Deacon Fan 07.12.2007 02:49 |
It seems most people, including Queen point to these events as the main factors in the decline of Queen's success during the 80s in America. But let's look at the facts: "Body Language" which some may say is the worst of the Hot Space funk tracks was actually a big hit in America, peaking at #11 on the Billboard charts whilst the now-classic "Under Pressure" had peaked at only 29. America was sick of 'disco' and Hot Space killed Queen? Clearly not. "Radio Ga Ga" managed a respectable peak at #16, perhaps aided by the video and the time-tested Queen success machine. But even 'Break Free' made it to 45.. nearly a top 40 hit, with very little video play due to this apparent controversy over the cross-dressing. I personally think this shows that Queen could have recovered from any problems that video may have caused, had they been handled properly. I was a teenager during these years and really only a casual fan of Queen.. I always liked the stuff I was able to hear, but I didn't hear much over the next few years. One Vision, I Want it All.. that's about all I remember until Innuendo. So I wonder if maybe the story of Queen not being happy with their handling at Capitol is true and is more the reason why they didn't do better. Perhaps the perceived funk/electronic shift brought on by Hot Space contributed, as well as that silly drag video, but I honestly think something like lack of promotion is most likely what did the most harm. |
kdj2hot 07.12.2007 05:09 |
What killed Queen in America is them not touring. Bottomline. Freddie's insecurity because he thought hot space was such a failure (even though in hind sight it wasn't that big of one compared to the subsequent albums exceppt for maybe...no even including Innuendo) Freddie was fearful of playing smaller venues or not to sell out crowds in the states and thats what hurt them. He should've remembered that them motherfuckers where live killers and a tour would've won over the hardest hearted spectator which wouldve drove atleast a few hundred at every concert to go cjeck out the album which wouldve drove up sells. It was bad business sense not to tour. |
Mr. Scully 07.12.2007 05:33 |
Queen played to packed halls in 1980 but the attendance in 1982 was much lower, no wonder they decided not to tour in the USA anymore. Also I never understood how "not touring" can affect sales or popularity. Queen have never played in many countries (mine included), they never got any press coverage and yet are one of the most popular bands in the history. People always find the real quality ;-) IMO it was Hot Space that killed Queen in America. |
Sebastian 07.12.2007 05:58 |
First of all, I don't think a single cause can be drawn for these things. They result from a combination of factors, most likely many 'little' ones instead of one or two 'big' causes. Second of all, having one single peaking at #11 doesn't mean the public liked the entire album or that they agreed with that style of music in its entirety. 'The Ketchup Song' was #1 in the UK (something neither 'We Are the Champions' nor the original 'Somebody to Love' could achieve), and it was double platinum, but it doesn't mean people'd be equally thrilled about the album, or that a tour would be sold out. What's more, let's see which song is best remembered now (only 5 years after 'Ketchup'), between that one and 'Champions' (which is 30 years old). So, instant sales not always guarantee being at the top, and viceversa. Third of all, I don't think Queen ever got "killed" in America. Their 70's albums and singles and 'The Game' sold much more than their 80's ones simply because the former were much much much better (and in this case it was proportional to chart positions). But Queen remained a popular band in the US, even if not at the same level as Led Zeppelin. |
rschoorl 07.12.2007 07:20 |
Having been a Queen fan since 1975 in America, my point of view is that Queen started its slide in popularity with the Game and AOBTD. Although the Game was their biggest selling album, it sold to a completely different audience and it was the beginning of the turning off of the Hard Rock audience that they had developed. Disco filled dance floors, didn't sell out stadiums. With their turn away from hard rock, and Freddie's move from adrogeny, which homophobic America could tolerate, to looking like one of the Village People, they alienated their core. I have never heard anyone point to the "Break Free" video as the moment that turned America. By the Works, Queen was already much less relevent here. IMO the video didn't do much damage, it was already after most of the damage had been done. |
onevsion 07.12.2007 08:08 |
rschoorl wrote: Having been a Queen fan since 1975 in America, my point of view is that Queen started its slide in popularity with the Game and AOBTD. Although the Game was their biggest selling album, it sold to a completely different audience and it was the beginning of the turning off of the Hard Rock audience that they had developed. Disco filled dance floors, didn't sell out stadiums. With their turn away from hard rock, and Freddie's move from adrogeny, which homophobic America could tolerate, to looking like one of the Village People, they alienated their core. I have never heard anyone point to the "Break Free" video as the moment that turned America. By the Works, Queen was already much less relevent here. IMO the video didn't do much damage, it was already after most of the damage had been done.Thanks for posting. Interesting post from a long term fan! |
Daniel Nester 07.12.2007 08:59 |
Brian points to a lot of things--lack of payola with Capitol Records, the IWTBF video. One bum album does not a ruined career make--ask Neil Young (Trans anyone?), Styx (Kilroy Was Were), Kiss (The Elder). It's almost a rite of passage for great bands who stick around after the first decade of success. More and more it has to be about not touring the States. |
lyricalassasin77 07.12.2007 09:05 |
I've always agreed that Hot Space killed them here. Barring the Body Language single going to #11 here the album didn't do nothing and did much damage in ruining Queen's reputation here and alienating their hard rock audience here. As far as the Break Free video that was just icing on the cake.... |
Boy Thomas Raker 07.12.2007 09:08 |
Ducksoup wrote:Excellent post. Queen weren't as relevant, and in North America, more the US than Canada, they want their rockers to rock. From CLTCL to IWTBF, Queen had a slew of singles where Brian was virtually out of the band, and the drums and bass sounded programmed. People over here saw Queen as abandoning their hard rock roots, and they lost their core fans, plain and simple. The Game brought them huge casual fans who loved the singles, some of them may have bought Body language, but then bailed. When Radio Ga Ga came out it had been roughly 5 years from Jazz, which was the last real classic Queen album. Finally, for the people who use the IWTBF video as THE reason Queen lost the US. The Stones, Bowie, and a few other big acts had done the drag thing well before, and U2 did it 8 years later for One. Why didn't those bands lose their followings for doing drag? And wasn't this time of Culture Club and Dead or Alive? Androgyny was huge. If I recall, Queen had their biggest success when their front man drank champagne, wore ballet tights and slippers that virtually scrrreeeeaaammmmeedddd out "I. AM. GAY." But that guy in the ballet slippers destroyed every live show he did, rocked hard, and had a band that just killed and were as heavy live as Zeppelin or Aerosmith. They changed too much musically for American tastes and lost their audience. No other story, move on now.rschoorl wrote: Having been a Queen fan since 1975 in America, my point of view is that Queen started its slide in popularity with the Game and AOBTD. Although the Game was their biggest selling album, it sold to a completely different audience and it was the beginning of the turning off of the Hard Rock audience that they had developed. Disco filled dance floors, didn't sell out stadiums. With their turn away from hard rock, and Freddie's move from adrogeny, which homophobic America could tolerate, to looking like one of the Village People, they alienated their core. I have never heard anyone point to the "Break Free" video as the moment that turned America. By the Works, Queen was already much less relevent here. IMO the video didn't do much damage, it was already after most of the damage had been done.Thanks for posting. Interesting post from a long term fan! |
Gr8 King Rat 07.12.2007 09:55 |
New Wave was very popular in the US in the 80's..and maybe since Queen refused (thank God) to change thier sound to that extreme it hurt them in the long run. And of course Hot Space and not touring after '82 didnt help either. |
Benn 07.12.2007 09:57 |
The inherant homophobia of the wider public in the USA in the early to mid 1980's was directly responsible. White collar America was still in denial that people exisisted who didn't share their same sexual tastes. Freddie was openly gay and the conservative suits at EMI / Capitol took the decision that they could not been seen to be overly promoting a band with a frontman as overtly contoroversial a Freddie. So they simply didn't push them on the all-important FM radio networks. There was also a conscious effort at the time to get American Rock bands back on the charts after decades of domination by British bands. The markets in both Japan, Europe and South America were far more liberated than the USA and the success Queen had in those territories meant that, financially, they weren't overly affected by the fall off in the USA. |
Winter Land Man 07.12.2007 10:09 |
Queen chose the wrong singles as a lot of people have mentioned their singles were more poppy. I don't know why things like Put Out The Fire and Tear It Up weren't released as singles. |
Daniel Nester 07.12.2007 10:14 |
Other than the Village People/"clone loo" mustache, I don't know how Freddie became more androgynous-looking. He had been wearing ballet tights and shiny leather outfits for years before then. Bands have fallow periods. It's just the way it is. They had a fallow period in England, too, around this time, lest we forget; relative to their success there, of course. And after fallow periods comes come-backs, one that Queen did not do for the four active years after their last tour. So I put in my vote for not touring as well as what everyone says, which is the US hard rock/heavy metal audience being particularly masculine around this time (1983-1989). |
Queengirl47 07.12.2007 10:22 |
QUEEN are still huge here in America guys!! I should know!! I live in Houston, Tx.. and everytime I put the radio on, it's one of the Queen songs playing, contest giveways, etc .... commercials, TV shows, "Special events" LIKE recently the Thanksgiving parade had a float with the song you're my best friend, etc, I can go on n on...... another example, about 2 months ago, I went to go buy some more Queen albums, bought one, but wanted other copies of the 2 other ones sheer heart attack and INNUENDO, didn't have enough money, came back a week later, and they were GONE man!! :( I couldn't believe it. anyway, that's just the tip of it all. I always hear and/or see Queen somewhere, some place here! ..... all my friends LOVE Queen, all they can say is great stuff, and they are not EASY, if you know what Im saying ha :P;) k, gotta go, just wanna say those bits. They just need to tour here MORE next year!!!!! :) stay safe! xxoo |
drwinston 07.12.2007 10:59 |
rschoorl wrote: Having been a Queen fan since 1975 in America, my point of view is that Queen started its slide in popularity with the Game and AOBTD. Although the Game was their biggest selling album, it sold to a completely different audience and it was the beginning of the turning off of the Hard Rock audience that they had developed. Disco filled dance floors, didn't sell out stadiums. With their turn away from hard rock, and Freddie's move from adrogeny, which homophobic America could tolerate, to looking like one of the Village People, they alienated their core. I have never heard anyone point to the "Break Free" video as the moment that turned America. By the Works, Queen was already much less relevent here. IMO the video didn't do much damage, it was already after most of the damage had been done.Spot on post. Many feel, including Brian, that the IWTBF video put off Americans, but what they don't realize is that most Americans never saw that video at the time. MTV and cable were young, and those of us that were there know that Queen was declining fast in popularity before that vid. Here's my take, as a fan in the US through those years: 1975-1979: America Loves Queen! Great and Unique Rock Band! Yahoo! 1980: Rockabilly and Disco singles - WTF? Oh well, it's just a phase. 1980: FLASH! AAAH AAAH! Synthesizer orgy! Are these guys serious with this shit? WTF? This is so bad, it's funny. 1981: Greatest Hits! Well, I've already got those songs. I'll pass. Hmmm, nothing decent from this band in a couple of years now. WTF? 1982: Queen goes disco! WTF? Bad, bad move considering that disco died three years ago. Just embarrassing to listen to it was so outdated. 1984: A new Queen album! Last chance, boys after almost five years of terrible decisions. Maybe they've come through this time! The new single is "Radio Ga Ga, Radio Goo Goo"? Hahahaha! WTF? I'm moving on... 1986: Queen released something? Those guys are still around? Whatever... Of course I'm a fan, and I followed them and bought the stuff, but this basically what I saw going on around me. |
Micrówave 07.12.2007 11:01 |
I think it's unfair to blame Hot Space for Queen's demise here. There are some mitigating factors involved. First, Hot Space was their last studio album for Elektra before moving to Capitol Records. Some other Capitol artists at the time were Bob Seger, Billy Squier, Duran Duran, Iron Maiden, and The Motels. I think Queen has a better standing in the US now versus those others. Capitol records just couldn't promote albums properly in the 80s & 90s. WEA and Columbia/Sony were getting every record store to play their albums and display their artists more prominently. I know. I worked at a record store during some of those years. Plus, for some strange reason, you couldn't buy a older Queen album or CD. They weren't available commercially. So why would a band tour where you can't even buy their records? I don't think they would've been happy playing 5000 seat pavillions so they didn't. Blame Queen, their management, their record company, but I don't think it's fair to blame a very good album. |
Farlander 07.12.2007 11:02 |
Benn wrote: The inherant homophobia of the wider public in the USA in the early to mid 1980's was directly responsible. White collar America was still in denial that people exisisted who didn't share their same sexual tastes. Freddie was openly gay and the conservative suits at EMI / Capitol took the decision that they could not been seen to be overly promoting a band with a frontman as overtly contoroversial a Freddie. So they simply didn't push them on the all-important FM radio networks. There was also a conscious effort at the time to get American Rock bands back on the charts after decades of domination by British bands. The markets in both Japan, Europe and South America were far more liberated than the USA and the success Queen had in those territories meant that, financially, they weren't overly affected by the fall off in the USA.That's nonsense. Plenty of homosexual artists were doing fine in the U.S. at that time, and many of them were way more obviously homosexual than Freddie; Freddie never went out of his way to make an issue of his homosexuality, and he actually seemed more homosexual in the 70s with his outfits and voice, whereas he had a more masculine image and voice in the 80s. Besides, execs don't care about morality if money is involved. |
MercuryArts 07.12.2007 11:06 |
Queengirl47 wrote: QUEEN are still huge here in America guys!! I should know!! I live in Houston, Tx.. and everytime I put the radio on, it's one of the Queen songs playing, contest giveways, etc .... commercials, TV shows, "Special events" LIKE recently the Thanksgiving parade had a float with the song you're my best friend, etc, I can go on n on...... another example, about 2 months ago, I went to go buy some more Queen albums, bought one, but wanted other copies of the 2 other ones sheer heart attack and INNUENDO, didn't have enough money, came back a week later, and they were GONE man!! :( I couldn't believe it. anyway, that's just the tip of it all. I always hear and/or see Queen somewhere, some place here! ..... all my friends LOVE Queen, all they can say is great stuff, and they are not EASY, if you know what Im saying ha :P;) k, gotta go, just wanna say those bits. They just need to tour here MORE next year!!!!! :) stay safe! xxooWe're talking about Queen's status in the US back in 1982-89 or so. I was in HS back then & they were off the radar. I was the only kid in my school who was a "Fan". Not touring hurt them. The songs released were not what Americans wanted to hear. Yes HTF, POTF should have been singles here to show they still rocked. But even so, without a big advertising push from Capitol Records those songs may not have made an impact either. OV made some noise during the winter months of late 85 & eary 86. Even that song faded as quickly as it arrived. When Highlander came out they still didn't get much notice. The fact that the movie bombed in theaters hurt I'm sure. It didn't become the cult classic it is now for another few years. Brian & Roger even when on Rockline one night that early spring. They played 'Universe' that night as the premier of the single...I never heard it again on the radio. By the time AKOM was released both the single & album, the movie was a memory & they got little airplay w/ that single. WWTLF should have been released here. By then the tour in Europe was over. Freddie soon realized it was the beginning of the end & any touring beyond that wasn't an option. The Miracle & IWTA got some notice as did Headlong w/ Innuendo. Once again they really didn't get a big push by the record companies. Hollywood did re-release all the back catalog on CD then but it was too little too late. ICLWY was released in June of 91 & even though DJ's loved it, at least here in Philly, it didn't sell very well. After that I didn't hear of another single being released in the US. I think its wonderful that the band is finally getting so long deserved credit here. All of you young fans are so fortunate, you really have no idea how much so. Embrace all of it while you can. I love all this new found popularity in the country. Suddenly its cool to be into Queen, that wasn't so 20-25 years ago. |
drwinston 07.12.2007 11:18 |
