TyphoonTip 21.11.2011 00:23 |
I can't get past the feeling that it's just scraping the barrel, and tarting things up that were probably abandoned for very good reasons. It's not that I'm against having the material released, far from it. I just don't particularly like the idea of 2 members of a once great band polishing turds and presenting them as a genuine album release. I'd much prefer to them to release the tracks 'as is'. A moment in time representing how the tracks sounded, albeit unfinished, when Queen was real functioning unit. Keeping in mind, I'm not a big fan of Made In (Synth pad) Heaven. However there's no doubt that album had genuine justification for being completed. There is a lot of evidence from multiple sources that Freddie wanted the remaining members to complete it. Thus by giving his blessing, although in my eyes not a real Queen album, it does feel 'somewhat' authentic. I don't feel the same can be said for the forthcoming record. There's been not evidence presented that Freddie would have wanted to have these tracks released. I would argue, the fact that they weren't released is considerable evidence to the contrary. I guess my point is, when Queen were a functioning four piece, these tracks were not considered ready for release, for whatever reason. So why should I be suddenly convinced that they now 'right to go' when only 50% of the band worked on them, ....and in particular Freddie had not opportunity to veto (presumably John still does? Who knows.). This '...we know what Freddie would have wanted' business just doesn't wash on this one for mine. And, of course, John's lack of involvement IMO also leaves a sizable dint the credibility of this project. |
cmsdrums 21.11.2011 00:54 |
I can see your point regarding the unreleased 'scraps', but john's lack of involvement isn't one of the reasons it lacks credibility. There have been lots of 'credible' events (rock n roll hall of fame, Freddie's 65th charity event, days of our lives doc etc...) that don't lose credibility because he chose not to be involved - he's retired, and we will never see/here from him again, alas. |
the dude 1366 21.11.2011 01:41 |
I hope they stop paying tribute to themselves. In the QPR album, the song "Still burnin" all of a suddent had We will Rock you in. Please, please please. No clips of older songs unless necessary. Oh and leave that pedophile off the album please. MJ does not to be on it |
TyphoonTip 21.11.2011 01:48 |
One off live events and documentaries can't be compared to an album of music that presumably will bare the name Queen. I'm well aware that this part of my case feeds back into the old Paul Rodgers argument, of which it seems some opinions will never meet. But Queen's stock in trade, along with touring, was making albums. And as we've been told adnauseum, that process involved the 4 of them arguing empassionedly until compromises/agreements could be reached. In my opinion that process defined a Queen album, indeed it defined Queen. Now it's a shame that can't happen anymore, it really is. But anything short of that, just isn't Queen. I'm not dismissing it just because John's not involved, because who's to say Brian and Roger aren't still capable of making great music. But I just think Brian + Roger + Freddie's scraps - John, does not equal Queen. Like I said, If they indend to release demo/unfinished material, my personal opinion is it would be better served in a 'Anthology' type format, warts and all, and most importantly without pretension. |
john bodega 21.11.2011 08:42 |
I'm a lot skeptical, if any MJ stuff is going to be on it. Couldn't give two fucks about him and I'm glad he's dead. |
pittrek 21.11.2011 10:01 |
Well I see it this way - wait and see. It can be really GREAT, but also really TERRIBLE. |
k-m 21.11.2011 11:59 |
Well, I think it depends on what the new album is. People seem to assume that it will be a proper studio release - MIH-style. But maybe they will simply release a low-key lost-tracks album, with no pretence to be a "new Queen album" whatsoever? I know, it doesn't sound plausible, but I think that's the only way it could work. Otherwise, let's get ready for another portion of crap. |
Benn 21.11.2011 12:07 |
It'll be nothing more than another load of over-produced rubbish featuring a bunch of scraps tweaked and tuned to meet commercial requirements for Island who obviously managed to get an agreement for an album of original material when negotiating terms with that wanker Beachey-Boy. Any suvriving Queen archive material featuring Freddie's input should be released as a rarities collection and marketed accordingly. |
Holly2003 21.11.2011 12:33 |
Has this actually been confirmed as a release? An album of demos will be held to a different standard than a Made in heaven Part II. With demos there's a lot of critcal room to allow for mistakes, incomplete tracks, off key singing and terrible lyrics (e.g. Feel Like). However, if they try to turn these demos into proper songs not only will the album face comparisons to Made in heaven, it will also face the inevitable comparisons with the original Queen albums/line-up. And if the latter, can anyone really say they trust Brian and Roger's artisitic judgement these days? They haven't tried anything daring since 46664, which was musically interesting, but with terrible lyrics. Worst case scenario is that they complete the songs with new lyrics by Ben Elton, and featuring new music and vocals from the cast of WWRY :) |
Rotwang 21.11.2011 13:30 |
Some very good points have been make (except for the indecent remarks about Michael Jackson). Also keep this in mind; sometimes songs are scrapped because 1: That particular piece didn't flow with the overall feel of the album (arguable point I know) or 2: It was a last minute idea with no time to complete it. So I am very open-minded about these songs and breathing new life into something old and forgotten is not a bad thing in my opinion. Let's face it, those negative nellies out there know damn well they are going to buy it. |
Queenman!! 21.11.2011 13:35 |
