RS_Protos
"but don't wait around here for releases that will never happen, they as a band have moved on a long time ago " oh man, i really hope you are wrong.......
Thread
Posts in chronological order
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]RS_Protos wrote:[/b]
I think if they had better releases(from there vaults) over the last 25 years I would have had a different opinion. To me it seems they are holding off on that until they cash in as much as possible. [/QUOTE]
They've done pretty well with live releases - from 74, 75, 81, 82 and 86. It's about as much as most other artists from their era have done.
But of course studio stuff is another matter. It's pretty clear that they want the final product to be all we hear, not the process.
So with Queen retaining their popularity (they're bigger now in the US than they've ever been since their heyday), why not tour the greatest hits again and again?
Brian and Roger have said there will be a few more album tracks in the setlist this time, but the hits will still be there.
Just don't kid yourself and think this is a recent decision. Queen became a hits band in 1980, not in 2005.
The only major 70s artist who remained an album artist into the 80s was Peter Gabriel, and by 1982 he was broke. There's a reason why bands like Queen and Genesis had to reinvent themselves as hits bands. And it still works.
I think if they had better releases(from there vaults) over the last 25 years I would have had a different opinion. To me it seems they are holding off on that until they cash in as much as possible. [/QUOTE]
They've done pretty well with live releases - from 74, 75, 81, 82 and 86. It's about as much as most other artists from their era have done.
But of course studio stuff is another matter. It's pretty clear that they want the final product to be all we hear, not the process.
So with Queen retaining their popularity (they're bigger now in the US than they've ever been since their heyday), why not tour the greatest hits again and again?
Brian and Roger have said there will be a few more album tracks in the setlist this time, but the hits will still be there.
Just don't kid yourself and think this is a recent decision. Queen became a hits band in 1980, not in 2005.
The only major 70s artist who remained an album artist into the 80s was Peter Gabriel, and by 1982 he was broke. There's a reason why bands like Queen and Genesis had to reinvent themselves as hits bands. And it still works.
musicland munich
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
But of course studio stuff is another matter. It's pretty clear that they want the final product to be all we hear, not the process.
[QUOTE]
Yes, but it hurts me somehow. I rate some of their demos and alternative versions higher or more interesting than some finalized album tracks.
My subjective opinion of course.
But of course studio stuff is another matter. It's pretty clear that they want the final product to be all we hear, not the process.
[QUOTE]
Yes, but it hurts me somehow. I rate some of their demos and alternative versions higher or more interesting than some finalized album tracks.
My subjective opinion of course.
Togg
[QUOTE] [b]RS_Protos wrote:[/b]
"but don't wait around here for releases that will never happen, they as a band have moved on a long time ago " oh man, i really hope you are wrong.......[/QUOTE]
So do I, but history seems to have shown us that they will chuck out everything they can to keep the name and brand going, and nothing would do that more than unreleased Mercury tracks... so if there were some that were more than a snippet surely it would have been out by now?
My guess is there a hundred of snippets but not enough to make a full track, all the usable stuff maybe bar one got put on MIH. So that's that, as for the anthology, well I can see it happening, but now a warts and all version, Brian will never accept people hearing mistakes and out takes, they were all about a finished highly polished product, why change that brand mantra after 40 years?
Best we can hope for is the odd DVD from long ago, however I do see them doing an album with Adam.... now, that will not please everyone, but judging by the ticket sales it will sell.... I'd buy it, I love hearing new material, even if it's not up to the glory days, I still get a kick out of hearing the pairing of that guitar and those drums...
"but don't wait around here for releases that will never happen, they as a band have moved on a long time ago " oh man, i really hope you are wrong.......[/QUOTE]
So do I, but history seems to have shown us that they will chuck out everything they can to keep the name and brand going, and nothing would do that more than unreleased Mercury tracks... so if there were some that were more than a snippet surely it would have been out by now?
My guess is there a hundred of snippets but not enough to make a full track, all the usable stuff maybe bar one got put on MIH. So that's that, as for the anthology, well I can see it happening, but now a warts and all version, Brian will never accept people hearing mistakes and out takes, they were all about a finished highly polished product, why change that brand mantra after 40 years?
Best we can hope for is the odd DVD from long ago, however I do see them doing an album with Adam.... now, that will not please everyone, but judging by the ticket sales it will sell.... I'd buy it, I love hearing new material, even if it's not up to the glory days, I still get a kick out of hearing the pairing of that guitar and those drums...
