| steven 35638 18.01.2008 01:08 |
I wish to ask you a question that I hope will inspire some interesting and meaningful responses. It's been asked before, but I'll ask it again. Why are you dedicated to Queen? What makes them so unique and special to you? Here is my answer to the question I've sought after for quite some time... Queen, without a doubt, is one of the most diverse artists in terms of musical styles and genres. That's the main reason behind why I've been so dedicated to them, it's because they were more than just a rock band. Before I ever got into Queen I was a diligent musician in the high school band who, for the most part, spent his time in the classical realm of music. So, once I picked up my first Queen album I was amazed at the sophistication of their music. They truly loved music, not just rock and roll. They simply used the rock and roll scene to channel their creative thoughts and ideas. It's truly unique. The only time they went too far into one genre/style of music was in 1982 with Hot Space, otherwise they remained quite diverse and varied throughout their career. The band also immersed themselves in harmony. As a musician and recreational composer, I absolutely adore their delicately structured orchestrations. Paul Rodgers noted that it takes Brian May very little effort to orchestrate his harmonies, and as for Freddie Mercury, just listen to 'You Take My Breath Away'. The vocal harmonies are magnificent. I'd like to add that their diversity in taste of music is equivalent to that of their influences. Not only that, but the people who influenced the band were quite diverse. Consider this, one of Freddie Mercury's all time favorite singers was a gospel/pop singer; Aretha Franklin. Later on, Freddie Mercury became fascinated with and performed with the famous opera singer Montserrat Caballe'. In fact, I think Freddie Mercury spent more time listening to opera, gospel, and other various types of music (including classical composer Chopin), than rock and roll. That's not to say, however, that he didn't like Jimi Hendrix, because it's a known fact that was one of his influences as well. As for Brian May and Roger Taylor, well, there goes your typical rock and rollers. They were particularly influenced by The Beatles among many other rock acts of their time. As for John Deacon, listening to his compositions tells me that he was quite fond of funk and latino sounds (to some extent). I suppose the key word when it comes to Queen is 'diversity'. |
| Roger Meadows Tailor 18.01.2008 04:13 |
I got into Queen very early in their career. I was fortunate enough to see them live supporting Mott The Hoople in '74 before i bought my first Queen album. I can remember being impressed with them and thinking here's a band who are attempting to play different styles of music in the one gig. Harmonies wise,i know they ripped off Sweet and to a lesser degree The Beatles.Queen,for me,took their ideas and did them better. When i bought Queen,just after that show,i listened to it and loved the fact that they were so meticulous in their approach to their music (even then).They didnt stick to any one formula like bands like Yes or Deep Purple did.Queen's music was pushing boundaries never heard of in Rock music.Thats what probably got up a lot of the journalists arses at the time. Freddie certainly did bring ballet to the masses and thats absolutely fine by me. |
| saltnvinegar 18.01.2008 04:36 |
Roger Meadows Tailor wrote: I got into Queen very early in their career. I was fortunate enough to see them live supporting Mott The Hoople in '74 before i bought my first Queen album. I can remember being impressed with them and thinking here's a band who are attempting to play different styles of music in the one gig. Harmonies wise,i know they ripped off Sweet and to a lesser degree The Beatles.Queen,for me,took their ideas and did them better. When i bought Queen,just after that show,i listened to it and loved the fact that they were so meticulous in their approach to their music (even then).They didnt stick to any one formula like bands like Yes or Deep Purple did.Queen's music was pushing boundaries never heard of in Rock music.Thats what probably got up a lot of the journalists arses at the time. Freddie certainly did bring ballet to the masses and thats absolutely fine by me.Thanks for sharing your story, I love to hear from people who were there 'as it began' so to speak. You mentioned the journalists in your post, would you say they were 'anti-Queen' from the start or was it more of a gradual move? I think that back in the 70's, they once did a session on the John Peel show but I know for a fact that all the Peelie disciples would balk at the mention of Queen now. I'm curious to know the exact events leading to the critical backlash.(Apologies to the OP for going a bit off topic) |
