[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Most people know more Queen songs than that of any other classic rock band. On classic rock radio stations across the nation, Queen is one of only three or so STAPLE bands that are GUARANTEED considerable airplay, the other two being Led Zeppelin and the Beatles. On rock and roll best of lists, Queen, its members, and its songs consistently rank among the best of the best.
[/QUOTE]
Are we talking about "public opinion among classic rock fans" or about lists, radios, charts, airplays? I won't hear damned Mozart on radio and won't see him in the charts, but I respect him more than 90% of modern musicians.
Among classic rock fans Queen is not so respectful band as you probably think. "Thanks" to Hot Space, The Works, AKOM and all those glam rock attitude during early 70s, gay rumours etc. Queen were too much *special* and unique classic rock band therefore attitude of "classic rock fans" (and even some musicians like Smith, Weller who are represents classic rock music too) - to Queen is very ambiguous.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=>LadyMercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Users shouldn't get worked up over silly topics, because we haven't even seen them lately.
Most adults and 'mature' teens would just look over these threads and ignore them, not rant about it to their other 'superior, original, Queen fan' companions...oh, and emit inaudible huffs at their computer.[/QUOTE]
it's not about getting worked up...far from it..i am not worked up...
these are just observations of mine for discussion...and i thought they were quite valid
Most adults and 'mature' teens would just look over these threads and ignore them, not rant about it to their other 'superior, original, Queen fan' companions...oh, and emit inaudible huffs at their computer.[/QUOTE]
it's not about getting worked up...far from it..i am not worked up...
these are just observations of mine for discussion...and i thought they were quite valid
<
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=>LadyMercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Users shouldn't get worked up over silly topics, because we haven't even seen them lately.
Most adults and 'mature' teens would just look over these threads and ignore them, not rant about it to their other 'superior, original, Queen fan' companions...oh, and emit inaudible huffs at their computer.[/QUOTE]
it's not about getting worked up...far from it..i am not worked up...
these are just observations of mine for discussion...and i thought they were quite valid[/QUOTE]
I still believe that's the same thing. Without the worked up bit I mentioned.
Most adults and 'mature' teens would just look over these threads and ignore them, not rant about it to their other 'superior, original, Queen fan' companions...oh, and emit inaudible huffs at their computer.[/QUOTE]
it's not about getting worked up...far from it..i am not worked up...
these are just observations of mine for discussion...and i thought they were quite valid[/QUOTE]
I still believe that's the same thing. Without the worked up bit I mentioned.
i don't want to labour the point too greatly...but in "queen - general discussion" we have a thread: "Does Jim hutton Have AIDS?"
it just gets better
it just gets better
I know what you mean... there was this one thread where a guy was making less of Queen's contribution to charity. Remarkable.
huge difference between commenting on an open thread ...and starting a banal one off
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry Vietinhoff wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Are we talking about "public opinion among classic rock fans" or about lists, radios, charts, airplays?[/QUOTE]
Same thing. If a musician makes it high on said "lists," it is indicative that that musician is well-respected in the domain encompassed by the list (Great Bands/Guitarists/Songs/Vocalists/etc.). The way radio works is DJ's will play music which appeals to their fanbase. On a classic rock station, the fanbase would be classic rock fans. Therefore, if a band receives constant airplay on classic rock stations across the entire country (not just one or two, here and there), it is very safe to say that Queen is a well-recognized, popular, and well-respected band within the classic rock community. As far as charts go, they are more or less irrelevant nowadays, as they are time-sensitive and only indicative of the past.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry Vietinhoff wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I won't hear damned Mozart on radio and won't see him in the charts, but I respect him more than 90% of modern musicians. [/QUOTE]
I'm not entirely sure how this follows. You won't see him on the charts because he's not a current musician, and you will only hear him on classical music radio stations, which appeal to a very particular and limited audience, hence their lack of presence on the airwaves.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry Vietinhoff wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Among classic rock fans Queen is not so respectful band as you probably think. "Thanks" to Hot Space, The Works, AKOM and all those glam rock attitude during early 70s, gay rumours etc. Queen were too much *special* and unique classic rock band therefore attitude of "classic rock fans" (and even some musicians like Smith, Weller who are represents classic rock music too) - to Queen is very ambiguous. [/QUOTE]
It's not THINK. It's KNOW. As a modern fan of classic rock, I tend to communicate with many fellow classic rock fans. Yes, there are people who don't like Queen, as any band, but Queen are among the most popular of all classic rock bands. The only bands I ever really see more frequently than Queen are Led Zeppelin and the Beatles, and maybe a few others here and there.
Any glam rock attitude, gay rumors, or pigeonholes that Queen may have been put into in the 70's and 80's are impertinent now. They are now CLASSIC ROCK, which generally means that all that is left is the MUSIC. People generally develop their opinions on classic rock musicians based entirely upon the music. It's only when music is new or modern where other things, such as sex appeal and image are important. When the music falls into history, you will notice that these things become less and less important.
When the Beatles were first popular, it was almost entirely because of their overly promoted image. Nowadays, no one listens to the Beatles for anything other than the music. Elvis is another good example. In fact, for a more modern example, take heavy metal from the 80's. You can't really get more glam or outrageous than that, now, can you? But anyone who listens to that music nowadays isn't doing it for the makeup and androgenous hairstyles...they're doing it for the music.
In the end, Queen's music has lasted and remains among the most recognizable and most respected catologs to ever exist. Period.
Are we talking about "public opinion among classic rock fans" or about lists, radios, charts, airplays?[/QUOTE]
Same thing. If a musician makes it high on said "lists," it is indicative that that musician is well-respected in the domain encompassed by the list (Great Bands/Guitarists/Songs/Vocalists/etc.). The way radio works is DJ's will play music which appeals to their fanbase. On a classic rock station, the fanbase would be classic rock fans. Therefore, if a band receives constant airplay on classic rock stations across the entire country (not just one or two, here and there), it is very safe to say that Queen is a well-recognized, popular, and well-respected band within the classic rock community. As far as charts go, they are more or less irrelevant nowadays, as they are time-sensitive and only indicative of the past.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry Vietinhoff wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I won't hear damned Mozart on radio and won't see him in the charts, but I respect him more than 90% of modern musicians. [/QUOTE]
I'm not entirely sure how this follows. You won't see him on the charts because he's not a current musician, and you will only hear him on classical music radio stations, which appeal to a very particular and limited audience, hence their lack of presence on the airwaves.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry Vietinhoff wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Among classic rock fans Queen is not so respectful band as you probably think. "Thanks" to Hot Space, The Works, AKOM and all those glam rock attitude during early 70s, gay rumours etc. Queen were too much *special* and unique classic rock band therefore attitude of "classic rock fans" (and even some musicians like Smith, Weller who are represents classic rock music too) - to Queen is very ambiguous. [/QUOTE]
It's not THINK. It's KNOW. As a modern fan of classic rock, I tend to communicate with many fellow classic rock fans. Yes, there are people who don't like Queen, as any band, but Queen are among the most popular of all classic rock bands. The only bands I ever really see more frequently than Queen are Led Zeppelin and the Beatles, and maybe a few others here and there.
Any glam rock attitude, gay rumors, or pigeonholes that Queen may have been put into in the 70's and 80's are impertinent now. They are now CLASSIC ROCK, which generally means that all that is left is the MUSIC. People generally develop their opinions on classic rock musicians based entirely upon the music. It's only when music is new or modern where other things, such as sex appeal and image are important. When the music falls into history, you will notice that these things become less and less important.
When the Beatles were first popular, it was almost entirely because of their overly promoted image. Nowadays, no one listens to the Beatles for anything other than the music. Elvis is another good example. In fact, for a more modern example, take heavy metal from the 80's. You can't really get more glam or outrageous than that, now, can you? But anyone who listens to that music nowadays isn't doing it for the makeup and androgenous hairstyles...they're doing it for the music.
In the end, Queen's music has lasted and remains among the most recognizable and most respected catologs to ever exist. Period.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Same thing. If a musician makes it high on said "lists," it is indicative that that musician is well-respected in the domain encompassed by the list (Great Bands/Guitarists/Songs/Vocalists/etc.). [/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, Brian, but I'm not gonna continue discussion - if you really believe that "lists", charts and awards indicates the respect of fans (though Queen have never got any Grammy - no respect to Queen in the USA? Or as Mr May wrote - all those awards are about the show business and TV channels interests? I prefer May's version) then we have totally opposite points of view and this discussion is useless. Probably we also have different views on what's classic rock and what's respect...
Same thing. If a musician makes it high on said "lists," it is indicative that that musician is well-respected in the domain encompassed by the list (Great Bands/Guitarists/Songs/Vocalists/etc.). [/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, Brian, but I'm not gonna continue discussion - if you really believe that "lists", charts and awards indicates the respect of fans (though Queen have never got any Grammy - no respect to Queen in the USA? Or as Mr May wrote - all those awards are about the show business and TV channels interests? I prefer May's version) then we have totally opposite points of view and this discussion is useless. Probably we also have different views on what's classic rock and what's respect...
well said Serry! - the biggest issue here is "classic" vs "respect" - the deifinition of both is obvious.
unfortunately, Queen did not have major respect from either the critics (ie the media) or the global audience. yes sure loads of people wnet to see their concerts and buy their records...but that does not conjure an image of respect. the 80s for queen was the decade they lost any respect they had earned.
- sun city - snubbing bandaid - being co-erced into liveaid - iwtbf video and losing america - the boobs incident in s/america
...all this at a time when bands like REM, U2, Smiths etc came along and more or less redefined kudos and respect. queen took an another step towards ebcoming out of touch.
the beatles are the definition of a band that have both "classic" and "respect" as tags used to define them. they have not done a thing musically for 36 years. but look at the love and devotion that went into the making of anthology, and "real love" and "free as a bird" - and latterly - "love". be honest look at what queen have produced in the last 10 yrs against the beatles in the same time...can you EVER see queen productions producing anything with as much love and reverence applied to it? NO!
finally, let's take two band who fit both the "classic" and "respect" tags completely - Floyd and Zep. You know what? i think there is something here that i stumbled on that i never considered before...what have Floyd and Zep got that (say) Queen and Genesis haven't? Respect. and i think it's because by and large Floyd and Zep DIDN'T release singles. Albums bands got more respect in the "70s classic rock" genre. Queen and Genesis (later on) hopped from one "fad" to another trying to shift singles (4/5 an album at sometimes)in order to shift albums. Zep and Floyd just carried on doing their album thing. Two of the most popular and respected (in the UK) "classic rock" songs of all time weigh in at 20 minutes plus between them..."shine on..." and "stairway" ... neither were Uk singles (even edited)
The beatles (on the other hand) got away with the singles...because they came along at a time when music was changing...and they changed most of it. Credit where it's due, lots of beatles singles were not on the albums...this was a way of giving the fans new things and NOT ripping them off.
unfortunately, Queen did not have major respect from either the critics (ie the media) or the global audience. yes sure loads of people wnet to see their concerts and buy their records...but that does not conjure an image of respect. the 80s for queen was the decade they lost any respect they had earned.
- sun city - snubbing bandaid - being co-erced into liveaid - iwtbf video and losing america - the boobs incident in s/america
...all this at a time when bands like REM, U2, Smiths etc came along and more or less redefined kudos and respect. queen took an another step towards ebcoming out of touch.
the beatles are the definition of a band that have both "classic" and "respect" as tags used to define them. they have not done a thing musically for 36 years. but look at the love and devotion that went into the making of anthology, and "real love" and "free as a bird" - and latterly - "love". be honest look at what queen have produced in the last 10 yrs against the beatles in the same time...can you EVER see queen productions producing anything with as much love and reverence applied to it? NO!
finally, let's take two band who fit both the "classic" and "respect" tags completely - Floyd and Zep. You know what? i think there is something here that i stumbled on that i never considered before...what have Floyd and Zep got that (say) Queen and Genesis haven't? Respect. and i think it's because by and large Floyd and Zep DIDN'T release singles. Albums bands got more respect in the "70s classic rock" genre. Queen and Genesis (later on) hopped from one "fad" to another trying to shift singles (4/5 an album at sometimes)in order to shift albums. Zep and Floyd just carried on doing their album thing. Two of the most popular and respected (in the UK) "classic rock" songs of all time weigh in at 20 minutes plus between them..."shine on..." and "stairway" ... neither were Uk singles (even edited)
The beatles (on the other hand) got away with the singles...because they came along at a time when music was changing...and they changed most of it. Credit where it's due, lots of beatles singles were not on the albums...this was a way of giving the fans new things and NOT ripping them off.