| Shane Jazz 07.06.2004 02:54 |
In reading music reviews, I often times see a certain song, or a certain group, being referred to as "Beatlesque". In got me wonderin' which Queen songs could be described as such. The logical first candidate is Need Your Loving Tonight, with its "oooh I need your loving" refrain (very reminiscent of Eight Days a Week) But what other songs are comparable to the Beatles' sound? I could see Who Needs You fitting in with the "anything goes" attitude of The White Album. |
| Flashman 07.06.2004 03:00 |
Let me be the first to comment that the Beatles' little ditties couldn't possibly compare with Queen's stunning masterpieces. That aside, 'Lazing On a Sunday Afternoon' sounds a bit like a shit song by that overrated bunch of Liverpudlian tossers that you mentioned, though I'm buggered if I can remember what it was called. Something rubbish, I expect. |
| Whisperer 07.06.2004 03:07 |
Flashman wrote: Let me be the first to comment that the Beatles' little ditties couldn't possibly compare with Queen's stunning masterpieces.I agree 100%. The Beatles' songs are no better than the Britney/Aguilera/boyband songs of today. |
| pma 07.06.2004 03:15 |
Well, on occasion I've been told that bits of "Rocky Racoon" and "Spread Your Wings" bare similarites. However since both of the songs are unbearable bullcrap, that lyrically make 4th grade poetry contest winners shine in comparison... well you get my point. (as if I was trying to make one) |
| pma 07.06.2004 03:17 |
Double post. Oh PS. You have to have the musical taste of a guy who likes Modern'fuckin'Talking (for the love of God!) to compare Beatles to Britney and such. |
| Daburcor? 07.06.2004 04:02 |
pma wrote: Double post. Oh PS. You have to have the musical taste of a guy who likes Modern'fuckin'Talking (for the love of God!) to compare Beatles to Britney and such.That is quite scary... Despite what some people think, The Beatles WERE a good band. Sure, They weren't the best band ever, But you have to think... Without the Beatles, There's a good chance that a lot of our favorite bands wouldn't have come to be (or they'd be REALLY different). I don't see Britney Spears inspiring any young musicians into making anything ANY different than the crap she's peddling. Comparing her, and others like her, to an actual BAND like the Beatles is just plain asinine. |
| Farlander 07.06.2004 04:15 |
Well, "Life is Real" is obviously very much in the Beatles style (Lennon in particular). That was deliberate, of course. In my opinion, that song showed the true brilliance of Freddie's writing ability - how he could write a song so in the style of someone and yet have it retain so much of his own, original style as well. One of the most underrated Queen songs, in my opinion. |
| Daburcor? 07.06.2004 04:23 |
I SO agree with you Farlander! A brilliant song indeed! |
| Somebody to loveeeee 07.06.2004 04:33 |
Bohemian Rhapsody and A Day In The Life are quite alike. I used to think that The Beatles were bad too. That was before I understood music. |
| Whisperer 07.06.2004 06:08 |
pma wrote: Double post. Oh PS. You have to have the musical taste of a guy who likes Modern'fuckin'Talking (for the love of God!) to compare Beatles to Britney and such.My point was that most The Beatles songs (at least their hits) are simple pop songs that have no complicity. I didn't say there's anything wrong with it. Personally, I enjoy simple songs with a nice melody (which is a factor that is absent from most rock songs). That's also why I like Queen of the 80s much much more than the Queen from the 70s. What comes to Fucking Talking, they never tried to be a band respected by the critics and other people who think that they understand music. I really prefer Dieter Bohlen's catchy, simple and in some songs touching melodies to all that shit that McCartney, Lennon & Co. have written (yes, I have listened to a lot of their songs just to find out what is so good about them). I went a lot out of topic there. Sorry! Just one last thing: All you people who critisize dance music, listen to Mr. Bad Guy. There's your hero singing Modern Talking-styled songs. And what about Queen's last big hit You Don't Fool Me... |
| Whisperer 07.06.2004 06:14 |
Sorry, must say one more thing. I understand perfectly what The Beatles did to pop music and I'm aware of the fact that the Queen members were fond of them. My point is just that their songs weren't more special than the pop/dance songs of today (that rock fans seem to hate). The only difference was that they made songs like that before anyone else had done it. Something I have never really understood is this: Queen liked noice like Jimi Hendrix and Led Zeppelin (they have a few good songs too), but their own songs were so good and different from that crap. Foo Fighers like Queen, but all they do is make a lot of noice wihout any melody. |
| Simmer 07.06.2004 07:01 |
A Human Body is also kinda Beatlesque... |
