Queen - BBC2 Documentary & Re-releases

[Si Hunt]

And you could say that they all wrote the best songs...unlike some groups where one or two members take the credit for most of the output, with Queen all four members were capable of coming up with a huge hit.

But "coming up with a huge hit" is not the same as writing all the best songs. It would be nice to say that they ALL write the best songs... but it's not true. The majority of the music, including most of the big hits, were written by either Mercury or May. Taylor and Deacon came up with a fair few bit hits between them in Queen's main twenty years, but you could still name twenty well-known blockbuster hits by Freddie, and only about three by John Deacon before you have to start resorting to Number 33 hit "Spread Your Wings".

Si.

[MacNimon]

You've got a point there. It doesn't help that all songs in their later albums are credited to all 4 group members, you can hazard a guess as to who came up with the original song at times but it's harder to be sure who really wrote what.

[Si Hunt]

It's fun guessing though! Fan lore insists Deacon wrote "Rain Must Fall" off "The Miracle". And "Ride the Wild Wind" is obvious Rog.

Si.

[Rob McCow]

Could I have saved all this fuss by saying he wrote most of my favourite songs?

[MacNimon]

No matter who actually wrote the hits, it was Freddie's vocals which were largely responsible for their success. It wasn't until the Freddie Mercury Memorial Concert when other stars of the day attempted to sing Queen songs that you realised just what a versatile singer Freddie actually was. Some of the artists gave us decent versions while others were just dire. Even the likes of Elton John or George Micheal couldn't do the songs justice, imo.

Slightly off topic here, but what does everyone think of Queen's solo output? John Deacon has released nothing that I'm aware of (although he contributed to the Biggles soundtrack - although not as a solo artist - back in the 80s iirc) so we have only Freddie, Brian and Roger to consider. Freddie probably had the most successful solo career, with hits such as Love Kills, I Was Born To Love You, The Great Pretender, Barcelona and posthumous No1 Living On My Own, among others. But imo his albums were rather patchy affairs, particularly Mr Bad Guy...there wasn't actually a bad song in there, but I felt the production standards were pretty weak and the album just lacked punch. But if it was a Queen album it could have been a classic! Just look at the Queen versions of Made In Heaven and I Was Born To Love You for the proof...Brian, on the other hand, I felt has had the most disappointing solo career to date. Apart from the hits Driven By You and Too Much Love Will Kill You he hasn't had much chart success and his albums, like Freddie's, have been pretty patchy. His first (real) solo album in 1992 was a decent effort, but I wasn't impressed much by it's follow-up; May's finest moment imo outside Queen was his 1984 mini-album Star Fleet Project, which he recorded with Eddie Van Halen and others. Roger has been the most active member of the group, but again, his solo career has been littered with patchy efforts. Strange Frontier in 1984 was possibly his strongest effort, with the opening 3 tracks being particularly strong numbers. The title track from the Fun In Space album is worth a mention, as is his minor hit Future Management from 1981, but once again it was demonstrated that he worked best in Queen when a track from one of his Cross albums (Heaven For Everyone) was reworked as a Queen single for Made In Heaven.
All 3 members have a number of excellent songs scattered throughout their solo albums. Considering how good the Queen versions of Made In Heaven, I Was Born To Love You, Too Much Love Will Kill You sound, I reckon it's time that Brian and Roger revisited the best solo songs and reworked them into a new Queen album. A Queen album featuring new versions of Driven By You, Living On My Own, Strange Frontier, Love Kills etc really would be worth hearing imo. And it would be great to hear Freddie in the charts once again!

[Si Hunt]

I love Freddie's solo career to bits, and I agree there are great songs in there waiting to be Queen-ized. "Love Me Like There's No Tomorrow" and "There Must Be More To Life Than This" in particular.

Yes, I love Solo Fred. The production may be dated, but it's also vibrant, fizzing and full of energy. "Mr Bad Guy" is an astonishingly versatile collection of music, touching on rock, reggae, piano ballads and dance. It's like "Hot Space" but with great songs. "Barcelona" is a cherished album too, with not a bad track on its slight eight-track length; I love singing along to "Japonaise" - "suuuupaaa sheeeee....!". "The Golden Boy" is a massively overlooked gospel classic, and "How Can I Go On" is sublime, hilarious and jaunty. In all, it's this wonderful flamboyant musical outpouring, with a huge woman trilling operatics over Freddie, whom you forever imagine singing it in a tux, camping it up over the top.

Add to this such non-album gems as "In My Defence" (heartbreaking, in light of later events) and "The Great Pretender" (BEST. VIDEO. EVER) and what's not to love?

Brian May, I have less love for. I haven't actually heard his first solo album, but the second is very patchy. "Cyborg" won't be up there with the Queen classics. Also "Driven By You" is a dreadful song.

