Sebastian wrote: " "Of course, it's your choice, and no, you're not hurting anyone, but can
you not see that not only it is annoying but it dilutes your point?"
Can you not see that saying it's annoying and dilutes my point, is annoying and dilutes your point?"
""Not to mention that the thread has nothing to do with Paul Rodgers."
Not to mention that the thread has nothing to do with whether I mention Paul Rodgers or not." Oh god, you really are impossible.
" "Yes, but if you compare those songs to Queen songs released during the early to mid 80's, such as Play The Game or I Want To Break Free, the Freddie songs were arguably inferior."
Because they were on his B-list. Had he been a full-time solo artist (like Bowie), he'd probably saved his best efforts and everything would've been different." But why does that matter? I adore and rever Freddie, but if he releases a less than great album (I don't regard Mr Bad Guy to be crap), then I don't think he should be let off the hook with the material 'was on his B-list.' If the music isn't that great, then don't release it. If you do release it, then you must be judged on the material. Plus, that material included arguably one of the best songs on the MIH album (MIH), while IWBTLY was also really good, so I don't think that the material was particularly ordinary.
""I think that if Freddie had given them to the group to begin with, they could have been great or at least evrey good
from the beginning."
Or if Fred had been a full-time solo artist instead of a full-time group member only devoting extra time to his solo record." Except, as a solo artist, he mightn't had access to Brian, or to Roger and John. Killer Queen was incredible, but I don't think it would have been quite as good with Brian, the same goes for The March of the Black Queen and Roger etc...
" "There are no guarentees about anything, but we can speculate on what he did with Queen and what he did by himself."
Yes, but it's important to know the context. Again, Fred's priority in terms of work was Queen, which explains him giving his absolute best for Bo Rhap and others. For his debut (and only) original solo album ('Barcelona' is a duet, not a solo thing), he used songs not good enough for the band, songs heavily influenced by the trends of the time, etc. Had Fred been a full-time solo artist and had 'Bad Guy' been produced in 1975, things would've been very different." As I said in my responses above, he mightn't have had the other guys if he recorded Mr Bad Guy in 1975; I'm not going to let him off the hook because the material might have been B-grade, and the songs off Mr Bad Guy weren't that bad (technically speaking, you're right that Barcelona was a duet album, but considering that Freddie did so much work outside of the vocals, and that it's often included in Freddie's official solo discography, I regard it as a solo album).
" "Within the structure of a group, he was the lead singer/frontman. That's what I'm referring to."
"He was the lead singer/frontman, and he was the piano player (piano is the main instrument in several Queen songs including some of their biggest hits, so it's not a minor detail), and he was the main composer, and he was the main lyricist, and he was the main arranger, and he was the main producer." As I said in my previous post, in this context, I'm obviously [b]only [/b]referring to his role as a lead singer/frontman.
" "Exactly, that's what I'm talking about. Freddie was a genius (as is/was Brian Wilson), but I
don't think that he was a genius who worked best alone."
"No genius worked best alone. David Bowie always had people playing the piano, the drums, etc., guest arrangers, producers, engineers, etc. So, not alone is not necessarily as part of a group." Yes, it is. You're being incredibly literal. When I refer to working alone, I refer to being a solo artist. Bob Dylan works alone, as opposed to Mick Jagger. The point of my post was that IMO Freddie and Brian Wilson worked best as members of Queen and the Beach Boys.
Winter Land Man · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Amazon wrote: [/b]
[i] The point of my post was that IMO Freddie and Brian Wilson worked best as members of Queen and the Beach Boys. [/i]
[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say that. The Beach Boys last two albums with Brian Wilson weren't great at all (The Beach Boys '85 and Still Cruisin'). Even Brian's songs wern't of anything really "genious", even though Dr. Landy told Brian "I'm sending you songs in my head, write them down, they will be your best work of art yet!"... even with Jardine and Love helping on some of the lyrics, and Brian arranging the vocal harmonies, most of the songs wern't "a work of art". It was like Brian lost all of his original qualities.
Now, look at ALL of Brian's solo albums. Lots of 'em hit the charts better than a ton of Beach Boys albums. And all of them contained songs far more superior than the songs he wrote with The Beach Boys during the 1970s and 1980s. Compare songs like "I'm So Lonely" (Beach Boys) to "Melt Away" (Brian Wilson). You'll understand.
