[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]martinusx wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Russian Headlong wrote: [/QUOTENAME]What the fuck are you on about. It's no worse than the Miracle or Hot Space. Who gives a shit what it's called. For all those fans still bitching 'oh it's not Queen without freddie' shut up you snobs. We know it's not the original line up but neither was Zeppelin last December, The Who are just Daltrey and Townsend now, Thin Lizzy do not have Phil Lynott and they recently toured. Get over it, don't be such snobs plenty of bands still have much to offer even if they no longer have their classic line ups, Queen in 2008 are not he same but why shouldn't half the original band still play the music, what is the alternative, tribute bands![/QUOTE]
Great post. But don't even bother trying to reason with "Treasure Moment" or his two friends here. He's a broken record, brick wall, and a(n often robotic) closed mind all in one. Look... watch what will happen when he replies:
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Exactly, all they are doing now is ruining the incredible legacy as the greatest band on earth EVER.[/QUOTE]
Says who? You? The future can't change the past, so nothing will happen to your precious "legacy" that seems to validate your entire experience. As for your "greatest band" claim, even Queen themselves (and just about every other rational person in the world) accepts that if there is one group of entertainers who hold the torch for all others in their field to follow, it's The Beatles.
[/QUOTE]
Dont make me laugh, the beatles is NOWEHRE near Queens level. Its like comparing an amateur shit band with Queen. The beatles is just hype, not actual good musicians. Queen is on a another level, like 1 million times better in every aspect.[/QUOTE]
Ha, though Queen is my favorite band, the Beatles were the masters of music. Their progress and quality of music is unsurpassed! The Beatles were pure art. The best at what they did and the most popular! Never ever seen again since![/QUOTE]
hahaha what a joke! they are AMATEURS! simple crappy songwriting, there are thousands of bands that better. Just because they were early doesnt mean they are good which they arent. They dont have 1/10000000 the talent of Queen, garbage band.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<i>Donny Mars<br>Self Destructive Evil wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]DAVIDBRENDAM wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Are you for real beatles a amateur shit band? the beatles were queen's template for f***s sake in every aspect, chord changes in songs in terms of writing etc.. .
The beatles are my far the greatest band in anyone's eyes musicians included you obviously haven't listened to all the beatles music in depth TRY IT you will be shocked.[/QUOTE]
I listened to 25 beatles songs and they almost put me into sleep. VERY amateurish and simple songwriting and most of the songs sounded the same and the singers arent anything to brag about either. Totally overhyped band and nowhere near Queen.[/QUOTE]
No Beatles means no Zeppelin and Floyd, no Zeppelin, Floyd, and Beatles mean No Queen, therefore everytime you talk smack about the roots, the bands that inspired queen's early albums, you are insulting Freddie. You, you are not a fan, you are a menace to the true fans and you need to find some other music to obsess over, don't you dare ever claim yourself as a fan again. Why don't you open your fucking mind before you try to understand The Beatles.[/QUOTE]
thats bullshit. Freddie is more inspired by classical music than the shitles. You think beatles could ever write a song like bohemian rhapsody? i didnt think so
they are crap compared to Queen.
Are you for real beatles a amateur shit band? the beatles were queen's template for f***s sake in every aspect, chord changes in songs in terms of writing etc.. .
The beatles are my far the greatest band in anyone's eyes musicians included you obviously haven't listened to all the beatles music in depth TRY IT you will be shocked.[/QUOTE]
I listened to 25 beatles songs and they almost put me into sleep. VERY amateurish and simple songwriting and most of the songs sounded the same and the singers arent anything to brag about either. Totally overhyped band and nowhere near Queen.[/QUOTE]
No Beatles means no Zeppelin and Floyd, no Zeppelin, Floyd, and Beatles mean No Queen, therefore everytime you talk smack about the roots, the bands that inspired queen's early albums, you are insulting Freddie. You, you are not a fan, you are a menace to the true fans and you need to find some other music to obsess over, don't you dare ever claim yourself as a fan again. Why don't you open your fucking mind before you try to understand The Beatles.[/QUOTE]
thats bullshit. Freddie is more inspired by classical music than the shitles. You think beatles could ever write a song like bohemian rhapsody? i didnt think so
they are crap compared to Queen.
