| Michael Allred 29.10.2014 09:16 |
The October 23, 2014 edition of "Rolling Stone" magazine places "Love Kills - The Ballad" on their playlist of favorites saying; "This majestic, full band rock version of Freddie Mercury's 1984 solo cut is the best surprise from Queen's new greatest hits set. The original was an electro-pop curio; this way, with Brian May's guitar in the mix, it's a total lost classic." I wonder what Roger would say? |
| The Real Wizard 29.10.2014 10:25 |
All I can think of is - where were these reviewers in 1977? |
| BETA215 29.10.2014 10:49 |
Eating his first lunch, maybe? Or being paid to make that. |
| pittrek 29.10.2014 11:22 |
The reviewer obviously listened to a different track than me. |
| winterspelt 29.10.2014 11:54 |
We all have heard the original version for lots of years, so our ears are biased and we just cant stop listening the original version when listening to this ballad version. Specially cause its the same vocal take. Another person without the original version printed deep in his/her mind will have a different opinion (and taste) than a longtime fan. I, for one, like the new version, to me, its not as good as the original one (which I truly love) but still a very nice version. |
| pittrek 29.10.2014 12:47 |
It's not BAD, it's just boring. The original was an upbeat disco song (despite the lyrics it was a really "happy" song), the new version - I have to concentrate so that I won't fall asleep after the first minute. Also the part where Freddie delivers the fast (sort of) vocals and the new music is just some random keyboard noise with some slow backing by Roger and Brian - kind of a weird effect. But yeah, you're correct, if I never heard the original or the rock remixes, I would maybe have a different opinion about it. |
| jondickens1 29.10.2014 13:15 |
I prefer this new Queen version over the original or any other remix over the years. For me it showcases Freddie's incredible vocals to the max and I'd class it in the haunting ballad category. |
| MercurialFreddie 29.10.2014 15:29 |
It's interesting that they maintained some of the original 1984 synths in the part "....love can play with your emotion....." and mixed it up with some new effects. |
| andyb1968 29.10.2014 15:56 |
Had we never heard the original, if this came off the same shelf as lmiyha, we would all be raving about it. I'm desperate to hear Fred singing sail away sweet sister, that will be awesome !!!!!! |
| mooghead 29.10.2014 16:17 |
FFS.. Rolling Stone slagged Queen off in the 70's. Get over it. |
| tomchristie22 29.10.2014 17:40 |
winterspelt wrote: We all have heard the original version for lots of years, so our ears are biased and we just cant stop listening the original version when listening to this ballad version. Specially cause its the same vocal take.I know my opinion doesn't count for much, but I heard this new version first, which led me to then check out the original (I'd just never been interested in Freddie's solo material). I still prefer the original. |
| Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira 29.10.2014 17:59 |
Of course everybody's opinions count, Tom! I guess they did not have any other vocal takes to use. That would have been awesome. The keyboard part is rather strange, I agree I love the original from day one. I still remember the first time I heard it, the day I found the then rare LP and the day I got a hold of the import CD. Queen were the best in synthpop, as well. To sum it up, the new version is good, but the classic one is awesome. And I hate to say it, but Queen + Adam Lambert's live version is better than the new version with Freddie. I guess it is not fair to compare, as he had the chance to adapt his vocals to the new arrangement. I hate to say it, really. Cheers, Ogre- |
| tomchristie22 29.10.2014 18:09 |
That's true. The original didn't really build up dynamically, while the new one does, but Freddie's vocal is still tailored to the version which doesn't. So what we're left with is Freddie singing pretty powerfully the whole way through, which sounds a bit clunky. The ending is a bit weird, too, using the vocal from the chorus but over different chords, and ending on the major chord. I don't know whether that actually sounds bad or if it just sticks out to me cos it's different. |
| Dean_ 29.10.2014 18:13 |
Wasn't the original voted 'Worst track of the year' when it was released? Always found that strange, as the song is stellar and full of class. It's probably aged best out of Freddie's solo stuff. |
| winterspelt 29.10.2014 18:40 |
Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira wrote: Of course everybody's opinions count, Tom! I guess they did not have any other vocal takes to use. That would have been awesome. The keyboard part is rather strange, I agree I love the original from day one. I still remember the first time I heard it, the day I found the then rare LP and the day I got a hold of the import CD. Queen were the best in synthpop, as well. To sum it up, the new version is good, but the classic one is awesome. And I hate to say it, but Queen + Adam Lambert's live version is better than the new version with Freddie. I guess it is not fair to compare, as he had the chance to adapt his vocals to the new arrangement. I hate to say it, really. Cheers, Ogre-Agree 100% with your post. |
| Jimmy Dean 29.10.2014 23:42 |
I think they should have gone full rock, than a ballad... like with I Was Born To Love You... the whole build up starting with "love can play with your emotions, open invitation to your heart"... should have continued into a rock chorus rather than fall back into the ballad form... i'd like to believe they tried it, but it went nowhere... but i don't know, i just can't see it failing if they had done it that way... it's if it was written with that in mind. |
| thomasquinn 32989 30.10.2014 01:42 |
Sounds to me like Rolling Stone is just trying to keep up it's long, long run of getting every single review of anything Queen puts out wrong. |
| Rugby_guy 30.10.2014 03:36 |
Rolling Stone is just a cheap American rag, buy it and wipe your arse on it Thomasquinn32989 ha ha ! |
| matt z 30.10.2014 03:52 |
I wouldn't wipe my ass with it. It's slippery and non porous. Plastic magazine for a plastic age. Crappola. Queen should have taken the high road and made a version with a ukulele. A blatant attempt to hit the "norm" but they missed out. ;*) |
| Mr.Mouth 30.10.2014 08:38 |
Enough of that karaoke high pitched canarian ,with no musical skills or rock path!!! |
| Mr.Mouth 30.10.2014 08:41 |
You are right. Ending is not so good arranged |
| LucasDiego 30.10.2014 08:59 |
The shame is QP ordered to withdraw the original version on YT, makes the new version much easy to find, it's a shame |
| Ale Solan 30.10.2014 19:14 |
tomchristie22 wrote:Are you a Queen fan since 2 weeks ago?winterspelt wrote: We all have heard the original version for lots of years, so our ears are biased and we just cant stop listening the original version when listening to this ballad version. Specially cause its the same vocal take.I know my opinion doesn't count for much, but I heard this new version first, |
| tomchristie22 30.10.2014 20:01 |
Ale Solan wrote:Nuh. I'm a Queen fan since 2010ish, I wasn't alive in 1984, and I just never had the interest to delve into Freddie's solo material. Simpletomchristie22 wrote:Are you a Queen fan since 2 weeks ago?winterspelt wrote: We all have heard the original version for lots of years, so our ears are biased and we just cant stop listening the original version when listening to this ballad version. Specially cause its the same vocal take.I know my opinion doesn't count for much, but I heard this new version first, |
| SweetCaroline 30.10.2014 20:30 |
Here's the QAL version of "Love Kills" ..... link |
| tomchristie22 30.10.2014 21:24 |
I must agree with the suggestion earlier in the thread - if the double time beat from the midsection had carried over into the remainder of the song, it would've been much better. As it is, the song just loses its momentum as it goes back into the ballad style. The guitar solo that follows also sounds awkward, which would likely be rectified by having a drum beat closer to the original for which it was written. |
| Ale Solan 30.10.2014 21:43 |
tomchristie22 wrote:I wasn't alive in 1964 but when I discovered the Beatles in early 80's I felt the need to listen everything I could about 'em...Ale Solan wrote:Nuh. I'm a Queen fan since 2010ish, I wasn't alive in 1984, and I just never had the interest to delve into Freddie's solo material. Simpletomchristie22 wrote:Are you a Queen fan since 2 weeks ago?winterspelt wrote: We all have heard the original version for lots of years, so our ears are biased and we just cant stop listening the original version when listening to this ballad version. Specially cause its the same vocal take.I know my opinion doesn't count for much, but I heard this new version first, but you discovered Queen 4 years ago, understandable. |
