Queen
The Platinum Collection


4.5
superb

Review

by gblackman USER (25 Reviews)
October 24th, 2008 | 34 replies | 8,717 views


Release Date: 2000 | Tracklist

Review Summary: There’s a lot of Queen to be enjoyed here. Plus it turns out to be a better deal than buying each Greatest Hits album individually.

2 of 3 thought this review was well written

As this is basically Greatest Hits I, II & III slap dashed together, I have decided to give the original reviews of each separate album.

Greatest Hits

‘Queen’ was always an enigma to me. In one hand they had one of the best vocalists in the business ‘Freddie Mercury’ who could perform notes that most singers could only dream of. There was also ‘Brian May’ playing on his custom made electric guitar whilst plucking riffs with his old 10 cents piece coin that would eventually create that signature Queen sound.

As for the others ‘Roger Taylor’ was a decent if not average drummer whilst ‘John Deacon’ (bar a few classic hit tracks) was non-existent.

They all grew up with art & science diplomas & arguably one of the cleverest bands in rock, but at times they were too clever for their own good. When making their studio albums they would usually allow each member a chance to express themselves, arguably there was no actual leader when it came to making albums (Although some might argue for Brian or Freddie). It was this that at times made albums like “Sheer Heart Attack,” and “A Night at the Opera,” frustrating listens because the greatness was there for all to hear but so was the inconsistencies.

It could be argued though that it was their solidarity in making albums that kept them together for so long. Whilst ‘The Beatles’ undoubted leaders were Lennon & McCartney it's easy to argue that it would be their competition against each other than would cause their downfall. But the difference is although they weren't around as long The Beatles made ‘great albums’ whilst Queen did not.

That's where “Greatest Hits” comes in, a selection of 17 of the best songs from their first eight studio albums. Oh and plus Flash.... ahhh...

And the strange thing is that because each song has been carefully & thoughtfully ordered the listening experience actually feels like a studio album release & not just songs clunked randomly together.

Take “Bohemian Rhapsody,” the bands most well known song, who would have thought that the song being followed by “Another one bites the dust,” their biggest US hit, would combine together so perfectly. There are also other underrated tracks such as “Play the Game,” and “Somebody to Love,” which fit in perfectly with heavier numbers such as “Now I'm Here,” and “Fat bottomed girls.”

Indeed the listening experience for each track is superior for each song than it was ever on the studio albums they were released on. For example songs like “Seven Seas of Rhye,” Fat bottomed girls, “Bicycle race,” “Good old fashioned lover boy,” & “Don't stop me now,” actually feel like actual songs from a great album more that just random flashes of brilliance on otherwise poor releases.

What the album also proves is that Queen concentrated their studio album efforts on what they truly did best (Catchy Pop Songs) then they would have probably made that great studio album instead of creating those inconsistencies that would dog their career.

Still what Greatest Hits does have is 17 exceptional Pop Songs that are catchy & instantly likeable. It's basically Queen doing what they do best. If only they could have done something like that on an actual studio release.

5/5

Greatest Hits II

“Greatest Hits II” was released barely weeks before the death of ‘Queen’ lead singer ‘Freddie Mercury.’ The album itself covers all of their hits from 1981-1991, and although perhaps not in the same league as “Greatest Hits One” as far as quality goes, for pure essentiality it perhaps equals it.

Although their albums from 1982-1991 ("Under Pressure," also on this album, is from 1982's "Hot Space" release, but was out as a single in '1981') were hardly anything to shout about, they still produced enough great songs to merit a best of collection and “Greatest Hits Two” showcases that to the best of its ability.

Whilst other hit packages since have tried to merge their hits together (A great example being the US ‘Classic Queen’ package) ‘Queen’ in truth did enough great hit songs to merit two separate collections, both of which represent different periods of their musical career.

And, admittingly, a lot of ‘Queen’s’ better work is on ‘Greatest Hits One,’ but still their best eighties to early nineties stuff is here and in specific and excellent detail. Also the fact that it introduces 17 new hits and does not repeat any songs from the previous package (Like a ‘Classic Queen’ does) makes it an essential release anyway. In otherwords, if you loved ‘Greatest Hits One,’ you’ll love ‘Greatest Hits Two.’

The album mainly covers their biggest hits from the 80’s, although some have been left out, “Las Palabras de Amor,” and “Body Language” perhaps most surprising, whilst “These are days of our lives” wasn’t quite released on time as a single to be warranted release on this package. (It would turn up on Greatest Hits III though).

Still, there are enough classics here to keep any casual ‘Queen’ fan satisfied. From famous hits such as “Under Pressure,” “Radio Ga Ga,” and “A Kind of Magic,” to underrated hits such as “Innuendo,” “Breakthru,” and “The Miracle.” There’s also an added bonus of having the single edit of “I want to break free,” instead of the short cut version we got for “The Works” album.

