Sebastian 11.03.2007 18:17 |
The vast majority prefer 'II' and consider it a more complex album. Now my question is, is it really that way? I mean, tastes aside, just because the songs in 'Sheer' aren't as "portentous" as 'II' it doesn't mean they're musically inferior. But otoh there are more mistakes on 'Sheer' than 'II'. What do you all think? |
brENsKi 11.03.2007 18:36 |
i don;t like SHA as much as it has a more unblanced feel in it...Brian was ill...so the tour stopped, and this album is a little overblown with Brian=type arrangements...as he had loads of tme on his hands while convalescing... queen II on the other hand, has a really creative feel and blend to it... |
Nathan 11.03.2007 18:57 |
I find Sheer Heart Attack to be a bit more light-hearted than Queen II. Nevertheless, Queen II is my preferred album. |
Jazz 78 11.03.2007 20:40 |
I agree! Queen II is my personal favorite as well. A VERY ambitious album for such a new and young band at the time. All the trademarks were in place and the creativity was really over the top. SHA on the other hand is still a very good album but a lot more "raw" sounding to my ears. Again, the tradmarks of a Queen performance are there but it sounds much grittier than Queen II and what was to come in the next several studio albums. |
ITSM 11.03.2007 22:30 |
I think the album-feeling is much better on Queen II. But there are of course many great songs on the Sheer Heart Attack album. Like In the Lap of the Gods, Killer Queen and Flick of the Wrist... But I think Queen II and A Day at the Races are the best albums.. |
7Innuendo7 11.03.2007 22:45 |
QII seems to be the more whole or organic piece, the cover art alone projects order and power, while the cover of SHA brims with chaos and explosive force. "March of the Black Queen" vs "Stone Cold Crazy" make some of the early setlists interesting, the surging wall of sound that only retreats after the final strains of "God Save the Queen." So I picked out my cd of Hammy Odeon '75 -- the December -- looks like now I want the November set at the same venue... |
OgreBattleField1980 11.03.2007 23:44 |
I too prefer Queen 2 over Sheer Heart Attack , it has more of a balance and was pure genious. A sign of good things to come. |
Winter Land Man 12.03.2007 00:02 |
I find a good album doesn't have to be complex and sophisticated. I like catchy things. I don't find much on Queen II catchy. I've got the album and have listened to it many times and I don't find it catchy. I like the self titled album better. I think, Queen is an over-rated album amongst Queen fans. I think they like it because it's strange and different. But I don't find it catchy. I find Hot Space to be more catchy than anything on Queen II. Stuff on Queen II is forgettable. It may be complex and sophisticated, but it is also forgettable. The lyrics on Queen II are VERY more genious than anything Queen has done, yet some can be naive and immature. If Father To Son didn't mention the words 'Father to son... to son' I'd actually like it more. The smallest of things can ruin a song for me. Ogre Battle is one of my favorite songs on Queen II... but it's lyrics are very weird. I like weird things, but it goes down to hilarious. The Fairy Feller's Master Stroke reminds me of masterbation. I just don't like fairy tale themes. My Queen II personal highlights are Funny How Love Is, Seven Seas Of Rhye, Nevermore, Ogre Battle, and March Of The Black Queen. I like this album, but some of it can be too long and un-catchy. |
mike hunt 12.03.2007 01:39 |
Queen2 is my personal favorite, but SHA is really the beginning of the queen era as we know it. I disagree with some of the above comments, I think SHA has a better balance of music than queen2 has. A variety of styles that made queen famous like the combination of hard rock/metal like "stoned cold crazy" and "brighton rock/now I'm here" and other styles like the broadway rock "bring back that leroy brown" and "killer queen." Mixing of styles was a huge part of queens career and that was lacking on the queen2 album. If I had to pick one of these albums for myself I would say Queen2, It's my favorite album of all time, but if I was trying to get a friend into queens music I would start with SHA, ANATO and ADATR. |
