BEATLES comprared to Queen/Laughable
kl
I see, just because someone is louder or can sing higher that makes them a
good vocalist? Lennon,even if he couldnt sing as loud as your boy did in
fact have a greater range then your boy. I believe he could belt them out
as well "ala" Twist and Shout or Revolution, Cold Turkey ,Instant Karma,
just to name a few, but he didnt limit his need and ability to do just that
as your boy did. Id like to hear Mercury do something as subtle as Julie or
LOVE. Or something with the honesty and depth as If I Fell or Ill be Back
How many variety of ballads did your boy even try? McCartney was even
better and much more versitile then Mercury.If it s screamers you like how
about Oh Darling or the end of Hey Jude. Id like to hear Mercury sing
Helter Skelter. Do you really think he would sound as natural or as tender
on lets say, Yesterday or Fool on the Hill? How about Queens approach to
harmonys compared to the Beatles? Laughable! They didnt use them as much
because they,re music didnt require it. Im sure you,ll note some examples,
but the truth is The Beatles had twice as much harmony in one album then
Queen did in they,re entire work. You mentioned musicianship, funny I can
play EVERY queen song and their simple bar chord approach to
songwriting. There are some Beatle changes Ive been working on for years
and still havent got them all right. You mentioned Queen were fans of the
Beatles. esp musicians are fans of the fab four because they know the
staggering amount of contributions the Beatles made and how varied and ever
changing they were. How many periods of real musical change did Queen go
through? Again laughable. How many Queen songs did lets say Ray Chareles
sing? or Sinatra? How about Streisand? Do you think a Roger Williams ever
did a Queen song? If Basie or Ellington were alive today do you think they
would do a Queen song? How about Miles Davis. Tony Bennet? They all did
Beatles songs.Truth is, great artists from every Style have done Beatle
songs. Funny, if you look at the various newsgroups of different artists
they all compare they,re favs to the Beatles .Not Queen or any one eles.
Wheather its denial, deafness or just not being knowledgeable ,they all
claim theirs is the best,or right there with the fab four .Truth is NO one
comes close. Im sorry, I wouldnt even put Queen in the all time top 20. Im
not saying they didnt leave they,re mark. They represented as well as
anyone what I call " Arena Glitter Rock" They had a considerable amount of
style and flamboyance. They had a singer who was very charismatic and
talented. They even managed to leave us or at least a single group of
popsters some fun and ballsey contributions some verging on anthem status.
But that was it. My 5 year old son believes Barney is the best in the world
but he to will move on. I understand peoples connection and loyalty to
something they like. Just because someone likes something doesnt mean its
the best. Its not a Question of taste its a Question of fact . Doesnt
matter, you guys will believe what you want. I ve said my piece and thats
the end of it. Queen comparerd to the Beatles is at the least , laughable.
iorg...@synthetic.com
Well.
He feels strongly about that.
Registered with abuse.net -- if you spam me, I *will* report it.
(remove all the "x's" from e-mail -- anti-spamming mechanism)
Anti-spam mechanism enabled; remove everything before "ogre"
Vince Conaway
kl wrote:
>
> I see, just because someone is louder or can sing higher that makes them a
> good vocalist? Lennon,even if he couldnt sing as loud as your boy did in
> fact have a greater range then your boy. I believe he could belt them out
> as well "ala" Twist and Shout or Revolution, Cold Turkey ,Instant Karma,
> just to name a few, but he didnt limit his need and ability to do just that
> as your boy did. Id like to hear Mercury do something as subtle as Julie or
> LOVE.
Hmmmm, should we tell him about Teo Torriate (how many songs did Lennon
write in Japanese, much less operas?), Melancholy Blues, Mother Love,
Lily of the Valley, You Take My Breath Away, White Man (how's that for
vocal contrast???), White Queen, Nevermore, Innuendo, Who Wants to Live
Forever, Dear Friends... We are clearly not dealing with someone who
has the faintest clue of what he's discussing. Oh well, the 'Net is
full of them. Actually, what I would kill for is a boot' of the concert
Queen did the night after Lennon got shot, during which they reportedly
covered "Imagine".
-Vince
--
-"You're insane!"
-"I thought I was a Pisces"
Dialogue between Vickie Vale and the Joker from the movie Batman
iorg...@synthetic.com
On 29 Jul 1997 16:00:43 GMT, "kl" <kdi...@aug.com> wrote:
>I see, just because someone is louder or can sing higher that makes them a
>good vocalist? Lennon,even if he couldnt sing as loud as your boy did in
>fact have a greater range then your boy. I believe he could belt them out
<blah, blah, blah, I have nothing better to do than <snip> here>
Well.
He feels strongly about that.
So the measure of a musician's success is the amount of covers done of
his/her songs?
Mmmmm.
Barry Manilow must be one talented guy, yessiree.
Joseph Demelio
kl wrote:
>
> I see, just because someone is louder or can sing higher that makes them a
> good vocalist? Lennon,even if he couldnt sing as loud as your boy did in
> fact have a greater range then your boy. I believe he could belt them out
> just to name a few, but he didnt limit his need and ability to do just that
> as your boy did. Id like to hear Mercury do something as subtle as Julie or
You obviously like talk out your ass with no knowledge of Queen. At
least if you posted a personal opinion in a intelligent manner, then I
think you would have been taken seriously, but as soon as you open your
mouth with trival nonsense as Barney, and Freddie didn't sing any
ballads, well I don't think I have to point out the fact that you
haven't a clue and are just showing how small you are. Do you know what
the meaning of "Range" is?? There are little things in music called
scales and this is important if you are to talk about range!! If you
bother to read(any comic book will do) you would find out that music is
much more than moppy haircuts and cute smiles. I love the Beatles and I
think they were very important to music but it's the small minds of fans
like you that always impressed me the most. It is either Ther beatles
are the best or nothing. That is your small opinion and mind you it is
very small. You should take some lessons from your child. I'm sure he
doesn't walk around the house saying Barney blows away Arthur but I'm
sure you must try to egg him on to do so. At least one of you will move
on and let's hope he winds up with a bit more smarts. You want to post
your opinion, no problem, just please make sure you have a clue of what
you are talking about. Lennon has a better range in singing than Mercury
is like saying The Beatles don't belong in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.
If you think that what you posted up above was the only thing Queen did
for music then only thing laughable is your complete lack of musical
knowledge.
Laugh on Mr Giggles.....
Joseph Demelio
By the way, you had me rolling with the "I can play every Queen song"
line but I "can't play all the Beatles yet" Maybe you better hand over
the instrument to your 5 year old son. I think it's time to move on to
some like tennis. I think that has to be the best post I've read in a
while. I'm still laughing as I type this....
Donna O'Kelly
On 29 Jul 1997 16:00:43 GMT, kl <kdi...@aug.com> told us all:
% Id like to hear Mercury do something as subtle as Julie or
You must not have heard a lot a Freddie's music is all I can say.
% LOVE. Or something with the honesty and depth as If I Fell or Ill be Back
% How many variety of ballads did your boy even try?
Again, you must not have heard a lot of Freddie's work.
% Wheather its denial, deafness or just not being knowledgeable ,they all
You're right - you're in denial, deaf, and are not knowledgeable.
% the end of it. Queen comparerd to the Beatles is at the least , laughable.
No, my dear, *you're* the one that's laughable.
Donna
Some people get lost in thought because they're in unfamiliar territory.
Russell
In article <01bc9d5f$bf874ae0$924f...@kdixion.ppp>, kl <kdi...@aug.com>
writes
>I see, just because someone is louder or can sing higher that makes them a
>good vocalist?
> Lennon,even if he couldnt sing as loud as your boy did in
>fact have a greater range then your boy. I believe he could belt them out
>as well "ala" Twist and Shout or Revolution, Cold Turkey ,Instant Karma,
>just to name a few, but he didnt limit his need and ability to do just that
>LOVE.
> Or something with the honesty and depth as If I Fell or Ill be Back
>
> How many variety of ballads did your boy even try? McCartney was even
>better and much more versitile then Mercury.If it s screamers you like how
>about Oh Darling or the end of Hey Jude. Id like to hear Mercury sing
>Helter Skelter. Do you really think he would sound as natural or as tender
>on lets say, Yesterday or Fool on the Hill?
all nice and tender.
I think you only appreciate how good a singer Freddie was when
you try to imitate him. A while ago I borrowed a Kareoke machine and
decided to try and sing a Queen song. Me and my brother tried to sing
"Keep yourself alive", I'm a pasable singer but i just couldn't sing it
anyway near as good. My brother who's a good singer (used to be in
school choir) tried to sing it and came no where close. After this I
realised just how good he was, try it yourself :)
> How about Queens approach to
>harmonys compared to the Beatles? Laughable! They didnt use them as much
>because they,re music didnt require it. Im sure you,ll note some examples,
>but the truth is The Beatles had twice as much harmony in one album then
>Queen did in they,re entire work.
> You mentioned musicianship, funny I can
>play EVERY queen song and their simple bar chord approach to
>songwriting. There are some Beatle changes Ive been working on for years
>and still havent got them all right.
how easy the songs are.
But can you play Brian's guitar solos?
>You mentioned Queen were fans of the
>Beatles. esp musicians are fans of the fab four because they know the
>staggering amount of contributions the Beatles made and how varied and ever
>changing they were. How many periods of real musical change did Queen go
>through? Again laughable.
for instance on the "News of the world" album they went from a Punk rock
song to beautiful ballad., so they had a slow progresion of music rather
than "Rock era, Ballad era etc.
> How many Queen songs did lets say Ray Chareles
>sing? or Sinatra? How about Streisand? Do you think a Roger Williams ever
>did a Queen song? If Basie or Ellington were alive today do you think they
>would do a Queen song? How about Miles Davis. Tony Bennet? They all did
>Beatles songs.Truth is, great artists from every Style have done Beatle
>songs.
concert the only Person who did a performance comprable to Freddie's was
George Micheal but even he had the 3 other members to help out.
>Funny, if you look at the various newsgroups of different artists
>they all compare they,re favs to the Beatles .Not Queen or any one eles.
>Wheather its denial, deafness or just not being knowledgeable ,they all
>claim theirs is the best,or right there with the fab four .
I think this is because they are by far the most sucesful group of all
time, and have such become a measure of greatness. A lot of musicans
from Maryiln Manson and Nine Inch Nails to David Bowie and Seal rate
Queen very highly.
>Truth is NO one
>comes close. Im sorry, I wouldnt even put Queen in the all time top 20. Im
>not saying they didnt leave they,re mark. They represented as well as
>anyone what I call " Arena Glitter Rock" They had a considerable amount of
>style and flamboyance. They had a singer who was very charismatic and
>talented.
In fact i think Paul McCartney once said he had an amazing voice.
>They even managed to leave us or at least a single group of
>popsters some fun and ballsey contributions some verging on anthem status.
>But that was it.
Bohemian Rahpsody, Under Presure, These are the days of our lives, The
Show must go on, Radio Ga Ga, Somebody to love, etc.....
Are you trying to say these aren't some of the best songs ever written?
> My 5 year old son believes Barney is the best in the world
>but he to will move on. I understand peoples connection and loyalty to
>something they like. Just because someone likes something doesnt mean its
>the best. Its not a Question of taste its a Question of fact . Doesnt
>matter, you guys will believe what you want. I ve said my piece and thats
>the end of it. Queen comparerd to the Beatles is at the least , laughable.
>
--
Russell
James M.
Joseph Demelio wrote:
> By the way, you had me rolling with the "I can play every Queen song"
> line but I "can't play all the Beatles yet" Maybe you better hand over
>
> the instrument to your 5 year old son. I think it's time to move on to
>
> some like tennis. I think that has to be the best post I've read in a
> while. I'm still laughing as I type this....
You get em' Big Daddy Joe!!! This guys an idiot.
Trancer
James M.
Donna O'Kelly wrote:
> On 29 Jul 1997 16:00:43 GMT, kl <kdi...@aug.com> told us all:
> % Id like to hear Mercury do something as subtle as Julie or
>
> You must not have heard a lot a Freddie's music is all I can say.
You get em' Donna!!! I guess he's never heard Is This The World We
Created?
Trancer
Andrew Tubb
kl wrote:
>
> good vocalist? Lennon,even if he couldnt sing as loud as your boy did in
> fact have a greater range then your boy.
> as your boy did. Id like to hear Mercury do something as subtle as Julie or
> LOVE. Or something with the honesty and depth as If I Fell or Ill be Back
> How many variety of ballads did your boy even try? McCartney was even
Absolutely bucketloads - you're obviously suffering from only hearing
those which get regularly played on the radio of at ice hockey and
football
games.
> better and much more versitile then Mercury.If it s screamers you like how
> about Oh Darling or the end of Hey Jude. Id like to hear Mercury sing
> Helter Skelter. Do you really think he would sound as natural or as tender
> on lets say, Yesterday or Fool on the Hill?
Listen to 'The days of our lives' - lovely comparison with yesterday if
you
want to listen to the sme sort of tender singing.
> but the truth is The Beatles had twice as much harmony in one album then
> Queen did in they,re entire work.
Sorry - its the ice hockey and football selection you've been listening
to
I'm afraid.
> You mentioned musicianship, funny I can
> play EVERY queen song and their simple bar chord approach to
> songwriting. There are some Beatle changes Ive been working on for years
> and still havent got them all right.
Oddly enough it is possible to get every Beatles song listed with a
simple
chord approach - just because you have found a chord version doesn't
make
it exact - and that goes for the official song books too!
> You mentioned Queen were fans of the
> Beatles. esp musicians are fans of the fab four because they know the
> staggering amount of contributions the Beatles made and how varied and ever
> changing they were.
And perhaps because they were growing up when the Beatles were playing!
There appear to lots of holes so far, although I suppose you could have
posted this inaccurate stuff just to get a steaming response - ho hum.
> How many periods of real musical change did Queen go
> through?
About twenty years worth - If you want they could probably be listed -
could make a diverting thread if someone wants to run with it. Don't
forget that they managed to stay together!
> How many Queen songs did lets say Ray Chareles
> sing? or Sinatra? How about Streisand? Do you think a Roger Williams ever
> did a Queen song?
Why not have a look at the list of people who played Queen songs at the
Freddie Mercury tribute concert - they weren't asked, they volounteered.
While we're on this subject, most of them had to have the songs
transposed
and adjusted because they didn't have the range.
> they all compare they,re favs to the Beatles .Not Queen or any one eles.
> Wheather its denial, deafness or just not being knowledgeable ,they all
Best known = best. Ho hum, more bad assumptions. The Beatles are the
best
known, ergo they are the most popular, and the most collectable, and why
not.
As a point of interest Queen come in second as the most collectable.
