|
|
Post by The Real Wizard on May 2, 2021 18:58:15 GMT
BOO HISS GASP
Stop everything and listen to it right now - it's one of the 10 most important albums ever. It's where The Beatles start to grow up and first experience their autonomy, and the entirety of popular music forever changes because of what they begin to create here. |
|
|
|
Post by The Real Wizard on May 2, 2021 19:00:03 GMT
The Millionaire Waltz is fairly straight forward lyrically. According to my sources, we even know it's about John Reid. Interesting. Source?
|
|
Steve
Wordles & Heardles 
Queen Mab
😀
Posts: 4,064 
Likes: 808
|
Post by Steve on May 2, 2021 19:42:48 GMT
The Millionaire Waltz is fairly straight forward lyrically. According to my sources, we even know it's about John Reid. Interesting. Source?
I heard this too. |
|
Frank
Politician
Posts: 754
Likes: 669
|
Post by Frank on May 2, 2021 20:28:27 GMT
The Millionaire Waltz is fairly straight forward lyrically. According to my sources, we even know it's about John Reid. Interesting. Source?
I'll have to do some digging. I'll try and get back to you. |
|
Lord Fickle
Global Moderator 
Posts: 11,522
Likes: 3,325
|
Post by Lord Fickle on May 2, 2021 21:55:10 GMT
BOO HISS GASP
Stop everything and listen to it right now - it's one of the 10 most important albums ever. It's where The Beatles start to grow up and first experience their autonomy, and the entirety of popular music forever changes because of what they begin to create here. I don't like The Beatles - sorry!  |
|
|
|
Post by saintjiub on May 2, 2021 23:48:09 GMT
|
|
Frank
Politician
Posts: 754
Likes: 669
|
Post by Frank on May 3, 2021 1:19:51 GMT
The Millionaire Waltz is fairly straight forward lyrically. According to my sources, we even know it's about John Reid. Interesting. Source?
Alright, it didn't take long to find a couple of sources. The recent Queen All The Songs book by Benoit Clerc and one of my favorite resources Queen - Complete Works by our very own Georg Purvis. Quote from Freddie in 1976 to Kenny Everitt (from Complete Works): "It's all about John Reid, actually...it's very out of the Queen format, really and we thought we'd like to do that on every album. I think I went a bit mad on this one. But it turned out alright I think, it makes people laugh sometimes." I'm sure there are other sources, but I can't be bothered to sort through my entire collection right now...too many books/magazines! haha |
|
NathanH
Ploughman
Posts: 495
Likes: 424
|
Post by NathanH on May 3, 2021 7:17:21 GMT
BOO HISS GASP
Stop everything and listen to it right now - it's one of the 10 most important albums ever. It's where The Beatles start to grow up and first experience their autonomy, and the entirety of popular music forever changes because of what they begin to create here. I don't like The Beatles - sorry! I don't like early Beatles, as their songs sound rush or incomplete, almost like a Queen demo (especially the first few ones)! Revolver and thereafter I love their music. |
|
BrƎИsꓘi
Administrator
They called it paradise, I don't know why...You call some place paradise, kiss it goodbye.
