~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ 28.12.2005 02:32 |
The famous Jimi Hendrix rendition of the Star Spangled Banner; Brian May's God Save the Queen. Can the two be compared? I am a fan of both Hendrix and May but I always try and defend Brian May when anyone suggests anything to the effect that he was inferior to Hendrix. And honestly, I do love most of his playing more than I do Hendrix's. However in the case with this comparison, I just can't help but love the Hendrix SBB in every single way. And that aside, albeit that GSTQ is very British and very Queen, I think May's arrangment on ANATO is by no means inspiring (boring in fact), and it's a pity that they've always played that at the end of concerts, rather than actually performing it live. For example, Party at the Palace 2002, that rendition of GSTQ was better I thought. I read in an interview that Brian May said Hendrix's use of repeats in the SPB was "indiscriminate", and then he went on to talk about his three-part harmonies etc. and his use of repeats. This aside I'm feeling guilty at not having any other defence for this Queen number, so give me your thoughts on these two tracks side by side. |
M a t i a s M a y 28.12.2005 03:48 |
Jimi Hendrix can suck Brian balls Brian's God Save the Queen is brilliant, absolutely brilliant. Jimi's "Shit Spangled Banner" is crap, absolutely crap. now I'm gonna take a little shit I love you all hahaha don't get upset it's just a joke, but I still think that Brian's GSTQ kicks Jimi's SSB's ass so hard that he might need a new ass |
Oberon 28.12.2005 12:37 |
Well, you can't really compare the two as guitarists let alone their versions of the anthems. Hendrix was a wild, free style guitarist with a lot of passion and who played an untamed kind of music. Coversely, Brian is studious and controlled, organised and well arranged. Within these tight parameters, he plays some wonderful guitar, but I can't ever see him playing behind his head or burning his guitar (even if he wasn't playing the old lady). it's just not his style at all. This is the fundamental difference. I don't think either of them could have played the pieces in the same manner as the other. and that is why they are both unique in the guitar world That's my take on it anyway |
HyP 28.12.2005 13:50 |
Probably have to give it to Jimmy because he played it live and in a way the every guitarist tries to emulate. I would have picked Brian's had he ever played it live, but they just played the same tape over and over and over! |
Music Man 28.12.2005 14:29 |
Oberon wrote: Well, you can't really compare the two as guitarists let alone their versions of the anthems. Hendrix was a wild, free style guitarist with a lot of passion and who played an untamed kind of music. Coversely, Brian is studious and controlled, organised and well arranged. Within these tight parameters, he plays some wonderful guitar, but I can't ever see him playing behind his head or burning his guitar (even if he wasn't playing the old lady). it's just not his style at all. This is the fundamental difference. I don't think either of them could have played the pieces in the same manner as the other. and that is why they are both unique in the guitar world That's my take on it anywayHe said it before I did. Brian is always rehearsed and arranged, and Jimi is always free and impromptu. They are two greats from opposite ends of the spectrum. However, I would have to go with Jimi's performance only because it was revolutionary and influenced an entire generation, whereas only Queen fans would know of Brian's magnificent arrangement. |
M a t i a s M a y 28.12.2005 15:51 |
Every musician in the world might know how to tell shit from gold |
~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ 28.12.2005 17:28 |
Ok thanks Oberon, I agree. Out of interest then, which (if any) live renditions of God Save the Queen exist, other than the aforementioned one from the Palace roof (2002)? |
j_stone2525 28.12.2005 19:30 |
HyPressure wrote: Probably have to give it to Jimmy because he played it live and in a way the every guitarist tries to emulate. I would have picked Brian's had he ever played it live, but they just played the same tape over and over and over!I might be naive, but didn't he play it live at the palace 2002? J |
newcastle 86! 16483 28.12.2005 21:51 |
jimmy always played ssp live. brian may never did. thus..............jimmy everytime |
