Whatever happened to not paying attention to the mindless people on here?
Oh well...as I say I don't think Queen and the Beatles can be compared. I've tried, when I was an obstinate Queen fan I thought no-one was better than them either. I'm still not a great Beatles-fan, but I can appreciate that they changed popular music forever. Plus there are some brilliant peices of music in their catalogue which are timeless because of their lasting charm. But the same holds true for Queen. Queen were in fact inspired by the Beatles so of course the two artists have left an impression on people's minds.
One thing I will say. I think Queen did outdo the Beatles in stage performance. Had the Beatles got to the stage when they could perform at stadiums such as Wembley, with the huge screens and 100,000 strong audiences...well we'll never know, the Beatles let their egos get in the way far too soon didn't stay together to make it to that stage.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=brianJM>RollingBowieQueen wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Whatever happened to not paying attention to the mindless people on here?
Oh well...as I say I don't think Queen and the Beatles can be compared. I've tried, when I was an obstinate Queen fan I thought no-one was better than them either. I'm still not a great Beatles-fan, but I can appreciate that they changed popular music forever. Plus there are some brilliant peices of music in their catalogue which are timeless because of their lasting charm. But the same holds true for Queen. Queen were in fact inspired by the Beatles so of course the two artists have left an impression on people's minds.
One thing I will say. I think Queen did outdo the Beatles in stage performance. Had the Beatles got to the stage when they could perform at stadiums such as Wembley, with the huge screens and 100,000 strong audiences...well we'll never know, the Beatles let their egos get in the way far too soon didn't stay together to make it to that stage.
[/QUOTE]
yeah as you are the mindless one here, not so smart are you?
Oh well...as I say I don't think Queen and the Beatles can be compared. I've tried, when I was an obstinate Queen fan I thought no-one was better than them either. I'm still not a great Beatles-fan, but I can appreciate that they changed popular music forever. Plus there are some brilliant peices of music in their catalogue which are timeless because of their lasting charm. But the same holds true for Queen. Queen were in fact inspired by the Beatles so of course the two artists have left an impression on people's minds.
One thing I will say. I think Queen did outdo the Beatles in stage performance. Had the Beatles got to the stage when they could perform at stadiums such as Wembley, with the huge screens and 100,000 strong audiences...well we'll never know, the Beatles let their egos get in the way far too soon didn't stay together to make it to that stage.
[/QUOTE]
yeah as you are the mindless one here, not so smart are you?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Atheist wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=brianJM>RollingBowieQueen wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Whatever happened to not paying attention to the mindless people on here?
[/QUOTE]
yeah as you are the mindless one here, not so smart are you?[/QUOTE]
But you paid attention to him, so he's not mindless, but then I paid attention to you...
May I offer the following argument proving that Freddie was the greatest ever?
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
[/QUOTE]
yeah as you are the mindless one here, not so smart are you?[/QUOTE]
But you paid attention to him, so he's not mindless, but then I paid attention to you...
May I offer the following argument proving that Freddie was the greatest ever?
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Atheist wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=brianJM>RollingBowieQueen wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Whatever happened to not paying attention to the mindless people on here?
[/QUOTE]
yeah as you are the mindless one here, not so smart are you?[/QUOTE]
But you paid attention to him, so he's not mindless, but then I paid attention to you...
May I offer the following argument proving that Freddie was the greatest ever?
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah[/QUOTE]
thats what i think, if you dont agree with it thats fine
[/QUOTE]
yeah as you are the mindless one here, not so smart are you?[/QUOTE]
But you paid attention to him, so he's not mindless, but then I paid attention to you...
May I offer the following argument proving that Freddie was the greatest ever?
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah[/QUOTE]
thats what i think, if you dont agree with it thats fine
@RBQ...good point. I think perhaps people underestimate the significance of Queen's stage ability. Nobody here has disputed that Queen were the superior live act (in fact, they're *arguably* the best live pop act of all time). A good feather in their cap, but this is also important in other ways. For example, it's significant to me that I have vastly more live Queen material than studio albums. When I tire of the studio albums, I always find pleasure in one of their myriad concerts. And I don't even have a fraction of their live material. I have live Beatles material, but it never solicits repeat listening.
