| noorie 21.12.2014 11:54 |
He does not seem to think too much of the Queen Forever album. From an interview with Classic Rock: Taylor meets us in his home studio, a stone’s throw from the pub and golf club of a sleepy Surrey village. His mansion and the South Downs can both be glimpsed through the trees. Tracksuit-casual, his hair and beard white, Queen’s drummer is the most bluntly forthright about their future in 2015. And he can’t raise much enthusiasm for Queen Forever, for a start. “I was very pleased we had three new tracks to put on it, which we laboured long and hard over,” he says. “As well as the Michael Jackson track There Must Be More To Life Than This, there is another song Freddie did with him called State of Shock [later recorded with the Jacksons and Mick Jagger], with a massive rock sound. But we could only have one track with Michael, which is a great shame. Let Me In Your Heart Again is absolutely typical mid-period Queen. And it was Brian’s idea to revisit Love Kills, which I feel works. But apart from that it is a rather odd mixture of our slower stuff. I didn’t want the double-album version they’ve put out. It’s an awful lot for people to take in, and it’s bloody miserable! I wouldn’t call it an album, either. It’s a compilation with three new tracks. It’s more of a record company confection. It’s not a full-blooded Queen album.” |
| Oscar J 21.12.2014 14:45 |
Where can I read that interview? |
| sinsome 21.12.2014 15:27 |
It's a pretty decent interview. If you have a membership, you can read it here: https://www.teamrock.com/features/2014-12-20/queen-adam-lambert-by-royal-appointment But there are high quality scans here: https://imgur.com/a/hFBE6#9 Here's Brian's comment on QF: “I can understand Roger’s reticence,” May laughs. “He’s not really a ballad writer, so this album’s not really representative of Roger Taylor. It actually wasn’t our idea. If it had been down to me it would have been an EP of these new songs, but we’d already promised the record company some kind of compilation.” And both of them on the idea of recording again as Queen+ or with Adam: But after The Cosmos Rocks Queen’s veteran pair are wary of going down that route again. When I spoke to Paul Rodgers in 2014 he made clear his own unhappiness at the experience. “Politically, Brian and Roger were calling the shots,” he recalled. “We’d done some amazing shows, and Roger had some hip, cool songs, but it could have been better.” “I guess, yeah,” Taylor considers. “I had a lot to do with that album. It was made in this room, actually. It had some great stuff on it. I just think that Paul’s more blues and soul – one of our favourite singers, ever – but when it boils down to it he wasn’t the perfect frontman for us. I felt the album was badly promoted by EMI, who were falling to bits at the time. We were on tour in Europe, and I went into record stores and we weren’t in them. And I remember being furious, thinking: ‘Why did we make this fucking record?’ “It certainly made us think twice about making a Queen album with another singer,” he adds. “There’s a resistance among the record-buying public to that idea, because Freddie was so inextricably linked with us. When you lose the brand, people aren’t interested. That’s why even Freddie’s solo albums, or Mick Jagger’s, or certainly mine, aren’t going to break any sales records. People want the brand. It’s a horrible word, but very apt.” “I wouldn’t be averse to recording again,” May considers, “but we haven’t discussed it. And we spent a huge amount of time making that album with Paul Rodgers, going through quite a lot of pain, and I don’t think it made the slightest dent on public consciousness. So I would be cautious about being in a recording group called Queen without Freddie. Maybe we should be doing something else with Adam. Maybe we should be part of his recording future.” --- There doesn't seem to be a preview here...? Apologies if this post turns out to be a mess or blank or whatever. |
| The King Of Rhye 21.12.2014 15:40 |
sinsome wrote: “I wouldn’t be averse to recording again,” May considers, “but we haven’t discussed it. And we spent a huge amount of time making that album with Paul Rodgers, going through quite a lot of pain, and I don’t think it made the slightest dent on public consciousness. So I would be cautious about being in a recording group called Queen without Freddie. Maybe we should be doing something else with Adam. Maybe we should be part of his recording future.”Thats the interesting part to me! Sounds like The Cosmos Rocks made him wary of making another Queen album.........(though I'd think a Queen + Adam album would generate more interest........I dunno, could be wrong, tho...) "Maybe we should be part of his recording future"??? Hmmm........Brian and Roger playing on Adam's song(s) or album?? I'd rather have a Q+AL album, but I'd have NO problem with that!!! |
| AlbaNo1 21.12.2014 16:23 |
This is all very interesting and sounds the most truthful that we have heard from Brian and Roger for some time. At times we forget even the major bands are at beck and call of the record company. |
| inu-liger 21.12.2014 16:29 |
This once again proves what I'd been saying that this compilation wasn't their idea to begin with. |
| Oscar J 21.12.2014 17:52 |
Ah, finally a good and honest interview with the two of them. |
| Day dop 21.12.2014 19:14 |
Interesting. Thanks for posting. |
| Vocal harmony 21.12.2014 19:19 |
inu-liger wrote: This once again proves what I'd been saying that this compilation wasn't their idea to begin with.Yes exactly. It will be interesting to see how many of those who slated RT and BM for this album have anything to say. |
| MadTheSwine73 21.12.2014 19:53 |
This is actually really interesting. Thanks for this! |
| Sheer Brass Neck 21.12.2014 21:23 |
Read an amazing article on boxing promoter Don King and noted asshat Donald Trump today, on how their business model was to take credit for all things good, and lay blame when things go bad. Seems B + R have mastered that strategy. I'm confused, but it seems B + R are multi, multi millionaires. Why would they sign with a major label? Oh, massive distribution. But to think that the record company wouldn't want to recoup the investment after you've been a recording unit who's made shitloads of money after 40 years is disingenuous at best, a lie at worst. Universal wants to sell product, Roger wants to be an artist who doesn't want a compilation released? That's fucking rich. |
