QueenZone discussion #1224006

maxpower wrote: It was once said about Brian Wilson, when The Beach Boys were competing against The Beatles (& vice versa) Rubber Soul/Pet Sounds/Revolver/Sgt Pepper/Smiley Smile which covers the years 1965-1967, it took John Lennon, Paul McCartney & George Martin to compete against him which is about as much credit any musician can be given

Soundfreak wrote: It's absurd to compare them, they are completely different with also different backgrounds, different culture...everything.  Brian Wilson lives in a world of his own, nearly unable to communicate with the world. I once saw him perform "Smile" with his fantastic band. It was a brilliant performance, but he hardly connected with the audience, he was "somewhere else" and from the way he moved his arms it looked as he could see the music in his mind. But he is far from being a performer like Freddie Mercury was. They have nothing in common except for the fact that they both made music that reached and influenced many people.     

Gregsynth wrote: Plus, Freddie never lost his voice, and wasn't a drug addict.

  Wiley wrote:       I haven't listened to his music (more than the obvious Beach Boys hits) but I think I should. I've heard Pet Sounds is an amazing album and I seem to recall reading that the Beatles were consciously or unconsciously trying to top it when they did Sgt. Pepper.       He did look like a Muppet performing live at the Queen's Golden Jubilee, waving his hands and all. :)      

Zebonka12 wrote: One has been literally dead for ~20 years, the other might as well have been.

master marathon runner wrote:      No it's not really fair to compare the two geniuses.We can wax lyrical on both of them, Brian ,undoubtedly, brought new dimension to vocal harmonies and pushed them to a level nobody had been to, before or since, except Queen, namely Freddies compositions.For example 'Killer Queen' has unparalleled complex, and at the same time simple harmonies.      It's said that Brian's most creative period came while under the influence of certain substances which eventually may have been responsible for his creative demise. But he also suffered a great deal under his father, Murray Wilson, as a child and in his adult life, which may be another contributory factor.He was at one time even sacked by the Beach Boys,and was devastated when he took no part in their 1988 single 'Kokomo'      But as regards, '15 Big Ones' and his other under par efforts, perhaps it simply proves that  no artist has peaked, creatively and stayed at that level , they're all prone to peaks and troughs.How many years since Jagger / Richards have scored a hit of note?      Having said this, Brian and his band 'The Wondermints' as they are known in their own right, are superlative live performers. (Check out my videos on youtube, Mr. Anth 58 ), gaining universal praise over the last 8 years or so since Brian went back on the road , thanks to the persuasive powers of his new wife Marnie, who convinced Brian that he 'needed to get back to work' and is probably the best thing that happened to him, i believe she is his redemption.     Did Freddie subconsciously gain a penchant for harmonies from Brians work? I remember Pete Wingfields review of 'Bohemian Rhapsody' in ( i think) the NME, in October '75 ; 'it opens with a Beach Boys pastiche' going on; ' an incredibly disjointed, but nevertheless dazzlingly clever epic from the fevered mind of Freddie Mercury' !!!      Perhaps a 'Fevered Mind' is a prerequisite of genius.      Master Marathon Runner

Pim Derks wrote: Almost no-one can beat Brian Wilson 1963-1967. Producing, writing, playing and touring something like 10 albums in that timespan, all of which included amazing tracks like Let Him Run Wild, The Little Girl I Once Knew or Hushabye PLUS lots  of hits like Fun Fun Fun, Sloop John B and ofcourse God Only Knows and Good Vibrations is a feat no-one else could've accomplished - not even Freddy. BW even produced and wrote for other artists - while he was just 21! On the other hand - the Brian from POST 1967 has produced some amazing crap - the 15 Big Ones album, Sweet Insanity from 1990, the 2004 album Getting In Over My Head.... Even though there are still some amazing gems to discover: Til I Die, the Fairy Tale from the bonusdis on Holland, the 2008 album That Lucky Old Sun.... Comparing BW to Freddy is not really possible. They came from very different backgrounds, worked in a totally different context and did completely different things. It's not like one of them is better than the other. Comparing a masterpiece like Surf's Up to another masterpiece like March of the Black Queen is not fair.

Mr. Britt wrote: Obviously you arn't as musically intelligent as I thought you were.

