Queen to release "There is more to life than this" as new single.

Maybe it could be a double "A" sided release with "Let me in your heart again" ?
i have heard two radio stations definitely say Queen & jackson song is the new single.

[QUOTE] [b]gerry wrote:[/b]

Maybe it could be a double "A" sided release with "Let me in your heart again" ?
i have heard two radio stations definitely say Queen & jackson song is the new single.
[/QUOTE]

LMIYHA has got more "legs" as a single in its own right, maybe as follow-up single. no point banging BOTH new tracks on the same single - false economy these days

it's sound business sense - surely we can all see that?

Queen = established fanbase
Michael Jackson = established fanbase

this maximises potential single (and susequent) album sales as Michael Jackson fans get introduced to Queen

I get the point you're making Brenski, but is it pure business these days? I must admit I have not a clue what the diehard Jackson fans will make of this collaboration. Will they see it as a Jackson track? I understand it is business, but as a first single for a 'new' album I find it a rather strange choice.

Tom

[QUOTE] [b]gerry wrote:[/b]

I can confidently confirm that "There is more to life than this" is the new Queen single
I am disappointed because "Let me in your heart again" would have been the obvious choice, but because william orbitt
worked on the Freddie/jackson track the band were pushed to release it.
[/QUOTE]

You really are a fool.

A single is a marketing tool, with which to hopefully draw attention to an album. By releasing the Jackson track they will effectively be appealing to a wider audience and gaining more critical interest.

But you carry on looking at everything Queen related through your narrow field of view.

Would have been happy with this if the mix was any good, i think Freddie's solo version is a great little song, so i was shocked to see how badly Orbit fucked it up.

But the pure Jackson fans will buy the single, only the single though? Since it is a Queen album, why would 'they' release a single with Michael Jackson? Do 'they' really need Jackson as a verhicle for selling and promoting an album? An album which has only one Jackson track on it? The album title says it all, even the promo for the album is obvious........

[QUOTE] [b]TomP63 wrote:[/b]

But the pure Jackson fans will buy the single, only the single though? Since it is a Queen album, why would 'they' release a single with Michael Jackson? Do 'they' really need Jackson as a verhicle for selling and promoting an album? An album which has only one Jackson track on it? The album title says it all, even the promo for the album is obvious........[/QUOTE]

No they don't, but it gets their name out to potentially more people

Ironic the album is called "Queen Forever" but contains Michael Jackson!

[QUOTE]

[b]gerry wrote: [/b] Ironic the album is called "Queen Forever" but contains Michael Jackson![/QUOTE]

[b]forever[/b]
[i]adverb[/i]:
1.for all future time; for always.[i]"she would love him forever"[/i]
2.continually."they are forever on the move" 
[i]adjective
[/i]1. lasting or permanent.

[b] ironic[/b]
[i]adjective:[/i]
happening in a way contrary to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this.[i]"it was ironic that now everybody had plenty of money for food they couldn't obtain it because everything was rationed"[/i]

the presence of Michael Jackson does not affect any infinite quality that Queen may imply by using the aforesaid album title. Either you don't understand the meaning of [i][b]Ironic[/b][/i] or you don't understand the meaning of [b][i]forever[/i][/b] - or [b][i]both[/i][/b].[b][i] Forever[/i][/b] does not mean exclusive of [b][i]all[/i][/b] others. There is no [b]paradox [/b]arising from the inclusion of [b]Michael Jackson[/b] on an album called [b][i]Queen Forever[/i][/b].

Thanks for the school lesson Brenski but bog off this is all about Queen not you.

Gerry is a dick to whoever points out his mistakes, part 745.

kumoNin: please do not start all this bickering again, this thread is about the new Queen single
so please grow up and stop been childish.
Brenski knows he is been a twat so he wont get the better of me, and please move on.

If you read my post carefully when i said ironic that the album is called "Queen Forever"
but contains a song with Michael Jackson, i meant you would think with a title like Queen forever it
would only contain Queen only tracks and no guest appearances from anyone else.
why i have to explain myself on here to a bunch of infants is beyond me.
Are you all on heroin or something????

(^^ unaware of the behavioral effects of heroin use)



But it does almost warrant irony.

That the lead single of a QUEEN compilation is in fact a Freddie Mercury solo song featuring another artist recently reworked by said band that's been crappily remixed

Not ironic in expectations. Ironic in selection.

It's still Queen by new accounts.

[QUOTE] [b]gerry wrote:[/b]Brenski knows he is been a twat so he wont get the better of me, and please move on.[/QUOTE]
BEDEVERE: What makes you think she is a witch?
VILLAGER #3: Well, she turned me into a newt.
BEDEVERE: A newt?
VILLAGER #3: I got better.
VILLAGER #2: Burn her anyway!
CROWD: Burn! Burn her!
BEDEVERE: Quiet, quiet. Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
CROWD: Are there? What are they?
VILLAGER #2: Do they hurt?
BEDEVERE: Tell me, what do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2: Burn!
CROWD: Burn, burn them up!
BEDEVERE: And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1: More witches!
VILLAGER #2: Wood!
BEDEVERE: So, why do witches burn?
VILLAGER #3: B--... 'cause they're made of wood...?