>>> If anything, the original artist is going to be most critical of a cover of his own music.
Most critical = Biased. So my point stands.
And anyway, I wasn't talking about the covers specifically, but the whole milieu, especially certain aspects like the 'Flash' thing. Another example (not necessarily Queen-related) is when the artist denies by all means that a live DVD has overdubs. They've 'got to' do that for commercial reasons.
>>> 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 can see you admire Brian, and you've (accurately) commented how nice he is to comment positive aspects on others. So why don't you take his example and take it easy on TM?
>>> 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.
Actually, there is one person whose words could (and should) mean a hell of a lot more than everything Brian said about that cover: Roger, who not only participated on the original recording, but also (unlike Brian) actually wrote one of the songs.
>>> 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.
Again, Brian's not the creator. [i]Tenement Funster [/i]was written by Roger, the other two songs by Freddie. Had it been a [i]Flash [/i]or [i]I Want It All [/i]cover, it'd be a different story.
>>> I don't think that the person who created the art should have any kind of ownership over what it ultimately is or what it means.
I think it depends on the case. For instance, Roger's always claimed [i]I'm in Love with My Car [/i]is about John Harris; Brian suggested (half-jokingly, perhaps) that it was actually about Taylor himself. Between those two claims, I think Roger's is to be believed, since neither May nor us can actually read minds, so we've got to take Rog's word for it (of course, he could be lying, but we can't possibly know that).
A different case is if, for instance, Brian said there are no overdubs on 'Live Killers'. Regardless of his position as co-creator, if the claim is wrong, it's wrong, full stop. Same if, for instance, Roger said his highest note on a released song is on [i]Lap of the Gods[/i], while May said his (Roger's) highest note on a released song is on [i]Bohemian Rhapsody: [/i]Taylor was the person who sang them, but he's still wrong; May was a (not [i]the[/i]) person who probably witnessed both, but he's also wrong, in that case.
But those are still B/W situations. What happens when it's neither black nor white nor grey, but it can be interpreted in endless different ways? For instance, if Roger said [i]Prophet's Song [/i]is the heaviest Queen track, and Brian said [i]Dead On Time[/i] is. Both songs are written by May, but he's in no way 'owner' of the truth, because for one song to be heavier than another there are loads of different ways we can look at it: decibel-wise, judging drumming patterns, harmonically, by distortion levels on electric guitars, etc. So, neither Brian's claim nor Roger's (nor another person's, whether it's one of those songs or a different tune) is absolutely 'right' or 'wrong', no matter who's who.
>>> 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.
Exactly: BTW I [i]do[/i] agree with May on that one, at least partially, because for me it's an album as much as it's an OST. But it's not: 'Brian said so, and he can veto any other perspective because he's Brian.'
>>> 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.
Very good insight. Indeed, not all cases are the same. When it comes to saying whether [i]You're My Best Friend[/i] was written for Deacon's wife or not, he's the only one who knows; but when it comes to establishing whether Queen were or were not a GH-type of band in the 80's, Brian's, Freddie's, John's and Roger's opinions are just that, opinions, no more valid and no more 'truthful' than anybody else's.
>>> 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.
Yes and no... we can't argue the author's intention, but we can justify a view on the song's socially acquired meaning. Mercury said he was thinking about football when he wrote it, and unless we can read minds (which we can't AFAIK) there's no evidence to suggest he was lying or covering something up or still being in the closet. Now, is [i]We Are the Champions [/i]a gay-pride anthem? That's independent of the author's original intention, so, for that question, any of our replies would be as worth as Freddie's. Once the song's released, he's part of the public, like us.
>>> 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...
Which brings the whole '180 voices in [i]Bo Rhap[/i]' to the mix...
>>> 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.
A song could have been [b]originally written/intended about [/b]one thing but then [b]socially, individually [/b]or [b]subjectively [/b]interpreted differently. And for the latter, neither the writer nor anybody else is 'the one who decides'. Same for words: [i]gay [/i]meant something different originally, but there's no way whoever coined that term (or said it first) can forbid us to use it the way we do nowadays.
>>> 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 think there's a contradiction in both statements: if 'at some point they are alone...', then there's no way the artist 'should [b]always[/b] have the final say'. And again, cases differ: 'who's [i]IILWMC [/i]about?' vs 'is [i]My Melancholy Blues [/i]a blues song or a jazz song?'.
Sebastian · Member since
>>> But if people see something the artist doesn't see, it doesn't make the people right on all levels.
Depending on the case: remember the infamous list of Brian's misremembered 'facts'.
>>> 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.
Brian and John don't own the definition of album or soundtrack. In that department, they're as knowledgeable or ignorant as any of us. To define if Best Friend was for Veronica, you only need one point: the author's; to establish if 'Flash' is an album or not, you need to define album as well, and that's not a May or Deacon concept, but a way more ambiguous (and not absolute) one.
