MercurialFreddie 30.11.2014 10:02 |
Hey! How well was received this new compilation by the critics ? Have you read reviews of Queen Forever and/or The Endless River ? It seems to me that the new Queen compilation is better received than PF's new album, which is strange, although I've recently encountered a review in which the author was bashing Queen Prod. See it for yourself: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/cdreviews/11213851/Queen-Queen-Forever-review-a-blatant-stocking-filler-money-grab.html If you've read some interesting and/or in-depth reviews, please post links. Cheers, Martin |
Marknow 30.11.2014 10:57 |
Fair and honest review right there. |
Adam Baboolal 01.12.2014 05:21 |
I wouldn't call that a review at all. It comes off more like a disgruntled fan that only focuses on the 3 "new" tracks, rather than the whole. Chip paper. |
ITSM 01.12.2014 05:26 |
I think that's fair, the 3 new tracks are ... the 3 new tracks, and those are what's interesting this time around - at least in a review. |
AssDudeRule 01.12.2014 07:43 |
They say 1 in every 3'rd person in the Uk has Queen's GH1 in the their home. So, stocking filler indeed. |
mooghead 01.12.2014 12:45 |
"But the blatant, stocking-filler money-grab of tagging these songs on to a quirky hits compilation isn’t in the Christmas spirit." Erm... it is EXACTLY the Christmas spirit, for decades bands have released dodgy Greatest Hits albums just before xmas with an extra new track or two for the mugs. |
k-m 01.12.2014 17:50 |
I read a few, including one in Classic Rock today. The reviewer gave it 7 out of 10 stars. "The Endless River" - 5 out of 10 in the same mag. I read a few other reviews as well and generally speaking "Forever" does seem to have a better reception than the last Floyd offering. |
The King Of Rhye 01.12.2014 19:16 |
MercurialFreddie wrote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/cdreviews/11213851/Queen-Queen-Forever-review-a-blatant-stocking-filler-money-grab.html If you've read some interesting and/or in-depth reviews, please post links. Cheers, MartinFrom that article....... Love Kills, Mercury’s rushed electronic collaboration with Giorgio Moroder, gets its power ballad sails filled by the band (minus bassist John Deacon). Uh............should have checked their facts there.............John IS on it (though not playing bass, but still.....) This is about the best review of it I've seen: (10 out of 10!) link |
MercurialFreddie 02.12.2014 03:27 |
^ It is a great review, one question though: Is the reviewer aware of FM's solo version of TMBMTLTT or he wonders about the new Queen mix of FM solo version (never heard of it).: "...and I would love to hear a Freddie only version if in fact one exists." |
dysan 02.12.2014 05:01 |
"generally speaking "Forever" does seem to have a better reception than the last Floyd offering." Possibly true, but I'm sure there was far more excitement about the new, and last, PF album. As shown by the chart performance. |
gerry 02.12.2014 05:57 |
I have to agree with the review of Queen Forever, for it is a waste of time for many Queen fans. I think it was just released as a filler and to keep us on board but really it is there worst compilation album to date. i was so disgusted with the album that i sent mine back. Queen productions does treat us all like morons some times and never deliver what we really really want. "Let me in your heart again" was the stand out track" and not "There is more to life than this" like stated in the review. Even the "Queen rocks" cd was a better release than "Queen Forever" |
Vocal harmony 02.12.2014 08:10 |
gerry wrote: I have to agree with the review of Queen Forever, for it is a waste of time for many Queen fans. I think it was just released as a filler and to keep us on board but really it is there worst compilation album to date. i was so disgusted with the album that i sent mine back. Queen productions does treat us all like morons some times and never deliver what we really really want. "Let me in your heart again" was the stand out track" and not "There is more to life than this" like stated in the review. Even the "Queen rocks" cd was a better release than "Queen Forever"This is proof of your mindset Gerry. You like all of us were fully aware what was on the album, the track list was available for both single and double disc versions, but you bought it, slagged it off on here and now say that you sent it back. Why the hell did you buy it to begin with? |
audhild1984 02.12.2014 08:12 |
MercurialFreddie wrote: ^ It is a great review, one question though: Is the reviewer aware of FM's solo version of TMBMTLTT or he wonders about the new Queen mix of FM solo version (never heard of it).: "...and I would love to hear a Freddie only version if in fact one exists."I think the reviewer meant a Queen version with Freddie vocals only... I would also love to hear that!!! |
The King Of Rhye 02.12.2014 08:54 |
Vocal harmony wrote: This is proof of your mindset Gerry. You like all of us were fully aware what was on the album, the track list was available for both single and double disc versions, but you bought it, slagged it off on here and now say that you sent it back. Why the hell did you buy it to begin with?I think he bought it just so he could complain about buying it............. |
The King Of Rhye 02.12.2014 08:59 |
gerry wrote: I have to agree with the review of Queen Forever, for it is a waste of time for many Queen fans. I think it was just released as a filler and to keep us on board but really it is there worst compilation album to date.Worse than Greatest Hits III? Worse than Stone Cold Classics???? |
Vocal harmony 02.12.2014 09:55 |
^^^^^ I think in Gerald's world anything that isn't Freddie is shit, it's just funny that he hasn't realised that Freddie is all over Queen Forever and by complaining and sending it back he looks more if an idiot than he already is! |
joerijoerijoeri 02.12.2014 10:53 |
I'd like to hear this 'there is more to life than this' track that Gerry goes on about. |
winterspelt 02.12.2014 17:45 |
I can understand people calling Queen's first album "Queen I" as it is an untitled debut album and its easier to name it in that way because their second album is called "II" (perhaps because of the same unknown reasons, people call II Queen II) but I just cant understand why do people keep naming the new compilation "Queen Forever"? The album name is Forever, just Forever... Unless Im missing something... |
BETA215 02.12.2014 19:14 |
winterspelt wrote: I can understand people calling Queen's first album "Queen I" as it is an untitled debut album and its easier to name it in that way because their second album is called "II" (perhaps because of the same unknown reasons, people call II Queen II) but I just cant understand why do people keep naming the new compilation "Queen Forever"? The album name is Forever, just Forever... Unless Im missing something... |
BETA215 02.12.2014 19:19 |
winterspelt wrote: I can understand people calling Queen's first album "Queen I" as it is an untitled debut album and its easier to name it in that way because their second album is called "II" (perhaps because of the same unknown reasons, people call II Queen II) but I just cant understand why do people keep naming the new compilation "Queen Forever"? The album name is Forever, just Forever... Unless Im missing something... |
BETA215 02.12.2014 19:21 |
According to the press release, it is called Queen Forever. But according to Amazon and other sites, it is called Forever. |
The King Of Rhye 02.12.2014 19:34 |
winterspelt wrote: I can understand people calling Queen's first album "Queen I" as it is an untitled debut album and its easier to name it in that way because their second album is called "II" (perhaps because of the same unknown reasons, people call II Queen II)I thought the first album was particularly know as "Queen I" in Japan.......I think Freddie made some comments about that on a bootleg or two.............I always just call it "Queen" or the "first album".....and I never call Queen II just "II"......hmmm |
Heavenite 03.12.2014 03:02 |
The thing I think we're forgetting about (Queen) Forever is that apart from the three previously unreleased Queen tracks (not unreleased tracks!) the rest of the album would have been targetting those not so into Queen as us. So with only a few hits on there, it would have introduced others who might have just had GH 1, 2 and maybe 3 to other great album tracks. I know I listened to it at a friend's house, and my mate and his spouse love Queen but don't know the complete collection. And they loved the way it was set out with the smattering of tracks from across the entire collection, unified by a single theme. And ALL of us sat there with baited breath listening to the first three tracks because they were new(ish!). I just loved LMIYHA, and the other two were interesting too I guess.. I think if Queen made a mistake,it was that Brian referred to Forever as sort of an MIH2. He did also say that it was a compilation album, but for some of us, the original MIH WAS a compilation album with just new Queen versions of solo tracks and just the three new originals. This one wasn't structured the same, which is understandably why so many of us are disappointed by the dearth of new material. Maybe that's why they announced new material was coming so quickly once they gauged the general reaction of the dye-hard fans! I mean so many of us (but not everyone!) were over the moon with MIH, whereas Forever, after 19 years, has provided a few morsels, but that's about all really.. |
tcc 03.12.2014 04:04 |
winterspelt wrote: I can understand people calling Queen's first album "Queen I" as it is an untitled debut album and its easier to name it in that way because their second album is called "II" (perhaps because of the same unknown reasons, people call II Queen II) but I just cant understand why do people keep naming the new compilation "Queen Forever"? The album name is Forever, just Forever... Unless Im missing something...I bought the album and when I ripped it to my phone, the name of the album stated in the list of albums was Queen Forever. |
Heavenite 05.12.2014 14:14 |