QueenZone discussion #858865

M a t i a s M a y<h6><i>QZ's Rainmaker wrote: If you really mean that... then, my friend, you're soooo fucked up.

M a t i a s M a y<h6><i>QZ's Rainmaker wrote: The fucking whole thread makes no sense, AT ALL!! You can't compare a masterpiece with some crappy album... it's insane. The only thing you show is that you don't know anything about music, and you listen to music with your ass.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: You have to realize, SK, that when you are talking about _art_, everything is subjective. Of course, there are people who will try to put on airs and claim, "I know more about this art form than you do, and therefore my opinion is more relevant," but that's never anything more than elitist bullshit. All that your thread proves is your personal reasoning behind favoring one album over the other. That is completely fine, and I respect that. However, when you criticize someone, claiming that you have a superior grasp of music, and that all those schooled with such knowledge (so-called "music critics" - EVERYONE WHO LISTENS TO MUSIC IS A MUSIC CRITIC) would agree with you - I just have to say, that's pretty damn low, man. I'm not supporting the other guy, because he was pretty tactless, too, but stop with the elitist bullshit. Edit: On a serious note, to critique your critique, it's not a good idea to separate the vocals into three categories and weigh them all equally. Consider you weighed Roger Taylors vocals on one song on equal footing to all of Mercury's tracks. Also, by doing this, you made the category of vocals equal to all the other categories combined. That's a classic mistake when rubricating scores. Enjoyability is a fine category, as long as you acknowledge that this is a purely subjective category, and is entirely your opinion and your tastes. As far as my opinion goes, I have to go with ANATO, simply because I enjoy it more. It's more listenable to me. The instrumentals and arrangements are light years ahead of anything Dylan has ever done. The vocals from Mercury are the most technically dazzling the world has ever seen. You could argue (it's debatable, depending on how you feel the music) that Dylan has more emotion, but Mercury has far more skill, range, and talent. It's for these reasons that I enjoy it more, and therefore there is no reason to compare "enjoyability." This is merely my opinion, however, and you all should listen to the albums to DECIDE FOR YOURSELF!!!

SK wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: You have to realize, SK, that when you are talking about _art_, everything is subjective. Of course, there are people who will try to put on airs and claim, "I know more about this art form than you do, and therefore my opinion is more relevant," but that's never anything more than elitist bullshit. All that your thread proves is your personal reasoning behind favoring one album over the other. That is completely fine, and I respect that. However, when you criticize someone, claiming that you have a superior grasp of music, and that all those schooled with such knowledge (so-called "music critics" - EVERYONE WHO LISTENS TO MUSIC IS A MUSIC CRITIC) would agree with you - I just have to say, that's pretty damn low, man. I'm not supporting the other guy, because he was pretty tactless, too, but stop with the elitist bullshit. Edit: On a serious note, to critique your critique, it's not a good idea to separate the vocals into three categories and weigh them all equally. Consider you weighed Roger Taylors vocals on one song on equal footing to all of Mercury's tracks. Also, by doing this, you made the category of vocals equal to all the other categories combined. That's a classic mistake when rubricating scores. Enjoyability is a fine category, as long as you acknowledge that this is a purely subjective category, and is entirely your opinion and your tastes. As far as my opinion goes, I have to go with ANATO, simply because I enjoy it more. It's more listenable to me. The instrumentals and arrangements are light years ahead of anything Dylan has ever done. The vocals from Mercury are the most technically dazzling the world has ever seen. You could argue (it's debatable, depending on how you feel the music) that Dylan has more emotion, but Mercury has far more skill, range, and talent. It's for these reasons that I enjoy it more, and therefore there is no reason to compare "enjoyability." This is merely my opinion, however, and you all should listen to the albums to DECIDE FOR YOURSELF!!!