Rotwang wrote: Some very good points have been make (except for the indecent remarks about Michael Jackson). Also keep this in mind; sometimes songs arescrapped because 1: That particular piece didn't flow with the overall feel of the album (arguable point I know) or 2: It was a last minute idea with no time to complete it. So I am very open-minded about these songs and breathing new life into something old and forgotten is not a bad thing in my opinion. Let's face it, those negative nellies out there know damn well they are going to buy it. 4: Every Queen member wanted one or two of their songs on the album so they had to leave some Mercury Compositions in the barrel |
kingogre 21.11.2011 14:07 |
Songs might be scrapped for a number of reasons, a lot of the demos weve heard sound good to me at least. Presumably there are other things we have not heard and other versions of that which we have. I can understand the critiscism, but also in some ways I dont think its wrong finishing songs that have been left half- or close to-finished, might be a better alternative than just leaving them. Tying up the loose ends sort of. Rolling stones and bruce springsteen have done this in recent years to some acclaim. If it comes out and its good, I will be really excited anyway. |
Lord Fickle 21.11.2011 15:40 |
The fact remains that we don't know what they've got to work on. We are assuming that all there is are the leaked demos we've all heard, and I agree, many of them are not worth releasing, but we don't know what else they have found in the archives. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Feelings Feelings, on the NOTW Remaster was a previously unheard take, so perhaps we should reserve judgement until the product is released, or, at least, we know more about it. I too hope that the MJ tracks will be released separately, and not as part of a 'new' album, but I'm guessing that these will be needed to bolster the release, and will therefore be included. This is going to be more fragmented than MIH, but I think could still be an interesting release - and let's face it, even if we slag it off, we'll all still buy it. What I think would be a much better project, though, would be for Brian and Roger to do something together, on their own. They are both competent songwriters and singers, and 'The May & Taylor Group' would hold much more credibility for me than another rehashed 'not-quite-Queen' effort. They could get who they liked in on bass (Neil Murray?), and could even have a couple of guest vocalists, but could get away with it simply by not calling it 'Queen'. |
Squidgy 21.11.2011 16:22 |
Firstly I DO see Made In Heaven as an offical Queen album, how can it not be?? Secondly any new 'Queen' release will be accepted with an open mind and I will make my own judgment after I have heard it. I really cannot understand so much negativity before anyone even knows whats going to be on it! I know the remasters were a disappointment but at least lets see whats going to be on it before all the speculation about how good/bad its going to be. |
matt z 21.11.2011 17:29 |
Squidgy wrote: Firstly I DO see Made In Heaven as an offical Queen album, how can it not be?? Secondly any new 'Queen' release will be accepted with an open mind and I will make my own judgment after I have heard it. I really cannot understand so much negativity before anyone even knows whats going to be on it! I know the remasters were a disappointment but at least lets see whats going to be on it before all the speculation about how good/bad its going to be. THANK YOU!!... someone said it!.. And firstly, i'm certain that a great part of the reason they went back to the old ideas was because of people bitching about the quality of their work afterward. Hmm... maybe they realized it? I dunno... I've always loved the band members' solo albums. Funnily enough, i like most of the other gents' solo stuff much more than MR BAD GUY.... but Barcelona is another story.... that album is simply glorious. ...Yet i do empathize a bit. Maybe you forum people are just suffering from PTCRSD? (Post-Traumatic-Cosmos-Rocks-Stress-Disorder) Did the initial announcement/rumor meet your body with fatigue... fear, apprehension, a need to cover your ears and a disdain for all things involving Chuck Norris? (On the real, all his movies are crap excluding MIA 1,2,3 [for BAD movie + fun status]....and the Bruce Lee flick he was in) Maybe this is the real source of your dillema? BUt then again... i read a lot of hate for MIH so.... go figure... to each their own. I have a feeling it will only strengthen the credit of the band :) |
the dude 1366 21.11.2011 18:01 |
I just sincerely hope that they just don't pay tribute to themselves by putting in clips from old songs. On The Cosmos Rocks, the "We Will Rock You" beat appeared in "Still Burnin'". It was cheezy and it makes me skip to the next track. So please guys, don't do that on the new album. If you are going to go to the tribute to old songs route, tehn just get a Freddie soundalike and go on a neverending nostagia tour. I am so excited about this, but I just hope it's done right...and without self-tributes |
Daniel Nester 21.11.2011 18:47 |
Of course most people who post here will say they're skeptical. QZ is all about saying how Roger and Brian are screwing things up and sullying their legacy anymore. The real answer is their legacy already is, and no amount of The Cosmos Rocks or Made In Heavens or 5ive collaborations make any cut off of ANATO or any other album any worse. As for Zebonka saying he's glad Michael Jackson is dead, well, you get numb to those sort of things when you read such Serious Discussion, right? |
TyphoonTip 21.11.2011 20:05 |
3 quick points: 1) The '...just wait and see' argument. Sure, although my hopes aren't high, I'm not totally passing judgement on it. I haven't heard it yet! But this is completely missing the point! If you read my orginal post, the concerns I have are to do with the PREMISE of the project. 2) This '...Haha, what about Made in Heaven, it's the same thing, isn't it?". Well, no it isn't. I addressed that in my OP. 3) If you're going to write a post denouncing what I've said, fine. No problem. Not everyone agrees. But please, can you at least read what I've said first. |
matt z 21.11.2011 20:19 |
