Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
I can barely sit through Jazz, which sounded like mostly filler. I am interested in picking up The Game though, because I like the "hits" on that record. Could anyone tell me if they think it is better than its predecessor?
What do you mean "if they think it is better than its predecessor?"
You mean what did the Queen guys themselves think?
If so I have no idea, bands rarely criticize their own records, their last is always the best...
I personally enjoy Jazz more (The Game has some good parts but much less interesting than Jazz IMHO).
ok, my fault for not being clear... I mean what do Queen fans on this forum think of The Game in relation to Jazz?
I can think of a few instances of a band or musician disowning parts of their catalog. Ministry disowns their debut, for example, going so far to bad-mouth it any time the media asks about it. Can disowns Out of Reach, and it has never been officially re-issued by the band.
Joined: October 12 2011
Location: Melb, Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
Posted: March 05 2012 at 20:31
Hey there, been reading this topic on and off for a while!
`The Game' is a very decent pop/rock album, but of course the majority of the progressive elements in the band's sound were gone. It's pretty consistently good, though, and `Dragon Attack' has a terrific heavy bass line!
To be honest, the real problem with the album is that it might have one of the single WORST album covers of all time! Could they have picked a worse picture of themselves lol?!
To be honest, the real problem with the album is that it might have one of the single WORST album covers of all time! Could they have picked a worse picture of themselves lol?!
But its soooo silver-y, and Brian May looks really tuff!
thanks for your opinion. I think I might pick it up anyway, even knowing that the Prog factor has long gone from their music.
Joined: October 12 2011
Location: Melb, Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
Posted: March 05 2012 at 20:52
In the end, it's just a top-notch pop/rock album, with a number of great tracks, with the odd filler or two! So a very typical Queen album, but you can't go wrong with that!
I especially liked May's `Sail Away Sweet Sister'! `Dragon Attack is a freaking killer too!
Now that I look back at it (haven't listened to it in a while), that album did have a stack of big hits on it, eh?
Joined: October 12 2011
Location: Melb, Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
Posted: March 05 2012 at 21:22
I do remember `The Game' was pretty short - Just a bunch of concise, tight, well played and catchy pop songs!
Ha! I was just about to ask if you'd heard `Hot Space'! That one is a lot more difficult to like, but I think in retrospect it's not quite as truly terrible as some make it out to be.
Oh, there is some absolute dogs**t tracks on it - `Body Language' is so freaking awful lol! There is a much stronger programmed and keyboard sound to it, bit of a shock at first. However, I'm a little more forgiving of it these days than I used to be.
But just make sure you get `The Game' before it, under all circumstances!
But just make sure you get `The Game' before it, under all circumstances!
Oh, I will!
I don't mind synths and programmed beats. I'm just not sure I love the idea of Queen
doing synths and programmed beats, which is what I remember hearing from that album. I do like "Calling All Girls" and "Under Pressure" though. I'll approach Hot Space with extreme caution.
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17777
Posted: March 07 2012 at 12:11
Hi,
Even though this group had a few hit songs, in the end, thinking of this band as "progressive" is probably just as bad as not giving them credit for their originality, and an attitude that was more befitting an original, and creative band, which in a way was something that a lot of "progressive" bands lost ... and are still trying to bask in that vain theme.
Almost none of the pieces that we remember from this band sound the same, and the honesty and flair with which Freddie did his thing, was very good, and something that not even Mick Jagger has been able to maintain or keep up with, despite his talking about different music and it all still sounding the same after all the talk!
I would rather vote for this band being progressive, because they stuck to themselves ... and to their inner truth and value. And it's hard to put a price on that honesty ... instead of ripping people off with blatant covers and copies of the previous works. And if you don't have tears for that last song ... you are not a person that can appreciate the total, real, honest, and pure truth and beauty behind any person's soul and spirit. That, is what "transcendence" is all about ... pure and simple!
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13097
Posted: March 07 2012 at 22:40
NickHall wrote:
nice speech, but doesn't change the fact that this isnt progressive as we know it Jim
And what is "progressive as we know it" precisely?
I would argue that both Queen II and Night at the Opera are significantly progressive. Look at many of the albums that are considered "progressive": Rush's 2112 (sorry, to my ears there's only half a prog album), Yes' Fragile (a few long prog songs with several 1, 2 and 3 minute songs surrounding them), Pink Floyd's Meddle (one long prog song, but the other side has a hard rock instrumental, two psychedelic tunes, a song about the beach that Herb Alpert could've wrote and a blues tune about a dog). The same could be said about a few early Genesis and Tull albums.
But boundaries are broken in Queen II and Night at the Opera that, to me, are indicative of progressive albums. An album like Night at the Opera, for instance, has unconventional instrumentation (Ukulele, kazoos, and vocal overlays that are, in themselves, a form of instrumentation, like on "The Prophet Song"), and in addition to hard rock and pop tunes, a song composed in rhapsodic form, the use of acoustic guitar, English Burlesque, and a faithful version of "God Save the Queen". The album progresses far beyond the standard rock format.
And yes, that was a nice speech by Moshkito. Sometimes I actually agree with him. We must be getting close to a lunar eclipse or having solar flares or something.
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Posted: March 07 2012 at 23:51
richardh wrote:
The only studio album I have is Flash Gordon. Reading the reviews I should perhaps consider QueenII but lack of keyboards puts me off. This a small taster of what Queen could have been
btw I love the film
Not exact Richard, there are keyboards in every Queen album, they used piano since"Queen I", as a fact in their debut album, they used double piano with Freddie and Bian May.
They started using synths in 980's album "Play the Game".
nice speech, but doesn't change the fact that this isnt progressive as we know it Jim
And what is "progressive as we know it" precisely?
