Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > Stop being so sycophantic

forum rss feed
Author

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

Posted: 09 Aug 09, 08:25 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

My name is Stuart, John Stuart.

It is not a pseudonym or stage name (eg: Freddie Mercury springs to mind) but the name that my parents thought best fit my ‘honest sonsie’ face, and while I offer nothing ‘interesting or intriguing or controversial’, I must admit that like Greggiepoohs, there are indeed too many ‘boring, dull and unimaginative threads’ in here of late.

However as Queenzone by its very nature, is built upon a symbiotic relationship, the real question must be: Who is really responsible for the ‘many very boring, dull and unimaginative’ threads of late? The predictable, tired, lazy, tedious, unimaginative ‘artists’ who keep trotting out back-catalogue ‘as one would dispose of toilet tissue’ – or the myriad of ‘loyal fan-sheeple’, regurgitating the same old re/views first written over thirty years ago?

Even so called ‘new material’ is flat, predictable, rock by numbers. For example, long gone are the ‘Opera’ days when Brian May would layer multi-guitar techniques and use the instrument as an orchestra. Now, rather, tired old men lethargically revert to either cover versions, or worse still, ‘We Will Rock You’ guitar solo variation number 114, both of which are trounced by unknown 13 year old guitarists on ‘You Tube’.

Let’s be honest here, the reason Queenzone is 'flat or dull' is because Queen are 'flat and dull', and while last week’s ‘mince and tatties’ may be the best ever tasted, today’s refried left overs are still refried left overs – no matter what fancy French name one decides to call it.

The bottom line is – it is NOT the fans that need to ‘be creative or inspirational’ – but the band who need to ‘be creative or inspirational’ – once we get that prioritised, then we can have a real buzz or excitement about the old place again.



"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12700 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 09 Aug 09, 10:49 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



John S Stuart wrote:

, or worse still, ‘We Will Rock You’ guitar solo variation number 114, both of which are trounced by unknown 13 year old guitarists on ‘You Tube’.






Please point me to this.  I've never seen a 13 year old do Queen any justice on Youtube.  In fact there's barely any good Queen covers on Youtube.


"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
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: 09 Aug 09, 12:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

That shows that Queen ended up in 1991,neither PR nor QP could do ANYTHING worthy after that.


Heap big woman you made an asshole outta me....gimme your bums and ride!!!!!!
mooghead user not visiting Queenzone.com
mooghead
Deity: 3667 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 09 Aug 09, 13:06 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Well said John, Queen is dead, it struggled on for a while after Freddie died but now it is flailing in a sea of re-releases and mediocre side projects bought by what can only be described as gullible idiots.

The boards are crap because there is absolutely nothing left to talk about.

david (galashiels) user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2020 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 09 Aug 09, 13:41 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

‘mince and tatties’ .how long before someone asks,,,whats that..
for gods sake ,dont mention.neeps..

Josh Henson user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 693 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 09 Aug 09, 14:48 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I don't know what it is, but it sounds good.

John, Guru and myself (and many others) keep saying the same thing.  There is nothing exciting up here because Queen is doing nothing exciting.  Re-releases and and boring product don't cut it. 

And why is it that every time GB posts one of these threads, he rarely answers the responses made to him?  And yes, Greg, I see what you're doing.  You posted something to 'liven things up' and make things exciting as you probably think.  But no, in reality, you didn't.  You just made us all realize that Queen is now old, boring, tired and obsolete.  I think your plan back fired.  Or misfired....


I'm just getting used to my new exposure

Come into my enclosure

And meet my melancholy blues
cmsdrums user not visiting Queenzone.com
cmsdrums
Deity: 3037 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 09 Aug 09, 15:31 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



John S Stuart wrote:

Let’s be honest here, the reason Queenzone is 'flat or dull' is because Queen are 'flat and dull', and while last week’s ‘mince and tatties’ may be the best ever tasted, today’s refried left overs are still refried left overs – no matter what fancy French name one decides to call it.

The bottom line is – it is NOT the fans that need to ‘be creative or inspirational’ – but the band who need to ‘be creative or inspirational’ – once we get that prioritised, then we can have a real buzz or excitement about the old place again.

Very well put







Wiley user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1704 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Aug 09, 13:42 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The first forum speculation and following disappointment (of course) that I have memory of in here (could have been the old OIQFC forum and not Queenzone) has to be the Queen+ Greatest Hits III track list discussion.

Around that time some people even thought that "Queen + GHIII" meant that the "Queen" album was going to be re-recorded or re-mixed and launched along with GHIII. Track list speculation went on and on. People considering solo material would be included were ignored, satanized and banished.

Yet, we still believed. Fan Club Magazines mentioned 6 Queen concerts to be released in a VHS boxed set, Brian and Roger had recently toured and they reportedly discussed going back to the studio, George Michael's name came up again, etc.

Then the tracklist was known. :(

After that came the 5ive single, Robbie Williams, Pepsi ads, Fabba Girls and the WWRY musical. No wonder the fans are bored.

Not until December 2004 I felt truly excited again, when the QPR tour was announced. Even then, many people didn't like the idea.

rhyeking user not visiting Queenzone.com
rhyeking
Royalty: 1566 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Aug 09, 14:09 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



John S Stuart wrote:

The bottom line is – it is NOT the fans that need to ‘be creative or inspirational’ – but the band who need to ‘be creative or inspirational’ – once we get that prioritised, then we can have a real buzz or excitement about the old place again.

I'm reminded of a line from the Barenaked Ladies song "Box Set", where an aging rock star laments:

"Everytime I try to due something new, all they want is 1973."

I respect you, John, but I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for here, either from fans or Queen. I take it you didn't like The Cosmos Rocks. I can't tell you you're wrong, nor would I, because it's a subjective thing. A person can say why they didn't like something and that's fair. Other people can disagree.

Creativity is a fickle thing. Band's don't know when they're recording an album if it'll hit or flop. They create based on what drives them, the *need* to make music and hopefully satisfy themselves first. In order to be a work of art, the creation needs an audience (a question raised in my senior Art + Art History class posed a conundrum: "If a piece is created, and no one but the artist sees it, can it ever be considered art?". My answer was then and is now: No. Art needs an audience in order to do two things: justify its own existence and justify its own relevance to the world).

How does this relate to Queen?

They stopped experimenting with epic albums after A Day At The Races. I guess the need was not there anymore, the drive inside the band to go into wild experimentation. Or they were drawn to other things. The artist has to be interested first before anyone else is. Cold, calculated "art" tends to fall flat against discerning audiences (which is why few among us are Britney Spears fans, for example).

These days, Freddie is gone and John is retired. It's an old, tired argument about "should they call themselves Queen?" I'm not even going to go there. The point is, they're still creating, it just might not be what you want them to create.

Ask yourselves this: What do you want from them? Before you answer, take a moment to reflect that unless you're a new fan you have grown up and will no longer ever feel that same burning excitement at discovering the depths of Queen. Remember that sense of unknown when you got a hold of a Queen album you'd never heard before, when your musical tastes weren't fully formed? You will never get that back. It's like when you start dating someone. Everything is exciting and new. Then, 25 years later, you still love that person, but the love has matured and your married and have kids and maybe you argue about the little things, but you know you'll never stop loving them.

Now, we're matured Queen fans. Our tastes are pretty well fixed and replacing the excitement of the unknown is the depth of knowledge as to what came before and we can't help but compare the present to the past.

Queen is still creative and they are still creating, but we have to be open to inspiration if we are to remain able to find it in Queen/Brian/Roger's new music. No one is doing anything wrong (the band or us) if we find we aren't inspired by a particular work. It doesn't mean Queen are dead and that Brian and Roger should stop creating. Imagine if Queen had stopped recording after Hot Space, if they'd split up and forever gone their seperate ways, because a lot of fans didn't like the album (I can hear you '70s die-hards thinking "Well, they should've!").

An artist will create until they have nothing left to say and no more desire to mine their imagination. Time will validate whatever art deserves to survive.







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

Posted: 10 Aug 09, 21:14 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

rhyeking: Excellent argument, well made, with some valid points. I know that I can not argue against the subjective, but have you considered the following points?

Good artists are constantly evolving. Be they actors, authors, musicians or painters. Indeed, we can usually follow an artists career by following their inspirations - Picasso's 'blue' or 'cubist' or Sean Connery's 'James Bond' or Elvis pre and post army periods for example.
Poor artists stagnate. Real artists will always evolve.
True - evolution may not be always be in a positive direction - and you cite 'Hot Space' as an example. However, even 'Hot Space' has its merits in that the artist is flexible and experimenting with their own sound, but for me, 'Cosmos Rocks' offers nothing new and is trapped by the constraints of both ego and genre and a cold calculated prostitution of talent, simply for numbers and sales. In otherwords, 'Cosmos Rocks' is a hackneyed sell-out and while it may be the goal of all struggling artists to make money from their job, multi-millionaires have the luxury to be as experimental or as self-indulgent as they please (even if it is only one track on the album).
(This can be comparable to a real investigative  'journalist' - artist; and a tired cut and paste plagerist - hack).

Has Brian really dipped his toes in Robert Johnson territory? (IMO: Brian would be an excellent Blue's guitarist).
How about a bit of genuine Country and Western, or a bit of Trad Jazz? How about working with a traditional brass band (or even any brass instrumentation). How about a bit of acapella or a diversion into little classical ditties - who could forget the 'Winnie The Pooh' humour of 'Day At The Races' - ANYTHING that takes away from this fast food menu of music by numbers. (One track would do it!).

Queen are in a comfort zone. There is no commercial need to divert from that, but artistically they have cropped their own wings and forgot how to fly, and that is the main reason I loved them growing up - because they knew no boundries and had a 'if you don't like it - sod you attitude'.

With THAT gone - so to are Queen.






"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
rhyeking user not visiting Queenzone.com
rhyeking
Royalty: 1566 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Aug 09, 23:31 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Maybe The Cosmos Rocks wasn't the most dynamic album. I'll neither defend nor attack it here because that's not my point. They tried to create something you feel is cold and calculated, that they stayed in a comfortable place. Maybe. Hot Space has some merit, you say (and I agree), but I don't think I'll ever shake the thought that after "Another One Bites The Dust," Queen were mining in Funky Town where they might not have if "Dust" had flopped (or just not been issued as a single). Was that calculated? These guys are only human and can make choices that don't seem wise in hindsight.

In my opinion, The Cosmos Rocks means more than just what the final product is. Brian and Roger took a shot at recording an album, 13 or 14 full length songs. Both their last solo albums were years in the making. Roger did a track here and a track there, not announcing, "I'm working on an album!" When he had enough songs, he released it. We're were all like, "Wow, new Roger album! Sweet!" Brian collected a bunch of songs he'd recorded for other things (Business, On My Way Up, Slow Down, Cyborg, Memphis, Another World), a few original songs just 'cos (Wilderness, China Belle, Guv'ner) and put out an album. Again, no real advance notice until after it was done.

Brian, Roger and Paul let us know they were recording an album after the Return Of The Champions tour. They talked about it interviews and built up hype for it. More importantly, for me, they didn't shy away from it, weren't ashamed or indifferent and it wasn't a one-off remake track (like Robbie Williams' version of "Champions," or 5ive's "WWRY"). It was mostly new stuff (SINT and Warboys notwithstanding). They said, "We're doing it! We want to do it! It feels right! Here we go!" when they started work on it. They knew there'd be flak, comparisons to Freddie and that they were putting themselves out out on a limb with fans. That didn't stop them and that deserves props.

Had they not announced the album before it was recorded and just announced it to our surprise when it was finished, maybe the view of The Cosmos Rocks would be different. Imagine hearing on the radio that a new Queen + Paul Rodgers album was coming out in a few weeks, here's the new single on the radio and you didn't see it coming.

Maybe it would receive the same criticism, I don't know. If they'd anounced in 1975 that they're working on this long, weird epic track that sort of opera and rock combined ,and given us regular progress updates and hype, maybe "Bohemian Rhapsody" wouldn't have had quite the "Whoa! What the heck is this?!" value.

