Queen crest Queenzone

Question about Jazz Album

212 posts Page 11 of 15
Thread

Posts in chronological order

· Member since
Yeah, the album sold almost as well in America as it did in Britain, but they still could've done a lot better - though, sure, it's far easier in hindsight and from an armchair to ponder - and my overall point is that John wasn't really seeing 'the big picture.' Neither was Frederick, of course, since as far as I know it was his idea not to tour America or Canada, two countries which were, and still are, quite loyal to Queen.

The band's strength was their musicality, in my opinion, and when they focused on that they had a lot of commercial success as well. The fact 'Bo Rhap' was not radio-friendly did not stop them from believing in it and taking a risk, and it paid off.

'Champions' was another great song (musically clever) which did not necessarily fit the usual hit format of the time, yet it managed to chart highly and become one of their anthems. 'Rock You' has a very unusual structure and instrumentation especially coming from them.

'Crazy' was harmonically simple but very clever in terms of melody and structure, and it was certainly not a copycat of whichever singles were popular in those days, yet it managed to sell really well. Even 'Dust' was a surprise for them, a risk they took which paid off.

Once they started playing it safe and just trying to do what they thought would sell or trying to do what other people were doing, they lost it. They were still creating quality music (because Queen at even 10% of their abilities were still really good) and they were still selling well in America (because even a 'failure' from a band of that calibre would still ship half a million, more than most struggling bands would even dream of) and consolidating their fame in Europe and Brazil and other territories, yet it was certainly not the same.
John hated Hot Space. Frederick's favourite singer was not Paul Rodgers. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' 'Bohemian Rhapsody' hasn't got 180 vocal overdubs.
· Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]

Yeah, the album sold almost as well in America as it did in Britain, but they still could've done a lot better - though, sure, it's far easier in hindsight and from an armchair to ponder - and my overall point is that John wasn't really seeing 'the big picture.' Neither was Frederick, of course, since as far as I know it was his idea not to tour America or Canada, two countries which were, and still are, quite loyal to Queen.

The band's strength was their musicality, in my opinion, and when they focused on that they had a lot of commercial success as well. The fact 'Bo Rhap' was not radio-friendly did not stop them from believing in it and taking a risk, and it paid off.

'Champions' was another great song (musically clever) which did not necessarily fit the usual hit format of the time, yet it managed to chart highly and become one of their anthems. 'Rock You' has a very unusual structure and instrumentation especially coming from them.

'Crazy' was harmonically simple but very clever in terms of melody and structure, and it was certainly not a copycat of whichever singles were popular in those days, yet it managed to sell really well. Even 'Dust' was a surprise for them, a risk they took which paid off.

Once they started playing it safe and just trying to do what they thought would sell or trying to do what other people were doing, they lost it. They were still creating quality music (because Queen at even 10% of their abilities were still really good) and they were still selling well in America (because even a 'failure' from a band of that calibre would still ship half a million, more than most struggling bands would even dream of) and consolidating their fame in Europe and Brazil and other territories, yet it was certainly not the same.[/QUOTE]
· Member since
Good post! If they toured America, The Works would have sold better, even if it was a smaller tour. The Album was decent, better than a lot of the crap on the radio in those days. Radio Ga Ga was in the top 40 and the album was selling. What's the reason the band decided not to do an American tour? They had a hit with Ga Ga, with a tour they could have promoted a 2nd single. Break Free was a bad choice for America. Hammer to fall or Hard life were better choices. They didn't play it safe all the time in the 80's, It's A Hard Life wasn't exactly 80's style music, it Should have been the 2nd single, but I guess they figured the Break Free style was in at the time.
· Member since
Not touring the US/Canada in 1984/1985 was a bad decision for sure.
But, the band was - I'm afraid - not in the right state to do a long US tour to win over that audience once again... It actually takes a lot doing and they weren't ready physically and evenmoreso mentally.
The Australian shows they did in 1985 are - while not bad shows - surely the most lacklustre in Queen's career.

I'm convinced that Freddie's health was deteriorating from 1984 onwards. You have to keep in mind he was a very fit young man... It takes aids some time to tear down the immunesystem. This is what happened in the period 1984-1986/87. No wonder FM was so tired after the magic tour, it is a typical sign of someone with HIV who's getting worse.
on my way up
· Member since
I agree with both of you, Sebastian and Mike.
To go back to the topic about Jazz album, I think many songs even the big hits lost an amounts of energy and music due to bad engineering and production.
I don't know if a remix could made a difference. Since the 5.1mixes of the three singles alive with the instrumental Milestone from the Eye, showed a better results, away from the very tiny a blur mudy sound that the album have.
To be fair the 2011 remaster and the new vinyl have bright, clearer and keep the low and high ends well balanced than the previous releases.
· Member since
I agree with both of you, Sebastian and Mike.
To go back to the topic about Jazz album, I think many songs even the big hits lost an amounts of energy and musicality due to bad engineering and production.
I don't know, if a remix could make a difference. Since the 5.1mixes of the three singles along with the instrumental songs from the Eye, showed a better results, away from the very tiny a blur mudy sound that the album have.

P. S. Sorry for double posts, autocorrect from my mobile, After posting....
To be fair the 2011 remaster and the new vinyl have bright, clearer and keep the low and high ends well balanced than the previous releases.
· Member since
Yea, but Fat Bottomed Girls is still considered a classic in America, they love that song to this day. Don't me Now is one of their biggest UK hits. They still had plenty of energy on that album, though I do agree the production was crap and if it had better production the album would have been overall much better. No Question about that. I still think Mustapha could of been a hit, lol. The song had a buzz surrounding it here in the states, and you can hear the crowds chanting it at concerts.
· Member since
I think the album, as a collection of songs, work. It suffered from some questionable production and attention to detail. Remember the original mix contained a song with an instrument mixed out. How could a group of musicians and a top line producer agree to let that mix go to press. If it was down to mastering, then that is questionable too because when the acetate was listened too surely someone would have raised a question over.

I think this one "hole" in the sound is where the real answer to how this album sounds lies. Once recorded both band and producer couldn't give a flying one about it, for what ever reason. The album was late (maybe rushed) and they were more interested in the US tour looming, which got under way before the album was released.

Given a little more time and maybe without RTB Jazz may have sounded better and more cared about. As for the bands comments, as with any band, the latest album is usually "the best, or "most like the classic sound" because most bands are like their record company, they have a job to do and that is to sell the latest product!
· Member since
The production on Innuendo could have been better as well.
· Member since
· Member since
No one has explained the 'production' problems yet.

If it's just mix issues that's personal taste - and I don't have any issues :)
· Member since
[QUOTE] [b]dysan wrote:[/b]

No one has explained the 'production' problems yet.
[/QUOTE]

Of course they have:

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

Remember the original mix contained a song with an instrument mixed out. How could a group of musicians and a top line producer agree to let that mix go to press.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE] [b]dysan wrote:[/b]

If it's just mix issues that's personal taste - and I don't have any issues :)[/QUOTE]

It's not up to personal taste whether an instrument was accidentally muted. Either it happened or it didn't. There's a difference between 'I don't mind that error' and 'there's no error.'
John hated Hot Space. Frederick's favourite singer was not Paul Rodgers. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' 'Bohemian Rhapsody' hasn't got 180 vocal overdubs.
· Member since
At least two band members, the producer, and probably a lot of the crew were (allegedly) coked out of their heads in this time period. That prob explains the production error and perhaps other issues with the sound.

I agree (with myself mostly, since I've said it many times before) that Queen went creatively downhill when they started trying to write hits e.g. Hot Space as a follow up to AOBTD, and then with The Works bland radio-friendly tracks.

Crazy Little Thing wasn't some out-of-the-blue stroke of creative genius that was completely at odds with other chart hits. In the UK, artists like Cliff Richard, Alvin Stardust, Mud, Darts and Showaddywaddy based their careers on sub-Elvis stylings, and artists like Dave Edmunds, Steve Gibbons Band and Stray Cats had rockabilly hits in the UK in the late 1970s.
"Queen is the only band in the world that can play so heavily that your nose bleeds, then offer a silk handkerchief to clean up with."
· Member since
The bass drum on Jealousy isn't a 'production' problem and not something anyone noticed or picked up on until it was reinstated on the 2011 reissue. I assume we are discussing things like the drums sounding flat or the guitars being too loud and cluttering up the mix.
· Member since
In the late 70s there was a 50s rivive.
That's why Crazy had success.

About Jazz production Brian mentioned few thing about it, when the sound engineer died.
Brian wrote that, the engineer was good on cut-edit tapes etc, and how he helped them with the mix and sound.
The sound was not what they expected.