You And I

Yes, obviously there are loads of things which could be re-phrased in order not to be too offensive, and that includes plenty of what I've written here and elsewhere. Again, you live and learn :)

Hehe, thanks for the reference, Mr.QueenFan. Glad I could help :-)

[QUOTE] [b]Chief Mouse wrote:[/b]

Hehe, thanks for the reference, Mr.QueenFan. Glad I could help :-)[/QUOTE]

You´re welcomed :-)

bump

Re-bump. Good times!

Great song, as most of Deacon's numbers were from this era. It's beautiful and to the point. Freddies amazing mid 70's voice at its absolute best.

Bumped.

Bill Bruford, long time King Crimson drummer is not in the current line up.

The band have been touring very successfully and plan to record a new album. Bill has retired from playing, but Robert Fripp hasn't. There is no problem with that, no conspiracy, just the plain simple fact that he has retired. Yes the fans would love to see him play, but he's no longer a band member and that's fine.

John Deacon, long time Queen Bassist decides to retire from the music business, but in Queen fandom that's a sure sign that he has gone batshit, can't stand the rest of the band couldn't handle stardom etc etc. . . Why can't he just be retired. Escaped from the demands of being a famous pro musician with his health intact and a life and family to enjoy.

Yes he still makes money from once being a member of the band, but that's what happens if you write songs that still sell in one form or another. It doesn't mean he has to be part of it anymore.

How many people work, and get on with, people who than leave or retire from a business and don't stay in touch. Not everyone moves in the same direction with the same goals and views of life.

[QUOTE]

[b]onedunpark wrote:[/b] Performance is far more a quality issue for me from a drumming point of view on tracks such as 'It's a Hard Life', 'One Vision' and others - the drums are real, so the right decision was made to use them above programmed ones, but Roger's choice of what to play really is 'going through the motions' and is mostly uninspiring. I know the style of music and songwriting changed, but when I listen to his playing across older tracks like 'the Fairy Feller's Master Stroke', 'It's Late', 'Killer Queen', Flick of The Wrist' etc.. there are lovely little touches that he thought about such as sizzled hi hat fills, thundering tom rolls, cymbal catches and the like, but this is all sorely not even contemplated in the 80s on the occasions he actually got to play on tracks!

=====

As far as I'm concerned, and in fairness this belongs to another thread, I think that in the early days there was an intention and commitment by the band to play to the best of (and beyond) their ability and show the world just how magnificent they were. Their individual musicality was magical and collectively they were a joy to listen to. As "cmsdrums" and "Sebastian" both suggest, their input as musicians with respect to "real" instruments was incredible.

I'm not so sure how contentious a point it is to say that by the 80's they were far more about spectacle and event and less interested in being musically challenged or interesting. I'm probably completely on my own here but I haven't voluntarily listened to anything post-Game in the last 20 years, as i just think they became more about spectacle and less about music. The ratio of gold-to-turd went almost perfectly from one to the other when viewing their career output as far as I'm concerned.

[/QUOTE]

These are some of the best posts I've seen on here.

[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]

Bill Bruford, long time King Crimson drummer is not in the current line up.

The band have been touring very successfully and plan to record a new album. Bill has retired from playing, but Robert Fripp hasn't. There is no problem with that, no conspiracy, just the plain simple fact that he has retired. Yes the fans would love to see him play, but he's no longer a band member and that's fine.

John Deacon, long time Queen Bassist decides to retire from the music business, but in Queen fandom that's a sure sign that he has gone batshit, can't stand the rest of the band couldn't handle stardom etc etc. . . Why can't he just be retired. Escaped from the demands of being a famous pro musician with his health intact and a life and family to enjoy.

Yes he still makes money from once being a member of the band, but that's what happens if you write songs that still sell in one form or another. It doesn't mean he has to be part of it anymore.

How many people work, and get on with, people who than leave or retire from a business and don't stay in touch. Not everyone moves in the same direction with the same goals and views of life.

[/QUOTE]

The truth, it burns !

That said - Bruford retired with an explanation, and Deacon didn't. People are naturally going to speculate, and conjure up any theory they can with what little information they have.

Deacon clearly doesn't care either way. He's happily retired, and that's that.

I missed the onedunpark post and agree, absolutely accurate and sums up Queen in the 80s pretty precisely.

[QUOTE] [b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote:[/b]

I missed the onedunpark post and agree, absolutely accurate and sums up Queen in the 80s pretty precisely.[/QUOTE]

I second that.

I always liked [b]You and I[/b].

And I like [b]In Only Seven Days[/b] even more.

[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote:[/b]

I missed the onedunpark post and agree, absolutely accurate and sums up Queen in the 80s pretty precisely.[/QUOTE]

I second that.[/QUOTE]

Me too.

Everything changes by The Game. They are a very different band from Jazz. It's the first record where they're trying for commercial success over artistic integrity. Jazz shows them in transition, and there are a few below average tracks - but they still sound like Queen. On The Game they sound like any number of bands. This marks where they transition from leaders to followers. They wouldn't creatively find their footing again for a decade.

It's one of those phenomenons - virtually every act that was successful in the 70s had a huge lull in the 80s. I wonder if anyone has done a proper analysis on this matter? Surely it isn't as simple as bands suddenly becoming dinosaurs who couldn't adjust to new technology or business models.

In Queen's case, for every Who Wants To Live Forever there was a Man On The Prowl. They were inconsistent and often lacked focus, maybe because they were less of a unit united under the goal of achieving success. They had found it, and once you get there there's only one place to go - down.

And that's aside from their interpersonal issues and other external factors that no doubt inhibited their creativity in some ways. In 1975 there was one thing on their minds - to write a great album. That wasn't the case a decade later, even after Live Aid had brought them back together. Hell, that wasn't even the case for Jazz in 1978.

But that's life - great moments are precisely that: moments. Nothing ever stays the same. That's where the magic comes from. Even The Beatles had only one Sgt Pepper.

[QUOTE]

[b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b] Everything changes by The Game. They are a very different band from Jazz. It's the first record where they're trying for commercial success over artistic integrity. Jazz shows them in transition, and there are a few below average tracks - but they still sound like Queen. On The Game they sound like any number of bands. This marks where they transition from leaders to followers. They wouldn't creatively find their footing again for a decade.

[/QUOTE]

Fully agree. The Game is enjoyable I think, a sparse album with good production and a jammy feel. But that's not who they used to be - they were never about jamming, they were never about keeping things sparse. Bicycle Race on the album before probably packs about as much structural and rhythmic complexity in three minutes as all of The Game.