TyphoonTip wrote: 3 quick points: 1) The '...just wait and see' argument. Sure, although my hopes aren't high, I'm not totally passing judgement on it. I haven't heardit yet! But this is completely missing the point! If you read my orginal post, the concerns I have are to do with the PREMISE of the project. 2) This '...Haha, what about Made in Heaven, it's the same thing, isn't it?". Well, no it isn't. I addressed that in my OP. 3) If you're going to write a post denouncing what I've said, fine. No problem. Not everyone agrees. But please, can you at least read what I've said first. I did no denouncing... it's just better to.... ah... i'd be eating those words after the COSMOS ROCKS... i was gonna say it's better to think positive.. haha.. nvm. But, yes... as for "credibility"... oh well... they'll be glossened up demos. Of course MIH had the 4's blessing. And yes.... it would be lacking a GREAT GREAT voice in the band... JOHN DEACON (his sense of melody IS another voice) yeah, they were well presented arguments... but I AS A FAN would not strike down a chance of hearing the "true" band... recording something... Of course people had problems with QPR... oh well... I was one of em... and look what happened.... i missed my chance to see em live. (it would have been an arm and a leg but i really SHOULD HAVE GONE)... arrgh. |
Daniel Nester 21.11.2011 21:25 |
All I am saying is there's no room, not really, for a nuanced discussion here of expressing skepticism/ambivalence whatever it is Brian and Roger are going to put together as a collection of songs, since there's just so many haters. And to say in the original post you think Made in Heaven is different, fair enough; the dis on "synth pads," whatever that might mean, undercuts the point. For what it's worth: I do wonder if Freddie had a sit-down with QP et al and had a track-by-track approval of what would appear on the album(s) after Innuendo. We live in an age, like it or not, where unfinished/demoed recordings can be brought to completion, or an approximation thereof. Granted, Queen doesn't have a Smile-type album up its sleeve that needs to see the light of day. The chance to see some rough recordings or demos or Michael Jackson duets brought to light with Roger and Brian at the helm seems a completely reasonable thing for members of a rock band to do. |
Daniel Nester 21.11.2011 21:29 |
Another thing: John's lack of involvement on things like this doesn't mean it can't be called a Queen project any more than Mike Love not signing off on Smile with Brian Wilson at the helm isn't a Beach Boys album. Or Pink Floyd reissues after Syd went off the grid. The argument that John's lack of involvement undercutting legitimacy seems much weaker here to me than touring as Queen +, which I am totally OK with, but understand others who think that. These are old recordings, ones that John may or may not have laid down tracks for, and to have Brian or Roger produce or make additional recordings on them seems completely what old rock stars do in their golden years. |
Scofflaw 21.11.2011 22:47 |
I'm a little skeptical, but mostly because MIH is such a hodgepodge of scraps of Freddie's vocals and bits and pieces of whatever else they could salvage of his years of vocals. I have to think that they used the best of what they had, and if they were putting shite like Delilah on Innuendo, I cannot imagine there were much more hidden masterpieces left towards the end of Freddie' s life. As for the comment that maybe there are some more good songs left because all four of them fought to have their best songs on the cds, I'd imagine that anything worth anything was included on Innuendo, and anything left out was thrown onto MIH. They had to know that Innuendo was the last full cd they'd record together, and given the patchwork quality of MIH, it's obvious to me that if Freddie would have farted in the studio, they would have found a way to fashion that into a song for MIH. Once again, I point to Delilah and that creepy track 13 -- bottoms scraps, if I've ever heard any. If there were hidden gems tucked away, don't you think at some point Brian and Roger would have capitalized on that in the past 20 years? |
john bodega 22.11.2011 04:54 |
"The real answer is their legacy already is, and no amount of The Cosmos Rocks or Made In Heavens or 5ive collaborations make any cut off of ANATO or any other album any worse" Must've posted something like this a dozen times when the Q+PR thing first kicked off, but no one listened. It probably has something to do with the section of the Queen fanbase that is in denial over some certain immutable facts. They want Queen to be current and viable, but they don't want them to be different, which is what they inevitably must be. |
thomasquinn 32989 22.11.2011 08:28 |
Zebonka12 wrote: I'm a lot skeptical, if any MJ stuff is going to be on it. Couldn't give two fucks about him and I'm glad he's dead. I wouldn't say I'm *glad* he's dead, but I don't miss him, nor would I regret never hearing a Michael Jackson song ever again. I agree that any Freddie + MJ stuff will make the album less appealing rather than more appealing to me. |
Dane 22.11.2011 09:17 |
I don't care whats on it. As long as it isn't another re-remaster of known stuff.. Just keep an open mind and don't be distracted by possible reasoning behind certain choices. (meaning; releasing one of the MJ tracks is commercially very smart and one might be tempted to say 'they do this for the money') |
kingogre 22.11.2011 11:46 |
I used to be against the idea of a MIH II because I also thought they used the best things for MIH, but word is they have found a lot of things. There certainly is more than the demos weve heard and QPL are obviously not going to play the best on a convention. |
QueenFan76 22.11.2011 11:51 |
For one, I am excited to hear these songs. They were probably left off (as another member said) because they didn't fit that albums flow or would have been more than the usual from one of the members. As for the nasty INCORRECT comments about Michael Jackson, can we at least keep the false info to ourselves? Anyone who thinks he did it is kidding themselves and he did release a hell of a lot of great songs over time. (Here is my proof he didn't do it): 1- He was a bit weird, I'll give you that, but he loved kids and didn't like to see them suffer. He had no childhood of his own and lived through making theirs happy and spending time with them. 2- People took advantage that he was a bit weird and had money and spent time with kids. I like kids, drive a school bus and get along with them. No one sues me, but then again I'm poor... 3- The first one recanted after he died and the second one lost in court. Proof enough for me. Lets stick to the music please! |
john bodega 22.11.2011 14:37 |
"Anyone who thinks he did it is kidding themselves" Interesting that you chose to use the word 'kidding' ... is that what he called it? Ha-ha. |
Ziggy_SD 22.11.2011 15:06 |
Why can't you just wait until it's released before you cast judgement? This topic is rather moot. |
Óli Gneisti Sóleyjarson 22.11.2011 15:19 |
The Flash Danny Project wrote: Why can't you just wait until it's released before you cast judgement? This topic is rather moot. Well of course we have to discuss these things beforehand. As we all know Roger, Brian and all of QP religiously read this forum and guide their actions by the consensus that is formed by the posters here. |
john bodega 23.11.2011 02:14 |
How can skepticism ever be a moot point? It's just a mindset; and after TCR, I think it's a justifiable one. |
Daniel Nester 23.11.2011 09:09 |
Awww, The Cosmos Rocks was a fun vanity project, really no more than that. What they should have done is GIVE IT AWAY so people would actually know those songs on tour. And they should have put the "Runaway" cover on the release. Because that really rocks. |
john bodega 23.11.2011 10:19 |
I didn't like it as much as the Wilburys version, but it should've been on there. |
malicedoom 23.11.2011 14:13 |
Daniel Nester wrote: And they should have put the "Runaway" cover on the release. Because that really rocks. Amen to THAT. |
QueenFan76 23.11.2011 14:44 |
Its good and rocks but three 60 something men shouldn't try those high notes! OUCH! |
matt z 23.11.2011 15:00 |
QueenFan76 wrote: For one, I am excited to hear these songs. They were probably left off (as another member said) because they didn't fit that albums flow or would have been more than the usual from oneof the members. As for the nasty INCORRECT comments about Michael Jackson, can we at least keep the false info to ourselves? Anyone who thinks he did it is kidding themselves and he did release a hell of a lot of great songs over time. (Here is my proof he didn't do it): 1- He was a bit weird, I'll give you that, but he loved kids and didn't like to see them suffer. He had no childhood of his own and lived through making theirs happy and spending time with them. 2- People took advantage that he was a bit weird and had money and spent time with kids. I like kids, drive a school bus and get along with them. No one sues me, but then again I'm poor... 3- The first one recanted after he died and the second one lost in court. Proof enough for me. Lets stick to the music please! Yeah, thanks for clarifying. Also that Jordy Chandler kid, his father was going through a divorce/separation at the time, envious of Michael's celebrity and ALSO of the fact that Michael didn't want him to be a part of a joint film company venture "LOST BOYS" LLC or whatever it may be called. Sony + MJ put up $40million to start the venture. As the father EVAN CHANDLER was an aspiring screenwriter (his sole film credit is a co-writer on the crappy Mel Brooks film ROBIN HOOD: MEN IN TIGHTS) he felt he could (like so many others) wean off some of the glitter from the most known man in the WORLD. There's much to the story. Even a reference to where he'd met that asshole is in the film (a horse with a placard on it's ass that says RENT-A-WRECK) Evan Chandler also reportedly suffered from delusions, and had threatened ON TAPE that if he didn't get what he wanted the outcome would be "nasty", Michael would "never sell another record again". Pure extortion. The guy didn't consult police, or beat the living crap out of Michael, despite having had many opportunities to. The guy also committed suicide sometime in late 2009: the same year Michael died. It'd been suspected that as a practicing dentist, he'd given his son Sodium Amythal in order to plant false memories into his kid. Many reasons behind this: FIRSTLY : MONEY, SECOND: Custody... even if he didn't want his kid, just to take him away from the mother. The guy also beat his son with a brick behind the head in 2003 or 2005, presumably because he was going to testify on behalf of THE DEFENSE (Michael Jackson) during the last trial in which some scheming woman wanted to extort him (with the same lawyer, etc). The kid (Jordy Chandler) went to court and got "emancipated" from his father.. probably fearing his life. (brick to the head = Intending death) People who rag on the man never bothered to look behind the tabloid veil. Go read something from his collaborator David Nordahl (the artist behind MJ's DANGEROUS album cover... which itself lends deeper meanings) I don't wanna get on the milk crate here, but the guy gets ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIT for being a resolute human being with strength and sacrifice with his time and fortune. Sure he was waaaay different, that's naturally expected for someone reared completely as a Jehovah's Witness, who idolized his mother and adored her, who was also performing since age 5 and up at Strip Joints, Titty Bars, Night clubs etc. The guy had some emotional damage. For what it's worth, there's a slim possibility he was gay, after all he hung out with and admired Freddie...until Freddie realized he was far too "down to earth" (including a menagerie of animals...having a humble bed etc) to be a party guy. But even that's in doubt. The guy obviously FAKED his voice in adulthood. It was part of his public persona. No singer matches the growl and spite of Michael on the last of his recordings. It was his art, it became poisoned and angered, but he was on his way back... it's a pity he didn't get the chance. ...anyways, LOOKING FORWARD TO THE RECORDINGS... Anything with the Red Special is just that much better... It's like Frank's Red Hot Sauce... it makes everything better. |
Squidgy 24.11.2011 07:10 |
matt z wrote:
QueenFan76 wrote: For one, I am excited to hear these songs. They were probably left off (as another member said) because they didn't fit that albums flow or would have been more than the usual from oneof the members.
