QueenZone discussion #1578099

NastyQueenie74 wrote: For me, Happiness is his best solo album with Strange Frontier coming in second. Regarding The Cross, I'd consider Blue Rock to be their best work. Meanwhile, I think Shove It is one of those albums that excelled in the live environment. Some good examples are Contact, Stand Up For Love, and the title track with the latter reaching its peak on the 1990 tour

brENsKi wrote: again, I'd say that Roger's 80s solo/cross output was part of the whole "Harrison Factor". 8 years of one or two songs per album, the embryos have to be "born" at some point.

The Real Wizard wrote:

brENsKi wrote: again, I'd say that Roger's 80s solo/cross output was part of the whole "Harrison Factor". 8 years of one or two songs per album, the embryos have to be "born" at some point.

Considering it was the late 80s and early 90s when rock was more or less dead and then experiencing a renaissance in the form of grunge, I can't help but just see the majority of the output of The Cross as derivative. I've found there to be 3 or 4 decent songs on three albums combined - a much lower ratio than the rest of Roger's solo output.

brENsKi wrote: well - i named six Cross tracks, so we weren't miles apart on that. his first two solo LPs worked better. there's a handful here that would've made good Queen album tracks: Good Times Are Now My Country Strange Frontier Beautiful Dreams Man on Fire

Vali wrote: Things I really missed and never understood why weren't included: - a DVD/BR with the complete Cyberbarn show, which became available in the official YT channel shortly after

brians wig wrote: . This is why Cyberbarn was made available on Youtube. I'll give them a "plus" for that, even if the quality is crap compared to how it would have been on DVD.

brians wig wrote:

Vali wrote: Things I really missed and never understood why weren't included: - a DVD/BR with the complete Cyberbarn show, which became available in the official YT channel shortly after

A 14 disc set was originally presented to Universal which included Cyberbarn and, I'm told, a Cross gig on DVD. Universal decided that was too many discs and wanted it reduced to 12, so the concert DVDs had to go. This is why Cyberbarn was made available on Youtube. I'll give them a "plus" for that, even if the quality is crap compared to how it would have been on DVD. It's bad enough the DVD that remained was so badly authored that half the videos have the field order the wrong way round - that's clearly what happens when you employ professionals these days! Quite frankly it's a disgrace and there's SO much unheard material that could and should have been added to the set. There's at least 30 minutes of free space on each of the album discs that could have contained demos and unheard tracks.

The Real Wizard wrote:

brENsKi wrote: again, I'd say that Roger's 80s solo/cross output was part of the whole "Harrison Factor". 8 years of one or two songs per album, the embryos have to be "born" at some point.

Considering it was the late 80s and early 90s when rock was more or less dead and then experiencing a renaissance in the form of grunge, I can't help but just see the majority of the output of The Cross as derivative. I've found there to be 3 or 4 decent songs on three albums combined - a much lower ratio than the rest of Roger's solo output.

runner_70 wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote:

brENsKi wrote: again, I'd say that Roger's 80s solo/cross output was part of the whole "Harrison Factor". 8 years of one or two songs per album, the embryos have to be "born" at some point.

Considering it was the late 80s and early 90s when rock was more or less dead and then experiencing a renaissance in the form of grunge, I can't help but just see the majority of the output of The Cross as derivative. I've found there to be 3 or 4 decent songs on three albums combined - a much lower ratio than the rest of Roger's solo output.

Rock was dead in the late 80's??? What planet are you living on???? Rock was all over MTV ad the Hairmetal wave was swept away by Grunge thats right but thats also rock. Unlinke now where you only have faceless generic pop crap in the charts

The Real Wizard wrote:

runner_70 wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote:

brENsKi wrote:again, I'd say that Roger's 80s solo/cross output was part of the whole "Harrison Factor". 8 years of one or two songs per album, the embryos have to be "born" at some point.

Considering it was the late 80s and early 90s when rock was more or less dead and then experiencing a renaissance in the form of grunge, I can't help but just see the majority of the output of The Cross as derivative. I've found there to be 3 or 4 decent songs on three albums combined - a much lower ratio than the rest of Roger's solo output.

