[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
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!
[/QUOTE]
Yeah that's exactly what I said, right enough...
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
They've said that the creator of the song dominated the production
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.
The Making of One Vision... 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.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. Freddie had a major say in some things. But these kinds of citations note only the *physical* elements of the music. You cannot measure the organic elements - the influence they had on one another, and the little things they each brought to the table that we'll never know about, because WE WEREN'T THERE.
[QUOTE]It was NOT, however, a 25-25-25-25 situation, since some members wrote more arrangements than others.[/QUOTE]
But that is simply not all it comes down to. Music is not about mathematics. In the case of a band where all the members are strong writers and contributors, it is about a chemistry between the members. You will never convince me that any one member of the band was more important to the equation than another. Freddie is not what kept Queen together for 20 years. They all did. Each individual's contributions go far beyond what is physically on the record and who tangibly did what. And if you don't understand this, then that's truly unfortunate.
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
Of course. There will always be far more in existence than you or I will ever know about. I simply document what I am able to document. You can't possibly blame me for not being able to access all the information in the world that exists about Queen's concerts.
They've said that the creator of the song dominated the production
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.
The Making of One Vision... 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.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. Freddie had a major say in some things. But these kinds of citations note only the *physical* elements of the music. You cannot measure the organic elements - the influence they had on one another, and the little things they each brought to the table that we'll never know about, because WE WEREN'T THERE.
[QUOTE]It was NOT, however, a 25-25-25-25 situation, since some members wrote more arrangements than others.[/QUOTE]
But that is simply not all it comes down to. Music is not about mathematics. In the case of a band where all the members are strong writers and contributors, it is about a chemistry between the members. You will never convince me that any one member of the band was more important to the equation than another. Freddie is not what kept Queen together for 20 years. They all did. Each individual's contributions go far beyond what is physically on the record and who tangibly did what. And if you don't understand this, then that's truly unfortunate.
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
Of course. There will always be far more in existence than you or I will ever know about. I simply document what I am able to document. You can't possibly blame me for not being able to access all the information in the world that exists about Queen's concerts.
> Fair enough. Freddie had a major say in some things. But these kinds of citations note only the *physical* elements of the music. You cannot measure the organic elements
Of course I can't, have I ever said otherwise?
> Music is not about mathematics.
Actually, it is. But I suppose we can agree to disagree here.
> You will never convince me that any one member of the band was more important to the equation than another.
And I'm not trying to. I do, however, have the right not to simply shut up 'because they said so'. Again, even if they said each was 25%, it doesn't mean I (or anybody else) can't disagree with it.
> Freddie is not what kept Queen together for 20 years. They all did.
Indeed. But not in the same amount.
> Each individual's contributions go far beyond what is physically on the record and who tangibly did what. And if you don't understand this, then that's truly unfortunate.
There's no way you can possibly know if I can or can't understand something.
> Of course. There will always be far more in existence than you or I will ever know about. I simply document what I am able to document.
So do I, so what's the difference?
> You can't possibly blame me for not being able to access all the information in the world that exists about Queen's concerts.
And I'm not blaming you. But, in the [i]Back Chat [/i]case, for instance, you can't possibly blame me for not being able to access to footage of the song being written and composed (considering there's a strong possibility that such footage doesn't exist to begin with). Unless I get a strong argument proving otherwise (and 'Bri's the guitarist so he wrote the solos' isn't one), the most logical conclusion I can draw about it is that the music was invented by John Deacon, at least until I make an exhaustive note-by-note analysis (which I haven't) that could provide us with some cross-references or links to previous arrangements by the others - that still wouldn't (and couldn't) be a 100% error-proof absolute certainty, but would be strong enough (IMO) to change the 'credits' if that's the case. Same for any other song.
Of course I can't, have I ever said otherwise?
> Music is not about mathematics.
Actually, it is. But I suppose we can agree to disagree here.
> You will never convince me that any one member of the band was more important to the equation than another.
And I'm not trying to. I do, however, have the right not to simply shut up 'because they said so'. Again, even if they said each was 25%, it doesn't mean I (or anybody else) can't disagree with it.
> Freddie is not what kept Queen together for 20 years. They all did.
Indeed. But not in the same amount.
> Each individual's contributions go far beyond what is physically on the record and who tangibly did what. And if you don't understand this, then that's truly unfortunate.
There's no way you can possibly know if I can or can't understand something.
> Of course. There will always be far more in existence than you or I will ever know about. I simply document what I am able to document.
So do I, so what's the difference?
> You can't possibly blame me for not being able to access all the information in the world that exists about Queen's concerts.
And I'm not blaming you. But, in the [i]Back Chat [/i]case, for instance, you can't possibly blame me for not being able to access to footage of the song being written and composed (considering there's a strong possibility that such footage doesn't exist to begin with). Unless I get a strong argument proving otherwise (and 'Bri's the guitarist so he wrote the solos' isn't one), the most logical conclusion I can draw about it is that the music was invented by John Deacon, at least until I make an exhaustive note-by-note analysis (which I haven't) that could provide us with some cross-references or links to previous arrangements by the others - that still wouldn't (and couldn't) be a 100% error-proof absolute certainty, but would be strong enough (IMO) to change the 'credits' if that's the case. Same for any other song.
