Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > The RollingStone top 500 Albums

forum rss feed
Author

theCro user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1056 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Sep 06, 21:10 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

230. A Night at the Opera, Queen

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5938174/the_rs_500_greatest_albums_of_all_time/

queen should be better rated imo...

Joeker user not visiting Queenzone.com
Joeker
Bohemian: 753 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 16 Sep 06, 23:40 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

rolling stone magazine is rubbish and a piece of shit... its worse than Gregs archiving.


Roger: Can I go To Lunch Now?

Brian: No, You Can't...

---------------------------------------

Freddie: Oh Shit, All this crap again?!



"If I had to do it all over again, yes why not? why not
thewho? user not visiting Queenzone.com

Be Gentle, I'm a newbie: 2 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 00:11 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I clean up my cats shit with that magazine

SK user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 812 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 00:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

theCro wrote:

230. A Night at the Opera, Queen

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5938174/the_rs_500_greatest_albums_of_all_time/

queen should be better rated imo...


No, it belongs in that position, people got to learn that there is so much more to music then Queen. that article is old. Queen is great, but top 10 or even top 100 material? nu-uh..not in my opinion and apparantly lots of others.

Mr.Jingles user not visiting Queenzone.com
Mr.Jingles
Deity: 10532 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 00:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Rolling Stone has it's own agenda of praising artists they just 'personally' happen to like, and if you're "buddies" with the staff of editors and writers from Rolling Stone then you'll never get a bad review despite of how weak or poor is your work.
Music is irrelevant to Rolling Stone magazine. Their business is basically about doing friends a favor to help them sell their records.
How else do you expect that an absolutely talentless woman like Yoko Ono gets excellent album reviews when her only remarkable achievement in the music industry was breaking up the greatest band of all time?
Explain to me how Queen never got a better review than 3/5 stars, but Paris Hilton's new album gets 3 stars as well?

I'll never get tired of saying this...
FUCK ROLING STONE MAGAZINE!
Freddie was more than right to say that music critics were nothing but a bunch of frustrated musicians.

If people truly rely on finding good music based on what Rolling Stone writes, then I just pity them. It doesn't take a rocket scientiest to know that Rolling Stone doesn't know shit about music.


[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brandon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]... and now the "best you can offer is Mr. Jingles? HA! He's... just pathetic.[/QUOTE]
SK user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 812 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 01:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote:

Alright, just looking at the list - not even thinking about Queen, I don't agree with it.

I like Led Zeppelin, but I think that IV was MUCH better than their debut. In fact, I don't think their debut album was that fantastic at all - pretty monotonous except for a few songs. BUT - this is my personal opinion, so I don't care if someone else disagrees - and I don't want to argue about it.

As I've said before, these lists are frivolous - you can't really make a list of "The Top 500 Albums". How do you judge 'better' ? It's personal taste (and, as Mr. Jingles mentioned, connections) for the most part.


Led Zepp I was released in '69, it had an impact in '69. Thats why it fared better. Led Zep IV was released in '71. Now if 1V was released in '69 maybe it would have been higher in the list. Cause Led Zep 1 was such a throw back to Jazz, that in 69 it was considerd awesome, by the time IV came out we had a thousand albums just like it. :)

mike hunt user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2770 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 04:06 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

sk" you make me laugh, if you don't think anato is more creative than GNR or public enemy your nuts!...what are you doing in a queen forum if you think queen don't deserve to be mentioned with bands like nirvana and guns and poses, the sex pistols, ect. nirvana was kids play!

s.m. user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 291 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 04:25 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

queen II, sha, anato, adatr, and notw are all classics

read the reviews and you get it that rolling stone hates queens guts
they just don´t get it
my advice, get over it

who cares about f***ing rolling stone
read what fellow musicians say about queen, look at the influence
you ve got def leppard, metallica, guns and roses, flaming lips, smashing pumpkins, green day, foo fighters, franz ferdinand, darkness etc. etc. citing queen as some form of influence
i think that is the only thing that matters
the impact they´ve made


She was my lover

It was a shame that she died

But the constitution´s right on my side

Cos I cought my lover in my neighbours bed

I got retribution, filled´em full of lead
Glende user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 16 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 06:48 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color =QUEEEEEEEEEEEEN> BowieQueen wrote:

IMO I do think Queen deserves a higher rating (although I am aware that there are much better albums to have been released by other bands so don't accuse me of being an obsessive fan, I don't think Queen deserved top) and I do think that Rolling Stone does go with it's own biased opinions, but had it been a different better magazine and maybe the poll had been 'best song/single' then Queen would have been considerably higher and their would have been more material on the list.


Rolling Stone has got a top 500 list of songs as well, and the only Queen-entry is Bohemian Rhapsody at no. 163....

AmeriQueen user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1072 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 07:05 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

You know, I normally bash American stupidity in not giving Queen more respect, but I must say, even the stupidest of music listeners here aren't dumb enough to put 'ANATO' at 230. All that needs to be said is that the 'Beach Boys' have album #2 on their list.

It's like the Grammy awards... Rolling Stone likes to maintain a certain "hip, conniseurs of art" like quality about them. Notice, they never gave the Beatles or Led Zeppelin a grammy, or hardly even a nomination(none other than the losing nomination of the 'Sgt. Pepper' album. Yet a decade or more past their careers, reunion tracks no better in anyway compared to the band's known classics, manage to win grammys('Most High' by Robert Plant and Jimmy Page/'Freebird' and 'Real Love' by the Beatles).

I wrote off Rolling Stone Magazine a long time ago when I took the time to analyze their thoughts on the band Def Leppard. Basically they gave a lukewarm review to both 'Pyromania' and 'Hysteria', the two albums that surprised the public and revolutionized music of the time as much as any two albums can. After 4 years post Hysteria, they were without their genius(guitarist Steve Clark died) alive to help them, but with SO MUCH public awareness and anticipation, released a cheesy pop album called 'Adrenalize' which debuted at #1 and quickly went south once the word was out that the album was shit compared to the past two gems. The album singlehandedly trashed their reptuations as musicians of quality, and labeled them instead as a cheeeball pop/rock hybrid in search of commercial success. Their following albums have been considered by most to be both commercial and artistic dissapointments. My point is, ironic enough as it is, Rolling Stone's album critics gave 'Adrenalize' the overall highest review among Def Leppard's catalogue. What does this mean? They couldn't see Leppard's greatness until it was public perception, then they couldn't come down on the band during 'Adrenalize' because the magazine was too commercially conscious of what sells.


In short, the RS magazine critics suck ass, illustrating in depth their lack of credibility when it comes to musical discussion.

SK user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 812 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 08:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

mike hunt wrote:

sk" you make me laugh, if you don't think anato is more creative than GNR or public enemy your nuts!...what are you doing in a queen forum if you think queen don't deserve to be mentioned with bands like nirvana and guns and poses, the sex pistols, ect. nirvana was kids play!


I didn't say that, I didn't agree with other choices either, All I'm saying is, if I had a top 100 or whatever Queen wouldn't be very high in it, due to the fact that their have been many wonderful, near perfect albums by many different artists. I'm on a Queen forum because I enjoy Queens music, but do I obbessess over it and believe that every album they ever done should be in the top 10? No, fuck no.

SK user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 812 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 08:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote:

SK wrote:

<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote:

Alright, just looking at the list - not even thinking about Queen, I don't agree with it.

I like Led Zeppelin, but I think that IV was MUCH better than their debut. In fact, I don't think their debut album was that fantastic at all - pretty monotonous except for a few songs. BUT - this is my personal opinion, so I don't care if someone else disagrees - and I don't want to argue about it.

As I've said before, these lists are frivolous - you can't really make a list of "The Top 500 Albums". How do you judge 'better' ? It's personal taste (and, as Mr. Jingles mentioned, connections) for the most part.


Led Zepp I was released in '69, it had an impact in '69. Thats why it fared better. Led Zep IV was released in '71. Now if 1V was released in '69 maybe it would have been higher in the list. Cause Led Zep 1 was such a throw back to Jazz, that in 69 it was considerd awesome, by the time IV came out we had a thousand albums just like it. :)


I can't definately understand that. But this just reminds me of difficult it is to single out a few albums as "better" or "top". Doing something like that is very subjective (so much to consider, which qualities outweigh which...)... I wouldn't want to be the one to have to do it.


Yes I definately understand what you mean. But, I think everyone who has musical knowledge can agree that the top 10 is pretty accurate. :)

SK user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 812 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 09:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote:

SK wrote:

<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote:

SK wrote:

<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote:

Alright, just looking at the list - not even thinking about Queen, I don't agree with it.

I like Led Zeppelin, but I think that IV was MUCH better than their debut. In fact, I don't think their debut album was that fantastic at all - pretty monotonous except for a few songs. BUT - this is my personal opinion, so I don't care if someone else disagrees - and I don't want to argue about it.

As I've said before, these lists are frivolous - you can't really make a list of "The Top 500 Albums". How do you judge 'better' ? It's personal taste (and, as Mr. Jingles mentioned, connections) for the most part.


Led Zepp I was released in '69, it had an impact in '69. Thats why it fared better. Led Zep IV was released in '71. Now if 1V was released in '69 maybe it would have been higher in the list. Cause Led Zep 1 was such a throw back to Jazz, that in 69 it was considerd awesome, by the time IV came out we had a thousand albums just like it. :)


I can't definately understand that. But this just reminds me of difficult it is to single out a few albums as "better" or "top". Doing something like that is very subjective (so much to consider, which qualities outweigh which...)... I wouldn't want to be the one to have to do it.


Yes I definately understand what you mean. But, I think everyone who has musical knowledge can agree that the top 10 is pretty accurate. :)


Holy cheese-balls ! I'm NOT kidding, but I meant to write "can" instead of "can't". Maybe I was going to word that differently... wow. That's a devastating spelling switch... !


No worries, I caught it and understood ^_^. Keep on rockin, if you haven't done so, try listening to those top 10 records they list. Most of them are personal faves of mine(Definately check out Pet Sounds and Blonde On Blonde).

Mr.Jingles user not visiting Queenzone.com
Mr.Jingles
Deity: 10532 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 10:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

So many Dylan records on that list and I can't even stomach listening to one single song.

Those Rolling Stone magazine people sure must be a bunch of hippie stoners.


[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brandon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]... and now the "best you can offer is Mr. Jingles? HA! He's... just pathetic.[/QUOTE]
SK user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 812 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 10:07 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Mr.Jingles wrote:

So many Dylan records on that list and I can't even stomach listening to one single song.

Those Rolling Stone magazine people sure must be a bunch of hippie stoners.


1)It's a shame Dylan wasn't a hippie, nor did he appeal to them, in matter in fact, they disliked his messages of truth.
2)The fact that Dylans albums are some of the best ever recorded...Queen never even came close, and that's the truth.
3)This article is from 2001. People don't be whiney like your god Brian May

No offense to anyone :)
In my opinion though, Dylan is far superior to Queen. I think a lot of artists/bands are.

