7 09.02.2005 00:09 |
(Hello, I am new here and I am 18 years old. Queen were my first favorite band when I was in 5th grade and I love everything they do. With that said...) I was listening to things like Ogre Battle, March of the Black Queen, Death on Two Legs, and why not, Bohemian Rhapsody and I see that these were awesome compositions. And then I move forward in Queen's timeline and I listen to songs like "It's a Kind of Magic" and even "Body Language" and I think: where did their ambition go? Why did they lose it? Why did Freddie stop creating these masterpieces? Now that he's gone (RIP) sadly, we cannot know this for sure. But really, I would like to know what happened? Thanks. |
foxxy_moron 09.02.2005 00:40 |
They just changed their style to suit the new age.. i love alot of their newer stuff |
Farlander 09.02.2005 02:16 |
I think they unfortunately learned how to write hits. Good for success, bad for art. It was probably for the best in the end, but it did result in a lack of innovation in later years for them, I think. |
Sonja 09.02.2005 02:36 |
First, Welcome to Queenzone! :-) Well, I don't think they've lost their ambition to write good songs nor was there a lack of innovation. They just grew with the time... Like they changed their outfits and style they also changed their music. When they started, glam rock was the thing and that's what they did and that's what they looked like. To me a band is a real good band only when you hear their development and growing and changing from album to album. I think they wrote brilliant songs till the last album...actually, Innuendo is one of their best albums! It's just the fact that "music changes through the years"... |
deleted user 09.02.2005 03:00 |
7 wrote: (Hello, I am new here and I am 18 years old. Queen were my first favorite band when I was in 5th grade and I love everything they do. With that said...) I was listening to things like Ogre Battle, March of the Black Queen, Death on Two Legs, and why not, Bohemian Rhapsody and I see that these were awesome compositions. And then I move forward in Queen's timeline and I listen to songs like "It's a Kind of Magic" and even "Body Language" and I think: where did their ambition go? Why did they lose it? Why did Freddie stop creating these masterpieces? Now that he's gone (RIP) sadly, we cannot know this for sure. But really, I would like to know what happened? Thanks.Crap ... Innuendo is a song Freddie created in 1990 and it is better than any song from Queen II. Also, Radio Ga Ga, Its a Hard Life or Who Wants To Live Forever are awesome songs. |
VGB 09.02.2005 03:02 |
only successful bands area able to grow over time, and good fans should realize that too. I base most modern bands who release drastically different or diverse albums albums on the Queen formula, in my opinion, those bands will be around a long time. As artists you have to grow and not keep doing the same thing forever or you will lose interest, eventually people will catch on and hate you for being a one trick pony. As much as I like those alubms, I'm sure Queen would never be as popular as they were today if they churned out 73-75 ish sounding material their whole career, fans grow with a band. |
The Mir@cle 09.02.2005 03:06 |
I agree with Peter and Sonja... The songs are different, but they've made masperpieces in every period of their carreers. Innuendo is an good example. Welcome by the way... good question for a newbie. It's important here to have a good start. You'll soon know why :-) |
Serry... 09.02.2005 09:19 |
Would you be a Queen fan if they have released 15 albums only with songs like March Of The Black Queen? |
Haystacks Calhoun 09.02.2005 09:26 |
"only successful bands area able to grow over time, and good fans should realize that too." How true. Check out 3 Doors Down, Nickelback, and the rest of Corporate rock to see bands that NEVER change what they do. All of the fucking songs sound the same... |
Freddie-B 09.02.2005 10:55 |
Good question!! I think their last great album is Jazz. MIH and Innuendo both have some great songs on them, but Jazz is where the real consistent brilliance finishes up, although god knows they came up with some class things later on in life too. I think it is because they learned to write hits, it's an excellent point. |
Mean Mistreater 09.02.2005 11:23 |
That is a really good question. I must admit I felt the same way for ages, but I've Queen's later material grew on me. I know styles change, but there's nothing wrong with prefering one era of Queen over another. Everything up to Hot Space are my favorites. Personally I just don't feel the same magic in any of Queen's music past that era, but that's just me and my tastes. |
7 09.02.2005 12:44 |
