Freddie proves the critics wrong again!

You see, the thing about critics is that they think that writing a negative review or saying something bad about a well-liked, sucessful, band/person/artist/actor/director/mother-in-law, will make them look smart - because anyone who doesn't agree is obviously not that intelligent, you know.

I'm speaking in general here. I'm not opining one way or another about Freddie's solo stuff, since I've still not got my hands on it (except for the few songs that come with "regular" Queen products). This is my general experience from reading reviews by sneering critics in the paper.

OOh, Mike's starting to twist and turn like a twisty turny thing in a twisty turny place at the most twisty turny time of day.

First he says that "high sales = counteracting criticsm".

I respond with "not high sales"

He responds with "chart positions no measure of artistry"

2/10 Mike. Try and keep logic in the vicinity next time.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Penetration_Guru wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So while Barcelona (album) hit the dizzy heights of number 15, it was back out of the chart within 8 weeks. Both Flash Gordon & Hot Space had longer runs on the chart than that, and I'd call anyone that claimed the Flash album was successful a stepford.


[/QUOTE]

Slightly off topic: a soundtrack album with only 3 tracks with a commonly accepted "song structure", to a film that was only a medium hit in europe and a complete flop in the US. Result: Top 30 in america and Top 10 in the most important markets in europe. One of Queen's biggest single hits in germany at the time. Without being stepford, but under the given cricumstances it was quite successful.

"You see, the thing about critics is that they think that writing a negative review or saying something bad about a well-liked, sucessful, band/person/artist/actor/director/mother-in-law, will make them look smart - because anyone who doesn't agree is obviously not that intelligent, you know"

That's a really unfair generalisation. Well liked and successful artists sometimes write real bad songs or books or make real bad movies or paintings. It's the right of the critic to call a bad book or painting bad. If you are interested in art, literature and music you will know the respected critics in your country and their reviews will help you to avoid spending your hard earned money on inferior products. Of course, there are useless critics in cheap tabloids but you really do not need to read them.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=?B2F><b>Crezchi wrote: [/QUOTENAME]


Yes you are correct, but here in the USA, back in 1993, we heard The great pretender & Living on my own on the radio constantly. :) The newer versions anyways.[/QUOTE]

What USA did you live in? Not the same one I did, apparently.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"You see, the thing about critics is that they think that writing a negative review or saying something bad about a well-liked, sucessful, band/person/artist/actor/director/mother-in-law, will make them look smart - because anyone who doesn't agree is obviously not that intelligent, you know"

That's a really unfair generalisation. Well liked and successful artists sometimes write real bad songs or books or make real bad movies or paintings. It's the right of the critic to call a bad book or painting bad. If you are interested in art, literature and music you will know the respected critics in your country and their reviews will help you to avoid spending your hard earned money on inferior products. Of course, there are useless critics in cheap tabloids but you really do not need to read them.[/QUOTE]

I know they're not ALL bad... but... It's hard to find an "unbiased" oninion of anything in any of the papers or magazine's I read. For instance, I find that my opinion of a movie is usually opposite the review in "People Magazine". So, I suppose the remarkable consistancy is something to go by...

I think it would be more constructive if a magazine or paper published reviews from two differnt critics (preferably opposing viewpoints).

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=660066>Fredlilah<h6>12345678 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color="green">The Fairy King wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LongLostMercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]verygood wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I never doubted that man, i always thought he was God.[/QUOTE]

isnt he? :D[/QUOTE]

God is gay?[/QUOTE]
Of course. He's even got the lisp! :D[/QUOTE]

I could see vivival having a heart attack after reading that...

Mr guru, I'm not twisting anywhere. The fact remains, The new freddie DVD is #1 and the new best of debuted at #6. That seems like success to me. From a artistic point of view barcelona was a huge success like queen2 was, in that the general public don't get, but the album still has a fan base. Answer one question Mr. guru, Was barcelona (the song) a top ten hit twice?...if so, is that success?...Mr. bad guy had some great moments, but was inconsistent as a whole. I'm not arguing that, but one shaky album and one brilliant piece of art is not failure in my opinion. another question Mr. Guru, What do you think of the song in my defence?...and where did it place on the charts?...did it make the top ten? was it a genious vocal performance?....if so, does that make a success?....waiting for your reply Mr. guru!

I'm sorry, your first criterion was sales, your second was artistic geniousitiness.

Please specify which of these entirely separate criteria you would like to use in order to "prove" your point.

Mr. Guru, I'm using both artistic success and sales to prove my point. Both of those points are what success means.

I always thought he was a musical god - but Lord and Jesus are still number one and I don't think that would ever change, maybe Freddie can be right behind them...



He would like to be underneath them :P

Or For Them To Be Ontop Of Him, Take Your Pic.