Ah yes, terribly sorry bout the "I have better musical taste" that was out of anger towards the person who started some trouble. I usually never claim anything like that. Yes, I realize my review was a little flawed in the scoring sense(the 3 vs 1 vocal thing, was to compare to the vaired emotions on Queen and Dylans parts etc). I enjoyed reading your opinion on ANATO vs BOTT. This is exactly the type of discussion I desired. As for Blood On The Tracks being a personal favourite of mine, that much is true. I did try to stay un-biased though, although like you said "Enjoyability" is nothing but preference, that's why it was there, for fun you know?. Ahh..lets see. Yes, I agree. Everyone should listen to these two classic albums and write their feelings towards both. This was ment for serious discussion, on a light level friends. It's so useless to say "Dylan sucks" and stuff(see post above mine). I only hope we can all continue to discuss this, and improve on the formula. Cheers. Once again thank you for the opinion and concerns Music Man.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

SK wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: You have to realize, SK, that when you are talking about _art_, everything is subjective. Of course, there are people who will try to put on airs and claim, "I know more about this art form than you do, and therefore my opinion is more relevant," but that's never anything more than elitist bullshit. All that your thread proves is your personal reasoning behind favoring one album over the other. That is completely fine, and I respect that. However, when you criticize someone, claiming that you have a superior grasp of music, and that all those schooled with such knowledge (so-called "music critics" - EVERYONE WHO LISTENS TO MUSIC IS A MUSIC CRITIC) would agree with you - I just have to say, that's pretty damn low, man. I'm not supporting the other guy, because he was pretty tactless, too, but stop with the elitist bullshit. Edit: On a serious note, to critique your critique, it's not a good idea to separate the vocals into three categories and weigh them all equally. Consider you weighed Roger Taylors vocals on one song on equal footing to all of Mercury's tracks. Also, by doing this, you made the category of vocals equal to all the other categories combined. That's a classic mistake when rubricating scores. Enjoyability is a fine category, as long as you acknowledge that this is a purely subjective category, and is entirely your opinion and your tastes. As far as my opinion goes, I have to go with ANATO, simply because I enjoy it more. It's more listenable to me. The instrumentals and arrangements are light years ahead of anything Dylan has ever done. The vocals from Mercury are the most technically dazzling the world has ever seen. You could argue (it's debatable, depending on how you feel the music) that Dylan has more emotion, but Mercury has far more skill, range, and talent. It's for these reasons that I enjoy it more, and therefore there is no reason to compare "enjoyability." This is merely my opinion, however, and you all should listen to the albums to DECIDE FOR YOURSELF!!!

Ah yes, terribly sorry bout the "I have better musical taste" that was out of anger towards the person who started some trouble. I usually never claim anything like that. Yes, I realize my review was a little flawed in the scoring sense(the 3 vs 1 vocal thing, was to compare to the vaired emotions on Queen and Dylans parts etc). I enjoyed reading your opinion on ANATO vs BOTT. This is exactly the type of discussion I desired. As for Blood On The Tracks being a personal favourite of mine, that much is true. I did try to stay un-biased though, although like you said "Enjoyability" is nothing but preference, that's why it was there, for fun you know?. Ahh..lets see. Yes, I agree. Everyone should listen to these two classic albums and write their feelings towards both. This was ment for serious discussion, on a light level friends. It's so useless to say "Dylan sucks" and stuff(see post above mine). I only hope we can all continue to discuss this, and improve on the formula. Cheers. Once again thank you for the opinion and concerns Music Man.

Points VERY well taken. I appreciate this post and have come to a better understanding of what you have said. And, although it wasn't obvious, I understand the anger thing against Matias (trust me, it's VERY easy with him, haha). I, personally, get a little bothered by elitism in the arts (which I hold are, by definition, purely subjective), but I understand where you're coming from now. Of course, I admit I am still very willing to get into one of those silly "my band is better than your band" debates!
Of course, when judging music, it's impossible to be unbiased! That's why I love music, there's something for ev

Oszmercury wrote: Dylan is almost a God, a great poet, imho the greatest songwriter from the past century sorry Queen fans, you can't change that

