Queen II vs Sheer Heart Attack: Rise or Retreat?

The vast majority prefer 'II' and consider it a more complex album. Now my question is, is it really that way? I mean, tastes aside, just because the songs in 'Sheer' aren't as "portentous" as 'II' it doesn't mean they're musically inferior. But otoh there are more mistakes on 'Sheer' than 'II'.

What do you all think?

i don;t like SHA as much as it has a more unblanced feel in it...Brian was ill...so the tour stopped, and this album is a little overblown with Brian=type arrangements...as he had loads of tme on his hands while convalescing...

queen II on the other hand, has a really creative feel and blend to it...

I find Sheer Heart Attack to be a bit more light-hearted than Queen II. Nevertheless, Queen II is my preferred album.

I agree! Queen II is my personal favorite as well. A VERY ambitious album for such a new and young band at the time. All the trademarks were in place and the creativity was really over the top. SHA on the other hand is still a very good album but a lot more "raw" sounding to my ears. Again, the tradmarks of a Queen performance are there but it sounds much grittier than Queen II and what was to come in the next several studio albums.

I think the album-feeling is much better on Queen II.

But there are of course many great songs on the Sheer Heart Attack album. Like In the Lap of the Gods, Killer Queen and Flick of the Wrist...

But I think Queen II and A Day at the Races are the best albums..

QII seems to be the more whole or organic piece, the cover art alone projects order and power, while the cover of SHA brims with chaos and explosive force. "March of the Black Queen" vs "Stone Cold Crazy" make some of the early setlists interesting, the surging wall of sound that only retreats after the final strains of "God Save the Queen." So I picked out my cd of Hammy Odeon '75 -- the December -- looks like now I want the November set at the same venue...

I too prefer Queen 2 over Sheer Heart Attack , it has more of a balance and was pure genious. A sign of good things to come.

I find a good album doesn't have to be complex and sophisticated.

I like catchy things. I don't find much on Queen II catchy. I've got the album and have listened to it many times and I don't find it catchy. I like the self titled album better. I think, Queen is an over-rated album amongst Queen fans. I think they like it because it's strange and different. But I don't find it catchy. I find Hot Space to be more catchy than anything on Queen II. Stuff on Queen II is forgettable. It may be complex and sophisticated, but it is also forgettable. The lyrics on Queen II are VERY more genious than anything Queen has done, yet some can be naive and immature. If Father To Son didn't mention the words 'Father to son... to son' I'd actually like it more. The smallest of things can ruin a song for me. Ogre Battle is one of my favorite songs on Queen II... but it's lyrics are very weird. I like weird things, but it goes down to hilarious. The Fairy Feller's Master Stroke reminds me of masterbation. I just don't like fairy tale themes.

My Queen II personal highlights are Funny How Love Is, Seven Seas Of Rhye, Nevermore, Ogre Battle, and March Of The Black Queen.

I like this album, but some of it can be too long and un-catchy.

Queen2 is my personal favorite, but SHA is really the beginning of the queen era as we know it. I disagree with some of the above comments, I think SHA has a better balance of music than queen2 has. A variety of styles that made queen famous like the combination of hard rock/metal like "stoned cold crazy" and "brighton rock/now I'm here" and other styles like the broadway rock "bring back that leroy brown" and "killer queen." Mixing of styles was a huge part of queens career and that was lacking on the queen2 album. If I had to pick one of these albums for myself I would say Queen2, It's my favorite album of all time, but if I was trying to get a friend into queens music I would start with SHA, ANATO and ADATR.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME].*.Messenger: Jake Pyndle.*. wrote: [/QUOTENAME]

I like this album, but some of it can be too long and un-catchy. [/QUOTE]


LOL...sounds like you're actually talking about Metallica's "...and justice for all"

Hi i agree with mike hunt view and also having gone down the road twice with "queen" and "queen 2" i think they were looking for a new direction, you know new sounding material hard rock, jazz pop even and trying out new ideas.

You most probably know this but by mid 74 brian was basically out of action and his input wasn't put in at the time, it was done a lot later when he was well enough and the way it was recorded not having brian around for great periods of time would paint a different picture and lastly you have roger and now john deacon penning tunes so the mixture of sounds on the album would be evident.

I love queen 2 it's my fave album along with SHA queen 2 has a cohesive feel to it where as SHA has the same (Tenement funsiter thru to lily of the valley) so the fading into songs which was evident on queen 2 was still done on SHA.

It's like the Star Trek movies; the even ones are better: Queen II, ANATO, NOTW, The Game, The Works....okay it ends there because Innuendo is better than The Miracle and I don't count Flash or GH. Although there are some great songs and musical ideas, SHA seems more of a "left overs" album. Still terrific, though. I prefer Queen II.

They are different albums really, yes I know SHA is another album which, like Queen II, plays heavily on harmonies and guitar...um...stuff but SHA sounds like the album that solidified Queen's sound in the Seventies whilst during Queen II they were still finding their feet.

Plus there's the portentous feel to Queen II the continous aspect that SHA doesn't have to such an extent. But that works as well.


I definitely don't think SHA is a 'left-overs' album on the contrary it's got newer sounding material, playing down on the screams from Roger and up from the guitar from Brian.

Though although they are different they are similar in that the arrangements are so complex etc. Queen II was just the less polished album as it was earlier, by SHA the result was cleaner and after that they had the ultimately more polished ANATO and ADATR. So SHA and Queen II are both fabulous albums in their own right. They both bore outrageous stuff and they both had the individual Queen stamp on everything. I can't decide which one I prefer because however polished one or t'other is they both work so well in their differences.


Mind, if the two albums were released today I think SHA would do better. It's just a broader base of songs. Queen II's clever but the fairytale theme just wouldn't appeal to the mass. Not that it matters of course.

It's apples and oranges, but I would say the production on SHA is far more clear and less muddy than Q and QII. The drum sounds in particular. There is that same mixed-bag eclecticism you don't see in the later albums, so I can see people making the comparison.

In a lot of ways, thought, it's the perfect bridge album between QII and ANATO. So I'd vote for "rise."

I much prefer SHA...I don't see what all the fuss is about with Queen II.