mike hunt wrote: "i'm as big a Freddie mercury fan as anyone, but in all honesty, Ozzy is an iconic figure of heavy metal, maybe more famous than freddie?"
If Ozzy is more famous than Freddie, it's only because of the TV show, and that since his death, Freddie's life hasn't been celebrated in the same way as people like Lennon, Morrison, and Elvis etc... I desperately hope that the film changes all of that; he doesn't get nearly the respect he deserves.
Sheer Brass Neck wrote:
Leadership. Passion. Attention to detail. All things I think Queen used to stand for and believe in. I may be wrong, but from my point of view, Queen became big business and forgot what they were. Shoddy releases, poor customer service, lack of attention to detail, terrible quality control, cynical product choices etc. So for me, musically they can never be Queen, but that's my selfish take on a name. The current people who use the Queen name don't stand for anything that the band used to stand for and that's more of a crime than bringing in Paul Rodgers.
=====================
Without intending to excuse shoddy releases, poor customer service etc. etc. it did occur to me that Jobs is one guy at the top and never had to deal with passion, conviction and attention to detail almost breaking up his company. Those very qualities in early Queen eventually wore them out and endangered their future as a band. Now the only two left are the two who were most likely of any of them to seriously clash over artistic differences and perhaps that in part necessitates a level of protective indifference and leaving a lot of the details to others who have different priorities.
Can't agree with you GratefulFan. The scenario I mentioned with Steve Jobs occurred in 2008, 25 or more years after Apple launched. If he's concerned about the colour of a letter on his iPhone, maybe Brain and Roger could care about sections of songs missing (in 1991, not 2011 as in In the Lap of the Gods on HR), horrible artwork (Queen Rocks, Stone Cold Classics) and choices that were less about sales, more about quality. rhyeking mentioned that we don't know better than the band, and I'd agree and disagree/ For sales and popularity, they don't make a wrong step. For credibility and legacy, they don't make a right step. To me, Queen belongs with Zep and The Beatles as the greatest rock acts ever. The way they market themselves is as a sales band, to the detriment of their music. Their decision, but nobody gives a fuck about Madonna's musical legacy although she's sold a shitload of albums. Brian and Roger and QPL don't care about their musical legacy as long as they can get the first spot on The World's Shittiest Spanish Album with Las Palabras de Amor being the opening track. They've succeeded there, I'll give them that.
freddie is an icon, no question about that.....but he's still not on the level of elvis and lennon, and never will be on that level......pretty close though.
mike hunt wrote: "freddie is an icon, no question about that.....but he's still not on the level of elvis and lennon, and never will be on that level......pretty close though."
In terms of talent, I think he is. Fame? No, definitely not. But in terms of talent and achievement, absolutely. In terms of talent and achievement, there are quite a few people who belong to this group who aren't in it for reasons unrelated to their brilliance. Paul McCartney, for instance. I think he was equally as brilliant, if not more brilliant, than John, yet people elevate John above him.
GratefulFan wrote: "Now the only two left are the two who were most likely of any of them to seriously clash over artistic differences and perhaps that in part necessitates a level of protective indifference and leaving a lot of the details to others who have different priorities."
Really? I would have thought it was the opposite. My perception was that Brian and Roger were much more interested in rock than in other genres, and so during the 80's, they were less enthusiastic than Freddie & John were about exploring different kinds of music. As such, I would have thought that they would have fewer artistic differences than with the other two members.
I guess my final answer to why Queen isn't Queen is located on Google's homepage today. I'm 100% certain that great as they are that the members who left Journey, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Supertramp, Chicago, Metallica, Yes, Genesis and Pink Floyd and any other group will not be featured alongside Charlie Chaplin and John Lennon as they hit their lives milestones on Google. That's why it should be different for Queen. Happy birthday Freddie Mercury, boy genius to the end.
Amazon wrote: mike hunt wrote: "freddie is an icon, no question about that.....but he's still not on the level of elvis and lennon, and never will be on that level......pretty close though."
