Hi

I'm an avid fan of the excellent Queen, love singing their songs on karaoke, and in fact rate them as my favourite artist of all time.

My challenge is this - justify their low ranking if you can. Bohemian Rhapsody rated at 62? Now I don't think that's their best song, yet every time there's a vote put to the public, it makes No 1 or thereabouts (occasionally it gets beaten by Imagine).

Overall rank of 115? You seriously put Creedence Clearwater Revival, Talking Heads, Public Enemy etc 80-90 places ahead of Queen? And don't tell me they're only popular in the UK - only two of their songs made no 1 here, a position held in charts worldwide by many, many more, in a time when single sales were much higher than today.

All of which makes the song rank of just 72 even more bizarre. Who on Earth are Martha and the Vandellas (ranked 66). Missy Elliott above Queen??? Sly and the Family Stone 40 places above them??? ROFL!!!

You have to be having a laugh. If not, I await the reasoning...

Cheers

BB

Queen is, just in my opinion, a middle-of-the-road band. The main problem I have with them is that a lot of the things they did were done before (and better, in my humble opinion) by the likes of The Who, Led Zeppelin or Sparks, just to mention the few obvious ones. It's not that they suck or whatever but, if you've listened carefully to everything that came before them, Queen just seems to be another brick in the wall (sorry for the bad joke ). It fits nicely in the whole picture, but that's all. I see them more as followers of the bands that came before than outstanding per se. Don't get me wrong 'cause I'm not trying to be harsh on Queen fans, but I'm one of those people who think that a lot of Queen lovers tend to know very little about bands before Queen and, as a consequence, they overstimate the contribution of the band to the rock scene.

Specially listen to Sparks: before listening to them, I realized definetely how much unoriginal Queen were.

Never heard Sparks, might have to check them out. One thing I tend to notice about Queen is a lot of the drumming is quite simple.

for Acclaimed Music is not weighted in a manner as to favor one act over the other. It's simply based on appearances and citations in lists/features that are *non-public*.

You mentioned Bohemian Rhapsody being a favorite in public polls- well, that wouldn't feature on this site, since it's a viewers/readers-type polling.

I surely wouldn't be complaining about having a track that's ranked in the top 100 at AM!

Queen is overestimated by the public as a whole for reasons already mentioned. They made some nice pop and rock songs (some of which became definitive of their time), but nothing more than that.

Sly and the Family Stone and Missy Elliott are placed above Queen (and rightfully so, in my opinion) because they forged a new sound.

Queen are horrendously overrated by their fans. In Poland message boards are full of Queen fanatics claiming it's the greatest band ever and Freddie Mercury is the best singer ever. They were good and "A Night at the Opera" is an excellent album, but they're definitely not a top 50 artist. Besides some superior artists like King Crimson, Talk Talk or the Flaming Lips are even lower.

"a lot of the things they did were done before (and better, in my humble opinion) by the likes of The Who, Led Zeppelin or Sparks, just to mention the few obvious ones. "

I'm a Led Zep fan too but can't really see much similarity between the Queen sound and that of other rock bands, apart from the fact they all fall within the broad rock category. Besides, merely because something has been 'done before' or 'invented by someone else' doesn't make the original automatically better. England invented football, so do we have the best team in the world?? Er, no!!!

Have yet to listen to Sparks but even if one band claims having produced a sound before Queen, that doesn't mean Queen copied them...far from it in fact, the Queen sound is down to a combo of that Brian May developed from his Smile days and Freddie's soaring vocals.

"One thing I tend to notice about Queen is a lot of the drumming is quite simple."

Without being rude, so what? Which band kept things simpler than anyone else? The Beatles. And they are at number 1 in the list.

"You mentioned Bohemian Rhapsody being a favorite in public polls- well, that wouldn't feature on this site, since it's a viewers/readers-type polling."

That's fine, but wasn't my point. If such a song is acclaimed by those who buy the music in the first place ('the masses', if you like) how come it does so poorly when 'the critics' (as opposed to 'the masses') get hold of it?

