| Sebastian 08.05.2011 05:55 |
Indeed. |
| Rick 08.05.2011 06:06 |
Let me guess: you don't think the cosmos rocks? :P |
| Sebastian 08.05.2011 06:17 |
I don't know if the cosmos rocks, but I think this album does. |
| Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira 08.05.2011 07:21 |
Now THAT'S a lag! :) Any particular reason? Cheers, Ogre- |
| Sebastian 08.05.2011 07:54 |
Any particular reason for listening to the album, or any particular reason for liking it? |
| AlexRocks 08.05.2011 08:36 |
I'm going to guess it has something to do with it being Queen's sixteenth studio l.p. and being one of their best!!! |
| rhyeking 08.05.2011 09:18 |
I'm proudly one fan who always liked The Cosmos Rocks! I don't compare it to earlier Queen works, but simply take it for what it is: Three talented musicians who made the album they wanted to make. There are no songs on it I don't like and some I like more, but that's same with pretty much every album by any artist I own. I've stopped trying to convince those who don't like it why they can enjoy it and why I do enjoy it. |
| Hangman2011 08.05.2011 10:08 |
nothing genius for me, nothing intresting for me in this album |
| The Real Wizard 08.05.2011 11:23 |
Glad to hear it. What was your favourite track? Mine was Some Things That Glitter. It's the closest to vintage Queen they came, I think. But that's not what they were going after, a point that just about everyone missed. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 08.05.2011 11:31 |
Sir GH...indeed, "Some Things That Glitter" is great...as is "We Believe" and "Small". |
| pittrek 08.05.2011 12:03 |
Welcome to the club :-) I used to listen to the album every day when it came out, but now I haven't heard it for a long time. I must change that :-) |
| john bodega 08.05.2011 12:07 |
"Mine was Some Things That Glitter" I agree emphatically! I'm fond of Say It's Not True and C-Lebrity because they sound very much like a band that cares during those songs. "But that's not what they were going after, a point that just about everyone missed" I don't think it's fair to say that someone is guaranteed to be missing the point when they don't like something. I was very much in favour with the mission statement of the Q+PR project, and I enjoyed the live stuff, but the album didn't work for me. *shrug* To each their own. It's like Hot Space - I'm not very fond of it, but I'm glad they did it because it shows them living up to their ideals and trying new things. |
| john bodega 08.05.2011 12:07 |
double post. While I'm here, I just want to say that Paul Rodgers' shits me sometimes. Only sometimes. I really did like some moments on the album, I'll hold them up against a lot of stuff. |
| Canadian May Fan 08.05.2011 12:08 |
I hated 90% of what was linked with this album (the only exceptions I can think of being "C-Lebrity", "Say It's Not True" and the cover of "Runaway" if that counts). It has nothing to do with Paul Rodgers being there, as he works really well with Brian and Roger live. I just don't think the songs had any meat to them -- a lot of them sounded like unfocused fluff to me. It seems like in all of the bickering about Freddie being replaced as a frontman, none of us thought about Freddie's contributions as a songwriter. |
| Back2TheLight 08.05.2011 12:37 |
I think the album on the whole wasn't bad, but there were some songs like 'Voodoo' I just couldn't get into. 'Still Burnin' and 'Small' are two of my favorites from Cosmos. I will agree and say they did sound slightly unfocused, but at the same time I think they were still trying to find their feet when it came to writing together, you know? Given a little more time and another album, they may have had a winning combo... |
| The Real Wizard 08.05.2011 12:37 |
Zebonka12 wrote: I don't think it's fair to say that someone is guaranteed to be missing the point when they don't like something. ============== What I meant was - a lot of people rejected the album outright because it largely didn't sound like Queen. Their taste for Queen was defined with Freddie. Had QPR released the album under the moniker "Good Company" or something like that, I think the album would have fared far better with both critics and fans. I'm glad you mentioned Hot Space. The Cosmos Rocks was no further from the Queen sound than Hot Space. Artists live in the present, while fans live in the past. When something far removed from your usual sound is released, it usually doesn't do well. Just look at U2 with Zooropa and Pop. i think those are their best records next to Achtung Baby - an incredibly creative period for them. Their last few records have been pure trite in comparison, but they sold far better. |
| Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira 08.05.2011 12:56 |
Sebastian wrote: Any particular reason for listening to the album, or any particular reason for liking it? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- None of the above :) I was curious if you had any particular reason for taking so long to enjoy TCR. I like the album. Cosmos Rocking, C-Lebrity, Still Burning (until the WWRY part), Say It's Not True, Surf's Up, and, most of all, Some Things That Glitter, which is pure gold. Other songs on the album also please me sometimes. Call Me comes right after the abovementioned. Cheers, Ogre- |
| Rick 08.05.2011 14:14 |
It's a good album, but boy, I do miss John on bass. The bass lines on this particular album are very simplistic. But Sebastian, are you sure you're OK? You actually like a product by Qu...euh I mean Brian, Roger and Paul? That's beyond belief! ;-) |
| PrimeJiveUSA 08.05.2011 14:20 |
Haha...I'm with pittrek...I played this album to death in the weeks following it's release. Absolutely loved it! Haven't played it in quite a while. All of this makes me want to play it ...NOW! |
| Sebastian 08.05.2011 16:44 |
> What was your favourite track? Having listened to the album only once, I think it's too soon to tell. But the one track I've loved from the moment I heard it and which finally played a key role in making me interested for the whole album was the last track. Just gorgeous. > Mine was Some Things That Glitter. Believeit or not I hadn't liked it the first time I heard it (this version, that is). Let me elaborate: I loved Kerry's version, which made me curious about Paul's version, so I checked it out on YouTube, and was disappointed. But when I played the full record, I thought that song was great. Maybe I needed context. > I hated 90% of what was linked with this album The only thing I 'hated' about the album was the stupid title and the amateurish cover. But that doesn't affect the music, does it? > It seems like in all of the bickering about Freddie being replaced as a frontman, none of us thought about Freddie's contributions as a songwriter. I do agree it misses the Mercury factor, and that's also present in the backing vocals: they're astonishing, but not even close to the marvellous chemistry they had in stuff like Somebody to Love. Nevertheless, I think they did a great job with the stuff they had, and contributed very well. I like the instrumental bits (except for the bass), but I think the vocals are the pinnacle in this album. > What I meant was - a lot of people rejected the album outright because it largely didn't sound like Queen. Their taste for Queen was defined with Freddie. Well... yes and no. John's absence is as 'tragic' IMO. Wonderful songs with Roger, Fred and Brian would've been too empty with an amateurish Tim Staffell - Brian May - Roger Taylor bass. > Had QPR released the album under the moniker "Good Company" or something like that, I think the album would have fared far better with both critics and fans. So do I, and I DO think they should've used a different name, as that's a very different band. > Artists live in the present, while fans live in the past. I think that's debatable Bob. If they lived in the present and not the past, they wouldn't be using the Queen moniker or telling people Paul was Freddie's favourite singer. > I was curious if you had any particular reason for taking so long to enjoy TCR. I simply wasn't interested. Not a boycott or anything like it, I simply didn't care. I'd left the door open with the intention of probably crossing it some day. And the day came, and I'm glad I heard it. > It's a good album, but boy, I do miss John on bass. Indeed. Amongst the many talents Brian's got, bass isn't one of them IMO. Well, to be brutally honest, keyboards aren't so much his forte either, but he's always been clever enough to write songs that only require basic keyboard knowledge, and they sound great with his playing (e.g. Save Me). The bass-lines he creates, OTOH, are too much for his playing ability, IMO. And, having heard Paul and Kerry (and of course Freddie) singing those beautiful Brian-esque melodies, I'm afraid to say, even though Brian's a wonderful singer, that often his melodies benefit from getting other people to sing them. > The bass lines on this particular album are very simplistic. Not only the lines but the playing. John had the skills to make even a simple bass line sound fantastic. > You actually like a product by Qu...euh I mean Brian, Roger and Paul? That's beyond belief! I NEVER criticised the quality of their musicianship or their association. I didn't like the use of the Queen name and I don't like it now. But when it comes to their skills combined (instrumental and vocal, and in this case creative), I was always supportive. |
