The Works: Album & Tour

[QUOTE]

[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]

If you took the opera and rock sections away from [i]Bo Rhap[/i] and leave it as a ballad (with a cappella intro and fanfare) it'd be very similar to [i]A Hard Life[/i], but still - IMO - a hell of a lot better.
[/QUOTE]

of course hard life is no bo rhap, it's not even close.  Does that make hard life weak?....I don't think so, still a beautiful song.  Play the game is a nice tune, but hard life might have the very slight edge for me.

Does it make [i]Hard Life[/i] weak? No
Does it make [i]Hard Life[/i] not good enough for its composer? Yes, IMO. Remember the Usain Bolt example.

I like KPTOW and Radio GaGa a lot more then the rest of the album...

And the touring... eventho He was shouting a bit... i do very much enjoy the shows i have heard. Mostly cause of the super connection with the audience. Personaly i have never seen anything coming close to it. And yeah it as kinda heavy, even Radio GaGa rocked!!

My two cents on this discussion:

The Works is a good album. Not the greatest they ever done, but all in all, a good album.

Radio GaGa, to my ears, sound way better live than on the record. I can't get around the basic Synth sound they used for the drums.

Honestly, it's all subjective, so no one can say you're opinion is wrong. I suggest everyone take a moment and ask, about any Queen album, "What do I want from this?" My answer is always: "I want them to try something new, to go in new musical directions. I don't want more of the same. Even if I don't like it at first, I want to be able to say they tried and for that, they get a passing grade. I want to look back on this album and see that it was a step in a musical evolution which continues today."

I think seriously comparing albums with each other is a pointless exercise. It's not to going to change the album or people's opinion of it (if it does, what kind of easily lead sheep are you?). I prefer to understand what went into the creation of the album, looking at what the band were doing at the time, the influences they had, what solo projects echo around the album.

Some things to chew on, in that respect...

Roger was working on Strange Frontier, during which he wrote Radio Ga Ga, which to my ear sounds like it could have fit on his solo album as well as it does on The Works.

Freddie was starting to work on Mr. Bad Guy and had already recorded "Love Kills," which has Brian (guitar) and Roger (drum programming) on it, done during The Works session. "Man-Made Paradise" was (according to the FM box) going to close the album but was replaced by "Is The The World We Created..?".

Brian had finished the Star Fleet Project a few months earlier at The Record Plant in LA. Some of The Works was recorded there (according to the liner notes) so I've always been curious if any of Brian's Works songs, like "Machines" began life in the Star Fleet sessions.

John worked on the "Picking Up Sounds" single with Jive Junior & Man Friday in 1983 as well, which is a synthy, funky, rappy, very John-sounding project (he co-wrote, produced and played bass). John also appears on Roger's Strange Frontier album (bass on "It's An Illusion") and remixed (and played bass) on both the single remix and extended mix of "I Cry For You" (but didn't play bass on the album version).

As for The Works itself, supposedly Roger gave it the title, saying, "Let's give them the works!" (this might be apochryphal, I don't know for sure). It's certainly heavier all around and I think it's a concious effort to get back to just straightforward rock, which is why there's nothing comparable to "Black Queen" or "Rhapsody" or 'Somebody To Love" on it (Hmm, those are all Freddie songs...what does that say? That Freddie was maybe keeping those songs for Mr Bad Guy? Could be...). I've read that John thought more work could be done on "I Want To Break Free", so he remixed it for the single (both the 7" and 12" versions), after the album was completed and if that's true (that he thought that), I'd agree. the album version is good, but when I heard the single version later, I was like, "Whoa!"

"I Go Crazy," according to Brian (again, from an interview I read a while back...could be completely wrong), was unliked by the rest of the band after they finished it. He compromised with using it as a non-album B-side instead of it going on the album. If you include it on the album (as I do when I listen to it, since it was on the Hollywood Records 1991 re-issue, the first place I heard both it and The Works) the running time reaches 41:11, so it doesn't seem as short.

[QUOTE]

[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]

Ok, I gotta say there's something fishy about mike hunt.


[/QUOTE]
Funny, that 's what the wife said the other night.

/Read that out loud...

[QUOTE]

[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]

Things that make [i]IAHL[/i] as classic Queen as it gets:

- Backing track of piano, bass and drums in a similar way to [i]Bo Rhap, Jealousy[/i], etc.
- Deliberately [i]Bohemian Rhapsody[/i]-esque guitar solo
- Guitar harmonies in a very 70's way
- Powerful backing vocals... loads of them
- No synths
- Sad, yet hopeful, love-lyrics (think about[i] Love of My Life[/i], for instance)
- Flat-side keys: B-Flat Major, E-Flat Major... both very reminiscent of the golden era
- First verse is preceded by a piano motif played twice over the Bb chord, exactly like [i]Bo Rhap[/i]
- Intro doesn't re-appear anywhere in the song, like [i]Bo Rhap[/i]
- The lift progression is basically the same as [i]Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy[/i] (chorus), and in the same key
- Andalusian cadence (before the solo), which Fred hadn't used since [i]Great King Rat [/i]and [i]Liar[/i] (modified)
- Relatively long melody content (as opposed to their contemporary singles like [i]Break Free[/i] or [i]Body Language[/i])
- While not complicated, it's still well-thought in terms of harmony and arrangements, like most Fred's piano ballads.
- Three choruses, but they're all different, just like [i]Killer Queen[/i]
[/QUOTE]
Awesome post! The only problem I have with it is the statement that "IAHL is as classic as Queen gets".

