The key to Queen's greatness as a band involves the fact that Freddie Mercury was perhaps the only hard rock star who ever really had a sense of rhythm. Most hard rock and heavy metal music, if you listen to it, drones on and on, and there is no beat to it. If Freddie Mercury had not been in a member of the band, I am pretty sure that the other three would not have been an exception to this rule.
On the other hand, as can be seen in footage from the making of “One Vision,” Freddie always tried to get Brian and Roger to make use syncopation. Listen to any live version of “Another One Bites the Dust,” and you will see Mercury improvising various rhythmic sequences in a spontaneous manner that someone like Robert Plant or Roger Daltry could never grasp. Queen music, unlike The Who and Led Zeppelin music, has a rhythmic characteristic more similar to “black” music. Maybe Freddie Mercury learned this from living in Africa.
I want to hear some intelligent responses to this post. In other words, do not try to dismiss this argument in two or three sentences. If you do not agree with me, then explain your opinion in a detailed way.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
In my opinion Freddie Mercury did not live long enough in Africa. Can't be a reason for that.
And what you call black influences started with the use of synthesizers and Mack as producer. Before Freddie Mercury was more into classical arrangements.
And I think that John Deacon was also a bigger influence than most people think.
And what you call black influences started with the use of synthesizers and Mack as producer. Before Freddie Mercury was more into classical arrangements.
And I think that John Deacon was also a bigger influence than most people think.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Freddie's #1 Fan Forever wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I want to hear some intelligent responses to this post. In other words, do not try to dismiss this argument in two or three sentences. If you do not agree with me, then explain your opinion in a detailed way. [/QUOTE]
You wrote this little disclaimer as if the preceding words had some intellectual merit. They were nothing more than closed-minded pro-Freddie drivel. Your post boasts that no rock musician other than Freddie or band other than Queen had a sense of rhythm, that Brian/Roger/John would have had no sense of beat without Freddie, that no other rock singer (even including Plant and Daltrey) could improvise well (as if your idea of improvisation is a required element of being a great singer), and that Led Zeppelin and The Who are somehow lacking because they didn't explore "black" music. To use the word "ignorance" to describe your post would be such a vast understatement.
You are clearly set in your ways (look at your alias, for crying out loud!), and appear to have no interest in expanding your horizons to understand the brilliance of singers other than Freddie. All you seem to want to do in this topic is argue with people to somehow validate your narrow-minded musical tastes. Of course tastes vary, but from what you've put forth, you really don't seem to have much taste at all. You just like one singer. All I can hope is that maybe you will learn to open-mindedly listen to other rock bands and come to appreciate them and their contributions to rock music. I think Freddie would be horrified to know that there are people who discredit all other rock musicians on his behalf.
You wrote this little disclaimer as if the preceding words had some intellectual merit. They were nothing more than closed-minded pro-Freddie drivel. Your post boasts that no rock musician other than Freddie or band other than Queen had a sense of rhythm, that Brian/Roger/John would have had no sense of beat without Freddie, that no other rock singer (even including Plant and Daltrey) could improvise well (as if your idea of improvisation is a required element of being a great singer), and that Led Zeppelin and The Who are somehow lacking because they didn't explore "black" music. To use the word "ignorance" to describe your post would be such a vast understatement.
You are clearly set in your ways (look at your alias, for crying out loud!), and appear to have no interest in expanding your horizons to understand the brilliance of singers other than Freddie. All you seem to want to do in this topic is argue with people to somehow validate your narrow-minded musical tastes. Of course tastes vary, but from what you've put forth, you really don't seem to have much taste at all. You just like one singer. All I can hope is that maybe you will learn to open-mindedly listen to other rock bands and come to appreciate them and their contributions to rock music. I think Freddie would be horrified to know that there are people who discredit all other rock musicians on his behalf.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]All I can hope is that maybe you will learn to open-mindedly listen to other rock bands and come to appreciate them and their contributions to rock music.[/QUOTE][/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]
This statement is quite to the point. I find that listening to a wider range of rock music, not only opens you're ears to a variety of musical tastes and types (as stated in the above quote), but also I have found that you can appreciate Queen and Freddie, infact the whole band. For example, I, like everyone else on this site, is a mad Queen fan. All I use to listen to was my Queen records. Every waking momement was Queen, Queen, and more Queen. I loved it and I love it even more now. But I recentley decided I would break a personall Taboo, and listen to something that had nothing to do with Freddie (as far as vocals or song writing goes). I rented out U2's "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb" which I thought was really good, and I can see how that U2 probably represent what Queen would be today if Freddie was still alive. I also rented out ACDC (a desicion that I was wary of, as I had barley heared a second of their material before.) The first time I listend to ACDC, I turned it of after three minutes. But eventually it grew on me. I then rented music from many other bands (Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Led Zepplin, and Meat Loaf). I thought these bands were fantastic. Then I listened to A Night At The Opera. And again it sounded fresh and that feeling of wanting to fly that Queen albulms can give you sometimes was really strong. I became an even bigger fan because of it.
