Beatlesque Queen

"It's been a long time since I read so much crap compiled in only one thread."

Amen. Agree also with farlander that this has the potential to be an interesting discussion, which is something Queenzone isn't exactly known for.

Queen didn't try to emulate The Beatles in the same way as Oasis, but their influence can be heard in songs like "Good Company" which reminds me a lot of "When I'm 64." The Led Zeppelin influence is a lot more obvious though (new thread?) :)

Before I started this thread, I was thinking of what on earth could be described as the most Rolling Stones-y of Queen's songs, and I couldn't come up with anything. The closest thing I could think of was Get Down Make Love (the main part of the song, not the vocal/sound effect interlude).

"Good Company" was always compared to the Beatles, probably because of Beatles songs like "When I'm 64" and the like... Though I'm no Beatles aficionado, I've been told that the line "Sally J, a girl from number 4" was a tongue-in-cheek reference to SOME Beatles lyric or other. I wonder if anyone can get more specific, given these hints.

"My point was that most The Beatles songs (at least their hits) are simple pop songs that have no complicity."

The Beatles revolutionized music in two ways. They prefected the "pop" song format (3 chord changes), which hits radio waves even today, and they added thoughtful complex harmonies to compete with those simpler-minded three-chord songs. Examples? Hey Jude, Let It Be, Strawberry Fields., etc... (basically everything after and including songs from Rubber Soul). What this means, is that the Beatles were genuine for their time at least, for crafting pop songs with "complicity" (and if your not convinced listen carefully to I Am The Walrus & A Day In The Life -- both of which are responsible for BohRhap).

I am first and foremost a Queen fan - but anyone who tries to slag off about the Beatles being nothing more than a Liverpudlian pop band are obviously just trying to sound like a smart-ass music connaisseur.

How can someone compare the Beatles to Queen? The Beatles are in every right of a much higher calibre. We are none other than Queen fans, that's why we think they're so amazing. Queen, however do hold their place as important contributers to music as they have put out great pop hits which can be heard on GrH I & II, not to mention create the first "music video", put together the greatest staged live-show, and of course wrote the two most recognizeable sports anthems ever recorded.

Beatles, Queen, Zeppelin, Kinks, Elvis, & many others...they each hold their respective place in musi - competition only detracts from their achievements.

The end of 'lap of the gods' (NOT 'revisited) always reminded me of the end of 'lovely rita'.

Just a couple of things for now: Beatles had videos before Queen did the "first" one (Bo Rhap). And I don`t see what`s so complex in the harmonies of Hey Jude. Between them and Twist And Shout - Isley Brothers - the complexity is the same.

Beatles weren`t the best thing that happened to rock music, but George Martin certainly was

I think it's a bit harsh to say it was all George Martin. That's like saying Roy Thomas Baker is responsible for Bohemian Rhapsody. Producers lend a lot, yes, but I think in the case of Queen and The Beatles, there's a lot to be said for the fact that they wrote their own material. And I think both bands produced themseleves at various points, but in the case of Queen we know that they went back to having producers.

For what it's worth, I can't make my mind up whether Queen or Beatles were a better band. I think Beatles are probably more influencial (just!), and I think that Lennon, McCartney and to a lesser extent Harrison were all great songwriters, but I think Queen, and Brian and Freddie in particular came up with some more intricate and interesting music which is why they're my favourite band.

I like most of the Beatles stuff and I understand why some people say they started off writing "pop" songs, but putting it in the context of their achievements, you have to give them the credit I believe they deserve.

On topic, I think most people have covered which songs are Beatlesque, and there aren't many, which is again why it is actually extremely difficult to compare the two bands

"In an interview from 1990 Bohlen said that he ain't no Andrew Lloyd Webber and he isn't trying to be.Maybe his thought about himself have changed."

Fuck Webber, since when are musicals genius. And Bohlen is and probably always was everything but modest, in Germany he's a real nuisance.


"I have listened to every single song that has been officially released by him."

My heartfelt sympathy. Did you really listen to those hundreds and hundreds of totally crappy Schlager tunes, advertisements...? Glad you survived it. If you really are into that stuff, may I recommend you another German mastermind by the name of Ralph Siegel?

