QueenZone discussion #1599138

SaddleBrown

SaddleBrown

SaddleBrown

SaddleBrown

Benross wrote: Disagree because The Game, The Works were powerful albums, and Hot Space is Queen's fourth biggest album. The band did not like staying to the same formula of song writing so they always surprised the fans every new album with new styles of song writing, They still had top 10 singles and albums and were never out of the spotlight in the 80s!

Benross wrote: Disagree because The Game, The Works were powerful albums, and Hot Space is Queen's fourth biggest album. The band did not like staying to the same formula of song writing so they always surprised the fans every new album with new styles of song writing, They still had top 10 singles and albums and were never out of the spotlight in the 80s!

SaddleBrown

[color=SaddleBrown]Benross wrote: The band did not like staying to the same formula of song writing so they always surprised the fans every new album with new styles of song writing,[/color]

SaddleBrown

purple

SaddleBrown

SaddleBrown

[color=SaddleBrown]Benross wrote: Queen were more popular in the 80s than they were in the 70s so they must have been doing something right with there music. They were even voted best band of the 80s on a TV show in 1989. [/color]

SaddleBrown

[color=SaddleBrown] Benross wrote: Quite strange then that Queen are respected more than Led Zeppelin and have influenced more artists all over the world. Freddie and the boys are very popular by miles now and leave ailing Zeppelin behind in the 70s! Brian was voted the greatest guitarist ever a few weeks ago an award which he was every happy to accept. Freddie is regarded as the greatest front man ever and many top artists agree! Queen are so polished and accomplished that they were always a better band than Zeppelin.[/color]

[color=SaddleBrown] Benross wrote: Ok going back to the topic i do not think they were lazy. They got two US NO1 hits with "Another One Bites The Dust" & "Crazy Little thing Called Love" plus the smash album "The Game" far from lazy songwriting ! [/color]

[color=SaddleBrown] Benross wrote: "The Works" done very well too! Regardless of who wrote what the band were on fire in the 80s.[/color]

[color=SaddleBrown] Benross wrote: Well that is your own personal opinion Brenski but record sales say a different story and many Queen fans were happy with "The Game" & "The Works albums". I do admit though that "The Miracle" and "Innuendo" were dodgy albums even though they had a few great tracks on them but some terrible fillers. so i suggest you go back to your boring Led Zeppelin albums then and leave the quality stuff to the Queen fans that appreciate the bands music, plain and simple [/color]

blue

[color=blue]Vocal harmony wrote: Not just album sales. Led Zeppelin sold a lot more concert tickets in the States then Queen ever did. So using Gerry's barometer of measuring success Zeppelin were clearly the more successful and therefore better band. [/color]

AlbaNo1 wrote: Virtually all the bands on these lists are either American or Americanised and naturally suited to the conservative US rock market. I’d make an exception for latter period Beatles and Pink Floyd.

AlbaNo1 wrote: I mean all of Floyd. I said latter day Beatles. The early stuff is influenced by American rock n roll. Early Zep is directly derivative from blues. As for the latter period. I’ll just have a Hot Dog and think about that. Yee hah. Krautrock was huge though. Kraftwerk broke the top 100 twice. Can must be just outside Brenskis lists of American, Americanised or bands influenced by America that are by no means Americanised.

RandomQueenie wrote: Yes! I've always found 80s Queen very lazy compared to the 70s. Too lazy to record> In the 70s they'd deliver an album per year. In the 80s they'd release them every 2 or 3 years.

Benross wrote: . . . . . . they had competition with Duran Duran Pet shop boys soft cell etc..... the charts were heating up and the competition was fierce and Queen had to adapt so that is where synths came in to songs like Radio gaga & I want to beak free etc........ Queen were a clever band always inventing themselves to fit in to any changing music scene and if they had stayed a hard rock act they would have fizzled out by 1982. Personally for me Queen were on fire 1975 to 1979.

