| LadyMoonshineDown 25.10.2004 00:54 |
It makes me mad when Rolling Stone gets on their high horse and dubs Public Enemy as one of the most influential bands, among the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix. Yes...The Beatles and Hendrix I can understand, but why the hell is Queen always ousted out by some no talent wonders such as Public Enemy? Why is Queen only known for their hits when all of their unheard songs and rareties are sheer brilliance? It does not make sense, but perhaps these critics only think of We will Rock you and Bohemian Rhapsody when they hear Queen. It drives me insane.... |
| Gunpowder Gelatine 25.10.2004 01:05 |
I think only Queen fans realize just how underrated they are, because we know all the hidden gems that most of the general public isn't aware of. Most just think of Queen as the band that did Bohemian Rhapsody and We Will Rock You/We Are The Champions, but don't realize that a lot of their songs were just as great, maybe even better. |
| Traveller 25.10.2004 01:33 |
I think a reason for this is that the lifes of the Queen members is not so much in the press (well maybe in the UK, but not outside). The more you are 'the news of the world', the more influental you are to some people. |
| iGSM 25.10.2004 03:22 |
Hmm, I tend to agree..they weren't really scandalous. |
| The Mir@cle 25.10.2004 03:50 |
Is Queen underrated?? I believe that that I more often hear Queen on the radio than the Stones. |
| FriedChicken 25.10.2004 04:23 |
In Holland they surely get the airplay they deserve |
| brENsKi 25.10.2004 04:43 |
i don't think queen were underrated...and anyhow isn't RS a US mag? doesn't that tell you all you need to know? queen died in the US during the 80s one other thing - when considering how influencial bands are, i think its fair to say that queen shouldn't be high up the list 1. queen cite loads of influences to them - beatles, hendrix, clapton etc 2. there aren't many band about now thta sound even vaguely queenlike - muse/dankness 3. the other bands mentioned - PE, beatles, stones, hendrix - they all have plenty of "shadows" about now |
| Sebastian 25.10.2004 05:28 |
In terms of airplay, Queen does have a lot. I Want To Break Free and others, are very well known around the globe. In terms of "respect", Queen is very under-rated. Part of it is the same "over"-play of certain hits, and the "over"-use in determinate circles. For example, many people like We Are The Champions or Bicycle Race, but very few realise the clever music behind them. Both songs - specially the latter - have tons of chords, modulations, unusual structure, etc, but Freddie managed to keep the song easy listeneable, which makes most the audience ignore the musical value of it and think of the track as just "pop". By other side, simpler songs like CLTCL, IWTBF or Radio Ga Ga make many ocassional listeners think that Queen only made very basic music (except for Bo Rhap). That part of the band's career is, unfortunately, much better known than Queen II or Sheer Heart Attack. Let alone the live material - relatively very few people have had the pleasure of hearing White Queen live versions, which are very musical. Most people know Queen for their "less musical more show" tours, like Magic Tour, in which Fred was more frontman than pianist and the songs were arranged more for entertainment, than music. |
| The Mir@cle 25.10.2004 06:04 |
Isn't that the same for other famous bands Sebastian?? I only hear the real famous hit songs of the Rolling Stones either. Another example, Toto has made a of lot songs which are musical perfect, but we only hear Africa and Pamela. |
| Perry 25.10.2004 07:20 |
Well, this kid at my school was telling me how he thought Queen were crap, and after reading my short Queen autobiography, he said 'Queen sung I Want To Break Free?', Queen sung 'Radio Ga Ga?' and it went on and on until the end of our lesson when he said 'Actually, Queen are really good'... Its just ignorance I think... |
| Perry 25.10.2004 07:23 |
Sorry I meant biography, I'm half asleep lol |
| Sebastian 25.10.2004 07:54 |
The Mir@cle wrote: Isn't that the same for other famous bands Sebastian?? I only hear the real famous hit songs of the Rolling Stones either. Another example, Toto has made a of lot songs which are musical perfect, but we only hear Africa and Pamela.Yes, of course. Look at Supertramp, great, awesome, indescribable musical gems in the early albums, but everybody knows the tracks of Breakfast. Not that I dislike that album, it's perfect. But that's it. "Just" perfect. The other albums are much more than perfect and nobody knows about them. Another example: Kansas (and the Point Of Known Return album) |
