John Deacon's first Queen single (sorry Roger fans - still another 8 years before his first) couldn't be more different from either its immediate predecessor or, indeed, any of the songs that have come before it. After all the grand theatrics, heavy rock, double meanings of the first five singles, Queen's sixth is nothing more than a simple, straightforward love song. But it's none the worse for that.
You sometimes get the impression that Deacon, the youngest of the four and the last to jointhe group, was somehow less at ease with Queen's more out-there moments than the other three. His songs always strike a slightly different note to the others' and sometime seem almosta breath of fresh air amongst the high-mindedness of the rest of the group.
And this is no different. A class, pure pop song, intended to be taken at face value, simply written about being completely in love with someone and them being your whole life. The lyrics speak of devotion, love, faithfulness... but also ordinariness, of being together in the thick and thin of life.
It's all rather sweet, really.
Perhaps sometimes it's a little too sweet - a big soft-centre amongst a load of hard nuts (so to speak...). The electric piano, which was initially offered to Mercury and dismissed by him, the bright guitar parts, the glockenspiel that makes occasional appearance, especially towards the end: all give the song a brightness, joy and life that bounces you along for all of its three minutes or so. Freddie sounds perhaps a little uncomfortable singing this kind of thing, like he's not quite believing in everything he's singing but handles it fairly well.
There are occasional moments where it threatens to descend into cheesiness: the vocal harmonies, whilst largely great, sometimes are just a little too much (especially the rather naff "Ooohs" in the verses before the pay-off line); that glockenspiel is, again, perhaps an unnecessary touch and the ending's just the wrong side of cheesy. But it's a testament to John the songwriter that it doesn't descend into fluffy, rose-tinted mush.
And the whole thing's just so charming, jaunty (hideous word, I know, but I can't think of a better one for now) and life-filled that you can't help but get swept along by the whole thing and by the end, you're hooked, and smiling... 8
Video: Queen perform the song. In a barn. In the middle of the summer of 1976. With a load of candles. You may not be surprised to learn that it was very hot. Roger seems to have gained a load of cymbals with Extra Shininess to them. Nice.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Apologies for the delay...
More reviews are definitely, certainly, undoubtedly, 100% coming up...
Promise.
Honestly.
No, really!
Promise.
Honestly.
No, really!
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Bohemian Rhapsody (Mercury)
How on earth do you review this?
I mean now, that is. Perhaps when this was released (thirty years ago this year) it was a lot easier, before it went mega, spent umpteen weeks at number one, before Freddie died and the song practically entered mythology. Millions of words have been written about, even TV programmes made about it (that BBC2/BBC4 show with Richard E. Grant that was shown over the Christmas). It's been deconstructed as poetry, as a pointer to Mercury's love life and goodness knows what else.
But what about it as a pop song - and especially as a pop single? And since we're looking at Queen's singles in chronological order, how does it fit into the grand cheme of things?
Well, first of all, you have to acknowledge its sheer uniqueness. Queen, and especially Freddie, weren't afraid to experiment with various musical sources and influences. But even by their standards, this stands out a mile. It's so long for a start; nearly six minutes' worth of music. And the opera bit, although only a minute or so long, is so attention-grabbing, so utterly unique that, even when you know it off by heart and regularly attempt to sing it drunk, hearing the original version is still a thrilling experience as the voices weave and dance around each other, ridiculous in the extreme.
Ahem. The song, for all its subsequent hugeness (it pushed the very limits of studio technology at the time; Brian May recalled that, as they recorded it, the tape got thinner and thinner until it was almost transparent), starts off very small indeed. Although the harmonies sound like the whole group, they are in fact just Freddie. Even from the off, this was unique. The confused, nightmare-esque lyrics ("Is this the real life/is this just fantasy/Caught in a landslide/No escape from reality") are well-served by the harmonies, which have an almost other-worldly quality to them, enhanced by the occasional wind sound effect.
Then that piano part kicks in and we're in fairly standard pop ballad country. And, even if this had been released on its own, it would've been a hit; it's a lovely ballad with one of Freddie's best piano parts. It's really quite sparse until the guitars kick in around the middle of verse two and then it's almost relentless towards the opera section. To lead us in, we have what is perhaps Brian's best guitar solo. He states that, rather than just play it straightonto record, he planned it out first, fearing that otherwise it would be horribly predictable. It was a tactic that worked, and we're guided inexorably into the most famous bit of all: the opera section.
To try and review this bit is horribly difficult. For what it is, mock opera of the most over-the-top kind, it works extraordinarily well. Again, we start small, lone voice and piano, until the first harmonies enter. Then the first "big" section ("Thunderbolt and lightning/Very, very frightening") comes in and from then on we have a contrast between the ever-more desperate pleas of the accused (?) and the refusals to "let him go". It builds up and up, with more and more overlaid vocals, stereo panning in extremis, timpani... the works. Then, with a final incredibly high falsetto from Roger (wonder if he'll be doing that when the new Queen tour begins), we come out the other side into...
Heavy metal. And what's weird is it seems so natural, as if opera should always lead into big, heavy rock. Although this sounds like Brian's section, the famous riff was actually written by Freddie. He sings double-tracked, but slightly out (deliberately, the show-off) lending a kind of roughness to this minute of the song. Thenightmare is in full swing, he's in denial, bitter at those who betrayed him, going to face whatever fate awaits him, though far from ready to do so.