And in terms of song writing for The Beach Boys, back in the 60s, it was almost a solo effort. Even on The Beach Boys albums that the members played the instruments, they were practically studio musicians. Pet Sounds, to me, IS a Brian Wilson solo effort, with guest vocalists... although I give Carl some good credit, he actually plugged in his guitar at times during sessions, and was un-credited to such. After '64... Brian wrote the songs, and he even did all of the vocals to use as a guide vocal. Compare Brian's version of 'God Only Knows' to Carl's version of 'God Only Knows'... despite the fact that Carl was smoother on the vocals a bit more (Brian had been smoking a lot of cigs by that point), it's not TOO much of a difference and Brian still had it vocally. Pet Sounds could of been, and in my opinion, can be called a solo album.
So what I'm saying is... is that basically, Brian didn't work BEST with The Beach Boys, the only reason he had it going on (sales wise), was because the name was a household name, not because they worked best together. As the 1960s went on, Brian started to work less with Mike Love, and would work with outsiders (Tony Asher, Van Dyke Parks, Roger Christian, etc), and Brian would record a lot of the songs before the boys did their vocals.
Sebastian · Member since
> Oh god, you really are impossible.
Actually, I'm not. But my point still stands: if it's annoying that I bring PR when nobody's mentioned him, then it's also annoying that you bring my bringing PR when nobody's mentioned it.
> But why does that matter?
Because it's factored in the final result. As you said, 'we can speculate.' So, since the only actual solo album Fred did ('Barcelona' is not a solo album) was made with songs from his 'B-list', using his free time (as his main job was still Queen) and being deeply influenced by the trends at the time and during arguably his laziest period, then it's unfair to claim what made him better was Queen. Again, had he been a full-time solo artist (like Bowie or Springsteen), devoting his best material to it, etc. maybe the result would've been different. Same for era and other variables.
> I don't think he should be let off the hook with the material 'was on his B-list.'
It's not about leaving him 'off the hook', but about crediting his (lack of) quality to other variables, not a simple 'good with Queen, not so good outside Queen'.
> If the music isn't that great, then don't release it. If you do release it, then you must be judged on the material.
Sure, but if the material's not so good, then you've got to consider the context. It's not as simple as 'good with Queen, not so good outside Queen'.
> Except, as a solo artist, he mightn't had access to Brian, or to Roger and John.
Brian, Roger and John aren't the only instrumentalists in the world. Plus, since we're speculating, he could've hired them as session musicians.
> Killer Queen was incredible, but I don't think it would have been quite as good with Brian
Brian's not the only one whose input on that track was great. John did a wonderful job too, and so did Roger. Queen's a hell of a lot more than Fred and the doctor.
> As I said in my responses above, he mightn't have had the other guys if he recorded Mr Bad Guy in 1975;
Nor he'd have had those cheap drum machines and stuff like that. What if he hired Steve Howe on guitar, Rick Wakeman on piano, etc.? Of course, we can't know, but as you said, 'we can speculate'. It may have been as good as Queen, maybe not as good, maybe better, etc. But it wouldn't have been 'Mr Bad Guy'.
> I'm not going to let him off the hook because the material might have been B-grade, and the songs off Mr Bad Guy weren't that bad
Sure, not 'that bad' but they weren't [i]A Hard Life[/i] or [i]Play the Game [/i]either. People like Bowie or Springsteen are 100% committed to their solo careers, and as such give their best 'babies' to them. Fred didn't do that, which obviously affects the final result.
> technically speaking, you're right that Barcelona was a duet album, but considering that Freddie did so much work outside of the vocals, and that it's often included in Freddie's official solo discography, I regard it as a solo album
It's an off-Queen album, but not a solo album.
> Yes, it is. You're being incredibly literal.
Not quite. Is it incredibly literal to say 2+2=4? Some things [i]are[/i] black and white, and this is one: the artist is working alone or not, full stop. Mike Oldfield's a great musician, but he was clever enough to use the talent of other people to make 'Tubular Bells' what it is: producers, a flutist, his sister... it's still a solo album and he's still the mastermind, but he didn't work alone. Same for, say, Bowie and 'Hunky Dory', etc.
Freddie and Brian (Wilson) also worked better with other people, but it doesn't mean the only people they could work with to get good results were their Queen and BB bandmates. What Fred did with Mike Moran has nothing to envy Queen for. It's in another direction, but it's just as good and very well made.