Your post points out the problem with it - it is paint by numbers. It is constructed from previous work, not original like the other songs mentioned. It is more craft than art. I think it comes off forced and disingenuous. Imitation may be the greatest form of flattery, but imitating yourself just seems more masturbatory to some of us that flattering.

>>> Honestly, it's all subjective

Actually, not 'all' is subjective. Take these two statements:

- The Works has better guitar-work than Opera
- Opera has better guitar-work than The Works

Those are subjective, and neither is 'right' or 'wrong'. But:

- The Works has more guitar overdubs than Opera
- Opera has more guitar overdubs than The Works

Assuming they haven't got the same amount, one of the two sentences is absolutely right and the other's absolutely wrong.

>>> I suggest everyone take a moment and ask, about any Queen album, "What do I want from this?" My answer is always: "I want them to try something new, to go in new musical directions. I don't want more of the same.

My answer is 'I want great music, to their level'. I don't care if it's 'more of the same' (actually, none of the elements they used in 'The Works' was new), as long as it's ace. [i]Dear Friends[/i] hasn't got guitar, bass, drums or rock elements, but it's still marvellous; [i]Keep Yourself Alive[/i] hasn't got piano, very high notes (only the retake) or complex vocal harmonies, but it's till great; [i]Bijou[/i] has synths, but it's astonishing; [i]Who Wants to Live Forever[/i] has guest musicians, but it's brill.

So, as long as the final result is worth it, I don't care about the genre, the arrangement, the instruments used, etc. The thing about [i]Radio Ga Ga[/i] isn't the fact it's 'pop', but the fact it's layered with dated synth sounds, the solo is dull (especially when they had such a great guitarist), the drum part is predictable; my complaint about [i]Body Language[/i] isn't the fact it's disco-influenced or the fact it's 'gay' (though songs have no sexual orientation AFAIK), but the fact it's based on a monotone bass-hook (not even played by a bassist, but played on a synth), lyrics are something Fred probably wrote in two minutes (and not his best two minutes), there's very little imagination in the arrangements, production's sub-par, etc. It's got nothing to do with the genre, with their 70's output or with the video.

>>> Even if I don't like it at first, I want to be able to say they tried and for that, they get a passing grade.

What I like about Queen is that they didn't content themselves with 'trying': they used to be perfectionists. They never did [i]Bo Rhap[/i] wanting it to be a #40 on the charts; they never toured wanting to perform before an empty 200-seat hall. So, when they do something like [i]Get Down Make Love [/i]or [i]Cool Cat[/i], it's disappointing.

>>> Roger was working on Strange Frontier, during which he wrote [i]Radio Ga Ga[/i], which to my ear sounds like it could have fit on his solo album as well as it does on The Works.

Actually, for several subtle reasons, that's not the kind of song he'd have on 'Strange Frontier', unless his original demo (before Mercury jumped in) was closer in style. We'll probably never know...

>>> I've always been curious if any of Brian's Works songs, like "Machines" began life in the Star Fleet sessions.

I guess (rather than know) [i]Machines[/i] probably started off in the studio, more or less a la [i]One Vision[/i], with Roger and Brian throwing ideas at each other. I don't think any of May's 'Works' songs were planned for Star Fleet, but indeed he could've had some ideas wandering around during those sessions. [i]Hammer to Fall[/i] is reportedly about the American government, which could've been fuelled by his being there.

>>> It's certainly heavier all around and I think it's a concious effort to get back to just straightforward rock, which is why there's nothing comparable to "Black Queen" or "Rhapsody" or 'Somebody To Love" on it

Actually, there is: [i]It's a Hard Life[/i] is comparable to [i]Bohemian Rhapsody[/i], as it's been said before.

>>> the album version is good, but when I heard the single version later, I was like, "Whoa!"

There, I disagree: the album version is good, but one of the weakest songs by Deacon; the single version is more of the same.

>>> Your post points out the problem with it - it is paint by numbers. It is constructed from previous work, not original like the other songs mentioned.

Technically, absolutely nothing in music is new, much less in the 20th century (except for new pedal effects or so). Absolutely everything Queen did - in musical terms - had been done before: vocal harmonies, rhapsodies, fusion of distant styles, guitar harmonies, multi-tracking, etc. Every modulation or rhythmic trick had forerunners both in classical and popular genres.

