[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]August R. wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
The music might be new (well, only a few years old anyway...) but hardly exciting. There's a reason why Is This The World We Created wasn't a single in 1984, and for that same reason Say It's Not True shouldn't have been a single either. It might have a nice sentiment, but it's just not a particularily good song.
[/QUOTE]
Well said. I just can't understand why they released this song as a single. To give it away as a free download was a nice gesture, but do they really think this song is the best choise for a single release?? Let's face it, SINT is a simple, four chord deal with bad production. Brian's guitar might be a big part of creating that famous Queen sound, but Queen was also known for complex compositions & great arrangements, big vocal harmonies, catchy melodies... Sadly, SINT doesn't have any of those qualities. Imo, SINT was a very bad choise for a first single. Especially so, if they want to promote the forthcoming album with this release. [/QUOTE]
Similarities between SINT and TATDOOL:
- Both were written by Roger Taylor
- Both are harmonically simple, with only a few chords
- Both have a simple melody
- None feature "big vocal harmonies"
- No "special" lead guitar work, only a simple "Brian May-esque" solo and a couple of fills
- Keyboard/synth
Is TATDOOL bad?[/QUOTE]
It's a nice enough album track (at least compared to some of the turkeys that are following it on the album), but it's not a hit single by any stretch of imagination as it failed to chart in the only territory where it was released on its own.
(Unless of course you want to count its double-A-side success with Bohemian Rhapsody two weeks after Freddie's death as indicative of the song's quality... I didn't think so either.)
Thread
Posts in chronological order
And how can you compare the 'Days of Our Lives' solo (one of the most May-estic guitar bits ever) with the 'Say It's Not True' one (which is a very good solo, but something Dr May could do in his sleep)?
What I will never really understand is how people who call themselves huge fans of Queen can be so disparaging towards Brian and Roger. I'm trying to think of a greater manifestation of irony on this planet, but it's hard to do.
So...you love Brain and Roger when they are playing with Freddie and John, but you disrespect them playing with Paul Rodgers?
Ok then..It's the name you say!
You claim they are pissing on the name?
Just exactly how is playing with a guy who is among the greatest rock vocalists on the planet pissing on the name? I don't get it.
I mean that. I seriously don't get it.
Surely Pepsi commercials that use the music do a far great job of urinating on a rock band's legacy.
You could never convince me that playing music with the lead singer of BadCo and Free is damaging the Queen name; but a silly, cheesy play isn't?(if there really was damage to the legacy happening)
Imagine it the other way around.
Does playing music with Brian May and Roger Taylor piss all over Paul Rodgers name? Is he hurting his place and his contributions by doing so?
Seems so silly when you think of it that way.
So...you love Brain and Roger when they are playing with Freddie and John, but you disrespect them playing with Paul Rodgers?
Ok then..It's the name you say!
You claim they are pissing on the name?
Just exactly how is playing with a guy who is among the greatest rock vocalists on the planet pissing on the name? I don't get it.
I mean that. I seriously don't get it.
Surely Pepsi commercials that use the music do a far great job of urinating on a rock band's legacy.
You could never convince me that playing music with the lead singer of BadCo and Free is damaging the Queen name; but a silly, cheesy play isn't?(if there really was damage to the legacy happening)
Imagine it the other way around.
Does playing music with Brian May and Roger Taylor piss all over Paul Rodgers name? Is he hurting his place and his contributions by doing so?
Seems so silly when you think of it that way.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]vadenuez wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]August R. wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
The music might be new (well, only a few years old anyway...) but hardly exciting. There's a reason why Is This The World We Created wasn't a single in 1984, and for that same reason Say It's Not True shouldn't have been a single either. It might have a nice sentiment, but it's just not a particularily good song.
