| 12yrslouetta 27.06.2009 05:15 |
sad loss the michael jackson died. i thought he was brilliant. great voice and great song writer. anyway i smiled when i read brian mays thoughts on michael jackson. he still compares, ever so loosely, hotspace and thriller. They are so far apart in direction and execution im not sure that you can mention them in the same breath, let alone the same sentence. And im not saying that because hot space is rubbish, on the contrary, i love that album. see i never ever ever thought of queen of being a rock band so as soon as i heard the first bar of staying power i already loved the album. Queen just explored different things so i was excited by hot space. but to compare it to thriller just seems very odd indeed. and to say it was all about timing of the release.......hmmmmmm.i wonder if brian may has ever heard thriller. |
| Sebastian 27.06.2009 06:01 |
By the time 'Hot Space' was issued, 'Thriller' was already a work in progress. So it's not only illogical to think it was its inspiration in mathematical terms, but also, as you say, by simply listening to the album. I sort of think the opposite: Beat It vs Invisible Man. |
| Cwazy little thing 27.06.2009 07:43 |
I dont think there was really an influence there in the way Brian seems to hint, but I do understand and accept part of what he is getting at - Queen were a rock band attempting to make an album with funk/disco influences, whereas Michael Jackson was a funk/disco type act trying to make an album with certain rock influences. Queen didnt get it quite right in that although the album is interesting as a change of direction, personally I dont think most of the songs were good enough, or catchy enough to sell to either their usual audience, or a more general, pop audience in a great amount. On the other hand, Thriller is a bit of a masterpiece in pop music and blends the above influences tremendously well. I dont think it was timing - Jackson just did it better! I dont hate Hot Space though - I find it fun to listen to, and a nice change of gear in the Queen catalogue. |
| The Real Wizard 27.06.2009 09:00 |
Michael Jackson himself once said there would have been no Thriller without Hot Space. |
| mooghead 27.06.2009 10:17 |
Bullshit |
| on my way up 27.06.2009 10:39 |
Sir GH wrote: Michael Jackson himself once said there would have been no Thriller without Hot Space. Indeed! Also, let's not forget Michael was friends with Freddie at that time. He gave Queen the tip to release Another one bites the dust as a single( a 1980 song that made Queen do more songs like that, as we all know). He certainly knew what new grounds Queen was discovering and that probably inspired him. Despite the claims to the contrary that i've read here, I can see similarities between Thriller and Hot Space. That said, Thriller is much much better than Hot Space. Michael(and Quincy of course) got it right. They had the song and the sounds. Queen's songs were not as good and the production left a lot to be desired. |
| marcio17@queenzone.com 27.06.2009 15:56 |
I think Brian is right, regarding feedback on both albums. I think that some evidence between how both albums were produced, is that of comparing Thriller/Beat It and Staying Power/Dancer. Look the solo on Beat and Dancer, and the horns and funk on Thriler and SP. Also, bare in mind, that during that time, Freddie and Michael produced and sang three songs: There must be more in life than this, State of Shock and another one. Songwriting there is kinda same. |
| Sebastian 27.06.2009 18:07 |
Sir GH wrote: Michael Jackson himself once said there would have been no Thriller without Hot Space. When and where? |
| L-R-TIGER1994 27.06.2009 18:09 |
in Neverland after smoking some pots and screwing a few guys. |
| 12yrslouetta 27.06.2009 19:39 |
hmmm its interesting that you can compare the two, i dont really hear any similarities whatsoever. its funny that we hear different things isnt it?michael jackson was already a huge star before thriller, and he had a huge audience. thriller is a continuation of "off the wall" imho. very different but still very much michael jackson. also, im of the opinion that just because he spoke or became friendly with freddie mercury for a short time doesnt really mean anything, michael jackson was friends with a whole host of stars, and he was always savy enough to beat to his own drum. |
| mike hunt 27.06.2009 23:21 |
12yrslouetta wrote: hmmm its interesting that you can compare the two, i dont really hear any similarities whatsoever. its funny that we hear different things isnt it?michael jackson was already a huge star before thriller, and he had a huge audience. thriller is a continuation of "off the wall" imho. very different but still very much michael jackson. also, im of the opinion that just because he spoke or became friendly with freddie mercury for a short time doesnt really mean anything, michael jackson was friends with a whole host of stars, and he was always savy enough to beat to his own drum. it's strange to me that you don't hear similarities between hot space and thriller. Listen to "beat it" then listen to dancer and back chat, A pop song with a rock guitar solo, it's pretty obvious..... Brian may's comment that hot space wasn't successful because of timing?...I think timing had a little to do with it, but the bottom line is that the songs wern't nearly as good as what's on thriller. If the songs were great the album would have been big...... I like hot space myself, a fun little album, but it was missing that something special. hot space might have been an influence, but too say there wouldn't have been a thriller without it is being a little arrogant as a queen fan. I'm sure thriller had many influences. |