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
> Freddie is not what kept Queen together for 20 years. They all did.
Indeed. But not in the same amount.
[/QUOTE]
In your opinion. At any given time, it is possible that the band could have completely fallen apart if any of the four members wasn't there to bind things back together again. An event like this could have led to the creation of a great song written by any member of the band. The credit won't say "inspired by a crisis averted by John Deacon." This is yet another thing you're not figuring into the equation. This was not a band of pushovers listening to a dictator.
[QUOTE]> Each individual's contributions go far beyond what is physically on the record and who tangibly did what. And if you don't understand this, then that's truly unfortunate.
There's no way you can possibly know if I can or can't understand something.[/QUOTE]
But you've demonstrated that you don't understand this concept. If you did, you wouldn't be trying to convince yourself or others that one member of the band was more important than the others. You cannot measure chemistry. But in order to further your agenda of insisting Freddie being the dominating member, you choose to ignore this part of the equation and focus on the portion of things that can be measured. It's like saying the bushel of fruit is a bushel of oranges simply because the first three pieces of fruit you plucked out happened to be oranges.
[QUOTE](and 'Bri's the guitarist so he wrote the solos' isn't one)[/QUOTE]
Right, I get that. But in this case, Deacon didn't want the solo to begin with, so I doubt he was happy to write a solo he didn't want on the song. These are the kinds of things that will probably never be verified, which is why I think it's wrong for you to claim on your website, here, or wherever that Deacon wrote the entire song.
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
> Freddie is not what kept Queen together for 20 years. They all did.
Indeed. But not in the same amount.
[/QUOTE]
In your opinion. At any given time, it is possible that the band could have completely fallen apart if any of the four members wasn't there to bind things back together again. An event like this could have led to the creation of a great song written by any member of the band. The credit won't say "inspired by a crisis averted by John Deacon." This is yet another thing you're not figuring into the equation. This was not a band of pushovers listening to a dictator.
[QUOTE]> Each individual's contributions go far beyond what is physically on the record and who tangibly did what. And if you don't understand this, then that's truly unfortunate.
There's no way you can possibly know if I can or can't understand something.[/QUOTE]
But you've demonstrated that you don't understand this concept. If you did, you wouldn't be trying to convince yourself or others that one member of the band was more important than the others. You cannot measure chemistry. But in order to further your agenda of insisting Freddie being the dominating member, you choose to ignore this part of the equation and focus on the portion of things that can be measured. It's like saying the bushel of fruit is a bushel of oranges simply because the first three pieces of fruit you plucked out happened to be oranges.
[QUOTE](and 'Bri's the guitarist so he wrote the solos' isn't one)[/QUOTE]
Right, I get that. But in this case, Deacon didn't want the solo to begin with, so I doubt he was happy to write a solo he didn't want on the song. These are the kinds of things that will probably never be verified, which is why I think it's wrong for you to claim on your website, here, or wherever that Deacon wrote the entire song.
> In your opinion.
Of course. Have I ever said otherwise?
> You cannot measure chemistry.
Of course I can't. Have I ever said otherwise?
> But in order to further your agenda of insisting Freddie being the dominating member
I've got no agenda. You CAN'T possibly know that. And asserting it as if it were an absolute fact is as ridiculous as (if not more than) telling men can fly or the earth is flat.
> you choose to ignore this part of the equation and focus on the portion of things that can be measured.
Of course I do. Have I ever said otherwise?
> It's like saying the bushel of fruit is a bushel of oranges simply because the first three pieces of fruit you plucked out happened to be oranges.
Not quite... these is not picking three random songs and seeing they were Fred's. Measuring ALL of their RELEASED outcome, you can tell that Fred's input (to what can be mathematically measured, of course) was bigger than Brian's, bigger than John's, bigger than Roger's, smaller than the sum of them (of course).
> Right, I get that. But in this case, Deacon didn't want the solo to begin with, so I doubt he was happy to write a solo he didn't want on the song.
Right, I get that. But those are only assumptions. So are my conclusions, but, again, until I get strong evidence (which may well exist, of course), I'm leaving the info as it currently is.
> These are the kinds of things that will probably never be verified, which is why I think it's wrong for you to claim on your website, here, or wherever that Deacon wrote the entire song.
Twisting words again: my web does NOT say he wrote the entire song. It includes credits for creative input, and only he is mentioned (it is NOT the same, btw). If my web claimed that 100% of the notes, arrangements, words and mixing ideas were his creation, that would be an unfair statement (though there's still nothing to prove whether it's right or wrong).
I'm only crediting him for the music (and nobody else) simply because there's no evidence to prove otherwise... yet.
Like you, I'm only documenting what I can so far.