[/QUOTE]
Well said. I just can't understand why they released this song as a single. To give it away as a free download was a nice gesture, but do they really think this song is the best choise for a single release?? Let's face it, SINT is a simple, four chord deal with bad production. Brian's guitar might be a big part of creating that famous Queen sound, but Queen was also known for complex compositions & great arrangements, big vocal harmonies, catchy melodies... Sadly, SINT doesn't have any of those qualities. Imo, SINT was a very bad choise for a first single. Especially so, if they want to promote the forthcoming album with this release. [/QUOTE]
Similarities between SINT and TATDOOL:
- Both were written by Roger Taylor
- Both are harmonically simple, with only a few chords
- Both have a simple melody
- None feature "big vocal harmonies"
- No "special" lead guitar work, only a simple "Brian May-esque" solo and a couple of fills
- Keyboard/synth
Is TATDOOL bad?[/QUOTE]
Body Language has exactly the same similarities you mention, except that it was written by Freddie and not by Roger.
Is Body Language bad?
[/QUOTE]
I was merely pointing out that "Brian's guitar might be a big part of creating that famous Queen sound, but Queen was also known for complex compositions & great arrangements, big vocal harmonies, catchy melodies... Sadly, SINT doesn't have any of those qualities" applies to other songs immensely praised by Queen fans - therefore it isn't a valid argument.
Queen did a wonderful job with complex compositions, the vocal harmonies, the guitar orchestrations, the perfect rhythm section... But Queen can make good songs with a lot less than that. And they did.
@Sebastian: Well, we can invert what you said... It's something Dr May (and Roger, and Rodgers) could do in his sleep, but it's a good song (with a very good solo).
The music might be new (well, only a few years old anyway...) but hardly exciting. There's a reason why Is This The World We Created wasn't a single in 1984, and for that same reason Say It's Not True shouldn't have been a single either. It might have a nice sentiment, but it's just not a particularily good song.
[/QUOTE]
Well said. I just can't understand why they released this song as a single. To give it away as a free download was a nice gesture, but do they really think this song is the best choise for a single release?? Let's face it, SINT is a simple, four chord deal with bad production. Brian's guitar might be a big part of creating that famous Queen sound, but Queen was also known for complex compositions & great arrangements, big vocal harmonies, catchy melodies... Sadly, SINT doesn't have any of those qualities. Imo, SINT was a very bad choise for a first single. Especially so, if they want to promote the forthcoming album with this release. [/QUOTE]
Similarities between SINT and TATDOOL:
- Both were written by Roger Taylor
- Both are harmonically simple, with only a few chords
- Both have a simple melody
- None feature "big vocal harmonies"
- No "special" lead guitar work, only a simple "Brian May-esque" solo and a couple of fills
- Keyboard/synth
Is TATDOOL bad?[/QUOTE]
Body Language has exactly the same similarities you mention, except that it was written by Freddie and not by Roger.
Is Body Language bad?
[/QUOTE]
I was merely pointing out that "Brian's guitar might be a big part of creating that famous Queen sound, but Queen was also known for complex compositions & great arrangements, big vocal harmonies, catchy melodies... Sadly, SINT doesn't have any of those qualities" applies to other songs immensely praised by Queen fans - therefore it isn't a valid argument.
Queen did a wonderful job with complex compositions, the vocal harmonies, the guitar orchestrations, the perfect rhythm section... But Queen can make good songs with a lot less than that. And they did.
@Sebastian: Well, we can invert what you said... It's something Dr May (and Roger, and Rodgers) could do in his sleep, but it's a good song (with a very good solo).
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]August R. wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
The music might be new (well, only a few years old anyway...) but hardly exciting. There's a reason why Is This The World We Created wasn't a single in 1984, and for that same reason Say It's Not True shouldn't have been a single either. It might have a nice sentiment, but it's just not a particularily good song.
