Close your eyes......Think of your favorite bands........Now think of that one Crappy album that they put out that made you go WTF?

The offspring, Yes I'm a pretty big fan, but when they released the CD "americana" back in 98 I was pretty disgusted. This was the album that featured "Pretty fly for a white guy". AWFUL!! That album was so bad I had almost given up on them. Thankgod their new cd is Awesome!

Van Halen 3- Thats right the album that featured that no talnet ass clown Gary Sahrone(sp?) WTF was Van Halen thinking?? Apparently the were NOT thinking.

Its time to CALL YOUR FAVORITE BAND OUT and give them crap for releasing that one crappy record.
Lets hear about em!

Back in the mid 1990s, a fair number of punk rock bands were signing onto major record labels, hoping to make it big. One really big disappointment was the major label debut album that the band DOA put out. It sounded like they turned up the "stupid" knob on their lyrics to try to sell as many CDs as possible. What a piece of $#!t.

I am one of the few that enjoyd Van Halen 3 ... even with Cherone. It was different, but I liked it.

AC/DC has a couple ... well, I won't say turds, but not their usual high-caliber stuff: Stiff Upper Lip and Blow Up Your Video.

Megadeth - Risk. WAY too pop-ish. No edge whatsoever. A huge disappointment from Dave Mustaine and the boys.

Queen is the greatest band of all time but even they had some stinkers. Hot Space slightly edges out Innuendo as worst Queen album of all time.

Hey Brian- "Stiff upper lip" was a Crappy album.
Hopefully the new ACDC album that will be out in a few months will be awesome. But make sure you are close to a Wallmart because that is the only place that will be selling ACDC's new album!
Oh By the way, I thought Ballbreaker was also a pretty crappy ACDC album!

Most recently, "Amadeus" from Judas Priest is pretty much a frozen turkey! And I just can't seem to get behind the newest one from The Eagles either. It was a Wal-Mart exclusive just as the new AC\DC album is going to be. Let's hope for a letter better product from them!

I hate to be pessimistic guys, But I honestly think ACDC's new album and Metallicas new album will SUCK! I'm hoping that I'm wrong, but I think it will because most bands only have a limited amount of good material. Take Aerosmith for example, They put out a TON of great albums, and the last two have SUCKED!! Once bands get clean and sober, their music starts to suffer. Not only does their new music suffer but they start writing soccer mom rock. Plus I don't think Metallica can recover from that "St Anger" album, that album was so bad, it taineted them.
Aerosmith needs to make a new album and FAST, Steven Tyler is back in rehab. This goes back to my theory of why Drugs make for good song writing. Look at Led Zeppelin, do you think their music would have been that good if Jimmy page and Robert Plant weren't stoned out of their minds?? I think not.

"Just say no to drugs" Unless you are writing music!

Shyguy - You and I could have a massive Queen debate. In fact, everyone else can just ignore it / this / the following;

Queen 1 - Great announcement of " Here we are." Rolling Stone listed " Keep Yourself Alive " as a top 100 guitar songs. Yeah. OK. Derivitive of Led Zep - replete with fantasy and religious imagery.

Queen II - They say that it takes 15 years for a band to write their first album. 6 months for the 2nd. Queen flip flopped that notion with Queen II.

Sheer Heart Attack - Well produced. Gave a taste of more to come. Blending of tracks established. First 3 albums I consider to be a unit.

Night At The Opera - While groundbreaking, I have to say that I queue this album up the least. Classic, yet feels dated to me.

Day At The Races - See now, Queen has always been about Freddie's voice for me. Never the lyrics or Brian May. Freddie was getting REAL strong about this time. Production techniques were punching things up in a manner that I like. Songs on that album showcased Freddie's voice. Not stellar songs. But the campy vibe with accelerated. I liked that.

News Of The World - Freddie's voice never sounded stronger. Favorite album.

Jazz - Songwriting suffered. But this is merely a year or so along Freddie's vocal peak. Crisp, clean vocals. Some of Roger's best drumming. ( Dead On Time is his best work ever ). Berlin influence is right up my alley.

Live Killers - They could not have timed their first live album better. Recorded in Houston and Germany ( I think ) that album is my #1 Desert Island Disc.

The Game - While noted for their time of ruling planet Earth. Finally they owned The USA too. Dragon Attack and some lesser known songs ( Rock It ) still resonate among everyone who owned the album, yet were dealt Crazy and Dust if they only heard it on the radio.