Posts: 3,229
Likes: 2,080
|
Post by BrƎИsꓘi on May 3, 2021 9:25:34 GMT
BOO HISS GASP Stop everything and listen to it right now - it's one of the 10 most important albums ever. It's where The Beatles start to grow up and first experience their autonomy, and the entirety of popular music forever changes because of what they begin to create here. absolutely. for a decade+ back on QZ I frequently refer to this album as the game changer. popular music was never the same again. it's impressive what the Beatles realised and acted upon (so very quickly). they grabbed an opportunity to be innovators - the changes on this album are tentative baby-steps, but they're there to be heard - loud n clear. it's a brilliant piece of art and (for me) they only better it with Abbey Road. for years, i've always considered Jazz was Queen's RS - the structure (lots of radio-friendly songs), hints of things to come - while not quite planting their feet firmly in any new direction. however, from a Career perspective, Races is Queen's Rubber Soul - the first grown up LP, with mature themes and band control. I don't like early Beatles, as their songs sound rush or incomplete, almost like a Queen demo (especially the first few ones)! Revolver and thereafter I love their music. if you like the later stuff, i recommend you give Rubber Soul a fair crack. you won't be disappointed. apart from the obvious songs that fit firmly in the 66-69 category: Nowhere Man, Norwegian Wood, there's the emerging brilliance of Harrison - If I Needed Someone and Think For Yourself. Factor in the utter brilliance of McCartney's Your Won't See Me, Lennon's standout tracks; the (slightly trippy) Girl, the darkly sinister Run For Your Life and [IMO] the finest Beatles tune of them all; In My Life. |
|
|
|
Post by soundfreak1 on May 3, 2021 11:02:49 GMT
for years, i've always considered Jazz was Queen's RS - the structure (lots of radio-friendly songs), hints of things to come - while not quite planting their feet firmly in any new direction. however, from a Career perspective, Races is Queen's Rubber Soul - the first grown up LP, with mature themes and band control. I think it's not possible to compare "Beatles" and "Queen". Musically the Beatles started simple and became more complex from album to album. They began with "Love me do" and ended with "Abbey Road".
With "Queen" it was the other way around. They started with a very complex music and got simpler from album to album. (And finally back again near the very end.... )
The 70s saw "Queen" beginning with "My fairy King" and "March of the Black Queen" and ending with "Crazy little Thing called love" - so to speak. (Although "Crazy" is not as simple as maybe "Love me do"...)
Also the whole phenomenon was different. The Beatles were a role model for the youth in the post war world. They were the spark to a big change in society. This wasn't planned by them, this change was probably coming anyway. But the Beatles made it visible by looking different with their haircuts, that they adopted from friends in Hamburg. In the first years the "hair" was more talked about than the music. The Beatles ruled the youth magazines, they even were movie stars.
Queen never were rolemodels. When Queen started in the 70s, they were - depending where you lived - "invisible". They were rarely seen in german magazines, although we were flooded with other british acts like T.Rex and Slade etc. And you were lucky, when you saw one video once a year on TV !!! The "Live Killers special" with Thomas Gottschalk in 1979 was the first ever bigger appearance...
|
|
BrƎИsꓘi
Administrator
They called it paradise, I don't know why...You call some place paradise, kiss it goodbye.
Posts: 3,229
Likes: 2,080
|
Post by BrƎИsꓘi on May 3, 2021 11:46:05 GMT
I think it's not possible to compare "Beatles" and "Queen". Musically the Beatles started simple and became more complex from album to album. They began with "Love me do" and ended with "Abbey Road". With "Queen" it was the other way around. They started with a very complex music and got simpler from album to album. (And finally back again near the very end.... ) The 70s saw "Queen" beginning with "My fairy King" and "March of the Black Queen" and ending with "Crazy little Thing called love" - so to speak. (Although "Crazy" is not as simple as maybe "Love me do"...) it absolutely is possible to compare the Beatles and Queen. for one; the Beatles influenced Queen and the band were fans – so comparisons are natural. but, more importantly, why is it not possible to compare developmental stages in their careers and their respective "forks in the roads"? you argue about the simplicity of the Beatles start as opposed to the complexity of Queen's beginnings, but you overlook one key factor. the times. the Beatles simple start was indicative of early-60s pop - a genre that Beatles helped to forge. Queen's complex start is indicative of early-70s music - bands like Genesis, Floyd, Yes and others were creating complex music long before Queen. in fact, the only reason Queen existed at all was BECAUSE music had evolved to an Art Rock / Prog Rock stage of development - and that is down to the Beatles. And, as for Queen becoming less complex: that was their own choice of developmental path. it’s no different than the Beatles getting more complex, or Genesis becoming a pop band in the 80s, or Deep Purple getting all funked up in 75. it’s the one thing almost every band has in common – evolution. so yes, both (if not all) bands can be compared in every possible way. |
|
|
|
Post by ThomasQuinn on May 3, 2021 12:02:18 GMT
Slightly off-topic, but the simplicity of rock and roll and beat-music in the 1950s and (early) 1960s actually kind of baffles me - in the thirty or so years before it, the dawn of recorded popular music, there was a constant move/evolution towards *more* complexity in pretty much all genres of popular music. The same applies to rock and roll after the mid-60s, and to (as far as I'm aware) all other kinds of popular music in the same period. Something similar happened with second wave punk - but that was an overt reaction to the increasing complexity (and, in the view of punk-musicians, pretentiousness and vacuity) of rock in the preceding period - there is no such clear 'reaction' in the simplicity of early rock and roll. Even the blues tended towards more complexity rather than simplicity in the same period.
Take a competent jazz musician from 1955 and transport him to the present and he might have a hard time grasping the way a modern jazz-tune is constructed at first, but his technical skills are just fine and he'll catch on quickly enough. The same goes for a competent pop session musician from the same time. But nearly all prominent early rock 'n roll guitarists have been totally eclipsed by the technical skills of guitarists ten or fifteen years in the future. I can't think of any other time and genre where the same thing applied, except PERHAPS early polyphony.
|
|
|
|
Post by soundfreak1 on May 3, 2021 12:34:49 GMT
Queen's complex start is indicative of early-70s music - bands like Genesis, Floyd, Yes and others were creating complex music long before Queen. in fact, the only reason Queen existed at all was BECAUSE music had evolved to an Art Rock / Prog Rock stage of development - and that is down to the Beatles. I think you give very good reasons, why both bands can't be compared. Cause "Queen" started from the ground the "Beatles" had layed.
You can compare "Queen" with all the other acts, that started from the same ground and worked in the same time with the same technology.
"Queen" had several highlight albums, but there is no "White album" or a "Sgt Pepper".
If ever - the closest thing to "Sgt Pepper" would be "Queen 2". The Beatles left with "Sgt Pepper" the limitations of a four-piece-beat-band and created an album, that could only happen in the studio by multitracking. Same with "Queen 2".
But I think there is no need for "Queen" to have a "Revolver" or a "Rubber Soul". They have their own "A Night at the Opera" and several other own milestones. For example "Live Aid"..... 
|
|
BrƎИsꓘi
Administrator
They called it paradise, I don't know why...You call some place paradise, kiss it goodbye.
Posts: 3,229
Likes: 2,080
|
Post by BrƎИsꓘi on May 3, 2021 12:50:29 GMT
Queen's complex start is indicative of early-70s music - bands like Genesis, Floyd, Yes and others were creating complex music long before Queen. in fact, the only reason Queen existed at all was BECAUSE music had evolved to an Art Rock / Prog Rock stage of development - and that is down to the Beatles. I think you give very good reasons, why both bands can't be compared. i disagree. we can compare whatever we like with whatever we like. the Beatles and Queen compare in lots of ways - some that i've highlighted. now can we just agree to disagree - or are you going to keep banging your "you can't compare Beatles to Queen" drum incessantly? |
|
|
|
Post by soundfreak1 on May 3, 2021 13:33:31 GMT
I think you give very good reasons, why both bands can't be compared. i disagree. we can compare whatever we like with whatever we like. the Beatles and Queen compare in lots of ways - some that i've highlighted. now can we just agree to disagree - or are you going to keep banging your "you can't compare Beatles to Queen" drum incessantly? We can fully agree to disagree.
But aren't places like this made for exchanging different points of view?
For me the world would be pretty boring, if everyone had exactly the same opinions as I have. There would be no inspiration.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Real Wizard on May 3, 2021 15:31:09 GMT
And, as for Queen becoming less complex: that was their own choice of developmental path. It was, but we also must account for the changes in the music business by the 1980s. Albums were making way for the music video, and all the older artists had to adapt to the changing business models if their music was going to sell.
You can count on one hand the number of artists from the '70s who kept their heads above water.
|
|
BrƎИsꓘi
Administrator
They called it paradise, I don't know why...You call some place paradise, kiss it goodbye.
Posts: 3,229
Likes: 2,080
|
Post by BrƎИsꓘi on May 3, 2021 15:42:57 GMT
i disagree. we can compare whatever we like with whatever we like. the Beatles and Queen compare in lots of ways - some that i've highlighted. now can we just agree to disagree - or are you going to keep banging your "you can't compare Beatles to Queen" drum incessantly? We can fully agree to disagree.
But aren't places like this made for exchanging different points of view?
For me the world would be pretty boring, if everyone had exactly the same opinions as I have. There would be no inspiration.
i didn;t want to continue this, because you're just behaving like a dog with an (invisible) bone. Regardless of what you may think Queen and The Beatles can be compared to each other in literally dozens of ways - by millions of people every day - in the same way that hundreds of other bands are compared to the Beatles and dozens are compared to Queen. Just because you say "they can't be compared" doesn't prevent it. Most of the comparisons I have heard (and made) are legitimate and stand up to scrutiny. A band that has influenced another is bound to be comparable. Just because YOU can't see the developmental comparisons, the musical advancement (it isn't just about overdubs, vocal harmonies and guitar orchestration, you know) - doesn't mean they're not there to be seen. Races was the Grown up album, the advancement on this album above EVERTHING they did before is clear. Grown up songs, and taking control of the production process themselves. A very simple Comparison to leave you with (and there are dozens, believe me): That backward intro to Ogre Battle - where do you think it came from? The Beatles first used musique concrète when? During the Rubber Soul session for "Rain". They later took this Backmasking and developed it further expanding it to whole musical passages for Strawberry Fields, Revolution etc. |
|
Lord Fickle
Global Moderator
Posts: 11,522
Likes: 3,325
|
Post by Lord Fickle on May 3, 2021 16:40:25 GMT
I think all music can be compared in some ways - it just depends on how you make the comparisons.
I was listening to Classic FM this afternoon, as my usual station was doing a stupid "misheard lyrics" afternoon, with callers ringing in and thinking they're funny by saying "My Simple Heart" sounds like "My Simple Hut". 🙄
Anyway, I was listening to Classic FM and the amount of bits I heard which sounded like they came from modern songs was astonishing. Of course, it was the other way around and the classical music came first, but the point is, all kinds of music in some way 'connects' to previous kinds, for example, you can hear the Queen influences in My Chemical Romance, you can hear Muddy Waters in Joe Bonamassa, you can hear Abba in Steps. There are so many bands you can hear Beatles influences in, it would be impossible to list them, but equally, the Beatles must have been influenced by music before them, like Bill Haley, etc. It would be interesting, if it was even possible, to trace back the 'family tree' of music, and see where it all connects. I expect even Beethoven was influenced by someone!
What's my point? Don't know really, just rambling and putting thoughts to text. 🙂
|
|
|
|
Post by The Real Wizard on May 3, 2021 17:10:11 GMT
Slightly off-topic, but the simplicity of rock and roll and beat-music in the 1950s and (early) 1960s actually kind of baffles me - in the thirty or so years before it, the dawn of recorded popular music, there was a constant move/evolution towards *more* complexity in pretty much all genres of popular music. The same applies to rock and roll after the mid-60s, and to (as far as I'm aware) all other kinds of popular music in the same period. Something similar happened with second wave punk - but that was an overt reaction to the increasing complexity (and, in the view of punk-musicians, pretentiousness and vacuity) of rock in the preceding period - there is no such clear 'reaction' in the simplicity of early rock and roll. Even the blues tended towards more complexity rather than simplicity in the same period. Take a competent jazz musician from 1955 and transport him to the present and he might have a hard time grasping the way a modern jazz-tune is constructed at first, but his technical skills are just fine and he'll catch on quickly enough. The same goes for a competent pop session musician from the same time. But nearly all prominent early rock 'n roll guitarists have been totally eclipsed by the technical skills of guitarists ten or fifteen years in the future. I can't think of any other time and genre where the same thing applied, except PERHAPS early polyphony. All good points.
Also at play here is the evolving recording technology. By the time 4-track tape made way for 8-track tape circa 1967 there was so much room for artistic growth because the size of an artist's blank canvas had doubled. |
|
|
|
Post by The Real Wizard on May 3, 2021 17:11:24 GMT
Queen's complex start is indicative of early-70s music - bands like Genesis, Floyd, Yes and others were creating complex music long before Queen. in fact, the only reason Queen existed at all was BECAUSE music had evolved to an Art Rock / Prog Rock stage of development - and that is down to the Beatles. I think you give very good reasons, why both bands can't be compared. Cause "Queen" started from the ground the "Beatles" had layed.
You can compare "Queen" with all the other acts, that started from the same ground and worked in the same time with the same technology.
"Queen" had several highlight albums, but there is no "White album" or a "Sgt Pepper".
If ever - the closest thing to "Sgt Pepper" would be "Queen 2". The Beatles left with "Sgt Pepper" the limitations of a four-piece-beat-band and created an album, that could only happen in the studio by multitracking. Same with "Queen 2".
But I think there is no need for "Queen" to have a "Revolver" or a "Rubber Soul". They have their own "A Night at the Opera" and several other own milestones. For example "Live Aid"..... Even though they had different technology and were a decade apart, there are plenty of parallels. They're both bands who grew as artists and had a massive impact on the evolution of music and popular culture - it's not like one was a band and the other was a celebrity chef.
Finding these parallels is what makes music fun to discuss decades after it was created, as certain things only become apparent in hindsight. |
|
georg
Global Moderator
wrote several books
Posts: 876
Likes: 1,087
|
Post by georg on May 3, 2021 17:55:47 GMT
When someone in one of the Queen books compared the Who’s Who Are You album to The Miracle album, as that was where the band was at in correlation to the Who, it really made me kind of reconsider both albums in a way. Gave me a new perspective on them.
|
|
BrƎИsꓘi
Administrator
They called it paradise, I don't know why...You call some place paradise, kiss it goodbye.
Posts: 3,229
Likes: 2,080
|
Post by BrƎИsꓘi on May 3, 2021 18:02:46 GMT
Anyway, I was listening to Classic FM and the amount of bits I heard which sounded like they came from modern songs was astonishing. Of course, it was the other way around and the classical music came first, but the point is, all kinds of music in some way 'connects' to previous kinds, for example, you can hear the Queen influences in My Chemical Romance, you can hear Muddy Waters in Joe Bonamassa, you can hear Abba in Steps. There are so many bands you can hear Beatles influences in, it would be impossible to list them, but equally, the Beatles must have been influenced by music before them, like Bill Haley, etc. It would be interesting, if it was even possible, to trace back the 'family tree' of music, and see where it all connects. I expect even Beethoven was influenced by someone! 🙂 hear! hear! the Beatles "thing" cuts right through popular music - even starting in the late 60s - Badfinger, Byrds, Zombies, Guess Who. 1970s - ELO, Queen, Cheap Trick, The Cars, Klaatu, Squeeze, the Knack. 1980s - Del Amitri, Bangles, Pixies, Flaming Lips. 1990s - Oasis (obviously), Kula Shaker, Shed Seven, The Las, Radiohead, Crowded House the list is probably endless - and ALL will forever be compared (unfavourably). All good points. Also at play here is the evolving recording technology. By the time 4-track tape made way for 8-track tape circa 1967 there was so much room for artistic growth because the size of an artist's blank canvas had doubled. and almost immediately upon its arrival 8 tracks were not enough for the creativity of bands like the Beatles - hence the "bounce" technique applied in those initial Sgt Pepper sessions for SFF and Penny Lane. |
|
NathanH
Ploughman
Posts: 495
Likes: 424
|
Post by NathanH on May 3, 2021 18:28:28 GMT
I don't like early Beatles, as their songs sound rush or incomplete, almost like a Queen demo (especially the first few ones)! Revolver and thereafter I love their music. if you like the later stuff, i recommend you give Rubber Soul a fair crack. you won't be disappointed. apart from the obvious songs that fit firmly in the 66-69 category: Nowhere Man, Norwegian Wood, there's the emerging brilliance of Harrison - If I Needed Someone and Think For Yourself. Factor in the utter brilliance of McCartney's Your Won't See Me, Lennon's standout tracks; the (slightly trippy) Girl, the darkly sinister Run For Your Life and [IMO] the finest Beatles tune of them all; In My Life. I did a couple of years ago listen to Rubber Soul but I think I do need to listen again. Nowhere Man is one of my favourite Beatles songs, I love the guitar solo in it. Also, Norwegian Wood and In My Life gets a lot of plays. Revolver is my favourite Beatles album so really I should like Rubber Soul (it's almost loving A Day At The Races but not liking A Night At The Opera which of course in this case I love Opera too). |
|
BrƎИsꓘi
Administrator
They called it paradise, I don't know why...You call some place paradise, kiss it goodbye.
