| Stick 15.08.2019 22:41 |
All right. What makes Queen unique? What is it about them that makes you more a fan of Queen than anything else? What makes them stand out? What aspects, achievements, characteristics or whatever are unique to Queen in a positive light? Anything goes but try to add something that elevates them above others. Why is Queen THE band? I'll start with: - All 4 members were highly talented, smart and very creative. - One of a kind front man - One of a kind guitar player who made his own guitar from scratch including the sound of it - Lots of different genres explored on their albums - Incredibly powerful live - Front man died in his prime which had an almost legendary effect on what came before that fact. |
| Bo Alex 16.08.2019 01:59 |
-Unique gay moustache. -Unique Deacon's perm in Radio Ga Ga video. |
| Queen Fan MS 16.08.2019 03:25 |
@Stick - I agree with all you said and personally for me, 1. All 4 of them were musicians each bringing their own creativity into the songs and complemented each other very well. 2. The complexity of their compositions, melodies and their harmonies, how all their voices blend so beautifully together. (The backing vocals at the end of Millionaire Waltz is so beautiful 'Bring out the love, there's spring in the air." I always play this part along with the guitar solo before that multiple times!) 3 The variety in their songs and they were not afraid to take risks (at least in the 70's). 4.They really did the hard yards and were not overnight success. They had to work hard to earn their success. 5. All of them took their music seriously and were real professionals and did not take success for granted. and ofcourse, 1.Freddie's voice, his delivery of songs, both studio and live, his creativity (He could sing a song in so many different ways, each unique, some of the live versions of the songs are stupendous than even the studio versions!) He really breathed music. 2. Brian's guitar tone. I can never get tired of hearing some of his solos. More than the hard stuff, I really like his solos in the power ballads. They are so complex and melodic and makes me always wonder how did he come up with these stuff! |
| Jimmy Dean 16.08.2019 05:30 |
Not really unique. Zappa, tiny tim, Captain beefheart, Keith Moon.... I’d say these were examples of unique. Queen were just better than their peers. They played better, composed and arranged better, Freddie mercuried better. Queen, Aerosmith, Styx, U2, Zeppelin, Stones, Beatles etc they were all great bands. Anyone can come up with unique qualities for each. They were all rock bands that played rock music. I just think Queen did it better where it mattered - live shows were more important than singles were more important than lyrics were more important than album. If there was one unique quality that gave Queen the edge, they were better than anyone at prioritizing. Live aid is actually a very good example. Set list, sabotage the soundboard, keep it short and sweet. It’s funny how up until last year, since I was old enough to listen and understand music - u2 was the biggest band in the world. Now because of some movie, Queen is getting finally getting the recognition they deserved. |
| Apocalipsis_Darko 16.08.2019 08:57 |
I agree with Jimmy Dean, except for one thing. The Beatles. I mean...The Beatles had better lyrics, were the pioneers to create an album as a concept, they never could play with the technology Queen had....But, Queen had the best frontman from a rock band. One thing nobody said...Deacy Amp. |
| Apocalipsis_Darko 16.08.2019 08:57 |
I agree with Jimmy Dean, except for one thing. The Beatles. I mean...The Beatles had better lyrics, were the pioneers to create an album as a concept, they never could play with the technology Queen had....But, Queen had the best frontman from a rock band. One thing nobody said...Deacy Amp. |
| Apocalipsis_Darko 16.08.2019 08:57 |
Sorry for repeat. |
| Stick 16.08.2019 10:59 |
To each their own opinion of course but I didn't mean to say that Queen were the most unique band ever. Just what makes them unique in their own way, and unique in they eyes of their fans. Every band is unique in their own way and this thread is not meant as a contest between them. Just wanted to create a very positive thread where everyone can post what they find unique about Queen. |
| Chief Mouse 16.08.2019 12:22 |
