Mine too. I have a *very* vague memory of seeing the video on T.V when I was really young kid (about 4?)...at any rate, it's the only music video I can remember from those days. A good fear years after that, it was also my first favourite Queen song!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
* few not fear
"if they would say the beatles are the best they would be lying just to be nice to that mediocre band."
Err... did it occur to you that Brian May might just disagree with you? And might 'know nothing about music' like the rest of us (because we like the Beatles, you know.... makes us all tone deaf!).
Err... did it occur to you that Brian May might just disagree with you? And might 'know nothing about music' like the rest of us (because we like the Beatles, you know.... makes us all tone deaf!).
Beatles' songs are boring, in my opinion, if I'm really honest.
I don't know if they should be respected, I just don't get anything from their songs.
I don't know if they should be respected, I just don't get anything from their songs.
i'm guessing..but i bet you haven't listened to anything form Rubber Soul to Abbey Road
> What I was originlly looking for was respects in which Queen would compare favourably to the Beatles.
I think the main advantage from Queen is, as I said before, the fact that they could be almost entirely independent. Compare 'Sgt Pepper's' with 'A Night At The Opera': the first needed around two hundred people to be done (counting session musicians, the two orchestral arrangers, Geoff, Mal, cover designers and of course the band members), while the latter needed less than a score (Roy, Mike, Gary, David Costa, the roadies and the band). Plus, on creative and performance departments almost all of the responsibility laid on Freddie, Roger, Brian and/or John: only a few times they employed an arranger from outside (and often he/she acted as co-arranger, as opposed to George Martin), and only a few times they needed guest musicians. Of course, they had the benefit of multi-tracking and programmable synths later on, we've got to consider that as well.
> He talks about crappy songs with 3 chords. It's really not about the chords.
Indeed I don't think there are more than ten Beatles' songs with three chords or less. That's just a pigeonholing point. I think that, averagely, Beatles' later period tracks actually have more chords than Pink Floyd's catalogue.
> Listen to Grace Kelly by Mika.
Some people say he sings like Freddie. IMO, that's bollocks: he sings better!
> I know what you mean. I first listened to Aerosmith's version of "Come Together" and I remember listening to the original Beatles track and thinking that it sounded a bit soft and lame.
Indeed. I love their songs, but not so much their recordings (especially in the early period). Personally I think many covers have been better, such as ELO's 'Day Tripper', probably the best five/six minutes of rock music ever.
> Slightly off-topic, though just to touch on your point about Ga Ga/IWTBF being over-rated.
I think they're both good songs and although I hate 'The Works' album, I've got to admit it's well-produced and well-made. Otoh, I think it's unfair to regard them as Queen's best (or part of), because it underrated some other tracks which are much much much better. It's like admiring a person's Quatrelle when they've got a Laguna III. Personally, I believe that some true Queen gems are forgotten in favour of some which, good as they are, are notably inferior (compare 'Drowse' with 'Magic', 'You And I' with 'Another One Bites', Hammersmith '75 with Wembley or Live Aid...)
> Musically, maybe it's nothing special.
Actually I think it's a very interesting number from harmonic and formal perspectives, and lyrics are quite powerful as well. Still, Roger wrote many songs which are closer to the 'masterpiece' grading IMHO. 'Happiness' for instance, or 'Days Of Our Lives'.
I think the main advantage from Queen is, as I said before, the fact that they could be almost entirely independent. Compare 'Sgt Pepper's' with 'A Night At The Opera': the first needed around two hundred people to be done (counting session musicians, the two orchestral arrangers, Geoff, Mal, cover designers and of course the band members), while the latter needed less than a score (Roy, Mike, Gary, David Costa, the roadies and the band). Plus, on creative and performance departments almost all of the responsibility laid on Freddie, Roger, Brian and/or John: only a few times they employed an arranger from outside (and often he/she acted as co-arranger, as opposed to George Martin), and only a few times they needed guest musicians. Of course, they had the benefit of multi-tracking and programmable synths later on, we've got to consider that as well.
> He talks about crappy songs with 3 chords. It's really not about the chords.