It is a good idea to listen to varried music, and when you have listened to other albulms, you will then really see how good Queen is compared to them. And by listening to other music doesn't mean you're betraying Freddie in some way, or the band. ;)
B.R
This statement is quite to the point. I find that listening to a wider range of rock music, not only opens you're ears to a variety of musical tastes and types (as stated in the above quote), but also I have found that you can appreciate Queen and Freddie, infact the whole band. For example, I, like everyone else on this site, is a mad Queen fan. All I use to listen to was my Queen records. Every waking momement was Queen, Queen, and more Queen. I loved it and I love it even more now. But I recentley decided I would break a personall Taboo, and listen to something that had nothing to do with Freddie (as far as vocals or song writing goes). I rented out U2's "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb" which I thought was really good, and I can see how that U2 probably represent what Queen would be today if Freddie was still alive. I also rented out ACDC (a desicion that I was wary of, as I had barley heared a second of their material before.) The first time I listend to ACDC, I turned it of after three minutes. But eventually it grew on me. I then rented music from many other bands (Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Led Zepplin, and Meat Loaf). I thought these bands were fantastic. Then I listened to A Night At The Opera. And again it sounded fresh and that feeling of wanting to fly that Queen albulms can give you sometimes was really strong. I became an even bigger fan because of it.
It is a good idea to listen to varried music, and when you have listened to other albulms, you will then really see how good Queen is compared to them. And by listening to other music doesn't mean you're betraying Freddie in some way, or the band. ;)
B.R
Sorry about messing up the quote system, it's a first for me.
B.R
B.R
I can't go into detail. Sorry. It is not my personality. All I can say is that the key to the greatness of Queen was the collaboration between 4 extremely talented individuals. The miraculous combination of talent is what did it. It was similar to a chemical reaction.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Freddie's #1 Fan Forever wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I want to hear some intelligent responses to this post. In other words, do not try to dismiss this argument in two or three sentences. If you do not agree with me, then explain your opinion in a detailed way. [/QUOTE]
You wrote this little disclaimer as if the preceding words had some intellectual merit. They were nothing more than closed-minded pro-Freddie drivel. Your post boasts that no rock musician other than Freddie or band other than Queen had a sense of rhythm, that Brian/Roger/John would have had no sense of beat without Freddie, that no other rock singer (even including Plant and Daltrey) could improvise well (as if your idea of improvisation is a required element of being a great singer), and that Led Zeppelin and The Who are somehow lacking because they didn't explore "black" music. To use the word "ignorance" to describe your post would be such a vast understatement.
You are clearly set in your ways (look at your alias, for crying out loud!), and appear to have no interest in expanding your horizons to understand the brilliance of singers other than Freddie. All you seem to want to do in this topic is argue with people to somehow validate your narrow-minded musical tastes. Of course tastes vary, but from what you've put forth, you really don't seem to have much taste at all. You just like one singer. All I can hope is that maybe you will learn to open-mindedly listen to other rock bands and come to appreciate them and their contributions to rock music. I think Freddie would be horrified to know that there are people who discredit all other rock musicians on his behalf.
[/QUOTE]
Amen.