| ITSM 22.12.2014 03:00 |
Nice to "hear" them say this, but it's a bit too late, I think. They really had us going for a long time, getting us all so excited. One new song is much better than zero, though. |
| andyb1968 22.12.2014 03:51 |
Let's hope Brian talking of an ep for those unreleased tracks bodes well for any future releases ! Ep the way to go, or mini album, 5 or 6 tracks. |
| Viper 22.12.2014 04:10 |
Nuff said! |
| cmsdrums 22.12.2014 04:25 |
So Brian has now realised what we were all shouting 10-15 years ago; record some new stuff but release it under a 'Taylor/May' banner (much like Plant & Page did, and they even did Zep covers!), rather than as Queen! I'd much rather see that than them act as Adam's backing band than one of his projects. Interesting to have it confirmed to that effectively the deal with the MJ estate resulted in them only being allowed to use one of those tracks, and that their arrangement of State of Shock is a full rock track. Gotta love the way they moan about having to deliver a compilation album....after presumably signing a deal tying them to exactly that! And after flooding the market with them for 20 years too.....!! |
| pittrek 22.12.2014 05:58 |
I agree completely with Roger |
| flash00. 22.12.2014 06:51 |
I remember ages ago Roger saying he was getting on well with Paul Rogers and said it was Brian that wasn't (or something to those words). Maybe R+B might want to start listening to the fans a little bit more, this compilation has been quite a bit of a wake up call and it's finally sinking in without loyal fans there is no mansions and millions, they saw the massive negativity towards those remixes and Brian making out the other songs were a different version/take to the originals when most fans couldn't tell the difference. Rog doesn't sound a happy bunny surely they must of known the outcome of "Forever" question is... Who does he blame, it might be a good idea to make a promo video like other bands do the next time they ever release a single as Queen or Queen+ |
| JacquesDaniels 22.12.2014 07:45 |
They did release a promo video for LMIYHA. It just wasn't a very good one. |
| gerry 22.12.2014 08:55 |
This was obviously a universal pushing for a release but the finger of blame has to be pointed at May & Taylor for they approved the album before release. Maybe an E.P would have been more suitable than upsetting many fans with a sloppy collaboration of songs and yes the double version of "Forever" is too much to take it i agree with Taylor over that comment. Lets hope they will be no Queen + albums ever again, bad move guys. |
| Vocal harmony 22.12.2014 10:53 |
gerry wrote: Lets hope they will be no Queen + albums ever again, bad move guys.Well they're signed to universal who will want some firm of product to sell, so I'm sure there will be Queen+ albums plus other Queen (live) albums in the future |
| Vocal harmony 22.12.2014 10:53 |
gerry wrote: Lets hope they will be no Queen + albums ever again, bad move guys.Well they're signed to universal who will want some firm of product to sell, so I'm sure there will be Queen+ albums plus other Queen (live) albums in the future |
| brENsKi 22.12.2014 11:08 |
sinsome wrote: “I can understand Roger’s reticence,” May laughs. “He’s not really a ballad writer, so this album’s not really representative of Roger Taylor.you gotta love that comment haven't you? heaven for everyone /everybody hurts sometime / these are the days of our lives / small / smile/ old friends / beautiful dreams / old men (lay down) / happiness i think Bri does him a bit of a disservice |
| mooghead 22.12.2014 12:28 |
Much as Roger can say the album wasn't their idea the idea could have been voted if the band really didnt want it to happen. If it had sold a million and been xmas number one you can bet your left nut it would have been their idea... |
| musicland munich 22.12.2014 12:34 |
^haha..Yes I have to agree with you this time ! |
| cmsdrums 22.12.2014 13:06 |
I noticed in Tesco today that it's back up to no 13 in the UK album chart today - that's the xmas rush for ya! |
| Russian Headlong 22.12.2014 13:13 |
So RT was pissed off with EMI not promoting the Cosmos Rocks. Queen ripped Hollywood records off signing with them in 1990 when they knew Freddie had Aids. Most Queen compilations are rubbish except gh1, gh 2 and Rocks. Even gh 1 lacks tymd and some other classics. gh 3, Absolute, deep cuts and forever are crap. Disagree about pr not being the frontman, they did two huge tours, a live and studio album with pr and they were great if different. I think they didn't like the fact that pr still wanted to do solo stuff and the bad company reunion. lamberts just using queen to get a leg up in his solo career. lambert is shit btw! |
| Vocal harmony 22.12.2014 14:41 |
Russian Headlong wrote: So RT was pissed off with EMI not promoting the Cosmos Rocks. Queen ripped Hollywood records off signing with them in 1990 when they knew Freddie had Aids. Most Queen compilations are rubbish except gh1, gh 2 and Rocks. Even gh 1 lacks tymd and some other classics. gh 3, Absolute, deep cuts and forever are crap. Disagree about pr not being the frontman, they did two huge tours, a live and studio album with pr and they were great if different. I think they didn't like the fact that pr still wanted to do solo stuff and the bad company reunion. lamberts just using queen to get a leg up in his solo career. lambert is shit btwYou don't know the conditions of the contract they signed with Hollywood. If they had ripped the record company off and done anything illegal they would have ended up in court owing Hollywood (and EMI) a shed load of money. Queen Rocks and Deep Cuts were good compilations for people who wanted to explore past the greatest hits things. Not every album is geared towards fans who have everything. Tie Your Mother Down and other "classics" weren't included on GH1 because from the outset the album was planned only to contained top ten or possibly top twenty hits. It's amazing the amount of shit "fans" through at the band and it's members |
| andyb1968 22.12.2014 15:57 |
At the end of the day Queen own the rights to their songs, they have the veto ! There will be more Queen + stuff no doubt ! |
| cmsdrums 22.12.2014 16:08 |
