| Queen+me 21.02.2008 21:34 |
Hey just wondering how many ppl out there think Queen would have been more successful if Freddie wasn't gay |
| ...assdude.... 39702 21.02.2008 21:41 |
From my knowledge and observations, Freddie’s sexuality wasn’t that obvious in the 70’s. Many bands of the time dressed in a simular style, perhaps with more volume, and sexual ambiguity was in, looking like women in bands were in. Aerosmith, one of Americans most recognised and popular bands of all time had simular styles to Queen. I think it was the music that really mattered above all. I wouldn’t say Freddie’s sexuality would have made a strong impact. Today, Queen is more popular than ever. But I could be mistaken. |
| Dusta 21.02.2008 22:19 |
I certainly think that Freddie's sexuality was apparant to folks in the US in 79/80 or thereabouts, and, unfortunately, my observation is that it DID impact their popularity in the US. I'm not certain WHY folks in the US seemed to be more aware, and, obsessed in a negative way with this. |
| ana_libra 22.02.2008 01:03 |
Had Freddie not been gay, Queen wouldn't have existed... it was all him... the way he thought and the things he had to deal with, were all pretty much part of queen... |
| Queenman!! 22.02.2008 04:18 |
Not to negative but if Freddie wasn't gay he probably would still be on tour today. In the Ninetees and twentees AIDS is among all kind of people. In the eightees is was very much a disease spread by African and gay people. How hard it may sound, it's the truth. |
| ...assdude.... 39702 22.02.2008 04:39 |
Queenman!! wrote: No to negative but if Freddie wasn't gay he probably would still be on tour today. In the Ninetees and twentees AIDS is among all kind of people. In the eightees is was very much a disease spread by African and gay people. How hard it may sound, it's the truth.Im straying of the posters initiall topic in which we may need to make a separate thread, But that does bring up an interesting topic, and to ask who could possible bring up an answers. Being that aids was known to have its origins in Africa,how did it evolve to the extent where it consumed lives. What’s more, why was this more common with gay men in the 80’s than any other sexual life stlye? Is there a logical link between the two? |
| NickName 22.02.2008 06:33 |
Other hypothetical but nevertheless interesting questions that I often ask myself are: What if Fred hadn´t been gay. Do you think the Village People would have been more popular if he had joined ´em right from the start? Would they still be touring? Wouldn´t it be nice listening to David Hodo and Freddie singing La Japonaise live in Japan? |
| Queenman!! 22.02.2008 07:04 |
...ASSDUDE.... wrote:I think there is a logical link. There have be several studies based on sexual behavior of gay people. I'm not want to judge or discriminate on a certain group, but as far I know,even Freddie stated some time: Darling, I do everything with everybody and I f##k them all. Well....Queenman!! wrote: Not to negative but if Freddie wasn't gay he probably would still be on tour today. In the Ninetees and twentees AIDS is among all kind of people. In the eightees is was very much a disease spread by African and gay people. How hard it may sound, it's the truth.Im straying of the posters initiall topic in which we may need to make a separate thread, But that does bring up an interesting topic, and to ask who could possible bring up an answers. Being that aids was known to have its origins in Africa,how did it evolve to the extent where it consumed lives. What’s more, why was this more common with gay men in the 80’s than any other sexual life stlye? Is there a logical link between the two? Even studies and research proof that condoms are not very populair in the gay community. Really an interessting topic I think..... |
| Sebastian 22.02.2008 08:03 |
Assuming Fred got HIV from another man, if Fred weren't gay, he probably wouldn't have died from AIDS (which still doesn't mean he'd still be alive). And in that case, Queen wouldn't be as popular as they became (note that many many many many people were 'converted' to Queenism AFTER Lord Teeth kicked it). |
| John S Stuart 22.02.2008 08:16 |
Get a life. We judge a cake on its own merits. Not from the baker's sexuality. If a cake is p*sh = little or no sales. If a cake is good = lots of sales. The sexuality of the baker is usually unknown (and of little relevance) to the consumer. How could globally giant tracks like 'Another One Bites The Dust' or 'We Will Rock You' be even more popular? To suggest they could have been 'bigger hits' if Freddie was straight is just idiotic in the extreme. I suppose you would apply the same homo-prejudices to Plato, Alexander the Great, Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, Leonardo da Vinci, Sir Isaac Newton, Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Tennessee Williams, Cole Porter, Brian Epstein, Ian McKellen or even George Michael, Boy George and Elton John? I am not gay. I do not care a rat's ar*e if Freddie was Bi/Tri or quadroplegically sexually orientated. I judge all art on its individual merits. Some Queen sucks, some Queen is fine, but for me, most times Queen are an excellent rock band. It is that simple. To bring sex into the equation is not only a red-herring, but an issue not worth discussing. As I said: Get a life. |
