realize DT are almost 20 years old. Not a new band at all. queen's influence grows by the day. DT's hasn't.....maybe Influence doesn't count as a musical parameter, but originality does. I don't care how amazing the players are....If you're not original or creative (Hendrix, freddie and brian) it means nothing. Some other bands DT can't compete with?...the who, Zeppelin, floyd among others. Not original enough to compete with the greats.
The Real Wizard 05.03.2010 00:03	mike hunt wrote: queen's influence grows by the day. DT's hasn't I very strongly disagree. There is a huge and growing genre of progressive metal, and virtually every one of those bands will cite Dream Theater as an influence. DT are basically today's Yes. The only difference is, progressive music was mainstream in the 70s, while it's barely visible today. Every member Of queen are more original than DT. I disagree with that too. Jordan Rudess has contributed far more to the evolution of music than John Deacon or Roger Taylor. Sure, they wrote great hit songs, but Rudess has more or less written the book on the modern keyboard, influencing musicians all around the world to take the instrument into new directions. Let's not forget that Dream Theater are popular in North America, South America, Europe, Japan, and Australia. How many bands in the existence of popular music can say they've accomplished the same? Rudess is an absolute master of his craft, and he is leaving behind a huge legacy with much more to come.
Sebastian 05.03.2010 00:04	The Who, Floyd, Queen and Zeppelin were formed 40+ years ago. Read the Shakespeare point again.
mike hunt 05.03.2010 00:14	I guess only time will tell then...DT is one of those bands I could never get in to. I like yes, love rush and other progressive bands. DT leaves me flat, It's the singer i don't like..........Sounds like the helloween guy from the 80's...... the band does seem to have a large following though.
Sebastian 05.03.2010 00:41	I'm not into progressive rock, and I'm not the kind of person who'd buy DT's records, and as a matter of fact I haven't. Never gone to their gigs either. But I do respect their musical skills, of course.
ILoveQueen20 05.03.2010 05:28	THIS THREAD IS A LIE!!!!!!!!! Runs
Soundfreak 05.03.2010 06:05	Sebastian wrote: Soundfreak wrote: Sebastian wrote: In your opinion, which is based on your criteria. But it's not more valid than anyone else's. If you think otherwise, then it's you with the God complex, not us. ...it's YOU taking the high God-like position to rate people and their abilities and personalities - not me..;-) . Rating a person's abilities is not taking a God-like position. Deeming a thread 'pointless' or 'boring' because you think it's pointless or boring is taking a God-like position. Therefore, it is you who's got the God complex, not any of us. And again, if you don't care about this discussions, why are you still reading? Maybe you do care and you're not able to accept it. It has nothing to do with "taking a God like position" putting a topic in question. It's about philosophy. Probably you also rate your family members (Mummy is better than Daddy...) or your friends (he is better....he is not that good...) So do it, if it makes you feel better. Rate and rank your whole world. While I prefer to enjoy the variety and differences of all those great artists. And be assured, I don't carry on reading this topic...;-)
Sebastian 05.03.2010 10:22	You can enjoy the variety and differences of artists and still rate some as better than the others. I like pizza way more than I like salad. Does it mean I hate salad? No. Does it mean I never eat salad? No. Does it mean I never enjoy salad? No. It simply means I like pizza more. The fact I wrote Petrucci's better than May doesn't AT ALL imply anything about the way I live my life, BTW. If you're so narrow-minded to conclude that, then it's your problem, not mine. And if you keep replying is because indeed you keep reading, which means that you DO care about this thread, but you're not able to accept it. Again, your problem.
Jimmy Dean 05.03.2010 10:49	I don't understand why people are disagreeing that Petrucci is better than May. I don't like John Petrucci and I'm not a big fan of Dream Theatre... but when you listen to the guy play... he blows Brian May out of the water.... the guy is very very talented... he was a scholar of the guitar, Brian May was not... Brian May learned guitar as a hobby while he was in school...and mastered it when it became profitable.... He's an incredible talent, and anyone who disagrees obviously doesn't know a thing or two about guitar skill. Any guitarist in Queen zone will agree, and any queen fan who is oblivious to reality will never agree. Pure and simple.
Sebastian 05.03.2010 11:10	Some people don't or can't separate 'my favourite' from 'the best'. It's like those people thinking that their city, their school, their favourite football team and their accent are the best and all the others are inferior. And one hasn't got anything to do with the other: a person may have Queen as their favourite band and yet admit that there are people who play better than any of them, realise that there are bands that have outsold them and see how neither factor's got to affect their choice.
