Now I am confused. Which type of rock are we talking about? Soft or hard rock? Granites, basalts?
How come this is not the Geology Forum?
Wilki Amieva
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Libor2
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]\m/ (poodle permed) wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Haha... *pats on head* You are forgiven, my child.
Seriously, don't worry about it. I'm just one of those irritating fools, who likes to take advantage of any oportunity to nitpick and take the [pee]...[/QUOTE]
O.K. O.K. I’ll try and I won’t worry about it, ’cos I’m too old to ROCK’n’roll but too young to die :-)) Anyway, which rock we are talking about (I couldn’t remember just now).
Who will ROCK you this time ? - this is a question.
Haha... *pats on head* You are forgiven, my child.
Seriously, don't worry about it. I'm just one of those irritating fools, who likes to take advantage of any oportunity to nitpick and take the [pee]...[/QUOTE]
O.K. O.K. I’ll try and I won’t worry about it, ’cos I’m too old to ROCK’n’roll but too young to die :-)) Anyway, which rock we are talking about (I couldn’t remember just now).
Who will ROCK you this time ? - this is a question.
dragonzflame
Come now Wilki, everyone knows Freddie was igneous ;-)
GonnaUseMyPrisoners
Well, instead of quoting SomebodyWhoLoves' entire post, I'll just respond to bits. On the whole, I actually agree. For us USA fans, the Capitol years were a true disappointment, perhaps even moreso than the much maligned Hot Space (which I like more than either Capitol Records release). I've been a fan since the 1975 Killer Queen single and also have gone through numerous emotional stages, from OBSESSIVE LOVE to DISPASSIONATE APATHY (and then back!).
SWL Point #1 "All he did on these albums was yell really loud." Well, while not worded the way I would have done, I actually do agree to a point. I cite his "BAY-DOP!" crap on Under Pressure as the primary reason (Annie Lennox couldn't pull it off on "No More I Love You's", either). Freddie's performance on UP is marginally off-key, very forced-sounding, and fairly harsh in the end. Love the song, but wish they would have chosen a more "comfortable" (lower) key.
SWL Point #2 "...they began to 'sell out' in the 80s, especially with the Works album..." In a nutshell, Yup. Queen's artistic sound from the 70's fell out of vogue in the "Hair Metal and Boy Lauper '80s", and the only one of the 4 that seemed to head naturally for a new sound was Deaky. Freddie encouraged it, and even Roger mucked in (with the atypically bland "A Kind Of Magic"). But Deaky had a knack for the bland, which was very in vogue in the sickly materialistic, status-conscious 80's. But it wasn't the Queen we grew up with, and as an experiment, it only succeeded to a point, I feel. In totaly fairness, I felt the damage was undone with Innuendo, and I get the feeling I'm not alone. Unlike TW and AKOM, Innuendo had a more "unified" sound, on which all the songs did, in fact, sound like they were recorded by the same group!
SWL Point #3 "Freddie Mercury. He annoys me." Wow! A textbook example of a moot point. WHO CARES. Geniuses aren't easy to stomach, ask anyone. Besides, what difference does it make? "And look at his life, and how it ended. It's a tragic blunder of gigantic proportions." Does that really surprise you, given that his enormous talent inspired him to take risks of all kinds, both good and bad? One doesn't expect to (Millionaire) waltz into a casino and win big without taking a big risk. None of Freddie's successes would have been as big as they were without HUGE risk-taking (naming your song We Are The Champions and not editing Bo-Rhap come to mind), and it only follows that some risks end tragically. I'm not saying he deserved it, only that it comes with the territory.
GUMP Addendum a/k/a "All's well that ends well": My opinion was resurrected with Innuendo. It showed they still remembered what made them great in the earlier days, and that they knew that was what they really excelled at. Innuendo was most definitely NOT COOL in 1991, in a year of Nirvana and Metallica. But they knew it was what they did best, and that realization pleased me enormously!!! It was the album I had waited for since 1979 (no, on second thought, make that 1981), and I forgave all, having gotten it. (how UNMITIGATEDLY POMPOUS of me!!!). It still makes me cry.
