Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > Why is Queen so underrated?

forum rss feed
Author

LadyMoonshineDown user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 894 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 25 Oct 04, 00:54 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It makes me mad when Rolling Stone gets on their high horse and dubs Public Enemy as one of the most influential bands, among the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix. Yes...The Beatles and Hendrix I can understand, but why the hell is Queen always ousted out by some no talent wonders such as Public Enemy? Why is Queen only known for their hits when all of their unheard songs and rareties are sheer brilliance? It does not make sense, but perhaps these critics only think of We will Rock you and Bohemian Rhapsody when they hear Queen. It drives me insane....


"Today I saw an American flag flying at full mast and I was reassured--I knew someone....somewhere....was alive."
Gunpowder Gelatine user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2541 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 25 Oct 04, 01:05 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I think only Queen fans realize just how underrated they are, because we know all the hidden gems that most of the general public isn't aware of. Most just think of Queen as the band that did Bohemian Rhapsody and We Will Rock You/We Are The Champions, but don't realize that a lot of their songs were just as great, maybe even better.


Resistance is futile. You are now an orb.

Traveller user not visiting Queenzone.com


add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 25 Oct 04, 01:33 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I think a reason for this is that the lifes of the Queen members is not so much in the press (well maybe in the UK, but not outside). The more you are 'the news of the world', the more influental you are to some people.

iGSM user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 5001 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 25 Oct 04, 03:22 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Hmm, I tend to agree..they weren't really scandalous.


...this kettle is boiling over...

...one dump...one turd...two tits...John Deacon...

...one prawn...one shrimp...one clam...one chicken!
The Mir@cle user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Mir@cle
Deity: 3543 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 25 Oct 04, 03:50 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Is Queen underrated?? I believe that that I more often hear Queen on the radio than the Stones.


I got to try al little more,

because I'm an asshole but I'm learning.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfTLkUcQ7QY
FriedChicken user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 10641 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 25 Oct 04, 04:23 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

In Holland they surely get the airplay they deserve


"On the first day Pim & Niek created a heavenly occupation. Pim & Niek blessed it and named it 'Loosch'."



(Genesis 1:1)
brENsKi user not visiting Queenzone.com
How shall we f**k off, Oh Lord
brENsKi
Deity: 8088 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 25 Oct 04, 04:43 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

i don't think queen were underrated...and anyhow isn't RS a US mag? doesn't that tell you all you need to know? queen died in the US during the 80s

one other thing - when considering how influencial bands are, i think its fair to say that queen shouldn't be high up the list

1. queen cite loads of influences to them - beatles, hendrix, clapton etc
2. there aren't many band about now thta sound even vaguely queenlike - muse/dankness
3. the other bands mentioned - PE, beatles, stones, hendrix - they all have plenty of "shadows" about now


go deo na h√Čireann
Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6326 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 25 Oct 04, 05:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

In terms of airplay, Queen does have a lot. I Want To Break Free and others, are very well known around the globe.

In terms of "respect", Queen is very under-rated. Part of it is the same "over"-play of certain hits, and the "over"-use in determinate circles. For example, many people like We Are The Champions or Bicycle Race, but very few realise the clever music behind them. Both songs - specially the latter - have tons of chords, modulations, unusual structure, etc, but Freddie managed to keep the song easy listeneable, which makes most the audience ignore the musical value of it and think of the track as just "pop".

By other side, simpler songs like CLTCL, IWTBF or Radio Ga Ga make many ocassional listeners think that Queen only made very basic music (except for Bo Rhap). That part of the band`s career is, unfortunately, much better known than Queen II or Sheer Heart Attack. Let alone the live material - relatively very few people have had the pleasure of hearing White Queen live versions, which are very musical. Most people know Queen for their "less musical more show" tours, like Magic Tour, in which Fred was more frontman than pianist and the songs were arranged more for entertainment, than music.