"Please don't forget that we are talking about a guy who has in Germany had more hits than anyone else and who has sold out stadiums in Germany and the Slavic countries. I guess that people in Easter-Europe have different taste in music than people in the Western World."

Yes, and Bush wanted to hire him as a sound-weapon in Iraq.

"(and if your not convinced listen carefully to I Am The Walrus & A Day In The Life -- both of which are responsible for BohRhap)."


I really don't think A Day in the Life is responsible for borhap, it isn't even similar to it, Except for the style change and the staccato chords

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Hank H. wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"In an interview from 1990 Bohlen said that he ain't no Andrew Lloyd Webber and he isn't trying to be.Maybe his thought about himself have changed."

Fuck Webber, since when are musicals genius. And Bohlen is and probably always was everything but modest, in Germany he's a real nuisance.


"I have listened to every single song that has been officially released by him."

My heartfelt sympathy. Did you really listen to those hundreds and hundreds of totally crappy Schlager tunes, advertisements...? Glad you survived it. If you really are into that stuff, may I recommend you another German mastermind by the name of Ralph Siegel?

"Please don't forget that we are talking about a guy who has in Germany had more hits than anyone else and who has sold out stadiums in Germany and the Slavic countries. I guess that people in Easter-Europe have different taste in music than people in the Western World."

Yes, and Bush wanted to hire him as a sound-weapon in Iraq.[/QUOTE]

Everyone has a right to their own opinion and that is your opinion. My opinion is that Bohlen is fabulous songwriter and producer. Of course he also has songs that are not so good, but that is just natural when you have released such amount of music.

I'm sorry Whisperer, but although I have absolutely no idea who this Bohlen chap is, it's patently obvious you have more than questionable taste.

I mean, you worship Russell Crowe, (do any women even still like the guy?) and somehow are blinded by that worship to such an incomprehensible amount that you are actually able to consider 30 Odd Foot Of Grunts even worthy of mention as a musical entity, and more insane still, you rate them as one of the best bands there is.

No hard feelings mate, but there seems to be more than enough evidence to suggest you have taste issues.

Seriously, I don't worship Crowe. I just think that he is great actor and guy with a great persona (he doesn't even try to be something he isn't). What comes to the women, yes there are lots of women who adore him (and only talk about his looks) and that's one of the main reasons why I don't visit any Crowe notice boards.

30 Odd Foot Of Grunts again, is just the kind of music that critics like. Their lyrics are about real-life-situations and the music isn't any worse than the music of the more famous bands.

Anyway, I don't say that Bohlen, Crowe or even Mercury are musical geniouses. What I say is that I would rather take one cd with music from these guys than 10 cd's by The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, U2, Jimi Hendrix or Led Zeppelin. In my ears all of the bands mentioned above (except The Beatles) are pure crap with only a handful of songs that I even want to listen to (not to mention like). Do I have a wrong taste in music only because I prefer songwrites who aren't considered to be good? Can someones taste in music, art or anything like that be concidered bad or wrong?

"I really don't think A Day in the Life is responsible for borhap, it isn't even similar to it, Except for the style change and the staccato chords"

a day in the life is two songs mixed into one, medley type - "i heard the news today oh boy..." straight into the noise section in order to get to the uptempo "woke up, fell out of bed..." section, and later bringing us back into the orginal "i read the news today oh boy" part -- much like BoRhap, only difference is BoRhap is an immense improvement and much more innovative in that it used opera, vocal harmonies, and very meaningful lyrics.

Wow, I can't believe the number of closed-minded Queen fans there are at this board, and cannot recognize the Beatles' contribution to music.

Face it - tastes aside, The Beatles changed the world far more than Queen ever did/will.

I will always love the Beatles; I will always love Queen. I've never thought of comparing them, would be like comparing apples to oranges. I more or less grew up listening to both of their music (when each band was a "new group") and regard both groups as invaluable to 20th century music. Both made their own unique contributions and people keep discovering their music daily. You can't say that about a lot of bands from the past forty years! They were from different decades but that doesn't make their music any less noteworthy.
John, Paul, George and Ringo
Freddie, Brian, Roger and John
Their names liveth for evermore.....