Forums > Queen - General Discussion > What is Missing from Cosmos Rocks

forum rss feed
Author

drwinston user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 153 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Sep 08, 15:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I've been reading the various posts on the new album, and I think there have been some really good points as well as some useless drivel. Having listened to the album for almost a week now, I have to say that there seems to be something very important that is missing, and it's not Freddie. I think these three lack real chemistry.

The songs aren't that bad (although the lyrics make you wince at times), and they are surely better than some of the stuff that Queen has put on previous albums. The production is top notch. And Paul Rodgers sounds great! Wow, what a fantastic voice, and this is the best he has ever sounded in the studio. I think he really steals the show here.

But with that said, it leaves me just a bit flat. Great bands challenge each other. Brian has mentioned before that the fact that Freddie wrote in a very different style, and usually in very non-guitar friendly keys, made him really have to think how to approach the song. I would think that Roger had to try very hard to get his songs accepted - he's kind of the George Harrison of Queen! And John has stated that he was always nervous about presenting a song to the group. There was no doubt a lot of competition within the the band, and that resulted in a special chemistry that made for something unique. They were also very opinionated and the infighting that occurred no doubt contributed to a superior outcome. In fact, almost all great groups had this yin and yang effect that resulted in some great records.

This album feels more like three very talented musicians playing session man for each others songs. I don't hear them inspiring or challenging each other. Don't get me wrong - the album has some merit. But if they were to really work as group - fight to get their ideas in, look for ways to enhance the song and not just play on it - I think it would be the difference in what some of us are hearing.

April user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 440 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Sep 08, 15:16 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The idea about "real chemistry" is very abstract. I think you are trying to find fault with the album...

drwinston user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 153 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Sep 08, 16:10 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

April wrote:

The idea about "real chemistry" is very abstract. I think you are trying to find fault with the album...


Why would I buy an album in order to find fault with it? Please.

In order to better understand chemistry in a group, try listening to Abbey Road, Exile on Main Street, Kind of Blue, Rumors, Who's Next, or - dare I say it - A Night at the Opera.

L-R-TIGER1994 user not visiting Queenzone.com
member of the Royal Family
L-R-TIGER1994
Deity: 3652 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Sep 08, 16:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It misses good pop and rock songs at least 14 of them.


Heap big woman you made an asshole outta me....gimme your bums and ride!!!!!!
Micrówave user not visiting Queenzone.com
Delilah, on Medium Power
Micrówave
Deity: 7037 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Sep 08, 16:38 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

drwinston wrote:


In order to better understand chemistry in a group, try listening to Rumors


Okay, talking about chemistry and Fleetwood Mac in the same sentence is not allowed!!!

John S Stuart user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Sep 08, 16:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

drwinston wrote:

I've been reading the various posts on the new album, and I think there have been some really good points as well as some useless drivel. Having listened to the album for almost a week now, I have to say that there seems to be something very important that is missing, and it's not Freddie. I think these three lack real chemistry.

The songs aren't that bad (although the lyrics make you wince at times), and they are surely better than some of the stuff that Queen has put on previous albums. The production is top notch. And Paul Rodgers sounds great! Wow, what a fantastic voice, and this is the best he has ever sounded in the studio. I think he really steals the show here.

But with that said, it leaves me just a bit flat. Great bands challenge each other. Brian has mentioned before that the fact that Freddie wrote in a very different style, and usually in very non-guitar friendly keys, made him really have to think how to approach the song. I would think that Roger had to try very hard to get his songs accepted - he's kind of the George Harrison of Queen! And John has stated that he was always nervous about presenting a song to the group. There was no doubt a lot of competition within the the band, and that resulted in a special chemistry that made for something unique. They were also very opinionated and the infighting that occurred no doubt contributed to a superior outcome. In fact, almost all great groups had this yin and yang effect that resulted in some great records.

This album feels more like three very talented musicians playing session man for each others songs. I don't hear them inspiring or challenging each other. Don't get me wrong - the album has some merit. But if they were to really work as group - fight to get their ideas in, look for ways to enhance the song and not just play on it - I think it would be the difference in what some of us are hearing.


Whole-heartedly agree.
This is not saying anything 'negative' per se.
Rather, that this album is not going to be remembered as something seminal or unique.

Good it may be - but a giant it will not.


"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
SomebodyWhoLoves user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 842 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Sep 08, 21:51 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

drwinston wrote:

April wrote:

The idea about "real chemistry" is very abstract. I think you are trying to find fault with the album...


Why would I buy an album in order to find fault with it? Please.

In order to better understand chemistry in a group, try listening to Abbey Road, Exile on Main Street, Kind of Blue, Rumors, Who's Next, or - dare I say it - A Night at the Opera.



Oh please. the Rolling Stones, all they did was rip of Black musicians. They have no original sound of their own. But Exile On Main St is a good album, but hardly original.

Lester Burnham user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 5870 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 22 Sep 08, 23:41 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

SomebodyWhoLoves wrote:

drwinston wrote:

April wrote:

The idea about "real chemistry" is very abstract. I think you are trying to find fault with the album...


Why would I buy an album in order to find fault with it? Please.

In order to better understand chemistry in a group, try listening to Abbey Road, Exile on Main Street, Kind of Blue, Rumors, Who's Next, or - dare I say it - A Night at the Opera.



Oh please. the Rolling Stones, all they did was rip of Black musicians. They have no original sound of their own. But Exile On Main St is a good album, but hardly original.


