[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=000000>Fenderek wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]What's manufactured about, say, Britney Spears? The songs are good, the lyrics are good (no matter if she composed them or not), the production is good, the instruments are well executed (more often than not by top session players), she sings well, the arrangements are amazing (more often than not made by orchestral conductors or akin). Then what's the problem?[/QUOTE]
Sebastian- from time to time you really worry me... Really do...[/QUOTE]
Oh what, I thought he was being sarcastic.[/QUOTE]
I dunno... I somehow think he wasn't...
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Well, a certain Brian May once sung the praises of Britney Spears, and she certainly has her fans so who knows if Sebastian is serious.
"The problem, is that by having lyrics and songs composed by others, with producers and arrangers and session musicians working with her, other than her voice"
How about Elvis then? I agree with Sebastian - you may hate Britney, you may hate all these young brainless pop-stars with big tits instead of talent etc. etc. etc, but they're working with proffessional session musicians, they're recording in the best studios with using of the best technologies, they use the best composers and lyrics writers (I hope you don't forget WHO used Tim Rice as a writer of lyrics... Someone named Freddie, for instance), you don't have any arguments against their music except complaints like "it's crap, it has no soul, we're rockers - we're cool, blah blah blah".
How about Elvis then? I agree with Sebastian - you may hate Britney, you may hate all these young brainless pop-stars with big tits instead of talent etc. etc. etc, but they're working with proffessional session musicians, they're recording in the best studios with using of the best technologies, they use the best composers and lyrics writers (I hope you don't forget WHO used Tim Rice as a writer of lyrics... Someone named Freddie, for instance), you don't have any arguments against their music except complaints like "it's crap, it has no soul, we're rockers - we're cool, blah blah blah".
Elvis was a fantastic singer, Serry, who burst upon the scene and changed history. Elvis had a swagger and made the songs his own. He was hyped, but he could deliver. I certainly realize that other artists don't write, produce, etc., but people like Britney Spears are total marketing and manufacturing. Even Queen were thought of as marketing hype because their record company spent 5,000 pounds for a gig at the Marquee. Your argument that Freddie used Tim Rice as a lyricist is ridiculous because Freddie had written lyrics and music on a dozen Queen albums and a solo album by that point, including a few songs that seem to have stood the test of time very well. He wanted a different point of view, and for sake of an argument, I'd say that Freddie had the story for The Golden Boy and Fallen Priest mapped out because that album is incredibly autobiographical IMHO.
> that's just my 2 cents, you're free to disagree.
And I do, but that's all right :)
> Do you guys really think Brian and Roger these days play just for the money?
I don't. I think they do it to fill stadiums and such, otherwise they could have had dignity and use their own names.
> It's not fair to say Brian and Roger should stop playing because a collegue of them died, and one stops working.
No, I don't think they should stop. I only complain about the use of the name "Queen". Other than that, I think they've chosen good collaborators: Paul is outstanding, 5ive were great, Elton John is a bloody legend.
> It's not fair to say Brian and Roger should stop using the name for a 'company' they've started
Disagree here. But I agree to disagree as well.
> and been working hard for in the last 36 years
If they want to do it just for the sake of working they can do it under another name.
> And it's not fair to say that they can't work with people they want to work with, even if it's a boyband
Exactly, they can choose to work with whomever they want to.
> If coca cola makes a deal with pepsi, would you bother because you don't like to drink pepsi?
I don't like either.
> Should Philips have stopped being a company when founder Gerard Philips died 50 years ago?
If the deal was that, yes. Likewise, good old Freddie (and his bandmates) said that if anyone of the four left Queen, anyone of them, that'd be the end of the band. And Roger & Brian did respect that for some time, then they sadly gave up.
> Sebastian- from time to time you really worry me... Really do...
Don't worry, I'm all right. The world would be so dull if everybody had the same ideas :)
> The problem, is that by having lyrics and songs composed by others, with producers and arrangers and session musicians working with her, other than her voice (she sings well???), there is nothing in the product about Britney Spears as a person.
