| Mr. Barcelona 18.01.2006 04:54 |
did queen hurt their legacy by releasing albums past 1980?...lets face it, albums like hot space and the works arn't exactly rock masterpieces. Look at "a kind of magic" it has good music on it, but rock fans hate songs like "one year of love" and Don't lose your head" I personally think freddie and john should have done their own thing, since they were closer musically at that stage of their career, and brian and roger were also drifting apart. I personally love all queen albums, but I'm talking about their musical legacy from the general rock public. People look at those albums and say 'queen are no zep' based on those eighties albums. |
| Fenderek 18.01.2006 04:59 |
I don't think they hurt their legacy although I share your view on those albums. IMHO they are basically crap... They were huge. But I think musically it was just not that good anymore. It is annoying when people judge Queen thinking- the guys who did radio Ga-Ga or IWTBF- and when this awesome rock'n'roll band is being put on the same shelf as Farnkie Goes To Hollywood... Not everybody has to know White Man or It's Late... Unfortunatelly... |
| Serry... 18.01.2006 05:06 |
Funny thing for me is that we can't say something bad about Queen + PR, but always are ready to label half of Queen albums as crap... ;-P But anyway I agree with Fenderek that a lot of young fans (or not fans, but people who judge about Queen by Ga Ga etc.) don't know the best treasures of Queen's music... |
| Indo77 18.01.2006 05:28 |
Personally I feel much of the music they produced in the 1980s was crap. The band went in a completely wrong direction and dived into the world of arty pop/dance. For example, compare "Tie Your Mother Down" to "Back Chat"! There is very little resemblance from the Queen we know at Earl's Court or Houston. The 70s stuff was almost faultless. Surprising though their two last albums The Miracle and Innuendo were quite good. |
| Togg 18.01.2006 05:31 |
I think you have to realise what the band were being influenced by at the time, plus in effect two of the band were hard rockers (Roger & Brian) and two were not, so one could argue that the first half of Queens output was not a true reflection of the band. In the end they were/are experiemental musicians, not a pure 'rock' band. the choices they made were in order to keep interested in what they were doing. If they had stayed play the same music as on Sheer Heart Attack they would have finished by the end of the 70's. Any group of people that can write, ABTD, MOTBQ and Good Company, deserve real praise and attention in my opinion. That is what makes them great. |
| Fenderek 18.01.2006 05:36 |
Serry... wrote: Funny thing for me is that we can't say something bad about Queen + PR, but always are ready to label half of Queen albums as crap... ;-PLOL The difference is I'm not writing QUEEN RIP 1980 and I can actually elaborate on the subject...AND- most importantly- I'm not saying taht whoever loves IWTBF is not a real Queen fan or is stupid. I will elaborate. In the 80s synthesizers pretty much replaced guitar in Queen sound. Yes, of course we had about 2-3 rockier songs on each album and a guitar solo in almost every single song, but... C'mon- what WAS a Queen sound for me was the fact that the entire jazz band was created by a one single guitar... The fact that melotrone was immitated by guitar in "Leaving home Ain't Easy". That in every single guitar note, even if it was just a soundscape- was an emotion. Just listen to the orchestration to "Love Of My Life", preferably in 5.1. MAGIC. There are examples of emotion in synths (TSMGO springs to mind)- but generally I see this instrument as something artificial, soulless... The production was focused on softening the edges and once a rock band became almost pop. And the compositions... They haven't reached TMOTBQ or Millionaire Waltz heights in 80s, have they? I know, I know- those wouldn't have been hits in 80s... Well- were they in 70s really? In 70s abums had few potential singles, hit songs and than some more ambitious songs, stuff that would never become a hit yet musically very interesting (Prophet's Song, TMOTBQ, even songs sang by Bri or Rog and the likes). In 80s we had singles and apart from maybe another 2-3 good songs (well- how many singles can you release from one album?)- fillers... Find me a filler on Queen II... Again- it's just my opinion!!! But something like Man On The Prowl would NEVER made any album in 70s... Freddie was more focused on partying and playing pop music in 80s- his influences were Boy Gorge, Prince... Oh boy...!!! It's just simply not my cup of tea! Brian was almost alone, maybe with Roger on the rockier side- and I can hear it on albums. They weren't done by a UNIT, with the same aim, with the same purpose. I can hear on HOT SPACE or WORKS that those albums were done by people who weren't really sure what do they want to achieve together musically. According to many sources atmosphere in the band in this Munich period was terrible- and I think it actually shows on the records!! Maybe WORKS or HOT SPACE aren't that bad albums- but play them back to back with ANATO or SHA and... Well- put Mona Lisa next to a drawing of semi-talented art student... There's much more, but... I have no time at the moment, this will have to do :P |
| Rompez 18.01.2006 05:40 |
Indo77, can I tell you a horrid thing? I prefer Back Chat over Tie You Mother Down! You can kill me for that words. Most of die-hard Rock'n'roll fans hate Queen's 80's material but it's not that bad. Yes it's more a pop music. Nothing wrong with it it's just diffirent and it's the reason why i love Queen. |
| Ayreon 18.01.2006 06:06 |
Very well said, Togg! Totally agree! Queen isn't a rock band, but one of the most experimental popular bands of all time! (Though Queen + PR seems to be moe of a rock band) QUOTE]Togg wrote: I think you have to realise what the band were being influenced by at the time, plus in effect two of the band were hard rockers (Roger & Brian) and two were not, so one could argue that the first half of Queens output was not a true reflection of the band. In the end they were/are experiemental musicians, not a pure 'rock' band. the choices they made were in order to keep interested in what they were doing. If they had stayed play the same music as on Sheer Heart Attack they would have finished by the end of the 70's. Any group of people that can write, ABTD, MOTBQ and Good Company, deserve real praise and attention in my opinion. That is what makes them great. |
| Indo77 18.01.2006 06:33 |
[quote]Indo77, can I tell you a horrid thing? I prefer Back Chat over Tie You Mother Down! You can kill me for that words. Most of die-hard Rock'n'roll fans hate Queen's 80's material but it's not that bad. Yes it's more a pop music. Nothing wrong with it it's just diffirent and it's the reason why i love Queen.[/quote] Never said there was anything wrong with it, I just feel they alienated a lot of their core rock fans from the 70s with the swift changeover. True they would have been under pressure not to become dated, but the differences between their music styles from 1979 to 1981 is quite dramatic. |
| Fenderek 18.01.2006 06:38 |
Indo77 wrote: True they would have been under pressure not to become dated, but the differences between their music styles from 1979 to 1981 is quite dramatic.It is and... well- did AC/DC change their music that much? Did it become dated? Or did they actually reach their POPULARITY (I prefer Bon Scott era) heights in 80s? They didn't use synths and didn't play music close to Duran Duran... |
| Rompez 18.01.2006 06:50 |
Fenderek wrote:Comparing AC/DC with Queen in that terms ... hahahaha! Did AC/DC EVER tried to change their music?Indo77 wrote: True they would have been under pressure not to become dated, but the differences between their music styles from 1979 to 1981 is quite dramatic.It is and... well- did AC/DC change their music that much? Did it become dated? Or did they actually reach their POPULARITY (I prefer Bon Scott era) heights in 80s? They didn't use synths and didn't play music close to Duran Duran... |
| Fenderek 18.01.2006 06:56 |
No, they never did. But many say that you had to do it because otherwise they wouldn't sell as many records. I mentioned AC/DC because they are a proof it's not exactly the truth. They didn't ahve to go into Boy George direction to be still poular... |
| Rompez 18.01.2006 07:04 |
I guess with AC/DC it's really opposite thing. If they would have changed their music they would have lost their popularity. That's the point. |
| sparverius 18.01.2006 08:10 |
Queen's versatility as a band and as individual musicians to tackle extremely different kinds of music is their legacy. It is really fascinating to discover something brand new within each song rather than listening to the same old song repeated x times in y records. |
| liam 18.01.2006 09:26 |
Ive always said Queen were like a completely different band in the 80's. Its quite ridiculas the change they had. Now im not saying i dont like their 80's stuff but we gotta be serious here. The same band that made borhap, motbq, millionaire waltz, we r the champs etc etc, released pop shizen like radio gaga and iwtbf. Its hard to contemplate at times, how much of a change they went. Now radio gaga and iwtbf are good pop songs but they arnt good queen songs. Im going to be hammered for this but if i herd iwtbf and it wasnt a queen song i'd think another shit 80's pop song, but because its made by queen i feel i have to like it. |
| Togg 18.01.2006 09:33 |
I don't understand how it can be a good song but not a good Queen song? Even on the early albums they used to have compleatly different styles of music, look at Sheer Hear Attack, it had bring back leroy brown and brighton rock on the same album. I don't understand people when they say Queen used to be a heavey rock band, No they were musicains trying different styles all the way through. |
| Rompez 18.01.2006 09:34 |
liam wrote: Ive always said Queen were like a completely different band in the 80's. Its quite ridiculas the change they had. Now im not saying i dont like their 80's stuff but we gotta be serious here. The same band that made borhap, motbq, millionaire waltz, we r the champs etc etc, released pop shizen like radio gaga and iwtbf. Its hard to contemplate at times, how much of a change they went. Now radio gaga and iwtbf are good pop songs but they arnt good queen songs. Im going to be hammered for this but if i herd iwtbf and it wasnt a queen song i'd think another shit 80's pop song, but because its made by queen i feel i have to like it.Well I don't like I Want to Break Free (shitty 80's pop song) as much as I don't like (for example) Sweet Lady or Loser At The End (shitty 70's rock songs IMO). Why you HAVE to like all songs that queen did unless you are crazy fanatic? |
| Boy Thomas Raker 18.01.2006 10:41 |
Excellent topic, and good posts here. Did they hurt their legacy with the 80s albums? Don't think so. None of the 70s groups had particularly strong stuff in the 80s, save Pink Floyd with The Wall, and they didn't fare well after that. Queen had to change or be faced with being dinosaurs. The problem is, they were a 3 piece rock combo on their best stuff, with piano also adding flavour. When they went synth heavy, they lost the verve of Freddie's piano playing style, and Brian's guitar disappeared. So it was still well sung and written, but lacking the key elements of Queen's style. Plus, and what I think the key is, is that on the 'odd' Queen songs like Leroy Brown, Good Company, Mustapha, Seaside, etc., Queen 'lived' that music. They grew up in houses with trad jazz, and show tunes and in Freddie's case, eastern influenced music. With stuff like Dancer, it's apparent that Brian is out of his element as he was trying to contribute a dance track and it's plodding. He wasn't part of the dance scene, and it showed. However, they had to do it to keep the band going, and while it paled in comparison to the quality of the 70s catalogue, I don't think I'd want to hear the same song with a different variation all the time, a la AC/DC. Theire variety is what made them great, and what hurt their stature as a rock band. |
| Negative Creep 18.01.2006 11:03 |
i would think brian working with five, robbie williams, britney spears, pink etc and using the daft "queen +" tag has done far more damage to the queen brand than the 80's albums. oh, and the plod rock pseudo reformation with paul rodgers can't have done much good either. |
| tia 18.01.2006 11:41 |
How did it hurt? They were the biggest stadium band of the 80's.The songs they played at the concerts were mainly from the 80's. The Wembley 86 DVD is still one of the top selling DVDs today. |
| FriedChicken 18.01.2006 11:48 |
I think if Queen would've stopped in 1980 they never would've gotten so big as they are now |
| Boy Thomas Raker 18.01.2006 11:57 |
What Fried Chicken said is too true. That's the thing, their best work artistically is their least known work. They sold tons of stuff that wasn't close to their earlier stuff in quality, at that time they were a great singles band, but creatively their best days were behind them. And personally, despite Freddie's command of the audience in the 80s, I think their live shows of the 70s were far greater and rockier. |
| Rotwang 18.01.2006 11:59 |
Topics like this are very interesting and also pure opinion and speculation as to what the band's motives were behind their albums. If you take the catalogue as a whole, Hot Space and The Miracle are weak (songs and production). But if you listen to each album for what it is, you might see it in a different light. Imagine if you will the following: The Game was a success and fans are waiting in line for the new Queen album. Fans buy it and take it home and listen immediately. Disappointment. So fans have to wait and The Works comes out. Fans take it home and listen. Pretty damn good in comparison. I admit it didn't seem like the effort was put in to the 80's albums as the 70's. But the 70's were experimental. By the time the 80's rolled around, producers and engineers wanted short, poppy, electronic sounds. But it was the times. Queen wanted to reinvent themselves, although not always successful. They wanted new, younger fans to enjoy their music. In the age of MTV, there weren't any bands who were making music like that of the 70's and making videos to 61/2 or 7 minute songs. The corporate suits came in and fucked up the music industry for a long time. Sorry for the rambling. Good post. |
| not that bad 18.01.2006 13:02 |
no they didn t... that s my opinion. queen always were moving to different directions, they had the same obligations in the 70 s than in the 80 s, they had to persuade the audience... when u listen to jazz u know where they would go, roger wrote the songs that went a little bit funkier. iwtbf isn t crap, people make always the connection to the video, what would have been if they had done another video similar to iwia or potu? sure akom is weak but it is a soundtrack, much better than flash. i think they had better done a double album the game/flash. hot space is a good produced album, different... but if u r a listening to it today im sure u ll discover that it has real good songs... sure back in 1982 it was surely a schock for queen fans, pople who discovered the band for the album of the 70 s. |
| not that bad 18.01.2006 13:06 |
and another thing, if freddie would be alive what do u think they would have recorded, and do not take innuendo as a reference because its alittle bit biographic, i m sure they would have done the same recording than u 2 for example or the stones : they would have taken producers of the time like pharrel williams for example. u know that mack produced for pink floyd or the stones in the eighties? |
| Boy Thomas Raker 18.01.2006 13:09 |
Not so bad, when you say that "sure akom is weak but it is a soundtrack, much better than flash", you're saying that 1 of the first 4 Queen albums in the 80s is weak, but it's still stronger than another of their earlier 80s albums, I don't think it gives much value to the fact they did good stuff in the 80s. I don't think any Queen fans from the 70s would find much fault until Jazz, which is still IMHO 100 times better tahn AKOM or the Works or the Miracle. |
| not that bad 18.01.2006 13:18 |
i only compare it to flash, akom is in my opinion only a soundtrack, a work for what they had been paid to make highlander a hit, u can t rate akom... i mean u can t compare it to the works or the miracle.. just to flash |
| it was electric7 18.01.2006 16:14 |
They were extremly diverse,and I think its wonderful! |
| it was electric7 18.01.2006 16:18 |
but I will add,their 70s music was better...they really couldnt have been successful in the 80s with the same music as the 70s,ya know |
| KillerQueen1429 18.01.2006 18:17 |
Personally i like their stuff from 80 on better then they earlier stuff , altho dont get me wrong i like all their stuff but i prefer their later stuff,eventho Queen II and NOTW r 2 of my fave albums of theirs. |
| s.m. 18.01.2006 19:22 |
i got intersted in queen listening albums like greatest hits 2 or the works those were my first albums then i got into older stuff like queen & queen II and it took me a while to like them, but now my favourite songs are the propeth song or something like that not kind of magic ( not to say that song is bad ) so it´s not all that bad now i like all the stuff, depends on the mood i think only clueless people can label queen like the band who just sang radio ga ga, or itbf they just evolved, got influenced, prehaps became more mature not to say that they evolved to better thing, but just different queen´s diversity is one of the thing that makes them so big you have the range from liar, proppets song, bo rap, to you take my breath away, love of my life, white queen, and than another one bites the dust, radio ga ga and i could go on and on in my mind there is no band like them and they were bloody good |
| NOTWMEDDLE 18.01.2006 19:37 |
Rush is a great band. Geddy Lee started singing in a lower octave as of 1980's Permanent Waves. Also, the stopped the 10 minute epics after Moving Pictures. |
| stateside fan 18.01.2006 22:16 |
i think there is a strong argument that Freddies music changed as his sexuality became aware to himself.so we got alot of euro-disco in our queen.that being said,they sold a ton of records,just less here in USA where middle america seems to think peoples sexuality is anyones fucking business |
| 7Innuendo7 18.01.2006 22:21 |
no, they didn't hurt the legacy imho...but yes after The Game the level of work was inconsistent. One truly great single, Under Pressure, then some really good singles like Radio GaGa, Hammer to Fall, One Vision, and I Want it All, but the only truly great, earth-shaking whole album after 1980 imho was Innuendo. (Flash Gordon was a really bold experiment, and I do like the album more than HS, but FG is in another category I think.) MIH has a few bright spots-- A Winter's Tale, Mother Love, You Don't Fool Me, It's a Beautiful Day reprise, and the infamous track 13. Some of the b-sides and alternate versions (I Go Crazy, A Dozen Red Roses for My Darling, and credits outro version of A Kind of Magic) seem stronger than 'official' versions...but for the fan who looks for this stuff, it's a reward, not something that 'hurts' the legacy. GHIII didn't hurt it either imho-- what we really need is a decent box set. |
| Mr. Barcelona 19.01.2006 00:02 |
I personally think it adds to the queen legacy, If queen were like ac/dc with the same sounds album after album I wouldn't be the queen fan i am, but the general rock public can't stand 80's queen. This is a queen website, and these albums even get bashed here. |
| teleman 19.01.2006 00:48 |
Did queen hurt their legacy? In my opinion NO! |
| Zak Royen 19.01.2006 01:34 |
i'd actually say that THE EIGHTIES hurt most artists' legacy! ;) i'd say TW, AKOM and TM are Queen's worst albums. i frankly love HS, it is fresh, original, fun, and contains amazing vocals. i'm glad the band finished its career with 2 sensational albums, Innuendo and MIH. |
| Mr. Barcelona 19.01.2006 01:41 |
some like to blame freddie and john for queens weaker era, i disagree, brians songwriting took a nose dive in the eighties. dancer, tear it up and machines (with talyor) is an example of this. 70's queen is brilliant, though 80's queen is not nearly so brilliant, I still find it an enjoyable listen. |
| Fenderek 19.01.2006 04:14 |
BHM 0271 wrote: Excellent topic, and good posts here. Did they hurt their legacy with the 80s albums? Don't think so. None of the 70s groups had particularly strong stuff in the 80s, save Pink Floyd with The Wall, and they didn't fare well after that.It was 1979... I really liked your posts BTW :) Someone pointed out that already on SHA they had "Leroy Brown" and "Brighton Rock". Sure- completely different styles, aren't they? Yet IT FITS! Take ANATO - I can't imagine any other song following Death On Two Legs than Lazing... Two worlds apart- and it just simply FITS, it's so well CRAFTED! It wasn't just "let's put as many styles as we can think of"- it was all pretty god damn well CRAFTED. In the 80s though... The albums aren't ALBUMS- just bunches of songs put together on one LP. There's nothing crafted on AKOM- if you put a "shuffle" on your CD- well, it won't matter (save the end to WORKS album). Seriously- what about MIRACLE- what a crappy songs order!!! IMO in 70s those different styles sparkled- that was the sign of them being absolutely brilliant and imaginative. They had millions of ideas- and what was most important- each style was being adopted to a QUEEN sound. Lazing On A Sunday Afternoon- you got that brilliant guitar solo, you can't take it for anything else- it's Queen. Millionaire Waltz- isn't it typically Queenish waltz? Leroy Brown- doesn't guitar straight away tell you it's Queen? And so on and so on- yes, in 70s they tried almost every style possible- yet it was coherent, it was within their own unique style or sound or whatever you want to call it. In 80s... Well- take Hot Space. Songs aren't bad. If they recorded them keeping the Queen sound- it would have been BRILLIANT. Listen to STAYING POWER live- powerful, awesome. In the studio... In 80s they also tried many different styles- but they did lose the sound, it wasn't coherent any more, it wasn't stylish- it was just one big mish mash, a mess... In 70s they were reinventing those different styles- Queen take on waltz, Queen take on heavy metal, Queen take on punk, Queen take on gospel etc. In 80s they were only copying what was already there. And what was already there wasn't good at all. PS In the days of all those "Queen RIP 1991" threads- this one is BRILLIANT :) More of the stuff like that!!!! :) |
| sparverius 19.01.2006 04:58 |
The only thing that one could blame Queen with regards to their legacy is that they became somewhat trapped in their 80s mega-glory, thus resorting to the release of LPs like Works and AKOM which in my opinion were really weak and too hit-oriented. Such albums didn't really add to their legacy. One could say that it gave some people solid ground to base their criticisms on. Things became somewhat (but not a lot) better with Miracle and returned to their old glory with Innuendo, but it's doubtful whether this would have happened if it weren't for Freddie's illness. In a sense, Freddie's imminent end brought them back to surface. |
| zaiga 19.01.2006 05:27 |
While I'm not a huge fan of most of their 80s stuff either, I don't think they really hurt their legacy. Is Bohemian Rhapsody a lesser song because the same band made a song called "One Year Of Love" a few years later? In my opinion, no. I think it's a shame that on The Works and A Kind Of Magic Queen didn't really try to come up with innovative music. A lot of it is just standard 80s pop. Some of it is even good, well produced and smartly written 80s pop (IWTBF, RGG, AKOM), but it's not the awe inspiring, sparkling, innovative music of the mid-70s. At least on Hot Space they *tried* to take their music into a new direction, although it wasn't really succesful. I do think you can say that 80s pop in general hasn't aged very well, not just for Queen, but for most bands. Digital synths and drumbeats were all the rage, but nowadays they just sound cheap. Some songs were great, but the production just sucked. Just compare TFF's Mad World with Gary Jules' version, or Bonnie Taylor's Holding Out For A Hero, with Jennifer Saunders' remake. I do like The Miracle, though. I think by that time Queen knew better how to integrate the synths into their music, without them sounding cheesy, and there are quite a few quality tunes on that album. On Innuendo they are right back on track, with a unique sound I haven't heard since. |
| sparverius 19.01.2006 06:41 |
I agree with you on most issues. Even Hot Space was groundbreaking for Queen: just look where they were in 1973 and what they produced only 9 years later. And certainly the legacy of e.g. Bohemian Rhapsody was not lessened by songs from Works or AKOM, however the overall picture of Queen was marred. It only took approximately 15 years since Freddie's death for contemporary critically acclaimed artists to finally find the strength to quote Queen as a major influence. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 19.01.2006 10:32 |
Thanks Fenderek, for the kind words and correction. I'm not an enormous Floyd fan and just remember the singles from 1980. And your point about the styles in the 80s in spot on. Queen had a sound and style in the 70s, and that was lost in the 80s. I think that the bit in the Magic Years when John and Mack talk about how they don't work as a group showed in those albums. You had 4 guys with 4 different agendas and musical interests trying to pull it together under a name. A song like Pain is so close to pleasure is very Motown-esque, but it seems totally out of place, like the band said "let's try a Motown style of song." It wasn't like that early on because their vast influences worked and the sounds were original Queen. |
| Togg 19.01.2006 10:40 |
But that's just how a band works, it has to evolve and at some point you do say 'lets try a motown song' because you need to experiment or die. The whole world moves on all the time and music has to as well, the 80's tracks are just a reflection of that fact. If Freddie was alive today you can bet he would be working on 'current' styled influened music, he would certainly not be writing in the same style as in 1975. |
| Fenderek 19.01.2006 11:14 |
Togg wrote: But that's just how a band works, it has to evolve and at some point you do say 'lets try a motown song' because you need to experiment or die.I just have a feeling that when they were doing it in 70s there was an aim to it- when they did it with Pain/ Pleasure- it just seems for the sake of it... Nothing more... IMo, of course :) |
| Boy Thomas Raker 19.01.2006 11:22 |
I agree with you Togg, as earlier in the thread I posted "...however, they had to do it (change musically) to keep the band going, and while it paled in comparison to the quality of the 70s catalogue, I don't think I'd want to hear the same song with a different variation all the time, a la AC/DC. Theire variety is what made them great, and what hurt their stature as a rock band." So I understand their need to do a Motown song, but it wasn't great, and it didn't work, and there's no shame in that. As American's say, you can't hit a home run every time, and Queen's catalogue is amazing. Some of it, particularly in the 80s wasn't. As for Freddie wanting to do new stuff if he were alive, I agree. This is where I think queen are hurting their legacy, looking for every opportunity to flog old glories in new situations (every compilation, crappy new artist, cheesy movie, the musical, etc.) diminishes the power and value of the original recordings. A song like WWRY once meant something. When it's been licensed out for the Mighty ducks movie, five other movies, cheap guitar compilations, been done with a boy band, an Aussie singer and a bunch of Broadway people, it's importance diminishes and while it brings a new audience to Queen, it lessens the value of the song(s). IMHO :) |
