Page 6 of 10

Re: Queen as a legacy act

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:46 pm
by The__KingOfRhye
If anyone doubts that Brian was indeed the main musical force behind Queen, just ask yourself, whose solo work sounds the most like Queen?

Re: Queen as a legacy act

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:46 pm
by parchedpeas
Everything is better with more Brian in it. The others wrote great, great melodies. But Brian Queen-y-fies them.

Hard to say the man who wrote We Will Rock You has left nothing behind, either.

Re: Queen as a legacy act

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:01 pm
by bluerhap
I think there will be a hiatus until the next archive release. I wouldn't be surprised if they released studio album with Mr Lambert and tour it later in the year.
I'm looking forward to a proper live killers release (Best set and stage rig). They shoul release Hyde Park and Earls Court together. They should then follow this with Paris and Hammersmith 79. Remember the years we were moaning about the lack of releases and now we're moaning that they are too similar or the cover artwork is crap. I have enjoyed recent releases and am amazed at the quality given they were filmed and recorded in the 70s when I was still wide eyed as to how a cassette recorder worked. Maybe the younger generation are too sophisticated to appreciate that they have something historical as a release or maybe they are just spoilt brats who will never be satisfied. I better end here as I'm beginning to sound like my father. He used to say about Queen that they wrote great songs but would be better if they hired a female singer.

Re: Queen as a legacy act

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:19 am
by Oret
The__KingOfRhye wrote:If anyone doubts that Brian was indeed the main musical force behind Queen, just ask yourself, whose solo work sounds the most like Queen?


Let's see... Whose solo work from the early 80's sounds the most like Queen from the early 80's?
Star Fleet by Brian? Man on Fire by Roger? Love Kills by Freddie?
They are all part of the Queen sound, and they all have elements that are present in Queen at that particular moment.

But to call any of them the main musical force of the band based on that... :?

Re: Queen as a legacy act

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:44 am
by Pingu
bluerhap wrote:I think there will be a hiatus until the next archive release. I wouldn't be surprised if they released studio album with Mr Lambert and tour it later in the year.


I would be MASSIVELY surprised. I don't see this on the cards at all, given the reaction to Cosmos Rocks, the state of the record industry, what Brian and Rog have said in interviews etc. Not to mention the amount of work involved. Plus I think they know it would be incredibly divisive at best. I could be utterly wrong however, and perhaps a single is not out of the question.

bluerhap wrote:I'm looking forward to a proper live killers release (Best set and stage rig). They shoul release Hyde Park and Earls Court together. They should then follow this with Paris and Hammersmith 79. Remember the years we were moaning about the lack of releases and now we're moaning that they are too similar or the cover artwork is crap.


Amen to all this! "Odeon" gets a bad rap for its cover and for not being Rainbow but I think it's terrific. And I agree Hyde Park/Earls Court would be tremendous, if unlikely. Hyde Park is not substantial enough as a standalone IMO, though might work with lots of extras.

78-79 is the grail of Queen live vids IMO as there seems to be an upswing in filming/recording concerts and the setlists are still quite varied. A lot of the 70s album stuff seemed to go out with The Game. Be great to have official live video of DSMN, Spread Your Wings, If You Can't Beat Them, Bicycle Race etc.

Re: Queen as a legacy act

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 9:56 am
by FCB101
I'm happy we'll be getting the 3D book.

I just hope something very substantial will happen later in the year. Going by what the Queen Archivist said last year I think we shouldn't expect much. There were no further live products planned ...

If the Doors can release - what is basically an audience recording of an early show (London Fog 1966) - then Queen can release both Earls Court 77 and Houston 77 in full!!

Re: Queen as a legacy act

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 5:00 pm
by BitterTears
There's pretty much an annual 'Christmas market' release, can't remember the last year there wasn't. So we gotta get something, you would think. And it's probably too soon for another compilation. Although maybe it's never too soon!

Re: Queen as a legacy act

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 5:22 pm
by musicalprostitute
Ming119128 wrote:
Brian was the main musical force in Queen, Fred was a great songwriter and the best front man, but Brian had the energy.


No.

Freddie was the main musical force in Queen: quite simply, without Freddie we would have all been saddled with Smile - a good enough band, musically competent, talented, but nothing exceptional. Freddie catapulted Queen to levels they never would have reached without him (Bohemian Rhapsody and Live Aid being two from the top of my head that changed their careers hugely).

Re: Queen as a legacy act

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2017 5:40 pm
by fairydandy
musicalprostitute wrote:
Ming119128 wrote:
Brian was the main musical force in Queen, Fred was a great songwriter and the best front man, but Brian had the energy.


No.

Freddie was the main musical force in Queen: quite simply, without Freddie we would have all been saddled with Smile - a good enough band, musically competent, talented, but nothing exceptional. Freddie catapulted Queen to levels they never would have reached without him (Bohemian Rhapsody and Live Aid being two from the top of my head that changed their careers hugely).


Of course.

Re: Queen as a legacy act

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2017 10:11 am
by Wild/Wind
I wish in 80s the band had followed Brian's music direction.