| lifetimefanofqueen 08.05.2011 17:25 |
Sebastian wrote: I don't know if the cosmos rocks, but I think this album does. =============================== first possitive opinion on the album ive heard! :P well its Queen, i'll get the album and have a listen |
| drmurph 08.05.2011 17:47 |
Yeah you've just persuaded me to order a copy from Amazon. Only cost me a fiver for CD/DVD. |
| Ray D O'Gaga 08.05.2011 18:27 |
Positively gobsmacked. Never thought I'd live to see the day. |
| lifetimefanofqueen 08.05.2011 19:49 |
Ray D O'Gaga wrote: Positively gobsmacked. Never thought I'd live to see the day. =========================== me neither, usualy when the words "Queen + paul rodgers" or "paul rodgers" appear on Queenzone theres thousands of hate comments wishing paul rodgers dead |
| AlexRocks 08.05.2011 22:55 |
"Through The Night" MIGHT be the best track though it's hard for me to say with songs by any artist sometimes! I think it was PHENOMENAL how "We Will Rock You" is played in "Still Burnin'"!!! I think that is SO amazing! I can't imagine how someone would not LOVE that!!! It's SOO cool! Also Roger's drums are probably the best sounding drums I have EVER heard PERIOD from ANY source!!! |
| The Real Wizard 08.05.2011 23:04 |
Yeah, that I'll agree with. Rog's drum fill towards the end of C-lebrity is quite possibly the best tom sound I've ever heard. |
| The Real Wizard 08.05.2011 23:06 |
Sebastian wrote: "Having listened to the album only once, I think it's too soon to tell. But the one track I've loved from the moment I heard it and which finally played a key role in making me interested for the whole album was the last track. Just gorgeous." Yeah, I'd agree. That is one of Brian's trademarks, for the beginnings and endings of records and concerts to have the biggest impact. "> Artists live in the present, while fans live in the past. I think that's debatable Bob. If they lived in the present and not the past, they wouldn't be using the Queen moniker or telling people Paul was Freddie's favourite singer." Hmm, yeah .. fair play. I guess I meant in the sense of creating the music itself, not the business side of things. |
| Sebastian 08.05.2011 23:26 |
IMO, the whole thing about Yanks listing the authors in different order doesn't necessarily mean the first one mentioned was the actual or only author of the track. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Or is there any official confirmation on that? I'm also interesting in who played what ... Wiki says Paul played piano on Glitter, which I doubt, TBH. |
| rhyeking 09.05.2011 00:48 |
Sir GH wrote: Zebonka12 wrote: I don't think it's fair to say that someone is guaranteed to be missing the point when they don't like something. ============== What I meant was - a lot of people rejected the album outright because it largely didn't sound like Queen. Their taste for Queen was defined with Freddie. Had QPR released the album under the moniker "Good Company" or something like that, I think the album would have fared far better with both critics and fans. I'm glad you mentioned Hot Space. The Cosmos Rocks was no further from the Queen sound than Hot Space. Artists live in the present, while fans live in the past. When something far removed from your usual sound is released, it usually doesn't do well. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I agree. If the band had named themselves something else, the general public and critics might not have been so harsh. Personally, I think that's the failing of the listener in some respects, rather than the band. It seems to carry with it a bias or expectation, rather than allowing the work to stand on its own. That's why I disagree with people who say "[X] is isn't Queen." In my opinion, Queen is whatever the members (living, dead or retired) decided Queen was, whichever sound or style they explore. Not liking the performance on its own merits is something entirely different. |
| Sebastian 09.05.2011 01:54 |
What is important to understand, IMO, is that not everybody who hates the album does so because of the Queen name or because it's got no Prophet's Song or Good Company. And likewise, not everyone who likes the album agrees with the use of the Queen name and/or is a May and/or Taylor and/or Paul blinded fan and confirmed stepford who accepts anything and everything they do. |
