Well, my two cents as a Queen fan. It's not about sexuality nor is it about anything as specific as what Sally mentioned. It's another in a long line of "Let's come together as one and take care of each other" songs. Queen have a ton of them ("One Vision", "The Miracle", "Is This The World We Created?", "Innuendo", Freddie's solo song "There Must Be More To Life Than This",etc). More or less generic comments on the human condition that have always been and always will be albeit with a utopian dream.
Queen rarely tackled specific social causes. They have an anti-nukes song "Hammer To Fall" and not one but TWO anti-suicide songs ("Don't Try Suicide" and "Keep Passing The Open Windows". Towards the end of Freddie's life the songs started to deal with mortality ("Was It All Worth It", "The Show Must Go One") for obvious reasons.
You'll hear more specific comments on war, poverty, religion in drummer Roger Taylor's solo work with the band The Cross.
| Site Announcements | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
View the results of the New Wave Outpost 20th Anniversary Top Songs Poll here: http://www.nwoutpost.com/poll/results Coming Soon: Top Albums Poll. Stay tuned! Welcome to the new forum! If you are a previously registered user, you must do the following: 1) Click on 'I forgot my password' at the login prompt 2) Enter your username and email you registered with and submit 3) You will receive an email with an activation link. Please click it and then log in using the random password provided 4) Go to your User Control Panel and click on the Profile tab 5) Click on 'Edit Account Settings' and enter your new password twice followed by the random password provided earlier. Click Submit. 6) That's it...you're back in! You may have to log in again with your new password. If you forgot your email address, please email me (MikeP) at: mikepaulsen12@gmail.com Note: you must now use bb code buttons in the Post form for embedded images, YouTube videos, etc. For example, to post embedded YouTube videos: paste in the link (e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?XYZ1234567), highlight it and then click the YouTube button. |
Two Kermits Perform "Under Pressure"
31 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
by ghosty » Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:55 am
And for what it's worth, Freddie Mercury was not the chief lyricist for Queen. Songwriting was split evenly between the four of them and then the lyrics and music had to be agreed upon by committee. Most of Queen's biggest hits weren't written by Freddie (usually John Deacon and Roger Taylor had the best luck at that).
Case in point: "I Want To Break Free" which a lot of people think is Freddie's anthem of gay/bisexual empowerment but he didn't write it. John Deacon, straight and happily married, wrote that song. The video had all the band members dressing in drag and people in the U.S. put two and two together and came to that concIusion. In fact, the band were parodying popular characters on the U.K. soap opera "Coronation Street" but since Americans didn't know what that was they made a leap in logic and were wrong. Something that visibly ticked Freddie off in interviews at the time.
In South America it was interpreted as an anthem against government oppression (much to the surprise of the band who were booed off the stage at the Rock In Rio festival when they approached the song less than seriously). But that's the joy in these kinds of songs. You can apply them to any situation really.
Yeah, one of my fave bands back in day. Can ya tell? [:D]
Case in point: "I Want To Break Free" which a lot of people think is Freddie's anthem of gay/bisexual empowerment but he didn't write it. John Deacon, straight and happily married, wrote that song. The video had all the band members dressing in drag and people in the U.S. put two and two together and came to that concIusion. In fact, the band were parodying popular characters on the U.K. soap opera "Coronation Street" but since Americans didn't know what that was they made a leap in logic and were wrong. Something that visibly ticked Freddie off in interviews at the time.
In South America it was interpreted as an anthem against government oppression (much to the surprise of the band who were booed off the stage at the Rock In Rio festival when they approached the song less than seriously). But that's the joy in these kinds of songs. You can apply them to any situation really.
Yeah, one of my fave bands back in day. Can ya tell? [:D]
- ghosty
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1892
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:37 am
- Location: USA
by SallyLightfoot » Fri Oct 08, 2010 10:23 am
[quote][i]Originally posted by ghosty[/i]
<br>Well, my two cents as a Queen fan. It's not about sexuality nor is it about anything as specific as what Sally mentioned. It's another in a long line of "Let's come together as one and take care of each other" songs. Queen have a ton of them ("One Vision", "The Miracle", "Is This The World We Created?", "Innuendo", Freddie's solo song "There Must Be More To Life Than This",etc). More or less generic comments on the human condition that have always been and always will be albeit with a utopian dream.
Queen rarely tackled specific social causes. They have an anti-nukes song "Hammer To Fall" and not one but TWO anti-suicide songs ("Don't Try Suicide" and "Keep Passing The Open Windows". Towards the end of Freddie's life the songs started to deal with mortality ("Was It All Worth It", "The Show Must Go One") for obvious reasons.
You'll hear more specific comments on war, poverty, religion in drummer Roger Taylor's solo work with the band The Cross.[/quote] "Let's come together as one and take care of each other" may sound generic, but it's an inherently sociopolitical and leftist statement (its right-wing/libertarian antithesis would be something like "Good fences make good neighbors; we are not our brother's keepers.").
While there's nothing specific about the pressure that "splits a family in two" and "puts people on streets", it is certainly consistent with the upheaval of the Thatcher years. Only about a zillion UK bands at that time wrote songs with similar themes and messages (see Clash, Gang of Four, English Beat, Chameleons etc.).
<br>Well, my two cents as a Queen fan. It's not about sexuality nor is it about anything as specific as what Sally mentioned. It's another in a long line of "Let's come together as one and take care of each other" songs. Queen have a ton of them ("One Vision", "The Miracle", "Is This The World We Created?", "Innuendo", Freddie's solo song "There Must Be More To Life Than This",etc). More or less generic comments on the human condition that have always been and always will be albeit with a utopian dream.
