Russian Headlong 06.05.2008 18:49 |
Despite the band being above criticism by many, myself included at times here are some things I wish Queen had done/not done. I know they have not damaged a glittering career, just my personal view: 1. Put Tie Your Mother Down on Greatest Hits instead of GOFLB 2. Got involved with 5ive, hugely embarassing! 3. That Pepsi advert, ditto 4. Robbie Williams, we are the Champions collaboaration, truly awful. 5. Hot Space- Terrible pop pap! 6. Not releasing Princes of the Universe as a single in UK 7. Not releasing It's late as a single in the UK. 8. Not editing March of the Black Queen so you can listen to it as a separate piece of music without it seguing into another song.Would love to have seen a video for this epic song. 9. The con of the Miracle. Promised to be a harder sound but badly let down by shit like Rain Must Fall, Invisible Man 12", My Baby does me! 10. Never doing Monsters of Rock at Donington |
*Rain Must Fall* 06.05.2008 19:14 |
The only thing I agree with is that Pepsi advert. |
Winter Land Man 06.05.2008 20:15 |
Russian Headlong wrote: Despite the band being above criticism by many, myself included at times here are some things I wish Queen had done/not done. I know they have not damaged a glittering career, just my personal view: 2. Got involved with 5ive, hugely embarassing! 3. That Pepsi advert, ditto 4. Robbie Williams, we are the Champions collaboaration, truly awful. 8. Not editing March of the Black Queen so you can listen to it as a separate piece of music without it seguing into another song.Would love to have seen a video for this epic song.!I agree with those as well, but I also think 1. Releasing the wrong songs as singles from Hot Space in the USA 2. Not filming a video for It's Late 3. Not filming a video for Need Your Loving Tonight 4. Not filming a video for Pain Is So Close To Pleasure 5. Not releasing Tear It Up as a single 6. Not releasing Was It All Worth It as a single 7. Not releasing a Greatest Video Hits #3 dvd yet! 8. Not releasing a big box set yet! 9. Not finishing and releasing some unreleased songs from The Miracle and Innuendo onto the Made In Heaven album! |
Yara 06.05.2008 21:17 |
Russian Headlong wrote: Despite the band being above criticism by many, myself included at times here are some things I wish Queen had done/not done. I know they have not damaged a glittering career, just my personal view: 5. Hot Space- Terrible pop pap!Vzdor. |
QueenZeppelin 06.05.2008 23:00 |
Russian Headlong wrote: Despite the band being above criticism by many, myself included at times here are some things I wish Queen had done/not done. I know they have not damaged a glittering career, just my personal view: 1. Put Tie Your Mother Down on Greatest Hits instead of GOFLB 2. Got involved with 5ive, hugely embarassing! 3. That Pepsi advert, ditto 4. Robbie Williams, we are the Champions collaboaration, truly awful. 5. Hot Space- Terrible pop pap! 6. Not releasing Princes of the Universe as a single in UK 7. Not releasing It's late as a single in the UK. 8. Not editing March of the Black Queen so you can listen to it as a separate piece of music without it seguing into another song.Would love to have seen a video for this epic song. 9. The con of the Miracle. Promised to be a harder sound but badly let down by shit like Rain Must Fall, Invisible Man 12", My Baby does me! 10. Never doing Monsters of Rock at DoningtonI AGREE HUGELY on 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9. Especially 1. I HATE GOFLB, and think Tie Your Mother Down and Spread Your Wings should have been in place of that and Flash...or have all four, as the 17 tracks took only 54 minutes, allowing 26 minutes left of track! Princes of the Universe should have been a single EVERYWHERE...what an amazing song! One of Queen's absolute best, surely better than that Friends Will Be Friends shit! |
Winter Land Man 07.05.2008 00:39 |
I would of rather of had Scandal on Greatest Hits II instead of The Invisible Man. |
Serry... 07.05.2008 00:50 |
Lack of condoms in Freddie's pouch. |
Music Man 07.05.2008 00:55 |
Serry... wrote: Lack of condoms in Freddie's pouch.Amen. P.S. I love GOFLB. One of my favorite guitar solos, too. |
Blackvy 07.05.2008 00:57 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote:I agree.Serry... wrote: Lack of condoms in Freddie's pouch.Amen. P.S. I love GOFLB. One of my favorite guitar solos, too. |
john bodega 07.05.2008 01:34 |
Russian Headlong wrote: 2. Got involved with 5ive, hugely embarassing! 3. That Pepsi advert, ditto 4. Robbie Williams, we are the Champions collaboaration, truly awful. |
Barbie Jupiter 07.05.2008 04:22 |
what is GOFLD?.. can't associate. |
Serry... 07.05.2008 04:52 |
Barbie Jupiter wrote: what is GOFLD?.. can't associate.GOFLB Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy |
pittrek 07.05.2008 06:49 |
Russian Headlong wrote: 1. Put Tie Your Mother Down on Greatest Hits instead of GOFLBNo. It's a greatest hits album and TYMD is NOT a greatest hit. I also don't like GOFLB but keep in mind what type of compilation this is. 2. Got involved with 5ive, hugely embarassing!Why ? That version of WWRY is really great. 3. That Pepsi advert, dittoThe first thing I agree 4. Robbie Williams, we are the Champions collaboaration, truly awful.What ? It's fabulous, one of the best Brian May solos ever ! The only thing I don't like is Robbie's voice at the beginning (he sings I paid my juice and starts crying), but later it gets much better. If somebody took this backing and replace Robbie's vocals with Freddie's it would be a perfect version. 5. Hot Space- Terrible pop pap!I agree again, the only listenable thing is Body Language and only after drinking a couple of drinks. Live versions are fantastic (especially Staying Power and Back Chat) but this album sucks. 6. Not releasing Princes of the Universe as a single in UKWhy should they release this crap as a single ? 7. Not releasing It's late as a single in the UK.Why ? Well it is a great song but why should it be a single ? 8. Not editing March of the Black Queen so you can listen to it as a separate piece of music without it seguing into another song.Would love to have seen a video for this epic song.A very stupid idea. It's like editing Bohemian Rhapsody or Innuendo. 9. The con of the Miracle. Promised to be a harder sound but badly let down by shit like Rain Must Fall, Invisible Man 12", My Baby does me!There are 3 good tracks on that album, I Want It All, Scandal and Was It All Worth It ? 10. Never doing Monsters of Rock at DoningtonShould I list all other music festivals on which they didn't appear ? My top 10: 1) promising a lot of products and then abandoning them 2) Queen Rock Montreal DVD 3) WWRY with Britney 4) Greatest Video Hits 1 5) Greatest Video Hits 2 6) Hot Space 7) allowing the existence of all the wwry and aobtd remixes (and many others) 8) Innuendo - it could be a perfect album if it was done by Roy Thomas Baker 9) not releasing any of the 70s concerts 10) not caring about the fans' wishes |
thunderbolt 31742 07.05.2008 07:13 |
1. More of That Jazz 2. More of That Jazz 3. More of That Jazz 4. More of That Jazz 5. More of That Jazz 6. More of That Jazz 7. More of That Jazz 8. That $^&*@!#&%!*#^!%$^&*4 mustache 9. More of That Jazz 10. More of That Jazz |
Holly2003 07.05.2008 07:39 |
Russian Headlong wrote: Despite the band being above criticism by many, myself included at times here are some things I wish Queen had done/not done. I know they have not damaged a glittering career, just my personal view: 1. Put Tie Your Mother Down on Greatest Hits instead of GOFLB 2. Got involved with 5ive, hugely embarassing! 3. That Pepsi advert, ditto 4. Robbie Williams, we are the Champions collaboaration, truly awful. 5. Hot Space- Terrible pop pap! 6. Not releasing Princes of the Universe as a single in UK 7. Not releasing It's late as a single in the UK. 8. Not editing March of the Black Queen so you can listen to it as a separate piece of music without it seguing into another song.Would love to have seen a video for this epic song. 9. The con of the Miracle. Promised to be a harder sound but badly let down by shit like Rain Must Fall, Invisible Man 12", My Baby does me! 10. Never doing Monsters of Rock at DoningtonInteresting subject. Here's my tuppence worth: 1. GOFLB is a lot more well known in the UK than TYMD. maybe that's the reason? plus it's a more complex and also a better song. 2. 5ive: bloddy awful and really embarassing! 3. Pepsi advert: Roger & Bri are hornballs and probably thought there's a chance they might bonk Beyonce. in my opinion, that's a fine plan of action. 4. Robbie Williams, we are the Champions collaboaration: Nice intro., and it makes business sense given that RW is huge in the UK. I can take it or leave it. 5. Hot Space: still have mixed feelings about this. I can understand why they did it, and as someone astutely noted, if the sides were reversed the album would make more sense. I like soe of the songs but I hardly ever listen to that album any more. 6. Princes of the Universe is a great song and would've made a good single. The fact that it was chosen as the theme music to the tv series Highlander shows how popular it might have been. 7. It's late isy favouriste Queen song. As long as it wasn't horribly edited like the US single, I think it would've been a success, 8. March of the Black Queen...Queen 2 is perfect and any changes would constitute herecy and much gnashing of teeth. 9. The Miracle: Can't stand Rain Must Fall, Invisible Man is interesting and different, My Baby does me is a fine song, just not really my cup of tea. 10. As for Monsters of Rock, I can imagine Queen would not have been too popular playing Body Language among the likes of Van halen and iron maiden! |
Treasure Moment 07.05.2008 08:53 |
and the biggest mistake of all, to continue playing as they are doing now without freddie and john, i have all the respect in the world for brian and roger but what they are doing now is pretty pathetic. a bad cover band of Queen who plays the songs in slow motion with a bluesy singer who cant even sing on time....great stuff |
Holly2003 07.05.2008 09:10 |
Treasure Moment wrote: and the biggest mistake of all, to continue playing as they are doing now without freddie and john, i have all the respect in the world for brian and roger but what they are doing now is pretty pathetic. a bad cover band of Queen who plays the songs in slow motion with a bluesy singer who cant even sing on time....great stuffAre you planning to share these views with us on every thread? How many times do you need to repeat the same point? We get it already ffs. |
Knute 07.05.2008 09:15 |
I think their biggest mistake of all was writing music that appealed to Treasure Moment. |
Micrówave 07.05.2008 10:42 |
Great thread. Although I disagree with 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. I think a couple other ones could be: 1. Writing collectively as "Queen". Besides One Vision, it really never hit me as much as the older tracks. 2. Not asking for more $$$ from Hollywood Records. Queen kept a poorly run record company hugely successful in the early 90s, who's other artists were average to mediocre at best. 3. Playing Sun City. Or perhaps THAT'S what Was It All Worth It was about. Unfortunately an act of compassion was misinterpreted by a lot of people. 4. Releasing Made In Heaven. This should have been some of the material for the box sets. Instead, they should have brought in a new vocalist and got going then. By now, Queen + Lisa Lisa & The Cult Jam would have been an established act. 5. Jim Beach |
L-R-TIGER1994 07.05.2008 11:49 |
Calling Paul Rodgers. |
Treasure Moment 07.05.2008 13:31 |
Holly2003 wrote:the thread demanded this reply as it is about mistakes they have doneTreasure Moment wrote: and the biggest mistake of all, to continue playing as they are doing now without freddie and john, i have all the respect in the world for brian and roger but what they are doing now is pretty pathetic. a bad cover band of Queen who plays the songs in slow motion with a bluesy singer who cant even sing on time....great stuffAre you planning to share these views with us on every thread? How many times do you need to repeat the same point? We get it already ffs. |
louvox 07.05.2008 13:50 |
Since Freddie’s passing, Queen in my opinion has ceased to exist. Therefore I will limit my answers to the time period between 1973 through 1991. 1. Hot space – A complete embarrassment 2. The works – No inspiration and awful production 3. A kind of magic – Boring, boring and more boring! 4. Never returning to USA for concert tour 5. The Miracle – Mislead about being a return to rock roots 6. Never working with Roy Thomas Baker again 7. Working with Mack (Terrible producer) 8. Over using synthesizers!! 9. Not crediting song writing to all four from the beginning. 10. Continuing on under the name Queen after Freddie's death |
Treasure Moment 07.05.2008 15:33 |
louvox wrote: Since Freddie’s passing, Queen in my opinion has ceased to exist. Therefore I will limit my answers to the time period between 1973 through 1991. 1. Hot space – A complete embarrassment 2. The works – No inspiration and awful production 3. A kind of magic – Boring, boring and more boring! 4. Never returning to USA for concert tour 5. The Miracle – Mislead about being a return to rock roots 6. Never working with Roy Thomas Baker again 7. Working with Mack (Terrible producer) 8. Over using synthesizers!! 9. Not crediting song writing to all four from the beginning. 10. Disbanding after Freddie’s deathhah those albums you are talking about are ALL masterpieces, ok miracle has a few not so good songs but the rest of the albums are pure magic, its a kind of magic :D |
Micrówave 07.05.2008 15:47 |
L-R-TIGER1994 wrote: Calling Paul Rodgers.Well, why don't you just go find another band then? I hear Maroon 5 is looking for some more fans... louvox wrote: Since Freddie’s passing, Queen in my opinion has ceased to exist.... 10. Disbanding after Freddie’s deathUm... what? That doesn't make any sense at all. |
louvox 07.05.2008 15:57 |
Micrówave wrote:L-R-TIGER1994 wrote: Calling Paul Rodgers.Well, why don't you just go find another band then? I hear Maroon 5 is looking for some more fans...louvox wrote: Since Freddie’s passing, Queen in my opinion has ceased to exist.... 10. Disbanding after Freddie’s deathWhat I meant was continuing on under the name Queen Um... what? That doesn't make any sense at all. |
Adolfo and the spiders from Mercury 07.05.2008 16:50 |
Russian Headlong wrote: Despite the band being above criticism by many, myself included at times here are some things I wish Queen had done/not done. I know they have not damaged a glittering career, just my personal view: 1. Put Tie Your Mother Down on Greatest Hits instead of GOFLB 2. Got involved with 5ive, hugely embarassing! 3. That Pepsi advert, ditto 4. Robbie Williams, we are the Champions collaboaration, truly awful. 5. Hot Space- Terrible pop pap! 6. Not releasing Princes of the Universe as a single in UK 7. Not releasing It's late as a single in the UK. 8. Not editing March of the Black Queen so you can listen to it as a separate piece of music without it seguing into another song.Would love to have seen a video for this epic song. 9. The con of the Miracle. Promised to be a harder sound but badly let down by shit like Rain Must Fall, Invisible Man 12", My Baby does me! 10. Never doing Monsters of Rock at DoningtonMaybe u shold become a fan from a band that doesnt dissapoints u so much... just a sugestion |
Mike Label 07.05.2008 18:17 |
GH 1 was a true HITS compilation, only top 30 hits counted, that's why TYMD was not on it. GH 1 is only 57 minutes long because it was originally released on vinyl. CDs did not exist way back then. Queens biggest mistake: Introducing synths and keyboards and having additional musicians play with them live, especially Spike Edney. Just listen to how he ruins Now I'm here every time with his keyboard crap. If I could get hold of all the original 80s multitracks I'd remix them without all those lousy cheap keyboard sounds. |
brENsKi 07.05.2008 18:20 |
Russian Headlong wrote: Despite the band being above criticism by many, myself included at times here are some things I wish Queen had done/not done. I know they have not damaged a glittering career, just my personal view: |
Daniel Nester 07.05.2008 18:41 |
Hot Space -- ahead of its time, even still. It's a solid record, more consistent and definitely better songwriting then AKOM or Miracle. 1. Never returning to USA for concert tour. 2. Not crediting songwriting to all four from the beginning. 3. Wrong singles from Hot Space, and wrong order of the ones chosen. 4. Wrong order of singles from The Works. 5. Draining of creative juices and good songs for solo projects, 1981-1985 on Roger's, Freddie's, and to a lesser extent Brian's part. 6. Cheesy, dated production on Hot Space, The Works, A Kind of Magic, and The Miracle, and increasing in cheesiness in that order. 7. Lyrics written by committee, post The Works. 8. No double albums released when they could have in the late 70s. 9. Not appearing on live US television except for Saturday Night Live. 10. Freddie not coming out as a gay man, as Elton John et al. did and continue to do. |
Yara 07.05.2008 19:04 |
Daniel Nester wrote: 10. Freddie not coming out as a gay man, as Elton John et al. did and continue to do.I don't agree with that. Even if I did, it'd not be Queen's, but Freddie's mistake, isn't it true? But I don't agree with the claim, which is often made. I don't think people should be defined by their sexuality. Sexuality is an important feature in one's personality (or "identity", as the fad goes), but people are much more than their sexuality. And it's not like he never incorporated sexuality in his performances...it's quite the contrary, so, it was there for anyone to see, but there was also much more. Being stereotyped as a "gay artist" sounds terrible to me because there's much more to him, and to anyone, than his sexuality, regardless of what one thinks about it, don't you think? I enjoy Hot Space very much, but, as to the other mistakes, I don't know, people here could help with this info. |
Daniel Nester 07.05.2008 20:27 |
My opinion: It's other peoples' problems if, after an artist says he or she gay, that they think of he or she as only a "gay artist." Freddie--and Queen--had a chance to be more honest and up front about his and their lead singer's sexuality and way of life. And he and they did not. The mere rumor of Freddie Mercury's gayness was enough to tank his career in the U.S.--again, that's the U.S.'s problem. But I think if he had come out in the open he would have been an inspiration not only to gay people, but to others who want to be more honest about who and what they really are. Granted, I am not saying Freddie should have become a gay activist. But by not saying he was gay, and admitting he was HIV-positive in his last years, is one of Freddie's and Queen's career mistakes that will be debated for years to come. For me, the most salient reason Freddie should have come out at least partially was to quell those wackjobs, mostly in the U.S., admittedly, to work on technicalities and say he was "bisexual" since he had a girlfriend coming out of college. If we went by that measure, Andy Warhol, Ellen DeGeneres, and Liberace and Will from Will & Grace are all bisexual. *** On another note entirely: Sun City concerts, anyone? I can't believe I forgot it for my list. |
Winter Land Man 07.05.2008 20:33 |
Treasure Moment wrote:I'll have to agree with you Mr. Treasure Moment, I think all of Queen's 80s albums are great. I used to think of The Miracle as my favorite album... then I chose Innuendo.louvox wrote: Since Freddie’s passing, Queen in my opinion has ceased to exist. Therefore I will limit my answers to the time period between 1973 through 1991. 1. Hot space – A complete embarrassment 2. The works – No inspiration and awful production 3. A kind of magic – Boring, boring and more boring! 4. Never returning to USA for concert tour 5. The Miracle – Mislead about being a return to rock roots 6. Never working with Roy Thomas Baker again 7. Working with Mack (Terrible producer) 8. Over using synthesizers!! 9. Not crediting song writing to all four from the beginning. 10. Disbanding after Freddie’s deathhah those albums you are talking about are ALL masterpieces, ok miracle has a few not so good songs but the rest of the albums are pure magic, its a kind of magic :D Wstussyb used to think my favorite album was A Kind Of Magic, but that's untrue, but I do enjoy that album quite a bit as well. |
Dusta 07.05.2008 21:55 |
I agree with all of these. I've nothing more to add.
Daniel Nester wrote: Hot Space -- ahead of its time, even still. It's a solid record, more consistent and definitely better songwriting then AKOM or Miracle. 1. Never returning to USA for concert tour. 2. Not crediting songwriting to all four from the beginning. 3. Wrong singles from Hot Space, and wrong order of the ones chosen. 4. Wrong order of singles from The Works. 5. Draining of creative juices and good songs for solo projects, 1981-1985 on Roger's, Freddie's, and to a lesser extent Brian's part. 6. Cheesy, dated production on Hot Space, The Works, A Kind of Magic, and The Miracle, and increasing in cheesiness in that order. 7. Lyrics written by committee, post The Works. 8. No double albums released when they could have in the late 70s. 9. Not appearing on live US television except for Saturday Night Live. |
Russian Headlong 08.05.2008 15:12 |
Brenski, It's just my opinion, you say have no idea, well I could say the same about you. Why not Monsters of Rock? Bon Jovi, Status Quo both headlined, Queen fit into that Classic Rock category too. I'm not talking emo crap like download. As for the arsehole who said maybe I should follow another band well I have probably been a fan longer than you and as I said in my previous post these are just my opinions |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 08.05.2008 18:31 |
Sun City was indeed a bit of a 'booboo' when it comes down to it,being put on a 'black-list' [an unfortunate term considering the crime] nearly ruined them but it was quietly forgotten 6 months later wasnt it? |
QueenZeppelin 08.05.2008 19:19 |
pittrek wrote:Tie Your Mother Down IS a greatest hit, it reached 31 in the UK, and their measure of a greatest hit was 1-30 to be considered a greatest hit. So their perfectionism may have prevented them from including it, but that doesn't make it NOT a greatest hit. Same for the 34-peaking Spread Your Wings.Russian Headlong wrote: 1. Put Tie Your Mother Down on Greatest Hits instead of GOFLBNo. It's a greatest hits album and TYMD is NOT a greatest hit. I also don't like GOFLB but keep in mind what type of compilation this is. And GOFLB reminds me of some Paul McCartney's wretched solo crap. It's a useless, corny, hollow song, and one of the few Queen songs I did not put on my iPod. |
Winter Land Man 08.05.2008 20:43 |
QueenZeppelin wrote:It reached 31, Queen's rule was 1-30. I don't see how it fits in Queen's rules!pittrek wrote:Tie Your Mother Down IS a greatest hit, it reached 31 in the UK, and their measure of a greatest hit was 1-30 to be considered a greatest hit. So their perfectionism may have prevented them from including it, but that doesn't make it NOT a greatest hit. Same for the 34-peaking Spread Your Wings. And GOFLB reminds me of some Paul McCartney's wretched solo crap. It's a useless, corny, hollow song, and one of the few Queen songs I did not put on my iPod.Russian Headlong wrote: 1. Put Tie Your Mother Down on Greatest Hits instead of GOFLBNo. It's a greatest hits album and TYMD is NOT a greatest hit. I also don't like GOFLB but keep in mind what type of compilation this is. |
goinback 09.05.2008 01:21 |
"Tie Your Mother Down" was a big FM rock radio hit and got lots of airplay, there's no reason why it shouldn't be on a Greatest Hits compilation. It helped make the band famous and shaped their image. (In the '70s, FM radio actually played music whether it was on the singles chart or not.) Those FM AOR hits in the '70s are the types of hits that mattered for a ROCK band, not Top 40 singles...those are more important for POP bands. Even though it only reached #31 on the dubious singles chart, it probably got more airplay than many other songs that ranked much higher. In reality it was a much bigger hit than #31. ("Get Down, Make Love" was similar: many still identify Queen with GDML because GDML got an ENORMOUS amount of airplay...probably more than "Body Language" even though GDML wasn't a single.) It's ridiculous that anyone still lends credence to how Queen's *singles* charted as an accurate history of the band. It's Queen, not N*Sync.... |
GdayBrainMay 09.05.2008 06:53 |
not putting the song sheer heart attack on the album sheer heart attack. that was really weird and using robbie williams was wrong too |
Treasure Moment 09.05.2008 07:13 |
GdayBrainMay wrote: not putting the song sheer heart attack on the album sheer heart attack. that was really weird and using robbie williams was wrong toousing ANYONE besides freddie is a BIG mistake |
gem27 09.05.2008 09:44 |
Not putting the song Sheer Heart Attack on the album Sheer heart attack was really weird too? Yes maybe but it can hardly be in the top 10 mistakes by a band like Queen that started over 35 years ago. I can't for the life of me see how that incident caused anyone any problems. |
Freya is quietly judging you. 09.05.2008 09:51 |
Russian Headlong wrote: 5. Hot Space- Terrible pop pap!Noooooo. Hot Space is great. |
Yara 09.05.2008 20:48 |
Daniel Nester wrote: My opinion: It's other peoples' problems if, after an artist says he or she gay, that they think of he or she as only a "gay artist." Freddie--and Queen--had a chance to be more honest and up front about his and their lead singer's sexuality and way of life. And he and they did not. The mere rumor of Freddie Mercury's gayness was enough to tank his career in the U.S.--again, that's the U.S.'s problem. But I think if he had come out in the open he would have been an inspiration not only to gay people, but to others who want to be more honest about who and what they really are. Granted, I am not saying Freddie should have become a gay activist. But by not saying he was gay, and admitting he was HIV-positive in his last years, is one of Freddie's and Queen's career mistakes that will be debated for years to come. For me, the most salient reason Freddie should have come out at least partially was to quell those wackjobs, mostly in the U.S., admittedly, to work on technicalities and say he was "bisexual" since he had a girlfriend coming out of college. If we went by that measure, Andy Warhol, Ellen DeGeneres, and Liberace and Will from Will & Grace are all bisexual. *** On another note entirely: Sun City concerts, anyone? I can't believe I forgot it for my list.I totally, completely, absolutely disagree with this comment. Freddie was not responsible for the "gay people": he was responsible for himself. And not every one who's gay was like Freddie. Who said that by "coming out as gay" he'd actually help "gay people"? Freddie was promiscuous, led a very wild life, at least reckless in his sexual behavior, how come he would set an example to gay people? He did what was absolutely right: he just kept quiet about it and took care of his life. I mean, there's this whole thing now of demanding artists to engage in causes, it's so misguided the way it's done. Queen's music has benefited people indirectly much more than if Freddie had come up and said: "I am gay, I have AIDS". Given his sexual behavior and his stage performance, it'd actually make things WORSE. And, of course, people'd lose the focus, which is music - he'd be the "gay artist Freddie Mercury". Why? Is he his sexuality? No! He was a musician, a performer, and liked that people payed attention to HIS MUSIC AND HIS PERFORMANCE, NOT TO HIS PRIVATE LIFE. lol And he was right as an artist in doing so! My opinion. I found your comment quite arrogant. As if you were in a moral position to judge the guy and say he commited a mistake. It has no moral value at all to say that Freddie should have come out as gay - no moral value whatsoever even if everybody thought he should - we were not in his shoes to make this tough decision. And then, it's Freddie's mistake? Not only Freddie's mistake, but one of Queen's biggest mistakes? I honestly, in my opinion, don't think so. I'd like to "talk" about the other alleged mistakes too but I have writen too much already. lol Bye! Take care. |
Dusta 10.05.2008 01:33 |
Yara, I am again struck by the wisdom of one so very young. It took me many years to come to the opinion you've just outlined. I was one of those who was on the bandwagon for Freddie, "coming out." Though, I suppose, Freddie really LIVED "out,", didn't he? He just never made it official with the press.
Now, I understand why he did not, however, as I said, it took me years to understand.
Yara wrote:Daniel Nester wrote: My opinion: It's other peoples' problems if, after an artist says he or she gay, that they think of he or she as only a "gay artist." Freddie--and Queen--had a chance to be more honest and up front about his and their lead singer's sexuality and way of life. And he and they did not. The mere rumor of Freddie Mercury's gayness was enough to tank his career in the U.S.--again, that's the U.S.'s problem. But I think if he had come out in the open he would have been an inspiration not only to gay people, but to others who want to be more honest about who and what they really are. Granted, I am not saying Freddie should have become a gay activist. But by not saying he was gay, and admitting he was HIV-positive in his last years, is one of Freddie's and Queen's career mistakes that will be debated for years to come. For me, the most salient reason Freddie should have come out at least partially was to quell those wackjobs, mostly in the U.S., admittedly, to work on technicalities and say he was "bisexual" since he had a girlfriend coming out of college. If we went by that measure, Andy Warhol, Ellen DeGeneres, and Liberace and Will from Will & Grace are all bisexual. *** On another note entirely: Sun City concerts, anyone? I can't believe I forgot it for my list.I totally, completely, absolutely disagree with this comment. Freddie was not responsible for the "gay people": he was responsible for himself. And not every one who's gay was like Freddie. Who said that by "coming out as gay" he'd actually help "gay people"? Freddie was promiscuous, led a very wild life, at least reckless in his sexual behavior, how come he would set an example to gay people? He did what was absolutely right: he just kept quiet about it and took care of his life. I mean, there's this whole thing now of demanding artists to engage in causes, it's so misguided the way it's done. Queen's music has benefited people indirectly much more than if Freddie had come up and said: "I am gay, I have AIDS". Given his sexual behavior and his stage performance, it'd actually make things WORSE. And, of course, people'd lose the focus, which is music - he'd be the "gay artist Freddie Mercury". Why? Is he his sexuality? No! He was a musician, a performer, and liked that people payed attention to HIS MUSIC AND HIS PERFORMANCE, NOT TO HIS PRIVATE LIFE. lol And he was right as an artist in doing so! My opinion. I found your comment quite arrogant. As if you were in a moral position to judge the guy and say he commited a mistake. It has no moral value at all to say that Freddie should have come out as gay - no moral value whatsoever even if everybody thought he should - we were not in his shoes to make this tough decision. And then, it's Freddie's mistake? Not only Freddie's mistake, but one of Queen's biggest mistakes? I honestly, in my opinion, don't think so. I'd like to "talk" about the other alleged mistakes too but I have writen too much already. lol Bye! Take care. |
Dusta 10.05.2008 01:39 |
It seems as if there may have been some real concern, on Freddie's part, that coming out to the press may have not only tanked HIS career, but, the careers of his bandmates. And, I don't think those fears were unfounded.
Daniel Nester wrote: My opinion: It's other peoples' problems if, after an artist says he or she gay, that they think of he or she as only a "gay artist." Freddie--and Queen--had a chance to be more honest and up front about his and their lead singer's sexuality and way of life. And he and they did not. The mere rumor of Freddie Mercury's gayness was enough to tank his career in the U.S.--again, that's the U.S.'s problem. But I think if he had come out in the open he would have been an inspiration not only to gay people, but to others who want to be more honest about who and what they really are. Granted, I am not saying Freddie should have become a gay activist. But by not saying he was gay, and admitting he was HIV-positive in his last years, is one of Freddie's and Queen's career mistakes that will be debated for years to come. For me, the most salient reason Freddie should have come out at least partially was to quell those wackjobs, mostly in the U.S., admittedly, to work on technicalities and say he was "bisexual" since he had a girlfriend coming out of college. If we went by that measure, Andy Warhol, Ellen DeGeneres, and Liberace and Will from Will & Grace are all bisexual. *** On another note entirely: Sun City concerts, anyone? I can't believe I forgot it for my list. |
kingogre 10.05.2008 03:56 |
Sun city is probably the worst. Defying a UN-ban to make money entertaining the rich people in one of the most brutal regimes of the last century. Maybe its because of bad consciousness over this that Brian and Roger has become so active in the 46664 cause during the last years. Queen chose to be a singles band during the 80´s and they were brilliant at it. But at the same time filling the albums with what many would consider to be crap was a serious mistake.IMHO Jazz was the last consistent regular album they issued until Innuendo. (I know some people rank the Game highly but I personally has always seen it as patchy). The worst example of this is AKOM, putting together soundtrack songs with whatever they had to create an album that is still very short. IMHO they were lucky that Live Aid came along otherwise it would have seriously damaged their career. All these Queen+ projects, the endless repackaging of the same old songs and the embarrasing shows like Amsterdam 2002. The Paul Rodgers thing is the only Queen+ project that is worthwhile and the wisest thing they have done in years. Freddie never finishing the lyrics to a song before recording a demo. Its extremely annoying to hear an otherwise unreleased song begin with beautiful piano and a great tune only to have it turn in "Dadadadadada" and then end randomly. |
john bodega 10.05.2008 10:37 |
OH GOD I AM GOING TO CUM |
pittrek 10.05.2008 11:41 |
kingogre wrote: Sun city is probably the worst. Defying a UN-ban to make money entertaining the rich people in one of the most brutal regimes of the last century. Maybe its because of bad consciousness over this that Brian and Roger has become so active in the 46664 cause during the last years.Sorry buy what can a 24 years old guy from Sweden know about life in a country with "brutal regimes" ? Unless you lived in a non-democratic, e.g. communistic country, you know nothing about the meaning of these things for the ordinary people. |
kingogre 10.05.2008 12:03 |
sorry pittrek, it was not my meaning to make any sort of degrading comment to you or anyone you know. neither was i trying to apply some kind of wise-guy attitude. terribly sorry if i did that in any way. i understand that the words most brutal can hold a bit of controversy. however at the time the apartheid regime was regarded at least close to that by for example the UN. i am part of a political exchange project with south africa and the anc and have both visited there many times and have contact with people there. i have also written an essay in political science about the swedish sanctions aagaints it. apartheid and the regime were extemely violent. and sun city, a luxurious casino city, was a symbol of the racial oppression. but please accept my excuses if i angered you in any way. was not my meaning |
pittrek 10.05.2008 12:17 |
kingogre wrote: i am part of a political exchange project with south africa and the anc and have both visited there many times and have contact with people there. i have also written an essay in political science about the swedish sanctions aagaints it. apartheid and the regime were extemely violent. and sun city, a luxurious casino city, was a symbol of the racial oppression.Wow, good job. Really. I thought you don't know what you're talking about, but it looks I was wrong. Sorry. but please accept my excuses if i angered you in any way. was not my meaningI want to say the same to you, my friend. The only thing I wanted to say that as a person who lived a big part of his life in a country ruled by communists can fully imagine how important it can be for the people to know that even at their hard time some people outside don't forget them and want to make their lifes better for at least two hours. But you're right, it was concert only for the rich elite, still it remained an important message |
Yara 10.05.2008 14:13 |
I think it's neither wrong nor imoral to play to rich people. In fact, artists who dedicate their lives to music and touring might want to get paid, one day. So, there were famous classical composers and writers, nowadays regarded as angels and redeemers of the humanity, who worked for the gentry whose power was partially based on the exploitation of other people's lives, bodies, work and resources. You could say that artists back then didn't have much options: ok, but Queen would not make music if they had to do only benefit concerts. People, and artists who work hard, like to get paid for what they do. I know it may sound weird to some people, but that's the way it works: rich people can pay. And that's, in fact, respectful of the artists' work. Freddie got hurt during one of the concerts, and he kept playing as long as he could - what a bastard, no? There were people wanting to listen to Queen. People paid to listen to Queen. He felt he had this duty with the audience: what a bastard! For sure, every and each one of those rich people were monsters. They didn't even have the right of having fun listening to a band they enjoyed. Again, kind of weird. Years and years ago, in a distant galaxy called reality, Queen was not, I'm sure that's no secret to anyone, a UN Member State. At the time, the U.S, for instance, included Mandella's party in their list of terrorist organizations. Queen, for sure, isn't to blame: they play to people, flesh and blood people, not "to regimes" or "symbols of opression". Then, one year later, the bastards came to rescue Live Aid, not the other way around: they delivered the single most impressive performance in the whole concert - Geldof's own words - and "We Are the Champions" became a symbol of freedom throughout the world, Brazil included, a country, by the way, which was still under a military rule when Queen first came here, in 1981, and played for a huge crowd eager for changes in politics, economy and full of hope that the dictatorship would end. "Love of My Life" and other songs by Queen became, by then, signs of freedom, and people sang along. Weird, indeed. In 1985, Brazil wasn't a democracy yet, and the country was still recovering from years of military dictatorship. Came Queen in Rock in Rio and, again, the crowd, projecting their hopes in Queen's songs, sang "Love of My Life" almost in its entirety. "I Want to Break Free", of course, became a national hit here and it had acquired among people a political conotation. Booed into getting rid of the "fake breasts" Freddie used to wear during the song from Brazil to Japan, the bastard, again, did get rid of the fake breasts and respected the will of the audience who found that offensive. In Argentina, Queen played to huge audiences too, and Argentina was under a brutal regime, and then some! But many of the people who went to see the concert were people longing for freedom and tired of the systematic opression. I think they must have felt them good when Brian and Freddie told them: "You're great, you're the best". It gave them hope, I guess. Soccer player Maradona came in, and people from Argentina can correct me if I'm wrong, but he was not exactly a symbol of the brutal regime, quite the contrary. In 1979, Queen played at Hammersmith Odeon - my favorite Queen concert :op - in a concert supported and organized by UNICEF for the people of Cambodia. It should be noted that, by then, few big players in the world politics really cared about what had happened to the people of Cambodia. Lennon was there too, I guess. I wouldn't complain if Queen released this concert oficially - my only doubt is if it can be really restored to dvd standards, and I think it can. One of the most amazing Queen's performances. Then, I shut up, because Queen played behind the iron curtain for people who, I guess, found in Queen's music a brief relief from th |
Daniel Nester 10.05.2008 15:01 |
Yara -- Your defense of Queen's gig at Sun City strains credibility and logic. Many people, many of them fellow artists, regarded playing Sun City as a mistake. They played inside an oppressive regime. Other artists boycotted playing there to put pressure on that regime. It was Queen's and other's prerogative to play, but even Brian and Roger now concede it might have been a mistake, but was done with the best of intentions. If you call playing for rich people at a resort inside an oppressive South African regime well-intentioned. Now, if it is a mistake--and let's agree on that just for a moment--does playing rock for the people of Kampuchea or Live Aid or the 46664 some how dilute the effects of the Sun City gigs? I really don't think so. Some might think so. I don't. I see these things as individual acts, nothing more. But the real strain to logic on Yara's part is to pile on examples of things Queen did that were good: the quality of the performances at Live Aid and that some people in South America regards Love of My Life as their favorite song, all as a counterweight to Queen playing what has been described as a "low-rent, whites-only Las Vegas." link Here's a choice quote from The Independent. "While the rest of the world was waking up to the evils of apartheid," the reporter writes, "the resort at Sun City was providing white South Africans with the opportunity to wake up to the dubious delights of high kicking showgirls." So that's where Queen played. It's not just "rich people," Yara. This place was a product of an opporssive apartheid system, and was seen as a symbol of it. Let's face it, folks: Queen fucked up playing there. They got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. |
Daniel Nester 10.05.2008 15:59 |
