[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]mr_creosote wrote: [/QUOTENAME]There seems to be a constant feeling that so-called fans were let down because the new album
is a different style to previous ones, that it is not "classic" Queen. What people seem to forget
is there IS NO Queen "sound" - Queen's music has constantly evolved over the years, changing
with tastes. Yes, certain elements were constant - but this is one of the things that make musicians legends - The Beatles, Queen, Bowie, The Who, Michael Jackson - all evolved their music over time. Artists who did one style of music and never changed have very rarely "made it" and had lengthy careers. Do you really think that Queen with Freddie would have lasted as long as they did churning out 'Killer Queen'-esque tracks year after year?
Yes, some of the songs aren't as good as others from Queen's history, but you can say that about
most other albums. Are 'Don't Try So Hard', 'Delilah', 'Party', or 'Tear It Up' anything like 'We Are The Champions' or 'Somebody To Love' in their style or quality - of course not, so why should any of Queen's new music be?
The important thing to note is that the majority of these songs are SO different from previous albums - it's obvious that Brian, Roger and Paul aren't trying to recapture the Queen sound, they are simply doing what they feel to be right. And using the name Queen - you try to name another band that has been together for 15+ years and not had a single change in line-up in that time. Some groups like Black Sabbath had line-ups with none of the original members. Brian and Roger were as big a part in the formation and success of Queen as John and Freddie were and they have every right to continue to use the Queen name if they wish.
What should be remembered is that Brian and Roger are doing this because they enjoy making music - they are certainly not doing it for the money. There should be a little less of the endless criticism and sniping and a little more appreciation of the sheer guts this must have taken by Brian and Roger to move on. If they were simply cashing in, or walking over Freddie's grave as some people have said, they would have done this years ago.
Finally, let's not forget the courage of Paul Rodgers to even try to walk in the shadow of rock's greatest showman. Paul is a very talented, respected and successful singer and musician and he is putting a lot on the line with this collaboration. [/QUOTE]
Dont try so hard isnt the same quality as we are the champions? who are you kidding? its even BETTER!
People always talk about freddie being the greatest showman but what about SINGER? he is THE greatest singer that has ever lived or will ever live! not to mention his songwriting skills are what made Queen big in the first place. You seem to forget that without freddie there is no Queen. smile+ paul rodgers is the right name for them.[/QUOTE]
TROLL
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Yara wrote: [/QUOTENAME]What I said in the second example is QUITE DIFFERENT. I said: ANY BAD ALBUM ISSUED BY ANY BAND IS BOUND TO TARNISH THE BAND'S REPUTATION, and that goes also to Queen. Simple as that. So if you think that TCQ is degrading to Queen's reputation in a MUSICAL SENSE, in the sense that it's not as good as the previous stuff, ok. [/QUOTE]
I meant specifically in musical sense, and specifically tried to make it clear with the
"Isn't releasing an unimaginative and uninspired album that tarnishes the band's reputation the same as destroying Queen's legacy?" -quote.
It really is a weak album which makes a MUSICALLY sad footnote in the end of Queen's recording career. it would have been a logical progression from the latest solo albums, but it's NOT a logical progression from any of the Queen albums.
It's like releasing Fun In Space as a Queen album in 1981! Sure there are some familiar elements in there, but nobody would seriously call that a Queen album.
I meant specifically in musical sense, and specifically tried to make it clear with the
"Isn't releasing an unimaginative and uninspired album that tarnishes the band's reputation the same as destroying Queen's legacy?" -quote.
It really is a weak album which makes a MUSICALLY sad footnote in the end of Queen's recording career. it would have been a logical progression from the latest solo albums, but it's NOT a logical progression from any of the Queen albums.
It's like releasing Fun In Space as a Queen album in 1981! Sure there are some familiar elements in there, but nobody would seriously call that a Queen album.
[QUOTE] I say that TCR is boring and uninspired compared to all Queen albums, even The Miracle
[/QUOTE]
Why compare it to Queen with Freddie then? Much more enjoyable listening to it without any prejudice!
[/QUOTE]
Why compare it to Queen with Freddie then? Much more enjoyable listening to it without any prejudice!
