My problem with the physical release of SINT is that it only contained the one track and the video, which as everyone knows, was all over the internet along with the free download. Had they released "Imagine" along with it for instance, it might have fared better.
Just my thoughts....
Oh and by the way.... its completely disappeared from the charts now...
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]August R. wrote: [/QUOTENAME][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. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, my bad, looks like it'll really be part of the album then...
But I don't think Brian was comparing SINT and BoRhap, or SINT and Innuendo... He must be talking too much (as usual), as a consequence of his excitement after releasing a "typical Brian May solo" for the first time in years.
If he ACTUALLY believed SINT was an epic, I think they'd have done more to promote it. He wrote a note about it on his website, Roger Taylor gave one or two interviews, and that was it. If they believed SINT was a "major" release, they would've given more interviews, maybe played it live on a couple of TV shows...
About it being a "teaser", it doesn't mean the album will be basically some 10 power ballads with Roger and Brian sharing vocals with a synth on the background, and then the drums, bass and lead guitar kicking in as Paul Rodgers take the lead vocals. Judging from an old comment on Brian's soapbox, I guess SINT is a teaser as in having a few things we'll see on other songs (it's already been said they'll make "Brian Mayesque" guitar arrangements, it's already been said that Brian and Roger will sing a bit...), which doesn't mean the songs will all sound like that.
"You're My Best Friend" could be a good "teaser" for people who haven't heard ANATO yet in the same way: it has all those big vocal harmonies, with Freddie, Brian and Roger recording themselves singing the same line multiple times, a tasty solo with some guitar harmonies being played simultaneously, etc. Yet there isn't any song in the album that sounds like it.
I know I can't say the album will DEFINITELY sound better than what we've heard. We're merely trying to guess st
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]
Yeah, my bad, looks like it'll really be part of the album then...
But I don't think Brian was comparing SINT and BoRhap, or SINT and Innuendo... He must be talking too much (as usual), as a consequence of his excitement after releasing a "typical Brian May solo" for the first time in years.
If he ACTUALLY believed SINT was an epic, I think they'd have done more to promote it. He wrote a note about it on his website, Roger Taylor gave one or two interviews, and that was it. If they believed SINT was a "major" release, they would've given more interviews, maybe played it live on a couple of TV shows...
About it being a "teaser", it doesn't mean the album will be basically some 10 power ballads with Roger and Brian sharing vocals with a synth on the background, and then the drums, bass and lead guitar kicking in as Paul Rodgers take the lead vocals. Judging from an old comment on Brian's soapbox, I guess SINT is a teaser as in having a few things we'll see on other songs (it's already been said they'll make "Brian Mayesque" guitar arrangements, it's already been said that Brian and Roger will sing a bit...), which doesn't mean the songs will all sound like that.
"You're My Best Friend" could be a good "teaser" for people who haven't heard ANATO yet in the same way: it has all those big vocal harmonies, with Freddie, Brian and Roger recording themselves singing the same line multiple times, a tasty solo with some guitar harmonies being played simultaneously, etc. Yet there isn't any song in the album that sounds like it.
I know I can't say the album will DEFINITELY sound better than what we've heard. We're merely trying to guess st
I actually don't like the guitar solo in SINT that much, but it's not the playing - it's the guitar sound. It harkens back more to the Innuendo album, or "Let Me Live" than anything you'd call classic Queen.
He's still got a Midas touch on guitar, no denying it, but I sort of miss the sound that made him famous in the first place. Clever mic-ing, hollow room sounds, next-to-no reverb or echo.... I want that sound again!!
He's still got a Midas touch on guitar, no denying it, but I sort of miss the sound that made him famous in the first place. Clever mic-ing, hollow room sounds, next-to-no reverb or echo.... I want that sound again!!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]vadenuez wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Is Body Language bad?
[/QUOTE]
it could use good spanking.
Is Body Language bad?