| mike hunt 09.05.2011 02:43 |
Not a fan of this album.....i don't Think they should have used the Queen name, but I didn't excatly lose sleep over it either.....i judge it not as a Queen album, but as a entirely different band. The only songs i like are 'Glitter' and 'small + revisited' a few other decent tracks. In all honesty i havn't listened to this album in a few years. The title track and warboys are among my least favorite Queen related songs i heard. Queen + paul alway's seemed unatural to me...somehow forced. they were alway's good live and paul has a good voice, but even saying that it had a forced feel to it. Return of the champions is an example of this.....some good performances, but for some reason I have no desire to watch the DVD over again. Even though i was never a big fan of the Brian, roger, paul combo i'm glad they did it. I finally got to see a Queen related Show. Finally seeing Brian and roger live was a cool thing. |
| Bad Seed 09.05.2011 05:57 |
mike hunt wrote: Not a fan of this album.....i don't Think they should have used the Queen name, but I didn't excatly lose sleep over it either.....i judge it not as a Queen album, but as a entirely different band. The only songs i like are 'Glitter' and 'small + revisited' a few other decent tracks. In all honesty i havn't listened to this album in a few years. The title track and warboys are among my least favorite Queen related songs i heard. Queen + paul alway's seemed unatural to me...somehow forced. they were alway's good live and paul has a good voice, but even saying that it had a forced feel to it. Return of the champions is an example of this.....some good performances, but for some reason I have no desire to watch the DVD over again. Even though i was never a big fan of the Brian, roger, paul combo i'm glad they did it. I finally got to see a Queen related Show. Finally seeing Brian and roger live was a cool thing. ==================================== Completely agree. One of the worst things for me, was Brian's stale unispiring guitar work. Sounded like he just couldn't be bothered. |
| inu-liger 09.05.2011 07:48 |
If Brian's playing wasn't totally focused on the album, I think that's down to the fact he was also working on completing his PhD, as well as bits and pieces of the Kerry Ellis album, all at the same time - possibly even more things I may be forgetting. Hence why they also had a discontinuous recording schedule. He certainly wasn't 100% enthusiastic about the album on his Soapbox either, as I remember. If the songwriting credits on the US edition are anything to go by, he certainly had much less input on this album than in the past. I highly believe this album is dominated by Roger in several ways (one factor being this was all recorded at his home studio, for instance) |
| the dude 1366 09.05.2011 19:46 |
Some good stuff, some less good stuff. That's the realistic view, isn't it? Oh, and to those that need to point out that's it's different without Freddie...thanks for stating the obvious. If he was replaceable, they would have replaced him by 1992. |
| Sebastian 09.05.2011 21:52 |
TBBH, I miss John more than I miss Freddie on an album like that: Vocals - They're great (Roger, Paul and Brian are all very good at that). Arrangements - They're great (Roger, Paul and Brian are all very good at that). Songwriting - It's great (Roger, Paul and Brian are all very good at that). Production - It's great (Roger, Paul and Brian are all very good at that). Keyboards - Good, not great, but more than enough for what they needed (IMO, Paul plays better than Brian, Freddie better than both). Bass - Good, but not great (amongst the many talents Roger, Paul and Brian have, being professional bassists isn't one of them). All in all I rate the three of them higher as keyboard players than as bassists. |
| john bodega 10.05.2011 10:35 |
I noticed Deaky's absence a lot more keenly than Freddie's. If this was indeed to be a new musical direction, then I can accept that. It's not Freddie's fault that he's dead and can't make the sessions. But Deaky is still around, still a great bass player - and even if he wasn't returning their calls, they might've at least hired a dedicated bass player. |
| FriedChicken 10.05.2011 10:48 |
The reprise of Small just send shivers up my spine. I remember the first time I heard it, and it moved me to tears. |
| Compliance Queen1 10.05.2011 11:14 |
I really like Cosmos. I agree with some posters here that its a Roger/Paul effort more so than Brian. Cosmos, Time to Shine, Small and Through the Night are my favorites from the album. Glad to here people are still giving this a listen! ;-) |
