QueenZone discussion #1183903

Sebastian wrote: I think the album had nice songwriting, but except for Hard Life, not good enough to have come from Queen: compare Break Free with You And I, Tear It Up with The Prophet's Song or Man on the Prowl with Bohemian Rhapsody. Ga Ga isn't a bad song per se, but I prefer loads of others by Rog: I'm In Love With My Car, Drowse...

Holly2003 wrote: I haven't listened to the whole album for as long as I can remember. I recall being very disappointed when The Works came out. All the pre-release media/press had promised a harder album and a "return to form". Instead, we got a lightweight album with only one trademark Queen song (Its a Hard Life), two rock songs (the excellent Hammer to Fall and awful Tear It Up -- no wonder John Deacon looked bored all the time), Radio Ga Ga, which felt like one long moan that fans had deserted Queen (the same could be said of I Go Crazy), Machines (interesting and reasonably heavy), some forgetable lightweight pop (Break Free, Windows), and ITTWWC -- a studio version of the live version of Love of My Life! The 12-inch versions were very sloppy and dull. Despite Queen needing a hit album, the Works feels like it was put together by a bunch of rich guys who treated "Queen" like a chore they did when they weren't enjoying their wealth. The live shows were something else though. I saw them at the RDS both nights and they rocked hard. I recall that Kerrang reviewed one of their shows in England and the reviewer was amazed how heavy they were. Stone Cold Crazy is amazing live.

Holly2003 wrote: I haven't listened to the whole album for as long as I can remember. I recall being very disappointed when The Works came out. All the pre-release media/press had promised a harder album and a "return to form". Instead, we got a lightweight album with only one trademark Queen song (Its a Hard Life), two rock songs (the excellent Hammer to Fall and awful Tear It Up -- no wonder John Deacon looked bored all the time), Radio Ga Ga, which felt like one long moan that fans had deserted Queen (the same could be said of I Go Crazy), Machines (interesting and reasonably heavy), some forgetable lightweight pop (Break Free, Windows), and ITTWWC -- a studio version of the live version of Love of My Life! The 12-inch versions were very sloppy and dull. Despite Queen needing a hit album, the Works feels like it was put together by a bunch of rich guys who treated "Queen" like a chore they did when they weren't enjoying their wealth. The live shows were something else though. I saw them at the RDS both nights and they rocked hard. I recall that Kerrang reviewed one of their shows in England and the reviewer was amazed how heavy they were. Stone Cold Crazy is amazing live.

MmP wrote: Does anyone knows why it was called The Works?

Sebastian wrote: Things that make IAHL as classic Queen as it gets: - Backing track of piano, bass and drums in a similar way to Bo Rhap, Jealousy, etc. - Deliberately Bohemian Rhapsody-esque guitar solo - Guitar harmonies in a very 70's way - Powerful backing vocals... loads of them - No synths - Sad, yet hopeful, love-lyrics (think about Love of My Life, for instance) - Flat-side keys: B-Flat Major, E-Flat Major... both very reminiscent of the golden era - First verse is preceded by a piano motif played twice over the Bb chord, exactly like Bo Rhap - Intro doesn't re-appear anywhere in the song, like Bo Rhap - The lift progression is basically the same as Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy (chorus), and in the same key - Andalusian cadence (before the solo), which Fred hadn't used since Great King Rat and Liar (modified) - Relatively long melody content (as opposed to their contemporary singles like Break Free or Body Language) - While not complicated, it's still well-thought in terms of harmony and arrangements, like most Fred's piano ballads. - Three choruses, but they're all different, just like Killer Queen

Sebastian wrote: Things that make IAHL as classic Queen as it gets: - Backing track of piano, bass and drums in a similar way to Bo Rhap, Jealousy, etc. - Deliberately Bohemian Rhapsody-esque guitar solo - Guitar harmonies in a very 70's way - Powerful backing vocals... loads of them - No synths - Sad, yet hopeful, love-lyrics (think about Love of My Life, for instance) - Flat-side keys: B-Flat Major, E-Flat Major... both very reminiscent of the golden era - First verse is preceded by a piano motif played twice over the Bb chord, exactly like Bo Rhap - Intro doesn't re-appear anywhere in the song, like Bo Rhap - The lift progression is basically the same as Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy (chorus), and in the same key - Andalusian cadence (before the solo), which Fred hadn't used since Great King Rat and Liar (modified) - Relatively long melody content (as opposed to their contemporary singles like Break Free or Body Language) - While not complicated, it's still well-thought in terms of harmony and arrangements, like most Fred's piano ballads. - Three choruses, but they're all different, just like Killer Queen