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.
The Mir@cle user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Mir@cle
Deity: 3543 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 25 Oct 04, 06:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Isn't that the same for other famous bands Sebastian?? I only hear the real famous hit songs of the Rolling Stones either. Another example, Toto has made a of lot songs which are musical perfect, but we only hear Africa and Pamela.


I got to try al little more,

because I'm an asshole but I'm learning.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfTLkUcQ7QY
Perry user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 136 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 25 Oct 04, 07:20 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Well, this kid at my school was telling me how he thought Queen were crap, and after reading my short Queen autobiography, he said 'Queen sung I Want To Break Free?', Queen sung 'Radio Ga Ga?' and it went on and on until the end of our lesson when he said 'Actually, Queen are really good'...

Its just ignorance I think...


-Perry
Perry user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 136 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 25 Oct 04, 07:23 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sorry I meant biography, I'm half asleep lol


-Perry
Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6326 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 25 Oct 04, 07:54 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The Mir@cle wrote:

Isn't that the same for other famous bands Sebastian?? I only hear the real famous hit songs of the Rolling Stones either. Another example, Toto has made a of lot songs which are musical perfect, but we only hear Africa and Pamela.


Yes, of course. Look at Supertramp, great, awesome, indescribable musical gems in the early albums, but everybody knows the tracks of Breakfast. Not that I dislike that album, it`s perfect. But that`s it. "Just" perfect. The other albums are much more than perfect and nobody knows about them. Another example: Kansas (and the Point Of Known Return album)


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.
Sonja user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 931 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 25 Oct 04, 09:25 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sebastian wrote:



In terms of "respect", Queen is very under-rated.


Yep...
Not to forget the old gay and aids thing that some people seem to associate with Queen rather than their 20 year input in rock history.


"This world may be another planet's hell."

- Aldous Huxley
VGB user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 209 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 25 Oct 04, 20:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

rant...

I simply think its becasue they always changed their musical style and wern't afraid to branch into different types of music.

Using the independent music scene as an example, its hard to find a band out there that doesn't break from one formula on one album. And even if they change their style moderately they still make the rest of the album sound that way, the songs really have no form of identity except lyrics.

One of the only bands I've seen do this (coheed & cambria) we're ridiculed as going soft or being too poppy, they covered genres from rock to salsa to hardcore to pop to progressive in one album, and it even told a story, imagine that, depth.

people are afraid of change, they want to be associted with one sound or one song, anything that threatens their identity (if a song sounds poppy or deep) they reject, this is why I believe Queen doesn't get the credit they deserve, beyond their hits (which are in fact are rather diverse themselves arn't they?)...

close minded people don't know what they're missing,i can listen to pop music and hardcore music all in one day, or 2 different era Queen albums and don't give a shit cause I'm honest with myself that I like it....


"the radio's playin Queen, and we're rockin out" - saves the day
KillerQueen840 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4081 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 25 Oct 04, 21:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I think that Queen isn't as realized as they were during their "golden days." Not so much under rated.


"The walls we build around us to keep sadness out also keep out the joy."

(Jim Rohn)
Boy Thomas Raker user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 969 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 25 Oct 04, 22:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

"One other thing - when considering how influencial bands are, i think its fair to say that queen shouldn't be high up the list."

Dude, there is scarcely a day goes by that someone isn't mentioning Queen as an influence. recently up and coming American act Coheed and Cambria mentioned in Guitar Magazine that they got inspiration from A Night at the Opera. Hundreds of groups and individuals are inspired by Queen, but think how hard it is to cover Queen. They were musically flawless, they sang like no rock band before or since, and Brian's guitar sound was so unique it stamped it as a Queen song. Compare the to the Beatles. Wonderful songwriters, but what's the Beatles sound? Paul's bass, George's guitar, their harmonies? The Beatles were amazing songwriters, but musically solid. Queen were amazing songwriters whose overall level of musicianship was three-fold that of the Beatles.

