58 of 66 people found the following review helpful
A review from someone who has heard it,
This review is from: The Cosmos Rocks (Audio CD)
I receive a lot of promos, but this one had some weight on it - the first new Queen album since `Made In Heaven', and the first one to not feature iconic frontman, Freddie Mercury. A tall order... for some people, but not for the three talented musicians who've put together a belting record.
The first thing that you need to know is this is not an attempt to pick up where Queen left off - this is three musicians of extreme talent making a record after discovering they had a chemistry. Paul Rodgers, Brian May and Roger Taylor play everything on this record and all the songs are credited as a three way co-write - so don't be expecting `A Night At The Opera'. So, what should you expect?
First up, I thought perhaps Brian and Roger would handle some more of the lead vocals like on the old Queen records from the seventies, but not so - Paul sings lead on everything with the exception of `Say It's Not True' which is a souped up version of the acoustic tune that Roger Taylor sang lead on, which appeared on `Return Of The Champions'. The new version features each member singing a section each, and it far rockier than the original incarnation. Personally I prefer Roger's softer rendition, but this is still very cool.
`Cosmos Rockin'' kicks the album off and is a great party rocker, with an infectious rhythm and a great vocal from Paul. `Time to Shine' is moodier and leads on neatly to `Still Burnin''. `Small' is a breezy ballad superbly delivered by Rodgers, before things pick up again with `Warboys'. You may have heard Paul play this song on his `Live In Glasgow' release, but you haven't heard this version. Roger and Brian have really given it some power, much like they did with Freddie's `Made in Heaven' and `I Was Born To Love You' on the last Queen album.
The idealistic `We Believe' is a pleasant song with a Lennon vibe, but one of my personal favourites is `Call Me', a lazy acoustic funfest with a real vintage solo from Brian and some fantastic harmony singing.
While `Call Me' had that Queen touch and `Still Burnin'' had a cheeky excerpt from `We Will Rock You', equally `Voodoo', `Some Things That Glitter' and `Through The Night' are more like the blues based Bad Company material Paul is famous for. However, this album doesn't sound like Queen or Bad Company, it sounds... well, it just sounds good!
`C-Lebrity' is a superb rocker about talentless attention seekers which you may have heard on the radio, and `Surf's Up...School's Out' keeps the energy high before `Say It's Not True' and a reprise of `Small'. I needed one listen because I didn't know what to expect, then another to become familiar with the songs, and I was sold. This album is brilliant.
James Gaden - Fireworks Magazine
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 30 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 13 Sep 2008, 14:46:59 BST
M. Ekelo says:
I can only agree with the review of James Gaden. I have now listened the album a few times, and sometimes it is Queen, sometimes it is Paul Rodgers, overall a good album.
Posted on 15 Sep 2008, 20:54:36 BST
Lee Thomas says:
I've just heard it twice now, excellent!!!!!
Much better than I ever imagined possible from a Freddieless Queen.
Just goes to prove, as legend as Freddie was, he was only one part of a great band!
In reply to an earlier post on 17 Sep 2008, 21:17:01 BST
I agree Freddie was only one part of a great band and that band was Queen.
Sadly this band is not Queen .
They`re only one half of Queen and to be honest this album isnt half as good as any Queen album , and that includes Hot Space.
The public at large arent fooled by Taylor-May`s use of the Queen name either , as this album is currently a lowly number 17 on amazon`s sales chart in it`s first week of release.
I would have had some respect for Taylor-May if they`d used a new band name , as the content of this album suggests they should have done , as it`s got nothing to do with Queen.
I will buy the album but will wait a month or so by which time is will have disappeared without a trace and pick it up for £ 2.
Posted on 18 Sep 2008, 13:34:22 BST
A. M. Charlton says:
Roget Taylor wouldn't be your "all time hero" by the way would he?
In reply to an earlier post on 20 Sep 2008, 14:03:49 BST
J. M. Gaden says:
No, absolutely not. I just worship Roger like a God. ;o)
As for The use of the name Queen, as Mr Bland says, the public aren't fooled. Everyone knows Freddie is gone. If they'd used a new band name, guess what? All the albums would have been overstickered with "Featuring the members of Queen". At the end of the day, the remaining three members of queen cut a bunch of songs without Freddie, before John departed. Brian and Roger have as much claim to the queen name as anyone, and the fact they subtiled it "+ Paul Rodgers" instead of simply Queen is enough for me.
In reply to an earlier post on 20 Sep 2008, 18:20:01 BST
The Taylor-May-Rodgers Band album is now down to a dismal no 25 on Amazun`s UK sales chart only 6 days after release in the UK despite using the Queen name to try to sell it !
As far as I am aware the 3 remaining members only recorded one song after Freddie`s death that doesnt feature Freddie namely No-One But You ( Only The Good Die Young ). The only other recordings they made were completing those with Freddie`s vocals which made up the Made In Heaven album. What are these other `bunch of songs without Freddie` you`re referring to ?
PS John Densmore of the Doors stopped in Court the other two members from using The Doors name. What a shame Deacon didnt have the same integrity . The Doors without Jim Morrison is like Queen without Freddie .
In reply to an earlier post on 20 Sep 2008, 21:42:54 BST
Last edited by the author on 20 Sep 2008, 22:05:20 BST
Rocking Ramesses says:
In reply to Mr Frank Lee Bland's 2 posts in here, when Bon Scott died in 1980, many AC/DC fans stated they would never accept a replacement. 28 years later and their album sales are as good as, if not a hell of a lot better, than previous: and they kept their name, no suffix "and Brian Johnson".
There are a myriad of bands whose lead singer has left, or been sacked: Asia, Bad Company, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Iron Maiden, Journey, Judas Priest, Nightwish, Rainbow and Van Halen to name 10 of them. Should these bands have changed their names as well, seeing as their vocalist was no longer there? (Death, sack or quitting, it all adds up to the same). And why stop at lead singers? What about Metallica, should they have changed their name when their bassist, Cliff Burton, died? How many guitarists have Deep Purple had now? Rainbow were a revolving door for musicians, Ritchie would have run out of names had he kept changing it.
Queen were formed after the break-up of Smile, Brian and Roger's previous band, with John, and then Freddie, joining later. So if any 50% of the band had the right to continue using the name then surely Brian and Roger have more claim than the rest. John (Deacon) was asked to continue playing, but was happy to remain in quiet obscurity. Had he of objected to the new idea, no doubt he would have been able to do so, especially if he had claim on the band's name.
As for the Doors case. John Densmore held part of the rights to the name and the others wished to use it without his permission. In 1985 he quoted:
"I'm just so happy that the legacy of the true Doors, and Jim Morrison in particular, has been preserved by this decision."............"I'm very pleased that, in my opinion, the legacy is preserved. I never intended for Ray and Robby to stop playing - they're great musicians. I hope Doors fans keep going to see them - it's just the name is owned by me and them and the estate of Jim Morrison, and they kinda ran off with stolen property."
Reads kind of different when you see it in context, doesn't it?
In reply to an earlier post on 21 Sep 2008, 00:11:21 BST
Good points and well made...
In reply to an earlier post on 21 Sep 2008, 19:43:24 BST
In reply to an earlier post on 22 Sep 2008, 04:34:39 BST
Last edited by the author on 22 Sep 2008, 05:00:13 BST
Rocking Ramesses says:
I also explained that in the Densmore case that John Densmore had a right to the name "The Doors" which is why he sued, and why he won too. Had the other 2 members of the Doors ask Densmore's permission to use the name, things may have been different: "and they kinda ran off with stolen property". From the lack of action by John Deacon we can safely assume one of 2 things:
1. He does not hold part of the rights to the name (as Densmore did) so court action would be useless.
2. He does not object to the collaboration and subsequent use of the name "Queen"
Your example of the Robbie Williams rendition of "We Are The Champions" only adds to the above points, as does the 5 & Queen version of "We Will Rock You". Had Deacon, or the estate of Freddie Mercury, held any rights to the "Queen" name, these versions would never have been allowed to have been recorded without litigation (if either, or both, objected). Since there has never been a court case about Brian and Roger's use of the name, it is obvious that it is either owned by the 2 men who formed the band or no one at all. Now, as a band name is usually owned, for legal reasons, I think it would be safe to assume that the "Queen" name is owned by either Brian, Roger, or both of them. Yes I have used assumptions, but before someone shouts about it, these assumptions are obvious from the lack of comment from John Deacon and/or the estate of Freddie Mercury, and without access to the relevant paperwork, assumptions they will have to stay. So, end of argument: we have established who owns the rights to the "Queen" name.
Who says that Paul Rodgers is intended to replace Freddie? It only seems to be those who are incapable of realising that the name of the band is not "Queen" but "Queen and Paul Rodgers". Had it remained without the suffix, your point may have had some credence, but by suffixing the name, Brian and Roger have distanced Paul from the furore that would have happened without it. Again I will quote the example of Bon Scott and the venomous fury which was raised when Brian Johnson REPLACED him. Recently the same venom was aimed at Anette when she REPLACED Tarja in Nightwish (you don't like them: your problem, not mine). What were Brian and Roger to do? Retire from the music scene because their lead singer died? Whenever they appear on stage they are introduced as ".....of Queen", and they will never escape this. Had they decided to appear under a new name, the ".....of Queen" would have resurfaced in the media, and on those stupid stickers on the album/CD covers. They also would have been open to abuse from those who would have stated that even they thought the new band was not as good as Queen.
"Without doubt the Queen legacy has been tainted by this album as Paul Rodgers is no Freddie neither." And only those who cannot read a group's name would say something like this. Paul is not a REPLACEMENT for Freddie, hence the name of the band. Tainted? Nope, I actually like the album, and LISTEN to the music, therefore I do not require rose coloured glasses as my ears and brain tell me about the sound I am hearing; my eyes telling me the name of the band. As for the comment about the name resurfacing, it has never gone away man. Robbie Williams, 5, Concert For Aids Awareness, etc. and how much money has Brian and Roger's continuing use of the name raised for The Mercury Phoenix Trust AIDS charity organization, as well as other AIDS charities too? How much will this album raise, remembering that Brian and Roger were instrumental in the setting up of it (the current Trustees are: Brian May, Jim Beach, Mary Austin (Freddie Mercury's long time friend) and Roger Taylor). Through this, Freddie's legacy will continue, and now with the assistance of Paul Rodgers too.
Do you only buy music which is in the Amazon charts? I bought my first 7" single in 1965 and have NEVER bought anything because of its chart position. So, "The Cosmos Rocks" did not get to the dizzy heights on Amazon, so damn what! I buy what I want to hear, not what the media or various charts wish to force me to buy. I have albums in my collection, which I bought because I liked them, which I doubt have ever charted, but I don't care, the important fact is that I like them, not someone else.
And finally your statistics! We can all get numbers and change them about to try and prove a point and use a term such as "irrelevant" when disagreeing with someone else, people in governments get paid fortunes for it. Does it matter how many albums a band releases? No, not one iota! Longevity: I think you will find that Rob Halford was in Judas Priest longer than Freddie was in Queen. Fans of many bands get hugely upset when a member leaves, in any form, and find it hard to accept a replacement. Paul Rogers is NOT a replacement for Freddie.
Your final comment is just not worth replying to.
P.S. As you like figures, do you realise that 77% of the reviews award either 4 or 5 stars? (Or as others would say, 23% gave 3, 2 or 1 star.) Those 77% are the important numbers as it shows that just over 3/4 of reviewers listen to the music, not watch the chart position..