| Sebastian 22.02.2008 08:26 |
Sure John, but not everybody thinks the same. For some, music is some sort of extremist religious doctrine: if you like punk, you can't like metal; if you like Beatles, you can't like Stones; if you like 'macho' bands, you can't like Queen; if you like the so-called 'classic rock', you can't like the 80's, 90's or 00's; if you like classical, you can't like jazz. All of those 'rules' are stupid, but in thousands (or even millions) of cases, they apply, unfortunately. Denying that the homophobic factor was crucial for Queen's backlash would be ridiculous. Most people, in the 21st century, when literacy is (relatively) common, when millions of men and women get undegraduate degrees, PhD's and stuff... millions still judge the cake by their bias against the baker, not by its own merit. Racism, xenophobia, elitism, etc. are current phenomena, which have been modernised, but haven't disappeared at all. |
| John S Stuart 22.02.2008 08:42 |
Sebastian wrote: Denying that the homophobic factor was crucial for Queen's backlash would be ridiculous.I disagree Seb. If we follow common logic that '...Break Free' was the track which 'killed' Queen in the US (and hence globally) then, I think this is an inaccurate assumption. They had already missed the boat with both 'Flash' and 'Hot Space' being poor selling albums. I think this decline in sales was (frankly) due to p*sh product - and not sexuality. By the time '...Break Free' hit the US, Queen were ALREADY in free-fall, and another has-been 70's band. (My point is that Queen did NOT dramatically or instantly fall from the top of the table, BUT rather, were already in full tumble mode). Now, I accept your point that '...Break Free' may well have been the cherry on the cake, and was indeed the straw that finally broke the camel's back (and all other similarly related metaphors) and that this may well have been the result of homophobic sexual prejudices. I really can not argue against this. But I still say that the 'beginning of the end' had very little to do with sex or homophobia - but getting the US market wrong by recording (by their own high standards) what was little more than pop-muzak drivel. |
| John S Stuart 22.02.2008 08:51 |
Sebastian wrote: Most people, in the 21st century, when literacy is (relatively) common, when millions of men and women get undegraduate degrees, PhD's and stuff... millions still judge the cake by their bias against the baker, not by its own merit. Racism, xenophobia, elitism, etc. are current phenomena, which have been modernised, but haven't disappeared at all.Sadly, this is so true. As a music lover, I can see you are more interested in the art - than the artist. (Although it is interesting to find where the artist draws his inspiration from). Nevertheless, we can both judge art on its own merits - regardless of petty prejudices - or tribal instincts. Sadly, I also expect this 'standard' in others too. So to attribute the decline of Queen to Freddie's sexuality - for me - is nonesense. I do accept that it may have been a contributory factor, and I also accept that the answer to the question of Queen's decline is both long and complicated. (So I do not really dismiss your views). However, I sometimes get frustrated by the glib simplicity of such theories - especially when they are so frequently rolled out as definitive answers. But I guess that says more about me, than it does about the question! |
| Roger Meadows Tailor 22.02.2008 08:52 |
The sexual side should never come into it at all. I went to see Queen because IMHO they were four extremely talented musicians who graced that stage and whose musical abilities complimented one another on stage.And in Freddie they had the complete showman/entertainer and slighly blemished idol Would you have liked Jimi Hendrix any less if he admitted he was gay. I'm like John S Stuart on that side.I couldnt give a toss about Freddie's sexual orientation. |
| Bo Alex 22.02.2008 09:03 |
NO. |
| unknown 22.02.2008 09:09 |
Sebastian wrote: Sure John, but not everybody thinks the same. For some, music is some sort of extremist religious doctrine: if you like punk, you can't like metal; if you like Beatles, you can't like Stones; if you like 'macho' bands, you can't like Queen; if you like the so-called 'classic rock', you can't like the 80's, 90's or 00's; if you like classical, you can't like jazz. All of those 'rules' are stupid, but in thousands (or even millions) of cases, they apply, unfortunately. Denying that the homophobic factor was crucial for Queen's backlash would be ridiculous. Most people, in the 21st century, when literacy is (relatively) common, when millions of men and women get undegraduate degrees, PhD's and stuff... millions still judge the cake by their bias against the baker, not