Anyway, maybe my former diehard-Queen-fan blood is starting to show. Individual Queen members "beat" individual Beatles members. And now, having just listened to songs such as GOFLB, '39, Killer Queen, Don't Stop Me Now, Bo Rhap...I'm convinced that Queen's best songs are as good as the Beatles' best. It's just a pity, then, that for some reason Queen released a lot of "good" (i.e. just plain good and not stellar) stuff in betweeen the gems. And that their careers took a few unfortunate twists -- lack of popularity in USA etc. The Beatles on the other hand released a heck of a lot of brilliant work.
I guess Queen had the potential to be "better" than the Beatles.
Anyway, maybe my former diehard-Queen-fan blood is starting to show. Individual Queen members "beat" individual Beatles members. And now, having just listened to songs such as GOFLB, '39, Killer Queen, Don't Stop Me Now, Bo Rhap...I'm convinced that Queen's best songs are as good as the Beatles' best. It's just a pity, then, that for some reason Queen released a lot of "good" (i.e. just plain good and not stellar) stuff in betweeen the gems. And that their careers took a few unfortunate twists -- lack of popularity in USA etc. The Beatles on the other hand released a heck of a lot of brilliant work.
I guess Queen had the potential to be "better" than the Beatles.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
@Freddie. No, I don't think you're talking out of your ass. There are many Queen songs that I love (e.g. from Hot Space!) that most fans tend to dismiss. I guess, taste seldom overlaps exactly. [/QUOTE]
Thank God I wasn't talking out of my ass. I was afraid what I was saying was, well, making no sense.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I don't agree with you, though, that there are "no" crap songs. It's not entirely subjective. Compare Britney Spears, no wait, Paris Hilton's "music" with, say, Bach. Or the Beatles. You use the example of KISS: many people do love them. Though fairly objectively, it is safe to say that although much of their music is catchy, their live acts good etc...the quality of their music does not compare favourably with some other metal acts (e.g. Dream Theater...but now we're comparing glam with prog metal). I certainly think there are crap Queen songs: I think that "Misfire" is just awful! [/QUOTE]
That's fair enough and technically I do agree with you. Now, hold on to your butt because I'm about to throw a theory out at you.
Personally, when I turned on the radio not to long ago and heard country music I wanted to blow my damn brains out. I simply couldn't stand it. Some time later I found myself simply enjoying the music and truly appreciating it for what it is. That's basically an example of getting your ears trained to a different style of music that once before you found to be distasteful.
Another example would be for someone to listen to The Miracle first before ever having listened to Queen's debut album. It's a shocker for anyone to think that Queen sounded so different and in some cases kind of mediocre back in 1973 (recording wise). It would take some getting used to before truly accepting the music (not to say I didn't like it) and thoroughly enjoying it. How do I know this? It's because that's what happened to me! Would it happen to everybody? I don't know, but I'm just offering my thoughts/opinions.
Ok, let me just point out that to me it doesn't matter in the quality of the sound or if one artist is better at this or better at that. In my theory, over time the ears will adjust to whatever they're listening to and you would soon accept and possibly even enjoy the music. Of course, you couldn't hide from the music you dislike, you'd actually have to make an effort in trying to like it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I certainly think there are crap Queen songs: I think that "Misfire" is just awful![/QUOTE]
You may think that now, but if you're like most others your taste in music will evolve.
By the way, you can call me by my name. It's Ramirez. And it's been nice talking to you. I also hope I've been making sense. :)
@Freddie. No, I don't think you're talking out of your ass. There are many Queen songs that I love (e.g. from Hot Space!) that most fans tend to dismiss. I guess, taste seldom overlaps exactly. [/QUOTE]
Thank God I wasn't talking out of my ass. I was afraid what I was saying was, well, making no sense.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I don't agree with you, though, that there are "no" crap songs. It's not entirely subjective. Compare Britney Spears, no wait, Paris Hilton's "music" with, say, Bach. Or the Beatles. You use the example of KISS: many people do love them. Though fairly objectively, it is safe to say that although much of their music is catchy, their live acts good etc...the quality of their music does not compare favourably with some other metal acts (e.g. Dream Theater...but now we're comparing glam with prog metal). I certainly think there are crap Queen songs: I think that "Misfire" is just awful! [/QUOTE]
That's fair enough and technically I do agree with you. Now, hold on to your butt because I'm about to throw a theory out at you.
Personally, when I turned on the radio not to long ago and heard country music I wanted to blow my damn brains out. I simply couldn't stand it. Some time later I found myself simply enjoying the music and truly appreciating it for what it is. That's basically an example of getting your ears trained to a different style of music that once before you found to be distasteful.