All the albums like Queen, Queen II, A night..., A day at..., Sheer Heart Attack have the same style but none of the songs sound the same so I have to disagree with someone who asked if I would still like them if they did the same thing forever. It's just that one would think that through practice and repetition someone would perfect their art and not, I feel, take a step back and come up with poppy hits. Objectively, I am sure they had an easier time recording "It's a Kind of Magic" than say, "Brighton Rock". Their music went from incredibly to interesting to just ...swell. And no, I am not saying that they had bad albums in the end. I love Innuendo but I just can't see where they chose to make things simpler ...a lot simpler. |
Sebastian 09.02.2005 13:31 |
I don't see they had a formula for the first albums. Some say they were into multi-track vocals and guitars, but I don't find much of that in Spread Your Wings or Stone Cold Crazy. Their musical style isn't something you could label even if you pick just one side of an album. Take, for instance, the Black Side of Queen II. In which genre can you pigeon-hole Ogre Battle, Masterstroke, Nevermore, Black Queen, Funny and Seven Seas? They're all so different. Probably they've lasted the same (or even more) in A Kind Of Magic than they spent in Brighton Rock imo. Sometimes it's even easier to try out all ideas you've got, than to be able to stay minimalist and pick the right note at the right moment. Same for Brian's guitar work, sometimes it'd be easier to just overdub a handful of block harmonies than to risk yourself to record just one guitar track, but do it so well that you wouldn't need anymore (e.g. Bijou). |
Sonja 09.02.2005 15:00 |
7 wrote: And no, I am not saying that they had bad albums in the end. I love Innuendo but I just can't see where they chose to make things simpler ...a lot simpler.Just one example: Innuendo. Where is this song simple? I believe they NEVER made "simple" things. They always put everything they could into their work. Maybe technical development and improvement made it easier for them to realize their ideas but that doesn't mean that they didn't put as much work into the last albums as they did in the beginning. |
Gunpowder Gelatine 09.02.2005 15:43 |
I don't think they lost their ambition exactly, but they just cared about different things. All of their lives changed in those years to the point that Freddie preferred writing about his trouble with love instead of the more mythical songs of the seventies. |
JDL2nd 09.02.2005 17:29 |
They lost their ambition during Flash Gordon, Hot Space and A Kind Of Magic. In my opinion these are their worst records. The rest was/ is very good !! |
nino trovato 09.02.2005 18:27 |
I'd have to agree with Sonja from Germany. I've been following them since '77 and I remember the earlier albums and thought how brilliant they were. Lots of information recorded on Queen II. But as I followed them from '77 on, the times had changed during each album. When they started someone wrote that glam was in, then they got through the punk period and made it through that. Uh-oh, here's 1979-80 and here comes new wave. They got through that. Then when the 80's were in high gear, synth music and heavy metal dominated. They may have weakened slightly in the mid-eighties but damn did Freddie leave on a good note with the Innuendo album. Everyone on this topic brought up some great points. At least Queen was willing to take risks and experiment. AC/DC hasn't changed one bit in all the years they've been around. AC/DC isn't just the name of the band, it's also the only chords they know. |
Ray D O'Gaga 09.02.2005 18:29 |
7 wrote: (Hello, I am new here and I am 18 years old. Queen were my first favorite band when I was in 5th grade and I love everything they do. With that said...) I was listening to things like Ogre Battle, March of the Black Queen, Death on Two Legs, and why not, Bohemian Rhapsody and I see that these were awesome compositions. And then I move forward in Queen's timeline and I listen to songs like "It's a Kind of Magic" and even "Body Language" and I think: where did their ambition go? Why did they lose it? Why did Freddie stop creating these masterpieces? Now that he's gone (RIP) sadly, we cannot know this for sure. But really, I would like to know what happened? Thanks.Who turns out masterpieces on a clockwork basis? Who wakes up in the morning and says "Today I will be brilliant"? How many times did Einstein have to develop the theory of relativity or Da Vinci paint the Mona Lisa? To expect anybody to turn out a classic of the caliber of "Bohemian Rhapsody" year in and year out is unrealistic and unfair. They made the music they made when they made it and as the spirit moved them. Some was amazing. Some was crap. Most fell somewhere in the middle. But to say they or Freddie lost their ambition because they didn't turn out a groundbreaking song or album everytime is to misunderstand the nature of talent. Anyone who has listened to "Innuendo" or "Made in Heaven" with an open mind would have to concede that the ambition was there right through to the end. How well that ambition was realized is a matter of subjectivity. |