Oszmercury wrote: Dylan is almost a God, a great poet, imho the greatest songwriter from the past century sorry Queen fans, you can't change that

willem-jan wrote:

Oszmercury wrote: Dylan is almost a God, a great poet, imho the greatest songwriter from the past century sorry Queen fans, you can't change that

To me music is about music. If I want to enjoy some good poetry, I'll buy the book. Therefore, I've never been able to enjoy Dylan. And yes, I've tried. So, for me, it's an easy one. Take away the lyrics from Dylans work, and you don't have that much left. Do the same for Queen, and you still get some excellent music to enjoy (in my opinion). So, no need to discuss both albums in detail here.

willem-jan wrote:

Oszmercury wrote: Dylan is almost a God, a great poet, imho the greatest songwriter from the past century sorry Queen fans, you can't change that

To me music is about music. If I want to enjoy some good poetry, I'll buy the book. Therefore, I've never been able to enjoy Dylan. And yes, I've tried. So, for me, it's an easy one. Take away the lyrics from Dylans work, and you don't have that much left. Do the same for Queen, and you still get some excellent music to enjoy (in my opinion). So, no need to discuss both albums in detail here.

SK wrote:

willem-jan wrote:

Oszmercury wrote: Dylan is almost a God, a great poet, imho the greatest songwriter from the past century sorry Queen fans, you can't change that

To me music is about music. If I want to enjoy some good poetry, I'll buy the book. Therefore, I've never been able to enjoy Dylan. And yes, I've tried. So, for me, it's an easy one. Take away the lyrics from Dylans work, and you don't have that much left. Do the same for Queen, and you still get some excellent music to enjoy (in my opinion). So, no need to discuss both albums in detail here.

That's a interesting theory, Although In my opinion Dylan has some great music as well. Blood On The Tracks music is constructed so well..I could honestly listen to a whole instrumental of it..I can't say the same for ANATO, Listening to a Instrumental of "I'm In Love With My Car" or "Good Company" no thank you :)

M a t i a s M a y<h6><i>QZ's Rainmaker wrote:

SK wrote:

willem-jan wrote:

Oszmercury wrote: Dylan is almost a God, a great poet, imho the greatest songwriter from the past century sorry Queen fans, you can't change that

To me music is about music. If I want to enjoy some good poetry, I'll buy the book. Therefore, I've never been able to enjoy Dylan. And yes, I've tried. So, for me, it's an easy one. Take away the lyrics from Dylans work, and you don't have that much left. Do the same for Queen, and you still get some excellent music to enjoy (in my opinion). So, no need to discuss both albums in detail here.

That's a interesting theory, Although In my opinion Dylan has some great music as well. Blood On The Tracks music is constructed so well..I could honestly listen to a whole instrumental of it..I can't say the same for ANATO, Listening to a Instrumental of "I'm In Love With My Car" or "Good Company" no thank you :)

That's not a musical opinion, and it's far from being a proper analisis. You're just showing how little you know, but you try to hide it with "I THINK THAT THIS IS BETTER BECAUSE I LIKE IT" "IN MY OPINION THIS ISN'T GOOD BECAUSE I CAN'T STAND IT" Those are the only things I've read till now. Let's talk about harmony, arrangements, structures, keys. Explain me WHY is Shit Dylan better than Queen, and explain me with real things, not with the shit you've been writting.

<font color=blue>Rick wrote: @SK What? Not worth listening to an instrumental of Good Company? I think this is one of Queen's best guitar-tracks. Brian did so well on this track, his guitar sounding like a complete orchestra. Nobody else could have done that at that time. Very clever stuff and Brian is for sure flying on this track.

SK wrote:

M a t i a s M a y<h6><i>QZ's Rainmaker wrote:

SK wrote:

willem-jan wrote:

Oszmercury wrote: Dylan is almost a God, a great poet, imho the greatest songwriter from the past century sorry Queen fans, you can't change that

To me music is about music. If I want to enjoy some good poetry, I'll buy the book. Therefore, I've never been able to enjoy Dylan. And yes, I've tried. So, for me, it's an easy one. Take away the lyrics from Dylans work, and you don't have that much left. Do the same for Queen, and you still get some excellent music to enjoy (in my opinion). So, no need to discuss both albums in detail here.