And btw, can't it simply be both? Album and soundtrack?
>>> I still maintain that if the entire band agreed that it was an album, then it's an album.
They don't own the definition of album. Neither do we, so we're more or less in the same level there.
>>> why should the artists themselves not be the determining factors of this kind of thing on a case by case basis?
Because for certain cases there can't be a determining factor. You can establish if Queen's first concert in West Germany was before or after their first concert in the States, and that's something that can be established in absolutes regardless of what anybody (including the band) have to say about it. But if we ask, for instance, 'were Queen better in the States or West Germany?', it's all opinion, and even if the four of them said 'Germany' (for instance), any of us could think otherwise, because, again, we're all public there, including themselves.
>>> I can see it myself. The whole 'I've done my sentence but committed no crime' thing.
I think many people did a '2+2=5' thing there. The fact he was gay doesn't mean every single thing he said or wrote was related to it. Should now all of Michael Jackson's lyrics be re-interpreted? Should all of Phil Spector's arrangements now mean something different?
The cited lyric could refer to loads of different things. Of course, it could be about Fred being gay, but it could also mean about his ethnicity (he was as much of a Farsi as he was homosexual), about being a rockstar (and facing prejudices)... for all we know, it could simply mean that once when he was a kid his father grounded him for not cleaning his room when in reality it'd been his sister who'd made a mess!
Amazon · Member since
Sebastian wrote:" "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.
Again, Brian's not the creator. Tenement Funster was written by Roger, the other two songs by Freddie. Had it been a Flash or I Want It All cover, it'd be a different story." Well, yes, Brian didn't write any of the songs himself, but he's a member of Queen and he worked on each song; personally if I was a member of DT, I would take his praise more seriously than I would almost anyone else.
" "I don't think that the person who created the art should have any kind of ownership over what it ultimately is or what it means.
I think it depends on the case. For instance, Roger's always claimed I'm in Love with My Car is
about John Harris; Brian suggested (half-jokingly, perhaps) that it was actually about Taylor himself. Between those two claims, I think Roger's is to be believed, since neither May nor us can actually read
minds, so we've got to take Rog's word for it (of course, he could be lying, but we can't possibly know that)." Well, even with this, if a listener had an alternative interpretation and could justify it, then I think that their interpretation is valid. Inspiration is different to interpretation; if Roger says it was inspired by JH, then nobody can question that, but people can IMO question what it's about. Although in many cases, what it's inspired by may directly relate to what it's about.
" "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."
Exactly: BTW I do agree with May on that one, at least partially, because for me it's an album as much as it's an OST. But it's not: 'Brian said so, and he can veto any other perspective because he's Brian.' " This is actually one of the few times I've disagreed with Brian about a decision that they've made; in this case casting Flash as a studio album.
" "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.
Very good insight. Indeed, not all cases are the same. When it comes to saying whether You're My Best Friend
was written for Deacon's wife or not, he's the only one who knows; but when it comes to establishing whether Queen were or were not a GH-type of band in the 80's, Brian's, Freddie's, John's and Roger's opinions
are just that, opinions, no more valid and no more 'truthful' than
anybody else's."
Thanks. However, again, whether John wrote it for his wife may be different to what it is about; I'm not saying it is, but again, if someone is able to come up with their own interpretation, and can back it up, then I think it's perfectly valid. But just as with IILWMC, what it's about may be directly related to who it was written for.
" "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."
Yes and no... we can't argue the author's intention, but we can justify a view on the song's socially acquired meaning. Mercury said he was thinking about football when he wrote it, and unless we can read minds
(which we can't AFAIK) there's no evidence to suggest he was lying or covering something up or still being in the closet. Now, is We Are the Champions a gay-pride anthem? That's independent of the author's original
intention, so, for that question, any of our replies would be as worth as Freddie's. Once the song's released, he's part of the public, like us."
I wasn't arguing about Freddie's intention. What I was saying was that his intention is irrelevant; if someone wants to believe it's a gay pride song, that's up to them.
Amazon · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
>>> I can see it myself. The whole 'I've done my sentence but committed no crime' thing.
I think many people did a '2+2=5' thing there. The fact he was gay doesn't mean every single thing he said or wrote was related to it. Should now all of Michael Jackson's lyrics be re-interpreted? Should all of Phil Spector's arrangements now mean something different?
The cited lyric could refer to loads of different things. Of course, it could be about Fred being gay, but it could also mean about his ethnicity (he was as much of a Farsi as he was homosexual), about being a rockstar (and facing prejudices)... for all we know, it could simply mean that once when he was a kid his father grounded him for not cleaning his room when in reality it'd been his sister who'd made a mess![/QUOTE]
Personally, I agree with you. Although I'm myself bi, I didn't actually realise that some people thought it was a gay pride song until I read it on the net. But, like with much of Queen's music, I think it's open to interpretation and if some people believe that WATC is a gay pride song, that's fine by me. :D
Amazon · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[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?
