| pittrek 18.10.2019 17:52 |
I just found this hilarious / annoying article about the Freddie Mercury Tribute concert from 1992 from the "Chicago Reader".
link
Some very "interesting" bits from the article...
The Freddie Mercury concert would have been one of the most unintentionally hilarious undertakings in the history of the universe if it wasn't for the seriousness of some of the underlying subjects. Mercury, the embarrassing lead singer of the largely bad and largely forgotten (in America at least) Queen, died last November of complications resulting from AIDS. The striking thing to me was that the concert was barely about AIDS at all, and it was most definitely not about being gay. ... "Under Pressure," the 1980 hit by Bowie and Queen the artistically barren Bowie, at heart a calculating publicity hound, they looked like the main event at the Star Wars cantina. the rest of the concert largely consisted of tired, has-been rock stars fronting Queen and tired, soon-to-be-has-been rock stars fronting Queen Mercury managed to overcome his physical limitations--his tiny stature, buck teeth unattractive even by rock 'n' roll standards, a Terry-Thomas lisp--and make himself a genuine star even as 70s proto-metal kids thrilled to guitarist Brian May's limited but forceful power riffing. "Bohemian Rhapsody," which was apparently created by sticking Tiny Tim, Verdi, and a multitrack recording console into a Cuisinart and hitting puree, is of course a marvelous parody of a rock 'n' roll epic. "We Will Rock You" has a fascistic charm Today listening to these records is a painful assignment. (Why doesn't Congress put warning labels on albums like News of the World? They could read, "Warning: Brain Advisory.") The next time you happen to throw on the live version of "We Will Rock You" (the one on side four of Live Killers), listen carefully to the opening bars of the song. After the crowd sings "We will / We will rock you" for the fifth time, Freddie audibly shouts the words "Spinal tap." Queen had been thankfully overlooked;LOL, why did they hire a guy who obviously hates Queen to write about Queen and Mercury? |
| emrabt 18.10.2019 18:22 |
A Terry Thomas lisp? He was clearly saving that to use somewhere, but Freddie didn't have a lisp. |
| Theaterpup 18.10.2019 19:42 |
The fascist thing again??? Some of these writers never should have been employed. Anywhere. They were not serious people. |
| Cruella de Vil 18.10.2019 20:12 |
His attempt at sarcasm has all the potency of old porridge. Calling him a wanker would imply he has a functional member. Stupid uninformed hack. |
| Jimmy Dean 18.10.2019 20:44 |
There's quite a few articles out there about this writer and how annoying and apparently hypocritical he is. His name is Bill Wyman, but not that Bill Wyman. |
| Theaterpup 18.10.2019 21:18 |
Btw, I hate being PC, I wish it would go away. But, let us also remember it used to be cool for professional critics to make fun of a gay singer’s non existent lisp. Nowadays the only place to see those kinds of jokes are whiny Star Wars reviews on YouTube. And that’s exactly where they belong. |
| emrabt 18.10.2019 21:38 |
Theaterpup wrote: Btw, I hate being PC, I wish it would go away. But, let us also remember it used to be cool for professional critics to make fun of a gay singer’s non existent lisp. Nowadays the only place to see those kinds of jokes are whiny Star Wars reviews on YouTube. And that’s exactly where they belong.I never even knew this was a thing. |
| Iron Butterfly 18.10.2019 22:41 |
That is harsh, and bitter. Ouch. |
| Graeme Arnott 19.10.2019 04:31 |
What a tit. |
| . 19.10.2019 05:08 |
Terry Thomas didn't have a lisp either. link |
| john bodega 19.10.2019 06:11 |
"Nowadays the only place to see those kinds of jokes are whiny Star Wars reviews on YouTube" Ahhh I'm fucking glad every time I see someone refer to this phenomenon. Always boggles my mind that these neckbeardy milktits abominations somehow think they've cracked the code on movies and can shit on the new ones, but still think those prequels were alright. Ungrateful slobs. |
| kosimodo 19.10.2019 06:15 |
|
| kosimodo 19.10.2019 06:15 |
link |
| kosimodo 19.10.2019 06:38 |
And.. at #220: link The man is nuts :) 2nd worst... of all. Poor Bon Jobi. |
| ANAGRAMER 19.10.2019 06:50 |
Political views aside, let's be honest, the tribute show had very little to offer artistically...apart from George Michael |
| runner_70 19.10.2019 07:35 |
The Tribute showed just one thing: That Freddie was untouchable and could never be replaced. Too Bad Maylor chose the dark side of $$$. It would have been a fitting Grande Finale |
| Mkls 19.10.2019 08:14 |
lets be honest, the tribute concert was embarassing at many many places, and not only Spinal Tap. |
| dysan 19.10.2019 08:56 |
Nice find and thanks for the thoughtful highlighting of the key parts Pittrek. The trouble is that the good points he makes are rather lost in the bad. The Bowie description is spot on for 1992. The Bohemian Rhapsody description is, in essence, spot on and one I'm sure the makers would approve. The quality of the performers was spot on and somehow almost Nostradamian in it's prediction. The 'Fascistic' charm of the interaction on WWRY is clear - and indeed he might be confusing it with Radio Gaga etc etc And having listened to the WWRY on LK I let out an audible yep of laugher (I believe it was a LOL) as Freddie's 'one more time' does indeed sound like he says 'Spinal Tap'. |
| Holly2003 19.10.2019 10:22 |
If you trust your own musical taste then a good critical review won't make you overly happy and a bad one won't make you overly angry. The best music journalists give you something to think about or ask you to reevaluate what you already believe. In this case, Wyman seems simply to be saying controversial things for the sake of it. The Tribute has to be considered in its totality rather than snipe at individual performances. It celebrated the life of one of the great musical talents of the latter part of the 20thC. It was never meant to be a musically perfect, or even something that should be released as an album/CD. It was an 'Irish wake' for Fred. |
| SpaceGrey 19.10.2019 10:44 |
pittrek wrote: I just found this hilarious / annoying article about the Freddie Mercury Tribute concert from 1992 from the "Chicago Reader". link Some very "interesting" bits from the article...Damn, what a dick this guy piece of filth.The Freddie Mercury concert would have been one of the most unintentionally hilarious undertakings in the history of the universe if it wasn't for the seriousness of some of the underlying subjects. Mercury, the embarrassing lead singer of the largely bad and largely forgotten (in America at least) Queen, died last November of complications resulting from AIDS.The striking thing to me was that the concert was barely about AIDS at all, and it was most definitely not about being gay.... "Under Pressure," the 1980 hit by Bowie and Queenthe artistically barren Bowie, at heart a calculating publicity hound,they looked like the main event at the Star Wars cantina.the rest of the concert largely consisted of tired, has-been rock stars fronting Queen and tired, soon-to-be-has-been rock stars fronting QueenMercury managed to overcome his physical limitations--his tiny stature, buck teeth unattractive even by rock 'n' roll standards, a Terry-Thomas lisp--and make himself a genuine star even as 70s proto-metal kids thrilled to guitarist Brian May's limited but forceful power riffing."Bohemian Rhapsody," which was apparently created by sticking Tiny Tim, Verdi, and a multitrack recording console into a Cuisinart and hitting puree, is of course a marvelous parody of a rock 'n' roll epic."We Will Rock You" has a fascistic charmToday listening to these records is a painful assignment. (Why doesn't Congress put warning labels on albums like News of the World? They could read, "Warning: Brain Advisory.")The next time you happen to throw on the live version of "We Will Rock You" (the one on side four of Live Killers), listen carefully to the opening bars of the song. After the crowd sings "We will / We will rock you" for the fifth time, Freddie audibly shouts the words "Spinal tap."Queen had been thankfully overlooked;LOL, why did they hire a guy who obviously hates Queen to write about Queen and Mercury? |
| Graeme Arnott 19.10.2019 15:01 |
Having been there I can say it was a great gig. |
| runner_70 19.10.2019 15:04 |
Miklos wrote: lets be honest, the tribute concert was embarassing at many many places, and not only Spinal Tap.examples? |
| matt z 19.10.2019 15:22 |
Wasn't EMBARRASSING (*i still haven't seen the ENTIRE gig as I've never torrented ) But some notable low points = Paul Young Zucchero (*he's not bad at all but it's a strange mashup) Axl sounds great but Elton? *(trash. ..feel free to disagree) Robert Plant forgot everything Def Leppard (the band that modeled their name upon a cheap syllabic relation to Led Zeppelin, presumably because they thought Led Zeppelin didn't mean anything) - ABSOLUTE SUCK Bob Geldof - (as always) ABSOLUTE SUCK Seal - showed ALL his limitations But aside from that it's not an embarrassment. They were popular icons and performers, and the day served as a launching campaignfor the Mercury Phoenix Trust. It's a good thing. |
| pittrek 19.10.2019 20:15 |
john bodega wrote: "Nowadays the only place to see those kinds of jokes are whiny Star Wars reviews on YouTube" Ahhh I'm fucking glad every time I see someone refer to this phenomenon. Always boggles my mind that these neckbeardy milktits abominations somehow think they've cracked the code on movies and can shit on the new ones, but still think those prequels were alright. Ungrateful slobs.Oh come on, Zebonka, that's not nice to talk like that about Jeremy. Let's face it - the Disney Star Wars movies make the prequels look like brilliant masterpieces. |
| pittrek 19.10.2019 20:21 |