Of course, it doesn't mean [i]Killer Queen [/i]or [i]Leroy Brown[/i] are less masterpieces, it just means that the whole 'original' point is sometimes a bit unfair IMO.

Hi folks!

How are you?

I like many of you guys but I think I'll disagree with everyone now. :-(

[protecting myself with a shield and a helmet bearing the Queen symbol :op ]

Well, I beg to differ from the analogies brought up so far. Analogies are valuable as a means of understanding only if, at least, the logic presiding the two compared phenomena are similar.

To begin with, in my humble view, bringing up either Da Vinci or Usain Bolt as an analogy to Queen is very misleading: the musical equivalents of Da Vinci are Bach, Beethoven, Duke Ellington, Messiaen, you name it, not Queen, for sure. First and foremost because, well, there's here a clear divide between art and very simple pop culture to entertain the masses.
Same with Usain Bolt - his music equivalent would be someone like Liszt - a great composer (as Usain is a great athlete) and one of the best pianists ever (as Usain is one of the best atheletes within his category).
Queen is not in this rank of excellence. And they never pretended to be: as Freddie said, the music was supposed to entertain or, as Brian said recently, "pure escapism" - marketable goods for a mass audience.

So it's not as if they had to keep a great artistic legacy and by recording [b]"The Works"[/b] they hadn't lived up to their talents. They said themselves: they wanted to be still relevant in the music market, they wanted to keep selling records because that's the measure of success for pop artists. Sales: people willing to pay to listen to the music. Paying twice, three times sometimes: singles, albums and concerts.

[i]And the way to keep being relevant as a stadium rock band in the 80's was not the same as in the 70's[/i]. It's not a question of better or worse here, in my humble view: it's a different demand. Pop bands were expected to produce new original material almost on an annual basis. Queen did manage to meet the demands of the market - and they succeded in doing it, in my humble opinion, beautifully. Music has to be entertainment too. As long as Queen's songs, such as Bo Rhap, are not taken more seriously than they cleverly were aimed to be, I think it's fine, that is, it pretty much in accord with my taste.  

--------------------------

Then I go to websites about Queen's music and some things really baffle me. I find it amusing, each one his/her own, and I love to see the different ways people relate to music, but I get really surprised by some things.  

An instance: Freddie never bragged about having constructed a counterpoint (in the narrower sense) in Bohemian Rhapsody.

1) First, because he was much more a musician than only a poorly gifted tablature or score reader. Anyone who has to resort to notations everytime he/she wants to play something, sing a song or write about music is already lost for music - this is as true for classical artists nowadays as for the more sophisticated pop artists.

2) Because it was obviously a mock piece. There is no possible counterpoint there, first species or not - it's a collage of distorted processed voices the timber and tonal quality and clumsy weak motions of which even forbid the piece from having anything similar to a genuine, well-structured and beautiful first-species counterpoint. It's a funny entertaining pastiche!

3) But just for the sake of the argument, I thought to myself, let me assume that the mock operatic section features a  first-species counterpoint, as so many Queen websites boast, and let me see if it makes me feel better as a fan. :-))) I can't understand the point, really. It's funny, because I'm like: so what? A first-species counterpoint without further developments in form of fugues or other clever counterpunctual structures, doesn't mean much, or anything. It's just...a set of simple rules to achieve some results.

I can do many, and none will be nearly as fun or as good or as entertaining as the operatic section from Bo Rhap, which has none: the merit of the passage is what makes it entertaining to people in general - it sounds grand, the lyrics are both funny and threatening, it builds up a lot of tension through a myriad of voices - a small wonder from a studio and technological point-of-view - and leads to a wonderful rock part with a wonderful rant I'd love to say to someone one day. Hahaha.

These points are part of the difference between myself, a technician-in-training - the equivalent of the bureaucrat in music - and Freddie, who was a wonderfully gifted MUSICIAN[b]. [/b] :op
 
----

Which is, finally (hehe), where my opinion about [b]The Works[/b] comes in: it's not better or worse than any other Queen album, to my taste: it's an album done in a different context and which aims at satisfying a different demand - a demand which had to be met if Queen wanted to keep being as big an act as they had been. One thing, though, I feel like saying in favor of The Works: it spawned a world-wide hit ([b]I Want to Break Free[/b]), it paved the way to what's arguably one of the most shinning moments in Queen's career, which was [i][b]Live Aid[/b][/i] - Radio Ga-Ga became almost an arena-anthem and Hammer To Fall became one of Queen's most appreciated songs.[b] "Is This The World We Created"[/b] was the song that captivated people all over the globe when Freddie and Brian took the stage to perform it during Live Aid.

So: no "I'm in Love with my car", no fillers like "Sweet Lady". :-))))

It is, surprisingly, as someone correctly, in my humble opinion, said above, a very consistent album - yes! It was: a quality which is lacking from almost every other Queen album! 
 
