[QUOTE]
[b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/b]
And Sir GH, as someone who was for Queen & Paul Rodgers, surely you can see that the chemistry that the original line-up could never be recreated in a million years, and that people like Sebastian (and I) or at least I never bought that lineup as it was contrived compared to what Queen had as FOUR members with strong personalities.
[/QUOTE]
Of course... QPR will never be what Queen was. And I'm sure the three of them realize that. They didn't need to create a groundbreaking album. They've done that before. All they wanted to do was create an album they were happy with, and they succeeded. For the last 25 years they've had nothing to prove to anyone.
Back to Sebastian and Horsie... I think your technical knowledge of music has made you see it as a science, and as a consequence you are missing the organic side of it. Simply put, music is not black and white as you're both making it out to be.
There's far more to a song than what notes and chords are being played and what cadences are being used. That is just a technical language musicians use to describe what is physically happening at any point in time during a piece of music, and it's only a small part of the overall picture of what music is. Imagine by John Lennon has 6 basic chords, yet it's one of the most universally loved and appreciated pieces of art of the last century. It says far more than the sum of the lyrics printed in the liner notes and the technical make-up of the music.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
But being a well known and apreciated song, doesn't make it complex or good or anything. The song is what it is, period. The effect it may cause on people is a completely different matter. If Bohemian Rhapsody had failed to chart in 1975, it doesn't mean the song is suddenly bad or too over the top.
There's no question that Freddie elevated them to someplace special, and if they all had clear individual moments of greatness over the years, well Freddie perhaps had a few more. However, down to the note a band is not just the sum of everything they ever did, but everything they didn't do as well. Queen worked so beautifully well in part because they were four different musicians pulling in four sometimes subtly and sometimes wildly different directions. Freddie as much if not more than the others is almost certain to have achieved some of his most perfect moments after being yanked up,over or off some mildly precipitious musical ledge, or out of some slightly self indulgent hollow, by others. How can it have been any other way.
Bob: I've got absolutely no agenda, and no intention to demonise Brian or Roger. I do, however, think each person representing 25% is as impossible and laughable as flying. But of course I can change to more sensible analogies:
* If I say I'm left handed, does it make it true? No... because, the fact of the matter is, I'm right-handed. If you meet me in person five minutes you realise that. And it's not a matter of 'you've only see me once, while I've seen myself all my life, so I'm right'. Same case here: the Queen members can say each was 25%, and still be debatable.
* Just as you criticised my 'MIH' comments last week because I wasn't there, I can say the following: you were NEVER EVER inside the minds of F, B, R & J, so you CAN'T know whether the 25% comment was figurative or not. Of course, I can't either... but I'm curious about the double standards.
* Another case: I know my brother quite well. We shared our childhoods, we tend to talk to each other every day, etc... let's say I think his favourite drink is whiskey, and let's say he does like it, but I'm actually wrong and have been all my life: his favourite drink is vodka. A person who happens to meet him today realises that, and they tell me 'let's buy him some vodka, it's his favourite drink'. I instantly jump and say 'I've known him for decades, you've known him for minutes, who's right? - but it turns out, they are, in spite of everything.
Does that mean we should doubt everything Brian says because of the (well documented) mistakes he's made? No
Does that mean we should go and kill Brian and Roger for saying Paul was Fred's favourite singer? No
Does that mean that in spite of what the artist says, we're entitled to our own opinions and views on the matter? Yes
So, if they say each one was 25% of the band, each one of us can freely agree or disagree with it, it's not a closed matter. Same for whether (for instance) the bass is more or less important than the guitar, or whether [i]Show Must Go On[/i] should've been credited to May or is fairly attributed to the band, or whether 'Flash' is a true album or not, or whether Roger sings better than Brian or viceversa, etc, etc, etc. All of those things are up to personal opinion, and it's completely ridiculous (more so than a man flying or Fred being naked only when he didn't kill) to pretend a censorship can exist when there's a direct opinion from the artist.
It's the same, of course, for things that are mathematically measurable: even if Freddie's spirit came and said [i]Bo Rhap[/i] was the first video, a seven-minute single and had 180 voices, it wouldn't make it right; even if Brian says [i]MFK[/i]'s on 'Queen II', it's on 'Queen' (I) and that's it; even if John came here and said he'd used his Fender Precision Special on [i]Play the Game[/i], it'd be a mistake (that bass hadn't even been built by then), etc, etc, etc.
I can't, won't and don't mean to speak for Horsie, but I suppose he's not arguing with the [i]chemistry[/i] (or whatever ambiguous label you want to put) factor. The thing is, scientifically, some things [b]CAN[/b] be measured. And on that note:
* The creative side of Queen, lyric-wise, was dominated by Freddie.
* The creative side of Queen, music-wise, was dominated by Freddie.
* The creative side of Queen, arrangement-wise, was dominated by Freddie.
* The performing side of Queen, lead vocal-wise, was dominated by Freddie.
* The performing side of Queen, harmony vocal-wise, was dominated by Freddie.
* The performing side of Queen, guitar-wise, was dominated by Brian.
* The performing side of Queen, percussion-wise, was dominated by Roger.
* The performing side of Queen, keyboard-wise, was dominated by Freddie.
* The performing side of Queen, bass-wise, was dominated by John.
* The performing side of Queen, production-wise, was dominated by Freddie (I'll elaborate on that later).