Towards the end of this, we start to hear hints of the piano creeping back in (although, in fact it's been there all the time). It then slows right up, crashing chords and a big piano run (Freddie showing off again) leading us into the big finish.
And, at first, that what it sounds like: Brian's trumpet-like guitars answering one another, a call of victory - or defeat? Then suddenly, it's calm again, and we're going right down small. There's just voice, drums, piano and a plaintive guitar, as if a massive storm has passed over us and we're left with an eerie calm. Freddie's voice is now resigned to its fate and we end with a note of calm acceptance: "Anyway the wind blows".
What's it all about? Who knows? Freddie never let on, claiming all sorts of meaning and motives behind it. Roger reckons it's fairly easy to work out the meaning and Brian at least once reckoned he knew. Probably the only person who does is Mercury. And he's not telling. Probably it's just a mad pop song.
Mad, pretentious, over-the-top - and utterly fantastic. As a whole, despite all the different musical genres, ideas and moods that get thrown about, it's virtually seamless in its moves from one section to the next. It's a superb piece of musical craftmanship (which I think is the right word; this must have taken some meticulous planning), which fulfills every one of its ambitions. Even if the whole idea turns you right off, you have to sit back and admire the sheer gall of the man for creating it, if nothing else. No, it wasn't that influential. No, Queen never really rose to its heights again, at least not musically. But even just writing this has made me appreciate what makes Bohemian Rhapsody so special: perhaps no other pop song sets itself higher goals and fulfills them more completely, whilst displaying musicianship at its best. For this reason alone, I'm afraid I'm going to have to give it... 10
Sorry!
Video: Oh come, you know. With the four faces? The weird effects (which were apparently very cheap to make)? Apparently, Queen only made the video because they didn't want to go on Top of the Pops again. In fact, two cuts were made, identifiable by whether or not it features flames superimposed over the heads at the start. Both are available on the Greatest Video Hits 1 DVD, the "flames" version as an 'Easter Egg'.
I mean now, that is. Perhaps when this was released (thirty years ago this year) it was a lot easier, before it went mega, spent umpteen weeks at number one, before Freddie died and the song practically entered mythology. Millions of words have been written about, even TV programmes made about it (that BBC2/BBC4 show with Richard E. Grant that was shown over the Christmas). It's been deconstructed as poetry, as a pointer to Mercury's love life and goodness knows what else.
But what about it as a pop song - and especially as a pop single? And since we're looking at Queen's singles in chronological order, how does it fit into the grand cheme of things?
Well, first of all, you have to acknowledge its sheer uniqueness. Queen, and especially Freddie, weren't afraid to experiment with various musical sources and influences. But even by their standards, this stands out a mile. It's so long for a start; nearly six minutes' worth of music. And the opera bit, although only a minute or so long, is so attention-grabbing, so utterly unique that, even when you know it off by heart and regularly attempt to sing it drunk, hearing the original version is still a thrilling experience as the voices weave and dance around each other, ridiculous in the extreme.
Ahem. The song, for all its subsequent hugeness (it pushed the very limits of studio technology at the time; Brian May recalled that, as they recorded it, the tape got thinner and thinner until it was almost transparent), starts off very small indeed. Although the harmonies sound like the whole group, they are in fact just Freddie. Even from the off, this was unique. The confused, nightmare-esque lyrics ("Is this the real life/is this just fantasy/Caught in a landslide/No escape from reality") are well-served by the harmonies, which have an almost other-worldly quality to them, enhanced by the occasional wind sound effect.
Then that piano part kicks in and we're in fairly standard pop ballad country. And, even if this had been released on its own, it would've been a hit; it's a lovely ballad with one of Freddie's best piano parts. It's really quite sparse until the guitars kick in around the middle of verse two and then it's almost relentless towards the opera section. To lead us in, we have what is perhaps Brian's best guitar solo. He states that, rather than just play it straightonto record, he planned it out first, fearing that otherwise it would be horribly predictable. It was a tactic that worked, and we're guided inexorably into the most famous bit of all: the opera section.
To try and review this bit is horribly difficult. For what it is, mock opera of the most over-the-top kind, it works extraordinarily well. Again, we start small, lone voice and piano, until the first harmonies enter. Then the first "big" section ("Thunderbolt and lightning/Very, very frightening") comes in and from then on we have a contrast between the ever-more desperate pleas of the accused (?) and the refusals to "let him go". It builds up and up, with more and more overlaid vocals, stereo panning in extremis, timpani... the works. Then, with a final incredibly high falsetto from Roger (wonder if he'll be doing that when the new Queen tour begins), we come out the other side into...
Heavy metal. And what's weird is it seems so natural, as if opera should always lead into big, heavy rock. Although this sounds like Brian's section, the famous riff was actually written by Freddie. He sings double-tracked, but slightly out (deliberately, the show-off) lending a kind of roughness to this minute of the song. Thenightmare is in full swing, he's in denial, bitter at those who betrayed him, going to face whatever fate awaits him, though far from ready to do so.
Towards the end of this, we start to hear hints of the piano creeping back in (although, in fact it's been there all the time). It then slows right up, crashing chords and a big piano run (Freddie showing off again) leading us into the big finish.
And, at first, that what it sounds like: Brian's trumpet-like guitars answering one another, a call of victory - or defeat? Then suddenly, it's calm again, and we're going right down small. There's just voice, drums, piano and a plaintive guitar, as if a massive storm has passed over us and we're left with an eerie calm. Freddie's voice is now resigned to its fate and we end with a note of calm acceptance: "Anyway the wind blows".
