That statement speaks more about you than about me. Maybe the one who doesn't want to understand is not me.
> Between Les Paul and Brian May you won't find famous people in rock-music who multitracked one instrument dozens of times. And Les Paul also did the same treatment to Mary Fords voice.
Actually, Brian rarely multitracked one instrument dozens of times. More often than not it was three or four times. Which had been done in the 60's.
> but one singer building a complete choir was a thing of the 70s.
Paul built a complete choir in 'Wild Honey Pie'. By the way 'Bo Rhap' has three singers building a complete choir, which made the process three times easier.
> You could not have done "Bohemian Rhapsody" or 10cc's "I'm not in love" in the 60s with four track. Impossible!
Of course it's not impossible. It would've taken a lot more effort, bouncing, the sound quality would've been vastly inferior because of the multiple-generation recordings. But it wouldn't have been impossible.
> It's funny that people alway's say 80's music is crap, but why is it still played 10, 25 years on?.....
Some years ago it was somewhat trendy to put down the 80's. Nowadays they're considerably more respected. And it's well-deserved: very underrated decade with loads of good things (loads of mediocre ones, but that's true of any decade).
> For one the band already did it, so they would have been copying themselves.
For some extent, one could say [i]Hot Space[/i] was at least partially copying 'Another One Bites the Dust', thus deeming the album unoriginal.
> Brian?....the rocker, though those rockers were getting stale in the early 80's.
Also keep in mind that it was Brian who wrote [i]Dancer[/i].
> For the record, I like Hot Space. I recognize it wasn't their most commercial success, despite producing a #1 hit in the UK ("Under Pressure")
TBF, 'Under Pressure' was a 'bastard single' done in a one-off session, but it wasn't intended for the album. It was included once they realised they could benefit from having a #1 duet in an otherwise-risky LP.
GratefulFan · Member since
double post
GratefulFan · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]GratefulFan wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]rhyeking wrote: [/b]
"Stepping Out" by Joe Jackson is a good song. I especially like the piano. Before someone brought it up here, I never considered any similarities between "Windows" and "Stepping Out". Frankly, I still don't see any similarities beyond the superficial use of instruments. It's the same with people saying "The Invisible Man" sounds like Ray Parker, Jr.'s "Ghostbusters," which other people say sounds like "I Want A New Drug" by Huey Lewis And The News. Where does it end? Enough talented people write enough music, you'll get the odd passing similarity, I guess.
Another example is "Blockbuster" by Sweet and "The Jean Genie" by David Bowie, both of whom say it was pure coincidence.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Wasn't implying a rip off - tons of differences. But in my mind the only reason one would hear 'Windows' and not immediately think 'Steppin' Out' is if you weren't really, really familiar with the latter. It's quite clear to me, and I have to think to a bunch of other people too. Queen started to sound like other people in the 80's here and there, and given their previous strengths I think that's notable. More evidence that they began to pull into the middle, the mean, the average, whatever.
Sebastian · Member since
Grateful Fan: I agree. While 'Bohemian Rhapsody' didn't invent new things, it was totally different to its predecessors. Same for 'Somebody to Love', 'Dreamer's Ball', etc. ''39' was way more than a simple skiffle copy, as it had several subtle details that made it one of a kind.
Things in [i]Hot Space[/i] or [i]The Works[/i], OTOH, were photocopies what other people (including themselves) had done. And photocopies are hardly ever as good as the originals.
GratefulFan · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Amazon wrote: [/b]
I just listened to Steppin' Out and I have to say that I disagree. I think that KPTOW is superior. It's not a perfect song, by any means (the whole 'love is all you need' isn't very original which has always really surprised me*), but I do think it's a terrific pop song.
Regarding whether or not Queen became an average group during the 80's, I think it's interesting as I agree and I disagree. I agree in the sense that I don't think Queen were as inventive in 1982-1989 as they were from 1973 to 1980. When I think of Queenian creativity and experimentation, I think of the 70's, rather than the 80's. However, I disagree because IMO the 80's still produced its fair share of classics. Excluding The Game, which until the 90's, was arguably Queen's last masterpiece, the 80's albums produced IMO the following classics:
Hot Space produced Staying Power, Put Out the Fire and Las Palabras de Amor, as well as Under Pressure which IMO is extremely overrated but is still a very good, if not great, song. I also think that Dancer is extremely underrated.
