QueenZone discussion #1335052
Was the group Queen a commercial band?
| kruh 08.01.2013 00:25 |
What do you think? In my opinion, the band Queen was very commercial band! I do not mean absolutely nothing bad - usually in such bands play excellent musicians and we all know that the quartet was such a band! Band Queen has never been a political band or a band that should criticized social conditions, except perhaps at the beginning of his career but it was also in the spirit of commerciality. I think the first album, which is purely commercial is News of the World and then it does not stop anymore. The following albums by quality only fall but they all have hits, which saves a group, I think they are well aware of this! I do not think that the music was bad, but it could be better! Live performances between 82 and 85 are (except Live Aid) in my opinion worse than they could be. Last tour was good full with energetic music. I'm a big fan of the group, but I tries to look thinks as they were in reality! The group was certainly brave, because putting so many styles in rock music, but a little too commercial anyway. For me they are still the best rock band of all time, despite the fact that the albums The Works, The Game and Hot Space in my opinion are bad, no stories, as for example, the first five albums. The big question is of course whether we will live to see live album from the seventies, the thing is simply not enough commercial. I apologize if I was too long! Greetings Gregor! |
| TheWorks84 08.01.2013 01:34 |
I must be the only one who likes The Works (obviously), but i agree that it isnt Queens best work. |
| TheWorks84 08.01.2013 01:35 |
|
| Sebastian 08.01.2013 03:52 |
No, they were not a commercial band. That's why they didn't sell records, we never heard about them and this forum was never created. |
| kruh 08.01.2013 04:13 |
Of course they were a commercial band and like I said this is not a bad thing. I just wanted to point out that in the eighties albums were not so good than before. Things were more superficial. Otherwise, I expect sarcasm. And one more thing, this is my best band, but I try to go without idealization. One that is not commercial is not known, but how can commercialization affect the quality of music? In my opinion, too much commercialization cause lower quality! |
| rubens 08.01.2013 08:06 |
Queen were very smart. They knew that music is art and business. They always had the guts to put any kind of experimentation they wanted in their songs, but they also knew that if they wanted to be entitled to do so, they needed hits. Otherwise their albuns and singles would flop and they would be out of the business; But even when they did "pop rubish" they did with style (most of the times at least). |
| Senna 08.01.2013 09:15 |
Yes they were commercial but value for money too and that's not so bad. |
| Sebastian 08.01.2013 09:47 |
The alleged declining quality of their products in the 80's was a complex matter and IMO it's not as related to being commercial as it'd seem at first. I think most (not all, most) composers peak at some point and then it goes downhill... some may recover from it and go up again but then it goes down again, it's just life. For a band like Queen songwriting was as crucial as it could be. Body Language has an extraorindary work on the lead vocal, excellent harmonies, excellent quality on production and instrumentation ... but the song is crap so in terms of delivering a quality product you're just wasting your time; the demo version of Keep Yourself Alive is a far better product (IMO) despite the not-as-strong vocals and the relatively low sound quality (compared to HS), because it's a far better song in terms of musicality. Freddie and John went from composing Somebody to Love and You and I in 1976 (separately) to composing Cool Cat in 1981 (together). In just five years they'd declined a lot. Brian too (compare Teo Torriatte with Dancer or Las Palabras de Amor) and Roger too (Drowse vs Action). That, and not the commercial aspect, was the key to the sub-par quality of some of their 80's material, IMO. |
| DLCVinnuendo 08.01.2013 10:50 |
Commercial, all band is, at least queen made ??great albums noncommercial and had good moments in commercial albums. |
| The Real Wizard 08.01.2013 12:02 |
Seb - great posts. Indeed, all artists have creative peaks and lulls. There aren't too many artists whose scales tip toward peaks. Guys like Eno and Zappa come to mind. George Carlin too. In a span of 45 years there may have been a combined ten years of dry spells compared to ten brilliant HBO specials that each took 2-3 years on the road to perfect. On the other hand - imagine being the in-house engineer for Paul McCartney in the mid-80s after he asked if you liked his latest ballad. |
| Sebastian 09.01.2013 02:59 |
Macca's virtually the poster child for 'talent runs out' ... well, YMMV there, but as much as I like Jenny Wren, Band on the Run or even Freedom, I think Penny Lane, Eleanor Rigby, All My Loving, Hey Jude and many others are far superior. |
| FreddieMercuryKingdom 09.01.2013 07:02 |
Queen's goal from the beginning was to become a fully professional group. They didn't just want to play in local concerts or unknown gigs, so obviously selling records was their priority, but this doesn't mean that they were willing to sacrifice their personal music tastes to be accepted by the public. Like almost every big music group they were trying to equilibrate between music and business -and they made it I believe!!! “And, we have no such thing as a budget anymore. Our manager freaks when we show him the bill. We’re lavish to the bone, but all our money goes back into the product.” Freddie Mercury link |
| Sebastian 09.01.2013 12:30 |
'Yes, we have a budget, and we need permission from our manager to buy anything' wouldn't exactly be popular amongst the fans. |
| ITWEMBLEY86 10.01.2013 12:58 |
yes for persil soap |
| Snackpot 11.01.2013 13:16 |
In the early days they were a hybrid of bands overly obsessed with commercial success and artists who scoffed (or at least pretended to) their noses at trends. They stuck to their guns early on but were commercially successful with it. Later on they became far more mainstream, probably when it stopped being new to them and settled into a very commercially-friendly groove. |
