I've been reading the various posts on the new album, and I think there have been some really good points as well as some useless drivel. Having listened to the album for almost a week now, I have to say that there seems to be something very important that is missing, and it's not Freddie. I think these three lack real chemistry.
The songs aren't that bad (although the lyrics make you wince at times), and they are surely better than some of the stuff that Queen has put on previous albums. The production is top notch. And Paul Rodgers sounds great! Wow, what a fantastic voice, and this is the best he has ever sounded in the studio. I think he really steals the show here.
But with that said, it leaves me just a bit flat. Great bands challenge each other. Brian has mentioned before that the fact that Freddie wrote in a very different style, and usually in very non-guitar friendly keys, made him really have to think how to approach the song. I would think that Roger had to try very hard to get his songs accepted - he's kind of the George Harrison of Queen! And John has stated that he was always nervous about presenting a song to the group. There was no doubt a lot of competition within the the band, and that resulted in a special chemistry that made for something unique. They were also very opinionated and the infighting that occurred no doubt contributed to a superior outcome. In fact, almost all great groups had this yin and yang effect that resulted in some great records.
This album feels more like three very talented musicians playing session man for each others songs. I don't hear them inspiring or challenging each other. Don't get me wrong - the album has some merit. But if they were to really work as group - fight to get their ideas in, look for ways to enhance the song and not just play on it - I think it would be the difference in what some of us are hearing.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
The idea about "real chemistry" is very abstract. I think you are trying to find fault with the album...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]April wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The idea about "real chemistry" is very abstract. I think you are trying to find fault with the album...[/QUOTE]
Why would I buy an album in order to find fault with it? Please.
In order to better understand chemistry in a group, try listening to Abbey Road, Exile on Main Street, Kind of Blue, Rumors, Who's Next, or - dare I say it - A Night at the Opera.
Why would I buy an album in order to find fault with it? Please.
In order to better understand chemistry in a group, try listening to Abbey Road, Exile on Main Street, Kind of Blue, Rumors, Who's Next, or - dare I say it - A Night at the Opera.
It misses good pop and rock songs at least 14 of them.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]drwinston wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
In order to better understand chemistry in a group, try listening to Rumors[/QUOTE]
Okay, talking about chemistry and Fleetwood Mac in the same sentence is not allowed!!!
In order to better understand chemistry in a group, try listening to Rumors[/QUOTE]
Okay, talking about chemistry and Fleetwood Mac in the same sentence is not allowed!!!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]drwinston wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I've been reading the various posts on the new album, and I think there have been some really good points as well as some useless drivel. Having listened to the album for almost a week now, I have to say that there seems to be something very important that is missing, and it's not Freddie. I think these three lack real chemistry.
The songs aren't that bad (although the lyrics make you wince at times), and they are surely better than some of the stuff that Queen has put on previous albums. The production is top notch. And Paul Rodgers sounds great! Wow, what a fantastic voice, and this is the best he has ever sounded in the studio. I think he really steals the show here.
But with that said, it leaves me just a bit flat. Great bands challenge each other. Brian has mentioned before that the fact that Freddie wrote in a very different style, and usually in very non-guitar friendly keys, made him really have to think how to approach the song. I would think that Roger had to try very hard to get his songs accepted - he's kind of the George Harrison of Queen! And John has stated that he was always nervous about presenting a song to the group. There was no doubt a lot of competition within the the band, and that resulted in a special chemistry that made for something unique. They were also very opinionated and the infighting that occurred no doubt contributed to a superior outcome. In fact, almost all great groups had this yin and yang effect that resulted in some great records.
This album feels more like three very talented musicians playing session man for each others songs. I don't hear them inspiring or challenging each other. Don't get me wrong - the album has some merit. But if they were to really work as group - fight to get their ideas in, look for ways to enhance the song and not just play on it - I think it would be the difference in what some of us are hearing.[/QUOTE]
Whole-heartedly agree.
This is not saying anything 'negative' per se.
Rather, that this album is not going to be remembered as something seminal or unique.
Good it may be - but a giant it will not.
The songs aren't that bad (although the lyrics make you wince at times), and they are surely better than some of the stuff that Queen has put on previous albums. The production is top notch. And Paul Rodgers sounds great! Wow, what a fantastic voice, and this is the best he has ever sounded in the studio. I think he really steals the show here.
But with that said, it leaves me just a bit flat. Great bands challenge each other. Brian has mentioned before that the fact that Freddie wrote in a very different style, and usually in very non-guitar friendly keys, made him really have to think how to approach the song. I would think that Roger had to try very hard to get his songs accepted - he's kind of the George Harrison of Queen! And John has stated that he was always nervous about presenting a song to the group. There was no doubt a lot of competition within the the band, and that resulted in a special chemistry that made for something unique. They were also very opinionated and the infighting that occurred no doubt contributed to a superior outcome. In fact, almost all great groups had this yin and yang effect that resulted in some great records.
This album feels more like three very talented musicians playing session man for each others songs. I don't hear them inspiring or challenging each other. Don't get me wrong - the album has some merit. But if they were to really work as group - fight to get their ideas in, look for ways to enhance the song and not just play on it - I think it would be the difference in what some of us are hearing.[/QUOTE]
Whole-heartedly agree.
This is not saying anything 'negative' per se.
Rather, that this album is not going to be remembered as something seminal or unique.
Good it may be - but a giant it will not.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]drwinston wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]April wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The idea about "real chemistry" is very abstract. I think you are trying to find fault with the album...[/QUOTE]
Why would I buy an album in order to find fault with it? Please.
In order to better understand chemistry in a group, try listening to Abbey Road, Exile on Main Street, Kind of Blue, Rumors, Who's Next, or - dare I say it - A Night at the Opera.[/QUOTE]
Oh please. the Rolling Stones, all they did was rip of Black musicians. They have no original sound of their own. But Exile On Main St is a good album, but hardly original.
Why would I buy an album in order to find fault with it? Please.
In order to better understand chemistry in a group, try listening to Abbey Road, Exile on Main Street, Kind of Blue, Rumors, Who's Next, or - dare I say it - A Night at the Opera.[/QUOTE]
Oh please. the Rolling Stones, all they did was rip of Black musicians. They have no original sound of their own. But Exile On Main St is a good album, but hardly original.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]drwinston wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]April wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The idea about "real chemistry" is very abstract. I think you are trying to find fault with the album...[/QUOTE]
Why would I buy an album in order to find fault with it? Please.
In order to better understand chemistry in a group, try listening to Abbey Road, Exile on Main Street, Kind of Blue, Rumors, Who's Next, or - dare I say it - A Night at the Opera.[/QUOTE]
Oh please. the Rolling Stones, all they did was rip of Black musicians. They have no original sound of their own. But Exile On Main St is a good album, but hardly original. [/QUOTE]
THE BEATLES AND THE ROLLING STONES COMBINED ARE BETTER THAN QUEEN, FACT
Why would I buy an album in order to find fault with it? Please.
In order to better understand chemistry in a group, try listening to Abbey Road, Exile on Main Street, Kind of Blue, Rumors, Who's Next, or - dare I say it - A Night at the Opera.[/QUOTE]
Oh please. the Rolling Stones, all they did was rip of Black musicians. They have no original sound of their own. But Exile On Main St is a good album, but hardly original. [/QUOTE]
THE BEATLES AND THE ROLLING STONES COMBINED ARE BETTER THAN QUEEN, FACT
drwinston you're completely right. it takes more than experienced technicians to make a great album. TCR is technically good, but certainly not great. And yet, I still like the QPR collaboration.
what is missing on TCR...
i guess some will have a pass echo of expectations.
it's the styles of these 3 guys put together.
how can it be any other way ?
i guess some will have a pass echo of expectations.
it's the styles of these 3 guys put together.
how can it be any other way ?
They need John Deacon.
All the teenage girls would be obsessing over him!!!
I know I would XD
I think they need to write a hard and heavy rock song. Come on, they have Paul Rodgers with the blues/soulful voice, you got Brian May with the awesome riffs, and then there's Roger.
I like Q+PR, but I think they can improve.
I wonder if they performed with John Fogerty...
I can only dream..
All the teenage girls would be obsessing over him!!!
I know I would XD
I think they need to write a hard and heavy rock song. Come on, they have Paul Rodgers with the blues/soulful voice, you got Brian May with the awesome riffs, and then there's Roger.
I like Q+PR, but I think they can improve.
I wonder if they performed with John Fogerty...
I can only dream..
I never thought I'd say this but you can really hear the gap where John Deacon should be.
Listen to his playing on "Save Me" and then take a song like "Some Things That Glitter". That sound would receive a huge boost from that sublime, lyrical bass playing that John had such a grasp of.
You can laff now, but I'm telling you; it would've made a huge difference. I think Brian could have parted with a bit of money and gotten someone in to play the bass....
Listen to his playing on "Save Me" and then take a song like "Some Things That Glitter". That sound would receive a huge boost from that sublime, lyrical bass playing that John had such a grasp of.
You can laff now, but I'm telling you; it would've made a huge difference. I think Brian could have parted with a bit of money and gotten someone in to play the bass....
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I never thought I'd say this but you can really hear the gap where John Deacon should be.
Listen to his playing on "Save Me" and then take a song like "Some Things That Glitter". That sound would receive a huge boost from that sublime, lyrical bass playing that John had such a grasp of.
You can laff now, but I'm telling you; it would've made a huge difference. I think Brian could have parted with a bit of money and gotten someone in to play the bass....[/QUOTE]
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Listen to his playing on "Save Me" and then take a song like "Some Things That Glitter". That sound would receive a huge boost from that sublime, lyrical bass playing that John had such a grasp of.
You can laff now, but I'm telling you; it would've made a huge difference. I think Brian could have parted with a bit of money and gotten someone in to play the bass....[/QUOTE]
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
An interesting point. I don't think chemistry is lacking - quite the opposite - but they do seem to lack that "yin and young" effect you're talking about.
That said, there are shining examples of two sides complementing each other, notably Warboys. Paul's version was good, but on the album it really grew into something big and mighty...
That said, there are shining examples of two sides complementing each other, notably Warboys. Paul's version was good, but on the album it really grew into something big and mighty...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I never thought I'd say this but you can really hear the gap where John Deacon should be.
Listen to his playing on "Save Me" and then take a song like "Some Things That Glitter". That sound would receive a huge boost from that sublime, lyrical bass playing that John had such a grasp of.
You can laff now, but I'm telling you; it would've made a huge difference. I think Brian could have parted with a bit of money and gotten someone in to play the bass....[/QUOTE] That's the perfect example of them missing John, That's probably the best song brian wrote in over a decade, and John's bass would have obviously improved it.
Listen to his playing on "Save Me" and then take a song like "Some Things That Glitter". That sound would receive a huge boost from that sublime, lyrical bass playing that John had such a grasp of.
You can laff now, but I'm telling you; it would've made a huge difference. I think Brian could have parted with a bit of money and gotten someone in to play the bass....[/QUOTE] That's the perfect example of them missing John, That's probably the best song brian wrote in over a decade, and John's bass would have obviously improved it.