Virtually all the bands on these lists are either American or Americanised and naturally suited to the conservative US rock market.
I’d make an exception for latter period Beatles and Pink Floyd.
AlbaNo1
Thread
Posts in chronological order
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]AlbaNo1 wrote:[/b]
Virtually all the bands on these lists are either American or Americanised and naturally suited to the conservative US rock market.
I’d make an exception for latter period Beatles and Pink Floyd.
[/QUOTE]
"Americanised" and "influenced by Americana" are vastly different things. Rock and roll originated in the US - that's obviously undeniable. But it ends there. The US was also (and still is) the biggest market in the world for most entertainment, but it doesn't mean artists or the business were inherently trying to create an "American friendly" product. Certainly not in the period we're discussing.
Early Zeppelin may have been in part influenced by the American blues, but due to a number of factors most Americans had no idea who was influencing Zeppelin anyway.
And do you mean all of Floyd or just the latter Floyd?
Either way, the suggestion is indefensible. Labels weren't calling the shots with the biggest artists in the 60s and early 70s, unless you were on Motown (and even that chokehold eventually eroded away). The artists made the music they wanted to make, and all the labels did was write the cheque.
The American market was not conservative in that period - a cursory look at what was popular then says otherwise. Everything from folk to progressive rock to Krautrock was popular - none of which is inherently American.
Virtually all the bands on these lists are either American or Americanised and naturally suited to the conservative US rock market.
I’d make an exception for latter period Beatles and Pink Floyd.
[/QUOTE]
"Americanised" and "influenced by Americana" are vastly different things. Rock and roll originated in the US - that's obviously undeniable. But it ends there. The US was also (and still is) the biggest market in the world for most entertainment, but it doesn't mean artists or the business were inherently trying to create an "American friendly" product. Certainly not in the period we're discussing.
Early Zeppelin may have been in part influenced by the American blues, but due to a number of factors most Americans had no idea who was influencing Zeppelin anyway.
And do you mean all of Floyd or just the latter Floyd?
Either way, the suggestion is indefensible. Labels weren't calling the shots with the biggest artists in the 60s and early 70s, unless you were on Motown (and even that chokehold eventually eroded away). The artists made the music they wanted to make, and all the labels did was write the cheque.
The American market was not conservative in that period - a cursory look at what was popular then says otherwise. Everything from folk to progressive rock to Krautrock was popular - none of which is inherently American.
AlbaNo1
I mean all of Floyd.
I said latter day Beatles. The early stuff is influenced by American rock n roll.
Early Zep is directly derivative from blues. As for the latter period. I’ll just have a Hot Dog and think about that. Yee hah.
Krautrock was huge though. Kraftwerk broke the top 100 twice. Can must be just outside Brenskis lists of American, Americanised or bands influenced by America that are by no means Americanised.
I said latter day Beatles. The early stuff is influenced by American rock n roll.
Early Zep is directly derivative from blues. As for the latter period. I’ll just have a Hot Dog and think about that. Yee hah.
Krautrock was huge though. Kraftwerk broke the top 100 twice. Can must be just outside Brenskis lists of American, Americanised or bands influenced by America that are by no means Americanised.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]AlbaNo1 wrote:[/b]
I mean all of Floyd.
I said latter day Beatles. The early stuff is influenced by American rock n roll.
Early Zep is directly derivative from blues. As for the latter period. I’ll just have a Hot Dog and think about that. Yee hah.
Krautrock was huge though. Kraftwerk broke the top 100 twice. Can must be just outside Brenskis lists of American, Americanised or bands influenced by America that are by no means Americanised. [/QUOTE]
So your argument is "all rock music successful in the US that you personally deem to be 'Americanised', regardless of its influence, was crafted to be commercially successful there, and therefore should be denigrated." Can't go wrong when you're the curator of your own delusional reality.
Writing off 3/4 of the Zeppelin catalog, effectively reducing the last four albums to Hot Dog, says everything about your ignorance and smugness and nothing about them.
We're done here.
I mean all of Floyd.
I said latter day Beatles. The early stuff is influenced by American rock n roll.
Early Zep is directly derivative from blues. As for the latter period. I’ll just have a Hot Dog and think about that. Yee hah.
Krautrock was huge though. Kraftwerk broke the top 100 twice. Can must be just outside Brenskis lists of American, Americanised or bands influenced by America that are by no means Americanised. [/QUOTE]
So your argument is "all rock music successful in the US that you personally deem to be 'Americanised', regardless of its influence, was crafted to be commercially successful there, and therefore should be denigrated." Can't go wrong when you're the curator of your own delusional reality.
Writing off 3/4 of the Zeppelin catalog, effectively reducing the last four albums to Hot Dog, says everything about your ignorance and smugness and nothing about them.
We're done here.
Saint Jiub
Hot Dog is a great fun song with rip roaring piano and a great guitar solo. It had been decades since I last heard it. Thanks for mentioning it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxXS93iIdpA
Sounds great live too and the band looks like they're enjoying themselves tremedously.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVdpMN3xkWo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxXS93iIdpA
Sounds great live too and the band looks like they're enjoying themselves tremedously.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVdpMN3xkWo
AlbaNo1
Wizard, just relax and enjoy the tunes of Brian and Mercury. Remember 20000 posts proves you know best.
Is there anything wrong with American music, Americana or Americanised bands. No.
Does it give a band more broad ranging appeal in the US market, at the top level if they do? Yes.
Are Queens most successful albums in the US , News of the World and The Game more in keeping with with the criteria above. Yes.
Are Queen on balance more suited to UK, Europe , Asia culturally. In many ways yes.
Is the levee going to break in Wolverhampton. Doubtful.
Do they enjoy a tres charmant seaside rendevous in Wyoming.
Is there anything wrong with American music, Americana or Americanised bands. No.
Does it give a band more broad ranging appeal in the US market, at the top level if they do? Yes.
Are Queens most successful albums in the US , News of the World and The Game more in keeping with with the criteria above. Yes.
Are Queen on balance more suited to UK, Europe , Asia culturally. In many ways yes.
Is the levee going to break in Wolverhampton. Doubtful.
Do they enjoy a tres charmant seaside rendevous in Wyoming.
AlbaNo1
OK I give up.
None of the below bands which were, stated as either selling the highest selling albums, or having sold the most worldwide concerts are in any way American, influenced by America or Americanised.
Even if they were it would not influence their worldwide sales . of which the largest part is the US.
Even though I clearly referred to the bands on the list, by using the phrase " Virtually all the bands on these lists" I admit Bob has caught me out and I really meant "all rock music successful in the US" as Bob skillfully paraphrased out of nowhere.
Grateful Dead
Rolling Stones
Beatles
Led Zeppelin
U2
AC/DC
Madonna
Guns n Roses
Pink Floyd
Eagles
None of the below bands which were, stated as either selling the highest selling albums, or having sold the most worldwide concerts are in any way American, influenced by America or Americanised.
Even if they were it would not influence their worldwide sales . of which the largest part is the US.
Even though I clearly referred to the bands on the list, by using the phrase " Virtually all the bands on these lists" I admit Bob has caught me out and I really meant "all rock music successful in the US" as Bob skillfully paraphrased out of nowhere.
Grateful Dead
Rolling Stones
Beatles
Led Zeppelin
U2
AC/DC
Madonna
Guns n Roses
Pink Floyd
Eagles
RandomQueenie
Yes! I've always found 80s Queen very lazy compared to the 70s.
Too lazy to sing. >Vocal harmonies were gone from most of the songs. Brian and Roger stopped singing lead in their own songs. Freddie stopped singing in falsetto and sounded the same in all songs (Cool Cat and Under Pressure would be the exception).
Too lazy to play> Freddie stopped playing piano supossedly because he didn't think he was that good. Roger's drums were replaced by that annoying and repetitive drum machine. John's bass was also replaced by synth bass according to him, and Brian's guitar solos were absent in many of the songs.
Too lazy to write> Lyrics dropped in quality and arrangements were not as complex and rich as in the 70s. Queen claimed they wanted to try new styles but to me, ironically, most of their 80s songs sound pretty much the same. They did what they most feared, sticked to a formula and became commercial and repetitive.
Too lazy to dress up>I've always found it ironic how Queen were so obsessed about their outfits in the early years and would spend little fortunes on clothes when they were basically broke, but then when they finally had lots of money to spend on stage clothes, they decided to go out in plain t shirts and shorts.
Too lazy to bother with long hair> I think Roger once said they cut their hair because times had changed, and yet, all other rock bands in the 80s had crazy unruly manes (Guns & Roses, Bon Jovi, Van Halen, Motley Crue, etc)
Too lazy to record> In the 70s they'd deliver an album per year. In the 80s they'd release them every 2 or 3 years.
Don't try to discuss it with die-hard fans, though. They will always accuse you of not being a real fan if you say you don't like their 80s work that much. And they will always talk of how Queen filled stadiums and sold millions in the 80s, always forgetting that it was 70s Queen that paved the way for all that fame and that it was Diva Freddie, not Mustache Freddie, who wrote their most popular songs in the 70s!
Too lazy to sing. >Vocal harmonies were gone from most of the songs. Brian and Roger stopped singing lead in their own songs. Freddie stopped singing in falsetto and sounded the same in all songs (Cool Cat and Under Pressure would be the exception).
Too lazy to play> Freddie stopped playing piano supossedly because he didn't think he was that good. Roger's drums were replaced by that annoying and repetitive drum machine. John's bass was also replaced by synth bass according to him, and Brian's guitar solos were absent in many of the songs.
Too lazy to write> Lyrics dropped in quality and arrangements were not as complex and rich as in the 70s. Queen claimed they wanted to try new styles but to me, ironically, most of their 80s songs sound pretty much the same. They did what they most feared, sticked to a formula and became commercial and repetitive.
Too lazy to dress up>I've always found it ironic how Queen were so obsessed about their outfits in the early years and would spend little fortunes on clothes when they were basically broke, but then when they finally had lots of money to spend on stage clothes, they decided to go out in plain t shirts and shorts.
Too lazy to bother with long hair> I think Roger once said they cut their hair because times had changed, and yet, all other rock bands in the 80s had crazy unruly manes (Guns & Roses, Bon Jovi, Van Halen, Motley Crue, etc)
Too lazy to record> In the 70s they'd deliver an album per year. In the 80s they'd release them every 2 or 3 years.
Don't try to discuss it with die-hard fans, though. They will always accuse you of not being a real fan if you say you don't like their 80s work that much. And they will always talk of how Queen filled stadiums and sold millions in the 80s, always forgetting that it was 70s Queen that paved the way for all that fame and that it was Diva Freddie, not Mustache Freddie, who wrote their most popular songs in the 70s!
RandomQueenie
Yes! I've always found 80s Queen very lazy compared to the 70s.
Too lazy to sing. >Vocal harmonies were gone from most of the songs. Brian and Roger stopped singing lead in their own songs. Freddie stopped singing in falsetto and sounded the same in all songs (Cool Cat and Under Pressure would be the exception).
Too lazy to play> Freddie stopped playing piano supossedly because he didn't think he was that good. Roger's drums were replaced by that annoying and repetitive drum machine. John's bass was also replaced by synth bass according to him, and Brian's guitar solos were absent in many of the songs.
Too lazy to write> Lyrics dropped in quality and arrangements were not as complex and rich as in the 70s. Queen claimed they wanted to try new styles but to me, ironically, most of their 80s songs sound pretty much the same. They did what they most feared, sticked to a formula and became commercial and repetitive.
Too lazy to dress up>I've always found it ironic how Queen were so obsessed about their outfits in the early years and would spend little fortunes on clothes when they were basically broke, but then when they finally had lots of money to spend on stage clothes, they decided to go out in plain t shirts and shorts.
Too lazy to bother with long hair> I think Roger once said they cut their hair because times had changed, and yet, all other rock bands in the 80s had crazy unruly manes (Guns & Roses, Bon Jovi, Van Halen, Motley Crue, etc)
Too lazy to record> In the 70s they'd deliver an album per year. In the 80s they'd release them every 2 or 3 years.
Don't try to discuss it with die-hard fans, though. They will always accuse you of not being a real fan if you say you don't like their 80s work that much. And they will always talk of how Queen filled stadiums and sold millions in the 80s, always forgetting that it was 70s Queen that paved the way for all that fame and that it was Diva Freddie, not Mustache Freddie, who wrote their most popular songs in the 70s!
Too lazy to sing. >Vocal harmonies were gone from most of the songs. Brian and Roger stopped singing lead in their own songs. Freddie stopped singing in falsetto and sounded the same in all songs (Cool Cat and Under Pressure would be the exception).
Too lazy to play> Freddie stopped playing piano supossedly because he didn't think he was that good. Roger's drums were replaced by that annoying and repetitive drum machine. John's bass was also replaced by synth bass according to him, and Brian's guitar solos were absent in many of the songs.
Too lazy to write> Lyrics dropped in quality and arrangements were not as complex and rich as in the 70s. Queen claimed they wanted to try new styles but to me, ironically, most of their 80s songs sound pretty much the same. They did what they most feared, sticked to a formula and became commercial and repetitive.
Too lazy to dress up>I've always found it ironic how Queen were so obsessed about their outfits in the early years and would spend little fortunes on clothes when they were basically broke, but then when they finally had lots of money to spend on stage clothes, they decided to go out in plain t shirts and shorts.
Too lazy to bother with long hair> I think Roger once said they cut their hair because times had changed, and yet, all other rock bands in the 80s had crazy unruly manes (Guns & Roses, Bon Jovi, Van Halen, Motley Crue, etc)
Too lazy to record> In the 70s they'd deliver an album per year. In the 80s they'd release them every 2 or 3 years.
Don't try to discuss it with die-hard fans, though. They will always accuse you of not being a real fan if you say you don't like their 80s work that much. And they will always talk of how Queen filled stadiums and sold millions in the 80s, always forgetting that it was 70s Queen that paved the way for all that fame and that it was Diva Freddie, not Mustache Freddie, who wrote their most popular songs in the 70s!
RandomQueenie
Sorry, I made a double post by mistake. Don't know how to delete it.
brENsKi
[QUOTE] [b]RandomQueenie wrote:[/b]
Yes! I've always found 80s Queen very lazy compared to the 70s.
Too lazy to record> In the 70s they'd deliver an album per year. In the 80s they'd release them every 2 or 3 years.[/QUOTE]
i'd agree with almost everything you said, bar the above. most bands record an album each year for the first 6-8 years. once established the cycle then becomes 2-3 years per LP (or longer).
Yes! I've always found 80s Queen very lazy compared to the 70s.
Too lazy to record> In the 70s they'd deliver an album per year. In the 80s they'd release them every 2 or 3 years.[/QUOTE]
i'd agree with almost everything you said, bar the above. most bands record an album each year for the first 6-8 years. once established the cycle then becomes 2-3 years per LP (or longer).
Misfire.
@RandomQueenie Yeah i know Queen became a monster in the 80s tours became bigger the stages became bigger and Queen became bigger and yes there music
had to change they were not in the 70s anymore and as Freddie said you have to compete with all the other new acts that are in the charts and it gets harder every year so Queen could not stick
to rock opera harmonies and blistering guitar licks they had competition with Duran Duran Pet shop boys soft cell etc..... the charts were heating up and the competition was fierce and Queen had to adapt
so that is where synths came in to songs like Radio gaga & I want to beak free etc........ Queen were a clever band always inventing themselves to fit in to any changing music scene and if they had stayed a hard rock act they would have fizzled out by 1982.
Personally for me Queen were on fire 1975 to 1979.
had to change they were not in the 70s anymore and as Freddie said you have to compete with all the other new acts that are in the charts and it gets harder every year so Queen could not stick
to rock opera harmonies and blistering guitar licks they had competition with Duran Duran Pet shop boys soft cell etc..... the charts were heating up and the competition was fierce and Queen had to adapt
so that is where synths came in to songs like Radio gaga & I want to beak free etc........ Queen were a clever band always inventing themselves to fit in to any changing music scene and if they had stayed a hard rock act they would have fizzled out by 1982.
Personally for me Queen were on fire 1975 to 1979.
Vocal harmony
[QUOTE] [b]Benross wrote:[/b]
. . . . . . they had competition with Duran Duran Pet shop boys soft cell etc..... the charts were heating up and the competition was fierce and Queen had to adapt
so that is where synths came in to songs like Radio gaga & I want to beak free etc........ Queen were a clever band always inventing themselves to fit in to any changing music scene and if they had stayed a hard rock act they would have fizzled out by 1982.
Personally for me Queen were on fire 1975 to 1979.[/QUOTE]
Synths came into use on The Game two albums befor The Works (Radio GaGa, I Want To Break Free). The band actually claimed that The Works contained more traditional Queen sounding material.
As far as competition was concerned, the problem was in the 80's Queen very often followed the competition rather than led it. For example they jumped on the disco band wagon very late in the day because they thought there were record sales to be had in that direction, the fact that The Rolling Stones, Kiss and Pink Floyd and others all explored that avenue before Queen seems to have escaped you.
Simple truth for most of the 80's Queen were not as inventive as they were in the 70's. And by 1982 Freddie had lost interest for a number of years for a number of reasons.
But you won't accept that either.
. . . . . . they had competition with Duran Duran Pet shop boys soft cell etc..... the charts were heating up and the competition was fierce and Queen had to adapt
so that is where synths came in to songs like Radio gaga & I want to beak free etc........ Queen were a clever band always inventing themselves to fit in to any changing music scene and if they had stayed a hard rock act they would have fizzled out by 1982.
Personally for me Queen were on fire 1975 to 1979.[/QUOTE]
Synths came into use on The Game two albums befor The Works (Radio GaGa, I Want To Break Free). The band actually claimed that The Works contained more traditional Queen sounding material.
As far as competition was concerned, the problem was in the 80's Queen very often followed the competition rather than led it. For example they jumped on the disco band wagon very late in the day because they thought there were record sales to be had in that direction, the fact that The Rolling Stones, Kiss and Pink Floyd and others all explored that avenue before Queen seems to have escaped you.
Simple truth for most of the 80's Queen were not as inventive as they were in the 70's. And by 1982 Freddie had lost interest for a number of years for a number of reasons.
But you won't accept that either.
brENsKi
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b] For example they jumped on the disco band wagon very late in the day because they thought there were record sales to be had in that direction, the fact that The Rolling Stones, Kiss and Pink Floyd and others all explored that avenue before Queen seems to have escaped you.
Simple truth for most of the 80's Queen were not as inventive as they were in the 70's. And by 1982 Freddie had lost interest for a number of years for a number of reasons.
But you won't except that either.[/QUOTE] agreed 100%. There's a stupid myth perpetuated that Queen's "dance" music (esp Hot Space) was somehow groundbreaking. Claims are that their "dance diversion" was a pioneering move for a classic rock band . Truth is, most big rock bands beat Queen to the dance "punch" by years.
Eagles, Doobie Bros, ELO, Deep Purple, Bowie, Steve Miller, Led Zeppelin - and many more - all diverted into "dance" style music during the mid 70s - when disco was just breaking through. by the time Queen got into it - the "dance" ship had sailed.
Some other things the blinkered Queen fans conveniently ignore:
AOBTD - was very poor copy of Nile Rodgers' best work.
CLTCL - Freddie admitted he was doing Elvis.
Freddie definitely issued a back-handed apology for Hot Space at Milton Keynes:
[color=blue][i]“Now most of you know that we’ve got some new sounds out in the last week. We’re gonna do a few songs in the funk/black category - whatever you call it. That doesn’t mean we’ve lost our rock’n’roll feel, okay! I mean it’s only a bloody record! People get so excited about these things. We just want to try out a few new sounds…”[/color][/i]
with regard to Freddie's comment: you call it audience appeasement, call it a genuine statement, or call it the plain bullshit it clearly was (Freddie definitely had lost his "rock n roll feel" - as evidenced on his two solo LPs that followed. the reality was that Queen had (mor or less) lost their "rock n roll feel". The next two albums contained more of the same pop, dance, pap of HS - none of which was groundbreaking, risk-taking or even worthy of such a great band.
With: Radio GaGa, IWTBF, KPTOW, MOTP, followed by AKOM, OYOL, Pain Is So...Friends, Don't Lose Your Head...Queen had descended into the pits of lazy-ass writing, creating and recording.
Freddie really had no idea how far things were sliding when he issued that MK apology. Maybe in 1982, they hadn't completely lost their "rock n roll feel"...but the next two LPs did the best job possible of removing whatever was left of it. The Works and AKOM were both devoid of the soul of the band, empty husks of "rock n roll lite" - utterly diluted, formulaic, lazy-ass, hit-factory stuff. Largely, a plastic facsimile pop/rock for those who prefer shallow radio-friendly pap over quality and depth.
talk about irony.
Simple truth for most of the 80's Queen were not as inventive as they were in the 70's. And by 1982 Freddie had lost interest for a number of years for a number of reasons.
But you won't except that either.[/QUOTE] agreed 100%. There's a stupid myth perpetuated that Queen's "dance" music (esp Hot Space) was somehow groundbreaking. Claims are that their "dance diversion" was a pioneering move for a classic rock band . Truth is, most big rock bands beat Queen to the dance "punch" by years.
Eagles, Doobie Bros, ELO, Deep Purple, Bowie, Steve Miller, Led Zeppelin - and many more - all diverted into "dance" style music during the mid 70s - when disco was just breaking through. by the time Queen got into it - the "dance" ship had sailed.
Some other things the blinkered Queen fans conveniently ignore:
AOBTD - was very poor copy of Nile Rodgers' best work.
CLTCL - Freddie admitted he was doing Elvis.
Freddie definitely issued a back-handed apology for Hot Space at Milton Keynes:
[color=blue][i]“Now most of you know that we’ve got some new sounds out in the last week. We’re gonna do a few songs in the funk/black category - whatever you call it. That doesn’t mean we’ve lost our rock’n’roll feel, okay! I mean it’s only a bloody record! People get so excited about these things. We just want to try out a few new sounds…”[/color][/i]
with regard to Freddie's comment: you call it audience appeasement, call it a genuine statement, or call it the plain bullshit it clearly was (Freddie definitely had lost his "rock n roll feel" - as evidenced on his two solo LPs that followed. the reality was that Queen had (mor or less) lost their "rock n roll feel". The next two albums contained more of the same pop, dance, pap of HS - none of which was groundbreaking, risk-taking or even worthy of such a great band.
With: Radio GaGa, IWTBF, KPTOW, MOTP, followed by AKOM, OYOL, Pain Is So...Friends, Don't Lose Your Head...Queen had descended into the pits of lazy-ass writing, creating and recording.
Freddie really had no idea how far things were sliding when he issued that MK apology. Maybe in 1982, they hadn't completely lost their "rock n roll feel"...but the next two LPs did the best job possible of removing whatever was left of it. The Works and AKOM were both devoid of the soul of the band, empty husks of "rock n roll lite" - utterly diluted, formulaic, lazy-ass, hit-factory stuff. Largely, a plastic facsimile pop/rock for those who prefer shallow radio-friendly pap over quality and depth.
talk about irony.
Vocal harmony
[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b] For example they jumped on the disco band wagon very late in the day because they thought there were record sales to be had in that direction, the fact that The Rolling Stones, Kiss and Pink Floyd and others all explored that avenue before Queen seems to have escaped you.
Simple truth for most of the 80's Queen were not as inventive as they were in the 70's. And by 1982 Freddie had lost interest for a number of years for a number of reasons.
But you won't except that either.[/QUOTE] agreed 100%. There's a stupid myth perpetuated that Queen's "dance" music (esp Hot Space) was somehow groundbreaking. Claims are that their "dance diversion" was a pioneering move for a classic rock band . Truth is, most big rock bands beat Queen to the dance "punch" by years.
Eagles, Doobie Bros, ELO, Deep Purple, Bowie, Steve Miller, Led Zeppelin - and many more - all diverted into "dance" style music during the mid 70s - when disco was just breaking through. by the time Queen got into it - the "dance" ship had sailed.
Some other things the blinkered Queen fans conveniently ignore:
AOBTD - was very poor copy of Nile Rodgers' best work.
CLTCL - Freddie admitted he was doing Elvis.
