Skip to content
Queen crest Queenzone.org

Why is Queen not that respected

36 posts Page 3 of 3
Thread

Posts in chronological order

Search forum

Sign in to watch

Watching a topic is how you opt in to reply pushes.

jasen101 wrote:
because there are so many hicks in america...they only like southern baptist snake charming music.
Hey! Leave Patsy Cline out of this!
"Elton John and I became really good friends. I don't mean 'good friends' in that sense. I just mean we slept together." -Billy Joel
A few of my friends and I always liked to believe that Queen was our "inside joke" (so to speak). Only a few of us got it and we were happy to keep it that way. I never wanted Queen to have the radio success of say, Phil Collins or U2, because where I live, these artists are on the radio more than once everyday and I'm sick to death of their songs. I very rarely hear Queen and I've never really heard anyone say "Oh, Christ, not another Queen song". I'm thrilled that they don't have the limelight here in North America.

A great quote from Noel Gallagher:
Interviewer: "Since you've become famous, have you met anyone whom you've admired for years?"
Noel: "Yeah, Phil Collins"
Interviewer: "You're a fan of Phil Collins?"
Noel: "No, I hated the fucker even when he had hair!"
"I'm a greedy bitch!"
I'm not sure I understand this topic...Queen is *very* well respected!

Maybe not that well-known in the US sometimes, but still....
"I have no time for Time magazine. Or Rolling Stone." Jethro Tull
Some very good points made here. To me, the key lies in some of Seb's points. If critics were true music critics they'd have picked up on some of those points and extolled the musical virtues. But, as has been pointed out, they tended to concentrate on personalities and comparisons with current trends (punk etc). I'm sure some have, and do more today, after Fred died, but historically, that's not been the case.

Also, a lot of the songs which we might hold up as the true essence of the band were not singles, and therefore won't have the global exposure. Even now, with the musical, it's the hits which are being used. Those 80s pop tracks everyone seems to think are bad (I don't). Will the musical mean a global resurgance in the albums? I doubt it. It might work for the Greatest Hits packages (or worse, the musical soundtrack - my girlfriend prefers the musical versions to the original as that's her main exposure to the material!!! I've tried to change that, believe me!!!)

Finally, all the high profile collaborations are for the same songs (WATC, WWRY), and those aren't the tracks which represent the complex musical nature of the band as we, the fans, understand it. Where artists have ventured in to the more "intersting" areas, like Metallica and Stone Cold Crazy, and Sleeping on The Sidewalk (female artist did this - can't remember her name but was a support to Roger or Brian I think). These things aren't mainstream, so people (critics/non-fans) don't pick up on them.

Bit of a ramble, but I hope you get my point. I'd summarise by saying that Queen are respected, but perhaps not for all the right reasons!
Tatterdemalion and the junketer There's a thief and a dragonfly trumpeter
I disagree. I think queen may not have gained as much respect as they deserved from the press but they did of course from the fans AND more importantly, lots from contempory artists and from modern artists.
Axl Rose said that queen convinced him and his folks that rock was an art form. There is a direct example of how somebody respected queen so much that they learned from them.
7Innuendo7 wrote:
critics are just eunuchs in a whorehouse


Hahahaa! I agree ... that sums it up quite well. Congratulations.
"As to a martini, I'm willing and able, But only make it two at most. Three martinis, I'm under the table -- Four, and I'm under the host!"