[QUOTE]
[b]Funky Horsie wrote:
[/b]
Killer Queen, We are the Champions, Bohemian Rhapsody, Somebody to Love... the guitar has MOMENTS in the songs, but it's not that important.
And those were the songs that really made it for Queen.
he had 95% of the idea already worked out, that's much more than enough.
[/QUOTE]
I see what you're getting at, but that's only part of the picture.
There was a magical chemistry between the four members to put all the parts together to achieve the overall sound. There's far more to music than just playing notes technically well.
[QUOTE]The bass lines and the drum parts could have been played by any other session musician, not hard at all.[/QUOTE]
Session musicians probably wouldn't have understood the exact vibe Freddie wanted for his songs. Sure, these guys could read a chart and play all the right notes, but they'd get everything else wrong. It probably would've sounded like any of those Queen tribute bands on youtube.
And really, how would that opera section of BoRhap sound without Roger Taylor?
You're right, Freddie had many of the band's best ideas, especially at their creative peak. But he needed the other three to execute them.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Funky Horsie wrote:
[/b]
Killer Queen, We are the Champions, Bohemian Rhapsody, Somebody to Love... the guitar has MOMENTS in the songs, but it's not that important.
And those were the songs that really made it for Queen.
he had 95% of the idea already worked out, that's much more than enough.
[/QUOTE]
I see what you're getting at, but that's only part of the picture.
There was a magical chemistry between the four members to put all the parts together to achieve the overall sound. There's far more to music than just playing notes technically well.
[QUOTE]The bass lines and the drum parts could have been played by any other session musician, not hard at all.[/QUOTE]
Session musicians probably wouldn't have understood the exact vibe Freddie wanted for his songs. Sure, these guys could read a chart and play all the right notes, but they'd get everything else wrong. It probably would've sounded like any of those Queen tribute bands on youtube.
And really, how would that opera section of BoRhap sound without Roger Taylor?
You're right, Freddie had many of the band's best ideas, especially at their creative peak. But he needed the other three to execute them.
[/QUOTE]
Good Job.!...Sometimes you tend to put down freddie's Importance to get you point across, but this response was right on point.
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Funky Horsie wrote:
[/b]
Killer Queen, We are the Champions, Bohemian Rhapsody, Somebody to Love... the guitar has MOMENTS in the songs, but it's not that important.
And those were the songs that really made it for Queen.
he had 95% of the idea already worked out, that's much more than enough.
[/QUOTE]
I see what you're getting at, but that's only part of the picture.
There was a magical chemistry between the four members to put all the parts together to achieve the overall sound. There's far more to music than just playing notes technically well.
[QUOTE]The bass lines and the drum parts could have been played by any other session musician, not hard at all.[/QUOTE]
Session musicians probably wouldn't have understood the exact vibe Freddie wanted for his songs. Sure, these guys could read a chart and play all the right notes, but they'd get everything else wrong. It probably would've sounded like any of those Queen tribute bands on youtube.
And really, how would that opera section of BoRhap sound without Roger Taylor?
You're right, Freddie had many of the band's best ideas, especially at their creative peak. But he needed the other three to execute them.
[/QUOTE]
Good Job.!...Sometimes you tend to put down freddie's Importance to get you point across, but this response was right on point.
[QUOTE]
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
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]
I don't think any of them would have made it without each other. Freddie was already 27 when the first Queen album came out. They needed each other, but even saying that, freddie was truly the most creative force and the one with the most original ideas. I say that not trying too start a stupid argument. t's Just the way I see it. I'm a fan of all of them.
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
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]
I don't think any of them would have made it without each other. Freddie was already 27 when the first Queen album came out. They needed each other, but even saying that, freddie was truly the most creative force and the one with the most original ideas. I say that not trying too start a stupid argument. t's Just the way I see it. I'm a fan of all of them.