The Real Wizard 05.03.2010 11:53	mike hunt wrote: I guess only time will tell then...DT is one of those bands I could never get in to. I like yes, love rush and other progressive bands. DT leaves me flat, It's the singer i don't like..........Sounds like the helloween guy from the 80's...... Haha! Of course, to each his own. To say the least, James Labrie is an acquired taste. But pretty much any DT fan will say he's the weak link of the band. Listen to Caught In A Web, New Millennium, and The Spirit Carries On. I think those are among his best vocal performances. Tastes aside, the fact that he can pull off tunes like these night after night, well into his 40s, says plenty about his abilities as a singer.
john bodega 05.03.2010 12:53	Jimmy Dean wrote: I don't understand why people are disagreeing that Petrucci is better than May. Technically speaking, I never disagreed on that score. What I want is a clear and agreed-upon definition of what 'better' is. I just watched this video and it sounds like crap. If he's better than Brian, then I want to know what the idea of 'better' really is around here.
Jimmy Dean 05.03.2010 13:22	listen to the classics... Pull Me Under and Under a Glass Moon are their two best known tracks... Then the albums Images & Words, Awake and Train of Thought will surely give you a better definition of what "better" is.
mike hunt 05.03.2010 13:36	Just listened to some DT tunes on youtube, still not a big fan, though this time I listened to the music instead of the vocals, and could see the band obviously has talent. i see why so many people rate this guitar player so highly. even if musically superior to queen, songwriting they are not. I wont budge on that one, lol. Queen=one of the best songwriting groups of all time.
Sebastian 05.03.2010 13:40	That's what makes Queen and Beatles so unique. Thousands of people can play bass, piano, drums and/or guitar way better than McCartney (let alone the instruments he only recorded a couple of notes on), but how many can write Here, There and Everywhere? IMO, even though Fred was a marvellous singer and an outstanding pianist, he was even better composer and arranger. Same for Dr May: wonderful guitarist, great singer, decent pianist, genius composer/arranger, good lyricist. Deaks: marvellous bassist, great guitarist, better composer/arranger, fine lyricist. Blondrummer: brilliant drummer (very underrated), fabulous singer, good guitarist, but even better as composer/arranger and good lyricist too.
Jimmy Dean 05.03.2010 13:43	Agreed with Mike Hunt... Queen's songwriting abilities surpass most bands... they easily rank with the Beatles, Bowie, Elton John & Bernie Taupin, and a few others who don't come to mind right now
Wiley 05.03.2010 14:32	Oh, the good-old objectivity/subjectivity thread again. I love it! Here's a long post but hopefully it will be worth it. Some things you can fairly easily measure: speed, distance, mass, etc. Some things you can't measure so easily: customer satisfaction, overall mass group thinking/tendencies, etc. Even the latter can be measured in a way that serves a given purpose more effectively than if you didn't measure them at all. This must be done under a given framework, with several assumptions, etc. For instance, I can measure "the beauty of a guitarist's tone regardless of the gear they use" by asking fans all over the world to vote for each of their idol's pieces of music in which their "tone" is "most beautiful". Then make a list of these pieces of music. Then I can pick 100,000 random people to listen to the selected pieces of music and select what's most beautiful to them. With this in mind, there's a way to measure things, even if it's a pain in the ass and nobody bothers to do so (I know I don't, most of the time). With this on mind... The term "Better" is usually subjectve. You say something is "better" than something else as a result of an analysis, even if this analysis or study included only you and took you 2 microseconds or if was done at an international organization over a 10 year period. If you somehow rate every possible skill in a measurable way and then define "Better Guitar playing" the following way: BETTER = (Speed * 4) + (Originality * 1) + (Beauty of tone * 1) + (String skipping * 3) + (Curly-hair-liness * 1) You would get one result in your May vs. Petrucci dilemma. If you define "better" like this: BETTER = (Speed * 1) + (Originality * 2) + (Beauty of tone * 3) + (String skipping * 0) + (Curly-hair-liness * 4) You would get a different result. If you can't be bothered to think of any of this, you can just say "IMO" and that's the end of it... OR You can switch from one position to the other in a way that you can nit-pick on everybody else's posts but somehow your rules don't apply to you. :)
Jimmy Dean 05.03.2010 14:40	To Wiley... greatest post in this thread!... I enjoyed that thorough explanation.
Sebastian 05.03.2010 14:41	But neither originality nor beauty of tone can be measured, as they're completely subjective. Hair doesn't count either, same with other aspects such as how many other instruments do they play or whether they sing well or not, or how good they are as composers. When measuring them as guitarists (not composers), there are certain factors which are subjective (such as beauty or tone), and as such everybody will be biased for their favourite guitarist, song, solo and/or gear setting. Others can be measured, and according to those, you can get a definitive answer. Or shall we say Slash is as good as singer as Freddie Mercury? Is Roger Taylor as good on guitar as Brian May? Is Ringo Star as good as composer as John Lennon?