Queen rarely tackled specific social causes. They have an anti-nukes song "Hammer To Fall" and not one but TWO anti-suicide songs ("Don't Try Suicide" and "Keep Passing The Open Windows". Towards the end of Freddie's life the songs started to deal with mortality ("Was It All Worth It", "The Show Must Go One") for obvious reasons.
You'll hear more specific comments on war, poverty, religion in drummer Roger Taylor's solo work with the band The Cross.[/quote] "Let's come together as one and take care of each other" may sound generic, but it's an inherently sociopolitical and leftist statement (its right-wing/libertarian antithesis would be something like "Good fences make good neighbors; we are not our brother's keepers.").
While there's nothing specific about the pressure that "splits a family in two" and "puts people on streets", it is certainly consistent with the upheaval of the Thatcher years. Only about a zillion UK bands at that time wrote songs with similar themes and messages (see Clash, Gang of Four, English Beat, Chameleons etc.).
- SallyLightfoot
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:52 am
- Location:
by SallyLightfoot » Fri Oct 08, 2010 10:33 am
Perhaps of interest:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_Pressure" target="yowza">[b]Under Pressure[/b]</a>
The final version that became "Under Pressure" evolved from a jam session the band had with Bowie at his studio in Montreux, Switzerland, therefore it was credited as co-written by the five musicians. According to Queen bassist John Deacon (as quoted in a French magazine in 1984), however, the song's primary musical songwriter was Freddie Mercury — though all contributed to the arrangement.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_Pressure" target="yowza">[b]Under Pressure[/b]</a>
The final version that became "Under Pressure" evolved from a jam session the band had with Bowie at his studio in Montreux, Switzerland, therefore it was credited as co-written by the five musicians. According to Queen bassist John Deacon (as quoted in a French magazine in 1984), however, the song's primary musical songwriter was Freddie Mercury — though all contributed to the arrangement.
- SallyLightfoot
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:52 am
- Location:
by ghosty » Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:08 am
[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by ghosty[/i]
<br>Well, my two cents as a Queen fan. It's not about sexuality nor is it about anything as specific as what Sally mentioned. It's another in a long line of "Let's come together as one and take care of each other" songs. Queen have a ton of them ("One Vision", "The Miracle", "Is This The World We Created?", "Innuendo", Freddie's solo song "There Must Be More To Life Than This",etc). More or less generic comments on the human condition that have always been and always will be albeit with a utopian dream.
Queen rarely tackled specific social causes. They have an anti-nukes song "Hammer To Fall" and not one but TWO anti-suicide songs ("Don't Try Suicide" and "Keep Passing The Open Windows". Towards the end of Freddie's life the songs started to deal with mortality ("Was It All Worth It", "The Show Must Go One") for obvious reasons.
You'll hear more specific comments on war, poverty, religion in drummer Roger Taylor's solo work with the band The Cross.[/quote] "Let's come together as one and take care of each other" may sound generic, but it's an inherently sociopolitical and leftist statement (its right-wing/libertarian antithesis would be something like "Good fences make good neighbors; we are not our brother's keepers.").
While there's nothing specific about the pressure that "splits a family in two" and "puts people on streets", it is certainly consistent with the upheaval of the Thatcher years. Only about a zillion UK bands at that time wrote songs with similar themes and messages (see Clash, Gang of Four, English Beat, Chameleons etc.).
[/quote]
It can be interpreted that way in the same way "All You Need Is Love" can. It could also be something that was thrown together quickly without much thought going into it (Bowie has complained about the lyrics being generic and rushed in interviews).
I do think, however, you're really overreaching with thematic comparisons to the Clash, Gang Of Four, English Beat, Chameleons. Queen's mission statement was always to make a grandiose statement that could appeal to as many people as possible. They also wrote "I Want It All". Is that their love letter to right-wingers and libertarians? I doubt it. They also have a few songs that are the antithesis of "Under Pressure"'s message. They sang of "one true religion" as an answer to the world's problems in "One Vision" and later sang "our lives dictated by false religion" on "Innuendo". So which is it?
Prior to that they had a lot of songs about fairies, elves and goblins but I doubt they were really into Tolkien.
Believe me, I love Queen. There are a lot of bands who invite reading deeply into their lyrics. Queen are really not one of those bands.
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by ghosty[/i]
<br>Well, my two cents as a Queen fan. It's not about sexuality nor is it about anything as specific as what Sally mentioned. It's another in a long line of "Let's come together as one and take care of each other" songs. Queen have a ton of them ("One Vision", "The Miracle", "Is This The World We Created?", "Innuendo", Freddie's solo song "There Must Be More To Life Than This",etc). More or less generic comments on the human condition that have always been and always will be albeit with a utopian dream.
Queen rarely tackled specific social causes. They have an anti-nukes song "Hammer To Fall" and not one but TWO anti-suicide songs ("Don't Try Suicide" and "Keep Passing The Open Windows". Towards the end of Freddie's life the songs started to deal with mortality ("Was It All Worth It", "The Show Must Go One") for obvious reasons.
You'll hear more specific comments on war, poverty, religion in drummer Roger Taylor's solo work with the band The Cross.[/quote] "Let's come together as one and take care of each other" may sound generic, but it's an inherently sociopolitical and leftist statement (its right-wing/libertarian antithesis would be something like "Good fences make good neighbors; we are not our brother's keepers.").