[QUOTE]
[b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/b]
With apologies to whoever created the thread, as it's one of the few vigorously debated topics on QZ these days, if you know anything about music, Freddie Mercury is grotesquely underrated. He didn't make the band, the four of them did. However, his contributions in songwriting, performance, vocals and imagery were key in setting them apart. I heard I want to break free for the first time in a long time a few nights back. At best, a catchy pop song that is hardly one of Queen's best efforts. Yet that song was incredibly meaningful for the people of South America. Why? Not a particularly memorable tune in the grand scheme of things, but Freddie Mercury sings the fuck out of the lines "I want to break free" so much so that repressed people rally behind it. For those who say Paul Rodgers was/is a better singer than Freddie, I would question why no one has ever taken one of his songs as a rallying cry. It's not like IWTBF is Dylaeque or Lennonish in its lytical message, but people relate due to the strength of hisconviction. [/QUOTE]
I've never seen any evidence that IWTBF is incredibly meaningful to the people of South America (or for that matter, South Africa) apart from some press releases by EMI. Can anyone from S,America add anything to this?
[b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/b]
With apologies to whoever created the thread, as it's one of the few vigorously debated topics on QZ these days, if you know anything about music, Freddie Mercury is grotesquely underrated. He didn't make the band, the four of them did. However, his contributions in songwriting, performance, vocals and imagery were key in setting them apart. I heard I want to break free for the first time in a long time a few nights back. At best, a catchy pop song that is hardly one of Queen's best efforts. Yet that song was incredibly meaningful for the people of South America. Why? Not a particularly memorable tune in the grand scheme of things, but Freddie Mercury sings the fuck out of the lines "I want to break free" so much so that repressed people rally behind it. For those who say Paul Rodgers was/is a better singer than Freddie, I would question why no one has ever taken one of his songs as a rallying cry. It's not like IWTBF is Dylaeque or Lennonish in its lytical message, but people relate due to the strength of hisconviction. [/QUOTE]
I've never seen any evidence that IWTBF is incredibly meaningful to the people of South America (or for that matter, South Africa) apart from some press releases by EMI. Can anyone from S,America add anything to this?
[QUOTE]
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/b]
With apologies to whoever created the thread, as it's one of the few vigorously debated topics on QZ these days, if you know anything about music, Freddie Mercury is grotesquely underrated. He didn't make the band, the four of them did. However, his contributions in songwriting, performance, vocals and imagery were key in setting them apart. I heard I want to break free for the first time in a long time a few nights back. At best, a catchy pop song that is hardly one of Queen's best efforts. Yet that song was incredibly meaningful for the people of South America. Why? Not a particularly memorable tune in the grand scheme of things, but Freddie Mercury sings the fuck out of the lines "I want to break free" so much so that repressed people rally behind it. For those who say Paul Rodgers was/is a better singer than Freddie, I would question why no one has ever taken one of his songs as a rallying cry. It's not like IWTBF is Dylaeque or Lennonish in its lytical message, but people relate due to the strength of hisconviction.
[/QUOTE]
I've never seen any evidence that IWTBF is incredibly meaningful to the people of South America (or for that matter, South Africa) apart from some press releases by EMI. Can anyone from S,America add anything to this?
[/QUOTE]
have you seen any Queen Documentaries?...That's all the proof we need!....break free is a catchy pop song. never was anything more than that. Freddie's performance was the song.
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/b]
With apologies to whoever created the thread, as it's one of the few vigorously debated topics on QZ these days, if you know anything about music, Freddie Mercury is grotesquely underrated. He didn't make the band, the four of them did. However, his contributions in songwriting, performance, vocals and imagery were key in setting them apart. I heard I want to break free for the first time in a long time a few nights back. At best, a catchy pop song that is hardly one of Queen's best efforts. Yet that song was incredibly meaningful for the people of South America. Why? Not a particularly memorable tune in the grand scheme of things, but Freddie Mercury sings the fuck out of the lines "I want to break free" so much so that repressed people rally behind it. For those who say Paul Rodgers was/is a better singer than Freddie, I would question why no one has ever taken one of his songs as a rallying cry. It's not like IWTBF is Dylaeque or Lennonish in its lytical message, but people relate due to the strength of hisconviction.