| FVBVA 18.01.2008 05:12 |
my story is very simple,i fell in love with his voice |
| Good_Company50 18.01.2008 12:26 |
I have to agree with the previous posters—I am dedicated to Queen because of their diversity, their obvious love of music and dedication to putting out the best material they were capable of producing. There have been some other bands who brought a lot of diversity to their music (The Beatles come to mind) but I think Queen did all those different styles infinitely better. All four members wrote songs and brought to their music a far range of musical influences. And I can’t think of any singer who has the tremendous versatility of Freddie Mercury. I enjoy the fact that Queen didn’t follow the musical trends (with a few exceptions) and just continued to do what they knew they did best. Because of that, I think their music doesn’t sound as dated as some of the music of that era tends to do; most of it sounds as good today as it did decades ago. That is one of the reasons they are still attaining new fans, old and young. It is also the reason I come back to listen to them so often and find myself discovering things in their music I never noticed before. |
| Roger Meadows Tailor 18.01.2008 13:52 |
saltnvinegar wrote:Hi saltnvinegarRoger Meadows Tailor wrote: I got into Queen very early in their career. I was fortunate enough to see them live supporting Mott The Hoople in '74 before i bought my first Queen album. I can remember being impressed with them and thinking here's a band who are attempting to play different styles of music in the one gig. Harmonies wise,i know they ripped off Sweet and to a lesser degree The Beatles.Queen,for me,took their ideas and did them better. When i bought Queen,just after that show,i listened to it and loved the fact that they were so meticulous in their approach to their music (even then).They didnt stick to any one formula like bands like Yes or Deep Purple did.Queen's music was pushing boundaries never heard of in Rock music.Thats what probably got up a lot of the journalists arses at the time. Freddie certainly did bring ballet to the masses and thats absolutely fine by me.Thanks for sharing your story, I love to hear from people who were there 'as it began' so to speak. You mentioned the journalists in your post, would you say they were 'anti-Queen' from the start or was it more of a gradual move? I think that back in the 70's, they once did a session on the John Peel show but I know for a fact that all the Peelie disciples would balk at the mention of Queen now. I'm curious to know the exact events leading to the critical backlash.(Apologies to the OP for going a bit off topic) Yes i would say that journalists had a problem with Queen right from the beginning.You see,they liked to play a game of "lets pidgeon-hole every band that exists" and they couldnt do that with Queen.Some of them even had a problem with Freddie's sexuality and also because of the fact that he didnt look and act like Robert Plant.I remember one journalist in the Record Mirror (a totally shit music rag that existed in the UK in the 70's and 80's) describing Freddie as being "too poofy".Totally ignoring the fact that he was a utterly consummate singer and performer,even in the early days.That's why for years Freddie wouldnt give any interviews(or very little) You have to remember that John Peel was a champion of more or less unsigned bands and so therefore people of that ilk looked upon bands like Queen with disdain,claiming them to be the hierachy.John ,of course ,did not.I think he might even have been considered to be a freind of the band. I wish i could take you back to the 70's to see Queen as i saw them.It would be fun. |
| s.m. 18.01.2008 16:22 |
talent, unity, diversity, sound, voice, guitar, live |
| Dusta 18.01.2008 19:36 |
