| mickyparise 19.09.2008 17:08 |
Another bad review......amazing The Cosmos Rocks Queen and Paul Rodgers Parlophone/EMI THERE'S a strange, ambient whine at the beginning of this album that culminates in a spooky, unearthly voice asking: "What planet is this?" Just who or what is behind it isn't explained, but if I were a betting man I'd say it was Freddie Mercury, somewhere in the great beyond, showing an unwarranted amount of tact about the drivel he and the living are being asked to endure on the rest of this CD. This re-emergence of Queen is concrete proof that, despite the ancient adage to the contrary, the show needn't go on. What we have is two-thirds of the remaining Queen line-up -- guitarist Brian May and drummer Roger Taylor -- teaming up with former Free and Bad Company singer Paul Rodgers, not only in performance but also as co-writers. Presumably good taste prevented bassist John Deacon from coming out of retirement. "We have the whole town rockin' to the mighty power of rock'n'roll," chimes the throaty Rodgers on the abysmal opener, Cosmos Rockin', a routine 12-bar affair that makes Status Quo sound weighty. The following prog-rock shuffle, Time to Shine, is even more embarrassing, sounding like a forced marriage between REM and This is Spinal Tap. It doesn't get much better. Most of the problems lie in the fact that in Queen's glory days Mercury could turn the banal (take the stand, Taylor's Radio Ga Ga) into something gloriously camp and exciting. Rodgers, on the other hand, is a fine blues-rock singer, but it would take more than a sparkly Spandex unitard to get him out of this mess, much of it, lyrically at least, of his own making. There are a couple of exceptions. The tribute to Mercury, Some Things That Glitter, has a suitably soulful performance from the frontman, while May's guitar riffs and licks peak on the Zeppelinesque C-lebrity. "Next thing you know they'll be rockin' out in space," Rodgers squeals early on. "Not to this we won't be," aliens will surely respond. link |
| Mr Mercury 19.09.2008 17:24 |
"What we have is two-thirds of the remaining Queen line-up" Proof that some Aussies cant fucking count. |
| Winter Land Man 19.09.2008 17:24 |
MARS NEEDS WOMEN! |
| im_on_the_wembley_dvd 19.09.2008 17:27 |
made my blood boil - went on their page and sent the dick who wrote this a pointless reply... much like his review |
| im_on_the_wembley_dvd 19.09.2008 17:29 |
Jake have you been on steriods again.. lol |
| Treasure Moment 19.09.2008 17:51 |
well the reviewer is right. I would be ok with it if it wasnt called Queen+ but now it is and it shouldnt have beem since it has nothing to do with Queen, then again, who are they kidding? people know what sounds like Queen and what doesnt. |
| P-Staker 19.09.2008 18:22 |
Here's my review of the review: "This review starts to a slow opening, fumbling for its first lame joke until, somewhat nervously, it builds up to mentioning "Freddie Mercury." The reader is then left to endure bad puns and stock wit for the rest of the text. Presumably the review was intended as snappy, but it comes off a bit dull and random. Routine nastiness would attract ridicule rather than rage on your average internet forum, and blatant observation about 2/3 of Queen are only good for a - yawn. Luckily, the reviewer ends soon afterwards - presumably, not to go practice guitar. In all fairness, the review has some inadvertenly funny moments - the reviewer's comic ignorance of music styles and bands, and his half-assed praise of Freddie, proving once again the only consistent aspect of reviewers is their inconsistency. Not long ago, his kin, ashamed to admit their homophobia and xenophobia, wrote half-assed rubbish like this targeted at Fred's "talent", but now they've forgotten that. Hm, what's that they say about the brain of the goldfish? Final verdict Style 1/10 Substance 1/10" |
| shieldmatron 19.09.2008 19:05 |
Mr Mercury wrote: "What we have is two-thirds of the remaining Queen line-up" Proof that some Aussies cant fucking count.Actually, Mr. Mercury, that Aussie can count. Since the reviewer is talking about the original lineup, two-thirds is May and Taylor. The other third is Deacon. |
| Knute 19.09.2008 21:06 |
Ahh yet another "Freddie's gayness and campness is what's missing" type review. Seems like that's all these critics obsess about. They all seem to forget that Freddie was quite macho for a gay man. Maybe they would be more accepting of Q+PR if Paul donned a pink tutu on the front cover. I dunno? |
| Queenfred 19.09.2008 22:21 |
