Rolling Stone about INNUENDO: "masterpiece"

I've subscribed to Rolling Stone for years, but mainly for the politics rather than the music.
Their investigative journalism has always been first rate... right up until that discredited rape story which unfortunately has tarnished their reputation quite thoroughly.

Anyhow, they rarely had anything good to say about Queen until recently, but I feel the current crop of writers don't have it in for Queen in quite the same way.
certainly the Adam Lambert collaboration was viewed positively after it happened, if not when first announced.

The sun does however continue to shine out the arses of McCartney, Springsteen, Dylan and U2.
I don't think I have ever read anything critical about any of them in any of the hundreds of magazines I have read.

Rolling Stone DOES suck.

They blow raw monkey, particularly when it comes to Queen.

And, unless I'm insane (always a possibility), they pretty much slammed Innuendo when it was first released (I think they used the phrase "flopped big time", but I could be mistaken).

That said, this article seems like it might be decent - I'm looking forward to reading it.

I don't have much of an opinion on RS because I don't read it much, but it's always nice to see Innuendo get some recognition. Some of Queen's best work on there.

[QUOTE] [b]liam wrote:[/b]

"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."
[/QUOTE]

Not going to comment on the overall statement since it is definitely dodgy at best, but I Can't Live With You? Did that guy mean Headlong? Or perhaps he got it mixed up with the 1997 version (understandable since it's far superior)? Because the album version is definitely not very guitar-heavy.

This is the original post:

 [url=http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/innuendo-19910307]Link to original article[/url]

[i]One way to confirm that Queen never consisted of your typically haughty progressive-rock snobs is to consider the following: In the late Seventies, Emerson, Lake and Palmer released two albums called Works, as in "works of art," but in 1984, Queen put out an album called The Works, as in the stuff you pile on hamburgers. This suggests that Queen is well aware that its forte has always been eclectic excess for its own sake and probably helps explain why Queen's still making records and ELP isn't and why an album like A Night at the Opera, from 1975, sounds so much smarter now than when it came out. These shameless all-time glam survivors would try anything once, and amid their messes they attained classical-kitsch pinnacles, helped invent rap music and provided celebration songs for every championship team on earth. In 1990, they were sampled by Vanilla Ice, covered by Metallica, TV-commercialed by Huffy Bicycles and explicitly acknowledged as an important inspiration by arty hardcore ensembles and funk-metal and industrial-drone bands alike.
With "Another One Bites the Dust," which topped the pop chart for three weeks ten years ago, Queen became the first mainstream troupe to comprehend the rock potential of hip-hop minimalism. But since then the band has floundered, sinking to passable Bowie duets, feeble groove moves, queasy myth metal and antiradio diatribes that wound up being the most annoying things on the radio. So to call Innuendo the group's most playful top-to-bottom pile since The Game, from 1980, may not be saying much — yet there's no getting around the new album's craft. From the circus drumroll that introduces the opening Zep-screech epic about justice and death in the desert sand ("Innuendo") to the quick rap in the closing bump and grind ("The Show Must Go On"), these old entertainers sound like they've decided to stop trying so hard, like they're finally satisfied with their lot in life.
Innuendo is so lightweight you'll forget it as soon as it's over — which, with this band, should go without saying anyway — but there's nothing cynical about it. Unlike most fortyish rock relics, the boys in Queen are still too kooky and insincere to settle for any of that "well-earned wisdom of middle age" bunk. They just throw food at the wall, and if it sticks, fine. And if it doesn't stick, well, that's fine too.[/i]

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/innuendo-19910307#ixzz41XpryNjr 
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

[QUOTE] [b]Sunshine wrote:[/b]

This is the original post:

 [url=http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/innuendo-19910307]Link to original article[/url]

[i]One way to confirm that Queen never consisted of your typically haughty progressive-rock snobs is to consider the following: In the late Seventies, Emerson, Lake and Palmer released two albums called Works, as in "works of art," but in 1984, Queen put out an album called The Works, as in the stuff you pile on hamburgers. This suggests that Queen is well aware that its forte has always been eclectic excess for its own sake and probably helps explain why Queen's still making records and ELP isn't and why an album like A Night at the Opera, from 1975, sounds so much smarter now than when it came out. These shameless all-time glam survivors would try anything once, and amid their messes they attained classical-kitsch pinnacles, helped invent rap music and provided celebration songs for every championship team on earth. In 1990, they were sampled by Vanilla Ice, covered by Metallica, TV-commercialed by Huffy Bicycles and explicitly acknowledged as an important inspiration by arty hardcore ensembles and funk-metal and industrial-drone bands alike.
With "Another One Bites the Dust," which topped the pop chart for three weeks ten years ago, Queen became the first mainstream troupe to comprehend the rock potential of hip-hop minimalism. But since then the band has floundered, sinking to passable Bowie duets, feeble groove moves, queasy myth metal and antiradio diatribes that wound up being the most annoying things on the radio. So to call Innuendo the group's most playful top-to-bottom pile since The Game, from 1980, may not be saying much — yet there's no getting around the new album's craft. From the circus drumroll that introduces the opening Zep-screech epic about justice and death in the desert sand ("Innuendo") to the quick rap in the closing bump and grind ("The Show Must Go On"), these old entertainers sound like they've decided to stop trying so hard, like they're finally satisfied with their lot in life.
Innuendo is so lightweight you'll forget it as soon as it's over — which, with this band, should go without saying anyway — but there's nothing cynical about it. Unlike most fortyish rock relics, the boys in Queen are still too kooky and insincere to settle for any of that "well-earned wisdom of middle age" bunk. They just throw food at the wall, and if it sticks, fine. And if it doesn't stick, well, that's fine too.[/i]

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/innuendo-19910307#ixzz41XpryNjr 
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook[/QUOTE]

That's a nice mix of some pretty spot on comments on one hand and some utterly misguided ones on the other. Especially like this bit about Queen "sinking to passable Bowie duets"... ;-)

I am not a big fan of Under Pressure either. I think "passable" is pretty accurate.

[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.

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]

Is Rolling Stone starting to change their tune and recognize bands that have stood the test of time? For starters, back when Nirvana's 'Nevermind' came out they gave it a mixed review, and once they saw what the album had accomplished they had to jump on the praise bandwagon.

In all honesty, it's hard for me and for many Queen fans to take Rolling Stone seriously. While they have written very in-depth pieces of music journalism, they've also had a very strong biased against certain genres like progressive rock, glam-rock, heavy metal. I'm not sure if it's because those genres represented "the establishment", and they felt that by supporting artists that had more of a socio-political agenda and coming from punk and alternative backgrounds like The Clash and U2, it meant to them more that a band was willing to use their music to spread a message rather than focusing on the musicianship of an artist.

One thing I will agree with harsh music journalists regarding Queen is that in terms of lyrics they are certainly not quite the most substantial. I guess, Brian may be the only one out of the 4 that could possibly be a pretty good lyric writer. Freddie's had a lot of mysticism in the beginning, but they just went down from there.

[QUOTE] [b]Mr.Jingles wrote:[/b]

In all honesty, it's hard for me and for many Queen fans to take Rolling Stone seriously. While they have written very in-depth pieces of music journalism, they've also had a very strong biased against certain genres like progressive rock, glam-rock, heavy metal. I'm not sure if it's because those genres represented "the establishment", and they felt that by supporting artists that had more of a socio-political agenda and coming from punk and alternative backgrounds like The Clash and U2, it meant to them more that a band was willing to use their music to spread a message rather than focusing on the musicianship of an artist.[/QUOTE]

^ one of the most insightful posts I've seen in about 15 years of posting on this forum.

You should ask a (retired) Rolling Stone journalist what they think of that. I bet you'd get a good conversation out of them.

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

[QUOTE] [b]Mr.Jingles wrote:[/b]

In all honesty, it's hard for me and for many Queen fans to take Rolling Stone seriously. While they have written very in-depth pieces of music journalism, they've also had a very strong biased against certain genres like progressive rock, glam-rock, heavy metal. I'm not sure if it's because those genres represented "the establishment", and they felt that by supporting artists that had more of a socio-political agenda and coming from punk and alternative backgrounds like The Clash and U2, it meant to them more that a band was willing to use their music to spread a message rather than focusing on the musicianship of an artist.[/QUOTE]

^ one of the most insightful posts I've seen in about 15 years of posting on this forum.

You should ask a (retired) Rolling Stone journalist what they think of that. I bet you'd get a good conversation out of them.
[/QUOTE]

A lot of the blame for accomplished musicians being blasted by the music media comes from people like Jann Wenner (co-founder and editor-in-chief of Rolling Stone magazine). There's obviously a bias that comes from personal relationships that started as back as the days of 60s NY music scene when artists like The Velvet Underground and Wenner and forged friendships which in consequence led to promoting the art-rock and punk scene in the 70s. To people like Wenner is not a matter of appreciating accomplishments, or talent. It's a matter of who my friends are who represents my scene.