i think that they just want attention and they are nothng like Queen it is a really good thought doing somebody to love again but get someone to sing it that has talent because they are taking all the the style and music type off Queen and that is not fair!! the darkness Sux
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I don't understand why it's such a big deal if they do a remake of a Jefferson Airplane hit.
joe and wife and dog+
joe and wife and dog+
"they are taking all the the style and music type off Queen and that is not fair!!"
Actually, I think you just described Mr Valensia. lol
Actually, I think you just described Mr Valensia. lol
what's wrong with you people? When did the darkness say they wanted to be queeen. they have admitted they took influences from queen. we know they arent as good. but they are still really good. Ignore the high pitched voices and listen to the songs. There good (well, some are). Brian may loves them too. Although the 'i believe in a thing called love' guitar riff is rather similar to one vision it has to be said...
"the 'i believe in a thing called love' guitar riff is rather similar to one vision it has to be said..."
Eh?? Where?
Eh?? Where?
has i believe in a thing called love stuck in my head;-)
Listen, this "The Darkness copying Queen" debate is getting old. Really, it is. This is the last time I'm going to speak about this subject. LOL
Personally, and I'll say it again, I don't find The Darkness "copying" any sort of element from Queen, musically or aesthetically speaking. Some of you might say the catsuits? So? Steven Tyler from Aersomith wore catsuits during the 70's, as well as other glam rockers from the 70's. The catsuit wasn't a trademark made solely by Freddie at all. It was the fashion of the Glam Rock era NOT Hair Metal, as some of the nay sayers had penned them to be.
Another comparison that people make is the attitude. Justin Hawkins, and his brother Dan had been labeled as arrogant. Yes, they are arrogant. That is the ONLY thing that I find in common with Queen. Queen were arrogant. Freddie was super arrogant before he was signed! What's wrong with a little or a lot of arrogance?! If it drives a band to make great albums, so be it. Permission to Land is a great album. One of the greatest rock albums that I've ever heard since '96.
As for the sound, as some of the posters had already pointed out, The Darkness had said that they were influenced by Queen. Also by 70's bands like Thin Lizzy, AC/DC (w/ Bon Scott), early Aerosmith, and others. If some of you just listen to the album, and not only to that one single now haunting the US airwaves you will see what I'm saying. The sound is a mix of 70's with a bit of now flavour, and not the theatrics that Queen were known for back in the 70's. Queen were and still are known for theatrics with a mix of rock, and other genres of music. The Darkness are just pure tongue in cheek rock and roll.
See, the music business and the media LOVE to compare and contrast the super groups of yesterday (which IMO this generation DOES NOT have) with the new acts of today. The media and the music business know that the era of the super groups and originality is non existent. That is why they need to compare the new groups to acts like The Beatles, Led Zepellin, The Who, Queen, and others. Why? To boost album sales, and popularity. Therefore make lots of money for the "almost defunct music industry". I'm not trying to say that today's musician cannot conceive new and original music. On the contrary, there is new and original stuff out there, but does the music industry really care to search it out? I don't think so. The music industry is pretty clever to market acts that it can be compared to excellent and original bands or singers from many moons ago. However, it leaves the struggling musician that in this moment is conjuring a new sound in which someday could revolutionise popular music.
Are The Darkness original? No. I don't think so. They are just bringing back good old rock and roll. It's more of the retro revival that we have been seeing in the past two years. Personally, I'm tired of depressing, teen angsty pop rock from bands like Linkin Park, and Simple Plan. Grunge music, which had true angst, is over. Grunge was certainly refreshing for its day, but the prolonging of pop punk is certainly destroying what was a great phenomenon back in the late 80's, and early 90's.
Now, The Darkness to cover STL? Sure. Why not! I believe they can pull it off. Certainly it would be refreshing to listen to a non poptart, and non musical rendition of a Queen classic.
Rant over.
Permission to land? Granted.
