The best thing is going to be the live version. They will play this at the next 46664 in Hyde Park, and it´s going to be great to see the stage dynamics to perform this song.
Take care
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Benn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Another Roger, re:
I have to disagree - I think it's points toward how they will approach the structure of forthcoming material. Sadnly, it appears, following on from the live shows, all three will handle vocal duties. Whether this is from an ego point of view, homage to the fact that Brian and Roger both sang on "Queen" albums or they are receiving poor advice / feedback from certain sections, I have no idea.
I think it will - it'll be another excuse to push the MPT charity and the "AIDS" message again. Whether this is good for the album or the music, I don't know, but I'd like to think that they wouldn't leave out a great Paul Rodgers performance for this track. I'd like to think that they were more inclined to *give away* the poor material and save the best for the album, but, commercially, it wouldn't make sense - they need to get back some of the outlay in making SINT somehow![/QUOTE]
>>Well. I think it would be stupid to bring in Paul Rodgers if he doesnt sing most of the lead vocals. I think it will look much like the old days. The lead singer, Paul Rodgers in this case, sings 80% of the lead vocals. While Roger and Brian sing one or two each. Lets just hope they release the album so we can see.
>>I still dont believe SINT will be on the new album. If they are planning to use it I expect that they work more on it. Its not as well produced as I hoped it would be. I still like the song though. Its just that I want a positive album. I dont want a nostalgia trip again.
Another Roger, re:
I have to disagree - I think it's points toward how they will approach the structure of forthcoming material. Sadnly, it appears, following on from the live shows, all three will handle vocal duties. Whether this is from an ego point of view, homage to the fact that Brian and Roger both sang on "Queen" albums or they are receiving poor advice / feedback from certain sections, I have no idea.
I think it will - it'll be another excuse to push the MPT charity and the "AIDS" message again. Whether this is good for the album or the music, I don't know, but I'd like to think that they wouldn't leave out a great Paul Rodgers performance for this track. I'd like to think that they were more inclined to *give away* the poor material and save the best for the album, but, commercially, it wouldn't make sense - they need to get back some of the outlay in making SINT somehow![/QUOTE]
>>Well. I think it would be stupid to bring in Paul Rodgers if he doesnt sing most of the lead vocals. I think it will look much like the old days. The lead singer, Paul Rodgers in this case, sings 80% of the lead vocals. While Roger and Brian sing one or two each. Lets just hope they release the album so we can see.
>>I still dont believe SINT will be on the new album. If they are planning to use it I expect that they work more on it. Its not as well produced as I hoped it would be. I still like the song though. Its just that I want a positive album. I dont want a nostalgia trip again.
After the excitement I think the track is getting better and better. I don't think Say it's not True was a very very good song to begin with. But in the original version it lacked everything.
Now it's a great song and I love it more each time I listen to it
Now it's a great song and I love it more each time I listen to it
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]After the excitement I think the track is getting better and better. I don't think Say it's not True was a very very good song to begin with. But in the original version it lacked everything.
Now it's a great song and I love it more each time I listen to it[/QUOTE]
IMO it's not great- BUT it IS actually slightly growing on me
Now it's a great song and I love it more each time I listen to it[/QUOTE]
IMO it's not great- BUT it IS actually slightly growing on me
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mike Label wrote: [/QUOTENAME]SINT suffers from bad production, true. It's not a particularly good song either, and neither Brian nor Roger are good singers (at least today).
All this has been said before, I know. I tried to listen without prejudice - keep in mind, I've been a Queen fan for 34 years by now, have seen Queen with Freddie many times, have been to Brian and Roger solo several times, seen Queen+PR twice, and I'll buy anything that has Brian and/or Roger on it ... but I still find the new song dull, boring, lame, just disappointing ...
A few hours ago I watched part of QRM and was (again)especially thrilled when Save Me came up - now that has it all: great song, great vocals, great band performance ... I guess we'll never see and hear anything remotely close though it may be unfair to compare the incomparable (Freddie of course).
Just one last point: I thought that NOBY was really good.