I've been a casual Queen fan since the seventies, and, for me, it was the melodies which drew me in. Brian's guitar, and, Freddie's voice, along with, of course, the compositions and harmonies made for a unique and powerful sound, which really made an impression on me, as a kid. I also had a friend who was a professional singer--someone I greatly admired. I was just a kid, around eleven/twelvish, and, she used to take me to concerts(among them: Led Zeppelin), and, she was a HUGE Queen fan. She used to tell me that she wished she could have a couple hours with Freddie, as she thought he had the most exquisite voice! Didn't become a freakish fan until, years later, seeing an interview on television where someone was describing Freddie's voice, tearfully, and, realized I missed Queen, and, their melodies. Went out and bought a GH cassette(yes, casette...I am ancient), and, fell in love, all over again. I also realized that, though I had always loved Queen, I had, in fact, taken them for granted. Great thread! I have enjoyed reading about everyones experiences! |
| saltnvinegar 18.01.2008 21:01 |
Roger Meadows Tailor wrote: Hi saltnvinegar Yes i would say that journalists had a problem with Queen right from the beginning.You see,they liked to play a game of "lets pidgeon-hole every band that exists" and they couldnt do that with Queen.Some of them even had a problem with Freddie's sexuality and also because of the fact that he didnt look and act like Robert Plant.I remember one journalist in the Record Mirror (a totally shit music rag that existed in the UK in the 70's and 80's) describing Freddie as being "too poofy".Totally ignoring the fact that he was a utterly consummate singer and performer,even in the early days.That's why for years Freddie wouldnt give any interviews(or very little) You have to remember that John Peel was a champion of more or less unsigned bands and so therefore people of that ilk looked upon bands like Queen with disdain,claiming them to be the hierachy.John ,of course ,did not.I think he might even have been considered to be a freind of the band. I wish i could take you back to the 70's to see Queen as i saw them.It would be fun.Thanks RMT (may I call you that?!) and believe me, I really wish I could go back to the 70's and see Queen from the beginning like you did. It's strange, I shouldn't really care about rags like Record Mirror, NME etc but I do. I think it's because back then, they were responsible for influencing (or should I say brain washing) an awful lot of impressionable young people regarding what was and wasn't 'cool' to listen to. There's a certain generation today, my friends included, who still go by the articles they read in such publications and consequently treat Queen with disdain. They haven't even listened to their vast back catalogue but you can just trace their sneery condescension to something they read in an old Melody Maker. I am also a huge Beatles fan but, to be honest, if Queen had written something like 'Ob La Di Ob la Da', those 'rock journalists' would have pulled it to pieces but because the Fab Four created it, it gets a more affectionate respect. Anyhow, to get slightly back on topic, that attitude is one of the reasons why I love the band so much. They had a certain irony and humour to them that went over the heads of so many detractors. To be a Queen fan is to be in on the joke and while you laugh you can also marvel at the amazing music they produced. |
| saltnvinegar 18.01.2008 21:12 |
Dusta wrote: I also realized that, though I had always loved Queen, I had, in fact, taken them for granted.That's a very good point and honest too. The old saying 'you don't realise what you had till it's gone' may be appropriate for you there Dusta. Luckily now though we have all their music and dvds to enjoy. I shudder to imagine if I'd never discovered them at all! |
| StoneColdClassicQueen 19.01.2008 00:12 |
I love their diversity. They also really know how to connect with the listeners. I remember my friend just had them on her iPod. She told me to listen to You're My Best Friend. That's when my obsession started :). I am working on obtaining all their dvds and albums and almost anything of Queen by the time I'm 20. No one at my school really knows Queen. But I saw a guy wearing an awesome Queen black shirt. I complimented him and he just said thanks, but he looked angry. My friends suggested that he didn't have a Queen spirit. |
| Dusta 19.01.2008 01:51 |
So true, and, sometimes, in the back of my mind, I wonder if Freddie really knew how appreciated his voice and, other musical endeavors, truly were. Brian, Roger and John are around, now, to see the legacy, but, I think Freddie left before the legacy was fully realized, and, understood.saltnvinegar wrote:Dusta wrote: I also realized that, though I had always loved Queen, I had, in fact, taken them for granted.That's a very good point and honest too. The old saying 'you don't realise what you had till it's gone' may be appropriate for you there Dusta. Luckily now though we have all their music and dvds to enjoy. I shudder to imagine if I'd never discovered them at all! |
| Winter Land Man 19.01.2008 01:52 |
Roger Meadows Tailor wrote:Didn't Roger Taylor say "If John Peel was here now, I'd give him a good thumping"?????saltnvinegar wrote:Hi saltnvinegar Yes i would say that journalists had a problem with Queen right from the beginning.You see,they liked to play a game of "lets pidgeon-hole every band that exists" and they couldnt do that with Queen.Some of them even had a problem with Freddie's sexuality and also because of the fact that he didnt look and act like Robert Plant.I remember one journalist in the Record Mirror (a totally shit music rag that existed in the UK in the 70's and 80's) describing Freddie as being "too poofy".Totally ignoring the fact that he was a utterly consummate singer and performer,even in the early days.That's why for years Freddie wouldnt give any interviews(or very little) You have to remember that John Peel was a champion of more or less unsigned bands and so therefore people of that ilk looked upon bands like Queen with disdain,claiming them to be the hierachy.John ,of course ,did not.I think he might even have been considered to be a freind of the band. I wish i could take you back to the 70's to see Queen as i saw them.It would be fun.Roger Meadows Tailor wrote: I got into Queen very early in their career. I was fortunate enough to see them live supporting Mott The Hoople in '74 before i bought my first Queen album. I can remember being impressed with them and thinking here's a band who are attempting to play different styles of music in the one gig. Harmonies wise,i know they ripped off Sweet and to a lesser degree The Beatles.Queen,for me,took their ideas and did them better. When i bought Queen,just after that show,i listened to it and loved the fact that they were so meticulous in their approach to their music (even then).They didnt stick to any one formula like bands like Yes or Deep Purple did.Queen's music was pushing boundaries never heard of in Rock music.Thats what probably got up a lot of the journalists arses at the time. Freddie certainly did bring ballet to the masses and thats absolutely fine by me.Thanks for sharing your story, I love to hear from people who were there 'as it began' so to speak. You mentioned the journalists in your post, would you say they were 'anti-Queen' from the start or was it more of a gradual move? I think that back in the 70's, they once did a session on the John Peel show but I know for a fact that all the Peelie disciples would balk at the mention of Queen now. I'm curious to know the exact events leading to the critical backlash.(Apologies to the OP for going a bit off topic) I think so, and it had to do with John Peel commenting on Queen and aparthied, calling Queen 'Sun City Boys' or something like that. And Roger and Freddie were upset, and Roger threatened him. I have the article somewhere... it's also probably on QueenCuttings. |
| Roger Meadows Tailor 19.01.2008 07:03 |
.*.Messenger: Jake Pyndle.*. wrote:About John Peel.Roger Meadows Tailor wrote:Didn't Roger Taylor say "If John Peel was here now, I'd give him a good thumping"????? I think so, and it had to do with John Peel commenting on Queen and aparthied, calling Queen 'Sun City Boys' or something like that. And Roger and Freddie were upset, and Roger threatened him. I have the article somewhere... it's also probably on QueenCuttings.saltnvinegar wrote:Hi saltnvinegar Yes i would say that journalists had a problem with Queen right from the beginning.You see,they liked to play a game of "lets pidgeon-hole every band that exists" and they couldnt do that with Queen.Some of them even had a problem with Freddie's sexuality and also because of the fact that he didnt look and act like Robert Plant.I remember one journalist in the Record Mirror (a totally shit music rag that existed in the UK in the 70's and 80's) describing Freddie as being "too poofy".Totally ignoring the fact that he was a utterly consummate singer and performer,even in the early days.That's why for years Freddie wouldnt give any interviews(or very little) You have to remember that John Peel was a champion of more or less unsigned bands and so therefore people of that ilk looked upon bands like Queen with disdain,claiming them to be the hierachy.John ,of course ,did not.I think he might even have been considered to be a freind of the band. I wish i could take you back to the 70's to see Queen as i saw them.It would be fun.Roger Meadows Tailor wrote: I got into Queen very early in their career. I was fortunate enough to see them live supporting Mott The Hoople in '74 before i bought my