Jazz

<<<<<< "Queen may be the first truly fascist rock band" >>>>>>>> A very debatable but interesting review. Especially this line "Queen may be the first truly fascist rock band" is amazing. I once had a similar thought for a moment when I heard the "Laibach"- Version of "One vision". It was shocking to hear them singing the exact lyrics in german and making it sound like a nazi song. I never understood why Queen gave their permission for this recording. But it is a good example, that the same song can get a totally different meaning depending on who performs it. And if you do not like Queen and you don't know much about their background - like the writer of that review - then in fact some lyrics may sound very "strange".

Soundfreak wrote: <<<<<< "Queen may be the first truly fascist rock band" >>>>>>>> A very debatable but interesting review. Especially this line "Queen may be the first truly fascist rock band" is amazing. I once had a similar thought for a moment when I heard the "Laibach"- Version of "One vision". It was shocking to hear them singing the exact lyrics in german and making it sound like a nazi song. I never understood why Queen gave their permission for this recording. But it is a good example, that the same song can get a totally different meaning depending on who performs it. And if you do not like Queen and you don't know much about their background - like the writer of that review - then in fact some lyrics may sound very "strange". Agreed. I can see why some people might get that impression of Fred and Queen. However, the line "We Will Rock You is a marching order: you will not rock us, we will rock you" is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read in a music review.

It's particularly stupid in light of the fact that WWRY actually WAS inspired by the audience rocking them while they were backstage.  Snap. God forbid a reviewer should make an enquiry or two.

Rolling Stone is pathetic. As well as calling WWRY fascist, and Radio Gaga Nazi-like, or words to that effect, and suggesting that Fight From the Inside was about a right-wing military junta (which is amazing considering that Roger's views are anything about right wing), they also called Gimme The Prize greedy! How dumb is that? Have they seen Highlander?!!!

QueenFan76 wrote: I like the album Jazz. I really don't dislike any album except maybe Flash Gordon and that doesn't really count. True, After Hot Space, I found more and more songs I disliked but Jazz was a good album.

My favorites are: Jealousy, If You Can't Beat Them, Let Me Entertain You, Bicycle Race, Dead On Time (Shoulda been a single!), Leaving Home Ain't Easy, Don't Stop Me Now and if i'm in a groovy mood, Fun It.

Could go either way on Mustapha, Fat Bottomed Girls, More Of That Jazz & In Only Seven Days

ABSOLUTELY HATE: Dreamers Ball. Now I know why Roger & Brian came to blows. (Brian was wrong!)

To me, Dreamers Ball is a bad rewriting of My Melancholy Blues. In the sense of the style at least.

If You Can't Beat Them and Dead On Time are great, Wish they had done IYCBT live more often cause it cooked live. DOT was hard to play live apparently so they didn't, but it would have been a hit if released instead of ANY of the singles!

i could never understand how anyone could dislike Dreamer's Ball...Vintage brian guitar work.  It also sounds nothing like my melancholy blues.  I don't know where you get that from.   One is all piano, while the other is all guitar. also two different songwriters.  Strange people on Queenzone.  The next thing someone will say is that they were trying to rewrite Bo Rhap with another one bitese the dust. lol.

QueenFan76 wrote: "ABSOLUTELY HATE: Dreamers Ball. Now I know why Roger & Brian came to blows. (Brian was wrong!) "

Could you expand on this? Did Roger not like the song?

No disrespect to roger, but his 2 songs on Jazz wern't worthy to be on any Queen album.  If i was him I would keep my mouth shut considering how bad half of his 70's songs were.

mike hunt wrote: No disrespect to roger, but his 2 songs on Jazz wern't worthy to be on any Queen album.  If i was him I would keep my mouth shut considering how bad half of his 70's songs were.
Never forget why he had two songs on the album: it was a question of money.
From "News of the world" onwards both John Deacon and Roger Taylor demanded to have two songs on each album. And although they both had their moments they also wrote some pretty weak songs. I think it's highly unlikely that someone will ever put together a compilation of just the Deacon Tracks  or the Taylor tracks. This would become pretty boring, although some of their songs become highlights in connection and contrast to the Freddie and Brian songs.

In the end it's not easy to run a band like that with so very different writers. And I consider it a miracle that they stayed together for so long.

i think that's the reason why some queen albums were inconsistent...They should have gone with the hot hand for their albums. for jazz freddie was on fire, i think even his leftovers in this time period would have been better than fun it. For the  The 'game' brian was on fire, so I'm sure his left overs would have been better than 'coming soon'.  Why the hell was loser in end on Queen2?....it didn't fit the feel of the album at all, and ruined what should have been the brian may seside freds.Understand it really was a money issue.

Understand also that it's not only a money issue, but also a subjective issue. Who says Queen did not like "Fun It" or "More of That Jazz"? Seeing which path Freddie took in the 80s concludes he liked at least "Fun It" and Brian could play that cool riff, also on "Fun It". I think, if they really did not like a song Taylor or Deacon wrote, they would've said so. And for the record, I happen to really like all of Roger's songs (except for his NOTW tracks).

mike hunt wrote: i think that's the reason why some queen albums were inconsistent...They should have gone with the hot hand for their albums. for jazz freddie was on fire, i think even his leftovers in this time period would have been better than fun it. For the  The 'game' brian was on fire, so I'm sure his left overs would have been better than 'coming soon'.  Why the hell was loser in end on Queen2?....it didn't fit the feel of the album at all, and ruined what should have been the brian may seside freds.Understand it really was a money issue.

