| Holly2003 11.04.2011 06:06 |
Thought I'd share this. I have access to it through an e-book facility. Some interesting analysis of Bo Rap as a "queer" song. SHEILA WHITELEY, "Popular Music and the Dynamics of Desire" in Queering the Popular Pitch. Eds. Sheila Whiteley and Jennifer Rycenga (Routledge, 2006) pp. 249-262 p.251 My first case study, of the song “Bohemian Rhapsody” by the band Queen, explores the relationships among reality, fantasy, and desire and the ways in which they provide a particular insight into gay identity in the mid-1970s. Characteristic of many glam rock acts, Queen lead singer Freddie Mercury’s camp theatrics stood in sharp contrast to the vigorous heterosexuality of traditional rock. The use of Zandra Rhodes silks, nail varnish, and makeup all contributed to a sense of “otherness,” but Fleet Street’s obsession with sexuality—“Who do you sleep with Freddie?” and his bantering response, “Girls, boys, and cats”— kept his performances salacious but his private life at arm’s length. While this is, as they say, no big revelation, it is salutary to remember why Janis Joplin kept her bisexuality hidden from the public gaze,7 and why Dusty Springfield fled to Los Angeles to escape the scrutiny of an always zealous press.8 The U.K.’s Homosexual Reform Act (1967) may have seemed a step in the right direction, but the current climate was unforgiving of outed homosexuals and lesbians alike. The tremors surrounding Jeremy Thorpe, former leader of the British Liberal Party, shook the walls of the establishment in 1975. Accused of having a homosexual relationship with Norman Scott, who claimed to have been threatened by Thorpe after the end of their affair, he was subsequently one of four defendants in a court case, but was acquitted of attempted murder. The ensuing scandal ruined his Parliamentary career, and the animosity and hysteria directed at him by the media was a timely reminder that it was better to stay in the closet. p.252 The paradox of legality/persecution is reflected in “Bohemian Rhapsody,” a signature track from Queen’s 1975 album A Night at the Opera that provides an intriguing insight into Mercury’s private life at the time; the song’s three separate acts reflect three separate turmoils— all, it seems, underpinned by Catholic guilt.9 The title draws strongly on contemporary rock ideology, the emphasis on creativity legitimizing the individualism of the bohemian artists’ world, with rhapsody affirming the romantic ideals of art rock,10 as an epic narrative related to the heroic, with ecstatic or emotional overtones. Like all good stories, the opening starts with a sense of tension and enigma. The multitracked voices are unusually situated at the opening of the piece, the rhythm following the natural inflection of the words, the block chords and lack of foreground melody creating an underlying ambiguity—who is speaking, who is the promised epic hero? This sense of uncertainty is heightened by the harmonic change from Bb (6) to C7 in bars 1 and 2; the boundaries between “the real life” and “fantasy” are marked by instability, and “caught in a landslide,” the octave unison at the end of bar 3, propels the listener into the next phrase. Here “no escape from reality” provides a clue to the underlying turmoil, but the piano arpeggios in bars 5–6 and the stabilizing effect of the harmonic progression, anchored this time by the root of the chords, shift the mode of address: “Open your eyes.” The introduction of the central character is marked by a restatement of the rhythmic motif in its realigned position in the lead vocal and piano. Underpinned by the vocal harmonies there is a sense of pathos that is interrupted by a chromatic movement in the first inversion block chords of the voices and piano (bars 10–11, “Easy come, easy go”) before the confessional of “Mama, just killed a man.” Here, the effected warmth of the vocal and the underlying arpeggios on piano suggest an intimate scenario. It is both confessional and affirmative of the nurturant and life-giving force of the feminine and the need for absolution. The emotional quality is given a particular resonance in bars 21–24. Framed by a lingering “Mama,” the melody opens out, the vocal rising to a falsetto register only to fall dramatically downward at the end of bar 23. Underpinned by chromatic movement in the bass, there is an underlying mood of desperation (“If I’m not back again tomorrow”), which is opened out in bars 25–31 as the melodic phrases fragment, “carry on . . . as if nothing really matters.” The year 1975 was somewhat of a turning point in Freddie Mercury’s personal life. He had been living with Mary Austin, manager for the London boutique Biba, for seven years, but had just embarked on his first gay love affair with David Minns. Aware of the constant surveillance by Fleet p.253 Street, Mary accompanied him when dining out with his new boyfriend. It was apparently a very romantic affair, one that lasted until 1978, but the tugs between security (Mary), escape (David), and an acknowledgment of Mercury’s sexuality are there. The confessional of “Bohemian