Brian May is the most fantastically emotive guitar player in the world

Agreed about the polished Brian as it would be hard to imagine Killer Queen, the end of BR, Good Company etc. without Brian's orchestrations and just a 'normal' guitar solo. But I love It's Late for its rawness, and as much as people seem to hate Sweet Lady, the band sounds like it's having a ball at the end of the song. I know there's a million overdubs but the main solo is not orchestrated, all the other things around it are. He can rip, and he can layer, one of a handful, less than a handful? who can do both.

As a studio guitarist from a technical, innovative and creative point of view, he is (to my mind) simply untouched.

Live? He is still technically great, but seems to suffer a crisis of confidence when wanting to 'let loose'. Having said that, I think for the most part of their career, the material was perhaps a driver behind that as it was (compared to lots of their peers like Zep, Purple, Stones etc...) quite constraining and prescriptive, and had such signature parts to play in a certain way that people wanted to hear. If you check out The Rainbow release, you will see that he COULD rip it live when the material was far 'looser' and more blues driven, and Brian, John and Roger made a great 'power trio' at that point, before naturally mutating into the honed and perfected rock/pop monster (in a good way!) they became later on in their career.

Double post!

[QUOTE]

[b]The Real Wizard wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote:[/b]

i've often wondered which 'Brian' Queen fans like better. 'Raw' Brian (TYMD, Sweet Lady, Dragon Attack etc.) or 'Polished' Brian (BR, Killer Queen, Good Company etc.) He's almost like two players, the bluesy, let-it-fly guy, and the painstakingly meticulous take-three-hours-for-a-take guy.[/QUOTE]

Good perspective. Never quite seen it like that, but of course you're right.

For me it's the polished Brian all the way. It's what separates him from the rest. No other rock guitarist has come close to creating a Good Company with a dixieland jazz band of guitars.
[/QUOTE]

Et tu, Bob? You're going to make me say it? That's not dixieland, it's music hall. 100% English, Formby-based. Queen never did anything even resembling jazz, not even that abomination called dixieland.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE]
[b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

No other rock guitarist has come close to creating a Good Company with a dixieland jazz band of guitars.
[/QUOTE]

Et tu, Bob? You're going to make me say it? That's not dixieland, it's music hall. 100% English, Formby-based. Queen never did anything even resembling jazz, not even that abomination called dixieland.[/QUOTE]

I don't doubt your authority on these styles of music, but it's worth noting that Brian himself said the orchestrations were inspired by dixieland jazz in the 'Classic Albums - A Night at the Opera' documentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POsOP3TF-XY

Based on Brian's own description, it seems that the ukulele chord progression was Formby-inspired, while the electric guitar stuff was inspired by The Temperance Seven, and the 1920s jazz music they were themselves drawing on.

If you're really going to make me go into a detailed analysis of the score to Good Company and why it's not jazz in any sense of the word, I will, but not right now. However, let me raise the following points:
1) The Temperance Seven were a novelty act - essentially musical comedy. They took some stock clichés from the rising dixieland movement, but that's pretty much it. Their music was, incidentally, NOT based on 1920s jazz, but on the 1917 recordings of the Original Dixieland Jazz Band, particularly the novelty-song "Tiger Rag", which they covered, a group whose music is universally deemed unrepresentative of authentic jazz at the time (a very small number of authentic artists from this period were recorded in the course of the '20s, Bunk Johnson and Sidney Bechet among them, and their music bears little if any resemblance to the ODJB).
2) In the 1950s, jazz was virtually unknown in Britain. This is in marked contrast to France, Belgium and Holland, where a significant number of jazz musicians settled after WWII. People in Britain (and, to a lesser extent, also in France, Belgium, Holland and the rest of Europe) were only familiarized with jazz through novelty songs and heavily popularized songs. This is not at all dissimilar to what happened with Calypso and, later, Reggae: what was marketed under those terms had little if anything to do with music of those genres as performed in their countries of origin. Here, for instance, is an already popularized but more or less authentic Calypso recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZnNwZyaGf8 And this is what was marketed as Calypso: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek2NucwOOvs
3) Related to the second point: what was marketed as "jazz" or "dixieland" depended on what the record companies thought their audience expected. That still happens - there can be little doubt that Jamie Cullum and Amy Winehouse had little if anything to do with jazz, but they were marketed as such nonetheless.

But by far the most important point - Brian, like the other guys from Queen, was never particularly interested in jazz. He doesn't have any in-depth knowledge on the subject, so when he says that his song was inspired by Formby on the one hand and The Temperance Seven on the other, he is likely 100% truthful, and he might even believe that he was letting jazz inspire him, but erroneously so.

