Over 50% of Queen's discography is filler tbh.

True, their 80's stuff is like 70% fillers.

I'm perfectly happy never having heard a full Queen album and just knowing the hits.

Album Rating: 5.0

Every single Queen album is always going to hold a place in my heart, and that's mostly because I listened to them incessantly as a kid. With that said, from a more objective point of view, I still think quite a few of their albums have held up really well

Album Rating: 4.0

Queen II and Sheer Heart Attack only have like one or two fillers each.

At least listen to Queen II. If you could listen to only one Queen album in full, I'd recommend that one.

Album Rating: 3.0

Or this one

Album Rating: 5.0

"Over 50% of Queen's material is filler tbh"



So's The Rolling Stones, The Who, and almost any other great band that played and released music for 20+ years. It's incredibly difficult to release consistently good albums for that long of a period of time. But I really enjoy every Queen album right up to the 80s started. They fell off pretty hard then, but they were incredible in the 70s.

^truth, good rock music happens when the stars allign usually

Album Rating: 2.0

Queen are NOT an all time great

"Over 50% of Queen's discography is filler tbh."

"So's The Rolling Stones, The Who, and almost any other great band that played and released music for 20+ years. It's incredibly difficult to release consistently good albums for that long of a period of time. But I really enjoy every Queen album right up to the 80s started. They fell off pretty hard then, but they were incredible in the 70s."

Historical importance > actually making good music outside of a few noteworthy tunes

He's not wrong, yeah.

Album Rating: 3.0

Band has a lot of filler that is for sure

That's ultimately why I can't consider them true all time greats. If they made epic album after epic album like Led Zeppelin did, then I would re-consider.

Album Rating: 5.0

But Zep released 3 straight completely meh as fuck albums to end their career. and were together for barely over a decade, bit different situations.



And I'm not sure I agree at all with that historical importance comment. Madonna is far more historically important than Elliott Smith but nah I'm gonna laugh at you if you try to tell me she made better music. Not sure if that's what you meant or were just saying historical importance means more regardless of music quality. And honestly, at least in the UK, Queen's cultural impact weren't too far off from a band like The Who. They were massive, and Freddie's death was one of the biggest headlines of the year, and his tribute concert was a HUGE nationwide event.



And I feel like ya'll are really sleeping hard on this band's non-famous songs. Most of their best shit isn't their singles at all, stuff like Seven Seas of Rhye, Brighton Rock, Millionaire Waltz, I'm in Love With My Car, Let Me Entertain You, those songs are all utterly brilliant and every one of their 70s albums has hidden gems like them on 'em. I wouldn't argue Queen would crack my top 20 rock bands ever, but to act like they're a bunch of mediocre scrubs who didn't consistently release good albums in their prime is just straight nonsense.



And Innuendo is damn good too, and that one came out in 1991.

Album Rating: 3.0

presence is not "meh" sir

Even though I haven't rated these guys yet, I've sat through their discography and was "wowed" maybe a couple times overall. they're not missing anything to be a great band per say, but I don't dig them tbh.

led Zeppelin did go out like pussies after Physical Graffiti, but Presence is still pretty great if a bit straightforward, and In Through The Out Door isn't terrible.

"Madonna is far more historically important than Elliott Smith but nah I'm gonna laugh at you if you try to tell me she made better music. Not sure if that's what you meant or were just saying historical importance means more regardless of music quality."

Pretty much. Exactly how I feel about The Beatles; just because they were historical important doesn't necessarily mean they made great music (they did at times don't get me wrong).

Album Rating: 5.0

Ehhhh Presence is kinda meh. It's highs are REALLY fuckin' high but everything else is super, super average at best (which is roughly half the album).



And yeah I can understand that mindset Strike, I definitely disagree with it, but I can't argue with ya about your own personal taste, music is subjective. Hell I wasn't much of a Beatles fan either until I hit my teens. Judging from your av and name you're a metal guy so I'll bring up Sabbath---waaaaay more than 50% of their material is utter filler is not straight trash (last few Ozzy years and most of the post-Dio stuff), but they're still one of the greatest rock bands ever. Same with Queen. But again, this shit isn't science, it's all subjective, so if you aren't digging something like Sheer Heart Attack or Brighton Rock I can't exactly "prove" you wrong that they're good songs, everyone's got different taste.



Man it's weird as fuck that I just spent the last 2 pages being a Queen stan when I honestly never really gave a fuck about this band beyond a few songs for most of my life. I knew all their hits but I had about 8 hours of work outside to kill a few months back and remembered seeing the preview for the new Queen movie and thought "Hey let's go listen to their full albums" to kill my day and wound up falling in love with a lot of their stuff. I'm just a sucker for Freddie's showmanship and bravado, and Brian May is a super underrated guitarist.

"Madonna is far more historically important than Elliott Smith but nah I'm gonna laugh at you if you try to tell me she made better music. Not sure if that's what you meant or were just saying historical importance means more regardless of music quality."
Very True but I'd argue some of her releases are close to his peaks. (few of her works will be groundbreaking she isn't john coltrane)

"Exactly how I feel about The Beatles; just because they were historical important doesn't necessarily mean they made great music "

Funnily enough I think they were an amazing band with little historical significance.
In fact there was a 2017 BBC documentary on evolution of musical ideas in pop music. They used an machine learning AI to analyse thousand of pop songs. At the end of the doc they made a clear point that the Beatles did nothing to change the trajectory of popular music. So bizarre I wonder if I dreamt it. Gonna try find it now.

Metal is life, but my roots are old hard rock so I'll always have a soft spot for it. The Who, Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, and Van Halen are probably my faves from that genre. I actually liked Queen a bit more when I was younger, but they didn't hold up for me.

As much as I love Sabbath, they wreak of filler, especially Technical Ecstacy, Never Say Die, Born Again, and a good chunk of the Tony Martin albums. I don't hate the Tony Martin era though, and the Ray Gillen of The Eternal Idol is much better.