freddiefan91 30.03.2010 10:56 |
The album might not be liked by many people but when some of the songs were sung during the hot space tour ,the songs came across really well |
Winter Land Man 30.03.2010 11:36 |
I personally love the album. |
pittrek 30.03.2010 11:56 |
The songs are great, but the album sucks, if you understand what I'm trying to say :-) |
rhyeking 30.03.2010 20:01 |
I really discovered Queen in the spring of 1993. Freddie was gone and the band had seemlingly come to an end. I was at a point in my teens where I seeking out something different from what my peers were listening to (Nirvana, Pearl Jam, bad '90s dance music). I was delving into the '60 and '70s. I bought Classic Queen and was hooked. I began buying the albums and was impressed at the many directions Queen chose to take in their career. It's funny that even though Hot Space took time to grow on me, not once did I think, "How stupid, disco and funk!" After all, who was I to judge? Maybe it would be different if I'd been a fan in the '70s and HS was new. Maybe, but probably not. Hot Space exists for me the way all Queen releases exist. They simply *are," I like most, but not all, but I accept them equally and try to understand what went into making them and what the enviroment and inspiration was around them. I don't really evaluate them, even if I don't like a song. An easy trap to get into is: I don't like it, therefore it sucks. Or another common trap is comparing releases: The Works is no Queen II, therefore it sucks. I say to you, in the spirit of a friendly challenge, try to step out of yourself and look at a work objectively. Ask yourself the following questions: What inspired this direct in the band? What else were they doing, either in their solo careers or in the trends influencing them at the time? How much craftsmanship went into the work and why did they make certain creative decisions? There are no right or wrong answers and no one is expecting that you'll suddenly fall in love with that which you previously disliked, but maybe...just maybe...you won't not-like it as much. |
Sebastian 31.03.2010 03:52 |
> It's funny that even though Hot Space took time to grow on me, not once did I think, "How stupid, disco and funk!" The problem is not the style, but the way they did it. Things like Body Language are mediocre at best. Not because of the genre, but because of performance. > I don't really evaluate them, even if I don't like a song. Good for you. And it would be silly (no, it would be stupid) to try to convince you to evaluate them. Similarly, those who do like to evaluate them are entitled to. > An easy trap to get into is: I don't like it, therefore it sucks. It would be stupid to think that way. But yes, many people do. > The Works is no Queen II, therefore it sucks. Loads of albums are no Queen II and don't suck; loads of albums are no Queen II and suck. The Works is on the latter group. > I say to you, in the spirit of a friendly challenge, try to step out of yourself and look at a work objectively. Objectively: performance is sub-par for the band, songwriting is sub-par for the band, production is sub-par for the band. Therefore, the album's sub-par for the band. > What inspired this direct in the band? The problem's not the direction, but the way they embraced it, by playing way way way way less-good than they could. > What else were they doing, either in their solo careers or in the trends influencing them at the time? Regardless of that, if the final product's not good enough, it's not good enough. The problem's not the direction, but the way they embraced it, by playing way way way way less-good than they could. > How much craftsmanship went into the work and why did they make certain creative decisions? Regardless of that, if the final product's not good enough, it's not good enough. The problem's not the direction, but the way they embraced it, by playing way way way way less-good than they could. > There are no right or wrong answers Actually, there are: it's wrong to say, for instance, 'Nirvana inspired that direct in the band'. It's also wrong to say: 'hip-hop music influenced them'. So there ARE wrong answers. |
Soundfreak 31.03.2010 04:33 |
rhyeking wrote: I really discovered Queen in the spring of 1993. Freddie was gone and the band had seemlingly come to an end. I was at a point in my teens where I seeking out something different from what my peers were listening to (Nirvana, Pearl Jam, bad '90s dance music). I was delving into the '60 and '70s. I bought Classic Queen and was hooked. I began buying the albums and was impressed at the many directions Queen chose to take in their career. It's funny that even though Hot Space took time to grow on me, not once did I think, "How stupid, disco and funk!" After all, who was I to judge? Maybe it would be different if I'd been a fan in the '70s and HS was new. Maybe, but probably not. Hot Space exists for me the way all Queen releases exist. They simply *are," I like most, but not all, but I accept them equally and try to understand what went into making them and what the enviroment and inspiration was around them. I don't really evaluate them, even if I don't like a song. An easy trap to get into is: I don't like it, therefore it sucks. Or another common trap is comparing releases: The Works is no Queen II, therefore it sucks. I say to you, in the spirit of a friendly challenge, try to step out of yourself and look at a work objectively. Ask yourself the following questions: What inspired this direct in the band? What else were they doing, either in their solo careers or in the trends influencing them at the time? How much craftsmanship went into the work and why did they make certain creative decisions? There are no right or wrong answers and no one is expecting that you'll suddenly fall in love with that which you previously disliked, but maybe...just maybe...you won't not-like it as much. I fully agree with you, the work of every band should always be seen connected to the times they lived in. Multitracking was no longer exciting. And the enormous success of "Another one bites the Dust" based on a disco groove without any typical guitar sound may have changed the powers in the band. Looking back "Hot Space" has too little of Brian May on the songs and even Roger Taylors drums were replaced by a computer. And the reason why most of the songs worked much better live is quite simple. Drums and guitar were back.... Surely "Hot Space" is not the highlight of their carreer, but it was probably a necessary step to make them aware of their real strength. |
Sebastian 31.03.2010 08:45 |
> I fully agree with you, the work of every band should always be seen connected to the times they lived in. So I suppose 'A Night at the Opera' had to be an Osmonds-ersatz thing and 'The Game' should sound like the Village People. > Multitracking was no longer exciting. 'Hot Space' has a lot of multi-tracking, by the way. > And the enormous success of "Another one bites the Dust" based on a disco groove without any typical guitar sound may have changed the powers in the band. It did have 'typical guitar sound' in several parts. More so, statistically, than Don't Stop Me Now. > Looking back "Hot Space" has too little of Brian May on the songs False: only one song is Brian-free, all of the others have him. Conversely, John's absent from two songs (one of which was the lead single). Roger and Freddie take part on all of the tracks. > and even Roger Taylors drums were replaced by a computer. Actually, they only used computers occasionally back then. It was more about synths or electronic hexagonal pads. But still: ALL of the 'Hot Space' songs feature guitars, MOST of them also feature human drums and/or bass. > And the reason why most of the songs worked much better live is quite simple. Drums and guitar were back. They were never absent. The difference is that they were more powerful live (e.g. Staying Power). But all in all 'Hot Space' has a lot more Deacon-less parts than May-less or Taylor-less. |
Soundfreak 31.03.2010 10:24 |
Sebastian wrote: > I fully agree with you, the work of every band should always be seen connected to the times they lived in. So I suppose 'A Night at the Opera' had to be an Osmonds-ersatz thing and 'The Game' should sound like the Village People. > Multitracking was no longer exciting. 'Hot Space' has a lot of multi-tracking, by the way. Oh come on...you never forgave me that I can't stand these ranking and rating topics... And now you want to make me look like an idiot, don't you? The first Queen albums are the result of the early 70s studio-technology. Multitracking was the new toy and many bands like Sweet, 10 cc, Boston and even ABBA created their unique sounds this way. So I don't know why you come up with the Osmonds..... Please go and rate something...for example "Which of Brian May's fingers plays the best....." |
Amazon 31.03.2010 10:35 |
I consider HS to be Queen's most underrated album. While there is some extremely ordinary stuff on the album (as there is on several other Queen albums), there is also some wonderful stuff. I would put Staying Power, Put Out the Fire and Las Palabras de Amor up against much of Queen's 70's work. Under Pressure, which I regard to be among Queen's two most overrated songs (along with Who Wants To Live Forever) is in actuality a great song, and Dancer is IMO extremely fun. The 80's weren't a great decade for Queen, and with the exception of The Game, none of the albums released during that decade were particularly great. However I do think that Hot Space is a very enjoyable album and I wish that Queen members wouldn't express regret for it in public. |
mike hunt 31.03.2010 10:54 |
I don't think hot space was bad at all....not great either. I think the hard rock sound from Queen was losing steam in the 80's, at least for me. Put out the fire is among my least favorite songs from the band, and a few years later "tear it up" would be another least favorite, while stayinging power and radio ga ga has much more life to them. the songs I like on hot space are staying power, back chat, action this day (though I wish these songs were heavier) life is real, words of love, cool cat, under pressure. As you could see I like most of the songs, though the album doesn't have any brilliant moments either, except for under pressure. I guess that's the difference. |
thomasquinn 32989 31.03.2010 11:54 |
Just for good order: It is absolutely and completely impossible to say anything truly objective about anything, least of all a work of art, under which, for want of a better term, Hot Space is also included. |
rhyeking 31.03.2010 12:00 |
> It's funny that even though Hot Space took time to grow on me, not once did I think, "How stupid, disco and funk!" >>The problem is not the style, but the way they did it. Things like Body Language are mediocre at best. Not because of the genre, but because of performance. Mediocre by what standard? Its simplicity? Its amusing lyrics? Looking at the entire album, remember, the 'way they did it' was an artistic choice, not an indication of lack of talent or skill. They made their choice, to explore funk and disco a bit more, and on a technical level the album is well performed and well-produced. There's simple material and there's complex material. Are you saying that because they didn't rock out hardcore and cause the earth to shake and mountains to crumble the performance is mediocre? I want to understand what you're saying. > I don't really evaluate them, even if I don't like a song. >>Good for you. And it would be silly (no, it would be stupid) to try to convince you to evaluate them. Similarly, those who do like to evaluate them are entitled to. They are entitled to, yes, but I'd like to challenge them to see things a different way. That's part of the nature of the forum. > The Works is no Queen II, therefore it sucks. >>Loads of albums are no Queen II and don't suck; loads of albums are no Queen II and suck. The Works is on the latter group. Again, by what standard? I know you're above such a simple, glib assessment. Make me see your point of view. "They didn't perform well" is not a well-reasoned argument and is ussually not true, we all know better. > I say to you, in the spirit of a friendly challenge, try to step out of yourself and look at a work objectively. >>Objectively: performance is sub-par for the band, songwriting is sub-par for the band, production is sub-par for the band. Therefore, the album's sub-par for the band. It's not sub-par because they choose not to do what they've done in the past. If it were a one-off live recording, with mistakes and missed notes and flubbed lines, I'd agree that a performance can be called sub-par. Such sloppiness and lack of skill does not exist on Hot Space because when a band known for its meticulousness spends months crafting new material, it refines the album into exactly what they want. > What inspired this direct in the band? >>The problem's not the direction, but the way they embraced it, by playing way way way way less-good than they could. Again, an artistic decision to not use every trick they'd exploited in the past. > What else were they doing, either in their solo careers or in the trends influencing them at the time? >>Regardless of that, if the final product's not good enough, it's not good enough. The problem's not the direction, but the way they embraced it, by playing way way way way less-good than they could. My point in asking that question was to demostrate that we can see a work, in this case an album, on several levels and perhaps try to better appreciate not just the album as a single entity, but as part of the fabric of what Queen and its members were doing at the time. Hot Space is an example of an album with as many external infuences as internal. Understanding how the band created the album might open a few eyes and show them that the album might be better than they thought. > How much craftsmanship went into the work and why did they make certain creative decisions? >>Regardless of that, if the final product's not good enough, it's not good enough. The problem's not the direction, but the way they embraced it, by playing way way way way less-good than they could. "Regardless"...? Are you unwilling to understand the band on its own terms? And to explore Hot Space on its own terms? If the answer is "Yes, I'm unwilling," then no further discussion is possible. Your opinion and attitude is locked and is unlikely to be broadened by the free exchange of ideas. All I can say is I tried. > There are no right or wrong answers >>Actually, there are: it's wrong to say, for instance, 'Nirvana inspired that direct in the band'. It's also wrong to say: 'hip-hop music influenced them'. So there ARE wrong answers. Forgive me for being subtle. A more specific statement, clarifying my intent, would read: Taking into account all knowable details discovered by individual exploration and research, by way of the parameters outlined and discussed previously in the post, and by applying them accurately, the understanding gained thereby would be neither correct nor incorrect once applied to personal taste and having abandoned all deliberate obtuseness. |
master marathon runner 31.03.2010 12:03 |
Hot Space is a delightful little album, never understood the bemoaning. I'm continually shocked by criticism of 'The Works' on Queenzone, always regarded it as Queen at a very high standard .' Radio Ga Ga,' ' Keep passing the open Windows', 'Machines' ,' Is This the World we Created', a track performed live to the world ! , .Sorry, but Queen were comfortably coasting here.Perhaps it proves i am truly a Queen fan. Master Marathon Runner |
Sebastian 31.03.2010 12:04 |