Vocal harmony wrote: For example they jumped on the disco band wagon very late in the day because they thought there were record sales to be had in that direction, the fact that The Rolling Stones, Kiss and Pink Floyd and others all explored that avenue before Queen seems to have escaped you. Simple truth for most of the 80's Queen were not as inventive as they were in the 70's. And by 1982 Freddie had lost interest for a number of years for a number of reasons. But you won't except that either.

brENsKi wrote:

Vocal harmony wrote: For example they jumped on the disco band wagon very late in the day because they thought there were record sales to be had in that direction, the fact that The Rolling Stones, Kiss and Pink Floyd and others all explored that avenue before Queen seems to have escaped you. Simple truth for most of the 80's Queen were not as inventive as they were in the 70's. And by 1982 Freddie had lost interest for a number of years for a number of reasons. But you won't except that either.

agreed 100%. There's a stupid myth perpetuated that Queen's "dance" music (esp Hot Space) was somehow groundbreaking. Claims are that their "dance diversion" was a pioneering move for a classic rock band . Truth is, most big rock bands beat Queen to the dance "punch" by years. Eagles, Doobie Bros, ELO, Deep Purple, Bowie, Steve Miller, Led Zeppelin - and many more - all diverted into "dance" style music during the mid 70s - when disco was just breaking through. by the time Queen got into it - the "dance" ship had sailed. Some other things the blinkered Queen fans conveniently ignore: AOBTD - was very poor copy of Nile Rodgers' best work. CLTCL - Freddie admitted he was doing Elvis. Freddie definitely issued a back-handed apology for Hot Space at Milton Keynes: blue with regard to Freddie's comment: you call it audience appeasement, call it a genuine statement, or call it the plain bullshit it clearly was (Freddie definitely had lost his "rock n roll feel" - as evidenced on his two solo LPs that followed. the reality was that Queen had (mor or less) lost their "rock n roll feel". The next two albums contained more of the same pop, dance, pap of HS - none of which was groundbreaking, risk-taking or even worthy of such a great band. With: Radio GaGa, IWTBF, KPTOW, MOTP, followed by AKOM, OYOL, Pain Is So...Friends, Don't Lose Your Head...Queen had descended into the pits of lazy-ass writing, creating and recording. Freddie really had no idea how far things were sliding when he issued that MK apology. Maybe in 1982, they hadn't completely lost their "rock n roll feel"...but the next two LPs did the best job possible of removing whatever was left of it. The Works and AKOM were both devoid of the soul of the band, empty husks of "rock n roll lite" - utterly diluted, formulaic, lazy-ass, hit-factory stuff. Largely, a plastic facsimile pop/rock for those who prefer shallow radio-friendly pap over quality and depth. talk about irony.

blue

blue

blue

AlbaNo1 wrote: Wizard, just relax and enjoy the tunes of Brian and Mercury. Remember 20000 posts proves you know best. Is there anything wrong with American music, Americana or Americanised bands. No. Does it give a band more broad ranging appeal in the US market, at the top level if they do? Yes. Are Queens most successful albums in the US , News of the World and The Game more in keeping with with the criteria above. Yes. Are Queen on balance more suited to UK, Europe , Asia culturally. In many ways yes. Is the levee going to break in Wolverhampton. Doubtful. Do they enjoy a tres charmant seaside rendevous in Wyoming.

Benross wrote: . . . . . i bet you they have the albums at home. Typical hypocrites of the highest order and they have the audacity to call themselves Queen fans what a joke L.M.A.O !

mike hunt wrote:

AlbaNo1 wrote: Wizard, just relax and enjoy the tunes of Brian and Mercury. Remember 20000 posts proves you know best. Is there anything wrong with American music, Americana or Americanised bands. No. Does it give a band more broad ranging appeal in the US market, at the top level if they do? Yes. Are Queens most successful albums in the US , News of the World and The Game more in keeping with with the criteria above. Yes. Are Queen on balance more suited to UK, Europe , Asia culturally. In many ways yes. Is the levee going to break in Wolverhampton. Doubtful. Do they enjoy a tres charmant seaside rendevous in Wyoming.

You are the man!....you know the hypocritical group I'm talking about?...

Benross wrote: Mike i am not arguing with anyone, Brenski likes an argument or have you not noticed?

