I read it the opposite, that they were inferring that Queen was putting music out so quickly, how could it be of good quality.
Oh, I understand what was meant. I was just presenting the contrary interpretation, that Queen were such excellent musicians, that they could knock of three albums in the time it takes Rush to do one. 
That is, despite what Rush were saying and intending to be a criticism actually isn’t necessarily the slam they think it is. Plenty of great records were recorded in just a day or two. Black Sabbath’s first album was recorded in a day. Miles Davis’ Kind of Blue in two. Nick Drake’s Pink Moon in a day. I don’t feel like researching it right now, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Beatles knocked off three albums in six months, or pretty darned close to six months. Now, I’m not saying whatever those three albums Queen recorded were classics, but recording three albums in six months is not a sign of poor musicianship to me; my initial reaction is actually quite the opposite. Just having three albums worth of material to record in that time is quite impressive to me.
I mean, you want to talk about the Speed Demon of Pop Music, look no further than Elton John. Dude can write a song in less than an hour, and (at least back in the day) no one could question its quality.
Exactly. I didn’t even know who Rush was for the longest time because they were just that band that I instinctively changed the channel on within seconds. They are supposedly technically talented but unlistenable to me.
OTOH, Queen is awesome. Does it really matter what “serious” musicians think about them? What does that even mean? They are serious musicians and have had more commercial success than the vast majority of the bands that have ever existed. Appealing to an audience is the defining measure of a “successful” band. It doesn’t matter if you are the best guitar play in the world but nobody wants to listen to you. It also doesn’t matter if you are technically talented but your style is grating (again, Rush).
Queen is both technically talented and still has mass appeal. You can’t get much better than that. Anyone that claims they are “serious” musicians over them are just making excuses. They can call me when their songs have been in constant play on the radio for over four decades.
From the Kosciuszko Bridge, but only if they’re serious. Pikers can view it from the Roosevelt Tram.
So very sorry but I kept seeing this thread title and thinking this answer.
One day I’m gonna write a romance titled The View from the Kosciusko Bridge. Again,
sorry. Don’t mind me.
Do not taunt the troubadour. Don’t even think about asking him to play “Mna Mna”.
Cute. You do get a nice view of Queens, even on the new K bridge which just opened last year.
I took the “serious musician” term to mean “are they respected as musicians.” Yeah, they had their ups and downs in the media, but I don’t think anybody really questioned their musical talent. As players, they are all excellent. As studio guys, they are amazing. I mean, tracking the various harmonies - layered vocals, layered guitars, layered everything - is really, really hard to do with their precision.
What’s interesting is to compare them to, say The Police. Both are comprised of “serious musicians” who conspired to team up and create a pop band. Sting was (and once again is) smooth jazz; Stewart Copeland’s band Curved Air was proggy, and Andy Summers (who replaced a guy who couldn’t keep up technically, but had some punk cred) was a journeyman blues/jazz guitarist from the previous generation. Copeland’s brother was head of IRS records and he and Stewart wanted to create commercial success that integrated punk and reggae with a New Wave feel, so they did.
I’m having a hard time with the notion of a definition of “serious musician” that doesn’t include Queen themselves.
As for the three-albums-to-one thing… One of my favorite authors completed four books in his lifetime, and was always going back to polish, refine, and re-write what he had already written, even many decades later. Another of my favorite authors wrote over 300 books, and was known to complete the first and only draft of a story, from original idea to putting the pen down, on a single morning commute on the train. Which of the two was greater? Don’t ask me to choose.
The pace of an album’s production is an INCREDIBLY STUPID basis to assess quality of the songwriters, musicians or the production.
“You don’t understand - this is Band Solo! They recorded their album “The Kessel Run” in under 12 parsecs!!!”
Point taken 
And is among an even smaller number of the greatest frontmen ever.
The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra has recorded a Queen Symphony. Looks to me like serious musicians respect them.
Ehh, I’d say it’s arbitrary with regard to quality of output, and laboring over a recording can often make it worse. So, acting like you’re the Paul Masson of recordings doesn’t mean that the output is going to be any better than the musical equivalent of Thunderbird.
