[QUOTE]
[b]DanCorson wrote: [/b]
The last two or three years, Hot Space has been the Queen record I've listened to most. It's a lot of fun!
[/QUOTE]
Same here. I love the Hot Space LP
people on streets
Thread
Posts in chronological order
GratefulFan
[QUOTE]
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
Someone raised a good point a while back that simply changing the running order of Hot Space would've made for a better album. I agree with that, to a point. However, the album's main failing isn that it doesn't have any stand-out songs like Somebody To Love. It's Late, Liar etc.* [b]It's all pretty average stuff, and in any event, others were doing the funk thang much better than Queen..
[/b]
*Under Pressure is probably the one song that has the Queen mojo. Staying Power's a distant second place.
[/QUOTE]
That's it right there. You stole my point.
The sin of Hot Space, so rarely committed by Queen ever before that, was that what they were trying to do was being done much better by other people. Worse, already had been done much better by other people. Hot Space was released past the crest of the wave they were trying to ride, and for the first time ever (but not the last), the work as a whole invited the view that they were capable of being a merely average band.* It was a paradigm shift in popular perception that dogged them for the rest of the decade.
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
Someone raised a good point a while back that simply changing the running order of Hot Space would've made for a better album. I agree with that, to a point. However, the album's main failing isn that it doesn't have any stand-out songs like Somebody To Love. It's Late, Liar etc.* [b]It's all pretty average stuff, and in any event, others were doing the funk thang much better than Queen..
[/b]
*Under Pressure is probably the one song that has the Queen mojo. Staying Power's a distant second place.
[/QUOTE]
That's it right there. You stole my point.
The sin of Hot Space, so rarely committed by Queen ever before that, was that what they were trying to do was being done much better by other people. Worse, already had been done much better by other people. Hot Space was released past the crest of the wave they were trying to ride, and for the first time ever (but not the last), the work as a whole invited the view that they were capable of being a merely average band.* It was a paradigm shift in popular perception that dogged them for the rest of the decade.
Holly2003
[QUOTE]
[b]GratefulFan wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[b]That's it right there. You stole my point.[/b]
The sin of Hot Space, so rarely committed by Queen ever before that, was that what they were trying to do was being done much better by other people. Worse, already had been done much better by other people. Hot Space was released past the crest of the wave they were trying to ride, and for the first time ever (but not the last), the work as a whole invited the view that they were capable of being a merely average band.* It was a paradigm shift in popular perception that dogged them for the rest of the decade.
[/QUOTE]
It was more of a homage :P
[b]GratefulFan wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[b]That's it right there. You stole my point.[/b]
The sin of Hot Space, so rarely committed by Queen ever before that, was that what they were trying to do was being done much better by other people. Worse, already had been done much better by other people. Hot Space was released past the crest of the wave they were trying to ride, and for the first time ever (but not the last), the work as a whole invited the view that they were capable of being a merely average band.* It was a paradigm shift in popular perception that dogged them for the rest of the decade.
[/QUOTE]
It was more of a homage :P
The_CrY
I listened a lot to Hot Space, and I can see they're giving a good shot at the disco/funk style, but I can't really get into it. I'm not really into the synth-pop either, and since synths are very present on Hot Space (and actually The Works also), it fails to get my praise. Though I do understand if someone totally loves Hot Space, because it does have something to it, but it's not working for me.
mike hunt
[QUOTE]
[b]GratefulFan wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
Someone raised a good point a while back that simply changing the running order of Hot Space would've made for a better album. I agree with that, to a point. However, the album's main failing isn that it doesn't have any stand-out songs like Somebody To Love. It's Late, Liar etc.* [b]It's all pretty average stuff, and in any event, others were doing the funk thang much better than Queen..
[/b]
*Under Pressure is probably the one song that has the Queen mojo. Staying Power's a distant second place.
[/QUOTE]
That's it right there. You stole my point.
The sin of Hot Space, so rarely committed by Queen ever before that, was that what they were trying to do was being done much better by other people. Worse, already had been done much better by other people. Hot Space was released past the crest of the wave they were trying to ride, and for the first time ever (but not the last), the work as a whole invited the view that they were capable of being a merely average band.* It was a paradigm shift in popular perception that dogged them for the rest of the decade.
