You And I

I suppose a major part of their ambition was touring and having that chemistry with the audience. In 1975, they needed a hit album in order to play larger venues and be invited to more territories (the Rainbow Theatre is still relatively small by comparison), but in 1985 they didn't need a new 'Bo Rhap' or a new 'Prophet's Song.' It was more like having an album to promote but even if they hadn't released anything they'd still manage to sell out Wembley (possibly). So they knew they could do a half-arsed job (though I do agree 'Who Wants to Live Forever' is phenomenal) and still tour football stadia.

[QUOTE]

[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b] I suppose a major part of their ambition was touring and having that chemistry with the audience. In 1975, they needed a hit album in order to play larger venues and be invited to more territories (the Rainbow Theatre is still relatively small by comparison), but in 1985 they didn't need a new 'Bo Rhap' or a new 'Prophet's Song.' It was more like having an album to promote but even if they hadn't released anything they'd still manage to sell out Wembley (possibly). So they knew they could do a half-arsed job (though I do agree 'Who Wants to Live Forever' is phenomenal) and still tour football stadia.[/QUOTE]

That might be part of the problem, but IIRC they didn't sell out in North America in 1982 after Hot Space, so they didn't get away with half assed music there. Since they cared so much about breakthrough in the US a few years earlier, you'd have thought they would up their game again in order to find their way back.

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

[QUOTE]

[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b] I suppose a major part of their ambition was touring and having that chemistry with the audience. In 1975, they needed a hit album in order to play larger venues and be invited to more territories (the Rainbow Theatre is still relatively small by comparison), but in 1985 they didn't need a new 'Bo Rhap' or a new 'Prophet's Song.' It was more like having an album to promote but even if they hadn't released anything they'd still manage to sell out Wembley (possibly). So they knew they could do a half-arsed job (though I do agree 'Who Wants to Live Forever' is phenomenal) and still tour football stadia.[/QUOTE]

That might be part of the problem, but IIRC they didn't sell out in North America in 1982 after Hot Space, so they didn't get away with half assed music there. Since they cared so much about breakthrough in the US a few years earlier, you'd have thought they would up their game again in order to find their way back.[/QUOTE]

Last 7 or 8 posts have been excellent, and an indication that there are knowledgeable posters with great thoughts on Queen, which isn't always the case here. I think that The Game was a decision to get away from the bombast given the musical tastes of the day, and it still seemed a bit like Queen. But with Hot Space they chased the market and it felt forced. As a result they went to a career "greatest hits" approach for the most part with The Works. Writing was lazier as were performances. Sales ruled and creativity took a back seat. As the Real Wizards stated, lots of bands went sideways and if you listen to some Yes or Genesis from the 70 then the 80s you'd think they were forced to record some of that shit at gunpoint. Same with Queen.

Further to my "chasing the market" comment above, at the time that I fell in love with Queen, which spurred my life long love of music, it was because they were fearless. For me it Bohemian Rhapsody and ANATO that got me hooked. There were so many styles and influences on ANATO yet it all sounded like Queen. Didn't work that way on Hot Space or The Works but they had to change to survive.

To me the miracle of Queen is their belief in themselves and playing for what they liked and succeeding and not caring about what fans or the press liked, and finding ann audience. Queen was a heavy rock band at the start, and morphed to a more poppy rock bad around The Game. But, in a world of 3 minute singles in 4/4 time, if you were to say to anyone that the key to success in music is releasing an opera based song with no chorus and multiple time signatures as your make or break it single, followed by a 12/8 gospel based single for your next album, and then two minutes of stomping on wood with singing but no music save for an ending guitar solo as your next single, backed by a 6/8 single that the press thinks is about how great you are, and oh yeah, open your next album with a track that contains virtually no English language lyrics and have a single about riding your bicycle and again, a strange collection of time signatures and a bicycle bell solo, then your next album has a sparse sound and a lead off single that people think is Elvis Presley, and follow that up with a single that people think is performed by a black r'and b group, sure, that's the key to success. Fucking amazing they even had a contract. But god damn it, those years were amazing and that music was art. Decline started when they followed the money.