Hot Space - Whoops. Yet as a whole, wasn't terrible. Just poorly timed. Some really bad songs on that album though.

The Works - You could just feel them slipping. Super strong efforts. Just not enough payoffs.

A Kind Of Magic - Europe went batshit for this album. Highlander helped. Who Wants To Live Forever is a high point.

The Miracle - I didn't think they had it in them to pull off as much as they did. Good harmonies. That's not enough though. I like Khashoggi's Ship.

Innuendo - Title track is epic. Terrible rest of the album. Daughty's version on American Idol, I thought, was about as good as could have been done.

Made In Heaven.- I barely count this as a Queen album. Sentimental and reaching.

Queen has m(b)ilked their fanbase like no other band ( Live albums [ what, 5? ], Greatest Hits [ 3 or 4 ], Remixes [ Hollywood records milking it to the nth degree ], Re-issues [ it never stops ] ).

I passed on 4th row seats with Paul Rodgers with they came to PDX. I semi regret it. Oh well.

The end.

Wow. Thank you CJ.

CJ totally agree about Made in Heaven it was a total waste. It would have been better to leave it be at that point or maybe release some obscure import.

I think I need to get out the old CD collection today and blast some Queen.

CJ what do you think about the solo albums from Freddie and Brian?

I would imagine that maybe BrianL might have something to say on this subject. Yeah Yeah at this point its just a 2 way conversation. Anyways carry on nothing to see here.

Keep at it. I find it interesting Shyguy.(I also love Queen)
What I don't understand is. how come portland radio plays the same Queen songs OVER AND OVER!
THey need to play some DIFFERENT Queen songs. I want to hear "Stone Cold Crazy" "Tie your mother down".Or what about "I want it all". I never hear these songs on the radio and it is some of their best stuff. Im so sick of hearing "fat bottomed Girls" Or "Another one bites the dust". I wish they would dig deeper in the Queen Library.
I personally didn't think the album "Innuendo" was that bad of an album. The Title track is good plus I like the song "The show must go on".
It was probably a rushed album because Freddie Mercury had full blown Aids at the time of the recording, and knew his time was limited. The lyrics to "The show must go on" Pretty much sum up how Freddie Mercury was feeling at the time.

The Show must go on!
The Show must go on! Yeah!
Ooh! Inside my heart is breaking!
My make-up may be flaking!
But my smile, still, stays on!

I think KGON should do a feature on the station where they just play Deeper tracks or lesser know songs from bands like Queen. There is a LOT more to Queen than "Another one bites the dust".
How about an hour where they play the deeper gems that never see the light of day? There are a lot of great Queen songs that didn't chart very high, those are the songs that should get some airplay.

Deep Tracks on XM!

" CJ what do you think about the solo albums from Freddie and Brian? "

I don't care for Brian's vocals. Too thin. So I don't really respond to antyhing Brian May has done solo. That Starfleet Project with Eddie Van Halen caught my ear, but I was a kid and fanatical about anything Queen.

Freddie's Mr. Bad Guy has a couple decent moments. It's not that I have a problem with it, but the whole album is just SO gay sometimes. It's funny to think back and recall time in which my friends would actually claim that Freddie was not gay. I like Freddie's collaborations with others a LOT though. Billy Squier's Love Is The Hero was recorded around a time in which Freddie's voice was top notch. I also like Love Kills from Freddie. ( Metropolis Soundtrack )

John Deacon's The Immortals is not really a solo project. But it's out there.

Now, Roger Taylor's first solo album, Fun In Space and the follow up Strange Frontier are pretty good. Fun In Space is well written, recorded and produced. AND it is very true to what Taylor seems to be " in to." I still listen to Fun In Space on occasion.

I hardly listen to Taylor's The Cross - but I own the albums.

And Justin, I just heard I Want It All this week on KGON. I rarely listen to KGON - but they snagged my attention on that set.

Fun In Space and the follow up Strange Frontier are pretty good. Fun In Space is well written, recorded and produced. AND it is very true to what Taylor seems to be " in to." I still listen to Fun In Space on occasion.

I need to check this shit out. Although I don't get the "into" part. Care to elaborate?

"I want it all" is one of those tunes that just nails it, right to the core! It's a primal piece, set to power chords, great vocals --it is Queen. It is everything powerful and primal about Queen. The others, "Bicycle", "Crazy thing called Love", "We will Rock you", "Champions", and others just resonate emotionally in a way few performances do.