Rock was dead in the late 80's??? What planet are you living on???? Rock was all over MTV ad the Hairmetal wave was swept away by Grunge thats right but thats also rock. Unlinke now where you only have faceless generic pop crap in the charts

Hair metal was not rock. It was west coast conveyor belt music product. You're dreaming if you think it's any closer to the spirit of 70s rock than today's "generic pop crap" you hate so much. Wearing a guitar and lipstick doesn't make it rock. Rock died when John Bonham died. Led Zeppelin created 70s rock, and it died with their breakup. Rock music still existed (Back In Black kept it on life support for another year), but with the exception of grunge, it has not been the most dominant genre of music since Thriller.

brENsKi wrote:Not all music, but most rock bands ended up sounding sanitised by their own earlier material. Just compare 80s output for Queen, Genesis, Yes, Who, ELO and Purple to their 70s LPs. no contest. My own opinion is that most of those 70s bands had lost the hunger that drove them to success. By the 80s they'd become lazy - living off the stored fat of their 70s work. As I said Roger and John did the heavy lifting - being responsible for the major slice of the hits from the 80s (until Freddie's death) - there's absolutely no way that Roger/John would've been writing so many hits if Freddie and Brian had been bothered. Roger became the George Harrison of Queen. The sheer volume of his Cross/solo stuff during this time, mirrors Harrison's early post-Beatles output.

aristide1 wrote:Random thoughts: - The death of John Bonham is not a landmark in rock history.

aristide1 wrote:Deep Purple with Steve Morse produced some fabulous rock 15 years later. - Purpendicular (1996) and Abandon (1998) are the last true rock albums.

aristide1 wrote:I've listened Genesis with Gabriel, without Gabriel (not a really bad thing), then without Hackett, and finally without a clue. Duke was their last album for me.

aristide1 wrote:1996-2000 Deep Purple is very good rock in my opinion, the classic lineup (now in their early 50s) + Morse was even stronger than before.

Holly2003 wrote:So Guns and Roses weren't a popular rock band in the 1980s? Certainly some of the big rock bands of the 1970s either faded away or changed considerably in the 1980s but to say rock was dead back then is an exaggeration. Thin Lizzy, Judas Priest, AC/DC, Iron Maiden, Def Leppard, UFO, Gary Moore, Rush, Status Quo, Whitesnake, Scorpions, Van Halen, Aerosmith, Alice Cooper, Ozzie and many lesser rock bands were very popular both live and in record sales. This was not necessarily the blues-based rock of Led Zep and The Stones but it was still rock/heavy metal. I agree hair metal by the late 1980s really became a joke (White Lion, Poison, Motley Crue, Stryper etc) and the time was ripe for bands like Pearl Jam and Nirvana to shake things up

Holly2003 wrote: Unless I missed something, we're talking about if rock was dead in the 1980s, not how good the music was. Even so, I disagree with a lot of your personal preferences, but that's not the point. These rock bands/artists were popular. Rock wasn't dead in the 1980s. I do agree about the Cross though: very bland MOR rawk.

aristide1 wrote: Random thoughts: - The death of John Bonham is not a landmark in rock history.

aristide1 wrote: I've listened Genesis with Gabriel, without Gabriel (not a really bad thing), then without Hackett, and finally without a clue.

Holly2003 wrote: So Guns and Roses weren't a popular rock band in the 1980s? Certainly some of the big rock bands of the 1970s either faded away or changed considerably in the 1980s but to say rock was dead back then is an exaggeration. Thin Lizzy, Judas Priest, AC/DC, Iron Maiden, Def Leppard, UFO, Gary Moore, Rush, Status Quo, Whitesnake, Scorpions, Van Halen, Aerosmith, Alice Cooper, Ozzie and many lesser rock bands were very popular both live and in record sales. This was not necessarily the blues-based rock of Led Zep and The Stones but it was still rock/heavy metal. I agree hair metal by the late 1980s really became a joke (White Lion, Poison, Motley Crue, Stryper etc) and the time was ripe for bands like Pearl Jam and Nirvana to shake things up