^----- If the song is good enough, that's actually not a bad idea at all.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
^---Hear hear! ;-)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Donna13 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I would personally rate Queen higher than the Beatles because I think Queen's music will hold up better over time - a long time. I've gotten many more hours of enjoyment listening to Queen's music (much more so than the Beatles or Elvis or Michael Jackson or others that were hugely popular in their day). The Beatles songs are not the sort that I can listen to repeatedly without growing tired of them eventually. Queen is different and I don't know why. There will be the support of those who love Queen's music above all other music (including support from future generations - I'm guessing).[/QUOTE]
Queen are my favourite band as well, but here's the reality check: There is no way that the general population will ever hold anything that Queen did above the Beatles. The Beatles have sold well over a billion units worldwide. Their music transcends virtually all cultural barriers. The Beatles changed the world. Queen did not.
Queen are my favourite band as well, but here's the reality check: There is no way that the general population will ever hold anything that Queen did above the Beatles. The Beatles have sold well over a billion units worldwide. Their music transcends virtually all cultural barriers. The Beatles changed the world. Queen did not.
The Beatles certainly started something off and are held in high regard for doing a lot of things that made the world notice them. Right time, right place and right stuff, too!
Queen, in comparison? Hard to say as I do like both bands. But mainly Queen! But no, you can't compare them both. Not really.
Peace,
Adam.
Queen, in comparison? Hard to say as I do like both bands. But mainly Queen! But no, you can't compare them both. Not really.
Peace,
Adam.
Adam youre right, you cant compare the two musically but i think culturally you can. The Beatles ARE considered to have changed popular music forever, and as a consequence are more than just a band, (heck, they were the most important foursome for a minute back then), same as Andy Warhol is considered more than an artist. Queen wrote fantastic tunes, thats a diference right there, sure its a little over simplistic but.........A demo box set will be of interest to diehard Queen fans but to anyone else im not so sure. I dont think a large no of people would be interested in Freddie singing for example, Modern Times Rock n Roll. And as an aside, as im rambling, I cant help thinking that Queen are now a singles band (maybe they have been for years now and i havent really noticed). Its all about the singles. They could release a combined greatest hits package of 1 & 2 tomorrow and itll probably go platinum. But as long as those singles sell, and every so often they talk about what the words mean in Bohemian Rhapsody theres a chance we'll get more live DVDs
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]g2000 wrote: [/QUOTENAME] A demo box set will be of interest to diehard Queen fans but to anyone else im not so sure. I dont think a large no of people would be interested in Freddie singing for example, Modern Times Rock n Roll. [/QUOTE]
That was my point. A 10 disc box set of almost anything from anybody is going to be of interest primarily to the diehard fans. The expense alone will prevent it from selling "through the roof" numbers. A series of 2 to 3 disc sets with "new" completed singles a la The Beatles Anthology might be more commercially viable, but that leads you into a conundrum over which you, as a fan, would prefer - an expensive 10+ set that gets everything out all at once like the Freddie set, but which probably isn't going to sell huge numbers, or a series of smaller less expensive sets, with the caveat that if the initial sets don't do well enough, the release of future sets might be jeopardized? That's thorny. I suppose there's also the option of releasing a 10+ disc set for the diehards *and* a one or two disc "best of the box" which might be more appealing to the general market, all at the same time. I think the least attractive option is one that was talked about a year or so ago, which would be re-releasing all the original albums with a bonus disc of unreleased material, meaning we'd all be buying all the original albums again for the umpteenth time.
That was my point. A 10 disc box set of almost anything from anybody is going to be of interest primarily to the diehard fans. The expense alone will prevent it from selling "through the roof" numbers. A series of 2 to 3 disc sets with "new" completed singles a la The Beatles Anthology might be more commercially viable, but that leads you into a conundrum over which you, as a fan, would prefer - an expensive 10+ set that gets everything out all at once like the Freddie set, but which probably isn't going to sell huge numbers, or a series of smaller less expensive sets, with the caveat that if the initial sets don't do well enough, the release of future sets might be jeopardized? That's thorny. I suppose there's also the option of releasing a 10+ disc set for the diehards *and* a one or two disc "best of the box" which might be more appealing to the general market, all at the same time. I think the least attractive option is one that was talked about a year or so ago, which would be re-releasing all the original albums with a bonus disc of unreleased material, meaning we'd all be buying all the original albums again for the umpteenth time.