Personally, and I'll say it again, I don't find The Darkness "copying" any sort of element from Queen, musically or aesthetically speaking. Some of you might say the catsuits? So? Steven Tyler from Aersomith wore catsuits during the 70's, as well as other glam rockers from the 70's. The catsuit wasn't a trademark made solely by Freddie at all. It was the fashion of the Glam Rock era NOT Hair Metal, as some of the nay sayers had penned them to be.
Another comparison that people make is the attitude. Justin Hawkins, and his brother Dan had been labeled as arrogant. Yes, they are arrogant. That is the ONLY thing that I find in common with Queen. Queen were arrogant. Freddie was super arrogant before he was signed! What's wrong with a little or a lot of arrogance?! If it drives a band to make great albums, so be it. Permission to Land is a great album. One of the greatest rock albums that I've ever heard since '96.
As for the sound, as some of the posters had already pointed out, The Darkness had said that they were influenced by Queen. Also by 70's bands like Thin Lizzy, AC/DC (w/ Bon Scott), early Aerosmith, and others. If some of you just listen to the album, and not only to that one single now haunting the US airwaves you will see what I'm saying. The sound is a mix of 70's with a bit of now flavour, and not the theatrics that Queen were known for back in the 70's. Queen were and still are known for theatrics with a mix of rock, and other genres of music. The Darkness are just pure tongue in cheek rock and roll.
See, the music business and the media LOVE to compare and contrast the super groups of yesterday (which IMO this generation DOES NOT have) with the new acts of today. The media and the music business know that the era of the super groups and originality is non existent. That is why they need to compare the new groups to acts like The Beatles, Led Zepellin, The Who, Queen, and others. Why? To boost album sales, and popularity. Therefore make lots of money for the "almost defunct music industry". I'm not trying to say that today's musician cannot conceive new and original music. On the contrary, there is new and original stuff out there, but does the music industry really care to search it out? I don't think so. The music industry is pretty clever to market acts that it can be compared to excellent and original bands or singers from many moons ago. However, it leaves the struggling musician that in this moment is conjuring a new sound in which someday could revolutionise popular music.
Are The Darkness original? No. I don't think so. They are just bringing back good old rock and roll. It's more of the retro revival that we have been seeing in the past two years. Personally, I'm tired of depressing, teen angsty pop rock from bands like Linkin Park, and Simple Plan. Grunge music, which had true angst, is over. Grunge was certainly refreshing for its day, but the prolonging of pop punk is certainly destroying what was a great phenomenon back in the late 80's, and early 90's.
Now, The Darkness to cover STL? Sure. Why not! I believe they can pull it off. Certainly it would be refreshing to listen to a non poptart, and non musical rendition of a Queen classic.
Rant over.
Permission to land? Granted.
<
Well I for one would be interested to hear them do it, I love the song and don't think that they will do a bad job.
For me they fall into the 'entertainer' section, I love the way they don't take anything seriously and just go out to have fun, that's what Rock music is all about as far as i'm concerned, I reckon Fred would have loved them.
And to be honest I don't understand the fuss about doing covers, if you like the original then a cover is never going to change it, so why worry, maybe it will show you a new direction for the song, maybe not, to be frank if Val Doonican decided to cover FBG's I wouldn't care, so what it might be funny, wouldn't spoil the original.
For me they fall into the 'entertainer' section, I love the way they don't take anything seriously and just go out to have fun, that's what Rock music is all about as far as i'm concerned, I reckon Fred would have loved them.
And to be honest I don't understand the fuss about doing covers, if you like the original then a cover is never going to change it, so why worry, maybe it will show you a new direction for the song, maybe not, to be frank if Val Doonican decided to cover FBG's I wouldn't care, so what it might be funny, wouldn't spoil the original.
"If you cant do it just the same or better, then dont bother!"
A typical stepford comment. If a cover sounds just like the original, it's a complete waste of time. Take Smash Mouth's cover of "I'm A Believer". Completely note for note, and three minutes of my life I'd like to have back.
