andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 26-Dec-08 18:32, nemesis wrote:
> > andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >> 1 Queen                   Bohemian rhapsody
> >
> > Never understood its appeal.  Musically at least, it's bad,
>
> says who? ;)

Decrepit music connoisseurs. ;)

> > like most pop/rock,
> > except it doesn't even stand out like other Queen hits for instance.
>
> Such as?

Warp pointed out some...

> When it came out in 1975 it changed the music scene. It may not be the
> truly first but it was a long song, with lots of tempo changes and a
> video that has become an icon. Effectively a sort of mini opera. Nobody
> would have believed at the time that something like that could be a hit.
> After that and because of it the music channels became viable.

Videos are not music.  Musically, I still don't see the appeal.  Most classical
music offer more tempo changes than that, and certainly much more harmonic
texture juice... :)

> Let me guess, you were born after 1970? If so you will never be able to
> experience the shock.

1974 to be precise.  But yes I can look at it today and grasp in shock. ;)

> Just as I am not able to really understand why
> Beethoven's fifth was so shocking at the time.

Shocking or not, that's not why I listen to good music.  If it can't sustain
itself without lyrics, videos, shock, dancing performances and all the showbiz
flash, it's not worth it.

No, I can't help to sound like an ass... :P

Post a reply to this message