Same Beat, Different Bars: What Megan Thee Stallion’s Remix and Bar Prep Terminology Have in Common

This morning, deep into a Zone 3 hiking workout on my Peloton Tread, something familiar—and unfamiliar—popped up on the screen.

"We Will Rock You."

But not the Freddie Mercury version.

This was the exact moment the Megan Thee Stallion version played during my workout. Heart rate up, legs pumping, brain making bar prep metaphors.

This was Megan Thee Stallion’s remix—complete with trap drums, original verses, and a whole new energy. It was created for a 2024 Pepsi NFL Super Bowl commercial, blending Queen’s iconic stomp-clap beat with a bold, modern voice. And as I powered through that climb, I realized: this is exactly what bar prep feels like sometimes.

I’d never heard it before, but I immediately recognized the beat. Same core rhythm. Same structure. Just a different voice delivering it. And as I powered through that climb, I realized: this is exactly what bar prep feels like sometimes.

When the Lyrics Change, But the Law Doesn’t

Just yesterday, a student asked why one bar review course's materials referred to a “significant governmental interest” in a time, place, and manner test, while a different bar review course called it an “important governmental interest.” The student was understandably confused—did these two phrases describe different standards?

Here’s the short answer: No.

Both phrases describe the same legal rule. The difference is more stylistic than substantive. Just like the Megan Thee Stallion remix, the delivery changed—but the beat, the backbone, stayed the same.

Let’s Go to the Source

The controlling case for time, place, and manner restrictions in public forums is Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989). There, the Supreme Court clearly held that such restrictions must be:

• Content-neutral,

• Narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and

• Leave open ample alternative channels for communication.

  
  

Other cases—like Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984)—use that same “significant” language. But elsewhere in First Amendment doctrine, courts sometimes say “important.” And guess what? For bar prep—and even in real-world analysis—they’re sometimes used interchangeably.

No court is going to toss out a regulation just because a lawyer said “important” instead of “significant.” Similarly, no bar exam grader is likely going to mark a response down for the same choice of phrasing. What matters is understanding the concept and applying it correctly.

The Remix Analogy: Megan x Queen x Law

What Megan did with Queen’s “We Will Rock You” is exactly what bar prep companies sometimes do with legal rules.

One bar review course may stick close to Ward and uses “significant.” Another bar review course may lean into broader intermediate scrutiny language and go with “important.” Still other courses (and your law school professor) might mix in different phrasing altogether—but they’re all teaching the same legal doctrine.

This isn’t about being right or wrong. It’s about style, clarity, and educational preference.

Just like Queen’s original version hit in 1977 and Megan’s remix hit in 2024, both are correct, both are powerful, and both serve their purpose.

Here’s the point: Don’t get distracted by the delivery. Focus on the doctrine.

Students sometimes panic when they see a rule worded differently between companies or professors. But unless the meaning is fundamentally altered (and it usually isn’t), what matters most is whether you can recognize the rule in a fact pattern and apply it clearly.

When in doubt, trust your foundation. If you understand what the rule does and how it works, you’ve got the beat—even if the lyrics sound different.