There is a great book I've been reading about the history of the greatest metal artists...and Queen IS in the book...and the book LOVES Queen and takes a VERY direct scathing shot at the press for dissing Queen, but in a humorous sarcastic way.
The book says something to the effect,
"and yes Queen one of the biggest selling, most popular music acts ever was actually hated by the press...to which they probably consoled themselves by "drying" their "tears" with the telephone book size royalty checks they received based on their millions of album sales worldwide from their millions of fans".
I cracked up when I read that! Take that, nasty old press.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
U2? Since when have U2 been rock? And Nirvana? Both are utter tripe and rock about as hard as a pigeon. But the crime of it is - No Def Leppard, No Guns N Roses. Rubbish list! And Dr Dre??? Words just lose me.
Rolling Stone seems to be Bob Dylan's bitch.
Of course, they had to shut their mouths when Bob Dylan appeared on that dumb Victoria's Secret commericial. Would it have been someone else who they personally don't like very much, Rolling Stone would have bashed them in every single way possible.
Of course, they had to shut their mouths when Bob Dylan appeared on that dumb Victoria's Secret commericial. Would it have been someone else who they personally don't like very much, Rolling Stone would have bashed them in every single way possible.
Can anyone tell me what good did 'The Police' do for rock n' roll other than ripping-off Bob Marley?
No Queen, No Billy Joel, No Pink Floyd, No Metallica.
Rolling Stone doesn't know shit about music, and that's the bottom line.
Couldn't agree more...
Can anyone tell me what good did 'The Police' do for rock n' roll other than ripping-off Bob Marley?
Good songs perhaps?
And err... I can't really hear how The Police have supposedly ripped off Bob. There is more to reggae music than just BMW. ;)
The only good songs that The Police made where 'Every Breath You Take' and 'Wrapped Around Your Finger'.
Most of their songs have that same old boring reggae funky riff. Not a very creative band, and certainly overated.
Most of their songs have that same old boring reggae funky riff. Not a very creative band, and certainly overated.
"Most rock journalism is people who can't write, interviewing people who can't talk, for people who can't read." Frank Zappa
I understand why the RS people are out to lunch. They're glorified fans, either old guys like Dave Marsh, hanging onto the fact that Dylan and Springsteen changed there lives and think they're still relevant artists, or new guys intent on making the Strokes or White Stripes into legends. In my dictionary, immortal is defined as "never to be forgotten; everlasting." If that's the case, while accepting that the magazine hates Queen, I'd have one question for anyone who put the list together, if, based on these tidbits:
* in Europe and Britain, Bohemian Rhapsody was voted song of the century, is constantly listed as the number 1 song of all time in virtually every territory outside of the US, and ARGUABLY the greatest song of all time
* WATC and WWRY are ARGUABLY the two greatest sports anthems of all time, and are still played around the world 28 years after the fact
* at Live Aid, in the biggest concert event of their generation, Queen ARGUABLY (only in the States, the rest of the world knew otherwise) were miles better than anyone else
Adding the fact that they were video, studio and live pioneers, and that they've influenced acts as diverse as Metallica, George Michael, Coheed & Cambria, Foo Fighters and Green Day, and that their musical (site as it may be) is keeping their music alive to a new generation, my question would be:
"Given this information, based on the accepted definition of "immortal", do you really believe that Roxy Music is more deserving of a spot on the list than Queen?"
If they answered yes, I'd have a follow up question:
"As you call yourself a music journalist, do you actually know ANYTHING about music?"