> When I refer to working alone, I refer to being a solo artist.
Which is an unfair point to make in the case of Fred and Brian because there are way too many variables involved.
> Bob Dylan works alone, as opposed to Mick Jagger.
Not the best of examples, either one.
> The point of my post was that IMO Freddie and Brian Wilson worked best as members of Queen and the Beach Boys.
Not necessarily. Fred's best compositions were the result of a period of intense creativity, not necessarily because of his band-mates. Now, of course there's a lot of influence there (for instance, the inner competition to get the single and the album opener/closer may've motivated each of them to work harder to come up with great material), but it's not an 'as a Queen member, he was great, outside, not so great', because the resulting products weren't made under the same conditions. As you say, we can speculate.
For instance, let's say a skilful doctor also writes poetry. As a physician, he or she earns a living, awards, etc., and as a poet, he or she only gets some occasional published bits and pieces in a local mag. Should we say that person is unvariably a better doctor than poet? Actually not: based on the evidence we've got, we can't be sure. If he or she spends 16 hours a day in medicine, and only 1 hour a month on poetry (as they've got to work to bring the bacon), it's obvious that the result won't be equal.
Same case here: Fred spent most of 1984-1985 focused on Queen ('The Works' album and tour), and only devoted his free time to the solo album. It's not about letting him 'off the hook' (I agree with you that if it's not very good then it's not very good, and that's it), but about considering the context relating to the product being as it was/is. If the things had been the other way around (Fred being fully devoted to a solo album and tour and only dedicating his spare time to Queen), then maybe the results could've been different. Maybe not... we can't possibly know.
It'd be nice, though, to imagine a fully produced 'Mr Bad Guy', with [i]It's a Hard Life[/i] on it, loads of real bass and drums (from really good players, including Deacy and Rog in some cases), no synths, a more romantic [i]Born to Love You[/i], Michael Jackson dueting with him on [i]More to Life[/i], etc. I think many things affected the quality of that album, some being Fred's alleged stubbornness about it (not wanting to have famous people on it because he didn't want it to sell because of them), some being his voice itself (remember how much he smoked back then), some being the lack of time, etc.
mike hunt · Member since
Holly is not letting freddie off the hook....lol. that's pretty funny and arrogant to say the least. Who the hell is holly?....anyway, It's obvious freddie was recording Mr. bad guy in his spare time, and was busy with the works album/tour and a bit later with magic. Freds biggest mistake on that album was the muscians he hired to back him up.....brian isn't the only great guitar player in the world, in fact they're are better guitarists out there. Freddie could have hired eddie van halen and cozy powell to play with him and obviously the results would have been much different. Also, since Barcelona isn't considered a solo album he simply doesn't have enough material to judge how he would have sounded solo. Afterall, he only has one album to judge, and that album was in the middle of two tours and albums. Obviously was a rush job.
Winter Land Man · Member since
[img=/images/smiley/msn/wink_smile.gif][/img] Mike and Holly would make a beautiiiiful couple. Hell yeah. Tap tapp tap. woo-woo. I smelllll adorationnnnnnnnn! And sure, wine has more alvhool than beerr. I llrsttst@ OII I LEARNED MY LESSON! wooooaaah, I'm all hot and teamy, let'ss filmm a flick!
Winter Land Man · Member since
when i was a little boy osomeone told me alll about beer beinn gthe worst thiing in the world. guessss what? wine has more fucking alcolh according t oooomyy typiung. woahhhhhhhhhh wilmmbah wine from tnow onee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Winter Land Man · Member since
ig u habbbbbbbtst cabt wauut rifr ntinrriw, hgiw fkivektyy>> verty dyxjub fkiucbb fuubf, quuubw qubw qubw ura FEWW QOELS... IALLLLLLL I FOR RO DIIIS FALLLLLLLLL IN LOCW. PLAT TTHEMM GAME.. WOAH OH HHHHHHHHHOOOOOOHOIOHIOHIOHOHOHOHOH! PUMP PUNO OUNO TGHRUUUUOUUUGH YIYR SOENRS8UES,, OG TRWAHKK UTS A FREE WIRKD, YIYU GITTA FAKK UB KIVE, OKAT FANE IF KIVE IF KIVE,
Holly2003 · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
Holly is not letting freddie off the hook....lol. that's pretty funny and arrogant to say the least. [b]Who the hell is holly?.[/b]...anyway, It's obvious freddie was recording Mr. bad guy in his spare time, and was busy with the works album/tour and a bit later with magic. Freds biggest mistake on that album was the muscians he hired to back him up.....brian isn't the only great guitar player in the world, in fact they're are better guitarists out there. Freddie could have hired eddie van halen and cozy powell to play with him and obviously the results would have been much different. Also, since Barcelona isn't considered a solo album he simply doesn't have enough material to judge how he would have sounded solo. Afterall, he only has one album to judge, and that album was in the middle of two tours and albums. Obviously was a rush job. [/QUOTE]
Who the hell is holly? I'm the person who never said anything whatsoever about Fred being either on or off "the hook".