You wrote this little disclaimer as if the preceding words had some intellectual merit. They were nothing more than closed-minded pro-Freddie drivel. Your post boasts that no rock musician other than Freddie or band other than Queen had a sense of rhythm, that Brian/Roger/John would have had no sense of beat without Freddie, that no other rock singer (even including Plant and Daltrey) could improvise well (as if your idea of improvisation is a required element of being a great singer), and that Led Zeppelin and The Who are somehow lacking because they didn't explore "black" music. To use the word "ignorance" to describe your post would be such a vast understatement.
You are clearly set in your ways (look at your alias, for crying out loud!), and appear to have no interest in expanding your horizons to understand the brilliance of singers other than Freddie. All you seem to want to do in this topic is argue with people to somehow validate your narrow-minded musical tastes. Of course tastes vary, but from what you've put forth, you really don't seem to have much taste at all. You just like one singer. All I can hope is that maybe you will learn to open-mindedly listen to other rock bands and come to appreciate them and their contributions to rock music. I think Freddie would be horrified to know that there are people who discredit all other rock musicians on his behalf.
[/QUOTE]
Amen.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Donna13 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I can't go into detail. Sorry. It is not my personality. All I can say is that the key to the greatness of Queen was the collaboration between 4 extremely talented individuals. The miraculous combination of talent is what did it. It was similar to a chemical reaction.[/QUOTE]
Short and sweet, and I agree!
Short and sweet, and I agree!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Freddie's #1 Fan Forever wrote: [/QUOTENAME]A lot of crap. [/QUOTE]
You say we're not allowed to dismiss your argument in one or two sentences?
I'm afraid that's all one would need. For you to tell us that either The Who or Led Zeppelin are rhythmically deficient is *insane*; it shows you've probably listened to "Rock and Roll" and "My Generation", and thats it.
You say we're not allowed to dismiss your argument in one or two sentences?
I'm afraid that's all one would need. For you to tell us that either The Who or Led Zeppelin are rhythmically deficient is *insane*; it shows you've probably listened to "Rock and Roll" and "My Generation", and thats it.
As much as his directing during 'One Vision' showed (part of) his craftsmanship, it's not Pandora's box either ... it doesn't mean he was the only person in the world who used syncopations.
On one hand, I am glad that this exciting topic has generated some interest. On the other hand, I am a little disappointed by the responses here. The only good response came from Sir G, but even he did not really address my points. To simply call someone else’s point of view “drivel” is not a very good response. What I was hoping for was a detailed explanation of why you disagree with my argument, rather than personal attacks. For instance, do you really believe that hard rock in general is characterized by complex rhythmic elements? And would you not have to agree that rhythm is a very important aspect of music in general?
The fundamental problem that I see in some of the above posts, I think, involves a refusal to acknowledge "black" music. I mean, someone above was saying that they were being open-minded by listening to The Who or Led Zeppelin. But what about black forms of music, like hip hop, disco and even Doo Wop? How many of you will be open-minded enough to appreciate the origins of rock music? (Honestly, I feel like people in general refuse to credit black Americans with the invention of rock music back in the 1950s.)
I am not arguing here that The Who and Led Zeppelin suck. On the contrary, they may have some strong guitar parts or melodies here and there. On the other hand, their rhythm tends to drone on in a way that is less musically complex from what you find in black styles of music. Listen to African drum music or early jazz, for instance, and you will see what I am talking about.
Again, I feel like a lot of British musicians do not really understand syncopation. I am not saying that they do not write great melodies. I am only saying that their sense of rhythm is somewhat inferior compared with what you find in more black genres.
Like I said, Freddie Mercury understood rhythm in a way that other hard rock stars do not. I mean, when "Another One Bites the Dust" came out, many black American listeners (who are unfamiliar with heavy metal) believed this to be a black group! Now let me ask you, would anyone mistake Led Zeppelin or the Who for anything else but white? No Way!
Now, you might try to argue that John Deacon is credited with "Another Bites the Dust." On the other hand, it is also well documented that he often received huge amounts of help from Freddie. As the singer, Freddie basically set the rhythm for the group. Just watching live versions of “Another One Bites the Dust,” you can see how brilliant and original Freddie was with melody. While Deacon is back there playing his famous riff over and over again, Freddie is improvising brilliant sequences off the top of his head. Another great example is “Under Pressure.” I mean the level of syncopation that you find on Freddie’s tracks is on the level what you might expect from a black musician. The video showing the making of “One Vision” further illustrates Freddie’s extraordinary sense of rhythm.
