[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]SK wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]SK wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Alright, just looking at the list - not even thinking about Queen, I don't agree with it.
I like Led Zeppelin, but I think that IV was MUCH better than their debut. In fact, I don't think their debut album was that fantastic at all - pretty monotonous except for a few songs. BUT - this is my personal opinion, so I don't care if someone else disagrees - and I don't want to argue about it.
As I've said before, these lists are frivolous - you can't really make a list of "The Top 500 Albums". How do you judge 'better' ? It's personal taste (and, as Mr. Jingles mentioned, connections) for the most part.[/QUOTE]
Led Zepp I was released in '69, it had an impact in '69. Thats why it fared better. Led Zep IV was released in '71. Now if 1V was released in '69 maybe it would have been higher in the list. Cause Led Zep 1 was such a throw back to Jazz, that in 69 it was considerd awesome, by the time IV came out we had a thousand albums just like it. :)[/QUOTE]
I can't definately understand that. But this just reminds me of difficult it is to single out a few albums as "better" or "top". Doing something like that is very subjective (so much to consider, which qualities outweigh which...)... I wouldn't want to be the one to have to do it.[/QUOTE]
Yes I definately understand what you mean. But, I think everyone who has musical knowledge can agree that the top 10 is pretty accurate. :)[/QUOTE]
Holy cheese-balls ! I'm NOT kidding, but I meant to write "can" instead of "can't". Maybe I was going to word that differently... wow. That's a devastating spelling switch... !
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]SK wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]SK wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Alright, just looking at the list - not even thinking about Queen, I don't agree with it.
I like Led Zeppelin, but I think that IV was MUCH better than their debut. In fact, I don't think their debut album was that fantastic at all - pretty monotonous except for a few songs. BUT - this is my personal opinion, so I don't care if someone else disagrees - and I don't want to argue about it.
As I've said before, these lists are frivolous - you can't really make a list of "The Top 500 Albums". How do you judge 'better' ? It's personal taste (and, as Mr. Jingles mentioned, connections) for the most part.[/QUOTE]
Led Zepp I was released in '69, it had an impact in '69. Thats why it fared better. Led Zep IV was released in '71. Now if 1V was released in '69 maybe it would have been higher in the list. Cause Led Zep 1 was such a throw back to Jazz, that in 69 it was considerd awesome, by the time IV came out we had a thousand albums just like it. :)[/QUOTE]
I can't definately understand that. But this just reminds me of difficult it is to single out a few albums as "better" or "top". Doing something like that is very subjective (so much to consider, which qualities outweigh which...)... I wouldn't want to be the one to have to do it.[/QUOTE]
Yes I definately understand what you mean. But, I think everyone who has musical knowledge can agree that the top 10 is pretty accurate. :)[/QUOTE]
Holy cheese-balls ! I'm NOT kidding, but I meant to write "can" instead of "can't". Maybe I was going to word that differently... wow. That's a devastating spelling switch... ![/QUOTE]
No worries, I caught it and understood ^_^. Keep on rockin, if you haven't done so, try listening to those top 10 records they list. Most of them are personal faves of mine(Definately check out Pet Sounds and Blonde On Blonde).
I like Led Zeppelin, but I think that IV was MUCH better than their debut. In fact, I don't think their debut album was that fantastic at all - pretty monotonous except for a few songs. BUT - this is my personal opinion, so I don't care if someone else disagrees - and I don't want to argue about it.
As I've said before, these lists are frivolous - you can't really make a list of "The Top 500 Albums". How do you judge 'better' ? It's personal taste (and, as Mr. Jingles mentioned, connections) for the most part.[/QUOTE]
Led Zepp I was released in '69, it had an impact in '69. Thats why it fared better. Led Zep IV was released in '71. Now if 1V was released in '69 maybe it would have been higher in the list. Cause Led Zep 1 was such a throw back to Jazz, that in 69 it was considerd awesome, by the time IV came out we had a thousand albums just like it. :)[/QUOTE]
I can't definately understand that. But this just reminds me of difficult it is to single out a few albums as "better" or "top". Doing something like that is very subjective (so much to consider, which qualities outweigh which...)... I wouldn't want to be the one to have to do it.[/QUOTE]
Yes I definately understand what you mean. But, I think everyone who has musical knowledge can agree that the top 10 is pretty accurate. :)[/QUOTE]
Holy cheese-balls ! I'm NOT kidding, but I meant to write "can" instead of "can't". Maybe I was going to word that differently... wow. That's a devastating spelling switch... ![/QUOTE]
No worries, I caught it and understood ^_^. Keep on rockin, if you haven't done so, try listening to those top 10 records they list. Most of them are personal faves of mine(Definately check out Pet Sounds and Blonde On Blonde).
