Brian has posted on his Soapbox about the Dream Theater covers. Interestingly enough, his review isn't much different from mine.
So, Mr. Treasure Moment, it's time to get over yourself. If anyone knows what they're talking about when it comes to a Queen cover, it's Brian. Learn something from the doctor.
Treasure Moment · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
Brian has posted on his Soapbox about the Dream Theater covers. Interestingly enough, his review isn't much different from mine.
So, Mr. Treasure Moment, it's time to get over yourself. If anyone knows what they're talking about when it comes to a Queen cover, it's Brian. Learn something from the doctor.
[/QUOTE]
Not really, brian is nice to EVERYONE, even britney spears and countless other talentless shit people out there so i dont pay much attention to what he says, also being a doctor or whatever doesnt mean anything as Education=Programming.
Sebastian · Member since
For the first time ever, I agree with Treasure Moment.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Treasure Moment wrote: [/b]
Not really, brian is nice to EVERYONE, even britney spears and countless other talentless shit people out there
[/QUOTE]
He worked with them, so he said something nice about them. That doesn't mean everything he says about other artists is to be automatically discounted. All you're doing is supporting your narrow-minded views...
As for saying his PhD is programming... well, there's no dignifying that with a response... especially since not having an education has done you so well.
Treasure Moment · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Treasure Moment wrote: [/b]
Not really, brian is nice to EVERYONE, even britney spears and countless other talentless shit people out there
[/QUOTE]
He worked with them, so he said something nice about them. That doesn't mean everything he says about other artists is to be automatically discounted. All you're doing is supporting your narrow-minded views...
As for saying his PhD is programming... well, there's no dignifying that with a response... especially since not having an education has done you so well.
[/QUOTE]
I always speak the truth, brian is nice to everyone and constantly praises EVERYONE regardless of talent. About education it IS programming and thats a fact, i have studied at university before so you fail once again.
Sebastian · Member since
What I disagree with, Bob, is your claim that Brian's the ultimate authority, which also happened recently with the 'Flash Gordon' thing. The way you put it, nobody else is entitled to have an opinion on whether a cover's good or not, or whether an album's a true album or not, because Brian, unlike us, was there, produced, performed, sang, arranged, composed or whatever.
OK, according to that logic, Brian should have never ever:
- Criticised George Bush: He's not American, he's not a politician, and his (Bush's) wife said he was actually a great president; who is Brian to think otherwise?
- Criticised a journalist: Brian's not one himself, and he doesn't know the journalist in question as much as his/her family does (and they probably have very nice things to say about him).
- Criticised a tabloid: After all, Brian doesn't own any newspaper, he's (again) not a journalist, and he doesn't know the tabloid in question as well as the owner does (and probably the owner will say nice things about it, who the hell is Brian to think otherwise?).
The thing is, at the end of the day, Brian [b]is[/b] entitled to criticise Bush, a journalist or a paper if he feels like it, regardless of how others feel about them. So, anybody of us (fan or not, educated or not, musician or not, QZer or not) [b]is[/b] entitled not to consider 'Flash' a true Queen album (regardless of Dr May's opinion about it), anyone of us [b]is[/b] entitled to like or dislike a cover (regardless of Dr May's opinion about it), etc.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Treasure Moment wrote:[/b]
brian is nice to everyone and constantly praises EVERYONE regardless of talent.
[/QUOTE]
To word it differently, maybe he has an ability to focus on the positive aspects of things, a quality which you clearly cannot even fathom. Without getting into why much of the world hates people like Britney Spears for what she represents, maybe Brian actually saw some positive qualities in her and was genuine about it. I am simply entertaining that possibility instead of attaching a pre-determined opinion of him to my commentary about the things he says.
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
What I disagree with, Bob, is your claim that Brian's the ultimate authority, which also happened recently with the 'Flash Gordon' thing.
[/QUOTE]
While everyone is entitled to their opinion, I think the person who created the art should have some kind of ownership over what it ultimately is or what it means. That stance can be open to reinterpretation influenced by others, but in the end, the artist's stance on his own work should be the final word. Who am I to tell you that my interpretation of your art is better or more valid than what you know it means?
As for the Dream Theater cover, the guys in DT are among the very few people in this world whose take on Brian's art has his personal blessing. Who's blessing could possibly mean more? Likewise, Steve Morse's blessing on DT's take on Odyssey by the Dixie Dregs would be the most that they could possibly ask for.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Treasure Moment wrote: [/b]
i have studied at university before so you fail once again.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, yes, your highness... my apologies for forgetting that your experiences speak for everyone else's.
