| k-m 31.03.2006 12:43 |
IMO Queen's 70's stuff still sounds fresh and inventive, maybe except a few unoriginal songs such as Doing All Right, Modern Times Rock 'N' Roll or The Loser In The End. The most dated to me is "HOT SPACE" album. I don't think it's their worst, but the songs sound old, really. Also a few songs from "The Works", "A Kind Of Magic" and "The Miracle" don't sound right today. |
| Winter Land Man 31.03.2006 14:03 |
Well, I can't really call 'em old cause Queen's songs were always original and never really had their own year. |
| rhyeking 31.03.2006 14:10 |
Explain what you mean by "unoriginal", referring to "Doing All Right", "Modern Times Rock And Roll" and "Loser In The End". "Doing All Right" was originally Smile's song, but the two don't sound so radically different, compared to Tim Staffell's new aMIGO version. It's a continuously changing perspective on music. I remember clearly in the early ninties when grunge and rap were all the rage, a person was considered lame listening to Led Zepplin, The Who or Queen. At the time, everything about them was considered dated. The suicide of Kurt Cobain helped pushed people away from the teen-angsty introspective tedium that was "alternative" mainstream music of the day and as I saw it, listeners more or less got over themselves. Oh, that was a depressing time for music, when teens were taught to disassociate themselves from life. I'm glad it's over. There I was, in high school, surrounded on all sides by laconic whoa-is-me kids, with Sheer Heart Attack in my walkman and Brighton Rock in my ears. It kept me sane and loving life. My point is, back then, more than ten years ago, Classic Rock was dated. Now, it's back to being "fresh". Our favourite child of Funk, Hot Space, sounds dated only because disco hasn't not had (and hopefully won't have) a revival. Many of the Freddie remixes from 1992 sound tacky, because the music they were trying to emulate in 1992 was tacky then and its tacky now. If there is universal justice, that musical direction will never sound "fresh". When "Crazy Little Thing..." came out, it was nostalgic and reminded people of a great time in music, when Rock 'n' Roll was king of the airwaves. Times were simpler and the music was almost always great. That's why "Crazy..." will never be accused of being dated, because it's a homage. Ten years from now, we may find ourselves in a synthesizer revolution and eighties music is hailed as pioneering, bold, expressive and "pushing the envelope" (God, I hate that expression). What I try to do is not ask myself, "does this song/music stand up today?" but rather, "does the song work on its own merits, by trying to be only what it is?" One thing I learned from Mike Oldfield was not to hear music in terms of genre or style, but to hear the music itself and forget classifications. I hope I'm a better listener for it. |
| Jay Mantis 31.03.2006 17:47 |
Doing All Right is an amazing song, probably one of my favorite early tracks, what's not original about it? The fact that's it's not really a real Queen song? I've always disagreed about this. Tim wrote this song with Brian, Brian is a member of Queen and therefor I think it should be considered a Queen song. |
| k-m 31.03.2006 17:52 |
I called "doing all right", "modern times rock n roll" and "the loser in the end" unoriginal, because there is nothing in these songs that would make them stand out somehow. These songs could be recorded by any other rock band. They didn't have any impact on the Queen phenomenon. Perhaps I shouldn't mention them, because a person might think that this topic is about genres or styles. I want to emphasise on production of Queen's music. Which songs or albums are produced in a way that makes them sound dated today? |
| rhyeking 01.04.2006 02:41 |
They didn't have any impact on the Queen phenomenon, you say. Okay, if I'm understanding you correctly, I think you completely and utterly miss the point. Queen was a band who took the most serious approach to the crafting of its music, that nothing they intended to put on the albums was meant to be tthrow-away. Roger speaks to this point on the recent "Making Of...Opera" DVD, where says they are a band who make *albums*. That a song would be issued as a single was an after thought. You're meant to approach the album asa whole piece, with songs ebbing and flowing, highs and lows in texture, layers and intensity. What a horrible effect the skip button on the CD player has, allowing you to jump a track that doesn't catch your fancy. When you listen, do you think, "Well, that song is over, what's next?" or do you think, "Interesting how they changed gears between these two pieces"? Let the albums take you through the musical journey Queen intended for you. How come no one ever looks at the Mona Lisa and says, "How come that landscape bit looks so dated now? It doesn't hold up. Its unoriginal and doesn't add to the Da Vinci phenomenom!"? |
| Jay Mantis 01.04.2006 03:33 |
Very well said, rhyeking. I totally agree. |
| Asterik 01.04.2006 08:51 |
Rock it sounds really dated with a synthessier that sounds like a microwave. Machines is an eighties mess of drum machines. |
| liam 01.04.2006 08:58 |
None of queen's 70's stuff sounds dated beacuase its the kind os music that if released today would still top the charts, but Queen 80's music particulary hot space is very of its time. |
| Haystacks Calhoun 01.04.2006 11:59 |
k-m wrote: IMO Queen's 70's stuff still sounds fresh and inventive, maybe except a few unoriginal songs such as Doing All Right, Modern Times Rock 'N' Roll or The Loser In The End. The most dated to me is "HOT SPACE" album. I don't think it's their worst, but the songs sound old, really. Also a few songs from "The Works", "A Kind Of Magic" and "The Miracle" don't sound right today.To me, the vast majority of 80's music sounds very, very DATED today. It simply lies in the production of the day, the "new" ways that music was done led to the poor aging, if you will, of the tunes. Take a band like Def Leppard. Their earlier recordings still sound great, but albums like Hysteria sound extremely tinny and cheap. Same holds true with Queen, Genesis, etc. |
| john bodega 01.04.2006 12:12 |
Hmmm. I dunno, production wise at least, they all show their age to different extents - but I don't think a song suddenly becomes less worthy just because you can guess which decade it is from... to me that's part of their APPEAL. :D |
| Monsieur Nobs 01.04.2006 12:58 |
I think "Man on the Prowl" is one of the songs which have aged the most. It's a mixture of 50's rock'n'roll and the typical 80's sound. For me it's a bad try to produce a successor to CLTCL. Bands who start to make compromises in style and sound often produce songs which cannot stand the test of time. It seems to be a phenomenon of the 80's. (e.g. AC/DC, Floyd's "A Momentary Lapse of Reason") |
| Sebastian 01.04.2006 13:03 |
I think the Works is sort of dated. Not in terms of songwriting, but in recording and such. IMO of course! |
| Going Back 01.04.2006 13:07 |
only first album and a bit Queen II too, but other ones for me are not. |
| brENsKi 01.04.2006 13:39 |
Going Back wrote: only first album and a bit Queen II too, but other ones for me are not.disagree with this...first two albums definitely do not show their age..they stand the test of time magnificently...queen I and queen II can be compared with Oasis' definitely maybe and what's the story for debut albums... the debut albums of both sounding fresh, inventive and raw with the added sparkle of "finally we're allowed to get these songs down onto vinyl" about it..wheras the follow-ups had everythign thrown at them ..they were better songs, with better production and more direction... both albums stand up well and certainly stand at the top end of the queen back-catalogue...whereas (imo) Hot Space, Works and Magic all sound very dated...the synths sound takes over the real queen sound...to an extent where much of what's going on get's lost in a cacophony of "knob-twinkling and pseudo-instrumentation"... most of the synth-sounds used on rock albums during the 80s can only truly be loved by the synth-manufacturer's own mothers |
| john bodega 01.04.2006 23:39 |
"queen I and queen II can be compared with Oasis' definitely maybe and what's the story for debut albums..." I had no idea Queen were as derivative as Oasis. |