| SomebodyWhoLoves 27.02.2007 23:29 |
Cool video where Brian says John Lennon is probably the great rock star...next to Freddie! I'm glad that Brian said, next to Freddie, because it is true. Freddie was the greatest. :) link |
| Saif 28.02.2007 03:07 |
Well...Brian was Freddie's friend...what do you expect. :P Anyway, no star or legend can match the reality of Freddie Mercury... |
| Elizabeth Knightson 28.02.2007 05:16 |
Well, you go on stage and try to tell a massive crowd of thousands of Queen fan that Lennon is the greatest rock star ever (and not adding anything)...you might meet Lennon (and Freddie) if you do. |
| sparrow 21754 28.02.2007 11:37 |
very well done :) |
| Sebastian 28.02.2007 12:46 |
Fred was great but imo John Lennon went beyond in virtually all aspects. Except that Fred sang better and was a better piano player, but John was better composer, lyricist, guitarist, bassist, arranger, painter, etc. |
| ok.computer 28.02.2007 14:36 |
Sebastian wrote: Fred was great but imo John Lennon went beyond in virtually all aspects. Except that Fred sang better and was a better piano player, but John was better composer, lyricist, guitarist, bassist, arranger, painter, etc.His skill as an apprenticed plumber was also oft unmatched. |
| steven 35638 28.02.2007 18:57 |
Sebastian wrote: but John was better composer, lyricist, guitarist, bassist, arranger, painter, etc.I'd just like to point out that John Lennon couldn't read music. To my understanding he requested help in order to arrange his compositions. With all due respect to John Lennon, who was a beautiful man, he was not the better composer; to an extent Freddie Mercury knew more about music theory. Of course Lennon's songs were less flamboyant, but that's besides the point. One last thing, since when did being a better painter have anything to do with being a better rock star? No offense of course, I just got a bit annoyed by it. |
| SomebodyWhoLoves 28.02.2007 19:33 |
Elizabeth Knightson wrote: Well, you go on stage and try to tell a massive crowd of thousands of Queen fan that Lennon is the greatest rock star ever (and not adding anything)...you might meet Lennon (and Freddie) if you do.Not quite. John Lennon is more highly regarded by British people than Freddie Mercury. Freddie might be super talented, but he's also not Caucasian. Human nature being what it is, people tend to believe their own kind is the best, subconsciously/consciously. It's human nature. So Brian took a risk upon himself by putting Freddie above John Lennon. Yes, Brian was Freddie's friend, really brother like, but more than anything, Brian was correct. He was truthful. I think if you study Freddie's life, Freddie himself was a little insecure because he's not 100% british. He knew he was an immigrant, different, and non-Caucasian. I think Freddie choosing Jimmy Hendrix as a role model had something to do with his insecurities, and it drove him to be the best. You people might disagree with me, but I still say Brian saying what he said, must have raised a few eyebrows in that crowd, even if it was Queen fans. |
| deleted user 28.02.2007 19:46 |
That was really cool. Thanks for posting that. |
| Saif 28.02.2007 22:41 |
Sebastian wrote: Fred was great but imo John Lennon went beyond in virtually all aspects. Except that Fred sang better and was a better piano player, but John was better composer, lyricist, guitarist, bassist, arranger, painter, etc.Better painter? Don't know about that. Freddie made some great paintings as far as what I've seen on Daria's site. Arranger? Don't know...weren't Paul McCartney and George Martin the arrangers of all the Beatles orchestras? As far as pure genius goes, Paul McCartney owns both Lennon and Freddie but he's an asshole. Even if he's a better guitarist or bassist than Freddie, he's not a good one either way. On the other hand I disagree that Freddie is a better pianist. Lennon is better or atleast matched with Freddie in terms of Piano skill. |
| Sebastian 28.02.2007 22:58 |
> to an extent Freddie Mercury knew more about music theory. I probably know more about music theory than Lennon or McCartney, but I'm in no way a better composer. Same with many many many many people who'd easily outdo 99% of rock songwriers if it comes to reading music or analysing it, yet none of them are able to compose 'Stand By Me', 'Creep' or 'Hey Jude', to name a few ... theoretical knowledge is just one aspect of being a composer. > Of course Lennon's songs were less flamboyant, but that's besides the point. Have you ever heard 'I Am The Walrus', 'Strawberry Fields Forever' or 'A Day In The Life'? > One last thing, since when did being a better painter have anything to do with being a better rock star? A better rock star no, but a better artist. > Better painter? Don't know about that. Freddie made some great paintings as far as what I've seen on Daria's site. Fred was indeed a good graphic artist, but imo Lennon was better. > Arranger? Don't know...weren't Paul McCartney and George Martin the arrangers of all the Beatles orchestras? No. First of all, Paul hardly ever arranged orchestras and not all of them were by God Martin. Second of all, you can be a brilliant arranger without neccesarily arranging orchestras. And Lennon was extraordinary in that department, although of course not even sort of close to George Martin or Michael Kamen. > As far as pure genius goes, Paul McCartney owns both Lennon and Freddie but he's an asshole. That's a matter of opinion. There's not a single song by Paul which is as complex and "crazy" as 'Walrus', for instance. > On the other hand I disagree that Freddie is a better pianist. Lennon is better or atleast matched with Freddie in terms of Piano skill That's plain wrong. Compare 'Imagine' with 'Millionaire Waltz' and read again that comment. You'll laugh your arse off :) Even comparing Lennon with McCartney (who's also notably below Freddie's level) is ridiculous. |
