| Boy Thomas Raker 03.12.2007 09:07 |
Given that the original thread for SINT is now 7 pages long, some people may not want to look through all of it. As someone posted that we're seeing some INTELLIGENT discussion concerning Say it's not true, I've taken the liberty of starting a new thread where I'd like to see why people feel how they do about the song. With the passing of a few days, we've all been able to listen to this and get a distance from the excitement of hearing new music, so I'm interested in where people see this song in the pantheon of Queen music, and why. To start the ball rolling, and I started getting into Queen in '75 so my biases are on the table, this sounds like an out take from a Roger solo or MIH era album. Well played musically, which Queen always delivers, but I find it lyrically and musically to be paint by numbers. It may be unfair to compare a song from older men in 2007 to something from young guys hungry to make their mark in the early '70s, but apart from stylistic differences, I couldn't see this song ever getting off the ground in the old days. Brian plays amazing guitar on this track, but I think he could do the "Brian May" stuff in his sleep. For me, because of the naff lyrics and overall lack of excitement (IMHO only), I'd place this song in the bottom 10% of Queen efforts. Let's hear some differing opinions, but let's try to back them up with reason and not attack people who hate it/love it. |
| Benn 03.12.2007 09:59 |
BTR, Well, I had a single listen here at work and haven't yet managed to get it to CD from the download yet. From the lyrical structure of the song, it's cleearly a-typical Roger Taylor material; I wouldn't be surprised if it was written (the germ of the idea) around the time of the "Happiness" album. I'm not certain that I can even *consider it* alongside any of the material "Queen" did. After all, only half of "Queen" play on it whereas NOBY did manage to include three quarters of them. In essence it's not a bit like any of the material "Queen" created. What it *IS*, is good (at this point) "Queen + Paul Rodgers" material. In that regard, I'd completely change the structure of the vocalists performances and hand the whole lot over to Paul to sing. He was brought in to the band as the vocalist and ought to be doing the job. On SINT, he sounds like a hired hand given a bit-part. I've always believed Brian's vocals to be *EMBARASSING* to say the least and at no point has he ever been good enough to be a front man. The BM Band shows suffered greatly because his concentration was taken away from playing the *AMAZING* guitar leads he's been responsible for for so long. As for Roger, I've always loved his solo material (more than that of any of the other embers), but the Queen + PR shows proved that his voice is on the wane these days. IILWMC, once a gem and great showcase for his voice was, again, suffering because he can't reach the register he used to. Paul, as a professional vocalist and posessor of one of the very best rock voices of all time, needs to be exploited by "Queen + Paul Rodgers" and allowed to do his job. This is a new band with a new future; it's a tad unfair to try to build them in to the glories of "Queen". As a starting point for them, it's a reasonable effort though. Needs to go *UP* from here. |
| Fenderek 03.12.2007 10:15 |
I agree about Paul- he was brought in as a singer- he should sing. And sing he can! Brian's part is... I dunno, weak. Roger's live usually was saving this song, on the record it also sounds not so good. And this hybrid of three voices also doesn't feel very natural. I'd hope that we willl not have any of that on a new album. they have a lead singer, they should let him sing. Brian is a brilliant guitar player, Roger- drummer- they should focus on their instruments. Lyrics are bad, song is simple, almost too simple for my taste. I liked the production of the heavier bit- a lot of guitars, nice sound- gives me hope fo rthe whole album, hoping that they still have that ROCK in them. Oh- i absolutely hate teh keyboards at the begining, so wishy-washy... I think I actually prefered the simple, live version- at least it wasn't trying to pretend to be something it isn't... |
| YourValentine 03.12.2007 10:25 |
Other than many other fans I really like the lyrics of the song and I did like the simple acoustic guitar-only live version from day 1 (46664 concert). I think Roger has a talent to create songs from personal experience which are not super sentimental but simple and touching (see "Old Friends" which I like ten times better than NOBY) The new version: I don't like the echoes in the vocals at the beginning and I don't like Brian's cheesy vocals. I always find Brian's oversentimental vocals hard to bear. I like the sound when guitar/drums take off and I think Paul Rodgers fits nicely into the general sound of the second part of the song. My main problem with the recording is that IMO this particular song requires a more subtle sound. Apart from that there is a good communication of Queen sound MIH style and Paul Rodgers - what a great singer he is. You cannot compare it to a Queen song because the Freddie Mercury quality control is gone and it would be unfair to compare. After listening to this song I have bigger confidence in the upcoming album than I had before. Let the guitars roar and Paul Roger do his stuff. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 03.12.2007 10:31 |
Excellent! Three smart replies with no name calling, we're making progress here! |
| Another Roger (re) 03.12.2007 10:51 |