[/QUOTE]
funny stuff..."dogged them the rest of the decade" you know that some of queen's most popular songs were in the 80's don't you?.....you know Queen won best band of the 80's in england don't you?....you know most of their 80's albums peaked at #1 don't you?....Not bad for average music i must say, or maybe some people, or a lot of people actually think the 80's stuff is better than average....you know that is a possibility don't you?.....
[b]GratefulFan wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
Someone raised a good point a while back that simply changing the running order of Hot Space would've made for a better album. I agree with that, to a point. However, the album's main failing isn that it doesn't have any stand-out songs like Somebody To Love. It's Late, Liar etc.* [b]It's all pretty average stuff, and in any event, others were doing the funk thang much better than Queen..
[/b]
*Under Pressure is probably the one song that has the Queen mojo. Staying Power's a distant second place.
[/QUOTE]
That's it right there. You stole my point.
The sin of Hot Space, so rarely committed by Queen ever before that, was that what they were trying to do was being done much better by other people. Worse, already had been done much better by other people. Hot Space was released past the crest of the wave they were trying to ride, and for the first time ever (but not the last), the work as a whole invited the view that they were capable of being a merely average band.* It was a paradigm shift in popular perception that dogged them for the rest of the decade.
[/QUOTE]
funny stuff..."dogged them the rest of the decade" you know that some of queen's most popular songs were in the 80's don't you?.....you know Queen won best band of the 80's in england don't you?....you know most of their 80's albums peaked at #1 don't you?....Not bad for average music i must say, or maybe some people, or a lot of people actually think the 80's stuff is better than average....you know that is a possibility don't you?.....
Winter Land Man
I hate it when people slag off certain Queen songs just because they arn't hard rock or the ballads they expected from Queen.
Soundfreak
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
> Even the Beatles recorded most of their stuff on 4 track.
And on 4 track, multi-tracking was possible.
> It was in 1968, that EMI slowly upgraded to 8-track. And this was a leading studio in England!
Trident had done it before.
> So whether you like it or not, multitracking in the way Queen and many of their contemporaries made use of wasn't possible before.
Multitracking 'in the wat Queen et al made use of' wasn't EASILY possible before, but it WAS possible. By the way, my point was that multi-tracking already existed, not about multi-tracking on 24 or 32.
It's like somebody saying 'cars were new in 1998'. No, they weren't: they existed for a while before that. 'Whether you like it or not, Ferrari F300 was first used in 1998'. Sure, but it doesn't mean cars did not exist before.
Same here: before early-to-mid 70's, people didn't use 24- or 32-track tapes. But it doesn't mean multi-tracking didn't exist.
[/QUOTE]
Oh well...you don't want to understand it...
I'm not talking about multitracking only in technical terms, cause then it even existed much earlier when Les Paul overdubbed his guitar from vinyl to vinyl in the late 40s and early 50s. And then with mono tapemachines. Which finally gave him the idea to invent a multitrack-tapemachine.
But it took a more then a decade, until the first studios owned these machines and it took even more years until multitracking became an art form and bands started to make heavy use of it. In the 60s for example multitracking was even seen by many artists as a betrayal as it could not be reproduced live on stage.
I recommend you the book "Good Vibrations" by Mark Cunningham. It's a fantastic voyage into the history of recording.
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b]
> Even the Beatles recorded most of their stuff on 4 track.
And on 4 track, multi-tracking was possible.
> It was in 1968, that EMI slowly upgraded to 8-track. And this was a leading studio in England!
Trident had done it before.
> So whether you like it or not, multitracking in the way Queen and many of their contemporaries made use of wasn't possible before.
Multitracking 'in the wat Queen et al made use of' wasn't EASILY possible before, but it WAS possible. By the way, my point was that multi-tracking already existed, not about multi-tracking on 24 or 32.
It's like somebody saying 'cars were new in 1998'. No, they weren't: they existed for a while before that. 'Whether you like it or not, Ferrari F300 was first used in 1998'. Sure, but it doesn't mean cars did not exist before.
Same here: before early-to-mid 70's, people didn't use 24- or 32-track tapes. But it doesn't mean multi-tracking didn't exist.
[/QUOTE]
Oh well...you don't want to understand it...
I'm not talking about multitracking only in technical terms, cause then it even existed much earlier when Les Paul overdubbed his guitar from vinyl to vinyl in the late 40s and early 50s. And then with mono tapemachines. Which finally gave him the idea to invent a multitrack-tapemachine.
