But they were enormous fun. God save the Queen, I say. Their string of unmatched hits knocks the Pistols into a cocked hat.

Love the story about Freddie giving Lydon a good verbal shoeing.

I repeat, an awful awful group. Herman's Hermits with a million overdubs and in Brian May an almost comic "Rawk" sound. Oh and I suppose breaking the apartheid ban was "fun" wasn't it?

Oh come, come it's pop music do cheer up you'll do yourself an injury.

I think we can stop this debate right here
the fat ladies singing

Queen - Barcelona (Freddie Mercury & Montserrat Cabelle) Vidéo leglaude-veyrier sélectionnée dans Musique

1) Queen
2) Sex Pistols

I have no regrets about missing the Pistols.

Instead of Sex Pistols try thinking Ramones. Queen v Ramones. No fuckin' contest. Go get 'em Joey...

...Queen have always been a bit of a curate's egg to me, good in parts. The early Queen, technically accomplished, and, dare I say it, sensitive and intelligent, was a totally different animal to that fronting the strutting, arrogant Freddie's stadium rock from 1977, the same year that punk exploded. If I had to choose punk would have won hands down at the time but Queen managed to win me back (and lose me) a couple of times after, and managed to outlast punk by decades.

Yes, they've had their knockers, (ooer missus) and if you watched the documentary they explained their reasons for playing South Africa, which included a request for black people to be allowed in the audience.

For me, Queen are just devoid of soul. I don't have a problem with versatility or with playing in different styles. But I don't hear an ounce of anything human in the music of Queen.

..as they are son-of-Queen with more of an edge?

Probably to do with my age though. I was 10 at the end of '77

I discovered Queen's back catalogue around '80-81 and fell in love with it. I saw them at Wembley on the Magic tour and having spent the preceding years in all sorts of venues watching metal bands, it was astonishing. Pure theatre, not an ounce of arrogance, conceit or contempt for the audience, just a driving desire to put on a Show.

I'm still not half as much a fan of their later stuff as earlier stuff, but I think that plays more to my love of pure rock.

Like I say, it's an age thing, I never experienced punk first hand although I bought a couple of singles to piss my parents off. Listening to it when year zero was long past, it just doesn't hold up for me. Queen most definitely does.

...where to start?

1992's awful Wembley tribute gig?

1994's Rog solo single Nazis? You can imagine the lyrical horror. I'm not going to google them whilst at work.

1995's "Made In Heaven", a barrel-scraping fairydust exercise which saw John Deacon bail out, never to return?

1998's new version of Another One Bites The Dust, a venture so misguided it featured the two Fugees you wouldn't have wanted anywhere near your ears?

1999's Greatest Hits III by Queen+, a desperate attempt to coax out previous purchasers of the first two volumes (both pretty strong compilations by the way)?

2000's none-more-embarrassing hook-up with 5ive, that's 5ive for crying out loud, for another version of We Will Rock You?

2002's Golden Jubilee celebrations, Bryan caught in ridiculous silhoutte on top of Buck Pal?

2003's remix of "Flash" by Queen & Vanguard?

2005's "Return Of The Champions" with Paul Rodgers?

2008's "The Cosmos Rocks", again with Paul Rodgers?

Can't remember when the stage show started but you can throw that in as well.

The odd thing is, I used to rather like Queen. Since 1991, they've provided an object lesson in how not to look after a recorded legacy, and have appeared somewhat graceless whilst doing so.

... rips off the plot of Rush's 2112 as well.

The prosecution rests.

Even though I'm almost certain it's not actually allowed.

(Country Life Spreadmakers)

you sound like Paul Gambaccini! So they made the hit parade more often than the Pistols thus they're a more significant singles band? No comment. I take issue with Bod about Queen in the early '70s though - they were really good for the first 3 albums and highly original whatever the Led Zep accusations. Then production took over and the rot set in. The '80s Queen were a particularly horrid money-hoovering, overblown video-making, arena-hugging pop-rock nightmare. And to add to their Argentinian and Sun City crimes we must add the blatant cash-in of One Vision - the single that was openly inspired by Live aid but contributed not a brass razoo to the charity. I still remember feeling queasy about the band's lame excuses for that one.

