You know the hits...

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

[QUOTE] [b]MisterCosmicc wrote:[/b]

Too much focus on the 70’s Queen[/QUOTE]

For two very good reasons:

1) he's in the US, and Queen more or less ceased to exist there after The Game.

2) their albums had a lot of filler in the 80s. After The Game there isn't a single album track in the 80s that compares to the majesty of what they created between 1974-76.

Don't Lose Your Head vs. '39 ? No comparison.
[/QUOTE]

Well, he loves Was It All Worth It, so he knows of Queen's later work. Queen were largely ignored in the 1980's USA, due to that attitude that people missed their fairytales... the lyrical nonsense of the early-mid 70's.

What's filler? Filler to one person, is a perfect track to another. Dragon Attack, to me, is filler. It my second least favorite Freddie-sung Queen track in their catologue, the first place goes to Sweet Lady.

I'm still really not sure what filler is with Queen. Please explain to me.

I agree. But I think you answered your own question - less 80s stuff because the guy who did the list sees it as 'filler' :)

It just drives me a bit crazy. Sure Queen implemented keyboards and synths into things, but it doesn’t mean it’s all filler. Queen’s 80’s music is too underrated, and I’d rather try to hook someone on that.

Good article, but the list isn’t far off than what I expected a hardcore Queen fan would write.

So you're an '80s-Queen guy. Fine. But that's not a position most Queen-fans, let alone most rock-fans take. Congratulations, you've just discovered you hold a minority opinion on a subject. Nothing wrong with that, so long as you understand that it's not a matter of right or wrong, but of taste and preference, strictly personal and strictly subjective matters.

By contrast, 21st Century Music Man's response to you was purely objective (a matter of statistics) and The Real Wizard provides a sound sociological explanation and an (admittedly subjective) consensus aesthetical explanation.

What you would "rather try to hook someone on" really doesn't have any bearing on what an American music journalist considers the best lesser-known tracks, does it? It would be relevant to an article you might write on why '80s-Queen is underrated, but that would require you to actually come up with persuasive arguments rather than arguing about what constitutes filler without even addressing that substantially.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

So you're an '80s-Queen guy. Fine. But that's not a position most Queen-fans, let alone most rock-fans take. Congratulations, you've just discovered you hold a minority opinion on a subject. Nothing wrong with that, so long as you understand that it's not a matter of right or wrong, but of taste and preference, strictly personal and strictly subjective matters.

By contrast, 21st Century Music Man's response to you was purely objective (a matter of statistics) and The Real Wizard provides a sound sociological explanation and an (admittedly subjective) consensus aesthetical explanation.

What you would "rather try to hook someone on" really doesn't have any bearing on what an American music journalist considers the best lesser-known tracks, does it? It would be relevant to an article you might write on why '80s-Queen is underrated, but that would require you to actually come up with persuasive arguments rather than arguing about what constitutes filler without even addressing that substantially.[/QUOTE]

Yep, but I got some favorites per-album. But, seriously, there's tracks people claim to be filler due to it not being traditional Queen enough.

I was more questionable... "why?"

There aren't any rules about what we should like. Yes, MOTBQ should inspire awe from anyone even half interested in the band at it's ambition and meandering dynamics - but I rarely listen to it when I'm getting ready for the pub. That's Body Language.

Maybe the US market actually reflected the truth. Queen struck the perfect balance between commerce and art in 75-80

deja vu

I feel like I've read this whole thread before, but not this year....

Not this year ?That must have given you time to think of a new original point to make on the subject then

Great to see Was It All Worth In the list. Thanks for sharing this.

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

[QUOTE] [b]MisterCosmicc wrote:[/b]

Too much focus on the 70’s Queen[/QUOTE]

For two very good reasons:

1) he's in the US, and Queen more or less ceased to exist there after The Game.

2) their albums had a lot of filler in the 80s. After The Game there isn't a single album track in the 80s that compares to the majesty of what they created between 1974-76.

Don't Lose Your Head vs. '39 ? No comparison.
[/QUOTE]

hear hear!
i've been working my way through - Rick Beato's - What Makes This Song Great series...weird how it takes a music producer to "articulate" exactly why I liked specific songs.

[QUOTE] [b]MisterCosmicc wrote:[/b]

It just drives me a bit crazy. Sure Queen implemented keyboards and synths into things, but it doesn’t mean it’s all filler. Queen’s 80’s music is too underrated, and I’d rather try to hook someone on that.

Good article, but the list isn’t far off than what I expected a hardcore Queen fan would write. [/QUOTE]

i think there's the rub. all "lists" are subjective - as is this one. and a good list creates/stimulates discussion. If he compiled a list that everyone agreed with:
1. we'd all be odd people to agree on everything, and
2. there's be nothing to discuss

Something worth noting?
¦ the 80s albums date horribly BECAUSE of the type of keyboards and syn drums used.
¦ factor in some really tinny production sound and
¦ a band who fell out with one another periodically
¦ a singer (chief song-writer) who became disinterested and lazy
end result: we have something that only really belongs in that specific time window.

why the 70s albums work better?
¦ band was fresh with loads of ideas
¦ the early years (prior to having a recording contract) created a plethroa of ideas that helped to fill out those first SIX albums. think how some tracks appeared on albums subsequent to the actual writing session
¦ only 24 tracks to work with, stimulated creativity and genius
¦ guitar, drums, bass, piano (or Hammond for other rock bands) = a classic sound

[QUOTE] [b]MisterCosmicc wrote:[/b]

there's tracks people claim to be filler due to it not being traditional Queen enough.
[/QUOTE]

"Filler" is songs that the band clearly spent less time working on than the good tracks because they've long past their point in being hungry and having something to prove.

Naturally this is all subjective, but at some point there is a division between good art and poor art. And you're not going to find too many people who would describe White Queen as poor art and Don't Lose Your Head as good art.

Don't Lose Your Head isn't "filler" because it doesn't sound like traditional Queen. It's filler because it shows Queen are long past the point of being leaders, and are followers. It sounds like any other mediocre 1980s pop track, just with a great singer on it.

"Traditional Queen" as you penned it is anything but mediocre. They created a sound all of their own - a mishmash of influences and genius from within that remains unparalleled to this day. One would have trouble naming a single group of musicians as famous, talented, and versatile as Queen - and that's not because of their 1980s album tracks. It's because of their first six albums.

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

hear hear!
i've been working my way through - Rick Beato's - What Makes This Song Great series...weird how it takes a music producer to "articulate" exactly why I liked specific songs.[/QUOTE]

Beato is the man - love his stuff. I'd like to call myself one of Beato's Beeotches.

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

why the 70s albums work better?
¦ band was fresh with loads of ideas
¦ the early years (prior to having a recording contract) created a plethroa of ideas that helped to fill out those first SIX albums. think how some tracks appeared on albums subsequent to the actual writing session
¦ only 24 tracks to work with, stimulated creativity and genius
¦ guitar, drums, bass, piano (or Hammond for other rock bands) = a classic sound[/QUOTE]

Bingo.

Of course there was a ton of good music in the 80s, but pretty much anyone who was around in the 65-75 period will tell you what a special time it was to create music, for two reasons - the joy of using the available and growing technology to the fullest, and the minimal influence of the business on what you created (with the exception of Motown, which was an assembly line from its inception).