Yara, your response about Freddie's sexuality is, in my opinion, misguided as well as naive regarding what gay people have to go through. It seems that I come off as "arrogant" to you by telling you about how bad people treat others; in my first response, I had to teach you about apartheid, and how Queen's Sun City gigs in that all-white resort were perceived as perpetuating an oppressive regime; in this response, I will tell you about how gays and lesbians have been met with oppression as well. If this is what you call "arrogant," then so be it. I like to call it "education." Right now, gay people are being killed, discriminated against, shut out from society. Let's talk about gay teens. Gay kids commit suicide at a rate far higher than their straight counterparts in the U.S. and Europe (link. Other gay are getting killed by others out of fear or hatred or both. These are called "hate crimes." Not to put a downer on your day, but these exist. In your native Brazil, more than 2,680 gay people were murdered in Brazil between 1980 and 2006. It's actually a big problem in your neck of the woods. AIDS still exists, too. And when it first started out, an incongruously large percentage of AIDS deaths were gay men. There are people who think that the AIDS crisis was made worse out of fear and hatred for gays; that, if it were, say straight white men, the disease might already be cured, or at least quicker. OK, so these are just two examples of how gay and lesbians are oppressed, hated, even killed for what they are. Let's get to Freddie Mercury. With all this in mind, and with friends of Freddie dying of AIDS, his fellow gay men oppressed worldwide, is it right that, as you say, Freddie "just kept quiet about it and took care of his life"? My answer, with the luxury of retrospect: I'm not sure. I am saying that in an ideal world, an ideal world that artist try to make happen, Freddie could have told the world he had AIDS, that he was gay, and told the world how he got this disease and urged others to be careful and to not get themselves killed. Life is more complicated than this, to be sure. Freddie didn't want to make a spectacle of himself. Let's put aside that one of Freddie's idols, John Lennon, purposefully made a spectacle of himself by sleeping in with his wife to promote World Peace. What would have been so wrong with Freddie telling the world while we was still able to speak about it that he had AIDS and that he was a gay man? What would have been wrong with Freddie taking the focus away from his music? What is so important that we look at Queen's music and Freddie's WITHOUT the knowledge that he was a gay man and he died of a horrible disease? To some, understanding all this doesn't distract from the music: IT ENRICHES IT. It increases our understanding of our fellow man, in increases our capacity for empathy for those who are not like us, it demystifies and dispels the notion that we only want to hear ideas and experience art that reinforces our own beliefs and lifestyle. I am judging Freddie's decisions at least as much as you are implicitly judging his sexuality by saying YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT? Why don't you want to know about Freddie's sexuality? is my question. How is that wisdom, as one responder stated? If Freddie came out, as we say, things might have been different. But Queen themselves are already admitting this implicitly: By saying the video for IWTBF tanked in the United States because in part of homophobia and then, in the same breath, saying Freddie shouldn't have had to come out of the closet, is what we call in the US "wanting to have your cake and eat it, too." It's also very cynical. But here's a choice quote from Yara: "I mean, there's this whole thing now of demanding artists to engage in causes, it's so misguided the |
Yara 10.05.2008 16:07 |
Queen played to people. It doesn't matter if they were rich or poor, black or white: they went there and did what they are supposed to do: play music (badly, some say). Besides, Queen didn't make Apartheid stronger: what did it stronger was, well, the big players in the political scenario which supported the regime back there, not Queen. If Queen had not gone there, it'd not have made the slightest difference in the political scenario. They are a band. They were hired to play music to people. All people have the right to listen to music, why not? Who are we to play morals in other people's shoes? That's what Guardian and the Independent do, ok, and they have their own merits, but let's not mix up things: Freddie was not a journalist, a politician or a human rights activist. He was a musician. People paid him, he sang what people liked to hear, regardless of who the people were. If he selected the audience according to his political views, who knows what could happen? For instance: a guy could say that, well, I won't play at X stadium in Y City in the U.S because I'm all for human rights and Bush and the Iraq war have been overwhelmingly supported by the population. A lot of people would stand up and say: hey, what the hell? That's unfair - either because the Iraq war is ok - there are people who think so - or because not everyone who went to the stadium was a supporter of it. Again, musicians, in my view, should not play politics: "collective responsibility" is fine in international relations but it can have dreadful results if you apply it to everything. I'm a superb singer and pianist. lol Beautiful, talented, and very humble. ;-)) Let's suppose Serry came along and said: well, Yara, you know, I like your sound, I'm thinking about inviting you to play here in Moscow or St. Petersburg. Then I say to Serry: but, Serry, come on, it's Putin's Russia! I won't play there for oligarchs and people who have been making money at the expense of a lot of people. "No, Yara, you silly bastard", answers me Serry, "you won't play to "oligarchs" or anything like that, you'll play to people, all kinds of people, even if they happen to have the same background: every and each one of them is different and they might as well get moved by your songs in a positive way, if you do care about it". I Say, ok, Serry, you're clever, I won't try to rebut your argument. I'm going to Russia. Then Yara arrives in Russia, plays there, and there's a column in the Guardian: "Making Putin's herd happy". Then I go to Serry: Serry, what's that? You told me there'd be no problem. Then, Serry, who's very clever and much more than me, says: "Well, Yara, you know, it's the press, they interpreted this way, but I can tell you that you didn't play to any "herd". I say, well, Serry, they were human beings, after all? Serry answers me: "Yes! Believe it or not, they were, you should stop reading Gogol's Dead Souls because you're starting to think that here in Russia we're all fucked up, and that's not true. In fact, we're wonderful (if Serry were a nationalist) or we're like any other people (if Serry were moderate) or we're a bunch of bastards, but there are some good guys here (if Serry were outright pessimistic just like Gógol). But then, Serry, making the smartest move, and antecipating my next sentence, say: "Well, Yara, the question is: you played to people. Some will tell you that they are so fucked up they haven't the right to listen to music; some will tell you that they're so wonderful that you should play to them for free - but regardless of all that, you play to individuals who listened to and received your music in different ways, I'm sure". I get relieved. "Ow, this Serry really knows his stuff". But Serry, by then beginning to fall in love with me despite being married, says: "You know, Yara, Elvis and John |
Daniel Nester 10.05.2008 16:22 |
Yara, you're right. That would be you. That would also make you not John Lennon. That would also make you not Elton John. That would also make you not James Brown. That would also make you not Diego Rivera. That would also make you not Paul Robeson. That would also make you not Vaclav Havel. That would also make you not Frank Zappa. That would also make you not Frida Kahlo. That would also make you not Anna Akhmatova. That would also make you not Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. That would also make you not Bono. That would also make you not Sam Cooke. That would also make you not Bob Marley. That would also make you not Brian May. That would also make you not Roger Taylor. |
Winter Land Man 10.05.2008 18:16 |
Yara wrote: I think it's neither wrong nor imoral to play to rich people. In fact, artists who dedicate their lives to music and touring might want to get paid, one day. So, there were famous classical composers and writers, nowadays regarded as angels and redeemers of the humanity, who worked for the gentry whose power was partially based on the exploitation of other people's lives, bodies, work and resources. |
Daniel Nester 10.05.2008 18:41 |
I agree. Yara is way to smart for 17. I had to bring out my big rhetorical guns for this board, and I am a bit grumpy today. But damn is she smart. I just re-read the follow-up, and hey--they're good points. I apologize if I got too worked up in my previous posts. I have felt exactly the same way as Yara. And I think hers a totally valid point. I simply feel another way now, and how that happened or evolved over my 40 years is another story entirely. |
Yara 10.05.2008 19:00 |
Under Apartheid gays and lesbians in the Army, some 900, it's believed, had to undergo those so called "treatments" for "curing" their disease. Was is ugly? Horrendous. Take post-apartheid South Africa. You go to Human Rights Watch website. Then you read, year after year: lesbians and gay activists getting killed or raped. In 2003, one could read: "Law and litigation have not filtered down to the level of everyday life. The fact of prejudice against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people persists, and the state has done little to counteract it. In communities across South Africa, people reported to us that a concept of homosexual conduct as "un-African" remains powerful, and repressive.170 Many of our interviewees, straight and gay, called it the single most common condemnation they hear. Nonceba, a heterosexual African woman from Eastern Cape, told us that "Folks say homosexuality was brought in by whites to spoil our culture. It is evil to mention it at all."171 Diwysa, a heterosexual African woman from the same province, described how homosexuality is seen within her rural community: "People say it is a demon. We don't talk about sex to begin with in black culture, and our elders do not mention homosexuality at all.... People use culture as an excuse not to understand." Tsembani, an African gay man who is the coordinator of the HIV/AIDS Program at the Durban Gay and Lesbian Community Health Centre, says, "When I do my trainings [for healthcare providers, on gay and lesbian rights] people always say to me 'homosexuality does not exist within the black culture,' that it 'came with white culture.' ... They try to put the culture up as a shield.'" In 2007, one could read: "On July 8, the bodies of Sizakele Sigasa, age 34, and Salome Masooa, age 24, were found in a field in Meadowlands, Soweto. Sigasa had been shot six times; Masooa had been shot once. Sigasa was openly lesbian and an activist for the rights of people living with HIV/AIDS as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people’s rights. In another case, believed to be unrelated, the body of Thokozane Qwabe, age 23, was found in a field in Ladysmith, KwaZulu-Natal, on July 22. She had multiple head wounds and was naked. Local nongovernmental organizations have informed Human Rights Watch that, based on how the bodies and clothing were found, they suspect rape in both cases. Despite legal commitments to equality for all, lesbians in South African townships are still targeted for rape and murder,” said Jessica Stern, researcher in the LGBT Rights Program of Human Rights Watch. “Poverty, prejudice, homophobia and sexism are building a new pass system, where many women dare not walk openly on the street.” I haven't seen artists boycotting South Africa lately. So, what's happening? Queen was invited by people to play in Apartheid South Africa, right? Well, it's good they have been invited, in the first place: I think many, all too many people suspected that Freddie was gay but, at least for people in Sun City, that doesn't seem to have been a problem. Queen went there and what they did? Did they sing: "We are the white people, my friends, and we'll keep opressing blacks to the end"? No. They sang "Is this the World We Created", "Hammer to Fall", "Killer Queen" and "We are the Champions": the latter being a song about a performer who was suspected - to put it mildly - of being gay who actually made it. Cool. Now, let's imagine that a group of South Africans had invited Queen and the Apartheid government had DENIED the invitation and barred Queen from playing there. What we would be saying right now? Ah, those miserable homophobics didn't let Queen play there! And we'd be complaining about...QUEEN NOT HAVING PLAYED IN SOUTH AFRICA. It's a real-life example. Groups in the Arab world at the time, |
kingogre 11.05.2008 05:38 |
pittrek, no need to say sorry my friend. i believe i expressed myself badly. and i agree with your points completely. i dont like the the sun city concerts because it wasnt support from the outside, instead queen played along with the system of the apartheid regime. it probably didnt matter much but myself knowing people who were involved in the struggle against apartheid and how brutal it was has put the sun city concerts in a special league for me. All the best anyway! |
Daniel Nester 11.05.2008 18:20 |
You should look at that list of artists who do make it their place to get involved in politics, Yara. There are plenty of examples of artists getting involved in politics that lead to a disaster, but there's more examples of artists who do make it a point to be heard. And, as a matter of fact, some artists are inspired by engaging with their world and don't see the divide you see. Examples? Bob Dylan for one. Keith Haring. The political posters you will see in the streets of your town. Bob Geldoff. Kanye West. Freddie was of the mind that his music was not, in fact, political. That's fine. But that view doesn't apply to all artists everywhere. |
Yara 11.05.2008 23:06 |
Yeahrrrrrrrrrooooooowwwwwwwww! That's exactly my point. Musicians draw inspiration from pretty much anything, even from Freddie's cat! Let's take your own example, Bob Dylan. There was rampant racism in the 60's, the war in Vietnam who people came to oppose, and so on. What Dylan did? Did he say: "Artists of America, we're waging a brutal war against Vietnam, there's racism everywhere, our rights are being denied, let's boycott America and stop playing until people change their minds"? No! In fact, he never said anything about the "causes" people engaged him in. He always tried to keep himself at a distance from both the official regime and the social movements - he tried to be just that: an artist, a musician. So what did he do? He played! lol And he played all around, and he got both booed and applauded, but he did his thing - he played to people. If people were there just having fun, as many times they were, or if people were there because of a political cause, was neither here nor there for him: he was playing to people and kept playing to people, all kinds of people from all sorts of background, until this very day. And with a bonus: he did a commercial and a song for Alycia Keys, which outraged many who had imprisoned him in that image of the "Protest artist". So, he's the perfect, quintessential example and illustration of what I'm talking about. And he did music, good music, inspired by many sources, from politics to literature. He played them all for those who wanted to listen: there are people who until today don't like him because they think he was a leftist, and so on, and so forth; there are people on the right who like him, there are people on the left who like him, and there are people from both sides of the political spectrum who hate him! He never played to please this or that ideological movement - he played to people, each one reacting differently to his songs. So, yes! That's what artists do! He played to hostile audiences, to fans, to people from all walks of life. And that's it. My thinking is: do your stuff, do your music, be happy to play it and avoid playing politics. I LOVE BRIAN MAY, I LOVE QUEEN, AND THEY NEVER MADE ANY MISTAKE. (teenage fanatic screaming |
Cygnus X-1 12.05.2008 06:22 |
Not releasing a 70's concert on DVD Not releasing a 70's concert on DVD Not releasing a 70's concert on DVD Not releasing a 70's concert on DVD ....to be continued.... |
kingogre 12.05.2008 06:48 |
Yara, you make many good points in your posts. However I feel I have to comment on some things you write. Bob Dylan has got many sides as an artist so its certainly not possible to pin-point him in any way. Still, while he avoided political topics during the late 60's and early 70's, he has certainly not been afraid make political stands in his music since. Hurrican is one of his most famous songs and has a very big political meaning, Infidels tackled political topics in many ways, the same can be said for Oh Mercy. On his last album Workingmans blues and Aint talking are two songs that openly deal with politics. He also devoted at least two and a half albums to religion in the late 70's and early 80's. Perhaps it would be more fitting to say that he has avoided the his spokesman of a generation-persona of the 60's than that he has avoided politics. I dont agree with you that politics and music should be two separate things. Every artist has to make up her or his mind by themselves on what they want to express in their music. Every aspect of life has or can have a political side. There can definitely be made an argument it it isnt better to make music about subjects that "matter", instead of commercial love songs. What you think of an artist taking a political stand depends a lot on whether you agree with that persons views or not. For example I enjoy the political songs of Bruce Springsteen and Ray Davies and even admire them for making it. However I can fully understand that someone who does not agree with them would rather be annoyed. Queen playing in Sun City is for me the ultimate low point in their career. While them playing didnt really make a difference in the struggle against apartheid and there definitely can be made an argument as you have done that there are many other places in the world and many other issues that are comparable to what happened in South Africa. However, the oppression in South Africa was based on race and situation during the 80's was extremely violent with people being murdered almost on a daily basis. Queen defied both the UN and in many aspects "the democratic world" when they played even though they were told not to. If Im not mistaken John at the time commented that "we cant be bothered with this, we have to make money". I still sincerely believe that they did what they did out of naivety, not least since Steven Van Zandt who was the leader of the Artists Against Apartheid later has said so. He had a meeting with them shortly after they came back and explained the situation and the band seemed genuinely regretful. Still imagining Freddie shouting: "You beautiful people of Sun City" to a lot of the people who were controlling or benefiting from the oppression and the violence sometimes leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth while watching for example an 80's Queen concert. Today it makes me somewhat proud as a Queen-fan that Brian and Roger has chosen to be very active in the fight against AIDs and raising awareness about the horrible situation with the disease in Africa. |
Yara 12.05.2008 08:07 |
I mean, it's so sad. lol The "causes" have become a marketing strategy for artists, which is shameful. I'm all for musicians drawing their inspiration from wherever they can. Bob Dylan, again, is the perfect example: he did what many could call political songs, and yet he was never an outspoken political person and systematically refused to be identified with ANY cause, and that DOES appear on his music too. I'm ALL for this lines from "It's allright, Ma": "A question in your nerves is lit Yet you know there is no answer fit to satisfy Insure you not to quit To keep it in your mind and not fergit That it is not he or she or them or it That you belong to." "Although the masters make the rules For the wise men and the fools I got nothing, Ma, to live up to." Yes, exactly correct. lol Just do your music, say what you wanna say, but, please, don't start playing politics, it's what I say to musicians. lol And there's more, actually. I do have some problems with some outright political songs. Yes, I do. Because I think the chances of art being hijacked by politicians, with musicians' support, become greater. So, if I sing the Magic Flute, and people call me to sing the Magic Flute in, I don't know, Apartheid South Africa, I go there and sing the Magic Flute. Now, if I have a song called "White men rule", well, it gets a bit delicate if I go play there. Because the whole point is: music is bigger than specific political contexts even when it addreses subjects of political interest. Example? Blowing in the wind. The Pope quoted the song. lol And, indeed, if Bob Dylan did that song in early Modern Europe, when the continent was being ravaged by wars of religion, people would have understood the song and many, I think many would have appreciated it. I think Erasmus would be a hell of a fan of Bob Dylan. Hahahaha. Now, serious, because I'm kidding but it's serious: the fact is that "blowin' in the wind" is so universal that you can sing it pretty much anywhere, at any time, without being affraid of identifying yourself with political regimes - and that's great. Now, I don't care if Queen went to South Africa knowing what was going there or not. Really. I think it's good they played there, not bad. Being bashed by the media everywhere, it was all too likely that they'll come to regret the whole thing, but I don't think they did anything wrong. Yes, making money, honey, people have to make money, earn it, deserve it: Queen played in South Africa because they were good. All conspired against them: gay lead singer, songs with a more humanitarian appeal, songs sexually charged and which gave many hints about Freddie's sexuality, and so on. I think it's great they went there, sang the whole thing and, if Freddie said, "hey, you beautiful people", then I love him even more for saying that, because I act on the assumption that everyone, as a human being, has a beautiful or good side. Remember "Live Aid", and Freddie was clever. What did he say? He said: "This song is dedicated for all the beautiful people here". Wasn't it so? And what he said next? "And it means ALL OF YOU, thanks for coming along". You see? He was not as idiotic as to think that there were no outright bastards in the audience - people who ill-treated their children or made all kinds of imoral stuff. He knew that, Freddie was not naive in this particular sense. But, you know, people who go to a concert, they may react to your music in very different ways and all people have the right to listen to music, why not? Prisoners, criminals, you name it. Music deals with people on a different level. It's sad that there are people who want to reduce it to politics. Politics is great. It's the sphere we need to resolve and articulate our differences in a reasonable way. At least that's what politics should be, to my mind. But music is a whole different thing. I LOVE BRIAN, I LOVE QUEEN, AND THEY NEVER MA |
Daniel Nester 12.05.2008 08:52 |
Yara, it's sad to say it, but now it's certainly you who sounds arrogant. And your logic is straining at the seams, talking about how Freddie was making an activist-type point by dedicating CLTCL to beautiful people? That was as important a moment as, say, people singing "We Shall Overcome" at civil rights rallies? Really? And making money from an all-white resort in an all-white regime is the same as making money off of middle-class college kids in Brazil? It's the same? Boy, do *I* disagree with that! And saying the Blowing in the Wind could be about anything, that's rich, too! Yes, 'n' how many years can some people exist Before they're allowed to be free? Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his head, Pretending he just doesn't see? You might look out into the streets of your own native Brazil and see how darker-skinned people are discriminated against. I'm sure you'll dismiss this Miami-Herald story as a bunch of BS as you did with the UK Independent's account of Sun City, but here's the link anyway: link So when darker-skinned people sing "Blowin' In the Wind" or "I Want To Break Free," they are using it as part of a political cause. Now, sure, there might be white supremacists singing the same songs somewhere else--maybe even across the street--but that's the risks true artists take. And it's also a measure of how smart people are. Yara, sometimes people write songs, books, and poems with the intention of liberation, of engaging with the world around them. And those works have entered the canon, the Great Works of the Eternity. Are you here worrying over whether Picasso's Guernica, which depicts the Nazi's bombing of Guernica, could be misused by some other cause, like pro-Nazis? Let others sort that out! Have some faith in humanity! Or do you dismiss, out of hand, any work of art anywhere that could be somehow construed as political? You've got a hard life ahead of you, then. You know why? Because, in this postmodern age, everything can mean everything! And so you might as well start meaning something to someone. Look around! Wake up! |
Daniel Nester 12.05.2008 09:00 |
link link (in case you don't have a copy of Strange Frontier, where Rogers sings this) But Dylan is a good example of someone who did write politically for the ages -- not just for Vietnam or whatever -- HE SAW THE BIG PICTURE. And that big picture is engaging with the world, not writing lyrics that could just mean anything to the listener. Dylan is a trickster, to be sure. But that doesn't mean he doesn't try to engage with the world of politics and people--he does. |
john bodega 12.05.2008 10:29 |
The Call. |
Serry... 12.05.2008 10:54 |
I've never seen word 'Serry' so many times on one page. |
gnomo 12.05.2008 11:38 |
Serry... wrote: I've never seen word 'Serry' so many times on one page.... she says she loves Brian, but I think she loves you too ... ;-) :-) |
kingogre 12.05.2008 13:43 |
Bob Dylan was actually part of at least one political cause that I know of, the artists united against apartheid. He can be seen in the video to Sun City for example. Freddie dedicating CLTCL to "all you beautiful people" was a part of his stage performance, Im sure Ive heard him do it in other concerts. |
Brian_Mays_Wig 12.05.2008 14:00 |
Whats wrong with GOFLB? Great song! Oh....I got totally bored after page 2. |
Yara 12.05.2008 16:51 |
It's interesting watching Bob Dylan's interviews all through the 60's. He heaps sarcasm on activists and is absolutely disdainful of the label of "protest song" or "socially engaged song". He mocks activists. He disdains the interviewers. He doesn't answer to a single question. Watching the documentary made by Scorcese was also helpful to understand what he was and is about. Then, I went through his chronicles and his latest interviews. Then, yes, things get rough: he displays a real disgust at the whole "protest culture" of the 60's. People got furious with him, people were saying that he had sold out. And he's not protesting against the Iraq war, I should say. I don't think he sold out because he never bought in. It's clear from his behavior in the 60's, from his interviews, from his chronicals and from his songs: one can pretend that those lines are not in "It's all right, ma", because they are: "that there is no she or he or it that you belong to", and, of course, "Gates of Eden", quite harsh criticism of social movements and political regimes, and then "Maggie's Farm", which is actually a song against a political engaged organizer. So, I couldn't think about a worst example for making the claim for musicians being engaged in causes than Bob Dylan. Appearing on a video is like going to Live Aid. It doesn't mean people give a damn about the cause behind it, they just do it - some are actually concerned about, others don't. Artists do these things for various reasons. Freddie did it for the right reason I guess, which was mainly "bring a smile to a sad face", like used to say; entertain people, bring them art and good music, whoever they happen to be. So, people are not boycotting South Africa right now. On the contrary: there are many who actually support politicians who made big promises they weren't able or willing to deliver. And the killing of gays and lesbians continues, among black people. Poverty among blacks is very serious. There's no Apartheid anymore, there's not a Big Enemy to blame anymore, and that's when things get rough: when you have to face reality and see that people can fail and harm each other and be corrupt and so on without the Big Enemy. And that's why I respect the work from Human Rights Organizations such as Human Rights Watch - they do the hard work. They go there document what's happening in the world. They come out with reports that leave people all around the globe outraged: I mean, the last report on Hizbollah's terrorist activities, it was met with huge hatred and disdain by lots of intelectuals and activists alike. And these are the same people who sing "Blowin in the wind" everywhere they go - but they think that, when their side is the one being violent, that's ok, because "the cause" justifies it. I think it was great that Queen played there. Musicians should not play politics. If you're invited to play, do it - all people deserve to listen to music. The people one may despise the most are still human beings. They may be moved or touched or entertained by your music, why not? You can't control people's reaction to your music. I think Queen going to Sun City was actually good, not bad: whenever there's a breach and artists who go against the grain - and Queen did in a lot of ways in regard to Apartheid, Freddie was gay and not really "white" - can come in and play their songs, that's good. It's so Freddie addressing the audience this way: it's a way of showing appreciation for the fact that people are taking time to listen to your music. It's anyone's guess what people's reaction will be, the musician can't control it - what he can't do, in my opinion, is the kind of political judgement which enables him to play here, but not there - he starts playing politics and sounding unfair to a lot of people. Freddie took risks in music. His persona and his stage performances were already risky enough. The videos, oh my! Even so, they managed to play there, in Sun Cit |
kingogre 13.05.2008 03:31 |
Yara, I personally feel you are diminishing what apartheid was by saying "yes, right but look what is happening to gay people". Apartheid was an extreme thing and the regime were not afraid of mass murder to keep their privilege. Sun City was at the time, rightfully so, a symbol of all this. It would be interesting to hear what you think about that Brian and Roger themselves today see it as a huge mistake and did so when they came back from the tour aswell. People are not boycotting South Africa today becuase it has a democratically elected government and a legal system that is equal for everybody, even though it has its problems, above all AIDs that the government has been critiscised for not taking serious enough. Bob Dylan has sure been taking political stands over his career. In the 80's he he had what some people would call an extreme sionist support of Israel. Bob Dylan has been likened to a chameleon and that says a lot about him, he has many sides and constantly reinvents his official persona. Saying that appearing in a video like the Artists United Against Apartheid is just something that someone does is completely off the mark. So Bruce Springsteen, Run DMC, Ringo Starr, Lou Reed, the Temptations, Afrika Bambaatta, George Clinton, Hall and Oates, Jackson Browne, Daryl Hannah, Peter Gabriel, Joey Ramone, Darlene Love, Bonnie Raitt, Keith Richards, Ron Wood, Jimmy Cliff and Pat Benatar may or may not have cared for the cause and just went along? It sure wasnt for publicity since the song was bannned om half the US radio stations and they knew full well that it wouldnt be. |
