| on my way up 06.10.2006 14:27 |
link This is the link.I think it is interesting to read the opinions of people that aren't die-hard Queenfans. I hope you will discuss it here. It's the perfect way to be open-minded!! |
| Jan78 08.10.2006 00:51 |
That guy has a few good points. Not that I agree with them a lot. But even if he's right here and there, I just love Queen for just that. Nice reviews though, made me smile a few times. Jan |
| Cwazy little thing 08.10.2006 07:06 |
I got bored reading halfway down around NOTW, and shall read more as I go, but from what I can read he's being honest, but fails to be impartial in that he has obviously heard a large amount of the material before, and has gained a distaste for the hits, and therefore criticises stuff like WWRY without much just cause. He conveniently notices and gives a nod to the band being tongue in cheek when he wants to, whilst conveniently ignoring tongue in cheek moments (of which there were many) when he wants to bash something. His attack on lyrics is unfair also - compare Queens lyrics to a huge amount of other great bands, of whom Im sure he's a fan, and you'll find theres just as much utter nonesense elsewhere in the seventies particularly. It doesnt have to mean anything to be good lyrically - great lyrics are those which affect you in the way in which the writer intended (cos thats job done for the writer). Basically he's saying theres no genuine emotion there, and I think here that the fact that he's not a fan, and therefore less familiar with the less hitty stuff that the genuine emotion and feeling in songs by all the guys is overlooked. He cant seem to get past the early surreal lyrics - for me the lyricism carries more feeling later in the seventies and into the eighties as the band looked more to the real world for subject matter, but that doesnt make the more tongue in cheek fantasy stuff any less good lyrically - twas the style at the time anyway! He's fair sometimes, and unfair at others. Queen did not have a perfect career, and there are without doubt albums which are 5, 6 or 7 ratings, but at their best, there were few better IMO, and I think in the views of lots of people - hence the bands huge and enduring worldwide success. In my experience Queen fans are mostly an intelligent bunch, so he's either wrong, or theres a lot of exceptions to that rule in Russia. Theres also a big difference between the sort of fan he speaks of, who just owns the greatest hits, and the real fans of the sort on this message board, who love the band, but not all blindly, and have an enormous knowledge of other bands and music. Its an interesting read, but, I think, flawed in places. He also makes glaring errors here and there - for example thinking Freddie sings on someday one day. Ultimately the opinion of one man though- Im more inclined to trust ratings of albums done by a number of diverse people and then averaged out. Thats my word on it anyway, lol, and a fairly long word it was too. |
| thomasquinn 32989 08.10.2006 07:27 |
I know the site; the guy knows absolutely NOTHING about music in the sense of theory, construction and arrangements, i.e. the complete technical side. In addition, he is very highly subjective, using the same argument in favour of a band he likes and against a band he dislikes. He strives to coming across as intellectual and artistic, but fails miserably because after reading 10 or so of his reviews on the greats (such as Dylan, Reed, Lennon, Queen, Jethro Tull to name but a few) it becomes painfully obvious that he never rises above the cliché. And that is still disregarding gross factual inaccuracies (he even manages to mistake a 5-minute trumpet piece for a saxophone solo). |
| on my way up 08.10.2006 07:31 |
I think he is too harsh.Not only to Queen but also to other bands(Led Zeppelin for example). It is obvious he wants to shock fans from these bands. That said:he makes some very valid points in these reviews altough I think he should be a little bit more open-minded. He listens to a lot of music but I get the impression he doesn't open up for some of it.Some stuff needs more than 1 listen to get into it. He rates Queen as class C.That's too low. I would say to the guy:listen more with your heart and you'll enjoy more music. |
| Neppset 30.03.2007 17:49 |
Damn, I love those reviews. He sure knows how to review. But then, I totally disagree with him most of the time. And his bashing of lyrics are insane, doesn't he understand Queen's humour? And by the way, the "greatest rock band of all time" Led Zeppelin got mostly crap lyrics... I mean, face it: They wrote some great lyrics (Stairway to Heaven, Immigrant Song) but too many of them was "I really love you babe, I wanna love you / I'm gonna love you, I wanna hold you in my arms...") Terrible. No offence Zep, you make good music. |
| Saif 31.03.2007 06:16 |
No. The Who outclass Led Zeppelin. =P And yes, you're right, Led Zeppelin has crap lyrics outside Stairway to Heaven, Kashmir, The Battle of Evermore...but the music is awesome anyway, like in Black Dog, Immigrant Song, etc. I really like the "Hey hey mama said the way you move..." stuff...I find it awesome. "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" and "Since I've Been Loving You" are my Led Zeppelin favourites. You could say Queen were the same. A lot of Freddie's songs have "honey", "mama" and "darling" in place of Led Zeppelin's "babe" and "baby". Even though I like them, the lyrics to songs like "Las Palabras De Amor"(so Brian is a culprit too =P) and "Rain Must Fall" are so...predictable??? I mean like after you've heard hundreds of their song, you can easily guess what the next line is going to be...almost.
