RRRRRRAAAAGGRRGGHHH!!!!!
[just had to put in my two cents]
matt z
Thread
Posts in chronological order
tomchristie22
[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
Lennon and McCartney were done with their top 10 hits by the early eighties.
Harrison had 8 top 10 hits in the late eighties and early nineties.[/QUOTE]
Yeah - Lennon wasn't really putting out any new material after early 1980s. Most peculiar!
Lennon and McCartney were done with their top 10 hits by the early eighties.
Harrison had 8 top 10 hits in the late eighties and early nineties.[/QUOTE]
Yeah - Lennon wasn't really putting out any new material after early 1980s. Most peculiar!
tomchristie22
Anyway, if we' speak purely in terms of songwriting credit, Lennon and McCartney had a #2 in the UK with 'Free as a Bird' in 1995, and Lennon had a #4 in the UK with 'Real Love' in the same year.
Stelios
I think this is getting out of perspective.
We are talking FREDDIE fucking MERCURY here.
The arguably BEST MALE VOICE of contemporary music and most likely the BEST PERFORMER also.
And its not only music we are talking about . Its entertaiment and show-bussiness and all that jazz.
I mean seriously...?
We are talking FREDDIE fucking MERCURY here.
The arguably BEST MALE VOICE of contemporary music and most likely the BEST PERFORMER also.
And its not only music we are talking about . Its entertaiment and show-bussiness and all that jazz.
I mean seriously...?
brENsKi
[QUOTE] [b]Stelios wrote:[/b]
I think this is getting out of perspective.
We are talking FREDDIE fucking MERCURY here.
[/QUOTE]
no we're not. we're talking ALL FOUR members - which is why the logical comparison was the beatles - as band that started out the same way - two chief writers, but then evolved as time went by into the other two members writing more songs.
I think this is getting out of perspective.
We are talking FREDDIE fucking MERCURY here.
[/QUOTE]
no we're not. we're talking ALL FOUR members - which is why the logical comparison was the beatles - as band that started out the same way - two chief writers, but then evolved as time went by into the other two members writing more songs.
Sebastian
[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
as band that started out the same way - two chief writers, but then evolved as time went by into the other two members writing more songs.
[/QUOTE]
Queen's case was more of having *one* chief writer, one in second place, one contributing minimally and the other one not writing; eventually they evolved into a more balanced input. Beatles started off with a chief writing team of two, and eventually George shone as well; Ringo only wrote two songs and a bit of another (plus having a co-credit here and there), he wasn't really a songwriter as much as we could consider Roger Taylor to be a professional bassist because of a handful of limited-chord songs.
as band that started out the same way - two chief writers, but then evolved as time went by into the other two members writing more songs.
[/QUOTE]
Queen's case was more of having *one* chief writer, one in second place, one contributing minimally and the other one not writing; eventually they evolved into a more balanced input. Beatles started off with a chief writing team of two, and eventually George shone as well; Ringo only wrote two songs and a bit of another (plus having a co-credit here and there), he wasn't really a songwriter as much as we could consider Roger Taylor to be a professional bassist because of a handful of limited-chord songs.
Stelios
[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Stelios wrote:[/b]
I think this is getting out of perspective.
We are talking FREDDIE fucking MERCURY here.
[/QUOTE]
no we're not. we're talking ALL FOUR members - which is why the logical comparison was the beatles - as band that started out the same way - two chief writers, but then evolved as time went by into the other two members writing more songs.
[/QUOTE]
The Beatles comparison seems fair to me.
Was talking before the post took that root. Misleading initial first sentnce on my behalf.
[QUOTE] [b]Stelios wrote:[/b]
I think this is getting out of perspective.
We are talking FREDDIE fucking MERCURY here.
[/QUOTE]
no we're not. we're talking ALL FOUR members - which is why the logical comparison was the beatles - as band that started out the same way - two chief writers, but then evolved as time went by into the other two members writing more songs.
[/QUOTE]
The Beatles comparison seems fair to me.
Was talking before the post took that root. Misleading initial first sentnce on my behalf.
Stelios
D post.
musicland munich
As far as I know QUEEN were a democratic Band. Every voice of every single band member counts when it comes down to a voting about songs or business decisions.
brENsKi
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
as band that started out the same way - two chief writers, but then evolved as time went by into the other two members writing more songs.
