I think that Queen isn't as realized as they were during their "golden days." Not so much under rated.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
"One other thing - when considering how influencial bands are, i think its fair to say that queen shouldn't be high up the list."
Dude, there is scarcely a day goes by that someone isn't mentioning Queen as an influence. recently up and coming American act Coheed and Cambria mentioned in Guitar Magazine that they got inspiration from A Night at the Opera. Hundreds of groups and individuals are inspired by Queen, but think how hard it is to cover Queen. They were musically flawless, they sang like no rock band before or since, and Brian's guitar sound was so unique it stamped it as a Queen song. Compare the to the Beatles. Wonderful songwriters, but what's the Beatles sound? Paul's bass, George's guitar, their harmonies? The Beatles were amazing songwriters, but musically solid. Queen were amazing songwriters whose overall level of musicianship was three-fold that of the Beatles.
"In terms of "respect", Queen is very under-rated. Part of it is the same "over"-play of certain hits, and the "over"-use in determinate circles. For example, many people like We Are The Champions or Bicycle Race, but very few realise the clever music behind them. Both songs - specially the latter - have tons of chords, modulations, unusual structure, etc, but Freddie managed to keep the song easy listeneable, which makes most the audience ignore the musical value of it and think of the track as just "pop"."
Sebastian, you wrote something similar a while back about Freddie's gift to make difficult music accessible. I thought it was one of the smartest things ever posted on here. There are hundreds of bands playing in odd time signatures and styles that have amazing musicianship and chops, they just can't write catchy tunes. From Killer Queen to Bicycle Race, Freddie's singles featured time sigs that either used odd signatures (a few bars of 6/4 in KQ), the kitchen sink of signatures (BO Rhap), 12/8 (Somebody to Love), 6/8 (Champions) and 4/4, 3/4, 2/4, 6/8 and 9/8 (Bicycle Race). That's absolutely amazing. I bet that of the top 10 songs of all time every one is 4/4, except the number 1. I look forward to the next act that has a string of all-time classics with the use of different signatures.
Dude, there is scarcely a day goes by that someone isn't mentioning Queen as an influence. recently up and coming American act Coheed and Cambria mentioned in Guitar Magazine that they got inspiration from A Night at the Opera. Hundreds of groups and individuals are inspired by Queen, but think how hard it is to cover Queen. They were musically flawless, they sang like no rock band before or since, and Brian's guitar sound was so unique it stamped it as a Queen song. Compare the to the Beatles. Wonderful songwriters, but what's the Beatles sound? Paul's bass, George's guitar, their harmonies? The Beatles were amazing songwriters, but musically solid. Queen were amazing songwriters whose overall level of musicianship was three-fold that of the Beatles.
"In terms of "respect", Queen is very under-rated. Part of it is the same "over"-play of certain hits, and the "over"-use in determinate circles. For example, many people like We Are The Champions or Bicycle Race, but very few realise the clever music behind them. Both songs - specially the latter - have tons of chords, modulations, unusual structure, etc, but Freddie managed to keep the song easy listeneable, which makes most the audience ignore the musical value of it and think of the track as just "pop"."
Sebastian, you wrote something similar a while back about Freddie's gift to make difficult music accessible. I thought it was one of the smartest things ever posted on here. There are hundreds of bands playing in odd time signatures and styles that have amazing musicianship and chops, they just can't write catchy tunes. From Killer Queen to Bicycle Race, Freddie's singles featured time sigs that either used odd signatures (a few bars of 6/4 in KQ), the kitchen sink of signatures (BO Rhap), 12/8 (Somebody to Love), 6/8 (Champions) and 4/4, 3/4, 2/4, 6/8 and 9/8 (Bicycle Race). That's absolutely amazing. I bet that of the top 10 songs of all time every one is 4/4, except the number 1. I look forward to the next act that has a string of all-time classics with the use of different signatures.
To add to this, I think the chord changes in Good Old-Fashioned Lover Boy and The Millionaire Waltz are absolutely brilliant.