Peace.
SWL Point #1 "All he did on these albums was yell really loud." Well, while not worded the way I would have done, I actually do agree to a point. I cite his "BAY-DOP!" crap on Under Pressure as the primary reason (Annie Lennox couldn't pull it off on "No More I Love You's", either). Freddie's performance on UP is marginally off-key, very forced-sounding, and fairly harsh in the end. Love the song, but wish they would have chosen a more "comfortable" (lower) key.
SWL Point #2 "...they began to 'sell out' in the 80s, especially with the Works album..." In a nutshell, Yup. Queen's artistic sound from the 70's fell out of vogue in the "Hair Metal and Boy Lauper '80s", and the only one of the 4 that seemed to head naturally for a new sound was Deaky. Freddie encouraged it, and even Roger mucked in (with the atypically bland "A Kind Of Magic"). But Deaky had a knack for the bland, which was very in vogue in the sickly materialistic, status-conscious 80's. But it wasn't the Queen we grew up with, and as an experiment, it only succeeded to a point, I feel. In totaly fairness, I felt the damage was undone with Innuendo, and I get the feeling I'm not alone. Unlike TW and AKOM, Innuendo had a more "unified" sound, on which all the songs did, in fact, sound like they were recorded by the same group!
SWL Point #3 "Freddie Mercury. He annoys me." Wow! A textbook example of a moot point. WHO CARES. Geniuses aren't easy to stomach, ask anyone. Besides, what difference does it make? "And look at his life, and how it ended. It's a tragic blunder of gigantic proportions." Does that really surprise you, given that his enormous talent inspired him to take risks of all kinds, both good and bad? One doesn't expect to (Millionaire) waltz into a casino and win big without taking a big risk. None of Freddie's successes would have been as big as they were without HUGE risk-taking (naming your song We Are The Champions and not editing Bo-Rhap come to mind), and it only follows that some risks end tragically. I'm not saying he deserved it, only that it comes with the territory.
GUMP Addendum a/k/a "All's well that ends well": My opinion was resurrected with Innuendo. It showed they still remembered what made them great in the earlier days, and that they knew that was what they really excelled at. Innuendo was most definitely NOT COOL in 1991, in a year of Nirvana and Metallica. But they knew it was what they did best, and that realization pleased me enormously!!! It was the album I had waited for since 1979 (no, on second thought, make that 1981), and I forgave all, having gotten it. (how UNMITIGATEDLY POMPOUS of me!!!). It still makes me cry.
Peace.
Nuno_Gomes
i believe u should leave
frejorobri
Will always love Freddie
Poo, again
I love Queen, but especially their 70's albums. It seems their music simply got crappy in the 80's?
Monsieur Nobs
I think that every 70s rock band went through a difficult time in the 80s. They had to change their image/style/sound to survive as a popular and innovative band. I believe there are many people out there who prefer their 80s' stuff, but most fans of AC/DC or Pink Floyd declare the 80s to be a lost decade.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Monsieur Nobs wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I think that every 70s rock band went through a difficult time in the 80s. They had to change their image/style/sound to survive as a popular and innovative band. I believe there are many people out there who prefer their 80s' stuff, but most fans of AC/DC or Pink Floyd declare the 80s to be a lost decade. [/QUOTE]
I agree with your post, except for the fact that AC/DC released Back In Black in 1980, and it's the second-best selling album of all time, all genres. But yeah, it didn't take long after that for AC/DC to tank in the album field.
Van Halen didn't have a hard time in the 80s at all, both with Roth and Hagar. They were happy to try new things. Eddie has always been someone who evolves. Well, musically, anyway...
I agree with your post, except for the fact that AC/DC released Back In Black in 1980, and it's the second-best selling album of all time, all genres. But yeah, it didn't take long after that for AC/DC to tank in the album field.