While there's nothing specific about the pressure that "splits a family in two" and "puts people on streets", it is certainly consistent with the upheaval of the Thatcher years. Only about a zillion UK bands at that time wrote songs with similar themes and messages (see Clash, Gang of Four, English Beat, Chameleons etc.).
[/quote]
It can be interpreted that way in the same way "All You Need Is Love" can. It could also be something that was thrown together quickly without much thought going into it (Bowie has complained about the lyrics being generic and rushed in interviews).
I do think, however, you're really overreaching with thematic comparisons to the Clash, Gang Of Four, English Beat, Chameleons. Queen's mission statement was always to make a grandiose statement that could appeal to as many people as possible. They also wrote "I Want It All". Is that their love letter to right-wingers and libertarians? I doubt it. They also have a few songs that are the antithesis of "Under Pressure"'s message. They sang of "one true religion" as an answer to the world's problems in "One Vision" and later sang "our lives dictated by false religion" on "Innuendo". So which is it?
Prior to that they had a lot of songs about fairies, elves and goblins but I doubt they were really into Tolkien.
Believe me, I love Queen. There are a lot of bands who invite reading deeply into their lyrics. Queen are really not one of those bands.
- ghosty
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1892
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:37 am
- Location: USA
by SallyLightfoot » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:27 pm
Wait, even though Queen might not attribute any particular significance to the lyrics of Under Pressure, a liberal "people should help each other out" message is not a valid or prevalent interpretation of the song's message?
Next, I don't think we can call it inconclusive as to whether or not the performer chose the song for its message. According to the performer's Youtube page, he made the video to call attention to the plight of the homeless-- "people on streets" -- and he provides links for viewers to donate to charities for the homeless. That pretty strongly suggests that the performer had a sociopolitical agenda and that the song choice was no accident.
Contrasting other Queen songs to each other is not especially helpful. What can be said about Queen songs in general, or even other individual songs is not the same as talking about Under Pressure, an unusual song even by Queen standards (their first collaboration with another artist). I didn't say that all Queen songs were liberal, or that some/many Queen songs have meaningful lyrics. (And branding "I Want It All" a conservative example based on its title is not illuminating. The persona/subject of a song can be a caricature that the artist doesn't necessarily agree with. And in any event, the final verse of that song talks about "giving it all" which makes the meaning a lot murkier.) I was not attributing a comparison between The Clash et al to Queen in general-- rather that the lyrical message of Under Pressure fits in with the tone and context of many similar songs during the early 80's recession in the UK (unemployment, homelessness, labor strikes, cold war, IRA bombings, oil shocks, etc.). Artists don't necessarily consciously set out to write about specific events, anyway-- sometimes the events of an era are imbued within the the artist's world and leave an imprint on the creative process.
Next, I don't think we can call it inconclusive as to whether or not the performer chose the song for its message. According to the performer's Youtube page, he made the video to call attention to the plight of the homeless-- "people on streets" -- and he provides links for viewers to donate to charities for the homeless. That pretty strongly suggests that the performer had a sociopolitical agenda and that the song choice was no accident.
Contrasting other Queen songs to each other is not especially helpful. What can be said about Queen songs in general, or even other individual songs is not the same as talking about Under Pressure, an unusual song even by Queen standards (their first collaboration with another artist). I didn't say that all Queen songs were liberal, or that some/many Queen songs have meaningful lyrics. (And branding "I Want It All" a conservative example based on its title is not illuminating. The persona/subject of a song can be a caricature that the artist doesn't necessarily agree with. And in any event, the final verse of that song talks about "giving it all" which makes the meaning a lot murkier.) I was not attributing a comparison between The Clash et al to Queen in general-- rather that the lyrical message of Under Pressure fits in with the tone and context of many similar songs during the early 80's recession in the UK (unemployment, homelessness, labor strikes, cold war, IRA bombings, oil shocks, etc.). Artists don't necessarily consciously set out to write about specific events, anyway-- sometimes the events of an era are imbued within the the artist's world and leave an imprint on the creative process.
- SallyLightfoot
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:52 am
- Location:
by ghosty » Fri Oct 08, 2010 1:39 pm
Jesus Christ, are you in the fucking debate club?
"Wait, even though Queen might not attribute any particular significance to the lyrics of Under Pressure, a liberal "people should help each other out" message is not a valid or prevalent interpretation of the song's message? "
I just told you, sure, you could interpret it that way. I never said you couldn't. It could be interpreted lots of ways. That was my point. I see it as a bunch of vague generalities along the lines of "We Are The World". I think it's a poorly written string of cliches that sounds tossed off. Doesn't make it a bad song. It works. I think "Let It Be" doesn't add up to much either but McCartney pulls it out at Live Aid and the place goes bananas. Great. If people think of it as profound then great. We both win. I'm a Queen fan. I want people to like Queen songs. Fine by me.
"Next, I don't think we can call it inconclusive as to whether or not the performer chose the song for its message. According to the performer's Youtube page, he made the video to call attention to the plight of the homeless-- "people on streets" -- and he provides links for viewers to donate to charities for the homeless. That pretty strongly suggests that the performer had a sociopolitical agenda and that the song choice was no accident."
More power to him.
"Contrasting other Queen songs to each other is not especially helpful"
And contrasting Queen to Gang Of Four, The Clash, etc. is?
"What can be said about Queen songs in general, or even other individual songs is not the same as talking about Under Pressure, an unusual song even by Queen standards (their first collaboration with another artist)."
