Why isnt this Sup Forums core?

Why isnt this Sup Forums core?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=y8DJP6XYGDQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Because Sup Forums hates Queen for literally no reason.
Good taste OP. This album is a masterpiece. Too bad everybody only knows the singles.

normies

Queen is overproduced hamfisted trash with lyrics that range from melodramatic, sappy horseshit to juvenile dribbling that could only be seen as passably good to a moron. Their songwriting lacks any sense of daring or experimentation, and the often touted praise that they're "complex" is comically idiotic to anybody who has listened to anything other than radio-centered rock and power pop. Freddie Mercury is a mediocre singer despite his somewhat impressive range, as he lacks any sense of emotion and has no sense of the importance of tone in singing.
The band stole their signature sound from the superior group Sparks after Sparks found chart success with their hit single "This Town Ain't Big Enough for Both Of Us." Queen started out opening for Sparks while they were an equally shitty prog band, saw Sparks find success, steal that sound and run with it without any changes (meanwhile Sparks experimented with different sounds to varying levels of success because they were artists unlike Queen) and without ever acknowledging Sparks' influence or help.
They're unoriginal, bland, pop rock drivel that would be remembered as being just as impressive as Boston or Kansas if it weren't for Freddie Mercury's death.

Sparks are a pure novelty band whilst only some Queen songs sound like novelty songs

Because it's corny.

I think it's a good, not great album personally.

Sparks are a significantly more talented band that happen to be wittier with their lyrics.
Queen songs are neither serious nor funny. They're just embarrassingly dumb.

Because '39 completely overshadows the rest of the album.

...

you must think frank zappa and ween are novelty acts as well right

>Sparks are a significantly more talented band that happen to be wittier with their lyrics.
Yeah, and it's always novelty shit.

And for someone that's so scared of artists taking influences (or ripping off as you seem to say) you really downplay the influence Sparks took from Roxy Music youtube.com/watch?v=y8DJP6XYGDQ

holy shit i came here to say something like this glad i'm not alone

>le wrong generation

Their music sucks, thats its. Only dweebs think this shit is good

in the same boat

what a great fucking song; rest of the album sucks, save for bohemian rhapsody. queen should have been a folk pop band.

you have the maturity of a 17 year old

Trashing Queen is the hobby of 16 year old Sup Forumstants who feel the need to trash what they used to like to fit in. Most of these people believe an artist's fanbase is more important than the quality of the music itself.

...

Probably because it's fucking garbage, they had a few classic pop singles but they never made a good album

Serious response I suppose, but the reason this album and Queen as a band isn't considered to be well-liked on Sup Forums is that as a band, Queen were severely inconsistent. I had a year-long phase where I pretty much listened to nothing but Queen when I was just getting into music, and even then, the overall quality of their albums post-Day at the Races were incredibly patchy. I personally find their second album to be their ONLY incredibly worthwhile album that manages to level out the pomp and cheesiness of their material because the songwriting on that record was honest to God top notch. A Night at the Opera in comparison, just doesn't cut it. It has fantastic singles and a few excellent deep cuts (The Prophet's Song, '39, Love of My Life) but the minute-long vaudeville bits and Bohemian Rhapsody's legacy as perhaps one of the most overplayed songs ever/most fucking obnoxious song known to man bring it down to a point where it's a test of patience. And that's Queen in a nutshell - a test of endurance. I enjoy their stuff, both for nostalgic reasons and because I find some of their stuff to be fun, but they're ultimately the entry-level of entry-level bands.

CONT. I really didn't want to mention the whole "the man had serious pipes" copypasta, reddit and shit because it's unproductive, but Queen's fanbase does play a part in why people don't care much for Queen since their fans claim that they're the hottest shit since sliced bread. A word of advice to counter this - avoid their Youtube videos as much as you can, jesus christ.

>Freddie Mercury is a mediocre singer despite his somewhat impressive range, as he lacks any sense of emotion and has no sense of the importance of tone in singing.
Most of what you've said is bullshit, but this sentence alone is evidence enough that you've never seriously listened to Queen. This statement is almost the opposite of true. Mercury is arguably the most tone-conscious popular rock singer of all time, with one of the most passionate and emotional voices.He pulls off 3 completely different emotional tones in "Bohemian Rhapsody" alone.

>Serious response I suppose, but the reason this album and Queen as a band isn't considered to be well-liked on Sup Forums is that as a band, Queen were severely inconsistent.
This really isn't why. Queen's first eight albums plus Innuendo were literally very good and this board worships plenty of musicians who have more shitty albums than Queen, and who have less than 9 solid albums.

This so hard. I'm convinced 99% of Queen fans have no basic knowledge of songwriting or music theory. They think Queen was somehow inventive.
>most passionate and emotional voices.He pulls off 3 completely different emotional tones in "Bohemian Rhapsody" alone.
No, he doesn't.
He always, ALWAYS, sings over the top operatic shit or weird scatting and he never veered away from that. Take Bowie, a guy who had a better range than Mercury and sang with very different styles over his career. That's vocal talent.
Mercury had a strong voice, but no variety. It was hammy and over the top, just like Queen.

Ignoring the fact that Queen is one of the most mediocre pop bands of the last sixty years, it's not Sup Forumscore because it's not a popular album that has made an impact on the culture on here.
Dumb question.

The best album of a mediocre band is still mediocre

>lazing on a sunday afternoon
>seaside rendezvous
>death on two legs
>you're my best friend
>sucks

fuck off sal

i dont listen to queen but you're in the right here. mercury is a beast, despite the meme.

dude everything post-ADATR is incredibly inconsistent. Innuendo's a good album but holy shit are you really going to defend stuff like Delilah despite the context?

>Queen II a 1.5

legit the only good Queen album front to back

>99% of Queen fans

99% of Queen fans actually are just Waynes World fans

I don't know how to tell you this but Queen were a hard rock / proto-metal band on Sheer Heart Attack and has nothing to do with the Mael brothers

fuck I meant proto speed / thrash

If you don't like Seaside Rendezvous, you're a monster