| Borhap80 21.09.2008 04:22 |
I have watched the battle from the sidelines. Never before have I seen such polarizing, such a divide between “Queen fans”, “Freddie-only fans”, reviewers and so on, as the Cosmos has erupted. In some ways I do understand this gap that is separating people, in others I don’t. People are talking about killings, the death of the band, and personal resignations from music. I mean things are so out of proportions and make me think of one who came up with the following words: “It’s only a bloody record”. People tend to take things way too seriously. To the point. I understand the album as portraying a new band consisting of members of Queen and the singer Paul Rodgers, and I think that is the only way to gage it. You can’t possibly open the album sleeve and expect a camped up Freddie, jump out, and dance and sing his heart out . This is another direction, if one can’t understand that, and be open and accepting about that, the album will probably fail in every way. This is something new. What do I think about the music? The musical structure of the songs little sound like Queen (except maybe, “We Believe”), but more like Bad Company, and into the “Classic Rock” genre. Still you hear the distinct drumming, the Red special, and “Queen like” choruses. Although I like and appreciate the album, I do miss the progressive side of Queen. The un-called for chord- and tempo changes, the varied and versatile structures, and so on. But I may have to accept that Queen left these kind of musical choices and genre already in the 70’s, except for maybe “Princes of the Universe”, “Innuendo”, and “Was it All Worth it”. The album has great variation: From the the beautiful "Small", the soaring “Time to Shine”, the ballsy “C-lebrity”, the funny “Call Me”, to the ‘Cowboy metal’ song “Surfs Up… Schools Out”. I really like “Through the Night”, “Time to Shine”, “Surfs Up”, and “Small”. Although I like “We Believe”, I find the lyrical content WAY over the top. If I should rank the album I’d give it 4 out of 6. Many fans argue that this album is maybe the worst release from the Queen camp. I find it quite funny, and I’ll try to elaborate. - Freddie is dead. Life goes on. Accept this as something else. - Queen has a long list of collaborators (in some or another way): 5IVE, Britney Spears, Robbie Williams, Vanguard and so on. They have done so much cringe worthy stuff during the 90’s that Paul Rodgers in many ways pompously as it may sound, came as a savior, a breath of fresh air. Do you remember that Brian had serious thoughts of making a bunch of songs with one of the guys from 5ive? Aside from strange musical constellations, they managed to create one of the worst covers in rock history – Queen Rocks!!. I find the “The Cosmos Rocks” more living, dedicated and consistent than “The Works, “Hot Space”, “Kind of Magic”, and “The Miracle” ever was. Roger’s playing and performance hasn’t been better since the seventies. He puts more life, thrill and enjoyment into his playing than he ever did during the eighties (with a few exceptions being Under Pressure, Innuendo…), and Brian seems to have fun, and I have never heard him being this versatile since early Queen albums. And when you combine this with a singer of Rodgers format, in fact singing better than ever (in his late fifties), it makes the Cosmos Rocks an absolute worthwhile listening experience. |
| Tero 21.09.2008 05:00 |
Thomas Tonnesen wrote: I understand the album as portraying a new band consisting of members of Queen and the singer Paul Rodgers, and I think that is the only way to gage it. You can’t possibly open the album sleeve and expect a camped up Freddie, jump out, and dance and sing his heart out . This is another direction, if one can’t understand that, and be open and accepting about that, the album will probably fail in every way. This is something new.That's the problem with using the Queen name in a nutshell... It brings all kinds of expectations from their past, and some people just can't get past them. So why take the risk? Paul McCartney doesn't release Beatles albums anymore, and his solo albums are just about as close to the Beatles as the QPR album is to Queen albums. Thomas Tonnesen wrote: Many fans argue that this album is maybe the worst release from the Queen camp. I find it quite funny, and I’ll try to elaborate. - Freddie is dead. Life goes on. Accept this as something else.Very weak argument to start with. I'll agree with you that Freddie's dead and this is something entirely different than Queen, but Brian and Roger have decided to call themselves Queen, which makes it pretty hard to think of this as a new band! Thomas Tonnesen wrote: - Queen has a long list of collaborators (in some or another way): 5IVE, Britney Spears, Robbie Williams, Vanguard and so on. They have done so much cringe worthy stuff during the 90’s that Paul Rodgers in many ways pompously as it may sound, came as a savior, a breath of fresh air. Do you remember that Brian had serious thoughts of making a bunch of songs with one of the guys from 