Since most was already said, I'll repeat - the harmonies. Wonderful. |
| queenfanbg 16.08.2019 16:27 |
"-Unique Deacon's perm in Radio Ga Ga video. " +1 |
| Sheldon 16.08.2019 16:41 |
One side of Queen's uniqueness that is often forgotten: how many themes their songs represent. In many of these themes they remain the only alternative. What else than WATC could you play after winning a sports event, really? Killer Queen, We Will Rock You, We Are The Champions, Bicycle Race, Don't Stop Me Now, Radio Ga Ga, I Want to Break Free, Friends Will Be Friends, I Want it All, The Show Must Go On... I'm sure I missed many examples. Plenty of bands have a couple of songs that suit certain situations in life, but none have a whole list, like Queen does. I'm So Excited is a great alternative to Don't Stop Me Now when you are in a mood like that. |
| Sheldon 16.08.2019 16:44 |
Under Pressure also. Impossible not to think of Queen (and Bowie) when someone uses that expression. Especially in non-English countries, where we don't say "under pressure" every single day. |
| mooghead 16.08.2019 19:47 |
We don't say 'Another One Bites the Dust' every day either. That is a very strange thing to say in this context IMHO |
| Jimmy Dean 17.08.2019 00:58 |
Who wants a banger in the mouth? |
| stevelondon20 17.08.2019 07:48 |
Haha! |
| Sunshine 17.08.2019 08:40 |
One of the things that made Queen stand out is their professionalism. From day 1 they wanted to dominate the music business and they were able to adapt during the years. There are very few bands who were able to do so. U2 did also for example. But some bands like Aerosmith didn’t do after their success in the 70s, they totally lost it in the first half of the 80s. Because of intense external pressure (record company) they were starting to make records that fitted the era. Queen did all that by themselves with songs like Radio GaGa and Magic for example. They were intelligent human beings that were not only great musicians. They were great entrepreneurs. I know that many dont like to hear it but Queen always has been a company, a brand with value (added value in everything they did) and this didn’t start when Freddie died, it always was like that. Because they were so professional, they didn’t use too many drugs compared to nearly all bands from the 70s, that made them survive harder times like the early 80s but also early in their career when they were nearly bankrupt. It made them think clear and take the right decisions. |
| Martin Packer 17.08.2019 09:15 |
I would say Queen took more care than most in what they did. And they probably still do. "More care" shows up most in record production, but secondly in show planning and execution. |
| Sheldon 17.08.2019 14:14 |
U2 is always mentioned in contexts like this. I don't get it. How many U2 songs can an average person name? How many Queen songs? Queen's music is by far better known around the world and a larger part of everyday life. |
| Sunshine 17.08.2019 14:47 |
U2 is a world class band, they sell out stadiums on all continents for the last 30 consecutive years. You have to acknowledge that fact. Like a Queen song, everybody can recognize a U2 song on the radio, it’s a very distinctive sound yet they were always able to renew themselves. And that is regardless whether you care for their music or not. |
| AlbaNo1 17.08.2019 15:36 |
U2 never possessed the sheer musical talent of Queen. I think they even acknowledge themselves that they could barely play in the early days. But they share the professionalism and ambition of Queen, plus have a distinctive vocalist and guitar sound |
| Jimmy Dean 17.08.2019 17:21 |
U2 also puts on an incredible show. Bono isn’t as engaging as Freddie was, but the each band’s performances are as energetic as are the lighting and stage designs. Musically, I agree, Queen surpasses u2 by a long shot. Lyrically, they’re in the same league. Song writing and arranging, they are also in the same league. Which is why there are about the same number of each u2 or Queen hits that can be easily identified. However, quality of the production goes to Queen - ie use of harmonies, clever changes in tempo, Brian’s playing, Freddie’s voice, John/ roger vs Adam/Larry - you cant beat Queen. U2 still doesn’t have a bohemian rhapsody to call their own. A beautiful day was as close as they got and is more of a chant like we are the champions and even there, not nearly as catchy. However, Achtung Baby and Joshua Tree were exceptional albums. And rival most of queen’s output - in regards to complete albums. Each band has unique qualities, but neither are unique relative to musical history. |