The only problem is the name Queen. That name give expectations (or something like that). The prejudice I had was about the name Queen. And I know I should be warned after all because songs like SINT, The Call or Invincable Hope where allready a sign. I just wonder if the 46664 recordings are ever released how will they credit SINT?? Because now it's credited QPR which is funccy offcourse but at other hand same with Warboys. But back to the main issue.The Queen sound was evolving off course nobody wanted to hear a remake of KYA in 1991, but there where always songs taht stand out, like Was it all Worth it, Innuendo, All God's People, Slightly Mad etc etc. This album just haven't one track that gives me (personal opinion) that suprise, that twist. That could be because Freddie and John aren't involved. That could be because Brian and Roger just wanted to do something really different just to prove that this is another band like they stated.But if it's so important to prove it's a new band or another band why keeping the old name except for the obvious commercial reason, like Greg Brooks said in that Brazilian interview. TCR is indeed a good rock/blues album if you listen to it without prejudice but hoping for a Queen album gives you hope to music on higher or maybe should I say different standards.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Markman38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The only problem is the name Queen. That name give expectations (or something like that). The prejudice I had was about the name Queen. And I know I should be warned after all because songs like SINT, The Call or Invincable Hope where allready a sign. I just wonder if the 46664 recordings are ever released how will they credit SINT?? Because now it's credited QPR which is funccy offcourse but at other hand same with Warboys. But back to the main issue.The Queen sound was evolving off course nobody wanted to hear a remake of KYA in 1991, but there where always songs taht stand out, like Was it all Worth it, Innuendo, All God's People, Slightly Mad etc etc. This album just haven't one track that gives me (personal opinion) that suprise, that twist. That could be because Freddie and John aren't involved. That could be because Brian and Roger just wanted to do something really different just to prove that this is another band like they stated.But if it's so important to prove it's a new band or another band why keeping the old name except for the obvious commercial reason, like Greg Brooks said in that Brazilian interview. TCR is indeed a good rock/blues album if you listen to it without prejudice but hoping for a Queen album gives you hope to music on higher or maybe should I say different standards.[/QUOTE]
Exactly and that higher standard can ONLY come with Freddie!
Exactly and that higher standard can ONLY come with Freddie!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Markman38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The only problem is the name Queen. That name give expectations (or something like that). The prejudice I had was about the name Queen. And I know I should be warned after all because songs like SINT, The Call or Invincable Hope where allready a sign. I just wonder if the 46664 recordings are ever released how will they credit SINT?? Because now it's credited QPR which is funccy offcourse but at other hand same with Warboys. But back to the main issue.The Queen sound was evolving off course nobody wanted to hear a remake of KYA in 1991, but there where always songs taht stand out, like Was it all Worth it, Innuendo, All God's People, Slightly Mad etc etc. This album just haven't one track that gives me (personal opinion) that suprise, that twist. That could be because Freddie and John aren't involved. That could be because Brian and Roger just wanted to do something really different just to prove that this is another band like they stated.But if it's so important to prove it's a new band or another band why keeping the old name except for the obvious commercial reason, like Greg Brooks said in that Brazilian interview. TCR is indeed a good rock/blues album if you listen to it without prejudice but hoping for a Queen album gives you hope to music on higher or maybe should I say different standards.[/QUOTE]
Exactly and that higher standard can ONLY come with Freddie![/QUOTE]
Come on Mr Bad Guy wasn't a great album it was the chemistry between the four of them
Exactly and that higher standard can ONLY come with Freddie![/QUOTE]
Come on Mr Bad Guy wasn't a great album it was the chemistry between the four of them
[QUOTE]
Come on Mr Bad Guy wasn't a great album it was the chemistry between the four of them[/QUOTE]
Exactly. And BTW Treasure Moment suck
Come on Mr Bad Guy wasn't a great album it was the chemistry between the four of them[/QUOTE]
Exactly. And BTW Treasure Moment suck
We are running in circles I think, and we all have spotted the main points IMHO.
If they use the name Queen, whatever they do using that "brand" would be compared to their previous works - why it shouldn't be like that?, And the fact is that it is definitely beyond that average quality material (blame it on whatever you want, Freddie, Burns guitars, Brian's hair, whatever). One bad review can be nasty and intentional (does NME still care about Queen?)... but 90% of them aren't good reviews, like it or not, it's the facts. Are *all* these people wrong? Is it a conspiration against Queen or Paul? Are all these reviewers Bad Company haters? That's pushing it too far, I think. If TCR is a good traditional hard rock album (it is for some people), fine. But when it has the Queen "brand" on it, it is bound to be compared forever to ANATO and all the others. And this is what most of the reviewers (professionals or not) are doing I think. It's upsetting, of course. But not as far from the truth as some people think.
If they didn't use the famous "royal brand", they would be an even easier target, and the frustration would be immense... of course Brian and Roger have the best intentions. But things sometimes don't go as planned.