kosimodo wrote: And.. at #220: link The man is nuts :) 2nd worst... of all. Poor Bon Jobi.Well, he has "interesting" taste.Chuck Berry #1? James Brown #5? Prince #6? Otis Redding? Had to google who that was. Queen 220? I originally thought that his Tribute concert review was attempt at being funny, but now I feel like he has some really weird musical taste. |
| pittrek 19.10.2019 20:22 |
Miklos wrote: lets be honest, the tribute concert was embarassing at many many places, and not only Spinal Tap.I don't know, some performances were "far from perfect" but I wouldn't use the word embarrassing |
| pittrek 19.10.2019 20:26 |
matt z wrote: Wasn't EMBARRASSING (*i still haven't seen the ENTIRE gig as I've never torrented ) But some notable low points = Paul Young Zucchero (*he's not bad at all but it's a strange mashup) Axl sounds great but Elton? *(trash. ..feel free to disagree) Robert Plant forgot everything Def Leppard (the band that modeled their name upon a cheap syllabic relation to Led Zeppelin, presumably because they thought Led Zeppelin didn't mean anything) - ABSOLUTE SUCK Bob Geldof - (as always) ABSOLUTE SUCK Seal - showed ALL his limitations But aside from that it's not an embarrassment. They were popular icons and performers, and the day served as a launching campaignfor the Mercury Phoenix Trust. It's a good thing.Paul Young and Zucchero were boring, just like that "alleged sexual battery guy (edited for fairness)". Plant looked like he's high and that his brain switched off as soon as the band started to play.I thought that Elton was one of the highlights of the show. Geldolf was fine, I don't get why so many people hate him. Def Leppard - huge respect for the one-armed drummer, but I was never a huge fan of theirs, they're the most 80's sounding band ever, and that's not a compliment. |
| matt z 19.10.2019 20:35 |
"Rapist guy"? |
| pittrek 19.10.2019 20:38 |
OK, sorry, "alleged sexual battery" guy. |
| Theaterpup 19.10.2019 21:02 |
@pittrek I’m not a fan of Disney Star Wars but there’s a lot of rewriting of history lately when it comes to the prequels. ;) |
| matt z 19.10.2019 21:36 |
^they both were bad. But i agree like he said. The Disney films make the prequels look a WHOLE lot better. Absolute Shite (*aside from the novelty of throwback IMAGERY, and props) |
| k-m 19.10.2019 23:04 |
Very interesting review. Wyman is clearly not a fan, but he made a lot of good points, especially regarding the "soon to be has-beens". I also scanned through his list of Hall of Fame inductees from best to worst and could see some spot-on observations there too, e.g. re the RHCP or Aerosmith. I certainly wouldn't be able to listen to many of his top-listed picks and he does come across like one of these music journalists up their arse, but I wouldn't say he's a complete idiot. Very harsh on Queen, obviously, but hey - not everyone has to get them. He also quoted the lyrics to "Who Needs You" as particularly atrocious, but quite frankly I can't see anything wrong with them. |
| Iron Butterfly 19.10.2019 23:34 |
matt z wrote: Wasn't EMBARRASSING (*i still haven't seen the ENTIRE gig as I've never torrented ) But some notable low points = Paul Young Zucchero (*he's not bad at all but it's a strange mashup) Axl sounds great but Elton? *(trash. ..feel free to disagree) Robert Plant forgot everything Def Leppard (the band that modeled their name upon a cheap syllabic relation to Led Zeppelin, presumably because they thought Led Zeppelin didn't mean anything) - ABSOLUTE SUCK Bob Geldof - (as always) ABSOLUTE SUCK Seal - showed ALL his limitations But aside from that it's not an embarrassment. They were popular icons and performers, and the day served as a launching campaignfor the Mercury Phoenix Trust. It's a good thing.Elton John trash...I'm offended, and insulted by that statement!!! How dare you...you have hurt me deeply on his and Freddie’s behalf. ^^I'm kidding. He wasn't the best on the day, even I admit that. I also admit I liked what he did. |
| The Real Wizard 20.10.2019 04:10 |
Disgusting it may be, but articles like this highlight how completely uncool it was to like Queen in North America in the early 90s. I lived through it - it was awful. |
| dysan 20.10.2019 07:53 |
I can almost guarantee the same writer will be raving about Queen and Bowie now saying he always flew the flag. |
| stevelondon20 20.10.2019 07:55 |
matt z wrote: Wasn't EMBARRASSING (*i still haven't seen the ENTIRE gig as I've never torrented ) But some notable low points = Paul Young Zucchero (*he's not bad at all but it's a strange mashup) Axl sounds great but Elton? *(trash. ..feel free to disagree) Robert Plant forgot everything Def Leppard (the band that modeled their name upon a cheap syllabic relation to Led Zeppelin, presumably because they thought Led Zeppelin didn't mean anything) - ABSOLUTE SUCK Bob Geldof - (as always) ABSOLUTE SUCK Seal - showed ALL his limitations But aside from that it's not an embarrassment. They were popular icons and performers, and the day served as a launching campaignfor the Mercury Phoenix Trust. It's a good thing.Paul Young's voice went years ago after his nodule op. |