| Mr. Barcelona 22.01.2006 02:35 |
The funny thing is I actually love the song "one year of love" and pain and pleasure is a enjoyable listen for me, but i could understand rock fans being turned off by these songs. i feel people are being to critical of queen. People say they were repeating themselves with the works album, but how many rock bands have so many different styles of music! look at the first 4 tracks: radio ga ga (pop/disco) tear it up (hard rock) hard life (operatic). Lets see AC/DC or most rock bands play so many different styles! |
| maxpower 22.01.2006 19:48 |
ACDC are a good reference point. Queen to a degree paralled ACDC in as much their 80's output was inferior to their 70's lets face after Back In Black ACDC's studio albums were shit. Yet both acts for me were still live powerhouses |
| Mr. Barcelona 24.01.2006 23:56 |
yea, but in my opinio ACDC always played the same old boring style of music, while queen despite their creative regressing always put out quality music and huge worldwide hits. |
| Fenderek 25.01.2006 03:45 |
god, I really don't understand this stupid obsession of "worldwide hits". So? Westlife also had shit loads of worldwide hits. And that proves what? It's not aimed at anybody!!!, just I saw it on this board so many times... |
| Mr. Barcelona 25.01.2006 04:48 |
ok, worldwide hits and good but not brilliant albums. Lets face it, lots of bands put out great albums but can't create a hit to save their lives. then their those who have tons of hits but their albums suck. I think queen have both, their brilliant albums were their first 6 to 8, then they became a great singles band, releasing great singles, but inconsistent but still pretty good albums. In my opinion queen never put out crappy albums, only if you compare it to their 70's stuff is it crap. That's my only point. |
| zaiga 25.01.2006 06:29 |
Fenderek wrote: god, I really don't understand this stupid obsession of "worldwide hits". So? Westlife also had shit loads of worldwide hits. And that proves what?Hmm.... Well, commercial success is one of the few objective measurements of success. If you sell one million singles, that's more than ten thousands singles. It's just easy to compare things that way. It's much harder to compare artistic value of music. Queen were always a band that was interested in commercial success, even in the 70s. Especially Freddie always seemed to want to write "for the masses". So, when he wrote, for example, BoRhap, undoubtly he also cared about the song's artistic value, but he also cared a lot about whether a large number of people would like the song, which is a slightly different thing than commercial success, although they do often go hand in hand. Let me put it another way. It's easy to write a complex song, with a complex arrangement, intricate harmonies, wicked chords, off beat melodies, strange rhythms, etc. A song like this will be admired by a few for its artistic value, but many will simply not like it. It's much harder to write such a complex song and at the same time make it catchy enough for the average listener. I think Queen wrote many such songs in the 70s, with BoRhap and Bicycle Race being the crowning achievements in this regard. Queen's attitude seemed to change with "The Game" album. Freddie wrote Crazy Little Thing in 5 minutes, and it was his biggest selling record to date. Why spend days and days labouring over the complex arrangements of a song, when you can have the same success, even bigger perhaps, with only 50% of the work? In a sense, they started to care less about the artistic value of things, and more about reaching as many people as they could with their music, with less work. I don't want this to come out as too negative. I do think Queen still cared a lot about their music in the 80s, and they certainly still spend a lot of time composing and producing their music, but to me, it seems that simply their focus had shifted. The music itself became less of a goal, and more of a tool to reach the masses. The result of this is that some of their 80s material sounds somewhat dated, this in contrast to their 70s material (except perhaps Queen I, which I think suffers of poor production), because "commercial" music always has to follow the trends, the fads, and the whims of the audience at that particular time. I think their attitude shifted again with the release of "The Miracle". While it's an album full with catchy songs, I think it has aged much better than their other 80s material. Perhaps the fact that they didn't tour anymore and could focus all their time and energy on the songs may have something to do with it. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 25.01.2006 09:39 |
Good post Zaiga. I remember reading an article during the AKOM album in Musician magazine. Brian was bemoaning the fact that they owned the world at that time, but had lost America and how the wanted to regain it. Obviously they didn't tour here due to poor album sales, but their live show was dynamite. But they were never going to make it big in America with stuff like Hot Space, The Works and AKOM. Whereas the albums up to Jazz, maybe even the Game, were about new songs in the context of Queen, it seemed like after this they were fishing for new things that didn't work stylistically for Queen (Body Language, most of Hot Space and AKOM) and if that didn't work, go to stuff that was for the most part a rehash of the catalogue (virtually the whole Works album). No shame in that, they always tried new things which was great, and again, I'd rather have heard Body Language on Hot Space than the 20th derivative of Keeep Yourself Alive. |
| DreaminQueen 25.01.2006 22:36 |
First off I would like to say this is one of the best threads ive read on QZ in a while. A very great and mature thread with many a great posts. Ok now for my response. No I dont think that Queen hurt their legacy. To compare their 70's work with their 80's work is like trying to compare peanut butter and jelly. They are two different eras in Queens career. Each era has a different texture and taste if you will to their music. And Queen is seen as a rock band by the people who look at their harder rocking stuff. But they had such a variety of music on the same albums that you almost cannot place them into a catergory. I mean take a look at NOTW. You have WWRY to SHA to My Melancholy Blues. A Rock track to a Punkesque (in Queens way) track to a bluesy/jazzy piano number. And someone already mentioned Leroy and Brighton Rock. Another PERFECT example! I did agree that SOME of their 80's material isnt as good as the 70's material. Like when i bought QII in the late summer and NOTW, i could NOT stop listening to them ad naseum, i couldnt get enough. And for Christmas i received AKOM and THE GAME. Now I didnt like AKOM and THE GAME right away as much because i had been listening to their earlier 70's material. But the more I listen to them the more I enjoy them. Because you need to look at several factors. One, the use of more synths, which are not as bad IMO as others make them. Two, the new era in which Queen was entering. Three, Queen has ALWAYS been an experimental band. And Finally, you must take these albums at face value. Once you stop waiting for something to come along such as MOTBQ or TYMD, then you can really begin to enjoy these albums. They still have great lyrics and the usual May guitars/Rogers Rythms and Deaky's basslines. You simply have too look past the synths. And Freddies vocals are still phenominal. I mean look at such songs as Prime Jive (rock It) and Who Wants to Live Forever. They are great songs. I also enjoy Dragon Attack and Dont Lose your Head. I also LOVE IWTBF and Ga-Ga as well, which are on my Greatest hits albums. (I am still building on my actual LP collection). As long as you can look at Queen in the diverse light that they saw themselves in, then you can begin to appreciate more these different albums. And in the 80's they were touring so much they werent really able to give their albums the full treatment they could before. And Brian himself even said Queen never like synths before because they were emotionless and mechanical, but he said "The Year Synths changed, Queen Changed". But as much as some people dont like the studio versions of these albums, these songs live I.E Back Chat etc are absolutely PHENOMINAL!!! I mean just look at the energy put into them on stage. These 80's albums reflected more of Queens fun side because they were at that point in their career. They had finally paved a path for themselves, were making money, had a fan base, were on top of the charts and were touring like crazy! They were able to have more fun on their albums. And to say that they didnt take their 80's music as seriously is somewhat objective. Its simply different from earlier times.Its been said that Roger locked himself in a studio until he completed Ga-Ga. If thats not a sign of dedication, then i dont know what is. And the fact that Queen could do such things as SHA and TYMD and then move in a direction like MW and LOML and SMTL?? I mean rock to Gospel??? Name one other band that can do such a thing and still be as popular with their fans?? I do understand how some people will disagree and say they've lost their rockin side, but i disagree with that. One of the reasons i love queen is because they are so diverse and change, i mean if i had to listen to similar sounding albums, i dont think id love them as much. You cannot ever put on two different Queen albums back to back and say eh, i dont wanna hear anymore, i just listened to that on the last record, each is indic |