Vocal harmony wrote: You don't know the conditions of the contract they signed with Hollywood. If they had ripped the record company off and done anything illegal they would have ended up in court owing Hollywood (and EMI) a shed load of money. Tie Your Mother Down and other "classics" weren't included on GH1 because from the outset the album was planned only to contained top ten or possibly top twenty hits. It's amazing the amount of shit "fans" through at the band and it's membersWhilst I'm sure there was nothing 'illegal' in the contract, I'm sure signing a deal for massive numbers (reputed to be 'telephone number' big) when they knew the state of play was morally suspect. With regard to the hits packages, they left off some tracks that actually made higher chart positions in most territories than some that were included on GHII & GHIII. |
| master marathon runner 22.12.2014 17:04 |
Queen Forever is in HMV,(at least in Newcastle Eldon square) for £7.49 Just about beats anywhere. |
| Vocal harmony 22.12.2014 17:52 |
cmsdrums wrote: Whilst I'm sure there was nothing 'illegal' in the contract, I'm sure signing a deal for massive numbers (reputed to be 'telephone number' big) when they knew the state of play was morally suspect. With regard to the hits packages, they left off some tracks that actually made higher chart positions in most territories than some that were included on GHII & GHIII.Yeah I agree re GHII and III, but I don't think they had the Same criteria that GHI followed.. I think at the time of the Hollywood records deal they weren't selling very much in America and I'm sure the deal was geared towards having control of their back catalogue. The amount has never officially been published, I don't think, but if it was for a huge amount I really don't believe they were expecting huge sales of anything new. |
| Apocalipsis_Darko 22.12.2014 17:58 |
Peter Paterno was the president of Hollywood Records, when Queen signed for them. He met Freddie, as he told me. He is also the lawyer of Metallica. He had a marketing idea, to reedit the records, and also published Classic Queen including Bohemian Rhapsody with some 80's hits to the american audience Queen lost in the 80's heard that songs. About the greatest hits, GH1, GHII make sense for the decades (71-81, 81-91) and the first, as Vocal Harmony said, were to be the singles in the top 20. The rest? No comment...a person who doesn't know Queen well, will buy the hits, not Deep Cuts . Only the collectors buy that kind of things....I bought it, but I knew it was only to complete the discography, only that, not with more illusions. I wish some day they will publish box of rareties, like the FM box set. The Cosmos Rocks is a ok record, with some great songs, but not a "Queen" record. Is more near to Paul Rodgers solo stuff than Queen, is obvious. |
| The King Of Rhye 22.12.2014 18:08 |
Russian Headlong wrote: So RT was pissed off with EMI not promoting the Cosmos Rocks. Queen ripped Hollywood records off signing with them in 1990 when they knew Freddie had Aids. Most Queen compilations are rubbish except gh1, gh 2 and Rocks. Even gh 1 lacks tymd and some other classics. gh 3, Absolute, deep cuts and forever are crap.I wonder if Hollywood Records knew that Freddie wasnt in good health when they signed Queen..........certainly a possibility! I don't think they would consider themselves ripped off, they got to reissue the entire back catalog, and put out 2 compilations and a live album, all in the first few years...... The original UK Greatest Hits was all of their UK Top 30 singles....that was why no TYMD! Personally, I think the worst Queen compilation is Classic Queen.....the edit of Miracle that I dont like, and what in the heck was One Of Your Love doing on it? lol |
| Russian Headlong 22.12.2014 18:36 |
GH3 is a joke it has non queen tracks on it ffs. I think gh1 was weaker without tymd and liar on it. gh3 had 'hits on it that were solo or not even hits'. personally, im not interested in seeing the band with lambert but would like to see them work with pr again. I suspect there was a falling out between pr and bm which is a pity. no established singer is going to want to join the band fulltime and lambert as I said earlier is just using the band to get himself known in Europe. I can't believe the didn't think the pr collaboration didn't work cos the tours were sell outs. sonisphere with lambert was called off due to piss porr sales and they did a smaller gig at hammersmith instead. |
| Russian Headlong 22.12.2014 18:37 |
GH3 is a joke it has non queen tracks on it ffs. I think gh1 was weaker without tymd and liar on it. gh3 had 'hits on it that were solo or not even hits'. personally, im not interested in seeing the band with lambert but would like to see them work with pr again. I suspect there was a falling out between pr and bm which is a pity. no established singer is going to want to join the band fulltime and lambert as I said earlier is just using the band to get himself known in Europe. I can't believe the didn't think the pr collaboration didn't work cos the tours were sell outs. sonisphere with lambert was called off due to piss porr sales and they did a smaller gig at hammersmith instead. |
| Vocal harmony 22.12.2014 19:16 |
^^^ BM and RT don't want a permanent singer as such, that why this tour isn't billed as Queen. It's Queen + or didn't you notice? BM and RT quite clearly have no wish to work with Rodgers, if they did they would have. He's not the easiest person to work with. With Lambert they seem to work better as Queen. Rodgers they were aways a bit more like Bad co as someone else has already said. Your comment that no established singer wants to join the band seems a little odd. Sonisphere didn't sell well in 2012, but Queen can't be held up as the sole reason for that. It's a festival, it includes many other bands and another headliner. Remember that Download and Reading/Leeds that year had very strong lineups and had sold massively, so Sonisphere probably lost sales through that. Remember Queen sold over 20,000 tickets for the four Hammersmith shows and almost 400 thousand in total on the other dates. Now they are selling Arenas on this tour at the same level as they used to with Freddie. |
| LucasDiego 22.12.2014 19:29 |
For me, the worst queen compilation is the bizarre compilations of hollywood release in 2000's, A-Z, stone cold classics, fucking shit!! |
| The Real Wizard 23.12.2014 00:50 |
Russian Headlong wrote: Queen ripped Hollywood records off signing with them in 1990 when they knew Freddie had Aids.Umm, let's not forget that Hollywood made a ton of money off record sales after Freddie's death. Whenever an artist dies, ka-ching ka-ching. |
