Many classic rock bands used "Black" music as a foundation. Rock and Roll is essentially "Black" music.
The Rolling Stones were considered British R&B when they started out.
They took their name from a Muddy Waters song(doesn't get much "Blacker" than Muddy Waters).
If you want to consider dabbling in Funk/Disco the Stones did 'Miss You' before Queeen did Another One Bites The Dust, touched on Reggae on 1975's 'Black and Blue' and if you listen closely you'll hear elements of Funk/Soul/DooWop song structures and melody in their catalogue. The Stones primarily delved into American music but with a distinctly English touch.
Listen to Zeppelin's 1973 song 'The Crunge' with it's funky 9/8 groove, taking a twist on James Brown, long before Queen dabbled in "Black" music.
Led Zep also explored American blues(black music), British folk, Arabic/Middle Eastern music etc.
If you want to talk about white musicians seriously exploring "Black" music from Africa then how 'bout Peter Gabriel. From Genesis' prog rock to the African influenced 'Rhythm Of The Heat' or 'Biko'. Not to mention introducing the white world to Senegal's Youssou N'Dour.
There are so many other examples.
In your myopic desire to dismiss all other musicians so that you can deify Freddie I'd suggest you accept Freddie as the brilliant creative man he was and allow yourself to enjoy some other music in your life.
You'll be richer for the experience.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I am glad to see that there are some new responses to my post. On the other hand, I feel like this topic deserves more thought than some of the more trivial threads that are up there now.
Someone was saying in one of the above posts that Led Zeppelin had previously used black elements in at least one of their songs. They also call them selves a “blues band.” But there is something fundamentally un-black about Led Zeppelin. In fact, although they may claim to have been influenced by black music, I would argue that Led Zeppelin literally represents the antithesis of black music. For instance, while black music is soulful and spiritual in nature, Led Zeppelin music has none of these qualities. On the contrary, what it has is a lead singer with a screechy, high voice very characteristic
of a white dude.
On the other hand, unlike Robert Plant (and Mick Jagger, for that matter), Freddie Mercury really did have a soulful element in his singing. Obviously, all we have to do is listen to “Somebody to Love” or “Under Pressure,” for instance, to see this. However, one thing that I really like about Freddie Mercury is that he does not try too hard to sound black. I mean, I get really annoyed when I hear Sting trying to sound like some guy from Jamaica. It is pretty ridiculous for him to try to deny the fact that he is a white dude from England.
While we are on the subject of Led Zeppelin, another thing I love about Queen is the way that the band uses Eastern elements. With Led Zeppelin, you feel like they are trying really hard to be “Exotic” or “Eastern.” However, with Queen, because of Freddie Mercury’s Indian roots, I feel like there is an inherent Eastern quality, rather than something that is forced.
Another one of the above responses suggested that the Rolling Stones had succeeded in capturing the essence of black music. I cannot disagree more. The problem with the Rolling Stones is that, although they probably did try to sound black, their stuff is just way too repetitive. Although it may capture black music at its worst, it certainly does not seem to incorporate any kind of rhythmic variation. Instead, what you usually have is some guitar riff play again and again and again. For instance, in the song “I Can’t Get No Satisfaction,” what you hear are those same seven notes repeated about 500 times. Give me a break!
If you listen to early jazz music or to African drum music, it is not comprised of the same sequence of five notes repeated over and over and over again until you want to scream. Instead, the music incorporates continual variations in rhythm. Furthermore, this is exactly what Queen music does! Listen to “Under Pressure,” and tell me how many times you hear that very catchy bass line. The answer: Only a few times. Fabulous! If only the Rolling Stones could learn that lesson.
Someone was saying in one of the above posts that Led Zeppelin had previously used black elements in at least one of their songs. They also call them selves a “blues band.” But there is something fundamentally un-black about Led Zeppelin. In fact, although they may claim to have been influenced by black music, I would argue that Led Zeppelin literally represents the antithesis of black music. For instance, while black music is soulful and spiritual in nature, Led Zeppelin music has none of these qualities. On the contrary, what it has is a lead singer with a screechy, high voice very characteristic
of a white dude.
