k-m 13.02.2016 17:30 |
Not sure if it was shared here before, but there you have it: link |
matt z 13.02.2016 17:48 |
I distinctly remember reading this with a different title. There was something similar. .25 years ago Freddie Mercury confronts morality with. ..." Something like that. Different video source as well. Maybe they're recycling these stories |
k-m 13.02.2016 18:23 |
Maybe this? link |
k-m 13.02.2016 18:28 |
There's also this: link |
liam 14.02.2016 06:20 |
"Deeper album cuts like "The Hitman" and "I Can't Live With You" saw the band placing more emphasis on heavy guitars than arguably anything they had done since 1974's Sheer Heart Attack." What a ridiculous comment! Bloody rolling stone. So there is nothing heavier and so much better than those two crappy songs on ANATO (DOTL, TPS), ADATR (TYMD, WM), need a list songs from News of the world and jazz? |
Mr.QueenFan 14.02.2016 06:46 |
k-m wrote: Not sure if it was shared here before, but there you have it: link .I am very impressed with this article! This is a great piece by Ron Hart for the Rolling Stone. Thank you for posting it here. |
musicland munich 14.02.2016 12:29 |
I don't want to start bashing the RS just for fun. But they are a fish that's hard to catch. Some of their articles are ridiculous, others downright to the point. And then they have their national chapters. So a RS magazin isn't pretty much the same around the globe. The local writers also add their points of view. But anyway... Thanks for sharing. |
Jesme 14.02.2016 21:06 |
I found the remarks under the article to be very interesting ! |
The Real Wizard 15.02.2016 00:45 |
One questionable comment, and you guys are slagging an entire magazine once again? This is one of the best pieces ever written on Queen. And because of it, a ton of people are going to revisit this landmark album, or even hear it for the first time. It's a shame that so many Queen fans have their blinders on. Reality check - Rolling Stone is the industry standard for music journalism. |
Mr.QueenFan 15.02.2016 06:36 |
The Real Wizard wrote: One questionable comment, and you guys are slagging an entire magazine once again? This is one of the best pieces ever written on Queen. And because of it, a ton of people are going to revisit this landmark album, or even hear it for the first time.That's what i thought! This is indeed one of the best articles i've read about Queen in the press. The guy did his research, and i'm very impressed because i wasn't expecting it from RS. We shouldn't let the past interfere with the present. This reporter did a wonderful job, and his opinion about the guitar oriented songs on Innuendo being only similar to the SHA ones is as valid as any other fan's opinion. In a way he makes a very valid point, because SHA is Queen's best oriented guitar album. It's Brian May on a candy store! I would say that this reporter is a Queen fan, based on all the sources he presents for this article (i mean, c'mon - Steve Howie interview?). This is what happens when a serious music journalist researches his stuff and does an article with respect both for the band and it's fans. And if we already know that Freddie didn't sing two weeks before his passing, that's because we are in QZ everyday. The reporter can thank QP marketing for the missinformation. Great job! |
Sheer Brass Neck 15.02.2016 17:58 |
No, RS sucks and is horrible. They are pandering and that's the worst. In their review of Coldplay's "A rush of blood to the head", the reviewer talks about "Yellow" from the first Coldplay album, and how dippy the lines "look at the stars/look how they shine for you are." He then praises "the fantastic piano ballad 'The Scientist' which is an overt sequel to "Yellow" ("Let's go back to the star"). But they're not going back to the star, they're going back to the start!!! By writing that line, the reviewer (in an article that was printed in the "industry standard for music journalism" has basically stated that I am totally unsure of the concept of this song but will go with my space thesis anyway. Sure this is cherry picking, but RS had a hard on for Queen, and when Freddie died, they had a pretty tasteless piece with perhaps the most "Freddie on stage looking like a homosexual" picture ever, and a piece about how he had a parade of sailors back to his dressing room after a concert. Read this article about RS founder Jann Wenner and the portrayal of gay artists in RS. Maybe a bit of overcompensation on his part? link Finally, when it came to Queen, RS missed the mark by a mile. Bob Dylan, U2, REM all had their dicks sucked even when they had horrible albums. ANATO got a paragraph or two with no mention about much besides Bohemian Rhapsody. It's arguably in the top 20 albums of all time. The Jazz review was written by Dave Marsh, who pulled his head out of Bruce Springsteen's ass long enough to write something that was vitriolic and