[/QUOTE]
Well said. I just can't understand why they released this song as a single. To give it away as a free download was a nice gesture, but do they really think this song is the best choise for a single release?? Let's face it, SINT is a simple, four chord deal with bad production. Brian's guitar might be a big part of creating that famous Queen sound, but Queen was also known for complex compositions & great arrangements, big vocal harmonies, catchy melodies... Sadly, SINT doesn't have any of those qualities. Imo, SINT was a very bad choise for a first single. Especially so, if they want to promote the forthcoming album with this release. [/QUOTE]
Similarities between SINT and TATDOOL:
- Both were written by Roger Taylor
- Both are harmonically simple, with only a few chords
- Both have a simple melody
- None feature "big vocal harmonies"
- No "special" lead guitar work, only a simple "Brian May-esque" solo and a couple of fills
- Keyboard/synth
Is TATDOOL bad?[/QUOTE]
It's a nice enough album track (at least compared to some of the turkeys that are following it on the album), but it's not a hit single by any stretch of imagination as it failed to chart in the only territory where it was released on its own.
(Unless of course you want to count its double-A-side success with Bohemian Rhapsody two weeks after Freddie's death as indicative of the song's quality... I didn't think so either.)[/QUOTE]
I wasn't talking about commercial success. I was simply pointing out that just because SINT doesn't have big vocal harmonies, complex chord progressions and bla bla bla it doesn't mean it's a bad song, and I picked a song that most Queen fans (including me) really enjoy in order to prove my point.
The music might be new (well, only a few years old anyway...) but hardly exciting. There's a reason why Is This The World We Created wasn't a single in 1984, and for that same reason Say It's Not True shouldn't have been a single either. It might have a nice sentiment, but it's just not a particularily good song.
[/QUOTE]
Well said. I just can't understand why they released this song as a single. To give it away as a free download was a nice gesture, but do they really think this song is the best choise for a single release?? Let's face it, SINT is a simple, four chord deal with bad production. Brian's guitar might be a big part of creating that famous Queen sound, but Queen was also known for complex compositions & great arrangements, big vocal harmonies, catchy melodies... Sadly, SINT doesn't have any of those qualities. Imo, SINT was a very bad choise for a first single. Especially so, if they want to promote the forthcoming album with this release. [/QUOTE]
Similarities between SINT and TATDOOL:
- Both were written by Roger Taylor
- Both are harmonically simple, with only a few chords
- Both have a simple melody
- None feature "big vocal harmonies"
- No "special" lead guitar work, only a simple "Brian May-esque" solo and a couple of fills
- Keyboard/synth
Is TATDOOL bad?[/QUOTE]
It's a nice enough album track (at least compared to some of the turkeys that are following it on the album), but it's not a hit single by any stretch of imagination as it failed to chart in the only territory where it was released on its own.
(Unless of course you want to count its double-A-side success with Bohemian Rhapsody two weeks after Freddie's death as indicative of the song's quality... I didn't think so either.)[/QUOTE]
I wasn't talking about commercial success. I was simply pointing out that just because SINT doesn't have big vocal harmonies, complex chord progressions and bla bla bla it doesn't mean it's a bad song, and I picked a song that most Queen fans (including me) really enjoy in order to prove my point.
Amen, Brenski, a-fucking-men. It's sad when great musicians lose their insight into what serves their memory best. I feel we are doomed to watch Brian and Roger slowly degrade the immortal image of Queen until that great name evokes the same sad disgust we feel when we hear names like Michael Jackson, Gary Glitter, Sinatra, the Stones, artists who either sullied their own memories by self-mutilation, perversion, or by staying in the game long after they had lost the ability to uphold the standards they had set in past eras.
You would have thought they'd at least have the good grace to come up with a new band name. You don't see Slash et al billing themselves as Guns'n'Roses or STP - they took a new name for a new band. One half of Queen has no right ethically to bill themselves as the whole.