The Bunny who lost her Golden Pants wrote: "Body Language" which some may say is the worst of the Hot Space funk tracks was actually a big hit in America, peaking at #11 on the Billboard charts whilst the now-classic "Under Pressure" had peaked at only 29. America was sick of 'disco' and Hot Space killed Queen? Clearly not. "Radio Ga Ga" managed a respectable peak at #16, perhaps aided by the video and the time-tested Queen success machine. But even 'Break Free' made it to 45.. nearly a top 40 hit, with very little video play due to this apparent controversy over the cross-dressing.At that time, chart positioning was mostly a matter of label manipulation. Sales were "reported" by record stores, and radio play was "reported" by the stations. I worked at a record store, and a billboard rep would call and ask for sales numbers. I made the list and the numbers - of course I included Queen whether they sold or not! Anyway, Capitol and every other label would give free albums, tickets to shows, etc. and ask you to report their bands. It was basically payola with gifts instead of money (although I did get some cash out of the process as well). Around the late 80's, they started actually tracking sales (Soundscan I believe was the company that started it). These numbers made it more difficult for a label to manipulate, but they still had a bit of a say in chart positioning. But soon the only criterion used was actual sales, and that is where we are today. Queen can blame Capitol all they want, but those chart results were the effect of a lot of hard work on the labels part. Let's face it - you can put a dress on a pig, but it's still a pig. Few Americans were buying Queen, and the ones that did weren't playing those albums and singles much. |
The Fairy King 07.12.2007 12:05 |
The "One" video by U2 with the drag was banned as well(watch the makin of One on the Best of 1990-2000 DVD). Queen fans, even in America were used to Queen's eclectic albums by then...maybe the lack of diversity on Hot Space was the reason, if they'd dropped a few songs (and made b-sides out of em) and added some other styles (reggae, Police were big then) and dunno maybe some classic Queen ballads and rockier songs Hot Space would've done as good as Jazz or NOTW. And why didn't they release Put Out The Fire or Tear It Up as singles?? Well, because they weren't good tbh. Radio Ga Ga and I Want To Break Free were great singles and the fact that Hammer To Fall didn't do as well as it's predecessors is proof that the public didn't care. I think the Sun City thing did them more damage than Hot Space and Break Free video combined. In the end The Works and A Kind Of Magic did very well on this side of the Atlantic and South America and that's what matters. :P |
Adolfo and the spiders from Mercury 07.12.2007 12:27 |
who gives a fuck about america?? |
Micrówave 07.12.2007 12:53 |
anyone who wants to sell records. |
Adolfo and the spiders from Mercury 07.12.2007 12:57 |
Micrówave wrote: anyone who wants to sell records.queen did amazingly well |
Daniel Nester 07.12.2007 13:04 |
Sun City really had no impact at least as far as sales go. Street cred? Queen don't need no stinkin' street cred! I agree with MercuryArts--Queen should have toured at least once between 83 and 86, but what can you do? As I write this, I realize we're talking about a three-year gap of Queen having a chance to recoup, and not really doing it. The good news is that Queen's reputation has only increased in the States, and people who may have been turned off by them--I call them "meat and potatoes" classic rock fans--don't give a rat's ass if Freddie was gay or dressed like a Chelsea boy or whatever. Freddie, diva that he is, would not have played U.S. casinos and smaller arenas while the public turned around, as did Elton John and so many others. As it turned out, Queen toured South America and Asia and other places, further solidifying a reputation as the world's best rock and roll band. I just wish I could have seen them once. Had a chance in 1982, but was not allowed. Too young. |
NOTWMEDDLE 07.12.2007 15:00 |
Daniel Nester wrote: Brian points to a lot of things--lack of payola with Capitol Records, the IWTBF video. One bum album does not a ruined career make--ask Neil Young (Trans anyone?), Styx (Kilroy Was Were), Kiss (The Elder). It's almost a rite of passage for great bands who stick around after the first decade of success. More and more it has to be about not touring the States.You forgot that around 1982/83 that 70s rock bands in general were either breaking up or releasing substandard material. Two albums you forgot were Supertramp (...Famous Last Words...) and Pink Floyd (The Final Cut). The former's case was Roger Hodgson leaving Supertramp would slowly but surely ruin the band's commercial aspects (FLW sold less as opposed to 1979's Breakfast in America and a three year wait proved to be disastrous). In the latter's case of poor sales, there was no tour for The Final cut as Roger Waters' relationship with David Gilmour and Nick Mason was damaged and also Rick Wright's firing caused PF to become The Roger Waters Band. Pink floyd would rebound after Roger Waters left and had two Top 5 Multi-Platinum selling albums and sold out world tours after Waters' departure Out of the 1970s bands, Judas Priest hit paydirt with Screaming for Vengeance that year, Rush continued its winning streak with Signals, Genesis finally had a Top 10 million seller with Abacab, AC/DC was at the height of their success with For Those About to Rock though Flick of the Switch did poorly. Styx are now a nostalgia act after Dennis DeYoung was ousted due to an illness. KISS are has beens now. Pink Floyd have been on ice after The Division Bell and 1996 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Induction due to changes in Gilmour and Wright's personal lives (both remarried and had kids). Priest and Rush are still recording and touring and released their best albums in years in last three years. Genesis reunited with Phil Collins for a successful "series of shows" in 2007 without a new album. |
NOTWMEDDLE 07.12.2007 15:08 |
MercuryArts wrote:I Want it All did well on US rock radio, peaked at #3 on the Mainstream Rock Tracks charts in the summer of 1989. The Miracle got Queen back in the US Top 30 for the first time since 1984's The Works. Then, Queen cancelled its contract with Capitol and went to Hollywood Records (at the time distributed by Elektra and then was distributed by PolyGram then now it's distributed by Universal/Vivendi) here in the US and Canada. Innuendo was a huge album. It was Queen's first 500,000 plus seller in seven years and reached the Top 40 (not bad considering it was Hollywood's first non-soundtrack release). The album's first US single Headlong was a HUGE rock radio hit and Hollywood Records went with "Headlong" as first US single and went to #3 on the Mainstream Rock Tracks Charts and I remember stations in Boston playing the Hell out of that track. Then the title track reached #17 on the Mainstream Rock Track charts. If Freddie not gotten ill, QueeQueengirl47 wrote: QUEEN are still huge here in America guys!! I should know!! I live in Houston, Tx.. and everytime I put the radio on, it's one of the Queen songs playing, contest giveways, etc .... commercials, TV shows, "Special events" LIKE recently the Thanksgiving parade had a float with the song you're my best friend, etc, I can go on n on...... another example, about 2 months ago, I went to go buy some more Queen albums, bought one, but wanted other copies of the 2 other ones sheer heart attack and INNUENDO, didn't have enough money, came back a week later, and they were GONE man!! :( I couldn't believe it. anyway, that's just the tip of it all. I always hear and/or see Queen somewhere, some place here! ..... all my friends LOVE Queen, all they can say is great stuff, and they are not EASY, if you know what Im saying ha :P;) k, gotta go, just wanna say those bits. They just need to tour here MORE next year!!!!! :) stay safe! xxooWe're talking about Queen's status in the US back in 1982-89 or so. I was in HS back then & they were off the radar. I was the only kid in my school who was a "Fan". Not touring hurt them. The songs released were not what Americans wanted to hear. Yes HTF, POTF should have been singles here to show they still rocked. But even so, without a big advertising push from Capitol Records those songs may not have made an impact either. OV made some noise during the winter months of late 85 & eary 86. Even that song faded as quickly as it arrived. When Highlander came out they still didn't get much notice. The fact that the movie bombed in theaters hurt I'm sure. It didn't become the cult classic it is now for another few years. Brian & Roger even when on Rockline one night that early spring. They played 'Universe' that night as the premier of the single...I never heard it again on the radio. By the time AKOM was released both the single & album, the movie was a memory & they got little airplay w/ that single. WWTLF should have been released here. By then the tour in Europe was over. Freddie soon realized it was the beginning of the end & any touring beyond that wasn't an option. The Miracle & IWTA got some notice as did Headlong w/ Innuendo. Once again they really didn't get a big push by the record companies. Hollywood did re-release all the back catalog on CD then but it was too little too late. ICLWY was released in June of 91 & even though DJ's loved it, at least here in Philly, it didn't sell very well. After that I didn't hear of another single being released in the US. I think its wonderful that the band is finally getting so long deserved credit here. All of you young fans are so fortunate, you really have no idea how much so. Embrace all of it while you can. I love all this new found popularity in the country. Suddenly its cool to be into Queen, that wasn't so 20-25 years ago. |
NOTWMEDDLE 07.12.2007 15:10 |
Gr8 King Rat wrote: New Wave was very popular in the US in the 80's..and maybe since Queen refused (thank God) to change thier sound to that extreme it hurt them in the long run. And of course Hot Space and not touring after '82 didnt help either.People were either New Wave or Heavy Metal in the 1980s. By the mid-80s, New Wave was out and glam metal was in. |
Jazz 78 07.12.2007 15:30 |
I agree with rschoorl. I've been a fan since NOTW and we older fans were used to hearing some great music like Tie Your Mother Down, BoRap etc. After the Game came out which EXPLODED here at the time, Queen went on to their experimental stage. When I first heard Under Pressure which preceded Hot Space I thought it wasn yet ANOTHER Queen hit but then a few months later Hot SPace came out and like a lot of the older fans I think we collectively said, "what the FUCK is that"??? Personally I was very disappointed with such a sudden change. We went through it and we survived it. We had to wait til The Works came out to at least get some of their old trademarks back but even with that album they came up a little short. If you were a Queen fan and you went through those years with the band and you heard that album for the first time you'd be asking the exact same thing. But some of us true fans never turned our backs on Queen then but at the time we were not ready for what we heard. When the IWTBF video came out it certainly didn't stop me from supporting them. I thought it was hilarious. Ah, British humor. Gotta love it!!! But I'm still a devoted Queen fan 30 years later. Not everything they produced was wonderful nor crap either but they sure as hell gave us some fun times!!! |
coops 07.12.2007 15:42 |
Benn wrote: The inherant homophobia of the wider public in the USA in the early to mid 1980's was directly responsible. |
Micrówave 07.12.2007 16:33 |
NOTWMEDDLE wrote: By the mid-80s, New Wave was out and glam metal was in.They should have left the IWTBF makeup on!!!!! Damn!!! Daniel Nester wrote: One bum album does not a ruined career make--ask Styx (Kilroy Was Were)Actually, this did happen with Styx. They started sucking upon it's release, and that's also when people started making fun of the song "Babe". |
NOTWMEDDLE 07.12.2007 18:18 |
Micrówave wrote:Styx changed its sound due to prog rock and art rock falling out of fashion and the advent of punk and New Wave coming in. Genesis and Styx, Rush and Pink Floyd all had to adapt to changes in musical styles.NOTWMEDDLE wrote: By the mid-80s, New Wave was out and glam metal was in.They should have left the IWTBF makeup on!!!!! Damn!!!Daniel Nester wrote: One bum album does not a ruined career make--ask Styx (Kilroy Was Were)Actually, this did happen with Styx. They started sucking upon it's release, and that's also when people started making fun of the song "Babe". |
Deacon Fan 07.12.2007 20:38 |
Some excellent responses here! And I completely overlooked the fact that they didn't tour. I guess my goal in this was to at least expand the blame to a number of factors instead of the usual excuses. |
Boy Thomas Raker 07.12.2007 21:30 |
I've heard it a million times, but I don't think that IWTBF (or U2's "One") was ever banned by MTV. They may not have played it a lot, but that would have been big news as drag was never a reason to ban anything. I think people are getting confused about what banning means. While Wikipedia is hardly the definitive source for accuracy, here's a pretty comprehensive list of banned videos, neither One not IWTBF is mentioned, odd considering that U2 and Queen aren't exactly low profile bands. link |
saltnvinegar 07.12.2007 22:23 |
This thread is great. Interesting to hear from the American fans who were there 'at the time'. Another point which I feel applies to the more general US music fan is the question of homegrown artist vs those from overseas. Of course Queen were huge in many other territories but the fact remains that there is a certain 'rivalry' between the English speaking music producing nations. Just like some people prefer to buy cars, food and beer from 'home' couldn't it be the same with music? After all, if you are in a country where English isn't spoken (eg Japan) it's the melody (and often band image) that attracts the fans. If you understand the lyrics but are not so familiar with quaint English eccentricities, you may be turned off to a point. Those older fans enjoyed Queen in the early days as a larger part of the music scene (and possibly the last of the 'British Invasion) and obviously many still have their love for the band today. But as the more transitory fans lost interest, a newer generation may not have embraced a band like Queen with the same fervour as before. The US is too large a country to pigeonhole but just listening to the traditionally popular musical styles (blues, jazz, country, R+B folk etc)goes some way to explain how hard it may have been to categorise, and sometimes, accept Queen. As an English person I'd argue that some British artists create music that has a more profound effect on me than, say, something by Springsteen, Johnny Cash or Mahalia Jackson. That's not to say those aren't powerful musicians, it's just that sometimes things are lost in the cultural gap. The timing of Queen's 'demise' in the US does appear to coincide with Hot Space and beyond but that may have just been coincidence as the local market was producing more and more homegrown talent that spoke to the people more directly. |
Grantcdn1 07.12.2007 23:24 |
Let's face it....1980 was the year Queen ruled America....that album was played everywhere...and overplayed....Another One Bites the Dust was a tremendous success but so was Crazy Little Thing and Dragon Attack even got great airplay....then Queen puts out Greatest Hits and they still rule....but they were too popular....now people weren't liking them because they were overplayed..even US Tabloid magazines started taking shots at Freddie...personally I don't think the general North American public was even aware of Freddie's sexuality...he was a singer in a band, they bought the records, he rocked live, many probably never saw him.....so what he now had a mustache....so did popular male actors like Burt Reynolds, Tom Selleck it was pretty much a style...the average joe public has no idea what styles may be going on in gay circles....... But Flash Gordon was a waste even on many die hard fans....and Hot Space was horrendous compared to the Queen of old...Freddie misguided the band into a funk direction thinking it was the new thing....and most of the tracks don't stand up today....you compare it to Journey's Escape and you can see why people weren't into it...their hard rock band had turned into some synth techno-pop funk band with some of the now dreaded disco (sucks) mixed in......No rock songs were released as singles either.... Next comes The Works - you can only really have one album that really bombs....but instead of releasing rock tracks in America they go with another synth-pop song Radio Gaga....then follow it with another...this time even with a synth solo to replace the Rocker Brian....plus you do a video in drag...then when they still had a chance to put out a rocker they release It's a Hard Life.....for the casual fan who liked the old stuff.....why would he or she even buy it....they aren't rock anymore....it's like a muzac / pop band....too bad they never got to hear rockers like Hammer to Fall...after that America just wasn't interested - the marketing for A kind of Magic was horrendous.......it wasn't until I want it All that radio finally wanted to hear Queen again because it was something rock fans wanted....Queen were never to be a pop band in America and compete with all the young kids looking pretty and writing cheesy garbage...but as a rock band they could have still been a force....I want it all got them back again....Innuendo did some more and then of course Freddie's death and Wayne's World.... you won't find Queen and Paul Rodgers writing disco techno-pop rap stuff......they will quite smartly stick to their rock audience |
Deacon Fan 08.12.2007 00:39 |
For the record I saw IWTBF during its original run on MTV at least twice. I know this because I remember being happy to catch it on audiotape the 2nd time. (we had the MTV stereo hookup LOL) And I'm in Kansas.. so if something was gonna be banned, this would be the place ;) |
Dusta 08.12.2007 00:42 |
You have made some excellent points, here!
I was one of those fans(a casual fan, back then) who was around from the first playing of, "Killer Queen," on the radio, to the hugely popular CLTCL...
I DO think that Freddie's sexuality had at least a small part to play in the loss of Queen's popularity in the states, based on the comments I heard from those around me, including the radio disc jockies, at that time, and, I think a good deal of this is due to the emergence of MTV.
I don't think the population of Americans that were largely listening to the radio, and, watching MTV, really understood the tongue in cheek factor that seemed so much a part of Freddie's public persona.
Just my observations of what was happening in the American scene that surrounded me at that time.
saltnvinegar wrote: This thread is great. Interesting to hear from the American fans who were there 'at the time'. Another point which I feel applies to the more general US music fan is the question of homegrown artist vs those from overseas. Of course Queen were huge in many other territories but the fact remains that there is a certain 'rivalry' between the English speaking music producing nations. Just like some people prefer to buy cars, food and beer from 'home' couldn't it be the same with music? After all, if you are in a country where English isn't spoken (eg Japan) it's the melody (and often band image) that attracts the fans. If you understand the lyrics but are not so familiar with quaint English eccentricities, you may be turned off to a point. Those older fans enjoyed Queen in the early days as a larger part of the music scene (and possibly the last of the 'British Invasion) and obviously many still have their love for the band today. But as the more transitory fans lost interest, a newer generation may not have embraced a band like Queen with the same fervour as before. The US is too large a country to pigeonhole but just listening to the traditionally popular musical styles (blues, jazz, country, R+B folk etc)goes some way to explain how hard it may have been to categorise, and sometimes, accept Queen. As an English person I'd argue that some British artists create music that has a more profound effect on me than, say, something by Springsteen, Johnny Cash or Mahalia Jackson. That's not to say those aren't powerful musicians, it's just that sometimes things are lost in the cultural gap. The timing of Queen's 'demise' in the US does appear to coincide with Hot Space and beyond but that may have just been coincidence as the local market was producing more and more homegrown talent that spoke to the people more directly. |
saltnvinegar 08.12.2007 01:42 |
Dusta wrote: You have made some excellent points, here! I was one of those fans(a casual fan, back then) who was around from the first playing of, "Killer Queen," on the radio, to the hugely popular CLTCL... I DO think that Freddie's sexuality had at least a small part to play in the loss of Queen's popularity in the states, based on the comments I heard from those around me, including the radio disc jockies, at that time, and, I think a good deal of this is due to the emergence of MTV. I don't think the population of Americans that were largely listening to the radio, and, watching MTV, really understood the tongue in cheek factor that seemed so much a part of Freddie's public persona. Just my observations of what was happening in the American scene that surrounded me at that time.Thanks for some more insight into the US perception of Queen in the 70's/80's Dusta. Can you remember what kind of things the people around you and DJs said about Queen back then? I think you hit the nail on the head about the 'tongue-in-cheek' aspect of Freddie's character. There are some bands that take themselves SO seriously that they risk ending up as an almost Spinal Tap-esque parody. I believe Queen took their musicianship and performances extremely seriously but they were able to stop and recognise the absurdity and humour in their persona too. As for the IWTBF video, it never even struck me as any kind of comment on sexual preferences. All I saw were 4 guys dressed up in the tradition of pantomime, lets face it, with the exception of Roger, none of them even looked remotely feminine did they?! For the record, I honestly had no idea about Freddie's sexuality until after his death, maybe I just wasn't paying attention but I find it hard to believe the American public would have been both so aware and so judgmental. Actually, I think we are much more obsessed with people's sexuality now then back then simply because there is so much more information available. |
Boy Thomas Raker 08.12.2007 09:37 |
Yes, this has been an excellent thread, it's good to see intelligent opinions expressed that aren't dismissed with idiotic remarks. Saltnvinegar makes an excellent point about nationalism and how music relates into markets. The Stones were big in America, as were Zep, as they were more US blues based bands, so they had a pretty wide appeal across the US. Queen were big in big markets where new things are good, but I doubt that they ever had a concert in middle America in places like Iowa or Nebraska. Regal British pop/rock with a leotarded singer isn't going to over big in the heartland. Conversely, a guy like Springsteen is embraced because (most) Americans, and certainly all American critics think he's telling THEIR story. To me as a Canadian with an open mind, Queen music represented everything life could offer, happiness, sadness, anger, unbridled joy, beauty, and I could go on with another hundred words. Springsteen music captured the gloom of life in US suburbia or the cities, always about escaping pregnancy, unwanted jobs, a place you didn't want to be, etc. American's loved that. But where was his Mustapha, Bohemian Rhapsody, Somebody to Love? If music were food, Springsteen's stuff was meat and potatoes where Queen's was a seven course meal of things you'd never eaten before. I think the fact that Queen got any airplay in the US was a minor miracle. |
Daniel Nester 08.12.2007 10:05 |
Forgive me if you've seen this before, but I thought it too relevant not to post. *** This is a letter from Queen guitarist Brian May, which originally appeared in News of the World: The Newsletter for Queen Fans (North America). He is attempting to answer the question of whether Queen “gave up” on American fans after the 1982 tour behind the Hot Space album, which failed to go gold. He is addressing the newsletter’s editor, Cola Todd. 26th March 1997 Dear Cola: Now I would like to answer the Big Question that you ask. America was our great pride and joy as we grew of age as a band. Throughout the late 70s we worked very hard, touring many months of every year, and a large proportion of that time was spent in the States. I guess we took pride in the fact that every time we came back, usually with another album on the shelves, the response got bigger and bigger. We felt that we were earning our wings, as it were, and that the following we had was a genuine word-of-mouth thing, based on the uniqueness of the Queen shows, etc. We also put in time at Radio when we were passing through, particularly Roger and I, so that there was a continuing direct connection between us and the public. As far as I can tell, a number of things happened with the last Queen U.S. tour: 1) The Hot Space album was perceived by Radio as Queen forsaking Rock and Roll for Disco – out timing was perhaps a little premature, which was evident when you compare with material with what Michael Jackson was to be doing with Ed Van Halen and Slash in years to come. 2) Relations with Radio was not taken care of – we had a new man in charge of Promotion on the road, who, unknown to us at the time, was very high handed and rude with the media people and gave them the impression that we no longer cared. We only later discovered the huge extent of the damage much later, when trying to get Freddie’s solo record played. There was great resentment (radio people, like the rest of us, need to feel loved, and important!), and word of mouth on our tour was distorted by people who now wanted to see us fail. 3) We got caught in the crossfire of an attempt by Capital Records to withdraw from the Independent Promotion Circus (a.k.a. Payola) which dominated radio plays at that time. Capital dropped the man who was the lynch pin of their connection with the network of the radio station bribery, and the next week, 95 per cent of radio stations dropped our record, Radio Ga Ga. You can check this out in the record books. There was also the convenient rumours that the lyrics of the song were demeaning to Radio programmers, so there was a handy excuse available. Capital had been made an example of, by those in control, and we were the instrument. 4) We made a video in drag, as a spoof on a soap series, which was viewed as very funny, and something of an innovation, in Europe, but to the media in the U.S., it was seen as a threat to Morality. Yes, seriously – I was around to see the reaction of the TV people first-hand – they were horrified! Again, some of the media were looking for fuel for the fires of hatred (or at least distrust!), and a Homophobic undertone that further undermined Queen’s image in the U.S. The rest of the world did not seem to find this a problem. Which brings us to: 5) When the question of touring came up, we always looked at reactions to our latest album around the world. There was a massive explosion of interest in most of the countries of South America, in Africa, in the East, in Eastern Europe, and part of Western Europe which had been slow in the early days while were enjoying great recognition in North America. It made sense (and fun!) to go touring in the countries where there was growth and even hysteria, rather than flogging a Dead Horse in the US, where we felt there was a tide of something which for our interests and purposes was not dissimilar to McCarthyism which has driven the previous generation’s artists o |
12yrslouetta 08.12.2007 10:12 |
Couple of points: You also have to remember that there is no define right to be successful in any country. And just because you ride high in the charts doesnt mean you are successful. Ultimately to do well you need the right people around you, whether your music is good or not is sometimes secondary. You need the record company pulling for you and ploughing money into your product in the form of promotion, advertising, payola etc. If they dont think its right at that moment theyll spend less. I heard that Elektra spent an extra $2m on promotion for The Game as they thought it could be big. If you want a successful record you have to be prepared to pay, but if it doesnt do well they lose faith pretty quickly. The end of the day its all business, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesnt |
Boy Thomas Raker 08.12.2007 10:33 |
Thanks for posting that Daniel, very interesting. They say that great athletes have short memories, because to question your shortcomings leads to confidence loss, so it's easier to place blame on conditions, outside factors, etc. I think Brian is much like an athlete in this manner, because it's always someone else to blame, never Queen themselves or QP. So having said that... 1) The Hot Space album was perceived by Radio as Queen forsaking Rock and Roll for Disco – out timing was perhaps a little premature, which was evident when you compare with material with what Michael Jackson was to be doing with Ed Van Halen and Slash in years to come. Which is fine, but Michael Jackson gained fans from rock music with his crossover, which was always a bigger field than what used to be called R and B. Plus, EVH had a world class all-time rock solo with Beat It. Body Language was programmed Euro-disco and Back Chat, the second single, was perceived as more of the same, even with a Brian solo. A critic at the time stated Queen weren't sure after the success of AOBTD which world they wanted to live in (rock or dance) and it showed. 2) Relations with Radio was not taken care of – we had a new man in charge of Promotion on the road, who, unknown to us at the time, was very high handed and rude with the media people and gave them the impression that we no longer cared. We only later discovered the huge extent of the damage much later, when trying to get Freddie’s solo record played. There was great resentment (radio people, like the rest of us, need to feel loved, and important!), and word of mouth on our tour was distorted by people who now wanted to see us fail. Probable, but the Queen released Ga Ga and IWTBF as thje first singles in North America on Capitol. Given Brian's previous statement about "The Hot Space album was perceived by Radio as Queen forsaking Rock and Roll for Disco", surely the Queen camp would be aware that the PERCEPTION of them losing their core rock audience would be enough for them to fight to have Hammer to Fall or I go Crazy released as the first two singles to show America that they were actually a rock band. Instead, from CLTCL, which was a 1979 single release, to IWTBF, virtually no parts of Queen's North American singles featured Brian's Red Special, and most tracks were drum machines and sequencers. The sound you hear is all but the most die hard Queen fans leaving the building. 4) We made a video in drag, as a spoof on a soap series, which was viewed as very funny, and something of an innovation, in Europe, but to the media in the U.S., it was seen as a threat to Morality. Yes, seriously – I was around to see the reaction of the TV people first-hand – they were horrified! Again, some of the media were looking for fuel for the fires of hatred (or at least distrust!), and a Homophobic undertone that further undermined Queen’s image in the U.S. The rest of the world did not seem to find this a problem. Which brings us to: Read post 2. In North America, Queen were arena rockers, not pop keyboard players. I love IWTBF, but fans didn't buy the pop Queen incarnation. Bigots and imbeciles may have been upset about this, but weren't Culture Club on the scene in '82? They were hugely controversial, and the talk of America and morality. Duran Duran wore lots of make-up and were a bit feminine, as were all of the groups of that time. Queen were a hard rock band whose audience in the US was primarily jeans wearing young boys who wanted Queen to stay in 1976-1977 forever. When the band changed, the fans didn't, and they left. Despite Brian's sincere protestations, those are the facts. And for the record, this era of Queen paled in comparison, but a big part of the reason I love Queen is they didn't want to be the band in 1984 that they were in 1974. Change is good, but some people won't accept it. |
Daniel Nester 08.12.2007 17:46 |
Boy, Boy Thomas, some great observations there vis a via Brian's. I didn't think about that lapse of Red Special-laden singles, really, until now. I do remember a couple of weeks when radio stations in Philly would play I Go Crazy as well as Radio Ga Ga. Then nothing. No Hammer to Fall, not anything. |
Dusta 09.12.2007 01:29 |
Daniel Nester's post, above, including the letter from Brian, answers a good deal of the questions you ask, here.
Unfortunately, I think the Hotspace album was considered a sort of betrayal to some American Queen fans...it was all in the timing, as Brian claims. This was also reflected in the radio play, and, the attitudes of disc jockeys at that time.
Also, humour in the IWTBF video was lost on many Americans, much as Freddie's tongue in cheek stage persona was. Many Americans didn't know a thing about the Brit show the video was inspired by, and, saw it as Queen flaunting their gayness.
And, regarding Freddie's sexuality: For as long as I can recall, Freddie's sexuality was not in question. Now, I will admit that, by having two gay dear friends who were like older brothers, I was sort of a part of the gay scene, which claimed Freddie as one of their own. I don't know what was different about America, it just seemed that Freddie was always considered a gay man. And, this was okay, by the rednecks, as long as the rest of the band was, "normal." The IWTBF video sort of, well...called into question the, "normalcy," of the rest of the boys.
All in all, it is really quite ridiculous, and, I am not proud of that little bit of American Queen fan history. Brian was, mostly, spot on in his observations outlined in that letter.
I have always loved Queen, and, my loyalty never wavered, though there were some years where I didn't listen to ANY music.saltnvinegar wrote:Dusta wrote: You have made some excellent points, here! I was one of those fans(a casual fan, back then) who was around from the first playing of, "Killer Queen," on the radio, to the hugely popular CLTCL... I DO think that Freddie's sexuality had at least a small part to play in the loss of Queen's popularity in the states, based on the comments I heard from those around me, including the radio disc jockies, at that time, and, I think a good deal of this is due to the emergence of MTV. I don't think the population of Americans that were largely listening to the radio, and, watching MTV, really understood the tongue in cheek factor that seemed so much a part of Freddie's public persona. Just my observations of what was happening in the American scene that surrounded me at that time.Thanks for some more insight into the US perception of Queen in the 70's/80's Dusta. Can you remember what kind of things the people around you and DJs said about Queen back then? I think you hit the nail on the head about the 'tongue-in-cheek' aspect of Freddie's character. There are some bands that take themselves SO seriously that they risk ending up as an almost Spinal Tap-esque parody. I believe Queen took their musicianship and performances extremely seriously but they were able to stop and recognise the absurdity and humour in their persona too. As for the IWTBF video, it never even struck me as any kind of comment on sexual preferences. All I saw were 4 guys dressed up in the tradition of pantomime, lets face it, with the exception of Roger, none of them even looked remotely feminine did they?! For the record, I honestly had no idea about Freddie's sexuality until after his death, maybe I just wasn't paying attention but I find it hard to believe the American public would have been both so aware and so judgmental. Actually, I think we are much more obsessed with people's sexuality now then back then simply because there is so much more information available. |
NOTWMEDDLE 09.12.2007 16:33 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: I've heard it a million times, but I don't think that IWTBF (or U2's "One") was ever banned by MTV. They may not have played it a lot, but that would have been big news as drag was never a reason to ban anything. I think people are getting confused about what banning means. While Wikipedia is hardly the definitive source for accuracy, here's a pretty comprehensive list of banned videos, neither One not IWTBF is mentioned, odd considering that U2 and Queen aren't exactly low profile bands. linkThe video was banned for years here in the States. It wasn't until 1991 on VH1's My Generation 2-part Queen Special (hosted by Brian May) that the video was aired again in the US. Since then, VH1 Classic has aired it a few times. Also, Calling All Girls was Hot Space's second American single and while it got some airplay on US radio, it paled in comparison to the rockers from The Game. Back Chat was not released Stateside as a single. |
Boy Thomas Raker 09.12.2007 19:33 |
Not to doubt you NOTWMEDDLE, but The Bunny who started this thread said "For the record I saw IWTBF during its original run on MTV at least twice. I know this because I remember being happy to catch it on audiotape the 2nd time. (we had the MTV stereo hookup LOL). And I'm in Kansas.. so if something was gonna be banned, this would be the place ;)" I saw it on mTV around the time of its release, and searching for "Queen video IWTBF banned on MTV" brings up nothing, so I'm going to stick with my thought that it ran until the song petered out on the charts, which was quickly, and was never banned. |
Daniel Nester 09.12.2007 21:14 |
Yeah, Break Free was never banned. It was just good ole MTV shutting out. MTV treated Queen badly in its heyday, and Break Free is just one example. For people who weren't there, the rock audience scene in the years under consideration were strange for 70s bands. Queen were just one of many bands who got the shaft from MTV. Seems to me we're talking about the length and shape of the shaft. |
Dusta 09.12.2007 21:36 |
Yes, it was definitely shown, at least for a short time. I saw it several times.
And, so true about Queen videos, in general, not getting played on MTV. I was on the fringes of the pothead MTV crowd, and, rarely saw Queen videos, which was disappointing, as I was anxious to see the group I had admired for so long in action!
Daniel Nester wrote: Yeah, Break Free was never banned. It was just good ole MTV shutting out. MTV treated Queen badly in its heyday, and Break Free is just one example. For people who weren't there, the rock audience scene in the years under consideration were strange for 70s bands. Queen were just one of many bands who got the shaft from MTV. Seems to me we're talking about the length and shape of the shaft. |
louvox 10.12.2007 13:53 |
What really killed Queen in the USA durring the 80' is simple. Terrible albums filled with shitty songs. Most Queen fans here overlooked “Another one bites the dust” as just a hiccup. “Hot space” was a complete joke and their subsequence releases further alienated their fan base. The videos had nothing or very little to do with it. If anything the videos were sought out because MTV refused to show them. USA radio never plays anything from their later albums other than “Under pressure” (PS USA radio sucks!!!) |
saltnvinegar 10.12.2007 18:19 |
louvox wrote: What really killed Queen in the USA durring the 80' is simple. Terrible albums filled with shitty songs.With all due respect, I don't think you can whitewash Queen's entire failure in the USA due to this reason. Let's be honest, how many people still spend their days playing tracks from the likes of 'Mistaken Identity' by Kim Carnes, the soundtracks to Flashdance and Footloose and Whitney Houston's eponymous debut? But they were all big sellers Stateside in the 80's... A poor quality album doesn't always mean unsuccessful and a good one is not always guaranteed sales. |
thetman 10.12.2007 19:32 |
Alot of very valid points made already so I won't re-hash those. But as a huge queen fan growing up in the states-and was lucky to see them live three times. I clearly remember bringing home Hot space from the record store-and as soon as I placed the needle on the vinyl I knew something was amiss-I kept picking up the needle and placing it on the next song ..and then the next song before each song ended. I knew right there things had changed, and I was extremely disappointed at the time. sad really, because I remember when News of the world came out and Queen were all over the place, magazines, radio etc. But today things have ended well with Queen in the states (because of Freddie's death?..maybe, didn't he say nothing sells like a dead rock star). Because they seem to be very popular on Tv, commercials and just about everyone I talk to about music. so thats my two cents. Lots of good queen memories outweigh the bad though thetman |
Deacon Fan 10.12.2007 19:59 |
Hmm. Why did Body Language do so well then? Could a song make #11 from people just buying the next Queen single unheard? Then why didn't Under Pressure do better? :) This is what I don't understand.. Queen's rock-based fans hating the Hot Space stuff, yet BL did so well. It makes no sense. And personally, though I do enjoy funky music and never had anything against Hot Space like so many did.. Body Language was simply awful. Staying Power is a much better song IMO. The same could be said for AOBTD.. Queen turns disco.. well, it was their biggest success here, so WTF? Was it something like... perhaps they did some funky stuff which appealed to many people, and sold well, but the Queen fans who'd been with them through heavier times abandoned them? Even then it would seem they'd have this success to ride on and still do fairly well and appeal to those same non-fans again. I just don't get it.. that's why it bugs me when huge successes are blamed for 'killing' them here. |
Daniel Nester 10.12.2007 20:36 |
Another good question, Bunny. My take is that, at least for "Body Language," Queen still had mojo, still were popular enough for radio to give it a try. I remember the song being played on pop radio, being featured on the Solid gold rundown of hits (remember the Solid Gold dancers, people? for dudes of a certain age those sexy things got us through puberty). After Body Language? Not much. "Calling All Girls," to this fan, was my candidate for a single that should have charted--it sounded like a live band, was a bit harder-edged. And all the while, Queen were on tour in the US, playing to non-sellout gigs with talk of opener Billy Squier as being the real draw. Strange days indeed. Most peculiar, mamas. |
Deacon Fan 10.12.2007 21:45 |
Heh. And I should have mentioned I remember seeing "Calling All Girls" on MTV at least once too. It was during the day.. either I was home sick or school was out. I know it was a weekday. LOL I guess you might have something there, Daniel.. one might say their career was living on borrowed time, without a thought for tomorrow. |
saltnvinegar 10.12.2007 22:02 |
thetman wrote: Alot of very valid points made already so I won't re-hash those. But as a huge queen fan growing up in the states-and was lucky to see them live three times. I clearly remember bringing home Hot space from the record store-and as soon as I placed the needle on the vinyl I knew something was amiss-I kept picking up the needle and placing it on the next song ..and then the next song before each song ended. I knew right there things had changed, and I was extremely disappointed at the time. sad really, because I remember when News of the world came out and Queen were all over the place, magazines, radio etc. But today things have ended well with Queen in the states (because of Freddie's death?..maybe, didn't he say nothing sells like a dead rock star). Because they seem to be very popular on Tv, commercials and just about everyone I talk to about music. so thats my two cents. Lots of good queen memories outweigh the bad though thetmanThanks for sharing your feelings about listening to Hot Space right when it came out, I suppose it must have been a real shock when you'd got used to a certain sound. I think Freddie may have been refering to exactly this kind of reaction in this interview (the quote starts at around 1.59) link (sorry to the 'youtube thread police' for not posting this link there but I think this location is far more relevant to the discussion ;)) |
mike hunt 11.12.2007 00:26 |
thetman wrote: Alot of very valid points made already so I won't re-hash those. But as a huge queen fan growing up in the states-and was lucky to see them live three times. I clearly remember bringing home Hot space from the record store-and as soon as I placed the needle on the vinyl I knew something was amiss-I kept picking up the needle and placing it on the next song ..and then the next song before each song ended. I knew right there things had changed, and I was extremely disappointed at the time. sad really, because I remember when News of the world came out and Queen were all over the place, magazines, radio etc. But today things have ended well with Queen in the states (because of Freddie's death?..maybe, didn't he say nothing sells like a dead rock star). Because they seem to be very popular on Tv, commercials and just about everyone I talk to about music. so thats my two cents. Lots of good queen memories outweigh the bad though thetmanI'm from new york and remember it the same way as you, but have you ever tried to listen to hot space with adult ears. It's not all that bad. |
rschoorl 11.12.2007 06:59 |
This has been a fun thread. Going back, these are my thoughts as a fan. A song like Body Language or even Bicycle Race/Fat Bottomed Girls initially benefited because they were released before the album, so Queen fans who were hungry for new material would buy it, having not heard it. A song like Body Language or Radio Gaga were hits on the charts, but in New York, I do not remember them getting airplay. Maybe one of the problems was that when AOBTD became a hit the audience that Queen expanded to was not an album buying audience, but rather a single purchasing audience. Even Queen realized that as by Hot Space, they were playing with 12" remixes. In America, their original rock audience was an "FM" radio based album audience and when a record was released, several songs would be played regularly on the radio whether they were singles or not. That stopped with "The Game" after AOBTD, after that than MAYBE the singles would be played if it was in the station's format....and over the years, the choices that Queen made regarding the singles they chose to release left a lot to be desired. |
Holly2003 11.12.2007 07:52 |
I think this whole subject is a symptom of what's wrong with Queen and its fans. Too many associate success with quality. Freddie Mercury's defence to playing in South Africa? We made a lot of money. Brian May's response? The fans liked us. I see this attitude institutionlised by Queen productions and repeated in various offical and no-official biographies of the band. The critics hate Queen but hey, the fans keep buying it so the critics are wrong and the band is right. Did anyone ever take off the blinkers and think that some of Queen's critics may occasionally have had a point? There's a simple answer to this. Queen produced a product that the American public weren't interested in. Freddie was too comfortable with his success to have to work at it again in the USA. Until they had a hit, he wasn't prepared to put in the effort to make any tour a success. The hit never came because Queen wre never able to produce anything as good in the 1980s as they did in the 70s. The fact that they were successful in the 80s everywhere except the USA -- becoming a "stadium rock band" in the process -- says nothing about the quality of their work. |
Boy Thomas Raker 11.12.2007 11:12 |
Holly, another question that I forwarded (to no response) to Brian's website, dealt with criticism, and whether it was ever warranted. Brian keeps validating the musical with box office figures, saying the fans must be right. But while admitting Queen did take an unfair shit kicking form American critics, there were balanced reviews, and I don't think Queen, QP or their Stepford-ish fans ever felt anything was fair. As you say, Brian eloquently defended their right to play in South Africa. In doing so, they broke a boycott. You could look at it and say that by playing Sun City, Queen did more than the artists that stayed away. Or you could say that by playing there they were a propaganda tool for the government. Back to the HS and point of the thread, the songs just didn't go over. At this time, Queen were becoming a singles pop band. Every thing was well played, sung and produced, but from a writing POV, they were a shadow of what they were in the 70s which is when they built their audience. And that audience left en masse when they abandoned their guitar rock roots. |
Holly2003 11.12.2007 14:42 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Holly, another question that I forwarded (to no response) to Brian's website, dealt with criticism, and whether it was ever warranted. Brian keeps validating the musical with box office figures, saying the fans must be right. But while admitting Queen did take an unfair shit kicking form American critics, there were balanced reviews, and I don't think Queen, QP or their Stepford-ish fans ever felt anything was fair. As you say, Brian eloquently defended their right to play in South Africa. In doing so, they broke a boycott. You could look at it and say that by playing Sun City, Queen did more than the artists that stayed away. Or you could say that by playing there they were a propaganda tool for the government. Back to the HS and point of the thread, the songs just didn't go over. At this time, Queen were becoming a singles pop band. Every thing was well played, sung and produced, but from a writing POV, they were a shadow of what they were in the 70s which is when they built their audience. And that audience left en masse when they abandoned their guitar rock roots.Good point. In the States they certainly did desert Queen when the rock element gave way to synth based pop. Ironically, that's when their Euro success reached a pinnacle. Does that prove that Americans know (love?) their rock better than their Euro neighbours? Probably. |
louvox 11.12.2007 16:08 |
saltnvinegar wrote:Thank you for your reply, but you are comparing apples and oranges. Queen was known for their over the top rock, camp & inovations. The others you mentioned didn't even write thier own songs and nobody will remember remember them 20 years from now. Queen for the most part in the 80's started simply copying what was happening around them, instead of either making things their own or breaking new ground like in previous years. Other than a handful of songs from thier 80's output, most were subpar by thier standards. You take Freddie's voice off most of the thier 80's material and you couldn't tell them apart from any other techno pop synth band of that time. Most fans here in the USA didn't want to hear that type of garbage from them. Had they recorded those songs with more of an edge like thier live recordings, they probably would have faired better.louvox wrote: What really killed Queen in the USA durring the 80' is simple. Terrible albums filled with shitty songs.With all due respect, I don't think you can whitewash Queen's entire failure in the USA due to this reason. Let's be honest, how many people still spend their days playing tracks from the likes of 'Mistaken Identity' by Kim Carnes, the soundtracks to Flashdance and Footloose and Whitney Houston's eponymous debut? But they were all big sellers Stateside in the 80's... A poor quality album doesn't always mean unsuccessful and a good one is not always guaranteed sales. |
thetman 11.12.2007 19:19 |
"I'm from new york and remember it the same way as you, but have you ever tried to listen to hot space with adult ears. It's not all that bad. " Yes I have listened to Hotspace many times as an adult, the album is fine,and I do enjoy alot of the songs. I wasn't totally knocking the album- but a first impression ...is a first impression-there is no faking it-and at the time I was listening to mainly rock music. Of course I had the opposite reaction when I first got hold of ANATO before it hit the stores. A friend of mine's brother worked at a record plant and brought home all kinds of albums before street date. I think I wore the album out from playing it so much!! but long before hotspace other bands had already branched out a little as well (Kiss did beth earlier-which probably pissed off some Kiss fans I'm sure.) I could flap on and on about all those early memories. Hey what initially got me hooked was buying killer queen as a single by mistake- I thought it was another song (can't remember) but it was fate that day for sure! thetman |
Dusta 11.12.2007 19:28 |
Ha! Killer Queen is what did it for me, too. I played the 45 over and over and over.