by its own merit. Racism, xenophobia, elitism, etc. are current phenomena, which have been modernised, but haven't disappeared at all.What hurts me most is - how is it possible to change that? It hurts me so much in what state our world is today... I'm studying philosophy like mad to change myself, to 'surrender my ego' and become 'good' to help the people... After all we're living in ONE world, breathing ONE air and have the same range of feeling so that there is literally 'ONE love'... Sorry to have posted that but I felt the need to do so - as to "Freddie" and "gay" I'm so tired of this topic... But I feel that there is so much more going on in the music business than we can imagine - probably 'envious and greedy business-sharks' still have more saying than we, ordinary people... (regarding Queen's popularity) |
| Sebastian 22.02.2008 09:53 |
> If we follow common logic that '...Break Free' was the track which 'killed' Queen in the US (and hence globally) then, I think this is an inaccurate assumption. I agree. > I think this decline in sales was (frankly) due to p*sh product - and not sexuality. I agree. > Now, I accept your point that '...Break Free' may well have been the cherry on the cake If by 'you' you mean 'me', that's not (and never was) my point. If not, then skip this line ;) > But I still say that the 'beginning of the end' had very little to do with sex or homophobia The 'beginning of the end' would surely be different for each listener. My point is that a strong (not a 100%, not the only) point for the backlash was related to sexuality. Another would be, for instance, Roger's, John's and even Freddie's underrated skills as instrumentalists, or how the audience pigeonholed the band for songs like 'Ga Ga' or 'Break Free' (both of which were composed by heterosexual blokes), etc. > Sadly, I also expect this 'standard' in others too. So do I, but in the process I'm only bound to face more and more personal disappointments. > So to attribute the decline of Queen to Freddie's sexuality - for me - is nonesense. It is - Queen didn't decline because Fred was gay. Their public image, their prestige and their quality went downhill in a wide complex process, where increasing homophobia (due to sociological factors, rather than musical) was a pivotal feature, but of course not the only. > I do accept that it may have been a contributory factor, and I also accept that the answer to the question of Queen's decline is both long and complicated. (So I do not really dismiss your views). I agree with every word. |
| John S Stuart 22.02.2008 10:20 |
Seb: So at least two of us have some sanity. Pity about the rest of the board! (Runs away and hides in some safe underground bunker!) |
| deliah 22.02.2008 11:19 |
I dont think it would had still saved freddies life if he wasnt gay either,you can still pick up aids from unprotective sex from same or different sexes |
| brENsKi 22.02.2008 11:30 |
Dusta wrote: I certainly think that Freddie's sexuality was apparant to folks in the US in 79/80 or thereabouts, and, unfortunately, my observation is that it DID impact their popularity in the US. I'm not certain WHY folks in the US seemed to be more aware, and, obsessed in a negative way with this.have to disagree with you completely. Queen had their biggest-selling US album of all time (the Game) during this period, and the singles Crazy Little Thing...and Another Bites the Dust...both topped the US charts. Queen also topped the dance and R&B charts at this time with these two singles... the US went off queen NOT because of any gay connotations...but because THEY thought the Hot Space album was shite. from that point on Queen lost the US and NEVER got that audience back |
| John S Stuart 22.02.2008 11:43 |
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:Lol: Nice turn of phrse there Brenski.Dusta wrote: I certainly think that Freddie's sexuality was apparant to folks in the US in 79/80 or thereabouts, and, unfortunately, my observation is that it DID impact their popularity in the US. I'm not certain WHY folks in the US seemed to be more aware, and, obsessed in a negative way with this.the US went off queen NOT because of any gay connotations...but because THEY thought the Hot Space album was shite. That is the funniest thing I have read on this board for quite a while. Talk about calling a spade - a spade! |
| beautifulsoup 22.02.2008 11:52 |
A quick answer to the topic question: No. |
| Dusta 22.02.2008 13:02 |
Yes, this is what I was trying to say(and, I may have been off by a year or two)...only that it was a contributing factor, at least in the part of the US where I was living at the time(redneckland). I think the change in their music(Radio GaGa, etc), combined with the burgeoning rumours abounding about Freddie's sexuality, along with the lack of touring in the US after that point, all had a part to play. I listen to so many of you talking about seeing Queen live, and, am struck by how very few Americans, in comparison, have seen Queen live. I think that Queen live was a true selling point for the band.