Lester Burnham 28.12.2005 22:15 |
Considering that 'Star Spangled Banner' was impromptu and recorded using really basic live equipment at Woodstock (he didn't do a studio version, did he?) and 'God Save The Queen' was a studio creation, I'm going to go with Jimi based on spontaneity alone. Brian's may be more polished and impressive, but Jimi's is awe-inspiring, and I think Brian would be the first to admit that. |
M a t i a s M a y 28.12.2005 22:31 |
This not about live or studio but quality. It is not very profesional to impromtu something you hadn't had rehearsed before... Brian is precise and flawless. Now go suck Jimi Hendrix's dick if you want, but GSTQ by Brian LIVE AT THE PALACE ROOF is the best |
Lester Burnham 28.12.2005 22:51 |
Why the need to be so vulgar? Is it necessary? It doesn't make your argument any more correct than you think it should be. |
Erin 28.12.2005 23:31 |
MaTiaSMaY wrote: Brian is precise and flawless.*coughstepfordcough* |
M a t i a s M a y 28.12.2005 23:32 |
Suck my left ball |
Erin 28.12.2005 23:45 |
MaTiaSMaY wrote: Suck my left ballIs it chocolate and salty? |
M a t i a s M a y 29.12.2005 00:08 |
hahahahahahah capo capo no te mueras nunca :) |
Music Man 29.12.2005 01:21 |
MaTiaSMaY wrote: This not about live or studio but quality. It is not very profesional to impromtu something you hadn't had rehearsed before... Brian is precise and flawless. Now go suck Jimi Hendrix's dick if you want, but GSTQ by Brian LIVE AT THE PALACE ROOF is the bestEvery rock and roll musician will eventually evolve to the point where he realizes that what you put into a performance is far more important than the strict composition itself. |
Daveboy35 29.12.2005 09:12 |
Hi guys great topic this as a fan of both hendrix and may and what a battle of anthems ,firstly may i say to lester burnham that jimi did indeed record 'star spangled banner' in the studio and it's on his 'rainbow bridge' album which wasn't released until 1971 a year after his death. The studio version is a lot different to the 'woodstock' version as it is double tracked slowed down sped-up guitars and it's really a lot of noise nothing to the woodstock version which i prefer anyway. I prefer the GSTQ by may because it's organised well orchestrated and majestic just as it should be all that said hendrix and may are two guitarists on either side of the spectrum ,may for his organised powerful and melodic sound and hendrix for his distortion and amazing playing. Both are simply the greatest for varying reasons and legends in thier own right, may idolised hendrix when he was younger along with freddie and in my mind brian may took his place after hendrix died. |
Bobby_brown 29.12.2005 09:23 |
This could be a greater topic if we were comparing: 1- SSB in Woodstock by JH. 2- GSQ live at the Palace by BM. In these two performances you have the two oposites of guitar playing. Total improvisation and feel (Hendrix said that he couldn't remember the performance because he was in trance); Total awarness of what you're playing, because you're playing for the Queen and an entire nation, with an orchestra, on the top of the Palace's roof!! I think both are the pinacle of guitar playing and i can't choose one instead of the other, but what Brian did that day took a LOOOOT'S of courage and i doubt that any other guitar player would accept the challenge without craping it's pants!! Take care |
Lester Burnham 29.12.2005 10:36 |
I always thought that was the Woodstock version? |
Erin 29.12.2005 10:52 |
Lester Burnham wrote: I always thought that was the Woodstock version?That's what I thought, too. However, I admittedly don't know much about Hendrix. The only Hendrix CD I have is the tribute one with Brian on it..;-) |
Daveboy35 29.12.2005 15:30 |
Just in case you haven't heard it this is the woodstock version of 'star spangled banner'. Try this link link Scroll down until you see star spangled banner mp3. I have yet to find the studio version of this but i will endeavour to look and find. |
~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ 30.12.2005 04:25 |
I still haven't got an answer to my second question, namely, did BM perform any other live versions of God Save the Queen, other than at the Palace, 2002? Back to the other argument yes I must agree with the opinions of people who say that they prefered JH's because of the spontaneity etc. And although BM's is the other end of the spectrum, controlled, "majestic" et al, I still think that the A Night at the Opera arrangement of GSTQ is less than inspiring...maybe I won't say boring, lest that offends die hard lovers of everything BM lol, but I'd say it borders on it! Just my opinion. |