As for the nasty INCORRECT comments about Michael Jackson, can we at least keep the false info to ourselves? Anyone who thinks he did it is kidding themselves and he did release a hell of a lot of great songs over time.
(Here is my proof he didn't do it):
1- He was a bit weird, I'll give you that, but he loved kids and didn't like to see them suffer. He had no childhood of his own and lived through making theirs happy and spending time with them.
2- People took advantage that he was a bit weird and had money and spent time with kids. I like kids, drive a school bus and get along with them. No one sues me, but then again I'm poor...
3- The first one recanted after he died and the second one lost in court. Proof enough for me.
Lets stick to the music please!
Yeah, thanks for clarifying. Also that Jordy Chandler kid, his father was going through a divorce/separation at the time, envious of Michael's celebrity and ALSO of the fact that Michael didn't want him to be a part of a joint film company venture "LOST BOYS" LLC or whatever it may be called. Sony + MJ put up $40million to start the venture. As the father EVAN CHANDLER was an aspiring screenwriter (his sole film credit is a co-writer on the crappy Mel Brooks film ROBIN HOOD: MEN IN TIGHTS) he felt he could (like so many others) wean off some of the glitter from the most known man in the WORLD. There's much to the story. Even a reference to where he'd met that asshole is in the film (a horse with a placard on it's ass that says RENT-A-WRECK) Evan Chandler also reportedly suffered from delusions, and had threatened ON TAPE that if he didn't get what he wanted the outcome would be "nasty", Michael would "never sell another record again". Pure extortion. The guy didn't consult police, or beat the living crap out of Michael, despite having had many opportunities to. The guy also committed suicide sometime in late 2009: the same year Michael died. It'd been suspected that as a practicing dentist, he'd given his son Sodium Amythal in order to plant false memories into his kid. Many reasons behind this: FIRSTLY : MONEY, SECOND: Custody... even if he didn't want his kid, just to take him away from the mother. The guy also beat his son with a brick behind the head in 2003 or 2005, presumably because he was going to testify on behalf of THE DEFENSE (Michael Jackson) during the last trial in which some scheming woman wanted to extort him (with the same lawyer, etc). The kid (Jordy Chandler) went to court and got "emancipated" from his father.. probably fearing his life. (brick to the head = Intending death) People who rag on the man never bothered to look behind the tabloid veil. Go read something from his collaborator David Nordahl (the artist behind MJ's DANGEROUS album cover... which itself lends deeper meanings) I don't wanna get on the milk crate here, but the guy gets ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIT for being a resolute human being with strength and sacrifice with his time and fortune. Sure he was waaaay different, that's naturally expected for someone reared completely as a Jehovah's Witness, who idolized his mother and adored her, who was also performing since age 5 and up at Strip Joints, Titty Bars, Night clubs etc. The guy had some emotional damage. For what it's worth, there's a slim possibility he was gay, after all he hung out with and admired Freddie...until Freddie realized he was far too "down to earth" (including a menagerie of animals...having a humble bed etc) to be a party guy. But even that's in doubt. The guy obviously FAKED his voice in adulthood. It was part of his public persona. No singer matches the growl and spite of Michael on the last of his recordings. It was his art, it became poisoned and angered, but he was on his way back... it's a pity he didn't get the chance. ...anyways, LOOKING FORWARD TO THE RECORDINGS... Anything with the Red Special is just that much better... It's like Frank's Red Hot Sauce... it makes everything better. I wouldn't say i was a fan of MJ but I do like alot of his music, as for him as a person I never jumped to any conclusions. I did find this a very interesting read though. I always thought performing from such a young age and missing out on a childhood must have been difficult for him. Anyway back to the topic in question, without MIH we wouldn't have had Let MeLive, Mother Love, You Don't Fool Me and A Winter's Tale, all Queen songs I love and listen to on a regular basis. If the new album only gives me one new song with a Freddie vocal I haven't heard before I will be a happy man. Hope you are still rocking them up there Freddie, still miss ya......... |
dysan 24.11.2011 08:01 |
I think we can assume John will be on there just by virtue of the fact that the demos they are using will feature him. |
Sheer Brass Neck 24.11.2011 16:36 |
Skeptical squared. BTW, just read Daniel Nester's piece on Freddie on I believe therumpus.com, good stuff Daniel, well written. |
AlbaNo1 26.11.2011 09:36 |
Just read that rumpus article and it is pretty interesting. I remember that day well - it was like the day my childhood finally ended. But what is it with the gay obsession in the US. I dont think anyone would even consider liking Queen to be an indication of being gay in the UK. |
dowens 27.11.2011 16:48 |
I think people are being way too hard on "Made in Heaven." I think Brian, Roger and John did a fantastic job with what was left to make a cohesive album. It's the perfect ending to the catalog, in my opinion...especially after "Innuendo," a very heavy, dark album. MIH is very uplifting and almost like a celebration. I know this may sound odd, but I had not bought Freddie's "Mr. Bad Guy," so when I heard songs like MIN, IWBTLY, etc. (I became of fan of Queen in 1993 and the only available Mercury album is the remixed "Great Pretender" here in the US) I thought those were Freddie's final recordings! I was pleasantly surprised to discover the original versions later. I think the guys were only left with a few vocals from Freddie AFTER Innuendo, so to make an album, they had to rework some songs to fit the overall concept. "Made in Heaven," "Heaven for Everyone," "It's a Beautiful Day," everything on that album is incredible. I remember buying the CD and thinking...wow, this is it. After I listen to this, there will never be a new album with Freddie's vocals. I am VERY EXCITED for a new album. I have always said Roger and Brian should just go on by themselves. They can bring in a vocalist from time to time, but I say rework some demo's, etc. I do wish John would join them in the studio for this album though. I'll take this over another GH compilation any day! With that being said, I wonder if the Queen versions of unreleased stuff will appear finally? "Love Kills," etc. |
theCro 27.11.2011 21:22 |
dowens wrote: I think people are being way too hard on "Made in Heaven." I think Brian, Roger and John did a fantastic job with what was left to make a cohesive album. It's the perfect ending tothe catalog, in my opinion...especially after "Innuendo," a very heavy, dark album. MIH is very uplifting and almost like a celebration. I know this may sound odd, but I had not bought Freddie's "Mr. Bad Guy," so when I heard songs like MIN, IWBTLY, etc. (I became of fan of Queen in 1993 and the only available Mercury album is the remixed "Great Pretender" here in the US) I thought those were Freddie's final recordings! I was pleasantly surprised to discover the original versions later. I think the guys were only left with a few vocals from Freddie AFTER Innuendo, so to make an album, they had to rework some songs to fit the overall concept. "Made in Heaven," "Heaven for Everyone," "It's a Beautiful Day," everything on that album is incredible. I remember buying the CD and thinking...wow, this is it. After I listen to this, there will never be a new album with Freddie's vocals. I am VERY EXCITED for a new album. I have always said Roger and Brian should just go on by themselves. They can bring in a vocalist from time to time, but I say rework some demo's, etc. I do wish John would join them in the studio for this album though. I'll take this over another GH compilation any day! With that being said, I wonder if the Queen versions of unreleased stuff will appear finally? "Love Kills," etc. i totally agree with you. there's no need to start bashing queen for something you even don't know what's going to look and sound like. months ago i posted topic about how i'd like Queen to rework the demos and release them as in style of Made in Heaven. Well, now my dream is coming true, so the new Queen songs are too : So looking forward for new Queen album! |
Squidgy 28.11.2011 06:51 |
dowens wrote: I think people are being way too hard on "Made in Heaven." I think Brian, Roger and John did a fantastic job with what was left to make a cohesivealbum. It's the perfect ending to the catalog, in my opinion...especially after "Innuendo," a very heavy, dark album. MIH is very uplifting and almost like a celebration. I know this may sound odd, but I had not bought Freddie's "Mr. Bad Guy," so when I heard songs like MIN, IWBTLY, etc. (I became of fan of Queen in 1993 and the only available Mercury album is the remixed "Great Pretender" here in the US) I thought those were Freddie's final recordings! I was pleasantly surprised to discover the original versions later. I think the guys were only left with a few vocals from Freddie AFTER Innuendo, so to make an album, they had to rework some songs to fit the overall concept. "Made in Heaven," "Heaven for Everyone," "It's a Beautiful Day," everything on that album is incredible. I remember buying the CD and thinking...wow, this is it. After I listen to this, there will never be a new album with Freddie's vocals. I am VERY EXCITED for a new album. I have always said Roger and Brian should just go on by themselves. They can bring in a vocalist from time to time, but I say rework some demo's, etc. I do wish John would join them in the studio for this album though. I'll take this over another GH compilation any day! With that being said, I wonder if the Queen versions of unreleased stuff will appear finally? "Love Kills," etc. I haven't been way too hard on MIH. I have and always will stick up for it as being a decent Queen Album. I would much rather listen to Made In Heaven than Hot Space, The Works or A Kind of Magic...... |
Brian Maybe 30.11.2011 17:50 |
No new album after all, according to Roger:
Queen Drummer Roger Taylor Says There Will Be No New Album http://ultimateclassicrock.com/queen-no-new-album/ |
john bodega 30.11.2011 20:56 |
He wants to avoid barrel scraping, but he's using those awful fucking MJ tracks? Right, Roger, right ... |
Queenman!! 01.12.2011 02:05 |
Zebonka12 wrote: He wants to avoid barrel scraping, but he's using those awful fucking MJ tracks? Right, Roger, right ...
=================================================
Yep.... I was very enthousiastic but this could have been expected. With a release date of January 2012??? Made in Heaven was done over two years with such painstaking hours. So these MJ track will be just a quick cash-in. Not enough material??? There are enough demo's and material in the vaults but not enough to put just a few guitarlines and drums on it to release. |
ITSM 01.12.2011 03:25 |
Why can't they just release everything?! The worst thing we can do, is buying it. They're getting old, so why not spend the money before it's too late? We've already heard the Micheal Jackson songs, and they're not so great anyway. |
pittrek 01.12.2011 03:33 |
There will be no new album. Shit |
Michael Allred 01.12.2011 08:00 |
ITSM wrote: Why can't they just release everything?! The worst thing we can do, is buying it. They're getting old, so why not spend the money before it's toolate? We've already heard the Micheal Jackson songs, and they're not so great anyway. You have heard the rough demos. You have NOT heard the final, proper versions. |
Bohardy 01.12.2011 08:16 |
Posted: 28 Oct 11, 13:53 Bohardy wrote: For fuck's sake people, please stop getting ahead of yourselves and look at the facts: - Brian said, or has been quoted as saying "going through some old drawers" and "As well as seeing what we can unearth, we want to do a new musical to follow We Will Rock You. The songs are there, it’s just a question of finding time to get the right production" - The rest of the content, including the obligatory sensationalist headline, came from the fingers and hyperbolic and judicious-with-the-truth mind of some journo from The Daily Star, the UK's 2nd trashiest "newspaper".What was the context in which Brian said what was quoted? What leading questions might have been put to him? How do the quotes on their own equate to Queen being reborn, or Bri and Rog producing a new album of leftovers? They don't. Come on. This is how tabloids operate. They get a quote or two, if they can be bothered, and if they can't they might make some up and attribute them to an anonymous source or close friend, they strip all context from the situation, and present whatever parts of the quote, in isolation, support in some vague and tangential way the story they have decided to spin. I don't believe for one minute this is anything to get excited about. We know Bri and Rog have been "going through some old drawers", as they've confirmed the MJ tracks are being looked at, we've had the bonuses on the reissues, the SiS content, the BBC docu etc etc etc. He could easily have been referring to that kind of thing. I'm happy to be proved wrong. Well, maybe not. I can't see that a MIH2 would be any good at all. As I said on the It's Queen Reborn thread: Well, looky here (from page 3 of this thread).For the past few weeks I've been going absolutely crazy, foaming at the mouth (well, not quite)at the quite staggering number of posts there's been from people talking about this new album, taking is as absolute fact that's it's going to happen, when the only source for the story seems to be the quotes from Bri I highlighted above. Oh, and some dubious report from an Italian radio station that seemed to actually be referring to an MJ rather than Queen album. Did you all collectively lose your powers of critical thought or something? It was truly bizarre how many of the more intelligent posters, despite the thundering absence of any evidence whatsoever for this new album, got in on the act. I'm simulataneously disappointed (with you all) and pleased (with myself). |
4 x Vision 02.12.2011 10:17 |
EDIT Should have read more of this thread lol! |
Micrówave 02.12.2011 11:12 |
pittrek wrote: There will be no new album. Shit Correction.... There will be no new Shit album. It's slated to coincide with the release of the never filmed Queen movie |
The Real Wizard 02.12.2011 13:16 |
AlbaNo1 wrote: But what is it with the gay obsession in theUS. I dont think anyone would even consider liking Queen to be an indication of being gay in the UK. ============== Just cultural differences I guess. I'm in Canada, and it was the same thing. Perhaps we're less evolved than you folk across the pond? As a teenager I regularly endured insults from people because I listened to a gay guy singing songs on my walkman. Some people even thought all Queen songs were about gay sex and that it would make me gay if I listened to it enough. I wish I was kidding. |
MadTheSwine73 02.12.2011 19:34 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Just cultural differences I guess. I'm in Canada, and it was the same thing. Perhaps we're less evolved than you folk across the pond? As a teenager I regularly endured insults from people because I listened to a gay guy singing songs on my walkman. Some people even thought all Queen songs were about gay sex and that it would make me gay if I listened to it enough. I wish I was kidding. I know how you feel, the exact same stuff happens to me today. However, the insults don't come as often as they used to. Gotta start somewhere when it's getting better. |
pittrek 03.12.2011 04:39 |
The Real Wizard wrote: AlbaNo1 wrote: But what is it with the gay obsession in theUS. I dont think anyone would even consider liking Queen to be an indication of being gay in the UK. ============== Just cultural differences I guess. I'm in Canada, and it was the same thing. Perhaps we're less evolved than you folk across the pond? As a teenager I regularly endured insults from people because I listened to a gay guy singing songs on my walkman. Some people even thought all Queen songs were about gay sex and that it would make me gay if I listened to it enough. I wish I was kidding. Strange, teenagers in Slovakia were wiser. All my mates had respect for Queen. However it has changed, my niece is 19 and whenever one of her friends find out I like Queen, they either react like "WTF is Queen" or "Oh, sorry, I didn't know you're gay" :-) The funny thing is that whenever they find me listening to e.g. Buzzcocks or Ramones they react like "You're older then you look" |
