| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
salmacis 
Forum Senior Member
Content Addition
Joined: April 10 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 3928
|
 Posted: December 13 2005 at 17:04 |
Yeah I used to say the same about the albums from 'Wonderworld' onwards, but lately those albums have grown on me hugely. 'Wonderworld' has the beautiful title track, 'The Easy Road' and 'Shadow And The Wind'; 'Return To Fantasy' has the terrific title track, 'Beautiful Dream', 'A Year And A Day' and 'Why Did You Go' (I also love 'Your Turn To Remember' of recent). 'High And Mighty' is perhaps the album that I'm most surprised to love; David Byron rarely sang a better vocal than he did on 'Midnight' and 'Weep In Silence'. The beginning of 'Footprints In The Snow' is the most beautiful intro I've ever heard from a rock band, and 'Confession' is gorgeous.
Though Freddie Mercury is a technically better singer, I will always prefer David Byron's vocals- I've not come across anyone who sang like him before he did, yet thousands followed his lead, including Mercury imo..
It's been a while since I contrived Heep into a post, but this thread gave me some scope to do so!
|
 |
John Gargo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 450
|
Posted: December 13 2005 at 17:20 |
 bluetailfly wrote:
Syzygy wrote:
Queen were one of the greatest singles bands since the Beatles (in fact, arguably THE greatest) and a superb live act, but I've never rated their albums that highly. Freddie Mercury was a brilliant front man, and the world is a slightly duller place without him in it. |
"Greatest singles band" ??? Queen? You mean like "Fat Bottomed Girls" and "Another One Bites the Dust"??? Those singles?
You're comparing those to, say, "I Feel Fine," "And I Saw Her Standing There" and "Strawberry Fields Forever." ???
Perhaps a reconsideration is in order, as well as an apology to those of us with finely-calibrated musical sensibilities... 
|
You should apologize for being an elitist.
And in my opinion, Queen are a far more interesting band than the Beatles, and yes I've heard enough full lengths from both to make such a claim.
|
|
Mirage
Forum Newbie
Joined: December 13 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2
|
Posted: December 13 2005 at 17:27 |
There is no doubt Queen is the greatest band of the 70 from the first abul till the last.
Mixing hard rock and other styles nobdy will improve brian sound
God save the QUEEN!!
Long live R&R
|
|
bluetailfly
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1383
|
Posted: December 13 2005 at 17:45 |
John Gargo wrote:
bluetailfly wrote:
Syzygy wrote:
Queen were one of the greatest singles bands since the Beatles (in fact, arguably THE greatest) and a superb live act, but I've never rated their albums that highly. Freddie Mercury was a brilliant front man, and the world is a slightly duller place without him in it. |
"Greatest singles band" ??? Queen? You mean like "Fat Bottomed Girls" and "Another One Bites the Dust"??? Those singles?
You're comparing those to, say, "I Feel Fine," "And I Saw Her Standing There" and "Strawberry Fields Forever." ???
Perhaps a reconsideration is in order, as well as an apology to those of us with finely-calibrated musical sensibilities...
|
You should apologize for being an elitist.
And in my opinion, Queen are a far more interesting band than the Beatles, and yes I've heard enough full lengths from both to make such a claim.
|
Being an elitist? Because I think "Strawberry Fields Forever" is better than "Fat Bottomed Girls"? What I think you mean is that I should apologize for having taste in music, which I won't do.
You like Queen, fine, but, come on, get real, many bands have created more emotionally powerful, better crafted, more stylistically diverse, more inspired, more seriously intense music than Queen. The Beatles for one, Led Zeppelin for another, and I'm not even going to begin to compare them to the greats of prog.
Queen are sort of like Styx, great pop rock & fun concerts but not exactly a band that compells repeated listening.
|
|
"The red polygon's only desire / is to get to the blue triangle."
|
|
Flip_Stone
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 388
|
Posted: December 13 2005 at 17:49 |
I'm going to have to disagree strongly here. Queen were okay, but certainly not "great"
1. The Vocals - That three people in the band can sing is no big deal. In some bands, all 4 or 5 members sing. Gentle Giant's advanced harmonizing is/was miles above Queen's.
2. The Guitar - Brian May is/was good, and his guitar orchestrations are interesting. But still not necessarily something that unusual.
3. Songwriting - Again, just because all members in the band contributed, that doesn't automatically make the final result spectacular. I'd say that they were below-par on songwriting, and was probably their biggest weakness.
4. Front "man" - One of the best?!? What a joke! Do you not remember, or did you not see the pictures of "him" prancing around the stage in makeup and short shorts and leotards and other gay clothing? The guy was embarrassingly gay on stage, and very feminine. And let's not forget that his lifestyle led to him dying of AIDS. That's hardly something impressive or inspiring. It was quite disgusting. Their name sure did match (Freddie Mercury the Queen).
5. Diversity - Not that diverse, at least not compared to Talking Heads, Frank Zappa, XTC, Yes, Jethro Tull, and many other bands.
No, I don't see much greatness or magic there.