What's it all about? Who knows? Freddie never let on, claiming all sorts of meaning and motives behind it. Roger reckons it's fairly easy to work out the meaning and Brian at least once reckoned he knew. Probably the only person who does is Mercury. And he's not telling. Probably it's just a mad pop song.
Mad, pretentious, over-the-top - and utterly fantastic. As a whole, despite all the different musical genres, ideas and moods that get thrown about, it's virtually seamless in its moves from one section to the next. It's a superb piece of musical craftmanship (which I think is the right word; this must have taken some meticulous planning), which fulfills every one of its ambitions. Even if the whole idea turns you right off, you have to sit back and admire the sheer gall of the man for creating it, if nothing else. No, it wasn't that influential. No, Queen never really rose to its heights again, at least not musically. But even just writing this has made me appreciate what makes Bohemian Rhapsody so special: perhaps no other pop song sets itself higher goals and fulfills them more completely, whilst displaying musicianship at its best. For this reason alone, I'm afraid I'm going to have to give it... 10
Sorry!
Video: Oh come, you know. With the four faces? The weird effects (which were apparently very cheap to make)? Apparently, Queen only made the video because they didn't want to go on Top of the Pops again. In fact, two cuts were made, identifiable by whether or not it features flames superimposed over the heads at the start. Both are available on the Greatest Video Hits 1 DVD, the "flames" version as an 'Easter Egg'.
Scoring...
Every one who does something like this, be it magazine reviewer or whatever, seems to come up against the issue of the scoring system and how it should work. And, four singles in and just before we reach that song (which I'm already struggling with), it's probably time for me to do the same.
Most reviews I've read are of computer/video games, rather than music (though I was a reader of Q magazine for a while), most of which give scores as a percentage, rather than a mark outof 10. This seems a bit pointless to me: what does a 93% game have that a 92% doesn't? Or a 51% over a 48%? Is it possible for a game to be worth 100%? What about a 0%? There's too much room for arbitrariness here.
I chose marks out of 10, rather than 5, partly because it seemed to be the way to do things (i.e. Popular do it), but also because there's more room for indicating various grades of quality. For example, if you score out of 5, at least if you follow it logically, you've no mark for a truly average product (unless you give it a 2.5 - but no one ever seems to do that). Whereas, with a range from 0-10, you can start from 5 being purely avaerage (whatever that may mean) and work from there - 10 being utterly astonishing and groundbreaking, and 0 being unlistenable.
This is the scheme I (roughly) want to work from. It's not intended to be harsh, or anything like that. Nor do I want high scores to become "events" (I don't think there's enough people reading this to do that). But, to get a high score, the song's going to have to be good.
Now, it just so happens that I like Queen, so the chances are I'm slightly biased towards the higher scores. But, the aim is to be fair and as unbiased as possible, so that, if a song is a clunker (and there are some) it should be marked in that light. Each song on its own merits.
You can debate the merits of a score for each song till the cows come home - I don't intend to do it here (and I'd rather you read the words more than the number at the end). But I am already wondering if I've overplayed my hand already with an '8' for Seven Seas of Rhye and a '9' for Killer Queen. It doesn't leave much room to go upwards for... well, you know (that song is looming over this project like a dark thundercloud - the sooner we get over and done with, the better). And is the former really better than Now I'm here, which only got a '7'? I would say probably: it's a tighter, slightly more ambitious song which seems less in danger of getting bogged down. But then again, maybe I'm just biased towards Freddie's songs, rather than Brian's.
So, you'll have to wait and see what Bohemian Rhapsody gets. But I hope the above makes some kind of sense and doesn't sound too pretentious.
Most reviews I've read are of computer/video games, rather than music (though I was a reader of Q magazine for a while), most of which give scores as a percentage, rather than a mark outof 10. This seems a bit pointless to me: what does a 93% game have that a 92% doesn't? Or a 51% over a 48%? Is it possible for a game to be worth 100%? What about a 0%? There's too much room for arbitrariness here.
I chose marks out of 10, rather than 5, partly because it seemed to be the way to do things (i.e. Popular do it), but also because there's more room for indicating various grades of quality. For example, if you score out of 5, at least if you follow it logically, you've no mark for a truly average product (unless you give it a 2.5 - but no one ever seems to do that). Whereas, with a range from 0-10, you can start from 5 being purely avaerage (whatever that may mean) and work from there - 10 being utterly astonishing and groundbreaking, and 0 being unlistenable.
This is the scheme I (roughly) want to work from. It's not intended to be harsh, or anything like that. Nor do I want high scores to become "events" (I don't think there's enough people reading this to do that). But, to get a high score, the song's going to have to be good.
Now, it just so happens that I like Queen, so the chances are I'm slightly biased towards the higher scores. But, the aim is to be fair and as unbiased as possible, so that, if a song is a clunker (and there are some) it should be marked in that light. Each song on its own merits.
You can debate the merits of a score for each song till the cows come home - I don't intend to do it here (and I'd rather you read the words more than the number at the end). But I am already wondering if I've overplayed my hand already with an '8' for Seven Seas of Rhye and a '9' for Killer Queen. It doesn't leave much room to go upwards for... well, you know (that song is looming over this project like a dark thundercloud - the sooner we get over and done with, the better). And is the former really better than Now I'm here, which only got a '7'? I would say probably: it's a tighter, slightly more ambitious song which seems less in danger of getting bogged down. But then again, maybe I'm just biased towards Freddie's songs, rather than Brian's.
