I think you're seeing a long-term strategy that was never really there - you can connect the dots after the fact, but I seriously doubt that, say, the 5ive-collaboration was meant as anything more long-term than "we might get a hit this year". Now, with Queen being on top, it might all look like a grand, long-term plan coming to fruition, but I find it much more likely that the examples cited were all intended to have short-term benefits, and the fortuitous long-term outcome that happened to occur many years later was simply a matter of luck.
This kind of thing occurs in historiography all the time, and we have a word for it: "teleology", the idea that phenomena arise because of the purpose they serve, rather than arising from underlying, possibly less visible, causes.
For anything that is happening in the present, you can draw a continuous string of events, causes if you will, leading up to it, but it would be a mistake to assume that all those events could only have led to the present outcome, or were even meant to produce that outcome. It's easy, perhaps even natural, to look at history that way, but it is deceptive.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, you're not at all wrong.
Maybe the 5ive and Coca Cola things were a naive shot in the dark, but the combination of Cozy Powell's death (effectively ending Brian's solo career) and Deacon's departure shifted their gears in some way, however concerted their efforts to reach the next generation were or were not. But somewhere along the way that became their MO, wherever that may have been.
As the boys got older their legacy became more and more important to them, and they really hit their stride with Lambert and the biopic. Touring with Paul Rodgers was great, but it wasn't going to get a half million kids asking "daddy, who's the old guitar guy?" the way a single appearance with Lady Gaga would. However conscious that decision was, I guess you'd have to ask him.
PrimeJiveUSA · Member since
"Biggest band in the world"?
Shouldn't they be playing stadiums instead of arenas in America like The Stones are this summer?
gandorb · Member since
They aren't the biggest current live band in the world, as much of their popularity still stems from people discovering and rediscovering how great they were with Freddie Mercury. It is hard to believe the Rolling Stones would come close to a stadium tour either if Mick Jagger was dead. I do think it could be persuasively argued that in recent years they have been the most popular band, especially compared to the peers from the 1900s. I am not sure if it was someone from here, but on the Prince.Org Board of all places someone a posted all the precise international streaming and sales of all Queen albums and songs, and concluded they compared favorably to almost everyone (except the Beatles and Michael Jackson, I surmise). If you look at the streaming numbers at the time of the release of BR, there is even a bigger gap between Queen and their peers, which has only grown further with the exposure of BR. So. I guess there are many ways to think about the old question about who is the biggest band in their world. Queen comes out quiet impressively by many indices.
rockchic65 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]PrimeJiveUSA wrote:[/b]
"Biggest band in the world"?
Shouldn't they be playing stadiums instead of arenas in America like The Stones are this summer?[/QUOTE]
Yeah they should have, think the promoters dropped the ball, judging by the demand and how fast tickets sold it should have been stadiums.
PrimeJiveUSA · Member since
When people blame homophobia for Queen's precipitous 80's decline in America, it makes me wonder how Boy George and Culture Club exploded here and Elton John's career continued to go swimmingly. David Bowie also made a huge comeback during this time as well and he was widely considered to be bisexual.
gandorb · Member since
The huge AIDS backlash was more toward the mid 80s than the early 80s as the general population didn't seem to get how serious it was until then. Culture Club definitely had a backlash, but perhaps that was due in part to the music. David Bowie presented as so hetero during that China Girl period that he hardly was going to provoke a backlash. Elton overall continued to experience on overall commercial decline here. It is hard to know what part of this was due to the music, homophobia or both. The difference with Freddie is that he adopted the exact style that so popular in the gay community when AIDS hit and was publicized, whereas the others didn't. Again, I don't think their decline was solely due to this but anti gay forces were extreme during the mid and late 80s in the US, with the Republicans dominating the political scene during that period with the most homophobic platform that any major political party ever had here. It is hard to imagine that the pervasive hate, fear, and scapegoating here at the time wouldn't impact things such as record sales and feedback to radio stations when they played people who seemed connected to the gay scene.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]gandorb wrote:[/b]
The huge AIDS backlash was more toward the mid 80s than the early 80s as the general population didn't seem to get how serious it was until then. Culture Club definitely had a backlash, but perhaps that was due in part to the music. David Bowie presented as so hetero during that China Girl period that he hardly was going to provoke a backlash. Elton overall continued to experience on overall commercial decline here. It is hard to know what part of this was due to the music, homophobia or both.[/QUOTE]
Definitely a bit of both. But the homophobia thing was real, and it wasn't always there. Adam Lambert explains it pretty well here:
"Well, yeah, but it was almost in fashion to be [sexually] ambiguous in the '70s. It was cool to be effeminate, androgynous. Is he? Isn't he? That was all very rock ‘n' roll. Bowie was doing it. Freddie, Mick Jagger. It was a product of the time. People were post-free-love'60s. There was a lot of partying going on, a lot of sex, a lot of rock ‘n' roll. Then the Reagan administration came in. Everything was every conservative, with reforms like The War On Drugs. And then AIDS hit; everyone freaked the fuck out. It made all of that very dangerous and very wrong. Everyone clammed up quite a lot. Look at George Michael – he was fighting it his whole career."
Galileo1564 · Member since
The problem with the AIDS backlash arguement here is that things were little better in the UK. I know this from documentaries not personal experience as I was living in Canada but had TV from the US.
There were politicians in the UK though who I’ve heard say stuff in documentaries that are no different in principal than the stuff Jesse Helms said, just flavored a bit differently. Not to mention some newspaper did a poll and asked people if seropositive people should be quarantined and it was a majority “yes”. Don’t know the paper, so don’t know if it had a conservative readership. I’d have trouble tracking this down at this point.
The UK was much better with needle exchange and with public health education.