"I surely wouldn't be complaining about having a track that's ranked in the top 100 at AM"

Me neither, but I'm nowhere near the superstardom that Queen has enjoyed...I think they might be a little disappointed!

"They made some nice pop and rock songs (some of which became definitive of their time)"

Their time being the 70s? So how come they don't even make the top 40 of 70s artists? Not a great performance for a band who wrote songs which you've just said became DEFINITIVE of their time??!! Listen to the album 'Queen Rocks' and pay particular attention to the powerful riffs - THAT is why Queen made not just 'nice' rock songs but GREAT ones.

"Queen are horrendously overrated by their fans. In Poland message boards are full of Queen fanatics claiming it's the greatest band ever and Freddie Mercury is the best singer ever"

You'll find most fans going OTT for their favourite artist, but my feeling that Queen should be a lot higher is far more justified than if I were to say the same about other of my top artists, say Prodigy, The Verve. Freddie may not the best singer ever (that accolade without a doubt falls to the ultimate diva Maria Callas) but he's pretty close in the rock world. Perhaps I am biased, being a semi-pro singer and competition judge myself, that such an immense range of vocal ability and power will lift the whole band up in my estimation.

"Sly and the Family Stone and Missy Elliott are placed above Queen (and rightfully so, in my opinion) because they forged a new sound"

Have yet to hear Sly (if they were that good surely they'd be played on the radio a little more??) but I have to protest at Missy Elliot - new sound? She sounds just like all the other modern r&b artists to me. And a new sound isn't necessarily a great one.

"they're definitely not a top 50 artist"

They definitely are, lol!!

Enjoying the debate

BB

Sure, most fans think their favourite bands are the best, but most Queen fans, at least the ones in my country, are absolutely vehement about their power and glory. To them it's simply an undebatable fact that Queen are the greatest band ever and anybody who says different has no taste.

Jacek, the way you describe Queen fans reminds me of my encounters with Beatles fans, who absolutely balk at the notion that I don't like them...

"Their time being the 70s? So how come they don't even make the top 40 of 70s artists? Not a great performance for a band who wrote songs which you've just said became DEFINITIVE of their time??!!"

Many artists have released songs definitive of their time...Queen aren't the only ones.

As for Missy Elliott, she was largely responsible for the modern R n B sound. Check out Aaliyah's One in a Million album and see how much of a departure it is from other hip hop of the time. She's an innovator- more so than Queen I'd say. The fact is that rap has gone out of favor in the eyes of critics and many music fans in general. That Missy is able to muster any acclaim at all only bolsters her case.

"To them it's simply an undebatable fact that Queen are the greatest band ever and anybody who says different has no taste"

You'll be pleased to know I'm not one of those - yes they are the greatest in my eyes (or ears?) and I don't like The Beatles either but they or Elvis will always top these kinds of polls, and rightly so. I just think they should be a lot higher. I wouldn't say anyone who says any different has no taste, but anyone who said they really didn't like Queen at all would have a lot to prove to redeem their taste factor! :-)

"The fact is that rap has gone out of favor in the eyes of critics and many music fans in general. "

You're right there, the likes of Missy Elliott do have a raw deal when it comes to getting acclaim. Thank Eminem for that, lol!!

BB

""One thing I tend to notice about Queen is a lot of the drumming is quite simple."

Without being rude, so what? Which band kept things simpler than anyone else? The Beatles. And they are at number 1 in the list."


Well i think the Beatles are a bit too high, but Ringo's drumming is actually quite good, a lot of the Queen drumming is quite monotonous.

I have to agree with B.B James, Queen are WAY to low.

Queen was a very good band. There's not reason to underrate them. Freddy Mercury was a great performer, wrote a dozen a great songs. Ok they also made some crap sometimes but I think it's one of the only bands who had been able to have popularity + quality songs + great performing. They had nothing to do with Led Zeppelin or The Sparks, they were different, created something maybe not "new" but something "personal". They had a unique style and in my opinion Queen is still influent in today's music and will be rehabilitated by rock critics in the next years.

By comparison, Missy Elliott will be forgotten in ten years. She will find her place, a place in the garbage cans of the music history.