If you look back on their recent product, this wouldn't surprise me:
1) 1997 - Queen Rocks - great album and cover - where are the pictures???
2) 1999 - Greatest Hits III - need I say anything? What SHOULD have been the tracklisting (in no particular order):
Queen Greatest Hits III
1. Bohemian Rhapsody
2. Somebody To Love (w/ George Michael)
3. Too Much Love Will Kill You
4. Under Pressure (rah mix)
5. Scandal
6. Need Your Loving Tonight
7. Let Me Live
8. Spread Your Wings
9. You Don't Fool Me
10. Body Language
11. I Was Born To Love You
12. Keep Yourself Alive
13. Las Palabras De Amor
13. Heaven For Everyone
14. No One But You
15. Tie Your Mother Down
16. These Are The Days of Our Lives
17. Thank God It's Christmas
3) Queen Stone Cold Classics - read the liner notes - holy crap there are so many inacurracies. I didn't see any new pics, which it claimed on the cover.
4) Q+PR Return of the Champions - where the hell is Under Pressure? HORRIBLE album cover.
5) Queen Rock Montreal - do we need this same album and dvd again??? Another HORRIBLE album cover
6) So it would only be fitting that they would call the album The Cosmos Rocks, a track called C-lebrity or whatever and have a horrible album cover. I'll still buy it and support it but it seems they have a lack of creativity the past 10 years or so when it comes to album sleeve design.
1) 1997 - Queen Rocks - great album and cover - where are the pictures???
2) 1999 - Greatest Hits III - need I say anything? What SHOULD have been the tracklisting (in no particular order):
Queen Greatest Hits III
1. Bohemian Rhapsody
2. Somebody To Love (w/ George Michael)
3. Too Much Love Will Kill You
4. Under Pressure (rah mix)
5. Scandal
6. Need Your Loving Tonight
7. Let Me Live
8. Spread Your Wings
9. You Don't Fool Me
10. Body Language
11. I Was Born To Love You
12. Keep Yourself Alive
13. Las Palabras De Amor
13. Heaven For Everyone
14. No One But You
15. Tie Your Mother Down
16. These Are The Days of Our Lives
17. Thank God It's Christmas
3) Queen Stone Cold Classics - read the liner notes - holy crap there are so many inacurracies. I didn't see any new pics, which it claimed on the cover.
4) Q+PR Return of the Champions - where the hell is Under Pressure? HORRIBLE album cover.
5) Queen Rock Montreal - do we need this same album and dvd again??? Another HORRIBLE album cover
6) So it would only be fitting that they would call the album The Cosmos Rocks, a track called C-lebrity or whatever and have a horrible album cover. I'll still buy it and support it but it seems they have a lack of creativity the past 10 years or so when it comes to album sleeve design.
I honestly don't give a damn what it's called. They could call it "Freddie Mercury Was a Piece of Shit: The New Legacy" and I'd still check it out. Music is music. Get over it and stop being a bunch of fucking babies.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
You think beatles could ever write a song like bohemian rhapsody? i didnt think so
[/QUOTE]
Go and listen "A Day In The Life" by the Beatles, and you'll realise that they actually wrote a song like Bohemian Rhapsody almost a decade before Freddie did.
You think beatles could ever write a song like bohemian rhapsody? i didnt think so
[/QUOTE]
Go and listen "A Day In The Life" by the Beatles, and you'll realise that they actually wrote a song like Bohemian Rhapsody almost a decade before Freddie did.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<i>Donny Mars<br>Self Destructive Evil wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]DAVIDBRENDAM wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Are you for real beatles a amateur shit band? the beatles were queen's template for f***s sake in every aspect, chord changes in songs in terms of writing etc.. .