I like a handful of punk bands and songs, but mostly I like its musical legacy more than its actual music. Big fan of the concision, the DIY thing, and (being the paid up member of the Prog Haterz that I am) its refusal to concentrate in any sense on musicianship for its own sake. Many of my favourite bands wouldn't have existed without those things.

And yet I like Queen, despite their tendency to go on a bit, widdle, do the Rock God thing par excellence and all that. Cos, you know, they've got good tunes.

Isn't that what counts? It's pop music. They had a way with a hook, and a unique sound. Kudos.

Like Bob Dylan. Or David Bowie. Or The Rolling Stones. Or Stevie Wonder. Or Genesis. Etc etc

I can understand why people don't like Queen. I like them, though very rarely listen to anything recorded after 1980. But it seems to me that they get hammered for their 80s excesses and clunkers more than other acts.

He was a proper pop star, wasn't he? Queen aren't really my bag, but I do admire a showman. Mind, John Lydon was a showman too.

Score draw.

when I saw them with Mott the Hoople

grrrrr there are a lot of angry Punks out there judging by the "ups" the original Op got. You're all still seething after all this time grrrr.

Well as I implied early I love Queen throug out all their career they were ace . I also like some punk records probably the ones the angry punky types round here like the ones which were a bit poppy,catchy and even a bit camp like God save the queen, new rose and bordom. Not the shouty crappy scratchy ones nobody ever plays any more.

The idea you can't like Queen and Punk is nonsense and as for Queen being swept a way by the year zero of punk well all the stadia they sold out in the 80's must have been a mirage then.

As for an easy ride from press like ABBA, well they got that by being successful and so didn't need the music press the millions of people who love their music takes them away from all that. That's not to say that success is the only criteria to be judged by, but it is a powerfulone.

And in the end aren't we all just waiting for the "Hammer to Fall"

I don't think you have to make a choice whether you think punk or Queen was better. By Punk I mean the best examples; The Clash, Damned, Stranglers, pre-Glenn Maltock firing Pistols, since most of the rest surely can't musically compare in any way. It was all good music. Sure, Queen's music is a little less likely to get you kicking the garage door in, and stealing your neighbours car. But haven't we all grown up a little since then?

I heard Bohemian Rhapsody again the other day, when it came on. Honestly so effective, and moving it stops you in your tracks. I reckon you'd have to be very prejudicial in your judgment, not to be able concede that that's great piece of music, wouldn't you?

Queen once described as the Lidl Led Zep. Saying that, Seven Seas of Rye is a cracker.

An astonishing record.

Bloated & overblown - Oh yes

Driven by one mans massive ego? - again, yes.

Totally & utterly original, I have never heard anything like it before or since.

I absolutely love it.

I love punk as well.

but their original Greatest Hits is a fabulous record. I think they were a singles band really; their albums are very hit and miss as far as I'm concerned.

I went to see them a couple of times... at Wembley Arena in 1984 and at Knebworth in 1986. They were extremely good on both occasions.

But what I loved most about Queen was Freddie Mercury. Even now when I watch footage of him sticking his arse out at the crowd or do something suggestive with his cut-off mike stand or tongue, I break out in a huge grin. He knew better than anyone that he was in the business of entertainment and he was bloody well going to entertain people. That was his job. And he did it so, so well.

Their early albums stand up as intelligent, camp, operatic, glam rock but the rest of their stuff was fairly patchy especially the 1980s output. The problem I have with Queen is that they were simply not earthy enough for me. Rather a bit too self conceited, plastic and contrived, ie perfect for the MTV video age. I had other interests.

Where can a chap play his Blue Nile records around here?

so not round here, sunshine!

a national consciousness about AIDS was just gaining purchase (you know, that disease that only poofs get) and in the same year, Queen released one of the most iconoclastic tunes ever ... not just because it put cross dressing on Top Of The Pops, but it also put the willies up punky/new wavey homophobes (and buggered up album sales for the band in the US) ... Ladies and gentlemen, in one of the best overblown pop videos OF ALL TIME Les Dawson meets Nureyev in Coronation Street, subverting the very idea of rock itself...

When anyone asked what the first record I ever bought was I would usually say something by the Clash or the Pistols. In reality it was Queen II. I was a big Queen fan up until Night at the Opera, then switched my allegiance to Bowie and Roxy, partly due to peer pressure, likewise with punk. I hated the whole We Are The Champions/We Will Rock You era Queen. A couple of years ago, fiddling with iTunes, I listened again to the early albums. It would nice to say I re-discovered an appreciation for them, but apart from a faint twinge of nostalgic recognition, they didn't do anything for me. On the other hand I still get a tingle down the spine when I re-listen to Street Life or Wild is the Wind. Watching the documentary I also thought they got off lightly when it came to the 80s/90s. No real sense of how establishment they had become.

This thread is exhausting (foolish of me to persist to the end, I realise). Is it ok if I have no strong opinion either way. I'm 44 for godsake.

*has cup of tea and sit down*

that dented their sales in the States (from platinum to gold) and elsewhere. It was clear from the documentary that May n Taylor hated it.

I can't put up a complete defense of them in the 80's but there is some interesting stuff in there and 'Innuendo' is a great final bow to go out on.

Actually, fuck it. I was amssive fan of Queen in the 80's and loved a lot of those albums - up yours!

Never heard 'Made In Heaven' and the documentary didn't exactly make me want to. It seems that Fred was singing anything they put in front of him just to keep working and putting his illness to the back of his mind. Whether there was any quality control in those days and if any of it should have been used is debatable. However the band felt they were completing his last work so who am I to argue.

The Works is a very patchy album, with dogs like Man On The Prowl and Tear It Up. But there are some gems too, like Just Keep Passing The Open Windows, home-made video below. Ditto Hot Space, News Of The World, etc etc. While I won't disagree that their first Greatest Hits is bloody marvellous, every one of their albums that I've heard (which is most of them) has at least one great song that wasn't a hit single.

Loved to death by the same gorillas who hassled me for liking Bowie, somehow in the 70s Camp Freddy was seen as a hard rockin' frontman. The glam thing never resonated here with the same sexual frisson as in the UK, largely due to acute cluelessness.

Pop music with humour, with musicians who could actually play and a singer who could actually sing. For whatever reason, they had that magnetism when they played live: the whole was greater than the sum of the parts.

Having said that, they were definitely a singles band: the only album that is good all the way through is Night At The Opera. So I would agree that Greatest Hits 1 is the album of choice. Although their singles were sporadically good all the way through the 80s.

And, yes, the remaining band members (and Ben Elton) have somewhat ruined the legacy in the twenty years since Freddie's death.

Regardless... the BBC made a great job of this documentary. Really well paced, comprehensive. I'm not a Queen expert but I came away from it a far, far bigger admirer of their music, and also the way they made albums with the kitchen sink thrown in, but when playing live they would play the same material as a four on the floor rock band, with ...ahem, some uncanny parallels to the Pistols (there, I've said it). Dynamic and original vocalist, bona-fide guitar hero, powerhouse drummer and (in Glenn Matlock), not Sadney, an unassuming but driving bassist with songwriting capability.

As for the Sun City and the politics, well... Taylor summed it up for me by saying there were good reasons to go, but in hindsight he wishes they hadn't. Which sums up how we should think about anything political a musician does or doesn't do, really. But I admired his openness all the way through. Even though he is unnervingly similar to Eric Pollard on Emmerdale.

Something that wasn't explained in the documentary was how they were bitching about recording in a s--thole unlit bunker in Munich, why ffs did they go there in the first place - and then return later on???

And I wish my adherence to Punk made me never even contemplate going to see them even though I had dozens of chances to do so!!!

I'm pretty sure the sound had been "beefed up" in the edit. Specifically, some guitar overdubs to fill out the band.

Still quite impressive.

and I probably don't, the band unearthed their own 24 track tapes of the gig for this rebroadcast last year. Why they haven't released this along with the Rainbow film and some other choice bits that are out there is puzzling

'Seven Seas of Rye' wasn't really on their 1st ellpee, money was returned. P'shaw!

but get yourself over here and download "A Night AT The Hip Hopera" by the Kleptones. Fantastic stuff.

http://www.kleptones.com/pages/downloads_hiphopera.html

But like everybody my age I know every word of Bohemian Rhapsody.

A whole musical movement vs one band,
Talk about an uneven match.
Punk never stood a chance.
How about skiffle vs Mozart?

I love 70's Queen unresevedly. To me comments that they only made one good album are utter rubbish, but just my view. I prefer Jazz to Sheer Heart Attack because it reminds me of a certain time in my life whereas I was only 10 when SHA came out; and 32 years later I love every track. In the 80's they were still good but their individual preferences were accomodated more to keep the band together-hence Hot Space, which I hated at the time. Recent revisitng has led to a revised opinion of that album and I'm actually looking forward to the remaster.
To the OP-I have posted on here before that Punk has assumed an importance beyond its impact as years have passed. ELP and Yes had their biggest singles success in 1977 and Genesis only started having consistent chart success (singles and albums) from 1978. So to say it swept away/was a reaction to Queen or any others is nonsense. It was a different strand of pop music-most akin to 60's bands like Small Faces and The Who (without their musicality), which quickly mutated into new wave which then brought us 5 minute epics like Rat Trap and interminable Dave Greenfield solos.
Queen have stood the test of time-the most charted band of all time in the UK; Greatest Hits the biggest selling album of all time in the UK with as many young people enjoying their music today as back in 1975. That is not the work of a soul-less rubbish band. The comparison with Abba is a good one. When musical snobbery is removed the public recognise some damn fine tunes well performed that they want to hear over and over. Most bands produce one or two of these, Queen produced a sackload.
Do wish that Brian and Roger would knock it on the head now though!

Sourdust, you misunderstand me; on reflection my post rambled on.
I love all manner of 1976-78 vintage-Pistols, Jam and Stranglers above all. However stating the chart popularity of Queen etc is very much the point I think as it illustrates the point that punk didn't need to happen, it was a different style of music/fashion which was seized upon by some disaffected teenagers in the same way rock n roll had been a generation earlier and was not embraced by the record buying public in any big way.
It is the contention that it needed to happen that annoys. It happened and went away and some of its protagonists stayed around on the fringes of popular culture and yes carried its influence forward. In the same way,some young punks reconnected with glam rock and became known as new romantics, others covered the Beatles and show tunes.
Ultimately, I love both Queen and 76-78 vintage stuff. But the idea that one was more important and valid/worthy than the other still ranckles as it did in playground arguements back in 1978.

He said his posts were incendiary.

I used to have a brother-in-law from Middlesborough, an auto-electrician who came out here (Western Australia) to work on the mines and feel comfortable in his hilariously macho, 1980s blue-collar rightwing ways and views.

Huge Queen fan (along with the Waters-era Pink Floyd) and completely blind to the sheer fabulousness of Freddie.

That such a fucking trog rocked out to the antics of a man so committed to putting the boy back into flamboyant never failed to make me laugh.

Queen? Great singles, dodgy ethical imperatives, boring albums, de rigeur 80s shitfest - but it is all nothing in comparison to the sheer magnificence that is Freddie waving his arse at the generally homophobic rawk audience, and the generally homophobic rawk audience clapping and cheering and just lapping it up.

So to speak.

Spare me. I went to see Queen once and it was so dull I spent most of the gig at the bar with another chap who just happened to be another Link Wray fan. We were bemoaning our fate that evening as we had both been forced into this awful situation by our girlfriends. Over our drinks we both agreed that this band had about as much to do with rock and roll as the tip of Link Wray's little finger. Thank god for the Pistols. I went to see them three times and each time was an amazing experience. I am sure that even a shit gig by the Pistols would blow any of that pompous nonsense by Queen right out of the water. You would have thought that at least Brian May would have had the decency to cut his hair but oh no. All the way during punk he just had to keep those horrible long curly locks and even now at coming up to 64 he badly needs a haircut. Can someone tell him please? It's an absolute disgrace him walking around like that.