Of course Brian is highly insecure. Isn't it evident that there is some ego-struggle between Brian and Freddie, even 15 years after Freddie's death? Brian May is a very very insecure, thin-skinned man. He's always been this way.
I think it is possible that Brian could have deeply loved Freddie, and miss him very much, AND also selfishly want to be portrayed as the best song-writer/musician of the band.
Human beings are complex creatures.
I agree with Scott Mercury. There definitely is something in the mind of Brian May that leads him to silently, subconsciously resent Freddie's dominant role?
Imagine you are Brian, and all your rock n roll career, you have been always overlooked by the general public compared to Freddie Mercury.
Freddie stole all the lime-light, and attention.
Even after his death, Freddie is now a real Rock N Roll "god".
I think Scott is correct.
Brian May, as nice as he is, is a thin skinned, insecure, and egotistical man.
But he's a great guitarist, great song-writer, and I really do love all members of the band equally.
And I do not say this to disrespect Brian May. But Brian is Brian. It does no good to paint Brian in a single color, when really, he was just human, with complex shades.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Erin wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Scott_Mercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Everyone says Queen is 4 equal members, but whether that band made it or not was not dependent upon John Deacon.
Roger Taylor?? I think not.
Brian? He's a good guitar player, but there is alot of good guitar players.
It took Freddie to make Queen...well, Queen.
[/QUOTE]
That's a bunch of shit.
It was the union of the 4 that made Queen...well, Queen.
Go listen to Mr. Bad Guy, dear.[/QUOTE]
Dear, lets let the English put dear at the end of their sentences, ok dear??
Or maybe Freddie, dear?
If you read one of my post... it said the 4 of them were one of the greatest bands together, when they did albums apart... they were average at best. Dear.
Dear = trying to be Freddie
Roger Taylor?? I think not.
Brian? He's a good guitar player, but there is alot of good guitar players.
It took Freddie to make Queen...well, Queen.
[/QUOTE]
That's a bunch of shit.
It was the union of the 4 that made Queen...well, Queen.
Go listen to Mr. Bad Guy, dear.[/QUOTE]
Dear, lets let the English put dear at the end of their sentences, ok dear??
Or maybe Freddie, dear?
If you read one of my post... it said the 4 of them were one of the greatest bands together, when they did albums apart... they were average at best. Dear.
Dear = trying to be Freddie
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Erin wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Scott_Mercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Everyone says Queen is 4 equal members, but whether that band made it or not was not dependent upon John Deacon.
Roger Taylor?? I think not.
Brian? He's a good guitar player, but there is alot of good guitar players.
It took Freddie to make Queen...well, Queen.
[/QUOTE]
That's a bunch of shit.
It was the union of the 4 that made Queen...well, Queen.
Go listen to Mr. Bad Guy, dear.[/QUOTE]
No it is not shit.
It is shit to think all 4 are equal in importance. This is not true.
Freddie Mercury was undeniably the biggest and most important part of Queen.
True, Freddie alone wasn't Queen, but he was more Queen than any other member alone.
I'd say the ratio breaks down as such:
Freddie: 55%
Brian: 35%
Roger: 5%
John: 5%
Roger Taylor?? I think not.
Brian? He's a good guitar player, but there is alot of good guitar players.
It took Freddie to make Queen...well, Queen.
[/QUOTE]
That's a bunch of shit.
It was the union of the 4 that made Queen...well, Queen.
Go listen to Mr. Bad Guy, dear.[/QUOTE]
No it is not shit.
It is shit to think all 4 are equal in importance. This is not true.
Freddie Mercury was undeniably the biggest and most important part of Queen.
True, Freddie alone wasn't Queen, but he was more Queen than any other member alone.
I'd say the ratio breaks down as such:
Freddie: 55%
Brian: 35%
Roger: 5%
John: 5%
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: [/QUOTENAME]True, Freddie alone wasn't Queen, but he was more Queen than any other member alone.
I'd say the ratio breaks down as such:
Freddie: 55%
Brian: 35%
Roger: 5%
John: 5%
[/QUOTE]
Now that is a bunch of shit. All 4 members are equally important. Queen are not Queen without any of them.
Brian and Roger are more than capable of making music that sounds like Queen. I am not talking about vocals, simply the music.
I'd say the ratio breaks down as such:
Freddie: 55%
Brian: 35%
Roger: 5%
John: 5%
[/QUOTE]
Now that is a bunch of shit. All 4 members are equally important. Queen are not Queen without any of them.