I would argue that both Queen II and Night at the Opera are significantly progressive. Look at many of the albums that are considered "progressive": Rush's 2112 (sorry, to my ears there's only half a prog album), Yes' Fragile (a few long prog songs with several 1, 2 and 3 minute songs surrounding them), Pink Floyd's Meddle (one long prog song, but the other side has a hard rock instrumental, two psychedelic tunes, a song about the beach that Herb Alpert could've wrote and a blues tune about a dog). The same could be said about a few early Genesis and Tull albums.
But boundaries are broken in Queen II and Night at the Opera that, to me, are indicative of progressive albums. An album like Night at the Opera, for instance, has unconventional instrumentation (Ukulele, kazoos, and vocal overlays that are, in themselves, a form of instrumentation, like on "The Prophet Song"), and in addition to hard rock and pop tunes, a song composed in rhapsodic form, the use of acoustic guitar, English Burlesque, and a faithful version of "God Save the Queen". The album progresses far beyond the standard rock format.
And yes, that was a nice speech by Moshkito. Sometimes I actually agree with him. We must be getting close to a lunar eclipse or having solar flares or something.
You put it better than I could-the boundary between what is and is not considered "real" prog is often arbitrary and I see no reason that Queen shouldn't be accepted as such. Even their later pop work never lost their classical affectations and, as you mentioned, much of their early work is as progressive as can be.
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Posted: March 07 2012 at 23:58
BTW: Excellent band, Night at the Opera and Day at the Races are magnificent albums, but except a couple of tracks like Prophet's Song, Bohemian Rhapsody and IMO Somebody to Love, I don't believe they played Progressive Rock.
They broke boundaries were innovative, original, pompous and whatever adjectives we want to add, but not Progressive Rock.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: March 08 2012 at 00:19
NickHall wrote:
nice speech, but doesn't change the fact that this isnt progressive as we know it Jim
Progressive "as we know it"? That in itself sounds so wrong to me. How can we know what is progressive "in advance"? If we do, then it is not really progressive...just complex and sophisticated.
Joined: October 12 2011
Location: Melb, Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
Posted: March 08 2012 at 00:27
I guess if someone were to base the opinion of `Queen is not progressive rock' on only having heard the stuff like `We Will Rock You, `We Are The Champions' etc, then they'd have no reason to consider them prog. But even `Bohemian Rhapsody', a song EVERYONE has heard, is VERY progressive rock! :)
Queen were the very fist band I ever got into when I was a teenager, and listening to those early albums....I had never heard ANYTHING like them before!
So even though the band is not one I listen to a lot these days, they are directly responsible for me going on to discover progressive rock.
Joined: June 14 2006
Location: Croatia
Status: Offline
Points: 4160
Posted: March 08 2012 at 08:54
lucas wrote:
I really don't care how you label them, they were an astonishing band, one of the best ever. They were sort of an operatic rock band evolving with their time. And if some people tell they lost their "bite" after the game, they should listen to songs like "innuendo", "is this the world we created", "tear it up", "gimme the prize", "who wants to live forever", "was it all worth it", "scandal", "I can't live with you", "don't try so hard", "the hitman", "the show must go on". They all showcase some tremendous musicianship and exceptional vocals, of course.
Special Collaborator
RIO/Avant/Zeuhl,Neo & Post/Math Teams
Joined: October 31 2006
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14209
Posted: March 08 2012 at 09:02
clarke2001 wrote:
lucas wrote:
I really don't care how you label them, they were an astonishing band, one of the best ever. They were sort of an operatic rock band evolving with their time. And if some people tell they lost their "bite" after the game, they should listen to songs like "innuendo", "is this the world we created", "tear it up", "gimme the prize", "who wants to live forever", "was it all worth it", "scandal", "I can't live with you", "don't try so hard", "the hitman", "the show must go on". They all showcase some tremendous musicianship and exceptional vocals, of course.
YEAH!!!
Now that's a real fan!
But if you listen to Delilah, Ride The Wild Wind, The Invisible Man, Don't Loose Your Head....you may have a different impression.
I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution
Joined: January 03 2012
Location: Russia
Status: Offline
Points: 1534
Posted: March 08 2012 at 13:27
The Dark Elf wrote:
NickHall wrote:
nice speech, but doesn't change the fact that this isnt progressive as we know it Jim
And what is "progressive as we know it" precisely?
I would argue that both Queen II and Night at the Opera are significantly progressive. Look at many of the albums that are considered "progressive": Rush's 2112 (sorry, to my ears there's only half a prog album), Yes' Fragile (a few long prog songs with several 1, 2 and 3 minute songs surrounding them), Pink Floyd's Meddle (one long prog song, but the other side has a hard rock instrumental, two psychedelic tunes, a song about the beach that Herb Alpert could've wrote and a blues tune about a dog). The same could be said about a few early Genesis and Tull albums.
But boundaries are broken in Queen II and Night at the Opera that, to me, are indicative of progressive albums. An album like Night at the Opera, for instance, has unconventional instrumentation (Ukulele, kazoos, and vocal overlays that are, in themselves, a form of instrumentation, like on "The Prophet Song"), and in addition to hard rock and pop tunes, a song composed in rhapsodic form, the use of acoustic guitar, English Burlesque, and a faithful version of "God Save the Queen". The album progresses far beyond the standard rock format.
And yes, that was a nice speech by Moshkito. Sometimes I actually agree with him. We must be getting close to a lunar eclipse or having solar flares or something.
I'd agree with you. At first, progressive rock is a very wide definition of genre which may imply many forms of experimentation in music, not just long epics.
For me, Queen WERE a prog band from 1971 to 1976 and also in 1989—1991.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.223 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Queen as progressive band?
Topic Options
Gerinski wrote:
