Is Queen the most misunderstood Band?

Looking at their career, their music has contained a variety of styles. But instead of accepting that we create arbitrary cut off points at where we feel their "correct" style ends.

First, there's the crowd who think their first two or three albums is the only thing of worth from them. Right, like Please Please Me and With the Beatles are the only Beatles albums of worth, really...

Then there's that crowd who cuts them off in 1979. This crowd seems to be very anti-pop and feel that their music must only be "heavy rawk" to be of any worth. Anti-80s vibe here.

Then there's the group that appreciates the whole of Queen, adores their hidden treasures, recognizes the worth of all eras and puts them rightfully in the upper echelon of Rock. Where their music and talent more than proves its rightful place there, especially when looking at who else is considered to be in upper echelon.

There's also the group that that AOR means better, more respectable, and that those that have stronger albums as in being album oriented means more worthy or respect. Never mid that a great single could be better than an entire album.

So, why are they so misunderstood? Why are their such factions? Why do some common factions, like the anti-80s production crowd, continue to rear their ugly heads? Can't we get over 80s production by now? Why do we want their music limited to one very limited brand of Rock?

 

Let me try to answer this part. Because, for me, after The Game, I lost touch. I had purchased or heard everything up to that point by Queen. So, I am part of that crowd. It is the last Queen I bought. I went back just recently to buy The Miracle and Innuendo. Both of these I enjoyed. I never considered Queen to be a heavy rock band. Though, after purchasing the Live at the Rainbow 1974 Blu-Ray, I've kind of changed my stance on that some what. As far as the singles, I thought the first time I saw Bohemian Rhapsody on American Bandstand it was so cool. Especially when it goes from the foursome shots to the live looking ending. I was 15 at the time. Of course, you had Killer Queen before that. I also loved You're My Best Friend and Somebody to Love. (probably my favorite Queen song) Then came We Will Rock You/We Are The Champions, Crazy Little Thing Called Love and Another One Bites the Dust, Under Pressure and then the absolute worst Radio Ga Ga. That is when it really ended for me. And I know people who absolutely love that song. Yes, for me, it was those last five tunes that turned me sour. And yes, they were pop anthems. So that is my perspective on Queen and I don't know if that answers anything or not.........

 

After A Day at the Races, the music started to change: A lot more filler appeared on the albums, there appeared to be a greater enforced democratization of the writing as well, which didn't play to the band's strengths. I didn't change, the band did. The melodic hard rock/art rock/art pop of the first five albums started to get displaced by less artful or less clever material.

I understood them. I just didn't like it nearly as much.

 

We see this kind of a phenomenon with a lot of bands that have been around for a long time, adapting their sound to changing trends and achieving great commercial success. A band like Genesis comes to mind, where you have considerable disagreements among the fanbase over the direction they took in the 80s. The same could be said for Yes, David Bowie, Jefferson Airplane/Starship and many more. With any band that gets as big as Queen did, it's not surprising to see that there are different fan factions that value different aspects of their career.

 

Misunderstood by May/Taylor now.
Deacon quit the band on time.

 

The Game was the last album I truly had much interest in. Hot Space killed any real momentum they had going, at least for me. I just lost my enthusiasm for them at that point. I only did cursory listens to album subsequent to Hot Space.

Queen has always been a band, for me, that was frustrating because of their diversity. I wanted a band that rocked and sometimes they would, but often the albums would be piano tunes, or weird opera stuff, or a joke tune, or something else. I just couldn't find that much to latch onto. Still, a band with some great output.

 

Camp melodrama, big hair, cheesy riffy choons, male fans with engineering degrees.

That's Queen to me.

 

I love it all, though I can't really get into this Lambert guy's voice. Just a little too affected and mannered for my liking. Hot Space is one of my favourite LPs, though. "Under Pressure" is undeniably the finest pop single they ever produced and the deep tracks are great as well.

People dismiss what they don't like at first without really giving it a proper chance, sometimes. Then a few will rationalize it by saying it's "not really" Queen anymore. On the other hand, Queen themselves arguably do this with the "+ singer X" demarcation gambit.

 

I am one of those who loved the early years, buying each album as it was released. Saw them live for the News of the World tour. I found something to enjoy with each new release. But after Hot Space (which I liked), I found the material really weak. The hooks weren't there, and they just ceased to engage me.
When the catalog was rereleased a couple of years ago with the 2 CD deluxe editions I bought all 15 titles and after listening to them again I still retain the same impression. The last few albums just aren't as strong as the earlier stuff. It has nothing to do with stylistic changes or 80s production (a complaint which I have never understood- every era has distinctive production sounds). Frankly, I think they had run their course. Their inspiration seemed to be gone.

 

Innuendo is as strong as any of theirs. Same with The Miracle. There are amazing hooks all over the place. I'd argue there more hooks and catchier ones at that on those two and on the Works than came before them.

 

Never got into the + singer X version of Queen.
IMHO, when you loose half the band, it's not Queen anymore. YMMV.

Darryl

 

I think it had to do more with instrumentation. Like Rush they changed the emphasis from guitar to keyboards, and that had a big effect on the overall sound, especially since there was so much rhythm programming.

 

In the case of Queen, it's not all about hooks. Yes, there are hooks on some of the later albums. But many of those songs are just downright clumsily written, and assuredly (in many cases) not artful at all.

 

In the US? Yes. The rest of the world? No.

 

I remember a few years ago, someone posed a question on a general discussion forum I was on, asking was there any band or act that you could say everyone liked. Queen were the most frequently suggested.