Mr Mercury wrote: "What we have is two-thirds of the remaining Queen line-up" Proof that some Aussies cant fucking count.Proof that some Brits can't fucking read. |
| Brian_Mays_Wig 19.09.2008 23:51 |
I have to say...I somewhat agree with the review! |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 20.09.2008 05:01 |
Brian_Mays_Wig wrote: I have to say...I somewhat agree with the review!ditto |
| Bo Rhap 20.09.2008 05:20 |
shieldmatron wrote:HA HA You're a fucking tit.There was four in the original line-up.So how could Brian and Roger be two thirds.Mr Mercury wrote: "What we have is two-thirds of the remaining Queen line-up" Proof that some Aussies cant fucking count.Actually, Mr. Mercury, that Aussie can count. Since the reviewer is talking about the original lineup, two-thirds is May and Taylor. The other third is Deacon. |
| BigJ 20.09.2008 05:32 |
The review seems pretty much spot on to me. The new album is abysmal. |
| Mr Mercury 20.09.2008 06:17 |
Like every other review I have read, I couldnt care less about it. I like the new stuff. I dont like all of it, but then again, I have never liked all the songs on previous Queen (or Free / Bad Co for that matter) albums. |
| Mr Mercury 20.09.2008 07:43 |
Jake wrote: MARS NEEDS WOMENMaybe Mars needs useless "reviewers" as well..... |
| Hitman1965 20.09.2008 08:22 |
Treasure Moment wrote: well the reviewer is right. I would be ok with it if it wasnt called Queen+ but now it is and it shouldnt have beem since it has nothing to do with Queen, then again, who are they kidding? people know what sounds like Queen and what doesnt.This is becoming boring and more than a little pointless in repeatedly trying to convince people who clearly enjoy Queen and Paul Rodgers in to thinking otherwise. How I'd love to lock you in a room with Brian, Paul and Roger so you could sort out your issues. Are you going to a concert on this tour? Have to bought a copy of the new album? How can you have such a negative opinion? If you dislike all that is Queen and Paul Rodgers can we please have the detailed reasons why backed up with some really sound evidence for once instead of just stating Freddie is fantastic etc... We all know and appreaciate the Freddie era you don't have to convince anyone of that; what you need to develop is a better argument on why you dislike the current situation so much. Your opinions are important but only if you can justify them in a convincing way to others. If you fail to convince people then the opinion is less important. |
| alexownworld2 20.09.2008 09:40 |
Guys, I'm very much agree with the reviewer and below is the reason. Queen, as a band, have died in 1991. No more Queen. This is fact. May and Taylor are great musicians, but Queen was not only a summ of four of them (Freddie, Brian, Roger and John). Queen was MUCH MORE! May and Taylor can creat good and sometimes great stuff (just listen to some of their solo albums), but they didn't titled the stuff as Queen. And that was right, because it wasn't Queen! Some of the songs from The Cosmos Rocks are good enough. I personally like Time To Shine, Small, We Believe, Voodoo, C-lebrity and Through The Night. Really good music. Good......, if we forget what is written on the front cover.... Sorry, but rest is crap. Guys, THIS IS NOT QUEEN and HAS NOTHING TO DO with our great group! The album should be titled as Rogers+May+Taylor and only this way it may be treated. In this case I would give the album 7 stars (out of 10). This is my personal opinion, but I beieve, the only reason why May and Taylor name themself as Queen is MONEY. Sad but true. Once again I repeat, this is my opinion. |
| maxpower 20.09.2008 09:44 |
because most Queen fans are so far up their own arses & slam everything Queen & Paul Rodgers orientated if it was down to those types ACDC would never have carried on with Brian Johnson, I for one differ |
| Donna13 20.09.2008 09:56 |
Bo Rhap wrote:The quote was: "What we have is two-thirds of the remaining Queen line-up..."shieldmatron wrote:HA HA You're a fucking tit.There was four in the original line-up.So how could Brian and Roger be two thirds.Mr Mercury wrote: "What we have is two-thirds of the remaining Queen line-up" Proof that some Aussies cant fucking count.Actually, Mr. Mercury, that Aussie can count. Since the reviewer is talking about the original lineup, two-thirds is May and Taylor. The other third is Deacon. Notice the word "remaining". The remaining members of Queen are those who are still alive. |
| Denmagic 20.09.2008 11:37 |
This guy is talking utter bollox. Just got the album and the first track blew me away. Queen+ PR Rock! |
| P-Staker 20.09.2008 11:56 |
