Strangely enough, I do have that album, Tero. However, for your knowledge, as you may not be of that age, Queen worked in a world where the accepted instrumentation for a rock band was guitar, bass, drums and piano if you were a rock band, which is what Queen, Zeppelin, The Who and Stones were. Groups like Genesis, Yes, and Pink Floyd were more progressive, keyboard reliant groups. They all fit into what would be considered "rock radio", but they had their unique sounds. Queen were a guitar heavy band who dabbled in everything stylistically, but WITH GUITARS. Songs like Lazing on a Sunday afternoon, Good Company, and The Millionaire Waltz weren't rock and roll, but it was music that rock fans accepted, and all featured Brian's unique playing. Imagine if any of those songs took out Brian's playing and used a synth. It wouldn't work because Queen were a guitar band. When they used synths, they lost 1/3 of their signature sound (B/V's and Freddie's voice being the other keys) and people didn't buy that sound. Again, Queen were a guitar based band with a broad scope of influences, including waltz, jazz, blues etc. and in the early days they made songs in those genres and made them Queen songs. Consumers in North America did not believe Queen as a synth heavy, dance/pop band. It's simple to accept, whether you choose to or not.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Tero, I don't dispute for a second that not every song on every 70s album was like TYMD or SHA. However, on balance, i think that in the 1970s Queen were essentialy a guitar-based rock band who had some lighter songs on their albums (still usually guitar-based), whereas in the 1980s they were a a pop-rock band. Perhaps your definition of a rock band is different to mine. there is a difference between mid-1970s Queen and the likes of Black Sabbath or Judas Priest. However even these bands have lighter songs eg Sabbath's Changes. Does that make Sabbath any less a rock band?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Strangely enough, I do have that album, Tero. However, for your knowledge, as you may not be of that age, Queen worked in a world where the accepted instrumentation for a rock band was guitar, bass, drums and piano if you were a rock band, which is what Queen, Zeppelin, The Who and Stones were. Groups like Genesis, Yes, and Pink Floyd were more progressive, keyboard reliant groups. They all fit into what would be considered "rock radio", but they had their unique sounds. Queen were a guitar heavy band who dabbled in everything stylistically, but WITH GUITARS. Songs like Lazing on a Sunday afternoon, Good Company, and The Millionaire Waltz weren't rock and roll, but it was music that rock fans accepted, and all featured Brian's unique playing. Imagine if any of those songs took out Brian's playing and used a synth. It wouldn't work because Queen were a guitar band. When they used synths, they lost 1/3 of their signature sound (B/V's and Freddie's voice being the other keys) and people didn't buy that sound. Again, Queen were a guitar based band with a broad scope of influences, including waltz, jazz, blues etc. and in the early days they made songs in those genres and made them Queen songs. Consumers in North America did not believe Queen as a synth heavy, dance/pop band. It's simple to accept, whether you choose to or not.[/QUOTE]
So... It really comes down to Queen not being a rock band or playing rock songs, once the piano changed into synthesiser? They did after all write songs without guitars (and especially without electric guitars) in the 70's as well, and released them as singles... This is a deliberate oversimplification of course, but that is essentially what you're saying?
As long as Queen was making any kind of songs with a "rock piano" it was a rock band, but that suddenly changed overnight when the piano changed to synthesiser? I know people are allowed to have any opinions of their own, but this whole business of associating synthesisers with lightweight pop music just doesn't make ANY sense to me.
I'm genuinely confused about that. :/
So... It really comes down to Queen not being a rock band or playing rock songs, once the piano changed into synthesiser? They did after all write songs without guitars (and especially without electric guitars) in the 70's as well, and released them as singles... This is a deliberate oversimplification of course, but that is essentially what you're saying?
As long as Queen was making any kind of songs with a "rock piano" it was a rock band, but that suddenly changed overnight when the piano changed to synthesiser? I know people are allowed to have any opinions of their own, but this whole business of associating synthesisers with lightweight pop music just doesn't make ANY sense to me.
I'm genuinely confused about that. :/
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Tero, I don't dispute for a second that not every song on every 70s album was like TYMD or SHA. However, on balance, i think that in the 1970s Queen were essentialy a guitar-based rock band who had some lighter songs on their albums (still usually guitar-based), whereas in the 1980s they were a a pop-rock band. Perhaps your definition of a rock band is different to mine. there is a difference between mid-1970s Queen and the likes of Black Sabbath or Judas Priest. However even these bands have lighter songs eg Sabbath's Changes. Does that make Sabbath any less a rock band?
[/QUOTE]
My definition of a rock band (or any band) would be pretty much about how "heavy" the music is in general. (Basically I would be using a scale of some sort, although not consciously) Some bands can be quite "heavy" with keyboards instead of guitars, and others are very poppy even with electric guitars.