I'm also the computer on the Red Dwarf.
Winter Land Man · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
Holly is not letting freddie off the hook....lol. that's pretty funny and arrogant to say the least. [b]Who the hell is holly?.[/b]...anyway, It's obvious freddie was recording Mr. bad guy in his spare time, and was busy with the works album/tour and a bit later with magic. Freds biggest mistake on that album was the muscians he hired to back him up.....brian isn't the only great guitar player in the world, in fact they're are better guitarists out there. Freddie could have hired eddie van halen and cozy powell to play with him and obviously the results would have been much different. Also, since Barcelona isn't considered a solo album he simply doesn't have enough material to judge how he would have sounded solo. Afterall, he only has one album to judge, and that album was in the middle of two tours and albums. Obviously was a rush job.
[/QUOTE]
Who the hell is holly? I'm the person who never said anything whatsoever about Fred being either on or off "the hook".
I'm also the computer on the Red Dwarf.
[/QUOTE]
AAAW SO YOU ANF MIIIKE ARE SOO IN LOVE OH WHATS SOO WWWWWWWWETT. UTS VEAUUUTIFUL. YOUI LONELY PEEOOOOPLE.
mike hunt · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Mr. Britt wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
Holly is not letting freddie off the hook....lol. that's pretty funny and arrogant to say the least. [b]Who the hell is holly?.[/b]...anyway, It's obvious freddie was recording Mr. bad guy in his spare time, and was busy with the works album/tour and a bit later with magic. Freds biggest mistake on that album was the muscians he hired to back him up.....brian isn't the only great guitar player in the world, in fact they're are better guitarists out there. Freddie could have hired eddie van halen and cozy powell to play with him and obviously the results would have been much different. Also, since Barcelona isn't considered a solo album he simply doesn't have enough material to judge how he would have sounded solo. Afterall, he only has one album to judge, and that album was in the middle of two tours and albums. Obviously was a rush job.
[/QUOTE]
Who the hell is holly? I'm the person who never said anything whatsoever about Fred being either on or off "the hook".
I'm also the computer on the Red Dwarf.
[/QUOTE]
AAAW SO YOU ANF MIIIKE ARE SOO IN LOVE OH WHATS SOO WWWWWWWWETT. UTS VEAUUUTIFUL. YOUI LONELY PEEOOOOPLE.
[/QUOTE]
Did you do you're drugs today young man?....
Winter Land Man · Member since
Ha, no drugs. Sorry about that message and other various messages, I was quite drunk last night.
Amazon · Member since
This discussion ended a while ago, but I wanted to make a few comments:
Sebastian, we can speculate on alot of things, but based on what he did with Queen, and what he did (or chose to do) as a solo artist, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Freddie worked better as a member of a group than he did as a solo artist. During the mid-80's, he continued to produce classics (Princes of the Universe for example), and while he certainly saved his best stuff for Queen, I don't think that what he picked for his solo albums, and I can only judge him on the material, was all that bad at all.
You say that during the 70's, he might have had access to Brian/Roger/John; well, we'll never know would we? We can only go by what did happen. My point was that similarly, to Brian Wilson, I think that Freddie worked best in a group envoronement.
There are a couple of comments that you made, which I want to coment on:
" "Killer Queen was incredible, but I don't think it would have been quite as good with Brian"
"Brian's not the only one whose input on that track was great. John did a wonderful job too, and so did
Roger. Queen's a hell of a lot more than Fred and the doctor." Uh, I never said that Queen was simply Freddie and Brian. What I did was make a point, which you overlooked because you wanted to make some pedantic (and unneeded) comment.
