Honestly slipping to 18 isnt bad at all. Most albums by veterans slip way lower than that, and they rarely reach the Top 5. And you have to take into account that this isnt even an original line-up..
The tour is the best promotion for this and it hasnt even come to Britain yet.
The fact is that this is an album that has gone Top 20 or Top 10 in lots of countries. That can hardly be considered a failure like some of you imply.
It has even gotten some good reviews, ironically this is probably the best reviewed Queen-related album ever.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Togg wrote:
I bet in the end it will sell more than a good number of the earlier albums... lets wait and see
You have to be kidding.
The funniest thing I've seen all day.
Wake up you fool
I bet in the end it will sell more than a good number of the earlier albums... lets wait and see
You have to be kidding.
The funniest thing I've seen all day.
Wake up you fool
kingogre wrote:
"It has even gotten some good reviews, ironically this is probably the best reviewed Queen-related album ever."
Had it been released in the seventies, you may nearly have had a point. And ironic because the album's so forgettable with no real impact, unlike those poorly reviewed, but still memorable albums of the seventies?
In the real world, compare it to contemporary reviews of the the Queen back catalogue. This is not 1977 anymore, Queen have been long recognised in many, many quarters. Fools like yourself want to disregard that fact and try and pretend TCR is "worthy"
It is amusing though watching Queen fans try and justify TCR to other Queen fans, when in the real world a lemon is a lemon and obviously not worth promoting in certain countries.
Had it been released in the seventies, you may nearly have had a point. And ironic because the album's so forgettable with no real impact, unlike those poorly reviewed, but still memorable albums of the seventies?
In the real world, compare it to contemporary reviews of the the Queen back catalogue. This is not 1977 anymore, Queen have been long recognised in many, many quarters. Fools like yourself want to disregard that fact and try and pretend TCR is "worthy"
It is amusing though watching Queen fans try and justify TCR to other Queen fans, when in the real world a lemon is a lemon and obviously not worth promoting in certain countries.
Ken8 wrote:
Togg wrote: I bet in the end it will sell more than a good number of the earlier albums... lets wait and see You have to be kidding. The funniest thing I've seen all day. Wake up you fool
Check out the sales of Hot Space... once the tour is over and the album is out for a while in both north and south america for a while ...
Togg wrote: I bet in the end it will sell more than a good number of the earlier albums... lets wait and see You have to be kidding. The funniest thing I've seen all day. Wake up you fool
Check out the sales of Hot Space... once the tour is over and the album is out for a while in both north and south america for a while ...
It is a brilliant album and I am looking foward to seeing them live in stage.
Those people who think the New Album is that bad, they can go to hell
Those people who think the New Album is that bad, they can go to hell
Thanks. It's always nice to hear the QPR fans' open-minded reactions.
stone cold crazy, you know.
Tero wrote:
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]the dude wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Queen and Paul Rodgers IS a new name.[/QUOTE] No, it's not. It's a composite of two old names. Queen is the English rock band whose members Brian and Roger used to be, and Paul Rodgers is the new singer they're performing with. They didn't suddenly rename the band "Queen+David Bowie" in 1981, or "Queen+Five" in 2000, did they? That sounds pretty simple, doesn't it? [QUOTE][QUOTENAME]the dude wrote: [/QUOTENAME]They aren't pretending it's Queen. Name one Queen album that hasn't gotten a bad review somewhere.[/QUOTE] Why are you comparing their reviews to those of Queen reviews? I thought you just said they were different bands? Please, make up your mind about it and stick to either one! [QUOTE][QUOTENAME]the dude wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So to those who come on here bashing QPR..what are you doing here? If you hate it so much then leave.[/QUOTE] Anybody who's a fan of Queen has a right to post his (or her) opinion about some of the members performing as Queen. Again, it's a very simple concept but some people just don't seem to grasp the possibility that everybody else doesn't agree with them.
I thought they did EXACTLY that with the examples you gave - Under Pressure was released as "Queen & David Bowie", and in 2000 the reworked version of WWRY was released as Queen+Five??? (or Five+Queen, I can't recall right now).
Even at the Freddie Tribute concert there was never any billing given as Queen, either on the ticket, or on the T shirts which listed them all the performers individually (ie John Deacon, Roger Taylor, Brian May). Whatever you feel about the new album, it must be said that they have been consistent (to date) in never just calling themselves Queen, but always adding an adenddum
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]the dude wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Queen and Paul Rodgers IS a new name.[/QUOTE] No, it's not. It's a composite of two old names. Queen is the English rock band whose members Brian and Roger used to be, and Paul Rodgers is the new singer they're performing with. They didn't suddenly rename the band "Queen+David Bowie" in 1981, or "Queen+Five" in 2000, did they? That sounds pretty simple, doesn't it? [QUOTE][QUOTENAME]the dude wrote: [/QUOTENAME]They aren't pretending it's Queen. Name one Queen album that hasn't gotten a bad review somewhere.[/QUOTE] Why are you comparing their reviews to those of Queen reviews? I thought you just said they were different bands? Please, make up your mind about it and stick to either one! [QUOTE][QUOTENAME]the dude wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So to those who come on here bashing QPR..what are you doing here? If you hate it so much then leave.[/QUOTE] Anybody who's a fan of Queen has a right to post his (or her) opinion about some of the members performing as Queen. Again, it's a very simple concept but some people just don't seem to grasp the possibility that everybody else doesn't agree with them.
