[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]
Who said anything about original? And ripping off black musicians is a bit hypocritical coming from a fan of the band that ripped off the bass line for Chic's 'Good Times'!
Not to digress too much, and I'm not a huge Stones fan, but can you honestly say that the Stones don't have a sound of their own? Jumping Jack Flash would like a word with you!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Microwave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][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!!![/QUOTE]
Haha! Hey, they had really, really bad chemistry, but they had chemistry. Seriously though, I think the tension that exists between band members can be for the good of the music. Hell, Townsend and Daltrey were trying to kill each other while the Who was at its peak!
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]
Haha! Hey, they had really, really bad chemistry, but they had chemistry. Seriously though, I think the tension that exists between band members can be for the good of the music. Hell, Townsend and Daltrey were trying to kill each other while the Who was at its peak!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]drwinston wrote: [/QUOTENAME] I think these three lack real chemistry. [/QUOTE]
And yet the only reason they worked together in the first place was because of the chemistry they feel amongst themselves. Interesting that they perceive it and you do not.
And yet the only reason they worked together in the first place was because of the chemistry they feel amongst themselves. Interesting that they perceive it and you do not.
It's missing an audacious, typically Queen track.
i.e, Bohemian rhapsody, Innuendo......
Something with a bit of balls!
i.e, Bohemian rhapsody, Innuendo......
Something with a bit of balls!
It's not missing anything other than better lyrics. Musically, it's really good.
John wasn't an outstanding bass player in any way - it's likely that any session player could have played like John did - after all, who noticed, musically, that John was missing with Danny as replacement on the tour? - and, as such, he isn't really missed other than for what impact he could have had on the lyrical side of things.......
Queen+ Paul Rodgers has session players on stage whilst they fulfil the buk of playing duties themselves on record. Brian and Paul appear to be pretty decent bass players under these circumstances.......
John wasn't an outstanding bass player in any way - it's likely that any session player could have played like John did - after all, who noticed, musically, that John was missing with Danny as replacement on the tour? - and, as such, he isn't really missed other than for what impact he could have had on the lyrical side of things.......
Queen+ Paul Rodgers has session players on stage whilst they fulfil the buk of playing duties themselves on record. Brian and Paul appear to be pretty decent bass players under these circumstances.......
Lester Burnham Wrote :
THE BEATLES AND THE ROLLING STONES COMBINED ARE BETTER THAN QUEEN, FACT
-------------------------
Sorry Lester and i thought you were a respected person on this site and a Queen fan ? how can you thus make such a statement, combined they maybe better (your words not mine)but 'FACT' is your opinion and not fact. Queen continue to top more polls than the others combined FACT?
Yes i rate highly some of the Beatles work... but The Stones never did anything for me, yet Queen songs would and still effect me today over 30 years of listening to them!
THE BEATLES AND THE ROLLING STONES COMBINED ARE BETTER THAN QUEEN, FACT
-------------------------
Sorry Lester and i thought you were a respected person on this site and a Queen fan ? how can you thus make such a statement, combined they maybe better (your words not mine)but 'FACT' is your opinion and not fact. Queen continue to top more polls than the others combined FACT?
Yes i rate highly some of the Beatles work... but The Stones never did anything for me, yet Queen songs would and still effect me today over 30 years of listening to them!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Ray D O'Gaga wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]drwinston wrote: [/QUOTENAME] I think these three lack real chemistry. [/QUOTE]
And yet the only reason they worked together in the first place was because of the chemistry they feel amongst themselves. Interesting that they perceive it and you do not.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about that being the ONLY reason ($$$$$$), but that's a good point. I agree that they do have stage chemistry. That DVD from Russia shows that well. But the studio is a different story. I doubt that at any time Brian said,"Paul, that song bores the bloody hell out of me. Let's try something different here." Instead it sounds like it went more like "Here's a song." "OK, let's try it". Voodoo is an example.
Pure conjecture on my part, I know.
And yet the only reason they worked together in the first place was because of the chemistry they feel amongst themselves. Interesting that they perceive it and you do not.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about that being the ONLY reason ($$$$$$), but that's a good point. I agree that they do have stage chemistry. That DVD from Russia shows that well. But the studio is a different story. I doubt that at any time Brian said,"Paul, that song bores the bloody hell out of me. Let's try something different here." Instead it sounds like it went more like "Here's a song." "OK, let's try it". Voodoo is an example.
Pure conjecture on my part, I know.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Benn wrote: [/QUOTENAME] after all, who noticed, musically, that John was missing with Danny as replacement on the tour? [/QUOTE]
Just about everyone who concentrated on the music instead of getting their handclaps in synch.
Just about everyone who concentrated on the music instead of getting their handclaps in synch.
It's called three people on the same page!!! Brian and Roger always had a heavier writing style while Freddie and John were more pop and r& b influenced. And of course Paul Rodgers is a very Blues/Rock singer, so it only makes senses that the album is a reflection of the three people on it.
it really lacks the diversatity and spontanuatty like in other queen records
all songs have kind of the same vibe going ......mm maby it its rodgers ........still great though love it
all songs have kind of the same vibe going ......mm maby it its rodgers ........still great though love it
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]eoinmcgrath93 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]it really lacks the diversatity and spontanuatty like in other queen records
all songs have kind of the same vibe going ......mm maby it its rodgers ........still great though love it[/QUOTE]
I see what you mean about the vibe, but one thing the album definitely has is diversity. No two songs are similar, even if their lyrics are about the same topic. It's a rollercoaster like every Queen album's ever been.
all songs have kind of the same vibe going ......mm maby it its rodgers ........still great though love it[/QUOTE]
I see what you mean about the vibe, but one thing the album definitely has is diversity. No two songs are similar, even if their lyrics are about the same topic. It's a rollercoaster like every Queen album's ever been.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Benn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It's not missing anything other than better lyrics. Musically, it's really good.