> not saying they didnt leave they,re mark. They represented as well as
> anyone what I call " Arena Glitter Rock"
Are you getting this straight out of a tabloid newspaper perchance?
Apart
from being the best Stadium Band of their era, and really expanding the
concept of stadium concerts with their huge South American concerts,
you'll
find a lot more in the albums than the selection that pepole like to
hear when
they go to a concert.
> popsters some fun and ballsey contributions some verging on anthem status.
Just a few known by half the world - verging on anthem status - pah!
> something they like. Just because someone likes something doesnt mean its
> the best. Its not a Question of taste its a Question of fact .
I'm sorry - you've really shot yourself in the foot here. It's just
another exegetical judgement you're making. See how things are going
when
the generations that grew up with the Beatles and Queen playing live are
gone. (Will we all be talking about Oasis? :)
> matter, you guys will believe what you want. I ve said my piece and thats
Yep, that's the problem -it's one brick wall talking to another. I
suppose
it's better than flame wars but it would be nice if you got some of your
facts right.
> the end of it. Queen comparerd to the Beatles is at the least , laughable.
Problem is that its the best comparison you are going to find. See you
in a
few years when Queen and the Beatles are still the top two collectibles
and
Bohemian Rhapsody is voted single of the century.
Buzzcen
Your response was very intrusive and offensive. If it has taken you over
10 years to figure out Beatles chord changes you are not much of a
musician. As a Professional Musician who has appeared with George Solti,
Luciano Pavorotti, Domingo, Kathleen Battle, etc.., I know for a fact that
many fine musicians admire Queen, for Freddie's singing and Brian's
playing. They also like the Beatles. What you stated about Queen was an
opinion, not fact, and obviously not as informed of one as the people I
rub elbows with. Oh yeah, those Beatle chord progressions are 1,4,5.
Taurus
Man alive! Why should these 2 groups be compared at all, or for that
manner any groups or individuals. I learned to play guitar and sing
harmony from Beatle albums, I learned arranging and production values from
Queen. I consider Lennon a personal hero in a lot of ways, I wish I could
sound as at home on ballads and rockers as he or Freddie. They both (along
with Roger, Brian, Paul, Ringo, George, and John.) offer so much to any
musician or non-musician that to cheapen the whole thing with "my dad can
beat up your dad" kind of comments seems to me to be a huge waste of time.
Like what you want, but remember music is subjective. It is the nature of
the beast. There are no "questions of fact", just questions of why an
issue is raised at all.
Peace
--
Magna cum laude, Summa cum laude, the radios too laude.
JDD
iorg...@synthetic.com wrote in article
<33e2332d...@news.supernews.com>...
> On 29 Jul 1997 16:00:43 GMT, "kl" <kdi...@aug.com> wrote:
> deleted because I am sick of thinking about it.
ProphetM
>I see, just because someone is louder or can sing higher that makes them
a
>good vocalist? Lennon,even if he couldnt sing as loud as your boy did in
>fact have a greater range
What do you base this on? Go take a listen to Exercises In Free Love, or
something off of Barcelona. You know about Barcelona, don't you? It was
Freddie's duet album with Spanish opera singer Montserrat Caballe.
then your boy. I believe he could belt them out
>as well "ala" Twist and Shout or Revolution, Cold Turkey ,Instant Karma,
You want it 'belted out'? Try Tear It Up, The Hitman, Stone Cold Crazy, or
The Prophet's Song.
>just to name a few, but he didnt limit his need and ability to do just
that
Limit his need and ability? Just how many Queen songs have you heard? With
a comment like that, it becomes pretty obvious that you're treading in
unfamiliar territory.
>as your boy did. Id like to hear Mercury do something as subtle as Julie
or
>LOVE.
You mean something like Nevermore, Jealousy, or Bijou? Those are on Queen
II, Jazz, and Innuendo - go listen.
Or something with the honesty and depth as If I Fell or Ill be Back
Honesty and depth. Have you ever heard Mother Love? It was the last song
Freddie ever sung. Do you know what it's about? It's about a man who's
going to die. He wrote it and sang it with the complete knowledge that he
was about to die. You can't get any more honest than that.
> How many variety of ballads did your boy even try? McCartney was even
>better and much more versitile then Mercury.If it s screamers you like
how
>about Oh Darling or the end of Hey Jude. Id like to hear Mercury sing
>Helter Skelter. Do you really think he would sound as natural or as
tender
>on lets say, Yesterday or Fool on the Hill?
Absolutely. No question about it at all. And variety was what Queen was
all about. From heavy rock anthems, to speed metal, to soft and tender
ballads, to light pop, to blues, and that's just one album!
>funny I can
>play EVERY queen song and their simple bar chord approach to
>songwriting.
Sure you can. Take a shot at Chinese Torture. Have you heard of that one?
Or try Flick of the Wrist, or Dragon Attack.
>How many periods of real musical change did Queen go
>through?
Just one. It started in 1973, and lasted until 1995. Queen were a band in
constant change. Compare News of the World to Made In Heaven. Compare any
two albums, really, and you'll see a band that was always moving, trying
new things. It's a testament to their diversity that they can change
direction so much that even their biggest fans might have a hard time with
it.
Again laughable. How many Queen songs did lets say Ray Chareles
>sing? or Sinatra? How about Streisand? Do you think a Roger Williams ever
>did a Queen song? If Basie or Ellington were alive today do you think
they
>would do a Queen song? How about Miles Davis. Tony Bennet? They all did
>Beatles songs.
It was a common record company practice in years past to get a well-known
artist who wasn't drawing in the big bucks anymore to do a cover album -
songs that were popular at the time, to get them selling again. It is
merely a tribute to the original artist's popularity at the time.
>Truth is, great artists from every Style have done Beatle
>songs.
The same is true of Queen. I haven't heard Shirley Bassey's cover of the
Show Must Go On, or Elaine Paige's 'The Queen Album', but I have heard
some passable covers by Nine Inch Nails, Metallica, Linda Ronstadt, and
many others, from orchestral stuff to techno. And the Freddie Mercury
Tribute Concert was a thing to behold. Tons of different artists, from
Seal to Robert Plant to Liza Minelli, all singing transposed versions of
Queen songs, because they didn't have Freddie's range or ability.
Funny, if you look at the various newsgroups of different artists
>they all compare they,re favs to the Beatles .Not Queen or any one eles.
That's because the Beatles are a common frame of reference. They are the
best known, not necessarily the best. It wouldn't do any good to say that
so-and-so are just as great and diverse as Bela Fleck - most people
wouldn't know what you meant.
>Wheather its denial, deafness or just not being knowledgeable ,they all
>claim theirs is the best
You mean just like you're doing right now?
>comes close. Im sorry, I wouldnt even put Queen in the all time top 20.
Im
>not saying they didnt leave they,re mark. They represented as well as
>anyone what I call " Arena Glitter Rock"
You've just thrown away 90% of Queen's material with this one comment.
They had a considerable amount of
>style and flamboyance. They had a singer who was very charismatic and
>talented. They even managed to leave us or at least a single group of
>popsters some fun and ballsey contributions some verging on anthem
status.
>But that was it. My 5 year old son believes Barney is the best in the
world
>but he to will move on. I understand peoples connection and loyalty to
>something they like. Just because someone likes something doesnt mean its
>the best.
