Queen I

These last few posts are a delight to read.  I love watching people who thoroughly know how to express themselves.

rhyeking wrote: Exactly my point, GF. ?/10...stars...thumbs up/down...are all incredibly ill-fitted tools for criticing art. They simply are. Roger Ebert doesn't like the star system he uses his print reviews and insists that to understand his opinion of a film, ***read his full review***!  You say it's a short hand. I ask what's the hurry? If someone is going to take the time to give me their opinion of something, the fairest approach for both of us is to explain fully their position so that I might best appreciate it.  I hold to my view that numerical values in this situation do everyone a disservice because it does not employ a base point of reference or common ground by which we can apply these numbers. Does 1/10 mean it's a bad song? That you didn't like it? That it's worse than the sound of a baby crying? Did they get only one thing correct in the entire song? What was it? What does 5/10 mean? That only half the song works or that the band played only half their parts well? Is 10/10 an utter masterpiece or that you really, REALLY think this song is completely without flaw? Were there specific things that you were grading the band on? What were they? Lyrics? Musicianship? Tempo? You can't apply a point system to a work where the parameters were not clearly defined beforehand. And why would you want to? This is art! ============================= I called the various point systems 'shorthand' because they're clearly always followed by a text review.  Obviously. For goodness sake. Example: "rhyeking's last two posts" by Some Canadian 5 of of 10 After overcommiting on his initial foray into grading systems, rhyeking doubles down with a string of strawman arguments that would even embarrass the Conservative Party of Canada in the two posts that follow.  He spends the initial paragraphs of post one passionately belabouring the point that grading systems for art are useless without expanded explanations, a  thought that achieved in the superfluous as grandly as it failed in matching any argument Grateful Fan actually made.   Already on shaky ground, he wisely moves on from the blindingly obvious to...the factually incorrect.  In claiming there is no "base point of reference" or "common ground" to which numbers can be applied he misses entirely that there is indeed a collective knowledge about elements that may combine to make art (or posts!) effective, or not, and that the degree to which a piece of art succeeds in the eye of the reviewer can indeed be expressed through that pithy grade at the top. How it failed or succeeded is up to the text. On the eye of the reviewer: we have to stagger ahead for a moment to post two, a brief work so odd one might think rhyeking quaffed a bottle of 99% proof album cleaner before making it. "So, "widely used" equals *correct* and *infallible*?" Seriously? You believe this?" he demands. Nowhere do the words *correct* or *infallible* or any words that could reasonably substitute for either one of them appear in GratefulFan's post. A review may be 'correct' and 'infallible' in so far that the reviewer, who no one with the sufficient mental faculties to actually read a review (or a sixth grade primer) would ever assume is the final arbiter of the worth of art, is presumably both infallible and correct about what he himself actually thinks. Mercifully, back at the final section of post one, the fog of incoherence mostly clears and we see glimmers of rhyeking's passion for analysis and knowledge of the elements of music. He still can't say much of anything, hamstrung as he is by a failure to acknowledge what grading systems are and are not meant to be, and when he asks just what 5/10 actually means, there is an aswer. It's what everybody learns it is back in grade school: it's a mercy pass.

Grading systems not only communicate useful knowledge when applied against well accepted standards of achivement, but they are useful at expressing relative relationships between mulltiple reviews by the same reviewer. For example: "bob's last post" by Some Canadian 9 out of 10 Bob seems to compliment me. I like this!  He must be brilliant.

See? With that you learn something about the reviewer that may be useful in assessing future reviews against your own tastes. In the interest of going to freakin' sleep, I'll just sum up by saying if you want to rent a great movie, and you find Roger Ebert to be a reliable sort when it comes to the appreciation of film, go to RogerEbert.com and pull up all his 3 star to 4 star ratings. Avoid the 0 to 1 star ratings. Then do some reading and make your pick. To reject that there is valuable information in those stars is, as I said, kind of silly.

GF, I love your slapstick reviews. They make my day even when they don't entirely make sense.

Oh...what? That was satire? Whatever. I still laughed.

In short (too late, I know), I didn't include grades in my review, mentioned that I think they're kind of silly, was accused of disrespecting a cultural touchstone, and explained my position while agreeing that the shorthand exists despite the much better approach of the review.

What I don't understand is why my lack of respect for grades bothers you so.

I don't really care to know. I simply accept it now as a constant of the universe.

Excellent! I'm happy to have helped halt your existential tailspin on grading systems, however it happened. :P

GF

We've sidetracked this thread long enough with our sillyness.

I'm curious about reading more reviews.

Micrówave wrote: I must say that a few of you are giving out far too many 10/10 ratings.  Give me a break.   Mike's got half the album at 10/10.  A debut album!!!  I normally would think a 10/10 would mean one of their best songs.  But at that rate, Queen's got 90 or so greatest songs ever?  Then how do you rank those 90 cuts if they're all 10/10?

We complain about Rolling Stone magazine's reviews of Queen albums and then we get a silly thread like this?