> Oh come on...you never forgave me that I can't stand these ranking and rating topics... It's not something to forgive about. If you can't stand them, fine, good for you. But those of us who actually like them, are entitled to like them and participate. And while I (personally) don't intend to convince you to change your perspective, it'd be pointless for you if you tried to convince me to change my way of thinking. > And now you want to make me look like an idiot, don't you? I don't. I want many things, but making you look like an idiot is not one of them. > The first Queen albums are the result of the early 70s studio-technology. Multitracking was the new toy and many bands like Sweet, 10 cc, Boston and even ABBA created their unique sounds this way. Multitracking existed since mid-50's. It was not new. > So I don't know why you come up with the Osmonds..... Because the Osmonds were trendy at the time. However, Queen had no need in imitating them as they knew they could do their own thing. > Please go and rate something...for example "Which of Brian May's fingers plays the best....." Forefinger in both hands, as it happens with most guitarists. > I consider HS to be Queen's most underrated album. Now, there I agree. While it's not even sort of close to the quality of 'Opera' or 'Races', it certainly is much better than people give it credit for. > The 80's weren't a great decade for Queen, and with the exception of The Game And keep in mind that much of the material for 'The Game' was written in the last months of 1979. Part of it was also recorded in June/July that year. > I wish that Queen members wouldn't express regret for it in public. TBF, only John and Roger said they were disappointed with the product. Freddie and Brian, IIRC, were dissatisfied with how it sold, but they didn't hate the album. In fact, 'Mr Bad Guy' is virtually a sequel. > It is absolutely and completely impossible to say anything truly objective about anything, least of all a work of art So, is 2+2=4 subjective? For the record I'm not saying it is, and I'm not saying it isn't, but I'm interested in your take on it. |
Sebastian 31.03.2010 12:27 |
> Mediocre by what standard? Its simplicity? Simplicity's not the problem. Dear Friends is simple, and IMO it's the best track in an album full of wonderful compositions. Same for '39 (which isn't too simple but it's not 'woah how complex' either). > Looking at the entire album, remember, the 'way they did it' was an artistic choice, not an indication of lack of talent or skill. That's precisely it: they had enough talent and skill to do somethinf waaaaaaay better. It's not about having 10+ guitars (Is This the World We Created has one and is a lovely ballad, My Melancholy Blues has none and it's great), it's not about having 5+ modulations (White Queen has none - depending on how you interpret the middle-eight - and it's a masterpiece), it's about using 5% of your skills. It's like having Doris Lessing writing 'hey hi wazzup' over and over, when she could write The Golden Notebook. > They made their choice, to explore funk and disco a bit more, and on a technical level the album is well performed and well-produced. But not AS well performed and well produced as others. Some off-pitch notes (on both vocals and guitars), very dry percussion, guitar licks Brian could've performed with an arm chopped off... It's like having Usain Bolt running the hundred metres in half a minute - it's not bad, it's still better than what many can do, but it's waaaaaaaay below his own level. > There's simple material and there's complex And that's not related to it being 'good' or 'mediocre'. Lily of the Valley is simple, yet it's outstanding. > Are you saying that because they didn't rock out hardcore and cause the earth to shake and mountains to crumble the performance is mediocre? No, I'm saying that because performance was far below their own level, it's mediocre. Not in all cases, but in most (in that album, that is). > Again, by what standard? I know you're above such a simple, glib assessment. Make me see your point of view. Songwriting's sub-par, sounds are dated, Hammer to Fall (wonderful song, great vocals [especially Brian's harmonies], awful recording in terms of instruments), Ga Ga is way too robotic, Machines (great song and very underrated) has very little imagination in the arrangement, Freddie's voice (brilliant as it is) is his least-good in the 1984-1986 period (i.e. it's excellent, but not as excellent as before or after). So, by Queen standards, it's not a great album. All of that IMO of course, since there are subjective factors that cannot be measured (e.g. if you proposed to your wife while listening to Break Free [though that would send mixed signals], then it's probably gonna be the best song ever for you). > It's not sub-par because they choose not to do what they've done in the past. No, that's not the reason. The reason is having off-pitch notes in a singer that very very rarely sang out of tune; the reason is having subdued bass-lines in some ballads (e.g. Las Palabras de Amor, which is otherwise gorgeous) when they were capable of writing way more interesting arrangements for that instrument (e.g. Teo Torriatte, Show Must Go On). It's not about being simple (and loads of things in 'Hot Space' are not as simple as they appear to be), it's not about using synths, it's not about playing disco, it's about playing it using only a small portion of their skills. > If it were a one-off live recording, with mistakes and missed notes and flubbed lines, I'd agree that a performance can be called sub-par. Indeed, that's the thing: they had a year to come up with that. They had time and resources to correct details such as the out of pitch notes in the Back Chat solo (live, Brian's performance was flawless), but they didn't bother. Considering 'Queen II' took them less than a month, it's ... sub-par. > Such sloppiness and lack of skill does not exist on Hot Space because when a band known for its meticulousness spends months crafting new material, it refines the album into exactly what they want. But they weren't hungry anymore. While they were never sloppy, they were way less perfectionist than in their golden era. Again: less than a month for 'Queen II', three months for 'Sheer Heart Attack' (and with one of them very seriously ill), over a year for 'Hot Space'... that's sub-par. > Again, an artistic decision to not use every trick they'd exploited in the past. It's not about using every trick, it's about doing it well. When they brought waltz to their catalogue, they did it with flawless performance, amazing production, extraordinary songwriting, imaginative bass-line, astonishing vocals; when they did simple blues, they did it great, with some disorienting rhythm and a great 'loose' vocal that put them in a different level to just 'copycats'. When they did it with funk, they didn't walk the extra mile. Again, it's not a matter of how many guitars or how many diminished chords. > My point in asking that question was to demostrate that we can see a work, in this case an album, on several levels and perhaps try to better appreciate not just the album as a single entity, but as part of the fabric of what Queen and its members were doing at the time. Precisely: as part of a band that used to do things way way way way way better, it's sub-par. Had it been their only album, fine, it still sounds well and is generally well-made. But seeing it in the context of what they could do... Usain Bolt running the hundred metres in half a minute. > Hot Space is an example of an album with as many external infuences as internal. They all are. > Understanding how the band created the album might open a few eyes and show them that the album might be better than they thought. Or worse. > "Regardless"...? Are you unwilling to understand the band on its own terms? And to explore Hot Space on its own terms? Your 'on its own terms' remark contradicts the previous 'seeing it in the context' one. > Your opinion and attitude is locked and is unlikely to be broadened by the free exchange of ideas. So, because I disagree with you I'm 'locked'? I completely respect your POV and have absolutely no interest in making you change it, as there's nothing wrong with it. So, I'm entitled to get the same courtesy: agree with me? Fine; disagree? Fine. If you can't accept I've got a different opinion, then it is you who's 'locked and unlikely to be broadenes by the free exchange of ideas.' |
rhyeking 31.03.2010 12:35 |
Never in my life did I think I'd pull this counter out on a Queen forum, BUT.... > It is absolutely and completely impossible to say anything truly objective about anything, least of all a work of art >>So, is 2+2=4 subjective? For the record I'm not saying it is, and I'm not saying it isn't, but I'm interested in your take on it. Well, that's assuming you're using the more common decimal system of mathmatics, which is base 10. The less-common, but scientifically valid Ternary (base 3) numeral system would read more like: 2 + 2 = 11 Sometimes, everything is not as it seems, huh? :-) |
Sebastian 31.03.2010 12:43 |
And indeed that was quite the answer I was looking for. However, it's still an objective answer. In decimal system, 2+2=4, full stop. In binary system, 1+1=10, full stop. In hexadecimal, 9+2=b (IIRC), full stop. Some things are black or white. Things like 'is Hot Space a good album?' or 'was it a good decision?' are subjective and there are no right or wrong answers. Things like 'who wrote more songs for Hot Space?' and 'did Deacy have more performing input than Brian?' are measurable and do have right or wrong answers. Which leads me to my main point: something loads of people mistakenly believe is that Hot Space was a John + Freddie thing. And it wasn't: while Freddie was the dominant songwriter and he probably had a lot to do with the style (shocking) swerve, John had less input on the album (physically speaking, not in metaphysical ambiguous terms) than Brian or Roger. And that can be measured. We've got one Brian-less song vs no Roger-less songs vs two John-less songs; one song with little playing from Brian vs no songs with little playing from Roger vs two/three songs with little playing from John; we've got no songs without guitar vs three songs without human bass. And so on. |
mike hunt 31.03.2010 12:49 |
master marathon runner wrote: Hot Space is a delightful little album, never understood the bemoaning. I'm continually shocked by criticism of 'The Works' on Queenzone, always regarded it as Queen at a very high standard .' Radio Ga Ga,' ' Keep passing the open Windows', 'Machines' ,' Is This the World we Created', a track performed live to the world ! , .Sorry, but Queen were comfortably coasting here.Perhaps it proves i am truly a Queen fan. Master Marathon Runner The works isn't as bad as queenzoner's make it out to be......Radio Ga ga and break free has stood the test of time...it's a hard life is a personal favorite of mine. Hammer to fall is good, though live it's much better. machines is pretty good...keep passing the open windows I alway's liked. Is this the world we created?....very nice, both studio and live. that leaves me with 2 songs I don't like, man on the prowl, and tear it up. A freddie and brian song, that's very rare for me. Of course the album isn't on par with the golden era. (the first 8 albums) or Innuendo, but it's still pretty good. |
Dan C. 31.03.2010 12:54 |
The last two or three years, Hot Space has been the Queen record I've listened to most. It's a lot of fun! |
rhyeking 31.03.2010 12:55 |
>>Seb: So, because I disagree with you I'm 'locked'? I completely respect your POV and have absolutely no interest in making you change it, as there's nothing wrong with it.
I do respect your opinion and always have, despite disagreeing with it on certain points. One reason I come in hard sometimes is that not as many people have thought their positions out and because our points of view differ in places, it's of benefit, particularly to new fans, to see all views intelligently. Too many posts here are of the "it sucks!" or "it rocks!" type, which is boring. Please excuse me if I seemed to be picking a fight. You do present a position worth considering and I hope you and others think the same of my posts. |
Soundfreak 31.03.2010 14:05 |
Sebastian wrote: Multitracking existed since mid-50's. It was not new. The first multitrack - recorders were invented in the mid to late fifties. But it took more than a decade until they had reached a certain standard and found their ways into the recording studios. Even the Beatles recorded most of their stuff on 4 track. It was in 1968, that EMI slowly upgraded to 8-track. And this was a leading studio in England! So whether you like it or not, multitracking in the way Queen and many of their contemporaries made use of wasn't possible before. |
mike hunt 31.03.2010 14:05 |
DanCorson wrote: The last two or three years, Hot Space has been the Queen record I've listened to most. It's a lot of fun! I find myself blasting hot space on long drives. |
thomasquinn 32989 31.03.2010 14:31 |
rhyeking wrote: Never in my life did I think I'd pull this counter out on a Queen forum, BUT.... > It is absolutely and completely impossible to say anything truly objective about anything, least of all a work of art >>So, is 2+2=4 subjective? For the record I'm not saying it is, and I'm not saying it isn't, but I'm interested in your take on it. Well, that's assuming you're using the more common decimal system of mathmatics, which is base 10. The less-common, but scientifically valid Ternary (base 3) numeral system would read more like: 2 + 2 = 11 Sometimes, everything is not as it seems, huh? :-) Not necessarily. "2+2=4" is subjective, in that it depends on the point of view of the observer (subject). Numerous conditions exist where 2+2 do not equal 4. Non-decimal systems, as you propose, are one approach, non-linear (for example, logarithmic) series are another. An entirely different, but equally valid, approach from a purely logical standpoint is to write that "2+2=22", as that avoids the creation of a new sign ex nihilo, and is thus technically simpler. |
Sebastian 31.03.2010 14:46 |
> Even the Beatles recorded most of their stuff on 4 track. And on 4 track, multi-tracking was possible. > It was in 1968, that EMI slowly upgraded to 8-track. And this was a leading studio in England! Trident had done it before. > So whether you like it or not, multitracking in the way Queen and many of their contemporaries made use of wasn't possible before. Multitracking 'in the wat Queen et al made use of' wasn't EASILY possible before, but it WAS possible. By the way, my point was that multi-tracking already existed, not about multi-tracking on 24 or 32. It's like somebody saying 'cars were new in 1998'. No, they weren't: they existed for a while before that. 'Whether you like it or not, Ferrari F300 was first used in 1998'. Sure, but it doesn't mean cars did not exist before. Same here: before early-to-mid 70's, people didn't use 24- or 32-track tapes. But it doesn't mean multi-tracking didn't exist. > Numerous conditions exist where 2+2 do not equal 4. Non-decimal systems, as you propose, are one approach, non-linear (for example, logarithmic) series are another. An entirely different, but equally valid, approach from a purely logical standpoint is to write that "2+2=22", as that avoids the creation of a new sign ex nihilo, and is thus technically simpler. Indeed, but then again, in decimal system and having 2+2 as a non-polynomial addition (or having both '2' as units rather than '2E3 + 2E2', for instance), there IS a straight answer. Of course, those factors are already arranged by a subject so you could call them subjective, but the thing is, there IS a straight answer. For things like 'is Hot Space good?', there's not a right or wrong answer, as it depends on taste. For 'was Hot Space released in 1982?', there IS a right answer (once it's established how 1982 is counted and according to which parametres). So, again, Brian DID participate a lot on that album as ALL of the songs have guitars (unless of course you're using a different language where 'guitar' means 'trumpet'), while THREE songs (unless you count in binaries, in which case it's 11) have no real (human) bass. |
Holly2003 31.03.2010 18:47 |
I've just thrown up in my own mouth. |
USQUEENFAN 31.03.2010 18:53 |