| Snackpot 11.01.2013 13:16 |
Snackpot wrote: In the early days they were a hybrid of two sorts of group. The first are bands overly obsessed with commercial success and the second is artists who scoffed (or at least pretended to) their noses at trends. They stuck to their guns early on but were commercially successful with it. Later on they became far more mainstream, probably when it stopped being new to them and settled into a very commercially-friendly groove. |
| madprofessorus 23.03.2013 18:13 |
Sure it was,although in the 70s they combined well commercial success with art,later somehow missed it,and when they came back...Freddie left this world :-(( |
| GrantKendrick 09.02.2020 11:19 |
I think it was a commercial band at the end of their career. I know that According to Weed News, it wasn't, but I don't agree with them. I can provide solid evidence for my claim, but I have to write my report first. |
| Nathan H 09.02.2020 14:01 |
If Queen continued their 70s sound throughout the 80s, their music from that period would be forgotten. They had to do it to keep people interested. So, yes as time went on they did go commercial - songs like Radio Ga Ga and I Want To Break Free are certainly more "pop" then Keep Yourself Alive and Liar. I'm not saying their 80s music is bad or used market research to see what people liked, because IMO a lot of their "pop" songs are quite good and seem to have a more timeless quality to them compared to other songs. But then having said that, they have had more chart success in the UK with albums then singles. |
| RobbyBloodshed 09.02.2020 18:12 |
Being a “commercial band” can lead to one of two things...Still an amazing band, who’ve kept their overall identity, just trying to adapt to the time’s audience...or it can mean that they lost what their strongpoints were and abandoned what fans fell in love with when they first heard them. Queen definitely became a commercial band, but in my opinion still sounded like “Queen”. They still kept trademarks (even if they executed them in different styles), but overall adapted to what was needed to sell. A band like the Ramones, another great example of that. They definitely went “commercial” with Rock N Roll Highschool and Pet Sematary, but still overall sounded like the Ramones. Bands that went with the times, but totally abandoned what their identities..Green Day, for the past 5 releases. Dookie was considered selling out, but it is still a great pop punk album, which held onto their original roots, but executing it for a mass audience. Their newest releases are 100% catering to the radio and sound like garbage. If you put on their newest release “Father Of All Motherfuckers” there would be no way of identifying it was Green Day. It has none of their trademarks, it is typical radio nonsense. That’s just my opinion anyways, I just always hear “commercial” and people throw it around with a negative connotation. |
| brENsKi 09.02.2020 18:37 |
RobbyBloodshed wrote: Being a “commercial band” can lead to one of two things...Still an amazing band, who’ve kept their overall identity, just trying to adapt to the time’s audience...or it can mean that they lost what their strongpoints were and abandoned what fans fell in love with when they first heard them. Queen definitely became a commercial band, but in my opinion still sounded like “Queen”. They still kept trademarks (even if they executed them in different styles), but overall adapted to what was needed to sell. A band like the Ramones, another great example of that. They definitely went “commercial” with Rock N Roll Highschool and Pet Sematary, but still overall sounded like the Ramones. Bands that went with the times, but totally abandoned what their identities..Green Day, for the past 5 releases. Dookie was considered selling out, but it is still a great pop punk album, which held onto their original roots, but executing it for a mass audience. Their newest releases are 100% catering to the radio and sound like garbage. If you put on their newest release “Father Of All Motherfuckers” there would be no way of identifying it was Green Day. It has none of their trademarks, it is typical radio nonsense. That’s just my opinion anyways, I just always hear “commercial” and people throw it around with a negative connotation.You make a great point - but (IMO) with a bad example. I've listened to Green Day from 94-to date, and I'd say that only one small period 1998-2002 did they drift a little (identity-wise). Everything prior to and since this period is recognisable as trademark Green Day. I'd go further and say that when I hear a new Green Day song for the first time, I can usually tell before a radio DJ says who/what it is. it's not difficult to see the "Green Day" elements in most of their songs. |
| RobbyBloodshed 10.02.2020 02:59 |
brENsKi wrote: You make a great point - but (IMO) with a bad example. I've listened to Green Day from 94-to date, and I'd say that only one small period 1998-2002 did they drift a little (identity-wise). Everything prior to and since this period is recognisable as trademark Green Day. I'd go further and say that when I hear a new Green Day song for the first time, I can usually tell before a radio DJ says who/what it is. it's not difficult to see the "Green Day" elements in most of their songs.I don’t feel Uno, Dos, Tre, Revolution, or this newest record sounds like Green Day. It’s missing all of what made them so enjoyable, at least to me. Billie sings with almost a John Lennon impersonation with so much distortion over his voice, you don’t hear Mike’s recognizable lead bass playing, and the mixing/production is lacking without Rob Cavallo’s input. They strayed with sound on Warning, but it still sounded like Green Day, same with American Idiot - it has a lot new elements yet still sounds like GD (even though I’m not a big fan of that album). All just my opinion and subjective, you can take it with a grain of salt. Edit: There’s absolutely no way you can tell me this has a recognizable Green Day sound: https://youtu.be/U3cpdkhtGx0 |
| pittrek 10.02.2020 12:27 |
I'm a fan of their 80's stuff, but 'i think Dookie was their last good album |