| plumrach 23.02.2011 10:40 |
it appears that what i posted was too much for the page so just go to brian mays website and look for the sunday culture link link |
| GratefulFan 23.02.2011 11:04 |
plumrach wrote: "What was always thrilling to me was when people really loved the records," Tayor smiles. "There's a basic truth there - you shouldn't be ashamed to reach a lot of people. What could be better than reaching a lot of people while retaking sow intelligence?" ================================ Huh. |
| GratefulFan 23.02.2011 16:49 |
It's making me giggle that it still says "retaking sow intelligence", and bolded too, on Brian's site. Thanks for that web team! :) Beyond that it's notable that they appear to have lifted and aggressively spell checked the electronic version of an article from a subscription only website, though I am happy to have read it. This last paragraph was interesting: All the looking back has made May and Taylor consider the 20 years that have passed since Mercury's death. "These days, our creative fire is more like an ember that flickers occasionally," Taylor says. May stirs his espresso and smiles. "I just wish he was here to enjoy this with us. He would love this. It ws Roger and me in the beginning, and it's Roger and me again, but Freddie's always with us. He's eternal, part of the fabric of every day of our lives." It made me wonder two things: First, where does that creative fire go in musicians? Why does it almost always seem to burn out faster than other creative arts? Authors and painters and sculptors and such often do their best work in the later decades of their lives. Is it because there is something about rock and roll that is inherently a younger man's game? Second, why has Brian always talked about Freddie so much more than Roger? Or does it just seem that way? |
| plumrach 24.02.2011 02:39 |
I think Brian talks a lot about Freddie because he was close to him in the band, not that he wasnt close to Roger and John but i remember that Brian seemed pretty devastated for a long time after freddie died and he just wants to keep Freddies memory alive, which is a good thing |
| Holly2003 24.02.2011 09:55 |
GratefulFan wrote: This last paragraph was interesting: All the looking back has made May and Taylor consider the 20 years that have passed since Mercury's death. "These days, our creative fire is more like an ember that flickers occasionally," Taylor says. May stirs his espresso and smiles. "I just wish he was here to enjoy this with us. He would love this. It ws Roger and me in the beginning, and it's Roger and me again, but Freddie's always with us. He's eternal, part of the fabric of every day of our lives." It made me wonder two things: First, where does that creative fire go in musicians? Why does it almost always seem to burn out faster than other creative arts? Authors and painters and sculptors and such often do their best work in the later decades of their lives. Is it because there is something about rock and roll that is inherently a younger man's game? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now there's a question worth a lot more attention than it's currently getting. What is it with Queenzone? People moan about the state of the forum but when a genuinely interesting question comes along, no one contributes. Quick first thoughts: rock is a team effort whereas a painter, writer etc is an individual. It's therefore harder to maintain focus over an extended period. Also, when a painter becomes famous all his work subsequently tends to be considered 'great'. Even the worst Picasso is still a masterpiece. (All very subjective of course: I don't particulary like Picasso.) With bands, they're only as good as their next record. Two flops in a row and usually that's the end. But most importantly, I think rock is best when it's angry and edgy. Old men may be angry, but usually that anger is directed against the weather, the young whippersnapper who parked in their space outside Tesco, or the noise of their neighbour's TV. None of that makes for good rock 'n' roll. Now Brian and Roger may be an exception to that, since both are more 'political' these days than when they were in Queen. However, for some reason that hasn't translated into good music. Roger's political lyrics are embarrasingly bad, and Brian ... well, Brian is better writing about personal things than big issues. We Believe failed imo because it was too preachy, whereas 46664 failed becasue the lyrics are atrocious (although the arrangement was ambitious and exciting). |
| The Real Wizard 24.02.2011 10:32 |
GratefulFan wrote: All the looking back has made May and Taylor consider the 20 years that have passed since Mercury's death. "These days, our creative fire is more like an ember that flickers occasionally," Taylor says. May stirs his espresso and smiles. "I just wish he was here to enjoy this with us. He would love this. It ws Roger and me in the beginning, and it's Roger and me again, but Freddie's always with us. He's eternal, part of the fabric of every day of our lives." ========================== That's a wonderful quote. Being reflective is a part of getting older, and one can only wonder what it's really like to be in these guys' shoes.. |
| GratefulFan 24.02.2011 13:45 |
Holly2003 wrote: Quick first thoughts: rock is a team effort whereas a painter, writer etc is an individual. It's therefore harder to maintain focus over an extended period. Also, when a painter becomes famous all his work subsequently tends to be considered 'great'. Even the worst Picasso is still a masterpiece. (All very subjective of course: I don't particulary like Picasso.) With bands, they're only as good as their next record. Two flops in a row and usually that's the end. But most importantly, I think rock is best when it's angry and edgy. Old men may be angry, but usually that anger is directed against the weather, the young whippersnapper who parked in their space outside Tesco, or the noise of their neighbour's TV. None of that makes for good rock 'n' roll. Now Brian and Roger may be an exception to that, since both are more 'political' these days than when they were in Queen. However, for some reason that hasn't translated into good music. Roger's political lyrics are embarrasingly bad, and Brian ... well, Brian is better writing about personal things than big issues. We Believe failed imo because it was too preachy, whereas 46664 failed becasue the lyrics are atrocious (although the arrangement was ambitious and exciting). ==================================== Great thoughts. I think you're right about the team aspect being one key. In addition to what you said, the whole-greater-than-the-sum-of-it's-parts chemistry happens only for the most fortunate of aspiring bands, and for almost all of those only once in a lifetime. As the years accummulate so do things that disrupt or strain those exceptional creative unions. As we get older the things we get angry about do change, and I think that the things old rock stars care about are harder to make good music out of, and may not be what a fan needs or wants from music. With long established success and wealth the gap grows, or seems to, between the lives of average fans and the lives of artists. They can have credibility problems that are as potentially real as they are potentially unfair. How well can I hear a fed up Roger Taylor torturously rhyme something with Afghanistan if from where I'm sitting things in Roger land seem comparatively good? In those ways, they have creative limits pushed at them that the young and hungry simply don't. In addition to that I think we all accummulate experiences that can weigh down the spirit and shrink our perceived canvas as we age. There's no real reason to assume they'd be any different. |
| GratefulFan 24.02.2011 13:52 |
plumrach wrote: I think Brian talks a lot about Freddie because he was close to him in the band, not that he wasnt close to Roger and John but i remember that Brian seemed pretty devastated for a long time after freddie died and he just wants to keep Freddies memory alive, which is a good thing ===================================== I don't know whether it would be true that Brian and Fred were closer than the others. It's certainly possible. Though by personality (at least the parts that we can glean through their public faces) Brian is probably the most likely to remain locked in the loss to some degree, and the least likely to perceive when he might be appropriating Freddie's spirit and memory to some excess. |
| Holly2003 24.02.2011 15:54 |
GratefulFan wrote: Great thoughts. I think you're right about the team aspect being one key. In addition to what you said, the whole-greater-than-the-sum-of-it's-parts chemistry happens only for the most fortunate of aspiring bands, and for almost all of those only once in a lifetime. As the years accummulate so do things that disrupt or strain those exceptional creative unions. As we get older the things we get angry about do change, and I think that the things old rock stars care about are harder to make good music out of, and may not be what a fan needs or wants from music. With long established success and wealth the gap grows, or seems to, between the lives of average fans and the lives of artists. They can have credibility problems that are as potentially real as they are potentially unfair. How well can I hear a fed up Roger Taylor torturously rhyme something with Afghanistan if from where I'm sitting things in Roger land seem comparatively good? In those ways, they have creative limits pushed at them that the young and hungry simply don't. In addition to that I think we all accummulate experiences that can weigh down the spirit and shrink our perceived canvas as we age. There's no real reason to assume they'd be any different. ========================================================================================== One of the sad things about Brian and Rog is that they left it too long to work together after Fred's death. They could've been cranking out albums in that time and doing May/Taylor tours. Even now, I still think they may have it in them to do another great album or two but they simply don't produce enough songs or material to be able to sift the very good or great from the mediocre. Imagine how good Cosmos Rocks might've been if they 2-3 years of material to choose from rather than the mediocre few songs they ended up with. But maybe the fact they haven't done that shows the fire is out. |
| Pim Derks 24.02.2011 16:21 |
It's a shame they've only released 3,5 albums worth of material in total in the last 15 years - Electric Fire, Another World and Comsos Rocks plus the 46664 tracks and some b-sides/out-takes. When I listen to tracks like Through The Night, Some Things That Glitter or Surf's Up from Cosmos Rocks (or even Dangerland from Kerry Ellis' album) I wish there was more of that. |
| Donna13 24.02.2011 19:16 |
I listened to The Cosmos Rocks the other day on a car trip. It sounded fresh to me and better than when I first heard it. Maybe they released it a few years too soon. Ha. Anyway, I think that maybe music is like gardening or another hobby or interest. You might have a few years when everything seems like a new challenge, then once you've met the challenge, it is not as enticing. You look for something different to focus your energy on. You are interested in other subjects and interested in achieving in other areas. I think that was what John was trying to explain in his interview when he said that they had already achieved quite a lot. |
| plumrach 25.02.2011 04:23 |
@ gratefulfan i guess all of them were close in their own ways and they all dealt with losing freddie in different ways @holly perhaps roger and brian did their own separate things because it was too painful and too early to revive/make new queen stuff so soon after losing freddie, i dont know really the good thing is that whenever they are asked about freddie and john they are both very praising towards the two of them and they understand why john does not want to be part of Queens "future" anymore ( would be nice to see him of course) |
| GratefulFan 25.02.2011 09:58 |
There seemed to be a lot of shifting dynamics in the months and years following the loss of Fred. I remember an interview with Roger at a period when he was pissed at Brian for a couple of things where he said something to the effect of 'Brian can do whatever he wants, but John and I are certainly interested in continuing in some way'. In the end of course it turned out differently, and it would be fascinating to know what the various turning points were. |
| GratefulFan 25.02.2011 10:04 |
Donna13 wrote: I listened to The Cosmos Rocks the other day on a car trip. It sounded fresh to me and better than when I first heard it. Maybe they released it a few years too soon. Ha. Anyway, I think that maybe music is like gardening or another hobby or interest. You might have a few years when everything seems like a new challenge, then once you've met the challenge, it is not as enticing. You look for something different to focus your energy on. You are interested in other subjects and interested in achieving in other areas. I think that was what John was trying to explain in his interview when he said that they had already achieved quite a lot. ====================================== I think it's probable they'd still like to create great music but the process has been complicated by the things mentioned here and other things we can't appreciate from the outside. When it's your career and not your hobby I'd guess it becomes a lot more definitive of who you are, how you see yourself and how you gauge personal success. |