E.g. Bryan Adams's solo albums and Nine Inch Nails albums have the same instruments, but there is a significant difference in the "heaviness" of the music... Whereas BA averages at around 5 on my scale (with variance up to 8 on a "good day"), NIN gets an average rating closer to 8.
To get back to your actual message...
Those bands do have lighter numbers as well, but definitely not as many as Queen has. If a Queen album has 3 pop songs (score of 4 or less) and 3 rock songs (score more than 7) it's both a rock AND a pop album. If a Black Sabbath album has 8 songs with a score of 7-8 and two pop tracks, it's more accurate to call it just a rock album.
[/QUOTE]
My definition of a rock band (or any band) would be pretty much about how "heavy" the music is in general. (Basically I would be using a scale of some sort, although not consciously) Some bands can be quite "heavy" with keyboards instead of guitars, and others are very poppy even with electric guitars.
E.g. Bryan Adams's solo albums and Nine Inch Nails albums have the same instruments, but there is a significant difference in the "heaviness" of the music... Whereas BA averages at around 5 on my scale (with variance up to 8 on a "good day"), NIN gets an average rating closer to 8.
To get back to your actual message...
Those bands do have lighter numbers as well, but definitely not as many as Queen has. If a Queen album has 3 pop songs (score of 4 or less) and 3 rock songs (score more than 7) it's both a rock AND a pop album. If a Black Sabbath album has 8 songs with a score of 7-8 and two pop tracks, it's more accurate to call it just a rock album.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Tero, I don't dispute for a second that not every song on every 70s album was like TYMD or SHA. However, on balance, i think that in the 1970s Queen were essentialy a guitar-based rock band who had some lighter songs on their albums (still usually guitar-based), whereas in the 1980s they were a a pop-rock band. Perhaps your definition of a rock band is different to mine. there is a difference between mid-1970s Queen and the likes of Black Sabbath or Judas Priest. However even these bands have lighter songs eg Sabbath's Changes. Does that make Sabbath any less a rock band?
[/QUOTE]
My definition of a rock band (or any band) would be pretty much about how "heavy" the music is in general. (Basically I would be using a scale of some sort, although not consciously) Some bands can be quite "heavy" with keyboards instead of guitars, and others are very poppy even with electric guitars.
E.g. Bryan Adams's solo albums and Nine Inch Nails albums have the same instruments, but there is a significant difference in the "heaviness" of the music... Whereas BA averages at around 5 on my scale (with variance up to 8 on a "good day"), NIN gets an average rating closer to 8.
To get back to your actual message...
Those bands do have lighter numbers as well, but definitely not as many as Queen has. If a Queen album has 3 pop songs (score of 4 or less) and 3 rock songs (score more than 7) it's both a rock AND a pop album. If a Black Sabbath album has 8 songs with a score of 7-8 and two pop tracks, it's more accurate to call it just a rock album.[/QUOTE]
You are starting to lose me here. Are you equating a "lighter" song with a "pop" song?
If, using your equations, Hammer To Fall (1980s)is the same as Brighton Rock (1970s) simply because they are both rock/heavy songs then Lily of the Valley or take My Breath Away must be "the same" as Cool Cat or My Baby Does Me, or even (God forbid) Delilah? I don't buy that for a second.
Also, once again, a synth does not simply replace a piano or any of the other "lighter" instruments used in the 70s. Bo Rap done on a synth would not be the rock legend that it is now. In fact, the very thought makes me shudder...
Incidentally, shouldn't you use a more accurate scale since Lily of the Valley ("pop") is a short song whereas My baby Does Me lasts for ages. A more accurate mathmatical equation would use the amount of "rock time" on an album compared to the amount of pop/lighter time. You would then have to adjust your comparison to allow for the relative lengths of the album/cd, with The Works being short and Opera being rather longer.
In the meantime, I will continue to trust me ears :p
[/QUOTE]
My definition of a rock band (or any band) would be pretty much about how "heavy" the music is in general. (Basically I would be using a scale of some sort, although not consciously) Some bands can be quite "heavy" with keyboards instead of guitars, and others are very poppy even with electric guitars.
E.g. Bryan Adams's solo albums and Nine Inch Nails albums have the same instruments, but there is a significant difference in the "heaviness" of the music... Whereas BA averages at around 5 on my scale (with variance up to 8 on a "good day"), NIN gets an average rating closer to 8.
To get back to your actual message...
Those bands do have lighter numbers as well, but definitely not as many as Queen has. If a Queen album has 3 pop songs (score of 4 or less) and 3 rock songs (score more than 7) it's both a rock AND a pop album. If a Black Sabbath album has 8 songs with a score of 7-8 and two pop tracks, it's more accurate to call it just a rock album.[/QUOTE]
You are starting to lose me here. Are you equating a "lighter" song with a "pop" song?