So, you'll have to wait and see what Bohemian Rhapsody gets. But I hope the above makes some kind of sense and doesn't sound too pretentious.
Friday, March 18, 2005
Ho-hum
Just noticed that Popular has linked to me, which is very kind.
Except they haven't.
They've linked to this instead. Which is a completely different and, by the looks of things, somewhat defunct website about... something else.
The dilemma is - do I tell him? Or would that seem arrogant (in case he did mean to link to that other site)? Who knows? Might just hope he sees this and notices...
Except they haven't.
They've linked to this instead. Which is a completely different and, by the looks of things, somewhat defunct website about... something else.
The dilemma is - do I tell him? Or would that seem arrogant (in case he did mean to link to that other site)? Who knows? Might just hope he sees this and notices...
Now I'm Here (May)
This is a single in the wrong place. What I mean is, this fits much more closely with Keep Yourself Alive and Seven Seas of Rhye in terms of style etc. than it does with the two songs it sits between, both of which (the latter especially) take the group in all sorts of different directions than those explored so far in their singles.
For this is a classic, early-Queen rocker. Does that sound like a complaint? I hope not, as this is the best of May's two singles thus far and is perhaps unfairly overshadowed by its predecessor and especially its successor.
I've been a Queen fan for, oooh, years now but I've only just noticed that there's a glitch at the start of this, during May's chugging intro. I can only describe this musically, so here goes: in the thrid bar, if you're beating time, it loses a beat somewhere. It sounds like a bad edit or something, but it's there.
It doesn't spoil things. Queen were beginning to show off with their studio prowess, especially under Roy Thomas Baker, and Freddie's voice leaping from speaker to speaker still sounds great (never listen to this song when one of your speakers is duff). The quiet intro explodes into life, siren-style guitars, heavy drums and big harmonies taking us into the verse.
Freddie's vocal is interesting; it seems to be double-tracked on the verses, but slightly out of sync. I suspect this is deliberate and certainly adds a rockier, harder edge to his singing (he'd repeat the trick during the heavy rock section of Bohemian Rhapsody). The harmonies work great, especially the "Don't I love her/him/you so" parts between verses and during the outro.
There's a lot of guitar in this song - a lot. And it's at its most intense during the solo, a veritable wall of guitars which, combined with the piano that's thrown in there for luck, is a quite thrilling listen.
All in all, this is a stormer of a song. The other interesting thing is how (relatively) slow the original is. During Queen's live career, it seemed to speed up and get longer until, by the Magic Tour of 1986, it had become a massive heavy rock interlude (with an almost stupidly long guitar solo, right after May had had his little solo spot). But the original is a fine example of Queen's ability to drop it all and rock out... 7 (If only for the slightly too-long outro)
Video: Again, none was made for this song. If you buy a Queen video collection, you're likely to find the live version from Queen's 1974 concert at The Rainbow on it in place of the original. Which is OK, but not half as good as this, frankly.
For this is a classic, early-Queen rocker. Does that sound like a complaint? I hope not, as this is the best of May's two singles thus far and is perhaps unfairly overshadowed by its predecessor and especially its successor.
I've been a Queen fan for, oooh, years now but I've only just noticed that there's a glitch at the start of this, during May's chugging intro. I can only describe this musically, so here goes: in the thrid bar, if you're beating time, it loses a beat somewhere. It sounds like a bad edit or something, but it's there.
It doesn't spoil things. Queen were beginning to show off with their studio prowess, especially under Roy Thomas Baker, and Freddie's voice leaping from speaker to speaker still sounds great (never listen to this song when one of your speakers is duff). The quiet intro explodes into life, siren-style guitars, heavy drums and big harmonies taking us into the verse.
Freddie's vocal is interesting; it seems to be double-tracked on the verses, but slightly out of sync. I suspect this is deliberate and certainly adds a rockier, harder edge to his singing (he'd repeat the trick during the heavy rock section of Bohemian Rhapsody). The harmonies work great, especially the "Don't I love her/him/you so" parts between verses and during the outro.
There's a lot of guitar in this song - a lot. And it's at its most intense during the solo, a veritable wall of guitars which, combined with the piano that's thrown in there for luck, is a quite thrilling listen.
All in all, this is a stormer of a song. The other interesting thing is how (relatively) slow the original is. During Queen's live career, it seemed to speed up and get longer until, by the Magic Tour of 1986, it had become a massive heavy rock interlude (with an almost stupidly long guitar solo, right after May had had his little solo spot). But the original is a fine example of Queen's ability to drop it all and rock out... 7 (If only for the slightly too-long outro)
Video: Again, none was made for this song. If you buy a Queen video collection, you're likely to find the live version from Queen's 1974 concert at The Rainbow on it in place of the original. Which is OK, but not half as good as this, frankly.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Killer Queen (Mercury)
Queen's third album, Sheer Heart Attack, showed a group who'd really begun to hit their stride and this confidence, now combined with an almost invincible pop sensibility which had been only hinted at on their previous two albums, was at its best with Freddie's ode to a high-class call girl.
Musically, this is a real change from the previous two singles, a break from the heavy, guitar-based rock that the group had showcased so far, on their singles at any rate. They replace that with a wistful, much more leisurely sound, based more around Freddie's piano and some excellent vocal work, both by Mercury on lead vocals and the three regular backing singers (Mercury, May and Taylor - John Deacon apparently elected not to sing on Queen records).