Mike[/QUOTE]
I've also been a Queen fan since the '70s, have seen the original Queen and Queen w/ Paul Rodgers (which I did enjoy) and agree with the above. I did also like NOBY, so it seems like this one is sort of retreading the same ground except weaker.
I did like this song when I saw it live and it was more "toned-down"...as someone else said, the emotional sense of "loss" it seemed to have in the "live" incarnation has sort of been replaced with "preachiness" in the studio version. I think, as with a lot of Queen songs, the lyrics aren't usually that important, so with the original live versions the music and the frailness of the vocals did make it, while the studio version puts too much emphasis on the lyrics.
I think also my problem is since I was a Queen fan in the '70s, I remember them breaking the rules and pushing boundaries...and was OK with them not doing it as much in the '80s and '90s, but now am kind of ready for them to start doing that again. This song doesn't break any boundaries...not that it has to, but they haven't done that in over 15 years at this point. And I do think it seems like they're not quite satisfied with how this got recorded themselves since it was a free download...I bet the "album" version will sound different, and the rest of the album will probably be much better too.
I'm going to keep listening to this though and hopefully it will grow on me :) I really want to like this....
All this has been said before, I know. I tried to listen without prejudice - keep in mind, I've been a Queen fan for 34 years by now, have seen Queen with Freddie many times, have been to Brian and Roger solo several times, seen Queen+PR twice, and I'll buy anything that has Brian and/or Roger on it ... but I still find the new song dull, boring, lame, just disappointing ...
A few hours ago I watched part of QRM and was (again)especially thrilled when Save Me came up - now that has it all: great song, great vocals, great band performance ... I guess we'll never see and hear anything remotely close though it may be unfair to compare the incomparable (Freddie of course).
Just one last point: I thought that NOBY was really good.
Mike[/QUOTE]
I've also been a Queen fan since the '70s, have seen the original Queen and Queen w/ Paul Rodgers (which I did enjoy) and agree with the above. I did also like NOBY, so it seems like this one is sort of retreading the same ground except weaker.
I did like this song when I saw it live and it was more "toned-down"...as someone else said, the emotional sense of "loss" it seemed to have in the "live" incarnation has sort of been replaced with "preachiness" in the studio version. I think, as with a lot of Queen songs, the lyrics aren't usually that important, so with the original live versions the music and the frailness of the vocals did make it, while the studio version puts too much emphasis on the lyrics.
I think also my problem is since I was a Queen fan in the '70s, I remember them breaking the rules and pushing boundaries...and was OK with them not doing it as much in the '80s and '90s, but now am kind of ready for them to start doing that again. This song doesn't break any boundaries...not that it has to, but they haven't done that in over 15 years at this point. And I do think it seems like they're not quite satisfied with how this got recorded themselves since it was a free download...I bet the "album" version will sound different, and the rest of the album will probably be much better too.
I'm going to keep listening to this though and hopefully it will grow on me :) I really want to like this....
i must admit i like it. Always liked rogers vocals has a lot of emotion whatever he sings.Brians vocal i can do without. However i wish Paul had been give n more to sing........... hes kinda stuck at the end when he should have been given more hes a great vocalist.
Let's just hope, then, that the messages contained within this thread, most notably...
"Let Paul Rodgers sing!"
...are being watched and passed on to the powers that be.
"Let Paul Rodgers sing!"
...are being watched and passed on to the powers that be.
I'm willing to bet a lot of money that if they do indeed produce an album, that they will not share lead vocals on the songs.
I would imagine Roger and Brian having one to two songs each and Paul singing the rest.
I would imagine Roger and Brian having one to two songs each and Paul singing the rest.
Yeah, I agree with Knute
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Knute wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I would imagine Roger and Brian having one to two songs each and Paul singing the rest.[/QUOTE]
if they did 2 each that's already a lot- 4 out of... let's say 9-10...
One each would be fine, anything more would be a bit too much
I would imagine Roger and Brian having one to two songs each and Paul singing the rest.[/QUOTE]
if they did 2 each that's already a lot- 4 out of... let's say 9-10...