Hate to break it to you, but there are no 10/10 songs on Queen I.   Unless the only thing you listen to is Queen.  I'd like to think a Classic song like Stairway To Heaven, Bohemian Rhapsody, Let's Get It On, etc. are 10/10s.  If you think Liar or Jesus is on the same par as those, then you need your ears checked or need to stop reviewing albums.

yea,     i give my favorite band a lot of 10/10's........I also give my share of 4/10 and even lower.  The first album is Great.....Not on the level of the next 4 or 5 albums, those get almost all perfect scores, but still great.    If other crap bands like bon jovi, guns and roses ect could make the all time best albums lists then Queen1 and many other Queen albums should get a much higher rating.  Almost  every song on ANATO and Queen2 is a 10/10 in my eye's.   Stepford?......Of course not!....Or else i would say the same for Hot Space and The Miracle.  I Just think the first 5 or 6 albums were their very best.

mike hunt wrote:

[QUOTE]If other crap bands like bon jovi, guns and roses ect could make the all time best albums lists then Queen1 and many other Queen albums should get a much higher rating.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, fair point.  But instead of giving Queen's first album (stellar as it is) a 10/10, we should give it something like 8 or 9, and give Slippery When Wet, These Days, and Appetite For Destruction 7/10 each.  Otherwise how will we rate bad music when an average Bon Jovi album can earn an 8?

But in the end, as our sage-like friends pointed out earlier, rating systems are pretty subjective and ultimately don't mean a whole lot.

[QUOTE]Almost every song on ANATO and Queen2 is a 10/10 in my eye's.[/QUOTE]

I'd also include Sheer Heart Attack on that list.  73-75 was absolutely Queen's creative peak.

Sir GH wrote: mike hunt wrote:

If other crap bands like bon jovi, guns and roses ect could make the all time best albums lists then Queen1 and many other Queen albums should get a much higher rating.

Yeah, fair point.  But instead of giving Queen's first album (stellar as it is) a 10/10, we should give it something like 8 or 9, and give Slippery When Wet, These Days, and Appetite For Destruction 7/10 each.  Otherwise how will we rate bad music when an average Bon Jovi album can earn an 8?

But in the end, as our sage-like friends pointed out earlier, rating systems are pretty subjective and ultimately don't mean a whole lot.

Almost every song on ANATO and Queen2 is a 10/10 in my eye's.

I'd also include Sheer Heart Attack on that list.  73-75 was absolutely Queen's creative peak.

Can't argue with you're first point........Also,  I agree Sheer Heart Attack is right up there with Opera and Queen2.  Those are my top 3 Queen albums.....  A Day At The Races comes in at 4......that one ends their peak for me.

Silly numbers aside, it's my favorite Queen album. I must stay I stopped listening to them after The Game.

To keep this thread going............the weakest track is 'Great King Rat'.  It does not grab me, sounded incredibly dated thirty years ago, and still does.  Then again, is there a better opening track for a band like 'Keep Yourself Alive'?
OK, OK, 'Runnin' With The Devil'..........but that was years later.

I heard  "Queen" one time in '74, and finally had it in my hands in the fall of '76.   The sound and flow are very good.   Other than a better mix or BVs on GKR, I wouldn't change a thing.

As previously posted....'Doin' Alright' is such a great follow-up to KYA, and 'The Night Comes Down' is an overlooked jewel (ranks with 'Nevermore' as the most underappreciated Queen tracks.)

For the other positives..., did I mention 'Good Times Rock n Roll' , 'Son & Daughter', and 'Jesus' as pretty good follow ups.
A nice little ditty ended Side Two.

It was their first album, released years after it was supposed to be.

A terrific debut..........and,............uhm, ...............duh.............ahead of its time (even though it was not)

Fans have mixed views on this. I love their debut. It's so pure

1. Keep Yourself Alive - 10/10 - What a way to start a career
2. Doin All Right - 9/10 - Maybe I should give at a 10
3. Great King Rat - 10/10 - Fantastic Zeppelin/Purple like song
4. My Fairy King - 10/10 - Magical and mysterious and performed to the highest standard
5. Liar - 10/10 - Great metal song
6. The Night Comes Down - 9/10 - An emotional nostalga track
7. Modern Times rock n roll - 8/10 - Fast and furious
8. Son and Daughter - 9/10 - What a rythm
9. Jesus - 10/10 - Magical and great middle
10. Seven Seas of Rhye - 8/10 - Nice.

Keep Yourself Alive — 10/10 (very catchy riff)
Doing All Right — 8/10 (actually I never liked this song, but it's well done)
Great King Rat — 10/10 (great heavy metal with prog rock influence)
My Fairy King — 10/10 (incredible operatic song)
Liar — 10/10 (probably the beginning of progressive metal? Even Uriah Heep for that time (1971) doesn't made such complex heavy metal)
The Night Comes Down — 10/10 (great ballad)
Modern Times Rock n Roll — 10/10 (great Roger's song. Another genre invention on this album? Sounding like proto-speed-metal)
Son and Daughter — 10/10 (great blues rock/heavy metal track by Brian)
Jesus — 10/10 (good rocker)
Seven Seas of Rhye — 10/10 (as good as Queen II version)

Mad the Swine — 10/10 (very catchy folk rock song, but I don't think so this song would be good fit in original LP)
Keep Yourself Alive (Long Lost Re-Take) — 10/10 (good mix)
Liar (1991 Bonus Remix by John Luongo and Gary Hellman) — 10/10 (great remix with some new lyrics)