Writing a professional review of a Queen album is surprisingly easy, if you follow some simple rules:
- If song is rock...
"Routine."
- If song is experimental...
"They betrayed rock."
- If song is long...
"Bore."
- If song is short...
"Filler."
- If song is serious...
"Cheesy."
- If song is humorous...
"Cannot be taken seriously."
- If sound is raw...
"Not pleasant to listen to."
- If sound is polished...
"Overproduced."
- If writing is simple...
"Pub bands can do better."
- If writing is complex...
"No hooks, not catchy."
- If sung by Freddie...
"Freddie ruined it."
- If not sung by Freddie...
"Freddie's absence ruined it."
- If it's 70s:
"They'll soon be forgotten."
- If it's past 70s:
"They've been on the scene far too long."
- If live...
"Sucking up to the crowd, not optimal performance."
- If studio...
"Lacks the bite of the live version."
- If the song touched millions of fans on six continents...
"Camp."
- If the reviewer couldn't learn to play "Mary Had a Little Lamb" in six years...
"This guys have no real talent."
Well, it wouldn't surprise me if they did have a formula all figured out in advance. I read a review of the show I attended in DC on the last tour and the writer mentioned Fat Bottomed Girls but didn't mention that the sound was out for most of the song so we didn't get to hear that song. I think he wrote his article prior to the show. That just backs up what I always thought about these critics. They look up what other people have written and then they try to add their own "clever" sentence or two. They really don't spend much time on these things, it seems.