The beatles are my far the greatest band in anyone's eyes musicians included you obviously haven't listened to all the beatles music in depth TRY IT you will be shocked.[/QUOTE]
I listened to 25 beatles songs and they almost put me into sleep. VERY amateurish and simple songwriting and most of the songs sounded the same and the singers arent anything to brag about either. Totally overhyped band and nowhere near Queen.[/QUOTE]
No Beatles means no Zeppelin and Floyd, no Zeppelin, Floyd, and Beatles mean No Queen, therefore everytime you talk smack about the roots, the bands that inspired queen's early albums, you are insulting Freddie. You, you are not a fan, you are a menace to the true fans and you need to find some other music to obsess over, don't you dare ever claim yourself as a fan again. Why don't you open your fucking mind before you try to understand The Beatles.[/QUOTE]
thats bullshit. Freddie is more inspired by classical music than the shitles. You think beatles could ever write a song like bohemian rhapsody? i didnt think so
they are crap compared to Queen.[/QUOTE]Bohemian Rhapsody is structurally a direct take off of John Lennon's A Day In The Life and Happiness Is A Warm Gun, so yes, The Beatles actually did it first.
compare these lines, and the literal meanings
Mercury
Mama, just killed a man
Put a gun against his head
Pulled my trigger, now he's dead
Lennon-Day in The Life
He blew his mind out in a car
He didn't notice that the lights had changed
A crowd of people stood and stared
Happiness Is A Warm Gun
She's not a girl who misses much
Do do do do do do- oh yeah!
She's well acquainted with the touch of the velvet hand
Like a lizard on a window pane
Literal
Mercury and Lennon are both describing the accidental death of an innocent man and the knowledge a woman has of the death.
Mercury may have left the lyrical similarities there, but Happiness and Rhapsody share a common structure.
start out slow
Mama... just killed a man....
and
Shes not a girl... who misses much...
pick up speed
Mama! OOOOOOoooOOO, I don't wanna die!
and
She's well acquainted with the touch of the velvet hand...
Steady chant
mamamia let me go!
and
mother superior jumped the gun
hard rock
spit in my eye...
and
..jumped the gun... (later reps)
slowdown
anyway the wind blows
and
happiness is a warm gun
Are you for real beatles a amateur shit band? the beatles were queen's template for f***s sake in every aspect, chord changes in songs in terms of writing etc.. .
The beatles are my far the greatest band in anyone's eyes musicians included you obviously haven't listened to all the beatles music in depth TRY IT you will be shocked.[/QUOTE]
I listened to 25 beatles songs and they almost put me into sleep. VERY amateurish and simple songwriting and most of the songs sounded the same and the singers arent anything to brag about either. Totally overhyped band and nowhere near Queen.[/QUOTE]
No Beatles means no Zeppelin and Floyd, no Zeppelin, Floyd, and Beatles mean No Queen, therefore everytime you talk smack about the roots, the bands that inspired queen's early albums, you are insulting Freddie. You, you are not a fan, you are a menace to the true fans and you need to find some other music to obsess over, don't you dare ever claim yourself as a fan again. Why don't you open your fucking mind before you try to understand The Beatles.[/QUOTE]
thats bullshit. Freddie is more inspired by classical music than the shitles. You think beatles could ever write a song like bohemian rhapsody? i didnt think so
they are crap compared to Queen.[/QUOTE]Bohemian Rhapsody is structurally a direct take off of John Lennon's A Day In The Life and Happiness Is A Warm Gun, so yes, The Beatles actually did it first.
compare these lines, and the literal meanings
Mercury
Mama, just killed a man
Put a gun against his head
Pulled my trigger, now he's dead
Lennon-Day in The Life
He blew his mind out in a car
He didn't notice that the lights had changed
A crowd of people stood and stared
Happiness Is A Warm Gun
She's not a girl who misses much
Do do do do do do- oh yeah!
She's well acquainted with the touch of the velvet hand
Like a lizard on a window pane
Literal
Mercury and Lennon are both describing the accidental death of an innocent man and the knowledge a woman has of the death.
Mercury may have left the lyrical similarities there, but Happiness and Rhapsody share a common structure.
start out slow
Mama... just killed a man....
and
Shes not a girl... who misses much...
pick up speed
Mama! OOOOOOoooOOO, I don't wanna die!
and
She's well acquainted with the touch of the velvet hand...
Steady chant
mamamia let me go!
and
mother superior jumped the gun
hard rock
spit in my eye...
and
..jumped the gun... (later reps)
slowdown
anyway the wind blows
and
happiness is a warm gun
Just to keep this reply in line with the original post, I agree, it WOULD be an awful album title. But only considering that it has way too much to do with Dr. Brian's recent accomplishments. By itself, the title suggests all of two (2!) different meanings, which would be more than a lot for some other act like Madonna or such. It still sounds horrible as an album title though, but it wouldn't surprise me. I'll still buy it, and so will a lot of you other buggers.