In terms of talent, I think he is. Fame? No, definitely not. But in terms of talent and achievement, absolutely. In terms of talent and achievement, there are quite a few people who belong to this group who aren't in it for reasons unrelated to their brilliance. Paul McCartney, for instance. I think he was equally as brilliant, if not more brilliant, than John, yet people elevate John above him.
i agree with that...Freddie was very much underated as a songwriter, he should be mentioned more in that regard. Easily one of the most original and best songwriter's in rock hsstory...
Amazon wrote:
Really? I would have thought it was the opposite. My perception was that Brian and Roger were much more interested in rock than in other genres, and so during the 80's, they were less enthusiastic than Freddie & John were about exploring different kinds of music. As such, I would have thought that they would have fewer artistic differences than with the other two members.
============================
I was probably too narrow when I referred to "artistic" differences. But it's well understood I think that of the four, that particular combination of personalities had the most potential for volatility. Roger's been borderline contemptuous of Brian at times even sitting right beside him in an interview. There was some thing recently where they specifically requested to be interviewed separately. Brian has described his ongoing connection to Roger as 'needing each other', the implication being that it might not be a relationship he would always choose. The vibe I get is like two often incompatible brothers thrown together by fate in a family situation. Lots of love underneath, but it's a relationship that doesn't always easily flow and sometimes needs to be managed. I'm not sure how that shapes artistic and business decisions, but I imagine it must on some level.
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: Can't agree with you GratefulFan. The scenario I mentioned with Steve Jobs occurred in 2008, 25 or more years after Apple launched. If he's concerned about the colour of a letter on his iPhone, maybe Brain and Roger could care about sections of songs missing (in 1991, not 2011 as in In the Lap of the Gods on HR), horrible artwork (Queen Rocks, Stone Cold Classics) and choices that were less about sales, more about quality. rhyeking mentioned that we don't know better than the band, and I'd agree and disagree/ For sales and popularity, they don't make a wrong step. For credibility and legacy, they don't make a right step. To me, Queen belongs with Zep and The Beatles as the greatest rock acts ever. The way they market themselves is as a sales band, to the detriment of their music. Their decision, but nobody gives a fuck about Madonna's musical legacy although she's sold a shitload of albums. Brian and Roger and QPL don't care about their musical legacy as long as they can get the first spot on The World's Shittiest Spanish Album with Las Palabras de Amor being the opening track. They've succeeded there, I'll give them that.
==================
I'm not disagreeing that they've gotten up to some righteously dubious crap, I think I'm just questioning the specific argument you're making. First, although I enjoyed the Jobs anecdote I think you're really gilding that lily. That depth of perfectionism has a dark side. Jobs' staff used to call working for him 'the hero-shithead roller coaster' because of how his perfectionism led him in part to build them up and brutally tear them down, often on little less than a whim. A recent article I read said they did some of the best work of their lives -- until it took it's psychological toll and they had to leave. The structure of a rock band doesn't allow for that kind of sustained hypervigilance over the realizing of a unilateral vision. And if Jobs had to apply that focused perfectionism to the past and not the future we'd probably end up with something a lot like we've got. An apparent reluctance to allow much in the way of imperfect records of the past out of the vault, and a preference instead to speak through the polished and perfect and tried and true.
I agree with you amazon, but my point isn't that Steve Jobs was or wasn't a tyrannical dickhead. It's that the writer of the article felt that it was amazing that after almost 30 years, the owner of the company cared about something so miniscule as a shade of a colour in the word Google. But he did! So when Brian throws in another layer of guitar on All Dead, All Dead he's doing it because he and the band cares. Basix4 on YouTube does a breakdown of the guitars Brian played on that song and it's awesome in its magnitude. Really though, as Brain said, would little Mary So and So from Anytown, UK notice if he left one or two or three banks of guitars off of that? Or if they used a bass drum on WWRY instead of stomping on boards for hours in a church? Of course not. But they were once the Steve Jobs style tyrannical dickheads who fought over everything from what notes to play, to songwriting credits to who got the biggest suites on the road. Because they cared about everything related to Queen. Now, it seems that using the example from the Steve Jobs article, QPL would not only miss the fact that the colour was off, they wouldn't notice that Google was spelled Gogle.