That's a interesting theory, Although In my opinion Dylan has some great music as well. Blood On The Tracks music is constructed so well..I could honestly listen to a whole instrumental of it..I can't say the same for ANATO, Listening to a Instrumental of "I'm In Love With My Car" or "Good Company" no thank you :)

That's not a musical opinion, and it's far from being a proper analisis. You're just showing how little you know, but you try to hide it with "I THINK THAT THIS IS BETTER BECAUSE I LIKE IT" "IN MY OPINION THIS ISN'T GOOD BECAUSE I CAN'T STAND IT" Those are the only things I've read till now. Let's talk about harmony, arrangements, structures, keys. Explain me WHY is Shit Dylan better than Queen, and explain me with real things, not with the shit you've been writting.

lol, oh man, you need to cool down, you're barely making sense mate. First of all, harmony wise, Dylan is able to control his voice and show varied emotions throughout the album. Freddie Mercury is a great singer no doubt, but in ANATO, all the songs he sings are quite poppy, it's a shame because on SHA and QUEEN II, he was just god like.because (Save for Prophet Song,BoRhap and Love Of My Life). Dylan's arrangements on Blood On The Tracks are simply superior, due to their intense use(Induces you emotionally). Queen is great at arrangements, but alas, the album is not structured as good, as "Queen II" or "A Day At The Races", ANATO suffers from the "singles" syndrom. It sounds as if they just threw together whatever they could. Blood On The Tracks was carefully structured. Dylan had no less then 30 songs already in the works. He knew what he was doing, Queen lost touch with the creativity they once had(Queen,Queen II, Sheer Heart Attack) and created an album that appeals to the masses. Dylan created an album taht appeared to intellects, to people who can handle the lyrics and beautiful arrangements. There is no doubt that Queen may seem like a more "proper" band. ANATO is no doubt, enjoyable. But to me, its as enjoyabled as "Tattoo You" by the Rolling Stones, An album that was put together without substance. In my opinion Queen's best and most creativity and mind inducing albums will always be the first three. And if you think this writing is shit, then sir, you do not know what the hell an opinion is. Also, always remember, Queen loved Bob Dylan. And I never said I couldn't stand A Night At The Opera, I just said the instrumentals for songs such as Good Company And IILWMC would not do anything for me, You can have the most complex arrangements in the world, you can overproduce music to bits, but that does not mean it will be great music. It was the simplistic, soulful music of Blood On The Tracks, that made me realize I liked it better in the end. I started this review, with a unbiased look, after carefully listening to both albums. In the end, in my opinion it was quite easy to see that Blood On The Tracks was superior by far. And as someone said in this thread earlier "Sorry Queen fans, that's something you can not ch

SK wrote: I could honestly listen to a whole instrumental of it..I can't say the same for ANATO, Listening to a Instrumental of "I'm In Love With My Car" or "Good Company" no thank you :)

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

SK wrote: I could honestly listen to a whole instrumental of it..I can't say the same for ANATO, Listening to a Instrumental of "I'm In Love With My Car" or "Good Company" no thank you :)

Until now I've welcomed your views in this topic, but if you can rate a Bob Dylan album as being musically superior to ANATO, including the track Good Company, part of which is rock music's one and only note for note arrangement of a jazz big band of electric guitars, then you really don't know what you're talking about. Bob Dylan can keep strumming his G and D chords, and Brian May will go down in history as being the master of guitar orchestration.

SK wrote: Never ment to say it was musically superior, just more enjoyable to me. I enjoy the instrumentals of Blood On The Tracks. It sounds amazing and such. It's quite beautiful really.

SK wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

SK wrote: I could honestly listen to a whole instrumental of it..I can't say the same for ANATO, Listening to a Instrumental of "I'm In Love With My Car" or "Good Company" no thank you :)

Until now I've welcomed your views in this topic, but if you can rate a Bob Dylan album as being musically superior to ANATO, including the track Good Company, part of which is rock music's one and only note for note arrangement of a jazz big band of electric guitars, then you really don't know what you're talking about. Bob Dylan can keep strumming his G and D chords, and Brian May will go down in history as being the master of guitar orchestration.

Never ment to say it was musically superior, just more enjoyable to me. I enjoy the instrumentals of Blood On The Tracks. It sounds amazing and such. It's quite beautiful really. @Matias, you have no opinion on this matter till you've listen to both albums. So keep on barking. And yes, I do know about harmony, if you really want a real sense of harmony, I suggest you go out and buy Pet Sounds. then again, I wouldn't exspect someone like yourself to enjoy such an album. Cheers.

<font color=pink>The Millionaire Waltz wrote: Kinda makes no sense to ask for unbiased opinions on a Queen fansite.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Complicated music theory does not make good music. Pop-iness does not make bad music. Any music that appeals to anyone is good music, but just not good to everyone. It's subjective, guys! Stop making excuses for your opinions!

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Complicated music theory does not make good music. Pop-iness does not make bad music. Any music that appeals to anyone is good music, but just not good to everyone. It's subjective, guys! Stop making excuses for your opinions!

M a t i a s M a y<h6><i>QZ's Rainmaker wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Complicated music theory does not make good music. Pop-iness does not make bad music. Any music that appeals to anyone is good music, but just not good to everyone. It's subjective, guys! Stop making excuses for your opinions!

And you call yourself "music man" SHAME ON YOU To Lester: SHUT THE FUCK UP

M a t i a s M a y<h6><i>QZ's Rainmaker wrote: I know that it doesn't matter how complex is something, but this guy is telling that Dylan's music is harmonically better than Queen's. And, realizing that he probably doesn't even know what a I-IV-V is... I'm afraid that someone might actually believe what he says. But you know that music is not subjetive!! There are lots of things that helps you to tell whether something is good or bad. No matter if it's an instrument, a singer or a whole song. Some rules can't be "broken." After all, all the harmony stuff are not rules (they're not... now; we both know that some of them used to be), harmony is the main tool to make a song. You can make whatever you want with harmony (trying to make sense, of course). But things such as rhythm, intonation, and things like that... you just can't say that no matter what, it's always music and it's good if someone likes it, that's just crazy. You're destroying years and years of study and effort, and elaboration and work. If so, music would be the same... then The Ramones would equal Mozart, and no matter what, I'm never gonna say or think something like that (and if I do, KILL ME). I believe that the most important thing when making music, is how much you work on your song. The song itself is just the 50% of the final thing... the other 50% is the work you put on it. Dylan's music has always been a 3 or 4 chords thing... and I'm not saying that it's bad because of that, but they're ALWAYS 3 or 4 chords!!! He does that because he doesn't have the brains to do something better!!! And there's not even a little work on those songs, they're recorded in one day and that's how those albums are made... And ANATO with ADATR are my favourite albums ever, because I always thought that they're above everything (or almost everything) ever done in rock history. And as I grow up and learn new things, I'm just realizing how right I am!! I can't find nothing but a band of geniouses there. All the work, all the effort, the creativity and how they planned EVERYTHING to make them sound flawless and perfect... everything's done so carefully, and that's the thing I admire the most. And I'm not gonna allow some idiot to say that some abum with crappy songs recorded in 15 minutes is better than one of the very best masterpieces ever.

Lester Burnham wrote: I don't see how anyone can attempt to take Matias seriously ever again. Personally, I love both albums but for very different reasons. If you were to compare, say, Blood On The Tracks with The Who By Numbers, then it would spark interesting debate because of the personal natures of each album; however, you can't really compare two albums that are so different as Blood On The Tracks and ANATO.