And yes: Deacon wrote the entire song (as far as can be documented so far). Just like your web stats (which will probably never be verified) are a good contribution to the Queen community, so is my own research (which is NOT perfect, NOT error-proof, NOT 100% accurate, but IS constantly evolving).
Of course. Have I ever said otherwise?
> You cannot measure chemistry.
Of course I can't. Have I ever said otherwise?
> But in order to further your agenda of insisting Freddie being the dominating member
I've got no agenda. You CAN'T possibly know that. And asserting it as if it were an absolute fact is as ridiculous as (if not more than) telling men can fly or the earth is flat.
> you choose to ignore this part of the equation and focus on the portion of things that can be measured.
Of course I do. Have I ever said otherwise?
> It's like saying the bushel of fruit is a bushel of oranges simply because the first three pieces of fruit you plucked out happened to be oranges.
Not quite... these is not picking three random songs and seeing they were Fred's. Measuring ALL of their RELEASED outcome, you can tell that Fred's input (to what can be mathematically measured, of course) was bigger than Brian's, bigger than John's, bigger than Roger's, smaller than the sum of them (of course).
> Right, I get that. But in this case, Deacon didn't want the solo to begin with, so I doubt he was happy to write a solo he didn't want on the song.
Right, I get that. But those are only assumptions. So are my conclusions, but, again, until I get strong evidence (which may well exist, of course), I'm leaving the info as it currently is.
> These are the kinds of things that will probably never be verified, which is why I think it's wrong for you to claim on your website, here, or wherever that Deacon wrote the entire song.
Twisting words again: my web does NOT say he wrote the entire song. It includes credits for creative input, and only he is mentioned (it is NOT the same, btw). If my web claimed that 100% of the notes, arrangements, words and mixing ideas were his creation, that would be an unfair statement (though there's still nothing to prove whether it's right or wrong).
I'm only crediting him for the music (and nobody else) simply because there's no evidence to prove otherwise... yet.
Like you, I'm only documenting what I can so far.
And yes: Deacon wrote the entire song (as far as can be documented so far). Just like your web stats (which will probably never be verified) are a good contribution to the Queen community, so is my own research (which is NOT perfect, NOT error-proof, NOT 100% accurate, but IS constantly evolving).
Ok... I think we've taken this far enough.
Cheers.
Cheers.
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
Ok... I think we've taken this far enough.
Cheers.
[/QUOTE]
It's been one of the best QZ debates ever.
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
Ok... I think we've taken this far enough.
Cheers.
[/QUOTE]
It's been one of the best QZ debates ever.
Indeed it has... and the comic relief in the middle was great too. That's why I love this place.
I've said it before and I say it again: I'm not even close to being a Queen fan. I am, however, a QueenZone fan.
PS: The posting order got fucked up again...
PS: The posting order got fucked up again...
So you know their catalogue inside out and you're not even a fan? How does that work? Have you dissected anyone else's catalogue to this extent?
This is one of the best threads here lately. However I need one explanation to understand it better...
Sebastian, in the world of Queen, when you say 'lyrics' are you referring only to 'words' or 'words AND melody'?
Sebastian, in the world of Queen, when you say 'lyrics' are you referring only to 'words' or 'words AND melody'?
Freddie's not overrated, plain and simple.
[QUOTE]
[b]vadenuez wrote: [/b]
This is one of the best threads here lately. However I need one explanation to understand it better...
Sebastian, in the world of Queen, when you say 'lyrics' are you referring only to 'words' or 'words AND melody'?
[/QUOTE]
Words only. But that's an interesting matter: on [i]Is This the World[/i]..., Brian came up with the chords, Fred with the lyrics... who came up with the melody?
[b]vadenuez wrote: [/b]
This is one of the best threads here lately. However I need one explanation to understand it better...
Sebastian, in the world of Queen, when you say 'lyrics' are you referring only to 'words' or 'words AND melody'?
[/QUOTE]
Words only. But that's an interesting matter: on [i]Is This the World[/i]..., Brian came up with the chords, Fred with the lyrics... who came up with the melody?
FWIW, Freddie is probably the most underrated performer ever, at least in North America. He was arguably the greatest rock singer ever, arguably the greatest frontman ever, arguably wrote the greatest rock song ever, arguably wrote the most identifiable rock anthem ever, and was arguably the most electric performer at his generations biggest concert. If Bruce Springsteen, Bono or Bob Dylan laid claim to all of those accomplishments, we'd never hear the end of the stories trumpeting their greatness. Freddie was a one in a billion, and he didn't make Queen, he made them greater than they would have been with any other singer. And while I firmly believe Queen was and always will be the four from Queen to Innuendo and all were equals, let's be real. Freddie's on a stamp, and was named one of the greatest 100 Brits of the 20th century. Brian, Roger and John aren't and weren't. Surely that makes him perceived to be special, and he was, if he would have achieved success without the other three (and judging by his solo stuff, no way) we'll never know. Together they were special, he had a little dash of charisma the others lacked.