I don't think they really are underrated...maybe somewhat here in the US, but it could be worse. When you consider how classic rock stations here only play fewer than 5 songs by hugely successful and talented bands like Supertramp, Jethro Tull, ELP, Yes, etc., Queen actually get 5-10 songs in regular rotation. There are even a bunch of once-popular Rolling Stones "album" hits that used to get tons of airplay that don't anymore. I think there is just too much classic rock now that the FM stations have to be very particular in what they play (which is why satellite radio will probably take over...).
Even VH1 US had Queen in their Top 10 not too long ago when making a list of the best bands. I wouldn't put too much stock into what Rolling Stone says...they've always been biased against Queen for one reason or another. RS is often considered a joke in the rock world.
It's funny to look up classic album reviews in RS and see the bad reviews RS gave them lol. RS encompasses the stereotype of rock critics: they always put down things that are good because it makes them feel clever.
Even VH1 US had Queen in their Top 10 not too long ago when making a list of the best bands. I wouldn't put too much stock into what Rolling Stone says...they've always been biased against Queen for one reason or another. RS is often considered a joke in the rock world.
It's funny to look up classic album reviews in RS and see the bad reviews RS gave them lol. RS encompasses the stereotype of rock critics: they always put down things that are good because it makes them feel clever.
"One other thing - when considering how influencial bands are, i think its fair to say that queen shouldn't be high up the list."
Dude, there is scarcely a day goes by that someone isn't mentioning Queen as an influence. recently up and coming American act Coheed and Cambria mentioned in Guitar Magazine that they got inspiration from A Night at the Opera. Hundreds of groups and individuals are inspired by Queen, but think how hard it is to cover Queen. They were musically flawless, they sang like no rock band before or since, and Brian's guitar sound was so unique it stamped it as a Queen song. Compare the to the Beatles. Wonderful songwriters, but what's the Beatles sound? Paul's bass, George's guitar, their harmonies? The Beatles were amazing songwriters, but musically solid. Queen were amazing songwriters whose overall level of musicianship was three-fold that of the Beatles.
coheed rocks, they remind me of queen more than any other band today in terms of their musical abilities and diversity. I know a lot of really different sounding indepdndent artists that use queen as a influence.
Hello people!
I am from Germany, so don't rate my mistakes I will made in this text ;-)
I think that the perfect Songs are to complicated for the major people! I don't want to say that all of those people are stupid. But I think for those people music is just entertainment!
I am from Germany, so don't rate my mistakes I will made in this text ;-)
I think that the perfect Songs are to complicated for the major people! I don't want to say that all of those people are stupid. But I think for those people music is just entertainment!
I think that the perfect Songs are to complicated for the major people! I don't want to say that all of those people are stupid. But I think for those people music is just entertainment!
That`s the "rule", and in many cases it works. Either your song is clever or it`s catchy, or neither. But Bo Rhap is both. Extremely complicated but extremely likeable. One only can wonder how did he do it
Hello people!
I am from Germany, so don't rate my mistakes I will made in this text ;-)
I think that the perfect Songs are to complicated for the major people! I don't want to say that all of those people are stupid. But I think for those people music is just entertainment!
Exactly!
I don't know about other countries except for England where music is more than just music, it's culture... but here in Germany it's exactly like Christian said: music is just entertainment, nothing to get really interested in, people hear the songs, they like them or don't like them but they don't really care about the band and the backgrounds.
Ask someone in Germany who Joe Strummer is, I tell you, out of 100 maybe 3 will know. Mention The Clash, you'll get 20 who know them, mention "Should I Stay Or Should I Go", you'll probably get more than 50 who know the song.
Mention that you're a Queen fan to a 18 - 24 year old and he/she'll just laugh at you or at least be very surprised.
Try picking out Hot Space...
Hot Space ? Under Pressure (classic collabration, UK no.1), Staying Power, Back Chat, Las Palabras De Amor - all great songs....
Queen is definitely underrated.
The whole world has heard "We Will Rock You", "We Are The Champions" & that galileos from "BoRa".
But a lot of people IGNORE who´s the band that play that Good songs. You have to tell them that it is QUEEN, then they star to realise that Queen is a good band with a few good songs. But that´s everything. The truth is that Queen is underrated. Just an example: Freddie or Mick J. Who´s most well known? The Doors or Queen. Everybody knows The Doors (J. Morrison), but what about Queen (& Fred)?
Now at days most of the "Bands" are just a product, I mean, they don´t have talent. But they are very well known (with their awful songs).
But if Queen is so brilliant why they aren´t in the place that they deserve? Who´s the guilty?
I think that they never were efficiently promoted (out of Europe & Jap, I think, cerrect me).
For example: In Latin America (Particulary in México) we never listen/ed anythyng about Queen (just some times).
I think that Queen deserve to be recognized & mentioned as the Best Band of the world -ever-, because nobody has been able (of course nobody will be) to write like they did, to sing like they did, to play like they did, to performe like they... They just are/were the best.
God Save the Queen
The whole world has heard "We Will Rock You", "We Are The Champions" & that galileos from "BoRa".
But a lot of people IGNORE who´s the band that play that Good songs. You have to tell them that it is QUEEN, then they star to realise that Queen is a good band with a few good songs. But that´s everything. The truth is that Queen is underrated. Just an example: Freddie or Mick J. Who´s most well known? The Doors or Queen. Everybody knows The Doors (J. Morrison), but what about Queen (& Fred)?
Now at days most of the "Bands" are just a product, I mean, they don´t have talent. But they are very well known (with their awful songs).
But if Queen is so brilliant why they aren´t in the place that they deserve? Who´s the guilty?
I think that they never were efficiently promoted (out of Europe & Jap, I think, cerrect me).
For example: In Latin America (Particulary in México) we never listen/ed anythyng about Queen (just some times).
I think that Queen deserve to be recognized & mentioned as the Best Band of the world -ever-, because nobody has been able (of course nobody will be) to write like they did, to sing like they did, to play like they did, to performe like they... They just are/were the best.
God Save the Queen
I must say....their albums leading up to A Night at the Opera were sheer genius. Not that the albums after that aren't, but come on. No one can cover a Queen song without making it sound like shit in the gutter. No one.
This isn't actually answering the question but hey.
Queen is extremely underrated here in shitty Australia. They get hardly any air time on the one radio station that actually plays them that i can get. But of course, this is Australia we're talking about...Queen weren't as big here as everywhere else. Damn you Australian public DAMN YOU!
Pax
Queen is extremely underrated here in shitty Australia. They get hardly any air time on the one radio station that actually plays them that i can get. But of course, this is Australia we're talking about...Queen weren't as big here as everywhere else. Damn you Australian public DAMN YOU!
Pax
thats right pax! Australia got told by you!! they'll think twice now!
i hate australia... its too hot. and too many westies. England here i come!! and its so close to Europe! and its prettier then shitty Australia! and so much more culture! yes, 'cause i care about Whitlam (PM at one stage) and not all the royalty of Europe!
Monte
i hate australia... its too hot. and too many westies. England here i come!! and its so close to Europe! and its prettier then shitty Australia! and so much more culture! yes, 'cause i care about Whitlam (PM at one stage) and not all the royalty of Europe!
Monte
Queen were/are not underrated in large parts of Europe and Japan.
They might be underrated in the US (read: press / many musicians from the US rate Queen highly, however). One of the reasons (I guess) is because Queen were not a US band. They mainly had european influences in their music/lyrics/videos. Best example being the the video of "I Want To Break Free".
I know many people will now think about the Beatles/the Stones. The Beatles/the Stones were also none-US bands but were/are very highly rated in the US. The reason for that is very simply. After the decline of Rock'n Roll in the late 50s/early 60s there was a "gap" that needed to be filled. Elvis was concentrating on his movie career. Though he did make some fantastic music in the early 60s, music in general had become bored... any musician with a new "sound" or "look" would be "King". Apart from the Beach Boys and Bob Dylan, there was not much interesting. Then came the Beatles and the Stones. Remember that the Beatles and the Stones had different LP releases (different songs) for the US market (to make a breaktrough on the US market) - Queen never did such a thing. Millions of 65+ Americans claim to have been at an Elvis concert in the 50s, where only 10% of them may have seen the man live in action. Same goes for those who claim to have seen the Beatles/the Stones live in the mid 60s. Remember, the world was still very innocent and very small (in terms of commmunication). Of course the younger people wanted to be part of this new generation. The world (of music) was about to change forever in the late 60s, music had lost its innocence. New groups such as Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd were about to make impact. As for the early 70s, the world would never be the same again. People were not so naive as they were 10 years before, there was more music to choose from now. The Beatles and the Stones were lucky to be in the music scene at the right time.
And what about the press? Queen were never close friends to the press, except for maybe a handful of editors. They did not (and still don't) care much about what the press wrote about their music/concerts. Queen never played music that the press thought to be trendy (like punk), they gave the fans what they wanted to hear (except of Hot Space - though I still think that LP is highly underrated). Queen have always been pretty "unaccessible" for the press.
Queen always acted as a group, unlike many other bands (Lennon/McCartney - Jagger/Richards - Page/Plant etc.). Queen did whatever they felt was the right decision: playing in Agentina in 1981, playing in South Africa in 1984, ignoring the US after 1982. What other band would have made such critical decisions? And then there was of course the Freddie Mercury being gay item.
Queen were like a perfect marriage. Problems were kept inside the group for most of the times, pretty boring for the press. Other groups never managed to keep problems outside newspapers.
They might be underrated in the US (read: press / many musicians from the US rate Queen highly, however). One of the reasons (I guess) is because Queen were not a US band. They mainly had european influences in their music/lyrics/videos. Best example being the the video of "I Want To Break Free".
I know many people will now think about the Beatles/the Stones. The Beatles/the Stones were also none-US bands but were/are very highly rated in the US. The reason for that is very simply. After the decline of Rock'n Roll in the late 50s/early 60s there was a "gap" that needed to be filled. Elvis was concentrating on his movie career. Though he did make some fantastic music in the early 60s, music in general had become bored... any musician with a new "sound" or "look" would be "King". Apart from the Beach Boys and Bob Dylan, there was not much interesting. Then came the Beatles and the Stones. Remember that the Beatles and the Stones had different LP releases (different songs) for the US market (to make a breaktrough on the US market) - Queen never did such a thing. Millions of 65+ Americans claim to have been at an Elvis concert in the 50s, where only 10% of them may have seen the man live in action. Same goes for those who claim to have seen the Beatles/the Stones live in the mid 60s. Remember, the world was still very innocent and very small (in terms of commmunication). Of course the younger people wanted to be part of this new generation. The world (of music) was about to change forever in the late 60s, music had lost its innocence. New groups such as Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd were about to make impact. As for the early 70s, the world would never be the same again. People were not so naive as they were 10 years before, there was more music to choose from now. The Beatles and the Stones were lucky to be in the music scene at the right time.
And what about the press? Queen were never close friends to the press, except for maybe a handful of editors. They did not (and still don't) care much about what the press wrote about their music/concerts. Queen never played music that the press thought to be trendy (like punk), they gave the fans what they wanted to hear (except of Hot Space - though I still think that LP is highly underrated). Queen have always been pretty "unaccessible" for the press.
Queen always acted as a group, unlike many other bands (Lennon/McCartney - Jagger/Richards - Page/Plant etc.). Queen did whatever they felt was the right decision: playing in Agentina in 1981, playing in South Africa in 1984, ignoring the US after 1982. What other band would have made such critical decisions? And then there was of course the Freddie Mercury being gay item.
Queen were like a perfect marriage. Problems were kept inside the group for most of the times, pretty boring for the press. Other groups never managed to keep problems outside newspapers.