Queen - can someone please explain?

Don't worry charlatan, we simply put queen forward as our token camp rock band. We don't like them. Same thing with our black president. We dont like him either, he's just a token president and wasn't elected with a clear majority. All your beliefs about americans are still true. Your worldview is safe.

 

Because they were awesome. Freddie Mercury was da man. Ashamed he died at only 45.

 

When Queen hit the music scene, they were unique, no other band was quite like them. They didn't fill a niche, they created one. They combined many musical styles--opera, broadway, classical, rock, etc.--and it worked for them. If they had come along earlier or later, who knows if they would have made it.

I've often wonderd the same thing about other bands. For example I've never understood the popularity of Guns & Roses. IMO Axl Rose was a mediocre singer at best, and a total ego freak. Slash was more about image than actual guitar playing ability.

How does GNR relate to Queen? Both bands happened to come along at just the right time.

 

this may be it as well. Not only did they create and fill a niche, they were lyrically engaging. I know that my friends and I spent many a (beer influenced) conversation discussing what they possibly mean by "Bismillah No!" in Bohemian Rhapsody. It was exotic. IT was different. Up to then, there was generally pop and then Rock (the girls were into pop the greasers hung out in the school parking lot with their rock band shirts on) . So yeah, fresh.

I think that lyrically engaging with a good tune helps. Elton John and Meatloaf seemed to cash in on a similar approach back at that time.

 

Leto, I like your comment that Queen created the niche AND filled it. Well said, sir!

I like Queens music, but don't own any of their albums (unless there's one hiding my vinyl collection). I do have the Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert on VHS. The reason I mention that is GNR gets a lot of face time in the vid, which is a bit ironic. GNR wrote & recorded an anti-gay song. Freddie Mercury was bi-sexual/gay. He died of AIDS. The concert was also an AIDS benefit.

 

I have to give you credit for that observation Chris - it was your post that singled it out... I also liked what BG mentioned about the progressive element that Queen had in filling that niche - not your usual Prog Rock. O'm interested to hear why Charl doesn't like prog rock? Is it the matter of taste? Are you just not into the jazzy experimentation of the pop genre - I'm assuming that you mean such bands as Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, Kraftwerk, Golden Earring, Alan Parsons Project, Manfred Mann?

And finally, Charlatan, to bring things home (literally) what about the lads from Toronto - Rush. Are they Heavy Metal, Hard Rock, Prog Rock? Jazz? or did they build their own niche as well?

 

I saw Queen live twice while in high school. The first show was basically "Queen Live Killers" live. It was the first time I saw a concert where the light show was a major part of the show. I was a kid and had no idea how it happened but we had tickets in the front section about four rows back. They gave us a large adhesive patch that we had to wear to enter or exit that area. I bought the tickets at a store in Salem, fifty or so mile south of where the concert was in Portland. This is ages prior to computer generated tix and how those great seats ended up being sold in Salem I have no clue... and no complaint. I'd liked them prior but really liked them after. In those days if a live show came through PDX I was more likely to go then not. I expected "We Will Rock" etc.., but the range of stuff they did and the light show stunned me. And Freddie stage persona was over the top. I went to school the next day with the patch still on my shirt. A kid in my math class mentioned "I heard queen is gay." I thought "really a group of guys names their band "Queen" and you think they might be gay?"I didn't care I had a blast.

I went the next year, they were supporting or touring for "The Game" wasn't much different then the year before, just added "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" and "Another One Bites the Dust." And compared to the year before our seats sucked. Show was still decent.

I hear people all the time express their love of this artist or that and how they really disalike that band or this singer. Often I think you really like ____ ? All they do basically is talk into the mic. in my opinion. In the end it's personal taste. Who's say your taste or my taste is better then someone else?

Me I like this-



If you don't, that's cool. I'm still going to enjoy it.

 

that's a good choice Tully, one of my favs as well. Along with this gem, " '39"

 

'39 is the second song in the youtube I posted. And yes I like it greatly. About the only song I really don't care for is Sheer Heart Attack. I liked it in HS and upon arriving back stateside from a Navy tour of the Pacific and Indian Oceans I popped in my 8-track (yep, that old) "Live Killers" and that song started. Sounded like someone slowly killing a thousands screaming squirrels. I thought 'what's wrong with this stereo"... nothing that song is just seriously high pitched.

 

I can't think of a song I do not like by them.

Is it sad that I became a fan of them through my Mighty Ducks soundtrack? Ever since that cassette tape first played on my walkman (I feel like we may need a thesaurus for some people), I have loved every song I had ever heard by them. I had to get a few Jock Jam tapes just because "We Are The Champions" was usually featured on those albums. I would always play a little harder whether it be basketball or soccer if I listened to that song before a game. It really pumped me up. I guess.