mike hunt wrote: the works for me is a second tier queen album, not great, nor horrible. These are my rating for each song. 1 out of 10 score.  It's a hard life is genious in my opinion. Radio ga ga-  10/10 tear it up- 6/10 hard life-  10/10,    masterpiece, my favorite song on the album. MOTP-  6/10 machines-  7/10 break free-  8/10,   Not my favorite song, but people like it passing windows-  9/10,  always liked this song, except the lryic "love is all you need" hammer to fall-  10/10,  a classic world we created-  8/10,  nice song, and wembly versions even better I go crazy- 8/10,  should have been on the original album.

Yara wrote: Hi, Amazon and Sebastian! Thanks for the great and helpful posts. Does anyone can help me with this? I enjoy this album a lot, but I always wondered why is it so short or at least it feels so short? Don't get me wrong, I love each and every song of this album; and there are, to my taste, beautiful, great moments in the tour - the first few gigs are awesome, the gigs in Japan in 1985 are very nice and I absolutely adore their performance in Live Aid. 1) Didn't they have more good material to enrich the album? If they had, why they released the album just like that? Does any of you guys have some reliable info on this?

Micrówave wrote: Ok, I gotta say there's something fishy about mike hunt. You've rated three songs as 10 out of 10.  I would think that there's not too many albums EVER that would garner such a rating.  Three 10/10???  Plus several 8s and a 9???  But you don't consider it one of the greatest records ever? So what, Night At The Opera has all 10/10s??? 

Holly2003 wrote: Without the synths, Keep Passing the Open Windows would be similar in style and tone to Spread Your Wings. Now IMO that would be a good thing, but I suspect Queen thought that by adding synths they were treading new ground. In fact, all it did was make them lazy.

Sebastian wrote: Now, what I dislike about 'The Works' is that you've got the same bloke who wrote Prophet's Song contenting himself with Tear It Up (which btw is not pop at all); even my favourite song in the album, It's a Hard Life, is to Bohemian Rhapsody as a VW Beetle is to a Ferrari.

Sebastian wrote: Things that make IAHL as classic Queen as it gets: - Backing track of piano, bass and drums in a similar way to Bo Rhap, Jealousy, etc. - Deliberately Bohemian Rhapsody-esque guitar solo - Guitar harmonies in a very 70's way - Powerful backing vocals... loads of them - No synths - Sad, yet hopeful, love-lyrics (think about Love of My Life, for instance) - Flat-side keys: B-Flat Major, E-Flat Major... both very reminiscent of the golden era - First verse is preceded by a piano motif played twice over the Bb chord, exactly like Bo Rhap - Intro doesn't re-appear anywhere in the song, like Bo Rhap - The lift progression is basically the same as Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy (chorus), and in the same key - Andalusian cadence (before the solo), which Fred hadn't used since Great King Rat and Liar (modified) - Relatively long melody content (as opposed to their contemporary singles like Break Free or Body Language) - While not complicated, it's still well-thought in terms of harmony and arrangements, like most Fred's piano ballads. - Three choruses, but they're all different, just like Killer Queen

Sebastian wrote: If you took the opera and rock sections away from Bo Rhap and leave it as a ballad (with a cappella intro and fanfare) it'd be very similar to A Hard Life, but still - IMO - a hell of a lot better.

Sebastian wrote: Speaking of nitpick, I've got one for you - John Deacon doesn't perform on WWTLF, unless you mean his performance as the band's financial advisor ;)

Zebonka12 wrote: No way!  

Sebastian wrote: If you took the opera and rock sections away from Bo Rhap and leave it as a ballad (with a cappella intro and fanfare) it'd be very similar to A Hard Life, but still - IMO - a hell of a lot better.

Micrówave wrote: Ok, I gotta say there's something fishy about mike hunt.