Yara 13.05.2008 09:23 |
Thanks for the very kind and thoughtful reply, kingogre. Well, you see, that's my problem with musicians playing politics, it's kind of...for me one should go and play their music (not propaganda) wherever they can and, of course, provided you're not asked to play what you don't wanna play (like, if Queen had been asked by Sun City guys to drop half of their setlist and play other tunes by other bands). Otherwise, I see no problem. I mean, and it's my personal, maybe naive view. I take these things into a historical perspective because I can't avail myself of personal memory and I don't trust the collective memory all that much - or, I do trust it, but it's usually so emotionally charged that it tends to highlight some evens instead of others. History puts everything in perspective and makes it all...well, relative in the sense that all events are related to certain injunctures and there are similarities among them and one can't really judge, from a historical perspective, what's worse: if it's post-apartheid Africa or Apartheid Africa. I like to think about History as more science-inclined - it makes us keep a healthy distance from the events in order to allows us to draw a faithful representation or narrative or whatever of what happened. So, in this sense, it's different from memory. I think it's a healthy perspective for musicians. If you think about it, the United States has been a democracy throughout - with slaves, then excluding a large part of its black population from the political and social life, and no one, I think, would argue that prior to, I don't know, the 1960's the U.S was not a democracy. I guess it was, much like Athens was a democracy too - for the free men. And the free men were not all men. That's Apartheid, in some sense. Apartheid was a democracy for white, free men - it wasn't for blacks, for sure. Now, the model of the modern "white" democracies (I mean "white" because it was thought up and advanced originally by people regarded as white: I don't think there are such things as races, and I think we're all human beings and this race thing is silly, skin color doesn't matter and there are more differences among those regarded as "white", genetically speaking, than between "blacks" and "whites", I guess) has been expanded to all South Africa. What happened? It seems the model isn't working, but now it's not because of the white oppressor, you see? So, people could boycott South Africa because, well, many black people have not been respectful of minorities - Freddie being a gay singer, it'd be right, for example, for Brian to boycot South Africa until it fulfills it's constitutional promisses. I mean, kingogre, is it reasonable? No! It's absurd! I mean, just like I think Brian should play anywhere he wants to and is invited to play, I think Queen had the same right and I still regard their going to Apartheid South Africa as something good. It fits my outlook, so to speak. So, yes, it's a very personal opinion and, you're absolutely correct, I am, to some extent, "diminishing" Apartheid in the sense that there's brutality and monstruosity pretty much everywhere, it's just that I can single out a tragedy and make it seem and look worse than everything else. Again, it's the way I think about these things, but I find perfectly fair that someone who was fought against apartheid as an activist should be disgusted or outraged by my remarks, and rightly so - and, believe me, I admire a lot the people who really fought against Apartheid. I really admire. Not appearing on a video, that's easy. For the people who struggled hard against the regime, I have the utmost admiration. Lot of them we don't know even the name of, but we're talking like, Bob Dylan. I don't think it's a good way of approaching this issue, but I deeply respect your opinion and comittment. Later, I'd like to talk about the other mistakes too! Like "Hot Space"! lol |
Killer Queenie 13.05.2008 11:46 |
louvox wrote: 10. Continuing on under the name Queen after Freddie's deathAs I heard // read somewhere (can't remember where), Brian and Roger are too old to start a NEW band. People wouldn't recognise them if they went by a new name unless they were die hard fans. Freddie wasn't the only member of Queen. He was the most well known, granted, but he wasn't the only member. Brian and Roger have every right to continue touring under the name "Queen". After all, without them Queen wouldn't have its signature guitar or drum sound, would it? |
Daniel Nester 13.05.2008 14:05 |
I can't believe I am actually reading someone minimize the effects of apartheid, and minimizing what artists do when they fight apartheid. |
kingogre 13.05.2008 15:27 |
Yara, thank for your kindness. It is always nice to have a discussion with this level of respect for each others views.:) I also feel you have to judge things by their historical context (most of the times as well). And at the time playing Sun City was seen as something very controversial. I agree with what you have to say about the rights of homosexuals completely. This is something that is found all over the world and isnt really very different from racism. I personally think we have emptied the subject of Queens Sun City concerts now, bring on Hot Space..;) |
Daniel Nester 13.05.2008 15:47 |
Yara, I assume your advocacy and championing of Human Rights Watch extends to Israel as well as Hezbollah? Such as rights violations in Israel’s unrecognized Bedouin villages, the killing of civilians in Gaza, and use of cluster bombs in Lebanon, to name just a few? And, here's a question: Would you just as OK with Queen or another artist playing at a resort inside the Palentinian-controlled territories? (If, that is, Isreal stopped bombing civilians to allow such a thing to happen?) Gets a little ambiguous sometimes, doesn't it? link |
Micrówave 13.05.2008 15:56 |
Yara wrote: Queen went to Sun City play to people. They didn't play "White men rule"But they should have played White Queen. No balls. |
Yara 13.05.2008 18:05 |
Hahaha. Good one. Touché. Or The March of the Black Queen to scare the guys. No balls either. ;-) Well, it doesn't, at all, and I'm really baffled (now, THIS is a fancy word!) by your answer because that's been my point throughout: play your music wherever you want and you're invited to play. I'm not willing, as I have said, to take the principle of collective responsibility from international relations to music. You see? Otherwise it does get ambiguous: back in the 80's, the U.S supported Saddam throughout what's been likely the most brutal period of his regime, the jihadists, and, well, the Apartheid Regime. It was the U.S which listed Mandela's party as a terrorist group. And many other brutalities. So, if American artists were so very serious about it, they should address one of the main causes of the problem, which happened to be at home - so they could simply boycott the United States. Simple and straightforward. Some, or a lot of them could go bankrupt, but, well, no one needs to be so serious about a cause, isn't it? And, frankly, you listed as one of Queen's biggest mistakes: FREDDIE not coming out as gay and Queen not getting back to tour in the U.S. Well, but, given all those brutalities supported by the U.S, shouldn't Queen have boycotted the States? Afterall, they were supporting the Apartheid and even listing the African National Party as a terrorist group! Does it sound reasonable? No. It sounds absurd. That's why, I think, one should play your music, not cheap propaganda, wherever one like: be it in Gaza, in Tel Aviv, just play your music. Music works according to a different logic than politics: you play to people as individuals. And I think it's great that it's so. And, obviouslly, even if one believes that Freddie had the duty of coming out as gay, which I don't think he had, it wouldn't be one of Queen's biggest mistakes. So, that's it. Now, Hot Space, finally! Well, I don't think it was a mistake. Not at all! For one thing - the argument which has been made that the album is patchy is flawed. The album is in fact very consistent and it has even an underlying musical concept unifying it. You may not like it, but the coherence, musical coherence, is there - and the album was very influential, for better or for worse. Michael Jackson's own words. So, no mistake, I guess, but of course that's fundamentally because I like the album. lol It's a mistake if you don't like it, fair play. :-) Buuut...there are people almost saying that "Hot Space, Works, Kind of Magic, Miracle, Innuendo and Made in Heaven" were all mistakes. Then, really, I guess I'm not talking to a Queen fan. Now, it's serious. It's like saying: I'm a die-hard Beatles' fan, but I don't like anything prior to or aflter Sgt. Pepper. It wouldn't make much sense. Or: I like Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road, the rest is trash. No beatles die-hard fan. You like some of Beatles' musics, a few of them, and that's it. You probably think they're great, but "fan", no. lol Being a fan is an honor. Being a fan is like...screaming, losing your sense of ridicule, shaking at the very thought of being able to be with your idol, getting uncritical at times (Daniel can feel vindicated!lol!), liking Delilah, that's a big-time, world-champion fan, like me. lol You know, I have this old-fashioned concept about fans. It may be stereothypical. But that's what fans always meant to me. Teenage girls screaming! That's absolutely essential for the success of a rock band. So, I'm proud of being a fan. :op LOVE YOU FREDDIIIIIEEE, YOU'RE STILL ALIVE THROUGH YOUR TALENT AND YOUR MUSIC. lol Did you guys learn how to do it? :-) Bye and thank you all for the delightful thread! Thanks, kingogre! |
Winter Land Man 13.05.2008 22:58 |
I never recall Michael Jackson saying Hot Space was an influence. |
Yara 13.05.2008 23:59 |
"Michael Jackson, who was close friends with the band during the time, later cited Hot Space as a building block for his own blockbuster album Thriller." (link And, in the entering for Queen: "Michael Jackson was a friend of Mercury's in the early 1980s and cited the Hot Space album as a driving influence behind the making of his 1982 album Thriller on which Mercury was originally scheduled to appear" (Wiki source here is "Freddie Mercury talks about Michael Jackson, Entertainment Tonight", (link -> Freddie does say here that he was even scheduled to be on Thriller, but time and so on didn't allow it. Though, to be fair, Brian May himself thought that "Hot Space" was a mistake: "It is an attempt to do funk properly. It has a style of playing where you get in and get out quickly, hence the title 'Hot Space'." "I think 'Hot Space' was a mistake, if only timing-wise. We got heavily into funk and it was quite similar to what Michael Jackson did on 'Thriller' a couple of years later and the timing was wrong. Disco was a dirty word. "We would experiment with the rhythm and the bass and drum track and get that sounding right, and then very cautiously piece the rest around it which was an experimental way for us to do it. In one track called 'Backchat', there wasn't going to be a guitar solo, because John Deacon, who wrote the song, has gone perhaps more violently black than the rest of us. We had lots of arguments about it, and what he was heading for in his tracks was a totally non-compromise situation, doing black stuff as R&B artists would do it with no concessions to our methods at all, and I was trying to edge him back towards the central path and get a bit of heaviness into it, and a bit of the anger of rock music. So one night I said I wanted to see what I could add to it - I felt that the song as it stood wasn't aggressive enough - it's 'Backchat', and it's supposed to be about people arguing and it should have some kind of guts to it. He agreed, and I went in and tried a few things. Possibly Fred was then getting interested in other things, and a bit bored with being in the studio because we did studios to death with the previous two albums, when we'd be in there for months on end, just working away, although we weren't particularly inefficient, it was just that there was a lot to be done. We all felt we'd done enough of that for the time being, and wanted to get back to basics and do something simpler, but Fred got to the point where he could hardy stand being in a studio, and he'd want to do his bit and get out." And Roger Taylor more or less agreed that the pop track Queen had been taking since "The Game" was not his cup of tea: Question: Of course, Bowie turned up much later in the Queen story for Under Pressure on the 1982's Hot Space album. Is there any truth to the story that you never liked Another One Bites The Dust and the funky musical direction on the Hot Space album? "Well, I actually helped John [Deacon] put Another One Bites The Dust together. But, no, that style of music wasn't my kind of thing. As I remember, it was Michael Jackson, in our dressing room, who first said we should release it as a single. I thought he was mad - turns out I was right - but I really couldn't see it as a single. But then the urban stations in the US picked it up, and so it had to be a single - and it sold about four million copies in America. How delightfully wrong can you be? But it wasn't where I was at, no. I always thought Hot Space was the worst album cover we eve did. Freddie and I thought it was going to be great, and it was absolute shit." And then, in the same interview, that Quote about Paul Rodgers, but put in its context: Jornalist makes the question, the guy has to answer: "Would Freddie have approved of Queen going back on the road with Paul Rodgers?" "He would love it [he says, immediately], because Paul was ge |
Brian_Mays_Wig 14.05.2008 08:47 |
Yara, you really need to get out more. |
The Real Wizard 14.05.2008 17:20 |
Brian_Mays_Wig wrote: Yara, you really need to get out more.Yeah... all that copying and pasting must have taken hours. Do something positive instead of picking fights with decent people. |
Yara 15.05.2008 10:28 |
*Bowing to the most distinguished knight* *flattered* |
john bodega 15.05.2008 22:54 |
AIDS. |
goinback 18.05.2008 02:26 |
Daniel Nester wrote: I think there's a lot of Queen fans out there who need to come to grips with the fact that they have been listening to music by a gay man. Gay gay gay! I mean, the band's name is Queen. But perhaps some people just don't want to know.As a gay guy, I know you hit the nail on the head there. As a classic rock fan on many bands' message boards, I've ironically never encountered as much homophobia as I have in Queen forums. Just bring up Freddie's sexual orientation in any Queen forum and the fighting begins...Queen fans to this day REALLY do not want to hear anything about it. You get the "I like Freddie's music so I don't care if he's gay...SO LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT IT!" argument all the time. If people really don't care that he was gay, then we'd be able to talk about it openly without people having to drop that line in all the time. Sadly, we still can't talk about it to this day. |
Daniel Nester 18.05.2008 17:20 |
Zebonka's AIDS post sort of bears this out. AIDS jokes are funny, don't you get it? Why? Because gay people are somehow less than human! As long as we think of gay people as being not real people, we can make jokes like this. My lord. Are these true Queen fans we're dealing with here, or a bunch of homophobes who've taken this board on as some hobby? |
Dusta 18.05.2008 20:36 |
I have often wondered this myself, and, rarely visit here, for this reason.