Given the goals they had to face, they succeeded to my taste: and they did it beautifully. They did it by outdoing onstage, for instance, some of most famous pop artists in 1985.
 
----
Anyway, I think Hammer To Fall, Radio Ga-Ga and I Want to Break Free are as classic Queen as Bohemian Rhapsody - and rightly so. Such songs, even a simple one as I Want To Break Free, ended up really moving audiences from all over the world - and, I have to be honest, the lyrics are quite beautiful, mature and have a wonderful universal appeal. I think everyone can relate to the experiences described in "I Want To Break Free" - and I take the "God Knows" as that intimate dialogue people have with themselves: it's one facing a situation which only his counsciousness, which is biased and disturbed and contradictory by that point, can bear witness to. I find it beautiful. :op  And I love Man On The Prowl - the song but, mainly, the lyrics, which are priceless. :op
---

So: I love the Works as much as any other Queen album except for News of The World which has a very special place in this poor girl's heart. :-) 

I come here to present my humble 0,0000000000000001 cent, I can show you some pooooor merchandise!

;-)))

Take care, guys, and have a wonderful day!!!!

Yara

P.S: Needles to say, this is only my personal opinion and is not meant to curb disagreement or other ways people have of relating to music. I'm getting so fancy, my posts have even a DISCLAIMER! :op

Sebastian, I'm not saying you're wrong or right. I'm not even saying *I'm* right. I still think the whole discussion is pointless. You don't like The Works, big deal. It doesn't change anything. They clearly took a technological approach to their music that time around and used it to rock out accordingly. After more than ten years of recording and touring, they followed the ideas that appealed to them, as opposed to doing what they'd done in the past. Most popular artists were playing with synths. What sounds dated to your ear is that synths of the time weren't all that fantastic, but the band liked them. To expand on what I was saying previously about trying something new gets a pass from me, I wasn't saying that was *all* they did on The Works, but that's where I begin when I listen to any band's latest album.

You want perfectionism on an album? Perfection is subjective, as I was saying before. I have no idea if The Works is perfect and it's not my (or your) place to judge. Take the album or leave it. I like it and I make no apologies for it. What you consider predictable may be what the band considers thematic (technology...organic vrs machines [say, wasn't there a song about that..?]...old vrs new [you know, like TV out performing radio...wait, there's a song about that too]...a look at the inhuman lack of perspective between the rich, powerful and governmental forces [Oh, there's a few songs about those ideas too...] and maybe a few thoughts about the individual's place in his or her mixed up world).

Guy Clark comes to mind now...



"One man’s hawk is another man’s dove, one man’s hug is another man’s shove
One man’s rock is another man’s sand, one man’s fist is another man’s hand
One man’s tool is another man’s toy, one man grief is another man’s joy
One man’s squawk is another man’s sing, one man’s crutch is another man’s wing

One man’s pride is another man’s humble, one man’s step is another man’s stumble
One man’s pleasure is another man’s pain, one man’s loss is another man’s gain
One man’s can is another man’s grail, one man’s curse is another man’s sail
One man’s right is another man’s wrong, one man’s curse is another man’s song

Chorus

For every father’s daughter
For every mother’s son
The only think the same
Is that is ain’t for everyone

One man’s deuce is another man’s ace, one man’s back is another man’s face
One man’s reason is another man’s rhyme, one man’s dollar is another man’s dime
One man’s tree is another man’s post, one man’s angel is another man’s ghost
One man’s rain is another man’s drought, one man’s hope is another man’s doubt

One man’s false is another man’s fair, one man’s toup is another man’s hair
One man’s hand is another man’s stub, one man’s feast is another man’s grub
One man’s dread is another man’s dream, one man’s sigh is another man’s scream
One man’s water is another man’s wine, one man’s daughter leave another man’s cryin’

Chorus

One man’s famine is another man’s feast, one man’s pet is another man’s beast
One man’s bat is another man’s ball, one man’s art is another man’s scrawl
One man’s friend is another man’s foe, one man’s Joesph is another man’s Joe
One man’s hammer is another man’s nail, one man’s freedom is another man’s jail

One man’s road is another man’s rut, one man’s if is another man’s but
One man’s treasure is another man’s trash, one man’s landin’ is another man’s crash
One man’s word is another man’s lie, one man’s dirt is another man’s sky
One man’s skin is another man’s color, one man’s killer is another man’s brother

Chorus

Hank Williams said it best
He said it a long time ago
"Unless you have made no mistakes in your life
Be careful of stones that you throw"

[QUOTE]

[b]Yara wrote: [/b]

Hi folks!

How are you?

I like many of you guys but I think I'll disagree with everyone now. :-(

[protecting myself with a shield and a helmet bearing the Queen symbol :op ]

Well, I beg to differ from the analogies brought up so far. Analogies are valuable as a means of understanding only if, at least, the logic presiding the two compared phenomena are similar.

To begin with, in my humble view, bringing up either Da Vinci or Usain Bolt as an analogy to Queen is very misleading: the musical equivalents of Da Vinci are Bach, Beethoven, Duke Ellington, Messiaen, you name it, not Queen, for sure. First and foremost because, well, there's here a clear divide between art and very simple pop culture to entertain the masses.
Same with Usain Bolt - his music equivalent would be someone like Liszt - a great composer (as Usain is a great athlete) and one of the best pianists ever (as Usain is one of the best atheletes within his category).
Queen is not in this rank of excellence. And they never pretended to be: as Freddie said, the music was supposed to entertain or, as Brian said recently, "pure escapism" - marketable goods for a mass audience.

So it's not as if they had to keep a great artistic legacy and by recording [b]"The Works"[/b] they hadn't lived up to their talents. They said themselves: they wanted to be still relevant in the music market, they wanted to keep selling records because that's the measure of success for pop artists. Sales: people willing to pay to listen to the music. Paying twice, three times sometimes: singles, albums and concerts.

[i]And the way to keep being relevant as a stadium rock band in the 80's was not the same as in the 70's[/i]. It's not a question of better or worse here, in my humble view: it's a different demand. Pop bands were expected to produce new original material almost on an annual basis. Queen did manage to meet the demands of the market - and they succeded in doing it, in my humble opinion, beautifully. Music has to be entertainment too. As long as Queen's songs, such as Bo Rhap, are not taken more seriously than they cleverly were aimed to be, I think it's fine, that is, it pretty much in accord with my taste.  

--------------------------

Then I go to websites about Queen's music and some things really baffle me. I find it amusing, each one his/her own, and I love to see the different ways people relate to music, but I get really surprised by some things.  

An instance: Freddie never bragged about having constructed a counterpoint (in the narrower sense) in Bohemian Rhapsody.

1) First, because he was much more a musician than only a poorly gifted tablature or score reader. Anyone who has to resort to notations everytime he/she wants to play something, sing a song or write about music is already lost for music - this is as true for classical artists nowadays as for the more sophisticated pop artists.

2) Because it was obviously a mock piece. There is no possible counterpoint there, first species or not - it's a collage of distorted processed voices the timber and tonal quality and clumsy weak motions of which even forbid the piece from having anything similar to a genuine, well-structured and beautiful first-species counterpoint. It's a funny entertaining pastiche!

3) But just for the sake of the argument, I thought to myself, let me assume that the mock operatic section features a  first-species counterpoint, as so many Queen websites boast, and let me see if it makes me feel better as a fan. :-))) I can't understand the point, really. It's funny, because I'm like: so what? A first-species counterpoint without further developments in form of fugues or other clever counterpunctual structures, doesn't mean much, or anything. It's just...a set of simple rules to achieve some results.

I can do many, and none will be nearly as fun or as good or as entertaining as the operatic section from Bo Rhap, which has none: the merit of the passage is what makes it entertaining to people in general - it sounds grand, the lyrics are both funny and threatening, it builds up a lot of tension through a myriad of voices - a small wonder from a studio and technological point-of-view - and leads to a wonderful rock part with a wonderful rant I'd love to say to someone one day. Hahaha.

These points are part of the difference between myself, a technician-in-training - the equivalent of the bureaucrat in music - and Freddie, who was a wonderfully gifted MUSICIAN[b]. [/b] :op
 
----

Which is, finally (hehe), where my opinion about [b]The Works[/b] comes in: it's not better or worse than any other Queen album, to my taste: it's an album done in a different context and which aims at satisfying a different demand - a demand which had to be met if Queen wanted to keep being as big an act as they had been. One thing, though, I feel like saying in favor of The Works: it spawned a world-wide hit ([b]I Want to Break Free[/b]), it paved the way to what's arguably one of the most shinning moments in Queen's career, which was [i][b]Live Aid[/b][/i] - Radio Ga-Ga became almost an arena-anthem and Hammer To Fall became one of Queen's most appreciated songs.[b] "Is This The World We Created"[/b] was the song that captivated people all over the globe when Freddie and Brian took the stage to perform it during Live Aid.

So: no "I'm in Love with my car", no fillers like "Sweet Lady". :-))))

It is, surprisingly, as someone correctly, in my humble opinion, said above, a very consistent album - yes! It was: a quality which is lacking from almost every other Queen album! 
 
Given the goals they had to face, they succeeded to my taste: and they did it beautifully. They did it by outdoing onstage, for instance, some of most famous pop artists in 1985.
 
----
Anyway, I think Hammer To Fall, Radio Ga-Ga and I Want to Break Free are as classic Queen as Bohemian Rhapsody - and rightly so. Such songs, even a simple one as I Want To Break Free, ended up really moving audiences from all over the world - and, I have to be honest, the lyrics are quite beautiful, mature and have a wonderful universal appeal. I think everyone can relate to the experiences described in "I Want To Break Free" - and I take the "God Knows" as that intimate dialogue people have with themselves: it's one facing a situation which only his counsciousness, which is biased and disturbed and contradictory by that point, can bear witness to. I find it beautiful. :op  And I love Man On The Prowl - the song but, mainly, the lyrics, which are priceless. :op
---

So: I love the Works as much as any other Queen album except for News of The World which has a very special place in this poor girl's heart. :-) 

I come here to present my humble 0,0000000000000001 cent, I can show you some pooooor merchandise!

