Were all four members really equal and essential?

John Lennon once said that Lennon & McCartney would have been successful with two other musicians whereas Harrison and Star wouldn't (source: The Words and Music of George Harrison
by Ian Inglis). Couldn't the same be said of Queen? Fred and Brian would have been successful with 2 other musicians but Roger and John wouldn't?

Hmm.....well you could probably say something similar about a lot of successful, popular bands.....in both cases (John and Paul, and Freddie and Brian) you're talking about the main songwriters and vocalist(s). It's hard to say, I'd think....who's to say if there never had been a Queen, Roger or John wouldn't have gone on to successful careers with some other band?

Each being 25% of the band works as a lovely party line to illustrate how generous, modest and fair they were, but it doesn't mean things were actually like that.

We'll never know, as we weren't there, but from what we can gather from the consumers' perspective, Freddie was the dominant force when it came to composing, writing, arranging, producing and singing (both lead and harmonies). Then again, he was less involved on other areas where John (who didn't sing and who wrote, arranged and produced less than his band-mates) had more importance, so it was quite balanced but not necessarily exactly 25% each.

In terms of what you're asking (fame and fortune and everything that goes with it) one could argue that Queen without the likes of Ga Ga, Magic, Break Free and Dust would've still be remembered as a fairly successful band (with Bo Rhap and all that) which probably would've lasted around ten years. Queen without their early hits (most of which were Fred's) would've probably split up before John and Roger wrote their own. (I know, I know, they both wrote really good songs in the 70's, but out of those, only Best Friend was moderately successful, and it's not like that one was a big hit anyway).

Short answer:

Ask the cosmos rocks

Better answer:
(^^above^)

In my opinion it's likely that only Brian and Roger would havebeen in the rock pantheon without having met each other.

I'll just explain because without Freddie's hanging around at SMILE gigs he wouldn't have felt comfortable enough to criticise and throw his input among others as it's been suggested he was extremely shy.

He may have wound up an artist or fashion designer

Roger would've given another band a shot and they might have Petered out. He also COULD sing rock and roll

Brian would've given it a shot unless reduced to complete poverty. Otherwise he may have simply marketed models of his guitar to keep going on

John would've been a successful electrician and tech guy.


It also stands to reason obviously that they drastically encouraged and changed each other's lives.

I.e. Brian could flesh out Freddie's more complicated ideas onto guitar.

Freddie had incredible vision and savvy that modified existing songs and demos

John wrote a few massive hits AND was really essential to Brian's guitar sound on albums with his DEAKY amp.

Rhythmically John and Roger were a great unique backbone.

I hate to speculate but they were ALL essential to the band's success.

Hell, John even brokered deals and kept the business end in cross hairs of his deacon beacon

agree with matt z - 100% - here's my take:

freddie was the talent & the awkward frontmant... brian was the wizard... john was marketing + finance and probably the one most respected in terms of decision making because he was likely the least biased... and roger was the glue.

how can you split that? their solo efforts clearly showed that they could not do it on their own. as matt z said... "cosmos rocks" pretty much sums up brian + roger

so in my mind, it's clear... each were essential to the machine that was Queen.

*(well. .. to be fair. .. cosmos rocks incorporated a new third element and seemed rushed. It was also at the seemingly twilight of each respective partners careers *((I doubt this sincerely and know Brian and Roger still have some great work in the tank))*

But as per the band it always seemed that without each other only Brian and Roger would have entered the mix.

John had his wife as well. .. what's safer and more proper than caring for her and the new family?

The band talked about possible splits before ANATO and THE WORKS as well as AKOM ....

Say whatever but in my eyes they were an excellent and perfect combination.


I'm sure the others took some heavy convincing to perform ridiculous (but incredible) stuff like THE MILLIONAIRES WALTZ. .. ad infintum.


They met each other and the world was blessed and changed by their work

[QUOTE] [b]The King Of Rhye wrote:[/b]

Hmm.....well you could probably say something similar about a lot of successful, popular bands.....in both cases (John and Paul, and Freddie and Brian) you're talking about the main songwriters and vocalist(s). [/QUOTE]
main songwriters..initially maybe. the first decade of the band definitely.
but as for 80s output - i think Roger wrote at least as many - if not more songs than Freddie...and certainly both John & Roger wrote more hits (combined) from 80-91 than Freddie & Brian (combined)
in fact, throughout the whole history of the band, Brian is the least successful "hit writer"

My two cents:

What makes Queen great is the chemistry between four different members. Each contributed to the overall sound that we recognize as "real Queen", but it is difficult to pinpoint what and how much each member contributed, and to what extent they influenced and modified each other's musical behaviour. Having said that, I do have a couple of observations, but they are not free from subjective notions.