| Sonja 25.10.2004 09:25 |
Sebastian wrote: In terms of "respect", Queen is very under-rated.Yep... Not to forget the old gay and aids thing that some people seem to associate with Queen rather than their 20 year input in rock history. |
| VGB 25.10.2004 20:55 |
rant... I simply think its becasue they always changed their musical style and wern't afraid to branch into different types of music. Using the independent music scene as an example, its hard to find a band out there that doesn't break from one formula on one album. And even if they change their style moderately they still make the rest of the album sound that way, the songs really have no form of identity except lyrics. One of the only bands I've seen do this (coheed & cambria) we're ridiculed as going soft or being too poppy, they covered genres from rock to salsa to hardcore to pop to progressive in one album, and it even told a story, imagine that, depth. people are afraid of change, they want to be associted with one sound or one song, anything that threatens their identity (if a song sounds poppy or deep) they reject, this is why I believe Queen doesn't get the credit they deserve, beyond their hits (which are in fact are rather diverse themselves arn't they?)... close minded people don't know what they're missing,i can listen to pop music and hardcore music all in one day, or 2 different era Queen albums and don't give a shit cause I'm honest with myself that I like it.... |
| deleted user 25.10.2004 21:17 |
My hypothesis is: of all classic rock bands, they were touted as not being serious enough, or deep enough. Freddie said it best when he said that their performance was only pure escapism. Feel free to refute, add or elaborate. |
| KillerQueen840 25.10.2004 21:19 |
I think that Queen isn't as realized as they were during their "golden days." Not so much under rated. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 25.10.2004 22:24 |
"One other thing - when considering how influencial bands are, i think its fair to say that queen shouldn't be high up the list." Dude, there is scarcely a day goes by that someone isn't mentioning Queen as an influence. recently up and coming American act Coheed and Cambria mentioned in Guitar Magazine that they got inspiration from A Night at the Opera. Hundreds of groups and individuals are inspired by Queen, but think how hard it is to cover Queen. They were musically flawless, they sang like no rock band before or since, and Brian's guitar sound was so unique it stamped it as a Queen song. Compare the to the Beatles. Wonderful songwriters, but what's the Beatles sound? Paul's bass, George's guitar, their harmonies? The Beatles were amazing songwriters, but musically solid. Queen were amazing songwriters whose overall level of musicianship was three-fold that of the Beatles. "In terms of "respect", Queen is very under-rated. Part of it is the same "over"-play of certain hits, and the "over"-use in determinate circles. For example, many people like We Are The Champions or Bicycle Race, but very few realise the clever music behind them. Both songs - specially the latter - have tons of chords, modulations, unusual structure, etc, but Freddie managed to keep the song easy listeneable, which makes most the audience ignore the musical value of it and think of the track as just "pop"." Sebastian, you wrote something similar a while back about Freddie's gift to make difficult music accessible. I thought it was one of the smartest things ever posted on here. There are hundreds of bands playing in odd time signatures and styles that have amazing musicianship and chops, they just can't write catchy tunes. From Killer Queen to Bicycle Race, Freddie's singles featured time sigs that either used odd signatures (a few bars of 6/4 in KQ), the kitchen sink of signatures (BO Rhap), 12/8 (Somebody to Love), 6/8 (Champions) and 4/4, 3/4, 2/4, 6/8 and 9/8 (Bicycle Race). That's absolutely amazing. I bet that of the top 10 songs of all time every one is 4/4, except the number 1. I look forward to the next act that has a string of all-time classics with the use of different signatures. |
| The Real Wizard 26.10.2004 00:00 |
To add to this, I think the chord changes in Good Old-Fashioned Lover Boy and The Millionaire Waltz are absolutely brilliant. |
| goinback 26.10.2004 01:00 |
I don't think they really are underrated...maybe somewhat here in the US, but it could be worse. When you consider how classic rock stations here only play fewer than 5 songs by hugely successful and talented bands like Supertramp, Jethro Tull, ELP, Yes, etc., Queen actually get 5-10 songs in regular rotation. There are even a bunch of once-popular Rolling Stones "album" hits that used to get tons of airplay that don't anymore. I think there is just too much classic rock now that the FM stations have to be very particular in what they play (which is why satellite radio will probably take over...). Even VH1 US had Queen in their Top 10 not too long ago when making a list of the best bands. I wouldn't put too much stock into what Rolling Stone says...they've always been biased against Queen for one reason or another. RS is often considered a joke in the rock world. It's funny to look up classic album reviews in RS and see the bad reviews RS gave them lol. RS encompasses the stereotype of rock critics: they always put down things that are good because it makes them feel clever. |
| VGB 26.10.2004 01:19 |
BHM 0271 wrote: "One other thing - when considering how influencial bands are, i think its fair to say that queen shouldn't be high up the list." Dude, there is scarcely a day goes by that someone isn't mentioning Queen as an influence. recently up and coming American act Coheed and Cambria mentioned in Guitar Magazine that they got inspiration from A Night at the Opera. Hundreds of groups and individuals are inspired by Queen, but think how hard it is to cover Queen. They were musically flawless, they sang like no rock band before or since, and Brian's guitar sound was so unique it stamped it as a Queen song. Compare the to the Beatles. Wonderful songwriters, but what's the Beatles sound? Paul's bass, George's guitar, their harmonies? The Beatles were amazing songwriters, but musically solid. Queen were amazing songwriters whose overall level of musicianship was three-fold that of the Beatles.coheed rocks, they remind me of queen more than any other band today in terms of their musical abilities and diversity. I know a lot of really different sounding indepdndent artists that use queen as a influence. |
| ChristianHahn 26.10.2004 06:22 |
Hello people! I am from Germany, so don't rate my mistakes I will made in this text ;-) I think that the perfect Songs are to complicated for the major people! I don't want to say that all of those people are stupid. But I think for those people music is just entertainment! |
| Sebastian 26.10.2004 06:35 |
ChristianHahn wrote: I think that the perfect Songs are to complicated for the major people! I don't want to say that all of those people are stupid. But I think for those people music is just entertainment!That's the "rule", and in many cases it works. Either your song is clever or it's catchy, or neither. But Bo Rhap is both. Extremely complicated but extremely likeable. One only can wonder how did he do it |
| Sonja 26.10.2004 12:32 |
ChristianHahn wrote: Hello people! I am from Germany, so don't rate my mistakes I will made in this text ;-) I think that the perfect Songs are to complicated for the major people! I don't want to say that all of those people are stupid. But I think for those people music is just entertainment!Exactly! I don't know about other countries except for England where music is more than just music, it's culture... but here in Germany it's exactly like Christian said: music is just entertainment, nothing to get really interested in, people hear the songs, they like them or don't like them but they don't really care about the band and the backgrounds. Ask someone in Germany who Joe Strummer is, I tell you, out of 100 maybe 3 will know. Mention The Clash, you'll get 20 who know them, mention "Should I Stay Or Should I Go", you'll probably get more than 50 who know the song. Mention that you're a Queen fan to a 18 - 24 year old and he/she'll just laugh at you or at least be very surprised. |
| deleted user 26.10.2004 13:07 |
Try picking out Hot Space... |
| bitesthedust 26.10.2004 13:32 |
Hot Space ? Under Pressure (classic collabration, UK no.1), Staying Power, Back Chat, Las Palabras De Amor - all great songs.... |
| FredMerBul 26.10.2004 15:49 |