;-)))

Take care, guys, and have a wonderful day!!!!

Yara

P.S: Needles to say, this is only my personal opinion and is not meant to curb disagreement or other ways people have of relating to music. I'm getting so fancy, my posts have even a DISCLAIMER! :op [/QUOTE]


you like the works?....I been called fishy twice Just because I gave the works a good rating.

About Da Vinci: I stand by what I wrote earlier. Queen music was escapism... but great escapism (in the 70's). They looked for an easier and mediocre (for their standards) approach later and that's my complaint. They haven't got to be Beethoven to compose great music.

About the counterpoint: a mock counterpoint is still a counterpoint. Sure, Fred didn't take himself too seriously, but he was dead serious in his task of not taking himself too seriously. That's what I respect. The marvellous thing about [i]Bo Rhap[/i] is that its mock operetta is so greatly composed, arranged, performed and mixed that it does sound a lot more than a simple 'caricature'. Does it mean Mercury *had to* place counterpoints on all his songs from then on? No. But at least, to try something more creative than whatever was going on at the moment (which happened in 'Races' or 'Jazz', not in 'The Works').

About synths (and drum-machines for that matter): IMO, very often they were used where they weren't necessary. A mistake made with good intentions is still a mistake. And, for me, having a synth-bass on [i]Body Language [/i]rather than using the excellent bassist they had in the band was a mistake, no matter if they'd meant well.

About being trendy: 'A Night at the Opera' wasn't copying The Osmonds or Bay City Rollers. They were brave enough to try what they wanted regardless of the radio hits at the moment. Of course, there's a lot of marketing involved and everything, but they weren't playing it as 'easily' as with 'The Works'.

About me not liking 'The Works': I'm not trying to convince anybody to 'join' me or anything. But, this is a forum, and we're all entitled to our opinions. And when asked for a follow-up, I'm happy to contribute.

Wow, an intelligent debate about music on QZ!  Will wonders never cease.
[/QUOTE]Lots of interesting POV's here, I tend to agree with a lot of what Sebastian says and also Yara and Amazon.  The thing is, Queen music always changed, which is why it was great.  But certain times it changed for the sake of change, and that wasn't necessarily good.  I think a big part of my distaste for the 80s stuff is that it was copying stuff and virtually all of the 70s albums were unique.  Even Jazz, which some people can't stand, had songs like Bicycle Race and Mustapha, which I think no other band in the world could pull off other than Queen.  But then Body Language, save Freddie's vocals, could have been any anonymous Euro synth band.  Same with Radio Ga Ga, must stronger from a composition POV, well written, but nothing that said "unique" about it.  For people who grew up with 70s Queen, a lot of us feel the 80s stuff was kind of soulless, because they were trying to become something they weren't.  Dancer for instance, is Brian's attempt at cool dance music, and it's a plodding nightmare because Brian isn't a party dance guy.  For Body Language, Freddie was getting exposed to new sounds and wanted to experiment with them, but he hadn't figured that world out, and seldom did.  But he grew up in a house with ragtime jazz, and Gilbert and Sullivan and that's why songs like Leroy Brown, Seaside Rendezvous and Lazing on a Sunday afternoon are so authentic and fresh, they had roots in that stuff.  tHey didn't in the newer sounds, and the originality for the most part washed away.[/QUOTE]

Yara wrote:"Hi folks!

How are you?

I like many of you guys but I think I'll disagree with everyone now. :-(

[protecting myself with a shield and a helmet bearing the Queen symbol :op ]

Well, I beg to differ from the analogies brought up so far. Analogies are valuable as a means of understanding only if, at least, the logic presiding the two compared phenomena are similar.

To begin with, in my humble view, bringing up either Da Vinci or Usain Bolt as an analogy to Queen is very misleading: the musical equivalents of Da Vinci are Bach, Beethoven, Duke Ellington, Messiaen, you name it, not Queen, for sure. First and foremost because, well, there's here a clear divide between art and very simple pop culture to entertain the masses.
Same with Usain Bolt - his music equivalent would be someone like Liszt - a great composer (as Usain is a great athlete) and one of the best pianists ever (as Usain is one of the best atheletes within his category).
Queen is not in this rank of excellence. And they never pretended to be: as Freddie said, the music was supposed to entertain or, as Brian said recently, "pure escapism" - marketable goods for a mass audience.

