I stumbled onto [url=http://www.britishhitsongwriters.com]britishhitsongwriters.com[/url]. What an interesting site.
For instance, did you know that the guy who wrote Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up" totally blew Freddie out of the water!!! His name was Mike Stock, and he is the #3 british hit-maker, while Freddie comes in at a mere #63.
Tale of the tape:
[b]Mike[/b] "never gonna give you up" [b]Stock[/b]
Number of Hits: 126
Number Ones: 7
Number of Top Tens: 55
Weeks on chart: 902
Hits include: Slam Jam by the WWF Superstars (a #4), Fast Food Song by the Fast Food Rockers (a #2), and a slew of Kylie Minogue and Bananarama hits.
[b]Freddie[/b] "oh momma mia momma mia" [b]Mercury
[/b]Number of Hits: 47
Number Ones: 8
Number of Top Tens: 23
Weeks On Chart: 396
Hits include: 13 weeks and a #1 for Vanilla Ice, 7 weeks and a #1 for McFly, 12 weeks and a #1 for the Five Live EP, and being covered by Dwight Yoakam, Crazy Frog, Raven Maize, Bad News, Rolf Harris, Tigerstyle, Hank Marvin and Russell Watson. 1 of which I have heard of.
The Real Wizard · Member since
Ah yeah... the biggest hit-makers are usually the ones that are behind the scenes.
Just look at the Funk Brothers... they played on all the big Motown tunes in the 60s. Countless #1 hits... more than the Beatles, Elvis, Beach Boys, and Stones combined. "Standing in the Shadows of Motown" is essential viewing for anyone who has ever listened anything recorded between 1959 and 1972.
But back to topic, Freddie being at #63 on such a list is actually pretty impressive for someone who was in the limelight.
Sebastian · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
Ah yeah... the biggest hit-makers are usually the ones that are behind the scenes.
Just look at the Funk Brothers... they played on all the big Motown tunes in the 60s. Countless #1 hits... more than the Beatles, Elvis, Beach Boys, and Stones combined. "Standing in the Shadows of Motown" is essential viewing for anyone who has ever listened anything recorded between 1959 and 1972.
But back to topic, Freddie being at #63 on such a list is actually pretty impressive for someone who was in the limelight.
[/QUOTE]
#63 is way more than [i]average[/i] if we consider the thousands and thousands of existing songwriters.
peterkoz1 · Member since
Mike Stock was shit !! money making pop garbage writer just like his Fat mate Pete Waterman (but the bird who presented the hit man and her on TV with him on tele was alright gave me many good dreams when i got in totally pissed on a saturday night)
catqueen · Member since
On the other hand, Mike Stock probably didn't write anything comparable to Barcelona.
Micrówave · Member since
I think that just sums up what's wrong with this business.
And we really have only one to blame... the one's buying all this stuff. I have made it to 2009 without the need to buy any Rick Astley, Kylie Minogue, or Bananarama CDs, Singles, or "box sets". But if I polled every person I had contact with today, I bet 90% would have some form or fashion in their collection.
I'm sure if we lumped Queen all together, they would get into the 40s or so, but it's nice to see John and Paul atop the list. I think Sting got a little skewed as well, given all the stuff he did with The Police. Back then, the kids buying that stuff didn't have the numbers or the buying power they have today. It's much easier for me to purchase a Green Day CD for my teenager than it was to ask my Mom for the new Sex Pistols album.
bigV · Member since
If the only song Freddie had written was "Bohemian Rhapsody" he'd still kick the arse of Rick what's-his-name and pretty much anyone else in the business. [/QUOTE]My 2 cents.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]V.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
Angeline · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
Ah yeah... the biggest hit-makers are usually the ones that are behind the scenes.
Just look at the Funk Brothers... they played on all the big Motown tunes in the 60s. Countless #1 hits... more than the Beatles, Elvis, Beach Boys, and Stones combined. "Standing in the Shadows of Motown" is essential viewing for anyone who has ever listened anything recorded between 1959 and 1972.
But back to topic, Freddie being at #63 on such a list is actually pretty impressive for someone who was in the limelight.
[/QUOTE]
#63 is way more than [i]average[/i] if we consider the thousands and thousands of existing songwriters.
[/QUOTE]
Lets demarcate between [b][i]hit-makers[/i] [/b]and [i][b]talented songwriters[/b][/i]: Freddie was the latter and the two often but do not always go together as Mike 'Never Gonna Give You Up' Stock or whatever, so aptly demonstrates
Sebastian · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Angeline wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
Ah yeah... the biggest hit-makers are usually the ones that are behind the scenes.