And, I am basing my comments only on personal observations: Things I heard and saw, commonly around that time. I heard and saw a great deal of homophobic commentary, perpetuated, even, by the disc jockies on the radio stations, and, of course, jokes about Queen going disco just when disco was dying, Radio GaGa(which I now LOVE)...
Of course, none of this matters, really, it is just that, occasionally I can't help feeling a bit of regret for what might have been.
John S Stuart wrote:Sebastian wrote: Most people, in the 21st century, when literacy is (relatively) common, when millions of men and women get undegraduate degrees, PhD's and stuff... millions still judge the cake by their bias against the baker, not by its own merit. Racism, xenophobia, elitism, etc. are current phenomena, which have been modernised, but haven't disappeared at all.Sadly, this is so true. As a music lover, I can see you are more interested in the art - than the artist. (Although it is interesting to find where the artist draws his inspiration from). Nevertheless, we can both judge art on its own merits - regardless of petty prejudices - or tribal instincts. Sadly, I also expect this 'standard' in others too. So to attribute the decline of Queen to Freddie's sexuality - for me - is nonesense. I do accept that it may have been a contributory factor, and I also accept that the answer to the question of Queen's decline is both long and complicated. (So I do not really dismiss your views). However, I sometimes get frustrated by the glib simplicity of such theories - especially when they are so frequently rolled out as definitive answers. But I guess that says more about me, than it does about the question! |
| jcomber 22.02.2008 14:58 |
I got into Queen and Freddie after the leotards and the ballet shoes! therefore not fully aware. I first saw Freddie 80's the Stage Person/Rock God/ music genius wowing those crowds with that loud aggressive music pumping that adrenaline, he is in many Rock fans eyes their idol, someone you admire a strong personality to look up to, then you see his campy interviews/general gay antics its like wtf what a disappointment/deception/fraud. This is what turned a lot of the mainstream away. Nobody would be talking about the Beatles, Elvis, Michael Jackson, as Freddie/Brian/Roger/John were the music maestros of the 20th Century as poll after poll confirms. |
| ANAGRAMER 22.02.2008 15:33 |
I think the real question here is 'did Queen bomb in the USA in the 80's because of Freddie's image change?' I'm not American, but I WAS around and a Queen fan in the early 80's Freddie's sexual ambiguity DID express itself in Queen's music aroundvideo that time: Body Language, Staying Power, then the infamous Living on my Own (admittedly a solo project) This wasn't frowned upon my most Queen fans but it DID alienate mainstream record buyers (in particular Hot Space - the stylings were just too far away from what was expected of Queen) In short, it wasn't per se the gay thing (Elton did OK in the USA afterall!), but it was the INFLUENCE it had on the music which ruined their hard-rock reputation. And the fact that Freddie was so 'in yer face' without ever coming out |
| ANAGRAMER 22.02.2008 15:33 |
I think the real question here is 'did Queen bomb in the USA in the 80's because of Freddie's image change?' I'm not American, but I WAS around and a Queen fan in the early 80's Freddie's sexual ambiguity DID express itself in Queen's music aroundvideo that time: Body Language, Staying Power, then the infamous Living on my Own (admittedly a solo project) This wasn't frowned upon my most Queen fans but it DID alienate mainstream record buyers (in particular Hot Space - the stylings were just too far away from what was expected of Queen) In short, it wasn't per se the gay thing (Elton did OK in the USA afterall!), but it was the INFLUENCE it had on the music which ruined their hard-rock reputation. And the fact that Freddie was so 'in yer face' without ever coming out |
| Major Tom 22.02.2008 18:01 |
Nevertheless...wether he was gay or not, he still was a great showman and wrote some of the best songs ever written. |
| DavidRFuller 22.02.2008 19:00 |
Yes, Freddie being gay/bi definitely hurt Queen's popularity in the US. It just did, thats reality. |
| KingMercury 22.02.2008 19:46 |
i think this is a stupid question freddie's sexuality had nothing to do with the band's popularity!!!!! is the music wich makes popularity!!!! that's why the rolling stones are more popular than queen: HIS MUSIC IS MORE SIMPLE AND LESS ELABORATED many people prefer this kind of music, cause its more comfortable to his ears i like bands like queen, who makes easy the difficult things!!! |
| Queen+me 22.02.2008 19:52 |
hey all i wanted to know was what ppl thought |
| jcomber 22.02.2008 20:42 |
The Rolling Stones are absolute shite!!!!! with one or two bearable songs in their entire catalouge, the rest perpetual monotony! Sir Mick Jagger is not fit to walk the same stage as one Freddie Mercury. Queen on the creative/performance level is the best band on the planet, even if some of the USA are a bit slow on the uptake, ok Hot Space was different funk/rock not everbodys cup of tea, didn't Eddie Van Halens work on MJ's 'Beat It' go down a storm on a dance orientated track, but why be safe like the Rolling Stones with the same sound for 50 albums, experimentation is one of the aspects of Queen that made them the innovative band they were fusing different musical styles and imo the Hot Space material needed a little bit more time to be polished up, but as Queen were one of the more popular bands around this time with their extensive touring, I guess the time was not afforded. |
| unknown 23.02.2008 05:34 |
Queen+me wrote: hey all i wanted to know was what ppl thoughtForgive us adults;) |
| kestrel101 23.02.2008 06:15 |
Did Village People being gay stop them having massive hits in the US around the time we are talking? It wasn't just gay people buying THEIR records, or was it? You can partially blame the problem Queen had in the US, but it can't have been the only deciding factor. We, as Queen fans stand a much better chance of looking back on Hot Space now, I think, in a better light than we ever could in 1982. |
| Mav 12.02.2012 13:21 |
I don't give a damn that Freddie was bisexual. That means nothing to me. Only his talent and his music matter. But to many in the US that are homophobic, his sexuality was a huge turn-off. No question about that. It's remarkable that Queen is one of the biggest bands of all times despite something like this that while it's completely asinine, definitely does put a drag on their popularity. I've often wondered if Freddie was straight, why they might have been even bigger than the Rolling Stones or Beatles. Because even if 300 million records have been bought, how many others didn't get bought because stupid people have issues with people that are different from them? I've seen the reaction myself. I've seen a cousin of mine ask for a Queen song to be turned off because Freddie was gay and we shouldn't be listening to it. I wish I was kidding but he was serious. I've seen others in my family have similar intolerant reactions. The point is this. The world has come a long way in the past 20 years, and Freddie's death has a lot to do with this. But there is no question that Freddie's sexuality negatively impacted the band's status, particulary in the early 80s in the USA. It was a much less tolerant time. Sadly, some of that ignorance still exists. Mav |
| queenUSA 12.02.2012 14:00 |
Freddie did not tank Queen in the USA. Queen is very, very popular here. Their music endures. What about AOBTD and CLTCL? Very nice hits here. I can't get thru the day without hearing Queen multiple times thru the day on the radio and TV. How about American sport stadiums full with people and Queen's WATC and WWRY? This happens nearly everyday across a country of 300 million. Queen is still the best selling artist in the Hollywood records cadre. Absolute Greatest is of course very popular. And still the very bravest contestants on American Idol and X Factor and The Voice will attempt to sing Queen now and then. And they know they will be judged very harshly if they screw it. How about their music work for Highlander and it also endures on the Highlander TV series? The best thing about that series is the Queen opening title sequence. How about OV in the movie Iron Eagle? That is also the best thing about that movie. Countless US films include Queen music ... and we enjoy a lot of movies here as you know! Yes there was the IWTBF video problem. But that problem was with MTV. MTV is soley responsible for censoring that and killing that and did not give their audience a reasonable chance to decide for themselves. If you want to call losing MTV the same thing as losing America - that is really not fair. I think it's an important distinction to make. America was NOT afforded the opportunity to see it properly. Their fans did not crumble because of it. We are still here! Even Wayne and Garth still rock to BORAP. If there could of been more tours in the USA then maybe you would be more impressed? |
| Day dop 12.02.2012 17:02 |
What's with your spurting "Get a life"..."Get a life" ? You're taking things a bit personal huh? |
