[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Cwazy little thing wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And I like Stone Gods, the one track available to hear anyway.[/QUOTE]
Just heard this today. Great track. I can't wait to hear the entire album.[/QUOTE]
Yeah - Burn the Witch sounds good - They've got an EP out sometime in the next week or two I think - Ive got tickets to see them in Manchester in January.
Hope the rest of the album is as epic - Im short on big sounding rock/metal bands to follow at the moment.
As for SINT - Ive just decided I will buy the physical release - it'll only annoy me at some point in the future if I dont. Look forwards to getting a cd quality version to put through a half decent system rather than my PC.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
well this week's top 40 are done...and surprise surprise, SINT didn't make it
c'mon people - it's not rocket science...queen used to make singles that charted when they did stuff that was different/valid/interesting
Joe Public couldn't give a toss about this one
c'mon people - it's not rocket science...queen used to make singles that charted when they did stuff that was different/valid/interesting
Joe Public couldn't give a toss about this one
Are we sure this chart includes this week, especially since this week isn't even over yet? Shouldn't we wait until tomorrow since that would actually mark a week since SINT was released?
chart is on bbc website as per 7pm chart show tonight
If this is correct then I dont think it even made the top 100.
http://www.theofficialcharts.com/top40_singles.php
http://www.theofficialcharts.com/top40_singles.php
It's 251 in the Amazon.co.uk sales ranking and number 3 in CD singles.....but who buys them nowadays (I do!!!).
In the Official Uk charts it's a new entry at No. 90 this week. Why? Because it's a load of toss. Very worthy lyrics but, let's face it, you don't go around humming words. You hum the tune and this one is bollocks.
Interestingly at No. 81 this week is Don't Stop Me Now - about 28 years since it was released as a single.
Now there's a tune (and a singer!)
Interestingly at No. 81 this week is Don't Stop Me Now - about 28 years since it was released as a single.
Now there's a tune (and a singer!)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]clear wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Interestingly at No. 81 this week is Don't Stop Me Now - about 28 years since it was released as a single.
Now there's a tune (and a singer!)[/QUOTE]
Incredible but true: Don't Stop Me Now at no. 81...:D
Now there's a tune (and a singer!)[/QUOTE]
Incredible but true: Don't Stop Me Now at no. 81...:D
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]And to be honest, it it can't really sound like Queen, can it? For starters it has a singer who was never featured on any Queen album.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and RUSH should have changed their name in 1974.
And AC/DC should be called ABS/DBS.
(After Bon Scott... dead Bon Scott)
Who can get all this done? Maybe Treasure Moment can ask Jim Beach at the next QPL Management meeting.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and RUSH should have changed their name in 1974.
And AC/DC should be called ABS/DBS.
(After Bon Scott... dead Bon Scott)
Who can get all this done? Maybe Treasure Moment can ask Jim Beach at the next QPL Management meeting.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]And to be honest, it it can't really sound like Queen, can it? For starters it has a singer who was never featured on any Queen album.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and RUSH should have changed their name in 1974.
And AC/DC should be called ABS/DBS.
(After Bon Scott... dead Bon Scott)
Who can get all this done? Maybe Treasure Moment can ask Jim Beach at the next QPL Management meeting.[/QUOTE]
I'm actually pretty tired of THIS particular argument always being countered with "but so-and-so band changed their vocalist as well in 1583!". (It might be a valid point to make if Freddie was the second vocalist in the band, and had gotten onboard around 1974-75.)
Can you instead name another band besides Queen which stayed in the same line-up for a legendary twenty year recording career, and THEN had a major line-up change with nobody kicking a fuss?
Rush? AC/DC? Genesis? Pink Floyd? Van Halen? Iron Maiden? Rolling Stones? What do all these acts have in common which they don't have in common with Queen? The early changes in their recording lineup.
I submit that the legendary Queen sound was a combination of the same four highly talented individual working together for twenty years, and developing together. Whereas "normal" bands have changed their style along with their members every few years, a Queen fan could always count on their favourite band to grow TOGETHER in new directions... It's not only a sound, but a way of life, and a whole different philosophy than what is expected in the rock world.
To throw that away for a fleeting hope of regaining the past glories is shortsighted, and I would dare to say even detrimental to the Queen name in the long run. The longevity of the line up which was one of their best advantages in being remembered, has now turned into a mockery of the name. Great, at least they got the Queen name back in the charts, making waves at #90!
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and RUSH should have changed their name in 1974.
And AC/DC should be called ABS/DBS.
(After Bon Scott... dead Bon Scott)
Who can get all this done? Maybe Treasure Moment can ask Jim Beach at the next QPL Management meeting.[/QUOTE]
I'm actually pretty tired of THIS particular argument always being countered with "but so-and-so band changed their vocalist as well in 1583!". (It might be a valid point to make if Freddie was the second vocalist in the band, and had gotten onboard around 1974-75.)
Can you instead name another band besides Queen which stayed in the same line-up for a legendary twenty year recording career, and THEN had a major line-up change with nobody kicking a fuss?
Rush? AC/DC? Genesis? Pink Floyd? Van Halen? Iron Maiden? Rolling Stones? What do all these acts have in common which they don't have in common with Queen? The early changes in their recording lineup.