alexownworld2 wrote: Guys, (snip) The album should be titled as Rogers+May+Taylor and only this way it may be treated. In this case I would give the album 7 stars (out of 10).(snip)In other words, you'd rate the exact same piece of music differently if it honoured your religious feelings towards a band. You know, Freddie himself didn't see music as religion. Get your hands on a few good interviews. If you must follow someone, there are plenty of cults, for example Scientology, who'll be happy to take you. Don't make Freddie into a cult leader that he never wanted to be. |
| alexownworld2 20.09.2008 13:18 |
P-Staker wrote:You just don't want to understand what I'm trying to say. My only concern is sticker "QUEEN" on the album. If they would like to make something new, they shouldn't touch the name of the great band, because it's gone.alexownworld2 wrote: Guys, (snip) The album should be titled as Rogers+May+Taylor and only this way it may be treated. In this case I would give the album 7 stars (out of 10).(snip)In other words, you'd rate the exact same piece of music differently if it honoured your religious feelings towards a band. You know, Freddie himself didn't see music as religion. Get your hands on a few good interviews. If you must follow someone, there are plenty of cults, for example Scientology, who'll be happy to take you. Don't make Freddie into a cult leader that he never wanted to be. The music may be good, worth releasing, but it's not Queen. Not simply because there's no Freddie and John. There's no Queen's magic. If you know at least few albums of Queen, you will understand. |
| P-Staker 20.09.2008 13:58 |
alexownworld2 wrote: You just don't want to understand what I'm trying to say. My only concern is sticker "QUEEN" on the album. If they would like to make something new, they shouldn't touch the name of the great band, because it's gone.Queen were always about making something new. And the use of the name hurts only your misplaced religious zeal. The music may be good, worth releasing, but it's not Queen.It's Queen+Paul Rodgers. Elements of both artists are present, so the name is justified. There's no Queen's magic. If you know at least few albums of Queen, you will understand.I know a few Queen albums (when you're a fan for 22 years, it's hard not to notice any) and I disagree. But then, can't measure a band's "magic" exactly, can you? |
| alexownworld2 20.09.2008 14:12 |
P-Staker wrote:Dear P-Staker,alexownworld2 wrote: You just don't want to understand what I'm trying to say. My only concern is sticker "QUEEN" on the album. If they would like to make something new, they shouldn't touch the name of the great band, because it's gone.Queen were always about making something new. And the use of the name hurts only your misplaced religious zeal.The music may be good, worth releasing, but it's not Queen.It's Queen+Paul Rodgers. Elements of both artists are present, so the name is justified.There's no Queen's magic. If you know at least few albums of Queen, you will understand.I know a few Queen albums (when you're a fan for 22 years, it's hard not to notice any) and I disagree. But then, can't measure a band's "magic" exactly, can you? As many europeans, you are very material. You want to measure everything. I can't measure the magic. I can only feel it. I'm not going to argue, trying to eplain you what you're unable to feel. I loved and respected everything May and Taylor did in music after Freddie has gone. But what happened with QUEEN name since 2005 tour is dissapointing to me. This is MY OPINION. |
| April 20.09.2008 14:22 |
Alexownworld2, wouldn't you want Queen to live on, to move on? |
| P-Staker 20.09.2008 14:23 |
alexownworld2 wrote: Dear P-Staker, As many europeans, you are very material. You want to measure everything. I can't measure the magic. I can only feel it. I'm not going to argue, trying to eplain you what you're unable to feel. I loved and respected everything May and Taylor did in music after Freddie has gone. But what happened with QUEEN name since 2005 tour is dissapointing to me. This is MY OPINION.Dear alexownworld2, it's you who is saying as fact "Queen magic isn't there." It's you who's basing negative opinions on his inability to feel the Queen magic anymore. But, since 2005, I've felt Queen magic lives again through this new project. Maybe it's you who's is unable to feel something here and not me? And maybe it's you who is very material, unable to feel the old vibe behind the new vocal? And yes, I do realize it's YOUR OPINION. It certainly isn't mine. |
| alexownworld2 20.09.2008 14:33 |
