| masterstroke_84 01.08.2009 19:16 |
... what do you think about The cross??... I'm amazed with this band right now... I don't understand why even Queen fans gave his back to this KICK-ASS band.. (and I mean it) Great great songs, amazing musicians (Moss is THE man), great singing of course and a variety of styles in each album... Comment.. |
| L-R-TIGER1994 01.08.2009 21:54 |
I love The Cross even more than Roger and Brian solo careers. |
| mike hunt 02.08.2009 00:13 |
heard them, and never liked the band. Worst band ever. |
| sbrown 02.08.2009 02:13 |
I love The Cross, and every album just got better than the last. The good quality boots I've heard are also amazing. Would love to see the albums re-released as 2 disc sets with studio album on disc 1 and a live album for disc 2. And yes, the second and third are better than all the solo albums from Rog, Brian and Fred. |
| mike hunt 02.08.2009 04:47 |
lol, if you think the cross albums are better than barcelona than it's obvious your young and stupid. The band sucked. |
| believe in yourself 45455 02.08.2009 05:52 |
There's no reason to compare the Cross with Barcelona or other solo projects. They are from a complete different league. Or maybe we can compare Barcelona with ANATO on another thread? Although Roger led the band, The Cross wasn't even a Roger solo project, but a band project. Many of the songs weren't even written by Roger. Every album had some bad, good and great songs. I think Blue Rock is their best. I've heard many live concerts of them (only seen them once) and they're all very powerful with a very interesting mixture of songs. If you're interested in Clayton's current project, here are some links: link link link |
| Rick 02.08.2009 05:53 |
Roger's singing on Mad, Bad & Dangerous and Blue Rock is his best by far. Great albums in addition. |
| demonwolf 02.08.2009 07:01 |
liiiiiiaaaaaaaaaaar. awesome song. |
| Sebastian 02.08.2009 08:04 |
The most underrated bands ever are so underrated that none of us know about them, so there's no way that's The Cross. But I do agree The Cross were great... always hated the keyboard player, but the others rock. |
| Pim Derks 02.08.2009 10:13 |
Compiling the best tracks off MBADTK and Blue Rock would make a great album. Unfortunately both have too much middle of the road fillers with 'sexy' lyrics IMO. Still - I would like to see Roger get out there and performs some tracks of this period of his career. Top of The World Ma Liar New Dark Ages Power To Love Breakdown Penetration Guru Millionaire Sister Blue Hand of Fools The Also Rans Old Men (Lay Down) Life Changes Final Destination |
| sexmachine 02.08.2009 15:14 |
the cross are total shit, universes away from queen or other serious music. |
| The Real Wizard 02.08.2009 17:44 |
Pim Derks wrote: Compiling the best tracks off MBADTK and Blue Rock would make a great album. Unfortunately both have too much middle of the road fillers with 'sexy' lyrics IMO. Still - I would like to see Roger get out there and performs some tracks of this period of his career. Top of The World Ma Liar New Dark Ages Power To Love Breakdown Penetration Guru Millionaire Sister Blue Hand of Fools The Also Rans Old Men (Lay Down) Life Changes Final Destination I'd say that's a pretty accurate assessment. That said, if Roger wasn't in the band, they would have fallen through the cracks like tens of thousands of other bands, as they really weren't anything overly special in the grand scheme of things. The first album was awful in its dancy nature, and there is far too much derivative filler on the other two albums for them to ever be considered a great band, with or without Roger. But the few great tunes certainly were great. Power To Love, Life Changes, and Final Destination stick out to me. |
| PauloPanucci 02.08.2009 18:56 |
it's a good band... the musics are great, i liked them!!! |
| andreas_mercury 03.08.2009 01:05 |
trash band, not a shadow of brian's solo stuff ..... Man on Fire is a brilliant song but is that even the Cross or just Roger solo??? |
| pittrek 03.08.2009 03:40 |
Well personally I like 3 or 4 songs, so sorry, not a band for me |
| Vali 03.08.2009 03:51 |
Sir GH wrote: The first album was awful in its dancy nature (...) Power To Love, Life Changes, and Final Destination stick out to me. Indeed, indeed, indeed !! I gave "Shove It" another oportunity the other day and .... fuck, it's unlistenable !! I didn't remember it's so afwul ... was Roger listening too much rap music in those days?? or what ?? I save some details in Cowboys and Indians, Love Lies Bleeding and ... well, Heaven For Everyone for providing us Freddie. I still think the MIH version is a vast improvement of the original, though. The production of the album ruins it all ... Stand Up For Love could have been something but it remains there, in the middle of nowhere .... Rog, Rog, Rog .... you'll always be my fave band member ... but you should be punished for this album! On the other hand .... you're forgiven because I enjoy so much MBADTK and Blue Rock, and for that revisited version of Final Destination you did with Yoshiki ...aaaaaah, yes!! loving your drumming there! |
| Vali 03.08.2009 03:51 |
** sorry double post ** |
| bhm0129ad 04.08.2009 19:48 |
Absolutely right, the revisited version of Final Destination with Yoshiki is just sublime. as to the earlier ref about The Cross NOT being an 'underrated' band because we have heard of them, has it occurred to you that NONE of us here would have heard of them if we were not Queen fans? When I joined the Q fan club (for just a year) in 1990, I was SHOCKED to get my first magazine from the 'Queen, & The Cross Fan Club' and honestly thought I had joined some other fan club. I went out and bought Shove it and Mad Bad on cassette straight away, and fell in love with them. Had I not joined the club then, I would have NEVER heard of them till LAST year when I joined the forums. That would have been a shame as I would have missed out on seeing Clayton at the 12 bar club in London in around '97, and chatting with him for a good half an hour as he packed up :) (he is really short LOL). The Cross rocked. |
| MmP 04.08.2009 19:52 |
Well just these days I've been listening to Roger's verson with the Cross of the Heaven For Everyone, and though I don't know much about the band, it's far better than the MIH version. Great version. |
| bhm0129ad 04.08.2009 20:10 |
MmP wrote: Well just these days I've been listening to Roger's verson with the Cross of the Heaven For Everyone, and though I don't know much about the band, it's far better than the MIH version. Great version. Completely agree with that. The MIH version is crap by comparison. However there IS a fan mix of the two, which is even better than the cross version. I will try to find a link. |
| bhm0129ad 04.08.2009 20:18 |
Here is the link to the fan mixed Queen/Cross version put together. It fetaures just Freddie on vox, it is NOT the 'duet' version. I love this version because it retains the feel of the original version, but has some of the good RS parts from the MIH version, and has Roger's 'sit by my side' spoken part. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgvmlYyIhE |
| lalaalalaa 04.08.2009 21:26 |
MmP wrote: Well just these days I've been listening to Roger's verson with the Cross of the Heaven For Everyone, and though I don't know much about the band, it's far better than the MIH version. Great version. I like the Made In Heaven version more, but I like both. |
| thebloodycrumpet 06.08.2009 05:19 |
aaah, i totally love The Cross! and i totally agree - v. underrated. i'm still not feeling Shove It though. ¬¬ but I love the rest. (: |
| maxpower 06.08.2009 06:57 |
No offence but to call the cross the most underrated band ever is touch too far in my eyes |
| The Real Wizard 06.08.2009 10:38 |
Honestly, what does the Cross' version of Heaven For Everyone have that Queen's doesn't? Besides Roger's vocal, of course... his delivery is great, but certainly no better than Freddie's. The song just doesn't build like the Queen version does. More guitars and a second vocal are introduced in the second chorus, and then it breaks down, followed by a grand instrumental section by Brian. And then the song peaks before falling off. The Cross' version, by comparison, pretty much stays at the same dynamic level throughout. And the synth bass line sounds so bland (and dated) compared to John Deacon's simple yet very effective bass work, especially in the choruses. It's a good song, but adding the other three Queen members made it a great song. There's a reason why Queen are one of the greatest rock groups ever and The Cross aren't. The four Queen members together were bigger than the sum of their parts. Each brought something to the table, which is the express route to being able to consistently create great songs on every record. |
| Markman38 06.08.2009 11:17 |
Well The Cross was just fun I think it was in no means the most underrated band ever, but I think it was better then The Cosmos Rocks |
| bhm0129ad 06.08.2009 11:21 |
Sir GH wrote: Honestly, what does the Cross' version of Heaven For Everyone have that Queen's doesn't? Besides Roger's vocal, of course... his delivery is great, but certainly no better than Freddie's. The song just doesn't build like the Queen version does. More guitars and a second vocal are introduced in the second chorus, and then it breaks down, followed by a grand instrumental section by Brian. And then the song peaks before falling off. The Cross' version, by comparison, pretty much stays at the same dynamic level throughout. And the synth bass line sounds so bland (and dated) compared to John Deacon's simple yet very effective bass work, especially in the choruses. It's a good song, but adding the other three Queen members made it a great song. There's a reason why Queen are one of the greatest rock groups ever and The Cross aren't. The four Queen members together were bigger than the sum of their parts. Each brought something to the table, which is the express route to being able to consistently create great songs on every record. Honestly it is merely a matter of opinion, right? I love Queen to bits of course, and always have, and waited with excitement to hear MIH when I first bought if upon release, but frankly I was disappointed with all of the 'remakes' on the album - certainly of the songs I already knew. I had know the Cross version for at least 5 years prior to it and that song was my favourite of all their songs (with FREDDIE on vox - not Roger) and while the Queen version may have more of a build up etc. that is not always what makes a great song. It is the 'feel' of it , the vibe - the originality of a song which determines ho wmuch you like it. 14 years later, I am STILL no happier with the MIH remakes. I feel that Brian's 'accoustic' effect sound is horrible on those songs - though the Lead sound is of course delicious as ever. This is why I prefer the mix I posted a link to above - it maintains the 'feel' of the original, yet includes the GOOD bit's of the Queen remale. I recently only heard the original version of 'My Life Hs Been Saved' for the first time, and even prefer THAT to the MIH version. In fact MIH is the only Queen album where I skip more than one song. I love Mother Love, YDFM, A Winter's Tale, Let Me Live and both Beautiful Days but as for the rest, I much prefer the originals or have not heard the originals (Let Me Live etc.). Yes even IWBTLY ;) |
| Togg 06.08.2009 12:03 |
The Cross were a good band but the only reason they were even on a label is because of Roger. They were very powerful live and fun to watch but had none of the sheer power,enbergy and entertainment factor that Queen had A great pub band in all honesty, had Roger not fronted them they would not have got past the Rose & Crown That being said I loved their gigs, but I doubt I would have gone if Roger was not performing |
| The Real Wizard 06.08.2009 12:34 |
bhm0129ad wrote: Honestly it is merely a matter of opinion, right?Yep... to each their own! Except perhaps for this... Yes even IWBTLY ;) Rating dated 80s synth pop over the Queen version? You are one of a select few.. :-) |
| bhm0129ad 06.08.2009 13:09 |
Sir GH wrote:bhm0129ad wrote: Honestly it is merely a matter of opinion, right?Yep... to each their own! Except perhaps for this...Yes even IWBTLY ;)Rating dated 80s synth pop over the Queen version? You are one of a select few.. :-) Still only a matter of opinion, perhaps interspersed (for me) with an amount of nostalgia (being that I knew the Mr. Bag Guy album before any full Queen album back in '85) and a bit of not really liking Queen's particular take on the song. It is not 'rating 80's synth pop' over Queen, but just having a preference for the song in the way Freddie (the composer and original artist) had left it. It was not a demo like some of the other MIH tracks, it was a fully fledged song with a video and everything. I know you know all that, but I am just saying. When it comes down to it, there are very very few covers of ANY songs that I prefer to the originals. Point in case, I THOUGHT that Elkie Brookes (70s) did the original of Lilac Wine - a song I simply adore by Jeff Buckley (90s), and I thought his version was better, but I recently discovered what I now believe to be the original by Eartha Kitt in 1953, and I actually think her's is as good as Jeff's (so maybe even he did not improve on an original). If I am one of a select few, then so be it LOL. |
| The Real Wizard 06.08.2009 14:43 |
Point in case, I THOUGHT that Elkie Brookes (70s) did the original of Lilac Wine - a song I simply adore by Jeff Buckley (90s), and I thought his version was better, but I recently discovered what I now believe to be the original by Eartha Kitt in 1953, and I actually think her's is as good as Jeff's (so maybe even he did not improve on an original).I learned something today myself.. didn't realize it was a cover. Upon listening to Elkie Brookes' version, it's instantly my favourite. The subtle instrumentation did it for me. If I am one of a select few, then so be it LOL.Yeah... being in an elite club can have its benefits ! Pleasure talking to you. |
| bhm0129ad 06.08.2009 16:24 |
Sir GH wrote: I learned something today myself.. didn't realize it was a cover. Upon listening to Elkie Brookes' version, it's instantly my favourite. The subtle instrumentation did it for me. Pleasure talking to you. LMAO See andreas mercury geezer bod, THAT is humour :) And Sir, wether or not you were being sarcy with the 'pleasyre talking with you' bit, it's a mutual feeling :) (At least you didn't try to rip into me, or belittle me, or insult me etc etc etc like this place is so good for.) |
| The Real Wizard 06.08.2009 21:12 |
I was being for real. Exchange of thoughts and opinions with open-minded and cheerful folk is one of my very favourite pastimes. If I'm going to tear you a new one, trust me, you'll know.. :-) |
| bhm0129ad 06.08.2009 22:12 |
Again, mutuality of feelings. This place is a minefield of trolls and smartasses which is why I did not visit for some six months. I have learnt alot about forums in that time through others I use, and now I can easily deal with the boiling blood and deep sighs that come from reading approx 60% of the posts made here on QZ. It is nice to be able to identify posters who do not use this place as somewhere to boost their self esteem by walking over others. Ok, I will admit that sometimes I can be abrasive or critical of people myself, but anyone who bothers to notice will see I never 'attack' unless the recipient is already being an ass. So that means I will be doing a fair bit of it here HAHA. As for comments made regarding The Cross not having the 'sheer power, excitement etc. ' of Queen, well, of course that is true. Not many bands do IMHO, but I still found something in The Cross that I haven't found in many bands that have made it big. They were not as prolific or as solid as Queen, but at the same time, I do not really think they are even comparable. If anything, I prefer to liken them to bands like Huey Lewis and The News, that kind of middle of the road rock band - entertaining, and some great songs, but not exactly gonna set you world alight. As a collector of just about everything Queen related I can find, it is just about essential to have all the Cross material, and I pretty much do, just not the live stuff (but I have barely even begun collecting live Queen barring the official stuff), and of the Cross material there is, I would say at least a Quarter of it is essential listening to any rock fan, and certainly Queen/RMT fans. Better than Roger's first two solo albums, and very enjoyable on the whole. Underrated? Definitely. One of the MOST underrated? Doubtful. |
| andreas_mercury 07.08.2009 00:49 |
lolwelcome to circlejerk club... i think to be the problem is you take it all so serious! |
| bhm0129ad 07.08.2009 01:17 |
andreas_mercury wrote: lolwelcome to circlejerk club... i think to be the problem is you take it all so serious! I wouldn't recommend you do too much thinking, unless yu have an ambulance nearby. Don't wanna strain yourself. |
| The Real Wizard 07.08.2009 11:08 |
bhm0129ad wrote: Ok, I will admit that sometimes I can be abrasive or critical of people myself, but anyone who bothers to notice will see I never 'attack' unless the recipient is already being an ass. So that means I will be doing a fair bit of it here HAHA.Perfect... you'll fit in well then. andreas_mercury wrote:lolwelcome to circlejerk club... i think to be the problem is you take it all so serious!Or - maybe this person can communicate well, and aims to be respectful towards others. Maybe you can learn a thing or two... |
| john bodega 07.08.2009 12:38 |
I'd say The Cross was interesting. Taken as a whole I'd have no problem with saying it was a worthier enterprise than Freddie's solo career. Freddie's solo stuff to me is more of a 'might have been'. Even the Barcelona album (has some tremendous stuff on it) is a bit of a letdown when you come down to it. Especially soundwise. He should've parted with the money and gotten some better instrumentals behind him. Not many people like "The Call" from a couple of years back, but don't get me started on how brilliant an honest-to-God orchestra sounds on a Queen track. That's what Barcelona needed, I reckon. (He should've lost the cheap karaoke-click that was on "How Can I Go On"). Back to The Cross; I don't like most of the stuff they did, but it was at least stimulating some of the time. |
| Darren1977 07.08.2009 12:46 |
It always pissed me off that Rogers solo career never really took off. Even the last album EFire in my opinion was better than Happiness. Hopefully he will get around to releasing his own Anthology set some day. |
| bhm0129ad 07.08.2009 19:01 |
Sir GH wrote:bhm0129ad wrote: Ok, I will admit that sometimes I can be abrasive or critical of people myself, but anyone who bothers to notice will see I never 'attack' unless the recipient is already being an ass. So that means I will be doing a fair bit of it here HAHA.Perfect... you'll fit in well then.andreas_mercury wrote: lolwelcome to circlejerk club... i think to be the problem is you take it all so serious!Or - maybe this person can communicate well, and aims to be respectful towards others. Maybe you can learn a thing or two... How nice of you to say those things :) TYVM |
| mike hunt 07.08.2009 19:19 |
Zebonka12 wrote: I'd say The Cross was interesting.Taken as a whole I'd have no problem with saying it was a worthier enterprise than Freddie's solo career. Freddie's solo stuff to me is more of a 'might have been'. Even the Barcelona album (has some tremendous stuff on it) is a bit of a letdown when you come down to it. Especially soundwise. He should've parted with the money and gotten some better instrumentals behind him. Not many people like "The Call" from a couple of years back, but don't get me started on how brilliant an honest-to-God orchestra sounds on a Queen track. That's what Barcelona needed, I reckon. (He should've lost the cheap karaoke-click that was on "How Can I Go On"). Back to The Cross; I don't like most of the stuff they did, but it was at least stimulating some of the time. ok, yea right. The cross vs barcelona?...your kidding right?.....a work of genious vs the cross. |
| 4 x Vision 08.08.2009 15:17 |
bhm0129ad wrote: Again, mutuality of feelings. This place is a minefield of trolls and smartasses which is why I did not visit for some six months. Jake |
| bhm0129ad 08.08.2009 15:47 |
Van Basten 9 wrote:bhm0129ad wrote: Again, mutuality of feelings. This place is a minefield of trolls and smartasses which is why I did not visit for some six months.Jake Meaning what exactly? |
| lalaalalaa 08.08.2009 15:53 |
bhm0129ad wrote:Van Basten 9 wrote:Meaning what exactly?bhm0129ad wrote: Again, mutuality of feelings. This place is a minefield of trolls and smartasses which is why I did not visit for some six months.Jake Well I'm just guessing, but I believe Van Basten is saying Jake is a smarta** troll ;) |
| 4 x Vision 10.08.2009 11:57 |
lalaalalaa wrote:bhm0129ad wrote:Well I'm just guessing, but I believe Van Basten is saying Jake is a smarta** troll ;)Van Basten 9 wrote:Meaning what exactly?bhm0129ad wrote: Again, mutuality of feelings. This place is a minefield of trolls and smartasses which is why I did not visit for some six months.Jake Too obvious |
| bhm0129ad 10.08.2009 12:45 |
Van Basten 9 wrote:lalaalalaa wrote:Too obviousbhm0129ad wrote:Well I'm just guessing, but I believe Van Basten is saying Jake is a smarta** troll ;)Van Basten 9 wrote:Meaning what exactly?bhm0129ad wrote: Again, mutuality of feelings. This place is a minefield of trolls and smartasses which is why I did not visit for some six months.Jake Ok, just checking that he was not trying to somehow accuse ME of being this Jake fellow LOL. |
| John Oswald 10.08.2009 20:06 |
To be honest I haven't heard any music from the Cross to be honest lol. So I have no idea if they were underrated or not |
| Queen On Ice 10.08.2009 20:42 |
I like The Cross. Has anyone heard Clayton Moss' new album? He has some Cross songs on it , but I would be interested to know if they are new versions. I like Better Things - he wrote it and sung lead vocals. |