It does have some problems though. First including the pitiful releases “Headlong,” and “Friends will be Friends.” Also songs such as “Who wants to live forever,” and “One Vision” have been cut in length from their superior album versions.

There are some average filler to such as ‘techno hit’ “The Invisible Man,” and "Play the Game II" song “It’s a hard Life.” The rest though is excellent and is an accurate description of the best of ‘Queen’ from 1981-1991.
4/5

Greatest Hits III

This is a strange release, not necessarily a bad one, but a strange one.

Two years earlier, they had basically covered near enough everything on ‘1997’s’ “Queen Rocks” compilation. Admittingly, you could argue that it was more of a hard rock collection than a hits collection. Afterall, it had songs such as “Stone Cold Crazy,” “Tear it Up,” “Sheer Heart Attack,” and “Put out the Fire,” which had never even been released as singles. Also, it did not include any takes from their previous studio release “Made in Heaven.”

So what “Greatest Hits III” does offer us are four single releases of that album (“Heaven for Everyone,” “Too much love will kill you,” “Let me Live,” “You Don’t fool me,” although “A Winters Tale” has been oddly left out, despite being one of their biggest hits on that album.)

A mixture of re-releases/remixes, (“The Show Must go on-WITH ELTON JOHN,” “Under Pressure- RAH MIX,” “Somebody to Love-WITH GEORGE MICHAEL,” “Another one bites the dust-WITH WYCLEF JEAN.”)

Solo material, (‘Freddie’s’ “Barcelona,” “The Great Pretender,” and “Living on my own” and ‘Brian’s’ “Driven by You”)

And some left over single releases that never made it onto “Greatest Hits II" (“Las Palabras de Amor,” “Princes of the Universe,” “These are the days of our Lives,” “Thank God it’s Christmas.”)

So, with all THESE ADDED ARTISTS, and solo efforts, it’s no wonder this album was called “Queen+ Greatest Hits III.”

But strangely, it’s more about what isn’t there, than what is.

Of course there’s the aforementioned A Winters Tale, and also there’s an argument for hits such as “Body Language,” and “Back Chat,” from their underrated Dance/Pop release “Hot Space.”

It’s a bigger shame that the band didn’t even indulge deeper into their past as there are other gems that were not on earlier hits compilations such as “Keep Yourself Alive” from their ‘first album,’ “Tie your Mother Down;” from “A day at the Races,” and US single release “It’s Late,” from ‘1977’s’ “News of the World.” Even another American single release “Need your Lovin’ tonight” from ‘1980’s’ “The Game,” would have been a welcome addition.

They’ve even cut short on the solo material.

For starters there’s no ‘Brian May’ version of “Too much love will kill you,” yes the Queen version is there but May’s version is just as good and would have been great for listeners to compare. But they’ve really been sloppy with Freddie’s solo material. Yes they have his biggest hits, but they still missed out on top ten smashes such as “Love Kills,” and “In my defence,” and the brilliant top 20 hit “I was born to love you,” as well as top 40 hit “Time.”

What is left though is more of a collection that barely scratches the surface of what Queen/other members had done before.

Admittingly the ‘George Michael’ performance of Somebody to Love, from the ‘1992’ “Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert,” is a welcome addition and was one of the best performances of the day. But there’s also needless additions such as the ‘Elton John’ Paris performance of “The Show Must go on,” the terrible Under Pressure (Rah Mix.)

Yes it was a hit single but it’s still terrible, as was ‘Wyclef Jean’s’ murdering of Another one bites the dust, and why the pompous Princes of the Universe and the vomit inducing Thank God it’s Christmas are there I’ll never know. (Especially Thank God it’s Christmas as A Winters Tale is a million times better as a Christmas tune.)

The rest though is excellent.

“No one but you (Only the good die young),” from “Queen Rocks,” makes a welcome addition here, as do the Brian and Freddie hits (the few there are, although it does make his brilliant “Mr Bad Guy” album even more essential because the songs are not even covered at all here).

These are the days of our Live, which was just released too late for Greatest Hits II also is a welcome addition, as well as Las Palabras de Amor, which should have been on that compilation (Anything but “Friends will be Friends”-PUKE.)

2.5/5

TO CONCLUDE

There’s a lot of Queen to be enjoyed here. Plus it turns out to be a better deal than buying each Greatest Hits album individually. And although however disappointing the third hits package may have been it still has its moments.

I recommend this to anyone who wants to have basically (bar a few songs) all of the Queen they’ll ever need to hear and know.

