Did Queen lose the States, because they 'lost' Freddie?

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Stelios wrote:[/b]

My theory is that even if Hot Space was a big hit in the US, Queen would eventually loose their funbase and cretability there. I am Greek but i have the feeling that Americans have a mentality in music much different than UK or Europe. They want their rockers to be pure, something like Eagles. They respond to labels/boxes/categories much more strictly.
From the way they respond to their flag to their ethics in generall ( it has to do with the way their country was structured) they need and therefore use SYMBOLS. Things that make them collide as a nation.Their youth/pop coulture follows the same pattern. Or at least it used to.
.[/QUOTE]

Sorry Stelios. Really have to disagree with you on this. Why? I can name several gay/bi rock stars who America never turned against

Bowie, Elton, Michael Stipe, Billy Joe Armstrong, Rob Halford (Judas Priest), B52s (Fred Schneider, Ricky Wilson, and Keith Strickland), Pet Shop Boys.....oh yeah and one Adam Lambert.


BTW - way to go -boxing ALL Americans as redneck fundamentalist intolerant(s).
[/QUOTE]

Listening to Dee Snider on That Metal Show recently, He's a huge Queen fan, and said he doesn't even consider the later Queen albums to be Real Queen albums, that's pretty much how American fans think of the 80's ....Except for The Game of course....He said the same with Zeppelins last few albums...

[QUOTE] [b]another one diets the bust wrote:[/b]

Surprisingly, everyone mentions Body Language as Hot Space's downfall in the US, but i think that did already come earlier, as Body Language was quite a mediocre hit there. If we compare chart positions overseas from 1980 to 1982, we get the following:

Crazy Little Thing Called Love # 1 (Billboard and Cash Box) US # 1 CA vs. # 2 EU (# 2 UK)

Save Me (for whatever reason not released in the US) # 32 CA vs. # 25 EU (# 11 UK)

Play The Game # 42 (Billboard) and # 38 (Cash Box) US # 19 CA vs. # 17 EU (# 14 UK)

Another One Bites The Dust # 1 (Billboard and Cash Box) US # 1 CA vs. # 12 EU (# 7 UK)

Need Your Loving Tonight # 44 (Billboard) and # 66, ouch (Cash Box) US # 36 CA (no release in Europe)

Flash # 42 US (Billboard) and # 39 (Cash Box) US # 19 CA vs. # 10 EU (# 10 UK) - this seems to have been Queen's biggest hit in the German speaking countries

Under Pressure # 29 (Billboard) and # 22 (Cash Box) US - now that is already strangely low, but apparently only in the States! - # 3 CA vs. # 1 EU (# 1 UK)

Body Language # 11 (Billboard and Cash Box) US # 3 CA vs. # 11 EU (# 25 UK)

Calling All Girls # 60, ouch (Billboard) and # 61, ouch again (Cash Box) # 33 CA vs. Las Palabras De Amor, unfortunately i don't have any EU chart position for this, # 17 UK - this was the first Queen song to become #1 in PL's young chart

Back Chat didn't chart neither in the US nor in CA, and apparently not in the EU either, and only became # 40 UK - this only seemed to have barely hit the Top20 in IE and ZA

With this said, Queen's positions in the US and the UK both were rather poor lately, but while in the EU Queen recovered, that abruptly ended states-side after Radio Gaga already didn't chart too well. In became a major hit throughout Europe as did A Kind Of Magic later, but that one didn't even make the US Top40 - in fact apart from the Show Must Go On / Bohemian Rhapsody (re-release) none of their singles did (if they even charted!), as far as i can tell not even a related release like Living On My Own (remix), which became a massive hit throughout Europe, but went completely unnoticed in the US.