If, using your equations, Hammer To Fall (1980s)is the same as Brighton Rock (1970s) simply because they are both rock/heavy songs then Lily of the Valley or take My Breath Away must be "the same" as Cool Cat or My Baby Does Me, or even (God forbid) Delilah? I don't buy that for a second.
Also, once again, a synth does not simply replace a piano or any of the other "lighter" instruments used in the 70s. Bo Rap done on a synth would not be the rock legend that it is now. In fact, the very thought makes me shudder...
Incidentally, shouldn't you use a more accurate scale since Lily of the Valley ("pop") is a short song whereas My baby Does Me lasts for ages. A more accurate mathmatical equation would use the amount of "rock time" on an album compared to the amount of pop/lighter time. You would then have to adjust your comparison to allow for the relative lengths of the album/cd, with The Works being short and Opera being rather longer.
In the meantime, I will continue to trust me ears :p
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Tero, I don't dispute for a second that not every song on every 70s album was like TYMD or SHA. However, on balance, i think that in the 1970s Queen were essentialy a guitar-based rock band who had some lighter songs on their albums (still usually guitar-based), whereas in the 1980s they were a a pop-rock band. Perhaps your definition of a rock band is different to mine. there is a difference between mid-1970s Queen and the likes of Black Sabbath or Judas Priest. However even these bands have lighter songs eg Sabbath's Changes. Does that make Sabbath any less a rock band?
[/QUOTE]
My definition of a rock band (or any band) would be pretty much about how "heavy" the music is in general. (Basically I would be using a scale of some sort, although not consciously) Some bands can be quite "heavy" with keyboards instead of guitars, and others are very poppy even with electric guitars.
E.g. Bryan Adams's solo albums and Nine Inch Nails albums have the same instruments, but there is a significant difference in the "heaviness" of the music... Whereas BA averages at around 5 on my scale (with variance up to 8 on a "good day"), NIN gets an average rating closer to 8.
To get back to your actual message...
Those bands do have lighter numbers as well, but definitely not as many as Queen has. If a Queen album has 3 pop songs (score of 4 or less) and 3 rock songs (score more than 7) it's both a rock AND a pop album. If a Black Sabbath album has 8 songs with a score of 7-8 and two pop tracks, it's more accurate to call it just a rock album.[/QUOTE]
You are starting to lose me here. Are you equating a "lighter" song with a "pop" song?
If, using your equations, Hammer To Fall (1980s)is the same as Brighton Rock (1970s) simply because they are both rock/heavy songs then Lily of the Valley or take My Breath Away must be "the same" as Cool Cat or My Baby Does Me, or even (God forbid) Delilah? I don't buy that for a second.
Also, once again, a synth does not simply replace a piano or any of the other "lighter" instruments used in the 70s. Bo Rap done on a synth would not be the rock legend that it is now. In fact, the very thought makes me shudder...
Incidentally, shouldn't you use a more accurate scale since Lily of the Valley ("pop") is a short song whereas My baby Does Me lasts for ages. A more accurate mathmatical equation would use the amount of "rock time" on an album compared to the amount of pop/lighter time. You would then have to adjust your comparison to allow for the relative lengths of the album/cd, with The Works being short and Opera being rather longer.
In the meantime, I will continue to trust me ears :p[/QUOTE]
What is the definition of a lighter rock song if it isn't pop? :/ Heavy metal, Rock and Pop are all part of the same musical scale, and are nothing more than artificial pigeonholes to separate the "better" music I listen to from the "lousier" music YOU listen to.
Your analogy is correct though, and You Take My Breath Away is just as lightweight as My Baby Does me or Cool Cat. The intensity of the vocals and the power of the instruments is the same. The latter examples (which you probably wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole if it was physically possible) are in fact more rockier because they have both electric guitar and drums, which is more than could be said for You Take My Breath Away. The only difference here must be that synthesisers=lightweight=bad!
The values I assigned to the tracks already took into account some degree of the length and diversity of each song, as I didn't e.g. rate It's Late based on its heaviest part, but instead estimated an average of all its parts. Shorter songs (and longer songs) would of course tend to sk
[/QUOTE]
My definition of a rock band (or any band) would be pretty much about how "heavy" the music is in general. (Basically I would be using a scale of some sort, although not consciously) Some bands can be quite "heavy" with keyboards instead of guitars, and others are very poppy even with electric guitars.
E.g. Bryan Adams's solo albums and Nine Inch Nails albums have the same instruments, but there is a significant difference in the "heaviness" of the music... Whereas BA averages at around 5 on my scale (with variance up to 8 on a "good day"), NIN gets an average rating closer to 8.
To get back to your actual message...
Those bands do have lighter numbers as well, but definitely not as many as Queen has. If a Queen album has 3 pop songs (score of 4 or less) and 3 rock songs (score more than 7) it's both a rock AND a pop album. If a Black Sabbath album has 8 songs with a score of 7-8 and two pop tracks, it's more accurate to call it just a rock album.[/QUOTE]
You are starting to lose me here. Are you equating a "lighter" song with a "pop" song?