So, only counting the artistic bits (not to mention that the name, logo and most of the image stemmed from Fred as well), it's pretty obvious that it wasn't a four-way split [b]regarding the parts that can be mathematically measured[/b]. Does that mean B, R and J were three useless idiots who were blessed by Fred's omnipotence? No. Does it mean Queen would've been the same with F plus a backing band? No. Does it mean Roger, John or Brian weren't irreplaceable as well? No.
But, it does mean things can be expanded further than 'the artist(s) said so, and that's it'. Fuck their opinion, I've got mine!
So, to answer the original question: if a person thinks Freddie was more than 25% of the band, and was more important for its music, its success and its cultural impact than the other three, that's not overrating him IMO; if a person thinks Fred was Queen, and the other three could've been easily replaced by three random session musicians with the same result, that [i]would be[/i] overrating him and underrating them.
For a lesser extent, [i]everybody[/i] made a difference: producers, engineers, roadies, the people who designed and built each of the studios, instruments, amps, consoles, tapes, plectra... without [i]any [/i]of them - butterfly effect!
* If I say I'm left handed, does it make it true? No... because, the fact of the matter is, I'm right-handed. If you meet me in person five minutes you realise that. And it's not a matter of 'you've only see me once, while I've seen myself all my life, so I'm right'. Same case here: the Queen members can say each was 25%, and still be debatable.
* Just as you criticised my 'MIH' comments last week because I wasn't there, I can say the following: you were NEVER EVER inside the minds of F, B, R & J, so you CAN'T know whether the 25% comment was figurative or not. Of course, I can't either... but I'm curious about the double standards.
* Another case: I know my brother quite well. We shared our childhoods, we tend to talk to each other every day, etc... let's say I think his favourite drink is whiskey, and let's say he does like it, but I'm actually wrong and have been all my life: his favourite drink is vodka. A person who happens to meet him today realises that, and they tell me 'let's buy him some vodka, it's his favourite drink'. I instantly jump and say 'I've known him for decades, you've known him for minutes, who's right? - but it turns out, they are, in spite of everything.
Does that mean we should doubt everything Brian says because of the (well documented) mistakes he's made? No
Does that mean we should go and kill Brian and Roger for saying Paul was Fred's favourite singer? No
Does that mean that in spite of what the artist says, we're entitled to our own opinions and views on the matter? Yes
So, if they say each one was 25% of the band, each one of us can freely agree or disagree with it, it's not a closed matter. Same for whether (for instance) the bass is more or less important than the guitar, or whether [i]Show Must Go On[/i] should've been credited to May or is fairly attributed to the band, or whether 'Flash' is a true album or not, or whether Roger sings better than Brian or viceversa, etc, etc, etc. All of those things are up to personal opinion, and it's completely ridiculous (more so than a man flying or Fred being naked only when he didn't kill) to pretend a censorship can exist when there's a direct opinion from the artist.
It's the same, of course, for things that are mathematically measurable: even if Freddie's spirit came and said [i]Bo Rhap[/i] was the first video, a seven-minute single and had 180 voices, it wouldn't make it right; even if Brian says [i]MFK[/i]'s on 'Queen II', it's on 'Queen' (I) and that's it; even if John came here and said he'd used his Fender Precision Special on [i]Play the Game[/i], it'd be a mistake (that bass hadn't even been built by then), etc, etc, etc.
I can't, won't and don't mean to speak for Horsie, but I suppose he's not arguing with the [i]chemistry[/i] (or whatever ambiguous label you want to put) factor. The thing is, scientifically, some things [b]CAN[/b] be measured. And on that note:
* The creative side of Queen, lyric-wise, was dominated by Freddie.
* The creative side of Queen, music-wise, was dominated by Freddie.
* The creative side of Queen, arrangement-wise, was dominated by Freddie.
* The performing side of Queen, lead vocal-wise, was dominated by Freddie.
* The performing side of Queen, harmony vocal-wise, was dominated by Freddie.
* The performing side of Queen, guitar-wise, was dominated by Brian.
* The performing side of Queen, percussion-wise, was dominated by Roger.
* The performing side of Queen, keyboard-wise, was dominated by Freddie.
* The performing side of Queen, bass-wise, was dominated by John.
* The performing side of Queen, production-wise, was dominated by Freddie (I'll elaborate on that later).
So, only counting the artistic bits (not to mention that the name, logo and most of the image stemmed from Fred as well), it's pretty obvious that it wasn't a four-way split [b]regarding the parts that can be mathematically measured[/b]. Does that mean B, R and J were three useless idiots who were blessed by Fred's omnipotence? No. Does it mean Queen would've been the same with F plus a backing band? No. Does it mean Roger, John or Brian weren't irreplaceable as well? No.
But, it does mean things can be expanded further than 'the artist(s) said so, and that's it'. Fuck their opinion, I've got mine!
So, to answer the original question: if a person thinks Freddie was more than 25% of the band, and was more important for its music, its success and its cultural impact than the other three, that's not overrating him IMO; if a person thinks Fred was Queen, and the other three could've been easily replaced by three random session musicians with the same result, that [i]would be[/i] overrating him and underrating them.
For a lesser extent, [i]everybody[/i] made a difference: producers, engineers, roadies, the people who designed and built each of the studios, instruments, amps, consoles, tapes, plectra... without [i]any [/i]of them - butterfly effect!
[QUOTE][b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
Does that mean that in spite of what the artist says, we're entitled to our own opinions and views on the matter? Yes[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. And these following statements are your opinions, not undisputed facts as you're trying to make them out to be:
[QUOTE]* The creative side of Queen, music-wise, was dominated by Freddie.
* The creative side of Queen, arrangement-wise, was dominated by Freddie.
* The performing side of Queen, production-wise, was dominated by Freddie (I'll elaborate on that later).[/QUOTE]
They've all said the person who got the songwriting credit is the person who wrote the lyrics, not necessarily the music, as that was very often a band effort. For example, if you want to argue that Roger's writing didn't go beyond major and minor chords in the 70s, that doesn't mean that a song like Drowse was fully written by him. Maybe the change into E was another band member's idea - maybe even Freddie's. And then perhaps Roger took over from there.
On your website you claim that John wrote the music to Back Chat in its entirety, but that's not true. One of those few little things we do know is that Brian argued with John in favour of the guitar solo, and John was emphatically against the idea - but Brian eventually won. Does that mean John wrote the solo? Absolutely not. Brian did, as it's generally done in his style. But any of the band members could have given input here or there, even on a single note.
These are the things we'll never know, and this goes for virtually every song in their catalogue. You can dissect their individual writing styles, but that can only go so far. A list of things that each band member is confirmed to have creatively contributed to a Queen record is not the full extent of their capabilities. The analytical work you do is great, but it is very, very inconclusive, and therefore cannot and should not lead to conclusions like "Freddie dominated the creative process."
Freddie and Brian were both great arrangers. There's no way you can possibly dissect every note of their music to somehow prove who arranged which part. Freddie could've given his two cents for the odd note or two at the end of Good Company. Who says Brian locked himself into a room to do it? And maybe the guitar orchestration in Killer Queen got a couple pointers from John. Any person who truly knows what Queen were about knows they were a very collective band, not four individuals who happened to be in the studio together waiting their turn to record while the other one(s) worked on their part. Members of The Beatles have said how by the White Album, they were basically a group of musicians playing on each other's songs. No member of Queen or anyone close to them has ever stated that about Queen.
The production side was dominated by Freddie? How in the world can you possibly prove that?
[QUOTE]Just as you criticised my 'MIH' comments last week because I wasn't there, I can say the following: you were NEVER EVER inside the minds of F, B, R & J, so you CAN'T know whether the 25% comment was figurative or not. Of course, I can't either... but I'm curious about the double standards.[/QUOTE]
Correct, I wasn't there so therefore I am in no position to claim any kind of expertise over their creative and production processes. Nobody can, unless they were in the band or present at the studio. The only thing I'm doing is entertaining the possibility that they were actually telling the truth. You are the one trying to pick it apart under the untenable assumption that Freddie was in control of virtually everything except for the other members' instrumental and lyrical contributions.
Does that mean that in spite of what the artist says, we're entitled to our own opinions and views on the matter? Yes[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. And these following statements are your opinions, not undisputed facts as you're trying to make them out to be:
[QUOTE]* The creative side of Queen, music-wise, was dominated by Freddie.
* The creative side of Queen, arrangement-wise, was dominated by Freddie.
* The performing side of Queen, production-wise, was dominated by Freddie (I'll elaborate on that later).[/QUOTE]
They've all said the person who got the songwriting credit is the person who wrote the lyrics, not necessarily the music, as that was very often a band effort. For example, if you want to argue that Roger's writing didn't go beyond major and minor chords in the 70s, that doesn't mean that a song like Drowse was fully written by him. Maybe the change into E was another band member's idea - maybe even Freddie's. And then perhaps Roger took over from there.
On your website you claim that John wrote the music to Back Chat in its entirety, but that's not true. One of those few little things we do know is that Brian argued with John in favour of the guitar solo, and John was emphatically against the idea - but Brian eventually won. Does that mean John wrote the solo? Absolutely not. Brian did, as it's generally done in his style. But any of the band members could have given input here or there, even on a single note.
These are the things we'll never know, and this goes for virtually every song in their catalogue. You can dissect their individual writing styles, but that can only go so far. A list of things that each band member is confirmed to have creatively contributed to a Queen record is not the full extent of their capabilities. The analytical work you do is great, but it is very, very inconclusive, and therefore cannot and should not lead to conclusions like "Freddie dominated the creative process."
Freddie and Brian were both great arrangers. There's no way you can possibly dissect every note of their music to somehow prove who arranged which part. Freddie could've given his two cents for the odd note or two at the end of Good Company. Who says Brian locked himself into a room to do it? And maybe the guitar orchestration in Killer Queen got a couple pointers from John. Any person who truly knows what Queen were about knows they were a very collective band, not four individuals who happened to be in the studio together waiting their turn to record while the other one(s) worked on their part. Members of The Beatles have said how by the White Album, they were basically a group of musicians playing on each other's songs. No member of Queen or anyone close to them has ever stated that about Queen.
The production side was dominated by Freddie? How in the world can you possibly prove that?