| Rick 11.05.2011 03:23 |
FriedChicken wrote: The reprise of Small just send shivers up my spine. I remember the first time I heard it, and it moved me to tears. --------------------- I agree. |
| jaq 11.05.2011 18:46 |
I thought Some Things That Glitter was really powerful. Lets you play connect the dots for Brian's changing perspective over the years - like touring:P Then I heard Paul's Seagull live - in the exact same twang-y delivery style like newborn piglets without distinguishing features yet to set apart from each other. Had to conclude the power is in Bri's writing:P |
| Sebastian 25.08.2013 16:01 |
After a couple of years of not listening to the album, I've done it again last week, and it was nice. My opinion's quite similar: I love 'Small' (and now 'Say It's Not True', very nice) and hate the stupid title and the amateurish cover. No, it's not Queen and not even close to Queen in terms of songwriting, but it's a very good album with excellent moments. |
| Narudge 25.08.2013 17:08 |
Echoing the sentiments of other members who have posted in this thread, I too like TCR because I listened to it with an open mind, as though I were listening to an entirely different band to Queen, and I really rather enjoyed it, as opposed to the rose-tinted spectacle wearers who listened to the album and picked it apart because it doesn't sound like Queen of old and because of the lack of Mr Mercury & Mr Deacon. I agree with you Sebastian that the cover, title and "Queen + Paul Rodgers" moniker are far from the best points of the album, but as you also rightly put it, that should not detract from the listening experience. I feel that Roger's drums, and possibly to an extent, the drumming itself, sound the best of any Queen-related album out there (although I have quite a fondness for the punchy drum sound on The Works, where real drums were used that is!). I also think Brian's guitar work sounds pretty darn good, maybe not quite as elaborate as can be found in other instances of his career, but by far not the worst. Paul Rodgers' vocals are one heck of a lot different to Freddie's, but that's not the point of this album, and he does a cracking job on all of the songs and does not sound at all out of place in my opinion. Obviously the bass isn't exactly the most amazing technical display in he world, but what do you expect from three musicians who do not specialise in playing bass guitar? There are a few songs which I absolutely adore and would put up there with my most favourite Queen songs, such as All Things That Glitter (or Once I Loved A Butterfly as Mr May seems to have it listed as in his and Kerry's work) and the stunningly beautiful We Believe. I can't say I'm a huge fan of Voodoo, it sounds a bit demo-ish in my opinion, and Surfs Up is a bit of an oddity to me because of that gurgling gut-wrenching "yeeeeaaaahhhhhhhhh" that keeps appearing (I'm assuming its sung by Roger, but I'm happy to be corrected) and that horrible harmonica noise. But then again, there are tracks that I can't stand on some ordinary Queen albums all the same (Body Language, White Man, My Baby Does Me, etc.), which I'm sure applies to everyone. If people give this album a chance rather than viewing it as another Queen album, they might just come to enjoy it like I have done and many of the other people who've commented on this thread have. True, the "Queen + Paul Rodgers" band name choice is a bit of an iffy subject, but then again, would they have sold as many albums had they chose a different name? |
| Apocalipsis_Darko 26.08.2013 00:26 |
To me is like a Paul Rodgers solo album with Brian May and Roger Taylor in his band. Is not a bad album, I don't hate it, but is the kind of record you listen two times and forget until the next ten years or so... |
| dudeofqueen 26.08.2013 07:05 |
Yep - TCR was, for me, not a Queen album. I listened to it as a solo project and had not listened to ANY Queen music for some time before I played it - this kind of helped me to not expect to hear some of the stuff the band had been reliant on previously. What struck me was the recording of ROGER'S KIT. It was deep, resonant and most of all, drove the album perfectly. Lyrically, some of it was absolute shit - C'Lebrity, We Believe and Still Burnin' are absolute embarassments given the pedegree. Warboys isn't much better but Rodgers has never been at the top table of lyricists. Production wise, the use of WWRY samples in Still Burnin' was simply laughable and ditto for much of what went on around the edges of Surf's Up, School's Out. But Call Me and All Things That Glitter are incredible evidence of what this combination could do if they tried to be their own entity as opposed to Queen. Fluid playing and a real sense of this being a project which is still very embryonic. My assessment was that they tried too hard to be the supergroup many expected them to be and, in doing so, forgot about the material they were trying to give us. The fact that so little of the material from the albium actually made it to the stage speaks volumes for their own confidence in it all. |
