Rolling Stone reviews "The Cosmos Rocks"

The newest issue of 'Rolling Stone' magazine (with Barack Obama on the cover not to mention the magazine has been redesigned to magazine sized proportions) has reviewed "The Cosmos Rocks." Here's the text:

"Without Freddie Mercury, Brit-rock veterans prepare for Lite FM.

Queen's first studio album in 13 years sounds a little like the band's old albums with stomping rockers, over-the-top power ballads and pyrotechnic solos difficult to replicate on 'Rock Band' but one thing's missing: late frontman Freddie Mercury, whose charisma Bad Company's Paul Rodgers can't match. Under Rodgers' command, 'Cosmos Rocks' evokes an unmemorable stretch of drive-time radio, with slow songs like 'Say It's Not True' recalling Air Supply. The classic rock cliches aren't all Rodgers' fault: original  band members helped write 'Still Burnin,' a generic bar-band jam laced with chestnuts like "music makes the world go round." Queen 2.0 are competent enough to rock arenas but don't expect a repeat of the glory days."

** stars (out of ***** stars)

yaawn

They are Queen, they are British and they are the best!

I always thought some Rock magazines are totally crap...I read better reviews here on Queenzone!

[QUOTE]

[b]Michael Allred wrote: [/b]

The newest issue of 'Rolling Stone' magazine (with Barack Obama on the cover not to mention the magazine has been redesigned to magazine sized proportions) has reviewed "The Cosmos Rocks." Here's the text:

"Without Freddie Mercury, Brit-rock veterans prepare for Lite FM.

Queen's first studio album in 13 years sounds a little like the band's old albums with stomping rockers, over-the-top power ballads and pyrotechnic solos difficult to replicate on 'Rock Band' but one thing's missing: late frontman Freddie Mercury, whose charisma Bad Company's Paul Rodgers can't match. Under Rodgers' command, 'Cosmos Rocks' evokes an unmemorable stretch of drive-time radio, with slow songs like 'Say It's Not True' recalling Air Supply. The classic rock cliches aren't all Rodgers' fault: original  band members helped write 'Still Burnin,' a generic bar-band jam laced with chestnuts like "music makes the world go round." Queen 2.0 are competent enough to rock arenas but don't expect a repeat of the glory days."

** stars (out of ***** stars)    [/QUOTE]




I think that's a fairly accurate review. It's an average album, with two really good songs, a number of so-so songs, and one or two real stinkers (yes, I'm talking about Still Burnin'). And there will never be another It's Late, Bo Rap, NOTW or ANATO.

My problem with many of the negative reviews are that they are basically saying it's not "Queen" enough without Freddie. Yet the same people hated Queen when Freddie was alive.

With or without Freddie Queen has ALWAYS gotten poor reviews from Rolling Stone. Back in 1981 Roger wrote a letter to them on an air sickness bag which they printed. Don't let negative reviews get to you people. Critics get their copies for free but we're the ones who pay for the music and come to our own conclusions.

[QUOTE]

 



[b]PieterMC wrote: [/b]



My problem with many of the negative reviews are that they are basically saying it's not "Queen" enough without Freddie. Yet the same people hated Queen when Freddie was alive.

[/QUOTE]

A fair point. Like a lot of 'trendy' journalists and mags, Rolling Stone despised Queen. When Fred died, a lot of them suddenly became fans, which of course meant they could do lots of Queen stories and benefit from the renewed public interest in the band. Now it's as if the early anti-Queen period never existed.

Still, their review is about right. I don't dislike the album - it's actually not too bad. But it's not Queen reborn or anything similar, as some here would have it.

I love the way Rolling Stone has always hated Queen. And now they're Queen + Paul Rodgers that means they can hate them MORE! I, for one, loved the album (after about 5 listens).

Has Rolling Stone ever featured Queen, guys? I`ve looked through Rolling Stone 1,000 covers, 2006, and you know what? Not a SINGLE cover devoted to Queen with Freddie or to any Queen members. What`s that???

Wow.  Rolling Stone gave a Queen album 2 stars??? 

Then it MUST be good!

Remember to use the 'converter' when deciphering RS reviews:

4 stars = Absolute trash.  Don't buy it, it will be worn out within 2 weeks
3 stars = A reach.  Those two songs are possibly worth the price you paid for the whole album
2 stars = Very promising.  Don't expect any articles in here anytime soon.
1 star = A must have.


Edit
Oh, April...  Actually they did make the cover... well Freddie did.  Look for the Michael Jackson issue (91), there at the very bottom (pun intended?) is Freddie's name.  So technically, HE made it.

I agree with the review. The album is good, but it's really bluesy, and if not for some Queen signatures, could very well act as a Paul Rodgers solo album.

I have to say that 'The Cosmos Rocks' disappointed me, so I can understand why they got a 2 star review from Rolling Stone. IMO I'd give it 3/5 stars.

What I don't understand is why The Jonas Brothers get a 4 star review, but Queen and PR get a 2 star review.

[b]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/b]

What I don't understand is why The Jonas Brothers get a 4 star review, but Queen and PR get a 2 star review.
[/QUOTE]

Use Microwave's converter, and it makes more sense. ;-)

"4 stars = Absolute trash.  Don't buy it, it will be worn out within 2 weeks"

@ Mr. Jingles

Use my RS Secret Decoder ring (see above).  It all makes sense then.



 



 



EDIT

Wow, scary Erin.  We even worded it pretty dang close, too!