~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ 30.12.2005 04:29 |
Listening again to the Palace 2002 version, I think it would have been great had Brian got his guitar to really wail a bit (as at the Palace) on the album version. Just feels like there's more emotion in it, without losing all the majesty of GSTQ. Throw the three-part harmonies and whatnot back onto the original and I think you would have had a more interesting track... |
M a t i a s M a y 30.12.2005 05:42 |
OMFG!!! You're all crazy!!!! Music is not about spontaneity!!!! Music is about quality!!! If it were not about quality, then Blink 182 would be as good as Yes!! That's totally fucking crazy!!! God Save The Queen is boring just because Brian wanted it to sound AS IT HAD TO SOUND???? So if you grab any guitar and play any shit that comes to your mind, it's a masterpiece just because of its spontaneity???? For god's sake!!!! |
~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ 30.12.2005 08:53 |
Oh my you're narrow-minded. |
Lester Burnham 30.12.2005 09:56 |
MaTiaSMaY wrote: Music is not about spontaneity!!!!Who the fuck are you to tell us what music is and is not about? Music is a different thing to different people. For me, music is about feeling, not quality - what bullshit. If that was true, and everyone believed that, then no one would have re-recorded Robert Johnson's early blues recordings, because they're in such shit quality. They re-recorded them because of the feeling of what he was conveying. If I listen to 'Star Spangled Banner', I know that Hendrix is feeling what he's playing, even if it's rough around the edges and spur-of-the-moment. If I listen to 'God Save The Queen', I know that Brian is also feeling what he's playing by taking his time to painstakingly lay down each guitar track for the desired effect. There's no right or wrong answer, so fuck off with your narrow-minded shit until you can look at both sides of the coin objectively and realize that, no matter how abrasive and opinionated you are, there are going to be people in this world who don't think you're so high and mighty with your holier-than-thou attitude toward music knowledge and interpretation. |
M a t i a s M a y 30.12.2005 12:06 |
Alright, then Blink 182 is better than Yes. The Ramones kick King Crimson's ass Korn is better than Queen yeah!! music is not about quality!!! |
M a t i a s M a y 30.12.2005 12:07 |
Lester Burnham wrote:Suck my fucking dick, you motherfuckerMaTiaSMaY wrote: Music is not about spontaneity!!!!Who the fuck are you to tell us what music is and is not about? Music is a different thing to different people. For me, music is about feeling, not quality - what bullshit. If that was true, and everyone believed that, then no one would have re-recorded Robert Johnson's early blues recordings, because they're in such shit quality. They re-recorded them because of the feeling of what he was conveying. If I listen to 'Star Spangled Banner', I know that Hendrix is feeling what he's playing, even if it's rough around the edges and spur-of-the-moment. If I listen to 'God Save The Queen', I know that Brian is also feeling what he's playing by taking his time to painstakingly lay down each guitar track for the desired effect. There's no right or wrong answer, so fuck off with your narrow-minded shit until you can look at both sides of the coin objectively and realize that, no matter how abrasive and opinionated you are, there are going to be people in this world who don't think you're so high and mighty with your holier-than-thou attitude toward music knowledge and interpretation. |
Freya is quietly judging you. 30.12.2005 12:11 |