You would have thought they'd at least have the good grace to come up with a new band name. You don't see Slash et al billing themselves as Guns'n'Roses or STP - they took a new name for a new band. One half of Queen has no right ethically to bill themselves as the whole.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kagezan1313 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Amen, Brenski, a-fucking-men. It's sad when great musicians lose their insight into what serves their memory best. I feel we are doomed to watch Brian and Roger slowly degrade the immortal image of Queen until that great name evokes the same sad disgust we feel when we hear names like Michael Jackson, Gary Glitter, Sinatra, the Stones, artists who either sullied their own memories by self-mutilation, perversion, or by staying in the game long after they had lost the ability to uphold the standards they had set in past eras.
You would have thought they'd at least have the good grace to come up with a new band name. You don't see Slash et al billing themselves as Guns'n'Roses or STP - they took a new name for a new band. One half of Queen has no right ethically to bill themselves as the whole.[/QUOTE] What's your point?...How did sinatra do harm to his name?...he's still considered the ultimate singer. the stones are still considered one of the greatest bands of all time, and didn"t axle rose go on tour under the guns n roses name?...Brian and roger arn't hurting the Queen legacy. I don't think the general public cares what two 60 year old men do. Their not relavent in 2008.
You would have thought they'd at least have the good grace to come up with a new band name. You don't see Slash et al billing themselves as Guns'n'Roses or STP - they took a new name for a new band. One half of Queen has no right ethically to bill themselves as the whole.[/QUOTE] What's your point?...How did sinatra do harm to his name?...he's still considered the ultimate singer. the stones are still considered one of the greatest bands of all time, and didn"t axle rose go on tour under the guns n roses name?...Brian and roger arn't hurting the Queen legacy. I don't think the general public cares what two 60 year old men do. Their not relavent in 2008.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I wasn't talking about commercial success. I was simply pointing out that just because SINT doesn't have big vocal harmonies, complex chord progressions and bla bla bla it doesn't mean it's a bad song, and I picked a song that most Queen fans (including me) really enjoy in order to prove my point.[/QUOTE]
But I WAS talking about reasons why the track wasn't a single. Just like SINT, it shouldn't have been a single either, but for different reasons. Every song just isn't single material, no matter how much the fans might enjoy them at the privacy of their home, and every song shouldn't be released as a single, or the end result is a string of #90 "hits"!
But I WAS talking about reasons why the track wasn't a single. Just like SINT, it shouldn't have been a single either, but for different reasons. Every song just isn't single material, no matter how much the fans might enjoy them at the privacy of their home, and every song shouldn't be released as a single, or the end result is a string of #90 "hits"!
Everything they do now makes me cringe. Can't believe they are still trying to bleed the Queen name dry. Its actually quite sad.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Knute wrote: [/QUOTENAME]What I will never really understand is how people who call themselves huge fans of Queen can be so disparaging towards Brian and Roger.[/QUOTE]
It's simple really. The band known as Queen had four members. They had the same members throughout their entire legendary 20-year recording career, until their charismatic lead singer tragically died. That effectively put an end to the band known as Queen.
Both the guitarist and drummer of the band released two solo albums of very little success afterwards, before reviving the Queen name as a muzak-fake-machine playing backing tracks of WWRY and WATC to anyone who gave them money. Then they carried on the Queen name as a mediocre tribute band to Queen, by playing the biggest hits in concert with no real effort to find out which songs suited their new-found old friend.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Knute wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I'm trying to think of a greater manifestation of irony on this planet, but it's hard to do.[/QUOTE]
The greatest manifestation of irony would be the type of Queen (or actually more like Brian May) fan you can also see here at QZ, who says: "Queen were four equal members, not just Freddie. As long as Brian's still there, it's Queen."
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Knute wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So...you love Brain and Roger when they are playing with Freddie and John, but you disrespect them playing with Paul Rodgers?
Ok then..It's the name you say!
You claim they are pissing on the name?
Just exactly how is playing with a guy who is among the greatest rock vocalists on the planet pissing on the name? I don't get it.
I mean that. I seriously don't get it.
