Talk:Queen (band)

WikiProject
General Project Page Article Overview Participants Portal Tasks To-Do List Article Quality Quality Log Assessment Useful Stuff Media Books Templates

Genres

"Queen's initial works were chiefly glam rock, heavy metal and progressive rock orientated..." - that's the second sentence in. Can anyone list a handful of Queen songs that they would class as "glam rock"? I've always thought that's a very lazy description of their music, based more on how they looked than how they sounded. Progressive rock was considered the polar opposite of glam, and Queen were a lot nearer that end of the scale. (Unless, of course, "glam rock" has a subtly different meaning in the US or something.) I'm not sure they were "chiefly" heavy metal, either. I propose simply changing it to "rock". 213.107.110.183 (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything except choice of genre: if I were to trim this myself, I'd leave just "Progressive rock" in the paragraph. Radiopathy •talk• 23:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Done, with a bit of necessary re-jigging, too. Does the opening paragraph read all right? 213.107.110.183 (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

...and it's been reverted already, probably because I removed a reference (which wasn't primarily about Queen, incidentally). So are we saying that they were "chiefly glam rock, heavy metal and progressive rock orientated"? How many Queen songs can you list that were glam rock? Were there enough heavy metal songs for them to be regarded as "chiefly" of that genre? I think it's better to say that their earliest works were influenced by progressive rock, and leave it at that. Any objections? 213.107.110.183 (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I put your version back. In the future, if you use edit summaries every time you make an edit, then there is less confusion over your intent. If something has been discussed on the talk page, then just say "making changes agreed to on talk page." in the edit summary box. For the record, your changes looks fine to me, in light of the discussion here. Carry on. --Jayron32 21:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the new ref, so I don't know what the actual reference is to Queen being "glam", but I don't know if I feel comfortable with them being referred to as chiefly glam, etc. Radiopathy •talk• 01:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

And BTW, why is heavy metal back? Radiopathy •talk• 01:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It was reverted again without explanation. Let's not have an edit war - here's what I propose should follow the first sentence:

Queen's earliest works were heavily influenced by progressive rock; however, in the mid-1970s, the band ventured into more conventional and radio-friendly works, bringing them greater success. It also became something of a trademark to incorporate more diverse and innovative styles in their music, exploring the likes of vaudeville, gospel music, electronic music and funk.

Any good? Please feel free to add/tinker in any way to improve things. 213.107.110.183 (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the change from the previous wording "chiefly" glam rock, but there is no question that glam was an element of the band's image/sound that was fused with other genres. Example; "As musicians such as David Bowie, Roxy Music and Queen merged glam with art rock..." University of California Press, 2006. Sam.P.Hollins (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I never said to remove the mention of glam, but I wondered if anyone was familiar with the cited ref; if we have, in fact, a reliable source, we should use it. I also felt that "chiefly glam" should be removed. Radiopathy •talk• 13:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Glam rock is still mentioned (rightly) in the "Musical style" section halfway down the page - as is heavy metal (which I also removed from the intro). Does anyone think either of these styles are predominant enough in Queen's music for mentioning in the opening paragraph? That's the issue at stake here. I appreciate it's no easy task to sum up Queen's style in one bite-size chunk, but saying that they started with a progressive flavour before becoming more commercial with time just about sums it up for me. Incidentally, the phrase "art rock" doesn't seem to appear anywhere - perhaps we should add that, thanks to the above reference. 213.107.110.183 (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Progressive rock is sufficient for the lead, IMHO. Radiopathy •talk• 03:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold on now. In the early 70s "heavy metal" referred to stuff like Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple, which early Queen was far closer too than Yes or Genesis or whatever. Not that they didn't have prog influences, of course, but just saying they were "heavily influenced by progressive rock" paints a skewed picture. 166.82.216.170 (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Not quite right. Queen's earliest influences included heavy metal (Led Zeppelin) and glam rock (Bowie) as we all know. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

English or British

Does anyone have an issue with the band being described as English, as opposed to the more general British - which means they could be from any country from within the UK? The band were formed in England with 3 of the band English themselves (and also formed from the ashes of a band who were all English). I don't believe Freddie's ethnic background makes a case for them being less of an English band (or therefore more British) than say the Rolling Stones? It isn't an ethnic description - it's merely stating, correctly, that the band were from England.

92.10.4.30 (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed at great length before. Please see archived discussion here. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Over a year old - Wikipedia is every changing. No real consensus was made either, and that discussion was instigated by an editor whose sole purpose was to change English decriptions to British and has since disappeared. Their edits were either changing English to British or England to United Kingdom without consensus. Only one editor had an issue with the English description, and other editors were forced to compromise with an editor with only one purpose to disrupt Wikipedia. I don't believe there is any consensus against describing the band as English, hence this new talk section.

92.4.94.78 (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It is very hard to prove a negative. Rather than seeing if there is consensus against describing the band as English, it would be better to determine whether there was consensus for describing the band as English. I provided cites previously that demonstrated what the band themselves thought. Their opinion outweighs all others. I also predicted that without a good cite to back up the band's description as English, or British, we would be back on the matter within the year. And here we are. Do you have a cite that demonstrates the band regarded themselves as an English band?