thetman wrote: "I'm from new york and remember it the same way as you, but have you ever tried to listen to hot space with adult ears. It's not all that bad. " Yes I have listened to Hotspace many times as an adult, the album is fine,and I do enjoy alot of the songs. I wasn't totally knocking the album- but a first impression ...is a first impression-there is no faking it-and at the time I was listening to mainly rock music. Of course I had the opposite reaction when I first got hold of ANATO before it hit the stores. A friend of mine's brother worked at a record plant and brought home all kinds of albums before street date. I think I wore the album out from playing it so much!! but long before hotspace other bands had already branched out a little as well (Kiss did beth earlier-which probably pissed off some Kiss fans I'm sure.) I could flap on and on about all those early memories. Hey what initially got me hooked was buying killer queen as a single by mistake- I thought it was another song (can't remember) but it was fate that day for sure! thetman |
thetman 11.12.2007 19:31 |
"Thanks for sharing your feelings about listening to Hot Space right when it came out, I suppose it must have been a real shock when you'd got used to a certain sound. I think Freddie may have been referring to exactly this kind of reaction in this interview (the quote starts at around 1.59)" Yes it was a real shock, exactly that- a shock. But I was also shocked when another one bites the dust single came out- I hated it! I was not into disco-funk music-and don't forget the new look the band was showing (even though they did kind of gradually started cutting their hair in the later 70s). i like the production of the earlier albums- I never liked Mack as a producer-infact when I first heard tear it up -all I could think of was billy squire (same producer i believe). But I was younger and much more demanding I guess. I think queen ended on a very high note with Innuendo. At least you could never say they weren't a diverse band! thetman |
Winter Land Man 11.12.2007 22:57 |
louvox wrote:Are you sure you looked into the performers/artists he mentioned? Some of them did write their own songs.saltnvinegar wrote:Thank you for your reply, but you are comparing apples and oranges. Queen was known for their over the top rock, camp & inovations. The others you mentioned didn't even write thier own songs and nobody will remember remember them 20 years from now. Queen for the most part in the 80's started simply copying what was happening around them, instead of either making things their own or breaking new ground like in previous years. Other than a handful of songs from thier 80's output, most were subpar by thier standards. You take Freddie's voice off most of the thier 80's material and you couldn't tell them apart from any other techno pop synth band of that time. Most fans here in the USA didn't want to hear that type of garbage from them. Had they recorded those songs with more of an edge like thier live recordings, they probably would have faired better.louvox wrote: What really killed Queen in the USA durring the 80' is simple. Terrible albums filled with shitty songs.With all due respect, I don't think you can whitewash Queen's entire failure in the USA due to this reason. Let's be honest, how many people still spend their days playing tracks from the likes of 'Mistaken Identity' by Kim Carnes, the soundtracks to Flashdance and Footloose and Whitney Houston's eponymous debut? But they were all big sellers Stateside in the 80's... A poor quality album doesn't always mean unsuccessful and a good one is not always guaranteed sales. I could tell the difference between every Queen's instrumental. Even one instrument alone and tell them apart from other Queen songs. Some of their music was much more synthesized (A Kind Of Magic/Radio Ga Ga, etc), but that makes them poor musicians? Music is music. Brian Wilson had Paul McCartney chewing carrots for the song "Vegatables"!!! What ever type of instrument someone is playing, if they are good at it, it makes them a great musician. You operate a synthesizer or a keyboard. I WANT YOU TO RE-CREATE Radio Ga Ga. Let's see how great you are. And in the 80s, Queen didn't write all their songs with synths as the big instrument. In fact, most of Queen's songs on Hot Space wouldn't be accepted in the dance community due to it being too rock-like (Dancer, Back Chat, etc). Tear It Up, Hammer To Fall, Princes Of The Universe, Gimme The Prize, Put Out The Fire, songs like those, I can't picture a techno group doing. The problem with Queen those days, is they released the wrong singles. Maybe you should of bought the albums? Maybe you should of bought the Hammer To Fall single?? I don't know. |
Sebastian 12.12.2007 04:43 |
> Queen for the most part in the 80's started simply copying what was happening around them, Yes, I'm sure EVERYBODY was doing songs like 'Hard Life', 'Princes of the Universe', 'The Miracle', 'Who Wants to Live Forever', 'Under Pressure', 'Man on the Prowl', 'The Kiss' ... I mean, Queen obviously followed some trends here and there (like 'Ga Ga' being recorded mere months after 'Mr Roboto' became famous), but from that to start "simply copying what was happening around them" and doing it "for the most part" there are light-years. > instead of either making things their own or breaking new ground like in previous years. None of what they'd done in the previous years was "new ground". Waltz existed long before them, so did opera, vaudeville, etc. Their originality comes in the way they explored those styles with their own fingerprints and making them sound Queen-esque. And that didn't stop in the 80's. > Other than a handful of songs from thier 80's output, most were subpar by thier standards. Regarding that line, I agree. > you couldn't tell them apart from any other techno pop synth band of that time. Actually techno emerged in late 80's, around the time of 'The Miracle', and I don't think that album belongs to that category (besides partly 'Invisible Man', but one song out of ten is still a bare minimum). If you mean "electronic pop" or something like that... you're still wrong, it's stupid to judge the entire outcome of a band in a decade just because a handful of singles were (partially) influenced by certain trend. Moreover, I think any person with half an ear and a brain could tell the difference between Queen and Chaka Khan, for instance. > Are you sure you looked into the performers/artists he mentioned? Some of them did write their own songs. And most of the public doesn't care about that. Me included: I'm too obsessive, and I like to find out who's responsible for what, but when it comes to the music alone, if it's good, I like it, I don't care if the person who sings it wrote it, or if they needed a thousand guest musicians, etc. > You operate a synthesizer or a keyboard. I WANT YOU TO RE-CREATE Radio Ga Ga. Let's see how great you are. Actually 'Ga Ga' isn't so hard to re-create, except for the slightly-warbling bass. Now, if you want to recreate 'Machines', that one's quite tricky. But yes, layering dozens of synths often requires patience, accuracy and being a capable keyboard player. |
Regor 12.12.2007 10:30 |
Excellent post, Sebastian. Of course it was not a case of "copying what was around" and "musically weak". Although one could argue about the hook in IAHL being borrowed from YTMBA... ;-) But generally their musicianship was still top. And if they had recorded songs like It's late or MOTBQ again and again people would have judged it as stuck in the past. You can't please everybody. Talking of their demise in the US one must'nt forget that a band like Genesis had NO big Hit Record until Abacab - and they formed in the late 60's! They then quickly became million-sellers, and that was the 80's: MTV had appeared and media coverage for music acts had become massive. That's why maybe Genesis is remembered as this big stadium band in the US, whereas Queen were huge in the states during the 70's - when it wasn't common to have, say, Kurt Loder following you around on tour and something like that. Led Zep were different, they weren't only huge, they were an incredible mass phenomenon. But for the other so-called "dinosaurs" Queen had their big time in the US, but before MTV and stuff. But BTT, I think the choice of singles contributed to the lack of interest in them. IMO a tour for The Works in only a few big cities in the US, especially east coast and the LA area, would have resulted in sell-outs. I remember an interview with Ratty, that a US tour was planned, but cancelled due to what Brian mentioned about Freddie. One can only imagine what would have happened had they toured. |
Micrówave 12.12.2007 11:18 |
saltnvinegar wrote: Let's be honest, how many people still spend their days playing tracks from the likes of Whitney Houston's eponymous debut?Right here. That is a great album and about the only one of hers that is even listenable. She (at one time) was a really great singer. And I didn't want her writing her own material. That's when the downfall began. Saving All My Love is one of the better tunes from that era. |
Winter Land Man 12.12.2007 14:18 |
Sebastian wrote: > Queen for the most part in the 80's started simply copying what was happening around them, Yes, I'm sure EVERYBODY was doing songs like 'Hard Life', 'Princes of the Universe', 'The Miracle', 'Who Wants to Live Forever', 'Under Pressure', 'Man on the Prowl', 'The Kiss' ... I mean, Queen obviously followed some trends here and there (like 'Ga Ga' being recorded mere months after 'Mr Roboto' became famous), but from that to start "simply copying what was happening around them" and doing it "for the most part" there are light-years. > instead of either making things their own or breaking new ground like in previous years. None of what they'd done in the previous years was "new ground". Waltz existed long before them, so did opera, vaudeville, etc. Their originality comes in the way they explored those styles with their own fingerprints and making them sound Queen-esque. And that didn't stop in the 80's. > Other than a handful of songs from thier 80's output, most were subpar by thier standards. Regarding that line, I agree. > you couldn't tell them apart from any other techno pop synth band of that time. Actually techno emerged in late 80's, around the time of 'The Miracle', and I don't think that album belongs to that category (besides partly 'Invisible Man', but one song out of ten is still a bare minimum). If you mean "electronic pop" or something like that... you're still wrong, it's stupid to judge the entire outcome of a band in a decade just because a handful of singles were (partially) influenced by certain trend. Moreover, I think any person with half an ear and a brain could tell the difference between Queen and Chaka Khan, for instance. > Are you sure you looked into the performers/artists he mentioned? Some of them did write their own songs. And most of the public doesn't care about that. Me included: I'm too obsessive, and I like to find out who's responsible for what, but when it comes to the music alone, if it's good, I like it, I don't care if the person who sings it wrote it, or if they needed a thousand guest musicians, etc. > You operate a synthesizer or a keyboard. I WANT YOU TO RE-CREATE Radio Ga Ga. Let's see how great you are. Actually 'Ga Ga' isn't so hard to re-create, except for the slightly-warbling bass. Now, if you want to recreate 'Machines', that one's quite tricky. But yes, layering dozens of synths often requires patience, accuracy and being a capable keyboard player.Yes, but I'd like that person to do Radio Ga Ga, the whole instrumental. |
louvox 12.12.2007 18:44 |
Regardless of what every one of us on this site might believe to have been the cause for their down fall in the USA. The fact remains that their popularity and success in the USA waned in the 80’s. Not just amongst the general record buying audience, but also with their fans. I don’t think there is one reason for this, but probably a combination of factors. In my opinion the biggest factor was the material they were producing. The period from “Hot space” to “A kind of magic” their recordings tended to sound flat, sterile and uninspired. Unlike their previous recording where they would take different musical styles, put their touch on it and make it a "Queen record" that was unmistakable. They had a few good moments and their live recordings of their 80’s material are far superior to their studio counterparts. As an example a song like “Staying power” sounds fantastic live (edgier, full and powerful), while the studio version sounds simply wimpy and boring. Had they recorded their songs in the same manner, style and inspiration as their previous offerings things probably would have been different. |
Daniel Nester 12.12.2007 20:39 |
Random thoughts, posted here because I think this thread is one of my favorite on Queenzone for quite some time, because the level of discourse is so smart and collegial, even though we all have strong opinions. = I think "Calling All Girls" from Hot Space stands up to everything on The Game and even Jazz and News of the World. Sure, it needed a Brian May guitar solo (the live version on the On Fire DVD is sublime). = Far stranger/experimental/subpar albums have been put out by equally superstar-level artists. Anyone ever hear Metal Machine Music by Lou Reed? = Queen morphed a euro-band beginning with The Works. From their art direction onstage to their choice of singles--pop over the rock--they went in that direction. = The exception to this, to me, is Innuendo. Man, after The Miracle, to hear The Show Must Go On was mind-splitting. The career game, of course, was very much over by then, but my estimation of them as a great band, in the upper reaches alongside The Beatles and The Who and Led Zeppelin, was solifified. = I often have had to remind myself in this thread. We are talking talking two years in Queen productive life. Queen's last American gigs were in July 1982. Then there's the "solo years," with Star Fleet and Mr Bad Guy and Strange Frontier. They start touring behind The Works in 1984, with the Knebworth gig in 1986. It was only in those years could Queen have done gigs in the US and truly gave The Works and A King of Magic a push. = This is a question, and it's probably the least re-hash part of this post: Does anyone know if Jim Beach or whoever really ran the numbers for a Works US tour or A Kind of Magic US tour and decided it wasn't economically feasible? I wish someone would ask this of the Queen higher-ups at a convention or whatnot. Or maybe someone did? |
saltnvinegar 13.12.2007 02:32 |
Micrówave wrote:My sincere apologies Micrówave, I picked a random selection of albums that I considered to be commercially popular in the US at the time but inferior to Hot Space. Please understand I didn't intend to offend any fans of Ms Houston!saltnvinegar wrote: Let's be honest, how many people still spend their days playing tracks from the likes of Whitney Houston's eponymous debut?Right here. That is a great album and about the only one of hers that is even listenable. She (at one time) was a really great singer. And I didn't want her writing her own material. That's when the downfall began. Saving All My Love is one of the better tunes from that era. |
goodco 13.12.2007 14:48 |
|
Daniel Nester 15.12.2007 20:32 |
I remember an interview with Ratty, that a US tour was planned, but cancelled due to what Brian mentioned about Freddie. One can only imagine what would have happened had they toured. Please, do tell -- is there more information anywhere about this? Is there a link to the Ratty interview anywhere? I really do wonder if they "ran the numbers" and found it economically unfeasible. Shame they didn't do a couple of dates. A tragedy, actually. |
Regor 20.12.2007 06:40 |
Daniel Nester wrote: I remember an interview with Ratty, that a US tour was planned, but cancelled due to what Brian mentioned about Freddie. One can only imagine what would have happened had they toured. Please, do tell -- is there more information anywhere about this? Is there a link to the Ratty interview anywhere? I really do wonder if they "ran the numbers" and found it economically unfeasible. Shame they didn't do a couple of dates. A tragedy, actually.Yes - the interview is on Queenarchives: link Yes, it would have been a nice and sort of amicable end to their live-career in america. And perhaps even AKOM 2 years later would have performed better on the charts if they had shown some presence around the time 1984-1986. Something like the "Test-gigs" by QPR in NY and L.A. would've been great in 1984, or even after the Japanese and Australian leg of the tour in '85. I am sure that at least in the bigest cities and especially "Queen-Territories" like Boston that would have resulted in sell-outs. |
Daniel Nester 20.12.2007 15:06 |
Thanks for pointing me there, Regor -- one dreams what could have been. I mean, just some promotional gigs would have made a splash. |
goinback 23.12.2007 06:34 |
Daniel Nester wrote: Forgive me if you've seen this before, but I thought it too relevant not to post. |
12yrslouetta 23.12.2007 20:31 |
We are forgetting that in 1985 Queen blew everyone away with their stunning Live Aid performance and still they didnt make a dent in America after that. Theres lots of explanations but at the end of the day, maybe the american audience "just didnt get them". Looking through the history of music it happens all the time |
Tero 24.12.2007 05:55 |
goinback wrote: It took FOREVER for The Works - a proper Queen album - to come out,Great opening... At least we know your sttitude from the beginning. ;) goinback wrote: "Radio Ga-Ga" wasn't a good-enough "comeback" single (people thought it was silly), and - especially since Queen were trying to re-establish themselves as a ROCK band - the second single IWTBF didn't cut itQueen were not a rock band. They were a pop/rock band. Seven Seas of Rhye, Killer Queen, Bohemian Rhapsody, Somebody to Love, Spread Your Wings, Bicycle Race, Crazy Little Thing Called Love, Save Me... etc. were not any more rockier songs than Radio Ga Ga, so the band was working perfectly within their established parameters. Some parts of the audience just didn't get to hear all hard rock-Brian May solos like they would have wanted. goinback wrote: But, Queen still have image mis-steps to this day, and have pop songs on their compilations instead of their rock radio hits that made them famous. I think they realized this problem and attempted to correct it with Queen Rocks,Queen Rocks was Brian's attempt in lining his own pockets. It's basically a collection of all the songs he's written that weren't good enough to make the other compilations, plus that ones that did make the previous compilations... That's about as one-sided and revisionist as you can get with the Queen catalogue. |
Boy Thomas Raker 26.12.2007 11:27 |
Your statement is partially true Tero. Queen WERE a hard rock band, as heavy as Zeppelin or Aerosmith, that became a pop rock band. If you saw them on any tour up to Jazz, you'd know what I'm talking about. |
Tero 26.12.2007 12:05 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Your statement is partially true Tero. Queen WERE a hard rock band, as heavy as Zeppelin or Aerosmith, that became a pop rock band. If you saw them on any tour up to Jazz, you'd know what I'm talking about.So you're talking about Queen as a live band? Of course it was a much heavier version than the one featured on the albums, but mainly it would have been because a piano would be pretty damn hard to take on road, and would prevent Freddie from being the showman he wanted to be. Then there's of course the fact that such intricate production would be impossible to reproduce on stage... On record they never were a hard rock band by any stretch of imagination after 1974, and the singles have ALWAYS shown a 50/50 split between rock and pop. I simply cannot understand how anyone could claim that Radio Ga Ga was a radical departure from their previous material, or that the American public were expecting heavier material after the previous 20 singles. |
louvox 26.12.2007 17:44 |
Tero wrote:It's not that the American public (Fans) were expecting heavier material. It's just that the American public (Fans) thought "Radio Ga,Ga" sucked. As for much of their material from the 80's. That plain and simple.Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Your statement is partially true Tero. Queen WERE a hard rock band, as heavy as Zeppelin or Aerosmith, that became a pop rock band. If you saw them on any tour up to Jazz, you'd know what I'm talking about.So you're talking about Queen as a live band? Of course it was a much heavier version than the one featured on the albums, but mainly it would have been because a piano would be pretty damn hard to take on road, and would prevent Freddie from being the showman he wanted to be. Then there's of course the fact that such intricate production would be impossible to reproduce on stage... On record they never were a hard rock band by any stretch of imagination after 1974, and the singles have ALWAYS shown a 50/50 split between rock and pop. I simply cannot understand how anyone could claim that Radio Ga Ga was a radical departure from their previous material, or that the American public were expecting heavier material after the previous 20 singles. |
Tero 27.12.2007 05:13 |
louvox wrote: It's not that the American public (Fans) were expecting heavier material. It's just that the American public (Fans) thought "Radio Ga,Ga" sucked. As for much of their material from the 80's. That plain and simple.That would certainly be the more logical explanation, but some people want to find more elaborate explanations to fit their own personal lives and opinions, as if the career of Queen was some kind of gigantic horoscope. I think I said in another topic that compared to the 70's, there was such a huge drop in the quality of output from both Freddie and Brian that Queen actually had to release a Roger track as a single! :P |
Daniel Nester 27.12.2007 07:56 |
Oh snap! A Roger dis! |
Holly2003 27.12.2007 14:13 |
Tero wrote:I have to disagree. In the 1970s Queen were a guitar-based rock band. As far as singles were concerned not al rock bands always release rock singles (Rolling Stones "Angie", Thin Lizzy "Sarah" etc). Despite this, most of the singles Queen released in America were rock singles. They even released It's Late and Need Your Loving Tonight in the USA because they thought that was their market. Besides (and I could be wrong about this) the USA was more an album-orientated market and all Queen's albums in the 1970s were more rock rather than pop or pop-rock albums.Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Your statement is partially true Tero. Queen WERE a hard rock band, as heavy as Zeppelin or Aerosmith, that became a pop rock band. If you saw them on any tour up to Jazz, you'd know what I'm talking about.So you're talking about Queen as a live band? Of course it was a much heavier version than the one featured on the albums, but mainly it would have been because a piano would be pretty damn hard to take on road, and would prevent Freddie from being the showman he wanted to be. Then there's of course the fact that such intricate production would be impossible to reproduce on stage... On record they never were a hard rock band by any stretch of imagination after 1974, and the singles have ALWAYS shown a 50/50 split between rock and pop. I simply cannot understand how anyone could claim that Radio Ga Ga was a radical departure from their previous material, or that the American public were expecting heavier material after the previous 20 singles. ps as for Radio ga Ga and The Works I expected a heavier album because Brian May promised that it would be a heavier album. I was initially very disappointed with Radio Ga Ga and the album for that reason. |
Tero 27.12.2007 17:54 |
Holly2003 wrote: I have to disagree. In the 1970s Queen were a guitar-based rock band. As far as singles were concerned not al rock bands always release rock singles (Rolling Stones "Angie", Thin Lizzy "Sarah" etc). Despite this, most of the singles Queen released in America were rock singles. They even released It's Late and Need Your Loving Tonight in the USA because they thought that was their market. Besides (and I could be wrong about this) the USA was more an album-orientated market and all Queen's albums in the 1970s were more rock rather than pop or pop-rock albums. ps as for Radio ga Ga and The Works I expected a heavier album because Brian May promised that it would be a heavier album. I was initially very disappointed with Radio Ga Ga and the album for that reason.You can disagree all you want, but that doesn't make it the reality. ;) They were a guitar based rock band as much as they were a piano based pop band. They were a rock AND a pop band in the same package. That's a part of their charm compared to loads of other acts. Elektra might have been trying to capitalise on the more credible hard rock side a bit more than EMI with releases like Liar or It's Late (while Need Your Loving Tonight was a blatant attempt to exploit the previous Game singles), but those singles just weren't succesfull compared to the softer material. The album charts DO show that the 70's albums were more succesful than the 80's albums, but is that because people were buying them as great rock albums, or because they featured great pop singles on them? Wasn't the lack of success in the 80's brought on by lousier material, instead of poppier material? That dip in quality is something pretty much every Queen fan has agreed to, and that includes even the hardrock turkeys like Put Out The Fire, Tear It Up, and Gimme The Prize. And just to round things up... The Works was a LOT heavier album than Hot Space. It just wasn't the kind of album YOU would have wanted. The ratio of rock and pop songs (Hammer To Fall, Tear It Up, Machines - It's a Hard Life, Man On The Prowl, I Want To Break Free, Is This The World We Created) is perfectly in line of what they released earlier... Say something like A Day At The Races (Tie Your Mother Down, Long Away, White Man - You Take My Breath Away, The Millionaire Waltz, Somebody To Love, Good Old fashioned Lover Boy) which has always been a fan favourite. The albums have always been a mixture of both "light" rock and heavy rock. It's just the quality of the songs that changed throughout the years. |
Holly2003 28.12.2007 05:58 |
Tero wrote:The success or otherwise of the singles does not have a bearing on whether or not they were a pop band or pop-rock or just a rock band in the seventies. You can only judge that based on their output. It's clear to me that in the 1970s Queen were almost solely a rock band, with a few oddities thrown in here and there. Of course, that changed in later years. As for The Works, you asked ealier why anyone would expect a heavier album than before. I explained that: because Brian SAID it would be heavier. I'm sure, like me, a lot of American fans were also disappointed to get such a lightweight product after a long absence.Holly2003 wrote: I have to disagree. In the 1970s Queen were a guitar-based rock band. As far as singles were concerned not al rock bands always release rock singles (Rolling Stones "Angie", Thin Lizzy "Sarah" etc). Despite this, most of the singles Queen released in America were rock singles. They even released It's Late and Need Your Loving Tonight in the USA because they thought that was their market. Besides (and I could be wrong about this) the USA was more an album-orientated market and all Queen's albums in the 1970s were more rock rather than pop or pop-rock albums. ps as for Radio ga Ga and The Works I expected a heavier album because Brian May promised that it would be a heavier album. I was initially very disappointed with Radio Ga Ga and the album for that reason.You can disagree all you want, but that doesn't make it the reality. ;) They were a guitar based rock band as much as they were a piano based pop band. They were a rock AND a pop band in the same package. That's a part of their charm compared to loads of other acts. Elektra might have been trying to capitalise on the more credible hard rock side a bit more than EMI with releases like Liar or It's Late (while Need Your Loving Tonight was a blatant attempt to exploit the previous Game singles), but those singles just weren't succesfull compared to the softer material. The album charts DO show that the 70's albums were more succesful than the 80's albums, but is that because people were buying them as great rock albums, or because they featured great pop singles on them? Wasn't the lack of success in the 80's brought on by lousier material, instead of poppier material? That dip in quality is something pretty much every Queen fan has agreed to, and that includes even the hardrock turkeys like Put Out The Fire, Tear It Up, and Gimme The Prize. And just to round things up... The Works was a LOT heavier album than Hot Space. It just wasn't the kind of album YOU would have wanted. The ratio of rock and pop songs (Hammer To Fall, Tear It Up, Machines - It's a Hard Life, Man On The Prowl, I Want To Break Free, Is This The World We Created) is perfectly in line of what they released earlier... Say something like A Day At The Races (Tie Your Mother Down, Long Away, White Man - You Take My Breath Away, The Millionaire Waltz, Somebody To Love, Good Old fashioned Lover Boy) which has always been a fan favourite. The albums have always been a mixture of both "light" rock and heavy rock. It's just the quality of the songs that changed throughout the years. As for their lack of success in the 80s in the USA, I agree wth you to a large extent. As I said previously, they produced very little in the 80s that was as good as their 70s output (for me, at least). |
Daniel Nester 28.12.2007 08:50 |
I think it had more to do with the audience than that band. This was the time of hair metal, guitar shreds, Headbanger's Ball; it was not a time for rock bands stretching out and testing boundaries. Yes did their most straightforward pop album in its Trevor Rabin formation and got pop success. Van Halen as well. Other so-called classic rock bands--everyone from Deep Purple, Rolling Stones, The Who--were largely getting AOR rock radio airplay and not pop radio airplay. In any of these scenarios, I am trying to think of a band that was trying out funk or disco or synth-pop as an option. Van Halen's Jump, sure; but it pleased the died-in-wool fans with an Eddie VH solo. Not so "Radio Ga Ga"--how many of you, at least in the US, remember listening to Radio Ga Ga at first at least, and waiting for that tear-your-face-off Brian May solo that never came? |
Tero 28.12.2007 11:28 |
Holly2003 wrote: The success or otherwise of the singles does not have a bearing on whether or not they were a pop band or pop-rock or just a rock band in the seventies. You can only judge that based on their output. It's clear to me that in the 1970s Queen were almost solely a rock band, with a few oddities thrown in here and there. Of course, that changed in later years. As for The Works, you asked ealier why anyone would expect a heavier album than before. I explained that: because Brian SAID it would be heavier. I'm sure, like me, a lot of American fans were also disappointed to get such a lightweight product after a long absence. As for their lack of success in the 80s in the USA, I agree wth you to a large extent. As I said previously, they produced very little in the 80s that was as good as their 70s output (for me, at least).Are you sure you actually read what I wrote? ;) 1) The band wasn't any heavier in the 70's than they were in the 80's. The "softer aspects" of the music changed from acoustic piano and vocal arrangements to synthesisers, but there's just as much of that "softer" type of music in 1986 as there was in 1976. Just like there was an equal amount of that "harder" rock music. 2) The Works was a "heavier" album than Hot Space, and at least as heavy as The Game. Then again, the difference in the "heaviness" between The Works and ANATO or ADATR is marginal. It's just that most people equate synthesisers with lightweight pop music like you just did, and don't even bother to think that Queen had just as many lightweight songs in the 70's. How much more lightweight can you get than You're My Best Friend, which was their response to the immense success of Bohemian Rhapsody?! My main point was that surely Brian didn't promise a heavier album than the last Iron Maiden record, or their heaviest album since 1973, and nobody must have been realistically expecting that? The band went back to the heavier direction, but it just wasn't enough for some people. I think you are mixing up your personal expectations of what is a heavy album, and the comparative differences between the band's last few albums. |
Tero 28.12.2007 11:58 |
Daniel Nester wrote: I think it had more to do with the audience than that band. This was the time of hair metal, guitar shreds, Headbanger's Ball; it was not a time for rock bands stretching out and testing boundaries. Yes did their most straightforward pop album in its Trevor Rabin formation and got pop success. Van Halen as well. Other so-called classic rock bands--everyone from Deep Purple, Rolling Stones, The Who--were largely getting AOR rock radio airplay and not pop radio airplay. In any of these scenarios, I am trying to think of a band that was trying out funk or disco or synth-pop as an option. Van Halen's Jump, sure; but it pleased the died-in-wool fans with an Eddie VH solo. Not so "Radio Ga Ga"--how many of you, at least in the US, remember listening to Radio Ga Ga at first at least, and waiting for that tear-your-face-off Brian May solo that never came?Now this is an interesting take on the situation in 1983... "Hair metal" was in fashion, and some Queen fans were expecting their favourites to jump on that bandwagon as well (especially since they personally preferred that kind of music). So what would have been the difference between jumping on this bandwagon, or the "dance" craze a few years earlier with Hot Space? Is it just down to rock being more credible? :/ It's also almost frightening sometimes to read how serious fans of any band would rather have their favourites going through some Status Quo-esque time loop of repeating the same music over and over again without ever experimenting anything, or never doing anything differently... :P |
Daniel Nester 28.12.2007 12:22 |
Hey -- don't get me wrong -- I didn't feel this way exactly. It was more about trying to figure out to give Queen the best chart success. Even at 14, I was thinking marketing for Queen. I played The Works every day for a year after I got it -- much to love about that album. I suppose I am thinking of the everyday non-fan's perception. |
Holly2003 28.12.2007 12:41 |
Tero wrote:I'm pretty sure I read it. However, maybe what you wrote was not what was in your head ;)Holly2003 wrote: The success or otherwise of the singles does not have a bearing on whether or not they were a pop band or pop-rock or just a rock band in the seventies. You can only judge that based on their output. It's clear to me that in the 1970s Queen were almost solely a rock band, with a few oddities thrown in here and there. Of course, that changed in later years. As for The Works, you asked ealier why anyone would expect a heavier album than before. I explained that: because Brian SAID it would be heavier. I'm sure, like me, a lot of American fans were also disappointed to get such a lightweight product after a long absence. As for their lack of success in the 80s in the USA, I agree wth you to a large extent. As I said previously, they produced very little in the 80s that was as good as their 70s output (for me, at least).Are you sure you actually read what I wrote? ;) 1) The band wasn't any heavier in the 70's than they were in the 80's. The "softer aspects" of the music changed from acoustic piano and vocal arrangements to synthesisers, but there's just as much of that "softer" type of music in 1986 as there was in 1976. Just like there was an equal amount of that "harder" rock music. 2) The Works was a "heavier" album than Hot Space, and at least as heavy as The Game. Then again, the difference in the "heaviness" between The Works and ANATO or ADATR is marginal. It's just that most people equate synthesisers with lightweight pop music like you just did, and don't even bother to think that Queen had just as many lightweight songs in the 70's. How much more lightweight can you get than You're My Best Friend, which was their response to the immense success of Bohemian Rhapsody?! My main point was that surely Brian didn't promise a heavier album than the last Iron Maiden record, or their heaviest album since 1973, and nobody must have been realistically expecting that? The band went back to the heavier direction, but it just wasn't enough for some people. I think you are mixing up your personal expectations of what is a heavy album, and the comparative differences between the band's last few albums. I think we'll just have to disagree about this as I can't be arsed arguing about something so trivial. All the best. |
Boy Thomas Raker 28.12.2007 21:50 |
I also can't be bothered to do a decade by decade comparison of Queen's heaviness, but there is no way on God's green earth that their 80s output is even a shadow of their 70s output in terms of heaviness. Not. Even. Close. However, I'd say most tracks off of Queen's albums up until Jazz would find a home on what was considered rock radio. However, a lot of the Game, almost all of Hot Space and most of The Works wouldn't. They'd become poppier and America didn't go for Queen light. No shame in them trying new stuff, as it's what made Queen who they were, but it didn't catch on here. As for the heaviness quote from Brian, I read that too at the time, Daniel. I was waiting for a throwback to NOTW or something, and was shocked when I heard it. My guess with 20/20 hindsight is that the heaviness meant lyrically, with the topics of hunger, suicide, nuclear proliferation, computers and machines etc. It sure couldn't have been musically. |
Tero 29.12.2007 02:59 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: I also can't be bothered to do a decade by decade comparison of Queen's heaviness, but there is no way on God's green earth that their 80s output is even a shadow of their 70s output in terms of heaviness. Not. Even. Close.At least do an album by album comparison then, and you might be surprised. Try a fan favourite like ADATR and compare it to The Works. Here's my estimate on the "heaviness" of the music on those albums. (on a scale of 1-10, 10 being the heaviest.) Tie Your Mother Down - 9 You Take My Breath Away - 3 Long Away - 7 The Millionaire Waltz - 5 You And I - 7 Somebody To Love - 7 White Man - 8 1/2 Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy - 5 Drowse - 4 Teo Torriatte - 6 ADATR - average 6.15 Radio Ga Ga - 6 Tear It Up - 8 1/2 It's A Hard Life - 5 Man On The Prowl - 5 Machines - 7 1/2 I Want To Break Free - 5 Keep Passing The Open Windows - 5 Hammer To Fall - 9 Is This The World We Created - 3 The Works - average 6.00 The Highs and lows on these albums are equal, and the averages are practically the same. Where exactly is that huge difference I'm being told about? I dare you to post just how heavy you rank these songs, so that I can see where you think that difference comes from. |
Tero 29.12.2007 07:10 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: I was waiting for a throwback to NOTW or something, and was shocked when I heard it.... And my opinion on just how heavy this album is: We Will Rock You - 8 1/2 We Are The Champions - 7 1/2 Sheer Heart Attack - 9 1/2 All Dead, All Dead - 5 Spread Your Wings - 7 Fight From The Inside - 6 Get Down, Make Love - 6 Sleeping On The Sidewalk - 4 Who Needs you - 3 It's Late - 8 1/2 My Melancholy Blues - 3 NOTW average - 6.18 , which is a mere 3% heavier than The Works. :P (And in case somebody's interested, for Hot Space I would estimate an average of 5.3, which would mean that Works was on average almost 15% heavier... That's actually something you might notice.) |
rschoorl 29.12.2007 07:17 |
The big difference in ADATR and The Works is not in heaviness, but in fact that ADATR was groundbreaking. From the first Queen album through NOTW, I think fans listened to an album for the first time and heard unique things that had never been done in a particular style before. It was exciting because you never knew what you would hear next. To me, the Works is disappointing because you can take any song on the Works and reference another Queen song on a previous album. They ultimately lost their creativity and fell into a "formula". |
Holly2003 29.12.2007 07:39 |
Tero wrote:Are you taking the piss?Boy Thomas Raker wrote: I was waiting for a throwback to NOTW or something, and was shocked when I heard it.... And my opinion on just how heavy this album is: We Will Rock You - 8 1/2 We Are The Champions - 7 1/2 Sheer Heart Attack - 9 1/2 All Dead, All Dead - 5 Spread Your Wings - 7 Fight From The Inside - 6 Get Down, Make Love - 6 Sleeping On The Sidewalk - 4 Who Needs you - 3 It's Late - 8 1/2 My Melancholy Blues - 3 NOTW average - 6.18 , which is a mere 3% heavier than The Works. :P (And in case somebody's interested, for Hot Space I would estimate an average of 5.3, which would mean that Works was on average almost 15% heavier... That's actually something you might notice.) |
Tero 29.12.2007 08:40 |
Holly2003 wrote:No. I've actually taken the time to try to quantify the subjective heaviness of the tracks on these albums, and try explain to you the basis why I can claim that The Works isn't such a radical departure from the previous albums in terms of heaviness. (And it took about five minutes of my time in total.)Tero wrote:Are you taking the piss?Boy Thomas Raker wrote: I was waiting for a throwback to NOTW or something, and was shocked when I heard it.... And my opinion on just how heavy this album is: We Will Rock You - 8 1/2 We Are The Champions - 7 1/2 Sheer Heart Attack - 9 1/2 All Dead, All Dead - 5 Spread Your Wings - 7 Fight From The Inside - 6 Get Down, Make Love - 6 Sleeping On The Sidewalk - 4 Who Needs you - 3 It's Late - 8 1/2 My Melancholy Blues - 3 NOTW average - 6.18 , which is a mere 3% heavier than The Works. :P (And in case somebody's interested, for Hot Space I would estimate an average of 5.3, which would mean that Works was on average almost 15% heavier... That's actually something you might notice.) |
