| queenfanbg 20.02.2008 17:42 |
link |
| Erin 20.02.2008 18:05 |
Like, OMG!!! :-DDDD Ok, now what happens? |
| Ms. Rebel 20.02.2008 18:13 |
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH BABY..........BEING NUMBER ONE IS WHAT TURNS ME ON.......OOOOOOOOOOOOON...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS............ |
| Dusta 20.02.2008 19:04 |
Yeah, but, it's looking like poor Freddie is going to lose. |
| Ms. Rebel 20.02.2008 19:15 |
^No fucking way =) |
| Matt* 20.02.2008 19:40 |
Unlike most, I'm pretty happy Queen won. It just shows the huge fan base they have and what a great band they really are. |
| ...assdude.... 39702 20.02.2008 19:42 |
Dusta wrote: Yeah, but, it's looking like poor Freddie is going to lose.the boy is in the lead, and so is brian. |
| Dusta 20.02.2008 20:15 |
I've been voting for both, however, earlier today, Perry was in the lead.
I was surprised, and, pleased to see that Queen won. It seems like a very young crowd, over there, and, it is fun to know that young folks are listening to Queen.
Most folks I know(old) don't even know the poll exists.
...ASSDUDE.... wrote:Dusta wrote: Yeah, but, it's looking like poor Freddie is going to lose.the boy is in the lead, and so is brian. |
| QueenMercury46 20.02.2008 20:49 |
Cool. Now what |
| Seruni 21.02.2008 01:12 |
Yeah!!!!!! Congrats everybody. That's cool! |
| john bodega 21.02.2008 01:54 |
Yay cool, now I know what victory feels like. Suddenly those years of being an outspoken Queen fan have been put in perspective; because now I know I was right. You fucking people..... |
| The Fairy King 21.02.2008 02:48 |
Bon Jovi second?? Beatles third?? LMFAO! |
| Treasure Moment 21.02.2008 03:16 |
Dusta wrote: Yeah, but, it's looking like poor Freddie is going to lose.fuck that, freddie will never lose, no one can compare |
| Treasure Moment 21.02.2008 03:17 |
<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: Bon Jovi second?? Beatles third?? LMFAO!both of those bands are mediocre |
| Raf 21.02.2008 03:34 |
Did anybody else notice how Bon Jovi's songs are beating the crap out of songs that DESERVE to win? Honestly, this whole thing has no credibility. This is just about how organized each band's fan base is. "You Give Love a Bad Name" beating Whole Lotta Love and Highway To Hell? Pffft. I guess Led Zep and AC/DC fans are too busy to care, really. |
| The Fairy King 21.02.2008 03:42 |
Treasure Moment wrote:Beatles are mediocre??<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: Bon Jovi second?? Beatles third?? LMFAO!both of those bands are mediocre *points at TM and starts laughing....hard* |
| pittrek 21.02.2008 03:47 |
Come on ? Don't you understand that everything TM writes is the truth ? And a fact ? |
| joe4fred 21.02.2008 13:00 |
woo hoo, i'm well chuffed, been voting daily for ages. just need freddie to win now :)))))))) well done queen!!!! |
| Merileane 21.02.2008 13:38 |
IT'S GREEAAAAAT!!! AMAZING!!! WE DID IT!!! WE WOOOOON!!! AND THIS IS NOT FANTASY, IT'S REALITY!!!%-))) WE ARE CHAMPIONS MY FRIENDS AND WE'LL KEEP ON FIGHTING TILL THE END!!!:))) YEAAAAAAAH!!! AND NOW...WE MUST GOING ON! |
| vadenuez 21.02.2008 17:18 |
Merileane wrote: WE ARE CHAMPIONS MY FRIENDS AND WE'LL KEEP ON FIGHTING TILL THE END!!!:))) YEAAAAAAAH!!!Well, you know.. thirty years ago a guy named Freddie said exactly the same about his band, yet he needed not any useless mind-wanking poll to know that. |
| DavidRFuller 21.02.2008 19:33 |
It doesn't mean much, but it is refreshing to see people prefer Queen over other stuff. |
| Mab Meddows Mercury 21.02.2008 19:36 |
HA HA!!! Take THAT Mr. Jon Bon Jovi! (*ahem* who voted for himself...) |
| Dusta 21.02.2008 20:06 |
Well, that is certainly true in MY mind, however, I am not certain that everyone voting on that poll would agree. I mean, Jon Bon Jovi isn't that far behind, for chrissakes!Treasure Moment wrote:Dusta wrote: Yeah, but, it's looking like poor Freddie is going to lose.fuck that, freddie will never lose, no one can compare |
| QueenTaylor 21.02.2008 21:30 |
<font face=vivaldi>Mab Meddows Mercury wrote: HA HA!!! Take THAT Mr. Jon Bon Jovi! (*ahem* who voted for himself...)xD hahaha |
| Dusta 21.02.2008 22:30 |
I suppose this was sort of my take on it, as well. In light of some of the other, "contenders," I cannot really take things too terribly seriously, however, it is nice, as you said, to know that Queen is still so popular.