[QUOTE]Just as you criticised my 'MIH' comments last week because I wasn't there, I can say the following: you were NEVER EVER inside the minds of F, B, R & J, so you CAN'T know whether the 25% comment was figurative or not. Of course, I can't either... but I'm curious about the double standards.[/QUOTE]
Correct, I wasn't there so therefore I am in no position to claim any kind of expertise over their creative and production processes. Nobody can, unless they were in the band or present at the studio. The only thing I'm doing is entertaining the possibility that they were actually telling the truth. You are the one trying to pick it apart under the untenable assumption that Freddie was in control of virtually everything except for the other members' instrumental and lyrical contributions.
you guys are going nowhere with this, everyone's allowed too have an opinion. My opinion and most rock fans agree that freddie was the dominate songwriter/performer of the band with brian a close second. Too say John or roger were freddie's equal is being silly.
They've all said that? That means you've got at least one comment from each saying exactly that... please point them to us if you will. And by the way there's NO WAY you can know what I think - to claim I'm trying to imply Fred was in absolute control of everything is as ridiculous as thinking men can fly, the earth is flat and [i]Bo Rhap[/i]'s got 180 voices.
I am, just like you, entertaining the possibility to which the (limited) sources we have point us: the person who's credited wrote most of the lyrics, most of the music and most of the arrangements. There are exceptions and I'm pretty sure not even they'd remember the specific cases when a word, a key change, a bass riff, a pun, etc. was suggested by another person (not necessarily from the band). So, based on what we know, things point at Freddie dominating, numerically, the creative process, in lyrics, music and arrangements.
Based on that and other factors such as:
* They've said that the creator of the song dominated the production, even being the one who mixed it (or gave instructions to the engineers in the process). So, it's simple maths: if 'Sheer Heart Attack' has 13 songs, six of which were written and composed by Freddie, it means that he was the main producer in them; Brian for four, John for one, Roger for one, all of them for one. Can it be absolutely proved? Not unless we've got footage of each session, and we don't - so, no. But, based on what we know, it's fairly logical to establish that, for that album, the creative process was dominated by Freddie (lyrics, music, arrangements and production). An obvious exception is 'Flash', as well as 'Made in Heaven' for some extent.
* The Q Mag article from '99 features Gary Lyons (IIRC) commenting on how Freddie used to be right there in the console overseeing the way things were produced, even in songs he hadn't written. Although not a technical person in terms of equipment, consoles or tape-recorders, he did have very good ears and was very supportive of other people's songwriting. Could Mr Lyons be lying or misremembering? Of course, but I am, just like you are, entertaining the possibility that he's telling the truth. Same for other instances where Roy, David Richards, John (when interviewed by Jim Ladd, he did comment that Fred was the one who spent most of the time in the studio) have implied that Freddie was the one who participated the most in choosing vocal tracks, panning effects, etc. Does it mean Brian, John and Roger had no say in that or that they only played their bits and left? No, of course not. But it does mean that Fred contributed more to that side, than they did. Same for the other aspects.
* The Making of [i]One Vision[/i]... it doesn't prove that the remaining 150+ of Queen songs were done that way (with Fred taking over and instructing them and so on), but it does suggest some sort of pattern. You can safely tell (without having a PhD in behavioural psychology or knowing them personally) by both his and their reaction, that it wasn't the first time that happened.
I am, just like you, entertaining the possibility to which the (limited) sources we have point us: the person who's credited wrote most of the lyrics, most of the music and most of the arrangements. There are exceptions and I'm pretty sure not even they'd remember the specific cases when a word, a key change, a bass riff, a pun, etc. was suggested by another person (not necessarily from the band). So, based on what we know, things point at Freddie dominating, numerically, the creative process, in lyrics, music and arrangements.
Based on that and other factors such as:
* They've said that the creator of the song dominated the production, even being the one who mixed it (or gave instructions to the engineers in the process). So, it's simple maths: if 'Sheer Heart Attack' has 13 songs, six of which were written and composed by Freddie, it means that he was the main producer in them; Brian for four, John for one, Roger for one, all of them for one. Can it be absolutely proved? Not unless we've got footage of each session, and we don't - so, no. But, based on what we know, it's fairly logical to establish that, for that album, the creative process was dominated by Freddie (lyrics, music, arrangements and production). An obvious exception is 'Flash', as well as 'Made in Heaven' for some extent.
* The Q Mag article from '99 features Gary Lyons (IIRC) commenting on how Freddie used to be right there in the console overseeing the way things were produced, even in songs he hadn't written. Although not a technical person in terms of equipment, consoles or tape-recorders, he did have very good ears and was very supportive of other people's songwriting. Could Mr Lyons be lying or misremembering? Of course, but I am, just like you are, entertaining the possibility that he's telling the truth. Same for other instances where Roy, David Richards, John (when interviewed by Jim Ladd, he did comment that Fred was the one who spent most of the time in the studio) have implied that Freddie was the one who participated the most in choosing vocal tracks, panning effects, etc. Does it mean Brian, John and Roger had no say in that or that they only played their bits and left? No, of course not. But it does mean that Fred contributed more to that side, than they did. Same for the other aspects.
* The Making of [i]One Vision[/i]... it doesn't prove that the remaining 150+ of Queen songs were done that way (with Fred taking over and instructing them and so on), but it does suggest some sort of pattern. You can safely tell (without having a PhD in behavioural psychology or knowing them personally) by both his and their reaction, that it wasn't the first time that happened.