Brian and Roger are more than capable of making music that sounds like Queen. I am not talking about vocals, simply the music.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Scott_Mercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Dear, lets let the English put dear at the end of their sentences, ok dear??
Or maybe Freddie, dear?
If you read one of my post... it said the 4 of them were one of the greatest bands together, when they did albums apart... they were average at best. Dear.
Dear = trying to be Freddie[/QUOTE]
What exactly crawled up your ass?
Dear, lets let the English put dear at the end of their sentences, ok dear??
Or maybe Freddie, dear?
If you read one of my post... it said the 4 of them were one of the greatest bands together, when they did albums apart... they were average at best. Dear.
Dear = trying to be Freddie[/QUOTE]
What exactly crawled up your ass?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Scott_Mercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Dear = trying to be Freddie[/QUOTE]
Riiiiight..
How's this then? Go listen to Mr. Bad Child, sugah.
Didn't know Freddie had a patent on the word dear. I bet he made an absolute fortune off of that. Wonder if he did the same with darling..hmm..
Riiiiight..
How's this then? Go listen to Mr. Bad Child, sugah.
Didn't know Freddie had a patent on the word dear. I bet he made an absolute fortune off of that. Wonder if he did the same with darling..hmm..
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: [/QUOTENAME]True, Freddie alone wasn't Queen, but he was more Queen than any other member alone.
I'd say the ratio breaks down as such:
Freddie: 55%
Brian: 35%
Roger: 5%
John: 5%
[/QUOTE]
Now that is a bunch of shit. All 4 members are equally important. Queen are not Queen without any of them.
Brian and Roger are more than capable of making music that sounds like Queen. I am not talking about vocals, simply the music.[/QUOTE]
You don't get it, do you?
Brian and Roger may make music that sound like Queen, but without Freddie's vocals, who cares?
Brian and Roger can make all the songs they want. And they tried, as individuals.
And they failed.
Do you get it now? Do you see why Freddie is so important?
However, if Freddie were still alive, and another member died (sorry horrible thought but I am trying to make a point), say John Deacon, would Queen still be Queen?
Absolutely.
If Roger Taylor died, would Queen still be Queen?
Absolutely.
Because Freddie's vocals stil were there. And that is a huge part of Queen.
And Brian's guitar playing is still there.
The four band members MIGHT be loved equally by their fans (At least for me), BUT they were not equal components that make up Queen.
Queen was mostly Freddie, a good part Brian, and John and Roger filled the rest.
I'd say the ratio breaks down as such:
Freddie: 55%
Brian: 35%
Roger: 5%
John: 5%
[/QUOTE]
Now that is a bunch of shit. All 4 members are equally important. Queen are not Queen without any of them.
Brian and Roger are more than capable of making music that sounds like Queen. I am not talking about vocals, simply the music.[/QUOTE]
You don't get it, do you?
Brian and Roger may make music that sound like Queen, but without Freddie's vocals, who cares?
Brian and Roger can make all the songs they want. And they tried, as individuals.
And they failed.
Do you get it now? Do you see why Freddie is so important?
However, if Freddie were still alive, and another member died (sorry horrible thought but I am trying to make a point), say John Deacon, would Queen still be Queen?
Absolutely.
If Roger Taylor died, would Queen still be Queen?
Absolutely.
Because Freddie's vocals stil were there. And that is a huge part of Queen.
And Brian's guitar playing is still there.
The four band members MIGHT be loved equally by their fans (At least for me), BUT they were not equal components that make up Queen.
Queen was mostly Freddie, a good part Brian, and John and Roger filled the rest.
Actually he does. I just checked with the patent office in the UK and Freddie registered them in 1976.
You have to get written permission from Fred himself to use them.
You have to get written permission from Fred himself to use them.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
However, if Freddie were still alive, and another member died (sorry horrible thought but I am trying to make a point), say John Deacon, would Queen still be Queen?
Absolutely.
If Roger Taylor died, would Queen still be Queen?
Absolutely.
[/QUOTE]
No on both accounts and yes I do "get it"
Oh and Freddie just had so much success as a solo artist.....
However, if Freddie were still alive, and another member died (sorry horrible thought but I am trying to make a point), say John Deacon, would Queen still be Queen?
Absolutely.
If Roger Taylor died, would Queen still be Queen?
Absolutely.
[/QUOTE]
No on both accounts and yes I do "get it"
Oh and Freddie just had so much success as a solo artist.....
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Actually he does. I just checked with the patent office in the UK and Freddie registered them in 1976.