I'm struggling to find a parable that is a little more modern and someone without an insane amount of detailed niche-information will get, as the definition of jazz gives vast amounts of trouble everywhere, but especially among non-jazz listening audiences. The best I can come up with right now is that rap is considered a fundamental aspect of hiphop. But, when you listen to Falco rapping Rock Me Amadeus, that doesn't mean it's suddenly a hip hop song. I'm sorry I can't think of a better way of making this point right now, but is this at least somewhat less confusing than before?

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

If you're really going to make me go into a detailed analysis of the score to Good Company and why it's not jazz in any sense of the word, I will, but not right now. However, let me raise the following points:
1) The Temperance Seven were a novelty act - essentially musical comedy. They took some stock clichés from the rising dixieland movement, but that's pretty much it. Their music was, incidentally, NOT based on 1920s jazz, but on the 1917 recordings of the Original Dixieland Jazz Band, particularly the novelty-song "Tiger Rag", which they covered, a group whose music is universally deemed unrepresentative of authentic jazz at the time (a very small number of authentic artists from this period were recorded in the course of the '20s, Bunk Johnson and Sidney Bechet among them, and their music bears little if any resemblance to the ODJB).
2) In the 1950s, jazz was virtually unknown in Britain. This is in marked contrast to France, Belgium and Holland, where a significant number of jazz musicians settled after WWII. People in Britain (and, to a lesser extent, also in France, Belgium, Holland and the rest of Europe) were only familiarized with jazz through novelty songs and heavily popularized songs. This is not at all dissimilar to what happened with Calypso and, later, Reggae: what was marketed under those terms had little if anything to do with music of those genres as performed in their countries of origin. Here, for instance, is an already popularized but more or less authentic Calypso recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZnNwZyaGf8 And this is what was marketed as Calypso: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek2NucwOOvs
3) Related to the second point: what was marketed as "jazz" or "dixieland" depended on what the record companies thought their audience expected. That still happens - there can be little doubt that Jamie Cullum and Amy Winehouse had little if anything to do with jazz, but they were marketed as such nonetheless.

But by far the most important point - Brian, like the other guys from Queen, was never particularly interested in jazz. He doesn't have any in-depth knowledge on the subject, so when he says that his song was inspired by Formby on the one hand and The Temperance Seven on the other, he is likely 100% truthful, and he might even believe that he was letting jazz inspire him, but erroneously so.

I'm struggling to find a parable that is a little more modern and someone without an insane amount of detailed niche-information will get, as the definition of jazz gives vast amounts of trouble everywhere, but especially among non-jazz listening audiences. The best I can come up with right now is that rap is considered a fundamental aspect of hiphop. But, when you listen to Falco rapping Rock Me Amadeus, that doesn't mean it's suddenly a hip hop song. I'm sorry I can't think of a better way of making this point right now, but is this at least somewhat less confusing than before?[/QUOTE]

Interesting thoughts.

If you were asked to, and had to fit them under one umbrella, what style/genre would you bracket Queen under? Heavy Rock? Rock? Pop? Easy Listening?

You hit the nail on the head with the statement that essentially, most of our genre definitions/expectations are set by the record companies and lazy music media and stores. I can go into HMV and find Aerosmith, Iron Maiden, Bryan Adams or Queen under 'rock', yet if I have seen Extreme and Poison filed under 'Metal', purely based on preconceived ideas of their image!

The best was when a friend queried with a store as to why 'Dan Reed Network' were filed under 'hard rock', to be told "well they just supported Bon Jovi on tour"........ in the same year they also supported RUN DMC and UB40!!!

The song begins more like the chorus to Lonnie Donegan's 'Does your chewing gum lose its flavour on the bedpost overnight" than it does any George Formby song I;ve heard ... which admittedly is limited to about three songs. Any more than that and suicidal thoughts begin.

The thing is, for fans, this is very much like a religious discussion. Most people think their own religion is the right one and everybody else is going to hell (or their equivalent).

Similarly, most people think their favourite guitarist/band/singer/actor/drummer/etc is automatically the best one just because it happens to be their favourite. There's no point in arguing because they won't be persuaded to change their mind, and why would they? It's not like they're doing anyone else any harm.

[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]

The thing is, for fans, this is very much like a religious discussion. Most people think their own religion is the right one and everybody else is going to hell (or their equivalent).