5ive? Aside from strange musical constellations, they managed to create one of the worst covers in rock history – Queen Rocks!!.I'm sorry to say, but this is another weak argument. Just because a load of crap was released under the Queen name in the past doesn't make the current abuse of the name any more acceptable. It's still a mediocre and unimaginative album. What you should also take into account is that this is the first NEW material released with an outsider. I wouldn't take the Five and Britney collaborations any more seriously than I take their "collaboration" with Vanilla Ice... They are remixes of existing material, and don't represent their current skills. Thomas Tonnesen wrote: I find the “The Cosmos Rocks” more living, dedicated and consistent than “The Works, “Hot Space”, “Kind of Magic”, and “The Miracle” ever was. Roger’s playing and performance hasn’t been better since the seventies. He puts more life, thrill and enjoyment into his playing than he ever did during the eighties (with a few exceptions being Under Pressure, Innuendo…), and Brian seems to have fun, and I have never heard him being this versatile since early Queen albums. And when you combine this with a singer of Rodgers format, in fact singing better than ever (in his late fifties), it makes the Cosmos Rocks an absolute worthwhile listening experience.I'm glad you enjoy their playing on this current album, but I for one have never been interested in analysing the technical aspect of an album, or even the individual instruments... To me it's mostly about the composition of the song, and the overall texture of the sounds. When I listen to the Cosmos Rocks album (with emphasis on those previously mentioned things) that first things that come to my mind from practically all of the songs are "this song sounds like x from Brian's/Roger's/Paul's previous album" and "this song has no hook". As proficient as they may be with their instruments, what's in it for somebody who listening to the MUSIC? |
| Borhap80 21.09.2008 06:07 |
Tero wrote: “That's the problem with using the Queen name in a nutshell... It brings all kinds of expectations from their past, and some people just can't get past them. So why take the risk? Paul McCartney doesn't release Beatles albums anymore, and his solo albums are just about as close to the Beatles as the QPR album is to Queen albums.” ? I agree that the name is a problem for a lot of people. The point is that they have chosen that name, and you have to decide whether you like the music or not. Some say that they should have chosen another name because they ruin the Queen legacy and the memory of Freddie. As I wrote earlier, the album didn’t match up with my expectations (considering song arrangements and so on), but I still appreciate it as a good album. If they had chosen another name, would you review the album otherwise? Tero wrote: Just because a load of crap was released under the Queen name in the past doesn't make the current abuse of the name any more acceptable. It's still a mediocre and unimaginative album. What you should also take into account is that this is the first NEW material released with an outsider. I wouldn't take the Five and Britney collaborations any more seriously than I take their "collaboration" with Vanilla Ice... They are remixes of existing material, and don't represent their current skills.” ? You say that my arguments are weak. I weren’t trying to build a court case with my arguments, but I do think this much of this comes down to personal taste. I see this project as the most fulfilling coming from the Queen camp in many years, you don’t. Fine. Tero said: “I'm glad you enjoy their playing on this current album, but I for one have never been interested in analysing the technical aspect of an album, or even the individual instruments... To me it's mostly about the composition of the song, and the overall texture of the sounds. When I listen to the Cosmos Rocks album (with emphasis on those previously mentioned things) that first things that come to my mind from practically all of the songs are "this song sounds like x from Brian's/Roger's/Paul's previous album" and "this song has no hook". As proficient as they may be with their instruments, what's in it for somebody who listening to the MUSIC? “ ? I think you miss the point. Contrary to what you say, I’m listening to the music. As I mentioned earlier: I really like “Small”, “Time to Shine”, “Surfs Up… Schools Out”, and “Through the Night”. I see them as great songs/arrangements with great performances from the band. The songs feel alive… Much of the songs and productions Queen created in 80’s do sound the opposite, quite dead. I really like “the composition of the songs, and the overall texture of the sounds” in many of the Cosmos Rocks tracks. I think the before mentioned songs consist of a great mix between “the song itself” and “the performance”. You don’t. Fine. |
| Tero 21.09.2008 07:51 |