Nah, I have all their albums. They have a lot of songs along the same thematic lines with the same kind of lyrics. Buy "The Works", "A Kind Of Magic", "The Miracle", "Innuendo" and the posthumous "Made In Heaven" and get back to me on that. True, they didn't really collaborate and "Under Pressure" was the first one.
"I didn't say that all Queen songs were liberal, or that some/many Queen songs have meaningful lyrics."
Cool. Cause they're not and I never suggested you did. They're just big fun songs.
"(And branding "I Want It All" a conservative example based on its title is not illuminating. The persona/subject of a song can be a caricature that the artist doesn't necessarily agree with. And in any event, the final verse of that song talks about "giving it all" which makes the meaning a lot murkier.)"
I was pointing that out as an example (again) of how you could interpret "I Want It All" anyway you wanted to because the lyrics sound like they could've come off a poster advertising Gold's Gym. The song doesn't make much sense but it rocks. End of story for me.
My point, which you're obviously not getting, is that I think it's a weak lyric. I don't disagree with the sentiment nor the meaning that it has for other people. I think Queen were jamming with Bowie in the studio and came up with a song and made it an anthem for the downtrodden using a string of cliches. Good for them. There are plenty of other bands who've written more substantive material about unemployment, homelessness, labor strikes, cold war, IRA bombings, oil shocks, etc. (pick up Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut" from 1983 if you want a scathing indictment of Thatcher's Britain).
It's clear to me by your responses that I'm just not allowed to think that Queen make big dumb fun rock music with lyrics that, in the grand scheme of things, don't have much to say.
(apart from that stuff about fat bottom girls and bicycle races)
"Wait, even though Queen might not attribute any particular significance to the lyrics of Under Pressure, a liberal "people should help each other out" message is not a valid or prevalent interpretation of the song's message? "
I just told you, sure, you could interpret it that way. I never said you couldn't. It could be interpreted lots of ways. That was my point. I see it as a bunch of vague generalities along the lines of "We Are The World". I think it's a poorly written string of cliches that sounds tossed off. Doesn't make it a bad song. It works. I think "Let It Be" doesn't add up to much either but McCartney pulls it out at Live Aid and the place goes bananas. Great. If people think of it as profound then great. We both win. I'm a Queen fan. I want people to like Queen songs. Fine by me.
"Next, I don't think we can call it inconclusive as to whether or not the performer chose the song for its message. According to the performer's Youtube page, he made the video to call attention to the plight of the homeless-- "people on streets" -- and he provides links for viewers to donate to charities for the homeless. That pretty strongly suggests that the performer had a sociopolitical agenda and that the song choice was no accident."
More power to him.
"Contrasting other Queen songs to each other is not especially helpful"
And contrasting Queen to Gang Of Four, The Clash, etc. is?
"What can be said about Queen songs in general, or even other individual songs is not the same as talking about Under Pressure, an unusual song even by Queen standards (their first collaboration with another artist)."
Nah, I have all their albums. They have a lot of songs along the same thematic lines with the same kind of lyrics. Buy "The Works", "A Kind Of Magic", "The Miracle", "Innuendo" and the posthumous "Made In Heaven" and get back to me on that. True, they didn't really collaborate and "Under Pressure" was the first one.
"I didn't say that all Queen songs were liberal, or that some/many Queen songs have meaningful lyrics."
Cool. Cause they're not and I never suggested you did. They're just big fun songs.
"(And branding "I Want It All" a conservative example based on its title is not illuminating. The persona/subject of a song can be a caricature that the artist doesn't necessarily agree with. And in any event, the final verse of that song talks about "giving it all" which makes the meaning a lot murkier.)"
I was pointing that out as an example (again) of how you could interpret "I Want It All" anyway you wanted to because the lyrics sound like they could've come off a poster advertising Gold's Gym. The song doesn't make much sense but it rocks. End of story for me.
My point, which you're obviously not getting, is that I think it's a weak lyric. I don't disagree with the sentiment nor the meaning that it has for other people. I think Queen were jamming with Bowie in the studio and came up with a song and made it an anthem for the downtrodden using a string of cliches. Good for them. There are plenty of other bands who've written more substantive material about unemployment, homelessness, labor strikes, cold war, IRA bombings, oil shocks, etc. (pick up Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut" from 1983 if you want a scathing indictment of Thatcher's Britain).
It's clear to me by your responses that I'm just not allowed to think that Queen make big dumb fun rock music with lyrics that, in the grand scheme of things, don't have much to say.
(apart from that stuff about fat bottom girls and bicycle races)
- ghosty
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1892
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:37 am
- Location: USA
by Frau_Blucher » Fri Oct 08, 2010 3:16 pm
Fact: the song is about jizz building up in the urethra. Freddie frequently had dreams of his tadpole-tailed little friends screaming "Let me out!" ...which of course happened whenever and wherever he scraramouched and did the "fandango".
- Frau_Blucher
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 10195
- Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:37 pm
- Location:
by SallyLightfoot » Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:48 pm
Me: "[The song Under Pressure] has an obvious liberal perspective"<br>
Motors: The song has NOTHING to do with politics.<br>
Me: The song was almost certainly chosen for its liberal message.<br>
Motors: Sexuality is a closer interpretation...<br>
Ghosty: It's nothing about sexuality or anything specific. Queen songs are mostly generic in message (i.e. Under Pressure probably is too).<br>
Me: UP message is consistent with the themes of that period. See UK punk and other artists of the period.<br>
Ghosty: Lots of interpretations can be made, but you can't make heads or tails about the meaning. They're just fun songs.<br>
Me: I'm not talking about Queen songs, I'm talking about one Queen song, UP. I'm not comparing Queen to other bands, I'm comparing UP to other songs. The performer in the video all but comes out and says he used the song to make a statement about homelessness. <br>
Ghosty: Are you in the f***ing debate club? My point, which you're obviously not getting, is that I think it's a weak lyric. You think I'm not entitled to my opinion about Queen songs and their lyrics?<br>
Me: ? I think you're in the wrong debate. The discussion was centered around whether or not this one Queen song as used in this video has a political message.
You chimed in with your opinion that Motor's interpretation is not accurate, and that my interpretation also misses the mark. I tried to lay out my case in more detail and greater specificity, and you think I'm attacking you instead of your argument, and that I'm asserting that no other conclusions are possible. None of these things are true. I learned a little bit more about Queen, though, so thanks for the discussion. [:)]
Motors: The song has NOTHING to do with politics.<br>
Me: The song was almost certainly chosen for its liberal message.<br>
Motors: Sexuality is a closer interpretation...<br>
Ghosty: It's nothing about sexuality or anything specific. Queen songs are mostly generic in message (i.e. Under Pressure probably is too).<br>
Me: UP message is consistent with the themes of that period. See UK punk and other artists of the period.<br>
Ghosty: Lots of interpretations can be made, but you can't make heads or tails about the meaning. They're just fun songs.<br>
Me: I'm not talking about Queen songs, I'm talking about one Queen song, UP. I'm not comparing Queen to other bands, I'm comparing UP to other songs. The performer in the video all but comes out and says he used the song to make a statement about homelessness. <br>
Ghosty: Are you in the f***ing debate club? My point, which you're obviously not getting, is that I think it's a weak lyric. You think I'm not entitled to my opinion about Queen songs and their lyrics?<br>
Me: ? I think you're in the wrong debate. The discussion was centered around whether or not this one Queen song as used in this video has a political message.
You chimed in with your opinion that Motor's interpretation is not accurate, and that my interpretation also misses the mark. I tried to lay out my case in more detail and greater specificity, and you think I'm attacking you instead of your argument, and that I'm asserting that no other conclusions are possible. None of these things are true. I learned a little bit more about Queen, though, so thanks for the discussion. [:)]
- SallyLightfoot
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:52 am
- Location:
by i_like_lectric_motors » Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:43 pm
[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by i_like_lectric_motors[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by ghosty[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by ghosty[/i]
<br>Well, in fairness you could just as easily apply those lyrics to the life of Mother Theresa and they'd work.[/quote]Why do people always feel the need to express retarded religious views into discussions? Commenting on the religious significance of a song or artist is dull and predictable. Next you'll say, "Those two dancing muppets are gay, after all Freddie Mercury was gay and the band's name is Queen." OHHHH SHIIIIIITTTT NOOOOOO!!!! OOOOOOHH NOOOOO YOU DIIIIIDDDNNNTT!!! Why o why do you always have to look at things through the lens of gender and sexuality?!?!?!? Don't you see that this is really just about POWER, i.e., class warfare and oppression???!!! "That homeless guy is disenfranchised in society, as so many are-- he's playing the role of puppetmaster to invert his circumstances and overcome his own powerlessness." AAAAAAAARRRGHHH!!! NONONONONONONO!!! It's about a white guy oppressing muppets of color! No it's about man's destruction of his environment, reducing nature as portrayed by frogs to the level of subservient playthings.... etc.
[/quote]Hey...waitaminit..I like looking at the world through the lens of gender and sexuality! You take that back, missy! [:o)]
[/quote]At least that time she ... he ... it ... by mentioning sexuality came a little bit closer to understanding the meaning of the song, albeit accidentally.[/quote]Yes, please conjure Freddie Mercury's ghost and enlighten us with the authoritative interpretation of this song-- which you've already asserted has nothing to do with anything political such as the recession in the early 80's and mass unemployment of the early Thatcher years.
[/quote]
When the song first came out, I remember seeing an interview with Freddie in which he stated the song was about love and sexuality. Can I find a link to prove that? No. [:(]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by i_like_lectric_motors[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by ghosty[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by ghosty[/i]
<br>Well, in fairness you could just as easily apply those lyrics to the life of Mother Theresa and they'd work.[/quote]Why do people always feel the need to express retarded religious views into discussions? Commenting on the religious significance of a song or artist is dull and predictable. Next you'll say, "Those two dancing muppets are gay, after all Freddie Mercury was gay and the band's name is Queen." OHHHH SHIIIIIITTTT NOOOOOO!!!! OOOOOOHH NOOOOO YOU DIIIIIDDDNNNTT!!! Why o why do you always have to look at things through the lens of gender and sexuality?!?!?!? Don't you see that this is really just about POWER, i.e., class warfare and oppression???!!! "That homeless guy is disenfranchised in society, as so many are-- he's playing the role of puppetmaster to invert his circumstances and overcome his own powerlessness." AAAAAAAARRRGHHH!!! NONONONONONONO!!! It's about a white guy oppressing muppets of color! No it's about man's destruction of his environment, reducing nature as portrayed by frogs to the level of subservient playthings.... etc.
[/quote]Hey...waitaminit..I like looking at the world through the lens of gender and sexuality! You take that back, missy! [:o)]
[/quote]At least that time she ... he ... it ... by mentioning sexuality came a little bit closer to understanding the meaning of the song, albeit accidentally.[/quote]Yes, please conjure Freddie Mercury's ghost and enlighten us with the authoritative interpretation of this song-- which you've already asserted has nothing to do with anything political such as the recession in the early 80's and mass unemployment of the early Thatcher years.
[/quote]
When the song first came out, I remember seeing an interview with Freddie in which he stated the song was about love and sexuality. Can I find a link to prove that? No. [:(]
- i_like_lectric_motors
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 6332
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 1:38 pm
- Location: Vatican City
by i_like_lectric_motors » Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:45 pm
[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
Next, I don't think we can call it inconclusive as to whether or not the performer chose the song for its message. According to the performer's Youtube page, he made the video to call attention to the plight of the homeless-- "people on streets" -- and he provides links for viewers to donate to charities for the homeless. That pretty strongly suggests that the performer had a sociopolitical agenda and that the song choice was no accident.
[/quote]
Fair enough. I'll rely on my very good memory of what I read at the time the song was released and you can continue to share an interpretation of the song with some dude who writhes around on street corners wearing a puppet on each hand. I'm comfortable with that. [^]
Next, I don't think we can call it inconclusive as to whether or not the performer chose the song for its message. According to the performer's Youtube page, he made the video to call attention to the plight of the homeless-- "people on streets" -- and he provides links for viewers to donate to charities for the homeless. That pretty strongly suggests that the performer had a sociopolitical agenda and that the song choice was no accident.
[/quote]
Fair enough. I'll rely on my very good memory of what I read at the time the song was released and you can continue to share an interpretation of the song with some dude who writhes around on street corners wearing a puppet on each hand. I'm comfortable with that. [^]
- i_like_lectric_motors
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 6332
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 1:38 pm
- Location: Vatican City
by SallyLightfoot » Sat Oct 09, 2010 12:30 am
Yes, let's agree to disagree on artistic renditions of songs involving muppets. [:)]
- SallyLightfoot
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:52 am
- Location:
by ghosty » Sat Oct 09, 2010 9:12 am
Well for what it's worth I cross referenced with several song-by song analysis books about Queen (including George Purvis's excellent and thoroughly researched "Queen: The Works") and the story is as follows:
David Bowie and Queen were recording at the same time. They decided to collaborate because...well..."why not?". The reworked a jam called "Feels Like" into some kind of shape. Bowie and Freddie Mercury took turns singing gibberish or whatever popped into their heads. Bowie and the band sat down to craft lyrics that scanned well with whatever they were scat singing in the previous take. Bowie hit upon the phrase "People In The Street" and that became the title of this new song. The collaboration became tense (and Sally will find this interesting) because Bowie, according to Brian May, began to feel strongly about the subject. He was vetoed by Queen who wanted the lyrics to be more "abstract" (Roger Taylor's, words although he sided with Bowie.) so they could be applied to numerous situations and nothing specific (again, that's the kind of band Queen were..a little something for everybody to grab on to...maybe Motors, Sally and I are all right at the same time! ). Bowie later complained in Q magazine that "It was a bit of a rush job. The original demo was better. Some of the lyrics make me cringe", obviously referring to the alterations Mercury and co. made. Although Roger Taylor was the most outspoken member of the band, he conceded that this policy Queen had regarding songwriting was why these songs have stood the test of time. He would use his side project The Cross to make his opinions known in songs that wouldn't have adhered to the Queen image.
I agree with Bowie about the lyrics but as a 30 year+ Queen fan I understand why they always did what they did.
And of course, judging by the exchange between Motors and Sally, I'm debating the artistic intentions of a Queen track with no one else but myself. [;)]
David Bowie and Queen were recording at the same time. They decided to collaborate because...well..."why not?". The reworked a jam called "Feels Like" into some kind of shape. Bowie and Freddie Mercury took turns singing gibberish or whatever popped into their heads. Bowie and the band sat down to craft lyrics that scanned well with whatever they were scat singing in the previous take. Bowie hit upon the phrase "People In The Street" and that became the title of this new song. The collaboration became tense (and Sally will find this interesting) because Bowie, according to Brian May, began to feel strongly about the subject. He was vetoed by Queen who wanted the lyrics to be more "abstract" (Roger Taylor's, words although he sided with Bowie.) so they could be applied to numerous situations and nothing specific (again, that's the kind of band Queen were..a little something for everybody to grab on to...maybe Motors, Sally and I are all right at the same time! ). Bowie later complained in Q magazine that "It was a bit of a rush job. The original demo was better. Some of the lyrics make me cringe", obviously referring to the alterations Mercury and co. made. Although Roger Taylor was the most outspoken member of the band, he conceded that this policy Queen had regarding songwriting was why these songs have stood the test of time. He would use his side project The Cross to make his opinions known in songs that wouldn't have adhered to the Queen image.
I agree with Bowie about the lyrics but as a 30 year+ Queen fan I understand why they always did what they did.
And of course, judging by the exchange between Motors and Sally, I'm debating the artistic intentions of a Queen track with no one else but myself. [;)]
- ghosty
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1892
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:37 am
- Location: USA
by SallyLightfoot » Sat Oct 09, 2010 10:05 pm
[quote][i]Originally posted by ghosty[/i]
<br>Well for what it's worth I cross referenced with several song-by song analysis books about Queen (including George Purvis's excellent and thoroughly researched "Queen: The Works") and the story is as follows:
David Bowie and Queen were recording at the same time. They decided to collaborate because...well..."why not?". The reworked a jam called "Feels Like" into some kind of shape. Bowie and Freddie Mercury took turns singing gibberish or whatever popped into their heads. Bowie and the band sat down to craft lyrics that scanned well with whatever they were scat singing in the previous take. Bowie hit upon the phrase "People In The Street" and that became the title of this new song. The collaboration became tense (and Sally will find this interesting) because Bowie, according to Brian May, began to feel strongly about the subject. He was vetoed by Queen who wanted the lyrics to be more "abstract" (Roger Taylor's, words although he sided with Bowie.) so they could be applied to numerous situations and nothing specific (again, that's the kind of band Queen were..a little something for everybody to grab on to...maybe Motors, Sally and I are all right at the same time! ). Bowie later complained in Q magazine that "It was a bit of a rush job. The original demo was better. Some of the lyrics make me cringe", obviously referring to the alterations Mercury and co. made. Although Roger Taylor was the most outspoken member of the band, he conceded that this policy Queen had regarding songwriting was why these songs have stood the test of time. He would use his side project The Cross to make his opinions known in songs that wouldn't have adhered to the Queen image.
I agree with Bowie about the lyrics but as a 30 year+ Queen fan I understand why they always did what they did.
And of course, judging by the exchange between Motors and Sally, I'm debating the artistic intentions of a Queen track with no one else but myself. [;)][/quote] Thanks. Here's a (rough) translation from an interview with the band in 1984:
http://www.queensongs.info/forum/forum. ... =4&shift=0
It jives mostly with what you wrote above.
The end of the page attempts to credit the different artists for their contributions to the song:<blockquote>- Title: David
- Bass-riff: David (for creating it) & John (for remembering it, and of course, playing it)
- Guitar-hook: Unconfirmed
- Piano lick: Unconfirmed
- Chord sequence (verse): Freddie (maybe)
- Chord sequence (bridge): Input from Brian (note the pedal bass), but not necessarily just him.
- Chord sequence ("interlude"): I'd say Fred, since that would be a good cause of John crediting the track to him (as opposed as if he just had written the verse progression)
- Lyrics (I mean, words): Mainly David, since we do know he wrote a part of them, and rationalized what each person contributed. Similar case as Freddie with 'The Miracle', I suppose.
- Production: Fred, Mack and David, or Roger and David (or a mix of both mixes)
------------
Melody:
That's the long one. Apparently, according to what David said, it was basically Fred and himself (which would match John's 1982 quote in a Japanese magazine). And they kind of make sense, so the melody would be this way:<ul><li>"Nonsense" singing (5 phrases distributed during the song): Freddie (which makes sense considering his classic ad-libs on stage, I can't picture Brian or John writing that)</li><li>The melody behind "pushing down on me...no man ask for", "burns a building down ... puts people on streets" (same 1 phrase): Difficult to assure, since the first time it's sung by David, the second by Freddie. So that part could be contributed by some of the other three, maybe</li><li>"terror of knowing ... let me out" (2 phrases, repeated): David.</li><li>"pray tomorrow takes me higher" (1 phrase, paraphrased later) - Freddie. No surprise, note that he evolved it the second time compared to the first, and the second has an ascending "trying higher notes and then nailing a climax" feature (remember the harmonies of Bo Rhap before the solo, or We Are The Champions before the chorus).</li><li>"pressure on people, people on streets" (1 phrase): David</li><li>"chippin' around ... pours" (1 phrase): Fred. You can totally tell it's a throwaway</li><li>"turn away ... blind man" (1 phrase, repeated): They both sing it, so who knows. Maybe that's another group part</li><li>"coming up with love ... torn" (1 phrase): David.</li></li><li>"why...yyyyyy" (2 phrase): Fred. Check the ascending feature above</li><li>"insanity...breaking" (1 phrase): David</li><li>"why can't give love...chance" (1 phrase, repeated): Fred</li><li>"give love give love..." (1 phrase, repeated and transposed): Fred</li><li>"love's such and old fashioned word" (1 phrase): David</li><li>final part of the 'interlude' (about two phrases, with repetitions/alterations): David. And it makes sense since a similar part is done by him in the second verse as backing vocal. And that'd also go with the "sung by the creator" rule</li><li>Total: David (8), Freddie (11), unknown (2). Quite a long and un-repetitive melody for an 80s single anyway. While Fred wrote more parts (according to this count), David wrote more actual melodies, while Fred was mostly ad-libs.</li><ul></blockquote>
<br>Well for what it's worth I cross referenced with several song-by song analysis books about Queen (including George Purvis's excellent and thoroughly researched "Queen: The Works") and the story is as follows:
David Bowie and Queen were recording at the same time. They decided to collaborate because...well..."why not?". The reworked a jam called "Feels Like" into some kind of shape. Bowie and Freddie Mercury took turns singing gibberish or whatever popped into their heads. Bowie and the band sat down to craft lyrics that scanned well with whatever they were scat singing in the previous take. Bowie hit upon the phrase "People In The Street" and that became the title of this new song. The collaboration became tense (and Sally will find this interesting) because Bowie, according to Brian May, began to feel strongly about the subject. He was vetoed by Queen who wanted the lyrics to be more "abstract" (Roger Taylor's, words although he sided with Bowie.) so they could be applied to numerous situations and nothing specific (again, that's the kind of band Queen were..a little something for everybody to grab on to...maybe Motors, Sally and I are all right at the same time! ). Bowie later complained in Q magazine that "It was a bit of a rush job. The original demo was better. Some of the lyrics make me cringe", obviously referring to the alterations Mercury and co. made. Although Roger Taylor was the most outspoken member of the band, he conceded that this policy Queen had regarding songwriting was why these songs have stood the test of time. He would use his side project The Cross to make his opinions known in songs that wouldn't have adhered to the Queen image.
I agree with Bowie about the lyrics but as a 30 year+ Queen fan I understand why they always did what they did.
And of course, judging by the exchange between Motors and Sally, I'm debating the artistic intentions of a Queen track with no one else but myself. [;)][/quote] Thanks. Here's a (rough) translation from an interview with the band in 1984:
http://www.queensongs.info/forum/forum. ... =4&shift=0
It jives mostly with what you wrote above.
The end of the page attempts to credit the different artists for their contributions to the song:<blockquote>- Title: David
- Bass-riff: David (for creating it) & John (for remembering it, and of course, playing it)
- Guitar-hook: Unconfirmed
- Piano lick: Unconfirmed
- Chord sequence (verse): Freddie (maybe)
- Chord sequence (bridge): Input from Brian (note the pedal bass), but not necessarily just him.
- Chord sequence ("interlude"): I'd say Fred, since that would be a good cause of John crediting the track to him (as opposed as if he just had written the verse progression)
- Lyrics (I mean, words): Mainly David, since we do know he wrote a part of them, and rationalized what each person contributed. Similar case as Freddie with 'The Miracle', I suppose.
- Production: Fred, Mack and David, or Roger and David (or a mix of both mixes)
------------
Melody:
That's the long one. Apparently, according to what David said, it was basically Fred and himself (which would match John's 1982 quote in a Japanese magazine). And they kind of make sense, so the melody would be this way:<ul><li>"Nonsense" singing (5 phrases distributed during the song): Freddie (which makes sense considering his classic ad-libs on stage, I can't picture Brian or John writing that)</li><li>The melody behind "pushing down on me...no man ask for", "burns a building down ... puts people on streets" (same 1 phrase): Difficult to assure, since the first time it's sung by David, the second by Freddie. So that part could be contributed by some of the other three, maybe</li><li>"terror of knowing ... let me out" (2 phrases, repeated): David.</li><li>"pray tomorrow takes me higher" (1 phrase, paraphrased later) - Freddie. No surprise, note that he evolved it the second time compared to the first, and the second has an ascending "trying higher notes and then nailing a climax" feature (remember the harmonies of Bo Rhap before the solo, or We Are The Champions before the chorus).</li><li>"pressure on people, people on streets" (1 phrase): David</li><li>"chippin' around ... pours" (1 phrase): Fred. You can totally tell it's a throwaway</li><li>"turn away ... blind man" (1 phrase, repeated): They both sing it, so who knows. Maybe that's another group part</li><li>"coming up with love ... torn" (1 phrase): David.</li></li><li>"why...yyyyyy" (2 phrase): Fred. Check the ascending feature above</li><li>"insanity...breaking" (1 phrase): David</li><li>"why can't give love...chance" (1 phrase, repeated): Fred</li><li>"give love give love..." (1 phrase, repeated and transposed): Fred</li><li>"love's such and old fashioned word" (1 phrase): David</li><li>final part of the 'interlude' (about two phrases, with repetitions/alterations): David. And it makes sense since a similar part is done by him in the second verse as backing vocal. And that'd also go with the "sung by the creator" rule</li><li>Total: David (8), Freddie (11), unknown (2). Quite a long and un-repetitive melody for an 80s single anyway. While Fred wrote more parts (according to this count), David wrote more actual melodies, while Fred was mostly ad-libs.</li><ul></blockquote>
- SallyLightfoot
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:52 am
- Location:
by ghosty » Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:54 am
Thanks. Interesting read. FYI the "Rah Mix" of the song included on "Queen+ :Greatest Hits" starts off with a lyric dropped for the original released version from 1981 and it's:
Freddie: "You say New York, New York is dangerous Cause you read that where you may"
David: "Even a blind man could see that's not so"
Freddie: "Love love love love.."
Which, of course, doesn't make much sense in the context of the rest of the song but then again Queen's song "One Vision" which is all about "one hope, one voice, one real decision" ends with the line "gimme gimme gimme fried chicken" so it's not exactly surprising.
BTW: Weak lyrics don't really matter to me. Usually I go with the overall vibe of the song (and "Under Pressure" and "One Vision" have vibe to spare) and count it as a bonus if the lyrics are decent. I only really get disappointed if Dylan releases something half assed (which means I was disappointed throughout much of the 80's).
Freddie: "You say New York, New York is dangerous Cause you read that where you may"
David: "Even a blind man could see that's not so"
Freddie: "Love love love love.."
Which, of course, doesn't make much sense in the context of the rest of the song but then again Queen's song "One Vision" which is all about "one hope, one voice, one real decision" ends with the line "gimme gimme gimme fried chicken" so it's not exactly surprising.
BTW: Weak lyrics don't really matter to me. Usually I go with the overall vibe of the song (and "Under Pressure" and "One Vision" have vibe to spare) and count it as a bonus if the lyrics are decent. I only really get disappointed if Dylan releases something half assed (which means I was disappointed throughout much of the 80's).
- ghosty
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1892
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:37 am
- Location: USA
31 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Return to —Not Necessarily New Wave—
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests