Rolling Stone praises new "Love Kills"(!)

[QUOTE] [b]Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira wrote:[/b]

Of course everybody's opinions count, Tom!

I guess they did not have any other vocal takes to use. That would have been awesome. The keyboard part is rather strange, I agree

I love the original from day one. I still remember the first time I heard it, the day I found the then rare LP and the day I got a hold of the import CD. Queen were the best in synthpop, as well.

To sum it up, the new version is good, but the classic one is awesome. And I hate to say it, but Queen + Adam Lambert's live version is better than the new version with Freddie. I guess it is not fair to compare, as he had the chance to adapt his vocals to the new arrangement. I hate to say it, really.

Cheers,

Ogre-

[/QUOTE]

nah, adam lambert lacks the fullness and finesse that Freddie mercury easily and passionately applied to "love kills" buried with the dance music of the original but his voice is upfront and more alive than anything lambert has tried with each concert performance of "love kills". In one fell swoop, Mercury from the grave and in my ears has taken full attention with many repeats in the last 72 hours, all three "forever" songs too.

I was born to love you by queen + adam lambert in Osaka japan now fills my span currently and he is too comical, has no dexterity of emotional range to manipulate with grace, not frequent unimportant expressions into the higher octaves that is all lambert is good for.

Freddie's love kills original or modern ballad of late is a vast improvement and welcome over lamberts theatrics in any form at any time too.

[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]

It's also my 4th year of Queen and searching in (very) old threads, I found a lot of Queen, RT, BT and FM demos, out-takes, amateur video recordings of concerts, professional video recordings of concerts, and BBC Sessions.

Would you like a link to that in your PM box? My collection it's uploaded (and free, if you're asking).

Sorry for the off-topic.

I'd like that, yeah. I've done a bit of digging around myself (mostly in live stuff), but you never know - you could have some great things I haven't come across. PM me :)

On topic again, the ending of the 2014 version sounds much more natural when performed live, because they can play it at a more fitting tempo, and because Adam can sing it more gently, as well as hold the note. On the Forever version, they just used Freddie's vocal from earlier in the song, and the final 'Love kills' is just a joining phrase copied and pasted, so he barely draws out the note at all. It just sounds a bit clunky.

[QUOTE] [b]WKMahlerMahlers.Com wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira wrote:[/b]

Of course everybody's opinions count, Tom!

I guess they did not have any other vocal takes to use. That would have been awesome. The keyboard part is rather strange, I agree

I love the original from day one. I still remember the first time I heard it, the day I found the then rare LP and the day I got a hold of the import CD. Queen were the best in synthpop, as well.

To sum it up, the new version is good, but the classic one is awesome. And I hate to say it, but Queen + Adam Lambert's live version is better than the new version with Freddie. I guess it is not fair to compare, as he had the chance to adapt his vocals to the new arrangement. I hate to say it, really.

Cheers,

Ogre-

[/QUOTE]

nah, adam lambert lacks the fullness and finesse that Freddie mercury easily and passionately applied to "love kills" buried with the dance music of the original but his voice is upfront and more alive than anything lambert has tried with each concert performance of "love kills". In one fell swoop, Mercury from the grave and in my ears has taken full attention with many repeats in the last 72 hours, all three "forever" songs too.

I was born to love you by queen + adam lambert in Osaka japan now fills my span currently and he is too comical, has no dexterity of emotional range to manipulate with grace, not frequent unimportant expressions into the higher octaves that is all lambert is good for.

Freddie's love kills original or modern ballad of late is a vast improvement and welcome over lamberts theatrics in any form at any time too.[/QUOTE]

I always thought wkmahler was a bit of a nutter but that take is spot on.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

[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.[/QUOTE]

True, but RS were (are) horribly biased and ill informed. They liked their boys (Dylan, Springsteen, U2, REM) missed the boat on bands who weren't cool enough. Their early reviews on Queen show a shocking lack of musical knowledge and a huge bias, their recent reviews look like a magazine trying to connect with a demographic (AL fans) by praising stuff that wasn't good enough to make a Queen album in the day. Overall they're pathetic. Famous, but pathetic.