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
anyone of us is entitled to like or dislike a cover (regardless of Dr May's opinion about it), etc.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I realize that. But if it's a Queen cover, and Brian likes it, that should be the ultimate compliment, don't you think? My opinion, while valid, is worth only a fraction of his since it's not my art that has been reinterpreted.
[QUOTE]OK, according to that logic, Brian should have never ever:
- Criticised George Bush: He's not American, he's not a politician, and his (Bush's) wife said he was actually a great president; who is Brian to think otherwise?[/QUOTE]
I see what you're getting at, but let's not change the subject by introducing a completely unrelated subject. Running a country has nothing to do with interpretation of art. One can't have a one-dimensional view of the world with a single method of logic applying to all areas of thought.
Sebastian · Member since
Running a country and making a cover start off by the same concept: doing it their own way, making decisions (of course one case involves much more important decisions, but the concept remains), etc. And even if that analogy didn't work, there's still the journalism thing... Brian should, according to that logic, never ever criticise a paper since he doesn't own one and since the paper owner (who knows the paper much better than May does) probably has only or mostly nice things to say about it.
Now, an artist's view on his own piece (and technically none of the DT covers was written by Brian btw) should not by any means be regarded as the 'ultimate' word about it, since the artist's even more liable to be biased. May put a lot of great effort on 'Flash' and he'd be sad not to see it regarded as a true Queen album; but then again, some people have disagreed with it (Deacon amongst them), and they're entitled to. There's absolutely no right to 'veto', no matter if he's the producer, arranger, composer, lyricist and performer. It's the 'what if I write a poem in English and say it's in German' all over again; or, to cite a more Queen-like example, it's like the '180 voices in [i]Bo Rhap[/i]' all over again.
As for having the artist's blessing: I can see your point, and I respect it, but then again, it can't be a 'rule'. Brian (who, again, had nothing to do with creating [i]TT, FotW & LotV[/i], technically Roger's blessing is above his for this one) may praise DT's cover and there can still be room for improvement; or Brian can praise Adam Lambert, Robbie Williams, Britney Spears, Avril Lavigne... and it doesn't mean we've all got to like them because of that.
Yes, citing George Bush is a ridiculous example, but that's exactly the point: it's equally ridiculous to put Brian (or anybody else for that matter) in a God-like position where they're the only authority about something that, for some extent at least, is indeed open for different POVs. Not only because of the margin of error ([i]My Fairy King, It's Late, Master Stroke, Bo Rhap[/i] again), but also because there are many aspects to consider besides a claim from a person who took part in the original version. At the end of the day, we'll all be biased even if for limited extent, and it's a well-known fact that Brian enjoys covers a lot since he feels they're a great way to spread the author's music. That's not something bad, of course, but it's undeniably an important factor.
I don't agree with many of Treasure Moment's posts, especially the one about being shite for not writing a catchy tune, but I do think he (or anybody else) can dislike DT's cover regardless of Brian's opinion of it. Myself, I haven't heard the medley in question, but I can say I do like Robert Plant's [i]Innuendo[/i], and even if Plant himself didn't like it, and even if Freddie came back from the dead and said 'it's pants', that'd be no reason for me to withhold my view.
john bodega · Member since
I like Plant's "Innuendo" for what it could have been. He was definitely the right man for the job; it was just a bad day. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]Listen to Plant singing a mere three or four years later and he was back in top form again. (Well, for an old fella).[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]I still wish that someone had persuaded him to do a recorded version of the song, because if he'd gotten it right then it would've been absolutely smashing.[/QUOTE]
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
the artist's even more liable to be biased.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. If anything, the original artist is going to be most critical of a cover of his own music. Brian is not the type of person to point out a cover he didn't like (there probably have been thousands), but he happily points out some of those he does like.
[QUOTE]Brian can praise Adam Lambert, Robbie Williams, Britney Spears, Avril Lavigne... and it doesn't mean we've all got to like them because of that.[/QUOTE]
Of course. But what I was responding to was someone who was trying to discount all of Brian's positive comments about people based on the fact that he said positive things about the above people.
[QUOTE]he (or anybody else) can dislike DT's cover regardless of Brian's opinion of it.[/QUOTE]
Again, I never said he couldn't. But Brian's opinion is worth a hell of a lot more than TM's, even if TM wasn't an intolerant, closed-minded child caught in an adult's body immune to any kind of growth.
I'm speaking purely on an emotional level, as a musician who can relate to the feeling of having the blessing of musicians he admires. Dream Theater's covers of these three Queen songs can be reviewed by thousands of people, but I can guarantee you, nobody's words are going to mean a fraction of what Brian said.
Amazon · Member since
Here's my two cents.
I agree with Sir GH that Brian's views on these covers would mean more to DT than anyone else's. The fact that they are getting the creator's seal of approval is awesome and does mean mean much more than if any of us liked the covers.