Indeed I don't think there are more than ten Beatles' songs with three chords or less. That's just a pigeonholing point. I think that, averagely, Beatles' later period tracks actually have more chords than Pink Floyd's catalogue.
> Listen to Grace Kelly by Mika.
Some people say he sings like Freddie. IMO, that's bollocks: he sings better!
> I know what you mean. I first listened to Aerosmith's version of "Come Together" and I remember listening to the original Beatles track and thinking that it sounded a bit soft and lame.
Indeed. I love their songs, but not so much their recordings (especially in the early period). Personally I think many covers have been better, such as ELO's 'Day Tripper', probably the best five/six minutes of rock music ever.
> Slightly off-topic, though just to touch on your point about Ga Ga/IWTBF being over-rated.
I think they're both good songs and although I hate 'The Works' album, I've got to admit it's well-produced and well-made. Otoh, I think it's unfair to regard them as Queen's best (or part of), because it underrated some other tracks which are much much much better. It's like admiring a person's Quatrelle when they've got a Laguna III. Personally, I believe that some true Queen gems are forgotten in favour of some which, good as they are, are notably inferior (compare 'Drowse' with 'Magic', 'You And I' with 'Another One Bites', Hammersmith '75 with Wembley or Live Aid...)
> Musically, maybe it's nothing special.
Actually I think it's a very interesting number from harmonic and formal perspectives, and lyrics are quite powerful as well. Still, Roger wrote many songs which are closer to the 'masterpiece' grading IMHO. 'Happiness' for instance, or 'Days Of Our Lives'.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Wiley wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I like Queen better but the Beatles are tops. Lennon-McCartney will be regarded as the best composition partners in the twentieth century. Their body of work is simply stunning.
I see this Atheist guy comparing his crappy band to the Beatles and I want to laugh.
He talks about catchiness. What can be more catchy than Eigth Days a Week, Help, Yellow Submarine and Penny Lane?? Surely not his Final countdown ripoff.
He talks about crappy songs with 3 chords. It's really not about the chords. Eleanor Rigby and Tomorrow Never Knows have 3 chords or less.
He claims to be better than every act shown in MTV when the production of his track is very crappy. Listen to "Welcome to the Black Parade" by My Chemical Romance, an emo band that just happened to make a very good song with many changes. I love that song.
Listen to Grace Kelly by Mika. You can love him or hate him but he surely has more talent than what we can see in the material you've shown to us (in request for approval and craving for recognition and attention).
I'm sure you love winding people up and are probably enjoying this, but I enjoy ranting, so what the hell.
Wiley[/QUOTE]
just shut up stupid pussy
I see this Atheist guy comparing his crappy band to the Beatles and I want to laugh.
He talks about catchiness. What can be more catchy than Eigth Days a Week, Help, Yellow Submarine and Penny Lane?? Surely not his Final countdown ripoff.
He talks about crappy songs with 3 chords. It's really not about the chords. Eleanor Rigby and Tomorrow Never Knows have 3 chords or less.
He claims to be better than every act shown in MTV when the production of his track is very crappy. Listen to "Welcome to the Black Parade" by My Chemical Romance, an emo band that just happened to make a very good song with many changes. I love that song.
Listen to Grace Kelly by Mika. You can love him or hate him but he surely has more talent than what we can see in the material you've shown to us (in request for approval and craving for recognition and attention).
I'm sure you love winding people up and are probably enjoying this, but I enjoy ranting, so what the hell.
Wiley[/QUOTE]
just shut up stupid pussy
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Atheist wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Wiley wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I like Queen better but the Beatles are tops. Lennon-McCartney will be regarded as the best composition partners in the twentieth century. Their body of work is simply stunning.
I see this Atheist guy comparing his crappy band to the Beatles and I want to laugh.
[/QUOTE]
just shut up stupid pussy[/QUOTE]
- that the title of your new album?
or - more likely...what the Record Company A&R men will be saying when you take your demo round to them
I see this Atheist guy comparing his crappy band to the Beatles and I want to laugh.