DavidRFuller wrote: It doesn't mean much, but it is refreshing to see people prefer Queen over other stuff. |
| Dusta 21.02.2008 22:31 |
Congratulations! Some of us wait a lifetime for just such a feeling!
Zebonka12 wrote: Yay cool, now I know what victory feels like. Suddenly those years of being an outspoken Queen fan have been put in perspective; because now I know I was right. You fucking people..... |
| Treasure Moment 22.02.2008 03:47 |
<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote:laugh all you want, the beatles are mediocre and yes my band is way betterTreasure Moment wrote:Beatles are mediocre?? *points at TM and starts laughing....hard*<b><font color="#FF1493">The Fairy King wrote: Bon Jovi second?? Beatles third?? LMFAO!both of those bands are mediocre |
| Crazy LittleThing 22.02.2008 12:50 |
"'We" WON !!!"? Deaky is that you? |
| john bodega 22.02.2008 13:22 |
Treasure Moment wrote: laugh all you want, the beatles are mediocre and yes my band is way better..... at what!!? WHAT are you better at?? At close harmony singing? At playing decently in a live enviroment with no foldback and unprecedented amounts of screaming girls? At devising or helping in the creation of new studio techniques? Did you guys do hundreds of gigs in a dingy cavern and then dingy German strip clubs in an effort to improve yourselves as musicians? How many songs have you written? If you're better songwriters, you've obviously written more and better songs, right? Even if I thought the Beatles were highly overrated and nothing to write home about, you would have a hard time convincing me that your band is better. Why? Because like most of any of us who have the time to post on internet forums, you HAVEN'T FUCKING DONE ANYTHING. You're virtually nothing; not because you don't have talent, not because you'll 'never amount to anything'. It's because you're living in fucking La-La land. You don't *need* to be a successful musician; for you, it's enough fun to tell people that's what you are. I'm going to enjoy seeing what your response is, if any. Maybe you'll pretend not to read it. Maybe you'll just ignore most of it and call me ignorant, even though I'm being a lot more open minded than you in your most lucid moments. Honest to God, just fucking spell it out to me.... exactly how are you better than any band with an album that's sold more than a hundred copies? Don't call me a sheep, or ignorant, or whatever... just tell me - what the fuck is so great about your band? Waiting, - Zebonka. |
| Donna13 22.02.2008 21:12 |
The Beatles!!! Aaaaaaahhhhhh! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh! *cries, faints, then is carried out by paramedics* (Sorry, they were just on my iTunes - "You Can't Do That".) |
| Bigbrotherbp 23.02.2008 07:04 |
Help Brian win :( |
| Bigbrotherbp 23.02.2008 07:07 |
Haha...I like Queen to win everything.. :D Best rock band, best rock guitarist, best male singer, best drummer and best bassist ;) |
| Treasure Moment 23.02.2008 07:55 |
Zebonka, we simply have the ability to write better,more complex quality songs, simple as that. The beatles are overrated crap, there are MANY bands that are better than them, they are just hype. I dont need to sell millions of albums to know that our music is better, i just know it simply by comparing songwriting. listen to our song nothing lasts and tell me beatles could compose those melodies,harmonies and structures and complexity, they are just hype, nothing more. |
| john bodega 23.02.2008 12:59 |
On your advice, I did just listen to your song, and I will disregard the instrument sounds themselves as they are either limited by your equipment, or simply a matter of personal choice. You want to talk 'complex'.. for what the song is, you guys have done a competent job of arranging the strings but really - 'complex' ??? I am not hearing it. Perhaps it would help if you gave me your definition of complex. I'll try and give an example - I don't consider any of the movie-music or songs that I've done 'complex'. I put a lot of effort into arranging it and adding more and more instruments and subtly burying things in there... but the music itself is not complex. You 'simply know' that you are better than the Beatles, by 'comparing songwriting' ? If you were to do any sort of in depth and proper comparison (as if such a thing could be done), you do realise you'd have the better part of 200 songs to compare yourself to? Are you comparing yourselves as instrumentalists? Can you tell me