[/QUOTE]
I don't think that anybody are 'right on all levels' in so much as I don't think that there is right and wrong, provided one can back up their case. I do agree with you about artists 'saying "it doesn't mean that," as much as they're saying they didn't intend for it to mean that.'
In the case of soundtrack versus album, I can't agree that the artists should be the determining factor, as I personally have a fixed view of what I think are studio albums and soundtracks, and Flash simply IMO does not fit the criteria of a studio album. I'll give way to the group on most things (outside of interpretation and song quality) but in regards to whether or not certain albums are studio or OST, I'm with Sebastian; the group doesn't own the definitions. That does not mean, however, that I question whether Flash is an original work, for if Brian says that most/all of the tracks were created by Queen, then I have no choice but to give way to them. But as to whether it's a studio album or an OST, I think it's purely subjective.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
I can see you admire Brian, and you've (accurately) commented how nice he is to comment positive aspects on others. So why don't you take his example and take it easy on TM?
[/QUOTE]
Because it's far too tempting and entertaining not to. I'm all for an intelligent discussion when it's possible, but TM is in a league of his own when it comes to being the antithesis of that. For some odd reason, it gives me great joy to point it out.
[QUOTE]Actually, there is one person whose words could (and should) mean a hell of a lot more than everything Brian said about that cover: Roger, who not only participated on the original recording, but also (unlike Brian) actually wrote one of the songs.[/QUOTE]
Right, of course. It's just that Roger doesn't have an online platform to say such a thing so quickly, nor does John. So since Brian's all we've got on this medium for now, that's what I meant by saying how his blessing is the best DT could ever hope for.
[QUOTE]A different case is if, for instance, Brian said there are no overdubs on 'Live Killers'. Regardless of his position as co-creator, if the claim is wrong, it's wrong, full stop. Same if, for instance, Roger said his highest note on a released song is on Lap of the Gods, while May said his (Roger's) highest note on a released song is on Bohemian Rhapsody: Taylor was the person who sang them, but he's still wrong; May was a (not the) person who probably witnessed both, but he's also wrong, in that case.[/QUOTE]
You're changing the subject. Talking about subjective things like a response to a cover song or defining album vs. soundtrack is far different from discussing things for which indisputable facts can prove someone wrong if necessary.
[QUOTE]
[QUOTE]But if people see something the artist doesn't see, it doesn't make the people right on all levels.[/QUOTE]
Depending on the case: remember the infamous list of Brian's misremembered 'facts'.[/QUOTE]
Once again, I was talking about interpretation of art, not facts. Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem awfully keen on demonizing Brian for having gotten a few details mixed up in the past, almost as if it's part of an agenda to give his word on any subject less validity than it otherwise could have gotten.
[QUOTE]And btw, can't it simply be both? Album and soundtrack?[/QUOTE]
Of course!
Sebastian · Member since
It's not about 'demonizing' Brian. I'm pretty sure 99% of his claims about Queen or the past are spot on. But amongst that remaining 1% we could find the one about 'Flash'... or not, but there's always the possibility.
But yes, I do enjoy reminding (myself, mostly) that even the artists themselves can forget some details about their own work.
Treasure Moment · Member since
I just heard their cover, they did a great job.
Stephan · Member since
From yesterday's Download Festival ... everybody is dying to know what these 2 had to say to each other...
Great picture! It seems Brian's taking a great interest in DT now.
Imagine DT opening for Bri and Rog in 2010...
Stephan · Member since
Imagine Brian & Roger opening for Dream Theater in 2010 ..... [img=/images/smiley/msn/teeth_smile.gif][/img]
mmhardky · Member since
By Mike Portnoy:
As so many of you are inquiring about Brian May....
After he posted so many kind words about us on his blog last week upon hearing our new Queen cover, our manager reached out and invited him to see us at Download...
He ended up coming out and watched our entire show from the stage and said that he LOVED it!
He is one of the most generous and kindest musicians of *that* level that I've ever met...what a sweet guy.
Yes, I gave him the Special Edition of BC&SL (it's in his hands in the picture) and he hugged it with excitement when I did....
And oh yeah....he was freaking out about all of the background vocals on Flick Of The Wrist and was blown away that I did them all myself!
(so take THAT all you MP vox haters on the other DT boards! If Brian May liked em - who was in a band with perhaps the greatest rock vocalist of ALL TIME - then that's all I need!)
I'm deeply thankful to Dream Theater. I hope I manage to see them live again, though I don't think it'll happen. :-(
I still haven't listened to the new album. I went to the store yesterday and it hadn't arrived yet. Grrrrrr. Anyway, even without having listened to the new material, I already praise them not only for bringing back to life some Queen songs, but also for doing such a wonderful selection of songs.
It's very beautiful to see such towering musicians getting together and enjoying themselves and knowing that music is the language underlying it all.