I would urge you to take your own advice here; Just because you like The
Beatles doesn't mean they're the best. They were an excellent songwriting
group, I admit. I will even go so far as to say they were better
songwriters, on average, than Queen. They were great musicians, too. But
here Queen have the edge, as well as in performance and most other areas.
Its not a Question of taste its a Question of fact .
In the words of Al Powell, why don't you wake up and smell what you're
shovelin'? You have presented no facts at all, just opinions. And you're
entitled to them. But don't make the mistake of thinking they're anything
more.
Doesnt
>matter, you guys will believe what you want. I ve said my piece and
thats
>the end of it. Queen comparerd to the Beatles is at the least ,
laughable.
You're right, it's laughable. Queen are obviously better. :-)
Mike
<insert your own witty sig, I'm tired!>
ICQ: 927669
Mike May's Mostly Queen Page
http://members.aol.com/prophetm
ProphetM
Does anyone else get the impression that this guy could count the number
of Queen songs he's heard on one hand?
tearoof
> By the way, you had me rolling with the "I can play every Queen song"
> line but I "can't play all the Beatles yet" Maybe you better hand over
> the instrument to your 5 year old son. I think it's time to move on to
> some like tennis. I think that has to be the best post I've read in a
> while. I'm still laughing as I type this....
Your and Vince's replies don't need to be full of such ire, you know.
John Lennon's death affectedly me very deeply...therefore it hurts to
read your snide replies - keep it mega-intelligent rather please!!!!
However, from someone who's still trying to play BOTH Queen and Lennon,
I wish I could play every Queen song - especially the solos!!
->ruth
Jim Foreman
"kl" <kdi...@aug.com> babbled on about:
>I see, just because someone is louder or can sing higher that makes them a
>good vocalist?
Nobody said that.
>Lennon,even if he couldnt sing as loud as your boy did in
>fact have a greater range then your boy.
Singing loudly is very difficult. Lennon and McCartney used to get
very loud in their songs, I agree, but they never stayed on key.
Freddie could belt songs out like an opera singer.
> I believe he could belt them out as well "ala" Twist and Shout or Revolution, Cold Turkey ,Instant Karma,
>just to name a few, but he didnt limit his need and ability to do just that
>as your boy did.
Our boy did not "just do that." Most of Queens's best songs are NOT
loud. BohRap is a perfect example. How many Best Songs lists does
that song have to top before you Yesterday freaks realise it?
>Id like to hear Mercury do something as subtle as Julie or
>LOVE.
I'd love to hear McCartney or Lennon do something as varied and
DIFFICULT as BohRap, Cool Cat or White Man. Freddie could do
both...that's why they call it range.
>Or something with the honesty and depth as If I Fell or Ill be Back
That statement is so moronic that I won't attempt a reply.
> Id like to hear Mercury sing Helter Skelter.
So would I. It'd make you potty in your knickers.
>Do you really think he would sound as natural or as tender
>on lets say, Yesterday or Fool on the Hill?
No, more.
>How about Queens approach to
>harmonys compared to the Beatles? Laughable! They didnt use them as much
>because they,re music didnt require it. Im sure you,ll note some examples,
>but the truth is The Beatles had twice as much harmony in one album then
>Queen did in they,re entire work.
Oh my God. If there is ANYTHING that Our Band is known for it's
harmony. And many times Freddie did it by himself. Nearly every
single Queen song has harmony in it. Better harmony than the Beatles'
rough, high-squeakiness.
>You mentioned musicianship, funny I can
>play EVERY queen song and their simple bar chord approach to
>songwriting.
I know guitarist prodigys (well, one) who can play most of Randy
Rhoades' solos (long considered one of the top 3 guitarists in
history) but does not even attempt Brian May for its complexity. You
should have seen his face when he listened to Great King Rat for the
first time.
>You mentioned Queen were fans of the
>Beatles. esp musicians are fans of the fab four because they know the
>staggering amount of contributions the Beatles made and how varied and ever
>changing they were.
That's like saying many new filmmakers are fans of Star Wars. Because
of how great it was. Film-wise, Star Wars was not that great. But it
came out at the right time. ELvis was not the best musician, but he
came out at the right time. The same can be said of the Beatles.
Queen's time is every time a new listener discovers them.
>How many periods of real musical change did Queen go
>through? Again laughable.
Really? Hmmmmm 3 decades of music compared to the Beatles' 15 or so
years....
>How many Queen songs did lets say Ray Chareles
>sing? or Sinatra? How about Streisand? Do you think a Roger Williams ever
>did a Queen song? If Basie or Ellington were alive today do you think they
>would do a Queen song? How about Miles Davis. Tony Bennet?
How many pops orchestras in the US and around the world do John
Williams' works from motion pictures? Nearly every single one of
them. It's not because Williams is any great composer. He just writes
the kind of music that both the musicians like to play and that people
like to hear. Queen is complicated and difficult, both vocally and
instrumentally. Besides, many people have a bias toward QUeen because
Freddie was gay. Not the greatest combination. But that's beside the
point...
>Im sorry, I wouldnt even put Queen in the all time top 20.
WHo would you put there? Oasis? Blur? Any more Beatles' clones?
Queen has no clones. Nobody can recreate their music to any degree to
be popular enough.
>not saying they didnt leave they,re mark. They represented as well as
>anyone what I call " Arena Glitter Rock" They had a considerable amount of
>style and flamboyance. They had a singer who was very charismatic and
>talented. They even managed to leave us or at least a single group of
>popsters some fun and ballsey contributions some verging on anthem status.
>But that was it.
Arena Glitter Rock? Ok, the Beatles were Sold-Out-Bubblegum-Pop-
Beaknik-Hipsters-Drug-Monkeys. Oh, and their music was OK, too.
The Beatles started out and finished their careers doing black
musicians' (who were better in the first place) songs so white people
could enjoy them. Queen was an undisputed original. Just a short
list of people who at least appreciated Queen's music, if not adored
it:
Elton John
Metallica
Seal
Nine Inch Nails
Black Sabbath
Ted Nugent
Lemmy Kilmeister
David Bowie
the Who
Led Zeppelin
Paul McCartney
Guns 'n Roses
Have I covered the gamut of Hard Rock yet?
>My 5 year old son
has better taste than you.
>I understand peoples connection and loyalty to
>something they like. Just because someone likes something doesnt mean its
>the best.
You just proved my point.
I think Queen's the best. And I also think you're an idiot.
Does that mean I'm right, too?
Jim Foreman
jfor...@wvu.edu
---
"Oh, how we danced and we swallowed the night
For it was all ripe for dreaming
Oh, how we danced away all of the lights
We've always been out of our minds."
Tom Waits
"Rain Dogs"
Paul Hunt
FIrst up, a small gripe. I know that in cyberspace, we do away with a
lot of the niceties of written expression. But surely it is not too
much to ask for paragraphs to separate out points...
Anyway...
"kl" <kdi...@aug.com> wrote:
>I see, just because someone is louder or can sing higher that makes them a
>good vocalist? Lennon,even if he couldnt sing as loud as your boy did in
>fact have a greater range then your boy. I believe he could belt them out
>as well "ala" Twist and Shout or Revolution, Cold Turkey ,Instant Karma,
>just to name a few, but he didnt limit his need and ability to do just that
>as your boy did. Id like to hear Mercury do something as subtle as Julie or
>LOVE. Or something with the honesty and depth as If I Fell or Ill be Back
Strange. I once read that Freddie's voice had been likened to that of
an "English choirboy". I've not listened to the Beatles all that
often, and could not comment on Lennon's vocal range. I do know that
Freddie did have a very good vocal range, even without falsetto, and
could sing falsetto with amazing purity when not afflicted with
nodules. "You take my breath away" is but one example of Freddie's
vocal expressive talents.