So, I'll rephrase:
* ALL four of them participated in the creative process of writing the lyrics, and sometimes there were contributions or inspiration from people outside the band. It was NOT, however, a 25-25-25-25 situation, since some members wrote more lyrics than others. Freddie did write more lyrics than anybody else in the band, though certainly not more than the others combined. So... he was not the only lyricist of the band (and many would say he was not the best lyricist there, that's a matter of opinion), but he certainly was the one who contributed to that aspect more than the others.
* ALL four of them participated in the creative process of writing the music, and sometimes there were contributions or inspiration from people outside the band. It was NOT, however, a 25-25-25-25 situation, since some members wrote more music than others. Freddie did compose more music than anybody else in the band, though certainly not more than the others combined. So... he was not the only composer of the band (and many would say he was not the best composer there, that's a matter of opinion), but he certainly was the one who contributed to that aspect more than the others.
* ALL four of them participated in the creative process of writing the arrangements, and sometimes there were contributions or inspiration from people outside the band. It was NOT, however, a 25-25-25-25 situation, since some members wrote more arrangements than others. Freddie did write more arrangements than anybody else in the band, though certainly not more than the others combined. So... he was not the only arranger of the band (and many would say he was not the best arranger there, that's a matter of opinion), but he certainly was the one who contributed to that aspect more than the others.
* ALL four of them participated actively in producing the records, almost always with help and support from other people (Baker, Stone, etc). It was NOT, however, a 25-25-25-25 situation, since some members had more input in that department than others. Freddie did produce more than anybody else in the band, though certainly not more than the others combined. So... he was not the only producer in the band (and many would say he was not the best producer there, that's a matter of opinion), but he certainly was the one who contributed to that aspect more than the others.
* Three of them participated actively in providing lead vocals for the songs, occasionally with other people (Bowie, for instance). It was NOT, however, a 33-33-33 situation, since one member of the band had a lot more input in that department than the rest (including many songs he didn't write). Freddie did sing more lead vocals than Brian and Roger combined, so it's safe to say that in that department he did dominate.
* Three of them participated actively in providing harmony vocals for the songs, occasionally with other people (with or without receiving a credit). It was NOT, however, a 33-33-33 situation, since one member of the band had a lot more input in that department than the rest (including many songs he didn't write). Freddie did sing more harmony vocals than Brian or Roger, so it's safe to say that in that department he did dominate.
* ALL four of them played guitars on the records, and occasionally other people did as well (e.g. Howe). It was NOT, however, a 25-25-25-25 situation, since one member of the band had a lot more input in that department than the rest (including many songs he didn't write). Brian did play more guitars (acoustic, electric, rhythm, lead, ensembles, choirs, ornaments) than all the others combined, so it's safe to say that in that department Freddie did not dominate.
* Two of them played bass on the records. It was NOT, however, a 50-50 situation, since one member of the band had a lot more input in that department than the other (including many songs he didn't write). John did play more bass than Roger, so it's safe to say that in that department Freddie did not dominate. Btw, Bri did play bass on some demos, but not on finished versions as far as it's been documented or officially credited.
* ALL four of them played percussion on the records, and occasionally other people did as well (e.g. Baker). It was NOT, however, a 25-25-25-25 situation, since one member of the band had a lot more input in that department than the rest (including many songs he didn't write). Roger did play more percussion (drums, e-drums, programmed or sampled percussion, tambourine) than all the others combined, so it's safe to say that in that department Freddie did not dominate.
* ALL four of them played keyboards on the records, and occasionally other people did as well (e.g. Mack). It was NOT, however, a 25-25-25-25 situation, since one member of the band had a lot more input in that department than the rest (including many songs he didn't write). Freddie did play more keyboards (piano, harpsichord, synthesisers) than Roger, John or Brian, so it's safe to say that in that department Freddie did dominate.
To sum up, and not going into non-musical aspects such as the logo, the name, the image (all of which were dominated by Freddie, BTW), it IS safe to say, based on what we know, that Mercury was indeed more than 25% of the band in terms of their artistic product(s). It does NOT mean AT ALL that the others DID NOT contribute to those aspects he dominated (namely lyrics, arrangements, music, production, vocals and keyboards, all of which had some marvellous moments by the other band members and some priceless contributions as well), but it DOES mean that Freddie was CERTAINLY MORE than the 25% he credited to himself.
And to sum up my sum-up: it's NOT overrating Freddie to think he was more than 25% of the band; it IS overrating Freddie to think the others were worthless or not crucial for Queen; is IS underrating Freddie to think he was what he was only because of Brian, or Roger, or John, or a combination of them.
* ALL four of them participated in the creative process of writing the lyrics, and sometimes there were contributions or inspiration from people outside the band. It was NOT, however, a 25-25-25-25 situation, since some members wrote more lyrics than others. Freddie did write more lyrics than anybody else in the band, though certainly not more than the others combined. So... he was not the only lyricist of the band (and many would say he was not the best lyricist there, that's a matter of opinion), but he certainly was the one who contributed to that aspect more than the others.
* ALL four of them participated in the creative process of writing the music, and sometimes there were contributions or inspiration from people outside the band. It was NOT, however, a 25-25-25-25 situation, since some members wrote more music than others. Freddie did compose more music than anybody else in the band, though certainly not more than the others combined. So... he was not the only composer of the band (and many would say he was not the best composer there, that's a matter of opinion), but he certainly was the one who contributed to that aspect more than the others.
