Question(s) re Queen and The Media

We know Queen are much loved and liked by the fans as shown by albums sales and their many sold out tours yet they dont appear to be that popular within the media side and yet this week The Rolling Stones are all over the papers and other media because of their 50 year anniversary and they have sold less albums worldwide than Queen so why are the media all over them, I know Queen had a bit of coverage on their 40 year anniversary but nothing like the Stones are getting now.

Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this

Maybe because the Stones are still around with all original members?

Does anybody remember a media explosion for the Rolling Stones 40th anniversary? I don't.

50 Year Anniversary > 40 Year Anniversary.

The Stones deserve it for sticking it out this long, although I don't really like much of their stuff.

In 10 years Queen will be everywhere.

The Stones are still together, as mentioned above.
It's a 50 year anniversary, as mentioned above.
The Stones are one of the very few (if any) 60's bands left.
The Stones are more popular in the US than Queen are.

[QUOTE] [b]AdamMethos wrote:[/b]
Maybe because the Stones are still around with all original members?[/QUOTE]
no they're not!!!
wyman left,
and Brian Jones is dead

but apart from that your statement is 60% correct :-)

Oooh burned! OK how about still around with a lineup that hasn't changed in a long, long time. ;-) I'm not a big follower of the Stones (obviously!) but I don't think they've changed their lineup since the last time I saw them in the mid-90s?

The most important contributors are still there and always have been.

I heard someone say in the news that Mick Jagger is the best singer and frontman in history of rock. I have to state the obvious: What a load of bullshit!

Ahah, yeah, no... Freddie wipes the floor with him on both counts there, as do numerous other frontmen I can think of.

Another Roger (re) wrote

I heard someone say in the news that Mick Jagger is the best singer and frontman in history of rock. I have to state the obvious: What a load of bullshit!
______________________________________

Agreed

[QUOTE] [b]plumrach wrote:[/b]
Another Roger (re) wrote
I heard someone say in the news that Mick Jagger is the best singer and frontman in history of rock. I have to state the obvious: What a load of bullshit!
______________________________________
Agreed[/QUOTE]

I agree too as I saw the Stones in late 80's, I was disappointed.

Rolling Stones represent an era and a mindset. Its supposed to be pure rock, hippies, 70's and all that sex/drugs/liberation stuff. Its what you go out and talk about (not neceseraly what you listen). Its the extrovert and easy to swallow side of rock/youth culture(grown old now). Its like a logo or an etiquette.
Queen are far more complicated to gain that media hype/coverage. Mercury's death brought an amount of salvation but underneath there will always be that "strange" shadow.

[QUOTE] [b]BelfastQueenFan wrote:[/b]
In 10 years Queen will be everywhere.[/QUOTE]

lol. However i really hope so...:-)

stones are brilliant. they have been going longer than Queen.