Sebastian wrote: Things that make IAHL as classic Queen as it gets: - Backing track of piano, bass and drums in a similar way to Bo Rhap, Jealousy, etc. - Deliberately Bohemian Rhapsody-esque guitar solo - Guitar harmonies in a very 70's way - Powerful backing vocals... loads of them - No synths - Sad, yet hopeful, love-lyrics (think about Love of My Life, for instance) - Flat-side keys: B-Flat Major, E-Flat Major... both very reminiscent of the golden era - First verse is preceded by a piano motif played twice over the Bb chord, exactly like Bo Rhap - Intro doesn't re-appear anywhere in the song, like Bo Rhap - The lift progression is basically the same as Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy (chorus), and in the same key - Andalusian cadence (before the solo), which Fred hadn't used since Great King Rat and Liar (modified) - Relatively long melody content (as opposed to their contemporary singles like Break Free or Body Language) - While not complicated, it's still well-thought in terms of harmony and arrangements, like most Fred's piano ballads. - Three choruses, but they're all different, just like Killer Queen

Yara wrote: Hi folks! How are you? I like many of you guys but I think I'll disagree with everyone now. :-( [protecting myself with a shield and a helmet bearing the Queen symbol :op ] Well, I beg to differ from the analogies brought up so far. Analogies are valuable as a means of understanding only if, at least, the logic presiding the two compared phenomena are similar. To begin with, in my humble view, bringing up either Da Vinci or Usain Bolt as an analogy to Queen is very misleading: the musical equivalents of Da Vinci are Bach, Beethoven, Duke Ellington, Messiaen, you name it, not Queen, for sure. First and foremost because, well, there's here a clear divide between art and very simple pop culture to entertain the masses. Same with Usain Bolt - his music equivalent would be someone like Liszt - a great composer (as Usain is a great athlete) and one of the best pianists ever (as Usain is one of the best atheletes within his category). Queen is not in this rank of excellence. And they never pretended to be: as Freddie said, the music was supposed to entertain or, as Brian said recently, "pure escapism" - marketable goods for a mass audience. So it's not as if they had to keep a great artistic legacy and by recording "The Works" they hadn't lived up to their talents. They said themselves: they wanted to be still relevant in the music market, they wanted to keep selling records because that's the measure of success for pop artists. Sales: people willing to pay to listen to the music. Paying twice, three times sometimes: singles, albums and concerts. And the way to keep being relevant as a stadium rock band in the 80's was not the same as in the 70's. It's not a question of better or worse here, in my humble view: it's a different demand. Pop bands were expected to produce new original material almost on an annual basis. Queen did manage to meet the demands of the market - and they succeded in doing it, in my humble opinion, beautifully. Music has to be entertainment too. As long as Queen's songs, such as Bo Rhap, are not taken more seriously than they cleverly were aimed to be, I think it's fine, that is, it pretty much in accord with my taste.   -------------------------- Then I go to websites about Queen's music and some things really baffle me. I find it amusing, each one his/her own, and I love to see the different ways people relate to music, but I get really surprised by some things.   An instance: Freddie never bragged about having constructed a counterpoint (in the narrower sense) in Bohemian Rhapsody. 1) First, because he was much more a musician than only a poorly gifted tablature or score reader. Anyone who has to resort to notations everytime he/she wants to play something, sing a song or write about music is already lost for music - this is as true for classical artists nowadays as for the more sophisticated pop artists. 2) Because it was obviously a mock piece. There is no possible counterpoint there, first species or not - it's a collage of distorted processed voices the timber and tonal quality and clumsy weak motions of which even forbid the piece from having anything similar to a genuine, well-structured and beautiful first-species counterpoint. It's a funny entertaining pastiche! 3) But just for the sake of the argument, I thought to myself, let me assume that the mock operatic section features a  first-species counterpoint, as so many Queen websites boast, and let me see if it makes me feel better as a fan. :-))) I can't understand the point, really. It's funny, because I'm like: so what? A first-species counterpoint without further developments in form of fugues or other clever counterpunctual structures, doesn't mean much, or anything. It's just...a set of simple rules to achieve some results. I can do many, and none will be nearly as fun or as good or as entertaining as the operatic section from Bo Rhap, which has none: the merit of the passage is what makes it entertaining to people in general - it sounds grand, the lyrics are both funny and threatening, it builds up a lot of tension through a myriad of voices - a small wonder from a studio and technological point-of-view - and leads to a wonderful rock part with a wonderful rant I'd love to say to someone one day. Hahaha. These points are part of the difference between myself, a technician-in-training - the equivalent of the bureaucrat in music - and Freddie, who was a wonderfully gifted MUSICIAN.  :op   ---- Which is, finally (hehe), where my opinion about The Works comes in: it's not better or worse than any other Queen album, to my taste: it's an album done in a different context and which aims at satisfying a different demand - a demand which had to be met if Queen wanted to keep being as big an act as they had been. One thing, though, I feel like saying in favor of The Works: it spawned a world-wide hit (I Want to Break Free), it paved the way to what's arguably one of the most shinning moments in Queen's career, which was Live Aid - Radio Ga-Ga became almost an arena-anthem and Hammer To Fall became one of Queen's most appreciated songs. "Is This The World We Created" was the song that captivated people all over the globe when Freddie and Brian took the stage to perform it during Live Aid. So: no "I'm in Love with my car", no fillers like "Sweet Lady". :-)))) It is, surprisingly, as someone correctly, in my humble opinion, said above, a very consistent album - yes! It was: a quality which is lacking from almost every other Queen album!    Given the goals they had to face, they succeeded to my taste: and they did it beautifully. They did it by outdoing onstage, for instance, some of most famous pop artists in 1985.   ---- Anyway, I think Hammer To Fall, Radio Ga-Ga and I Want to Break Free are as classic Queen as Bohemian Rhapsody - and rightly so. Such songs, even a simple one as I Want To Break Free, ended up really moving audiences from all over the world - and, I have to be honest, the lyrics are quite beautiful, mature and have a wonderful universal appeal. I think everyone can relate to the experiences described in "I Want To Break Free" - and I take the "God Knows" as that intimate dialogue people have with themselves: it's one facing a situation which only his counsciousness, which is biased and disturbed and contradictory by that point, can bear witness to. I find it beautiful. :op  And I love Man On The Prowl - the song but, mainly, the lyrics, which are priceless. :op --- So: I love the Works as much as any other Queen album except for News of The World which has a very special place in this poor girl's heart. :-)  I come here to present my humble 0,0000000000000001 cent, I can show you some pooooor merchandise! ;-))) Take care, guys, and have a wonderful day!!!! Yara P.S: Needles to say, this is only my personal opinion and is not meant to curb disagreement or other ways people have of relating to music. I'm getting so fancy, my posts have even a DISCLAIMER! :op 