So many Dylan records on that list and I can't even stomach listening to one single song.
Those Rolling Stone magazine people sure must be a bunch of hippie stoners.
Those Rolling Stone magazine people sure must be a bunch of hippie stoners.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So many Dylan records on that list and I can't even stomach listening to one single song.
Those Rolling Stone magazine people sure must be a bunch of hippie stoners.[/QUOTE]
1)It's a shame Dylan wasn't a hippie, nor did he appeal to them, in matter in fact, they disliked his messages of truth.
2)The fact that Dylans albums are some of the best ever recorded...Queen never even came close, and that's the truth.
3)This article is from 2001. People don't be whiney like your god Brian May
No offense to anyone :)
In my opinion though, Dylan is far superior to Queen. I think a lot of artists/bands are.
Those Rolling Stone magazine people sure must be a bunch of hippie stoners.[/QUOTE]
1)It's a shame Dylan wasn't a hippie, nor did he appeal to them, in matter in fact, they disliked his messages of truth.
2)The fact that Dylans albums are some of the best ever recorded...Queen never even came close, and that's the truth.
3)This article is from 2001. People don't be whiney like your god Brian May
No offense to anyone :)
In my opinion though, Dylan is far superior to Queen. I think a lot of artists/bands are.
SK, you're very knowledgeable about music, which I feel is fantastic given the state of this board and its slavish obsession to everything Queen related. However, if there are 229 better albums in the world "better" than ANATO, I want to visit that world. ANATO contains more musical genius in two tracks (Good Company & Bohemian Rhapsody) than Bob Dylan's entire catlogue. Not talking lyrics, I'm talking music. The American press never warmed to Queen because they didn't understand them. If you're a RS critic and you've been weaned on Bob Dylan's 3 or 4 chord stuff (yes I'm generalizing) then you listen to stuff on ANATO, I doubt you would understand it. It's like Bruce Springsteen being loved by RS. He's a parody of himself, singing about the working man and the woes of blue collar America, even though he's been a millionaire for 30 years now. Critics get that whole meat and potatoes, I've-lost-my-job and my-Chevy's-in-the-shop and the-bossman-works-me-to hard American music thing, but they don't get a dandy who goes to the Louevre or likes to watch bicycle races because it's not part of their world, and they fear what they don't understand. Bottom line, ANATO is wherever people feel it is, whether it's the best 230th best or worst album ever, for my money it's the most musically diverse and creative album ever made. Genius from start to finish.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]SK, you're very knowledgeable about music, which I feel is fantastic given the state of this board and its slavish obsession to everything Queen related. However, if there are 229 better albums in the world "better" than ANATO, I want to visit that world. ANATO contains more musical genius in two tracks (Good Company & Bohemian Rhapsody) than Bob Dylan's entire catlogue. Not talking lyrics, I'm talking music. The American press never warmed to Queen because they didn't understand them. If you're a RS critic and you've been weaned on Bob Dylan's 3 or 4 chord stuff (yes I'm generalizing) then you listen to stuff on ANATO, I doubt you would understand it. It's like Bruce Springsteen being loved by RS. He's a parody of himself, singing about the working man and the woes of blue collar America, even though he's been a millionaire for 30 years now. Critics get that whole meat and potatoes, I've-lost-my-job and my-Chevy's-in-the-shop and the-bossman-works-me-to hard American music thing, but they don't get a dandy who goes to the Louevre or likes to watch bicycle races because it's not part of their world, and they fear what they don't understand. Bottom line, ANATO is wherever people feel it is, whether it's the best 230th best or worst album ever, for my money it's the most musically diverse and creative album ever made. Genius from start to finish.[/QUOTE]
Hey, thanks for the compliment and the insight. Yes, its true, Dylan's albums are not known for music(Although Blood On The Track/Desire has lushcious music, I promise you that). As for A Night At The Opera being genious, prehaps. I have listend to this lp ever since I got it on vinyl, and I do truly enjoy it, but it just doesnt click well with the whole "one of the best albums of all time" I mean, come now, lets compare it to a masterpeice like "Pet Sounds" or "Electric Lady Land" it dismisses certain qualities such as blending and keeping a certain such of flow(music wise and spiritualy). It was almost a step backwards theory wise, considering the stuff that only came out a year or two before it("Exile On Main St" "The Rise And Fall Of Ziggy Stardust And The Spiders For Mars"). I also feel ANATO sufferd from bad mixing, I can listen to that album for hours and point out studio flaws and such. As a whole, the album is good and enjoyable to listen to, is it one of the best ever made? Certinately not in my opinion, is it fun,good and enjoyable? yes that is for sure