Without Freddie Mercury the rest of the band would have focused on "white blues." It is time that people start to credit Queen as the first hard rock band to really use black rhythmic elements.
The fundamental problem that I see in some of the above posts, I think, involves a refusal to acknowledge "black" music. I mean, someone above was saying that they were being open-minded by listening to The Who or Led Zeppelin. But what about black forms of music, like hip hop, disco and even Doo Wop? How many of you will be open-minded enough to appreciate the origins of rock music? (Honestly, I feel like people in general refuse to credit black Americans with the invention of rock music back in the 1950s.)
I am not arguing here that The Who and Led Zeppelin suck. On the contrary, they may have some strong guitar parts or melodies here and there. On the other hand, their rhythm tends to drone on in a way that is less musically complex from what you find in black styles of music. Listen to African drum music or early jazz, for instance, and you will see what I am talking about.
Again, I feel like a lot of British musicians do not really understand syncopation. I am not saying that they do not write great melodies. I am only saying that their sense of rhythm is somewhat inferior compared with what you find in more black genres.
Like I said, Freddie Mercury understood rhythm in a way that other hard rock stars do not. I mean, when "Another One Bites the Dust" came out, many black American listeners (who are unfamiliar with heavy metal) believed this to be a black group! Now let me ask you, would anyone mistake Led Zeppelin or the Who for anything else but white? No Way!
Now, you might try to argue that John Deacon is credited with "Another Bites the Dust." On the other hand, it is also well documented that he often received huge amounts of help from Freddie. As the singer, Freddie basically set the rhythm for the group. Just watching live versions of “Another One Bites the Dust,” you can see how brilliant and original Freddie was with melody. While Deacon is back there playing his famous riff over and over again, Freddie is improvising brilliant sequences off the top of his head. Another great example is “Under Pressure.” I mean the level of syncopation that you find on Freddie’s tracks is on the level what you might expect from a black musician. The video showing the making of “One Vision” further illustrates Freddie’s extraordinary sense of rhythm.
Without Freddie Mercury the rest of the band would have focused on "white blues." It is time that people start to credit Queen as the first hard rock band to really use black rhythmic elements.
So, your whole argument about the Key to Queen's Greatness is that they used black rhythms? You've got a valid point here, but it's dangerous to say that the key to anything is one thing and one thing only.
One thing that made Queen unique as a group is their variety. Variety is the key here, and variety can cover a lot of different things. Queen music had something for everybody. Freddie was an amazing vocalist who loved to shake things up when he could, which I understand made for some great live shows. Brian on the guitar was great both melodically and in chord structure (have you ever actually listened to his solo stuff?). Roger and John were both innovative in their own ways, laying down the framework and structure that the songs were built on, and never afraid to do things that weren't in their "genre". No two Queen albums sound the same, and even within one album you'll have so much song variety that you never ever get bored. Listening to ANATO is a true treat, because you never know where the music is going. That's what made Queen so great, they were all great musicians, and put them together and they formed an unstopable team. They never became static and let their music get typical or boring. Obviously Bo Rhap is an example of their variety, but I personaly prefer '39, which is heavy folk sounding, as compared to something like Seven Seas of Rhye or Tie Your Mother Down which were straight up, pulse pounding rock.
Yes, rhythm is vital to music, but it's not everything. The very fact that Freddie, Brian, Roger and John could improvise (though granted some were better than others) show their caliber as musicians. Put an album together with varied rhythm on all of the songs, and it can still be very boring. There is more to music than rhythm, like melody and harmony, tempo and tempo changes, and of course, the words. I'm not trying to discredit what you are saying about rhythm here...I'm just trying to say that there is so much more to Queen than just Freddie and his sense of rhythm. Give it another go, listening for the overall picture of every song, not just the rhythm, and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by what you hear.
