I think they should have gone full rock, than a ballad... like with I Was Born To Love You... the whole build up starting with "love can play with your emotions, open invitation to your heart"... should have continued into a rock chorus rather than fall back into the ballad form... i'd like to believe they tried it, but it went nowhere... but i don't know, i just can't see it failing if they had done it that way... it's if it was written with that in mind.
thomasquinn 32989 · Member since
Sounds to me like Rolling Stone is just trying to keep up it's long, long run of getting every single review of anything Queen puts out wrong.
Rugby_guy · Member since
Rolling Stone is just a cheap American rag, buy it and wipe your arse on it Thomasquinn32989 ha ha !
matt z · Member since
I wouldn't wipe my ass with it. It's slippery and non porous. Plastic magazine for a plastic age. Crappola.
Queen should have taken the high road and made a version with a ukulele. A blatant attempt to hit the "norm" but they missed out.
;*)
Mr.Mouth · Member since
Enough of that karaoke high pitched canarian ,with no musical skills or rock path!!!
Mr.Mouth · Member since
You are right.
Ending is not so good arranged
LucasDiego · Member since
The shame is QP ordered to withdraw the original version on YT, makes the new version much easy to find, it´s a shame
Ale Solan · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]winterspelt wrote:[/b]
We all have heard the original version for lots of years, so our ears are biased and we just cant stop listening the original version when listening to this ballad version. Specially cause its the same vocal take.
[/QUOTE]
I know my opinion doesn't count for much, but I heard this new version first, [/QUOTE]
Are you a Queen fan since 2 weeks ago?
tomchristie22 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Ale Solan wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]winterspelt wrote:[/b]
We all have heard the original version for lots of years, so our ears are biased and we just cant stop listening the original version when listening to this ballad version. Specially cause its the same vocal take.
[/QUOTE]
I know my opinion doesn't count for much, but I heard this new version first, [/QUOTE]
Are you a Queen fan since 2 weeks ago?
[/QUOTE]
Nuh. I'm a Queen fan since 2010ish, I wasn't alive in 1984, and I just never had the interest to delve into Freddie's solo material. Simple
SweetCaroline · Member since
Here's the QAL version of "Love Kills" .....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqK6ZAhst3I
tomchristie22 · Member since
I must agree with the suggestion earlier in the thread - if the double time beat from the midsection had carried over into the remainder of the song, it would've been much better. As it is, the song just loses its momentum as it goes back into the ballad style. The guitar solo that follows also sounds awkward, which would likely be rectified by having a drum beat closer to the original for which it was written.
Ale Solan · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Ale Solan wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]winterspelt wrote:[/b]
We all have heard the original version for lots of years, so our ears are biased and we just cant stop listening the original version when listening to this ballad version. Specially cause its the same vocal take.
[/QUOTE]
I know my opinion doesn't count for much, but I heard this new version first, [/QUOTE]
Are you a Queen fan since 2 weeks ago?
[/QUOTE]
Nuh. I'm a Queen fan since 2010ish, I wasn't alive in 1984, and I just never had the interest to delve into Freddie's solo material. Simple [/QUOTE]
I wasn't alive in 1964 but when I discovered the Beatles in early 80's I felt the need to listen everything I could about 'em...
but you discovered Queen 4 years ago, understandable.
tomchristie22 · Member since
Indeed - it's the 4th year and I've now gotten round to it. I've mainly listened to Smile and Brian's stuff as far as Queen-related stuff goes, prior to recently. I plan to get onto Roger's solo work too.
Ale Solan · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
Indeed - it's the 4th year and I've now gotten round to it. I've mainly listened to Smile and Brian's stuff as far as Queen-related stuff goes, prior to recently. I plan to get onto Roger's solo work too. [/QUOTE]
Roger's solo stuff it's the most rich of all the four Queen guys, you'll really enjoy it.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Rugby_guy wrote:[/b]
Rolling Stone is just a cheap American rag, buy it and wipe your arse on it Thomasquinn32989 ha ha ![/QUOTE]
This is extremely misguided. I've never seen this opinion expressed outside of Queen fan sites like this one, just because their writers in the 70s and 80s didn't like Queen.
But for pretty much everyone else in the western world, it is the industry standard for reading about new music. Just about every aspiring music writer dreams of writing for Rolling Stone. It's the Everest of music journalism.