first Queen album. I can remember being impressed with them and thinking here's a band who are attempting to play different styles of music in the one gig. Harmonies wise,i know they ripped off Sweet and to a lesser degree The Beatles.Queen,for me,took their ideas and did them better. When i bought Queen,just after that show,i listened to it and loved the fact that they were so meticulous in their approach to their music (even then).They didnt stick to any one formula like bands like Yes or Deep Purple did.Queen's music was pushing boundaries never heard of in Rock music.Thats what probably got up a lot of the journalists arses at the time. Freddie certainly did bring ballet to the masses and thats absolutely fine by me.Thanks for sharing your story, I love to hear from people who were there 'as it began' so to speak. You mentioned the journalists in your post, would you say they were 'anti-Queen' from the start or was it more of a gradual move? I think that back in the 70's, they once did a session on the John Peel show but I know for a fact that all the Peelie disciples would balk at the mention of Queen now. I'm curious to know the exact events leading to the critical backlash.(Apologies to the OP for going a bit off topic) Sorry Jake,i never realised there was animosity between Queen and him.I read somewhere in one of his biogs that he seemed to be ok with them. I stand corrected. |
| Karen L 20.01.2008 16:55 |
Someone once described Queen's music as angelic and orgasmic at the same time. I thought this was a great way to describe it. The level of emotion in their music compares to no other band. |
| steven 35638 20.01.2008 21:04 |
Karen L wrote: The level of emotion in their music compares to no other band.There have been many other bands and solo artists known to have just as much emotion as Queen. |
| Karen L 21.01.2008 17:41 |
Not in my book, but you've intrigued me. Who in your opinion compares? |
| steven 35638 21.01.2008 20:56 |
Your opinion, for which I strongly disagree with, seems rather uneducated, for lack of a better term. While it's just your opinion, I couldn't help but point out it is possible for other artists to have just as much emotion as the band Queen. Billy Joel, Journey, Styx, and Josh Groban are names that came straight to mind after reading your post. After that, I began to ponder by what definition you were going by. Because, quite frankly, you put no limitions as to what genre or how wide your opinion spans. For example, I had no idea if you meant Queen had more emotion than Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, and Williams, or if you just meant Queen had more emotion than other bands within the expansive genre that is rock. Either way, I beg to differ, even if it is just your opinion. Perhaps you meant something else, perhaps you'd like to elaborate? |
| Yara 21.01.2008 21:57 |
Hi, all. I'm writing from a hospital. lol I've undergone a surgery in the morning, but I'm ok. I can't sleep so I decided to come here and read what you had to say about the band. People like it for some many reasons, don't they? People already know my opinion. :-))) I like the way Queen succeeded in dealing with their limitations as a band and as individual musicians as well. None of them, I still hold the same opinion, was really off the spectrum or exceptional, individually speaking. Together, though, they had very good ideas and, above all, they managed to give their audiences a huge amount of fun on stage. I don't think Queen's sound was much sophisticated, sorry. That's not the reason I listen to it. The songs are often quite simple, it doesn't take a genius to play them, but they're good and fun. Freddie was indeed hugely charismatic and it's hard to see him singing and not being in any way moved or impressed - for better or for worse. Not because of his voice: he was a good singer as many others. He was no exception there. But, as someone has already said, I think it was the singer who did the duet with him, he sold his voice. He made his voice attractive by doing falsettos (sometimes poorly executed, but who cared?), shouting for seconds in higher register to impress the audience who didn't know a jot about vocal technique and probably had never heard Bach's Cantatas (shouting is not singing, but who cared?). He impressed the audience with his flamboyant style, his elegance on stage, everyone knows his moves. Why do I like Queen? Because they're fun. The songs are fun, and are a joy to listen to. They were/are four talented guys who had great ideas and knew how to sell it to their audience. The songs