| aion 02.04.2009 12:32 |
I used to be angry at my Rock: the Rough Guide book as it recommended only two studio albums by Queen and said about them: "In truth, most of Queen's albums were patchy but their choice of singles was usually impeccable". But in fact that sentence is very true... Most Queen albums are very uneven affairs, and a casual music fan who's not a die-hard Queen fan needs to have only 1-2 studio albums by them plus Greatest Hits collections I & II. There was once a time when I listened almost exclusively to Queen, but when I started to listen to more and more music and looked at the band more objectively, my appreciation of the albums lowered somewhat. The problem is, Queen albums always had some filler and a couple of real duds; consistency was not something they were good at. They were really a singles band and not an albums band, though they might have claimed otherwise. Even the very best Queen albums, A Night at the Opera and Innuendo, have weak parts: Sweet Lady is quite embarrassing and Delilah and Hitman just don't fit the mood of Innuendo. Of course the situation is much worse with the rest of the albums... mostly there's the good songs that were the singles, then there's at best a couple of other strong songs and all the rest is filler. So even though Queen will probably always be the no. 1 band for me, I don't actually rank Queen albums all that well when compared to many other bands. The solo albums are worse: it's pretty fair to say that only Barcelona, Back To The Light and Happiness? (and maybe Blue Rock by the Cross) are good records; the rest of them are pretty damn weak. Anyone agree? How do you rank Queen & solo albums against other music? |
| whynot 02.04.2009 14:29 |
I partly agree. The consequence of democracy in the band is that everyone wants (has) there own songs to be on the album. Personnaly I'm not to keen on Rogers songs (don't understand why he (and Brian) have to sing an a Queen album, when you've the best singer in the world). Rock It/Drowse/Fun It/Coming Soon/Loser in the End are not that great and for me album fillers. Just like Human body, the B side of play the game which didn't make the album. Maybe the songs would've sound better when Freddie would have sung lead vocals on these particular songs. I' ve been a Queen fan since 1979 and saw them many times live. The solo albums are not that great, sorry to say again, I don't like Rogers stuff at all. As a drummer he's great , as a songwriter he's medium and as a singer terrible. Queen was the four of them and that was magic. Without one of them, it's not Queen. The average of the individual solo albums are proofing this. Roger/Brian with Paul Rodgers has nothing to do with Queen and is an disgrace. |
| JacquesDaniels 02.04.2009 14:49 |
That's what pretty much every other rock history book says about Queen albums. Uneven, inconsistent and all that, which is true enough. But I for one like Queen for exactly that reason, they didn't even try to find the golden midway, and were good enough to explore, even if it wasn't always very successful. Against other music, I think Queen albums fare rather well, depending of course on which other music you compare them. Bands like AC/DC, Sex Pistols, Motörhead, U2, Status Quo, Creedence Clearwater Revival etc., while very good on their own field, can get tedious to listen to if exposed to in bigger chunks of time than, say, 30 minutes. Then there's the other kinds of bands, which are very proficient at what they do, and can keep interest up for a very long time, but can get boring, monotonous and utterly predictable after exploring for a few months - I could count to this lot The Boomtown Rats, Dave Matthews Band, Soundgarden, Toto, Foo Fighters etc. Queen were rarely boring in either regard, which is the main reason which keeps you coming back to it every now and then. I can't agree with you about Sweet Lady, though. Brian only tried to create a straight-forward rock song in 3/4 time (which is still surprisingly unusual), in which I think he succeeded admirably. And there's a whole lot of worse lyrics going on in the world of rock music. |
| ANAGRAMER 02.04.2009 15:00 |
I think, if we are to be honest with ourselves, that there is a good point to be made here. Queen NEVER made a particularly blinding album perhaps with the near exceptions of Sheer Heart Attack and A Night At The Opera but, in their distinct favour is the willingness to take a chance with different styles and textures (ofthen within a single song!) It's this facet which is their greatest strength and, converserly, this lack of focus can be seen as their greatest weakness. Looking back on imminent Queen album releases, there was always a degree of trepidation (especially from Jazz onwards) - sometimes this was justified (Hot Space), sometimes not.. It did however, make life as a Queen fan a bit more interesting that anticipating the next Oasis opus! |