Your argument about where the band formed is flimsy. Do you believe that readers don't understand where London is? Is there any real danger of people thinking it's in Wales?

Your analysis of the Queen (and Smile) band members nationality is also missing something important. How do you know what nationality these people regard themselves as? You decide that they are English. Maybe they prefer British?

I also disagree with your summary of the previous discussion. There was lengthy discussion among a number of editors with different ideas, and consensus was reached. That consensus, as they often are, was a compromise. Accusing others you don't agree with of purposefully disrupting Wikipedia is unhelpful, and against guidelines. Please don't do it again. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a compelling need to append an adjective to the band? Why not merely state "Queen is a rock band formed in London, England in 1971." That presents no debatable statement. The meaning of what it means to be an "English band" is so varied as to be useless; in the mind of one person it may refer to where they formed; or where the members all lived, or the place of birth of the members, or etc. etc. Instead of including debatable adjectives, or trying to decide which imprecise and controversial adjective is the best of all of the equally imprecise and controversial adjectives, instead just phrase the sentence to remove all ambiguity. --Jayron32 15:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. But the danger would be that just shifts the argument to whether it's London, England or London, UK. Both are equally accurate. (And we'd use "Queen are a rock band", as correct UK English. :-) )--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Trivial discussion, non issue. Queen are almost always referred to as a British rock band,[1] (Encyclopedia Britannica) [2] BBC (poll declared them "top British band"), [3] Billboard (U.S.) [4] Daily Mail (UK) [5] Daily Telegraph (Australia) [6] The Telegraph (India), and memorably given an award for "outstanding contribution to British music" [7] Can't ever say i've heard them called an English band. Regards city formed in, while Beatles were Liverpool, Oasis Manchester, Queen were London.Sam.P.Hollins (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Raevynn03, 27 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I would like to offer an addition under Film and Television. to the following paragraph:

In the Autumn of 2009, the Fox television show Glee featured the fictional high school's show choir singing "Somebody To Love" as their second act performance in the episode The Rhodes Not Taken. The performance was included on the show's Volume One soundtrack CD, and is available as a single via digital download.

The show also offered another tribute to Queen on the episode "Journey to Regionals," as well as on their album of the same name, which contained six songs from the season one finale. The album was released June 8, 2010, the same day the episode was aired on television. The rival choir Vocal Adrenaline performs a cover of Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody", Jesse (Jonathan Groff) was featured on lead vocals.

It is even cited on you own website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glee:_The_Music,_Journey_to_Regionals

Track 4."Bohemian Rhapsody" (featuring Jonathan Groff) Written by: Freddie Mercury Performed by: Queen Length: 5:57

I think the show is a wonderful blend of old and new music, introducing new audiences to music they may not normally have even had a chance to explore and certainly after reading your article on Queen, I wanted to offer this bit of missing information to make the article more complete.

Raevynn03 (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 08:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot in references, please update as suggested

Dear all,

just noticed that one of the reference links is outdated:

In reference #161 (Sherna, Noah: Queen closer to King as Chart-toppers, scotsman.com), the URL

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=193&id=2380392005

is no longer available. The article is now available under the new URL

http://news.scotsman.com/elvispresley/Queen-closer-to-King-as.2685286.jp

on the same site.

Can someone with editing permission please update? Thanks a bunch!

Best, Ben

--Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Done.[8]

So you know, I think you have editing permission, as all registered editors do.LedRush (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Once they've made 10 edits they'll be able to modify this article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit! I really didn't have editing permission yet (I'm pretty new to this), there was no "Edit" button for me on the Queen page. --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Imputanium, 18 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Queen have sold At LEAST 300 Million albums or more according to the references on its own page at the bottom Please change to this not "Between 150 million"

Imputanium (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No. There are sources which support both numbers, and this has been laboriously reviewed on the list of best selling artists talk page. Additionally, there is a strong case that the 300 million number originated with WP (circularity).LedRush (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Type "Queen" in the search box at Talk:List of best-selling music artists to find previous discussions. There are many. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's got to be said: "between 150 million to over 300 million" is ridiculous wording. How about "over 150 million, with some estimates in excess of 300 million", or something similar?213.107.110.183 (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. The issue is that 150 million is the real number, someone change the article on Wikipedia without references, and the 300 million number got adoped (circularity). Now we're stuck with this problem of our own making.LedRush (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I know what you're saying, but I'm taking issue with the English rather than the figures. Read the sentence back - it says that Queen "have sold between 150 million to *over* 300 million albums". That's nonsensical. "Between" shouldn't really be used if we don't have a solid upper figure. Or is it just me? 213.107.110.183 (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

When I said "I'm fine with it", I meant that I was fine with your proposed language change.LedRush (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Imputanium, 25 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Influences have also included Nirvana and Michael Jackson

Imputanium (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done..we would need a references. Personally i dont think we should have the section at all.Moxy (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Queen Have sold over 300 million albums according to BBC is this not reference enough

http://wn.com/Roger_Taylor_BBC_Breakfast_2009 (Clip 7) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvisfan83 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This BBC article from 2001 says they'd sold over 100 million so you merely need to explain how they managed to sell an additional 200 million in the next 8 years. Piriczki (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody needs to explain anything. The 300 albums cite is band up to date; as you pointed out yourself, the other is from 2001. Fans and critics alike (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)