| Oszmercury 01.03.2007 00:10 |
simply, lennon's music is beyond its time, lennon is timeless, freddie is the ultimate rock singer, frontman... Lennon is the ultimate rockstar, drugs, sex, experimentation, painter, writer, activist... Skills are different, Mercury has more, but, could you say that Steve Vai is technically a better guitarrist than Hendrix?, yeah, but Jimi's music created a revolution... |
| Sweetie 01.03.2007 04:05 |
Lemon is soooo much cooler than Fred =P |
| steven 35638 01.03.2007 17:06 |
Sebastian wrote: > to an extent Freddie Mercury knew more about music theory. I probably know more about music theory than Lennon or McCartney, but I'm in no way a better composer. Same with many many many many people who'd easily outdo 99% of rock songwriers if it comes to reading music or analysing it, yet none of them are able to compose 'Stand By Me', 'Creep' or 'Hey Jude', to name a few ... theoretical knowledge is just one aspect of being a composer.Theoretically knowledge is just one aspect of being a composer. John Lennon was a brilliant composer, no doubt about it, but I was merely trying to say that Freddie Mercury knew more. To be honest, I'm beginning to hate this discussion due to the fact that I love John Lennon. However, if we're talking about complexities in the music and the use of harmony,experimentation, and creativity then Freddie Mercury wins my vote. Sorry mate, that's where I stand. As far as I'm concerned John Lennon wasn't too daring, rather boring to be honest. Not to say that his music wasn't great, because there's no argument there. Sebastian wrote: Have you ever heard 'I Am The Walrus', 'Strawberry Fields Forever' or 'A Day In The Life'?No, I've been deprived of classic rock my entire life. Psh... By the way, I never said Lennon's songs weren't flamboyant. In my opinion (and this is my opinion), a song like Bohemian Rhapsody is far more bold and definitely one of the most brilliant songs ever composed within the rock genre. Lennon's songs were brilliant, and at times very bold, yet nothing can match up to Freddie Mercury's mock opera (along with other Freddie Mercury songs...The Millionaire Waltz, My Fairy King, Seaside Rendezvous, Great King Rat, Bicycle Race ETC). Sebastian wrote: > One last thing, since when did being a better painter have anything to do with being a better rock star? A better rock star no, but a better artist.So I was right, it had nothing to do with being a better rock star. |
| Sebastian 02.03.2007 15:21 |
I agree to disagree then. But Lennon applied clever modulations, phrasing and rhythm too btw. Fred wasn't the only one who could put crazy chords... |
| thomasquinn 32989 02.03.2007 15:22 |
Sebastian wrote: Fred was great but imo John Lennon went beyond in virtually all aspects. Except that Fred sang better and was a better piano player, but John was better composer, lyricist, guitarist, bassist, arranger, painter, etc.Only a far poorer individual. But a better person when it came to writing lyrics that actually MATTERED. And he didn't play South Africa during the apartheid. |
| john bodega 02.03.2007 22:00 |
"Only a far poorer individual." I don't think John ever gave anyone HIV. Now now, no need to come down on me with Lennon's life story, I know the ugly bits. I'm just saying - it's very easy to say things about famous folk when we can focus in on just about any part of their life because it's been blown up for all to see. They both had incredibly human moments - the word 'human' not always being a necessarily positive one. As for who is the better rockstar..... Haha. You know what? I'd really say John Lennon because The Beatles were more about rock'n'roll. You know... THAT kind of rock and roll? Queen did rock, no doubts there, but I mean - it was different. Both bands dabbled in a shitload of areas, but The Beatles were closer to 'old time rock and roll' than Queen ever were. (It's always struck me as faintly ironic that Bob Seger's tune 'Old Time Rock and Roll' really doesn't like any such thing at all). Problem is, in a discussion like this, while one is asserting that x is better than y, it's very easy to sound like one is saying y is not very good. Which is total nonsense in this discussion - look who we're comparing. Hello McFly, anyone home?! Lennon! Mercury! Lennon made a bigger impact than Mercury (be it through talent or marketing) and then Mercury got inspired and had his turn at making a completely different kind of impact. It's like comparing apples and oranges - JUST EAT THEM BOTH. |