 |
| Okay, who farted? |
Crap is perhaps unfair. As musicians, they were obviously more than technically competent. They had a global hit with that larky cod-opera song and entertained millions with their live performances, adding to the gaiety of nations and lifting the human spirit, so crap can't be the right word. Who isn't cheered by Fat Bottomed Girls? But I felt unmoved and uninvolved from the beginning. Much like I felt with Bowie, Bolan, the Electric Light Orchestra, Elton John and any number of U.K. chart darlings back-combing their barnets, squeezing into sateen panto motley and getting the Radio One Roadshow crowd swaying on a Bank Holiday weekend. The canteen of British pop offered menu choices of glam or glum, glitter or gristle. Where were the Great British equivalents of Dylan, Steely Dan, Little Feat, Zappa, Santana, Springsteen, the Allman Brothers or the Dead? Clue: not. I mean, apart from the Stones.
If you noted the title of this timely and provocative think-piece you'll have anticipated my keen disappointment after struggling through half A Night At The Opera and skipping the stylus over the rest. It seems as alien and vaguely repellent to me as wearing slacks, or having a decorative Kleenex dispenser in the car. Perhaps I'm being unfair, but I'd bet those practices are not uncommon among Queen fans.
What to like not there is? Freddie's voice. He's over-blowing all the time. Declaiming, performing, doing the jazz hands or the wrist-to-forehead, in the grand showbiz tradition of Ethel Merman. The songs? They're show tunes! Nothing here as good as Louie Louie. Brian May's comb-and-paper guitar tone. He made his own guitar from a fireplace! And hammered coffin nails on an anvil for picks! Leave him alooone! If he shut up, I would. The drums sound pretty rockular, though. But that ain't enough.
The time I spent skinning up on New Riders album sleeves was not wasted.
I bought nearly every 10cc album at the time, plus solo/pair albums and pre-10cc recordings. Haven't lasted for me. They're okay.
ReplyDelete"Ridiculous, OTT and bombastic" are terms of affection for Queen fans, but not for me. Also the not-taking-themselves-seriously idea, the whole "camp send-up" thing. I don't see that as a quality. But I can understand why a teenager would like them. Luckily I was out of my teens by then.
I gotta agree with Farq about Queen. The just never bonged my gong (or gonged my bong) like NRPS or the Burritos. That said, I once saw Steely Dan operating as Art Garfunkel's backing band in concert, which was a blast -- Art singing "Rikki" after introducing his band one-by-one as "formerly of Steely Dan." Almost as funny as the night Ringo Starr's band consisted of Derriger and Edgar Winter and got introduced as Ringo Starr's All Star White Trash Band.
ReplyDeleteAnother defence of glam forthcoming. My brother's hairy and double-denim mates would scorn glam and symphonic progressive rock as lacking "authentiity" (that old cliche). They sneered at Roxy Music and told me to listen to Alvin Lee widdling away. It would reduce to complaints about effeminicity, "bent", pretentiousness, hairspray, showbiz ... all bollocks. (They were also pretty good on not approving "that soul shit"). It was a good lesson in how quickly things can go sour with time. All rock and roll for the mainstream market is showbiz dressed up as rebellion; gender bending a thing since Little Richard (probably before); homophobia - as if there wasn't a substantial substrate in rock music representing this world that had been around for decades (see Little Richard); pretentiousness? You mean wanting to reach for more and sometimes failing? Why is ambition wrong? Jimi Hendrix would have gone Mahavishnu Orchestra if he'd lived, mark my words. Etc. The sneery 60s nostalgists of the early 70s is seperated younger kids as much as Mod drew a line under "rocker". Glam greats include the Sensational Alex Harvey Band, the first 4 10cc albums, that era's Bowie/Iggy/ solo Lou, the Doctors of Madness, and the first 5 Roxy albums. Queen - a passable glam rock band who went off as most bands do after a few years, even "authentic" ones.
ReplyDeleteI endorse this lengthy comment!
Delete... and I reserve my right to find little to like in glam without invoking any gender or artistic pretension issues. Neither do I hear anything particularly ambitious about it, and I don't understand what Hendrix or McLaughlin are doing in this debate - other than being neither glam nor glum. Your double denim Alvin Lee crowd defines the "glum" part of the equation perfectly and is another club I didn't join, and another reason for my bailing on U.K. rock and pop (with a handful of exceptions).
DeleteMeanwhile, around 1973, Jeff Beck was gravitating from Blues and Rock, towards a Jazz- influenced style. I knew in 1965 when he first appeared with the Yardbirds that he was special. Time has proved this to be right, I think.