Daniel Nester wrote: My lord. Are these true Queen fans we're dealing with here, or a bunch of homophobes who've taken this board on as some hobby? |
louvox 19.05.2008 16:33 |
Killer QueenieYes, your right on some account, but you must agree that it's ridiculous at the same time to call them selves Queen without Freddie and John. Just like it would be ridiculous for Paul McCartney and Ringo Star go get back together with two others and call them selves "The Beatles". If whatever music they were making or performing were any good, it wouldn't matter what name the use. |
Yara 19.05.2008 18:03 |
Beatles disbanded before any of the guys died. It was their choice. I don't think it has anything to do at all with what happens to Queen. The guys were still together when Freddie died, and they decided to go on with the band they had created and which Freddie dedicated his last breaths of life to. They concluded it was Freddie's wish that the band didn't finish. Freddie didn't say: "Queen is over, let's disband". He recorded with the guys until his very last days. I think Brian and Roger have all the right to conclude that he didn't want the band to finish and that Queen perished. For those who don't think it's Queen anymore, it's ok, Brian himself said that there's "no Queen team without Freddie" and that, now, upon the release of a single, he says things like: "it still sounds like us, doesn't it?", obviously implying that "us" is not Queen as most people understand it. So, I don't think they're bastards, liars, imoral, hypocrit or whatever for going on with Queen. It's anyone's choice: Queen has a new audience to appeal to, the guys still want to do music, people may as well identify with Paul (I have). People who think it's not Queen and that they're marketing over a dead guy, won't - I hope, if people are coherent - buy the album not even pay to see them live, because that'd be contributing to an absolutely imoral or unethical situation. It's quite straightforward, I guess. |
maxpower 19.05.2008 21:20 |
the 1980's as a whole good singles, patchy albums in hindsight did an ACDC steadily got worse but remained a fantastic live act |
john bodega 20.05.2008 03:03 |
Daniel Nester wrote: Zebonka's AIDS post sort of bears this out. AIDS jokes are funny, don't you get it? Why? Because gay people are somehow less than human! As long as we think of gay people as being not real people, we can make jokes like this. My lord. Are these true Queen fans we're dealing with here, or a bunch of homophobes who've taken this board on as some hobby?AIDS. |
Freya is quietly judging you. 20.05.2008 19:19 |
I had AIDS once. |
Daniel Nester 21.05.2008 09:46 |
Yep. Assholes. Why be a Queen fan and make AIDS jokes? I just don't get it. Must be an Australian thing. Think I'm going to go over to the Prince boards and make slavery jokes. That should go over well. Anyhoo, I think anyone who is going to a QPR show and expects to meet Freddie Mercury are probably, as we say here in the States, a "special needs" person. The alternative suggestions are like those concerts by Anderson Wakeman Bruford and Howe, all members of Yes, a great band. Why not just call themselves Yes? It's gotta be a legal matter for them. As for Roger and Brian, this is where being in charge of all of their production, publishing, and name works in their favor. They call themselves Queen because they own it--lock, stock, and Jim Beach barrels. Case closed. Of course, owning all rights down to the floorboards of one's own career has its drawbacks--witness fans on other boards wanting boxed sets, live DVDs from the 70s, etc. It's all of a piece. |
Freya is quietly judging you. 21.05.2008 13:00 |
Yes. I'm clearly an australian. With AIDS. |
john bodega 21.05.2008 13:34 |
Daniel Nester wrote: Yep. Assholes. Why be a Queen fan and make AIDS jokes? I just don't get it. Must be an Australian thing. Think I'm going to go over to the Prince boards and make slavery jokes. That should go over well.Shine my shoes and pick my cotton. AIDS. Freya is quietly judging you. wrote: Yes. I'm clearly an australian. With AIDS.THRILL TO THE SOUND OF THE SONG PARAIDS |
Bri-Anns Permed Poodle 21.05.2008 18:45 |
2 Words: Paul Rodgers. I want this nobody out now. We want Freddie back!!!! xxx FREDDIE WAS AND STILL IS QUEEN. |
Yara 21.05.2008 18:47 |
Bri-Anns Permed Poodle wrote: 2 Words: Paul Rodgers. I want this nobody out now. We want Freddie back!!!! xxx FREDDIE WAS AND STILL IS QUEEN.If he's nobody, he's already out, so you don't have anything to worry about. :op It rhymed! lol |
The Real Wizard 21.05.2008 22:14 |
Great... just when the Treasure Moment guys seemed to have given their final hurrahs, an old troll has returned. |
luthorn 22.05.2008 01:19 |
Queen Archivist also know as blip blip blip Greg Brooks |
luthorn 22.05.2008 01:33 |
Yara wrote: lots of stuff i did not bother to readpontificate elsewhere please, or hook up with Zebonka to release your teenage angst - is there a fast forward botton on this thread? |
john bodega 22.05.2008 02:50 |
Release your teenage AIDS. |
Yara 22.05.2008 09:13 |
That I didn't have witnessed here yet. lol Living and learning. :-))) Luthorn want people to believe that I wrote that. I didn't. He made up the quotation. The intellectual debate is fine. Disagreement is great. But this, really, is sad. I can only feel sorry about such behavior. |
john bodega 22.05.2008 09:50 |
Oh cry me a river. |
Daniel Nester 22.05.2008 12:28 |
Hey guys, did you know Zebonka goes on Wikipedia pages and puts in inaccurate, sometimes cheeky, and at times even crude, information? Wow! No one does that! He's fucking crazy! And--get this--he puts text onto photos not his own with cheeky, and at times crude, comments on the people who are in the photos! It's crazy! I've never seen satire like this! Check out his website, man. It's fucking NUTS! |
Daniel Nester 22.05.2008 12:36 |
Actually, he reminds me of me when I was 17 years old. |
Serry... 22.05.2008 13:14 |
Daniel Nester wrote: Wow! No one does that!No-one! Never! |
luthorn 22.05.2008 13:51 |
Yara wrote: That I didn't have witnessed here yet. lol Living and learning. :-))) Luthorn want people to believe that I wrote that. I didn't. He made up the quotation. The intellectual debate is fine. Disagreement is great. But this, really, is sad. I can only feel sorry about such behavior.I rest my case. Zebonka is awaiting you now. Don't be shy, it's ok. |
john bodega 22.05.2008 14:05 |
Daniel Nester wrote: Hey guys, did you know Zebonka goes on Wikipedia pages and puts in inaccurate, sometimes cheeky, and at times even crude, information? Wow! No one does that! He's fucking crazy! And--get this--he puts text onto photos not his own with cheeky, and at times crude, comments on the people who are in the photos! It's crazy! I've never seen satire like this! Check out his website, man. It's fucking NUTS!You clicked it, dipshit. I don't know people like you get up in the morning. Daniel Nester wrote: Actually, he reminds me of me when I was 17 years old.You remind me a little of when I was 16. Incredibly uptight. |
Daniel Nester 22.05.2008 14:40 |
You clicked me, too, dipshit. Although I didn't spend FIFTY-ONE minutes reading about you. Just a few seconds. How's Perth this time of year, anyway. |
john bodega 22.05.2008 15:04 |
Daniel Nester wrote: You clicked me, too, dipshit. Although I didn't spend FIFTY-ONE minutes reading about you. Just a few seconds.Oh, arbitrary numbers! And in CAPITALS too! Now I know we're headed for something intellectual. Just a few seconds, then? Hehe. I have to wonder what you've picked up then... or indeed, if you have any concept of the word 'context'. No matter, onward ho! Daniel Nester wrote: How's Perth this time of year, anyway.Bit wet, entertaining nonetheless. Not sure how that's relevant, but I've come to expect observations about my location from odd jerks on this site. In fact you wouldn't be the first Dan from here to have a meaningless poke in that area! Ha-ha. It's certainly no less amusing than the last time... PS. AIDS. |
Freya is quietly judging you. 22.05.2008 19:54 |
My 12 hamsters, 3 dogs, 11 wolves, 8 owls, 14 rabbits, 5 pheasants and 7 goats all died of AIDS. |
Winter Land Man 22.05.2008 21:33 |
What's your favorite SOLAR song by any of the Queen members??? |
john bodega 23.05.2008 01:59 |
Freya is quietly judging you. wrote: My 12 hamsters, 3 dogs, 11 wolves, 8 owls, 14 rabbits, 5 pheasants and 7 goats all died of AIDS.It's like a Noah's Ark of AIDS :( Just like Freddie sang, though AIDS IN HEAVEN AIDS IN HEAVEN IT WAS ALL H I VEEEEEEEE AIDS IN HEAVEN AIDS IN HEAAAAAVEN. |
Winter Land Man 23.05.2008 04:27 |
That AIDS talk is getting really boring and immature now. |
john bodega 23.05.2008 05:06 |
Jacob Britt wrote: That AIDS talk is getting really boring and immature now.You're right, it's short-circuiting my hearing AIDS. |
Winter Land Man 23.05.2008 08:15 |
And you wonder why you can't get laid. Hmm. |
Freya is quietly judging you. 23.05.2008 09:53 |
Because he's got AIDS. |
john bodega 23.05.2008 12:46 |
Jacob Britt wrote: And you wonder why you can't get laid. Hmm.It's called having standards. You wouldn't understand. |
luthorn 23.05.2008 14:21 |
Zebonka12 wrote:LMAOFreya is quietly judging you. wrote: My 12 hamsters, 3 dogs, 11 wolves, 8 owls, 14 rabbits, 5 pheasants and 7 goats all died of AIDS.It's like a Noah's Ark of AIDS :( Just like Freddie sang, though AIDS IN HEAVEN AIDS IN HEAVEN IT WAS ALL H I VEEEEEEEE AIDS IN HEAVEN AIDS IN HEAAAAAVEN. |
Winter Land Man 23.05.2008 15:03 |
Zebonka12 wrote:Yes I do. But you mope and cry about it.Jacob Britt wrote: And you wonder why you can't get laid. Hmm.It's called having standards. You wouldn't understand. |
john bodega 23.05.2008 15:41 |
Jacob Britt wrote: Yes I do.Haha, that's a laugh. |
Winter Land Man 23.05.2008 15:46 |
Zebonka12 wrote:Why do you think I don't? What's so funny? Can you answer these three questions?Jacob Britt wrote: Yes I do.Haha, that's a laugh. |
john bodega 23.05.2008 15:50 |
Jacob Britt wrote: Why do you think I don't?Call it an educated guess. Jacob Britt wrote: What's so funny?Half of the people in this thread. Jacob Britt wrote: Can you answer these three questions?Certainly, but I'd like it if you'd ask me something more interesting. |
Winter Land Man 23.05.2008 16:37 |
Okay... What did you eat for breakfast? |
Freya is quietly judging you. 23.05.2008 18:00 |
AIDS. |
john bodega 24.05.2008 00:48 |
Jacob Britt wrote: Okay... What did you eat for breakfast?I had a crumpet. They're my thing at the moment. I suspect I'll get bored of them and move on in about a week. |
john bodega 24.05.2008 11:27 |
Freya is quietly judging you. wrote: AIDS.link (dances) |
its_a_hard_life 26994 24.05.2008 11:48 |
Zebonka12 wrote:Hahahaha. You are so fucking random. I love it. :DJacob Britt wrote: Okay... What did you eat for breakfast?I had a crumpet. They're my thing at the moment. I suspect I'll get bored of them and move on in about a week. |
john bodega 25.05.2008 07:39 |
its_a_hard_life wrote: Hahahaha. You are so fucking random. I love it. :DI really did have crumpets! I'd just like to know why AIDS doesn't actually qualify as a mistake. :/ |
joe90 04.06.2008 06:57 |
1. Bringing a keyboardist into their live acts. 2. Not touring the U.S after 82 3. Sun City 4. Releasing Hot Space after they had the U.S in the palm of their hands due to The Game. 5. Not releasing these songs as singles - Lap of the Gods(revisited) - Death on 2 Legs - 39 - Love of my Life - Long Away - Teo Torriate - It's Late (everywhere, not just the States) - Who Needs You - Mustapha - Machines - Princes of the Universe (everywhere) - Ride the Wild Wind |
mike hunt 05.06.2008 00:51 |
joe90 wrote: 1. Bringing a keyboardist into their live acts. 2. Not touring the U.S after 82 3. Sun City 4. Releasing Hot Space after they had the U.S in the palm of their hands due to The Game. 5. Not releasing these songs as singles - Lap of the Gods(revisited) - Death on 2 Legs - 39 - Love of my Life - Long Away - Teo Torriate - It's Late (everywhere, not just the States) - Who Needs You - Mustapha - Machines - Princes of the Universe (everywhere) - Ride the Wild WindIt's late and princess of the universe were released as singles in the states and both failed to chart. |
Holly2003 05.06.2008 09:00 |
It's Late was brutally edited. In fact, I can't believe Queen would let a single be released in that way. I think that explains to a large extent why it failed to chart. Are you sure about Princes? I picked up an import copy of the cd (from Holland) when I was in the States a few years ago* but I wasn't aware it was released as a single in the US. *2004? In any event. a decade after the AKOM LP was first released. |
john bodega 05.06.2008 09:16 |
joe90 wrote: 1. Bringing a keyboardist into their live acts |
PieterMC 05.06.2008 09:38 |
Holly2003 wrote: It's Late was brutally edited. In fact, I can't believe Queen would let a single be released in that way. I think that explains to a large extent why it failed to chart. Are you sure about Princes? I picked up an import copy of the cd (from Holland) when I was in the States a few years ago* but I wasn't aware it was released as a single in the US. *2004? In any event. a decade after the AKOM LP was first released.Princes was release in Australia, Japan and the US in 1986. The Dutch CD single was released in 2000. Australia: link USA: link Japan: link |
Holly2003 05.06.2008 09:50 |
PieterMC wrote:Thanks Pieter. I've always liked that song. Any clue as to why it failed to chart? Did any of the AKOM singles do well in the US?Holly2003 wrote: It's Late was brutally edited. In fact, I can't believe Queen would let a single be released in that way. I think that explains to a large extent why it failed to chart. Are you sure about Princes? I picked up an import copy of the cd (from Holland) when I was in the States a few years ago* but I wasn't aware it was released as a single in the US. *2004? In any event. a decade after the AKOM LP was first released.Princes was release in Australia, Japan and the US in 1986. The Dutch CD single was released in 2000. Australia: link USA: link Japan: link |