And there isn't anything else like it. You guys have it mostly spot on. Thanks for that exchange.

(goes to get some good Queen music)

Agreed on Brian. Still, I like the style and he's better than nothing. High expectations do that to a person. Not his fault, IMHO.

If you are a Queen fan, do what it takes to see "We Will Rock You" at the Paris, Las Vegas. It's simply amazing! Finally, somebody sets the music of Queen to a real theatrical opera performance.

They do the show with a live band, very few sampled bits. Musical arrangements are tasteful and generally do not dilute the value of the music. After seeing this production, I'm convinced the music of Queen is best enjoyed live.

(even if Queen does not perform it)

It was very interesting to have that distinctive music set to a great and IMHO, relevant theme. It was almost like having new Queen music to enjoy. Few downsides to this, other than they really added some value to older tunes. I found it confusing sometimes, expecting well known bits here and there, only to find their changes and liberties taken.

It's like revisiting a place to find it's changed somewhat, but the changes are good, blending both memories into a greater whole. Nicely done. They could have really hosed this up. In fact, I was almost going to skip the show, for fear of this.

The group performance of "I want it all" is just powerful. Loved it.

I think this production will hit DVD soon, if it hasn't already. It's on my must buy list. They better make a sound track, dammit, or I'll have to go editing...

For the live show, production values were top notch. One peak, a great guitar moment, hits 117Db. Just long enough to make you remember with a bitter sweet pain, how good that show was.

(the sound guy gladly explained the details, after pulling his ear plugs!)

The rest at 100Db average, and flat too. Few spikes or poor vocal processing. It was a stereo production, with great imaging throughout. The only real downsides where when brief pre-recorded elements were present. The overall sonic impact of the live stuff drew that contrast one only becomes aware of after a solid live performance.

I didn't want to leave, it was that good. I did have some minor league vertigo the next morning. Bass went all the way down to 20Hz and was solid!

Maybe just put it this way. The audio production exceeded the limits of my perception most of the time, without that excess taking away from the whole thing. It does not get better than that.

" Although I don't get the "into" part. Care to elaborate?"

You know how Roger Taylor songs all have some slightly bent lyrics, very mod, songs about being in a group or gang, a bit futuristic sounds? Well Fun In Space if FULL of that. You never recognize it as even close to something Queen related. He has his own sound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f29kjO3DYZE

There was talk about a Queen Movie based on the life of Fredie Mercury. I read somewhere that Johnny Dep would be playing Freddie Mercury. Anybody hear anything else about the movie?

Who would you want directing the movie?

Tarantino??, Oliver Stone?? Martin Scorsese??

Motley Crue will be making a new Movie, based off their autobiography "The dirt". I think A Queen movie would be even better. Freddy Mercury Was a wild man, he lived the sex, Drugs, and Rock N Roll lifestyle and took it to a whole new level, unfortunately it ended up killing him. The Story of Freddie Mercury's like would make for an INSANELY GOOD MOVIE!!! A Queen movie is LONG OVERDUE!!!!

.

I have thought alot about a Freddie Mercury/Queen biopic but it is just too complicated to pull off I think. Maybe though under the right circumstances it could be well done. It would have to be an English director or a director who is "gay" friendly. Possibilities to ponder include: Gus Van Sant, Guy Ritchie, or Diablo Cody.

I can't imagine either Sasha Baron Cohen or Johnny Depp as Freddie so I think that would be the most difficult part to cast.

As for a script and storyline again it would be difficult to decide what stories to tell and which could just be glanced over or left out all together.

What are your thoughts on this idea.

If it ever happens, once it actually starts filming, there is going to be a LOT of buzz around the production. Just the concert scenes will get some people excited.

I just don't know who could play the part. What would be great is if they found an unknown to play Freddie and have it be some legendary star making performance.

I like the Guy Ritchie idea. In fact, that's probably the best director suggestion I have heard. Scorsese and Stone wouldn't touch it, I'm thinking. Stone already did The Doors and Scorsese is too New York. Ritchie provides that Brit thing that will be needed. He's the right age. Probably saw first hand what Queen did in Europe. And that's where they need to concentrate the story.

