| mike hunt 26.09.2011 03:28 |
A fellow Queenzoner said recently that Queen became a singles band from NOTW On.....that i disagree with......What Exactly is a singles band?....A band that makes great singles, but it's not worth buying the album because the only good songs are the hits....NOTW had non hit songs that every rock n roll fan should hear, Songs like "it's late" and Sheer Heart attack, While jazz had a number of album tracks that were great...Mustapha, jealousy, Let me entertain You, Dead On Time, Even Dreamer's Ball.....so those two albums don't qaulify for the "singles Band" title......The Game?....maybe, but keep in mind Dragon Attack, Neen your loving, and Sail away Sweet sister wern't hits and are great. Hot space?....the singles didn't set the world on fire, aside from under Pressure. My Pick is 'The works'!......That's the first album that you only need the hits and then move on...No album track is a must listen......A kind of Magic is pretty much the same, aside from one song "princes of the universe" The Miracle follows that trend...so Queen were only a singles Band for 3 albums IMO. |
| liam 26.09.2011 04:28 |
NOTW isn't, but from Jazz on wards i would say they are. Jazz has some good album tracks but the best material was released as singles, same goes for The Game. So from Jazz until the Miracle I think Queen were a 'singles' band, which to me means there's nothing else worth listening to on the albums. |
| Toon_86 26.09.2011 05:46 |
Can't see how you can call Jazz an album from a singles band. The album tracks are better than the singles, with the exception of DSMN. It was from The Works onwards that several tracks were released as singles, or at least 'B' sides. Even then, every album had a stand-out track that could've been a single. |
| dysan 26.09.2011 08:42 |
I agree with The Works. Although it's fair to say that could also be a general rule for most 70's survivors. But '84 MTV made it more singles oriented. |
| thomasquinn 32989 26.09.2011 08:54 |
You can't honestly count The Works because every single song was issued as either an A-side or a B-side. |
| Leonardo Venegas 26.09.2011 10:15 |
I know music is about personal tastes But I have to say to Liam that your post has been one of the silliest ever written in queenzone! I think Jealousy and Dreamer's Ball are better compositions than Fat Bottomed Girls and Bicycle Race they were only chosen as singles cos' they were catchier not because they were the best songs from the album. In the case of Don't Stop Me Now I guess it deserves being released as a single probably it's the best song from Jazz album. And finally to say there's nothing interesting aside the singles in most of Queen albums is nonsense really!!! To say a song is bad because you don't like it doesn't mean it's bad quality, That's like saying classical music is bad because not many people listen to it (among my friends I'm one of a few who listen to it) I think people don't listen that much classical stuff is because the just don't get it, not because they don't like it, in classical music you can find the best compositions ever written. It's hard to me to conceive the fact that people can't even like it. So Liam if You like only singles from Jazz and afterwards I may say it's because you don't get the rest of the songs. To conclude this I'm not saying all Queen songs are good btw. Cheers everyone!!! |
| brENsKi 26.09.2011 10:26 |
these days bands make their money from touring. with arrival of illegal downloading sites in the 90s - napster, morpheus, audiogalaxy,to the later arrivals like warez and bittorrent - the albums became more or less (the loss leaders) or promos for the tours. that never used to be the case. tours promoted albums, and in the 80s established rock bands used singles to keep the album's momentum going for almost a year after it's release...first single - usually month preceding album. second single mopnth or two after album rlease, then 3rd and fourth to follow at 3 monthly intervals. many rock artists went from one or two (or NO) singles per albumn to 3, 4 or more - genesis were a no singles band, but in the 80s probably released as many singles as queen. dire straits also...brothers in arms launched almost every track as an A orB. yes also joined in so i would say queen were a "singles band" from 80s onwards...but only to promote albums |
| mooghead 26.09.2011 16:19 |
Queen were a singles band, sorry but its true. I know plenty of people who 'love' Queen but dont know anything other than the hits. And there is plenty of forgetful stuff on a lot of the albums that back this up. I agree with the Jazz comment above, that is when Queen first relied on big hit singles to sell albums and concert tickets simply due to the filler on the album. |
| MadTheSwine73 26.09.2011 17:45 |
Before reading this, I always thought a singles band was a band that put out several singles that have songs that were not issued on studio albums (e.g. The Beatles, The Stones). Since Queen only put out TGIC, I never considered them a singles band. However, after reading this, my mid hath changed. |
| dysan 27.09.2011 05:34 |
#You can't honestly count The Works because every single song was issued as either an A-side or a B-side.# soooo infact it WAS The Works that they became a singles band? |
| Amazon 27.09.2011 06:59 |
For me, there are only two albums where I might consider Queen to be a singles band; The Works and AKOM. With Hot Space, I love the album sides just as much as the singles, and in fact Under Pressure is not one of my favourite songs off the album. The same goes for every other album, Works & AKOM excepted. A lot of people have mentioned Jazz. Well, of the 13 songs, 9 of them IMO are terrific. There is filler (looking at you Roger), but no Queen album is perfect. Not even ANATO and SHA. So I would say that Queen were only a singles band for two of their albums, and if they are considered to be a singles band by most people, then it's mainly their fault. |