On the other hand, unlike Robert Plant (and Mick Jagger, for that matter), Freddie Mercury really did have a soulful element in his singing. Obviously, all we have to do is listen to “Somebody to Love” or “Under Pressure,” for instance, to see this. However, one thing that I really like about Freddie Mercury is that he does not try too hard to sound black. I mean, I get really annoyed when I hear Sting trying to sound like some guy from Jamaica. It is pretty ridiculous for him to try to deny the fact that he is a white dude from England.
While we are on the subject of Led Zeppelin, another thing I love about Queen is the way that the band uses Eastern elements. With Led Zeppelin, you feel like they are trying really hard to be “Exotic” or “Eastern.” However, with Queen, because of Freddie Mercury’s Indian roots, I feel like there is an inherent Eastern quality, rather than something that is forced.
Another one of the above responses suggested that the Rolling Stones had succeeded in capturing the essence of black music. I cannot disagree more. The problem with the Rolling Stones is that, although they probably did try to sound black, their stuff is just way too repetitive. Although it may capture black music at its worst, it certainly does not seem to incorporate any kind of rhythmic variation. Instead, what you usually have is some guitar riff play again and again and again. For instance, in the song “I Can’t Get No Satisfaction,” what you hear are those same seven notes repeated about 500 times. Give me a break!
If you listen to early jazz music or to African drum music, it is not comprised of the same sequence of five notes repeated over and over and over again until you want to scream. Instead, the music incorporates continual variations in rhythm. Furthermore, this is exactly what Queen music does! Listen to “Under Pressure,” and tell me how many times you hear that very catchy bass line. The answer: Only a few times. Fabulous! If only the Rolling Stones could learn that lesson.
You ask people to give thoughtful responses to your original post yet you don't make an effort to actuially read them nor do you take the time to put some real thought into the responses.
Okay Freddie is God and the greatest musician ever. Freddie is a better singer than Ella Fitzgerald, Aretha Franklin and Pavarotti combined.
Freddie's a better composer than Mozart, Ellington, Stravinsky and Monk combined.
My god Freddie was a more talented guitarist than Segovia, Reinhardt, Kessel, Beck, Clapton, Gilmour and May. Freddie was funkier than James Brown, George Clinton and Prince.
Freddie's music was more African than Ali Farke Toure, Femi Kuti, Kine Lam, Ladysmith Black Mambazo, King Sunny Ade, Angelique Kidjo, Kanda Bongo Man and Papa Wemba combined.
Freddie found a vaccine for polio, discovered insulin and invented the wheel.
Okay Freddie is God and the greatest musician ever. Freddie is a better singer than Ella Fitzgerald, Aretha Franklin and Pavarotti combined.
Freddie's a better composer than Mozart, Ellington, Stravinsky and Monk combined.
My god Freddie was a more talented guitarist than Segovia, Reinhardt, Kessel, Beck, Clapton, Gilmour and May. Freddie was funkier than James Brown, George Clinton and Prince.
Freddie's music was more African than Ali Farke Toure, Femi Kuti, Kine Lam, Ladysmith Black Mambazo, King Sunny Ade, Angelique Kidjo, Kanda Bongo Man and Papa Wemba combined.
Freddie found a vaccine for polio, discovered insulin and invented the wheel.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Freddie's #1 Fan Forever wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I am glad to see that there are some new responses to my post. [SNIP!!!] Fabulous! If only the Rolling Stones could learn that lesson.
[/QUOTE]
zzzzzz
you don't know what you are talking about...Led Zep/Stones and the who for that matter had their roots much closer to black music than queen ever did
in fact...if you listen to queen (upto and including Jazz) queen were anything but black...
led ze/who/stones actually got very close to real blues with some of their early albums....
and i would suggest that Kashmir and Trampled get much closer to "eastern" as you put it...than anything queen every produced
go and read up on music origins then come back and start a cohesive argument
[/QUOTE]
zzzzzz
you don't know what you are talking about...Led Zep/Stones and the who for that matter had their roots much closer to black music than queen ever did
in fact...if you listen to queen (upto and including Jazz) queen were anything but black...
led ze/who/stones actually got very close to real blues with some of their early albums....
and i would suggest that Kashmir and Trampled get much closer to "eastern" as you put it...than anything queen every produced
go and read up on music origins then come back and start a cohesive argument
By the way, I wanted to make it clear that I acutally like both the Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin. They are good bands, especially compared to a lot of the crap that I hear on the heavy metal station. I am just saying that, for me, the rhythm is just not there. Futhermore, I think that you have to admit that a band does not necessarily understand rhythm just because it claims to be inspired by black music. By the way, I am actually part black myself.