The Works produced KPTOW, Radio Gaga, I Want To Break Free, Hammer To Fall, Machines and Is This The World We Created.
A Kind of Magic produced Friends Will Be Friends, Who Wants To Live Forever (another extremely overrated song IMO) and Princes of the Universe.
The Miracle produced I Want It All and Was It All Worth It. One could also add Breakthru.
Not all of these songs are masterpieces, and one could debate where they stand against the best of Queen's 70's work, but when I look at the 80's (post-The Game), I think of these songs, and based on these songs, Queen during the 80's were IMO still extraordinary.
*This is off-topic, but the reason I remain surprised by the fact that 'love is all you need' in KPTOW isn't particularly original is because IMO Queen were among the greatest and most original lyricists of all time. Queenpedia made a comment that their lyrics were never anything to write home about. I passionately disagree with this.
[/QUOTE]
We can agree to disagree about 'Steppin Out'(superior) and 'Pressure' (brilliant). :)
Of the songs you listed there's not one I would take to someone unfamiliar to try and get them inspired to embrace Queen as among the very best of the best. With the slim possibility of exception for Break Free and Breakthru, if we could watch the videos too.
PrincessofTaylor · Member since
Jumping into all this way late, but here's my two cents.
I think as "hardcore" fans, our perspective might be a little skewed. For lots of people, when they think of Queen, they think of AOBTD, Under Pressure, Ga Ga, IWTBF, and BoRhap. My observation is that people don't even really acknowledge WATC and WWRY as songs by a band because they are so ingrained in U.S. sports culture. Those same people who think of strictly 80s Queen songs would all probably say that they "like Queen", not even realizing that the stuff from the 70s existed.
Just a few weeks ago at his wedding, my father-in-law made reference to Queen "that great 80s band" - it made me absolutely cringe, but everyone else in the room nodded in agreement and headed out to the dance floor for AOBTD.
For me personally, if I had to point non-Queen fans in the direction of their best songs, I'd start with their stuff in the 70s and I'd stay there for a rather long time. Then I'd probably take a leap to Innuendo, skipping the 80s entirely. That doesn't mean I still don't occasionally enjoy the 80s stuff. I just don't think it is a good example of why I think Queen is so great.
I think the multitracking had a lot to do with that - their 80s stuff doesn't have the same sound to me. But the transition away from multitracking in the 80s is also part of what allowed Queen to become such a huge arena band - finally they could perform their songs in concert and sound relatively close to the studio version. I'm also not a fan of the dance stuff, but was there much else going on in music at that point in the 80s? People had gone Thriller-crazy so lots of bands changed their style to embrace that. At the very least, I think Queen showed their versatility by trying new things and honestly, if they had just recorded ANATO Part II, we'd all probably be complaining about that decision too!
Winter Land Man · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Blue Roses Unlimited wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]rhyeking wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]mooghead wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]rhyeking wrote: [/b]
What inspired this direct in the band?
[/QUOTE]
Another One Bites The Dust is to blame.
[/QUOTE]
Well, yes, but there were other factors involved too. Freddie was doing the gay disco thing in Munich, which seemed to influence his pop-dance bent on this and Mr. Bad Guy. The band was in and out of the studio between South American tours for a year, which probably resulted somewhat in "Las Palabras." The band's relationship with Billy Squier almost certainly influenced them; listen to "Emotions In Motion" and tell me it doesn't have a resemblance to Hot Space material. Freddie's work with Michael Jackson can be traced to this period (and with the band, it was even earlier, as he pushed them to release "Dust" as a single). And most obviously, working with Bowie likely influenced them, even after he finished work on "Under Pressure." Bowie was between his Scary Monsters and Let's Dance albums, the latter being very pop-dance-funk laced.