MaTiaSMaY wrote:You're going to make yourself popular..Lester Burnham wrote:Suck my fucking dick, you motherfuckerMaTiaSMaY wrote: Music is not about spontaneity!!!!Who the fuck are you to tell us what music is and is not about? Music is a different thing to different people. For me, music is about feeling, not quality - what bullshit. If that was true, and everyone believed that, then no one would have re-recorded Robert Johnson's early blues recordings, because they're in such shit quality. They re-recorded them because of the feeling of what he was conveying. If I listen to 'Star Spangled Banner', I know that Hendrix is feeling what he's playing, even if it's rough around the edges and spur-of-the-moment. If I listen to 'God Save The Queen', I know that Brian is also feeling what he's playing by taking his time to painstakingly lay down each guitar track for the desired effect. There's no right or wrong answer, so fuck off with your narrow-minded shit until you can look at both sides of the coin objectively and realize that, no matter how abrasive and opinionated you are, there are going to be people in this world who don't think you're so high and mighty with your holier-than-thou attitude toward music knowledge and interpretation. |
Lester Burnham 30.12.2005 12:20 |
MaTiaSMaY wrote: Suck my fucking dick, you motherfuckerAww, is someone bitter because I put someone in someone's place? |
M a t i a s M a y 30.12.2005 13:58 |
No, I don't mind whatever you say, I just think it's stupid to say something like that. Anyway, you can suck my dick whenever you want ;-) hahaha don't get angry it's just a joke what?? pull that gun down!! OMFG WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?? WHAT THE FU...!!! BANG! |
Freya is quietly judging you. 30.12.2005 13:59 |
MaTiaSMaY wrote: No, I don't mind whatever you say, I just think it's stupid to say something like that. Anyway, you can suck my dick whenever you want ;-) hahaha don't get angry it's just a joke what?? pull that gun down!! OMFG WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?? WHAT THE FU...!!! BANG!I think I've said this before but..You're odd. |
M a t i a s M a y 30.12.2005 14:05 |
and you still don't know me CAPO E |
Freya is quietly judging you. 30.12.2005 15:28 |
And your point is? |
Music Man 30.12.2005 16:04 |
MaTiaSMaY, you know nothing about Rock 'n' Roll, do you? Even the best of the best - your Led Zeppelins, your Yes's, your Eric Claptons, and your Joe Satrianis - they will all agree that music is not about the rigid technical accomplishments within a composition, but rather the emotion, the depth, and the feeling within a recording. Technical ability and quality are merely tools for expression; expression is the main objective. Such is the same with just about any form of art you will come across. |
M a t i a s M a y 30.12.2005 18:58 |
Alright, so Sex Pistols are better than Mozart because they feel what they play. I got your point ;-) |
teleman 30.12.2005 21:13 |
MaTiaSMaY wrote: Alright, so Sex Pistols are better than Mozart because they feel what they play. I got your point ;-)Music is subject to personal preference and as such there is room for the entire spectrum. That doesn't mean I'm going to want to own every piece of music created but I'll respect every person's right to listen to and enjoy whatever they like. As for the subject of Jimi Hendrix 'Star Spangled Banner' or Brian May 'God Save The Queen' each has its merit and I choose to have both in my collection. |
Music Man 30.12.2005 22:13 |
MaTiaSMaY wrote: Alright, so Sex Pistols are better than Mozart because they feel what they play. I got your point ;-)Are you implying that Mozart didn't put every little piece of himself into every one of his compositions? You're wrong, and Mozart was just as spontaneous, even moreso, than most modern musicians. |
M a t i a s M a y 30.12.2005 22:35 |
How can you prove that Sex Pistols don't feel what they play??? You can't so music is not about feeling, 'cause then Linkin Park would be as good as Beethoven. |
Music Man 30.12.2005 22:57 |
MaTiaSMaY wrote: How can you prove that Sex Pistols don't feel what they play??? You can't so music is not about feeling, 'cause then Linkin Park would be as good as Beethoven.So how do you know that Linkin Park's music is more expressive than Beethoven's? Music is different for every person, and if he accomplishes what he sets out to do, then he has succeeded. If you want to merely measure in technical terms, go ahead, but do not hide it under the misnomer of "musical talent." |
Tero 31.12.2005 04:11 |