Jan78 12.03.2007 05:03 |
.*.Messenger: Jake Pyndle.*. wrote: I like this album, but some of it can be too long and un-catchy.LOL...sounds like you're actually talking about Metallica's "...and justice for all" |
Daveboy35 12.03.2007 05:12 |
Hi i agree with mike hunt view and also having gone down the road twice with "queen" and "queen 2" i think they were looking for a new direction, you know new sounding material hard rock, jazz pop even and trying out new ideas. You most probably know this but by mid 74 brian was basically out of action and his input wasn't put in at the time, it was done a lot later when he was well enough and the way it was recorded not having brian around for great periods of time would paint a different picture and lastly you have roger and now john deacon penning tunes so the mixture of sounds on the album would be evident. I love queen 2 it's my fave album along with SHA queen 2 has a cohesive feel to it where as SHA has the same (Tenement funsiter thru to lily of the valley) so the fading into songs which was evident on queen 2 was still done on SHA. |
Rotwang 12.03.2007 11:48 |
It's like the Star Trek movies; the even ones are better: Queen II, ANATO, NOTW, The Game, The Works....okay it ends there because Innuendo is better than The Miracle and I don't count Flash or GH. Although there are some great songs and musical ideas, SHA seems more of a "left overs" album. Still terrific, though. I prefer Queen II. |
deleted user 12.03.2007 12:36 |
They are different albums really, yes I know SHA is another album which, like Queen II, plays heavily on harmonies and guitar...um...stuff but SHA sounds like the album that solidified Queen's sound in the Seventies whilst during Queen II they were still finding their feet. Plus there's the portentous feel to Queen II the continous aspect that SHA doesn't have to such an extent. But that works as well. I definitely don't think SHA is a 'left-overs' album on the contrary it's got newer sounding material, playing down on the screams from Roger and up from the guitar from Brian. Though although they are different they are similar in that the arrangements are so complex etc. Queen II was just the less polished album as it was earlier, by SHA the result was cleaner and after that they had the ultimately more polished ANATO and ADATR. So SHA and Queen II are both fabulous albums in their own right. They both bore outrageous stuff and they both had the individual Queen stamp on everything. I can't decide which one I prefer because however polished one or t'other is they both work so well in their differences. Mind, if the two albums were released today I think SHA would do better. It's just a broader base of songs. Queen II's clever but the fairytale theme just wouldn't appeal to the mass. Not that it matters of course. |
Daniel Nester 12.03.2007 13:12 |
It's apples and oranges, but I would say the production on SHA is far more clear and less muddy than Q and QII. The drum sounds in particular. There is that same mixed-bag eclecticism you don't see in the later albums, so I can see people making the comparison. In a lot of ways, thought, it's the perfect bridge album between QII and ANATO. So I'd vote for "rise." |
.DeaconJohn. 12.03.2007 14:34 |
I much prefer SHA...I don't see what all the fuss is about with Queen II. |
Wiley 12.03.2007 15:14 |
Queen II is a very difficult album to get to like in the first place. I think it is very dark, with thick layered arrangements and sometimes there are too many things happening at a time. Yes, it is complex and pure genius but I miss the rocking riffs and hard edged guitar sounds. I had to listen to live versions of Ogre Battle and Father to Son to even pay attention to the guitar parts. On the other hand, Sheer Heart Attack has it all in the right doses. You have Queen's hardest riffs (SCC and NIH) and some of Brian's best guitar work (Brighton Rock), beautiful arrangements (LOTV and KQ), one of Freddie's best anthemic songs (ITLOTGr) and some very cool experiments (Leroy and ITLOTG). Riffs are riffs, melodies are melodies, you don't have 8 different guitar settings with 4 different effects playing over the same riff, bluring the edges and making it lose its effect. I regard Queen II as a masterpiece production and lyric wise and as a concept-ish album, but I think Sheer Heart Attack has better songs overall. JCW |
bitesthedust 12.03.2007 15:17 |
Wiley wrote: Queen II is a very difficult album to get to like in the first place. I think it is very dark, with thick layered arrangements and sometimes there are too many things happening at a time. Yes, it is complex and pure genius but I miss the rocking riffs and hard edged guitar sounds. I had to listen to live versions of Ogre Battle and Father to Son to even pay attention to the guitar parts. On the other hand, Sheer Heart Attack has it all in the right doses. You have Queen's hardest riffs (SCC and NIH) and some of Brian's best guitar work (Brighton Rock), beautiful arrangements (LOTV and KQ), one of Freddie's best anthemic songs (ITLOTGr) and some very cool experiments (Leroy and ITLOTG). Riffs are riffs, melodies are melodies, you don't have 8 different guitar settings with 4 different effects playing over the same riff, bluring the edges and making it lose its effect. I regard Queen II as a masterpiece production and lyric wise and as a concept-ish album, but I think Sheer Heart Attack has better songs overall. JCWI agree entirely. |
Josh Henson 12.03.2007 15:40 |
I like SHA better |
ermin 12.03.2007 16:17 |
I agree with Wiley. QII is an extremely innovative and interesting album, but it's not easy to listen to. Also, the sound is not as clear, so many details are kinda fuzzy. SHA, on the other hand, definitely has those catchy tunes and songs. The sound is much clearer. As much as QII was innovative and experimental, the band realized it was too complex for rock audience. SHA shows the lessons learned from Queen and Queen II. In many ways, SHA is my favorite album. |
ermin 12.03.2007 16:24 |
I forgot to mention that, apart from She Makes Me, I absolutely love all songs on SHA and they are among my favorite Queen songs. I remember having a SHA record (vynil) and playing it over and over again. It's such a strong album. In some ways, it's even better than ANATO, though ANATO has superior arrangements and--as Freddie liked to say--'those clever bits', though SHA is not far behind. SHA has more songs that I like to listen on a regular basis than ANATO, though Death on Two Legs is probably my favorite song from these two albums. |
claudiox 12.03.2007 16:57 |
My opinion is QII is a very personal album, probably the most characteristic, even over ANATO! The funny thing is that there's not a whistable song from QII cos it's a hard and sophisticated set of songs. I love QII, indeed there's a lot of wonderful sounds, expecially for a band came at the second act. On the other hand sheer heart attack gave Queen their first top ten with KillerQueen and the sound of the album has a more commercial style. QII amd SHA are the two side of Queen trademark. bye Claudio |
Sebastian 12.03.2007 18:17 |
Time to share my opinion: What I see is that 'II' is tad overrated as "complex", when it's actually (from a musical perspective) not as layered as others. No song on 'II' has got as many guitars as 'Millionaire Walz' or as many voices as 'Prophet's Song'. 'Black Queen' may be complex and layered but its functional harmony is less advanced than some songs in Sheer, Opera or Races. Another point is that Sheer Heart Attack is more technically demanging: 'Brighton Rock' drumming is more difficult than anything in 'II' (except perhaps 'Loser') and so is the piano in 'Lap' or 'Leroy'. John and Roger evolved notably as songwriters and the songs are indeed quite broad in instrumentation and arrangements: 'Killer Queen' has (besides bass, drums and jangle piano) loads of voices (on slightly more creative arrangements), triangle, chimes, several guitar layers (better to hear on DTS) ... so the album does include many different things at the same time as well as 'II', and sometimes doing more difficult parts. So the actual achievement was that the band could become more complex and at the same time more accessible. |
ermin 12.03.2007 19:28 |
