Winter Land Man
Dream Theater knows their Queen. James LaBrie has sung numerous cover versions of Queen songs, both live and in the studio.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Treasure Moment
[QUOTE]
[b]Major Tom wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Treasure Moment wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Thunderbolt wrote: [/b]
Whereas Treasure Moment is a perfect example of no-talent assclowns who can't write a single decent song.
[/QUOTE]
In your dreams retard, TM has more talent than 20 big mainstream bands put together.
[/QUOTE] OMG! OMFG! LOL! ROFLMAO!
[/QUOTE]
Keep laughing, im not being arrogant, just stating facts.
[b]Major Tom wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Treasure Moment wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Thunderbolt wrote: [/b]
Whereas Treasure Moment is a perfect example of no-talent assclowns who can't write a single decent song.
[/QUOTE]
In your dreams retard, TM has more talent than 20 big mainstream bands put together.
[/QUOTE] OMG! OMFG! LOL! ROFLMAO!
[/QUOTE]
Keep laughing, im not being arrogant, just stating facts.
Treasure Moment
[QUOTE]
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Treasure Moment wrote:[/b]
In your dreams retard, TM has more talent than 20 big mainstream bands put together.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but which ones??
[/QUOTE]
They are so shitty i have a hard time remembering their names but here is a few coldplay, MCR, U2, rolling stones, jonas brothers etc i dont even know what bands are popular now because ive stopped watching mtv and other mainstream music sources because it sucks too much.
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Treasure Moment wrote:[/b]
In your dreams retard, TM has more talent than 20 big mainstream bands put together.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but which ones??
[/QUOTE]
They are so shitty i have a hard time remembering their names but here is a few coldplay, MCR, U2, rolling stones, jonas brothers etc i dont even know what bands are popular now because ive stopped watching mtv and other mainstream music sources because it sucks too much.
john bodega
Okay, I hate Coldplay, Jonas Brothers, My Chemical Romance ... but while U2 and the Rolling Stones are very overrated they've been at it for decades. They've proven themselves, man - just for staying together that long!
What I want to know is how your band (that technically doesn't even exist) can have more talent than bands that are actually doing it for real?
I mean come on dude... you're a couple of guys writing songs, and then only sometimes. Last time I heard you don't even have a singer? And I mean you FIRED Andreas, he was the most entertaining member of your group (judging by his complaints).
Don't you guys have like, a game plan of sorts? Where do you see yourselves in a year, two years, five, ten?
I submit to you that the musicians you named might not be outstanding at what they do, but that they've reached millions of people and you haven't.
Writing something that people can identify with, and that people actually want to pay money to hear, IS a talent.
What I want to know is how your band (that technically doesn't even exist) can have more talent than bands that are actually doing it for real?
I mean come on dude... you're a couple of guys writing songs, and then only sometimes. Last time I heard you don't even have a singer? And I mean you FIRED Andreas, he was the most entertaining member of your group (judging by his complaints).
Don't you guys have like, a game plan of sorts? Where do you see yourselves in a year, two years, five, ten?
I submit to you that the musicians you named might not be outstanding at what they do, but that they've reached millions of people and you haven't.
Writing something that people can identify with, and that people actually want to pay money to hear, IS a talent.
doxonrox
[QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
[b]Yara wrote: [/b]
I wrote this last year here on Queenzone and it's related to the topic at hand. A dear Queenzoner asked me to find the post and re-post it, and here it is. As always, I hope it helps:
"Hi, Boca!
I think music would be a very hard thing to do, even for the most gifted, if artists couldn't rely on other people's work, past and present, to create pieces of their own. In every piece of music there are signs of a certain, or of many, musical traditions - no one breakes new ground without being acquainted with what has already been achieved in the musical tradition. One has to start from some point. Things don't come up out of thin air or nothing.
In the end of the day, however, if the composer is really imaginative, he succeeds in creating new, fresh interesting material from things he has listened to, read, remembers, and so on.
I think it's very hard to tell sometimes plagiarism from influence - some songs are so strikingly similar in some respects that one tends to think that the composer did only a "copy and paste" process, but that's not so simple.