[/QUOTE]
Queen's case was more of having *one* chief writer, one in second place, one contributing minimally and the other one not writing; eventually they evolved into a more balanced input. Beatles started off with a chief writing team of two, .[/QUOTE]
queen certainly didn't have "one chief writer" prior to the emergence of Taylor and Deacon. Queen had TWO chief writers...up until Hot Space the writing credits were: (in album order)
Mercury......5-6-6-5-4-3-5-3
May............4-4-4-4-4-4-4-3
but they (lennon and macca) weren't a "writing team". sure they were co-credited as "written by Lennon & McCartney" - but that's because that's what they agreed to when they set out - much like queen agreed to "written by Queen" for the last half of the 80s.
truth is mOST of the "Lennon & McCartney" compositions were written by ONE of them - and NOT both
there are even some major compositions like A Day In The Life - which was almost entirely John's save for the "woke up, got out of bed" passage
[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
as band that started out the same way - two chief writers, but then evolved as time went by into the other two members writing more songs.
[/QUOTE]
Queen's case was more of having *one* chief writer, one in second place, one contributing minimally and the other one not writing; eventually they evolved into a more balanced input. Beatles started off with a chief writing team of two, .[/QUOTE]
queen certainly didn't have "one chief writer" prior to the emergence of Taylor and Deacon. Queen had TWO chief writers...up until Hot Space the writing credits were: (in album order)
Mercury......5-6-6-5-4-3-5-3
May............4-4-4-4-4-4-4-3
but they (lennon and macca) weren't a "writing team". sure they were co-credited as "written by Lennon & McCartney" - but that's because that's what they agreed to when they set out - much like queen agreed to "written by Queen" for the last half of the 80s.
truth is mOST of the "Lennon & McCartney" compositions were written by ONE of them - and NOT both
there are even some major compositions like A Day In The Life - which was almost entirely John's save for the "woke up, got out of bed" passage
Sebastian
[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
queen certainly didn't have "one chief writer" prior to the emergence of Taylor and Deacon. Queen had TWO chief writers...up until Hot Space the writing credits were: (in album order)
Mercury......5-6-6-5-4-3-5-3
May............4-4-4-4-4-4-4-3[/QUOTE]
Which means Freddie wrote 37 songs and Brian wrote 30.5 (on the first album Brian actually wrote 3.5, not 4). 37 is larger than 30.5, which means there was indeed one chief writer.
queen certainly didn't have "one chief writer" prior to the emergence of Taylor and Deacon. Queen had TWO chief writers...up until Hot Space the writing credits were: (in album order)
Mercury......5-6-6-5-4-3-5-3
May............4-4-4-4-4-4-4-3[/QUOTE]
Which means Freddie wrote 37 songs and Brian wrote 30.5 (on the first album Brian actually wrote 3.5, not 4). 37 is larger than 30.5, which means there was indeed one chief writer.
brENsKi
i'll concede Sebastian.
but it's certainly not a case of one person generating the vast majority and the remaining members getting a smattering is it? 40% is certainly a "main contributor"
and as i said elsewhere; Brian didn't exactly write a lot of top 10 hits before the 1980s....so this perhaps makes his album track writing contribution more significant?
but it's certainly not a case of one person generating the vast majority and the remaining members getting a smattering is it? 40% is certainly a "main contributor"
and as i said elsewhere; Brian didn't exactly write a lot of top 10 hits before the 1980s....so this perhaps makes his album track writing contribution more significant?
Sebastian
[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
i'll concede Sebastian.
but it's certainly not a case of one person generating the vast majority and the remaining members getting a smattering is it?[/QUOTE]
It's not, and I did mention that on my initial post: there was a main songwriter, a second one, a third one and one that initially didn't write.
i'll concede Sebastian.
but it's certainly not a case of one person generating the vast majority and the remaining members getting a smattering is it?[/QUOTE]
It's not, and I did mention that on my initial post: there was a main songwriter, a second one, a third one and one that initially didn't write.