Rhapsody” and its intimate address to “Mama” provide an initial insight into Mercury’s emotional state at the time: living with Mary (“Mama”), wanting to break away (“Mama mia, let me go” in bars 88–89). Bars 80–85, in particular, provide an emotional setting for the dialectic interplay between the masculine and feminine voices. The heavy timbres of the lower voices, underpinned by the phallic backbeat of the drums and tonic pedal, traditionally connote the masculine (“We will not let you go”) while the shrill, higher voices in first inversion chords imply the feminine “other” (“Let me go”).11 They signal entrapment and the plea for release. The heightened sense of urgency seems to resonate with Mercury’s inner turmoil, leaving the security of Mary Austin (who, in fact, remained a close friend throughout his life), coming to terms with gay life (“Easy come, easy go”), and living with a man (“So you think you can stone me and spit in my eye”). Mary was, however, more perceptive than the song implies. At the time, Freddie had asked her if she thought he was bisexual. Her reply—“I don’t think you’re bisexual. I think you’re gay”12—provides an insight into their relationship and her continuing support. Even so, the “just gotta get out” supplies a metaphor for desperation as it moves toward the climax, the guitar supported by an aggressive drumbeat, before the emergence of the piano at bar 120. The return to the opening tempo thus suggests a release of tension, the outbursts are over and the final “Nothing really matters to me,” where the voice is cradled by light piano arpeggios, suggests both resignation (minor tonalities) and a new sense of freedom in the wide vocal span.13 “Bohemian Rhapsody” dominated the 1975 U.K. Christmas charts and remained at number 1 for nine weeks, its popularity reinforced by an elaborate and highly innovative video production. While Queen’s popularity can be related to the ascendancy of glam and glitter in the early to mid-1970s, it is apparent that the flirtation with androgyny and bisexuality that characterized many of its prominent performers (not least David Bowie and Gary Glitter) was not accompanied by an acceptance of gay sexuality by the general public. As mentioned previously, the tremors surrounding the “outing” of Jeremy Thorpe were already shaking the walls of the establishment in 1975, and the animosity and hysteria directed at him by the media provoke comparison with Oscar Wilde, who had been found guilty of homosexual offenses and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with hard labor in 1895. Both were |
| Holly2003 11.04.2011 06:07 |
p.254 at odds with society; both subverted the “wholesome, manly, simple ideals of English life;”14 both relate to the “outsider”—the “misfit” repressed and oppressed because of nonconforming individuality and sexuality. “Bohemian Rhapsody” thus provides a particular insight into the tensions surrounding gay identity in 1970s Britain, and Mercury’s performance can be interpreted as challenging social, cultural, and musical structures in its invocation of gay male desire. In effect, its operatic camp revealed the “queer” imaginary that underpinned Queen’s musical output, the “innuendo” that was not fully acknowledged until 1991 when Mercury confirmed publicly that he had AIDS.15 He died from bronchial pneumonia a day later (November 24), and “Bohemian Rhapsody” was rereleased on December 9, with royalties from sales being donated to an HIV and AIDS charity, the Terence Higgins Trust. p.258 At this point, I would like to return briefly to the implications of the Stonewall Rebellion and how the “toughness” of the riot was reflected in the butch image that was to influence both Freddie Mercury of Queen and later Rob Halford of the metal band Judas Priest. The leather wear and the mustache (aptly dubbed the “flavor saver”) were, as Thor P. P. Arnold (Mercury’s lover at the time) aptly commented, an overt body language, “screaming out for steaming man sex,”25 and were quickly adopted by Mercury and by Halford (although the latter without the mustache). Black leather jackets; heavy studded leather belts; chains, thongs, and straps; heavy boots; and black leather jeans or chaps that exposed the flesh eroticized the body, drawing into association both bikers and sadomasochism. |
| rhyeking 11.04.2011 12:01 |
I'm still of the opinion that "Bohemian Rhapsody" isn't as autobiographical as everyone wants to believe. I've read so many articles and seen so many documentaries which all try to 'solve' it, but I'll stick with Freddie direct statements that he didn't know what it's about. At best, it was an experiment in different styles and the lyrics are vaguely dramatic and evocative. They stir the imagination, but naturally we try to make sense of things, so people put meaning to what may be meaningless (in any deep or personal sense) in order to neatly organize the world. My advice, let the song maintain its mystery and continue to fire not only our imaginations, but those of future generations. We'll all take some meaning from it in a greater way than by putting a label or category to the song. |
