Nobody's denied the four of them were very strong. And Fred was, as you point out, the first one to mention it.
BTW, can you please provide a source for that quote?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
It's the famous 'musical prostitute' interview on video.
Speaking of which, there were loads of women dressed up as hookers this last Halloween (and loads of Britney's which is basically the same). Clearly not a good example for kids.
BTT, it'd be nice to see how other bands' roles parallel Queen's in terms of democracy (or lack thereof). It seems to me that Iron Maiden are/were much more democratic than what the common perception dictates. Same for The Police. Blink-182... not so much.
BTT, it'd be nice to see how other bands' roles parallel Queen's in terms of democracy (or lack thereof). It seems to me that Iron Maiden are/were much more democratic than what the common perception dictates. Same for The Police. Blink-182... not so much.
It's impossible to think that people who spent such an enormous amount of time together creating music, particularly in the heady early years, ever had purely personal creative trajectories. Regardless, the question of who wrote what words, wrote what music, fiddled with what buttons when, how often and how well is a different one that how we ultimately came to be blessed with 20 years of the brilliant creative force known collectively as Queen.
20 years! And literally until death did them part. So rare. You can do math all night, but you can't untangle the soul of this band. Queen was wondrous the way a kaleidoscope is wondrous - shifting and tumbling and knocking in and around together, ultimately needing the reflection of every other to take dazzling shape. Change any one element, or shake it up, the next time you peer down the eyehole you will have changed everything. Queen = Deacon, May, Mercury and Taylor.
20 years! And literally until death did them part. So rare. You can do math all night, but you can't untangle the soul of this band. Queen was wondrous the way a kaleidoscope is wondrous - shifting and tumbling and knocking in and around together, ultimately needing the reflection of every other to take dazzling shape. Change any one element, or shake it up, the next time you peer down the eyehole you will have changed everything. Queen = Deacon, May, Mercury and Taylor.
I'm not trying to untangle any sort of soul, spirit or ghost. And of course I'm sticking with what can be measured.
And what can be measured points at that, while the four of them were irreplaceable, vital and crucial, they were not [i]equally[/i] irreplaceable, vital and crucial.
And what can be measured points at that, while the four of them were irreplaceable, vital and crucial, they were not [i]equally[/i] irreplaceable, vital and crucial.
Another unsubstantiated quote(unless someone recalls specifically which documentary it came from) has Roger Taylor talking about how influential Freddie was on the band, overall, as a producer, over the years. It is the same interview where Roger talks about how the bickering generally excluded Freddie, up to the point where common ground was found, and, it was generally Freddie who found it.
I apologize for not being more specific about where I heard this. I have simply watched too many documentaries about Queen, and am a middle aged woman who works alot of hours. It may have been the Axl Rose bit...I just can't recall. Or the Lover Of Life bit? I believe the comments were in response to Roger's anger over always hearing what a great showman Freddie was.
I apologize for not being more specific about where I heard this. I have simply watched too many documentaries about Queen, and am a middle aged woman who works alot of hours. It may have been the Axl Rose bit...I just can't recall. Or the Lover Of Life bit? I believe the comments were in response to Roger's anger over always hearing what a great showman Freddie was.
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
I'm not trying to untangle any sort of soul, spirit or ghost. And of course I'm sticking with what can be measured.
And what can be measured points at that, while the four of them were irreplaceable, vital and crucial, they were not [i]equally[/i] irreplaceable, vital and crucial.
[/QUOTE]
What can be measured is important and fascinating and fantastic to consider. But it answers only very narrow and concrete questions, and can't in my mind be extrapolated much of anywhere. I'm not even sure I completely understand your argument. Brilliant, creative musicians can wander around for years and never find the setting and partnerships and spark they need to succeed. They're out there wandering right now. Which came first, Queen as muse and showcase for the brilliance of Freddie Mercury, or Freddie Mercury, lead singer and major creative force for the band Queen? It's impossible to say, and he's only prolific because he's in a system whose initial and ongoing conditions support that.
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
I'm not trying to untangle any sort of soul, spirit or ghost. And of course I'm sticking with what can be measured.
And what can be measured points at that, while the four of them were irreplaceable, vital and crucial, they were not [i]equally[/i] irreplaceable, vital and crucial.