Wich is not to say May's guitar is unimportant: his solo, hinting at the tune yet not replicating it, suits the song to perfection, and the "der-der" interludes after the first verse, during the solo and the outro give space to the song and add just a touch of (very English) drama.
But this is Freddie's best vocal performance of the three singles released thus far. Regularly straying into falsetto, yet never doing more than the song requires, he gives his lyrics the required wistfulness, nostalgia and maybe even longing. You sometimes get the feeling listening to Queen that Freddie was at his most comfortable singing his own words and here he knows exactly what he wants to do with the song.
The backing vocals excel as well. Queen's "oohs" were always the best, least self-concious "oohs" and you get an impression of how well the three voices sat together. And the interplay between the lead and backing vocals during the second half of verse 2 (from "Geisha minor" onwards) is just perfect.
And what of those lyrics? Well, written down they're not stunning: perhaps too many easy rhymes ("Met a man from China/went down to Geisha Minor", "She's a Killer Queen, gunpowder, gelatine"). But then Freddie never rated himself as a lyricist. The picture they paint, especially sung, is strong: of decadence (always one of Mercury's favourite subjects) with just a hint of the truth of the situation ("Recommended at the price/insatiable an appetite/Wanna try?"). Freddie was at his worst as a lyricist when he went for the explicit; here he plays his cards close to his chest and the song is all the better for it... 9
Video: Again, Queen didn't make a video for the song. Most videos compilation show their performance on Top of the Pops, with Roger miming very poorly and Freddie in the most alarming combination of fur coat and tight silver trousers.
Musically, this is a real change from the previous two singles, a break from the heavy, guitar-based rock that the group had showcased so far, on their singles at any rate. They replace that with a wistful, much more leisurely sound, based more around Freddie's piano and some excellent vocal work, both by Mercury on lead vocals and the three regular backing singers (Mercury, May and Taylor - John Deacon apparently elected not to sing on Queen records).
Wich is not to say May's guitar is unimportant: his solo, hinting at the tune yet not replicating it, suits the song to perfection, and the "der-der" interludes after the first verse, during the solo and the outro give space to the song and add just a touch of (very English) drama.
But this is Freddie's best vocal performance of the three singles released thus far. Regularly straying into falsetto, yet never doing more than the song requires, he gives his lyrics the required wistfulness, nostalgia and maybe even longing. You sometimes get the feeling listening to Queen that Freddie was at his most comfortable singing his own words and here he knows exactly what he wants to do with the song.
The backing vocals excel as well. Queen's "oohs" were always the best, least self-concious "oohs" and you get an impression of how well the three voices sat together. And the interplay between the lead and backing vocals during the second half of verse 2 (from "Geisha minor" onwards) is just perfect.
And what of those lyrics? Well, written down they're not stunning: perhaps too many easy rhymes ("Met a man from China/went down to Geisha Minor", "She's a Killer Queen, gunpowder, gelatine"). But then Freddie never rated himself as a lyricist. The picture they paint, especially sung, is strong: of decadence (always one of Mercury's favourite subjects) with just a hint of the truth of the situation ("Recommended at the price/insatiable an appetite/Wanna try?"). Freddie was at his worst as a lyricist when he went for the explicit; here he plays his cards close to his chest and the song is all the better for it... 9
Video: Again, Queen didn't make a video for the song. Most videos compilation show their performance on Top of the Pops, with Roger miming very poorly and Freddie in the most alarming combination of fur coat and tight silver trousers.
Look! A link!!!!!!
Oh yes - we have an honourable mention on Freaky Trigger, the home of Popular, the feature that inspired the Queen singles reviews.
Might explain the sudden explosion in people coming to this humble site - thanks guys!!!!
Read it here.
Might explain the sudden explosion in people coming to this humble site - thanks guys!!!!
Read it here.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
And suddenly...
Just checked the site and the counter suddenly says 109!
109!!!
That's like 30-ish in a day!
Cool...
109!!!
That's like 30-ish in a day!
Cool...
Seven Seas of Rhye (Mercury)
Queen's second single, and Mercury's first, is much, much better than KYA. A brisk, fun blast of heavy rock that doesn't outstay its welcome (less than 3 minutes long), refuses to succumb to the leaden-footedness (if that's a word) that marred the group's early albums, this is really just good fun.
Freddie's opening piano lifts the curtain (damn hard to play, that, actually) and we get a much more typically Queen-sounding record: Brian's strident blasts of guitar in the intro; the close, tight harmonies with Roger's voice sitting at the top; the inescapable sense of tongue firmly in cheek; loads of overdubs - it's all there.
Lyrically, it's pretty indecipherable; something about Lords and Lady preachers fearing someone, Freddie commanding their very souls, him lying for people... no doubt there's all sorts of under and overtones going on, but, as said before, it's normally wise not to look at lyrics to Queen songs too deeply. Unless they're by Brian.
For a heavy rock song, it has a lightness of touch that prevents it from ever getting boring or becoming a dirge. Brian's guitar solo is nigh-on perfect for the song (he even makes his guitar sound vaguely like a fiddle at the beginning of it - is this some kind of hoe-down?) and the fact that at the end it collapses into a rousing rendition of "Oh I do like to be beside the seaside" (albeit with the wrong words) caps it beautifully. Even Brian's guitar counter-melody on the second verse doesn't overpower the song, but nicely complements the main melody.
