|
|
Post by impulse on Nov 4, 2020 11:53:59 GMT -5
And the song, but not the album, Sheer Heart Attack is quite similar to a punk song in composition, delivery and energy. Oh yeah! I used to wake up to this song in high school for the sheer energy of the thing. A lot of the Roger Taylor songs bordered on metal. You could even argue "The Loser" was proto-grunge. Queen is my favorite band of all time, and has been for nearly thirty years now, but I will say my one problem with them is they have a ton of unequivocally BAD songs. You can listen to any Beatles album, even the unreleased tracks, and there's no such thing as a bad Beatles song. Queen had so damn many, though. Ha, I guess when you try so many different things and throw them all at the wall, they can't all stick. And I don't know, I find The Beatles and Queen similar in that each has a lot of material that is really good, but they both have even more that I could not possibly care less about. Does nothing for me. In short, IMO, both have lots of filler, but that comes down to preference. And yeah, Sheer Heart Attack and Stone Cold Crazy stuck out to me when I first head them immediately. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 4, 2020 11:57:36 GMT -5
And I don't know, I find The Beatles Queen similar in that each has a lot of material that is really good, but they both have even more that I could not possibly care less about. Does nothing for me. In short, IMO, both have lots of filler, but that comes down to preference. Well, both ventured into new territory and pioneered new sound. I think the Beatles got better every time they did this. Meanwhile, Queen has an entire experimental album appropriately named for the fart that it stinks like:  Again, Queen is actually my favorite band, but I would never ever put every Queen song on shuffle and take my chances. |
|
|
|
Post by junkmonkey on Nov 4, 2020 12:40:25 GMT -5
I like Boney M. The way Night Flight to Venus segues into Rasputin is pure musical genius. I own more than my fair share of Village People LPs too. Needless to say I got into Punk very fast when I was a kid. I would hazard a guess that the Venn diagram of "people who are heavy into punk" and "people who like Boney M" shows a very small intersection set (I'm not going to say it's just you, but.... it's probably just you  )
Probably but you have to factor in Time.
Tastes change a lot over 40 years.
I heard Beethoven's 4th today at work for the first time and was blown away. Last night I was listening to (and singing along with) the Hedwig and the Angry Inch OST while cooking, and Vivaldi's recorder concerti while eating.
I have eclectic tastes.
To Paraphrase something ascribed to Oscar Wilde (but I'm too lazy to check if he actually said it) - "There are only two types of music. Good music, and bad."
|
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Nov 4, 2020 15:22:26 GMT -5
Well, both ventured into new territory and pioneered new sound. I think the Beatles got better every time they did this. Meanwhile, Queen has an entire experimental album appropriately named for the fart that it stinks like: Again, Queen is actually my favorite band, but I would never ever put every Queen song on shuffle and take my chances. Ha, fair enough. I also don't care much for most of Queen's later output. Or their really early output, either, if I'm being totally honest, but by the time they put out the Sheer Heart Attack album, they were on fire. But even among their best albums, I don't think there is a single one I would listen to from beginning to end without skipping a few songs except Sheer Heart Attack. Some of their best individual songs were of course yet to come, but I think that was their best overall album. I guess putting Queen's discography on shuffle would eventually make me cringe and change the station, whereas putting the Beatles discography on shuffle would eventually make me get bored and change the station. One upside for The Beatles having such a short prolific period before splitting up is they didn't have nearly as much time to start sucking as other bands with more longevity. Obviously it's hard to directly compare the solo work of the members to the output of the group, but IMO their solo work demonstrated pretty decisively that their best work was both together and behind them. Even so, with folks that talented, they of course all still put out some good stuff, just largely nowhere near the quality of the best Beatles work. Then again, who could? I doubt even The Beatles would have been able to top The Beatles by that point. To Paraphrase something ascribed to Oscar Wilde (but I'm too lazy to check if he actually said it) - "There are only two types of music. Good music, and bad." Ah, but where it gets tricky is deciding who gets to say which music is good and bad?  |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Nov 4, 2020 16:02:27 GMT -5
To Paraphrase something ascribed to Oscar Wilde (but I'm too lazy to check if he actually said it) - "There are only two types of music. Good music, and bad."
My friend Mr. Google tells me that this has been attributed to both Duke Ellington and Louis Armstrong. Armstrong supposedly followed it by saying, "I play the good kind." |
|
|
|
Post by junkmonkey on Nov 4, 2020 16:36:12 GMT -5
To Paraphrase something ascribed to Oscar Wilde (but I'm too lazy to check if he actually said it) - "There are only two types of music. Good music, and bad."
My friend Mr. Google tells me that this has been attributed to both Duke Ellington and Louis Armstrong. Armstrong supposedly followed it by saying, "I play the good kind."
