...I am honestly REALLY concerned about this album, speaking as a critic and having grown up listening to Queen's music for a lot of my life. And I think I should give my thoughts on the issues that I spot this album suffering from and why I fear this album, no matter how good it actually is, will crash and burn among most Queen fans.
Let me first start with the obvious one: the last Queen album was 1995's Made In Heaven, which was released almost four years after Freddy death. If you ignore "No One But You" (which was a track on the 1997 compilation album Queen Rocks) and the Queen + Paul Rodgers album (2008's The Cosmos Rocks: I personally don't count it as a Queen album, although more because I would argue that the fact it was released as Queen + Paul Rogers instead of just Queen means that it shouldn't be considered as an official Queen album), that was the last original material released by Queen as a group. In the time since the album was released, the band have become one of the most loved rock bands in the world, so it's understandable that Queen fans would expect this album to both be worth waiting 19 years for AND will live up to the high standards of Queen's previous albums (and yes, I am saying that 1982's Hot Space was a good album. It's not necessarily a good Queen album, but it's certainly not as bad as a lot of Queen fans would make it out to be...). Which, when you think about it, is a set of expectations that is probably even higher than what Chinese Democracy by Guns N Roses had to live up to! Now, on paper, that's not a huge problem: we have Brian May and Roger Taylor working on this, so surely it's going to be amazing, right? Well...that's where issue number two comes up.
Looking at the band's songwriting credits on their albums, you'll probably noticed that certain members wrote certain styles of songs. This isn't necessarily the rule, but, in general, the band's more experimental songs was written by Freddy, the band's most soul and Motown influenced stuff was written by John Deacon and the band's more rock focused stuff was written by May and/or Taylor. So, you can kind of spot why this album might start to fall apart already: the perfect balance between flamboyant theatricality, hard rock and Motown pop with a fondness for experimenting that helped to make up the traditional Queen sound won't be there to the same extent as the band's other albums. We're likely to get the hard rock bit and, to some extent, the flamboyant theatricality, but not the Motown pop and the experimenting that helped make Queen so interesting to listen to. Could they pull it off? Probably (let's not forget that some of the band's ballads were also wrote by May), but I cannot help being concerned that, unless they have sheet music of all of the songs and are sticking to what was on the sheet music, it won't sound right at all to hardcore Queen fans and even the casual Queen fans who only know the band for their Greatest Hits albums will notice that something is missing from the band's sound.
The third issue is probably a subjective one, but it's ultimately the thing that makes me question whether we really need another Queen album: the band's last album while Freddy was alive (1991's Innuendo) ended with the song "The Show Must Go On", which, at the risk of unnecessary vulgarity, was a fucking amazing way to end the band's recording career while Freddy was alive. It was a powerful way to acknowledge that, even without Freddy, the band would carry on, whether it was intended as that or not. And, if the band had wanted to, they could have ended their discography there, as it would have been a way to basically bow out while the band were still strong. But they returned with 1995's Made In Heaven (which I've not actually heard all of the way through, but I like what I've heard of it), using vocals recorded by Freddy before his death. Now, I can understand why the band released this album, as Freddy himself apparently wanted the band to continue releasing material after his death, so I have no problems with it. Then we got "No One But You", which, to me, has always been, and always will be, the point when the band's recording career had finally ended. It was just a beautiful epitaph for Queen's recording career in general (and a good way to acknowledge the loss of one of the greatest frontmen in rock music as well) and there was nothing more the band could do without ruining that moment. I've already given my opinion on the Queen + Paul Rodgers album, so I'll not beat that into the ground, but the fact it wasn't released as a Queen album means that, although I've not heard it, I can't really develop any dislike for it and I can accept that the band weren't trying to use the album to replace Freddy. The tours with the other vocalists were, to me, just the band paying tribute to their legacy and nothing more. And (at the risk of inviting a huge amount of scorn from the Queen fans), although I never saw Queen live with Paul Rodgers or Adam Lambert, I was happily argue that the band deserve to be able to play their songs live and, since these vocalists are not official members of the band, there's nothing really wrong with them as live replacements for Freddy: the only other options to allow the band to perform live would be to stick with Queen songs that Freddy didn't sing on, which strikes me as an option which isn't really a good idea for casual Queen fans (if you want proof, go look up which Queen songs did not have Freddy as the lead vocalist and then look up the tracklist for the band's Greatest Hits albums. See how many of those songs are on those albums!), or do the shows completely instrumental, which, while not necessarily a bad idea, isn't as valid an idea as having a frontman for the band. In a way, the band were in the same situation as Thin Lizzy were: they were a tribute to themselves, as much as they probably would deny it, and I honestly would not have any problem with the band doing that.