[/QUOTE]
it could use good spanking.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]the comment wasn't about the charts being necessarily more valid...just that DSMN at 81 (and 30yrs old) charted higher than queen's new single...
also, let's take a hypothetical....
if everything in the queen vaults was burnt to cinders tomorrow, and the band were bankrupted by poor business ventures and all they had was past reputation....
you could bet your bottom dollar that Bri and Rog would be fekkin hungry, they'd try a darn sight harder to impress than a few lazy collaborative remixes with new bands....and a crappy musical
they would work their bollox off to get some cred and sales...cos they'd need it...problem is - they don't need to try...so they don't bother...and loyal fans get a continual stream of (at best)average product but at worst - garbage...shame on them[/QUOTE]
Well said, i actually agree with that one mate!
also, let's take a hypothetical....
if everything in the queen vaults was burnt to cinders tomorrow, and the band were bankrupted by poor business ventures and all they had was past reputation....
you could bet your bottom dollar that Bri and Rog would be fekkin hungry, they'd try a darn sight harder to impress than a few lazy collaborative remixes with new bands....and a crappy musical
they would work their bollox off to get some cred and sales...cos they'd need it...problem is - they don't need to try...so they don't bother...and loyal fans get a continual stream of (at best)average product but at worst - garbage...shame on them[/QUOTE]
Well said, i actually agree with that one mate!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]tilltheendoftime wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]the comment wasn't about the charts being necessarily more valid...just that DSMN at 81 (and 30yrs old) charted higher than queen's new single...
also, let's take a hypothetical....
if everything in the queen vaults was burnt to cinders tomorrow, and the band were bankrupted by poor business ventures and all they had was past reputation....
you could bet your bottom dollar that Bri and Rog would be fekkin hungry, they'd try a darn sight harder to impress than a few lazy collaborative remixes with new bands....and a crappy musical
they would work their bollox off to get some cred and sales...cos they'd need it...problem is - they don't need to try...so they don't bother...and loyal fans get a continual stream of (at best)average product but at worst - garbage...shame on them[/QUOTE]
Well said, i actually agree with that one mate![/QUOTE]
So they should be ashamed of themselves because of what their dopplegangers are doing in an alternative reality?. Great analysis there.
Like I said before, it is what it is, not what you want it to be. IMO SINT is pretty good, if not exactly groundbreaking. However, I don't think it has any bearing on what will be on their new album.
also, let's take a hypothetical....
if everything in the queen vaults was burnt to cinders tomorrow, and the band were bankrupted by poor business ventures and all they had was past reputation....
you could bet your bottom dollar that Bri and Rog would be fekkin hungry, they'd try a darn sight harder to impress than a few lazy collaborative remixes with new bands....and a crappy musical
they would work their bollox off to get some cred and sales...cos they'd need it...problem is - they don't need to try...so they don't bother...and loyal fans get a continual stream of (at best)average product but at worst - garbage...shame on them[/QUOTE]
Well said, i actually agree with that one mate![/QUOTE]
So they should be ashamed of themselves because of what their dopplegangers are doing in an alternative reality?. Great analysis there.
Like I said before, it is what it is, not what you want it to be. IMO SINT is pretty good, if not exactly groundbreaking. However, I don't think it has any bearing on what will be on their new album.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Like I said before, it is what it is, not what you want it to be. IMO SINT is pretty good, if not exactly groundbreaking. However, I don't think it has any bearing on what will be on their new album. [/QUOTE]
Ditto.
Ditto.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It harkens back more to the Innuendo album, or "Let Me Live" than anything you'd call classic Queen.[/QUOTE]
That's not a bad thing.
That's not a bad thing.
No doubt Queen as we know it died with Freddie Mercury in 1991. However, Brian and Roger should be able to carry on as Queen as long as John Deacon continues to not mind them doing so. Brian and Roger are also founding members of Queen so they have the right to do with it what they wish, like it or not. I wish Freddie was around today, I miss him alot! But at the same time, Queen wasn't just Freddie Mercury, it was also John Deacon, Brian May, and Roger Taylor. I'm hoping that theres a possibility that QPR will tour the states again because I wasn't born when Queen toured here in 1982 and missed out in 2006. I'd be honored to see three rock legends do what they were born to do.. I must say this is a very good discussion and hopefully will continue to be not too heated as we've seen QPR debates get in the past.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ATM wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Brian and Roger are also founding members of Queen so they have the right to do with it what they wish, like it or not.
Queen wasn't just Freddie Mercury, it was also John Deacon, Brian May, and Roger Taylor.[/QUOTE]
Help me out a bit here...
This is the part which defies all logic, and it's come up about a thousand times in the past three years.
On one hand you say that Brian and Roger (two members of Queen) are right to cal themselves Queen they choose so, and on the other hand you say that Queen was four members.
You say that Queen was four members, not just one, but two members also seems to be perfectly fine.
Is there a two member limit, or how does it work?
Would it be okay if John and Roger toured as Queen, or does it require Brian in any combination for the band to be Queen? If so, why weren't his solo tours Queen concerts?
Queen wasn't just Freddie Mercury, it was also John Deacon, Brian May, and Roger Taylor.[/QUOTE]
Help me out a bit here...
This is the part which defies all logic, and it's come up about a thousand times in the past three years.
On one hand you say that Brian and Roger (two members of Queen) are right to cal themselves Queen they choose so, and on the other hand you say that Queen was four members.
You say that Queen was four members, not just one, but two members also seems to be perfectly fine.
Is there a two member limit, or how does it work?
Would it be okay if John and Roger toured as Queen, or does it require Brian in any combination for the band to be Queen? If so, why weren't his solo tours Queen concerts?
it's not right that brian and roger call themselves queen, but other bands have done it. Axle rose did it, the who,sabbath, priest, maiden, even Led Zep have now done it. It's not very rare that a legendary band reunites after a key member either leaves or dies. I personally don't care for the whole queen + paul thing, it's boring as hell to me. it's obvious what freddie meant to the band, it's one embarrassing project after the other since he left. Freddie where are you?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ATM wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Brian and Roger are also founding members of Queen so they have the right to do with it what they wish, like it or not.
Queen wasn't just Freddie Mercury, it was also John Deacon, Brian May, and Roger Taylor.[/QUOTE]
Help me out a bit here...
This is the part which defies all logic, and it's come up about a thousand times in the past three years.
On one hand you say that Brian and Roger (two members of Queen) are right to cal themselves Queen they choose so, and on the other hand you say that Queen was four members.
You say that Queen was four members, not just one, but two members also seems to be perfectly fine.
Is there a two member limit, or how does it work?
Would it be okay if John and Roger toured as Queen, or does it require Brian in any combination for the band to be Queen? If so, why weren't his solo tours Queen concerts?[/QUOTE]
It works simply because it's the two remaining active members deciding with the blessing of the inactive member to carry on under their brand name. It's the same reason they recorded No One But You under the Queen name. Again, that was a collective decision by the three remaining active members. It has nothing to do with number of members or combinations thereof.
When Brian went and toured in 1998 it was on his own volition. He never intended to act on behalf of Queen in that 1998 album and tour.
If Q+PR is wrong in any way shape or form then so was No One But You.
Queen wasn't just Freddie Mercury, it was also John Deacon, Brian May, and Roger Taylor.[/QUOTE]
Help me out a bit here...
This is the part which defies all logic, and it's come up about a thousand times in the past three years.
On one hand you say that Brian and Roger (two members of Queen) are right to cal themselves Queen they choose so, and on the other hand you say that Queen was four members.
You say that Queen was four members, not just one, but two members also seems to be perfectly fine.
Is there a two member limit, or how does it work?
Would it be okay if John and Roger toured as Queen, or does it require Brian in any combination for the band to be Queen? If so, why weren't his solo tours Queen concerts?[/QUOTE]
It works simply because it's the two remaining active members deciding with the blessing of the inactive member to carry on under their brand name. It's the same reason they recorded No One But You under the Queen name. Again, that was a collective decision by the three remaining active members. It has nothing to do with number of members or combinations thereof.
When Brian went and toured in 1998 it was on his own volition. He never intended to act on behalf of Queen in that 1998 album and tour.
If Q+PR is wrong in any way shape or form then so was No One But You.
Tero, when it comes to logic and the Queen name, logic has taken an extended trip around the world, and won't be back soon.
Just for fun, ask I've asked it about 20 times and have never got a response from ANY of the people who tell us Queen is, would someone who believes Queen is Brian, Roger, Paul and whoever else they choose, answer this hypothetical question:
John Deacon, Britney Spears, John Stamos & Rick Springfield. Queen or no Queen?
Just for fun, ask I've asked it about 20 times and have never got a response from ANY of the people who tell us Queen is, would someone who believes Queen is Brian, Roger, Paul and whoever else they choose, answer this hypothetical question:
John Deacon, Britney Spears, John Stamos & Rick Springfield. Queen or no Queen?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Knute wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ATM wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Brian and Roger are also founding members of Queen so they have the right to do with it what they wish, like it or not.
Queen wasn't just Freddie Mercury, it was also John Deacon, Brian May, and Roger Taylor.[/QUOTE]
Help me out a bit here...
This is the part which defies all logic, and it's come up about a thousand times in the past three years.
On one hand you say that Brian and Roger (two members of Queen) are right to cal themselves Queen they choose so, and on the other hand you say that Queen was four members.
You say that Queen was four members, not just one, but two members also seems to be perfectly fine.
Is there a two member limit, or how does it work?
Would it be okay if John and Roger toured as Queen, or does it require Brian in any combination for the band to be Queen? If so, why weren't his solo tours Queen concerts?[/QUOTE]
It works simply because it's the two remaining active members deciding with the blessing of the inactive member to carry on under their brand name. It's the same reason they recorded No One But You under the Queen name. Again, that was a collective decision by the three remaining active members. It has nothing to do with number of members or combinations thereof.
When Brian went and toured in 1998 it was on his own volition. He never intended to act on behalf of Queen in that 1998 album and tour.
If Q+PR is wrong in any way shape or form then so was No One But You.[/QUOTE]
So... If Brian gets his hair stuck in an automatic towel folder and strangles to death next week, Roger has every right to call himself Queen on the autumn tour?
Somehow I doubt anyone will agree with that. :P
The "all the active members" argument does sound like a logical explanation right now, but if Roger can't call himself Queen after Brian's accidental death, the whole argument falls flat on its arse. It seems that the argument has been created to reach the desired conclusion, rather than drawing conclusions from the available arguments.
I don't have a problem with people having different opinions on how many members Queen should have, but I simply cannot let it slip by when the same post says "Queen is four members" and "Queen is all the available active members"... It just doesn't make any sense at all!
Queen wasn't just Freddie Mercury, it was also John Deacon, Brian May, and Roger Taylor.[/QUOTE]
Help me out a bit here...
This is the part which defies all logic, and it's come up about a thousand times in the past three years.
On one hand you say that Brian and Roger (two members of Queen) are right to cal themselves Queen they choose so, and on the other hand you say that Queen was four members.
You say that Queen was four members, not just one, but two members also seems to be perfectly fine.
Is there a two member limit, or how does it work?
Would it be okay if John and Roger toured as Queen, or does it require Brian in any combination for the band to be Queen? If so, why weren't his solo tours Queen concerts?[/QUOTE]
It works simply because it's the two remaining active members deciding with the blessing of the inactive member to carry on under their brand name. It's the same reason they recorded No One But You under the Queen name. Again, that was a collective decision by the three remaining active members. It has nothing to do with number of members or combinations thereof.
When Brian went and toured in 1998 it was on his own volition. He never intended to act on behalf of Queen in that 1998 album and tour.
If Q+PR is wrong in any way shape or form then so was No One But You.[/QUOTE]
So... If Brian gets his hair stuck in an automatic towel folder and strangles to death next week, Roger has every right to call himself Queen on the autumn tour?
Somehow I doubt anyone will agree with that. :P
The "all the active members" argument does sound like a logical explanation right now, but if Roger can't call himself Queen after Brian's accidental death, the whole argument falls flat on its arse. It seems that the argument has been created to reach the desired conclusion, rather than drawing conclusions from the available arguments.
I don't have a problem with people having different opinions on how many members Queen should have, but I simply cannot let it slip by when the same post says "Queen is four members" and "Queen is all the available active members"... It just doesn't make any sense at all!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME].*.Messenger: Jake Pyndle.*. wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It harkens back more to the Innuendo album, or "Let Me Live" than anything you'd call classic Queen.[/QUOTE]
That's not a bad thing.[/QUOTE]
Neither is a burning building if you're a firefighter.
That's not a bad thing.[/QUOTE]
Neither is a burning building if you're a firefighter.