| Stick 18.08.2019 01:06 |
U2 is very overrated. The Edge relies too much on effects that are apart from his playing, Bono is too full of himself and too simpleminded (according to me), and the sound has stayed too much the same through the years. They are great only in comparison with other band at this time. To me they are nothing special and just bland and lack innovation, inspiration and originality these days. And as an added detail, the singer can't pronounce his own name. It's pronounced Bono, no Bonno as he keeps insisting. It's spelled Bono so his name is Bono. I find him to be quite the doofus. |
| Saint Jiub 18.08.2019 01:33 |
This ^ |
| Jimmy Dean 18.08.2019 03:35 |
[deleted] |
| Jimmy Dean 18.08.2019 03:35 |
[deleted] |
| Jimmy Dean 18.08.2019 03:35 |
Stick wrote: U2 is very overrated.I disagree. No one counts them as the most talented, or greatest of all time, yada yada... they never crack the top 5 or top 10 of any list... they are well-rated. They are the people's band, much like Queen were. They put sales before art. Music was a business first and foremost. Yes Queen was better - but you have to face it, if you look at what U2 has achieved, it's not dumb luck. They were/are not naturally talented by any means. They wrote catchy songs and gave the people what they wanted. Then they worked at their craft and drew heavy help from their producers (Lanois, Eno). Bob Dylan, Neil Young, Frank Zappa, Scott Walker, pre-90s Bruce Springsteen, Kate Bush, Peter Gabriel, Pink Floyd, Radiohead, The Beatles, etc many others - these were artists that put their craft before sales. Anyways, that's my take on U2 - I like 'em, but they are quite low on my top 100. |
| Sunshine 19.08.2019 09:07 |
This discussion about U2 is sheer nonsense. Is the Edge the most technical player of all times? No but Brian May isn’t either. They were very revolutionary in terms of live shows , the way they communicated their message (whether you like it or not, they succeeded in that). Also look at the ZOO TV tour that was groundbreaking. Their songs stood the test of time, The Edge uses his guitar in a way no one did before plus the bass player gets much more room than in traditional bands. Bono can sing and has, just as Freddie, the talent to reach the back of a Wembley. Few frontman can do that. There is a reason why they are 40 years at the very top. You can’t do that with mediocrity. |
| Stick 19.08.2019 10:22 |
So different opinions on U2 posted here are sheer nonsense but yours had to be added because it isn't? Not to mention the straw men and odd facts you use in your argument. Nice to know Sunshine is a sarcastic nickname. |
| Sunshine 19.08.2019 11:07 |
Stick wrote: So different opinions on U2 posted here are sheer nonsense but yours had to be added because it isn't? Not to mention the straw men and odd facts you use in your argument. Nice to know Sunshine is a sarcastic nickname.No my arguments are not sheer nonsense of course otherwise i wouldn't have written them:) |
| Sebastian 19.08.2019 12:20 |
Jimmy Dean wrote: Song writing and arranging, they are also in the same league.I'd like to see Bono arranging the harmonies of 'Bohemian Rhapsody', The Edge arranging the guitar jazz band of 'Good Company', Larry arranging and playing guitar harmonies like the ones on 'A Kind of Magic' or Adam arranging something as clever and coherent as 'You're My Best Friend'. |
| musicland munich 19.08.2019 23:17 |
U2 are awfully limited...the guitar work sucks with a few exceptions. They get away with a handful of good songs. The Zooropa album was forced at that point. A complete unoriginal band imo. |
| Jimmy Dean 20.08.2019 04:30 |