LOL I have given my opinion on several topics on queens sinking popularity from hot space till the reemergance of their iconic status in 92 here in the states, first off hot space was an experimental (thats me being kind describing in my opinion ) album it did have a few stellar moments put out the fire life is real basically side two, you see here in the states in the 80s and 90s rock music was catagorized unlike in great britain ive heard broadcasts of capital one radio during a block of music in london i had heard a human league song than immediatly following that an iron maiden song that was unheard of here in the states you would have current rock metal stations and new wave punk new romantic stations and pop top 40 stations that included a poppier track of all geners queen built their reputation here in the states as a rock band that was the best live band on the planet which stands true to this very day, and disco in 82 was dead but the funny thing was madonna was just about to release her debut self titled album and my sister had purchased the LP and i heard her playing it and screamed what the fuck disco is that she said its not disco its "dance music" to me it sounded like a disco collection from the late 70s and still does now rock fans especially queens fans loved queen for their sheer live performances and even in 82 they sold out most their rock n america tour they certainly did here in LA i went to two of their four shows in the greater LA area and if they would of toured to support the works in america im certain it would of exceeded the hot space tour and have assisted the works to be in the top five albums in billboard and by the way THE WORKS IS A BRILLIANT ALBUM |
Holly2003 31.03.2010 19:03 |
Someone raised a good point a while back that simply changing the running order of Hot Space would've made for a better album. I agree with that, to a point. However, the album's main failing isn that it doesn't have any stand-out songs like Somebody To Love. It's Late, Liar etc.* It's all pretty average stuff, and in any event, others were doing the funk thang much better than Queen.. *Under Pressure is probably the one song that has the Queen mojo. Staying Power's a distant second place. |
rhyeking 31.03.2010 19:12 |
I'm coming to accept that arguing over the merits of Queen's various albums in this fourm can be like arguing over who has the best imaginary friend. No matter how we try to qualify and quantify our positions, they just aren't going to see it. And that's fine. I think Hot Space is cool and The Works has enough balls to still kick ass after we're gone. |
mike hunt 31.03.2010 19:32 |
USQUEENFAN wrote: LOL I have given my opinion on several topics on queens sinking popularity from hot space till the reemergance of their iconic status in 92 here in the states, first off hot space was an experimental (thats me being kind describing in my opinion ) album it did have a few stellar moments put out the fire life is real basically side two, you see here in the states in the 80s and 90s rock music was catagorized unlike in great britain ive heard broadcasts of capital one radio during a block of music in london i had heard a human league song than immediatly following that an iron maiden song that was unheard of here in the states you would have current rock metal stations and new wave punk new romantic stations and pop top 40 stations that included a poppier track of all geners queen built their reputation here in the states as a rock band that was the best live band on the planet which stands true to this very day, and disco in 82 was dead but the funny thing was madonna was just about to release her debut self titled album and my sister had purchased the LP and i heard her playing it and screamed what the fuck disco is that she said its not disco its "dance music" to me it sounded like a disco collection from the late 70s and still does now rock fans especially queens fans loved queen for their sheer live performances and even in 82 they sold out most their rock n america tour they certainly did here in LA i went to two of their four shows in the greater LA area and if they would of toured to support the works in america im certain it would of exceeded the hot space tour and have assisted the works to be in the top five albums in billboard and by the way THE WORKS IS A BRILLIANT ALBUM Wow, a US fan likes the works. Nice to see. i'm from NY and remember that time of the 80's, and it's true. either you loved rock or disco, Not both. i remember when hot space came out Queen fans couldn't believe they betrayed them. They wern't crazy about AOBTD, but hot space was betrayal, lol. Of course most of us as adults don't think like that anymore, so the album for me is a fun listen. nothing more or less. The Works is overall stronger IMO. A weaker version of the Game. |
Winter Land Man 31.03.2010 20:03 |
I thought The Game was boring. Songs like 'Don't Try Suicide' and 'Dragon Attack' are pretty boring. There's nothing really boring on The Works... but of course that's just my honest opinion. |
people on streets 31.03.2010 20:17 |
DanCorson wrote: The last two or three years, Hot Space has been the Queen record I've listened to most. It's a lot of fun! Same here. I love the Hot Space LP |
GratefulFan 31.03.2010 21:24 |
Holly2003 wrote: Someone raised a good point a while back that simply changing the running order of Hot Space would've made for a better album. I agree with that, to a point. However, the album's main failing isn that it doesn't have any stand-out songs like Somebody To Love. It's Late, Liar etc.* It's all pretty average stuff, and in any event, others were doing the funk thang much better than Queen.. *Under Pressure is probably the one song that has the Queen mojo. Staying Power's a distant second place. That's it right there. You stole my point. The sin of Hot Space, so rarely committed by Queen ever before that, was that what they were trying to do was being done much better by other people. Worse, already had been done much better by other people. Hot Space was released past the crest of the wave they were trying to ride, and for the first time ever (but not the last), the work as a whole invited the view that they were capable of being a merely average band.* It was a paradigm shift in popular perception that dogged them for the rest of the decade. |
Holly2003 01.04.2010 05:03 |
GratefulFan wrote:That's it right there. You stole my point. The sin of Hot Space, so rarely committed by Queen ever before that, was that what they were trying to do was being done much better by other people. Worse, already had been done much better by other people. Hot Space was released past the crest of the wave they were trying to ride, and for the first time ever (but not the last), the work as a whole invited the view that they were capable of being a merely average band.* It was a paradigm shift in popular perception that dogged them for the rest of the decade. It was more of a homage :P |
The_CrY 01.04.2010 05:43 |
I listened a lot to Hot Space, and I can see they're giving a good shot at the disco/funk style, but I can't really get into it. I'm not really into the synth-pop either, and since synths are very present on Hot Space (and actually The Works also), it fails to get my praise. Though I do understand if someone totally loves Hot Space, because it does have something to it, but it's not working for me. |
mike hunt 01.04.2010 07:52 |
GratefulFan wrote:Holly2003 wrote: Someone raised a good point a while back that simply changing the running order of Hot Space would've made for a better album. I agree with that, to a point. However, the album's main failing isn that it doesn't have any stand-out songs like Somebody To Love. It's Late, Liar etc.* It's all pretty average stuff, and in any event, others were doing the funk thang much better than Queen.. *Under Pressure is probably the one song that has the Queen mojo. Staying Power's a distant second place.That's it right there. You stole my point. The sin of Hot Space, so rarely committed by Queen ever before that, was that what they were trying to do was being done much better by other people. Worse, already had been done much better by other people. Hot Space was released past the crest of the wave they were trying to ride, and for the first time ever (but not the last), the work as a whole invited the view that they were capable of being a merely average band.* It was a paradigm shift in popular perception that dogged them for the rest of the decade. funny stuff..."dogged them the rest of the decade" you know that some of queen's most popular songs were in the 80's don't you?.....you know Queen won best band of the 80's in england don't you?....you know most of their 80's albums peaked at #1 don't you?....Not bad for average music i must say, or maybe some people, or a lot of people actually think the 80's stuff is better than average....you know that is a possibility don't you?..... |
Winter Land Man 01.04.2010 07:55 |
I hate it when people slag off certain Queen songs just because they arn't hard rock or the ballads they expected from Queen. |
Soundfreak 01.04.2010 09:24 |
Sebastian wrote: > Even the Beatles recorded most of their stuff on 4 track. And on 4 track, multi-tracking was possible. > It was in 1968, that EMI slowly upgraded to 8-track. And this was a leading studio in England! Trident had done it before. > So whether you like it or not, multitracking in the way Queen and many of their contemporaries made use of wasn't possible before. Multitracking 'in the wat Queen et al made use of' wasn't EASILY possible before, but it WAS possible. By the way, my point was that multi-tracking already existed, not about multi-tracking on 24 or 32. It's like somebody saying 'cars were new in 1998'. No, they weren't: they existed for a while before that. 'Whether you like it or not, Ferrari F300 was first used in 1998'. Sure, but it doesn't mean cars did not exist before. Same here: before early-to-mid 70's, people didn't use 24- or 32-track tapes. But it doesn't mean multi-tracking didn't exist. Oh well...you don't want to understand it... I'm not talking about multitracking only in technical terms, cause then it even existed much earlier when Les Paul overdubbed his guitar from vinyl to vinyl in the late 40s and early 50s. And then with mono tapemachines. Which finally gave him the idea to invent a multitrack-tapemachine. But it took a more then a decade, until the first studios owned these machines and it took even more years until multitracking became an art form and bands started to make heavy use of it. In the 60s for example multitracking was even seen by many artists as a betrayal as it could not be reproduced live on stage. I recommend you the book "Good Vibrations" by Mark Cunningham. It's a fantastic voyage into the history of recording. |
Amazon 01.04.2010 10:15 |
master marathon runner wrote: Hot Space is a delightful little album, never understood the bemoaning. I'm continually shocked by criticism of 'The Works' on Queenzone, always regarded it as Queen at a very high standard .' Radio Ga Ga,' ' Keep passing the open Windows', 'Machines' ,' Is This the World we Created', a track performed live to the world ! , .Sorry, but Queen were comfortably coasting here.Perhaps it proves i am truly a Queen fan. Master Marathon Runner I think that the Works is a good, but not great, album. It has IMO one of Queen's best songs of the 80's in Keep Passing The Open Windows, it has several other great songs (Radio Gaga, I Want To Break Free, Hammer To Fall, Machines, Is This The World We Created) and it's among Queen's most consistent albums. My problem with it is that there aren't any 'quiet' songs; no songs which don't sound like hits. There isn't any Sail Away Sweet Sister, Lilly of the Valley, Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon; songs which would never be released as singles and come across as undicovered jewells. Many of my favourite Queen songs are among their most obscure. All of the songs on The Works come across to me as hits (whether they are or not), and with a couple of ordinary songs (Man on the Prowl, Tear It Up), I think it's also too short. As I said, I don't think that The Works is a bad album by any means, I think it's quite good, but I don't think it's great. BTW, I'm one of the few members of this site who doesn't love It's a Hard Life. I think it's extremely overrated. :D |
mike hunt 01.04.2010 11:33 |
The works also should have included "i go crazy" that's a solid rocker that would have improved the overall album. I agree it's a good, not great album. |
rhyeking 01.04.2010 12:51 |
I first owned this album via the Hollywood Records 1991 cassette re-issue, which has "I Go Crazy" as a bonus track, coming in right after "Is This The World We Created?" As such, even though I'm perfectly aware it was a non-album track and the album actually ends with ITTWWC, I still consider it part of the album and probably always will, on an emotional level. It should have been on the original release, in my opinion, as the song itself rocks and it would have taken the album's length from 37+ minutes to 40+ minutes. I think it's safe to say that this might have helped form my opinion of the album. For me, in my formative teens, The Works ended not on a bit of a downer (ITTWWC is a beautiful song and I really like it, but it's not exactly upbeat), but with the wailing balls-out guitar rock that is "I Go Crazy." As such, maybe I view The Works as heavier than the original LP actually was. I still think, even without IGC, The Works does not deserve the ass-pounding criticism it gets on the forum these days. People seem to forget that Computers, Machines, Technology and a lack of humanity are themes of the album, both lyrically and instrumentally and elements of every song, if not entire songs, fit these theme perfectly. Before you say "The execution was poor," I say to you: the execution specifically reflected the themes and utilized the synth and computer programming of the time, which by today's standards sounds quaint and maybe dated. If that album were recorded now, with the same themes in mind, I imagine it would come across closer to something like David Bowie's Earthing album (which I think is great). |
mooghead 01.04.2010 13:33 |
rhyeking wrote: What inspired this direct in the band? Another One Bites The Dust is to blame. |
GratefulFan 01.04.2010 13:38 |
mike hunt wrote: funny stuff..."dogged them the rest of the decade" you know that some of queen's most popular songs were in the 80's don't you?.....you know Queen won best band of the 80's in england don't you?....you know most of their 80's albums peaked at #1 don't you?....Not bad for average music i must say, or maybe some people, or a lot of people actually think the 80's stuff is better than average....you know that is a possibility don't you?..... Yeah. It was late-ish and I was trying to wrap up the point and probably could have taken more care with that final part of it. I used 'popular perception' because in my head that made it different from 'critical perception' (because the critics pretty much always thought they were crap), but you're right - that does seem to dismiss the popularity/success of the music at the time in parts of the world. However popular doesn't mean great, and better than average isn't much of a match against time. I think most of the 80's work was good in the same way that all kinds of music is good: slick, catchy, radio friendly - and ultimately destined to be nostalgia pieces languishing in collections, largely unplayed 10 years on. 20 or 25 albums hit number one every year and we don't keep piling them on top of an ever growing list of classics we can't imagine music history without. We filter and refilter and filter again, and the Queen songs that nobody would question have truly endured (by any measure) are virtually all from work that preceded Hot Space (always excepting the brilliant Under Pressure). Hot Space was the beginning of all that would eventually be judged as good, but not great, by processes and forces of the future. |
rhyeking 01.04.2010 14:08 |
mooghead wrote:rhyeking wrote: What inspired this direct in the band?Another One Bites The Dust is to blame. Well, yes, but there were other factors involved too. Freddie was doing the gay disco thing in Munich, which seemed to influence his pop-dance bent on this and Mr. Bad Guy. The band was in and out of the studio between South American tours for a year, which probably resulted somewhat in "Las Palabras." The band's relationship with Billy Squier almost certainly influenced them; listen to "Emotions In Motion" and tell me it doesn't have a resemblance to Hot Space material. Freddie's work with Michael Jackson can be traced to this period (and with the band, it was even earlier, as he pushed them to release "Dust" as a single). And most obviously, working with Bowie likely influenced them, even after he finished work on "Under Pressure." Bowie was between his Scary Monsters and Let's Dance albums, the latter being very pop-dance-funk laced. |
GratefulFan 01.04.2010 14:45 |