I dont think we can say a lot about the forthcoming album based on this song. This song was a little rushed in the studio according to Brian May. And I seriously doubt that this song will be on the new album. They wouldnt give away the best songs for free like this. With that said I dont think Say its not true is bad. There are worse songs in the Queen catalogue. Like body language, dancer, Dont lose your head, fun it...etc. I believe that the new album will have mainly Paul Rodgers on vocals. Roger and Brian will do harmonies, and sing one or 2 songs each. And I think the album will be Rock'n Roll with a blues touch. It will be fresh and no more singing about the past. We dont need anymore Freddie tribute songs. At least not sad ones. I hope thats the path they are taking. We have to look forward now :) In that sense Say its not true cant be compared to what we are waiting for. But hey. This is only competent speculation :) |
| Benn 03.12.2007 11:19 |
Fenderek, re: >>I think I actually prefered the simple, live version Yep - and is why it would have made a great *Roger Taylor* album track. Not certain that even the "simple" version would have warranted a release outside of the confines of an album though - the lyrics don't really tell the story Roger has promoted for me - you only know what its about if you are a "Queen" fan or have listened to one of the interviews promoting it. If you were to hear it as a complete newbie, you'd be a bit in the dark and move on. YourValentine, re: >>a good communication of Queen sound MIH style Yes, spot on. And it's the same sound that NOBY managed to re-create too. An open, wide sound but slightly over-produced for my liking. I'd hoped that "Queen + Paul Rodgers" would have tried to go for a really stripped-down sound in order to really highlight and emphasise that they are indeed a new band and the quality of their own individual musicianship. Almost a "Live In The Studio" sound without Spike Edney drenching everything with bells and whistles. Still, too early to tell how they will sound until more material is here to judge. Plenty of positives for me. BTR, re: >>Three smart replies with no name calling Now, come on........give it a couple of days and there will be someone popping out of the woodwork to spoil things ';-} Another Roger, re: >>I dont think we can say a lot about the forthcoming album based on this song. This song was a little rushed in the studio according to Brian May. I have to disagree - I think it's points toward how they will approach the structure of forthcoming material. Sadnly, it appears, following on from the live shows, all three will handle vocal duties. Whether this is from an ego point of view, homage to the fact that Brian and Roger both sang on "Queen" albums or they are receiving poor advice / feedback from certain sections, I have no idea. >>And I seriously doubt that this song will be on the new album. They wouldnt give away the best songs for free like this. I think it will - it'll be another excuse to push the MPT charity and the "AIDS" message again. Whether this is good for the album or the music, I don't know, but I'd like to think that they wouldn't leave out a great Paul Rodgers performance for this track. I'd like to think that they were more inclined to *give away* the poor material and save the best for the album, but, commercially, it wouldn't make sense - they need to get back some of the outlay in making SINT somehow! |
| steven 35638 03.12.2007 11:35 |
In regards to the upcoming album, I sincerely hope it won't be depressing and full of songs like 'Say It's Not True'. Although the song was touching and a real tear jerker, I think we could do with some upbeat rocker material. For example, I'd love to see a song like 'I'm Ready' on the new album. That song, for all those unaware, is a slick little rocker that has a touch of both blues and jazz. Brian does some stuff with his guitar that is reminiscent to that of 'Good Company'. Now, when it comes to Say It's Not True, I quite like it. It starts off rather slow, but it does pick up after the first two minutes. It kind of reminds me of, God forbid, In The Lap of the Gods...Revisited. That's because the song builds and builds until the listener is swept with emotion. The quality of the song isn't terrific per se, but it is a wonderful start for a wonderful band. I give the song 7/10. |
| Roger's Beard 03.12.2007 11:54 |
Oh dear. No smart alec replies yet. Well let me give one - or not. I'd given up on the QPR project and had pretty much decided it was about time they gave up too (after all it's taking blinkin ages and we'll all be dead soon), and concentrated on "real" Queen; either the promised anthology boxset, another MIH style album made from unheard tracks, or simply surround mixes of the rest of the albums. BUT, the release of Say It's Not True has re-whet my anticipation for the project. If Paul doesn't warble his vocals much, I'll be a happy man. Maybe THEN, they'll get back to doing some "real" Queen! |
| Micrówave 03.12.2007 11:55 |
I thought Queen went into the studio to record the new album. If this is a result of that, then I am extremely suspicious. This does not sound like a track that was recorded AND engineered by the same person. Is it possible that this track was simply recorded in pieces, and not together as they had originally informed us? Who is playing that keyboard part anyway, and what is he using? I would think that they could afford a decent patch, but this sounds like they dug up The Miracle keyboards and fired them back up. Sorry, Brian, I didn't realize your "studio" was your laptop. I'll still buy the album, but was kind of expecting more from Queen. |
| Rien 03.12.2007 13:40 |
knowing this song from the Q+PR tour we can hear how this song has changed. To me the frailness voice of the original song really did make the message (desperation) come across and I really liked that. Now we can hear how the new version has given a new direction to the song. For me this new version is great too. Though Brian might have sung a bit stronger his voice is perhaps at its best when he sings with this softer mood. He tries to reflect the emotion of the lyrics and I think he succeeds though it sounds a bit forced. The build up of the song to its climax is nice I think. Perhaps even great. Agreed the guitar is not very innovative but there must be put a Queen-related mark in the song for a wider audience. It takes a while for Paul Rodgers to take part of the song but it's exactly where it should be. He also ads his own trademark as he should ("say i-it's not ri-i-ight"). Great powerful voice. The video is breathtaking. Completely matches the lyrics. Did you see how Brian's first line is almost in-sync with the crying boy? The song's for free (for now) to bring attention to Mandela's cause. Must be appreciated. |
| gnomo 03.12.2007 13:43 |
Micrówave wrote: Sorry, Brian, I didn't realize your "studio" was your laptopThey've been using Roger's studio for all the new recording sessions, actually... |
| Al TurHao 03.12.2007 14:33 |
Well, here are my 3 points: Some very interesting points on this topic, like the "Freddie Mercury Control". :) It's true that Freddie always helped Roger (and some of John) with his songs. You cannot possibly believe that Roger came up with some of the complicated chords on Radio GaGa. It's simply not his style. (for further info, I recommend Sebastian's analysis site). Now that the FM control is over, songs tend to appear in a more simple arrangment. The chord sequence is as basic as it can be (very similar to the chorus of Dear Mr. Murdoch and Lennon's War is Over), even when the song takes flight with PR, we are flying around 2-3 chords. (which, per se, is OK). Still, the thing that has shocked me the most was the awful production. Almost everything in the production can be heavily criticised, which didn't happen before. For instance, the strings at the beggining not only they sound bad, but they are poorly played!! As for the vocals, Roger and Brian suffer from the Keith Richards Syndrome. With that, they are wasting their most precious resource: Paul Rodgers as a singer. Even if they sing 2 songs each on the forthcoming album... is too much! They should stick to their capacities as instrumentists and backing singers. |
| ern2150 03.12.2007 14:37 |
Forgive me for not going digging for it, but is the poster who argued (fairly eloquently) that the original SINT was way overrated posting in this discussion? That might have even been a discussion on Queenonline (RIP) and not here. I think one of his disappointments was the preachiness, which, in the _original_, I think is balanced by a sense of personal loss, or even just plain getting used to some preaching in any Roger song. This new studio version, however, _especially_ with Brian's intonation, sounds preachy, and is very "Brian's Soapbox." In my opinion that's not a bad thing (though you might argue he's "preaching to the choir"), but it does change the balance of the song. And I would be 100% behind the song if Paul didn't do that thing (modulate?) on "me-hee-hee-hee-hee-ee-ee." But I think if you get Paul, you're going to get that. Ya cayn't stap tha rahk! As it stands I'm about 90% behind it :) Oh and one more thing. I used to think there was a spectrum of opinion, with "NO QUEEN" on one end, "QUEEN FOREVER (no matter who's singing)" on the other, and "Roger+Brian team solo" and "Q+PR for now" on opposite sides of the middle. This track has introduced a whole other band of that spectrum, "Q+PR as long as PR is the lead most of the time." I'm kinda surprised by that, especially since people seemed to group around the other opinions above regarding the tour. |
| Mike Label 03.12.2007 16:10 |
SINT suffers from bad production, true. It's not a particularly good song either, and neither Brian nor Roger are good singers (at least today). All this has been said before, I know. I tried to listen without prejudice - keep in mind, I've been a Queen fan for 34 years by now, have seen Queen with Freddie many times, have been to Brian and Roger solo several times, seen Queen+PR twice, and I'll buy anything that has Brian and/or Roger on it ... but I still find the new song dull, boring, lame, just disappointing ... A few hours ago I watched part of QRM and was (again)especially thrilled when Save Me came up - now that has it all: great song, great vocals, great band performance ... I guess we'll never see and hear anything remotely close though it may be unfair to compare the incomparable (Freddie of course). Just one last point: I thought that NOBY was really good. Mike |
| monty-- 03.12.2007 16:39 |
Well, I think the first part is horrific. I can't even comprehend why accomplished musicians such as Queen would play such an awful synth in that way. Virtually no production in there. You hear a lengthy note with the synth and then, bam! It stops! No fade out. It is awful. Lyrically..it's ok. Straight from the Roger Taylor book of Happiness?/Electric Fire couplets and stanzas. Very basic. Very standard. As for Brian's guitar playing? Don't even go there. There is absolutely no innovation in there. It's just your bog standard 'Brian May-esque' playing up and down the fret board. You JUST KNOW he's done this type of stuff in his sleep. Virtually no melody to it either. The song only comes alive when Paul starts to sing. Every song on Back To The Light, Happiness?, Made In Heaven, Another World, and Electric Fire are better than this. Queen have not created songs in years and it shows. Too much fucking around with Robbie Williams, Pepsi ads, diva wannabees in musicals, boy bands and reality TV shows have turned them into the absolute shite composers they are today. |
| PieterMC 03.12.2007 16:52 |
monty-- wrote: Well, I think the first part is horrific. I can't even comprehend why accomplished musicians such as Queen would play such an awful synth in that way.Perhaps you should go back and re-listen to the AKOM and Miracle albums. |
| Sebastian 03.12.2007 17:02 |