However I agree with Sebastian that at the end of the day, what Brian thinks is not all that important. Sorry Sir GH, but I don't think that the person who created the art should have[b] any[/b] kind of ownership over what it ultimately is or what it means. Once an artist released a work, whether it be a song, film or novel, as far as I'm concerned they lose all artistic ownership of it.
Flash is obviously one example; as much as Brian considers it to be a proper studio album, I can't bring myself to agree with him. But it's more than that. Although an artist may have their own intended interpretation of a work, once it is released, anyone else IMO can think what they want, provided they can justify their interpretation. Two examples, one musical and one not. George A. Romeo never intended Night of the Living Dead to be a social commentary, yet that is how it eventuated and most people regard it as being a commentary on US race relations. Secondly, there's alot of debate as to whether or not We Are The Champions is about gay pride. Freddie may or may not deny it, but if one sees it as being about gay pride (I'm personally on the fence) then I would argue that person is entirely justified. Personally, I don't really care what artists think about their work, beyong my genuine curiosity, because once a work is out there, I don't think that they can turn around and say, 'but I never intended it that way.' Maybe they never did, but that's life.
john bodega · Member since
See that has a lot to do with how much value one places on the perception of the masses, whether a generally accepted truth equates to a solid fact, etcetera... [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]A million fans declaring a song to be about something that it was not originally about does not actually change the meaning of the song. We might all think it does, but at the end of the day the writer is the one who decides.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]Whether that's actually IMPORTANT is something else ... a song can be a different beast to whoever hears it, doesn't matter if they're the original author or just some schmo on the street. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]I reckon the artist should always have the final say, up to a point. They should also have the humility to back down and accept what happens to the song. Songs are your children, and at some point they are alone in the big bad world and you just have to let them go where they will. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]It becomes yet another matter once you introduce covers into the equation. If the cover is at all valid, then it'll be an individual's interpretation of the song, and will possibly have a different meaning. Consider people who cover John Lennon's "Mother". Not everyone who sings that song comes from a broken family; I knew a guy who sang it for his friend instead.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]Anyway I'm way off topic. What I would like to know is where on Earth the idea of WATC being a gay pride song comes from?? I've only ever heard Freddie talk about it being a sort of "My Way" tune, (sails pretty close lyrically).[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Amazon wrote: [/b]
Personally, I don't really care what artists think about their work, beyong my genuine curiosity, because once a work is out there, I don't think that they can turn around and say, 'but I never intended it that way.' Maybe they never did, but that's life.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough all around.
But if people see something the artist doesn't see, it doesn't make the people right on all levels. It's their interpretation of the art. But the artist probably won't say "it doesn't mean that," as much as they're saying they didn't intend for it to mean that. However, in a case of defining whether something is an album or a soundtrack (in this case, Brian said it's an album and John said it's a soundtrack), then we have a stalemate.
I still maintain that if the entire band agreed that it was an album, then it's an album. But since there is no black and white definition of what an album is versus a soundtrack, why should the artists themselves not be the determining factors of this kind of thing on a case by case basis?
Amazon · Member since
Zebonka12 wrote: "A million fans declaring a song to be about something that it was not originally about does not actually change the meaning of the song. We might all think it does, but at the end of the day the writer is the one who decides." Do they though? Songs may not have objectively fixed meanings. It's like films (my speciality) or novels. The Coen brothers may have intended No Country For Old Men to be about one thing, but if I have a different view, and I can back it up, why is their interpetation more valid? The retort to that may be,'but they created it.' (Although it was faithfully adapted from a McCarthy novel, but that's not the point.) The thing is though, that while they may have created it, once NCFOM was released, IMO it became public property. The same thing for music. If Brian regards The Prophet's Song to be about Noah's flood or something, I don't think that is the objective sole interpretation of it. IMO your interpation is just as valid as his, as it arguably became public property. I once had a huge argument with someone about whether or not James Cameron's views on the Terminator films were the most valid since he wrote/directed the first two films, but I still stand by my contention that his interpetation was no more valid than any one else's.
"I reckon the artist should always have the final say, up to a point. They should also have the humility to back down and accept what happens to the song. Songs are your children, and at some point they are alone in the big bad world and you just have to let them go where they will." I kinda agree. I don't agree that they should have the final say, as I don't think it matters what they think, but I certainly agree that they should accept what happens to the song.
"Anyway I'm way off topic. What I would like to know is where on Earth the idea of WATC being a gay pride song comes from?? I've only ever heard Freddie talk about it being a sort of "My Way" tune, (sails pretty close lyrically)." The whole 'I've done my sentence but committed no crime' thing. Personally I'm not convinced that WATC is a gay pride song, but I can see why others might.