So it's not as if they had to keep a great artistic legacy and by recording [b]"The Works"[/b] they hadn't lived up to their talents. They said themselves: they wanted to be still relevant in the music market, they wanted to keep selling records because that's the measure of success for pop artists. Sales: people willing to pay to listen to the music. Paying twice, three times sometimes: singles, albums and concerts.

[i]And the way to keep being relevant as a stadium rock band in the 80's was not the same as in the 70's[/i]. It's not a question of better or worse here, in my humble view: it's a different demand. Pop bands were expected to produce new original material almost on an annual basis. Queen did manage to meet the demands of the market - and they succeded in doing it, in my humble opinion, beautifully. Music has to be entertainment too. As long as Queen's songs, such as Bo Rhap, are not taken more seriously than they cleverly were aimed to be, I think it's fine, that is, it pretty much in accord with my taste." 

Yarra, this is where I passionately disagree with you. You seem to be arguing two things; Queen's music isn't art and it's not in the highest rank of excellence. I'll deal with the two individually.

First, I dispute that Queen's music isn't art. On the contrary, I think it's art of the hightest order. There's this idea that art and popculture are incompatible. In literature, a distinction is made between literally fiction and popular fiction, in cinema a distinction is made between art film and Hollywood blockbusters, and in music a distinction is made between popular  music (which covers everything from heavy metal to the Spice Girls) and classical music and Jazz.

Personally, I think it's a bunch of baloney (and I'm not directing that to you Yarra.) I will defend to the very death my view that Stephen King is among the greatest writers of all time. A popular writer, absolutely, however I think he's better and more important than most literally writers. I think that the whole art film/Hollywood blockbuster divide is nonsence, especially since IMO The Godfather (a huge Hollywood blockbuster) was one of the two or three greatest films of all time, while IMO the greatest film director of all time was Hitchcock, who specialised in genre films. In music, the Beatles proved that one can sell millions of records, play to tens of thousands ofscreaming fans, and still make art. The same goes for the Beach Boys.

Yarrra, you say that the 'musical equivalents of Da Vinci are Bach, Beethoven, Duke Ellington, Messiaen.' Well, I would also add Queen to that list.Far from being very simple pop culture, Queen explored the outer reaches of sound and music, and produced arguably among the greatest music of all time. Freddie may have said that the music was supposed to entertain and Brian may have called it "pure escapism", but that's with all music. All music is supposed to entertain. Some may do it in different ways, and for some the definition of 'entertain' may differ,but however you define 'entertain', if you're not entertained by a piece of music, you're unlikely to listen to it. Now, before I get accused of being a populist who likes my music served up to me on asilver plate, let me stress, just as with literature and cinema, different music 'entertains' different people in different ways. It presses different buttons and people look for different things, bu twhatever you look for, if you don't find it in a piece of music, or it doesn't press your buttons, you're unlikely to listen to it all that often. So, as I said, all music 'entertains.' Similarly, Brian's comment is also true of all music. Ultimately, when one listens to music, they are are embarking upon 'escapism.' It could be that a person is escaping from their life or that they are escaping to another world. By enjoying pleasure, whether it be music, a fine meal or great sex or anything else, one is embarking upon 'escapism.' Plus, let's face it. For many people during the day, the music of Beethoven, Mozart and others was the very essence of 'escapism.

I fear that by drawing a distinction between popular culture and art, we are at risk of underappreciating many of the great musical artists of the 20th century; Led Zeppelin, the Rolling Stones, Stevie Wonder, Elvis, Aretha
Franklin, The Doors, Guns 'N Roses, The Who, Sam Cooke, Jimi Hendrix and of course Queen, the Beatles and the Beachboys. One could list dozens of other popular artists whose music was very much art.

One last comment before I move onto your other premise. Just as popular music has also produced the likes of the Spice Girls and Vanilla Ice, Jazz and Classical Music haven't just produced Beethovens and Duke Ellingtons.

Secondlly I would argue that Queen are in the highest rank of  excellence, and are just as great as Da Vinci or Bolt, or in music, Liszt, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Duke Ellington etc... Songs like Bo Rap, Killer Queen, Black Queen, Somebody To Love, Bicycle Race, Don't Sop Me Now, Death On Two Legs, The Prophet's Song, We Will Rock You and The Show Must Go On are IMO just as extraordinary as any of the music that the above mentioned artists wrote or composed. And I'm not saying that as a Queen fan. I'm not by any means the biggest Queen fan on this site, and I don't love everything that they did, but I absolutely believe this.

To be fair, though, as Queen are a group, they should really be analysed individually. If we're going to compare Queen with Beethoven and Duke Ellington, or Da Vinci and Bolt, it must be done individually.
I'll try to be as honest as I can. I'm also going to analyse the  members in ascending order of  their musical ability. Oh, and just to make it clear, yes, this is all purely subjective.