But it took a more then a decade, until the first studios owned these machines and it took even more years until multitracking became an art form and bands started to make heavy use of it. In the 60s for example multitracking was even seen by many artists as a betrayal as it could not be reproduced live on stage.
I recommend you the book "Good Vibrations" by Mark Cunningham. It's a fantastic voyage into the history of recording.
Amazon
[QUOTE]
[b]master marathon runner wrote: [/b]
Hot Space is a delightful little album, never understood the bemoaning. I'm continually shocked by criticism of 'The Works' on Queenzone, always regarded it as Queen at a very high standard .' Radio Ga Ga,' ' Keep passing the open Windows', 'Machines' ,' Is This the World we Created', a track performed live to the world ! , .Sorry, but Queen were comfortably coasting here.Perhaps it proves i am truly a Queen fan.
Master Marathon Runner
[/QUOTE]
I think that the Works is a good, but not great, album. It has IMO one of Queen's best songs of the 80's in Keep Passing The Open Windows, it has several other great songs (Radio Gaga, I Want To Break Free, Hammer To Fall, Machines, Is This The World We Created) and it's among Queen's most consistent albums. My problem with it is that there aren't any 'quiet' songs; no songs which don't sound like hits. There isn't any Sail Away Sweet Sister, Lilly of the Valley, Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon; songs which would never be released as singles and come across as undicovered jewells. Many of my favourite Queen songs are among their most obscure. All of the songs on The Works come across to me as hits (whether they are or not), and with a couple of ordinary songs (Man on the Prowl, Tear It Up), I think it's also too short.
As I said, I don't think that The Works is a bad album by any means, I think it's quite good, but I don't think it's great. BTW, I'm one of the few members of this site who doesn't love It's a Hard Life. I think it's extremely overrated. :D
[b]master marathon runner wrote: [/b]
Hot Space is a delightful little album, never understood the bemoaning. I'm continually shocked by criticism of 'The Works' on Queenzone, always regarded it as Queen at a very high standard .' Radio Ga Ga,' ' Keep passing the open Windows', 'Machines' ,' Is This the World we Created', a track performed live to the world ! , .Sorry, but Queen were comfortably coasting here.Perhaps it proves i am truly a Queen fan.
Master Marathon Runner
[/QUOTE]
I think that the Works is a good, but not great, album. It has IMO one of Queen's best songs of the 80's in Keep Passing The Open Windows, it has several other great songs (Radio Gaga, I Want To Break Free, Hammer To Fall, Machines, Is This The World We Created) and it's among Queen's most consistent albums. My problem with it is that there aren't any 'quiet' songs; no songs which don't sound like hits. There isn't any Sail Away Sweet Sister, Lilly of the Valley, Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon; songs which would never be released as singles and come across as undicovered jewells. Many of my favourite Queen songs are among their most obscure. All of the songs on The Works come across to me as hits (whether they are or not), and with a couple of ordinary songs (Man on the Prowl, Tear It Up), I think it's also too short.
As I said, I don't think that The Works is a bad album by any means, I think it's quite good, but I don't think it's great. BTW, I'm one of the few members of this site who doesn't love It's a Hard Life. I think it's extremely overrated. :D
mike hunt
The works also should have included "i go crazy" that's a solid rocker that would have improved the overall album. I agree it's a good, not great album.
rhyeking
I first owned this album via the Hollywood Records 1991 cassette re-issue, which has "I Go Crazy" as a bonus track, coming in right after "Is This The World We Created?" As such, even though I'm perfectly aware it was a non-album track and the album actually ends with ITTWWC, I still consider it part of the album and probably always will, on an emotional level. It should have been on the original release, in my opinion, as the song itself rocks and it would have taken the album's length from 37+ minutes to 40+ minutes.
I think it's safe to say that this might have helped form my opinion of the album. For me, in my formative teens, The Works ended not on a bit of a downer (ITTWWC is a beautiful song and I really like it, but it's not exactly upbeat), but with the wailing balls-out guitar rock that is "I Go Crazy." As such, maybe I view The Works as heavier than the original LP actually was. I still think, even without IGC, The Works does not deserve the ass-pounding criticism it gets on the forum these days. People seem to forget that Computers, Machines, Technology and a lack of humanity are themes of the album, both lyrically and instrumentally and elements of every song, if not entire songs, fit these theme perfectly. Before you say "The execution was poor," I say to you: the execution specifically reflected the themes and utilized the synth and computer programming of the time, which by today's standards sounds quaint and maybe dated. If that album were recorded now, with the same themes in mind, I imagine it would come across closer to something like David Bowie's Earthing album (which I think is great).