Jimmy Dean 05.03.2010 14:46	Sebastian wrote: But neither originality nor beauty of tone can be measured, as they're completely subjective. Hair doesn't count either, same with other aspects such as how many other instruments do they play or whether they sing well or not, or how good they are as composers. I think he was kidding on the "hair" bit... since they both happen to have long curly hair... lol
Wiley 05.03.2010 16:43	Sebastian wrote: But neither originality nor beauty of tone can be measured *Anything can be measured* in a way that's more *useful* that if you didn't measure it at all. Key word: "useful". If it serves your purpose, you can use it. If you prefer to disregard all that you say that can't be measured "objectively" to come up with a "definitive answer", then that's your choice (and a very practical one), but I'm sure you know that by selectively considering or ignoring factors to come up with a "definitive answer" you inevitable end with a subjective assessment, more like an opinion (a.k.a. "a Treasure Moment Fact"). I guess the "definive answer" bit depends on the Question asked. If the question is "Which president generated more jobs in my country?" the answer is very straightforward. Just check the statistics (which were recorded by someone else, years ago) and answer right away. If the question is "Who was the BEST president in my country?", I'm guessing you won't get too much consensus there. In the end, people will agree and disagree with you. It's all about opinion. If I were and object, I'd be objective, but I'm a subject (a person).
Sheer Brass Neck 05.03.2010 19:37	Wiley wrote: If the question is "Which president generated more jobs in my country?" the answer is very straightforward. That would be Bill Clinton. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you wrote blow jobs. [img=/images/smiley/msn/tounge_smile.gif][/img]
john bodega 05.03.2010 21:24	One sprinter is better than the other because he gets to the finish line first, and that is the purpose of sprinting in the first place. If it weren't, then they would give the medal to the guy who pulled the most intense face while doing it, or the one who displayed the best form. That's how you rank athletes when you want to decide who wins - first past the post, right?? Music isn't like that. Each and every listener has their own idea of what is more important - I've been throwing the 'criteria' word around a lot but even so, people using the same facts and figures could come up with different results. Especially when dealing with a transient and non-existent thing like "better".
john bodega 05.03.2010 21:26	Jimmy Dean wrote: listen to the classics... Pull Me Under and Under a Glass Moon are their two best known tracks... I need to hear the latter in it's entirety, because there's a video where he just does the solo and it's .... meh. But I often feel that way about guitar solos that aren't in their song. They always sound less impressive that way. (off to bittorrent).
QueenNewcastle 06.03.2010 11:05	i would have to agree on this. Queen & Green Day are two of the most important bands in my life, and i can see the simultaneity in what you've said. Both bands have changed with the times and i think of lot of fans were/are hoping for the same stuff every album i.e. every Queen album going to have a "We Will Rock You", or a "Bohemian Rhapsody" and every Green Day album going to be "Dookie".
Amazon 06.03.2010 13:50	Jimmy Dean wrote: Agreed with Mike Hunt... Queen's songwriting abilities surpass most bands... they easily rank with the Beatles, Bowie, Elton John & Bernie Taupin, and a few others who don't come to mind right now I think that Queen are song-writing geniuses, especially Freddie. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; IMO Freddie was one of the absolute greatest song-writers of all time.
mike hunt 06.03.2010 14:13	Amazon wrote: Jimmy Dean wrote: Agreed with Mike Hunt... Queen's songwriting abilities surpass most bands... they easily rank with the Beatles, Bowie, Elton John & Bernie Taupin, and a few others who don't come to mind right now I think that Queen are song-writing geniuses, especially Freddie. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; IMO Freddie was one of the absolute greatest song-writers of all time. Agreed 100%....i'm surprised he doesn't get mentioned more often as the Innovator songwriter he was. One of the best of his time, or any time for that matter.
Matias Merçeauroix 06.03.2010 17:59	Zebonka12 wrote: Jimmy Dean wrote: I don't understand why people are disagreeing that Petrucci is better than May. Technically speaking, I never disagreed on that score. What I want is a clear and agreed-upon definition of what 'better' is. I just watched this video and it sounds like crap. If he's better than Brian, then I want to know what the idea of 'better' really is around here. You do realize he's explaining a technique, right? Brian May is an incredible player. Or was, at least. People don't seem to get that.
The Real Wizard 06.03.2010 23:21	Jimmy Dean wrote: To Wiley... greatest post in this thread!... I enjoyed that thorough explanation. I'll second that. Zebonka... grab Images And Words by Dream Theater. While some later material may be more epic and ethereal, Images is definitely DT focusing purely on songwriting. They use their technical ability purely for the song, and it's as close to songwriting perfection as any other major rock band, as far as I'm concerned.
john bodega 07.03.2010 01:13	I'll have to give it a listen!
Matias Merçeauroix 07.03.2010 01:29	Petrucci's solo from Another Day is PERFECT. PERFECT. You can't change or add anything, it's perfect as it is.

QueenZone discussion #1220871

Green Day: The 21st Century Queen?