| Whisperer 07.06.2004 07:47 |
Back to the topic: Long Away |
| SallyJ. 07.06.2004 08:12 |
Whisperer wrote: Sorry, must say one more thing. I understand perfectly what The Beatles did to pop music and I'm aware of the fact that the Queen members were fond of them. My point is just that their songs weren't more special than the pop/dance songs of today (that rock fans seem to hate). The only difference was that they made songs like that before anyone else had done it. Something I have never really understood is this: Queen liked noice like Jimi Hendrix and Led Zeppelin (they have a few good songs too), but their own songs were so good and different from that crap. Foo Fighers like Queen, but all they do is make a lot of noice wihout any melody.The Beatles were special indeed, simply because they were the 'First Kids on the Block'. It'd never been done before, they changed music completely. It was all new, not only the music but also the sound technique, etc. And they surely didn't only write 'poppy' music, they wrote all sorts of songs. From soft songs like Black Bird, to loud songs like Helter Skelter. By the way, being influenced by a band doesn't mean you copy them. It could also mean you just want to go out and buy a guitar and start a band. There's the influence the Beatles had on young people in the sixties. Perhaps Queen would never have existed if it hadn't been for the Beatles... |
| Mr. Scully 07.06.2004 08:16 |
I never liked the Beatles but many of their songs were clever and with better drummer, guitar player and singer they could sound fabulous. I saw McCartney yesterday and I absolutely loved the gig. Of course they can't be compared to Queen but they're legends and certainly far ahead of most "modern" bands. |
| Sebastian 07.06.2004 08:30 |
John's early songs were mixed very Beatle-esque. Before 'Another One Bites The Dust' |
| emy 07.06.2004 08:37 |
Whisperer wrote: Sorry, must say one more thing. I understand perfectly what The Beatles did to pop music and I'm aware of the fact that the Queen members were fond of them. My point is just that their songs weren't more special than the pop/dance songs of today (that rock fans seem to hate). The only difference was that they made songs like that before anyone else had done it. Something I have never really understood is this: Queen liked noice like Jimi Hendrix and Led Zeppelin (they have a few good songs too), but their own songs were so good and different from that crap. Foo Fighers like Queen, but all they do is make a lot of noice wihout any melody.can I just say that your comment about the beatles doing something that nobody had done before is a complete load of dog doo. They took influences from all over the place and made it there own just like every other band on the planet has ever done. i'll give you some examples: 1) the verse of 'can't buy me love' is a 12 bar blues 2)'Get Back' is atlantic soul 3) Lady Maddona is piano blues 4) Taxman is Tamla Motown/Music Hall 5) Act naturally is country and western 6)c eight days a week is of black vocal group tradition the first beatles album is obviously were there roots are going to spotted most easily and you can tell that they listened to R'n'B, motown, rock'n'roll and standard pop songs. whilst saying that can i also add, What the hell? the beatles, first of all are a lot better than a lot of you seem to be giving them credit for. yeah, i admit, in the beginning their songs were all just simple pop love songs. however, as the sixties went on their music became more and more complex and stunning. and your comment on the fact that they were only making pop songs that were nothing special. what's wrong with a pop song? a good pop song is great to listen to. pop has become a dirty word. and the foo fighters? listen to times like these, and if you don't hear the great melody lines in that then you must be deaf. give them a little credit too please. at least we know they have great taste in nusic. |
| YourValentine 07.06.2004 09:09 |
"I really prefer Dieter Bohlen's catchy, simple and in some songs touching melodies to all that shit that McCartney, Lennon & Co. have written (yes, I have listened to a lot of their songs just to find out what is so good about them)." To each their own but someone who prefers Dieter Bohlen to The Beatles cannot be taken seriously. You don't have to like a band's music to recognise the musical value. Leonard Bernstein called 'Lennon/McCartney geniusses and I would like to see more of his openminded view on "other music" in this world. To call Led Zeppelin and and Jimi Hendrix "noice" just shows that you would not recognise good music when it hits you in the face. Again - you don't need to like it but you can still realise quality even if you yourself prefer Milli Vanilli. |
| Whisperer 07.06.2004 09:50 |