One each would be fine, anything more would be a bit too much
Knute, re:
>I'm willing to bet a lot of money that if they >do indeed produce an album, that they will not >share lead vocals on the songs.
>
>I would imagine Roger and Brian having one to >two songs each and Paul singing the rest.
That would be disappointing.
How long do you expect the album to be?
45 - 60 minutes at most as per the norm for a Queen / BM / RT solo album is what we'll get. By your reckoning, that will be something like a third of the total playing time for BM & RT alone. Add in the odd "shared" vocal and probably half the album will feature Paul in a band that he's been recruited to sing for.
He'd be better off, in that case, persuing his own interests.
This all seems to simple a solution to me:
If they are expecting this incarnation of the band to have a future, BM & RT need to drop the ego trip where their vocals are concerned and get on with the fact that this is a new band with absolutely no history. There ought to be no place for material such as "LOML", "TATDOOL", "AKOM", "IWTBF" or "GaGa". Rather than trying to be all things to all "Queen" fans, a specific direction needs to be found.
Given their obvious strengths, I'd have thought it clear and *OBVIOUS* that the blues / rock side of Queen's catalgue is ripe for exploiting as opposed to the washed out '80's pop singles side. Paul's voice is evident in Freddie's influences for material on albums up to "Jazz" - building live shows and new studio material around that would give fans an absolute treat I'm sure and would also go a long way to proving that the rock band that *WAS* "Queen" and *IS* "Queen + Paul Rodgers" have a valid statement to make.
One song for BM & RT each with no shared vocals would be my ideal. Keep BM & RT playing the great Rock music they aer best at doing. Have Paul singing "Queen" material that will be very new to a majority of "Queen + Paul Rodgers" fans ("Liar", "Hangman", "Ogre Battle", "White Man", "White Queen", "It's Late") but at the same time a treat for those more versed in "Queen" history.
This is a massive chane to bring it all back to where it started but, at the same time, forging ahead whilst at the same time, gaining ground with fans both old and new as well as themore critical elements of the music press.
>I'm willing to bet a lot of money that if they >do indeed produce an album, that they will not >share lead vocals on the songs.
>
>I would imagine Roger and Brian having one to >two songs each and Paul singing the rest.
That would be disappointing.
How long do you expect the album to be?
45 - 60 minutes at most as per the norm for a Queen / BM / RT solo album is what we'll get. By your reckoning, that will be something like a third of the total playing time for BM & RT alone. Add in the odd "shared" vocal and probably half the album will feature Paul in a band that he's been recruited to sing for.
He'd be better off, in that case, persuing his own interests.
This all seems to simple a solution to me:
If they are expecting this incarnation of the band to have a future, BM & RT need to drop the ego trip where their vocals are concerned and get on with the fact that this is a new band with absolutely no history. There ought to be no place for material such as "LOML", "TATDOOL", "AKOM", "IWTBF" or "GaGa". Rather than trying to be all things to all "Queen" fans, a specific direction needs to be found.
Given their obvious strengths, I'd have thought it clear and *OBVIOUS* that the blues / rock side of Queen's catalgue is ripe for exploiting as opposed to the washed out '80's pop singles side. Paul's voice is evident in Freddie's influences for material on albums up to "Jazz" - building live shows and new studio material around that would give fans an absolute treat I'm sure and would also go a long way to proving that the rock band that *WAS* "Queen" and *IS* "Queen + Paul Rodgers" have a valid statement to make.
One song for BM & RT each with no shared vocals would be my ideal. Keep BM & RT playing the great Rock music they aer best at doing. Have Paul singing "Queen" material that will be very new to a majority of "Queen + Paul Rodgers" fans ("Liar", "Hangman", "Ogre Battle", "White Man", "White Queen", "It's Late") but at the same time a treat for those more versed in "Queen" history.