Edited by Flip_Stone
|
|
Mercury
Forum Groupie
Joined: October 10 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 43
|
Posted: December 13 2005 at 17:50 |
|
Queen had so much more to their music than the Beatles could ever manage.
|
|
bluetailfly
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1383
|
Posted: December 13 2005 at 17:54 |
Mercury wrote:
Queen had so much more to their music than the Beatles could ever manage.
|
What the heck does that mean???!!!
|
|
"The red polygon's only desire / is to get to the blue triangle."
|
|
thefalafelking
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 28 2005
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 130
|
Posted: December 13 2005 at 18:17 |
Flip_Stone wrote:
I'm going to have to disagree strongly here. Queen were okay, but certainly not "great"
1. The Vocals - That three people in the band can sing is no big deal. In some bands, all 4 or 5 members sing. Gentle Giant's advanced harmonizing is/was miles above Queen's.
2. The Guitar - Brian May is/was good, and his guitar orchestrations are interesting. But still not necessarily something that unusual.
3. Songwriting - Again, just because all members in the band contributed, that doesn't automatically make the final result spectacular. I'd say that they were below-par on songwriting, and was probably their biggest weakness.
4. Front "man" - One of the best?!? What a joke! Do you not remember, or did you not see the pictures of "him" prancing around the stage in makeup and short shorts and leotards and other gay clothing? The guy was embarrassingly gay on stage, and very feminine. And let's not forget that his lifestyle led to him dying of AIDS. That's hardly something impressive or inspiring. It was quite disgusting. Their name sure did match (Freddie Mercury the Queen).
5. Diversity - Not that diverse, at least not compared to Talking Heads, Frank Zappa, XTC, Yes, Jethro Tull, and many other bands.
No, I don't see much greatness or magic there.
|
No offence to you but how narrowminded can you get? Is dying of AIDS or enjoying life a disgrace? besides, the gay attitude was quite fashionable at the time. look at Bowie, Reed, Eno,...
I also totally disagree on the subject of diversity. XTC and (especially)Zappa are (more) eclectic, but no way about the others you mentioned. Yes just played their amazing trademark progstyle but they only evolved when they went into eighties stuff! I give you ten Queen songs and if you know them you can decide for yourself how diverse Queens music actualy was !
1. the fairy fellers masterstroke (baroque pop) 2. sleeping on the sidewalk (blues) 3. sheer heart attack (punky edged) 4. innuendo (art rock epic) 5. under pressure (classic pop) 6. you don't fool me (funky nineties pop) 7.crazy little thing called love (rock 'n' roll) 8. Stone Cold Crazy ( metal) 9. these are the days of our lives (a veru very good ballad, hate that word!!) 10. bring back that leroy brown/Seaside rendezvous (vaudeville style, even jazzy at times, like the jazzsolo in lroy brown!!!)
even the singles are enough to hear the diversity! so don't deny it!
|
|
Flip_Stone
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 388
|
Posted: December 13 2005 at 18:31 |
Yeah, those sure are some "good" songs there: Crazy Little Thing Called Love, Another One Bites the Dust, and some of the disco-funk crap they passed off onto the listening public.
It may be diversity, but it's also really bad music.
Edited by Flip_Stone
|
|
Titan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 07 2005
Location: Czech Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 176
|
Posted: December 13 2005 at 19:17 |
|
Queen is great band without doubt, the best band in classic rock ever
IMO. And great proggy Queen II album. I like all albums, but the best
track (together with suppers ready is IMO Innuendo - nice dark music +
steve howe)
Flip: try to listen their older stuff, you are talking about commercial stuff only.
|
|
laztraz
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 216
|
Posted: December 13 2005 at 19:51 |
|
Queen is great except for Fat Bottomed Girls, Get Down Make Love and Bicycle Race. They are embarassing. Sort of like Let 'em In, Silly Love Songs, Ebony and Ivory for Paul McCartney.
|
|
BePinkTheater
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 01 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1381
|
Posted: December 13 2005 at 20:27 |
I love queen, they are one of my favourite bands.
BUT Their hamonies arent that great.
To call them the best harmonic rock group is terribly ignorant. They have big harmonies, some great harmonies( bohemian rhap. fat bottom girls, bycical race, some others..) but most of the harmonies are poorly written
And if you compare their harmonies to bands like The Beatles!! or Yes, CNSY, sh*t even System of a down's harmnoies are better written.
|
|
I can strangle a canary in a tin can and it would be really original, but that wouldn't save it from sounding like utter sh*t.
-Stone Beard
|
|
Rainman
Forum Groupie
Joined: December 05 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 68
|
Posted: December 14 2005 at 04:24 |
imo, Queen is one of the greatest ever regarding both melodies and harmonies! Recall Queen II, for instance. Their singles are also unforgetable which hardly anyone to compete... However, as far as many pops concerned I can listen to with delight only compilations of...
|
|
Norbert
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 20 2005
Location: Hungary
Status: Offline
Points: 2506
|
Posted: December 14 2005 at 04:32 |
I quite like their early material, but not their later outputs, except for Innuendo.
Unfortunately, they wasted their talent in the 80's
|
|
pero
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 11 2005
Location: Croatia
Status: Offline
Points: 1242
|
Posted: December 14 2005 at 05:21 |
Mercury wrote:
Queen had so much more to their music than the Beatles could ever manage.
|
 
No way!.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Why Queen are "Magic"