Crazy little thing called rubbish

Another bad review......amazing



The Cosmos Rocks
Queen and Paul Rodgers
Parlophone/EMI
THERE'S a strange, ambient whine at the beginning of this album that culminates in a spooky, unearthly voice asking: "What planet is this?"

Just who or what is behind it isn't explained, but if I were a betting man I'd say it was Freddie Mercury, somewhere in the great beyond, showing an unwarranted amount of tact about the drivel he and the living are being asked to endure on the rest of this CD.

This re-emergence of Queen is concrete proof that, despite the ancient adage to the contrary, the show needn't go on. What we have is two-thirds of the remaining Queen line-up -- guitarist Brian May and drummer Roger Taylor -- teaming up with former Free and Bad Company singer Paul Rodgers, not only in performance but also as co-writers. Presumably good taste prevented bassist John Deacon from coming out of retirement.

"We have the whole town rockin' to the mighty power of rock'n'roll," chimes the throaty Rodgers on the abysmal opener, Cosmos Rockin', a routine 12-bar affair that makes Status Quo sound weighty. The following prog-rock shuffle, Time to Shine, is even more embarrassing, sounding like a forced marriage between REM and This is Spinal Tap.

It doesn't get much better. Most of the problems lie in the fact that in Queen's glory days Mercury could turn the banal (take the stand, Taylor's Radio Ga Ga) into something gloriously camp and exciting. Rodgers, on the other hand, is a fine blues-rock singer, but it would take more than a sparkly Spandex unitard to get him out of this mess, much of it, lyrically at least, of his own making. There are a couple of exceptions.

The tribute to Mercury, Some Things That Glitter, has a suitably soulful performance from the frontman, while May's guitar riffs and licks peak on the Zeppelinesque C-lebrity. "Next thing you know they'll be rockin' out in space," Rodgers squeals early on. "Not to this we won't be," aliens will surely respond.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24355649-5013577,00.html

"What we have is two-thirds of the remaining Queen line-up"

Proof that some Aussies cant fucking count.

MARS NEEDS WOMEN!

made my blood boil - went on their page and sent the dick who wrote this a pointless reply... much like his review

Jake have you been on steriods again.. lol

well the reviewer is right. I would be ok with it if it wasnt called Queen+ but now it is and it shouldnt have beem since it has nothing to do with Queen, then again, who are they kidding? people know what sounds like Queen and what doesnt.

Here's my review of the review:

"This review starts to a slow opening, fumbling for its first lame joke until, somewhat nervously, it builds up to mentioning "Freddie Mercury." The reader is then left to endure bad puns and stock wit for the rest of the text.

Presumably the review was intended as snappy, but it comes off a bit dull and random. Routine nastiness would attract ridicule rather than rage on your average internet forum, and blatant observation about 2/3 of Queen are only good for a - yawn. Luckily, the reviewer ends soon afterwards - presumably, not to go practice guitar.

In all fairness, the review has some inadvertenly funny moments - the reviewer's comic ignorance of music styles and bands, and his half-assed praise of Freddie, proving once again the only consistent aspect of reviewers is their inconsistency. Not long ago, his kin, ashamed to admit their homophobia and xenophobia, wrote half-assed rubbish like this targeted at Fred's "talent", but now they've forgotten that. Hm, what's that they say about the brain of the goldfish?

Final verdict

Style 1/10
Substance 1/10"

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr Mercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"What we have is two-thirds of the remaining Queen line-up"

Proof that some Aussies cant fucking count.[/QUOTE]

Actually, Mr. Mercury, that Aussie can count. Since the reviewer is talking about the original lineup, two-thirds is May and Taylor. The other third is Deacon.

Ahh yet another "Freddie's gayness and campness is what's missing" type review.

Seems like that's all these critics obsess about.
They all seem to forget that Freddie was quite macho for a gay man.
Maybe they would be more accepting of Q+PR if Paul donned a pink tutu on the front cover. I dunno?

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr Mercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"What we have is two-thirds of the remaining Queen line-up"

Proof that some Aussies cant fucking count.[/QUOTE]


Proof that some Brits can't fucking read.

I have to say...I somewhat agree with the review!

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brian_Mays_Wig wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I have to say...I somewhat agree with the review![/QUOTE]

ditto

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]shieldmatron wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr Mercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"What we have is two-thirds of the remaining Queen line-up"

Proof that some Aussies cant fucking count.[/QUOTE]

Actually, Mr. Mercury, that Aussie can count. Since the reviewer is talking about the original lineup, two-thirds is May and Taylor. The other third is Deacon. [/QUOTE]

HA HA You're a fucking tit.There was four in the original line-up.So how could Brian and Roger be two thirds.

The review seems pretty much spot on to me. The new album is abysmal.

Like every other review I have read, I couldnt care less about it. I like the new stuff. I dont like all of it, but then again, I have never liked all the songs on previous Queen (or Free / Bad Co for that matter) albums.