Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > The Key to Queen’s Greatness

forum rss feed
Author

Freddie's #1 Fan Forever user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 386 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 06, 00:44 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The key to Queen's greatness as a band involves the fact that Freddie Mercury was perhaps the only hard rock star who ever really had a sense of rhythm. Most hard rock and heavy metal music, if you listen to it, drones on and on, and there is no beat to it. If Freddie Mercury had not been in a member of the band, I am pretty sure that the other three would not have been an exception to this rule.
On the other hand, as can be seen in footage from the making of “One Vision,” Freddie always tried to get Brian and Roger to make use syncopation. Listen to any live version of “Another One Bites the Dust,” and you will see Mercury improvising various rhythmic sequences in a spontaneous manner that someone like Robert Plant or Roger Daltry could never grasp. Queen music, unlike The Who and Led Zeppelin music, has a rhythmic characteristic more similar to “black” music. Maybe Freddie Mercury learned this from living in Africa.
I want to hear some intelligent responses to this post. In other words, do not try to dismiss this argument in two or three sentences. If you do not agree with me, then explain your opinion in a detailed way.

max_fast user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 88 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 06, 03:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

In my opinion Freddie Mercury did not live long enough in Africa. Can't be a reason for that.

And what you call black influences started with the use of synthesizers and Mack as producer. Before Freddie Mercury was more into classical arrangements.

And I think that John Deacon was also a bigger influence than most people think.

The Real Wizard user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18633 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 06, 03:52 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Freddie's #1 Fan Forever wrote:

I want to hear some intelligent responses to this post. In other words, do not try to dismiss this argument in two or three sentences. If you do not agree with me, then explain your opinion in a detailed way.


You wrote this little disclaimer as if the preceding words had some intellectual merit. They were nothing more than closed-minded pro-Freddie drivel. Your post boasts that no rock musician other than Freddie or band other than Queen had a sense of rhythm, that Brian/Roger/John would have had no sense of beat without Freddie, that no other rock singer (even including Plant and Daltrey) could improvise well (as if your idea of improvisation is a required element of being a great singer), and that Led Zeppelin and The Who are somehow lacking because they didn't explore "black" music. To use the word "ignorance" to describe your post would be such a vast understatement.

You are clearly set in your ways (look at your alias, for crying out loud!), and appear to have no interest in expanding your horizons to understand the brilliance of singers other than Freddie. All you seem to want to do in this topic is argue with people to somehow validate your narrow-minded musical tastes. Of course tastes vary, but from what you've put forth, you really don't seem to have much taste at all. You just like one singer. All I can hope is that maybe you will learn to open-mindedly listen to other rock bands and come to appreciate them and their contributions to rock music. I think Freddie would be horrified to know that there are people who discredit all other rock musicians on his behalf.



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



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

Bohemian: 105 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 06, 09:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

All I can hope is that maybe you will learn to open-mindedly listen to other rock bands and come to appreciate them and their contributions to rock music.



This statement is quite to the point. I find that listening to a wider range of rock music, not only opens you're ears to a variety of musical tastes and types (as stated in the above quote), but also I have found that you can appreciate Queen and Freddie, infact the whole band. For example, I, like everyone else on this site, is a mad Queen fan. All I use to listen to was my Queen records. Every waking momement was Queen, Queen, and more Queen. I loved it and I love it even more now. But I recentley decided I would break a personall Taboo, and listen to something that had nothing to do with Freddie (as far as vocals or song writing goes). I rented out U2's "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb" which I thought was really good, and I can see how that U2 probably represent what Queen would be today if Freddie was still alive. I also rented out ACDC (a desicion that I was wary of, as I had barley heared a second of their material before.) The first time I listend to ACDC, I turned it of after three minutes. But eventually it grew on me. I then rented music from many other bands (Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Led Zepplin, and Meat Loaf). I thought these bands were fantastic. Then I listened to A Night At The Opera. And again it sounded fresh and that feeling of wanting to fly that Queen albulms can give you sometimes was really strong. I became an even bigger fan because of it.

It is a good idea to listen to varried music, and when you have listened to other albulms, you will then really see how good Queen is compared to them. And by listening to other music doesn't mean you're betraying Freddie in some way, or the band. ;)

B.R



Freddies Lover
Bohemian Rahpsody user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 105 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 06, 09:17 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sorry about messing up the quote system, it's a first for me.

B.R


Freddies Lover
Donna13 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1683 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 06, 09:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I can't go into detail. Sorry. It is not my personality. All I can say is that the key to the greatness of Queen was the collaboration between 4 extremely talented individuals. The miraculous combination of talent is what did it. It was similar to a chemical reaction.

thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6256 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 06, 10:48 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

Freddie's #1 Fan Forever wrote:

I want to hear some intelligent responses to this post. In other words, do not try to dismiss this argument in two or three sentences. If you do not agree with me, then explain your opinion in a detailed way.