John wasn't an outstanding bass player in any way - it's likely that any session player could have played like John did - after all, who noticed, musically, that John was missing with Danny as replacement on the tour? - and, as such, he isn't really missed other than for what impact he could have had on the lyrical side of things.......
Queen+ Paul Rodgers has session players on stage whilst they fulfil the buk of playing duties themselves on record. Brian and Paul appear to be pretty decent bass players under these circumstances.......[/QUOTE]
Danny hammed it up and couldn't hold John's jock strap during Danny's subpar performance of Dragon Attack in Chicago.
John wasn't an outstanding bass player in any way - it's likely that any session player could have played like John did - after all, who noticed, musically, that John was missing with Danny as replacement on the tour? - and, as such, he isn't really missed other than for what impact he could have had on the lyrical side of things.......
Queen+ Paul Rodgers has session players on stage whilst they fulfil the buk of playing duties themselves on record. Brian and Paul appear to be pretty decent bass players under these circumstances.......[/QUOTE]
Danny hammed it up and couldn't hold John's jock strap during Danny's subpar performance of Dragon Attack in Chicago.
What is missing?
Brian May and Roger Taylor.
Cheers,
Hor
Brian May and Roger Taylor.
Cheers,
Hor
The problem with a thread like this is it meanders aimlessly and the main point gets lost on the way.
but in response to the initial post.
I don't think it is chemistry that is lacking, I think they have chemistry in abundance, you can see that when they are on stage.
But in the studio I do wonder if they were more deferential to each other, or at least to Paul than Queen would have been. In the past they would argue over a single note and I'm not sure that happened with this album, though we'll never really know.
I can envisage Brian and Roger getting into a musical argument about each others songs, I just don't picture Brian arguing with Paul about his.
Anyhow, someone else made a point about missing John and I will certainly agree on the point that the bass playing is decidedly average on the album.
Some Things That Glitter does, as already mentioned elsewhere in the thread, lack the punch of a really good bass line that could have taken that song over the top from good (which it is) to great (which it could have been).
It sounds to me like the most 'produced' track on the album but the bass is just limp and ineffective.
but in response to the initial post.
I don't think it is chemistry that is lacking, I think they have chemistry in abundance, you can see that when they are on stage.
But in the studio I do wonder if they were more deferential to each other, or at least to Paul than Queen would have been. In the past they would argue over a single note and I'm not sure that happened with this album, though we'll never really know.
I can envisage Brian and Roger getting into a musical argument about each others songs, I just don't picture Brian arguing with Paul about his.
Anyhow, someone else made a point about missing John and I will certainly agree on the point that the bass playing is decidedly average on the album.
Some Things That Glitter does, as already mentioned elsewhere in the thread, lack the punch of a really good bass line that could have taken that song over the top from good (which it is) to great (which it could have been).
It sounds to me like the most 'produced' track on the album but the bass is just limp and ineffective.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ggo1 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The problem with a thread like this is it meanders aimlessly and the main point gets lost on the way.
but in response to the initial post.
I don't think it is chemistry that is lacking, I think they have chemistry in abundance, you can see that when they are on stage.
But in the studio I do wonder if they were more deferential to each other, or at least to Paul than Queen would have been. In the past they would argue over a single note and I'm not sure that happened with this album, though we'll never really know.
I can envisage Brian and Roger getting into a musical argument about each others songs, I just don't picture Brian arguing with Paul about his.
Anyhow, someone else made a point about missing John and I will certainly agree on the point that the bass playing is decidedly average on the album.
Some Things That Glitter does, as already mentioned elsewhere in the thread, lack the punch of a really good bass line that could have taken that song over the top from good (which it is) to great (which it could have been).
It sounds to me like the most 'produced' track on the album but the bass is just limp and ineffective.
[/QUOTE]
As the original poster - thanks for getting back to the gist of the discussion!
I agree with you 100% - somewhere in the middle of the thread I mention the stage chemistry but the lack of such in the studio, which was really my point from the onset. Cheers.
but in response to the initial post.
I don't think it is chemistry that is lacking, I think they have chemistry in abundance, you can see that when they are on stage.
But in the studio I do wonder if they were more deferential to each other, or at least to Paul than Queen would have been. In the past they would argue over a single note and I'm not sure that happened with this album, though we'll never really know.
I can envisage Brian and Roger getting into a musical argument about each others songs, I just don't picture Brian arguing with Paul about his.
Anyhow, someone else made a point about missing John and I will certainly agree on the point that the bass playing is decidedly average on the album.
Some Things That Glitter does, as already mentioned elsewhere in the thread, lack the punch of a really good bass line that could have taken that song over the top from good (which it is) to great (which it could have been).
It sounds to me like the most 'produced' track on the album but the bass is just limp and ineffective.
[/QUOTE]
As the original poster - thanks for getting back to the gist of the discussion!
I agree with you 100% - somewhere in the middle of the thread I mention the stage chemistry but the lack of such in the studio, which was really my point from the onset. Cheers.