The Works: Album & Tour

The voice is also an instrument. Learning to sing like Pavarotti, Sinatra, Celine or (yes!) the Spice Girls takes as much effort as learning to play guitar, piano, violin or drums (of course, on different levels). As long as you're making music (and making a living off it), you're a musician if you're a composer, arranger, conductor, pianist, a singer, a backing singer, a producer or (in some cases) even a DJ - depending on what you do.

By the way, one thing is to make an independent porn film and something completely different is to sell over 60 million records having your voice in them, tour around loads of countries and sell out stadia during five years (more or less), etc. Success = quality? No. But success does qualify for the (successful) activity to be a profession. Hence, George Bush is a professional politician (regardless how incompetent he was for the job), Spice Girls were professional musicians (regardless of how much producers and advertisers contributed to their success), Jimmy Page is a professional guitarist (regardless how sloppy or overrated), Ace Frehley is a professional guitarist (although he's basically playing the same thing over and over again), Lilly Allen is a professional musician, Taylor Swift is a professional musician, Take That are professional musicians, etc.

Of course, there are people who aren't professional musicians (in the strictly financial sense), who know a lot more about music than all the Spice Girls combined. Anthony Hopkins for instance, or Hugh Laurie. But who said life is fair?

I enjoy almost all of Sebastian's posts as they are quite informative, they usually make good points and this provokes good discussions about music in these boards.



I particularly enjoy when he goes into basic concepts and challenges other people's ideas. The Spice Girls ARE Musicians! Yes, they are, even if Mr. Snob ProgRock-inson wouln'd get off his high horse to deal with it.

Different aspects of music and entertainment touch people in different ways. I added the word entertainment to include performance, delivery and anything else related.

So, you like your entertainers to wear tights while singing high melody lines about "Moet Chandon" and "pretty cabinets"?
Do you like...
... fast guitar solos backed by double bass drums?
... folk music with lyrics that make you think about what's wrong with the World?
... musical statements that challenge our understanding or conception of music?
... catchy music that makes you want to dance?
... catchy music to listen while you drive?
... humorous performers that don't take themselves seriously?

You may have answered "Yes" to many or all the previous questions. It's all about taste.

Queen were a very versatile and talented band but so were many others.

A mistake I made many years ago was to think "Queen's got everything. I don't need to listen to other artists". They did better hard rock than Sabbath, better punk than the Sex Pistols, better piano ballads than Elton John and Hot Space is better than Thriller!

[QUOTE]

[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]

Yes, they were selected, packaged and put together, and they made good music.
[/QUOTE]
No; they were reasonably well-produced, but they definitely did not make good music. Good selling music perhaps.

[QUOTE]

[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]





[QUOTE]













[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]







Yes, they were selected, packaged and put together, and they made good music.





[/QUOTE]
No; they were reasonably well-produced, but they definitely did not make good music. Good selling music perhaps.
[/QUOTE]
I think that their music was fun, but in terms of whether or not it was 'good', that's a different question. Objectively I would say no, as I don't think any of them are particularly good singers, and the writing leaves alot to be desired, but I do enjoy listening to them and 'Spice Up Your Life' is a guilty pleasure. The music in that song Is IMO actuallly quite catchy, but the song is forgettable.

I'm gonna paraphrase what a friend said a couple of years ago, editing the analogy a bit: A 6-ft bloke isn't, by any means, the tallest man in the world; maybe not even in his home town, and there are definitely thousands of people who're taller, from nearly any country, any race, etc. Does that make him short? No. Does that make him a dwarf? No. Being 6 ft is enough to be 'tall', even if there are hundreds of thousands of taller people.

Same here: are there hundreds, thousands or even millions of women who can sing and compose better than Emma? Probably; are there women who can sing and compose better than Emma, and besides play an instrument (or many), and besides know more about music, and besides are cutier, blonder and with a wider knowledge? Probably. But that doesn't make Emma a 'bad' singer, an incompetent person or a lame excuse for a human being. She's still a musician, and a good one. The best in the world? No. The best in England? No. One of the Top 10000? No. But still a good musician.

I do find unfair, when speaking about pop music, how double-standards apply: with an artist like The Beatles, having a catchy song is genius; with an artist like Justin Timberlake, having a catchy song is being a sell-out, apparently. Same when people criticise NSYNC or BSB for being gay (sure, because Freddie was the symbol of heterosexuality ... and at the end of the day, it's not related at all with the quality of music). Yes, many people now are shaking their heads thinking 'how can this idiot compare The Fab Four or Lord Mercury (who probably have God as their servant's servant) with those marketing-generated mannequins?' - which brings something else: people tend to idolise their favourite acts or genres to extremes. [i]Viva Forever [/i]is based on the same chord progression over and over again, and for many, that's worthy of death penalty; but Pachelbel's [i]Canon in D[/i] and Brian May's [i]The Show Must Go On [/i]and [i]I Want It All[/i] also have that (for limited extent at least), but that's OK.

Now that I mention [i]Viva Forever[/i], I actually like it a lot, and I think it's very well-made: progression's the same all over, as it happens in tons of great songs (such as the aforementioned ones), the solo's very well-played (yes, it partly relies on straight scale fragments, but so do [i]Great King Rat [/i]or [i]Innuendo[/i] and they're still brill as well), vocals are nicely done (and they show Mel B's range at both ends), lyrics are beautiful (predictable topic, but they're nice and memorable, which is pretty much what I look for in those songs), it's well-produced (i.e. it sounds well, there's no crosstalk, etc), percussion's all right (is it mostly programmed? Yes; could it be better? Yes; does it mean it's bad? No)... my only real complaint is Victoria's part, which sounds a bit odd (she's not as good as the others but they could afford doing enough takes, or even have Geri doing it as last resort), but it's not enough to demonise the whole song (6-ft tall guy all over again).

At the end of the day, 'all's well that ends well'. I'm particularly fond of harmonies in parallel thirds, and I can cite from the top off my head three cases where it's happened: Paul & Art ([i]Mrs Robinson[/i]), Freddie & Freddie ([i]Days of Our Lives[/i]), Sporty & Baby ([i]Wannabe[/i]). Are C and Emma as good singers as Mercury, Simon or Garfunkel? No. Does that make them bad? No.

> No; they were reasonably well-produced, but they definitely did not make good music.

There's nothing 'definite' about that. Some people may not like it, and some people may love it, but at the end of the day there are several aspects that aren't up to subjectivity or prejudice:

- Is their music well-written (even if not by them)? Yes. Just the MPC 3000 drumming pattern is not something anybody could programme, and it does take some expertise, patience and labour.

- Are their lyrics well-written? Yes. They do fulfil the basic requisites: rhyme, puns, grammar, semantics... yes, a couple of lines on [i]Say You'll Be There [/i]are a bit odd but it doesn't mean their entire output is crap. Btw, The Beatles' [i]Ticket to Ride [/i]has 'she don't care' and who's complaining? It's still a great song!

- Is it well-produced? Yes.

- Does it have creative arrangements? Yes. Not symphony-orchestra-worthy, but good anyway. The antiphonal bit in [i]Goodbye[/i] is, again, not something anybody could do. Of course, that's not their creation, but the producer's, but it's still good music and it's still not something any shaved monkey could sing well. I really like Victoria on this one!

> Good selling music perhaps.

Good selling music usually has a combination of marketing and craftsmanship. By hype alone you don't sell millions; by excellence alone you don't either. Without appropriate promotion, a masterpiece like [i]Innuendo[/i] would still be unknown for many (as a matter of fact, it is!). But most of the 'overplayed' pop classics do have some thoughtful labour behind (whether the artist is involved or not). Not everybody can compose and perform [i]Eternal Flame, All the Small Things, Basket Case [/i]or [i]Like a Virgin[/i].

> Objectively I would say no, as I don't think any of them are particularly good singers

That's true for 99% of singers, so? Back to 6-ft...

> and the writing leaves alot to be desired

A lot to be desired [i]by you[/i]. That's a subjective matter: remember the good old discussions about Queen on their synth era, or about their post-Races period in general. Comparatively, I rank Spice Girls above many boy or girl groups because they were averagely more versatile (listen to [i]Lady Is a Vamp [/i]and then [i]Too Much[/i] - totally different from one another) and were much closer to an ensemble set (with Emma and the two Mel's dominating the music, Geri & Victoria dominating the hype) than most contemporaries (e.g. think about Boyzone or NSYNC - basically 2 chaps battling for the throne + 3 extras).

> The music in that song Is IMO actuallly quite catchy, but the song is forgettable.

I think a key part of being 'catchy' is that it's not 'forgettable'. I applaud the fact that [i]2 Become 1[/i] probably sold more condoms than many politician's speeches, and Miley & Billy Ray's [i]Butterfly...[/i] probably brought more fathers (me included!) closer to their daughters than loads of social campaigns. And as a plus, both [i]2B1 [/i]and [i]BFA[/i] have gorgeous melodies, are well-written, well-produced, well-sung and have good (i.e. well-directed and produced) videos (or filmed recordings if you want to quibble). They're not Mozart or Chopin, but ... 6-ft bloke again!

Sebastian wrote: "I'm gonna paraphrase what a friend said a couple of years ago, editing the analogy a bit: A 6-ft bloke isn't, by any means, the tallest man in the world; maybe not even in his home town, and there are definitely thousands of people who're taller, from nearly any country, any race, etc. Does that make him short? No. Does that make him a dwarf? No. Being 6 ft is enough to be 'tall', even if there are hundreds of thousands of taller people.

Same here: are there hundreds, thousands or even millions of women who can sing and compose better than Emma? Probably; are there women who can sing and compose better than Emma, and besides play an instrument (or many), and besides know more about music, and besides are cutier, blonder and with a wider knowledge? Probably. But that doesn't make Emma a 'bad' singer, an incompetent person or a lame excuse for a human being. She's still a musician, and a good one. The best in the world? No. The best in England? No. One of the Top 10000? No. But still a good musician." The problem with that analogy is that height can be tangibly measured. My partner is 6'1. By any stretch of the imagination, that would make her tall, as there is no nation in the world where the average woman is 6'1. But how do you measure whether someone is a good singer? I admitt that I shouldn't have used the word objective, although I'll explain what I meant by it in my second reply. But that aside, your analogy only works if one starts off from the assumption that she's a good singer. Take me; I can't sing. Am I a truly horrible singer? No. Although I can't hold a tune, my singing won't cause mirrors to shatter. There are plenty of worst singers than me. But that doesn't make me a good singer. The analogy can work either way, depending on what you ultimately think.

"I do find unfair, when speaking about pop music, how double-standards apply: with an artist like The Beatles, having a catchy song is genius; with an artist like Justin Timberlake, having a catchy song is being a sell-out, apparently. Same when people criticise NSYNC or BSB for being  gay (sure, because Freddie was the symbol of heterosexuality ... and at the end of the day, it's not related at all with the quality of music). Yes, many people now are shaking their heads thinking 'how can this idiot compare The Fab Four or Lord Mercury (who probably have God as their servant's servant) with those marketing-generated mannequins?' - which brings something else: people tend to idolise their favourite acts or genres to extremes. Viva Forever is based on the same chord progression over and over again, and for many, that's worthy of death penalty; but Pachelbel's Canon in D and Brian May's The Show Must Go On and I Want It All also have that (for limited extent at least), but that's OK." I don't know about others, but for me, what made the Beatles great wasn't their 'catchy' material. In fact, the material that was catchy was IMO their worst material, such as much of their early stuff, which I don't think was so great. Personally, I'm not a fan of the 'this person did it, so therefore it's great' school. Just as Hitchcock didn't always make great films, and just as I don't think that Finnegan's Wake is a true representation of Joyce's genius, I don't think that everything the Beatles, or Queen, did were brilliant. Most of their stuff was, but IMO there was some ordinary stuff as well (such as the early stuff.) (Regarding Queen, Jazz is a good example of that. Although it has IMO much of their best work such as FBG, BR, IOSD, DSMN and Jealousy, it also has IMO some of their worst work such as Fun It, MOTJ and IYCBT. The fact that Queen did Fun It or IYCBT doesn't make them any better songs if another lesser group had done them. Perhaps worst since Queen are better than that, as the album showed)

"Now that I mention Viva Forever,I actually like it a lot, and I think it's very well-made: progression's the same all over, as it happens in tons of great songs (such as the aforementioned ones), the solo's very well-played (yes, it partly relies on straight scale fragments, but so do Great King Rat or Innuendo and they're still brill as well), vocals are nicely done (and they show Mel B's range at both ends), lyrics are beautiful (predictable topic, but they're nice and memorable, which is pretty much what I look for in those songs), it's well-produced (i.e. it sounds well, there's no crosstalk, etc), percussion's all right (is it mostly programmed? Yes; could it be better? Yes; does it mean it's bad? No)... my only real complaint is Victoria's part, which sounds a bit odd (she's not as good as the others but they could afford doing enough takes, or even have Geri doing it as last resort), but it's not enough to demonise the whole song (6-ft tall guy all over again)." I admitt I'm mostly playing the devil's advocate here, as I don't mind their music, but again the height analogy only works if the quality of the music can be tangibly measured. Personally, I think that Kelly Clarkson is a bad singer. I don't believe her emotion, she's often far too thin for my liking, I don't like it when she belts and she comes across as too 'Idol' to me. She can also be rather frilly and whiny. Are there worst singers? Of course, I'm one of them, but I still think she's bad, as IMO she can only be judged on her own terms, and I think she fails.

"At the end of the day, 'all's well that ends well'. I'm particularly fond of harmonies in parallel thirds, and I can cite from the top off my head three cases where it's happened: Paul & Art (Mrs Robinson), Freddie & Freddie (Days of Our Lives), Sporty & Baby (Wannabe). Are C and Emma as good singers as Mercury, Simon or Garfunkel? No. Does that make them bad? No." Asking whether or no C and Emma are as good singers as Mercury, Simon or Garfunkel is like asking whether some rookie Australian batsman is as good as Bradman, or to use an American analogy, whether some rookie batter is as good as Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle. It's an unfair and ridiculous comparison. Also, I don't believe in making artistic judgements comparitive. May was (is) a great guitarist not because he was better than Slash or David Gilmour, but based on what he set out to do and whether he succeeded.

The question is this; what did the Spice Girls set out to achieve? And did they succeed? I would say that based on this, Kelly Clarkson is a bad singer, and the Spice Girls are not good, but nor are they bad. (BTW, I think there's a difference between calling someone good and someone bad.)

Sebastian wrote: "No; they were reasonably well-produced, but they definitely did not make good music.

There's nothing 'definite' about that. Some people may not like it, and some people may love it, but at the end of the day there are several aspects that aren't up to subjectivity or prejudice:" I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it two. Lower down you say to me that that my comment about their writing leaving alot to be desired is subjective, yet you argue that it is objective that the music and writing is well done.

"- Are their lyrics well-written? Yes. They do fulfil the basic requisites: rhyme, puns, grammar, semantics... yes, a couple of lines on Say You'll Be There are a bit odd but it doesn't mean their entire output is crap. Btw, The Beatles' Ticket to Ride has 'she don't care' and who's complaining? It's still a great song!" I would say their lyrics is not well-written. Take Spice Up Your Life. It's repetivive, and not in a smart way, the lyrics offer nothing of substance, and is in fact quite nonsensical. Similarly to Robbie Williams' Rock DJ, but without the humour.

" Does it have creative arrangements? Yes. Not symphony-orchestra-worthy, but good anyway. The antiphonal bit in Goodbye is, again, not something anybody could do. Of course, that's not their creation, but the producer's, but it's still good music and it's still not something any shaved monkey could sing well. I really like Victoria on this one!" But it's not objective that their music is good. Just because it is complexed, does not mean that it is of merit since the judge of a song like this is how it performs on the dance floor. Sebastian, I respect your music knowledge, and to be perfectly honest, I'm mostly playing the devil's advocate here, but there is nothing that objectively makes music good or bad. I don't believe that everything is completely and totally subjective (even thogh I'm not a massive fan, I do acknowledge that Mozart was one of the great musical geniuses of the world) but simply because you say that the Spice Girls are talented, does not objectively make them so.

"> Objectively I would say no, as I don't think any of them are particularly good singers

That's true for 99% of singers, so? Back to 6-ft..." Again the analogy doesn't work; what makes the Spice Girls good singers in the first place?

"and the writing leaves alot to be desired

A lot to be desired by you. That's a subjective matter: remember the good old discussions about
Queen on their synth era, or about their post-Races period in general. Comparatively, I rank Spice Girls above many boy or girl groups because they were averagely more versatile (listen to Lady Is a Vamp and then Too Much
- totally different from one another) and were much closer to an ensemble set (with Emma and the two Mel's dominating the music, Geri & Victoria dominating the hype) than most contemporaries (e.g. think about Boyzone or NSYNC - basically 2 chaps battling for the throne + 3 extras)."

But the issue of what makes good writing is itself subjective. I don't think that WWTLF is Brian's best written song, since I don't think there were enough versus and the repeating of the title is a little annoying IMO. Alternitively I think that the Prophet's Song was brilliantly written, because middle section aside, it conjures awesome images and many of the lyrics are quite outstanding, particularly in relation to the apocalyptic theme of the song. Truth is, as long as you can back it up, all comments on writing are subjective. I don't think that the Spice Girls were particularly impressive writers, since in so many cases, I don't think they said anything at all.

"The music in that song Is IMO actuallly quite catchy, but the song is forgettable.

I think a key part of being 'catchy' is that it's not 'forgettable'. I applaud the fact that 2 Become 1 probably sold more condoms than many politician's speeches, and Miley & Billy Ray's Butterfly... probably brought more fathers (me included!) closer to their daughters than loads of social campaigns. And as a plus, both 2B1 and BFA
have gorgeous melodies, are well-written, well-produced, well-sung and have good (i.e. well-directed and produced) videos (or filmed recordings if you want to quibble). They're not Mozart or Chopin, but ... 6-ft bloke again!" No, for me catchy and forgettable are often linked. I remember WWRY not because it's catchy, but because the lyrics and instrumentation are so great. As for the 6-ft bloke, again, it only depends if you think they're good writers to begin with.

>>> There are plenty of worst singers than me. But that doesn't make me a good singer.

That's exactly what I said: if you're a bad singer, you're bad, even if there are loads of worse ones. Likewise: if you're a good singer, you're good, even if there are loads of better ones. Britney, Robbie Williams and Mel C have enough qualities in their voices (e.g. being in tune most of the time, projecting well, delivering spot-on harmonies) to be considered good singers even if there are loads of better ones; they've got enough success with their careers for them to be considered professional singers (even if there are thousands of non-professional non-singers who sing much better than all of them combined).

>>> Personally, I'm not a fan of the 'this person did it, so therefore it's great' school.

Personally, my complaint is about the 'this person did it, therefore it's crap' school, which is bigger than the 'great' one IMO.

>>> I admitt I'm mostly playing the devil's advocate here, as I don't mind their music, but again the height analogy only works if the quality of the music can be tangibly measured.

Several aspects of the quality of music can be tangibly measured. A person can 'pass' all technical sides and still not be a great singer, but they're definitely good if they're, again, in tune, with good rhythm, etc...

>>> Personally, I think that Kelly Clarkson is a bad singer.

I think there are loads of people who can sing a hell of a lot better than her, but she's still good. Very good, actually, on occasion.

>>> she's often far too thin for my liking, I don't like it when she belts and she comes across as too 'Idol' to me.

Being thin has nothing to do with being a good singer or not. It's like putting down Freddie's voice for his one-piece dress. Same for her 'diva' personality. Regardless of his private activities and tastes, Michael Jackson is still a marvellous singer and a very good musician.

>>> Asking whether or no C and Emma are as good singers as Mercury, Simon or Garfunkel is like asking whether some rookie Australian batsman is as good as Bradman, or to use an American analogy, whether some rookie batter is as good as Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle.

The difference is, Melanie's not a 'rookie', she's a professional. But anyway, if you pick a professional Australian batsman who's not as good as Bradman, it doesn't make him bad either. Btw, Babe Ruth is another Hendrix: way too many things have been way too stretched out by the legend, eclipsing the man.

>>> Also, I don't believe in making artistic judgements comparitive.

Neither do I, but it was part of making my point: the fact Mel or Emma can't hold a candle to the top popular singers doesn't mean they're automatically bad.

>>> May was (is) a great guitarist not because he was better than Slash or David Gilmour, but based on what he set out to do and whether he succeeded.

Getting a bit sidetracked, I thought about this thing on the bus (regarding the debate about 'May can veto because his May' I had with Bob some days ago): Brian is, IMO, a hell of a lot better than Slash, but he himself said Slash is better. Are we supposed to be 'vetoed' in our insight just because May said so? Of course, it's got nothing to do with the Spice Girls thing, but I though I should mention it.

>>> The question is this; what did the Spice Girls set out to achieve? And did they succeed?

They were good enough to sing not-so-easy melodies (as well as some very easy ones) with spot-on pitch both live and in the studio (which is more than what I can say about Roger Waters, for instance), B is good enough to have a large range and be strong on both ends, Emma's good enough to deliver ornaments (not too difficult ones, but not amateurish either) with precision, Mel C's good enough to hit hard (not ridiculously hard, but hard anyway) notes effortlessly. They're, all in all, good enough to be good singers, even if there are loads of better ones.

>>> I would say that based on this, Kelly Clarkson is a bad singer, and the Spice Girls are not good, but nor are they bad. (BTW, I think there's a difference between calling someone good and someone bad.)

Both Kelly and the Spice Girls are overhyped and overmarketed artists whose sales result much more from the advertisement surrounding them than from their vocal abilities. But still, the latter exist, and are good.

>>> I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it two. Lower down you say to me that that my comment about their writing leaving alot to be desired is subjective, yet you argue that it is objective that the music and writing is well done.

Something can be well done and still leave a lot to be desired. If I mis-explained myself, I apologise. But, to make an example, I think 'Hot Space' and 'The Works' are incredibly sub-par for Queen standards. Still, they're not bad. Same here: there are loads of singers who deserve much more financial and social success than the Spice Girls; but still, it doesn't mean they're bad.

>>> I would say their lyrics is not well-written. Take Spice Up Your Life. It's repetivive, and not in a smart way, the lyrics offer nothing of substance, and is in fact quite nonsensical.

Spice Up Your Life is to the Girls as Sweet Lady is to Queen. It doesn't mean their entire production's like that. I do agree that, while I love that song (Spice..., not Sweet), I think a shaved monkey could've come up with something better than 'flamenco lambada...'.

>>> But it's not objective that their music is good.

I give you that one: 'good' is a subjective concept. But, again, some basic parametres can be measured (e.g. if the singer's in pitch), and they do contribute to it.

>>> even thogh I'm not a massive fan, I do acknowledge that Mozart was one of the great musical geniuses of the world

Even better than Treasure Moment?

>>> but simply because you say that the Spice Girls are talented, does not objectively make them so.

I never ever said the Spice Girls are talented, I said they're good. Of course, that's not an absolute truth or anything. But it is an example I use to show how many (I'm not saying you're one of them) let prejudices shade their tastes. The way rock fans (in general) slam pop music is just like the way racist whites put down black people, or the way homophobics put down gays, etc.

>>> Again the analogy doesn't work; what makes the Spice Girls good singers in the first place?

They sing in tune, they cover a wide range (not an extraordinary one, but still a good one), they haven't got rhythm problems, they can sing both simple and not-so-simple (though not complex either) melodies, they harmonise well with each other, etc.

>>> Truth is, as long as you can back it up, all comments on writing are subjective.

Not 'all'. Many: yes; all: no. You can measure their pitch and their range, and while that doesn't make them extraordinary or excellent, at least counts (with some subjective factors) for them to be good. 

>>> I don't think that the Spice Girls were particularly impressive writers

Particularly impressive? No. Good? Yes.

>>> since in so many cases, I don't think they said anything at all.

Every lyric says something. Back to Champions as gay anthem...

>>> No, for me catchy and forgettable are often linked.

If it's catchy (i.e. it catches your attention), it's not forgettable to begin with. Now, something can be overhyped and well-marketed and then fade after its fifteen minutes of fame. But I don't think that's always the case.

>>> I remember WWRY not because it's catchy, but because the lyrics and instrumentation are so great.

I could say its lyrics are shallow and its instrumentation is monotone. That's where I say many people (and again, it's not about you personally) are biased: if Las Ketchup Song had been written by Brian May, many would be finding double meanings and secret analogies, etc.

Bumped it!

[QUOTE]

[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]

the works for me is a second tier queen album, [b]not great, nor horrible[/b]. These are my rating for each song.
1 out of 10 score.


Radio ga ga-  10/10
tear it up- 6/10
hard life-  10/10,    masterpiece, my favorite song on the album.
MOTP-  6/10
machines-  7/10
break free-  8/10,   Not my favorite song, but people like it
passing windows-  9/10,  always liked this song, except the lryic "love is all you need"
hammer to fall-  10/10,  a classic
world we created-  8/10,  nice song, and wembly versions even better
I go crazy- 8/10,  should have been on the original album.[/QUOTE]
For something [b]not great, nor horrible[/b], do you know you rated it at 82%... that's quite a decent mark for something you consider second tier lol

No criticism intended, but I'd love to know what you'd give an album you consider excellent... prob 40/10 maybe?

I don't like the album that much, but "Keep Passing The Open Windows" is a brilliant, amusing and captivating tune.

[QUOTE]

[b]Van Basten 9 wrote: [/b]

[QUOTE]

 



[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]



the works for me is a second tier queen album, [b]not great, nor horrible[/b]. These are my rating for each song.
1 out of 10 score.


Radio ga ga-  10/10
tear it up- 6/10
hard life-  10/10,    masterpiece, my favorite song on the album.
MOTP-  6/10
machines-  7/10
break free-  8/10,   Not my favorite song, but people like it
passing windows-  9/10,  always liked this song, except the lryic "love is all you need"
hammer to fall-  10/10,  a classic
world we created-  8/10,  nice song, and wembly versions even better
I go crazy- 8/10,  should have been on the original album.

[/QUOTE]
For something [b]not great, nor horrible[/b], do you know you rated it at 82%... that's quite a decent mark for something you consider second tier lol

No criticism intended, but I'd love to know what you'd give an album you consider excellent... prob 40/10 maybe?





[/QUOTE]



your the second person critising my rating, don't you people have a life?....The works was ok, and yes i would rank A night at the opera much higher, mostly 10 out 10 for most songs.  Isn't that how you should rank your favorite music?.....Just because I'm not a miserable sob like most queenzoners who think everything is shit, garbage, crap?...you want me to be a little more on point, ok. Let's try this again.

Radio ga ga- 10/10
tear it up- 2/10, crap, garbage, and shit. brian really lost it in the eighties.
hard life- 10/10
MOTP- 2/10,  crap, garbage, shit.  Freddie, what were you thinking?
machines- 4/10,  thank god roger and brian didn't write more songs together. Garbage, crap, shit.
break free- 6/10
KPTOW- 7/10
hammer to fall- 9/10
world we created- 8/10

there, A nice and honest rating. still a Second tier album. not great, nor horrible. I'm now one of the miserable assholes on Queenzone.

[QUOTE]

[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]

[QUOTE]

 



[b]Van Basten 9 wrote: [/b]



 

[QUOTE]

 



 



 



[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]



 



the works for me is a second tier queen album, [b]not great, nor horrible[/b]. These are my rating for each song.
1 out of 10 score.


Radio ga ga-  10/10
tear it up- 6/10
hard life-  10/10,    masterpiece, my favorite song on the album.
MOTP-  6/10
machines-  7/10
break free-  8/10,   Not my favorite song, but people like it
passing windows-  9/10,  always liked this song, except the lryic "love is all you need"
hammer to fall-  10/10,  a classic
world we created-  8/10,  nice song, and wembly versions even better
I go crazy- 8/10,  should have been on the original album.



 

[/QUOTE]
For something [b]not great, nor horrible[/b], do you know you rated it at 82%... that's quite a decent mark for something you consider second tier lol

No criticism intended, but I'd love to know what you'd give an album you consider excellent... prob 40/10 maybe?





[/QUOTE]



your the second person critising my rating, don't you people have a life?....The works was ok, and yes i would rank A night at the opera much higher, mostly 10 out 10 for most songs.  Isn't that how you should rank your favorite music?.....Just because I'm not a miserable sob like most queenzoners who think everything is shit, garbage, crap?...you want me to be a little more on point, ok. Let's try this again.

Radio ga ga- 10/10
tear it up- 2/10, crap, garbage, and shit. brian really lost it in the eighties.
hard life- 10/10
MOTP- 2/10,  crap, garbage, shit.  Freddie, what were you thinking?
machines- 4/10,  thank god roger and brian didn't write more songs together. Garbage, crap, shit.
break free- 6/10
KPTOW- 7/10
hammer to fall- 9/10
world we created- 8/10

there, A nice and honest rating. still a Second tier album. not great, nor horrible. I'm now one of the miserable assholes on Queenzone.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, why did you listen to him! Your first rating was quite good!