I love the song and I loved the version. I obviously disagree with the "Queen" name, I still think that they should've released it as Rodgers, Taylor & May (or Taylor, Rodgers & May, or May, Rodgers & Taylor, etc). But overlooking that aspect (which doesn't affect the music itself), my overall observations: - I like the fact each one sings a bit, and I do wish Queen (the actual Queen, with Roger, Freddie, John and Brian) had done that more often (e.g. 'It's Late', each one having a 'scene'). - It makes me wonder how would other Roger's ballads sound with Brian's voice (e.g. 'Days of Our Lives', 'Foreign Sand'). - The guitar sound is great, but I think Brian tried too hard to be Queen-esque, being one of the very very very few cases where he did NOT work for the song. In that sense, it deserves "only" 9.5 out of 10 IMO. - Great arrangement, but it's far from being the "epic" Dr May described. - They desperately need a bass player (even if it's a session one and doesn't get included into the "Queen" name). Not necessarily John, but anybody who's capable of playing a professional melodic thing there. - I think an acoustic piano would've been much better than the background synth. Brian's a very good keyboard player, and so is Paul, so it's sort of a waste putting that simple pad IMO. - It's a very good 'trade card' for the collaboration between the three of them. - Good drums, but I don't like the way they mixed the acoustic part. - In spite of being quite detailed, it's not too dense or overwhelming, so they did a fine job all in all. |
| Micrówave 03.12.2007 17:18 |
Sebastian wrote: - I think an acoustic piano would've been much betterThank you. I completely agree. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 03.12.2007 17:56 |
Yes, a real bass player is missing in the song. The bass line is very, very simple, too simple compared to what John did. My only "real" complaint, as it would pertain to a whole record. This song was a good teaser, a way for them to put a toe in to test the water, as it were. |
| Nacho_itu 03.12.2007 18:20 |
I think many people around here knows better how to do a queen song than Roger or brian ;). And I still get a little disappointed reading that they shouldn't use the name "Queen", because freddie's ashes would be upset... Come on! If they want to use that name, let them do it. I prefer to see "Queen", than "Queen+Paul rodgers" or "Half Queen+something" or something like that. It's just a name... Many people here doesn't accept the fact that freddie is gone and John is probably jer***g o** somewhere on Timbuctu... (Not for real, of course). I enjoy the song... yes, it could be better produced, yes, I don't like some effects, but I think that the most important thing here is that we finally have a song that is played by Brian, Roger and Paul, and is something "new" (and i mean, this song wasn't sung by freddie, so we can't compare). This is the first studio snippet of what could be a new Queen album with Paul, and i'm very excited with this. |
| saltnvinegar 03.12.2007 19:26 |
I'd just like to say this is a great thread, No name calling or nastiness, just differing opinions being shared-great. I don't have too much more to add to the earlier comments other than hearing this version has given me a newfound respect for Roger's solo/acoustic performance during the Q+PR tour. The opening synth chord sounded like a false start that they forgot to remove, Roger and Brian's vocals were rather synthesised/echoey/generated too which was a shame as this simple song matches a plaintive, bare vocal very well. Another thing that struck me during the build up: I felt they were kind of saying.'here it comes....here's Paul, our vocalist- BOOM!', a kind of cacophony of Queen sound (well, drums and guitar) that would normally amaze and impress suddenly cluttered the fragile structure of the tune in order to make way for Paul's belting vocals. As ern2150 already mentioned the elongated 'meeeee-eeeee' at 3.53 was jarring and seemed to take something away from the important message that the song was sending. That said,I do have high standards for the Queen guys but I'd still rate this music as far superior to 80% of today's other popular music output and the cause behind the song is what we should focus on here. I wish them the best of luck with the new album. I have no problems with them still working, I want them to-even a little Queen is better than none but I just wish I could feel more excited about the prospect. |
| Roger Meadows Tailor 04.12.2007 02:23 |
As Benn says you have to remember that SINT was done by half of Queen and so therefore this song if it were done by all of them would probably not see the light of day. That said, after 4 days i still think its exellent and am still playing it regularly. Now on the subject of Paul Rodgers. You have to remember that he is essentially a blues/rock singer.He would be more suited to singing somrthing like White Man for example. I have followed him and his music since about 1970 through Free and Bad Company etc. In SINT you hear his particular style of singing coming through. SINT might well be an appetite whetter for the forth coming album as with the acquisition of Paul on vocals and guitar and piano the album may well be a lot heavier than Queen have did in the eighties and nineties.In a ways i hope so. |
| Fenderek 04.12.2007 05:05 |
I agree about the bass- especially when the songs will get more complecated than SINT (will they?) we will miss a REAL bass player... I am worried the whole album may sound like Brian's ANOTHER WORLD- good for a Brian's solo effort but not for a Queen project... |
| Sebastian 04.12.2007 06:21 |