[/QUOTE]
I've never seen any evidence that IWTBF is incredibly meaningful to the people of South America (or for that matter, South Africa) apart from some press releases by EMI. Can anyone from S,America add anything to this?
[/QUOTE]
have you seen any Queen Documentaries?...That's all the proof we need!....break free is a catchy pop song. never was anything more than that. Freddie's performance was the song.
This is what Kes posted on the QOL forum about its sales:
- I Want To Break Free (1984)
USA: 200,000
Canada: #27 (5)
Australia: 50,000+ #8 (21)
New Zealand: #6 (19)
South Africa: #1 (7) (25)
Brazil: #1
Colombia: #1
-Europe: 1,800,00 #1 (4) (18)
UK: 500,000
Germany: 400,000 #4 (20)
Netherlands: 150,000 #1 (2)
Belgium: #1 (3) (12)
Switzerland: 50,000 #2 (16)
Austria: 50,000+ #1 (4)
Spain: 50,000+ #5 (22)
France: 250,000 #8
Portugal: 20,000 #1
Ireland : #2 (10)
Total worldwide : 2,500,000
I don't actually see a pattern there: one African territory, two South American ones and four countries in Western Europe. The fact it sold twice as much in West Germany than it did in the States says a lot.
- I Want To Break Free (1984)
USA: 200,000
Canada: #27 (5)
Australia: 50,000+ #8 (21)
New Zealand: #6 (19)
South Africa: #1 (7) (25)
Brazil: #1
Colombia: #1
-Europe: 1,800,00 #1 (4) (18)
UK: 500,000
Germany: 400,000 #4 (20)
Netherlands: 150,000 #1 (2)
Belgium: #1 (3) (12)
Switzerland: 50,000 #2 (16)
Austria: 50,000+ #1 (4)
Spain: 50,000+ #5 (22)
France: 250,000 #8
Portugal: 20,000 #1
Ireland : #2 (10)
Total worldwide : 2,500,000
I don't actually see a pattern there: one African territory, two South American ones and four countries in Western Europe. The fact it sold twice as much in West Germany than it did in the States says a lot.
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Funky Horsie wrote:
[/b]
Killer Queen, We are the Champions, Bohemian Rhapsody, Somebody to Love... the guitar has MOMENTS in the songs, but it's not that important.
And those were the songs that really made it for Queen.
he had 95% of the idea already worked out, that's much more than enough.
[/QUOTE]
I see what you're getting at, but that's only part of the picture.
There was a magical chemistry between the four members to put all the parts together to achieve the overall sound. There's far more to music than just playing notes technically well.
[QUOTE]The bass lines and the drum parts could have been played by any other session musician, not hard at all.[/QUOTE]
Session musicians probably wouldn't have understood the exact vibe Freddie wanted for his songs. Sure, these guys could read a chart and play all the right notes, but they'd get everything else wrong. It probably would've sounded like any of those Queen tribute bands on youtube.
And really, how would that opera section of BoRhap sound without Roger Taylor?
You're right, Freddie had many of the band's best ideas, especially at their creative peak. But he needed the other three to execute them.
[/QUOTE]
There was GREAT chemistry between them but, you see, it's obvious that the other three worked much much better when Freddie was around. He knew how to get the best of them. It shows on what they did after he passed away.
But it's very unlikely that session musicians couldn't understand Freddie's needs. He really knew what he wanted. I mean, Bo Rhap was 100% Freddie, they all said each line were Freddie's idea. My point is Freddie was smart enough to know what kind of musicians he wanted.
I mean, after all, he knew Brian and Roger and he knew their music before he asked them if he could join the band. He had his ideas and he knew what he wanted. If there hadn't been a Brian and a Roger, he would have looked for other musicians capable of doing what he wanted to do.
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Funky Horsie wrote:
[/b]
Killer Queen, We are the Champions, Bohemian Rhapsody, Somebody to Love... the guitar has MOMENTS in the songs, but it's not that important.
And those were the songs that really made it for Queen.
he had 95% of the idea already worked out, that's much more than enough.
[/QUOTE]
I see what you're getting at, but that's only part of the picture.
There was a magical chemistry between the four members to put all the parts together to achieve the overall sound. There's far more to music than just playing notes technically well.
[QUOTE]The bass lines and the drum parts could have been played by any other session musician, not hard at all.[/QUOTE]
Session musicians probably wouldn't have understood the exact vibe Freddie wanted for his songs. Sure, these guys could read a chart and play all the right notes, but they'd get everything else wrong. It probably would've sounded like any of those Queen tribute bands on youtube.
And really, how would that opera section of BoRhap sound without Roger Taylor?
You're right, Freddie had many of the band's best ideas, especially at their creative peak. But he needed the other three to execute them.
[/QUOTE]
There was GREAT chemistry between them but, you see, it's obvious that the other three worked much much better when Freddie was around. He knew how to get the best of them. It shows on what they did after he passed away.
But it's very unlikely that session musicians couldn't understand Freddie's needs. He really knew what he wanted. I mean, Bo Rhap was 100% Freddie, they all said each line were Freddie's idea. My point is Freddie was smart enough to know what kind of musicians he wanted.
I mean, after all, he knew Brian and Roger and he knew their music before he asked them if he could join the band. He had his ideas and he knew what he wanted. If there hadn't been a Brian and a Roger, he would have looked for other musicians capable of doing what he wanted to do.
[QUOTE]
[b]Funky Horsie wrote: [/b]
There was GREAT chemistry between them but, you see, it's obvious that the other three worked much much better when Freddie was around. He knew how to get the best of them. It shows on what they did after he passed away.
[/QUOTE]
What about No One But You? That's a great song. Actually, I would have preferred them as a 3-piece band with John sticking around and Brian/Roger sharing lead than Paul Rodgers.
Also, the solos are a major part of Somebody to Love, Bohemian Rhapsody, and Killer Queen. Freddie was obviously the genius behind those songs, but let's not downplay the other members' contributions too much.
[b]Funky Horsie wrote: [/b]
There was GREAT chemistry between them but, you see, it's obvious that the other three worked much much better when Freddie was around. He knew how to get the best of them. It shows on what they did after he passed away.
[/QUOTE]
What about No One But You? That's a great song. Actually, I would have preferred them as a 3-piece band with John sticking around and Brian/Roger sharing lead than Paul Rodgers.
Also, the solos are a major part of Somebody to Love, Bohemian Rhapsody, and Killer Queen. Freddie was obviously the genius behind those songs, but let's not downplay the other members' contributions too much.
I'll say it again; Freddie was the one with the biggest contribution to the mission statement of the band, in terms of artistic direction, but in no way would a band be a guaranteed success just because Freddie was in it. Any session players could've fulfilled his requirements for Bohemian Rhapsody, but it was Brian who composed the guitar solo with counterpoint in mind. Why is the guitar solo significant? Because every time I play it around the place, people sing along with it like they would with any hit song - and it's just a guitar solo!
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]And it was their goofy faux-opera voices that made the middle part of the song so hilarious and brilliant. Some session singers doing the same thing would not have worked; rather, there is no guarantee that it would've worked. They might've had the wrong attitude, Freddie might've gotten frustrated. Who the fuck knows!!!
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]I don't think it's overrating or underrating Freddie to say he was 'only' one part of the band. I readily concede he was probably a bigger part unto himself than any other member, but it's all too easy to mistake that as meaning that he was running the show and that the others were replaceable. [/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]How many of us are in bands at the moment? I gotta tell you, these 'who was the most important member' topics really make me laugh because the actual mechanics of running a band really have very little to do with 'who is most important' .... you just do the thing. In any band worth anything, everyone is important and everyone contributes. I don't think there were any passengers in Queen, and I think they had a far more realistic view of each members importance than most of us here ...[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]And it was their goofy faux-opera voices that made the middle part of the song so hilarious and brilliant. Some session singers doing the same thing would not have worked; rather, there is no guarantee that it would've worked. They might've had the wrong attitude, Freddie might've gotten frustrated. Who the fuck knows!!!