Boy Thomas Raker user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 969 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 10:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

SK, you're very knowledgeable about music, which I feel is fantastic given the state of this board and its slavish obsession to everything Queen related. However, if there are 229 better albums in the world "better" than ANATO, I want to visit that world. ANATO contains more musical genius in two tracks (Good Company & Bohemian Rhapsody) than Bob Dylan's entire catlogue. Not talking lyrics, I'm talking music. The American press never warmed to Queen because they didn't understand them. If you're a RS critic and you've been weaned on Bob Dylan's 3 or 4 chord stuff (yes I'm generalizing) then you listen to stuff on ANATO, I doubt you would understand it. It's like Bruce Springsteen being loved by RS. He's a parody of himself, singing about the working man and the woes of blue collar America, even though he's been a millionaire for 30 years now. Critics get that whole meat and potatoes, I've-lost-my-job and my-Chevy's-in-the-shop and the-bossman-works-me-to hard American music thing, but they don't get a dandy who goes to the Louevre or likes to watch bicycle races because it's not part of their world, and they fear what they don't understand. Bottom line, ANATO is wherever people feel it is, whether it's the best 230th best or worst album ever, for my money it's the most musically diverse and creative album ever made. Genius from start to finish.


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

Bohemian: 812 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 10:34 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Boy Thomas Raker wrote:

SK, you're very knowledgeable about music, which I feel is fantastic given the state of this board and its slavish obsession to everything Queen related. However, if there are 229 better albums in the world "better" than ANATO, I want to visit that world. ANATO contains more musical genius in two tracks (Good Company & Bohemian Rhapsody) than Bob Dylan's entire catlogue. Not talking lyrics, I'm talking music. The American press never warmed to Queen because they didn't understand them. If you're a RS critic and you've been weaned on Bob Dylan's 3 or 4 chord stuff (yes I'm generalizing) then you listen to stuff on ANATO, I doubt you would understand it. It's like Bruce Springsteen being loved by RS. He's a parody of himself, singing about the working man and the woes of blue collar America, even though he's been a millionaire for 30 years now. Critics get that whole meat and potatoes, I've-lost-my-job and my-Chevy's-in-the-shop and the-bossman-works-me-to hard American music thing, but they don't get a dandy who goes to the Louevre or likes to watch bicycle races because it's not part of their world, and they fear what they don't understand. Bottom line, ANATO is wherever people feel it is, whether it's the best 230th best or worst album ever, for my money it's the most musically diverse and creative album ever made. Genius from start to finish.


Hey, thanks for the compliment and the insight. Yes, its true, Dylan's albums are not known for music(Although Blood On The Track/Desire has lushcious music, I promise you that). As for A Night At The Opera being genious, prehaps. I have listend to this lp ever since I got it on vinyl, and I do truly enjoy it, but it just doesnt click well with the whole "one of the best albums of all time" I mean, come now, lets compare it to a masterpeice like "Pet Sounds" or "Electric Lady Land" it dismisses certain qualities such as blending and keeping a certain such of flow(music wise and spiritualy). It was almost a step backwards theory wise, considering the stuff that only came out a year or two before it("Exile On Main St" "The Rise And Fall Of Ziggy Stardust And The Spiders For Mars"). I also feel ANATO sufferd from bad mixing, I can listen to that album for hours and point out studio flaws and such. As a whole, the album is good and enjoyable to listen to, is it one of the best ever made? Certinately not in my opinion, is it fun,good and enjoyable? yes that is for sure

:)



dont try suicide user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 131 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 12:31 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

the only thing that rolling stone got right was making sgt. pepper #1 and pet sounds # 2.

Mr.Jingles user not visiting Queenzone.com
Mr.Jingles
Deity: 10532 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 12:42 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Only lyrically speaking Dylan is superior to Queen.
Dylan could never in a million years produce musically complex tracks like 'Bohemian Rhapsody', 'The March of the Black Queen', or 'Innuendo'.

Sorry to say that but it's the truth.


[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brandon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]... and now the "best you can offer is Mr. Jingles? HA! He's... just pathetic.[/QUOTE]
SK user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 812 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 06, 14:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Mr.Jingles wrote:

Only lyrically speaking Dylan is superior to Queen.
Dylan could never in a million years produce musically complex tracks like 'Bohemian Rhapsody', 'The March of the Black Queen', or 'Innuendo'.

Sorry to say that but it's the truth.


Maybe so, but as albums,as music and as a peice of art. His albums are superior, in my opinion atleast :)