brENsKi wrote: Dane wrote: That is the main reason most teenagers do not know the Who, Zeppelin or Pink Floyd. Yet they do seem to know, or have heard of Queen..
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
i disagree with this comment.
if you ask any youngster to name these bands most famous albums, they'll probably manage it easier than naming ANATO
and these bands ARE still very much in the conciousness of the younger generation....my son likes rap/hiphop and similar stuff...but also still loves "old school" rock and so do his friends...you don't have to be a greabo to like rock....
the who, zep and floyd do a better marketing job than queen. when they release something...it's done properly...watch what happens with the floyd re-issues......Brian and Roger will be "wishing they'd done this" with Opera Races etc
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I did say most of the teenagers, surely not all of them. Your son and friends are some of the lucky few :) Queen has crossed over into the hiphop scene due to heavy sampling. (no relation wth your hiphop story) (again) Most of the youth know the basslines to AOBTD and Under Pressure.. and are very familiair with WWRY and WATC which is heard at the end of every major sporting event.
Marketing wise I would not nescesarilly say Queen does a worst job. They release unsatisfying re-releases, this however does not mean it is bad for marketing, just bad for the die hard fans.
Oh well..
mike hunt · Member since
brENsKi wrote: Dane wrote: That is the main reason most teenagers do not know the Who, Zeppelin or Pink Floyd. Yet they do seem to know, or have heard of Queen..
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
i disagree with this comment.
if you ask any youngster to name these bands most famous albums, they'll probably manage it easier than naming ANATO
and these bands ARE still very much in the conciousness of the younger generation....my son likes rap/hiphop and similar stuff...but also still loves "old school" rock and so do his friends...you don't have to be a greabo to like rock....
the who, zep and floyd do a better marketing job than queen. when they release something...it's done properly...watch what happens with the floyd re-issues......Brian and Roger will be "wishing they'd done this" with Opera Races etc
I have to agree with you on this one!....I think teenager's know Zeppelin and floyd more than Queen..At least the young Rock kids do.......Not sure about The Who, they don't seem to get mentioned as much these days. If Queen would finally release a Mint Boxset, with rarities , everything they did over the last 15 years would be forgiven....I don't see it happening....
people on streets · Member since
jabulani wrote: Response to People on Streets: Stay true to the subject of music.
__________________________________
Hello Marc! Nice first post! You ain't gonna make it big time as long as you keep singing religious songs!
Besides, It's true. Roger Taylor hates very religious people. He has stated that in interviews many many times.
ctown2ba · Member since
Don't get me wrong, Marc Martel is great and I believe he would be a good enough fit, compared to how those other vocalists are sounding. And then the back up musicianists aren't sounding bad though atleast!! Wish Marc could play Keys though then he would be a shoe in in my opinion. Drums on the other hand was a tough one, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNVDdBNe1xk&list=FLsqtlQnild3kjOBGNbN_dVQ&index=1 I liked what this kid did. Plus he's young, and sounds better than all of the guys twice his age.
joesilvey · Member since
ctown2ba wrote: Don't get me wrong, Marc Martel is great and I believe he would be a good enough fit, compared to how those other vocalists are sounding. Wish Marc could play Keys though then he would be a shoe in in my opinion.
................................................................................................................................ Marc IS an accomplished piano/keyboard player... I don't feel he'd have ANY trouble playing all of Freddie's piano parts. And he also plays a bit of rhythm guitar, so he could do CLTCL and more...
honestly - i've heard him sing on downhere's albums for years (and live once) and his STL audition was one of the more "meh" performances. He's capable of so much more, and he's studied Pavarotti to learn opera as well.
My concern is finding guys to cover the other parts that won't pale in comparison to Marc...
mike hunt wrote: "You don't see Zeppelin and The Who or floyd doing stuff like this......but i don't pay much attention to this nonsense...havn't even listened to these audtions...i hate american idol and these type of things...i just wanted to express my dislike for what Roger and Brian have become.....nothing could take away what queen were from 1971 to 1991....Innuendo was the perfect ending....these are The Days Of our lives!.....Made In Heaven was a nice tribute album...After that?...."
How was MIH a tribute album? I get that some don't consider it to be a proper studio album (although I absolutely do and I would argue it was the last true Queen album, not Innuendo), but how can you describe it as a tribute album when it featured all four members?
Anyway, this kind of thing really annoys me. While it is true that this kind of thing may help keep Queen in the public eye (although it's clearly not necessary, as you don't see The Beatles or the Stones doing this kind of thing), the question is at what cost? For me, the cost is far too high. I think it cheapens Queen's legacy, and I think it contributes to people not taking them so seriously. Queen, at its best, was arguably as good as any other musical artist, however they aren't seen in the same light as The Beatles/The Stones/Led Zep etc... and I think it's partly because of things like this. Sad.
Sheer Brass Neck · Member since
Amazon asked, "...how was MIH a tribute album?"
It was a manipulative, cynical way to increase sales with snippets of Freddie's vocals. Song meanings (It's a Beautiful Day, Made In Heaven, Let me Live), were manipulated or included to give the impression Freddie wrote the songs with death as the theme, (even though IABD, MIH and LML were all wriiten well before the MIH album was released, and the tone of the song od MIH was manipulated from optimistic of Freddie's solo album, to brooding and plodding on the Queen album. Beyond disgraceful, but profitable as a "tribute" to Fred's life, and death.
"I think it cheapens Queen's legacy, and I think it contributes to people not taking them so seriously. Queen, at its best, was arguably as good as any other musical artist, however they aren't seen in the same light as The Beatles/The Stones/Led Zep etc... and I think it's partly because of things like this. Sad."
Truer words were never spoken. Queen, post Freddie's passing, chased album sales and dollars at the expense of critacal praise or legacy building. Anyone who denies that is a sycophant or enabler. They are/were as good or better than the Beatles or Zep, but leagues below in acclaim, and it's of their own doing.
mike hunt · Member since
Queen is my favorite group by far , but they wern't better than the beatles. the beatles were above the rest as writer's...IMO, out of the big 5, The beatles, Stones, Zep, The Who, Hendrix Experience....The stones are the worst ones....I consider Queen better than them...and on par, or close to Zep, The who, Hendrix. I think a lot of rock fans (even in america) would put Queen in the top 10...
Amazon · Member since
mike hunt wrote: " Queen is my favorite group by far , but they wern't better than the beatles. the beatles were above the rest as writer's...IMO, out of the big 5, The beatles, Stones, Zep, The Who, Hendrix Experience....The stones are the worst ones....I consider Queen better than them...and on par, or close to Zep, The who, Hendrix. I think a lot of rock fans (even in america) would put Queen in the top 10..."
The Beatles were superior, I agree, however I would ague that Queen's best was as good as the best from The Beatles or anyone else. The problem that Queen had was they were very inconsistent. Not once did they arguably release an album on which every track was a masterpiece. Even SHA and ANATO had tracks which I would describe as filler. The Beatles, whilst certainly not perfect, had far less filler and less crap songs, and less songs which one would never consider putting on for someone who is just discovering the group. You mentioned The Beatles and how they were above the rest as writers, well for me, that is the problem with Queen. Freddie? I would put him as a writer up against any other song-writer of all time. I think he was equally as talented as Lennon/McCartney, Dylan, Wilson, Townsend etc... Brian is great, however he is of a level below. John was very good, and pound for pound was an all-time great, however he wasn't all that prolific. Roger was pretty good, and got better as he got older, however my problem is that during the 70's, he was responsible for some terrible songs (although sadly even Freddie wasn't immune), and as such I think that Queen's democracy and the rule that the song-writer has the final say was sometimes detrimental. Sometimes, a group needs a dominant figure (or two), and with Queen, I think their quality control could certainly have been helped if Freddie (and perhaps Brian) took more control.
If we are are just talking rock groups, then IMO the big 5 groups are (in no specific order) The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, The Rolling Stones, and Queen (if we go beyond rock groups, I would also include The Beach Boys). I would also put Queen above the Stones. While the peaks of the other artists did not surpass Queen, they were more consistent (although Hendrix was far less prolific.)
BTW I've never thought as much of The Who as many others, and while they were great, I don't think they were on the same level as these six other artists.
mike hunt · Member since
Amazon wrote: mike hunt wrote: " Queen is my favorite group by far , but they wern't better than the beatles. the beatles were above the rest as writer's...IMO, out of the big 5, The beatles, Stones, Zep, The Who, Hendrix Experience....The stones are the worst ones....I consider Queen better than them...and on par, or close to Zep, The who, Hendrix. I think a lot of rock fans (even in america) would put Queen in the top 10..."
The Beatles were superior, I agree, however I would ague that Queen's best was as good as the best from The Beatles or anyone else. The problem that Queen had was they were very inconsistent. Not once did they arguably release an album on which every track was a masterpiece. Even SHA and ANATO had tracks which I would describe as filler. The Beatles, whilst certainly not perfect, had far less filler and less crap songs, and less songs which one would never consider putting on for someone who is just discovering the group. You mentioned The Beatles and how they were above the rest as writers, well for me, that is the problem with Queen. Freddie? I would put him as a writer up against any other song-writer of all time. I think he was equally as talented as Lennon/McCartney, Dylan, Wilson, Townsend etc... Brian is great, however he is of a level below. John was very good, and pound for pound was an all-time great, however he wasn't all that prolific. Roger was pretty good, and got better as he got older, however my problem is that during the 70's, he was responsible for some terrible songs (although sadly even Freddie wasn't immune), and as such I think that Queen's democracy and the rule that the song-writer has the final say was sometimes detrimental. Sometimes, a group needs a dominant figure (or two), and with Queen, I think their quality control could certainly have been helped if Freddie (and perhaps Brian) took more control.
If we are are just talking rock groups, then IMO the big 5 groups are (in no specific order) The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, The Rolling Stones, and Queen (if we go beyond rock groups, I would also include The Beach Boys). I would also put Queen above the Stones. While the peaks of the other artists did not surpass Queen, they were more consistent (although Hendrix was far less prolific.)
BTW I've never thought as much of The Who as many others, and while they were great, I don't think they were on the same level as these six other artists.
you really hit the nail on the head...can't disagree on anything....that's a rare thing for me.....Freddie and brian should have told Roger some of those songs in their heyday, like loser in the end, more of that jazz, coming soon, wasn't good enough....they would have been much more consistent. but it's all opinions right?...maybe Freddie and Brian loved those songs.....
john bodega · Member since
"Not once did they arguably release an album on which every track was a masterpiece. Even SHA and ANATO had tracks which I would describe as filler."
I think arguably is the key word. I really do think that (purely if we're talking about technical production, or craftsmanship, or whatever) that every track on ANATO is pretty fantastic. There's bits I don't like (Sweet Lady) and bits that I've heard other people turn off while slapping at the skip button frantically (I have a sister who just doesn't get Good Company or '39) but those really come down to personal taste. If you want to talk about it merely being a masterpiece production-wise, then I really reckon ANATO is, and is their best album for that reason.
I feel the same way about Sgt. Pepper, and I think that's why people rant about it so often. It's definitely not the Beatles best batch of songs, but the quality of the production is stellar. I think the actual biggest leap in quality was Revolver, though. I still get a real "where the fuck did this come from" feeling from that album, and I wasn't even around back then.
As far as songs though, yeah - I agree about Queen being inconsistent. I hear some of their stuff and just want to ask them "what the hell was this about?".
mike hunt · Member since
It's all opinions....i think they were consistent for the first 6 records....only about three songs I dont like over six albums isn't bad...
queenUSA · Member since
Check out the recent Christian Bottega (Toronto) audition (Somebody to Love). A bit raw - but there is also raw talent there + enthusiasm. He's the only one I've seen so far who's had a pic of Freddie in the background. Also there is a surprise prop at the end of his audition. I like his audition.
Your Fairy King · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]queenUSA wrote: [/b] Check out the recent Christian Bottega (Toronto) audition (Somebody to Love). A bit raw - but there is also raw talent there + enthusiasm. He's the only one I've seen so far who's had a pic of Freddie in the background. Also there is a surprise prop at the end of his audition. I like his audition.[/QUOTE]
============
I am totally hooked on the auditions - sometimes I laugh, sometimes I smile, sometimes I go "oh, wow!", and sometimes I have to watch the audition a few more times. This was one of those times.