I agree with you, Sebastian. You just said what I had in mind, but you know about music much more than I do so you could express it better. I think Queen II was an experimental record. They grew tremendously as compared with the debut album, but the songs were not as accessible as the next 3 or 4 albums. On SHA they learned how to make accessible songs with nice, catchy melodies, while retaining the complexity and uniqueness of the Queen sound. Again, in spite of the problems they had prior and during recording the album (Brian was ill, they didn't have enough time to practice as a band), SHA is a tremendous album. In my opinion, it had more good songs that ANATO, though ANATO is more polished and has several gems that SHA can't reach. |
RETROLOVE 12.03.2007 21:54 |
I like em both...Queen II seems to be a more serious album, VS. Sheer Heart Attack, which seemed a little more laid back, all about having fun!! |
RETROLOVE 12.03.2007 21:57 |
RETROLOVE<h6>The Black Queen wrote: I like em both...Queen II seems to be a more serious album, VS. Sheer Heart Attack, which seemed a little more laid back, all about having fun!! I loooooved how Tenement Funster goes into Flick of the Wrist on S.H.A. I like Father to Son on Queen II |
The Real Wizard 13.03.2007 02:39 |
Sebastian wrote: so the album does include many different things at the same time as well as 'II', and sometimes doing more difficult parts. So the actual achievement was that the band could become more complex and at the same time more accessible.Bingo. |
Daniel Nester 15.03.2007 16:07 |
"She Makes Me" is a real fave of mine. I suppose everyone has the long shot requests of songs for Brian to sing live, and this is mine. |
Neppset 17.03.2007 19:29 |
She Makes Me is an abmysal bore-fest. Queen II is the best album ever, and Sheer Heart Attack is the fifth among Queen-albums. Queen II, Opera, Races and News of the World are superior. But damn, to have five masterpiece albums in a row... Queen II got some of Queen's heaviest music ever. Well, it got the middle section of Father to Son and Ogre Battle. Then it got a ton of ballads (White Queen and Nevermore are masterpieces), some progressive mumbo-jumbo and that great hard rock. The only thing that I don't like is Funny How Love Is. Hell, is that even a Queen-song? This silly little pop song seems so out of place on this dark fantasy album that it's crazy. And, it sounds horrible. And the "lyrics" are horrible. Hell, even Freddie's voice is annoying on this song. It makes me want to kill small animals everytime I hear it. SHA feels unfocused somehow, but who cares: It sounds great. Except of She Makes Me. |
Bobby_brown 17.03.2007 22:03 |
I love SHA, and to this day it´s my favorite right next to Innuendo. I think it´s more appealing to youth than QueenII. The songs are catchy, yet complex like Killer Queen. It´s the perfect hard-rock album! Def Leppard guitar player say it´s his Queen favourite. Metallica´s cover of "Stone Cold Crazy" has guive a new audience for it- heavy metal fans. This song as since become an heavy-metal classic, and acording to a guitar mag (i´m talking from memory-right now i can´t tell each one) this song has one of the first heavy riffs ever, competing to an Aerosmith(?) song. It´s a well balanced album and it has great songwriting from all the members. Excellent! QueenII is excelent too, but not so melodic as SHA. Take care |
Neppset 18.03.2007 08:10 |
Yeah, Sheer Heart Attack is an easier album, I admit that I liked Sheer Heart Attack much more than Queen II (back in the days when A Kind of Magic was my favorite... I admit it), because Queen II was just some strange, fucked up noises in my ears back then. Now I "understand" Queen II (not that you can understand nonsense, but anyway..) and I love it above everything else. Procession/Father to Son, White Queen, Ogre Battle, Nevermore, March of the Black Queen and Seven Seas of Rhye... Masterpieces. |
1973 20.03.2007 15:21 |
I personally feel that Queen II is a much more acclomplished piece of music. Don't get me wrong, SHA is a killer album, with some cracking songs, but the entire concept behind QueenII: the contrast in black side and white side, the contrast to the iconic cover photo, the contrast of ethereal (white queen, nevermore) to sheer bombast rock (father to soon, black queen etc..). Its a purely fantastic piece of art. It flows so amazingly and is so freaking bonkers and flamboyant. It's so theatrical and camp and artistic and heavy that I think it's Queens defining sound. SHA is great, i mean, Brighton Rock for gods sake! But as a piece of art, it has to be Queen II. Their best album? I think so. |
