RT - The Lot..revisited

It's all a matter of taste, of course. Personally, I think 'Fun in Space' and 'Strange Frontier' are 'hors category' compared to the rest of Roger's solo output. 'Happiness' and 'Electric Fire' had some good moments, but to me 'Fun on Earth' is quite a mediocre piece of work.

From the Cross, I tend to like 'Blue Rock' the best. Funny, I think it's the album with the least influenced by Roger.

To come back on topic, I think 'The Lot' was a very nice boxset. An almost complete, career spanning overview of Roger's work outside of Queen. I think it was also very reasonably priced compared to Queen standards. I also liked that it was released as a complete surprise. At the time of its release nobody was discussing about a whole new album by Roger, let alone a complete boxset!

If Power of Love was a Queen song, it could have been massive, IMHO. Great track and some great vocals, too.

[QUOTE] [b]Vali wrote:[/b]

Things I really missed and never understood why weren´t included:

- a DVD/BR with the complete Cyberbarn show, which became available in the official YT channel shortly after

[/QUOTE]

A 14 disc set was originally presented to Universal which included Cyberbarn and, I'm told, a Cross gig on DVD.

Universal decided that was too many discs and wanted it reduced to 12, so the concert DVDs had to go.
This is why Cyberbarn was made available on Youtube. I'll give them a "plus" for that, even if the quality is crap compared to how it would have been on DVD.

It's bad enough the DVD that remained was so badly authored that half the videos have the field order the wrong way round - that's clearly what happens when you employ professionals these days!

Quite frankly it's a disgrace and there's SO much unheard material that could and should have been added to the set.
There's at least 30 minutes of free space on each of the album discs that could have contained demos and unheard tracks.

[QUOTE] [b]brians wig wrote:[/b]
.
This is why Cyberbarn was made available on Youtube. I'll give them a "plus" for that, even if the quality is crap compared to how it would have been on DVD.

[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure the resolution on the DVD would have been any improved over the YouTube version except for a possible lossless soundtrack. If Roger or his team were arsed about getting anything out physically, it would be easy for them. I'd imagine Universal are open to more releases (they regularly release archive stuff that must barely shit any units), or they could license the material to themselves or another label that were interested. With the popularity of the Queenonline shop, he'd be able to sell out a small run of anything quickly just via mailorder.

[QUOTE] [b]brians wig wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Vali wrote:[/b]

Things I really missed and never understood why weren´t included:

- a DVD/BR with the complete Cyberbarn show, which became available in the official YT channel shortly after

[/QUOTE]

A 14 disc set was originally presented to Universal which included Cyberbarn and, I'm told, a Cross gig on DVD.

Universal decided that was too many discs and wanted it reduced to 12, so the concert DVDs had to go.
This is why Cyberbarn was made available on Youtube. I'll give them a "plus" for that, even if the quality is crap compared to how it would have been on DVD.

It's bad enough the DVD that remained was so badly authored that half the videos have the field order the wrong way round - that's clearly what happens when you employ professionals these days!

Quite frankly it's a disgrace and there's SO much unheard material that could and should have been added to the set.
There's at least 30 minutes of free space on each of the album discs that could have contained demos and unheard tracks.[/QUOTE]

interesting...do you happen to know which Cross gig?
Geneva 1990?

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

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

again, I'd say that Roger's 80s solo/cross output was part of the whole "Harrison Factor". 8 years of one or two songs per album, the embryos have to be "born" at some point. [/QUOTE]

Considering it was the late 80s and early 90s when rock was more or less dead and then experiencing a renaissance in the form of grunge, I can't help but just see the majority of the output of The Cross as derivative.

I've found there to be 3 or 4 decent songs on three albums combined - a much lower ratio than the rest of Roger's solo output.
[/QUOTE]
Rock was dead in the late 80's??? What planet are you living on???? Rock was all over MTV ad the Hairmetal wave was swept away by Grunge thats right but thats also rock. Unlinke now where you only have faceless generic pop crap in the charts

[QUOTE] [b]runner_70 wrote:[/b]

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

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

again, I'd say that Roger's 80s solo/cross output was part of the whole "Harrison Factor". 8 years of one or two songs per album, the embryos have to be "born" at some point. [/QUOTE]

Considering it was the late 80s and early 90s when rock was more or less dead and then experiencing a renaissance in the form of grunge, I can't help but just see the majority of the output of The Cross as derivative.

