The Cross and fame

[scandal]

It's sad that The Cross never got any fame really or sold many albums. I think it could of been a great band, it was very nice to have Freddie as a 'guest vocalist' on an album. And I would of loved to have heard more Cross songs. The Cross always reminds me of a 'gift' sort of, you know, like when you hear a Queen demo for the first time? The Cross reminds me of something special and rare.

[Molly]

I completely agree with you there, they really did deserve to be more well-known, although I guess their music just is too different to be accepted properly by the majority of the population. I have to say that I don't think necessarily it was a bad thing that they were not as successful as Queen, I sometimes think it makes the Cross' music seem more 'special' somehow..

[champs]

I've a feeling had Roger formed this group in say...1993, then maybe the band would have accumulated more media attention. Allowing the band to develope outside the shadow of Queen - as opposed to being oppressed by it.

[james]

I think the sad fact is Roger has it right - more people are interested in him as a member of Queen then as a solo artist, or in the case of the Cross, lead singer. The Cross got a decent push for Shove It profile wise - they were on UK TV three times and all the usual media provided reasonable reviews for the album, and it managed no. 74 I think in the UK album chart. There wasn't a Queen product in sight when that album came out. Roger's solo material sold better than that, but Roger solo was never big enough to really launch him.

After Shove It didn't fare that well, MBADTK was released virtually silently in the UK. And Blue Rock wasn't released at all. Compare that to the push Roger gave his solo career for Happiness, where Foreign Sand was briefly shown on Top Of The Pops, and then Electric Fire, where Roger made TV appearences, most notably on TFI Friday, the Cyberbarn gig, launch of his official website.... and after all that, his album sales remained much as they always had, spelling out to Roger that his loyal fans bought his albums, but he couldn't crack the bigger market.

That's nothing to be ashamed of, but Roger's affiliation to Queen is what attracts people, and he didn't really want to use that for the Cross, so they were always going to be in Queen's shadow from a record company's point of view. The Cross were simply a great band that passed by without a lot of people hearing them, sadly joining an ever increasing list in the music business.

JG

[roberta]

There's really nothing more one can say - excellent summary! I could only add - or enfasize - the fact that Roger as a solo artist got better results than Roger as The Cross' leader, but that happened more with the albums released after Freddie's death than with the previous ones, if I remember correctly...I spot some kind of connection here...Roger and Brian were the ones who carried Queen torch after that.
I guess that, had Brian set up a group like Roger did, he'd been more successful...maybe because he was/is: 1) more recognizable as a figure (yes...it's a pity, but these things count!) ; 2) a guitarist (people use to relate to a guitarist better...maybe because many of them try and play guitar at home...); 3) more comunicative on stage...