> I think many people around here knows better how to do a queen song than Roger or brian ;). In fact, sometimes you see things better from the outside. > And I still get a little disappointed reading that they shouldn't use the name "Queen", because freddie's ashes would be upset... I don't give a fuck about Freddie's ashes. But MY opinion is that it's completely COWARD to name themselves Queen, as if they needed that to justify themselves. They should justify their work by its quality, which is marvellous in its own way. Again, all of that in MY opinion. > If they want to use that name, let them do it. I can't stop them from doing it. But I can complain about that in an internet forum. So I'll keep doing it. Ever heard about freedom of speech? > It's just a name... So... they should change it. > Many people here doesn't accept the fact that freddie is gone and John is probably jer***g o** somewhere on Timbuctu... (Not for real, of course). So ... they should use another name. > You have to remember that he is essentially a blues/rock singer. But I think he's done an excellent job in other styles. He's a great, great musician. |
| studyan 04.12.2007 06:37 |
hi monty(andy)its stu and dyan totally agree but lets make it short the song is no bad but paul just cant sing he sound like a male mariah carey just torture even worse than mr depressing(tim staffell) |
| Roger Meadows Tailor 04.12.2007 06:57 |
studyan wrote: hi monty(andy)its stu and dyan totally agree but lets make it short the song is no bad but paul just cant sing he sound like a male mariah carey just torture even worse than mr depressing(tim staffell)Disagree...Paul can sing. Fabulous singer he is too. Somebody says most Queen fans know how to write better than Roger and Brian. Well why dont you Queenzoners write a song and put it on here. See if you can better SINT.Go on give it a try!!! |
| Sebastian 04.12.2007 08:00 |
Maybe most of us can't write something better than SINT. But Brian, Roger and Paul absolutely can. Or at least they can make a much better SINT. So ... it's mediocre to do something which is far below their own level. Still, as I said, 'Say It's Not True' is a great song and a great record. But could have Roger, Brian and Paul made a much better one? Of course. Considering, for instance, that Brian and Paul are both great piano players, having them put that stupid synth in the beginning is plain sad. |
| Fenderek 04.12.2007 08:03 |
Sebastian wrote: Considering, for instance, that Brian and Paul are both great piano players, having them put that stupid synth in the beginning is plain sad.Absolutely agree. But than again it's nothing new- we had that since 1986 (Freddie was actually even better piano player than B. and p. put together...) |
| cmsdrums 04.12.2007 08:23 |
I seem to be in the minority, but I actually think it's a good vocal from Roger, and one of Brian's best vocals for some time - he's actually in a comfortable register for his voice and not straining. I also thin kthat the lyrics are very goosd, very powerful and hit home with the exact nature intended. I think the problem a lot of people have with them is that they are very untypical of 'Queen' of old, and being of a political/social nature this doesn't sit well with some people. As much as I appreciate the quality of Paul's voice, the actual method of his delivery in recent years is really starting to grate on me - too much trying to do a Mariah Carey type warbling up and down on too many notes unnecessarily in my opinion. Once everything 'kicks in' it has a live feel to it as opposed to a really studio based production like Queen of old, and this seems to tie in with Roger's recent quotes of them all playing 'live' together in the stuido on a lot of new stuff. Unfortunately the quality of the mp3 file available for download isn't great, but from what we've got the drum sound seems really good, but I agree with some others that Brian's pieces seem a bit 'Brian by numbers' and are a bit over the top in places and not as instantly memorable or melodic as his past works. All in all, a good start, and it will be interesting to see what comes out next! |
| Bobby_brown 04.12.2007 11:06 |
The best thing is going to be the live version. They will play this at the next 46664 in Hyde Park, and it´s going to be great to see the stage dynamics to perform this song. Take care |
| Another Roger (re) 04.12.2007 11:32 |
Benn wrote: Another Roger, re: I have to disagree - I think it's points toward how they will approach the structure of forthcoming material. Sadnly, it appears, following on from the live shows, all three will handle vocal duties. Whether this is from an ego point of view, homage to the fact that Brian and Roger both sang on "Queen" albums or they are receiving poor advice / feedback from certain sections, I have no idea. I think it will - it'll be another excuse to push the MPT charity and the "AIDS" message again. Whether this is good for the album or the music, I don't know, but I'd like to think that they wouldn't leave out a great Paul Rodgers performance for this track. I'd like to think that they were more inclined to *give away* the poor material and save the best for the album, but, commercially, it wouldn't make sense - they need to get back some of the outlay in making SINT somehow!>>Well. I think it would be stupid to bring in Paul Rodgers if he doesnt sing most of the lead vocals. I think it will look much like the old days. The lead singer, Paul Rodgers in this case, sings 80% of the lead vocals. While Roger and Brian sing one or two each. Lets just hope they release the album so we can see. >>I still dont believe SINT will be on the new album. If they are planning to use it I expect that they work more on it. Its not as well produced as I hoped it would be. I still like the song though. Its just that I want a positive album. I dont want a nostalgia trip again. |
| FriedChicken 04.12.2007 11:45 |
After the excitement I think the track is getting better and better. I don't think Say it's not True was a very very good song to begin with. But in the original version it lacked everything. Now it's a great song and I love it more each time I listen to it |
| Fenderek 04.12.2007 13:48 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: After the excitement I think the track is getting better and better. I don't think Say it's not True was a very very good song to begin with. But in the original version it lacked everything. Now it's a great song and I love it more each time I listen to itIMO it's not great- BUT it IS actually slightly growing on me |
| goinback 04.12.2007 17:18 |
Mike Label wrote: SINT suffers from bad production, true. It's not a particularly good song either, and neither Brian nor Roger are good singers (at least today). All this has been said before, I know. I tried to listen without prejudice - keep in mind, I've been a Queen fan for 34 years by now, have seen Queen with Freddie many times, have been to Brian and Roger solo several times, seen Queen+PR twice, and I'll buy anything that has Brian and/or Roger on it ... but I still find the new song dull, boring, lame, just disappointing ... A few hours ago I watched part of QRM and was (again)especially thrilled when Save Me came up - now that has it all: great song, great vocals, great band performance ... I guess we'll never see and hear anything remotely close though it may be unfair to compare the incomparable (Freddie of course). Just one last point: I thought that NOBY was really good. MikeI've also been a Queen fan since the '70s, have seen the original Queen and Queen w/ Paul Rodgers (which I did enjoy) and agree with the above. I did also like NOBY, so it seems like this one is sort of retreading the same ground except weaker. I did like this song when I saw it live and it was more "toned-down"...as someone else said, the emotional sense of "loss" it seemed to have in the "live" incarnation has sort of been replaced with "preachiness" in the studio version. I think, as with a lot of Queen songs, the lyrics aren't usually that important, so with the original live versions the music and the frailness of the vocals did make it, while the studio version puts too much emphasis on the lyrics. I think also my problem is since I was a Queen fan in the '70s, I remember them breaking the rules and pushing boundaries...and was OK with them not doing it as much in the '80s and '90s, but now am kind of ready for them to start doing that again. This song doesn't break any boundaries...not that it has to, but they haven't done that in over 15 years at this point. And I do think it seems like they're not quite satisfied with how this got recorded themselves since it was a free download...I bet the "album" version will sound different, and the rest of the album will probably be much better too. I'm going to keep listening to this though and hopefully it will grow on me :) I really want to like this.... |
| newcastle 86! 16483 04.12.2007 18:10 |
i must admit i like it. Always liked rogers vocals has a lot of emotion whatever he sings.Brians vocal i can do without. However i wish Paul had been give n more to sing........... hes kinda stuck at the end when he should have been given more hes a great vocalist. |
| Benn 05.12.2007 04:48 |
Let's just hope, then, that the messages contained within this thread, most notably... "Let Paul Rodgers sing!" ...are being watched and passed on to the powers that be. |
| Knute 05.12.2007 06:25 |
I'm willing to bet a lot of money that if they do indeed produce an album, that they will not share lead vocals on the songs. I would imagine Roger and Brian having one to two songs each and Paul singing the rest. |
| FriedChicken 05.12.2007 07:09 |
Yeah, I agree with Knute |
| Fenderek 05.12.2007 07:37 |
Knute wrote: I would imagine Roger and Brian having one to two songs each and Paul singing the rest.if they did 2 each that's already a lot- 4 out of... let's say 9-10... One each would be fine, anything more would be a bit too much |
| Benn 05.12.2007 07:42 |
Knute, re: >I'm willing to bet a lot of money that if they >do indeed produce an album, that they will not >share lead vocals on the songs. > >I would imagine Roger and Brian having one to >two songs each and Paul singing the rest. That would be disappointing. How long do you expect the album to be? 45 - 60 minutes at most as per the norm for a Queen / BM / RT solo album is what we'll get. By your reckoning, that will be something like a third of the total playing time for BM & RT alone. Add in the odd "shared" vocal and probably half the album will feature Paul in a band that he's been recruited to sing for. He'd be better off, in that case, persuing his own interests. This all seems to simple a solution to me: If they are expecting this incarnation of the band to have a future, BM & RT need to drop the ego trip where their vocals are concerned and get on with the fact that this is a new band with absolutely no history. There ought to be no place for material such as "LOML", "TATDOOL", "AKOM", "IWTBF" or "GaGa". Rather than trying to be all things to all "Queen" fans, a specific direction needs to be found. Given their obvious strengths, I'd have thought it clear and *OBVIOUS* that the blues / rock side of Queen's catalgue is ripe for exploiting as opposed to the washed out '80's pop singles side. Paul's voice is evident in Freddie's influences for material on albums up to "Jazz" - building live shows and new studio material around that would give fans an absolute treat I'm sure and would also go a long way to proving that the rock band that *WAS* "Queen" and *IS* "Queen + Paul Rodgers" have a valid statement to make. One song for BM & RT each with no shared vocals would be my ideal. Keep BM & RT playing the great Rock music they aer best at doing. Have Paul singing "Queen" material that will be very new to a majority of "Queen + Paul Rodgers" fans ("Liar", "Hangman", "Ogre Battle", "White Man", "White Queen", "It's Late") but at the same time a treat for those more versed in "Queen" history. This is a massive chane to bring it all back to where it started but, at the same time, forging ahead whilst at the same time, gaining ground with fans both old and new as well as themore critical elements of the music press. |
| Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira 05.12.2007 15:25 |
Benn wrote: Knute, re: >I'm willing to bet a lot of money that if they >do indeed produce an album, that they will not >share lead vocals on the songs. > >I would imagine Roger and Brian having one to >two songs each and Paul singing the rest. That would be disappointing. How long do you expect the album to be? 45 - 60 minutes at most as per the norm for a Queen / BM / RT solo album is what we'll get. By your reckoning, that will be something like a third of the total playing time for BM & RT alone. Add in the odd "shared" vocal and probably half the album will feature Paul in a band that he's been recruited to sing for. He'd be better off, in that case, persuing his own interests. This all seems to simple a solution to me: If they are expecting this incarnation of the band to have a future, BM & RT need to drop the ego trip where their vocals are concerned and get on with the fact that this is a new band with absolutely no history. There ought to be no place for material such as "LOML", "TATDOOL", "AKOM", "IWTBF" or "GaGa". Rather than trying to be all things to all "Queen" fans, a specific direction needs to be found. Given their obvious strengths, I'd have thought it clear and *OBVIOUS* that the blues / rock side of Queen's catalgue is ripe for exploiting as opposed to the washed out '80's pop singles side. Paul's voice is evident in Freddie's influences for material on albums up to "Jazz" - building live shows and new studio material around that would give fans an absolute treat I'm sure and would also go a long way to proving that the rock band that *WAS* "Queen" and *IS* "Queen + Paul Rodgers" have a valid statement to make. One song for BM & RT each with no shared vocals would be my ideal. Keep BM & RT playing the great Rock music they aer best at doing. Have Paul singing "Queen" material that will be very new to a majority of "Queen + Paul Rodgers" fans ("Liar", "Hangman", "Ogre Battle", "White Man", "White Queen", "It's Late") but at the same time a treat for those more versed in "Queen" history. This is a massive chane to bring it all back to where it started but, at the same time, forging ahead whilst at the same time, gaining ground with fans both old and new as well as themore critical elements of the music press.I'd love to agree with you, but I am pretty sure they will play the hits again and include some of the new songs in between. I can't blame them for doing so, anyway. ;) Cheers, Ogre- |
| vadenuez 05.12.2007 15:28 |
I agree with Benn. By all means, the new Queen should follow the example given by Velvet Revolver. Nobody expects G n'R or STP nostalgia with them. They are a whole new band with they're own rightfully acclaimed hit singles. Queen's new album must rock. Stop trying to go whatever places they reached with Freddie and stop trying to cover their own past music. Try something new. Even more, they should stay away from any tribute to Freddie. They already done that ad nifinitum. If they want to succeed, they should stop living in the past. |
| Tero 05.12.2007 16:42 |
vadenuez wrote: I agree with Benn. By all means, the new Queen should follow the example given by Velvet Revolver. Nobody expects G n'R or STP nostalgia with them. They are a whole new band with they're own rightfully acclaimed hit singles.Aren't you deluding yourself a bit here? :/ Nobody expects Velvet Revolver to sound like GNR or STP and to play their hits because it has a completely new name! "Queen" on the other hand is using the same old name for a whole new kind of material, and intentionally opening the door to high expectations and harsh critique when those expectations aren't reached... Perhaps a new name might have been a good idea for them as well? :P |
| Cwazy little thing 05.12.2007 18:59 |
Tero wrote:Thats a good point really - they wont get away from the demand to play their core hits as long as the name Queen is there. I do hope however they consider dropping a couple of the less essential tracks no one would miss for just one tour (such as IWTBF and AKOM) in favour of something a bit more special (White Queen being a perfect example).vadenuez wrote: I agree with Benn. By all means, the new Queen should follow the example given by Velvet Revolver. Nobody expects G n'R or STP nostalgia with them. They are a whole new band with they're own rightfully acclaimed hit singles.Aren't you deluding yourself a bit here? :/ Nobody expects Velvet Revolver to sound like GNR or STP and to play their hits because it has a completely new name! "Queen" on the other hand is using the same old name for a whole new kind of material, and intentionally opening the door to high expectations and harsh critique when those expectations aren't reached... Perhaps a new name might have been a good idea for them as well? :P Maybe Brian and Roger will get sentimental - lets be honest, theres only so many more times their going to get a chance to tour, so digging out an older, less of a hit single number from the past wont ever happen if not soon, and it'd be nice to dust off some of that material one more time! Obviously the emphasis should rightly be on new material though I guess! |
| vadenuez 05.12.2007 23:19 |
Tero wrote:Actually we have the very same point but you explained it better ;) Slash, Wieland and co. started a new band from scratch and left their successful past behind them. Brian and Roger would make it better if they leave the Queen banner and concentrate in being a new band with PR, so they wouldn't have to be their own cover band forever.vadenuez wrote: I agree with Benn. By all means, the new Queen should follow the example given by Velvet Revolver. Nobody expects G n'R or STP nostalgia with them. They are a whole new band with they're own rightfully acclaimed hit singles.Aren't you deluding yourself a bit here? :/ Nobody expects Velvet Revolver to sound like GNR or STP and to play their hits because it has a completely new name! "Queen" on the other hand is using the same old name for a whole new kind of material, and intentionally opening the door to high expectations and harsh critique when those expectations aren't reached... Perhaps a new name might have been a good idea for them as well? :P |