I think it's safe to say that this might have helped form my opinion of the album. For me, in my formative teens, The Works ended not on a bit of a downer (ITTWWC is a beautiful song and I really like it, but it's not exactly upbeat), but with the wailing balls-out guitar rock that is "I Go Crazy." As such, maybe I view The Works as heavier than the original LP actually was. I still think, even without IGC, The Works does not deserve the ass-pounding criticism it gets on the forum these days. People seem to forget that Computers, Machines, Technology and a lack of humanity are themes of the album, both lyrically and instrumentally and elements of every song, if not entire songs, fit these theme perfectly. Before you say "The execution was poor," I say to you: the execution specifically reflected the themes and utilized the synth and computer programming of the time, which by today's standards sounds quaint and maybe dated. If that album were recorded now, with the same themes in mind, I imagine it would come across closer to something like David Bowie's Earthing album (which I think is great).
mooghead
[QUOTE]
[b]rhyeking wrote: [/b]
What inspired this direct in the band?
[/QUOTE]
Another One Bites The Dust is to blame.
[b]rhyeking wrote: [/b]
What inspired this direct in the band?
[/QUOTE]
Another One Bites The Dust is to blame.
GratefulFan
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
funny stuff..."[b]dogged them the rest of the decade[/b]" you know that some of queen's most popular songs were in the 80's don't you?.....you know Queen won best band of the 80's in england don't you?....you know most of their 80's albums peaked at #1 don't you?....Not bad for average music i must say, or maybe some people, or a lot of people actually think the 80's stuff is better than average....you know that is a possibility don't you?.....
[/QUOTE]
Yeah. It was late-ish and I was trying to wrap up the point and probably could have taken more care with that final part of it. I used 'popular perception' because in my head that made it different from 'critical perception' (because the critics pretty much always thought they were crap), but you're right - that does seem to dismiss the popularity/success of the music at the time in parts of the world.
However popular doesn't mean great, and better than average isn't much of a match against time. I think most of the 80's work was good in the same way that all kinds of music is good: slick, catchy, radio friendly - and ultimately destined to be nostalgia pieces languishing in collections, largely unplayed 10 years on. 20 or 25 albums hit number one every year and we don't keep piling them on top of an ever growing list of classics we can't imagine music history without. We filter and refilter and filter again, and the Queen songs that nobody would question have truly endured (by any measure) are virtually all from work that preceded Hot Space (always excepting the brilliant Under Pressure). Hot Space was the beginning of all that would eventually be judged as good, but not great, by processes and forces of the future.
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
funny stuff..."[b]dogged them the rest of the decade[/b]" you know that some of queen's most popular songs were in the 80's don't you?.....you know Queen won best band of the 80's in england don't you?....you know most of their 80's albums peaked at #1 don't you?....Not bad for average music i must say, or maybe some people, or a lot of people actually think the 80's stuff is better than average....you know that is a possibility don't you?.....
[/QUOTE]
Yeah. It was late-ish and I was trying to wrap up the point and probably could have taken more care with that final part of it. I used 'popular perception' because in my head that made it different from 'critical perception' (because the critics pretty much always thought they were crap), but you're right - that does seem to dismiss the popularity/success of the music at the time in parts of the world.
However popular doesn't mean great, and better than average isn't much of a match against time. I think most of the 80's work was good in the same way that all kinds of music is good: slick, catchy, radio friendly - and ultimately destined to be nostalgia pieces languishing in collections, largely unplayed 10 years on. 20 or 25 albums hit number one every year and we don't keep piling them on top of an ever growing list of classics we can't imagine music history without. We filter and refilter and filter again, and the Queen songs that nobody would question have truly endured (by any measure) are virtually all from work that preceded Hot Space (always excepting the brilliant Under Pressure). Hot Space was the beginning of all that would eventually be judged as good, but not great, by processes and forces of the future.
rhyeking
[QUOTE]
[b]mooghead wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]rhyeking wrote: [/b]
What inspired this direct in the band?
[/QUOTE]
Another One Bites The Dust is to blame.
