Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > Did queen hurt their legacy?

forum rss feed
Author

Mr. Barcelona user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 42 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jan 06, 04:54 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

did queen hurt their legacy by releasing albums past 1980?...lets face it, albums like hot space and the works arn't exactly rock masterpieces. Look at "a kind of magic" it has good music on it, but rock fans hate songs like "one year of love" and Don't lose your head" I personally think freddie and john should have done their own thing, since they were closer musically at that stage of their career, and brian and roger were also drifting apart. I personally love all queen albums, but I'm talking about their musical legacy from the general rock public. People look at those albums and say 'queen are no zep' based on those eighties albums.

Fenderek user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4924 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jan 06, 04:59 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I don't think they hurt their legacy although I share your view on those albums. IMHO they are basically crap...
They were huge. But I think musically it was just not that good anymore. It is annoying when people judge Queen thinking- the guys who did radio Ga-Ga or IWTBF- and when this awesome rock'n'roll band is being put on the same shelf as Farnkie Goes To Hollywood... Not everybody has to know White Man or It's Late... Unfortunatelly...

Serry... user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 8271 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jan 06, 05:06 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Funny thing for me is that we can't say something bad about Queen + PR, but always are ready to label half of Queen albums as crap... ;-P

But anyway I agree with Fenderek that a lot of young fans (or not fans, but people who judge about Queen by Ga Ga etc.) don't know the best treasures of Queen's music...

Indo77 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 155 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jan 06, 05:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Personally I feel much of the music they produced in the 1980s was crap. The band went in a completely wrong direction and dived into the world of arty pop/dance. For example, compare "Tie Your Mother Down" to "Back Chat"! There is very little resemblance from the Queen we know at Earl's Court or Houston. The 70s stuff was almost faultless. Surprising though their two last albums The Miracle and Innuendo were quite good.

Togg user not visiting Queenzone.com
Togg
Deity: 2393 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jan 06, 05:31 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I think you have to realise what the band were being influenced by at the time, plus in effect two of the band were hard rockers (Roger & Brian) and two were not, so one could argue that the first half of Queens output was not a true reflection of the band.

In the end they were/are experiemental musicians, not a pure 'rock' band. the choices they made were in order to keep interested in what they were doing.

If they had stayed play the same music as on Sheer Heart Attack they would have finished by the end of the 70's.

Any group of people that can write, ABTD, MOTBQ and Good Company, deserve real praise and attention in my opinion.

That is what makes them great.


"It is better to sit in silence and have people think you're a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
Fenderek user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4924 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jan 06, 05:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Serry... wrote:

Funny thing for me is that we can't say something bad about Queen + PR, but always are ready to label half of Queen albums as crap... ;-P

LOL
The difference is I'm not writing QUEEN RIP 1980 and I can actually elaborate on the subject...AND- most importantly- I'm not saying taht whoever loves IWTBF is not a real Queen fan or is stupid.

I will elaborate.
In the 80s synthesizers pretty much replaced guitar in Queen sound. Yes, of course we had about 2-3 rockier songs on each album and a guitar solo in almost every single song, but... C'mon- what WAS a Queen sound for me was the fact that the entire jazz band was created by a one single guitar... The fact that melotrone was immitated by guitar in "Leaving home Ain't Easy". That in every single guitar note, even if it was just a soundscape- was an emotion. Just listen to the orchestration to "Love Of My Life", preferably in 5.1. MAGIC. There are examples of emotion in synths (TSMGO springs to mind)- but generally I see this instrument as something artificial, soulless...
The production was focused on softening the edges and once a rock band became almost pop. And the compositions... They haven't reached TMOTBQ or Millionaire Waltz heights in 80s, have they? I know, I know- those wouldn't have been hits in 80s... Well- were they in 70s really?
In 70s abums had few potential singles, hit songs and than some more ambitious songs, stuff that would never become a hit yet musically very interesting (Prophet's Song, TMOTBQ, even songs sang by Bri or Rog and the likes). In 80s we had singles and apart from maybe another 2-3 good songs (well- how many singles can you release from one album?)- fillers... Find me a filler on Queen II... Again- it's just my opinion!!! But something like Man On The Prowl would NEVER made any album in 70s...
Freddie was more focused on partying and playing pop music in 80s- his influences were Boy Gorge, Prince... Oh boy...!!! It's just simply not my cup of tea! Brian was almost alone, maybe with Roger on the rockier side- and I can hear it on albums. They weren't done by a UNIT, with the same aim, with the same purpose. I can hear on HOT SPACE or WORKS that those albums were done by people who weren't really sure what do they want to achieve together musically. According to many sources atmosphere in the band in this Munich period was terrible- and I think it actually shows on the records!! Maybe WORKS or HOT SPACE aren't that bad albums- but play them back to back with ANATO or SHA and... Well- put Mona Lisa next to a drawing of semi-talented art student...
There's much more, but... I have no time at the moment, this will have to do :P


Rompez user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 222 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jan 06, 05:40 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Indo77, can I tell you a horrid thing? I prefer Back Chat over Tie You Mother Down! You can kill me for that words. Most of die-hard Rock'n'roll fans hate Queen's 80's material but it's not that bad. Yes it's more a pop music. Nothing wrong with it it's just diffirent and it's the reason why i love Queen.


Ayreon user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 139 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jan 06, 06:06 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Very well said, Togg! Totally agree! Queen isn't a rock band, but one of the most experimental popular bands of all time!

(Though Queen + PR seems to be moe of a rock band)


QUOTE]

Togg wrote:

I think you have to realise what the band were being influenced by at the time, plus in effect two of the band were hard rockers (Roger & Brian) and two were not, so one could argue that the first half of Queens output was not a true reflection of the band.

In the end they were/are experiemental musicians, not a pure 'rock' band. the choices they made were in order to keep interested in what they were doing.

If they had stayed play the same music as on Sheer Heart Attack they would have finished by the end of the 70's.

Any group of people that can write, ABTD, MOTBQ and Good Company, deserve real praise and attention in my opinion.

That is what makes them great.


Indo77 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 155 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jan 06, 06:33 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

[quote]Indo77, can I tell you a horrid thing? I prefer Back Chat over Tie You Mother Down! You can kill me for that words. Most of die-hard Rock'n'roll fans hate Queen's 80's material but it's not that bad. Yes it's more a pop music. Nothing wrong with it it's just diffirent and it's the reason why i love Queen.[/quote]

Never said there was anything wrong with it, I just feel they alienated a lot of their core rock fans from the 70s with the swift changeover. True they would have been under pressure not to become dated, but the differences between their music styles from 1979 to 1981 is quite dramatic.


Fenderek user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4924 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jan 06, 06:38 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Indo77 wrote:

True they would have been under pressure not to become dated, but the differences between their music styles from 1979 to 1981 is quite dramatic.

It is and... well- did AC/DC change their music that much? Did it become dated? Or did they actually reach their POPULARITY (I prefer Bon Scott era) heights in 80s? They didn't use synths and didn't play music close to Duran Duran...

Rompez user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 222 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jan 06, 06:50 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Fenderek wrote:

Indo77 wrote:

True they would have been under pressure not to become dated, but the differences between their music styles from 1979 to 1981 is quite dramatic.

It is and... well- did AC/DC change their music that much? Did it become dated? Or did they actually reach their POPULARITY (I prefer Bon Scott era) heights in 80s? They didn't use synths and didn't play music close to Duran Duran...

Comparing AC/DC with Queen in that terms ... hahahaha! Did AC/DC EVER tried to change their music?

Fenderek user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4924 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jan 06, 06:56 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

No, they never did. But many say that you had to do it because otherwise they wouldn't sell as many records. I mentioned AC/DC because they are a proof it's not exactly the truth. They didn't ahve to go into Boy George direction to be still poular...