| Isle0fRed 11.04.2011 13:20 |
Personally, I'll alaways see the song as a character coming out That said, not knowing is one of the those things that makes the song better. Sometimes, certian things are best left unsolved and open to the imagination. See Pulp Fiction or Lost in Tranlation for examples |
| ksimpson1960 11.04.2011 22:12 |
Only the mystery of ''TRUE ART'', can stir up these kinds of conversations of origins and meanings, that were never meant to be discovered. |
| Soundfreak 12.04.2011 03:01 |
Only the mystery of ''TRUE ART'', can stir up these kinds of conversations of origins and meanings, that were never meant to be discovered. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Well said, good lyrics leave a lot of room for many people to read most different things into it. And usually people try to find their own life in those lyrics.... What I do not really understand is the fascination of many people about Freddies sexual orientation. What is so exciting about it? I mean most of those people never met him or knew him personally. So in the end it doesn't matter whether he does this or that.....or was a vegetarian or not..... |
| ANAGRAMER 12.04.2011 14:15 |
I cant believe anybody went to the trouble of writing this never mind analysing it all Absolute PISH (as we say in Scotland) |
| GT 13.04.2011 00:36 |
Freddie would hate all this analysis of his songs, especially for Bohemian Rhapsody. It is just a great record, with some rather obscure lyrics, there is nothing more to it. Music is there for pleasure, to be listened to and enjoyed, not scrutinised and trying to fathom the writers inner feelings. If you want to hear about his gay sexual feelings in his songs, listen to the Mr. Bad Guy album, it's quite blatant. |
| freddiefan91 13.04.2011 02:36 |
Freddie said in an interview once that he hated trying to analyise what a song means whenever he is asked the question, songs are just there for listening pleasure Im sure some songs do have meanings but i guess its upto the individual to work it out |
| Holly2003 13.04.2011 04:40 |
GT wrote: Freddie would hate all this analysis of his songs, especially for Bohemian Rhapsody. It is just a great record, with some rather obscure lyrics, there is nothing more to it. Music is there for pleasure, to be listened to and enjoyed, not scrutinised and trying to fathom the writers inner feelings. If you want to hear about his gay sexual feelings in his songs, listen to the Mr. Bad Guy album, it's quite blatant. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Artists lose control of their art when they put it into the public realm. In addition, what they set out to do may not be what they actually achieve. Also, art can subconsciously reflect personal things about the artist, even if the artist explicitly denies it. And what a boring world it would be if that wasn't the case. |
| GratefulFan 13.04.2011 15:57 |
The analysis was interesting, but I'm not sure about some of the premises and conclusions. She doesn't seem to be trying to prove Bo Rhap is about Freddie's personal life, or even meaningfully argue it, which makes it hard to argue back even if one was so inclined. She seems to be presenting it as a first principle, and then describing the context into which it all fits. Her analysis is not much different from any of the other scholarly ones we've seen in the broad strokes. She bookends her thoughts with references to entrenched social intolerance of homosexuality, and references lyrics and mood in much the same way we've heard before. I'll give her "Catholic guilt" as an entirely new one (I think) which she accidentally or on purpose goes on to underscore by later using the words 'confessional' (twice) and 'absolution'. She seems to offer no support for this (unless there was something in that footnote) and it seems to me to have little relevance. 'Catholic guilt' is typically understood to mean excessive, abnormal or pervasive guilt, often stemming directly from engaging in acts or thoughts proscribed by Church dogma. Even if one accepts the gay interpretation of Bo Rhap, I don't see how it meaningfully applies. He could be assumed to be troubled by uncertainty, the insecurity of the unknown, turning Mary's life upside down after so many years, the need to protect family and friends and bandmates given the social climate, other things. All that qualifies as normal, expected emotion any reasonably moral human being might feel in such a situation. So I fail to see what she was getting at outside of getting cute with the 'confessional' aspects of the song. Later, she says "Bohemian Rhapsody thus provides a particular insight into the tensions surrounding gay identity in 1970s Britain, and Mercury’s performance can be interpreted as challenging social, cultural, and musical structures in its invocation of gay male desire. In effect, its operatic camp revealed the “queer” imaginary that underpinned Queen’s musical output, the “innuendo” that was not fully acknowledged until 1991 when Mercury confirmed publicly that he had AIDS." Okay, but again, only because she says so and even then only in retrospect. We can't even agree all these years later that the song relates to homosexuality, so any subliminal challenge to social or cultural mores at the time had to be vanishingly small relative to the other forces shaping these attitudes at the time. Or maybe she's trying to say something else all together. It's difficult to know where this excerpt is supposed to fit in whatever the larger narrative is supposed to be. Anyway, I've got to go home and cook things now but I've got a couple more thoughts for later. There have been some interesting replies. |
| queenUSA 14.04.2011 22:52 |
Guess what everybody? Her analysis just won a Nobel Prize! No - just poking fun. She lost me long before she went down the lane of "phallic drums" ????????? But seriously ....why do people feel compelled to take this on to the point of becoming extremely academic and clinical about it and writing their dissertations on it? All this "hang wringing and gnashing of teeth"over (gasp!) THE meaning of the song (at Freddie's expense). It's repellant in a way - just enjoy it. Why oh why can't it just be a simple explanation, a simple story? After all, Freddie wanted to make a key feature of it an Opera section ... so what is Opera? Well, it's tragedy - that's Opera in a nut shell. Heck, the whole album was named A Night at the Opera ... so how about this .... an only son commits a terrible crime, disappoints his immigrant parents - feels real remorse, but it's too late and almost gets stoned to death. Tragedy? Check. I think "analysts" have to be watchful and honest with themselves that perhaps they have "pre-formed" their conclusion (the "coming out" song) and then arranged any available evidence laying about to support that conclusion until it seems convincing. I hope most people can see through these contrived attempts. I say let's gather up all the analysis papers and have a shredding party! Let us take back Bohemian Rhapsody on behalf of Freddie and true fans who care about Queen and their legacy past, present and future. Phallic drums???? |
| GratefulFan 14.04.2011 23:36 |
queenUSA wrote: Guess what everybody? Her analysis just won a Nobel Prize! No - just poking fun. She lost me long before she went down the lane of "phallic drums" ????????? But seriously ....why do people feel compelled to take this on to the point of becoming extremely academic and clinical about it and writing their dissertations on it? All this "hang wringing and gnashing of teeth"over (gasp!) THE meaning of the song (at Freddie's expense). It's repellant in a way - just enjoy it. ...... Phallic drums???? ================= In this case I suspect from the title of the work that maybe diving into the meaning of the song was more about support for the idea that gay artists and/or sensibilities shape the culture and/or popular music, and Fred's song just happened to get run over by that bus. I have to read it again tomorrow, but what I was struck by on the first go was how tenuous and arbitrary it seemed. Then again I'm not really accustomed to reading this kind of material and may be failing to understand something about the goals and typical structure of this type of analysis. I don't think she's wrong in her basic conclusions as I really do think the song was about that time in Freddie's life, but that will have to wait because I'm falling asleep typing. |
| john bodega 15.04.2011 01:44 |
The song has a meaning, but it's probably more ambiguous than people would like to think when they're writing their long analyses about it. |
| Isle0fRed 15.04.2011 03:32 |
Zebonka12 wrote: The song has a meaning, but it's probably more ambiguous than people would like to think when they're writing their long analyses about it. Everything has a meaning. I read an 2000 word essay on how the sweat on Marlon Brando's face in the film Julius Caesar (1953) is a signified of battle and war. The fact is that, your right, this song proberly has more to it than anyone can argue. Cause what kind of analysis of this song has been done...? 1. Theres the idea (character) killed a person 2. (character) has come out the closet 3. Religon and Culture 4. ... if anyone else knows any other topics or analyisis thats been made on the song, please state. I aint sure if anyone has wrote an analysis on this song using: Sigmund Freud and pyshco-analyisis Roland Barthe (Saussure, Peirce etc) and semiotics Then again, theres always theatre and cinema approaches to the song. |
| Holly2003 15.04.2011 04:53 |
queenUSA wrote: Guess what everybody? Her analysis just won a Nobel Prize! No - just poking fun. She lost me long before she went down the lane of "phallic drums" ????????? But seriously ....why do people feel compelled to take this on to the point of becoming extremely academic and clinical about it and writing their dissertations on it? All this "hang wringing and gnashing of teeth"over (gasp!) THE meaning of the song (at Freddie's expense). It's repellant in a way - just enjoy it. Why oh why can't it just be a simple explanation, a simple story? After all, Freddie wanted to make a key feature of it an Opera section ... so what is Opera? Well, it's tragedy - that's Opera in a nut shell. Heck, the whole album was named A Night at the Opera ... so how about this .... an only son commits a terrible crime, disappoints his immigrant parents - feels real remorse, but it's too late and almost gets stoned to death. Tragedy? Check. I think "analysts" have to be watchful and honest with themselves that perhaps they have "pre-formed" their conclusion (the "coming out" song) and then arranged any available evidence laying about to support that conclusion until it seems convincing. I hope most people can see through these contrived attempts. I say let's gather up all the analysis papers and have a shredding party! Let us take back Bohemian Rhapsody on behalf of Freddie and true fans who care about Queen and their legacy past, present and future. Phallic drums???? =========================================================================== I agree with you -- a bit. The amount of crappy academic writing I've come across would make you weep. However, there's a simple rule to life that it's best to follow -- thinking is better than non-thinking, and even a failed attempt at analysis or interpretation (if that's what this is) is better than not thinking about it at all. You've lost me though with your comment "Let us take back Bohemian Rhapsody on behalf of Freddie and true fans who care about Queen and their legacy past, present and future." I've no idea what that means. |
| queenUSA 15.04.2011 07:08 |
What it means is that I grow weary, annoyed and frustrated when I try to enjoy listening to the song for what it is and someone invariably pops up and says "oh isn't that the song that really means that Freddie is .... X, Y, Z?" Why do I have to address that? I don't want to go there - not just for Freddie, but also for Brian, Roger and John. It's their private lives, their private worlds. I respect that it's sacred to them and does not need to be dissected by me, by anyone. Most comments on you tube videos and performances are positive but you can always depend on "those" voices, like clockwork , to pop up and bring on the sexuality thing again and again. And then the defending begins and you see the back & forth and the ugliness of it all. Perhaps it would be fascinating to write about that behavior instead. |
| Holly2003 15.04.2011 08:15 |
queenUSA wrote: What it means is that I grow weary, annoyed and frustrated when I try to enjoy listening to the song for what it is and someone invariably pops up and says "oh isn't that the song that really means that Freddie is .... X, Y, Z?" Why do I have to address that? I don't want to go there - not just for Freddie, but also for Brian, Roger and John. It's their private lives, their private worlds. I respect that it's sacred to them and does not need to be dissected by me, by anyone. Most comments on you tube videos and performances are positive but you can always depend on "those" voices, like clockwork , to pop up and bring on the sexuality thing again and again. And then the defending begins and you see the back & forth and the ugliness of it all. Perhaps it would be fascinating to write about that behavior instead. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is your view of "what it is" the only one you ever want to hear? It's not their private words and lives, since they published them all, for the world to see, in a very successful song. YouTube is full of morons. What do you expect from a pig but a grunt. However, there is nothing insulting about the analysis I posted. It's the author's views, some of which are interesting (Mary Austin being mama) and some a bit of a stretch (phallic drums). |
| Dane 15.04.2011 10:21 |
As Roger once stated '...well, i think it's pretty obvious what the song is about.' (does that help? :p) |
| ole-the-first 15.04.2011 10:35 |
Another search for deeper meaning where's no deeper meaning. I heard that one critic claims that David Lynch's masterpiece "Blue Velvet" is about the Oedipus complex. But someone's subjective (and wrong) view can't change my own opinion because I can think too. As well as "Blue Velvet" isn't about Oedipus complex, "Bohemian Rhapsody" ain't about coming out. This is about what you can hear in lyrics, about young killer who will die soon. No need in all these mad interpretations! |
| rhyeking 15.04.2011 18:57 |
Some call "Blue Velvet" a masterpiece, some (Pulitzer Prize-winning film critic Roger Ebert) despise it. I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong, just that opinions vary and as always we should each make up our own mind. My thoughts on "Rhapsody" are expressed above. It means something to each of us, but we'll never know what (if anything) it meant to Freddie. |
| queenUSA 15.04.2011 20:51 |
I'm drawn to Queen for the music. When I say for "what it is" I mean ... music. Not lectures, studies, lab results, etc ... I offered a simple meaning as an alternative to make a point that there are other views out there ... lots of views, and given a half hour I could probably generate a few more meanings that the song could be - but why? I'm not the genius - Freddie and the band are. I did not say private words, I said private lives and private WORLDS. They give us their music and their performances, but when they go home at night and close the door and draw the blinds that's it. There is a physical boundary to be respected, but what about a psychological one? That cannot really work can it? The mind will think what it will and go where it wants ... and in this case it wandered into the twilight zone that is "phallic drums." |
| GratefulFan 16.04.2011 00:31 |
There is something unique to Bohemian Rhapsody that predictably provokes just these kinds of expressions of folly or moral disquiet and entreaties for personal privacy that rarely if ever come up with other songs, even when they are understood or theorized to be autobiographical. They are expressed and perhaps even felt as general principles, but I'm not at all sure. We don't have seem to have this angst about turning songs like 'Love of My Life' or 'Too Much Love Will Kill You' upside down and shaking them out for meaning. We speak about the personal elements of those and the cast of characters so casually that it doesn't even rise to 'analysis'. Certainly we've debated meanings of any number of other songs without perceiving a moral crisis or fool's errand. Freddie once said that all his songs were about love. We know for sure he wrote or delivered autobiographically at times: Love of My Life, It's a Hard Life, for example, or most poignantly These are the Days of Our Lives and The Show Must Go On. There are almost certainly others. If we can probe Mother Love for his private feelings about his impending death, which we have - without batting an eye - when there is little that can be as personal as that, it seems Bo Rhap should not provoke such a strong response, and yet it always does. Though sex might be implicit in songs like TMLWKY, they are primarily received as songs about heterosexual love, which we have no problem gazing upon. I think the opposite is true with Bo Rhap. Any contemplation about an autobiographical meaning is seen to be some form of prurient pursuit of his "gay sexual feelings" and that is just such an injustice to an artist and a man who wrote about love so prolifically and at varying times so beautifully, so joyfully, so hopefully, or with pain and regret. If the song was indeed about coming out or accepting his orientation it was about stepping into a whole life, not just a sex life, and it's a whole life that deserves the same easy comprehension we give Brian or Roger or anybody else. |
| QueenFan76 18.04.2011 06:57 |
I remember someone I spoke with was CONVINCED it was about Freddie coming to terms with having AIDS. (No, I'm not kidding) His translation for "Put a gun against his head, pulled my trigger, now I'm dead" was He blew a dude (gun against head) and because the guy came (pulled trigger) he got AIDS (Now I'm dead) Nevermind that we wrote it some 10 years before he contracted HIV/AIDS.... |
| GratefulFan 18.04.2011 14:41 |
Just for the hell of it this weekend I googled "phallic backbeat" and such to see if it was an actual thing. Funnily enough, while there weren't a ton of hits the term, there were a few pages of references on "phallic beat" and "phallocentric rhythm" and "phallic drums" and such. One reference said "something called a phallic backbeat", so maybe it's not totally as silly as it seems initially, and something not uncommon for people examining music in this way. |
| queenUSA 18.04.2011 22:33 |
hmmmm, that gives me an idea ... maybe Sheila and Roger should have a conversation about it. |
| GratefulFan 20.04.2011 12:01 |
^ Abstruse post of the month. :) |
| jaq 21.04.2011 19:59 |
hi y'all, gonna jump in for my 1st post. am pretty much in agreement about sheila's essay is thought-provoking but ultimately annoys. Bo Rhap wouldn't be the cultural phenomenon it is, if it's strictly of "gay identity in the mid-70s" - even if it sounds sensible. back up a sec sheila, this is a band who worked under the ethos of a guy who called himself "musical prostitute", all the way from his performance of "big spender" (a groaty voiced old whore in kimono, picked up as he went around the world "whoring") to spelling out the band's manifesto in "let me entertain you". why would Bo Rhap's significance be a political protest or statement for his troubled identity ALONE (except to academia who must speak up for those without a voice, digging up what mainstream history ignores etc), rather than the other way around: that gay, straight, rabbit or rabbi, personal experiences are poured into the great "equalizer" of commercially released music, effectively making it neither straight nor gay (check how Bo Rhap's consumed, viral-copied by public in all subsequent forms), just monies in their pockets (& more)? that's a "crass" proposition academics like sheila wouldn't take. i mean, she has every right to piece together fragments and people's names in his life, match them to sections of Bo Rhap and make a coherent argument of it (though the bit about "spit in my eye" makes no sense in her sticking to the mary scenario.) stretch this logic to its limits, and the seams come apart: why's musical structure more important than actual performance of the song - which, however you personally define camp, should mark out the different tone of emotions in opera section relative to rest of the song. so what does throwing this monkey wrench of "camp" in middle of a supposedly earnest revelation of personal trauma in torturous existence of gay man in mid-70s, affect the overall "statement" about being gay? she thinks having a camp section is musical subversion in itself challenging "straight rock", but why wouldn't this change of tone in narrative shift to a third person omniscient viewpoint, which makes unstable the idea that Fred used music as personal venting/catharsis, more than a confluence of experience and artistic whim to tell a MF-ing good story, a musical experience (told not just by gay and straights, but working musicians who made products at behest of john reid?) more stretching of her logic: do we then assume, that brian's solo matching fred's tone and emotional pitch, even pushing it toward a crescendo, has something to do with him as stepping aside from mary so she'd get on with fred, and meanwhile watches as sympathetic bystander how their affair unfolded? if she sticks to the strictly author-biographical thrust, why's "mama" strictly about mary rather than some composite of jer and mary, since he came out to her but not fam (plus homophobic family are as likely to "spit in eye" of the gay son as jilted woman?) - "effectively" making mary some surrogate mom thus adding past unresolved drama on top of a breakup that would otherwise be less luridly dramatic as if he had less emotional baggage going in? is R/F/B harmonizing about straight bandmates roped into supporting gay cause (and does roger hitting the highest notes "represent" his ambivalence about being prettier than the actual gay, yet is spared the same emotional turmoil)? see this "biography" can go anywhere! so i echo queenUSA's idea of reclaiming Bo Rhap, when it comes to what scholars could be doing - better! if you approach Queen from the common critical assumption as a straight band led by a gay man, altogether made lots of flashy, noisy fluff without much meaning or "true" feeling, then of course you try to justify writing about their cultural prominence (as result of commercial success) in a song like Bo Rhap, by giving it a "respectable" reading of "statement by an oppressed minority's real life experience". this ironically perpetuates the continual dismissal of the band as nothing more than noise & business machine. - what about the context of their career (opera to distinguish from led zep/et al comparisons) & band dynamics that brought about Bo Rhap? (the need to get out of debt, move on up in status of the band, the intra-brand competition in songwriting) - what about actually respecting the author - beyond digging into his personal life - and look at how related themes and musical motifs (MOTBQ, MFK - all laid out in queensongs.info) evolved through various phases until the overriding artistic idea/obsession of the author moved toward a "final summation" or draft? e.g. living with guilt and the pressure and eventual disavowal of pretending, from ITLOTG...Revisted, to the giant overhaul of The Great Pretender? -if it's "70s gay identity/experience" she wants, why overlook GOFLB - or does it just not fit that "tortured gay at junction of his life", because she started off with the thorpe case (which is relevant but degrees removed from the rock/showbiz world where sexuality can be a game of performance - meaning, Bo Rhap isn't necessarily devoid of "statement" she deems, but is so subsumed into idea of "performance". fred even claims to move in "theater world", where we know traditionally the public came to tolerate whatever "queenies" hiding in there, as long as they're skilled to act/entertain!) -more pertinent info from author's biography, that's not gay-related yet which informs his work: he willed Bo Rhap to be "fucking huge", which means he ain't speaking to the converted like carl bean's disco anthem "i was born this way". speaking on band squabbles over Hot Space, he claimed to be "just a songwriter, not songwriter of heavy metal" or some such. this is repeated attempt to decline being packed into any single camp, which, if Bo Rhap's intended to be some authentic gay statement unleashed on the masses as Sheila deems it, would make his method of delivery entirely self-defeating. And proof is in the pudding: all later viral-appropriations, focus on the lurid emotions in the song undergoing phases of tonal, attitudinal changes - be it parody (bad news), mock-identification with narrator as underdog (wrongfully?) persecuted (comic relief, lee evans?), or simply as musical-emotional-narrative structure to pump their own characters through (muppets). all of them have one thing in common though, and it's not about feeling sorry or getting the fight on for gays. it's the pleasurable satisfaction of dramatic role-play. who was it that said it's about them playing a role?... |