I heard that Wilde said it (or didn't) about books...
...and after ploughing through pages and pages of Wilde's wit in dictionaries of quotations I finally found, “There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.” I guess that's what I was thinking of.
Ironically The Picture of Dorian Gray (where the quote comes from) contains some of the most excruciatingly purple prose I've read in a long time:
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 4, 2020 17:51:05 GMT -5
I also don't care much for most of Queen's later output. Or their really early output, either, if I'm being totally honest, Ah, you may be missing out. Their later output is my absolute favorite period of theirs. A kind of Magic, The Miracle, Innuendo, and Made in Heaven...I love how their sound matured. And as for their early stuff, Queen I and II are both tremendously ambitious, high concept stuff that I enjoy immensely when in the right mood, and Smile's big single, "Earth" is a dreamy delight, as is Larry Lurax's "Goin' Back". |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Nov 4, 2020 18:45:46 GMT -5
I think their best stuff is absolutely the first four albums, and the next two or three are still great, after which it gets very, very patchy for me - and even the best of the 80s stuff doesn't match the earlier period, to my taste.
|
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Nov 4, 2020 19:00:22 GMT -5
I also don't care much for most of Queen's later output. Or their really early output, either, if I'm being totally honest, Ah, you may be missing out. Their later output is my absolute favorite period of theirs. A kind of Magic, The Miracle, Innuendo, and Made in Heaven...I love how their sound matured. And as for their early stuff, Queen I and II are both tremendously ambitious, high concept stuff that I enjoy immensely when in the right mood, and Smile's big single, "Earth" is a dreamy delight, as is Larry Lurax's "Goin' Back". I admit it’s been long enough I should probably revisit it and give it another chance. I’m not optimistic though because my tastes have trended heavier over the years but the band got way more commercial. Also there were a lot of sonic and production choices that pervaded music in the 80s that I really dislike and they were no exception, so that’s an uphill battle, too. In fact, rock bands who survived the 70s and tried to pivot in the 80s tended to be worse off than others. Still worth checking out. I think their best stuff is absolutely the first four albums, and the next two or three are still great, after which it gets very, very patchy for me - and even the best of the 80s stuff doesn't match the earlier period, to my taste. This is pretty similar to me except I haven’t gotten too into the first two. I’ll have to check them out again when I’m in a different mood. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 4, 2020 21:46:40 GMT -5
Also there were a lot of sonic and production choices that pervaded music in the 80s that I really dislike and they were no exception, so that’s an uphill battle to. In fact, rock bands who survive the 70s and try to pivot in the 80s tended to be worse off than others. Still worth checking out. This was definitely true of The Game,their first '80s album. It got worse on Hot Space, and lightened up significsntly by the time of The Works. It's still there a little in A Kind of Magic but is far less prominent. It's really not present at all by the time of The Miracle, which is where I feel they start to arrive at a final post-synth sound that I adore. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Nov 4, 2020 23:43:21 GMT -5
Also there were a lot of sonic and production choices that pervaded music in the 80s that I really dislike and they were no exception, so that’s an uphill battle to. In fact, rock bands who survive the 70s and try to pivot in the 80s tended to be worse off than others. Still worth checking out. This was definitely true of The Game,their first '80s album. It got worse on Hot Space, and lightened up significsntly by the time of The Works. It's still there a little in A Kind of Magic but is far less prominent. It's really not present at all by the time of The Miracle, which is where I feel they start to arrive at a final post-synth sound that I adore. In fairness, I must concede that I haven't listened to any of the later albums all the way through since I was underwhelmed by most of their radio tunes at the time, thpugh there are still a few pleasant songs here and there. I tried listening to A Kind of Magic last month while reading some comics and a book from around the same time and only liked two or three tracks. But one of these days I'll give them all a go. I'm sure I've missed some good stuff, just have to look for it.
I very much agree with impulse about the 80s sound - much of even of the best material from the decade has a certain production quality that I don't like. Also, some artists and producers fell in love with some of the new technology that I never liked at the time and now sounds very dated to me, in a bad way. A certain bass style and also those drum synthesisers, I think they were called, or electronic drums? Peter Gabriel's more commercial stuff suffers from this, for example, to my ears.
|
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Nov 5, 2020 0:04:39 GMT -5
Also there were a lot of sonic and production choices that pervaded music in the 80s that I really dislike and they were no exception, so that’s an uphill battle to. In fact, rock bands who survive the 70s and try to pivot in the 80s tended to be worse off than others. Still worth checking out. This was definitely true of The Game,their first '80s album. It got worse on Hot Space, and lightened up significsntly by the time of The Works. It's still there a little in A Kind of Magic but is far less prominent. It's really not present at all by the time of The Miracle, which is where I feel they start to arrive at a final post-synth sound that I adore. First, thanks for taking the time to keep discussing this. I appreciate your time and perspective!
