[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]vadenuez wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Gimme a break and please don't play the "I don't give a damn about charts" card.... If SINT would've been a sold out single, we'd have a hundred threads praising its high chart position.
[/QUOTE]
Selling out doesn't mean it's good, but it's always a good reason to celebrate when the music you like is high on the charts, because then it gets more airplay, the artists get more attention, etc.
Bohemian Rhapsody would be brilliant even if it hadn't been released as a single. March Of The Black Queen and The Prophet's Song are. But it was it's incredible chart success that made a certain pretty new band with some success in the UK get their "worldwide legend" status.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Actually I can't agree with you more. It's simply that for a fact, everyone bashes the things that are against their tastes, yet they happily praise it if they are fully in agreement. In the end, isn't it a little what we all do in a forum like this?
That's the human nature I think ;-)
That's the human nature I think ;-)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Pim Derks wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Like Queen are going to be dumped by EMI. The DVD's Queen released have all sold really well, the Platinum Collection still does well around the world etc. Queen made/make a lot of money for EMI/Parlophone - they won't get dumped if they're not in the charts with their new music. EMI will just release another quick cash-in: Queen #1's or something similar compiling the best of the 3 GH albums. [/QUOTE]
then again this band is NOT Queen.
then again this band is NOT Queen.
That song is so lame.
Material by Queen WITH Freddie still sells.
If anything it says the record buying public aren't interested in this cynical exercise.
Part of Queen's undeniable legacy was their phenomenal success. Now that is beyond them without their most celebrated member it's churlish to try and suggest the charts today are filled with crap. They have always been filled with crap. Queen rose above that through sheer power of their songs.
The magic is over.
If anything it says the record buying public aren't interested in this cynical exercise.
Part of Queen's undeniable legacy was their phenomenal success. Now that is beyond them without their most celebrated member it's churlish to try and suggest the charts today are filled with crap. They have always been filled with crap. Queen rose above that through sheer power of their songs.
The magic is over.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]then again this band is NOT Queen.[/QUOTE]
You are correct. This is Queen+Paul Rodgers, indeed, or QPR in short.
You are correct. This is Queen+Paul Rodgers, indeed, or QPR in short.
How did the single chart in other counties? UK? Netherlands?
Does anyone know??
Does anyone know??
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]rmp wrote: [/QUOTENAME]How did the single chart in other counties? UK? Netherlands?
Does anyone know??[/QUOTE]
No. 90 UK (first week). As for the Netherlands, I think it isn't in top 100.
Does anyone know??[/QUOTE]
No. 90 UK (first week). As for the Netherlands, I think it isn't in top 100.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Danne wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Why do we even care? Why do we judge music by how many buyers there are? Most of the music I listen to nowadays doesn't chart! Does that make it inferior music? No, it just means it doesn't appeal to quite as many as some other music...[/QUOTE]
you should care...for one simple reason....when bands "repeatedly" fail to chart, record companies don't renew contracts, then bands no longer make music[/QUOTE]
Which is part of what is wrong with the world... :)
Seriously though, there are quite a few artists out there who never chart on a regular basis, be they young bands/artists more focused on releasing albums, or putting out their music in another fashion, or older artists who have reached the respectable conclusion that charting isn't everything. How many years was it since, for example, Elvis Costello charted? That doesn't mean his record company will ditch him, because they can recognize artistic achievements in other ways.
you should care...for one simple reason....when bands "repeatedly" fail to chart, record companies don't renew contracts, then bands no longer make music[/QUOTE]
Which is part of what is wrong with the world... :)
Seriously though, there are quite a few artists out there who never chart on a regular basis, be they young bands/artists more focused on releasing albums, or putting out their music in another fashion, or older artists who have reached the respectable conclusion that charting isn't everything. How many years was it since, for example, Elvis Costello charted? That doesn't mean his record company will ditch him, because they can recognize artistic achievements in other ways.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Wiley wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]then again this band is NOT Queen.[/QUOTE]
You are correct. This is Queen+Paul Rodgers, indeed, or QPR in short.[/QUOTE]
well its not Queen+paul rodgers either, how can it be QUEEN+ paul when its not Queen?
You are correct. This is Queen+Paul Rodgers, indeed, or QPR in short.[/QUOTE]
well its not Queen+paul rodgers either, how can it be QUEEN+ paul when its not Queen?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Wiley wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]then again this band is NOT Queen.[/QUOTE]
You are correct. This is Queen+Paul Rodgers, indeed, or QPR in short.[/QUOTE]
well its not Queen+paul rodgers either, how can it be QUEEN+ paul when its not Queen?[/QUOTE]
You answered your own question. It CAN be QPR since it is NOT really Queen. Or maybe they are. Whatever makes you happy, they don't care, and I don't either.
Fact is they are recording an album under the Queen+Paul Rodgers label. I'd rather make the best of it. I don't think it will be comparable with Queen's work in the 70's but it doesn't have to - it's something new. The old Queen albums are going nowhere.
I am genuinely excited about this new material and I have great appreciation for Paul Rodgers. At first, only for getting Brian and Roger on the road. Now, as a musician and artist as well.
I hope they tour Mexico or (at least) southwest USA. I would love to see them a sixth time.
You are correct. This is Queen+Paul Rodgers, indeed, or QPR in short.[/QUOTE]
well its not Queen+paul rodgers either, how can it be QUEEN+ paul when its not Queen?[/QUOTE]
You answered your own question. It CAN be QPR since it is NOT really Queen. Or maybe they are. Whatever makes you happy, they don't care, and I don't either.
Fact is they are recording an album under the Queen+Paul Rodgers label. I'd rather make the best of it. I don't think it will be comparable with Queen's work in the 70's but it doesn't have to - it's something new. The old Queen albums are going nowhere.
I am genuinely excited about this new material and I have great appreciation for Paul Rodgers. At first, only for getting Brian and Roger on the road. Now, as a musician and artist as well.
I hope they tour Mexico or (at least) southwest USA. I would love to see them a sixth time.
D #83 (2nd week)