Freddie Mercury is it just me or is he missed ?

quote:

Originally posted by Polarbear:
I miss the music of people like Freddie badly.

Really? I say good riddance to it.

Pop music has always been shit though - now more so than ever I suppose, but the fact remains.

EW

I'm always suspicious when people so voiciferously and acrimoniously put down a style of music or artist - it sounds to me like intellectual snobbery.

IMHO opinion Queen (and others like them) were shamelessly populist, they did not seek to be anything other than themselves i.e gorgeously camp rock musicians. That people bought (and still buy) their music by the millions is surely testimony that they were doing something people really liked.

The real question (for those who wish to put Queen down) is can you name another contemporaneous group or person who did what Queen did any better?

Doug

Kevin W said:

quote:

I don't miss him. However Queen with Freddie Mercury is marginally less appaling a prospect than "Queen" with Paul Rogers.

If you are going to slag Queen off fair enough but you can leave Paul Rodgers out of it.

"The greatest white blues singer of all time" - Rod Stewart.

It was then that I realised I had more in common with him than just an eye for a leggy blonde.

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
For those who think Queen were good, and to those who think they were not, what objective criteria have you used to reach that conclusion? Because if the criteria were truly objective, there would be no disagreement.

Nothing in music is objective. I found Queen very dull - music to wash dishes to. It all seemed to me that it was about showmanship rather than the artist writing and singing a song because he or she wants to. Contrived music. I think a lot of music is Contrived - I once heard an artist say he wrote differently for the British and American markets - dreadful. It is written to sell - strictly commercialy.

As one great philosopher once wrote "Nice video, shame about the song".

quote:

Originally posted by Steve S1:
Kevin W said:

quote:

I don't miss him. However Queen with Freddie Mercury is marginally less appaling a prospect than "Queen" with Paul Rogers.

If you are going to slag Queen off fair enough but you can leave Paul Rodgers out of it.

"The greatest white blues singer of all time" - Rod Stewart.

It was then that I realised I had more in common with him than just an eye for a leggy blonde.

Agreed - Paul Rodgers always was a great singer.

quote:

Originally posted by Dougunn:
I'm always suspicious when people so voiciferously and acrimoniously put down a style of music or artist - it sounds to me like intellectual snobbery.

IMHO opinion Queen (and others like them) were shamelessly populist, they did not seek to be anything other than themselves i.e gorgeously camp rock musicians. That people bought (and still buy) their music by the millions is surely testimony that they were doing something people really liked.

The real question (for those who wish to put Queen down) is can you name another contemporaneous group or person who did what Queen did any better?

Doug

Doug - Can you name any body that did it any worse - as you quite rightly say Queen (and others like them) were shamelessly populist, which is probably why their music was so shallow and uninspiringly dull.

Anyway, not to put to finer point on it, here's some inspired music by the Desperate Bicycles - there is a song on it that I'd like to dedicate to all Queen fans - called the Medium Was Tedium.

ROTF

Queen were shallow and silly but that was the point! They were about fun and froth! Groups who can fill a stadium with thousands all singing their heads off and having a great time are doing something special. If it's so simplistic and shallow why are we not all doing it and making a mint?

Personally I find the smug self-righteousness of Desperate Bicycles and their ilk really depressing. To slightly distort a popular maxim - those who can, do, thos who can't, criticise.

And, having once been stuck in a lift with Freddie Mercury for 30 minutes (yes really!) I can personally vouch that the guy was a hoot and thoroughly likeable.

Doug

Doug

Thanks for the reply - I think we approach our music in a different way. I've never been one for stadium concerts - synchronised clapping is really not for me. I'd sooner go to a local folk club and listen to somebody who puts the songs first and does it because they believe in what they are doing rather than looking at becoming part of the music industry and making lots of money.

Weren't Queen the group that sung at Live Aid - the line "No time for losers" - oh well.

Incidentally, I'm sure the Desperate Bicycles weren't having a go at anybody; they were just trying to encourage anybody with the inclination to book a studio and have a go. The songs are excellent if you give them a listen with very well constructed lyrics and a vocal performance that is reminiscent of my all time favourite male vocalist Robert Wyatt (closely followed by Richard Sinclair of Caravan and Hatfield & the North).