> How many variety of ballads did your boy even try? McCartney was even
>better and much more versitile then Mercury.If it s screamers you like how
>about Oh Darling or the end of Hey Jude. Id like to hear Mercury sing
>Helter Skelter. Do you really think he would sound as natural or as tender
>on lets say, Yesterday or Fool on the Hill? How about Queens approach to
>harmonys compared to the Beatles? Laughable! They didnt use them as much
>because they,re music didnt require it. Im sure you,ll note some examples,
>but the truth is The Beatles had twice as much harmony in one album then
>Queen did in they,re entire work. You mentioned musicianship, funny I can
>play EVERY queen song and their simple bar chord approach to
>songwriting.
I assume, then, that you've mastered Brian's exceptionally innovative
and ornate lead guitar style, which has been praised by the likes of
Eric Clapton and Frank Zappa. Perhaps not?
Superb and emotionally engaging guitar playing is not something that
I've ever experience from the Beatles or most other bands for that
matter.
You know, I have a feeling that the simple rock chord progressions you
seem to despise may just have been used quite extensively by the
Beatles. And if you think that this is all Queen used then I don't
think that you've really listened all that hard.
> There are some Beatle changes Ive been working on for years
>and still havent got them all right. You mentioned Queen were fans of the
Mmm. Much baroque music features quite predictable "mathematical"
progressions. Does that make the music simple or less innovative?
Throwing in an odd augmented chord or whatever does not lead to
musical superiority.
>Beatles. esp musicians are fans of the fab four because they know the
>staggering amount of contributions the Beatles made and how varied and ever
>changing they were. How many periods of real musical change did Queen go
Queen survived over 20 years of musical change around them. Adapting
as they went, but keeping their trademark sound. Aside from the
Stones, not too many bands come to mind that have done that.
Why should they be jacks of all trades?
>through? Again laughable. How many Queen songs did lets say Ray Chareles
>sing? or Sinatra? How about Streisand? Do you think a Roger Williams ever
>did a Queen song? If Basie or Ellington were alive today do you think they
>would do a Queen song? How about Miles Davis. Tony Bennet? They all did
>Beatles songs.Truth is, great artists from every Style have done Beatle
I think that this is as much attributable to the cultural revolution
which the Beatles represented as anything else. I find nothing
inherently superior in their approach to music making. Of course, no
one can doubt their skill as song crafters.
Also Interesting. Most of the above mentioned artists could be termed
as Jazz or Blues artists. No, I don't think Bo Rhap would sound at
all wonderful played by Miles Davis, or Dizzie Gillespie, or sung by
Ray Charles. As magnificent as those musicians are.
Could it be that said Beatles music was simpler in some ways to adapt
to a variety of other styles???
For example, Jimi Hendrix and Frank Zappa in their own differing ways
made huge contributions to music, yet I haven't head a London Symphony
Orchestra version of "Voodoo Chile". Mmmm, I have heard a Stevie Ray
Vaughan Version, tho'. Damn good.
>something they like. Just because someone likes something doesnt mean its
>the best. Its not a Question of taste its a Question of fact . Doesnt
>matter, you guys will believe what you want. I ve said my piece and thats
>the end of it. Queen comparerd to the Beatles is at the least , laughable.
>
Amen to that.
At most we should say that Queen and the Beatles are different. They
came from different social contexts, produced music of different
genres.
Paul.
-------------------
Paul Hunt
To email me, remove .bugmenot from my return address
Jim Foreman
prh...@dyson.brisnet.org.au.bugmenot (Paul Hunt) babbled on about:
>Queen survived over 20 years of musical change around them. Adapting
>as they went, but keeping their trademark sound. Aside from the
>Stones, not too many bands come to mind that have done that.
( I agree with you completely about everything, by the way)
But a number of bands have done pretty much what you say. AC/DC for
one, Aerosmith to some degree, Black Sabbath (sans Ozzy) has really
stayed the same, etc.
Just my .02
Jim
"No animals were harmed in the making of that sketch.
They were all killed afterward, for fun."
Robert Smigel
Late Night With Conan O'Brien
Markus Brenner
In article <01bc9d5f$bf874ae0$924f...@kdixion.ppp>, "kl" <kdi...@aug.com> wrote:
> Queen comparerd to the Beatles is at the least , laughable.
Do me a favour and listen to 'Put out the fire' and then 'Life is Real' in
succession, those two songs alone contradicting most of your arguments.
(talking about range) BTW, I believe 'Oh Darling' was sung by Paul McCartney,
not John Lennon. (He actually screamed for a while before recording that song
to get hoarse)
The issue of covers is a completely different: The Beatles are dead as a band
for nearly 30 years now, no wonder artists all over the music scene covered
their songs. Now, six years after Freddie Mercury's death more and more cover
versions of Queen songs appear. Well, and Liza Minelli did 'We are the
champions' *grin* My guess is that it is no easy job of doing *good* covers of
Queen songs, as the band played and produced them perfectly. Whereas, Joe
Cocker's version of 'With a little help of your friends' actually comes out
much more emotional than the Beatles' own.
Cheers,
-markus
----
Markus Brenner _ no matter how - how hard you try
-==(UDIC)==- ( ) in your own life, and through the years
\/ --+-- with every up - must come a down
Minstrel Dragon | enjoy the laughter and the tears
| of happiness (Roger Taylor)
Lord High Mucketty-muck of the UDIC Greybeards (tm)
email: bre...@biochem.mpg.de * WWW: http://www.biochem.mpg.de/~brenner/
Paul Hunt
jfor...@wvu.edu (Jim Foreman) wrote:
>prh...@dyson.brisnet.org.au.bugmenot (Paul Hunt) babbled on about:
>>Queen survived over 20 years of musical change around them. Adapting
>>as they went, but keeping their trademark sound. Aside from the
>>Stones, not too many bands come to mind that have done that.
>
>( I agree with you completely about everything, by the way)
>
>But a number of bands have done pretty much what you say. AC/DC for
>one, Aerosmith to some degree, Black Sabbath (sans Ozzy) has really
>stayed the same, etc.
>
Well, of course, when I think of it, I can come up with others too.
But not with a few glasses of a good Aussie red under the belt!
Seriously, though, although many bands did survive over decades, I
think that Queen embraced change and technology along the way,
without sacrificing the essential Queen integrity.
Some other bands, to my mind, forged through the years sounding pretty
much the same and ignoring to a large degree the cultural and musical
changes going on around them.
AC/DC, while a great band, to my ears still sound much as they always
did. The loud overdriven Gibson through squigga-watt Marshall stacks
sound. The _style_ of song they write. And that is not to criticize
AC/DC. I'm just saying that, to my mind, Queen approached matters a
little differently.
One performer who I think has weathered the years well, in the same
manner Queen did, is David Bowie. But that has nothing to do with
Queen, really!
Thomas Odland
Hey, Buzz, don't forget the occasional 7th of the 5 chord thrown in for
a dramatic segue back to 1!
Tom
Thomas Odland
ProphetM wrote:
>
> Does anyone else get the impression that this guy could count the number
> of Queen songs he's heard on one hand?
>
> Mike
Does "We Will Rock You / We Are The Champions" (that's WWRY/WATC for all
you acronymphomaniacs) count as one or two?