Funny, I've been listening to The Game recently, and it sounds very 70s to me both in style and production. It's the last of theirs I recall that way. I am skimming the other late albums, and while I am finding more than I expected is faring better than I thought, overall, there's not much that's really clicking with me. Maybe our ears are just calibrated differently, but I'm finding a lot of the 80s and early 90s aesthetics and production choices that make me cringe. But, that is just a me thing.
Surprisingly, I am enjoying Hot Space, at least sonically. It still has some of that raw 70s sound and isn't dripping in reverb and HUGE snare. No songs really leaping out though.
The Works is all right. It sound half 70s/half 80s to me. Some good late songs here, of course.
A Kind of Magic is unlistenable for me. It sounds like bad cruise ship lounge music. The song "One Year of Love" is almost everything I hate from the 80s in one song.
The Miracle... Overall, sonically better than A Kind of Magic. "Rain Must Fall" has the other half of what I hate about 80s songs in it, ha.
Innuendo... well, most of the better songs sound like Aerosmith songs I don't like from the same era. That said, it also has The Show Must Go On, which is one of the best things they ever recorded.
Overall, post-70s Queen aged better in some spots than I remembered, but most of the 80s output just doesn't gel with me so far. I think that's largely more due to the 80s than Queen, though. A lot of the aesthetics of the time just happen to be my musical triggers.
I will probably spend some more time giving it all a more thorough listen now that it's back on my radar. Thank you for the excuse to check it out!
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 5, 2020 0:05:07 GMT -5
In fairness, I must concede that I haven't listened to any of the later albums all the way through since I was underwhelmed by most of their radio tunes at the time, thpugh there are still a few pleasant songs here and there. I tried listening to A Kind of Magic last month while reading some comics and a book from around the same time A Kind of Magic is the start of something good, but it's definitely not great. If I may recommend a few tracks from their later albums: From The Miracle (1989) From Innuendo (1990) Made in Heaven (1995) Each of these albums suffer from some weak tracks, but there are quite a few fantastic ones. And the ones that do rely on heavy synth...they use it well. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 5, 2020 0:10:17 GMT -5
First, thanks for taking the time to keep discussing this. I appreciate your time and perspective! Are you kidding? I'm loving this discussion. Thanks for putting up with me. But it also relies heavily on synth. I believe it was their first album to use synthesizers, as their previous albums all contained that pledge that no synthesizers were used. It all comes down to personal preference, of course, but I hope some of the songs I just posted above will make you feel differently. I haven't tried to listen to it in ages. Obviously, it's got Under Pressure. But the rest made me cringe. I love Freddy's vocals on that track, but not the music itself. As for it all having a cruise ship lounge music vibe, yeah; I can see it. What's the word for that kind of music? It makes me think of Blondie's "Tide is High". Hmmm. I can't agree there. Abso-frickin'-lutely. What about the title track, though? Very similar style. |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Nov 5, 2020 0:33:03 GMT -5
I very much agree with impulse about the 80s sound - much of even of the best material from the decade has a certain production quality that I don't like. Also, some artists and producers fell in love with some of the new technology that I never liked at the time and now sounds very dated to me, in a bad way. A certain bass style and also those drum synthesisers, I think they were called, or electronic drums? Peter Gabriel's more commercial stuff suffers from this, for example, to my ears. I know what you mean about the electronic sounding drums and that plodding bass style, not to mention everything dripping in reverb yet also somehow sounding to shiny. This one might also bleed into the earliest 90s, but I HATE H A T E the musical back ups for ballads that have that echo-ey reverbed fake slow music with a kick drum and rimshot only. I don't know how to describe it. For a good example, look at "I Have Nothing" by Whitney Houston. I LOATHE the musical track, though to be clear that does not include Whitney's vocals because good lord, what a talent.
Yes, commercial era Peter Gabriel and Phil Collins are pretty close to what I find most grating about the period. Ironically, some of my favorite music came from the 80s but is very different. It's amazing to think that Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, etc, all came up at the same time all this stuff was happening.
But it also relies heavily on synth. I believe it was their first album to use synthesizers, as their previous albums all contained that pledge that no synthesizers were used. I forgot how controversial synths being integrated into rock were at the time. Even so, they aren't excessively overused, and my issue with 80s stuff was more the overall sound choices and how they produced and recorded things. From that standpoint, The Game sounds like their 70s stuff, so I am enjoying this one. I really do want to respond to more of your post, but I am going to have to call it a night for now. Hopefully I can get back to it tomorrow. I will say that I put on Innuendo for a bit, and so far it's promising. |
|
)