Queen is definitely underrated. The whole world has heard "We Will Rock You", "We Are The Champions" & that galileos from "BoRa". But a lot of people IGNORE who´s the band that play that Good songs. You have to tell them that it is QUEEN, then they star to realise that Queen is a good band with a few good songs. But that´s everything. The truth is that Queen is underrated. Just an example: Freddie or Mick J. Who´s most well known? The Doors or Queen. Everybody knows The Doors (J. Morrison), but what about Queen (& Fred)? Now at days most of the "Bands" are just a product, I mean, they don´t have talent. But they are very well known (with their awful songs). But if Queen is so brilliant why they aren´t in the place that they deserve? Who´s the guilty? I think that they never were efficiently promoted (out of Europe & Jap, I think, cerrect me). For example: In Latin America (Particulary in México) we never listen/ed anythyng about Queen (just some times). I think that Queen deserve to be recognized & mentioned as the Best Band of the world -ever-, because nobody has been able (of course nobody will be) to write like they did, to sing like they did, to play like they did, to performe like they... They just are/were the best. God Save the Queen |
| LadyMoonshineDown 26.10.2004 20:52 |
I must say....their albums leading up to A Night at the Opera were sheer genius. Not that the albums after that aren't, but come on. No one can cover a Queen song without making it sound like shit in the gutter. No one. |
| Monte: Liquorice Years 27.10.2004 03:31 |
This isn't actually answering the question but hey. Queen is extremely underrated here in shitty Australia. They get hardly any air time on the one radio station that actually plays them that i can get. But of course, this is Australia we're talking about...Queen weren't as big here as everywhere else. Damn you Australian public DAMN YOU! Pax |
| Monte: Liquorice Years 27.10.2004 04:26 |
thats right pax! Australia got told by you!! they'll think twice now! i hate australia... its too hot. and too many westies. England here i come!! and its so close to Europe! and its prettier then shitty Australia! and so much more culture! yes, 'cause i care about Whitlam (PM at one stage) and not all the royalty of Europe! Monte |
| isolar2 27.10.2004 05:03 |
Queen were/are not underrated in large parts of Europe and Japan. They might be underrated in the US (read: press / many musicians from the US rate Queen highly, however). One of the reasons (I guess) is because Queen were not a US band. They mainly had european influences in their music/lyrics/videos. Best example being the the video of "I Want To Break Free". I know many people will now think about the Beatles/the Stones. The Beatles/the Stones were also none-US bands but were/are very highly rated in the US. The reason for that is very simply. After the decline of Rock'n Roll in the late 50s/early 60s there was a "gap" that needed to be filled. Elvis was concentrating on his movie career. Though he did make some fantastic music in the early 60s, music in general had become bored... any musician with a new "sound" or "look" would be "King". Apart from the Beach Boys and Bob Dylan, there was not much interesting. Then came the Beatles and the Stones. Remember that the Beatles and the Stones had different LP releases (different songs) for the US market (to make a breaktrough on the US market) - Queen never did such a thing. Millions of 65+ Americans claim to have been at an Elvis concert in the 50s, where only 10% of them may have seen the man live in action. Same goes for those who claim to have seen the Beatles/the Stones live in the mid 60s. Remember, the world was still very innocent and very small (in terms of commmunication). Of course the younger people wanted to be part of this new generation. The world (of music) was about to change forever in the late 60s, music had lost its innocence. New groups such as Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd were about to make impact. As for the early 70s, the world would never be the same again. People were not so naive as they were 10 years before, there was more music to choose from now. The Beatles and the Stones were lucky to be in the music scene at the right time. And what about the press? Queen were never close friends to the press, except for maybe a handful of editors. They did not (and still don't) care much about what the press wrote about their music/concerts. Queen never played music that the press thought to be trendy (like punk), they gave the fans what they wanted to hear (except of Hot Space - though I still think that LP is highly underrated). Queen have always been pretty "unaccessible" for the press. Queen always acted as a group, unlike many other bands (Lennon/McCartney - Jagger/Richards - Page/Plant etc.). Queen did whatever they felt was the right decision: playing in Agentina in 1981, playing in South Africa in 1984, ignoring the US after 1982. What other band would have made such critical decisions? And then there was of course the Freddie Mercury being gay item. Queen were like a perfect marriage. Problems were kept inside the group for most of the times, pretty boring for the press. Other groups never managed to keep problems outside newspapers. |