Another example would be for someone to listen to The Miracle first before ever having listened to Queen's debut album. It's a shocker for anyone to think that Queen sounded so different and in some cases kind of mediocre back in 1973 (recording wise). It would take some getting used to before truly accepting the music (not to say I didn't like it) and thoroughly enjoying it. How do I know this? It's because that's what happened to me! Would it happen to everybody? I don't know, but I'm just offering my thoughts/opinions.
Ok, let me just point out that to me it doesn't matter in the quality of the sound or if one artist is better at this or better at that. In my theory, over time the ears will adjust to whatever they're listening to and you would soon accept and possibly even enjoy the music. Of course, you couldn't hide from the music you dislike, you'd actually have to make an effort in trying to like it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I certainly think there are crap Queen songs: I think that "Misfire" is just awful![/QUOTE]
You may think that now, but if you're like most others your taste in music will evolve.
By the way, you can call me by my name. It's Ramirez. And it's been nice talking to you. I also hope I've been making sense. :)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]teleman wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Cedric6014 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Best Guitarist
1) Brian
2) Daylight
3) Paul
4) Roger
5) John D
6) John L
7) George
8) Freddie
[/QUOTE]
Pretty clear you don't play guitar :)
Brian and then George, Paul, John L, Roger, John D, Freddie. Some people on this site will put Freddie at the top of the list of guitarists.[/QUOTE]
Best Guitarist
1) Brian
2) Daylight
3) Paul
4) Roger
5) John D
6) John L
7) George
8) Freddie
[/QUOTE]
Pretty clear you don't play guitar :)
Brian and then George, Paul, John L, Roger, John D, Freddie. Some people on this site will put Freddie at the top of the list of guitarists.[/QUOTE]
Woops, was supposed to say this:
Well, infact… I do play guitar, or did. I played in a covers band at university. As a huge fan of both bands I attempted to learn their songs. One thing I quickly discovered was that Beatles songs were far easier to learn. Now a lot of this has to do with Queen’s complex approach to song writing. But a small part of this has to do with George Harrison not performing any particularly outstanding guitar pieces on Beatles Material. The best guitar solo on a Beatles song was performed by Eric Clapton (While My guitar…). Now I realise that it doesn’t have to be complicated to be good, but I can assure you that BM can play everything GH performed but the reverse won’t be true. I may have been a bit harsh on ol’ George, but I can also assure you that Paul M is a far better guitarist and performed many of the important lead breaks on his own compositions, as did John L. I’ll concede John D though – don’t know why I put him up there! Haven’t even seen him play a six-string.
Well, infact… I do play guitar, or did. I played in a covers band at university. As a huge fan of both bands I attempted to learn their songs. One thing I quickly discovered was that Beatles songs were far easier to learn. Now a lot of this has to do with Queen’s complex approach to song writing. But a small part of this has to do with George Harrison not performing any particularly outstanding guitar pieces on Beatles Material. The best guitar solo on a Beatles song was performed by Eric Clapton (While My guitar…). Now I realise that it doesn’t have to be complicated to be good, but I can assure you that BM can play everything GH performed but the reverse won’t be true. I may have been a bit harsh on ol’ George, but I can also assure you that Paul M is a far better guitarist and performed many of the important lead breaks on his own compositions, as did John L. I’ll concede John D though – don’t know why I put him up there! Haven’t even seen him play a six-string.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ wrote: [/QUOTENAME]@RBQ...good point. I think perhaps people underestimate the significance of Queen's stage ability. Nobody here has disputed that Queen were the superior live act (in fact, they're *arguably* the best live pop act of all time). A good feather in their cap, but this is also important in other ways. For example, it's significant to me that I have vastly more live Queen material than studio albums. When I tire of the studio albums, I always find pleasure in one of their myriad concerts. And I don't even have a fraction of their live material. I have live Beatles material, but it never solicits repeat listening.
Anyway, maybe my former diehard-Queen-fan blood is starting to show. Individual Queen members "beat" individual Beatles members. And now, having just listened to songs such as GOFLB, '39, Killer Queen, Don't Stop Me Now, Bo Rhap...I'm convinced that Queen's best songs are as good as the Beatles' best. It's just a pity, then, that for some reason Queen released a lot of "good" (i.e. just plain good and not stellar) stuff in betweeen the gems. And that their careers took a few unfortunate twists -- lack of popularity in USA etc. The Beatles on the other hand released a heck of a lot of brilliant work.