Similarly, most people think their favourite guitarist/band/singer/actor/drummer/etc is automatically the best one just because it happens to be their favourite. There's no point in arguing because they won't be persuaded to change their mind, and why would they? It's not like they're doing anyone else any harm.[/QUOTE]

Brian is amongst my favorite guitar players, because of all the great songs he played in Queen.
But i have no problem saying he´s not the best in the world - wathever that means. But one thing i´m sure - he will always be the best guitarrist to play Queen songs.

To me Brian is a magician with his guitar. He may not be technically the best guitarist in the world, but seems to have been the best at putting the right solo into the fabric of a song. Whether it's the ?rockabilly run in Crazy Little Thing Called Love or the pompous playing in Killer Queen, who else is such a chameleon that they can play the solo to match the content and the emotion of a song so consistently and so perfectly. No doubt his guitar work is a huge reason why Queen have had so many hits during the years as well.

I saw him this year in Melbourne for the first time, and for me Brian was the star of the show! He gave his heart and his soul and was brilliant! And it highlighted to me, what other band has had such an incredible singer in Freddie and guitarist in Brian, that complimented each other so perfectly!

And even though Freddie is gone, Brian is completely worth the ticket money still. Even the acoustic stuff he does with Kerry Ellis is remarkably tastefully put together, even if it's MORish in its track selections. Hope he hasn't forgotten his guitar fans who want to see more of his playing like on his Starfleet Project. That would be a helluva treat! And just an album or two more and we would be ready for Brian's version of The Lot! Hope he can gather up all his guest appearances as well. That would be some collection!

^^^

Well said.

Obviously his mastery as a player contributed to his mastery as a composer and viceversa, but even if he hadn't ever written a thing, he'd still be a fantastic guitar player.

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
For me it's the polished Brian all the way. It's what separates him from the rest. No other rock guitarist has come close to creating a Good Company with a dixieland jazz band of guitars.
[/QUOTE]
accepted - but that was almost 40 years ago. and your comment dismisses lots of things other guitarist have done that Brian hasn't.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't dismiss them as much as it simply doesn't mention them. I didn't say that other guitarists didn't achieve great things.

But it certainly can be said that no rock guitarist before or since has created anything remotely like Good Company.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

If you're really going to make me go into a detailed analysis of the score to Good Company and why it's not jazz in any sense of the word, I will, but not right now. However, let me raise the following points:
1) The Temperance Seven were a novelty act - essentially musical comedy. They took some stock clichés from the rising dixieland movement, but that's pretty much it. Their music was, incidentally, NOT based on 1920s jazz, but on the 1917 recordings of the Original Dixieland Jazz Band, particularly the novelty-song "Tiger Rag", which they covered, a group whose music is universally deemed unrepresentative of authentic jazz at the time (a very small number of authentic artists from this period were recorded in the course of the '20s, Bunk Johnson and Sidney Bechet among them, and their music bears little if any resemblance to the ODJB).
2) In the 1950s, jazz was virtually unknown in Britain. This is in marked contrast to France, Belgium and Holland, where a significant number of jazz musicians settled after WWII. People in Britain (and, to a lesser extent, also in France, Belgium, Holland and the rest of Europe) were only familiarized with jazz through novelty songs and heavily popularized songs. This is not at all dissimilar to what happened with Calypso and, later, Reggae: what was marketed under those terms had little if anything to do with music of those genres as performed in their countries of origin. Here, for instance, is an already popularized but more or less authentic Calypso recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZnNwZyaGf8 And this is what was marketed as Calypso: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek2NucwOOvs
3) Related to the second point: what was marketed as "jazz" or "dixieland" depended on what the record companies thought their audience expected. That still happens - there can be little doubt that Jamie Cullum and Amy Winehouse had little if anything to do with jazz, but they were marketed as such nonetheless.

But by far the most important point - Brian, like the other guys from Queen, was never particularly interested in jazz. He doesn't have any in-depth knowledge on the subject, so when he says that his song was inspired by Formby on the one hand and The Temperance Seven on the other, he is likely 100% truthful, and he might even believe that he was letting jazz inspire him, but erroneously so.

I'm struggling to find a parable that is a little more modern and someone without an insane amount of detailed niche-information will get, as the definition of jazz gives vast amounts of trouble everywhere, but especially among non-jazz listening audiences. The best I can come up with right now is that rap is considered a fundamental aspect of hiphop. But, when you listen to Falco rapping Rock Me Amadeus, that doesn't mean it's suddenly a hip hop song. I'm sorry I can't think of a better way of making this point right now, but is this at least somewhat less confusing than before?[/QUOTE]

Jesus.

You know, you really should study history ;)