| Ian_snake 02.05.2006 16:05 |
The other day I was looking at some of the reviews on the internet of Queen albums and when comparing the 70's and 80's stuff,it seems the 70's albums are a hell of a lot better. Now that may seem usual for any fans of Queen but then I suddenly realised that in the rise of the 1980's,music artists where relying on synths to assist their music and Queen were no different. When that thought crossed my mind it seemed 70's Queen was always better than the 80's would be basically because Queen abused their synths. Think about it? if Radio Ga Ga was more of a rock track (like it did at live aid) than it already does wouldnt that have made it a better and more successful song? I definetly think so. 70'S Queen:Great Rock albums and some classic Rock tracks. 80's Queen:Not as great as they were in the 70's. Too much emphesis on pop music,not enough on rock. Q.Why Queens 80's songs wernt as good as the 70's Queen? A.They abused SYNTHS |
| deleted user 02.05.2006 16:13 |
They can't just keep doing the same music every decade. They said they wanted to to different kinds of songs. And what's all this demise rubbish. Good God. |
| RETROLOVE 02.05.2006 20:06 |
<font color=purple>Bijou in Queens Crown wrote: They can't just keep doing the same music every decade. They said they wanted to to different kinds of songs. And what's all this demise rubbish. Good God.True... Freddie said in an interview that I saw from 1982, that music HAD to move on...I remember him saying that for a reason....so sadly, we have to deal with all of the crappy music thats out nowadays :( |
| kdj2hot 02.05.2006 20:29 |
<font color=purple>Bijou in Queens Crown wrote: They can't just keep doing the same music every decade. They said they wanted to to different kinds of songs. And what's all this demise rubbish. Good God.And they were wrong for that. It hurt the music. Ruined some friggin' good songs I reckon. Take "You don't fool me". Think of the 90's treatment it got on Made in Heaven. Got it in your head? Good. Now think of how it would've sounded on Hot Space.... My point exactly. (Before anyone say it I know it's debatable about the song on Made in Heaven. Oh yeah and if you need help picturing the song, think "back chat" no, maybe it would've been a tad faster.) |
| That guy who digs energy domes 02.05.2006 22:09 |
Synths are the best. Thats how they got the reversed cymbal on Play The Game |
| Jan78 02.05.2006 22:24 |
Typical thread for Queenzone, I must say. It looks like this board is not for Queen fans, but for fans of Queen in the 70's and for fans of Queen in the 80's. Strange habit of this board. Like when you love Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon, it is impossible to enjoy Breakthru. I love almost everything Queen did. Except for a few of Roger's songs, and the Flash Gordon record. Ok, Queen did a few bad songs, not so many (Cool Cat, Party, Dragon Attack, All Gods People...), but I like Races as much as Works, and Magic as much as Queen II. It's the change from a kind of glam/camp/gay-ish image to the masculine rockers, I guess, that is difficult for some to accept. In the pop charts of the 80's I think Queen still sounded pretty heavy. Sometimes I don't understand a few people here. Would a Depeche Mode fan moan about the differences between A Broken Frame and Ultra? It sounds like what goes on on Metallica boards. The band was great until 1991, and for 15 years now they release sheer bullshit. But you know, if you can learn one thing from Freddie, it is to be open to different kinds of music. So I do love Bring Back That Leroy Brown and Keep Passing The Open Windows. And remember what John Deacon said in 1989: "Demise? There is no demise of Queen!" Jan |
| Sebastian 02.05.2006 23:44 |
I think the reversed cymbal on Play The Game is just a reversed cymbal. No synths. Pigeonholing is common for most people. If Queen had ended in 1979 there surely would be two fan groups: some fond of the multi-layered band (until Races) and some others preferring the versatile but more minimalistic News and Jazz. Had they ended in 1975 and there'd be two groups: some defending that Queen and Queen II were ace and Sheer Heart + Opera were a sell-out, and some saying that Queen and Queen II were monotone and Sheer + Opera were versatile. And so on... |
| mike hunt 03.05.2006 00:56 |
