Was Queen a sellout?
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=99497
Printed Date: December 18 2024 at 12:51
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Was Queen a sellout?
Posted By: Wheelspawn
Subject: Was Queen a sellout?
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 16:40
|
As most of you know, Queen's initial work was comprised of a complex, densely layered sound that was influenced by progressive rock, heavy metal and opera. With the success of their album Sheer Heart Attack, they began moving away from the complexities of their earlier albums and much of their output from the late 70's and 80's was composed of radio-friendly pop and rock. While they did return to their original sound on occasion, it was always in a very accessible manner. Did Queen advance their sound without compromising their musical integrity or did they reject it in favor of commercial success? |
Replies:
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 16:46
No clue...call Brian May and ask him 
Seriously, the same could be said for Genesis, Yes (90125, Big Generator). I have no problem with bands doing this, commercial success = money!! And they deserve to make a lot of money, especially back in those days only album sales and touring paid the bills. -------------   
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 16:48
I think they just ran out of ideas, but you never know. Ask David Bowie. 
|
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 16:54
|
I think Queen did exactly what they wanted to do. They could be influenced by changing times and changing music scenes as other bands could, but ultimately, I don't consider that they sold out at all. In fact, considering that Queen and bands like them make music professionally, I think saying they sold out is silly. Bands are trying to make a living on the music they make. So if their music doesn't sell, they are going to have to change their sound so that it does sell or they can go broke and eat grass or change professions. But again, I think Queen did what they wanted to and they did it well enough that they sold massive amounts of records.
------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 17:03
|
Yes, they sold out. Because they should have been loyal to their yet-unborn fans who would protest later on the internet instead of trying to have a more comfortable living. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 17:17
| They are a bit like Genesis, I'm not a big fan of their post-80's stuff but they managed to stay up there. |
Posted By: Hercules
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 17:35
|
Their early albums proudly proclaimed "no synthesisers" and they used other techniques to get similar effects to what synths could do. Then they started using synths and I think they did it because they were either getting lazy or wanting to make shortcuts to speed up the production process. I don't listen to any album after A Night at the Opera any more, but I love the first 4.
------------- A TVR is not a car. It's a way of life. |
Posted By: Progosopher
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 18:10
|
Of course they sold out. Just compare A Night at the Opera to Works. They made their mark as musicians and the decided to cash in. They were still good musicians, but once they tasted the sweet, sweet wine of success they never turned back. In fact, I believe they even tested their fan base to see what they could get away with. Exhibit One: Flash Gordon Official Soundtrack. Still, they put out some good songs and given their concert performances, I do not fault them, even if I lost interest in them by Jazz. And we are still feeling the loss of Freddie Mercury. ------------- The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty" |
Posted By: Rick Robson
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 18:46
You didn't even have to ask this question, you already answered it. In my opinion not only Queen but the major part of the early 70's and late 60's bands had to deal with the same restrictions on their working on music, due to contractural duties imposed by the record company politics of those times.
Saying from my personal impressions, sadly it was easy to feel the changes also in the case of Queen for me, there are some of their early music in which I felt more dephtness than in their late 70's output and much more than in their 80's output.
-------------  "Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy." LvB |
Wheelspawn wrote:Posted By: Metalmarsh89
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 18:46
|
What is musical integrity?
------------- Want to play mafia? Visit http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com" rel="nofollow - here . |
Posted By: Aussie-Byrd-Brother
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 19:11
|
I don't think they sold out so much as found a format that worked for them. Even going back to the first album, there were many tracks that were pretty straight-forward and almost comercial, they simply turned all their efforts to that sound after a few years.
I remember some quote from Freddie who described their music as `disposable', in that, it comes on the radio, you listen to it, enjoy it, then discard it and move on after it's finished. I can definitely see that in regards to the direction they eventually moved in, but writing pretty much perfect pop/rock music with cool playing and incredible vocals/melodies is nothing to look down on! Still those early albums are the jewels though! |
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 21:46
|
They just changed with the times, and managed to stay popular. Good for them. Even their 80s stuff is still pretty complex a lot of the time, but in different ways. Finding interesting ways to use technology that's available. Some of it sounds corny now, but I could say the same for some of their early songs. ------------- My other avatar is a Porsche It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased. -Kehlog Albran |
Posted By: Manuel
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 22:34
| I happened to know Queen in the very beginning, when their music was quite outstanding and the band was practically unknown. Later on, as commercial success came around, they simplified their music and sound, to reach and please the mass of followers they were getting. I felt very disappointed with them, as I did with the Collins-era Genesis, and never bought any of their records. |
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 22:44
|
If you listen to their early material (The May/Taylor band Smile, or Larry Lurex) they had their beginnings as sort of a heavy pop band, they were not particularly prog, although they certainly incorporated some of that into their sound while that sound was popular. They were never a prog band. Bands have a right to do what they want to do, whether they do what they want due to a desire for popularity and the money that comes with it, or because that is where their musical interests take them. I think it's wrong to accuse bands of selling out when that is what they do for a living. We may not like the direction a particular band takes at a particular time, but the band doesn't owe it to us to make sure we are personally satisfied with their product.
------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 23:18
|
The way I hear it, Queen was original and did their own thing. They may have found mass acceptance, but they did it largely on their own terms. If they lost their way in the 80s - well, who didn't? |
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 02:58
| Possibly it also influenced that Freddy got seduced by the role of superstar frontman live and was not interested in playing the piano live anymore, and they never wanted to take a full-time keyboardist, so their format live was limited to a trio guitar / bass / drums (although they had support by a keyboardist and pre-recorded stuff occasionally), so they could not make very complex music which they could not play live. |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 03:18
| Queen from the beginning were in the direction of mainstream rock, and it's a quite normal thing that they were rushing to fame and big sales. |
Posted By: PrognosticMind
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 05:48
Not to go off topic for a moment, but isn't that ALL that pays the bills as a musician? Even LESS so these days, with album sales dropping, 360 deals, and touring musicians (the minor leagues, that is) essentially living off t-shirt sales from town to town? I can't say any of those bands "sold out", especially if their back catalog is as impressive as Queen or Yes. Those guys all deserve to make a few more bucks after years of pinching pennies. Does anyone know how much any of those bands (Queen, Yes, Genesis) brought in annually from the beginning until now? Is there a data sheet somewhere? I'd definitely be interested to see that! ------------- "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous. Got me?" |
Posted By: Rick Robson
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 06:38
I also realize that Queen often seemed to be a band kind of conceived to play live, but that trio you mentioned was also their basic studio format from the very begining, and this doesn't convince me as a reason for not making complex music which they could not play live.
I can name you a few examples of this contradiction, just the ones I know, but I think there might be many other examples:
Doing All Right (Queen) - pretty much like a "all in one" song (all the influences in just one little music);
My Fairy King (Queen) - Despite the fact that the keyboards never played a protagonist role, here there is a good keyboard work, especially in the final instrumental part with a nice closing;
Father to Son (Queen II) - Their heavy pop style still clearly present here (and much more than in the 80's), especially in the instrumenatl session of this nice song;
Some Day One Day (Queen II) - The psychedelic style of those times is beautifully shown in this song;
The March Of The Black Queen (Queen II) - The heavy rock & opera influences can be clearly felt in this indeed interesting song. ------------- "Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy." LvB |
Posted By: Rick Robson
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 06:40
From my point of view, by just putting their music on those terms he was being even more subjective than their listeners. ------------- "Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy." LvB |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 08:47
 ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: JellySucker
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 09:02
|
Queen used to be a good Prog band back when they weren't a money-seeking band, too bad their sound in the 80s isn't quite as good as it was back on the very first period of their career ------------- I print dank quality M E M E stickers ° ͜ʖ ͡ - last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/jellypanini facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ProgRockTime |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 09:41
Ya, its impossible to please everyone, and actually they have changed a lot from album to album right from the beginning. And they continued to do so throughout their career, sometimes to the better sometimes to the worse, a matter of taste. ------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: TerLJack
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 11:06
|
The first two records are in my personal top ten. They were my favorite band in the 70s. After hearing "Another One Bites the Dust," I never bought another record from them for almost thirty years. I can appreciate much of their later material now, but I still can't handle "AOBtD."
Looking forward to the new live album recorded in 1974 at the Rainbow coming out soon. |
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 16:44
| Queen sold out more or less about the time Freddy Mercury died and they replaced him with that strange dude with short hair and that moustache. |
Posted By: ole-the-first
Date Posted: August 31 2014 at 01:44
|
Trying to 'keep in touch' with then-modern music tendencies is always a kind of a sellout in some sense, so Queen were a sellout in 1977 when they left their prog influences and started to include punk and new wave sounds in their style. But I don't care much about that since their stylistic updgrade (or downgrade) was quire successful, and although it's quite evident that none of their 80's albums were as good as Queen II or Sheer Heart Attack, even on their lowermost points like The Game they kept on as good songwriters who still could put nice catchy tunes. So they were looking much better in comparison with many 70's heavy rockers like Uriah Heep or Rainbow/Deep Purple, whose '80s' albums were not just poppy, but also quite boring and uninspired. Even Black Sabbath and Bowie, who entered the 80s with simply outstanding LPs couldn't maintain the same quality throughout the whole decade. So if Queen still could come up with songs like 'Princes of the Universe', 'Who Wants to Live Forever'. 'Hammer to Fall' or 'Save Me', does it matter whether it was a sellout or not? Btw it still was great that in late 80's-early 90's they started to return to their prog roots with anthems like 'Was It All Worth It' and 'Innuendo', it's a shame this period couldn't last longer for them  ------------- This night wounds time. |
Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: August 31 2014 at 23:20
|
For all we know, Mercury's health was beginning to deteriorate, which is why the musical quality began to slip. Whatever, I don't blame any bands (Yes, Genesis, Queen etc.) from "selling out" and cashing in on their fame. These guys struggle and starve for many years, when pay-day comes around, who can blame them? They all left massive catalogs of quality music, and even the popular stuff had its moments if you listen.
|
Posted By: dr prog
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 00:52
|
Glam rock band.
Most bands of the early 70s were prog related in some way. Queen were about 10% prog and the rest glam plop rock ------------- All I like is prog related bands beginning late 60's/early 70's. Their music from 1968 - 83 has the composition and sound which will never be beaten. Perfect blend of jazz, classical, folk and rock. |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 09:52
| Indeed Queen were never a 'prog band' and so could not technically sell out anyway. They had a remarkable career and achieved a great deal within the confines of rock and pop music. I respect them for what they were. |
Posted By: RoeDent
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 10:05
|
I hate the term "selling out". It implies elitism. Like the band belongs only to a select group of people, and no-one else. And if more people grow to appreciate the band's music, the first group of fans become horribly defensive, like they're "bigger fans" of them than the new ones. "Oh, *I* liked them waaaaay before you". People like that seriously need to lighten up. Music belongs to all of us. |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 10:08
|
One thing the proggofiles at PA, can’t be accused for, is leaving room for the artist to keep his artistic freedom of expression. ------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 10:11
I agree Richard.....good observation and comment.
 ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: KingCrInuYasha
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 10:18
|
Probably, but that doesn't meant they stopped making good music. "Under Pressure", "I Want To Break Free" "Radio Ga Ga", "Hammer To Fall", "One Vision", "Who Wants To Live Forever", "Innuendo", "I'm Going Slightly Mad" and "The Show Must Go On" are pretty good in my book. Of course, these are just the singles - I still needs to get their 1980 - 1991 albums - but, to me, it shows that Queen didn't lose it completely. ------------- He looks at this world and wants it all... so he strikes, like Thunderball! |
Posted By: Rednight
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 12:27
| Queen seemed to evolve they way they would have anyway. Pop-rock bands like hit singles, so after Killer Queen, that's what they naturally chased. It's not much more complex than that. |
Posted By: terramystic
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 16:19
|
They were always staying slightly prog but I like their pop songs very much. |