 

I think the OP was looking at this from a cultural phenom angle.

Why did this British rock band Queen, attain the success it did in the States in the mid-1970's that it continues to enjoy 40 years later?

There have many opinions and I see truths in many of them.
Queen soared to success in the States in the mid 1970's--a time when we were transitioning from 1960's era rock-folk-whathaveyou popular music to a new chapter in popular music. (Many music experts count the '60's as bleeding into the the 70's by several years and the 70's not coming into their own until roughly 1973 or 1974--as one cannot accurately divide musical periods in such an arbitrary way as decade to decade, to the year.)

I have only two points in looking at this band historically and culturally.

One, whatever they had, it was safe for masculine rock n' roll dudes to dig them. Bowie, despite his huge talent and innovation, by being androgynous, put off hardcore masculine types, KISS was always a novelty band IMO, I could go on...but let me stay with Queen. Queen did innovate and did so well. They weren't the only ones doing mini-operatic musical numbers--witness The Who's Tommy, for one example.

Second, as I stated, Freddie Mercury died before his time. Let's say it doesn't matter why/how he died just that he died early and tragically.

Queen was not at the top of their game musically when he got sick but within a few years of his death their biggest hit was blaring from the speakers of huge American sports arenas--not during a rock show but sports events (very mainstream setting). Arguably, Freddie's/Queen's death mixed with some very catchy, punchy, easy-to-sing-in-arenas music, immortalized them here in the States.

That is why--at least this is a reason why Queen, more than other Brit bands of their vintage, are still revered above long-forgotten, possibly as-deserving artists.

 

You know I am...
--- merged: Nov 7, 2013 at 5:37 PM ---

I include Canada in the word, America. I was drawing a line down the middle of the Atlantic between Europe and America.
--- merged: Nov 7, 2013 at 5:52 PM ---

I just don't like prog rock. It's too... self-indulgent. (of course there are exceptions to this, I contain multitudes).

Rush. What to say about Rush. Growing up, I really didn't like Rush. Now, like many things from my youth, they are tinged with the smell of nostalgia, stripped of the context in which they were originally heard and mixed with changing personal tastes.

Rush, like Queen is a bit of a monolith but they are easier to understand. Their listening base is about as close to 100% men as you can get. I would suggest that despite their earlier silken robes (again different times) they almost define the idea of "muscular" American rock but with a significantly large side order of alienated, geek
--- merged: Nov 7, 2013 at 6:02 PM ---

PLEASE NOTE: This is not a discussion about my music is better than yours.

I am not saying I do not like Queen's music. I am trying to get at why *this* particular band has had the impact it did. To my eyes it is an anomaly. It is easy to see why it succeed at the time. It is not easy to see why it was so Universally successful at the time (cross cultural, crossing genders, etc.). Furthermore, that popularity has moved beyond its own time. Queen continues to be very popular and that kind of thing interests me.

 

I just said this:

OK. Kitten it.

 

My apologies, I misread your OP. I quickly read through it and went about addressing a completely different issue.

Why they had the impact they had? I'm not really sure. I like the answer that they created and fill a niche. Could have been really good marketing. I know they managed to get teams in my region to play "We Will Rock You" during just about any break in any game. The PDX Trailblazers were doing that in late 70's. First Blazer game I attended was in 78 and it was on the stadium's sound system regularly.

 

I tend to agree that there has been a concerted effort to celebrate and market Queen and We Will Rock You/We are the Champions does much to maintain the flow of royalty cheques to Brian May, et. al.

But I think there is more to it. The more I am thinking about it, the more I keep coming across the idea that Queen seems to appeal to MANY different cultural groups. They have a wide base of support (there's a Fat Bottomed Girl joke to be made there, but I'm not making it).

Queen appeals to the jocks (sports anthems), Stoners (see: Leto's comments above), Theatre geeks (show tunes!), music geeks (prog rock!). There aren't many bands in history that have done this.

 

I could take em or leave em, however, they did leave their mark in some off-beat directions:

 

I fucking love this scene. Love the movie in general. But especially this scene.

 

This is among my favorite songs. The music is beautiful in its simplicity, and the deep meaning behind such simple lyrics appeals to me. For those not familiar, it's about the crew of a generation ship in search of a new planet to colonize taking a voyage. They make their journey at nealy the speed of light, and because of relativistic time dilation, only a year has passed for them but 100 years have passed at home. It's little surprise that it was written by the member of the band who went on to become a doctor of astrophysics.

It's hard to find for under $75 or so now, but the DVD audio version of A Night At The Opera is unbelievable and everyone should find a way to get a copy and listen to it on a decent surround sound system. There's just so much more sound that you don't hear in stereo. I use mine to demo the auditorium sound system at work.

 

See?

A very broad base...