Post a controversial music opinion

that's a pretty common olde-ilx view. i always felt like there was more american queen love than brit queen love. kinda like my heroes bauhaus.

for years i felt like queen should get more credit for everything that they did but it might start going a little overboard now. that movie definitely did something.

(by u.s./u.k. love i meant here but maybe in the wider world too...? they were so huge here when they were huge. gods really.)

that's a pretty common olde-ilx view. i always felt like there was more american queen love than brit queen love.

On ILX yes, not among the general public

They're not stupid enough or maybe they're not the right kind of stupid

oh yeah -- for my students they're comparable to the Beatles. During lockdown they'd play the classic rock warhorses with their parents, hence why Rumours is still very much a thing.

Queen, not General Public

general public were better than queen *or* the beatles

https://i.imgur.com/wcTrQ5D.jpg

First three Queen albums - all-time great
Next two - partially great but starting to slip
New of the World onwards - mostly unmitigated shite with a few entertaining novelty songs dotted about

I have expressed this opinion to people (in the UK) to a reaction of shock and dismay, hence it's an actual road-tested controversial opinion.

I am shocked and dismayed.

Queen not being good is hardly a controversial opinion. The frankly terrible movie helped making them somewhat relevant again and fooled the younger generations into thinking Queen were like a well respected UK rock band in the 70’s which they were not, at least from a critical point of view.

I remember reading a contemporary review of Jazz as a kid that detailed the decline in Queen's discography by comparing each record to a well-known restaurant, with their latest release paralleled with McDonalds.

I remember one reviewer in Creem--it may have been Christgau--saying of Jazz, "A group of studio techs could make the next Queen album."

But so what. They are justly beloved.

i'll always love them. jazz is a crazy record. news of the world is too! if you can get past the intro. i have no problem with WWRY/WATC but i can understand people not wanting to hear it. and the game is one of the cornerstones of hip hop for pete's sake.

The UK/US divide with Queen is with their post-1984 records, bc the US kind of gave up on Queen after "Radio Ga Ga" until the reissues started happening after Freddy's death. But yes, also US critics had a problem with the band. Dave Marsh called them "fascist."

I don't think UK critics liked them either? There was def a lot of reader backlash when Mojo first did a Queen cover.

Fascists also have the ability to transcend stadiums

uk critics tended always to dislike them, tho the reasons shifted down the years

Yeah the Gilbert & Sullivan style flamboyance wasn't popular among the punkerati in the UK. Can't imagine the likes of "Whispering" Bob Harris were too keen on them either.

did u.k. critics give glam bands good reviews? or was it all kid stuff to them. i'm guessing queen struck them as kid stuff too.

yes they liked glam and they were pro kids stuff

queen weren't generally filed with glam or prog or metal

in the 70s i mean

Pomp rock? Remember that?

Playing Sun City prob not a gd way of rehabilitating their music press reputation

Rolling Stone used to trash Queen, and in the RS Record Guide went so far as to dock Sparks an additional star (on a discography that received none to begin with) for being somewhat responsible for them.

I can't believe I have an excuse to post this incredible video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKUzzDW9RWM

UK critics hated Queen - maybe not in their early days, I wouldn't know - but post-punk definitely.

Queen were definitely regarded as a metal band in North America in the 70s.

in the 70s also -- tom saying "pomp rock" was a useful clue, bcz it led me to geoff barton, metalman for sounds and founding editor of of kerrang magazine. barton was largely in favour of and was (progably) the first to use the term. he had liked queen at first but came round to his colleagues disdain -- queen were “a laughing stock. pariahs, no less”

on tumbr (of all places) i found a piece quoting him more recently explaining this hostility:
i: they were seen as not having paid their dues. They were perceived as a band who came out of nowhere, snagged a deal with EMI, and were essentially pampered and manufactured. (Of course, if you look at the actual history of the band, this couldn’t be farther from the truth.)
ii: they were *clever*. “That would never do among the mostly university-educated music writers of the time […] who felt somewhat threatened, and quietly preferred their subjects to come from broken homes and council estates - that dues paying thing again.”

dude made his guitar out of his fireplace or some shit like that. queen rule.

sorry "in the 70s also" was an x-post to tom: they were very unloved in the uk in the 70s, and then i'm off into barton's explanation

barton is the person i most regret not tracking down to contribute to my book tbh

"progably"

The frankly terrible movie

This is probably the most controversial statement in this whole discussion.

queen have plenty of classic, inescapable, overplayed to death singles but were never much of an albums act at all

I'd point you in the direction of the 'Black Side' of Queen II and then ask you to take that statement back, sir

sheer heart attack is a near-perfect hard rock record from beginning to end. one of the best made in the 70s.

Hell, I'd rep for The Game being a terrific album.

I'd say this is one of the influences on George Michael's early fast ones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6QGP0OUaV4

i also don't really care for 70s hard rock at all so that's surely part of it for me

We were driving today and Somebody To Love came on the radio, I have no particular love for them as a whole but that one song is just incredible.

In 1987 or so my high school theater friends had a whole thing about doing air guitar to Champions on the roof of the school. I didn't really get it but I was glad that people were having fun.

One morning when I was at college the phone rang rather early, and it was a friend distraught about Freddie dying and I said (sleepily) "Freddie who?"

https://media.tenor.com/JzAm9KcnyUoAAAAd/freddie-mercury-live-aid-yes.gif

Somebody To Love was always the only Queen song I hated. (I got Night At The Opera for my 3rd birthday. Mum said that I loved Bohemian Rhapsody but they never bought singles as they weren't value for money).

Yeah Sheer Heart Attack is a perfect album imo, 45 minutes of Mercury and May skimming high fives

Prob the worst single musical moment of my life was while working in a fancy studio, and taking a break and wandering into the 5.1 mixing suite, whereby the affable engineer put on A Night At The Opera (mastered for 5.1) for me and it was such an unpleasant experience I couldn’t listen to Queen at all for a couple years afterward

The album is good I just learned that I despise 5.1 mastering

sheer heart attack is a near-perfect hard rock record from beginning to end. one of the best made in the 70s.

― scott seward, Wednesday, August 16, 2023 1:58 PM (fifty minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Hell, I'd rep for The Game being a terrific album.

― immodesty blaise (jimbeaux)

both of these

George Michael stole "Somebody to Love," sorry.

yeah that version's great too

Someone on here mentioned Sparks and I think that's the key for me--I just prefer Sparks for that sort of thing. I get the two bands are different, but all Queen songs kinda sound the same to me