Amazon wrote: I think that the Works is a good, but not great, album. It has IMO one of Queen's best songs of the 80's in Keep Passing The Open Windows, it has several other great songs. Except that Joe Jackson called that song Steppin' Out and did it way better 4 years earlier. ;) |
Sebastian 01.04.2010 15:22 |
> Oh well...you don't want to understand it... Of course I do. I understand the following: * Queen still used loads of multi-tracking in Hot Space, rendering your 'Multitracking was no longer exciting' comment incorrect. * Multi-tracking existed long before Queen, rendering your 'multitracking in the way Queen and many of their contemporaries made use of wasn't possible before' comment incorrect. > But it took a more then a decade, until the first studios owned these machines Sure, but when they did (mroe than a decade after Les Paul) it was still long before Queen. > and it took even more years until multitracking became an art form and bands started to make heavy use of it. Which still doesn't mean it was new. Beatles multitracked loads of things, so did the Beach Boys and several others, long before Queen even debuted. > In the 60s for example multitracking was even seen by many artists as a betrayal as it could not be reproduced live on stage. It still happens a lot in the 2010's. So? Queen weren't an act that cared about whether other people saw something as betrayal or not. > I recommend you the book "Good Vibrations" by Mark Cunningham. It's a fantastic voyage into the history of recording. By the way, 'Good Vibrations' also predates Queen's multi-tracking efforts. |
Winter Land Man 01.04.2010 17:20 |
Sebastian wrote: By the way, 'Good Vibrations' also predates Queen's multi-tracking efforts. You got them! Haha! Brian Wilson was multi-tracking things before the members of Queen lost their virginities. |
Sebastian 01.04.2010 19:30 |
TBF, considering Roger's looks, he'd probably nailed more than one Cornish bird by the time he was fourteen (i.e. three years before 'Good Vibrations'). And Fred could've had a Catholic priest babysitting him too. |
Winter Land Man 01.04.2010 20:31 |
Sebastian wrote: TBF, considering Roger's looks, he'd probably nailed more than one Cornish bird by the time he was fourteen (i.e. three years before 'Good Vibrations'). And Fred could've had a Catholic priest babysitting him too. Haha, that's true. I did give it a good second thought when I realized that they aren't that much younger than Brian Wilson. |
Amazon 02.04.2010 03:46 |
mooghead wrote:rhyeking wrote: What inspired this direct in the band?Another One Bites The Dust is to blame. That's fine by me. AOBTD is IMO a masterpiece and one of Queen's best songs; I don't care which direction it inspired as long as Queen made it. :D |
Soundfreak 02.04.2010 06:26 |
Sebastian wrote: > Oh well...you don't want to understand it... Of course I do. I understand the following: * Queen still used loads of multi-tracking in Hot Space, rendering your 'Multitracking was no longer exciting' comment incorrect. * Multi-tracking existed long before Queen, rendering your 'multitracking in the way Queen and many of their contemporaries made use of wasn't possible before' comment incorrect. > But it took a more then a decade, until the first studios owned these machines Sure, but when they did (mroe than a decade after Les Paul) it was still long before Queen. > and it took even more years until multitracking became an art form and bands started to make heavy use of it. Which still doesn't mean it was new. Beatles multitracked loads of things, so did the Beach Boys and several others, long before Queen even debuted. > In the 60s for example multitracking was even seen by many artists as a betrayal as it could not be reproduced live on stage. It still happens a lot in the 2010's. So? Queen weren't an act that cared about whether other people saw something as betrayal or not. > I recommend you the book "Good Vibrations" by Mark Cunningham. It's a fantastic voyage into the history of recording. By the way, 'Good Vibrations' also predates Queen's multi-tracking efforts. And yet you don't want to understand.... Between Les Paul and Brian May you won't find famous people in rock-music who multitracked one instrument dozens of times. And Les Paul also did the same treatment to Mary Fords voice. People in rock music started to double track voices from Buddy Holly onwards - like the Beatles and the Beach Boys, but one singer building a complete choir was a thing of the 70s. You could not have done "Bohemian Rhapsody" or 10cc's "I'm not in love" in the 60s with four track. Impossible! But anyway.....to end this fruitless discussion - believe what you like ;-) |
mike hunt 02.04.2010 09:46 |
GratefulFan wrote:mike hunt wrote: funny stuff..."dogged them the rest of the decade" you know that some of queen's most popular songs were in the 80's don't you?.....you know Queen won best band of the 80's in england don't you?....you know most of their 80's albums peaked at #1 don't you?....Not bad for average music i must say, or maybe some people, or a lot of people actually think the 80's stuff is better than average....you know that is a possibility don't you?.....Yeah. It was late-ish and I was trying to wrap up the point and probably could have taken more care with that final part of it. I used 'popular perception' because in my head that made it different from 'critical perception' (because the critics pretty much always thought they were crap), but you're right - that does seem to dismiss the popularity/success of the music at the time in parts of the world. However popular doesn't mean great, and better than average isn't much of a match against time. I think most of the 80's work was good in the same way that all kinds of music is good: slick, catchy, radio friendly - and ultimately destined to be nostalgia pieces languishing in collections, largely unplayed 10 years on. 20 or 25 albums hit number one every year and we don't keep piling them on top of an ever growing list of classics we can't imagine music history without. We filter and refilter and filter again, and the Queen songs that nobody would question have truly endured (by any measure) are virtually all from work that preceded Hot Space (always excepting the brilliant Under Pressure). Hot Space was the beginning of all that would eventually be judged as good, but not great, by processes and forces of the future. It's funny that people alway's say 80's music is crap, but why is it still played 10, 25 years on?.....More popular today than it was back then......I think radio ga ga and who want to live forever?...... has stood the test of time really well....also, every band has a prime. the who was losing steam towards the end, the same for Zep. It's Just the way it is. It's not the musical direction the band took, except for maybe hot space. The fact is if they made another a day at the races in 1984 it wouldn't have worked. For one the band already did it, so they would have been copying themselves. Queen were also naturally changing, it wasn't forced...And it shows...Compare the normal sounding rock songs put out the fire,,,tear it up with tie your mother down and stone cold crazy. Not even close. Again...Compare "life is real" with Anything freddie did in the 70's. IF you keep doing the same thing over and over it gets stale. The best thing they did was change. |
mike hunt 02.04.2010 09:57 |
rhyeking wrote:mooghead wrote:Well, yes, but there were other factors involved too. Freddie was doing the gay disco thing in Munich, which seemed to influence his pop-dance bent on this and Mr. Bad Guy. The band was in and out of the studio between South American tours for a year, which probably resulted somewhat in "Las Palabras." The band's relationship with Billy Squier almost certainly influenced them; listen to "Emotions In Motion" and tell me it doesn't have a resemblance to Hot Space material. Freddie's work with Michael Jackson can be traced to this period (and with the band, it was even earlier, as he pushed them to release "Dust" as a single). And most obviously, working with Bowie likely influenced them, even after he finished work on "Under Pressure." Bowie was between his Scary Monsters and Let's Dance albums, the latter being very pop-dance-funk laced.rhyeking wrote: What inspired this direct in the band?Another One Bites The Dust is to blame. Let's not get in to this "freddie fault" bullshit. Of course freddie was a big part of the band, but the others had a say. John was obviously into it. roger alway's loves the new wave, dance stuff. for some reason people see roger as the rocker of the band, He was more new wave in the late 70's and 80's. Brian?....the rocker, though those rockers were getting stale in the early 80's. Also, keep in mind if it wasn't for freddie during the hot space era there wouldn't be a Queen. From what I heard freddie was the one who kept things going. The others were more occupied with the family, kids and all that. |
rhyeking 02.04.2010 11:31 |
Mike, nowhere in my post did I say it was "Freddie's fault". Besides, that implies a wrong doing which is exactly NOT my point. My point is I'm looking at factors which influenced the band during the period of '81-'82, when Hot Space was recorded. For the record, I like Hot Space. I recognize it wasn't their most commercial success, despite producing a #1 hit in the UK ("Under Pressure"), but I accept it for what it is and for me it represents yet another facet of a multi-talented band. By asking (among other questions in that original post) what influenced the band, I'm simply trying to broaden people's awareness of what goes into an album. Two ways you can appreciate an album (or and any piece of art) are a) what is the final product, knowing little to nothing about its history and creation? And b) what is its history, what influences did the artist expolore, exploit and experiment with? There are any number of other ways too, but those are two I use most often. |
Amazon 02.04.2010 13:22 |
GratefulFan wrote:Amazon wrote: I think that the Works is a good, but not great, album. It has IMO one of Queen's best songs of the 80's in Keep Passing The Open Windows, it has several other great songs.Except that Joe Jackson called that song Steppin' Out and did it way better 4 years earlier. ;) I just listened to Steppin' Out and I have to say that I disagree. I think that KPTOW is superior. It's not a perfect song, by any means (the whole 'love is all you need' isn't very original which has always really surprised me*), but I do think it's a terrific pop song. Regarding whether or not Queen became an average group during the 80's, I think it's interesting as I agree and I disagree. I agree in the sense that I don't think Queen were as inventive in 1982-1989 as they were from 1973 to 1980. When I think of Queenian creativity and experimentation, I think of the 70's, rather than the 80's. However, I disagree because IMO the 80's still produced its fair share of classics. Excluding The Game, which until the 90's, was arguably Queen's last masterpiece, the 80's albums produced IMO the following classics: Hot Space produced Staying Power, Put Out the Fire and Las Palabras de Amor, as well as Under Pressure which IMO is extremely overrated but is still a very good, if not great, song. I also think that Dancer is extremely underrated. The Works produced KPTOW, Radio Gaga, I Want To Break Free, Hammer To Fall, Machines and Is This The World We Created. A Kind of Magic produced Friends Will Be Friends, Who Wants To Live Forever (another extremely overrated song IMO) and Princes of the Universe. The Miracle produced I Want It All and Was It All Worth It. One could also add Breakthru. Not all of these songs are masterpieces, and one could debate where they stand against the best of Queen's 70's work, but when I look at the 80's (post-The Game), I think of these songs, and based on these songs, Queen during the 80's were IMO still extraordinary. *This is off-topic, but the reason I remain surprised by the fact that 'love is all you need' in KPTOW isn't particularly original is because IMO Queen were among the greatest and most original lyricists of all time. Queenpedia made a comment that their lyrics were never anything to write home about. I passionately disagree with this. |
rhyeking 02.04.2010 13:55 |
Just throwing this out there, but "Keep Passing The Open Windows" was written for the film version of John Irving's "The Hotel New Hampshire." The lyrics are references to the book and its themes. |
mike hunt 02.04.2010 14:10 |
What's this joe jackson song?...is he saying freddie's song ripped his off?....I like KPTOW....The lryics except "love is all you need" I also like it musically, piano, drums, Guitar all sound nice. |
rhyeking 02.04.2010 14:38 |
"Stepping Out" by Joe Jackson is a good song. I especially like the piano. Before someone brought it up here, I never considered any similarities between "Windows" and "Stepping Out". Frankly, I still don't see any similarities beyond the superficial use of instruments. It's the same with people saying "The Invisible Man" sounds like Ray Parker, Jr.'s "Ghostbusters," which other people say sounds like "I Want A New Drug" by Huey Lewis And The News. Where does it end? Enough talented people write enough music, you'll get the odd passing similarity, I guess. Another example is "Blockbuster" by Sweet and "The Jean Genie" by David Bowie, both of whom say it was pure coincidence. |
mike hunt 02.04.2010 14:53 |
rhyeking wrote: "Stepping Out" by Joe Jackson is a good song. I especially like the piano. Before someone brought it up here, I never considered any similarities between "Windows" and "Stepping Out". Frankly, I still don't see any similarities beyond the superficial use of instruments. It's the same with people saying "The Invisible Man" sounds like Ray Parker, Jr.'s "Ghostbusters," which other people say sounds like "I Want A New Drug" by Huey Lewis And The News. Where does it end? Enough talented people write enough music, you'll get the odd passing similarity, I guess. Another example is "Blockbuster" by Sweet and "The Jean Genie" by David Bowie, both of whom say it was pure coincidence. ok, i remember this song steppin out. A big hit in the 80's. I hear the similarity. Especially in the piano. |
Winter Land Man 02.04.2010 15:03 |
mike hunt wrote:rhyeking wrote:Let's not get in to this "freddie fault" bullshit. Of course freddie was a big part of the band, but the others had a say. John was obviously into it. roger alway's loves the new wave, dance stuff. for some reason people see roger as the rocker of the band, He was more new wave in the late 70's and 80's. Brian?....the rocker, though those rockers were getting stale in the early 80's. Also, keep in mind if it wasn't for freddie during the hot space era there wouldn't be a Queen. From what I heard freddie was the one who kept things going. The others were more occupied with the family, kids and all that.mooghead wrote:Well, yes, but there were other factors involved too. Freddie was doing the gay disco thing in Munich, which seemed to influence his pop-dance bent on this and Mr. Bad Guy. The band was in and out of the studio between South American tours for a year, which probably resulted somewhat in "Las Palabras." The band's relationship with Billy Squier almost certainly influenced them; listen to "Emotions In Motion" and tell me it doesn't have a resemblance to Hot Space material. Freddie's work with Michael Jackson can be traced to this period (and with the band, it was even earlier, as he pushed them to release "Dust" as a single). And most obviously, working with Bowie likely influenced them, even after he finished work on "Under Pressure." Bowie was between his Scary Monsters and Let's Dance albums, the latter being very pop-dance-funk laced.rhyeking wrote: What inspired this direct in the band?Another One Bites The Dust is to blame. Also, Freddie was in doing the gay scene in New York at the time of Hot Space. |
mike hunt 02.04.2010 15:51 |
