I only really read the last paragraph of your novel, and skimmed the rest. I don’t feel like arguing about this with you because Queen’s not worth arguing about to begin with, and you seem to not really want to be honest about how much more articulate Menomena is than an aimless, three instrument band from the 70s who can’t be bothered to write a song that isn’t 100% characteristic of that era in music, but with less substantial lyrics.
Also, enlighten me, when did this turn into an argument about musical quality? (Edit: Haha, oh right, when I brought it up, but still) All I said to begin with was that Queen is goofy, and showed you a song that was convincingly less goofy, which you frantically claimed was more goofy without really backing yourself up.
And then you listed characteristics like complex time and simplistic instrumentation to support the fact that Queen is less goofy, or something…?
My argument is that in songs that have lyrics, the lyrics are an important part of the song, and that Queen is hard to take seriously because they don’t take themselves seriously, and that a game with only Queen songs on it would be a waste of my time because I can’t listen to nothing but joke songs for hours on end.
Where are you coming from here?
Also, can you please define complex for me? Because I consider a band that effectively uses more instruments, more rhythm changes, articulate and meaningful lyrics, and more interesting phrasings to be more complex and interesting than a band that writes skeletal rock jingles for America’s everyman. I hope this isn’t just a conflict of definitions here.
Also, sorry for not understanding what you meant by static. I’m more interested in writing music than studying its terminology.
So basically, you’re skirting the entire issue. Cool.
Also, enlighten me, when did this turn into an argument about musical quality? (Edit: Haha, oh right, when I brought it up, but still)
Actually, it was the implication of my very first post, so it’s pretty irrelevant if you brought it up before then. I’ve been talking about musicality the entire time.
All I said to begin with was that Queen is goofy, and showed you a song that was convincingly less goofy, which you frantically claimed was more goofy without really backing yourself up.
Again, I did, and I even further substantiated my claims. It’s not my fault if you take your ball and go home before even reading it. That tells me that you don’t have a lot of confidence in your argument.
And then you listed characteristics like complex time and simplistic instrumentation to support the fact that Queen is less goofy, or something…?
Again, something I further explained in my very first paragraph of my latest post. The common time complaint was icing on the cake. Clearly, it doesn’t bother me - I’ve both recommended songs to you and shown you songs of my own that are in common time. The purpose of pointing that out was to thoroughly demonstrate that nothing about the song - not even the time signature - was musically complex.
My argument is that in songs that have lyrics, the lyrics are an important part of the song, and that Queen is hard to take seriously because they don’t take themselves seriously, and that a game with only Queen songs on it would be a waste of my time because I can’t listen to nothing but joke songs for hours on end.
Another thing that I’ve touched upon in my last post. Please don’t reiterate your arguments after not reading my rebuttals.
Also, can you please define complex for me? Because I consider a band that effectively uses more instruments, more rhythm changes, articulate and meaningful lyrics, and more interesting phrasings to be more complex and interesting than a band that writes skeletal rock jingles for America’s everyman. I hope this isn’t just a conflict of definitions here.
Are you sure you won’t just skim through it if I do? lmao. I touched pretty heavily on those things in my last post, also. So, stop reading this, and read my last post. Then, read this:
effectively uses more instruments
To recap part of my previous argument, there were still things in the song that were musically inappropriate to the tone of the lyrics (most of the bass riffs, the horn parts, the arpeggiated piano). Uses more intstruments? Sure. EFFECTIVELY? Maybe by default, but I’m more impressed by a ‘3-piece’ (what does that matter, again, anyways? Nevermind the fact that they’re a four-piece band?) that uses all their instruments well.
more rhythm changes,
More rhythm changes? Almost every part in the song plays the same rhythm for the entire song! The only VERY large exception to this statement is the bass, which is tragically playing a part that doesn’t fit the rest of the song at all.
articulate and meaningful lyrics,
I’ve already explained in painful detail why lyrical content is almost entirely unmusical. So, hopefully you’ve went back and read my previous post; I’m not repeating myself. I even gave you an example of a Queen song with meaningful lyrics somewhere in there! Remember, though, that enjoyment of lyrics is subjective; whether or not you actually like the lyrics is pretty irrelevant, just as it’s pretty irrelevant that I dislike the lyrics of Evil Bee.
As for articulate lyrics, I suppose you should define articulate, because neither the textbook definition or the musical definition seems to work here.
For one, it’s certainly not articulate in the way that ‘you can understand what they’re saying most of the time’. Even if you argued that it was, Queen is definitely miles ahead in this department.
For two, it’s positively not articulate in the way that “it makes good use of musical articulations”, cos it’s flat and mechanical the whole time. The irony of that is that, given the meaning of the song, and the singer’s role, he should be the only thing that ISN’T mechanical.
So, if neither of those are what you mean, define articulate for me.
and more interesting phrasings
More interesting? That sounds like a subjective term to me! I know I seem pretty biased, because I like Queen and am not a big fan of the song you showed me; however, I’m not talking about anything that’s out-and-out subjective, here.
Even then, most of the musical phrases of the songs are measures full of eighth notes and really long notes from the singer. The only interesting phrases of music are the basslines, the horn riff, and the part of the song where the piano starts playing arpeggios; funnily enough, the three most inappropriate parts of the song, again! A musical idea isn’t complex on its own; it has to be used in proper context, or else it’s just a neat riff.
Now, if you’d like my to define musical complexity, let me know.
Also, sorry for not understanding what you meant by static. I’m more interested in writing music than studying its terminology.
As am I; I learn them in classes that are mandatory to take to earn my degree. However, as you’ve seen here, it’s not easy to talk about music without musical terminology. You’ve misunderstood some of the things I’ve said as a result (and have gotten alarmingly upset about them ), and have had a fair amount of trouble expressing your own ideas. Just like any subject with jargon (hockey, starcraft, etc.), it’s difficult to talk about the subject matter without knowing the terms.
Now look, I apologize for being rude in my initial post. Do you think we can just continue this debate without the hot-headedness?
I just wanted to respond to this, I would definitly play some Body Language, Don’t Stop Me Now, Fat Bottomed Girls and Somebody to Love. That all really rings true to Queen, I think, more than the songs you listed (which are essentially the greatest hits). I love Queen, I love that they went to Juilliard and made music like they did.
You know why they would go with The Beatles or Queen over Alexisonfire or Menomena? Because The Beatles and Queen, for whatever criticisms you have of them, are iconic bands. They’ve been popular for decades. They make money. For any musical elitism, for any better understanding of 4/4 or arpeggio or WHATEVER, the common person, the one that buys the games, wants to rock out and pretend to be one of those Great Bands.
Alexisonfire or Menomena or those indie bands would be fine for a one shot song in the regular GH or RB games. Maybe a three song downloadable pack. They’re not popular enough to warrant a full fledged game, however.
lmao. I touched pretty heavily on those things in my last post, also. So, stop reading this, and read my last post. Then, read this:
), and have had a fair amount of trouble expressing your own ideas. Just like any subject with jargon (hockey, starcraft, etc.), it’s difficult to talk about the subject matter without knowing the terms.