I submit that the legendary Queen sound was a combination of the same four highly talented individual working together for twenty years, and developing together. Whereas "normal" bands have changed their style along with their members every few years, a Queen fan could always count on their favourite band to grow TOGETHER in new directions... It's not only a sound, but a way of life, and a whole different philosophy than what is expected in the rock world.
To throw that away for a fleeting hope of regaining the past glories is shortsighted, and I would dare to say even detrimental to the Queen name in the long run. The longevity of the line up which was one of their best advantages in being remembered, has now turned into a mockery of the name. Great, at least they got the Queen name back in the charts, making waves at #90!
shame i wasn't taken up on my bet...DSMN in at 81, queen's new single at 90? fekkin lamentable!!! and i tell you this...if ever my comments that current queen (smile) sound is completely invalid in the modern era - this chart position is it...
Joe Public couldn't give a toss about this tired, dirge-like crap!!! there is no room for unmemorable rubbish these days...
i've ranted about this elsewhere...
Joe Public couldn't give a toss about this tired, dirge-like crap!!! there is no room for unmemorable rubbish these days...
i've ranted about this elsewhere...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]shame i wasn't taken up on my bet...DSMN in at 81, queen's new single at 90? fekkin lamentable!!! and i tell you this...if ever my comments that current queen (smile) sound is completely invalid in the modern era - this chart position is it...
Joe Public couldn't give a toss about this tired, dirge-like crap!!! there is no room for unmemorable rubbish these days...
i've ranted about this elsewhere...[/QUOTE]
Or perhaps people who already downloaded the song did not feel that they need to purchase a 1 track CD single. If Joe Public downloaded the song for free, what possible reason would they have for actually buying a copy?
It's ironic that you say that there is no room for unmemorable rubbish these days when the charts are filled with unmemorable rubbish.
Joe Public couldn't give a toss about this tired, dirge-like crap!!! there is no room for unmemorable rubbish these days...
i've ranted about this elsewhere...[/QUOTE]
Or perhaps people who already downloaded the song did not feel that they need to purchase a 1 track CD single. If Joe Public downloaded the song for free, what possible reason would they have for actually buying a copy?
It's ironic that you say that there is no room for unmemorable rubbish these days when the charts are filled with unmemorable rubbish.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]shame i wasn't taken up on my bet...DSMN in at 81, queen's new single at 90? fekkin lamentable!!! and i tell you this...if ever my comments that current queen (smile) sound is completely invalid in the modern era - this chart position is it...
Joe Public couldn't give a toss about this tired, dirge-like crap!!! there is no room for unmemorable rubbish these days...
i've ranted about this elsewhere...[/QUOTE]
Or perhaps people who already downloaded the song did not feel that they need to purchase a 1 track CD single. If Joe Public downloaded the song for free, what possible reason would they have for actually buying a copy?
It's ironic that you say that there is no room for unmemorable rubbish these days when the charts are filled with unmemorable rubbish.[/QUOTE]
kids will buy rubbish by x-factor etc because they can hum it and it's simple and not too demanding. adults won't buy this crap...because it's nothing...let's face it...if a 30yr old single is at no 81 on the same week as a new release it tells you all you need to know...the new release is rubbish...after all most people will have DSMN on one of the many GH cds or Jazz by now..
Joe Public couldn't give a toss about this tired, dirge-like crap!!! there is no room for unmemorable rubbish these days...
i've ranted about this elsewhere...[/QUOTE]
Or perhaps people who already downloaded the song did not feel that they need to purchase a 1 track CD single. If Joe Public downloaded the song for free, what possible reason would they have for actually buying a copy?
It's ironic that you say that there is no room for unmemorable rubbish these days when the charts are filled with unmemorable rubbish.[/QUOTE]
kids will buy rubbish by x-factor etc because they can hum it and it's simple and not too demanding. adults won't buy this crap...because it's nothing...let's face it...if a 30yr old single is at no 81 on the same week as a new release it tells you all you need to know...the new release is rubbish...after all most people will have DSMN on one of the many GH cds or Jazz by now..
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: [/QUOTENAME].if a 30yr old single is at no 81 on the same week as a new release it tells you all you need to know...the new release is rubbish...[/QUOTE]
I'm not defending the song one way or another, but to suggest that a song is rubbish just because of a poor chart placement seems kinda strange to me.
I'm not defending the song one way or another, but to suggest that a song is rubbish just because of a poor chart placement seems kinda strange to me.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: [/QUOTENAME].if a 30yr old single is at no 81 on the same week as a new release it tells you all you need to know...the new release is rubbish...[/QUOTE]
I'm not defending the song one way or another, but to suggest that a song is rubbish just because of a poor chart placement seems kinda strange to me.[/QUOTE]
you need to read my other posts on this subject...it's rubbish because it's rubbish...the poor chart position just goes to underline my opinion...very seldom does a great single fail to chart
I'm not defending the song one way or another, but to suggest that a song is rubbish just because of a poor chart placement seems kinda strange to me.[/QUOTE]
you need to read my other posts on this subject...it's rubbish because it's rubbish...the poor chart position just goes to underline my opinion...very seldom does a great single fail to chart