* ALL four of them participated in the creative process of writing the arrangements, and sometimes there were contributions or inspiration from people outside the band. It was NOT, however, a 25-25-25-25 situation, since some members wrote more arrangements than others. Freddie did write more arrangements than anybody else in the band, though certainly not more than the others combined. So... he was not the only arranger of the band (and many would say he was not the best arranger there, that's a matter of opinion), but he certainly was the one who contributed to that aspect more than the others.
* ALL four of them participated actively in producing the records, almost always with help and support from other people (Baker, Stone, etc). It was NOT, however, a 25-25-25-25 situation, since some members had more input in that department than others. Freddie did produce more than anybody else in the band, though certainly not more than the others combined. So... he was not the only producer in the band (and many would say he was not the best producer there, that's a matter of opinion), but he certainly was the one who contributed to that aspect more than the others.
* Three of them participated actively in providing lead vocals for the songs, occasionally with other people (Bowie, for instance). It was NOT, however, a 33-33-33 situation, since one member of the band had a lot more input in that department than the rest (including many songs he didn't write). Freddie did sing more lead vocals than Brian and Roger combined, so it's safe to say that in that department he did dominate.
* Three of them participated actively in providing harmony vocals for the songs, occasionally with other people (with or without receiving a credit). It was NOT, however, a 33-33-33 situation, since one member of the band had a lot more input in that department than the rest (including many songs he didn't write). Freddie did sing more harmony vocals than Brian or Roger, so it's safe to say that in that department he did dominate.
* ALL four of them played guitars on the records, and occasionally other people did as well (e.g. Howe). It was NOT, however, a 25-25-25-25 situation, since one member of the band had a lot more input in that department than the rest (including many songs he didn't write). Brian did play more guitars (acoustic, electric, rhythm, lead, ensembles, choirs, ornaments) than all the others combined, so it's safe to say that in that department Freddie did not dominate.
* Two of them played bass on the records. It was NOT, however, a 50-50 situation, since one member of the band had a lot more input in that department than the other (including many songs he didn't write). John did play more bass than Roger, so it's safe to say that in that department Freddie did not dominate. Btw, Bri did play bass on some demos, but not on finished versions as far as it's been documented or officially credited.
* ALL four of them played percussion on the records, and occasionally other people did as well (e.g. Baker). It was NOT, however, a 25-25-25-25 situation, since one member of the band had a lot more input in that department than the rest (including many songs he didn't write). Roger did play more percussion (drums, e-drums, programmed or sampled percussion, tambourine) than all the others combined, so it's safe to say that in that department Freddie did not dominate.
* ALL four of them played keyboards on the records, and occasionally other people did as well (e.g. Mack). It was NOT, however, a 25-25-25-25 situation, since one member of the band had a lot more input in that department than the rest (including many songs he didn't write). Freddie did play more keyboards (piano, harpsichord, synthesisers) than Roger, John or Brian, so it's safe to say that in that department Freddie did dominate.
To sum up, and not going into non-musical aspects such as the logo, the name, the image (all of which were dominated by Freddie, BTW), it IS safe to say, based on what we know, that Mercury was indeed more than 25% of the band in terms of their artistic product(s). It does NOT mean AT ALL that the others DID NOT contribute to those aspects he dominated (namely lyrics, arrangements, music, production, vocals and keyboards, all of which had some marvellous moments by the other band members and some priceless contributions as well), but it DOES mean that Freddie was CERTAINLY MORE than the 25% he credited to himself.
And to sum up my sum-up: it's NOT overrating Freddie to think he was more than 25% of the band; it IS overrating Freddie to think the others were worthless or not crucial for Queen; is IS underrating Freddie to think he was what he was only because of Brian, or Roger, or John, or a combination of them.
Last but not least, regarding [i]Back Chat[/i]: just because Bri said he'd convinced John to include a solo (and not entering into the whole memory debate), it doesn't mean he wrote it. Of course, I can't know if every single note, word, mixing detail, etc. was John's idea, but it IS safe to say that MOST of that was created by him (especially on a song like that where he also played several instruments).
So, was John in charge of 100% of the lyrics? Maybe, maybe not (for all we know, maybe one of his kids suggested the 'get your way' line and wasn't credited). But we have NO reason to doubt that AT LEAST MOST of the lyrics were his.
Was John in charge of 100% of the music? Maybe, maybe not. But we have NO reason to doubt that AT LEAST MOST of the music was his.
Was John in charge of 100% of the arrangements? Maybe, maybe not. But we have NO reason to doubt that AT LEAST MOST of the arrangements were his.
Was John in charge of 100% of the production? Maybe, maybe not. But we have NO reason to doubt that AT LEAST most of the production was his.
Based on that, we can see who dominated each aspect on 'Hot Space', knowing that we can't make who wrote every single line (both lyrical and musical) and who had each idea, but knowing for sure who had AT LEAST MOST of them:
SP: Fred
Dancer: Bri
BC: John
BL: Fred
ATD: Rog
POTF: Bri
LIR: Fred
CAG: Rog
LPDA: Bri
CC: F&J
UP: All five (though recollections have implied a Mercury/Bowie dominance)
So, we can tell for sure that arrangements, music and lyrics were dominated by (which is NOT the same as 100% created and directed by) Freddie in 33.63% of the album, by Brian in 29.09%, by John in 15.45% and by Roger in 20%. As you see, neither had the 25% (though they all were in the 15-35 range of which 25's a safe approximation to the average). Of course, that's only for one album and that's not taking in consideration other aspects such as chemistry, potential ideas that could've gone uncredited, advertising, etc.