4.5/5



Recent reviews by this author
Queen On Fire (Live at the Bowl)Queen Greatest Hits Three
Queen Queen RocksQueen Made in Heaven
Queen Live at Wembley 1986Queen Greatest Hits Two
user ratings (170)
Chart.
4.4
superb

Comments:Add a Comment 
Xxplosive
October 24th 2008



126 Comments


.......do you even go upstairs everyone once in a while to say hi to your mom?

foreverendeared
October 24th 2008



14678 Comments


why did you put people's names in quotes? that just blows my mind

Spamue1G
October 24th 2008



1292 Comments


Still what Greatest Hits does have is 17 exceptional Pop Songs that are catchy & instantly likeable. It's basically Queen doing what they do best. If only they could have done something like that on an actual studio release.

I could have sworn they already did that on several albums... A Night At The Opera or A Day At The Races, anyone?

gblackman
October 24th 2008



50 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

.......do you even go upstairs everyone once in a while to say hi to your mom?


Given that I don't live with my Mum anymore (and haven't for a long time) then no.

I could have sworn they already did that on several albums... A Night At The Opera or A Day At The Races, anyone?


A night at the opera maybe (which I did mention) A day at the races has its moments (like all Queen albums do) but isn't as consistant as a hits compilation is.

Anyway there are songs that could have been on the third greatest hits.

These were released as singles or are famous for other reasons.

Keep Yourself Alive
Stone Cold Crazy
I'm in love with my car
Tie your mother down
Spread our wings
It's late
Dragon Attack *
Back Chat *
Scandal *
A winters tale *

Although apart from those marked with a * the rest are available on the compilation Queen Rocks.


taylormemer
October 24th 2008



4913 Comments


ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION
HERE IT IS.
'WHY' 'DO' 'YOU' 'NEED' 'TO' 'PLACE' 'QUOTES' 'AROUND' 'ITEMS' 'THAT' 'DON'T' 'NEED' 'THEM'? 'CAN'T' 'YOU' 'SEE' 'HOW' 'IRRITATING' 'IT' 'IS'!
Plus, review is as bad as all your others.This Message Edited On 10.24.08

gblackman
October 24th 2008



50 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

ANSWER THE ****ING QUESTION


Whoa.

'WHY' 'DO' 'YOU' 'NEED' 'TO' 'PLACE' 'QUOTES' 'AROUND' 'ITEMS' 'THAT' 'DON'T' 'NEED' 'THEM'? 'CAN'T' 'YOU' 'SEE' 'HOW' 'IRRITATING' 'IT' 'IS'!


I have answered this before but anyway...

Originally people complained it was hard to read the review so I looked up PROFESSIONAL reviews and saw "that they used these for song names" and 'these for people's names and years.'

I did over use them at first but have cut down since.

I'll keep them for the Queen reviews as I'm nearly finished but might adopt bold and italic methods.

But let's see.


Plus, review is as bad as all your others.


Ok, you can return to your pram now. LOL!



This Message Edited On 10.24.08

joshuatree
Emeritus
October 24th 2008



3743 Comments


dude why are you still posting

Willie
Moderator
October 24th 2008



15876 Comments


You seem to think that you're doing something right, and that is so far from the truth. Reviews, even for the same band, do not need to follow an overarching theme. They also don't need to include the same mistakes and problems just for the sake of continuity. I don't know where you found those use of quotes and apostrophes but you were definitely mislead or totally misunderstood. Why don't you try to progress a little instead of blindly following the same bullshit that hasn't worked yet? Your reviews are hard to read but it certainly had nothing to do with a date not having punctuation around it.This Message Edited On 10.24.08

Digging: Emperor - In The Nightside Eclipse - 20th Year Anniversary

foreverendeared
October 24th 2008



14678 Comments


Originally people complained it was hard to read the review so I looked up PROFESSIONAL reviews and saw "that they used these for song names" and 'these for people's names and years.'
now i'm curious because that makes me doubt that these "professional" reviews you looked up are even professional at all. give me a link please

gblackman
October 24th 2008



50 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

www.allmusic.com


^ probably the best.

www.rollingstone.com

^^ more for entertainmentThis Message Edited On 10.24.08

badtaste
October 24th 2008



824 Comments


This did not need reviewing. I'm surprised someone even added it to the database.This Message Edited On 10.24.08

taylormemer
October 24th 2008



4913 Comments


Allmusic! Hahaha. Yeah, so show me an AMG review that demonstrate this style of quote usage.

gblackman
October 24th 2008



50 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

although yeah I've made some errors, from now on "I'll quote songs" and italic albums and leave years. LOL.This Message Edited On 10.24.08

NOTINTHEFACE
October 24th 2008



1653 Comments


A quick skimming of both of those sites reveals that neither of them make the idiotic quotation mistakes that you have made.
But I think that's entirely beside the point. Your writing, quite frankly, sucks worse than Queen trying to be a metal band. What's worse is that you stubbornly refuse to accept advice from users who have infinitely more experience than you. I understand that you think you're doing this for your own self-satisfaction and that you're not forcing us to read anything, but technically Sputnik is an online database, NOT a free forum for someone to come along and write anything they want. If you refuse to step up the quality of what you're doing, you're not welcome to contribute.

gblackman
October 24th 2008



50 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

A quick skimming of both of those sites reveals that neither of them make the idiotic quotation mistakes that you have made.