I understand why the RS people are out to lunch. They're glorified fans, either old guys like Dave Marsh, hanging onto the fact that Dylan and Springsteen changed there lives and think they're still relevant artists, or new guys intent on making the Strokes or White Stripes into legends. In my dictionary, immortal is defined as "never to be forgotten; everlasting." If that's the case, while accepting that the magazine hates Queen, I'd have one question for anyone who put the list together, if, based on these tidbits:
* in Europe and Britain, Bohemian Rhapsody was voted song of the century, is constantly listed as the number 1 song of all time in virtually every territory outside of the US, and ARGUABLY the greatest song of all time
* WATC and WWRY are ARGUABLY the two greatest sports anthems of all time, and are still played around the world 28 years after the fact
* at Live Aid, in the biggest concert event of their generation, Queen ARGUABLY (only in the States, the rest of the world knew otherwise) were miles better than anyone else
Adding the fact that they were video, studio and live pioneers, and that they've influenced acts as diverse as Metallica, George Michael, Coheed & Cambria, Foo Fighters and Green Day, and that their musical (site as it may be) is keeping their music alive to a new generation, my question would be:
"Given this information, based on the accepted definition of "immortal", do you really believe that Roxy Music is more deserving of a spot on the list than Queen?"
If they answered yes, I'd have a follow up question:
"As you call yourself a music journalist, do you actually know ANYTHING about music?"
You know what else is extremely annoying about Rolling Stone, their extreme left-wing political rant?
I happen to be a liberal (moderate), and I even find their radical extreme liberal bithcing extremely annoying. After all, what else can you expect from a bunch of pot smokers.
Perhaps those Rolling Stone journalists (if you can call them that) should put the hash pipe to the side before writing their shit.
I happen to be a liberal (moderate), and I even find their radical extreme liberal bithcing extremely annoying. After all, what else can you expect from a bunch of pot smokers.
Perhaps those Rolling Stone journalists (if you can call them that) should put the hash pipe to the side before writing their shit.
Tell you what else is a load of s**t. The owner, Jann Wenner, founder/publisher of Rolling Stone is VERY powerful, and even started and founded the USA Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, US Magazine (which is nothing but a tabloid).
It doesn't matter how influential an artist you are to get in Rolling Stone Magazine or The Rock Hall, its' that you better be on Jann Wenner's good side or he owes you a favor, or whatever or some political left wing whatever reason. Plain and simple and alot of artists have complained about that for years.
It doesn't matter how influential an artist you are to get in Rolling Stone Magazine or The Rock Hall, its' that you better be on Jann Wenner's good side or he owes you a favor, or whatever or some political left wing whatever reason. Plain and simple and alot of artists have complained about that for years.
U2 has two fan magazines...
One is their official 'Propaganda' fanzine, and the other one is 'Rolling Stone'.
'Spin' on the other hand is the fanzine of 'The White Stripes' and 'The Strokes'. In fact, 'Spin' will include The Strokes soon on their new front cover with the headline:
- '100 reasons why The Strokes are better than The Beatles'.
One is their official 'Propaganda' fanzine, and the other one is 'Rolling Stone'.
'Spin' on the other hand is the fanzine of 'The White Stripes' and 'The Strokes'. In fact, 'Spin' will include The Strokes soon on their new front cover with the headline:
- '100 reasons why The Strokes are better than The Beatles'.
There is a great book I've been reading about the history of the greatest metal artists...and Queen IS in the book...and the book LOVES Queen and takes a VERY direct scathing shot at the press for dissing Queen, but in a humorous sarcastic way.
QUOTE]
Arlene, which book is this?
There is a great book I've been reading about the history of the greatest metal artists...and Queen IS in the book...and the book LOVES Queen and takes a VERY direct scathing shot at the press for dissing Queen, but in a humorous sarcastic way.
QUOTE]
Arlene, which book is this?
Everybody...I informed Richard who posted my info about this book TODAY on the Queenzone MAIN info. page (YOU guys gotta learn to READ! the news main page..I'm always submitting news there)!! and it's also on Queenonline.com.
Here's all the information about the book. be sure to read the part about where how when Queen got dissed by the press, they something to the effect "consoled themselves and dried their tears with their telephone book size royalty checks"! Love it!
http://queenzone.com/queenzone/news_view.aspx?news_id=2398
-------Read the pages on Queen, Fabulously written.........-------------
How could Bob Dylan be #2? He's a horrible musician, I mean there seriously is no variety in his songs they all suck
How could Bob Dylan be #2? He's a horrible musician, I mean there seriously is no variety in his songs they all suck
When it come to lyrics his songs are great and some regard him as the best lyricist ever, yet the music of his songs is absolutely awful and his voice is a complete disaster.