|
Post by dontthinkitmatters on Oct 9, 2019 12:37:32 GMT
Played the second half from Movin' On onwards. Frozen Hero was the only one which stood out for me. So for me thats 2 from 15 I found ok, way too many mediocre tracks that I ended up skipping through, less is more. Would have to give the album another go, to see if any growers but not enough stand outs for me to really give it another go.
|
|
|
Post by MrWaistcoat on Oct 10, 2019 9:25:54 GMT
Army 2010 is remarkable for its lyrics
The changes in lyrics turn a protest song into an establishment war song
Quo can argue that the ends justified the means (help for heroes) but the change is certainly interesting. I remember the guardian slagging Quo off for it.
I'm struggling to think of any other artist or band that has or would do this
Quo have said that they get ignored when they do a protest song. Perhaps because it appears they dont really believe in anything?
|
|
stringybob
Rocker Rollin'
Posts: 325
Favourite Quo Album: Quo
Favourite other bands.: Many and varied
|
Post by stringybob on Oct 11, 2019 3:45:42 GMT
It would doubtless be cynical in the extreme to suggest that the apparent ideological volte face evident in the lyrics of ITAN (2010) was due to populist bandwagon jumping. Guess I must be extremely cynical...
|
|
|
Post by dennis on Oct 14, 2019 12:28:25 GMT
As with all albums post JC there isn't the same groove or swing, compounded by the other factor common to all post AL albums which is a succession of rather dull & unimaginative bass lines. If ever there was any doubt about the significance of the loss of the original rhythm section surely it was confirmed when the Reunions finally occurred. Quo hadn't sounded so "Quo-like" for about 30 years, imo.
|
|
|
Post by americanquo on Oct 15, 2019 18:46:00 GMT
As with all albums post JC there isn't the same groove or swing, compounded by the other factor common to all post AL albums which is a succession of rather dull & unimaginative bass lines. If ever there was any doubt about the significance of the loss of the original rhythm section surely it was confirmed when the Reunions finally occurred. Quo hadn't sounded so "Quo-like" for about 30 years, imo. Thank you. Finally somebody who agrees with me, not only about the pedantic nature of Rhino's bass playing but also the mundane overall feel of the rhythm section.
|
|
|
Post by sqcollector on Oct 15, 2019 22:09:23 GMT
[...] not only about the pedantic nature of Rhino's bass playing [...] What?... How so? What do you mean?
|
|
|
Post by sqcollector on Oct 15, 2019 22:32:08 GMT
As with all albums post JC there isn't the same groove or swing, compounded by the other factor common to all post AL albums which is a succession of rather dull & unimaginative bass lines. If ever there was any doubt about the significance of the loss of the original rhythm section surely it was confirmed when the Reunions finally occurred. Quo hadn't sounded so "Quo-like" for about 30 years, imo. It's true that if you change the people, you'll always have a difference, regardless of how small it is. This is obvious. I know I will offend lots of people here with what I'm about to say, but the reunions sounds pretty bad. I like John Coghlan, but his playing was terrible. Couldn't keep the tempo, failed some fills, very dull & unimaginative plays at some parts of some songs. I never saw them in their (called) "heyday" and I didn't see the reunions live, only what's on YouTube. So, for one, I don't have nostalgia goggles on; and there might have been a complete atmosphere that I didn't feel, because I didn't go to the reunions. However, if you just listen to the songs they are playing, they are pretty bad. They weren't even tight on some songs. And Coghlan's swing was never that good. There are some songs form those early seventies albums that you can notice how the swing is being dragged. It's between a swing (1st and 3rd eighth note) and just the two eighth notes. Regarding the bass lines, it's not like Alan's bass lines were the apex of bass lines (there are some songs with some cool and different bass lines, yeah, like "That's a Fact"). And there isn't a song where Rhino can't play Alan's bass lines, I'd bet (just listen to "Don't Drive My Car" live, with Rhino. I think the bass actually sounds better with him (not the new version based on the Aquostic)). And there are some songs with enjoyable-and-not-dull-at-all bass lines from Rhino. Like on Rock 'N' Roll Floorboards. Even the Perfect Remedy album has some shaky bass lines. And I think Jeff and Rhino were a very decent and good rhythm section. They followed each other pretty well and provided a nice base. And I have never seen that line-up live either, in case you're thinking I'm biased. I just, from the songs I have listened to from Status Quo, and from what I've seen on YouTube and all, conclude this. This is my opinion. I'm not a (what is called) Quo-Lite fan. I'm not an FF fan. I'm not a Post-HT-or-UTI-Quo fan. I'm not a Post-86-Quo. No. I'm a Status Quo fan. I like their stuff from the 70's, I like their stuff from the Kircher era. I like them from the post 86 era. I like them post the HT or UTI era. I like them. I like their songs, some more, some less. I'm not biased towards a specific line-up just because it contained this or that. The thing is, some people here seem to criticize just because they prefer the FF, so everything that's not that sucks and will never be as good and for them they'd be stuck in the 70's or so. It feels like it and sometimes it's really unpleasant to read some stuff that's being said here. I'm all for debating and all. But sometimes, some people just keep saying the same thing on all threads, over and over again. To moderators, I'm sorry if this is against the guidelines somehow, please warn me and let me know if I should restrain myself a bit more. I usually try to avoid engaging on these discussions, but I just had to ask "why".