QueenZeppelin 09.02.2005 19:54 |
Queen lost their ambition? This is news to me. Queen were always an ambitious band--consistenly wanting to make things bigger and better. By the late-1980's, this ambition brought them into new, uncharted (to Queen) waters, like that of stadium pop. I think Queen wanted to incorporate many different styles; in fact, I attribute songs like "A Kind of Magic" as being born of the fact that they were an ambitious band who wanted to do something different then "Tie Your Mother Down" and "Stone Cold Crazy" rehashes their entire career. This being said, I must agree I enjoy their work from 1973-84 (sans Hot Space and Flash) moreso than 84-91 (sans Innuendo). I also agree that (well, especially with The Miracle) there seemed to be a point where they were just phoning some songs in. I think they could have continued being a more harder-edged rock band for a little longer than they did. I always wonder--would their popularity have wained in the United States had The Works been released in 1982 instead of Hot Space? We'll never know. (I always found The Works to be the perfect marriage of their rock and pop sides.) |
akindofmagic 09.02.2005 21:10 |
JDL2nd wrote: They lost their ambition during Flash Gordon, Hot Space and A Kind Of Magic. In my opinion these are their worst records. The rest was/ is very good !!A kind Of Magic is a fab album. It is pop, not the rock they usualy do(althought One Vision,Princes and gimme the priceare rockier). But this is fab work. Flah Gordon is a great original soundtrack. Maybe you just don't like soundtracks! |
jasen101 09.02.2005 22:41 |
They definately didn't loose anything |
GonnaUseMyPrisoners 09.02.2005 23:07 |
Why don't you start by trying to prove your assumption that they lost their ambition at some point? While you're putting that together, remember that a change of style does NOT constitute a loss of ambition. In my opinion: Where? Nowhere. Why? Because the sky is blue. |
written_in_the_stars 09.02.2005 23:10 |
Queen never lost his ambition. Queen was a very eclectic band. 'We don't go out and play hard music, or light music -it's just our kind of music'. This is a quote from Brian May and I dont think what he says here is hard to believe. At the beginning of their career, in 1973-1974, Queen was in this heavy, lets say 'progressive' style, kind of like Led Zep; later on in the 70's the band was into rock, classical, pop, gospel and jazz style. In the beginning of the 80's they tried some rockabilly, and then they experimented a funk-dance-disco style, which wasn't very well understood by people then. Finally, later in the 80s and beginning of 90's they were in this rock, pop style again. So I think Queen was a very creative band, very open-minded to all kinds of music, and they wanted to try a bit of everything, instead of staying into the same style forever - I RESPECT THAT. For my opinion I love the fact the group have tried different styles and I like all of their albums. I think all of them were artistic in their own ways, in their own style. Some people believe Queen lost their ambition when they released Hot Space - I disagree. I think the group just wanted to EXPERIMENT something else with this album, something different from what the fans expected of Queen. That's it. All the albums are different but I think they are all creative, artistic and rich. It is normal I think, for a band after a few years to want to try some different styles - that doesn't mean the band lost his ambition, it just proves how the band is open minded and eclectic. That was the case for Queen. |
mike hunt 10.02.2005 00:19 |
queen lost their ambition? when was this? you simply don't like pop. if you liked pop you would love 'magic.' and most of their eighties material. you have to remember when queen recorded 'the works' and magic and the miracle they were much older than 18 years of age (pushing 40) so their ideas of creating music is different than a teenager would be. when i was 18 i would have totally agreed with you, but as i have grown a bit older alot of their eighties music grown on me and now i love most of it. i bet in 10 to 15 years alot of these songs you don't like will grow on you and you will see where queen were comming from when they made those recordings. |
Saint Jiub 10.02.2005 02:26 |
"Ambition" is not the right word. Queen were definitely less creative and tended to play it safe musically and with a narrower less adventurous focus. Some quotes from "Queen in Their Own Words": Brian - Recently, we've become more selective, I think, and we try to make albums which don't go in so many directions at once - For example, 'The Game ' album was really pruned, and the others refused to include a couple of things I wanted on, because they said they were to far outside the theme of the album, and that we should be trying to make a slightly more coherent album. Roger - I think people really missed the typical Queen sound on our last few releases. 'The Miracle' includes all of Queen's typical elements in concentrated form. Brian (on 'Innuendo') - It's quite a complex album. Some of the tracks are more along the lines of the mid-period stuff we did like 'A Night at the Opera', where there's a lot of overdubs and complexity. |