Blue Roses Unlimited wrote:mike hunt wrote:Also, Freddie was in doing the gay scene in New York at the time of Hot Space.rhyeking wrote:Let's not get in to this "freddie fault" bullshit. Of course freddie was a big part of the band, but the others had a say. John was obviously into it. roger alway's loves the new wave, dance stuff. for some reason people see roger as the rocker of the band, He was more new wave in the late 70's and 80's. Brian?....the rocker, though those rockers were getting stale in the early 80's. Also, keep in mind if it wasn't for freddie during the hot space era there wouldn't be a Queen. From what I heard freddie was the one who kept things going. The others were more occupied with the family, kids and all that.mooghead wrote:Well, yes, but there were other factors involved too. Freddie was doing the gay disco thing in Munich, which seemed to influence his pop-dance bent on this and Mr. Bad Guy. The band was in and out of the studio between South American tours for a year, which probably resulted somewhat in "Las Palabras." The band's relationship with Billy Squier almost certainly influenced them; listen to "Emotions In Motion" and tell me it doesn't have a resemblance to Hot Space material. Freddie's work with Michael Jackson can be traced to this period (and with the band, it was even earlier, as he pushed them to release "Dust" as a single). And most obviously, working with Bowie likely influenced them, even after he finished work on "Under Pressure." Bowie was between his Scary Monsters and Let's Dance albums, the latter being very pop-dance-funk laced.rhyeking wrote: What inspired this direct in the band?Another One Bites The Dust is to blame. Freddie was in doing the gay scene in the 70's too, lol. |
Sebastian 02.04.2010 16:40 |
> And yet you don't want to understand.... That statement speaks more about you than about me. Maybe the one who doesn't want to understand is not me. > Between Les Paul and Brian May you won't find famous people in rock-music who multitracked one instrument dozens of times. And Les Paul also did the same treatment to Mary Fords voice. Actually, Brian rarely multitracked one instrument dozens of times. More often than not it was three or four times. Which had been done in the 60's. > but one singer building a complete choir was a thing of the 70s. Paul built a complete choir in 'Wild Honey Pie'. By the way 'Bo Rhap' has three singers building a complete choir, which made the process three times easier. > You could not have done "Bohemian Rhapsody" or 10cc's "I'm not in love" in the 60s with four track. Impossible! Of course it's not impossible. It would've taken a lot more effort, bouncing, the sound quality would've been vastly inferior because of the multiple-generation recordings. But it wouldn't have been impossible. > It's funny that people alway's say 80's music is crap, but why is it still played 10, 25 years on?..... Some years ago it was somewhat trendy to put down the 80's. Nowadays they're considerably more respected. And it's well-deserved: very underrated decade with loads of good things (loads of mediocre ones, but that's true of any decade). > For one the band already did it, so they would have been copying themselves. For some extent, one could say Hot Space was at least partially copying 'Another One Bites the Dust', thus deeming the album unoriginal. > Brian?....the rocker, though those rockers were getting stale in the early 80's. Also keep in mind that it was Brian who wrote Dancer. > For the record, I like Hot Space. I recognize it wasn't their most commercial success, despite producing a #1 hit in the UK ("Under Pressure") TBF, 'Under Pressure' was a 'bastard single' done in a one-off session, but it wasn't intended for the album. It was included once they realised they could benefit from having a #1 duet in an otherwise-risky LP. |
GratefulFan 02.04.2010 16:42 |
double post |
GratefulFan 02.04.2010 16:45 |
GratefulFan wrote:rhyeking wrote: "Stepping Out" by Joe Jackson is a good song. I especially like the piano. Before someone brought it up here, I never considered any similarities between "Windows" and "Stepping Out". Frankly, I still don't see any similarities beyond the superficial use of instruments. It's the same with people saying "The Invisible Man" sounds like Ray Parker, Jr.'s "Ghostbusters," which other people say sounds like "I Want A New Drug" by Huey Lewis And The News. Where does it end? Enough talented people write enough music, you'll get the odd passing similarity, I guess. Another example is "Blockbuster" by Sweet and "The Jean Genie" by David Bowie, both of whom say it was pure coincidence. Wasn't implying a rip off - tons of differences. But in my mind the only reason one would hear 'Windows' and not immediately think 'Steppin' Out' is if you weren't really, really familiar with the latter. It's quite clear to me, and I have to think to a bunch of other people too. Queen started to sound like other people in the 80's here and there, and given their previous strengths I think that's notable. More evidence that they began to pull into the middle, the mean, the average, whatever. |
Sebastian 02.04.2010 16:48 |
Grateful Fan: I agree. While 'Bohemian Rhapsody' didn't invent new things, it was totally different to its predecessors. Same for 'Somebody to Love', 'Dreamer's Ball', etc. ''39' was way more than a simple skiffle copy, as it had several subtle details that made it one of a kind. Things in Hot Space or The Works, OTOH, were photocopies what other people (including themselves) had done. And photocopies are hardly ever as good as the originals. |
GratefulFan 02.04.2010 17:19 |
Amazon wrote: I just listened to Steppin' Out and I have to say that I disagree. I think that KPTOW is superior. It's not a perfect song, by any means (the whole 'love is all you need' isn't very original which has always really surprised me*), but I do think it's a terrific pop song. Regarding whether or not Queen became an average group during the 80's, I think it's interesting as I agree and I disagree. I agree in the sense that I don't think Queen were as inventive in 1982-1989 as they were from 1973 to 1980. When I think of Queenian creativity and experimentation, I think of the 70's, rather than the 80's. However, I disagree because IMO the 80's still produced its fair share of classics. Excluding The Game, which until the 90's, was arguably Queen's last masterpiece, the 80's albums produced IMO the following classics: Hot Space produced Staying Power, Put Out the Fire and Las Palabras de Amor, as well as Under Pressure which IMO is extremely overrated but is still a very good, if not great, song. I also think that Dancer is extremely underrated. The Works produced KPTOW, Radio Gaga, I Want To Break Free, Hammer To Fall, Machines and Is This The World We Created. A Kind of Magic produced Friends Will Be Friends, Who Wants To Live Forever (another extremely overrated song IMO) and Princes of the Universe. The Miracle produced I Want It All and Was It All Worth It. One could also add Breakthru. Not all of these songs are masterpieces, and one could debate where they stand against the best of Queen's 70's work, but when I look at the 80's (post-The Game), I think of these songs, and based on these songs, Queen during the 80's were IMO still extraordinary. *This is off-topic, but the reason I remain surprised by the fact that 'love is all you need' in KPTOW isn't particularly original is because IMO Queen were among the greatest and most original lyricists of all time. Queenpedia made a comment that their lyrics were never anything to write home about. I passionately disagree with this. We can agree to disagree about 'Steppin Out'(superior) and 'Pressure' (brilliant). :) Of the songs you listed there's not one I would take to someone unfamiliar to try and get them inspired to embrace Queen as among the very best of the best. With the slim possibility of exception for Break Free and Breakthru, if we could watch the videos too. |
PrincessofTaylor 02.04.2010 18:21 |
Jumping into all this way late, but here's my two cents. I think as "hardcore" fans, our perspective might be a little skewed. For lots of people, when they think of Queen, they think of AOBTD, Under Pressure, Ga Ga, IWTBF, and BoRhap. My observation is that people don't even really acknowledge WATC and WWRY as songs by a band because they are so ingrained in U.S. sports culture. Those same people who think of strictly 80s Queen songs would all probably say that they "like Queen", not even realizing that the stuff from the 70s existed. Just a few weeks ago at his wedding, my father-in-law made reference to Queen "that great 80s band" - it made me absolutely cringe, but everyone else in the room nodded in agreement and headed out to the dance floor for AOBTD. For me personally, if I had to point non-Queen fans in the direction of their best songs, I'd start with their stuff in the 70s and I'd stay there for a rather long time. Then I'd probably take a leap to Innuendo, skipping the 80s entirely. That doesn't mean I still don't occasionally enjoy the 80s stuff. I just don't think it is a good example of why I think Queen is so great. I think the multitracking had a lot to do with that - their 80s stuff doesn't have the same sound to me. But the transition away from multitracking in the 80s is also part of what allowed Queen to become such a huge arena band - finally they could perform their songs in concert and sound relatively close to the studio version. I'm also not a fan of the dance stuff, but was there much else going on in music at that point in the 80s? People had gone Thriller-crazy so lots of bands changed their style to embrace that. At the very least, I think Queen showed their versatility by trying new things and honestly, if they had just recorded ANATO Part II, we'd all probably be complaining about that decision too! |
Winter Land Man 02.04.2010 19:08 |
mike hunt wrote:Blue Roses Unlimited wrote:Freddie was in doing the gay scene in the 70's too, lol.mike hunt wrote:Also, Freddie was in doing the gay scene in New York at the time of Hot Space.rhyeking wrote:Let's not get in to this "freddie fault" bullshit. Of course freddie was a big part of the band, but the others had a say. John was obviously into it. roger alway's loves the new wave, dance stuff. for some reason people see roger as the rocker of the band, He was more new wave in the late 70's and 80's. Brian?....the rocker, though those rockers were getting stale in the early 80's. Also, keep in mind if it wasn't for freddie during the hot space era there wouldn't be a Queen. From what I heard freddie was the one who kept things going. The others were more occupied with the family, kids and all that.mooghead wrote:Well, yes, but there were other factors involved too. Freddie was doing the gay disco thing in Munich, which seemed to influence his pop-dance bent on this and Mr. Bad Guy. The band was in and out of the studio between South American tours for a year, which probably resulted somewhat in "Las Palabras." The band's relationship with Billy Squier almost certainly influenced them; listen to "Emotions In Motion" and tell me it doesn't have a resemblance to Hot Space material. Freddie's work with Michael Jackson can be traced to this period (and with the band, it was even earlier, as he pushed them to release "Dust" as a single). And most obviously, working with Bowie likely influenced them, even after he finished work on "Under Pressure." Bowie was between his Scary Monsters and Let's Dance albums, the latter being very pop-dance-funk laced.rhyeking wrote: What inspired this direct in the band?Another One Bites The Dust is to blame. Haha, possibly the sixties for all we know. |
mike hunt 02.04.2010 20:58 |
PrincessofTaylor wrote: Jumping into all this way late, but here's my two cents. I think as "hardcore" fans, our perspective might be a little skewed. For lots of people, when they think of Queen, they think of AOBTD, Under Pressure, Ga Ga, IWTBF, and BoRhap. My observation is that people don't even really acknowledge WATC and WWRY as songs by a band because they are so ingrained in U.S. sports culture. Those same people who think of strictly 80s Queen songs would all probably say that they "like Queen", not even realizing that the stuff from the 70s existed. Just a few weeks ago at his wedding, my father-in-law made reference to Queen "that great 80s band" - it made me absolutely cringe, but everyone else in the room nodded in agreement and headed out to the dance floor for AOBTD. For me personally, if I had to point non-Queen fans in the direction of their best songs, I'd start with their stuff in the 70s and I'd stay there for a rather long time. Then I'd probably take a leap to Innuendo, skipping the 80s entirely. That doesn't mean I still don't occasionally enjoy the 80s stuff. I just don't think it is a good example of why I think Queen is so great. I think the multitracking had a lot to do with that - their 80s stuff doesn't have the same sound to me. But the transition away from multitracking in the 80s is also part of what allowed Queen to become such a huge arena band - finally they could perform their songs in concert and sound relatively close to the studio version. I'm also not a fan of the dance stuff, but was there much else going on in music at that point in the 80s? People had gone Thriller-crazy so lots of bands changed their style to embrace that. At the very least, I think Queen showed their versatility by trying new things and honestly, if they had just recorded ANATO Part II, we'd all probably be complaining about that decision too! Depends where your from i guess...here in NY Queen are considered a 70's band, With a few hits in the early 80's. |
Sebastian 02.04.2010 21:31 |
In terms of hits (especially for rock-oriented listeners or those who like gospel or rockabilly), Queen made most of them in the 70's - RockYou/Champions, Bo Rhap, Crazy Little Thing, Don't Stop Me, Somebody to Love vs Dust, Under Pressure, Ga Ga, Magic and Break Free. In terms of their public image, people tend to relate them with their 80's era (moustache, Wembley, Live Aid, crossdressing). Speaking of which, though I'm not too fond of A Kind of Magic (the song), I like the message given in the video: without Fred, they're tramps. With him, magic! |
PrincessofTaylor 02.04.2010 22:15 |
mike hunt wrote:PrincessofTaylor wrote: Jumping into all this way late, but here's my two cents. I think as "hardcore" fans, our perspective might be a little skewed. For lots of people, when they think of Queen, they think of AOBTD, Under Pressure, Ga Ga, IWTBF, and BoRhap. My observation is that people don't even really acknowledge WATC and WWRY as songs by a band because they are so ingrained in U.S. sports culture. Those same people who think of strictly 80s Queen songs would all probably say that they "like Queen", not even realizing that the stuff from the 70s existed. Just a few weeks ago at his wedding, my father-in-law made reference to Queen "that great 80s band" - it made me absolutely cringe, but everyone else in the room nodded in agreement and headed out to the dance floor for AOBTD. For me personally, if I had to point non-Queen fans in the direction of their best songs, I'd start with their stuff in the 70s and I'd stay there for a rather long time. Then I'd probably take a leap to Innuendo, skipping the 80s entirely. That doesn't mean I still don't occasionally enjoy the 80s stuff. I just don't think it is a good example of why I think Queen is so great. I think the multitracking had a lot to do with that - their 80s stuff doesn't have the same sound to me. But the transition away from multitracking in the 80s is also part of what allowed Queen to become such a huge arena band - finally they could perform their songs in concert and sound relatively close to the studio version. I'm also not a fan of the dance stuff, but was there much else going on in music at that point in the 80s? People had gone Thriller-crazy so lots of bands changed their style to embrace that. At the very least, I think Queen showed their versatility by trying new things and honestly, if they had just recorded ANATO Part II, we'd all probably be complaining about that decision too!Depends where your from i guess...here in NY Queen are considered a 70's band, With a few hits in the early 80's. Very true - where I'm originally from and where I live now are both decidedly less-cool than NY (where I lived for four years in college). Makes sense that they'd go for the 80s stuff and NY would remember the 70s stuff.. |
rhyeking 02.04.2010 22:18 |
