47

those ARE my personal tastes. It's up to the critics to recognize what has artistic value and what doesn't in the musical firmament. At least a little bit. Mercury's singing is certainly baroque, arguably referring more to operetta than to classical music. The Queen are NOT in the history of rock, from any angle one looks at them, because their mythologizing is solely the work of fans and not ALSO the work of fans. The previous post was written by dogs, a crime against syntax, and I apologize for that.

There are great tracks, but too many fillers.. if they had made an album featuring only the best from this and Defender, it would be THE metal album.

The extremization, in response to mauro60, is perpetrated by those who would like Queen to be one of the highest expressions of rock. On a scale from 1 to 100, I think they can comfortably sit around 70.

The extremization, in response to mauro60, is perpetrated by those who would like Queen to be one of the highest expressions of rock. On a scale from 1 to 100, I think they can comfortably sit around 70.

Ok, without invoking quotes from people (and there are many) who think like me about Queen, I'll tell you that there’s nothing wrong with making stadium rock. You can make flamboyant stadium rock, and I can continue to prefer chamber music. There’s nothing wrong with writing vocal lines that are just a display of technique (I don’t care that they overshadow Buckley and Plant, because for me, a singer is not just a screamer), and I can continue to prefer a more intimate singing style that is distant from exaggerated baroqueism. There’s nothing wrong with galloping pop songs, but I can still prefer dissonant rhythms and various nonsense. There’s nothing wrong with being Queen, who are redundant, banal, and a little tacky. In being Queen, they are the best, but the history of music is not made by fans but by circles of true enthusiasts, critics, and musicians. And for every listener with artistic sensitivity who appreciates Queen, there will be a thousand others who disdain them.

Wilde, not Wylde

There are, however, currents of thought on aestheticism as a form of art; Wylde used to say that art is for art’s sake, it is something that exists solely for itself and is useless. Aestheticism, as I understand it, is a form of banal expression, and entertainment can only be compared to art in the rarest of cases. The Queen are honest laborers of pop music.

I couldn't care less about convincing you or being convinced, and I'm really annoyed by the mythologizing of the group that has done some good things, and I've written it, but they don't deserve the following they have and have had. That's it. Your motivations are so solid and convincing, instead, that you use examples of your acquaintances to prove the reliability of what you claim. You can keep thinking whatever you want, we had a discussion about Queen, debaser is nice also and especially for this reason. Regards.

Heard today, honestly it doesn't make me shout miracle. Interesting review, in any case.

nice review, they are at times embarrassing