Freddie's piano harmonic progressions and runs are reminiscent of dozens of classical pieces - you may find yourself listening to the introduction to "Death on Two Legs" or to the live intros to Somebody To Love in the works tour in the middle of a Liszt or Chopin composition - but then such artists as Liszt and Chopin or, as far as singing is concerned, Aretha, availed themselves of the tradition to create new ways of approaching an instrument or even vocals which turned out to be the very framework within which other artists would do their stuff. With time, their influence is so pervasive that one is just infected by it and tends to build things based on such influences unconsciously. Freddie's vocals in "Somebody to Love", especially in the 80's, seemed like a conscious effort to sound like Aretha - however, the song itself, even though it does have traditional gospel elements, is a new, fresh piece of music with a lot of innovation and creativity.
The guitar introduction of Oasis' "Cigarretes & Alcohol" can be heard on Power Station's "Get it On", on about two or three Kiss' songs, and I started to try to trace it and it goes back to some basic blues progressions which happened to be developed to sound as a catchy and groovy rock n roll motive. These developments were so obvious, musically speaking, that different people made it on their own, only to find that someone else had already drawned that conclusion before.
I think plagiarism, that is, the conscient reproduction of other people's work without acknolwdgement and any further significant input or innovation is very hard to prove. These things are not so clear-cut.
Freddie and Brian were heavily influenced by many artists. Such influences do show up in a more striking way in some songs, but in the end of the day their own input is creative enough to produce new, fresh and interesting tunes.
I can't help but remembering Robert Plant and Led when I listen to the original version of Sheer Heart Attack. There may be an influence there, but the Queen tune has a mark of its own and I like it more than any Led song.
So, even though by listening to Queen I do listen partially, consciously or not, to other artists, I can't think of any song that the guys plagiarized.
I know the answer turned out to be too long, but well, it's NO. I can't think of plagiarism in any Queen song - influence, even heavy influence, yes, but not really plagiarism.
Cheers and take care!"
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
I can't believe I wasted my time reading that...
Sheer Hear Attack sounds like "Led", as you call them? Name the song.
[b]Yara wrote: [/b]
I wrote this last year here on Queenzone and it's related to the topic at hand. A dear Queenzoner asked me to find the post and re-post it, and here it is. As always, I hope it helps:
"Hi, Boca!
I think music would be a very hard thing to do, even for the most gifted, if artists couldn't rely on other people's work, past and present, to create pieces of their own. In every piece of music there are signs of a certain, or of many, musical traditions - no one breakes new ground without being acquainted with what has already been achieved in the musical tradition. One has to start from some point. Things don't come up out of thin air or nothing.
In the end of the day, however, if the composer is really imaginative, he succeeds in creating new, fresh interesting material from things he has listened to, read, remembers, and so on.
I think it's very hard to tell sometimes plagiarism from influence - some songs are so strikingly similar in some respects that one tends to think that the composer did only a "copy and paste" process, but that's not so simple.
Freddie's piano harmonic progressions and runs are reminiscent of dozens of classical pieces - you may find yourself listening to the introduction to "Death on Two Legs" or to the live intros to Somebody To Love in the works tour in the middle of a Liszt or Chopin composition - but then such artists as Liszt and Chopin or, as far as singing is concerned, Aretha, availed themselves of the tradition to create new ways of approaching an instrument or even vocals which turned out to be the very framework within which other artists would do their stuff. With time, their influence is so pervasive that one is just infected by it and tends to build things based on such influences unconsciously. Freddie's vocals in "Somebody to Love", especially in the 80's, seemed like a conscious effort to sound like Aretha - however, the song itself, even though it does have traditional gospel elements, is a new, fresh piece of music with a lot of innovation and creativity.
The guitar introduction of Oasis' "Cigarretes & Alcohol" can be heard on Power Station's "Get it On", on about two or three Kiss' songs, and I started to try to trace it and it goes back to some basic blues progressions which happened to be developed to sound as a catchy and groovy rock n roll motive. These developments were so obvious, musically speaking, that different people made it on their own, only to find that someone else had already drawned that conclusion before.
I think plagiarism, that is, the conscient reproduction of other people's work without acknolwdgement and any further significant input or innovation is very hard to prove. These things are not so clear-cut.
Freddie and Brian were heavily influenced by many artists. Such influences do show up in a more striking way in some songs, but in the end of the day their own input is creative enough to produce new, fresh and interesting tunes.