| Sebastian 27.10.2004 05:41 |
I don't think Zeppelin is Page/Plant. By that effect we can say Queen is Freddie (most of the hits, more songs than the rest...) which would effectively be wrong. As for underrating, I live in Japan, and, while I don't talk about music very often (and when I have it hasn't been about Queen), I think that several of their songs are well aired, but not that the band is very respected in their musical skills (particularly Freddie & John). |
| Regor 27.10.2004 07:18 |
I don't think Queen are as underrated in, e.g. germany, where I come from, as it appears: Nowadays, the single-charts are in commercial focus and dominated by what teenagers buy, as they are the main target for crappy tv-stations like "viva". They are very easily attracted to any kind of trend, or better "made up"-trend, and thus spend their pocket money in order to keep up with their friends. So you can hardly find mature and quality stuff at Top10-Positions - "Quality" in music is of course a matter of personal taste, but I think no-one with working synapses considers "Barbie Girl" a musical masterpiece, so there we go. BUT: What is presented in the single-charts is not solely what sells in large figures. The album charts are a more realistic mirror of whats happening. Adults in general dont make a fuss about buying a record or following a trend, whilst teenagers do - and so it is represented in the media when another clonish boygroup causes hundreds of girls to camp outside a hotel and generally behave like nuthouse on vacation ! Queen, besides the fact that they also have quite a large "die hard"-fanbasis here, is very widely known and popular in germany, especially because of the first two GH. They get regular radio airplay mostly with the singles from "Works" to MIH. I condemn that, and would like to see more of the old album-stuff recognised, but this is the way radio works today, and at least they are represented at all. Queen saw themselves as an album band, but of course no-one complains about scoring a No. 1-single ! So a lot of people are attracted to Queen without actually knowing too much about them. Sometimes, especially in the years from Freddies death to around the release of MIH, it was even kinda embarassing, who in the public said they like Queen. As the band "Pur" did on one occasion (germans know why I consider that embarassing), and some people from the shallowbrained "Schlager"-scene (lowbrow contemporary music comparable perhaps to Barry Manilow-Stuff for all you non-germans). It was almost too common to like Queen in the mid-90s. That was based on the overwhelming success of MIH, those 80s-Hits and our beloved BoRhap becoming almost a traditional and played to death. It was also politically correct and fashionable, partly due to the aids-thing. Of course one cannot force an average music-consumer to listen to a whole catalogue of a band (with all the wonderful weird and relatively unknown tracks) he or she knows only scarcely. So it is mainly the poptunes from the 80s, but they may generate interest in more - and not only in the "Schlager"-scene... This skin-deep fandom and sketchy knowledge lessened Queens reputation amongst "serious" consumers, but that has changed in recent years, as they are not squeezed out in the media like before. My experience over the past 10 years is, that a lot of people at first make their jokes about the "old fag with the opera fetish". But after that they say "no, no, they're quite good honestly". There is a certain amount of respect ! We all know, Queen music lends itself to be ridiculed with someone singing about a "fat-bottomed-ga-ga figaro riding a bike..." But behind the jokes people like and enjoy the music, and in these days Queen are always treated with a lot of respect. I know a lot of musicians (being one myself) and ALL of them, even those who do not like Queen at all, have the utmost respect for their musical skills ! The common knowledge about music here is far better than it is presented by those spotty Britney Spears-Fans. It is always interesting to talk to people in Pubs and Clubs about their musical taste and its a great exchange of facts, figures and interpretations. Thus I was introduced to Radiohead for example. They also sell massive numbers of records in germany, although they are n |
| brian_may_wannabe 27.10.2004 09:56 |
Robbie Williams nicked We Are The Champion and Let Me Entertain You. I think he's trying to be the next Freddie, I think?! |
| 3137prof 27.10.2004 11:33 |
