Is Queen the most misunderstood Band?

Van Halen did the same thing of course different circumstances when David Lee Roth's ego out grew the band and Sammy Hager came on board. I prefer the Roth years due to he was quite the showman live. Hager on the other hand is a hard rockin SOB and I like him as front man for that and he can belt out the vocals no problem.

 

It's hard to explain to outsiders how Queen alienated their American rock audience with HOT SPACE. THE GAME was still close enough for rock that they weren't excluded from AOR playlists even as they became Top 40 darlings, but HOT SPACE was an unabashed embrace of non-rock styles and the band sank like a stone.

I think their legacy "problem" in America is that they're remembered as a rock act whose biggest hits were kitsch-y novelties: "Bohemian Rhapsody," "We Will Rock You/We Are the Champions," "Another One Bites the Dust," etc. Imagine if the Beatles were known primarily for "Yellow Submarine" or "Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da." The re-appearance of "Bohemian Rhapsody" in WAYNE'S WORLD revived the band's popularity but reinforced the idea they were lightweight purveyors of dated schlock.

In the end, I still think they win the historical status sweepstakes, even if they're not taken as seriously in the USA as the Beatles, Stones or Zeppelin. I still hear those kitsch-y Queen songs on the iPods of college students who have no memory of the band as an active unit. Queen is one of the few historical acts with more than one track still on the communal collective playlist, as it were, perhaps fewer than Michael Jackson but just as many and possibly more than R.E.M., a band with a far greater critical rep.

 

They aren't.

Queen followed the Beatles approach of tackling many different styles, so seeing as people have different tastes, there's something for almost everyone. There's nothing wrong with prefering one style to another.

Nothing wrong with disliking 80s production. One could also argue that they had pretty well said it all by 1980 and were repeating themselves (with the odd good song though).

We don't, do we? I love the early hard-rock Queen but I also like "Your My Best Friend", "Don't Stop Me Now", "Radio Ga Ga", "Innuendo",...

 

May and Taylor were the two founder members of the band that became "Queen". So this whole discussion is quite pointless, they can do with the name whatever they want. I do not understand this eternal discussion about band names at all.
Just take a look into sports. Famous teams completely change their players, they even exchange them with players from other teams. And I have never heard someone cry "They are no longer "Dallas Mavericks" or "Arsenal London"..........

 

I gonna get of the computer and play there greatest hits on lp now.

 

No. Some live shows are entirely spectacle. Madonna, for instance. Some are no spectacle. Leonard Cohen, for example. The rest fall somewhere in the middle.

Some people like huge spectacle. Visually entertaining and plays well to the cheap seats. Not me, though. It bores me.

 

I'd say that is more accurate, absolutely. I was using a decade as a rough guide or something like that

 

I love Queen, especially the albums up to "The Game". I also love half of "The Works" and "Kind Of Magic". Great band with a unique style. I don't really know how well understood they are, or how they compare to the Stones or Zep (two bands that don't mean much to me). And I don't care.

Listening to "Jazz" right now.

 

That's your opinion which is fine. I just happen to disagree.

 

I'd agree with you except I've never found Taylor to be a particularly talented drummer. A multi-instrumentalist, yes, but he's not even in the top 50 in terms of great rock drummers.

 

I would compare Roger Taylor to Ringo Starr in the sense that he almost always provided his band with exactly what was required in the drum department and with perfect and even inspired timing. In the case of Queen this was often loud, flashy, bombastic and not very complex. On stage he was a sight to behold.

Freddie and Brian were the stars of the show. I think Roger and John supported them impeccably.

 

Hm, you know, I hate getting into the "this guy is better than that guy" thing because musicianship, like music itself, is fairly subjective. A fair point in that Taylor did/does what is required for the songs. Just to me, I don't hear a guy that inspired a bunch of aspiring drummers to pick up a pair of sticks. That's just me.

 

"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."

(Raises hand)

 

No, the Shaggs are the most misunderstood Band.

 

Spectacles are spectacles; concerts are concerts. Sometimes concerts are spectacles, especially if the music alone isn't sufficient to hold an audience's interest.

 

Me as well. I had a lot of good will towards them through Jazz, then completely lost interest. When I saw them in concert in 1976 with Thin Lizzy, the audience was a hard rock one.

I'd say it was Suicidal Tendencies--all he wanted was a Pepsi.

 

Actually The Rutles are the most misunderstood band:

 

Seriously! Queen are still known, a lot of their hits are still known - they're doing fine! With some people here it's like if there aren't gold statues of their pet band/artists in every town square and an enforced listening hour of their music then that artist is underrated/misunderstood. For the record I love all era's of Queen.

 

I must say that It's A Hard Life for me is the definitive Queen ballad. That bleeping solo... it can't get more majestic than that. Just sublime.

 

How exactly is the guitar solo in "Save Me" incongruous?!? What a bizarre choice of words to use when talking about music. But, if it makes you laugh it loud, it must be blatantly obvious. I'm not sure if you mean to say that it's overly dramatic or bombastic, but that can apply to so many Queen songs - and I don't mean that negatively.

 

i don't really see that there is a problem with queen in the first place? i've never heard or read of them being 'misunderstood?'
how are they misunderstood? they are a unique band that could play lots of different styles. sometimes it didn't work but most of the time it did. like most bands.
queen were exceptional and a complete one-off.
the world outside of america absolutely adores queen. they are a national treasure in britain. they've sold more albums than anyone else in britain.
they appeal to many types of people. they continue to top polls for greatest live band, greatest song, etc, years after they died.
heavy metallers tend to have a soft spot for queen because of their early days and because of brian's playing.
they were masters of writing anthems dripping in hooks!

i got into them at the beginning. my favourite lps are the first three, but thats not to say i don't love much of their other releases. i have all their lps except for hot space and the game.[used to have those two but there is too many crap songs on them imo.]
like i've said in the past, i even have a queen tattoo. they have been the biggest band in my life. still don't see how they are misunderstood though. they're just a rock band in the end.

 

Would you be so kind as to send me your program from the show? Since I've been searching for one for ages, pretty please with sugar on top.

 

Not sure if there was, I certainly don't have one.. Anyone else who saw those shows at the Uris Theater in 1974 have an answer?

 

The latest TV infomercial for the product "Perfect Bacon Bowl" just ripped off Queen for their newest theme song. Queen fans please don't be offended - it seems like a tribute more than anything else.

It's one of the funniest things I've seen on late-night TV in a long while!



It's hard to believe that it's an actual product, but I guess it is. I've never heard of a product advertisement being done like an SNL commercial parody - but for a real thing. Quite a unique strategy.

 

It was the little free "Playbill" thingie, like so: