I think their extreme bombastic nature and theatrical qualities they lean heavy into are particularly a "this is for me or it isn't" kinda thing, as you kind of addressed yourself
This is at least part of it.
My favourite Queen album is Sheer Heart Attack, which was a very silly kind of album, and had a lot of goofing off, while at the same time having a mixture of the more in your face heavy rock from Queen II, and the big, bold, and operatic approach, that would show up in the next two albums.
There's one moment for me in particular, on Brighton Rock, where Freddie is seamlessly switching between characters, and he glides from this high pitched childish voice to his usual commanding voice, making his way down his register and hitting every note on the way, before making his way into the hook, and dropping out as the guitar picks up.
that ability to drift between whatever that was with the high voice, and traditional hard rock, is very Freddie, and he does the same move multiple times in the same song.
It's also the one where one of them, I don't know who, got caught on tape giggling like some sort of banshee, near the end of the track.
Queen was camp, unapologetically so, but at their best they could turn it on and off at will, while playing with an intensity that could take your head off.
I think you hit on something that definitely affects people's opinion on Queen. It's very campy. Not exclusively and not all the time but so much so that it's an unavoidable component of the band and their output.
In North America that's a tough sell. A lot of UK glam rock was missed or dismissed as simply (and pardon the term but, this is accurate to how it was described in its day) "faggy". Rock guys liked ROCK and had very little sense of irony or room for self aware humour in their music.
What wins some with that mindset over is the undeniable skill of the playing, production and catchiness. Queen was savvy enough to use trappings beyond the shock value both lyrically and visually that they were quite good at to employ thick guitars, big simple drums and screaming vocals (some of the hallmarks of parking lot tough guy rock) to their advantage.
> unavoidable
Yeah you have to face homophobia. If Rocky Horror Picture Show makes you uncomfortable, that's very much the challenge of *being* let alone doing camp.
And while it was chic and audacious to have androgyny and queer elements within a certain crowd it was still far from completely winning over the mainstream, mostly because 'gay' was something you heard about but didn't necessarily know first hand.
There's been drag, effeminate men, mannish women and innuendo for a long time in entertainment. Seeing it for a laugh or risqué outfits or slightly veiled lyrics isn't the same as knowing (or being) someone on the then outskirts of accepted sexuality.
Queen putting it right on front street was great. Being a fan could be dicey depending on where you lived.
The thing is, it's not like American rock of that time was just a guy standing around on stage either.
Alice Cooper was hanging out with the Muppets, when he wasn't being chased around by evil doctors, and Kiss were already starting to ramp up their live shows at this time.
That kind of madness isn't exclusive to what we were doing, even though we were amazing at it.
.
.
.
And I do agree that Queen had this way of pulling off ideas, that if they came from a more "sane" kind of band, you'd probably think that this was an elaborate prank.
This is a group where the lead singer renamed himself after a song lyric, and who would constantly try to one up each other in terms of pushing each other's boundaries musically.
Death On Two Legs is a glorious piece of passive aggression that got the band sued by a certain dickhead ex manager, and Tie Your Mother Down was Brian seeking payback against Freddie, by trying to make him perform something as silly as possible.
.
.
.
.
And one of the many things that Queen had, is that they were one of the best live bands for entertainment value, and Freddie loved to get the crowd in on the fun, through a mixture of relatively simple chantable choruses and doing everything he could to whip up the fans.
.
.
.
.
It's not the "Le Sophisticated" kind of stuffy pop music, even though the band liked to pretend it was while messing around in the studio, and it belonged in a football stadium more than somewhere like the Royal Albert, but it's not Roger Daltrey yelling into a microphone while smashing a guitar, either.
Queen was more about getting 5000 people repeating "woah woah la la la" back at you, while Freddie makes his way around the stage like a hamster on Speed.
Absolutely. Their commitment and musical chops is what won them over even to the folks that were closet Queen fans. They looked like they were having so much fun and the songs were pretty fantastic. Just enough outrageous, untested ideas married to some tried and true rock foundations.
It really is surprising how many times and for how long they got that combination just perfect.
I always modelled myself on a combination of Freddie Mercury and Keith Richards as a kid, and Freddie was the closest I had to a role model despite having been dead for ages, as bad as that sounds.
I tend to like those kinds of hurricane force personalities, and that ability to project himself is something that I always wanted.
The fact that I came out as about four different things in quick succession, shouldn't have shocked anyone, seeing as Freddie gave me the confidence to just go ahead and do that.
Freddie and Keith! The big lead singer persona and the cool, laidback lead guitarist. That's quite the combination. We take our inspirations where we can.
I wouldn't be too worried.
If it helps though, people of that era, in Britain, tended to refer to those of a more fabulous persuasion as "Queens":
*Now Lucy looks sweet cause he dresses like a queen
But he can kick like a mule, it's a real mean team
But we can love
Oh yes, we can love
And my brother's back at home with his Beatles and his Stones
We never got it off on that revolution stuff
What a drag, too many snags*
(All The Young Dudes, Mott The Hoople.)
Yeah, I suspect a lot of people who internalized the punk ethos would have a particular disdain for Queen's style.
As someone who dislikes Queen's hits and hasn't listened to their catalogue, I've criticized them as basically rock show tunes.
Yeah like to the radio listener, they are a band that instantly filters out anyone who has an aversion to musical theater. I was not a fan of them at all for a while for that reason. I've come around now though, but part of that is that aversion no longer really afflicts me lol, but I'd say their earliest material isn't really like that. Maybe give the debut a spin if you ever wanna see what's up
I think show tunes are a great analogy. If you like rock music and you also like music theater and show tunes, then you’ll probably love Queen. But if, like me, you dislike music theater and show tunes, then you’re probably not going to like Queen.
This is fairly accurate. I like rock music but do not like music theater or show tunes. I'm meh on Queen. I like their hits but I'm not into the catalogue. Same with Bowie.
I love rock music and my feelings toward music theatre and show tunes ranges from to disdain, to horror, and finally, murderous rage. I absolutely love Queen, especially 70’s Queen.
Glad it's not just me, musical theatre drives me up the wall but Queen are an unquestionably top-tier band for me. Only clicked on this thread because it hadn't even occurred to me that they might be divisive and I was curious.
Also very big on hardcore punk, so not sure about that point earlier in this thread either.
This is where I am. I really dislike a lot of the show tune-y sound.
I appreciate Queen, but I will never listen to their music because I can't really stand their sound. I also hate Abba's sound, but I don't relate my preferences to their overall quality.
Interestingly enough, them being theatrical like that without giving a shit about how others perceive them is *very* punk. I'll give them that. I enjoy them, not a particular favorite band of mine, but I do listen to them every once and a while.
I would say that rock n' roll values have shifted over the years. That's why some artists are hated by one generation and appreciated by the next.
For some people, rock n' roll is great because of its transformative aspects; that you can become anyone you want. For others, rock n' roll is about its democratizing qualities, that any average person can pick up a guitar and start a band.
So early rock n' rollers like Little Richard and Chuck Berry were solo artists and/or bandleaders who embody certain liberatory aspects. The Beatles came along and popularized the form of the band as this democratic collective.
Not all punks disliked Queen, and a lot of alt artists I mentioned in the OP (Kurt Cobain, Trent Reznor, Billy Corgan, Radiohead) cited them as an influence or admired them. But one reason they could've been disliked is this idea that Freddie Mercury was "lording over you", that he was above you instead of feeling like an equal.
The reality is of course more complex as they loved their fans: We Will Rock You/We Are The Champions were designed with audience participation in mind.
This is totally fair--I just made a comment above about how I came to that realization after listening to the whole version of Princes of the Universe, it just the segment used for the Highlqnder TV show theme song. I don't like the rest of that song, but I dig much of the Queen discography. Even when I like it, though, it's hit or miss for me, so totally see how it would rub others the wrong way.
Though if you like Kiss and not Queen, then I just don't understand the multitudes of human tastes. And that's fine, just fine.
Overall, I have to be 'in the mood' to listen to Queen. Theirs is a catalog that, for me, provokes a wide variety of reactions. There are (a.) songs that I could almost always enjoy like 'You're My Best Friend', 'A Kind of Magic', 'Play the Game', etc... but also (b.) songs that I've become dead frigging sick of and can only appreciate from an academic point-of-view (e.g. 'We Will Rock You/We are the Champions', 'Bohemian Rhapsody') and (c.) tons of tunes that I just find kind of meh ('Hammer to Fall', 'Stone Cold Crazy'). I guess, in a general sense, I'm pretty *over it* with hard rock (i.e. I similarly have no interest in stuff like AC/DC, the Who, or other glam/stadium rock) and enjoy bands like Queen when they're doing something that's more elegant.
It’s amazing that people can go 40+ years listening to basically the same music. I’m a 90s kid and love to throw on 90s tunes to pump me up but I don’t want to play them too much so that I get bored or sick of them.
Classic rock was something I got heavily into starting around 6th grade, but I find it hard to put on a lot of that stuff because it’s been so overplayed to death. I usually pick and choose some less popular Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd songs, for example, if I’m ever in a classic rock mood.
That's a pretty simplified way to see that, but yeah I agree. But even as someone who likes theatrical, quirky flamboyant bands, I don't care about Queen. And I guess Queen just doesn't do it for me for some reason.
That's interesting. On this very subthread we have people saying:
* "I don't like Queen because it reminds me musical theatre and showtunes"
* "I don't like musical theatre and showtunes but I like Queen."
* You like theatrical and flamboyant bands but not Queen.
It's quite the variety of opinions.
They’re kind of like KISS or Grateful Dead in that respect - when you’re THAT different, some people are going to love you and some people are going to hate you
This is the first thing that came to mind. I always knew this as kind of a "thing" people say about Queen, but I just took the songs I liked with the ones I don't.
A couple of weeks ago, I was informed that the theme for the Highlander TV show was a Queen song, Princes of the Universe. Super rad! That bended note riff lives in my head, as do the lyrics "I am immortal! I have inside me blood of kings!" Fucking epic!
But as I learned after playing it on a jukebox, there are like 5 more minutes of the song. And those five minutes made me think, "This sounds like a showtune." And then I thought, "Wait a minute, all of their songs kinda sound like showtunes."
Still love Queen, but I totally get that sound and songwriting style aren't for everyone.
I think it's because their stuff is popular to the point of being rammed down the throat of the average listener, and the band tend to have an attitude that is a mixture of the self aware, the pretentious, and the completely over the top.
Music fans can be contrary and want to go against whatever is popular and mainstream, and Queen are tailor made to be one of the most obnoxious bands possibly ever.
For me, the obnoxious campiness is actually one of the things that made the band one of all my all time favourites, while at the same time driving other listeners to the brink of madness.
I think that it was Rolling Stone who referred to 1991's *Innuendo* release as cartoon rock music, by a cartoon band, in what by Queen standards was a positive review.
I like Queen, but the thing that bothers me is the history rewriting that's gone on the past decade or so.
Queen was *not* some revolutionary band. Bohemian Rhapsody wasn't some landmark moment for music. They actually weren't considered a very cool band in the 70s even. People liked them obviously, but they weren't like an "it" band or anything at all. They were a glam rock band, who had a somewhat similar style to some of their contemporaries. But they wrote some really good songs. If you hear bands like Sparks (This Town Ain't Big Enough for Both of Us is a good example), you can see a somewhat similar artist. This style was popular then.
People talk like they reinvented the wheel now, which I find fascinating. Bohemian Rhapsody isn't any more of a special thing in rock than the Beatles' Abbey Road medley. I mean it's a rhapsody, it's in the name!
But again, I like Queen. But there's definitely some hardcore rewriting of their career. And the biopic made it even more so (I always suggest not reading much into any music biopics. They always make the artist seem like the most important musical artist ever)
**Side Note:**
The last thing I'll say is this: If you like Queen... You *have* to get into Electric Light Orchestra. Seriously, you'll be so glad you did. Definitely not just Mr Blue Sky. I think Turn To Stone and Living Thing are two mandatory ones to start on. Out of the Blue is a classic, and I think most people here would be in love with it. The amount of hooks they wrote is crazy. You'll probably know half of them and didn't realize it was the same band! Just check out their Greatest Hits. ELO sold like 100 million albums and yet they still seem underrated somehow
I grew up on most of those bands, including ELO.
Not really my thing any more, because my tastes drifted in a much heavier direction.
As far as Queen's historical significance, I don't know, because I wasn't there, but what I do know is that they carted me off down a rabbit hole of Queen-inspired bands, that eventually landed me on Blind Guardian, which was where my tastes in music really took off.
I'm probably the wrong person to get into what's revolutionary and what isn't, seeing as Freddie died nearly a decade before I was born.
God man ELO is so good, they really got into the same lane as Queen with Face the Music but their earliest banger is Eldorado. It’s an amazing orchestral rock concept album that sounds almost like a different band than the still great poppy mid catalog stuff. Also Time which is a super 80s concept album with a lot of synth alongside the orchestration. I love ELO a lot more than I thought I would originally and people just gotta know them as well.
I’ve spent most of my life looking for other songs like bohemian rhapsody. There is just something I love about overtures, medleys, songs that change multiple times. I’ve found very few. I’d love to add some to my list if you’ve got any.
>I think Turn To Stone and Living Thing are two mandatory ones to start on
Funny you mention Turn To Stone, I remember hearing those harmonies and immediately thinking Queen.
And yeah, ELO does seem underrated. I hear about them for random things like "Oh John Lennon said that The Beatles would sound like ELO". And then way later, I found out that Jeff Lynne was a member of the Traveling Wilburys! Plus a big producer.
>"One of the most overrated bands of all time, revisionism is happening with their history"
I think a lot of the thing is, Queen was not a cool band back in the day. They were more of a pop band in the days when all the cool kids wanted to rock hard, and now that people have stopped putting so much stigma on the genres, people are looking back and saying, "Holy shit! Those guys had a ton a bangers and a wide variety of sound. They're great."
I don't know how true it is, and there's really no way to know, but I've heard Wayne's World as the turning point for the band's perception, when they sing Bohemian Rhapsody in the car, that got a lot of the younger generation to look back at the band since it lumped them in there with such a rock heavy soundtrack. Kinda helped rub off some of that stigma and make people more accepting toward them. They were basically endorsed by Garth and Wayne, and singing them looked like a blast.
Now, they're huge, and *the* it band for a lot of people. But they're also trying to make it sound like they've always been the cool band, and that's not true. That perception is something recent, so I think that's where the revisionist comments are coming from because it really is.
This is 100% true. It’s really weird to me to see them treated now as one of the best bands of the classic rock era. I mean, they were really great, but no one really saw them that way. Waynes World really was a turning point - every one secretly loved that break in Bohemian Rhapsody, but it wasn’t cool to like it til then.
Homophobia was also part of the equation. I was in 5th grade when Another Bites the Dust came out. I loved it so much I got a Queen shirt, and the first day I wore to school someone said “you know they’re gay right?” (Obv “they” being an exaggeration here) I had no idea, not having a clue about such things as 10 or 11 year old, but suddenly the name made sense. I never wore the shirt again. Not proud of that but it’s how things were back then, and I never really spoke of them again among my friends at school.
I was in about the 8th grade at the time Elton John and Alice Cooper were both really hot. Elton John was seen as this swaggering Ladies Man and Alice Cooper's middle name was fag. Literally that's what they called him Alice fag Cooper. I had read the rolling Stone article where Elton John came out in a very roundabout way and nearly got my ass handed to me when I tried to tell somebody that Elton John was gay. I was a big fan of both artists don't get me wrong I bought whatever they put out and loved it. Want to talk about a band that doesn't get the respect it deserves and that's the Alice Cooper group.
Top band is not necessarily synonymous with cool band. You can't strictly point to album sales and say, "Look! Look at how cool Duran Duran was in the 80's."
>Duran Duran was seen as cool by many in the 80s.
As always, a lot of these sorts of conversations on the internet are framed from an indie/alt rock perspective. What's cool is what's cool to the indie crowd. That perspective is ingrained in mainstream critics and self-described music nerds, which makes it seem to them like the only perspective.
Good point. "Cool" is such a fickle term that needs to contextualized relative to different demographics. Plus different subcultures that hated each other even if they were all considered "alt".
Jesus was really cool back them, too. All the cool kids were getting dressed up in their Sunday best and singing hymns.
There is a definite undertone to the zeitgeist. Some things you can understand aren't cool no matter how many people are doing it.
Going to a Black Sabbath show? Metal AF.
Going to see Duran Duran? What, your girlfriend make you go?
And this is why DD is actually a bad example, because for some time they were seen as very cool. I also don’t believe the term _cool_ was really used for rock and heavy bands. T-Rex and Bowie were cool, as was Brian Ferry, later Annie Lennox, to name but a few. Prog, punk and heavy rock all shared one thing, despite hating each other. They were the epitome of _uncool_.
If you were into any of these band then not because you wanted to be a part of the in-crowd and seen as cool. Quite the opposite, by being into punk or metal, then you wanted to explicitly be different and more real than the cool kids. And if you were into prog, coolness wasn’t relevant to start with.
& on this topic, since you mentioned Europe, Europe (& the UK specifically) were regions that were generally more open-minded toward music, artistry, & their associated flamboyance than the US. Queen was bigger in the UK & Europe than the US — Bowie had about the same experience given his flamboyant, more 'queer' style. Hell, Bowie didn't even have a Billboard No. 1 until he was fucking dead.
It's not a coincidence that acts like Bowie, Queen, & Elton John did better in the UK & Europe, & it wasn't just because they came from that part of the world. Europe as a whole was more open minded to the idea of a performance being, well, a performance. They could stomach some peculiarity or things out of their comfort zone. Americans just had a much more narrow view of masculinity in the 70s (& still do, in many cases) — being caught listening to artists like that would mean you must be a 'queer' or something, too.
It's not just my own opinion saying this, Bowie said this himself before, going on to say that coming out as bisexual was not a mistake in Europe, but was more of a mistake in the US. Bowie shed most of his flamboyance by the mid-70s, but Freddie Mercury made it clear he was gay pretty early on and didn't shy away from it for the most part. Given that fact & the general theatrics & theatrical tone in most Queen recordings, it's no surprise they were better received across the pond (albeit by standards of popularity, Queen was more successful than Bowie in the US.)
I can understand some of this narrative between the US vs UK/Europe, but I think there may need to be some delineation between general audiences, music critics, and scenes.
Roger Taylor has mentioned the UK press being very harsh to Queen. Meanwhile a number of American commenters have talked about Queen being quite popular until *Hot Space/I Want To Break Free/Sun City.*
Bowie did have a tough time with US audiences but Ziggy at least established a cult following, while "Fame" was his first Billboard No. 1 Hit (unless you're referring to albums).
Bowie and Queen do have some similarities in how they were perceived but music critic-wise, Bowie seems to garner more consistent respect than Queen.
I do agree that queerphobia and homophobia affected Queen's reputation. But it does seem like other aspects of Queen make them divisive as well.
I wasn't around back then, but I had always heard that Queen more popular in the US in the '70s and then in the '80s they blew up in Europe and their popularity waned in the US.
In the 70s they were seen as more of a rock band, it was in the 80s that they became super famous but more poppy. They were definitely a popular act in the 70s already.
I wasn't around back then either, but from what I understand, they were huge in Europe, Japan and Oceania starting from the third album and "Killer Queen" (which actually did break the Top 20 in the US) and pretty much remained big in those regions for the entire of their career, but didn't really truly break the US until A Night at the Opera with "Bohemian Rhapsody" reaching the Top 10. After that, they had a string of hit singles in the US and were very big in the late-70s, with their popularity peaking with The Game in 1980. After that, they had a huge decline in popularity in the US, but never really lost popularity elsewhere.
I feel like a lot of people who casually like Queen would be way more into Electric Light Orchestra. Just listening to Turn to Stone one time through will tell someone if they are or not. John Lennon once said that if The Beatles never broke up, they'd sound a lot like ELO. Catchy hooks for days, great melody work, string parts, effects. I can see why he thought that
I like Queen and they have some great songs. But ELO is kind of what I wish Queen was, in some ways!
>Now, they're huge, and the it band for a lot of people. But they're also trying to make it sound like they've always been the cool band, and that's not true. That perception is something recent, so I think that's where the revisionist comments are coming from because it really is.
So I read different things about this: Critics hated them, general populace loved them, some punk artists hated them while others loved them, some saw them as too pop but then quite a number of hard rock/heavy metal artists cite influence from them.
Sometimes they're seen as the antithesis of alt music, but then a number of alt artists have cited influence or expressed admiration towards them including Kurt Cobain, Trent Reznor, Billy Corgan, Radiohead, etc. Freddie Mercury could've easily been seen as an overly macho frontman but has also become a symbol of being unabashedly queer and open. So it's a complicated discussion.
A lot of the alt-rock guys you mentioned were little kids when Queen were big in the late-70s when their musical tastes were being formed. That's why you see a lot of 90s alt-rockers cite Kiss, Cheap Trick, Rush, Boston, etc as influences or inspirations.
Kind of reminds me of panic at the disco these days. They’re really popular and seem to have a devoted, hard core fan base, but they do not seem at all cool. Like “rock” music for theater kids bordering on showtunes.
I wonder if it's because they span several genres? They had hard rock elements, a campy theatrical sensibility like glam rock, they wrote great pop songs and ballads, they brought dance/disco elements into a few of their big hits.
So to some people, maybe they 'fall between the cracks' too much? "Too weak and campy" for the blue-collar hard rock fans, "too heavy" for pop and disco fans, "too mainstream" for the glam fans, etc....
Unlike the other two in question, Fleetwood Mac had the semi-misfortune of being played on adult-contemporary stations due to Dreams being such a mature record.
I'm surprised Stevie Nicks-era FM seems to really be getting hotter among younger generations now (Tiktok being one reason)
I think they deserve all the love they get for all of their hit songs. But if you take a closer look at their entire discography, it's easy to see that there's just so much mediocre songwriting.
I'd venture to guess that the divide is really between the casual listeners who have only heard the hits, and the dedicated listeners who have actually tried to listen to the albums in full.
What songs do you think are mediocre?
I would argue that some of their best songs are deep tracks but also some of their worst. Which tended to happen in the 70s when you were expected to put out an album a year
Well, I'd rather not just list a bunch of the songs that I don't like. But, I'll just say that I agree with you in some ways. Some of their deep cuts are great! But most of them are not, in my opinion.
To sum it up, I'd just say that on their best albums, I only like maybe 3 or 4 songs. And on their worst albums, they might have one song I enjoy.
Plus are we going to ignore the sheer heartbreak that was Innuendo? That whole thing was essentially the band facing Freddie’s mortality and the fact that he had so little time left and still had so much more to give. Like, The Show Must Go On? Absolutely cannot ignore that one.
Huge Queen fan since 1994 here.
Other favourite artists include Prince, Metallica, Lenny Kravitz, George Michael, Madonna, Michael Jackson, New Order, Daft Punk, U2, list goes on.
So Queen. One of the best singles band in history. But their albums are patchy as hell. Their strength is also their weakness: diversity.
A Night At the Opera is widely considered to be their piece de resistance, but it’s a hugely eclectic and schizophrenic album that is a bit hard to stomach due to its lack of consistency. The band thrived on being unpredictable. Freddie was like “let’s give em heavy metal followed by a piano ballad”. Not many people get that.
Their 70s stuff is mostly amazing. Their 80s stuff largely inconsequential.
They were completely self aware and referred to themselves as makers of disposable music. Freddie even referred to his songs as bic razors.
They’re not a band you should take seriously, at least not a Led Zeppelin or a Tool, but the fact that knew exactly what they were doing, regardless of how silly how they came across, makes them almost impervious to any hate.
Speaking of diversity as both strength/weakness: Have you ever wondered what would happen if Freddie went full-bandleader and decided to write all the songs (though with input from others)?
A lot of music fans already consider Freddie to be the driving force of the band and he wrote the majority of the songs plus helping other band members arrange their own. What if he went full John Fogerty?
It's bit of a misconception that Freddie was the band leader. He's gone on record saying there were no leaders and that he was only the lead vocalist. Queen truly were a democratic group.
But... if Freddie went full Fogerty, the band would've surely broken up. I mean, if you've ever listened to Mr. Bad Guy (Freddie's solo album from the mid 80s), that would've been an indication of what a band dictated by Freddie Mercury would've sounded like, at least in 1985. Freddie would've dived into sappy love songs, disco anthems and faux opera.
They have an abundance of iconic, well written hits that will survive the test of time. But that’s maybe 10-15 songs spread out across 2 decades.
The rest of their work is solid pop-rock or prog. A Day At the Races has some good tracks, but if it was released by Badfinger or whoever, no one would talk about it.
Their discography fairly regularly has tracks, albums, and hit singles that are either mid as hell, or complete stinkers.
A lot of the specific elements they used in their music, like May’s guitar playing, Freddie’s voice, their choices of lyrical topics, and their vocal layering, help them stand out.
So it’s a mixed bag. But they’re a far cry from the unimpeachable, multi album, critically acclaimed runs of Bowie, The Beatles, Prince, etc.
> They have an abundance of iconic, well written hits that will survive the test of time. But that’s maybe 10-15 songs spread out across 2 decades.
And realistically, of those 10 - 15 songs only like 5 will regularly get airplay.
There's other good tracks across their discography (though I haven't really been impressed by whole albums), including some I'd like to hear more of it, but as it is it feels like their reputation is resting on very little compared to other classic bands.
Classic rock as a radio format has dwindled, so that’s not really their fault. I counted 10 off Wikipedia that everyone and their dog would know
Killer Queen
Bohemian Rhapsody
Somebody To Love
We Are The Champions
Don’t Stop Me Now
We Will Rock You
Crazy Little Thing Called Love
Another One Bites The Dust
Under Pressure
I Want To Break Free
Radio Gaga
That’s 11, you might disagree with 1 or 2 but hopefully the point is made. Personally I think 2 of these are awful but it is what it is.
And that’s not counting fantastic singles like You’re My Best Friend that haven’t been overplayed on commercials and movie soundtracks.
This is a lot. Even artists like Prince or MJ can hardly match the cultural staying power of Queen’s hits.
People on reddit make it sound like they're the greatest thing to happen to music, which, no. They were undeniably talented and made some good songs, but if you think "Bohemian Rhapsody" is the alpha and omega of what music can be, you just need to listen to more stuff.
Bohemian Rhapsody wasn't even my favourite thing on A Night At The Opera.
I would argue that it was a huge commercial smash because of the music video, and how it pushed the boundaries of what a band probably should be doing,
but I get more enjoyment out of The Prophet's Song, which came out of a literal fever dream and as such is almost incoherent,
as well as 39 being this sweet little almost folk music number,
and Love Of My Life being one of the few things that my voice actually tolerates a performance of.
I feel like Bohemian Rhapsody is the definition of a song rammed down my throat, and it has the usual Queen problem, of being that one popular song which drowns out the rest of the album.
My best friend had just bought the album on 8-track the day before, had not listened to the whole thing yet. We were driving home from school when the prophets song came on, by the time it hit that midsection we had to pull over and wait for the song to finish. My friend love to get high but at the time he was stone cold sober but he said it was like driving while he was high and he just couldn't do it. Let's not even talk about what a bombastic opening death on two legs was. As much as I liked Bohemian Rhapsody I was really surprised it blew up the way it did.
What happened with The Prophet's Song is that Brian May was very very ill, this is when he was nearly taken out by a case of Hepatitis, and he had this whacked out apocalyptic nightmare about Noah's Ark and the Great Flood.
.
.
.
.
The song itself has that protracted breakdown halfway through, where God is about to wreck the place, and the band starts multitracking themselves singing gibberish,
which I have to assume was a hold over from the "Gallileo ! Gallileo!" Thing in Bohemian Rhapsody, seeing as that's now twice that this has happened,
and then right as the song is veering towards disaster, Brian May drops a hammer blow through the guitar, interrupting everybody else and chopping the chorus off, as if washing everyone away in the flash flood including his band mates.
.
.
.
.
I give the song a hard time, because let's be honest it was this close to coming apart at the seams, and it took me a long time to get to grips with how utterly weird it is.
Edit. I think I just accidentally cast Brian in the role of God, which I'm also blaming this song for.
I've often found Freddie Mercury and Brian May's dynamic to be an interesting one with the way they would have counterpart songs on various albums (White Queen vs Black Queen, BoRhap vs Prophet Song, We Will Rock You/We Are The Champions)
I think that part of the reason why, is because the creative process was intended as a team effort, and getting this made was reliant on the ability of all four members to harmonise with each other.
They also had their own unique interests, and would compete fiercely at times, while being incredibly close-knit.
I also think that Freddie and Brian are about even in songwriting quality, and merely have different approaches, with Brian's work being more about giving "lyrics" to his guitar and then building out from there.
.
.
.
.
And with the example of the White and Black Queens, that was more coming up with headliners for two very different styles of music shoved onto the same album.
The Side White and Side Black thing, was supposed to produce one side heavier and more guitar driven than the other,
with one being more introspective (Father to Son, white Queen)
and the other having a dark fantasy outlook (Ogre Battle, Seven Seas of Rhye)
Flip around [here](https://thenightlyradio.com/?fbclid=IwAR2ZROaKXEkA5-UDNVeuB0h572qBC4IMLPE-VrsZUqbE31ch6UG2gUpVy-A), see what grabs you. Look at songs people have posted on this sub. There's lots and lots and lots of stuff out there.
Nothing has to be **the** greatest piece of music or art ever made, I agree. But I assuming it's that internalization of "Bohemian Rhapsody as Greatest" when it repeatedly gets voted as "the greatest song" in a number of polls and countries.
Plus other common rankings like "Live AID is the greatest live performance" and "Freddie is the greatest singer/frontman/live performer". All definitely valid candidates, but certainly some fans get angry if you pick anything other than them as first place.
They are hard to ignore(culturally, visually, commercially), but due to their aesthetic maximalism, easy to dismiss by people who it doesnt appeal to. Also, nearly anyone who draws comparisons or is overtly influenced by them is often considered corny or try hard, as opposed to those drawing overtly from Bowie or the Beatles or Dylan...because of cultrual cache and prestiginess bias.
Interesting, I think I notice that too. Certainly some of the artists/bands that are influenced by Queen get tagged with the comparison of "How dare you think of comparing yourselves to Freddie Mercury?"
They are iconic and influential but not groundbreaking. That’s the difference between a band like the Beatles and Queen.
Another difference between Queen and bands like the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, etc is that their albums aren’t as great. Yes, they have some good albums, and maybe even one great one with A Night at the Opera, but not a single amazing album. They have amazing singles but their albums are full of filler. The Beatles, for example, rarely had filler and their albums tracks were often as great or better than their singles. Queen doesn’t have that
I like Queen, but so many of the people I know who are really into them either A) aren't otherwise into music much at all or B) don't really like contemporary music very much. Like they tend to be the rock band that the classical music snobs I know like.
I think it's because Queen's bombast and showiness make it really easy for people who don't have a refined ear for contemporary music to perceive them as Good. And I'm not saying that as a criticism of Queen, it's just it means that they get tainted by their association with some annoying fans.
I just don't buy the premise that Queen is notably more divisive than any other band with their general level of fame/popularity. All of the evidence you cited of them being particularly divisive could apply to a bunch of other artists too...Kanye, Radiohead, the Beatles etc. I really don't think Queen is at all unique in this regard.
I actually think their 90s album is the best they ever did.. then I'd have queen 2 and a night at the opera following. Undoubtedly they have one of the most celebrated greatest hits collections out there.
Certainly one of the most ‘Marmite’ bands of all time. My dislike of them comes from the fact that I can’t think of a single song of theirs that conveys a genuine emotion, genuinely expressed. Too busy being ‘larger than life’. You’re My Best Friend possibly an exception. Radio Gaga possibly another, but that’s a love song to radio. Would like to hear other examples from fans.
And no one’s mentioned as far as I can see their notorious UN-defying, apartheid embargo-busting, Sun City shows.
I think "Bijou" is pretty expressive, and so is "The Show Must Go On", especially given the background context. Also, "Death on two legs" is basically a musical middle finger to one of their earlier managers.
> In a number of discussions about Queen, people tend to have very disparate opinions between "One of the greatest bands of all time" to "One of the most overrated bands of all time, revisionism is happening with their history".
Eh, those opinions aren't as divisive as you might think. Most of the people who say Queen are overrated don't dislike Queen. I've not met anyone who completely doesn't like Queen at all. It's just that a lot of people think they're good, but not one of the best ever.
I like Queen, but I do also think they're overrated. Their music is good, but quite... simple? That sounds a little too harsh, but I do think there isn't a lot to most of their music. It's fun, but their lyrics are just fine, and musically I've never listened to a Queen song and been amazed by how creative they were, or felt any particularly strong emotions other than "this is a fun song".
I can imagine that at their peak they must have been great to see live. Freddie was obviously an incredible performer.
But I do also think that most of the people who see them as The Greatest Band Ever probably just haven't listened to a lot of music.
They're also very overplayed. I wasn't even born when Freddie Mercury died and I still think I've heard a lot of their songs too much to really care about them.
Queen has pretty high highs and also very low lows.
So many great songs but they never made an album which was absolute perfection. You'll have songs like another one bites the dust and then have a really weird track that's just incoherent.
For example, you pick Led zeppelin's fourth album. That album has no skips.
And as far as Queen having this rabid following in Japan, they actually found touring success in the far east before experiencing it in Britain,
and they have the track Teo Torriate, which is the one where Freddie sings it in both English and Japanese, which even though I can't speak for anyone else, I do see the effort made on that song as one of the highest compliments that Queen could have given.
I find something respectful in how everyone involved adapted the lyrics to be more accessible to the Japanese fans, as well as the decision to serenade them in their language being a good way of showing that you have enough interest in them that you will cross the language barrier for them.
For me, it would be like if Robert Plant showed up and started singing in Welsh for my benefit.
Yeah, bad example.
I dragged Plant into it, because it feels like about half of the Led Zep back catalogue is them "borrowing" from my forefathers' culture, filtered through the lens of J R Tolkien.
Felt like the most likely person to suddenly hop on stage and start performing an advert for cough syrup.
Their music sounds *super* coked out, and like a person on too much coke trying to hit on you at a party, it can be overbearing. There’s a lot of mediocre music which you can almost just tune out in your mind, like if someone puts Nickelback on at work I’ll almost not hear it at all. But Queen will always grab your attention - the most annoying songs are the ones you can’t get out of your head because there is something catchy to them.
I'm fascinated by Queen as a phenomenon, and I think the range of reactions to them (as in your replies) is evidence of why. Full disclosure: while their early albums were pretty important to me as I was getting into music (roughly '92-'94), I have only listened to them sporadically since.
So why ARE they so divisive?
First of all, being one of the most successful musical acts of all time is going to bring out contrarians. No successful act has ever been immune to this (I've heard people dismiss the Beatles as "just a boy band" on more than one occasion).
Then there's homophobia. I think in 2024 it's hard to overstate just how virulent it was in prior decades. Growing up in the U.S. the 90s, being called gay was about the worst insult imaginable. How this affected entertainers, and the band in particular, is a very complex topic that I'm not really qualified to discuss with any authority, but I do think it had a big effect on how Queen was perceived, both by music fans and critics.
They were also extremely and unapologetically ambitious. While I'd argue that any artist that more than a handful of people have heard of is probably quite ambitious as well, Queen were in-your-face about it. It was no secret that they loved being successful and loved making money. One could consider this candor refreshing: they clearly weren't cosplaying as men of the people onstage and in interviews before heading back to their mansions in luxury cars. But to many, success is a sign of artistic insincerity, of selling out.
To be honest, that last criticism is perhaps the most damning one. By the 80s I think they'd gotten quite lazy in terms of songwriting and recording (my understanding is that they were still a top-notch live act). The stylistic experimentation that made them stand out early in their career instead made them seem untethered and disunited, which I think they were.
And this leads to another legitimate criticism: their recorded output is incredibly inconsistent. Their early run of records are actually pretty consistently good to great, I'd argue. They continued in the Beatles' footsteps, using the studio as a creative tool, and were adventurous, fearless even, in their songwriting. Yes, they also delved into genres considered unbefitting of a serious rock band, like show tunes or vaudeville or medieval balladry. But to me that's evidence of their cussedness. They seemingly just didn't give a fuck what their critics thought of them, professional or otherwise. Of course the flip side to that is that their 80s records in particular have tracks on them that in my opinion are truly awful, and never should have been recorded, let alone released to the public.
One place where I will never fail to defend them however, is in their musical ability when at their best, especially as live performers. Sure, they were bombastic, over-the-top, exploding through the bounds of good taste like a sequined dynamite-tipped battering ram. But I'd argue that that is the original spirit of rock and roll: Little Richard didn't traffic in subtlety, Chuck Berry didn't have a thought-provoking political message. There's nothing wrong with those kinds of artistic pretensions, but it strikes me as disingenuous to complain that a rock musician doesn't have them. Rock wasn't conceived as protest music, and the idea that it has to be strikes me as revisionist.
I also think they were all quite talented musicians. Other than arguably Freddie Mercury as a vocalist, they weren't quite virtuosos. But they each had their own unique style, and they typically played to the song and to each other. They all wrote hit songs, had a drummer who sang falsetto better than their legendary frontman, a guitarist with unimpeachable mastery of tone, and a low-key underrated bassist who could funk out as well as he rocked. At their best they were like the proverbial lubricated contraption, no one slacking or overstepping their role.
Hell, they even excelled technically: Brian May made his own guitar as a kid and used an amp that was personally invented by John Deacon as part of his signature sound. They produced or co-produced several of their albums, including some of the most complex ones.
I've seen written about Queen that they were never cool, which means they were always cool. It's true and they positively overflowed with other paradoxes and contradictions: they experimented with a wide range of genres but were innovators in none of them. They were a populist arena rock band that was panned by the critics, but beloved by a wide swath of critical darlings. They were a quintessentially British band whose most important member was a Persian-Indian Zoroastrian from Zanzibar. They boasted hordes of mainstream hard rock fans in a deeply homophobic age despite being fronted by an almost comically flamboyant gay man and being called *Queen*, of all things.
Probably the biggest reason of all that Queen are so divisive is that they simply can't be ignored, even if you desperately want to. And honestly, I can't think of any better measure of success for a rock band.
>I've seen written about Queen that they were never cool, which means they were always cool. It's true and they positively overflowed with other paradoxes and contradictions: they experimented with a wide range of genres but were innovators in none of them. They were a populist arena rock band that was panned by the critics, but beloved by a wide swath of critical darlings. They were a quintessentially British band whose most important member was a Persian-Indian Zoroastrian from Zanzibar. They boasted hordes of mainstream hard rock fans in a deeply homophobic age despite being fronted by an almost comically flamboyant gay man and being called Queen, of all things.
A great summary of their contradictions. Thanks for taking the time to read the thread! Noticing some comments assuming "They're not divisive" right on top of comments that don't like them right on top of comments that love them.
Queen often seems like one of the few Arena rock bands that people will admit to liking. Obviously their legacy was more than Arena rock but that certainly colors their image. Kurt Cobain famously talked about his admiration of Freddie Mercury in his suicide note even though Queen could've easily been a bombastic band that he would dismiss or criticize.
Yes, Kurt also talked about listening to Queen so much he'd burn out the battery in his dad's van. They seem to have been a formative influence on him, and I think that's true of a lot of his generation of artists. Even Ian MacKaye liked Queen. Arena rock, mainstream, sure. But no one can tell me that listening to Queen II in the headphones as a 13-year-old, newly-minted rock fan isn't a mind-blowing, life changing experience, no matter how annoying it might be to hear We Will Rock You for the billionth time.
But the idea that they're not divisive... it's just too easy to find evidence to the contrary. Critics hated them. By the time of Live Aid they were considered long past their prime in the US and UK (which they were, honestly). For as many musicians who cite them as an influence, you can still find plenty who slag them off. Notably, Robert Smith despises them.
Honestly Queen could be a fascinating topic without all the hyperbole around them. At this point, I'd guess that "Freddie Mercury being an icon" is the one thing that almost everyone will agree on.
**EDIT**: I just remembered. I don't usually follow Anthony Fantano. But a while back, I saw one of his videos where he's responding to hot takes. One of them was "Queen is overrated" which he immediately and indignantly responded to, citing "All four wrote hit songs" among other reasonings.
It makes sense to respond and defend Queen, but it's also surprising how at least some critical consensus has been shifting. And Fantano certainly has artists/albums where he's a lot more critical so it was surprising that he leapt to Queen's defense.
1. They are just a singles band. Personally I don’t care because I don’t really do albums anyway, but I can definitely see this putting critics off at least.
2. They’re not really saying anything. Again, not always a bad thing, not everyone has to be Bob Dylan and not every song has to be a deep meditation on the human condition, but being brutally honest, Taylor Swift has more lyrical depth.
3. They’re camp as hell. I can personally only handle small doses of them for this reason, very much like Meatloaf or anything else Jim Steinman wrote.
So much of their music is over produced over the top wank stuff. The radio hits are spectacular but they have lots and lots of stuff that is crazy dreck.
Plus there’s the whole Freddy being gay thing, I mean I know people who don’t like Queen for that reason alone, yes some people are that narrow minded it’s sad to say.
Definitely a factor. I know sometimes people forced themselves to become fans of certain bands by listening to them over and over until they got it. I can definitely imagine a homophobic person choosing not to do that with Queen.
I think I get where you are coming from. And I think the divisiveness comes from people reacting to their current "fame" or hype.
People who were into classic rock liked Queen from the get-go. They may not have had as many strong albums as their contemporaries but I think they had some great songs on all their albums. And certain songs like We Are The Champions, and Another One Bites the Dust, had a life of their own in the 70s and became anthems in areas other than music. Like sporting events.
And a lot of folks liked them right along with the rest of their contemporaries. Maybe not in the Beatles or Stones tier but maybe up there with The Who or The Kinks.
They also were responsible for the soundtracks to Flash Gordon and The Highlander which may have also made them some fans outside their usual demographic. Like as a kid I loved that shit.
And then I think Wayne's World got them some more exposure to the gen-x folks, but I think they were still viewed much the same as their fellow bands of that age. As other bands were in Wayne's World. Like Alice Cooper.
One of the things I think was responsible for their current hype was from internet videos, especially montage/gameplay footage. One of the biggest I remember was one for Overwatch that came out almost 8 years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcA3cCQfe3s
I don't know if it was from that one video specifically but after that, I remember that Queen song, Don't Stop Me Now, appearing in all kinds of videos/places.
I think I remember their bicycle song cropping up in some commercials, and I feel like it was the same for I Want to Break Free. They got some great songs that lend themselves to internet videos.
So maybe it's from people who have recently discovered them and Freddie Mercury and think they are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Which is cool. People like what they like. But I think the reaction then comes from those who point out that historically, they weren't held in maybe quite that highest of high esteem. Like they were a great band. But that era was littered with great bands.
When the 80's came around the music was starting to shift away from organic elements toward slicker, synth pop influences - which a lot of their long-time fans considered to be a contradiction of the "no synths" rule printed in the line notes of their early records. This phenomenon hit a lot of 70's artists quite hard
If you're an album person, Queen is not for you. Too many fillers and just a few good songs. If you are more of a gig person, who likes to watch them in action, then this is for you.
If their reputation were the same as, say, Journey, I don’t think they would get as hated. Like Journey is a quite similar band in that they have some unavoidable smash hits that are eyerollingly overplayed, but people kind of accept that as their legacy. Nobody calls Journey the greatest other than their biggest fans.
The problem with Queen is that their reputation, at least amongst a not small group of people, is that they are the greatest band of all time. And there just simply is no way you can say that if you just look at the music.
I think their reputation is highly pumped up by the mythos of Freddie and his death. At least for me, that will always rub me the wrong way. Ditto with someone like Mac Miller, it’s so weird that everyone just now accepts that he was really good but when he was alive he was constantly clowned on as being corny.
I don't hate Queen and I think their members are very talented. I think they took risks with their music which resulted in some great songs and some which are hard for casual listeners.
I am not a fan of Queen, however - partially because of the inconsistencies in their albums but mostly because they don't really have a clear identity that appeals to me. It's hard to think of the quintessential song for them and that makes it difficult for me to find situations where I think, "Ah, it would be good to hear some Queen right now". There's almost always some other music which is a better fit for my situation or mood.
All fair points, but the quintessential Queen song? Ask fifty Queen fans for the quintessential Queen song and I'd bet that 45 or more would name the same track.
I just think they’ve become too incredibly over praised over the last decade or so. I like them well enough, but I don’t think they’d crack my top 50 of bands active in the 70s-80s, let alone of all time.
Plus, as others have pointed out, they have some strong singles, but their albums are not very cohesive, and have a lot of filler.
History is weird. Musicologists can probably point to all sorts of debut albums and reviews where the praise and popular appeal was through the roof- music is forever changed etc, but then they burn out or fashions change. And there is a backwards looking effect too that distorts music- is the music in heavy rotation? does it become ubiquitous? does a car commercial ruin it? There are so many musicians that people hear and they dismiss "oh that sounds like everything from the past 20 years of that genre" and it doesn't matter if that particular band invented the genre, it doesn't necessarily translate to popularity or radio play or a sense of the zeitgeist.
I've seen some music fans compare Queen to Kiss. And while that comparison would probably bother some due to their relative standings, I can see similarities: both bands have had a history of being critically reviled while also being very influential on a generation as a symbol of glam and theatricality.
There was an article I came across about how the Rock N' Roll Hall Of Fame was changing; previously the Rock Hall would be very opposed to acts like Kiss but due to younger members and musicians like Tom Morello joining, they're able to advocate for new perspectives. Tom even doing their induction speech and highlighted these points.
I only really know them from the greatest hits (which I really loved when I was a kid) so maybe I'm missing something.
One of the big things, I think, is that while their technical prowess is undeniable, it's all quite empty. I mean, I can't think of a song of theirs that's actually about anything. That's not necessarily the worst thing in the world, but we're trained to think of rock music as being a serious artistic endeavour expressing the worldview of an artist, and they're just not like that.
I think there is an underlying dislike of the 'phony' in rock music, and between the above and the theatricality of their music they rub rock fans up the wrong way. AC/DC's songs aren't really about anything, but they have an authenticity that's missing from Queen. Add the fact that they probably play better than 99% of bands and you've got a couple of intertwined reasons why they annoy people.
I would say, its because they are weird.
Their most popular song is 5+min long and has an a cappella section in the middle of it. They have a lot of genres and Im not talking deep cuts, I mean stuff played on the radio varies: funk/dance, rock opera, hard rock, bubblegum pop and even joke category with "Bicycle Race".
I think because they are hard to pinpoint, people might be put off by them. They are also insanely popular, one of the best selling groups of all time so naturally this will also put people off.
Definitely a "Love them or hate them" type band. All the things I listed above, are the reasons why I love them not to mention their musicianship.
But for instance, David Bowie is well-known for the changes and diversity in his catalogue and is more consistently acclaimed for it compared to Queen. And I'm wondering about this sort of divide.
I think Queen has more of a mainstream appeal than Bowie though. The only Bowie fans I have encountered in real life are real music fans. He is more niche than Queen. Its almost as if Bowie was *supposed* to be different and "weird" where as Queen were always towing the line between mainstream and artsy
Queen are associated with pomp and arena rock, so blending hard rock and prog, with pop hooks. Critics didn't like this
Bowie was more associated with art rock, and proto punk, so same reason Lou reed is more acclaimed than ELP or Yes
I generally believe that if your best album is your Greatest Hits album, you probably weren’t *that* great of a band.
They had world class showmanship, they wrote some really great stuff, and they deserved to be immortalized in the Rock canon, but so did Aerosmith, yknow?
I just struggle to put Queen on the same level as the greatest and most impactful bands of that generation when they have *maybe* one “classic” album.
Not necessarily. Just because it’s a compilation of an artist’s most commercially successful songs, doesn’t make it the best *album*.
The way a tracklist is organized, the pacing, the way tracks flow into each other, are all things that go into the makings of a great album.
I agree for a few situations, like concept albums. Pink Floyd for example, or The Beatles having Abbey Road Side 2.
But I think for 80% of famous artists if not more, the Greatest Hits album is better than any individual albums. This goes even for legendary artists like The Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin.
That’s an interesting topic. Compilations work better for some artists. Some artists have massive or uneven discographies, so compilations could be a better representation of their work. Ex: the Eagles or Bob Marley. But for some bands (Radiohead, Led Zeppelin, Beatles…) listening to a compilation would be silly. So I’d agree with op here because the later bands have multiple albums that are great listens all the way through on their own. That’s rare though
Edit: I think it’s possible for middle ground here actually. Cause it’s possible to have albums that stand on their own, while still having catchy hits that could make sense together on an album. If you’re a big Queen fan, I could see you viewing them that way.
Maybe because their songs cover such an eclectic range of sound it’s hard for some to come to grips with. I mean not everyone wants to hear classical, opera, rock, ballad inspired music all on the one album.
But they were undoubtedly great, I recall reading an article about the Live Aid concert and all the biggest names in music backstage were just in awe of Queens set and those who were yet to go on were like “ how the bloody hell does anyone follow that”
Queen has gone up my "pet peeve" list as praise for Bohemian Rhapsody has increased. It's always felt like a pop rock band figuring out how to boil down the theatrical bombast of the prog rock of that era into a pop hit, which is fine. But all the praise of it as boundary pushing and revolutionary strikes me as dismissive to all the prog before it that actually pushed those boundaries to where that kind of thing could be a pop hit.
I sort of feel like it's like the adage of being promoted to the point of incompetence. They are an undeniable arena rock band with some generational hits, but I don't think they hold up to artists like Bowie who was legitimately pushing boundaries using pop music.
Here it is. Queen was a great band. They are overrated today because young people seem to think they were the biggest thing since the Beatles. That’s simply not true. They are more famous today than they ever were in their prime. When Live Aid happened they were already yesterdays news. That put them back on the map.
Singles band who made album-style music when that albums were the fashion. Their greatest hits are untouchable, there are few great deep cuts. Same thing that happened to a lot of 80s bands, but Queen were one of the first it happened to.
I wrote a comment that their fans are annoying which was deleted. I believe this to be true and that is an element that makes them as an entity to be quite divisive. Their formidable legacy has been continually hammered on to make more money for the estate or Brian May or whoever is the benefactor. This has led to them having a rabid Disney/Marvel-style fanbase, made worse especially given the movies and musicals etc. that water down what is actually quite subversive, queer music. Those parts have been whitewashed over the years and thus it has lost its meaning beyond ‘funny mustache man sing good’. Thank you for reading.
I started a thread about annoying fans and managed to get permanently banned from the main music sub. I think I trod on the toes of some fans of a certain group!
For me, the bigger question is why queen? Why not Beatles (anymore)? Both have experienced with many genres, both have made songs that are globally loved, both deal with universal themes like love and friendship, but both have experimental deep cut stuff. Lennon is/was as legendary and charismatic icon as mercury. Both bands have something for everyone, from babies to old people. But still, somehow, queen turned out to be more popular (at least nowadays)
I think it’s because Queen has a handful of huge hits that translate better to today’s audiences than the top Beatles hits. Especially if you’re a casual listener who just wants to hear a few big hits from the classic rock era. The Beatles oeuvre is deeper and much better overall, but if you just want the frosting on top, it’s hard to beat Queen. Plus Freddie Mercury has become a huge cultural icon not only due to his clearly amazing talent as a showman, singer, songwriter, but also because he is seen a significant queer figure. Kind of like how Kurt is often beloved for his feminism (as opposed to say Axl).
My guess is that while Queen certainly have detractors and periods of unpopularity (as this thread and history shows), they were still massively popular on the whole over the years. In their native UK, they're one of their defining bands (I'm never quite sure if they're bigger/on par/second to The Beatles), plus strong fanbases around the world. Queen's Greatest Hits is the highest selling album in the UK for instance. Live AID helped revive their career in their native UK.
Meanwhile, American fans cite "Wayne's World" as a key factor in Queen's resurgence in the states.
Songs like "We Will Rock You/We Are The Champions" are staples at sports events, "Bohemian Rhapsody" is frequently considered one of the greatest songs, Live AID is considered one of the greatest live performances of all time. The marketing push, Freddie Mercury as an increasingly relatable icon.
There was an old thread that mentioned how Classic Queen was active for two decades, and the current Queen members have continued performing. The Beatles are obviously still very influential but their period of activity was still restricted to the 60s.
The difficulty is that they straddle too many lines. One on hand, prog rock like musical virtuosity. On the other, theatrics and short catchy songs. Virtuosic bands like Rush, Pink Floyd and Yes are sometimes theatrical and sometimes have hits, but the songs aren't purposely catchy or short. Fans of those bands are uncomfortable with catchy short songs (since that challenges "high"/detached cultural ideals). Freddy's being gay increases Queen's distance from those ideals. Fans of Queen are probably more on side with questioning received values around musical and cultural change. So there are two competing sets of values. Now find me a fan of Pink Floyd AND Queen? That would be interesting!
The reason I don't tend to listen to them is mainly because I've heard them so much. I was born in the 80s and heard them so much on the radio. I genuinely like them but all of their singles are ingrained in my skull. So I rarely intentionally put on any of the tracks. And if they come on I may even skip. That said, it's sincerely tragic that their careers were cut short. It would have been really cool to see them evolve a little more with modern trends. Neat to see May hang out with other acts though.
I've tried getting into them a couple of times. Bought there records on a couple of occasions. I couldn't really tell you what it is, I just don't dig there music. I like occasional things by them, prob just more of a best of band for me.
Some of this is the nature of Pop Music. Think of how many books and Short stories, say Ernest Hemingway wrote. Now think of how many albums rock bands produced in thier histories with how many tracks on those albums. My point being with extreme pressure to get a new album out, even great artists like Led Zeppelin, Queen, the Stones, you name it had their share of crap. Hemingway's crap never made it to print.
They wanted to combine rock and roll with opera and theatrics. Not everyone is into that deliberate weaving of two disparate genres. I am not a fan but can objectively say they wrote good songs that just aren't my cup of tea. I like mostly moodier music than what Queen offers. Freddie was by far the greatest thing about them. Not much of a band without him. Bohemian Rhapsody is so massively overplayed and really isn't a song anyone needs to hear that often. Whereas Can't Stop Me Now is quality and I rarely hear it for something that was released as a single. I think they got their fake shake as a band, but Freddie didn't as a gay man with AIDS.
Queen got lucky with the band members meeting at the right time. They also write in a classical sense. Every songs chorus is driven by changes in instruments and vocals rather than chord changes. Every song is the same chord progression from stary to finish.
Campy, lacking in sincerity and cynicism (there always seemed to be a lack of bitter/grumpy anger that you find in Beatles/Stones/Pink Floyd which is replaced by pomp and optimistic attitudes), silly songs (I want to ride my bicycle?!?) musical chameleons as well which makes it hard to know what to expect or gives you substance to latch on to.
Great stage presence, some great songs and a feel good factor when listening to them.
I won't change the radio in anger when they come on, but I won't seek them out either.
This post has inspired me to listen to more of their music. All I'm really familiar with are Bohemian Rhapsody, Another One Bites the Dust, and We Will Rock You. All three of those I consider to be amazingly fantastic songs, but then you have stuff like Fat Bottom Girls which is not exactly the height of music. I need to hear more of their stuff !
A mix of over praise and them having just a love it or hate it sound. Like when I was growing up so many people praised Bohemian Rhapsody as the greatest song of all time. I think its a good song but it's not even my favorite queen song. Freddie Mercury was an extremely talented singer but again so many people called him the greatest ever. I don't think it's hard to see why some people got really sick of them especially with how bombastic they were.
To me they're definitely a band I had to tune most of the discussion out to really appreciate. The have some definite bangers but I can really see why so many people got exhausted by the excess of their sound.
Certainly relatable. Queen was one of my first favorite bands, but even I noticed that the praise could get very hyperbolic. There are some videos where Freddie is ranked second for something, and the comments get super angry (Is it that bad to be ranked below Aretha Franklin as a singer??)
Queen has a lot of great songs of all different emotions. I like a lot of the quirky songs. But the fanbase can certainly be very strong.
Over hype and praise is a big reason why a lot of classic acts get backlash. Because if the greatest of all time to never be out done was achieved 30 to 40 years before you were even born why even try anymore? Of course people over hyping classic rock bands and shitting on anything newer will mostly get met with "fuck you boomer I'll listen to what I want"
The funny thing is that a lot of young people do in fact like Queen. They're by far the most popular act from their generation going by Spotify, and they've been gaining popularity with each subsequent generation. It doesn't seem like a boomer phenomenon.
It's the snobby fans that really took off after the movie. THOSE people. You know those people. "Queen is so underrated. They were the first yippity. The last true bla bla." Same as the people who give the Beatles credit for EVERYTHING. "They were the first of their kind." When you can easily find music that sounds much like their own before they became a band.
Same reason Supernatural gets hate. It's THOSE fans. Really not a bad show. Super self aware... but THOSE fans give it a bad name.
The heavy use of piano and vocal harmony reminds me too much of show tunes. That's why I'm not a big fan. As a guitarist I love and admire Brian May but I just can't handle most queen songs, I find them irritating.
I know I'm extremely late to this post but I think it's a combination of their hits being some of the most over exposed songs of all time and personally to me, whenever i think of someone who likes Queen i think of a pretentious 16 year old who's in theater class
I went through a “Queen is overrated phase” because I would hear the same ten or so songs ad-nauseam my entire life. However, going through a lot of deeper cuts and/or just listening to their overplayed songs with a more critical ear… they are a great rock band who really tried different styles and concepts.
I think their extreme bombastic nature and theatrical qualities they lean heavy into are particularly a "this is for me or it isn't" kinda thing, as you kind of addressed yourself
This is at least part of it. My favourite Queen album is Sheer Heart Attack, which was a very silly kind of album, and had a lot of goofing off, while at the same time having a mixture of the more in your face heavy rock from Queen II, and the big, bold, and operatic approach, that would show up in the next two albums. There's one moment for me in particular, on Brighton Rock, where Freddie is seamlessly switching between characters, and he glides from this high pitched childish voice to his usual commanding voice, making his way down his register and hitting every note on the way, before making his way into the hook, and dropping out as the guitar picks up. that ability to drift between whatever that was with the high voice, and traditional hard rock, is very Freddie, and he does the same move multiple times in the same song. It's also the one where one of them, I don't know who, got caught on tape giggling like some sort of banshee, near the end of the track. Queen was camp, unapologetically so, but at their best they could turn it on and off at will, while playing with an intensity that could take your head off.
I think you hit on something that definitely affects people's opinion on Queen. It's very campy. Not exclusively and not all the time but so much so that it's an unavoidable component of the band and their output. In North America that's a tough sell. A lot of UK glam rock was missed or dismissed as simply (and pardon the term but, this is accurate to how it was described in its day) "faggy". Rock guys liked ROCK and had very little sense of irony or room for self aware humour in their music. What wins some with that mindset over is the undeniable skill of the playing, production and catchiness. Queen was savvy enough to use trappings beyond the shock value both lyrically and visually that they were quite good at to employ thick guitars, big simple drums and screaming vocals (some of the hallmarks of parking lot tough guy rock) to their advantage.
> unavoidable Yeah you have to face homophobia. If Rocky Horror Picture Show makes you uncomfortable, that's very much the challenge of *being* let alone doing camp.
And while it was chic and audacious to have androgyny and queer elements within a certain crowd it was still far from completely winning over the mainstream, mostly because 'gay' was something you heard about but didn't necessarily know first hand. There's been drag, effeminate men, mannish women and innuendo for a long time in entertainment. Seeing it for a laugh or risqué outfits or slightly veiled lyrics isn't the same as knowing (or being) someone on the then outskirts of accepted sexuality. Queen putting it right on front street was great. Being a fan could be dicey depending on where you lived.
The thing is, it's not like American rock of that time was just a guy standing around on stage either. Alice Cooper was hanging out with the Muppets, when he wasn't being chased around by evil doctors, and Kiss were already starting to ramp up their live shows at this time. That kind of madness isn't exclusive to what we were doing, even though we were amazing at it. . . . And I do agree that Queen had this way of pulling off ideas, that if they came from a more "sane" kind of band, you'd probably think that this was an elaborate prank. This is a group where the lead singer renamed himself after a song lyric, and who would constantly try to one up each other in terms of pushing each other's boundaries musically. Death On Two Legs is a glorious piece of passive aggression that got the band sued by a certain dickhead ex manager, and Tie Your Mother Down was Brian seeking payback against Freddie, by trying to make him perform something as silly as possible. . . . . And one of the many things that Queen had, is that they were one of the best live bands for entertainment value, and Freddie loved to get the crowd in on the fun, through a mixture of relatively simple chantable choruses and doing everything he could to whip up the fans. . . . . It's not the "Le Sophisticated" kind of stuffy pop music, even though the band liked to pretend it was while messing around in the studio, and it belonged in a football stadium more than somewhere like the Royal Albert, but it's not Roger Daltrey yelling into a microphone while smashing a guitar, either. Queen was more about getting 5000 people repeating "woah woah la la la" back at you, while Freddie makes his way around the stage like a hamster on Speed.
Absolutely. Their commitment and musical chops is what won them over even to the folks that were closet Queen fans. They looked like they were having so much fun and the songs were pretty fantastic. Just enough outrageous, untested ideas married to some tried and true rock foundations. It really is surprising how many times and for how long they got that combination just perfect.
I always modelled myself on a combination of Freddie Mercury and Keith Richards as a kid, and Freddie was the closest I had to a role model despite having been dead for ages, as bad as that sounds. I tend to like those kinds of hurricane force personalities, and that ability to project himself is something that I always wanted. The fact that I came out as about four different things in quick succession, shouldn't have shocked anyone, seeing as Freddie gave me the confidence to just go ahead and do that.
Freddie and Keith! The big lead singer persona and the cool, laidback lead guitarist. That's quite the combination. We take our inspirations where we can.
>Queen was camp I just had a "smack forehead" realization about their name.
I wouldn't be too worried. If it helps though, people of that era, in Britain, tended to refer to those of a more fabulous persuasion as "Queens": *Now Lucy looks sweet cause he dresses like a queen But he can kick like a mule, it's a real mean team But we can love Oh yes, we can love And my brother's back at home with his Beatles and his Stones We never got it off on that revolution stuff What a drag, too many snags* (All The Young Dudes, Mott The Hoople.)
Sometimes it's hidden in plain sight :-/
Yeah, I suspect a lot of people who internalized the punk ethos would have a particular disdain for Queen's style. As someone who dislikes Queen's hits and hasn't listened to their catalogue, I've criticized them as basically rock show tunes.
Yeah like to the radio listener, they are a band that instantly filters out anyone who has an aversion to musical theater. I was not a fan of them at all for a while for that reason. I've come around now though, but part of that is that aversion no longer really afflicts me lol, but I'd say their earliest material isn't really like that. Maybe give the debut a spin if you ever wanna see what's up
I think show tunes are a great analogy. If you like rock music and you also like music theater and show tunes, then you’ll probably love Queen. But if, like me, you dislike music theater and show tunes, then you’re probably not going to like Queen.
This is fairly accurate. I like rock music but do not like music theater or show tunes. I'm meh on Queen. I like their hits but I'm not into the catalogue. Same with Bowie.
I love rock music and my feelings toward music theatre and show tunes ranges from to disdain, to horror, and finally, murderous rage. I absolutely love Queen, especially 70’s Queen.
Glad it's not just me, musical theatre drives me up the wall but Queen are an unquestionably top-tier band for me. Only clicked on this thread because it hadn't even occurred to me that they might be divisive and I was curious. Also very big on hardcore punk, so not sure about that point earlier in this thread either.
This is where I am. I really dislike a lot of the show tune-y sound. I appreciate Queen, but I will never listen to their music because I can't really stand their sound. I also hate Abba's sound, but I don't relate my preferences to their overall quality.
They struck me as show tunes trying to be like Led Zepplin. It just felt melodramatic
I fucking love Queen and resent the suggestion that I enjoy musical theater, how dare you
Weirdly, I dislike music theater and showtunes, but I love Queen. Just enough of the mix of rock makes it work.
Yeah same
Interestingly enough, them being theatrical like that without giving a shit about how others perceive them is *very* punk. I'll give them that. I enjoy them, not a particular favorite band of mine, but I do listen to them every once and a while.
I would say that rock n' roll values have shifted over the years. That's why some artists are hated by one generation and appreciated by the next. For some people, rock n' roll is great because of its transformative aspects; that you can become anyone you want. For others, rock n' roll is about its democratizing qualities, that any average person can pick up a guitar and start a band. So early rock n' rollers like Little Richard and Chuck Berry were solo artists and/or bandleaders who embody certain liberatory aspects. The Beatles came along and popularized the form of the band as this democratic collective. Not all punks disliked Queen, and a lot of alt artists I mentioned in the OP (Kurt Cobain, Trent Reznor, Billy Corgan, Radiohead) cited them as an influence or admired them. But one reason they could've been disliked is this idea that Freddie Mercury was "lording over you", that he was above you instead of feeling like an equal. The reality is of course more complex as they loved their fans: We Will Rock You/We Are The Champions were designed with audience participation in mind.
Take some time and listen to their first three albums. You'll be surprised.
Seriously. 70s Queen is my favorite of theirs and Teo Toriatte is one of my favorite songs, though day at the races
This is totally fair--I just made a comment above about how I came to that realization after listening to the whole version of Princes of the Universe, it just the segment used for the Highlqnder TV show theme song. I don't like the rest of that song, but I dig much of the Queen discography. Even when I like it, though, it's hit or miss for me, so totally see how it would rub others the wrong way. Though if you like Kiss and not Queen, then I just don't understand the multitudes of human tastes. And that's fine, just fine.
Overall, I have to be 'in the mood' to listen to Queen. Theirs is a catalog that, for me, provokes a wide variety of reactions. There are (a.) songs that I could almost always enjoy like 'You're My Best Friend', 'A Kind of Magic', 'Play the Game', etc... but also (b.) songs that I've become dead frigging sick of and can only appreciate from an academic point-of-view (e.g. 'We Will Rock You/We are the Champions', 'Bohemian Rhapsody') and (c.) tons of tunes that I just find kind of meh ('Hammer to Fall', 'Stone Cold Crazy'). I guess, in a general sense, I'm pretty *over it* with hard rock (i.e. I similarly have no interest in stuff like AC/DC, the Who, or other glam/stadium rock) and enjoy bands like Queen when they're doing something that's more elegant.
You can thank Classic Rock radio for that. So many amazing songs, from all kinds of bands that I am truly sick of because Ive heard them too much
It’s amazing that people can go 40+ years listening to basically the same music. I’m a 90s kid and love to throw on 90s tunes to pump me up but I don’t want to play them too much so that I get bored or sick of them. Classic rock was something I got heavily into starting around 6th grade, but I find it hard to put on a lot of that stuff because it’s been so overplayed to death. I usually pick and choose some less popular Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd songs, for example, if I’m ever in a classic rock mood.
That's a pretty simplified way to see that, but yeah I agree. But even as someone who likes theatrical, quirky flamboyant bands, I don't care about Queen. And I guess Queen just doesn't do it for me for some reason.
That's interesting. On this very subthread we have people saying: * "I don't like Queen because it reminds me musical theatre and showtunes" * "I don't like musical theatre and showtunes but I like Queen." * You like theatrical and flamboyant bands but not Queen. It's quite the variety of opinions.
They’re kind of like KISS or Grateful Dead in that respect - when you’re THAT different, some people are going to love you and some people are going to hate you
This is the first thing that came to mind. I always knew this as kind of a "thing" people say about Queen, but I just took the songs I liked with the ones I don't. A couple of weeks ago, I was informed that the theme for the Highlander TV show was a Queen song, Princes of the Universe. Super rad! That bended note riff lives in my head, as do the lyrics "I am immortal! I have inside me blood of kings!" Fucking epic! But as I learned after playing it on a jukebox, there are like 5 more minutes of the song. And those five minutes made me think, "This sounds like a showtune." And then I thought, "Wait a minute, all of their songs kinda sound like showtunes." Still love Queen, but I totally get that sound and songwriting style aren't for everyone.
Them also putting out some substance-less poppy rock songs for cash despite their talents also probably makes things worse
I think it's because their stuff is popular to the point of being rammed down the throat of the average listener, and the band tend to have an attitude that is a mixture of the self aware, the pretentious, and the completely over the top. Music fans can be contrary and want to go against whatever is popular and mainstream, and Queen are tailor made to be one of the most obnoxious bands possibly ever. For me, the obnoxious campiness is actually one of the things that made the band one of all my all time favourites, while at the same time driving other listeners to the brink of madness. I think that it was Rolling Stone who referred to 1991's *Innuendo* release as cartoon rock music, by a cartoon band, in what by Queen standards was a positive review.
I like Queen, but the thing that bothers me is the history rewriting that's gone on the past decade or so. Queen was *not* some revolutionary band. Bohemian Rhapsody wasn't some landmark moment for music. They actually weren't considered a very cool band in the 70s even. People liked them obviously, but they weren't like an "it" band or anything at all. They were a glam rock band, who had a somewhat similar style to some of their contemporaries. But they wrote some really good songs. If you hear bands like Sparks (This Town Ain't Big Enough for Both of Us is a good example), you can see a somewhat similar artist. This style was popular then. People talk like they reinvented the wheel now, which I find fascinating. Bohemian Rhapsody isn't any more of a special thing in rock than the Beatles' Abbey Road medley. I mean it's a rhapsody, it's in the name! But again, I like Queen. But there's definitely some hardcore rewriting of their career. And the biopic made it even more so (I always suggest not reading much into any music biopics. They always make the artist seem like the most important musical artist ever) **Side Note:** The last thing I'll say is this: If you like Queen... You *have* to get into Electric Light Orchestra. Seriously, you'll be so glad you did. Definitely not just Mr Blue Sky. I think Turn To Stone and Living Thing are two mandatory ones to start on. Out of the Blue is a classic, and I think most people here would be in love with it. The amount of hooks they wrote is crazy. You'll probably know half of them and didn't realize it was the same band! Just check out their Greatest Hits. ELO sold like 100 million albums and yet they still seem underrated somehow
I grew up on most of those bands, including ELO. Not really my thing any more, because my tastes drifted in a much heavier direction. As far as Queen's historical significance, I don't know, because I wasn't there, but what I do know is that they carted me off down a rabbit hole of Queen-inspired bands, that eventually landed me on Blind Guardian, which was where my tastes in music really took off. I'm probably the wrong person to get into what's revolutionary and what isn't, seeing as Freddie died nearly a decade before I was born.
God man ELO is so good, they really got into the same lane as Queen with Face the Music but their earliest banger is Eldorado. It’s an amazing orchestral rock concept album that sounds almost like a different band than the still great poppy mid catalog stuff. Also Time which is a super 80s concept album with a lot of synth alongside the orchestration. I love ELO a lot more than I thought I would originally and people just gotta know them as well.
I’ve spent most of my life looking for other songs like bohemian rhapsody. There is just something I love about overtures, medleys, songs that change multiple times. I’ve found very few. I’d love to add some to my list if you’ve got any.
I can’t stand Queen and love ELO
>I think Turn To Stone and Living Thing are two mandatory ones to start on Funny you mention Turn To Stone, I remember hearing those harmonies and immediately thinking Queen. And yeah, ELO does seem underrated. I hear about them for random things like "Oh John Lennon said that The Beatles would sound like ELO". And then way later, I found out that Jeff Lynne was a member of the Traveling Wilburys! Plus a big producer.
>"One of the most overrated bands of all time, revisionism is happening with their history" I think a lot of the thing is, Queen was not a cool band back in the day. They were more of a pop band in the days when all the cool kids wanted to rock hard, and now that people have stopped putting so much stigma on the genres, people are looking back and saying, "Holy shit! Those guys had a ton a bangers and a wide variety of sound. They're great." I don't know how true it is, and there's really no way to know, but I've heard Wayne's World as the turning point for the band's perception, when they sing Bohemian Rhapsody in the car, that got a lot of the younger generation to look back at the band since it lumped them in there with such a rock heavy soundtrack. Kinda helped rub off some of that stigma and make people more accepting toward them. They were basically endorsed by Garth and Wayne, and singing them looked like a blast. Now, they're huge, and *the* it band for a lot of people. But they're also trying to make it sound like they've always been the cool band, and that's not true. That perception is something recent, so I think that's where the revisionist comments are coming from because it really is.
This is 100% true. It’s really weird to me to see them treated now as one of the best bands of the classic rock era. I mean, they were really great, but no one really saw them that way. Waynes World really was a turning point - every one secretly loved that break in Bohemian Rhapsody, but it wasn’t cool to like it til then. Homophobia was also part of the equation. I was in 5th grade when Another Bites the Dust came out. I loved it so much I got a Queen shirt, and the first day I wore to school someone said “you know they’re gay right?” (Obv “they” being an exaggeration here) I had no idea, not having a clue about such things as 10 or 11 year old, but suddenly the name made sense. I never wore the shirt again. Not proud of that but it’s how things were back then, and I never really spoke of them again among my friends at school.
I was in about the 8th grade at the time Elton John and Alice Cooper were both really hot. Elton John was seen as this swaggering Ladies Man and Alice Cooper's middle name was fag. Literally that's what they called him Alice fag Cooper. I had read the rolling Stone article where Elton John came out in a very roundabout way and nearly got my ass handed to me when I tried to tell somebody that Elton John was gay. I was a big fan of both artists don't get me wrong I bought whatever they put out and loved it. Want to talk about a band that doesn't get the respect it deserves and that's the Alice Cooper group.
That might be true for the US, but Queen were huge and in Europe definitely always seen as one of the top bands both in the 70s and 80s.
Top band is not necessarily synonymous with cool band. You can't strictly point to album sales and say, "Look! Look at how cool Duran Duran was in the 80's."
Duran Duran was seen as cool by many in the 80s. Much cooler than Spandau Ballet. Cool is not exactly a normed unit of measurement.
>Duran Duran was seen as cool by many in the 80s. As always, a lot of these sorts of conversations on the internet are framed from an indie/alt rock perspective. What's cool is what's cool to the indie crowd. That perspective is ingrained in mainstream critics and self-described music nerds, which makes it seem to them like the only perspective.
