I have that entire RS article. It is quite lengthy which is great just for the fact that Queen was given so much press in that Micky Mouse publication. (Sorry Mr. Disney) They report on the tour & do recgonize that it was monumental in its undertaking. But in the end it becomes a hatchet job by the reporter. Yes he based his entire review of their performance on the SOUND CHECK!! I haven't read the article in years so much of it escapes me. I do remember thinking that to a casual reader/non-fan iit wouldn't do anything to spark any intrest in the band.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I have that entire RS article. It is quite lengthy which is great just for the fact that Queen was given so much press in that Micky Mouse publication. (Sorry Mr. Disney) They report on the tour & do recgonize that it was monumental in its undertaking. But in the end it becomes a hatchet job by the reporter. Yes he based his entire review of their performance on the SOUND CHECK!! I haven't read the article in years so much of it escapes me. I do remember thinking that to a casual reader/non-fan iit wouldn't do anything to spark any intrest in the band.
Hey...watch it! Mickey Mouse releases Queen's records in the USA, (Disney owns Hollywood Records!) Lol.
BTW, do you still have a copy of that Rolling Stone article you can scan and post on QZ? I really want to see THEIR lousy article...that caused Roger to write his Wonderful reply. Thanks!
So, still no sign of the original RS article?
While I admire Brian's ability to be humble and gracious, Roger is the kind of guy who simply says it as it is. Love 'em both.
What year is this response from, anyway? Perhaps 81, because of its reference to Queen in South America... ??
8 months before his solo album came out (at least, that's what he mentions somewhere at the end).
edit: Bloody hell, I just read this topic is 2 years old, sorry for responding. This topic should be ignored.....
edit
WHOOO!! Go Roger! I love when people like him don't take shit from anyone.
You suck.
I couldn't have said it any better or been more descriptive.
Hahahahaha...
That pretty much said it all Rog...
That pretty much said it all Rog...
go roger.
Ignoring a serious question? I was planning on teaching my pupils some reading skills using the article and Roger's response, and since I still haven't found the original Rolling Stone article, I was asking if someone might have acquired it within those 2 years.
Thank you very much.
Hilarious!
Everyone has their own taste and opinion about music, who's good, who's not, etc. I love Tarantino films, but some dislike his work and I can imagine why. I love NBA basketball but so many people don't and I can understand why. But of all cultural and artistic creations I love Queen's music best and cannot in any way identify how one could not be amazed by it.
I concede that it just doesn't work for some people. But for a magazine like Rolling Stone to constantly treat them like a second rate act instead of the truth in that they are probably the single most popular rock band worldwide in history is just amazing. How can Rolling Stone go from writers to editors to publishers to print with such disrespect to them? It invalidates their magazine and produces a sense that they either have a personal issue with Queen, or they simply should start riding about cooking recipes because they don't know jack about music.
If they swapped Queen with the Beach Boys they would be a lot more accurate with their assesment.
Everyone has their own taste and opinion about music, who's good, who's not, etc. I love Tarantino films, but some dislike his work and I can imagine why. I love NBA basketball but so many people don't and I can understand why. But of all cultural and artistic creations I love Queen's music best and cannot in any way identify how one could not be amazed by it.
I concede that it just doesn't work for some people. But for a magazine like Rolling Stone to constantly treat them like a second rate act instead of the truth in that they are probably the single most popular rock band worldwide in history is just amazing. How can Rolling Stone go from writers to editors to publishers to print with such disrespect to them? It invalidates their magazine and produces a sense that they either have a personal issue with Queen, or they simply should start riding about cooking recipes because they don't know jack about music.
If they swapped Queen with the Beach Boys they would be a lot more accurate with their assesment.
The following is Rolling Stone Magazine's June 20th 1974 review of the album Queen II.
Queen is a reasonably talented band who have chosen their models unwisely. On "Side Black," they venture into a lyrically muddled fairy-tale world with none of Genesis's wit or sophistication. They've also appropriated the most irritating elements of Yes's style — histrionic vocals, abrupt and pointless compositional complexity, and a dearth of melody. "Side White" is quite an improvement, containing many of the same muddled tendencies, but with the saving grace of timely and well-chosen power chords and some rather pretty tunes. But the album remains a floundering and sadly unoriginal affair. (RS 163)
KEN BARNES
Let's see... publication credibility on the subject of rock music = 0.000
Rolling Stone Magazine sucks more than anything else ever published, including the worst tabloids ever. And this Ken Barnes guy clearly is a joke. "But the album remains a floundering and sadly unoriginal affair." Queen II. Unoriginal. $20 says Freddie, Brian, Roger or John dissed this guy somehow. Surely one who can write and writes about music wouldn't feel this way about Queen's early masterpiece. That's too far beyond my comprehension.
Queen is a reasonably talented band who have chosen their models unwisely. On "Side Black," they venture into a lyrically muddled fairy-tale world with none of Genesis's wit or sophistication. They've also appropriated the most irritating elements of Yes's style — histrionic vocals, abrupt and pointless compositional complexity, and a dearth of melody. "Side White" is quite an improvement, containing many of the same muddled tendencies, but with the saving grace of timely and well-chosen power chords and some rather pretty tunes. But the album remains a floundering and sadly unoriginal affair. (RS 163)
KEN BARNES
Let's see... publication credibility on the subject of rock music = 0.000
Rolling Stone Magazine sucks more than anything else ever published, including the worst tabloids ever. And this Ken Barnes guy clearly is a joke. "But the album remains a floundering and sadly unoriginal affair." Queen II. Unoriginal. $20 says Freddie, Brian, Roger or John dissed this guy somehow. Surely one who can write and writes about music wouldn't feel this way about Queen's early masterpiece. That's too far beyond my comprehension.
I think I posted a copy of his letter to Rolling Stone here on the QZ.
Can't find on the QZ -- here it is from my site, scanned:
http://danielnester.com/photos/RogerRSletterc1981.JPG
Enjoy!
http://danielnester.com/photos/RogerRSletterc1981.JPG
Enjoy!
Read the Amazon reviews on Rolling Stone's latest Album Guide...no one else takes Rolling Stone seriously either thankfully:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FNew-Rolling-Stone-Album-Guide%2Fdp%2F0743201698%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1177797302%26sr%3D8-1&tag=jimshomepag06-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FNew-Rolling-Stone-Album-Guide%2Fdp%2F0743201698%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1177797302%26sr%3D8-1&tag=jimshomepag06-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325