It would probally end up being a masterpiece only if its not made for American audiences but rather a European and Japanese audience as they were much bigger fans of Queen than those in the US. Something that would be shown in US arthouse theatres and when shown on television would end up on a Sundance or IFC channel.

There is a British pop singer who I feel could pull off a great performance singing Queen's material but for the life of me I can't think of the guys name. Only thing is that just because you can sing doesn't mean you can act.

If they were to do a thing were one group of guys played the band and another actual band actually did the soundtrack is the way I think it should be done. Foo Fighters doing Queen anyone? Hey there is the marketing tie in to really make the project international in scope. As my vision would be to film all or most of the movie in Europe, and by then using an American artist/band to do the score and soundtrack.

Any thoughts?

Mika?

What about that guy that was on American Idol a while back?

Maybe it's the same person.

All I know is that Queen really should do an album with him. He was just great.

As much as I can't stand Daughtry, I have to admit, the guy is a good singer! I can't really get into most of his music except there is one song he does with Slash on guitar called "what I want" and its actually not a bad song.(Im surprised its not getting played on the radio!)

As far as Queen goes, nobody can ever take Freddie Mercury's place because HE was QUEEN, but Id still love to see Queen in concert, Even if its with Paul Rogers of Bad Company. You still get to see Brian May who is an AWESOME guitarist, John Deacon and Roger taylor. Id go just to see Brian May and John Deacon. Those guys are LEGENDS and it would be cool to see them play.
I saw the Foo Fighters play "tie your mother down" by Queen on an MTV show a few moths back and it was actually REALLY good! I really dig the Foo Fighters, I think they are one of the best bands out today!

No John Deacon. But the rest is all true.

Foo Fighters are each pretty big Queen fans. I'm pretty sure at least one piece of Queen memorabilia I auctioned off went to Taylor Hawkins ( Foo Fighter's drummer ). It was a unique piece and I saw it hanging in his house in an episode of MTVs Cribs. ( A super rare promo item of the News Of The World iconic Robot fashioned to be displayed as a grandfather clock that could hang on the wall. There are about 10 left in the world, I had one. None of them are in perfect shape. And the one I saw ( and sold ) had the exact same cosmetic flaws and framing - http://eil.com/shop/moreinfo.asp?catalogid=218108 )

I was never into collecting autographs or even the actual recordings. ( The occasional bootleg from very specific years and shows I still look for. But I like to PLAY those records. And that devalues them and blah blah blah ). But that mirror was unique. I needed the money at the time. No regrets on that one.

I DO, however, have one GIANT regret about a Queen collectable; I had a chance to buy the only News Of The World in-store promo item of a freestanding bust of the Robot on the cover. It was about 5 feet tall ( and that was just the top third of the robot ) and weighed about 400 lbs. All in one piece. Mostly solid aluminum. The guy in England wanted 2 grand for the robot. The shipping and crating would have run around 2500 bucks. I just couldn't swing it.

And say, everyone has their favorite band. Sometimes they are a cool band. Sometimes they are a shitty band. Sometimes they are a band that you like and nobody, including you, knows why. Queen is that cool and shitty band for me. I'm glad they have gotten some respect in America in the past 15 years or so. But I never really cared.

I'm a fan.

No John Deacon? Please explain

Queen a shitty band? Queen is one of the greatest bands ever, tied with Led Zeppelin, infact I might even put Queen one small notch above Zeppelin.

"I might even put Queen one small notch above Zeppelin."

Uh, no.

Queen fans, there may not be a movie, but there is a musical called, We Will Rock You.

Yes!!!

That's the one I saw at the Paris, Las Vegas. It's excellent.

" No John Deacon? Please explain "

John Deacon hasn't played wiht the band since The Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert.

" Queen a shitty band? "

I was just acknowledging that some people didn't like Queen. Especially around 1980 in Beaverton, Oregon when I was 11. I didn't care.

Queen is more Iconic than most bands. Why? Whether you are a fan of music and to a lessor extent Rock'n'Roll music. Everyone has heard at least more than one Queen song hundreds of times in a lifetime if not more and these songs no matter what stick with you. You hear that Queen song and you know the lyrics and beat by heart and can sing along and not miss a beat. Only one other band that I know of brings that same feeling and that would be the Beatles.

