Views on how badly EMI promoted Queen+Paul Rodgers The Comos Rocks???

mike hunt wrote: GOATHEAD1985 wrote: bambams-paradise thank you for your comments my friend, I agree with you.

Paul Rodgers is his own man, not trying to copy anyone else and why should he, hes Paul Rodgers for fuck sakes.

Question:

Why does everyone hate Queen and Paul Rodgers?????

The album is better than Hot Space, surely people???

Or would everyone perfer just Brian May and Roger Taylor???

Hot space is Better IMO.....

1.  I don't "hate" Queen with Paul Rodgers.  He's actually a pretty good choice if you're going to go that route.  I enjoyed seeing them in concert, but I didn't really like Cosmos Rocks.  It lacked spark, or inspiration.  It's like how Brian May's 'Back to the Light" was an amazing solo CD, but "Another World" was lacking.  On the surface, you could like each song, but there was something missing.... (hard to define and personal I guess).

2.  I was 11 when Hot Space came out.  It's a nostalgia trip for me.  If Hot Space never existed and Queen + somebody released it today, I'm sure I would hate it.  As it is, it's my least favourite Queen + nobody  album.

3.  Yes.  I would prefer Brian May and Roger Taylor working together on new songs and performing all those great old songs.  Both can sing.

I speak as a fan who bought all albums, singles and solo material; as well as attending gigs including the Magic tour and solo concerts.

However. I didn't buy Cosmos Rocks, indeed I've not bought any material by the BM / RT version of "Queen".

A big part of me is glad CR bombed. It should never been released as a Queen album.

I'm sure EMI didn't want to spend the money promoting an inferior product.

First, I think "Hot Space" is way better than "The Cosmos Rocks."  However, when I bought TCR I didn't think 'boy, I hope this is as good as other Queen albums with Freddie.'  I approached it as a different album, not so much Queen, but Brian and Roger playing with Paul.  When I approached it from that point of view, I was satisfied.

I think "C-lebrity" is a great track, btw.  

I enjoy listening to TCR, but there are some tracks I skip.  I think "Surf's Up" is horrible.  BUT, I still appreciate Brian and Roger making music and I hope they continue.  I just wish they would combine forces and do an album on their own (maybe have a couple of guest vocalists on the album, but they mostly cover vocals).  I have no problems with them still making albums, as we've learned after Freddie's death...make as much music as possible!!!

For it being promoted badly...no clue why.  Hell, I didn't even know who Paul Rodgers was before his collaboration with Queen...guess I should have, but I didn't.  I knew "All Right Now" and that's about it.

I don't dislike Paul Rodger's,  he's a fine singer.  I just don't like the album.

dagi wrote: " I speak as a fan who bought all albums, singles and solo material; as well as attending gigs including the Magic tour and solo concerts.

However. I didn't buy Cosmos Rocks, indeed I've not bought any material by the BM / RT version of "Queen".

A big part of me is glad CR bombed. It should never been released as a Queen album. "

I read somewhere that at one point they were debating what to call the collaboration with PR and they considered simply calling it Rodgers, Taylor and May (in a similar vein to Emerson, Lake and Palmer) but they settled on Queen+Paul Rodgers purely for the fact that it was much more marketable (ironic that the subsequent marketing was so poor!).

I wonder though, if they had decided to call themselves R, T & M whether those who refuse to buy any Q+PR material would think any differently.

Whether you like the music or not, why does it matter what the bloody thing's called?

it really doesn't matter about the name, but Rodger's, May, Talyor would have been better I think.......In the end it's about the music.  In the begginning a fan is most likely gonna enjoy any new album their favorite artists make,  but after time has passed do you find yourself going back to that album again and again.   Innuendo took me years to get tired of, and even now, 20 years later i still go back to that album after a certain amount of time not listening to it.   TCR I got tired of in a few weeks, and aside from the "butterfly" song I have no disire to listen to it ever again.   Indvidually they all sound fine....roger's playing real drums, lol.  Brian has some fine moments, and Rodger's vocals are good, but it's the songs that are lacking.

Mr Debauchery wrote:

"I read somewhere that at one point they were debating what to call
the collaboration with PR and they considered simply calling it Rodgers,
Taylor and May (in a similar vein to Emerson, Lake and Palmer) but they
settled on Queen+Paul Rodgers purely for the fact that it was much more
marketable (ironic that the subsequent marketing was so poor!).
I wonder though, if they had decided to call themselves R, T & M
whether those who refuse to buy any Q+PR material would think any
differently. Whether you like the music or not, why does it matter what the bloody thing's called?"