jan78 hit the nail on the head for me. I don't understand why people can't like Queen2 and also like a kind of magic. people are missing out on a lot of good music!....yes, I love march of the black queen and also love 'one year of love'. |
| Jan78 03.05.2006 02:46 |
Wouldn't the band itself be the first one to laugh about all this? Freddie said: "I don't regret any of the things I did. I mean what did YOU look like, ten years ago?" And that's the point. The point of Friends Will Be Friends b/w Seven Seas Of Rhye. Or The Show Must Go On b/w Keep Yourself Alive. The point of people hating the Wembley concert for being just a greatest hits concert, because they want to hear Nevermore or Flick Of The Wrist only. Because they yawn about Scandal but almost faint about The Fairy Feller's Master Stroke. How dare they play Radio GaGa and not My Fairy King! Oh well...didn't Brian even say something like his favourite game is not giving the public what it demands? Jan |
| Winter Land Man 03.05.2006 03:13 |
<B>Jellybean Queen <h6>sweet body kisses wrote:Since you just barely became a Queen fan, show me the interview.<font color=purple>Bijou in Queens Crown wrote: They can't just keep doing the same music every decade. They said they wanted to to different kinds of songs. And what's all this demise rubbish. Good God.True... Freddie said in an interview that I saw from 1982, that music HAD to move on...I remember him saying that for a reason....so sadly, we have to deal with all of the crappy music thats out nowadays :( |
| The prophet's song 03.05.2006 04:36 |
Be that as it may, there are still some bloody good Queen 80's songs: Innuendo, I Want It All and One Vision to name a few. |
| not that bad 03.05.2006 04:45 |
i love queen for all their music, bringing an album like queen 2 in 1982 would have been impossible or a night a the opera in 1989? lol |
| gem27 03.05.2006 05:32 |
yes it was a different era. Bohemian Rhapsody is an all time great song but i am not sure it would have had the same effect had it been brought out in 1985 not 1975. the 80s were pet shop boys, frankie goes to hollywood, duran duran, culture club. music had changed. if Queen had released killer queen at that time it would have bombed. not just Queen but also Bowie and Elton John, The Stones. they all lasted from the 70s through the 80s and their 80s work is often thought less of than their 70s stuff but in my opinion it was just a different time and music had changed. Queen's music had to change too. How many bands from the 70s saw their careers bomb in the 80s. there were many and thats because they didnt move with the times. |
| Mr Faron Hyte 03.05.2006 10:22 |
Actually I have it on very good authority that Adidas shoes were responsible for Queen's demise in 80s. That's what the toaster told me anyway. |
| AlleeCat 03.05.2006 10:25 |
John: DEMISE?? There is no DEMISE of Queen. Roger: Don't like that word, demise. |
| its_a_hard_life 26994 03.05.2006 10:32 |
I like both eras. Just style wise they did fabulous in the 70s. They did turn kind of popy down in to the 80s but that's because Queen like to change and not sound the same. They say themselfs, "We get bored before everyone else does, we like change." - Roger Taylor. I didn't mind there change. Hot Space isn't a bad album at all, it isn't one of my favourites though. It's A Kind Of Magic album was really popy but that was because it was all done for the movie Highlander and really they had to make music that fitted in well with the kind of movie they were making it for. Again It's A Kind Of Magic isn't really a favourite of mines but I don't hate it. I like all they're albums. I LOVE A Night At The Opera and Sheer Heart Attack though. |
| Adam Baboolal 03.05.2006 10:55 |
Well, I've always thought that Queen were one of those bands that used synths very appropriately in their songs. There are only a few songs that I can think of that sound corny or dated because of synths usage. But definitely no demise to speak of! Peace, Adam. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 03.05.2006 11:33 |
As someone who loves 70s Queen, and thinks it was their best period by a country mile, they had to change during the 80s, and that included adding synths to their sound. They'd already done multi-tracking and guitar harmonies to death, and they needed something fresh to excite them. I think that a bigger problem than synths is that they grew weary of each other as people for a while, and there wasn't the same 'all for one' as there was early on. As for the synths being their demise, they were a necessary evil, but Queen's most identifiable features were Brian's guitar, Freddie's voice and the vocal harmonies. When they went to synth heavy music, the synths sounded like any other bands as they were using the same instrument. Nobody's guitar playing sounded like Brian, and for me, they lost a bit of their uniqueness when synths entered the picture and guitar took a backseat. |