are good, the musicians are talented, well, it's enough for me. People like myself often get attached to Queen by relating their music to a moment in one's life, by studying music and watching how the band did what they could do and knew how to simulate and pretend what they couldn't do, how they dealt with all their limitations and produced a very distinctive sound. Good old capitalists who knew how to sell their talent: giving their audience a lot of fun and emotion. As Freddie said: "As long people are buying our records, it's ok". Queen is by no means my main interest in music, but I did learn quite a good deal with them as an amateur singer and pianist. Freddie is specially good as a teacher: his singing is clear, very didatic, so to speak, and he teaches you how to pretend you can do something you actually can't, but that people will buy it. It's great, music is in great part dealing with limitations. |
| Yara 21.01.2008 22:42 |
1st.... Hope you get better. 2nd.... like what said. 3rd... lol... Queens songs are often quite simple, it doesn't take a genius to play them?... which songs? there are many many to choose from in whihc are simple but they have many, many complex songs... try playing songs of ANATO. But...on that note, and in Queens deffence.. even though songs may be easy to play... they can be very very hard to create... But can i ask, why do you suggest is a sophisticated sound? I mean, Queen were/are/is one the/if not the most sophisticated group of all time... Once again, hope you can find this as just conversation more than a tit for tat arguement. Cheers1) Thank you very much for the kind words. I'm ok, it was not so dreadful a surgery as I was expecting. I have no pretext to be absent from the classes next week. lol 2)Thanks, you're being kind. 3)Exactly. That's what I wanted to say: many songs may indeed be simple to play, but creating them is the issue: they had very good ideas. Four talented guys with a bunch of good ideas. Playing is also not the same as interpreting: I can play and sing most of Queen's songs. Technically speaking, I may even sing better than Freddie. But...can I interpret their music? Hell, no, it's hard! That's why is not so usual to find good Queen covers. You can play all the notes, you can do all right, but you have to give your spin, you have to interpret it. Then things get rough. I mean, great band, good musicians, great songs which really marked my life, that Freddie who was just pure fun: talented, charismatic, a devil on stage, and had a delicious sense of humour. It's enough for me to enjoy the band. As you said, they created memorable tunes. Messiaen or Webern's music was damn sophisticated, I love it. But who cares about them apart from, you know, the very tiny group of people who study modern classical music!? In fact, who cares about the Goldberg Variations nowadays? I mean, I love it, but frankly speaking, who's able to understand and appreciate a well-constructed fugue? I mean...it's just dead music. I like it, I love it, but Queen is alive, these guys - Bach included - are dead. No one listen to this kind of thing anymore, it's not a relevant cultural expression anymore. People don't listen to it. They find it boring. Queen is fun, the songs are good, accessible, that's a progress. They managed to be accessible and talented at the same time and create great songs and do great performances on stage. Thanks for the reply and also for the kind words. : -)))) |
| saltnvinegar 22.01.2008 00:39 |
Yara wrote: Hi, all. I'm writing from a hospital. lol I've undergone a surgery in the morning, but I'm ok. I can't sleep so I decided to come here and read what you had to say about the band. People like it for some many reasons, don't they? I don't think Queen's sound was much sophisticated, sorry. That's not the reason I listen to it. The songs are often quite simple, it doesn't take a genius to play them, but they're good and fun.Hello again Yara :) My best wishes for your speedy recovery after your operation. Many thanks for another thought provoking post. I think that's a very important point you made. You said Queen's songs are not sophisticated and 'it doesn't take a genius to play them' I'm sure in terms of complexity for a classically trained artist then you are right on the money. However another reason why I love the band is that their own genius lies in the fact that nobody can cover their songs and improve upon them. In the classical world, there may exist a number of fine interpretations of, for example, 'Oiseaux Exotiques' but for mainstream rock artists, they have the advantage of exclusivity in their compositions and their own mark of uniqueness on the production. Incidentally, did you know that on closer inspection some songs of The Beatles have been found to contain examples of the Dorian mode, plagal cadences and asymmetric phrases?! Who knows if someone can analyse Queen's music in detail, we may be surprised to find hidden depths too! |