Posts: 3,229
Likes: 2,080
|
Post by BrƎИsꓘi on May 3, 2021 21:10:11 GMT
if you like the later stuff, i recommend you give Rubber Soul a fair crack. you won't be disappointed. apart from the obvious songs that fit firmly in the 66-69 category: Nowhere Man, Norwegian Wood, there's the emerging brilliance of Harrison - If I Needed Someone and Think For Yourself. Factor in the utter brilliance of McCartney's Your Won't See Me, Lennon's standout tracks; the (slightly trippy) Girl, the darkly sinister Run For Your Life and [IMO] the finest Beatles tune of them all; In My Life. I did a couple of years ago listen to Rubber Soul but I think I do need to listen again. Nowhere Man is one of my favourite Beatles songs, I love the guitar solo in it. Also, Norwegian Wood and In My Life gets a lot of plays. Revolver is my favourite Beatles album so really I should like Rubber Soul (it's almost loving A Day At The Races but not liking A Night At The Opera which of course in this case I love Opera too). interesting. a long time ago i really used to play Revolver a lot too. I think i stopped listening to it (as much as the others) for the same reason as Sgt Pepper - they're both incredibly self-indulgent LPs (Revolver being Lennon's pet project) while Pepper was McCartney's. Don't get me wrong - there's some cracking tracks. Perhaps I need to drag Revolver out again. For me (for most of my formative and adult years, it's been Abbey Road and/or Rubber Soul...closely followed by The White Album. |
|
Dimitris
Ploughman
Posts: 408
Likes: 234
|
Post by Dimitris on May 6, 2021 8:08:14 GMT
I agree with most of the above posts, revolver is one of my favorite albums by the way.
Queen during late 70s and early 80s evolved as music composers in terms of music theory, their songs were in away more in theory correct than some of their 70s. It is difficult to discribe it.
For me Freddie stayed constant representing his inner self. His still wrote "pop"songs like he did in 70s. Also in the 80s ,he still managed to write few diamonds like the kiss,TMBMTLTT, MIH, IAL, POTU and his singing was evolved as well in different aspects. (Barcelona also has good composing and singing).
For me FG soundtrack is a great piece of instrumental music along with the to songs Flash and the hero, the latter is like queen 70s.
As it was mentioned before, it was their choice to evolve this way during 80s.
|
|
Dimitris
Ploughman
Posts: 408
Likes: 234
|
Post by Dimitris on May 6, 2021 8:16:39 GMT
Anyway, I was listening to Classic FM and the amount of bits I heard which sounded like they came from modern songs was astonishing. Of course, it was the other way around and the classical music came first, but the point is, all kinds of music in some way 'connects' to previous kinds, for example, you can hear the Queen influences in My Chemical Romance, you can hear Muddy Waters in Joe Bonamassa, you can hear Abba in Steps. There are so many bands you can hear Beatles influences in, it would be impossible to list them, but equally, the Beatles must have been influenced by music before them, like Bill Haley, etc. It would be interesting, if it was even possible, to trace back the 'family tree' of music, and see where it all connects. I expect even Beethoven was influenced by someone! 🙂 hear! hear! the Beatles "thing" cuts right through popular music - even starting in the late 60s - Badfinger, Byrds, Zombies, Guess Who. 1970s - ELO, Queen, Cheap Trick, The Cars, Klaatu, Squeeze, the Knack. 1980s - Del Amitri, Bangles, Pixies, Flaming Lips. 1990s - Oasis (obviously), Kula Shaker, Shed Seven, The Las, Radiohead, Crowded House the list is probably endless - and ALL will forever be compared (unfavourably). All good points. Also at play here is the evolving recording technology. By the time 4-track tape made way for 8-track tape circa 1967 there was so much room for artistic growth because the size of an artist's blank canvas had doubled. and almost immediately upon its arrival 8 tracks were not enough for the creativity of bands like the Beatles - hence the "bounce" technique applied in those initial Sgt Pepper sessions for SFF and Penny Lane. The beatles will always influence, Queen music has also big influence in many artist and bands, but I believe that the Beatles have an advantage compare to Queen. Their music and vocals is easier to replicated by a high school band, while Queen have very distinctive sound and vocals. |
|
|
|
Post by soundfreak1 on May 6, 2021 10:42:26 GMT
The beatles will always influence, Queen music has also big influence in many artist and bands, but I believe that the Beatles have an advantage compare to Queen. Their music and vocals is easier to replicated by a high school band, while Queen have very distinctive sound and vocals. Absolutely! And this goes also for "grown" up musicians. Before Corona I was involved in a music club with regular open sessions. Never ever a Queen song was played, cause most musicians can only play a song, as long it is in the typical blues structure.