"In terms of "respect", Queen is very under-rated. Part of it is the same "over"-play of certain hits, and the "over"-use in determinate circles. For example, many people like We Are The Champions or Bicycle Race, but very few realise the clever music behind them. Both songs - specially the latter - have tons of chords, modulations, unusual structure, etc, but Freddie managed to keep the song easy listeneable, which makes most the audience ignore the musical value of it and think of the track as just "pop"."

Sebastian, you wrote something similar a while back about Freddie's gift to make difficult music accessible. I thought it was one of the smartest things ever posted on here. There are hundreds of bands playing in odd time signatures and styles that have amazing musicianship and chops, they just can't write catchy tunes. From Killer Queen to Bicycle Race, Freddie's singles featured time sigs that either used odd signatures (a few bars of 6/4 in KQ), the kitchen sink of signatures (BO Rhap), 12/8 (Somebody to Love), 6/8 (Champions) and 4/4, 3/4, 2/4, 6/8 and 9/8 (Bicycle Race). That's absolutely amazing. I bet that of the top 10 songs of all time every one is 4/4, except the number 1. I look forward to the next act that has a string of all-time classics with the use of different signatures.





You know, good times are now.
The Real Wizard user is on Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18629 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Oct 04, 00:00 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

To add to this, I think the chord changes in Good Old-Fashioned Lover Boy and The Millionaire Waltz are absolutely brilliant.


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



http://www.queenlive.ca
goinback user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 997 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Oct 04, 01:00 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I don't think they really are underrated...maybe somewhat here in the US, but it could be worse. When you consider how classic rock stations here only play fewer than 5 songs by hugely successful and talented bands like Supertramp, Jethro Tull, ELP, Yes, etc., Queen actually get 5-10 songs in regular rotation. There are even a bunch of once-popular Rolling Stones "album" hits that used to get tons of airplay that don't anymore. I think there is just too much classic rock now that the FM stations have to be very particular in what they play (which is why satellite radio will probably take over...).

Even VH1 US had Queen in their Top 10 not too long ago when making a list of the best bands. I wouldn't put too much stock into what Rolling Stone says...they've always been biased against Queen for one reason or another. RS is often considered a joke in the rock world.

It's funny to look up classic album reviews in RS and see the bad reviews RS gave them lol. RS encompasses the stereotype of rock critics: they always put down things that are good because it makes them feel clever.


"I have no time for Time magazine. Or Rolling Stone." Jethro Tull
VGB user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 209 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Oct 04, 01:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

BHM 0271 wrote:

"One other thing - when considering how influencial bands are, i think its fair to say that queen shouldn't be high up the list."

Dude, there is scarcely a day goes by that someone isn't mentioning Queen as an influence. recently up and coming American act Coheed and Cambria mentioned in Guitar Magazine that they got inspiration from A Night at the Opera. Hundreds of groups and individuals are inspired by Queen, but think how hard it is to cover Queen. They were musically flawless, they sang like no rock band before or since, and Brian's guitar sound was so unique it stamped it as a Queen song. Compare the to the Beatles. Wonderful songwriters, but what's the Beatles sound? Paul's bass, George's guitar, their harmonies? The Beatles were amazing songwriters, but musically solid. Queen were amazing songwriters whose overall level of musicianship was three-fold that of the Beatles.



coheed rocks, they remind me of queen more than any other band today in terms of their musical abilities and diversity. I know a lot of really different sounding indepdndent artists that use queen as a influence.


"the radio's playin Queen, and we're rockin out" - saves the day
ChristianHahn user not visiting Queenzone.com

Be Gentle, I'm a newbie: 7 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Oct 04, 06:22 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Hello people!

I am from Germany, so don't rate my mistakes I will made in this text ;-)

I think that the perfect Songs are to complicated for the major people! I don't want to say that all of those people are stupid. But I think for those people music is just entertainment!