|
|
|
Post by charles on Oct 16, 2019 10:37:58 GMT
Don't worry, there's no guidelines on dull posts. We even welcome posters whose auditory faculties have left them.
|
|
|
Post by swingseat on Oct 16, 2019 11:14:24 GMT
As with all albums post JC there isn't the same groove or swing, compounded by the other factor common to all post AL albums which is a succession of rather dull & unimaginative bass lines. If ever there was any doubt about the significance of the loss of the original rhythm section surely it was confirmed when the Reunions finally occurred. Quo hadn't sounded so "Quo-like" for about 30 years, imo. I'm not a (what is called) Quo-Lite fan. I'm not an FF fan. I'm not a Post-HT-or-UTI-Quo fan. I'm not a Post-86-Quo. No. I'm a Status Quo fan. I like their stuff from the 70's, I like their stuff from the Kircher era. I like them from the post 86 era. I like them post the HT or UTI era. I like them. I like their songs, some more, some less. I'm not biased towards a specific line-up just because it contained this or that. I have moved on to a large degree in terms of following Quo in general, so am not really a 'fan' as such these says. But the quoted section most closely resembles my opinion. I am not really a fan as such however, but certainly still 'like' them. The original line-up period has most closure for me, as classic as that period was - classic not just for fans, but many old enough to remember their contribution to music from the late 60's that grew massively in the 70's. But fast forward quite some way, the arrival of Richie and a new album featuring him and Leon contributing very well in their own right, following the passing of Rick, has completed much of that closure. But I also was/have been always very receptive to the post 86 period anyway, and a lot of great songs over a further 30 yrs. The remaining closure, which is all but complete, is that, live, they persist with a extremely stagnant selection that wastes the vast amount of recordings.. Total boredom with it set in quite some time before the passing of Rick. There is no motivation whatsoever to see constantly re-heated hits and a very small repetitive number (relative to their huge catalogue) of other songs that despite the obvious freshness injected to the band with the new arrival(s) doesn't compensate for the ingrained over familiarity and acute samey-ness. Its very highly unlikely, but if (say) three/four songs from Backbone, plus the appearance of some fresh post 86 songs suddenly appeared like a rabbit out of a hat, then a door would open slightly on that total closure. Especially because the freshness and new energy within the group would then be used to its proper potential. But as things stand, and are almost certain to stay - if money was no object, there are plenty of various other artists (many of quite different genres) I would much prefer to spend it on before seeing Quo. And indeed I listen to anyway before thinking of re-visiting any Quo. Until Backbone was released, and I listened out of curiosity to it, I had not listened to any Quo for close to two years. I'm very pleased they are happy and enjoying themselves though, and from their point of view it is all that is important
|
|
|
Post by Victor on Oct 16, 2019 18:17:44 GMT
As with all albums post JC there isn't the same groove or swing, compounded by the other factor common to all post AL albums which is a succession of rather dull & unimaginative bass lines. If ever there was any doubt about the significance of the loss of the original rhythm section surely it was confirmed when the Reunions finally occurred. Quo hadn't sounded so "Quo-like" for about 30 years, imo. It's true that if you change the people, you'll always have a difference, regardless of how small it is. This is obvious. I know I will offend lots of people here with what I'm about to say, but the reunions sounds pretty bad. I like John Coghlan, but his playing was terrible. Couldn't keep the tempo, failed some fills, very dull & unimaginative plays at some parts of some songs. I never saw them in their (called) "heyday" and I didn't see the reunions live, only what's on YouTube. So, for one, I don't have nostalgia goggles on; and there might have been a complete atmosphere that I didn't feel, because I didn't go to the reunions. However, if you just listen to the songs they are playing, they are pretty bad. They weren't even tight on some songs. And Coghlan's swing was never that good. There are some songs form those early seventies albums that you can notice how the swing is being dragged. It's between a swing (1st and 3rd eighth note) and just the two eighth notes. Regarding the bass lines, it's not like Alan's bass lines were the apex of bass lines (there are some songs with some cool and different bass lines, yeah, like "That's a Fact"). And there isn't a song where Rhino can't play Alan's bass lines, I'd bet (just listen to "Don't Drive My