How people see Queen in the U.S.

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

@Day dop:

i think you picked the wrong approach fella.
LiveAid was 20 minutes.....and really not that significant in the scheme of things. they may have stolen the show...but an awful lot of bands didn't turn up to prove anything, they gave their time primarily for the good cause.

the facts speak for themselves:
while Zep's line-up was unbroken, they never released a bad album - yeah sure a couple were below their usual standard, but they were still good. and - as Bob said - the intense touring of America early on cemented their reputation.

queen on the other hand - regardless of what the apologists might say - DID make some dodgy albums - HS, works, magic, and even the miracle

zep were much bigger in america because - quite simply - they worked their tits off to break the US.

it's said that "if the US sneezes, the world catches a cold"...well that pretty much applies to music...the beatles worked this out and so did zep.

[/QUOTE]

I'm aware of what you say, but in fairness it was a response to "I can't forget The Worst Rock 'n' Roll Records of All Time referring to Freddie Mercury as "looking like Mick Jagger impersonating Robert Plant." - and what came after.

It's the dismissal bordering on outright ridicule that I think is unnecessary.

Whilst I consider those albums you mentioned as being dodgy too (although I'm still quite fond of The Works despite of that), in Queen's defence, it was the 80s.

At least Innuendo managed to be half great (alright, maybe not quite half, looking at the track listing) and showed some real promise. If only that album had carried on in the same vein, or as brilliant as Innuendo, TSMGO, IGSM, despite the synth sounds (which aren't unbearably heavy or at least too dodgy on those tracks), it might've been one of the all time greats, as opposed to being thought of as a good Queen album. There were hints at true grandness with that one (the cover art is a bonus which totally suits it). Shame about the production though. Not that that poor production was ever a problem for The Velvet Underground.

not everyone turned to crud in the 80s...yeah most did, but not everyone

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

not everyone turned to crud in the 80s...yeah most did, but not everyone[/QUOTE]

Exhibit A: Rush :)

Yeah, I probably would say their best stuff was before and after the 80s (well...before the mid 80s at least) but they still had good albums...

[QUOTE] [b]The King Of Rhye wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
not everyone turned to crud in the 80s...yeah most did, but not everyone[/QUOTE]
Exhibit A: Rush :)
Yeah, I probably would say their best stuff was before and after the 80s (well...before the mid 80s at least) but they still had good albums...
[/QUOTE]

that doesn't work does it? you can't break a decade in half and then claim your point to be correct. especially when the first half of the 80s...produced some fine and great albums
Permanent Waves, Moving Pictures, Sginals, Grace Under Pressure & Power Windows...all quality albums - with 3 of those (arguably) being in Rush's top 5 greatest.

Well, my point was that they didnt 'turn to crud' in the 80s :D Some of their late-80s albums I'm not really a huge fan of, but theyre still good...

sorry, yes. just re-read your comment

queen were by no means an exception tho.
i think some very rich established bands got very lazy during the 80s
Genesis, the Who, Yes

but then others improved upon their (end of) 70s output
Rush: as previously mentioned - produced some of their best
Sabbs: (one Gillan album aside) were on their game for most of that decade
add to the above Aerosmith, UFO, Judas Priest, Fleetwood mac, AC/DC, Tom Petty, Elton, Rainbow and Lizzy all continued to produce good output (the last two until their breakups)

question: why did the synths on Permanent waves, MP, Signals and GUP sound so good, while the synths on HS, Works and Magic sound so (ahem) shit?

I can't speak for Hot Space, as that always sounded dated from the moment I heard it (I first heard it in either '86 or '87), but I don't think the synths on The Works, AKOM (or The Miracle) sounded shit at the time.
Sure, now they do, but back then they sounded great.

In the 80s, those albums sounded current, but their 70s stuff sounded far less impressive as it had dated (I was still a kid in the 80s, and back then, 10 years was... well, a lifetime), and the whole 80s sound was far removed from the 70s.

However, these days, both the 70s and 80s stuff sounds dated, but the 70s stuff is where the they were creatively at their peak, so the dated 70s sound can be overlooked.

The 80s - when I used to pop to the library and borrow vinyl records. That's how I first heard Queen's Greatest Hits, which I absolutely fell in love with. That was the second Queen album I heard after buying Live Magic in ASDA. How it escaped me that I'd bought a live album until I got it home and played it, I'll never know. I mean, it's not as if the clue isn't in the title.

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

question: why did the synths on Permanent waves, MP, Signals and GUP sound so good, while the synths on HS, Works and Magic sound so (ahem) shit?
[/QUOTE]


Hmm, good question....maybe cus Queen was late to embrace them while Rush used them earlier in their career?

yeah but synths were deployed/utilised well on The Game and Flash OST

so why the syntheshite on the next three albums?

^^^^ good point.

On the issues of production how well have the production values of Queen albums dated. My view is in some cases not very well. I think, for example the sound on most Zeppelin albums has dated far better.

On the subject of sales, yes Queen sold a shed load of albums, but the bulk of those sales were Greatest Hits sales. something Led Zeppelin never relied on.

The point made earlier that Zeppelin worked their butt's off as a touring band in the US is true, and that approach worked. Interestingly when they spoke to Peter Grant his advice to them was to forget recording for a year, just get out there and tour. A different approach to the one taken but one that I'm sure would have worked for them and maybe made them into less of a greatest hits band

My impression always was that Queen was coping the Zeps style in their early albums: sound and lyric wise. I am not a Zep follower, thou I appreciate the music, so I cannot say whether Zeps ever copied Queen. Me thinks Zeps would be a greater influence on the development of heavy rock than Queen, given it was the Zeps who were copied and emulated even by Queen in their early days: look, music, lyrics.

Is the original point not how Queen are perceived in the US mainstream, rather than record sales vs Led Zeppelin. Which is the possible perception among Americans that Queen is not a serious rock band, or that they just don't "get" Queen . Or that this attitude might be a reflection of limitations in American culture (homophobia?) rather than a reflection of the bands true qualities.
The most successful Queen songs in the US are the ones that most easily fit into the US mainstream. such as Crazy Little Thing Called Love, a rockabilly pastiche, basically giving them back their own music.The most successful albums The Game and News of the World are more stripped down and contain fewer baroque multi-layered excess. Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody only made no 9, before a comedy film gave it a second lease of life early 90s. That says a lot.
I was talking to one girl from Chicago who thought Queen were a novelty band like the Village People. Otherwise her taste overlapped quite a bit with mine.Its this anecdotal evidence that counts as much as record sales stats.

couple of things re:^^
1] a no9 hit in the USA is a big big hit
2] in addition to not taken seriously, not getting queen or homophobia, can i offer another suggestion?

America (generally) just didn't like Queen's music?

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

couple of things re:^^
1] a no9 hit in the USA is a big big hit
2] in addition to not taken seriously, not getting queen or homophobia, can i offer another suggestion?

America (generally) just didn't like Queen's music?[/QUOTE]

America (generally) just didn't like Queen's music?[/

Getting closer .