| LadyMoonshineDown 06.03.2006 18:22 |
Queen constantly tried new things, new genres, and certainly new looks. In short, they were innovative pieces of magic, always aspiring to new heights in both their songwriting and their musical compositions. For such an innovative band that, for the most part, went against the tide of their generation, why are so many of the fans stuck on the perils of innovation in THIS generation? Queen wasn't about sticking with the same old stuff; read some of the quotes from Freddie, and even he will tell you that. So why should we use our favorite band as an excuse to only limit ourselves to the music of the past? It is almost a tad bit hypocritical,seeing that the people who "hate the music of today" are such diehard fans of Queen. What tide are you riding with? Or are you going against it? I don't know. It was just a thought that came to mind. Cheers |
| bohemian_queer 06.03.2006 19:37 |
Really good point. I am one of those people who limit themselves to Queen music, but I'm not ignorant enough to deny it. A lot of today's music is rap and hip hop. Personally, I can't understand a damn thing they're saying. A majority (not all) of the lyrics pertain to things I don't enjoy listening to: violence, sex, drugs etc. I enjoy a bit of today's music (Jack Johnson, and a bit of pop/punk), just not most. I suppose I like Queen's music predominantly, because it was so varied in its style, and the lyrics are relevent to how I feel. Today's music isn't ALL rubbish, it's just a little harsh on the ears.. (screamo, emo, rap etc) |
| user name 06.03.2006 21:55 |
Because most of today's music is comprised of several bands all being carbon copies of each other (no room for originality - that might hurt record sales), while simultaneously degrading the quality of music, and consistently lacking talent. That's pretty much why. |
| LadyMoonshineDown 06.03.2006 22:23 |
Musicman wrote: Because most of today's music is comprised of several bands all being carbon copies of each other (no room for originality - that might hurt record sales), while simultaneously degrading the quality of music, and consistently lacking talent. That's pretty much why.Oh, don't tell me that the seventies didn't have no talent hacks, either. But tell me--what other bands, aside from mainstream; indie label, do you know of? Wait, maybe I shouldn't have asked that; it might be a google search so someone can post bands on here but not really have the knowledge on them. Nevermind, I take that back. Cheers |
| AmeriQueen 07.03.2006 00:03 |
Queen was about being professional, and about giving their audience the best. That sounds obvious, but I think it kind of relates to their biggest problem as a band. I feel that looking at their career, I can some up their issues by looking at who they are and when they were. By this I mean: 1. Queen had a realistic, commercial concept of putting on a show both theatrically, and musically, making well received music. 2. This was the 70's when they tried to do this. Think about it, it's the 70's, The Beatles have made their splash and now we have the greatest gathering of bands trying and succeeding at turning Rock music into a higher than previously thought of art form. Then you have these 4 pompous seeming(because they had no patience with the media or any other sub-intelligent factors. We have Zeppelin doing albums without singles, then we have Queen releasing singles and introducing a large amount of theatricality. It's as if they were trying to hard, by their pulling in other supporting elements besides their music. They seemed to some to posers, trying to make a corporation out of a genre at it's most artistically superior time in history. That would in context create a sort of content. What sadly resulted was Queen having a certain leverage of content clouding or tainting the attitude of taking them serously, and to add to that Queen's material itself never took itself too serously. The result is that a song about something silly, or a vaudeville Queen bit, would not get it's do, and the critics wouldn't realize that this corporation was in fact very good in what they did. The artistry often got tainted by a taboo sense of wanting, a sort of band against the grain by trying to stand for their music, rather than by having their music stand for something else. Queen was for the most part, like everyone else, a band that grew from existing influence, rather than from a vortex. They just took a sound and stamped it, taking the stlye/concept almost always further than it had been before. WIth Queen, it's all about craftsmanship, providing the better vocals, better guitar, better piano and better overall recording of sound. They are sonic artists more than lyristic sages. All and all, Queen did music a little to good to make their critics comfortable, hence they faced a backlash. It's as if they downgraded the efforts of others(probably because they made it look so damn easy). I am just happy that along my experiences in life, I got to become aware of the beautiful force of art/culture that is Queen. Last thing: Queen's most innovative effort of all(in my humble opinion) ends up beaing the unequaled beauty of the Red Special and it's musical possibilities. |
| rockyracoon 07.03.2006 02:29 |
Beautiful post, AmeriQueen. Thank you. |
| Oszmercury 07.03.2006 09:31 |
Music ain't crap now, it's just different, different process of creating, we have the secret mahcines, there's sigur ros, kasabian, stars, sabya, ambulance ltd. I neve tought that Queen were a innovate band, except for May's guitar wall of sound, for me they were a very professional group, good production and a lot of versatility to create in all kind of styles, Queen was one of the best act in rock and roll history, i've no doubt bout it. I still prefer to sit down and push play and hear Mr Davis playin along with Coltrane in Kind of blue... that's not magic, no space, that's divine... |
| Boy Thomas Raker 07.03.2006 09:54 |
Queen were never an innovative band? Okay. There have been hacks since music was invented. There were some pretty brutal bands in the 70s, much as there today. However, there was so much more diversity in music then. If you look at Queen, Zeppelin, the Stones, The Who, Genesis, Yes, Supertramp to name a few, none of them sounded like the other. Now, Nickleback, Creed, Default, all of the 'rock' bands sound very similar. Chunky rhythm, soft/loud verse choruses, little virtuosity in their playing. There's still tons of great music, it's just with the advent of the internet, and the ease of recording compared to 20 years ago that the market is flooded. I read that only 300 albums a year were released by major labels in the 70s. Now it's over 3000, plus all of the other stuff like indies and DIY'ers. Tougher to make a mark. |
| firefox-inqueen 07.03.2006 15:31 |
ladymoonshinedown(creater of this post) ITS CALLED TASTE!!! |
| user name 07.03.2006 17:41 |
LadyMoonshineDown wrote:The seventies had plenty of no talent hacks. We just don't hear from them anymore. Isn't it wonderful how time has a way of eliminating the bad, and keeping the good?Musicman wrote: Because most of today's music is comprised of several bands all being carbon copies of each other (no room for originality - that might hurt record sales), while simultaneously degrading the quality of music, and consistently lacking talent. That's pretty much why.Oh, don't tell me that the seventies didn't have no talent hacks, either. But tell me--what other bands, aside from mainstream; indie label, do you know of? Wait, maybe I shouldn't have asked that; it might be a google search so someone can post bands on here but not really have the knowledge on them. Nevermind, I take that back. Cheers Secondly, I could give you a hundred bands who either don't have a label or are signed to an indie label (not to mention that "indie" can be "mainstream"), but the fact is, most of these bands are utterly insignificant. When I criticize today's music, I am criticizing the mainstream - not John's Garage Band from Springfield, North Dakota. Ultimately, I don't really see what point you're trying to make. Queen was mainstream. Led Zeppeling was mainstream. Generally, every band that has survived the test of time has been mainstream. And I am out of favor with today's mainstream. It's that simple. |