Life is too short for solo Rog, and anyone who saw him growling out his Queen songs on TFI Friday in the late nineties must have believed thereafter that there was no love left in the world.

Si.

[Wayne]

No matter who actually wrote the hits, it was Freddie's vocals which were largely responsible for their success. It wasn't until the Freddie Mercury Memorial Concert when other stars of the day attempted to sing Queen songs that you realised just what a versatile singer Freddie actually was. Some of the artists gave us decent versions while others were just dire. Even the likes of Elton John or George Micheal couldn't do the songs justice, imo.

Agreed. I'm not really much of a Queen fan, even their early rock stuff was never really my style, but Freddie was just a superb singer. I saw some of that concert, & even Robert Plant was shite on 'Crazy Little Thing Called Love', & that's not even a stretcher for a half decent vocalist compared to some Queen stuff.
To me, Freddie was just too integral to the group's sound to be replaced. I've nothing against different musicians joining together to create a new sound, but i've always been of the opinion that they shouldnt've carried on using the name 'Queen'. They're not Queen at without Freddie if you ask me.

[Si Hunt]

They're careful that they have never called themselves just "Queen" without Freddie. It's always been "Queen + "

Si.

[Wayne]

They're careful that they have never called themselves just "Queen" without Freddie. It's always been "Queen + "

Si.

Hmmmm......... But there should be a minus in there somewhere as well though.
'Queen 2' might've been more accurate. But i don't suppose it matters really.

[Si Hunt]

Hello my beauties!

Si.

[MacNimon]

Did anyone catch Queen+Paul performing new track (new single?) C-lebrity on Al Murray's Happy Hour the other night? Catch it here on You Tube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3ovN...eature=related

[MacNimon]

I just picked up a copy of 'The Cosmos Rocks' tonight in my local Asda. I haven't had a chance to have a proper listen yet, but the opener rocks big style...I love it! Not so sure about the rest of the album, although admittedly I only heard snatches of each song in the car. It doesn't sound much like the Queen we're all used to (obviously!) so I'm happy to see that they're not simply retreading old ground.

Has anyone else heard this yet, and what are your initial thoughts?

[Rob McCow]

My initial thought is 'I don't like the cover' followed by 'Wait till it hits the bargain bins'. Shame really.

[Milky Tears]

The Cosmos Rocks about as much as my gran.

[MacNimon]

It's amazing the difference that a few listens makes!

I'm happy to report that this cd is not the almighty disaster that I expected it to be: on the contrary, there are a number of really impressive songs here which quickly work their way into your subconscious. But don't expect this to be anything like a typical Queen album, as it could equally be regarded as a Paul Rogers solo effort at times...

The cd kicks off in fine style with the fabulous 'Cosmos Rockin'....this is exactly what you do expect from Queen. From the opening 'One Vision'-style intro with the "What planet is this?...Let there be rock & roll" voice-over this is simply classic Queen. Maybe not the greatest song lyrically, but this is loud, with great riffs and a brilliant simple chorus...pretentious rock in typical Queen fashion and is the closest we get to typical Queen on the whole album. Nothing new here, but it should have been the lead-off single.

The biggest let-down for me (at the moment, but perhaps I'm just not so familiar with those yet) is some of the slower songs in the latter half of the album. The worst offender is possibly the single 'Say It's Not True', but it's debatable...'Voodoo', 'Through The Night' and 'Some Things That Glitter' aren't particularly impressive either. If only they could have got the under-rated John Deacon on board for this album to pen a few songs to replace these weak spots in an otherwise fine album, they could potentially have had a classic on their hands. 'Cos this album hits the mark, more often than not, particularly on the rockers.

What sort of Queen fan are you? This is what will decide whether you enjoy this cd or not. If you are a long-time fan of the group, someone who enjoys rock music in general, and enjoy hearing talented musicians making (mostly) good music, this cd is for you. You'll enjoy discovering those occasional instrumental (although not vocal) pieces reminiscent of Queen's 70's heyday. But if your exposure to the group is limited to the Greatest Hits set of albums, don't waste your time like this...you'll not find much here for you.

Personally, I'd rate this well above such 'real' Queen albums as The Game, Hot Space and The Works...at the moment, I'd give this a solid 7/10

[Si Hunt]

I picked this up in the Woolies 50% sale at the weekend - it actually still wasn't THAT cheap as someone had suspiciously hand-written really overinflated prices on everything before the sale started.

Ok, I haven't heard hardly any of it yet, just the first track. I will give it the benefit of the doubt - I can't help but smell a turd at the moment though. I mused this morning that they really shouldn't have taken the Queen name to this project, maybe using their surnames instead. Then I realised that no matter which way round you do that - May Rogers Taylor... Taylor Rogers May... May Taylor Rogers.... it always sounds rude.

