luca reed

Well, it's not a bad album... even though everything sounds like the early eighties, U2, Husker Du, The Fall... but I can't find anything revolutionary in "silent alarm"... it's a good album, but nothing more than I Will Follow (them) we'll see...

It's proof that the crazy people are always right.

It's a nice album, but I don't agree on Plant's career. The Honeydrippers were a delightful "hobby," "walking into c." with Page is really good... but in my opinion, the best solo album by Plant remains "manic nirvana," it has fantastic production. Then, it's true that others like "shakken'n'stirred" are insignificant...

Good eh eh will it not be all the anger that the four are talking about? Maybe it needs to vent in some way.

No, no, Zappa, certainly not, in fact I thank you for the clarification. The fact is that in my opinion The Final Cut is simply indefensible (perhaps except for "The Gunner's Dream"), and you really have to be a hardcore Waters fan to listen to it. Come on, you can't tell me that the terrifying "Not Now John," with its late psychedelic choirs, is a great track. Friendly and with utmost respect to you and everyone else, of course. And then there's something else that bothers me, which goes beyond this album: the oppressive and strict respect towards all rock myths that "cannot be discussed"... there’s something truly unsettling about all this, something coercive, something imperialistic. Maybe lately I prefer to pay attention to those "minor" realities that the history of rock never celebrates, maybe it’s that we live in a climate that pushes me, in all sectors, to side with those who don’t have such daunting fame, but I think even the myths need to be put into perspective somehow. If I think that "thanks" to them emerged from nothing that mammoth of technical and rhetorical perfection that is Alan Parsons... anyway, The Final Cut is, in every sense, a Waters album. Goodbye.

Anyway, their latest albums, Innuendo in particular, are terrifying. And the solo records by Mercury, Deacon, and R. Taylor are worse than ever. You can't deny this.

In short, you either love or hate Queen. I choose the middle ground, not least because they should be analyzed in a certain way: as a parody, or as a vaguely freakish band that has condensed various musical stylistic elements—from progressive to hard rock—into a single melting pot. I acknowledge that their style (or non-style) has been a true trademark, but I don’t like it. However, if I'm to see these aspects, then I find 10cc and Led Zeppelin, Liberace and Styx, Liza Minnelli and Boston, Chicago and Meat Loaf within them. Moreover, as Englishmen, Queen have blended the more ostentatious American rock (the one represented by the names mentioned above) with the more kitsch Central European culture. Perhaps they've done it sublimely, but they’re not for me, that’s all. I just wish that before speaking, people would explain the reasons why they so highly appreciate certain big names, and that it wouldn’t turn into a dizzying fan club delirium like that of the review. Using one’s head when listening to something, separating enthusiasm from a true analysis of the phenomenon, is quite another thing. For me, Mercury & co. were a disturbing phenomenon, but that doesn’t negate their importance for a certain type of rock mentality. Which does not force me to lie and say that I like them.

Truly, the ignorant assholes should be around a good 95% of the international press that has always attacked them harshly (Enrico Sisti "fans deserve respect as they do not recognize the insignificance of their idols" - Gino Castaldo "Queen were the essence of bad taste" - Lester Bangs "better not to talk about it") I do acknowledge the creative potential of songs like "Another One Bites the Dust" and the early albums, yet a fan of "Radio Ga Ga" has hardly ever heard a certain "Sheer Heart Attack."

Yes, the link between progressive hard rock pomp and subgenres like A.O.R... very American for being English. It can work (the lyrics much less so, if you allow me, Callas is better) but that doesn't take away from the fact that they were one of the most rhetorical and kitsch bands in history.

For me, they represented everything that rock should not be: the epitome of self-absorption, rhetoric, and verbosity, not to mention the abuse of certain frankly irritating musical patterns (the lyrics, the usual cliché of rock needing to be elevated, etc., etc.). I hear Barcelona, and at that point, with all due respect to Freddy, I see no difference with Mr. Andrea Bocelli. Undeniably, they were necessary in their own way, especially for people like me, to make me understand that I could get by without them. And I won't deny that:
1 - Brian May is a good guitarist
2 - They knew how to put on a good live act
3 - Some songs from their history are brilliant (Stone Cold Crazy, Seven Seas of Rhye, Don't Stop Me Now, Another One Bites the Dust, etc.)
4 - Mercury's voice is magnificent, kitsch aspects aside.
Then everyone can think what they want; there is much, much worse (Styx, REO Speedwagon, Survivor, Pat Benatar - by the way, all Americans except for Queen), and in any case, the Queen’s proposition can be reevaluated in light of recent events (like the Mars Volta or Muse case), where grandiloquence becomes poetry and who knows what else... I have their greatest hits at home and I listen to it too. Maybe the first two or three albums are acceptable, but to say that Innuendo is a great album, with all due respect for the story behind it, seems too much to me.
P.S. I notice that Paul Rodgers, an old passion of mine, is the new singer of the band... wouldn’t it be time to tell these old fogies to retire and let us hear the (equally divine) voices from the golden age (All Right Now, Bad Company)?