Is Queen (the band) well-liked in the UK? (1 Viewer)

[Yee-Ming]

can't remember all the details, but if memory serves FM had a diploma from a polytechinc (though not a degree), making them "the most educated band" at the time. one of them (May?) was actually working on a doctorate in astrophysics, doesn't get more academically high-brow than that
Freddie was born Frederick Bulsara, in Zanzibar, today known as Tanzania, to Parsee parents I think, which I believe means they're originally from northern India.
again, IIRC Taylor and May were in a band called "Smile", they recruited Deacon whom they (somehow) knew, possibly school, and Mercury was then drafted after auditioning potential singers as having the right voice and songwriting talent, and charisma. or something like that. no doubt a keener fan will remember more off-hand.

 

[andrew markworthy]

This is a slight side-issue, but it helps further explain the critics-public dichotomy about Queen.

The critics embraced punk rock because they were tired of what they saw as the lumbering dinosaur antics of the big groups of the time (Genesis, Queen, Floyd, etc). The British public embraced punk because they were fed up to the back teeth of the *singles* charts being dominated by manufactured teen bands (Bay City Rollers, Slick, etc) and disco (does any of this sound familiar?). If you look at *album* sales, Pink Floyd, Genesis, etc weren't all that much affected by punk rock. What changed was primarily the singles charts and there was a demise of the disco and teenybop acts (with the exception of the best of the bunch, like the Bee Gees). However, it's the critics, not the public, who write musical history, and the myth that punk rock swept aside Genesis, Queen et al in a wave of public acclaim has been accepted as the gospel truth.

Incidentally, 'punk rock' is a bit of misnomer. This applied to one aspect of 'new wave' which included the (then) new generation of acts, such as The Police, Blondie, Devo, etc. The binding characteristic was a return to simpler instrumentation, three minute songs and an absence of 'concepts'.

 

[Yee-Ming]

nice insight Andrew. I would've thought personally, though, that so-called "punk rock" is now merely a footnote in rock history, given that no one talks about the likes of the Sex Pistols or the Clash much anymore, whereas Queen and Floyd still have legions of fans, and probably earn a few new ones among the younger generations today.

does your "new wave" term also include the slightly later bands such as Duran Duran, Spandau Ballet, possibly Depeche Mode, as well? after all, Duran & Spandau started to gain prominence in 1982-83, slightly later than the Police, who were already big by, say, 1979.

 

[Iain Lambert]

Given the way the NME drools all over The Strokes still, I don't think they ever did go off that Ramones/Stooges inspired pared down style. To be honest on the 'not talking about The Clash anymore' though, its probably more due to the way that Strummer and Co. stopped giving the world more music to talk about, while the old guard rode through Punk, New Wave, Synth-Pop and more to keep on churning out records. Even Mike Oldfield had a new album out last week...

 

[andrew markworthy]

The Pistols and The Clash are still fairly popular in the UK (wasn't there a big Pistols reunion gig a few weeks ago?). However, IMHO The Pistols were rather like MC5 - one of those bands that the majority of people acknowledge as influential but don't actually like.

Duran Duran and Spandau Ballet appeared on the scene after the initial excitement about New Wave had died down. By the early 80s, The Police, Elvis Costello, etc had become part of the mainstream. Bands like DD and SB represented a rather richer sound (new wave tended to be fairly austere), with much heavier emphasis on synthesisers. [The apotheosis of this was ABC's 'Lexicon of Love' album, which if you haven't heard, you should!]. Because of this and a collective persona emphasising frills and makeup (especially for the men) they became known as the New Romantics (who the Old Romantics were was never fully explored). Given this vaguely camp, less frivolous atmosphere, you can see why Queen began slowly to regain popularity.

 

[TheoGB]

I think most people have some Queen stuff they like (either Flash Gordon or Highlander!!) but the fact is that they're not cutting edge and they haven't aged well, musically speaking.
Essentially most of us over here hate 'sell outs' (not that Queen were probably ever 'in'). You have the public, who don't have a clue and they dominate the charts both album and singles.
The musos, of which your journalist is almost certainly one, will have grown up on the NME as-was - full of vicious opinions and unreasoning hatred of a band for no real reason other than it seemed cool and they were easy to get at.
Music appreciation in the UK is VERY partisan and people will 'lose faith' with bands for the smallest thing. Radiohead perhaps represent the first world-class, massive British band since The Beatles that you can like without looking like you've lost it and get laughed at.
At the end of the day it could never be considered 'cool' to like Queen in this country so if you're reading a magazine for musos and people 'into' their music (What Hi-Fi may well count on this) you shouldn't be surprised to see the slagging-off of such bands.

 

[Mike Broadman]

If you look at *album* sales, Pink Floyd, Genesis, etc weren't all that much affected by punk rock.