And no CJ not Mika. Who the hell is Mika anyways I have never heard of him or her . Oh yeah Robbie Williams is the guy I was thinking of. I think that there were rumors that Robbie Williams was the first person talked to about Paul Rodgers part in the latest tours. Now he doesn't look anything like Freddie but he could probally pull off the acting and stage presence of Freddie. He could also most likely masterfully pull off the needed vocals too.

"Queen is one of the greatest bands ever, tied with Led Zeppelin, infact I might even put Queen one small notch above Zeppelin."

What we have here is a comparison between two great bands. However, comparisons between them head to head is tantamount to comparing e.g. The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. Queen, like The Beatles, were focused on the pop culture of their time, at least initially. Queen, like The Beatles, were not received by the public nor the critics favorably early in their careers. In fact, I recall, as much as I played Queen II on the radio back in 74, I rarely received requests for it. It wasn't until Sheer Heart Attack and A Night At The Opera did Queen start to catch on. The Beatles have a similar track record with their earliest releases. Both Queen and The Beatles released copious singles in an attempt to get their music out there to generate interest enough to tour the world successfully. Like The Beatles, for their first two years they couldn't settle on a lineup of musicians which kept their first album much delayed.
Meanwhile, Led Zeppelin, like The Rolling Stones, have blues roots and in the case of Led Zeppelin were not focused on putting out a hit single. In fact there have been less than a dozen Led Zeppelin singles released ever. They are considered the leaders in ushering in the entire "heavy metal" era although only about 1/3 of their music can be considered in that genre.
Led Zeppelin's advantage, IMO, is that they branched out into World beats and acoustic music including the genres of rockabilly, reggae, soul, funk, classical, Celtic, Indian, Arabic, pop, Latin and country.. Led Zeppelin and Queen were both stylistically speaking very adventurous bands, but Led Zeppelin was setting the trail, Queen merely following up on what Zeppelin had established some half decade earlier. Fact is, Led Zeppelin covered more styles over the length of their career although Queen did try more than the vocalist driven rock sound. Unfortunately, they were so reliant on Mercury's vocal style that when he died, so did the real Queen sound, not since recovered in spite of their carrying on as a band without him. In other words, When Freddie died in 1991, they lost 1/2 of the magical recipe that made them popular. Although their fans continue to support them, they aren't the same without him. It's like Grateful Dead without Jerry. Freddie was too much a part of what made Queen what they were. Meanwhile, Led Zeppelin lost 1/4 of what they built their momentum on and were humbled enough to disband and carry on solo with an occasional Page/Plant tour to keep the old tunes out there. Only their recent appearance's have been billed under their original name. A drummer is the glue that holds a band together, but losing your lead vocalist in a band like Queen has a terminating effect.
Queen was not well received until their third album, Sheer Heart Attack and especially the next one A Night At The Opera.
Led Zeppelin created a buzz before their first album ever hit the streets. Although Queen has sold a lot of albums, only Led Zeppelin can make the claim that every one of their released albums has made it into the Billboard Top 10.
Queen's music had to evolve. They were a bunch of college kids that formed a band and it was four years before they put out an album. Led Zeppelin was glued together by Jimmy Page who already had an illustrious career with The Yardbirds and as a well sought after session musician who had played on hundreds of other peoples records. The others in Zep were all already touring musicians. The result was instant chemistry, and a record and touring contract before they ever cut an album. Atlantic Records $200,000 advance was unheard of at the time.

By the time Queen's popularity was catching on, Led Zeppelin's studio recording days were in their last throws. For this reason alone, the comparison is a hard one since the entire field of Led Zeppelin clones (i.e. practically every heavy metal band of the mid 70's) were really the competition for Queen. The Blue Oyster Cult (1973), AC/DC (1973), Schenker's Scorpions although formed in 65 didn't really catch on until 1974, UFO's Phenomenon, the album that put them on the map was 1974, Motorhead 1975, etc. etc. The list of bands competing to be the next Zeppelin is a mile long. The true peers to Led Zeppelin were not these bands, nor Queen. The contemporaries of Led Zeppelin were pre-metal rockers like Mott The Hoople, Yes, Emerson Lake & Palmer, The Who, The Jefferson Airplane, Procul Harum, The Allman Brothers Band, Traffic, etc. Queen was from the next half generation. It's a tough comparison. Subjective opinions aside, Queen's favored status with you guys in your late 30's and 40's is probably more about when you grew up what was playing on the Top 40 more than anything qualitative about the music of these two groups of professional musicians. Admit it.

I admit it.