leonid

but... under the Descendents... I'm not so sure. the approach is really different. I don't know how "melodic" the adolescents can be (taking the Descendents as a benchmark).

Yes, Percy, experimentation at full throttle. It's clear you know your stuff. I was missing this about the experimentalist Queen. Among the great experimenters of the twentieth century, between Varèse and Stockhausen, we find Brian May. You're a genius. I won't even comment on the gayness thing because I can't understand what you mean. And here we go with the experimentation...

Aside from the fact that Scholarly D is one and not "the" Schoolly D, let me tell you why Queen isn't worth much, and I'll repeat myself. The finds that made them famous ("genre contamination," rock operas, for example) had already been done by others (Frank Zappa, for example), and they just limited themselves to spreading them to the general public, who ignores more avant-garde artists and thus swallows everything as a novelty. The glam look and the kitsch aesthetic were also copied (from T-Rex, Bowie) and disseminated to the general public (see above). Other songs that made them famous (like "We Will Rock You," for instance) are embarrassingly banal and have become "legendary" due to the ignorance of the general public. Bowie, whom I don't care for much, is a million times ahead of Queen. The reality is that you "fans" are wearing blinders and listen to little music; otherwise, you would have realized long ago that as a band they are derivative and you would have relegated them to the drawer of adolescent memories where they deserve to rest.

Listen, pixel, there are two options: either you read what I wrote and stop spouting nonsense, or you keep going on your way. I have no problem with that. Listen to Queen: amazing. You're a connoisseur. Bye.

pixel, I really don’t understand your rudeness. From my point of view, if someone listens to Queen, it’s him who needs to broaden his horizons, because he limits himself to listening to a derivative band. Then you’ve gotten on my nerves with your aggression. Fuck off.

They have even surpassed the Beatles in weeks spent on the UK charts, now they are third behind Presley and Cliff Richard.

According to an official press release from 2003, Queen has sold over 150 MILLION records. Do you grasp the commercial dimension of this phenomenon? Do you realize that we are not dealing with innovators or experimenters, but with a well-oiled and trivial money-making machine that leverages emotionally engaging songs thanks to trivial lyrics and music (and for such global success, it couldn’t be otherwise) and a local gay stereotype image borrowed from OTHER groups and exploited in an intelligent but NOT original way.

alex78, aside from the fact that I didn't say Queen found success after Freddy's death, let me remind you that Queen has had massive success for decades. As a fan, you should know this. Guys, I swear, you haven't discovered some innovative niche band: they've been topping the charts for thirty years with their catchy hits that are copied left and right. If you like them, what can I say, listen to them, but don't say they're 'such a great band,' because they're not (they were).

Percy, I don't know how old you are, but I can assure you that back in '91, these tough guys already had a very, very large following.

As for overrated, I wasn't talking about criticism (which, for once, has been spot on and has always relegated them to the limbo of commercial groups with few ideas) but rather about the audience. Just look here on Debaser: 50 (I mean 50!!) reviews for this frankly secondary group that remains very dear to some, often for reasons tied to youthful experiences. Then I’m told to be objective: I believe it’s the fans who should say, "I’m attached to them, but musically they’re not that great," which is perfectly fine, but to pass them off as a great band, well, no, absolutely not.