Thomas Tonnesen wrote: If they had chosen another name, would you review the album otherwise? I think you miss the point. Contrary to what you say, I’m listening to the music. As I mentioned earlier: I really like “Small”, “Time to Shine”, “Surfs Up… Schools Out”, and “Through the Night”. I see them as great songs/arrangements with great performances from the band. The songs feel alive… Much of the songs and productions Queen created in 80’s do sound the opposite, quite dead. I really like “the composition of the songs, and the overall texture of the sounds” in many of the Cosmos Rocks tracks. I think the before mentioned songs consist of a great mix between “the song itself” and “the performance”. You don’t. Fine.My review of the album was that the songs sounded like their previous solo efforts (without any hit potential), and that doesn't really change with the name. If I was to review this album without any knowledge of Queen, Brian, Roger, Cross, or Paul -material, my impression would be of a band without a distinct style of their own, writing technically good songs that didn't have anything memorable. As lifeless as Queen may have been in the 80's, you can't claim they didn't write memorable tracks. Thomas Tonnesen wrote: I do think this much of this comes down to personal taste. I see this project as the most fulfilling coming from the Queen camp in many years, you don’t. Fine.This is actually the ONLY release (of new material) to come out from the Queen camp in the past eight years, which makes it a winner by default. Personally I'd say the previous Queen album (MIH) was miles better and more original than this one. |
| david (galashiels) 21.09.2008 11:01 |
i was quoting fred from the milton keynes concert.he did say those words about hot space album.well i think that quote works fine for the cos rocks as well.like he said,people get so excited about things its only a bloddy record we just wana try a few sounds, this is staying power......me i like it as i have said numerous times.never will be one of the people who say this is an outrage a disgrace,and some tosser even said paul must die.listened to it judged it liked it. |
| MartynR90 21.09.2008 12:25 |
I think the whole band name argument is boring as hell but for the record i see Roger and Brian as one HALF of Queen, so only Brian, Roger, John and Freddie should carry the Queen name, rather than just 2 member (neither of which is the vocalist). So by rights they should have been called one half of QUEEN + PAUL RODGERS! But of course this is a rubbish name! But my point is that the band should have came up with a new name! But to be honest i'm not gonna waste my time anymore on this never ending debate, neither do i care what they call themselves, as long as they produce the goods and in my opinion they do!! |
| MartynR90 21.09.2008 12:26 |
|
| Nacho_itu 21.09.2008 12:49 |
I agree with thomas in what he says. at last, is only a matter of taste, i know a lot of people that don't like the record and it's ok, and i know a lot of people that actually like this record. The thing that makes me get angry is that people here wich don't like TCR says usually something like: TCR is CRAP. And you know, the point is that I like TCR. TCR has good things, not so good things, great things, bad things. But if someone says: "TCR IS CRAP", he's saying that I like crap. And that is something that makes me angry! We can discuse about the quality of the record, the way it is produced, the musical structure of the songs, but if you like it or not....that is a matter of taste. You don't need to study music to have a really good time listening to it, and THAT is the best thing of music!! some people here take queen too serious, like "Queen is my life and should be perfect". Queen never was perfect, and it's only music... you like the new record? it's ok. You don't like the new record? it's ok. but if you don't like the new record, don't piss people that actually like TCR saying that "nobody could like this record" or things like that every time someone post something about TCR. |
| Tero 21.09.2008 13:15 |
Nacho_itu wrote: But if someone says: "TCR IS CRAP", he's saying that I like crap.If someone says the album is crap, he only means that in his opinion the album is crap. If you say the album is great, I don't instantaneously start to think "wow that guy likes great music I must change my taste to suit his!". I agree that "TCR is crap" is not a great review of the album, but that shouldn't bother you the least bit unless you're unsure of your own opinion and start getting second thoughts. |
| Nacho_itu 21.09.2008 13:30 |
"TCR is CRAP" is just one soft example. I'm pretty sure about my opinion in TCR, and I like it :). |
| Borhap80 21.09.2008 14:40 |
