by Paul Cashmere - September 29 2008
The new Queen + Paul Rodgers album `The Cosmos Rocks` has failed miserably to win fans in the Australian market.
After a very ordinary debut at number 49 last week, `The Cosmos Rocks` album dropped out of the Top 100 in week 2.
After two full weeks on sale in Australia, `The Cosmos Rocks` moved just 988 copies.
By comparison, the two decade old Queen’s ‘Greatest Hits’ album sold 1158 units just this week which places it number 49.
`The Cosmos Rocks` is the first album from Queen since ‘Made In Heaven’ in 1995 and the first proper Queen album since ‘Innuendo’ in 1991. (Made In Heaven was a collection of songs completed by Freddie Mercury prior to his death, Innuendo was the last album made as an album with Mercury).
The trouble with ‘The Cosmos Rocks’ is that it does not live up to the Queen legacy.
Calling the band Queen is a bit of a stretch. It is only guitarist Brian May and drummer Roger Taylor. Bass player John Deacon chose to sit this one out. Replacing Freddie Mercury is former Bad Company and Free singer Paul Rodgers.
Rodgers does a magnificent job on the album, but ‘The Cosmos Rocks’ sounds more like Bad Company than it does Queen.
‘The Cosmos Rocks’ may have felt like a good idea at the time. In retrospect, it would have been better off not released at all, or released under a different name other than Queen.
‘The Cosmos Rocks’ will be released next month in the USA.
http://www.undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=6435
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Comparing GH with.....this?no way.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]L-R-TIGER1994 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Comparing GH with.....this?no way. [/QUOTE]
It's not being compared musically- only sales-wise - in a one week period (to demonstrate a point).
It's not being compared musically- only sales-wise - in a one week period (to demonstrate a point).
I think Paul Cashmere is wrong and should keep his petty schadenfreude to himself.
bof !
it does has the bad company moode in general.
but it's the kind of album you have to listen more than once to appreciate.( and reviewers rarely do so)
i still give it a medium score, 6/10.
the thing is...most people need to like any song on the spot or it's crap.
i gave it a listen 4 times, no stop or skip.
it's not a great album, not is it crappy.
it does has the bad company moode in general.
but it's the kind of album you have to listen more than once to appreciate.( and reviewers rarely do so)
i still give it a medium score, 6/10.
the thing is...most people need to like any song on the spot or it's crap.
i gave it a listen 4 times, no stop or skip.
it's not a great album, not is it crappy.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Queenfred wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]L-R-TIGER1994 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Comparing GH with.....this?no way. [/QUOTE] It's not being compared musically- only sales-wise - in a one week period (to demonstrate a point). [/QUOTE] Anyway,you can´t compare this two completely different things,one sold millions of copies while the other I really doubt if it reaches a million one day. it only proves one thing:that the Rosmos Cocks...no...the Cosmos Sucks....wait no,the Cosmos Rocks(or at least it tries to do it).
I want to add my two cents about something which might be a new way to look at this whole Q+PR thing going on, with everyone following the chart positions and all.
I'm sure that everyone who has at least some business sense has to admit that Queen + Paul Rodgers is the only proper title for the band in a commercial sense. Granted, it's nowhere near the original Queen as an entity, which was more than the four individuals put together. So what you got is two out of four and then some, plus a great blues/rock singer, who is only capable of singing what he's always sang, and they're trying to make the best of what they've got. As long as they are able to do this, they will, and the good products will come in a couple of decades or so. But for now, Q+PR is a good band, there's nothing dramatically wrong with them, and I hope they will evolve into something more than a little fun-loving side project as it now is, and should be treated as such. Pity that most of the songs on the album are uninspiring. In Q+PR's defense, TCR is the best sounding rock album I've heard all year. Metallica's new album on the other hand, I have to say, while being an unsurprising number one everywhere, IS freakin' brilliant considering their age and everything, despite Rick Rubin's production.
But what most of you have forgotten to think about is this: EVERYONE who has ever heard of Queen, knows that Queen without Freddie Mercury (and to some extent without even John Deacon) is not Queen. This affects the album sales. So, how many people outside of the Queen fan sphere really know, who are Brian May and Roger Taylor? What if they had decided to call themselves May, Rodgers & Taylor (in the order of their choice)? Would it still be the success it has been? Would the album sales have been dramatically worse or better than what they have now been? How successful was any of Queen members' solo albums, compared to Queen albums themselves? So, what I'm saying is, if you think of Q+PR as a solo/side project and compare it to The Cross or Furia soundtrack or whatever, it's doing pretty damn good, even in the charts. Of course it's not Queen, but if you really expected it to be Queen...
I'm sure that everyone who has at least some business sense has to admit that Queen + Paul Rodgers is the only proper title for the band in a commercial sense. Granted, it's nowhere near the original Queen as an entity, which was more than the four individuals put together. So what you got is two out of four and then some, plus a great blues/rock singer, who is only capable of singing what he's always sang, and they're trying to make the best of what they've got. As long as they are able to do this, they will, and the good products will come in a couple of decades or so. But for now, Q+PR is a good band, there's nothing dramatically wrong with them, and I hope they will evolve into something more than a little fun-loving side project as it now is, and should be treated as such. Pity that most of the songs on the album are uninspiring. In Q+PR's defense, TCR is the best sounding rock album I've heard all year. Metallica's new album on the other hand, I have to say, while being an unsurprising number one everywhere, IS freakin' brilliant considering their age and everything, despite Rick Rubin's production.
