Freddie's life is an enigma and it is really only through his lyrics and music that we can come to some understanding of this riddle. Whereas it is true that he kept the meaning of what he wrote largely secret, we can, with some research and a lot of judicious guesswork, come to some further understanding of Freddie Mercury through his works.
Freddie's songs were emotional - there is no doubt about that. He preferred, on his own admission, the balladic type song where lyrics have meaning, not only in their literal interpretation, but in their context and also simply with their onomatopoeic sound quality and the way they relate with each other. In the earlier albums especially, Freddie's lyrics tended to be music in them selves. The sound of what is produced is as important as the meaning of those words. This is exemplified amply in later concerts where his vocal manipulations would lead the crowd in a charismatic display of leadership and unity through sound alone.
When you listen to others sing the songs of Freddie there is always a sense of 'wrongness'. Certainly, he had a wide range (four octaves) and a powerful voice, but others have powerful voices and five octave ranges and still they cannot sing the songs as they should be. Queen songs are hard for others to sing as they are based around the ability of Freddie to infuse them with himself - something very few other singers either realise or can do. Often they are caught in the mire of 'he had a better range' or 'he had a different vocal quality' but in reality it is because they sing the songs. Freddie lived them.
His oft touted masterpiece of Bohemian Rhapsody is perhaps the quintessential song and should last as long as music itself. This piece of music is not his longest, nor is it the most complex, yet it is the dichotomy of it which most closely speaks of Freddie himself. The mix of opera with rock, the swinging moods throughout it more then the lyrics shows us who and what Freddie is. Many ask what it is about - well simply it is about someone who just killed someone and who is waiting on death row and going though their mind is a jumble of thoughts and feelings leading to a general acceptance of '..any way the wind blows': it just doesn't really matter any more he has accepted his fate. What is so hard about the lyrics? They are there and are easily interpreted. Brian says that he knows basically what Freddie was saying and in that it is obvious that it was not the lyrics that were important in Bohemian Rhapsody, but the structure and expression of the music. To read the lyrics and to interpret them as some sort of revelation into Freddie's home life is foolish at best and derisive at worst. Freddie himself hasn't 'killed a man' just like John doesn't really want to 'break free', Roger isn't really in love with his car and Brian wasn't really taught by his naughty nanny. Freddie's music is an entity in itself: the lyrics, the rhythm, the structure, the music and the way it is played all join together to create the song. Bohemian Rhapsody isn't about the lyrics, it is about the song in toto. In this case, it is a blend of different forms of music, of different cultures it rises high and sinks low, it weaves about the mind of the listener and the protagonist, taking both on a journey through the song. The music, like all his music, is a personal statement, but one which simply says: 'I am me and I know who I am and where I am and I don't give a hang about what may come.'
This is the theme of Freddie that is in his music: a man who exists and lives for the moment, a man who is passionate, yet gentle, caring, yet dominating. Bohemian Rhapsody works because it doesn't tell us anything about Freddie in its lyrics, but it is Freddie and it is his soul talking to us through the music.
There is, in everything that Freddie produced, a quintessential 'Freddiness' whether you call this 'flamboyant', 'genius', 'peacockishness' or whatever is immaterial. Unlike many of his contemporaries, (I hesitate to say 'peers') Freddie was never concerned with the perception of him or his music, considering them rather something to be created, used, and then discarded. In his works he always moved on, always sought new ways to express himself, whether in the balladic rock of his earlier solo albums, or his operatic works on Barcelona; his ballet performances, his artwork or his musical interpretations. Even in his concert appearances, his persona and presentation changed: each show was different, and the songs, although many of his earlier works stayed with him all his performing life, were always being slightly modifed in keeping with the necessities of each performance. Whether this was altering the tune slightly, arranging it differently, or just swapping or moving the order of the set list.
When Freddie took to the stage he owned it and owned everyone listening and watching. Wether you could see him clearly or not, there was no mistaking the strut around the stage or the larger-then-life Freddie-esque movements. His entire being radiated himself and allowed each and every one of the audience to reach out and touch him, to know something of him, even if it was only the stage Freddie.
Queen had a massive stable of music and one that keep growing and altering, sometimes to the fan's appreciative acceptance, at others to their dislike or disappointment. Whatever happened, the listeners always knew that it was Queen and always that it was Freddie singing and binding the band together with his voice and musical interpretation. Each member was a musical legend in their own right and each had skills that made Queen function as few other bands ever have. Their formula was right, their mix was right and the whole was far, possibly even exponentially, stronger then the parts. Each member's solo productions are good, yet it is only when all four parts of Queen are together that the brilliance occurred.
Like the four elements, the four members of Queen meshed to create a universe of music and production. The strong, silent earthy John whose level-headedness and calmness often quelled problems between the aethereal airy Brian, the ever moving, ever changing flowing of the liquid Roger and the intense passion and ferver of the fiery Freddie joined together to produce some of the greatest music the world has ever known, or will ever know.
There is a tendency among students of verse and popular culture to make the following errors. The first is to assume that everything means something. The second is to apply the social mores of their time and culture on those of other times or cultures. Both are easily done and very hard to circumvent but an awareness of this, at least, must be made in order for the student ever to reach a satisfactory interpretation.