If, using your equations, Hammer To Fall (1980s)is the same as Brighton Rock (1970s) simply because they are both rock/heavy songs then Lily of the Valley or take My Breath Away must be "the same" as Cool Cat or My Baby Does Me, or even (God forbid) Delilah? I don't buy that for a second.
Also, once again, a synth does not simply replace a piano or any of the other "lighter" instruments used in the 70s. Bo Rap done on a synth would not be the rock legend that it is now. In fact, the very thought makes me shudder...
Incidentally, shouldn't you use a more accurate scale since Lily of the Valley ("pop") is a short song whereas My baby Does Me lasts for ages. A more accurate mathmatical equation would use the amount of "rock time" on an album compared to the amount of pop/lighter time. You would then have to adjust your comparison to allow for the relative lengths of the album/cd, with The Works being short and Opera being rather longer.
In the meantime, I will continue to trust me ears :p[/QUOTE]
What is the definition of a lighter rock song if it isn't pop? :/ Heavy metal, Rock and Pop are all part of the same musical scale, and are nothing more than artificial pigeonholes to separate the "better" music I listen to from the "lousier" music YOU listen to.
Your analogy is correct though, and You Take My Breath Away is just as lightweight as My Baby Does me or Cool Cat. The intensity of the vocals and the power of the instruments is the same. The latter examples (which you probably wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole if it was physically possible) are in fact more rockier because they have both electric guitar and drums, which is more than could be said for You Take My Breath Away. The only difference here must be that synthesisers=lightweight=bad!
The values I assigned to the tracks already took into account some degree of the length and diversity of each song, as I didn't e.g. rate It's Late based on its heaviest part, but instead estimated an average of all its parts. Shorter songs (and longer songs) would of course tend to sk
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: What is the definition of a lighter rock song if it isn't pop? :/ Heavy metal, Rock and Pop are all part of the same musical scale, and are nothing more than artificial pigeonholes to separate the "better" music I listen to from the "lousier" music YOU listen to.
Your analogy is correct though, and You Take My Breath Away is just as lightweight as My Baby Does me or Cool Cat. The intensity of the vocals and the power of the instruments is the same. The latter examples (which you probably wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole if it was physically possible) are in fact more rockier because they have both electric guitar and drums, which is more than could be said for You Take My Breath Away. The only difference here must be that synthesisers=lightweight=bad!
The values I assigned to the tracks already took into account some degree of the length and diversity of each song, as I didn't e.g. rate It's Late based on its heaviest part, but instead estimated an average of all its parts. Shorter songs (and longer songs) would of course tend to skew the averages, but for the purposes of this thread I made only a quick estimate instead of listening to the albums three times over with a stopwatch... You're just trying to be difficult here. ;)[/QUOTE]
My definition of pop? Lightweight, frothy, suitable for mass consumption.
Your analogy is correct though, and You Take My Breath Away is just as lightweight as My Baby Does me or Cool Cat. The intensity of the vocals and the power of the instruments is the same. The latter examples (which you probably wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole if it was physically possible) are in fact more rockier because they have both electric guitar and drums, which is more than could be said for You Take My Breath Away. The only difference here must be that synthesisers=lightweight=bad!
The values I assigned to the tracks already took into account some degree of the length and diversity of each song, as I didn't e.g. rate It's Late based on its heaviest part, but instead estimated an average of all its parts. Shorter songs (and longer songs) would of course tend to skew the averages, but for the purposes of this thread I made only a quick estimate instead of listening to the albums three times over with a stopwatch... You're just trying to be difficult here. ;)[/QUOTE]
My definition of pop? Lightweight, frothy, suitable for mass consumption.
I see their records like this:
In the 70s, Queen were leaders. In the 80s, they were followers. They pulled up their socks for The Miracle, but it wasn't until Innuendo when they finally delivered a great rock record again.
In the 70s, Queen were leaders. In the 80s, they were followers. They pulled up their socks for The Miracle, but it wasn't until Innuendo when they finally delivered a great rock record again.