"Nor he'd have had those cheap drum machines and stuff like that. What if he hired Steve Howe on guitar, Rick Wakeman on piano, etc.? Of course, we can't know, but as you said, 'we can speculate'. It may have been as good as Queen, maybe not as good, maybe better, etc. But it wouldn't have been 'Mr Bad Guy'." Perhaps he didn't want to. Maybe he made the album he wanted to make.
""Yes, it is. You're being incredibly literal."
"Not quite. Is it incredibly literal to say 2+2=4? Some things are black and white, and this is one: the artist is working alone or not, full stop. Mike Oldfield's a great musician, but he was clever enough to use the talent of other people to make 'Tubular Bells' what it is: producers, a flutist, his sister... it's still a solo album and he's still the mastermind, but he didn't work alone. Same for, say, Bowie and 'Hunky Dory', etc." Except you ARE being overly literal. This whole discussion started because I said Freddie and Brian ' arguably worked best in group settings. None of Brian's post-BB stuff (with the exception of Smile which doesn't really count) comes close to his BB work IMO, and none of Freddie's solo work came close to his Queen work.' This is about their careers as solo artists versus members of groups. Instead, you're debating the meaning of the word alone? You can't not see why this is being overly literal? I mentioned Bowie because he's a solo artist. The same goes for Aretha Franklin, Al Green, John Farnham, Beyonce, George Michael etc... Whether or not these artists work alone according to your standards is irrelevent. They are all solo artists. That is the point. Oh, and if you want to be obsessively pedantic, no artist works alone since no artist can possibly do everything that is required to get an album out.
" "Bob Dylan works alone, as opposed to Mick Jagger.
Not the best of examples, either one." In retrospect, you're right about Dylan, but I think that Jagger is an excellent example.
"For instance, let's say a skilful doctor also writes poetry. As a physician, he or she earns a living, awards, etc., and as a poet, he or she only gets some occasional published bits and pieces in a local mag. Should we say that person is unvariably a better doctor than poet? Actually not: based on the evidence we've got, we can't be sure. If he or she spends 16 hours a day in medicine, and only 1 hour a month on poetry (as they've got to work to bring the bacon), it's obvious that the result won't be equal." That's not a particularly great analogy since being a solo artist and a group member are of the same profession. A better analogy would be a plastic surgeon working in a clinic a few hours a month, or a writer who publishes his first collection of poetry after a successful 10+year career writing novels. As such, I think that Freddie was a better novelist than a poet.
Sebastian · Member since
> Sebastian, we can speculate on alot of things, but based on what he did with Queen, and what he did (or chose to do) as a solo artist, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Freddie worked better as a member of a group than he did as a solo artist.
No, it's not unreasonable. But to think there were loads of variables involved and to believe things may have been a lot different under different circumstances (namely, Fred being a full-time solo artist, thus devoting his best material to it, and looking for top-notch session musicians, or mastering his piano and guitar technique to accompany himself more appropriately, etc) is not unreasonable either. You've got your opinion and I've got mine. There's nothing wrong with that.
> During the mid-80's, he continued to produce classics (Princes of the Universe for example), and while he certainly saved his best stuff for Queen, I don't think that what he picked for his solo albums, and I can only judge him on the material, was all that bad at all.
While not bad, it was not 'Bo Rhap' or 'Millionaire Waltz'.
> You say that during the 70's, he might have had access to Brian/Roger/John; well, we'll never know would we?
Of course we can't. That's why I explained the point was speculative.
> We can only go by what did happen.
And what did happen is that Fred the Queen member and Fred the solo artist weren't in equal conditions, as the former was a side of him he devoted almost half of his life to, while the second was a one-off nine-month session done during breaks from [i]Works[/i] promotion and touring. As such, IMO, it's not fair to assert the former was 'better' or 'worse' than the latter, as there's insufficient uncontamined evidence for it.
> My point was that similarly, to Brian Wilson, I think that Freddie worked best in a group envoronement.
And it's great that you think that way. I don't disagree, and I don't agree either. My point is that we can't know that. Agree? Fine. Disagree? Fine.
> Uh, I never said that Queen was simply Freddie and Brian.
And I never said you said Queen was simply Freddie and Brian.
> What I did was make a point
So did I. So why is your point a 'good' one and mine has to be deemed pendatic and unnecessary?
> which you overlooked because you wanted to make some pedantic (and unneeded) comment.
