I really do apologise for bringing up something that appears to have been put to bed a while ago, but....

Right, I personally love Queen, I think for me I do agree that their production is very dramatic and perhaps overdone, but I'd like to say why I think I Queen deserves my appreciation.

For a start, I really love the way that they could as a band act in a way so "outrageously" camp in a culture so oppressive to homosexuals, even if the culture found them merely interestingly different in the way they acted.

In short, Freddie Mercury was a bisexual Asian man in the 1970's - not the best idea for a rock star in what was comparatively an intolerant society.

Also, I think you've conveniently overlooked the musical artistry of their songs - "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" is a well deserved hit, which I think cannot be singled out as "irritating novelty" or "comedy rock" - it's got the foot-tapping rhythm, Brian May's characteristic noodling which is a legitimate style as much as any guitarist.

I'd also like to mention "'39", which I think made very good use of a 12 string in what was essentially a pop song, but one of the most original.

Of course if you don't like their voices, that's another thing, but I personally feel that there's not really enough of a reason to put them in "Room 101" here.

Hmmm? With the greatest respect sir, I really haven't a clue as to what "cracking the American market" has to do with a band's legitimacy or indeed the quality of their music? For instance Rival Sons are in my opinion a better band than Queen are, and they haven't made any impact at all on the UK market. I'm sure they've tried too, albeit with less effort and money than Queen, but nonetheless all bands want to in some way sell abroad and many fail.

Appreciate your input, but I had already made it clear Queen were not going to be considered a candidate for Room 101. I like them too. Not a fan, per se, but I like a lot of their music, and I think the courageous way Freddie faced up to his illness and carried on without looking for pity or sympathy has to be applauded. A gentleman to the last, and a fine anthropomorphisation (?) of the phrase "The show must go on."

(And who says this topic is dead? More nominations, please...) :)

Ah brilliant!

I'm not feeling particularly malicious, but I think the time has come for me to vent my pet peeve for OASIS -

A band from my very own city, very popular up my way and no doubt dear to the heats of many people, but sadly I cannot join in agreement. I've never heard a singer I enjoy the sound of less than Liam Gallagher, the nasal faux-American crooning is profoundly irritating without the repetitive dullness of most of their catalogue.

"Wonderwall" I think has to the defining feature for me - the song has about as much musical endeavour as a children's nursery rhyme, repetitive, garish and says incredibly little.

The attitude of Liam is also worthy of note, the time when he called George Harrison "a nipple" the most notorious.

Overall, a band I feel to have stolen everything from the Stone Roses except style and artistry.... so what do you think?

Noel Gallagher is hilarious. Let's meet halfway and you can put Liam in.

Funnily enough, I really like Noel Gallagher! "Hight Flying Birds" was a fantastic album and I think he deserves to be exempt from any association with Oasis in this thread.
And he's never failed to make me chuckle!

Then instead of Oasis (Who's debut album is still something I love as well as quite a few songs after that), just go for Beady Eye. The First Album fury died out pretty quick, didn't it?

Beady Eye - a few good songs, have to wait until the next for a full opinion, but the mixed opinions of the critics might equal those voting for the Room. What do you think?

Not familiar with Beady Eye. Good call on Oasis. Like most people I like a few of their tracks, but would never go so far as to buy --- or even download --- a full album. And yet they're seen as the Second Coming (or the First, if you dont believe .. but then, you wouldn't believe a First either ... oh, you know what I mean!) and are lauded as a band who totally changed the whole music genre.

How, I ask? It's like those people who swore the Police were going to be the new Beatles. Almost as bad as those idiots in the sixties who said the Beatles would be the new Beatles....

Oasis, definitely a suitable case for treatment (we can probably let Noel out now and then to perform and record, as long as he stays away from Oasis music, details to be worked out later).

To be fair, I think only Oasis see Oasis as the second coming, and even then I'm 75% sure it's all facetiousness.

Remember the trend for that unplugged stuff? The intentions were good as it was meant as a reaction against over-produced synthesizer music, but it wasn't unplugged. The bands used electric instruments, but downplayed the lead guitars and of course erred away from synths. The result was mostly crap and I cannot think of one good unplugged album.

x2

I'm not sure, but didn't Springsteen do one? And Bon Jovi, if memory serves (and it may not...)

"Unplugged" was a great idea, but as you say, using electric guitars and saying it was acoustic ain't the same thing. Mind you, some bands should have not only unplugged, but packed up, returned to shop and entered banking or something...

Thanks for pulling the stake out of this thread's heart, by the way, Big Ears : just when you thought it was safe to open the door.... BWA HA HA HA!!!!

I do not normally criticise British culture on the forums, but Britpop should go in Room 101. Oasis and Blur seemed tuneless to me and they were on TV far too often. Again, Oasis were supposed to be a reaction to synthesizer music and claimed to admire The Beatles, but it made no difference. Damon Albarn was classically trained, but I find him almost unlistenable.

One thing I do admire, is that Blur bassist Alex James invested his money in a farm, specialising in cheese making, so that his children could grow up in the country. I also share his fondness for cheese.

(You're welcome, TH).

Queen, Springsteen, Bon Jovi and Britpop all look good contenders to me.

I'd put Radio Gaga and the Hot Space album in Room 101, but not everything by Queen. Sheer Heart Attack is a good album because it contains Brighton Rock, while The Game could stay or go, but I would definitely keep Dragon Attack. A Night at the Opera could stay for Bohemian Rhapsody (one of those tracks I like, despite being a hit single). Most of the first two albums are alright, while News of the World and The Miracle have their moments. Freddie Mercury could remain for his attitude; like Jerry Lee Lewis and Jimi Hendrix he was not afraid to be a showman.

Quiet you. :D
The Boss and Bon Jovi will always be safe from inclusion as long as I have the key to Room 101, and as I think I said already several times, Queen are not going in either.
Matter of interest, I get that everyone seems to hate Bon Jovi --- never understand why but there you go --- but what has Bruce ever done to you?

I don't hate Bon Jovi, but they were a sign, in the mid-eighties, that hard rock was going awry. This was due to their commercial blandness.

My third candidate for Room 101 is the almost entire nineteen-eighties, because I hated them: the big hair, lip gloss, gaudy colours, shoulder pads, spandex, studded wrist bands . . . and that was just the men. Don't even get me started on the music, suffice to say heavy and progressive rock were the babies thrown out with the bathwater. In their place? Synth pop, acid house and Jive Bunny!