THE BEATLES AND THE ROLLING STONES COMBINED ARE BETTER THAN QUEEN, FACT

anna_libra user not visiting Queenzone.com
anna_libra
Rocker: 44 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Sep 08, 00:26 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

drwinston you're completely right. it takes more than experienced technicians to make a great album. TCR is technically good, but certainly not great. And yet, I still like the QPR collaboration.


champagne in a glass slipper
marcenciels user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 194 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Sep 08, 00:29 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

what is missing on TCR...

i guess some will have a pass echo of expectations.

it's the styles of these 3 guys put together.

how can it be any other way ?







StoneColdClassicQueen user not visiting Queenzone.com
I need a haircut.
StoneColdClassicQueen
Bohemian: 775 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Sep 08, 01:03 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

They need John Deacon.
All the teenage girls would be obsessing over him!!!
I know I would XD

I think they need to write a hard and heavy rock song. Come on, they have Paul Rodgers with the blues/soulful voice, you got Brian May with the awesome riffs, and then there's Roger.
I like Q+PR, but I think they can improve.
I wonder if they performed with John Fogerty...
I can only dream..


"When you make love to someone, use a condom."-Brian May

______________________________________

Paul Rodgers is Chuck Norris.
bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12703 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Sep 08, 01:06 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I never thought I'd say this but you can really hear the gap where John Deacon should be.
Listen to his playing on "Save Me" and then take a song like "Some Things That Glitter". That sound would receive a huge boost from that sublime, lyrical bass playing that John had such a grasp of.

You can laff now, but I'm telling you; it would've made a huge difference. I think Brian could have parted with a bit of money and gotten someone in to play the bass....


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
StoneColdClassicQueen user not visiting Queenzone.com
I need a haircut.
StoneColdClassicQueen
Bohemian: 775 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Sep 08, 01:14 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Zebonka12 wrote:

I never thought I'd say this but you can really hear the gap where John Deacon should be.
Listen to his playing on "Save Me" and then take a song like "Some Things That Glitter". That sound would receive a huge boost from that sublime, lyrical bass playing that John had such a grasp of.

You can laff now, but I'm telling you; it would've made a huge difference. I think Brian could have parted with a bit of money and gotten someone in to play the bass....


THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


"When you make love to someone, use a condom."-Brian May

______________________________________

Paul Rodgers is Chuck Norris.
P-Staker user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 218 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Sep 08, 02:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

An interesting point. I don't think chemistry is lacking - quite the opposite - but they do seem to lack that "yin and young" effect you're talking about.

That said, there are shining examples of two sides complementing each other, notably Warboys. Paul's version was good, but on the album it really grew into something big and mighty...


mike hunt user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2770 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Sep 08, 02:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Zebonka12 wrote:

I never thought I'd say this but you can really hear the gap where John Deacon should be.
Listen to his playing on "Save Me" and then take a song like "Some Things That Glitter". That sound would receive a huge boost from that sublime, lyrical bass playing that John had such a grasp of.

You can laff now, but I'm telling you; it would've made a huge difference. I think Brian could have parted with a bit of money and gotten someone in to play the bass....
That's the perfect example of them missing John, That's probably the best song brian wrote in over a decade, and John's bass would have obviously improved it.

drwinston user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 153 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Sep 08, 10:03 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

SomebodyWhoLoves wrote:

drwinston wrote:

April wrote:

The idea about "real chemistry" is very abstract. I think you are trying to find fault with the album...


Why would I buy an album in order to find fault with it? Please.

In order to better understand chemistry in a group, try listening to Abbey Road, Exile on Main Street, Kind of Blue, Rumors, Who's Next, or - dare I say it - A Night at the Opera.



Oh please. the Rolling Stones, all they did was rip of Black musicians. They have no original sound of their own. But Exile On Main St is a good album, but hardly original.


Who said anything about original? And ripping off black musicians is a bit hypocritical coming from a fan of the band that ripped off the bass line for Chic's 'Good Times'!

Not to digress too much, and I'm not a huge Stones fan, but can you honestly say that the Stones don't have a sound of their own? Jumping Jack Flash would like a word with you!

drwinston user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 153 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Sep 08, 10:06 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Microwave wrote:

drwinston wrote:


In order to better understand chemistry in a group, try listening to Rumors


Okay, talking about chemistry and Fleetwood Mac in the same sentence is not allowed!!!


Haha! Hey, they had really, really bad chemistry, but they had chemistry. Seriously though, I think the tension that exists between band members can be for the good of the music. Hell, Townsend and Daltrey were trying to kill each other while the Who was at its peak!

Ray D O'Gaga user not visiting Queenzone.com
Get down, make love
Ray D O'Gaga
Royalty: 1259 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Sep 08, 11:05 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

drwinston wrote:

I think these three lack real chemistry.


And yet the only reason they worked together in the first place was because of the chemistry they feel amongst themselves. Interesting that they perceive it and you do not.


Blow it out your ass.
mattsmith user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 125 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Sep 08, 11:18 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It's missing an audacious, typically Queen track.
i.e, Bohemian rhapsody, Innuendo......
Something with a bit of balls!


Innuendo or Kashmir? Both awesome!
Benn user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1332 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 23 Sep 08, 11:26 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It's not missing anything other than better lyrics. Musically, it's really good.

John wasn't an outstanding bass player in any way - it's likely that any session player could have played like John did - after all, who noticed, musically, that John was missing with Danny as replacement on the tour? - and, as such, he isn't really missed other than for what impact he could have had on the lyrical side of things.......

Queen+ Paul Rodgers has session players on stage whilst they fulfil the buk of playing duties themselves on record. Brian and Paul appear to be pretty decent bass players under these circumstances.......


Benn