But, like Thin Lizzy, the band have decided that they want to put out another album.
Now, with Thin Lizzy, I completely understand the fan's resistance to the idea of the band releasing another album, and even finding myself agreeing with the people who didn't want it to happen: at the end of the day, Thin Lizzy was pretty much Phil Lynott's band, due to him doing just about all of the songwriting for the band and being one of the two consistent members of the band (the other being drummer Brian Downey) and, without him, the band couldn't really justify releasing an album under the band's name. And, while I will freely admit to loving what the band did as Black Star Riders (heck, All Hell Breaks Loose was one of my favourite albums of 2013!), I cannot help also adding in the same breath that the band did the right thing by not releasing the album under the Thin Lizzy name, as it allowed the band's legacy to remain untouched. Do I think that All Hell Breaks Loose would have been an embarrassment had it been released under the Thin Lizzy name? Not really, but it wouldn't have felt right to do it, in my honest opinion. Queen aren't QUITE in the same situation, as Brian May and Roger Taylor were always part of Queen and were always songwriters for the band, but I think just about everyone would agree that Freddy was part of what made Queen so brilliant, as he helped tie everything together in a way that made the band's material work as a cohesive whole and, as such, it feels kind of wrong to do this album. This is ESPECIALLY important when you remember the point I made regarding Innuendo and "No One But You": both of those could have comfortably closed the band's studio career and left nothing else to say quite well.
But Queen Forever...the best analogy I can give is this: you decide to attend a performance of Beethoven's 9th Symphony (you know, the one with the "Ode To Joy" section) and it's the most beautiful performance of the song you've ever heard: everything is played to perfection, the emotion is beautifully done and even the resident grumpy person looking for nitpicks to complain about is so enraptured by the performance that he cannot force himself to say anything negative about the performance. You know you'll never hear the song this well done for the rest of your life. The bows are done, everyone walks off, you grab your coat and are about to leave...when the conductor comes on stage with a kazoo and starts doing the famous part to the "Ode To Joy". You'd be rather pissed off at the conductor for doing that and ruining an amazing evening, even if his performance on the kazoo turns out to actually be very good. That is kind of what this feels like: the conductor has come back onstage and is preparing to do a kazoo solo. At the moment, we don't know how good the performance is going to be, but there's no way it's going to outdo what a whole symphony orchestra could do.
