230. A Night at the Opera, Queen
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5938174/the_rs_500_greatest_albums_of_all_time/
queen should be better rated imo...
Thread
Posts in chronological order
rolling stone magazine is rubbish and a piece of shit... its worse than Gregs archiving.
I clean up my cats shit with that magazine
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]theCro wrote: [/QUOTENAME]230. A Night at the Opera, Queen
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5938174/the_rs_500_greatest_albums_of_all_time/
queen should be better rated imo...[/QUOTE]
No, it belongs in that position, people got to learn that there is so much more to music then Queen. that article is old. Queen is great, but top 10 or even top 100 material? nu-uh..not in my opinion and apparantly lots of others.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5938174/the_rs_500_greatest_albums_of_all_time/
queen should be better rated imo...[/QUOTE]
No, it belongs in that position, people got to learn that there is so much more to music then Queen. that article is old. Queen is great, but top 10 or even top 100 material? nu-uh..not in my opinion and apparantly lots of others.
Rolling Stone has it's own agenda of praising artists they just 'personally' happen to like, and if you're "buddies" with the staff of editors and writers from Rolling Stone then you'll never get a bad review despite of how weak or poor is your work.
Music is irrelevant to Rolling Stone magazine. Their business is basically about doing friends a favor to help them sell their records.
How else do you expect that an absolutely talentless woman like Yoko Ono gets excellent album reviews when her only remarkable achievement in the music industry was breaking up the greatest band of all time?
Explain to me how Queen never got a better review than 3/5 stars, but Paris Hilton's new album gets 3 stars as well?
I'll never get tired of saying this...
FUCK ROLING STONE MAGAZINE!
Freddie was more than right to say that music critics were nothing but a bunch of frustrated musicians.
If people truly rely on finding good music based on what Rolling Stone writes, then I just pity them. It doesn't take a rocket scientiest to know that Rolling Stone doesn't know shit about music.
Music is irrelevant to Rolling Stone magazine. Their business is basically about doing friends a favor to help them sell their records.
How else do you expect that an absolutely talentless woman like Yoko Ono gets excellent album reviews when her only remarkable achievement in the music industry was breaking up the greatest band of all time?
Explain to me how Queen never got a better review than 3/5 stars, but Paris Hilton's new album gets 3 stars as well?
I'll never get tired of saying this...
FUCK ROLING STONE MAGAZINE!
Freddie was more than right to say that music critics were nothing but a bunch of frustrated musicians.
If people truly rely on finding good music based on what Rolling Stone writes, then I just pity them. It doesn't take a rocket scientiest to know that Rolling Stone doesn't know shit about music.
Alright, just looking at the list - not even thinking about Queen, I don't agree with it.
I like Led Zeppelin, but I think that IV was MUCH better than their debut. In fact, I don't think their debut album was that fantastic at all - pretty monotonous except for a few songs. BUT - this is my personal opinion, so I don't care if someone else disagrees - and I don't want to argue about it.
As I've said before, these lists are frivolous - you can't really make a list of "The Top 500 Albums". How do you judge 'better' ? It's personal taste (and, as Mr. Jingles mentioned, connections) for the most part.
I like Led Zeppelin, but I think that IV was MUCH better than their debut. In fact, I don't think their debut album was that fantastic at all - pretty monotonous except for a few songs. BUT - this is my personal opinion, so I don't care if someone else disagrees - and I don't want to argue about it.
As I've said before, these lists are frivolous - you can't really make a list of "The Top 500 Albums". How do you judge 'better' ? It's personal taste (and, as Mr. Jingles mentioned, connections) for the most part.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Alright, just looking at the list - not even thinking about Queen, I don't agree with it.
I like Led Zeppelin, but I think that IV was MUCH better than their debut. In fact, I don't think their debut album was that fantastic at all - pretty monotonous except for a few songs. BUT - this is my personal opinion, so I don't care if someone else disagrees - and I don't want to argue about it.