Car" live, with Rhino. I think the bass actually sounds better with him (not the new version based on the Aquostic)). And there are some songs with enjoyable-and-not-dull-at-all bass lines from Rhino. Like on Rock 'N' Roll Floorboards. Even the Perfect Remedy album has some shaky bass lines. And I think Jeff and Rhino were a very decent and good rhythm section. They followed each other pretty well and provided a nice base. And I have never seen that line-up live either, in case you're thinking I'm biased. I just, from the songs I have listened to from Status Quo, and from what I've seen on YouTube and all, conclude this. This is my opinion. I'm not a (what is called) Quo-Lite fan. I'm not an FF fan. I'm not a Post-HT-or-UTI-Quo fan. I'm not a Post-86-Quo. No. I'm a Status Quo fan. I like their stuff from the 70's, I like their stuff from the Kircher era. I like them from the post 86 era. I like them post the HT or UTI era. I like them. I like their songs, some more, some less. I'm not biased towards a specific line-up just because it contained this or that. The thing is, some people here seem to criticize just because they prefer the FF, so everything that's not that sucks and will never be as good and for them they'd be stuck in the 70's or so. It feels like it and sometimes it's really unpleasant to read some stuff that's being said here. I'm all for debating and all. But sometimes, some people just keep saying the same thing on all threads, over and over again.
To moderators, I'm sorry if this is against the guidelines somehow, please warn me and let me know if I should restrain myself a bit more. I usually try to avoid engaging on these discussions, but I just had to ask "why". In itself I agree with that, but to be honest that is something that happens on both sides and not just from some FF fans, some of the fans of later Quo do it just as well and critisize everything that has to do with the FF. And personally I think it's nonsense no matter which side it comes from.
|
|
|
Post by dennis on Oct 18, 2019 23:36:10 GMT
As with all albums post JC there isn't the same groove or swing, compounded by the other factor common to all post AL albums which is a succession of rather dull & unimaginative bass lines. If ever there was any doubt about the significance of the loss of the original rhythm section surely it was confirmed when the Reunions finally occurred. Quo hadn't sounded so "Quo-like" for about 30 years, imo. It's true that if you change the people, you'll always have a difference, regardless of how small it is. This is obvious. I know I will offend lots of people here with what I'm about to say, but the reunions sounds pretty bad. I like John Coghlan, but his playing was terrible. Couldn't keep the tempo, failed some fills, very dull & unimaginative plays at some parts of some songs. I never saw them in their (called) "heyday" and I didn't see the reunions live, only what's on YouTube. So, for one, I don't have nostalgia goggles on; and there might have been a complete atmosphere that I didn't feel, because I didn't go to the reunions. However, if you just listen to the songs they are playing, they are pretty bad. They weren't even tight on some songs. And Coghlan's swing was never that good. There are some songs form those early seventies albums that you can notice how the swing is being dragged. It's between a swing (1st and 3rd eighth note) and just the two eighth notes. Regarding the bass lines, it's not like Alan's bass lines were the apex of bass lines (there are some songs with some cool and different bass lines, yeah, like "That's a Fact"). And there isn't a song where Rhino can't play Alan's bass lines, I'd bet (just listen to "Don't Drive My Car" live, with Rhino. I think the bass actually sounds better with him (not the new version based on the Aquostic)). And there are some songs with enjoyable-and-not-dull-at-all bass lines from Rhino. Like on Rock 'N' Roll Floorboards. Even the Perfect Remedy album has some shaky bass lines. And I think Jeff and Rhino were a very decent and good rhythm section. They followed each other pretty well and provided a nice base. And I have never seen that line-up live either, in case you're thinking I'm biased. I just, from the songs I have listened to from Status Quo, and from what I've seen on YouTube and all, conclude this. This is my opinion. I'm not a (what is called) Quo-Lite fan. I'm not an FF fan. I'm not a Post-HT-or-UTI-Quo fan. I'm not a Post-86-Quo. No. I'm a Status Quo fan. I like their stuff from the 70's, I like their stuff from the Kircher era. I like them from the post 86 era. I like them post the HT or UTI era. I like them. I like their songs, some more, some less. I'm not biased towards a specific line-up just because it contained this or that. The thing is, some people here seem to criticize just because they prefer the FF, so everything that's not that sucks and will never be as good and for