| Mr. Barcelona 26.01.2006 00:28 |
I actually agree with everything "dreamin" said. I personally get sick of all these critics calling 80's queen crap. I'v been reading reviews on amazon for "akom" and "the works" and it seems these albums arn't as hated as I thought, 4.5 stars out of 5 are not so bad. Obviously their are people who love those albums. |
| Fenderek 26.01.2006 07:44 |
I previously wrote in the same thread: In 70s they were reinventing those different styles- Queen take on waltz, Queen take on heavy metal, Queen take on punk, Queen take on gospel etc. In 80s they were only copying what was already there.I wrote that before and I want to quote myself again. That's actually something I think defines my personal view on 80s and explains pretty much exactly why I don't like this era. I'm not only into rock and metal- one of the albums of the year 2005 was Paul Anka for me! I love Queen because they were trying all styles possible. But it was done in different way in 70s (reinventing those styles, adapting them to their UNIQUE sound and therefore making them still sound right in the context of an album) and completely different way in 80s (copying and losing their own sound- mixing styles for the sake of it). That's really the bottom line of what I think. There are good songs in 80s, as many mentioned especially shining live (IWTBF, Hammer To Fall, Back Chat, Staying Power), but the albums are... bad. And I personally am an album man, not into singles that much... It made band huge (apart from America) and there's nothing to discuss here. But musically I see it as less interesting. There are too many other good albums around (of different artists) for me to enjoy to listen to 80s Queen and trying to find the good things about them. I have never seen myself as one band man, not seeing the whole thing in larger picture. I can give a list of 100 albums better than THE WORKS. But on the other hand I don't think could I mention more than 2-3 albums that reach the heights of SHA or ANATO... That's it, that's exactly where I stand. Howgh! ;) |
| bohemianrhap84 26.01.2006 21:30 |
Queen albums in the 80's were crap? Hell No!!! Yes they were different from their 70's no-synth rock/opera albums. But the music for the majority is awesome. Yes they had their bad songs a la Body Language, Don't Lose Your Head, Dancer, among others. But look at the bright spots and there are many. I Want It All One Vision Is This The World We Created Crazy Little Thing Called Love Save Me Las Palabras De Amor Under Pressure Princes Of The Universe The Miracle Breakthru I could go on but I think you get the point. Queen was more popular in the 80's than they were in the 70's. Personally I'd rather listen to The Miracle or The Works over Jazz or News Of The World any day although those albums have their bright spots too. |
| DreaminQueen 26.01.2006 22:24 |
Mr. Barcelona wrote: I actually agree with everything "dreamin" said. I personally get sick of all these critics calling 80's queen crap. I'v been reading reviews on amazon for "akom" and "the works" and it seems these albums arn't as hated as I thought, 4.5 stars out of 5 are not so bad. Obviously their are people who love those albums.hehe. Like me! Thanks Mr. Barcelona! |
| sparverius 27.01.2006 03:22 |
Fenderek wrote:I absolutely agree with you!I previously wrote in the same thread: In 70s they were reinventing those different styles- Queen take on waltz, Queen take on heavy metal, Queen take on punk, Queen take on gospel etc. In 80s they were only copying what was already there.I wrote that before and I want to quote myself again. That's actually something I think defines my personal view on 80s and explains pretty much exactly why I don't like this era. I'm not only into rock and metal- one of the albums of the year 2005 was Paul Anka for me! I love Queen because they were trying all styles possible. But it was done in different way in 70s (reinventing those styles, adapting them to their UNIQUE sound and therefore making them still sound right in the context of an album) and completely different way in 80s (copying and losing their own sound- mixing styles for the sake of it). That's really the bottom line of what I think. There are good songs in 80s, as many mentioned especially shining live (IWTBF, Hammer To Fall, Back Chat, Staying Power), but the albums are... bad. And I personally am an album man, not into singles that much... It made band huge (apart from America) and there's nothing to discuss here. But musically I see it as less interesting. There are too many other good albums around (of different artists) for me to enjoy to listen to 80s Queen and trying to find the good things about them. I have never seen myself as one band man, not seeing the whole thing in larger picture. I can give a list of 100 albums better than THE WORKS. But on the other hand I don't think could I mention more than 2-3 albums that reach the heights of SHA or ANATO... That's it, that's exactly where I stand. Howgh! ;) |
| Mr. Barcelona 29.01.2006 03:20 |
so what!...you could name 100, even 200 better albums than the works and the miracle. Know one is arguing that queens prime was 1973 to 1980, but that doesn't mean 80's queen is crap. I personly don't like only one or two songs off each album from the 80's. even hot space only has two songs I don't like. |
| forever 29.01.2006 08:06 |
Speaking as someone who was born in 1983, I didn't hear Queen until the end of the 80's. And the songs I heard first were songs from the 80's and I thought they were great and still do. Through the 90's I listened to my big brother's Greatest hits 1 and 2 as I didn't buy or won CD's myself. Then in 2001 I decided to buy my own copies of the Greatest hits, but when I got to HMV to my amazement they had lots of other Queen albums that I had never heard of and didn't know you could buy,(I was so naive). So right there and then I decided to buy all of Queen's albums, not knowing what the songs would be like but just because I loved the songs on Greatest hits 1 and on Greatest hits 2. The point I am making is that lots of people are saying Queen in the 80's were crap and ruined the legacy, for me the legacy began in the 80's and introduced me to the 70's which I now love more than the 80's. Also I'm glad that the songs form the 80's are different to the 70's style because every Queen song is different, I don't think any 2 sound the same, which is great as some bands have lots of songs that sound similar and you can't chose which one to listen to. I mean, can you imagine another song that sounds like; bohemian rhapsody, my fairy king, somebody to love etc. No, each song is unique and the vairiation is great and that's one of the reasons why Queen are so huge and succesful and have so many fans the fact that there is a song for everybody!!! |
| deleted user 29.01.2006 16:24 |
I adore Queen obviously, 70s, 80s and what they did in the 90s. I really have no preferences when it comes to decades (although I have to say Hot Space was disappointing), there was some great music on every album. |
| DreaminQueen 29.01.2006 22:21 |
forever wrote: Speaking as someone who was born in 1983, I didn't hear Queen until the end of the 80's. And the songs I heard first were songs from the 80's and I thought they were great and still do. Through the 90's I listened to my big brother's Greatest hits 1 and 2 as I didn't buy or won CD's myself. Then in 2001 I decided to buy my own copies of the Greatest hits, but when I got to HMV to my amazement they had lots of other Queen albums that I had never heard of and didn't know you could buy,(I was so naive). So right there and then I decided to buy all of Queen's albums, not knowing what the songs would be like but just because I loved the songs on Greatest hits 1 and on Greatest hits 2. The point I am making is that lots of people are saying Queen in the 80's were crap and ruined the legacy, for me the legacy began in the 80's and introduced me to the 70's which I now love more than the 80's. Also I'm glad that the songs form the 80's are different to the 70's style because every Queen song is different, I don't think any 2 sound the same, which is great as some bands have lots of songs that sound similar and you can't chose which one to listen to. I mean, can you imagine another song that sounds like; bohemian rhapsody, my fairy king, somebody to love etc. No, each song is unique and the vairiation is great and that's one of the reasons why Queen are so huge and succesful and have so many fans the fact that there is a song for everybody!!!I totally agree (see my previous post on pg 3 for my elaboration). I began with ANATO and Greatest Hits and i couldnt stop listening to them!!! And so i vowed from then on to develop my Queen collection to the FULLEST! And ive never looked back. *sighs* I dont think Queen could ever hurt their legacy. I know there are people who disagree. And thats totally fine. But IMO, never! And DEFINATLY, there is a SONG FOR EVERYONE, IN EVERY SITUATION, IN LOVE OUT OF LOVE, the FANTASY LOVERS etc!!! |
