| The Real Wizard 15.03.2018 20:47 |
... in response to the review of the Toronto 78 show in the Globe & Mail seen here: link A lot of music journalists sucked back then, so good on this citizen for setting the record straight. Also - this is one of the better shots of Mercury in his ballet shoes. |
| Mr Mercury 15.03.2018 21:20 |
That just about sums up a lot of "journalists" in those days. They either didnt get, or totally didnt like the band and had to vent their opinions. Either way, they didnt work on me and never will. |
| master marathon runner 16.03.2018 08:00 |
.........are we talking about the same Queen here ? I think he wrote this a couple o' days before he actually went . I feel the need to paraphrase Charles Shar Murray: 'Is this man a prat ?' |
| Michael Scapp 16.03.2018 19:26 |
I feel like those critics in the 1970s were still stuck in the 1950s. They didn't get it |
| Holly2003 16.03.2018 19:55 |
Michael Scapp wrote: I feel like those critics in the 1970s were still stuck in the 1950s. They didn't get itI disagree. Popular Music journalism only started to take itself seriously in the late 1960s. And to be taken seriously, many journalists sought our "serious" music -- artists who had something to say. And there were many of them -- The Doors, The Beatles, Dylan, Bowie. Queen didn't have anything to say except "Hey! We make noises that sound good!" They were apolitical. And one of the consequences of that is that they either weren't taken seriously enough to be reviewed/written about, or if they were, journalists often found them lacking in ... depth, emotion, seriousness. Other artists also didn't consider them a band worth taking seriously: good musicians, yes, but a band essentially with nothing to say. This is, of course, unfair. However, it does explain these reviews. BTW there was a LOT of good journalism in the 1960s and 70s and it's really lazy to say that music journalism was terrible just because they didn't give positive reviews to our favourite band. There are positive and negative consequences to being apolitical: bad reviews is one of them. Nowadays, any mug can review a concert and social media/corporate interests insist that EVERYTHING IS GREAT! So, in general, I would argue that the standard of music journalism now is inferior than when Queen began their career. |
| The Real Wizard 16.03.2018 23:24 |
master marathon runner wrote: I think he wrote this a couple o' days before he actually went .Yep. A lot of these guys didn't even show up to the gig, and if they did, they'd leave after a few songs. |
| The Real Wizard 16.03.2018 23:25 |
Holly2003 wrote: And to be taken seriously, many journalists sought our "serious" music -- artists who had something to say. And there were many of them -- The Doors, The Beatles, Dylan, Bowie. Queen didn't have anything to say except "Hey! We make noises that sound good!" They were apolitical.Yeah, because the writers didn't even get to side B of A Day At The Races and actually listen to White Man. But of course I see what you're saying. That track is literally the only political song in their catalog before Put Out The Fire. An interesting argument that I hadn't considered, and there may be some validity to it. Rest assured, there were plenty of other reasons why the press didn't like Queen. Queen got bad reviews from the British press from 77 onward not because their music wasn't political, but because they were seen as being overblown and pompous in the midst of the minimalism of punk. And because of the "prat" interview you speak of, their relationship with the press only worsened. Declining to do interviews only reinforced that view even further. It's disheartening to think of Queen's music being reduced to "noises that sound good". So is that how they would view instrumental music, as wide ranging as Miles Davis, Paco de Lucia, and Bach? Were these people so foolish to write off instrumental music because violins couldn't say "the times they are a changin" ? So if we're going to psychoanalyze myopic music journalists, then you're not wrong. Read virtually any review of Genesis and Yes from the 70s, and it's even worse. It was just so over their heads. BTW there was a LOT of good journalism in the 1960s and 70s and it's really lazy to say that music journalism was terrible just because they didn't give positive reviews to our favourite band.For sure, you're right. But virtually all the great acts got slagged by the press in the 70s. In Canada and the US, they often sent jazz writers to review the rock bands, and a fair number of them produced pseudo-intellectual drivel that was personal bias for an entire genre disguised as a review of a concert that they didn't even attend. So, in general, I would argue that the standard of music journalism now is inferior than when Queen began their career.A bold statement, and naturally unprovable. So I'll provide our favourite oxymoron - some anecdotal evidence. I'm a guy who has gone through the old microfiche and read literally thousands of reviews of all the great bands. A solid 80% of the writers didn't have a clue, and they were all published. Sure, there's a lot of crap in the blogosphere, but as per proper music journalism, I'd say the pro writers now are overall far less biased and much more attuned to their work. |