Tom
mecha...@mindspring.com
Tee Hee Hee I agree :D Where do We get these people??????!!!!!!!
Katie @)-->--
cal...@mindspring.com <email me at this address pleeeeze>
~People who try to pretend they are superior make it so much harder for
those of us who really are~~
mike
The only thing that is laughableis you....well and my spelling but thats
a differn't e-mail
you must be a week guitarist, my sister (13) can play beatles stuff
Queen kicked as!
Mercury sang with passion ,the guitar playing was revolutionary
and beetles don't compare s..t to them
of course this is a matter of opinion......but its true
Mike
Bobdirects
In article <xNJqnBA+...@robin27.demon.co.uk>, Russell
<robi...@robin27.demon.co.uk> writes:
>A lot of musicans
>from Maryiln Manson and Nine Inch Nails to David Bowie and Seal rate
>Queen very highly.
ugh. MM? I never heard THIS one...
We'll keep on tryin'...'til the end of time...
Visit my homepage at: http://home.aol.com/Bobdirects
Liz Holland
Anyone ever heard the NIN remake of "Get Down Make Love"???? It has
some sampling right from the original....
Liz
* *
you can reach me at....
liz_h...@bigfoot.com
drum...@webtv.net (urgent)
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/7614
* *
blackink
In article <5sg3qt$28l$1...@newsd-108.bryant.webtv.net>, drum...@webtv.net
(Liz Holland) wrote:
> Anyone ever heard the NIN remake of "Get Down Make Love"???? It has
> some sampling right from the original....
>
> Liz
Trent (the wonder boy) also did Stone Cold Crazy and...and...and...??? Oh
damn I've forgotten. Lori, where are you? (I told her a few months ago
when I first heard about them). Anyway, I've been looking for the CD or
vinyl single of NIN's version of Stone Cold Crazy b/w ???? for a while
now, so if anyone knows anything...
And yes, his version of Get Down Make Love is amazing...it was my
introduction to NIN back in '91.
sjb
blackink
In article <s.o.blackink-0...@dialin4345.globalserve.net>,
s.o.bl...@globalserve.net (blackink) wrote:
> Trent (the wonder boy) also did Stone Cold Crazy and...and...and...???
I just remembered...Tie Your Mother Down.
sjb
James M.
blackink wrote:
Hello,
Where can NIN's version of TYMD be found??
Thanks,
Trancer
David Parr
In article <5sg3qt$28l$1...@newsd-108.bryant.webtv.net>, drum...@webtv.net
(Liz Holland) wrote:
>
> Anyone ever heard the NIN remake of "Get Down Make Love"???? It has
Yes and No resepectively. Its dreadful and angry -just like all the other
NIN stuff really - it does have some moments though - good for 'you know
what'!
Dave
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | /
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/ pa...@argonet.co.uk
Jarno Laivola
kl (kdi...@aug.com) wrote:
: I see, just because someone is louder or can sing higher that makes them a
: good vocalist? Lennon,even if he couldnt sing as loud as your boy did in
: fact have a greater range then your boy. I believe he could belt them out
: How many variety of ballads did your boy even try? McCartney was even
Stone Cold Crazy/Sheer Heart Attack, You Take My Breath Away,
Somebody To Love, Keep Yourself Alive - Do I really have to
talk about variety of Queen's production.
: Queen did in they,re entire work. You mentioned musicianship, funny I can
: play EVERY queen song and their simple bar chord approach to
: and still havent got them all right. You mentioned Queen were fans of the
Somehow I've got the feeling you really haven't heard EVERY Queen
song. I agree, Beatles have songs with difficult chord structure
(and so do Queen), but I don't think that a song is better if it's
complex. I've started practising rhythm guitar lately (which means
I'm somewhere in the bar-chord-level) and most of Queen songs are
too hard for me.
: changing they were. How many periods of real musical change did Queen go
: through? Again laughable. How many Queen songs did lets say Ray Chareles
In my opinion Queen had two periods in their career: Early-Queen
(70's) and Late-Queen (80's & 90's) and a short period between
them (Hot Space and Flash Gordon). Actually I can see one major
change in Beatles career too. Songs in The Red Collection are
definitely from a different era than The Blue Collection's.
: sing? or Sinatra? How about Streisand? Do you think a Roger Williams ever
: did a Queen song? If Basie or Ellington were alive today do you think they
: would do a Queen song? How about Miles Davis. Tony Bennet? They all did
Lot's of great names. I will make my final conclusions in fifteen
years. Yes, because Queen have been out of game for 5 years and
the latest album is even younger. In 2010's we can see if Queen is
forgotten. I'll wait.
: something they like. Just because someone likes something doesnt mean its
: the best. Its not a Question of taste its a Question of fact . Doesnt
: matter, you guys will believe what you want. I ve said my piece and thats
: the end of it. Queen comparerd to the Beatles is at the least , laughable.
Actually I hate this kind of discussion. I like both Queen and
Beatles and both of them have songs which I prefer not to listen
every time. This time I had to tell about Queen because you had
insufficient knowledge on it. I hope you don't find this offensive.
When Ringo and Roger are seen fighting in public or George and
Brian are beating each other, let me know. I'll decide on that
day.
MOE!
t: JaRNo
Liz Holland
David Parr wrote:
>Good for you know what...
No, what? ;-) hehehe
Vince Conaway
blackink wrote:
>
> In article <5sg3qt$28l$1...@newsd-108.bryant.webtv.net>, drum...@webtv.net
> (Liz Holland) wrote:
>
> > Anyone ever heard the NIN remake of "Get Down Make Love"???? It has
> >
> > Liz
>
> Trent (the wonder boy) also did Stone Cold Crazy and...and...and...??? Oh
> damn I've forgotten. Lori, where are you? (I told her a few months ago
> when I first heard about them). Anyway, I've been looking for the CD or
> vinyl single of NIN's version of Stone Cold Crazy b/w ???? for a while
> now, so if anyone knows anything...
>
> And yes, his version of Get Down Make Love is amazing...it was my
> introduction to NIN back in '91.
I don't know if I'd call it amazing...he took a song about free love and
made it about rape without changing a single lyric...
-Vince
--
-"You're insane!"
-"I thought I was a Pisces"
Dialogue between Vickie Vale and the Joker from the movie Batman
Liz Holland
>he took a song about free love and made it >about rape without changing
a single lyric...
I don't think it's about rape...more aggressive definitely, but not
rape...
Liz
* * *
------>This is a newsgroup posting address only....to reply to me,
please use liz_h...@bigfoot.com
blackink
In article <33EF53...@osu.edu>, Vince Conaway <conaw...@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> I don't know if I'd call it amazing...he took a song about free love and
> made it about rape without changing a single lyric...
You are, of course entitled to your opinion. However, I have never heard
his version of 'Get Down...' in that light. In fact the opening dialogue
(interview?) portion of his version suggests,that it -is-, as you said,
about 'free love': "How old were you when you first let a man make love to
you?..."
Vince Conaway
But the entire beginning segment is in an interrogation, not
questioning, style. Next, who was he-next, how did you feel at the
time-next, how did you feel afterwards, what did you feel, what did you
think, were you pleased frightened, ecstatic, that's what I want to
know, tell me-tell me-tell me-YES!.
I don't really think that that has much to do with free love at all.
Invasion of privacy in a very aggresive manner comes more to mind.