I guess Queen had the potential to be "better" than the Beatles.[/QUOTE]
Hey wow I agree with all of that would you believe.
Anyway, maybe my former diehard-Queen-fan blood is starting to show. Individual Queen members "beat" individual Beatles members. And now, having just listened to songs such as GOFLB, '39, Killer Queen, Don't Stop Me Now, Bo Rhap...I'm convinced that Queen's best songs are as good as the Beatles' best. It's just a pity, then, that for some reason Queen released a lot of "good" (i.e. just plain good and not stellar) stuff in betweeen the gems. And that their careers took a few unfortunate twists -- lack of popularity in USA etc. The Beatles on the other hand released a heck of a lot of brilliant work.
I guess Queen had the potential to be "better" than the Beatles.[/QUOTE]
Hey wow I agree with all of that would you believe.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Cedric6014 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Woops, was supposed to say this:
Well, infact… I do play guitar, or did. I played in a covers band at university. As a huge fan of both bands I attempted to learn their songs. One thing I quickly discovered was that Beatles songs were far easier to learn. Now a lot of this has to do with Queen’s complex approach to song writing. But a small part of this has to do with George Harrison not performing any particularly outstanding guitar pieces on Beatles Material. The best guitar solo on a Beatles song was performed by Eric Clapton (While My guitar…). Now I realise that it doesn’t have to be complicated to be good, but I can assure you that BM can play everything GH performed but the reverse won’t be true. I may have been a bit harsh on ol’ George, but I can also assure you that Paul M is a far better guitarist and performed many of the important lead breaks on his own compositions, as did John L. I’ll concede John D though – don’t know why I put him up there! Haven’t even seen him play a six-string.
[/QUOTE]
I tend to look at George's post Beatles work. I can play pretty much anything by Brian or George if I so desire. Decades of playing will do that to you :D
I think George is under-rated. Not always the hardest stuff to play but just the right note or phrase at the right time. Paul played some nice stuff and I wouldn't downplay him but IMHO George had something that set him aside.
I'm just grateful for the music that they all created individually and with their respective bands which I get to enjoy.
Well, infact… I do play guitar, or did. I played in a covers band at university. As a huge fan of both bands I attempted to learn their songs. One thing I quickly discovered was that Beatles songs were far easier to learn. Now a lot of this has to do with Queen’s complex approach to song writing. But a small part of this has to do with George Harrison not performing any particularly outstanding guitar pieces on Beatles Material. The best guitar solo on a Beatles song was performed by Eric Clapton (While My guitar…). Now I realise that it doesn’t have to be complicated to be good, but I can assure you that BM can play everything GH performed but the reverse won’t be true. I may have been a bit harsh on ol’ George, but I can also assure you that Paul M is a far better guitarist and performed many of the important lead breaks on his own compositions, as did John L. I’ll concede John D though – don’t know why I put him up there! Haven’t even seen him play a six-string.
[/QUOTE]
I tend to look at George's post Beatles work. I can play pretty much anything by Brian or George if I so desire. Decades of playing will do that to you :D
I think George is under-rated. Not always the hardest stuff to play but just the right note or phrase at the right time. Paul played some nice stuff and I wouldn't downplay him but IMHO George had something that set him aside.
I'm just grateful for the music that they all created individually and with their respective bands which I get to enjoy.
George's response to being underrated was something like "I'm just not that good!".
I dunno.. he was what he needed to be?? His playing on 'All My Loving' isn't terribly complex but it serves a purpose.
I reckon he was a pretty good slide player, actually..
If we're rating all 8 of these guys as individual performers, I'd say Queen probably had the advantage, with the exception of Paul McCartney. The guy can still bang out Helter Skelter 40 years after he recorded it.. that takes some doing!
I dunno.. he was what he needed to be?? His playing on 'All My Loving' isn't terribly complex but it serves a purpose.
I reckon he was a pretty good slide player, actually..
If we're rating all 8 of these guys as individual performers, I'd say Queen probably had the advantage, with the exception of Paul McCartney. The guy can still bang out Helter Skelter 40 years after he recorded it.. that takes some doing!
I think, though, that Beatles were closer to being true multi-instrumentalists than the Queen lads. I mean, Brian's an excellent guitarist and a good pianist, but not as skilled on ukelele or bass as to be considered a "multi-instrumentalist". Roger's an extraordinary drummer and a fine guitarist but his abilities on keyboards and bass are rather poor. John Deacon's a brilliant bassist and a good guitarist, but not particularly a great pianist. And Freddie could only play two instruments, one quite well and the other just "well".