as I've stated before, seems like it was written by a a spurned boy in high school. They have (had?) great writing for sure, but musically they were pro-American and really anti-British or progressive (they hated Rush) and the bands that they hated have proven to stand the test of time. When Freddie passed, there was an Associated Press obit, and during the piece mentioned how Love of My Life was poignant in retrospect due to the line "when I grow older, I will be there by your side to remind you, how I still love you" and the fact Freddie wouldn't live to see old age. But the writer missed the point. That song is and was jaw droppingly beautiful from the moment it found life, and if they just saw the beauty of Love of My Life at Freddie's passing they may as well say I don't understand music . The fact that the press have missed that and Queen stands alongside The Beatles or just behind them shows that the press and RS knew SFA all music. IMHO :) |
The Real Wizard 15.02.2016 19:35 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: They have (had?) great writing for sure, but musically they were pro-American and really anti-British or progressive (they hated Rush) and the bands that they hated have proven to stand the test of time.Can't argue with you there, or with anything else you wrote, really. After seven (count 'em - SEVEN) front page stories on Britney Spears, they finally did one on Rush two years ago. In that issue they had a "top 50 prog albums" article: link About bloody time. |
Sheer Brass Neck 15.02.2016 20:23 |
Amen brother. There is a new radio station in the Toronto area and the tagline is something about music not having labels, because music is about the feelings it brings. I recently downloaded a song that I liked and it was from one of the Jonas Bros., who I heard was in a boy band. If I knew that I might not have downloaded it due to pre-conceived biases. But liking a song and then denying the like because the artist isn't cool is pretty weak. I think RS had a position on Queen, and everyone followed suit. Again, at the time of The Game, Queen had America. But no cover while a band like The Cars (great first album which was heavily Queen influenced, had a lot of hits as did Queen) got two covers. On the Live Aid special edition there are about 2o some odd pictures of individuals who played that day, but no Queen. In most of the world, it was like "Jesus, Queen just destroyed everybody", while in the US it was "meh." Too much bad journalism where a mag sets an agenda, and the agenda becomes real. Happens everywhere but again, I always found their investigative stuff better than the music stuff. |
musicland munich 16.02.2016 11:24 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Reality check - Rolling Stone is the industry standard for music journalism.I listen to, what we call "Classic Rock"...so Reality or the present age isn't my best friend ;) ( no Emoticon - that will kill this Forum) |
Mr.QueenFan 16.02.2016 12:19 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: No, RS sucks and is horrible. .I don't know because i don't read RS. The only thing i know about this mag is that it wasn't fair to Queen and i don't really agree with their lists of the "100 best...". But that is beyound the point here. I am reviewing the article that the original poster linked here, and this article is indeed a great article and it deserves to be praised by Queen fans. I really don't care if an article is in RS or any other mag. If it is a good article it deserves good criticism. |
ggo1 17.02.2016 12:53 |
I've subscribed to Rolling Stone for years, but mainly for the politics rather than the music. Their investigative journalism has always been first rate... right up until that discredited rape story which unfortunately has tarnished their reputation quite thoroughly. Anyhow, they rarely had anything good to say about Queen until recently, but I feel the current crop of writers don't have it in for Queen in quite the same way. certainly the Adam Lambert collaboration was viewed positively after it happened, if not when first announced. The sun does however continue to shine out the arses of McCartney, Springsteen, Dylan and U2. I don't think I have ever read anything critical about any of them in any of the hundreds of magazines I have read. |
malicedoom 17.02.2016 13:33 |
Rolling Stone DOES suck. They blow raw monkey, particularly when it comes to Queen. And, unless I'm insane (always a possibility), they pretty much slammed Innuendo when it was first released (I think they used the phrase "flopped big time", but I could be mistaken). That said, this article seems like it might be decent - I'm looking forward to reading it. |
waunakonor 19.02.2016 15:59 |
I don't have much of an opinion on RS because I don't read it much, but it's always nice to see Innuendo get some recognition. Some of Queen's best work on there.
