Its not a question of equality, more of the magic not being the same without any of the members. That said Brian has, as I wrote above, shown himself able to sound like Queen all on his own, as has Roger and Brian sounded like a competent Freddie-less Queen both on record and in concert. Brian and Freddie could probably do the same even more so, with the right backing. But something would obviously be missing.
Roger is a great drummer, certainly no major critiscism can be made against him. He can stand well up to most drummers of his generation and has a recognisable style. Add to that that he is a great songwriter and singer, especially when it comes to harmonies.
John is actually recognised as a very underrated bass-player. While not flashy, his basslines are unique in texture and style and adds a very special feeling to the songs as has been mentioned.
Brians skill and influence as a guitarplayer and songwriter need not be mentioned.
Queen really was something of a supergroup.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I don't think he was an overrated member of Queen - I do think he's a somewhat overrated human being, but that's applicable to just about any public figure with a following of more than a few hundred.
[QUOTE]
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
I don't think he was an overrated member of Queen - I do think he's a somewhat overrated human being, but that's applicable to just about any public figure with a following of more than a few hundred.[/QUOTE]
And that includes Dr May as well: http://www.queenzone.com/forums/1204787/was-late-era-q-mainly-brian.aspx
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
I don't think he was an overrated member of Queen - I do think he's a somewhat overrated human being, but that's applicable to just about any public figure with a following of more than a few hundred.[/QUOTE]
And that includes Dr May as well: http://www.queenzone.com/forums/1204787/was-late-era-q-mainly-brian.aspx
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
Roger was a good drummer, but wasn't all that great ,and rarely gets a mention with the all time best. The musicians I know arn't all that Impressed by him.
[/QUOTE]
Most people, including a fair portion of musicians, equate better with flashier and faster. For this reason, they do not recognize the talents of the other three remaining members of Queen. Roger Taylor was and still is a great drummer live. Check out any version of Now I'm Here during the middle section to see the way he never plays the same thing for 8 bars, always having different fills to keep it sounding fresh. Same goes for the last section of Spread Your Wings, or the middle of Liar. These are the subtle things that contribute to the overall picture, not the flashy things that jump out like a 60-piece drum kit. But if we want to talk about technique, his snare rolls are cleaner than anything John Bonham could have fathomed.
John Deacon's delicately melodic style falls into the same category. His bass work in songs like Sail Away Sweet Sister, Spread Your Wings, and Teo Torriatte are in a league of their own. This kind of musical texture is not in the forefront, but the music would be much more bare without it. Danny Miranda once said how John's bass lines are like little stories.
And for the same reason, the average music fan does not recognize Brian May as an innovative guitarist. Brian wasn't flashy like Jimmy Page or Eddie Van Halen, but he contributed just as much to the evolution of rock guitar as they did. It is his equisite selection of notes and the feeling he plays with that make him stand out from the rest, and of course, the orchestrations in dozens of songs like White Queen and Good Company. Sixteen bars of music at the end of the latter place him in the top tier of musicians of the past few decades, never mind just rock guitarists.
[/QUOTE]
"sir GH" don't misunderstand me, Roger and John were both great players, and your point about roger's live drum work is on target. He still is a solid live drummer. John wrote some my favoirte songs, but freddie's Equal?....then it becomes a whole different story. Roger's brian's equal?...again, simply not true. Crissti was on target. Freddie and brian are what John and paul were to the beatles. I'm actually a pretty big fan of Mr. Deacon....I also think brian is starting to get his due. he's getting a mention more often. I put brian right there with rocks best. A top ten best.
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
Roger was a good drummer, but wasn't all that great ,and rarely gets a mention with the all time best. The musicians I know arn't all that Impressed by him.
[/QUOTE]
Most people, including a fair portion of musicians, equate better with flashier and faster. For this reason, they do not recognize the talents of the other three remaining members of Queen. Roger Taylor was and still is a great drummer live. Check out any version of Now I'm Here during the middle section to see the way he never plays the same thing for 8 bars, always having different fills to keep it sounding fresh. Same goes for the last section of Spread Your Wings, or the middle of Liar. These are the subtle things that contribute to the overall picture, not the flashy things that jump out like a 60-piece drum kit. But if we want to talk about technique, his snare rolls are cleaner than anything John Bonham could have fathomed.
John Deacon's delicately melodic style falls into the same category. His bass work in songs like Sail Away Sweet Sister, Spread Your Wings, and Teo Torriatte are in a league of their own. This kind of musical texture is not in the forefront, but the music would be much more bare without it. Danny Miranda once said how John's bass lines are like little stories.