Tero 29.12.2007 08:50 |
rschoorl wrote: The big difference in ADATR and The Works is not in heaviness, but in fact that ADATR was groundbreaking. From the first Queen album through NOTW, I think fans listened to an album for the first time and heard unique things that had never been done in a particular style before. It was exciting because you never knew what you would hear next. To me, the Works is disappointing because you can take any song on the Works and reference another Queen song on a previous album. They ultimately lost their creativity and fell into a "formula".Now we're getting somewhere. ;) To me the Jazz album was the low point of the recording career, because (as you say) up to then they had invented new things. Despite a few good single releases, Jazz is a disappointment because it's the first time the band went backwards (or at the very least remained at the same spot) instead of going forwards. Game, Hot Space and Works aren't that big disappointments because the band at least moved on to some direction instead of repeating the previous album. There was a certain formula in place for the Jazz album, and they managed to break it. AKOM was based on another formula, but that was a one-time-incident again. |
Holly2003 29.12.2007 08:58 |
Tero wrote:I could also knock off a bunch of meaningless figures in five minutes. For example, I reckon The Works has only 40% of the er... mojo than NOTW due to my following mojo ratings:Holly2003 wrote:No. I've actually taken the time to try to quantify the subjective heaviness of the tracks on these albums, and try explain to you the basis why I can claim that The Works isn't such a radical departure from the previous albums in terms of heaviness. (And it took about five minutes of my time in total.)Tero wrote:Are you taking the piss?Boy Thomas Raker wrote: I was waiting for a throwback to NOTW or something, and was shocked when I heard it.... And my opinion on just how heavy this album is: We Will Rock You - 8 1/2 We Are The Champions - 7 1/2 Sheer Heart Attack - 9 1/2 All Dead, All Dead - 5 Spread Your Wings - 7 Fight From The Inside - 6 Get Down, Make Love - 6 Sleeping On The Sidewalk - 4 Who Needs you - 3 It's Late - 8 1/2 My Melancholy Blues - 3 NOTW average - 6.18 , which is a mere 3% heavier than The Works. :P (And in case somebody's interested, for Hot Space I would estimate an average of 5.3, which would mean that Works was on average almost 15% heavier... That's actually something you might notice.) name of song --- mojo rating We Will Rock You - 9 We Are The Champions - 9 Sheer Heart Attack - 7 All Dead, All Dead - 9 Spread Your Wings - 8 Fight From The Inside - 6 Get Down, Make Love - 6 Sleeping On The Sidewalk - 9 Who Needs you - 7 It's Late - 10 My Melancholy Blues - 9 Total mojo = 89 name of song --- mojo rating Radio Ga Ga - 5 Tear It Up - 1 It's A Hard Life - 4 Man On The Prowl - 2 Machines - 5 I Want To Break Free - 5 Keep Passing The Open Windows - 4 Hammer To Fall - 6 Is This The World We Created - 4 Total mojo = 36 This clearly proves that Queen had lost their mojo by 1984, doesn't it? :) |
Tero 29.12.2007 09:18 |
Holly2003 wrote: This clearly proves that Queen had lost their mojo by 1984, doesn't it? :)Except the discussion wasn't about mojo... ;) I am serious here, so please do try to be serious for a few minutes as well, and then you can forget about ever reading this topic, okay? Take a look at the Works album, and any other album by Queen (except of course the first one, which I already admitted to being significantly heavier than the others). Try to think how heavy Hammer to Fall is compared to the heaviest track on the other album. Divided the songs on each of those albums based on their heaviness... Any way you want, with at least three different steps (along the lines of "pop song", "occasional rocker", "heavy rocker" etc.) Count how many songs are in each category, and calculate an average. If you will honestly do that, and come back to tell me that any of the albums released since 1974 is significantly heavier than The Works (20% should be enough), I will admit to being stupid and publicly apologise to you. How's that for a great deal! |
Holly2003 29.12.2007 10:04 |
Tero wrote:Mate, assigning a "rock rating" to each song is pointless and proves nothing, especially when you give Is This The World a "heaviness rating" of 3 when it's not even a rock song! According to your rating system that makes it a third as heavy as It's late!! Seriously, you must be having a laugh.Holly2003 wrote: This clearly proves that Queen had lost their mojo by 1984, doesn't it? :)Except the discussion wasn't about mojo... ;) I am serious here, so please do try to be serious for a few minutes as well, and then you can forget about ever reading this topic, okay? Take a look at the Works album, and any other album by Queen (except of course the first one, which I already admitted to being significantly heavier than the others). Try to think how heavy Hammer to Fall is compared to the heaviest track on the other album. Divided the songs on each of those albums based on their heaviness... Any way you want, with at least three different steps (along the lines of "pop song", "occasional rocker", "heavy rocker" etc.) Count how many songs are in each category, and calculate an average. If you will honestly do that, and come back to tell me that any of the albums released since 1974 is significantly heavier than The Works (20% should be enough), I will admit to being stupid and publicly apologise to you. How's that for a great deal! I equate rock bands with guitar based rock. I do not see the synth as a substitute for "other instruments" that Queen played in the 1970s. If Radio ga Ga was written in the 70s on guitar it would be a different song entirely. Besides, the whole feel of the 80s material is different to the rockier seventies. More muted guitars, a much weaker drum sound, and a different feel to the production. Brian May promised a heavier sound: that's indisptuable. he created a climate of expectation that Queen did not then deliver on. maybe that's why the American audience didn't respond, maybe not. As I've said previously, the quality of their stuff wasn't as good as before. you could argue, for example, that The Works is a blatant copy of The Game. However, it's an inferior album to the Game. I should point out that, contrary to your assertion, I did not expect The Works to be a judas priest album but I did think it would be harder that it was. I expect many people thought the same. Blame Brian may, not the audience for that. Releasing Radio ga Ga as the first single hardly makes a statement of intent about returning to a heavier sound. What I will say is that it was a more traditional Queen sound than Hot Space, but that was hardly difficult. Incidentally, why begin the discussion about whether Queen was a rock band or a pop band in the 70s by leaving out their first three albums? ps not trying to make a fool out of you at all and no apolgies needed,. However, your rating system is funny, and I'm not usually one to pass up a joke at someone else's expense. :) |
Boy Thomas Raker 29.12.2007 10:40 |
Good points about the recording process Holly. The 80s stuff, even their rockers, sounded fluffier and more processed. I think it all boils down to what you think Queen were, and what they became. Fans from the start knew Queen were a loud rock and roll band with amazing pop sensibilities. Others, like Tero, see them as a pop/rock band, which is what they became in the 80s. But, as someone who saw them on ADATR tours to Hot Space, they destroyed as a live rock act. In the 80s, as the guitar becmae less prevalent, they became less heavy, as a synth will never be as guttural as a guitar. Even if Radio Ga Ga is a "6" on the heaviness scale ;) |
Tero 29.12.2007 10:44 |
Holly2003 wrote: Mate, assigning a "rock rating" to each song is pointless and proves nothing, especially when you give Is This The World a "heaviness rating" of 3 when it's not even a rock song! According to your rating system that makes it a third as heavy as It's late!! Seriously, you must be having a laugh.I'm not assigning a "rock" rating, therefore it's perfectly valid to give ITTWWC a rating of 3. It could have weaker vocals, which would make it a softer song with a smaller rating. At least that particular scale takes into account the fact that the band has different types of songs... Or do you also think that songs like You Take My Breath Away or Who Needs don't really exist on the heavy Queen albums? Perhaps they're in some alternate dimension that only crosses into this one on my cd player. :P Holly2003 wrote: I equate rock bands with guitar based rock. I do not see the synth as a substitute for "other instruments" that Queen played in the 1970s. If Radio ga Ga was written in the 70s on guitar it would be a different song entirely. Besides, the whole feel of the 80s material is different to the rockier seventies. More muted guitars, a much weaker drum sound, and a different feel to the production.Yes, you equate rock bands with guitar. Like I said though, Queen is a rock/pop band. They have ALWAYS done both types of music. On ADATR as well as the Works. Yes, The Works would be a "heavier" album if the guitar on Radio Ga Ga was stronger. Just like ADATR would be a "heavier" album if You Take My Breath Away had been written with the same kind of guitar sound as Tie Your Mother Down... It's just that the band wanted to do both kinds of songs on the same albums, in the 70's as well as the 80's! Hammer To Fall was recorded in 1984, and it's just as heavy as something like Tie Your Mother Down, right? And Who Needs You (from one of their heaviest albums) is just as weak as anything you can find on The Works. There is no uniform "weak" 80's material or "heavy" 70's material... They did both in both eras! Holly2003 wrote: Brian May promised a heavier sound: that's indisptuable. he created a climate of expectation that Queen did not then deliver on. maybe that's why the American audience didn't respond, maybe not. As I've said previously, the quality of their stuff wasn't as good as before. you could argue, for example, that The Works is a blatant copy of The Game. However, it's an inferior album to the Game. I should point out that, contrary to your assertion, I did not expect The Works to be a judas priest album but I did think it would be harder that it was. I expect many people thought the same. Blame Brian may, not the audience for that. Releasing Radio ga Ga as the first single hardly makes a statement of intent about returning to a heavier sound. What I will say is that it was a more traditional Queen sound than Hot Space, but that was hardly difficult.I think this was covered pretty well previously... You simply expected more than was promised. Holly2003 wrote: Incidentally, why begin the discussion about whether Queen was a rock band or a pop band in the 70s by leaving out their first three albums?Just the first one... I did say SINCE 1974, not after 1974. The first album is hardly indicative of their true style, and since it had practically no effect on the audience, it wouldn't be fair to use that as a benchmark of what the audience were listening to. ;) Holly2003 wrote: ps not trying to make a fool out of you at all and no apolgies needed,. However, your rating system is funny, and I'm not usually one to pass up a joke at someone else's expense. :)The thing is, you weren't reading what I wrote. You still |
Tero 29.12.2007 10:49 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Others, like Tero, see them as a pop/rock band, which is what they became in the 80s.Does your copy of the ADATR album have the same songs as mine? It does have songs like You Take My Breath Away, The Millionaire Waltz, Good Old-Fashioned Loverboy and Drowse which aren't exactly rock songs? And it has the year 1976 written on the back cover? :P |
Boy Thomas Raker 29.12.2007 11:16 |
Strangely enough, I do have that album, Tero. However, for your knowledge, as you may not be of that age, Queen worked in a world where the accepted instrumentation for a rock band was guitar, bass, drums and piano if you were a rock band, which is what Queen, Zeppelin, The Who and Stones were. Groups like Genesis, Yes, and Pink Floyd were more progressive, keyboard reliant groups. They all fit into what would be considered "rock radio", but they had their unique sounds. Queen were a guitar heavy band who dabbled in everything stylistically, but WITH GUITARS. Songs like Lazing on a Sunday afternoon, Good Company, and The Millionaire Waltz weren't rock and roll, but it was music that rock fans accepted, and all featured Brian's unique playing. Imagine if any of those songs took out Brian's playing and used a synth. It wouldn't work because Queen were a guitar band. When they used synths, they lost 1/3 of their signature sound (B/V's and Freddie's voice being the other keys) and people didn't buy that sound. Again, Queen were a guitar based band with a broad scope of influences, including waltz, jazz, blues etc. and in the early days they made songs in those genres and made them Queen songs. Consumers in North America did not believe Queen as a synth heavy, dance/pop band. It's simple to accept, whether you choose to or not. |
Holly2003 29.12.2007 11:17 |
Tero, I don't dispute for a second that not every song on every 70s album was like TYMD or SHA. However, on balance, i think that in the 1970s Queen were essentialy a guitar-based rock band who had some lighter songs on their albums (still usually guitar-based), whereas in the 1980s they were a a pop-rock band. Perhaps your definition of a rock band is different to mine. there is a difference between mid-1970s Queen and the likes of Black Sabbath or Judas Priest. However even these bands have lighter songs eg Sabbath's Changes. Does that make Sabbath any less a rock band? |
Tero 29.12.2007 12:18 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Strangely enough, I do have that album, Tero. However, for your knowledge, as you may not be of that age, Queen worked in a world where the accepted instrumentation for a rock band was guitar, bass, drums and piano if you were a rock band, which is what Queen, Zeppelin, The Who and Stones were. Groups like Genesis, Yes, and Pink Floyd were more progressive, keyboard reliant groups. They all fit into what would be considered "rock radio", but they had their unique sounds. Queen were a guitar heavy band who dabbled in everything stylistically, but WITH GUITARS. Songs like Lazing on a Sunday afternoon, Good Company, and The Millionaire Waltz weren't rock and roll, but it was music that rock fans accepted, and all featured Brian's unique playing. Imagine if any of those songs took out Brian's playing and used a synth. It wouldn't work because Queen were a guitar band. When they used synths, they lost 1/3 of their signature sound (B/V's and Freddie's voice being the other keys) and people didn't buy that sound. Again, Queen were a guitar based band with a broad scope of influences, including waltz, jazz, blues etc. and in the early days they made songs in those genres and made them Queen songs. Consumers in North America did not believe Queen as a synth heavy, dance/pop band. It's simple to accept, whether you choose to or not.So... It really comes down to Queen not being a rock band or playing rock songs, once the piano changed into synthesiser? They did after all write songs without guitars (and especially without electric guitars) in the 70's as well, and released them as singles... This is a deliberate oversimplification of course, but that is essentially what you're saying? As long as Queen was making any kind of songs with a "rock piano" it was a rock band, but that suddenly changed overnight when the piano changed to synthesiser? I know people are allowed to have any opinions of their own, but this whole business of associating synthesisers with lightweight pop music just doesn't make ANY sense to me. I'm genuinely confused about that. :/ |
Tero 29.12.2007 12:39 |
Holly2003 wrote: Tero, I don't dispute for a second that not every song on every 70s album was like TYMD or SHA. However, on balance, i think that in the 1970s Queen were essentialy a guitar-based rock band who had some lighter songs on their albums (still usually guitar-based), whereas in the 1980s they were a a pop-rock band. Perhaps your definition of a rock band is different to mine. there is a difference between mid-1970s Queen and the likes of Black Sabbath or Judas Priest. However even these bands have lighter songs eg Sabbath's Changes. Does that make Sabbath any less a rock band?My definition of a rock band (or any band) would be pretty much about how "heavy" the music is in general. (Basically I would be using a scale of some sort, although not consciously) Some bands can be quite "heavy" with keyboards instead of guitars, and others are very poppy even with electric guitars. E.g. Bryan Adams's solo albums and Nine Inch Nails albums have the same instruments, but there is a significant difference in the "heaviness" of the music... Whereas BA averages at around 5 on my scale (with variance up to 8 on a "good day"), NIN gets an average rating closer to 8. To get back to your actual message... Those bands do have lighter numbers as well, but definitely not as many as Queen has. If a Queen album has 3 pop songs (score of 4 or less) and 3 rock songs (score more than 7) it's both a rock AND a pop album. If a Black Sabbath album has 8 songs with a score of 7-8 and two pop tracks, it's more accurate to call it just a rock album. |
Holly2003 29.12.2007 13:51 |
Tero wrote:You are starting to lose me here. Are you equating a "lighter" song with a "pop" song?Holly2003 wrote: Tero, I don't dispute for a second that not every song on every 70s album was like TYMD or SHA. However, on balance, i think that in the 1970s Queen were essentialy a guitar-based rock band who had some lighter songs on their albums (still usually guitar-based), whereas in the 1980s they were a a pop-rock band. Perhaps your definition of a rock band is different to mine. there is a difference between mid-1970s Queen and the likes of Black Sabbath or Judas Priest. However even these bands have lighter songs eg Sabbath's Changes. Does that make Sabbath any less a rock band?My definition of a rock band (or any band) would be pretty much about how "heavy" the music is in general. (Basically I would be using a scale of some sort, although not consciously) Some bands can be quite "heavy" with keyboards instead of guitars, and others are very poppy even with electric guitars. E.g. Bryan Adams's solo albums and Nine Inch Nails albums have the same instruments, but there is a significant difference in the "heaviness" of the music... Whereas BA averages at around 5 on my scale (with variance up to 8 on a "good day"), NIN gets an average rating closer to 8. To get back to your actual message... Those bands do have lighter numbers as well, but definitely not as many as Queen has. If a Queen album has 3 pop songs (score of 4 or less) and 3 rock songs (score more than 7) it's both a rock AND a pop album. If a Black Sabbath album has 8 songs with a score of 7-8 and two pop tracks, it's more accurate to call it just a rock album. If, using your equations, Hammer To Fall (1980s)is the same as Brighton Rock (1970s) simply because they are both rock/heavy songs then Lily of the Valley or take My Breath Away must be "the same" as Cool Cat or My Baby Does Me, or even (God forbid) Delilah? I don't buy that for a second. Also, once again, a synth does not simply replace a piano or any of the other "lighter" instruments used in the 70s. Bo Rap done on a synth would not be the rock legend that it is now. In fact, the very thought makes me shudder... Incidentally, shouldn't you use a more accurate scale since Lily of the Valley ("pop") is a short song whereas My baby Does Me lasts for ages. A more accurate mathmatical equation would use the amount of "rock time" on an album compared to the amount of pop/lighter time. You would then have to adjust your comparison to allow for the relative lengths of the album/cd, with The Works being short and Opera being rather longer. In the meantime, I will continue to trust me ears :p |
Tero 29.12.2007 15:57 |
