[QUOTE]
[b]Lester Burnham wrote:[/b]
But, I think that because Brian and Roger were worried about the bottom-line numbers, they figured that the ultimate road to success was to use the Queen brand, and hey presto, an instant million-seller. Turns out that ain't so...
[/QUOTE]
I'm sure that was their reasoning behind it. Like I have said, in this "focus group" led era of marketing, I believe the concept of a Freddie-less Queen album was considered too big a risk to invest any real money into promoting. Or having heard it, the record company may have realised they had a potential turkey on their hands from the get-go.
I'm also baffled at the seemingly intentional move away from something that sounds readily identifiable as "Queen" Again, I can't figure out why May's solo albums sound more Queen like than what purports to be "Queen" in 2008.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Lester, re:
>Kenney was a far better fit than Simon Philips. At least Kenney didn't make The Who sound like a terrible Broadway musical.
Simon didn't make them sound like a Broadway musical all on his own. The bad sound came from a number of sources:
1 - John Entwistle was given "direction" as to how he was to play and at what levels. Previously he'd been using Alembics which gave the band a really heavy bottom end on stage (from '75 through to '82 and including Live Aid) and could play L O U D. For the '89 tour, he'd already switched to using Status graphite basses and was playing with full trebble and less bass in order to give him a more "lead guitar" type of sound. The type of bass and his settings combined took away that distinctive, grounding bass sound The Who were renowned for. On top of this, Roger had said that John would have to listen to him in terms of how loud he could play and as a result, there was very little true bass sound at any of the shows. It simply enabled Roger to properly hit keys which weren't coming from Pete any longer.
2 - Steve "Boltz" Bolton playing lead wah-wah heavy solos which couldn't have been further away from the true Who sound. However, Pete only agreed to celebrate the 25 years if he was allowed to play as rythm guitarist and then switch to lead when the mood took him. A genius move in many ways, because his acoustic playing was superb and lead directly to his current style on electric which is now more heavily flamenco influenced.
3 - Chyna, Cleveland Watkiss and Billy Nicholls on backing vocals - a complete departure from the past and completely out of place in a "blokes" band.
4 - The Kick Horns worked very well in places buy were too heavily in the mix on everything.
5 - John Bundrick - again, too high in the mix which tended to wash over everything; absolutely not his fault.
The sad thing is that, given the diversity of the material that they played in 1989, if Pete had been in proper shape to take the band out as a four / five piece as they are currently, that tour would have gone down in the band's history as one of their very best. Simon Phillips was / is a quality player and he did bring some interesting flourishes to the material in the way that Kenney was simply unable to do; remember Pete fed of the energy of Keith and, if you see the band currently, he's constantly taking references from Zak as to where to go and what to do. I think Pete thoguht he could do this playing rythm, but, clearly, he couldn't and that meant the driving force of the band on stage was redundant.
>Kenney was a far better fit than Simon Philips. At least Kenney didn't make The Who sound like a terrible Broadway musical.
Simon didn't make them sound like a Broadway musical all on his own. The bad sound came from a number of sources:
1 - John Entwistle was given "direction" as to how he was to play and at what levels. Previously he'd been using Alembics which gave the band a really heavy bottom end on stage (from '75 through to '82 and including Live Aid) and could play L O U D. For the '89 tour, he'd already switched to using Status graphite basses and was playing with full trebble and less bass in order to give him a more "lead guitar" type of sound. The type of bass and his settings combined took away that distinctive, grounding bass sound The Who were renowned for. On top of this, Roger had said that John would have to listen to him in terms of how loud he could play and as a result, there was very little true bass sound at any of the shows. It simply enabled Roger to properly hit keys which weren't coming from Pete any longer.
2 - Steve "Boltz" Bolton playing lead wah-wah heavy solos which couldn't have been further away from the true Who sound. However, Pete only agreed to celebrate the 25 years if he was allowed to play as rythm guitarist and then switch to lead when the mood took him. A genius move in many ways, because his acoustic playing was superb and lead directly to his current style on electric which is now more heavily flamenco influenced.
3 - Chyna, Cleveland Watkiss and Billy Nicholls on backing vocals - a complete departure from the past and completely out of place in a "blokes" band.
4 - The Kick Horns worked very well in places buy were too heavily in the mix on everything.
5 - John Bundrick - again, too high in the mix which tended to wash over everything; absolutely not his fault.