If they use the name Queen, whatever they do using that "brand" would be compared to their previous works - why it shouldn't be like that?, And the fact is that it is definitely beyond that average quality material (blame it on whatever you want, Freddie, Burns guitars, Brian's hair, whatever). One bad review can be nasty and intentional (does NME still care about Queen?)... but 90% of them aren't good reviews, like it or not, it's the facts. Are *all* these people wrong? Is it a conspiration against Queen or Paul? Are all these reviewers Bad Company haters? That's pushing it too far, I think. If TCR is a good traditional hard rock album (it is for some people), fine. But when it has the Queen "brand" on it, it is bound to be compared forever to ANATO and all the others. And this is what most of the reviewers (professionals or not) are doing I think. It's upsetting, of course. But not as far from the truth as some people think.
If they didn't use the famous "royal brand", they would be an even easier target, and the frustration would be immense... of course Brian and Roger have the best intentions. But things sometimes don't go as planned.
Queen ALWAYS got bad reviews, theres no surprise in that. And neither Brian, Roger, Paul, Bad Company or Free etc are fashionable among the people who write these reviews, who it can be widely ascertaine has amde their minds up about several albums before even hearing them. Almost all veteran artists get bad reviews these days, whether the albums are good or bad at all doesnt seem to matter.
It would have been the same if Freddie had been alive, if John had been part of it and to at least a very large extent if theyd called it something else.
And you have to remember that when some reviewers calls something unimaginative standard rock, then Free and Bad Company is their definition of this.
Regardless of this they have gotten some good reviews, from some quite surprising places actually. More than I expected.
In the end it matters a lot more how many buys the record than what a few newspaper reporters write about, and it is quite safe to say it will sell very well.
It would have been the same if Freddie had been alive, if John had been part of it and to at least a very large extent if theyd called it something else.
And you have to remember that when some reviewers calls something unimaginative standard rock, then Free and Bad Company is their definition of this.
Regardless of this they have gotten some good reviews, from some quite surprising places actually. More than I expected.
In the end it matters a lot more how many buys the record than what a few newspaper reporters write about, and it is quite safe to say it will sell very well.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Markman38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The only problem is the name Queen. That name give expectations (or something like that). The prejudice I had was about the name Queen. And I know I should be warned after all because songs like SINT, The Call or Invincable Hope where allready a sign. I just wonder if the 46664 recordings are ever released how will they credit SINT?? Because now it's credited QPR which is funccy offcourse but at other hand same with Warboys. But back to the main issue.The Queen sound was evolving off course nobody wanted to hear a remake of KYA in 1991, but there where always songs taht stand out, like Was it all Worth it, Innuendo, All God's People, Slightly Mad etc etc. This album just haven't one track that gives me (personal opinion) that suprise, that twist. That could be because Freddie and John aren't involved. That could be because Brian and Roger just wanted to do something really different just to prove that this is another band like they stated.But if it's so important to prove it's a new band or another band why keeping the old name except for the obvious commercial reason, like Greg Brooks said in that Brazilian interview. TCR is indeed a good rock/blues album if you listen to it without prejudice but hoping for a Queen album gives you hope to music on higher or maybe should I say different standards.[/QUOTE]
Exactly and that higher standard can ONLY come with Freddie![/QUOTE]
TROLL
Exactly and that higher standard can ONLY come with Freddie![/QUOTE]
TROLL
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kingogre wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And you have to remember that when some reviewers calls something unimaginative standard rock, then Free and Bad Company is their definition of this.[/QUOTE]
And here we go again: this not Queen neither Bad Company/Free, but it tends to sound more like the last two. Perhaps is this why it is getting bad(der) reviews than fans think it should get? Then who's to blame? Queen fans?
[QUOTE]In the end it matters a lot more how many buys the record than what a few newspaper reporters write about,[/QUOTE]
It depends on who you ask: the band, the fans or the recording label?
[QUOTE]and it is quite safe to say it will sell very well.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't be so optimistic. Not because of the CD itself but also because nobody buys CDs anymore, except fans (ok both bands have a huge fanbase enough for a few milions, but still).
And you have to remember that when some reviewers calls something unimaginative standard rock, then Free and Bad Company is their definition of this.[/QUOTE]
And here we go again: this not Queen neither Bad Company/Free, but it tends to sound more like the last two. Perhaps is this why it is getting bad(der) reviews than fans think it should get? Then who's to blame? Queen fans?
[QUOTE]In the end it matters a lot more how many buys the record than what a few newspaper reporters write about,[/QUOTE]
It depends on who you ask: the band, the fans or the recording label?
[QUOTE]and it is quite safe to say it will sell very well.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't be so optimistic. Not because of the CD itself but also because nobody buys CDs anymore, except fans (ok both bands have a huge fanbase enough for a few milions, but still).