Lori Dalrymple
<HTML>
I will not <B>NOW</B> or <B>EVER</B> like the beatles. First of all
I despise the way they acted after becoming famous. They sure got
that touchy, feely, I'm in the In Crowd thing down after it became popular.
They got so into it that it became so fake looking I laugh every time I
see them, especially Lennon. Second, I just don't like the sound
of their music. No ifs ands or buts on that one. Third I cringe
at most of the lyrics, especially when flower power was in full swing.
You just can't dance to "I'm a flower, we're all brothers" music.
I can only tolerate slow, whiny, life could be so much better if.., music
so long before I start to puke. Most people consider them the best
rock and roll band ever, however I have noticed that only tunnel minded
'60s oldies or their brain washed children say that they are the best.
I think they were a big part of one of the worst generations to ever be
conceived. There are some exceptions to this last sentence but very
few. No matter how much of beatles (yes I did that on purpose) music
I hear, I don't like them, in fact I just cringe even more.
<P>And that is my opinion.
<P>Lori</HTML>
N.P.J. van Nobelen
Jarno Laivola wrote:
> kl (kdi...@aug.com) wrote:
> : Queen did in they,re entire work. You mentioned musicianship, funny
> I can
> : play EVERY queen song and their simple bar chord approach to
> : songwriting. There are some Beatle changes Ive been working on for
> years
> : and still havent got them all right. You mentioned Queen were fans
> of the
And besides playing it, ever tried to sing it? Or does your gitar play
sound like that of Brian May?
> : changing they were. How many periods of real musical change did
> Queen go
> : through? Again laughable. How many Queen songs did lets say Ray
> Chareles
>
Did the Beatles play Jazz, rock, film music for different movies (except
their own Yellow Submarine movie), sing opera, be creative, and
everytime different for about 20 years, were nearly not immitated
because that's nearly impossible?? Well lets say: The Beatles are
immitated, bought and sold by Micheal Jackson (LOL, that one of the most
terrible things that can happen! LOL).
> : sing? or Sinatra? How about Streisand? Do you think a Roger Williams
> ever
> : did a Queen song? If Basie or Ellington were alive today do you
> think they
> : would do a Queen song? How about Miles Davis. Tony Bennet? They all
> did
>
Well, that's what happens if you write simple easy to sing lyrics, with
as a singer a normal vocal, who could be replaced by everyone (including
B Streisand): Too bad for you, but I think it proves that it is easy to
immitate just like everyone can sing songs of let's say John Denver (No
offence to John Denver fans here (: )
In short: Being immitated doesn't mean your good, it just means that you
can be easilly immitated in a sometimes better, and sometimes worse
matter, but still immitated.
The only good queen immitation I ever heard was done by George Micheal
at the Freddy Mercury Memorial concert at Wembly Stadium.
> Lot's of great names. I will make my final conclusions in
> fifteen
> years. Yes, because Queen have been out of game for 5 years
> and
> the latest album is even younger. In 2010's we can see if
> Queen is
> forgotten. I'll wait.
>
Not forgotten, no way, but hopefully not immitated by Streisand either
(LOL)
> : something they like. Just because someone likes something doesnt
> mean its
> : the best. Its not a Question of taste its a Question of fact .
> Doesnt
> : matter, you guys will believe what you want. I ve said my piece and
> thats
> : the end of it. Queen comparerd to the Beatles is at the least ,
> laughable.
>
Well, the Beatles would never have made it agianst Queen in the 60's:
Easy to explain: They were not top of the bill anymore after the few
start years, while Queen stayed a sensation till the end: Not just a new
text on a same melody like the Beatles did, but new text and new music
with allmost every album. Dare to experiment with music, and not just
copy the old style like McCartney does (That's why Lennon went on on his
own: To start copying his own style for a few years)
Greetz
Norbert
Buzzcen
Let's be honest now, the best singer of them all was John Deacon. What a
range!
BigLarry26
Yes, I saw an advertisment for acoustic guitars a few years ago
which had Seal and Brian sitting by a fence in the English countryside.
This was soon after Seal became popular.
K5W7
If I could meet either John Lennon or Freddy Mercury, I would definatley
want to meet Freddy Mercury ! I wouldnt even stop to look at John
Lennon! That does not mean that The Beatles were not talented, they
have some great songs! But they are way overrated, and Queen blows them
away anyday! Case closed!!!!
Liz Holland
(post snipped, not my fault)
>I really don't think that has much to do with free love at all.
Invasion of privacy comes to mind.
Ever been in a locker room?
jan***...@loop.com
Somebody wrote:
>> Trent (the wonder boy) also did Stone Cold Crazy and...and...and...??? Oh
>> damn I've forgotten. Lori, where are you? (I told her a few months ago
>> when I first heard about them). Anyway, I've been looking for the CD or
>> vinyl single of NIN's version of Stone Cold Crazy b/w ???? for a while
>> now, so if anyone knows anything...
To my knowledge NIN never did a version of SCC. You may be thinking,
however, of a promo-only remix done by Reznor for Hollywood Records.
It's still Queen, but it sounds like NIN.
John
blackink
In article <33f41be8...@nntp.loop.com>, jan***dru...@loop.com
(jan***dru...@loop.com) wrote:
You're right of course about the difference between re-recording and remixing.
Trent sez:
' I did two mixes for Queen: 'Stone Cold Crazy' and 'Tie
Your Mother Down'. I'm not sure what Hollywood records
plans to do with them. '
In any event, I want them!
Alexandra Moore
Am I the only person who rates the Beatles AND Queen on the same
WONDERFUL level? They are both excellent. If I had to choose between
seeing John Lennon and Roger Taylor . . .it would be tricky!!!!! ;-)
Alex - getting off my soapbox! xx
--------------------------------------
Be free with you tempo ...
Surrender your ego -
Be free, BE FREE, to YOURSELF!!
--------------------------------------
Lori Dalrymple
<HTML>
Who me? Strain myself. Nah, I just released a lot of built
up steam. You see I live with a rock and roll 60s-70s fanatic. I
like the music from my own generation, and some of the 70s and 90s.
Rap music is worse than the Beatles. I do like 40s, 50s, and classical.
I am musically educated beyond Rock and Roll, my parents made sure that
was musically educated. I am a clarinet player. No, I am not
Generation X, wrong assumption, my parents were born before just before
W.W.II. What it come down to is I like what I like and refuse to
listen to what I don't like. This comes after being exposed to every
type of music possible, and believe me I was exposed to everything.
For example I love musicals but don't like opera. I like some country,
but not all. However, attitudes of musicians can be a HUGE turn off,
and I find the snobby, we know best attitudes from the 60s a huge turn
off, and since this attitude is reflected in the music, I <B>DO NOT </B>like
it.<B> </B>The Beatles just turn me off, like some men I meet.<B></B>
<P>Lori</HTML>
Thomas Odland
Lori Dalrymple wrote:
>
> I will not NOW or EVER like the beatles. First of all I despise the
> way they acted after becoming famous. They sure got that touchy,
> feely, I'm in the In Crowd thing down after it became popular. They
> got so into it that it became so fake looking I laugh every time I see
> music. No ifs ands or buts on that one. Third I cringe at most of
> the lyrics, especially when flower power was in full swing. You just
> can't dance to "I'm a flower, we're all brothers" music. I can only
> tolerate slow, whiny, life could be so much better if.., music so long
> roll band ever, however I have noticed that only tunnel minded '60s
> think they were a big part of one of the worst generations to ever be
> few. No matter how much of beatles (yes I did that on purpose) music
> I hear, I don't like them, in fact I just cringe even more.