| Day dop 12.02.2012 17:05 |
The Rolling Stones are more popular than Queen? Where did you dream that one up? Certainly not record sales, or anything else. |
| YAFF 12.02.2012 18:16 |
ana_libra wrote: Had Freddie not been gay, Queen wouldn't have existed... it was all him... the way he thought and the things he had to deal with, were all pretty much part of queen...I share your opinion. Of course we will never know for sure. Freddie may not have been as outrageous and daring if he were straight. Sure, it hurt Queen's popularity in the USA back then but these days I don't think it would have. Everybody loves Freddie these days. |
| jpf 12.02.2012 23:21 |
queenUSA wrote: Freddie did not tank Queen in the USA. Queen is very, very popular here. Their music endures. What about AOBTD and CLTCL? Very nice hits here. I can't get thru the day without hearing Queen multiple times thru the day on the radio and TV. How about American sport stadiums full with people and Queen's WATC and WWRY? This happens nearly everyday across a country of 300 million. Queen is still the best selling artist in the Hollywood records cadre. Absolute Greatest is of course very popular. And still the very bravest contestants on American Idol and X Factor and The Voice will attempt to sing Queen now and then. And they know they will be judged very harshly if they screw it. How about their music work for Highlander and it also endures on the Highlander TV series? The best thing about that series is the Queen opening title sequence. How about OV in the movie Iron Eagle? That is also the best thing about that movie. Countless US films include Queen music ... and we enjoy a lot of movies here as you know! Yes there was the IWTBF video problem. But that problem was with MTV. MTV is soley responsible for censoring that and killing that and did not give their audience a reasonable chance to decide for themselves. If you want to call losing MTV the same thing as losing America - that is really not fair. I think it's an important distinction to make. America was NOT afforded the opportunity to see it properly. Their fans did not crumble because of it. We are still here! Even Wayne and Garth still rock to BORAP. If there could of been more tours in the USA then maybe you would be more impressed?Although "Another One Bites The Dust" was a big hit in the U.S. it turned off their rock fans. "Hot Space" made the U.S. rock fans leave in droves. The U.S. audience was never the same for them again. |
| jpf 12.02.2012 23:24 |
Day dop wrote: The Rolling Stones are more popular than Queen?Where did you dream that one up? Certainly not record sales, or anything else.The Rolling Stones (a band I can't stand) are far bigger than Queen ever was. The Stones play sold out stadium shows all around the world. Queen never even headlined a stadium show in the U.S. The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, then KISS have the most number of RIAA (U.S.) gold lp awards. |
| Day dop 13.02.2012 01:12 |
Queen are the 7th biggest selling music artists in the world, the Rolling stones are the 12th. In what way are you thinking they are bigger? Or are you pulling my leg? I'm not really into seeing what band can pee further, but you're wrong on that one - just because Stones headlined US tours, that doesn't make them bigger at all. Do I really have to bring up Queens achievements? I'm sure you already know them.... |
| The Real Wizard 13.02.2012 01:21 |
jpf wrote: The Stones play sold out stadium shows all around the world.So did Queen. They were the first band to play the big football stadiums in South America. Queen never even headlined a stadium show in the U.S. The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, then KISS have the most number of RIAA (U.S.) gold lp awards.Worldwide, Queen have sold about 100 million more units than the Stones, and Made In Heaven sold better than any Stones record. Queen have been in the UK album charts longer than the Beatles. Your research is very, very poor. You can start by realizing there is a world outside of the US. |
| Day dop 13.02.2012 01:27 |
Well said. Queen are listed first and seventh place in terms of best selling album in the UK (as I am totally sure you know) Stones don't even get a look in there. And as a live act? Stones and Queen? I know I'm not talking crap here when I say that Queen are regarded as the best live act the world ever had. And no, that's not the sound of someone who's simply a fan - it's generally the way it's seen. |
| Day dop 13.02.2012 01:31 |
ROCK IN RIO - Queen headlined that. |