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]inu-liger wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Queen certainly didn't take 15 years to decide what to do. Hell, Roger and Brian were playing together, not directly as Queen mind you, for crowds in 1999 (at either Roger's solo show or the guest spot they did at a Foo Fighters concert), and saw that there was a huge response and obviously demand for Queen to continue as a BAND.[/QUOTE]
In comparison to other bands, they did take fifteen years to dedice what to do.
They didn't announce the band was to continue, they didn't start out a search for a new singer, they didn't continue as a three (or two) -piece group, and they didn't go into the studio the very next year after their figurehead left the group.
[/QUOTE]
On the other hand, unlike Led Zeppelin or The Beatles, Queen has never announced they were over and would never use the name again. And it did not take them 15 years to do something, if you consider they put a massive tribute gig together in 1992, finished an unfinished album and released it in 1995, released a new studio single in 1997 and in the early 2000s they started playing more often in festivals under the name Queen (probably because John was the one acting lazy, and once he left, Brian and Roger had some more freedom).
The 90s maybe weren't very productive for Queen, but it doesn't mean Queen didn't do anything at all from Freddie's death to the QPR tour.
In comparison to other bands, they did take fifteen years to dedice what to do.
They didn't announce the band was to continue, they didn't start out a search for a new singer, they didn't continue as a three (or two) -piece group, and they didn't go into the studio the very next year after their figurehead left the group.
[/QUOTE]
On the other hand, unlike Led Zeppelin or The Beatles, Queen has never announced they were over and would never use the name again. And it did not take them 15 years to do something, if you consider they put a massive tribute gig together in 1992, finished an unfinished album and released it in 1995, released a new studio single in 1997 and in the early 2000s they started playing more often in festivals under the name Queen (probably because John was the one acting lazy, and once he left, Brian and Roger had some more freedom).
The 90s maybe weren't very productive for Queen, but it doesn't mean Queen didn't do anything at all from Freddie's death to the QPR tour.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]runner70 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE]
Come on Mr Bad Guy wasn't a great album it was the chemistry between the four of them[/QUOTE]
Exactly. And BTW Treasure Moment suck[/QUOTE]
silent stupid creature
Come on Mr Bad Guy wasn't a great album it was the chemistry between the four of them[/QUOTE]
Exactly. And BTW Treasure Moment suck[/QUOTE]
silent stupid creature
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Markman38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Markman38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The only problem is the name Queen. That name give expectations (or something like that). The prejudice I had was about the name Queen. And I know I should be warned after all because songs like SINT, The Call or Invincable Hope where allready a sign. I just wonder if the 46664 recordings are ever released how will they credit SINT?? Because now it's credited QPR which is funccy offcourse but at other hand same with Warboys. But back to the main issue.The Queen sound was evolving off course nobody wanted to hear a remake of KYA in 1991, but there where always songs taht stand out, like Was it all Worth it, Innuendo, All God's People, Slightly Mad etc etc. This album just haven't one track that gives me (personal opinion) that suprise, that twist. That could be because Freddie and John aren't involved. That could be because Brian and Roger just wanted to do something really different just to prove that this is another band like they stated.But if it's so important to prove it's a new band or another band why keeping the old name except for the obvious commercial reason, like Greg Brooks said in that Brazilian interview. TCR is indeed a good rock/blues album if you listen to it without prejudice but hoping for a Queen album gives you hope to music on higher or maybe should I say different standards.[/QUOTE]
Exactly and that higher standard can ONLY come with Freddie![/QUOTE]
Come on Mr Bad Guy wasn't a great album it was the chemistry between the four of them[/QUOTE]
hmm lets see, isnt the song from freddies solo album "made in heaven" in the last official Queen album? hmm yeah it must be a bad song.
Exactly and that higher standard can ONLY come with Freddie![/QUOTE]
Come on Mr Bad Guy wasn't a great album it was the chemistry between the four of them[/QUOTE]
hmm lets see, isnt the song from freddies solo album "made in heaven" in the last official Queen album? hmm yeah it must be a bad song.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]runner70 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE]
Come on Mr Bad Guy wasn't a great album it was the chemistry between the four of them[/QUOTE]
Exactly. And BTW Treasure Moment suck[/QUOTE]
silent stupid creature[/QUOTE]
TROLL
Come on Mr Bad Guy wasn't a great album it was the chemistry between the four of them[/QUOTE]
Exactly. And BTW Treasure Moment suck[/QUOTE]
silent stupid creature[/QUOTE]
TROLL