[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: [/QUOTENAME]You just are wrong.
[/QUOTE]
In your deluded opinion.
The singles comment was mearly to point out that your idea that Roger and John only contributed 5% toward being Queen is simply absurd.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
It's getting a bit off-topic now, but what the hey. It's a damned shame to see poor Rog and John being treated as if they're only worth such a small amount to Queen. 5% each?? If you added a different drummer and bassist, man... would it be different. John's eloquent bass playing and Roger's particular drumming style. It's hard to imagine there are Queen FANS that believe they were so little of Queen.
Peace,
Adam.
Peace,
Adam.
I remember reading an article about John in a bass magazine where they said that he is the most underrated bass player in rock. You can't just throw any old drummer and bass player in there and claim that its still Queen.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It's getting a bit off-topic now, but what the hey. It's a damned shame to see poor Rog and John being treated as if they're only worth such a small amount to Queen. 5% each?? If you added a different drummer and bassist, man... would it be different. John's eloquent bass playing and Roger's particular drumming style. It's hard to imagine there are Queen FANS that believe they were so little of Queen.
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely, darlin'! I can say "darlin'" without patent infringment, can't I??
JOHN AND ROGER ROCK!! :-)
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely, darlin'! I can say "darlin'" without patent infringment, can't I??
JOHN AND ROGER ROCK!! :-)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Erin wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I can say "darlin'" without patent infringment, can't I??[/QUOTE]
Yes but be careful. You cannot saying "darling".
Yes but be careful. You cannot saying "darling".
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Erin wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I can say "darlin'" without patent infringment, can't I??[/QUOTE]
Yes but be careful. You cannot saying "darling".[/QUOTE]
See..I made it Southern by removing the "g". Loophole. ;-D
Yes but be careful. You cannot saying "darling".[/QUOTE]
See..I made it Southern by removing the "g". Loophole. ;-D
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It's getting a bit off-topic now, but what the hey. It's a damned shame to see poor Rog and John being treated as if they're only worth such a small amount to Queen. 5% each?? If you added a different drummer and bassist, man... would it be different. John's eloquent bass playing and Roger's particular drumming style. It's hard to imagine there are Queen FANS that believe they were so little of Queen.
Peace,
Adam.[/QUOTE]
And don't forget their songwriting and Roger's many excellent vocal contributions.
This whole thread appears to stem from a disgrunted member of the Cult of Fred. I think the obvious interpretation of the "give me anything to sing" quote is that Freddie wanted to make the most of his remaining time by giving the band the most material to work with, regardless of which one of them wrote it. That in no way suggests that Freddie wasn't writing and singing his own material as well, and I think to interpret that to mean that Brian is implying Freddie was a "deaf, dumb, and blind boy" who was incapable of writing new material is a total leap in logic and entirely in the mind of the person suggesting that interpretation. I have seen and read that quote for years and I have never once assumed it meant that Freddie was incapable of writing his own material in addition to what anyone else had to contribute.
This entire thread is someone who likes Freddie more than Brian trying to find something to get mad about. That's it in a nutshell. There is and always will be two big camps among Queen fans - people, on the one hand, who see Queen as a creatively equal 4 way democratic partnership (which is how all four of the band members described it), and, on the other hand, people who see Queen as "Freddie Mercury plus three other guys" - meaning everything Freddie Mercury put his hands to was genius and everything else was either crap or Freddie really did it and gave someone else credit for it. That's at the core of what they believe, whether they'll admit it or not, and this is an argument that will continue to be had, couched in different terms, until doomsday.
But anyone who suggests that Freddie Mercury isn't getting enough credit for Queen's success or somehow has gotten shafted for the band's success after his death, is smoking crack. Its that simple. If anything, he's gotten more credit and more accolades since his death than he ever got while he was alive. And suggesting that any of the three men who worked most closely with him for the better part of 20 years are trying to take credit away from him is pretty sad. Freddie's reputation is more than well established. Its a shame that some of his fans feel compelled to heap even more credit upon his memory, often at the expense of other people's contributions. Freddie certainly didn't do that.
Peace,
Adam.[/QUOTE]
And don't forget their songwriting and Roger's many excellent vocal contributions.
This whole thread appears to stem from a disgrunted member of the Cult of Fred. I think the obvious interpretation of the "give me anything to sing" quote is that Freddie wanted to make the most of his remaining time by giving the band the most material to work with, regardless of which one of them wrote it. That in no way suggests that Freddie wasn't writing and singing his own material as well, and I think to interpret that to mean that Brian is implying Freddie was a "deaf, dumb, and blind boy" who was incapable of writing new material is a total leap in logic and entirely in the mind of the person suggesting that interpretation. I have seen and read that quote for years and I have never once assumed it meant that Freddie was incapable of writing his own material in addition to what anyone else had to contribute.
This entire thread is someone who likes Freddie more than Brian trying to find something to get mad about. That's it in a nutshell. There is and always will be two big camps among Queen fans - people, on the one hand, who see Queen as a creatively equal 4 way democratic partnership (which is how all four of the band members described it), and, on the other hand, people who see Queen as "Freddie Mercury plus three other guys" - meaning everything Freddie Mercury put his hands to was genius and everything else was either crap or Freddie really did it and gave someone else credit for it. That's at the core of what they believe, whether they'll admit it or not, and this is an argument that will continue to be had, couched in different terms, until doomsday.
But anyone who suggests that Freddie Mercury isn't getting enough credit for Queen's success or somehow has gotten shafted for the band's success after his death, is smoking crack. Its that simple. If anything, he's gotten more credit and more accolades since his death than he ever got while he was alive. And suggesting that any of the three men who worked most closely with him for the better part of 20 years are trying to take credit away from him is pretty sad. Freddie's reputation is more than well established. Its a shame that some of his fans feel compelled to heap even more credit upon his memory, often at the expense of other people's contributions. Freddie certainly didn't do that.
Interesting debate - has anyone else ever thought it strange that at the FM Tribute Concert 92, which was introduced by Brian as "A tribute to the life and works of Freddie Mercury" only featured 4 songs written exclusively by Freddie, the first of which didn't appear until the 7th or 8th song, by which time they had played snippets from Pinball Wizard and Thank You. Just a thought.
How can John be less relevant that Freddie when he was the only one in the group that had a #1 record in 20 countries?
http://www.queenzone.com/multimedia/pictures/images/Album_or_Single_Covers/161220035585.jpg
http://www.queenzone.com/multimedia/pictures/images/Album_or_Single_Covers/161220035585.jpg
Why does it matter if they only had 4 of Freddie's songs? It's a TRIBUTE concert. If they had used songs only written by Freddie it would have been like giving a eulogy that was written by the deceased.
> Brian and Roger are more than capable of making music that sounds like Queen.
Yes, but so was Freddie. Mr Bad Guy sounded un-Queen because Fred wanted it. Same with Roger's Electric Fire or Fun In Space.
> True, Freddie alone wasn't Queen, but he was more Queen than any other member alone.
Indeed. Not only he was the singer and chief songwriter, but he was the main arranger (he was responsible for Roger's Ga Ga and Magic to be as they are) and he played the most important instrument of many of their masterpieces (Bo Rhap, Champions, Killer Queen...).
> However, if Freddie were still alive, and another member died would Queen still be Queen?
No. And it'd be (imo) utterly unethical for, say, Freddie and Brian, to tour with another drummer and another bassist and claim they're Queen. Or Brian and John, or Roger and John, or Freddie and Roger, or Freddie and John, or, of course, Brian and Roger.
> Queen was mostly Freddie, a good part Brian, and John and Roger filled the rest.
I totally disagree. Even if John's bass, Roger's drums and Fred's piano weren't at the foreground as Brian's guitar, they were just as important.
> Oh and Freddie just had so much success as a solo artist.....
For some extent he did: one solo #1 is much more than what Brian and Roger did.
> The Beatles?
I think the Beatles were the same as Queen in that matter: while it's obviously impossible that they all four were equally important (even if they were four clones they wouldn't be), I think they all four were irreplaceable. Beatles without Ringo: not The Beatles. Queen without Deacon: not Queen. And so on...
> Guns N Roses?
That one always worked as a football team, changing line-ups. Even if Izzy was such a wonderful songwriter, I can picture the band without him, especially because Gilby played all of his parts exactly the same.
> A member's song-writing ability is not the only measure of worth.
True. Let's see who dominated each field:
- Songwriting: Freddie
- Arrangements: Freddie
- Production: Freddie (check Roy's comments)
- Instruments: All four
- Lead Vocals: Freddie
- Backing Vocals: Freddie
- Creative Art (such as the name of the band or the logo): Freddie
> So therefore, they cannot be equal using your criteria of hit singles as a measure of a member's worth.
