Queen - BBC2 Documentary & Re-releases

[WhiteCrow]

They could have tried another royalty related name, but Prince was taken!

[Dino]

Que!
Or possibly 'Een'.

Or they take an extra E from 'een', add the initial of the new singers surname and call themselves:

"QueeR"?

This would also sit well with people like us who feel that's what it's like using the Queen name without Freddie or John!

[Si Hunt]

I listened to it this morning before I had to turn it off. It's a horrible album - bland, overpolished, full of awful Dad-dialogue like "the world's rockin'" and so on. "Warboys" is sadly not about Mrs Warboys from "One Foot In The Grave".

It's a very uncynical, unmalicious album - very well intentioned. But it's so diluted! It has no passion, nothing to say. It begins with three very standard, empty 'rockers' and is then smattered with a handful of tired, unwelcoming sounding slow songs. Rodgers is pretty crap - he sounds like Brian May, which not only defeats the point but is a major problem as anyone who ever heard Freddie's "Too Much Love Will Kill You" after being used to Brian May's version will realise.

There is one shining light in the painful wilderness - "Small", which is a lovely, piano based anthem over which Rodgers finally sounds emotive rather than bored and which builds into a lengthy but poignant Queen ballad. It makes buying the CD worth it.

Alas, what's missing is not only the camp, pomp and imagination of Freddie Mercury (to whom the album is dedicated) but any belting singalong Queen singles that people can hum. The songwriting is not only empty but desperately uncatchy and the melodies largely stink too. There's no "We Will Rock You" or "Radio Ga Ga". There's not even a "Body Language", at least that had fire in its belly.

There's a very faint whiff of promise, but this is mostly bland crud in search of the Queen magic.

Si.

[Rob McCow]

So not one to file under 'Classic' then.

It's a real shame, because the world needs a band like Queen and frankly, The Darkness failed at the first hurdle.

[WhiteCrow]

So you didn't like it then? I'm so surprised as you went into it so open minded!

I was wondering about it this morning, and remembered one of the final Mercury tracks was of course "The Show Must Go On". It's hard to really judge another man's actions. With all respect to Si, possibly even the most dedicated fan probably doesn't know Freddies wishes as well as his bandmates.

Perhaps they're trying to keep the show going on out of memory for Freddie to keep the band and name alive in some way. I doubt either really needs the money, and it sounds like the kind of venture which will lose them money. It may be as simple as they don't want to call it a day, want an excuse to play music together, like some kind of veterans group who'll continue to meet up as long as there are two of them left alive.

[WhiteCrow]

It's a real shame, because the world needs a band like Queen

And you're not a fan of Muse either then?

[Si Hunt]

So you didn't like it then? I'm so surprised as you went into it so open minded!

I think the fact I expected it to be rubbish from the song titles ("Surfs up... Schools Out!" Yes, really) would mean that I would have been impressed if it had been even ok. The fact I was STILL dissapointed tells you something. I WAS Open-Minded, and at one point yesterday realised for the first time that I WAS really interested to hear it. But it's just not very good I'm afraid.

I was wondering about it this morning, and remembered one of the final Mercury tracks was of course "The Show Must Go On".

It's a song about himself - putting on the make-up and soldiering on even though it's falling apart inside. I don't think it really relates to the Queen reunion twenty years on . But it was probably written by May anyway.

Perhaps they're trying to keep the show going on out of memory for Freddie to keep the band and name alive in some way.

I think it's more likely to be because...

they don't want to call it a day, want an excuse to play music together, like some kind of veterans group who'll continue to meet up as long as there are two of them left alive.

May and Taylor are rockers, through and through. They need to be making music and touring, it seems to be all they know how to do. Unfortunately Freddie's death left the careers of his bandmates only half completed, so it was inevitable they'd carry on without him at some point. I wonder if they'd have been better doing a 'duets' album with a different lead singer on each song?

Si.

[WhiteCrow]

May and Taylor are rockers, through and through. They need to be making music and touring, it seems to be all they know how to do. Unfortunately Freddie's death left the careers of his bandmates only half completed, so it was inevitable they'd carry on without him at some point. I wonder if they'd have been better doing a 'duets' album with a different lead singer on each song?

I think you're kind of right. And please - that's Dr May to you.

Since the work on Queen has wound down with Freddies death, Dr Brian May has really thrown himself back into his Astronomy studies, and they struggle to keep him off Sky At Night. He completed the PhD he started before Queen became big.

But in a way isn't it great? I mean many a band has some big fall out, and that's it, they never play together again. Most of them refuse to be in the same room again. You always want the bands you love to be held together by a deep friendship I guess.

Just shame it seems the music isn't too great.

