QueenZone discussion #1137043
Queen Fans Give New Album The Thumbs Down
| mickyparise 29.09.2008 12:49 |
by Paul Cashmere - September 29 2008 The new Queen + Paul Rodgers album 'The Cosmos Rocks' has failed miserably to win fans in the Australian market. After a very ordinary debut at number 49 last week, 'The Cosmos Rocks' album dropped out of the Top 100 in week 2. After two full weeks on sale in Australia, 'The Cosmos Rocks' moved just 988 copies. By comparison, the two decade old Queen’s ‘Greatest Hits’ album sold 1158 units just this week which places it number 49. 'The Cosmos Rocks' is the first album from Queen since ‘Made In Heaven’ in 1995 and the first proper Queen album since ‘Innuendo’ in 1991. (Made In Heaven was a collection of songs completed by Freddie Mercury prior to his death, Innuendo was the last album made as an album with Mercury). The trouble with ‘The Cosmos Rocks’ is that it does not live up to the Queen legacy. Calling the band Queen is a bit of a stretch. It is only guitarist Brian May and drummer Roger Taylor. Bass player John Deacon chose to sit this one out. Replacing Freddie Mercury is former Bad Company and Free singer Paul Rodgers. Rodgers does a magnificent job on the album, but ‘The Cosmos Rocks’ sounds more like Bad Company than it does Queen. ‘The Cosmos Rocks’ may have felt like a good idea at the time. In retrospect, it would have been better off not released at all, or released under a different name other than Queen. ‘The Cosmos Rocks’ will be released next month in the USA. link |
| L-R-TIGER1994 29.09.2008 20:11 |
Comparing GH with.....this?no way. |
| Queenfred 29.09.2008 21:10 |
L-R-TIGER1994 wrote: Comparing GH with.....this?no way. It's not being compared musically- only sales-wise - in a one week period (to demonstrate a point). |
| GonnaUseMyPrisoners 29.09.2008 21:55 |
I think Paul Cashmere is wrong and should keep his petty schadenfreude to himself. |
| marcenciels 29.09.2008 22:31 |
bof ! it does has the bad company moode in general. but it's the kind of album you have to listen more than once to appreciate.( and reviewers rarely do so) i still give it a medium score, 6/10. the thing is...most people need to like any song on the spot or it's crap. i gave it a listen 4 times, no stop or skip. it's not a great album, not is it crappy. |
| L-R-TIGER1994 29.09.2008 23:31 |
Queenfred wrote:Anyway,you can't compare this two completely different things,one sold millions of copies while the other I really doubt if it reaches a million one day. it only proves one thing:that the Rosmos Cocks...no...the Cosmos Sucks....wait no,the Cosmos Rocks(or at least it tries to do it).L-R-TIGER1994 wrote: Comparing GH with.....this?no way.It's not being compared musically- only sales-wise - in a one week period (to demonstrate a point). |
| JacquesDaniels 30.09.2008 00:20 |
I want to add my two cents about something which might be a new way to look at this whole Q+PR thing going on, with everyone following the chart positions and all. I'm sure that everyone who has at least some business sense has to admit that Queen + Paul Rodgers is the only proper title for the band in a commercial sense. Granted, it's nowhere near the original Queen as an entity, which was more than the four individuals put together. So what you got is two out of four and then some, plus a great blues/rock singer, who is only capable of singing what he's always sang, and they're trying to make the best of what they've got. As long as they are able to do this, they will, and the good products will come in a couple of decades or so. But for now, Q+PR is a good band, there's nothing dramatically wrong with them, and I hope they will evolve into something more than a little fun-loving side project as it now is, and should be treated as such. Pity that most of the songs on the album are uninspiring. In Q+PR's defense, TCR is the best sounding rock album I've heard all year. Metallica's new album on the other hand, I have to say, while being an unsurprising number one everywhere, IS freakin' brilliant considering their age and everything, despite Rick Rubin's production. But what most of you have forgotten to think about is this: EVERYONE who has ever heard of Queen, knows that Queen without Freddie Mercury (and to some extent without even John Deacon) is not Queen. This affects the album sales. So, how many people outside of the Queen fan sphere really know, who are Brian May and Roger Taylor? What if they had decided to call themselves May, Rodgers & Taylor (in the order of their choice)? Would it still be the success it has been? Would the album sales have been dramatically worse or better than what they have now been? How successful was any of Queen members' solo albums, compared to Queen albums themselves? So, what I'm saying is, if you think of Q+PR as a solo/side project and compare it to The Cross or Furia soundtrack or whatever, it's doing pretty damn good, even in the charts. Of course it's not Queen, but if you really expected it to be Queen... |
| Tero 30.09.2008 02:00 |
GonnaUseMyPrisoners wrote: I think Paul Cashmere is wrong and should keep his petty schadenfreude to himself. Yeah... I'm sorry, but you stand for everything that's wrong with the Queen message boards at the moment. Here we have a bit of news reporting that is 100% accurate and honest, explains the context in which this release has comes about, and tells what the album is all about. Your reply is that of a 10-year old who hasn't yet realised that not everybody agrees with him. |
| Treasure Moment 30.09.2008 02:16 |
this is what happenes when you are trying to fool people that its still Queen. |
| kingogre 30.09.2008 02:20 |
Top 5 in the album charts, Top 40 in the singles chart, sold-out tour, tour opening with attendance of 350000.. With virtually no promotion. Whos giving thumbs down to this? |
| Tero 30.09.2008 03:49 |
kingogre wrote: Top 5 in the album charts, Top 40 in the singles chart, sold-out tour, tour opening with attendance of 350000.. With virtually no promotion. Whos giving thumbs down to this? Read the topic, darling... ;) The Australian record buying public has more interest in buying a 30 year old compilation than the latest album by "Queen" Sure, it's only one country, but by next week the same will be true for UK.. |
| SomebodyWhoLoves 30.09.2008 03:51 |
Two Big Thumbs and Two Big Toes DOWN. |
| kingogre 30.09.2008 06:03 |
But the fans hardly buy the GH-set, as they already own it. So the comparison is rather flawed. Like you said this is only one country and there has been little or no promotion. In most countries its selling very well regardless of the non-advertisement. In Australia they havent even toured. |
| mattw04 30.09.2008 06:13 |
I think really this comparison between old Greatest Hits and new The Cosmos rocks is Wrong. As Brian said on the Album Club.. This is or feels like a new Band! They were also going to have a new Band name, But decided against it as no-one would recognise them. Thats obviously a commercial selling point. But I think we have to stop comparing, This is all new Material, and of course Paul will bring his music to the album which will change the sound. The album for me is a great album, Is very different to past Queen but then again even when Queen when in their prime, they made all very different albums.. so this one is no different. If you don't like it dont buy it, I even admit i had doubts on a few songs when i heard them! But after a few plays they grew on me. All round its a great album from A NEW BAND with a different sound... and no comparison should be made. Its New Queen. |
| Holly2003 30.09.2008 06:42 |
I don't know what is sadder, someone who waits for the chart info. so he can crow about how unpopular Queen are, or someone who waits for the chart info. so he can crow about how popular Queen are. Think about it: does it make any difference to the quality of the music? Does the Cosmos Rocks become better or worse depending on its chart poistion? I said before there would be no more News of the Worlds or Sheer Heart Attacks, and the days of Queen as a mega-successful record seller and arena rock band are basically over too. There is ample evidence that a lot of Queen fans won't accept QPR so why then is anyone surprised that QPR can't shift as many records as Queen used to? I can live with that: record sales never bothered me in the Fred days and they don't bother me now. And I'm happy the new material is not trying too much too ape the old, because that's simply not possible. |
| Tero 30.09.2008 06:45 |
kingogre wrote: But the fans hardly buy the GH-set, as they already own it. So the comparison is rather flawed. Like you said this is only one country and there has been little or no promotion. In most countries its selling very well regardless of the non-advertisement. In Australia they havent even toured. The comparison better than you can think, exactly for the reason you state yourself. The GH album has sold massively in the Australia by now, and almost everybody has at least a friend who can borrow the album... Most of the new sales generated at the moment are coming from new fans who are just getting into Queen On the other hand there are still about 500,000 potential homes who already have the GH album, which could buy the Cosmos Rocks album if they were interested in the new material by Brian and Roger. The customers are there, but there is no interest in the product! |
| Togg 30.09.2008 07:06 |
I am totally amazed by the way some 'fans' have reacted to this album, if you look back over the history of Queen and inparticular you look at the style of songs credited to either Brian or Roger, it's not a huge stones throw from Cosmos Rocks... most of Roger's early work could have easily been on CR, and likewise if you look at Brian's solo work it fits right in. I have loved this band since the 70's every time they release an album since 'Races' people have said 'It's not Queen' which would make you believe that Queen only ever made two albums in the 'Queen' style . To me it fits in with all the others and frankly works better the several, including Hot Space, The Miracle and The Works. It has much more energy than all three put together and is recorded with much more care and attention. The lyrics are weak in some points but you only have to look at earlier outings such as Coming Soon, Fun it, The Miracle, Friends will be Friends the list goes on..... I bet in the end it will sell more than a good number of the earlier albums... lets wait and see |
| cmsdrums 30.09.2008 07:09 |
I'm shocked at how few copies the new album has sold in the first week, in what I had always believed to be a strong Queen territory. I wonder how much publicity there has been in Australia for it?? You would think that as there are undoubtedly a lot of Queen and/or Paul Rodgers fans in that country, that they would have at least bought it, even if they then say that they don't like it after listening - it seems however that they have actually stayed away from even buying it - perhaps some of the bad reviews online and lack of publicity have led to this?? |
| Treasure Moment 30.09.2008 08:22 |
cmsdrums wrote: I'm shocked at how few copies the new album has sold in the first week, in what I had always believed to be a strong Queen territory. I wonder how much publicity there has been in Australia for it?? You would think that as there are undoubtedly a lot of Queen and/or Paul Rodgers fans in that country, that they would have at least bought it, even if they then say that they don't like it after listening - it seems however that they have actually stayed away from even buying it - perhaps some of the bad reviews online and lack of publicity have led to this?? or perhaps they are smart enough to know that its not Queen and freddie is dead. |
| PieterMC 30.09.2008 08:59 |
cmsdrums wrote: I wonder how much publicity there has been in Australia for it?? From what I heard there was NO promotion in Australia. |
| PieterMC 30.09.2008 09:00 |
Treasure Moment wrote:cmsdrums wrote: I'm shocked at how few copies the new album has sold in the first week, in what I had always believed to be a strong Queen territory. I wonder how much publicity there has been in Australia for it?? You would think that as there are undoubtedly a lot of Queen and/or Paul Rodgers fans in that country, that they would have at least bought it, even if they then say that they don't like it after listening - it seems however that they have actually stayed away from even buying it - perhaps some of the bad reviews online and lack of publicity have led to this??or perhaps they are smart enough to know that its not Queen and freddie is dead. It's still 988 more albums than you will ever sell in Australia. |
| Rockindon2 30.09.2008 09:53 |
"or released under a different name other than Queen" They call themselves Queen + Paul Rogers. I'm tired of the idiots in the press calling this project Queen. |
| Tero 30.09.2008 10:08 |
Rockindon2 wrote: "or released under a different name other than Queen" They call themselves Queen + Paul Rogers. I'm tired of the idiots in the press calling this project Queen. Those who say the name of the current band is "Queen + Paul Rodgers" are just as stupid as those who say the band is Queen. And that apparently includes you. Brian and Roger are still calling themselves Queen (you know, as in QUEEN + Paul Rodgers), and they are only half of the original band. That's the technicality they use to say that Freddie hasn't been replaced in the band, but it also leaves them wide open for the criticism for continuing as half of the group. |
| kingogre 30.09.2008 10:37 |
I also said that it is rather a lack of promotion that is the reason it is not selling better. It is doing very well in most European countries. Certainly in the same league or better than most of the veteran artists that they are best compared to, for example Rolling Stones, Springsteen etc. The best promotion for the album right now is them touring, which it more or less always has been for Queen. They have not done this in Australia something I think is more than a coinicidence. The market as a mark of quality philosophy that some people is dragging around is too flawed to really say anything. And also this is a bit of chance, since it is a something of a new band name and that they for certain will get bad press. With that in mind the album and the tour is a success. On another note, it is interesting to see some people take articles and bad reviews like these to heart without questioning when it is all a matter of a band for who bad reviews and media exposure has always been a rule. Brian and Roger are Queen today and have been so for more than 10 years. |
| Benn 30.09.2008 11:56 |
Holly2003, You're absolutely right. You either like it, or you don't. If you do, great if you don't, great. Keep your receipts - take it back if you don't like it as one lister has done. Remember it's all disposable and, if worst comes to the worst, you have another drinks coaster upon which to place your cup of tea whilst listening to something more enlightening. |
| kingogre 30.09.2008 12:00 |
Benn wrote: Holly2003, You're absolutely right. You either like it, or you don't. If you do, great if you don't, great. Keep your receipts - take it back if you don't like it as one lister has done. Remember it's all disposable and, if worst comes to the worst, you have another drinks coaster upon which to place your cup of tea whilst listening to something more enlightening. Well said. Its only a record. Its supposed to be fun, if you dont like you dont. |
| brENsKi 30.09.2008 12:41 |
L-R-TIGER1994 wrote:if course you can compare it...it's a sales comparison you need to read what was typed...Queenfred wrote:Anyway,you can't compare this two completely different things,one sold millions of copies while the other I really doubt if it reaches a million one day. it only proves one thing:that the Rosmos Cocks...no...the Cosmos Sucks....wait no,the Cosmos Rocks(or at least it tries to do it).L-R-TIGER1994 wrote: Comparing GH with.....this?no way.It's not being compared musically- only sales-wise - in a one week period (to demonstrate a point). most albums have their peak sales in first three weeks so a 20 yr old queen album is a very favourable sales comparison cosmos sucks by comparison |
| the dude 30.09.2008 12:43 |
Queen and Paul Rodgers IS a new name. They aren't pretending it's Queen. Name one Queen album that hasn't gotten a bad review somewhere. It takes a real rocket scientist to say that it's different without Freddie. So to those who come on here bashing QPR..what are you doing here? If you hate it so much then leave. Or will you be like the reviewers where they wait until this band is gone and then decide it was good after all? For some of you, QPR can't win. It's too different. But if it was too much like old Queen you would complain about that. There isn't one Queen album that doesn't need multiple listens to really get it. That's the genius of these guys. |
| Tero 30.09.2008 12:58 |
the dude wrote: Queen and Paul Rodgers IS a new name.No, it's not. It's a composite of two old names. Queen is the English rock band whose members Brian and Roger used to be, and Paul Rodgers is the new singer they're performing with. They didn't suddenly rename the band "Queen+David Bowie" in 1981, or "Queen+Five" in 2000, did they? That sounds pretty simple, doesn't it? the dude wrote: They aren't pretending it's Queen. Name one Queen album that hasn't gotten a bad review somewhere.Why are you comparing their reviews to those of Queen reviews? I thought you just said they were different bands? Please, make up your mind about it and stick to either one! the dude wrote: So to those who come on here bashing QPR..what are you doing here? If you hate it so much then leave. Anybody who's a fan of Queen has a right to post his (or her) opinion about some of the members performing as Queen. Again, it's a very simple concept but some people just don't seem to grasp the possibility that everybody else doesn't agree with them. |
| Marcos Napier 30.09.2008 12:58 |
It's interesting how things change in a week. They were #5. Now they are #18 or something. Ok, they dropped because "everybody that could buy the album already did" or some other excuse fans will find to justify a failure - a failure that can be just explained as "it's like any other average hard rock album, it's not a masterpiece". |
| tjbarrett96 30.09.2008 15:04 |
Will anybody ever understand that this is not supposed to be Queen, not intended to be Queen, and not disguised as Queen? This - is - a - completely - new - band! Do you ever listen to the words of Brian May on his website and off? Am I the only one that truly thinks this a completely new band that just happens to have the word 'Queen' in its name? I don't mean to be, well, mean, but I am frustrated that so many people can be so ignorant! |
| tjbarrett96 30.09.2008 15:07 |
mickyparise wrote: Replacing Freddie Mercury is former Bad Company and Free singer Paul Rodgers. This just blew me over the top. Paul isn't replacing Freddie - when will anybody understand that? He's not filling in his spot - it's a new group with a different sound. Q+PR and Queen are as different as jazz music and heavy metal. And that's the way Brian, Roger, and Paul intended it to be. |
| drwinston 30.09.2008 15:28 |
tjbarrett96 wrote: Will anybody ever understand that this is not supposed to be Queen, not intended to be Queen, and not disguised as Queen? Exactly. It's not like they're using the name Queen in the title of the new ba... err, whoops! |
| Tero 30.09.2008 15:39 |
drwinston wrote:tjbarrett96 wrote: Will anybody ever understand that this is not supposed to be Queen, not intended to be Queen, and not disguised as Queen?Exactly. It's not like they're using the name Queen in the title of the new ba... err, whoops! Not to mention that two thirds of their setlist are the biggest Queen hits... |
| Marcos Napier 30.09.2008 16:11 |
Is the font of the new this-is-not-queen band logo the same as the Flash Gordon logo (not the cover, duh)? Why Roger displays in his bass drum the name QUEEN? Because Queen + PR doesn't fit (physically)? |
| We Are The Champions 30.09.2008 16:39 |
kingogre wrote: Top 5 in the album charts, Top 40 in the singles chart, sold-out tour, tour opening with attendance of 350000.. With virtually no promotion. Whos giving thumbs down to this? I think the criticism is more geared towards the CD and the Queen legacy being absent. The ticket sales and attendances speak for themselves. Using Queen + Paul Rodgers will sell more tickets than May, Taylor and Rodgers. Also. familiar Queen songs being played live also helps matters. |
| mahlers.com 30.09.2008 17:02 |
Queen + Paul Rodgers "The Cosmos Rocks" A 5 Star USA Review You might feel like makin' love or have had bad company, but the show must go on. Nearly 13 years after the final Freddie Mercury Queen era lineup release, founding members Brian May & Roger Taylor team up with former "Free", "Bad Company" & "The Firm" as well as solo performer Paul Rodgers as Queen + Paul Rodgers. The mid September 2008 release and October 28, 2008 release of "The Cosmos Rocks" is already live on the internet, up to this point, freely. So far up to this point I read positive words. Good good and all. I'm supposed to have an import copy of "The Cosmos Rocks" in my hands now but shipping got derailed from the UK to the United States. I have heard the September 12, 2008 Ukraine show, the link. queenzone. com has a decent sounding download of the show from an internet stream. That is supposed to be the official soundtrack for the October 28, 2008 release of Queen + Paul Rodgers in the USA in digital theaters. As for "The Cosmos Rocks" I managed to obtain a download copy in 320 kbps MP3 audio which translates to all of you of whom don't know what that is, it is sound track audio, used in movie theaters, in other words, superior, the absolute best MP3 quality. So what do I hear? Absolute bliss, I kid you not. If you ever heard a rock and roll album in your lifetime, this decade, this is the best possible pairing to happen since the untimely death of Queen's first frontman, the legendary Freddie Mercury of whom gave us hits such as "Bohemian Rhapsody" and "We Are The Champions". From the opening track "Cosmos Rockin'" to the end reprise of the bittersweet ballad "Small", all 14 songs are utter and complete beauty. You want all out blues razor edge party rock, you got it. You want a song with a message, listen to "We Believe" or "Warboys". If you long for that Paul Rodgers wail you are familar with in "Silver Blue & Gold" (from his Bad Company days) well, I assure you, you will fall in love with "Some Things That Glitter" and I can attest if there was ever a song that made sense of my personal relationship with my now ex wife, it's that song. The current and first single from "The Cosmos Rocks" is "C-lebrity" and is already number 1 in the United Kingdom. Want to hear the song for free? Go to link. youtube. com and type in the title C-lebrity. It is a live concert version recorded back in the spring of 2008 to satisfy all those of whom (still) await a great mix. AC/DC lost Bon Scott and replaced him with Brian Johnson, Van Halen lost (and later regained) David Lee Roth but replaced him with Sammy Hagar. Well this isn't exactly Queen and it isn't exactly Paul Rodgers solo either. It's a mix that will get the cosmos rockin' through the night. At the moment I"m listening to the country blues of "Call Me" and it's a winner, just like the rest of the entire Queen + Paul Rodgers "The Cosmos Rocks". The CD and download will be available within the United States of America officially come October 28, 2008 and for sure, a USA tour will come sometime in 2009. Rest assured, you will find me there. So out of a possible 5 out of 5 stars, I give this a complete 5 star rating. Believe me, you will not be let down. -W. K. Mahler link. mahlers. com link. myspace. com/wkmahler |
| brENsKi 30.09.2008 18:11 |
the dude wrote: For some of you, QPR can't win.yes "they" (QPR) can win - if they make something that the general music buyer wants to listen to...this clearly isn;t it. The album peaked at 5 opening week in their home country then slid to 18 second week. Germany (where Roger's band THE CROSS have a big fanbase) it entered at 4 - let's see second week there... as for the rest of the world - so far it's a collection of mid-low teen or mid-20 opening placings...this is NOT inspiring for band two (ex Queenies) who have not recorded an album together for 13 year...no demand, time and the music buyer forgot a band that forgot the fans.the dude wrote: It's too different. But if it was too much like old Queen you would complain about thatYou make a second point and actually you can't begin to realise how wildly wrong you are...If it was like old Queen then it would be huge. Think about - MIH - cobbled together from old solo tracks, and unfinished songs - it was a huge album sales-wise - because it sounded like "old queen".the dude wrote: There isn't one Queen album that doesn't need multiple listens to really get it. That's the genius of these guys.LOADS of Queen worked immediately for me....I became a fan in 1974...so every album from Queen II to Jazz inclusive |
| karley 30.09.2008 19:39 |
I think there are a lot of 'purist' Queen fans who will not accept Paul Rodgers or anyone else singing Queen songs....I really get tired of those who think that Brian and Roger should never play new music , and that the music of Queen should considered sacred . I think think Paul sounds great and that there are some very entertaining songs on the album. Classic Queen ..no.... but entertaining yes, worth a listen |
| marcenciels 30.09.2008 20:06 |
hummmm... somebody here hate's Brian & Roger for keeping Queen as their show seller. it's your right to be if that's how you feel about it T. moments. my gut feelin'...attempt to be a medium... Freddie wants them to keep Queen alive, so that people can go to the show again and sing with Chuck Norris or even Iggy Pop ;) |
| jere1979 30.09.2008 21:14 |
Sold out tour! 350,000 people to see them in the Ukraine.... who fuckin cares how the album does in austraila. |
| marcenciels 30.09.2008 21:18 |
and to add to that jere1979... it's with tours that sell out they really make money. not album sales. |
| shieldmatron 30.09.2008 21:35 |
marcenciels wrote: and to add to that jere1979... it's with tours that sell out they really make money. not album sales. But do Dr. May, Mr. Taylor & Mr. Rodgers need to "really make money"? Putting your heart, soul and talent into an album and have it not do well might just be what Q+PR consider to be a failure... no matter how many seats are sold in the Ukraine and elsewhere. |
| marcenciels 30.09.2008 21:45 |
SHIELDMATRON... that is not my point. any band needs to sell out shows or close to make money. the question is...are they doing this just for the money ? i dont hink so. but they are not doing it to lose money. just doing new stuff from their LP and playing live is the drive. anayway... it's fun to have them out there doing it again and doing it in new places. |
| mickyparise 30.09.2008 22:59 |
jere1979 wrote: Sold out tour! 350,000 people to see them in the Ukraine.... who fuckin cares how the album does in austraila. In the Ukraine, with 350,000 people the tickets were free, they made money on the VIP seats, and whatever came with it........I like the TCR, from what i heard so far, I'm in the USA and it's not out yet, and I'm on the USA Street team promoting the new cd, with our blessing from Hollywood records for sending us materials and such, but just worried how fast the album did in England and other Countries going down! Just my 2 cents....that's all GOD BLESS EVERYONE! |
| kingogre 01.10.2008 03:10 |
Honestly slipping to 18 isnt bad at all. Most albums by veterans slip way lower than that, and they rarely reach the Top 5. And you have to take into account that this isnt even an original line-up.. The tour is the best promotion for this and it hasnt even come to Britain yet. The fact is that this is an album that has gone Top 20 or Top 10 in lots of countries. That can hardly be considered a failure like some of you imply. It has even gotten some good reviews, ironically this is probably the best reviewed Queen-related album ever. |
| Ken8 01.10.2008 03:32 |
Togg wrote: I bet in the end it will sell more than a good number of the earlier albums... lets wait and see You have to be kidding. The funniest thing I've seen all day. Wake up you fool |
| Ken8 01.10.2008 03:43 |
kingogre wrote: "It has even gotten some good reviews, ironically this is probably the best reviewed Queen-related album ever." Had it been released in the seventies, you may nearly have had a point. And ironic because the album's so forgettable with no real impact, unlike those poorly reviewed, but still memorable albums of the seventies? In the real world, compare it to contemporary reviews of the the Queen back catalogue. This is not 1977 anymore, Queen have been long recognised in many, many quarters. Fools like yourself want to disregard that fact and try and pretend TCR is "worthy" It is amusing though watching Queen fans try and justify TCR to other Queen fans, when in the real world a lemon is a lemon and obviously not worth promoting in certain countries. |
| Togg 01.10.2008 04:13 |
Ken8 wrote: Togg wrote: I bet in the end it will sell more than a good number of the earlier albums... lets wait and see You have to be kidding. The funniest thing I've seen all day. Wake up you fool Check out the sales of Hot Space... once the tour is over and the album is out for a while in both north and south america for a while ... |
| TheCosmosRocks2008 01.10.2008 08:00 |
It is a brilliant album and I am looking foward to seeing them live in stage. Those people who think the New Album is that bad, they can go to hell |
| Tero 01.10.2008 10:01 |
Thanks. It's always nice to hear the QPR fans' open-minded reactions. |
| Marcos Napier 01.10.2008 10:23 |
stone cold crazy, you know. |
| cmsdrums 02.10.2008 07:39 |
Tero wrote:
the dude wrote: Queen and Paul Rodgers IS a new name.No, it's not. It's a composite of two old names. Queen is the English rock band whose members Brian and Roger used to be, and Paul Rodgers is the new singer they're performing with. They didn't suddenly rename the band "Queen+David Bowie" in 1981, or "Queen+Five" in 2000, did they? That sounds pretty simple, doesn't it? the dude wrote: They aren't pretending it's Queen. Name one Queen album that hasn't gotten a bad review somewhere.Why are you comparing their reviews to those of Queen reviews? I thought you just said they were different bands? Please, make up your mind about it and stick to either one! the dude wrote: So to those who come on here bashing QPR..what are you doing here? If you hate it so much then leave.Anybody who's a fan of Queen has a right to post his (or her) opinion about some of the members performing as Queen. Again, it's a very simple concept but some people just don't seem to grasp the possibility that everybody else doesn't agree with them. I thought they did EXACTLY that with the examples you gave - Under Pressure was released as "Queen & David Bowie", and in 2000 the reworked version of WWRY was released as Queen+Five??? (or Five+Queen, I can't recall right now). Even at the Freddie Tribute concert there was never any billing given as Queen, either on the ticket, or on the T shirts which listed them all the performers individually (ie John Deacon, Roger Taylor, Brian May). Whatever you feel about the new album, it must be said that they have been consistent (to date) in never just calling themselves Queen, but always adding an adenddum |
| Tero 02.10.2008 13:30 |
"I thought they did EXACTLY that with the examples you gave - Under Pressure was released as "Queen & David Bowie", and in 2000 the reworked version of WWRY was released as Queen+Five??? (or Five+Queen, I can't recall right now). Even at the Freddie Tribute concert there was never any billing given as Queen, either on the ticket, or on the T shirts which listed them all the performers individually (ie John Deacon, Roger Taylor, Brian May). Whatever you feel about the new album, it must be said that they have been consistent (to date) in never just calling themselves Queen, but always adding an adenddum" Either you must have missed my point by miles, or I just couldn't figure you out with these stupid malfunctioning quotes. I'm talking about two separate issues here: 1) The band isn't called "Queen+Paul Rodgers" like so many people claim. It's "Queen" and "Paul Rodgers" playing together. 2) Brian and Roger cannot be Queen by themselves because they are only half of the band. And interestingly enough, the dvd version of the FM tribute concert has "Queen+" in bigger writing than "Freddie Mercury" on the front cover, while the back lists songs performed by "Queen+" ... Consistent, yes. Truthful, no. |
| magnu 05.10.2008 10:04 |
Some people just don't think of Queen without Freddie. Sure, they can't replace Freddie, which is why they have a singer who is totally different, but that doesn't mean they have to use a different name! If you use Pink Floyd as an example, most of the public know their 'Dark Side Of The Moon sound', but if you were to play them their early stuff, particularly that of the Syd Barratt era, they wouldn't know it was the same band, & would probably hate it! Other bands, such as Deep Purple, change their style to accomodate the vocalists they have at the time. Australians in particular only really think of the singers in the bands, & tend not to like too much of a change in musical direction. I'm in Australia, & I know many people who only think of one style, when they think of groups. In other words, if they hear one of two songs of a similar style from a band, they pidgeonhole that band as doing a particular style. They think of The Sweet as bubblegum, Gary Moore as blues, & Genesis as an ordinary pop group. Most Australians only think of Queen as an ordinary pop group too, with songs like We Are The Champions, Somebody To Love & Bohemian Rhapsody. It would be impossible to get them to appreciate Ogre Battle, Liar, & Brighton Rock. They just don't like the music different to what they are used to. In any case, I have seen no promotions at all for the album, & I know many Queen fans who not only know nothing about this album, they don't even know Queen reformed with a new singer! |
| Ken8 14.12.2008 21:22 |
TOGG wrote: I bet in the end it will sell more than a good number of the earlier albums... lets wait and see Ken8 wrote: You have to be kidding. The funniest thing I've seen all day. Wake up you fool TOGG wrote: Check out the sales of Hot Space... once the tour is over and the album is out for a while in both north and south america for a while ... ummmm, okay. How's it looking now genius? Has it outsold a "good number" of the earlier albums, even "Hot Space"?? No, didn't think so |