| The Real Wizard 27.06.2009 23:31 |
Sebastian wrote:I don't remember exactly... but it was an interview from that era that I read a transcription of a few years back. That aside, I'm pretty sure Freddie influenced Michael's music otherwise. There are so many musical similarities between Love Me Like There's No Tomorrow and Heal The World. In my eyes, those are two of the greatest pop songs ever written.Sir GH wrote: Michael Jackson himself once said there would have been no Thriller without Hot Space.When and where? L-R-TIGER1994 wrote: in Neverland after smoking some pots and screwing a few guys. Shhhh... quiet. The adults are talking. |
| L-R-TIGER1994 28.06.2009 00:51 |
Sir GH wrote: Michael Jackson himself once said there would have been no Thriller without Hot Space. when?where?any info?leave it to experts please. |
| The Real Wizard 28.06.2009 01:21 |
L-R-TIGER1994 wrote:Sir GH wrote: Michael Jackson himself once said there would have been no Thriller without Hot Space.when?where?any info?leave it to experts please. Ok, you've made your point. You retaliate because I point out your lies and lack of common decency. We get it. Stop being a troll, wasting webspace with your spam that doesn't add to the conversation. |
| bgordon88 28.06.2009 04:26 |
Also Hot Space only had 3 songs that were comparable - Staying Power, Dancer and BackChat. Are any othose songs as good as Billie Jean, Beat It or Thriller..... I don't think so. Despite Queen's success Brian May still has some chips on his shoulder and chooses some inappropriate times to air some of his views. |
| Sebastian 28.06.2009 05:52 |
I think 'our timing was off' is a better excuse than 'our record was shite' when it comes to explaining why it wasn't very successful. As for the quote, I'd usually take Bob's word for it, but not in this case: if it were real, it'd have probably surfaced a long time ago (as it happened with Roger Waters' one about songwriters), plus I suppose there'd be something about it on 'Moonwalk', and there isn't. |
| L-R-TIGER1994 28.06.2009 09:16 |
Michael Jackson himself once said there would have been no Dangerous without The Cosmos Rock. |
| Yara 28.06.2009 10:20 |
Hi, folks. How are you? Well...I in fact agree with all of you in many aspects but I make a different sense out of much what you all guys correctly remarked . Back in 1983, during an interview with Lisa, I guess it's available on youtube, Freddie talked about his collaboration with Michael Jackson and said that Michael Jackson actually wanted to cast him in Thriller's video - Freddie said that, due to conflicting schedules, he wasn't able to do it - I guess it's fair to say that Michael Jackson would only bestow this honor upon someone who had really influenced him. And there are signs of it indeed: as on my way up pointed out above, Michael Jackson had been listening to Queen back in 1979/1980 and was friends with Freddie and the band, to the point of suggesting Another One Bites The Dust as a single: all this info come from interviews given by the guys at the time "The Game" and "Hot Space" were done. In terms of sound, well, I like both the Game and Hot Space better than Michael's albums - it's one of those interesting moments in history which showcase that musicianship alone doesn't make a genius sometimes. Hot Space is much more interesting musically and way more daring in terms of crossing different kinds of music - more: it was Queen, back then, who translated that sound to the stage: Freddie had the power in his voice to make it happen live and to really sound as a soul/R&B singer. Brian May had the talent to play the guitar on stage over funk or beat textures and give the songs the right dancing groove. Freddie's performances of Action This Day or Staying Power at MK have him singing different genres squarely in a single song - by the time he's singing "give it to me, give it to me right now, give it to me...action, action...", during Action this Day, actually improvising at ease just like many great soul singers, one feels like listening to the male version of Aretha Franklin backed up by a rock band playing along some funky beats. What really set Michael apart was not the sound - it was the visual. And that's where Queen was failing miserably back then next to Michael Jackson. Michael's videos are unforgettable; he elevated dancing to a state of art and all this helped boost the songs and give them the power they have up until today: his sheer creativity for dance moves and his gorgeous ideas for videos were quite unique. People were eager back then for the all-encompassing experience which Michael was able to provide - putting amazing videos, distinctive new and absolutely appealling coreographies and dances and, yes, good original songs together in a way it had NEVER been done before. He was a genius in managing to deal with all those elements and putting it all together and redefining pop-music. Even so, I pick Action This Day or Staying Power or Dragon Attack over Beat It any time - even Fun It, which is a song I simply adore and is very well thought out. "Fun It" has a very interesting arrangement which wasn't that obvious back in 1978 as far as mainstream, top-selling artists were concerned. It's the "poor Neil Young thing". lol Dylan's Knocking on Heaven's