My own personal hate is when other musicians, particularly rappers take samples of Freddies singing, and then just mess with it, and pretty much talk all over it. That's far more disrespectful than two band members continuing to make music. But that's my take, obviously others don't feel the same, as they buy this music.

[Si Hunt]

That's only ever happened with Wyclef's mauling of "Another One Bites The Dust" which is a curio. Oddly, I rather like it. There's obviously respect there ("Freddie Mercury, where you at?"), and I like the notion of Freddie becoming this iconic figure being taken to a new audience. Bizarrely, my Mum really likes it!

Si.

[MacNimon]

I listened to it this morning before I had to turn it off. It's a horrible album - bland, overpolished, full of awful Dad-dialogue like "the world's rockin'" and so on. "Warboys" is sadly not about Mrs Warboys from "One Foot In The Grave".

It's a very uncynical, unmalicious album - very well intentioned. But it's so diluted! It has no passion, nothing to say. It begins with three very standard, empty 'rockers' and is then smattered with a handful of tired, unwelcoming sounding slow songs. Rodgers is pretty crap - he sounds like Brian May, which not only defeats the point but is a major problem as anyone who ever heard Freddie's "Too Much Love Will Kill You" after being used to Brian May's version will realise.

There is one shining light in the painful wilderness - "Small", which is a lovely, piano based anthem over which Rodgers finally sounds emotive rather than bored and which builds into a lengthy but poignant Queen ballad. It makes buying the CD worth it.

Alas, what's missing is not only the camp, pomp and imagination of Freddie Mercury (to whom the album is dedicated) but any belting singalong Queen singles that people can hum. The songwriting is not only empty but desperately uncatchy and the melodies largely stink too. There's no "We Will Rock You" or "Radio Ga Ga". There's not even a "Body Language", at least that had fire in its belly.

There's a very faint whiff of promise, but this is mostly bland crud in search of the Queen magic.

Si.

I'm not really surprised that you're not too impressed by this, Si.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I know that you're a big fan of Freddie, and likely more of a Freddie fan than a fan of the members of the group, whereas I've enjoyed much of the solo output of the others as well as Freddie since the early years of the 1980s. Taylor and May have both released some excellent stuff outside of Queen (even if the albums usually tend to be patchy affairs) but they have an impressive repertoire the best of which easily ranks up with Freddies best.

I don't mean this as a criticism, just an observation (and differing tastes) but what it also means is that we've both approached this new cd with different expectations. You're basically trying to compare this with any classic Queen album, whereas imo what you probably should be comparing this to is the solo output of May and Taylor (and Paul Rodgers, of course!) You've basically set yourself up for a bigger let-down if you really expected it to be anything like a typical Queen album.

I don't think that the album is as bad as you make it out to be, although I've got to admit that I wasn't too impressed with it to begin with either, it really took a few listens for some of the songs to grow on me and once they started to stick in my head, the cd suddenly seemed much more promising than it initially appeared (hence my early 7/10 rating) I then didn't listen to it for a few weeks, and when I played it again (shortly before the PS meet, I believe) those same few songs cemented themselves as standout tracks and I was really enjoying (the first half of) the cd at the time. I still like the title track (I just ignore the awful lyrics and enjoy the over-polished production, and it's a catchy number all the same) and I agree that "Small" is the highlight of the album...it's excellent.

The biggest problem though is that there is no obvious big-hitting singles here...it's severely lacking in radio-friendly tunes. If only John Deacon had been involved, I reckon this may have been avoided. Everyone involved gives their best, but if the quality of some of the songs isn't great to begin with it doesn't really matter how good their best is.

Like I said yesterday, this has settled into a 5/10 album with a smattering of great tracks. It's certainly no classic, though.

What I would like to see next time round from a Queen album is for them to rework the best solo stuff from Freddie, Brian and Roger into a 'real' Queen album along with John Deacon (similar to what was done with some of the tracks on Made In Heaven) and throw in a couple of new tracks sung by Paul Rodgers, just to give us some new material. At least that way we'd be guaranteed some quality music.

[Si Hunt]

You're basically trying to compare this with any classic Queen album, whereas imo what you probably should be comparing this to is the solo output of May and Taylor (and Paul Rodgers, of course!)

That's true. But if they credit it to "Queen" they only have themselves to blame for that!

What I would like to see next time round from a Queen album is for them to rework the best solo stuff from Freddie, Brian and Roger...

At least that way we'd be guaranteed some quality music.

I think that says it all!

Like I said yesterday, this has settled into a 5/10 album with a smattering of great tracks. It's certainly no classic, though.

I think we probably have quite similar opinions of the album then. I'm sure given a few more listens a couple more songs will stick, and it'll nudge up to your 5/10 rating.

That said, it's a long, long time since I actually turned off a new song by ANYONE half-way through because I couldn't bear to go on with it. Yet that's what happened today with "Some Things That Glitter".