Van Halen didn't have a hard time in the 80s at all, both with Roth and Hagar. They were happy to try new things. Eddie has always been someone who evolves. Well, musically, anyway...
tenchijin2
I think one often overlooked truth is that artists often only have so many good ideas before they start repeating themselves. By 1980 Queen was a pretty 'old' act. They had about 8 years of serious, powerful, creative output.
Certainly, there were many neat moments throughout the '80s with their material, but they were older, well-established, with nothing to prove. I think that happens to all bands who survive long enough.
Certainly, there were many neat moments throughout the '80s with their material, but they were older, well-established, with nothing to prove. I think that happens to all bands who survive long enough.
zone
I'm not a real big fan of the stuff they did after Jazz.The albums they did after the Jazz record did have some gems, but as a whole they were not that great.Having said that they' er still my favorite band and always will be.
Asterik
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Hello,
2. Musically, I like and respect their albums from the 70s, and Hot Space. Everything else after hot space is musically pure crap. It's obvious the quality of their songs deteriorated into pop mush.[/QUOTE]
You don't know what you're talking about- if you want pop mush, try hot Space, it's full of synth effects. Would you call Innuendo pure crap? There's hardly a pop song on it. I agree, there was some decline during the eighties but this arrested by the Miracle and Innuendo. Please don't make such ill-informed comments about "pop mush" when the very thing you like is an example of it.
2. Musically, I like and respect their albums from the 70s, and Hot Space. Everything else after hot space is musically pure crap. It's obvious the quality of their songs deteriorated into pop mush.[/QUOTE]
You don't know what you're talking about- if you want pop mush, try hot Space, it's full of synth effects. Would you call Innuendo pure crap? There's hardly a pop song on it. I agree, there was some decline during the eighties but this arrested by the Miracle and Innuendo. Please don't make such ill-informed comments about "pop mush" when the very thing you like is an example of it.
Asterik
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Hello,
2. Musically, I like and respect their albums from the 70s, and Hot Space. Everything else after hot space is musically pure crap. It's obvious the quality of their songs deteriorated into pop mush.[/QUOTE]
You don't know what you're talking about- if you want pop mush, try hot Space, it's full of synth effects. Would you call Innuendo pure crap? There's hardly a pop song on it. I agree, there was some decline during the eighties but this arrested by the Miracle and Innuendo. Please don't make such ill-informed comments about "pop mush" when the very thing you like is an example of it.
2. Musically, I like and respect their albums from the 70s, and Hot Space. Everything else after hot space is musically pure crap. It's obvious the quality of their songs deteriorated into pop mush.[/QUOTE]
You don't know what you're talking about- if you want pop mush, try hot Space, it's full of synth effects. Would you call Innuendo pure crap? There's hardly a pop song on it. I agree, there was some decline during the eighties but this arrested by the Miracle and Innuendo. Please don't make such ill-informed comments about "pop mush" when the very thing you like is an example of it.
Asterik
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Hello,
2. Musically, I like and respect their albums from the 70s, and Hot Space. Everything else after hot space is musically pure crap. It's obvious the quality of their songs deteriorated into pop mush.[/QUOTE]
You don't know what you're talking about- if you want pop mush, try hot Space, it's full of synth effects. Would you call Innuendo pure crap? There's hardly a pop song on it. I agree, there was some decline during the eighties but this arrested by the Miracle and Innuendo. Please don't make such ill-informed comments about "pop mush" when the very thing you like is an example of it.
2. Musically, I like and respect their albums from the 70s, and Hot Space. Everything else after hot space is musically pure crap. It's obvious the quality of their songs deteriorated into pop mush.[/QUOTE]
You don't know what you're talking about- if you want pop mush, try hot Space, it's full of synth effects. Would you call Innuendo pure crap? There's hardly a pop song on it. I agree, there was some decline during the eighties but this arrested by the Miracle and Innuendo. Please don't make such ill-informed comments about "pop mush" when the very thing you like is an example of it.
Asterik