Now, I have to budge in a little on the Beatles argument. I don't know what's so difficult to understand about all (original) Queen members having agreed to think of the Beatles as their influence and having an almost astronomical (pun intended) effect on pop music in general. If this mr. Treasure Moment as he calls himself (I don't care to remember his real name, and don't bother to check it elsewhere) a serious musician, I'd suggest he'd check out the rest of the Beatles catalogue instead of just dropping out at the 25th song he hears. I, for one, couldn't care less about the first 5 albums the band made - it was mostly nonsensical teenage bubblegum pop music that was so hip and cool back then. And, oh the horror, the first two or three albums were half filled with cover tracks. So, I always thought it like this: when the Beatles were unable to write any better music, they first established a good fan base with the pop shite - which, by the way, were sort of genius in their simplicity, if you seriously think about it (I just don't really care for it) - and after they visited India, they started making some interesting music, which would make them the biggest band in the world for some time. Very grown up and different at the time, and ultimately, the music that would be the first real step in creating the British Rock Sound, which Queen and others only took further. Of course, conceptuality and weirdness had already been made earlier by people like Frank Zappa and Miles Davis.
Damn, why do I bother... a lecture, here?
My 10 favorite Beatles tracks, not in any particular order: "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", "Penny Lane", "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite", "A Day in the Life", "Ticket to Ride", "Happiness is a Warm Gun", "Blackbird", "The Fool On The Hill", "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "I Am The Walrus".
Now, I have to budge in a little on the Beatles argument. I don't know what's so difficult to understand about all (original) Queen members having agreed to think of the Beatles as their influence and having an almost astronomical (pun intended) effect on pop music in general. If this mr. Treasure Moment as he calls himself (I don't care to remember his real name, and don't bother to check it elsewhere) a serious musician, I'd suggest he'd check out the rest of the Beatles catalogue instead of just dropping out at the 25th song he hears. I, for one, couldn't care less about the first 5 albums the band made - it was mostly nonsensical teenage bubblegum pop music that was so hip and cool back then. And, oh the horror, the first two or three albums were half filled with cover tracks. So, I always thought it like this: when the Beatles were unable to write any better music, they first established a good fan base with the pop shite - which, by the way, were sort of genius in their simplicity, if you seriously think about it (I just don't really care for it) - and after they visited India, they started making some interesting music, which would make them the biggest band in the world for some time. Very grown up and different at the time, and ultimately, the music that would be the first real step in creating the British Rock Sound, which Queen and others only took further. Of course, conceptuality and weirdness had already been made earlier by people like Frank Zappa and Miles Davis.
Damn, why do I bother... a lecture, here?
My 10 favorite Beatles tracks, not in any particular order: "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", "Penny Lane", "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite", "A Day in the Life", "Ticket to Ride", "Happiness is a Warm Gun", "Blackbird", "The Fool On The Hill", "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "I Am The Walrus".
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Dan Corson III: %100 Fun wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I honestly don't give a damn what it's called. They could call it "Freddie Mercury Was a Piece of Shit: The New Legacy" and I'd still check it out. Music is music. Get over it and stop being a bunch of fucking babies.[/QUOTE]
-_-
So sick of listening to how loads of people miss Freddie.
WHAT ABOUT JOHN FREAKIN DEACON?!?!?! He was f***in important too!!!
Ok, now on to my actual post, they can call their album whatever they wish. I just wanna listen to the music that's in the album. I didn't like the title Hot Space either or The Works. (Not to mention the idea of GH III or Queen Rocks) AND, if you miss the old Queen, then go listen to them! GO NUTS! Stop ruining it for us that actually want to enjoy the album and that actually want Queen to continue!
TM, you call yourself a real damn fan of Queen?? You're not because you don't at least respect the artists that they admired; you just attack them. Just think (actually THINK): What would Bri, John, or even FREDDIE say if they knew you talked shit about one of their favorite artists? I'll admit, I like The Beatles, but I don't listen to them very often, so I wouldn't know if they're better than Queen or whatnot. But, I have done my research and know that they laid a foundation for future bands, including Queen. GET OVER IT! That's a FACT ok?? A FACT. It's been stated many times. If you don't like The Beatles, that's fine. Just stop posting pointless crap on these boards! We're tired of trying to filter your brain (or whatever you have up there) of all the SHIT it has up there!