RS_Protos
"The Real Wizard" and "Togg", you guys are killing me because you are probably right! What you are saying makes perfect sense!
I think I was hoping by now they would have released some more tracks/demos........
Most likely because i'm old and it's hard for me to accept what they are doing, thinking of the past too much.......
I think I was hoping by now they would have released some more tracks/demos........
Most likely because i'm old and it's hard for me to accept what they are doing, thinking of the past too much.......
Vocal harmony
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:
Just don't kid yourself and think this is a recent decision. Queen became a hits band in 1980, not in 2005.
The only major 70s artist who remained an album artist into the 80s was Peter Gabriel, and by 1982 he was broke. There's a reason why bands like Queen and Genesis had to reinvent themselves as hits bands. And it still works.
[/QUOTE]
This is so true, but isn't now the time that they could be adventurous. The shows no longer support a huge album buying market which the singles fuelled.
If 7000 people left an arena on the next tour saying " what the hell is Ogre Battle the other 7000 would think they had seen the best Queen gig since 1977. But would that really kill off the audience numbers the next time around.
Just don't kid yourself and think this is a recent decision. Queen became a hits band in 1980, not in 2005.
The only major 70s artist who remained an album artist into the 80s was Peter Gabriel, and by 1982 he was broke. There's a reason why bands like Queen and Genesis had to reinvent themselves as hits bands. And it still works.
[/QUOTE]
This is so true, but isn't now the time that they could be adventurous. The shows no longer support a huge album buying market which the singles fuelled.
If 7000 people left an arena on the next tour saying " what the hell is Ogre Battle the other 7000 would think they had seen the best Queen gig since 1977. But would that really kill off the audience numbers the next time around.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]RS_Protos wrote:[/b]
"The Real Wizard" and "Togg", you guys are killing me because you are probably right! What you are saying makes perfect sense!
I think I was hoping by now they would have released some more tracks/demos........
Most likely because i'm old and it's hard for me to accept what they are doing, thinking of the past too much.......[/QUOTE]
Literally every artist from 1977 isn't doing what they were doing in 1977 now.
Except maybe Kiss.
So if you expect them to, you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.
I get it - music is an emotional experience, and we want our favourite artists to be true to our memories of them from that special time when we were 20 and full of hopes and dreams, or that time we lost our virginity to a certain song.
But if we have that much stake in the outcome, it's probably not going to turn out that well. It's why a lot of old guys stopped seeing Rush about a decade ago, and for every one of them there were 3 kids to replace them.
"The Real Wizard" and "Togg", you guys are killing me because you are probably right! What you are saying makes perfect sense!
I think I was hoping by now they would have released some more tracks/demos........
Most likely because i'm old and it's hard for me to accept what they are doing, thinking of the past too much.......[/QUOTE]
Literally every artist from 1977 isn't doing what they were doing in 1977 now.
Except maybe Kiss.
So if you expect them to, you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.
I get it - music is an emotional experience, and we want our favourite artists to be true to our memories of them from that special time when we were 20 and full of hopes and dreams, or that time we lost our virginity to a certain song.
But if we have that much stake in the outcome, it's probably not going to turn out that well. It's why a lot of old guys stopped seeing Rush about a decade ago, and for every one of them there were 3 kids to replace them.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
This is so true, but isn't now the time that they could be adventurous. The shows no longer support a huge album buying market which the singles fuelled.
If 7000 people left an arena on the next tour saying " what the hell is Ogre Battle the other 7000 would think they had seen the best Queen gig since 1977. But would that really kill off the audience numbers the next time around.[/QUOTE]
Which is precisely why they won't be playing Ogre Battle. They want to play arenas and be as big as possible, with that feeling of it being a big event. They could choose the artistic route and do theatres without Adam Lambert, but that's just not what they want to do - they want as many people as possible to know Queen's hits 200 years from now. That's the path they've chosen. Can't blame them.
This is so true, but isn't now the time that they could be adventurous. The shows no longer support a huge album buying market which the singles fuelled.
If 7000 people left an arena on the next tour saying " what the hell is Ogre Battle the other 7000 would think they had seen the best Queen gig since 1977. But would that really kill off the audience numbers the next time around.[/QUOTE]
Which is precisely why they won't be playing Ogre Battle. They want to play arenas and be as big as possible, with that feeling of it being a big event. They could choose the artistic route and do theatres without Adam Lambert, but that's just not what they want to do - they want as many people as possible to know Queen's hits 200 years from now. That's the path they've chosen. Can't blame them.
Sebastian
[QUOTE] [b]Togg wrote:[/b]
they were all about a finished highly polished product, why change that brand mantra after 40 years?[/QUOTE]
It wouldn't be the first time they change it. It's highly unlikely they will regarding demos and outtakes, but it's not because it doesn't fit their old mantra.
they were all about a finished highly polished product, why change that brand mantra after 40 years?[/QUOTE]
It wouldn't be the first time they change it. It's highly unlikely they will regarding demos and outtakes, but it's not because it doesn't fit their old mantra.
dysan
Perhaps they should've gone down the road of a couple of big one off shows every summer with a selection of guest singers. Make it an annual Queen party. I think that would've kept everyone happy.Make it an event, which is the Queen motto.
I guess when these things (like PR and AL stuff) get rolling, it's difficult to stop them though. I say good luck to whatever they do. It's never been 100% my cup of tea, but I don't begrudge them taking Queen out for a spin every now and again.
I guess when these things (like PR and AL stuff) get rolling, it's difficult to stop them though. I say good luck to whatever they do. It's never been 100% my cup of tea, but I don't begrudge them taking Queen out for a spin every now and again.
Vocal harmony
A couple of big shows every summer wouldn't satisfy demand and at the same time would be a risk in some countries. The event it's self would have to be bigger than the band to succeed over time. Think Oz Fest!
What they are doing now is a version of what they've always done, a Queen tour. The advertising, interviews, hype call it what you wish that creates interest is part of the event. The tour is what they are selling, it's big loud and it's coming to an arena near you. It's a much easier sell than we've got 80,000 tickets to the event of the year, oh by the way it's in another country, on another continent , on the other side of the world.
What they are doing now is a version of what they've always done, a Queen tour. The advertising, interviews, hype call it what you wish that creates interest is part of the event. The tour is what they are selling, it's big loud and it's coming to an arena near you. It's a much easier sell than we've got 80,000 tickets to the event of the year, oh by the way it's in another country, on another continent , on the other side of the world.
YourValentine
[QUOTE] [b]Togg wrote:[/b]
Every worth while band has lost someone and carried on, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, The Who, ACDC, Genesis, Fleetwood Mac, etc etc... the list goes on, why is anyone even talking about this? Or more to the point why bother coming to a website deadicated to a band where you are never going to get material you like again?? If Queen died is 91, why is this site still here? Just listen to the old records in your bedroom and be done with it, nothing new here, move along.... Seems odd to me that way of thinking, you are not going to learn anything new here, it's the same of stuff over and over, yet the topics that get the most feeback are the one deadicated to new tours new albums, etc.....? but the same of people slag it off..... so surely after 25 years you've got used to the idea Fred is dead and they have carried on
I still go to see all of those bands above, and they all do great shows, (apart from Genesis who I last saw in 2007 then they knocked it on the head) Queen are not the same as they were, but frankly they haven;t been doing the same stuff since 1977/8 By 1979 they werent the same band that produced March of the Black Queen.
If Freddie was still alive do you for one tiny moment believe he would have knocked being famous and infront of crowds on the head... no, he'd be out there singing with whomever got him infront of a new crowd be it Rod Stewart or Jedward, he was addicted to fame he was addicted to performing
That's why Pete Townsend and Co are still out there doing waht they love, bring it on I say[/QUOTE]
Well, this is a Queen website, so we can discuss Queen topics, I do not see a problem here. I can criticise the current tour, I have seen concerts with AL from London to Moscow over several years which have all been the same apart from the stage design. I do not ask that Queen should stop, it's all their decision, image and carreer but I can have an opinion.
As to the question "what would Freddie have done" I am really surprised you know that answer. I obviously do not know the answer but all I ever heard about Freddie is that he was bored quite quickly and if something new would not come fast he would drop it and move on. I remember Freddie saying in public that running across a stage at old age would be "ridiculous". I do not remember him saying that he wished to repeat his old songs ad infinitum until he was old and grey. I do not remember him saying that it would be great to tour the same stuff with the same old guys forever and ever. Maybe he would have come to that - we often change our minds in life but for all we know about Freddie he was always open to new things, he was interested in opera, musicals art and quite obviously scared of being perceived as an "old bore".