All in all, much better. But even better was still to come... 8
Video: None was made. Queen performed the song "live" on Top of the Pops, but the footage has been rarely seen since.
Freddie's opening piano lifts the curtain (damn hard to play, that, actually) and we get a much more typically Queen-sounding record: Brian's strident blasts of guitar in the intro; the close, tight harmonies with Roger's voice sitting at the top; the inescapable sense of tongue firmly in cheek; loads of overdubs - it's all there.
Lyrically, it's pretty indecipherable; something about Lords and Lady preachers fearing someone, Freddie commanding their very souls, him lying for people... no doubt there's all sorts of under and overtones going on, but, as said before, it's normally wise not to look at lyrics to Queen songs too deeply. Unless they're by Brian.
For a heavy rock song, it has a lightness of touch that prevents it from ever getting boring or becoming a dirge. Brian's guitar solo is nigh-on perfect for the song (he even makes his guitar sound vaguely like a fiddle at the beginning of it - is this some kind of hoe-down?) and the fact that at the end it collapses into a rousing rendition of "Oh I do like to be beside the seaside" (albeit with the wrong words) caps it beautifully. Even Brian's guitar counter-melody on the second verse doesn't overpower the song, but nicely complements the main melody.
All in all, much better. But even better was still to come... 8
Video: None was made. Queen performed the song "live" on Top of the Pops, but the footage has been rarely seen since.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Keep Yourself Alive (May)
Queen's career didn't get off to the most auspicious of starts: two years passed between the line up that would seem them through the next twenty years (Freddie Mercury, Brian May, Roger Taylor and John Deacon) coming together and the release of this, their first single. This then subsequently failed to chart and their first album (imaginatively titled "Queen") also failed to set the charts. Which isn't to deny that Queen were making headway, especially as a live act. But considering their later domination of the charts, it's a small beginning. Especially when compared to nowadays, when new bands and acts are somehow expected to reach number one with their first single.
Anyway, Queen's first single is not bad, but not one that seemed destined to set the world alight, and gives very little hint of what was to come. It's a fairly standard rock number, penned by May, which seems designed to show off each of the bands talents: as might be expected, no other melody/harmony instruments get a look in except Brian's "Red Special" guitar and John's bass and Roger is treated to a solo all of his own about half-way through.
It's all very energetic and everything, but... it feels a bit flat. Freddie's vocal is rather stilted, he seems to hold rather too strongly to the precise rhythms without letting his vocal flow as he would later do. Brian pulls out a few of his guitar tricks, giving quite an array of sounds, from the scratchy introduction to the vast, echo-y runs during the solo, but holds off the incredibly flashy stuff. John and Roger's rhythm base is excellent as ever (John Deacon could be one of the most under-rated pop musicians ever), but even they can't give this song much life.
It's never wise to look too deeply into Queen's lyrics (as anyone trying to dissect Bohemian Rhapsody will tell you). This appears to be about an older, wiser head passing on advice to his younger friend (a father-son image)? Which contrasts completely with the fast-paced, youthful energy the track tries to display. The notion of Freddie singing the line "Well they folks are telling you, 'Be a superstar' /But I tell you just be satisfied to stay right where you are" and meaning it is faintly ridiculous, given his overwhelming desire to become a star. And what the heck does 'beladonic' mean?
All in all, not a bad single by any means, but definitely the sound of a band trying to establish themselves... 6
Video: Queen perform the song, in a studio. And that's about it. Freddie's performance seems somehow stilted and wooden, especially compared to the way he would later throw himself around the stage at every available opportunity.
Anyway, Queen's first single is not bad, but not one that seemed destined to set the world alight, and gives very little hint of what was to come. It's a fairly standard rock number, penned by May, which seems designed to show off each of the bands talents: as might be expected, no other melody/harmony instruments get a look in except Brian's "Red Special" guitar and John's bass and Roger is treated to a solo all of his own about half-way through.
It's all very energetic and everything, but... it feels a bit flat. Freddie's vocal is rather stilted, he seems to hold rather too strongly to the precise rhythms without letting his vocal flow as he would later do. Brian pulls out a few of his guitar tricks, giving quite an array of sounds, from the scratchy introduction to the vast, echo-y runs during the solo, but holds off the incredibly flashy stuff. John and Roger's rhythm base is excellent as ever (John Deacon could be one of the most under-rated pop musicians ever), but even they can't give this song much life.
It's never wise to look too deeply into Queen's lyrics (as anyone trying to dissect Bohemian Rhapsody will tell you). This appears to be about an older, wiser head passing on advice to his younger friend (a father-son image)? Which contrasts completely with the fast-paced, youthful energy the track tries to display. The notion of Freddie singing the line "Well they folks are telling you, 'Be a superstar' /But I tell you just be satisfied to stay right where you are" and meaning it is faintly ridiculous, given his overwhelming desire to become a star. And what the heck does 'beladonic' mean?
All in all, not a bad single by any means, but definitely the sound of a band trying to establish themselves... 6
Video: Queen perform the song, in a studio. And that's about it. Freddie's performance seems somehow stilted and wooden, especially compared to the way he would later throw himself around the stage at every available opportunity.
Hello, it's me...
Ahem. Yes, I am still alive and no, we've still not reached 100 viewers yet. We're hoping for it any day soon, but considering Wandering Thoughts has been going for over a year, this may be a long shot (especially as I reckon a fair few of those visitors have been, er, me).
Anyway, I have had inspiration! It came from two sources: first of all, my deep, rather anoraky obsession with Queen and, secondly, a mammoth operation going on here, which is a, frankly mad, attempt to review every UK number one record. Ever. And yes, I'll freely admit to ripping the idea off.
Combining the two, I decided what could be better than a review of every Queen single ever? (Lots of things, probably, but none that I could think to put on here). They may not be much good (the reviews, that is, not the singles - some of those are quite good), but hey? it's the fun of it, isn't it (or something).
So, we'll kick off in a new post, with...
Anyway, I have had inspiration! It came from two sources: first of all, my deep, rather anoraky obsession with Queen and, secondly, a mammoth operation going on here, which is a, frankly mad, attempt to review every UK number one record. Ever. And yes, I'll freely admit to ripping the idea off.
Combining the two, I decided what could be better than a review of every Queen single ever? (Lots of things, probably, but none that I could think to put on here). They may not be much good (the reviews, that is, not the singles - some of those are quite good), but hey? it's the fun of it, isn't it (or something).
So, we'll kick off in a new post, with...
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Margaret Hassan appears to have been murdered
BBC NEWS | UK | Leaders condemn 'Hassan murder'.
What a terrible, terrible loss - someone who had given their life to helping the people of Iraq is now murdered. Even al-Zaqarwi had called for her release - what did the kidnappers feel they had to gain from this? This is such a stupid own goal on their part.
Worse, this is an appalling tragedy; that someone who cared so much should be shot. Iraq will be an even poorer place for her loss - let's hope this doesn't a large-scale pull-out of humanitarian workers to that country which so badly needs it.
What a terrible, terrible loss - someone who had given their life to helping the people of Iraq is now murdered. Even al-Zaqarwi had called for her release - what did the kidnappers feel they had to gain from this? This is such a stupid own goal on their part.
Worse, this is an appalling tragedy; that someone who cared so much should be shot. Iraq will be an even poorer place for her loss - let's hope this doesn't a large-scale pull-out of humanitarian workers to that country which so badly needs it.
Monday, November 15, 2004
Boris has been sacked!!!!
Difficult to know what to make of this. On the one hand, I don't to be seen to be condoning people (especially high-profile) people lying about their conduct, or having affairs.
However, Boris was sacked, not because he'd had an affair, but because Mr Howard believed he had been "less than franK" in his discussions about the allegations. This presumably means that Howard had some information (other than tabloid allegations) that Boris (I find it impossible to address him as "Johnston") had had an affair. Or how else could he have known that Boris was being "less than frank"? The only other option is that he took at face value the allegations made in Sunday tabloids (scarcely the most reliable source of actual news) and presumed Boris was guilty until proven innocent. Which, of course, would be totally out of character from Mr Howard...
The fact remains that Howard has now sacked one of the few Conservative MPs that people a) liked or b) actually had heard of from a very high position and one of the few who could stand a chance of challenging Blair. Short-sighted? Probably. But then, that's the Conservative party these days for you.
However, Boris was sacked, not because he'd had an affair, but because Mr Howard believed he had been "less than franK" in his discussions about the allegations. This presumably means that Howard had some information (other than tabloid allegations) that Boris (I find it impossible to address him as "Johnston") had had an affair. Or how else could he have known that Boris was being "less than frank"? The only other option is that he took at face value the allegations made in Sunday tabloids (scarcely the most reliable source of actual news) and presumed Boris was guilty until proven innocent. Which, of course, would be totally out of character from Mr Howard...
The fact remains that Howard has now sacked one of the few Conservative MPs that people a) liked or b) actually had heard of from a very high position and one of the few who could stand a chance of challenging Blair. Short-sighted? Probably. But then, that's the Conservative party these days for you.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Are you annoying?
Look! You too can find out why no-one really likes you... or something like that.
This was my result:
Points: 45
You have been classified as "moderately annoying". Although this is nothing to be concerned about, our experts believe that there's still room for improvement.
Some might disagree with that...
This was my result:
Points: 45
You have been classified as "moderately annoying". Although this is nothing to be concerned about, our experts believe that there's still room for improvement.
Some might disagree with that...
Saturday, November 06, 2004
'Several' die in train derailment
Another train accident - it looks serious again (of course, all such accidents are serious, but this sounds like it's being treated very seriously indeed).
Obviously, it's too early to say what's happened, the casualties, injuries etc. And deepest sympathies must go to the families of those who have died - hopefully, there won't be any more, although police are saying six people are still trapped in the carriages.
Obviously, it's too early to say what's happened, the casualties, injuries etc. And deepest sympathies must go to the families of those who have died - hopefully, there won't be any more, although police are saying six people are still trapped in the carriages.
Friday, November 05, 2004
Remember, remember...
'Tis fireworks night, so once again the length and breadth of the country sounds like a warzone. Although, there don't appear to have been many of those ones that sound like tactical nuclear missiles - at least not yet.
Our party was at church (as ever), and I was largely in the kitchen, helping out with coffees, teas, orange juice etc (refreshments, in other words). And the parents are really going to hate us - we got through a whole 3 litre bottle of orange squash in one evening. Those kids are going to be nice and pumped up with E-numbers, sugar etc. Good job we didn't have coke (as in the drink), or they'd be full of caffeine as well and would be really bad.
Ho-hum.
"Caffeine" is one of those words that doesn't like right however you spell it. Really, it should be caffiene ("'i' before 'e' except after 'c'"), but I just checked and it is spelt like that. Took me three goes, though.