April wrote: Alexownworld2, wouldn't you want Queen to live on, to move on?Queen always live in my heart. But Queen is history now. No matter you like it or not. I would love May/Taylor/Deacon to continue their music careers. Together or not. Let them live and move on! But be strong to face the truth: Queen have gone forever as band. |
| April 20.09.2008 15:40 |
alexownworld2 wrote:This is a pessimistic view. The two guys are from Queen and they want to call themselves Queen. They have the right to. And since they are with Paul they call themselves Queen+PR. That is different. DIFFERENT. Some like it, some don't. But you can't change it. So you have to face the choice: to be with them or without them. I've chosen to be with them. And you?April wrote: Alexownworld2, wouldn't you want Queen to live on, to move on?Queen always live in my heart. But Queen is history now. No matter you like it or not. I would love May/Taylor/Deacon to continue their music careers. Together or not. Let them live and move on! But be strong to face the truth: Queen have gone forever as band. |
| shieldmatron 20.09.2008 18:57 |
Donna13 wrote:Thanks for summing that up nicely, Donna13Bo Rhap wrote:The quote was: "What we have is two-thirds of the remaining Queen line-up..." Notice the word "remaining". The remaining members of Queen are those who are still alive.shieldmatron wrote:HA HA You're a fucking tit.There was four in the original line-up.So how could Brian and Roger be two thirds.Mr Mercury wrote: "What we have is two-thirds of the remaining Queen line-up" Proof that some Aussies cant fucking count.Actually, Mr. Mercury, that Aussie can count. Since the reviewer is talking about the original lineup, two-thirds is May and Taylor. The other third is Deacon. For BoRap and anyone else confused by Donna13 explanation: Freddie + Roger + Brian + John = Queen Queen - Freddie = Roger + Brian + John = Remaining members of Queen Remaining members of Queen - John = Roger + Brian Or... 2/3 of remaining members End of math lesson. |
| Mr Mercury 20.09.2008 19:54 |
Sheildmatron, thanks for the maths lesson. But it wasnt really needed and I will explain why. I admit when I first read this story (yes dear Queenfred, despite what you think I can fucking read :P ) I merely glance at it. But my first impression from that paragraph that I quoted that line from was that this reviewer had to struggle to remember who John was. It sounded to me like he had just read the back of the Cosmos Rocks CD to see what the line up was, typed up Brian and Roger's names, then suddenly realised that Queen had four members in it. Hence my " Proof that some Aussies cant fucking count" quote. Ok so it was wrong, but like this guys review, who cares? I'll live with the fact that I am fallible sometimes. And to all you Aussies out there - I know you can count just like you know I can read :P |
| ibernard 20.09.2008 21:43 |
what we have is two-thirds of the remaining members of queen. what we really have is two members of queen, performing. Paul and Ringo do not the Beatles make. Neither do Brian and Roger and what's-his-name carry Queen in any form. |
| Bo Rhap 20.09.2008 23:21 |
Mr Mercury wrote: Sheildmatron, thanks for the maths lesson. But it wasnt really needed and I will explain why. I admit when I first read this story (yes dear Queenfred, despite what you think I can fucking read :P ) I merely glance at it. But my first impression from that paragraph that I quoted that line from was that this reviewer had to struggle to remember who John was. It sounded to me like he had just read the back of the Cosmos Rocks CD to see what the line up was, typed up Brian and Roger's names, then suddenly realised that Queen had four members in it. Hence my " Proof that some Aussies cant fucking count" quote. Ok so it was wrong, but like this guys review, who cares? I'll live with the fact that I am fallible sometimes. And to all you Aussies out there - I know you can count just like you know I can read :PHere here in this one too |
| Queenfred 20.09.2008 23:34 |
Mr Mercury wrote: Sheildmatron, thanks for the maths lesson. But it wasnt really needed and I will explain why. I admit when I first read this story (yes dear Queenfred, despite what you think I can fucking read :P ) I merely glance at it. But my first impression from that paragraph that I quoted that line from was that this reviewer had to struggle to remember who John was. It sounded to me like he had just read the back of the Cosmos Rocks CD to see what the line up was, typed up Brian and Roger's names, then suddenly realised that Queen had four members in it. Hence my " Proof that some Aussies cant fucking count" quote. Ok so it was wrong, but like this guys review, who cares? I'll live with the fact that I am fallible sometimes. And to all you Aussies out there - I know you can count just like you know I can read :PProof that some Brits can admit when they're wrong! It's cool dude, no hard feelings -was just making a point. |