:)
Hey, thanks for the compliment and the insight. Yes, its true, Dylan's albums are not known for music(Although Blood On The Track/Desire has lushcious music, I promise you that). As for A Night At The Opera being genious, prehaps. I have listend to this lp ever since I got it on vinyl, and I do truly enjoy it, but it just doesnt click well with the whole "one of the best albums of all time" I mean, come now, lets compare it to a masterpeice like "Pet Sounds" or "Electric Lady Land" it dismisses certain qualities such as blending and keeping a certain such of flow(music wise and spiritualy). It was almost a step backwards theory wise, considering the stuff that only came out a year or two before it("Exile On Main St" "The Rise And Fall Of Ziggy Stardust And The Spiders For Mars"). I also feel ANATO sufferd from bad mixing, I can listen to that album for hours and point out studio flaws and such. As a whole, the album is good and enjoyable to listen to, is it one of the best ever made? Certinately not in my opinion, is it fun,good and enjoyable? yes that is for sure
:)
the only thing that rolling stone got right was making sgt. pepper #1 and pet sounds # 2.
Only lyrically speaking Dylan is superior to Queen.
Dylan could never in a million years produce musically complex tracks like 'Bohemian Rhapsody', 'The March of the Black Queen', or 'Innuendo'.
Sorry to say that but it's the truth.
Dylan could never in a million years produce musically complex tracks like 'Bohemian Rhapsody', 'The March of the Black Queen', or 'Innuendo'.
Sorry to say that but it's the truth.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Only lyrically speaking Dylan is superior to Queen.
Dylan could never in a million years produce musically complex tracks like 'Bohemian Rhapsody', 'The March of the Black Queen', or 'Innuendo'.
Sorry to say that but it's the truth.[/QUOTE]
Maybe so, but as albums,as music and as a peice of art. His albums are superior, in my opinion atleast :)
Dylan could never in a million years produce musically complex tracks like 'Bohemian Rhapsody', 'The March of the Black Queen', or 'Innuendo'.
Sorry to say that but it's the truth.[/QUOTE]
Maybe so, but as albums,as music and as a peice of art. His albums are superior, in my opinion atleast :)
To be honest what you're all doing here is comparing apples and oranges; and when Rolling Stone magazine (which is a magazine run by fuck-off's) makes a 100 Greatest Guitarists, or the Top 500 Album List...of course it will be biased, they've been biased for decades now. That list is like comparing apples and oranges. I like Bob Dylan's music...as a lyricist I think he's a genius, however he is not an accomplished musician, or a vocalist (his voice sounds like an old cat being strangled). That being said...he's made some timeless material. Blonde on Blonde, Planet Waves, his live album Before the Flood which was recorded with The Band. All good stuff. The bottom line is...Dylan was known for his songwriting being simple chord progressions with profound and moving lyrics, and an immeadiately identifiable voice...(I'm not saying he's great, just easy to spot) Whereas Queen is known for its complex Baroque influenced guitar overdubs, putting on an incredible live show, having explored nearly every genre of music in their repetoire, and damn near perfect vocal harmonies...You can't compare the Bob Dylan and Queen...its pointless!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]redspecial85 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]To be honest what you're all doing here is comparing apples and oranges; and when Rolling Stone magazine (which is a magazine run by fuck-off's) makes a 100 Greatest Guitarists, or the Top 500 Album List...of course it will be biased, they've been biased for decades now. That list is like comparing apples and oranges. I like Bob Dylan's music...as a lyricist I think he's a genius, however he is not an accomplished musician, or a vocalist (his voice sounds like an old cat being strangled). That being said...he's made some timeless material. Blonde on Blonde, Planet Waves, his live album Before the Flood which was recorded with The Band. All good stuff. The bottom line is...Dylan was known for his songwriting being simple chord progressions with profound and moving lyrics, and an immeadiately identifiable voice...(I'm not saying he's great, just easy to spot) Whereas Queen is known for its complex Baroque influenced guitar overdubs, putting on an incredible live show, having explored nearly every genre of music in their repetoire, and damn near perfect vocal harmonies...You can't compare the Bob Dylan and Queen...its pointless![/QUOTE]
Agreed, but I honestly LOVE his voice, prehaps because I grew up listening to his vinyls, but it has a certain charm to it :). I was just so tired of certain Queen fans thinking all the fuckin Queen records deserve to be in the best albums list lol.