"Without Freddie, they're tramps. With him: Magic!" (Rolling eyes and sighing heavily) Seb, sometimes you're the most literal person who posts here and you don't invite understanding by being so. It's that kind of fan-wanking of perception, retroactively forcing the things which fit into your view into place while ignoring all other details which don't, which plagues these forums. Freddie is the magician character in the video *beacuse he's the one singing the feakin' song!* It's not an allegory for the nature of the relationships within the band, no matter how much you and others would so dearly love it to be. |
Sebastian 02.04.2010 22:30 |
Of course I'm not saying it was exactly like that (and if you think I am, then there's a person taking things way too literally here and it's not me), I'm just saying I like the message given (regardless of the fact it's not meant to be deep or serious as it's merely a promo video for a song written for a fiction film, and it's not by any means a statement on the way they worked [and if you think I'm implying otherwise, then there's a person taking things way too literally here and it's not me]). The four Queen members were unique and irreplaceable, that's obvious. However, I like the message given in the video (and that's the extent of it). Is it fiction? Of course it is. But I like it: without Fred, they're tramps, then he comes in and hocus pocus, and when he leaves they're tramps again. Is it fiction? Of course it is (though it may be subtly prophetic in a way, depending on how you look at it). But I like it. Do you? Fine. Don't you? Fine. But I'm not issuing any profound statement demonising or underrating John's, Roger's and Brian's role. All I said was: Though I'm not very fond of the song, I do like the video and the message it gives: without Freddie, they're tramps, with him, it's magic! He leaves and they're tramps again. Is it based on a true story? No. But I like it. I like it. |
mike hunt 03.04.2010 02:44 |
History has proven Queen were magic with freddie, Not so much without him. |
Holly2003 03.04.2010 04:48 |
mike hunt wrote: History has proven Queen were magic with freddie, Not so much without him. And vice versa. |
tcc 03.04.2010 05:32 |
Sebastian wrote: Of course I'm not saying it was exactly like that (and if you think I am, then there's a person taking things way too literally here and it's not me), I'm just saying I like the message given (regardless of the fact it's not meant to be deep or serious as it's merely a promo video for a song written for a fiction film, and it's not by any means a statement on the way they worked [and if you think I'm implying otherwise, then there's a person taking things way too literally here and it's not me]). The four Queen members were unique and irreplaceable, that's obvious. However, I like the message given in the video (and that's the extent of it). Is it fiction? Of course it is. But I like it: without Fred, they're tramps, then he comes in and hocus pocus, and when he leaves they're tramps again. Is it fiction? Of course it is (though it may be subtly prophetic in a way, depending on how you look at it). But I like it. Do you? Fine. Don't you? Fine. But I'm not issuing any profound statement demonising or underrating John's, Roger's and Brian's role. All I said was: Though I'm not very fond of the song, I do like the video and the message it gives: without Freddie, they're tramps, with him, it's magic! He leaves and they're tramps again. Is it based on a true story? No. But I like it. I like it. Your so-called message is the storyline. Freddie was acting the role of a magician. It was the magician (and not Freddie) who turned things into magic. To you, the storyline seems to ring true, but to say that there is a message implying that Freddie was the magician in the band is to put words in the director's mouth. |
Soundfreak 03.04.2010 05:51 |
Sebastian wrote: > And yet you don't want to understand.... That statement speaks more about you than about me. Maybe the one who doesn't want to understand is not me. > Between Les Paul and Brian May you won't find famous people in rock-music who multitracked one instrument dozens of times. And Les Paul also did the same treatment to Mary Fords voice. Actually, Brian rarely multitracked one instrument dozens of times. More often than not it was three or four times. Which had been done in the 60's. > but one singer building a complete choir was a thing of the 70s. Paul built a complete choir in 'Wild Honey Pie'. By the way 'Bo Rhap' has three singers building a complete choir, which made the process three times easier. > You could not have done "Bohemian Rhapsody" or 10cc's "I'm not in love" in the 60s with four track. Impossible! Of course it's not impossible. It would've taken a lot more effort, bouncing, the sound quality would've been vastly inferior because of the multiple-generation recordings. But it wouldn't have been impossible. Too funny, "Wild Honey Pie" is 53 seconds of studio fun. And for a single musician it's quite easy to build up such a recording on 4-track and have maybe four voices along with two acoustic guitars. On Bohemian Rhapsody even the piano has two tracks, the bass has three tracks...the drums four... and so on. 10 cc recorded 16 different vocal notes on a 16 track and created chords with the mixing console. They turned the multitrack machine into an instrument. I would love to watch you doing this on a 4 track machine. (yes I know...of course they could have done it with a mellotron in the 60s...) And what you don't want to understand is that we are talking here about multitracking as an artform. Sure, every recording uses multitracking to have better mixing options. Multitracking as an artform is a thing of the 70s and cannot be reproduced live on stage. Brian May could never play "Procession"...they could never do "March of the Black Queen", they could never play the complete "Bohemian Rhapsody" live. They could never play "Killer Queen"...."Bicycle Race". The list is endless.... Somehow I begin to forget what this discussion was all about. The only thing I notice is that your main concern is, that you are right and everybody else is wrong. |
Sebastian 03.04.2010 06:20 |
> To you, the storyline seems to ring true Er... no: read what I wrote 'Is it fiction? Of course it is ' 'Is it based on a true story? No' > Too funny, "Wild Honey Pie" is 53 seconds of studio fun. And for a single musician it's quite easy to build up such a recording on 4-track and have maybe four voices along with two acoustic guitars. Bottomline: it's got multitracking. > On Bohemian Rhapsody even the piano has two tracks, the bass has three tracks...the drums four... and so on. Which is great, but not new. > I would love to watch you doing this on a 4 track machine. (yes I know...of course they could have done it with a mellotron in the 60s...) They could've done it by having four 4-track tape-recorders and then using them simultaneously. It would have taken them a lot more work, the result would've been a lot less spectacular (in terms of sound quality), it would've cost them a lot more money, but it would have been possible, which is my point all in all. > And what you don't want to understand is that we are talking here about multitracking as an artform. Sure, every recording uses multitracking to have better mixing options. Which is also an art form. As a matter of fact, I think (though I'm not sure yet Hot Space has more multi-tracking than News of the World. > Multitracking as an artform is a thing of the 70s and cannot be reproduced live on stage. Multi-tracking from the 60's, 80's, 90's, 00's or 10's also cannot be reproduced live on stage. > Brian May could never play "Procession"...they could never do "March of the Black Queen", they could never play the complete "Bohemian Rhapsody" live. They could never play "Killer Queen"...."Bicycle Race". The list is endless.... Actually, they could. In stripped form of course, but they could. > The only thing I notice is that your main concern is, that you are right and everybody else is wrong. Which means you didn't notice anything, as I've got absolutely no concern in everybody else being wrong. And by the way, why are you including 'everybody else' when I direct my reply to you and not the remaining 6.8 billions that are included in 'everybody else'. That suggests that there IS a person here who doesn't want to understand, but it's not me. I've been wrong many many many times, and if this is one of them and you can prove it, I'll be happy to stand corrected. However, it's completely childish and silly to come up with personal attacks (such as 'Mr Everybody Else Is Wrong', totally uncalled for as I've never attacked you personally) or speculations about how I think or what my main concern is (again, totally uncalled for as I've never speculated what your concerns are, and I deserve the favour to be returned). My points are, all in all, that several things we seem to take for granted about Hot Space may not be entirely like that (which also happens a lot with loads of people in loads of fields and is of course not restricted to music or an album by a rock band), including: - The power-distribution, so to speak: many people seem convinced that John was a main force behind this album, when in fact he wasn't, and in the very occasional instances he's been vocal about the band, he's mentioned Hot Space as the low point in their career. The fact is, both Brian and Roger are much more to either thank or blame for Hot Space than John is, and of course Freddie as well. It doesn't mean John was forced to play on it, it simply means that it wasn't dominated by him (on the contrary, Flash Gordon was dominated by Brian in terms of how it ended up and which parts were and weren't included). - Your initial remark about 'Looking back "Hot Space" has too little of Brian May on the songs' is wrong, as he participated in all of them except one. On 'Staying Power' he plays guitar (a very nice and underrated part), on 'Dancer' he plays guitar (multi-tracked, by the way) and synthesisers and he's probably the one who programmed the drum computer in the intro; on 'Back Chat' he adds some power chords and plays a long solo; on 'Action This Day' he plays rhythm; on 'Put Out the Fire' he plays rhythm (multi-tracked), lead (with one fantastic solo) and sings some interesting backing vocals; on 'Life Is Real' he plays acoustic and electric; on 'Calling All Girls' he also plays guitar (acoustic and electric), while on 'Under Pressure' he had a major role in the arrangements, not to mention his unforgettable work on twelve-string; on 'Las Palabras de Amor' he plays piano and acoustic and electric and synthesisers (multi-tracked) and he sings loads of backing vocals (e.g. 'this night and evermore' is him doing alto, tenor and baritone, without the others and yes, again, he's multi-tracked). Only 'Cool Cat' (where he doesn't appear) and 'Body Language' (where he plays for about three seconds) actually have 'too little of Brian May'. But the remaining 83.33% of the album has Brian taking a very important role. Which means your comment is wrong. Does it make you a bad person? Of course not. Does it make you inferior? Of course not. Does it make everybody else wrong? Of course not. But it's indeed one of those points people (me included, before I realised my mistake) tend to assume about Hot Space when they're really not true. - Same for your other comment 'Roger Taylors drums were replaced by a computer', which is only true for a minority of tracks. The first five songs in the album combine both approaches (computers and Rog playing on either acoustic or electronic drums) but 'Fire', 'Palabras', 'Calling', 'Pressure', 'Life Is Real' and 'Cool Cat' are entirely acoustic, rendering over half of the abum having Roger Taylor's drums NOT being replaced by a computer. Again: it means your comment is wrong. Does it make you a bad person? Of course not. Does it make you inferior? Of course not. Does it make everybody else wrong? Of course not. But it's indeed one of those points people (me included, before I realised my mistake) tend to assume about Hot Space when they're really not true. |
The_CrY 03.04.2010 06:29 |
Sebastian wrote: Only 'Cool Cat' (where he doesn't appear) and 'Body Language' (where he plays for about three seconds) actually have 'too little of Brian May'.Are sure there's no Brian in Cool Cat? Who plays that laid back rhythm guitar in the intro then? |
Sebastian 03.04.2010 06:37 |
John Deacon. John played a lot of electric rhythm. |
Amazon 03.04.2010 09:06 |
rhyeking wrote: "Stepping Out" by Joe Jackson is a good song. I especially like the piano. Before someone brought it up here, I never considered any similarities between "Windows" and "Stepping Out". Frankly, I still don't see any similarities beyond the superficial use of instruments. It's the same with people saying "The Invisible Man" sounds like Ray Parker, Jr.'s "Ghostbusters," which other people say sounds like "I Want A New Drug" by Huey Lewis And The News. To be fair, The Invisible Man does IMO sound like a copy of Ghostbusters. It's a fun song, and I like the mention of the members' names, but it sounds like a rip-off of Ghostbusters. GratefulFan wrote: "We can agree to disagree about 'Steppin Out'(superior) and 'Pressure' (brilliant). :) Of the songs you listed there's not one I would take to someone unfamiliar to try and get them inspired to embrace Queen as among the very best of the best. With the slim possibility of exception for Break Free and Breakthru, if we could watch the videos too." Fair enought. IMO most of the very best Queen songs were from the 70's (or up until 1980), as opposed to the 80's (83-89), however I do think that from 82-89, Queen released some terrific songs, so for me they didn't become average during that era. |
Amazon 03.04.2010 09:18 |
Sebastian wrote: " "Again, by what standard? I know you're above such a simple, glib assessment. Make me see your point of view." "Songwriting's sub-par, sounds are dated, Hammer to Fall (wonderful song, great vocals [especially Brian's harmonies], awful recording in terms of instruments), Ga Ga is way too robotic, Machines (great song and very underrated) has very little imagination in the arrangement, Freddie's voice (brilliant as it is) is his least-good in the 1984-1986 period (i.e. it's excellent, but not as excellent as before or after). So, by Queen standards, it's not a great album. All of that IMO of course, since there are subjective factors that cannot be measured (e.g. if you proposed to your wife while listening to Break Free [though that would send mixed signals], then it's probably gonna be the best song ever for you)." The problem with this is that everything you said is pretty much subjective. The songwriting's sub-par? Under what criteria? Hammer to Fall is awfully recorded in terms of instruments? Under what criteria? Freddie's voice was his least-good during that period? Under what criteria? Personally, I do regard Break Free to be a great song, and it's not because I proposed to my wife while listening to it or anything like that. :D I regard to be one of the purest examples in the past 20 years of a pop song. Additonally many of the other things that you mention on this thread are not objectively bad, they just are. Utilising unadventurous bass-lines, or making a song extremely robotic does not automatically mean that these songs are sub-par. Afterall, others might take these things as evidence of why they do consider these songs to be great. Finally, you talk about skill; music is more than about skill. Ultimately it is about the satisfaction that one derives from listening to it. How much skill went into it does not necessarily determine how good a song it is. However, that said, I don't think that your analogy of Dorris Lessing writing 'hey hi wazzup' really works. Much more skill went into making these songs than would in go towards Lessing writing 'hey hi wazzup.' In fact, one could contrast it to Martin Scorsese. In 1990, he made Goodfellas. In 1991, he made Cape Fear, which requred less skill, but is still a highly impressive film. Scorsese had the capability to make a more ambitious film than Cape Fear; the fact that he didn't doesn't lessen Cape Fear. One last comment: "Things in Hot Space or The Works, OTOH, were photocopies what other people (including themselves) had done. And photocopies are hardly ever as good as the originals." Here it is debatable. I'm not convinced, for example, that KPTOW was a photocopy of Stepping Out. |
August R. 03.04.2010 10:06 |