Si.

[MacNimon]

But if they credit it to "Queen" they only have themselves to blame for that!

Valid point!

And don't go looking for "Some Things That Glitter" to improve with repeated listening...it doesn't.

[WhiteCrow]

The funny thing is - if Taylor and May had been on NME and said "well I know Freddie isn't with us, but we're still recording and writing songs together", everyone still would have been interested/desperate to hear what they'd been working on.

[Dino]

The funny thing is - if Taylor and May had been on NME and said "well I know Freddie isn't with us, but we're still recording and writing songs together", everyone still would have been interested/desperate to hear what they'd been working on.

True, but all the NME would have asked them was "Why have you got terrible hair? Why have you got terrible hair? Why have you got terrible hair?"

[WhiteCrow]

True, but all the NME would have asked them was "Why have you got terrible hair? Why have you got terrible hair? Why have you got terrible hair?"

You know I stand corrected. Together with putting in a few lines about Oasis and the White Stripes.

[Si Hunt]

The funny thing is - if Taylor and May had been on NME and said "well I know Freddie isn't with us, but we're still recording and writing songs together", everyone still would have been interested/desperate to hear what they'd been working on.

But we as the general public need to be protected from our insatiable need to hear and see things that would be better left to our imaginations. The Blondie reunion, for example (though at least we got "Maria" out of that).

Si.

[WhiteCrow]

Dunno - if there was a release of Queen: Lost Freddie Mercury Sessions, would you buy it? The stuff you'd know wouldn't be their best material, and as polished as some of the stuff they released. Would you want to listen out of curiosity, or would you leave it best to your imagination.

I know some people would. Some people wouldn't.

[Rob McCow]

Dunno - if there was a release of Queen: Lost Freddie Mercury Sessions

There was - that was Made In Heaven, wasn't it? Although technically an album they were working on before he died, it amounts to the same thing.

Archive stuff tends to appeal only to the dedicated fan and the mythical 'Completists'.

[Si Hunt]

Dunno - if there was a release of Queen: Lost Freddie Mercury Sessions, would you buy it?

Do you mean this beauty, my favouritist material possession:



Trust me, it's got everything. He got pissed round the piano with Monserrat Caballe one night and noodled away on the piano for the evening... AND IT'S ON THERE!

Q Magazine once said "you'd have to be mentally disturbed to buy it". Alonsy!

Si.

[WhiteCrow]

Oh didn't I just walk into that one!

It does look like something I'd like to have. But then I do like stuff like that to be preserved and available for everyone. I know people have similar strong emotions when some old, undistributed John Lennon recording is found. Somehow the stuff which is rougher and maybe even doesn't work, you like hearing, cos it's "new" and because it helps you understand more what worked better.

Just looked it up on Amazon ... wow, that's a lot of money, but I think really worth it if you're a commited fan. If for no other reason than finding someone you admired and passed away has a few more musical surprises left for you to discover ...

[Si Hunt]

It's just a lovely thing to own. The book itself must be worth £50 - it's huge.

Anyway, this is all a bit irrelevent. We were talking about reunions and the like, where-as this is making available something that already exists and is quite clearly labelled under off-cuts/out-takes.

But we can talk more about my gorgeous Freddie Box Set if you like. In fact, come over, I'll get it out and put the kettle on. You'll have to wear gloves if you want to touch it though.

Si.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

Just heard this for the first time yesterday and actually I was surprised. I was expecting it to be a load of al tosh, but I actually really like most of it. "Call Me" is awful, but nothing else letp out as being really bad, and 3 or 4 tracks I thought were great.

[Si Hunt]

Which ones?

Si.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

I don't really know now, I've only heard it once

Although I do remember thinking the 2nd track was pretty good, maybe the one I liked most actually, and I could easily imagine that coming from one of the early Queen albums.

Oh and I thought Surfs Up was okay too, although I can't even remember what it sounds like now. The title is awful, and maybe the lyrics are too, but it wasn't the Beach Boys travesty I was expecting.

As with most albums though, I guess the first listen doesn't really reflect how you'll feel about it when you're more familiar with it, but on first impressions it certainly seems to have a higher quality on average than, say, either of Brian May's solo albums.

I don't particularly like Paul Rodgers' voice, or rather some of his pronunciation, and I didn't like the live stuff they did with him, but I didn't really notice it this time.

Anyway, while I'm sure it's not going to be to everyone's taste, I'd rather listen to this kind of thing than any X-factor-type produce any day of the week.

[Rob McCow]

I don't particularly like Paul Rodgers' voice, or rather some of his pronunciation, and I didn't like the live stuff they did with him,

anything else you don't like about Paul Rodgers? Can I suggest his hair and dress sense?

I think you're right though, anything that these three produce has got to be better than some of the dross in the charts today.