For me at least, it does matter "what the blood thing's called".

I know to many this will be illogical, but I just may have bought the album if they hadn't issued it under the Queen name.

[QUOTE]

[b]dagi wrote: [/b] Mr Debauchery wrote:

"I read somewhere that at one point they were debating what to call
the collaboration with PR and they considered simply calling it Rodgers,
Taylor and May (in a similar vein to Emerson, Lake and Palmer) but they
settled on Queen+Paul Rodgers purely for the fact that it was much more
marketable (ironic that the subsequent marketing was so poor!).
I wonder though, if they had decided to call themselves R, T & M
whether those who refuse to buy any Q+PR material would think any
differently. Whether you like the music or not, why does it matter what the bloody thing's called?"

For me at least, it does matter "what the blood thing's called".

I know to many this will be illogical, but I just may have bought the album if they hadn't issued it under the Queen name. [/QUOTE]

The album should have been called PBR.

Paul, Brian, Roger...

and released with a mock up cover similar to Judas Priest's ROCKA ROLLA
album... only the drink would be a can of PABST BLUE RIBBON... since it
was MOR rock.

Then they could have sponsored the tours with PABST'S BLUE RIBBON...

the CLASSIC "cheapest" beer on the market, until the extra pale ultra filtered craze happened in the 2000's

[QUOTE]

[b]Isle0fRed wrote: [/b] The Comos Rocks was lacking in;

1 TV/Video Promotions. There was very little. 
2 Music Videos. Queen are one of thoses bands which made the music video popular, and the comos rocks is only Queen album not to have a music video. Music videos really help sell albums.
3 The Title, The cover art. Lets face it, the album title and the cover art is horrible. The album would look more appealing if it was just like the White Album.
4 Say its not true single for free download. That in my opinion was the biggest mistake as I remember Bri and Rog going on The Morning promoting the single (and the album), and having the single for free download doesnt help in its favour. [/QUOTE]

Queen and Paul Rodgers put out their album the same day as AC/DC's Black Ice, right there SUICIDE (AC/DC last put out an album in 2000)! Queen + Paul Rodgers was a disaster. I heard the album and it BORED ME (glad I sold it to buy a replacement for Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms CD).

The only think I've heard from the album is C-lebrity and I thought it stank. I can't remember if I've listened to the rest. And this is from someone who was inpressed by what they heard of the Q+PR tour. Although as with all good QZ threads, I want to investigate it again so will return with my findings!

The best thing I've heard from the Q+PR stuff is the remix of Runaway that our own Piotre whatsisname did.

[QUOTE]

[b]DaveyLane wrote: [/b] Soundfreak wrote: EMI had little to do with that album except distributing it. It always depends on the deal how much a record company invests in the promotion.
Why did the album go down?
I think it was too british, the single "C-lebrity" was maybe a good wordplay but only for english people. And the song had no real hook. Also I think the band itself didn't really believe in the album, there was no tv performance in other countries and even in the concerts only few songs were played.
It's always difficult when you have such a huge history and then come up with something new. Anyone remember the last Rolling Stones album ??? Or the last McCartney album ?
Yep the last Stones album had Rough Justice, something that could stand up with any of their greatest, and McCartney is still making brilliant records. People seem to dwell on the one or two duds on his records, Queen had at least one or two duds per record in their heyday![/QUOTE]
David Gilmour's last solo album On an Island got boatloads of promo by EMI in Europe and it sold big (hit #1 in the UK and other European territories).

David Gilmour's last solo album On An Island was *actually good*, though.

[QUOTE]

[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b] David Gilmour's last solo album On An Island was *actually good*, though.[/QUOTE]
On an Island was Gilmour's best solo effort since his 1978 solo debut. EMI did a great job promoting the album like no tomorrow and sold huge throughout Europe. Columbia/Sony here in the States anyway (who released the album in the States and Canada) did squat and were more concerned with pushing Matisyauh, Carrie Underwood, Beyonce and Britney.

The Cosmos Rocks was doomed to tank as it was also being released the same day as AC/DC's Black Ice. Queen + Paul Rodgers' album was awful whereas AC/DC's last album was their best since Fly On the Wall (in my view). 

Also, I believe EMI was more interested in their new cash cows Katy Perry (who is an ugly looking skank who can't sing) and Coldplay.