Why didn't In the Lap of the Gods Revisited "Make It"?

why is it "unfair"? that's a ridiculous thing to say...what we know about and don't know about is our own personal choice....you're claiming that queen fans are somehow advantaged by knowing about this song?
doesn't work...think about all the great songs queen fans/zep fans/floyds fans etc might never know about...it all kinda equals out

If you don't know about it, how can you chose to know about or not... whatever, this world is full of unknown masterpieces, not fair I repeat.

i really don't want to argue, but i can't agree with you on this.....for these reasons:

1. an inquiring mind will go seek out knowledge of whatever kind
2. if on the day we first learned to read we spent our whole lives doing nothingn but reading, we'd not even get thru 10% of all the english-word books in a lifetime
3. it's all down to choice...let in what we choose to let in, keep out what we choose not to - ie i refuse completely to ever read Lord of the Rings, but if Douglas Adams had written a bus timetable i'd have read it...
4. not listening to or reading about something you never knew about is not the same as having the option taken away from you....knowing about something and being denied it is unfair

ok let me see
1. I agree with you, an inquiring mind will go seek out knowledge of whatever kind - but you can't forget that not everyone has an inquiring mind and yet is still a person able to react to any of the Arts
2.true, again your statement is correct - but still I would not call it choice, but chance
3.partially true - indeed it's a matter of choice, but first comes the chance (which makes the thing actually appear in front of your eyes and right under your nose, so that you make knowledge of its existence)
4.unfairness is a broad concept and I don't really think that should be a matter of discussion this particular forum (that's why I won't keep on talking about it)

it's not "that" wide a concept

here's the full definition:
un·fair/??n'fe(?)r/Adjective:
1.Not based on or behaving according to the principles of equality and justice.
2.Unkind, inconsiderate, or unreasonable: "you're unfair to criticize like that when she's never done you any harm".

you called it unfair, and now you decide to refuse to discuss it further...that my friend is UNFAIR....anyhow i'll take that as a concession on your part

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
2. if on the day we first learned to read we spent our whole lives doing nothingn but reading, we'd not even get thru 10% of all the english-word books in a lifetime
[/QUOTE]

Since the invention of the printing press, there have been approximately 130 million different prints that qualify as "books" (by the type of binding and the length. For instance, scrolls and unbound sheets aren't included because of the former reason, nor posters or pamphlets because of the latter).

Let's say you were to devote your entire life to reading. You would live to, say age 85, and you would start reading on your fifth birthday, leaving 80 years to read. This is a very liberal estimate indeed. 80 years = 29 200 days. Say that ten days each year 'go to waste' (i.e. are not spent reading) for various reasons. That leaves 29 200 - (80 * 10) = 28 400 days. Suppose you manage to read an average of two titles a day (there are very long and very short works, so it varies from day to day), that would mean you can read 56 800 books in your life. Let's say we decrease it just a little, and say you can read 50 000 books in a lifetime, max.

That would mean you can read less than 0.04% of all books ever printed. Even if we allow for twice the amount of books read (100 000 then, meaning around four a day) AND we estimate that only 5% of all books printed were written in English, we still arrive at only reading some 1,5% of all English-language books in a lifetime.

[QUOTE]and you would start reading on your fifth birthday[/QUOTE]

That's raising the bar a bit high for this group, don't you think?

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
2. if on the day we first learned to read we spent our whole lives doing nothingn but reading, we'd not even get thru 10% of all the english-word books in a lifetime
[/QUOTE]
Since the invention of the printing press, there have been approximately 130 million different prints that qualify as "books" (by the type of binding and the length. For instance, scrolls and unbound sheets aren't included because of the former reason, nor posters or pamphlets because of the latter).
Let's say you were to devote your entire life to reading. You would live to, say age 85, and you would start reading on your fifth birthday, leaving 80 years to read. This is a very liberal estimate indeed. 80 years = 29 200 days. Say that ten days each year 'go to waste' (i.e. are not spent reading) for various reasons. That leaves 29 200 - (80 * 10) = 28 400 days. Suppose you manage to read an average of two titles a day (there are very long and very short works, so it varies from day to day), that would mean you can read 56 800 books in your life. Let's say we decrease it just a little, and say you can read 50 000 books in a lifetime, max.
That would mean you can read less than 0.04% of all books ever printed. Even if we allow for twice the amount of books read (100 000 then, meaning around four a day) AND we estimate that only 5% of all books printed were written in English, we still arrive at only reading some 1,5% of all English-language books in a lifetime.[/QUOTE]

so what you're saying then is that i was right
"we'd not even get thru 10% of all the english-word books in a lifetime"
thanks for confirming it

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
2. if on the day we first learned to read we spent our whole lives doing nothingn but reading, we'd not even get thru 10% of all the english-word books in a lifetime
[/QUOTE]
Since the invention of the printing press, there have been approximately 130 million different prints that qualify as "books" (by the type of binding and the length. For instance, scrolls and unbound sheets aren't included because of the former reason, nor posters or pamphlets because of the latter).
Let's say you were to devote your entire life to reading. You would live to, say age 85, and you would start reading on your fifth birthday, leaving 80 years to read. This is a very liberal estimate indeed. 80 years = 29 200 days. Say that ten days each year 'go to waste' (i.e. are not spent reading) for various reasons. That leaves 29 200 - (80 * 10) = 28 400 days. Suppose you manage to read an average of two titles a day (there are very long and very short works, so it varies from day to day), that would mean you can read 56 800 books in your life. Let's say we decrease it just a little, and say you can read 50 000 books in a lifetime, max.
That would mean you can read less than 0.04% of all books ever printed. Even if we allow for twice the amount of books read (100 000 then, meaning around four a day) AND we estimate that only 5% of all books printed were written in English, we still arrive at only reading some 1,5% of all English-language books in a lifetime.[/QUOTE]

so what you're saying then is that i was right
"we'd not even get thru 10% of all the english-word books in a lifetime"
thanks for confirming it[/QUOTE]

What I'm saying is that you got me thinking and I decided to see what plausible and extreme estimates of the max. possible numbers of books you could possibly read would be. What I would *really* like to know is the average length (ideally in words, otherwise in pages) of these 130 million books - that would mean a *truly* realistic estimate would be possible.

It makes one feel very small, and makes civilization seem a lot larger than one usually notices.

and that's just counting those that count as books...once you think deeper and scratch at it you find more stuff...

volumes upon volumes of encyclopedias,atlases, text books, plays, car repair manuals (every car ever made has had countless revisions of it's manual everytiem the model is updated), computer language books, guide books - tourist and otherwise,

then when you think about all of the books ever written that are now long-lost in the annals of time and man's wasteful disposal, and out-of-print stuff
i reckon you could probably double that 130 million

I LOVE this song!

I was a casual fan of Queen (owned the Greatest Hits, AKOM and MIH CDs, and Freddie was the only band member I could name) until following the QE contest and show sucked me into finding out more about the band.

I actually heard ITLOTGR for the first time at the Toronto QE show and it was love at first listen. Since then, I play it several times a week, QE versions, Queen versions, they're all good. The Wembley version is my favorite; I just wish they did the whole song.

"That would mean you can read less than 0.04% of all books ever printed"

Save some time. Skip Twilight.