As I've said before, these lists are frivolous - you can't really make a list of "The Top 500 Albums". How do you judge 'better' ? It's personal taste (and, as Mr. Jingles mentioned, connections) for the most part.[/QUOTE]
Led Zepp I was released in '69, it had an impact in '69. Thats why it fared better. Led Zep IV was released in '71. Now if 1V was released in '69 maybe it would have been higher in the list. Cause Led Zep 1 was such a throw back to Jazz, that in 69 it was considerd awesome, by the time IV came out we had a thousand albums just like it. :)
I like Led Zeppelin, but I think that IV was MUCH better than their debut. In fact, I don't think their debut album was that fantastic at all - pretty monotonous except for a few songs. BUT - this is my personal opinion, so I don't care if someone else disagrees - and I don't want to argue about it.
As I've said before, these lists are frivolous - you can't really make a list of "The Top 500 Albums". How do you judge 'better' ? It's personal taste (and, as Mr. Jingles mentioned, connections) for the most part.[/QUOTE]
Led Zepp I was released in '69, it had an impact in '69. Thats why it fared better. Led Zep IV was released in '71. Now if 1V was released in '69 maybe it would have been higher in the list. Cause Led Zep 1 was such a throw back to Jazz, that in 69 it was considerd awesome, by the time IV came out we had a thousand albums just like it. :)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]SK wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Alright, just looking at the list - not even thinking about Queen, I don't agree with it.
I like Led Zeppelin, but I think that IV was MUCH better than their debut. In fact, I don't think their debut album was that fantastic at all - pretty monotonous except for a few songs. BUT - this is my personal opinion, so I don't care if someone else disagrees - and I don't want to argue about it.
As I've said before, these lists are frivolous - you can't really make a list of "The Top 500 Albums". How do you judge 'better' ? It's personal taste (and, as Mr. Jingles mentioned, connections) for the most part.[/QUOTE]
Led Zepp I was released in '69, it had an impact in '69. Thats why it fared better. Led Zep IV was released in '71. Now if 1V was released in '69 maybe it would have been higher in the list. Cause Led Zep 1 was such a throw back to Jazz, that in 69 it was considerd awesome, by the time IV came out we had a thousand albums just like it. :)[/QUOTE]
I can't definately understand that. But this just reminds me of difficult it is to single out a few albums as "better" or "top". Doing something like that is very subjective (so much to consider, which qualities outweigh which...)... I wouldn't want to be the one to have to do it.
I like Led Zeppelin, but I think that IV was MUCH better than their debut. In fact, I don't think their debut album was that fantastic at all - pretty monotonous except for a few songs. BUT - this is my personal opinion, so I don't care if someone else disagrees - and I don't want to argue about it.
As I've said before, these lists are frivolous - you can't really make a list of "The Top 500 Albums". How do you judge 'better' ? It's personal taste (and, as Mr. Jingles mentioned, connections) for the most part.[/QUOTE]
Led Zepp I was released in '69, it had an impact in '69. Thats why it fared better. Led Zep IV was released in '71. Now if 1V was released in '69 maybe it would have been higher in the list. Cause Led Zep 1 was such a throw back to Jazz, that in 69 it was considerd awesome, by the time IV came out we had a thousand albums just like it. :)[/QUOTE]
I can't definately understand that. But this just reminds me of difficult it is to single out a few albums as "better" or "top". Doing something like that is very subjective (so much to consider, which qualities outweigh which...)... I wouldn't want to be the one to have to do it.
Queen have never really been known for their albums, apart from ANATO and compilations, more than the singles they released off of them. IMO I do think Queen deserves a higher rating (although I am aware that there are much better albums to have been released by other bands so don't accuse me of being an obsessive fan, I don't think Queen deserved top) and I do think that Rolling Stone does go with it's own biased opinions, but had it been a different better magazine and maybe the poll had been 'best song/single' then Queen would have been considerably higher and their would have been more material on the list.
I agree with no.1 though, that was obvious, and I do think QUEEN aside that albums like Led Zep IV deserved higher placing. Again though that's my biased opinion. At the end of the day it's like Roger says you are reading someone else's take on things and their point of view.
