Why Queen are "Magic"
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15836
Printed Date: November 26 2024 at 22:36
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Why Queen are "Magic"
Posted By: Snow Dog
Subject: Why Queen are "Magic"
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 07:45
|
What is behinds Queens greatness?
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Replies:
Posted By: darren
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 07:54
|
... all of the above? ------------- "they locked up a man who wanted to rule the world. the fools they locked up the wrong man." - Leonard Cohen |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 07:57
 very underated band, Freddie Mercurys voice is no doubpt the finest in rock history... I think its an insult that queen is play with paul rodgers at the helm
|
Posted By: pero
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 07:57
|
Are you paid for this ? |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 08:00
No. I just wanted to start a debate, see what everyone else has to offer, see who disagrees and why and make a positive thread if possible. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
pero wrote:
Posted By: pero
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 08:03
|
For me only "Bohemian rapsody" is all above mentioned.
|
Posted By: nimrodel
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 08:23
|
Snow Dog i love you.. ------------- We want... a shrubbery! |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 08:26
Cant really argue with any of Snowies points. They were/are an extremely talented band. I have five of their albums, but why can I not stand listening to them these days??  ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 08:36
|
I don't know....sometimes you just....move on! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Syzygy
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 09:05
|
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. ------------- 'Like so many of you I've got my doubts about how much to contribute to the already rich among us...' Robert Wyatt, Gloria Gloom |
Posted By: Andrea Cortese
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 09:10
|
Great band indeed! The most representative album of all above mentioned is A Night At The Opera (great also that Taylor's one "I'm In Love With My Car")!! |
Posted By: NutterAlert
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 09:18
|
Well I hate to spoil the queen party, but I did not like them apart from first album, and I much prefer Rodgers to Mercury. I have prefered them to stay on the '7 Seas of Rhyde' furrow, not to go all operatic and commercial. ------------- Proud to be an un-banned member since 2005 |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 09:44
You really are a nutter aren't you! Paul Rogers better than Freddie Mercury?? Seriously though, I think I prefer the first two albums to anything else they done. 'A night at the Opera' is one of those classic rock albums, but I like the rawness of the debut, and the way that rwness meets alittle of the Queen to come, on the second album. I can take or leave anything after ANATO. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: NutterAlert
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 09:49
------------- Proud to be an un-banned member since 2005 |
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 15:08
| Yes I love the first 4 or so Queen albums, yet for me I'd add the 'no synths' characteristic to the 'magic' list; I felt they were perhaps on the wane somewhat when they introduced synths as they lost a good deal of their production experimentation. |
Posted By: bluetailfly
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 15:18
|
"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... ------------- "The red polygon's only desire / is to get to the blue triangle." |
Posted By: thefalafelking
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 15:36
Yes, Queen IS a great single band. I also like The Beatles a lot, and I think there's no use in comparing their styles! but Queen DID make a lot of awesome singles: Another one bites the dust, seven seas of rhye, bohemian rhapsody , innuendo (both quite risky), the show must go on, i'm going slightly mad and even a kind of magic, breakthrue, I want it all...(and many, many more) yes, when i think of these, I think they can match the beatles' single quality
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 15:42
|
Some kind of magic..hmm And there is surely bands that outbeats queen on all of the above criterias... ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif - |
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 15:57
I'd personally say Uriah Heep were better to these ears, but it could also be argued that Heep rarely if ever did albums as cohesive as 'Queen II' and 'A Night At The Opera'. Yet, I'd find it doubtful Queen never heard Heep's work... |
Posted By: thefalafelking
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 16:09
|
I always liked Uriah Heep very much. Favourite albums: Live 1973, Look at Yourself, ... but I think already at the time of Return to Fantasy they were becoming a band of whom the players carried sh*t for brains (exagerated, I know, but I like the sentence). But tunes like sweet lorraine, july morning, tears in my eyes, ... are amazing!!! But, I saw a few concert fragments of them on DVD and it's just awfull, argh!! I just hate the image of the singer, he looks like an over-emotional piece of wood in a glamrock outfit. and that guitarplayer mick box, though he's quite good, he acts like a child imitating his favourite guitar hero! (on the same DVD he played guitar with one arm broken!). I've never seen the DVD since, I'm afraid it would make my love for the good Uriah Heep albums go away! |
Posted By: salmacis
Date 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! |
Posted By: John Gargo
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 17:20
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. |
Posted By: Mirage
Date 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 |
Posted By: bluetailfly
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 17:45
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." |
Posted By: Flip_Stone
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Mercury
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 17:50
|
Queen had so much more to their music than the Beatles could ever manage. |
Posted By: bluetailfly
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 17:54
|
What the heck does that mean???!!! ------------- "The red polygon's only desire / is to get to the blue triangle." |
Posted By: thefalafelking
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 18:17
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!
|
Posted By: Flip_Stone
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Titan
Date 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. |
Posted By: laztraz
Date 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. |
Posted By: BePinkTheater
Date Posted: December 13 2005 at 20:27
|
I love queen, they are one of my favourite bands.
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 |
Posted By: Rainman
Date 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... |
Posted By: Norbert
Date 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 |
Posted By: pero
Date Posted: December 14 2005 at 05:21
|
No way!. |