Holly2003 wrote:What is the definition of a lighter rock song if it isn't pop? :/ Heavy metal, Rock and Pop are all part of the same musical scale, and are nothing more than artificial pigeonholes to separate the "better" music I listen to from the "lousier" music YOU listen to.Tero wrote:You are starting to lose me here. Are you equating a "lighter" song with a "pop" song? If, using your equations, Hammer To Fall (1980s)is the same as Brighton Rock (1970s) simply because they are both rock/heavy songs then Lily of the Valley or take My Breath Away must be "the same" as Cool Cat or My Baby Does Me, or even (God forbid) Delilah? I don't buy that for a second. Also, once again, a synth does not simply replace a piano or any of the other "lighter" instruments used in the 70s. Bo Rap done on a synth would not be the rock legend that it is now. In fact, the very thought makes me shudder... Incidentally, shouldn't you use a more accurate scale since Lily of the Valley ("pop") is a short song whereas My baby Does Me lasts for ages. A more accurate mathmatical equation would use the amount of "rock time" on an album compared to the amount of pop/lighter time. You would then have to adjust your comparison to allow for the relative lengths of the album/cd, with The Works being short and Opera being rather longer. In the meantime, I will continue to trust me ears :pHolly2003 wrote: Tero, I don't dispute for a second that not every song on every 70s album was like TYMD or SHA. However, on balance, i think that in the 1970s Queen were essentialy a guitar-based rock band who had some lighter songs on their albums (still usually guitar-based), whereas in the 1980s they were a a pop-rock band. Perhaps your definition of a rock band is different to mine. there is a difference between mid-1970s Queen and the likes of Black Sabbath or Judas Priest. However even these bands have lighter songs eg Sabbath's Changes. Does that make Sabbath any less a rock band?My definition of a rock band (or any band) would be pretty much about how "heavy" the music is in general. (Basically I would be using a scale of some sort, although not consciously) Some bands can be quite "heavy" with keyboards instead of guitars, and others are very poppy even with electric guitars. E.g. Bryan Adams's solo albums and Nine Inch Nails albums have the same instruments, but there is a significant difference in the "heaviness" of the music... Whereas BA averages at around 5 on my scale (with variance up to 8 on a "good day"), NIN gets an average rating closer to 8. To get back to your actual message... Those bands do have lighter numbers as well, but definitely not as many as Queen has. If a Queen album has 3 pop songs (score of 4 or less) and 3 rock songs (score more than 7) it's both a rock AND a pop album. If a Black Sabbath album has 8 songs with a score of 7-8 and two pop tracks, it's more accurate to call it just a rock album. Your analogy is correct though, and You Take My Breath Away is just as lightweight as My Baby Does me or Cool Cat. The intensity of the vocals and the power of the instruments is the same. The latter examples (which you probably wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole if it was physically possible) are in fact more rockier because they have both electric guitar and drums, which is more than could be said for You Take My Breath Away. The only difference here must be that synthesisers=lightweight=bad! The values I assigned to the tracks already took into account some degree of the length and diversity of each song, as I didn't e.g. rate It's Late based on its heaviest part, but instead estimated an average of all its parts. Shorter songs (and longer songs) would of course tend to sk |
Holly2003 29.12.2007 18:14 |
Tero wrote: What is the definition of a lighter rock song if it isn't pop? :/ Heavy metal, Rock and Pop are all part of the same musical scale, and are nothing more than artificial pigeonholes to separate the "better" music I listen to from the "lousier" music YOU listen to. Your analogy is correct though, and You Take My Breath Away is just as lightweight as My Baby Does me or Cool Cat. The intensity of the vocals and the power of the instruments is the same. The latter examples (which you probably wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole if it was physically possible) are in fact more rockier because they have both electric guitar and drums, which is more than could be said for You Take My Breath Away. The only difference here must be that synthesisers=lightweight=bad! The values I assigned to the tracks already took into account some degree of the length and diversity of each song, as I didn't e.g. rate It's Late based on its heaviest part, but instead estimated an average of all its parts. Shorter songs (and longer songs) would of course tend to skew the averages, but for the purposes of this thread I made only a quick estimate instead of listening to the albums three times over with a stopwatch... You're just trying to be difficult here. ;)My definition of pop? Lightweight, frothy, suitable for mass consumption. |
The Real Wizard 29.12.2007 18:57 |
I see their records like this: In the 70s, Queen were leaders. In the 80s, they were followers. They pulled up their socks for The Miracle, but it wasn't until Innuendo when they finally delivered a great rock record again. |
Boy Thomas Raker 29.12.2007 19:46 |
Don't be confused about the synth thing Tero. Piano was never the dominant instrument in Queen: it was guitar. Queen always noted "No Synths" on their early album liner notes, and noted their first use on the Game album. Sooo, Queen went out of their way to tell people they didn't use synths, then it became the dominant instrument on Body Language and Radio Ga Ga. Throw that into consideration with the fact that Brian's presence wasn't to visible on CLTCL, AOBTD, Body Language, Radio Ga Ga and IWTBF, and you have a period of about 5 years where there was a single that did well that had the classic Queen sound. And further, synths weren't Queen's strength. Freddie had a unique style of playing piano, very personal and a little eccentric, certainly different than an Elton John or Billy Joel. Queen's keyboards sounded like everyone's keyboards, so they lost a huge part of the Queen sound. IMHO. |
Tero 30.12.2007 06:13 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Don't be confused about the synth thing Tero. Piano was never the dominant instrument in Queen: it was guitar. Queen always noted "No Synths" on their early album liner notes, and noted their first use on the Game album. Sooo, Queen went out of their way to tell people they didn't use synths, then it became the dominant instrument on Body Language and Radio Ga Ga. Throw that into consideration with the fact that Brian's presence wasn't to visible on CLTCL, AOBTD, Body Language, Radio Ga Ga and IWTBF, and you have a period of about 5 years where there was a single that did well that had the classic Queen sound. And further, synths weren't Queen's strength. Freddie had a unique style of playing piano, very personal and a little eccentric, certainly different than an Elton John or Billy Joel. Queen's keyboards sounded like everyone's keyboards, so they lost a huge part of the Queen sound. IMHO.You've written a very good argument here, but there is one problem. Queen didn't put the "no synthesisers" label on all the records to market themselves as a purely guitar-based heavy rock band. At first perhaps, but certainly not by the time of albums like NOTW... They put it up there because they were occasionally using sounds that sounded like synthesisers, but wanted to tell the audience it was still a guitar being used. Radio Ga Ga dominated by synths? Are YOU being absolutely serious here? :P The only parts of the song that are "dominated" by synth sounds are the introduction and the instrumental bridge after the second chorus (about 1:10 in total length, or 1/5 of the song) which I seem to remember were both cut from the US single version! Radio Ga Ga is an example of PROPERLY using the synths, even if you don't like the particular composition. It's still a rock song with drums, guitars and a strong vocal, but it also has the added soundscape created by synthsisers, which could just as well have been created with "regular instruments" by spending a longer time in the studio. Perhaps what so many people are protesting against is not the synths per se, but their effect on the records... That the songs become less polished and more spontaneous instead, because they are easier to create in the studio? |
Sebastian 30.12.2007 07:53 |
Interesting discussion, all in all. Great way to close the year: > Queen worked in a world where the accepted instrumentation for a rock band was guitar, bass, drums and piano if you were a rock band, which is what Queen, Zeppelin, The Who and Stones were. Zeppelin and The Who used LOADS of no-piano keyboards, and they were still rock. > Groups like Genesis, Yes, and Pink Floyd were more progressive, keyboard reliant groups. Both Yes and Pink Floyd used much more piano than Zeppelin. > Queen were a guitar heavy band who dabbled in everything stylistically, but WITH GUITARS. Not even half of their output was 'heavy', except maybe the first three albums. And many songs give more importance to piano. > Songs like Lazing on a Sunday afternoon, Good Company, and The Millionaire Waltz weren't rock and roll, but it was music that rock fans accepted, and all featured Brian's unique playing. I agree, although 'Waltz' does have some rock parts. > However, on balance, i think that in the 1970s Queen were essentialy a guitar-based rock band who had some lighter songs on their albums Half of 'Opera' is piano-based. So the definition is over-simplifying IMO. Live they were more guitar-led, but in the studio they worked for the song. > So... It really comes down to Queen not being a rock band or playing rock songs, once the piano changed into synthesiser? I don't think piano was 'changed' by synthesiser. Synths incorporated new sounds, new trends, and piano was slowly fading out, but it's not a 'replacement' per se. Bass and drums were, OTOH, often replaced (partly or completely) by synth-bass and drum-machines. > My definition of pop? Lightweight, frothy, suitable for mass consumption. Then many Queen songs are completely pop. Which isn't a bad thing at all. > In the 70s, Queen were leaders. In the 80s, they were followers. Maybe. I'd say that in the 70s Queen were musicians who joined the business scene; in the 80s Queen were businessmen who joined the music scene. > Piano was never the dominant instrument in Queen: it was guitar. Neither was. It depends on the song. Many hits like Don't Stop Me, Killer Queen, Bo Rhap, We Are the Champions, Save Me, Somebody to Love, Play the Game... had piano as the principal instrument, even if guitar parts were important and of course essential for the track. > And further, synths weren't Queen's strength. I agree. > Freddie had a unique style of playing piano, very personal and a little eccentric, certainly different than an Elton John or Billy Joel. He was rather rookie compared to them ;) > Queen's keyboards sounded like everyone's keyboards, so they lost a huge part of the Queen sound. IMHO. Not 'like everyone's keyboards', but 'like anyone's keyboards'. Which is even worse! > They put it up there because they were occasionally using sounds that sounded like synthesisers, but wanted to tell the audience it was still a guitar being used. Not always guitar... there are many non-RS effects here and there. And some few keyboards which were neither acoustic piano nor synth: organ, harpsichord, e-piano, harmonium. > Radio Ga Ga dominated by synths? Are YOU being absolutely serious here? :P Indeed: guitars, human bass and human drums are overdubs there. All the backbone is done with synthesisers and drum-machines. So 'Ga Ga' IS dominated by synths. > Perhaps what so many people are protesting against is not the synths per se, but their effect on the records... That the songs become less polished and more spontaneous instead, because they are easier to create in the studio? I think many people are automatically biased, often ignoring that playing synths doesn't make you less musician, the same way that being a pop act doesn't make you worse than being a rock act, etc. |
Tero 30.12.2007 08:14 |
Sebastian wrote: > Radio Ga Ga dominated by synths? Are YOU being absolutely serious here? :P Indeed: guitars, human bass and human drums are overdubs there. All the backbone is done with synthesisers and drum-machines. So 'Ga Ga' IS dominated by synths.Let me elaborate on this... I was actually listening to the album while I was writing the previous message. Radio Ga Ga was probably the song with most synthesisers on that album, but I still wouldn't call it synthesiser-dominated. I couldn't honestly tell if 20% or 80% of the songs was done with a synthesiser, and which side is the "overdub". The backbone of the song is a drum pattern that could be from a synthesiser, or it could be a 20-second loop originally played with regular drums, with a few equalisers thrown in. That wouldn't make it syhthsised in my opinion, that would only make it a certain (somewhat trendy) sound the band was looking for. The most obvious synthesiser parts (to me at least) are the "bubbly" bass lines in the introduction and bridge, but what makes these such a radical departure from some of the sounds you can hear e.g. on Get Down Make Love? Is it just the instrument that makes all the difference? The whole of Radio Ga Ga could have been recorded exactly how it sounds like, back in 1976 without any synthesisers, and it would have been accepted as a standard album track next to Drowse... But now that it was recorded with those "lightweight, poppy synthesisers", it suddenly just doesn't stand up to the level of their other work. That's the part I really don't get. |
Tero 30.12.2007 08:18 |
Holly2003 wrote:Thanks for admitting what I just wrote. ;)Tero wrote:Heavy metal, Rock and Pop are all part of the same musical scale, and are nothing more than artificial pigeonholes to separate the "better" music I listen to from the "lousier" music YOU listen to.My definition of pop? Lightweight, frothy, suitable for mass consumption. |
Sebastian 30.12.2007 08:53 |
Tero wrote:The drum pattern is neither an acoustic loop nor a synth, it's a Linn drum-machine. Backing chords are done by synth-pads, some sort of e-piano (sounds sampled to me), and there's only human bass in the break, and all Brian does there is some clean arpeggio bit in the chorus plus the short slide solo. No piano, no bass (except for the solo), almost no acoustic drums.Sebastian wrote: > Radio Ga Ga dominated by synths? Are YOU being absolutely serious here? :P Indeed: guitars, human bass and human drums are overdubs there. All the backbone is done with synthesisers and drum-machines. So 'Ga Ga' IS dominated by synths.Let me elaborate on this... I was actually listening to the album while I was writing the previous message. Radio Ga Ga was probably the song with most synthesisers on that album, but I still wouldn't call it synthesiser-dominated. I couldn't honestly tell if 20% or 80% of the songs was done with a synthesiser, and which side is the "overdub". The backbone of the song is a drum pattern that could be from a synthesiser, or it could be a 20-second loop originally played with regular drums, with a few equalisers thrown in. That wouldn't make it syhthsised in my opinion, that would only make it a certain (somewhat trendy) sound the band was looking for. The most obvious synthesiser parts (to me at least) are the "bubbly" bass lines in the introduction and bridge, but what makes these such a radical departure from some of the sounds you can hear e.g. on Get Down Make Love? Is it just the instrument that makes all the difference? The whole of Radio Ga Ga could have been recorded exactly how it sounds like, back in 1976 without any synthesisers, and it would have been accepted as a standard album track next to Drowse... But now that it was recorded with those "lightweight, poppy synthesisers", it suddenly just doesn't stand up to the level of their other work. That's the part I really don't get. I do agree that it's unfair to slam it just because it uses synths, but there's a little truth in that: they relied on loops a lot, most synth parts are mere chords appearing on full bars, miles away from Freddie's simple-but-beautiful broken-chord style on the piano; and the few bits of slightly-complicated synth-parts were programmed by people outside the band. In the 70s, keyboards did memorable lines (e.g. 'Champions' has a marvellous piano part, simple but nice), bass-lines had subtle changes from one iteration to the other, loops were only used for one or two songs per album, and the four of them were in charge of virtually every arrangement and instrument. So quality did lower with the rise of technology, in this case. Compare the painstaking job (both recording and mixing) taken in the 'Killer Queen' outro for that hocket guitar figure, compared with the simple half-minute task of programming the Roland Jupiter 8's arpeggiator in 'Action This Day' or 'Las Palabras de Amor'. |
Tero 30.12.2007 09:15 |
It's good to hear from somebody who knows more than I do... It helps the discussion a lot. Alright, the compositions are simpler than they were in the 70's. But aren't the piano compositions of the 80's simpler as well? Man On The Prowl, It's a Hard Life and Keep Passing the Open Windows are all performed with a standard piano as opposed to a synthesiser, aren't they? And nobody ever thinks those are masterpieces either. ;) What I'm getting at with this is the same I've mentioned before... The overall writing output of the band deteriorated. It wasn't the fault of the synthesisers, the band trying to capitalise on the trendy pop market, or focusing on European listeners instead of the hard rock listeners of America... They just happened to run out of great ideas (and had to settle for good ones) at the same time the new technology was available. |
Holly2003 30.12.2007 09:43 |
Tero wrote:If everything is equal to everything else then, according to your logic, me singing Nessun Dorma is equal to Pavarotti singing it.Holly2003 wrote:Thanks for admitting what I just wrote. ;)Tero wrote:Heavy metal, Rock and Pop are all part of the same musical scale, and are nothing more than artificial pigeonholes to separate the "better" music I listen to from the "lousier" music YOU listen to.My definition of pop? Lightweight, frothy, suitable for mass consumption. However, by assigning an opera rating of 10 to Pavarotti and an opera rating of just 1 to me, I have proved that you are wrong. ;) |
7Innuendo7 30.12.2007 11:07 |
imho the Headbanger's mix of HTF, and IGC, are harder than the rest of The Works & Hot Space combined, with the exception of "Under Pressure" "One Vision" generated a lot of heat on radio & MTV Dec 85, but somehow it didn't crack the top forty here in the US...?? |
Tero 30.12.2007 12:13 |
Holly2003 wrote:You're so far off now that it's becoming ridiculous...Tero wrote:If everything is equal to everything else then, according to your logic, me singing Nessun Dorma is equal to Pavarotti singing it. However, by assigning an opera rating of 10 to Pavarotti and an opera rating of just 1 to me, I have proved that you are wrong. ;)Holly2003 wrote:Thanks for admitting what I just wrote. ;)Tero wrote:Heavy metal, Rock and Pop are all part of the same musical scale, and are nothing more than artificial pigeonholes to separate the "better" music I listen to from the "lousier" music YOU listen to.My definition of pop? Lightweight, frothy, suitable for mass consumption. I've never said that pop and rock and heavy metal are all equal. They do however typically use the same selction of instruments, rhytms, and compositional structures. What differentiates them from each others is the subjective "heaviness" of the final product. That's what makes it possible to use the same scale in rating them. And yes, by my logic you singing an opera song and Pavarotti singing the same opera song could reach almost the same "operatic" score, because that particular scale doesn't take into account the qiuality of the performance. You might be the worst opera singer ever, but if you tried your best to imitate Pavarotti with a series of shrieking voices which I would happen to associate with opera singing, then you would get the same "operatic" rating. |
Holly2003 30.12.2007 15:14 |
I'm totally confused then, and I'm dead smart me. I once read The Times all the way through, although I have to admit I did start at the football section. You said ealier that Bohemian Rhapsody was "not any more rockier than Radio Ga Ga". You have still to provide any evidence to support that assertion. For my part, the fact that Wayne & Garth were headbanging to BoRap rather than Radio Ga Ga is evidence enough. Also, although my ears are getting progressively worse as the years go by they were never simply painted on and I can tell a rock song from a pop song pretty easily. Contrary to what you have been arguing, genres do exist: jazz, rock, pop, classical etc. Try telling Annie Lennox she is producing essentially the same music as Iron Maiden "only less intense or powerful", see how far you get. Queen did dabble in many of these but their primary characteristics were rock-based. This so blindingly obvious to me that I can't see why you don't get it. Then again, I don't see your point of view either (although I don't think you are explaining yourself terribly well -- I'm still trying to figure out why, if genres don't exist, you insisted earlier that Queen have always been a pop rock band. Your scale to "quantify the subjective heaviness" of songs also remains puzzling. What exactly does it do again except measure how noisy each song is? How does that prove Queen were a pop rock group rather than a rock group?) All the best. |