| tomchristie22 30.10.2014 21:56 |
Indeed - it's the 4th year and I've now gotten round to it. I've mainly listened to Smile and Brian's stuff as far as Queen-related stuff goes, prior to recently. I plan to get onto Roger's solo work too. |
| Ale Solan 30.10.2014 23:06 |
tomchristie22 wrote: Indeed - it's the 4th year and I've now gotten round to it. I've mainly listened to Smile and Brian's stuff as far as Queen-related stuff goes, prior to recently. I plan to get onto Roger's solo work too.Roger's solo stuff it's the most rich of all the four Queen guys, you'll really enjoy it. |
| The Real Wizard 02.11.2014 11:56 |
Rugby_guy wrote: Rolling Stone is just a cheap American rag, buy it and wipe your arse on it Thomasquinn32989 ha ha !This is extremely misguided. I've never seen this opinion expressed outside of Queen fan sites like this one, just because their writers in the 70s and 80s didn't like Queen. But for pretty much everyone else in the western world, it is the industry standard for reading about new music. Just about every aspiring music writer dreams of writing for Rolling Stone. It's the Everest of music journalism. |
| WKMahlerMahlers.Com 02.11.2014 13:12 |
Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira wrote: Of course everybody's opinions count, Tom! I guess they did not have any other vocal takes to use. That would have been awesome. The keyboard part is rather strange, I agree I love the original from day one. I still remember the first time I heard it, the day I found the then rare LP and the day I got a hold of the import CD. Queen were the best in synthpop, as well. To sum it up, the new version is good, but the classic one is awesome. And I hate to say it, but Queen + Adam Lambert's live version is better than the new version with Freddie. I guess it is not fair to compare, as he had the chance to adapt his vocals to the new arrangement. I hate to say it, really. Cheers, Ogre-nah, adam lambert lacks the fullness and finesse that Freddie mercury easily and passionately applied to "love kills" buried with the dance music of the original but his voice is upfront and more alive than anything lambert has tried with each concert performance of "love kills". In one fell swoop, Mercury from the grave and in my ears has taken full attention with many repeats in the last 72 hours, all three "forever" songs too. I was born to love you by queen + adam lambert in Osaka japan now fills my span currently and he is too comical, has no dexterity of emotional range to manipulate with grace, not frequent unimportant expressions into the higher octaves that is all lambert is good for. Freddie's love kills original or modern ballad of late is a vast improvement and welcome over lamberts theatrics in any form at any time too. |
| BETA215 02.11.2014 14:17 |
tomchristie22 wrote: Indeed - it's the 4th year and I've now gotten round to it. I've mainly listened to Smile and Brian's stuff as far as Queen-related stuff goes, prior to recently. I plan to get onto Roger's solo work too. It's also my 4th year of Queen and searching in (very) old threads, I found a lot of Queen, RT, BT and FM demos, out-takes, amateur video recordings of concerts, professional video recordings of concerts, and BBC Sessions. Would you like a link to that in your PM box? My collection it's uploaded (and free, if you're asking). Sorry for the off-topic. |
| tomchristie22 02.11.2014 19:53 |
I'd like that, yeah. I've done a bit of digging around myself (mostly in live stuff), but you never know - you could have some great things I haven't come across. PM me :) On topic again, the ending of the 2014 version sounds much more natural when performed live, because they can play it at a more fitting tempo, and because Adam can sing it more gently, as well as hold the note. On the Forever version, they just used Freddie's vocal from earlier in the song, and the final 'Love kills' is just a joining phrase copied and pasted, so he barely draws out the note at all. It just sounds a bit clunky. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 02.11.2014 19:58 |
WKMahlerMahlers.Com wrote:I always thought wkmahler was a bit of a nutter but that take is spot on.Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira wrote: Of course everybody's opinions count, Tom! I guess they did not have any other vocal takes to use. That would have been awesome. The keyboard part is rather strange, I agree I love the original from day one. I still remember the first time I heard it, the day I found the then rare LP and the day I got a hold of the import CD. Queen were the best in synthpop, as well. To sum it up, the new version is good, but the classic one is awesome. And I hate to say it, but Queen + Adam Lambert's live version is better than the new version with Freddie. I guess it is not fair to compare, as he had the chance to adapt his vocals to the new arrangement. I hate to say it, really. Cheers, Ogre-nah, adam lambert lacks the fullness and finesse that Freddie mercury easily and passionately applied to "love kills" buried with the dance music of the original but his voice is upfront and more alive than anything lambert has tried with each concert performance of "love kills". In one fell swoop, Mercury from the grave and in my ears has taken full attention with many repeats in the last 72 hours, all three "forever" songs too. I was born to love you by queen + adam lambert in Osaka japan now fills my span currently and he is too comical, has no dexterity of emotional range to manipulate with grace, not frequent unimportant expressions into the higher octaves that is all lambert is good for. Freddie's love kills original or modern ballad of late is a vast improvement and welcome over lamberts theatrics in any form at any time too. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 02.11.2014 20:03 |
The Real Wizard wrote:True, but RS were (are) horribly biased and ill informed. They liked their boys (Dylan, Springsteen, U2, REM) missed the boat on bands who weren't cool enough. Their early reviews on Queen show a shocking lack of musical knowledge and a huge bias, their recent reviews look like a magazine trying to connect with a demographic (AL fans) by praising stuff that wasn't good enough to make a Queen album in the day. Overall they're pathetic. Famous, but pathetic.Rugby_guy wrote: Rolling Stone is just a cheap American rag, buy it and wipe your arse on it Thomasquinn32989 ha ha !This is extremely misguided. I've never seen this opinion expressed outside of Queen fan sites like this one, just because their writers in the 70s and 80s didn't like Queen. But for pretty much everyone else in the western world, it is the industry standard for reading about new music. Just about every aspiring music writer dreams of writing for Rolling Stone. It's the Everest of music journalism. |
| BETA215 02.11.2014 21:39 |
tomchristie22 wrote: I'd like that, yeah. I've done a bit of digging around myself (mostly in live stuff), but you never know - you could have some great things I haven't come across. PM me :) On topic again, the ending of the 2014 version sounds much more natural when performed live, because they can play it at a more fitting tempo, and because Adam can sing it more gently, as well as hold the note. On the Forever version, they just used Freddie's vocal from earlier in the song, and the final 'Love kills' is just a joining phrase copied and pasted, so he barely draws out the note at all. It just sounds a bit clunky. Check your PM box! On topic, I like this version. The only bad thing here is the intensity of Freddie's voice in the song. Also when the song's climax reaches, instead of making this song epic, they reduce the (climax?) of the song and makes me bore at the end. Also, the beggining is so long. But I love that parts mixed with the synths. I think it's good. I will take it as an amateur remix of the song, made by 2 guys who are the guitarist and the drummer of Queen. |
| Oscar J 03.11.2014 04:54 |
The Real Wizard wrote: This is extremely misguided. I've never seen this opinion expressed outside of Queen fan sites like this one, just because their writers in the 70s and 80s didn't like Queen. But for pretty much everyone else in the western world, it is the industry standard for reading about new music. Just about every aspiring music writer dreams of writing for Rolling Stone. It's the Everest of music journalism.RS shat all over LZ's now legendary first albums, and were quite critical of classic Hendrix, Cream and Beatles albums as well. Thank god it didn't stop them. |
| RafaelS 03.11.2014 07:49 |
I don't like it. The 1984's version was the best. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 04.11.2014 22:05 |
I remember the RS review for News of the World, where they praised John's playing on Sleeping on the Sidewalk as adventurous compared to his mostly "pedestrian" playing over the first five albums. The writer who wrote that either hated Queen (likely) or knew SFA about music (likely). |
| tomchristie22 05.11.2014 02:10 |
That writer truly mustn't have actually ever listened to John's bass playing. How irritating |
| Heavenite 05.11.2014 02:52 |
Oscar J wrote:I read someone say that critics were often failed songwriters. So they put up some sh*te that most people can't stand, and can't understand why "their" bands and singer songwriters aren't huge. Well it's a terrible generalisation, but if that last comment about The Beatles Cream and Hendrix is correct, you have to wonder what use are they? Queen never seemed to get much cred until Live Aid, and then they had to come on board or they would have been dimissed as completely irrelevant!The Real Wizard wrote: This is extremely misguided. I've never seen this opinion expressed outside of Queen fan sites like this one, just because their writers in the 70s and 80s didn't like Queen. But for pretty much everyone else in the western world, it is the industry standard for reading about new music. Just about every aspiring music writer dreams of writing for Rolling Stone. It's the Everest of music journalism.RS shat all over LZ's now legendary first albums, and were quite critical of classic Hendrix, Cream and Beatles albums as well. Thank god it didn't stop them. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 05.11.2014 22:09 |
“Definition of rock journalism: People who can't write, doing interviews with people who can't think, in order to prepare articles for people who can't read.” ? Frank Zappa, The Real Frank Zappa Book |
| Holly2003 06.11.2014 04:12 |
Some rock journalism is interesting. Classic Rock have some good people writing for them, although the pressure to stay "on message" in line with the magazine's ethos often means it is overly sympathetic to bands and music that really aren't that great. Rolling Stone used to have Hunter Thompson and PJ O'Rourke writing for them, albeit not about music lol! It could be fun. Now it's a vehicle for ads and corporate music. I had heard Greil Marcus was very good so I read his book Mystery Train. Have to say I was unimpressed. He completely bought into the Robert Johnson mythology and didn't do much research. |
| Holly2003 08.11.2014 09:06 |
Nuno Bettencourt also had some nice things to say about Queen & BM: "Yes, Joe Perry made me wanna rock and roll, but it was this gentle giant right here... Brian May, who taught me that guitar could reach a whole new solar system with the a powerful melody and emotion. He showed me that a guitar could sing. Just how important a single note was when it hit the sweet spot. Brian, along with Queen, had more to say in one album than most bands do in a career. And there will NEVER be a band that took as many risks as Queen, pushing boundaries, one masterpiece after another. The most creative and groundbreaking band in Rock and Roll. And Brian, as long as I have had the pleasure to know you and call you a friend, I am still in awe of your presence as a master. You're an idol, my pioneer. Thank you for decades of breathtaking music and inspiration. Long live Queen!!!" |
| matt z 08.11.2014 09:06 |
^yes corporate crap. I've picked up a few in the last twelve years. I've had suspicions it hasn't been useful for new music or important since even BEFORE the days of Napster 's glory. These people are collegiate, entitled and have nothing really useful to say about any kind of musical culture.... well. ... unless ironically I'm just getting old and this repetitive crap made by synth guys and the electronic cut and paste within the given framework kind of stuff is what passes for music. It goes either way. Ask me and it hasn't been relevant for almost twenty years. It's even behind trends Ask the culture it's born and given birth to and it's significant. Just a matter of opinion. Sorta. |
| Oscar J 08.11.2014 11:47 |
Nuno is such a thoroughly nice guy. And an absolute guitar ace. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 08.11.2014 20:48 |
If I had dogs they'd be called King Brian and Lord Nuno. I love Nuno, fantastic guitarist who gets music. He recently did an interview saying he hates Brian's guitar (because he sounds like Nuno, not Brian when he plays it as it's all in the fingers) and he'd love to do something with Brian. That would be utopia as Nuno is in a band that has had it's day and still trying different things as there are no commercial expectations, whereas Brian is comfortable trying to sell warmed over anthems to middle aged suburbanites and needs a creative kick in the ass which Nuno could do. |