egafd.com

I don't even rate The Reaper

Its up there with Godzilla...boring

Songs like Dominance & Submission,Blade,Cities on Flame & Me262 are far more to my liking

I think their live performances make their studio albums pale into insignificance

Can't say I'm really up on Sandy Pearlman as a producer which is why my first BOC album was a best of career of Evil 1990

There album Fire of Unknown Origin 1981 produced by Martin Birch showed a real progression from the early raw edge to a more commercial mellow style-interesting to say the least.

cheers
B....OZ

the early albums[1972,74]still stand out today too,tyranny and mutation,secret treaties.

Well actually if Queen were "bollocks" from '86 onwards , then that's actually not a bad career is it ? Considering Queen only released a further 3 studio albums after that date (17 to that point) and also considering Fred was quite seriously ill whilst recording the last two, I think you could be a little less hard on the lads eh ? .......and "suddenly globally huge" after live aid ? C'mon, you don't seriously believe that do you ? Queen were massive in the 70's. The album that goosed them was Hot Space in 82 (especially in the States). You may be referring to a slight 3 year dip in popularity after that album, but, considering that 5 out of their next 7 singles during that period went top 10 in the UK, it wasn't exactly a disaster was it ? Like you say, it's just your opinion and we all have a right to like what we like, just thought I'd offer a different view that's all. Musical arguments are as futile as saying my favourite colour is better than yours (mine's a silverygreeny blue by the way, and that has always been popular and never bollocks.... erm has it?) Cheers Queenies !!

It was purely an opinion, HOWEVER, Queen were not massive in the 70's globally. UK, Japan and some other places, but NOT the poncey US market. The Album, The Game was a change in direction from the glam to rock and it worked, but as you rightly stated, Hot Space was dire. Live Aid was a boost they needed for their flagging career, as it was also used for U2s dramatic and meteoric rise globally.
The next albums that went top 10 in the UK were a hit and miss affair, Magic was good, Miricle was bad. Innuendo was excellent in parts, crap in others. The Greatrest hits 1 and 2 are worthy in anybodies CD collection, but GH3 isnt.
Live they were so-so. If Freddie had an 'off night' the band suffered. Brian May is a very over-rated guitarist and although inventive, he is what I would call an average player.
Their popularity continued with the emergence of MTV where their grandoise videos were played to a wider audience that perhaps might not have brought their records previously.
Freddie was undoubtably very talented, and as an arranger, I take my hat off to him, but as a band? over-rated still. You only have to look at solo projects and 'spin-offs' to see there 'so-called' genius.............average solo albums, relaunches by May and Taylor. At least Deacon was right to call it a day.
On a personal note, and I am indebted to Queen for this, They were signed by EMI and were due to take part in an interview on TV and dropped out, so EMI put forward another of their recent signings to take part on a TV show,and the rest is history. The band were The Sex Pistols and the TV show was Bill Grundys show and THAT really launched Punk Rock into the publics imagination. I wonder if Freddie and co ever regretted that career move?

Well, you didn't expect me to read that without reply did you ? he he.
Live Aid gave Queen a boost in terms of it rekindling their desire as after 15 years the band were toying with the idea of taking a break from the album tour routine. Yes it boosted album sales, but it did so for everyone else. Queen benefitted because they did what they always did. Put on a great show. Flagging career ? No ! Flagging enthusiasm...yes. Come on, you must put Queen in the top 5 artists during the 70's, overall both for impact/sales and live performances ? Queen were so-so live ? How ridiculous a statement if ever I heard one. Queen if nothing else were mind blowing live. I take it you saw every performance in order to judge them as a so-so live band overall ? You say, if Freddie had an off night the band suffered...well Derrr...yes. What a frikkin remark that is. Tell me one band that wouldn't suffer if their front man and lead singer had an off night. Tell me one band that hasn't put in a poor show ? Case dismissed. Brian May, an average player. Can you enlighten us as to your criteria for a good player ? Granted he isn't the greatest but you have to put him in a top 10 surely ? As for their solo careers, don't single out Queen here. How many other bands have had individual members with successful solo careers ? You can probably count them on one hand if that. You can't judge the band by how successful their solo careers are surely? How ridiculous. Generally solo careers are where the members try other things. Things that can't be explored within the constraints of a band. Some work, some don't. Commercially due to promotion or whatever most of the solo stuff weren't brilliant. If you gave them all a listen, they have some pretty good stuff here and there. Even the great Led Zep have suffered in that department. Off hand, I can only think of the Beatles who haven't.
The final personal note you make surely has to be the biggest wind up of all time. Now, you aren't gonna embarass yourself here by owning up to being a Sex Pistols fan are you? Now we are talking talentless here. If ever a group were over hyped and over rated it is that one. Ha ha, I did actually think you were worth replying to up to that point. Now I think not. As Fred once said to SV......."ahhhhh Mr Ferocious". Punk Rock was gonna happen whatever, and you know it. It was also gonna die an ugly death a few years later. Nuff said.

have to disagree there bands like the pistols,clash,lurkers brought xcitement in to the mid 70s,if it hadnt been for these we would never have had joy division etc.

Punk Rock was fresh, original and gave dinosaurs like YES, ELP and other prog rock groups a kick up the arse. I was, and still am, a Clash fan. I pointed out that the Sex Pistols TV appearence gave punk rock a shot in the arm letting the public know it had finally happened.
We could argue the merits of Queen, and we would both feel our own point was valid, but I really can't be arsed to enter a slanging match. You are obviously a fan and I do respect that regardless of my own personal view on the band.

are new order,pet shop boys and some electronic.

Hey, I don't mind discussing these things, but c'mon, you have to admit that most of the arguments you put forward are pretty weak aren't they ? You obviously have some pretty deep rooted issues about Queen to level such unfounded, unfair criticism at 'em. Fine, say you don't like their music, ...I have no problem with that....I never really understood the attraction with The Clash if I'm honest, but that's not to say I'm gonna sit here and ridicule them, because I understand that loads of people do/did like them. As far as I am concerned, I cannot explain why I don't like certain bands, I just don't that's all, but I would never come out with the shite you have come out with for not liking one particular band...that's a wee bit scary if you ask me. But I'm glad you got those issues off your chest, they must have been weighing you down for so long man. I guess I should never mind the bollocks eh?
Now, can we all live in musical peace and harmony ....and just chill ?

No: safer to imagine he died at the right time......look at the Jaggers and McCartneys.
And even, though it grieves me to say this, Floyd.........