with a straight face that your guitar player could come close to the delicate touch that George Harrison had in his capacity as a slide guitarist? Can your drummer play "Oh Darlin'" in all it's subtleties (and they are there)? What about the singing? Again, using "Oh Darlin'" as an example - if we eschew personal taste for a second and simply think 'louder + higher + lower = better', your singer is not as good as Paul McCartney and never will be. Of course, personal taste will come into it first - if you don't like his voice, fine, but you can't tell the whole world it's 'crap'. Same goes for John Lennon, and I've heard his shittiest moments, believe me.... say what you want about him as a rock singer, but I will always rate him highly as a white soul singer! Honestly I do want to have an intelligent discussion about this for once, without flames, but you're making it difficult for me to understand exactly how you define 'better'. You say you have the 'ability' to write better songs than The Beatles. That really means nothing, you know. One area in which you really aren't going to convince me of your superiority is harmonies. Have you ever heard "This Boy"? It was by no means their best song, but if you consider that it was only a year or two after they were doing things like "Love Me Do" - for crying out loud, that is some noticeable musical development. How long since you guys formed, wrote your first song? How far have you come?? And don't even get me started on "Yes It Is". You will find more complex music. You will not find it on Treasure Moment's Myspace... that isn't a knock against you guys. I don't believe Complex always equals Good. As far as live playing goes the Beatles were up against some tough odds, and they still managed to do these songs live, and do them well... I am not one of the 'sheep' you hate so much. I've heard Let It Be and I reckon it's the laziest album in their catalogue. I can't stand Sgt. Pepper (except for the last song). But I'm telling you, overrated as they may be, the Beatles simply are not crap. For fucks sake, going back to the harmonies for a sec - "Please Please Me". Their first no. 1, and already they were onto some good shit with the harmonies. (Don't anyone barge in and tell me George Martin was responsible for half of all of this, because I know that already. I generally count him as one of the band). Seriously, Treasure Moment-guy, I'm not trying to wind you up at all, I hope you realise this. I did listen to your song, and you asked me if I thought the Beatles could write anything like that. Honestly, I reckon they could have. They never wrote in that genre because it didn't exist yet, but at the barest bones level it wouldn't be too big a leap from something like "For No One" or "In My Life", with the faux-classical kind of stuff thrown in throughout. Can I just offer one bit |
| Micrówave 25.02.2008 14:04 |
Raf840 wrote: This is just about how organized each band's fan base is.Or how much they could use a girlfriend or something... |
| Treasure Moment 25.02.2008 18:01 |
Zebonka The singer is just temporarly until we find another one. I wasnt talking about singing part but the melodies, structures. Ive heard about 20 beatles songs and imo it was some of the most boring, unispired, simple crap ive ever heard, thats what i think. I think they are extremely overhyped and arent good musicians, sure they have a few good songs maybe but out of the 20 i heard i only liked 1 i think (yesterday) I think its a joke when people even compare the beatles with Queen. Queen is about 1 million times better in everything. They were just hype, nothing more. |
| sparrow 21754 25.02.2008 19:15 |
Treasure Moment wrote: Zebonka The singer is just temporarly until we find another one. I wasnt talking about singing part but the melodies, structures. Ive heard about 20 beatles songs and imo it was some of the most boring, unispired, simple crap ive ever heard, thats what i think. I think they are extremely overhyped and arent good musicians, sure they have a few good songs maybe but out of the 20 i heard i only liked 1 i think (yesterday) I think its a joke when people even compare the beatles with Queen. Queen is about 1 million times better in everything. They were just hype, nothing more.i think you need to realize why they were so great in that era. listen to the other music that existed in the 50s and 60s, and i dare you to say how they didnt change the industry and how they didnt open doors to new techniques