Bigfish wrote:  it just doesn't grab you like those 70's ballads do

Yara wrote: Hi folks! How are you?   

Sebastian wrote: Amazon, I beg to differ about: - We Will Rock You: It's just a beat with pentatonic melody. Nothing special... the song's legendary but on purely musical terms it's not more creative or original than Wannabe. And on that note... - Spice Girls: They're way better than most people give them credit for. Most of the music wasn't written by them, so? The final result's good anyway. The fact they're pop and the fact they sold more by their image and marketing than by their music doesn't mean the latter is bad. - I definitely would go to a concert where Brian only sang and didn't play any instrument. Otherwise, great post. Not something I entirely agree with, but good way to express your opinion and to fight prejudices.

Sebastian wrote: Amazon, I beg to differ about: - We Will Rock You: It's just a beat with pentatonic melody. Nothing special... the song's legendary but on purely musical terms it's not more creative or original than Wannabe. And on that note... - Spice Girls: They're way better than most people give them credit for. Most of the music wasn't written by them, so? The final result's good anyway. The fact they're pop and the fact they sold more by their image and marketing than by their music doesn't mean the latter is bad. - I definitely would go to a concert where Brian only sang and didn't play any instrument. Otherwise, great post. Not something I entirely agree with, but good way to express your opinion and to fight prejudices.

Sebastian wrote: Yes, they were selected, packaged and put together, and they made good music.

Sebastian wrote: They did contribute to some of the tunes, and even if they didn't, it doesn't mean they're not musicians. Loads of great artists don't write what they sing or play, and it doesn't make them 'bad' at all. Were Emma et al virtuoso singers? No. Were they musicians on the same level as Annie Lennox or even Susanna Hoffs? No. But, were they musicians? Yes. Did they make good music? Yes (even if not by themselves, but nearly nobody has 100% of their product, Beatles had Martin, Queen had producers, and it doesn't make them less brill than they were).