I wonder how anybody can tell exactly how passionate Wolfie or Louis sounded when they were performing their own compositions... I don't think there are recordings from that era. :P Every single classical piece is interpreted by the orchestra and its conductor, and to a lesser degree every rock/pop piece is interpreted by the producer. Then there's the added trouble of different people having different types of equipments, hearing the music differently in the first place... And of course there are biological resons why some people hear more or less than others. After all that we come to personal preferences! Some people think the guitar is the most important instument and tend to ignore others, while some people are more interested in the singer's performance. There are even people who think that any musical instrument (and piece) more recent than 1900 is lousy, noisy, and doesn't require any musical skills to play. It would be simplistic, impossible, and downright stupid to try to cut it all down to "song/performance/performer A is better than B". And why would anybody want to do that? Isn't it enough that YOU like something? |
~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ 31.12.2005 06:32 |
Thanks for this, will download it now... |
~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ 31.12.2005 08:21 |
No, unfortunately it's exactly the same (well to my ears anyway) as the Woodstock version, just with the audience noise taken out. It's also suspicious in that the beginning (lots of audience noise) and the ending (fade into Purple Haze) is cut out somewhat. |
Oberon 31.12.2005 08:58 |
I'm sure the SSB version on the "Cornerstones" CD must be a studio version. This is the one I think about when I think of the track. From the CD notes: "Star Spangled Banner - recorded by Jimi playing multiple guitar parts on 16-tracks at the Record Plant on 18th March 1969. Along with 1983 (a merman I should turn to be), the Star Spangled banner is Jimi's most complex studio recording. it appeared on the second posthumous Hendrix album, Rainbow Bridge, released on October 1971" So there was a studio version (and if you listen to it, it can only have been in the studio IMO). So they can be compared live (Woodstock and party at the Palace) and from the studio. and I still think that the difference in approach means that you can't really compare them... |
M a t i a s M a y 31.12.2005 10:55 |
Music Man wrote:you really can't prove whether it's more or less expressive, that stupid thing about "feeling" when playing can't be proved too, so you can't really say that feeling and spontaneity make a good song or a good artist.MaTiaSMaY wrote: How can you prove that Sex Pistols don't feel what they play??? You can't so music is not about feeling, 'cause then Linkin Park would be as good as Beethoven.So how do you know that Linkin Park's music is more expressive than Beethoven's? Music is different for every person, and if he accomplishes what he sets out to do, then he has succeeded. If you want to merely measure in technical terms, go ahead, but do not hide it under the misnomer of "musical talent." But you can meaure techinical terms, as you said. So we've got Jimi Hendrix playing dirty, going out of tune maybe on purpose... and he didn't knew what the fuck was he doing. On the other hand we've got Brian May playing a really clean version, very accurate, very precise... you can notice he has rehearsed it, as it should always be. |
teleman 31.12.2005 13:55 |
MaTiaSMaY wrote: But you can meaure techinical terms, as you said. So we've got Jimi Hendrix playing dirty, going out of tune maybe on purpose... and he didn't knew what the fuck was he doing. On the other hand we've got Brian May playing a really clean version, very accurate, very precise... you can notice he has rehearsed it, as it should always beI think Henrix "knew what the fuck was he doing". I don't think you know what you are on about. Insulting people, telling them to suck your dick, being argumentative etc. Hendrix's Star Spangled Banner was an aural assault designed to express and reflect the emotions of a generation pissed off about the war in Viet Nam rebelling against a repressive society. Brian May's GSTQ is a layered arrangement which isn't harmonically very complex(nor should it be). It is not challenging nor rebellious. It is pleasant to listen to but doesn't elicit a visceral response the way Hendrix's Star Spangled Banner did the first time I heard it. SSB was a groundbreaking performance which hadn't been done before. You might want to open your eyes, ears and mind a little. You might just discover things you would have missed out on, which make your life even better than you thought possible. Nobody said you had to like it. It just comes down to personal preference. |
M a t i a s M a y 31.12.2005 18:14 |
yeah sure you can still suck my dick :) |