YourValentine wrote: "I really prefer Dieter Bohlen's catchy, simple and in some songs touching melodies to all that shit that McCartney, Lennon & Co. have written (yes, I have listened to a lot of their songs just to find out what is so good about them)." To each their own but someone who prefers Dieter Bohlen to The Beatles cannot be taken seriously. You don't have to like a band's music to recognise the musical value. Leonard Bernstein called ´Lennon/McCartney geniusses and I would like to see more of his openminded view on "other music" in this world. To call Led Zeppelin and and Jimi Hendrix "noice" just shows that you would not recognise good music when it hits you in the face. Again - you don't need to like it but you can still realise quality even if you yourself prefer Milli Vanilli.I don't think that Bohlen is a musical genious and neither does he. I just said that I really enjoy 90% of his songs while I only enjoy under 10% of the Beatles songs. Why can't I be taken seriously? Do I have to like some band only because other people say it's great? Or only because it's consider technically skillful? Well, when I listen to Hendrix or Zeppelin, I mostly hear noice - guys raping their guitars. Sorry! |
| The Real Wizard 07.06.2004 11:28 |
Wow, I can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading in this topic. All I have to say is this: like 'em or not, The Beatles changed the world more than any other band or artist ever did, and ever will. If you're comparing overall musical quality to today's music, it's impossible to do so. Consider the technology of the 1960s, and then tell me the Beatles weren't years ahead of their time. Listen to other stuff from 66-67, then listen to Revolver and Sgt. Pepper. Musically, and production-wise, nobody came near them. |
| Hank H. 07.06.2004 11:49 |
It's been a long time since I read so much crap compiled in only one thread. "Just one last thing: All you people who critisize dance music, listen to Mr. Bad Guy. There's your hero singing Modern Talking-styled songs." OMG OMG. I don't want to defend Mr. Bad Guy, but the thought alone that anyone hears Bohlen through that album makes me cringe. Besides, Whisperer, Bohlen sadly DOES think he is a genius. Apart from that, I agree with what YV said. |
| Maz 07.06.2004 12:04 |
Whisperer wrote: The only difference was that they made songs like that before anyone else had done it.Apparently, innovation is highly overrated. |
| MexQueenFM 07.06.2004 13:46 |
Whisperer wrote:My thoughts, the Beatles couldn't compare to QueenFlashman wrote: Let me be the first to comment that the Beatles' little ditties couldn't possibly compare with Queen's stunning masterpieces.I agree 100%. The Beatles' songs are no better than the Britney/Aguilera/boyband songs of today. |
| Whisperer 07.06.2004 15:12 |
Hank H. wrote: It's been a long time since I read so much crap compiled in only one thread. "Just one last thing: All you people who critisize dance music, listen to Mr. Bad Guy. There's your hero singing Modern Talking-styled songs." OMG OMG. I don't want to defend Mr. Bad Guy, but the thought alone that anyone hears Bohlen through that album makes me cringe. Besides, Whisperer, Bohlen sadly DOES think he is a genius. Apart from that, I agree with what YV said.In an interview from 1990 Bohlen said that he ain't no Andrew Lloyd Webber and he isn't trying to be. Maybe his thought about himself have changed. The point is still the same - Mr. Bad Guy is mostly a pop/dance album just like most of Bohlen's stuff. Mr. Bad Guy is not a masterpiece in a musical sence and also the lyrics are mostly silly, but it's still highly enjoyable. That's what matters, not how complicated the music is. All you who critisize Bohlen, have you heard anything else by him than MT? I have listened to every single song that has been officially released by him. His catalogue certainly includes masterpieces. The variaty of his music is also huge - pop, dance, techo, schlager, rock, samba and certailnly a few other styles I have forgotten to mention. Please don't forget that we are talking about a guy who has in Germany had more hits than anyone else and who has sold out stadiums in Germany and the Slavic countries. I guess that people in Easter-Europe have different taste in music than people in the Western World. Here are some of the best know artists with whom Dieter has worked: Bonnie Tyler, Dionne Warwick, Engelbert Humperdinck & Al Martino. |
| andYYY 07.06.2004 15:42 |
Interesting debate, I would not even begin to be so arrogant as to dictate what one person thinks is crap or good, Mike Bloomfield once said that "Music is the soundtrack of YOUR life" I say AMEN to that cos it is different for everyone I happen to like the Beatles, the songs like Queen's are disposal, who cares if they are innovative or derivative?, If it makes YOU smile, thats the Job done, if not, tune into something else. |
| Farlander 07.06.2004 21:04 |
This thread had the potential to be extremely interesting, but seems to have degenerated into a Queen vs. Beatles debate, which is really too bad. I never even picked up on the Spread Your Wings and Rocky Raccoon connection. Couldn't we get back to talking about stuff like that and leave the Beatles hatred for another thread? |