Sebastian wrote:great point. so yes, as you said same league. unless you mean you cannot see them arranging those? and you mean they are not in the same league.Jimmy Dean wrote: Song writing and arranging, they are also in the same league.I'd like to see Bono arranging the harmonies of 'Bohemian Rhapsody', The Edge arranging the guitar jazz band of 'Good Company', Larry arranging and playing guitar harmonies like the ones on 'A Kind of Magic' or Adam arranging something as clever and coherent as 'You're My Best Friend'. in that case my rebuttal is that, and i think i mentioned this, while they may be in the same league Queen were always better (in my opinion).... you pointed out prime examples of Queen songs where the arranging made the song - ie. Good company. Also, you mention Adam arranging something as clever and coherent as YMBF - are we sure John Deacon arranged that one? he is principal songwriter. Queen labeled the writer as the one that brought in the idea - so John may have come up with a verse and a chorus and Freddie could have finished it. When i think of U2 and arranging, I look at post 80s. The songwriting was better pre-90s but the arranging became more interesting post 80s. Achtung, Baby and Zooropa are clearly the main examples I think of. I'm a huge fan actually of the songs Zooropa & The Fly - epic tracks. And in all fairness, if it weren't for those two albums - i'd have very little to say about U2. Queen definitely kept it more interesting over a longer period. |
| Sebastian 21.08.2019 23:15 |
Jimmy Dean wrote: Queen labeled the writer as the one that brought in the idea - so John may have come up with a verse and a chorus and Freddie could have finished it.According to witness testimonies by both Brian and Roger, John brought the song pretty well mapped-out and even took over the mixing and producing of it, so, yes, there were other clever songwriters in that band besides Brian and Frederick. But even if there weren't, I don't think anyone in U2 would be able to arrange those harmonies (guitar or vocals), or the form of that song, etc. They can/could write some nice material but not by any means in the same league. And, again, when did Adam and/or Larry come up with such milestone pieces by themselves? Jimmy Dean wrote: When i think of U2 and arranging, I look at post 80s. The songwriting was better pre-90s but the arranging became more interesting post 80s. Achtung, Baby and Zooropa are clearly the main examples I think of.The Edge received help from Brian Eno to arrange the strings on 'So Cruel'. Both Eno and Daniel Lanois contributed some key arrangement ideas and even played some instruments for a few of the most interesting parts. Eno was also instrumental for 'Zooropa' and added a lot to it. In terms of arrangements, evidence suggests Queen were far more independent in their golden days. It's not like Roy Baker played any key guitar or piano parts - he added some castanets and a stylophone and that was it. He did a great job producing, but he didn't co-arrange anything and he didn't play guitars or keys, they did it all by themselves. That changed a bit in the 80s when they started bringing more external arrangers (Lynton Naiff, Arif Mardin, Michael Kamen) but even the tracks they arranged entirely by themselves (Was It All Worth It comes to mind, and The Miracle) were light years from anything U2 did in terms of musicality (if you or anyone else prefers 'Dity Day' or 'Lemon' to any of those, there's nothing wrong with that). |
| HelloDelilah 22.08.2019 07:17 |
Getting back to the original question. Things that stand out about Queen that I love are: • Best frontman in the history of music. Freddie is absolutely the best. • All 4 members are intelligent, well educated and professional. They weren’t your typical band of high school drop outs. • They’re down to earth and respectful to others and their fans. • They’re not druggies. I know they experimented and partied but I don’t think they were druggies. They were more mature. • Their music is unique and original. Beautiful harmonizing. • They had synergy. Each member contributed to the greater whole. That’s all for now. Good topic, Stick! |
| Stick 22.08.2019 13:08 |
Thanks! |
| Jimmy Dean 23.08.2019 02:41 |