I think they just suffered from a sort of identity crisis, like other longstanding acts who tried to readjust to trends in image and production in the 1980s. Some managed to adapt and experience global superstardom (Peter Gabriel and Genesis spring to mind). Queen still bestrode Europe like a giant behemoth - their live reputation was second to none - but the albums were patchy. I think the main problem was the push me-pull you of May/Taylor's rock preferences vs. the more soulful, funk/dance-inspired stance of Mercury/Deacon, most obvious on Hot Space, but a real dilemma throughout the 1980s. They got away with it in the 1970s, as they were essentially a heavy rock band, with occasional operatic tendencies.

I love Queen, and have done as long as I've had an awareness of them, so I can always find merit in most of what they've done. There's still much to cherish on The Works, A Kind of Magic, The Miracle and Innuendo (and Innuendo is a decent swan song... I don't count Made In Heaven), but the quality control plummeted after The Game, which, despite criticisms of some "unconvincing filler material, like Don't Try Suicide" ((c) Q magazine), is a remarkably taut and consistent album. But the later studio years were definitely a bit wobbly. For every Radio Ga Ga, One Vision, Was It All Worth It or The Show Must Go On, there was a Pain is So Close to Pleasure, My Baby Does Me, Rain Must Fall or Delilah. Both the mid-eighties albums always seemed incomplete to me, at least one song short apiece.

The other issue is that of the most-projected image of Queen being stadium rock giants, and that whole idea of Freddie leading the crowd in his trademark call-and-response, and being remembered for that, as opposed to a bloody good songwriter and musician, something Roger bewails on the Days of Our Lives documentary. You say "Queen" to a fairweather fan and people think of the hit singles and Live Aid. There's nothing wrong with that, but it has meant that the most prominent portrayal of them in the media is effectively 1985 and 1986, which reduces the amount of songs they are showcasing to a pretty limited number. Brian himself remarked when EMI churned out Queen Rocks, "I'd prefer if people just listened to Queen II".

 

The (inevitable) Beatles comparison is not relevant. The Moptops progressed. Queen regressed musically, from writing songs of worth and beauty to whatever they could write between their social engagements and drug habits, and whatever they thought would sell.

The most inventive guitarist of his generation agreed to take second place and merely to churn out sub-Aerosmith riffs and increasingly irrelevant solos. (The one on "Save Me" is so incongruous I laugh out loud whenever I hear it).

And the most gorgeously versatile, pure voice of his generation wore a vest and started shouting a lot.

So no Beatles comparison there at all.

 

With the death of Freddie and indeed Live Aid the band have plunged into the world of mythology whatever way you look at it and I agree as much as I like Taylor and May they pretty much have damaged the legacy of the band in a lot of ways.

What happened with Queen isn't that unusual irrespective of changes in style-they hit periods of producing poor quality songs and poor quality albums. That's the bottom line and especially "strange" in that they had 4 writers in the band. It was always a trade off and as much as you can admire Freddie for debunking their importance and the more epic traits in reality the tongue in cheek aspects ran aground too....if you go down the entertainment route you'll pay a price and Queen did.

I was lucky to see Queen in a world before everything got over exposed I turned up a gig at the Glasgow Apollo in 1979 as a bit of a fan-especially of the earlier and more epic material-I left that gig dumb struck at what is arguably the greatest gig I've ever seen....Mercury took that seriously he turned up and delivered with world class backing the notion you weren't going to see too many better bands and they balanced pop,anthems, epics and hard rock with total ease. You saw that and there was no confusion......following the records, the myth and the hype? Well that's a different story.

 

I love all queen albums

 

I guess because people think differently and have different ideas about what good and bad music is.

As far as I'm concerned, Queen were mostly great up until The Game. I didn't care much for the albums that came later - some great songs, no doubt, but way too much filler compared to the older stuff.

 

Queen is absolutely underrated. They are top tier all the way. Ranking them as anything less is misunderstanding them.

But the great songs are as good as any of there's that's what is forgotten. We dwell on the negative instead of looking at the greatness that was still there.

 

I think Queen sucks except for the albums from Queen through The Cosmos Rocks.

Seriously, I think they're one of the most consistently great bands of the 20th century.

 

I also don't see any point in a Beatles comparison. The two bands sound very different and Queen was never anywhere near as influential. The only thing Queen has going for them is that every single one of them is or was a better musician and the band made music that trounced anything The Beatles ever did.

 

Who underrates them though? They approached things though with a large dollop of fun and a mix of styles that didn't quite fit totally into any category....that type of mix invariably is harder to love and harder to pin down as classic in the way that a lot of rock music qualifies. At their peak of writing yes but funny enough after the first three albums maybe the majority of their greatness was in the more popular songs.......they didn't got for mystique and they didn't have that part of "seriousness" that the best of rock music is viewed within...as I stated earlier Freddie was in no way concerned with that.

So in some ways I do think it is hard to say-and they are a big part of my musical life-that Queen were up there consistently with the greats.

I'll put it another way...take Dylan now I don't think Dylan ever really take his own myth and importance as seriously as the academics and the hard core fans and the journalists BUT he did take his art seriously...that's the tightrope....somewhere along the line Queen threw the baby out with the bathwater....I admire their audacity for doing that-almost punk in a way but for a boring old muso like me (I just sat through and enjoyed NOTW there) I have to say as much as I love Queen they couldn't consistently from a record point of view claim to be up there with the greats. An album or two yes but not in the ways many other artists have delivered.