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

IIRC they didn't sell out in North America in 1982 after Hot Space, so they didn't get away with half assed music there. Since they cared so much about breakthrough in the US a few years earlier, you'd have thought they would up their game again in order to find their way back.[/QUOTE]

There were other problems in the US than the quality of one album. The business end was a mess - a payola mess had them off the radio for years, and Freddie's assistant Paul Prenter burned most of their contacts there.

But that aside, they (mostly Freddie) were afraid that the arenas would be even emptier than they were in '82. Four nights at the LA Forum became two, three nights at MSG became two, two nights in Oakland became one, etc. Many of the shows on that tour were sold out, but at least as many were far from it. They didn't want to go back to theatres in North America while they were playing stadiums in Japan and South America, so they accepted that they were done in the US and went to a whole lot of other places instead.

They didn't come back for 23 years. But of course, that's a whole other story.

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

To me the miracle of Queen is their belief in themselves and playing for what they liked and succeeding and not caring about what fans or the press liked, and finding ann audience. Queen was a heavy rock band at the start, and morphed to a more poppy rock bad around The Game. But, in a world of 3 minute singles in 4/4 time, if you were to say to anyone that the key to success in music is releasing an opera based song with no chorus and multiple time signatures as your make or break it single, followed by a 12/8 gospel based single for your next album, and then two minutes of stomping on wood with singing but no music save for an ending guitar solo as your next single, backed by a 6/8 single that the press thinks is about how great you are, and oh yeah, open your next album with a track that contains virtually no English language lyrics and have a single about riding your bicycle and again, a strange collection of time signatures and a bicycle bell solo, then your next album has a sparse sound and a lead off single that people think is Elvis Presley, and follow that up with a single that people think is performed by a black r'and b group, sure, that's the key to success. Fucking amazing they even had a contract. But god damn it, those years were amazing and that music was art. Decline started when they followed the money.[/QUOTE]

One of the best posts ever written on this forum. Bravo.

I'd venture to say that it was more than the money. The business changed in many ways. FM radio went from album oriented radio to playlists in the late 70s, as it was becoming clear that a bigger audience meant higher advertising revenues. With hits now being on both AM and FM radio, albums became progressively less marketable. And when there's no need to make an album like you used to, the product becomes less cohesive. As I stated above, almost all successful artists of the 70s did not make the transition into the 80s well. People like Peter Gabriel were the exception to the rule. But he was broke by 1982, so maybe you have a point !

Of course there were other factors. With the advent of video games and creating your own mix tapes, people were spending less money on LPs by the late 70s. For the previous decade, LPs were what most teenagers and adults spent most of their disposable income on. People had prided themselves on their record collections. It was an extension of who they were. Artists knew this. The focus was on creating the great album, not the hit single. Sure, Queen made music for themselves, but they knew their audience would still listen to the whole album. The lead single was selected after the album was finished. But along with FM radio's change in business plan, this would soon change.

They say things move quickly now - just look at how much the nature of popular music changed between 1975 and 1980. Damn straight Queen wouldn't have gotten a record deal with A Night At The Opera in 1980. Zeppelin would've been thrown out of the record exec's office with Physical Graffiti. Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here starting with a 13 minute song? Forget about it. There was no comparable seismic shift in any art form until YouTube came along. Today we expect things to change quickly, but in the 70s people really thought the LP would last forever, and along with that, music on the radio that would continue to be new and exciting and more interesting than the previous year. It was the format that drove artists to be great, with the added bonus of new territory to be found as the technology grew.

Good music has been produced since then and will continue to be produced, but it is not consumed the way it was consumed 40 years ago. The world is a much different place, not least because there is so much music available and it has become so disposable in the form of downloaded files, as opposed to a physical piece with liner notes and artwork that you stared into while listening to the music and doing literally nothing else for 45 minutes after proudly carrying it home without a plastic bag as if it were a badge of honour, your statement to the world of what's important to you. But nothing lasts forever.

Bands like Queen truly were a product of their time. 1967-1977 was a magical time to create popular music for so many reasons, and such an environment will probably never be seen again.