Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > Beatlesque Queen

forum rss feed
Author

Shane Jazz user not visiting Queenzone.com
Shane Jazz
Bohemian: 687 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Jun 04, 02:54 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

In reading music reviews, I often times see a certain song, or a certain group, being referred to as "Beatlesque". In got me wonderin' which Queen songs could be described as such. The logical first candidate is Need Your Loving Tonight, with its "oooh I need your loving" refrain (very reminiscent of Eight Days a Week)
But what other songs are comparable to the Beatles' sound?

I could see Who Needs You fitting in with the "anything goes" attitude of The White Album.


Man Made Paradise
Flashman user not visiting Queenzone.com
Flashman
Deity: 4523 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Jun 04, 03:00 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Let me be the first to comment that the Beatles' little ditties couldn't possibly compare with Queen's stunning masterpieces.

That aside, 'Lazing On a Sunday Afternoon' sounds a bit like a shit song by that overrated bunch of Liverpudlian tossers that you mentioned, though I'm buggered if I can remember what it was called. Something rubbish, I expect.


FLASHMAN STRIKES AGAIN!



Paul Rodgers is not the best thing since fried Fred.
Whisperer user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1312 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Jun 04, 03:07 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Flashman wrote:

Let me be the first to comment that the Beatles' little ditties couldn't possibly compare with Queen's stunning masterpieces.


I agree 100%. The Beatles' songs are no better than the Britney/Aguilera/boyband songs of today.


Not those are losers who fall, but those who don't stand up.
pma user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 3462 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Jun 04, 03:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Well, on occasion I've been told that bits of "Rocky Racoon" and "Spread Your Wings" bare similarites. However since both of the songs are unbearable bullcrap, that lyrically make 4th grade poetry contest winners shine in comparison... well you get my point. (as if I was trying to make one)







"I think now I can make love to your anus without making God angry"



Registered: Friday, January 18, 2002



pma user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 3462 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Jun 04, 03:17 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Double post. Oh PS. You have to have the musical taste of a guy who likes Modern'fuckin'Talking (for the love of God!) to compare Beatles to Britney and such.



"I think now I can make love to your anus without making God angry"



Registered: Friday, January 18, 2002



Daburcor? user not visiting Queenzone.com
Daburcor?
Deity: 9478 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Jun 04, 04:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

pma wrote:

Double post. Oh PS. You have to have the musical taste of a guy who likes Modern'fuckin'Talking (for the love of God!) to compare Beatles to Britney and such.
That is quite scary... Despite what some people think, The Beatles WERE a good band. Sure, They weren't the best band ever, But you have to think... Without the Beatles, There's a good chance that a lot of our favorite bands wouldn't have come to be (or they'd be REALLY different). I don't see Britney Spears inspiring any young musicians into making anything ANY different than the crap she's peddling. Comparing her, and others like her, to an actual BAND like the Beatles is just plain asinine.


"Elton John and I became really good friends. I don't mean 'good friends' in that sense. I just mean we slept together." -Billy Joel
Farlander user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 662 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Jun 04, 04:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Well, "Life is Real" is obviously very much in the Beatles style (Lennon in particular). That was deliberate, of course.

In my opinion, that song showed the true brilliance of Freddie's writing ability - how he could write a song so in the style of someone and yet have it retain so much of his own, original style as well. One of the most underrated Queen songs, in my opinion.

Daburcor? user not visiting Queenzone.com
Daburcor?
Deity: 9478 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Jun 04, 04:23 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I SO agree with you Farlander! A brilliant song indeed!


"Elton John and I became really good friends. I don't mean 'good friends' in that sense. I just mean we slept together." -Billy Joel
Somebody to loveeeee user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 421 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Jun 04, 04:33 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Bohemian Rhapsody and A Day In The Life are quite alike. I used to think that The Beatles were bad too. That was before I understood music.