Lastly, coming back for an album, after not collaborating that intensely since Innuendo (as an original Queen album with all four guys present. Made In Heaven was a different dynamic, with reworked tracks and the goal of fullfilling Freddie's wish that it get finished), maybe they kept to what came naturally, playing to their strengths more. Maybe risks, musically, weren't in cards because just playing together and creating new work was enough of an emotional package. Or maybe fighting over every note had long lost its appeal (Queen, they've said, were very much a band that would have blazing rows in the studio over things like that) and in not applying that crucible of intensity, the result was less urgent sounding.

That's all I can say really. No one is wrong for not liking a given Queen album. I try to understand what it is the larger scheme of their careers, what it represents to them AND to us. For me, an album is more than just the collection of songs on it, be they "Rhapsody" or "C-lebrity."

Sheer Brass Neck user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 719 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 10 Aug 09, 23:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Very well thought out rhyeking.  i'll add my two cents.

You mention the BNL song, and the artist's lament about how everyone wants them to be like a certain period that the fan liked.  For most of us, Queen were at their best from II to NOTW, and a bit of Jazz was brilliant. But after that, they did what they wanted with forays into white boy funk, dance, sparse keyboard sounds and pop so if there were ever a band that couldn't use that argument of their fans wanting them to be one way, it's Queen.  They went where they wanted to go, because they had a spirit of adventure.  For me, The Cosmos Rocks is an attempt to be 1973 (best Bad Company album ever, worst Queen album ever), when fans want to hear some new sounds.  We know they can do bombastic, and when done well, they were better than anyone at doing that.  But they've done it so often it becomes self-parody. Even the set lists for the tour.  Where's a Sweet Lady, Dead on time or White Queen?  Brian teased fans with a snippet of Long Away.  The ironic thing is, I'd bet Long Away has close to the same appeal to long term fans as '39 does, but Brian chooses to do the same old same old, even though the fans are clamoring for something new.  

I mentioned to another board member that Brian's comment about not knowing of Dream Theater was telling.  If this were the 70s, Dream Theater would be peers of Yes, Genesis, etc.  Fantastic musicians, who played their stuff and let the audience find them.  I think it speaks volumes to where Queen music's went and where Brian's mind is at when he knows 5ive, Boyzone, Avril Lavigne, Katy Perry and Britney Spears music more that one of the most respected bands of the last 15 years.  His concern for sales over everything has hampered his ability to be a current artist.  He's one of the greatest rock songwriters ever, and nothing will diminish his contributions to popular music. But that doesn't give him a free pass if his stuff isn't up to his high standards, and his songs post-Innuendo have general been weak.  IMHO.     

Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6327 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Aug 09, 00:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The way I see it, this forum works for two purposes: news and collecting. The former relates to stuff like B's and R's (and J's if that's ever the case) recent activities, together or separately, such as performances, claims, interviews, brithdays... by expansion, it involves what happens with Q-related people or stuff (e.g. Days of Our Lives being played at the end of Lady Di's tribute a couple of years ago, MJ passing away, DT covering TF, FotW and LotV). The latter depends on what each person wants to collect: concerts, demo's, pix, info... such info can involve the non-synth period (e.g. the four hitherto-spread multitracks), the synth period (e.g. Adam asked some months ago about preset sounds, and it spawned a very nice thread, though it was brief), trivia (e.g. who played what), lists (e.g. who wrote what), polls (e.g. favourite songs), theories (e.g. how and why they split up with Mack), discussions in general (e.g. who wrote better harmonies?).

As such, people from virtually any taste can find some good stuff here... some don't give a D about whether Queen shared a room with Supertramp during the Opera/Crisis era and instead want to know more about upcoming concerts and stuff... others don't care about TCR or the musical and are instead more fond of bringing 1973 (or any other year for that matter) back, be it via surveys, research, Q&A or whatever.

For that reason, I don't blame Brian and Roger for the lack of quality in this forum's last months... we could still have loads of things to talk about without B&R announcing the next previously-secret Freddie's favourite singer or without GB showing off his enviable mature behaviour.



John hated HS. Fred's fave singer was not PR. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' Witness testimonies are often inaccurate. Scotland's not in England. 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices.
mike hunt user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2770 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 11 Aug 09, 03:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Queen are no different from any other band that lost an Important member.  When has the who done anything exciting, or zep.  When was the stones last great album?...everyone has a prime, and unfortunately Queen's was a long time ago. I agree the cosmos didn't rock.