[/QUOTE]
What can be measured is important and fascinating and fantastic to consider. But it answers only very narrow and concrete questions, and can't in my mind be extrapolated much of anywhere. I'm not even sure I completely understand your argument. Brilliant, creative musicians can wander around for years and never find the setting and partnerships and spark they need to succeed. They're out there wandering right now. Which came first, Queen as muse and showcase for the brilliance of Freddie Mercury, or Freddie Mercury, lead singer and major creative force for the band Queen? It's impossible to say, and he's only prolific because he's in a system whose initial and ongoing conditions support that.
Roger wrote 9 songs in the 70's, John wrote about 7. Freddie wrote over 35 songs in that classic queen era. How is that equal?.....
That is an excellent post GratefulFan. Let's face it, they all needed each other to reach the level of success they achieved. I could see Brian in a Bad Company corporate rock type of band without Freddie guiding him to greater heights, and Freddie being a solo artist who was a great singer and songwriter but always lacking for something. More than anything, I think it was the convergence of four brains functioning as one. They all lived for the song, and didn't have to have guitar, drum or vocal solos to feel satisfied. Listen to Dear Friends. Simplistic, but beautiful. For all the talk of who could play circles around the four of them, they all understood, probably better than any band ever, what made a song great. Sure a million people could play better piano than Brian, but for Dear Friends it's perfect. That goes for most songs in the Queen catalogue.
No one's questioning how Important all four members were, we're debating if they were equal. The answer is no they wern't equal. Freddie wrote more than triple the amount of songs than roger and John wrote. How is that equal?
The discussion is about Freddie being overrated Mike, not equals. And as I stated before, Freddie is on a stamp, tops lots of best singer/song/frontman lists and is generally "underrated" in the world of rock, not overrated. Having said that, since the thread has gone that way, he's a greater among equals in the band. But since the thread has gone this way, he also would very likely be like Al Stewart or Stevie Forbert without the band around him. Does that work for you?
> What can be measured is important and fascinating and fantastic to consider. But it answers only very narrow and concrete questions
Yes, but that's enough for a long and nice research.
> Roger wrote 9 songs in the 70's, John wrote about 7. Freddie wrote over 35 songs in that classic queen era. How is that equal?.....
Not only that: Roger had a lot of input in backing vocals, John had very little (if at all), Freddie had more than both (and more than Brian too). Fred also (partly as a direct consequence of his songwriting contributions) had more input in production than the others, and of course arrangements.
> More than anything, I think it was the convergence of four brains functioning as one.
Not quite: it's four brains working as four, thus giving their catalogue the variety and colours they had.
> Listen to Dear Friends. Simplistic, but beautiful. For all the talk of who could play circles around the four of them, they all understood, probably better than any band ever, what made a song great. Sure a million people could play better piano
than Brian, but for Dear Friends it's perfect.
Fred's one of those people who could play piano a lot better than the doctor, but he wouldn't have been the right man for that song. TBH, as much as I love his vocals, I'd have loved to hear Brian doing them. Still, it's my favourite song in that album (which is a lot since most of the tracks are wonderful).
> No one's questioning how Important all four members were, we're debating if they were equal. The answer is no they wern't equal. Freddie wrote more than triple the amount of songs than roger and John wrote. How is that equal?
And that's closely related to whether he was overrated or not.
Yes, but that's enough for a long and nice research.
> Roger wrote 9 songs in the 70's, John wrote about 7. Freddie wrote over 35 songs in that classic queen era. How is that equal?.....
Not only that: Roger had a lot of input in backing vocals, John had very little (if at all), Freddie had more than both (and more than Brian too). Fred also (partly as a direct consequence of his songwriting contributions) had more input in production than the others, and of course arrangements.
> More than anything, I think it was the convergence of four brains functioning as one.
Not quite: it's four brains working as four, thus giving their catalogue the variety and colours they had.
> Listen to Dear Friends. Simplistic, but beautiful. For all the talk of who could play circles around the four of them, they all understood, probably better than any band ever, what made a song great. Sure a million people could play better piano
than Brian, but for Dear Friends it's perfect.
Fred's one of those people who could play piano a lot better than the doctor, but he wouldn't have been the right man for that song. TBH, as much as I love his vocals, I'd have loved to hear Brian doing them. Still, it's my favourite song in that album (which is a lot since most of the tracks are wonderful).
> No one's questioning how Important all four members were, we're debating if they were equal. The answer is no they wern't equal. Freddie wrote more than triple the amount of songs than roger and John wrote. How is that equal?
And that's closely related to whether he was overrated or not.