| Tero 06.12.2007 04:43 |
vadenuez wrote:Okay, that explains it... I was wondering why your post seemed so contradictory.Tero wrote:Actually we have the very same point but you explained it better ;) Slash, Wieland and co. started a new band from scratch and left their successful past behind them. Brian and Roger would make it better if they leave the Queen banner and concentrate in being a new band with PR, so they wouldn't have to be their own cover band forever.vadenuez wrote: I agree with Benn. By all means, the new Queen should follow the example given by Velvet Revolver. Nobody expects G n'R or STP nostalgia with them. They are a whole new band with they're own rightfully acclaimed hit singles.Aren't you deluding yourself a bit here? :/ Nobody expects Velvet Revolver to sound like GNR or STP and to play their hits because it has a completely new name! "Queen" on the other hand is using the same old name for a whole new kind of material, and intentionally opening the door to high expectations and harsh critique when those expectations aren't reached... Perhaps a new name might have been a good idea for them as well? :P Sorry about calling you deluded. |
| vadenuez 08.12.2007 02:26 |
No problem, Tero :) After listening SINT at least ten times, I'm sorry to say that my worst fears are coming true: Queen+ are nothing more than a good rocking band, but the Queen days will never ever come back. It's not just about Freddie's gone forever or nostalgia... it's simply that two men can't possibly achieve whatever a four-men ensemble were capable of doing. For starters they don't have a bass player: playing bass in a song is one thing, but having a regular bass player, someone able to stand up and give some valuable input for a song, that's different. Then they had John Deacon, who was an old friend of them and was enough talented to build an interesting bass line according to the sound they wished to get. And they had Freddie Mercury, who had enough bollocks to modify someone else's song to make it fit exactly where they wanted it to be or to make improvements without being scared about the new direction that the song may take. SINT clearly shows a total lack of brainstorming. To all of those who think that Queen+ ain't Queen just because there's no Freddie, you should rethink it: being two men doing a four man job, Queen+ will never be Queen, simply because they're not a band anymore. The best they'll be able to do is COPY their own long gone sound (which won't be enough) or change the direction and start finding new goals with PR, Spike Edney and whoever joins them. |
| Pim Derks 08.12.2007 10:49 |
Though I really like the new version of SINT it's missing something. Not Freddie, but it misses that 'special touch' that No-One But You DID have 10 years back. Still, I rather hear them making new music which isn't 100% Queen than only covering old Queen tracks with new acts like 5ive, Britney, Robbie etc. Bring on the album :) |
| Boy Thomas Raker 08.12.2007 10:50 |
vadenuez wrote: No problem, Tero :) "...it's simply that two men can't possibly achieve whatever a four-men ensemble were capable of doing. For starters they don't have a bass player: playing bass in a song is one thing, but having a regular bass player, someone able to stand up and give some valuable input for a song, that's different. Then they had John Deacon, who was an old friend of them and was enough talented to build an interesting bass line according to the sound they wished to get. And they had Freddie Mercury, who had enough bollocks to modify someone else's song to make it fit exactly where they wanted it to be or to make improvements without being scared about the new direction that the song may take. SINT clearly shows a total lack of brainstorming. To all of those who think that Queen+ ain't Queen just because there's no Freddie, you should rethink it: being two men doing a four man job, Queen+ will never be Queen, simply because they're not a band anymore. The best they'll be able to do is COPY their own long gone sound (which won't be enough) or change the direction and start finding new goals with PR, Spike Edney and whoever joins them."What a brilliant post! One of the things that has never been discussed during the "are they Queen?" debate is playing and dynamics. Again, Brian and Roger can and will call themselves Queen, but they never will be for the reasons Vadanuez just stated. Getting the Queen sound and songs used to be a battle. Now if Brian brings a song in, he's lost 50% of his creative team/adversaries who may take it in a different direction. John added so much that Brian, Roger and Paul never would be able to as a bass player. They're totally different instruments, and as wonderful a bass player as John is, I doubt that Queen would have had much of an impact if he were the Queen guitarist. |
| Sebastian 08.12.2007 10:59 |
Indeed the bass is the biggest flaw in SINT. It confirms how important John was for the band in terms of sound: without him they still can write great songs (as they did before him), without him they can write great bass-lines (as they have in their solo albums and even within Queen), but without him (or a capable bassist for that matter) the bass will sound amateur, and ruin (for some extent) an otherwise marvellous record. It's like having John Deacon, Kerry Livgren and Andrew Lloyd Webber forming a band ... the three of them are capable of great melodies, but they're not singers. They need somebody to bring life to the melodies and/or lyrics they write. Brian, Roger and Paul have many great skills ... but playing bass on a high level isn't one of them. |