door is a straight copy from Neil Young's Helpless - by "copy" I mean: it's really the same song, whether by coincidence or not (I think it is by coincidence). Though something set Dylan apart: the lyrics and its clever universal appeal which made it suitable both for the soundtrack of Pat G. and Billy the Kid and for the times - willingly or not, Dylan hit a political nerve with the song as Nixon was bombing Camdodia. Neil Young's musicianship wasn't enough to make his song a legend; it took the genius of someone like Dylan, who was able to give basically the same song a different spin and great lyrics suitable for both a movie and a more general audience. He pulled all this elements together and composed the song which became a legend. That's my take on this subject. :-)) Take care you all! Have a great SUNDAY!!!YEAHHHH! Yara. |
| Sebastian 28.06.2009 10:50 |
Yara: it is true that: - MJ liked Queen, watched their shows, and his favourite song by the band (before 'The Game' at least) was Champions. - MJ suggested AOBtD as a single (he wasn't the first one, though). - MJ worked with FM in some tracks. - FM lost his chance to be in Thriller. - MJ indeed was one of Freddie's top favourite singers (unlike Paul Rodgers). But, from the points above to 'without "Hot Space" there would be no "Thriller"' there are light years... |
| Sheer Brass Neck 28.06.2009 11:31 |
I too find the connection plausible, but tenuous. Emboldened by the crossover success of AOBTD, Hot Space became a "dancier" type of record, and it destroyed Queen's US fan base. Queen were a hard rock band whose greatest songs all fell into the realm of what was called Album Oriented Rock (AOR) at the time. Hot Space for the most part was not AOR music, and with the exception of Dancer and Back Chat, not really at all like Thriller. Staying Power, poor instrumentation aside, would certainly be a Jackson 5 influenced song, pulsing bass drum a la ABC, r' n' b horns, truly "black" music. Dancer was plodding at best, Back Chat was a weak funk song. Body language was more Euro-disco than American funk or dance, and Action This Day was more new wavish than black dance or funk. Put out the Fire was classic Queen sounding, Life is Real was a sparse ballad, Calling All Girls sparse and modern but not black dance or funk, Las Palabras was a Queen ballad with synth ornamentation, Cool Cat was black dance or funk, but arguably terrible, and Under Pressure was another modern for the times rock song. If Brian is referring to Michael Jackson attempting to cross over to a white audience in great numbers, and Beat It was the result, I can see it. But you could dance to Beat It. It was rhythmically fantastic, and MJ knew the world of dance. The Lukather rhythm and VH solo brought over people who probably wouldn't have given MJ the time of day musically. Same as Queen got with AOBTD. They hit a grand slam home run with that, but really would people who liked that song give Ogre Battle or Brighton Rock the time of day? No. Same with MJ. He had success after Thriller but his attempts to do rock/funk were formulaic with Steve Stevens on Dirty Diana, and Slashon Black and Whoite, and he was trying to recreate whathe wasn't; a rocker. Brian is many things, and not disrespectfully, he is not cool, and Dancer sounded like a guy who couldn't dance or make the club scene trying to fit in. Didn't work. |
| The Real Wizard 28.06.2009 13:05 |
Sebastian wrote: As for the quote, I'd usually take Bob's word for it, but not in this case Well, I can swear I read it somewhere (other than Wikipedia)... so let's hope it is found some day. But I think the musical similarities should speak for themselves. It was probably an influence on some level. |
| kosimodo 28.06.2009 13:53 |
Lets call in Adam and Jamie[img=/images/smiley/msn/regular_smile.gif][/img] |
| Yara 28.06.2009 14:42 |
Hi, folks! I hope you're fine. Sebastian: No, that was not my point at all. I don't think it's a case of "no Hot Space, no Thriller". It wasn't the point of my post at all. I was just addressing the original question - the "vs" element - and agreeing with many of what you guys posted, but drawing a different conclusion. Sir GH: I guess it's fair to say that Michael was refering to Queen's overall influence on him and how he felt that, without that background, he wouldn't be able to come up with his stuff; which must have been true of many of the other artists who influenced him. I think he singled out Hot Space for being the closer Queen got to his sound. A kind of symbol. ------- I would just add to my post that, as it happens to many extraordinary talents, Michael Jackson was a compromise between tradition and innovation. For instance: much of his dance is a modern update of American MGM dancing tradition: there are coreographies and steps which come straight from American musicals. Even the dressing that Astaire made so popular since his first movie - the hat and the jacket - he used. Michael's dance was step-dance basically, and that's so deeply rooted in American culture that, by cleverly updating all that and giving it the meaning people were looking for at his time, he really conquered it all. ------ Regards and take care you all, Yara |
| MmP 29.06.2009 01:05 |
In terms of Sound I don't find them too similar though the style is what I find alike in those two. Even Brian said it recently... It was Michael who heard our track "Another One Bites the Dust" when he came to see us on "The Game" tour ... and told us we were mad if we didn't release it as a single. Of course this was way before Michael's monster solo career began ...but he was already in search of that fusion between Funk and Rock, Black and White, and the Thriller album was the consummation of that quest. There are many similarities between it and our "Hot Space" album ... but our timing was out, really. Michael got it right in every respect ... including timing ... the world was just ready for it ... and of course he was in a sense seeking the same ground, but coming from the opposite direction. |
| mike hunt 29.06.2009 01:47 |
yea, but I disagree with brian in some ways. It wasn't only about timing, it was about songs. He's trying too say it was all about timing as an exuse for the albums failure. I like hot space as a whole, but it was missing that something special, that magic that Queen usually had. I agree with sheer brass attack that dancer found brian trying his best to make a dance song, but failed. Body language was a decent attempt by freddie at making a dance song, but again failing. Staying power I like for the most part, but was better live and cool cat was a nice sounding song, but never would have been a hit. |
| dragon-fly 29.06.2009 03:08 |
Hot Space sounds ok, only because Brian insisted on more guitars. Make them less and it would be disaster (remember Back Chat?) |
| mike hunt 29.06.2009 03:45 |
yea, back chat was another pretty good song, but even that was missing that something special. |
| Holly2003 29.06.2009 11:04 |
The Queen sound is missing from Hot Space. There are no* vocal choirs and no* guitar orchestration. They failed to give the "Queen treatment" to the funk musical style and so we were left with a bunch of white English guys trying to copy what is, essentailly, black American music. It was half-arsed and not well thought out. Brian's claim that the only thing wrong was the timing of the release, is laughable. They didn't make a great record and the sales reflected this. And in gambling so radically on capturing the funk market, they lost a lot of rock fans. *Probably. Shut up in advance Sebastian :) |
| ANAGRAMER 29.06.2009 16:22 |
The whole comparison thing is bogus Thriller WOULD have happened without Hot Space without a doubt The similarities are that they both targeted the same market - one with enormous success! As to why Hot Space didn't work - let's look at the performances - Fred's on fine form vocally, electronic drums (erm), electronic bass (erm..), little rock guitar..... I personally think that Hot Space (funk tracks) was all Freddie - the others weren't that interested or (in RT's and BM's case) - simply not up to it as musicians - NO FEEL! |
| Sheer Brass Neck 29.06.2009 16:57 |
I believe in "you are what you eat" when it comes to music. Listen to early songs like '39 (skiffle), Leroy Brown and Good company (traditional jazz) or even later 70s songs like Mustapha (Arabic influenced.) You could easily see that type of music being played in the Bulsara, May, Deacon and Taylor households when they were children. As a result, their attempts at non-rock music in the early days were very successful, since it was something they all understood. On the other hand, Roger said he hated country and western, a style Queen never handled. It would probably come across as forced if he was involved. Well, I think when it came time to do Hot Space, I think John and Freddie were of that dance/funk world (Freddie loved the Jackson 5, John's favourite bassist was Motown genius James Jamerson), so it was a direction that they could gravitate too. I think Roger's contributions were fantastic, more modern or new wave sounding tracks and unfortunately the instrumentation destroyed Action This Day, whis is a shame as it was aces live. But Dancer is IMHO in the top 3 of Brian's worst songs, Put out the Fire is un'funky, could have been on any Queen album, as could Las Palabras. With 50% of the band not on the same page, that's not bad timing, that's bad choice in musical direction. |
| doxonrox 29.06.2009 22:51 |
OK, I'll show my age and say that I remember when both of those albums came out. Brian's memory may differ, but here's how I saw it shake out: Hot Space is released and the first single is Body Language. A song with a silly synth bass line, no groove, a weird video, and Freddie trying way too hard on vocals (the background breathing and moaning speak for themselves). The album tanks by Queen standards and no one is really interested in a follow up single of this record. A couple of years later, Thriller is released and the lead single is Bille Jean. A killer drum beat that is perfectly in the pocket (Queen's closest is AOBTD), great vocals and a dance video that changed the world. More great singles and videos followed, and history was made. There is no comparison. I don't know about the MJ quote about Hot Space, and I'd love to see the reference. But the fact is, it was a hell of a lot more than timing. I'm not an MJ fan, but he and Quincy Jones turned the music industry on its ear. Hot Space shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as Thriller. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 29.06.2009 22:59 |
Agreed, and for point of reference, the first single was The Girl is Mine, and at the time, the album looked like a moderate hit. Then Billie Jean was released and it exploded. I love Queen but must say that if there is a link musically (one act trying to do dance from a funk POV, the other reversed) it comes during Beat It with heavy guitars. otherwise, can't see the influence at all. |
| MmP 30.06.2009 08:57 |
I do think Hot Space is enjoyable but can't be compared to what Thriller was at the time...the music it's just brillant. I thhink what Brian was trying to say is (what he already had said at the time HS was released) is that the idea of Hot Space was good, but the result was bad. The funk music was hitting in that time and it was not so crazy to give it a try: why not? If Queen had always gambled...remember Bo Rhap? The difference between those gambles was that one was fully worked in order to succed...and the other, well. I think the guys had an idea but they were too tired of Queen to work it out properly. You can't just blame the timing, Brian has to recognize that they didn't work on Hot Space as they should have. I wonder what would've happened if the did. Hot Space could be a killer album by now. |
| Togg 01.07.2009 08:28 |
I think Brian might be slightly over egging the pudding here, however I am sure that if Jackson had met with them at any point he would have been full of hollow compliments about how much they influenced him, that was the type of guy he was. The truth is he went his own way and was far more influenced by the likes of Motown and groups like Chic then he ever was by Queen. I wonder if he was asked to come to the Freddie tribute?? |
| Mr Prime Jive 02.07.2009 05:13 |
In term of musicianship, Hot Space is WAY below Thriller. There's no (or little) feeling in song interpretation, the mixing of acoustic and synthetic parts is approximative and the global level of production is quite perfectible. In Thrillers you've got KILLERS like Quincy of Greg Philinganes, with decades of experience in how to arrange R&B music. Queen had Mack... They should have payed the full price and get Giorgio Moroder on board ! |
| ANAGRAMER 02.07.2009 14:07 |
Mr Prime Jive wrote: In term of musicianship, Hot Space is WAY below Thriller. There's no (or little) feeling in song interpretation, the mixing of acoustic and synthetic parts is approximative and the global level of production is quite perfectible. In Thrillers you've got KILLERS like Quincy of Greg Philinganes, with decades of experience in how to arrange R&B music. Queen had Mack... They should have payed the full price and get Giorgio Moroder on board ! Well said - that's exactly the point - Mack's history was Deep Purple, ELO, Zeppelin etc - on that level Queen were atypically half-hearted It has to be said tho, that many established bands did flounder in the early 80's - Rush and the Stones prime examples- too much technology came on stream in a short time for bands to absorb or dismiss As well as that, the quality control was slipping - perhaps if RTB had been around he would have curbed the whole foray into R+B and TOLD them to focus on their core talents - and write better songs!! |
| April 02.07.2009 16:27 |
OMG! Thriller is great! It was a breakthrough! I think it's greater. |
| QUEEN1985 06.07.2009 14:57 |
|
| Sebastian 06.07.2009 21:49 |
My friend Hernan (I'd written Marcelo earlier - damn Alzheimer's!) just sent me this link:[url=http://www.elperiodicoextremadura.com:80/noticias/noticia.asp?pkid=341044%5B/url] http://www.elperiodicoextremadura.com/noticias/noticia.asp?pkid=341044[/url], an article (in Spanish) about 'Thriller' written two years ago. A rough translation of the important bit (for us): 'Michael Jackson has recently acknowledged that Tchaikovsky's 'Nutcracker' was one of his muses when it came to piecing 'Thriller' together. It was "a work where each song was ace", he claims. But Queen's 'Hot Space' was even more present during the recording.' I don't wanna look like a bad loser, but I'm not denying 'HS' influenced 'Thriller'. My point remains: from that to 'without "Hot Space" there'd be no "Thriller"' there are light millennia... just like from Fred (most likely) knowing about, and respecting, Paul Rodgers, to having him as his favourite singer, there are also light millennia. And it still doesn't change the fact that there's a hell of a lot more that made 'Thriller' a success and 'Hot Space' a flop besides timing. Simply put, 'Thriller' is brill (and I'm not saying that because of Michael's untimely demise), 'Hot Space' is crap. |
| doxonrox 06.07.2009 22:00 |
Thanks for the reference, Sebastian! Not a "poor loser at all", but a guy with a great memory. I don't see the resemblance, but the Nutcracker is even more of a stretch - except for the high vocals! |
| Mr Prime Jive 07.07.2009 04:29 |
This said, listen back to back to "Staying Power" and "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'" and you'll discover that they're virtually the same songs : two openers, close key, similar beat, similar horn arrangements, fast singing of small lines... live versions are even closer ! The difference is just that one is sheer brilliance and the other is average white funk... Imagine Hot Space with a good production team ! |
| Sebastian 07.07.2009 07:26 |
I don't think production's the problem in 'Hot Space'. Writing was sub-par and performance was mediocre. Live versions showed the band could rock those songs; why didn't they make the same effort when recording? Also, as it's been commented, Fred's voice was marvellous at the time - so why waste it with shit like Body Language instead of writing some tunes that could exhibit his skills better? Michael's voice, OTOH, shines all the way through 'Thriller', especially in the title track. |
| 4 x Vision 07.07.2009 09:17 |
Sebastian wrote: Live versions showed the band could rock those songs; why didn't they make the same effort when recording? Yep... you tell 'em... good for nothing lazy swines!!! If only they had someone like you there for guidance in the studio... then they may have actually made some better material for us to listen too. Their loss!!! |
| Sebastian 07.07.2009 10:37 |
They didn't need someone like me (or anybody else for that matter) to guide them. They were good enough to make masterpieces by themselves, like 'A Day at the Races' or 'News of the World'. But for 'Hot Space' they went for 1% (at most!) of their skills. Waste of time, space and money. |
| mike hunt 07.07.2009 10:53 |
that's your opinion sebastian. hot space wasn't great, but it was still a decent enough album. Too say a waste of time and money is a stupid thing to say. |
| Sebastian 07.07.2009 10:56 |
Of course it's my opinion. Did I EVER say it's not my opinion? And yes, IMO, it was a waste of money and time to book those studios, use those instruments and employ those engineers to come up with that. This obsession of yours to follow my messages and attack me is pathetic to say the least. |
| Wiley 07.07.2009 11:12 |
Oh, that quote is like the Holly Grail of quotes for me and it made my day, hehe :) I love Hot Space. It's my guilty pleasure, I guess. I know it's not a work of genius and a couple of songs are crap but there is just something about it that sticks in your head. Not a patch on Thrilller, though, but still it's a very fun album to listen to. My favorite songs in it are Under Pressure, Staying Power, Dancer and Las Palabras de Amor. Put Out the Fire used to by one of the first Queen songs I called "a favorite of mine" but now I don't love it that much. Body Language grew on me after a friend of mine claimed he loved it. Not every day you tell a friend you like Queen and he says "Oh man, Hot Space is GREAT! The bass line on Body Language is wicked!". I bet that's a first for any Queen fan, haha :) |
| Martin Packer 07.07.2009 15:17 |
And the songs I love on Hot Space are Back Chat, Calling All Girls and Action This Day. And I DO like Body Language, Dancer and Los Palabros De Amor. Strangely I'm not so keen on Under Pressure. Probably because it has Bowie on it. :-) |
| Rick 07.07.2009 16:56 |
Sebastian wrote: Of course it's my opinion. Did I EVER say it's not my opinion? And yes, IMO, it was a waste of money and time to book those studios, use those instruments and employ those engineers to come up with that. This obsession of yours to follow my messages and attack me is pathetic to say the least. Oh, so the fact that Queen was merely experimenting (hence their reputation for being a experimental, innovative band) does not appeal to you? Pity. That is EXACTLY what Queen was all about: always trying something new, hardly any repitition, 'tackling' different kinds of music genres, extending horizons etc. Hot Space is just a simple result of this. Did it succeed? No, unfortunately. So, was it a waste of time? A definite no. They tried, they failed (in general, that is): they just put it down to experience. |
| Sebastian 07.07.2009 18:14 |
Queen tried new things, but with quality. Somebody to Love was new and they did it great; Dear Friends, Master-Stroke, Bo Rhap, Best Friend... when it came to 'Hot Space' and other stuff, they didn't, in MY opinion. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 07.07.2009 18:15 |
Well, I wouldn't call it a waste of time, space and money as I think it's the sign of artists trying to stretch their artistic muscle. I read that legendary British DJ John Peel was a huge early supporter, but felt that they lost their way with ANATO. He felt they were going to be an amazing hard rock band, but when the campy influences became more prevalent on ANATO, he sort of felt they lost the plot. Point being, Queen were what Queen were. They were an amalgam of everything that became a one in a lifetime original act. Unfortunately Hot Space suffered from poor instrumentation, but that was the wave at the start of the 80s. Some of the songs like Staying Power and Action this Day could have been monstrous with better instrument choices (no synth bass on Staying Power, no cheesy synth/sax solo on Action.) I don't think it was lack of effort though, Seb. I think it was a band who knew what they were, but didn't know what (or how) they wanted to be. |
| Sebastian 07.07.2009 18:25 |
Sheer Brass Neck: I agree to disagree. Both you and Rick have different opinions to mine, and both express so with respect and not using sarcasm, bullying or cyber-stalking. We can have opposite views and still have a peaceful time here. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 07.07.2009 18:50 |
True Sebastian, sometimes people around here are intolerant of opinions that don't match their own. It's funny what the person said about Queen needing you or someone like you to tell what to do. I know they were being sarcastic, but the reality is Queen in their later years (even now with QPR) desperately needed the opinions of people who aren't yes men. Having someone thing that the type of music being played on TCR would win an audience in 2008 was absurd, with cliched mid-tempo rockers. They've needed to be freshened up artistically many times, but when you've their success would you listen to an outsider? |
| PauloPanucci 07.07.2009 18:56 |
|
| PauloPanucci 07.07.2009 18:57 |
Hey, i'm new in the site,,, and The Michael jackson Topic in the Brazilian fan-club turns war. One said that he likes Michael jackson, other said that Michael Jackson is an idiot. I have my opinion,, i respect everbody,, i think everbory have a opinion... I love the album hotspace and thriller.... But i stay with hotspace, i prefer it!!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ sorry the wrong typing,,, i'm from brazil!!!!!!! |
| Sunshine 08.07.2009 09:04 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: True Sebastian, sometimes people around here are intolerant of opinions that don't match their own. It's funny what the person said about Queen needing you or someone like you to tell what to do. I know they were being sarcastic, but the reality is Queen in their later years (even now with QPR) desperately needed the opinions of people who aren't yes men. Having someone thing that the type of music being played on TCR would win an audience in 2008 was absurd, with cliched mid-tempo rockers. They've needed to be freshened up artistically many times, but when you've their success would you listen to an outsider? Yes so right! How could they even imagine that it would be successful? It was a record for their fun but they sounded dated from the first day of release.. But who could have told them that? I can imagine it is difficult to say.. I know that making a good record is very difficult but we are talking about the creme de la creme of rock musicians. It could have been so much better...I mean, Paul singing: Once i saw a butterfly...bla bla bla...my dick doesnt get hard from that!! |
| mike hunt 08.07.2009 10:33 |
of course hot space could have been better, listen to the live versions. They kick ass. The bottom line is that not every album is gonna be great. Action this day is good the way it is, I like the sax at the end of the song, but live it's a masterpiece. same with staying power. A good song in the studio, but live it kicked ass. The songs I don't like are dancer, body language, put out the fire, and maybe calling all girls. That's 4 songs I don't like, so obviously I feel the album could have been better. |
| doxonrox 08.07.2009 19:42 |
|
| The Real Wizard 08.07.2009 22:13 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: Queen in their later years (even now with QPR) desperately needed the opinions of people who aren't yes men. Having someone thing that the type of music being played on TCR would win an audience in 2008 was absurd, with cliched mid-tempo rockers. They've needed to be freshened up artistically many times, but when you've their success would you listen to an outsider? This is exactly what Rush did with their latest album, Snakes And Arrows. They got a producer who wasn't a yes-man, who would tell them when something was going wrong or didn't sound good. Result: the strongest Rush album since Signals, or even Moving Pictures. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 08.07.2009 22:33 |
It's the age old conundrum for any aging artist, Sir GH. In the 90s, the Stones did some work with Biz Markie to sound more contemporary and it sounded ridiculous and forced. But if they did typical Stones stuff we'd all say same old Stones stuff. Queen tried with Hot Space and it didn't work, but IMHO a song like Breakthru really incorporated some good beats that were non-Queen like and that was really successful newer Queen sound for the late 80s. Look at Bon Jovi doing a country crossover album. That's pathetic as that's not even close to their roots, but it was wildly successful sales wise. I'd rather see Queen do (better that TCR) classic sounding rock than become 60 year old emo or dance guys. |
| Sunshine 09.07.2009 05:12 |
In fact it doesnt matter what style the album is, if it is a dance/funk record or rock album or whatever style it is. All that matters are the compositions. In that way. TCR and Hot Space have something in common: the majority of the tracks are mediocre compositions. I even think that TCR is worse than Hot Space because i dont hear any composition that comes close to Under Pressure for example. That saved the album in being even worse. Thriller has only great compositions, like also A Night At The Opera has. Look at U2, they did a complete change of style with Achtung Baby back in 1991. The reason why the album is still sounding fresh is because of the great compositions. |
| Sebastian 09.07.2009 08:28 |
Sunshine wrote: All that matters are the compositions. I disagree. Compositions are important, but so is performance. Would Love of My Life have been that beautiful if it'd been sung by Roger Waters and had Roger Taylor on bass, Freddie Mercury on guitars and Ringo Starr on piano? Would Saint-Saens's Piano Concerto No 2 sound brill with John Deacon playing it? Would Bohemian Rhapsody be as great if recorded by The Ramones? And then there's production as well... same story. While 'Hot Space' didn't have masterpieces, the problem was IMO about performances. With better playing (as it happened on stage), some of those tracks could be, if not 'excellent' or 'marvellous', at least 'reasonably good'. Take Staying Power for instance, or Back Chat. Likewise, 'A Night at the Opera', if recorded a la 'Hot Space', would be sub-par. Imagine shitty drum-machines replacing Roger on Sweet Lady, a cheesy synth-bass walking all over Love of My Life, replacing Brian's guitar jazz band on Good Company by a brass section from KC & The Sunshine Band's rejects, Bo Rhap's rock section with e-drums and synth-bass, Prophet's Song's canon being replaced by a synth-arpeggiator break, I'm in Love With My Car having only one (clean) guitar appearing sporadically and replacing the rock flavour by a disco one, and the national anthem having a JP-8 'monster-bass' or 'Flash Gordon'-esque pads rather than the guitar ensemble. |