| The Real Wizard 23.12.2014 00:52 |
The King Of Rhye wrote: Personally, I think the worst Queen compilation is Classic Queen.....the edit of Miracle that I dont like, and what in the heck was One Of Your Love doing on it? lolBut on the plus side, it has the best sounding version of Under Pressure on it. It dwarfs every version before and since. I grew up on that compilation. I wore out the cassette. |
| The Real Wizard 23.12.2014 00:55 |
Brian May said : And we spent a huge amount of time making that album with Paul Rodgers, going through quite a lot of pain, and I don’t think it made the slightest dent on public consciousness. So I would be cautious about being in a recording group called Queen without Freddie.Glad to see the doc finally open up about this. Had they called it something like Good Company there would've been a ton of interest in the supergroup idea, and it would've sold 10x more copies too. But hindsight is 20/20. Some of us called it from day one, but they had to learn the hard way. |
| Martin Packer 23.12.2014 03:17 |
Re Hollywood Records, it might be another case of "misdirection": To fail to sign might signal something they didn't want to. To sign might scotch the rumours about Freddie's health. And might also be part of the internal pretence that things might be alright. |
| Pingfah 23.12.2014 04:26 |
At the point Hollywood records signed Queen, it was blatantly obvious to everyone that Freddie was seriously ill, and although it was not stated, people had a pretty good idea what it was. The idea that nobody at Hollywood Records had noticed this is absolutely ridiculous. |
| mooghead 23.12.2014 04:38 |
"I wonder if Hollywood Records knew that Freddie wasnt in good health when they signed Queen" Its not relevant. Ultimately Queen would have signed a deal and that deal would have included future releases including compilations and re issues. If they had signed a deal promising 5 new albums knowing fine well they couldn't deliver then that would be fraud and they would have been taken to the cleaners. |
| miraclesteinway 23.12.2014 04:39 |
To be honest I think in 1990, or 89, Freddie was still able to record - and he was still being treated. I think somewhere inside he probably thought it would be OK, you know, denial. I think the rest of the band probably went into denial too, and I also think that they thought they'd have more stuff to work with after Freddie's death than they did (I mean, at the time of recording, not after he died). I think that even as late as October 1991, Brian was still in a state of shock and denial about what was happening, and I can only assume that the John and Roger were too. Although, it's fairly obvious that they all knew that Freddie was going to die. Peter Freestone claims that Freddie's doctor had told him (had told Peter, not Freddie) that he wouldn't make it to Christmas of THAT year. The band were probably told this, too. When Freddie pulled through and had a second wind , perhaps they thought that he'd pull through a second and maybe even third time. If he had managed that he might even still be here today - but there's no point in going down that road since it didn't happen that way. You know when someone is dying - we've pretty much all been through it with friends or family with various illnesses - there is sometimes, towards the end, an absolute burst of life when they can sort things out and perhaps realise some of their ambitions before the final deterioration happens. In every case that this burt of energy happens, all the friends and family think or hope that somehow they will be OK in the long run. So, without trying to turn this into yet another Freddie's illness thread, I think the signing of the contract with Hollywood in 1990 was done with good intentions. I'll bet that when the fan club wrote in their magazine in the last magazine before Freddie died that there'd be another Queen album in 1992, that the four of them believed it at least at the time of writing, or if they didn't believe it, they were trying their best to block out what was actually happening. Fair enough. Who wouldn't. Young man, who is the centre of your brand and a close friend, catches terrible illness and dies. Natural thing is for friends to say 'no, this is not happening' and get on with life, at least for a while. regarding Roger's comments on Queen Forever - I think he was probably quite uncomfortable with the idea from the start. Brian probably likes it. There'll be a combination of record company pressure and Brian and Roger wanting something in the charts to coincide with the Queen tour. Personally I think a single or an E.P would have been better, something packaged nicely on a 7-inch or 12-inch to hark back to the 1984 days (after all, it's from their 12-inch extended remix period...... did anyone actually ever like these remixes? I thought they were crass). Perhaps even a boxed set with the 7-inch or 12-inch, or CD, with a little booklet with some unseen pictures, a little story about MJ and FM, perhaps some out-takes. If the MJ estate had allowed them to release all the MJ and Queen tracks we'd probably be having a different conversation, and if they'd been mixed with a little more care, too. Along with many others I'm quite confused by Queen sometimes. How many times have they released the albums? There was the original release of each LP/Tape/and CD in the case of the Works/Magic/Miracle/Innuendo/Wembley/Heaven, then there was the CD re-issue campaign in the late 1980s with the albums that weren't previously available on CD given the digital treatment, but they made some mistakes with these ones. Then there was the Digital Master Series in 1993/1994 which many people didn't like but they at least had a small touch of class in the packaging. There were still some odd things with the mastering and I can only think that they were released fairly quickly as the demand for Queen product rose in anticipation of Made In Heaven. Then there was the Mini LP CD series, which I think happened in Europe and Japan in about 1998, then there was the CD-booklet series, then there was the Vinyl series in 2009, but apparently they were the same masters as the Digital Master Series, then there was the 2011 remaster series with two sets of CDs made available (why didn't they just release the two-disc sets only?), and then I believe we are being treated to another set of vinyls next year (read it on this forum, not anywhere else). Not to mention the Hollywood records 1991 reissues, and of course the Complete Works in 1985, and the CD cabinet in 1995, and lets not forget that even in the UK there were some special versions of the albums released at the time of release, and a couple of EMI 100 re-issues in 1997, two versions of Made In Heaven on vinyl in the UK.... The fan who has to have everything will end up having at least 10 copies of every album. In most cases there was nothing, sonically at least, to be gained from buying a reissue. The comments about PR not being that easy to work with - yes, perhaps, but we're talking a bunch of rock megastars here, are any of them that easy to work with? I'll bet every member of Queen could be very difficult. Somebody once told me that Tori Amos used to phone up her personal assistant at 4 in the morning demanding a hamburger, and if no where was open then she'd demand that the assistant come round and makes one from scratch. The stories we hear..... |
