Personally I find 90's Queen (Innuendo) to be the best. I pretty much like every song on that album.
But between 70's and 80's i would say i terms of singles released 80's but in terms of albums 70's
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE] [b]Doga wrote:[/b]
in the 80s there were another ingredients in the mix (parties, royalties, egos...)[/QUOTE]
To be fair, that stuff was around in the 70s too.
The Jazz album launch party is the most famous and probably the most hedonistic one of all.
When Roger received his first cheque for I'm In Love With My Car, that resulted in a feud with Brian that lasted for ages.
And egos were there from day one. It was the very thing that made them great - how strongly opinionated they all were. They were truly a collective, at least on those first 6 albums. Every band is united with the goal of making a lot of money and being successful. Once you achieve that, things almost always fall apart in one way or another.
in the 80s there were another ingredients in the mix (parties, royalties, egos...)[/QUOTE]
To be fair, that stuff was around in the 70s too.
The Jazz album launch party is the most famous and probably the most hedonistic one of all.
When Roger received his first cheque for I'm In Love With My Car, that resulted in a feud with Brian that lasted for ages.
And egos were there from day one. It was the very thing that made them great - how strongly opinionated they all were. They were truly a collective, at least on those first 6 albums. Every band is united with the goal of making a lot of money and being successful. Once you achieve that, things almost always fall apart in one way or another.
To answer the original question - absolutely the 70s, hands down. Their image was interesting and unique, and they created sounds nobody else was creating. Their creative peak was 1974-77, and their live shows peaked 1976-79. There were glimmers of good in the 80s, but their Sgt Pepper was inarguably A Night At The Opera. Bohemian Rhapsody will be enjoyed centuries from now.
70s for me. I like the sense of experiencing and jamming in their early works.
Though they were perfectly self-confident in it.
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
When Roger received his first cheque for I'm In Love With My Car, that resulted in a feud with Brian that lasted for ages.
[/QUOTE]
May I know more of this, please?
I seemed to always have read that it was a feud between Roger and Freddie around I'm In Love With My Car.
Didn't know that there was Brian too.
Was he displeased because he thought his song should have been on that B-side?
Do we really know it lasted for ages?
I'm curious to which song Freddie thought should be on that B-side when he initially said "no" to Roger. But we'll probably never have any lights on that matter.
Though they were perfectly self-confident in it.
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
When Roger received his first cheque for I'm In Love With My Car, that resulted in a feud with Brian that lasted for ages.
[/QUOTE]
May I know more of this, please?
I seemed to always have read that it was a feud between Roger and Freddie around I'm In Love With My Car.
Didn't know that there was Brian too.
Was he displeased because he thought his song should have been on that B-side?
Do we really know it lasted for ages?
I'm curious to which song Freddie thought should be on that B-side when he initially said "no" to Roger. But we'll probably never have any lights on that matter.
[QUOTE] [b]hobbit-in-Rhye wrote:[/b]
I seemed to always have read that it was a feud between Roger and Freddie around I'm In Love With My Car.
Didn't know that there was Brian too.
Was he displeased because he thought his song should have been on that B-side?
[/QUOTE]
From what I've read - Brian wanted '39, but they ended up deciding on Roger's track instead. I'm not sure of Freddie's role as mediator here (if any) versus the A&R guys at the record companies. This is the stuff they never talked about.
So Freddie and Roger were making the big bucks for a while before Brian and John caught up. But of course, only the players involved can tell us precisely how much bad blood there was, and for how long.
There really is no point in trying to quantify the relationships between a band that lasted for 20 years. But in the 70s, the band was, as Brian later put it, 98% of their lives. So after all their financial difficulties under the Sheffield brothers, this was undoubtedly a big deal.
It's no coincidence that Brian got the b-side on Queen's next two singles. Even on the Polish version of Somebody To Love, the B side was Long Away.
I seemed to always have read that it was a feud between Roger and Freddie around I'm In Love With My Car.
Didn't know that there was Brian too.
Was he displeased because he thought his song should have been on that B-side?
[/QUOTE]
From what I've read - Brian wanted '39, but they ended up deciding on Roger's track instead. I'm not sure of Freddie's role as mediator here (if any) versus the A&R guys at the record companies. This is the stuff they never talked about.
So Freddie and Roger were making the big bucks for a while before Brian and John caught up. But of course, only the players involved can tell us precisely how much bad blood there was, and for how long.
There really is no point in trying to quantify the relationships between a band that lasted for 20 years. But in the 70s, the band was, as Brian later put it, 98% of their lives. So after all their financial difficulties under the Sheffield brothers, this was undoubtedly a big deal.
It's no coincidence that Brian got the b-side on Queen's next two singles. Even on the Polish version of Somebody To Love, the B side was Long Away.
Thank you^^
I would have prefered '39, or Good Company, for that B-side, but I'm In Love With My Car was not bad in its own merits.