deleted user 10.02.2005 06:53 |
mike hunt wrote: queen lost their ambition? when was this? you simply don't like pop. if you liked pop you would love 'magic.' and most of their eighties material. you have to remember when queen recorded 'the works' and magic and the miracle they were much older than 18 years of age (pushing 40) so their ideas of creating music is different than a teenager would be. when i was 18 i would have totally agreed with you, but as i have grown a bit older alot of their eighties music grown on me and now i love most of it. i bet in 10 to 15 years alot of these songs you don't like will grow on you and you will see where queen were comming from when they made those recordings.I agree with you on their 80s material, I love it!!! But it has nothing to do with the fact how old you are! Probably todays teenagers are too narrow-minded to like 80s pop (they are only stuck in the 70s), but when I became a Queen fan in 1991/92 (I was 15), I listened to their 80s material (and WATC) first before I discovered their 70s albums. Already back then I tended to play mostly The Works and A Kind Of Magic. And since 25.11.1991 Radio Ga Ga is my favourite song. Also a lot of 80s teenagers (older then myself) listened to Queen anyway. |
mike hunt 10.02.2005 11:54 |
that's all i'm saying is sometimes music has to grow on you, when first started listening to queen i was about 16, and i loved all their 70's work, couldn't get enough of it. i then tried some their eighties material and thought it was some kind of sick joke. what happened to stone cold crazy? and all the classics. i wasn't ready for the works or magic, it took a while but thru time i have grown to love it. it's hard for someone whose still a teenager to see where a bunch of forty year olds are comming from. look how different queen were throughout the years they changed alot. their musical taste changed and had more of an open mind to creating music. |
Rotwang 10.02.2005 14:06 |
I have to agree with everyone's opinion. I think when they first started they really wanted to impress the world with their talent and skill. After they proved themselves, they may have thought "this is too much work for a simple song." The Game album is the perfect Queen example of stripping a song down to it's bare components and it still making it rock. They wanted to stay fresh and experiment with instrumentation and styles. In my opinion, as they grew older they took the attitude of let's make it a simple as possible (for Queen anyway). |
runner70 10.02.2005 15:42 |
Freddie-B wrote: Good question!! I think their last great album is Jazz.IMHO their weakest in the 70's - "More of That Jazz" - in my Top5 of bad Queen songs -"Fun it" - also kinda lame - "Innuendo" is far ahead in terms of songwriting and innovation |
Boy Thomas Raker 10.02.2005 16:03 |
I think they were always career ambitious, but less musically ambitious as time went by. One of the biggest problems for huge groups is "where do we go musically?" That's influenced by the times. The 80s was a less serious decade musically than the 70s. It was dominated for the most part by keyboards and dance sounds. Queen changed with the times to avoid being a dinosaur band, and their playing was fine, but their songwriting was a shadow of what it was in the 70s. Hunger was gone by the mid to late 80s to prove that they were a songwriting force, but that happens to all groups. |
kerfuffle87 10.02.2005 18:54 |
lose ambition?eh? sounds change as time changes especially if you look at songs from the 50s and songs now - theres a slight difference! i think Queen showed ambition in changing their sound during the 80s and yes, like people have said Innuendo = genius. welcome to queenzone :-D xxx |
LowSammy 10.02.2005 19:33 |
"The Night Comes Down", "Misfire", "Bring Back That Leroy Brown", "Dear Friend", "Lazing On A Sunday Afternoon", "You're My Best Friend", " '39", "Seaside Rendezvous", "Good Company", "Love Of My Life"......etc. If their last album contained all of these great, but "softer?" songs from their first 4 albums, would they still be less ambitous? And why do so many people dislike the "Hot Space" and "The Miracle" albums so much? Other than the fact that they lost their ambition on these recordings. Just Kidding. These are great albums. "Put Out The Fire", "Calling All Girls", "Under Pressure", "Back Chat", "Action This Day", "I Want It All", "Scandal", "The Miracle", "Breakthru", "The Invisible Man". These song's (IMO) are just as good as any of their other songs from other eras. I listen to "Innuendo" just as much as I listen to "Queen". And everything in between gets just as much play time here at my home in sunny Tucson, Arizona. Thanks for allowing me to contribute and overuse my quotation mark button. |