The sad thing is that, given the diversity of the material that they played in 1989, if Pete had been in proper shape to take the band out as a four / five piece as they are currently, that tour would have gone down in the band's history as one of their very best. Simon Phillips was / is a quality player and he did bring some interesting flourishes to the material in the way that Kenney was simply unable to do; remember Pete fed of the energy of Keith and, if you see the band currently, he's constantly taking references from Zak as to where to go and what to do. I think Pete thoguht he could do this playing rythm, but, clearly, he couldn't and that meant the driving force of the band on stage was redundant.
[QUOTE]
[b]Lester Burnham wrote: [/b]
"more idiotic statements from a failed writer, LOLSOS were songs that were decades old and still peaked at #6, how can you even compare?...Also, keith moon wasn't far above freddie mercury as a rock icon. Maybe in america, but not worldwide. Those statements make you look stupid!...why can't the brian and roger cult (trolls) get over the fact that some people Don't like TCR?...it's not a crime. I personally think the album is decent enough."
"From a failed writer" ... y'know, if anyone else had said that, that would have really hurt me, but because it's you... :)
Some of my "statements" were said as bait to Ken8, as I'm sure many of his were too, and therefore completely exaggerated. Keith Moon and Freddie Mercury were rock stars in their own ways, and both legends. Obviously, that went over the heads of many people.
Here's something that you obviously missed from my statements: I completely understand that people don't like TCR, and I don't really care if they like it, love it, loathe it, or want to use it as a frisbee. I like it, that's what matters to me; I'm not going to force my opinions on everyone else – believe me, I've had that happen to me far too many times by a small group of my fundamentalist Christian friends trying to get me to convert to their particular religion, and it bothers me beyond belief. I just came to the defence of Richard here because he had obviously started a parody thread, and Ken8 got his panties in a bunch, and I happen to really like The Who, far more than I like QPR.
Maybe next time you should try reading what I write and taking it with a grain of salt instead of jumping on the defensive. The only serious writing I do is in my failed books.
[/QUOTE]
ha ha, I guess I shouldn't have said that. I Just hate when people come on a queen site and feel the need to put down it's members. For what it's worth ( I know it's not much) I read your book and think it's fantastic, what are you 22?...A bright future awaits. Brighter than mine, but then again, I can't complain.
[b]Lester Burnham wrote: [/b]
"more idiotic statements from a failed writer, LOLSOS were songs that were decades old and still peaked at #6, how can you even compare?...Also, keith moon wasn't far above freddie mercury as a rock icon. Maybe in america, but not worldwide. Those statements make you look stupid!...why can't the brian and roger cult (trolls) get over the fact that some people Don't like TCR?...it's not a crime. I personally think the album is decent enough."
"From a failed writer" ... y'know, if anyone else had said that, that would have really hurt me, but because it's you... :)
Some of my "statements" were said as bait to Ken8, as I'm sure many of his were too, and therefore completely exaggerated. Keith Moon and Freddie Mercury were rock stars in their own ways, and both legends. Obviously, that went over the heads of many people.
Here's something that you obviously missed from my statements: I completely understand that people don't like TCR, and I don't really care if they like it, love it, loathe it, or want to use it as a frisbee. I like it, that's what matters to me; I'm not going to force my opinions on everyone else – believe me, I've had that happen to me far too many times by a small group of my fundamentalist Christian friends trying to get me to convert to their particular religion, and it bothers me beyond belief. I just came to the defence of Richard here because he had obviously started a parody thread, and Ken8 got his panties in a bunch, and I happen to really like The Who, far more than I like QPR.
Maybe next time you should try reading what I write and taking it with a grain of salt instead of jumping on the defensive. The only serious writing I do is in my failed books.
[/QUOTE]
ha ha, I guess I shouldn't have said that. I Just hate when people come on a queen site and feel the need to put down it's members. For what it's worth ( I know it's not much) I read your book and think it's fantastic, what are you 22?...A bright future awaits. Brighter than mine, but then again, I can't complain.
[QUOTE]
[b]Wiley wrote: [/b]
I am pleasantly surprised that this turned out to be a good thread and there is some discussion going on. I am also happy that it is Queen fans discussing a Queen record with new material for the first time in 13 years and a new "Queen+" tour in more time than that and this has been going on for some months now.
I like The Cosmos Rocks. I certainly like it more than Paul Rodgers singing old Queen, which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. It is all down to personal taste in the end.
It is a shame that the album was poorly promoted almost everywhere. It could have sold SO MUCH BETTER, but really, who cares?
Yes, I would prefer Queen made it big everywhere but those days are over and it is not necesarily a disgrace. They are old now.
I am very glad that they took the risk of putting and album out and I really hope they see this as a step in the right direction and not a setback; as a new beginning, not the end. I wish they commit to making the best album they can, actually writing together and really taking time to do it properly.[/QUOTE]
I too hope they will continue on and make more music together, even if it takes another 2-3 years.
