| liam 10.03.2008 09:56 |
they had not changed their music style so dramatically after 'the game'. I mean, if queen had released another QUEEN 2 or ANATO in the 80's do u reckon it would have been successful and could they had survived if they didnt change with the times. |
| John S Stuart 10.03.2008 10:45 |
No. |
| Micrówave 10.03.2008 11:50 |
I dunno, maybe? |
| Marknow 10.03.2008 12:32 |
Yes, and Snickers would still be Marathon. Ah, those were the days. |
| Mr Mercury 10.03.2008 12:32 |
I agree with John. If they hadnt chnged their style, they themselves would have got bored with doing the same thing and probably split up afterwards. Even if they hadnt split, they would become a "dinosaur rock" band and they would probably have fallen out of favour with a lot of non-Queen or just casual fans. |
| queenside 10.03.2008 13:03 |
yes they would survived cos if they released another album like anato, queen2 or sha it would surely be a hit cos those 3 albums were great musically and let's presume that new album from the 80's would have the quality of those seventies albums and it would surely be appreciated among rock audiences and became a hit like anato for instance, people will never get enough of quality stuff |
| gmhmagic 10.03.2008 13:11 |
queenside wrote: yes they would survived cos if they released another album like anato, queen2 or sha it would surely be a hit cos those 3 albums were great musically and let's presume that new album from the 80's would have the quality of those seventies albums and it would surely be appreciated among rock audiences and became a hit like anato for instance, people will never get enough of quality stuffmmm... maybe you should know that many Queen albums during the ´80s were hits anyway...! People believe that the quality of the music depends on the complexity of the arrangements... the should listen to the small and original things that make music so wonderful... I think that Queen´s mutations along the different periods of its career were necessary for the band to continue... |
| john bodega 10.03.2008 13:37 |
Queen would not have survived. Freddie would've still got fucked in the arse and still would have AIDS. |
| Mr Faron Hyte 10.03.2008 14:41 |
Get a haircut, hippie! |
| Roger Meadows Tailor 10.03.2008 14:41 |
No they wouldnt have survived.They've said it themselves that as long as they were interested they would keep going in that musical direction.That is why they changed towards the mid to end of the seventies. Plus if you look at it in another sense.Freddie wasnt entirely a Rock singer.Something upon which i admired him for.Neither was John a Rock Bassist.Ditto with that one.And Roger as a drummer.I'd say only Brian could(and i say only could)be considered a true out and out Rock musician from the band. Freddie's influences came from Aretha Franklin,Liza Minnelli and the Flambouyant side of Jimi Hendrix.Not to mention Chopin and Paganini.John's was very definitely soul based.He never really said who he was influenced by but i think we can guess.Roger was a bit of Mitch Mitchell and John Henry Bonham and Buddy Miles on drums.Whereas Brian was definitely influenced by Jeff Beck and Jimi Hendrix amongst others. Quite an ecclectic mix.Yet it worked.Ok they had a lot of arguements,but thats what happens when you have a band like this.If they do the same thing twice they get bored with it.Hence the change. Plus i think what was happening at the time with the Punk scene that Queen foresaw a defining change in the British music scene so they decided to strip down and become more muscular.Out went all the elaborate vocals and some of the guitar orchestrations.Not to mention the costumes.In came the hard egde,the moustaches,the trainers and jeans.Later the yellow leather jackets and so on.But we loved them for that.They kinda returned to seventies form with Innuendo.I can hear Queen(the first album)in that album itself.Does anybody agree with me on that? When i went to see Queen i used to see them as entertainers in the sense that Freddie was like a form of Frank Sinatra of the Rock and Roll kind(dare i say it).Brian,Roger and John were like Rock's regality(pardoning the pun)musically.Totally untouchable. |
| john bodega 11.03.2008 01:19 |
Mr Faron Hyte wrote: Get a haircut, hippie!You love it don't you! |
| ITSM 11.03.2008 23:32 |
They tried to do a mix of The Game and A Night at the Opera. It's called The Works... |
| Raf 12.03.2008 14:45 |
Mr Faron Hyte wrote: Get a haircut, hippie!I know that was aimed at Zeb, but *I* took offense! link Why don't you get a life of yours to care about and let other people handle their own lives...? |
| Dusta 12.03.2008 20:46 |
Oh, God, rember those Marathon bars? Like a giant chocolate...braid?
Marknow wrote: Yes, and Snickers would still be Marathon. Ah, those were the days. |
| Dusta 12.03.2008 23:16 |
Perhaps there is a twelve step program for those obsessed with Freddie getting it in the arse? I tried googling it for you, but, came up with nothing. I am sorry.
Zebonka12 wrote: Queen would not have survived. Freddie would've still got fucked in the arse and still would have AIDS. |
| Roger Meadows Tailor 13.03.2008 07:14 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Queen would not have survived. Freddie would've still got fucked in the arse and still would have AIDS.Oh Zeb. Tsk tsk.Now you're gonna be in trouble with Treasure Moment (he he).He might wanna come round and fuck you up the arse like a gay bolero for saying that. XD |
| Bohemian Rahpsody 21.03.2008 09:24 |
I notice that when the greats of Rock are mentioned, a lot of the time Queen isn't in there, and this may very well be because they changed. But I am personally glad they changed. It's just part of evolving with the times. In Perth, where I live, Queen are generally snorted at by most people I speak to, particularly others my own age, and this maybe because they did pop. But who cares, even in the eighties they were still making some of the best music. |
| john bodega 21.03.2008 11:17 |
Dusta wrote: Perhaps there is a twelve step program for those obsessed with Freddie getting it in the arse? I tried googling it for you, but, came up with nothing. I am sorry.To paraphrase Pete Townshend;Zebonka12 wrote: Queen would not have survived. Freddie would've still got fucked in the arse and still would have AIDS. "You didn't see it, you didn't hear it, you won't say nothing to no one - never in your life!". |
| brENsKi 21.03.2008 18:06 |
Bohemian Rahpsody wrote: I notice that when the greats of Rock are mentioned, a lot of the time Queen isn't in there, and this may very well be because they changed. It's just part of evolving with the times. But who cares, even in the eighties they were still making some of the best music.i know this is all subjective, but i have to disagree with you. it's not part of evolving with the times....some might call it "bandwagon jumping" true pioneers do it first....they adapt their mainstream sound to newer styles and do it in such a way as to keep their existing fanbase while gaining new fans. Take Madonna (forget your opinion on her music - this is about audience and market) (her Ray of Light album) was an experiment - she worked with new people (william orbit) and actually made a new fresh sound (for her) and increased her fanbase to a more grownup audience. she followed this up by then working with orbit and mirwas and going from strength to strength. Queen's 80s variations were a miscalculated move - which were pretty much (imo) (in the directions of ) all that was wrong with rock in the 80s (bon jovi and europe etc using too many synths and crap...that sound would never last, as well as going even more toward the funksound. Anyhow, not only did queen completely fail to get many new fans during the 80s, their "experimentation" lost them a whole fekkin continent Floyd and the Who evolved and still have as many fans today as they did back then. Bands like Aerosmith and AC/DC have really not changed much either...but are still huge bands...even the newer bands who came along at the beginning of the 80s - U2 and REM - their sound has changed very little and they are bigger than ever... Queen simply chose a bad direction at the wrong time. At a time when "the game" gave them the most success they had ever had in america they took this as a signal to really diversify - and (arguably) produced their two worst albums at a time when they needed something very good to follow the game, and (indesputably) lost the whole US market. |