And for the same reason, the average music fan does not recognize Brian May as an innovative guitarist. Brian wasn't flashy like Jimmy Page or Eddie Van Halen, but he contributed just as much to the evolution of rock guitar as they did. It is his equisite selection of notes and the feeling he plays with that make him stand out from the rest, and of course, the orchestrations in dozens of songs like White Queen and Good Company. Sixteen bars of music at the end of the latter place him in the top tier of musicians of the past few decades, never mind just rock guitarists.
[/QUOTE]
"sir GH" don't misunderstand me, Roger and John were both great players, and your point about roger's live drum work is on target. He still is a solid live drummer. John wrote some my favoirte songs, but freddie's Equal?....then it becomes a whole different story. Roger's brian's equal?...again, simply not true. Crissti was on target. Freddie and brian are what John and paul were to the beatles. I'm actually a pretty big fan of Mr. Deacon....I also think brian is starting to get his due. he's getting a mention more often. I put brian right there with rocks best. A top ten best.
[QUOTE]
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
I don't think he was an overrated member of Queen - I do think he's a somewhat overrated human being, but that's applicable to just about any public figure with a following of more than a few hundred.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by an overated human being?....A lot of people see freddie as a fag who slept with anything in site, but what they fail too realize is this is a man who didn't give up while facing a long and painful death. He obviously had his faults.
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
I don't think he was an overrated member of Queen - I do think he's a somewhat overrated human being, but that's applicable to just about any public figure with a following of more than a few hundred.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by an overated human being?....A lot of people see freddie as a fag who slept with anything in site, but what they fail too realize is this is a man who didn't give up while facing a long and painful death. He obviously had his faults.
I think it's just Mercury was the most bright member of the band. The one in the spotlight. He was a great force in the Queen machine. But all that fuss just because he was so extravagant. So some people love it and say he's a god. Some don't see his talent behind his flamboyance and say he's overrated.
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
I don't think he was an overrated member of Queen - I do think he's a somewhat overrated human being, but that's applicable to just about any public figure with a following of more than a few hundred.
[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by an overated human being?....A lot of people see freddie as a fag who slept with anything in site, but what they fail too realize is this is a man who didn't give up while facing a long and painful death. He obviously had his faults.
[/QUOTE]
He means the cult of personality has elevated him to more than a very good songwriter and performer. Need reference? Look up Jim Morrison.
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
I don't think he was an overrated member of Queen - I do think he's a somewhat overrated human being, but that's applicable to just about any public figure with a following of more than a few hundred.
[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by an overated human being?....A lot of people see freddie as a fag who slept with anything in site, but what they fail too realize is this is a man who didn't give up while facing a long and painful death. He obviously had his faults.
[/QUOTE]
He means the cult of personality has elevated him to more than a very good songwriter and performer. Need reference? Look up Jim Morrison.
So doxonrox, when you are saying that Freddie has been elevated to more than a "very good songwriter and performer" by the dint of his personality, are you implying that's all he was? A "very good" songwriter and performer?
Rhetorical though your question is, my answer would be yes. To be honest I don't see the problem with calling him 'very good' , because more than that is just wank (figuratively speaking). Fans like to make much of their heroes, and God knows I could wax lyrical about how much I love Queen or The Beatles or any of my favourites, but at the end of the day it does pay to remember that they're just people who are good at what they do...
Coming to a topic late again. Ho Hum.
[/QUOTE] My two penneth. I dont think its a matter of whos a good musician or not, whether john or roger will go down with the greatest of all time is neither here nor there. i think its bigger than that. I think its more about a band dynamic. The four of them created a band dynamic that enabled each and all of them to write very good songs. If anybody has ever been in a band that is a very difficult thing to do - hence bands splitting up all the time. I hope this doesnt sound cliche and twee but all four of them managed to always bring something out of each other over the years, and that is a rarity. The story of John writing about cowboys and then deciding that the guys would never go for it so hed have to go back and do better, thus it changed to another one bites the dust is kind of what im talking about. Now Ringo may not have been the greatest drummer but by being with the other three guys, who knows what he contributed, whether it was spoken or not. Now sure the writing credits tell you who wrote the song, but sometimes its bigger than that..........ahhh you get what im saying[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE] My two penneth. I dont think its a matter of whos a good musician or not, whether john or roger will go down with the greatest of all time is neither here nor there. i think its bigger than that. I think its more about a band dynamic. The four of them created a band dynamic that enabled each and all of them to write very good songs. If anybody has ever been in a band that is a very difficult thing to do - hence bands splitting up all the time. I hope this doesnt sound cliche and twee but all four of them managed to always bring something out of each other over the years, and that is a rarity. The story of John writing about cowboys and then deciding that the guys would never go for it so hed have to go back and do better, thus it changed to another one bites the dust is kind of what im talking about. Now Ringo may not have been the greatest drummer but by being with the other three guys, who knows what he contributed, whether it was spoken or not. Now sure the writing credits tell you who wrote the song, but sometimes its bigger than that..........ahhh you get what im saying[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
[b]12yrslouetta wrote: [/b]
Coming to a topic late again. Ho Hum.