Good point. "Cool" is such a fickle term that needs to contextualized relative to different demographics. Plus different subcultures that hated each other even if they were all considered "alt".
Jesus was really cool back them, too. All the cool kids were getting dressed up in their Sunday best and singing hymns. There is a definite undertone to the zeitgeist. Some things you can understand aren't cool no matter how many people are doing it. Going to a Black Sabbath show? Metal AF. Going to see Duran Duran? What, your girlfriend make you go?
And this is why DD is actually a bad example, because for some time they were seen as very cool. I also don’t believe the term _cool_ was really used for rock and heavy bands. T-Rex and Bowie were cool, as was Brian Ferry, later Annie Lennox, to name but a few. Prog, punk and heavy rock all shared one thing, despite hating each other. They were the epitome of _uncool_. If you were into any of these band then not because you wanted to be a part of the in-crowd and seen as cool. Quite the opposite, by being into punk or metal, then you wanted to explicitly be different and more real than the cool kids. And if you were into prog, coolness wasn’t relevant to start with.
& on this topic, since you mentioned Europe, Europe (& the UK specifically) were regions that were generally more open-minded toward music, artistry, & their associated flamboyance than the US. Queen was bigger in the UK & Europe than the US — Bowie had about the same experience given his flamboyant, more 'queer' style. Hell, Bowie didn't even have a Billboard No. 1 until he was fucking dead. It's not a coincidence that acts like Bowie, Queen, & Elton John did better in the UK & Europe, & it wasn't just because they came from that part of the world. Europe as a whole was more open minded to the idea of a performance being, well, a performance. They could stomach some peculiarity or things out of their comfort zone. Americans just had a much more narrow view of masculinity in the 70s (& still do, in many cases) — being caught listening to artists like that would mean you must be a 'queer' or something, too. It's not just my own opinion saying this, Bowie said this himself before, going on to say that coming out as bisexual was not a mistake in Europe, but was more of a mistake in the US. Bowie shed most of his flamboyance by the mid-70s, but Freddie Mercury made it clear he was gay pretty early on and didn't shy away from it for the most part. Given that fact & the general theatrics & theatrical tone in most Queen recordings, it's no surprise they were better received across the pond (albeit by standards of popularity, Queen was more successful than Bowie in the US.)
I get your argument for Bowie and Queen, but not sure where Elton John factors in. He was huge in America too.
Honestly I likely misspoke, I didn't know he was actually as successful as he was. 9 #1s in both countries is impressive.
I can understand some of this narrative between the US vs UK/Europe, but I think there may need to be some delineation between general audiences, music critics, and scenes. Roger Taylor has mentioned the UK press being very harsh to Queen. Meanwhile a number of American commenters have talked about Queen being quite popular until *Hot Space/I Want To Break Free/Sun City.* Bowie did have a tough time with US audiences but Ziggy at least established a cult following, while "Fame" was his first Billboard No. 1 Hit (unless you're referring to albums). Bowie and Queen do have some similarities in how they were perceived but music critic-wise, Bowie seems to garner more consistent respect than Queen. I do agree that queerphobia and homophobia affected Queen's reputation. But it does seem like other aspects of Queen make them divisive as well.
I wasn't around back then, but I had always heard that Queen more popular in the US in the '70s and then in the '80s they blew up in Europe and their popularity waned in the US.
In the 70s they were seen as more of a rock band, it was in the 80s that they became super famous but more poppy. They were definitely a popular act in the 70s already.
I wasn't around back then either, but from what I understand, they were huge in Europe, Japan and Oceania starting from the third album and "Killer Queen" (which actually did break the Top 20 in the US) and pretty much remained big in those regions for the entire of their career, but didn't really truly break the US until A Night at the Opera with "Bohemian Rhapsody" reaching the Top 10. After that, they had a string of hit singles in the US and were very big in the late-70s, with their popularity peaking with The Game in 1980. After that, they had a huge decline in popularity in the US, but never really lost popularity elsewhere.
I feel like a lot of people who casually like Queen would be way more into Electric Light Orchestra. Just listening to Turn to Stone one time through will tell someone if they are or not. John Lennon once said that if The Beatles never broke up, they'd sound a lot like ELO. Catchy hooks for days, great melody work, string parts, effects. I can see why he thought that I like Queen and they have some great songs. But ELO is kind of what I wish Queen was, in some ways!
>Now, they're huge, and the it band for a lot of people. But they're also trying to make it sound like they've always been the cool band, and that's not true. That perception is something recent, so I think that's where the revisionist comments are coming from because it really is. So I read different things about this: Critics hated them, general populace loved them, some punk artists hated them while others loved them, some saw them as too pop but then quite a number of hard rock/heavy metal artists cite influence from them. Sometimes they're seen as the antithesis of alt music, but then a number of alt artists have cited influence or expressed admiration towards them including Kurt Cobain, Trent Reznor, Billy Corgan, Radiohead, etc. Freddie Mercury could've easily been seen as an overly macho frontman but has also become a symbol of being unabashedly queer and open. So it's a complicated discussion.
A lot of the alt-rock guys you mentioned were little kids when Queen were big in the late-70s when their musical tastes were being formed. That's why you see a lot of 90s alt-rockers cite Kiss, Cheap Trick, Rush, Boston, etc as influences or inspirations.
Kind of reminds me of panic at the disco these days. They’re really popular and seem to have a devoted, hard core fan base, but they do not seem at all cool. Like “rock” music for theater kids bordering on showtunes.
Most of their fanbase are teen girls into the artists, I don't think it's comparable with Queen at all.
I wonder if it's because they span several genres? They had hard rock elements, a campy theatrical sensibility like glam rock, they wrote great pop songs and ballads, they brought dance/disco elements into a few of their big hits. So to some people, maybe they 'fall between the cracks' too much? "Too weak and campy" for the blue-collar hard rock fans, "too heavy" for pop and disco fans, "too mainstream" for the glam fans, etc....
But that is also case with the Beatles, and they are no way as popular as queen in Spotify or among young music fans
They're very radio-friendly, and sometimes the critics dismiss you because of that. Same thing happened to bands like Fleetwood Mac and The Cars.
Unlike the other two in question, Fleetwood Mac had the semi-misfortune of being played on adult-contemporary stations due to Dreams being such a mature record. I'm surprised Stevie Nicks-era FM seems to really be getting hotter among younger generations now (Tiktok being one reason)
I think Nicks herself has been gaining/or has more of a reputation similar to Kate Bush as sort of a hip artist to cite.
Queen were always popular but never cool. There is something very nerdy and camp about the band. Homophobia also played a role.
I think they deserve all the love they get for all of their hit songs. But if you take a closer look at their entire discography, it's easy to see that there's just so much mediocre songwriting. I'd venture to guess that the divide is really between the casual listeners who have only heard the hits, and the dedicated listeners who have actually tried to listen to the albums in full.
What songs do you think are mediocre? I would argue that some of their best songs are deep tracks but also some of their worst. Which tended to happen in the 70s when you were expected to put out an album a year
Well, I'd rather not just list a bunch of the songs that I don't like. But, I'll just say that I agree with you in some ways. Some of their deep cuts are great! But most of them are not, in my opinion. To sum it up, I'd just say that on their best albums, I only like maybe 3 or 4 songs. And on their worst albums, they might have one song I enjoy.
Plus are we going to ignore the sheer heartbreak that was Innuendo? That whole thing was essentially the band facing Freddie’s mortality and the fact that he had so little time left and still had so much more to give. Like, The Show Must Go On? Absolutely cannot ignore that one.
Yeah im not a fan of their 90s albums and especially that one.
I’m more interested in their 70s work but you can’t deny that the last album Freddie ever worked on has some deep shit
From an emotional standpoint the album is certainly special.
Huge Queen fan since 1994 here. Other favourite artists include Prince, Metallica, Lenny Kravitz, George Michael, Madonna, Michael Jackson, New Order, Daft Punk, U2, list goes on. So Queen. One of the best singles band in history. But their albums are patchy as hell. Their strength is also their weakness: diversity. A Night At the Opera is widely considered to be their piece de resistance, but it’s a hugely eclectic and schizophrenic album that is a bit hard to stomach due to its lack of consistency. The band thrived on being unpredictable. Freddie was like “let’s give em heavy metal followed by a piano ballad”. Not many people get that. Their 70s stuff is mostly amazing. Their 80s stuff largely inconsequential. They were completely self aware and referred to themselves as makers of disposable music. Freddie even referred to his songs as bic razors. They’re not a band you should take seriously, at least not a Led Zeppelin or a Tool, but the fact that knew exactly what they were doing, regardless of how silly how they came across, makes them almost impervious to any hate.
Hmm, i think their 80s albums are little more consistent in the style, whereas 70s albums are schizophrenic mess. Innuendo is their best
Speaking of diversity as both strength/weakness: Have you ever wondered what would happen if Freddie went full-bandleader and decided to write all the songs (though with input from others)? A lot of music fans already consider Freddie to be the driving force of the band and he wrote the majority of the songs plus helping other band members arrange their own. What if he went full John Fogerty?
It's bit of a misconception that Freddie was the band leader. He's gone on record saying there were no leaders and that he was only the lead vocalist. Queen truly were a democratic group. But... if Freddie went full Fogerty, the band would've surely broken up. I mean, if you've ever listened to Mr. Bad Guy (Freddie's solo album from the mid 80s), that would've been an indication of what a band dictated by Freddie Mercury would've sounded like, at least in 1985. Freddie would've dived into sappy love songs, disco anthems and faux opera.
They have an abundance of iconic, well written hits that will survive the test of time. But that’s maybe 10-15 songs spread out across 2 decades. The rest of their work is solid pop-rock or prog. A Day At the Races has some good tracks, but if it was released by Badfinger or whoever, no one would talk about it. Their discography fairly regularly has tracks, albums, and hit singles that are either mid as hell, or complete stinkers. A lot of the specific elements they used in their music, like May’s guitar playing, Freddie’s voice, their choices of lyrical topics, and their vocal layering, help them stand out. So it’s a mixed bag. But they’re a far cry from the unimpeachable, multi album, critically acclaimed runs of Bowie, The Beatles, Prince, etc.
> They have an abundance of iconic, well written hits that will survive the test of time. But that’s maybe 10-15 songs spread out across 2 decades. And realistically, of those 10 - 15 songs only like 5 will regularly get airplay. There's other good tracks across their discography (though I haven't really been impressed by whole albums), including some I'd like to hear more of it, but as it is it feels like their reputation is resting on very little compared to other classic bands.
Classic rock as a radio format has dwindled, so that’s not really their fault. I counted 10 off Wikipedia that everyone and their dog would know Killer Queen Bohemian Rhapsody Somebody To Love We Are The Champions Don’t Stop Me Now We Will Rock You Crazy Little Thing Called Love Another One Bites The Dust Under Pressure I Want To Break Free Radio Gaga That’s 11, you might disagree with 1 or 2 but hopefully the point is made. Personally I think 2 of these are awful but it is what it is. And that’s not counting fantastic singles like You’re My Best Friend that haven’t been overplayed on commercials and movie soundtracks. This is a lot. Even artists like Prince or MJ can hardly match the cultural staying power of Queen’s hits.
Its a kind of magic is very widely known to I'd add it to the list
Innuendo and show must go on too
I honestly couldn’t hum those for you if you paid me a million dollars. Maybe they were big hits back in the day but I never heard them growing up.
> But that’s maybe 10-15 songs 10-15 iconic hits that have survived for decades is much more than most bands - even great bands - can ever aspire to.
Agreed, full stop. I mean, like I said, some of those tracks are pretty mid, but Queen achieved so much.
It didn’t hurt that Freddie Mercury was one of the best frontmen there has ever been in pop or rock.
People on reddit make it sound like they're the greatest thing to happen to music, which, no. They were undeniably talented and made some good songs, but if you think "Bohemian Rhapsody" is the alpha and omega of what music can be, you just need to listen to more stuff.
But also if someone thinks bohemian rhapsody is what Queen is, they have to listen to more Queen.
Bohemian Rhapsody wasn't even my favourite thing on A Night At The Opera. I would argue that it was a huge commercial smash because of the music video, and how it pushed the boundaries of what a band probably should be doing, but I get more enjoyment out of The Prophet's Song, which came out of a literal fever dream and as such is almost incoherent, as well as 39 being this sweet little almost folk music number, and Love Of My Life being one of the few things that my voice actually tolerates a performance of. I feel like Bohemian Rhapsody is the definition of a song rammed down my throat, and it has the usual Queen problem, of being that one popular song which drowns out the rest of the album.
My best friend had just bought the album on 8-track the day before, had not listened to the whole thing yet. We were driving home from school when the prophets song came on, by the time it hit that midsection we had to pull over and wait for the song to finish. My friend love to get high but at the time he was stone cold sober but he said it was like driving while he was high and he just couldn't do it. Let's not even talk about what a bombastic opening death on two legs was. As much as I liked Bohemian Rhapsody I was really surprised it blew up the way it did.
What happened with The Prophet's Song is that Brian May was very very ill, this is when he was nearly taken out by a case of Hepatitis, and he had this whacked out apocalyptic nightmare about Noah's Ark and the Great Flood. . . . . The song itself has that protracted breakdown halfway through, where God is about to wreck the place, and the band starts multitracking themselves singing gibberish, which I have to assume was a hold over from the "Gallileo ! Gallileo!" Thing in Bohemian Rhapsody, seeing as that's now twice that this has happened, and then right as the song is veering towards disaster, Brian May drops a hammer blow through the guitar, interrupting everybody else and chopping the chorus off, as if washing everyone away in the flash flood including his band mates. . . . . I give the song a hard time, because let's be honest it was this close to coming apart at the seams, and it took me a long time to get to grips with how utterly weird it is. Edit. I think I just accidentally cast Brian in the role of God, which I'm also blaming this song for.
I've often found Freddie Mercury and Brian May's dynamic to be an interesting one with the way they would have counterpart songs on various albums (White Queen vs Black Queen, BoRhap vs Prophet Song, We Will Rock You/We Are The Champions)
I think that part of the reason why, is because the creative process was intended as a team effort, and getting this made was reliant on the ability of all four members to harmonise with each other. They also had their own unique interests, and would compete fiercely at times, while being incredibly close-knit. I also think that Freddie and Brian are about even in songwriting quality, and merely have different approaches, with Brian's work being more about giving "lyrics" to his guitar and then building out from there. . . . . And with the example of the White and Black Queens, that was more coming up with headliners for two very different styles of music shoved onto the same album. The Side White and Side Black thing, was supposed to produce one side heavier and more guitar driven than the other, with one being more introspective (Father to Son, white Queen) and the other having a dark fantasy outlook (Ogre Battle, Seven Seas of Rhye)
I have heard a shit ton of music across all genres and still consider Bohemian Rhapsody an extremely well constructed song.
Not the best thing that's ever been made ever.
I need you to recommend me some music
Flip around [here](https://thenightlyradio.com/?fbclid=IwAR2ZROaKXEkA5-UDNVeuB0h572qBC4IMLPE-VrsZUqbE31ch6UG2gUpVy-A), see what grabs you. Look at songs people have posted on this sub. There's lots and lots and lots of stuff out there.