You wrote this little disclaimer as if the preceding words had some intellectual merit. They were nothing more than closed-minded pro-Freddie drivel. Your post boasts that no rock musician other than Freddie or band other than Queen had a sense of rhythm, that Brian/Roger/John would have had no sense of beat without Freddie, that no other rock singer (even including Plant and Daltrey) could improvise well (as if your idea of improvisation is a required element of being a great singer), and that Led Zeppelin and The Who are somehow lacking because they didn't explore "black" music. To use the word "ignorance" to describe your post would be such a vast understatement.

You are clearly set in your ways (look at your alias, for crying out loud!), and appear to have no interest in expanding your horizons to understand the brilliance of singers other than Freddie. All you seem to want to do in this topic is argue with people to somehow validate your narrow-minded musical tastes. Of course tastes vary, but from what you've put forth, you really don't seem to have much taste at all. You just like one singer. All I can hope is that maybe you will learn to open-mindedly listen to other rock bands and come to appreciate them and their contributions to rock music. I think Freddie would be horrified to know that there are people who discredit all other rock musicians on his behalf.


Amen.


Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

carboengine user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1283 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 06, 11:42 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Donna13 wrote:

I can't go into detail. Sorry. It is not my personality. All I can say is that the key to the greatness of Queen was the collaboration between 4 extremely talented individuals. The miraculous combination of talent is what did it. It was similar to a chemical reaction.


Short and sweet, and I agree!


Yes, it was a worthwhile experience.
bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12700 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 06, 12:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Freddie's #1 Fan Forever wrote:

A lot of crap.


You say we're not allowed to dismiss your argument in one or two sentences?
I'm afraid that's all one would need. For you to tell us that either The Who or Led Zeppelin are rhythmically deficient is *insane*; it shows you've probably listened to "Rock and Roll" and "My Generation", and thats it.


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6327 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 06, 13:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

As much as his directing during 'One Vision' showed (part of) his craftsmanship, it's not Pandora's box either ... it doesn't mean he was the only person in the world who used syncopations.


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.
Freddie's #1 Fan Forever user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 386 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 06, 14:17 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

On one hand, I am glad that this exciting topic has generated some interest. On the other hand, I am a little disappointed by the responses here. The only good response came from Sir G, but even he did not really address my points. To simply call someone else’s point of view “drivel” is not a very good response. What I was hoping for was a detailed explanation of why you disagree with my argument, rather than personal attacks. For instance, do you really believe that hard rock in general is characterized by complex rhythmic elements? And would you not have to agree that rhythm is a very important aspect of music in general?
The fundamental problem that I see in some of the above posts, I think, involves a refusal to acknowledge "black" music. I mean, someone above was saying that they were being open-minded by listening to The Who or Led Zeppelin. But what about black forms of music, like hip hop, disco and even Doo Wop? How many of you will be open-minded enough to appreciate the origins of rock music? (Honestly, I feel like people in general refuse to credit black Americans with the invention of rock music back in the 1950s.)
I am not arguing here that The Who and Led Zeppelin suck. On the contrary, they may have some strong guitar parts or melodies here and there. On the other hand, their rhythm tends to drone on in a way that is less musically complex from what you find in black styles of music. Listen to African drum music or early jazz, for instance, and you will see what I am talking about.
Again, I feel like a lot of British musicians do not really understand syncopation. I am not saying that they do not write great melodies. I am only saying that their sense of rhythm is somewhat inferior compared with what you find in more black genres.
Like I said, Freddie Mercury understood rhythm in a way that other hard rock stars do not. I mean, when "Another One Bites the Dust" came out, many black American listeners (who are unfamiliar with heavy metal) believed this to be a black group! Now let me ask you, would anyone mistake Led Zeppelin or the Who for anything else but white? No Way!
Now, you might try to argue that John Deacon is credited with "Another Bites the Dust." On the other hand, it is also well documented that he often received huge amounts of help from Freddie. As the singer, Freddie basically set the rhythm for the group. Just watching live versions of “Another One Bites the Dust,” you can see how brilliant and original Freddie was with melody. While Deacon is back there playing his famous riff over and over again, Freddie is improvising brilliant sequences off the top of his head. Another great example is “Under Pressure.” I mean the level of syncopation that you find on Freddie’s tracks is on the level what you might expect from a black musician. The video showing the making of “One Vision” further illustrates Freddie’s extraordinary sense of rhythm.
Without Freddie Mercury the rest of the band would have focused on "white blues." It is time that people start to credit Queen as the first hard rock band to really use black rhythmic elements.

AspiringPhilosophe user not visiting Queenzone.com
AspiringPhilosophe
Royalty: 1711 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 06, 15:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

So, your whole argument about the Key to Queen's Greatness is that they used black rhythms? You've got a valid point here, but it's dangerous to say that the key to anything is one thing and one thing only.
One thing that made Queen unique as a group is their variety. Variety is the key here, and variety can cover a lot of different things. Queen music had something for everybody. Freddie was an amazing vocalist who loved to shake things up when he could, which I understand made for some great live shows. Brian on the guitar was great both melodically and in chord structure (have you ever actually listened to his solo stuff?). Roger and John were both innovative in their own ways, laying down the framework and structure that the songs were built on, and never afraid to do things that weren't in their "genre". No two Queen albums sound the same, and even within one album you'll have so much song variety that you never ever get bored. Listening to ANATO is a true treat, because you never know where the music is going. That's what made Queen so great, they were all great musicians, and put them together and they formed an unstopable team. They never became static and let their music get typical or boring. Obviously Bo Rhap is an example of their variety, but I personaly prefer '39, which is heavy folk sounding, as compared to something like Seven Seas of Rhye or Tie Your Mother Down which were straight up, pulse pounding rock.
Yes, rhythm is vital to music, but it's not everything. The very fact that Freddie, Brian, Roger and John could improvise (though granted some were better than others) show their caliber as musicians. Put an album together with varied rhythm on all of the songs, and it can still be very boring. There is more to music than rhythm, like melody and harmony, tempo and tempo changes, and of course, the words. I'm not trying to discredit what you are saying about rhythm here...I'm just trying to say that there is so much more to Queen than just Freddie and his sense of rhythm. Give it another go, listening for the overall picture of every song, not just the rhythm, and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by what you hear.


Formerly MHG
Freddie's #1 Fan Forever user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 386 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 06, 15:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Hi History Girl,
Great to hear your intelligent ideas here. You see everyone, that was the type of response I was hoping for. Although we do not agree on everything, she makes good points.

The Real Wizard user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18633 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 06, 16:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Freddie's #1 Fan Forever wrote:

The only good response came from Sir G, but even he did not really address my points. To simply call someone else’s point of view “drivel” is not a very good response. What I was hoping for was a detailed explanation of why you disagree with my argument, rather than personal attacks.


I didn't attack you. I basically paraphrased what you said in a neutral way. I said it exactly like it is. It's not my fault if you took the truth personally.

Your initial post basically proclaimed that every rock musician besides Freddie Mercury sucks, so even if I provide examples to suggest the contrary, you will just find a way to cut them to shreds. If you feel your post is a well-informed one, that means you have listened to all of the other rock bands to great depths and are indeed convinced that they all "drone on and on". So really, until you show a shred of open-mindedness towards other rock musicians (which you clearly have not done to this point), then I'm not sure what there is to discuss with you.


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



http://www.queenlive.ca
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: 20 Oct 06, 16:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Freddie's #1 Fan Forever - droned....
Now, you might try to argue that John Deacon is credited with "Another Bites the Dust." On the other hand, it is also well documented that he often received huge amounts of help from Freddie. As the singer, Freddie basically set the rhythm for the group.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

what complete an utter shite...i'm sorry...but if you are going to cite freddie as some great pionere is complete bollox...especially when you use this song as a reference point...AOBTD is so clearly stolen from "Chic's Good Times" and "Rapper's Delight"...get a life and stop trying to start pointless arguments

now if you had cited "side black of queen II" - then i would be there with you...but don't go on about rythym - when plagiarism is the order of the day


go deo na hÉireann
teleman user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 740 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 06, 16:48 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Many classic rock bands used "Black" music as a foundation. Rock and Roll is essentially "Black" music.
The Rolling Stones were considered British R&B when they started out.
They took their name from a Muddy Waters song(doesn't get much "Blacker" than Muddy Waters).
If you want to consider dabbling in Funk/Disco the Stones did 'Miss You' before Queeen did Another One Bites The Dust, touched on Reggae on 1975's 'Black and Blue' and if you listen closely you'll hear elements of Funk/Soul/DooWop song structures and melody in their catalogue. The Stones primarily delved into American music but with a distinctly English touch.

Listen to Zeppelin's 1973 song 'The Crunge' with it's funky 9/8 groove, taking a twist on James Brown, long before Queen dabbled in "Black" music.
Led Zep also explored American blues(black music), British folk, Arabic/Middle Eastern music etc.

If you want to talk about white musicians seriously exploring "Black" music from Africa then how 'bout Peter Gabriel. From Genesis' prog rock to the African influenced 'Rhythm Of The Heat' or 'Biko'. Not to mention introducing the white world to Senegal's Youssou N'Dour.