| The Real Wizard 13.02.2012 01:34 |
I'll give credit where credit's due - the Stones are a great band. Aftermath through Exile are stellar records, and with Mick Taylor on board they hit their peak as a live act. Sure, the Stones outsold Queen in the US, but everywhere else in the world Queen are the bigger and more influential band. That said, I really don't like it when music becomes a popularity contest or a game of numbers. But I do feel the need to chime in when someone starts spouting gibberish that has no basis in reality. |
| jpf 13.02.2012 01:39 |
Day dop wrote: Queen are the 7th biggest selling music artists in the world, the Rolling stones are the 12th. In what way are you thinking they are bigger? Or are you pulling my leg?I'm not really into seeing what band can pee further, but you're wrong on that one - just because Stones headlined US tours, that doesn't make them bigger at all. Do I really have to bring up Queens achievements? I'm sure you already know them....The Rolling Stones are far more successful than Queen. Combine lp sales and concert tickets. The Rolling Stones received far more radio airplay than Queen. The Rolling Stones are going on their 50th year. Queen didn't even last 20 years as a functioning band. Queen was dead in the U.S. after the "Hot Space" tour. They lost a ton of their audience and with that a ton of money. They no longer toured here and their lp sales tanked. Queen wasn't in the same category as the Stones. BTW, I can't stand the Stones. |
| Day dop 13.02.2012 01:43 |
20 years - and Queen came along a fair while after the Stones and outsold them. Have you read anything anyone's said even so far? Research it online. There's a world outside America you know? |
| The Real Wizard 13.02.2012 01:44 |
jpf wrote: The Rolling Stones are going on their 50th year. Queen didn't even last 20 years as a functioning band.By that logic, Queen are twice as important as the Beatles because they lasted less than a decade. The Rolling Stones received far more radio airplay than Queen.Do you know that there are 196 countries in the world? The Stones are not seen as bigger than Queen in 195 of them. You are such an idiot. |
| jpf 13.02.2012 01:58 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Queen isn't in the same league as the Stones.jpf wrote: The Stones play sold out stadium shows all around the world.So did Queen. They were the first band to play the big football stadiums in South America.Queen never even headlined a stadium show in the U.S. The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, then KISS have the most number of RIAA (U.S.) gold lp awards.Worldwide, Queen have sold about 100 million more units than the Stones, and Made In Heaven sold better than any Stones record. Queen have been in the UK album charts longer than the Beatles. Your research is very, very poor. You can start by realizing there is a world outside of the US. The Stones sell out stadiums around the world. Queen could only play in stadiums in certain parts of the world. And some of those stadium shows were festivals, not individual Queen shows. Yeah, every band wants to say that they don't need the U.S. audience. A band can do a 100 city U.S. tour and still not hit every major and secondary city. A major, successful U.S. arena tour was out of Queen's grasp after the "Hot Space" tour. Queen blew a good thing. And they never got it back. And while they were playing a short stadium tour in South America, they couldn't even get promoters to sponser them for a proper U.S. tour after the "Hot Space" tour. Queen was never on the same level as the Stones in the U.S. BTW, just because Queen has been in the U.K. record charts longer than The Beatles, that must mean they're more successful than The Beatles, correct? And as I stated before, I can't stand The Stones. |
| jpf 13.02.2012 02:01 |
Day dop wrote: ROCK IN RIO - Queen headlined that.Rock In Rio was a festival. KISS played to more people on their own (not a festival) at Maracana Stadium in Rio. |
| jpf 13.02.2012 02:04 |
Day dop wrote: Well said. Queen are listed first and seventh place in terms of best selling album in the UK (as I am totally sure you know)Stones don't even get a look in there.And as a live act? Stones and Queen? I know I'm not talking crap here when I say that Queen are regarded as the best live act the world ever had. And no, that's not the sound of someone who's simply a fan - it's generally the way it's seen."best live act" is just your opinion. It has nothing to do with ticket sales. |
| jpf 13.02.2012 02:06 |
