| Soul Brother 08.09.2008 16:09 |
The Cosmos Rocks album has been reviewed by the BBC's Chris Jones. A very lukewarm review which you would have to say would probably equate to 2 stars out of 5. Review is at: link |
| Legy 08.09.2008 16:40 |
Why am I not surprised? The press continues to hate. What's new. |
| beautifulsoup 08.09.2008 17:45 |
What will Brian say? :P |
| Bad Seed 08.09.2008 17:45 |
I think thats quite a decent review. |
| Ray D O'Gaga 08.09.2008 19:17 |
"A very lukewarm review which you would have to say would probably equate to 2 stars out of 5." That's your editorializing. Having read it for myself, the review seems well on the "warm" side. Far from "scalding", but well past "lukewarm". Again, your bias, sir or madam. Struck me as more of a 4 stars out of 5. Far from revolutionary but a damn good time. |
| ggo1 09.09.2008 00:00 |
Thats not a two star review... Its better than that. Not sure what you expect from the reviews but I think that is fairly positive. 3 star review if you ask me. At least the guy has listened to it, half the time I swear they don't. |
| john bodega 09.09.2008 03:02 |
Who the hell called this a 2 star review? It sounds more than fair, judging by what I've heard of the album so far. |
| Soul Brother 09.09.2008 03:54 |
Don't get me wrong, I'm gonna get the album and I'm going to a few gigs - I think what I've heard so far of the album is great and can't wait to get it. I want it to be a 5 star review everywhere. I've read many reviews in my time and sorry folks, I would say that this just ain't a great review. The Mojo review was very good and that only made 3 stars and I sense a 4 star review coming up from Classic Rock (watch this space). Unfortunately reviews are just the views of one person you've got to remember that. Don't shoot the messenger! Maybe on hindsight this could perhaps slip into a 3 star review which in most cases would make it 'good' but you can sense this reviewer is perhaps warm to the fact that the lads still want to give it a go, but doesn't really take to the album. |
| wilk 09.09.2008 12:52 |
"pop genius John Deacon"? |
| 4 x Vision 09.09.2008 14:21 |
Your not the messenger though Soul Brother... you're the one saying it's "lukewarm" and "2-star"... you're title is what drove my curiosity to reading this review! I think it's quite a fair and in parts flattering review. For the first time, I may actually be looking forward to hearing The CRs. |
| YourValentine 09.09.2008 15:06 |
This review is very fair and balanced and hits the nail on the head in many ways. In fact: who wants to begrudge Brian, Roger, Paul Rodgers and the fans a little fun. This sentence makes a lot of people who get all wound up over the QPR project look bitter. It's just a bloody record :) I had to smile about the "pop genius", too. |
| brians wig 10.09.2008 03:33 |
The reviewer thinks "Time To Shine" is outstanding. Take no heed. He doesn't know what he's talking about! |
| kingogre 10.09.2008 03:57 |
Strong three stars if you ask me. |
| danwhite89 10.09.2008 05:32 |
2 stars would have a negative review, in my opinion. This review is certainly not negative. Easy 3 stars. |
| Markman38 10.09.2008 05:38 |
Well the review in the Uncut is very very clear and not what many fans want to read |
| Sheer Brass Neck 10.09.2008 11:35 |
Just read the Uncut review on line, not pretty. The US music website Idolator called the idea of Q+PR one of the worst ideas in music history, so it's apparent that they're going to get roasted. If they do get roasted from critics, this will be why. From the BBC review: "Rodgers' lyrics always relied on the more hoary old cliches in rock's thesaurus." Very true. The always witty and usually sensible Microwave commented on another thread about rather hearing a Bad Company album with PR singing than hearing an album with Brian and Roger singing. Agreed, from a pure vocal perspective. But if Paul Rodgers, the writer, is involved? Cliche City, here we come. "In fact too often songs start like the mid-paced Bad Company country rockers (Some Things That Gliitter) and lack Freddie Mercury's baroque flourishes that would have stretched the band beyond mere efficiency." Many people here, including the aforementioned Microwave, and Sir GH, who should know better, defend Paul Rodgers' totally awesome vocal prowess when defending the use of the Queen name and the new project. However, it was Freddie as a singer and writer who provided the opportunity to move into musical directions because of his versatility, that Q+PR can't go in. To many, that versatility was what set Queen apart from everyone. There will be no arguing that the singing and playing will be first rate on the new album, but I sense the writing and styles of writing are going to be pretty weak. IMHO. |
| kingogre 10.09.2008 12:25 |
Rodgers is versatile, no doubt about it.Probably one of the few singers who along with Freddie can handle many styles equally good. As a writer he has been very consistent through the years and always delivered. If you think it sounds clichéed I honestly think its because you havent listened enough, like the reviewers in most of these magazines. (They dislike Freddie even more if thats the point youre trying to make.) Im a regular reader so I know how these reviews generally look like. Just watch out for the zero stars in Rolling Stone in a week or something. Paul knows his style, he knows what he wants to do and hes great at it. I actually think what upsets most people is that he doesnt sound like Freddie. |
| john bodega 10.09.2008 13:14 |
No, as someone who thinks Paul Rodgers is a great singer I can tell you that I think the LEAST of his problems is that he doesn't sound like Freddie. I just gave 'Still Burnin' a listen so I could comment on whether or not the slide solo sucked, and I was only listening for a short while before Rodgers lets loose a big, fat, sleazy "OHH YEAAAAH". Virtually the same "OOOOHHH YEAAAAAH" I saw him do during 'C-Lebrity' on the Al Murry Show. That's not got anything to do with Freddie - it's a stylistic thing. Not everyone likes unimaginative "OH YEAAAAAHS" in their music, which is obviously something Paul Rodgers is bringing to the table. I'm going to give the album a few listens when it's out, it's the least I can do... I don't think people should be so surprised if the songs get poked at for being clichéd, because clichéd is what they are. At least when it comes to the lyrical content I've seen. |