Don't be confused about the synth thing Tero. Piano was never the dominant instrument in Queen: it was guitar. Queen always noted "No Synths" on their early album liner notes, and noted their first use on the Game album. Sooo, Queen went out of their way to tell people they didn't use synths, then it became the dominant instrument on Body Language and Radio Ga Ga. Throw that into consideration with the fact that Brian's presence wasn't to visible on CLTCL, AOBTD, Body Language, Radio Ga Ga and IWTBF, and you have a period of about 5 years where there was a single that did well that had the classic Queen sound. And further, synths weren't Queen's strength. Freddie had a unique style of playing piano, very personal and a little eccentric, certainly different than an Elton John or Billy Joel. Queen's keyboards sounded like everyone's keyboards, so they lost a huge part of the Queen sound. IMHO.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Don't be confused about the synth thing Tero. Piano was never the dominant instrument in Queen: it was guitar. Queen always noted "No Synths" on their early album liner notes, and noted their first use on the Game album. Sooo, Queen went out of their way to tell people they didn't use synths, then it became the dominant instrument on Body Language and Radio Ga Ga. Throw that into consideration with the fact that Brian's presence wasn't to visible on CLTCL, AOBTD, Body Language, Radio Ga Ga and IWTBF, and you have a period of about 5 years where there was a single that did well that had the classic Queen sound. And further, synths weren't Queen's strength. Freddie had a unique style of playing piano, very personal and a little eccentric, certainly different than an Elton John or Billy Joel. Queen's keyboards sounded like everyone's keyboards, so they lost a huge part of the Queen sound. IMHO.[/QUOTE]
You've written a very good argument here, but there is one problem.
Queen didn't put the "no synthesisers" label on all the records to market themselves as a purely guitar-based heavy rock band. At first perhaps, but certainly not by the time of albums like NOTW... They put it up there because they were occasionally using sounds that sounded like synthesisers, but wanted to tell the audience it was still a guitar being used.
Radio Ga Ga dominated by synths? Are YOU being absolutely serious here? :P
The only parts of the song that are "dominated" by synth sounds are the introduction and the instrumental bridge after the second chorus (about 1:10 in total length, or 1/5 of the song) which I seem to remember were both cut from the US single version!
Radio Ga Ga is an example of PROPERLY using the synths, even if you don't like the particular composition. It's still a rock song with drums, guitars and a strong vocal, but it also has the added soundscape created by synthsisers, which could just as well have been created with "regular instruments" by spending a longer time in the studio.
Perhaps what so many people are protesting against is not the synths per se, but their effect on the records... That the songs become less polished and more spontaneous instead, because they are easier to create in the studio?
You've written a very good argument here, but there is one problem.
Queen didn't put the "no synthesisers" label on all the records to market themselves as a purely guitar-based heavy rock band. At first perhaps, but certainly not by the time of albums like NOTW... They put it up there because they were occasionally using sounds that sounded like synthesisers, but wanted to tell the audience it was still a guitar being used.
Radio Ga Ga dominated by synths? Are YOU being absolutely serious here? :P
The only parts of the song that are "dominated" by synth sounds are the introduction and the instrumental bridge after the second chorus (about 1:10 in total length, or 1/5 of the song) which I seem to remember were both cut from the US single version!
Radio Ga Ga is an example of PROPERLY using the synths, even if you don't like the particular composition. It's still a rock song with drums, guitars and a strong vocal, but it also has the added soundscape created by synthsisers, which could just as well have been created with "regular instruments" by spending a longer time in the studio.
Perhaps what so many people are protesting against is not the synths per se, but their effect on the records... That the songs become less polished and more spontaneous instead, because they are easier to create in the studio?
Interesting discussion, all in all. Great way to close the year:
> Queen worked in a world where the accepted instrumentation for a rock band was guitar, bass, drums and piano if you were a rock band, which is what Queen, Zeppelin, The Who and Stones were.
Zeppelin and The Who used LOADS of no-piano keyboards, and they were still rock.
> Groups like Genesis, Yes, and Pink Floyd were more progressive, keyboard reliant groups.
Both Yes and Pink Floyd used much more piano than Zeppelin.
> Queen were a guitar heavy band who dabbled in everything stylistically, but WITH GUITARS.
Not even half of their output was 'heavy', except maybe the first three albums. And many songs give more importance to piano.
> Songs like Lazing on a Sunday afternoon, Good Company, and The Millionaire Waltz weren't rock and roll, but it was music that rock fans accepted, and all featured Brian's unique playing.
I agree, although 'Waltz' does have some rock parts.
> However, on balance, i think that in the 1970s Queen were essentialy a guitar-based rock band who had some lighter songs on their albums
Half of 'Opera' is piano-based. So the definition is over-simplifying IMO. Live they were more guitar-led, but in the studio they worked for the song.
> So... It really comes down to Queen not being a rock band or playing rock songs, once the piano changed into synthesiser?
I don't think piano was 'changed' by synthesiser. Synths incorporated new sounds, new trends, and piano was slowly fading out, but it's not a 'replacement' per se. Bass and drums were, OTOH, often replaced (partly or completely) by synth-bass and drum-machines.
> My definition of pop? Lightweight, frothy, suitable for mass consumption.
Then many Queen songs are completely pop. Which isn't a bad thing at all.
> In the 70s, Queen were leaders. In the 80s, they were followers.
Maybe. I'd say that in the 70s Queen were musicians who joined the business scene; in the 80s Queen were businessmen who joined the music scene.
> Piano was never the dominant instrument in Queen: it was guitar.
Neither was. It depends on the song. Many hits like Don't Stop Me, Killer Queen, Bo Rhap, We Are the Champions, Save Me, Somebody to Love, Play the Game... had piano as the principal instrument, even if guitar parts were important and of course essential for the track.
> And further, synths weren't Queen's strength.
I agree.
> Freddie had a unique style of playing piano, very personal and a little eccentric, certainly different than an Elton John or Billy Joel.
He was rather rookie compared to them ;)
> Queen's keyboards sounded like everyone's keyboards, so they lost a huge part of the Queen sound. IMHO.
Not 'like everyone's keyboards', but 'like anyone's keyboards'. Which is even worse!
> They put it up there because they were occasionally using sounds that sounded like synthesisers, but wanted to tell the audience it was still a guitar being used.
Not always guitar... there are many non-RS effects here and there. And some few keyboards which were neither acoustic piano nor synth: organ, harpsichord, e-piano, harmonium.
> Radio Ga Ga dominated by synths? Are YOU being absolutely serious here? :P
Indeed: guitars, human bass and human drums are overdubs there. All the backbone is done with synthesisers and drum-machines. So 'Ga Ga' IS dominated by synths.
> Perhaps what so many people are protesting against is not the synths per se, but their effect on the records... That the songs become less polished and more spontaneous instead, because they are easier to create in the studio?
I think many people are automatically biased, often ignoring that playing synths doesn't make you less musician, the same way that being a pop act doesn't make you worse than being a rock act, etc.
> Queen worked in a world where the accepted instrumentation for a rock band was guitar, bass, drums and piano if you were a rock band, which is what Queen, Zeppelin, The Who and Stones were.
Zeppelin and The Who used LOADS of no-piano keyboards, and they were still rock.
> Groups like Genesis, Yes, and Pink Floyd were more progressive, keyboard reliant groups.
Both Yes and Pink Floyd used much more piano than Zeppelin.
> Queen were a guitar heavy band who dabbled in everything stylistically, but WITH GUITARS.
Not even half of their output was 'heavy', except maybe the first three albums. And many songs give more importance to piano.
> Songs like Lazing on a Sunday afternoon, Good Company, and The Millionaire Waltz weren't rock and roll, but it was music that rock fans accepted, and all featured Brian's unique playing.
I agree, although 'Waltz' does have some rock parts.
> However, on balance, i think that in the 1970s Queen were essentialy a guitar-based rock band who had some lighter songs on their albums
Half of 'Opera' is piano-based. So the definition is over-simplifying IMO. Live they were more guitar-led, but in the studio they worked for the song.
> So... It really comes down to Queen not being a rock band or playing rock songs, once the piano changed into synthesiser?
I don't think piano was 'changed' by synthesiser. Synths incorporated new sounds, new trends, and piano was slowly fading out, but it's not a 'replacement' per se. Bass and drums were, OTOH, often replaced (partly or completely) by synth-bass and drum-machines.
> My definition of pop? Lightweight, frothy, suitable for mass consumption.
Then many Queen songs are completely pop. Which isn't a bad thing at all.
> In the 70s, Queen were leaders. In the 80s, they were followers.
Maybe. I'd say that in the 70s Queen were musicians who joined the business scene; in the 80s Queen were businessmen who joined the music scene.
> Piano was never the dominant instrument in Queen: it was guitar.
Neither was. It depends on the song. Many hits like Don't Stop Me, Killer Queen, Bo Rhap, We Are the Champions, Save Me, Somebody to Love, Play the Game... had piano as the principal instrument, even if guitar parts were important and of course essential for the track.
> And further, synths weren't Queen's strength.
I agree.
> Freddie had a unique style of playing piano, very personal and a little eccentric, certainly different than an Elton John or Billy Joel.
He was rather rookie compared to them ;)
> Queen's keyboards sounded like everyone's keyboards, so they lost a huge part of the Queen sound. IMHO.
Not 'like everyone's keyboards', but 'like anyone's keyboards'. Which is even worse!
> They put it up there because they were occasionally using sounds that sounded like synthesisers, but wanted to tell the audience it was still a guitar being used.
Not always guitar... there are many non-RS effects here and there. And some few keyboards which were neither acoustic piano nor synth: organ, harpsichord, e-piano, harmonium.
> Radio Ga Ga dominated by synths? Are YOU being absolutely serious here? :P
Indeed: guitars, human bass and human drums are overdubs there. All the backbone is done with synthesisers and drum-machines. So 'Ga Ga' IS dominated by synths.
> Perhaps what so many people are protesting against is not the synths per se, but their effect on the records... That the songs become less polished and more spontaneous instead, because they are easier to create in the studio?