Rompez user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 222 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jan 06, 07:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I guess with AC/DC it's really opposite thing.
If they would have changed their music they would have lost their popularity. That's the point.

sparverius user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 41 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jan 06, 08:10 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Queen's versatility as a band and as individual musicians to tackle extremely different kinds of music is their legacy. It is really fascinating to discover something brand new within each song rather than listening to the same old song repeated x times in y records.

liam user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 596 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jan 06, 09:26 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Ive always said Queen were like a completely different band in the 80's. Its quite ridiculas the change they had. Now im not saying i dont like their 80's stuff but we gotta be serious here. The same band that made borhap, motbq, millionaire waltz, we r the champs etc etc, released pop shizen like radio gaga and iwtbf. Its hard to contemplate at times, how much of a change they went. Now radio gaga and iwtbf are good pop songs but they arnt good queen songs.

Im going to be hammered for this but if i herd iwtbf and it wasnt a queen song i'd think another shit 80's pop song, but because its made by queen i feel i have to like it.


Go, Go, Go, little queenie!!
Togg user not visiting Queenzone.com
Togg
Deity: 2393 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jan 06, 09:33 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I don't understand how it can be a good song but not a good Queen song?

Even on the early albums they used to have compleatly different styles of music, look at Sheer Hear Attack, it had bring back leroy brown and brighton rock on the same album.

I don't understand people when they say Queen used to be a heavey rock band, No they were musicains trying different styles all the way through.


"It is better to sit in silence and have people think you're a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
Rompez user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 222 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jan 06, 09:34 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

liam wrote:

Ive always said Queen were like a completely different band in the 80's. Its quite ridiculas the change they had. Now im not saying i dont like their 80's stuff but we gotta be serious here. The same band that made borhap, motbq, millionaire waltz, we r the champs etc etc, released pop shizen like radio gaga and iwtbf. Its hard to contemplate at times, how much of a change they went. Now radio gaga and iwtbf are good pop songs but they arnt good queen songs.

Im going to be hammered for this but if i herd iwtbf and it wasnt a queen song i'd think another shit 80's pop song, but because its made by queen i feel i have to like it.

Well I don't like I Want to Break Free (shitty 80's pop song) as much as I don't like (for example) Sweet Lady or Loser At The End (shitty 70's rock songs IMO). Why you HAVE to like all songs that queen did unless you are crazy fanatic?

Boy Thomas Raker user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 969 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jan 06, 10:41 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Excellent topic, and good posts here. Did they hurt their legacy with the 80s albums? Don't think so. None of the 70s groups had particularly strong stuff in the 80s, save Pink Floyd with The Wall, and they didn't fare well after that. Queen had to change or be faced with being dinosaurs. The problem is, they were a 3 piece rock combo on their best stuff, with piano also adding flavour. When they went synth heavy, they lost the verve of Freddie's piano playing style, and Brian's guitar disappeared. So it was still well sung and written, but lacking the key elements of Queen's style. Plus, and what I think the key is, is that on the 'odd' Queen songs like Leroy Brown, Good Company, Mustapha, Seaside, etc., Queen 'lived' that music. They grew up in houses with trad jazz, and show tunes and in Freddie's case, eastern influenced music. With stuff like Dancer, it's apparent that Brian is out of his element as he was trying to contribute a dance track and it's plodding. He wasn't part of the dance scene, and it showed. However, they had to do it to keep the band going, and while it paled in comparison to the quality of the 70s catalogue, I don't think I'd want to hear the same song with a different variation all the time, a la AC/DC. Theire variety is what made them great, and what hurt their stature as a rock band.


You know, good times are now.
Negative Creep user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 720 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jan 06, 11:03 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

i would think brian working with five, robbie williams, britney spears, pink etc and using the daft "queen +" tag has done far more damage to the queen brand than the 80's albums. oh, and the plod rock pseudo reformation with paul rodgers can't have done much good either.

tia user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 290 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Jan 06, 11:41 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

How did it hurt? They were the biggest stadium band of the 80's.The songs they played at the concerts were mainly from the 80's. The Wembley 86 DVD is still one of the top selling DVDs today.


just turn yourself into anything you think that you could ever be