| Band Forever 02.04.2009 16:23 |
Queen tried different styles so this is maybe where the idea of fillers has poured into your head not one album consisted of purely metal songs or ballads, I must admit I loved everything Freddie sang + what the band performed from the Queen material to covers at concerts. Apart from the last stuff which you could hear Fred strain noticeably and sound as if he had a heavy cold especially Winters Tale more's the pity in his pomp that could have been a real beaut of a ballad and maybe he could given that song added dimension as his voice and tone was unbelievable. I like aspects of Led Zeppelin but find their songs are long winded although Immigrant Song is a belter. I hear other bands Oasis as predictable as Arizona weather, Rolling Stones a couple of classics that apart mine the same seam constantly recycling albums with different lyrics. |
| YourValentine 03.04.2009 03:22 |
I totally agree - there is no Queen album that does not have any weak songs. The funny thing is that the fans largely disagree when it comes to naming the "fillers". I am sure that there would be a heated discussion about each possible filler. Each song can be equally liked or disliked by a large number of fans. |
| Bo Rhap 03.04.2009 03:40 |
Its hard to find a filler on A Night At The Opera or A Day At The Races. But i take on board what you are all saying about the rest of the albums. |
| liam 03.04.2009 05:58 |
seaside rendevous and sweet lady are both fillers on ANATO. |
| August R. 03.04.2009 09:15 |
liam wrote: seaside rendevous and sweet lady are both fillers on ANATO. No no no, Seaside Rendez-vous is one of the best tracks on the album. ;) |
| Drastic_Stu 03.04.2009 09:19 |
Queen were quite unusual in that more than one person sang lead vocals and I have to admit back in 1984 when I started buying the old albums it took me a while to realise that it wasn't Freddie singing all the songs (I did wonder how he could change his voice so much) as it was so unusual. I don't think Queen are unique by any means in that there is nearly allways one song on the album that you don't like as much as the rest as that is the case with most bands. It has been said that Freddie was the peacemaker beween Brian and Roger and maybe he could see it was better to keep them both happy and let them sing the occassional song on an album and let them have a solo spot when playing live as he wanted Queen to last as long as possible. |
| mike hunt 03.04.2009 15:37 |
liam wrote: seaside rendevous and sweet lady are both fillers on ANATO. you don't know what your talkng about!, seaside rendevous is one of the best on the album. do you have ears?..... Sweet lady isn't as bad as people say either. As far as the uneven crap (why so much negative shit on queenzone?) you could say that about every band. Is there a filler on sheer heart attack?...or ADATR?....I don't think so. Every song is good or great on the debut and Anato. The eighties I agree, great songs on uneven albums. |
| aion 05.04.2009 08:49 |
mike hunt wrote:liam wrote: seaside rendevous and sweet lady are both fillers on ANATO.you don't know what your talkng about!, seaside rendevous is one of the best on the album. do you have ears?..... Sweet lady isn't as bad as people say either. As far as the uneven crap (why so much negative shit on queenzone?) you could say that about every band. Is there a filler on sheer heart attack?...or ADATR?....I don't think so. Every song is good or great on the debut and Anato. The eighties I agree, great songs on uneven albums. Seaside Rendezvous is great, but you got to be kidding about Sheer Heart Attack: Misfire is pure filler, so are She Makes Me and Bring Back That Leroy Brown (at least). There are many bands that have been capable of maintaining high quality throughout albums, but Queen wasn't one of them... as a result, when music magazines always list best albums of all time, there's going to be only one Queen album in there but plenty of albums by the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Floyd, Bowie, Radiohead etc. |
| lalaalalaa 06.04.2009 21:49 |
I don't think of any Queen song as a filler. Instead I think of them as songs for people with different taste in music. Some people think She Makes Me off Sheer Heart Attack is a filler but some people might think differently. |