liam wrote: "Deeper album cuts like "The Hitman" and "I Can't Live With You" saw the band placing more emphasis on heavy guitars than arguably anything they had done since 1974's Sheer Heart Attack."Not going to comment on the overall statement since it is definitely dodgy at best, but I Can't Live With You? Did that guy mean Headlong? Or perhaps he got it mixed up with the 1997 version (understandable since it's far superior)? Because the album version is definitely not very guitar-heavy. |
Sunshine 29.02.2016 02:43 |
This is the original post: Link to original article One way to confirm that Queen never consisted of your typically haughty progressive-rock snobs is to consider the following: In the late Seventies, Emerson, Lake and Palmer released two albums called Works, as in "works of art," but in 1984, Queen put out an album called The Works, as in the stuff you pile on hamburgers. This suggests that Queen is well aware that its forte has always been eclectic excess for its own sake and probably helps explain why Queen's still making records and ELP isn't and why an album like A Night at the Opera, from 1975, sounds so much smarter now than when it came out. These shameless all-time glam survivors would try anything once, and amid their messes they attained classical-kitsch pinnacles, helped invent rap music and provided celebration songs for every championship team on earth. In 1990, they were sampled by Vanilla Ice, covered by Metallica, TV-commercialed by Huffy Bicycles and explicitly acknowledged as an important inspiration by arty hardcore ensembles and funk-metal and industrial-drone bands alike. With "Another One Bites the Dust," which topped the pop chart for three weeks ten years ago, Queen became the first mainstream troupe to comprehend the rock potential of hip-hop minimalism. But since then the band has floundered, sinking to passable Bowie duets, feeble groove moves, queasy myth metal and antiradio diatribes that wound up being the most annoying things on the radio. So to call Innuendo the group's most playful top-to-bottom pile since The Game, from 1980, may not be saying much — yet there's no getting around the new album's craft. From the circus drumroll that introduces the opening Zep-screech epic about justice and death in the desert sand ("Innuendo") to the quick rap in the closing bump and grind ("The Show Must Go On"), these old entertainers sound like they've decided to stop trying so hard, like they're finally satisfied with their lot in life. Innuendo is so lightweight you'll forget it as soon as it's over — which, with this band, should go without saying anyway — but there's nothing cynical about it. Unlike most fortyish rock relics, the boys in Queen are still too kooky and insincere to settle for any of that "well-earned wisdom of middle age" bunk. They just throw food at the wall, and if it sticks, fine. And if it doesn't stick, well, that's fine too. Read more: link Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook |
k-m 29.02.2016 08:43 |
Sunshine wrote: This is the original post: Link to original article One way to confirm that Queen never consisted of your typically haughty progressive-rock snobs is to consider the following: In the late Seventies, Emerson, Lake and Palmer released two albums called Works, as in "works of art," but in 1984, Queen put out an album called The Works, as in the stuff you pile on hamburgers. This suggests that Queen is well aware that its forte has always been eclectic excess for its own sake and probably helps explain why Queen's still making records and ELP isn't and why an album like A Night at the Opera, from 1975, sounds so much smarter now than when it came out. These shameless all-time glam survivors would try anything once, and amid their messes they attained classical-kitsch pinnacles, helped invent rap music and provided celebration songs for every championship team on earth. In 1990, they were sampled by Vanilla Ice, covered by Metallica, TV-commercialed by Huffy Bicycles and explicitly acknowledged as an important inspiration by arty hardcore ensembles and funk-metal and industrial-drone bands alike. With "Another One Bites the Dust," which topped the pop chart for three weeks ten years ago, Queen became the first mainstream troupe to comprehend the rock potential of hip-hop minimalism. But since then the band has floundered, sinking to passable Bowie duets, feeble groove moves, queasy myth metal and antiradio diatribes that wound up being the most annoying things on the radio. So to call Innuendo the group's most playful top-to-bottom pile since The Game, from 1980, may not be saying much — yet there's no getting around the new album's craft. From the circus drumroll that introduces the opening Zep-screech epic about justice and death in the desert sand ("Innuendo") to the quick rap in the closing bump and grind ("The Show Must Go On"), these old entertainers sound like they've decided to stop trying so hard, like they're finally satisfied with their lot in life. Innuendo is so lightweight you'll forget it as soon as it's over — which, with this band, should go without saying anyway — but there's nothing cynical about it. Unlike most fortyish rock relics, the boys in Queen are still too kooky and insincere to settle for any of that "well-earned wisdom of middle age" bunk. They just throw food at the wall, and if it sticks, fine. And if it doesn't stick, well, that's fine too. Read more: link Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on FacebookThat's a nice mix of some pretty spot on comments on one hand and some utterly misguided ones on the other. Especially like this bit about Queen "sinking to passable Bowie duets"... ;-) |
