Luca-LJ

I threw in some random stuff because I don't have the time to comb through the entire discography of Slade, Styx, The Who, Frank Zappa, T. Rex, Liza Minnelli, etc. I assure you these are not the most representative examples, but they already give an idea of what the state of the art was at the time of the emergence of Queen. I recommend listening to the entire discography of Styx because their choruses are identical to Queen's and they're contemporaries. You can find operetta in various albums by 10cc, active even before Queen released “A Night at the Opera” (for example, listen to the album “Sheet Music,” which is chronologically the closest to Queen's album, and keep in mind they were doing the same things even earlier!). But I also think The Beatles often drew from operetta and vaudeville! I almost forgot the Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band!
As for the hard rock – operetta union, in Zappa's album “Absolutely Free” you can find this and more. Listen to “Silly Love” by 10cc; it has as much hard rock as it does operetta, and more! You might argue that Queen did some things better, but aside from the fact that this is debatable (Queen is simply easier to listen to because they had a better production, which isn’t the musicians' merit obviously, but that of the record label. In short, it’s the same reason The Beatles are easier to listen to than bands with equal or greater melodic talent: a record label that allows for recording in cutting-edge studios and a producer who fiddles with the arrangements. Of course, The Beatles’ arrangements are never so cloying; Queen's are often excessive for the reasons already mentioned, but at least the songs age more slowly, which is why a lot of superficial people believe they are an all-time great band!), Queen nonetheless had people like this behind them to be able to realize certain things. So okay, they are a good band, but historically, no! To show you that Queen is just the natural evolution, without flashes of genius, of this type of music, the Tencc themselves prove it, as in '75, the year of “A Night at the Opera” if I’m not mistaken (so don’t tell me “they were influenced by Queen!”), they were making exactly the same music as “A Night at the Opera” with “Une Nuit à Paris” (listen to it and then tell me). With the same production as Queen, we would have had something equally catchy.
I know “Sad Wings of Destiny,” and more than referencing Queen, it points to Black Sabbath and UFO, and even more to other bands that I don’t remember right now. If you want, I could spend time analyzing the album track by track, but of course, I have to dig up records I haven't listened to in years! I'm pretty sure, however, that there’s nothing of Queen in there, at most there are bands that inspired Queen too, and that explains some vague resemblance (but really vague!). I think you say these things because you read some interview where Halford said he appreciated Queen, but I told you: it means nothing in itself! Come on, ask me, and I’ll give you a track-by-track comment on the album, proving scientifically that Queen are not there at all!
If you don't explicitly ask me, I’ll skip it (I’m sure starting tomorrow I’ll have less free time since I also have to prepare for an exam; you might have to wait until next week!).
Then, I know that “it’s only rock’n’roll,” and precisely for this reason, I don’t accept treating talentless clowns dressed like queens as brilliant artists of the 20th century, even if some tracks (out of an immense discography) can be very valid (because I don't deny this, mind you!). I have nothing against lighthearted lyrics, but if you summon an entire symphony orchestra or a gospel choir for some nonsense, you can't come to me saying “look how beautiful this song is”! It's a joke, it will never be a masterpiece! No, I don't want to talk about the lyrics of Deep Purple, a band that I absolutely can't stand (if you understood that I like them, you are mistaken), and I would avoid talkin