| andres_clip 16.03.2018 23:50 |
That Jay Scott so called music journalist is really hung up on nazis and Queen in the same context. What a twat. |
| Killer_Q 23.03.2018 17:26 |
There will be never the time I get why on earth Queen got this shitty treatment from press. |
| Stick 24.03.2018 00:39 |
According to my knowledge they were hated by the press because they didnt play nice with the press. From early on they hated the press and in return the press hated them. A simple view but worth adding to the whole situation. |
| Holly2003 04.04.2018 21:06 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Thanks for your considered response. I haven't read thousands of reviews but definitely hundreds so based on that I think we'll have to disagree about the quality of contemporary music journalism. The internet gives modern day journalists a big advantage in availability of data but it hardly gives them an advantage in quality of writing or judgement. I used to subscribe to Rocks Back Pages and the Queen articles and reviews there (literally 100s of them, going right back to the early 1970s) are mainly fair. Recently I've been doing a lot of research in alternative newspapers and while there isn't much about Queen (only 4 articles I can find) all are positive. And with one exception, the quality of writing is excellent. Check out this quote: "[Queen is] the only band in the world that that can play so heavily that your nose bleeds, then offer a silk handkerchief to clean up with." :)Holly2003 wrote: And to be taken seriously, many journalists sought our "serious" music -- artists who had something to say. And there were many of them -- The Doors, The Beatles, Dylan, Bowie. Queen didn't have anything to say except "Hey! We make noises that sound good!" They were apolitical.Yeah, because the writers didn't even get to side B of A Day At The Races and actually listen to White Man. But of course I see what you're saying. That track is literally the only political song in their catalog before Put Out The Fire. An interesting argument that I hadn't considered, and there may be some validity to it. Rest assured, there were plenty of other reasons why the press didn't like Queen. Queen got bad reviews from the British press from 77 onward not because their music wasn't political, but because they were seen as being overblown and pompous in the midst of the minimalism of punk. And because of the "prat" interview you speak of, their relationship with the press only worsened. Declining to do interviews only reinforced that view even further. It's disheartening to think of Queen's music being reduced to "noises that sound good". So is that how they would view instrumental music, as wide ranging as Miles Davis, Paco de Lucia, and Bach? Were these people so foolish to write off instrumental music because violins couldn't say "the times they are a changin" ? So if we're going to psychoanalyze myopic music journalists, then you're not wrong. Read virtually any review of Genesis and Yes from the 70s, and it's even worse. It was just so over their heads.BTW there was a LOT of good journalism in the 1960s and 70s and it's really lazy to say that music journalism was terrible just because they didn't give positive reviews to our favourite band.For sure, you're right. But virtually all the great acts got slagged by the press in the 70s. In Canada and the US, they often sent jazz writers to review the rock bands, and a fair number of them produced pseudo-intellectual drivel that was personal bias for an entire genre disguised as a review of a concert that they didn't even attend.So, in general, I would argue that the standard of music journalism now is inferior than when Queen began their career.A bold statement, and naturally unprovable. So I'll provide our favourite oxymoron - some anecdotal evidence. I'm a guy who has gone through the old microfiche and read literally thousands of reviews of all the great bands. A solid 80% of the writers didn't have a clue, and they were all published. Sure, there's a lot of crap in the blogosphere, but as per proper music journalism, I'd say the pro writers now are overall far less biased and much more attuned to their work. |