| Flash Jazz 27.09.2011 10:38 |
Don't make it sound like your preferences are facts, what you hate can be loved by another. I don't agree that they went from album band to singles band. At least not in the sense that non-singles on the albums were bad. I can agree however that the albums generally don't feel as much as a whole after Jazz. All the songs were still good (in my opinion!), but the songs don't feel as connected. Mayhap we could say some of them are simply misplaced. Then again this all comes down to taste, I am sure that some people think Queen II is a horrible album when we know how many think it's amazing. That's my opinion. |
| Pingfah 27.09.2011 10:53 |
Queen were always very focused on having hit singles. That is why Greatest Hits is the biggest selling album in UK history even though it showcases a period when they were one of the greatest album bands in the world. They were never a "singles band" though IMO, they just knew they had to include radio hits on their albums. Most of the albums are still packed with great non single tracks though. |
| Toon_86 27.09.2011 11:17 |
I guess we can all have our own definition to the phrase singles band. For me, personally, it tends to be a band who are happy to have a few high quality songs per album, which can be released as singles, gain popularity, and the album can get a fan-base from there, almost irrespective as to the quality of the rest of the output. I can't judge Jazz in that manner, as I think IOSD, DB, LMEY, Jealousy, Mustapha, are all better songs than BR / FBG. Hell, I've even a soft spot for Fun It, I like the vocal juggling between Freddie and Roger. Some bands, more boy-band based to be fair, used to release a couple of singles prior to the album, knowing it would increase the demand for the album. I like that Queen steered away from that, it was always lead single, then album a week later. I guess thats why on the later albums, the subsequent singles didn't do as well, the fans had bought the album by that point. I still hate the fact that every song on The Works was in some way released as a single, A or B side, it seemed to cheapen the album. From there on in, I can think of stand-out songs on each album that were better than the lead single, POTU on Magic, WIAWI on Mircale, hmmm, actually scrub that on Innuendo, the lead song was almost perfection for me. All opinions though of course, which what makes this forum a bloody good read. |
| drmurph 27.09.2011 15:59 |
I don't think Queen ever considered themselves a singles band (mind you who would?), I don't either though I can see why this is a valid perception. I think in many ways they are a victim of their own success with regards the sales figures of the greatest hits albums. They had so many great singles the rest of the material hardly gets a look in when it comes to the general public. I lreally like the Works and think all the songs on it are good, but I can see why by "A kind of magic" they could be thought of as single orientated, as well as the miracle. |
| Saint Jiub 27.09.2011 21:18 |
Queen become a singles band when they started using synths. With the exception of Flash Gordon every Queen studio album from the 80's and 90's was 40% or more singles. The 70's - every album was 30 % or less singles. What happened to Queen in the 80's? Freddie stopped writing unpredictable rollercoaster songs. John went violently black. Roger's songs became more poppy and less edgy. Brian stopped writing quirky songs that featured layered guitar orchestrations. Synths generally crowded out piano, acoustic guitar, and electric guitar overdubs. In other words, Queen's creativity diminished in favor of straight forward commercial oriented singles |
| Sheer Brass Neck 27.09.2011 22:16 |
Hard to argue with that Panchgani. |
| mike hunt 27.09.2011 23:58 |
Toon_86 wrote: Can't see how you can call Jazz an album from a singles band. The album tracks are better than the singles, with the exception of DSMN. It was from The Works onwards that several tracks were released as singles, or at least 'B' sides. Even then, every album had a stand-out track that could've been a single. !00% Agree with you!.....I like the singles from Jazz, but the album has many highlights from the album tracks, some of them are better than the hits.... A song like Dead On Time is a must listen for any Rock fan...An uneven, but very good album is Jazz....The works is when they became a singles band, IMO. |
| mike hunt 28.09.2011 00:00 |
Leonardo Venegas wrote: I know music is about personal tastes But I have to say to Liam that your post has been one of the silliest ever written in queenzone! I think Jealousy and Dreamer's Ball are better compositions than Fat Bottomed Girls and Bicycle Race they were only chosen as singles cos' they were catchier not because they were the best songs from the album. In the case of Don't Stop Me Now I guess it deserves being released as a single probably it's the best song from Jazz album. And finally to say there's nothing interesting aside the singles in most of Queen albums is nonsense really!!! To say a song is bad because you don't like it doesn't mean it's bad quality, That's like saying classical music is bad because not many people listen to it (among my friends I'm one of a few who listen to it) I think people don't listen that much classical stuff is because the just don't get it, not because they don't like it, in classical music you can find the best compositions ever written. It's hard to me to conceive the fact that people can't even like it. So Liam if You like only singles from Jazz and afterwards I may say it's because you don't get the rest of the songs. To conclude this I'm not saying all Queen songs are good btw. Cheers everyone!!! I agree with everything you say....... |