QueenZone discussion #1134530

April wrote: The idea about "real chemistry" is very abstract. I think you are trying to find fault with the album...

drwinston wrote: In order to better understand chemistry in a group, try listening to Rumors

drwinston wrote: I've been reading the various posts on the new album, and I think there have been some really good points as well as some useless drivel. Having listened to the album for almost a week now, I have to say that there seems to be something very important that is missing, and it's not Freddie. I think these three lack real chemistry. The songs aren't that bad (although the lyrics make you wince at times), and they are surely better than some of the stuff that Queen has put on previous albums. The production is top notch. And Paul Rodgers sounds great! Wow, what a fantastic voice, and this is the best he has ever sounded in the studio. I think he really steals the show here. But with that said, it leaves me just a bit flat. Great bands challenge each other. Brian has mentioned before that the fact that Freddie wrote in a very different style, and usually in very non-guitar friendly keys, made him really have to think how to approach the song. I would think that Roger had to try very hard to get his songs accepted - he's kind of the George Harrison of Queen! And John has stated that he was always nervous about presenting a song to the group. There was no doubt a lot of competition within the the band, and that resulted in a special chemistry that made for something unique. They were also very opinionated and the infighting that occurred no doubt contributed to a superior outcome. In fact, almost all great groups had this yin and yang effect that resulted in some great records. This album feels more like three very talented musicians playing session man for each others songs. I don't hear them inspiring or challenging each other. Don't get me wrong - the album has some merit. But if they were to really work as group - fight to get their ideas in, look for ways to enhance the song and not just play on it - I think it would be the difference in what some of us are hearing.

drwinston wrote:

April wrote: The idea about "real chemistry" is very abstract. I think you are trying to find fault with the album...

Why would I buy an album in order to find fault with it? Please. In order to better understand chemistry in a group, try listening to Abbey Road, Exile on Main Street, Kind of Blue, Rumors, Who's Next, or - dare I say it - A Night at the Opera.

SomebodyWhoLoves wrote:

drwinston wrote:

April wrote: The idea about "real chemistry" is very abstract. I think you are trying to find fault with the album...

Why would I buy an album in order to find fault with it? Please. In order to better understand chemistry in a group, try listening to Abbey Road, Exile on Main Street, Kind of Blue, Rumors, Who's Next, or - dare I say it - A Night at the Opera.

Oh please. the Rolling Stones, all they did was rip of Black musicians. They have no original sound of their own. But Exile On Main St is a good album, but hardly original.

Zebonka12 wrote: I never thought I'd say this but you can really hear the gap where John Deacon should be. Listen to his playing on "Save Me" and then take a song like "Some Things That Glitter". That sound would receive a huge boost from that sublime, lyrical bass playing that John had such a grasp of. You can laff now, but I'm telling you; it would've made a huge difference. I think Brian could have parted with a bit of money and gotten someone in to play the bass....

Zebonka12 wrote: I never thought I'd say this but you can really hear the gap where John Deacon should be. Listen to his playing on "Save Me" and then take a song like "Some Things That Glitter". That sound would receive a huge boost from that sublime, lyrical bass playing that John had such a grasp of. You can laff now, but I'm telling you; it would've made a huge difference. I think Brian could have parted with a bit of money and gotten someone in to play the bass....

SomebodyWhoLoves wrote:

drwinston wrote:

April wrote: The idea about "real chemistry" is very abstract. I think you are trying to find fault with the album...

Why would I buy an album in order to find fault with it? Please. In order to better understand chemistry in a group, try listening to Abbey Road, Exile on Main Street, Kind of Blue, Rumors, Who's Next, or - dare I say it - A Night at the Opera.

Oh please. the Rolling Stones, all they did was rip of Black musicians. They have no original sound of their own. But Exile On Main St is a good album, but hardly original.

Microwave wrote:

drwinston wrote: In order to better understand chemistry in a group, try listening to Rumors

Okay, talking about chemistry and Fleetwood Mac in the same sentence is not allowed!!!

drwinston wrote: I think these three lack real chemistry.

Ray D O'Gaga wrote:

drwinston wrote: I think these three lack real chemistry.

And yet the only reason they worked together in the first place was because of the chemistry they feel amongst themselves. Interesting that they perceive it and you do not.

Benn wrote: after all, who noticed, musically, that John was missing with Danny as replacement on the tour?

eoinmcgrath93 wrote: it really lacks the diversatity and spontanuatty like in other queen records all songs have kind of the same vibe going ......mm maby it its rodgers ........still great though love it

Benn wrote: It's not missing anything other than better lyrics. Musically, it's really good. John wasn't an outstanding bass player in any way - it's likely that any session player could have played like John did - after all, who noticed, musically, that John was missing with Danny as replacement on the tour? - and, as such, he isn't really missed other than for what impact he could have had on the lyrical side of things....... Queen+ Paul Rodgers has session players on stage whilst they fulfil the buk of playing duties themselves on record. Brian and Paul appear to be pretty decent bass players under these circumstances.......

ggo1 wrote: The problem with a thread like this is it meanders aimlessly and the main point gets lost on the way. but in response to the initial post. I don't think it is chemistry that is lacking, I think they have chemistry in abundance, you can see that when they are on stage. But in the studio I do wonder if they were more deferential to each other, or at least to Paul than Queen would have been. In the past they would argue over a single note and I'm not sure that happened with this album, though we'll never really know. I can envisage Brian and Roger getting into a musical argument about each others songs, I just don't picture Brian arguing with Paul about his. Anyhow, someone else made a point about missing John and I will certainly agree on the point that the bass playing is decidedly average on the album. Some Things That Glitter does, as already mentioned elsewhere in the thread, lack the punch of a really good bass line that could have taken that song over the top from good (which it is) to great (which it could have been). It sounds to me like the most 'produced' track on the album but the bass is just limp and ineffective.