I honestly think, what with Brian having said that the money IS moreso in touring than record sales these days anyways, that they weren't as concerned with making huge sales with this album (rather oddly, all things considered....new Queen album in 13 years, first full album without Freddie, etc etc). It did sell modestly, and certainly charted higher than expected by some, but I think, having all been recorded in Roger's Priory Studio with their usual in-house team, it would not have been a *must-sell* in terms of trying to break even on profit as far as financing behind the recordings went.
I'm even feeling somewhat this is kind of more a Roger production in that sense, as Brian didn't contribute much in the way of compositions towards the album (which I believe he admitted regretting) due to his multitude of other personal committments to various things during the production of the album, most notably his completing his physics degree in Astronomy
[b]Wiley wrote: [/b]
I am pleasantly surprised that this turned out to be a good thread and there is some discussion going on. I am also happy that it is Queen fans discussing a Queen record with new material for the first time in 13 years and a new "Queen+" tour in more time than that and this has been going on for some months now.
I like The Cosmos Rocks. I certainly like it more than Paul Rodgers singing old Queen, which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. It is all down to personal taste in the end.
It is a shame that the album was poorly promoted almost everywhere. It could have sold SO MUCH BETTER, but really, who cares?
Yes, I would prefer Queen made it big everywhere but those days are over and it is not necesarily a disgrace. They are old now.
I am very glad that they took the risk of putting and album out and I really hope they see this as a step in the right direction and not a setback; as a new beginning, not the end. I wish they commit to making the best album they can, actually writing together and really taking time to do it properly.[/QUOTE]
I too hope they will continue on and make more music together, even if it takes another 2-3 years.
I honestly think, what with Brian having said that the money IS moreso in touring than record sales these days anyways, that they weren't as concerned with making huge sales with this album (rather oddly, all things considered....new Queen album in 13 years, first full album without Freddie, etc etc). It did sell modestly, and certainly charted higher than expected by some, but I think, having all been recorded in Roger's Priory Studio with their usual in-house team, it would not have been a *must-sell* in terms of trying to break even on profit as far as financing behind the recordings went.
I'm even feeling somewhat this is kind of more a Roger production in that sense, as Brian didn't contribute much in the way of compositions towards the album (which I believe he admitted regretting) due to his multitude of other personal committments to various things during the production of the album, most notably his completing his physics degree in Astronomy
Disappointed as I might be by TCR, I don't really have anything against the idea of them trying again. It's the height of silliness I guess but I'd like to keep an open mind.
Forgetting for a moment that I don't think the songs were up to much this time, I think another flaw is that Brian and Roger didn't get much of a shot at singing. One can say 'Paul is the lead singer now, etc' but in the context of this Q+PR project.... he simply isn't all that outstanding that he can negate the others as singers. I listen to the job they did on "No One But You" and honestly it's just as good, if not better than, what's on TCR.
I think they really ought to take a Traveling Wilburys approach to it... try everyone on every song, and see who sounds best. Even if the music isn't up to snuff, the variety invariably helps things a little. I didn't like hearing Paul Rodgers on every track; it exacerbated the feeling (for me, anyway) that the songs were 'samey' and flat.
This is pretty disposable wisdom on my part; I'm not the guy with an Ivor Novello award here... (!) but I reckon they can do better. They can start by getting a bass player for the studio, not just for the live shows.
Forgetting for a moment that I don't think the songs were up to much this time, I think another flaw is that Brian and Roger didn't get much of a shot at singing. One can say 'Paul is the lead singer now, etc' but in the context of this Q+PR project.... he simply isn't all that outstanding that he can negate the others as singers. I listen to the job they did on "No One But You" and honestly it's just as good, if not better than, what's on TCR.
I think they really ought to take a Traveling Wilburys approach to it... try everyone on every song, and see who sounds best. Even if the music isn't up to snuff, the variety invariably helps things a little. I didn't like hearing Paul Rodgers on every track; it exacerbated the feeling (for me, anyway) that the songs were 'samey' and flat.
This is pretty disposable wisdom on my part; I'm not the guy with an Ivor Novello award here... (!) but I reckon they can do better. They can start by getting a bass player for the studio, not just for the live shows.
[QUOTE]
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
This is pretty disposable wisdom on my part; I'm not the guy with an Ivor Novello award here... (!) but I reckon they can do better. They can start by getting a bass player for the studio, not just for the live shows.