| Adam Baboolal 03.05.2006 11:56 |
What song with synths sounds like Radio Ga Ga? I disagree that they sounded like every other band because of their synth usage. Peace, Adam. |
| mystic_rhythms 03.05.2006 13:18 |
Okay, I've had enough. It's obvious that synthesizers have played a role in the evolution of Queen, but they did NOT cause the demise of Queen! Queen did not die; they just faded here in the United States. Everywhere else around the world still liked them. Their albums went Top 20, Top 10, and even hit the #1 spot a few times. AKOM, Innuendo, The Miracle, The Works, they all did fine in the UK and other parts of the world, but in the US, they failed miserably. Why, you ask. Why did this happen? I'll tell you why. Music changes way too fast in this country. One minute we're dancing to the Macarena, the next we're singing (horribly) to the latest song by Ashlee Simpson. We are way too picky with our music, and only like the music that makes the big bucks. Queen's so-called 'demise' was caused by change in musical taste. Take Michael Jackson for example (for lack of a better example). When he first hit it big in 1979 with Off The Wall, his music had the soft R&B/disco sound. By the time Bad came out in 1987, he had changed to an edgier sound with more attitude. That continued into the 90's, with pseudo-dance and rock tracks such as Black Or White and Dangerous. Obviously, he couldn't stick to R&B and disco tracks for the rest of his career. He had to change. Much like how Queen couldn't stick with tracks such as WWRY and Bohemian Rhapsody throughout their career. Changes needed to be made, unfortunately. But even if those changes were bad, Queen still thrived and survived in the music businees, all the way to (and even beyond) Freddie's untimely death. So, before you say "Queen died out in the 80's" or "synths caused the demise of Queen", think about it this way: - Queen's music is STILL popular after all these years. - We're STILL listening to and singing along with their best tracks from all decades (including the 80's). - Queen is STILL the greatest band in the land. |
| -luke_taylor- 28432 03.05.2006 13:18 |
What are synthesisers? |
| rogertaylor88 03.05.2006 13:24 |
I think that the sound of synths was not very good in the 80's and because of that they didn't sound so good as in the 70's but for example Innuendo has a lot synth's, with a much better sound, so that's why queen of the 70's fans like it a lot... |
| Canadian May Fan 03.05.2006 14:30 |
kdj2hot wrote:Actually, that kind of proves Freddie's old point... The version of "You Don't Fool Me" that we know was arranged in the style of a 90's dance song. In other words, the music still evolved -- and evidently you liked it.<font color=purple>Bijou in Queens Crown wrote: They can't just keep doing the same music every decade. They said they wanted to to different kinds of songs. And what's all this demise rubbish. Good God.And they were wrong for that. It hurt the music. Ruined some friggin' good songs I reckon. Take "You don't fool me". Think of the 90's treatment it got on Made in Heaven. Got it in your head? Good. Now think of how it would've sounded on Hot Space.... My point exactly. (Before anyone say it I know it's debatable about the song on Made in Heaven. Oh yeah and if you need help picturing the song, think "back chat" no, maybe it would've been a tad faster.) |
| deleted user 03.05.2006 14:56 |
Well I thought The Game was a brilliant album, synthesisers or not. And what about all the hits they had in the 80s? Classics. I love Queen 70s, 80s and 90s. |
| zone 03.05.2006 15:08 |
Synthesisers are just a tool ,you sill have to have the material and lets face it the stuff they did in the 80's wasn't all that great, I mean there were some good songs but as a whole their work wasn't what Queen fans had come to expect.They started back on the right track with The Miracle and they nailed it with Innuendo.If Freddie was still around I think they would be doing some amazing stuff having learned the lessons they did in the 80's. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 03.05.2006 15:22 |
