bowie&barrett

Defensible. An indefensible album. Ugly. The worst of Queen, not to mention the poor "Hot Space". Better produced than "A Kind Of Magic" (David Richards at the console), with greater care for the sound and a better internal balance between the tracks. A perfect album for the charts, but devoid of the melody of the previous album. We are talking about Queen: to say "devoid of melody" would be more than enough. But let's briefly analyze "The Miracle" in light of "A Kind of Magic". One Vision was copied from Peter Gabriel ("Modern Love," 1977); One Year Of Love sounded like a Platters song, but it was good; Who Wants to Live Forever was by no means the masterpiece it was hailed to be, but it was a nice song, well-written, and very pleasant. In "The Miracle", aside from the bland title track (a copy of "A Kind of Magic" with a horrible lyric), there’s nothing else... nothing! The album opens with something utterly ridiculous, a museum piece, and it’s hard to recognize the band that played at Wembley two years earlier. I Want It All is an ugly song (with a nice guitar solo, wasted). The Invisible Man is simply horrible. The second side of the album, entirely made up of glam ballads (I think all written by Deacon) is slightly better, but still remains anonymous (not one comes close to the freshness and simplicity of "Friends Will Be Friends", a trivial but beautiful song).
The only thing I can say is that "The Miracle" is probably an album made from scraps of previous recordings, assembled poorly, and released to meet the obligations with the record label (after a silence of 3 years). And probably, just while they were sending these 10 ridiculous tracks to press, they were holed up in the studio, working on more serious notes, those of the subsequent "Innuendo". This is likely. I’ll end by recycling a comment I read in a review of "Train of Thought" by Dream Theater: "The best album that could be made with the least effort. Which is worse." Exactly.

MuSo, there’s no way around it... those who fall in love with a girl, in the sense of having a serious crush, find it hard to look at the rest of the world. The same goes for die-hard fans of a band or a singer; it’s impossible for them to be objective. What drives them to listen to their idols isn’t just a passion for music (or not only that: maybe they have all the records of Bob Dylan, who knows!), but rather a form of personal affection towards artists who have somehow managed to break through to them. It’s a need for fanaticism that’s common to all (the band, the team, the models, the party...). You’re absolutely right, I’m irritated too by those silly phrases: “the best band in the world!!!!”, “music written in Paradise”… what can I say... At least, those who idolize a band like Queen (who, in any case, played decently) have good taste in their choice. They’re certainly people with brains: Mercury and the guys didn’t make banal music. Among the slaves of fanaticism, they are the best-off fanatics: those who still have some idea of what a riff, a solo, a refrain, a sound experiment… a melodious voice, a well-made record… is. Remember that there’s worse: ehh..., if you think that millions of people idolize trash like Bruce Springsteen... at least, Mercury sang, he sang!!! and with passion; May played, he played! and well… John Deacon wrote about twenty excellent ballads, really excellent - provided you like the genre. They were people who knew how to use the staff, who made a lot of chart music while maintaining very decent production standards (even in the '80s, come on, there was worse, Radio Ga Ga is entertaining, funny… there was worse…). Those who love true music listen to Tom Waits, it’s obvious, but I’ll tell you: Mercury has never made me turn off the radio, quite the opposite...

No, the album is good, but not great. Let me preface: all respect for Freddie, an unforgettable vocalist. But let me say this: music... is LIFE.

...what are we waiting for, editor? Why don’t we organize a sweet meeting between this lovely girl and the legendary George :-)

Mr. Iko, shall we try to be provocatively crazy? OK. Many consider Radiohead one of the most original and innovative bands, due to their post-psychedelic sound, etc. Well, then, if you’re fascinated by the sound of Hail To The Thief, if you truly feel psychedelic and ready for anything, let’s do an experiment. Apparently crazy. Download a song by De André from the internet... you read that right: by De André, titled "Un Ottico," from the album "Non al Denaro, nè all'amore nè al cielo" (1971). Actually, get the whole album. It may sound incredible what I’m about to say, but… listen carefully, listen to it, attentively. Then listen to Radiohead again. And judge their sound. In light of a piece by De André? Have you lost your mind, Bowie????? ... Listen, listen... then we’ll talk about it again. It could spark an interesting debate on the meaning of "originality."

Mr. Iko, shall we try to be provocatively crazy? Alright. Many consider Radiohead one of the most original and innovative bands due to their post-psychedelic sound, etc., etc. Well then, if you’re fascinated by the sound of Hail To The Thief, if you truly feel psychedelic and ready for anything, let’s conduct an experiment. An apparently crazy one. Download a song by De Andrè from the internet... you read that right: by De Andrè, called "Un Ottico," from the album "Non al Denaro, nè all'amore nè al cielo" (1971). In fact, get the whole album.
It may sound incredible what I'm about to say, but... listen closely, pay attention. Then listen to Radiohead again and judge their sound. In light of a track by De Andrè? Have you gone crazy, Bowie?????... listen, listen... then we'll talk about it again :-)

(...talk about the devil, and...) hello innuendo84. thank you for the compliment you gave me on the comment about "News of the World" by Queen. I just wanted to add something (about U2): while it's true that their latest album is a bit bland... all U2's albums are. They have never released masterpieces, never played in a grand way, never created a sound that would secure them a place in history. They have always been a group of four honest tradespeople chasing success, producing albums that are sometimes good (War, The Joshua Tree) and sometimes decent (Zooropa, Pop, October). They achieved the success they were looking for, and they capitalized on it. Period. All this to say: if we judge HTDAAB in light of music history, I don’t think it should receive worse scores than other U2 brand products; judged against the other "U2" products, it is no less commercial, hypocritical, banal, clever, and plastic, with four occasionally good riffs. Downgrading U2 is fine; laughing "ah ah ah" for twenty lines comparing U2 to Led Zeppelin, or worse: lamenting supposed "masterpieces" of the past in light of the latest one, is frankly ridiculous, just like the stance of those who defend them fiercely. a hello to everyone :-)

Sorry to interrupt. I quote directly from the review: "The ballads that catch the ear are not many and are mainly focused at the beginning:". Grasshopper, I respect your opinion and your tastes; but I can't help but wonder, if Bruce's songs don’t catch the ear... well, why the hell does he do it for a living? :-)
hi

CACA, I confirm. Sorry for the term, I wouldn't want it to be taken as a compliment to the bruce (...fuck..., help me make them come to their senses...)

It wasn't an attack on you, Sylvian. The invitation I extended for you to listen to Blood On The Tracks by Dylan was a friendly and sincere recommendation, as you seem to appreciate the warmth and poetic simplicity of this kind of musical and artistic endeavor. I simply would like to know that you’re exploring TRUE delights of singer-songwriter artistry. Other titles to try: Harvest by Neil Young, the debut album by Suzanne Vega, Grace by Jeff Buckley, one of your choice by De André.