I agree with no.1 though, that was obvious, and I do think QUEEN aside that albums like Led Zep IV deserved higher placing. Again though that's my biased opinion. At the end of the day it's like Roger says you are reading someone else's take on things and their point of view.
sk" you make me laugh, if you don't think anato is more creative than GNR or public enemy your nuts!...what are you doing in a queen forum if you think queen don't deserve to be mentioned with bands like nirvana and guns and poses, the sex pistols, ect. nirvana was kids play!
queen II, sha, anato, adatr, and notw are all classics
read the reviews and you get it that rolling stone hates queens guts
they just don´t get it
my advice, get over it
who cares about f***ing rolling stone
read what fellow musicians say about queen, look at the influence
you ve got def leppard, metallica, guns and roses, flaming lips, smashing pumpkins, green day, foo fighters, franz ferdinand, darkness etc. etc. citing queen as some form of influence
i think that is the only thing that matters
the impact they´ve made
read the reviews and you get it that rolling stone hates queens guts
they just don´t get it
my advice, get over it
who cares about f***ing rolling stone
read what fellow musicians say about queen, look at the influence
you ve got def leppard, metallica, guns and roses, flaming lips, smashing pumpkins, green day, foo fighters, franz ferdinand, darkness etc. etc. citing queen as some form of influence
i think that is the only thing that matters
the impact they´ve made
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color =QUEEEEEEEEEEEEN> BowieQueen wrote: [/QUOTENAME]IMO I do think Queen deserves a higher rating (although I am aware that there are much better albums to have been released by other bands so don't accuse me of being an obsessive fan, I don't think Queen deserved top) and I do think that Rolling Stone does go with it's own biased opinions, but had it been a different better magazine and maybe the poll had been 'best song/single' then Queen would have been considerably higher and their would have been more material on the list.
[/QUOTE]
Rolling Stone has got a top 500 list of songs as well, and the only Queen-entry is Bohemian Rhapsody at no. 163....
[/QUOTE]
Rolling Stone has got a top 500 list of songs as well, and the only Queen-entry is Bohemian Rhapsody at no. 163....
You know, I normally bash American stupidity in not giving Queen more respect, but I must say, even the stupidest of music listeners here aren't dumb enough to put 'ANATO' at 230. All that needs to be said is that the 'Beach Boys' have album #2 on their list.
It's like the Grammy awards... Rolling Stone likes to maintain a certain "hip, conniseurs of art" like quality about them. Notice, they never gave the Beatles or Led Zeppelin a grammy, or hardly even a nomination(none other than the losing nomination of the 'Sgt. Pepper' album. Yet a decade or more past their careers, reunion tracks no better in anyway compared to the band's known classics, manage to win grammys('Most High' by Robert Plant and Jimmy Page/'Freebird' and 'Real Love' by the Beatles).
I wrote off Rolling Stone Magazine a long time ago when I took the time to analyze their thoughts on the band Def Leppard. Basically they gave a lukewarm review to both 'Pyromania' and 'Hysteria', the two albums that surprised the public and revolutionized music of the time as much as any two albums can. After 4 years post Hysteria, they were without their genius(guitarist Steve Clark died) alive to help them, but with SO MUCH public awareness and anticipation, released a cheesy pop album called 'Adrenalize' which debuted at #1 and quickly went south once the word was out that the album was shit compared to the past two gems. The album singlehandedly trashed their reptuations as musicians of quality, and labeled them instead as a cheeeball pop/rock hybrid in search of commercial success. Their following albums have been considered by most to be both commercial and artistic dissapointments. My point is, ironic enough as it is, Rolling Stone's album critics gave 'Adrenalize' the overall highest review among Def Leppard's catalogue. What does this mean? They couldn't see Leppard's greatness until it was public perception, then they couldn't come down on the band during 'Adrenalize' because the magazine was too commercially conscious of what sells.
In short, the RS magazine critics suck ass, illustrating in depth their lack of credibility when it comes to musical discussion.
It's like the Grammy awards... Rolling Stone likes to maintain a certain "hip, conniseurs of art" like quality about them. Notice, they never gave the Beatles or Led Zeppelin a grammy, or hardly even a nomination(none other than the losing nomination of the 'Sgt. Pepper' album. Yet a decade or more past their careers, reunion tracks no better in anyway compared to the band's known classics, manage to win grammys('Most High' by Robert Plant and Jimmy Page/'Freebird' and 'Real Love' by the Beatles).