| lalaalalaa 06.04.2009 21:49 |
aion wrote:mike hunt wrote:Seaside Rendezvous is great, but you got to be kidding about Sheer Heart Attack: Misfire is pure filler, so are She Makes Me and Bring Back That Leroy Brown (at least). There are many bands that have been capable of maintaining high quality throughout albums, but Queen wasn't one of them... as a result, when music magazines always list best albums of all time, there's going to be only one Queen album in there but plenty of albums by the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Floyd, Bowie, Radiohead etc.liam wrote: seaside rendevous and sweet lady are both fillers on ANATO.you don't know what your talkng about!, seaside rendevous is one of the best on the album. do you have ears?..... Sweet lady isn't as bad as people say either. As far as the uneven crap (why so much negative shit on queenzone?) you could say that about every band. Is there a filler on sheer heart attack?...or ADATR?....I don't think so. Every song is good or great on the debut and Anato. The eighties I agree, great songs on uneven albums. Misfire a filler? That was John Deacon's contribution to the album. Plus I absolutely love that song. |
| maxpower 06.04.2009 22:02 |
The original poster gives a fair assumption something which I agree with, don't listen to Queen as heavily as I did when I was a kid. Great singles & patchy albums is fair & pointing out arguably their two strongest efforts really does highlight that point. In the 70's ACDC with Bon Scott albums to me were strong, Aerosmith likewise, Led Zep & the whole punk movement gave rock 'n' roll the kick up its backside i.e. The Clash etc as much as I like Queen none of their albums can match London Calling its only by broadening your senses you appreciate there is so much out there. |
| mike hunt 07.04.2009 10:29 |
aion wrote:mike hunt wrote:Seaside Rendezvous is great, but you got to be kidding about Sheer Heart Attack: Misfire is pure filler, so are She Makes Me and Bring Back That Leroy Brown (at least). There are many bands that have been capable of maintaining high quality throughout albums, but Queen wasn't one of them... as a result, when music magazines always list best albums of all time, there's going to be only one Queen album in there but plenty of albums by the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Floyd, Bowie, Radiohead etc.liam wrote: seaside rendevous and sweet lady are both fillers on ANATO.you don't know what your talkng about!, seaside rendevous is one of the best on the album. do you have ears?..... Sweet lady isn't as bad as people say either. As far as the uneven crap (why so much negative shit on queenzone?) you could say that about every band. Is there a filler on sheer heart attack?...or ADATR?....I don't think so. Every song is good or great on the debut and Anato. The eighties I agree, great songs on uneven albums. "bring back that leroy brown"' is my favorite song on the album, lol. That's brilliance son!.... and misfire is a good song. Are you sure you understand what queen were about?....you don't have to be a steford, but "leroy brown" that's classic Queen......I don't disagree with everything here, and the reason why I don't put queen in the top 5 of the greatest bands is because they wern't as consistent as Zep, the who and even floyd. Queen are still in the top ten of the all time greats. Is that so bad? |
| mike hunt 07.04.2009 10:34 |
maxpower wrote: The original poster gives a fair assumption something which I agree with, don't listen to Queen as heavily as I did when I was a kid. Great singles & patchy albums is fair & pointing out arguably their two strongest efforts really does highlight that point. In the 70's ACDC with Bon Scott albums to me were strong, Aerosmith likewise, Led Zep & the whole punk movement gave rock 'n' roll the kick up its backside i.e. The Clash etc as much as I like Queen none of their albums can match London Calling its only by broadening your senses you appreciate there is so much out there. Are you one of those people who try to sound cool by bringing up the punk movement, Please!....Queens music has stood the test of time, not like those cunts......ACDC has played the same riffs for a hundred years, so of course it's easier to be consistent when you never try new things like queen did. |
| maxpower 07.04.2009 11:53 |
No I'm not trying to be anything I'm giving my opinion when most the punk bands imploded The Clash survived because they evolved very much like Queen mixing their own rockabilly, ska, reggae and punk. |