Sebastian 30.12.2007 15:56 |
Tero, I don't mean that synths and machines were the only cause for their music to be averagely simpler, but it did encourage the path they were taking. 'Races' is already notably simpler and less overdubbed than 'Opera' (although they could use 32 tracks instead of 24), and 'News' is much simpler than 'Races'. Btw, I do regard 'Hard Life' as a masterpiece. And while I think your scoring idea is nice, I think it still needs loads of polishing. |
Tero 30.12.2007 17:28 |
Holly2003 wrote: You said ealier that Bohemian Rhapsody was "not any more rockier than Radio Ga Ga". You have still to provide any evidence to support that assertion. For my part, the fact that Wayne & Garth were headbanging to BoRap rather than Radio Ga Ga is evidence enough.On average those two songs are just hard and heavy... You didn't see Wayne & Garth headbanging at the ballad section did you? Or at the operatic section? Out of the six minutes in Bohemian Rhapsody, the song spends about 4,5 minutes in the pop area (with a short guitar solo thrown in before the opera section), which is less heavy than Radio Ga Ga. Holly2003 wrote: Also, although my ears are getting progressively worse as the years go by they were never simply painted on and I can tell a rock song from a pop song pretty easily.Alright then, is You're My Best Friend a pop song, or would it be a pop song only if some other band had released it? A serious question, which tells a lot about how your ears work. ;) Holly2003 wrote: Contrary to what you have been arguing, genres do exist: jazz, rock, pop, classical etc. Try telling Annie Lennox she is producing essentially the same music as Iron Maiden "only less intense or powerful", see how far you get.I have never before in this topic mentioned genres such as jazz or classical music, because they do NOT use the same selection of instruments, rhythms and structures unlike pop/rock/heavy. I wouldn't place all of these genres on the SAME scale of heaviness, as they would have only occasional linking points... The "scale" of all musical genres would look more like a 3-dimensional representation of a molecule which has a wide variety of different chains and circles connecting each other in several different points. Kinda like this picture: link I have no problem admitting the similarities between heavy rock and pop music. Why is that such a big deal to some people? It's just an artificial label which doesn't change the content of the music at all. Holly2003 wrote: Queen did dabble in many of these but their primary characteristics were rock-based. This so blindingly obvious to me that I can't see why you don't get it. Then again, I don't see your point of view either (although I don't think you are explaining yourself terribly wellThe way I see it, the only real difference between our views is that you cannot possibly accept that the same band could be both a rock band and a pop band at the same time. If you have 5 pop songs and 5 rock songs on the same album, where do you categorise the band? You want to believe the band was first a rock group, then turned into a pop group for ten years, and then again back to rock group. It didn't have to change at all, because it has ALWAYS (at least since 1974) been both types on the same album. I can't understand why you don't get it. ;) Holly2003 wrote: -- I'm still trying to figure out why, if genres don't exist, you insisted earlier that Queen have always been a pop rock band. Your scale to "quantify the subjective heaviness" of songs also remains puzzling. What exactly does it do again except measure how noisy each song is? How does that prove Queen were a pop rock group rather than a rock group?) All the best.The point of my scale was to try and illustrate that Queen has always been a band that has done all kinds of material from soft pop music to heavy rock music. Of course it all depends on whether you think of pop, rock, and heavy music as subgenres of the same genre or different genres altogether... If you want to think that just the appearance of a synthesiser instead of a piano magically makes something pop music instead o |
Tero 30.12.2007 17:37 |
Sebastian wrote: Tero, I don't mean that synths and machines were the only cause for their music to be averagely simpler, but it did encourage the path they were taking. 'Races' is already notably simpler and less overdubbed than 'Opera' (although they could use 32 tracks instead of 24), and 'News' is much simpler than 'Races'. Btw, I do regard 'Hard Life' as a masterpiece. And while I think your scoring idea is nice, I think it still needs loads of polishing.In a way you are right because synthesisers made it easier to record the music they wanted. No need for time-consuming orchestrations and overdubs, when you can just punch in the nearest thing into the machine and play it out. I only used ADATR as an example because it's something most fans would call their favourite album, and It's a Hard Life because for some reason most people seem to dislike it (although I cannot understand why, as it even has guitar and piano. :P )... They're just "easy targets" because they're well known. But like you said, their recordings were constantly evolving. They didn't just snap out of rock and into disco the next year (and again into pop few years later), but evolved just like any normal person would. That's what makes them great: There's change in between the albums. I hope you don't take the scale too seriously. ;) It isn't by any means absolutely accurate or meant to be taken literally, but rather as a representation of how the band had several facets throughout their career. |
Boy Thomas Raker 30.12.2007 18:27 |
Tero, and as you're very passionate and obviously intelligent, I must say with all due respect that like Holly, you're confusing me! Queen were not a pop/rock band on either of their first two albums. SHA contained more pop elements (KQ, Misfire) and ANATO even more than SHA. But Queen at the start were a hard rock band with pop sensibilities. The Beatles The Beach Boys? Pop bands who dabbled in the world of rock (using your example of Judas Priest as rock). Queen could blow the doors off of virtually any rock band in the early days. Listen to Modern Times Rock and Roll, Ogre Battle or even the end of the "poppy" piano based Doing All Right. As great as the Beatles, were, and the wonderful, intelligent Sebastian loves them, I don't think they belong in that world with Priest, Maiden, Sabbath, VH, Aerosmith etc. Queen did, but with more mainstream sensibilities that became more obvious after they went after a bigger audience. Honestly, I like where you're going with your ratings and admire you defending them, but RGG is about the least heavy song in the catalogue. Bo Rhap has a fire, builds in an all-time crescendo, and just pounds along in the rock section. Listen to Roger's bass drum during the post-opera section. Punishing, pushing the song forward. That's what I'd call heavy. Not playing keyboard pads to a drum machine. BTW, agree with whoever said this had been a good discussion, a rarity around here in the past year but hopefully a good sign for '08. |
Holly2003 30.12.2007 18:37 |
Tero, I can't do the quote thing but here goes: There is no rock bit at all in Ga Ga whereas everything in BoRap leads up to a fantastically hard and exciting rock ending. Remind me again where the "heavy" bit is in Ga Ga... YMBF is a catchy, lightweight pop song. Have I ever said anything different? You have no problem seeing similarities between pop & rock but I disagree with your comparisons and catgorising. Also, you clearly have problems seeing differences between rock and pop, refusing to acknowledge any. Fair enough: you haven't convinced me though. I can accept that a band can be a rock and pop band at the same time. I have said clearly that Queen in the 80s fall into that category. Also, I have never said Queen "was first a rock group, then turned into a pop group for ten years, and then again back to rock group". Where in the world did you get that from? I said in the 1970s Queen were basically a rock band who dabbled in other genres and in the 80s they were a pop-rock band. I have covered the synthesiser stuff already. There isn't much to discuss if you keep misrepresenting my views about it. I never said anything remotely like "the appearance of a synthesiser instead of a piano magically makes something pop music instead of rock". I am a Rush fan after all. Don't understand any of that molecule stuff. If you Use a Simpsons analogy I might get it. |
Tero 31.12.2007 06:37 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Tero, and as you're very passionate and obviously intelligent, I must say with all due respect that like Holly, you're confusing me! Queen were not a pop/rock band on either of their first two albums. SHA contained more pop elements (KQ, Misfire) and ANATO even more than SHA. But Queen at the start were a hard rock band with pop sensibilities. The Beatles The Beach Boys? Pop bands who dabbled in the world of rock (using your example of Judas Priest as rock). Queen could blow the doors off of virtually any rock band in the early days. Listen to Modern Times Rock and Roll, Ogre Battle or even the end of the "poppy" piano based Doing All Right. As great as the Beatles, were, and the wonderful, intelligent Sebastian loves them, I don't think they belong in that world with Priest, Maiden, Sabbath, VH, Aerosmith etc. Queen did, but with more mainstream sensibilities that became more obvious after they went after a bigger audience. Honestly, I like where you're going with your ratings and admire you defending them, but RGG is about the least heavy song in the catalogue. Bo Rhap has a fire, builds in an all-time crescendo, and just pounds along in the rock section. Listen to Roger's bass drum during the post-opera section. Punishing, pushing the song forward. That's what I'd call heavy. Not playing keyboard pads to a drum machine. BTW, agree with whoever said this had been a good discussion, a rarity around here in the past year but hopefully a good sign for '08.Like I said earlier, Queen started out much heavier, but even by the time Q2 was released, they had changed a LOT. It wouldn't be exactly fair to categorise the band based on their first album, now would it? Especially since that first album made no impact on the general audience. Imagine if the Peter Gabriel era Genesis were thought of as that 3-minute pop song band with strings overdubbed on every song, just because that was what their first album sounded like? It would be stretching the truth a lot to say that Procession, White Queen, Some Day One Day, Fairy Feller, Nevermore or Funny how Love Is were heavy tracks, let alone if we included the fairly lightweight majorities of Father To Son or March Of The Black Queen... Compared to the half a dozen "straight" rockers on Q1 were down to about 3 and 1/2 of them on Q2! As to comparing the "heaviness" of Radio Ga Ga and Bohemian Rhapsody... There are many ways to do that as well. Bohemian Rhapsody is comprised of five different segments: The acapella introduction which is VERY light, the ballad section which starts out as light pop and finishes as light rock, opera section which is pretty much in the halfway of Queen "heaviness" scale, a heavy rock section which is pretty close to Queen at their "heaviest", and the ballad finale which is light pop again. I'd say that on average the song is "light rock", which is incidentally what Radio Ga Ga is. Some parts are heavier, but some parts are much lighter. The thing that makes Bohemian Rhapsody (or practically any of the Queen albums) great compared to Radio Ga Ga is that variance. Valleys in the music will make you appreciate the peaks even more, but if you start out on an even plateau, it's pretty hard to see just how high you are. ;) |
Tero 31.12.2007 07:17 |
Holly2003 wrote: There is no rock bit at all in Ga Ga whereas everything in BoRap leads up to a fantastically hard and exciting rock ending. Remind me again where the "heavy" bit is in Ga Ga...It's an average thing. ;) Some parts of Bohemian Rhapsody are much heavier than Radio Ga Ga, but some parts are much poppier. If it makes it easier, you can think of it as a report card where "Bo" gets all kinds of grades from A to F while "Rad" has a C in every subject... They still have the same average. Holly2003 wrote: YMBF is a catchy, lightweight pop song. Have I ever said anything different? You have no problem seeing similarities between pop & rock but I disagree with your comparisons and catgorising. Also, you clearly have problems seeing differences between rock and pop, refusing to acknowledge any. Fair enough: you haven't convinced me though. I can accept that a band can be a rock and pop band at the same time. I have said clearly that Queen in the 80s fall into that category. Also, I have never said Queen "was first a rock group, then turned into a pop group for ten years, and then again back to rock group". Where in the world did you get that from? I said in the 1970s Queen were basically a rock band who dabbled in other genres and in the 80s they were a pop-rock band.I think I get that "first a rock group, then a pop group" -vibe from things like you just said. You've admitted that the band was making pop tunes quite early in their career, you can see that there were several of them on the same album, and as little as half of the albums are comprised of "rock songs"... Yet you can say that they were absolutely a rock band. In 1974 half of the album was filled with rock and half with pop. In 1975-1977 one third was rock, one third was pop, and one third was "experimental". In 1984 One third was rock, one third was pop, and one third was middle-of-the-road synthesised light rock. The proportional representation of rock or pop didn't change in the albums. What changed was that the "unclassifiable" material which was all over the scales in the 70's turned into "light rock" of the 80's which was in the middle of the scale. An accurate analogy here would be a literal scale. link In the 70's either side (the pop side and the rock side) would have 3 equal heavy weights, and another three lighter weights, keeping the combination in balance. In the 80's that would have turned into three larger weights on either side, and another three carefully balanced on the top of the beam, making the combination teeter ever so slightly, but still keeping a balance. Holly2003 wrote: Don't understand any of that molecule stuff. If you Use a Simpsons analogy I might get it.How about just any old street map from any city? (You can google Springfield if you like. :P ) Pop, rock, and heavy are all intersections on the same straight street, with perhaps a few blocks between them. From the "pop" intersection you can also take the "soul" bulevard which twists and turns around for a while through other intersections like "gospel", "blues" and "rhythm 'n' blues" before it arrives to the "rock" intersection from another direction. Each of these genres can be reached via other genres, but the road between some of them is much shorter and simpler than the road between others. So much in fact, that it's easier to think of the "pop-rock-heavy" blocks as a single development project instead of three separate ones. (I don't think that two dimensions can accurately represent all the relationships and differences between these "roads", which is why I used that molecule as my previous exam |
Holly2003 31.12.2007 08:56 |
I don't agree with your stats about the amount of pop and rock tracks on early albums. I don't think Lily of the valley, for example, is "pop". neither is it rock exactly, but it's not Cool Cat either. Also, I don't agree with leaving out Queen I. If the question is "were Quen a rock band in the 70s" then you have to look at all their albums, not omit the first because "it's not typical". Besdies, if youa re concerned with "averages" then you can't leave out an album that obviously skews the average towards rock. I see your anology better now. on some of those streets people are dressed in Iron Maiden t-shirts and Judas priest is blasting from cars. On other streets, Boy George has opened a disco. However, both streets clearly exist, whether they are close to eachother or far away. You are correct in that it doesn't take much to get form the blues to rock, for example, but to deny both exist as separate genres (with multiple crossover points - liminal spaces is, I think, the term often used for this kind of debate -- is oversimplifying things. It's got nothing to do with elitism -- "my music's better than yours" (although it probably is ;p) as I am fond of a lot of other types of music apart from rock. For example, I like hard rock, heavy rock, rock 'n' roll and heavy metal :) Seriously, I am as fond of Annie Lennox's voice as I am Freddie Mercury's. Your approach is too reductionist for my liking, although I'm sure you probably feel it's me who has that "fault". Fair enough: I'm willing to accept (1) either that I'm right and you are wrong, but that we both hold honest differences of opinion or (2) I don't know as much about music as you do, which is quite possible, and I simply don't "get it". In which case you are never going top convince me that Radio Ga Ga is as heavy as BoRap. Not in a millon years mate. All the best. |
Tero 31.12.2007 11:00 |
Holly2003 wrote: I don't agree with your stats about the amount of pop and rock tracks on early albums. I don't think Lily of the valley, for example, is "pop". neither is it rock exactly, but it's not Cool Cat either. Also, I don't agree with leaving out Queen I. If the question is "were Quen a rock band in the 70s" then you have to look at all their albums, not omit the first because "it's not typical". Besdies, if youa re concerned with "averages" then you can't leave out an album that obviously skews the average towards rock.Did you happen to read what I wrote about Genesis? That based on their first album the Peter Gabriel years of the seventies (which are now seen as deeply progressive and sometimes even overcomplicated) would be classed as three minute pop music with lots of strings? :P First albums aren't perfectly indicative of musical styles because the bands rarely have a "finished" product by that stage, and are more open to outside influences like record companies and producers. Sometimes bands do stick with the original formula (like Iron Maiden), but sometimes they do veer away from that pretty fast. Holly2003 wrote: I see your anology better now. on some of those streets people are dressed in Iron Maiden t-shirts and Judas priest is blasting from cars. On other streets, Boy George has opened a disco. However, both streets clearly exist, whether they are close to eachother or far away. You are correct in that it doesn't take much to get form the blues to rock, for example, but to deny both exist as separate genres (with multiple crossover points - liminal spaces is, I think, the term often used for this kind of debate -- is oversimplifying things.I don't think you got my meaning perfectly this time either, so I guess it must be my fault. There are genres, but some of them are much more closly related to each other than others. Perhaps another helpful analogy here would be New York City. The scale of pop-heavy music extends across Manhattan from the Upper East Side to the Upper West Side. Central Park is a "no-man's-land" which is a crossover point into the blues and soul of Harlem and rap in Bronx. Dance music is somewhere in Queens, classical music in Brooklyn (and is accessable through the cabaret, casino, etc "entertainer acts" at Lower Manhattan), and "world music" is far, far away at Staten Island. Of course all the places are accessible from all the other places with the subway, but it might take a change or two along the way. ;) EDIT: I've added the next paragraphs... I was a bit bored, so I colored a quick sketch on the map of New York. :P link What the map is supposed to show is a pop-rock-heavy scale goes from light green to dark green a dance-disco-techno scale that goes from light yellow to dark (almost greenish) yellow a series of brownish colours to illustrate the entertainment-orcehstral-classical music scale a blue soul-gospel-rnb-blues scale. The colours, sizes, shapes or locations don't even try to represent any factual measurable distances or popularities, and it's pretty impossible to draw this as a two-dimensional picture... This is only meant to illustrate that there are "series" of similar subgenres, and these subgenres can approach some of the most unexpected subgenres elsewhere (for example you can get from "dance" to "classical music" via "ambient" much easier than you could get via "pop music". Holly2003 wrote: It's got nothing to do with elitism -- "my music's better than yours" (although it probably is ;p) as I am fond of a lot of other types of music apart from rock. For example, I like hard rock, heavy rock, rock 'n' roll and heavy metal :) Seriously, I |