Every worth while band has lost someone and carried on, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, The Who, ACDC, Genesis, Fleetwood Mac, etc etc... the list goes on, why is anyone even talking about this? Or more to the point why bother coming to a website deadicated to a band where you are never going to get material you like again?? If Queen died is 91, why is this site still here? Just listen to the old records in your bedroom and be done with it, nothing new here, move along.... Seems odd to me that way of thinking, you are not going to learn anything new here, it's the same of stuff over and over, yet the topics that get the most feeback are the one deadicated to new tours new albums, etc.....? but the same of people slag it off..... so surely after 25 years you've got used to the idea Fred is dead and they have carried on
I still go to see all of those bands above, and they all do great shows, (apart from Genesis who I last saw in 2007 then they knocked it on the head) Queen are not the same as they were, but frankly they haven;t been doing the same stuff since 1977/8 By 1979 they werent the same band that produced March of the Black Queen.
If Freddie was still alive do you for one tiny moment believe he would have knocked being famous and infront of crowds on the head... no, he'd be out there singing with whomever got him infront of a new crowd be it Rod Stewart or Jedward, he was addicted to fame he was addicted to performing
That's why Pete Townsend and Co are still out there doing waht they love, bring it on I say[/QUOTE]
Well, this is a Queen website, so we can discuss Queen topics, I do not see a problem here. I can criticise the current tour, I have seen concerts with AL from London to Moscow over several years which have all been the same apart from the stage design. I do not ask that Queen should stop, it's all their decision, image and carreer but I can have an opinion.
As to the question "what would Freddie have done" I am really surprised you know that answer. I obviously do not know the answer but all I ever heard about Freddie is that he was bored quite quickly and if something new would not come fast he would drop it and move on. I remember Freddie saying in public that running across a stage at old age would be "ridiculous". I do not remember him saying that he wished to repeat his old songs ad infinitum until he was old and grey. I do not remember him saying that it would be great to tour the same stuff with the same old guys forever and ever. Maybe he would have come to that - we often change our minds in life but for all we know about Freddie he was always open to new things, he was interested in opera, musicals art and quite obviously scared of being perceived as an "old bore".
Togg
Freddie, got bored because he was young and full lets face it Cocain most of the time... Back then Roger Brian and John were all different people, all caught up in the excitement of being famous and ruling the world, one thing history has taught us is that after you've tasted that, most people never want to give it up, that's why The Who, Deep Purple, Paul McCartney, and all those other bands are still out there getting a buzz out of playing in front of a crowd.
I've spent nearly 40 years playing in a band and there is simply nothing like playing infront of a crowd of people that are enjoying themselves, so every night in pubs around the land, bands made up of people in their 50's 60's and even 70's play every night. I am 100 percent certain that despite what he said Freddie was completely absorbed by fame and fortune, and loved being the centre of attention performing for a crowd.
If the only way he could do that was to trott out the 70's and 80's Golden era of Queen I have no doubt whatsoever he'd be doing it. His own solo material never took off, maybe a second album might of, but lets be honest none of the others have so that's why they gravitate to the mothership of Queen
Trust me he'd be out there doing it like all the rest of them
I've spent nearly 40 years playing in a band and there is simply nothing like playing infront of a crowd of people that are enjoying themselves, so every night in pubs around the land, bands made up of people in their 50's 60's and even 70's play every night. I am 100 percent certain that despite what he said Freddie was completely absorbed by fame and fortune, and loved being the centre of attention performing for a crowd.
If the only way he could do that was to trott out the 70's and 80's Golden era of Queen I have no doubt whatsoever he'd be doing it. His own solo material never took off, maybe a second album might of, but lets be honest none of the others have so that's why they gravitate to the mothership of Queen
Trust me he'd be out there doing it like all the rest of them
Sebastian
Since we're speculating what would've happened (and there's nothing wrong with that), I do agree Fred would still be touring, but I'm nearly convinced (though I shall never be able to prove it) that John would've retired long ago. They'd simply be with another bassist - maybe the loser from a reality programme, and they'd be saying he was John's favourite bass player.
Togg
I suspect you are closer to the truth than we dare to think Sir, yes... At the end of the day, who would have confidently said in the 1970's that Pete Townsend (I hope I die before I get old) would have been still touring as The Who as he approached 70... come on, like all these guys they love it and can't give it up....who would? Yes it might look stupid at times, but they can all still play and draw huge crowds
Fred would have been there front and centre like all the rest
Fred would have been there front and centre like all the rest