[/QUOTE] My two penneth. I dont think its a matter of whos a good musician or not, whether john or roger will go down with the greatest of all time is neither here nor there. i think its bigger than that. I think its more about a band dynamic. The four of them created a band dynamic that enabled each and all of them to write very good songs. If anybody has ever been in a band that is a very difficult thing to do - hence bands splitting up all the time. I hope this doesnt sound cliche and twee but all four of them managed to always bring something out of each other over the years, and that is a rarity. The story of John writing about cowboys and then deciding that the guys would never go for it so hed have to go back and do better, thus it changed to another one bites the dust is kind of what im talking about. Now Ringo may not have been the greatest drummer but by being with the other three guys, who knows what he contributed, whether it was spoken or not. Now sure the writing credits tell you who wrote the song, but sometimes its bigger than that..........ahhh you get what im saying [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
Amen!
Queen is all about the dynamic of the band members. I think the reason that Queen remained so well-known throughout their career (not counting Q+PR so much) is because the dynamic of the band changed every once and a while. In the 70s, Freddie had the silly yet ornate songs, Brian had the guitar that could sound like almost anything. In the 80s (which I'll admit didn't provide me with most of my Queen songs on Zune), Freddie wrote less complex songs and Brian stayed a good deal of the time with hard rock. Still, looking at WWTLF, the man could work a synthesizer brilliantly and made that song great! Roger and Deacy still provided some good work and all the boys helped each other out.
Also, I think a large part of Freddie's writing less complex songs had to do with the fame Queen was getting. In 1981, Roger released his first solo record. Brian released a solo record in the 80s, too, and all of them had more finances, compilation records, new lighting for the tours, and all but Freddie had families to deal with. And obviously, Freddie got AIDS in 85 or 86, which would cause anyone problems. Since all the band mates would be doing all these things somewhat separately, there was probably less of collaboration and checks-and-balances on what was produced and what wasn't.
Of course, I have never worked with Queen, nor am I any of the members of Queen, so I can't speak for them. I'm just stating what makes sense to me and feel free to prove me wrong. :)
[b]12yrslouetta wrote: [/b]
Coming to a topic late again. Ho Hum.
[/QUOTE] My two penneth. I dont think its a matter of whos a good musician or not, whether john or roger will go down with the greatest of all time is neither here nor there. i think its bigger than that. I think its more about a band dynamic. The four of them created a band dynamic that enabled each and all of them to write very good songs. If anybody has ever been in a band that is a very difficult thing to do - hence bands splitting up all the time. I hope this doesnt sound cliche and twee but all four of them managed to always bring something out of each other over the years, and that is a rarity. The story of John writing about cowboys and then deciding that the guys would never go for it so hed have to go back and do better, thus it changed to another one bites the dust is kind of what im talking about. Now Ringo may not have been the greatest drummer but by being with the other three guys, who knows what he contributed, whether it was spoken or not. Now sure the writing credits tell you who wrote the song, but sometimes its bigger than that..........ahhh you get what im saying [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
Amen!
Queen is all about the dynamic of the band members. I think the reason that Queen remained so well-known throughout their career (not counting Q+PR so much) is because the dynamic of the band changed every once and a while. In the 70s, Freddie had the silly yet ornate songs, Brian had the guitar that could sound like almost anything. In the 80s (which I'll admit didn't provide me with most of my Queen songs on Zune), Freddie wrote less complex songs and Brian stayed a good deal of the time with hard rock. Still, looking at WWTLF, the man could work a synthesizer brilliantly and made that song great! Roger and Deacy still provided some good work and all the boys helped each other out.
Also, I think a large part of Freddie's writing less complex songs had to do with the fame Queen was getting. In 1981, Roger released his first solo record. Brian released a solo record in the 80s, too, and all of them had more finances, compilation records, new lighting for the tours, and all but Freddie had families to deal with. And obviously, Freddie got AIDS in 85 or 86, which would cause anyone problems. Since all the band mates would be doing all these things somewhat separately, there was probably less of collaboration and checks-and-balances on what was produced and what wasn't.