Freddie Mercury needed a counterbalance in the form of one or more other competent, creative musicians who did not greatly defer to him or were afraid to go against him but who did appreciate his talents and understand his quirks. When he went his own way entirely, his music lacked focus and sometimes became sloppy and lazy - he seemed a bit cavalier about what he did. Brian, John and Roger (I think in that order, in this particular case) would probably have been very important to allow Freddie Mercury to shine in this way.

Brian May, on the other hand, needed, I think, the occasional "let's go already!"-push when he was about to get bogged down in details and nudges out of his musical comfort zone to avoid ending up doing the same thing over and over again, slowly improving on it, but also getting really boring for anyone who wasn't him. I think he needed Freddie more than he needed John in this sense, though I think Roger was probably also pretty instrumental there.

Roger Taylor made sure the others didn't forget they were in a rock 'n roll band. That doesn't mean they should stick to the straight-up stuff, after all he brought a fairly unique way of playing to Queen, but everything had to be firmly rooted in that rock 'n roll tradition. When things were veering off too far into musical theatre, pseudo-opera or disco/funk, he generally pulled them into a more rock-oriented direction, but I get the impression that he either went back on that or didn't get his way from about '82-'86.

John Deacon is to some extent an enigma. I'm pretty sure he understood the practical side of amplification better than anyone, even Brian, and that was of course an important part of what Queen's sound was (his pre-amp...) and his bass playing is original and solid, but I also get the impression that John was the most musically flexible and adaptable of the four. He was also, probably, the least rock 'n roll-oriented in the group, and that would certainly have encouraged Freddie, Brian and to a lesser extent Roger to stray further from the rock 'n roll foundations. I think John could've been a great success with any number of other bands, and I also think that he would have been recognized as an essential part of any band's success in retrospect, but I'm not sure any band other than Queen would have recognized him for what he was worth from the start, and in fact I'm not sure if the other three members of Queen knew fairly early on how lucky they were with John, or if it only began to dawn on them several years later.

I find it very hard to, in a reasoned way, imagine how each of their musical careers could have looked without the other three guys. I think Freddie Mercury would have had little trouble finding a band that would appreciate his voice, but I don't know what sort of music he would've made, and how ambitious he would have been. He might well have gotten complacent or he might've been pushed out of the way by a lead guitarist with a very strong personality. Brian, although a great guitarist, is far from a typical one. I don't think he'd have had an easy time finding a band that complemented his sound and approach. I don't think John Deacon would have had any trouble finding a band and being a valuable addition to it, but I'm not sure if he'd have actively pursued a full-time musical career. I can totally picture him as a very happy and totally competent studio engineer who contributed the occasional awesome bass line. Roger Taylor, finally, is the one I think could most easily have been a succesful drummer in another band, PROVIDING he had the luck to join a band that had top-rate songwriters and excellent instrumentalists and vocalist(s), as he could not have managed on his own.

Much of this is probably fairly obvious, and most of the rest is probably fairly speculative and subjective.

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

in fact, throughout the whole history of the band, Brian is the least successful "hit writer"
[/QUOTE]

Wow, never thought of it that way, but you're right.

And the fact that his hits include WWRY, Fat Bottomed Girls, Who Wants to Live Forever and I Want It All, this goes to show the strength of the band.


As for the original post - these hypothetical scenarios are almost impossible (and almost pointless) to picture. If you change one variable, the entire thing changes.

But certainly in the 80s they would've been doomed with a bassist and drummer who didn't write songs - Taylor and Deacon wrote most of the hits !

I think it's an irrelevant question. Queen were queen. That's why queen sounded like that because of the 4 members. It's like asking if your dad never met your mother.

[QUOTE] [b]una999 wrote:[/b]

I think it's an irrelevant question. Queen were queen. That's why queen sounded like that because of the 4 members. It's like asking if your dad never met your mother. [/QUOTE]

no it isn't.
discussion is discussion - it makes life interesting

and it's nothing like asking if your dad never met your mother

Brian also had Now I'm Here, Save Me, Flash, Las Palabras de Amor, Hammer to Fall, Show Must Go On, No One But You, and Let Me Live as UK Top 20 hits.

However, Brian only has two Top 5 hits which is the fewest of the four band members. At least he is not a one-hit wonder.

John Lennon certainly was an arrogant SOB.

George Harrison arguably was the most successful solo artist of the four with hits extending into the 1990's.

Here, here Panchgani,
He obviously never heard of 'all things must pass'

[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
George Harrison arguably was the most successful solo artist of the four with hits extending into the 1990's.[/QUOTE]
arguably by whose reckoning? care to explain where you glean some of your perceived facts from?

depends how you measure success
sales? - macca - by miles, then lennon, then harrison

number of top ten hits? - well if you take their UK and USA
mccartney - 26/7
lennon - 10/7
ringo - 5/5
george - 5/4

and what about top ten albums? UK/USA
mccartney -19/15
lennon - 6/6
george - 4/6
ringo - 2/2