| Whatinthewhatthe? 07.06.2004 21:57 |
Remember David Bowie singing about putting out fire with gasoline? Oy..... |
| Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira 07.06.2004 22:33 |
- Someday one Day - Life is Real (obviously) |
| Shane Jazz 07.06.2004 22:54 |
Actually, the bouyant chorus of Calling All Girls is faintly Beatlesque. |
| FriedChicken 07.06.2004 22:56 |
"Please don't forget that we are talking about a guy who has in Germany had more hits than anyone else and who has sold out stadiums in Germany" That doesn't mean a damn think. David Hasselhoff had a HUGE no 1 in Germany. Maybe that says something about the germans in general, i wouldn't know |
| Holly2003 07.06.2004 23:04 |
"It's been a long time since I read so much crap compiled in only one thread." Amen. Agree also with farlander that this has the potential to be an interesting discussion, which is something Queenzone isn't exactly known for. Queen didn't try to emulate The Beatles in the same way as Oasis, but their influence can be heard in songs like "Good Company" which reminds me a lot of "When I'm 64." The Led Zeppelin influence is a lot more obvious though (new thread?) :) |
| Shane Jazz 07.06.2004 23:53 |
Before I started this thread, I was thinking of what on earth could be described as the most Rolling Stones-y of Queen's songs, and I couldn't come up with anything. The closest thing I could think of was Get Down Make Love (the main part of the song, not the vocal/sound effect interlude). |
| GonnaUseMyPrisoners 08.06.2004 01:29 |
"Good Company" was always compared to the Beatles, probably because of Beatles songs like "When I'm 64" and the like... Though I'm no Beatles aficionado, I've been told that the line "Sally J, a girl from number 4" was a tongue-in-cheek reference to SOME Beatles lyric or other. I wonder if anyone can get more specific, given these hints. |
| Jimmy Dean 08.06.2004 01:46 |
"My point was that most The Beatles songs (at least their hits) are simple pop songs that have no complicity." The Beatles revolutionized music in two ways. They prefected the "pop" song format (3 chord changes), which hits radio waves even today, and they added thoughtful complex harmonies to compete with those simpler-minded three-chord songs. Examples? Hey Jude, Let It Be, Strawberry Fields., etc... (basically everything after and including songs from Rubber Soul). What this means, is that the Beatles were genuine for their time at least, for crafting pop songs with "complicity" (and if your not convinced listen carefully to I Am The Walrus & A Day In The Life -- both of which are responsible for BohRhap). I am first and foremost a Queen fan - but anyone who tries to slag off about the Beatles being nothing more than a Liverpudlian pop band are obviously just trying to sound like a smart-ass music connaisseur. How can someone compare the Beatles to Queen? The Beatles are in every right of a much higher calibre. We are none other than Queen fans, that's why we think they're so amazing. Queen, however do hold their place as important contributers to music as they have put out great pop hits which can be heard on GrH I & II, not to mention create the first "music video", put together the greatest staged live-show, and of course wrote the two most recognizeable sports anthems ever recorded. Beatles, Queen, Zeppelin, Kinks, Elvis, & many others...they each hold their respective place in musi - competition only detracts from their achievements. |
| Wreckage 08.06.2004 04:22 |
The end of 'lap of the gods' (NOT 'revisited) always reminded me of the end of 'lovely rita'. |
| Sebastian 08.06.2004 05:18 |
Just a couple of things for now: Beatles had videos before Queen did the "first" one (Bo Rhap). And I don't see what's so complex in the harmonies of Hey Jude. Between them and Twist And Shout - Isley Brothers - the complexity is the same. Beatles weren't the best thing that happened to rock music, but George Martin certainly was |
| Oberon 08.06.2004 06:01 |
I think it's a bit harsh to say it was all George Martin. That's like saying Roy Thomas Baker is responsible for Bohemian Rhapsody. Producers lend a lot, yes, but I think in the case of Queen and The Beatles, there's a lot to be said for the fact that they wrote their own material. And I think both bands produced themseleves at various points, but in the case of Queen we know that they went back to having producers. For what it's worth, I can't make my mind up whether Queen or Beatles were a better band. I think Beatles are probably more influencial (just!), and I think that Lennon, McCartney and to a lesser extent Harrison were all great songwriters, but I think Queen, and Brian and Freddie in particular came up with some more intricate and interesting music which is why they're my favourite band. I like most of the Beatles stuff and I understand why some people say they started off writing "pop" songs, but putting it in the context of their achievements, you have to give them the credit I believe they deserve. On topic, I think most people have covered which songs are Beatlesque, and there aren't many, which is again why it is actually extremely difficult to compare the two bands |