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]I don't think it's overrating or underrating Freddie to say he was 'only' one part of the band. I readily concede he was probably a bigger part unto himself than any other member, but it's all too easy to mistake that as meaning that he was running the show and that the others were replaceable. [/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]How many of us are in bands at the moment? I gotta tell you, these 'who was the most important member' topics really make me laugh because the actual mechanics of running a band really have very little to do with 'who is most important' .... you just do the thing. In any band worth anything, everyone is important and everyone contributes. I don't think there were any passengers in Queen, and I think they had a far more realistic view of each members importance than most of us here ...[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
hi everyone,
i'm only 15 so wasn't around back in the awesome years of queen, never have and never will get the chance to see freddie. I am however, very happy i saw Queen's songs live with paul rodgers, best night of my life.
When i first started listening to queen, i thought freddie was queen, it is only through learning about the band (as i play guitar i was obv interested in what brian may wrote, and found out that way) i realised the strength of songwriting from all 4 members.
I think that to an outsider freddie is queen, which annoys me quite a bit. Its the case with most bands though, the lead singer is seen as the most important part.
I think that its not a case of Freddie being over-rated - can that ever happen? There's nobody around today who is even close in terms of showmanship. Sure there are better singers out there, but i'd rather see Freddie any day. I do think though that the rest of the band are criminally under-rated, but maybe since freddie's death people are slightly more aware of the songwriting capabilities of the other 3 - especially Brian, whose solo career seems as though it was much more famous than Roger's. (I don't know for sure, i weren't around back then!)
Anyway thats what i think.
i'm only 15 so wasn't around back in the awesome years of queen, never have and never will get the chance to see freddie. I am however, very happy i saw Queen's songs live with paul rodgers, best night of my life.
When i first started listening to queen, i thought freddie was queen, it is only through learning about the band (as i play guitar i was obv interested in what brian may wrote, and found out that way) i realised the strength of songwriting from all 4 members.
I think that to an outsider freddie is queen, which annoys me quite a bit. Its the case with most bands though, the lead singer is seen as the most important part.
I think that its not a case of Freddie being over-rated - can that ever happen? There's nobody around today who is even close in terms of showmanship. Sure there are better singers out there, but i'd rather see Freddie any day. I do think though that the rest of the band are criminally under-rated, but maybe since freddie's death people are slightly more aware of the songwriting capabilities of the other 3 - especially Brian, whose solo career seems as though it was much more famous than Roger's. (I don't know for sure, i weren't around back then!)
Anyway thats what i think.
[QUOTE]
[b]Funky Horsie wrote: [/b]
I mean, after all, he knew Brian and Roger and he knew their music before he asked them if he could join the band. He had his ideas and he knew what he wanted. If there hadn't been a Brian and a Roger, he would have looked for other musicians capable of doing what he wanted to do.
[/QUOTE]
Assuming that's the case, how many other guys like Brian May were there in the 70s? Not only with his melodic style, but his arrangement abilities and tone?
And I still contend that BoRhap would not have been BoRhap without Roger's voice in there. The distinct differences in their three voices was its very charm.
[b]Funky Horsie wrote: [/b]
I mean, after all, he knew Brian and Roger and he knew their music before he asked them if he could join the band. He had his ideas and he knew what he wanted. If there hadn't been a Brian and a Roger, he would have looked for other musicians capable of doing what he wanted to do.
[/QUOTE]
Assuming that's the case, how many other guys like Brian May were there in the 70s? Not only with his melodic style, but his arrangement abilities and tone?
And I still contend that BoRhap would not have been BoRhap without Roger's voice in there. The distinct differences in their three voices was its very charm.