In terms of Freddie Mercury, I obviously think that he was the greatest popular music singer ever. Since he has already been voted as such in several polls, I do not think that there is anything extreme about that argument.
In terms of Freddie Mercury, I obviously think that he was the greatest popular music singer ever. Since he has already been voted as such in several polls, I do not think that there is anything extreme about that argument.
What a ridiculous assertion.
Led Zeppelin thrived on black music...the blues..hello???
The Who were forefathers of the Mod movement.
The Mods worshipped American R&B...yes that's right..black music.
It's such blantant myopia from fans like you that almost make me ashamed to call myself a Queen fan.
Led Zeppelin thrived on black music...the blues..hello???
The Who were forefathers of the Mod movement.
The Mods worshipped American R&B...yes that's right..black music.
It's such blantant myopia from fans like you that almost make me ashamed to call myself a Queen fan.
This thread is going nowhere fast!
No one ever said it was being 'open minded' to listen to Led Zeppelin and The Who; learn how to read. What I said was that discounting them as rhythmically deficient was a bad idea.
I'm sure Robert Plant is overjoyed that those weeks in Morocco have resulted in him being lumped in with people who 'don't understand music'.
I must apologise for my first response, I thought this was a serious thread.
No one ever said it was being 'open minded' to listen to Led Zeppelin and The Who; learn how to read. What I said was that discounting them as rhythmically deficient was a bad idea.
I'm sure Robert Plant is overjoyed that those weeks in Morocco have resulted in him being lumped in with people who 'don't understand music'.
I must apologise for my first response, I thought this was a serious thread.
Guys, Let me repeat what I said earlier: Just because a band says that they were "influenced" by black music does not necessarily mean that they have any sense of rhythm. Anyone can say that they are playing "the blues" or "jazz." That does not necessarily mean anything other than the fact that they expect everyone to take them really seriously.
"Just because a band says that they were "influenced" by black music does not necessarily mean that they have any sense of rhythm."
This is *absolutely* correct. But it is also totally irrelevant when in context with the bands we are discussing. Nobody mentioned any bands with no sense of rhythm in this thread.
This is *absolutely* correct. But it is also totally irrelevant when in context with the bands we are discussing. Nobody mentioned any bands with no sense of rhythm in this thread.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Freddie's #1 Fan Forever wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Guys, Let me repeat what I said earlier: Just because a band says that they were "influenced" by black music does not necessarily mean that they have any sense of rhythm. Anyone can say that they are playing "the blues" or "jazz." That does not necessarily mean anything other than the fact that they expect everyone to take them really seriously. [/QUOTE]
Geez, each new post of yours gets more silly.
Tell me what your precise definition of a sense of rhythm is.
Let me guess, it has nothing to do with the even dispersion of accented and non-accented metered pulses over time. Oh no, it's rhythm as performed by Freddie Mercury and then there's everything else..LOL
You are one of those people who try using musical nomclemature to sound like you making a lot of sense but you are really not in light of the true definition of these terms.
For example, define syncopation and describe exactly how Roger and Brian don't use it, unless prompted by Freddie.
I have a hint for you, you can't play music without using syncopation.
I won't even address that crazy ass statement about musican's only play Jazz or Blues in an effort to be taken seriously, as if that's it's only value in playing it...LOL
Geez, each new post of yours gets more silly.
Tell me what your precise definition of a sense of rhythm is.
Let me guess, it has nothing to do with the even dispersion of accented and non-accented metered pulses over time. Oh no, it's rhythm as performed by Freddie Mercury and then there's everything else..LOL
You are one of those people who try using musical nomclemature to sound like you making a lot of sense but you are really not in light of the true definition of these terms.