I thought they did EXACTLY that with the examples you gave - Under Pressure was released as "Queen & David Bowie", and in 2000 the reworked version of WWRY was released as Queen+Five??? (or Five+Queen, I can't recall right now).
Even at the Freddie Tribute concert there was never any billing given as Queen, either on the ticket, or on the T shirts which listed them all the performers individually (ie John Deacon, Roger Taylor, Brian May). Whatever you feel about the new album, it must be said that they have been consistent (to date) in never just calling themselves Queen, but always adding an adenddum
"I thought they did EXACTLY that with the examples you gave - Under
Pressure was released as "Queen & David Bowie", and in 2000 the
reworked version of WWRY was released as Queen+Five??? (or Five+Queen,
I can't recall right now). Even at the Freddie Tribute concert there
was never any billing given as Queen, either on the ticket, or on the T
shirts which listed them all the performers individually (ie John
Deacon, Roger Taylor, Brian May). Whatever you feel about the new
album, it must be said that they have been consistent (to date) in
never just calling themselves Queen, but always adding an adenddum"
Either you must have missed my point by miles, or I just couldn't figure you out with these stupid malfunctioning quotes.
I'm talking about two separate issues here:
1) The band isn't called "Queen+Paul Rodgers" like so many people claim. It's "Queen" and "Paul Rodgers" playing together.
2) Brian and Roger cannot be Queen by themselves because they are only half of the band.
And interestingly enough, the dvd version of the FM tribute concert has "Queen+" in bigger writing than "Freddie Mercury" on the front cover, while the back lists songs performed by "Queen+" ...
Consistent, yes. Truthful, no.
Either you must have missed my point by miles, or I just couldn't figure you out with these stupid malfunctioning quotes.
I'm talking about two separate issues here:
1) The band isn't called "Queen+Paul Rodgers" like so many people claim. It's "Queen" and "Paul Rodgers" playing together.
2) Brian and Roger cannot be Queen by themselves because they are only half of the band.
And interestingly enough, the dvd version of the FM tribute concert has "Queen+" in bigger writing than "Freddie Mercury" on the front cover, while the back lists songs performed by "Queen+" ...
Consistent, yes. Truthful, no.
Some people just don't think of Queen without Freddie. Sure, they can't replace Freddie, which is why they have a singer who is totally different, but that doesn't mean they have to use a different name!
If you use Pink Floyd as an example, most of the public know their 'Dark Side Of The Moon sound', but if you were to play them their early stuff, particularly that of the Syd Barratt era, they wouldn't know it was the same band, & would probably hate it!
Other bands, such as Deep Purple, change their style to accomodate the vocalists they have at the time. Australians in particular only really think of the singers in the bands, & tend not to like too much of a change in musical direction. I'm in Australia, & I know many people who only think of one style, when they think of groups. In other words, if they hear one of two songs of a similar style from a band, they pidgeonhole that band as doing a particular style. They think of The Sweet as bubblegum, Gary Moore as blues, & Genesis as an ordinary pop group. Most Australians only think of Queen as an ordinary pop group too, with songs like We Are The Champions, Somebody To Love & Bohemian Rhapsody. It would be impossible to get them to appreciate Ogre Battle, Liar, & Brighton Rock. They just don't like the music different to what they are used to.
In any case, I have seen no promotions at all for the album, & I know many Queen fans who not only know nothing about this album, they don't even know Queen reformed with a new singer!
If you use Pink Floyd as an example, most of the public know their 'Dark Side Of The Moon sound', but if you were to play them their early stuff, particularly that of the Syd Barratt era, they wouldn't know it was the same band, & would probably hate it!
Other bands, such as Deep Purple, change their style to accomodate the vocalists they have at the time. Australians in particular only really think of the singers in the bands, & tend not to like too much of a change in musical direction. I'm in Australia, & I know many people who only think of one style, when they think of groups. In other words, if they hear one of two songs of a similar style from a band, they pidgeonhole that band as doing a particular style. They think of The Sweet as bubblegum, Gary Moore as blues, & Genesis as an ordinary pop group. Most Australians only think of Queen as an ordinary pop group too, with songs like We Are The Champions, Somebody To Love & Bohemian Rhapsody. It would be impossible to get them to appreciate Ogre Battle, Liar, & Brighton Rock. They just don't like the music different to what they are used to.
In any case, I have seen no promotions at all for the album, & I know many Queen fans who not only know nothing about this album, they don't even know Queen reformed with a new singer!
[QUOTE]TOGG wrote: I bet in the end it will sell more than a good number of the earlier albums... lets wait and see
Ken8 wrote: You have to be kidding. The funniest thing I've seen all day. Wake up you fool
TOGG wrote: Check out the sales of Hot Space... once the tour is over and the album is out for a while in both north and south america for a while ...
[/QUOTE]
ummmm, okay. How's it looking now genius? Has it outsold a "good number" of the earlier albums, even "Hot Space"??
No, didn't think so
Ken8 wrote: You have to be kidding. The funniest thing I've seen all day. Wake up you fool
TOGG wrote: Check out the sales of Hot Space... once the tour is over and the album is out for a while in both north and south america for a while ...
[/QUOTE]
ummmm, okay. How's it looking now genius? Has it outsold a "good number" of the earlier albums, even "Hot Space"??
No, didn't think so