what? queen songs are somehow exempt? you're just a sychophant - and in your eyes any queen cover would be shit! - i think you should get a life
here's some points about this -
1. the style/arrangement is different
2. the musicianship is very good - in fact the live link (attached) sounds as good (musically) as a few of the queen live versions i saw
3. it's been presented this way to appeal to their audience - it's not a loyalist cap doffing link
thank you for that somehow attacking reply.
In my ears it sounded crap so I gave my opinion. If you think it sounds good that's fine with me.
I think the vocals were really bad and the music was badly arranged
I thought it was a terrific cover. Very much in keeping with the original spirit of the song. Certainly better than that tranquilizing Joss Stone version.
I believe it was also recorded as a tsunami relief fundraiser digital download, and I was quite happy to spend $1.99 to get it legitimately.
The Asassinator wrote: thank you for that somehow attacking reply. In my ears it sounded crap so I gave my opinion. If you think it sounds good that's fine with me.
I think the vocals were really bad and the music was badly arranged
read my reply... i gave my opinion - that's all - you say i attacked you...but you made a very sweeping statement
The Asassinator wrote: Well I don't know if this is shared before.. But I think this is the reason why queen songs shouldn't be covered.
and it is sychophantic - how can you say "queen songs should never be covered"? you saying it's sacreligeous to cover our band, when i am saying it's more of an honour - it makes queen's music accessible to a new younger generation...
finally, i reviewed it musically, and musically it sounds good - you reviewed it with a slight agenda (i think)