I would say that in public they are classed more as untrendy and people are afraid to admit to liking them. I have noticed that Don't Stop Me Now is very popular at Discos and clubs and gets people going. I would say that they have more respect within the music industry. Look at the Queen's Jubilee concert. Roger has his Drums in centre stage whilst Phil Collins had his to the side even though he played the whole concert. They also had involvment in the organising of it, aswell as the Nelson Mandela 46664 concert. The problem with the Queen music that is known is that people always copy it as well for cover versions. They don't change it about abit. eg. Travis did a carbon copy of Killer Queen. If somebody is going to sing WWRY why not do the fast version. |
| mamamia 27.10.2004 13:36 |
i am a student studying art and fashion, and Queen has always inspired me in my artwork. i don't think they are underrated at all. |
| FredMerBul 27.10.2004 14:16 |
Regor wrote: "they stand for themselves. But who cares as long as we can enjoy the songs ? Freddie wouldn't give a damn, I think." Amen, Brother! But I still think they deserve to be mentioned as the Best band ever. The have music for every single mood...They just did magic. |
| OrAnGe SoDa 27.10.2004 17:32 |
well, queen has a show here in vegas and i asked my mom if any of the members were in it and she said no.whats the point of watching it if there is no freddie brian roger or john?anyway,like cunning stunt said,they hardly get any air time over there we don't either!(that fucking sucks!!!) |
| OrAnGe SoDa 27.10.2004 17:34 |
i would like queen to be played non-stop on the classic rock radio stations here in vegas!don't some of you agree with me? |
| OrAnGe SoDa 27.10.2004 17:36 |
i'm gonna reply to you cunning stunt. from what i hear,AUSTRAILIA SUCKS!!!I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH YOU!!! |
| OrAnGe SoDa 27.10.2004 17:37 |
NOW I WANNA MOVE TO ENGLAND WITH CUNNING STUNT! |
| AlleeCat 27.10.2004 17:50 |
In the US I think mostly it has had to do with how much the public really could handle from a Rock band. I mean it doesn't take a rocket scientist to pick up on Freddie's sexuality... and their music couldn't easily be categorized. Being gay was VERY uncool at the time too. |
| Monte: Liquorice Years 28.10.2004 06:19 |
Woo say-o lets move straight away....and 'visit' Roger and Brian and John! WOOO!! Pax |
| Monte: Liquorice Years 28.10.2004 06:36 |
say-o you champ! im liking you more and more everyday! (in a non-dyke on a bike way, though i have no problem with lesbians!) you truly are a queen fan (unlike eff-ing gabby! he broke my heart!) i agree with paxy, lets move to england and stalk... i mean root... i mean, oh god! meet, meet... brain roger and john. that would be grouse! Rock on!! monte |
| Monte: Liquorice Years 28.10.2004 06:50 |
Testing 1..2..3..high as a kite...monte's a twat.... |
| OrAnGe SoDa 28.10.2004 17:49 |
hey cunning stunt,e-mail me at :sasha1386@yahoo.com!o.k?you are the coolest person i've met online!!! |
| OrAnGe SoDa 28.10.2004 17:50 |
o.k!LET'S MOVE TO ENGLAND!!england here we come!!! |
| LadyMoonshineDown 28.10.2004 19:03 |
Wait wait wait.... I started this conversation not for it to end with "gimme your email, giggle giggle giggle." lol. But ahh well, it is bound to happen. ;) |
| OrAnGe SoDa 28.10.2004 21:18 |
kool! |
| OrAnGe SoDa 29.10.2004 13:54 |
Cunning Stunt wrote: Woo say-o lets move straight away....and 'visit' Roger and Brian and John! WOOO!! Paxsure!but...when? |
| Little_Queenie 29.10.2004 19:16 |
Why are they underrated? I think it's all about the lack of promotion. As someone said, they were always pretty closed to the media, and the press mosty hated them... Today it's all about promotion. If you record 60 minutes of pure farting it will be 100 times gold only if you promote it enough. They never gave their dirty laundry in public, so they weren't interesting for media. The press usually wrote pure and utter crap about Queen. The lack of promotion also resulted with the fact that the most people know 3 of their songs. (BoRhap, WATC, WWRY). When you mention Queen, 99% of people say: "Are they those gay folks who sing MAMA MIA?" and they usually laugh. BUT, when they hear more Queen songs, they are stunned and very fast grow to like Queen very much. When they found out it was Queen who wrote Radio Ga Ga, Innuendo, IWTBF, AOBTD etc. etc. etc. And they like them even more when they hear song which were never hits, but also brilliant... You get my point, so that's why I think ignorance and the lack of informations are the main reason why Queen are underrated. |