[/QUOTE]
just shut up stupid pussy[/QUOTE]
- that the title of your new album?
or - more likely...what the Record Company A&R men will be saying when you take your demo round to them
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Atheist wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Wiley wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I like Queen better but the Beatles are tops. Lennon-McCartney will be regarded as the best composition partners in the twentieth century. Their body of work is simply stunning.
I see this Atheist guy comparing his crappy band to the Beatles and I want to laugh.
[/QUOTE]
just shut up stupid pussy[/QUOTE]
- that the title of your new album?
or - more likely...what the Record Company A&R men will be saying when you take your demo round to them[/QUOTE]
silent stupid fool
I see this Atheist guy comparing his crappy band to the Beatles and I want to laugh.
[/QUOTE]
just shut up stupid pussy[/QUOTE]
- that the title of your new album?
or - more likely...what the Record Company A&R men will be saying when you take your demo round to them[/QUOTE]
silent stupid fool
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Atheist wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Atheist wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Wiley wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I like Queen better but the Beatles are tops. Lennon-McCartney will be regarded as the best composition partners in the twentieth century. Their body of work is simply stunning.
I see this Atheist guy comparing his crappy band to the Beatles and I want to laugh.
[/QUOTE]
just shut up stupid pussy[/QUOTE]
- that the title of your new album?
or - more likely...what the Record Company A&R men will be saying when you take your demo round to them[/QUOTE]
silent stupid fool[/QUOTE]
he said that to YOU too? it's amazing how polite record company execs are these days?
I see this Atheist guy comparing his crappy band to the Beatles and I want to laugh.
[/QUOTE]
just shut up stupid pussy[/QUOTE]
- that the title of your new album?
or - more likely...what the Record Company A&R men will be saying when you take your demo round to them[/QUOTE]
silent stupid fool[/QUOTE]
he said that to YOU too? it's amazing how polite record company execs are these days?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Atheist wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Wiley wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I like Queen better but the Beatles are tops. Lennon-McCartney will be regarded as the best composition partners in the twentieth century. Their body of work is simply stunning.
I see this Atheist guy comparing his crappy band to the Beatles and I want to laugh.
He talks about catchiness. What can be more catchy than Eigth Days a Week, Help, Yellow Submarine and Penny Lane?? Surely not his Final countdown ripoff.
He talks about crappy songs with 3 chords. It's really not about the chords. Eleanor Rigby and Tomorrow Never Knows have 3 chords or less.
He claims to be better than every act shown in MTV when the production of his track is very crappy. Listen to "Welcome to the Black Parade" by My Chemical Romance, an emo band that just happened to make a very good song with many changes. I love that song.
Listen to Grace Kelly by Mika. You can love him or hate him but he surely has more talent than what we can see in the material you've shown to us (in request for approval and craving for recognition and attention).
I'm sure you love winding people up and are probably enjoying this, but I enjoy ranting, so what the hell.
Wiley[/QUOTE]
just shut up stupid pussy[/QUOTE]
Is that what you say every time someone criticises you in a way you know you can't bounce back from?
Why don't you try addressing what they said? If they're wrong about you, it'll only take a moment to prove it.
I see this Atheist guy comparing his crappy band to the Beatles and I want to laugh.
He talks about catchiness. What can be more catchy than Eigth Days a Week, Help, Yellow Submarine and Penny Lane?? Surely not his Final countdown ripoff.
He talks about crappy songs with 3 chords. It's really not about the chords. Eleanor Rigby and Tomorrow Never Knows have 3 chords or less.
He claims to be better than every act shown in MTV when the production of his track is very crappy. Listen to "Welcome to the Black Parade" by My Chemical Romance, an emo band that just happened to make a very good song with many changes. I love that song.
Listen to Grace Kelly by Mika. You can love him or hate him but he surely has more talent than what we can see in the material you've shown to us (in request for approval and craving for recognition and attention).
I'm sure you love winding people up and are probably enjoying this, but I enjoy ranting, so what the hell.
Wiley[/QUOTE]
just shut up stupid pussy[/QUOTE]
Is that what you say every time someone criticises you in a way you know you can't bounce back from?
Why don't you try addressing what they said? If they're wrong about you, it'll only take a moment to prove it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Atheist wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Wiley wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I like Queen better but the Beatles are tops. Lennon-McCartney will be regarded as the best composition partners in the twentieth century. Their body of work is simply stunning.