Freddie definitely issued a back-handed apology for Hot Space at Milton Keynes:
[color=blue][i]“Now most of you know that we’ve got some new sounds out in the last week. We’re gonna do a few songs in the funk/black category - whatever you call it. That doesn’t mean we’ve lost our rock’n’roll feel, okay! I mean it’s only a bloody record! People get so excited about these things. We just want to try out a few new sounds…”[/color][/i]
with regard to Freddie's comment: you call it audience appeasement, call it a genuine statement, or call it the plain bullshit it clearly was (Freddie definitely had lost his "rock n roll feel" - as evidenced on his two solo LPs that followed. the reality was that Queen had (mor or less) lost their "rock n roll feel". The next two albums contained more of the same pop, dance, pap of HS - none of which was groundbreaking, risk-taking or even worthy of such a great band.
With: Radio GaGa, IWTBF, KPTOW, MOTP, followed by AKOM, OYOL, Pain Is So...Friends, Don't Lose Your Head...Queen had descended into the pits of lazy-ass writing, creating and recording.
Freddie really had no idea how far things were sliding when he issued that MK apology. Maybe in 1982, they hadn't completely lost their "rock n roll feel"...but the next two LPs did the best job possible of removing whatever was left of it. The Works and AKOM were both devoid of the soul of the band, empty husks of "rock n roll lite" - utterly diluted, formulaic, lazy-ass, hit-factory stuff. Largely, a plastic facsimile pop/rock for those who prefer shallow radio-friendly pap over quality and depth.
talk about irony.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's definitely what happened to their writing and recorded work. But The Works tour seemed to take a step back from The Hot Space Tour in it presentation of a heavier and broader set list.
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b] For example they jumped on the disco band wagon very late in the day because they thought there were record sales to be had in that direction, the fact that The Rolling Stones, Kiss and Pink Floyd and others all explored that avenue before Queen seems to have escaped you.
Simple truth for most of the 80's Queen were not as inventive as they were in the 70's. And by 1982 Freddie had lost interest for a number of years for a number of reasons.
But you won't except that either.[/QUOTE] agreed 100%. There's a stupid myth perpetuated that Queen's "dance" music (esp Hot Space) was somehow groundbreaking. Claims are that their "dance diversion" was a pioneering move for a classic rock band . Truth is, most big rock bands beat Queen to the dance "punch" by years.
Eagles, Doobie Bros, ELO, Deep Purple, Bowie, Steve Miller, Led Zeppelin - and many more - all diverted into "dance" style music during the mid 70s - when disco was just breaking through. by the time Queen got into it - the "dance" ship had sailed.
Some other things the blinkered Queen fans conveniently ignore:
AOBTD - was very poor copy of Nile Rodgers' best work.
CLTCL - Freddie admitted he was doing Elvis.
Freddie definitely issued a back-handed apology for Hot Space at Milton Keynes:
[color=blue][i]“Now most of you know that we’ve got some new sounds out in the last week. We’re gonna do a few songs in the funk/black category - whatever you call it. That doesn’t mean we’ve lost our rock’n’roll feel, okay! I mean it’s only a bloody record! People get so excited about these things. We just want to try out a few new sounds…”[/color][/i]
with regard to Freddie's comment: you call it audience appeasement, call it a genuine statement, or call it the plain bullshit it clearly was (Freddie definitely had lost his "rock n roll feel" - as evidenced on his two solo LPs that followed. the reality was that Queen had (mor or less) lost their "rock n roll feel". The next two albums contained more of the same pop, dance, pap of HS - none of which was groundbreaking, risk-taking or even worthy of such a great band.
With: Radio GaGa, IWTBF, KPTOW, MOTP, followed by AKOM, OYOL, Pain Is So...Friends, Don't Lose Your Head...Queen had descended into the pits of lazy-ass writing, creating and recording.
Freddie really had no idea how far things were sliding when he issued that MK apology. Maybe in 1982, they hadn't completely lost their "rock n roll feel"...but the next two LPs did the best job possible of removing whatever was left of it. The Works and AKOM were both devoid of the soul of the band, empty husks of "rock n roll lite" - utterly diluted, formulaic, lazy-ass, hit-factory stuff. Largely, a plastic facsimile pop/rock for those who prefer shallow radio-friendly pap over quality and depth.
talk about irony.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's definitely what happened to their writing and recorded work. But The Works tour seemed to take a step back from The Hot Space Tour in it presentation of a heavier and broader set list.