Mr. Britt wrote:

  Soundfreak wrote: It's absurd to compare them, they are completely different with also different backgrounds, different culture...everything.  Brian Wilson lives in a world of his own, nearly unable to communicate with the world. I once saw him perform "Smile" with his fantastic band. It was a brilliant performance, but he hardly connected with the audience, he was "somewhere else" and from the way he moved his arms it looked as he could see the music in his mind. But he is far from being a performer like Freddie Mercury was. They have nothing in common except for the fact that they both made music that reached and influenced many people.     

  I didn't ask about stage performances. Brian has some horrible stage fright, ever since he quit touring with the Beach Boys back in '64, he rarely went on the stage without sitting behind a keyboard or piano or a bass guitar. Even on television specials or music programs where The Beach Boys mimed to tracks. Such as 'Getcha Back' on some television show hosted by Andy Gibb, Brian had his bass guitar and he didn't even perform a single instrument on the track except vocals. And when Brian isn't behind a keyboard or piano, he has these very odd dance moves, which freaks me out.   Brian has wrote a wide variety of songs. He obviously was an influene on Queen's harmonies, but he was questioned about what he thought of Bohemian Rhapsody, and he said it scared him.   There are songs by The Beach Boys (and songs on Brian's solo albums) that you can compare to Queen's. You just have to dig deep enough and know all the songs.  

Mr. Britt wrote: I think 'Sweet Insanity' just had the wrong kind of production, especially since Landy was pushing Brian to "play more synths!" And with 'Gettin' In Over My Head', I think that album lacks production values, as I think Brian was thinking too far back at the time, and I think it was also kind of rushed and pushed, especially considering over half the album is full of 'Sweet Insanity' remakes.

Amazon wrote: Both were/are geniuses, but one similarity between them is that they arguably worked best in group settings. None of Brian's post-BB stuff (with the exception of Smile which doesn't really count) comes close to his BB work IMO, and none of Freddie's solo work came close to his Queen work. Sebastian, whenever we have a thread about possible inlfuences on Freddie, you always mention that he never named Rodgers as one of his favourite singers. We get it, we get it. While it was a good point the first time you mentioned it, it has since become extremely boring what with you mentioning it hundreds of times. Plus, in a thread about Freddie and Brian Wilson, it's irrelevent. Can we please not turn this thread into yet another Q+PR thread?!

mike hunt wrote:

Amazon wrote: Both were/are geniuses, but one similarity between them is that they arguably worked best in group settings. None of Brian's post-BB stuff (with the exception of Smile which doesn't really count) comes close to his BB work IMO, and none of Freddie's solo work came close to his Queen work. Sebastian, whenever we have a thread about possible inlfuences on Freddie, you always mention that he never named Rodgers as one of his favourite singers. We get it, we get it. While it was a good point the first time you mentioned it, it has since become extremely boring what with you mentioning it hundreds of times. Plus, in a thread about Freddie and Brian Wilson, it's irrelevent. Can we please not turn this thread into yet another Q+PR thread?!

i'll take barcelona over 80's Queen any day.

Sebastian wrote: Barcelona outselling some Queen's 80's albums? Let's see: Barcelona sold 30,000 copies in Switzerland (where it was most successful), and let's say, for the sake of argument, that it also got platinum in Spain (90K). It earned silver in the UK (60K) so it adds up to 210 thousand copies in those three territories. In the rest of the world, it didn't gain much interest so let's say, again for the sake of argument, it sold 290K elsewhere, adding for about 500,000 copies. Barcelona vs The Game: Half a million vs nine million. Who wins? The Game. Barcelona vs Flash Gordon: Half a million vs two and a half million. 0.5 < 2.5. Thus, who wins? Flash Gordon. Barcelona vs Hot Space: 500,000 < 3,500,000. Who wins? Hot Space. Barcelona vs The Works: 500,000 < 5,000,000. Who wins? The Works. Barcelona vs A Kind of Magic: 500,000 < 6,000,000. Who wins? A Kind of Magic. Barcelona vs The Miracle. 500,000 < 5,000,000. Who wins? The Miracle. So no: it didn't outsell ANY of the albums Queen released in the 80's. I agree about the quality of the album (I also prefer it) but to each its own. Commercially, even Queen's least successful album (i.e. a toss-up between Flash and the first two albums) was waaaaaaaaay more successful than 'Barcelona', full stop.

Sebastian wrote: It didn't earn any certification there so it's surely less than half a million. According to Wikipedia, it peaked at No. 6 there but only when re-issued in 1992.