PS: Based on what's been said in interviews and based on what can be thoroughly analysed from a musicological perspective (both of which of course have a margin of error, but what else do you want? paraphrasing Yara, should we shut down the forum then?), it IS certain that ALL of the notes done by guitars on [i]GC[/i] were composed by Brian, as well as ALL of the notes done by voices on BRhap were composed by Freddie.
So, was John in charge of 100% of the lyrics? Maybe, maybe not (for all we know, maybe one of his kids suggested the 'get your way' line and wasn't credited). But we have NO reason to doubt that AT LEAST MOST of the lyrics were his.
Was John in charge of 100% of the music? Maybe, maybe not. But we have NO reason to doubt that AT LEAST MOST of the music was his.
Was John in charge of 100% of the arrangements? Maybe, maybe not. But we have NO reason to doubt that AT LEAST MOST of the arrangements were his.
Was John in charge of 100% of the production? Maybe, maybe not. But we have NO reason to doubt that AT LEAST most of the production was his.
Based on that, we can see who dominated each aspect on 'Hot Space', knowing that we can't make who wrote every single line (both lyrical and musical) and who had each idea, but knowing for sure who had AT LEAST MOST of them:
SP: Fred
Dancer: Bri
BC: John
BL: Fred
ATD: Rog
POTF: Bri
LIR: Fred
CAG: Rog
LPDA: Bri
CC: F&J
UP: All five (though recollections have implied a Mercury/Bowie dominance)
So, we can tell for sure that arrangements, music and lyrics were dominated by (which is NOT the same as 100% created and directed by) Freddie in 33.63% of the album, by Brian in 29.09%, by John in 15.45% and by Roger in 20%. As you see, neither had the 25% (though they all were in the 15-35 range of which 25's a safe approximation to the average). Of course, that's only for one album and that's not taking in consideration other aspects such as chemistry, potential ideas that could've gone uncredited, advertising, etc.
PS: Based on what's been said in interviews and based on what can be thoroughly analysed from a musicological perspective (both of which of course have a margin of error, but what else do you want? paraphrasing Yara, should we shut down the forum then?), it IS certain that ALL of the notes done by guitars on [i]GC[/i] were composed by Brian, as well as ALL of the notes done by voices on BRhap were composed by Freddie.
Head, meet desk. Desk, this is head, he'll be a regular from now on.
I think what shits me the most with this thread is the way that the facts are being twisted so comically. Of course you're going to reach the conclusion that Freddie = Queen if you only count My Fairy King in the songwriting department. How easy is that??
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]It comes down to what you think Queen were and what their best material was. If you can't have an appreciation for the length of their career and the sheer variety of songs they produced, then you shouldn't even pretend to be remotely level headed on the topic.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]20 years, 100s of songs .... if you averaged out all of that work (including the stuff that we can never possibly know without a time machine) then it's probably closer to 4 way than would be comfortable for some people. I'd still assume that Freddie would come out on top (again this isn't really measurable by song credits or lead vocals alone - songs are adjusted in the recording process by the other guys even playing on it in the first place, and it was Freddie's job to sing) but some folk seem to find it impossible to jam the simple fact into their heads that it was a bigger group effort than Joe Public thinks.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]It comes down to how much of that 20 year career one actually likes, of course ... ! I'd rather forget most of their 80's missteps and focus on the amazing stuff that Freddie and Brian wrote in the 70's (don't really care for Roger's material). But if one wants to be analytical, then one should include everything - not just the admirable stuff. Because even the stinkers were still "Queen". Queen wrote and recorded them and decided they were worthy of release. [/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]It comes down to what you think Queen were and what their best material was. If you can't have an appreciation for the length of their career and the sheer variety of songs they produced, then you shouldn't even pretend to be remotely level headed on the topic.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]20 years, 100s of songs .... if you averaged out all of that work (including the stuff that we can never possibly know without a time machine) then it's probably closer to 4 way than would be comfortable for some people. I'd still assume that Freddie would come out on top (again this isn't really measurable by song credits or lead vocals alone - songs are adjusted in the recording process by the other guys even playing on it in the first place, and it was Freddie's job to sing) but some folk seem to find it impossible to jam the simple fact into their heads that it was a bigger group effort than Joe Public thinks.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]It comes down to how much of that 20 year career one actually likes, of course ... ! I'd rather forget most of their 80's missteps and focus on the amazing stuff that Freddie and Brian wrote in the 70's (don't really care for Roger's material). But if one wants to be analytical, then one should include everything - not just the admirable stuff. Because even the stinkers were still "Queen". Queen wrote and recorded them and decided they were worthy of release. [/QUOTE]
The bottom line is they all were Important, but not close to equal. [img=/images/smiley/msn/wink_smile.gif][/img]
But that's my point - that's a statement of averages which is a ridiculous thing to try and do over such a long period in a creative field where they all took turns at steering the ship, so to speak... fuck, it's insane.
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
Last but not least, regarding [i]Back Chat[/i]: just because [b]Bri said he'd convinced John to include a solo[/b] (and not entering into the whole memory debate), it doesn't mean he wrote it. Of course, I can't know if every single note, word, mixing detail, etc. was John's idea, but it IS safe to say that MOST of that was created by him (especially on a song like that where he also played several instruments).