[/QUOTE]
I elect Danny Miranda for studio bass player! :-)
Actually, I'm surprised they didn't bring him in, in the first place, even if he were to be credited as session bassist or guest bassist on the sleeves, whatever. Probably would have helped make the songs get recorded faster.
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
This is pretty disposable wisdom on my part; I'm not the guy with an Ivor Novello award here... (!) but I reckon they can do better. They can start by getting a bass player for the studio, not just for the live shows.
[/QUOTE]
I elect Danny Miranda for studio bass player! :-)
Actually, I'm surprised they didn't bring him in, in the first place, even if he were to be credited as session bassist or guest bassist on the sleeves, whatever. Probably would have helped make the songs get recorded faster.
[QUOTE]
[b]Zebonka12 wrote:[/b]
One can say 'Paul is the lead singer now, etc' but in the context of this Q+PR project.... he simply isn't all that outstanding that he can negate the others as singers. I listen to the job they did on "No One But You" and honestly it's just as good, if not better than, what's on TCR. [/QUOTE]
Absolutely. And there's another catch 22 of bringing in a name like Paul Rodgers into a band like Queen.
With the respect that Brian & Roger rightfully have for Paul as a vocalist, I don't think they would've considered daring to ask him to only play bass on a few tracks.
[b]Zebonka12 wrote:[/b]
One can say 'Paul is the lead singer now, etc' but in the context of this Q+PR project.... he simply isn't all that outstanding that he can negate the others as singers. I listen to the job they did on "No One But You" and honestly it's just as good, if not better than, what's on TCR. [/QUOTE]
Absolutely. And there's another catch 22 of bringing in a name like Paul Rodgers into a band like Queen.
With the respect that Brian & Roger rightfully have for Paul as a vocalist, I don't think they would've considered daring to ask him to only play bass on a few tracks.
[QUOTE]
[b]Ken8 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Zebonka12 wrote:[/b]
One can say 'Paul is the lead singer now, etc' but in the context of this Q+PR project.... he simply isn't all that outstanding that he can negate the others as singers. I listen to the job they did on "No One But You" and honestly it's just as good, if not better than, what's on TCR.
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. And there's another catch 22 of bringing in a name like Paul Rodgers into a band like Queen.
With the respect that Brian & Roger rightfully have for Paul as a vocalist, I don't think they would've considered daring to ask him to only play bass on a few tracks.[/QUOTE]
Um.......I take it you don't realize which two members swapped bass duties on the album? ^_^'
[b]Ken8 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Zebonka12 wrote:[/b]
One can say 'Paul is the lead singer now, etc' but in the context of this Q+PR project.... he simply isn't all that outstanding that he can negate the others as singers. I listen to the job they did on "No One But You" and honestly it's just as good, if not better than, what's on TCR.
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. And there's another catch 22 of bringing in a name like Paul Rodgers into a band like Queen.
With the respect that Brian & Roger rightfully have for Paul as a vocalist, I don't think they would've considered daring to ask him to only play bass on a few tracks.[/QUOTE]
Um.......I take it you don't realize which two members swapped bass duties on the album? ^_^'
I don't think another Queen + paul studio album will be released. I think it's over.
[QUOTE]
[b]inu-liger wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Ken8 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Zebonka12 wrote:[/b]
One can say 'Paul is the lead singer now, etc' but in the context of this Q+PR project.... he simply isn't all that outstanding that he can negate the others as singers. I listen to the job they did on "No One But You" and honestly it's just as good, if not better than, what's on TCR.
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. And there's another catch 22 of bringing in a name like Paul Rodgers into a band like Queen.
With the respect that Brian & Roger rightfully have for Paul as a vocalist, I don't think they would've considered daring to ask him to only play bass on a few tracks.[/QUOTE]
Um.......I take it you don't realize which two members swapped bass duties on the album? ^_^'
[/QUOTE]
Gee, I wonder which two........?
I meant, you'd have to give Rodgers SOMETHING to do
[b]inu-liger wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Ken8 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Zebonka12 wrote:[/b]
One can say 'Paul is the lead singer now, etc' but in the context of this Q+PR project.... he simply isn't all that outstanding that he can negate the others as singers. I listen to the job they did on "No One But You" and honestly it's just as good, if not better than, what's on TCR.
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. And there's another catch 22 of bringing in a name like Paul Rodgers into a band like Queen.
With the respect that Brian & Roger rightfully have for Paul as a vocalist, I don't think they would've considered daring to ask him to only play bass on a few tracks.[/QUOTE]
Um.......I take it you don't realize which two members swapped bass duties on the album? ^_^'
[/QUOTE]
Gee, I wonder which two........?
I meant, you'd have to give Rodgers SOMETHING to do