Frances

That's ok.
If we all had the same opinion, this thread would be predictable as hell.
WooHoo!

__________________
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Yup.

Crowe

Apparently you missed my "Biggest Fanboi Evar" self-tag. I can safely assume that I've listened to every Queen album moreso than any 3 board members combined can say they've heard Bohemian Rhapsody in their lifetime. I take pride in my Fanboidom as they are the only band I've really been loyal to for the better part of 90% of my life. While the first statement seems overblown, it should make clear my love for the chaps from the island, eh govs?

Also, Queen never had to force anything - it may seem that way because of their style, their show etc... I think you are putting down Night At The Opera because you took stock in a trendy article or what someone who you respect said about it. I bet if you took a listen with un-jaded ears, you will find a masterpiece in all of it's own right...

That being said, Sheer Heart Attack is my favorite album all around, Hammer to Fall and the Prophet's Song are my favorite songs... but if I had to take one album on an island with me to die with... it would be A Night At The Opera.

__________________

MURDER JUNKIE

On New Years Eve in Toronto Hedley played in Nathan Phillips Square, I had the misfortune of tuning into this drivel. The lead singer pranced around in a short white T-shirt, close cropped c0ckduster and proceeded to mimic every page in Freddy Mercury's playbook. It made me sick to my stomach and it was the first performance I viewed this year, this was my indication that we have reached the apocolypse.

Wake me up next year

Friday

I'll let the last paragraph go seeing as that was a fair enough comment. For your information, I have actually listened to at least 90% of Queen's back catalogue myself (including video live footage, documentaries and Smile recordings) and so I've actually been there and done that. Meaning I can take a look at Queen's music and make a fair overview. What I say about them is not from a "trendy article" at all, but from first hand experience.

If you compare A Night At The Opera with earlier Queen records, it seems to have a more stereotypical feel to it. You can already see Queen slipping into that stereotypical sound that they are known for. Queen II on the other hand was quite a daring album which seemed to show big possibilities for what Queen could accomplish. I think I look at A Night At The Opera as part of Queen losing that initial potential and bite that was offered on their first records.

__________________
www.myspace.com/ch3ssclub

lansing12

hells no

Sneer

What the hell are you on about about? in Utero is a mediocre at best album that literally lived off and depended on the success of nevermind to sell copies. Seriously, i thought you spoke out of your arse before, but this is another level. I've always found the unp[lugged overrated, what makes it great? kurt showing emotion with an acoustic? WOW, listen to a nick drake album, oh wait, you find him sh*t... my point with the influences was the guy i was making a point to argued nirvana were the first band to start the movement - i was merely pointing out the fact there were bands before nirvana doing the same (and better) thing. Read things more carefully maybe?

AND pearl jam... popular today? you ****ing joking? they were a flop at reading and their comeback was perhaps the biggest let down ever. Nirvana would be nowhere near as big as they were today without kurts death and you know it, you said pretty much the same thing by saying my first 'paragraph' (no paragraphs) had an element of truth to it.

__________________
Fright Team radio show

Strummer521

How big are they now anyway? It seems like they just have a niche amongst those who still give two sh*ts about grunge or think that the use of the term "alternative" hasn't been warped so much as to have lost all meaning. As far as I know this is a fairly small group.

Crowe

But look at the glaring flaw in your logic here. "You can see Queen slipping into that stereotypical sound that they are known for" - can you look at this sentence and tell me what's wrong with it? They weren't SLIPPING INTO ANYTHING "stereotypical" THEN. At the time, it was a brand new sound for them and the world, it doesn't become stereotypical until they release 11 more studio albums and then new generations remark upon it.

Go back to 1975, When Night at the Opera is released, and think about the people who would laugh in your face if you called Queen stereotypical. The first 2 Queen albums are magnificent of course, but it's during Sheer Heart Attack, Night at the Opera and a Day at the Races when they fully develope their own sound.

What you said above nearly blows my mind. I take back what I said about you getting these thoughts from an article, because anyone who knows anything about Queen would never make some of these ridiculous comments. Potential? I mean... they are considered by many to be one of the greatest bands of all time! What else could Queen accomplish!? Oh yeah, in their homeland, they have spent more time on the charts than any other artist EVER (yes, that includes the Beatles) - Queen's Greatest Hits? Yeah, in the UK - it's the ALL TIME BEST SELLING ALBUM.

Look on the Queen's Greatest Hits (you can pick the ones released in 81, or the most well known one, Greatest Hits Red, 92) tracklist and tell me how many of those songs come from Queen, or Queen II. The only one you will find is Seven Seas of Rhye - which came off of Queen II. It isn't until the box sets start arriving when Greatest Hits II features some off of Queen or Queen II, and you get a couple of more in Queen Greatest Hits III.

Now... I think you are letting personal preference get the better of you here - I LOVE Queen and Queen II, don't get me wrong... but they don't become the QUEEN we all know and love (which you called stereotypical, which may be the most blind statement you could make here... I have to reiterate this) until the second half of Sheer Heart Attack, you could argue, or until A Night at the Opera hits in 1975.

Mercy.

__________________

boo boo

Of course, In Utero was just a cash in on the Nevermind sound, this is why they had Steve Albini produce the album and make it as striped down as possible and why it dosen't sound a thing like Nevermind, they were following a formula, it's oh so obvious.

Of course I am, just look at how big of a flop their recent s/t was, it entered the UK charts at #5 and the US charts at #2, selling 1,577,025 units worldwide and was ranked 90th biggest selling album of 06 by Billboard... What a bunch of f*cking hasbeens.

Oh yeah, because you know EXACTLY what I am thinking.

What a goddamn stupid generalization, "people only like Nirvana because hes dead", what a BRILLANT conclusion in trying to understand why someone would have a opinion different from your own, people who like Nirvana are clearly in denial of the fact they suck and they only care about them because Cobain died, duh.

And the only reason Blind Melon are so popular now is because of Shannon Hoons overdose.... Oh wait.

Nirvana were huge when Cobain died, and his death merely elevated their popularity into infinity, if they continued making albums as good as Nevermind and In Utero they would still be popular today, only not as much.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Friday

The fact that many songs on Queen and Queen II are not on the Greatest Hits compilation is exactly my point. Both of these albums were daring steps forward for Queen as a group. Night At The Opera and Day At The Races saw the start of this slip into a definite pattern which would define Queen's later 80's radio-friendly stuff.

Dont get me wrong, I dont think A Night At The Opera is awful, at no point could you say it was a bad album. I just see it as the start of the slippery side into a bland pattern (only shook up occasionally with experimenting with another genre). Like you said, THEN it was nothing stereotypical. But with the benefit of hindsight I see the beginnings of a decline in the edge of Queen's music. The fact that the earlier albums were not "The Queen we all know and love" is exactly what I mean, it was bold, different and still can be seen as quite out there.

I dont think my comments are ridiculous at all. I'm actually looking from a standpoint where I am no longer obsessed with Queen yet still have the knowledge (and back catalogue) to make a fair judgement.

__________________
www.myspace.com/ch3ssclub