and styles. they were great (at the very least) because they were the genesis of a genre! without them, there would not be the complexities that many musicians have based off of such influence. maybe they sound dull and simplistic to you now, but go back to that era, and ask anyone who had heard of them why they were so different, and such a sensation! and your favorite band (you claim to be so incomparable) were influenced by them too- especially brian! note how QUEEN are usually compared with the BEATLES' success and accredited influence. its on thing not to like them, but again, you dont seem to know the difference between fact and opinion. you dont have to like their music, and noone is saying that, but there is a reason to appreciate it. theres plenty of artists i think the same, where i dont much care for their stuff, but i respect them, because they were in some form, groundbreaking. the bands i love were most likely influenced by them- like queen! plenty of artists today love them, and are influenced by them. not everyone has to like them, but the appreciation is well deserved. |
| Treasure Moment 25.02.2008 19:38 |
Sparrow wrote:i wasnt around that time when they were big so i dont know what impact they had and you may be right that they had a big impact back then.Treasure Moment wrote: Zebonka The singer is just temporarly until we find another one. I wasnt talking about singing part but the melodies, structures. Ive heard about 20 beatles songs and imo it was some of the most boring, unispired, simple crap ive ever heard, thats what i think. I think they are extremely overhyped and arent good musicians, sure they have a few good songs maybe but out of the 20 i heard i only liked 1 i think (yesterday) I think its a joke when people even compare the beatles with Queen. Queen is about 1 million times better in everything. They were just hype, nothing more.i think you need to realize why they were so great in that era. listen to the other music that existed in the 50s and 60s, and i dare you to say how they didnt change the industry and how they didnt open doors to new techniques and styles. they were great (at the very least) because they were the genesis of a genre! without them, there would not be the complexities that many musicians have based off of such influence. maybe they sound dull and simplistic to you now, but go back to that era, and ask anyone who had heard of them why they were so different, and such a sensation! and your favorite band (you claim to be so incomparable) were influenced by them too- especially brian! note how QUEEN are usually compared with the BEATLES' success and accredited influence. its on thing not to like them, but again, you dont seem to know the difference between fact and opinion. you dont have to like their music, and noone is saying that, but there is a reason to appreciate it. theres plenty of artists i think the same, where i dont much care for their stuff, but i respect them, because they were in some form, groundbreaking. the bands i love were most likely influenced by them- like queen! plenty of artists today love them, and are influenced by them. not everyone has to like them, but the appreciation is well deserved. All im judging is the music they played and its nothing compared to Queen to be honest and i dont see how an amateur band like that could possibly have a big influence on Queen, just listen to bohemian rhapsody and tell me the beatles could ever dream of composing something like that. Not just that song but many other songs. Queen were able to do what no other band has done and that is to write great music in all kinda genres. Complex and great music with alot of feeling and passion. The beatles sound to me like some beginner that has just grabbed a guitar and is trying to play something while Queen is on the top level of songwriting and skills. so you may be right about their impact back then but i was only talking about the music regardless of the time. Its not like music before beatles were even less complex as there have been highly skilled classical composers way before them and Queen, specially freddie was highly influenced by classical music in his songwriting so i dont see much beatles influence on them, at least freddie. You really cant compare the 2 bands, they are on the opposite sides of skills, songwriting and quality. |
| john bodega 26.02.2008 06:31 |
See, right there, you've only heard 10% of their musical output - and you thought "Yesterday" was the best of the stuff you heard... I tremble to think exactly what 20 songs you listened to :/ |
| Treasure Moment 26.02.2008 06:57 |
Zebonka12 wrote: See, right there, you've only heard 10% of their musical output - and you thought "Yesterday" was the best of the stuff you heard... I tremble to think exactly what 20 songs you listened to :/someone wrote about 20 songs here to check and i checked them. |
| Micrówave 26.02.2008 11:57 |
Treasure Moment wrote: I dont need to sell millions of albums to know that our music is better...Don't worry. |
| Treasure Moment 26.02.2008 12:25 |
Micrówave wrote:you are right, in this brainwashed braindead age where people are smart as a monkey its pretty hard to achieve that, unless you play crappy braindead unoriginal 3 chord music or talentless rapTreasure Moment wrote: I dont need to sell millions of albums to know that our music is better...Don't worry. |
| john bodega 26.02.2008 12:42 |
But have you TRIED that? Hmmm? If you can't even make 'simple' music to get people interested, then how good can you possibly be? You know it does take some kind of basic skill or intuition to make music that people really want to hear more of. Where has knocking other people's music gotten you? |
| Treasure Moment 26.02.2008 13:37 |
Zebonka12 wrote: But have you TRIED that? Hmmm? If you can't even make 'simple' music to get people interested, then how good can you possibly be? You know it does take some kind of basic skill or intuition to make music that people really want to hear more of. Where has knocking other people's music gotten you?we havent recorded a real studio album yet and have to sort out the singer situation and get a proper singer, there is alot of material available so we ll do something soon. I dont knock other music without a reason, do you see me knock Queen? no because they are quality, i only knock the music that really doesnt deserve the attention it gets and thats basically ALL the mainstream crap bands out there. |
| Dusta 26.02.2008 17:23 |
Well, Freddie is now consistently behind in his poll.
Treasure Moment wrote:Dusta wrote: Yeah, but, it's looking like poor Freddie is going to lose.fuck that, freddie will never lose, no one can compare |
| Treasure Moment 26.02.2008 18:06 |
Dusta wrote: Well, Freddie is now consistently behind in his poll.that sucks but really doesnt matter since everyone with common sense knows freddie is the best singer of all time by faaarTreasure Moment wrote:Dusta wrote: Yeah, but, it's looking like poor Freddie is going to lose.fuck that, freddie will never lose, no one can compare |
| Dusta 26.02.2008 23:44 |
Very true. It is just a different crowd over there. When I saw Bon Jovi in the final few, I wasn't quite so pleased to see Freddie doing well.
Treasure Moment wrote:Dusta wrote: Well, Freddie is now consistently behind in his poll.that sucks but really doesnt matter since everyone with common sense knows freddie is the best singer of all time by faaarTreasure Moment wrote:Dusta wrote: Yeah, but, it's looking like poor Freddie is going to lose.fuck that, freddie will never lose, no one can compare |
| john bodega 27.02.2008 02:41 |
Treasure Moment wrote:You've really got to take the good with the bad. With the exception of Bohemian Rhapsody, Queen's biggest selling songs were simple. They certainly aren't my favourite Queen songs, but when you look at them - they had SOMETHING that people liked.Zebonka12 wrote: But have you TRIED that? Hmmm? If you can't even make 'simple' music to get people interested, then how good can you possibly be? You know it does take some kind of basic skill or intuition to make music that people really want to hear more of. Where has knocking other people's music gotten you?we havent recorded a real studio album yet and have to sort out the singer situation and get a proper singer, there is alot of material available so we ll do something soon. I dont knock other music without a reason, do you see me knock Queen? no because they are quality, i only knock the music that really doesnt deserve the attention it gets and thats basically ALL the mainstream crap bands out there. March of the Black Queen? Definitely quality, of course. A song like We Will Rock You is fucking simple, but it is also quality. Hell, even an arrogant prick like Gene Simmons will concede that that song IS basically what rock is about. You yourself admit that you prefer 80's Queen... and that was by far their simplest period, I reckon. Anyway. Good luck to you. |