Why Queen last 20 years?

brENsKi wrote:

 



 



 



lalaalalaa wrote:



 



Well it obviously is NOT money. The Beatles stayed for money but broke up because they had no chemistry.  They all got along well together, basically.  They had chemistry most bands don't have.  That's why they stayed together while the Beatles, Deep Purple, and other bands lose members because of poor chemistry.



 

the beatles chemistry was still there when they split. ironically enough they fell out about two years after the split. before 1970 they had had the usual kind of arguments that queen also had many of.
the split for the beatles was down to one thing (person) alan Klein. he was bankrupting a golden goose and mcCartney severed the partnership to prevent them all ending up broke.

as for queen...what chemistry have they got? they might still be friends after all these years - but they have completely forgotten whatever knack or gift they had for making good music. it's all fairly mediocre fodder these days

doesn't matter what you think of them - U2 are a band with chemistry - and they have managed to sustain their key lineup for 30 yrs now....no small achievement

I have to disagree on the part "but they have completely forgotten whatever knack or gift they had for making good music."  I rather enjoyed the Q+PR projects, although I wasn't expecting them to stay together, just hoping. 

I'm not going to argue too much about the Beatles on account of 2 reasons.

a) This is a Queen forum
b) I don't have that grand of knowledge on subject of the Beatles history and such, so I just wait and see if people correct me and I learn from that.

Amazon wrote:

Sweet Insanity wrote:

Amazon wrote:

Sweet Insanity wrote:































I think if Freddie'd been alive still, Queen would of performed a single with Eminem!

Oh, god help us! I hate to say it, but if that were to have happened, then that's the one good thing about Freddie beingd dead and John leaving the group; they wouldn't have teamed up with a rapper!

Freddie was big on the dance scene thing... I really think, with all the rap in the 90s and 00s, he would of gotten involved with someone. Especially since Eminem likes Queen.

You may be right. I guess I can't be too horrified since I liked HS and that's not exactly rock. But call me biased, I just don't like rappers, and if Freddie were still around, I just hope that he wouldn't have gotten involved with one.

I'm not big on rap, but Freddie always seemed to be up with the latest trends. If there had been an Innuendo album if Freddie wasn't ill, it'd of probably still of been a great album in the style of the first five Queen albums, and I imagine that'd give them a chance to do a couple experiments on the next couple Queen albums, to mellow out a bit, I guess. And I think Freddie could out-do Eminem on the naughty-words vocabulary, to be honest. I don't know if that would of been the type of song they went for though, but if you think about it, I'm sure Freddie would of put himself in the rap genre a bit more, and maybe rap.

brENsKi wrote:


the beatles chemistry was still there when they split. ironically enough they fell out about two years after the split. before 1970 they had had the usual kind of arguments that queen also had many of.
the split for the beatles was down to one thing (person) alan Klein. he was bankrupting a golden goose and mcCartney severed the partnership to prevent them all ending up broke.

as for queen...what chemistry have they got? they might still be friends after all these years - but they have completely forgotten whatever knack or gift they had for making good music. it's all fairly mediocre fodder these days

doesn't matter what you think of them - U2 are a band with chemistry - and they have managed to sustain their key lineup for 30 yrs now....no small achievement

The Beatles indeed had a lot of chemistry.  They had huge problems about Allen Klein, when John, George and Ringo hired him as manager with Paul's opposition.  But you are right that the big problem between them happend when Paul sued the other three to officially break up the band (which in practice had broken up in late 1969)...

catqueen wrote:

They were such good friends in the beginning (and before they formed) but they didn't form based on that - Smile auditioned Roger thoroughly, and Freddie hung around with Smile quite a bit before they took him in.  And they went through a few bass players before finding John.  So they deliberately chose to work together based on merit rather then friendship.  And even when they fought, as has been said before, they kept it between themselves and held a united front.  Also, because they all wrote, and all had a huge amount of input into it there was (maybe?) less cause for jealousy and rivalry.  They had to prove themselves to each other, and that maybe helped keep their egos from getting totally out of control resulting in a split?  They needed each other, even though some of the solo work is good, it doesn't have the magic of Queen.  With the Beatles, John and Paul carried the weight of the song writing, so it wasn't as even a team as Queen were.  Also, the Beatles went into business together and spent a lot of non-working time together, which would increase teh possibility for tension.  When Queen needed space they stayed away from each other, which may have allowed them to keep it together for work.

Well, one could argue that in Queen Freddie and Brian carried the weight of the songwriting.  So as far as songwriting goes, they were certainly not equal.  Especially in the 70's.
Having said that, it seems in the group dinamics they were more democratic than The Beatles, where there was some sort of pecking order... They always, on every single album, would begin recording a song by John, then one by Paul, and then the others...

The Beatles were closer friends than Queen were... they had been friends since they were like 15.  They'd go on vacation together, they lived close to each other... they saw each other socially a lot.