[/QUOTE]
Let's not get in to this "freddie fault" bullshit. Of course freddie was a big part of the band, but the others had a say. John was obviously into it. roger alway's loves the new wave, dance stuff. for some reason people see roger as the rocker of the band, He was more new wave in the late 70's and 80's. Brian?....the rocker, though those rockers were getting stale in the early 80's. Also, keep in mind if it wasn't for freddie during the hot space era there wouldn't be a Queen. From what I heard freddie was the one who kept things going. The others were more occupied with the family, kids and all that.
[/QUOTE]
Also, Freddie was in doing the gay scene in New York at the time of Hot Space.
[/QUOTE]
Freddie was in doing the gay scene in the 70's too, lol.
[/QUOTE]
Haha, possibly the sixties for all we know.
mike hunt · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]PrincessofTaylor wrote: [/b]
Jumping into all this way late, but here's my two cents.
I think as "hardcore" fans, our perspective might be a little skewed. For lots of people, when they think of Queen, they think of AOBTD, Under Pressure, Ga Ga, IWTBF, and BoRhap. My observation is that people don't even really acknowledge WATC and WWRY as songs by a band because they are so ingrained in U.S. sports culture. Those same people who think of strictly 80s Queen songs would all probably say that they "like Queen", not even realizing that the stuff from the 70s existed.
Just a few weeks ago at his wedding, my father-in-law made reference to Queen "that great 80s band" - it made me absolutely cringe, but everyone else in the room nodded in agreement and headed out to the dance floor for AOBTD.
For me personally, if I had to point non-Queen fans in the direction of their best songs, I'd start with their stuff in the 70s and I'd stay there for a rather long time. Then I'd probably take a leap to Innuendo, skipping the 80s entirely. That doesn't mean I still don't occasionally enjoy the 80s stuff. I just don't think it is a good example of why I think Queen is so great.
I think the multitracking had a lot to do with that - their 80s stuff doesn't have the same sound to me. But the transition away from multitracking in the 80s is also part of what allowed Queen to become such a huge arena band - finally they could perform their songs in concert and sound relatively close to the studio version. I'm also not a fan of the dance stuff, but was there much else going on in music at that point in the 80s? People had gone Thriller-crazy so lots of bands changed their style to embrace that. At the very least, I think Queen showed their versatility by trying new things and honestly, if they had just recorded ANATO Part II, we'd all probably be complaining about that decision too!
[/QUOTE]
Depends where your from i guess...here in NY Queen are considered a 70's band, With a few hits in the early 80's.
Sebastian · Member since
In terms of hits (especially for rock-oriented listeners or those who like gospel or rockabilly), Queen made most of them in the 70's - RockYou/Champions, Bo Rhap, Crazy Little Thing, Don't Stop Me, Somebody to Love vs [i]Dust, [/i]Under Pressure, Ga Ga, Magic and Break Free. In terms of their public image, people tend to relate them with their 80's era (moustache, Wembley, Live Aid, crossdressing). Speaking of which, though I'm not too fond of A Kind of Magic (the song), I like the message given in the video: without Fred, they're tramps. With him, magic!
PrincessofTaylor · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]PrincessofTaylor wrote: [/b]
Jumping into all this way late, but here's my two cents.
I think as "hardcore" fans, our perspective might be a little skewed. For lots of people, when they think of Queen, they think of AOBTD, Under Pressure, Ga Ga, IWTBF, and BoRhap. My observation is that people don't even really acknowledge WATC and WWRY as songs by a band because they are so ingrained in U.S. sports culture. Those same people who think of strictly 80s Queen songs would all probably say that they "like Queen", not even realizing that the stuff from the 70s existed.
Just a few weeks ago at his wedding, my father-in-law made reference to Queen "that great 80s band" - it made me absolutely cringe, but everyone else in the room nodded in agreement and headed out to the dance floor for AOBTD.
For me personally, if I had to point non-Queen fans in the direction of their best songs, I'd start with their stuff in the 70s and I'd stay there for a rather long time. Then I'd probably take a leap to Innuendo, skipping the 80s entirely. That doesn't mean I still don't occasionally enjoy the 80s stuff. I just don't think it is a good example of why I think Queen is so great.