Have been on strike, as mentioned yesterday. So went into town, where there's a huge continental fair on Fargate. It actually felt quite continental (strangely); there were crepes, all manner of sausages, cheeses, pies, olives, bratwursts (yes, I know they're sausages, but they basically were being sold as jumped-up hot dogs), paella and, er, pick and mix (but that was OK, 'cos they were being sold by a French bloke). It was really great.
It was only when you left it, or heard someone shouting in a broad Sheffield accent that you remembered where you were.
There appears to be fierce (note position of 'i' and 'e') fighting outside - well, that's what it sounds like, anyway.
Our party was at church (as ever), and I was largely in the kitchen, helping out with coffees, teas, orange juice etc (refreshments, in other words). And the parents are really going to hate us - we got through a whole 3 litre bottle of orange squash in one evening. Those kids are going to be nice and pumped up with E-numbers, sugar etc. Good job we didn't have coke (as in the drink), or they'd be full of caffeine as well and would be really bad.
Ho-hum.
"Caffeine" is one of those words that doesn't like right however you spell it. Really, it should be caffiene ("'i' before 'e' except after 'c'"), but I just checked and it is spelt like that. Took me three goes, though.
Have been on strike, as mentioned yesterday. So went into town, where there's a huge continental fair on Fargate. It actually felt quite continental (strangely); there were crepes, all manner of sausages, cheeses, pies, olives, bratwursts (yes, I know they're sausages, but they basically were being sold as jumped-up hot dogs), paella and, er, pick and mix (but that was OK, 'cos they were being sold by a French bloke). It was really great.
It was only when you left it, or heard someone shouting in a broad Sheffield accent that you remembered where you were.
There appears to be fierce (note position of 'i' and 'e') fighting outside - well, that's what it sounds like, anyway.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Militant tendencies...
Am on strike again tomorrow, the second time in my rather short working life. Tomorrow's strike is about the massive job cuts the government has decided to impose on us as "savings".
The thing is, right, they claim (or claimed) that these massive job cuts (over 100,000) were to provide extra resources for front-line staff. However, the first round of cuts is to be in Job Centres and Social security offices. Now, you'll have to pardon my ignorance here, but surely these are front line offices, no? Or am I missing something?
Who knows, who knows? The government's involved in a competition with both the Conservatives and the Lib Dems to see who can cut the most, with no thought as to whether we do a good job, what the effects will be etc. Because, as I may have said before, civil servants are an easy target. Or are seen as such.
The thing is, right, they claim (or claimed) that these massive job cuts (over 100,000) were to provide extra resources for front-line staff. However, the first round of cuts is to be in Job Centres and Social security offices. Now, you'll have to pardon my ignorance here, but surely these are front line offices, no? Or am I missing something?
Who knows, who knows? The government's involved in a competition with both the Conservatives and the Lib Dems to see who can cut the most, with no thought as to whether we do a good job, what the effects will be etc. Because, as I may have said before, civil servants are an easy target. Or are seen as such.
Bush won...
... and, for some reason the world feels a slightly worse place.
Not happy at all (they could at least have had the decency to make it unfair, or controversial, or something - can't they do anything right?)
Not happy at all (they could at least have had the decency to make it unfair, or controversial, or something - can't they do anything right?)
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
At last!!!
Bit late, but somebody at last standing up for equality and, that supposed British concept, fair play.
Just a personal observation about the whole "competitive sport at school" and how people want there to be winers and losers and people who complain about it are "PC". I was never any good at sports (still not) - and it hurts. At school, certainly for boys, sport is the thing to be good at - if you're not, then forget it. Sports day was a day of dread for me. I hated trying to choose an event because I knew I'd be crap, and probably laughed at, in all of them. One year I took part in the javelin (why I chose this I don't know to this day). My first throw was fairly pathetic. On my second, I slipped and fell over on my backside just as "I threw" the javelin. It landed about 2cm away from the throwing line and I got thoroughly humiliated.
So, why are we so keen to discount the feelings of those who don't enjoy competitive sport, who find it hard and, no matter how much they try, will always end up last and looking fairly ridiculous? Why do we consider it "political correctness gone mad" to create an environment why they aren't laughed at and potentially hurt? Why do we brush their feelings aside, tell them they'll get over it, and look instead to promote those who are good at sports.
And, yes, I hated rugby lessons with a passion. Even netball would have been better...
Just a personal observation about the whole "competitive sport at school" and how people want there to be winers and losers and people who complain about it are "PC". I was never any good at sports (still not) - and it hurts. At school, certainly for boys, sport is the thing to be good at - if you're not, then forget it. Sports day was a day of dread for me. I hated trying to choose an event because I knew I'd be crap, and probably laughed at, in all of them. One year I took part in the javelin (why I chose this I don't know to this day). My first throw was fairly pathetic. On my second, I slipped and fell over on my backside just as "I threw" the javelin. It landed about 2cm away from the throwing line and I got thoroughly humiliated.
So, why are we so keen to discount the feelings of those who don't enjoy competitive sport, who find it hard and, no matter how much they try, will always end up last and looking fairly ridiculous? Why do we consider it "political correctness gone mad" to create an environment why they aren't laughed at and potentially hurt? Why do we brush their feelings aside, tell them they'll get over it, and look instead to promote those who are good at sports.
And, yes, I hated rugby lessons with a passion. Even netball would have been better...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