For example, define syncopation and describe exactly how Roger and Brian don't use it, unless prompted by Freddie.
I have a hint for you, you can't play music without using syncopation.
I won't even address that crazy ass statement about musican's only play Jazz or Blues in an effort to be taken seriously, as if that's it's only value in playing it...LOL
"I won't even address that crazy ass statement about musican's only play Jazz or Blues in an effort to be taken seriously, as if that's it's only value in playing it...LOL"
AHAHAH I totally missed that one the first time around! This thread just got funnier for me!
AHAHAH I totally missed that one the first time around! This thread just got funnier for me!
Someone above asked what my definition of rhythm is and how I know that Brian and Roger do not necessarily have it. I would define rhythm as simply the flow of sound through time. All music, including that of Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones, has rhythm to it in the sense that it usually set in some time signature. Some time signatures are set in 4/4/ and 2/4, while others are set in 7/4, 9/8 and 11/4.
It turns out that, while most Western classical music was written in 4/4/ or 2/4, a lot of white composers and bands have figured out how to use exotic meters like 7/4 and 11/4. However, as hard as they try, there is still a problem. The issue is that they nonetheless fail to understand what syncopation is. Syncopation involves placing the stress in a spot other than where the meter is falling. Although it is very beautiful, most Western classical music does not make use of syncopation in the way that black music does.
Another issue with syncopation is that, in order to be effective, it needs to be varied. As I discussed earlier, that is the problem that I have with the Rolling Stones. They are a fun band that has written some interesting songs. However, they are lazy when it comes to rhythm.
Led Zeppelin, on the other hand, simply does not “get” rhythm or soul. They just don’t have it. Although Jimmy Page is a great technical guitarist, Robert Plant’s voice sounds cold and distant. No one in that band really has any kind of “groove” about them. Unfortunately, Brian and Roger also do not quite have the groove thing going on either. The Problem: They look and sound like a bunch of white dudes. I mean, have you ever heard Brian’s solo stuff? While it may have some interesting guitar things in it, it is clear that he is not very interested in rhythm. Even when you watch him in live performances, he seems tall, gangly and rhythmically awkward. On the other hand, I question whether Roger ever contributed all that much to Queen at all. He even admits that Freddie re-wrote “A Kind of Magic” and “Radio Ga-Ga” for him.
By the way, although I am pleased to see the responses that this topic has generated, I am somewhat disappointed by what I see as personal attacks in many of the responses. In high school, I learned that it is not good debate practice to simply tell the other person that they are "ignorant." If the person really is ignorant, then it is up a good debator to explain WHY the other person is ignorant. It seems like a lot of people on this thread actually cannot handle the concept of debate in which people argue back and forth in a non-personal manner. You notice from my responses that I have not personally attacked anyone, nor have I resorted to calling anyone "ignorant" about music. I simply tell them that I disagree, and then I proceed to explain why.
It turns out that, while most Western classical music was written in 4/4/ or 2/4, a lot of white composers and bands have figured out how to use exotic meters like 7/4 and 11/4. However, as hard as they try, there is still a problem. The issue is that they nonetheless fail to understand what syncopation is. Syncopation involves placing the stress in a spot other than where the meter is falling. Although it is very beautiful, most Western classical music does not make use of syncopation in the way that black music does.
Another issue with syncopation is that, in order to be effective, it needs to be varied. As I discussed earlier, that is the problem that I have with the Rolling Stones. They are a fun band that has written some interesting songs. However, they are lazy when it comes to rhythm.
Led Zeppelin, on the other hand, simply does not “get” rhythm or soul. They just don’t have it. Although Jimmy Page is a great technical guitarist, Robert Plant’s voice sounds cold and distant. No one in that band really has any kind of “groove” about them. Unfortunately, Brian and Roger also do not quite have the groove thing going on either. The Problem: They look and sound like a bunch of white dudes. I mean, have you ever heard Brian’s solo stuff? While it may have some interesting guitar things in it, it is clear that he is not very interested in rhythm. Even when you watch him in live performances, he seems tall, gangly and rhythmically awkward. On the other hand, I question whether Roger ever contributed all that much to Queen at all. He even admits that Freddie re-wrote “A Kind of Magic” and “Radio Ga-Ga” for him.