I can't help but remembering Robert Plant and Led when I listen to the original version of Sheer Heart Attack. There may be an influence there, but the Queen tune has a mark of its own and I like it more than any Led song.
So, even though by listening to Queen I do listen partially, consciously or not, to other artists, I can't think of any song that the guys plagiarized.
I know the answer turned out to be too long, but well, it's NO. I can't think of plagiarism in any Queen song - influence, even heavy influence, yes, but not really plagiarism.
Cheers and take care!"
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
I can't believe I wasted my time reading that...
Sheer Hear Attack sounds like "Led", as you call them? Name the song.
Saif
I think he meant the SONG "Sheer Heart Attack" even though I disagree even then.
Anyway, since we're on the topic, James LaBrie and John Petrucci of Dream Theater have covered "Sheer Heart Attack" on a Queen tribute album but I can't remember which. Metal covers of Queen songs rule.
Anyway, since we're on the topic, James LaBrie and John Petrucci of Dream Theater have covered "Sheer Heart Attack" on a Queen tribute album but I can't remember which. Metal covers of Queen songs rule.
Raf
I can't see the similarities between the song Sheer Heart Attack and Led Zeppelin's standard style. But on the Sheer Heart Attack ALBUM you can hear lots of similarities - especially Brighton Rock![/QUOTE]
thequeen
Led Zeppelin sucks .....most overated band ever !!!
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE]
[b]thequeen wrote: [/b]
Led Zeppelin sucks .....most overated band ever !!! [/QUOTE]
What was the point of that? The fact that others are discussing this band doesn't mean you have to give a childishly expressed opinion that isn't going to add to the discussion. Instead of spouting your constant negativity, say something positive now and again. You might feel a bit better too.
[b]thequeen wrote: [/b]
Led Zeppelin sucks .....most overated band ever !!! [/QUOTE]
What was the point of that? The fact that others are discussing this band doesn't mean you have to give a childishly expressed opinion that isn't going to add to the discussion. Instead of spouting your constant negativity, say something positive now and again. You might feel a bit better too.
Yara
Well, just to re-state what I actually wrote. :-)))) There's been some misreading, which is ok, we're on a forum, so I'd like to point out where the misunderstanding is.
It's ok not to like Led Zeppelin. It's okay to think that Queen is great and Led Zeppelin sucks.
All this is really ok. No problem.
Saying that there's no Led Zeppelin - I'll come back to it, because I'm always careful about my wording, even though writting in a rush, it's the only way I can write - influence on Queen's Sheer Heart Attack album is just false. It's not a question of taste: it's false.
I write in a rush, I don't do research before I write, it just comes up: that's the fun of being here. Now, what strikes me as particularly funny, is that I find myself "agreeing with" Freddie and Brian after someone points me out some interview done by them.
I wrote that post last year without having a clue about these Freddie Mercury's interviews, one in 1975 and the other in 1977. Just copy & pasting from some links a dear user provided me, now:
Freddie interviewed in April, 1975: "[b]Led Zeppelin is the greatest[/b]. [b][i]Robert Plant is one of the most original vocalists of our time.[/i][/b] As a rock band they deserve the kind of success they're getting."
Now, Freddie in a interview in 1977: "Back in the old days, we were often compared to Led Zeppelin. If we did something with harmony, it was the Beach Boys. Something heavy was Led Zeppelin. [b][i]Robert Plant was always my favourite singer-and he's said nice things about me, you know[/i][/b]. He actually said he liked "Killer Queen". We were always a sitting target in the press because we became popular so quickly. But, you know, we spent two years putting our act together. It destroys the soul to hear that you're all hype, that you have no talent, and that your whole career has been contrived. I was never too keen on the British music press. They've called us a supermarket hype, and they used to suggest that we didn't write our own songs. When the whole point of Queen was to be original.
I'm the first to accept fair criticism. But the dishonest reviews-where people haven't done their homework-I just tear them up. I do get annoyed when up-and-coming journalists put themselves above the artist. I don't care what journalists say, we achieved our own identity after QUEEN II. [i]As for the Beach Boys or Led Zeppelin comparisons[/i]: [b][i]it's the combination of all those influences which means Queen.[/i][/b] [i]We were disliked by the press in the early days because they couldn't put their finger on us, and that was the case with Zeppelin as well."