Surely Pepsi commercials that use the music do a far great job of urinating on a rock band's legacy.
You could never convince me that playing music with the lead singer of BadCo and Free is damaging the Queen name; but a silly, cheesy play isn't?(if there really was damage to the legacy happening)[/QUOTE]
I don't know about you, but I can make a difference between the Queen of 1971-1991, and the current reincarnation. Anything that Brian and Roger does can't make a difference to how I feel about the band as it was before 1991. My concern is however for NEW fans. Anyone who doesn't know the history (but knows the name), and goes to a Q+PR concert where Paul tries to sing songs that just aren't suited to him... Many people are going to walk away thinking "Is that supposed to be a legendary band?"
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Knute wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Imagine it the other way around.
Does playing music with Brian May and Roger Taylor piss all over Paul Rodgers name? Is he hurting his place and his contributions by doing so?
Seems so silly when you think of it that way.[/QUOTE]
On the previous tour he certainly made himself more known to a lot of people (as you can witness from all the "Who is Paul Rodgers?" topics here and at QOL), but singing the Queen classics didn't do him justice in the least. I've said it countless times... He just wasn't suited to most of the material they were playing, but on his own tracks he really made himself the star of the show.
It's simple really. The band known as Queen had four members. They had the same members throughout their entire legendary 20-year recording career, until their charismatic lead singer tragically died. That effectively put an end to the band known as Queen.
Both the guitarist and drummer of the band released two solo albums of very little success afterwards, before reviving the Queen name as a muzak-fake-machine playing backing tracks of WWRY and WATC to anyone who gave them money. Then they carried on the Queen name as a mediocre tribute band to Queen, by playing the biggest hits in concert with no real effort to find out which songs suited their new-found old friend.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Knute wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I'm trying to think of a greater manifestation of irony on this planet, but it's hard to do.[/QUOTE]
The greatest manifestation of irony would be the type of Queen (or actually more like Brian May) fan you can also see here at QZ, who says: "Queen were four equal members, not just Freddie. As long as Brian's still there, it's Queen."
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Knute wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So...you love Brain and Roger when they are playing with Freddie and John, but you disrespect them playing with Paul Rodgers?
Ok then..It's the name you say!
You claim they are pissing on the name?
Just exactly how is playing with a guy who is among the greatest rock vocalists on the planet pissing on the name? I don't get it.
I mean that. I seriously don't get it.
Surely Pepsi commercials that use the music do a far great job of urinating on a rock band's legacy.
You could never convince me that playing music with the lead singer of BadCo and Free is damaging the Queen name; but a silly, cheesy play isn't?(if there really was damage to the legacy happening)[/QUOTE]
I don't know about you, but I can make a difference between the Queen of 1971-1991, and the current reincarnation. Anything that Brian and Roger does can't make a difference to how I feel about the band as it was before 1991. My concern is however for NEW fans. Anyone who doesn't know the history (but knows the name), and goes to a Q+PR concert where Paul tries to sing songs that just aren't suited to him... Many people are going to walk away thinking "Is that supposed to be a legendary band?"
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Knute wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Imagine it the other way around.
Does playing music with Brian May and Roger Taylor piss all over Paul Rodgers name? Is he hurting his place and his contributions by doing so?
Seems so silly when you think of it that way.[/QUOTE]
On the previous tour he certainly made himself more known to a lot of people (as you can witness from all the "Who is Paul Rodgers?" topics here and at QOL), but singing the Queen classics didn't do him justice in the least. I've said it countless times... He just wasn't suited to most of the material they were playing, but on his own tracks he really made himself the star of the show.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]vadenuez wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]August R. wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
The music might be new (well, only a few years old anyway...) but hardly exciting. There's a reason why Is This The World We Created wasn't a single in 1984, and for that same reason Say It's Not True shouldn't have been a single either. It might have a nice sentiment, but it's just not a particularily good song.