Of course, I have never worked with Queen, nor am I any of the members of Queen, so I can't speak for them. I'm just stating what makes sense to me and feel free to prove me wrong. :)
Queen was Freddie. The other three could have NEVER made it without Freddie. NEVER.
Freddie, on the other hand, had a very specific idea of what he wanted. With or without Brian and Roger... Queen would still be Queen, thanks to Freddie, of course.
Brian May, without Freddie Mercury... called Paul Rodgers.
Freddie shits on the other three's chests.
Freddie, on the other hand, had a very specific idea of what he wanted. With or without Brian and Roger... Queen would still be Queen, thanks to Freddie, of course.
Brian May, without Freddie Mercury... called Paul Rodgers.
Freddie shits on the other three's chests.
I dunno. They got further without Freddie than Freddie got without them. In their case, he was the missing link - in Freddie's case, the other guys were the counterbalance.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]Without Freddie they'd have been a well orchestrated but mostly average rock band, with a few innovative guitar sounds. [/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]There is no guarantee that Freddie would've gotten anywhere on his own. The first two or three albums are what made those guys as writers and players. Who is to say what would've become of Freddie without that experience? [/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]It's pretty likely that Freddie contributed more to the mission statement of the band than any other member did, but musically (and this is all about the music in my opinion) none of them would've ever been on Top of the Pops without each other. [/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]The proof is in what happened when they were left to their own devices. Brian and Roger made some interesting solo music (actually I love Resurrection, but that's another topic). Q+PR were decidedly average. [/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]And Freddie?? Do I even need to mention "Let's Turn it On"?? Sussudio part 2 on line one, folks ....[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]I'd rather have a full Queen than Freddie![/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]Without Freddie they'd have been a well orchestrated but mostly average rock band, with a few innovative guitar sounds. [/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]There is no guarantee that Freddie would've gotten anywhere on his own. The first two or three albums are what made those guys as writers and players. Who is to say what would've become of Freddie without that experience? [/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]It's pretty likely that Freddie contributed more to the mission statement of the band than any other member did, but musically (and this is all about the music in my opinion) none of them would've ever been on Top of the Pops without each other. [/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]The proof is in what happened when they were left to their own devices. Brian and Roger made some interesting solo music (actually I love Resurrection, but that's another topic). Q+PR were decidedly average. [/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]And Freddie?? Do I even need to mention "Let's Turn it On"?? Sussudio part 2 on line one, folks ....[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]I'd rather have a full Queen than Freddie![/QUOTE]
Well, try to understand me 'cause I'm going to do a bit weird comparison :).
I hope you heard about the glory of Damask steel. Why was it so special? Because of indredients which were used gave that result. It was a perfect match. The proportions of indredients- are the whole point. If you take away at least one of them, no matter which one it won't be the same steel in the end.
In some way it's similar with Queen. People love to worship famous people. But it doesn't change the fact that they are human beings. Each of four members had strong and weak sides. But while working together they filled that gaps. It was a kind of chemistry. Also a perfect match. But when one member passed away the system fell apart. It was with Led Zep. In their case the drummer died (not a frontman), but the result was the same. We have seen solo works. Some of them were better, some worse. But any of them didn't get the same glory as Queen.
I could compare them to a cake recipe, but Damask steel sounds way better! :D
I hope you heard about the glory of Damask steel. Why was it so special? Because of indredients which were used gave that result. It was a perfect match. The proportions of indredients- are the whole point. If you take away at least one of them, no matter which one it won't be the same steel in the end.
In some way it's similar with Queen. People love to worship famous people. But it doesn't change the fact that they are human beings. Each of four members had strong and weak sides. But while working together they filled that gaps. It was a kind of chemistry. Also a perfect match. But when one member passed away the system fell apart. It was with Led Zep. In their case the drummer died (not a frontman), but the result was the same. We have seen solo works. Some of them were better, some worse. But any of them didn't get the same glory as Queen.
I could compare them to a cake recipe, but Damask steel sounds way better! :D
No way, pie analogy wins. Check this -
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]It's a massive apple pie. But like, Freddie is the apple goopy stuff in the middle, and the other guys are the pastry. Freddie is the most popular and appreciated bit, but without the pastry he's totally inconvenient and difficult to eat.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]Of course without Freddie in the middle, the other guys are just a tasty (yet mostly bland) pastry. [/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]It's a massive apple pie. But like, Freddie is the apple goopy stuff in the middle, and the other guys are the pastry. Freddie is the most popular and appreciated bit, but without the pastry he's totally inconvenient and difficult to eat.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]Of course without Freddie in the middle, the other guys are just a tasty (yet mostly bland) pastry. [/QUOTE]