I think the multitracking had a lot to do with that - their 80s stuff doesn't have the same sound to me. But the transition away from multitracking in the 80s is also part of what allowed Queen to become such a huge arena band - finally they could perform their songs in concert and sound relatively close to the studio version. I'm also not a fan of the dance stuff, but was there much else going on in music at that point in the 80s? People had gone Thriller-crazy so lots of bands changed their style to embrace that. At the very least, I think Queen showed their versatility by trying new things and honestly, if they had just recorded ANATO Part II, we'd all probably be complaining about that decision too!
[/QUOTE]
Depends where your from i guess...here in NY Queen are considered a 70's band, With a few hits in the early 80's.
[/QUOTE]
Very true - where I'm originally from and where I live now are both decidedly less-cool than NY (where I lived for four years in college). Makes sense that they'd go for the 80s stuff and NY would remember the 70s stuff..
rhyeking · Member since
"Without Freddie, they're tramps. With him: Magic!"
(Rolling eyes and sighing heavily) Seb, sometimes you're the most literal person who posts here and you don't invite understanding by being so. It's that kind of fan-wanking of perception, retroactively forcing the things which fit into your view into place while ignoring all other details which don't, which plagues these forums.
Freddie is the magician character in the video *beacuse he's the one singing the feakin' song!* It's not an allegory for the nature of the relationships within the band, no matter how much you and others would so dearly love it to be.
Sebastian · Member since
Of course I'm not saying it was exactly like that (and if you think I am, then there's a person taking things way too literally here and it's not me), I'm just saying I like the message given (regardless of the fact it's not meant to be deep or serious as it's merely a promo video for a song written for a fiction film, and it's not by any means a statement on the way they worked [and if you think I'm implying otherwise, then there's a person taking things way too literally here and it's not me]).
The four Queen members were unique and irreplaceable, that's obvious. However, I like the message given in the video (and that's the extent of it). Is it fiction? Of course it is. But I like it: without Fred, they're tramps, then he comes in and hocus pocus, and when he leaves they're tramps again. Is it fiction? Of course it is (though it may be subtly prophetic in a way, depending on how you look at it). But I like it. Do you? Fine. Don't you? Fine.
But I'm not issuing any profound statement demonising or underrating John's, Roger's and Brian's role. All I said was:
Though I'm not very fond of the song, I do like the video and the message it gives: without Freddie, they're tramps, with him, it's magic! He leaves and they're tramps again. Is it based on a true story? No. But I like it.
I like it.
mike hunt · Member since
History has proven Queen were magic with freddie, Not so much without him.
Holly2003 · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
History has proven Queen were magic with freddie, Not so much without him. [/QUOTE]
And vice versa.
tcc · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
Of course I'm not saying it was exactly like that (and if you think I am, then there's a person taking things way too literally here and it's not me), I'm just saying I like the message given (regardless of the fact it's not meant to be deep or serious as it's merely a promo video for a song written for a fiction film, and it's not by any means a statement on the way they worked [and if you think I'm implying otherwise, then there's a person taking things way too literally here and it's not me]).
The four Queen members were unique and irreplaceable, that's obvious. However, I like the message given in the video (and that's the extent of it). Is it fiction? Of course it is. But I like it: without Fred, they're tramps, then he comes in and hocus pocus, and when he leaves they're tramps again. Is it fiction? Of course it is (though it may be subtly prophetic in a way, depending on how you look at it). But I like it. Do you? Fine. Don't you? Fine.
But I'm not issuing any profound statement demonising or underrating John's, Roger's and Brian's role. All I said was:
Though I'm not very fond of the song, I do like the video and the message it gives: without Freddie, they're tramps, with him, it's magic! He leaves and they're tramps again. Is it based on a true story? No. But I like it.
I like it.
[/QUOTE]
Your so-called message is the storyline. Freddie was acting the role of a magician. It was the magician (and not Freddie) who turned things into magic. To you, the storyline seems to ring true, but to say that there is a message implying that Freddie was the magician in the band is to put words in the director's mouth.