By the way, that's not the official title. If it was, you probably would have seen some article
about it on queenonline or Bri's website.
That's it. Carry on now. I'm tired and done.
So sick of listening to how loads of people miss Freddie.
WHAT ABOUT JOHN FREAKIN DEACON?!?!?! He was f***in important too!!!
Ok, now on to my actual post, they can call their album whatever they wish. I just wanna listen to the music that's in the album. I didn't like the title Hot Space either or The Works. (Not to mention the idea of GH III or Queen Rocks) AND, if you miss the old Queen, then go listen to them! GO NUTS! Stop ruining it for us that actually want to enjoy the album and that actually want Queen to continue!
TM, you call yourself a real damn fan of Queen?? You're not because you don't at least respect the artists that they admired; you just attack them. Just think (actually THINK): What would Bri, John, or even FREDDIE say if they knew you talked shit about one of their favorite artists? I'll admit, I like The Beatles, but I don't listen to them very often, so I wouldn't know if they're better than Queen or whatnot. But, I have done my research and know that they laid a foundation for future bands, including Queen. GET OVER IT! That's a FACT ok?? A FACT. It's been stated many times. If you don't like The Beatles, that's fine. Just stop posting pointless crap on these boards! We're tired of trying to filter your brain (or whatever you have up there) of all the SHIT it has up there!
By the way, that's not the official title. If it was, you probably would have seen some article
about it on queenonline or Bri's website.
That's it. Carry on now. I'm tired and done.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I listened to 25 beatles songs and they almost put me into sleep. VERY amateurish and simple songwriting and most of the songs sounded the same and the singers arent anything to brag about either. Totally overhyped band and nowhere near Queen.[/QUOTE]
The Beatles (and solo records) have sold over 1.5 billion units worldwide. When your shitty, derivative band sells 150 units, then you can open your mouth.
The Beatles (and solo records) have sold over 1.5 billion units worldwide. When your shitty, derivative band sells 150 units, then you can open your mouth.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I listened to 25 beatles songs and they almost put me into sleep. VERY amateurish and simple songwriting and most of the songs sounded the same and the singers arent anything to brag about either. Totally overhyped band and nowhere near Queen.[/QUOTE]
The Beatles (and solo records) have sold over 1.5 billion units worldwide. When your shitty, derivative band sells 150 units, then you can open your mouth.
[/QUOTE]amen
a-fucking-men
The Beatles (and solo records) have sold over 1.5 billion units worldwide. When your shitty, derivative band sells 150 units, then you can open your mouth.
[/QUOTE]amen
a-fucking-men
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I listened to 25 beatles songs and they almost put me into sleep. VERY amateurish and simple songwriting and most of the songs sounded the same and the singers arent anything to brag about either. Totally overhyped band and nowhere near Queen.[/QUOTE]
The Beatles (and solo records) have sold over 1.5 billion units worldwide. When your shitty, derivative band sells 150 units, then you can open your mouth.
[/QUOTE]
oh shut up already with your nonsense! it doesnt matter if you sell 1 trillion albums! rappers and britney spears sell millions of albums as well, that doesnt make then ANY GOOD you moron!
Quality is quality no matter how much it sells and my "derivative band" is better than the shitty amateur beatles about 100 times.
The Beatles (and solo records) have sold over 1.5 billion units worldwide. When your shitty, derivative band sells 150 units, then you can open your mouth.
[/QUOTE]
oh shut up already with your nonsense! it doesnt matter if you sell 1 trillion albums! rappers and britney spears sell millions of albums as well, that doesnt make then ANY GOOD you moron!
Quality is quality no matter how much it sells and my "derivative band" is better than the shitty amateur beatles about 100 times.
The alleged album title is not terrible, but it could be better. In the end, the title is of little relevance to the musical content.
all this for a album title not confirmed ?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<i>Donny Mars<br>Self Destructive Evil wrote: [/QUOTENAME]amen
a-fucking-men[/QUOTE]
I shall not judge! ;)
a-fucking-men[/QUOTE]
I shall not judge! ;)