Sebastian wrote: I have not mentioned it hundreds of times. Maybe dozens of times, but not hundreds. If we actually counted, I think I've posted the Rodgers point 37-40 times. Closer to 0 than 100. Since Brian didn't do solo work in his golden period, and neither did Freddie, I think that's an unfair point to make. A 1975 Freddie album wouldn't have been 'Mr Bad Guy' and a 1965 Wilson solo album wouldn't have been 'These Times'. > One is not better than the other but one is "more excellent" .. hmmmm.... One is not better than the other in terms of ARRANGING vocal harmonies. One is 'more excellent' in terms of singing and playing the piano. They're even in different paragraphs. Unless you can't actually process information or are obsessed about me, that point makes absolutely no sense. > As for the PR thing, as has been stated before, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It IS evidence that PR was not Fred's favourite (especially when you've got such amount of evidence). He may have liked him (and probably did considering that Paul's indeed a very good singer), but he was not a favourite. > Or in this case, we have Brian May as evidence, who was, no doubt, a lot closer to Fred than some of those interviewed And Brian May often mentioned Fred's influences, and not once he mentioned PR. That's before he conveniently started re-writing history, months before the tour with him began. Same for Roger. > There's nothing wrong with being cynical, but basically you're calling Brian a liar I'm not calling him a liar. In fact, in my previous message I just commented that from what can be gathered from interviews made to Freddie, Brian, Roger, John, Fred's close friends, former bandmates and boyfriends, the list of Freddie's favourites included several singers, but Paul Rodgers was not one of them. It's not the same as calling Brian a liar. It may be suggesting that Brian lied (and, actually, it's Roger who overplayed the alleged 'Paul was Freddie's favourite', Brian only mentioned it occasionally) or that he conveniently used something that can't be proven and that actually has a lot of counterevidence to promote or validate a collaboration (something they didn't need to do when issuing the single with George Michael, and he was one of his favourites). But saying or implying 'he may have not be telling the truth' is not the same as 'he lied', let alone the same as 'he is a liar.' For all we know, 99.99% of what he's said about Fred is completely spot-on. But the thing about PR is part of the remaining 0.01%.

Sebastian wrote: > I didn't think it out sold any 80's Queen album, but my point was the quality of the music. My message wasn't directed at you, and I agree about the quality. Great, great album. > So basically nothing in '88? Well, more than nothing but less than a lot. Sadly. I really think the album was very well made and deserved a lot of success. > So its fine to contradict yourself, as long as the contradictions are separated by a paragraph break? Hmmm... It was not a contradiction since the point about not better or worse was about their skills as arrangers. Once I began talking about their performing abilities the 'neither one's "better" or "worse"' point didn't apply, simple as that. I'll give you an example: * 'Ghost' features an actor who died last year. * I visited a hotel in Sweden. Now, it does not mean the hotel in Sweden has anything to do with the film, or that the hotel in question has ghosts, nor I'm implying that the hotel died last year (whatever that means), nor I'm implying that Sweden died last year (whatever that means). Same case here: * As arrangers, they're both great, not 'better' or 'worse' than one another. * As piano-players and singers, they're both excellent, but Fred a bit more IMO. So, again, the 'neither "better" nor "worse"' point only applies to the first statement, not the second. > I guess that also explains your comment "he conveniently started re-writing history, months before the tour with him began. " And I stand by it. But it's not the same as being a liar. Fred played guitar in CLTCL and a couple more songs, that doesn't make him a guitarist. So, if Brian lied (or bore false witness, which is not the same) this time, it doesn't necessarily make him a liar. It's not a black and white situation. > and your next comment: "I'm not calling him a liar." And I'm not. Look for a comment where I say 'Brian is a liar.' There isn't, is it? So, I'm not calling him a liar. I'm not implying it either. > As for my supposed "obsession" with you Supposed by whom? Not by me anyway, as I only wrote 'unless you can't process information or have an obsession with me (or something like that), it doesn't make any sense.' It leaves two options: that your point about my alleged contradiction makes no sense (it doesn't), or that it does (it doesn't). In the latter case (which doesn't apply), you're either uncapable of understanding that the 'neither "better" nor "worse"' point applied only to their ability as arrangers, not to their performing skills, or you're simply obsessed with me. I don't know if your case is the former, the latter, both, or none. I only suggested possibilities. >, I think I've responded to you directly about a dozen times in the 9-10 years I've been posting, on and off, on Queenzone. If you hate me so much or think as little about me, then even responding to me twice is 'a lot'. But selectively replying to what I've written (instead of contributing to the thread), paraphrasing things I've written (sometimes in a wrong way, BTW) and using the 'closer to zero than "hundreds"' thing mere hours after I posted it is a hell of a lot closer to being obsessed than to not being obsessed. > I would say an "obsession" would mean posting hundreds, or more likely thousands of times. If you hate me so much or think as little about me, then even responding to me twice is 'a lot'. But selectively replying to what I've written (instead of contributing to the thread), paraphrasing things I've written (sometimes in a wrong way, BTW) and using the 'closer to zero than "hundreds"' thing mere hours after I posted it is a hell of a lot closer to being obsessed than to not being obsessed. > Now a dozen is less than hundreds. If you hate me so much or think as little about me, then even responding to me twice is 'a lot'. But selectively replying to what I've written (instead of contributing to the thread), paraphrasing things I've written (sometimes in a wrong way, BTW) and using the 'closer to zero than "hundreds"' thing mere hours after I posted it is a hell of a lot closer to being obsessed than to not being obsessed. > In fact, it's closer to zero than 'hundreds'. Hmmm... If you hate me so much or think as little about me, then even responding to me twice is 'a lot'. But selectively replying to what I've written (instead of contributing to the thread), paraphrasing things I've written (sometimes in a wrong way, BTW) and using the 'closer to zero than "hundreds"' thing mere hours after I posted it is a hell of a lot closer to being obsessed than to not being obsessed.