| Fenderek 30.01.2006 03:39 |
Mr. Barcelona wrote: so what!...you could name 100, even 200 better albums than the works and the miracle. Know one is arguing that queens prime was 1973 to 1980, but that doesn't mean 80's queen is crap. I personly don't like only one or two songs off each album from the 80's. even hot space only has two songs I don't like.So what? So the fact that it's a matter of opinion. Yours is- there are only two "bad" tracks on 80s albums, mine is- there are only 2-3 "good" tracks on each of them... And actually I rate Hot Space a bit higher than WORKS and AKOM put together... |
| Boy Thomas Raker 30.01.2006 09:12 |
Anyone who thinks that Queen's music in the 80s matched up to their 70s stuff is wrong. Wronger than wrong. However, that decade didn't hurt their legacy, but only the most dyed in the wool Queen fan would argue that anything from the 80s helped their legacy. No knowledgeable music people would say that AKOM, The Works or The Miracle were important works filled with important music, and if it wasn't important it didn't contribute to their legacy. |
| The Real Wizard 01.02.2006 13:26 |
Mr. Barcelona wrote: I actually agree with everything "dreamin" said. I personally get sick of all these critics calling 80's queen crap. I'v been reading reviews on amazon for "akom" and "the works" and it seems these albums arn't as hated as I thought, 4.5 stars out of 5 are not so bad. Obviously their are people who love those albums.We're not debating whether or not the albums were commercially successful. We're debating the musical quality of the albums, and comparing their musical innovation to Queen's 70s albums. Commercial success does not have to equate with musical quality. In fact, these days, most of the time it doesn't. |
| Lester Burnham 01.02.2006 14:49 |
BHM 0271 wrote: Anyone who thinks that Queen's music in the 80s matched up to their 70s stuff is wrong. Wronger than wrong. However, that decade didn't hurt their legacy, but only the most dyed in the wool Queen fan would argue that anything from the 80s helped their legacy. No knowledgeable music people would say that AKOM, The Works or The Miracle were important works filled with important music, and if it wasn't important it didn't contribute to their legacy.Exactly. I always view The Works, AKOM, and The Miracle as marking-time albums. They had just experimented with Hot Space, and the reception it received caused them to hide their heads in the sand and focus on making songs more commercial and lightweight. Each album from 1973 through 1982 had a very different kind of approach and sound to it, and no one album sounds like the other. They were all logical extensions of each other, but all sounded so different from its predecessor. Not so with The Works through The Miracle; apart from some brilliant flashes of inspiration, you can really mix and match the songs on those three albums and get a half-decent album out of it. As I said, there are songs that escape the norm, but of the 28 total tracks on those three albums (not including the non-album B-sides), it just doesn't compare to the output the decade prior. The band were just coasting through their success, and who can blame them? They could afford to do what they wanted, and they were under no obligation to provide material at a steady rate. I blame the band for laziness, yes, but I also blame Mack, who steered them in the wrong direction. The band didn't give a hoot about chart successes in the early days, and hardly considered themselves a singles band. However, they compromised their experimentational side in favor of pandering to the singles market. Take, for instance, 'A Kind Of Magic'. Delightfully poppy, great bassline, very calculated, a good track, right? Now listen to the Highlander version: taken at a slower tempo, sounding darker, more atmospheric, more epic, more Queen-like. The material was good, but the techniques and production suffered. Of course, that all changed with Innuendo in 1991, but by then it was too late. It's really too bad that synths became the driving force; although it would have been foolish to not integrate them at all, it was detrimental to include them so prominently. |
| Mr. Barcelona 02.02.2006 00:41 |
What do you mean by "it was too late" when they released Innuendo?...too late for what?...They were already considered a legendary rock band. A band that tried more styles of music on one album than most rock bands tried throughout a whole career. even their eighties albums did. It's funny, but it seems that a lot of different people on queenzone are bashing 80's queen, in fact it's the same 3 or 4 people repeating themselves over and over. |
| Fenderek 02.02.2006 03:25 |
Mr. Barcelona wrote: What do you mean by "it was too late" when they released Innuendo?...too late for what?...Too late for a mojor turn in their career- Freddie was dying, remember? Too late to follow that with 2-3 another great albums... I also blame Mack for weaker sound and wekaer albums in 80s. The guy IMO was the worst thing that happend to Queen in the begining of 80s... |
| Boy Thomas Raker 02.02.2006 09:15 |
Just because Queen were "a band that tried more styles of music on one album than most rock bands tried throughout a whole career" does not make that music great. It makes it varied. People aren't bashing 80s Queen, they're just stating that their 80s catalogue is a shadow of their 70s catalogue. To believe otherwise shows a lack of knowledge about music history and how Queen secured their legacy as master writers, producers and players. |
| DreaminQueen 02.02.2006 21:23 |
BHM 0271 wrote: Just because Queen were "a band that tried more styles of music on one album than most rock bands tried throughout a whole career" does not make that music great. It makes it varied. People aren't bashing 80s Queen, they're just stating that their 80s catalogue is a shadow of their 70s catalogue. To believe otherwise shows a lack of knowledge about music history and how Queen secured their legacy as master writers, producers and players.This is somewhat true to me. Like thats why i like all of their albums, because no two sound alike. And for me, thats why i still Love their 80's stuff as well. Not everyone agrees, and thats totally fine. To each his own. And yes, their 80's stuff is somewhat shadowed to their 70's work, but i still love their 80's work as well. Its all basic opinion on tastes of their albums. But no, they had already established their legacy, and once its established, there are very few, yet extreme ways in which to taint it. Did Queen do any of that, in my opinion. No. |
| All_that_Jazz 03.02.2006 03:25 |
To some extend I agree with both points of standing in this discussion. Yes indeed, artistically, the 80's work is not as good as the 70's work (I think there is some form of general agreement about this point), but this does not turn their 80's work crap. I got into Queen around the time Freddie passed away. Before that time I knew some songs, but mostly the alltime hits (BhoRap, WATC etc.). After Freddie's death (I was 11 years old) I bought my two first Queen cd's, which were, obviously, GH1&2. At that point of time, I liked GH2 more. Therefore I started collecting the 80's albums first, first The Miracle. I found the album really stunning, especially I want it all & Was it all worth it. I must have played the album a thousand times and I adored it (still do, by the way). Then I bought Innuendo, A Kind of Magic and Live at Wembley, followed by MIH when it was released in 95. Still no 70's albums... Around 1997-1998 I got a bit out of Queen, I became a bit bored about playing the same albums over and over again. It wasn't until 2003 when I got into it again, mainly due to some documentaries on TV and some visits to the queen website. Then I decided I wanted to have all Queen albums, first ANATO, The Game, Jazz, NOTW, I&II etc... Now I am at a point were I now every single song they put on an album word by word and now I think I can draw conclusions about which period I think is best. And indeed, for me, the 70's are better. I can play Queen II over and over again and still discover some new musically interesting parts. When listening to their 80's work, the 'depth' of the songs is less. I can think of just a few songs from The Works, AKOM and Miracle that are musically very interesting: perhaps WWTLF and WIAWI, but these songs are not as brilliant as MOTBQ, to give and example. But on the other hand, when I compare Queen's 80's albums with other 80's albums I have, Queen stands out by far (compare it for example with bands like Duran Duran or the standard rock songs of U2), tracks like Hammer to Fall, I want i all, really rock and are just good songs. But no musical masterpieces. Perhaps this explains to some extend what I mean by saying that I agree with both sides of the discussion. Yes, the 80's are worse, in terms of comparisons with Queens 70's material, but the 80's work is good when compared to other bands in the 80's. Leaving me with one question: where did the quality go in the 80's? Queen members didn't lose there music writing skills (artistically the Barcelona album has some interesting parts). And I don't think production is to blame fully. I don't think Mack's influence on the band was so big that he could dictate the musical direction. Queen's involvement in the production process has always been big and they would never give decisions about the musical direction out of hand. But then what is the explanation? I don't know... Was the band tired? Or did they want to play save after Hot Space? Tensions within the band that urged them to 'do their thing' and nothing more? I don't know. If anybody knows, please say so... |
| sparverius 03.02.2006 04:34 |
Fenderek wrote: I also blame Mack for weaker sound and wekaer albums in 80s. The guy IMO was the worst thing that happend to Queen in the begining of 80s...I often wonder under which criteria did they decide to employ Mack... I understand their desire for a change in style but surely there were far better producers that could land them into the 80s than this guy. For example, Trevor Horn instantly comes to mind. |
| The Real Wizard 03.02.2006 11:10 |
TeaKettleResurrection wrote: Who cares? Their music is great no matter what, 70s, 80s and early 90s are all amazing. But all we know is Queen is gone. Without Freddie, there is no Queen.Um, we're having a discussion. If you don't want to take part, that's fine, but don't come in here with a holier-than-thou attitude of "why bother debating the undebatable"? Clearly it is debatable, hence why there is a debate. We weren't debating whether or not Queen is still a band without Freddie. You seem to be posting that wherever you'd like. You've made your point, however passé and bland the point may be. Come to think of it, I don't think I've seen you contribute something of value to this forum. A simple search for your name reveals how you've posted the same babble in the anti-Rodgers topics and little else. One may argue that you have been little more than a waste of webspace to this point. Back to the discussion at hand... Queen definitely were much more creative in the 70s. I have nothing to add to what's already been said on that front. But on a commercial level, by focusing on singles, Queen were much more successful worldwide. For example, Queen would never have been as popular as they were in the US and Argentina with the first few albums alone. The Game album is what made Queen a household name. As for Europe, it was songs like Break Free, Ga Ga, and Magic made them beyond huge. Sure, they may have alienated hardcore fans with their heavily pop-oriented stuff, but for every hardcore fan they lost, they gained ten more singles sales. So it's all a matter of what kind of music fan you are, and what appeals to you. Albums = serious fans Singles = fad fans |
| Boy Thomas Raker 03.02.2006 12:48 |
Bottom line is that the 80s albums didn't hurt their legacy. In North America, MIH was all but ignored, and was not exactly warmly received by critics who felt the album exploited Freddie's death. That didn't hurt their legacy either. What I'd say is that if anything hurt their legay, it'd be all the post-Freddie remakes and boy band things, and endless oversaturation of the catalogue on compilation discs. They've added absolutely nothing to the history of Queen from an artistic point of view, which is how we should look at their legacy. |
| Lester Burnham 03.02.2006 12:57 |
I agree with BHM. Queen's 80s albums, while not up to scratch with their earlier output, were still huge sellers, and helped bring more people to their live shows. No doubt if Queen had toured in 1989, it would've been on par with The Stones or Pink Floyd. From a musical standpoint, The Works through The Miracle are (in my opinion) inferior to the earlier albums up to Hot Space, but from a success standpoint, they were more popular than their earlier albums. It's a double-edged sword, and Queen needed to compromise something: they could stick to their guns and attempt to update their earlier style while pampering to a smaller audience, or they could sacrifice their experimental side and go for a more generic sound to bring in more people. Much to the chagrin of the diehards, they went with the second option. Their "legacy" started to go to shit with the release of Queen Rocks in 1997, a lost opportunity if there ever was one. Since then, any compilation has just been a waste of time; GH3 could've been so much better if they'd waited until 2001, and they should have stayed away from the likes of 5ive, Vanguard, etc. |
| Mr. Barcelona 05.02.2006 01:43 |
My only issue is using the word "crap" to describe 80's queen. I still think it's very good stuff, but we all agree 70's queen was much stronger. I also don't think this queen + paul tour is hurting or helping queen. I'm really not sure what queen productions is doing, they seem to screw up every release from the Anato 30th or greatest hits 3. What we need is a really good boxset...All would be forgiven. Just give us a boxset! |
| Fenderek 06.02.2006 05:59 |
Mr. Barcelona wrote: What we need is a really good boxset...All would be forgiven. Just give us a boxset!Ha, ha I'll second that with all my heart! :D |
| mike hunt 08.02.2006 02:43 |
no, queen didn't hurt their legacy in the eighties. I read fenderek wrote freddie love for 80's pop had something to do with it, it's funny but I never hear this guy mention brian and rogers love for brittiny spears and pink and robbie williams and emminem, Please give us a break. People like prince and duran duran/michael jackson had more talent than the crap brian likes. |
| Fenderek 08.02.2006 04:55 |
I guess that's the good, really good discussion turned into a joke by people who use only one brain cell... |
| zaiga 08.02.2006 06:10 |
Fenderek wrote: I guess that's the good, really good discussion turned into a joke by people who use only one brain cell...Oh well, a good discussion that lasted almost 4 pages. A rare thing indeed. |
| mike hunt 09.02.2006 03:13 |
Actaully paul rodgers is one of the better choices brian and roger have made in a long time, I don't think it's so bad. At least it's different. |
| spymyshadow 09.02.2006 08:08 |
The albums from the seventies are those I listen to the most, whereas I find it rather hard to approach some songs in the eighties and i skip them, but I'm happy they had the courage to change and experiment new things. The funny thing of 80's albums is that you can find either extremely good songs or what I wish I didn't call crap. |
| OneVision22159 09.02.2006 10:25 |
Being a new Guy to this forum I figured this topic a good place to poke my head in the door and put in my two cents worth. Spending my wonder years in the late 60s and 70s. I discovered Queen from a friend who turned me on to them while in a haze. I was hooked! a fan of progressive bands, the early Queen sound fit sorta. to me each album progressed musically, lyricaly, and IMO commercially. by the end of the decade most succesfull bands had started to change to a more pop sound. synthesizers became a staple. every band I was listening to was smoothing the edge of thier sound, the 80s left me no choice but to give up on some of my fave bands, I felt they sold out, songs were cranked out for the sake of prompt release dates, with a huge tour that saw ticket prices equal car payments, but I still went anyway, only seeing Queen once in Chicago, yes the show was great what I remember anyway, The point is this. Time brings about a change in everything and every one to some extent. as far as legacy goes, the 80s albums are broader to appeal to a wider audience, I agree that if Queen had continued in the vien of the earlier albums the 80s would have seen thier demise. fast forward to 2005, I had the chance to see 3 shows. Queen + Paul Rodgers, The Rolling Stones minus Bill Wyman, and The Moody Blues Minus Ray Thomas and Mike Pinder, so with credit card maxed for tickets, and no way of procuring a joint or 2 I had to settle for $8.00 a glass beer, and prescription painkillers to endure the shows, and then realize my own mortality. we should all be greatful for the music of our youth and savor those days of our lives. sorry for the lengthy post. |
| firefox-inqueen 07.03.2006 16:21 |
The change in music makes queen UNBEATABLE!!!!!!! |
| DreaminQueen 08.03.2006 18:40 |
I agree with previous poster, i just love all of it. The only song i ever skip is Dont Try Suicide. Outside of that i like them all. But i should mention i dont have Hot Space or The Works yet. And im still missing MIH and Innuendo. But did they hurt their legacy? no |
| Daniel Nester 08.03.2006 20:52 |
I love Hot Space. Calling All Girls alone is just as good if not better than anything on Jazz beside Bicycle Race and FMG. What's great about Queen is that they stretch out like they did. Sure they fell into line with some of the production of the 80s, but I think if you listen to something like Scandal or Headlong, these are songs that sound timeless to me. |
| mike hunt 08.03.2006 23:52 |
Jazz is way better than hot space. Mustapha rules, and dreamers ball is superb. Hot space isn't horrible as some people make it out to be, but it's still not as good as any album from the seventies. |
| Fenderek 09.03.2006 07:23 |
