Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > A hilarious/annoying article about the Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert

forum rss feed
Author

dysan user not visiting Queenzone.com
dysan
Deity: 5660 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 19, 09:52 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

'I don’t care if someone thinks that “Strawberry Fields” isn’t a good song. I would like to read a list of songs where “Strawberry Fields” is the second worst Beatles song. I’d like to hear a spirited defense.'

dysan user not visiting Queenzone.com
dysan
Deity: 5660 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 19, 09:59 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

http://www.vulture.com/2018/05/rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-artists-ranked-from-best-to-worst.html

Queen are ranked second to last in his RNR Hall Of Fame.

220. Queen — John Deacon, Brian May, Freddie Mercury, and Roger Taylor (2001)
When popularity is factored in, Queen is the most overrated band in the history of pop music. This preposterous aggregation looked and sounded awful from the beginning, their music a pastiche of pastiches of things no one in the band were inclined to understand, all of it culminating in “We Will Rock You.” Queen haters love to say the song is appropriate for a Nuremburg rally, but you can also sort of see Leni Riefenstahl giving it a listen, cocking her head and saying, “Nein. A little too much.” Their popularity in the U.S. went down quickly after their heyday, but they remained unaccountable super-duper-stars in the U.K. and in time became the rock equivalent to the beloved ugly toy you had when you grew up.
As we have seen with so many artists, the sliding scales of personal behavior and artistry are difficult to deal with. Having said that, I’ve always found Queen to be on the wrong side of just about everything. Right now the band is back in the news in the wake of the success of Bohemian Rhapsody and they’ve accordingly been shoveling their back catalog into TV advertisements. That’s not surprising for a group that played Sun City in defiance of the U.N. boycott of the apartheid regime in South Africa. Let me explain this to people too young to know about it: In the early ‘80s the U.N., in conjunction with civil-rights groups around the world, declared a cultural boycott of the fascistic and racist government in South Africa. All you had to do was refuse to perform in the fake homelands the regime had set up. Sun City was a casino in Bophuthatswana; Queen played there anyway and was duly and justifiably blacklisted by the U.N. “We enjoy going to new places,” said Deacon.
The band is being docked 30 notches, however, because of this: After the band’s closeted lead singer, Freddie Mercury, died of AIDS, the entire rock universe held a televised tribute show, broadcast on MTV, during which mentions of homosexuality and AIDS were kept closely under wraps. The band (and everyone else at the show) let a new generation of vulnerable kids — and thousands of the unloved, dying alone on the streets — know that, yes, they should be ashamed of who they are.
When this story was originally published last year, a lot of people said I was being too harsh on Queen and MTV; given the tenor of the times in the early 1990s, I was reminded, AIDS and homosexuality were sensitive subjects. Here’s the thing: Being in a rock band is fun. As I said above, there’s oodles of money and oodles of sex, money, and privilege that most of us don’t know about. The only downside is that if your lead singer happens to be gay and dies as part of an epidemic that is scourging a group that was already dealing with centuries of persecution, you should stand up and talk about it to make life a little bit better for the people who aren’t rock stars spending their last days covered with lesions and shunned by their families and society generally. Thirty years earlier, the Lovin’ Spoonful, in one of the best songs about rock and roll, captured it this way: “Believe in the magic that can set you free.” By that wholly credible standard, Queen aren’t rock and roll at all and don’t belong in the hall of fame.

Holly2003 user is on Queenzone.com
Hot Buttered Soul
Holly2003
Deity: 5769 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 19, 10:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

AlbaNo1 wrote:

There was always a lot of pure hate for Queen from critics and this is an unpleasant reminder of it. It’s only recently that Queen seem to have passed to untouchable legend status, which is where they should be.


It depends what, who and where you're talking about really. In the UK Queen became legends with BoRap in 1975. They remained very popular except for a blip with Hot Space. Music critics tended to dislike them as music critics often wanted music to mean something (politically. socially etc) to give some value and meaning to *their* profession. Today, there are few professional popular/rock music left, and music reviews are usually farmed out to semi-professionals working to a fixed fee. And to this latter bunch, everything is just AWESOME because if they strike a negative note it's unlikely their review will be published. It's therefore a rare thing these days to read a bad review of a concert, artist, song, or album. But Queen were always very popular in the UK. They weren't as high profile in the US year on year: there were highs and lows. They were never a 'cool' band. In the UK, critics preferred shite like The Smiths, Simply Red (Simply Shite), to Queen; or they were considered a lesser act to the likes of Led Zep, Deep Purple, the Rolling Stones, The Who, Pink Floyd etc.

Very few artists quoted Queen as an influence before Fred died. After that, everyone either felt more comfortable in admitting that, or just jumped on the bandwagon.

It doesn't really matter. Popularity has never been a measure of quality.


"Queen is the only band in the world that can play so heavily that your nose bleeds, then offer a silk handkerchief to clean up with."
AlbaNo1 user not visiting Queenzone.com
AlbaNo1
Bohemian: 414 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 19, 10:12 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Did Simply Red get good reviews? I don’t remember that . I think the music journalists actually prefer to comment on the lyrical content and the social/ political side as you say. NME in the UK , Rolling Stone in the US were consistently negative . Even magazines like Q never really featured Queen. To me the tide beginned to turn with some serious articles in Mojo in the early 2000s.

dysan user not visiting Queenzone.com
dysan
Deity: 5660 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 19, 10:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

'To me the tide beginned to turn with some serious articles in Mojo in the early 2000s.'
Agreed

Holly2003 user is on Queenzone.com
Hot Buttered Soul
Holly2003
Deity: 5769 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 19, 10:34 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Earlier maybe. Kerrang gave a great review of The Works tour; I used to have a few guitar magazines from the early 1980s that featured and spoke highly of Brian.


"Queen is the only band in the world that can play so heavily that your nose bleeds, then offer a silk handkerchief to clean up with."
dysan user not visiting Queenzone.com
dysan
Deity: 5660 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 19, 10:52 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Holly2003 wrote:

Earlier maybe. Kerrang gave a great review of The Works tour; I used to have a few guitar magazines from the early 1980s that featured and spoke highly of Brian.


Sure but I think we're talking about the general mainstream reappraisal of the band. The post-millennium change where the beardstrokers were told it's ok to like queen because even though Freddie is kitsch they used to have some heavy songs so it's ok.

dysan user not visiting Queenzone.com
dysan
Deity: 5660 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 19, 10:53 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

And interestingly, it's the general views that we have from those times that are still in place today IE Freddie solo / HS = bad, Live Aid = good. At least, they were cemented for another generation in that era.

Vocal harmony user not visiting Queenzone.com
Vocal harmony
Deity: 2785 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 19, 10:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Music and art critics really are a law unto them selves. If they don't like something they often won't give a rational reason and will just list their dislike. A review should at least tell you about the music, or the show. I've read hundreds of gig reviews that clearly don't say a word about what is going on on stage and just a,out's to a one man/woman attack on the artist and or there fans.

Some reviewers think they have to fall into line but later trip themselves up. One example, though I could quote many. When Kate Bush played That long string of dates at The Hammersmith Apollo a few years ago every critic was falling over themselves to say how amazing those shows were. One such review was written by Ludovig Hunter Tilney of The Financial Times who told of the amazing performances of some of the most memorable songs from the Kate Bush catalogue, he praised the staging and performance of the Nine Wave. . .

Two years later when the live album of the show was released he all but criticised the whole release implying that the song choices were boring and pedestrian in their performance.

I guess what I'm trying to say is so often a journalist will either jump on a band wagon or write complete twaddle and at the end of the day some are no more, and in sone cases less qualified, to judge and write than you or I

dysan user not visiting Queenzone.com
dysan
Deity: 5660 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 19, 11:06 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It can be a used a number of ways. There was a review of a Kingmaker show in 1992 with Suede supporting and the reviewer (Steve Sutherland who very definitely had an agenda) totally destroyed Kingmaker and their fans when comparing them to Suede. It essentially killed 'Fraggle' and set the blueprint for the rest of the 90s. The article was called Pearls Before Swine and is well worth checking out if this kind of thing is of interest.

dysan user not visiting Queenzone.com
dysan
Deity: 5660 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Oct 19, 11:07 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Here it is:

Attachment: 20191020781976685.jpg 931 KB
This has been downloaded 15 time(s).