[QUOTE]

[b]tomchristie22 wrote: [/b] I'd like that, yeah. I've done a bit of digging around myself (mostly in live stuff), but you never know - you could have some great things I haven't come across. PM me :)

On topic again, the ending of the 2014 version sounds much more natural when performed live, because they can play it at a more fitting tempo, and because Adam can sing it more gently, as well as hold the note. On the Forever version, they just used Freddie's vocal from earlier in the song, and the final 'Love kills' is just a joining phrase copied and pasted, so he barely draws out the note at all. It just sounds a bit clunky.[/QUOTE]

Check your PM box!

On topic, I like this version. The only bad thing here is the intensity of Freddie's voice in the song. Also when the song's climax reaches, instead of making this song epic, they reduce the (climax?) of the song and makes me bore at the end. Also, the beggining is so long. But I love that parts mixed with the synths.

I think it's good. I will take it as an amateur remix of the song, made by 2 guys who are the guitarist and the drummer of Queen.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

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.[/QUOTE]

RS shat all over LZ's now legendary first albums, and were quite critical of classic Hendrix, Cream and Beatles albums as well. Thank god it didn't stop them.

I don't like it. The 1984's version was the best.

I remember the RS review for News of the World, where they praised John's playing on Sleeping on the Sidewalk as adventurous compared to his mostly "pedestrian" playing over the first five albums. The writer who wrote that either hated Queen (likely) or knew SFA about music (likely).

That writer truly mustn't have actually ever listened to John's bass playing. How irritating

[QUOTE] [b]Oscar J wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

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.[/QUOTE]

RS shat all over LZ's now legendary first albums, and were quite critical of classic Hendrix, Cream and Beatles albums as well. Thank god it didn't stop them. [/QUOTE]

I read someone say that critics were often failed songwriters. So they put up some sh*te that most people can't stand, and can't understand why "their" bands and singer songwriters aren't huge. Well it's a terrible generalisation, but if that last comment about The Beatles Cream and Hendrix is correct, you have to wonder what use are they? Queen never seemed to get much cred until Live Aid, and then they had to come on board or they would have been dimissed as completely irrelevant!

“Definition of rock journalism: People who can't write, doing interviews with people who can't think, in order to prepare articles for people who can't read.”

? Frank Zappa, The Real Frank Zappa Book

Some rock journalism is interesting. Classic Rock have some good people writing for them, although the pressure to stay "on message" in line with the magazine's ethos often means it is overly sympathetic to bands and music that really aren't that great. Rolling Stone used to have Hunter Thompson and PJ O'Rourke writing for them, albeit not about music lol! It could be fun. Now it's a vehicle for ads and corporate music. I had heard Greil Marcus was very good so I read his book Mystery Train. Have to say I was unimpressed. He completely bought into the Robert Johnson mythology and didn't do much research.

Nuno Bettencourt also had some nice things to say about Queen & BM:

"Yes, Joe Perry made me wanna rock and roll, but it was this gentle giant right here... Brian May, who taught me that guitar could reach a whole new solar system with the a powerful melody and emotion. He showed me that a guitar could sing. Just how important a single note was when it hit the sweet spot. Brian, along with Queen, had more to say in one album than most bands do in a career. And there will NEVER be a band that took as many risks as Queen, pushing boundaries, one masterpiece after another. The most creative and groundbreaking band in Rock and Roll. And Brian, as long as I have had the pleasure to know you and call you a friend, I am still in awe of your presence as a master. You're an idol, my pioneer. Thank you for decades of breathtaking music and inspiration. Long live Queen!!!"

^yes corporate crap.

I've picked up a few in the last twelve years. I've had suspicions it hasn't been useful for new music or important since even BEFORE the days of Napster 's glory.


These people are collegiate, entitled and have nothing really useful to say about any kind of musical culture.... well. ... unless ironically I'm just getting old and this repetitive crap made by synth guys and the electronic cut and paste within the given framework kind of stuff is what passes for music.



It goes either way. Ask me and it hasn't been relevant for almost twenty years. It's even behind trends


Ask the culture it's born and given birth to and it's significant.


Just a matter of opinion. Sorta.