You have to get written permission from Fred himself to use them.[/QUOTE]
Well, dammit, how am I supposed to get that now?? :-S
You have to get written permission from Fred himself to use them.[/QUOTE]
Well, dammit, how am I supposed to get that now?? :-S
Pieter, if you think all four members of Queen were EQUAL in importance to Queen, then can you say the same thing about other bands?
The Beatles?
Guns N Roses?
Rolling Stones?
Then can we apply that logic to any group, an Organization? A corporation?
I think you'll see the flaw in your logic.
The Beatles?
Guns N Roses?
Rolling Stones?
Then can we apply that logic to any group, an Organization? A corporation?
I think you'll see the flaw in your logic.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
However, if Freddie were still alive, and another member died (sorry horrible thought but I am trying to make a point), say John Deacon, would Queen still be Queen?
Absolutely.
If Roger Taylor died, would Queen still be Queen?
Absolutely.
[/QUOTE]
No on both accounts and yes I do "get it"
Oh and Freddie just had so much success as a solo artist.....[/QUOTE]
And where do you get this idea from that four members MUST be equal?
Where do you get this from?
That is illogical.
However, if Freddie were still alive, and another member died (sorry horrible thought but I am trying to make a point), say John Deacon, would Queen still be Queen?
Absolutely.
If Roger Taylor died, would Queen still be Queen?
Absolutely.
[/QUOTE]
No on both accounts and yes I do "get it"
Oh and Freddie just had so much success as a solo artist.....[/QUOTE]
And where do you get this idea from that four members MUST be equal?
Where do you get this from?
That is illogical.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Pieter, if you think all four members of Queen were EQUAL in importance to Queen, then can you say the same thing about other bands?
The Beatles?
Guns N Roses?
Rolling Stones?
Then can we apply that logic to any group, an Organization? A corporation?
I think you'll see the flaw in your logic.
[/QUOTE]
I don't recall all members of any of the above groups having written hit singles. Do you? That's what makes Queen so different to most other bands.
I never said they MUST be equal. I said that it's not Queen without any of them.
The Beatles?
Guns N Roses?
Rolling Stones?
Then can we apply that logic to any group, an Organization? A corporation?
I think you'll see the flaw in your logic.
[/QUOTE]
I don't recall all members of any of the above groups having written hit singles. Do you? That's what makes Queen so different to most other bands.
I never said they MUST be equal. I said that it's not Queen without any of them.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Pieter, if you think all four members of Queen were EQUAL in importance to Queen, then can you say the same thing about other bands?
The Beatles?
Guns N Roses?
Rolling Stones?
Then can we apply that logic to any group, an Organization? A corporation?
I think you'll see the flaw in your logic.
[/QUOTE]
I don't recall all members of any of the above groups having written hit singles. Do you?
I never said they MUST be equal. I said that it's not Queen without any of them.[/QUOTE]
If you measure a member's importance to a band by the # of hit singles they wrote, then compare how many hit single's Freddie wrote, and how many the other members wrote. I disagree with your criteria by the way. A member's song-writing ability is not the only measure of worth. In Queen's case, all four were good song writers, but they all did not have the same # of hit songs.
So therefore, they cannot be equal using your criteria of hit singles as a measure of a member's worth.
In any case, you've been proven wrong by your own definition.
You just are wrong.
The Beatles?
Guns N Roses?
Rolling Stones?
Then can we apply that logic to any group, an Organization? A corporation?
I think you'll see the flaw in your logic.
[/QUOTE]
I don't recall all members of any of the above groups having written hit singles. Do you?
I never said they MUST be equal. I said that it's not Queen without any of them.[/QUOTE]
If you measure a member's importance to a band by the # of hit singles they wrote, then compare how many hit single's Freddie wrote, and how many the other members wrote. I disagree with your criteria by the way. A member's song-writing ability is not the only measure of worth. In Queen's case, all four were good song writers, but they all did not have the same # of hit songs.
So therefore, they cannot be equal using your criteria of hit singles as a measure of a member's worth.
In any case, you've been proven wrong by your own definition.
You just are wrong.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Erin wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Actually he does. I just checked with the patent office in the UK and Freddie registered them in 1976.
You have to get written permission from Fred himself to use them.[/QUOTE]
Well, dammit, how am I supposed to get that now?? :-S[/QUOTE]
Your screwed. Scott_Mercury will probably also be hearing from Freddies lawyers for using the name Mercury.
You have to get written permission from Fred himself to use them.[/QUOTE]
Well, dammit, how am I supposed to get that now?? :-S[/QUOTE]
Your screwed. Scott_Mercury will probably also be hearing from Freddies lawyers for using the name Mercury.