Why Mr. Bad Guy was a flop?

[QUOTE]

[b]shazamrock wrote: [/b]

Agreed.  :)
[/QUOTE]
No, no, no, no, sir. ; -))) I reignited this argument and I'm the one entitled to say when it's over.
 
Because I'm gentle, romantic, kind, easy-going and caring, I'll just endorse your agreement and declare this thread now closed. 

All rise! :op

[QUOTE]

[b]Yara wrote: [/b]

No, no, no, no, sir. ; -))) I reignited this argument and I'm the one entitled to say when it's over.
[/QUOTE]
But I'm a ma'am!  (Or, I'd prefer, a Miss.)

Okay, now you can say it's over.

Keep in mind also the general public in the US didn't really know who Freddie was until the Tribute concert in 1993...most people who saw that in the store back then probably had no idea it had anything to do with Queen, unlike in the UK.

I remember at the time, the album cover looked "cheap" as well...it looked like a bargain-bin record even when it came out.

I beg to differ - for one thing, the Tribute Concert was '92, but after two massive no.1s with CLLTC and the Smash AOBTD, Queen were fairly well known in the US way before 93.



AOBTD was in the top five best selling singles in the US for quite a while from what I have read in the past.

[QUOTE]

 



 



 



[b]Queen On Ice wrote: [/b]



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



I beg to differ - for one thing, the Tribute Concert was '92, but after two massive no.1s with CLLTC and the Smash AOBTD, Queen were fairly well known in the US way before 93.



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



AOBTD was in the top five best selling singles in the US for quite a while from what I have read in the past.



 



 



 



 



 



 



 

[/QUOTE]
Oops yeah sorry '92.  But trust me on people not knowing who he was, I'd been buying Queen here in the US since '77.  Queen were huge then and in the early '80s, but the general public had no idea who Freddie was even at Queen's peak.  When he died, Entertainment Weekly put two paragraphs about him somewhere inside the magazine...it went totally unnoticed.  He was written off as a flash in the pan, until the huge tribute concert when the US finally saw how many artists Queen had influenced.

Freddie even used to come to the (gay) bar I work at here in West Hollywood in the early '80s, but the bartender who served him told me it took he and the staff quite a while to figure out who he was.

The '80s was a decade of MTV one hit wonders in the US, matched only by '50s. Every week people were listening for the next big hit. When that hit came, it lasted a week and then grew stale. It wasn't an era in pop music where too many artists or bands could survive with long-term careers unless they went all out and embraced the synth-pop sounds or went in the direction of big hairband power ballads. For every Michael Jackson and Madonna, there were hundreds of wannabes and we had to suffer through it. It was a horribly self-concious decade, but sadly not very self-aware. Self-awareness would come in the '90s.

When you hear "Retro '80s" on the radio and you think, "Gee, there was some decent music in the '80s," what you're hearing is a fraction of the crap that was flooding the airwaves. Some good music came out, but 97% of what we saw on MTV (or in Canada on Much Music) and heard on the radio was garbage and it has not survived. It's not available on iTunes or CD because sweet Jesus, it was seriously bad.

So, that's why Queen never had too many real hits in the US after The Game, compared to their UK chart numbers. You could almost say they were too good for the market. Every now and then they'd dent the charts with something like "Radio Ga Ga," but because they didn't commit to warping their sound to be trendy, they didn't do much business here. Capitol Records didn't do much to help, so they ditched CR in 1990 and went with Hollywood Records, who did a whackload of promotion and re-issues in 1991.

With that climate, in 1985, enter Freddie with a solo project, which is well-produced and very pop-oriented, but with not a lot of promotion, no tour and a sound born out of the gay dance clubs of New York, and yeah, the album won't do much. Is the album dated? Sure, but no more so than Sheer Heart Attack is very '70s dated. But hey, '70s classic rock is in vogue right now, so no one cares. Remember the early '90s, when Grunge ruled the land? You were looked down upon for listening to anything older than 1987. '70s rock was old foggie music and if you tried to put a Duran Duran album on, forget it! You'd be a beaten to a pulp on general principal.

If you don't think trends in music exist, ask yourself how much Michael Jackson you've heard since his death, played with impunity on the radio and on TV. Now, how much did you hear just before he died? Not much, because since his death he's gone from a creepy, rich celebrity with a possibly unhealthy attitude towards children to a tragic pop god who we all choose to remember in his Thriller glory days!

Maybe a release of the FM + MJ demos will give Mr Bad Guy some much deserved retroactive appreciation in the public consciousness. Who knows...

Great response.

[QUOTE]

[b]rhyeking wrote: [/b]

The '80s was a decade of MTV one hit wonders in the US, matched only by '50s. Every week people were listening for the next big hit. When that hit came, it lasted a week and then grew stale. It wasn't an era in pop music where too many artists or bands could survive with long-term careers unless they went all out and embraced the synth-pop sounds or went in the direction of big hairband power ballads. For every Michael Jackson and Madonna, there were hundreds of wannabes and we had to suffer through it. It was a horribly self-concious decade, but sadly not very self-aware. Self-awareness would come in the '90s.

When you hear "Retro '80s" on the radio and you think, "Gee, there was some decent music in the '80s," what you're hearing is a fraction of the crap that was flooding the airwaves. Some good music came out, but 97% of what we saw on MTV (or in Canada on Much Music) and heard on the radio was garbage and it has not survived. It's not available on iTunes or CD because sweet Jesus, it was seriously bad.

So, that's why Queen never had too many real hits in the US after The Game, compared to their UK chart numbers. You could almost say they were too good for the market. Every now and then they'd dent the charts with something like "Radio Ga Ga," but because they didn't commit to warping their sound to be trendy, they didn't do much business here. Capitol Records didn't do much to help, so they ditched CR in 1990 and went with Hollywood Records, who did a whackload of promotion and re-issues in 1991.

With that climate, in 1985, enter Freddie with a solo project, which is well-produced and very pop-oriented, but with not a lot of promotion, no tour and a sound born out of the gay dance clubs of New York, and yeah, the album won't do much. Is the album dated? Sure, but no more so than Sheer Heart Attack is very '70s dated. But hey, '70s classic rock is in vogue right now, so no one cares. Remember the early '90s, when Grunge ruled the land? You were looked down upon for listening to anything older than 1987. '70s rock was old foggie music and if you tried to put a Duran Duran album on, forget it! You'd be a beaten to a pulp on general principal.

If you don't think trends in music exist, ask yourself how much Michael Jackson you've heard since his death, played with impunity on the radio and on TV. Now, how much did you hear just before he died? Not much, because since his death he's gone from a creepy, rich celebrity with a possibly unhealthy attitude towards children to a tragic pop god who we all choose to remember in his Thriller glory days!

Maybe a release of the FM + MJ demos will give Mr Bad Guy some much deserved retroactive appreciation in the public consciousness. Who knows...[/QUOTE]




finally someone on this site who gets it.  People like "holly" and others who need to put down freddie's work, and call everything Queen did in the 80's crap, garbage and shit....  It's good hearing a level headed Queenzoner for once.

Dry your eyes Mike. You're not in a position to criticise anyone.

Okay, a question from a "youngster" (at least in terms of the Queen/Freddie realm).  Bear with me:

rhyeking brought up the fact that MJ's music suddenly became appreciated after his death--regardless of both the fact that he hadn't been a force to be reckoned with musically for, arguably, 15 years (i.e. since [i]Dangerous[/i]), and his personal life had been messy for just as long.

As an American kid born in '79, I grew up with--again, arguably--prime MJ (e.g., [i]Thriller[/i] to [i]Dangerous[/i]; technically I was around for [i]Off the Wall[/i], but I wasn't spinning a lot of records at eight months old). 

When MJ died I, was struck by the fact that so many within my general age range basically viewed him through the same filter--i.e., we very readily divorced both the mess his personal life had become and his lack of relevance, at least in recent years, from the music he had made in his prime.  In other words, I was surprised that, for me and so many of my peers, MJ existed in a musical bubble of our own making from [i]Off the Wall/[/i][i]Thriller[/i] to [i]Dangerous[/i].  We took his death hard accordingly, and since his death we've cherry-picked his musical career in a lot of respects, ignoring any missteps.


So... as someone that was 12 at the time (here's where the youngster part comes back in)...

When Freddie passed away, was his back catalog--with Queen, but especially solo--given similar attention and suddenly revered or no?  I'm curious about the attitude toward his solo work and his contribution with Queen in general, but especially in the U.S. where Queen's "relevance" was always (unfortunately) debatable.  Was there a renewed interest in Mr. Bad Guy, for example?  Was Queen's discography suddenly reexamined and reevaluated and so on?  For you elder states- men and women of QZ, what was the reaction like around you?

/end Spanish inquistion

Of course there was a lot of interest in his music, and the fact [i]Living on My Own [/i]made it to #1 in the UK (something Maylor + PR couldn't do, btw) speaks for itself. Also, the fact 'Made in Heaven' outsold all Queen albums (I'm obviously not counting other compilations) shows that many people were suddenly interested in the band, or at least became more aware of them.

With Michael, this is a very tricky thing: he already was in the news because of his comeback tour, and his music was still used for loads of stuff (e.g. during BGT, I remember mentioning that the producers seemed to be obsessed with him). Perhaps many people who bought one of his old records after he died would've bought them anyway... so we can't really ensure that his death generated 'x' or 'y' million sales. I, for one, had revived my interest for [i]They Don't Care About Us[/i] after the ridiculous dance that old bloke did on BGT auditions, but I hadn't bought the album (still haven't). If I did so today, it would probably be counted as a purchase motivated by his tragic demise, when it wouldn't be.

Same for Fred in a way: interest in Queen and Freddie back in '91 was already big due to Vanilla Ice, the thing about the '92 Olympics, and of course rumours about his illness (and AIDS was very much in the news too). I don't know about the States in detail, but the point is still that it's hard to tell how accurate figures may be.

I know it's been a thoughtful, helpful, and, for the most part, bigot-free thread of the kind we always long for here. But I must say that I declared this thread [i]closed[/i]. If the discussion keeps going on in this one, my authority will get seriously tarnished and weakened.
 
So Justice Yara declares this thread closed [striking the hammer on the table] and decides:

Any further developments on this issue shall take place in the context of a new thread.
 
All rise. : -)

- Note: Mike Hunt shall do a four week exercise in reasonable and peaceful disagreement. If the defendant fails to comply with the ruling of this court, he shall be limited to express his views on Queen and all other matters in the Iranian Council of Guards or forced to defend universal public health-care at a Republican meeting in Austin.

Forgive me, but as a public forum, even as the thread starter, you surely cannot in all seriousness 'declare a thread closed'.



If people feel they want to continue to contibute to a a thread then it is their perogative Yara. That is how it works.



Sometimes threads are brought back from years ago, one or two  recently have been here on QZ. I am not being disrespectful, I am just pointing this out.



If you really insist that you want no more replies in your thread (a concept I find, frankly, a bit strange), then you need to ask the moderating team to lock it.



:)

********************
When Freddie passed away, was his back catalog--with Queen, but especially solo--given similar attention and suddenly revered or no?  I'm curious about the attitude toward his solo work and his contribution with Queen in general, but especially in the U.S. where Queen's "relevance" was always (unfortunately) debatable.  Was there a renewed interest in Mr. Bad Guy, for example?  Was Queen's discography suddenly reexamined and reevaluated and so on?  For you elder states- men and women of QZ, what was the reaction like around you?

/end Spanish inquistion
[/QUOTE] **************************


I wouldn't say Freddie's solo material was revered in the US upon his death, though there was a minor resurgence in Queen's popularity. And it wasn't solely his passing away which did it. Several things happened within about a year and a half:

Innuendo was released.

Hollywood Records began a massive promotion of Queen's catalogue with promos and re-releasing the remastered albums wioth bonus tracks (say what you will about some of the remixes, but you can't accuse HR of doing little to promote Queen. They gave it an admirable effort!).

Freddie died.

The FM tribute concert was held.

And probably most significantly, Wayne's World featured "Bohemian Rhapsody." In the US, this was probably the decisive factor in Queen and classic rock slowly gaining acceptance in the next generation. "Rhapsody" was EVERYWHERE in 1992. It was on radio stations and TV, and it was inescapable! 

Classic Queen was released by Hollywood Records. On the strength of "Rhapsody" primarily, and the promo efforts of HR on radio and in stores, this collection sold extremely well and made Queen fans of a lot kids of my generation. It was the singular moment that I became a Queen fan, listening to Classic Queen in my bedroom for the first time.

Bat Out Of Hell II was a hugely popular album in 1993, introducing the new generation to Meat Loaf and bombastic '70s rock. This may seem unrelated to Queen, but it did a lot to establish that there was still a market for good old rock music in the age of dreary, angst-ridden Grunge. 

In 1994, when Kurt Cobain killed himself, Grunge and Alternative sort of imploded. It was still around, but it was no longer the dominant force in music. "Retro '80s" hits found new life, and the '60s/'70s classic rock was legitimate again. This was the age of the internet and most importantly of Napster. Napster, in the late '90s, was in a Golden Age. There was a reason artists like Metallica attacked it, because it made music widely free. In doing so, 20-somethings were discoverng 50 years of music, sharing it with reckless abandon. (On a side note, it was predicted that if Napster was defeated, more file-sharing systems would rise from the ashes. This happened, with Limewire and others. None are as diverse as Napster was, but the prophets were correct.) 

I was born in 1976, so I'm not much older than the poster who asked the question quoted above. This was my eyewitness account through the '90s, where I spent half my teens and twenties. Maybe it was different for other people.

[QUOTE]

[b]Queen On Ice wrote: [/b]







Forgive me, but as a public forum, even as the thread starter, you surely cannot in all seriousness 'declare a thread closed'.







If people feel they want to continue to contibute to a a thread then it is their perogative Yara. That is how it works.







Sometimes threads are brought back from years ago, one or two  recently have been here on QZ. I am not being disrespectful, I am just pointing this out.







If you really insist that you want no more replies in your thread (a concept I find, frankly, a bit strange), then you need to ask the moderating team to lock it.







:)













[/QUOTE]
I feel so humiliated. I expected people to be more sympathetic to my plight.

OK - if a thread is more important to you than a human being, yes!, that`s the issue, so be it.

Go on with the thread and destroy my honor and self-esteem.

(an absent-minded Yara caressing the blade of a sharp knife next to the bosom)

:-)))