| Vocal harmony 23.12.2014 06:44 |
^^^^ yeah I agree about rock mega stars etc. However with Rodgers there was a definite Me and them feeling in everything he did, whether live, recorded or in interviews. With Lambert there is more of a real band feeling and presentation. I think the story about Tori Amos may have originated from her friendship with Maynard James Keenan, she used to call him late late at night and they'd sing song ideas to each other, and sometimes meet up and cook breakfast in the early hours. |
| The King Of Rhye 23.12.2014 07:31 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Good point about UP, I forgot about that one!! Hm, dont think I ever had it on cassette, but that was one of the 1st CDs I ever got!!The King Of Rhye wrote: Personally, I think the worst Queen compilation is Classic Queen.....the edit of Miracle that I dont like, and what in the heck was One Of Your Love doing on it? lolBut on the plus side, it has the best sounding version of Under Pressure on it. It dwarfs every version before and since. I grew up on that compilation. I wore out the cassette. |
| gerry 23.12.2014 08:29 |
Russian headlong : Yeah i totally agree with your posts, Lambert is only sticking with Queen because he knows without them he will fall flat on his arse. Greatest Hits one has sold a massive amount and gave the uk its first 6 million seller! Greatest Hits 2 was not that bad but i was jaded with GH3 which from the track listing should not have contained Brians solo work,"Driven by you" because Roger had no solo stuff on that record so why Brian? Desperation comes to mind! And finally yes Lambert is shit, good post Russian headlong. |
| Vocal harmony 23.12.2014 08:38 |
gerry wrote: And finally yes Lambert is shit, good post Russian headlong.Ticket sales around the world would suggest otherwise |
| The King Of Rhye 23.12.2014 08:49 |
gerry wrote: Russian headlong : Yeah i totally agree with your posts, Lambert is only sticking with Queen because he knows without them he will fall flat on his arse.I'm beginning to wonder why I even bother, but anyway........ His two albums made #3 and #1 in the US..........really falling flat on his ass without Queen, huh? And this tour is selling better than the one with Paul Rodgers did...... But oh wait, you're qualified to make statements about what Adam thinks because..........uh because........uh, help me out here........ Just my guess, but it appears to me that he genuinely enjoys working with Brian and Roger and vice versa............. |
| Vocal harmony 23.12.2014 09:29 |
The King Of Rhye wrote: Just my guess, but it appears to me that he genuinely enjoys working with Brian and Roger and vice versa.............And there in lies the truth that some just can't. or don't want t, understand |
| LucasDiego 23.12.2014 10:33 |
For my part, i will see Brian and Roger in this new tour, fuck Lambert, but if you like him, well, good luck... |
| Day dop 23.12.2014 12:29 |
Vocal harmony wrote:^ By that logic, the same could be said for Justin Bieber.gerry wrote: And finally yes Lambert is shit, good post Russian headlong.Ticket sales around the world would suggest otherwise |
| inu-liger 23.12.2014 23:59 |
Day dop wrote:You didn't hear his last tour suffered and declined in some places?Vocal harmony wrote:^ By that logic, the same could be said for Justin Bieber.gerry wrote: And finally yes Lambert is shit, good post Russian headlong.Ticket sales around the world would suggest otherwise It got so bad in Australia, the promoters had to LOWER ticket prices just to try and entice more sales! |
| The Real Wizard 24.12.2014 01:10 |
Pingfah wrote: At the point Hollywood records signed Queen, it was blatantly obvious to everyone that Freddie was seriously ill, and although it was not stated, people had a pretty good idea what it was. The idea that nobody at Hollywood Records had noticed this is absolutely ridiculous.In the UK and Europe, yes. But in the US, Queen had pretty much fallen off the map by then. Freddie wasn't in the papers, their records weren't selling well, and the awards shows where he appeared frail weren't shown on US TV. So it's very likely that the people at Hollywood Records had no idea he was ill. |
| tero! 48531 24.12.2014 02:07 |
It's naive to think that they wouldn't have read the news from Europe before signing a 10 million dollar contract with a European band. The reality is that for Hollywood Records it didn't really matter whether Freddie was dead or alive. The company had been founded just a year before to release the Disney soundtracks, and Queen was their first real signing. They would have paid just about anything to get a serious artist, and Queen was by no means a poor choice to begin with. Considering that the band was already commercially dead in the US, the main draw was always going to be the back catalogue (especially licensed to Disney movies..). Freddie actually dying could only make the deal MORE profitable for Hollywood Records. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 24.12.2014 14:31 |
^^^ Spot on. |
| Russian Headlong 24.12.2014 15:57 |
"And this tour is selling better than the one with Paul Rodgers did......" Rubbish the PR tours sold out. That included huge outdoor shows at hyde park and in Ukraine. Lambert is not selling tickets in the arenas. |
| inu-liger 24.12.2014 16:26 |
Russian Headlong wrote: "And this tour is selling better than the one with Paul Rodgers did......" Rubbish the PR tours sold out. That included huge outdoor shows at hyde park and in Ukraine. Lambert is not selling tickets in the arenas.Not in the US, it didn't! The Q+PR was very poorly promoted on our side of the pond. Now YOU stop your rubbish, take your anti-AL and shove it up your ass. Fucking hell I am SO sick of these lies and half truths!! |
| musicland munich 24.12.2014 16:40 |
^^Even when Queen had their peak around 79 - 81 they did not have sell outs on every concert. Main reason - Ticket prices. |
| Vocal harmony 24.12.2014 16:48 |
inu-liger wrote:^^^Russian Headlong wrote: "And this tour is selling better than the one with Paul Rodgers did......" Rubbish the PR tours sold out. That included huge outdoor shows at hyde park and in Ukraine. Lambert is not selling tickets in the arenas.Not in the US, it didn't! The Q+PR was very poorly promoted on our side of the pond. Now YOU stop your rubbish, take your anti-AL and shove it up your ass. Fucking hell I am SO sick of these lies and half truths!! yeah you're right they fell flat on their faces with Rodgers in a lot of US venues, some only selling a third of the available tickets, others did a bit better but I don't think any sold out. The UK sold better. This time around the states, australia and japan have all sold well with most venues selling out. The UK dates have also sold well with dates added including a third London date. This tour is the most successful on a world level since 1980. |
| The King Of Rhye 24.12.2014 18:28 |
According to this...... link the 2015 European tour is 93% sold out! Not selling tickets in the arenas, my ass............. |
| Mr Prime Jive 25.12.2014 18:22 |
Wow.....HUUUUGE NUMBERS!! |
| Vocal harmony 26.12.2014 06:04 |
It's quite funny that the anti Lambert lobby have used slow ticket sales on the upcoming leg as proof of Lambert not being suitable for the job, so how do Gerry and co explain this? Something else worthy of mention, the UK leg has sold more tickets than The Works tour, the 1980 UK dates and The Crazy tour. Also as a world tour it's sold more than the Hot Space tour |
| Day dop 26.12.2014 06:48 |
Vocal harmony wrote: It's quite funny that the anti Lambert lobby have used slow ticket sales on the upcoming leg as proof of Lambert not being suitable for the job, so how do Gerry and co explain this? Something else worthy of mention, the UK leg has sold more tickets than The Works tour, the 1980 UK dates and The Crazy tour. Also as a world tour it's sold more than the Hot Space tourBecause the tour's been advertised on TV, plus - the internet, which of course, the masses didn't have in Freddie's day. Generally, modern tours do better than ones back in the 70's and 80's. link But again, sales don't necessarily equate outstanding creative ability or talent. One Dimension, being so high up on the list, in 13th place, or 7th when adjusted for inflation, should signify that! |
| Oscar J 26.12.2014 07:01 |
Wish we could talk about Queen Forever instead. Why does every thread end up being about Mr Wail? |
| Vocal harmony 26.12.2014 08:10 |
Day dop wrote:Vocal harmony wrote: It's quite funny that the anti Lambert lobby have used slow ticket sales on the upcoming leg as proof of Lambert not being suitable for the job, so how do Gerry and co explain this? Something else worthy of mention, the UK leg has sold more tickets than The Works tour, the 1980 UK dates and The Crazy tour. Also as a world tour it's sold more than the Hot Space tourBecause the tour's been advertised on TV, plus - the internet, which of course, the masses didn't have in Freddie's day. Generally, modern tours do better than ones back in the 70's and 80's. link But again, sales don't necessarily equate outstanding creative ability or talent. One Dimension, being so high up on the list, in 13th place, or 7th when adjusted for inflation, should signify that! |
| Vocal harmony 26.12.2014 08:13 |
Day dop wrote:Vocal harmony wrote: It's quite funny that the anti Lambert lobby have used slow ticket sales on the upcoming leg as proof of Lambert not being suitable for the job, so how do Gerry and co explain this? Something else worthy of mention, the UK leg has sold more tickets than The Works tour, the 1980 UK dates and The Crazy tour. Also as a world tour it's sold more than the Hot Space tourBecause the tour's been advertised on TV, plus - the internet, which of course, the masses didn't have in Freddie's day. Generally, modern tours do better than ones back in the 70's and 80's. link But again, sales don't necessarily equate outstanding creative ability or talent. One Dimension, being so high up on the list, in 13th place, or 7th when adjusted for inflation, should signify that! |
| Vocal harmony 26.12.2014 08:14 |
Day dop wrote:Vocal harmony wrote: It's quite funny that the anti Lambert lobby have used slow ticket sales on the upcoming leg as proof of Lambert not being suitable for the job, so how do Gerry and co explain this? Something else worthy of mention, the UK leg has sold more tickets than The Works tour, the 1980 UK dates and The Crazy tour. Also as a world tour it's sold more than the Hot Space tourBecause the tour's been advertised on TV, plus - the internet, which of course, the masses didn't have in Freddie's day. Generally, modern tours do better than ones back in the 70's and 80's. link But again, sales don't necessarily equate outstanding creative ability or talent. One Dimension, being so high up on the list, in 13th place, or 7th when adjusted for inflation, should signify that! |
| Vocal harmony 26.12.2014 08:15 |
This site is a pain in the ass |
| Holly2003 26.12.2014 13:56 |
As much as I dislike Lambert's voice, some people are in denial: the tour has been a huge commercial success, the band are getting good critical reviews, and Lambert has done all that Brian & Rog have asked of him. Probably better to criticise B&R rather than Lambert, as he's been very professional. |
| Day dop 27.12.2014 17:08 |
Oscar J wrote: Wish we could talk about Queen Forever instead. Why does every thread end up being about Mr Wail?Good point. I haven't bought it yet, but I'll be a sucker, just for the two new(ish) tracks that I like: Let Me In Your Heart Again, and the reworking of Love Kills. |
| Heavenite 30.12.2014 08:31 |
And there's more material. So let's be happy about that too! |
| bobdylan1 31.12.2014 16:33 |
I'd rather have Queen + FooFighters or Q+ Dave Grohl or Taylor Hawkins. Imagine DG singing the slow rock songs. |
| Stelios 01.01.2015 05:50 |
