Did queen hurt their legacy?

I don't understand how it can be a good song but not a good Queen song?

Even on the early albums they used to have compleatly different styles of music, look at Sheer Hear Attack, it had bring back leroy brown and brighton rock on the same album.

I don't understand people when they say Queen used to be a heavey rock band, No they were musicains trying different styles all the way through.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]liam wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Ive always said Queen were like a completely different band in the 80's. Its quite ridiculas the change they had. Now im not saying i dont like their 80's stuff but we gotta be serious here. The same band that made borhap, motbq, millionaire waltz, we r the champs etc etc, released pop shizen like radio gaga and iwtbf. Its hard to contemplate at times, how much of a change they went. Now radio gaga and iwtbf are good pop songs but they arnt good queen songs.

Im going to be hammered for this but if i herd iwtbf and it wasnt a queen song i'd think another shit 80's pop song, but because its made by queen i feel i have to like it.[/QUOTE]
Well I don't like I Want to Break Free (shitty 80's pop song) as much as I don't like (for example) Sweet Lady or Loser At The End (shitty 70's rock songs IMO). Why you HAVE to like all songs that queen did unless you are crazy fanatic?

Excellent topic, and good posts here. Did they hurt their legacy with the 80s albums? Don't think so. None of the 70s groups had particularly strong stuff in the 80s, save Pink Floyd with The Wall, and they didn't fare well after that. Queen had to change or be faced with being dinosaurs. The problem is, they were a 3 piece rock combo on their best stuff, with piano also adding flavour. When they went synth heavy, they lost the verve of Freddie's piano playing style, and Brian's guitar disappeared. So it was still well sung and written, but lacking the key elements of Queen's style. Plus, and what I think the key is, is that on the 'odd' Queen songs like Leroy Brown, Good Company, Mustapha, Seaside, etc., Queen 'lived' that music. They grew up in houses with trad jazz, and show tunes and in Freddie's case, eastern influenced music. With stuff like Dancer, it's apparent that Brian is out of his element as he was trying to contribute a dance track and it's plodding. He wasn't part of the dance scene, and it showed. However, they had to do it to keep the band going, and while it paled in comparison to the quality of the 70s catalogue, I don't think I'd want to hear the same song with a different variation all the time, a la AC/DC. Theire variety is what made them great, and what hurt their stature as a rock band.

i would think brian working with five, robbie williams, britney spears, pink etc and using the daft "queen +" tag has done far more damage to the queen brand than the 80's albums. oh, and the plod rock pseudo reformation with paul rodgers can't have done much good either.

How did it hurt? They were the biggest stadium band of the 80's.The songs they played at the concerts were mainly from the 80's. The Wembley 86 DVD is still one of the top selling DVDs today.

I think if Queen would've stopped in 1980 they never would've gotten so big as they are now

What Fried Chicken said is too true. That's the thing, their best work artistically is their least known work. They sold tons of stuff that wasn't close to their earlier stuff in quality, at that time they were a great singles band, but creatively their best days were behind them. And personally, despite Freddie's command of the audience in the 80s, I think their live shows of the 70s were far greater and rockier.

Topics like this are very interesting and also pure opinion and speculation as to what the band's motives were behind their albums. If you take the catalogue as a whole, Hot Space and The Miracle are weak (songs and production). But if you listen to each album for what it is, you might see it in a different light. Imagine if you will the following: The Game was a success and fans are waiting in line for the new Queen album. Fans buy it and take it home and listen immediately. Disappointment. So fans have to wait and The Works comes out. Fans take it home and listen. Pretty damn good in comparison. I admit it didn't seem like the effort was put in to the 80's albums as the 70's. But the 70's were experimental. By the time the 80's rolled around, producers and engineers wanted short, poppy, electronic sounds. But it was the times. Queen wanted to reinvent themselves, although not always successful. They wanted new, younger fans to enjoy their music. In the age of MTV, there weren't any bands who were making music like that of the 70's and making videos to 61/2 or 7 minute songs. The corporate suits came in and fucked up the music industry for a long time. Sorry for the rambling. Good post.

no they didn t... that s my opinion. queen always were moving to different directions, they had the same obligations in the 70 s than in the 80 s, they had to persuade the audience...
when u listen to jazz u know where they would go, roger wrote the songs that went a little bit funkier. iwtbf isn t crap, people make always the connection to the video, what would have been if they had done another video similar to iwia or potu? sure akom is weak but it is a soundtrack, much better than flash. i think they had better done a double album the game/flash. hot space is a good produced album, different... but if u r a listening to it today im sure u ll discover that it has real good songs... sure back in 1982 it was surely a schock for queen fans, pople who discovered the band for the album of the 70 s.

and another thing, if freddie would be alive what do u think they would have recorded, and do not take innuendo as a reference because its alittle bit biographic, i m sure they would have done the same recording than u 2 for example or the stones : they would have taken producers of the time like pharrel williams for example. u know that mack produced for pink floyd or the stones in the eighties?

Not so bad, when you say that "sure akom is weak but it is a soundtrack, much better than flash", you're saying that 1 of the first 4 Queen albums in the 80s is weak, but it's still stronger than another of their earlier 80s albums, I don't think it gives much value to the fact they did good stuff in the 80s. I don't think any Queen fans from the 70s would find much fault until Jazz, which is still IMHO 100 times better tahn AKOM or the Works or the Miracle.

i only compare it to flash, akom is in my opinion only a soundtrack, a work for what they had been paid to make highlander a hit, u can t rate akom... i mean u can t compare it to the works or the miracle.. just to flash

They were extremly diverse,and I think its wonderful!

but I will add,their 70s music was better...they really couldnt have been successful in the 80s with the same music as the 70s,ya know

Personally i like their stuff from 80 on better then they earlier stuff , altho dont get me wrong i like all their stuff but i prefer their later stuff,eventho Queen II and NOTW r 2 of my fave albums of theirs.