/mu/ - Music

I agree with OP

Queen is one of those bands whose songs are great when you only hear them in 10 second clips at the sports arena, but that are actually pretty bad when you listen to them properly

>>93982

Explain what's bad about them.

>>93983

lyrically their songs are extremely generic. there's some interesting instrumentation, but sometimes it goes too far and just becomes ridiculous (e.g. We Will Rock You)

basically, their songs are either totally forgettable or laughable, with nothing in between.

>>93985

>lyricfag

Lyrics are .01% of what makes a song good. Most of the time I can't make out what any singer is saying. Mustapha is a perfect example of how a song doesn't need coherent lyrics to convey raw emotion. Black Queen and Killer Queen actually have great lyrics too, even if they are, "generic". Their instumentation can be be a bit over the top and flamboyant, but that doesn't make it bad. Songs don't need to take themself super seriously. If that's what you care about, listen to linkin park or some other emo shit.

The actual melodies and haunting chorus is what draws me into a song, not the, "lyrical depth". That's why I can also enjoy opera and choral songs that aren't in english. It seems like you have narrow, boring taste.

>>93986

>It seems like you have narrow, boring taste

<says the guy who likes Queen

>>93983

It's tacky and broadway as fuck.

They sound like fucking Andrew Lloyd Webber formed a rock band, pure circus music.

Queen is just arena rock and novelty songs. That's all fine and good, but the perfect rock band of all time? Fuck no.

Sure, Freddie was a great singer, but that's about all that set them apart.

>>94012

>just arena rock and novelty songs

I don't know how you set novelty songs apart from others. While Queen did actively try to have spectacle and mass appeal, I really don't get how that alone makes them lesser. The intricacies of songs like Bohemian Rhapsody also sets them apart. Their actual music was unconventional. It's like there's an insistence on disliking anything that's too popular here. Something that doesn't try to appeal to anybody, but sounds like shit isn't better for going against the grain as hard as possible.

Name rock bands that are better than Queen.

>>94013

How can you listen to something like bicycle race and not think novelty song?

>unconventional

lol, this is a joke, right? Captain Beefheart is unconventional. Queen is not

>bands that are better than Queen

If you're talking about "bands" and not individuals, damn near every other popular classic rock band.

And I actually like Queen, I'm just tired of everyone sucking Queen's cock all the time when they really only want Freddie's dead and decomposing cock in their mouth.

>>94016

>How can you listen to something like bicycle race and not think novelty song?

It has a humorous aspect to it, but it still sound good and works like a normal song would. It's not like My Ding-a-Ling or something similar which you wouldn't listen to unless you wanted something funny or absurd.

>unconventional

Something doesn't need to be totally nonsensical and abrasive to be unconventional. Earlier in this thread it was pointed out how out there instrumentation can be in a Queen song.

>damn near every other popular classic rock band

You must be joking. Name something.

I don't see that many people into Queen anymore. Not here, not among normal fags. That's probably only contained to rock forums.

>>93966

>It's not like ugly screamo shit or whatever

it's gayer than aqua barbie

>>94017

>sound good and works like a normal song would

novelty songs can still be good, but doesn't change the fact that they're a novelty song

>Something doesn't need to be totally nonsensical and abrasive to be unconventional

except that it needs to go against convention to be unconventional. I'd say you're arguing that they were more experimental, which i would agree with

>Name something.

Beatles, Zeppelin, Stones, Floyd, The Who, The Clash

>>94049

>Novelty song can still be good

Not really. Grandma got run over by a reindeer, surfin bird, monster mash, etc. are all annoying and hard to listen to. They feel tongue and cheek even without the lyrics.

>experimental

Fine. It's just semantics.

>Beatles, Zeppelin, Stones, Floyd, The Who, The Clash

All of these bands are more boring to me and have way more repetitive songs. At worst they just feel like they ramble on and one while there's a really clear beginning, middle and end to Queen songs. My Generation and I fought the Law are prefect examples of this. Beatles are the only exception, but most of their stuff is just dull. These bands' songs are also a lot more samey while most Queen songs are distinct from one another. I can't imagine anyone of them really getting me excited or worming their way into my brain.

You say Freddie Mercury doesn't make the band as a whole better, but considering his range, it's obvious that Queen did more interesting things. What makes those bands better? They were more serious and that makes them better? Their music was more complex and well developed? What?

>>94053

>Not really.

You're definition of a novelty song is too narrow

>All of these bands are more boring to me and have way more repetitive songs.

Ah yes, because we will rock you and another bites the dust aren't repetitive.

>My generation

And what about baba o'riley? Or that doesn't count because it has that beginning, middle, and end that you like in Queen songs?

>I fought the Law

is a cover.

>samey

Ah yes, so samey. While my guitar gently weeps, i wanna hold your hand, yellow submarine (another novelty song), rocky raccoon, black bird. all sound the same. why couldn't the beatles mix it up?

And the clash? have you actually listened through london calling? guns of brixton is on the same album as train in vain, and the titular track. I could keep going with other songs and other bands, but this just makes me think you haven't actually explored these bands as much as you're leading on

>You say Freddie Mercury doesn't make the band as a whole better

the exact opposite of what i'm saying. Freddie was the only unique part of Queen. He should be talked about as an individual artist. Without Freddie, Queen isn't even remembered. Without Queen, Freddie does just fine and is remembered as an individual artist like Bowie is.

>What makes those bands better?

higher number of good songs and more reliant on being a collective group, not just a supporting act behind one person.

Stepping back to >>94017

>I don't see that many people into Queen anymore. Not here, not among normal fags. That's probably only contained to rock forums.

There's a major motion picture coming out that has been massively advertised. Queen is popular with normies and Freddie having been bi/gay probably endears his music to a good number of people who want to feel "progressive" about what they listen to