It seems that you haven't read what I'm saying, since you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say! Stop superimposing what you expect me to say over what I'm actually saying! Please, read carefully what I write now and try to understand, because if there's one thing I hate, it's people who don't follow the conversation but still feel the need to speak up. Do I have to find you a hard rock band that blended such distant worlds before Queen? Then you see that it's you who gives importance to records and not me? And why does it have to be hard rock specifically? Isn’t it enough to find a band that mixed completely different genres to show you that musical hybrids had already existed? If I invent progressive reggae, am I a genius? Hybrids have existed forever; you just have to sit down and decide which genres to mix, for example: rumba-metal, progressive-folk, synth-ska, dodecaphonic punk. So the mix of hard rock and operetta (Queen is this, “lyrical” in this case is too generic, I think) is worth just as much as the mix of samba and Sardinian folk music. So are the Rudra, who play so-called Vedic metal, geniuses? Merging certain Indian sounds with metal is not a stroke of genius! Since the 1960s, raga and rock were merging (I believe the first attempt was even made in the 1950s!), the Rudra just chose a specific form of rock (metal) instead of others, but the basic concept already existed. Even Zappa was blending operetta and vaudeville with various expressions of rock music. You might say, “Well, then no one is really making innovations, because everything is derivative in the end!” But in fact, it’s you who keeps throwing it back to innovation, not me, even if you accuse me of doing so! I brought them up to respond to certain statements! In any case, there are true innovations; just think about when the Stooges (let’s include MC5 and Velvet Underground too, but I just need an example, insert whoever you like, the meaning is the same) played in a raw way without technicalities, effectively inventing the punk attitude. It was something never heard before, so you see, there are absolute innovations (like the first guitarist who used tapping, the first musicians to use electronic instruments, etc.). The first hybrids in the history of rock could also amaze, but once the 1970s started, you couldn’t be too surprised anymore; it was just a matter of randomly choosing combinations that hadn't yet been developed! Before Queen, I heard psychedelic rock fused with Chinese folk music, beat fused with Indian music, etc. Queen are not the most bizarre! Queen made hard rock bases interspersed with silly interludes already present in Zappa, Who, Floyd, Alice Cooper, and practically in millions of other bands from the 1960s (it was fashionable at the time), and they had us sing over Liza Minnelli (Yes, Freddie Mercury is Liza Minnelli!). Caninus are not geniuses because in their songs a pit bull “sings,” because before them, for decades, countless animals' sounds had been overdubbed! Something is not original simply because no one has done it before, but when no one has thought of it (in short, when it forces people to reconsider a well-established belief system). But I’ll satisfy you: here’s a list of contemporary things or things that preceded Queen that you should listen to to understand that they didn’t invent anything; they just exaggerated certain traits to make themselves appear (sometimes, not always!) like clowns (I’ve suggested specific songs so you can check for yourself! If you say once more that I’m not arguing, I’ll say goodbye forever):
“Winner take all” (Styx), “Doctor Jimmy” (Who), “Like a plate” (West Bruce & Laing), “The grove of eglantine” (Styx), “I’m gonna make you feeling” (Styx), “Out into the fields” (West Bruce & Laing), “Metal guru” (T-rex), “What has come between us” (Styx), “The words of Aaron” (Move), “Over” (Trapeze), “Dapple rose” (Slade), “Roach daddy” (Slade).
I put down random stuff because I don’t have

Anti of the Yardbirds, who unfortunately don't have a legion of fanatics like you to promote them).
Do you see what I wrote? That's why I didn't want to respond to you!