[/i]
I'd like to point out that he didn't mention any Led member by name other than Plant in this interview. Maybe for the obvious reason that he was a singer and, as such, was both impressed and influenced by Plant, whose singing had quite an impact on the rock scene.
And he openly recognized that Queen [b]meant the combination of these influences - Led, Beach Boys, and so on - [/b]and that was exactly what made Queen [b][i]original. [/i][/b]Being able to filter the influence they got and create something ORIGINAL out of it, giving their own creative input, was the key.
And that was exactly what I wrote. : -))
Now, let's just put some pieces together regarding the minor question, that is, the particular song "Sheer Heart Attack":
1) The song sheer heart attack wasn't meant to be sung by Freddie, but rather by Roger Taylor.
2) Freddie was then given the task - he had to record a song he wasn't meant to sing, theoretically. So he had to come up with good ideas fitting the song - and he did come with many good ideas, some of them reminiscent of Plant because it was a reference for him, a way of putting off a bluesy, glam rock singing, which was exactly the style he was developing and ended up being such an important aspect of his singing. Plant provided a framework within which he could shape his own, unique singing. He made it possible for Freddie to think about ways of singing he probably wouldn't have managed to reach and develop by himself.
The way he phrases the whole thing is very similar to Plant's style, especially when he has do go through bluesy reiterations and the resolution of the verses - even the lenght and the colour of the notes (!!) are strikingly similar to many Plant's performances. It's very similar to Plant because Plant was, at that time, a huge influence: he could have borrowed the same technique from any other cat and used it and it'd sound differently from what's in the recording. It sounds the way it does, except for the chorus, I think, which is a different beast, because of Plant's influence on him - the similiarity for me is too striking.
But then, again, as always: I=me=Yara=personal opinion. What's [b]not[/b] my personal opinion is that Robert Plant and Led were huge influences on Queen back in 1975, still in 1977...because that's what Freddie himself said. So [i]we may disagree as to where this influence lies, but denying there's one, and a very important one, would be false and foolish, I think. [/i]
It's not that he plagiarized or copied anyone. It's simply that Robert Plant, one may like it or not, was part of his musical background and formation: he made a kind of bluesy, hard rock, but glam and sometimes more delicate style possible, and that did influence Freddie a lot. Denying that is just like denying Aretha's influence on him later on, I think - it's pointless.
He did that without being counscious about it - Led, and specially Plant, was a kind of textbook for him, one of the basis on which he founded his singing style. And he kept listening to Led for a long, long time...
And then Brian May, more recently, in an interview with Tony Iommi, bearing Freddie's statements out:
"BM: Okay my third choice [b]is Led Zeppelin and it would be impossible for my life to exist without Led Zeppelin, I think. [/b]
TI: You and probably many others.
BM: Yeah. It was - yeah I went to see them many times and I think with a tinge of[b] jealousy[/b], because we were trying to get our group together at the time now I remember. Actually I also remember hearing a Black Sabbath track and somebody saying "Oh these guys are really it you know" and I was going 'Oh, no no no no no. I'm sure they're not" and a feeling of deep jealousy that you'd got your stuff together, but . . .
TI: Who told you that?
(Both laugh)
BM: No - it was amazing, you know. [b]But I gotta say, Zeppelin were a model to us, not just musically but also business-wise. "
[/b]And that's what he got to say about Jimmy Page, when they were talking about and listening to Kashmir:
[b]BM: Jimmy Page, of course. One of the great brains of rock of all time.[/b]
So Brian May is in awe of Led and, especially Jimmy Page, as Freddie was of Robert Plant - that doesn't mean they were just pale copies of their influences, but that they took advantage of their influences to make strong, original, great-sounding material.
As to the minor question - the sheer heart attack song - I think Freddie sounds, in the album, as I said, pretty much like Plant - give it a listen again, it's nothing otherwordly. The chorus, yes, is when Queen comes to the front and Plant and Led's bluesy hard rock go to the background, I think.
Best regards you all, have a great, great sunday, now it's time for me to do some swimming. I hate gyms, running, and all that, but swimming and playing tenis rock. Haha.
It's ok not to like Led Zeppelin. It's okay to think that Queen is great and Led Zeppelin sucks.
All this is really ok. No problem.
Saying that there's no Led Zeppelin - I'll come back to it, because I'm always careful about my wording, even though writting in a rush, it's the only way I can write - influence on Queen's Sheer Heart Attack album is just false. It's not a question of taste: it's false.
I write in a rush, I don't do research before I write, it just comes up: that's the fun of being here. Now, what strikes me as particularly funny, is that I find myself "agreeing with" Freddie and Brian after someone points me out some interview done by them.
I wrote that post last year without having a clue about these Freddie Mercury's interviews, one in 1975 and the other in 1977. Just copy & pasting from some links a dear user provided me, now:
Freddie interviewed in April, 1975: "[b]Led Zeppelin is the greatest[/b]. [b][i]Robert Plant is one of the most original vocalists of our time.[/i][/b] As a rock band they deserve the kind of success they're getting."
Now, Freddie in a interview in 1977: "Back in the old days, we were often compared to Led Zeppelin. If we did something with harmony, it was the Beach Boys. Something heavy was Led Zeppelin. [b][i]Robert Plant was always my favourite singer-and he's said nice things about me, you know[/i][/b]. He actually said he liked "Killer Queen". We were always a sitting target in the press because we became popular so quickly. But, you know, we spent two years putting our act together. It destroys the soul to hear that you're all hype, that you have no talent, and that your whole career has been contrived. I was never too keen on the British music press. They've called us a supermarket hype, and they used to suggest that we didn't write our own songs. When the whole point of Queen was to be original.
I'm the first to accept fair criticism. But the dishonest reviews-where people haven't done their homework-I just tear them up. I do get annoyed when up-and-coming journalists put themselves above the artist. I don't care what journalists say, we achieved our own identity after QUEEN II. [i]As for the Beach Boys or Led Zeppelin comparisons[/i]: [b][i]it's the combination of all those influences which means Queen.[/i][/b] [i]We were disliked by the press in the early days because they couldn't put their finger on us, and that was the case with Zeppelin as well."
[/i]
I'd like to point out that he didn't mention any Led member by name other than Plant in this interview. Maybe for the obvious reason that he was a singer and, as such, was both impressed and influenced by Plant, whose singing had quite an impact on the rock scene.
And he openly recognized that Queen [b]meant the combination of these influences - Led, Beach Boys, and so on - [/b]and that was exactly what made Queen [b][i]original. [/i][/b]Being able to filter the influence they got and create something ORIGINAL out of it, giving their own creative input, was the key.
And that was exactly what I wrote. : -))
Now, let's just put some pieces together regarding the minor question, that is, the particular song "Sheer Heart Attack":
1) The song sheer heart attack wasn't meant to be sung by Freddie, but rather by Roger Taylor.
2) Freddie was then given the task - he had to record a song he wasn't meant to sing, theoretically. So he had to come up with good ideas fitting the song - and he did come with many good ideas, some of them reminiscent of Plant because it was a reference for him, a way of putting off a bluesy, glam rock singing, which was exactly the style he was developing and ended up being such an important aspect of his singing. Plant provided a framework within which he could shape his own, unique singing. He made it possible for Freddie to think about ways of singing he probably wouldn't have managed to reach and develop by himself.
The way he phrases the whole thing is very similar to Plant's style, especially when he has do go through bluesy reiterations and the resolution of the verses - even the lenght and the colour of the notes (!!) are strikingly similar to many Plant's performances. It's very similar to Plant because Plant was, at that time, a huge influence: he could have borrowed the same technique from any other cat and used it and it'd sound differently from what's in the recording. It sounds the way it does, except for the chorus, I think, which is a different beast, because of Plant's influence on him - the similiarity for me is too striking.
But then, again, as always: I=me=Yara=personal opinion. What's [b]not[/b] my personal opinion is that Robert Plant and Led were huge influences on Queen back in 1975, still in 1977...because that's what Freddie himself said. So [i]we may disagree as to where this influence lies, but denying there's one, and a very important one, would be false and foolish, I think. [/i]
It's not that he plagiarized or copied anyone. It's simply that Robert Plant, one may like it or not, was part of his musical background and formation: he made a kind of bluesy, hard rock, but glam and sometimes more delicate style possible, and that did influence Freddie a lot. Denying that is just like denying Aretha's influence on him later on, I think - it's pointless.