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: I know the site; the guy knows absolutely NOTHING about music in the sense of theory, construction and arrangements, i.e. the complete technical side. In addition, he is very highly subjective, using the same argument in favour of a band he likes and against a band he dislikes. He strives to coming across as intellectual and artistic, but fails miserably because after reading 10 or so of his reviews on the greats (such as Dylan, Reed, Lennon, Queen, Jethro Tull to name but a few) it becomes painfully obvious that he never rises above the cliché. And that is still disregarding gross factual inaccuracies (he even manages to mistake a 5-minute trumpet piece for a saxophone solo).You are absolutely right. |
| Micrówave 02.04.2007 12:58 |
Or you could just read any Rolling Stone review. They aren't music fans at all. |
| Asterik 04.04.2007 17:36 |
How interesting that the last album he included was Hot Space. Quelle surpise, the last album that did anything in America. Absolutely typical. |
| Asterik 04.04.2007 17:50 |
I was referring there to Rolling Stone and he seems the type to work for them. They are a lazy magazine. I wasn't attacking America as a whole, you'll understand. Just to clear that up, no offence intended. |
| Cwazy little thing 04.04.2007 21:19 |
Hehe - I saw this thread and thought - "im sure Ive seen that before".... Thought it was dead and buried; love it when people randomly dredge up old topics - were clearly bored talking about the new DVD already! Ah well! |
| Neppset 05.04.2007 08:05 |
Micrówave wrote: Or you could just read any Rolling Stone review. They aren't music fans at all.You're right, Rolling Stone hates Queen. Hard. I know that most critics are not big fans of Queen, but still: All of their albums have got 2/5 or 3/5 from Rolling Stone. That's okay for the '80s albums, but for the '70s, it's all 4/5s and 5/5s. And that's not an opinion, that's a fact. |
| isolar2 05.04.2007 13:52 |
A very interesting website... but this person rates the Beatles' Past Masters Volume 2 "Never To Be Topped" (a disgrace), the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds "Close To Perfection" (THE perfect album), the Byrds' Notorious Byrd Brothers as "Just Very Good" (their best album, one of the best 60s album), Bowie's Heathen (not that good) alongside Station To Station (Bowie's masterpiece) "Simply Excellent". No need to go on. |
| Asterik 05.04.2007 18:36 |
isolar2 wrote: A very interesting website... but this person rates the Beatles' Past Masters Volume 2 "Never To Be Topped" (a disgrace), the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds "Close To Perfection" (THE perfect album), the Byrds' Notorious Byrd Brothers as "Just Very Good" (their best album, one of the best 60s album), Bowie's Heathen (not that good) alongside Station To Station (Bowie's masterpiece) "Simply Excellent". No need to go on.Well Heathen was good, you can't deny "Slow Burn" and "Everyone Says Hi" are great tracks, but maybe it was abit much to compare it to Station To Station, especially when I think Reality is better than Heathen (and he rated it lower). He does seem to be very inconsistent, it's almost as if half way through writing his collection for each artist , he forgets the criteria, and ends up levelling out sub-standard records and great ones. |
| deleted user 10.04.2007 01:41 |
He had a lot of points. I don't agree with most of what he said, but he justified enough. Though I thought he went a bit far in describing the lyrics as "atrocious, horrendous, abysmal, some of the worst crap I've ever witnessed" |
| redspecial85 10.04.2007 18:09 |
Neppset wrote:Micrówave wrote: Or you could just read any Rolling Stone review. They aren't music fans at all.Amen and Amen...the reviewers at Rolling Stone would disagree over the collor of shit. This guy was more fair than Rolling Stone was, but he was not impartial enough. |