And? John Deacon doesn't compose, arrange (most likely) or sing anything in Queen (the album), and that doesn't make him a manufactured product. Or Elvis, or those tons of brilliant classical performers who haven't composed or arranged the material they're playing or singing (how many operas did Pavarotti write?).
> They're written for hit appeal with no specific artist targetted.
And surely Freddie wrote We Are The Champions to not be a hit...
> I've read quotes where superstars like Celine Dion and Faith Hill will listen to 200 song submissions from various songwriters before deciding on the cuts that make it to the album.
There you go: they do have quality control. Then what's the problem?
> How can that music, which is written for mass appeal sales, be anything but manufactured?
What I say is that "manufactured" shouldn't imo be a synonim of "bad" or "low quality". I don't give a damn whether Max Martin wrote or co-wrote 'I Want It That Way', 'It's My Life', 'Baby One More Time', 'That's The Way It Is', 'It's Gonna Be Me' or 'Since U Been Gone' for his love to music or for his love to dollars. In either case, the songs are tops and the melodies are positively startling.
> Britney Spears is virtually talentless, and will have a sex tape on the market within 2 years to flog her fading image. Guaranteed.
Really a shame.
> They do it cos they want the adulation, critical aclaim, glamour, but ultimately if they dont do it they wont have anything left to do.
Agreed. And they'll have more adulation and bigger crowds if they leave dignity behind and use the band's name instead of their own.
> Aarrgghhh! For the 50 millionth time, other than the BPP brigade of clowns, very few people are opposed to Brian and Roger playing.
I'm not opposed to them playing, I'm only opposed to the use of the band's name.
> Fried Chicken, BPP or myself can't define what Queen should
And I do, but that's all right :)
> Do you guys really think Brian and Roger these days play just for the money?
I don't. I think they do it to fill stadiums and such, otherwise they could have had dignity and use their own names.
> It's not fair to say Brian and Roger should stop playing because a collegue of them died, and one stops working.
No, I don't think they should stop. I only complain about the use of the name "Queen". Other than that, I think they've chosen good collaborators: Paul is outstanding, 5ive were great, Elton John is a bloody legend.
> It's not fair to say Brian and Roger should stop using the name for a 'company' they've started
Disagree here. But I agree to disagree as well.
> and been working hard for in the last 36 years
If they want to do it just for the sake of working they can do it under another name.
> And it's not fair to say that they can't work with people they want to work with, even if it's a boyband
Exactly, they can choose to work with whomever they want to.
> If coca cola makes a deal with pepsi, would you bother because you don't like to drink pepsi?
I don't like either.
> Should Philips have stopped being a company when founder Gerard Philips died 50 years ago?
If the deal was that, yes. Likewise, good old Freddie (and his bandmates) said that if anyone of the four left Queen, anyone of them, that'd be the end of the band. And Roger & Brian did respect that for some time, then they sadly gave up.
> Sebastian- from time to time you really worry me... Really do...
Don't worry, I'm all right. The world would be so dull if everybody had the same ideas :)
> The problem, is that by having lyrics and songs composed by others, with producers and arrangers and session musicians working with her, other than her voice (she sings well???), there is nothing in the product about Britney Spears as a person.
And? John Deacon doesn't compose, arrange (most likely) or sing anything in Queen (the album), and that doesn't make him a manufactured product. Or Elvis, or those tons of brilliant classical performers who haven't composed or arranged the material they're playing or singing (how many operas did Pavarotti write?).
> They're written for hit appeal with no specific artist targetted.
And surely Freddie wrote We Are The Champions to not be a hit...
> I've read quotes where superstars like Celine Dion and Faith Hill will listen to 200 song submissions from various songwriters before deciding on the cuts that make it to the album.
There you go: they do have quality control. Then what's the problem?
> How can that music, which is written for mass appeal sales, be anything but manufactured?
What I say is that "manufactured" shouldn't imo be a synonim of "bad" or "low quality". I don't give a damn whether Max Martin wrote or co-wrote 'I Want It That Way', 'It's My Life', 'Baby One More Time', 'That's The Way It Is', 'It's Gonna Be Me' or 'Since U Been Gone' for his love to music or for his love to dollars. In either case, the songs are tops and the melodies are positively startling.
> Britney Spears is virtually talentless, and will have a sex tape on the market within 2 years to flog her fading image. Guaranteed.
Really a shame.
> They do it cos they want the adulation, critical aclaim, glamour, but ultimately if they dont do it they wont have anything left to do.
Agreed. And they'll have more adulation and bigger crowds if they leave dignity behind and use the band's name instead of their own.
> Aarrgghhh! For the 50 millionth time, other than the BPP brigade of clowns, very few people are opposed to Brian and Roger playing.
I'm not opposed to them playing, I'm only opposed to the use of the band's name.
> Fried Chicken, BPP or myself can't define what Queen should
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]BHM 0271 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Elvis was a fantastic singer, Serry, who burst upon the scene and changed history.
Your argument that Freddie used Tim Rice as a lyricist is ridiculous because Freddie had written lyrics and music on a dozen Queen albums and a solo album by that point, including a few songs that seem to have stood the test of time very well. He wanted a different point of view, and for sake of an argument, I'd say that Freddie had the story for The Golden Boy and Fallen Priest mapped out because that album is incredibly autobiographical IMHO. [/QUOTE]
For modern generation Britney burst upon the scene, changed history and is fantastic singer, so what? It's a question of what we like - we're fans of rock band, that's why Elvis is closer to us than Britney. For fans of classic music - Elvis is no-one and changed nothing at all. They're going in parallel paths and we can't compare them.
About Tim: Freddie asked him to write lyrics, because of lack of time. But my point was - you can use proffessional lyrics writers even if you're a super star and can write lyrics by yourself. Nothing wrong. It says nothing about how much soul you put in the song, IMHO. And by the way - most successful Freddie's solo song wasn't written by Freddie too (The Great Pretender).
Your argument that Freddie used Tim Rice as a lyricist is ridiculous because Freddie had written lyrics and music on a dozen Queen albums and a solo album by that point, including a few songs that seem to have stood the test of time very well. He wanted a different point of view, and for sake of an argument, I'd say that Freddie had the story for The Golden Boy and Fallen Priest mapped out because that album is incredibly autobiographical IMHO. [/QUOTE]
For modern generation Britney burst upon the scene, changed history and is fantastic singer, so what? It's a question of what we like - we're fans of rock band, that's why Elvis is closer to us than Britney. For fans of classic music - Elvis is no-one and changed nothing at all. They're going in parallel paths and we can't compare them.
About Tim: Freddie asked him to write lyrics, because of lack of time. But my point was - you can use proffessional lyrics writers even if you're a super star and can write lyrics by yourself. Nothing wrong. It says nothing about how much soul you put in the song, IMHO. And by the way - most successful Freddie's solo song wasn't written by Freddie too (The Great Pretender).
Hi Sebastian, thoughtful post, and other than the Britney Spears disagreement, which I totally respect BTW, I'm truly on your side and just wanted to clear a few things up.
John Deacon DID compose and assist or outright arrange many Queen songs. I have a feeling that Another One Bites The Dust and You're My Best Friend will be performed and heard in the years down the road, can't say that Hit Me Baby or Poison will be. John Deacon created those songs with his talent as a writer and musician on multiple instruments, and sat down at the board to mix and produce them. Britney Spears could be any attractive young girl, and those songs could have been written by anyone for anyone. I can't see her having any control (maybe now) in her early art.
Yes, Freddie wrote We Are The Champions hoping it would be a hit. But HE wrote it for the band he was IN. He didn't have Dianne Warren or Max martin funneling songs to him because he got hot and was the flavour of the day. It's Freddie's song, and will be forever. Impossible to see anyone on earth sing it and make it theirs. I could see 15-20 female artists singing Hit Me Baby from the last 5 years. They're generally of decent voice (Hilary Duff style) and big image.
IMHO, songs are personal. I think Freddie Mercury was the greatest rock singer ever. However, Brian May delivers Too Much Love Will Kill You in a way Freddie can't because the song (yes, I know it's a co-write) is HIS story. I'm not a big fan of artists who cherry pick hook filled songs first. It may be quality control, but there's not a lot of heart (see Mariah Carey, fabulous pipes, zero emotional impact.)
When I said that Fried Chicken, BPP or myself can't define what Queen should be, I meant it for the people who tell people who believe in the excellent Freddie quote that you posted from Circus, that we have the right to believe who we believe Queen is and was.
Cheers.
John Deacon DID compose and assist or outright arrange many Queen songs. I have a feeling that Another One Bites The Dust and You're My Best Friend will be performed and heard in the years down the road, can't say that Hit Me Baby or Poison will be. John Deacon created those songs with his talent as a writer and musician on multiple instruments, and sat down at the board to mix and produce them. Britney Spears could be any attractive young girl, and those songs could have been written by anyone for anyone. I can't see her having any control (maybe now) in her early art.
Yes, Freddie wrote We Are The Champions hoping it would be a hit. But HE wrote it for the band he was IN. He didn't have Dianne Warren or Max martin funneling songs to him because he got hot and was the flavour of the day. It's Freddie's song, and will be forever. Impossible to see anyone on earth sing it and make it theirs. I could see 15-20 female artists singing Hit Me Baby from the last 5 years. They're generally of decent voice (Hilary Duff style) and big image.
IMHO, songs are personal. I think Freddie Mercury was the greatest rock singer ever. However, Brian May delivers Too Much Love Will Kill You in a way Freddie can't because the song (yes, I know it's a co-write) is HIS story. I'm not a big fan of artists who cherry pick hook filled songs first. It may be quality control, but there's not a lot of heart (see Mariah Carey, fabulous pipes, zero emotional impact.)
When I said that Fried Chicken, BPP or myself can't define what Queen should be, I meant it for the people who tell people who believe in the excellent Freddie quote that you posted from Circus, that we have the right to believe who we believe Queen is and was.
Cheers.
Great Pretender was his biggest hit, and compared to the original it's over the top and overblown, and infinitely inferior. Freddie had the heart to make it his own, I think if he did it in the 70s it would have been superior to the dated production and cheesy instrumentation. No reverence in his voice either.
"Freddie had the heart to make it his own"
Ditto. So it all depends not on who wrote it, but on how you sung it.
Ditto. So it all depends not on who wrote it, but on how you sung it.
True Serry, and I'm not saying that there can't be good cover versions. Rod Stewart makes a lot of old songs his own because of the emotional attachment. It's just that with hand picked songs, it's harder to have an attachment to them. Remember how Freddie's driver recently did a long piece on QOL, and Freddie complained about Brian forcing him to sing another sappy ballad? Brian's sappy ballad could have been about his impending divorce, while Freddie was enjoying life in Munich's gay bars blowing lines of coke off a strippers ass. Mentally he's not there, and it shows a lot when people do other folks songs. Look at american Idol, they've got kids doing Motown songs that were out before those kids were born. Hard to have a bond with a song that has no emotional resonance, no matter how good your voice is. about
> other than the Britney Spears disagreement
Blimey ... out of all the pop artists I could have chosen to make my point, I picked up the weakest one :) too late to switch but let's say Spice Girls instead, or NSYNC.
> John Deacon DID compose and assist or outright arrange many Queen songs.
Yes, of course, but I meant the Queen album (Keep Yourself Alive, Liar...). My point is that: even if John didn't compose in those albums, his contribution was important, even if it was "just" the bass. Likewise, Britney's, Robbie's or Christina's contribution to their records is important even if it's not as big as that of Max Martin or session arrangers.
> can't say that Hit Me Baby or Poison will be.
Perhaps they will, perhaps they won't. Look at Eternal Flame, for instance: back in 1989 many people perhaps would thought it was just a monthly hit, in the same vein as Baby One More Time or Toxic more recently. But it stuck and imo Eternal Flame is one of those songs we can consider a classic. So who knows... but yeah, I agree time is the greatest innovator, and time is the one who will demonstrate if those tracks will survive it or not.
> Britney Spears could be any attractive young girl, and those songs could have been written by anyone for anyone.