The Real Wizard wrote: I'll give credit where credit's due - the Stones are a great band. Aftermath through Exile are stellar records, and with Mick Taylor on board they hit their peak as a live act. Sure, the Stones outsold Queen in the US, but everywhere else in the world Queen are the bigger and more influential band. That said, I really don't like it when music becomes a popularity contest or a game of numbers. But I do feel the need to chime in when someone starts spouting gibberish that has no basis in reality.I think the Stones are a crappy band. Can't stand the singer. The other musicians do nothing for me. With that said, the Stones are a far bigger band then Queen. |
| Day dop 13.02.2012 02:07 |
You're right - Queen aren't in the same league as the Stones - Queen are in a bigger one. I'll say it again - Queen come within the top 7 selling worldwide acts - Stones don't. They come in lower category - the 12th place. So it seems after all, maybe Queen didn't need America. They are still bigger than the Stones worldwide. Now please, look it up - research it. Don't take my word - find out for yourself. Or quit trolling. One of the other. |
| jpf 13.02.2012 02:12 |
Day dop wrote: 20 years - and Queen came along a fair while after the Stones and outsold them.Have you read anything anyone's said even so far? Research it online. There's a world outside America you know?Yeah, Queen's been making loads of money on concert tickets and t-shirts sales since 1991. The band was dead in the water after the "Magic" tour. Lots of lost revenue right there. |
| Day dop 13.02.2012 02:12 |
|
| Day dop 13.02.2012 02:14 |
Troll elsewhere dude. |
| jpf 13.02.2012 02:16 |
The Real Wizard wrote:A 50 year career making huge amounts of money by touringjpf wrote: The Rolling Stones are going on their 50th year. Queen didn't even last 20 years as a functioning band.By that logic, Queen are twice as important as the Beatles because they lasted less than a decade.The Rolling Stones received far more radio airplay than Queen.Do you know that there are 196 countries in the world? The Stones are not seen as bigger than Queen in 195 of them. You are such an idiot. vs. not even a 20 year career. You do the math. Queen didn't play in 196 countries. They couldn't even get a tour in one of the biggest countries in the world after they pissed off their core audience. You can also fuck yourself asshole. |
| jpf 13.02.2012 02:17 |
Day dop wrote: You're right - Queen aren't in the same league as the Stones - Queen are in a bigger one. I'll say it again - Queen come within the top 7 selling worldwide acts - Stones don't. They come in lower category - the 12th place.So it seems after all, maybe Queen didn't need America. They are still bigger than the Stones worldwide.Now please, look it up - research it. Don't take my word - find out for yourself. Or quit trolling. One of the other.Rolling Stones > Queen Sorry that hurts your feelings. |
| jpf 13.02.2012 02:18 |
Day dop wrote: Troll elsewhere dude.I'll post where I please. |
| Day dop 13.02.2012 02:19 |
Obvious troll is obvious troll. Laters. |
| Stelios 13.02.2012 04:22 |
|
| Day dop 13.02.2012 06:20 |
And that changing times have caught up with him a little more, perhaps. |
| Djdownsy 13.02.2012 07:55 |
jpf wrote:-------------------------------------------Day dop wrote: Troll elsewhere dude.I'll post where I please. I wouldn't call this guy a troll. I think that phrase has been used around here far too much recently. I'm not saying he's not an idiot now... |
| Day dop 13.02.2012 08:47 |
It's not a something I've said here before ,but It certainly seemed that way to me - which I think it a shame in a forum such as this. No need. Surely calling him/her a troll is letting them off the hook rather than calling them an idiot. I mean, no one can be THAT much of an idiot, right? |
| CosmosTales 16.02.2012 16:48 |
He is obvoius a stone fan! He says he can't stand them because he knows that his comments will have more impact that way... About the carrer years the stones where formed 10 eyears before Queen and if your "Joker" about the stones are the concert tickets you realize that Freddie died in 1991. But of course you cant realize because you are worst than a headbanger! Quenn in 20 years produce,exceeded and influenced alot more that stones and that is visible in the artists and in the entertainment of today You are showing also signs of limited art apreciation because you cant distinguish QUANTITY FROM QUALITY Even worse you cant take conclusions from the evident facts and information that is posted online.Stupidity is truly infinite. Here it is a video especially for you:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z4m4lnjxkY |