The low sales on the Hot Space tour would even undermine its lack of success in the States. When did Peter Prenter come into action, 1984? Queen might have already been knocked overseas, even if Body Language fared far better there than it did here.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE] [b]another one diets the bust wrote:[/b]

Surprisingly, everyone mentions Body Language as Hot Space's downfall in the US, but i think that did already come earlier, as Body Language was quite a mediocre hit there. If we compare chart positions overseas from 1980 to 1982, we get the following:

Crazy Little Thing Called Love # 1 (Billboard and Cash Box) US # 1 CA vs. # 2 EU (# 2 UK)

Save Me (for whatever reason not released in the US) # 32 CA vs. # 25 EU (# 11 UK)

Play The Game # 42 (Billboard) and # 38 (Cash Box) US # 19 CA vs. # 17 EU (# 14 UK)

Another One Bites The Dust # 1 (Billboard and Cash Box) US # 1 CA vs. # 12 EU (# 7 UK)

Need Your Loving Tonight # 44 (Billboard) and # 66, ouch (Cash Box) US # 36 CA (no release in Europe)

Flash # 42 US (Billboard) and # 39 (Cash Box) US # 19 CA vs. # 10 EU (# 10 UK) - this seems to have been Queen's biggest hit in the German speaking countries

Under Pressure # 29 (Billboard) and # 22 (Cash Box) US - now that is already strangely low, but apparently only in the States! - # 3 CA vs. # 1 EU (# 1 UK)

Body Language # 11 (Billboard and Cash Box) US # 3 CA vs. # 11 EU (# 25 UK)

Calling All Girls # 60, ouch (Billboard) and # 61, ouch again (Cash Box) # 33 CA vs. Las Palabras De Amor, unfortunately i don't have any EU chart position for this, # 17 UK - this was the first Queen song to become #1 in PL's young chart

Back Chat didn't chart neither in the US nor in CA, and apparently not in the EU either, and only became # 40 UK - this only seemed to have barely hit the Top20 in IE and ZA

With this said, Queen's positions in the US and the UK both were rather poor lately, but while in the EU Queen recovered, that abruptly ended states-side after Radio Gaga already didn't chart too well. In became a major hit throughout Europe as did A Kind Of Magic later, but that one didn't even make the US Top40 - in fact apart from the Show Must Go On / Bohemian Rhapsody (re-release) none of their singles did (if they even charted!), as far as i can tell not even a related release like Living On My Own (remix), which became a massive hit throughout Europe, but went completely unnoticed in the US.

The low sales on the Hot Space tour would even undermine its lack of success in the States. When did Peter Prenter come into action, 1984? Queen might have already been knocked overseas, even if Body Language fared far better there than it did here.[/QUOTE]

It didn't go through again

Yeah, it's a forum bug.

When that happens, follow these steps:

-click back on your browser
-right click / copy what you wrote
-return to your post
-click on the the left of the three buttons to edit
-right click / paste

[QUOTE]

[b]brENsKi wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Stelios wrote:[/b]

My theory is that even if Hot Space was a big hit in the US, Queen would eventually loose their funbase and cretability there. I am Greek but i have the feeling that Americans have a mentality in music much different than UK or Europe. They want their rockers to be pure, something like Eagles. They respond to labels/boxes/categories much more strictly.
From the way they respond to their flag to their ethics in generall ( it has to do with the way their country was structured) they need and therefore use SYMBOLS. Things that make them collide as a nation.Their youth/pop coulture follows the same pattern. Or at least it used to.
.[/QUOTE]

Sorry Stelios. Really have to disagree with you on this. Why? I can name several gay/bi rock stars who America never turned against

Bowie, Elton, Michael Stipe, Billy Joe Armstrong, Rob Halford (Judas Priest), B52s (Fred Schneider, Ricky Wilson, and Keith Strickland), Pet Shop Boys.....oh yeah and one Adam Lambert.

BTW - way to go -boxing ALL Americans as redneck fundamentalist intolerant(s).

[/QUOTE] brENsKi where on earth you read Freddie's homosexuality in my post? I was talking about music/youth culture in the us and the concept of identity through music and style.

As for the above names you mentioned:

1) Bowie was not exactly rock and came out as bisexual when it was a trend to be. And he lied. He is straight.

2) Elton also came out as bi, he married ( a woman) and is a solo artist most people recognise more as " a man and his piano". And he is very attached to that persona.

3)Michael Stipe kept a low profile in R.E.M. and only came out much later still keeping a moslty asexual persona.

4)Billy Joe Armstrong may talked about his bisexualied but he is married to a woman.

5) Rob Halford. This is a special case. Heavy Metal followers are mostly intersted in their genre nomatter what. They are very loyal to the Heavy Metal spirit and Halford never "betrayed" that. He also came out much later in his carrer.

6)Pet Shop Boys were of course not rock. They reprsesent a genre that sexuality is fluid/irrelevant.They are playing in the asexual field of electronica/club culture.

7) Adam Lambert. An alltogether different generation.He came out from the start and he represent nothing more than himshelf "pop-glam diva" and that is convinient is some terms.

And again my post was not about sexuality.
But if you want to bring that element into the converstation Mercury had a very strong audacity towards sexuality. He brought homomasculinity into the field (during the 80's) combined to some digree with his 70's campiness. And that's a lot ( for some people) to swallow becouse it underlines ambiguity in all its glory.

@Stelios
apols - misinterpreted your
"They want their rockers to be pure, something like Eagles. They respond to labels/boxes/categories much more strictly"

comment.

as regards your replies re: Bowie, REM, Elton and Billy Joe. No i think YOU are definitely wrong on this. Bisexuality is not defined as "living and having a sexual relationship with people of both sexes simultaneously"
it's a sexual preference - much like being gay or straight. doesn't mean you can't be married and be with one person tho...just that you have a sexual orientation, that's all.

On that basis - Elton and Michael Stipe have both declared their gay orientation since the height of their careers. - Elton 1983, Stipe about 1990ish.
Bowie declared himself being bisexual since about 1972/3 - getting married doesn't change that - only thing that would change this is if he came out and said "I am now straight"
Again Billy Joe - same thing

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]

it's a sexual preference - much like being gay or straight. [/QUOTE]
Oh god no. Being gay or straight is a matter of biology. Homosexuality has been observed in hundreds of species of animals, and we're merely one of them.

[QUOTE]On that basis - Elton and Michael Stipe have both declared their gay orientation since the height of their careers. - Elton 1983, Stipe about 1990ish.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed on Stipe, but Elton was past his peak at that point. I'd say he peaked 73-75. By 83 he hadn't had a good record in 5 years - Blue Moves was probably the last solid one, but a lot of people missed out on it because he came out as bi to Rolling Stone a few weeks prior to its release. Too Low For Zero was almost a return to form in 84, largely because he brought back his old band. Kiss The Bride - what a great track.

@brENsKi
You say : "Bisexuality is not defined as "living and having a sexual relationship with people of both sexes simultaneously"
it's a sexual preference - much like being gay or straight."
Of course it is. But this is how an informed person in LGBT issues perceives it today.
We are talking ( Bowie, Elton) about the seventies and they were artists. So bisexuality as a statement could be perceived differenetly. It was the " sexual revolution days" and it was the music bussines. So bi could mean over-sexual ( rock stars as supposed to be) like a " i fuck whatever it mooves", or as an artist thing " i am above gender- i can fall in love with the spirit of a person, not the genetelia". Velvet Goldmine ( the film) depicts that trend and the hole androgyny is cool attitude during the 70's.
As for getting married to the opposite sex ,when before had came out as bi (Billy Joe , Bowie), it does make a difference even to a subconscious level. Its mainstreaming the thing. Society provides a safe net. Its like forgiving to some point the "gay urges" of the person becouse eventually he/she did the right thing.
And as for Michael Stipe it prooves that society indded made a progress into LGBT issues but again his off-key/ poetic/ asexual persona helped a lot. R.E.M. were sophisticated/introvert/arty enough , providing a safer field for Stipe to expose more controversial sides of himshelf like a poet does, unlike Queen who reached for the Rock gods/legends status.