I've found there to be 3 or 4 decent songs on three albums combined - a much lower ratio than the rest of Roger's solo output.
[/QUOTE]
Rock was dead in the late 80's??? What planet are you living on???? Rock was all over MTV ad the Hairmetal wave was swept away by Grunge thats right but thats also rock. Unlinke now where you only have faceless generic pop crap in the charts
[/QUOTE]

Hair metal was not rock. It was west coast conveyor belt music product. You're dreaming if you think it's any closer to the spirit of 70s rock than today's "generic pop crap" you hate so much. Wearing a guitar and lipstick doesn't make it rock.

Rock died when John Bonham died. Led Zeppelin created 70s rock, and it died with their breakup. Rock music still existed (Back In Black kept it on life support for another year), but with the exception of grunge, it has not been the most dominant genre of music since Thriller.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b][QUOTE] [b]runner_70 wrote:[/b][QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b][QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]again, I'd say that Roger's 80s solo/cross output was part of the whole "Harrison Factor". 8 years of one or two songs per album, the embryos have to be "born" at some point. [/QUOTE]
Considering it was the late 80s and early 90s when rock was more or less dead and then experiencing a renaissance in the form of grunge, I can't help but just see the majority of the output of The Cross as derivative.
I've found there to be 3 or 4 decent songs on three albums combined - a much lower ratio than the rest of Roger's solo output.[/QUOTE]
Rock was dead in the late 80's??? What planet are you living on???? Rock was all over MTV ad the Hairmetal wave was swept away by Grunge thats right but thats also rock. Unlinke now where you only have faceless generic pop crap in the charts[/QUOTE]
Hair metal was not rock. It was west coast conveyor belt music product. You're dreaming if you think it's any closer to the spirit of 70s rock than today's "generic pop crap" you hate so much. Wearing a guitar and lipstick doesn't make it rock.

Rock died when John Bonham died. Led Zeppelin created 70s rock, and it died with their breakup. Rock music still existed (Back In Black kept it on life support for another year), but with the exception of grunge, it has not been the most dominant genre of music since Thriller.
[/QUOTE]

exactly my point here: http://www.queenzone.com/forums/1579051/your-thoughts-on-three-of-my-favs-ogre-battle-father-to-son-and-liar.aspx

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]Not all music, but most rock bands ended up sounding sanitised by their own earlier material.
Just compare 80s output for Queen, Genesis, Yes, Who, ELO and Purple to their 70s LPs. no contest.
My own opinion is that most of those 70s bands had lost the hunger that drove them to success. By the 80s they'd become lazy - living off the stored fat of their 70s work.
As I said Roger and John did the heavy lifting - being responsible for the major slice of the hits from the 80s (until Freddie's death) - there's absolutely no way that Roger/John would've been writing so many hits if Freddie and Brian had been bothered. Roger became the George Harrison of Queen. The sheer volume of his Cross/solo stuff during this time, mirrors Harrison's early post-Beatles output.[/QUOTE]

Random thoughts:

- The death of John Bonham is not a landmark in rock history.
- Deep Purple with Steve Morse produced some fabulous rock 15 years later.
- Purpendicular (1996) and Abandon (1998) are the last true rock albums.
- The Cross was generic but honest, while Queen+ is self repetitive and pathetic.
- I still listen to Blue Rock occasionally.
- Quoting yourself is lame.

[QUOTE] [b]aristide1 wrote:[/b]Random thoughts: - The death of John Bonham is not a landmark in rock history. [/QUOTE]
not to you maybe. but to rock fans it is. perhaps you had to be there at the time.

[QUOTE] [b]aristide1 wrote:[/b]Deep Purple with Steve Morse produced some fabulous rock 15 years later.
- Purpendicular (1996) and Abandon (1998) are the last true rock albums.[/QUOTE]
sorry, no. those albums are very average and (almost) as bad as Come Taste the Band and Slaves & Masters. There is nothing Purple did after Perfect Strangers that deserves to even be listed alongside their 1970-74 output.

Listen to Gillan's voice on Now What?! - there's definitely a Melodyne influence going down.

I "was there" from the mid 70's, not in the audience but in front of the turntable.
I've witnessed the fading of classic rock, and then the mass extinction from 1980 who affected all musical genres.
I've listened Genesis with Gabriel, without Gabriel (not a really bad thing), then without Hackett, and finally without a clue. Duke was their last album for me.

1996-2000 Deep Purple is very good rock in my opinion, the classic lineup (now in their early 50s) + Morse was even stronger than before.
Unlike Queen members who spend their mature years in oblivion, with no compass, nurturing personal grudges and vain ambitions.

So Guns and Roses weren't a popular rock band in the 1980s? Certainly some of the big rock bands of the 1970s either faded away or changed considerably in the 1980s but to say rock was dead back then is an exaggeration. Thin Lizzy, Judas Priest, AC/DC, Iron Maiden, Def Leppard, UFO, Gary Moore, Rush, Status Quo, Whitesnake, Scorpions, Van Halen, Aerosmith, Alice Cooper, Ozzie and many lesser rock bands were very popular both live and in record sales. This was not necessarily the blues-based rock of Led Zep and The Stones but it was still rock/heavy metal. I agree hair metal by the late 1980s really became a joke (White Lion, Poison, Motley Crue, Stryper etc) and the time was ripe for bands like Pearl Jam and Nirvana to shake things up

[QUOTE] [b]aristide1 wrote:[/b]I've listened Genesis with Gabriel, without Gabriel (not a really bad thing), then without Hackett, and finally without a clue. Duke was their last album for me.[/QUOTE]
applauds this ^ completely. Duke was also the last Genesis album I can stand to listen to. There was some utter pap in the 80s from them - effectively Genesis albums became Phil Collins albums in all but name.

[QUOTE] [b]aristide1 wrote:[/b]1996-2000 Deep Purple is very good rock in my opinion, the classic lineup (now in their early 50s) + Morse was even stronger than before.[/QUOTE]
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. For me Perfect Strangers was the last great album from Purps. HoTBL had it's moments but too much filler. The two albums you refer to - while infinitely better than S&M and Battle (and what wouldn't be) were still not great. And as I said - listen to Now What?! utter shambles, lazy writing, and a singer who has not looked after his voice - hence the use of autotune.

Blackmore's recent outings with Rainbow were a joy watch. I saw both Birmingham gigs. He's clearly enjoying life - but then, it must be a difficult choice "tour with Gillan, or tour with Candice". Oh, and it comes to something when DP's lead singer has removed "Child" from the setlist, because he can't manage it anymore. Ronnie Romero's renditions of Soldier of Fortune, Burn and Child were outstanding.

[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]So Guns and Roses weren't a popular rock band in the 1980s? Certainly some of the big rock bands of the 1970s either faded away or changed considerably in the 1980s but to say rock was dead back then is an exaggeration. Thin Lizzy, Judas Priest, AC/DC, Iron Maiden, Def Leppard, UFO, Gary Moore, Rush, Status Quo, Whitesnake, Scorpions, Van Halen, Aerosmith, Alice Cooper, Ozzie and many lesser rock bands were very popular both live and in record sales. This was not necessarily the blues-based rock of Led Zep and The Stones but it was still rock/heavy metal. I agree hair metal by the late 1980s really became a joke (White Lion, Poison, Motley Crue, Stryper etc) and the time was ripe for bands like Pearl Jam and Nirvana to shake things up[/QUOTE]

well, i think his point is (almost) a good one. The entirety of 70s classic rock (as we knew/loved it) was dead - or mired in a funk of lazy song-writing, piss-poor production and er, glossed-up pap. Strange how guitar-based bands became indulgent in fairlights, oberheims and moogs.

Lizzy - were all but finished after the epic Black Rose (1979). it was all formula stuff after that with a revolving door of personnel and Scott and Phil immersed in their chemistry homework
Lepps - admittedly, their first two albums were fresh and interesting, but by 83 they were a "paint by numbers" band
AC/DC - last great album was Back In Black - everything since has sounded like everything else.
Halen - (from someone who prefers Hagar) were great for those first two albums
Quo - can't believe they were added to your list. after 1981, they went all "Dear john" and fucking "Marguerita Time". jeez
Ozzy - never made a decent 80s LP after Randy's death. sorry - but what came later were copies of BoO and DoaM.
Whitesnake - curious one, the less rock/more AOR they got, the bigger they became. "Crying in the Rain" and "Here I Go Again" were much better originally, but the "1987" versions were huge - go figure. Seems the plastic 80s preferred that "soft/hair/cock-rock"
Scorpions - never had a worldwide hit until they wrote a ballad about the fall of communism.

oh and lets not get into the "tribute" bands like Marillion etc

Unless I missed something, we're talking about if rock was dead in the 1980s, not how good the music was. Even so, I disagree with a lot of your personal preferences, but that's not the point. These rock bands/artists were popular. Rock wasn't dead in the 1980s.

I do agree about the Cross though: very bland MOR rawk.