This is a massive chane to bring it all back to where it started but, at the same time, forging ahead whilst at the same time, gaining ground with fans both old and new as well as themore critical elements of the music press.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Benn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Knute, re:
>I'm willing to bet a lot of money that if they >do indeed produce an album, that they will not >share lead vocals on the songs.
>
>I would imagine Roger and Brian having one to >two songs each and Paul singing the rest.
That would be disappointing.
How long do you expect the album to be?
45 - 60 minutes at most as per the norm for a Queen / BM / RT solo album is what we'll get. By your reckoning, that will be something like a third of the total playing time for BM & RT alone. Add in the odd "shared" vocal and probably half the album will feature Paul in a band that he's been recruited to sing for.
He'd be better off, in that case, persuing his own interests.
This all seems to simple a solution to me:
If they are expecting this incarnation of the band to have a future, BM & RT need to drop the ego trip where their vocals are concerned and get on with the fact that this is a new band with absolutely no history. There ought to be no place for material such as "LOML", "TATDOOL", "AKOM", "IWTBF" or "GaGa". Rather than trying to be all things to all "Queen" fans, a specific direction needs to be found.
Given their obvious strengths, I'd have thought it clear and *OBVIOUS* that the blues / rock side of Queen's catalgue is ripe for exploiting as opposed to the washed out '80's pop singles side. Paul's voice is evident in Freddie's influences for material on albums up to "Jazz" - building live shows and new studio material around that would give fans an absolute treat I'm sure and would also go a long way to proving that the rock band that *WAS* "Queen" and *IS* "Queen + Paul Rodgers" have a valid statement to make.
One song for BM & RT each with no shared vocals would be my ideal. Keep BM & RT playing the great Rock music they aer best at doing. Have Paul singing "Queen" material that will be very new to a majority of "Queen + Paul Rodgers" fans ("Liar", "Hangman", "Ogre Battle", "White Man", "White Queen", "It's Late") but at the same time a treat for those more versed in "Queen" history.
This is a massive chane to bring it all back to where it started but, at the same time, forging ahead whilst at the same time, gaining ground with fans both old and new as well as themore critical elements of the music press.[/QUOTE]
I'd love to agree with you, but I am pretty sure they will play the hits again and include some of the new songs in between. I can't blame them for doing so, anyway. ;)
Cheers,
Ogre-
>I'm willing to bet a lot of money that if they >do indeed produce an album, that they will not >share lead vocals on the songs.
>
>I would imagine Roger and Brian having one to >two songs each and Paul singing the rest.
That would be disappointing.
How long do you expect the album to be?
45 - 60 minutes at most as per the norm for a Queen / BM / RT solo album is what we'll get. By your reckoning, that will be something like a third of the total playing time for BM & RT alone. Add in the odd "shared" vocal and probably half the album will feature Paul in a band that he's been recruited to sing for.
He'd be better off, in that case, persuing his own interests.
This all seems to simple a solution to me:
If they are expecting this incarnation of the band to have a future, BM & RT need to drop the ego trip where their vocals are concerned and get on with the fact that this is a new band with absolutely no history. There ought to be no place for material such as "LOML", "TATDOOL", "AKOM", "IWTBF" or "GaGa". Rather than trying to be all things to all "Queen" fans, a specific direction needs to be found.
Given their obvious strengths, I'd have thought it clear and *OBVIOUS* that the blues / rock side of Queen's catalgue is ripe for exploiting as opposed to the washed out '80's pop singles side. Paul's voice is evident in Freddie's influences for material on albums up to "Jazz" - building live shows and new studio material around that would give fans an absolute treat I'm sure and would also go a long way to proving that the rock band that *WAS* "Queen" and *IS* "Queen + Paul Rodgers" have a valid statement to make.
One song for BM & RT each with no shared vocals would be my ideal. Keep BM & RT playing the great Rock music they aer best at doing. Have Paul singing "Queen" material that will be very new to a majority of "Queen + Paul Rodgers" fans ("Liar", "Hangman", "Ogre Battle", "White Man", "White Queen", "It's Late") but at the same time a treat for those more versed in "Queen" history.