What I think is that the point tends to get oversimplified by many. Perhaps it IS a bit random that Baby One More Time ended up sung by Britney instead of NSYNC, but I don't think "anyone" would be able to compose that. Many people (I'm not saying you're one of them) are extremely biased and if they find a simple song by a respected band it's instantly a classic (like Creep or Basket Case), while a song equally valuable in both lyrics and simple harmony and minimalistic arrangements is put down (like What's Up or Incomplete).
> I can't see her having any control (maybe now) in her early art.
From the second album onwards she co-wrote some of the songs. Dear Diary is partly hers, for instance.
> He didn't have Dianne Warren or Max martin funneling songs to him
I don't mean to debate that point. Of course you're right, but what I mean is that the final result is what matters to me when it comes to enjoying it or not.
> because he got hot and was the flavour of the day
Again I think it's a little oversimplified. Of course I accept that a huge part of pop acts' success comes from their looks, I'm not that naive. But I don't think they can't sing whatsoever. It's the same as putting Beatles down as saying that all their success is owed to their haircuts, the mammoth marketing behind them and George Martin.
> that we have the right to believe who we believe Queen is and was
Agreed.
> Great Pretender was his biggest hit, and compared to the original it's over the top and overblown, and infinitely inferior.
I disagree. Living On My Own had got better chart results and imo a better longevity in some circles.
> Look at american Idol
That's the worst advice ever :)
Blimey ... out of all the pop artists I could have chosen to make my point, I picked up the weakest one :) too late to switch but let's say Spice Girls instead, or NSYNC.
> John Deacon DID compose and assist or outright arrange many Queen songs.
Yes, of course, but I meant the Queen album (Keep Yourself Alive, Liar...). My point is that: even if John didn't compose in those albums, his contribution was important, even if it was "just" the bass. Likewise, Britney's, Robbie's or Christina's contribution to their records is important even if it's not as big as that of Max Martin or session arrangers.
> can't say that Hit Me Baby or Poison will be.
Perhaps they will, perhaps they won't. Look at Eternal Flame, for instance: back in 1989 many people perhaps would thought it was just a monthly hit, in the same vein as Baby One More Time or Toxic more recently. But it stuck and imo Eternal Flame is one of those songs we can consider a classic. So who knows... but yeah, I agree time is the greatest innovator, and time is the one who will demonstrate if those tracks will survive it or not.
> Britney Spears could be any attractive young girl, and those songs could have been written by anyone for anyone.
What I think is that the point tends to get oversimplified by many. Perhaps it IS a bit random that Baby One More Time ended up sung by Britney instead of NSYNC, but I don't think "anyone" would be able to compose that. Many people (I'm not saying you're one of them) are extremely biased and if they find a simple song by a respected band it's instantly a classic (like Creep or Basket Case), while a song equally valuable in both lyrics and simple harmony and minimalistic arrangements is put down (like What's Up or Incomplete).
> I can't see her having any control (maybe now) in her early art.
From the second album onwards she co-wrote some of the songs. Dear Diary is partly hers, for instance.
> He didn't have Dianne Warren or Max martin funneling songs to him
I don't mean to debate that point. Of course you're right, but what I mean is that the final result is what matters to me when it comes to enjoying it or not.
> because he got hot and was the flavour of the day
Again I think it's a little oversimplified. Of course I accept that a huge part of pop acts' success comes from their looks, I'm not that naive. But I don't think they can't sing whatsoever. It's the same as putting Beatles down as saying that all their success is owed to their haircuts, the mammoth marketing behind them and George Martin.
> that we have the right to believe who we believe Queen is and was
Agreed.
> Great Pretender was his biggest hit, and compared to the original it's over the top and overblown, and infinitely inferior.
I disagree. Living On My Own had got better chart results and imo a better longevity in some circles.
> Look at american Idol
That's the worst advice ever :)
"compared to the original it's over the top and overblown"
That's what makes it so brilliant, so Freddie.
"and infinitely inferior."
Point blank wrong!
That's what makes it so brilliant, so Freddie.
"and infinitely inferior."
Point blank wrong!