trite and trite that even the unrefined folk with their crude and unprepared ears enjoy!
When they are not the same melodic phrases, they are variations on the original, or it's a “basso continuo” in baroque style.
The very act of overdubbing means nothing, because overdubbing two cellos or playing two at the same time is the same from the point of view of effect (and so before the Queen, there’s the entire history of Western music rendering them small as ants, but unfortunately even a Moondog is enough for them!), but then with overdubs we’ve seen true geniuses at work!
Have you ever heard of the Soft Machine? The Faust? And thank goodness you were a fan of progressive, how can you say such things? Is your progressive limited to Genesis, Yes, King Crimson, Emerson Lake & Palmer, Marillion, and Porcupine Tree? If that's the case, you’re missing out on the best!
“They have always amazed everyone!”
In fact, look at how amazed I am!
8 – Mika is influenced by Mercury, that’s a fact! It just annoys you that someone might resemble your idol (after all, you’re not a music enthusiast, you’re a fan! Horror!). To argue, I would have to pull out a bunch of technical elements that you wouldn't even understand, but this time I’ll spare you. Mika himself says he is inspired by him: just as you give prior value to the opinion of those who say that Queen is a great band, you have to give value to all opinions, even to someone who tells you he is influenced by Queen.
I’m the first to say that the fundamental influence on Mika has come from T-Rex, whether he is aware of it or not, but Freddie Mercury is involved!
If he isn’t, then the Queen has been even less influential than you thought! Luckily, they were an incredibly important band!
You know when you prove your opinion is driven only by the resentment of seeing your idol associated with someone else? When you say:
“He doesn't even do half of what Freddie does, neither physically nor artistically.”
Aside from the fact that I don't understand what you mean by “physically,” are we talking about who is more beautiful or who does a better clown on stage (on that Mercury is unbeatable, I agree!)?
Anyway, Mika's music is the usual stuff that comes out every now and then, although well packaged and pleasant to listen to, but here we're talking about singers, not composers, and you can't say Mika is that low compared to Mercury! He's a singer with a certain range and technique, not at his level but certainly comparable.
So what do you do if you hear the Queentet? Their singer is the closest thing to Freddie Mercury that can exist: now are you going to say that he is also totally different from Freddie Mercury and incredibly worse?
9 – “Anyway, I’m even dumber than you for sitting here replying to your nonsense at eleven at night ah ah ah bye bye.”
Yes, undoubtedly! I, on the other hand, waited and took my time, without poisoning my blood.
PS
In the examples I've made, there may be various errors since I haven't listened to Queen and many of the bands I've mentioned for quite a while, and I didn't waste time checking everything I've written. But the overall argument is correct, based on listens that I have indeed made. Therefore, even if you were to point out that I mentioned a band erroneously, because maybe they didn’t do what I've written, I would find it quick to come up with another substitute example. The substance is the same.
Last thing: I downplayed Queen, but I wasn't being harsh towards them (in this message, yes, but only because I needed to show you the negative aspects), on the contrary! I acknowledged that they were a good band, perhaps too underrated by critics (because, I repeat, the critics I read don’t think like you, and I don’t feel like a voice out of the chorus!). I also said that they deserve credit for anticipating thrash metal with “Stone Cold Crazy” (I just had to remember the antecedents of the Yardbirds, who unfortunately don’t have a following of fanatic

I hope not, otherwise it means I'm wasting all this time on a guy who will never understand a single word of my speeches. I haven't tracked down that other acronym, but I'm afraid to find out what it is! Mercury is a great singer, I won't deny it! Obviously, he can't form a band on his own, and in fact, he hasn't. Great vocal range, excellent technical mastery without compromising expressiveness. A fantastic vocalist, undoubtedly! Personally, I prefer "stranger" things, like Diamanda Galas, Buckley father and son, or Demetrio Stratos, but it's certainly not unpleasant to listen to Mercury. May, on the other hand, is terrible; the reason why he is so praised is a real mystery! Don’t tell me I haven’t explained, I already did above why he’s awful. The other two do their jobs, Taylor excellently, Deacon sticking to the essentials, but considering his compositional contributions, I’d say he deserves respect. Besides, Deacon is often cited by other musicians as a great bassist. He may be, but in Queen's songs he doesn't show it (not that he has to, mind you!), so I wonder where they’ve heard him to say such things! Is it possible that all the talk about how good Deacon is or how good May is comes down to marketing strategies? Who knows!
5 – I didn’t say that Queen are unclassifiable (I hate people who put words in my mouth), I said that their songs are very much classifiable. They aren’t, because they put 20 songs of different genres on every album, but their tracks, taken individually, are easily classifiable. Madonna is unclassifiable too, for that matter! Sorry if I keep bringing her up, but I do it to help you understand the true artistic stature of Queen. Don’t tell me that Madonna makes Pop, because Pop means nothing; it’s not a musical genre but a classification made for practical reasons and is only minimally related to the purely musical aspect. The Darkness is also a pop band, even if they are musically more or less a hybrid between hard rock and ‘80s glam.
6 – Tell me at what point I have been offensive towards Queen fans (before this message, obviously), come on! You have been offensive towards me since your first message, think about that instead of accusing me of intolerance!
7 – “I also responded with reasoning,” you say. When would you have done that? Look at what you managed to say:
“And above all, let’s not say that the excessive arrangements were their weak point. They were their trademark.”
Where’s the reasoning? Is this maybe it:
“I won’t be the only idiot to think like this if we’re considered one of the best bands in the world, there’s a reason.”
Dear, this is not reasoning; to be reasoning, you would first have to prove to me that the opinion of a mass of ignorant people raised by record labels means anything.
“Don’t bring up bullshit that is objectively denied by everyone and by history.”
This stands as above, and anyway, history confirms that Queen don’t amount to shit; you yourself said that no one resembles them (a sign that they haven’t exerted all that much influence!). Believe me, it’s not that there are no Queen clones because their music is hard to replicate (you just have to awkwardly mix lyrical music, piano songs like John Lennon, hard rock, and the most banal and shameful dance), but because no one is interested in reproducing it!
“You say that there were a lot of bands that overdubbed before Queen? Well, no shit, but did they overdub like Queen? NO NO NO!”
Here’s another unfounded statement. Queen’s overdubs were phrases played in unison or at “traditional” intervals like fourths and fifths (already heavily experimented with in post-Gregorian polyphony) or thirds (post-Gregorian English polyphony) or octaves (which is equivalent to unison). Dissonances? There are none; better to play it safe and do overused things that also please the uncultured masses with the coarse and unprepared ear! When they’re not the same melodic phrases, they’re variations of the original, or it’s a “basso c

