47

the review, however, is well-written, I’ll take the average and ask for forgiveness

I think that if he hadn't been the guitarist of one of the most popular pop bands of the last twenty years, nobody would remember him.

Music should be completely decontextualized and judged solely for its artistic content. Queen's compositions are baroque and redundant, the vocal lines are in bad taste and gaudy, and they are mere aesthetics for aesthetics' sake. Queen is incapable of provoking an emotion in anyone who has chewed on a few years of music outside the top tens of yesterday and today.

Congratulations on your discourse about May (by the way, it’s a very lengthy digression on execution technique..) I’d like to know how and at which points you would have dismantled me... Malmsteen is a highly technical guitarist, but that doesn't change the fact that he sucks communicatively. May, I’m sorry, is not one of the greatest guitarists of the 20th century, even though it was said by someone who has been playing guitar for 30 years (this would effectively prove my point that musicians are not the best critics). Far better than him are authentic geniuses like Syd Barrett, who, when all is said and done, was technically quite lacking, along with a thousand other guitarists who are less technical but more innovative and/or communicative. You made a speech based solely on the technique of the Queen members, while you said nothing about the artistic quality of their production, which is supermarket music or geared towards easy sentimentalism. In the '70s, Queen was the crude-but-not-too-much variant of progressive music, and the fact that they were ironic just like Frank Zappa (God forgive me for the comparison) doesn’t distract from the sheer substance of what were and are little songs, sung by a good voice, accompanied by a good guitarist and two or three nobodies. That said, I appreciated Queen when I was little and I hum them every now and then.

I only have the PFM concert, I guess I'm missing out on something.

Speaking of musicians, I don’t think Queen appealed to Robert Fripp or Syd Barrett.

Sure. If you don't know how to play like Totti, can you really talk about football? mapperpiacere

I don't think production matters too much in an album...

I don't like John Lennon's "Imagine."

You forget and neglect that your judgment is subjective too. The Queen didn't invent anything, and it's not a bad thing if they happen to be a group in their own way original, with excellent songwriting on their side. Now, I say that aside from the early stuff, which is not the best in terms of quality, the Queen established themselves in a stadium rock blended with operetta and the more vulgar disco-pop. (I have friends who say they were the first to merge rock with symphonic music!!) Freddie Mercury, as I sometimes say, is undoubtedly a flamboyant and charismatic frontman, endowed with above-average vocal abilities. However, this does not justify the mythologizing of a band that is technically and compositionally mediocre, objectively speaking, and the merits you mention are due to a common public acknowledgment rather than critical acclaim, which has always demolished them. If you tell me that the public is right and the criticism is alien to art, I tell you that at a competence level, the masses generally are never right, tending to promote the most grandiloquent work and not necessarily the qualitatively better one, e.g., Dark Side by Pink Floyd. Sorry if I wasn't brief.