You could say the same about John. He really stands out on The Game, and I'm not just (or mainly) talking about AOBTD. He is great on Sail Away Sweet Sister and obviously having a ball on Rock It and Need Your Lovin Tonight.

Soundfreak wrote: "I think it's highly unlikely that someone will ever put together a compilation of just the Deacon Tracks or the Taylor tracks. This would become pretty boring, although some of their songs become highlights in connection and contrast to the Freddie and Brian songs." I could probably put together 9 or 10 songs for a Deacon compliation, but nowhere as many for a Taylor compliation. John didn't write that many songs, however with Roger, he has always been my least favourite Queen song-writer. Although I think he got better as he got older; most of his best songs were IMO released during the 80's and 90's.


mike hunt wrote:"i think that's the reason why some queen albums were inconsistent...They should have gone with the hot hand for their albums. for jazz freddie was on fire, i think even his leftovers in this time period would have been better than fun it. For the The 'game' brian was on fire, so I'm sure his left overs would have been better than 'coming soon'. Why the hell was loser in end on Queen2" Loser was a terrible choice for Queen II. As for Jazz, John and Roger both annoyed me. Both Roger songs were a waste of space, and while I adore In Only Seven Days (Queen's single greatest ever love song IMO), I hate If You Can't Beat Them.

I wonder whether or not Queen's lack of on-album consistency, which doesn't really bother me, has affected their critical reputation. Perhaps not, but then again, considering that they're basically known as a singles band, maybe it has in that aspect. If they had been more consistent on-album, maybe they would't be known as a singles band who also did ANATO.

The_CrY wrote:"And for the record, I happen to really like all of Roger's songs (except for his NOTW tracks)." Interesting. I'm not a big Roger fan, however Fight From The Inside is my favourite 70's songs of his, and one of my two or three favourites of all his songs.


Holly2003 wrote:"You could say the same about John. He really stands out on The Game, and I'm not just (or mainly) talking about AOBTD. He is great on Sail Away Sweet Sister and obviously having a ball on Rock It and Need Your Lovin Tonight." He was wonderful on that album. Do you think that he should have had a couple more songs?

Amazon wrote: Soundfreak wrote: "I think it's highly unlikely that someone will ever put together a compilation of just the Deacon Tracks or the Taylor tracks. This would become pretty boring, although some of their songs become highlights in connection and contrast to the Freddie and Brian songs." I could probably put together 9 or 10 songs for a Deacon compliation, but nowhere as many for a Taylor compliation. John didn't write that many songs, however with Roger, he has always been my least favourite Queen song-writer. Although I think he got better as he got older; most of his best songs were IMO released during the 80's and 90's.

mike hunt wrote:"i think that's the reason why some queen albums were inconsistent...They should have gone with the hot hand for their albums. for jazz freddie was on fire, i think even his leftovers in this time period would have been better than fun it. For the The 'game' brian was on fire, so I'm sure his left overs would have been better than 'coming soon'. Why the hell was loser in end on Queen2" Loser was a terrible choice for Queen II. As for Jazz, John and Roger both annoyed me. Both Roger songs were a waste of space, and while I adore In Only Seven Days (Queen's single greatest ever love song IMO), I hate If You Can't Beat Them.

I wonder whether or not Queen's lack of on-album consistency, which doesn't really bother me, has affected their critical reputation. Perhaps not, but then again, considering that they're basically known as a singles band, maybe it has in that aspect. If they had been more consistent on-album, maybe they would't be known as a singles band who also did ANATO.

Roger annoyed me...After writing 2 crap songs for jazz he talks shit?...Brian should have put him in his place if he said anything.  at least john wrote "in only seven day's" not a masterpice, but still a lovely little tune.   Queen will alway's be an album band for me.... too many amazing album tracks to be considered a singles band.    I agree with you on roger's NOTW songs. fight from the inside and sheer heart attack, while far from my favorites, still kick ass compared with his jazz songs.

(Dreamer's Ball) Yeah, Roger thought it was a shitty song. not sure what they fought over though Just according to a few things I read on the song.

As for the comparison to MMB, I just mean the same slow jazzy kind of thing. As if Brian heard MMB and thought, I could do better (only it was FAR WORSE) and wrote DB. Maybe poor choice of words or didn't describe correctly what I meant. At least only one of you was rude about it and not more people...

As for Roger's songs, I agree that neither was all that memorable but there have been worse songs by him (Loser In The End, though I like it musically) and I also never liked Calling All Girls all that much but its better than More Of That Jazz, and by others (Dreamers Ball, Rain Must Fall, My Baby Does Me, Gimme The Prize, One Year Of Love, Pain Is So Close To Pleasure, I Can't Live With You (Innuendo version) and Cool Cat)