Sebastian wrote: Musician is a person whose profession (either by vocation or finance) is music. And Spice Girls are there. They're, for that reason, musicians. Good musicians? Bad musicians? That's subjective. But they are musicians, indeed.

Sebastian wrote: Yes, they were selected, packaged and put together, and they made good music.

ThomasQuinn wrote:

Sebastian wrote: Yes, they were selected, packaged and put together, and they made good music.

No; they were reasonably well-produced, but they definitely did not make good music. Good selling music perhaps.

mike hunt wrote: the works for me is a second tier queen album, not great, nor horrible. These are my rating for each song. 1 out of 10 score. Radio ga ga-  10/10 tear it up- 6/10 hard life-  10/10,    masterpiece, my favorite song on the album. MOTP-  6/10 machines-  7/10 break free-  8/10,   Not my favorite song, but people like it passing windows-  9/10,  always liked this song, except the lryic "love is all you need" hammer to fall-  10/10,  a classic world we created-  8/10,  nice song, and wembly versions even better I go crazy- 8/10,  should have been on the original album.

Van Basten 9 wrote:

  mike hunt wrote: the works for me is a second tier queen album, not great, nor horrible. These are my rating for each song. 1 out of 10 score. Radio ga ga-  10/10 tear it up- 6/10 hard life-  10/10,    masterpiece, my favorite song on the album. MOTP-  6/10 machines-  7/10 break free-  8/10,   Not my favorite song, but people like it passing windows-  9/10,  always liked this song, except the lryic "love is all you need" hammer to fall-  10/10,  a classic world we created-  8/10,  nice song, and wembly versions even better I go crazy- 8/10,  should have been on the original album.

For something not great, nor horrible, do you know you rated it at 82%... that's quite a decent mark for something you consider second tier lol No criticism intended, but I'd love to know what you'd give an album you consider excellent... prob 40/10 maybe?

mike hunt wrote:

  Van Basten 9 wrote:  

      mike hunt wrote:   the works for me is a second tier queen album, not great, nor horrible. These are my rating for each song. 1 out of 10 score. Radio ga ga-  10/10 tear it up- 6/10 hard life-  10/10,    masterpiece, my favorite song on the album. MOTP-  6/10 machines-  7/10 break free-  8/10,   Not my favorite song, but people like it passing windows-  9/10,  always liked this song, except the lryic "love is all you need" hammer to fall-  10/10,  a classic world we created-  8/10,  nice song, and wembly versions even better I go crazy- 8/10,  should have been on the original album.  

For something not great, nor horrible, do you know you rated it at 82%... that's quite a decent mark for something you consider second tier lol No criticism intended, but I'd love to know what you'd give an album you consider excellent... prob 40/10 maybe?

your the second person critising my rating, don't you people have a life?....The works was ok, and yes i would rank A night at the opera much higher, mostly 10 out 10 for most songs.  Isn't that how you should rank your favorite music?.....Just because I'm not a miserable sob like most queenzoners who think everything is shit, garbage, crap?...you want me to be a little more on point, ok. Let's try this again. Radio ga ga- 10/10 tear it up- 2/10, crap, garbage, and shit. brian really lost it in the eighties. hard life- 10/10 MOTP- 2/10,  crap, garbage, shit.  Freddie, what were you thinking? machines- 4/10,  thank god roger and brian didn't write more songs together. Garbage, crap, shit. break free- 6/10 KPTOW- 7/10 hammer to fall- 9/10 world we created- 8/10 there, A nice and honest rating. still a Second tier album. not great, nor horrible. I'm now one of the miserable assholes on Queenzone.

itsmeskc wrote: not my favorite lp but when one compares the early to mid 1980s stuff with the 1970s lps--and im not saying this thread does, but those first seven lps QUEEN to JAZZ  are so exceptional that any band would have been hard pressed to top most of that stuff- plus that lp had most of the songs written while the band was taking a break- so there was maybe, i think, less collaboration..in typical queen fashion though- they once again released an lp that was different than the previous and it was more versatile than hot space  machines, ..prowl...world we created, hard life, hammer to fall my favorite....and the tour  i was never a huge fan of doing medleys or snippets of past songs they use to play on tour like the tours shortened versions of liar, lap of gods, seven seas kyalive etc..