| Pim Derks 26.08.2013 10:53 |
They played C-lebrity, Surf's Up, Cosmos Rockin', Say It's Not True and We Believe at a lot of the gigs. Plus Time To Shine, Warboys and Voodoo at a few shows here and there. That's more than they played from Magic, The Works or Hot Space on their respective tours I think. |
| AlexRocks 26.08.2013 13:35 |
The sound of the drums are truly amazing and remarkable. I've never heard anything like them...they are mind blowing. |
| The Real Wizard 26.08.2013 22:29 |
Narudge wrote: True, the "Queen + Paul Rodgers" band name choice is a bit of an iffy subject, but then again, would they have sold as many albums had they chose a different name?It almost certainly would have. If Chickenfoot and Them Crooked Vultures flew off the shelves, a record by "Good Company" or something of the like would've done about as well. But calling it Queen when 99% of the record buying public associates Queen with Freddie Mercury was a gamble, and we all know how that went. The post-Morrison Doors albums are an interesting comparison. Musically they were not a major step down from what they did with Morrison, but the sales weren't even comparable. The Cosmos Rocks was a very good album with several excellent tracks, but it did not reach nearly as many happy ears as it could have. But isn't hindsight always 20/20 ? |
| john bodega 26.08.2013 22:39 |
"The sound of the drums are truly amazing and remarkable" I don't usually think about it, but yeah - those drums were pretty ace. The rest of the album is mostly lame. It's the toxic cruisiness of Rodgers that lets the whole thing down. Even when Brian phones in a Queeny sounding guitar part, the feel of the thing is just so wretched. PR was a sleaze, and he infected the whole album with his oddly pronounced 'eeeuus'. And I do say all of this while readily admitting that I do like a couple of the songs. |
| FlorianS 27.08.2013 05:55 |
I always thought they should have called themselves 'Royal Company' instead of Queen + PR. Maybe even they could have found a bass player to make a complete band of the project. But that was not their aim. TCR has it's moment, but in terms of Queen I found it quite disapointing. Allthough I really enjoy some of the tracks and I really like the production. It's just the last spark that's missing... |
| cmsdrums 27.08.2013 12:18 |
Narudge wrote: ....although I have quite a fondness for the punchy drum sound on The Works....Really? Wow. I respect your opinion, but I think if you asked around here, I'd wager that for every 100 fans you asked about best/favourite drum sounds, The Works would probably not get mentioned! |
| Mr.QueenFan 27.08.2013 13:58 |
In my case, i've waited until 2012 to listen to the album and i was very impressed by it. I'm glad that others are mentioning the drum sound, because that was the first thing i've noticed on the album, specially on the track "Time to Shine". Anyone can play drums, but to actually make music with it, our Roger is as good as it gets! I really liked most of the album, but my favourites has to be "Small" and "Time to shine", but there are others excellent tracks as well. For me Paul Rodgers was amazing - i wasn't expecting anything less from the man - and so was Brian and Roger. And i've missed Deacy as well. It's an album that definitely is worth a listen, and i'm glad they did it. I'm pretty sure that in the future it will be cited as a classic rock album with a one in a lifetime cooperation. |
| Martin Packer 27.08.2013 14:39 |
I'm pleased others like "Small" and its reprise: I find them most affecting, especially the reprise. Actually I like quite a lot of the album. |
| AlexRocks 27.08.2013 22:17 |
It's SO good that they should DEFINITELY continue as Queen AND hopefully add new members to the group! Oh my god I can't wait! Imagine the possibilities!!! (The new members should definitely be young people I would say around Rufus' age as he should be a full time member as well at some point! |
| Wiley 28.08.2013 00:37 |
