[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Knute wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It's getting to the point where I detest the stepford fans as much as the BPP types.
[/QUOTE]
Yep
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I disagree with all of you who think there can't be absolutes in music and music can only be judged subjectively.
I was talking about judging a band only on technical merits.
Remember Live AID? Who was the best that day? Queen of course. Oh wait, I thought you said there can't be any absolutes? Was Queen just lucky that day? Was it just a fluke?
If Live AID were repeated annually, guess who'd win each time? Queen. Every single damn time.
Case in point: American Idol. The Judges rate an artist purely on technical merits. Each singer is judged on how well she/he can sing, and entertain people. That is not subjective, but technical.
In the exact same way, we can judge any band. Queen were technically the most talented, and best band of their day. I'm not talking about subjective feelings.
Freddie as a studio and live singer was unparalled even today. The Live AID moment was legendary. Compare that performance with the recent Live AID 2? It looked like everyone was "TRYING" so bad to be the next Queen, including the DAY-Os but they SUCKED.
Admit it. Queen in their prime late 70s/early 80s were superior to ANY band of all time!
I was talking about judging a band only on technical merits.
Remember Live AID? Who was the best that day? Queen of course. Oh wait, I thought you said there can't be any absolutes? Was Queen just lucky that day? Was it just a fluke?
If Live AID were repeated annually, guess who'd win each time? Queen. Every single damn time.
Case in point: American Idol. The Judges rate an artist purely on technical merits. Each singer is judged on how well she/he can sing, and entertain people. That is not subjective, but technical.
In the exact same way, we can judge any band. Queen were technically the most talented, and best band of their day. I'm not talking about subjective feelings.
Freddie as a studio and live singer was unparalled even today. The Live AID moment was legendary. Compare that performance with the recent Live AID 2? It looked like everyone was "TRYING" so bad to be the next Queen, including the DAY-Os but they SUCKED.
Admit it. Queen in their prime late 70s/early 80s were superior to ANY band of all time!
I disagree with all of you who think there can't be absolutes in music and music can only be judged subjectively.
I was talking about judging a band only on technical merits.
Remember Live AID? Who was the best that day? Queen of course. Oh wait, I thought you said there can't be any absolutes? Was Queen just lucky that day? Was it just a fluke?
If Live AID were repeated annually, guess who'd win each time? Queen. Every single damn time.
Case in point: American Idol. The Judges rate an artist purely on technical merits. Each singer is judged on how well she/he can sing, and entertain people. That is not subjective, but technical.
In the exact same way, we can judge any band. Queen were technically the most talented, and best band of their day. I'm not talking about subjective feelings.
Freddie as a studio and live singer was unparalled even today. The Live AID moment was legendary. Compare that performance with the recent Live AID 2? It looked like everyone was "TRYING" so bad to be the next Queen, including the DAY-Os but they SUCKED.
Admit it. Queen in their prime late 70s/early 80s were superior to ANY band of all time!
I was talking about judging a band only on technical merits.
Remember Live AID? Who was the best that day? Queen of course. Oh wait, I thought you said there can't be any absolutes? Was Queen just lucky that day? Was it just a fluke?
If Live AID were repeated annually, guess who'd win each time? Queen. Every single damn time.
Case in point: American Idol. The Judges rate an artist purely on technical merits. Each singer is judged on how well she/he can sing, and entertain people. That is not subjective, but technical.
In the exact same way, we can judge any band. Queen were technically the most talented, and best band of their day. I'm not talking about subjective feelings.
Freddie as a studio and live singer was unparalled even today. The Live AID moment was legendary. Compare that performance with the recent Live AID 2? It looked like everyone was "TRYING" so bad to be the next Queen, including the DAY-Os but they SUCKED.
Admit it. Queen in their prime late 70s/early 80s were superior to ANY band of all time!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I disagree with all of you who think there can't be absolutes in music and music can only be judged subjectively.
I was talking about judging a band only on technical merits.
Remember Live AID? Who was the best that day? Queen of course. Oh wait, I thought you said there can't be any absolutes? Was Queen just lucky that day? Was it just a fluke?
If Live AID were repeated annually, guess who'd win each time? Queen. Every single damn time.
Case in point: American Idol. The Judges rate an artist purely on technical merits. Each singer is judged on how well she/he can sing, and entertain people. That is not subjective, but technical.
In the exact same way, we can judge any band. Queen were technically the most talented, and best band of their day. I'm not talking about subjective feelings.
Freddie as a studio and live singer was unparalled even today. The Live AID moment was legendary. Compare that performance with the recent Live AID 2? It looked like everyone was "TRYING" so bad to be the next Queen, including the DAY-Os but they SUCKED.
Admit it. Queen in their prime late 70s/early 80s were superior to ANY band of all time!
[/QUOTE]
Still it's bullshit.
Music isn't about competing.
I was talking about judging a band only on technical merits.
Remember Live AID? Who was the best that day? Queen of course. Oh wait, I thought you said there can't be any absolutes? Was Queen just lucky that day? Was it just a fluke?
If Live AID were repeated annually, guess who'd win each time? Queen. Every single damn time.
Case in point: American Idol. The Judges rate an artist purely on technical merits. Each singer is judged on how well she/he can sing, and entertain people. That is not subjective, but technical.
In the exact same way, we can judge any band. Queen were technically the most talented, and best band of their day. I'm not talking about subjective feelings.
Freddie as a studio and live singer was unparalled even today. The Live AID moment was legendary. Compare that performance with the recent Live AID 2? It looked like everyone was "TRYING" so bad to be the next Queen, including the DAY-Os but they SUCKED.