I'll sort that out, I do get carried away.

But I think that's entirely beside the point. Your writing, quite frankly, sucks worse than Queen trying to be a metal band.


Actually "the quotes" came by taking people's advice (but i will cut down)


What's worse is that you stubbornly refuse to accept advice from users who have infinitely more experience than you.


Read above statement.


I understand that you think you're doing this for your own self-satisfaction and that you're not forcing us to read anything, but technically Sputnik is an online database,


Sputnik Music- Your Music Reviews???

NOT a free forum for someone to come along and write anything they want. If you refuse to step up the quality of what you're doing, you're not welcome to contribute.


Well, are you saying I should write what others want?

How wonderful it is now that we live in a society that advertises democrocy and freedom of speech, yet anyone who says anything against the norm is laughed at and given threats.

Plus I think you'll find I'm not the only person who thinks this way.

Pick up some Queen BOOKS and they'll also tell you that Queen were a singles band. And that's from their own fans.

And what to you is quality???








DethThrasher
October 24th 2008



463 Comments


Whats with all the Queen reviews lately

NOTINTHEFACE
October 24th 2008



1653 Comments


I understand that you thought excessive puncuation was what some people meant when they said your reviews were "hard to read". But I assure you, they were talking about your writing. This is what I don't think you understand. You somehow think that we have a problem with you because we disagree with your opinions. That couldn't be farther from the truth. We simply ask that you increase your writing skills by making your reviews more fun to read. The way you structure your opinions is very awkward and difficult. Try to cut back on run-ons. use more colorful descriptions. Don't do every review in exactly the same format. Talk about more than just "this is good", "this is bad". Give some insights into Queens sound outside of just "Their singles are good, but not much else".
Now, I know what you're thinking. That's all there really is to say about them. Then you know what you should do? STOP TELLING US OVER AND OVER. That's what I'm saying with the database thing. We don't need to hear you write the same thing 20 times. Please, for the love of God do NOT write a review for every Michael Jackson album. Do one, then try something else. It will make you a better writer to add some versatility to your subject matter.
I'm really honestly trying to be helpful. You've become one of the most hated users on Sputnik overnight, and unless you're hyperboleking come to have revenge, I don't think you understand exactly why.

gblackman
October 24th 2008



50 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

Talk about more than just "this is good", "this is bad". Give some insights into Queens sound outside of just "Their singles are good, but not much else".


Do you really want me to give you examples in past reviews were I haven't just done this???

Cos we'll be here all day.

P.S I don't just mean track by track breakdowns.

We don't need to hear you write the same thing 20 times.


Again re-read the reviews cos we're gonna have a long night otherwise.


I'm really honestly trying to be helpful. You've become one of the most hated users on Sputnik overnight, and unless you're hyperboleking come to have revenge, I don't think you understand exactly why.


I do appreciate the comments, but please appreciate mine too & re-read the reviews, cos I really don't want to copy & paste an entire discography. (And I do want to move on to different things).

And as for hated, as I stated some time back, I write for honestly and not for popularity if people like it great, if not fine.



Whats with all the Queen reviews lately



lol, my bad.

There's only two more, I said a while back I'd do their entire discography (my God it' long).

Someone responded cos they thought 'I was shitting on their discography.' Which I'm not, I hope. LOL!







Spamue1G
October 24th 2008



1292 Comments


Don't worry, you're a long way away from taking the 'most hated user' title away from Hyperboleking!
My advice would be - If you continue all the Queen reviews in this style, so be it. But, if you plan to continue reviewing, take the whole numerical system away from your reviews, try reviewing an album without actually mentioning a song (good practice, it lets you get the idea of how to describe the overall sound of an album, and even if the review is bad, quite a few people will forgive you because you're taking a step away from your usual review format) and read over your Freddie Mercury review again, and try and identify why that's at least 5000 times better than any of your other ones.
Not to mention getting rid of 'these'... it's easier to read a review with none of them than a review with too many.

foreverendeared
October 24th 2008



14678 Comments


stop being so stubborn! sure you say different things in each review, but you also repeat a LOT of the same things. listen, we aren't interested in the cases where you did NOT repeat yourself or when you did NOT just describe something as "good" or "bad," we are concerned about the cases in which you DID do these things, which was a LOT. i've read every single one of your reviews. i know what's up



You have to be logged in to post a comment. Login | Create a Profile





FAQ // STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // SITE FORUM // CONTACT US

Bands: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Site Copyright 2005-2013 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Privacy Policy