The alternative (it seems to me that critics agree with me, maybe because I know how to choose the right information channels, unlike some people who gobble up all the crap that is shoved down their throats!). I might be presumptuous, but I'm citing factual, scientific data! If I say “Queen moves me, Pearl Jam bores me” what am I really saying? Nothing! This is the kind of talk someone like you might engage in; I, on the other hand, speak about the objective aspects of music: tonal progressions, melodies, arrangements, recording techniques, etc. You will never hear me say “don't listen to Queen” or “you're stupid if you listen to Queen”, I'm simply providing objective data to those who say (not you, besides you, many have written in this review) that Queen invented this, that Queen were the first to do this, that such and such Queen song is original, difficult to perform, complex, etc.
You like Queen? Great, there’s nothing wrong with that; I also listen to things that are objectively of little value (I listen to them because they remind me of something, because they express things that particularly touch me, and then it doesn't matter how they are expressed, etc.), but I don't write on Debaser that Erode are great in music just because I always listen to “Pro Patria” on my mp3 player. Queen are not important musically, period! Maybe they had some influence on fashion, I don't know and I don't care, but musically they have influenced very few bands: Queen appeals to the mentally lazy and musically ignorant listener, but also to some prepared musicians; but find me one who has been influenced by Queen!
Don’t mention the usual well-known things about various guitarists who said they appreciate Brian May (the fact that Van Halen praises May can mean many things, that he’s his friend, that he feels sorry for him, etc. It doesn’t matter. As a guitarist, I formulate my own personal idea, that is, May is not a virtuoso, not that this is important, it’s just because many also say he is very good, and that he is not original at all. He is very repetitive and his sound is flat. Personally, his solos irritate me, but, indeed, that falls into the realm of personal opinions, and I don’t claim to convince anyone).
I grew up with Queen too (like 90% of boys my age), so you will understand that these opinions come from personal growth, they are not prejudices or mental deficiencies. I simply changed my mind when I became more refined and demanding, so don’t say I’m biased. Queen are not the rock as I understand it; they are the "circus of rock", and often they become bleak and depressing to me with their ostentatious big voice music that has the thickness of a lasagna.
4 – I agree that it doesn’t matter who did something first, but who did it better; however, this applies mainly to personal listening. If you want to make a scientific discourse, you have to bring out objective arguments, such as originality, etc. It is, therefore, important to some extent who does something first: a band that plays Iron Maiden's music now, but with more technique and variety, is not worth as much as the first bands of the NWOBHM, that’s clear! They cannot hold the same place in a rock encyclopedia! Cubists amazed the world with their art; Ballantini does the same things today, but more than saying “this painting has a nice combination of colors” what should I say? It equates to nice wallpaper; the subversive element is gone.
Then, I repeat, I only responded to those who said “Queen did this first”, including you. If you say something stupid, I will respond, it's just that simple. It’s logical that I’m the first not to cling to these things; they are just one element among many! There are plenty of groups that invented nothing but made great music.
BUT WWRY that you mention is “We will rock you”? If so, shame on you! I hope not, otherwise that means I'm wasting all this time on a guy who can never understand a single word of my discourse. I didn’t fi