Not surprisingly, as I think you do it intentionally, you miss my point Adam. IMHO, the synths on Play the Game, AOBTD, Sail away sweet sister, Hammer to fall, Dancer, Body Language, Action this day, et al, are very generic, don't add much and are there solely for the sake of using synths. People didn't hear those sounds and say "ahh, Queen!" I did state that Brian's guitar was one of Queen's biggest signature sounds, and when it went missing at the start of the 80s, Brian acknowledged that he often felt like he wasn't part of the band during this time. This is why I felt in North America at least, Queen met their alleged demise. I didn't say that Queen were bad or wrong to use synths. It just changed what their sounds were like. If you're telling me that every synth sound the band used from the Oberheim and Fairlight are exclusive sounds to Queen as Brian's guitar was and is, I will stand corrected. To my uneducated ears, with the exception of Radio Ga Ga or Machines, I've heard those sounds from plenty of other bands. |
| zone 03.05.2006 15:38 |
I remember Brian saying something along the line of he wished he was in a band like AC/DC because at least he would know where he stands with his guitar playing.Syntheseisers did over shadow his guitar playing. |
| Ian_snake 03.05.2006 16:04 |
I agree,The Game is a great album and the synths seem to be very rare on that album. Im taling about the works and a kind of magic which although seemed to be great albums when looked from a music standpoint but for the standards of Queen seemed below average and why?...Synthesisers. |
| zone 03.05.2006 17:08 |
Angelo it comes down to the songs ,you can through synths a kazoo and a Tennis racket in there if the songs aren't good it doesn't matter. I think it always comes down to material not instruments. |
| Adam Baboolal 03.05.2006 17:34 |
I was only responding to this BHM, "When they went to synth heavy music, the synths sounded like any other bands as they were using the same instrument". Just because you use the same synths doesn't instantly throw you into sounding like other. The whole point of using synths is for effect and sounding like something other than what you already can do, .e.g the synth strings in Sail Away Sweet Sister. Not because you want to fit in, like others in this thread have claimed. Btw, what do you mean about =doing it intentionally=? That above quote was what I homed in on. Didn't miss that point, then? Peace, Adam. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 03.05.2006 18:22 |
Sorry Adam, to further clarify my statement, I meant to say that instead of their synth sound sounding like any band, it could have been any band if you listened to the music without the vocals. So if we get back to the 'demise' (not my choice of words BTW), I think that synth use led to it because strictly in North American terms, nobody cared for Queen as a keyboard heavy pop band. CLTCL, AOBTD, Body Language, Radio Ga Ga and IWTBF were all released as singles in North America, and Brian May's guitar was barely in any of those songs. For better or worse, Queen was a rock band on this side of the pond. Their foray into keyboard/dance music was probably necessary from a creative POV, but it killed them as a band over here. |
| Mr.Jingles 03.05.2006 19:36 |
Are we still whinning about the synths? OK, the 80s albums weren't as good as the first ones. BIG FUCKIN' DEAL! I can still enjoy 'Hot Space', 'The Works' and 'A Kind Of Magic'. I wouldn't say they were masterpieces, but they were pretty damn good albums in their own style. You whinny brats who complain about the 80s remind me of those Metallica fans who nag like old ladies about everything they did after The Black Album. Personally there's not one single Queen album I don't enjoy. Even 'Hot Space' is quite decent when you think of it. |
| Adam Baboolal 03.05.2006 21:14 |
Here, here! Mr Jingles, I totally agree. I ain't gonna let it stop me from listening and enjoying what I get from those albums. I'm always glad to hear the band's work. Peace, Adam. |
| 7Innuendo7 03.05.2006 21:39 |