But what most of you have forgotten to think about is this: EVERYONE who has ever heard of Queen, knows that Queen without Freddie Mercury (and to some extent without even John Deacon) is not Queen. This affects the album sales. So, how many people outside of the Queen fan sphere really know, who are Brian May and Roger Taylor? What if they had decided to call themselves May, Rodgers & Taylor (in the order of their choice)? Would it still be the success it has been? Would the album sales have been dramatically worse or better than what they have now been? How successful was any of Queen members' solo albums, compared to Queen albums themselves? So, what I'm saying is, if you think of Q+PR as a solo/side project and compare it to The Cross or Furia soundtrack or whatever, it's doing pretty damn good, even in the charts. Of course it's not Queen, but if you really expected it to be Queen...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]GonnaUseMyPrisoners wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I think Paul Cashmere is wrong and should keep his petty schadenfreude to himself. [/QUOTE]
Yeah... I'm sorry, but you stand for everything that's wrong with the Queen message boards at the moment.
Here we have a bit of news reporting that is 100% accurate and honest, explains the context in which this release has comes about, and tells what the album is all about.
Your reply is that of a 10-year old who hasn't yet realised that not everybody agrees with him.
Yeah... I'm sorry, but you stand for everything that's wrong with the Queen message boards at the moment.
Here we have a bit of news reporting that is 100% accurate and honest, explains the context in which this release has comes about, and tells what the album is all about.
Your reply is that of a 10-year old who hasn't yet realised that not everybody agrees with him.
this is what happenes when you are trying to fool people that its still Queen.
Top 5 in the album charts, Top 40 in the singles chart, sold-out tour, tour opening with attendance of 350000.. With virtually no promotion. Whos giving thumbs down to this?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kingogre wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Top 5 in the album charts, Top 40 in the singles chart, sold-out tour, tour opening with attendance of 350000.. With virtually no promotion. Whos giving thumbs down to this? [/QUOTE]
Read the topic, darling... ;)
The Australian record buying public has more interest in buying a 30 year old compilation than the latest album by "Queen"
Sure, it's only one country, but by next week the same will be true for UK..
Read the topic, darling... ;)
The Australian record buying public has more interest in buying a 30 year old compilation than the latest album by "Queen"
Sure, it's only one country, but by next week the same will be true for UK..
Two Big Thumbs and Two Big Toes DOWN.
But the fans hardly buy the GH-set, as they already own it. So the comparison is rather flawed. Like you said this is only one country and there has been little or no promotion. In most countries its selling very well regardless of the non-advertisement. In Australia they havent even toured.
I think really this comparison between old Greatest Hits and new The Cosmos rocks is Wrong.
As Brian said on the Album Club.. This is or feels like a new Band!
They were also going to have a new Band name, But decided against it as no-one would recognise them. Thats obviously a commercial selling point.
But I think we have to stop comparing, This is all new Material, and of course Paul will bring his music to the album which will change the sound.
The album for me is a great album, Is very different to past Queen but then again even when Queen when in their prime, they made all very different albums.. so this one is no different.
If you don't like it dont buy it, I even admit i had doubts on a few songs when i heard them! But after a few plays they grew on me.
All round its a great album from A NEW BAND with a different sound... and no comparison should be made. Its New Queen.
As Brian said on the Album Club.. This is or feels like a new Band!
They were also going to have a new Band name, But decided against it as no-one would recognise them. Thats obviously a commercial selling point.
But I think we have to stop comparing, This is all new Material, and of course Paul will bring his music to the album which will change the sound.
The album for me is a great album, Is very different to past Queen but then again even when Queen when in their prime, they made all very different albums.. so this one is no different.
If you don't like it dont buy it, I even admit i had doubts on a few songs when i heard them! But after a few plays they grew on me.
All round its a great album from A NEW BAND with a different sound... and no comparison should be made. Its New Queen.
I don't know what is sadder, someone who waits for the chart info. so he can crow about how unpopular Queen are, or someone who waits for the chart info. so he can crow about how popular Queen are. Think about it: does it make any difference to the quality of the music? Does the Cosmos Rocks become better or worse depending on its chart poistion?
I said before there would be no more News of the Worlds or Sheer Heart Attacks, and the days of Queen as a mega-successful record seller and arena rock band are basically over too. There is ample evidence that a lot of Queen fans won't accept QPR so why then is anyone surprised that QPR can't shift as many records as Queen used to? I can live with that: record sales never bothered me in the Fred days and they don't bother me now. And I'm happy the new material is not trying too much too ape the old, because that's simply not possible.
I said before there would be no more News of the Worlds or Sheer Heart Attacks, and the days of Queen as a mega-successful record seller and arena rock band are basically over too. There is ample evidence that a lot of Queen fans won't accept QPR so why then is anyone surprised that QPR can't shift as many records as Queen used to? I can live with that: record sales never bothered me in the Fred days and they don't bother me now. And I'm happy the new material is not trying too much too ape the old, because that's simply not possible.