It's not the only criteria, but one of them, yes. Queen were a superband because of Bo Rhap; Bo Rhap wouldn't have attracted so much attention if they weren't already internationally famous (even if they weren't superstars). And they were already successful because of Killer Queen. And KQ wouldn't have been a hit if they weren't already at least quite famous locally. And they were so because of Seven Seas. Now: who wrote those songs? who played the main instrument of those songs? who sang those songs? who was alongside Roy Baker and Mike Stone mixing those songs? who arranged those songs? who sang most of the backing vocals?
> It's a damned shame to see poor Rog and John being treated as if they're only worth such a small amount to Queen. 5% each??
I agree. It's a ridiculous amount, they were much more important.
> JOHN AND ROGER ROCK!! :-)
My credo is: behind a great guitar sound, check out the drummer! Indeed, Brian himself has said that he always concentrated on Roger's snare as his rhythmic yardstick, and it meant everything. Without Roger, Brian wouldn't have sounded as he did. Same for John, or Freddie's piano (where there was).
> And don't forget their songwriting and Roger's many excellent vocal contributions.
And John's acoustic guitar playing, very nicely done and fairly underrated.
> I think to interpret that to mean that Brian is implying Freddie was a "deaf, dumb, and blind boy" who was incapable of writing new material
Brian didn't imply that, but the way he referred to Freddie and "write me anything" made many people think that. Perh
Yes, but so was Freddie. Mr Bad Guy sounded un-Queen because Fred wanted it. Same with Roger's Electric Fire or Fun In Space.
> True, Freddie alone wasn't Queen, but he was more Queen than any other member alone.
Indeed. Not only he was the singer and chief songwriter, but he was the main arranger (he was responsible for Roger's Ga Ga and Magic to be as they are) and he played the most important instrument of many of their masterpieces (Bo Rhap, Champions, Killer Queen...).
> However, if Freddie were still alive, and another member died would Queen still be Queen?
No. And it'd be (imo) utterly unethical for, say, Freddie and Brian, to tour with another drummer and another bassist and claim they're Queen. Or Brian and John, or Roger and John, or Freddie and Roger, or Freddie and John, or, of course, Brian and Roger.
> Queen was mostly Freddie, a good part Brian, and John and Roger filled the rest.
I totally disagree. Even if John's bass, Roger's drums and Fred's piano weren't at the foreground as Brian's guitar, they were just as important.
> Oh and Freddie just had so much success as a solo artist.....
For some extent he did: one solo #1 is much more than what Brian and Roger did.
> The Beatles?
I think the Beatles were the same as Queen in that matter: while it's obviously impossible that they all four were equally important (even if they were four clones they wouldn't be), I think they all four were irreplaceable. Beatles without Ringo: not The Beatles. Queen without Deacon: not Queen. And so on...
> Guns N Roses?
That one always worked as a football team, changing line-ups. Even if Izzy was such a wonderful songwriter, I can picture the band without him, especially because Gilby played all of his parts exactly the same.
> A member's song-writing ability is not the only measure of worth.
True. Let's see who dominated each field:
- Songwriting: Freddie
- Arrangements: Freddie
- Production: Freddie (check Roy's comments)
- Instruments: All four
- Lead Vocals: Freddie
- Backing Vocals: Freddie
- Creative Art (such as the name of the band or the logo): Freddie
> So therefore, they cannot be equal using your criteria of hit singles as a measure of a member's worth.
It's not the only criteria, but one of them, yes. Queen were a superband because of Bo Rhap; Bo Rhap wouldn't have attracted so much attention if they weren't already internationally famous (even if they weren't superstars). And they were already successful because of Killer Queen. And KQ wouldn't have been a hit if they weren't already at least quite famous locally. And they were so because of Seven Seas. Now: who wrote those songs? who played the main instrument of those songs? who sang those songs? who was alongside Roy Baker and Mike Stone mixing those songs? who arranged those songs? who sang most of the backing vocals?
> It's a damned shame to see poor Rog and John being treated as if they're only worth such a small amount to Queen. 5% each??
I agree. It's a ridiculous amount, they were much more important.
> JOHN AND ROGER ROCK!! :-)
My credo is: behind a great guitar sound, check out the drummer! Indeed, Brian himself has said that he always concentrated on Roger's snare as his rhythmic yardstick, and it meant everything. Without Roger, Brian wouldn't have sounded as he did. Same for John, or Freddie's piano (where there was).
> And don't forget their songwriting and Roger's many excellent vocal contributions.
And John's acoustic guitar playing, very nicely done and fairly underrated.
> I think to interpret that to mean that Brian is implying Freddie was a "deaf, dumb, and blind boy" who was incapable of writing new material
Brian didn't imply that, but the way he referred to Freddie and "write me anything" made many people think that. Perh
Now I'm pissed. Brian must die.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Erin wrote: [/QUOTENAME]How can John be less relevant that Freddie when he was the only one in the group that had a #1 record in 20 countries?
http://www.queenzone.com/multimedia/pictures/images/Album_or_Single_Covers/161220035585.jpg [/QUOTE]
Go John! lol
http://www.queenzone.com/multimedia/pictures/images/Album_or_Single_Covers/161220035585.jpg [/QUOTE]
Go John! lol
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Scott_Mercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]When Fred first died, Brian and Roger spoke as though it was their band that they allowed Freddie to be the singer in, and talked as though all the songs were theirs...[/QUOTE]
Man, you're just reaching... and I really don't know why. This is pure speculation on your part. Brian obviously knows he's not a household name, but I don't think he resents Freddie for that.
[QUOTE]Brian? He's a good guitar player, but there is alot of good guitar players.[/QUOTE]
This is just pure crap. Brian is a huge element of Queen's sound. Do you think any other guitar player could have created All Dead All Dead, '39, and even Good Company? Give me a break. Those songs and many others are sheer genius on the part of Brian.
This is an interesting discussion (well, it was for the first couple pages) with some good points brought up. But when it comes down to it, Freddie, while being the strongest creative force in the band, would not have created the Queen sound all on his own. The others, especially Brian, were key in creating that sound.
Many brilliant musicians aren't household names. Look at Chet Atkins and his accomplishments: He was incredibly key in creating the Nashville sound as it is today, and he was referred to as "Mr Guitar". He is the most recorded solo instrumentalist in the history of music! I didn't know his name until a few months ago, and I've been a musician all my life. Ever since I've gotten into Chet, I've asked many people what they think of him, and nobody could tell me one detail about him. Only a couple had heard his name before. Most people only know of what's exposed to them in the mainstream. And to go slightly off topic, considering today's mainstream, that's a scary thought.
Man, you're just reaching... and I really don't know why. This is pure speculation on your part. Brian obviously knows he's not a household name, but I don't think he resents Freddie for that.
[QUOTE]Brian? He's a good guitar player, but there is alot of good guitar players.[/QUOTE]
This is just pure crap. Brian is a huge element of Queen's sound. Do you think any other guitar player could have created All Dead All Dead, '39, and even Good Company? Give me a break. Those songs and many others are sheer genius on the part of Brian.
This is an interesting discussion (well, it was for the first couple pages) with some good points brought up. But when it comes down to it, Freddie, while being the strongest creative force in the band, would not have created the Queen sound all on his own. The others, especially Brian, were key in creating that sound.
Many brilliant musicians aren't household names. Look at Chet Atkins and his accomplishments: He was incredibly key in creating the Nashville sound as it is today, and he was referred to as "Mr Guitar". He is the most recorded solo instrumentalist in the history of music! I didn't know his name until a few months ago, and I've been a musician all my life. Ever since I've gotten into Chet, I've asked many people what they think of him, and nobody could tell me one detail about him. Only a couple had heard his name before. Most people only know of what's exposed to them in the mainstream. And to go slightly off topic, considering today's mainstream, that's a scary thought.
> Those songs and many others are sheer genius on the part of Brian.
Yes, and that proves my point (Brianwas/is first a musician, second an arranger, third a composer, fourth a guitarist). Many bands probably have better guitar players than Brian, but how many have a guitarist who's, as an integral artist, as meticulous, professional and versatile as him? Probably some, but how many of those have got, on top of that, a singer/pianist with such creative genius, a bass-player with such beautiful compositions and a drummer able to compose such gems?
Yes, and that proves my point (Brianwas/is first a musician, second an arranger, third a composer, fourth a guitarist). Many bands probably have better guitar players than Brian, but how many have a guitarist who's, as an integral artist, as meticulous, professional and versatile as him? Probably some, but how many of those have got, on top of that, a singer/pianist with such creative genius, a bass-player with such beautiful compositions and a drummer able to compose such gems?