80s??

A countlessly done, perhaps old old question.

What's wrong with the 80s album?

Note the word: wrong. Is there something musically "not good"? Are the songs boring or too simplistic? Are the songs too "commercialized", and if they are, what does that word mean, more specifically? Or are the albums considered inferior because they used synth alot? (And what's bad about using synth?) Or is it the style? Not pure-rock like 70s, not operatic, or too operatic, or too pop, or too R&B, or too... etc. (And what is bad about being any of these, or all of these?)

I'm no musical expert - in fact, my musical judgment depends upon one thing, and one thing only - whether I like it or not.

Reading a lot of opinions about 80s album being "fillers" "commercialized" "not great" "killing Queen career in US" (as far as I knew Another One Bites the Dust, the US hit, wasn't too 70s either... wasn't it IWTBF video that did the harm?) etc., I came to question my own judgment about songs... I like almost all Queen songs without question. It really surprises me to read opinions on amazon.com about Queen in decline in 80s. (studio-wise). Am I the only one who thinks that their musical talent was pretty much even and continuous until 1991?

And what songs are "fillers" and how do you define them? Easy-to-make, catchy but not-profound-enough songs?

Just curious to know why people may think differently. :)

Nothing wrong with the '80's albums in my opinion just a progression from the '70's albums. Yes Queens style changed but it did that with each album. I used to think Hot Space was a bit dodgy but there is some inspired guitar on there just listen to Dancer. Part of Queens success was that they always sounded different while still sounding like Queen.

There's nothing wrong with the 80s albums, and I still feel like 'Hot Space' has started to slowly grow on me.

Queen has always liked to experiment with different sounds and genres from the very beginning, but it wasn't until 'News Of The World' when their albums started to get more of a mainstream sound rather than keeping the original Queen sound.

Arguably the following albums weren't as good as those from 'Queen II' to 'ADATR', but I think most people here would say that they still enjoy them a lot, and it goes to proove that Queen can still succeed while being forced to re-invent themselves.

Let's not forget that there comes a moment in every musicians career where they are forced to change while still preserving their musical identity, and that's the main reason why most musicians stop selling records as much as they did before.

There's no doubt that Queen did still succeed, despite the change. Whether someone doesn't seem to enjoy all the great things Queen did in the 80s, that's their loss.

myself I think The Game was their best album.... and Hot Space wasn't bad either.. but Flash was horrible.. ;-)

Just kidding.. If it weren't for The Game I would have never gotten into Queen.

The 80's albums are just as great as the 70's albums! :)

I totally agree. I love all of Queen's albums, including the solo efforts, though I can't say much about the Pepsi ad...

Anyone who writes off 80s Queen as too commercial or whatever is missing some great stuff. While arguably not as copnsictent, Queen were (and still are in someoccasions) a powerful and creative force.

if queen did the 70's music in the 80's they would have droped off the face of earth in 82.

Agree with you guys

From what I have seen on this board the folk that trash the eights material do so to look cool.

Queens material is very varied and always has been so there is pretty much equal high and low points on each of their albums IMO.

Personally I always loved the way they experimented with different styles, not all work again IMO, but hats off for trying, if they'd stayed the same, they would be long gone by now

<

Nothing wrong with them, just more commercial than the 70's.

Hot Space grows on you like algae. At least, it did so for me. The thing is, you have to get over the initial shock of the different direction Queen was going for on this album.

You have to keep in mind, Queen had to keep up with the style and come up with a new sound as time progresses. Obviously, it became more difficult to keep the pace when they went into the 80's with an enourmous back catalogue behind them.

The thing is, they were probably a bit worn from the ten years of enourmously complex albums. One thing about the 80's is that they were markedly simpler in overdubs/etc.

Was this a bad thing?

Well, consider such songs as Bring Back That Leroy Brown. A toweringly complex track, Roger noted that they spent countless hours building that one up. However, does the amount of effort put into it equate to exactly the effect it brings? In my opinion, it doesn't. Though, BBTLB is a good song, but less time focusing on that could have helped out some other songs that perhaps might have needed attention.

Then, take I Want To Break Free. Relatively simple song, yet incredibly catchy and still has a "soul" to the song.

Well, yeah, that's sort of how I feel about it.

Queen's sound has never been dated, IMHO. The songs sound as fresh and spontaneous as when I first heard them, and I can recall when I heard them when they first came out (when they used to play Queen on album-oriented radio, or AOR). A show called The King Biscuit Flower Hour used to play whole sides uninterrupted of the (then) new Queen albums, and sometimes the group participated in a (taped) discussion of the making of the album. Freddie was so much more talkative in the early days of Queen -- he used to talk more than Brian, which was amazing (and moreso when they used to interrupt each other!). Radio just isn't creative enough anymore to catch the artists' renderings of the makings of classics-in-progress, and it's really sad!

Yeah in the 70s Freddie's voice was more young and fresh sounding. Of course he always had a brilliant voice but in the 80s it got a bit more mature and husky partly due to his excessive smoking.