Queen were rich and lazy in the 80s

[QUOTE] [b]oystermouth1971 wrote:[/b]Wouldn’t say they were ‘lazy’ but there is an argument to say they were going through the motions (at least in the studio) a bit. Great tracks rather than great albums. [/QUOTE] [b][i] going through the motions[/b] (synonyms)[/i] apethetic, careless, disinterested, lackadaisical, laid-back, phoning-it-in, slipshod, slovenly.
yep, to those that said lazy was "harsh" your "going through the motions" more or less is a perfect description of "lazy"

[QUOTE] [b]oystermouth1971 wrote:[/b]When the chips were really down, they produced Innuendo which was *so* much better than any of the ‘80s dilettantish albums imo.[/QUOTE] agreed 100%

I think the well was dry by the mid 80s. While they recovered some spark for the Miracle and Innuendo, in truth if you picked all the good songs from those 2 albums you could just about make one fairly good album. Throw in the best tracks from The Works and AKOM and you pretty much have Queen's Greatest Hits 2. But there was so much filler in those albums, as well as wimpy drums and poor recording of Brian's guitar sound, that really nothing in the 1980s compares to their run from Queen II to NotW.

[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]But there was so much filler in those albums, as well as wimpy drums and poor recording of Brian's guitar sound, that really nothing in the 1980s compares to their run from Queen II to NotW.[/QUOTE][b][i]...you try and tell the young people of today that, and they won't believe you[/b][/i]

I agree with The Works and Magic Were only good for the hits with weak songs In between..The Miracle was only a little better, But Innuendo?..great album. Almost every song was good or great..

[QUOTE] [b]mike hunt wrote:[/b]

I agree with The Works and Magic Were only good for the hits with weak songs In between..The Miracle was only a little better, But Innuendo?..great album. Almost every song was good or great..[/QUOTE]

By the time of the Innuendo sessions they once again had a common goal and where all largely on the same page. The result was an album which was a return to many of the things that made up the best of their previous work, and resulted in their best album in years. A major high point musically.

When you are young in the world of music and sports, your dedication and hunger is all concentrated on your job, to make it, to be successful. Queen in the 70's were hungry, looking to fame and fortune and they achieved it.

What happens in life for us all is that we grow up. We get other interests, have families and explore other avenues in life that make us happy. That is what happens and we saw this with the band. Although they stayed together, they did their own things, made solo records, got married, had children, and so on. You grow as a person and that same hunger you has as a child and early adult goes away in some capacity and goes to other things. You lose the complete hunger and focus when you had nothing and only had one thing on, your music and career.

I use Tiger Woods in Golf as a great example. Best player in the world as an adult but once he got married and had kids his dominance was not to be anymore as with age and focus was shifted. Same was said about Jack Nicklaus, arguably the greatest of all time. What I am saying is the evolution of time of your life just makes you grow and explore. Nobody stays the same forever.

Queen in the 80's were not lazy, but imo lazyish with their music at times and it showed more in the 80's but you can't fault them on it. We should be happy that they stayed together and put out all this music for us to enjoy the rest of our lives.

Too many egos on this board as well. Read your posts and try to reason with yourself as to why people are bashing you.

Following on from that, are there many major bands who stayed at the top of their game artistically and commercially for two decades.
8-10 years is pretty good going to even last as a band. Its infinitely more common for a bands third album to be better than their thirteenth. Queen still hit major highpoints in the 80s. I cannot see "lazy" as being anywhere near the right description.

I also think the 80s must have been a particularly difficult decade stylistically to transition into for a mainstream rock band. Moreso than the likes of the Who, Stones or Pink Floyd coming in off the late 60s strongly into early to mid 70s. Or REM and U2 coming into the early 90s.

[QUOTE] [b]goose44 wrote:[/b]

When you are young in the world of music and sports, your dedication and hunger is all concentrated on your job, to make it, to be successful. Queen in the 70's were hungry, looking to fame and fortune and they achieved it.