I see this Atheist guy comparing his crappy band to the Beatles and I want to laugh.
He talks about catchiness. What can be more catchy than Eigth Days a Week, Help, Yellow Submarine and Penny Lane?? Surely not his Final countdown ripoff.
He talks about crappy songs with 3 chords. It's really not about the chords. Eleanor Rigby and Tomorrow Never Knows have 3 chords or less.
He claims to be better than every act shown in MTV when the production of his track is very crappy. Listen to "Welcome to the Black Parade" by My Chemical Romance, an emo band that just happened to make a very good song with many changes. I love that song.
Listen to Grace Kelly by Mika. You can love him or hate him but he surely has more talent than what we can see in the material you've shown to us (in request for approval and craving for recognition and attention).
I'm sure you love winding people up and are probably enjoying this, but I enjoy ranting, so what the hell.
Wiley[/QUOTE]
just shut up stupid pussy[/QUOTE]
Is that what you say every time someone criticises you in a way you know you can't bounce back from?
Why don't you try addressing what they said? If they're wrong about you, it'll only take a moment to prove it.[/QUOTE]
the guy is not even worth the time to respond, he is a total ignorant idiot who knows SHIT about music.
Mika is better than us? yeah right, why bother talking with a stupid fuck who cant write 1 song like ours in his whole life time?
the beatles are OK, nothing more, queen is billion times more talented and better band.
Treasure moment pisses on the beatles, FACT
I see this Atheist guy comparing his crappy band to the Beatles and I want to laugh.
He talks about catchiness. What can be more catchy than Eigth Days a Week, Help, Yellow Submarine and Penny Lane?? Surely not his Final countdown ripoff.
He talks about crappy songs with 3 chords. It's really not about the chords. Eleanor Rigby and Tomorrow Never Knows have 3 chords or less.
He claims to be better than every act shown in MTV when the production of his track is very crappy. Listen to "Welcome to the Black Parade" by My Chemical Romance, an emo band that just happened to make a very good song with many changes. I love that song.
Listen to Grace Kelly by Mika. You can love him or hate him but he surely has more talent than what we can see in the material you've shown to us (in request for approval and craving for recognition and attention).
I'm sure you love winding people up and are probably enjoying this, but I enjoy ranting, so what the hell.
Wiley[/QUOTE]
just shut up stupid pussy[/QUOTE]
Is that what you say every time someone criticises you in a way you know you can't bounce back from?
Why don't you try addressing what they said? If they're wrong about you, it'll only take a moment to prove it.[/QUOTE]
the guy is not even worth the time to respond, he is a total ignorant idiot who knows SHIT about music.
Mika is better than us? yeah right, why bother talking with a stupid fuck who cant write 1 song like ours in his whole life time?
the beatles are OK, nothing more, queen is billion times more talented and better band.
Treasure moment pisses on the beatles, FACT
The Beatles were a great singles band but, with the exception of Sgt Pepper and The White Album did not create great albums. Queen on the other hand released both great singles and albums. The Beatles were fortunate to exist in a decade when there were one of only a handful of acts that wrote and performed their own material. Saying that they were still a fantastic band and, like any great act, their music lives on. But for me it will always be Queen first.
Loads of Beatles' albums are astonishing. Abbey Road, Rubber Soul, Revolver... plus the "little competition" point is unfair IMHO.
"with the exception of Sgt Pepper and The White Album did not create great albums."
That shows a poor understanding of their body of work. Sgt Pepper is somewhat overrated (but well worth having for the Lennon contributions) and the White Album, while having great songs, isn't one of their better efforts regarding studio work.... sounds 'lazy' in spots.
The Beatles were, as you say, a great singles band. They were also a great album band, if you pick the right example.
That shows a poor understanding of their body of work. Sgt Pepper is somewhat overrated (but well worth having for the Lennon contributions) and the White Album, while having great songs, isn't one of their better efforts regarding studio work.... sounds 'lazy' in spots.
The Beatles were, as you say, a great singles band. They were also a great album band, if you pick the right example.