DeleteBlow By Blow and Wired are the only two Beck (Jeff) albums I return to. And I love Happenings Ten Years Time Ago!
DeleteTotally agree on that, and the "Roger" album. Not so keen on the later Yardbirds album. How hard it was to obtain the Anderson Theatre album, now it's ten a penny. At the moment, I'm trying to learn Goodbye Pork Pie Hat on the Tele. Good fun.
DeleteI doubt that I could listen to a whole Queen album these days, but a greatest hits collection or two sometimes really hits the spot. Much of it comes under the heading of good pop music - and there's nothing wrong with that.
ReplyDeleteAh - the old "good pop music" argument.
DeleteI'm sure that most people think of Queen as a pop band than anything else. They're not hard rock, metal, prog or any other easily assignable label. Glam fer sure to start with, but they had a shedload of later hits that appealed to a wide section of the public. So, "pop music" that may or may not - depending on personal taste - be "good".
DeleteQueen were a pop band.
I've always thought "Killer Queen" to be one of the best singles of the 70's (although not in the same league as Love Grows Where My Rosemary Goes). And you have to admit that "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" is better than anything by the Stray Cats.
ReplyDeletePlease accept this Foamie™ Award For Excellence In Commenting. Sorry for the delay - our virtual 4D printer ran out of dilithium cartridges.
DeleteThe only "Glam" band that I really liked was Slade. Slade Alive was a great album, along with Slayed.
ReplyDeleteWell, I've never gotten into Queen -- for some of the reasons mentioned (overblown generally covers it; but I have huge respect for Brian May, and when I've seen him talk, he seems a fine fellow) -- tho I have a handful of songs I like and love (specifically, Under Pressure, one of the three best pop singles of the 80s). But I loooove prime T Rex, like Roxy, like Elty OK, love prime Bowie and ELO. But I'm quite fond also of the Yanks you mentioned liking better (with the exceptions of Zappa, who I find unlistenable, and the Dead, who I find boring, tho I respect them also). So, hey, best o' both worlds.
ReplyDeleteMr. Grimsdale hit the nail on the head, as far as it's all performative if they're going for mass exposure; that does not negate in any way the desire of artists to have others hear their output, it's just an acknowledgement that fame can be as big (or bigger) a motive as artistic exposure, and I think the performers one disparages are often the ones that, for the critic, come out on the wrong side of that ledger. The reason I respect the Dead is that, even tho they largely bore me, I feel they'd be playing whether fame came or not. I didn't get that sense -- and it admittedly is based on nothing but my perception from a uninterested distance -- about Queen, except for May and his home-made guitar.
C in California
I'm sure May is a good bloke, and a fine guitarist. I don't like the sound he makes. I have a Burns "Red" guitar hanging on my wall, a copy of his design (right down to the pick-up wiring), which I plug in occasionally, a gift from a musician who used to play in bar bands in Vietnam.
DeleteAs to "performative" (a vogue word, no criticism of your use) - performance is maybe at the heart of this. Putting on a performance is different from playing music, as it involves the theatrical aspect; putting on a show - show business. Many musicians add this element, not just in the field of pop and rock. But the bands I liked best didn't raid the dressing-up box, and got by without stagecraft. The only exceptions I can think of right now are Hendrix (who was the supreme showman in a long tradition of black performers) and the Stones, who are always an exception to everything. For me, watching musicians at work is secondary to hearing them, and glam got this back to front. Notthatthere'sanythingwrongwiththat.
No argument here. But here's the thing: I never saw T Rex, but I fell in love with that run of albums 1970-1973 based totally on the catchiness and crunch of them....that is, the music, not the performative aspect. Ditto Bowie, etc. I didn't care about the attire, the in-and-out-as-times-changed gaiety, the posing on stage; it was: Does this music grab me. It did/does.
DeleteUnrelated: Can't recall if I've brought up this point here or at another blog I frequent -- was there a certain je ne sais quoi about Yank producers working with Brit artists 'round the turn of the 70s, producing that stellar run of Stones/Jimmy Miller albums, Joe Boyd with Nick Drake and Fairport Convention, Tony Visconti with T Rex and Bowie, Phil Spector and Lennon & Harrison?
C in California
Happy new year, fellow foamsters!
DeleteSay what you will about May and his guitar sound (Farq don't like, many people do like), but it is instantly recognizable and, yes, iconic. You play five seconds of May guitar and you know who it is.
And isn't this guitar sound which is distinctly his something worthwhile he contributed to popular music? So to add to the "what's Hendrix doing here?" sub-debates. I never got the fuss about Stevie Ray Vaughan who was maybe a nice guy, but was a Hendrix imitator when he was playing guitar and a Billy Gibbons imitator when he was singing. Which is okay if you like those things, I reckon, but the whole "he is totally awesome" adulation...give me Brian May over Stevie Ray any day of the week. Suck it, Texas!