M a t i a s M a y<h6><i>QZ's Rainmaker wrote: I know that it doesn't matter how complex is something, but this guy is telling that Dylan's music is harmonically better than Queen's. And, realizing that he probably doesn't even know what a I-IV-V is... I'm afraid that someone might actually believe what he says. But you know that music is not subjetive!! There are lots of things that helps you to tell whether something is good or bad. No matter if it's an instrument, a singer or a whole song. Some rules can't be "broken." After all, all the harmony stuff are not rules (they're not... now; we both know that some of them used to be), harmony is the main tool to make a song. You can make whatever you want with harmony (trying to make sense, of course). But things such as rhythm, intonation, and things like that... you just can't say that no matter what, it's always music and it's good if someone likes it, that's just crazy. You're destroying years and years of study and effort, and elaboration and work. If so, music would be the same... then The Ramones would equal Mozart, and no matter what, I'm never gonna say or think something like that (and if I do, KILL ME). I believe that the most important thing when making music, is how much you work on your song. The song itself is just the 50% of the final thing... the other 50% is the work you put on it. Dylan's music has always been a 3 or 4 chords thing... and I'm not saying that it's bad because of that, but they're ALWAYS 3 or 4 chords!!! He does that because he doesn't have the brains to do something better!!! And there's not even a little work on those songs, they're recorded in one day and that's how those albums are made... And ANATO with ADATR are my favourite albums ever, because I always thought that they're above everything (or almost everything) ever done in rock history. And as I grow up and learn new things, I'm just realizing how right I am!! I can't find nothing but a band of geniouses there. All the work, all the effort, the creativity and how they planned EVERYTHING to make them sound flawless and perfect... everything's done so carefully, and that's the thing I admire the most. And I'm not gonna allow some idiot to say that some abum with crappy songs recorded in 15 minutes is better than one of the very best masterpieces ever.

Onikage wrote: Yeah, but not everything that's complex is enjoyable. Let's take a look at this guy: link What wins? This complex song, or, for example, the simple Last Horizon?

Lester Burnham wrote: Matias, I won't shut the fuck up until you at least address me intelligently. You had no right to go out of your way to call the mild-mannered SK a cocksucker for no apparent reason. Yes, you seem to know a lot about music, but people have different tastes than everyone else, and even if you hate Bob Dylan (or Shit Dylan or Bob Shitlan as you so eloquently rechristened him), that doesn't mean everyone else has to either. I don't need you telling me that I should think Blood On The Tracks is a terrible album. If I listened to a technically complex recording that I felt sounded sterile and bland, I would think, "Well, this is okay, but there doesn't seem to be any feeling here." When I listen to Blood On The Tracks, I'm not attracted to Dylan's voice or however many (or few) modulations he puts into his music; hell, I don't even know what modulations are. I just listen to the overall presentation, and I think it's his most honest and personal album, and the way that he sings the album is superb. When I listen to A Night At The Opera, I know it's a great, well-produced and intelligent album, but neither Dylan nor Queen compare to each other at all. I don't listen to how many notes are played or how technical a piece is. I just listen to the song. And that's what separates me from all the technical buffs here, but I just think there are better ways to express yourself than constantly jumping onto the defensive, and I'm sure you have the ability to express your opinions better than a constant slew of obscenities and name-calling. I'd like to see you respond intelligently to this instead of telling me to shut the fuck up, because I think I bring up a few good points regarding these two albums. Think about it.

Onikage wrote: Yeah, but not everything that's complex is enjoyable. Let's take a look at this guy: link What wins? This complex song, or, for example, the simple Last Horizon?

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

Onikage wrote: Yeah, but not everything that's complex is enjoyable. Let's take a look at this guy: link What wins? This complex song, or, for example, the simple Last Horizon?

This guy bored me after a minute. He has spent his whole life getting so technically good, but chances are he'll contribute nothing to the world of music. I'd much rather spend my time on songwriting, because that's what connects with people. I don't think the point of music is go fly over people's heads. But hey, there are people who are happy simply to play for 5 people who will tolerate them. To each their own.