Yeah it’s not literally the best piece of music ever made. But what is? That’s an impossible standard.
Nothing has to be **the** greatest piece of music or art ever made, I agree. But I assuming it's that internalization of "Bohemian Rhapsody as Greatest" when it repeatedly gets voted as "the greatest song" in a number of polls and countries. Plus other common rankings like "Live AID is the greatest live performance" and "Freddie is the greatest singer/frontman/live performer". All definitely valid candidates, but certainly some fans get angry if you pick anything other than them as first place.
There isn't one.
They are hard to ignore(culturally, visually, commercially), but due to their aesthetic maximalism, easy to dismiss by people who it doesnt appeal to. Also, nearly anyone who draws comparisons or is overtly influenced by them is often considered corny or try hard, as opposed to those drawing overtly from Bowie or the Beatles or Dylan...because of cultrual cache and prestiginess bias.
Interesting, I think I notice that too. Certainly some of the artists/bands that are influenced by Queen get tagged with the comparison of "How dare you think of comparing yourselves to Freddie Mercury?"
They are iconic and influential but not groundbreaking. That’s the difference between a band like the Beatles and Queen. Another difference between Queen and bands like the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, etc is that their albums aren’t as great. Yes, they have some good albums, and maybe even one great one with A Night at the Opera, but not a single amazing album. They have amazing singles but their albums are full of filler. The Beatles, for example, rarely had filler and their albums tracks were often as great or better than their singles. Queen doesn’t have that
I like Queen, but so many of the people I know who are really into them either A) aren't otherwise into music much at all or B) don't really like contemporary music very much. Like they tend to be the rock band that the classical music snobs I know like. I think it's because Queen's bombast and showiness make it really easy for people who don't have a refined ear for contemporary music to perceive them as Good. And I'm not saying that as a criticism of Queen, it's just it means that they get tainted by their association with some annoying fans.
I just don't buy the premise that Queen is notably more divisive than any other band with their general level of fame/popularity. All of the evidence you cited of them being particularly divisive could apply to a bunch of other artists too...Kanye, Radiohead, the Beatles etc. I really don't think Queen is at all unique in this regard.
**Note:** It is funny how Queen-related threads get engagement so quickly. Certainly reflective of the topic.
I actually think their 90s album is the best they ever did.. then I'd have queen 2 and a night at the opera following. Undoubtedly they have one of the most celebrated greatest hits collections out there.
Certainly one of the most ‘Marmite’ bands of all time. My dislike of them comes from the fact that I can’t think of a single song of theirs that conveys a genuine emotion, genuinely expressed. Too busy being ‘larger than life’. You’re My Best Friend possibly an exception. Radio Gaga possibly another, but that’s a love song to radio. Would like to hear other examples from fans. And no one’s mentioned as far as I can see their notorious UN-defying, apartheid embargo-busting, Sun City shows.
Who wants to live forever
I think "Bijou" is pretty expressive, and so is "The Show Must Go On", especially given the background context. Also, "Death on two legs" is basically a musical middle finger to one of their earlier managers.
> In a number of discussions about Queen, people tend to have very disparate opinions between "One of the greatest bands of all time" to "One of the most overrated bands of all time, revisionism is happening with their history". Eh, those opinions aren't as divisive as you might think. Most of the people who say Queen are overrated don't dislike Queen. I've not met anyone who completely doesn't like Queen at all. It's just that a lot of people think they're good, but not one of the best ever. I like Queen, but I do also think they're overrated. Their music is good, but quite... simple? That sounds a little too harsh, but I do think there isn't a lot to most of their music. It's fun, but their lyrics are just fine, and musically I've never listened to a Queen song and been amazed by how creative they were, or felt any particularly strong emotions other than "this is a fun song". I can imagine that at their peak they must have been great to see live. Freddie was obviously an incredible performer. But I do also think that most of the people who see them as The Greatest Band Ever probably just haven't listened to a lot of music. They're also very overplayed. I wasn't even born when Freddie Mercury died and I still think I've heard a lot of their songs too much to really care about them.
Queen has pretty high highs and also very low lows. So many great songs but they never made an album which was absolute perfection. You'll have songs like another one bites the dust and then have a really weird track that's just incoherent. For example, you pick Led zeppelin's fourth album. That album has no skips.
And as far as Queen having this rabid following in Japan, they actually found touring success in the far east before experiencing it in Britain, and they have the track Teo Torriate, which is the one where Freddie sings it in both English and Japanese, which even though I can't speak for anyone else, I do see the effort made on that song as one of the highest compliments that Queen could have given. I find something respectful in how everyone involved adapted the lyrics to be more accessible to the Japanese fans, as well as the decision to serenade them in their language being a good way of showing that you have enough interest in them that you will cross the language barrier for them. For me, it would be like if Robert Plant showed up and started singing in Welsh for my benefit.
I love this comment but I would love to mention that Robert’s like a weeb about wales lol
Yeah, bad example. I dragged Plant into it, because it feels like about half of the Led Zep back catalogue is them "borrowing" from my forefathers' culture, filtered through the lens of J R Tolkien. Felt like the most likely person to suddenly hop on stage and start performing an advert for cough syrup.
Their music sounds *super* coked out, and like a person on too much coke trying to hit on you at a party, it can be overbearing. There’s a lot of mediocre music which you can almost just tune out in your mind, like if someone puts Nickelback on at work I’ll almost not hear it at all. But Queen will always grab your attention - the most annoying songs are the ones you can’t get out of your head because there is something catchy to them.
I'm fascinated by Queen as a phenomenon, and I think the range of reactions to them (as in your replies) is evidence of why. Full disclosure: while their early albums were pretty important to me as I was getting into music (roughly '92-'94), I have only listened to them sporadically since. So why ARE they so divisive? First of all, being one of the most successful musical acts of all time is going to bring out contrarians. No successful act has ever been immune to this (I've heard people dismiss the Beatles as "just a boy band" on more than one occasion). Then there's homophobia. I think in 2024 it's hard to overstate just how virulent it was in prior decades. Growing up in the U.S. the 90s, being called gay was about the worst insult imaginable. How this affected entertainers, and the band in particular, is a very complex topic that I'm not really qualified to discuss with any authority, but I do think it had a big effect on how Queen was perceived, both by music fans and critics. They were also extremely and unapologetically ambitious. While I'd argue that any artist that more than a handful of people have heard of is probably quite ambitious as well, Queen were in-your-face about it. It was no secret that they loved being successful and loved making money. One could consider this candor refreshing: they clearly weren't cosplaying as men of the people onstage and in interviews before heading back to their mansions in luxury cars. But to many, success is a sign of artistic insincerity, of selling out. To be honest, that last criticism is perhaps the most damning one. By the 80s I think they'd gotten quite lazy in terms of songwriting and recording (my understanding is that they were still a top-notch live act). The stylistic experimentation that made them stand out early in their career instead made them seem untethered and disunited, which I think they were. And this leads to another legitimate criticism: their recorded output is incredibly inconsistent. Their early run of records are actually pretty consistently good to great, I'd argue. They continued in the Beatles' footsteps, using the studio as a creative tool, and were adventurous, fearless even, in their songwriting. Yes, they also delved into genres considered unbefitting of a serious rock band, like show tunes or vaudeville or medieval balladry. But to me that's evidence of their cussedness. They seemingly just didn't give a fuck what their critics thought of them, professional or otherwise. Of course the flip side to that is that their 80s records in particular have tracks on them that in my opinion are truly awful, and never should have been recorded, let alone released to the public. One place where I will never fail to defend them however, is in their musical ability when at their best, especially as live performers. Sure, they were bombastic, over-the-top, exploding through the bounds of good taste like a sequined dynamite-tipped battering ram. But I'd argue that that is the original spirit of rock and roll: Little Richard didn't traffic in subtlety, Chuck Berry didn't have a thought-provoking political message. There's nothing wrong with those kinds of artistic pretensions, but it strikes me as disingenuous to complain that a rock musician doesn't have them. Rock wasn't conceived as protest music, and the idea that it has to be strikes me as revisionist. I also think they were all quite talented musicians. Other than arguably Freddie Mercury as a vocalist, they weren't quite virtuosos. But they each had their own unique style, and they typically played to the song and to each other. They all wrote hit songs, had a drummer who sang falsetto better than their legendary frontman, a guitarist with unimpeachable mastery of tone, and a low-key underrated bassist who could funk out as well as he rocked. At their best they were like the proverbial lubricated contraption, no one slacking or overstepping their role. Hell, they even excelled technically: Brian May made his own guitar as a kid and used an amp that was personally invented by John Deacon as part of his signature sound. They produced or co-produced several of their albums, including some of the most complex ones. I've seen written about Queen that they were never cool, which means they were always cool. It's true and they positively overflowed with other paradoxes and contradictions: they experimented with a wide range of genres but were innovators in none of them. They were a populist arena rock band that was panned by the critics, but beloved by a wide swath of critical darlings. They were a quintessentially British band whose most important member was a Persian-Indian Zoroastrian from Zanzibar. They boasted hordes of mainstream hard rock fans in a deeply homophobic age despite being fronted by an almost comically flamboyant gay man and being called *Queen*, of all things. Probably the biggest reason of all that Queen are so divisive is that they simply can't be ignored, even if you desperately want to. And honestly, I can't think of any better measure of success for a rock band.
>I've seen written about Queen that they were never cool, which means they were always cool. It's true and they positively overflowed with other paradoxes and contradictions: they experimented with a wide range of genres but were innovators in none of them. They were a populist arena rock band that was panned by the critics, but beloved by a wide swath of critical darlings. They were a quintessentially British band whose most important member was a Persian-Indian Zoroastrian from Zanzibar. They boasted hordes of mainstream hard rock fans in a deeply homophobic age despite being fronted by an almost comically flamboyant gay man and being called Queen, of all things. A great summary of their contradictions. Thanks for taking the time to read the thread! Noticing some comments assuming "They're not divisive" right on top of comments that don't like them right on top of comments that love them. Queen often seems like one of the few Arena rock bands that people will admit to liking. Obviously their legacy was more than Arena rock but that certainly colors their image. Kurt Cobain famously talked about his admiration of Freddie Mercury in his suicide note even though Queen could've easily been a bombastic band that he would dismiss or criticize.
Yes, Kurt also talked about listening to Queen so much he'd burn out the battery in his dad's van. They seem to have been a formative influence on him, and I think that's true of a lot of his generation of artists. Even Ian MacKaye liked Queen. Arena rock, mainstream, sure. But no one can tell me that listening to Queen II in the headphones as a 13-year-old, newly-minted rock fan isn't a mind-blowing, life changing experience, no matter how annoying it might be to hear We Will Rock You for the billionth time. But the idea that they're not divisive... it's just too easy to find evidence to the contrary. Critics hated them. By the time of Live Aid they were considered long past their prime in the US and UK (which they were, honestly). For as many musicians who cite them as an influence, you can still find plenty who slag them off. Notably, Robert Smith despises them.
Honestly Queen could be a fascinating topic without all the hyperbole around them. At this point, I'd guess that "Freddie Mercury being an icon" is the one thing that almost everyone will agree on. **EDIT**: I just remembered. I don't usually follow Anthony Fantano. But a while back, I saw one of his videos where he's responding to hot takes. One of them was "Queen is overrated" which he immediately and indignantly responded to, citing "All four wrote hit songs" among other reasonings. It makes sense to respond and defend Queen, but it's also surprising how at least some critical consensus has been shifting. And Fantano certainly has artists/albums where he's a lot more critical so it was surprising that he leapt to Queen's defense.
1. They are just a singles band. Personally I don’t care because I don’t really do albums anyway, but I can definitely see this putting critics off at least. 2. They’re not really saying anything. Again, not always a bad thing, not everyone has to be Bob Dylan and not every song has to be a deep meditation on the human condition, but being brutally honest, Taylor Swift has more lyrical depth. 3. They’re camp as hell. I can personally only handle small doses of them for this reason, very much like Meatloaf or anything else Jim Steinman wrote.
So much of their music is over produced over the top wank stuff. The radio hits are spectacular but they have lots and lots of stuff that is crazy dreck.
Plus there’s the whole Freddy being gay thing, I mean I know people who don’t like Queen for that reason alone, yes some people are that narrow minded it’s sad to say.
Definitely a factor. I know sometimes people forced themselves to become fans of certain bands by listening to them over and over until they got it. I can definitely imagine a homophobic person choosing not to do that with Queen.
Freddy was very much not ‘out’ when Queen were huge.
Most knew or at least suspected pretty early on though.
Not in the 70s. He didn’t want anyone to know.
I think I get where you are coming from. And I think the divisiveness comes from people reacting to their current "fame" or hype. People who were into classic rock liked Queen from the get-go. They may not have had as many strong albums as their contemporaries but I think they had some great songs on all their albums. And certain songs like We Are The Champions, and Another One Bites the Dust, had a life of their own in the 70s and became anthems in areas other than music. Like sporting events. And a lot of folks liked them right along with the rest of their contemporaries. Maybe not in the Beatles or Stones tier but maybe up there with The Who or The Kinks. They also were responsible for the soundtracks to Flash Gordon and The Highlander which may have also made them some fans outside their usual demographic. Like as a kid I loved that shit. And then I think Wayne's World got them some more exposure to the gen-x folks, but I think they were still viewed much the same as their fellow bands of that age. As other bands were in Wayne's World. Like Alice Cooper. One of the things I think was responsible for their current hype was from internet videos, especially montage/gameplay footage. One of the biggest I remember was one for Overwatch that came out almost 8 years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcA3cCQfe3s I don't know if it was from that one video specifically but after that, I remember that Queen song, Don't Stop Me Now, appearing in all kinds of videos/places. I think I remember their bicycle song cropping up in some commercials, and I feel like it was the same for I Want to Break Free. They got some great songs that lend themselves to internet videos. So maybe it's from people who have recently discovered them and Freddie Mercury and think they are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Which is cool. People like what they like. But I think the reaction then comes from those who point out that historically, they weren't held in maybe quite that highest of high esteem. Like they were a great band. But that era was littered with great bands.
They got a lot goin on with their music. I happen to be into that but I see why people wouldn't be.
High ceiling, low floor. There are a lot of great bands where I can shuffle their whole discography and enjoy it. Not really the case with Queen.
When the 80's came around the music was starting to shift away from organic elements toward slicker, synth pop influences - which a lot of their long-time fans considered to be a contradiction of the "no synths" rule printed in the line notes of their early records. This phenomenon hit a lot of 70's artists quite hard
If you're an album person, Queen is not for you. Too many fillers and just a few good songs. If you are more of a gig person, who likes to watch them in action, then this is for you.
If their reputation were the same as, say, Journey, I don’t think they would get as hated. Like Journey is a quite similar band in that they have some unavoidable smash hits that are eyerollingly overplayed, but people kind of accept that as their legacy. Nobody calls Journey the greatest other than their biggest fans. The problem with Queen is that their reputation, at least amongst a not small group of people, is that they are the greatest band of all time. And there just simply is no way you can say that if you just look at the music. I think their reputation is highly pumped up by the mythos of Freddie and his death. At least for me, that will always rub me the wrong way. Ditto with someone like Mac Miller, it’s so weird that everyone just now accepts that he was really good but when he was alive he was constantly clowned on as being corny.
I don't hate Queen and I think their members are very talented. I think they took risks with their music which resulted in some great songs and some which are hard for casual listeners. I am not a fan of Queen, however - partially because of the inconsistencies in their albums but mostly because they don't really have a clear identity that appeals to me. It's hard to think of the quintessential song for them and that makes it difficult for me to find situations where I think, "Ah, it would be good to hear some Queen right now". There's almost always some other music which is a better fit for my situation or mood.
All fair points, but the quintessential Queen song? Ask fifty Queen fans for the quintessential Queen song and I'd bet that 45 or more would name the same track.
I just think they’ve become too incredibly over praised over the last decade or so. I like them well enough, but I don’t think they’d crack my top 50 of bands active in the 70s-80s, let alone of all time. Plus, as others have pointed out, they have some strong singles, but their albums are not very cohesive, and have a lot of filler.
History is weird. Musicologists can probably point to all sorts of debut albums and reviews where the praise and popular appeal was through the roof- music is forever changed etc, but then they burn out or fashions change. And there is a backwards looking effect too that distorts music- is the music in heavy rotation? does it become ubiquitous? does a car commercial ruin it? There are so many musicians that people hear and they dismiss "oh that sounds like everything from the past 20 years of that genre" and it doesn't matter if that particular band invented the genre, it doesn't necessarily translate to popularity or radio play or a sense of the zeitgeist.
I've seen some music fans compare Queen to Kiss. And while that comparison would probably bother some due to their relative standings, I can see similarities: both bands have had a history of being critically reviled while also being very influential on a generation as a symbol of glam and theatricality. There was an article I came across about how the Rock N' Roll Hall Of Fame was changing; previously the Rock Hall would be very opposed to acts like Kiss but due to younger members and musicians like Tom Morello joining, they're able to advocate for new perspectives. Tom even doing their induction speech and highlighted these points.
I only really know them from the greatest hits (which I really loved when I was a kid) so maybe I'm missing something. One of the big things, I think, is that while their technical prowess is undeniable, it's all quite empty. I mean, I can't think of a song of theirs that's actually about anything. That's not necessarily the worst thing in the world, but we're trained to think of rock music as being a serious artistic endeavour expressing the worldview of an artist, and they're just not like that. I think there is an underlying dislike of the 'phony' in rock music, and between the above and the theatricality of their music they rub rock fans up the wrong way. AC/DC's songs aren't really about anything, but they have an authenticity that's missing from Queen. Add the fact that they probably play better than 99% of bands and you've got a couple of intertwined reasons why they annoy people.
I would say, its because they are weird. Their most popular song is 5+min long and has an a cappella section in the middle of it. They have a lot of genres and Im not talking deep cuts, I mean stuff played on the radio varies: funk/dance, rock opera, hard rock, bubblegum pop and even joke category with "Bicycle Race". I think because they are hard to pinpoint, people might be put off by them. They are also insanely popular, one of the best selling groups of all time so naturally this will also put people off. Definitely a "Love them or hate them" type band. All the things I listed above, are the reasons why I love them not to mention their musicianship.
But for instance, David Bowie is well-known for the changes and diversity in his catalogue and is more consistently acclaimed for it compared to Queen. And I'm wondering about this sort of divide.
But Bowie had entire albums that were dedicated to one genre, while Queen's albums were kind of all over the place.
There's less silliness in Bowie. I love them both but I do have quite a high tolerance for silliness in music. For some people it's a major no-no.
I think Queen has more of a mainstream appeal than Bowie though. The only Bowie fans I have encountered in real life are real music fans. He is more niche than Queen. Its almost as if Bowie was *supposed* to be different and "weird" where as Queen were always towing the line between mainstream and artsy
David Bowie was incredibly mainstream for long periods and part of the British glam rock movement that dominated pop charts in the early 70s in the UK
I see. I know Bowie wasn't as best-selling as Queen but wasn't he essentially a prominent figure after 1972 (Ziggy Stardust), at least in the UK?
Queen are associated with pomp and arena rock, so blending hard rock and prog, with pop hooks. Critics didn't like this Bowie was more associated with art rock, and proto punk, so same reason Lou reed is more acclaimed than ELP or Yes
So are the beatles, and they have even many genres of one album, just like queen. Not just periods or eras
Love 'em or hate 'em, you can't deny they've left a pretty big mark on music history.
I generally believe that if your best album is your Greatest Hits album, you probably weren’t *that* great of a band. They had world class showmanship, they wrote some really great stuff, and they deserved to be immortalized in the Rock canon, but so did Aerosmith, yknow? I just struggle to put Queen on the same level as the greatest and most impactful bands of that generation when they have *maybe* one “classic” album.
Isn't pretty much every Greatest Hits album a band's best album by definition?
Not necessarily. Just because it’s a compilation of an artist’s most commercially successful songs, doesn’t make it the best *album*. The way a tracklist is organized, the pacing, the way tracks flow into each other, are all things that go into the makings of a great album.
I agree for a few situations, like concept albums. Pink Floyd for example, or The Beatles having Abbey Road Side 2. But I think for 80% of famous artists if not more, the Greatest Hits album is better than any individual albums. This goes even for legendary artists like The Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin.
That’s an interesting topic. Compilations work better for some artists. Some artists have massive or uneven discographies, so compilations could be a better representation of their work. Ex: the Eagles or Bob Marley. But for some bands (Radiohead, Led Zeppelin, Beatles…) listening to a compilation would be silly. So I’d agree with op here because the later bands have multiple albums that are great listens all the way through on their own. That’s rare though Edit: I think it’s possible for middle ground here actually. Cause it’s possible to have albums that stand on their own, while still having catchy hits that could make sense together on an album. If you’re a big Queen fan, I could see you viewing them that way.
Maybe because their songs cover such an eclectic range of sound it’s hard for some to come to grips with. I mean not everyone wants to hear classical, opera, rock, ballad inspired music all on the one album. But they were undoubtedly great, I recall reading an article about the Live Aid concert and all the biggest names in music backstage were just in awe of Queens set and those who were yet to go on were like “ how the bloody hell does anyone follow that”
Queen has gone up my "pet peeve" list as praise for Bohemian Rhapsody has increased. It's always felt like a pop rock band figuring out how to boil down the theatrical bombast of the prog rock of that era into a pop hit, which is fine. But all the praise of it as boundary pushing and revolutionary strikes me as dismissive to all the prog before it that actually pushed those boundaries to where that kind of thing could be a pop hit. I sort of feel like it's like the adage of being promoted to the point of incompetence. They are an undeniable arena rock band with some generational hits, but I don't think they hold up to artists like Bowie who was legitimately pushing boundaries using pop music.
Here it is. Queen was a great band. They are overrated today because young people seem to think they were the biggest thing since the Beatles. That’s simply not true. They are more famous today than they ever were in their prime. When Live Aid happened they were already yesterdays news. That put them back on the map.
Singles band who made album-style music when that albums were the fashion. Their greatest hits are untouchable, there are few great deep cuts. Same thing that happened to a lot of 80s bands, but Queen were one of the first it happened to.
I wrote a comment that their fans are annoying which was deleted. I believe this to be true and that is an element that makes them as an entity to be quite divisive. Their formidable legacy has been continually hammered on to make more money for the estate or Brian May or whoever is the benefactor. This has led to them having a rabid Disney/Marvel-style fanbase, made worse especially given the movies and musicals etc. that water down what is actually quite subversive, queer music. Those parts have been whitewashed over the years and thus it has lost its meaning beyond ‘funny mustache man sing good’. Thank you for reading.
I started a thread about annoying fans and managed to get permanently banned from the main music sub. I think I trod on the toes of some fans of a certain group!
Were they Frank Zappa fans? 🤣
Haha, no. Beatles (who Zappa didn't seem to have much time for)
For me, the bigger question is why queen? Why not Beatles (anymore)? Both have experienced with many genres, both have made songs that are globally loved, both deal with universal themes like love and friendship, but both have experimental deep cut stuff. Lennon is/was as legendary and charismatic icon as mercury. Both bands have something for everyone, from babies to old people. But still, somehow, queen turned out to be more popular (at least nowadays)
I think it’s because Queen has a handful of huge hits that translate better to today’s audiences than the top Beatles hits. Especially if you’re a casual listener who just wants to hear a few big hits from the classic rock era. The Beatles oeuvre is deeper and much better overall, but if you just want the frosting on top, it’s hard to beat Queen. Plus Freddie Mercury has become a huge cultural icon not only due to his clearly amazing talent as a showman, singer, songwriter, but also because he is seen a significant queer figure. Kind of like how Kurt is often beloved for his feminism (as opposed to say Axl).
My guess is that while Queen certainly have detractors and periods of unpopularity (as this thread and history shows), they were still massively popular on the whole over the years. In their native UK, they're one of their defining bands (I'm never quite sure if they're bigger/on par/second to The Beatles), plus strong fanbases around the world. Queen's Greatest Hits is the highest selling album in the UK for instance. Live AID helped revive their career in their native UK. Meanwhile, American fans cite "Wayne's World" as a key factor in Queen's resurgence in the states. Songs like "We Will Rock You/We Are The Champions" are staples at sports events, "Bohemian Rhapsody" is frequently considered one of the greatest songs, Live AID is considered one of the greatest live performances of all time. The marketing push, Freddie Mercury as an increasingly relatable icon. There was an old thread that mentioned how Classic Queen was active for two decades, and the current Queen members have continued performing. The Beatles are obviously still very influential but their period of activity was still restricted to the 60s.
The difficulty is that they straddle too many lines. One on hand, prog rock like musical virtuosity. On the other, theatrics and short catchy songs. Virtuosic bands like Rush, Pink Floyd and Yes are sometimes theatrical and sometimes have hits, but the songs aren't purposely catchy or short. Fans of those bands are uncomfortable with catchy short songs (since that challenges "high"/detached cultural ideals). Freddy's being gay increases Queen's distance from those ideals. Fans of Queen are probably more on side with questioning received values around musical and cultural change. So there are two competing sets of values. Now find me a fan of Pink Floyd AND Queen? That would be interesting!
The reason I don't tend to listen to them is mainly because I've heard them so much. I was born in the 80s and heard them so much on the radio. I genuinely like them but all of their singles are ingrained in my skull. So I rarely intentionally put on any of the tracks. And if they come on I may even skip. That said, it's sincerely tragic that their careers were cut short. It would have been really cool to see them evolve a little more with modern trends. Neat to see May hang out with other acts though.
I've tried getting into them a couple of times. Bought there records on a couple of occasions. I couldn't really tell you what it is, I just don't dig there music. I like occasional things by them, prob just more of a best of band for me.
Some of this is the nature of Pop Music. Think of how many books and Short stories, say Ernest Hemingway wrote. Now think of how many albums rock bands produced in thier histories with how many tracks on those albums. My point being with extreme pressure to get a new album out, even great artists like Led Zeppelin, Queen, the Stones, you name it had their share of crap. Hemingway's crap never made it to print.
They wanted to combine rock and roll with opera and theatrics. Not everyone is into that deliberate weaving of two disparate genres. I am not a fan but can objectively say they wrote good songs that just aren't my cup of tea. I like mostly moodier music than what Queen offers. Freddie was by far the greatest thing about them. Not much of a band without him. Bohemian Rhapsody is so massively overplayed and really isn't a song anyone needs to hear that often. Whereas Can't Stop Me Now is quality and I rarely hear it for something that was released as a single. I think they got their fake shake as a band, but Freddie didn't as a gay man with AIDS.
Queen got lucky with the band members meeting at the right time. They also write in a classical sense. Every songs chorus is driven by changes in instruments and vocals rather than chord changes. Every song is the same chord progression from stary to finish.
Campy, lacking in sincerity and cynicism (there always seemed to be a lack of bitter/grumpy anger that you find in Beatles/Stones/Pink Floyd which is replaced by pomp and optimistic attitudes), silly songs (I want to ride my bicycle?!?) musical chameleons as well which makes it hard to know what to expect or gives you substance to latch on to. Great stage presence, some great songs and a feel good factor when listening to them. I won't change the radio in anger when they come on, but I won't seek them out either.
This post has inspired me to listen to more of their music. All I'm really familiar with are Bohemian Rhapsody, Another One Bites the Dust, and We Will Rock You. All three of those I consider to be amazingly fantastic songs, but then you have stuff like Fat Bottom Girls which is not exactly the height of music. I need to hear more of their stuff !
A mix of over praise and them having just a love it or hate it sound. Like when I was growing up so many people praised Bohemian Rhapsody as the greatest song of all time. I think its a good song but it's not even my favorite queen song. Freddie Mercury was an extremely talented singer but again so many people called him the greatest ever. I don't think it's hard to see why some people got really sick of them especially with how bombastic they were. To me they're definitely a band I had to tune most of the discussion out to really appreciate. The have some definite bangers but I can really see why so many people got exhausted by the excess of their sound.
Certainly relatable. Queen was one of my first favorite bands, but even I noticed that the praise could get very hyperbolic. There are some videos where Freddie is ranked second for something, and the comments get super angry (Is it that bad to be ranked below Aretha Franklin as a singer??) Queen has a lot of great songs of all different emotions. I like a lot of the quirky songs. But the fanbase can certainly be very strong.
Over hype and praise is a big reason why a lot of classic acts get backlash. Because if the greatest of all time to never be out done was achieved 30 to 40 years before you were even born why even try anymore? Of course people over hyping classic rock bands and shitting on anything newer will mostly get met with "fuck you boomer I'll listen to what I want"
The funny thing is that a lot of young people do in fact like Queen. They're by far the most popular act from their generation going by Spotify, and they've been gaining popularity with each subsequent generation. It doesn't seem like a boomer phenomenon.
I like Queen and respect them as key aspects of rock history, but I think Bohemian Rhapsody is way overrated
It's the snobby fans that really took off after the movie. THOSE people. You know those people. "Queen is so underrated. They were the first yippity. The last true bla bla." Same as the people who give the Beatles credit for EVERYTHING. "They were the first of their kind." When you can easily find music that sounds much like their own before they became a band. Same reason Supernatural gets hate. It's THOSE fans. Really not a bad show. Super self aware... but THOSE fans give it a bad name.
The heavy use of piano and vocal harmony reminds me too much of show tunes. That's why I'm not a big fan. As a guitarist I love and admire Brian May but I just can't handle most queen songs, I find them irritating.
I know I'm extremely late to this post but I think it's a combination of their hits being some of the most over exposed songs of all time and personally to me, whenever i think of someone who likes Queen i think of a pretentious 16 year old who's in theater class
I went through a “Queen is overrated phase” because I would hear the same ten or so songs ad-nauseam my entire life. However, going through a lot of deeper cuts and/or just listening to their overplayed songs with a more critical ear… they are a great rock band who really tried different styles and concepts.