Sure'n I love 70s queen albums. I question the show tune tracks sometimes, but still like them. When ANATO came out I played it for about 40 people in study hall & to a person, they loved it. I tried that with little feat, & they all left (!) -useo
ReplyDeleteI used to take Soft Machine's Third to parties. I still listen to the album, but I don't miss going to parties (and I'm sure they don't miss Third).
DeleteNow you see, if some bloke showed up at a party w/ Third, I'd be impressed and interested to hear what they thought. We'd prolly both be invited to leave, but look 'em. I keep wanting to get more invoved w/ Queen, just never been able to connect. Impressive band tho'.
DeleteHow is it that the tar pit groans of Facelift connect directly to me and Queen broadcasts on a frequency I can't tune in to? Rhetorical question. But I'll accept a "Soft Machine aren't crap, Queen are" answer as a placeholder.
Delete"Where were the Great British equivalents of Dylan, Steely Dan, Little Feat, Zappa, Santana, Springsteen, the Allman Brothers or the Dead?"
ReplyDeleteIt's a false dichotomy, not only because of the underlying cultural differences, but particularly comparing the primarily singles orientated UK glam rock market (which like a number of music genres in the UK was as much a fashion statement as a musical one) with the US mainstream rock (album) market
(and The Dead and Allman Brothers in particular struggled to get sales outside North America), especially during an era when the US was still in the thrall of the former Beatles (30 top ten hits 10 of which made number 1 during the 1970's) and the likes of Rod Stewart & The Faces, the aforementioned Stones, Elton John and David Bowie (both of whom musically got past their 'glam' phase pretty quickly) as well as the Who, Zeppelin, Emerson, Lake & Palmer, Floyd, Purple, Sabbath, Yes, Tull and Clapton with Thin Lizzy, Supertramp, Genesis, Peter Gabriel, Phil Collins, to name a few, coming through going into the 1980's. The UK's mainstream rock bands were just as influential in the US as in the UK and one could equally unfairly ask where was the American version of them? Comparing Glam to any other music genre except perhaps UK punk is comparing apples with oranges.
As for Queen, like others, I prefer their early stuff, particularly the first two albums to what followed.......
"False dichotomy?" No, just a question - which you go on to answer by asking a very similar - and equally valid - question yourself. As to comparing apples with oranges, this is a good and useful thing, because it saves confusion and disappointment at the fruit stall. Comparing types of music is not like comparing (frinstance) dancing with architecture and is necessary to make the distinctions that allow us to develop taste. I don't pick up glam music at the record shop because I prefer other produce.
DeleteI believe Queen were never appreciated by the British press, and were in a perilous financial state in 1974 when they supported Mott The Hoople on a British tour and on some US dates too, ANATO would have probably been the end of the band if Bohemian Rhapsody had not been the massive success that it was for them.
ReplyDeleteI thoroughly enjoyed the Bohemian Rhapsody film that came out a few years ago, even though it was littered with inaccuracy and invented tensions, such as the suggestion that they were perhaps finished in America after the I Want To Break Free video upset. Maybe North America didn’t like the video but it didn’t put off South American (Rio) or European audiences. I disliked I Want To Break Free because of the awful synthesised guitar solo in the middle.
I saw a tired Queen at a festival in Germany in 1986, I was disappointed that I never saw them in the 70’s. These days I’m much more likely to listen to Soft Machine than Queen, but sometimes I’ll play those early albums and I’m transported back to my teenage years, nostalgia is very powerful, as I’m sure we all know.
Thanks to all the commenters for making this such an interesting thing to do. The opinions we hold only have the value of how they're expressed, and this place is worth a lot. Happy New Year to th' Four Or Five Guys©.
ReplyDeleteI will also offer that "Louie, Louie" is not a fair comparision, as it is the greatest record ever pressed up on a 45 rpm record, if what you love about rock is incomprehensible gibberish, froggy vocals, plodding repetitionious rhythm, and the glorious wonder of the vocalist missing his cue after the shotgun guitar solo and coming too early...and their leaving that mistake on the final record. I like records that are short and stoopid.
ReplyDeleteQueen, on the other hand, LABORED (e.g., "laboured") over their records. Why...they actually overdubbed the vocals on "Bohemian!!" The Kingsmen would recorded it live at a bar with a drunken audience singing all those background parts. And they would have done it in one take.
