Hot Space

some lryics are great and some are a bit silly on Queen2, like most of their  records.  I think black queen is a brilliant song, but that one has the most silly lryics.    Other's have solid lryics like father to son, white Queen (beautiful love song) Fairy feller's seems silly, but dig deeper and you'll find the lryics are brilliant.  'Orge Battle' metal bands still write songs like that one.   Hot space Space is no different,  Silly lryics like staying Power and Cool cat (though I like those songs) and Obviously body language.  Put out the fire is also weak lryically.  Life is real?.....Nice song, but not the best lryics in the world.  Dancer is  actually sillier than anything on Queen2

Hot Space is grossly underrated. I showed some friends the album, and they like it!

Every Queen fan SHOULD love Hot Space, if only for Freddie's vocals. He belts out the funk songs like there's no tomorrow and he seems to be having the greatest time... even more than on Mr. Bad Guy.

Queen II is a masterpiece. However, I listen to it maybe twice a year. Hot Space on the other hand is in my car stereo more often than not.

Wiley...VERY interesting.

There really is no right-or-wrong in these matters.  But I couldn't just listen to Queen II "just once or twice a year"...I mean, it's like...the best album of ALL-TIME!

But, if you listen to it only occaissionally...I guess that does make the moment even more precious, doesn't it?

yea,  I think it's freddie's best album vocally.  A few other's rival it like Barcelona and ANATO/ News of the world.  Mr. Bad guy,  but hot space is the best of them all.  My biggest problem with the album is it should have been so much better.  Queen2 is probably my favorite album of all time, but after years of playing it out I only listen to it a few times a year myself.  Just recently I put it on for the first time in almost a year.

Soundfreak wrote: Whatever Queen 2 is, it is definately a child of it's time - love it or loath it. Please understand me - it's an immense achievement but just to my ears, lyrically, it really does sit in that jethro Tull, Zeppelin, Wishbone Ash, early Rush area - dated or not. Hot Space on the other hand is clearly lyrically quite contemporary even now.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
All Queen albums are "children of it's time". Technology made a big step forward and that's what Queen always made use of. And the world around them also influenced their music.
Also the thinking was different. Musicians were driven by the idea not to repeat themselves, every album...every single had to be different.
 It was the 80s that changed this, when market research became more powerful and the goal was to "give the people what they want" instead of playing with a risk. 
And that lead to "The Works", a kind of "The Game pt.2"....
Anyway, most successfull bands only enjoy 3 or 4 years of real creativity and big chart success. And then it's over. So all in all Queen did enormously well, no matter if this or that album does not really stand the test of time.

I think Hot Space was definately an attempt to do something different too and Queen, throughout their career - into the 80's and beyond continued to do  things differently and tried not to repeat themselves..I can't think of two Queen singles that sounded samey..
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Dear bigfish,
it would improve the communication, if you quote correctly. I did not write "Whatever Queen 2 is, it is ...even now."
Those are your lines.

I wrote the part from "All Queen Albums are ...........stand the test of time", which now looks as if it's yours.   

Don't misunderstand me, it's not about who is right or whatever. But I don't like to read "Soundfreak wrote" followed by something that I never wrote.

Sorry mate ! They've changed the 'reply with quote' thingy so it all gets a bit jumbled up and looks a bit confusing - anyway it's all subjective, happy listening..

I used to love Queen's early fantasy stuff when I was younger. But when I hit puberty, I became more concerned with getting laid than winning a Warhammer battle, so I didn't dig it as much.

McNulty wrote: I used to love Queen's early fantasy stuff when I was younger. But when I hit puberty, I became more concerned with getting laid than winning a Warhammer battle, so I didn't dig it as much.

Exactly..

McNulty wrote:
I used to love Queen's early fantasy stuff when I was younger. But when I hit puberty, I became more concerned with getting laid than winning a Warhammer battle, so I didn't dig it as much.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enter Hot Space :)

You're more likely to get laid with Hot Space. It's all in the rhythm - better shagging music. :-)....

Soundfreak wrote: Whatever Queen 2 is, it is definately a child of it's time - love it or loath it. Please understand me - it's an immense achievement but just to my ears, lyrically, it really does sit in that jethro Tull, Zeppelin, Wishbone Ash, early Rush area - dated or not. Hot Space on the other hand is clearly lyrically quite contemporary even now.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

All Queen albums are "children of it's time". Technology made a big step forward and that's what Queen always made use of. And the world around them also influenced their music.
Also the thinking was different. Musicians were driven by the idea not to repeat themselves, every album...every single had to be different.
 It was the 80s that changed this, when market research became more powerful and the goal was to "give the people what they want" instead of playing with a risk. 
And that lead to "The Works", a kind of "The Game pt.2"....

Anyway, most successfull bands only enjoy 3 or 4 years of real creativity and big chart success. And then it's over. So all in all Queen did enormously well, no matter if this or that album does not really stand the test of time.

funny how people put down the works album because it was The Game part 2,  but no one seems to put down A Day At the Races for being A night At The opera Part 2.   Why is that?....I'm not a huge fan of the works, but seems like Races was more a copy of opera than the works was for the game.

Mike Hunt wrote:
funny how people put down the works album because it was The Game part 2,  but no one seems to put down A Day At the Races for being A night At The opera Part 2.   Why is that?....I'm not a huge fan of the works, but seems like Races was more a copy of opera than the works was for the game.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I did not put "the Works" down at all. But in the Queen history, where the band would always try to move forward, "The Works" was an obvious step back for commercial reasons.
Sure, "A Day at the Races" was a bit like "Opera", but yet it was different, the arrangements were simpler and easier to reproduce on stage.

But the songs on Races have a life of their own, and loads and loads and loads and loads of people actually prefer it over Opera. Even if there's, for some extent, a bit of an analogy between the tracks (e.g. Prophet's Song vs White Man, with sixth string tuned down to D), there's no gospel or waltz on Opera, as well as there's no guitar jazz band on Races. The fact Races is probably more rocker (You and I vs Best Friend, Tie Your Mother Down vs Sweet Lady, Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy vs Lazing on a Seaside Rendezvous [I know that's not the title but I mean both songs]). That's probably why it hasn't been criticised too much.

The Works, on the other hand...

I understand all that.......Races is a brilliant album IMO and the works is pretty average,  but some people claim not to like The works because it's The game part 2.  How about Just saying The Works isn't a great album because the songs arn't very Good.    The Album still has More styles of music than most bands have in a 40 year career.  ACDC and kiss for example.