Queen "Bohemian Rhapsody" The Original Soundtrack

"There can be only one."

 

Technically, no. However, for the most part, I think Freddie's voice / live performances, and many of his songs are what draws most people towards Queen. Even their two biggest moments - Bohemian Rhapsody and Live Aid were mostly down to Freddie.

 

I dunno "most people", so I feel we'll have to disagree on this one.

 

You don't have to "know" most people to observe opinion. When you read comments on Queen on social media, it's overwhelmingly Freddie that people talk about and praise.

 

'Bohemian Rhapsody' is UK box office champion in first week

 

Long before we knew the details of what would become Bohemian Rhapsody, I'd actually drafted up my own idea of what a Queen biopic should be... Over the course of three distinct acts, each more incredible than the events your average band would experience in a million lifetimes, it would take both fans and newcomers alike through the group's whole journey, ending with Adam Lambert's introduction while Freddie can be heard still demanding that his music is never allowed to become boring - isn't that more like what he wanted? I can't imagine he'd be too happy with Brian and Roger bringing forward his AIDS diagnosis as a plot device to justify their "reuniting" for Live Aid, when in reality he wouldn't learn of this until Easter 1987!

 

For many Queen fans who find Lambert as dull as dishwater, that scene would be nauseating.

 

Of course Roger, John and Brian were very good musicians and wrote some very good stuff. However, Freddie's instrument - his voice, contribution of songwriting, performing and overall star quality completely demolished the other 3 combined. And then some.

 

I'm with you. Queen's biggest singles were written by John Deacon, and it's also very clear that while Brian May wouldn't have had such a big career without Freddie as a frontman, he was HUGELY responsible for large swaths of their music. I'd argue that Roger Taylor was perhaps the least important band member, but he also wrote some hit singles, sing superb background vocals, and eventually became a really good lead vocalist as well. Truly a historically great rock band.

 

How much of that is is his tragic early demise and what might it have been if they had all lived until today? I'd suggest the balance would be a little different even though I'll also allow that he was the biggest/most important of the four band members.

 

I'm no fan of anyone from the talent show school of excessive vocal gymnastics, but at least he brings an level of theatricality that I'm sure his predecessor would have enjoyed. Saying that, Adam probably wouldn't exist as we know him today if Freddie was still around...

I'd like to think that even if the group had never formed, Brian would still have made his name as a distinctive guitarist, if not a solid songwriter as well. Roger probably had the best chance of solo success on looks alone, while John might have succeeded as a reclusive writer of the occasional hit for other artists. However, all three would still be eclipsed by Freddie, though he'd need a band prepared to rein in some of his more indulgent tendencies. For better or worse, it really is best how things worked out for Queen's original 1973-1995 studio catalogue, which is a run of quality that's (mostly) second to none!

 

I remember when he was alive, and he was always the main focus. Freddie was regarded as a top-notch frontman / rock singer back then too. That was well and truly established with Live Aid, if not before.

 

Freddie might've thought of him as terrible. He generally liked singers who had excellent voices (Aretha Franklin, George Michael, Montserrat Caballé etc), and to my ears, Lambert's voice is harsh and grating. I can't bear that voice for more than a few seconds. I find him tacky an inauthentic too.

 

All very talented writers and musicians, but Freddie's writing elevated them from being a meat and potatoes rock band into something a bit more spectacular and eccentric.

Obviously Brian's guitar harmonies are a very distinctive part of the sound and his best songs are rock classics but they could have ended up with a dreary Paul Rodgers-esque type of singer...

I'm not saying Freddie was Queen, but there is no Queen without Freddie.

 

That's where I'm coming from with it too. Queen was an outstanding group, but Freddie took it to another level.

 

Having seen the movie, I think you're a bit off beam there. I dont think they suggest they got back together because of his AIDS diagnosis at all. I think they included it because there was a lot of pressure from fans not to overlook the AIDS diagnosis and they never planned for the movie to go past Live Aid. I think they handled it reasonably well. There are other things that irritated me, particularly in hindsight, about the chronology surrounding Live Aid, but the AIDS diagnosis wasnt one of those things. Obviously as a long time Queen fan Im well aware he wasnt diagnosed until '87, whether he suspected anything earlier or not. I thought they handled the whole diagnosis thing pretty respectfully, but the timeline sucked. They basically ignored the fact that Queen had come off the successful 1984 The Works tour only weeks before Live Aid and said theyd not played together in a couple of years to give drama to Freddie recording Mr Bad Guy and them "getting back together" for the whole Live Aid event.
I still did enjoy the movie

 

That's how exactly how i felt. I've read book after book and watched hours and hours of Queen, so know the story pretty well. This film is aimed at the people that know of Queen and Freddie and like the music, but they shouldn't use it as an accurate story of the band - it's good but not quite right - FBG before BoRhap - that was a clunker. If you want to know the story - watch 'Days Of Our Lives' - for entertainment value - watch the film - simples.

Also did the press conference scene actually happen? I've never read about that anywhere....

 

Saw the film myself last night and I enjoyed it. I think, simply taken as it is, its perfectly good entertainment. I knew the timeline was all over the place, and a lot of the 'story' was inaccurate and altered for dramatic effect so I'm glad I knew all that beforehand otherwise it would have annoyed the hell out of me. But, the performances were mostly great, and the recreation of Live Aid was a particular highlight.

 

...plus, I'm not sure John Deacon spent quite so much time gurning like that.

 

I don't think it ever did. I think it was a dramatic amalgamation of all sorts of press harassment of Freddie over the years about his private life. Ive never seen anything about a single press conference like that, and frankly, Im not sure if anyone back then would have been as pushy and direct as that woman interviewer was.

 

The cover of the debut album says it all.

 

It's a good album cover.

 

Director of Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody video to sue the British band for millions in lost royalties | Daily Mail Online

 

Been livid for 43 years has he? That'll take it's toll.

 

Just seen the film. Glad I had read about it before I saw it. The timeline is horrendous.

The film is great for people that like Queen from hearing songs on the radio but as a fan it’s not great.