Otoh, Paul plays very well (although not excesively so) guitar, piano, bass and drums, and on a lower level many other things like cello, flute, etc; Lennon played guitar well and piano a little less, on bass and drums he was rather poor but he could do some things on harmonica; and George was a great guitarist, a fine bassist, a normal (yet "not bad") keyboardist, a good sitarist and could play other things like cello, drums and ukelele at least on a basic level. Ringo's a good drummer but a mediocre pianist and guitarist.
Still, I think in that matter Beatles "win".
Otoh, Paul plays very well (although not excesively so) guitar, piano, bass and drums, and on a lower level many other things like cello, flute, etc; Lennon played guitar well and piano a little less, on bass and drums he was rather poor but he could do some things on harmonica; and George was a great guitarist, a fine bassist, a normal (yet "not bad") keyboardist, a good sitarist and could play other things like cello, drums and ukelele at least on a basic level. Ringo's a good drummer but a mediocre pianist and guitarist.
Still, I think in that matter Beatles "win".
@Sebastian. You're right, the Beatles were probably truer multi-instrumentalists. I'm tempted to say, "Jacks of all trades, masters of none"...but that's unfair. I do think though that Freddie's pianistic ability (and then in fact all the other three's specialities) is more than enough to outshine his "multi-instrumentalist" counterpart. Still, i.t.o multi-instruments, I'm impressed e.g. by what Brian could do on ANATO. If through his career he hadn't spent so much time tinkering with guitars...who knows. But then he wouldn't be Brian.
@Ramirez: thank you. By the way, I'm Vinesh. It's been nice talking to you too!
I think I "sort-of" agree with your hypothesis. In contrast to the original post I made, I do in fact think that the most important aspect of music is: how good does it sound. However, this is not all there is to it.
Over the years I've found that my taste in music is moulded by my knowledge of theoretical/technical aspects of music. It doesn't determine it entirely, but it certainly influences it greatly. As one's taste develops, some music becomes either abandoned or an occasional "cheap thrill" -- e.g. in my case, the majority of the commercial music that pollutes MTV!
I can identify with your example of country music.
However, with a song like "Misfire", I'm not sure if it's a case of evolving taste. I've listened to the song countless times, and each time I conclude that musically, it's pretty darn boring. There ARE songs that I love which I also think are not musically meritorious, but those I suspect are not the sort of songs that I'd still love a few years down the line. On the other hand -- I'm sick as hell of some songs, be it a Queen number or a Beethoven composition, and yet with each listening I can still say "ah, this is a fine piece of music!"
I guess, if one listened endlessly to cheap commercial pop (a la Paris Hilton), then one may well start to like it. Doesn't mean, though, that there's not more stimulating music out there!
@Ramirez: thank you. By the way, I'm Vinesh. It's been nice talking to you too!
I think I "sort-of" agree with your hypothesis. In contrast to the original post I made, I do in fact think that the most important aspect of music is: how good does it sound. However, this is not all there is to it.
Over the years I've found that my taste in music is moulded by my knowledge of theoretical/technical aspects of music. It doesn't determine it entirely, but it certainly influences it greatly. As one's taste develops, some music becomes either abandoned or an occasional "cheap thrill" -- e.g. in my case, the majority of the commercial music that pollutes MTV!
I can identify with your example of country music.
However, with a song like "Misfire", I'm not sure if it's a case of evolving taste. I've listened to the song countless times, and each time I conclude that musically, it's pretty darn boring. There ARE songs that I love which I also think are not musically meritorious, but those I suspect are not the sort of songs that I'd still love a few years down the line. On the other hand -- I'm sick as hell of some songs, be it a Queen number or a Beethoven composition, and yet with each listening I can still say "ah, this is a fine piece of music!"
I guess, if one listened endlessly to cheap commercial pop (a la Paris Hilton), then one may well start to like it. Doesn't mean, though, that there's not more stimulating music out there!
"I'm tempted to say, "Jacks of all trades, masters of none"...but that's unfair."
Not so much unfair, as untrue!! For one thing they were masters of songwriting, I feel. Even when their recordings or performances were up to shit, they always knew how to write songs that had something going for them.
Not so much unfair, as untrue!! For one thing they were masters of songwriting, I feel. Even when their recordings or performances were up to shit, they always knew how to write songs that had something going for them.
Zebonka, I was talking about their abilities on various instruments. Which was what Sebastian was discussing.