Re: Queen as a legacy act

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2017 11:24 am
by BitterTears
musicalprostitute wrote:
Ming119128 wrote:
Brian was the main musical force in Queen, Fred was a great songwriter and the best front man, but Brian had the energy.


No.

Freddie was the main musical force in Queen: quite simply, without Freddie we would have all been saddled with Smile - a good enough band, musically competent, talented, but nothing exceptional. Freddie catapulted Queen to levels they never would have reached without him (Bohemian Rhapsody and Live Aid being two from the top of my head that changed their careers hugely).


Sure. But that goes both ways, doesn't it? What would any of them achieved without the other three? The idea of Freddie playing with a band half as good as Brian, Roger and John makes me sad.

Re: Queen as a legacy act

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:46 pm
by Frank
Didn't Brian once say something along the lines of no one member is greater than the sum of Queen? Together they were phenomenal, but individually nothing could compare to the greatness of Queen. Each member is responsible for their immense success. You can't have one without the other. So frankly the argument of who made Queen great is pointless.

Re: Queen as a legacy act

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:31 pm
by WeeMann
Steven wrote:Didn't Brian once say something along the lines of no one member is greater than the sum of Queen? Together they were phenomenal, but individually nothing could compare to the greatness of Queen. Each member is responsible for their immense success. You can't have one without the other. So frankly the argument of who made Queen great is pointless.


Agreed. All four are/were great musicians (and I use the word "great" very specifically, each a legend in their own field), but all you need to do is look at the solo stuff and compare it to the Queen catalogue and you'll see, for the most part, all of it is lacking something.

I like most of the solo material, but I generally find that I'll pick and choose certain tracks to listen to, rather than whole albums, whereas, with Queen, I'll choose to listen to an album in its entirety. The Queen material is, again for the most part, much more consistent - I can only assume that this is because it's been through the QC machine that is the full band. Working together, they were able to augment and restrain the others' ideas to come up with a far higher quality final product than any one could alone.

There are exceptions, of course (I'd far rather listen to Barcelona than The Miracle, for instance), but on the whole the rule holds.

Re: Queen as a legacy act

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2017 4:02 pm
by Echoplex
musicalprostitute wrote:
Ming119128 wrote:
Brian was the main musical force in Queen, Fred was a great songwriter and the best front man, but Brian had the energy.


No.

Freddie was the main musical force in Queen: quite simply, without Freddie we would have all been saddled with Smile - a good enough band, musically competent, talented, but nothing exceptional. Freddie catapulted Queen to levels they never would have reached without him (Bohemian Rhapsody and Live Aid being two from the top of my head that changed their careers hugely).


Which is why Wreckage were the biggest band in the world!

If you think about it, Freddie was less successful before Queen than Brisn and Roger were. Yes he added something to what they had, but you could also legitimately claim that they added to what he did and with them and their talent he would have achieved little.

It goes both ways and the four of them were indeed bigger than any one on his own. If you want further proof if Freddie was the ultimate talent without which Queen would have failed why was Mr Bad Guy so badly recieved and why did most of it sound like a very polished bemo of possible Queen songs.

Re: Queen as a legacy act

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2017 11:31 pm
by dearmrmurdoch
Echoplex wrote:
musicalprostitute wrote:
Ming119128 wrote:
Brian was the main musical force in Queen, Fred was a great songwriter and the best front man, but Brian had the energy.


No.

Freddie was the main musical force in Queen: quite simply, without Freddie we would have all been saddled with Smile - a good enough band, musically competent, talented, but nothing exceptional. Freddie catapulted Queen to levels they never would have reached without him (Bohemian Rhapsody and Live Aid being two from the top of my head that changed their careers hugely).


Which is why Wreckage were the biggest band in the world!

If you think about it, Freddie was less successful before Queen than Brisn and Roger were. Yes he added something to what they had, but you could also legitimately claim that they added to what he did and with them and their talent he would have achieved little.

It goes both ways and the four of them were indeed bigger than any one on his own. If you want further proof if Freddie was the ultimate talent without which Queen would have failed why was Mr Bad Guy so badly recieved and why did most of it sound like a very polished bemo of possible Queen songs.


Nah. Freddie was honing his skills not just a songwriter but as a singer and frontman - to say how his earlier unreleased and unrecorded work amounted to nothing seems irrelevant. It's more likely that if Freddie had never joined Smile that he'd have found other capable musicians to work with, than Brian and Roger finding a comparable singer and songwriter. In the grand scheme of things, guitarists and drummers are ten a penny compared to unique and brilliant singers/frontmen.

Some seem to forget this, but it was Freddie's songs and vision that catapulted Queen to stardom. Yes, they would have obviously been a different band with different members, but listeners connect primarily with the voice and melody. Mr Bad Guy? Again, not that relevant - that's over a decade into his career, and many artists only have a few years of producing great songs. Using a latter-day solo album as some kind of evidence that Freddie wasn't the main force in Queen is stretching it "a bit", especially when actual Queen albums during that period weren't much cop either - that's a bit like picking some crap Lennon solo album as proof that he wasn't anything by himself without the Beatles.