[/QUOTE]
Well said. I just can't understand why they released this song as a single. To give it away as a free download was a nice gesture, but do they really think this song is the best choise for a single release?? Let's face it, SINT is a simple, four chord deal with bad production. Brian's guitar might be a big part of creating that famous Queen sound, but Queen was also known for complex compositions & great arrangements, big vocal harmonies, catchy melodies... Sadly, SINT doesn't have any of those qualities. Imo, SINT was a very bad choise for a first single. Especially so, if they want to promote the forthcoming album with this release. [/QUOTE]
Similarities between SINT and TATDOOL:
- Both were written by Roger Taylor
- Both are harmonically simple, with only a few chords
- Both have a simple melody
- None feature "big vocal harmonies"
- No "special" lead guitar work, only a simple "Brian May-esque" solo and a couple of fills
- Keyboard/synth
Is TATDOOL bad?[/QUOTE]
Body Language has exactly the same similarities you mention, except that it was written by Freddie and not by Roger.
Is Body Language bad?
[/QUOTE]
I was merely pointing out that "Brian's guitar might be a big part of creating that famous Queen sound, but Queen was also known for complex compositions & great arrangements, big vocal harmonies, catchy melodies... Sadly, SINT doesn't have any of those qualities" applies to other songs immensely praised by Queen fans - therefore it isn't a valid argument.
Queen did a wonderful job with complex compositions, the vocal harmonies, the guitar orchestrations, the perfect rhythm section... But Queen can make good songs with a lot less than that. And they did.
@Sebastian: Well, we can invert what you said... It's something Dr May (and Roger, and Rodgers) could do in his sleep, but it's a good song (with a very good solo).[/QUOTE]
You missed my point. Of course Queen had good songs (even big hits) that didn't have that trademark Queen sound on them (plus all those other attributes I mentioned earlier). Queen were famous for trying new things and doing versatile material. But this happened when Queen were HUGE, a band in their prime.
Now, it's a different situation. SINT is their first new track in ten years, and they promote it as a Queen song. They are trying to convince us that the spirit of Queen is still alive and they chose this song to prove it. I just think it was a bad choice. The first single should have been something that blows our minds and shows us without a doubt that they're back. There's nothing wrong with SINT, but it isn't that impressive.
The music might be new (well, only a few years old anyway...) but hardly exciting. There's a reason why Is This The World We Created wasn't a single in 1984, and for that same reason Say It's Not True shouldn't have been a single either. It might have a nice sentiment, but it's just not a particularily good song.
[/QUOTE]
Well said. I just can't understand why they released this song as a single. To give it away as a free download was a nice gesture, but do they really think this song is the best choise for a single release?? Let's face it, SINT is a simple, four chord deal with bad production. Brian's guitar might be a big part of creating that famous Queen sound, but Queen was also known for complex compositions & great arrangements, big vocal harmonies, catchy melodies... Sadly, SINT doesn't have any of those qualities. Imo, SINT was a very bad choise for a first single. Especially so, if they want to promote the forthcoming album with this release. [/QUOTE]
Similarities between SINT and TATDOOL:
- Both were written by Roger Taylor
- Both are harmonically simple, with only a few chords
- Both have a simple melody
- None feature "big vocal harmonies"
- No "special" lead guitar work, only a simple "Brian May-esque" solo and a couple of fills
- Keyboard/synth
Is TATDOOL bad?[/QUOTE]
Body Language has exactly the same similarities you mention, except that it was written by Freddie and not by Roger.
Is Body Language bad?
[/QUOTE]
I was merely pointing out that "Brian's guitar might be a big part of creating that famous Queen sound, but Queen was also known for complex compositions & great arrangements, big vocal harmonies, catchy melodies... Sadly, SINT doesn't have any of those qualities" applies to other songs immensely praised by Queen fans - therefore it isn't a valid argument.