PieterMC 05.06.2008 10:15 |
Holly2003 wrote: Thanks Pieter. I've always liked that song. Any clue as to why it failed to chart? Did any of the AKOM singles do well in the US?No idea why it failed to chart. Considering how badly they did in the US in the 80s it has always amazed me how many promo 7", 12", CD promos for Queen exist for the US. There is a remarkable amount really. None of the US AKOM singles did well at all. Princes of the Universe: Did Not Chart A Kind Of Magic: #42 Pain is So Close To Pleasure: Did Not Chart |
danwhite89 13.06.2008 23:48 |
Right.... 1) Not accomadating to the more loyal fans, instead making endless remixes of the popular songs, compilation after compilation, basically trying to drag in more new fans. Sure, creating an "Unreleased Songs" album or two might hurt them a bit financially, but it's what a lot of the more hardcore fans want, and all it would be to them is a tiny hole in their pocket. 2) The "Queen +" projects. Similar to point number 1, it basically meant Roger and Brian rode off more popular artists of now's backs to try and gain even more publicity. Sure, a Britney Spears fan might see her collaborate with Queen and suddenly spark a minor interest in the band, but it just kills Queen's soul bit by bit. 3) Freddie not being more careful. Ok a personal one more than about the band, but come on, we can't help but wonder what would have happened if Freddie was more careful then. 4) Not making a Soundtrack album and Studio album seperately in 1986. Who knows, the Studio album might not have come until a year later. But we know of the break they took in 1987, and I think if they'd concentrated on a decent soundtrack album, with snippets of Princes and AKOM, and then the year after have the full versions, plus 8-9 more songs written, we could have had a better product that the AKOM album. 5)Ditching Roy Thomas Baker. He was way better than Mack. 6) The over-use of synths. Sure, they were trying to not get behind with the rest of the pack and blend in with the 80s sound, but some songs that overused synths were just too much for me, especially when they could have replaced synths with an actual piano (grand of electric), organ or anything else. I'm looking at Save Me, Who Wants To Live Forever, and even the non-synth version of Play The Game (live version) was better than the single. 7) The Miracle. In my opinion it's one of the worst albums they had, and sure there was some decent tracks on it (I'm partial to Scandal and Was It All Worth It), but some other songs were just utter naff. Not really worth it, and especially not worth the 3 year wait fans would have had to endure to get it. 8) Making Hot Space too pop-orientated. Sure, they wouldn't to delve into that area of music because of the success of Another One Bites The Dust and Dragon Attack, but they made the direction change too obvious, and never really recovered. I can imagine some (notably Brian) would have had difficulty making the transition, as Dancer is pretty poor and Put Out The Fire is the attempt to restore some rock into the album. If they'd made it a little more subtle, maybe keep in a couple of proper rock songs (well, as 'rock' as Queen got in the 80s) and at least keep some of the old Queen sound. For the record, I like the album, I think there are a few catchy songs, and I think Action is my most played song on my itunes, oddly enough... 9) Releasing Under Pressure instead of Feel Like. Hey, I like the original >_> I think that's my list for now. However I'll comment on others. I think Princes was nice only to have it as a single in the USA. Not because I dislike the song, but it made sense, given that Highlander came out in the US a few months before the UK. The band had to release a song and didn't see it fit to release a song with its main focal point around the film in the UK, when the film wouldn't be out for a while. MOTBQ I think could have been edited to be able to just listen to it on its own without the seguing part, but then again, the only way that would have happened is if the band wanted to release it as a single. Alas, they didn't, leaving it only as an album song, and that's the way albums worked in those days. Remember, they didn't have CDs so they had to make the album strong enough to keep the listener listening all the way through, and with this theory, the song works fine the way it is. It's Late is a fantastic song, but I don't think it loses any merit for not being released. It can be left the way it is as |
Mr.Jingles 25.06.2008 08:54 |
Yara wrote: And he did music, good music, inspired by many sources, from politics to literature. He played them all for those who wanted to listen: there are people who until today don't like him because they think he was a leftist, and so on, and so forth; there are people on the right who like him, there are people on the left who like him, and there are people from both sides of the political spectrum who hate him!People don't hate Dylan because of his political views, they hate him because his voice is fuckin' annoying, and the music sucks. He should have stuck to poetry instead. |
nuncjusz 12.07.2008 18:46 |
Russian Headlong wrote: Despite the band being above criticism by many, myself included at times here are some things I wish Queen had done/not done. I know they have not damaged a glittering career, just my personal view: 1. Put Tie Your Mother Down on Greatest Hits instead of GOFLBNot relevant. This is only a compilation for god's sake! A compilation of highest charting singles. If you don't like it, then make your own compilation, you have CDrippers, Neros and all the nesecarry stuff. 2. Got involved with 5ive, hugely embarassing! Everything that Queen have done without Freddie is irrelevant for me, as this is not Queen anymore. 3. That Pepsi advert, ditto As above. 4. Robbie Williams, we are the Champions collaboaration, truly awful. Also as above. 5. Hot Space- Terrible pop pap! I couldn't disagree more. It's one of my favourite Queen albums, I don't like only one song on it - Cool Cat, and I'm not also keen on Action This Day (although live version are cool), but this album got me into Queen so I'll always have a sentiment for it. But of course I can understand everyone who doesn't like it, it's SOO different... 6. Not releasing Princes of the Universe as a single in UK It is irrelevant for me if a song was released as a single or wasn't. The best Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd songs were never released as singles and nobody cares, and never reached tops of the charts, but who cares? 7. Not releasing It's late as a single in the UK. It is to long to be a single and had it been cut, It wouldn't bee the same cool song anymore. 8. Not editing March of the Black Queen so you can listen to it as a separate piece of music without it seguing into another song. Would love to have seen a video for this epic song. As somebody else said before me, Queen II is perfect because of its unity, it is perfect as a whole, there is no need to edit anything, it would only ruin the effect. The video? Come on! There are several good songs that could have been great with a video, but you can't have 'em all! 9. The con of the Miracle. Promised to be a harder sound but badly let down by shit like Rain Must Fall, Invisible Man 12", My Baby does me! Of course, it is poppy at times, but this is still MUCH better pop then on "A Kind Of Magic". Rain Must Fall and My Baby Does Me are no masterpieces but cool songs to ease off the album, and The Invisible Man is one of the coolest Queen songs EVER. Used to be my favourite when I was a kid. 10. Never doing Monsters of Rock at Donington I'm not from Brittain and I don't remember those times, so I won't say anything about that. For me, their biggest mistake was that they turned their back on the U.S. I don't know what was the real reason ("IWTBF" video? c'mon!), but they still had plenty of fans there, they played everywhere, yet left the States. I think that live shows could easily revive their reputation. Remember that already in 1982 fans and media were often hostile towards "Hot Space" and some new songs, but live shows won it for them, and they were always greeted with joy and excitement. I'm sure that it would be no different in the States. |
steven 35638 12.07.2008 23:12 |
I whole heartedly agree with the above post. Queen should never have stopped touring in the United States. The band spent years upon years touring here and then, due to some misfortune, decided to call it quits. Had they continued to tour here I feel they would have saved their reputation. I wish to bring A Kind of Magic to the forefront of this discussion for a moment. Is there anybody out there who thinks the album was slightly awkward? My opinion is undecided. |
MercuryArts 13.07.2008 10:41 |
Awkward is a very PC way of describing that album. Some of us who remember the good old days before being forced to be PC and could say what was really on our mind would say it sucked ass! ;) |
steven 35638 13.07.2008 11:18 |
Fair enough, I suppose. However, I do think the album had some wonderful highlights -- such as One Vision and Who Wants To Live Forever. The only two downfalls would be the artwork and overall structure of the album. The artwork is original, but there's something about it I don't like. The structure is awkward probably because the album is so diverse -- hard rock, soul, pop, and epic rock (for lack of a better term). I suppose the album doesn't feel complete whenever I listen to it. It's like there's no real conclusion, nothing connects well. I understand it was the soundtrack to Highlander, but the additional songs that were not a part of the movie simply makes the record sound odd. |
danwhite89 17.07.2008 23:46 |
Problem with AKOM, firstly your artwork issue, it reminds me too much of the genie from Aladdin :). But the album was originally a soundtrack album, and then they decided to extend the snippets they had done into full tracks (I remember an interview from John saying that One Year Of Love was about 1 minute long, stretched to its album length). So yeah, they didn't really make the album as a true studio album, just changed it to a studio album from a soundtrack album halfway through. |
Daniel Nester 18.07.2008 10:18 |
I think Hot Space is a much more cohesive album than A Kind of Magic. |
john bodega 18.07.2008 13:09 |
Steven wrote: I wish to bring A Kind of Magic to the forefront of this discussion for a moment. Is there anybody out there who thinks the album was slightly awkward? My opinion is undecided.Much more than slightly. They were headed in the right direction, I believe, in reworking songs from the film for use on an album. I don't think they went far enough. There was a raft of good orchestral music from the film that could've been reused... maybe not in the context of a soundtrack album exactly but as a concept album. Actually, that probably would've bombed. Commercially speaking it's not a strong idea but there was good music there and more could've been made with it. Queen + Kamen. Wooo. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Magic album is lazy. I don't think it would've hurt to have held onto it for a bit longer. |
Sunshine__123456 23.07.2008 04:13 |
I agree with the things mentioned above, but what about the present? What about forgetting Queen's rich musical history and only focussing on rock, presenting Queen as being a kind of mainstream rockband with only space for Brian's guitar? I think it is really sad to see. I miss the mixture of styles that was always there, on every album. I hope to hear some new things on the new album, i hope for new musical directions Queen hasn't seen in the Freddie era. Let's see what Paul can contribute on songwriting, not writing standard songs like C-lebrity. I think it is weakest Queen track ever. |
kingogre 23.07.2008 11:06 |
Zebonka12 wrote:Agree very much with this. Its an OK album even by Queen standards but it is really only a collection of what songs they had recorded. All of their 80s albums have a kind of "lazy" feel. While the band is far from lazy when compared to many other bands it seems they werent as ambitious with the albums as before. All of the 80s albums have great potential and contain fabulous tracks but they could have been amazing if the band had really focused on them.Steven wrote: I wish to bring A Kind of Magic to the forefront of this discussion for a moment. Is there anybody out there who thinks the album was slightly awkward? My opinion is undecided.Much more than slightly. They were headed in the right direction, I believe, in reworking songs from the film for use on an album. I don't think they went far enough. There was a raft of good orchestral music from the film that could've been reused... maybe not in the context of a soundtrack album exactly but as a concept album. Actually, that probably would've bombed. Commercially speaking it's not a strong idea but there was good music there and more could've been made with it. Queen + Kamen. Wooo. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Magic album is lazy. I don't think it would've hurt to have held onto it for a bit longer. My guess is that the soloalbums and other projects can be partially blamed, some songs that would have been great on Queenalbums ended up elsewhere. They were still an extremely hardworking band with endless tours, hit singles and many side-projects. But its like their energy went elsewhere than recording masterpiece albums. Cant blame them at all but still its a bit sad. |
Marknow 30.07.2008 20:48 |
They should have kept Morgan Fisher. |
Marcos Napier 06.08.2008 10:53 |
1 - blah blah blah Hot space 2 - blah blah blah Paul Rodgers 3 - ... *skip* 10 - having smart and intelligent [sic] fans that turned a somehow funny thread into a sociology thesis about gayness and rock and roll. |
john bodega 06.08.2008 12:18 |
Marcos Napier wrote: intelligent [sic]Isn't that how you spell intelligent, though? |