I am lazy, which is why I didn't respond to all the nonsense you said, but since you insist on saying absurd or false things, now I’m going to thoroughly roast you:
1 – You brought up the primates when it suited you:
"Also, this last point is false because find me a group that developed those overdubs before Queen, find me someone who had May's guitar orchestrations that have made him one of the most beloved original guitarists of all time!”
Of course, I can find you thousands of musicians who have overdubbed instruments, but you can say that Queen did it better. This only shows that you don’t understand a thing about counterpoint. Overdubbing four guitars without dissonances or time shifts and achieving something catchy is a joke, let me tell you as someone who has composed for four harpsichords or entire orchestras. Without even bringing up Zappa or other geniuses of that caliber, just listen to an Oldfield, who is certainly not an experimenter, and hear how much more sophisticated he is than Queen. The orchestrations of Queen are often gaudy, too pretentious, and fake. And they become ridiculous when they use such lofty forms for songs with lyrics that make you laugh ("The girls with big butts," "the bicycle race"... Come on! I know you'll tell me that "The Show Must Go On" or another similar song has beautiful lyrics, but this means confusing "serious" with "beautiful." They are all cliché nonsense and written in a sloppy manner! More ridiculous than "I love my car" and various rubbish). Yes, my friend, their arrangements are too pretentious for the substance of their little songs! And then, lavish and sophisticated arrangements have almost always served to mask musical shortcomings (“The Village Green Preservation Society” by The Kinks, “In The Aeroplane Over The Sea” by Neutral Milk Hotel, “Cyclops Nuclear Submarine Captain” by Dogbowl, “The Madcap Laughs” by Syd Barrett and other similar albums have nothing to envy from albums like “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” by The Beatles, “A Night at the Opera” by Queen, or other stuff with nice packaging but less content; rather! The more intricate melodies, the more curious harmonic progressions, and the bolder counterpoints are found in the former, certainly not in the latter).
2 – Jumping from one genre to another doesn't necessarily mean “being well-rounded musicians”: in the case of Queen, it means “going with the trends”: all the most commercial musicians have done it, from The Beatles (and sure, you'll say “great!”) to Madonna (try telling me Madonna is great, go ahead!). There’s nothing wrong with this; I too have written a rumba, various progressive suites, romantic symphonies, and various songs in psychedelic rock style from the '60s, prog-metal, singer-songwriter style Italian songs, etc. For me, it was a useful exercise. In itself, it means nothing to do three thousand genres; rather, it often means not having an original and autonomous musical path. “Queen's music is outrageous” makes me laugh, and I don’t even want to justify this statement because you don’t deserve it.
3 – Don't quote audiences or critics who agree with you to prove Queen's value, think for yourself! Often, the majority is wrong, sometimes the minority is wrong; that’s not what matters. In this case, I don’t even know if most people think like I do or like you: I wouldn’t be surprised if they thought like you, given that most people listen to music superficially and are quite ignorant about it, as well as being at the mercy of music critics who are sold to the majors (it's a legitimate way to listen to music, just don’t expect to write on Debaser that Abba are geniuses). Anyway, I repeat, I don't know how things stand, so I'm not trying to be alternative (it seems to me that critics agree with me; maybe it's because I know how to choose the right information channels, unlike some people who gobble up all the crap that's handed to them!). I may be presumptuous, but I’m citing data and

Well, in my opinion, the last albums are all terrible. I don't think it depends on my expectations, also because it's been years that I've been expecting nothing but awful albums from him. Yet, there was a time when he managed to get worse with each album!

You say so many nonsensical things that I can't find the motivation to respond to you; I would have to write a very long message (something I've always done so far with people like you, but without achieving anything). Think whatever you want: I am ignorant, I insult, I don't justify what I say, I only talk about primates, you have never offended in this discussion, etc.

Mine is an opinion, expressed politely and with reasoning for each statement. You simply offend. Most of the responses I could give you are already contained in my previous comment, so please read it carefully and don't react like a 15-year-old who has had their only group touched, otherwise we’ll just end it here. If you calm down, you can only benefit from it.