Negative Creep wrote: People go on about this Gerry character. Whilst I don't know his/her history, I do know from looking with my own eyes that this forum was dragged down over a prolonged period of time by Brenski and The Real Wizard repeatedly arguing with them. Even with their own forum, they can't stop themselves coming back to argue.

blue

blue

blue

mike hunt wrote: I go way back...let's Just say If someone comes on this site and praises Mercury he or she Is considered a hero worshiper, and 3 or 4 people go after that person. . . . . . . . . . . . I already said they were Inconsistent In the 80's. Peak years being 73 to 77.

Benross wrote: I got banned because Brenski tells lies to the moderator on here and bullies to make himself look good. I am a nice person but Brenski paints me out to be some kind of monster well i am not. . . . . .

Sebastian wrote: Saying a composer peaked at some point is not the same as hating them. It applies to Frederick the same way it would to anyone else.

Saint Jiub wrote:

Sebastian wrote: Saying a composer peaked at some point is not the same as hating them. It applies to Frederick the same way it would to anyone else.

What about saying that the composer is "lazy-assed"?

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

Saint Jiub wrote:

Sebastian wrote: Saying a composer peaked at some point is not the same as hating them. It applies to Frederick the same way it would to anyone else.

What about saying that the composer is "lazy-assed"?

Doesn't equate hating in any way. I think some of Ravel's works are pretty lazy-assed. That doesn't stop me from loving Ravel as a composer.

Negative Creep wrote: People go on about this Gerry character. Whilst I don't know his/her history, I do know from looking with my own eyes that this forum was dragged down over a prolonged period of time by Brenski and The Real Wizard repeatedly arguing with them.

blue

AlbaNo1 wrote: Pretty much only ballads and pop made it into the 80s. Was that lazy or was it just that the well had run dry. Or that they simply didn’t stylistically fit into 80s Queen. Was Mr Bad Guy lazy? I’m pretty sure he tried.

AlbaNo1 wrote: Pretty much only ballads and pop made it into the 80s. Was that lazy or was it just that the well had run dry. Or that they simply didn’t stylistically fit into 80s Queen. Was Mr Bad Guy lazy? I’m pretty sure he tried.

blue

blue

blue

Benross wrote: BRENSKI You are the twat with no self respect coming back on here and no shame after you slagged this site off, and YOU are the perfect troll. Wind your neck in trying to be pally pally with everyone on here when its obvious you are a bully and a Queen hater.

Vocal harmony wrote:

Benross wrote: BRENSKI You are the twat with no self respect coming back on here and no shame after you slagged this site off, and YOU are the perfect troll. Wind your neck in trying to be pally pally with everyone on here when its obvious you are a bully and a Queen hater.

Benross . quote: "I am a nice guy its Brenski Wizzard and VH who are abusive they been calling me names and acting innocent but there not" Read that Gerry, then read the your post and try to convince people that you are being honest and accurate.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: "Take this lesson and learn from it"? At best, he'll think you called him a homo...

Benross wrote: Circle of Eidolon You are a pathetic troll and an attention seeking virus on here - go away. . . . . . . . . grow up.

oystermouth1971 wrote:Wouldn’t say they were ‘lazy’ but there is an argument to say they were going through the motions (at least in the studio) a bit. Great tracks rather than great albums.

oystermouth1971 wrote:When the chips were really down, they produced Innuendo which was *so* much better than any of the ‘80s dilettantish albums imo.

Holly2003 wrote:But there was so much filler in those albums, as well as wimpy drums and poor recording of Brian's guitar sound, that really nothing in the 1980s compares to their run from Queen II to NotW.

mike hunt wrote: I agree with The Works and Magic Were only good for the hits with weak songs In between..The Miracle was only a little better, But Innuendo?..great album. Almost every song was good or great..