Sebastian wrote: They could've done it by having four 4-track tape-recorders and then using them simultaneously. It would have taken them a lot more work, the result would've been a lot less spectacular (in terms of sound quality), it would've cost them a lot more money, but it would have been possible, which is my point all in all. Interestin discussion.. here's my two cents: While it would have been technically possible, would it have been financially wise? And wold the work load have become unreasonable compared to the quality of final product? I mean, they already put a lot of time and effort into albums like Opera. And that album became (reportedly) the most expensive album at that time. My point is: while it would have been technically possible to record an album like Opera in the mid-60's, with that technology they would have come up with more reasonable solutions to record the things they wanted (like using a real choir instead of multi tracking 3 voices over and over again). |
Sebastian 03.04.2010 15:11 |
> The problem with this is that everything you said is pretty much subjective. If you cared to read what I wrote (and what you quoted), I said 'All of that IMO of course.' > Additonally many of the other things that you mention on this thread are not objectively bad, they just are. Of course. If you cared to read what I wrote (and what you quoted), I said 'All of that IMO of course.' > Utilising unadventurous bass-lines, or making a song extremely robotic does not automatically mean that these songs are sub-par. Of course. If you cared to read what I wrote (and what you quoted), I said 'All of that IMO of course.' > Afterall, others might take these things as evidence of why they do consider these songs to be great. Of course. If you cared to read what I wrote (and what you quoted), I said 'All of that IMO of course.' > Finally, you talk about skill; music is more than about skill. Of course. If you cared to read what I wrote (and what you quoted), I said 'All of that IMO of course.' > Ultimately it is about the satisfaction that one derives from listening to it. How much skill went into it does not necessarily determine how good a song it is. Actually, it IS a factor. Roger's outstanding soprano Bb on 'Bohemian Rhapsody' is one of the things that make it so great. Had it been an octave lower (that note, not the entire choir), it would've been less great. Same if Brian's solo were a lousy 'even rookies could play it' thing, or if the vocals were sung by the bloke in the Ramones. Same if the producers and engineers weren't skilful enough to make a good mix and the song ended up barely audible. Skills aren't the only factor but they are a factor. All of that IMO of course. > However, that said, I don't think that your analogy of Dorris Lessing writing 'hey hi wazzup' really works. Much more skill went into making these songs than would in go towards Lessing writing 'hey hi wazzup.' IMO of course, Brian could've played the 'Dancer' solo in his sleep. The song's good, underrated and enjoyable, but it's not Dr May at his best. That, IMO of course, is disappointing, IMO of course. > Scorsese had the capability to make a more ambitious film than Cape Fear; the fact that he didn't doesn't lessen Cape Fear. It's not about ambition. In music, it's not about having a song with multiple overdubs or loads of chords... in fact, part of the point I've been trying to make previously is that Hot Space does have a lot of multitracking, perhaps more so than News of the World. Again, 'Dear Friends' is a fantastic song even though it's simple. 'Staying Power' has more chords, a waaaaaay more elaborate form, requires more skills on synth than 'Dear Friends' requires on piano, but it's, IMO of course, Dorris Lessing writing 'hey hi wazzup.' Regarding your comment about my photocopies remark, it's IMO of course, and there's nothing wrong with agreeing or disagreeing with it. IMO of course, 'Keep Passing the Open Windows' is an 80's version of 'Don't Stop Me Now', only that 'DSMN' is way better. I do like 'KPtoW' and think the middle-eight is gorgeous, but it doesn't hold a candle to 'DSMN' (all of that IMO of course). BTW, IMO of course, it's annoying to have to write 'IMO of course' in order not to be thought to be imposing my views. So, if you want, just assume the 'IMO of course' disclaimer after every single word I write. > Interestin discussion.. here's my two cents: While it would have been technically possible, would it have been financially wise? Indeed it wouldn't have. And I did mention that. But it would've been possible, which is my point. > And wold the work load have become unreasonable compared to the quality of final product? Indeed it wouldn't have. And I did mention that. But it would've been possible, which is my point. > I mean, they already put a lot of time and effort into albums like Opera. And that album became (reportedly) the most expensive album at that time. I highly doubt that. It was part of a marketing strategy that obviously worked. Same for the alleged 138, 150, 160, 180 or 200 vocals. > My point is: while it would have been technically possible to record an album like Opera in the mid-60's, with that technology they would have come up with more reasonable solutions to record the things they wanted (like using a real choir instead of multi tracking 3 voices over and over again). Indeed. |
Amazon 03.04.2010 15:38 |
Sebastian wrote: "> The problem with this is that everything you said is pretty much subjective. If you cared to read what I wrote (and what you quoted), I said 'All of that IMO of course.' > Additonally many of the other things that you mention on this thread are not objectively bad, they just are. Of course. If you cared to read what I wrote (and what you quoted), I said 'All of that IMO of course.' > Utilising unadventurous bass-lines, or making a song extremely robotic does not automatically mean that these songs are sub-par. Of course. If you cared to read what I wrote (and what you quoted), I said 'All of that IMO of course.' > Afterall, others might take these things as evidence of why they do consider these songs to be great. Of course. If you cared to read what I wrote (and what you quoted), I said 'All of that IMO of course.' > Finally, you talk about skill; music is more than about skill. Of course. If you cared to read what I wrote (and what you quoted), I said 'All of that IMO of course.' " It' s all very well to repeat that I should have read what you wrote again and again, except you said 'All of that IMO of course, since there are subjective factors that cannot be measured (e.g. if you proposed to your wife while listening to Break Free [though that would send mixed signals], then it's probably gonna be the best song ever for you).' The fact that you specifically refer to particular subjective factors makes it reasonable to assume that the other factors you speak of are in your view objective. Plus you do have a habbit of conflating your opinion and what you imagine to be fact. You don't just do it with me; but if you want to imagine that this particular disagreement is because I don't read your post, that's your choice. " "Ultimately it is about the satisfaction that one derives from listening to it. How much skill went into it does not necessarily determine how good a song it is." "Actually, it IS a factor. Roger's outstanding soprano Bb on 'Bohemian Rhapsody' is one of the things that make it so great. Had it been an octave lower (that note, not the entire choir), it would've been less great. Same if Brian's solo were a lousy 'even rookies could play it' thing, or if the vocals were sung by the bloke in the Ramones. Same if the producers and engineers weren't skilful enough to make a good mix and the song ended up barely audible. Skills aren't the only factor but they are a factor. All of that IMO of course." Of course. However, I was responding to your contention that HS featured only 5% of Brian's skill. Skill is important, but it is not the only factor and it is not always the most important factor. " "However, that said, I don't think that your analogy of Dorris Lessing writing 'hey hi wazzup' really works. Much more skill went into making these songs than would in go towards Lessing writing 'hey hi wazzup.' " "IMO of course, Brian could've played the 'Dancer' solo in his sleep. The song's good, underrated and enjoyable, but it's not Dr May at his best. That, IMO of course, is disappointing, IMO of course." This is what I'm referring to. Perhaps he could have, but this does not necessarily lessen the song (as it is, I think it's a very underrated but not great song). " "Scorsese had the capability to make a more ambitious film than Cape Fear; the fact that he didn't doesn't lessen Cape Fear." "It's not about ambition. In music, it's not about having a song with multiple overdubs or loads of chords... in fact, part of the point I've been trying to make previously is that Hot Space does have a lot of multitracking, perhaps more so than News of the World. Again, 'Dear Friends' is a fantastic song even though it's simple. 'Staying Power' has more chords, a waaaaaay more elaborate form, requires more skills on synth than 'Dear Friends' requires on piano, but it's, IMO of course, Dorris Lessing writing 'hey hi wazzup.' " When I refer to Scorsese's making Cape Fear, I'm referring to the fact that after Goodfellas, he made a film which required less of his skillset. Ambition is probably the wrong word. Certainly, my point was that I don't think the Lessing analogy holds up. "BTW, IMO of course, it's annoying to have to write 'IMO of course' in order not to be thought to be imposing my views. So, if you want, just assume the 'IMO of course' disclaimer after every single word I write." Except here's the thing. Nobody is demanding that you say IMO after every sentence, but on several threads such as the guitarist thread or this, you merge objectivity and subjectivity whenever the mood takes you. |
Sebastian 03.04.2010 16:01 |
> The fact that you specifically refer to particular subjective factors makes it reasonable to assume that the other factors you speak of are in your view objective. No, it doesn't. First of all. I preceded the 'Break Free' case with an 'e.g.' (thus, it wasn't the only one). Second, refering to a particular fact(or) doesn't mean everything else is on the other extreme. If I say 'Margaret Thatcher is still alive', does it mean everybody else is dead? Same here: if I say the 'Break Free'/marriage point is subjective, it doesn't mean that everything else is objective. > Plus you do have a habbit of conflating your opinion and what you imagine to be fact. Some things are facts. Hot Space was released before The Miracle. That's a fact. Whether one or the other is 'better' is an opinion. And indeed things like 'better' or 'worse' ('sub-par' obviously enters this category) are subjective (including the reasons why I consider Petrucci to be 'better' than Dr May). > but if you want to imagine that this particular disagreement is because I don't read your post, that's your choice. It's not about not reading it, but about not understanding it. > However, I was responding to your contention that HS featured only 5% of Brian's skill. Skill is important, but it is not the only factor and it is not always the most important factor. I agree. However, between an album featuring 5% of Brian's skill, and one featuring 100% (or even more) of Brian's skill, the latter's already got a big advantage. If you add a better voice (all of that IMO of course), better drums (all of that IMO of course), better bass (all of that IMO of course), more piano (which isn't an IMO case as it can be measured), then you've got a(n obviously subjective) way to explain why you like (or why I like, in this case) an album more than another. > This is what I'm referring to. Perhaps he could have, but this does not necessarily lessen the song (as it is, I think it's a very underrated but not great song). There you have it: very underrated but not great. 'Good Company', on the other hand, is great (YMMW, of course). > Nobody is demanding that you say IMO after every sentence, but on several threads such as the guitarist thread or this, you merge objectivity and subjectivity whenever the mood takes you. Actually, I don't: I've always been clear that things like 'better' or 'worse' are subjective. Other things are objective: Roger sings a higher note on 'Bo Rhap' than on 'Lap of the Gods', full stop. That's not a matter of opinion. All in all, there are things about Hot Space that are entirely subjective or speculative, such as: is it a good album? Does the fact it's from the 80's matter? Would we complain if they'd made ANATO II? Would it have been better with Arif producing the whole thing? Does running order play a key role on the final result? Would it have sold more had it been released six months before or six months later? If you (or anybody else) says something like 'I prefer Hot Space to Dark Side of the Moon', there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Other people (me included) may disagree (I do), but there's no accounting for taste. However, other things about Hot Space are objective and measurable: Was it recorded before The Game? Was it mastered in the States? Does Freddie play guitar in addition to keyboards? Is the 'Body Language' bass played on a synthesiser? Has it got little to no multitracking? Are the songs averagely longer? Is there a song with more chords than 'Black Queen'? For all those things, there is a definitive absolute answer (sometimes harder to suss out as it requires working with different variables), which may or may not affect the subjective way each of us embraces (or decides not to embrace) the album (e.g. having more or less chords than 'Black Queen' doesn't make it better or worse). However, for any of those points, if a person says something like 'there's very little of Brian May in the songs' or 'most drums are computerised rather than Roger playing', there's absolutely nothing wrong with another person (me, in this case, but it could've been anybody else) asserting that those statements are false (indeed they are). |
Soundfreak 04.04.2010 07:20 |
Sebastian wrote: > Multitracking as an artform is a thing of the 70s and cannot be reproduced live on stage. Multi-tracking from the 60's, 80's, 90's, 00's or 10's also cannot be reproduced live on stage. > Brian May could never play "Procession"...they could never do "March of the Black Queen", they could never play the complete "Bohemian Rhapsody" live. They could never play "Killer Queen"...."Bicycle Race". The list is endless.... Actually, they could. In stripped form of course, but they could. Well Mr. Sebastian, they could not. Otherwise they would have.... Their 70s trademark sound created by multitracking could never be reproduced live. Point! You can't have 5 Freddies on stage. So...it's hopeless....I'm speechless. And I lose interest in this fruitless discussion. And please don't accuse me of personal attacks, you obviously don't notice how you make people look like idiots when you put everything down, that doesn't fit into your world. I'm out of this discussion. |
Amazon 04.04.2010 07:36 |
Sebastian, I will simply say that if you think it's about me not understanding your post, and if you think that your posts about May being a lesser guitarist than Petrucci were subjective, then we have a different view of history. |
Sebastian 04.04.2010 15:29 |