| Hank H. 08.06.2004 11:05 |
"In an interview from 1990 Bohlen said that he ain't no Andrew Lloyd Webber and he isn't trying to be.Maybe his thought about himself have changed." Fuck Webber, since when are musicals genius. And Bohlen is and probably always was everything but modest, in Germany he's a real nuisance. "I have listened to every single song that has been officially released by him." My heartfelt sympathy. Did you really listen to those hundreds and hundreds of totally crappy Schlager tunes, advertisements...? Glad you survived it. If you really are into that stuff, may I recommend you another German mastermind by the name of Ralph Siegel? "Please don't forget that we are talking about a guy who has in Germany had more hits than anyone else and who has sold out stadiums in Germany and the Slavic countries. I guess that people in Easter-Europe have different taste in music than people in the Western World." Yes, and Bush wanted to hire him as a sound-weapon in Iraq. |
| FriedChicken 08.06.2004 11:18 |
"(and if your not convinced listen carefully to I Am The Walrus & A Day In The Life -- both of which are responsible for BohRhap)." I really don't think A Day in the Life is responsible for borhap, it isn't even similar to it, Except for the style change and the staccato chords |
| Whisperer 08.06.2004 11:47 |
Hank H. wrote: "In an interview from 1990 Bohlen said that he ain't no Andrew Lloyd Webber and he isn't trying to be.Maybe his thought about himself have changed." Fuck Webber, since when are musicals genius. And Bohlen is and probably always was everything but modest, in Germany he's a real nuisance. "I have listened to every single song that has been officially released by him." My heartfelt sympathy. Did you really listen to those hundreds and hundreds of totally crappy Schlager tunes, advertisements...? Glad you survived it. If you really are into that stuff, may I recommend you another German mastermind by the name of Ralph Siegel? "Please don't forget that we are talking about a guy who has in Germany had more hits than anyone else and who has sold out stadiums in Germany and the Slavic countries. I guess that people in Easter-Europe have different taste in music than people in the Western World." Yes, and Bush wanted to hire him as a sound-weapon in Iraq.Everyone has a right to their own opinion and that is your opinion. My opinion is that Bohlen is fabulous songwriter and producer. Of course he also has songs that are not so good, but that is just natural when you have released such amount of music. |
| Bohardy 08.06.2004 13:28 |
I'm sorry Whisperer, but although I have absolutely no idea who this Bohlen chap is, it's patently obvious you have more than questionable taste. I mean, you worship Russell Crowe, (do any women even still like the guy?) and somehow are blinded by that worship to such an incomprehensible amount that you are actually able to consider 30 Odd Foot Of Grunts even worthy of mention as a musical entity, and more insane still, you rate them as one of the best bands there is. No hard feelings mate, but there seems to be more than enough evidence to suggest you have taste issues. |
| Whisperer 08.06.2004 14:20 |
Seriously, I don't worship Crowe. I just think that he is great actor and guy with a great persona (he doesn't even try to be something he isn't). What comes to the women, yes there are lots of women who adore him (and only talk about his looks) and that's one of the main reasons why I don't visit any Crowe notice boards. 30 Odd Foot Of Grunts again, is just the kind of music that critics like. Their lyrics are about real-life-situations and the music isn't any worse than the music of the more famous bands. Anyway, I don't say that Bohlen, Crowe or even Mercury are musical geniouses. What I say is that I would rather take one cd with music from these guys than 10 cd's by The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, U2, Jimi Hendrix or Led Zeppelin. In my ears all of the bands mentioned above (except The Beatles) are pure crap with only a handful of songs that I even want to listen to (not to mention like). Do I have a wrong taste in music only because I prefer songwrites who aren't considered to be good? Can someones taste in music, art or anything like that be concidered bad or wrong? |
| Jimmy Dean 08.06.2004 15:52 |