I think many people are automatically biased, often ignoring that playing synths doesn't make you less musician, the same way that being a pop act doesn't make you worse than being a rock act, etc.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
> Radio Ga Ga dominated by synths? Are YOU being absolutely serious here? :P
Indeed: guitars, human bass and human drums are overdubs there. All the backbone is done with synthesisers and drum-machines. So 'Ga Ga' IS dominated by synths.[/QUOTE]
Let me elaborate on this... I was actually listening to the album while I was writing the previous message.
Radio Ga Ga was probably the song with most synthesisers on that album, but I still wouldn't call it synthesiser-dominated.
I couldn't honestly tell if 20% or 80% of the songs was done with a synthesiser, and which side is the "overdub". The backbone of the song is a drum pattern that could be from a synthesiser, or it could be a 20-second loop originally played with regular drums, with a few equalisers thrown in. That wouldn't make it syhthsised in my opinion, that would only make it a certain (somewhat trendy) sound the band was looking for.
The most obvious synthesiser parts (to me at least) are the "bubbly" bass lines in the introduction and bridge, but what makes these such a radical departure from some of the sounds you can hear e.g. on Get Down Make Love? Is it just the instrument that makes all the difference?
The whole of Radio Ga Ga could have been recorded exactly how it sounds like, back in 1976 without any synthesisers, and it would have been accepted as a standard album track next to Drowse... But now that it was recorded with those "lightweight, poppy synthesisers", it suddenly just doesn't stand up to the level of their other work. That's the part I really don't get.
> Radio Ga Ga dominated by synths? Are YOU being absolutely serious here? :P
Indeed: guitars, human bass and human drums are overdubs there. All the backbone is done with synthesisers and drum-machines. So 'Ga Ga' IS dominated by synths.[/QUOTE]
Let me elaborate on this... I was actually listening to the album while I was writing the previous message.
Radio Ga Ga was probably the song with most synthesisers on that album, but I still wouldn't call it synthesiser-dominated.
I couldn't honestly tell if 20% or 80% of the songs was done with a synthesiser, and which side is the "overdub". The backbone of the song is a drum pattern that could be from a synthesiser, or it could be a 20-second loop originally played with regular drums, with a few equalisers thrown in. That wouldn't make it syhthsised in my opinion, that would only make it a certain (somewhat trendy) sound the band was looking for.
The most obvious synthesiser parts (to me at least) are the "bubbly" bass lines in the introduction and bridge, but what makes these such a radical departure from some of the sounds you can hear e.g. on Get Down Make Love? Is it just the instrument that makes all the difference?
The whole of Radio Ga Ga could have been recorded exactly how it sounds like, back in 1976 without any synthesisers, and it would have been accepted as a standard album track next to Drowse... But now that it was recorded with those "lightweight, poppy synthesisers", it suddenly just doesn't stand up to the level of their other work. That's the part I really don't get.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote:[/QUOTENAME]Heavy metal, Rock and Pop are all part of the same musical scale, and are nothing more than artificial pigeonholes to separate the "better" music I listen to from the "lousier" music YOU listen to.[/QUOTE]
My definition of pop? Lightweight, frothy, suitable for mass consumption. [/QUOTE]
Thanks for admitting what I just wrote. ;)
My definition of pop? Lightweight, frothy, suitable for mass consumption. [/QUOTE]
Thanks for admitting what I just wrote. ;)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
> Radio Ga Ga dominated by synths? Are YOU being absolutely serious here? :P
Indeed: guitars, human bass and human drums are overdubs there. All the backbone is done with synthesisers and drum-machines. So 'Ga Ga' IS dominated by synths.[/QUOTE]
Let me elaborate on this... I was actually listening to the album while I was writing the previous message.
Radio Ga Ga was probably the song with most synthesisers on that album, but I still wouldn't call it synthesiser-dominated.
I couldn't honestly tell if 20% or 80% of the songs was done with a synthesiser, and which side is the "overdub". The backbone of the song is a drum pattern that could be from a synthesiser, or it could be a 20-second loop originally played with regular drums, with a few equalisers thrown in. That wouldn't make it syhthsised in my opinion, that would only make it a certain (somewhat trendy) sound the band was looking for.
The most obvious synthesiser parts (to me at least) are the "bubbly" bass lines in the introduction and bridge, but what makes these such a radical departure from some of the sounds you can hear e.g. on Get Down Make Love? Is it just the instrument that makes all the difference?
The whole of Radio Ga Ga could have been recorded exactly how it sounds like, back in 1976 without any synthesisers, and it would have been accepted as a standard album track next to Drowse... But now that it was recorded with those "lightweight, poppy synthesisers", it suddenly just doesn't stand up to the level of their other work. That's the part I really don't get.[/QUOTE]
The drum pattern is neither an acoustic loop nor a synth, it's a Linn drum-machine. Backing chords are done by synth-pads, some sort of e-piano (sounds sampled to me), and there's only human bass in the break, and all Brian does there is some clean arpeggio bit in the chorus plus the short slide solo. No piano, no bass (except for the solo), almost no acoustic drums.