Just look at the Funk Brothers... they played on all the big Motown tunes in the 60s. Countless #1 hits... more than the Beatles, Elvis, Beach Boys, and Stones combined. "Standing in the Shadows of Motown" is essential viewing for anyone who has ever listened anything recorded between 1959 and 1972.
But back to topic, Freddie being at #63 on such a list is actually pretty impressive for someone who was in the limelight.
[/QUOTE]
#63 is way more than [i]average[/i] if we consider the thousands and thousands of existing songwriters.
[/QUOTE]
Lets demarcate between [b][i]hit-makers[/i] [/b]and [i][b]talented songwriters[/b][/i]: Freddie was the latter and the two often but do not always go together as Mike 'Never Gonna Give You Up' Stock or whatever, so aptly demonstrates
[/QUOTE]
There are people who were both, and Freddie was one of them. The word the original poster's using is [i]average[/i]. Well, let's see what it means:
Average is a medial estimate. If there are/were a million songwriters since 1950 (there could easily be a lot more), off which the vast majority wrote NO hits at all, the average would probably be 0.0x hits per capita. Freddie wrote 47 hits, which is over 4700 times the [i]average[/i] (and I'm only counting hit-wise, not quality-wise).
Keep in mind, also, that being #63 is way above [i]average[/i]: the 63rd oldest person in the world must be around 100 years old. There are older people, but does it mean he or she is young? Not at all. Same for the 63rd tallest person: he or she must be over 7 ft tall; there are 62 taller people, but does it mean s/he is short? or a dwarf? Not at all.
mike hunt · Member since
your right 63 is way above average considering how many songwriters there are in history. Freddie is still much underated as a songwriter. some writers are great at writing hits, but not much else, while others write great songs but can't write a hit too save their life. Freddie did both. Dare I say queen were better writers than zeppelin IMO.
Yara · Member since
Interesting. I never thought Freddie would fare that well in such a rank. Besides, taking into account that he was both the performer and the composer, and many times the producer, of the songs, he does stand out as above the average!
It’s interest that most of the songs from "Absolute Greatest" have been written by him. Though revamped and boosted to the top of the charts for other reasons than strictly musical, even one of his solo songs ended up peaking at #1 - it was a posthumous hit, all right, but a hit anyway, and a solo one!
mike hunt · Member since
barcelona was a hit, and one of the few songs that stood the test of time as far as solo Queen.
Angeline · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Angeline wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
Ah yeah... the biggest hit-makers are usually the ones that are behind the scenes.
Just look at the Funk Brothers... they played on all the big Motown tunes in the 60s. Countless #1 hits... more than the Beatles, Elvis, Beach Boys, and Stones combined. "Standing in the Shadows of Motown" is essential viewing for anyone who has ever listened anything recorded between 1959 and 1972.
But back to topic, Freddie being at #63 on such a list is actually pretty impressive for someone who was in the limelight.
[/QUOTE]
#63 is way more than [i]average[/i] if we consider the thousands and thousands of existing songwriters.
[/QUOTE]
Lets demarcate between [b][i]hit-makers[/i] [/b]and [i][b]talented songwriters[/b][/i]: Freddie was the latter and the two often but do not always go together as Mike 'Never Gonna Give You Up' Stock or whatever, so aptly demonstrates
[/QUOTE]
There are people who were both, and Freddie was one of them. The word the original poster's using is [i]average[/i]. Well, let's see what it means:
Average is a medial estimate. If there are/were a million songwriters since 1950 (there could easily be a lot more), off which the vast majority wrote NO hits at all, the average would probably be 0.0x hits per capita. Freddie wrote 47 hits, which is over 4700 times the [i]average[/i] (and I'm only counting hit-wise, not quality-wise).
Keep in mind, also, that being #63 is way above [i]average[/i]: the 63rd oldest person in the world must be around 100 years old. There are older people, but does it mean he or she is young? Not at all. Same for the 63rd tallest person: he or she must be over 7 ft tall; there are 62 taller people, but does it mean s/he is short? or a dwarf? Not at all.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I was not disagreeing with you. Numerically 63 doesn't mean 'average' and coming top doesn't make you a good song-writer. Perhaps my disagreement was with the title of the thread.
cacatua · Member since
After reading through all posts - proof that it all depends on how you spin it!
coops · Member since
I would trade in song writing credits for a voice like Freddies anytime.