I forgot my password again.
Whisperer user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1312 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Jun 04, 06:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

pma wrote:

Double post. Oh PS. You have to have the musical taste of a guy who likes Modern'fuckin'Talking (for the love of God!) to compare Beatles to Britney and such.


My point was that most The Beatles songs (at least their hits) are simple pop songs that have no complicity. I didn't say there's anything wrong with it. Personally, I enjoy simple songs with a nice melody (which is a factor that is absent from most rock songs). That's also why I like Queen of the 80s much much more than the Queen from the 70s.

What comes to Fucking Talking, they never tried to be a band respected by the critics and other people who think that they understand music. I really prefer Dieter Bohlen's catchy, simple and in some songs touching melodies to all that shit that McCartney, Lennon & Co. have written (yes, I have listened to a lot of their songs just to find out what is so good about them).

I went a lot out of topic there. Sorry!
Just one last thing: All you people who critisize dance music, listen to Mr. Bad Guy. There's your hero singing Modern Talking-styled songs. And what about Queen's last big hit You Don't Fool Me...


Not those are losers who fall, but those who don't stand up.
Whisperer user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1312 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Jun 04, 06:14 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sorry, must say one more thing.

I understand perfectly what The Beatles did to pop music and I'm aware of the fact that the Queen members were fond of them. My point is just that their songs weren't more special than the pop/dance songs of today (that rock fans seem to hate). The only difference was that they made songs like that before anyone else had done it.

Something I have never really understood is this:

Queen liked noice like Jimi Hendrix and Led Zeppelin (they have a few good songs too), but their own songs were so good and different from that crap. Foo Fighers like Queen, but all they do is make a lot of noice wihout any melody.


Not those are losers who fall, but those who don't stand up.
Simmer user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 195 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Jun 04, 07:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

A Human Body is also kinda Beatlesque...


Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?
Whisperer user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1312 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Jun 04, 07:47 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Back to the topic:

Long Away


Not those are losers who fall, but those who don't stand up.
SallyJ. user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 689 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Jun 04, 08:12 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Whisperer wrote:

Sorry, must say one more thing.

I understand perfectly what The Beatles did to pop music and I'm aware of the fact that the Queen members were fond of them. My point is just that their songs weren't more special than the pop/dance songs of today (that rock fans seem to hate). The only difference was that they made songs like that before anyone else had done it.

Something I have never really understood is this:

Queen liked noice like Jimi Hendrix and Led Zeppelin (they have a few good songs too), but their own songs were so good and different from that crap. Foo Fighers like Queen, but all they do is make a lot of noice wihout any melody.


The Beatles were special indeed, simply because they were the 'First Kids on the Block'. It'd never been done before, they changed music completely. It was all new, not only the music but also the sound technique, etc. And they surely didn't only write 'poppy' music, they wrote all sorts of songs. From soft songs like Black Bird, to loud songs like Helter Skelter.

By the way, being influenced by a band doesn't mean you copy them. It could also mean you just want to go out and buy a guitar and start a band. There's the influence the Beatles had on young people in the sixties. Perhaps Queen would never have existed if it hadn't been for the Beatles...


***
Mr. Scully user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4257 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Jun 04, 08:16 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I never liked the Beatles but many of their songs were clever and with better drummer, guitar player and singer they could sound fabulous. I saw McCartney yesterday and I absolutely loved the gig. Of course they can't be compared to Queen but they're legends and certainly far ahead of most "modern" bands.

Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6328 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Jun 04, 08:30 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

John`s early songs were mixed very Beatle-esque. Before `Another One Bites The Dust`


John hated HS. Fred's fave singer was not PR. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' Witness testimonies are often inaccurate. Scotland's not in England. 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices.
emy user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 215 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Jun 04, 08:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Whisperer wrote:

Sorry, must say one more thing.

I understand perfectly what The Beatles did to pop music and I'm aware of the fact that the Queen members were fond of them. My point is just that their songs weren't more special than the pop/dance songs of today (that rock fans seem to hate). The only difference was that they made songs like that before anyone else had done it.