I never bought a Queen LP, back in the day. I did one the original import version of Bohemian, which came out late in '75. This was a time when I was buying copies of NME and Melody Maker over in Berkelely, and trying to find something new and exciting. Right at the same time I also bought that first Patti Smith LP, and a few months later the first Ramones, and I had no time for Queen records after that.
I did like "Crazy Little Thing etc" a few years down the road, as I loved rockabilly, but that was a one-off and I never actually bought the record itself.
I'll take "I did one" over "I did own" any day.
DeleteNext thing, I suppose. Farq'll be badmouthing Kiss.
ReplyDeleteRox Nob
Kiss are one of the countless acts of whom (grammar) my knowledge could be termed graphene-thin, certainly not deep enough to categorise them as either crap or non-crap. It's only a superficial familiarity with the works of Queen that qualifies me to voice any opinion at all (which could have gone either way, to give myself credit).
DeleteWell, I swear by 'News Of The World' (1977).
ReplyDeleteAs in - "consarn that furshlugginer News Of The World!"
DeleteTRIGGER WARNING: May contain distressing scenes of gear-nerdism and tedious axtonery. Brian May - sorry, make that Sir Brian now - has always claimed that he owes his "signature sound" to the influence of Rory Gallagher: a single-coil guitar (a homemade Elastoplaster in his case, because his dad's budget didn't run to an actual Strat) plugged into a Vox AC30 amp via a Dallas Rangemaster treble booster. Yet, Farq's characterisation of the resulting sound as channelling a malnourished bee is correct. And, anyhoo, Rory Gallagher soon dumped the AC30/Rangemaster combo when he switched from a three- to four-piece setup after Live in Europe (1972). For his entire peak-zenithal heyday (1974-1977, innit) the checkshirted chieftain preferred a Fender Bassman amp with a Hawk booster. As a result, he achieved what scientists have confirmed as having been the ultimate 1970s guitar tone: far more flexible, fuller and fatter - sorry, I mean phatta - than Sir Brian's trademark toppy thin gruel. (That he was later led astray by the facile thrills of Marshall amps and syrupy Tube Screamer pedals is a detail one's sense of decorum prefers to gloss over.)
ReplyDeleteBut I digress. Yes, Queen were crap.
That Rory Gallagher was as much faux blues as Queen were faux rock, while arguably correct, is irrelevant. I knows what I likes.
Archie Valparaiso is Master of Quoits for the Dri-Za-Bone© Cruise n' Container Shipping Co. (Ghabon).
DeleteNo need to apologise Archie. Gear-nerdism is food and drink to some of us. ie me. As for Queen, I was never much of a fan of their albums (the excellent A Night At The Opera notwithstanding) but their singles were great, making the first two volumes of their Greatest Hits essential.
DeleteThis litany, (Bowie, Bolan, the Electric Light Orchestra, Elton John and any number of U.K. chart darlings,) is surprisingly on the mark for me, but, over the years I've come to realize the tunas I don't get reflects also a case of their not getting me!
ReplyDeleteI'll have to stick my nose in the library to maybe find UK equivalents that never came close to the top of the pops. A UK Steely Dan would be neat. Seems the Rolling Stones are the UK Little Feat. Man of course is the UK Allman Brothers. At least The Bonzoes are Zappa-esque. And, the best songs of Richard Thompson and Ian/Iaian Matthews and Nick Drake slide next to Dylan on that old cassette mix that miraculously still plays.
Mm. Man were an entertaining college circuit and festival band, but they were the UK Allmans in the same way that Cliff was the UK Elvis, and Frankie Vaughan the UK Sinatra. Apart from a few genuinely global first division acts (Bowie and Queen admittedly among them), UK pop/rock was/is a shadow of the US scene. And I say that as a Brit (who hasn't lived there for decades). Size matters - and the sheer breadth and scope of US music derives as much from geography as anything else.
DeleteYou can find some sort of UK Dan in China Crisi's "Flaunt the imperfection" actually produced by W Becker himself.
DeleteSome of the songs could be Dan's originals with a twist....
A bit harsh, I feel. For all its supposed importance as a genre, the Glam scene was pretty (see what I did there?) slim pickings. In my view there was really only Bowie, Bolan and Queen doing anything of interest. Who else came close? Chicory Tip? Kiddie fiddler Gazza Glitter? Those bricklayers in make-up Sweet? Nope. No one.
ReplyDeleteBowie was the clear winner in every respect – music and image, he had it all. Bolan looked absolutely fabulous, but his music was a touch generic and lumpen. Queen were wildly inventive, if a bit daft at times, inviting the headline above. But Queen’s catalogue contains much of interest.
I always enjoy fans' enthusiasm for Bowie far more than I enjoy him. Happy New Year, Mojo!
Delete