Oscar J 29.02.2016 13:07 |
I am not a big fan of Under Pressure either. I think "passable" is pretty accurate. |
Mr.Jingles 01.03.2016 11:14 |
|
Mr.Jingles 01.03.2016 11:15 |
|
Mr.Jingles 01.03.2016 11:16 |
The Real Wizard wrote: One questionable comment, and you guys are slagging an entire magazine once again? This is one of the best pieces ever written on Queen. And because of it, a ton of people are going to revisit this landmark album, or even hear it for the first time. It's a shame that so many Queen fans have their blinders on. Reality check - Rolling Stone is the industry standard for music journalism.Is Rolling Stone starting to change their tune and recognize bands that have stood the test of time? For starters, back when Nirvana's 'Nevermind' came out they gave it a mixed review, and once they saw what the album had accomplished they had to jump on the praise bandwagon. In all honesty, it's hard for me and for many Queen fans to take Rolling Stone seriously. While they have written very in-depth pieces of music journalism, they've also had a very strong biased against certain genres like progressive rock, glam-rock, heavy metal. I'm not sure if it's because those genres represented "the establishment", and they felt that by supporting artists that had more of a socio-political agenda and coming from punk and alternative backgrounds like The Clash and U2, it meant to them more that a band was willing to use their music to spread a message rather than focusing on the musicianship of an artist. One thing I will agree with harsh music journalists regarding Queen is that in terms of lyrics they are certainly not quite the most substantial. I guess, Brian may be the only one out of the 4 that could possibly be a pretty good lyric writer. Freddie's had a lot of mysticism in the beginning, but they just went down from there. |
The Real Wizard 02.03.2016 15:43 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: In all honesty, it's hard for me and for many Queen fans to take Rolling Stone seriously. While they have written very in-depth pieces of music journalism, they've also had a very strong biased against certain genres like progressive rock, glam-rock, heavy metal. I'm not sure if it's because those genres represented "the establishment", and they felt that by supporting artists that had more of a socio-political agenda and coming from punk and alternative backgrounds like The Clash and U2, it meant to them more that a band was willing to use their music to spread a message rather than focusing on the musicianship of an artist.^ one of the most insightful posts I've seen in about 15 years of posting on this forum. You should ask a (retired) Rolling Stone journalist what they think of that. I bet you'd get a good conversation out of them. |
Mr.Jingles 07.03.2016 07:58 |
|
Mr.Jingles 07.03.2016 07:58 |
|
Mr.Jingles 07.03.2016 07:59 |
The Real Wizard wrote:A lot of the blame for accomplished musicians being blasted by the music media comes from people like Jann Wenner (co-founder and editor-in-chief of Rolling Stone magazine). There's obviously a bias that comes from personal relationships that started as back as the days of 60s NY music scene when artists like The Velvet Underground and Wenner and forged friendships which in consequence led to promoting the art-rock and punk scene in the 70s. To people like Wenner is not a matter of appreciating accomplishments, or talent. It's a matter of who my friends are who represents my scene.Mr.Jingles wrote: In all honesty, it's hard for me and for many Queen fans to take Rolling Stone seriously. While they have written very in-depth pieces of music journalism, they've also had a very strong biased against certain genres like progressive rock, glam-rock, heavy metal. I'm not sure if it's because those genres represented "the establishment", and they felt that by supporting artists that had more of a socio-political agenda and coming from punk and alternative backgrounds like The Clash and U2, it meant to them more that a band was willing to use their music to spread a message rather than focusing on the musicianship of an artist.^ one of the most insightful posts I've seen in about 15 years of posting on this forum. You should ask a (retired) Rolling Stone journalist what they think of that. I bet you'd get a good conversation out of them. |