| glentoran 21.09.2008 05:55 |
While I think the review is a tad harsh I do agree that this is not a "Queen" album. I think Brian , Rodger and Paul need to make their minds up....are they Queen or some other entity. The Album has some good tracks...We believe..wants to be a Queen classic (still think this could be an Xmas no 1 if released)...it misses Freddies panache and a bit more of the old Queen production techique I like Voodoo..but as a Paul Rodgers song...it is not Queen. Call me if you want my love is a brilliant pop song and to me the only song where they totally gel. I still like the album...but I think it's time to gracefully lay Queen to rest in respect of any future collaborations...bar John Deacon returning to play with Brian and Rodger. Appologies of some of you dont like this...been a queen fan since 1971 and this is my opinion |
| Mat Growcott 21.09.2008 07:41 |
I've never posted here before, but i'm sick of reading reviews and people agreeing that the album is rubbish because "it's not queen and they shouldn't have called themselves queen". They HAVEN'T called themselves queen. They've called themselves Queen+Paul Rodgers. They are a different band, playing new and different styles of music (as well as songs from . If they were touring as queen, or releasing albums as queen then i would understand your protests. But they are trying their hardest to SHOW that they're not queen (or at least, the same queen as before) and a few ignorant 'fans' (and i use the term lightly, for no true queen fan would idolize freddie to the point where he overshadows the other members, surely? Because that would make them a Mercury fan, not a queen fan) are choosing to blindly hate them based on this fact. |
| Tero 21.09.2008 08:03 |
Mat Growcott wrote: I've never posted here before, but i'm sick of reading reviews and people agreeing that the album is rubbish because "it's not queen and they shouldn't have called themselves queen". They HAVEN'T called themselves queen. They've called themselves Queen+Paul Rodgers.I have to disagree with you. The band is not called "Queen+Paul Rodgers". The name consists of a group (Queen) and an outside artist playing temporarily with them (Paul Rodgers). This is similar to crediting the Under Pressure single to "Queen & David Bowie". Brian and Roger want to be called Queen because it's easier to market, and they want to keep Paul Rodgers out of the band because a) it's easier to claim Paul Rodgers isn't really replacing Freddie and b) it's easier to ditch Paul if they change their mind. Now the problem with the music on the new album is that even though you can hear the "+Paul Rodgers" part in the album very well, where exactly is the "Queen" part? If it's easier to recognise "Brian May" and "Roger Taylor" elements in the music, shouldn't the album be credited as May Rodgers Taylor? |
| Mat Growcott 21.09.2008 09:53 |
t's Queen+ Paul Rodgers. It probably IS a marketing. But also Bri and Roger have the RIGHT to using the name. They were half of queen, they wrote a good amount of the songs as part of the band. Why the hell would they NOT call themselves Queen? Because Freddie's dead? Because John doesn't want to play any more? Bare in mind, those saying John didn't join in the album because he didn't like the idea...he hasn't played live for years, nor played on any studio tracks. He's not a musician any more and I doubt the band as it is now even asked, out of respect for that...Although I must admit it's an easy argument :D. What i'm trying to say is, I suppose, that they call themselves Queen+ Paul Rodgers because that's what they are. They play Queen songs and they play Paul Rodgers songs. On a side note, Paul ISN'T replacing Freddie. And anyone who can point me to a youtube video or soundfile where he even tries to replace Freddie is welcome :). |
| Tero 21.09.2008 12:58 |
Mat Growcott wrote: What i'm trying to say is, I suppose, that they call themselves Queen+ Paul Rodgers because that's what they are. They play Queen songs and they play Paul Rodgers songs. On a side note, Paul ISN'T replacing Freddie. And anyone who can point me to a youtube video or soundfile where he even tries to replace Freddie is welcome :).You just said they were half of Queen, and now you say it's alright for them to call themselves Queen. That's the problem, it changes with whatever suits the current situation. Another problem is that there are people even on this message board who cannot see where Queen ends and Paul Rodgers begins, and say (this is a direct quote): Brian Roger and Paul ARE Queen! How is that NOT replacing Freddie for all intents and purposes? |