He did that without being counscious about it - Led, and specially Plant, was a kind of textbook for him, one of the basis on which he founded his singing style. And he kept listening to Led for a long, long time...
And then Brian May, more recently, in an interview with Tony Iommi, bearing Freddie's statements out:
"BM: Okay my third choice [b]is Led Zeppelin and it would be impossible for my life to exist without Led Zeppelin, I think. [/b]
TI: You and probably many others.
BM: Yeah. It was - yeah I went to see them many times and I think with a tinge of[b] jealousy[/b], because we were trying to get our group together at the time now I remember. Actually I also remember hearing a Black Sabbath track and somebody saying "Oh these guys are really it you know" and I was going 'Oh, no no no no no. I'm sure they're not" and a feeling of deep jealousy that you'd got your stuff together, but . . .
TI: Who told you that?
(Both laugh)
BM: No - it was amazing, you know. [b]But I gotta say, Zeppelin were a model to us, not just musically but also business-wise. "
[/b]And that's what he got to say about Jimmy Page, when they were talking about and listening to Kashmir:
[b]BM: Jimmy Page, of course. One of the great brains of rock of all time.[/b]
So Brian May is in awe of Led and, especially Jimmy Page, as Freddie was of Robert Plant - that doesn't mean they were just pale copies of their influences, but that they took advantage of their influences to make strong, original, great-sounding material.
As to the minor question - the sheer heart attack song - I think Freddie sounds, in the album, as I said, pretty much like Plant - give it a listen again, it's nothing otherwordly. The chorus, yes, is when Queen comes to the front and Plant and Led's bluesy hard rock go to the background, I think.
Best regards you all, have a great, great sunday, now it's time for me to do some swimming. I hate gyms, running, and all that, but swimming and playing tenis rock. Haha.
thequeen
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]thequeen wrote: [/b]
Led Zeppelin sucks .....most overated band ever !!!
[/QUOTE]
What was the point of that? The fact that others are discussing this band doesn't mean you have to give a childishly expressed opinion that isn't going to add to the discussion. Instead of spouting your constant negativity, say something positive now and again. You might feel a bit better too.
[/QUOTE]
Oh sorry , It wasn't meant to be childish at all. I just don't lik LZ at all!
other than that ...what's there to be positive about ? it's not here ...it's not around the corner of the street either
so ....tell me : what positive things - if I may call them that - should we discuss ?
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]thequeen wrote: [/b]
Led Zeppelin sucks .....most overated band ever !!!
[/QUOTE]
What was the point of that? The fact that others are discussing this band doesn't mean you have to give a childishly expressed opinion that isn't going to add to the discussion. Instead of spouting your constant negativity, say something positive now and again. You might feel a bit better too.
[/QUOTE]
Oh sorry , It wasn't meant to be childish at all. I just don't lik LZ at all!
other than that ...what's there to be positive about ? it's not here ...it's not around the corner of the street either
so ....tell me : what positive things - if I may call them that - should we discuss ?
john bodega
You could exercise the better part of valour and just not post in the thread.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE]
[b]thequeen wrote:[/b]
Oh sorry , It wasn't meant to be childish at all. I just don't lik LZ at all!
[/QUOTE]
Ahhh... that's quite different from "they're the most overrated band ever."
>other than that ...what's there to be positive about ?
Look around without judgement, and you'll see plenty. Start by posting in places where you state things you like about music instead of dislikes. Negative statements about art don't get anyone anywhere, whereas positive statements will create positive conversation.
[b]thequeen wrote:[/b]
Oh sorry , It wasn't meant to be childish at all. I just don't lik LZ at all!
[/QUOTE]
Ahhh... that's quite different from "they're the most overrated band ever."
>other than that ...what's there to be positive about ?
Look around without judgement, and you'll see plenty. Start by posting in places where you state things you like about music instead of dislikes. Negative statements about art don't get anyone anywhere, whereas positive statements will create positive conversation.
*goodco*
just adding an additional comment and critique or two..........
for the life of me, why do people post comments that have nothing to do with a thread? And then add nothing to it?
One could say that Led Zep suxx on this particular note, and then place a comment regarding Dream Theater. Or the end of 'Procession' that relates to 'Surrounded'. But.........we end up with SHA and Zep and another poster (poser) simply saying a band stinks.
Why?