No, what's pedantic and unneeded is for you to pretend you know what I wanted. You can't read minds, so it's completely uncalled for. You may regard the comment as pendantic (even if it's not), or unnecessary (even if for some people it raises an important detail), but you cannot know if what I wanted was to be this or that.
> Perhaps he didn't want to. Maybe he made the album he wanted to make.
Indeed. But, had it been ten years earlier (when drum-machines didn't even exist), the result would've been different.
> Except you ARE being overly literal.
That's subjective. Why are my subjective opinions 'pendantic and unneeded' while yours are OK? It's either a case of double standards, or maybe the one who's extremely literal, pendatic and unneeded is you.
By the way, I offer to you a very simple solution: if you read a comment from me that you may regard as unvalid, unneeded or whatever, then consider it a tongue-in-cheek remark or a figure of speech. Unless of course, you are being extremely literal.
> This is about their careers as solo artists versus members of groups. Instead, you're debating the meaning of the word alone?
The meaning of the word alone was only a tiny bit of my message(s). Moreover, this is a free forum. If I see somebody talking about something I don't care about, I simply don't read it, instead of criticising them for being interested in that. If you don't share my interest for certain sub-topic (semantics, in this case), there's nothing wrong with it. But to bring up this thing half a month after I'd written my last message is way off IMO. Not to mention the ridiculous 'I know what you want' attitude.
> You can't not see why this is being overly literal?
'Overly' is a subjective word to begin with. For some people, 'Eternal Flame' being played three times a day (to say a random number) on a radio station may be a lot; for some it may be too little. For some, Queen should've sold dozens of times what they did; for others, dozens of times less than what they did. So, if you think I'm overly literal, good for you. But you:
1. Cannot and will not convince me to think otherwise (just like I cannot, will not and do not want to convince you of anything).
2. Cannot and will not make me approach any topic differently (just like I cannot, will not and do not want to convince you of anything).
3. Have absolutely no reason to pretend you know what I want.
> I mentioned Bowie because he's a solo artist.
And as a solo artist, he saved his best stuff for his solo career. Plus he received more money (from record companies, etc) to invest on his solo project. [i]Hunky Dory[/i] was not an off-project done within breaks from his 'proper' job. [i]Mr Bad Guy [/i]was. While the reasons do not change the fact [i]HD[/i] is a hell of a lot better than [i]MBG[/i], they do explain that it's not a proper comparison to make in terms of context.
> Whether or not these artists work alone according to your standards is irrelevent.
Actually, it is relevant. IMO, of course. Do you agree? Fine. Do you disagree? Fine. But you:
1. Cannot and will not convince me to think otherwise (just like I cannot, will not and do not want to convince you of anything).
2. Cannot and will not make me approach any topic differently (just like I cannot, will not and do not want to convince you of anything).
3. Have absolutely no reason to pretend you know what I want.
> Oh, and if you want to be obsessively pedantic
I think the one who brings up a topic after half a month is the one closer to be obsessive, pendantic and obsessively pedantic.
> In retrospect, you're right about Dylan, but I think that Jagger is an excellent example.
Good for you. People do have different opinions. Neither yours is more valid than mine nor mine is more valid than yours. We can agree to disagree. But you:
1. Cannot and will not convince me to think otherwise (just like I cannot, will not and do not want to convince you of anything).
2. Cannot and will not make me approach any topic differently (just like I cannot, will not and do not want to convince you of anything).
3. Have absolutely no reason to pretend you know what I want.
> That's not a particularly great analogy since being a solo artist and a group member are of the same profession.
Yet, the principle is the same: better known in one field than the other.
> A better analogy would be a plastic surgeon working in a clinic a few hours a month, or a writer who publishes his first
collection of poetry after a successful 10+year career writing novels.
While you're absolutely right and your examples are way better than mine, I do wonder: is it OK for you to correct me but if I suggest you a different wording of an idea would work better I'm just 'pedantic'?
> As such, I think that Freddie was a better novelist than a poet.
Great for you. People do have different opinions. Neither yours is more valid than mine nor mine is more valid than yours. We can agree to disagree. But you:
1. Cannot and will not convince me to think otherwise (just like I cannot, will not and do not want to convince you of anything).
2. Cannot and will not make me approach any topic differently (just like I cannot, will not and do not want to convince you of anything).
3. Have absolutely no reason to pretend you know what I want.