| PauloPanucci 09.07.2009 08:56 |
I think we can't compare HOTSPACE with THRILLER. It' two diferent thinks, like you compare steve wonders with guns and roses. Queen make diferent musics comparing with MJ... So it's no fair dispute... I can say that Thriller is a suck,, because i'm in a Queen forum,, but i don't say that because i respec the forum and MJ and i like MJ.. So i think we can't do a fair comparation! this is my opinion!!! |
| mike hunt 09.07.2009 10:11 |
Sir GH wrote:Sheer Brass Neck wrote: Queen in their later years (even now with QPR) desperately needed the opinions of people who aren't yes men. Having someone thing that the type of music being played on TCR would win an audience in 2008 was absurd, with cliched mid-tempo rockers. They've needed to be freshened up artistically many times, but when you've their success would you listen to an outsider?This is exactly what Rush did with their latest album, Snakes And Arrows. They got a producer who wasn't a yes-man, who would tell them when something was going wrong or didn't sound good. Result: the strongest Rush album since Signals, or even Moving Pictures. I always said that, snakes and arrows is the best rush album since signals. A solid album. |
| Sebastian 09.07.2009 10:13 |
I'm a bit 'ashamed' about never having listened to Rush (not on purpose anyway). Got to do it sooner or later. |
| mike hunt 09.07.2009 10:20 |
Rush arn't for everyone, but give them a try. You'll be impressed I think. |
| The Real Wizard 09.07.2009 12:28 |
Sebastian wrote: I'm a bit 'ashamed' about never having listened to Rush (not on purpose anyway). Got to do it sooner or later. Start with the Rush In Rio DVD. I've yet to find a fan of rock music who didn't enjoy that to some degree. Music aside (amazing and passionate as it is), the audience are worth the price of admission. |
| Holly2003 09.07.2009 14:43 |
Sir GH wrote:Sebastian wrote: I'm a bit 'ashamed' about never having listened to Rush (not on purpose anyway). Got to do it sooner or later.Start with the Rush In Rio DVD. I've yet to find a fan of rock music who didn't enjoy that to some degree. Music aside (amazing and passionate as it is), the audience are worth the price of admission. Ohhh I don't know about that. Geddy's voice isn't great on that show and since he's got one of those 'love it or hate it' voices then maybe it's better to point a first time listener towards a better-sounding show (although I agree the crowd was amazing, as all South American audiences seem to be). I would suggest Exit Stage Left as the live album and either Moving Pictures or Signals as the studio album. |
| The Real Wizard 10.07.2009 00:31 |
Fair enough. Exit Stage Left then. The focus really is on the music, and it's them at their creative peak. |
| Sunshine 10.07.2009 05:58 |
Sebastian wrote:Sunshine wrote: All that matters are the compositions.I disagree. Compositions are important, but so is performance. Would Love of My Life have been that beautiful if it'd been sung by Roger Waters and had Roger Taylor on bass, Freddie Mercury on guitars and Ringo Starr on piano? Would Saint-Saens's Piano Concerto No 2 sound brill with John Deacon playing it? Would Bohemian Rhapsody be as great if recorded by The Ramones? And then there's production as well... same story. While 'Hot Space' didn't have masterpieces, the problem was IMO about performances. With better playing (as it happened on stage), some of those tracks could be, if not 'excellent' or 'marvellous', at least 'reasonably good'. Take Staying Power for instance, or Back Chat. Likewise, 'A Night at the Opera', if recorded a la 'Hot Space', would be sub-par. Imagine shitty drum-machines replacing Roger on Sweet Lady, a cheesy synth-bass walking all over Love of My Life, replacing Brian's guitar jazz band on Good Company by a brass section from KC & The Sunshine Band's rejects, Bo Rhap's rock section with e-drums and synth-bass, Prophet's Song's canon being replaced by a synth-arpeggiator break, I'm in Love With My Car having only one (clean) guitar appearing sporadically and replacing the rock flavour by a disco one, and the national anthem having a JP-8 'monster-bass' or 'Flash Gordon'-esque pads rather than the guitar ensemble. Hi Sebastian, Yeah you are right. My writing was too one dimensional. What i meant was that it starts with good compositions and yes you are right, a good composition can be fucked up like you describe above. I just don't think there are so many great compositions on Hot Space, certainly not compared to Thriller. The stand out song is obviously Under Pressure and the album could have been saved from ' Bad to Mediocre' like most people's opinion is at the moment, to reasonably good if the production and performances would have been spot on. Body Language, Dancer, Put Out The Fire, Life is Real, Calling All Girls, i think it is all crap. I really like Back Chat live at the Bowl, but it sounds too flat and uninspired on the record. Staying Power is also nothing exceptional..hmm..no i think Hot Space is a failure in Queen's catalogue. I also think Brian is not allowed to use Hot Space and Thriller in one sentence, it is light years away in terms of quality, performance and production. Though i think A Night At The Opera would have been hilarious in the excution like you describe:) |