goose44 wrote: When you are young in the world of music and sports, your dedication and hunger is all concentrated on your job, to make it, to be successful. Queen in the 70's were hungry, looking to fame and fortune and they achieved it. What happens in life for us all is that we grow up. We get other interests, have families and explore other avenues in life that make us happy. That is what happens and we saw this with the band. Although they stayed together, they did their own things, made solo records, got married, had children, and so on. You grow as a person and that same hunger you has as a child and early adult goes away in some capacity and goes to other things. You lose the complete hunger and focus when you had nothing and only had one thing on, your music and career. I use Tiger Woods in Golf as a great example. Best player in the world as an adult but once he got married and had kids his dominance was not to be anymore as with age and focus was shifted. Same was said about Jack Nicklaus, arguably the greatest of all time. What I am saying is the evolution of time of your life just makes you grow and explore. Nobody stays the same forever. Queen in the 80's were not lazy, but imo lazyish with their music at times and it showed more in the 80's but you can't fault them on it. We should be happy that they stayed together and put out all this music for us to enjoy the rest of our lives. Too many egos on this board as well. Read your posts and try to reason with yourself as to why people are bashing you.

goose44 wrote: Agree Toozeup, Priorities changed in Freddie's life and like I said everyone just grows and does other things as they go through life. The sex and drugs took over his like in the time period you described especially in America and Germany. Focus and hunger was gone from the band's music career and they all did other things. They seperated more, lived their lives and would come back after a while and make an album and tour up to magic. TBH you have to give them credit for even having the career they had. Bands break up and never last for many reasons, especially the ones noted in all these posts but the end of the day they stayed together and became the legends they are today. Also although in the minority view but there are people who like their 80's stuff better than their 70's stuff. As for me I always got into different moods as to what records I would listen to and although their 70's stuff might be more creative and influential, I love all their music. Summertime I pump the miracle album all the time. It's not their best but I probably have listened to it the most. I also probably play Jazz the second most as when I used to get into it I would play it almost every day driving to and from work. Went off course a bit but what I am saying QUEEN FUCKING RULES NO MATTER WHAT, LOL!

The Real Wizard wrote:

AlbaNo1 wrote: I mean all of Floyd. I said latter day Beatles. The early stuff is influenced by American rock n roll. Early Zep is directly derivative from blues. As for the latter period. I’ll just have a Hot Dog and think about that. Yee hah. Krautrock was huge though. Kraftwerk broke the top 100 twice. Can must be just outside Brenskis lists of American, Americanised or bands influenced by America that are by no means Americanised.

So your argument is "all rock music successful in the US that you personally deem to be 'Americanised', regardless of its influence, was crafted to be commercially successful there, and therefore should be denigrated." Can't go wrong when you're the curator of your own delusional reality. Writing off 3/4 of the Zeppelin catalog, effectively reducing the last four albums to Hot Dog, says everything about your ignorance and smugness and nothing about them. We're done here.

The Real Wizard wrote:

AlbaNo1 wrote: I mean all of Floyd. I said latter day Beatles. The early stuff is influenced by American rock n roll. Early Zep is directly derivative from blues. As for the latter period. I’ll just have a Hot Dog and think about that. Yee hah. Krautrock was huge though. Kraftwerk broke the top 100 twice. Can must be just outside Brenskis lists of American, Americanised or bands influenced by America that are by no means Americanised.

So your argument is "all rock music successful in the US that you personally deem to be 'Americanised', regardless of its influence, was crafted to be commercially successful there, and therefore should be denigrated." Can't go wrong when you're the curator of your own delusional reality. Writing off 3/4 of the Zeppelin catalog, effectively reducing the last four albums to Hot Dog, says everything about your ignorance and smugness and nothing about them. We're done here.

AlbaNo1 wrote:Apart from Zeppelin and Floyd, most of the rock music that was popular in the US (particularly rural America) in the 1970s wasn't exactly the most cerebral music - the Eagles and Fleetwood Mac first come to mind. Very middle of the road and safe. Queen just didn't fit the mold.Well said

AlbaNo1 wrote: Thats actually a quote from the Real Wizard on your new site.

AlbaNo1 wrote: Thats actually a quote from the Real Wizard on your new site.

brENsKi wrote:

AlbaNo1 wrote: Thats actually a quote from the Real Wizard on your new site.

then show it as a quote you moron

Saint Jiub wrote:

AlbaNo1 wrote: Thats actually a quote from the Real Wizard on your new site.

Actually that's plagiarism as it appears to be your statement. Your parting cheapshots are unnecessary. You were a decent poster until a few months ago, but now most or all of your QZ posts are hate. I know Brenski is not perfect, and Brenski and I have our own negative history. I am trying to let go of that history, and I suggest you do the same.