I was surprised to look up that this album got to #5 in the UK though! A hit! How on Earth did that happen? It's nowhere to be found now though, so I suspect it dropped like a stone.

Si.

[Rob McCow]

Well it does have the 'Queen' logo; We Will Rock You is still doing well opposite Zavvi in London, which also boosts the 'Queen' brand. Despite the lack of promotion, singles and tour, loads of Queen fans would have picked it up out of interest.

Not me though.

[WhiteCrow]

I mused this morning that they really shouldn't have taken the Queen name to this project

Why?

I know it's always a bit hard when a band member leaves or dies, and Freddie Mercury always seemed to "be" Queen. But 75% of the members are still there.

There are a lot of other bands which have kept the "brand name", but bear little relation to the most famous lineup.

The Who continue although half of them are now dead. The Rolling Stones have lost a few members, but continue under the name. Genesis endured even after having their lead singers leave.

I was also looking at websites last night on Steeleye Span and Fairport Convention, both bands whose line-up changes radically, and have had some members die.

But it's a good question - when to call it a day on a band name? Somehow I think it is always better when a group does "quit when they're ahead".

The Beatles never reformed, and I think Ringo has said if he teamed up with Paul McCartney it would seem an insult to call them "the Beatles reformed". ABBA have said that if they did reform they'd be at best "a tribute act" to their own songs, and probably some of the better tribute bands cover their material better than they could.

[MacNimon]

Why?

I know it's always a bit hard when a band member leaves or dies, and Freddie Mercury always seemed to "be" Queen. But 75% of the members are still there.

You're wrong on that point, unfortunately. John Deacon wasn't interested in contributing to this project, so we only have 50% of the members of Queen.

I'm also going to revise my rating on the cd; as a whole it doesn't stand up to repeated listening, but there a number of excellent tracks among them...they just don't sound much like Queen. The first half of the album is much stronger than the second half, so it's quite a patchy affair. I'd say that it's settled into a 5/10 album with the passage of time. Interesting to listen to, but not great.

[WhiteCrow]

Well it's something I've been wondering about a lot today. How some bands can have an almost constantly changing lineup and remain essentially "that band", and others not.

Obviously the lead vocals are a big part of the identity of any group. But the lead vocalist isn't the whole band.

[Si Hunt]

Why?

I know it's always a bit hard when a band member leaves or dies, and Freddie Mercury always seemed to "be" Queen. But 75% of the members are still there.

As Kenny said, it's 50%. And that's if you consider the drummer's contribution equal to the showman, when that showman was the greatest of all time.

So if you're left with the guitarist and the drummer and a different frontman, and it doesn't even sound like Queen, I don't think it should be called Queen. I'm fine with lesser groups trading on an old band name to sell tickets, but I think Queen were such legends that it seems a shame both to history and to Freddie's memory to continue as essentially a different group that have taken the name associated with such a brilliant and iconic career.

On the other hand, it does help keep them Number 1 on the tally of Most Weeks On The Albums Charts.

Si.

[WhiteCrow]

I do agree with some of what you say, but I don't think there's an absolute rule for these things, it's down to the people in the band to decide when to call it a day. I guess if fans don't like it, they won't buy into it, so that'll send a clear message.

This kind of touched a nerve with me cos I was researching a band who had a unique lead singer, who left and since died. They still go around and cover songs she sang. But you hear the originals and there was something unique in how she sang them, that you can do the song, but not really equal the original.

Personally and quite controversially I think Genesis should have changed their name when Peter Gabriel left the band (which of course I've said before).

[Si Hunt]

"Small" is excellent.

Nice to see the album "dedicated to Freddie Mercury."

I thought they'd made a clean break and not mention him... but there he was, right at the bottom.

Si.

[Rob McCow]

I think it's the balance between 'Artistic Integrity' and 'Getting People To Hear The New Album'.

So here's my suggestions of alternative names for the Paul/Brian/Roger collective:

Roger Rogers
Trading on two of the band member's names.

Paul Rogers The Queen
This would capture the headlines, no doubt!

Curly, Blondie and Paul
Descriptions of the bandmembers.

Que!
Or possibly 'Een'.

Queen II
Like their second album!

((Queen + Paul Rogers) - Freddie Mercury - John Deacon)
The Equation of Queen.

We Will Rock You On Tour + Paul Rogers
Perhaps if Brian and Roger leave?

Queen Mother
Wrong in so many ways!

The Show Must Go On
Poignant.

Beelzebub Put An Album On Each Side For Me
Random.

[Si Hunt]

I'd have gone for the snappy "Queen - Deacon - Mercury + Rogers"

Si.