cosmos rocks not enough promotion

It's a great idea, but $10 wouldn't be enough.  Prince isn't on a major label, so it was a far better business decision for him.  The executives and bean-counters at major labels, however, take at least that much from a record sale, so QPR wouldn't have turned in a profit unless it was $15.  No doubt, it would have raised the number of sales by far, into the millions.  But it's hard to know if it was even possible, with the record company calling the shots.  They have more power to run the music business than most people realize.

EMI had little say in promoting this album as their role was mainly limited to do the distribution.
Looking back there were many mistakes. The single was already performed on tv months before the release. Taking away any "excitement".
The cover looked horrible, the idea may have been nice but it didn't really work on a small cd.
There was no second or third single release, the songs didn't really find their way into the shows. 

And then - I'm not sure if the moderate sales are indicating a lack of quality. Even other big names from the 70s and 80s do not sell huge quantities these days. Whether it's the Rolling Stones or Paul McCartney or at the moment Phil Collins. I have heard so many great albums from new bands that " fell through commerciall"y.....it's also a question of the right timing. 

Me personally I liked the idea of them doing this album. It was interesting to hear, what they are doing and thinking these days. I did not expect them to come up with another "night at the Opera", they have done that twice already. And it was always part of the attraction of Queen to come up with something new - even with the risk of failure like "Hot Space". 

So for me it's fine that they did that album. Sure it was no milestone - but what is a milestone these days? I haven't heard any for ages. So should all musicians give up?

Excellent post!

I couldn't have said it any better...I too am glad they did it...would have been great if it had been successful as it would have spurred them on to even greater work imo.

Love the part about"it's not a milestone...but what is today".  Very funny PRECISELY because it is so true.

terrible album that shouldn't of been released imo. nothing against paul, i consider him the best vocalist thats been in rock music.

i have real trouble understanding some 'rock stars'.
you'd think they'd be itching to start being creative and releasing 'good' product. i can't believe that the boys thought this album was 'good'. the same old, same old.

you often hear 'stars' saying that they didn't like this or that lp of theirs. then don't release the thing, its simple!
god knows you get months to work on it, how can you record shit songs?

personally i hope that no other recordings get released as queen. the way roger and brian are going they'll be in the same league as hendrix. the amount of hendrix stuff thats come out since his death is unbelievable. basically stuff fans have already heard before.

Sir GH wrote: I think a lot of Queen fans revealed themselves to be "Freddie fans" after TCR was released.

It may not be an excellent record, but it is still a very good record.  There are 4 or 5 very strong tracks on the album.

It was doomed to fail with the general public, but I honestly expected a lot more from Queen fans, as I thought they'd appreciate the fact that Brian and Roger were still creating new music, and decided not to work with another Freddie wannabe when it was finally time to make a new Queen record.  It's what they had wanted for 15 years, and as always, some people can never be pleased and will find something to complain about.

Most Queen fans have chosen to create a box for what Queen music should be, and as a result they set themselves up for disappointment on this one.  If fans can't get past the fact that the singer didn't sound like Freddie Mercury and that there wasn't another Innuendo in the bag, then it's their own fault as they're missing out on a lot of great, fresh-sounding music made by three legends.
**************************

I agree 100%, Sir GH.

Two things I'd like to add...

It always seems to come down to a combination of "I don't like it, therefore it's a steaming pile of crap that Queen should never have attempted," "it's not a certified masterpiece, therefore it's not worth my time," and anything considered 'filler,' 'weak,' 'beneath them' or too far outside the classic rock mode is lambasted mercilessly. 

I'm not saying anyone is wrong for not liking something. We're all individuals with unique tastes and preferences. What I continually fail to understand is both the sense of entitlement some fans approach this band with, and the value judgments 
placed on the band's creative process. Not liking The Cosmos Rocks is fine. Slamming Queen for being a party to it is to deny the artists their voice and their right to creative exploration.

oh great, now everything i wrote doesn't come out, bollocks!

i'm not gonna write the whole thing again. [shortened version] basically i for one didn't expect the album to be a masterpiece, and i don't expect any future recording to be so either. old rock stars have had their day in the sun, as far as being a relevant creative force, you see it with all of them. however i don't expect them to release a weakened version of the same old formula and think fans will be happy. 

try something a little different, take a chance. i'm sure it would be more satisfying.

"Slamming Queen for being a party to it is to deny the artists their voice and their right to creative exploration."

I really don't think so.  They are still able to take part in their craft; any barrier to that is purely a perceived one on the part of someone who can't cope with negative feedback (which, admittedly, takes a bit of getting used to).  

'I like this album' is just as valid a comment as 'I don't like it', when you consider that most people can't be arsed backing those sentiments up with any kind of thought-out criticism.  If anyone has seen their share of lame critiques, it's Brian and Roger, and (I think) they should be able to handle it by now.  Although Roger is probably a bit better at it than Brian.  Just saying.

