Will we ever see another band such as Queen in our lifetime? I think I have

now this is a subject which is quite dear to my heart! im often saying i dont think any band will be as big as Queen were/are

its difficult to describe why, i mean i admit i am obviously biased, but i agree with whoever said it, the bands of today just dont have the staying power! its sad really but i dont think that any band will because, the way the music industry is these days
especially with the X factor, they've had ten series and only 1 of them as far as i know made it really big on both sides of the atlantic, and even now we've not heard anything from Leona Lewis in a long time! So for me its a difficult subject but one that proves extremely interesting

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]

it was just my twopenneth - but i felt that Cobain dying so tragically cast Nirvana as the gold standard for Grunge when nothing could be further from the truth. Pearl Jam, Soundgarden Stone Temple Pilots and Alice were better bands (imo) with Pearl Jam being the best of the genre.[/QUOTE]

I was the right age (being a teen) when Nevermind came out. Nothing any of those other bands released hit people my age as hard as Nirvana did.

[QUOTE] [b]oliverd05 wrote:[/b]
especially with the X factor, they've had ten series and only 1 of them as far as i know made it really big on both sides of the atlantic, and even now we've not heard anything from Leona Lewis in a long time! [/QUOTE]

Maybe that is so, but then again, theres American Idol.....a few big stars came out of that, aside from the obvious.........

The way the music business is today, I think we'll never see another band such as Queen in our lifetime.

I agree that we do have some very good bands - like most others, I'd mention The Killers, Coldplay, Radiohead, Kings of Leon, Muse and even Placebo (Twenty Years and The Bitter End are great songs, and they have numerous other very good ones).

I am a bit late to the party, but last night i saw this and i almost wet myself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnc6nh3B3qM

The Real Wizard: Too be honest i do not care for all the 90s groups that happened after Queen, because they brought nothing special to the table.
Queen are superior to any group that i have heard and i have heard a lot of groups.
In the 70s, other groups worth mentioning are E.L.O
Supertramp, The Sweet, real groups who had song after song that was memorable.
Music in the 90s was dull, the songs were not as clever as the 70s songs were! There was also good music in the 80s
and there was nothing wrong with disco in the 70s, some of the tunes were fab, John Deacon loved Chic!

[QUOTE] [b]gerry wrote:[/b]The Real Wizard: Too be honest i do not care for all the 90s groups that happened after Queen, because they brought nothing special to the table.
Music in the 90s was dull, the songs were not as clever as the 70s songs were!
[/QUOTE]
Gerry - i've resisted the urge to tear your comment to pieces on several grounds.
But you can save an awful lot of arguments round here if you phrase your sentences with:-
"in my opinion" or "i think" or "i feel that"
or even just add an (IMO). It makes a huge difference to the context of what you are trying to say.

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

The Real Wizard: Too be honest i do not care for all the 90s groups that happened after Queen, because they brought nothing special to the table.
[/QUOTE]

Maybe thats your opinion, but I disagree, when there was stuff like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Dinosaur Jr, Screaming Trees (way way underrated band!), G'n'R, and bands from the 80s that kept going like Metallica......

[QUOTE] [b]oliverd05 wrote:[/b]now this is a subject which is quite dear to my heart! im often saying i dont think any band will be as big as Queen were/are

its difficult to describe why, i mean i admit i am obviously biased, but i agree with whoever said it, the bands of today just dont have the staying power![/QUOTE]
well if you take Freddie's demise as Queen's tenure
that'd be 1974 (first hit) to 1991 = 17 years

so let's not be so unfair on other bands/artists:
The Stones and the Who predated queen by almost a decade and are still going strong today. And the band everyone loves to hate - U2 - have been having hits for 10 years longer than queen!
But of the new bands - so readily dismissed as "here today, gone tomorrow", perhaps we should give credit where it's due:
band - first hit - years to date
RHCP - 1989 - 25
Killers - 2003 - 11
kings of leon - 2003 - 11
foos - 1995 - 19
manics - 1992 - 22
muse - 2000 - 14
and that's just a few

Brenski: Thats unfair to say U2 have been having hits 10 years longer than Queen, if Freddie was still here Queen would tear strips of U2.
Silly comment to say.

[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b]

I was the right age (being a teen) when Nevermind came out. Nothing any of those other bands released hit people my age as hard as Nirvana did. [/QUOTE]

Then again, to quote Bart Simpson, making teenagers depressed is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Nirvana remind me of the Sex Pistols. They come along seemingly "out of nowhere", shake things up, and are remembered as both rebels and the catalyst for change. However, their actual music isn't that special or memorable. Kurt Cobain wasn't even the best musician or lyricist in the band, and I say that as someone who has a lot of time for him, for the band, and for that era of music.

Back on topic, I agree Muse are something special. I only really got into them this year and I'm still discovering new things. I also think Alter Bridge are something special, although they will never be as big as Queen, Zep etc., because the type of music they play isn't that fashionable.

ps I also thought for a while that Snow Patrol were in with a chance of becoming really massive, but they blew it by failing to grow beyond Coldplay-type dirges.

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

Brenski: Thats unfair to say U2 have been having hits 10 years longer than Queen, if Freddie was still here Queen would tear strips of U2.
Silly comment to say.[/QUOTE]

it's not silly. it's fact. freddie isn't here. FACT. so what i have said is 100% accurate.
you accuse me of picking an argument with you always...yet YOU come back at me because i state a clear fact....and your counter-argument is based on conjecture. amazing.

just for once. stop and read what you typed - and how utterly ridiculous it is. You can't arrive at a factual conclusion in any argument using "ifs" and "maybes".

It is not fair to make a stupid statement like that!
That is so disrespectful to Freddie and the band.
What next are you gonna say, ollie murs has had more number ones than john lennon?

this is why it's impossible to discuss anything with you.
the point made was about longevity - and on that basis U2 have outlasted queen (your version of queen 1973-1991) by 10 years.
U2 are still having hits. fact.
for once take a step back and deal with things objectively. take your blinkers off and see the actual facts. it's not about "respect to Freddie and the band" it's about facts.

strange thing is - i've not argued a word with you for a week now (i've sat back and watched while you've still fallen out with other people) - yet, even now when you're corrected on a factual basis you seem intent on arguing that YOUR OPINION is correct and FACT is wrong. can you not see how strange that is?.