And, putting aside the analogy and talking about this seriously for a moment, it's actually a huge shame that, with all of these factors in mind, this album is almost certainly going to not get embraced by Queen fans. The band's legacy has become such that any new material is almost certainly not going to live up to the standards expected by the band. What can the band possibly release that would live up to 19 years of waiting AND their legacy? It would have to be a flawless album, otherwise it would end up being torn to shreds by just about everybody. And even being a flawless album might not be enough for some people, who will despise it just for it being a new Queen album released 22 (maybe 23) years after Freddy's death. The Beach Boys took longer to release That's Why God Made The Radio after their 1992 album Summer In Paradise (if you don't count 1995's Stars And Stripes Vol. 1 due to it technically being self-covers of songs by The Beach Boys with country stars joining in...and yes, those of you who haven't read my blog before now and, as such, missed my review of That's Why God Made The Radio, that actually happened!) and the reception it got was probably best summed up as "Not embarrassing, but definitely not up to their best standards". While I might have been charitable with my original review, with the benefit of hindsight, I will still attest that, if judged as an album in and of itself and without considering the band's legacy, That's Why God Made The Radio is definitely not a bad album. But here's the thing: most people expected more from the album, despite the band's recording output post-M.I.U. Album being rather poorly received by fans of the band! That's because the legacy of The Beach Boys' first twelve albums (which might sound like a lot, but bear in mind that they released those over a seven odd year period between 1960 and 1967: if you look at the band's stuff after that, you'll notice a suspicious lack of well known material by the band!) is so great that, even now, it can continue to inspire musicians. Queen, however, never really had that quality dip. Sure, some people like to pretend Hot Space didn't happen (apart from "Under Pressure") and the band's first two albums (imaginatively titled Queen and Queen II, respectively) don't get a lot of representation on the band's Greatest Hits stuff (you've got "Keep Yourself Alive" from Queen and the full length version of "Seven Seas Of Rhye" from Queen II, but nothing else), but you'll find all of the band's other albums include at least two songs that you'll recognise if you're a casual fan (the only exception being the Flash Gordon soundtrack...and you'd be forgiven for skipping that one if you're not fond of soundtracks anyway, so you can argue that it's not a proper Queen album anyway!) and will always contain at least one underrated track that will have you going "How did THIS not get better known?" Case of point, my personal picks from the Queen albums I've heard are "Bring Back That Leroy Brown" (Sheer Heart Attack), "'39" (A Night At The Opera), "The Millionaire Waltz" (A Day At The Races), "Mustapha" (Jazz), "Staying Power" (Hot Space) and "Machines (Or 'Back To Humans')" (The Works). And that's not necessarily going to be the same as what everyone else will like!
So, as I've spent ages blabbering on about why this album is concerning, some of you might be thinking "Well, what would you have them do? They're a world famous band, so surely they can be allowed to do what they want to?"? Well, I actually agree with you! They should be allowed to do what they want to do. But here's the thing: they have a very talented singer doing their live stuff at the minute in the form of Adam Lambert (and, if you think that's an overstatement, try singing a Queen song properly and you'll see how tough it actually is!), and I'd have said that the band would have probably been better off doing an album with him to actually give him a chance to show off his stuff, or do another album with Paul Rodgers if they want to do that! Sure, it wouldn't be the same as an actual Queen album...and that's EXACTLY the point that I've been trying to make! Queen were irreplaceable, there is no doubt about it. Freddy was irreplaceable, John was irreplaceable, Roger was irreplaceable and Brian was irreplaceable and, without them, Queen isn't the same. But the Queen + name is a potential chance for Brian and Roger to work with great vocalists and do music together with them, which I would really support them doing! The new Queen album might be good (and, if it is, I will genuinely take back all of my concerns that I've voiced here and admit I was wrong to be so judgemental), but let's be honest: how many more Queen albums are we likely to be able to get from those demos with Freddy's voice? I suspect one more album at most. It's time to let that book be officially closed for the last time and maybe let the Queen + name do studio albums like what I've suggested: May and Taylor working with talented vocalists and giving them a chance to bring something to the table that we might not be able to get a chance to hear if the band only sticks to doing live shows with these vocalists. If Taylor and May want to write new material and want to do so under the Queen + name, I would genuinely be happy for them to do that: the band's name might be on it, but, at the same time, the other singer's name shows that it's not an actual Queen album in the sense of the band continuing under that name.
But I feel uncomfortable supporting a new Queen album.
Not a Queen + album.
A new Queen album.
But hey, maybe I'll be wrong. This next Queen album could turn out to be absolutely brilliant, blow away all expectations and show that Queen ultimately still have something to say that we will all want to hear.
But my gut feeling is pointing towards this not being absolutely brilliant.
But my gut feeling is pointing towards this not being absolutely brilliant.
My gut feeling is pointing towards this being the songs which didn't make it onto Made In Heaven.
...Or it could be that I've not eaten lunch or dinner and it's nearly twenty to eleven at the time of writing, take your pick!
No comments:
Post a Comment