Rolling Stone about INNUENDO: "masterpiece"

Not sure if it was shared here before, but there you have it:

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/queens-innuendo-remembering-freddie-mercurys-last-masterpiece-20160205

I distinctly remember reading this with a different title. There was something similar. .25 years ago Freddie Mercury confronts morality with. ..."

Something like that. Different video source as well.


Maybe they're recycling these stories

Maybe this?

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/queen-innuendo/

There's also this: https://medium.com/cuepoint/innuendo-how-queen-made-its-finest-album-in-years-under-tragic-circumstances-e43640573f6f#.uz2lxedtt

"Deeper album cuts like "The Hitman" and "I Can't Live With You" saw the band placing more emphasis on heavy guitars than arguably anything they had done since 1974's Sheer Heart Attack."

What a ridiculous comment! Bloody rolling stone. So there is nothing heavier and so much better than those two crappy songs on ANATO (DOTL, TPS), ADATR (TYMD, WM), need a list songs from News of the world and jazz?

[QUOTE] [b]k-m wrote:[/b]

Not sure if it was shared here before, but there you have it:

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/queens-innuendo-remembering-freddie-mercurys-last-masterpiece-20160205 .[/QUOTE]

I am very impressed with this article! This is a great piece by Ron Hart for the Rolling Stone.

Thank you for posting it here.

I don`t want to start bashing the RS just for fun. But they are a fish that`s hard to catch. Some of their articles are ridiculous, others downright to the point. And then they have their national chapters. So a RS magazin isn`t pretty much the same around the globe. The local writers also add their points of view.
But anyway...

Thanks for sharing.

I found the remarks under the article to be very interesting !

One questionable comment, and you guys are slagging an entire magazine once again?

This is one of the best pieces ever written on Queen. And because of it, a ton of people are going to revisit this landmark album, or even hear it for the first time.

It's a shame that so many Queen fans have their blinders on. Reality check - Rolling Stone is the industry standard for music journalism.

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

One questionable comment, and you guys are slagging an entire magazine once again?

This is one of the best pieces ever written on Queen. And because of it, a ton of people are going to revisit this landmark album, or even hear it for the first time.

[/QUOTE]

That´s what i thought! This is indeed one of the best articles i´ve read about Queen in the press. The guy did his research, and i´m very impressed because i wasn´t expecting it from RS.

We shouldn´t let the past interfere with the present. This reporter did a wonderful job, and his opinion about the guitar oriented songs on Innuendo being only similar to the SHA ones is as valid as any other fan´s opinion. In a way he makes a very valid point, because SHA is Queen´s best oriented guitar album. It´s Brian May on a candy store!

I would say that this reporter is a Queen fan, based on all the sources he presents for this article (i mean, c´mon - Steve Howie interview?). This is what happens when a serious music journalist researches his stuff and does an article with respect both for the band and it´s fans.

And if we already know that Freddie didn´t sing two weeks before his passing, that´s because we are in QZ everyday. The reporter can thank QP marketing for the missinformation. Great job!

No, RS sucks and is horrible. They are pandering and that's the worst.

In their review of Coldplay's "A rush of blood to the head", the reviewer talks about "Yellow" from the first Coldplay album, and how dippy the lines "look at the stars/look how they shine for you are." He then praises "the fantastic piano ballad 'The Scientist' which is an overt sequel to "Yellow" ("Let's go back to the star"). But they're not going back to the star, they're going back to the start!!! By writing that line, the reviewer (in an article that was printed in the "industry standard for music journalism" has basically stated that I am totally unsure of the concept of this song but will go with my space thesis anyway. Sure this is cherry picking, but RS had a hard on for Queen, and when Freddie died, they had a pretty tasteless piece with perhaps the most "Freddie on stage looking like a homosexual" picture ever, and a piece about how he had a parade of sailors back to his dressing room after a concert. Read this article about RS founder Jann Wenner and the portrayal of gay artists in RS. Maybe a bit of overcompensation on his part?

http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Jann-Wenner-Discovers-Pitfalls-of-High-Profile-3040447.php

Finally, when it came to Queen, RS missed the mark by a mile. Bob Dylan, U2, REM all had their dicks sucked even when they had horrible albums. ANATO got a paragraph or two with no mention about much besides Bohemian Rhapsody. It's arguably in the top 20 albums of all time. The Jazz review was written by Dave Marsh, who pulled his head out of Bruce Springsteen's ass long enough to write something that was vitriolic and as I've stated before, seems like it was written by a a spurned boy in high school. They have (had?) great writing for sure, but musically they were pro-American and really anti-British or progressive (they hated Rush) and the bands that they hated have proven to stand the test of time.

When Freddie passed, there was an Associated Press obit, and during the piece mentioned how Love of My Life was poignant in retrospect due to the line "when I grow older, I will be there by your side to remind you, how I still love you" and the fact Freddie wouldn't live to see old age. But the writer missed the point. That song is and was jaw droppingly beautiful from the moment it found life, and if they just saw the beauty of Love of My Life at Freddie's passing they may as well say I don't understand music . The fact that the press have missed that and Queen stands alongside The Beatles or just behind them shows that the press and RS knew SFA all music. IMHO :)

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

They have (had?) great writing for sure, but musically they were pro-American and really anti-British or progressive (they hated Rush) and the bands that they hated have proven to stand the test of time.[/QUOTE]

Can't argue with you there, or with anything else you wrote, really.

After seven (count 'em - SEVEN) front page stories on Britney Spears, they finally did one on Rush two years ago.

In that issue they had a "top 50 prog albums" article:

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/50-greatest-prog-rock-albums-of-all-time-20150617

About bloody time.

Amen brother. There is a new radio station in the Toronto area and the tagline is something about music not having labels, because music is about the feelings it brings. I recently downloaded a song that I liked and it was from one of the Jonas Bros., who I heard was in a boy band. If I knew that I might not have downloaded it due to pre-conceived biases. But liking a song and then denying the like because the artist isn't cool is pretty weak. I think RS had a position on Queen, and everyone followed suit. Again, at the time of The Game, Queen had America. But no cover while a band like The Cars (great first album which was heavily Queen influenced, had a lot of hits as did Queen) got two covers. On the Live Aid special edition there are about 2o some odd pictures of individuals who played that day, but no Queen. In most of the world, it was like "Jesus, Queen just destroyed everybody", while in the US it was "meh." Too much bad journalism where a mag sets an agenda, and the agenda becomes real. Happens everywhere but again, I always found their investigative stuff better than the music stuff.

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

Reality check - Rolling Stone is the industry standard for music journalism.

[/QUOTE]

I listen to, what we call "Classic Rock"...so Reality or the present age isn`t my best friend ;)

( no Emoticon - that will kill this Forum)

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

No, RS sucks and is horrible. . [/QUOTE]

I don´t know because i don´t read RS. The only thing i know about this mag is that it wasn´t fair to Queen and i don´t really agree with their lists of the "100 best...".

But that is beyound the point here. I am reviewing the article that the original poster linked here, and this article is indeed a great article and it deserves to be praised by Queen fans.

I really don´t care if an article is in RS or any other mag. If it is a good article it deserves good criticism.