In the same interview Brian sais on the "gay thing" in regards with music : "I find my mind wandering down those paths as well, because so many of the greatest musicians have been gay. I wonder if there is a special kind of magic that appeals to girls as much or even more than boys. There’s a kind of mystery there." Does anyone get what actually the second sentence mean? He is talking about sexuality and talent and then shifts to gender and music appreciation ? I don't get it. |
| softcalavera2 01.01.2015 22:39 |
I think that a Queen + George Michael Tour could be perfect. |
| inu-liger 02.01.2015 00:22 |
softcalavera2 wrote: I think that a Queen + George Michael Tour could be perfect.If it didn't happen while he was in his prime in the 90's, it certainly ain't going to happen now. |
| softcalavera2 02.01.2015 01:55 |
inu-liger wrote:Yes, 100% agree, but in the 90's a Queen+ tour...would not be possible.softcalavera2 wrote: I think that a Queen + George Michael Tour could be perfect.If it didn't happen while he was in his prime in the 90's, it certainly ain't going to happen now. |
| Heavenite 04.01.2015 09:01 |
Stelios wrote: In the same interview Brian sais on the "gay thing" in regards with music : "I find my mind wandering down those paths as well, because so many of the greatest musicians have been gay. I wonder if there is a special kind of magic that appeals to girls as much or even more than boys. There’s a kind of mystery there." Does anyone get what actually the second sentence mean? He is talking about sexuality and talent and then shifts to gender and music appreciation ? I don't get it.My guess is I think he's talking about androgynous stars. You know, the one's that have both masculine and feminine attributes. Usually it's a guy with some femininity about him as well. He might also be very beautiful, as opposed to being handsome! Freddie certainly was amazing to look at in the early part of his career. Then there were other acts like Bowie, Marc Bolan and The Sweet. In fact the whole glam era seems to be built on that, well at least to some extent. And maybe that sort of mix of masculine and feminine also appears in the quality of the music of those bands. For example, you could say it appears in early Queen music, when you go from say Tenement Funster to Flick of the Wrist and then Lily of the Valley, or maybe from March of the Black Queen to Nevermore. And Killer Queen is of course completely camp. |
| The Real Wizard 04.01.2015 17:44 |
Vocal harmony wrote: This site is a pain in the asslink ^ kind of a solution here. |
| Stelios 05.01.2015 03:24 |
Heavenite wrote:Nice. Thanks.Stelios wrote: In the same interview Brian sais on the "gay thing" in regards with music : "I find my mind wandering down those paths as well, because so many of the greatest musicians have been gay. I wonder if there is a special kind of magic that appeals to girls as much or even more than boys. There’s a kind of mystery there." Does anyone get what actually the second sentence mean? He is talking about sexuality and talent and then shifts to gender and music appreciation ? I don't get it.My guess is I think he's talking about androgynous stars. You know, the one's that have both masculine and feminine attributes. Usually it's a guy with some femininity about him as well. He might also be very beautiful, as opposed to being handsome! Freddie certainly was amazing to look at in the early part of his career. Then there were other acts like Bowie, Marc Bolan and The Sweet. In fact the whole glam era seems to be built on that, well at least to some extent. And maybe that sort of mix of masculine and feminine also appears in the quality of the music of those bands. For example, you could say it appears in early Queen music, when you go from say Tenement Funster to Flick of the Wrist and then Lily of the Valley, or maybe from March of the Black Queen to Nevermore. And Killer Queen is of course completely camp. However to assume that if someone is gay is necessarily androgynous is a bit narrow minded . Not talking about you, but Brian's input which i think you interpret correctly. |
| Vocal harmony 05.01.2015 06:34 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Thank you sir, I shall follow your suggestions when time allows.Vocal harmony wrote: This site is a pain in the asslink ^ kind of a solution here. |
| NickGreen 06.01.2015 11:26 |
Ha I have to say if roger says it then I agree..he hated the musical..he hated there 'disco' stuff and he doesn't like this compulation, he also called paul Daniels a dick, I think brian is great but I'm more in tune with roger. |
| AlbaNo1 06.01.2015 15:22 |
Roger wants to be cool. But he still goes along with everything. |
| k-m 09.01.2015 06:46 |
Nice to read some honest words from Roger and especially the ever diplomatic Brian. I agree with most, but I also feel they don't have the courage to admit to themselves and the fans that Cosmos Rocks simply wasn't a very good album at all. There was not a single hit on it and the sound was pretty distant from Queen with Paul's bluesy delivery. How the hell were people supposed to buy it?!? And EMI knew it all along and that's the very reason why they didn't want to spend thousands promoting it. It would have sunk anyway. Even if they played C-lebrity on the moon and broadcast it worldwide, the album still would have sunk. And it's not true that people want the brand. The brand is a nice bonus, but as long as the songs are good you have a high chance to succeed. Without the songs, the brand is worthless and Cosmos Rocks is the best proof of that. Just look at Sting, Peter Gabriel or Phil Collins who all did incredibly well without their respective brands. Same applies to Brian's and Roger's solo albums. They simply don't deliver on all levels, like Queen's albums did. They really need to own to these facts before stepping into the studio again. |
| k-m 09.01.2015 07:15 |
gerry wrote: Russian headlong : Yeah i totally agree with your posts, Lambert is only sticking with Queen because he knows without them he will fall flat on his arse. Greatest Hits one has sold a massive amount and gave the uk its first 6 million seller! Greatest Hits 2 was not that bad but i was jaded with GH3 which from the track listing should not have contained Brians solo work,"Driven by you" because Roger had no solo stuff on that record so why Brian? Desperation comes to mind! And finally yes Lambert is shit, good post Russian headlong.You really need to have it explained why Roger didn't have anything on GH3? Ok, I will tell you why. Because none of his solo singles was a hit. That's why. Freddie had hits and they were included on GH3 and Brian also had a hit with Driven By You and it was included on GH3 too. Hope this helps. |