Still, how many good Queen songs have slipped out of public's attention.
I would have prefered '39, or Good Company, for that B-side, but I'm In Love With My Car was not bad in its own merits.
Still, how many good Queen songs have slipped out of public's attention.
Interesting how they haven't commented on any feuds (if there were any to begin with) between Freddie and Brian because of 'Another One Bites the Dust'. Brian's song was the B-side in Britain, where it sold a couple hundred thousand at most; Freddie's song was the B-side in America, where it could've sold anything between two and four million. That means Freddie got probably over ten times as much money as Brian did.
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b] Bohemian Rhapsody will be enjoyed centuries from now.
[/QUOTE]
yeah...no doubt on Greatest Hits (reissue 456,000)
the Synapse Digital Interface version
[/QUOTE]
yeah...no doubt on Greatest Hits (reissue 456,000)
the Synapse Digital Interface version
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
Interesting how they haven't commented on any feuds (if there were any to begin with) between Freddie and Brian because of 'Another One Bites the Dust'. Brian's song was the B-side in Britain, where it sold a couple hundred thousand at most; Freddie's song was the B-side in America, where it could've sold anything between two and four million. That means Freddie got probably over ten times as much money as Brian did.[/QUOTE]
Oupp, Brian missed it big time. Twice. BoRhap then AOBDust.
Poor soul.
Then, I feel like there are hundreds of Freddie and Brian's feuds that no one will open up. About whose songs were going into the album/singles, whose songs were going to the stage live, who sings what, who get credits for what, etc.
Interesting how they haven't commented on any feuds (if there were any to begin with) between Freddie and Brian because of 'Another One Bites the Dust'. Brian's song was the B-side in Britain, where it sold a couple hundred thousand at most; Freddie's song was the B-side in America, where it could've sold anything between two and four million. That means Freddie got probably over ten times as much money as Brian did.[/QUOTE]
Oupp, Brian missed it big time. Twice. BoRhap then AOBDust.
Poor soul.
Then, I feel like there are hundreds of Freddie and Brian's feuds that no one will open up. About whose songs were going into the album/singles, whose songs were going to the stage live, who sings what, who get credits for what, etc.
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/
Some of those bits might have been in fact recorded in the 70's, depending on which bits you're referring to. Still, 40% of the album was made in 1979.[/QUOTE]
Exactly how many of the songs recorded in the first sessions were tracked to completion is open to question. Therefore so is the 40% claim.
With most of the songs and any final parts being recorded in 1980 as was the final mixing and mastering and release date it is quite clearly an 80's album
Some of those bits might have been in fact recorded in the 70's, depending on which bits you're referring to. Still, 40% of the album was made in 1979.[/QUOTE]
Exactly how many of the songs recorded in the first sessions were tracked to completion is open to question. Therefore so is the 40% claim.
With most of the songs and any final parts being recorded in 1980 as was the final mixing and mastering and release date it is quite clearly an 80's album
According to the liner notes, four songs were *recorded* in summer 1979 (as opposed to merely *started off* then).
Unless (until?) there's more detailed evidence, it's safe to reckon those four songs were indeed completed (including mixing) in 1979.
Therefore, 40% of the album was done in the 70's.
By the way, are you selectively following my posts? Is there an option to subscribe to them? You seem to be quite interested.
Unless (until?) there's more detailed evidence, it's safe to reckon those four songs were indeed completed (including mixing) in 1979.
Therefore, 40% of the album was done in the 70's.
By the way, are you selectively following my posts? Is there an option to subscribe to them? You seem to be quite interested.
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
it's safe to reckon those four songs were indeed completed (including mixing) in 1979.
By the way, are you selectively following my posts? Is there an option to subscribe to them? You seem to be quite interested.[/QUOTE]
I posted in answer to your point about my post! So I could ask the same question of you!
As for mixing, it would be unusual to start mixing halfway through the recording of an album. Although Save Me and CLTCL quite clearly were, but that was with the intention of an early release of those songs as singles.
it's safe to reckon those four songs were indeed completed (including mixing) in 1979.
By the way, are you selectively following my posts? Is there an option to subscribe to them? You seem to be quite interested.[/QUOTE]
I posted in answer to your point about my post! So I could ask the same question of you!
As for mixing, it would be unusual to start mixing halfway through the recording of an album. Although Save Me and CLTCL quite clearly were, but that was with the intention of an early release of those songs as singles.
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
As for mixing, it would be unusual to start mixing halfway through the recording of an album.[/QUOTE]
It really depends on the album in question. Definitely a topic that deserves more research. For the moment, I agree to disagree.
As for mixing, it would be unusual to start mixing halfway through the recording of an album.[/QUOTE]
It really depends on the album in question. Definitely a topic that deserves more research. For the moment, I agree to disagree.