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
This is what Kes posted on the QOL forum about its sales:
- I Want To Break Free (1984)
USA: 200,000
Canada: #27 (5)
Australia: 50,000+ #8 (21)
New Zealand: #6 (19)
South Africa: #1 (7) (25)
Brazil: #1
Colombia: #1
-Europe: 1,800,00 #1 (4) (18)
UK: 500,000
Germany: 400,000 #4 (20)
Netherlands: 150,000 #1 (2)
Belgium: #1 (3) (12)
Switzerland: 50,000 #2 (16)
Austria: 50,000+ #1 (4)
Spain: 50,000+ #5 (22)
France: 250,000 #8
Portugal: 20,000 #1
Ireland : #2 (10)
Total worldwide : 2,500,000
I don't actually see a pattern there: one African territory, two South American ones and four countries in Western Europe. The fact it sold twice as much in West Germany than it did in the States says a lot.[/QUOTE]
I think the remark was about the supposed political significance of IWTBF rather than its chart position i.e. the lyrics acted as some sort of battle cry for oppressed peoples. Don't believe it myself, but I suppose it's possible.
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
This is what Kes posted on the QOL forum about its sales:
- I Want To Break Free (1984)
USA: 200,000
Canada: #27 (5)
Australia: 50,000+ #8 (21)
New Zealand: #6 (19)
South Africa: #1 (7) (25)
Brazil: #1
Colombia: #1
-Europe: 1,800,00 #1 (4) (18)
UK: 500,000
Germany: 400,000 #4 (20)
Netherlands: 150,000 #1 (2)
Belgium: #1 (3) (12)
Switzerland: 50,000 #2 (16)
Austria: 50,000+ #1 (4)
Spain: 50,000+ #5 (22)
France: 250,000 #8
Portugal: 20,000 #1
Ireland : #2 (10)
Total worldwide : 2,500,000
I don't actually see a pattern there: one African territory, two South American ones and four countries in Western Europe. The fact it sold twice as much in West Germany than it did in the States says a lot.[/QUOTE]
I think the remark was about the supposed political significance of IWTBF rather than its chart position i.e. the lyrics acted as some sort of battle cry for oppressed peoples. Don't believe it myself, but I suppose it's possible.
A song can be significant to anybody anywhere. Unless we actually make a census, we can't know for sure... so yes, [i]Break Free, Under Pressure[/i] or even [i]Great King Rat [/i]could have a special meaning for somebody under San Yu's, Mohamed Khouna Ould Haidalla's or now Roberto Micheletti's governments, and none for others under the same circumstances.
Two quick points: we can't know, either, whether [i]Bo Rhap[/i] would've been as successful without the others. For all we know, Fred could've hired Steve Priest to sing the soprano Bb (he could do it just as easily as Roger) and the song could've failed to be #1 or, on the contrary, top the charts for 15 weeks rather than 9...
And also, the whole [i]overrating [/i]point goes hand in hand with [i]underrating [/i]somebody else. So indeed: those who overrate Fred are underrating the others, and viceversa.
For me, all four were vital (hence: no John - no Queen, for instance), but of course not [b]equally[/b] vital. A person's brain and heart are more important than the kidneys, but without the latter, one still dies.
Two quick points: we can't know, either, whether [i]Bo Rhap[/i] would've been as successful without the others. For all we know, Fred could've hired Steve Priest to sing the soprano Bb (he could do it just as easily as Roger) and the song could've failed to be #1 or, on the contrary, top the charts for 15 weeks rather than 9...
And also, the whole [i]overrating [/i]point goes hand in hand with [i]underrating [/i]somebody else. So indeed: those who overrate Fred are underrating the others, and viceversa.
For me, all four were vital (hence: no John - no Queen, for instance), but of course not [b]equally[/b] vital. A person's brain and heart are more important than the kidneys, but without the latter, one still dies.
Brain, heart and kedneys- a great comparison! :D
Freddie would be a heart, Brian a brain (I can make a mistake here!), Roger a liver and John a kidney. Brilliant!
Freddie would be a heart, Brian a brain (I can make a mistake here!), Roger a liver and John a kidney. Brilliant!