I can't wait for the flak to fly after his article in today's paper. My opinion (for what it's worth) is HE'S entitled to his opinion. I disagree with him completely. But you have to understand that his musical background was punk - so he would've been anti-everything Queen stood for - establishment, art school, public school privieged backgrounds...One thing, do you think (people) thta we can be contructive of his comments without all the apologists and "angry young men/women" jumping to stoic defence of oour band...let's hear some genuine opinion on his articel (other than "what a load of shit".....sermon over....Brenski now tosses a live grenade onto the fire....here's the article (in FULL)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
QUEEN OF THE FAKES Dec 20 2004
QUEEN to reform? Be still my beating heart.
One commentator said Queen "arguably rank second only to the Beatles in British pop history".
It is certainly arguable.
Queen were crap with Freddie Mercury - pompous, overblown, all style and no substance - and they will be crap fronted by grizzled bluesy shouter Paul Rodgers (an odd choice - like getting Mike Tyson to stand in for Wayne Sleep).
In the 30-year orgy of British groups, Queen were never more than a fake orgasm.
As a punishment, my first editor once sent me to see them at Wembley Arena. It was horrible - like a pantomime for thick adults.
These little islands have produced the greatest bands in popular music. The Who, Stones, Kinks, Beatles, Small Faces, Faces, Clash, Sex Pistols, Smiths, Stone Roses, Libertines - I could go on all day.
Queen were never the real thing. They made a few good singles because, for all Freddie Mercury's faults - a preening emptiness being the foremost - the old tart had a sense of humour. But Queen were always the most wildly overrated band in the world.
Apart from U2, of course.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Sarcasm, my dear sir. Just like the amazon.com reviewer.
fuck him, what does he know, the libertines, give me a break.
I can see where he's coming from.
He's part of an old tradition of British music journalists whose views on music are primarily led by the notion that "substance" and an attitude that is deemed subversive and political are the same, mixed with extreme fashion-consciousness.
In their view, too much melodic and harmonical content and arrangements too intricate spoil the music. Many of them are disgruntled ex-musicians who were absorbed by punk and new wave, brimming over with enthusiasm for the ideal of "everyone can make music", playing in bands themselves, only to gradually discover that this credo didn't tell the whole truth.
Others are complete non-experts and probably can't even tell the difference between a bass-guitar and a drum-stick.
They make a living of talking about things they basically know nothing about, writing reviews that are as "style over substance" and as far removed from discussing the actual music as possible.
If I'd think like that I'd hate Queen, too.
He's part of an old tradition of British music journalists whose views on music are primarily led by the notion that "substance" and an attitude that is deemed subversive and political are the same, mixed with extreme fashion-consciousness.
In their view, too much melodic and harmonical content and arrangements too intricate spoil the music. Many of them are disgruntled ex-musicians who were absorbed by punk and new wave, brimming over with enthusiasm for the ideal of "everyone can make music", playing in bands themselves, only to gradually discover that this credo didn't tell the whole truth.
Others are complete non-experts and probably can't even tell the difference between a bass-guitar and a drum-stick.
They make a living of talking about things they basically know nothing about, writing reviews that are as "style over substance" and as far removed from discussing the actual music as possible.
If I'd think like that I'd hate Queen, too.
Unfortunatly a lot of music journo's think it is credible to like anything which is trendy and cult but once it becomes popular to the masses then it must be crap. The Beatles got away with it because they were the first. Queen have always been easy targets generally liked by the masses. Unfortunatly Mr Parsons is now very much in the minority because most people of his age now admit (some grudgingly) to having liked Queen all along. Steve Jones (ex Pistols) admited on his US radio show that all the Pistols loved Queen and that the two bands became friends while recording in the same studios. It was a romantic notion that the punk bands couldn't play the truth was that bands like The Clash and The Damned certainly could. Punk was a kick up the backside for British music with artists like ELP,Yes, Genesis and Cliff dissappearing up there own arses.
Queen bashing was fashionable from 75 to 80 but anybody doing it in 2004 just loses all credibility and looks stupid. He's not expressing his opinion he is trying to look clever my money is on him owning at least one Queen album!!!
Queen bashing was fashionable from 75 to 80 but anybody doing it in 2004 just loses all credibility and looks stupid. He's not expressing his opinion he is trying to look clever my money is on him owning at least one Queen album!!!
i didn't know the pistols admitted to liking queen that's pretty nice info, and your right he looks dumb at this point, especially knowing the stones, the who, the beatles, and now learning the pistols all were and are queen fans, now who looks stupid.
My mums just shown me it in the Mirror. What a load of shit. Isn't that Tony Parsons a Barstard?
I mean, he is entitled to an opinion but insulting the best band in the world.
I mean, he is entitled to an opinion but insulting the best band in the world.
The thing I can't believe is the fact that people admit to reading The Mirror.
You ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves.
You ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves.
I thought the article was spot on.
The thing I can't believe is the fact that people admit to reading The Mirror.
You ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves.
My mum reads it. I don't actually read any papers only stuff like that if my mum points it out to me.
You ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves.
My mum reads it. I don't actually read any papers only stuff like that if my mum points it out to me.
Only thing I agreed with was what he said about U2. Massively overrated.
i have to agree about U2
I don`t think U2 is underrated in any way. About the rest, what I find odd is the Mike Tyson for Wayne Sleep remark. Way off.
two points:
1. i read two papers (plus one local one - b'ham evening mail) the mirror for sport and the independent
2. his opinion is flawed in many ways - if you read his books (which i do) you'll see that most most of his lead characters are Parson's clones
and they share a very similar taste and they tend to come from similar backgrounds - and appear to dislike the stuff they MOST identify with
1. i read two papers (plus one local one - b'ham evening mail) the mirror for sport and the independent
2. his opinion is flawed in many ways - if you read his books (which i do) you'll see that most most of his lead characters are Parson's clones
and they share a very similar taste and they tend to come from similar backgrounds - and appear to dislike the stuff they MOST identify with
Yep, few good singles. Like the one about "Mama"... not as good as "She's A Killer" or whatsitcalled.
Truth hurts.
Truth hurts.