Tero wrote: “As lifeless as Queen may have been in the 80's, you can't claim they didn't write memorable tracks.” - Of course not. They made many memorable, accessible tracks during the eighties. Most of the music they made during the eighties, I will argue was as Freddie put it, like a “sausage factory”. It was pop music, period. Of course they had hits, many of whom I like, but that doesn’t mean that they were great. That said. I do miss the “typical” hit material on this album, although I think both “Small” and “Time to Shine” have potential to be appreciated by a larger audience. “Personally I'd say the previous Queen album (MIH) was miles better and more original than this one.” - I agree with you that “Made in Heaven” is a fine album. But to say that it is miles better and more original is your opinion. Even though I love "Made in Heaven", I don't see it as very original album... |
| marcenciels 21.09.2008 15:40 |
i have no problem with Brian & Roger to use Queen as their band name.( even with no Freddie or John ) for fans, the real one's, B. May & R. Taylor are house names. no dougt about that in the U.K. ;-) to the commun music listeners, if i talk music with them and just say : i love Brian may and his unique sound...they dont know who i am talking about !...even less for R.Taylor. the name Queen, is a instant memory and brings a smile to most of those who just appreciate music, not to followers. so...if some think this is just to have the chance too boost sales, then think it. all are free to think or like/not like what they want. i'm just happy to know that Brian & Roger (i wish that john was there also...) are back together too make music. for what it's worth...i'll let my feelings for music be the judge ;-) |
| Bo Rhap 21.09.2008 16:15 |
Why cant Brian and Roger use the name Queen.After all Mick and Keith use The Rolling Stones.And there's no Brian Jones or Bill Wyman. |
| Ray D O'Gaga 21.09.2008 17:59 |
Bo Rhap wrote: Why cant Brian and Roger use the name Queen.After all Mick and Keith use The Rolling Stones.And there's no Brian Jones or Bill Wyman.Because to the psycho Freddie fans, Queen = Freddie and Freddie = Queen. This never-ending droning on and on and on about "they shouldn't call it this" and "they shouldn't call it that" is people who can't let go of Freddie and see themselves as doing him a favor by deriding and wishing failure on Brian and Roger. As if they knew what Freddie would have approved of or not approved of better than people who actually knew and worked with him for literally 20 years. Its fannish snobbery of the worst and saddest kind. No one can honestly say that if Brian or Roger or John had died in 1991 and Freddie had lived, that Freddie wouldn't have carried on with the band, called it "Queen", and the same hypocrites who weep a dozen times a day about the injustice and insincerity of "Queen + Anybody" wouldn't have thought it was perfectly fine, as it all comes back to people for whom Freddie = Queen and Queen = Freddie. Some of us have moved past November 24, 1991, and some of us can't get past the petty, pedantic argument over five letters. If your beloved mother dies and 15 years later, your father happily remarries, he's still allowed to call himself your father. The rights to "Mr. + Mrs. Queen Fan's Father" don't expire with your mother - unless, of course, your mother was your favorite of your parents and you resent your father for moving on with his life. In that context, the whole argument becomes pretty childish, but that's the people you're dealing with. We've got the rest of our lives to play the same 20 albums over and over again. But as Brian and Roger are alive and want to continue playing, recording, and touring together, for fuck's sake LET THEM and let them call themselvesd whatever they want. If you think their music sucks, or you're so deep up Freddie's arse 17 years on that you can't give their stuff an unprejudiced shot, then just stay home and listen to the same 20 records. They're not going anywhere. Otherwise, show some class, let Brian and Roger enjoy their victory lap in what is surely the autumn of their careers, and shut the hell up! Its like you're booing somebody at their retirement party. |
| Yara 21.09.2008 21:48 |
I do agree with the original poster in that not even Freddie took his persona and Queen as seriously as some people do. And, man, he was fun on stage and doing interviews because he dispelled all this annoying gravity which people tend to lend to what's only...rock and pop music. All entertainment. No morals or fanaticism. That's it. I love his famous answer to an interviewer: "I'm a musical prostitute". Or: "As long as people are buying the records...". Or him saying that he didn't plan to leave any of his money and stuff to nobody - that he'd rather be burried with all his stuff than give his things away because he worked his ass to get it. Just to say that, even if you don't mean it, you need to be very well-spirited, relaxed and really don't give a damn about what people you don't know think about you and "your name". As long as people were helping him make a mint, that was just fine. And I do understand that it gets into the nerves of some Freddie's fans who think he should have come out as gay, or defended gay rights or told he had AIDS...I really do. But he was not a moral icon neither pretended to be. Well, I find the original post cool in the sense that trying to moralize a discussion about a band which featured such a funny, politically incorrect, entertaining, well-spirited and humored frontman is simply idiotic. It's really idiotic. If Freddie were a Bono-like artist who came on stage with a moral or political message...well...it'd be stupid anyway, though understandable. But Freddie? Come on, the guys must be kidding about "abusing Queen's name". Fuck off. While Freddie was still alive, Queen did elicit controversy for breaking an UN boycott - well, this kind of thing does tarnish the band's members moral reputation for a lot of people. The worst it could ever happen to Queen for releasing The Cosmos Rocks would be...people not liking the music. And so what!? Is that so outrageous? Everyone who releases an album has to face this risk - and people do compare. If it's a new singer, they'll compare with the other famous, past and present, singers, and that's the way it is. And I'm pretty sure a lot of people are enjoying "The Cosmos Rocks", which is quite ironic. The level of idiocy this nonsensical talk about "abusing Queen's name" requires is awe-inspiring. It's either imbeciles trying to make a moral question out if it or idiots trying to impose their taste on everybody else. Either way, it's nonsense. |
| Tero 22.09.2008 01:50 |
Ray D O'Gaga wrote:Do you honestly think so?Bo Rhap wrote: Why cant Brian and Roger use the name Queen.After all Mick and Keith use The Rolling Stones.And there's no Brian Jones or Bill Wyman.Because to the psycho Freddie fans, Queen = Freddie and Freddie = Queen. This never-ending droning on and on and on about "they shouldn't call it this" and "they shouldn't call it that" is people who can't let go of Freddie and see themselves as doing him a favor by deriding and wishing failure on Brian and Roger. Again, the situation of the Rolling Stones is ENTIRELY different compared to Queen. The Stones still have their two original figureheads and main composers in their line-up after forty five fucking years. For the Rolling Stones to be in the same situation as Queen, it would have required them to 1) have the same exact line-up for the first 20 years of their recording career (instead of the 6 years they managed!) 2) have Mick Jagger kick the bucket in the early 80's 3) have the band taking a break from recording until in the mid 90's when Keith Richards and Charlie Watts started to tour as "The Rolling Stones+Phil Collins". Can anybody else see the absurdity in that situation, and claim that they would unconditionally accept that as a genuine Rolling Stones line-up? because that's what's being asked from the Queen fans. Does that make me a psycho fan whose life ended in 1991 and only wishes failure on Brian and Roger, or the one who has a firmer grasp on reality? |
| Rich Tea 22.09.2008 12:05 |
Tero - We get it, you don't have to keep rotating the same post everytime someone says something positive about what is happening in 2008. Why justify your opinion from every angle unless you are just baiting those who don't share it that is? Please deal with the fact that some of us understand why they are called Queen and we really don't mind and we also like the new album and we are looking forward to seeing the shows. I have to agree that comparing Queen to the Stones is ridiculas Queen are by far a better band even with just the Guitarist and Drummer!!! Is Finland really that boring? |
| Tero 22.09.2008 13:22 |
Rich Tea wrote: Tero - We get it, you don't have to keep rotating the same post everytime someone says something positive about what is happening in 2008. Why justify your opinion from every angle unless you are just baiting those who don't share it that is? Please deal with the fact that some of us understand why they are called Queen and we really don't mind and we also like the new album and we are looking forward to seeing the shows. I have to agree that comparing Queen to the Stones is ridiculas Queen are by far a better band even with just the Guitarist and Drummer!!! Is Finland really that boring?You obviously don't get it that some people want to express their opinions on public messageboards, and have to instead resort to snide remarks about irrelevant things like other bands or my nationality. And as a general music fan I take personal offence at these repeated comparisons to other bands when Queen's history is so obviously unique. If somebody can find a valid comparison between Queen and another band, I will happy to admit my error, but until that happens I will keep exposing the stupidity of these halfwit comparisons. |
| Borhap80 22.09.2008 13:29 |
Tero wrote: "And as a general music fan I take personal offence at these repeated comparisons to other bands when Queen's history is so obviously unique. If somebody can find a valid comparison between Queen and another band, I will happy to admit my error, but until that happens I will keep exposing the stupidity of these halfwit comparisons." - Even as a huge music lover myself, I can't help feeling that you take music way to seriously... That is certainly an ok positioning, but maybe you should loosen up a bit? (No offence :)) |