"I really don't think A Day in the Life is responsible for borhap, it isn't even similar to it, Except for the style change and the staccato chords" a day in the life is two songs mixed into one, medley type - "i heard the news today oh boy..." straight into the noise section in order to get to the uptempo "woke up, fell out of bed..." section, and later bringing us back into the orginal "i read the news today oh boy" part -- much like BoRhap, only difference is BoRhap is an immense improvement and much more innovative in that it used opera, vocal harmonies, and very meaningful lyrics. |
| The Real Wizard 08.06.2004 17:29 |
Wow, I can't believe the number of closed-minded Queen fans there are at this board, and cannot recognize the Beatles' contribution to music. Face it - tastes aside, The Beatles changed the world far more than Queen ever did/will. |
| Whatinthewhatthe? 08.06.2004 20:33 |
I will always love the Beatles; I will always love Queen. I've never thought of comparing them, would be like comparing apples to oranges. I more or less grew up listening to both of their music (when each band was a "new group") and regard both groups as invaluable to 20th century music. Both made their own unique contributions and people keep discovering their music daily. You can't say that about a lot of bands from the past forty years! They were from different decades but that doesn't make their music any less noteworthy. John, Paul, George and Ringo Freddie, Brian, Roger and John Their names liveth for evermore..... |
| Maz 09.06.2004 01:41 |
Oberon wrote: I think it's a bit harsh to say it was all George Martin. That's like saying Roy Thomas Baker is responsible for Bohemian Rhapsody. Producers lend a lot, yes, but I think in the case of Queen and The Beatles, there's a lot to be said for the fact that they wrote their own material. And I think both bands produced themseleves at various points, but in the case of Queen we know that they went back to having producers.I don't claim to be a Beatles expert by any means, but I've always gotten the impression that George Martin was very important to the band, particularly in the way he brought the band members ideas together. I would be interested, however, in getting a better explanation of his contributions. As for the reference to Roy Thomas Baker, it's an interesting point, but does it show a bias? I doubt a Queen fan would want to credit anyone but Freddie with creating BoRap. To me, this begs the legitimate question of what did Baker do or not do while the band recorded ANATO. |
| Oberon 09.06.2004 04:21 |
That's kinda my point really about Baker and Martin. From Brian's decomposition of Bo Rhap on GH1 DVD, you get the impression that it was very much Fred's creation, that he was indeed the main force behind it. But where did the boundaries lie? I think we can safely assume that musically, he had it all in his head. The same probably goes for the other three when they wrote (Brian definitely has intimated that when speaking about how he writes). So where does Baker come in? To pull it together and be able to mix it. Well, if so, then fine. That to me doesn't detract from Fred's achievement with Bo Rhap. In the same manner, from the little I've heard of Martin and McCartney explaining how they work, it seemed very much that Lennon and Macca were the initial sources of ideas and they looked to Martin to help channel that into the right direction so it could be captured on the tape. Therefore, I feel that the roles of Baker, Martin or any other producer these two bands worked with were probably significant, but not the core of what was produced. Therefore, I feel it's harsh to say that Martin was the force behind the Beatles. |
| ariel 695 09.06.2004 15:07 |
the most beatles-esque song is leaving home aint easy. when brian sings "my love" it sounds so much like lennon |
| goinback 09.06.2004 18:28 |
The Beatles were most likely better than Queen. Still, I like Queen better personally. But we wouldn't have had Queen (as least as we know them) without the Beatles (and probably Led Zeppelin). I could see how someone MIGHT make an argument that the Beatles were just making pop tunes if they're talking about the early Beatles. But in the late '60s they were doing experimental work creating album-length works of art (rather than just singles), and pushing the technological limits of recorded sound (which Queen continued). "Revolution #9" is NOT a pop tune :) Plus they had such a dramatic influence on culture and other forms of art, which isn't easy to do. But who knows...if Queen were in the Beatles' position in the '60s, Queen may have done a lot of the same things. That would have been a LOT to do, and would be quite a longshot for any band, but yeah I guess Queen would have been capable. |
| The Real Wizard 10.06.2004 14:44 |
Excellent post. |
| Gunpowder Gelatine 13.06.2004 05:19 |
Just noticed this, but In The Lap Of The Gods (Revisited) reminds me of Hey Jude, particularly because of the lengthy fade out at the end. Someone mentioned A Day In The Life earlier in this thread, and a few of the piano chords sounded like the part in Bohemiman Rhapsody right before the operatic bit. |