| Fan76 20.10.2019 08:29 |
Pure Bullshit. I know such music critics, which critisize everything about music, which is heard by more than 2 people. When you ask them, which music they prefer themself, you will hear names of groups, which will be unknown to everyone and that's for a good reason. As Freddie said himself I will be a legend, which is totally true. I'm sure, there will be some people in 50 years still listening to Queen songs, when the critics writer name is long forgotten together with his awful taste. |
| dysan 20.10.2019 09:35 |
I'm sure that's true, but also I'm not sure the writer said 'I'm going to be a legend!' as he took the job at the Chicago Shopper. |
| AlbaNo1 20.10.2019 09:40 |
There was always a lot of pure hate for Queen from critics and this is an unpleasant reminder of it. It’s only recently that Queen seem to have passed to untouchable legend status, which is where they should be. |
| dysan 20.10.2019 09:50 |
BW: Queen doesn’t have to worry about me. A lot of people say they’re great, they got to be on American Idol, their life is good. This is interesting. The interviewer pursues the topic of Queen with the writer: link |
| dysan 20.10.2019 09:52 |
'I don’t care if someone thinks that “Strawberry Fields” isn’t a good song. I would like to read a list of songs where “Strawberry Fields” is the second worst Beatles song. I’d like to hear a spirited defense.' |
| dysan 20.10.2019 09:59 |
link Queen are ranked second to last in his RNR Hall Of Fame. 220. Queen — John Deacon, Brian May, Freddie Mercury, and Roger Taylor (2001) When popularity is factored in, Queen is the most overrated band in the history of pop music. This preposterous aggregation looked and sounded awful from the beginning, their music a pastiche of pastiches of things no one in the band were inclined to understand, all of it culminating in “We Will Rock You.” Queen haters love to say the song is appropriate for a Nuremburg rally, but you can also sort of see Leni Riefenstahl giving it a listen, cocking her head and saying, “Nein. A little too much.” Their popularity in the U.S. went down quickly after their heyday, but they remained unaccountable super-duper-stars in the U.K. and in time became the rock equivalent to the beloved ugly toy you had when you grew up. As we have seen with so many artists, the sliding scales of personal behavior and artistry are difficult to deal with. Having said that, I’ve always found Queen to be on the wrong side of just about everything. Right now the band is back in the news in the wake of the success of Bohemian Rhapsody and they’ve accordingly been shoveling their back catalog into TV advertisements. That’s not surprising for a group that played Sun City in defiance of the U.N. boycott of the apartheid regime in South Africa. Let me explain this to people too young to know about it: In the early ‘80s the U.N., in conjunction with civil-rights groups around the world, declared a cultural boycott of the fascistic and racist government in South Africa. All you had to do was refuse to perform in the fake homelands the regime had set up. Sun City was a casino in Bophuthatswana; Queen played there anyway and was duly and justifiably blacklisted by the U.N. “We enjoy going to new places,” said Deacon. The band is being docked 30 notches, however, because of this: After the band’s closeted lead singer, Freddie Mercury, died of AIDS, the entire rock universe held a televised tribute show, broadcast on MTV, during which mentions of homosexuality and AIDS were kept closely under wraps. The band (and everyone else at the show) let a new generation of vulnerable kids — and thousands of the unloved, dying alone on the streets — know that, yes, they should be ashamed of who they are. When this story was originally published last year, a lot of people said I was being too harsh on Queen and MTV; given the tenor of the times in the early 1990s, I was reminded, AIDS and homosexuality were sensitive subjects. Here’s the thing: Being in a rock band is fun. As I said above, there’s oodles of money and oodles of sex, money, and privilege that most of us don’t know about. The only downside is that if your lead singer happens to be gay and dies as part of an epidemic that is scourging a group that was already dealing with centuries of persecution, you should stand up and talk about it to make life a little bit better for the people who aren’t rock stars spending their last days covered with lesions and shunned by their families and society generally. Thirty years earlier, the Lovin’ Spoonful, in one of the best songs about rock and roll, captured it this way: “Believe in the magic that can set you free.” By that wholly credible standard, Queen aren’t rock and roll at all and don’t belong in the hall of fame. |
| Holly2003 20.10.2019 10:02 |