| kingogre 10.09.2008 13:21 |
Wasnt really referring to you, as I think you seem like very resonable guy.But some of the critiscism seem to be aiming at his difference from Freddie and how different it sounds from the old Queen, something that I find strange. Of course, people are not going to like this for good reasons. I agree with you on the lyrics, with their experience as songwriters Id think you could expect more. But generally if you dont like classic rock, blues or are more into Queens pop-songs I do not think youd enjoy this at all. I do, and I actually find it really good. Some of it is as good music as any of thems ever done, some tracks Im not all that crazy about. |
| Another Roger (re) 10.09.2008 15:59 |
"Not everyone likes unimaginative "OH YEAAAAAHS" in their music, which is obviously something Paul Rodgers is bringing to the table" Bohemian Rhapsody: "Oohhhh, Ohhhh ohhhhh, Oh yeah, Oh Yeah. Nothing really matters..." |
| kingogre 11.09.2008 02:46 |
Freddie was more than fond of putting his "Hey"s and "Yeahs" everywhere on both records and in shows during 80s aswell. |
| kdj2hot 11.09.2008 12:53 |
Freddie's dead, he's never coming back. Don't one. Don't defend this album based on wanting Queen to continue, the spirit of the music of Queen that brought everyone to this website is gone. Based on what I heard if Queen and Paul Rodgers never make another album again that would be fine by me. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 11.09.2008 13:18 |
This is the time where all of the tired arguments about "who Quen is" come home, and people who said that "Queen is whoever they say they are", realize how foolish their argument was. Whether the album is the greatest album of all-time or the worst album of all-time, it's not a Queen album, never was going to be and never will be. Why? Because of the things that Freddie (and John) brought to the band. This album had Bad Company written all over it from day 1. Paul Rodgers greatest strength is his voice, not his writing and versatility. So if you remove Freddie's weird key choices and eclectic influences, you have an album liek TCR, which could be written and played by a thousand other bands. Queen music was not like any other bands. The fact that every review to date comments on how pedestrian it is reflects poorly. |
| Holly2003 11.09.2008 13:53 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: This is the time where all of the tired arguments about "who Quen is" come home, and people who said that "Queen is whoever they say they are", realize how foolish their argument was. Whether the album is the greatest album of all-time or the worst album of all-time, it's not a Queen album, never was going to be and never will be. Why? Because of the things that Freddie (and John) brought to the band. This album had Bad Company written all over it from day 1. Paul Rodgers greatest strength is his voice, not his writing and versatility. So if you remove Freddie's weird key choices and eclectic influences, you have an album liek TCR, which could be written and played by a thousand other bands. Queen music was not like any other bands. The fact that every review to date comments on how pedestrian it is reflects poorly.Yes, Queen with Freddie Mercury is gone, and this is now Queen with Paul Rodgers. Hardly any need for a news bulletin on that. As for the reviews, Queen got mostly lukewarm and pedestrian reviews throughout their career: does that mean they were poor? |
| deleted user 11.09.2008 14:07 |
Queen LPs were always ripped by Rolling Stone (some for good reason). Yet, the RS review of 'The Miracle' was glowing. Go figure. |
| ivegotahorn 15.09.2008 06:03 |
I said most of what I wanted to say about the reviews and the album itself on another thread, but reading this one, something else has come up. One bit of that review that stuck out, to me, was "Call Me If You Need My Love is essentially Can't Get Enough Of Your Crazy Little Thing Called Love". My first thought was "This is just Can't get Enough for Queen", but then a verse caught my attention: "Now I'm gonna settle down Get myself a wife or two No more of this running around Like I used to do" It suddenly struck me that this wasn't copying Can't Get Enough, it was a sequel to it! I dunno if I'm right, but it's a fun thought. Very tongue-in-cheek. You can even hear them laughing at the end of the track. These critics really take things far too seriously. Brian, Roger and Paul aren't taking themselves too seriously. They're just doing what they do and having fun with it, aren't they? |
| nuncjusz 15.09.2008 13:11 |
As for the reviews, Queen got mostly lukewarm and pedestrian reviews throughout their career: does that mean they were poor?
Queen got many lukewarm reviews but they were critisized for pomosity, over-production, too much risk taking with different genres and lyrical themes and trying to make everything larger then life. They were NEVER criticised for being simple and unimaginative and sounding alike other bands (well maybe except Queen I), like they are now. |
| David Jones 15.09.2008 13:38 |
I think thats a very fair review. I can't help but think of Derek Smalls when I hear the word "lukewarm". |
| gnomo 15.09.2008 14:28 |
ivegotahorn wrote: a verse caught my attention: "Now I'm gonna settle down Get myself a wife or two No more of this running around Like I used to do" It suddenly struck me that this wasn't copying Can't Get Enough, it was a sequel to it! (...) They're just doing what they do and having fun with it, aren't they?Nice thought, I have a feeling you can't be much off the mark...! |