Major Tom 26.03.2007 13:56 |
Yup. I´ll cast my wote on Queen II because it´s as many call it balanced. But I do LOVE Brighton Rock and Killer... |
dont try suicide 28.03.2007 05:38 |
i like them both but i find it amazing that queen 2 and SHA both came out in 1974. the two albums sound years and years apart. i think they made a huge jump from queen 2. the production is a hell of alot better compared to the somewhat confused approach on queen 2 i.e(whats with all the bass?). on SHA they were focusing more on writing shorter pop songs and it was more of a band effort i think. |
Daveboy35 28.03.2007 13:29 |
dont try suicide wrote: i like them both but i find it amazing that queen 2 and SHA both came out in 1974. the two albums sound years and years apart. i think they made a huge jump from queen 2. the production is a hell of alot better compared to the somewhat confused approach on queen 2 i.e(whats with all the bass?). on SHA they were focusing more on writing shorter pop songs and it was more of a band effort i think. Both albums came out in 1974 but queen 2 was actually recorded in july/august 1973 and completed within a month where as SHA was recorded june1974 onwards, so there's almost a year difference perhaps that's why it SOUNDS different. Still my two fave albums love them to bits. |
Neppset 29.03.2007 11:14 |
dont try suicide wrote: i like them both but i find it amazing that queen 2 and SHA both came out in 1974. the two albums sound years and years apart. i think they made a huge jump from queen 2. the production is a hell of alot better compared to the somewhat confused approach on queen 2 i.e(whats with all the bass?). on SHA they were focusing more on writing shorter pop songs and it was more of a band effort i think.If you call SHA a pop album, stop listening to music. It's not the crazy progressive metal fest called Queen II, it ain't the raw metal of Queen I, but it's still damn rocking. Brighton Rock, Tenement Funster, Flick of the Wrist, Now I'm Here, Stone Cold Crazy... But oh, it got Killer Queen. Damn, that makes it a pop album... |
Sebastian 30.03.2007 08:51 |
> If you call SHA a pop album, stop listening to music. It's not the crazy progressive metal fest called Queen II, it ain't the raw metal of Queen I, but it's still damn rocking. Brighton Rock, Tenement Funster, Flick of the Wrist, Now I'm Here, Stone Cold Crazy... But oh, it got Killer Queen. Damn, that makes it a pop album... Standing ovation! |
dont try suicide 30.03.2007 13:48 |
in the lap of the gods, dear friends, killer queen, lilly of the valley, misfire, she makes me, leroy brown. yeah your right dude. SHA really is a metal ablum. my bad. you win. |
Neppset 30.03.2007 17:17 |
dont try suicide wrote: in the lap of the gods, dear friends, killer queen, lilly of the valley, misfire, she makes me, leroy brown. yeah your right dude. SHA really is a metal ablum. my bad. you win.In the Lap of the Gods = Super-progressive wierdfeast. Pop? Get educated in music, mister. Dear Friends = Ballad. Ballads doesn't count on the overall genre-stuff. Hell, is Queen II a softy because of White Queen and Nevermore? Killer Queen = Yeah, this is pop rock/glam rock. Lily of the Valley = Ballad. See above. Misfire = Carribian pop/rock. A damn experiment, this. She Makes Me = A (really fucking boring) ballad. See above. Bring Back That Leroy Brown = Dude, this is ragtime. Hilarious ragtime. Queen loved vaudeville and the '20/30s. Not pop. But still, it got some badly heavy riffs (Stone Cold Crazy, Now I'm Here) thundering guitarsolos (Brighton fuckin' Rock), evil music (Flick of the Wrist), and just normal hard rock (Tenement Funster). Would like to call Sheer Heart Attack Hard rock/glam rock/progressive rock/heavy metal. |
Boy Thomas Raker 30.03.2007 17:50 |
I'd simply call it a Queen album. As for She Makes Me, I'll agree it's not their greatest effort, but I recently started listening to it again, and it's got more creative flourishes than most bands good songs. I also think that Brian was going for atmospheric results on this, as despite it's major chord progression it's one of his moodier pieces. |