> Well Mr. Sebastian, they could not. Otherwise they would have.... What a ridiculous argument. Based on that, Fred couldn't have jumped a cliff otherwise he would have. Brian couldn't destroy the Red Special, otherwise he would have. Fred was physically incapable of wearing a blue t-shirt to the Wembley concert, otherwise he would have. > Their 70s trademark sound created by multitracking could never be reproduced live. Point! Techinically, nothing could be reproduced live as every time a person sings breaths differently, every time fingers play the piano they stress the keys differently, etc. > You can't have 5 Freddies on stage. No, but you can have Brian and Roger doing the missing harmonies. For a guitar choir, you could have Brian playing both parts simultaneously, or John joining with another guitar, etc. They decided not to recreate the sound of the records, and it was great since it made the whole live experience different. But it doesn't mean they couldn't have done it. The result wouldn't have been exactly the same but yes, had they wanted to, they could've gotten as close as possible. > So...it's hopeless....I'm speechless. And I lose interest in this fruitless discussion. It's your problem, not mine. > And please don't accuse me of personal attacks, I do have the right to 'accuse' you of that, as I've never attacked you personally, but you have. Totally unfair. > you obviously don't notice how you make people look like idiots when you put everything down I don't make anybody feel like idiot. And I don't put everything down. Again, if you say 'Hot Space is better than The Game, it's your opinion and it's neither more valid nor less valid than mine (which is the other way around). However, if you say 'Hot Space was released before The Game', then I can tell you 'no, it wasn't' because it wasn't. You said or implied (don't remember your exact words) Roger's drumming was largely (or chiefly) replaced by machines. Which wasn't. So I pointed it out. That doesn't make you look like an idiot, it simply corrects a mistake (and that is a mistake since that is a B/W situation). Same for you saying there's little of Brian May in the tracks. > that doesn't fit into your world. I haven't got a world, so your statement is clearly false. > I'm out of this discussion. It's your decision. It doesn't change the fact your drum/Brian comments were wrong and doesn't change the fact multi-tracking is not exclusive to the 70's, and it doesn't change the fact there is a lot of multitracking in Hot Space, and it doesn't change the fact that I haven't made personal attack against you while you have. > Sebastian, I will simply say that if you think it's about me not understanding your post, and if you think that your posts about May being a lesser guitarist than Petrucci were subjective, then we have a different view of history. And which view would it be? |
Soundfreak 05.04.2010 06:06 |
Sebastian wrote: > Well Mr. Sebastian, they could not. Otherwise they would have.... What a ridiculous argument. Based on that, Fred couldn't have jumped a cliff otherwise he would have. Brian couldn't destroy the Red Special, otherwise he would have. Fred was physically incapable of wearing a blue t-shirt to the Wembley concert, otherwise he would have. > Their 70s trademark sound created by multitracking could never be reproduced live. Point! Techinically, nothing could be reproduced live as every time a person sings breaths differently, every time fingers play the piano they stress the keys differently, etc. > You can't have 5 Freddies on stage. No, but you can have Brian and Roger doing the missing harmonies. For a guitar choir, you could have Brian playing both parts simultaneously, or John joining with another guitar, etc. They decided not to recreate the sound of the records, and it was great since it made the whole live experience different. But it doesn't mean they couldn't have done it. The result wouldn't have been exactly the same but yes, had they wanted to, they could've gotten as close as possible. > So...it's hopeless....I'm speechless. And I lose interest in this fruitless discussion. It's your problem, not mine. > And please don't accuse me of personal attacks, I do have the right to 'accuse' you of that, as I've never attacked you personally, but you have. Totally unfair. > you obviously don't notice how you make people look like idiots when you put everything down I don't make anybody feel like idiot. And I don't put everything down. Again, if you say 'Hot Space is better than The Game, it's your opinion and it's neither more valid nor less valid than mine (which is the other way around). However, if you say 'Hot Space was released before The Game', then I can tell you 'no, it wasn't' because it wasn't. You said or implied (don't remember your exact words) Roger's drumming was largely (or chiefly) replaced by machines. Which wasn't. So I pointed it out. That doesn't make you look like an idiot, it simply corrects a mistake (and that is a mistake since that is a B/W situation). Same for you saying there's little of Brian May in the tracks. > that doesn't fit into your world. I haven't got a world, so your statement is clearly false. > I'm out of this discussion. It's your decision. It doesn't change the fact your drum/Brian comments were wrong and doesn't change the fact multi-tracking is not exclusive to the 70's, and it doesn't change the fact there is a lot of multitracking in Hot Space, and it doesn't change the fact that I haven't made personal attack against you while you have. > Sebastian, I will simply say that if you think it's about me not understanding your post, and if you think that your posts about May being a lesser guitarist than Petrucci were subjective, then we have a different view of history. And which view would it be? It's like talking to a wall. As a musician you can play on a track and yet there is little of you there... Brian May may have played rhythm on some tracks and yet he is "not there" on tracks like "Staying Power", "Cool Cat", "Body Language"...."Action". The only conclusion I can draw from your words is, that you are full of "theory" but you don't have any practice. I don't think you can even play guitar or any instrument at all on a higher level. Otherwise you would blush about many things you have written above. And now I blush cause I have contradicted myself when I said I'm out of this discussion...but now I am. ;-) |
Sebastian 05.04.2010 08:27 |
On 'Body Language' there's very little of Brian May. On 'Cool Cat' there's no Brian May. On the rest of the album there is more than a little, full stop. Of course, there's the subjective point of whether he 'felt' what he was playing or whatever, but unless you can read minds there's no way to know that. It's like speculating whether he had a red t-shirt while recording the tracks. And what's your excuse for the drum computer thing? By the way, your comments about me being full of theory are again a personal attack, which suggests you either have an obsession with me, or you simply can't accept you were wrong. In either case, you're a lot closer to the 'wall' you mention. And as you correctly pointed out, you contradicted yourself, adding to the overall possibility that you do have a lot of insecurities. |
Holly2003 05.04.2010 09:00 |
Sebastian wrote: On 'Body Language' there's very little of Brian May. On 'Cool Cat' there's no Brian May. On the rest of the album there is more than a little, full stop. Of course, there's the subjective point of whether he 'felt' what he was playing or whatever, but unless you can read minds there's no way to know that. It's like speculating whether he had a red t-shirt while recording the tracks. And what's your excuse for the drum computer thing? By the way, your comments about me being full of theory are again a personal attack, which suggests you either have an obsession with me, or you simply can't accept you were wrong. In either case, you're a lot closer to the 'wall' you mention. And as you correctly pointed out, you contradicted yourself, adding to the overall possibility that you do have a lot of insecurities. This problem arises once again because you read some comments too literally. When Soundfreak said there's little of Brian may on Hot Space, I doubt very much anyone but you assumed that meant literally that Brian May only plays a little bit on each song or not at all. Is it likely Soundfreak meant that Brian May was present for 79% of Jazz, 80% of Queen II, but only 24% of Hot Space?* What I assumed he/she meant is that the traditional Brian May "sound", style and trademarks that we all know and loved up to that point are either not present, or are so modified or muted that they are almost unrecognisable. * those figures are made up to illustrate my point -- dont take them literally... |
Sebastian 05.04.2010 15:16 |
In that case, his/her statement is phrased the wrong way. And what's the explanation for Roger's drumming allegedly being mostly replaced by computers? I suppose I can say most songs in Hot Space were co-written by Bowie. Oh wait... they weren't. Whatever... don't take things literally. Moreover, again, there's no excuse for personal attacks. Instead of addressing the contents of the problem/discussion (as opposed to what you've done when explaining the trademark sound thing), this user's been making offensive comments about me, when I haven't attacked him/her in any way. Is there an excuse for that? No, there isn't. Some things are obviously not meant to be taken literally (e.g. Fred's comment about 'Bo Rhap' having them recreating a 160-200 voices effect, unknowingly creating a false legend when people indeed took it way too literally). Others are. Soundfreak commented on the album and in the process made some wrong statements such as multitracking no longer being exciting (OK, that one's partly subjective, but bottomline we can't read minds and know if they thought it was exciting or not), 'Dust' not having typical guitar sounds (it does, very few but it does), having too little of Brian May (it hasn't), and Roger's drums being replaced by a computer (which only happened in a minority of cases). Those things aren't subjective or based on personal opinion. Either an album has too little of Brian May or it doesn't. Either most of the drums are computeriser or they aren't. Either a song has typical guitar sounds or it doesn't (of course, the term 'typical' is subjective there). |
Holly2003 05.04.2010 15:37 |
No, Soundfreak wasn't wrong about too little "Brian May", IMO he/she just phrased it in a way that he/she knew would be understood by most i.e. in an informal way that's appropriate for a forum like this. To be clearer, he'she could have put 'Brian May' in inverted commas to emphasise that he/she didn't mean for it to be taken literally (e.g. there's too little 'Queen' in Queen's Hot Space album), but in informal English, people seldom do this, nor should we expect them to, especially when the meaning is fairly clear anyway. |
Sebastian 05.04.2010 16:20 |
Let's say the 'too little' thing's a grey area (though I disagree, but I suppose I agree to disagree). What's the excuse for drums allegedly being chiefly computerised? What's the excuse for those nasty comments about me done entirely without provocation? And by the way, if you think I'm taking things too literally, then the solution's simple: don't take my comments literally. If I say 'there's not too little of Brian in Hot Space', you can assume I'm saying it metaphorically. Or is it OK for you to take my comments literally but it's not OK for me to take yours? |
Holly2003 05.04.2010 17:05 |
Sebastian wrote: Let's say the 'too little' thing's a grey area (though I disagree, but I suppose I agree to disagree). What's the excuse for drums allegedly being chiefly computerised? What's the excuse for those nasty comments about me done entirely without provocation? And by the way, if you think I'm taking things too literally, then the solution's simple: don't take my comments literally. If I say 'there's not too little of Brian in Hot Space', you can assume I'm saying it metaphorically. Or is it OK for you to take my comments literally but it's not OK for me to take yours? I don't know enough about drums to comment, but I suspect Soundfreak was exagerating for effect -- indulging in a bit of hyperbole. Again, this is acceptable and normal in informal conversation. Certainly, I don't think Soundfreak expected to be taken to task over this in the way you've done, which probably explains the hostility. The flipside to that is how your own obtuseness and bluntness has also contributed to that. Fair enough? I don't get your last point: I try to understand what people write in the context of the forum (as opposed to comments in a book, academic journal etc). Sometimes they are sarcastic, ironic etc. I use my best judgment. |
brENsKi 05.04.2010 17:29 |
as an album i think the production sucks - which makes me turn it off. most rock bands were messing about with synthesised crap in the early 80s...that didn't make it bad, what made it bad was overuse of synths and a very tinny/hollow production. the whole album sounds like it was recorded on someone's home tape recorder - with the dolby button pushed right in.. and for that i hate it |
Sebastian 05.04.2010 21:14 |
> I suspect Soundfreak was exagerating for effect -- indulging in a bit of hyperbole. Maybe. But that's how false rumours are created (remember the 180 voices thing). I merely stated that it wasn't like that and commented on how it's usually taken for granted that the album was machine-dominated when in reality it wasn't. There was nothing disrespectful in my message. Which makes it completely uncalled for that his/her replies contained personal attacks. > Again, this is acceptable and normal in informal conversation. Of course it is. But stating the album had mostly human drums and more than 'too little' of Brian is also acceptable and normal in informal conversation. There was nothing disrespectful in my message. Which makes it completely uncalled for that his/her replies contained personal attacks. > Certainly, I don't think Soundfreak expected to be taken to task over this in the way you've done Which way exactly? Did I insult that person? Call him/her 'Mr Everybody Else Is Wrong'? Made nasty comments? No I, didn't.There was nothing disrespectful in my message. Which makes it completely uncalled for that his/her replies contained personal attacks. > that is how your own obtuseness and bluntness has also contributed to that. Obtuseness and bluntness how? Is it OK for a person to say something false because they're not meant to be taken literally but it's not OK for another person to correct a false statement because that makes them obtuse and blunt? Double standards. > I try to understand what people write in the context of the forum (as opposed to comments in a book, academic journal etc). So do I. If someone says 'Hot Space is the best album ever', good for them. It's not 'true' or 'false' as it depends on personal opinion. If someone says the album's dominated by drum computers... well, it isn't. > Sometimes they are sarcastic, ironic etc. I use my best judgment. So, if somebody else says 'Hot Space has too little of Brian' it's simply a figure of speech, but if I say' no, it doesn't' it's a person being obtuse and blunt? |
Winter Land Man 05.04.2010 23:45 |
There can't be any winning arguments with Sebastian, he's pretty much a genious. I don't know if he's a true musician or not, but he knows what he's talking about... and he will go on forever. I love him for it! |
Sebastian 06.04.2010 00:01 |
Of course there can be 'winning' (though 'winning' in an on-line forum is not quite an honour anyway), and of course I'm not a genius. I've been wrong many, many times, and will continue to be, pretty much like anybody else. However, it doesn't mean I'm giving in before any poster who simply can't stand corrected or who has to direct personal attacks when running out of arguments. And it doesn't mean I've got to take crap from other people just because they want to believe the earth is flat and whoever states it isn't is merely stubborn, narrow-minded or whatever. |
Holly2003 06.04.2010 05:15 |
I don't have anything to add. What I've said is fairly clear. Whether you take it onboard or not is up to you, |
maxpower 07.04.2010 06:39 |
As Freddie said "it's only a bloody record" |
Sebastian 07.04.2010 06:45 |
I've always thought that alleged nonchalant attitude by Freddie was a defence mechanism. TBH, he seemed (even to a person who doesn't know him at all, like it's my case) to care a lot about things he stated weren't not too important. I mean, if he really thought other people's opinions didn't make any difference, why bother addressing them? Same for Brian and the press. |
deleted user 08.04.2010 18:39 |
"Hot Space" may be the least interesting Queen-album, but its still a hell of a fun. Great 80s disco tunes (my favourites are "action this day", classic "under pressure", "body language" plus great ballad "las palabres de amore") bought this in spring 1993 - fuck, so many years habe passed ....... Cheers, Peter Cetera aka Chris |
plumrach 09.04.2010 10:08 |
I like it, but then i like disco and dance type music anyway ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Interview? Oh don't be ridiculous |