Roger- I can't really comment on his abilites as a drummer. Like Brian, I don't understand drummers (although he obviously understands them more I do), so I can't say how Roger ranks as a drumer. I do know that I like him, and that he features in alot of best of lists, and was also described by Tyler Hawkins as a major influence. But I'll leave it to others to determine how good he really was. As a song-writer, I think he's the weakest in the group, but is still very good. He's written songs that appeal to alot of people, including a a few which may arguably be described as great, but I suspect that most people would agree that Roger is not a song-writing match for Bolt or Da Vinci. Finally, I think he's a very good vocalist (his vocal contribution to Black Queen was arguably one of Queen's greatest moments), but he's not a great singer. He's not the musical equal of Bolt or Da Vinci

John- I won't comment on his bass playing as I don't know enough about bass. I did love his bass lines to Under Pressure and AOBTD, and there were a few others whose bass lines I really enjoyed, but I don't know
all that much about bass beyong bass lines. He's considered to be quite influential, but again, I'll leave that to others to decide. As a song-writer, I think he was the third best in the group, and pound for pound, was possibly even the group's second best song-writer, although probably not, as while most of his songs were of a high quality, there were a few which were terrible. Nonetheless he did write several of the group's best songs including arguably Queen's greatest love song; In Only Seven Days. He was versatile in that he took on different styles, although most of his songs were about love. That said, all 4 members were versatile. Anyway, I think that John was a fantastic song-writer, but was not the musical equal of Bolt or Da Vinci.

Brian- A brilliant, brilliant musician. One of the greatest guitarists of all time, he was (is) simply incredible. A wonderful player who is enormously versatile, as well as a magnificent soloist, Brian is an all-time musical great. He's also a highly talented vocalist; his performances on '39 and Sleeping on The Sidewalk were arguably among the finest vocal performances in Queen's catelogue. But he's not good enough a vocalist that he could forge a career based purely on his voice; it's unlikely even that people will attend a concert in which he solely sang. Personally I love his vocals, but I recognise that he will not be remembered for his vocals. As a song-writer, Brian was Queen's
second best. Earlier I listed Prophet's Song, We Will Rock You and The Show Must Go On, as examples of Queen songs which will stand up against the greatest music of all time. Although Brian can be inconsistent, when he's on, he's brilliant. In terms of whether he can stand up against Bolt or Da Vinci as a sing-writer is difficult, as while he's wonderful, and most of his music is great, not enough of it gets to the awe-inspiring level of a Prophet's Song, WWRY and a TSMGO. But, as a guitarist/song-writer; he certainly would. For as well being a wonderful song-writer, he is also absolutely extraordinary on guitar. Now electric guitar probably does not get the attention of piano, as it's a much younger instrument, but seeing that Brian is one of the grand masters of his instrument, he should be uttered in the same sentence as Liszt or any other legendary pianist. Brian May versus Ursain Bolt, yeh, I can imagine that.

Freddie- A genius. It's an overused word, but Freddie truly was. I'm not going to wait until the end, I'll just say right now, Freddie was absolutely the musical equal of Da Vinci and Bolt and was just as great, and superior in some ways, than any of the great composers and artists mentioned in Yarra's post. One of the greatest singers of all time, not rock singer, but singer, it's unfair to compare Freddie to Bolt. Da Vinci, maybe, as he was probably the greatest painter of all time, but not Bolt, who may not even be one of the three or four best ever sprinters, let alone the greatest ever sprinter. I'm not saying that Freddie was the greatest singer of all time. It's impossible to make such a judgement, but I would argue that he was a prime candidate for the title, which as I said is impossible
to determine. As an example,  Pavarotti and Axl Rose are two entirely different singers, both arguably brilliant, and I don't think that one can determine who was better. Perhaps, Pavarotti as he was probably the finest tenor of the past 50 years, while Axl was almost certainly not the greatest rock vocalist of all time. However it's impossible to
determine. Nonetheless, I would put Freddie up against the very best singers, in any style, ever. Finally, as a song-writer, Freddie was as brilliant as they come. Dylan, Cohen, Lennon & Mccartney, Wilson, Mercury; Freddie was IMO amongst the very finest song-writers of all time, with songs like Bo Rap, Killer Queen, Black Queen, Somebody To Love, Bicycle Race, Don't Sop Me Now and Death On Two Legs being among the greatest of all time. By extention, I would put him in the same class as Beethoven, Bach and Mozart as I reject the notion that
classical music or Jazz are intrinsically superior to rock or pop music. Freddie was in my view among the highest class of excellence, and I think he can comfortably be compared to Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, or among musicians, Liszt, Ellington, Bach, Beethoven etc.., based on his abilities as a singer, his achievements as a song-writer or a combination of both.   


My conclusion; Queen's music IS art (and I think they had an enormous artistic legacy), they are in the highest rank of excellence, and individually, Brian as a guitarist/song-writer is one of the greatest musicians of all time, and Freddie, as a singer, song-writer, and singer/song-writer may be compared to the greatest artists in any field as well as the greatest athletes, and was equally as wonderful as any of the musicians and composers in Yarra's original post.