"I like it because of X, Y and X" is fine.

"I hate it because of X, Y and Z" is also fine.

Saying it's "crap" is personal opinion. Fine, as well. We're all entitled. That fuels discussion if we're all open to other viewpoints.  

Saying, "Queen shouldn't have tried X, Y and Z" and "It's not Queen, it's a pitiful excuse...etc." is applying a value judgment on the process of creating, not the end result. I can't help but wonder if such statements stem from an inherent lack of understanding the motives of the artist, the climate (internal and external) of creativity at the time or an overriding sense of entitlement held by the audience.

That's the point where it's enlightening to know as much about where a work came from, what decisions the artist made and what was going on in their life at the time, and to do so without prejudice, assumption and expectation.

I am listening to this album right now. I almost forgot how great it is.
You can "feel" that you're listening to musicians who enjoy what they're doing. It's a shame the album was never successful

pittrek wrote: I am listening to this album right now. I almost forgot how great it is.
You can "feel" that you're listening to musicians who enjoy what they're doing. It's a shame the album was never successful
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's that word again -- "great" -- what's great about it exactly? Songwriting? Playing? Artwork? SInging? Concept? All distinctly average imo. Not a patch on any truly great Queen albums from the 1970s and not a great non-Queen album either. They didn;t challenge themselves in any way and that doesn't make for greatness

I think it is great in all of the things you listed and the sounds of Roger Taylor's drums sound the most amazing I've ever heard of anyone's drums.    I think "The Cosmos Rocks" is one of their best studio l.p.s.     There was no excuse for it to not sell better and be promoted better.    I've always said that you can sell anything...you just have to know how to do it.    Whoever was in charge either did not know how to do it or it was not a prioritized enough.

rhyeking wrote: "I like it because of X, Y and X" is fine.

"I hate it because of X, Y and Z" is also fine.

Saying it's "crap" is personal opinion. Fine, as well. We're all entitled. That fuels discussion if we're all open to other viewpoints.  

Saying, "Queen shouldn't have tried X, Y and Z" and "It's not Queen, it's a pitiful excuse...etc." is applying a value judgment on the process of creating, not the end result. I can't help but wonder if such statements stem from an inherent lack of understanding the motives of the artist, the climate (internal and external) of creativity at the time or an overriding sense of entitlement held by the audience.

That's the point where it's enlightening to know as much about where a work came from, what decisions the artist made and what was going on in their life at the time, and to do so without prejudice, assumption and expectation.
================================

I think an artist earns my interest in their creative process in the same way they earn my hard earned money - by creating something compelling and interesting.   Most of us would given a whole lot to have been a fly on the wall for ANATO or DATR or NOTW  or any other of the great albums.  But if what comes out the other end of a "creative process" is largely dull and uninspiring and indicates to one's own sensibilities that artists failed to appreciate that their various "motivations" were going to be unequal to the task of producing something of sufficient quality, why wouldn't it be a perfectly valid critique to say they shouldn't have gone down some road or other?  We're not parents marveling at the inherent brilliance of every wanton crayon scribble.  If you are motivated to evaluate music on a complicated rubric that includes what the artists had for breakfast or whatever, knock yourself out.  But it's probably pretty "entitled" to expect everybody else to do the same.

I agree, GF, if they try something and fail, the end result is open to scrutiny and criticism, and rightly so. 

Saying they never should have tried "this direction," "that style," or "that approach" is what I feel denies them their creative expression, their 'voice' if you will. They are allowed to explore different avenues. We're allowed to not be interested. 

The entitlement I talk about perceiving occurs when I hear fans say things like Queen are betraying Queen by doing X, and are betraying fans by doing Y (X and Y being a creative choices).

rhyeking wrote: I agree, GF, if they try something and fail, the end result is open to scrutiny and criticism, and rightly so. 

Saying they never should have tried "this direction," "that style," or "that approach" is what I feel denies them their creative expression, their 'voice' if you will. They are allowed to explore different avenues. We're allowed to not be interested. 

The entitlement I talk about perceiving occurs when I hear fans say things like Queen are betraying Queen by doing X, and are betraying fans by doing Y (X and Y being a creative choices).

======================================

I don't think we completely agree because I think the *entire process* is open to scrutiny and criticism, and not just the end result.   Again, I think it's a valid criticism to say a particular artist should not have tried X or Y if their trying it indicated a failure to appreciate somewhere along the way that they were failing to achieve anything significant.  If Chad Kroeger was to get up tomorrow morning with a burning desire to sing opera at the Met, do we not have grounds to see that as self indulgent, ill advised or generally lacking in good artistic judgement?