I wrote off Rolling Stone Magazine a long time ago when I took the time to analyze their thoughts on the band Def Leppard. Basically they gave a lukewarm review to both 'Pyromania' and 'Hysteria', the two albums that surprised the public and revolutionized music of the time as much as any two albums can. After 4 years post Hysteria, they were without their genius(guitarist Steve Clark died) alive to help them, but with SO MUCH public awareness and anticipation, released a cheesy pop album called 'Adrenalize' which debuted at #1 and quickly went south once the word was out that the album was shit compared to the past two gems. The album singlehandedly trashed their reptuations as musicians of quality, and labeled them instead as a cheeeball pop/rock hybrid in search of commercial success. Their following albums have been considered by most to be both commercial and artistic dissapointments. My point is, ironic enough as it is, Rolling Stone's album critics gave 'Adrenalize' the overall highest review among Def Leppard's catalogue. What does this mean? They couldn't see Leppard's greatness until it was public perception, then they couldn't come down on the band during 'Adrenalize' because the magazine was too commercially conscious of what sells.
In short, the RS magazine critics suck ass, illustrating in depth their lack of credibility when it comes to musical discussion.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]mike hunt wrote: [/QUOTENAME]sk" you make me laugh, if you don't think anato is more creative than GNR or public enemy your nuts!...what are you doing in a queen forum if you think queen don't deserve to be mentioned with bands like nirvana and guns and poses, the sex pistols, ect. nirvana was kids play![/QUOTE]
I didn't say that, I didn't agree with other choices either, All I'm saying is, if I had a top 100 or whatever Queen wouldn't be very high in it, due to the fact that their have been many wonderful, near perfect albums by many different artists. I'm on a Queen forum because I enjoy Queens music, but do I obbessess over it and believe that every album they ever done should be in the top 10? No, fuck no.
I didn't say that, I didn't agree with other choices either, All I'm saying is, if I had a top 100 or whatever Queen wouldn't be very high in it, due to the fact that their have been many wonderful, near perfect albums by many different artists. I'm on a Queen forum because I enjoy Queens music, but do I obbessess over it and believe that every album they ever done should be in the top 10? No, fuck no.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]SK wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Alright, just looking at the list - not even thinking about Queen, I don't agree with it.
I like Led Zeppelin, but I think that IV was MUCH better than their debut. In fact, I don't think their debut album was that fantastic at all - pretty monotonous except for a few songs. BUT - this is my personal opinion, so I don't care if someone else disagrees - and I don't want to argue about it.
As I've said before, these lists are frivolous - you can't really make a list of "The Top 500 Albums". How do you judge 'better' ? It's personal taste (and, as Mr. Jingles mentioned, connections) for the most part.[/QUOTE]
Led Zepp I was released in '69, it had an impact in '69. Thats why it fared better. Led Zep IV was released in '71. Now if 1V was released in '69 maybe it would have been higher in the list. Cause Led Zep 1 was such a throw back to Jazz, that in 69 it was considerd awesome, by the time IV came out we had a thousand albums just like it. :)[/QUOTE]
I can't definately understand that. But this just reminds me of difficult it is to single out a few albums as "better" or "top". Doing something like that is very subjective (so much to consider, which qualities outweigh which...)... I wouldn't want to be the one to have to do it.[/QUOTE]
Yes I definately understand what you mean. But, I think everyone who has musical knowledge can agree that the top 10 is pretty accurate. :)
I like Led Zeppelin, but I think that IV was MUCH better than their debut. In fact, I don't think their debut album was that fantastic at all - pretty monotonous except for a few songs. BUT - this is my personal opinion, so I don't care if someone else disagrees - and I don't want to argue about it.
As I've said before, these lists are frivolous - you can't really make a list of "The Top 500 Albums". How do you judge 'better' ? It's personal taste (and, as Mr. Jingles mentioned, connections) for the most part.[/QUOTE]
Led Zepp I was released in '69, it had an impact in '69. Thats why it fared better. Led Zep IV was released in '71. Now if 1V was released in '69 maybe it would have been higher in the list. Cause Led Zep 1 was such a throw back to Jazz, that in 69 it was considerd awesome, by the time IV came out we had a thousand albums just like it. :)[/QUOTE]
I can't definately understand that. But this just reminds me of difficult it is to single out a few albums as "better" or "top". Doing something like that is very subjective (so much to consider, which qualities outweigh which...)... I wouldn't want to be the one to have to do it.[/QUOTE]
Yes I definately understand what you mean. But, I think everyone who has musical knowledge can agree that the top 10 is pretty accurate. :)