Sebastian wrote:I actually agree with everything you said and I think i mentioned in an earlier post that Eno & Lanois were responsible for a lot of what they they accomplished. I should explain my definition of league. There are 3 leagues. Bad, Good and Great. Queen and U2 in the Great League. U2 at the lowest end of the spectrum and Queen right at the high end. In that sense, I mean same league. U2's better songs were arranged - as opposed to Bob Dylan's that are simple and don't need to rely on arranging. Queen's music was successful primarily because of the arranging. U2 relied heavily on effects when Queen did not need to. Queen, of course, were better at it - so they didn't need to alter their sound to get their point across. I think the Miracle album is one of the rare occurrences where effects were used to give the songs some extra color (title track, Invisible Man come to mind) - but nothing too drastic.Jimmy Dean wrote: Queen labeled the writer as the one that brought in the idea - so John may have come up with a verse and a chorus and Freddie could have finished it.According to witness testimonies by both Brian and Roger, John brought the song pretty well mapped-out and even took over the mixing and producing of it, so, yes, there were other clever songwriters in that band besides Brian and Frederick. But even if there weren't, I don't think anyone in U2 would be able to arrange those harmonies (guitar or vocals), or the form of that song, etc. They can/could write some nice material but not by any means in the same league. And, again, when did Adam and/or Larry come up with such milestone pieces by themselves?Jimmy Dean wrote: When i think of U2 and arranging, I look at post 80s. The songwriting was better pre-90s but the arranging became more interesting post 80s. Achtung, Baby and Zooropa are clearly the main examples I think of.The Edge received help from Brian Eno to arrange the strings on 'So Cruel'. Both Eno and Daniel Lanois contributed some key arrangement ideas and even played some instruments for a few of the most interesting parts. Eno was also instrumental for 'Zooropa' and added a lot to it. In terms of arrangements, evidence suggests Queen were far more independent in their golden days. It's not like Roy Baker played any key guitar or piano parts - he added some castanets and a stylophone and that was it. He did a great job producing, but he didn't co-arrange anything and he didn't play guitars or keys, they did it all by themselves. That changed a bit in the 80s when they started bringing more external arrangers (Lynton Naiff, Arif Mardin, Michael Kamen) but even the tracks they arranged entirely by themselves (Was It All Worth It comes to mind, and The Miracle) were light years from anything U2 did in terms of musicality (if you or anyone else prefers 'Dity Day' or 'Lemon' to any of those, there's nothing wrong with that). Adam and Larry are backing band - I don't know why you mentioned them actually? If it's to highlight all 4 band members of Queen were active - yes I agree. This is exactly what made Queen better than almost every band. Their democratic approach to music and business decisions was their best attribute. Each member was worth 25%, no more no less. And for the record, no, I don't count Dirty Day or Lemon as highlights of Zooropa. The title song on that album is one of my favorites of U2, however.. Anyways, the point of my post wasn't to say how U2 was better than Queen. It was to say that U2 isn't as bad as people think of them to be. Unfortunately, when you release nothing but shit albums over 2 decades,not to mention push one of them out for free to anyone with an iPhone, you start to lose credibility and you tarnish your legacy. The Rolling Stones have learned that, U2 has not. |
| Holly2003 23.08.2019 08:39 |
U2's fairly basic musical vocabulary limited what they were capable of doing. To be fair, they did make an effort to expand their horizons a bit, but it's hard to achieve when the Edge only knows about 8 chords. Queen, on the other hand ... they could play pretty much anything they could conceive of in their heads, which is why their albums are so eclectic. |
| dysan 24.08.2019 08:51 |
I remember there was a point after I had exhausted Bowie and Queen (by about early 1992) where I genuinely considered getting into U2. I knew some stuff and they seemed a bit more appealing than, say, The Cure or any other of the previous generation of 'current' bands. I just couldn't do it. However at that time Suede and the Manics came along and pretty much opened up the door to my next 5 years of musical adventures so I dodged a bullet there. I also dodged a bullet because just before they became my sound of '92, I also got into L7 and Ugly Kid Joe. Happy memories. Anyway, a couple of years later my pal played me a few then current U2 things (Zooropa etc) and I think I could probably make a good side of a C90 of my fav bits from their career. My U2 folder is of a healthy size (largely unplayed TBH) and am still yet to buy a record. |