So, was John in charge of 100% of the lyrics? Maybe, maybe not (for all we know, maybe one of his kids suggested the [b]'get your way'[/b] line and wasn't credited).
[/QUOTE]
Since we're guesing, isn't it more logical to believe that the "get your way" line has something to do with Brian insisting on the inclusion of a guitar solo?
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
Last but not least, regarding [i]Back Chat[/i]: just because [b]Bri said he'd convinced John to include a solo[/b] (and not entering into the whole memory debate), it doesn't mean he wrote it. Of course, I can't know if every single note, word, mixing detail, etc. was John's idea, but it IS safe to say that MOST of that was created by him (especially on a song like that where he also played several instruments).
So, was John in charge of 100% of the lyrics? Maybe, maybe not (for all we know, maybe one of his kids suggested the [b]'get your way'[/b] line and wasn't credited).
[/QUOTE]
Since we're guesing, isn't it more logical to believe that the "get your way" line has something to do with Brian insisting on the inclusion of a guitar solo?
Sure! And the 'twisting' line must belong to Paul McCartney since there's NO WAY anybody else on the planet could write that. I heard that when somebody other than him tries to write it, a galaxy implodes!
Anyway, I've got more points to add:
* When Mooghead shared the extracts from multi's (and he or she was very kind and generous in doing so), I remember somebody saying it'd be better to have them complete. Sure, but as he or she said, having some multi's (incomplete as they may be) is better than having none.
* Bob's web, interesting as it is, also has the risk of being incomplete or mistaken. The very nicely-done stats could fail to include, for instance, a filmed concert from 1976 that nobody else knows about because the person who did it never cared to contact collectors and confirm the existence of a tape. That's, of course, only a hypothesis, but it doesn't mean he's got to refrain from drawing conclusions since, even with the risk of being incomplete or mistaken in some bits, they are interesting and worth reading.
* Same case: since nobody of us was there when John was writing [i]Back Chat[/i], we can't know if his driver, his cook, his daughter, his masseuse or a diary from his deceased great-grand-dad gave him or not certain ideas for the lyrics, the key, the motif or how to do the mixing process. We've only got the album credit and the possibility of doing a musicological analysis to find cross-references and patterns. And based on both, there's no reason to believe (until demonstrated otherwise) that the music (i.e. chords, form and melody), the lyrics and all or most of the arrangements were done by him. That's not different from Mooghead's or GH's cases.
I was wrong about saying the creative process was [i]dominated[/i] by Freddie, and other posters are right when implying that [i]nobody[/i] actually [i]dominated[/i] those aspects (except of course for the instrument each one played). So I'll rephrase: the overall creative process (lyrics, music and arrangements) had [i]more[/i] input from Freddie than it had from Brian, Roger or John; same for production.
Again, it does NOT mean the others were irrelevant, it does NOT mean Freddie was Queen, it does NOT undervalue the excellent and crucial input the others had on each aspect. It DOES mean that, indeed, 25-25-25-25 isn't true. So, if a person claims Fred was more important than any of the others (not than the three others combined), it's not overrating him; if a person claims Fred had more input on arrangements and production than any of the others (not than the other three combined), it's not overrating him; if a person claims Fred was more than 25% (though certainly less than 50%), that's not overrating him.
Anyway, I've got more points to add:
* When Mooghead shared the extracts from multi's (and he or she was very kind and generous in doing so), I remember somebody saying it'd be better to have them complete. Sure, but as he or she said, having some multi's (incomplete as they may be) is better than having none.
* Bob's web, interesting as it is, also has the risk of being incomplete or mistaken. The very nicely-done stats could fail to include, for instance, a filmed concert from 1976 that nobody else knows about because the person who did it never cared to contact collectors and confirm the existence of a tape. That's, of course, only a hypothesis, but it doesn't mean he's got to refrain from drawing conclusions since, even with the risk of being incomplete or mistaken in some bits, they are interesting and worth reading.
* Same case: since nobody of us was there when John was writing [i]Back Chat[/i], we can't know if his driver, his cook, his daughter, his masseuse or a diary from his deceased great-grand-dad gave him or not certain ideas for the lyrics, the key, the motif or how to do the mixing process. We've only got the album credit and the possibility of doing a musicological analysis to find cross-references and patterns. And based on both, there's no reason to believe (until demonstrated otherwise) that the music (i.e. chords, form and melody), the lyrics and all or most of the arrangements were done by him. That's not different from Mooghead's or GH's cases.
I was wrong about saying the creative process was [i]dominated[/i] by Freddie, and other posters are right when implying that [i]nobody[/i] actually [i]dominated[/i] those aspects (except of course for the instrument each one played). So I'll rephrase: the overall creative process (lyrics, music and arrangements) had [i]more[/i] input from Freddie than it had from Brian, Roger or John; same for production.
Again, it does NOT mean the others were irrelevant, it does NOT mean Freddie was Queen, it does NOT undervalue the excellent and crucial input the others had on each aspect. It DOES mean that, indeed, 25-25-25-25 isn't true. So, if a person claims Fred was more important than any of the others (not than the three others combined), it's not overrating him; if a person claims Fred had more input on arrangements and production than any of the others (not than the other three combined), it's not overrating him; if a person claims Fred was more than 25% (though certainly less than 50%), that's not overrating him.