As I wrote earlier what happened to Freddie was sad and I've no doubt he was likeable enough - it is not him I'm saying I don't like - simply his stage persona and the surrounding 'Pop idol style' music. Still it wouldn't do for us all to like the same stuff.

Best regards, Rotf

PS - Just finished listening to Christy Moore box set and that is superb.

quote:

Agreed - Paul Rodgers always was a great singer.

So, what is he up to now these days?

He did indeed front Queen last time I saw him on TV - but he always was one to keep bad company.

I'm not sure what he's up to at the moment, but I best remember Paul on Ton of Sobs, Fire and Water and Heartbreaker with Paul Kossoff's wonderful guitar work.

Just found his web site here

Boy I didnt know you guys in England were so bland on Queen and Freddie Mercury,hey thats cool we all are into our own kind of music. I personally felt that the band made the kind of music they wanted to.....a very rare thing in the music business. They got to do this because they were commmercially successful..majorly so at that. How many bands could go from light, swingy pop diddys like "seaside rendevous" to "Tie your mother down"...not many

a band that sells cds gets to call their shots a whole lot more than those who dont..the more you sell...the more you can do what you want...as long as you are selling lots o cds.
A friend of mine was in a band that was signed by RCA...do you think any of them had any say about anything....nope...the execs even replaced my friend ( he was the drummer) with Josh Freese, who is a big name session drummmer and has been on some million selling hits.

My friend the drummer is an A list player all the way and so is therest of the band, but boy did he take it personal....I said to him, don't...RCA is investing around 200-300k to do this cd, most go down the drain, they aren't looking for musical talent, they are looking for talent that sells cds...sorry but thats how it goes.....and this band's cd was released.....even had their own category in the record stores......it didnt sell that much....too bad because they are talented....musically.

quote:

Originally posted by ben r:

a band that sells cds gets to call their shots a whole lot more than those who dont..the more you sell...the more you can do what you want...as long as you are selling lots o cds.

Interesting post, but I'm not sure this ascertion is always true - some of my favourite artists have not sold loads of CDs and are still very true to what they beileve in - I don't think Shirley Collins, Half Man Half Biscuit, Amon Duul II or Vishti Bunyan did what record companies dictated and certainly the late great Frank Zappa never did.

I can understand your friend taking it personally ... RCA sound a dreadful company if that's what they do.

A follow up.... on the Paul Rodgers/Queen thing, IMHO I don't think its too cool, nothing against Paul Rodger, a very fine singer and rock legend in his own right, BUT Queen without Freddie M ??....NOPE......Its like the Stones without Mick, or Zeppelin without Bonham...incidentally my hat is off to Robert Plant when he said " Led Zeppelin died the day John Bonham died"...couldn't be a truer statement said.

to Rotf, I know I may paint a somewhat broad picture, but the bands you talk about sell enough cds to do what they do and thats great, the reason why so many acts get signed is because of people like Mariah Carey, or Alinas Morrisettes 1st lp( Iknow my spelling is off), she sold 30 million copies....astounding, without those blockbusters many other acts would not get signed. All the record execs are looking for the next big one.....its the old buy low sell high...and their job depends on it.

I mean look at music today the grammys are a joke and and an insult to real musicians...BUT thats what sells...I mean Rap music, I think its yuk, I am sure the record execs think its yuk...but it sells

A prancing, strutting, mincing queen indeed. Truly dreadful. One of the greatest voices of the centuary but which centuary?

quote:

Originally posted by Dougunn:
I'm always suspicious when people so voiciferously and acrimoniously put down a style of music or artist - it sounds to me like intellectual snobbery.

IMHO opinion Queen (and others like them) were shamelessly populist, they did not seek to be anything other than themselves i.e gorgeously camp rock musicians. That people bought (and still buy) their music by the millions is surely testimony that they were doing something people really liked.

The real question (for those who wish to put Queen down) is can you name another contemporaneous group or person who did what Queen did any better?