| Treasure Moment 22.01.2008 04:08 |
Although i listen mostly just to brutal death metal and classical, Queen is the most important band ever for me and i couldnt live without them. Its my religion, for me its much more than just a band, specially freddie. He is like god to me, the ultimate human. |
| Roger Meadows Tailor 22.01.2008 04:46 |
Hi Yara Hope you're feeling better today.I know what its like ,having got out of hospital 2 weeks ago myself.We're thinking of you,us decent QZers Keep Yourself Alive Hi Assdude I agree with you inasmuch as for every simple song like "You're My Best Friend","Misfire" or "Dont Stop Me Now" there is your "Bohemian Rhapsody","Millionaires Waltz" or even "Innoendo".Even in the simple songs you sometimes hear little complex riffs that ,say,John plays. Hi saltnvinegar. I agree with you also. On looking at Queen's music it looks pretty uncomplicated enough until you attempt it.Bands have often fell into that trap.Just ask Roger Daltrey and Seal about that. Dorian mode. Thats a little trick you can use if you're lost for inspiration on ,say, a solo of any sort.I've done this onxe or twice before.I try not to but sometimes its a necessary evil Scales and modes eh.Where would we be without them.Tsk!!! |
| Karen L 22.01.2008 20:11 |
Whether my opinion seems educated or not it's just an opinion. Maybe this wasn't the best way to phrase it. I like a wide variety of artists but Queen connect me to the music more than any other. |
| Treasure Moment 23.01.2008 02:53 |
Karen L wrote: Whether my opinion seems educated or not it's just an opinion. Maybe this wasn't the best way to phrase it. I like a wide variety of artists but Queen connect me to the music more than any other.yes queen is on a totally different level than all other artists!, waaaaaay better |
| saltnvinegar 23.01.2008 04:05 |
Roger Meadows Tailor wrote: Hi Yara Hope you're feeling better today.I know what its like ,having got out of hospital 2 weeks ago myself.We're thinking of you,us decent QZersOh no, poor RMT! Another hospitalized Queenzoner, I hope you are back in good health now? I have another question for you (I know, I can't stop hijacking this thread, I should really start my own and call it 'RMT' shouldn't I?!) Anyhow, you said before you went to an early Queen gig and got into them from the start, right? I presume you saw them live again over the years? If so, I'd like to know your thoughts on what changes you saw. I don't mean the lights or costumes of course, but any changes in the band's actual stage demeanour, quality, attitudes etc? Thanks :) |
| Roger Meadows Tailor 23.01.2008 12:44 |
saltnvinegar wrote:Hi SaltnvinegarRoger Meadows Tailor wrote: Hi Yara Hope you're feeling better today.I know what its like ,having got out of hospital 2 weeks ago myself.We're thinking of you,us decent QZersOh no, poor RMT! Another hospitalized Queenzoner, I hope you are back in good health now? I have another question for you (I know, I can't stop hijacking this thread, I should really start my own and call it 'RMT' shouldn't I?!) Anyhow, you said before you went to an early Queen gig and got into them from the start, right? I presume you saw them live again over the years? If so, I'd like to know your thoughts on what changes you saw. I don't mean the lights or costumes of course, but any changes in the band's actual stage demeanour, quality, attitudes etc? Thanks :) Thank you for the kind words.Much appreciated my friend. Just to say i've emailed you on your address which is in this forum and i hope its of any use to you my friend. Thanks a lot Keep Yourself Alive RMT |
| steven 35638 24.01.2008 20:52 |
Karen L wrote: Whether my opinion seems educated or not it's just an opinion. Maybe this wasn't the best way to phrase it. I like a wide variety of artists but Queen connect me to the music more than any other.And that, Karen, is a lovely way to put it. I, too, am connected to Queen on such a level that it does not compare to my love and admiration for other artists, such as Beethoven, Maynard Ferguson, and The Beatles. |
| Roger Meadows Tailor 25.01.2008 11:30 |
Its also the reason why i'm on this site too.I've been connected to Queen's music since '74.Its never waned. =) |