Something I have never really understood is this:

Queen liked noice like Jimi Hendrix and Led Zeppelin (they have a few good songs too), but their own songs were so good and different from that crap. Foo Fighers like Queen, but all they do is make a lot of noice wihout any melody.


can I just say that your comment about the beatles doing something that nobody had done before is a complete load of dog doo. They took influences from all over the place and made it there own just like every other band on the planet has ever done. i'll give you some examples:
1) the verse of 'can't buy me love' is a 12 bar blues
2)'Get Back' is atlantic soul
3) Lady Maddona is piano blues
4) Taxman is Tamla Motown/Music Hall
5) Act naturally is country and western
6)c eight days a week is of black vocal group tradition

the first beatles album is obviously were there roots are going to spotted most easily and you can tell that they listened to R'n'B, motown, rock'n'roll and standard pop songs.

whilst saying that can i also add, What the hell? the beatles, first of all are a lot better than a lot of you seem to be giving them credit for. yeah, i admit, in the beginning their songs were all just simple pop love songs. however, as the sixties went on their music became more and more complex and stunning. and your comment on the fact that they were only making pop songs that were nothing special. what's wrong with a pop song? a good pop song is great to listen to. pop has become a dirty word.

and the foo fighters? listen to times like these, and if you don't hear the great melody lines in that then you must be deaf. give them a little credit too please. at least we know they have great taste in nusic.

YourValentine user not visiting Queenzone.com
registered July 27th 2001
YourValentine
Deity: 7611 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Jun 04, 09:09 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

"I really prefer Dieter Bohlen's catchy, simple and in some songs touching melodies to all that shit that McCartney, Lennon & Co. have written (yes, I have listened to a lot of their songs just to find out what is so good about them)."

To each their own but someone who prefers Dieter Bohlen to The Beatles cannot be taken seriously. You don't have to like a band's music to recognise the musical value. Leonard Bernstein called ┬┤Lennon/McCartney geniusses and I would like to see more of his openminded view on "other music" in this world.

To call Led Zeppelin and and Jimi Hendrix "noice" just shows that you would not recognise good music when it hits you in the face. Again - you don't need to like it but you can still realise quality even if you yourself prefer Milli Vanilli.


I do not want any google ads here.

Whisperer user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1312 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Jun 04, 09:50 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

YourValentine wrote:

"I really prefer Dieter Bohlen's catchy, simple and in some songs touching melodies to all that shit that McCartney, Lennon & Co. have written (yes, I have listened to a lot of their songs just to find out what is so good about them)."

To each their own but someone who prefers Dieter Bohlen to The Beatles cannot be taken seriously. You don't have to like a band's music to recognise the musical value. Leonard Bernstein called ´Lennon/McCartney geniusses and I would like to see more of his openminded view on "other music" in this world.

To call Led Zeppelin and and Jimi Hendrix "noice" just shows that you would not recognise good music when it hits you in the face. Again - you don't need to like it but you can still realise quality even if you yourself prefer Milli Vanilli.


I don't think that Bohlen is a musical genious and neither does he. I just said that I really enjoy 90% of his songs while I only enjoy under 10% of the Beatles songs. Why can't I be taken seriously? Do I have to like some band only because other people say it's great? Or only because it's consider technically skillful?

Well, when I listen to Hendrix or Zeppelin, I mostly hear noice - guys raping their guitars. Sorry!


Not those are losers who fall, but those who don't stand up.
The Real Wizard user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18639 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 07 Jun 04, 11:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Wow, I can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading in this topic. All I have to say is this: like 'em or not, The Beatles changed the world more than any other band or artist ever did, and ever will.

If you're comparing overall musical quality to today's music, it's impossible to do so. Consider the technology of the 1960s, and then tell me the Beatles weren't years ahead of their time. Listen to other stuff from 66-67, then listen to Revolver and Sgt. Pepper. Musically, and production-wise, nobody came near them.


"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca