Queen's first studio album in 13 years sounds a little like the band's old albums, with stomping rockers, over-the-top power ballads and pyrotechnic solos difficult to replicate on Rock Band. But one thing's missing: late frontman Freddie Mercury, whose charisma Bad Company's Paul Rodgers can't match. Under Rodgers' command, Cosmos Rocks evokes an unmemorable stretch of drive-time radio, with slow songs like "Say It's Not True" recalling Air Supply. The classic-rock clichés aren't all Rodgers' fault: Original band members helped write tracks like "Still Burnin'," a generic bar-band jam laced with chestnuts like "music makes the world go 'round." Queen 2.0 are competent enough to rock arenas, but don't expect a repeat of the glory days.
CHRISTIAN HOARD
(Posted: Oct 30, 2008)
That's better than I expected from RS...the worst music publication on the planet...but I could have read the same review from some anonymous person on Amazon. Seriously, people get *paid* to write one-paragraph music reviews these days?!?
After his post on the positive RS piece today, somewhere in Texas, Microwave is crushed by the news that no one gives a rats ass about Paul Rodgers fronting Queen.
Q + PR have an impossible task. They have to appease the spoiled, crack pot, Freddie crazed, babies that call themselves fans. They also have to appeal to no-nothing critics like RS. Then if they don't crack the top 40 everybody says, "See, I told you they sucked." Everyone just calm the F*CK down! If you don't like it, if you're offended by it, if it pains you, then don't listen to it, shut your yap and go cry yourself to sleep. I have been a Queen fan my whole life. I have all their records on vinal, casette, and CD. I have added Cosmos to my collection. Is it their best work? No. Do I enjoy listening to it? Yes. In fact, I can't stop listening to it and that it worth all the drama to me.
Did you know that on Rolling Stones top 500 songs chart that Bohemian Rhapsody is something like 164 or 165? ANATO is not on their top 500 albums chart.
Denmagic said: Who reads that shitty magazine anyway? It was once popular in the 1970s
Allot of Americans do. Today, four decades since its founding by Jann Wenner the Rolling Stone record reviews is regarded by many sources as one of the most influential around.
mworks wrote:
Q + PR have an impossible task. They have to appease the spoiled, crack pot, Freddie crazed, babies that call themselves fans. They also have to appeal to no-nothing critics like RS. Then if they don't crack the top 40 everybody says, "See, I told you they sucked." Everyone just calm the F*CK down! If you don't like it, if you're offended by it, if it pains you, then don't listen to it, shut your yap and go cry yourself to sleep. I have been a Queen fan my whole life. I have all their records on vinal, casette, and CD. I have added Cosmos to my collection. Is it their best work? No. Do I enjoy listening to it? Yes. In fact, I can't stop listening to it and that it worth all the drama to me.
There's a hint of truth to Rolling Stones words. However, Queen + Paul Rodgers blatantly did something that really made me feel good. They pulled a "W. K. Mahler" so what is that? Go listen to "Voodoo" from "The Cosmos Rocks" and try and realize that the band released the 2nd performance of the song, something I have done since 2001. They've got the nads to appeal the bar band era and I wouldn't be a bit suprised if QPR (Queen + Paul Rodgers) steps off the tour bus one night and appears at some small place that fits maybe 100 people just to perform. Rolling Stone magazine lost control of their own roots, Queen + Paul Rodgers has not.
There's a hint of truth to Rolling Stones words. However, Queen + Paul Rodgers blatantly did something that really made me feel good. They pulled a "W. K. Mahler" so what is that? Go listen to "Voodoo" from "The Cosmos Rocks" and try and realize that the band released the 2nd performance of the song, something I have done since 2001 with my own music and be humble about it, like QPR. They've got the nads to appeal the bar band era and I wouldn't be a bit suprised if QPR (Queen + Paul Rodgers) steps off the tour bus one night and appears at some small place that fits maybe 100 people just to perform. Rolling Stone magazine lost control of their own roots, Queen + Paul Rodgers has not, meaning, when was the last time RS got inside a local pub and wrote a review of someone not signed to a major label or recording contract? Don't tell me it's the "not ready for prime time" for the bar band is prime time, take that prime jive!
Yes, well I fully believe that reviewers like those in RS ought to say whatever they must in order that they feel clever, because it's quite clear they're not. Again, a review based chiefly on the fact that Freddie never shows up to rehearsals any more. A bit like a pigeon witlessly soaking the forehead of a pedestrian with crap, purely by accident.
IF their music where to be the same, which it never was ! ( We as the collective would piss and moan ) if things where to change and turn out to be progressive which for my own part has been the most intriguing and elemental part of this most hallowed band
WOULD WE NoT BE DISCONSOLATE IN THEIR REMISS ?