What happens in life for us all is that we grow up. We get other interests, have families and explore other avenues in life that make us happy. That is what happens and we saw this with the band. Although they stayed together, they did their own things, made solo records, got married, had children, and so on. You grow as a person and that same hunger you has as a child and early adult goes away in some capacity and goes to other things. You lose the complete hunger and focus when you had nothing and only had one thing on, your music and career.

I use Tiger Woods in Golf as a great example. Best player in the world as an adult but once he got married and had kids his dominance was not to be anymore as with age and focus was shifted. Same was said about Jack Nicklaus, arguably the greatest of all time. What I am saying is the evolution of time of your life just makes you grow and explore. Nobody stays the same forever.

Queen in the 80's were not lazy, but imo lazyish with their music at times and it showed more in the 80's but you can't fault them on it. We should be happy that they stayed together and put out all this music for us to enjoy the rest of our lives.

Too many egos on this board as well. Read your posts and try to reason with yourself as to why people are bashing you.[/QUOTE]
Beautiful post and 100 correct

after AOBTD, they tried to be all things to all people and ending up becoming a pop band. they had some very big hits but they alienated a lot of their core hard rock fan base but didnt give a shit as they attracted a lot of pop fans instead. Musically, everything from the game to innuendo was full of at least 3 or 4 tracks of utter pop filler.

The big problem with Queen in the 80's (and to an extent, late 70' s) was the amount of coke Freddie was doing. Coke is the most uncreative of drugs, it turns you into an obnoxious bitch. By his own admission he suffered writer's block in the 80's and the quality of his lyrics took a nose dive compared to what he had produced before. Just look at the demos for his abandomed 2nd solo record, they are all unfinished and go absolutely nowhere. He also imcreasingly played less piano, his enthusiasm for making music simply wasn't where it once was. The most inspired stuff they produced in the 80's imo were the songs composed for Highlander. The movie acted as a creative catalyst for the whole band, I just wished they had finished the soundtrack properly and not shoe-horned an album from the few good songs written for the film and a bunch of crap filler.

Agree Toozeup, Priorities changed in Freddie's life and like I said everyone just grows and does other things as they go through life. The sex and drugs took over his like in the time period you described especially in America and Germany. Focus and hunger was gone from the band's music career and they all did other things. They seperated more, lived their lives and would come back after a while and make an album and tour up to magic. TBH you have to give them credit for even having the career they had. Bands break up and never last for many reasons, especially the ones noted in all these posts but the end of the day they stayed together and became the legends they are today. Also although in the minority view but there are people who like their 80's stuff better than their 70's stuff. As for me I always got into different moods as to what records I would listen to and although their 70's stuff might be more creative and influential, I love all their music. Summertime I pump the miracle album all the time. It's not their best but I probably have listened to it the most. I also probably play Jazz the second most as when I used to get into it I would play it almost every day driving to and from work. Went off course a bit but what I am saying QUEEN FUCKING RULES NO MATTER WHAT, LOL!

[QUOTE] [b]goose44 wrote:[/b]

Agree Toozeup, Priorities changed in Freddie's life and like I said everyone just grows and does other things as they go through life. The sex and drugs took over his like in the time period you described especially in America and Germany. Focus and hunger was gone from the band's music career and they all did other things. They seperated more, lived their lives and would come back after a while and make an album and tour up to magic. TBH you have to give them credit for even having the career they had. Bands break up and never last for many reasons, especially the ones noted in all these posts but the end of the day they stayed together and became the legends they are today. Also although in the minority view but there are people who like their 80's stuff better than their 70's stuff. As for me I always got into different moods as to what records I would listen to and although their 70's stuff might be more creative and influential, I love all their music. Summertime I pump the miracle album all the time. It's not their best but I probably have listened to it the most. I also probably play Jazz the second most as when I used to get into it I would play it almost every day driving to and from work. Went off course a bit but what I am saying QUEEN FUCKING RULES NO MATTER WHAT, LOL![/QUOTE]
The Miracle Isn't one of their very best, but I will say It was an album that sounded like a proper band again..I think It was May's best album as a guitarist since Jazz.