thomasquinn 32989
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
queen certainly didn't have "one chief writer" prior to the emergence of Taylor and Deacon. Queen had TWO chief writers...up until Hot Space the writing credits were: (in album order)
Mercury......5-6-6-5-4-3-5-3
May............4-4-4-4-4-4-4-3[/QUOTE]
Which means Freddie wrote 37 songs and Brian wrote 30.5 (on the first album Brian actually wrote 3.5, not 4). 37 is larger than 30.5, which means there was indeed one chief writer.[/QUOTE]
That is an utter rape of statistics and you know it. Let's take the '70s:
Queen I: Freddie 5, Brian 4, Roger 1, John 0
Queen II: Freddie 6, Brian 4, Roger 1, John 0
SHA: Freddie 6, Brian 4, Roger 1, John 1 (+1 shared credit among all)
ANATO: Freddie 5, Brian 4 (+1 arrangement), Roger 1, John 1
ADATR: Freddie 4, Brian 4, Roger 1, John 1
NOTW: Freddie 3, Brian 4, Roger 2, John 2
Jazz: Freddie 5, Brian 4, Roger 2, John 2
That makes Freddie 34, Brian 28, Roger 9, John 7.
Freddie: 43.6% Brian: 35.9% Roger 11.5% John 9%
Brian's contribution is 82% as big as Freddie's, but also 175% as big as Roger's and John's combined. Freddie and Brian combined accounted for 79.5% of the writing on the '70s records. Equally divided that would be 39.75% each. In reality, they deviated from this 'ideal' number by about 10%, which is very low.
There were quite definitely two chief writers, not one. Your argument does not hold up to even superficial scrutiny. Honestly Sebastian, you know better than this.
[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
queen certainly didn't have "one chief writer" prior to the emergence of Taylor and Deacon. Queen had TWO chief writers...up until Hot Space the writing credits were: (in album order)
Mercury......5-6-6-5-4-3-5-3
May............4-4-4-4-4-4-4-3[/QUOTE]
Which means Freddie wrote 37 songs and Brian wrote 30.5 (on the first album Brian actually wrote 3.5, not 4). 37 is larger than 30.5, which means there was indeed one chief writer.[/QUOTE]
That is an utter rape of statistics and you know it. Let's take the '70s:
Queen I: Freddie 5, Brian 4, Roger 1, John 0
Queen II: Freddie 6, Brian 4, Roger 1, John 0
SHA: Freddie 6, Brian 4, Roger 1, John 1 (+1 shared credit among all)
ANATO: Freddie 5, Brian 4 (+1 arrangement), Roger 1, John 1
ADATR: Freddie 4, Brian 4, Roger 1, John 1
NOTW: Freddie 3, Brian 4, Roger 2, John 2
Jazz: Freddie 5, Brian 4, Roger 2, John 2
That makes Freddie 34, Brian 28, Roger 9, John 7.
Freddie: 43.6% Brian: 35.9% Roger 11.5% John 9%
Brian's contribution is 82% as big as Freddie's, but also 175% as big as Roger's and John's combined. Freddie and Brian combined accounted for 79.5% of the writing on the '70s records. Equally divided that would be 39.75% each. In reality, they deviated from this 'ideal' number by about 10%, which is very low.
There were quite definitely two chief writers, not one. Your argument does not hold up to even superficial scrutiny. Honestly Sebastian, you know better than this.
Sebastian
[QUOTE] Queen I: Freddie 5, Brian 4, Roger 1, John 0[/QUOTE]
No: Doing All Right was co-written. It's Brian 3.5.
[QUOTE] In reality, they deviated from this 'ideal' number by about 10%, which is very low.[/QUOTE]
Not really that low. It's high enough, in my opinion, to put Freddie on a higher level of contribution. It doesn't diminish the value of Brian's input, it's just that, mathematically, there was a chief songwriter.
[QUOTE] Your argument does not hold up to even superficial scrutiny.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it does.
No: Doing All Right was co-written. It's Brian 3.5.
[QUOTE] In reality, they deviated from this 'ideal' number by about 10%, which is very low.[/QUOTE]
Not really that low. It's high enough, in my opinion, to put Freddie on a higher level of contribution. It doesn't diminish the value of Brian's input, it's just that, mathematically, there was a chief songwriter.
[QUOTE] Your argument does not hold up to even superficial scrutiny.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it does.