I think that the main reasons why Queen stayed together so long was because they would fight.  If someone was upset about something, he'd say so.  With The Beatles, it seems that until the late 60's they hardly had arguments... then later it was clear that there were a lot of resentments, things that were not said in the moment.  John complaining that Paul would go and record a song without the others.  George complaining that Paul and John would not respect him as a songwriter, etc...
Queen had more arguments, therefore there were less resentments.  Things were not left unsaid.

That and the fact that they allowed themselves to have paralell solo careers.  Oce could say that it might have hurt the quality of Queen albums, since some good songs were left to solo albums.  But it certainly helped the band.
The Beatles didn't do that.  So George would have many unrecorded songs in the late 60's and would be resentful that he could release them...
If The Beatles would have had parallel solo careers they would probably have lasted longer.

In Brian's own words, "The sum is greater than the individual parts"... or something like that.

I beg to differ with the 'parallel solo careers' part: the only one who had a 'career' was Roger, who split time between Queen and solo records in early 80's, and then found himself a parallel band. He's also the only one who toured while Queen still existed (as in Mercury, May, Deacon and Taylor).

May did three songs, the occasional stint as producer and some live appearances but not enough for it to be considered a 'solo career'. It's as if we see a politician playing golf seven times per year and say 'he's half time a politician and half time a professional golfer'. Same for Freddie-one-solo-album-and-one-collaboration-album-and-absolutely-no-touring-outside-the-band-Mercury.

And if John Deacon's single and few collaborations count as 'parallel solo career' then I suppose everybody who's read an article on meat can be called a biologist, everybody who can drive's a motorist and car mechanic, everybody who can write an e-mail's a computer scientist.

John Deacon had a single?  What's it called?  I looked him up on itunes once, but wasn't sure if it was him or another John Deacon.  (after spending a few months thinking Roger was absolutely incredible for drumming for Queen and Duran Duran simultaneously and convincing someone else that he did, i'm a bit more wary of people with the same names!) 

Someone once told me that the reason Queen stayed together for so long was that they were not romantically involved with each other (a la Boy George/ Culture Club.)  :)

catqueen wrote:

John Deacon had a single?  What's it called?  I looked him up on itunes once, but wasn't sure if it was him or another John Deacon.  (after spending a few months thinking Roger was absolutely incredible for drumming for Queen and Duran Duran simultaneously and convincing someone else that he did, i'm a bit more wary of people with the same names!) 

Someone once told me that the reason Queen stayed together for so long was that they were not romantically involved with each other (a la Boy George/ Culture Club.)  :) 

You are forgetting about Freddie and Roger :).

Sebastian wrote:

I beg to differ with the 'parallel solo careers' part: the only one who had a 'career' was Roger, who split time between Queen and solo records in early 80's, and then found himself a parallel band. He's also the only one who toured while Queen still existed (as in Mercury, May, Deacon and Taylor).

May did three songs, the occasional stint as producer and some live appearances but not enough for it to be considered a 'solo career'. It's as if we see a politician playing golf seven times per year and say 'he's half time a politician and half time a professional golfer'. Same for Freddie-one-solo-album-and-one-collaboration-album-and-absolutely-no-touring-outside-the-band-Mercury.

And if John Deacon's single and few collaborations count as 'parallel solo career' then I suppose everybody who's read an article on meat can be called a biologist, everybody who can drive's a motorist and car mechanic, everybody who can write an e-mail's a computer scientist.

You're right, John didn't have a solo career... but I'd say the other three did.  So Brian didn't have much of a solo career... but it was certainly more than The Beatles members did.

catqueen wrote:

John Deacon had a single?  What's it called?  I looked him up on itunes once, but wasn't sure if it was him or another John Deacon.  (after spending a few months thinking Roger was absolutely incredible for drumming for Queen and Duran Duran simultaneously and convincing someone else that he did, i'm a bit more wary of people with the same names!) 

Someone once told me that the reason Queen stayed together for so long was that they were not romantically involved with each other (a la Boy George/ Culture Club.)  :) 

Well I guess you are reffering to the single he released with the band "The Immortals." 

The single was No Turning Back (check youtube)

Crisstti wrote:

Brian didn't have much of a solo career... but it was certainly more than The Beatles members did.

IMO, we could put it this way: a bloke who's 5 ft tall isn't a dwarf, but he's not tall. Likewise: having an EP released is more than what Beatles members did during their Beatle years, but it's not a solo 'career' per se. After Freddie died (i.e. after Queen ended) Brian did have a solo career, but not before.

Sebastian wrote:

Crisstti wrote:



Brian didn't have much of a solo career... but it was certainly more than The Beatles members did.

IMO, we could put it this way: a bloke who's 5 ft tall isn't a dwarf, but he's not tall. Likewise: having an EP released is more than what Beatles members did during their Beatle years, but it's not a solo 'career' per se. After Freddie died (i.e. after Queen ended) Brian did have a solo career, but not before.

I agree with you with that.