| Heavenite 09.01.2015 07:24 |
Stelios wrote:I agree Stelios. And some straight guys played the androgynous card to great success too. Neither Russell Mael from Sparks nor any of the band members of the classic lineup of Sweet were gay as far as I'm aware, but they played the androgynous card with great success during the glam era.Heavenite wrote:Nice. Thanks. However to assume that if someone is gay is necessarily androgynous is a bit narrow minded . Not talking about you, but Brian's input which i think you interpret correctly.Stelios wrote: In the same interview Brian sais on the "gay thing" in regards with music : "I find my mind wandering down those paths as well, because so many of the greatest musicians have been gay. I wonder if there is a special kind of magic that appeals to girls as much or even more than boys. There’s a kind of mystery there." Does anyone get what actually the second sentence mean? He is talking about sexuality and talent and then shifts to gender and music appreciation ? I don't get it.My guess is I think he's talking about androgynous stars. You know, the one's that have both masculine and feminine attributes. Usually it's a guy with some femininity about him as well. He might also be very beautiful, as opposed to being handsome! Freddie certainly was amazing to look at in the early part of his career. Then there were other acts like Bowie, Marc Bolan and The Sweet. In fact the whole glam era seems to be built on that, well at least to some extent. And maybe that sort of mix of masculine and feminine also appears in the quality of the music of those bands. For example, you could say it appears in early Queen music, when you go from say Tenement Funster to Flick of the Wrist and then Lily of the Valley, or maybe from March of the Black Queen to Nevermore. And Killer Queen is of course completely camp. |
| Martin Packer 09.01.2015 07:45 |
The problem with TCR is that neither of them let rip; They were capable of more and they didn't do it. |
| malicedoom 09.01.2015 08:20 |
I revisited The Cosmos Rocks last year, hoping it'd be better the second-time around. It wasn't. The only track I really like is "Cosmos Rockin'". Also like their take on "Runaway", but that's not even on the main album. Oh well. |
| Martin Packer 09.01.2015 08:44 |
Liked Runaway, Small, We Believe, Small Reprise. Didn't much like Cosmos Rockin. |
| Vocal harmony 09.01.2015 09:57 |
The most lacking thing on The Cosmos Rocks is a lack of recording session leader. No clear focus from the person in the producers chair. I'm sure there was a lot of pats on the back and the phrase nice work was probably over used, but I bet no one ever said no do it again or gave any critical direction. IMO this is the one major problem Queen have now, their team has worked with them for a long time and it's much easier for everyone if no one rocks the boat. |
| 7thStranger 09.01.2015 14:23 |
I would have probably liked The Cosmos Rocks if they had released it under the band name Smile, since that's pretty much what it was. |
| inu-liger 09.01.2015 15:16 |
7thStranger wrote: I would have probably liked The Cosmos Rocks if they had released it under the band name Smile, since that's pretty much what it was.When are people going to realize that re-branding themselves as "Smile" would never work?? NOBODY outside of the Queen fandom knows about Smile, or why that name would have been relevant in the first place! SMH |
| LucasDiego 09.01.2015 15:50 |
The last time i listended TCR was... well, i don't remember well... |
| joerijoerijoeri 09.01.2015 16:47 |
7thStranger wrote: I would have probably liked The Cosmos Rocks if they had released it under the band name Smile, since that's pretty much what it was.You don't want to anger the hardcore Smile fans... |
| tero! 48531 10.01.2015 00:56 |
joerijoerijoeri wrote:Wouldn't it be better to anger those two guys instead of the Queen fans?7thStranger wrote: I would have probably liked The Cosmos Rocks if they had released it under the band name Smile, since that's pretty much what it was.You don't want to anger the hardcore Smile fans... |
| tero! 48531 10.01.2015 01:05 |
7thStranger wrote: I would have probably liked The Cosmos Rocks if they had released it under the band name Smile, since that's pretty much what it was.I would have preferred if they had been called "Brian May, Roger Taylor & Paul Rodgers", because they sure as hell weren't any real band. (And neither is the current touring ensemble...) |
| joerijoerijoeri 10.01.2015 07:02 |
Smile fans are known for their bloody attacks on anyone who dares tarnish the Smile legend, whereas Queen fans will just whine on a message board. |
| miraclesteinway 10.01.2015 10:32 |
I wonder, if Queen, with John Deacon on board (it'll never happen, I know), had continued to release stuff post Made In Heaven, would we buy it? Would it chart? Or would they have become even in the eyes of the wider public (the people buying the tickets for the Adam Lambert tour) a band that should have quit a long time ago? I mean, if they had offered more things like No one but you - the three of them working together, perhaps with Roger and Brian taking over the singing, or perhaps with a new vocalist chosen, say, 20 years ago? No-one but you didn't do all that well, although it's very popular in Musical Theatre auditions now! OK, now you could say to me 'hey, but that's basically what we have, except John has left'. Well, it's not quite what I'm trying to say - I mean if they'd remained a creative songwriting and album producing unit who had made, say, four or five good albums post Made In Heaven, rather than one shot in the dark with Paul Rodgers, who probably didn't want to do it all that much anyway. It somehow feels too late for them to do an album with Adam (minus John), especially given the mess of Cosmos Rocks (not just musically, but politically, and chart wise). If they'd found someone like Marc Martel even in 1998, and John stayed on board, would we be having the same conversations about how Queen are a past-it back catalogue tribute act parody of themselves (which seems to be the consensus amongst those who don't like the Q plus AL or PR tours), or would we be happy that they were still active? I guess it depends on the music, but I'm just curious as to what people think. Perhaps this actually needs a new thread. |