Tonight I had a ‘discussion’ with a friend of mine. I started off by saying that Steve Marriott was one of the best front men of all time. He (being younger) dismissed this by saying if you asked a hundred people off the street who SM was no one would have heard of him.
I let it go. Later (unrelated to our previous conversation) he stated that Brian May was one of the best rock guitarist of all time. Of course, I responded by saying if you asked a hundred people on the street who BM was…
He said this was different. BM’s talent was objective - great! SM 's talent was subjective. This being irrelevant of the people that had heard of him. Really!?
I’m not asking about subjective/objective greatness. I’m asking: Is there a difference?
I feel silly for asking, but he is starting to convince me he is right.
He is right about BM being one of the best guitarists of all time. It would help a lot of people if you mentioned that SM was the lead singer of the Small Faces and BM was the lead guitarist for Queen.
I am not actually sure what your OP means.
I don’t understand the OP either. For what it’s worth, I’ve never heard of Steve Marriott, but I have most of the Queen albums. So I am familiar with Bryan May. I play guitar too so that may influence my sphere of reference.
We’re talking about performing artists? How is it possible to exalt one talent as objective and dismiss another as subjective? There are objective standards - ability to hit notes, speed and clarity of play, etc. - but those who can only meet these are often considered soulless and given the faint praise of being technically proficient. And there is subjective assessment, which can make the difference between those considered great and those considered good, but it has a significant element of the old indisputable, taste. So what exactly is the point your friend is trying to make?
Then what are you asking about?
Between what?
I’m sorry, I don’t understand the question either.
Lead singer, or in this case lead singer/guitarist.
I guess he’s basically saying that Brian May is actually good, whereas Marriott isn’t that good, Don’t fight just likes him. It’s a snobby non-distinction.
If he’s saying BM is so great that no one would argue it, like Hendrix, but SM’s greatness is debatable, I guess the question is has Brian May risen to the level of rock god superstar? To those really into music, maybe, but to the casual fan, even a diehard 70’s fan, I’d say no.
I’m so old I remember watching the Small Faces on the BBC (Top of the Pops). They were certainly good, but only had a few hits. (Itchycoo Park?) I couldn’t tell you any of their names, mainly because pop groups didn’t do much apart from make records in those days.
Queen, on the other hand have sold out Wembley Arena (I’ve got the CD ), provided the soundtrack to ‘Flash Gordon’, ruled the stage in Live Aid (just 17 minutes!), provided some memorable tracks (the **Bohemian Rhapsody ** video was voted the UK’s best ever and the song was used in ‘Wayne’s World’; **We will Rock you ** was uses in ‘A Knight’s Tale’ etc), had a memorable rememberance concert for Freddie Mercury and are featured every week in ‘Al Murray’s Happy Hour’ (prime-time TV comedy show).
In addition Brian May recently completed his astrophysics degree and is now Chancellor of Liverpool Polytechnic (taking over from Tony Blair’s wife). (This was featured on BBC news.)
SO the answer is that far more people have heard of Brian May.
I know of Steve Marriott and he’s not one of the greatest front man of all time. Your friend is basically right – people today know about Mick Jagger, Rod Stewart (who replaced Marriott), Ian Anderson, Roger Daltrey etc. because they made a mark that lasted. Marriott was OK, but not even in the top twenty.
But there’s no such thing as objectivity in an argument like this. I’d vote for Vivan Stanshall.
The quality/greatness scale of art is objective in the macro sense (the Zombies were a significantly greater band than Alice in Chains) but gets incredibly subjective the more you zoom in (the Zombies were a better band than Love, or “Odyssey and Oracle” is a better record than “Forever Changes”). It’s kind of like the way that physics has relativity for the macro, quantum mechanics for the micro, but the two are actually incompatible (the Zombies are a greater band than Alice in Chains, “Odyssey and Oracle” is a better record than “Forever Changes,” but Alice in Chains is not better than Love just because some moron out there likes them more).
Oh - let’s be clear: Brian May is a Rock God™ - you can’t hum along to his licks in Bohemian Rhapsody or We Will Rock You and not think so. He may be a Rock God with a graduate degree, but he is very well known, widely respected and hugely influential.
But there are a couple of debate/logic points here:
“More famous” is NOT the same as “objective greatness” - Milli Vanilli were hugely famous in their day but no one considers them objectively great. Most people these days have never heard of the guitarists Peter Green, Danny Gatton or Roy Buchanan - but their technical brilliance and musicianship far surpasses that of most Guitar Gods…
“subjective greatness” is not the same as “not as good” - there are countless examples of artists who either never made it or never made it in their time but have come to be respected. The Velvet Underground never sold many records, but influenced a ton of bands - same with the Ramones.
Whenever I see this type of debate, I realize that more time should be spent clarifying the criteria of “greatness” - if one is including fame and another is focused on musicianship, you end up with a false dichotomy…
First of all thanks for taking the time to answer one of most ambiguous questions I’ve seen posted here. To recap, It was late and I had a disagreement with my friend about his logic and was looking for validation I guess (a stupid thing to do true, but I had had a glass of wine or two -OK, maybe a bottle).
Anyway… I know of Steve Marriott from his Humble Pie days. In the video’s I’ve seen, he was a great front man and IMHO one of rock’s great singers. My friend dismissed this, his logic being no one knows him. When he started talking about Brian May (who I agree is one of the best) I turned his logic around on him; ask people on the street and no one would him any more than they would know Steve M. His counter was that it didn’t matter. BM was great and that was all that was required, throwing the baby out with the subjective bath water. It’s irrelevant if this is true or not, the point being in both cases is that popularity or notoriety is no indication of talent.
Your friend is just being dismissively snooty.
As for frontmen, S.Marriott was impressive for the down n’ dirty partying rock n’rollers. If Steve Winwood was angelic choirboy, Marriott was antithesis, whiskey voice and gritty guitar lines without being guttery crude as were his wannabe followers.
I’m not really a fan. I went to see Humble since I liked Frampton at the time (and have come 'round again ) but I’d say Marriott riveted attention for all but guitar geeks.
Betcha everyone on the street knows who Freddie Mercury is. Brian May,not so much.
), provided the soundtrack to ‘Flash Gordon’, ruled the stage in Live Aid (just 17 minutes!), provided some memorable tracks (the **Bohemian Rhapsody ** video was voted the UK’s best ever and the song was used in ‘Wayne’s World’; **We will Rock you ** was uses in ‘A Knight’s Tale’ etc), had a memorable rememberance concert for Freddie Mercury and are featured every week in ‘Al Murray’s Happy Hour’ (prime-time TV comedy show).
