QueenZone discussion #1577020

MisterCosmicc wrote: Too much focus on the 70’s Queen

MisterCosmicc wrote: Too much focus on the 70’s Queen

The Real Wizard wrote:

MisterCosmicc wrote: Too much focus on the 70’s Queen

For two very good reasons: 1) he's in the US, and Queen more or less ceased to exist there after The Game. 2) their albums had a lot of filler in the 80s. After The Game there isn't a single album track in the 80s that compares to the majesty of what they created between 1974-76. Don't Lose Your Head vs. '39 ? No comparison.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: So you're an '80s-Queen guy. Fine. But that's not a position most Queen-fans, let alone most rock-fans take. Congratulations, you've just discovered you hold a minority opinion on a subject. Nothing wrong with that, so long as you understand that it's not a matter of right or wrong, but of taste and preference, strictly personal and strictly subjective matters. By contrast, 21st Century Music Man's response to you was purely objective (a matter of statistics) and The Real Wizard provides a sound sociological explanation and an (admittedly subjective) consensus aesthetical explanation. What you would "rather try to hook someone on" really doesn't have any bearing on what an American music journalist considers the best lesser-known tracks, does it? It would be relevant to an article you might write on why '80s-Queen is underrated, but that would require you to actually come up with persuasive arguments rather than arguing about what constitutes filler without even addressing that substantially.

The Real Wizard wrote:

MisterCosmicc wrote: Too much focus on the 70’s Queen

For two very good reasons: 1) he's in the US, and Queen more or less ceased to exist there after The Game. 2) their albums had a lot of filler in the 80s. After The Game there isn't a single album track in the 80s that compares to the majesty of what they created between 1974-76. Don't Lose Your Head vs. '39 ? No comparison.

MisterCosmicc wrote: It just drives me a bit crazy. Sure Queen implemented keyboards and synths into things, but it doesn’t mean it’s all filler. Queen’s 80’s music is too underrated, and I’d rather try to hook someone on that. Good article, but the list isn’t far off than what I expected a hardcore Queen fan would write.

MisterCosmicc wrote: there's tracks people claim to be filler due to it not being traditional Queen enough.

brENsKi wrote: hear hear! i've been working my way through - Rick Beato's - What Makes This Song Great series...weird how it takes a music producer to "articulate" exactly why I liked specific songs.

brENsKi wrote: why the 70s albums work better? ¦ band was fresh with loads of ideas ¦ the early years (prior to having a recording contract) created a plethroa of ideas that helped to fill out those first SIX albums. think how some tracks appeared on albums subsequent to the actual writing session ¦ only 24 tracks to work with, stimulated creativity and genius ¦ guitar, drums, bass, piano (or Hammond for other rock bands) = a classic sound

The Real Wizard wrote:Bingo. Of course there was a ton of good music in the 80s, but pretty much anyone who was around in the 65-75 period will tell you what a special time it was to create music, for two reasons - the joy of using the available and growing technology to the fullest, and the minimal influence of the business on what you created (with the exception of Motown, which was an assembly line from its inception).