I don't think using synths resulted in 'demise,' but it certainly changed the songwriting methods. Bands who successfully used synthesizers in the early 80's came in many packages, from Duran Duran to later hair-metal acts like Bon Jovi. Van Halen & ZZ Top are good examples of bands that integrated keyboards successfully in that era. Also, the Linn drum machine played a big part of the sound of pop acts with chart success in the US in the 80s. When Queen used keyboards well-- Play the Game, Under Pressure, Hammer to Fall, I Want it All -- they only augmented really strong songwriting. Jan78 so many good points! The difference between the album version of A Kind of Magic and the Highlander credits version is a classic example. I suddenly have a craving for the Edgar Winters Group "Frankenstein" |
| luthorn 03.05.2006 21:54 |
Synthesizers or not, whatever Freddie sings I like. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 03.05.2006 22:16 |
Hey Mr. Jingles, with all due respect, the premise posted was "synthesizers responsible for Queen's demise in 80s?" So if "the 80s albums weren't as good as the first ones" maybe it's because of synthesizers changing the songwriting process or taking away from the trademark Queen sound of the 70s? So if you are agreeing that Queen's mid-career output weren't as good, isn't the thread starter's question at least relevant? You say 'Hot Space', 'The Works' and 'A Kind Of Magic' aren't masterpieces, I'd say II, SHA, ANATO & ADATR were. Because of synths being absent? No, but as a piano/guitar/bass band, they hadn't fully incorporated synths until 7 years after, and they never had a trademark sound like early Genesis or Yes when you could tell it was Tony Banks or Rick Wakeman. Also disliking synths doesn't make people whiners. I personally believe that they made great use of synths sometimes, and others it was a waste of time. Other than MIH, there's not one single Queen album I don't enjoy. That's neither here nor there though. A great song is a great song, regardless of instrumentation. My belief is that Queen's relative demise, a more US thing than anything else, occurred when keys became more prominent than the guitar and piano, so theoretically our poster is onto something, but for another reason. |
| Mr.Jingles 03.05.2006 23:54 |
I don't think synths damaged Queen career by any mean. Yes, there were some improper use of synths on songs like "Play The Game", but I think they learned from that. Without a doubt I can say that most Queen songs that have used synths sound good, or decent to the least. The use of synths was an unexplored territory for Queen in the early 80's, and while they weren't particularly savvy on it as new wave bands like Depeche Mode, they quickly learned how to use synths and not losing their appeal. When you think of it, ask yourself if Queen's career particularly damaged in the 80s anywhere else other than the States? They still had a bunch of hits, their albums sold well, and their concerts became increasingly popular. How does that show that a career has been damaged? The truth of the matter is that the U.S. public is not very keen on changes from rock to pop. Queen built an American following based on their rock sound, but once they started to experiment with synths and pop oriented sound, the general public didn't take it so well. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 04.05.2006 11:46 |
"The truth of the matter is that the U.S. public is not very keen on changes from rock to pop. Queen built an American following based on their rock sound, but once they started to experiment with synths and pop oriented sound, the general public didn't take it so well." And that, Mr. Jingles, more than Freddie's gayness, moustache, or IWTBF video is an absolutely correct analysis, and wins you my post of the day waward! |
| Mr.Jingles 04.05.2006 13:40 |
BHM 0271 wrote: "The truth of the matter is that the U.S. public is not very keen on changes from rock to pop. Queen built an American following based on their rock sound, but once they started to experiment with synths and pop oriented sound, the general public didn't take it so well." And that, Mr. Jingles, more than Freddie's gayness, moustache, or IWTBF video is an absolutely correct analysis, and wins you my post of the day waward!I think those you mentioned were the nails on the coffin for Queen in the U.S. I believe what hurt Queen the most was 'Hot Space'. It was a huge mistake to try to revive a genre like Disco that by 1982 was not only buried and despised, but even worse to see a rock band like Queen trying to experiment on bringing it back. |
| zone 04.05.2006 14:15 |
Death to HOT SPACE! |