Mr.Jingles 10.02.2005 20:32 |
Queen never lost anything... Except for some "fans" who are not really worth working your ass off to make music for them. Better off without them. |
Saint Jiub 10.02.2005 20:54 |
In the 80's ... Brian got neutered by the rest of the band and was instructed to write only music that fit the albums central theme. Freddie and John abandoned all creativity, and insisted on making mostly formulaic dance and pop songs. Roger was the only songwriter that improved in the 80's and 90's, although his songs tended to be formulaic too. |
FriedChicken 10.02.2005 21:09 |
"Who wakes up in the morning and says "Today I will be brilliant"?" Well I do, honestly |
bellydancer 10.02.2005 22:33 |
I agree with the majority here that whilst Queen had to change with the times and in some instances had to play it safe to be a commercial entity there was definately a lot of creative pieces of music produced by the guys after the 70's. For instance, has anyone listened the last track on Made in Heaven (Beautiful Day reprise). Its amazing and eerie. |
7 10.02.2005 23:45 |
Sonja wrote:I can see how you misinterpreted what I wrote but what I meant was that Innuendo, althgough a very good album seems a lot less complex than the inital ones. The majority of the songs are more poppy, if you will, as in "verse - chorus - verse - chorus - solo - chorus" of sorts.7 wrote: And no, I am not saying that they had bad albums in the end. I love Innuendo but I just can't see where they chose to make things simpler ...a lot simpler.Just one example: Innuendo. Where is this song simple? I believe they NEVER made "simple" things. They always put everything they could into their work. Maybe technical development and improvement made it easier for them to realize their ideas but that doesn't mean that they didn't put as much work into the last albums as they did in the beginning. What I meant with ambition is that if you listen to the first records you can hear beautifully harmonized backing vocals, Brian's one-guitarred orchestra, Roger's over the top backing vocals with great drum work, John using the bass to include more melody. Do not get me wrong: I do appreciate later Queen, Innuendo was the second record of theirs I bought, but I do feel like you can't compare the work (backing vocals, composition, arrangements) of say "Millionaire Waltz" and "I want to break Free". It is obvious which one is the most complicated one, and consequently and objectively: merit. That is what I am referring to when I say loss of ambition which you have somehow morphed into "change of style" andd honestly I had not seen it from that point of view. But they did change of style. I understand that now. Still, how many workings do you think Freddie never managed to release that could've been awesome compositions (seeing as though he had gathered vast experience in those massive undertakings by the late 70's)? |
boy of destiny 11.02.2005 00:32 |
I don't think it's a case of losing their ambition; Queen is one of the few bands that had the talent to evolve. Their range is why they never got boring. One thing I will say is that I think Brian's personal problems in the 80's and Roger's reliance on drum machines took them away from what they really were; a guitar and drum driven band. Unfortunately, a lot of 70's rock bands stray a bit too far from their roots in an effort to stay popular. I'd sure as hell rather listen to "Selling England By The Pound" then "Invisible Touch." |
MercuryArts 11.02.2005 01:13 |
As artists you have to grow and not keep doing the same thing forever or you will lose interest, eventually people will catch on and hate you for being a one trick pony. Then explain everything Aerosmith has done since 1988!?!?! :) |
Boy Thomas Raker 11.02.2005 09:12 |
That's absolutely true about the Genesis comparison boy of destiny. Their mid-career stuff paled in comparison to their Selling England/Trick of the Tail era. But wouldn't it be weird hearing that type of stuff 10-15 years after it first happened. I think Queen's first albums positively bristled with creativity, and something that many hear don't touch on, their Britishness. I think the reason that the early albums were so good was that they could handle every musical style since they grew up with skiffle, show music and trad jazz. Then when The Game hit, they became a little more of a straightforward American sounding band. Hot Space saw them as Euro's, and when they became a "something for everyone" type of band, they tried songs (see Body Language, Pain is so Close, Cool Cat) that weren't really part of their vocabulary. It was worth a try, but not really the quality of their early stuff but they had to try it to keep same and the band together. |