Also most cover bands, who played there, avoided Queen songs apart from sometimes "Crazy little Thing".
And although people love to sing "We are the Champions", no one played that. The song itself has a very unusual chord progression. Somehow it's a miracle, that both these songs "Champions" and "WWRY", which is a lot easier to play, became these huge "crowd"-favorites. But only for singing....
|
|
|
|
Post by The Real Wizard on May 7, 2021 20:48:18 GMT
hear! hear! the Beatles "thing" cuts right through popular music - even starting in the late 60s - Badfinger, Byrds, Zombies, Guess Who. 1970s - ELO, Queen, Cheap Trick, The Cars, Klaatu, Squeeze, the Knack. 1980s - Del Amitri, Bangles, Pixies, Flaming Lips. 1990s - Oasis (obviously), Kula Shaker, Shed Seven, The Las, Radiohead, Crowded House the list is probably endless - and ALL will forever be compared (unfavourably). and almost immediately upon its arrival 8 tracks were not enough for the creativity of bands like the Beatles - hence the "bounce" technique applied in those initial Sgt Pepper sessions for SFF and Penny Lane. The beatles will always influence, Queen music has also big influence in many artist and bands, but I believe that the Beatles have an advantage compare to Queen. Their music and vocals is easier to replicated by a high school band, while Queen have very distinctive sound and vocals. High school bands can easily replicate Strawberry Fields Forever, Tomorrow Never Knows, She's Leaving Home, and A Day in the Life ? Sonically, and not just the notes ?
This isn't distinctive ?
Let's not forget they only had 4- and 8-track tape to work with in the late '60s, so their ideas were limited by the technology they had available at the time - and they still pushed those limits as far as they could, with Geoff Emerick often inventing things for them upon request. Had they progressed into the next decade with 16- and 24-track tape at their disposal there's no question they would've continued along a similar path to Queen, who kind of picked up where The Beatles left off in a lot of ways.
Don't discount the accomplishments of The Beatles, or you'll be bordering on Stepford territory where Queen is the greatest thing ever and the band who wrote the blueprint was just rolling out the red carpet for the anointed ones.
|
|
BrƎИsꓘi
Administrator
They called it paradise, I don't know why...You call some place paradise, kiss it goodbye.
Posts: 3,229
Likes: 2,080
|
Post by BrƎИsꓘi on May 7, 2021 21:44:43 GMT
High school bands can easily replicate Strawberry Fields Forever, Tomorrow Never Knows, She's Leaving Home, and A Day in the Life ? Sonically, and not just the notes ? and let's not forget something that sounds incredibly simple - but is far from it: Penny Lanethe song was recorded on 4-tracks, and "bounces" resulted in 20+tracks of tape being used. this was the first time the Beatles - or any rock band for that matter, became as ambitious (sonically) with any piece of music. true pioneers. i really think that most "Queen fans" have no real appreciation of just how many musical doors the Beatles opened for others (Queen included) between 66-69. Any successful late 60s - 70s rock band owes a massive debt to the Beatles work, but in particular their studio work in the last half of the 60s. |
|
|
|
Post by Chopin1995 on May 7, 2021 23:08:27 GMT
Queen during late 70s and early 80s evolved as music composers in terms of music theory, their songs were in away more in theory correct than some of their 70s. It is difficult to discribe it. Interesting, could you elaborate on that? |
|