The pace of recording does show how prepared the band was to record those particular songs. If it took you six months of studio time to record a record, I’d bet you didn’t have a note of it written when you went in.
I honestly don’t know what Geddy might have meant by the statement attributed above, even though I vaguely remember reading it way back when. My guess is that he was probably either amazed anyone worked that fast, or lamenting at how slow Rush worked.
Funny, cause back in the late 70s, they were my 2 fave bands! Not sure which I liked better.
I wished I hadn’t made that post. 
The guys in Rush are super duper nice. They would never say something like that publicly.
Oh yeah, an artist can overthink a studio. And one-take, well prepped and high energy tracks usually sound best. But the point is that you can end up with quality output either way.
This is an interesting sidebar, but has little to do with the OP. Queen were studio masters. Anyone who wants to try to record Bohemian Rhapsody on a four track is welcome to try. Legendarily, they laid down so many tracks (you record 4 tracks, record that onto 1 track, add 3 tracks, record that over onto one track, add three more tracks, and so on), that the master was thinning out to becoming almost translucent.
Loading up a ton of tracks and still sounding clearly structured and good is so hard to do, let alone within the limitations of bouncing down takes onto a four track. They can work as slowly or as quickly as they want.
One bit of legend I am not so sure about: some of Queen’s layered harmony breaks feature a phase shift effect. Killer Queen is an obvious example - the way the vocals during phrases like Anytime! go through that whooshy shift. It’s an effect that got big in the 70’s, was featured by Eddie Van Halen during Eruption, Edgar Winter’s Free Ride during the break, and later in Are You Gonna Go My Way.
Anyway, I was listening to an interview of Dr. May years ago. I recall that he said that Freddie would double-track and more his own voice, i.e., unison-sung tracks to add thickness, not harmony, and be so exact in the double that it would add a bit of phasing to the combined tracks. I think he meant to say that Freddie would hit such close frequencies, that he could get his vocal tracks to “rub together” in sonically pleasing ways.*
That’s jaw dropping if he could. I thought it was just a bit more phasing. 
*Rub together: Keith Richards talks about his approach to riffs in his book. It’s not the chords that define a riff, it’s the little passing notes added that transition you from one chord to the next. They set up notes that rub together and then resolve when you get fully to the next chord. The intro lick to Start Me Up sounds the way it does because this is happening. Same with Brown Sugar.
Another form of rub is unison strings on a 12-string that are perfectly out of tune - just an itty-bit - so they rub together. Apparently that’s what Def Leppard did when they recorded the acoustic guitar for Bringin’ on the Heartbreak, IIRC.
I think that’s what Brian May was saying Freddie could do: find the exact frequency he was singing at previously, and be perfectly off with it to set up that internal not-perfectly-unison rub.
If so, that’s just a ridiculous display of talent and studio mastery. It’s like watching Tiger Woods in that commercial back in the day, bouncing a ball on his clubhead forever, and then casually whacking it a mile. Effortless mastery based on years of investment.
But what the heck do I know?
Too late to edit: here’s a link to an NPR piece on a study done a couple of years ago on Freddie’d voice -
The fella talks about Freddie’s injection of strong, fast vibrato at key phrases and emotive moments, and plays tracks to point it out. Cool.
Edited to add: I am probably using “phasing” where “flanging” is more accurate. Flanging was originally supposedly done by splitting a track onto two tapes and then recording them to recombine them, but the engineer put his/her finger on the flange of one tape, slightly slowing it down then letting it catch up. It would create those harmonic rub moments.
Or, basically, what is known as the “chorus” effect. Play two notes together that are just slightly detuned from each other, and you get a “thickening” effect on the sound rather than sounding discordant. (Detune them enough and, yeah, it starts sounding like shit.)
I think this is really some of what I am getting at. 52 is an incredibly low rank to me. Just look at all the things being said about them in the thread - their incredible output, their influence on other rock stars, the fact that the straight dope (which I see having few instances of this kind of consensus) seems to view them as one of the greatest rock bands. Not to mention the quantifiably superior vocal talent of Mercury. And . . . they’re ranked 52, right next to the almond brothers.
Should be in the top 20 without question if you ask me. Maybe I should take Rolling Stone less seriously than I already do.