| andyboy 21.09.2008 13:09 |
Check out the reviews in Classic Rock and MOJO this month for a more informed, intelligent and non-predjudiced opinion! |
| April 21.09.2008 16:15 |
Mat Growcott wrote: I've never posted here before, but i'm sick of reading reviews and people agreeing that the album is rubbish because "it's not queen and they shouldn't have called themselves queen". They HAVEN'T called themselves queen. They've called themselves Queen+Paul Rodgers. They are a different band, playing new and different styles of music (as well as songs from . If they were touring as queen, or releasing albums as queen then i would understand your protests. But they are trying their hardest to SHOW that they're not queen (or at least, the same queen as before) and a few ignorant 'fans' (and i use the term lightly, for no true queen fan would idolize freddie to the point where he overshadows the other members, surely? Because that would make them a Mercury fan, not a queen fan) are choosing to blindly hate them based on this fact.That's what I've written as well in some other threads cause they all (threads) resemble each other very much: "Is it Queen or not?" It is not. This is a different band. Basta de chachara! Enough is enough! Good-night! |
| mworks 22.09.2008 21:43 |
Another crybaby? I think it's amazing how all you cry babies think you know what Freddie would say. Shame on you! I bought this CD with low expectations, but was pleasantly surprised at how wonderful it truly is. I actually can't believe what new and exciting stuff this trio has come up with. To all the cry babies, well, at least you have Queen & Queen II. For all the real music fans...enjoy! |
| mworks 22.09.2008 21:49 |
Once again cry babies, it's NOT Queen. It's Queen + Paul Rogers. STOP CRYING! |
| Brianmay1975 23.09.2008 20:17 |
Tero wrote:Well, I should say that people are NOT even supposed to see where Queen ends and Paul begins. The album and the concerts are the result of the special chemistry between the 3 guys and as such, there are no borders between their styles. They haven't been created by three solo artists meeting up. They have been created by an entity (whose name happens to be Q+PR; it might as well have had any other name, without the "+" part and then nobody would have tried to see where each one of them begins and ends). I personally think this is a good outcome. I like the way Queen's style has been mixed up with Paul's, it's real good.Mat Growcott wrote: What i'm trying to say is, I suppose, that they call themselves Queen+ Paul Rodgers because that's what they are. They play Queen songs and they play Paul Rodgers songs. On a side note, Paul ISN'T replacing Freddie. And anyone who can point me to a youtube video or soundfile where he even tries to replace Freddie is welcome :).You just said they were half of Queen, and now you say it's alright for them to call themselves Queen. That's the problem, it changes with whatever suits the current situation. Another problem is that there are people even on this message board who cannot see where Queen ends and Paul Rodgers begins, and say (this is a direct quote): Brian Roger and Paul ARE Queen! How is that NOT replacing Freddie for all intents and purposes? What is so wrong with replacing Freddie as a lead singer anyway? It's obvious that that's what they needed. Paul is replacing Freddie as a a lead singer, but I don't see what's the crime here. At the same time, Paul is NOT replacing Freddie. He doesn't try to mimic him, to copy him. He is being himself, he is bringing his own feel to the music. So he's not replacing Freddie, he's creating something new. And I've just realized what a wonderful musician he truly is, listening to The Cosmos Rocks... |
| mooghead 24.09.2008 10:08 |
Bo Rhap wrote:Two thirds of the REMAINING line up you uneducated prick.shieldmatron wrote:HA HA You're a fucking tit.There was four in the original line-up.So how could Brian and Roger be two thirds.Mr Mercury wrote: "What we have is two-thirds of the remaining Queen line-up" Proof that some Aussies cant fucking count.Actually, Mr. Mercury, that Aussie can count. Since the reviewer is talking about the original lineup, two-thirds is May and Taylor. The other third is Deacon. |