Agreed, but I honestly LOVE his voice, prehaps because I grew up listening to his vinyls, but it has a certain charm to it :). I was just so tired of certain Queen fans thinking all the fuckin Queen records deserve to be in the best albums list lol.
Most Queen fans would agree that there are Queen albums quite superior to others, and you can't have an all time top 10 with nothing but Queen albums.
Here we debate about the fact that bands like The Beatles, Pink Floyd, or Led Zeppelin were perhaps better than Queen for overall musical quality and lyrical substance. Dylan doesn't rank as high on that category, at least not from the musical aspect. The only solo artists I could see up there are perhaps Elton John, Billy Joel, and Stevie Wonder.
Here we debate about the fact that bands like The Beatles, Pink Floyd, or Led Zeppelin were perhaps better than Queen for overall musical quality and lyrical substance. Dylan doesn't rank as high on that category, at least not from the musical aspect. The only solo artists I could see up there are perhaps Elton John, Billy Joel, and Stevie Wonder.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]SK wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Only lyrically speaking Dylan is superior to Queen.
Dylan could never in a million years produce musically complex tracks like 'Bohemian Rhapsody', 'The March of the Black Queen', or 'Innuendo'.
Sorry to say that but it's the truth.[/QUOTE]
Maybe so, but as albums,as music and as a peice of art. His albums are superior, in my opinion atleast :)[/QUOTE]
No, only as a songwriter. In term of armonies resources, vocal arrangements, versatility, and instruments, I think that Queen is definately better than him.
Dylan could never in a million years produce musically complex tracks like 'Bohemian Rhapsody', 'The March of the Black Queen', or 'Innuendo'.
Sorry to say that but it's the truth.[/QUOTE]
Maybe so, but as albums,as music and as a peice of art. His albums are superior, in my opinion atleast :)[/QUOTE]
No, only as a songwriter. In term of armonies resources, vocal arrangements, versatility, and instruments, I think that Queen is definately better than him.
Of course, nobody is saying that all Queen albums have to be in the list, but at least "A night at the opera" (and others like "Queen 2", "A day at the races") deserve to be in the list, in the top 100 or top 50 (in my own opinion).
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]her wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]SK wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Only lyrically speaking Dylan is superior to Queen.
Dylan could never in a million years produce musically complex tracks like 'Bohemian Rhapsody', 'The March of the Black Queen', or 'Innuendo'.
Sorry to say that but it's the truth.[/QUOTE]
Maybe so, but as albums,as music and as a peice of art. His albums are superior, in my opinion atleast :)[/QUOTE]
No, only as a songwriter. In term of armonies resources, vocal arrangements, versatility, and instruments, I think that Queen is definately better than him.
[/QUOTE]
:)
Beach Boys trumped Queen in haromonies(Hell the album Pet Sounds is probably the best ever made, probably). It takes a certain amount of spirituality and state of mind to listen to Dylan, you simply cannot throw on a Dylan lp and exspect to fall in love with his music, It takes musical knowledge and such. Anyways, I'm always appreciating peoples opinions and such, so thank you all for replying.
Dylan could never in a million years produce musically complex tracks like 'Bohemian Rhapsody', 'The March of the Black Queen', or 'Innuendo'.
Sorry to say that but it's the truth.[/QUOTE]
Maybe so, but as albums,as music and as a peice of art. His albums are superior, in my opinion atleast :)[/QUOTE]
No, only as a songwriter. In term of armonies resources, vocal arrangements, versatility, and instruments, I think that Queen is definately better than him.
[/QUOTE]
:)
Beach Boys trumped Queen in haromonies(Hell the album Pet Sounds is probably the best ever made, probably). It takes a certain amount of spirituality and state of mind to listen to Dylan, you simply cannot throw on a Dylan lp and exspect to fall in love with his music, It takes musical knowledge and such. Anyways, I'm always appreciating peoples opinions and such, so thank you all for replying.