[/QUOTE]
Well, yes, but there were other factors involved too. Freddie was doing the gay disco thing in Munich, which seemed to influence his pop-dance bent on this and Mr. Bad Guy. The band was in and out of the studio between South American tours for a year, which probably resulted somewhat in "Las Palabras." The band's relationship with Billy Squier almost certainly influenced them; listen to "Emotions In Motion" and tell me it doesn't have a resemblance to Hot Space material. Freddie's work with Michael Jackson can be traced to this period (and with the band, it was even earlier, as he pushed them to release "Dust" as a single). And most obviously, working with Bowie likely influenced them, even after he finished work on "Under Pressure." Bowie was between his Scary Monsters and Let's Dance albums, the latter being very pop-dance-funk laced.
[b]mooghead wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]rhyeking wrote: [/b]
What inspired this direct in the band?
[/QUOTE]
Another One Bites The Dust is to blame.
[/QUOTE]
Well, yes, but there were other factors involved too. Freddie was doing the gay disco thing in Munich, which seemed to influence his pop-dance bent on this and Mr. Bad Guy. The band was in and out of the studio between South American tours for a year, which probably resulted somewhat in "Las Palabras." The band's relationship with Billy Squier almost certainly influenced them; listen to "Emotions In Motion" and tell me it doesn't have a resemblance to Hot Space material. Freddie's work with Michael Jackson can be traced to this period (and with the band, it was even earlier, as he pushed them to release "Dust" as a single). And most obviously, working with Bowie likely influenced them, even after he finished work on "Under Pressure." Bowie was between his Scary Monsters and Let's Dance albums, the latter being very pop-dance-funk laced.
GratefulFan
[QUOTE]
[b]Amazon wrote: [/b]
I think that the Works is a good, but not great, album. [b]It has IMO one of Queen's best songs of the 80's in Keep Passing The Open Windows[/b], it has several other great songs.
[/QUOTE]
Except that Joe Jackson called that song Steppin' Out and did it way better 4 years earlier. ;)
[b]Amazon wrote: [/b]
I think that the Works is a good, but not great, album. [b]It has IMO one of Queen's best songs of the 80's in Keep Passing The Open Windows[/b], it has several other great songs.
[/QUOTE]
Except that Joe Jackson called that song Steppin' Out and did it way better 4 years earlier. ;)
Sebastian
> Oh well...you don't want to understand it...
Of course I do. I understand the following:
* Queen still used loads of multi-tracking in [i]Hot Space[/i], rendering your 'Multitracking was no longer exciting' comment incorrect.
* Multi-tracking existed long before Queen, rendering your 'multitracking in the way Queen and many of their contemporaries made use of wasn't possible before' comment incorrect.
> But it took a more then a decade, until the first studios owned these machines
Sure, but when they did (mroe than a decade after Les Paul) it was still long before Queen.
> and it took even more years until multitracking became an art form and bands started to make heavy use of it.
Which still doesn't mean it was new. Beatles multitracked loads of things, so did the Beach Boys and several others, long before Queen even debuted.
> In the 60s for example multitracking was even seen by many artists as a betrayal as it could not be reproduced live on stage.
It still happens a lot in the 2010's. So? Queen weren't an act that cared about whether other people saw something as betrayal or not.
> I recommend you the book "Good Vibrations" by Mark Cunningham. It's a fantastic voyage into the history of recording.
By the way, 'Good Vibrations' also predates Queen's multi-tracking efforts.
Of course I do. I understand the following:
* Queen still used loads of multi-tracking in [i]Hot Space[/i], rendering your 'Multitracking was no longer exciting' comment incorrect.
* Multi-tracking existed long before Queen, rendering your 'multitracking in the way Queen and many of their contemporaries made use of wasn't possible before' comment incorrect.
> But it took a more then a decade, until the first studios owned these machines
Sure, but when they did (mroe than a decade after Les Paul) it was still long before Queen.
> and it took even more years until multitracking became an art form and bands started to make heavy use of it.
Which still doesn't mean it was new. Beatles multitracked loads of things, so did the Beach Boys and several others, long before Queen even debuted.
> In the 60s for example multitracking was even seen by many artists as a betrayal as it could not be reproduced live on stage.
It still happens a lot in the 2010's. So? Queen weren't an act that cared about whether other people saw something as betrayal or not.
> I recommend you the book "Good Vibrations" by Mark Cunningham. It's a fantastic voyage into the history of recording.
By the way, 'Good Vibrations' also predates Queen's multi-tracking efforts.