deleted user 11.02.2005 18:12 |
Where and why did Queen lose SOME ambition? When dear Freddie died... |
Frenchfroggy 11.02.2005 18:23 |
You're right. Though I can love both eras, it's obvious that in the eighties Queen had become a very commercial band, growing in popularity but losing their early 70's creativity. That's why they were never taken seriously by the critics and the intellectuals, their production in the 80's was only about making as much money as possible. Actually I think that their last good album artistically speaking was "A day at the races". The news of the world was already much more commercial, with ridiculous songs like WWRY, a song very often used nowadays in TV advertisings to sell products... Nevertheless, this problem is not only about Queen, but about the whole Eighties period, which is laughed at today by most people, and most of the time considered as the weakest artistic musical decade over the last 40 years. The music and the great atists of the 60's and of the 70's will be remembered in 2100, I highly doubt it will be the case for the 80's... To sum up, yes, they did lose creativity in the eighties, but this artistic plight is to be considered in the context of this almost non-existent decade musically speaking, and that can be said about each artist of the eighties. |
Roy Queen 02.03.2005 16:36 |
They didn't lose their ambitions, they left it. They used to say that when they got bored to do things, they left it and started on new stuff. They said it was better that they got bored first, and not the fans (and thats very true). |
deleted user 03.03.2005 05:53 |
Frenchfroggy wrote: You're right. Though I can love both eras, it's obvious that in the eighties Queen had become a very commercial band, growing in popularity but losing their early 70's creativity. That's why they were never taken seriously by the critics and the intellectuals, their production in the 80's was only about making as much money as possible. Actually I think that their last good album artistically speaking was "A day at the races". The news of the world was already much more commercial, with ridiculous songs like WWRY, a song very often used nowadays in TV advertisings to sell products... Nevertheless, this problem is not only about Queen, but about the whole Eighties period, which is laughed at today by most people, and most of the time considered as the weakest artistic musical decade over the last 40 years. The music and the great atists of the 60's and of the 70's will be remembered in 2100, I highly doubt it will be the case for the 80's... To sum up, yes, they did lose creativity in the eighties, but this artistic plight is to be considered in the context of this almost non-existent decade musically speaking, and that can be said about each artist of the eighties.The 80s were way better than the decade 1995-2005. The 70s were better than the 80s, but its ridiculous to say that it was the worst decade musically. It had the same amount of Megastars as the 70s (Madonna, Prince, Michael Jackson, U2, etc.) and the 80s were not only light pop (remember the Dire Straits or Bruce Springsteen?). I think it was the best decade after the 70s and people, who trash it should remember what we have nowadays. No new star from 1998-2005 will be remembered in 2100, but Radio Ga Ga by Queen or Billie Jean by Jacko will be remembered. What "music" do we have today? Only computer-produced Eurodance and techno shit and a load of crappy hip-hop from America! Fine, isn't it? So do you really call this musical era good? In the 80s MTV used to play music, today its a teleshopping channel for ringtones. |
Roy Queen 03.03.2005 05:58 |
I'm all on your side! MTV is crap this days! Now is it VH1 who counts... |
RohemianBapsody 03.03.2005 06:04 |
I don't think Queen lost any ambition. Their sound changed to move with the times, and if you hear different sounds then as a writeryou are influenced by these sounds. Listen the GH1 & GH2 and you can instantly distinguish between these periods in their writing. It could also be that they did not spend as much time on the writing side as they had become famous and so had less time to compose longer songs (Innuendo being the exception). |
tricolours 08.03.2005 05:35 |
I thought after the Game they went down hill abit, sure they still had some brilliant songs but the brilliance seemed to become the exception rather than the rule. And yes, my mouth waters at the very thought of them making 15 albums full of masterpieces like The Back Queen, the white Queen and My fairy King, Heavy stuff like king Rat & Liar and soft tunes like Nevermore & Seven Seas Of Rhye. |
the-rock 4283 08.03.2005 06:45 |
Sorry folks, but regarding a whole period (1995-2005) as crap is a bit ignorant. Maybe there are fewer megastars...but creativity happens aside the mainstream.. and this is truer than ever before. ever heard of rufus wainwright? mercury rev? sigur ros? f.. MTV, go out and discover music! |
iljaiya 08.03.2005 07:26 |
" No new star from 1998-2005 will be remembered in 2100, but Radio Ga Ga by Queen or Billie Jean by Jacko will be remembered. What "music" do we have today? Only computer-produced Eurodance and techno shit and a load of crappy hip-hop from America! Fine, isn't it?" This statement sucks. Typical talk from somebody who's to old to know where to get the great music. The problem with people is that they always find the music from the era's when they were young great and everything after shit. That's so simplistic! Everybody nowadays is talking about the great music from the early days. When there is a Alltime Rock Top 500 or something like that we see songs like these on the top spots (well at least in Holland): Led Zeppelin Stairway to heaven Guns 'n roses November Rain Deep Purple Child In Time U2 Sunday Bloody Sunday But you know what? None of these songs ever hit the number one position in the Netherlands! In those days it were also the sellout Soul, disco, pop crap artist who topped the lists. Just like nowadays. So remember that everytime has it's own stars who score hit after hit, but it's beneath the surface where you should be looking and then you'll find some great stuff. Just like in the past. For the people who'd like to learn about some nice/great music listen to this for example: Audioslave, Ayreon, Coldplay, Dream Theater, Keane Muse, Novastar, Pearl Jam, Queens Of The Stone Age, Radiohead, System of A Down, The Mars Volta, Velvet Revolver just to name a few........... |
deleted user 08.03.2005 13:36 |
iljaiya wrote: " No new star from 1998-2005 will be remembered in 2100, but Radio Ga Ga by Queen or Billie Jean by Jacko will be remembered. What "music" do we have today? Only computer-produced Eurodance and techno shit and a load of crappy hip-hop from America! Fine, isn't it?" This statement sucks. Typical talk from somebody who's to old to know where to get the great music. The problem with people is that they always find the music from the era's when they were young great and everything after shit. That's so simplistic! Everybody nowadays is talking about the great music from the early days. When there is a Alltime Rock Top 500 or something like that we see songs like these on the top spots (well at least in Holland): Led Zeppelin Stairway to heaven Guns 'n roses November Rain Deep Purple Child In Time U2 Sunday Bloody Sunday But you know what? None of these songs ever hit the number one position in the Netherlands! In those days it were also the sellout Soul, disco, pop crap artist who topped the lists. Just like nowadays. So remember that everytime has it's own stars who score hit after hit, but it's beneath the surface where you should be looking and then you'll find some great stuff. Just like in the past.But in the past the really great things were happening IN the mainstream (Queen, Led Zeppelin or Deep Purple were 70s mainstream music as were Michael Jackson, Prince or U2 in the 80s). Nowadays the artists who call their stuff "alternative" music don't offer any real alternative to the crappy chart mainstream. It sounds as shitty as techno or hip-hop. And by the way: Guns n'Roses is not "early" stuff, its a band of the late 80s / early 90s. And they had enormous success in the charts (also US and UK)!!! So its wrong that good bands have no chart hits. The difference between GNR and todays alternative artists is that they made good music and weren´t ashamed of it that it was also commercial! And that I defended the 80s doesn't mean it was the time when I was a teenager. I'm 28 now so my time, as you put it, was from 1990-1996, the last years when music was really good in general. |
Negative Creep 08.03.2005 13:50 |
They lost their ambition after Hot Space, hence the delay between that album and The Works - they had essentially broken up. |
deleted user 08.03.2005 14:04 |
Negative Creep wrote: They lost their ambition after Hot Space, hence the delay between that album and The Works - they had essentially broken up.bullshit... you can read it in every book. They were exhausted after ten years being together all the time and wanted a rest before recording a new album. If they had lost their ambition they would have never had such a successful and fulminant comeback with "The Works". And "Innuendo" is not the work of someone who lost his ambition, okay? |
mike hunt 08.03.2005 14:13 |
queen would have lost their ambition if they did the same style of music over and over, but they continued to do new and exciting things (who wants to live forever) is a good example of that, and also innuendo is one of their best. if queen did every album like queen2 then they would have lost their ambition because they would have been doing nothing new. think AC/DC. |
iljaiya 08.03.2005 16:01 |