Daniel Nester wrote: Sure they fell into line with some of the production of the 80s, but I think if you listen to something like Scandal or Headlong, these are songs that sound timeless to me.Agree about those two- basically I think that MIRACLE is really awesome when it gets to PRODUCTION- Was It All Worth it sounds as good even today as it sounded back in 1989! But pretty much almost EVERYTHING from 1984-86 sounds dated now... And to be quite frank (Hi, my name is Frank)- Hot Space didn't take the test of time very well either... With few exceptions... |
| Oszmercury 09.03.2006 15:53 |
some queen fans should listen other music before get into the 80's Queen, know what is to grown up, Queen did that, and after all they gave us INNUENDO a top album. so i think that their music in the 80's wasn't crap at all. so, if you r not happy about 80' music, lets make a 70's forum |
| DreaminQueen 09.03.2006 23:25 |
Yea i love Scandal! I dont know its j/ something that really anyone whos been effected by bad gossip can relate to. And Calling all girls and Back Chat are very fun tracks i think. The thing with Queen is they are everywhere. And to try and compare albums is IMO impossible. I mean they do have similar things within each album as many bands do. Which one is their best album is open to opinion based on your own personal taste. And yes the musicianship varies greatly and is different on the 80's stuff, but is it bad? No, just different. |
| beautifulsoup 10.03.2006 15:04 |
Quick answer: No. |
| Roy Queen 11.03.2006 10:20 |
No, they didn't, they just got more fans. Some like the seventies, some like the eighties. Some like both periods. I like the seventies, but doesn't hate the eighties. I think it's good they made music in differnet styles. |
| mrbadguy86 02.12.2008 15:34 |
Artists \ groups thats not changing through the years, will surely die and only be remembered by their old stuff! Do I have to mention Status Quo, T-Rex, Sweet, Slade etc? When I listen to the radio-stations here in Norway, I hear more of the 80's Queen, than the 70's. And I think its like that only because its more new, more to-date and easier to like for peoples who's not that into music... this was my opinion from the cold vikingland of Norway;) PS: Just sad they only visit norway once, and it wasn't even in the capitol of norway;) |
| Marcos Napier 03.12.2008 09:59 |
Artists \ groups thats not changing through the years, will surely die and only be remembered by their old stuff! Remember when some bands tried to go disco back in the 70's? They didn't die, but it was hilarious to see them sounding "updated". Evolution might be one thing to do but sometimes it's better to stuck with what you do best. |
| Danne 03.12.2008 13:38 |
Marcos Napier wrote:Artists \ groups thats not changing through the years, will surely die and only be remembered by their old stuff!Remember when some bands tried to go disco back in the 70's? They didn't die, but it was hilarious to see them sounding "updated". Evolution might be one thing to do but sometimes it's better to stuck with what you do best. On the other hand, a band like The Bee Gees probably wouldn't be much remembered today if it wasn't for their change in direction to disco in the 70s. |
| April 04.12.2008 16:10 |
mike hunt wrote: Actaully paul rodgers is one of the better choices brian and roger have made in a long time, I don't think it's so bad. At least it's different. Agree. I can't even think of any other frontman for them. Definitely it should be someone from rock rather than pop, abd not very hard rock. Like Paul Rodgers. And why not Paul Rodgers? |
| Amazon 05.12.2008 06:59 |
Hi, this is my first post on this site! I adore Queen; they're my absolute favourite artist and when I listen to them, I am often shocked at just how good they were. In response to this question, I would have to say absolutely no! Although I do think that Queen's 2 best albums (II and A Night at the Opera) were from the 70's, many of my favourite songs were from the 80's and beyond. I'm delighted that Queen continued on, as even their worst albums (IMO Hot Space) were still enjoyable. Plus, my third favourite album is Made In Heaven. so if they hadn't continued on, that album wouldn't have been made. |
| 12yrslouetta 05.12.2008 15:33 |
It is a good discussion. Before we get completely off topic. I dont know if this has been mentioned but i think one of the reasons why the albums changed was because of Roger and John. I always thought the reason why Queen lasted so long was because in the end everybody had to write just to keep everyone happy. If Roger and John were "relegated" to just being the drummer and bassist and maybe one song an album i think they would have split up a long long time ago. I think there increased influence diluted the albums to a more hotch potch affair ( i dont mean that in a negative way at all), as apposed to when it was just brian and freddie and the albums were obviously much more focused. I dont think its any coincidence though that brian ditched most of the attempted stuff that roger and john had already done on made in heaven before he had arrived. |
| mike hunt 06.12.2008 22:43 |
a very old thread comes back to life. I agree with the last post. |
| k-m 07.12.2008 07:36 |
I don't think the 80s albums hurt Queen's legacy at all. In fact, songs like Radio Ga Ga, Break Free or A Kind Of Magic are a crucial part of this legacy. Queen's ability to produce diverse music in different genres and captivate new audience with each album was unique and something that can only be admired. Obviously we can say that A Kind Of Magic album is a far cry from the likes of Sheer Heart Attack or A Night At The Opera, but hey - you just don't release such great records every time. I think that if you say that the 80s period hurt their legacy you take the position of all those music critics who mocked Queen just because they couldn't appreciate their reinventions. It was only emphasised later, after Freddie's death, how original and brave artists they were. |
| Amazon 07.12.2008 07:39 |
k-m wrote: I don't think the 80s albums hurt Queen's legacy at all. In fact, songs like Radio Ga Ga, Break Free or A Kind Of Magic are a crucial part of this legacy. Queen's ability to produce diverse music in different genres and captivate new audience with each album was unique and something that can only be admired. Obviously we can say that A Kind Of Magic album is a far cry from the likes of Sheer Heart Attack or A Night At The Opera, but hey - you just don't release such great records every time. I think that if you say that the 80s period hurt their legacy you take the position of all those music critics who mocked Queen just because they couldn't appreciate their reinventions. It was only emphasised later, after Freddie's death, how original and brave artists they were. Absolutely. Plus, I think that every Queen album had at least one or two really good songs. I'm not a big fan of Hot Space or The Miracle, but Hot Space was still fun and The Miracle still had I Want It All! |
| boca 07.12.2008 17:48 |
Mr. Barcelona wrote: did queen hurt their legacy by releasing albums past 1980?...lets face it, albums like hot space and the works arn't exactly rock masterpieces. Look at "a kind of magic" it has good music on it, but rock fans hate songs like "one year of love" and Don't lose your head" I personally think freddie and john should have done their own thing, since they were closer musically at that stage of their career, and brian and roger were also drifting apart. I personally love all queen albums, but I'm talking about their musical legacy from the general rock public. People look at those albums and say 'queen are no zep' based on those eighties albums. well, i'm a rocker personally, but i like when the song is good, no matter if it's pop, rock, or some other style. and Queen songs were not good, they were AWESOME. so i don't have problems with albums from 80-s. in fact, i like them more then ones from 70-s. it's not so necessarily for song to be in rock, or hard rock genre for me. if the song is good, i don't have any problems with it...the melody is most important thing... |
| April 08.12.2008 13:47 |
For me the best albums are SHA and ANATO. I also like the 80s albums and think that Queen by no means hurt their legacy, they developed and transformed a bit, which is very good, cause when a band doesn't change it becomes either outdated or monotonously dull, all the same all the time...I am sure that if they stayed together now they would be somewhat different too. Maybe like Cosmos Rocks. |
| chris the unhappy sheep 24.02.2011 01:05 |
i don't think they hurt their legacy at all. all bands release crappy albums don't they? i've always considered a kind of magic and the works to be decent albums. passing the open windows has always impressed me, as has machines. don't quite understand why they're not queen classics. plus the track a kind of magic is fantastic, i love the guitar on the extended mix. i was living in england when it came out, when i heard it i thought wow, they've come 'good' again. btw i love don't lose your head. took me a while, but its like drowse, it grew on me. of course both those albums had some very shitty songs too. don't try so hard is one of their most embarrassing tunes imo. |
| The Real Wizard 24.02.2011 10:43 |
You like Don't Lose Your Head more than Don't Try So Hard? Are you sure you haven't confused the two songs? |