AlbaNo1 wrote: There was always a lot of pure hate for Queen from critics and this is an unpleasant reminder of it. It’s only recently that Queen seem to have passed to untouchable legend status, which is where they should be.It depends what, who and where you're talking about really. In the UK Queen became legends with BoRap in 1975. They remained very popular except for a blip with Hot Space. Music critics tended to dislike them as music critics often wanted music to mean something (politically. socially etc) to give some value and meaning to *their* profession. Today, there are few professional popular/rock music left, and music reviews are usually farmed out to semi-professionals working to a fixed fee. And to this latter bunch, everything is just AWESOME because if they strike a negative note it's unlikely their review will be published. It's therefore a rare thing these days to read a bad review of a concert, artist, song, or album. But Queen were always very popular in the UK. They weren't as high profile in the US year on year: there were highs and lows. They were never a 'cool' band. In the UK, critics preferred shite like The Smiths, Simply Red (Simply Shite), to Queen; or they were considered a lesser act to the likes of Led Zep, Deep Purple, the Rolling Stones, The Who, Pink Floyd etc. Very few artists quoted Queen as an influence before Fred died. After that, everyone either felt more comfortable in admitting that, or just jumped on the bandwagon. It doesn't really matter. Popularity has never been a measure of quality. |
| AlbaNo1 20.10.2019 10:12 |
Did Simply Red get good reviews? I don’t remember that . I think the music journalists actually prefer to comment on the lyrical content and the social/ political side as you say. NME in the UK , Rolling Stone in the US were consistently negative . Even magazines like Q never really featured Queen. To me the tide beginned to turn with some serious articles in Mojo in the early 2000s. |
| dysan 20.10.2019 10:28 |
'To me the tide beginned to turn with some serious articles in Mojo in the early 2000s.' Agreed |
| Holly2003 20.10.2019 10:34 |
Earlier maybe. Kerrang gave a great review of The Works tour; I used to have a few guitar magazines from the early 1980s that featured and spoke highly of Brian. |
| Day dop 20.10.2019 10:41 |
Another American who thinks that the U.S is the world and Queen were only big in the UK. |
| dysan 20.10.2019 10:52 |
Holly2003 wrote: Earlier maybe. Kerrang gave a great review of The Works tour; I used to have a few guitar magazines from the early 1980s that featured and spoke highly of Brian.Sure but I think we're talking about the general mainstream reappraisal of the band. The post-millennium change where the beardstrokers were told it's ok to like queen because even though Freddie is kitsch they used to have some heavy songs so it's ok. |
| dysan 20.10.2019 10:53 |
And interestingly, it's the general views that we have from those times that are still in place today IE Freddie solo / HS = bad, Live Aid = good. At least, they were cemented for another generation in that era. |
| Vocal harmony 20.10.2019 10:57 |
Music and art critics really are a law unto them selves. If they don't like something they often won't give a rational reason and will just list their dislike. A review should at least tell you about the music, or the show. I've read hundreds of gig reviews that clearly don't say a word about what is going on on stage and just a,out's to a one man/woman attack on the artist and or there fans. Some reviewers think they have to fall into line but later trip themselves up. One example, though I could quote many. When Kate Bush played That long string of dates at The Hammersmith Apollo a few years ago every critic was falling over themselves to say how amazing those shows were. One such review was written by Ludovig Hunter Tilney of The Financial Times who told of the amazing performances of some of the most memorable songs from the Kate Bush catalogue, he praised the staging and performance of the Nine Wave. . . Two years later when the live album of the show was released he all but criticised the whole release implying that the song choices were boring and pedestrian in their performance. I guess what I'm trying to say is so often a journalist will either jump on a band wagon or write complete twaddle and at the end of the day some are no more, and in sone cases less qualified, to judge and write than you or I |
| dysan 20.10.2019 11:06 |
It can be a used a number of ways. There was a review of a Kingmaker show in 1992 with Suede supporting and the reviewer (Steve Sutherland who very definitely had an agenda) totally destroyed Kingmaker and their fans when comparing them to Suede. It essentially killed 'Fraggle' and set the blueprint for the rest of the 90s. The article was called Pearls Before Swine and is well worth checking out if this kind of thing is of interest. |
| dysan 20.10.2019 11:07 |
Here it is: |