Not everything means something. This is the problem continually faced by scientists. The theory goes along the lines of the end is influenced by the means. In other words, we want to achieve this goal and so we will make sure that this goal is achieved. We will ignore or not consider other possibilities that may alter what we need to show.
Students of interpretative literature also tend to fall into this trap. There is a belief that if something is written, then it must have a deeper meaning then what it says. This belief is founded on the hypothesis that what we are influences our work. In other words, the basis for this entire analysis of Freddie. There must always be an awareness that the interpretation being placed on words could be the correct one, or not always correct, or just simply wrong. The more works that are studied and analysed, the more correct - or more wrong depending on the original hypothesis - the result. It is an issue and problem that this author has no difficulties in accepting and using: so contradictions may occur as more and more is studied and discovered - or hidden.
Only Freddie knows, in one sense, what he has written in his words. Yet even then, sometimes an external viewer can see more into the words then even the author realises. Also, which Freddie are we speaking of? Are the words written by the Freddie in his stage persona different to those written by the Freddie in his home persona? Do they both write or is it just one? In Freddie's case, it can be assumed that both write and both write differently as his style seems to fall into two distinct types.
There is the commercial Freddie and the introspective Freddie. The one who takes risks in his music, and the one who 'plays it safe'. As to which is which, perhaps time will tell.
When exploring lyrics, the result should be discovered, not assumed. We should never assume the answer based on what we want to find as it will be found. So we can analyse the lyrics of 'Bohemian Rhapsody' to find that Freddie was homosexual at this time (blatantly not true), or that he was in conflict with himself (possible, but possibly not). The only thing we can directly say is what it literally means. The analysis depends either on what is wanted to be known, or on what is discovered.
That Freddie's lyrics have something of Freddie in them is undeniable. The what changes over time, over song and over mood. Unless we know exactly how Freddie was feeling at the time we can only place our feelings on reading the lyrics onto him. Broadly we know, in the narrow sense, we can only guess. The guess is good if it fits everything without having to resort to improbabilities or impossibilities, or applying what we know from later to what was written earlier.
Too often students of a time period will place their own knowledge, thoughts, morals and sociological standards on people from other times and places. This is the biggest blunder in historical and literary study. It is not a purist view to believe that works written in earlier times should not be tampered with to reflect modern values, but rather one of being aware that this destroys and devalues the society as it was: the society that created the society that is now destroying it. It is the old problem of the child murdering the father that exists in so many different cultural tales.
In its broadest sense, we should not consider the early Freddie to be 'gay' or 'foppish' because of his lifestyle and dress in the early 70's simply because that is us placing our views of what is acceptable on a society where Freddie of the time was acceptable - to his section of society. In much the same way, those who are not artists often portray or believe that those who are are in some way and for some reason, homosexuals simply because they have a different codex of behaviour. The ballet dancing that Freddie aspired to is considered 'gay', yet the physical training, intensity, dedication and dancing with women all seem to belie this. (Compare this to the game of football - a group of men in (tight) shorts running around together, hugging and kissing each other and the showering together). If we apply our notion of acceptability onto one, we should do it to all.
Although not impossible, it is difficult for those who did not live through a time period to objectively view it. Even those who do live through it are more often then not responding to memories rather then realities and this can soften or obscure the truth in the hopes, dreams or mis-matched thoughts.
It is therefore important when analysing Freddie and his works to ensure that as little bias as possible creeps into the analysis. The lyrics should be looked at in context of the time and the situation, not what happened later. What happened earlier, however, shapes the writer and ishould be an essential part of the analysis. In addition, a song or episode should be viewed in itself: making sure that there are no pre-conceived ideas about what the song is about. A classic example of this is John's 'I Want to Break Free' where a song gains different connotations to the Author's intent simply due to the video clip, or the song 'One Vision', originally about Martin Luther Jr.. In this case, sometimes listening to different versions can help, as can the rare chances we have of seeing how a song is written through drafts and the like.
This is not always possible, yet we can still be effective in this study by simply producing an interpretation as we see it, not making claims that it is what the author intended it to be. We can say that this song "Love of My Life'" is to Mary. This is quite possible: perhaps he has stated it in an interview. Perhaps it is about someone else. Maybe it is an introspective. Maybe it is all three: originally written for Mary, yet applied to another, and a expose of the struggle within himself to find what he was after.
Freddie largely wrote ballads, often love songs and both usually require a part of the author to be placed into them to work. A song written just as words lacks depth: no one knows what can be placed into them. Yet sometimes words just flow without any specific thought or emotion: sometimes a stream of consciousness occurs and the lyrics flow and must be written before they are lost. In much the same way as Coleridges 'Kublai Khan' a vision occurs. Can we know when that has occurred unless the author informs us? Are we wrong to attempt to interpret such a piece? According to Freddie, Bohemian Rhapsody was a piece yet many, the author included, have attempted an interpretation of it. Again, it is our words and our ideas based on the work of another.
All we can know for certain is that Freddie gave to us a wealth of music which ultimately means no more or less then we want it to mean and that is how it should remain. This is my interpretation of that man and his creation.
To be Continued....