them they'd be stuck in the 70's or so. It feels like it and sometimes it's really unpleasant to read some stuff that's being said here. I'm all for debating and all. But sometimes, some people just keep saying the same thing on all threads, over and over again. To moderators, I'm sorry if this is against the guidelines somehow, please warn me and let me know if I should restrain myself a bit more. I usually try to avoid engaging on these discussions, but I just had to ask "why". There's nothing wrong with you liking different things & having different opinions. That's rather critical for a forum. However, I cannot agree with you in the slightest. Sure, Jeff & Rhino worked together effectively, not too surprising given their history, but they were totally wrong for Quo, imo. Nonetheless, they got the gig & I suspect they fitted very well with how Francis wanted the band to sound. I did see them on the In The Army tour in '86 &, for me, it just didn't sound quite like Quo anymore. Whereas I thought Pete was excellent at the gigs I saw in '82 &'84, & the band I saw at the reunions gigs sounded & felt like Quo again - to me. I'm not really arsed about the individuals, I don't know them, I just appreciate the noises they make or I don't. To my ears there's something very special about the band's output from 1970-1976 & it wasn't too shabby for the next few years but I've heard very little recorded material since John left that didn't leave me cold - not that I'm suggesting that John was somehow the magic ingredient! It's just that things change & it's quite subjective as to whether you appreciate the change or not, although reading your criticisms makes me wonder how you ever got into them at all!
|
|
|
Post by frozenhero on Oct 26, 2019 15:21:03 GMT
At some point, I'll have to listen to all of those Quo albums again.
Anyway, this album holds a special place in my heart. It's not consistent, but you could make a great LP out of it. I love TWT, LR, MO, FH, RC and IAAY, DTG and LALLO are not too far behind. (And yes, it's possible to write out all those titles...)
I just wish it was mastered a bit more tastefully - Backbone does that better. Some of the songs on QPQ are hurt by those sizzling cymbals and the overall compression.
|
|
|
Post by frozenhero on Oct 26, 2019 15:31:47 GMT
Can't for the life of me remember what's on the cover of QPQ... Look at my avatar, then! Sums it up well for me. Backbone is greater than the sum of it's individual parts, this is less. Listened today, first listen in years. Cheap artwork, hated the single RNRAY, fairground keyboards and nursery melody. Like the single TPAOY, I felt it was aimed at older people. Resented it's inclusion in the set. It's only TWT that sounds like a band effort. The Little Lady style opening bash remains glorious, the overall song less so but still good So much is flawed. DTG, the best song, great swagger, yet not quite convinced by "force with me" lyric. Amazing verses on leave a little light on, but naff chorus and song concept. Let's rock is enjoyable for an occasional listen (prefer to think of Lonesome Road as Rick's farewell rocker) Most enjoyable for me is Frozen Hero, a brilliant song that probably doesn't feature Rick. I also really like Better than that, perhaps the song that sounds the most authentic, FR's Quo being themselves. Both of these could work on Backbone, but they'd be done better now as a proper band effort I can't really warm to the album that much, even though there's little I actively dislike Can't not mention Movin On. God that riff excited me when this came out, a great modern Quo moment. Still does, but the rest of the song is flawed. Super fast bass line.....so many modern Quo songs that went for speed instead of power (UTI, GGUAG), leaving it sounding like old Quo...but not able to properly hit the spot. Rick around this time complained "fans just want an album of rockers rollin", which was out of touch, but I think the band generally thought the same. This album was the band (well, RIck and Francis, independantly of each other) trying to give the fans what they wanted. It's far from a disaster, but not a success either. Agree on RNR&Y, FH, and some others. Disagree on other points: BTT wouldn't improve in my standing if it was on Backbone, I find it bad composition-wise and the ELO quote is forced. TWT is good imo, but the intro-intro is self-recycled (compare to CUOY and especially Saddling Up!). Love LALLO, especially the chorus with the background vocals joining halfway through, which imo is a genius move and the one part of the song that really stuck with me. Movin' On, I maintain, would be a great song live, especially when placed 2nd or 3rd. Yes, the album leans more towards "fast and hard" as opposed to "groovy and heavy", but I don't really mind that. It does make it sound more modern, for better or worse. And we did get Reality Cheque, a laid-back shuffle in the old style.
