| brENsKi 05.12.2004 08:01 |
i'm getting a little fed up with threads being repeated on here that say things like "why don't queen get the credit they deserve?" or "why do the press give queen no respect?", or "why the fuck are queen only fifth best band of all time?" and more recently "queen are miles better than fucking U2" Queen will ALWAYS be number one in my eyes - BUT i am grown up enough to accept WHY they aren't in everyone's view - the greatest. there are reasons people - and as much as we like this band these reasons why queen are not so universally recognised will NEVER go away. These reasons did Queen enough harm to permanently damage their rock standing. 1. without doubt their biggest failing was "losing america" - the IWTBF video, only compunded the miscalculation that was Hot Space - which lost queen their massive AOR audience in the USA, at that time 2. Freddie's reluctance to interview - obviously MM and NME took the piss in the early 70s with "is this man a prat?" headlines, but time shouldv'e healed, Freddie coulda done some music press interviews in the 80s....it would have healed a huge chasm 3. South Africa - this caused so much hurt - worldwide - Roger even went on to say thta although they didn't regrest the tour of Sun City, he did accept it may have been a miscalculation. 4. AIDS - Freddie chose the final 24hrs of his life to tell the world...granted this allowed his friends/family privacy - but the press had been "on to his" for about two years - and it was proably a worst-kept secret in showbiz. Had he come out and told the world when he was diagnosed HIV - he may have become a living (instead of dead) ambassador and public speaker while still alive - he could have done so much more good. |
| The Fairy King 05.12.2004 08:47 |
Who cares? |
| Sebastian 05.12.2004 09:01 |
I feel like Queen is a band you either love or hate. I barely talk about them with my friends (ruling out cyber-friends from this and another forum) but the ones with I had done it, either think of them as "a bunch of gays" or over-praise the "first musical video" and "combined opera with rock". The two extremes. |
| brENsKi 05.12.2004 12:47 |
that's my whole point- how the world doesn't give them critical acclaim (well enough for this forum anyhow) and WE have to keep defending the position the comment about AIDS is just that - a comment, an observation -ffs don't shoot the messenger!!! there have been other celebs who haev HIV/AIDS who "went public" early - and through their PR work following their announcments - they practically became living saints i think this was not the case with Queen, partly because Freddie made a choice of privacy over PR work |
| Mr.Jingles 05.12.2004 12:56 |
First of all, critics are nothing but a bunch of frustrated musicians, as Freddie said. Does it really matter who they praise. They think that Bob Dylan is the greatest musician of all time even though his melodies are lame and his voice is awful (good lyrics though), but obviously they forgot that being a musician consists of 3 main essential things, being #1 the most important one.... 1. Music, 2. Performance, and 3. Lyrics (being the least important out of those 3). Is really Bob Dylan that big to the eyes of music listeners around the world? Hell no, the guy is still miles away from the greatness of The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, The Stones, Pink Floyd, and of course Queen. |
| Mr.Jingles 05.12.2004 13:02 |
Sebastian wrote: I feel like Queen is a band you either love or hate. I barely talk about them with my friends (ruling out cyber-friends from this and another forum) but the ones with I had done it, either think of them as "a bunch of gays" or over-praise the "first musical video" and "combined opera with rock". The two extremes.That depends on who are you talking to about Queen. Most people who truly know good music(either in The States, or anywhere else) constantly praise Queen's legacy in the world of rock n' roll. They are not necessarily Queen fans, but they have to admit that Queen was indeed was one of the most important rock bands ever, and they did a lot to break new ground and influence a great generation of musicians in the past 25 years. Just take a look at the hadful of huge music stars that paid their respects to Freddie Mercury at the tribute concert in 1992. |
| Kai Kurgan 05.12.2004 13:31 |
I guess, Freddie never had the ambition to be an ambassador or something like that. He wanted to put all his energy in the one thing he loved most in life: his music. And that´s what he wanted to do be remembered for, i think. Surely, it could have been a role model in the fight against this terrible disease if he told the world earlier and engaged in prevention work. But makes it Freddie less admirable because he wanted to keep his privacy till the end? I think: no. I admire him as a brave man who shows us in an admirable way not to give up and to live your dream. |
| egret 05.12.2004 13:43 |
These reasons did Queen enough harm to permanently damage their rock standing.My apologies for kneejerk Freddie-defending, but I was staggered by the lack of internal logic. Why would a guy who disliked interviewing suddenly want to publicize sensitive information about his private life? From all accounts, he didn't like talking about his illness even with those close to him; he would have made a lousy "ambassador" and anyway, what sort of role model did he ever hold himself out to be? And of course, if he'd been busy doing AIDS outreach, when would he have made The Miracle and Innuendo? At any rate, I think Queen have done OK for themselves. --Egret |
| PabloArg 05.12.2004 13:57 |
The Fairy King wrote: Who cares?It ain't the first time you do this kind of comments. If the number of visitors to this page is greater that the replies to any posted topic, then it means that not everybody is interested in everything. And that's right. But if you don't like reading a topic in particular, don't keep on reading it, and better yet, don't reply it. Just don't underrate other people opinions. |
| brENsKi 06.12.2004 13:17 |
marchofthedirtqueen added: Yeah, maybe he loved attention but wouldn't you rather hear about how your album flopped/sky-rocketed as opposed to constant "Freddie Mercury has AIDS" it wasn't about attention - it was about doing something positive about the illness - and he didn't have AIDS from the start - he was HIV for a few years...and may have been able to give something back - and before you ask that's not a criticism, it's an observation and as for your comments like "Fuck them, darling, if they can't take a joke..." and So he was stubborn, what's who gonna do about it now? you have missed the point - as have afew others...my original point was directed at those who claim (defensively) that queen don't get enough critical acclaim....those were FOUR observations of WHY i think they don't i'm not interested in whether queen gave a fuck about america etc....i have stated my observations on why they didn't get the acclaim many think they should have....and i think in that context - if you read my thread again...it's accurate |
| deleted user 06.12.2004 15:02 |
We can't change the past, don't complain about what Freddie should or shouldn't have done. I think we are lucky to have their music, and who cares if other people don't like it? |
| brENsKi 06.12.2004 17:48 |
again - nothng i've said here is a criticism of the band- it's merely identifying the reasons why - possibly to explain to those who don't understand why it's not about saying i think queen weren't great because...it's about telling all those who say "why don't queen get enough respect?" this is why - now accept it and move on |