There are so many other examples.
In your myopic desire to dismiss all other musicians so that you can deify Freddie I'd suggest you accept Freddie as the brilliant creative man he was and allow yourself to enjoy some other music in your life.
You'll be richer for the experience.

Freddie's #1 Fan Forever user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 386 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 Oct 06, 15:18 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I am glad to see that there are some new responses to my post. On the other hand, I feel like this topic deserves more thought than some of the more trivial threads that are up there now.

Someone was saying in one of the above posts that Led Zeppelin had previously used black elements in at least one of their songs. They also call them selves a “blues band.” But there is something fundamentally un-black about Led Zeppelin. In fact, although they may claim to have been influenced by black music, I would argue that Led Zeppelin literally represents the antithesis of black music. For instance, while black music is soulful and spiritual in nature, Led Zeppelin music has none of these qualities. On the contrary, what it has is a lead singer with a screechy, high voice very characteristic
of a white dude.

On the other hand, unlike Robert Plant (and Mick Jagger, for that matter), Freddie Mercury really did have a soulful element in his singing. Obviously, all we have to do is listen to “Somebody to Love” or “Under Pressure,” for instance, to see this. However, one thing that I really like about Freddie Mercury is that he does not try too hard to sound black. I mean, I get really annoyed when I hear Sting trying to sound like some guy from Jamaica. It is pretty ridiculous for him to try to deny the fact that he is a white dude from England.

While we are on the subject of Led Zeppelin, another thing I love about Queen is the way that the band uses Eastern elements. With Led Zeppelin, you feel like they are trying really hard to be “Exotic” or “Eastern.” However, with Queen, because of Freddie Mercury’s Indian roots, I feel like there is an inherent Eastern quality, rather than something that is forced.

Another one of the above responses suggested that the Rolling Stones had succeeded in capturing the essence of black music. I cannot disagree more. The problem with the Rolling Stones is that, although they probably did try to sound black, their stuff is just way too repetitive. Although it may capture black music at its worst, it certainly does not seem to incorporate any kind of rhythmic variation. Instead, what you usually have is some guitar riff play again and again and again. For instance, in the song “I Can’t Get No Satisfaction,” what you hear are those same seven notes repeated about 500 times. Give me a break!

If you listen to early jazz music or to African drum music, it is not comprised of the same sequence of five notes repeated over and over and over again until you want to scream. Instead, the music incorporates continual variations in rhythm. Furthermore, this is exactly what Queen music does! Listen to “Under Pressure,” and tell me how many times you hear that very catchy bass line. The answer: Only a few times. Fabulous! If only the Rolling Stones could learn that lesson.


teleman user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 740 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 Oct 06, 16:42 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

You ask people to give thoughtful responses to your original post yet you don't make an effort to actuially read them nor do you take the time to put some real thought into the responses.
Okay Freddie is God and the greatest musician ever. Freddie is a better singer than Ella Fitzgerald, Aretha Franklin and Pavarotti combined.
Freddie's a better composer than Mozart, Ellington, Stravinsky and Monk combined.
My god Freddie was a more talented guitarist than Segovia, Reinhardt, Kessel, Beck, Clapton, Gilmour and May. Freddie was funkier than James Brown, George Clinton and Prince.
Freddie's music was more African than Ali Farke Toure, Femi Kuti, Kine Lam, Ladysmith Black Mambazo, King Sunny Ade, Angelique Kidjo, Kanda Bongo Man and Papa Wemba combined.
Freddie found a vaccine for polio, discovered insulin and invented the wheel.

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: 21 Oct 06, 17:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Freddie's #1 Fan Forever wrote:

I am glad to see that there are some new responses to my post. [SNIP!!!] Fabulous! If only the Rolling Stones could learn that lesson.


zzzzzz

you don't know what you are talking about...Led Zep/Stones and the who for that matter had their roots much closer to black music than queen ever did
in fact...if you listen to queen (upto and including Jazz) queen were anything but black...

led ze/who/stones actually got very close to real blues with some of their early albums....
and i would suggest that Kashmir and Trampled get much closer to "eastern" as you put it...than anything queen every produced

go and read up on music origins then come back and start a cohesive argument


go deo na hÉireann
Freddie's #1 Fan Forever user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 386 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 Oct 06, 21:30 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

By the way, I wanted to make it clear that I acutally like both the Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin. They are good bands, especially compared to a lot of the crap that I hear on the heavy metal station. I am just saying that, for me, the rhythm is just not there. Futhermore, I think that you have to admit that a band does not necessarily understand rhythm just because it claims to be inspired by black music. By the way, I am actually part black myself.

In terms of Freddie Mercury, I obviously think that he was the greatest popular music singer ever. Since he has already been voted as such in several polls, I do not think that there is anything extreme about that argument.