Doug

Why are you "suspicious"? And what's "intellectual snobbery" got to do with it?
(I like music a lot dumber than Queen)

It's a free country, people can say what they like. If you want to listen to Queen, fair enough; if you want to write screeds praising Queen's brilliance, go ahead. If I choose to slag them off, then so what?

A problem that I have with Queen is that they (well, Taylor and May at least) seem to take themselves far too seriously. They seem to perature under the delusion that they have a legacy worth remembering - when in fact they were a big, dumb, irritatingly camp glam act, no better than Mud or Sweet or Slade (Queen produced nothing anywhere as good or as daft as as "Tiger Feet" or "Ballroom Blitz").

That's Queen's problem - they were crap and stupid but ever endearing or amusing; and they wanted to be Led Zeppelin but simply weren't up to the job.

And surely their little turn at Live Aid is the most overrated set in history? They weren't that good that day - it's just that everyone else was rubbish...

K

I realise I was beeing too obscure when I mentioned Boney M. I thought they were the absolute nadir of popular music but from some of these posts it seems that some people reserve that epithet for Queen. For those who have fallen into the "Queen are the pits" camp, I wondered if there are there worse things for them? Trying to get an idea of scale I guess
Stephen John

Stephen John - a challenge to think of something worse than enduring a Queen album or concert eh - tricky. I'll need to think about. Immediate reaction is to attend a concert in a stadium called "An evening with Phil Collins" would be worse - but it is a close run thing.

That I'd sooner stay home and listen to the Desperate Bicycles goes without saying.

quote:

Originally posted by stephenjohn:
I realise I was beeing too obscure when I mentioned Boney M. I thought they were the absolute nadir of popular music but from some of these posts it seems that some people reserve that epithet for Queen. For those who have fallen into the "Queen are the pits" camp, I wondered if there are there worse things for them? Trying to get an idea of scale I guess
Stephen John

Boney M aren't that bad. They're quite good fun, in fact. Moreof a laugh than Queen I have to say.

I think the absolute nadir of popular music has to be Spandau Ballet.

Personally, I've never thought that my not liking someone's music made them "crap".

I saw Queen in around 1973/4 ish, (OK so I'm old). They were supported by a band called Nutz. I thought Queen were pretty ordinary and that Nutz were superb - history says so much for my judgement.

It's weird how things turn out, I can remember when Elton John was dead cool, yes really. He had a bit of an underground type following in the early days.

As for Rod the God. He has never bettered his early stuff with The Faces (IMHO, of course).

Kevin, Fair play to ye

quote:

Originally posted by Steve S1:
... I can remember when Elton John was dead cool, yes really. He had a bit of an underground type following in the early days .....

I remember Lady Samantha - Jimmy Young used to play it a lot on his programme.

Also didn't Spooky Tooth record Son of Your Father (an EJ song) for the Last Puff album - along with 'I am Walrus' and 'The Weight'.

quote:

It's a free country, people can say what they like. If you want to listen to Queen, fair enough; if you want to write screeds praising Queen's brilliance, go ahead. If I choose to slag them off, then so what?

Absolutely! I'm all for freedom of expression.

I'm just dismayed to hear people so arrogantly assert that something is 'crap' just because they don't like it. The use of emotive and venomous language to describe their level of dislike suggests to me there is more at work than plain not liking i.e intellectual snobbery.

There is plenty of music and art that doesn't rock my boat (and I own nothing by Queen!) but I don't feel the need to slap it down - just ignore it and move on.

But maybe it's just me

Doug

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:
One of the greatest voices of the centuary but which centuary?

Mine. Yours. Ours.

quote:

Originally posted by jayd:

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:
One of the greatest voices of the centuary but which centuary?

Mine. Yours. Ours.

He wasn't one of the greatest voices of any century. Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau was a great voice, like Janet Baker, or Anne Sofie von Otter or Matthias Goerne. Freddie Mercury was a lamentable warbling queen whose sheer awfulness set new standards in kitsch and vulgarity. Truly dire.

EW