I really like this album. To me, Roger and Rodgers outshone Brian on this one. Roger plays great and his drums sound very powerful. If you don't like Paul's style of singing and approaching songs then you won't enjoy the album as much as someone who does. He doesn't sing a bum note and sounds powerful throughout the album. I even liked the "Yeahh yeahhs" in the Cosmos Rockin' choruses, which -if you think about it for a sec- are pretty dumb. The negative for me has to be the lack a proper bass player, particularly on Brian's tracks (for some reason), and the BLOODY AWFUL LYRICS!! English is not my native language but these lyrics made me cringe often. Main offender for me, probably Time to shine and its dragons of time crap. Still, I really enjoy most of the tracks... Cosmos Rockin' is a great (dumb) rocker but real fun; Time to shine sounds like something different to both Queen and Paul Rodgers and it works great (except for the lyrics). When I first heard a leaked sample of this song was really the time when I started seeing Queen + Paul Rodgers less as a collaboration and more as a band in its own right. Surf's Up, School's Out was another step in this direction. Small, lovely tune, simplistic and repetitive lyrics. When I first heard Brian's solo I thought it sounded a bit sloppy. The reprise is so much better. Makes me want to listen to the album all over again. Still Burnin', love the guitar work and Paul's singing but I always cringe at the WWRY sample; We Believe... too preachy but I like how the song keeps on building and the way Paul sings it. C-lebrity... nice little rocker, love Brian's playing during the bridge/chorus ("I want to beee a face on TV") Call me... a Paul Rodgers song with Brian's Deacy amp. Kinda reminds me of BadCo's "Oh Atlanta". Sounds great but it's got (once again) boring and repetitive lyrics. Overall, I'm glad they did it and I was VERY DISAPPOINTED when they called it quits. A second album could have been even better if they had continued to explore new ground like with Surf's up, Time to shine, etc. |
| Togg 28.08.2013 09:11 |
I always liked the album, I liked Rodgers voice and particularly the drum sound (very glad others have finally mentioned it) Taylor was slagged off a lot at the time for not being as fast or even lazy with his new style, however anybody who knows anything about drums will love the recording of this album, they sound like real wooden deep drums once again like they did in the early days. The whole album was recorded well and it shows, I wish they had recorded like that when Freddie was around. One or two less interesting tracks but I could say that about most Queen albums, I do wish Deacon had taken part, but given they haven't played together for so long I guess we have to get used to the fact he never will again. All in all a great album, |
| Pim Derks 28.08.2013 10:43 |
Agree with Togg, I wish every album sounded as good as TCR. Made In Heaven has that same type of production. Too bad albums like Innuendo don't :( |
| brENsKi 28.08.2013 12:22 |
The Real Wizard wrote: It almost certainly would have. If Chickenfoot and Them Crooked Vultures flew off the shelves, a record by "Good Company" or something of the like would've done about as well. But calling it Queen when 99% of the record buying public associates Queen with Freddie Mercury was a gamble, and we all know how that went. But isn't hindsight always 20/20 ?AGREED 100% ^^^ factor in Black Country Communion and you see supergroups with well-established pedigrees/other careers selling shedloads of records - an even more recent case to point - Black Star Riders they kept the name to tour - didn't work, so removed the "Lizzy" name for the album release lesson: don't try keep the old name - unless you are prepared for ALL potential fallout |
| AlexRocks 28.08.2013 20:07 |
Come on. Honestly, hun? Kind of like your group having the name QUEEN?! |
| brENsKi 29.08.2013 02:58 |
think you ^^^ should perhaps read what i typed before responding nowhere did I SAY i was opposed to them carrying on as "Queen" - in fact if you check - everytime i've offered an opinion on it i've said the same thing: "it's their band, their name and their right to carry on with it....but it's also MY RIGHT to say if i don't like the stuff they create, much as i did at the time of release for Hot Space and The Works..." my post above said "they should be prepared for ALL of the fallout" and fallout can come in many different ways, sales, protest on forums, concert ticket sales (remember that UK festival that got cancelled due to poor ticket sales) etc etc etc |