>
>
*****************************
Sounds like a Generation X attitude to me. Hope you didn't strain
yourself typing all those long words.
Not that I'm a Beatles fan or anything.
Tom
Oscar Grouch
In article <19970814031...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, k5...@aol.com
(K5W7) wrote:
The Beatles were good, but they made it big because of the "time" of
their arrival. If Queen and the Beatles traded places in time, the
Beatles wouldn't have ever gotten out of the garage. I realize that
there is some differences such as the two groups having different
influences/inspirations but still, Queen had a whole lot more
talent than the Beatles did. I think Queen, in the long run, could
have had as many or more "hits" than the Beatles if they hadn't been
so opera-esque. That's just my opinion 'cause I'm more of a "regular"
rock fan.
--
My name is chaz
I live "AT" aye.net
ANELIA GREYLING
LIKE EVERY HUMAN HAS A RIGHT TO BE RESPECTED, SO DOES EACH
KIND OF MUSIC. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO LIKE IT, BUT THERE IS NO
NEED TO DISRESPECT PEOPLE WHO LIKE THEM. I HAVE BEEN BROUGHT
UP TO RESPECT ALL KINDS OF MUSIC. I AM ALSO A CLARINET PLAYER
ASWEL AS A PIANO PLAYER AND PLAYING IN AN ORCHESTRA HAS TEACH
ME TO RESPECT ALL INSTRUMENTS TOO.
- A -
Chris Betteley
I think both bands are brilliant. There are only two bands that I own
more than 10 albums by, and thats Queen and the Beatles (mainly cos most
bands are never good enough to do this many!!!! :)
Beatles: Some people are saying "only big cos of hype....blah blah...."
I only heard the Beatles properly about four years ago, when I borrowed
an album from my ex-girlfriend. I became seriously hooked, and now own
nearly all of their albums. I listened to the albums based on the
musical content, and I love their tunes. To say they became so big
because they were just in the right place at the right time, and any
band could have done as well, is just silly. Yes. They were in the right
place to get the initial popularity, but their music more than
compensated for this and sustained their popularity. Can you imagine
bands like the Spice Girls still being popular in ten years time? They
were in the right place at the right time, but do not have the basic
talent to sustain their popularity. The Beatles did, and thats why they
are still immensely popular.
Queen: I remember hearing the `A Kind Of Magic' album in 1986 (I was
15!). I thought it was really good. I didnt know *anything* about Queen,
and one day I walked into the record shop and saw about nine albums by a
band called Queen. I thought they were another band, and not the same
ones!! Needless to say, I now own all of the Queen albums. They are
excellent. Brians guitar work is legendary, Freddy boys vocals
unsingable by any other human!!!! Roger and john are good un's too!
I really love both bands in totally different ways, and do not think it
is fair to say one is better than the other! They are two of the best
three bands ever.
Who is the third?
Radiohead of course!!! (awaits muchos disagreement! :)
Bye
Chris
--
Visit Chris's Groucho Page: http://www.kainam.demon.co.uk/grouch.htm
Visit Chris's Band Page: http://www.kainam.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Bringing you words all the way from sunny Stoke-on-Trent.
Duncan Robertson
Hear, hear!!
--
Duncan Robertson
Lori Dalrymple
<HTML>
All the shouting in the world won't make me like them. You can like
the Beatles no one ever said you could not, this is freedom of choice.
Not even I would take this away from you. All I am saying is that
I am sick and tired of having them shoved down my throat, right along with
the "Golden Age of the 60s." The rock world did not start or stop
with the advent of the Beatles. They were just in the right place
in the right decade. MY OPINION is that they leave much to be desired.
<P>Lori</HTML>
Alexandra Moore
> The Beatles were good, but they made it big because of the "time" of
> their arrival.
Not that I want to get into an argument or anything (it's too hot for
that) but there were hundreds of other Beatle-type bands both on
Merseyside and in London around the same time that the Beatles broke
through. Surely the BEatles must have had something new and original to
make it over all the bands still stuck in the pubs and clubs?
In the same way that Queen had something new to offer.... ;-)
Timothy Opie
>> The Beatles were good, but they made it big because of the "time" of
>> their arrival.
>Not that I want to get into an argument or anything (it's too hot for
>that) but there were hundreds of other Beatle-type bands both on
>Merseyside and in London around the same time that the Beatles broke
>through. Surely the BEatles must have had something new and original to
>make it over all the bands still stuck in the pubs and clubs?
>
>In the same way that Queen had something new to offer.... ;-)
>
>Alex - getting off my soapbox! xx
The Beatles actually got started due to a lucky breakthrough! It was after
this that they actually made something of themselves, and kept themselves in
the spotlight for so long. If they didn't start offering something new, they
would have been left in the 15 minute success hall of fame like (dare I
mention the name?) BROS.
When you look at it, Queen didn't offer that much to the music scene with
their first album, and singles. The got put under the Led Zepplin label
until they came up with more diverse ideas, and became the band we all know
and love.
In the same respect bands that seem quite original like Mr Bungle just stem
from other people like Frank Zappa and Igor Stravinsky.
Food for thought.
Regards Tim
--
+---------------------------LET-ME-ENTERTAIN-YOU-----------------------------+
| *REGARDS* TIM OPIE csc...@lux.latrobe.edu.au |
| Bringing hope to a world of shattered ideals and pathetic O/S |
+------------------------AMIGA---DEFIANCE-IS-FUTILE--------------------------+
David Mason
what the hell are you talking about, john deacon did not even sing?
John P. McKone
Well ok I can see your point. The Beatles where lucky . But they did something that other bands could not do. They went from the bottom all the way up . In the begining they where considered on of the worst bands on the Merseyside.Yet they where given a chance and they shined. Yet I will agree that they did sound about like everyone in the middle sixties it all changed. Rubber Soul was the real awakening of the Beatles. Hey no more tour dates, no more shows. Hell of alot less pressurea and stress. They did a few things that had never done before. A;they brought in some the Indian stuff and you can even hear George Harrison playing the sitar. And it was there first time there real creativity come forth. And they did not have to do all those teeny-bopper love songs any more. And from then on out they where trend setters.
BradfordDA
What Trent did was like taking a bloody leak on a Picasso
(Dane)
Scheihagen
BradfordDA wrote:
>
> What Trent did was like taking a bloody leak on a Picasso
>
> (Dane)
>
totally agree. It certainly isn't as cool as Queen's version. I really
dislike NIN's so-called "music", but at least he did a good job at
making it sound like his type "music." And at least he credits Freddie
and Queen for the song.
Voltaire
On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 17:59:21 +0000, Scheihagen <tsc...@airmail.net>
wrote:
I agree -- I like hearing other musicians' interpretations of Queen
music. (That is, when they are "real" musicians, and they are doing
the cover in their own unique style.)
Anyway, I even went out and bought the Dune album, to hear what that
sounded like. (She does a cover of Too Much Love Will Kill You)
But I still haven't worked up the courage to get the techno cover
album......
Axel
_____
E-mail me at "ogre at iafrica dot com" (type it exactly as you say it -- it's an anti-spamming thing. Hope this one works)
____
Spam Bait:
h...@agis.net
in...@agis.net
sa...@agis.net
docu...@agis.net
sup...@pacific-tech.com
sug...@pacific-tech.com
macsu...@pacific-tech.com
postm...@abuse.net