Queen were rich and lazy in the 80s

Quite strange then that Queen are respected more than Led Zeppelin and have influenced more artists all over the world.
Freddie and the boys are very popular by miles now and leave ailing Zeppelin behind in the 70s!
Brian was voted the greatest guitarist ever a few weeks ago an award which he was every happy to accept.
Freddie is regarded as the greatest front man ever and many top artists agree!
Queen are so polished and accomplished that they were always a better band than Zeppelin.

[QUOTE][color=SaddleBrown] [b]Benross wrote:[/b][i] Quite strange then that Queen are respected more than Led Zeppelin and have influenced more artists all over the world.
Freddie and the boys are very popular by miles now and leave ailing Zeppelin behind in the 70s!
Brian was voted the greatest guitarist ever a few weeks ago an award which he was every happy to accept.
Freddie is regarded as the greatest front man ever and many top artists agree!
Queen are so polished and accomplished that they were always a better band than Zeppelin.[/color][/i][/QUOTE]

try dealing with the subject of the thread. there's no need to turn every thread in to "why Queen were best" argument. the thread is about whether the band became lazy songwriters during the 80s.
the consensus seems to agree they did so.

Ok going back to the topic i do not think they were lazy.
They got two US NO1 hits with "Another One Bites The Dust" & "Crazy Little thing Called Love" plus the smash album "The Game" far from lazy songwriting !
"The Works" done very well too!
Regardless of who wrote what the band were on fire in the 80s.

[QUOTE][color=SaddleBrown] [b]Benross wrote:[/b][i] Ok going back to the topic i do not think they were lazy.
They got two US NO1 hits with "Another One Bites The Dust" & "Crazy Little thing Called Love" plus the smash album "The Game" far from lazy songwriting ! [/color][/i][/QUOTE] popularity does not equate to quality. stop confusing the two. artists like Golden Earring, Quiet Riot, Cutting Crew, Ugly Kid Joe, The Rembrandts, Jesus Jones, Tesla and many more - had a couple of huge hits...it's not a measure of quality, is it? so cease with the "hits" thing. a hit doesn't automatically validate a songs as wel--written. your examples:
AOBTD - a Nile Rogers rip off
CLTCL - Freddie admitted trying to "do Elvis"
that's lazy.
The Game has more lazy-ass writing than quality.


[QUOTE][color=SaddleBrown] [b]Benross wrote:[/b][i] "The Works" done very well too!
Regardless of who wrote what the band were on fire in the 80s.[/color][/i][/QUOTE] you've done "it" again" - [b][i]"Done Very Well"[/b][/i] is a popularity reference. you've said nothing about the technical qualities of the song-writing. so as you mention the works here you go:
RGG - synthesisers to the max, hardly any real instruments - may as well have been written by a computer.
TIU - unchallenging rocker
IAHL - Freddie "paint-by numbers" ballad, not bad, but not great writing either.
MOTP - extremely awful lazy CLTCL remake
Machines - decent song
IWTBF - an utter dirge, no real quality in the writing
KPTOW - Joe Jackson "steppin out" copy
HTF - a decent rocker, but nothing Brian hadn;t written better before.
ITTWWC - abysmal both musically and lyrically.

so yes, apart from two songs, the Works is full of lazy-writing.


[color=Blue][b][i]For your comments to be valid - you need to dispense with the superficial "popularity" statements, your argument needs to bear scrutiny. try to explain why [u]you [/u]think the songs were well-written. [/color][/b][/i]

Well that is your own personal opinion Brenski but record sales say a different story and many Queen fans were happy with "The Game" & "The Works albums". I do admit though that "The Miracle" and "Innuendo" were dodgy albums even though they had a few great tracks on them but some terrible fillers.
so i suggest you go back to your boring Led Zeppelin albums then and leave the quality stuff to the Queen fans that appreciate the bands music, plain and simple.

[QUOTE][color=SaddleBrown] [b]Benross wrote:[/b][i] Well that is your own personal opinion Brenski but record sales say a different story and many Queen fans were happy with "The Game" & "The Works albums". I do admit though that "The Miracle" and "Innuendo" were dodgy albums even though they had a few great tracks on them but some terrible fillers.
so i suggest you go back to your boring Led Zeppelin albums then and leave the quality stuff to the Queen fans that appreciate the bands music, plain and simple [/color][/i][/QUOTE]

¦ i've given you plenty of examples where popularity does not = quality. the success of The Game was down to new fans (esp in USA). it was a cross-over LP. so you could argue that the success was not really down to the traditional fans.
¦ you've veered off track relentlessly - because you are unable to discuss the actual subject (in any kind of depth) - which was the laziness (or otherwise) of the songwriting in the 80s.
¦ Innuendo was 1991
¦ what have Led Zep (or any other band) to do with Queen's attitude to songwriting during the bulk of the 80s
¦ appreciating any band should not mean being blinkered to their faults/errors of judgment. their 80-86 songwriting had plenty.

much better people than myself have tried to reason with you. we have all failed - but not for want of trying. failure is down to your own utter inability to talk/discuss beyond the superficial.
[b]those were my last points on this subject [color=Red][u]with you[/color][/u][/b]

You need to question yourself Brenski if you really are a Queen fan or just like the one song from a band that has broken all records in nearly
everything they did.
Queen were more popular in the 80s than the 70s proving they built themselves up to be stronger and better.
Sadly if you cannot see that then you need to get a Queen biography book and polish up on your lack of knowledge about how Queen
conquered the 1980's with sell out tours and taking South America by storm.
Hardly anyone slagged there music off in those massive crowds but they were simply adored by everyone who saw them live.
All you do is be negative towards Queen's back catalogue so what is the point been a Queen fan then?

Can't believe you guy's are arguing about personal taste.

Mike i am not arguing with anyone, Brenski likes an argument or have you not noticed?

Funny that you write that you're not arguing with anyone, considering that you've posted in this same topic 7 times before that, and in 6 of those posts you are incontrovertibly arguing.

Gerry is saying the things that he knows will garner a reaction, not least pretending to conflate quality with sales and projecting his antagonistic behaviour onto others.

To not like Zeppelin is fine, but to justify one's love for a band by calling another "boring" is juvenile, not to mention ignoring the obvious fact that Jimmy Page has inspired millions to pick up the guitar. It all says a lot more about that person than it does about the band. Either these are his genuine views or he's trolling for a reaction. Neither is good nor solvable.

Stop feeding the troll. This is why we created a new forum, so we can not only talk in peace about how lazy Queen was in the 80s, but also in the 70s, because we all know Led Zeppelin is the greatest band of all time. Zeppelin IV sold more than any Queen album, which obviously makes them the best.

Not just album sales. Led Zeppelin sold a lot more concert tickets in the States then Queen ever did. So using Gerry's barometer of measuring success Zeppelin were clearly the more successful and therefore better band.

[QUOTE][color=blue] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]...because we all know Led Zeppelin is the greatest band of all time. Zeppelin IV sold more than any Queen album, which obviously makes them the best. [/color][/QUOTE] this is a reply to Bob (and not "you know who")
agreed. Using these new "sales only" rules, here are four bands that are definitely better than Queen - who all sold more worldwide on ONE original studio album, than [b]Queen's Greatest Hits[/b] (worldwide sales = 25,000,000) :

AC/DC - Back In Black - 49,000,000
Pink Floyd - Dark Side Of The Moon - 43,000,000
Eagles - Hotel California - 32,000,000
Led Zeppelin - IV - 29,000,000
Beatles - Sgt Pepper's - 27,000,000

Note: Queen don't even have the biggest-selling Hits compilation, that honour goes to the Eagles:
Eagles - Their Greatest Hits (1971–1975) - 41,200,000


[QUOTE][color=blue][b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
Not just album sales. Led Zeppelin sold a lot more concert tickets in the States then Queen ever did. So using Gerry's barometer of measuring success Zeppelin were clearly the more successful and therefore better band. [/color] [/QUOTE] and taking into account the total number of worldwide concert tickets actually sold:
Grateful Dead
Rolling Stones
Beatles
Led Zeppelin
U2
AC/DC
Madonna
Guns n Roses

Queen are nowhere to be seen.

I'm not a die hard Zeppelin fan, but most people I know rate them as the best hard rock band of all time..only The Beatles and maybe the Stones get more praised. If record sales are the be all end all then Justin Bieber Is better than Queen, and the Backstreet Boys are better than Rush.

Record sales today are crazy because silly girls make the most talentless singers rich like the bland Ed Sheeran for example.
We all know Queen are far more talented than Led Zeppelin and many others, Freddie the greatest singer Brian the greatest guitarist etc.........
But getting back to the topic on this thread i think Queen never got lazy but wanted to change the direction of there music and as Freddie said they were not prepared to churn out another A Night At The Opera because that would have been too safe and bland. Queen wanted to explore new music new styles and people like Brenski will never be satisfied with what Queen had to offer.