Admit it. Queen in their prime late 70s/early 80s were superior to ANY band of all time!
[/QUOTE]
Still it's bullshit.
Music isn't about competing.
"I was talking about judging a band only on technical merits."
If Dream Theater started to play alongside Brian, Roger or John they wouldn't have a slightest idea iof what's going on.
RUSH drummer is few times better than Roger. Petrucci is TECHNICALLY far better guitarist than Brian.
If you wre talking only on technical merits than you were even more wrong...
"Freddie as a studio and live singer was unparalled even today. "
Complete bollocks. TECHNICALLY Freddie wasn;'t that great, especially live. Listenm to any live recording from Japan in 1979. Or few Magic tour nights. Or Works...He was FORCING his voice and by the end of the gig couldn't reach the high notes. I've heard many singers who were TECHNICALLY better. And it doesn't mean shit to be quite hoinest, as they didn't ahve that something. having said that- this "something" is completely impossible to measure...
"It looked like everyone was "TRYING" so bad to be the next Queen, including the DAY-Os but they SUCKED."
Were Pink Flouyd trying to do it? You're basing the whole Live 8 on one or two performances? Fucking hell, what a stepford...
Were Pink Floyd even trying to entertain by pointing out mike and yelling E-ooo? No, they just mesmerized everyone with their music...
"Admit it. Queen in their prime late 70s/early 80s were superior to ANY band of all time!"
I'm not going to admit iot as I think it's utter bollocks. Queen were MY FAVOURITE BAND of all time (and only in 70s, definitely not in 80s)- but I'm not blind and I acn see that there were many as great bands. They just simply aren't exactly my cup of tea.
This is probably one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever seen in my life- more naive and stupid than endless BPP drivel...
If Dream Theater started to play alongside Brian, Roger or John they wouldn't have a slightest idea iof what's going on.
RUSH drummer is few times better than Roger. Petrucci is TECHNICALLY far better guitarist than Brian.
If you wre talking only on technical merits than you were even more wrong...
"Freddie as a studio and live singer was unparalled even today. "
Complete bollocks. TECHNICALLY Freddie wasn;'t that great, especially live. Listenm to any live recording from Japan in 1979. Or few Magic tour nights. Or Works...He was FORCING his voice and by the end of the gig couldn't reach the high notes. I've heard many singers who were TECHNICALLY better. And it doesn't mean shit to be quite hoinest, as they didn't ahve that something. having said that- this "something" is completely impossible to measure...
"It looked like everyone was "TRYING" so bad to be the next Queen, including the DAY-Os but they SUCKED."
Were Pink Flouyd trying to do it? You're basing the whole Live 8 on one or two performances? Fucking hell, what a stepford...
Were Pink Floyd even trying to entertain by pointing out mike and yelling E-ooo? No, they just mesmerized everyone with their music...
"Admit it. Queen in their prime late 70s/early 80s were superior to ANY band of all time!"
I'm not going to admit iot as I think it's utter bollocks. Queen were MY FAVOURITE BAND of all time (and only in 70s, definitely not in 80s)- but I'm not blind and I acn see that there were many as great bands. They just simply aren't exactly my cup of tea.
This is probably one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever seen in my life- more naive and stupid than endless BPP drivel...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I disagree with all of you who think there can't be absolutes in music and music can only be judged subjectively.
I was talking about judging a band only on technical merits.
Remember Live AID? Who was the best that day? Queen of course. Oh wait, I thought you said there can't be any absolutes? Was Queen just lucky that day? Was it just a fluke?
If Live AID were repeated annually, guess who'd win each time? Queen. Every single damn time.
Case in point: American Idol. The Judges rate an artist purely on technical merits. Each singer is judged on how well she/he can sing, and entertain people. That is not subjective, but technical.
In the exact same way, we can judge any band. Queen were technically the most talented, and best band of their day. I'm not talking about subjective feelings.
Freddie as a studio and live singer was unparalled even today. The Live AID moment was legendary. Compare that performance with the recent Live AID 2? It looked like everyone was "TRYING" so bad to be the next Queen, including the DAY-Os but they SUCKED.
Admit it. Queen in their prime late 70s/early 80s were superior to ANY band of all time!
[/QUOTE]
Using Live Aid as an example of musical "superiority" as well as a justification of a musical absolute is ludicris.
Why?
Because Live Aid wasn't about who could one up the other; it was a benefit concert to help the famine in Africa.
Music isn't a competetion.
And using Live Aid as one is purely ignorant.
Cheers
I was talking about judging a band only on technical merits.
Remember Live AID? Who was the best that day? Queen of course. Oh wait, I thought you said there can't be any absolutes? Was Queen just lucky that day? Was it just a fluke?
If Live AID were repeated annually, guess who'd win each time? Queen. Every single damn time.
Case in point: American Idol. The Judges rate an artist purely on technical merits. Each singer is judged on how well she/he can sing, and entertain people. That is not subjective, but technical.
In the exact same way, we can judge any band. Queen were technically the most talented, and best band of their day. I'm not talking about subjective feelings.
Freddie as a studio and live singer was unparalled even today. The Live AID moment was legendary. Compare that performance with the recent Live AID 2? It looked like everyone was "TRYING" so bad to be the next Queen, including the DAY-Os but they SUCKED.
Admit it. Queen in their prime late 70s/early 80s were superior to ANY band of all time!
[/QUOTE]
Using Live Aid as an example of musical "superiority" as well as a justification of a musical absolute is ludicris.
Why?
Because Live Aid wasn't about who could one up the other; it was a benefit concert to help the famine in Africa.
Music isn't a competetion.
And using Live Aid as one is purely ignorant.
Cheers