The best covers are the ones that don't sound anything like the originals, and therefore cannot be compared. Two of the greatest covers ever are Joe Cocker's "With A Little Help From My Friends" and Peter Frampton's "Jumping Jack Flash". Neither can be fully compared to the original versions, because they just sound so different, and fresh! But again, the people who are saying not to cover Queen because nobody can sound like them are probably too ignorant to have heard either version of these two songs.
As for the Darkness covering STL, I say go for it. But if it happens, I hope they put out one hell of an original version. But no matter how original it is, the stepfords here are still going to cut it to shreds.
"See, the music business and the media LOVE to compare and contrast the super groups of yesterday (which IMO this generation DOES NOT have) with the new acts of today."
Just take out that "IMO". You're completely correct, and you know it. Excellent post, Shoujo.
A typical stepford comment. If a cover sounds just like the original, it's a complete waste of time. Take Smash Mouth's cover of "I'm A Believer". Completely note for note, and three minutes of my life I'd like to have back.
The best covers are the ones that don't sound anything like the originals, and therefore cannot be compared. Two of the greatest covers ever are Joe Cocker's "With A Little Help From My Friends" and Peter Frampton's "Jumping Jack Flash". Neither can be fully compared to the original versions, because they just sound so different, and fresh! But again, the people who are saying not to cover Queen because nobody can sound like them are probably too ignorant to have heard either version of these two songs.
As for the Darkness covering STL, I say go for it. But if it happens, I hope they put out one hell of an original version. But no matter how original it is, the stepfords here are still going to cut it to shreds.
"See, the music business and the media LOVE to compare and contrast the super groups of yesterday (which IMO this generation DOES NOT have) with the new acts of today."
Just take out that "IMO". You're completely correct, and you know it. Excellent post, Shoujo.
''"the 'i believe in a thing called love' guitar riff is rather similar to one vision it has to be said..."
Eh?? Where?''
the rif that starts off i believe in a thing called love, sounds similar to the one that starts one vision off (the first guitar part).
Eh?? Where?''
the rif that starts off i believe in a thing called love, sounds similar to the one that starts one vision off (the first guitar part).
lol. uh hu. And Wyclef's AOBTD sounds good. Time to trade in those ears! :P
I don't like it that bands are covering songs, but since I like The Darkness very much, I would give it a go and listen to it.
(I have never heard Stone Cold Crazy covered by Metallica and I just don't want to hear it, because it can't be better than the original!)
I just want other bands to write their own songs and stop covering!
(I have never heard Stone Cold Crazy covered by Metallica and I just don't want to hear it, because it can't be better than the original!)
I just want other bands to write their own songs and stop covering!
The Darkness are just a rock band having a great time. They are not super-original, they are not geniuses at all, but they play good rock, enjoy it immensely and seriously, what if Queen is their main influence? Every band has one. Justin's voice is awesome, he has a cheeky personality like most frontmen. And well, with that body, the 70-Queen-clothes are just perfect :P
I did not feel like they copied Queen when I first heard them. I was just happy because it sounded a bit like them, and it's nice to hear something like Queen on my mainstream-let-forget-the-past-radio lol. It's funny to see a bit of that outrageous glam back!
I did not feel like they copied Queen when I first heard them. I was just happy because it sounded a bit like them, and it's nice to hear something like Queen on my mainstream-let-forget-the-past-radio lol. It's funny to see a bit of that outrageous glam back!
Sorry - I just don't get the Darkness. I find the guitar work bearable but that voice (IMO) grates after a few verses. I think they sound more like The Sweet trying to sound like Queen if your too young to know what I mean dig out the "Give Us A Wink" album by Sweet.
Metalicas Stone Cold Crazy (again IMO) is awesome if you didn't know it as a Queen song you would think it was a Metalica song ie. They played it as if it was there own.
Music is great we all have diverse opinions thats what makes it interesting.
Metalicas Stone Cold Crazy (again IMO) is awesome if you didn't know it as a Queen song you would think it was a Metalica song ie. They played it as if it was there own.
Music is great we all have diverse opinions thats what makes it interesting.