Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Was on tonight.
Haven't listened to it so can't say as to how good it was but here's an iPlayer link:
you can make a decent case for Rated R having stronger standout tracks or being a better album as a whole, and there's bound to be quite a number who agree with you. It brought them to wider attention and has some unfuckwithable singles to its name that rank amongst the best rock tracks of the 00s, period. So yeah, it's 'deserving' in the sense that it remains a stellar record.
but Songs For The Deaf absolutely dwarfs it in terms of impact, sales, crossover appeal and enduring legacy which are all qualities that coincidentally happen to be what the BBC are after before green-lighting a special documentary on a record. You can argue over which Queens record is best all you like, but the time around SFTD was without a shadow of a doubt their defining moment in the sun and is still held up as the 'classic' band line-up in amongst the rotation over the years; having Grohl and Lanegan on board probably helped. The fact they continue to sub-headline major festivals globally to this day is built off the back of that breakthrough in 2002.
everyone from Paz Lenchantin and Alain Johannes to Casey Chaos and Jeordie White.
SFTD > Rated R
sorry you had to bear the brunt of my inane wittering
My fault for letting personal preference cloud my judgement, it's still a massive album and only just behind 'R' for me - think it suffered a bit of unfair criticism for the radio interludes & the production (FFS this band evolved from Kyuss you mooks, what do you expect?)
...chatting about less-than-brilliant follow-up albums.
It's my favourite QOTSA album fo' sure.
but I can see why they made a documentary about Songs For The Deaf, a bit more to talk about really. It is a bloody good record though, gets better every listen. So good I haven't really bothered with any subsequent ones, they just don't seem to compare.