Is Queen the most misunderstood Band?

As a complete vocalist, I would agree wholeheartedly. As a pure rock and roll singer, I think I give the nod to Robert Plant.

I have seen both live, and I consider myself a head-banging hard rock fan above all else.

I thought the show I saw at the end of their NOTW tour was THE BEST concert I have ever been to. Freddie Mercury was an unbelievable vocal talent at that time, and Queen flat out kicked butt.

I saw them twice again during the Jazz tour, and IMHO, Freddie's voice had already started to go downhill (compared to the NOTW tour) at that time, and IMHO their music started going in a direction that I didn't really connect with.

 

The Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert is proof enough.

Freddie Mercury was able to sing better on his death bed than Robert Plant.

 

I see no point in comparing those two at all. They were totally different. Plant surely had a bad night on that Tribute, he obviously had not rehearsed "Innuendo" enough. But vocally he could be compared more with Roger Taylor - if ever. But any comparison between Plant and Mercury is pointless, cause both were perfect for their bands. I wouldn't wanna miss one of them.

 

You can do better than that. Where's the examples that the members of Queen are lesser talents ability wise compared to the members of the Stones and Zeppelin?

 

Translation: Plant is a significantly worse singer than Freddie Mercury but they were perfect for their bands because each fit in with the abilities of their respective bands.

An outstanding voice would have stood out like a sore thumb on Led Zeppelin songs with the band and songs not being on that same level.

A Robert Plant voice on Queen music is the same. Their music requires an outstanding voice to equally go with the band and songs of that level.

 

I don't think Queen are misunderstood, perhaps some people think they take themselves too seriously whereas I beliver they were quite happy to send themselves up and certainly a lot of what Freddie did was with tongue firmly in cheek. Like all succesful bands they do divide opinion though.
Queen were the first band I really got into and for a while were my number 1 favourite band. They were the first band which I got the complete back catalogue of albums, and I was lucky to see them live with Freddie on the Magic Tour.
I continued buying all the albums up to and including Made In Heaven. I have no real issue with what May & Taylor have done since then with the Queen name, I just personally aren't interested. To me they can never be the same without Freddie. I did get the Rainbow Live set and this just reminds me both of what a great live act Queen were and how much they could rock when they wanted to.
In terms of Queen and their changing style this never particularly bothered me, it was just the way they were adapting through the years. Gun to a head I would go for the earlier Queen sound up to A Day at the Races / News of the World but each album they made has a number of great songs on it which I like. At the time when The Works came out I remembered this as a return to form and really liked Radio Ga Ga and the video, perhaps in hindsight this should be viewed in the context of the previous release, Hot Space, and how much of a departure that was from the traditonal Queen sound. But hey I clapped my hands along with the everyone else to Radio Ga Ga when I saw them live and the image of the crowd doing the same at Live Aid will forever be burned into my memory, and I still like the song today.
I do agree with a lot of previous posters that whilst Queen could still bring out great songs the albums did start to have more filler on them as they went on. I find myself nowadays listening to my own playlists rather than individual albums.
They are still one of my favourite all time bands and I long ago stopped worrying about who is better than who and how much they sold and how many numbers 1's they have. I like them and that is enough for me.

 

Love the band from beginning to end, but IMO, there's a noticeable drop-off in quality after News Of The World, which itself is a transitional album, seeing the band refining its sound a bit and getting maybe a bit more direct and stripped down at times. Jazz continues this transition, but a lot of the material is not up to par.

Which isn't to say that Jazz doesn't have some fantastic music on it -- there's just more filler than ever before, and a lot fewer "wow" moments.

The Game is probably a better album than Jazz, but the stylistic change leaves me wishing for the Queen of old. And they never recaptured what made them so great in the beginning. Which is fine -- most bands don't wind up matching their earlier masterpieces 10 or 15 years after their debut. The thing that's missing from the '80s Queen is the theatrical, bombastic, over-the-top approach. The guys who made those '70s albums were young, hungry and willing to take risks. It's no huge surprise that when the money, fame, and everything that comes with it all started to creep in, the band's drive was significantly reduced. They became complacent. It's harder to be creative when you're attending non-stop parties around the globe and raking in tons of cash. Happens to the best of them. In Queen's case, the music mostly got dumbed-down.

But there are some fantastic songs are spread out through the final decade of their recorded history. Innuendo, of course, has some really excellent moments, which became even more breathtaking once the story behind that album became evident.

 

You put it a lot better than I did. Thanks!!

 

This should not be considered as an insult to Robert Plant. Freddie Mercury sang better on his death bed than most singers.

 

I think Queen is no different than any other band whose work spanned decades. Some folks prefer this period others that. In fact I don't think Queen changed THAT dramatically, they got more commercial as the 80s dawned then went back to their roots as they ended but so did many other 70's acts. The only aspect where Queen actually might be misunderstood is that some guys didn't get the level of camp

 

As a Queen fan since 1974, I'm not really bothered if people 'understand' them or not. If people dismiss artists out of hand, then that's their problem and - usually - their loss.

 

Good point.

 

Freddie Mercury on Robert Plant " Led Zeppelin is the greatest. Robert Plant is one of the most original vocalists of our time. As a rock band they deserve the kind of success they're getting." Freddie on Jimi Hendrix " Jimi Hendrix is very important. He's my idol. He sort of epitomizes, from his presentation on stage, the whole works of a rock star. There's no way you can compare him. You either have the magic or you don't. There's no way you can work up to it. There's nobody who can take his place." Freddie on Queen " We’re confident people will take to us, because although the camp image has already been established by people like Bowie and Bolan we are taking it to another level. The concept of Queen is to be regal and majestic. Glamour is part of us and we want to be dandy. We want to shock and be outrageous instantly."

 

Well you have three different bands that are totally different so to even try would be futile! And I don't think it is very smart to compare It's all subjective. All three bands were innovators in there respective fields!

 

We know how you feel but Freddie told it like it was and was a big fan of Robert and thought Robert was one of the most original vocalists of our time!

 

Well, I'm not a fan of any of the "styles", although I admit that I've not heard as much of their early work as I'd like. I wouldn't mind giving their first couple of albums a whirl but it's not a big priority.

You want people to like everything they did because you do. That's not how the world works. That doesn't make Queen misunderstood. If it did, you could rightly call every artist misunderstood.

Whether its, camp, kitsch, album rock , 80's production or whatever, not everyone has to share your aesthetic. I know that I sure the hell don't.

 

I agree with you! And very well put It's nice to see some common sense concerning this subject.

 

Not sure what else your criteria would be the, but okay. Name some second- and third-tier bands that produced six straight top ten albums.

I repeat: Queen was huge here

 

I do not get this "competitive attitude" that always is always shown in these topics. Music is about feelings, emotions, art, creativity.
But it's not about winning and losing or being better than others. Music is about diversity, it's best when there is much of everything. It's like a garden with different flowers.
I see no point in ranking bands, that are long established. It has nothing to do with music and is only an unnecessary "fan-thing". In this case "fan" is meant in it's worst meaning as abbreviation of "fanatic".

 

I cut them off at 1975 but do re-instate them around 83.....

 

i wish this was available in the UK !!!

 

Definitely!!!!

 

This may be the most cogent statement that I have ever read on this forum.

 

And the only reason they would ever be viewed as second or third tier is because they aren't the bands everyone loves to say are top tier. Why those bands are put higher than Queen is a misfortune of music history and full of misguided views toward them and the top tier acts.

 

Queen have outsold the Stones, and the Stones had a decade on Queen.