" But in the past the really great things were happening IN the mainstream (Queen, Led Zeppelin or Deep Purple were 70s mainstream music as were Michael Jackson, Prince or U2 in the 80s). Nowadays the artists who call their stuff "alternative" music don't offer any real alternative to the crappy chart mainstream. > There are still bands that are mainstream and good (Coldplay, Muse both succesfull in the charts could be the new U2 and Queen - please don't kill me for this statement - ). And by the way: Guns n'Roses is not "early" stuff, its a band of the late 80s / early 90s. And they had enormous success in the charts (also US and UK)!!! So its wrong that good bands have no chart hits." > I know G'nR is from the late 80's/ begin 90's. I see your point, but as said there are still good mainstream bands. See examples above. I didn't mean to say good bands don't have chart hits, but what I'm trying to say is that if you look at all charts from the past fourty years we see that most music is crap and that there are only a few good bands that have commercial succes. The difference between GNR and todays alternative artists is that they made good music and weren´t ashamed of it that it was also commercial!" > Muse and Radiohead playing Earls Court multiple times and making videos makes them quite commercial. And that I defended the 80s doesn't mean it was the time when I was a teenager. I'm 28 now so my time, as you put it, was from 1990-1996, the last years when music was really good in general." > Sorry wasn't trying to offend you. Sometimes I just get a little frustated about the ' mythology' that surrounds pasts bands and the statements that there's nothing like them thesedays. Here's a little example: In Holland was a few years ago a discussion about Queen always being the number one in the All Time 2000. A politician was asked which song he thought would be a good alternative. Child In Time he said. And he added: I can't remember it not being nr. one in the charts. While a few clicks on the internet learn us that CIT highest chart position was nine. So far for the mythology.... >I think there will always be good bands (mainstream and all). It's just the lack of interest and critisism that makes people come to conclusions like these. People in the sixties and seventies were thinking the same, but after that (we know now) came some great bands. PS. Don't forget that there are so many genres that it's harder to find the stuff you like. It's true that nowadays the charts are dominated by dance and r&b, but in the seventies soul and disco dominated it. Not (hard)rock. |
Ander Vørschört 09.03.2005 16:45 |
After a while their songs would become quite boring don't you think? |
Fraz 10.03.2005 13:01 |
I Like Everything Queens Done whats done is done. |
mrWKMahler 10.03.2005 15:19 |
7 wrote: (Hello, I am new here and I am 18 years old. Queen were my first favorite band when I was in 5th grade and I love everything they do. With that said...) I was listening to things like Ogre Battle, March of the Black Queen, Death on Two Legs, and why not, Bohemian Rhapsody and I see that these were awesome compositions. And then I move forward in Queen's timeline and I listen to songs like "It's a Kind of Magic" and even "Body Language" and I think: where did their ambition go? Why did they lose it? Why did Freddie stop creating these masterpieces? Now that he's gone (RIP) sadly, we cannot know this for sure. But really, I would like to know what happened? Thanks.Your right about the songs from Queen 2. Those and the first Queen album I don't get tired of ever. Really in a class all their own, yet almost all bands back then had their own perspective of originality. Also, much like Queen around Hot Space and The Game were doing what they always had. They found their niche or in this case, ground to cover themselves and their "imprint" into the scene and went with it. Some would say that Queen and Queen 2 were mainstream and it was actually, Gothic Melodic Rock, almost unheard of later around the early 80's only because thy times had changed and the focus was primarily the last of disco. But remember back then circa early 70's, country music was just about the norm in America as well as contemporary, far from where Queen was at. Well okay, more mellow sounds was what I was raised with. But really, who would Dick Clark or the likes have on tv more? Dolly Parton, Waylon Jennings, John Denver, The Partridge Family and of course The Jackson 5 but Queen? Not a chance but their outlet was huge and they aimed to top it and did. WKMahler |
deleted user 11.03.2005 17:58 |
Farlander wrote: but it did result in a lack of innovation in later years for them, I think.HELLO?! INNUENDO?! You call that a lack of innovation? |
Ray D O'Gaga 12.03.2005 14:46 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: "Who wakes up in the morning and says "Today I will be brilliant"?" Well I do, honestlyYeah but saying it and actually doing it are two different things. |