By the way, although I am pleased to see the responses that this topic has generated, I am somewhat disappointed by what I see as personal attacks in many of the responses. In high school, I learned that it is not good debate practice to simply tell the other person that they are "ignorant." If the person really is ignorant, then it is up a good debator to explain WHY the other person is ignorant. It seems like a lot of people on this thread actually cannot handle the concept of debate in which people argue back and forth in a non-personal manner. You notice from my responses that I have not personally attacked anyone, nor have I resorted to calling anyone "ignorant" about music. I simply tell them that I disagree, and then I proceed to explain why.
Ahhh I see, Freddie was the only one who had 'it' in the band..that's why if you take away the greatness of Freddie..Queen is nothing but a bunch of plodding white dudes who couldnt keep a beat if their life depended on it.
That's why Freddie's solo stuff is so brilliant.
Far surpasses anything Queen ever did.
That's why Freddie's solo stuff is so brilliant.
Far surpasses anything Queen ever did.
Tall and gangly? There is hardly anyone more graceful than Brian.
I note with a chuckle you haven't mentioned John Bonham. He was a mighty clever dude, and I'm not surprised you're avoiding his co-writer credit in "Kashmir", as that song alone pokes about three million holes in your argument.
"Although Jimmy Page is a great technical guitarist"
He's kinda messy actually.... but he's definitely inimitable. I've seen very competent players try to emulate his scrappy style and fail totally!
"he seems tall, gangly and rhythmically awkward"
I actually agree with this.
"On the other hand, I question whether Roger ever contributed all that much to Queen at all."
Now I know you're kidding.
I'm taking a long look through Freddie's catalogue of songs he wrote for Queen. He was a mightily clever songwriter (someone get Sebastian in here). But the point you are stressing that he was better at 'rhythm' than any of his contemporaries isn't very strong at all. I can't recall him inventing much.
He was eclectic. He made odd and apparently disparate kinds of music fit into the whole Queen gig. But even his most genius works used rhythms that have been heard before and after he used them.
Ya know, I've been rather restrained and respectful so I don't get this 'personal attacks' nonsense at all. You don't really sound like you have a handle on the generally understood meaning of the word 'rhythm' because you're claiming Freddie Mercury was the only one in the rock business that had any rhythm. That is utter shite; you can go ahead now and tell me I'm 'attacking you' because I'm disagreeing, but in reality its very simple. You're wrong. You could argue that maybe he had a little 'more' rhythm than some (which still sounds stupid anyway) but..... no. Your argument is flawed. Give it up.
"Although Jimmy Page is a great technical guitarist"
He's kinda messy actually.... but he's definitely inimitable. I've seen very competent players try to emulate his scrappy style and fail totally!
"he seems tall, gangly and rhythmically awkward"
I actually agree with this.
"On the other hand, I question whether Roger ever contributed all that much to Queen at all."
Now I know you're kidding.
I'm taking a long look through Freddie's catalogue of songs he wrote for Queen. He was a mightily clever songwriter (someone get Sebastian in here). But the point you are stressing that he was better at 'rhythm' than any of his contemporaries isn't very strong at all. I can't recall him inventing much.
He was eclectic. He made odd and apparently disparate kinds of music fit into the whole Queen gig. But even his most genius works used rhythms that have been heard before and after he used them.
Ya know, I've been rather restrained and respectful so I don't get this 'personal attacks' nonsense at all. You don't really sound like you have a handle on the generally understood meaning of the word 'rhythm' because you're claiming Freddie Mercury was the only one in the rock business that had any rhythm. That is utter shite; you can go ahead now and tell me I'm 'attacking you' because I'm disagreeing, but in reality its very simple. You're wrong. You could argue that maybe he had a little 'more' rhythm than some (which still sounds stupid anyway) but..... no. Your argument is flawed. Give it up.