This is a massive chane to bring it all back to where it started but, at the same time, forging ahead whilst at the same time, gaining ground with fans both old and new as well as themore critical elements of the music press.[/QUOTE]
I'd love to agree with you, but I am pretty sure they will play the hits again and include some of the new songs in between. I can't blame them for doing so, anyway. ;)
Cheers,
Ogre-
I agree with Benn. By all means, the new Queen should follow the example given by Velvet Revolver. Nobody expects G n'R or STP nostalgia with them. They are a whole new band with they're own rightfully acclaimed hit singles.
Queen's new album must rock. Stop trying to go whatever places they reached with Freddie and stop trying to cover their own past music. Try something new. Even more, they should stay away from any tribute to Freddie. They already done that ad nifinitum. If they want to succeed, they should stop living in the past.
Queen's new album must rock. Stop trying to go whatever places they reached with Freddie and stop trying to cover their own past music. Try something new. Even more, they should stay away from any tribute to Freddie. They already done that ad nifinitum. If they want to succeed, they should stop living in the past.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]vadenuez wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I agree with Benn. By all means, the new Queen should follow the example given by Velvet Revolver. Nobody expects G n'R or STP nostalgia with them. They are a whole new band with they're own rightfully acclaimed hit singles.[/QUOTE]
Aren't you deluding yourself a bit here? :/
Nobody expects Velvet Revolver to sound like GNR or STP and to play their hits because it has a completely new name! "Queen" on the other hand is using the same old name for a whole new kind of material, and intentionally opening the door to high expectations and harsh critique when those expectations aren't reached... Perhaps a new name might have been a good idea for them as well? :P
Aren't you deluding yourself a bit here? :/
Nobody expects Velvet Revolver to sound like GNR or STP and to play their hits because it has a completely new name! "Queen" on the other hand is using the same old name for a whole new kind of material, and intentionally opening the door to high expectations and harsh critique when those expectations aren't reached... Perhaps a new name might have been a good idea for them as well? :P
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]vadenuez wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I agree with Benn. By all means, the new Queen should follow the example given by Velvet Revolver. Nobody expects G n'R or STP nostalgia with them. They are a whole new band with they're own rightfully acclaimed hit singles.[/QUOTE]
Aren't you deluding yourself a bit here? :/
Nobody expects Velvet Revolver to sound like GNR or STP and to play their hits because it has a completely new name! "Queen" on the other hand is using the same old name for a whole new kind of material, and intentionally opening the door to high expectations and harsh critique when those expectations aren't reached... Perhaps a new name might have been a good idea for them as well? :P[/QUOTE]
Thats a good point really - they wont get away from the demand to play their core hits as long as the name Queen is there. I do hope however they consider dropping a couple of the less essential tracks no one would miss for just one tour (such as IWTBF and AKOM) in favour of something a bit more special (White Queen being a perfect example).
Maybe Brian and Roger will get sentimental - lets be honest, theres only so many more times their going to get a chance to tour, so digging out an older, less of a hit single number from the past wont ever happen if not soon, and it'd be nice to dust off some of that material one more time!
Obviously the emphasis should rightly be on new material though I guess!
Aren't you deluding yourself a bit here? :/
Nobody expects Velvet Revolver to sound like GNR or STP and to play their hits because it has a completely new name! "Queen" on the other hand is using the same old name for a whole new kind of material, and intentionally opening the door to high expectations and harsh critique when those expectations aren't reached... Perhaps a new name might have been a good idea for them as well? :P[/QUOTE]
Thats a good point really - they wont get away from the demand to play their core hits as long as the name Queen is there. I do hope however they consider dropping a couple of the less essential tracks no one would miss for just one tour (such as IWTBF and AKOM) in favour of something a bit more special (White Queen being a perfect example).
Maybe Brian and Roger will get sentimental - lets be honest, theres only so many more times their going to get a chance to tour, so digging out an older, less of a hit single number from the past wont ever happen if not soon, and it'd be nice to dust off some of that material one more time!
Obviously the emphasis should rightly be on new material though I guess!