GratefulFan 05.12.2011 13:10 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Just cultural differences I guess. I'm in Canada, and it was the same thing. Perhaps we're less evolved than you folk across the pond? As a teenager I regularly endured insults from people because I listened to a gay guy singing songs on my walkman. Some people even thought all Queen songs were about gay sex and that it would make me gay if I listened to it enough. I wish I was kidding. It's interesting...it's my sense that Canada is far from homophobic. It was among the first handful of countries to enshrine gay marriage, word and all, in the basic rights and freedoms of all citizens. The current right wing federal government has recognized that there is little appetite to revisit that, even among mainstream conservatives. What we may be though is unusually 'traditional' in attitudes towards gender roles for a fundamentally liberal first world nation. There was an international survey that made news earlier this fall that showed Canadian youth had unusually old fashioned views relative to countries like the UK and even Rwanda. Some findings: The report, released Thursday by the development agency Plan International, found 31 per cent of Canadian boys aged 12 to 17 believe a woman’s most important role is feeding her family and taking care of the home.That compared to 15 per cent of boys in the United Kingdom, but well short of 73 per cent in India and 68 per cent in Rwanda, who answered the same way. When the question was asked of Canadian adults, 24 per cent agreed that a woman’s primary role should be in the home.Almost half — 48 per cent — of the Canadian adolescents polled said men should be responsible for earning an income and providing for their families. Among Canadian adults, 43 per cent felt the same way. Among the other findings, 45 per cent of all the Canadian youths in this survey agreed with the statement that “to be a man, you need to be tough.” That compared to 13 per cent in the U.K. and 26 per cent in Rwanda.When the question was asked of Canadian adults, 38 per cent of men equated toughness with masculinity and that fell to 21 per cent among women.As well, 42 per cent of the young Canadians polled agreed that being a man meant taking more risks. Among Canadian adults, 41 per cent of men felt this way and 19 per cent of women did. That last paragraph is the most striking to me. 13% in the UK vs. 45% in Canada regarding the idea that men need to be 'tough' is an incredible gap for two areas of the world that share so many other fundamental values and outlooks. And Rwanda! Canadian youth are nearly twice as wedded to the idea of male toughness compared to a country torn by violence and civil war. It's really very striking. I was musing about why some of this may be, and I wondered if perhaps the ruggedness of the land and the preponderance of blue collar jobs that flow from a resource based economy, and the harshness of the climate in the winter come together to still favour a more traditional division of labour and a reliance on and appreciation of typical male attributes like strength, endurance and stoicism in the face of grinding physical work. Even our national sport is a tough, physical game, including an occasional fist fight in the middle, which even I think is kind of crazy and unnecessary, but apparently an important aspect to many. I think my point is are we less evolved or have we evolved in a way that suits the specific character of this country? The survey was as interesting to me in the feedback on the various outlets that covered it as was the actual data. There was little fretting about it and a whole lot of 'so what'? There is a growing impatience in the North American online commentariat with women's issues and the attempt to blur and erase all lines between the genders. It's been fascinating and sometimes unnerving to watch over the last few years. Having finally rented 'Polytechnique' on the weekend, the anniversary of which is tomorrow, I wonder if it's notable even that the deadliest mass killing in the history of this country was a rage against feminism in which all 14 victims were female? Hard to say. How this might translate to teen attitudes about things like gay artists is probably not clear, but on one level it's probably as much about being different as about being interested in Queen and their gay singer. Teens value conformity, and if you're off listening to some ancient 70's band you'll probably be getting a second look anyway. Still, being gay and bullied of course remains a significant issue on it's own, so anything that props that up even obliquely maybe needs to be a concern. Sorry all for the thread jack, I just found RW's experience and that of MadTheSwine kind of interesting and it made me think of that rather surprising survey. |
MadTheSwine73 05.12.2011 20:21 |
GratefulFan, I can't tell you about RW's personal experiences, but I can tell you that here, in our (supposedly) great country of ours, there is just as much homophobia than there is in the States. When I was in seventh grade, and revealed myself as being a Queen fan (as well as a Beatles fan), I was called gay for at least 2 months. The only good part about it was I know it was not meant in harm. However, one time it was, and it really crushed me. One of my best friends is homophobic, and every time I start to talk about Queen, he just interrupts me, and calls me gay. I try to explain, not only to him, but to lots of other people, that only ONE MEMBER was gay (and even then, Freddie was bisexual anyway), but they don't care; they just label Queen as "gay." It really pisses me off. Not only that, but to most people (teenagers anyway, I'm 14), all old music is labelled as "gay." Apparently the Beatles are gay? Yeah, there was a rumor a few years ago about Lennon & McCartney, but it's not like they actually know about it; they're just a**holes who don't know anything about it. But, in the end, you just need to let it go. (Farts of course, not the insults.) We need to do something about homophobia in North America. Not for Queen, but for actual people who are just afraid of homosexuals. Harper's not doing anything about it, and Obama is pretty much screwed now, so who are going to rely on? |
GratefulFan 06.12.2011 17:46 |
Appreciate your insight MadTheSwine, as you're in the thick of things still. My son went through grades 9 and 10 being called various variants of 'gay'. He had a girlfriend at the school the entire time and is not at all effeminate. They stopped this year, mostly I think because he no longer has that girlfriend and they're no longer jealous. LOL It doesn't help that the first part of his name rhymes with one of the many ways to call somebody gay. They took full advantage of that, and the whole thing kind of underscores my sense that teenagers calling somebody "gay" is just as often an all purpose way of isolating people who are targets for whatever reason and gaining social status and acceptance on the back of somebody else as it is an expression of true homophobia. It's certainly not reserved for people who are actually gay, though that observation in no way intends to minimize the very real torment that gay teens endure when it *is* used to wound and diminish a fundamentalpart of who they are. So in so far as the character of a nation can be defined at all, I'm still iffy about Canada as 'homophobic' per se. It's virtually a non issue politically and socially, whereas most of the US is still fighting fundamental equality. Only a handful of states allow gay marriage and the only federal initiative is the recent repeal of DADT, which is being accepted by some military brass only under some duress. California recently undid legal gay marriage after having had for a time. That is particularly shocking. 1) It's Cali and 2) having had it for a while should have made abundantly clear to everyone that when gay people get married....nothing happens. Life just goes on. There is no great social upheaval or moral rot. So, no, I don't think we're in the same boat as the US. We're the country that embarrasses itself internationally by banning the airplay of 'Money for Nothing' because it has the word 'faggot' in it. |