|
|
|
Post by frozenhero on Oct 26, 2019 15:45:22 GMT
And Coghlan's swing was never that good. There are some songs form those early seventies albums that you can notice how the swing is being dragged. It's between a swing (1st and 3rd eighth note) and just the two eighth notes. I agree with most of what you said (hearing those missing fills in the reunion recordings drives me mad each time) except this bit. And for that, I'd like to know what drummer (in rock) represents "swing" in your opinion well? The one song I kept complaining about in particular when it comes to the reunions was Railroad. It sounds stiff to me on the CDs (the first part that is). But even the original recording doesn't have overwhelming swing. What does is the 1973 live recording. I think that, and the 1976 live album, are the best examples of what made the original line-up special. The way John played the ride on Little Lady live... not bad at all. The reunions had the original personalities back, but certainly none of the tightness from the heyday, and not much of the franticness. Understandably so, but still... with a different approach it might have been more interesting from an artistic point of view, even for Francis. The remaining closure, which is all but complete, is that, live, they persist with a extremely stagnant selection that wastes the vast amount of recordings.. Total boredom with it set in quite some time before the passing of Rick. There is no motivation whatsoever to see constantly re-heated hits and a very small repetitive number (relative to their huge catalogue) of other songs that despite the obvious freshness injected to the band with the new arrival(s) doesn't compensate for the ingrained over familiarity and acute samey-ness. Its very highly unlikely, but if (say) three/four songs from Backbone, plus the appearance of some fresh post 86 songs suddenly appeared like a rabbit out of a hat, then a door would open slightly on that total closure. Especially because the freshness and new energy within the group would then be used to its proper potential. Thing is, I've complained so often about many songs, but when I saw them in Ludwigsburg all of that didn't matter. They played the songs so well and the audience was so into it, The Oriental stood out especially for that reason... do I want a new set? Sure! Still, looking at it on paper isn't everything, I had to realize...
|
|
|
Post by sqcollector on Oct 26, 2019 20:10:49 GMT
And Coghlan's swing was never that good. There are some songs form those early seventies albums that you can notice how the swing is being dragged. It's between a swing (1st and 3rd eighth note) and just the two eighth notes. I agree with most of what you said (hearing those missing fills in the reunion recordings drives me mad each time) except this bit. And for that, I'd like to know what drummer (in rock) represents "swing" in your opinion well? Not too sure on what you're saying. So, just to clarify, the swing technique is a technical term. To the point that there's no need for someone to actually be able to play it correctly for the concept to exist (this is to say that the swing itself is a concept and not something represented by a person, just to clarify). This is, of course, an in extremis case. Lots of use in jazz. Correctly used. It's no like John Coghlan couldn't perform it, but sometimes it wasn't that good. On these later years (especially the reunions), it was very noticeable that the swing wasn't very good. For old Quo songs, I bet that if he wanted to record it again, he could probably nail it better. I play drums and when I'm a long time without playing, it's hard for me to keep a sturdy swing for a long time. Especially the fast paced one from songs like Mean Girl, Down The Dustpipe, Tune To The Music, Rolling Home (BFY) and possibly some more. But with practice, it goes there. And I'm talking about both the swing only on the hats/ride and the swing on the hats/ride and snare (both hands). Actually, it's the John Coghlan who inspired me to play that kind of swing. As for a rock drummer, I don't know off hand, really. The thing is, I listen a lot to Quo and I've noticed some things in some songs after listening to them only for the 100th time ahah What I said about his swing is one of those things, I'd say. This is also to say that I'd have to go a listen to some rock bands with lots of attention to find you a correct answer, since I don't really have someone in mind that would, like you said, "represent the swing". Rosanna by Toto has a tight swing, on the hats/ride, I'd say, if you really want an example. But it's not as fast as the Quo songs I mentioned.
|
|