Queen did a wonderful job with complex compositions, the vocal harmonies, the guitar orchestrations, the perfect rhythm section... But Queen can make good songs with a lot less than that. And they did.
@Sebastian: Well, we can invert what you said... It's something Dr May (and Roger, and Rodgers) could do in his sleep, but it's a good song (with a very good solo).[/QUOTE]
You missed my point. Of course Queen had good songs (even big hits) that didn't have that trademark Queen sound on them (plus all those other attributes I mentioned earlier). Queen were famous for trying new things and doing versatile material. But this happened when Queen were HUGE, a band in their prime.
Now, it's a different situation. SINT is their first new track in ten years, and they promote it as a Queen song. They are trying to convince us that the spirit of Queen is still alive and they chose this song to prove it. I just think it was a bad choice. The first single should have been something that blows our minds and shows us without a doubt that they're back. There's nothing wrong with SINT, but it isn't that impressive.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]August R. wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Now, it's a different situation. SINT is their first new track in ten years, and they promote it as a Queen song. They are trying to convince us that the spirit of Queen is still alive and they chose this song to prove it. I just think it was a bad choice. The first single should have been something that blows our minds and shows us without a doubt that they're back. There's nothing wrong with SINT, but it isn't that impressive. [/QUOTE]
But the new album isn't any likely at all to sound all like that. As we all know, this is an old and modest track, written just to show support to Mandela's fight against AIDS. When Roger wrote it, he didn't have any pressure on him to prove that he and Brian can sound like they did in the past, neither that he and Brian can be highly innovative and come up with something absolutely new, surprising and unexpected. He simply wanted a song about AIDS.
They reworked the song for the 46664 gig held on December 1st, 2007, not to promote their album. Did they even mention whether this song will be in the album or not? Either way, this may sound like utter bullshit to some, but I honestly believe this: I think they only gave it a physical release to amuse the fans. Although it has some "Queen" sound to it (especially because of Brian's guitar solo), they must be well aware that this song is below Queen's standards, below what people would expect from them, and they certainly knew after distributing a song to over 100,000 people without charging, hardly anyone would want to pay for it. So, I assume the physical release is merely a "gift" to the fans, they were just giving us a new Queen studio single to have in our shelf, for the first time in ages, while we wait for the album and for the "real" singles from the album, the ones that will be already written as potential hits.
I'm not disappointed at all by SINT, I think it does its job well. If the whole album sounds like SINT, I might be a bit disappointed - but I doubt it will. They haven't mentioned anything about an AIDS-awareness album, have they? ;)
By the way, I think Take Love sounds very good. I wonder how they'll work this one in the studio.
But the new album isn't any likely at all to sound all like that. As we all know, this is an old and modest track, written just to show support to Mandela's fight against AIDS. When Roger wrote it, he didn't have any pressure on him to prove that he and Brian can sound like they did in the past, neither that he and Brian can be highly innovative and come up with something absolutely new, surprising and unexpected. He simply wanted a song about AIDS.
They reworked the song for the 46664 gig held on December 1st, 2007, not to promote their album. Did they even mention whether this song will be in the album or not? Either way, this may sound like utter bullshit to some, but I honestly believe this: I think they only gave it a physical release to amuse the fans. Although it has some "Queen" sound to it (especially because of Brian's guitar solo), they must be well aware that this song is below Queen's standards, below what people would expect from them, and they certainly knew after distributing a song to over 100,000 people without charging, hardly anyone would want to pay for it. So, I assume the physical release is merely a "gift" to the fans, they were just giving us a new Queen studio single to have in our shelf, for the first time in ages, while we wait for the album and for the "real" singles from the album, the ones that will be already written as potential hits.
I'm not disappointed at all by SINT, I think it does its job well. If the whole album sounds like SINT, I might be a bit disappointed - but I doubt it will. They haven't mentioned anything about an AIDS-awareness album, have they? ;)
By the way, I think Take Love sounds very good. I wonder how they'll work this one in the studio.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
They reworked the song for the 46664 gig held on December 1st, 2007, not to promote their album. Did they even mention whether this song will be in the album or not? Either way, this may sound like utter bullshit to some, but I honestly believe this: I think they only gave it a physical release to amuse the fans. Although it has some "Queen" sound to it (especially because of Brian's guitar solo), they must be well aware that this song is below Queen's standards, below what people would expect from them, and they certainly knew after distributing a song to over 100,000 people without charging, hardly anyone would want to pay for it. So, I assume the physical release is merely a "gift" to the fans, they were just giving us a new Queen studio single to have in our shelf, for the first time in ages, while we wait for the album and for the "real" singles from the album, the ones that will be already written as potential hits.
[/QUOTE]
I do hope you're right, Raf. As I said in my first post, "To give it away as a free download was a nice gesture, but do they really think this song is the best choise for a single release??" I really hope the real treats are still waiting for the release but...
Brian's exact words on that recent interview were: "...And then recently we revisited it for the album and suddenly it exploded and became this big epic, which is great, I think, and Paul makes a wonderful job. We all sing on it. I sing, Roger sings and Paul sings the end bit, and it gets big and heavy. We thought it would be a nice sort of introduction to 'What the hell is Queen and Paul Rodgers?" for people who didn't see us on tour last year."
I think this comment is what bothers me most. My English isn't perfect but I understood that Brian was saying here:
1) SINT is going to be on the album (or at least they recorded it for the album),
2) SINT is big and epic track (I would use those words to describe songs like Bo Rhap and Innuendo, not SINT)
3) SINT is a taster for things to come. This is what QPR music is going to sound like.
They reworked the song for the 46664 gig held on December 1st, 2007, not to promote their album. Did they even mention whether this song will be in the album or not? Either way, this may sound like utter bullshit to some, but I honestly believe this: I think they only gave it a physical release to amuse the fans. Although it has some "Queen" sound to it (especially because of Brian's guitar solo), they must be well aware that this song is below Queen's standards, below what people would expect from them, and they certainly knew after distributing a song to over 100,000 people without charging, hardly anyone would want to pay for it. So, I assume the physical release is merely a "gift" to the fans, they were just giving us a new Queen studio single to have in our shelf, for the first time in ages, while we wait for the album and for the "real" singles from the album, the ones that will be already written as potential hits.
[/QUOTE]
I do hope you're right, Raf. As I said in my first post, "To give it away as a free download was a nice gesture, but do they really think this song is the best choise for a single release??" I really hope the real treats are still waiting for the release but...
Brian's exact words on that recent interview were: "...And then recently we revisited it for the album and suddenly it exploded and became this big epic, which is great, I think, and Paul makes a wonderful job. We all sing on it. I sing, Roger sings and Paul sings the end bit, and it gets big and heavy. We thought it would be a nice sort of introduction to 'What the hell is Queen and Paul Rodgers?" for people who didn't see us on tour last year."
I think this comment is what bothers me most. My English isn't perfect but I understood that Brian was saying here:
1) SINT is going to be on the album (or at least they recorded it for the album),
2) SINT is big and epic track (I would use those words to describe songs like Bo Rhap and Innuendo, not SINT)
3) SINT is a taster for things to come. This is what QPR music is going to sound like.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]August R. wrote: [/QUOTENAME]3) SINT is a taster for things to come. This is what QPR music is going to sound like. [/QUOTE]
Not necessarily true. Don't forget that SINT was written well before Brian and Roger had any notion of teaming up with Paul Rodgers, and Paul is very much involved in the writing of the new album. I'm sure that the boys have a few surprises for us.
V.
Not necessarily true. Don't forget that SINT was written well before Brian and Roger had any notion of teaming up with Paul Rodgers, and Paul is very much involved in the writing of the new album. I'm sure that the boys have a few surprises for us.
V.