This may be true- I don't know, I was a wee tyke at the time- but if album sales were not affected, why did all of those bands drastically alter their sounds to fit in with the "new wave?"
Genesis- Phil Collins taking over creative control, shedding the "artsy" concept stuff, and writing pop songs.
Yes- Trevor Rabin's version of the group completely changed their sound to be more pop / new-wavish with the release of 90125
Pink Floyd- Without Roger Waters, their music became very big-arena-pop
Queen- The Game album featured pop, disco, and rockabilly
These bands at least were big enough to survive throught the changing musical tides. Bands like Gentle Giant didn't stand a chance and were forced to break up.
I have no problem with critics and fans wanting some fresh blood in their music- I want that, too. But to dismiss a band because they're old is just a sad aspect of rock. In any other style of music, an older musician is respected for their experience and develoment of their craft. Try telling Sonny Rollins today that he shouldn't play his sax!
There has always been simple, direct music, so the whole "returning" to it makes no sense. If, as andrew says, it meant returning to it on the singles chart, that seems like a small aspect of pop music.
Eh, critics...
NP: Thelonious Monk, Town Hall Concert- who also performed when he was older *gasp*

 

[Yee-Ming]

Andrew said:

[The apotheosis of this was ABC's 'Lexicon of Love' album, which if you haven't heard, you should!].

I loved Lexicon of Love
thought they went a bit "weird" with How To Be A Millionaire, though. and I didn't really keep up with them thereafter, if memory serves there was, at least, Up and Alphabet City, with a two-man line up (Martin Fry and Mark whatsisname)?
now that you mention it, yes, who or what was/were the Old Romantics? I remember that Spandau was supposed to be one of the pioneers of the so-called New Romantics and all that, although "fortunately" I didn't get hooked until the time of the "True" album, when they'd pared it down to very smart suits rather than the tartan and eyeliner. oh well, I was a young impressionable teen at the time... :b

 

[andrew markworthy]

This may be true- I don't know, I was a wee tyke at the time- but if album sales were not affected, why did all of those bands drastically alter their sounds to fit in with the "new wave?"

I'm not sure they did alter all that drastically. Floyd's albums remained themed around a central concept (no matter how obscure) and remain fairly 'prog rock' in feel, Genesis had moved towards shorter, more pop-orientated songs almost as soon as Peter Gabriel left (i.e. pre-punk), Queen didn't alter all that much (e.g. 'Innuendo' which could hardly be described as a traditional pop song).
I suspect that bands like Gentle Giant et al would have died a natural death anyway - they were hardly massive pre-punk. Yes are something of an exception. the album they brought out at the height of punk was going For The One, which is pretty much in their traditional vein. I think the stuff they did when Trevor Horn arrived (incidentally, I saw them on the concert tour they did with Horn, and it was a pretty traditional Yes concert) marked a change in direction, but I wonder if this might have happened anyway?

Incidentally, I think the old romantics were meant to be the artists and poets of the early 19th century (Wordsworth, Shelley, etc), memorably described in Blackadder as 'poncing about Europe is oversized blouses'. the similarity was in the look rather than any artistic theme.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Andrew, I'm sorry, but I disagree.

Pink Floyd may have kept some obscure conecptual themes in their music, but the song structures were simplified. They would never come back to the ambient soundscapes of Shine On You Crazy Diamond and Astronomy Domine that, for bettter or worse, is one of their defining characteristics. They still did have an arty "feel," but musically it was a lot different. Personally, that's why I don't like the later Floyd stuff. Their ambition and pretention was always huge, but at least for a few years in the 70s, they had the music to back it up.

Genesis kept their "prog" sound fully for two albums after Gabriel left until Hackett left. It then took them another few albums to convert to the pop sound they did. It is probably no coincidence that Duke and Abacab came out in 1980/81.

The big change for Yes wasn't Horn as much as it was Rabin. His pop sensibilities and songwriting steered the musical direction of the group.

Gentle Giant wasn't massively popular, but plenty of groups are successful without being big pop acts. They were pressured to simplify and disco-up their sound by the record companies. Their unsuccessful attempts to do so failed to draw new fans and their drastic change alienated old fans. Maybe if they had kept their musical integrity, they would have survived- who knows?

Innuendo was hailed as a "return to form" for Queen, but that was like in '91 or thereabouts. I was talking about the Game and those early 80s records when they, like everyone else, had to respond to punk and new wave. The Game sounds nothing like A Night At the Opera.

I think it all depends how honest the band is. Gentle Giant didn't really want to go pop, so they did a half-assed job. I have not heard their last couple of albums and I don't particularly want to. Genesis was very sincere of their change. The band itself wanted to do it, so they made great pop records.


NP: Pat Metheny, Tio 99->00

 

[Michael Allred]

again, IIRC Taylor and May were in a band called "Smile", they recruited Deacon whom they (somehow) knew, possibly school, and Mercury was then drafted after auditioning potential singers as having the right voice and songwriting talent, and charisma. or something like that. no doubt a keener fan will remember more off-hand.

Almost!

While Brian and Roger were performing in Smile with Tim Staffel, Freddie was singing for other bands like Wreckage and Sour Milk Sea. It was Staffel who introduced Freddie to Bri and Rog. Fred would often go to Smile shows, giving advice, suggesting things all the time.

When Staffel left the group, Freddie simply said (para-phrasing) "Well *I* should be your singer" and immediately changed their persona..coming up with the new band name (Queen) and logo.

Under the Queen banner, the 3 fellas went through 3 (or 4) bass players(!) before finally getting introduced to Mr. Deacon. I *think* this was 1971.