@The Real Wizard

1)"Oh god no. Being gay or straight is a matter of biology. Homosexuality has been observed in hundreds of species of animals, and we're merely one of them."

Sexuality (including bisexuality) is NOT (only) a biology thing.
It's a
1)genetic/hormonal
2)psychological
3)social/environmental.
And to every single person these factors are varied in "weight" to the resault of the orientation and also blend together so you can't really depict the main reason as "that one played the key role in this case".

2)"Homosexuality has been observed in hundreds of species of animals."

Indded, but its more bisexuality that has been observed in animals. Animals seems to go on sexual-phaces like pre-mature/adulthood e.t.c.
Also sexuality in animals(hundreds of species) is more fluid than sexuality as we tend to look at it in humans.

Another thank you for posting that USA Today article!

Let's try this again,,,,,This is a popular discussion here on Queenzone over the years. In my opinion why Queen lost the states is nothing to do with sexuality, maybe that prenter guy had a little something to do with it...But it was mainly the songs and change of direction the fans didn't like...AOBTD and The Game in general didn't lose many fans, yea, they didn't love it like SHA and Opera but most liked it...That album gained them many new fans...The problem obviously came with Hot Space, AOBTD style but not as good...HS is when the old fans Finally jumped ship, while the newer Fans moved on because the album wasn't a very good dance album...Then came The Works, Radio Ga Ga was a decent hit that got radio play, but the album wasn't on the level of their 70's work....They also didn't tour to promote the album...Usually when a band announces a tour is when fans get excited and the new record starts selling better...Of course I want to break free being banned on MTV didn't help matters....So the original Question, did Queen lose the States, because they lost Freddie?...yes!...because they lost his creativity as a songwriter...The same for Brian...Compare Freddie and Brian songs from the 70's and 80's....

[QUOTE] [b]Mike G wrote:[/b]

Let's try this again,,,,,This is a popular discussion here on Queenzone over the years. In my opinion why Queen lost the states is nothing to do with sexuality, maybe that prenter guy had a little something to do with it...But it was mainly the songs and change of direction the fans didn't like...AOBTD and The Game in general didn't lose many fans, yea, they didn't love it like SHA and Opera but most liked it...That album gained them many new fans...The problem obviously came with Hot Space, AOBTD style but not as good...HS is when the old fans Finally jumped ship, while the newer Fans moved on because the album wasn't a very good dance album...Then came The Works, Radio Ga Ga was a decent hit that got radio play, but the album wasn't on the level of their 70's work....They also didn't tour to promote the album...Usually when a band announces a tour is when fans get excited and the new record starts selling better...Of course I want to break free being banned on MTV didn't help matters....So the original Question, did Queen lose the States, because they lost Freddie?...yes!...because they lost his creativity as a songwriter...The same for Brian...Compare Freddie and Brian songs from the 70's and 80's....[/QUOTE]

... good thing that Roger's songwriting carried Queen after Hot Space with 9 top 20 hits:

Radio Ga Ga, One Vision, A Kind of Magic, Breakthru, The Invisible Man, Innuendo, These Are the Days of Our Lives, Heaven for Everyone and Let Me Live.

[QUOTE] [b]Stelios wrote:[/b]

Sexuality (including bisexuality) is NOT (only) a biology thing.
It's a
1)genetic/hormonal
2)psychological
3)social/environmental.
And to every single person these factors are varied in "weight" to the resault of the orientation and also blend together so you can't really depict the main reason as "that one played the key role in this case".
[/QUOTE]

Yes, indeed. But as it stands right now, the overwhelming majority of the research is in favour of nature over nurture.