Sebastian 30.03.2007 19:59 |
Dear Friends is a sort of lullaby imo. |
dont try suicide 31.03.2007 09:53 |
well, out of the 13 songs on the album only five are really rockin. i would say that flick of the wrist, brighton rock, and stone cold crazy would fall in the metal category and now im here is just a good olde fashion rock n roll song ala chuck berry and in the lap of the gods revisited is just plain rock. but all in all i would call sheer heart attack a good rock record with a lot of pop elements. for what it's worth i don't think i was ever claiming that SHA was a pop album. i simply said that during this period the queen guys were concentrating more on writing good songs rather than trying to prove to everyone how heavy they could play. im not going to argue anymore becuase it's pointless. everyone on here has there own views. nobody's right and nobody's wrong. |
Sebastian 01.04.2007 12:08 |
Yes and no. Between these two perspectives... a. 'Bo Rhap' has mock-opera b. 'Bo Rhap' has mock-operetta ... there are no absolute "right" or "wrong" solutions. But between these two... a. 'Sheer Heart Attack' has some pop b. 'Sheer Heart Attack' is a pop album ... "b" is wrong. |
Neppset 02.04.2007 09:33 |
But when we're at it, Queen II has Funny How Love Is (the most ridcilous pop song ever) and Queen I got Mad the Swine (the re-release, at least). Does this make them pop albums? Hell no. And it was just the way of Queen baby: Experiment with the music 'til you drop. Just take a look at Jazz. 1. Arabian comedy rock 2. Sexual, country-flavored hard rock 3. Sweet piano ballad 4. Crazy childish neo-prog 5. Power pop 6. Arena rock parody 7. Speed rock 8. Pop 9. Vaudeville 10. Funk 11. Soft rock 12. Pop rock 13. Hard rock Now I want you to put one genre on that album, mister. |
Sebastian 02.04.2007 12:56 |
And that's an important side of Jazz: it's so eclectic. I love the album. |
Neppset 03.04.2007 05:27 |
Yeah, and Sheer Heart Attack is almost as electic. I mean, come on. Its track list: 1. Guitar Virtuso 2. Pop rock 3. Hard rock 4. Pop metal 5. Evil metal 6. Fantasy ballad 7. Progressive mumbo-jumbo 8. Speed metal 9. Carribian pop 10. Lullaby 11. Ragtime 12. Boring ballad 13. Arena rock You see? Let's see how many time pop music is mentioned... Three times. And one of them is pop metal (Now I'm Here), so that doesn't count. Gosh, Queen sure was electic... In the '70s at least. In the '80s, they ranged from synth-pop to synth-rock. |
Asterik 05.04.2007 18:43 |
Gosh, Queen sure was electic... In the '70s at least. In the '80s, they ranged from synth-pop to synth-rock.
Well I'll agree they lost some variety but I wouldn't put it quite like that. The Works has synth-arena rock (Radio Ga Ga), pop-rock (Keep Passing The Open Windows), an acoustic ballad (ITTWWC), rockabilly (MOTP) hard rock (HTF and TIU), synth pop (IWTBF), synth-metal (Machines) and a Reneissance power ballad (IAHL). AKOM had some soul too, The Miracle had carnival (albeit synth carnival). Talking of which, does anybody wish that they did Rain Must Fall with genuine Latin American percussion instead of drum machines? The sound could have been so much more exciting. |
Asterik 05.04.2007 18:50 |
Getting back to topic, Queen II was admirable but I'm sure by 86 Freddie would have sounded ridiculous singing lines such as "the arch magician presides he is the leader oberon and titania watched by a harridan mab is the queen and there's a good apothecary-man come to say hello". The central weakness of Queen II is its reliance on this dungeons and dragons story that sounds dated and lacks commercial appeal. It works well on some of the songs, Ogre battle and the very poetic White Queen but it's not tongue-in cheek enough for me. In fact my favourite moment of the album is the "Oh I do Like To Be Beside The Seaside". Why? Because it showed they were grounded in reality. Sheer Heart Attack is a much better album. It deals with the everyday bit in an opulent way which is far more skillful than opulent themes vying with opulent music. It's a diverse collection of great, hard rocking songs. In short, it's less pretentious than Queen II but less flippant than ANATO. It's probably their finest album, barring Innuendo. |