Maybe this is a question that can never be answered, or maybe doesnt need to be answered, what the heckt ill ask it anyway.
I was just looking at the Queen archives website.
As a fan since 1975 i always knew that they werent liked but i had no idea that they were that dispised within the media fraternity. Its odd that apart from maybe 1 or 2 good reviews, they had very very bad reviews in not just the influential music magazines, but elsewhere as well, throughout their career. What was it about them that so irked the music journalists throughout the world, has anybody got any idea?? And through the bad reviews they managed to prevail, how did they manage that??
They were always the band they always loved to hate by the music press!!!
Maybe the fact that they were seen as arrogant, bombastic and pretentious graduates who combined so-called opera with rock/heavy metal - who really cares or knows!!
I remember them getting brilliant reviews in Kerrang magazine for their Works 84 and Magic 86 shows at Birmingham and Wembley so they did get some good publicity from some journalists.
Roger by his own admission said that their arrogance was part as to why they became successful and Ratty one of their roadies has said thet they were "always too big for their boots"!
Queen were always very confident in what they were doing from the outset and most journalists hated this! They were winners and winners are often loathed by the British press and public alike.
The real fans know that most critics are arseholes anyway.
We all of us deeply apologise for this god forsaken shit heap of a building...but we will make it rock.
Brian May Wembley Pavilion 11.05.05.