It's all across the board. I simply do not understand.
Relate your comments to the thread, or just ignore it.
Moving on........many a track that the band, originally named 'Majesty', place on an album are NOT to my liking. The 'cookie monster' vocals on various tracks of 'Train' and 'Chaos' are annoying. Certain songs are over-indulgent, but that is my point of view. I record parts of them, or skip all together.
'Images', 'Scenes', 'Six Degrees', and 'Ocatavium' are CDs that are strong as hell from start to finish. Wish Brian and Roger would do something as complex and musically rewarding.
To GH: thank you for the compliment of a previous post. And, thank you, for being a guide for Queen bootleg concerts that I have purchased in recent years.
To Saif: once again, kudos for spotting the riff 'borrowing'. Well done. Following comments were understood.
I am looking forward to seeing DT once or twice this summer. Since they never play the same tunes from night to night (unlike Queen), I hope I like the set lists and their new album. Loved what they did in Baltimore in 2007, absolutely adored what they played in DC in 2008. The violin version only of various 'Scenes' tracks while waiting for the band to appear on stage, followed by the 'Psycho' chase scene music, leading into their videos and then the fabulous 'Ant Odyssey', was the best beginning of any concert since seeing Queen in '78 (the '80 and '82 shows used too much current music and was too loud IMHO).
I probably won't enjoy the warm up bands except for 'Zappa Plays Zappa', but it will be a fun night or two. We will do one night within 20 rows of the stage on the floor, the other night in the far upper bowl, directly facing the stage.
A repeated question: what part of BoRhap, and where, does it appear in 'Octavarium'? Thanks in advance.
in closing........to zebonka..............for referencing my signature without knowing it. Falstaff should be quoted more often on this board.
for the life of me, why do people post comments that have nothing to do with a thread? And then add nothing to it?
One could say that Led Zep suxx on this particular note, and then place a comment regarding Dream Theater. Or the end of 'Procession' that relates to 'Surrounded'. But.........we end up with SHA and Zep and another poster (poser) simply saying a band stinks.
Why?
It's all across the board. I simply do not understand.
Relate your comments to the thread, or just ignore it.
Moving on........many a track that the band, originally named 'Majesty', place on an album are NOT to my liking. The 'cookie monster' vocals on various tracks of 'Train' and 'Chaos' are annoying. Certain songs are over-indulgent, but that is my point of view. I record parts of them, or skip all together.
'Images', 'Scenes', 'Six Degrees', and 'Ocatavium' are CDs that are strong as hell from start to finish. Wish Brian and Roger would do something as complex and musically rewarding.
To GH: thank you for the compliment of a previous post. And, thank you, for being a guide for Queen bootleg concerts that I have purchased in recent years.
To Saif: once again, kudos for spotting the riff 'borrowing'. Well done. Following comments were understood.
I am looking forward to seeing DT once or twice this summer. Since they never play the same tunes from night to night (unlike Queen), I hope I like the set lists and their new album. Loved what they did in Baltimore in 2007, absolutely adored what they played in DC in 2008. The violin version only of various 'Scenes' tracks while waiting for the band to appear on stage, followed by the 'Psycho' chase scene music, leading into their videos and then the fabulous 'Ant Odyssey', was the best beginning of any concert since seeing Queen in '78 (the '80 and '82 shows used too much current music and was too loud IMHO).
I probably won't enjoy the warm up bands except for 'Zappa Plays Zappa', but it will be a fun night or two. We will do one night within 20 rows of the stage on the floor, the other night in the far upper bowl, directly facing the stage.
A repeated question: what part of BoRhap, and where, does it appear in 'Octavarium'? Thanks in advance.
in closing........to zebonka..............for referencing my signature without knowing it. Falstaff should be quoted more often on this board.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE]
[b]*goodco* wrote: [/b]
A repeated question: what part of BoRhap, and where, does it appear in 'Octavarium'? Thanks in advance.
[/QUOTE]
It's a reference to the piano theme, between the first two verses, at 6:30. It's subtle, but it's there.
[b]*goodco* wrote: [/b]
A repeated question: what part of BoRhap, and where, does it appear in 'Octavarium'? Thanks in advance.
[/QUOTE]
It's a reference to the piano theme, between the first two verses, at 6:30. It's subtle, but it's there.