One thing that made Queen unique as a group is their variety. Variety is the key here, and variety can cover a lot of different things. Queen music had something for everybody. Freddie was an amazing vocalist who loved to shake things up when he could, which I understand made for some great live shows. Brian on the guitar was great both melodically and in chord structure (have you ever actually listened to his solo stuff?). Roger and John were both innovative in their own ways, laying down the framework and structure that the songs were built on, and never afraid to do things that weren't in their "genre". No two Queen albums sound the same, and even within one album you'll have so much song variety that you never ever get bored. Listening to ANATO is a true treat, because you never know where the music is going. That's what made Queen so great, they were all great musicians, and put them together and they formed an unstopable team. They never became static and let their music get typical or boring. Obviously Bo Rhap is an example of their variety, but I personaly prefer '39, which is heavy folk sounding, as compared to something like Seven Seas of Rhye or Tie Your Mother Down which were straight up, pulse pounding rock.
Yes, rhythm is vital to music, but it's not everything. The very fact that Freddie, Brian, Roger and John could improvise (though granted some were better than others) show their caliber as musicians. Put an album together with varied rhythm on all of the songs, and it can still be very boring. There is more to music than rhythm, like melody and harmony, tempo and tempo changes, and of course, the words. I'm not trying to discredit what you are saying about rhythm here...I'm just trying to say that there is so much more to Queen than just Freddie and his sense of rhythm. Give it another go, listening for the overall picture of every song, not just the rhythm, and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by what you hear.
Hi History Girl,
Great to hear your intelligent ideas here. You see everyone, that was the type of response I was hoping for. Although we do not agree on everything, she makes good points.
Great to hear your intelligent ideas here. You see everyone, that was the type of response I was hoping for. Although we do not agree on everything, she makes good points.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Freddie's #1 Fan Forever wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The only good response came from Sir G, but even he did not really address my points. To simply call someone else’s point of view “drivel” is not a very good response. What I was hoping for was a detailed explanation of why you disagree with my argument, rather than personal attacks.[/QUOTE]
I didn't attack you. I basically paraphrased what you said in a neutral way. I said it exactly like it is. It's not my fault if you took the truth personally.
Your initial post basically proclaimed that every rock musician besides Freddie Mercury sucks, so even if I provide examples to suggest the contrary, you will just find a way to cut them to shreds. If you feel your post is a well-informed one, that means you have listened to all of the other rock bands to great depths and are indeed convinced that they all "drone on and on". So really, until you show a shred of open-mindedness towards other rock musicians (which you clearly have not done to this point), then I'm not sure what there is to discuss with you.
I didn't attack you. I basically paraphrased what you said in a neutral way. I said it exactly like it is. It's not my fault if you took the truth personally.
Your initial post basically proclaimed that every rock musician besides Freddie Mercury sucks, so even if I provide examples to suggest the contrary, you will just find a way to cut them to shreds. If you feel your post is a well-informed one, that means you have listened to all of the other rock bands to great depths and are indeed convinced that they all "drone on and on". So really, until you show a shred of open-mindedness towards other rock musicians (which you clearly have not done to this point), then I'm not sure what there is to discuss with you.
Freddie's #1 Fan Forever - droned....
Now, you might try to argue that John Deacon is credited with "Another Bites the Dust." On the other hand, it is also well documented that he often received huge amounts of help from Freddie. As the singer, Freddie basically set the rhythm for the group.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
what complete an utter shite...i'm sorry...but if you are going to cite freddie as some great pionere is complete bollox...especially when you use this song as a reference point...AOBTD is so clearly stolen from "Chic's Good Times" and "Rapper's Delight"...get a life and stop trying to start pointless arguments
now if you had cited "side black of queen II" - then i would be there with you...but don't go on about rythym - when plagiarism is the order of the day
Now, you might try to argue that John Deacon is credited with "Another Bites the Dust." On the other hand, it is also well documented that he often received huge amounts of help from Freddie. As the singer, Freddie basically set the rhythm for the group.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
what complete an utter shite...i'm sorry...but if you are going to cite freddie as some great pionere is complete bollox...especially when you use this song as a reference point...AOBTD is so clearly stolen from "Chic's Good Times" and "Rapper's Delight"...get a life and stop trying to start pointless arguments
now if you had cited "side black of queen II" - then i would be there with you...but don't go on about rythym - when plagiarism is the order of the day