Amazon wrote:  The point of my post was that IMO Freddie and Brian Wilson worked best as members of Queen and the Beach Boys.

mike hunt wrote: Holly is not letting freddie off the hook....lol. that's pretty funny and arrogant to say the least.  Who the hell is holly?....anyway,  It's obvious freddie was recording Mr. bad guy in his spare time, and was busy with the works album/tour and a bit later with magic.    Freds biggest mistake on that album was the muscians he hired to back him up.....brian isn't the only great guitar player in the world, in fact they're are better guitarists out there.  Freddie could have hired eddie van halen and cozy powell to play with him and obviously the results would have been much different.  Also, since Barcelona isn't considered a solo album he simply doesn't have enough material to judge how he would have sounded solo.  Afterall, he only has one album to judge, and that album was in the middle of two tours and albums.  Obviously was a rush job. 

Holly2003 wrote:

mike hunt wrote: Holly is not letting freddie off the hook....lol. that's pretty funny and arrogant to say the least.  Who the hell is holly?....anyway,  It's obvious freddie was recording Mr. bad guy in his spare time, and was busy with the works album/tour and a bit later with magic.    Freds biggest mistake on that album was the muscians he hired to back him up.....brian isn't the only great guitar player in the world, in fact they're are better guitarists out there.  Freddie could have hired eddie van halen and cozy powell to play with him and obviously the results would have been much different.  Also, since Barcelona isn't considered a solo album he simply doesn't have enough material to judge how he would have sounded solo.  Afterall, he only has one album to judge, and that album was in the middle of two tours and albums.  Obviously was a rush job. 

Who the hell is holly? I'm the person who never said anything whatsoever about Fred being either on or off "the hook". I'm also the computer on the Red Dwarf. 

Mr. Britt wrote:

  Holly2003 wrote:  

      mike hunt wrote:   Holly is not letting freddie off the hook....lol. that's pretty funny and arrogant to say the least.  Who the hell is holly?....anyway,  It's obvious freddie was recording Mr. bad guy in his spare time, and was busy with the works album/tour and a bit later with magic.    Freds biggest mistake on that album was the muscians he hired to back him up.....brian isn't the only great guitar player in the world, in fact they're are better guitarists out there.  Freddie could have hired eddie van halen and cozy powell to play with him and obviously the results would have been much different.  Also, since Barcelona isn't considered a solo album he simply doesn't have enough material to judge how he would have sounded solo.  Afterall, he only has one album to judge, and that album was in the middle of two tours and albums.  Obviously was a rush job.   

Who the hell is holly? I'm the person who never said anything whatsoever about Fred being either on or off "the hook". I'm also the computer on the Red Dwarf. 

AAAW SO YOU ANF MIIIKE ARE SOO IN LOVE OH WHATS SOO  WWWWWWWWETT. UTS VEAUUUTIFUL. YOUI LONELY PEEOOOOPLE.