.....believe it or not.
Ask any common fool about glam rock, and they'll name bands like Poison and Kiss. And yet, they may even mention our wonderful, beloved band Queen.
But first things first: Poison and Kiss suck a lot of genitalia. Just because you simply WEAR lipstick and dress like a haggard woman doesn't classify you as a "glam rocker." And yes, there IS such a thing as a glam rocker. With that said, let me explain further on my point.
Queen is one of the best bands to have come out in the era they did. But if anyone tells you that they were glam rock, then you need to do your duty in correcting them by kicking them in the teeth with your foot. I love Queen, and I love Glam rock (for the most part). But the two are not nessecarily compatible as far as what Glam Rock was music wise and what Queen produced music wise.
Glam rock is often thought of as men dressing up in drag, having disgustingly big hair, or, to name a band that people examplify with glam; Warrant. Well, it's not. And fuck Warrant. Glam rock was an era from 1970 to arguably 1975, although I believe it ended in '74. But the style was much more in depth than what any 80's hair metal junkie will tell you, if they're able to without already being permafried on coke. Well...
Glam was solely based on the fundamental roots of rock and roll; the easy beats and three chord songs of the fifties (i.e. chuck berry, little richard, etc). The difference, however, was the fashion, the attitude and the message Glam rockers had. I mean, can you imagine some guy with makeup singing about crazy sex through wildly risque lyrics in the fifties? Nope, didn't think so. But that's what Glam rock was: it was a movement that took place in the height of the hippie and free love movement. Granted, Glam rockers, as well as any rockers at that time, believed in free love, but Glam differed from the hippie era because it showed that conventionally speaking, boys and girls, men and women could be gender confused and be okay with it. They idolized the prospect of fame and fortune, and as shallow as it sounds, it was true. Being the world's biggest star was better than finding inner peace to Glam rockers. It wasn't men dressing up in drag. Look at David Bowie from his Ziggy era for instance; he wasn't a drag queen, he was androgynous. One can be subtely undetectable as to what gender they are without having to purposely dress like a woman and be, in lamens terms, quite fucking stupid. Other bands from the Glam era include T-Rex, Slade, Wizzard, Sweet, Suzi Quatro, Mott the Hoople, and etc. Look up and listen to these bands if you haven't already, and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Now that you know a bit of history on Glam rock (yes, there is in fact, a history), I can speak furthermore about Queen. They weren't Glam. Their music was much more complex and orchestrated to be Glam. They weren't simple little beings riffing out three beat tunes on a guitar. They weren't even really apart of the movement because they weren't as big during the time Glam took place. They experimented in every kind of genre, making them more well-rounded and undoubtedly ecclectic. Just because Freddie was gay and wore makeup and had elaborate costumes and stage decorations while on tour doesn't constitute him, or the band, to be apart of "Glam rock." Freddie was glamourous in everything he did, I'll give him that. But being glamourous and being apart of Glam rock are two different things, and most ignoramuses who limit themselves to a biased, one-genre liking will not know the difference either. Queen were something else.
But they weren't Glam.
Cheers