QUEEN on progarchives

I thought it might be interesting to dig out an old article from Melody Maker at around the release of QUEEN's first album, so here it is:

Standing Up For Queen

by Michael Benton (Melody Maker, 28 July 1973)

Freddie Mercury is liquid heaviness. His friend Brian is an absolute dear. They're a pair of Queens. But let me explain.

Freddie and Brian have an amazing band. With two of their friends Roger and Deacon they're busily putting glam-rock on a new level by simply adding guts. To look at, the boys are divine - especially young Freddie who looks every inch a star. But a word of warning, don't try anything on with any of these Queens: They are hard and tough and their music is expressed in a very masculine manner. Their stage act is busy and they flash about in two colours - black and white. Not outstandingly gay, I think you'll agree.

"The idea of Queen was conceived by me whilst I was studying in college," says Freddie "Brian who was also at college liked the idea and we joined forces. The very earliest traces of the band go back to a group called Smile who made a single which was released in the States. The group was plagued by bad luck and eventually split up. Queen has been going for about three years now, but until recently we've not had a suitable outlet for our music. Trident took us on and our first album, which has been in the can for almost a year is being released through EMI." recalls Freddie.

Adds Queen Brian: "From the beginning the group has kept it's original concept. This album is a way of getting all our frustrations out of our system which we have built up over the years. We were into glam-rock before groups like The Sweet and Bowie and we're worried now, because we might have come too late."

Besides vocalist Freddie and guitarist Brian May, Queen's other two members Roger Taylor whose drumming pumps power into the band's songs and Deacon John who blasts away at his growling bass.

Brian May's guitar is made from wood plundered from a hundred-year-old fireplace. It sounds remarkable and allows Brian to form an excitingly solid foundation to Freddie's voice. Two perfect partners - but more rapiers than partners. They are Britain's very own New York Dolls - but better.

The group's first break came when producers John Anthony and Roy Thomas Baker invited them to make some demos. They hawked their product around innumerable London record companies eventually ending up with EMI.

As a live band they work hard to entertain in true showbiz fashion. At the moment they're not particularly well-known but they're already attracting screamers. Until recently the band have had to divide their attentions between studies and Queen but as Freddie explained "We've always wanted to be pop stars and the group used to come first. Now we're all qualified we can concentrate more on the band. We're confident people will take to us, because although the camp image has already been established by people like Bowie and Bolan we are taking it to another level. The concept of Queen is to be regal and majestic. Glamour is part of us and we want to be dandy. We want to shock and be outrageous instantly. We don't want people to have to think of they like us or not, but to formulate an opinion the moment they see us."

Brian and Freddie are the main songwriters, but they write individually, Mercury has a tendency to fantasise melodic and is more down to earth. Their first album, "Queen" is a series of amazingly different songs, from faster than fast rockers to soft ballads. Traces of Yes and Black Sabbath can also be found but structurally it seems to sound original.

A single 'Keep Yourself Alive' has been released in hopes of giving the band some early chart success. Like the album, it's commercial in a progressive kind of way. Spaced between the chunky verses, the group have incorporated a drum solo (with effects) and a tasty guitar solo which has an interesting synthesizer effect, Brian insists he doesn't use one though.

"Singles are important to is and to have a hit now would help the band, We've more to offer than bands like The Sweet, we're not just pop, because our music covers a wide area." Says Freddie.

The group are currently preparing to start recording their next album which they say will have a theme if 'good verses evil' They say it'll be much fresher than the first, because early frustrations have been expelled via the first album.

"We're worried that the name Queen will give people the wrong impression. We want to be a good British regal rock band and we'll stick to that way of thinking. Our music should override the image, because we'll concentrate on putting out a good product the whole time. Teenyboppers will probably like us and we might get a bit of a 'pop' tag but it won't last. At the moment we're just interested in creating a reaction amongst those who come to see us.

Cert:

In responding to my song-by-song analysis, you say: "It's the concept.  You take the album as one whole thing - analysing the individual songs is...fruitless...It's a Night At The Opera - if you've ever been to an evening of operatic highlights that's been skillfully put together, you can enjoy songs from one opera juxtaposed against songs from another and still have a continual feel to the evening."

What are you smoking?  These songs have not one iota of connection beyond the extremely tenuous album title.  "Death on Two Legs?"  "I'm in Love with My Car?"  "You're My Best Friend?"  "Sweet Lady?"  Part of an evening of "operatic highlights?"  I have been to evenings of operatic highlights.  But they don't claim to be an opera - a cohesive event in which the songs are held together by a story or common thread - which is what the title of this album is ultimately claiming.  It isn't called "A Night of Operatic Highlights."

I can't believe you buy into the title that seriously.  There is nothing - nothing whatsoever - that connects these songs into any conceptual framework, no matter how nebulous.  To believe as you do is failing to see that the emperor has no clothes.  This doesn't change the genius of the album, or the vast majority of songs thereon.  NATO is a masterpiece - of rock with occasional prog sensibilities.

By the way, I, too, just re-listened to Queen II.  And I think I see where the confusion lies.  It seems to me that two elements - and only two elements - are swaying people into a belief that the album is prog.  The first element is May's admittedly unique guitarwork - his layering, texturing, etc.  The other is the extensive use of Queen's admittedly unique and layered harmonies, which are often used in a quasi-"symphonic" manner.  However, while the use of these two elements may arguably be said to be proggish, that does not make the music itself prog: i.e., it does not change the influences in the music or, most importantly, the approach to the composition.  That is, if you replaced May's guitars with synths, and removed the heavily layered and textured harmonies, the music itself is only minimally more proggish than lots of straightforward rock, glam rock, etc.  Again, this does not change the "brilliance" of the album (though I think brilliance is a slight overstatement).  But, like Tony, I still fail to see how the music can be classified as "prog."

Interestingly, in listening to it again, some of the influences I heard surprised me.  While I always heard the Beatles, Zep and glam influences, this time, really listening (with a musician's ear...), I heard quite a bit of The Who, especially on Side 1.  However, the only prog influence I heard was Yes in some of the vocals, again primarily on the first side.  But, again, nothing I heard - short of the two elements noted above - changed my mind about the music on the album, or the overall approach to the composition: neither is prog.

As for the harmony issue, Queen may ultimately have "bettered" The Beatles, but they could not have been Queen without The Beatles' influence.  [N.B.  Also keep in mind that, since the technology had changed, Queen were able to do things with their harmonies that were not possible for The Beatles to do even had they thought of if first.]  Re the comparison to Yes, I think both groups were equally brilliant in their harmony structures and uses, for their own individual sounds.  Re 10CC, some of their harmonies are as brilliantly layered, textured and arranged as Queen's.  However, it is likely that their harmonies were at least partially influenced by Queen (and, of course, The Beatles).  One group conspicuously missing from my list was The Beach Boys.  After all, some of their most brilliant harmony arrangements even predate The Beatles, so they would have to be included.  Indeed, Queen's harmonies may have been as influenced by The Beach Boys as by The Beatles.  Listen to Good Vibrations, and especially Little Saint Nick, and I think you'll agree.

Peace.

Snow Dog wrote: Actually Queen II has my favourite Roger Taylor song as well!

I love it - it's very refreshing as a contrast to all the other songs on the album.

Blacksword wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Blacksword wrote: Cant agree more about Queen II. It is a superb album. Just wrote review myself. Generally Queen were one of those bands whose genius I ackowledged, but somehow they managed to rub me up the wrong way on every album, except Queen II & Night at the Opera. Queen II is among the best rock albums of the 70's IMO. On vinyl, it was always 'Side 2' that got played to death. As Certif1ed says, it's all down to the separate 'voices' (Piano, vocals, guitar etc) and their interplay. This is especially prominant in 'Nevermore' and 'March of the Black Queen' The former acting as a sensitive prelude to the melodramatic latter. The interplay between the piano, guitar and all three vocalists in brilliant. Queen crafted their music very carefully to achieve these great results. You can hear/feel how much work has gone into it. After some consideration, and accepting that I would probably never get bored of punching Brian May, I'm quite happy for Queen to be in the archives... As long as they sit at the back and be quiet! Another remarkable thing about Queen II is the way that May uses the guitar to simulate other instruments. If you listen to "As It Began", you'll hear some multi-voice licks that sound like wind instruments (english horns or oboes), but are actually played on the guitar.   Agreed, there is a lot of things going on on 'White Queen' which in the absence of a sythesiser, is quite remarkable. Also, the words and vocal melody of that song really send a shiver down the spine. I always thought they should have bridged it into 'Black Queen' to make one huge prog masterpiece.

No they couldn't do that! One was on the Side White and one on the Side Black of the album!

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Blacksword wrote: Cant agree more about Queen II. It is a superb album. Just wrote review myself. Generally Queen were one of those bands whose genius I ackowledged, but somehow they managed to rub me up the wrong way on every album, except Queen II & Night at the Opera. Queen II is among the best rock albums of the 70's IMO. On vinyl, it was always 'Side 2' that got played to death. As Certif1ed says, it's all down to the separate 'voices' (Piano, vocals, guitar etc) and their interplay. This is especially prominant in 'Nevermore' and 'March of the Black Queen' The former acting as a sensitive prelude to the melodramatic latter. The interplay between the piano, guitar and all three vocalists in brilliant. Queen crafted their music very carefully to achieve these great results. You can hear/feel how much work has gone into it. After some consideration, and accepting that I would probably never get bored of punching Brian May, I'm quite happy for Queen to be in the archives... As long as they sit at the back and be quiet! Another remarkable thing about Queen II is the way that May uses the guitar to simulate other instruments. If you listen to "As It Began", you'll hear some multi-voice licks that sound like wind instruments (english horns or oboes), but are actually played on the guitar.

Agreed, there is a lot of things going on on 'White Queen' which in the absence of a sythesiser, is quite remarkable. Also, the words and vocal melody of that song really send a shiver down the spine. I always thought they should have bridged it into 'Black Queen' to make one huge prog masterpiece.

Blacksword wrote: Cant agree more about Queen II. It is a superb album. Just wrote review myself. Generally Queen were one of those bands whose genius I ackowledged, but somehow they managed to rub me up the wrong way on every album, except Queen II & Night at the Opera. Queen II is among the best rock albums of the 70's IMO. On vinyl, it was always 'Side 2' that got played to death. As Certif1ed says, it's all down to the separate 'voices' (Piano, vocals, guitar etc) and their interplay. This is especially prominant in 'Nevermore' and 'March of the Black Queen' The former acting as a sensitive prelude to the melodramatic latter. The interplay between the piano, guitar and all three vocalists in brilliant. Queen crafted their music very carefully to achieve these great results. You can hear/feel how much work has gone into it. After some consideration, and accepting that I would probably never get bored of punching Brian May, I'm quite happy for Queen to be in the archives... As long as they sit at the back and be quiet!

Another remarkable thing about Queen II is the way that May uses the guitar to simulate other instruments. If you listen to "As It Began", you'll hear some multi-voice licks that sound like wind instruments (english horns or oboes), but are actually played on the guitar.

manticor wrote: Come up and see me,make me smile!Where is ABBA,Bay City Rollers,Sweet etc.Don't make me smile.This is serious site,not circus.

Those bands have not much in common with Queen.

BTW: Welcome to the forum!

Tony R wrote: Cert: I've been listening to Queen II also. It certainly has its moments,quite a few actually,but a "Masterpiece of Prog"? One of the TOP TEN BEST PROG ALBUMS EVER? I cant believe you are being objective about this.

The moments are so many and so dense, it's easy to miss them. I can't believe I've missed them all these years. I've always thought of Queen as having prog leanings, but the conclusion I came to today has actually surprised me, despite my casual support for their inclusion.

I don't usually bother analysing Queen's music which is probably why I got such a surprise - although I suppose I shouldn't have. The sheer quantity of prog elements in Queen II is quite breathtaking - especially given the speed at which they pass by. You really need to listen with "musicians" ears - which isn't that hard;

Just follow one particular "voice" (guitar, vocals, piano, etc.) each time you listen, and listen to what each voice does - and how it does it (colouration with dynamics, technical decoration, interesting rhythms, etc), then follow the interplay between "voices" on subsequent listens, and see how the music not only grows out of itself, but progresses into a far-out and unique world as a conglomeration.

When you're at the point that you can hear the glitches in the recording process, you're probably listening hard enough. Many bands fall apart at this level of listening - most are just simple rock bands with fancy frills, on the whole. If you are seeing the dots on the page as the band play, then you're probably listening too hard... real music is the stuff outside of the dots.

Queen II is, to my ears at least, easily as unique and progressive as any of the other prog greats of the early 1970s - and more slick and inventive in terms of composition than some. Yes - I've already named some bands...

I've owned and enjoyed this album since 1977, when I first started listening to Queen - but normally I just lie back and enjoy it - or try to play along with Messers May, Mercury or Deacon, depending on what instrument I'm holding... (don't even go there ).

Today seemed like a moment of revelation - maybe I was being a bit enthusiastic at suggesting top 10 prog - despite appearances, my comments are never 100% serious - if they were I'd probably turn into some kind of psychotouriste - but it's been frickin' ages since an album had such an effect on me. I feel like a teenager all over again.

But without the acne...

MikeEnRegalia, I simply think it's a strange thing seeing on a Prog music archive "a flood of queen reviews". Anyway, be moderated while using your language and read the rules on PA about offending people. You don't need to offend someone to tell us what you think.

___BYE___

Tony R wrote: Cert: I've been listening to Queen II also. It certainly has its moments,quite a few actually,but a "Masterpiece of Prog"? One of the TOP TEN BEST PROG ALBUMS EVER? I cant believe you are being objective about this.

Aren't all our reviews subjective ... isn't that the point? 

When I was writing my Queen II review, I thought about the effect the album had on me ... and I was reminded of Sean Trane's Crime Of The Century review and Dick Heath's Soft Machine, Vol II reviews (both of which are much more evocative than mine ... I'll admit) ... but the fact remains that in both cases the reviewer talks about the album being important at a certain point in his life ... which may have contributed to the 5 star status ...