I do agree that it's unfair to slam it just because it uses synths, but there's a little truth in that: they relied on loops a lot, most synth parts are mere chords appearing on full bars, miles away from Freddie's simple-but-beautiful broken-chord style on the piano; and the few bits of slightly-complicated synth-parts were programmed by people outside the band. In the 70s, keyboards did memorable lines (e.g. 'Champions' has a marvellous piano part, simple but nice), bass-lines had subtle changes from one iteration to the other, loops were only used for one or two songs per album, and the four of them were in charge of virtually every arrangement and instrument. So quality did lower with the rise of technology, in this case. Compare the painstaking job (both recording and mixing) taken in the 'Killer Queen' outro for that hocket guitar figure, compared with the simple half-minute task of programming the Roland Jupiter 8's arpeggiator in 'Action This Day' or 'Las Palabras de Amor'.
> Radio Ga Ga dominated by synths? Are YOU being absolutely serious here? :P
Indeed: guitars, human bass and human drums are overdubs there. All the backbone is done with synthesisers and drum-machines. So 'Ga Ga' IS dominated by synths.[/QUOTE]
Let me elaborate on this... I was actually listening to the album while I was writing the previous message.
Radio Ga Ga was probably the song with most synthesisers on that album, but I still wouldn't call it synthesiser-dominated.
I couldn't honestly tell if 20% or 80% of the songs was done with a synthesiser, and which side is the "overdub". The backbone of the song is a drum pattern that could be from a synthesiser, or it could be a 20-second loop originally played with regular drums, with a few equalisers thrown in. That wouldn't make it syhthsised in my opinion, that would only make it a certain (somewhat trendy) sound the band was looking for.
The most obvious synthesiser parts (to me at least) are the "bubbly" bass lines in the introduction and bridge, but what makes these such a radical departure from some of the sounds you can hear e.g. on Get Down Make Love? Is it just the instrument that makes all the difference?
The whole of Radio Ga Ga could have been recorded exactly how it sounds like, back in 1976 without any synthesisers, and it would have been accepted as a standard album track next to Drowse... But now that it was recorded with those "lightweight, poppy synthesisers", it suddenly just doesn't stand up to the level of their other work. That's the part I really don't get.[/QUOTE]
The drum pattern is neither an acoustic loop nor a synth, it's a Linn drum-machine. Backing chords are done by synth-pads, some sort of e-piano (sounds sampled to me), and there's only human bass in the break, and all Brian does there is some clean arpeggio bit in the chorus plus the short slide solo. No piano, no bass (except for the solo), almost no acoustic drums.
I do agree that it's unfair to slam it just because it uses synths, but there's a little truth in that: they relied on loops a lot, most synth parts are mere chords appearing on full bars, miles away from Freddie's simple-but-beautiful broken-chord style on the piano; and the few bits of slightly-complicated synth-parts were programmed by people outside the band. In the 70s, keyboards did memorable lines (e.g. 'Champions' has a marvellous piano part, simple but nice), bass-lines had subtle changes from one iteration to the other, loops were only used for one or two songs per album, and the four of them were in charge of virtually every arrangement and instrument. So quality did lower with the rise of technology, in this case. Compare the painstaking job (both recording and mixing) taken in the 'Killer Queen' outro for that hocket guitar figure, compared with the simple half-minute task of programming the Roland Jupiter 8's arpeggiator in 'Action This Day' or 'Las Palabras de Amor'.
It's good to hear from somebody who knows more than I do... It helps the discussion a lot.
Alright, the compositions are simpler than they were in the 70's. But aren't the piano compositions of the 80's simpler as well? Man On The Prowl, It's a Hard Life and Keep Passing the Open Windows are all performed with a standard piano as opposed to a synthesiser, aren't they? And nobody ever thinks those are masterpieces either. ;)
What I'm getting at with this is the same I've mentioned before... The overall writing output of the band deteriorated. It wasn't the fault of the synthesisers, the band trying to capitalise on the trendy pop market, or focusing on European listeners instead of the hard rock listeners of America... They just happened to run out of great ideas (and had to settle for good ones) at the same time the new technology was available.
Alright, the compositions are simpler than they were in the 70's. But aren't the piano compositions of the 80's simpler as well? Man On The Prowl, It's a Hard Life and Keep Passing the Open Windows are all performed with a standard piano as opposed to a synthesiser, aren't they? And nobody ever thinks those are masterpieces either. ;)
What I'm getting at with this is the same I've mentioned before... The overall writing output of the band deteriorated. It wasn't the fault of the synthesisers, the band trying to capitalise on the trendy pop market, or focusing on European listeners instead of the hard rock listeners of America... They just happened to run out of great ideas (and had to settle for good ones) at the same time the new technology was available.