mrjordy 29.03.2008 21:17 |
When Queen + Paul Rodgers first appeared, I was ecstatic. Finally, my favorite band (minus two important characters) was touring. I saw Q+PR live and I loved it. It was the thrill of a lifetime. When album rumors started circulating, I was a bit excited over that possibility, too. Ok, so, I've read on several credible websites that the name of the album shall be The Cosmos Rocks. What a terrible fucking album title. Brian May clearly came up with that one. As if rambling on and on about outer space on his website's soapbox isn't enough. Whatever. Brian's interests are his interests and I respect that, but to give an album such a silly name is just outrageous. And by the way, C-lebrity!? Awful song title. Just awful. I am quickly losing interest in Q+PR and regaining my interest in Queen, with Freddie Mercury. |
Treasure Moment 29.03.2008 21:59 |
I dont think many Queen fans take this album seriously. Queen died when freddie died, this is something else, its not Queen. |
Gr8 King Rat 29.03.2008 22:02 |
I'm still not convinced that that will be the name of the new album. Terrible if it is though... |
i_luv_freddie 33987 29.03.2008 22:03 |
The cosmos rocks what hell the does it even mean and i agree Queen died when Freddie died in 1991 yes i can admit it was nice when queen done the tribite show for Freddie but now they should just give up or change their name from queen cause its not queen with freddie or john. |
Russian Headlong 29.03.2008 22:12 |
What the fuck are you on about. It's no worse than the Miracle or Hot Space. Who gives a shit what it's called. For all those fans still bitching 'oh it's not Queen without freddie' shut up you snobs. We know it's not the original line up but neither was Zeppelin last December, The Who are just Daltrey and Townsend now, Thin Lizzy do not have Phil Lynott and they recently toured. Get over it, don't be such snobs plenty of bands still have much to offer even if they no longer have their classic line ups, Queen in 2008 are not he same but why shouldn't half the original band still play the music, what is the alternative, tribute bands! |
mrjordy 29.03.2008 22:44 |
What I'm on about is the fact that The Cosmos Rocks is a horrible fucking album title, if it is in fact the title they shall use. I am in no way joining the "Queen died with Freddie" camp. I felt that live and on stage, Q+PR was one hell of a rocking powerhouse. Absolutely loved them. Still do. I'm just hoping that what is left of Queen has enough sense not to name the first album in nearly 20 years The Cosmos Rock. |
Treasure Moment 29.03.2008 22:51 |
i_luv_freddie wrote: The cosmos rocks what hell the does it even mean and i agree Queen died when Freddie died in 1991 yes i can admit it was nice when queen done the tribite show for Freddie but now they should just give up or change their name from queen cause its not queen with freddie or john.Exactly, all they are doing now is ruining the incredible legacy as the greatest band on earth EVER. |
Treasure Moment 29.03.2008 22:53 |
Russian Headlong wrote: What the fuck are you on about. It's no worse than the Miracle or Hot Space. Who gives a shit what it's called. For all those fans still bitching 'oh it's not Queen without freddie' shut up you snobs. We know it's not the original line up but neither was Zeppelin last December, The Who are just Daltrey and Townsend now, Thin Lizzy do not have Phil Lynott and they recently toured. Get over it, don't be such snobs plenty of bands still have much to offer even if they no longer have their classic line ups, Queen in 2008 are not he same but why shouldn't half the original band still play the music, what is the alternative, tribute bands!you seem to be stupid enough to not understand that Freddie was the heart of Queen and the heart has stopped. |
The Real Wizard 29.03.2008 23:59 |
Russian Headlong wrote: What the fuck are you on about. It's no worse than the Miracle or Hot Space. Who gives a shit what it's called. For all those fans still bitching 'oh it's not Queen without freddie' shut up you snobs. We know it's not the original line up but neither was Zeppelin last December, The Who are just Daltrey and Townsend now, Thin Lizzy do not have Phil Lynott and they recently toured. Get over it, don't be such snobs plenty of bands still have much to offer even if they no longer have their classic line ups, Queen in 2008 are not he same but why shouldn't half the original band still play the music, what is the alternative, tribute bands!Great post. But don't even bother trying to reason with "Treasure Moment" or his two friends here. He's a broken record, brick wall, and a(n often robotic) closed mind all in one. Look... watch what will happen when he replies: Treasure Moment wrote: Exactly, all they are doing now is ruining the incredible legacy as the greatest band on earth EVER.Says who? You? The future can't change the past, so nothing will happen to your precious "legacy" that seems to validate your entire experience. As for your "greatest band" claim, even Queen themselves (and just about every other rational person in the world) accepts that if there is one group of entertainers who hold the torch for all others in their field to follow, it's The Beatles. |
masterstroke_84 30.03.2008 01:20 |
Brian May is Queen. He can do whatever he wants with the band he created 40 years ago... the name... is just that... a name... and Brian worked harder for Queen that any other member... and still does. The name of the album? it´s just a name... like someone else said: what about "the miracle", "hot space"... even "the game".... or the worst of all "Mr Bad Guy" hahaha.. And what about the song title? When "Bohemian Rhapsody" saw the light most people would think: WTF????... Get away tossers... . |
masterstroke_84 30.03.2008 01:28 |
BTW.. you´ll be the first to buy it xD |
ana_libra 30.03.2008 03:03 |
I have to agree with mr. masterstroke, what he hell does it matter what the name is? Did Queen care about the label, cathegory? NO. It's the contents that are important. And I doubt any of us should be disappointed with it in case you leave freddie where he belongs and let the music LIVE. Hearts and ears. Also you keep forgetting one simple thing while discussing the greatest band ever topic - every band that has an army of fans as its support IS the greatest band ever! At least for those fans. And it's normal. Not the two perceptions of the world are the same. Same is in music. So, for TReasuremoment they are the greatest, and if he wants to believe that at least he knows what he wants to believe in. Comparing and charting doesn't lead anywhere coz no one has the right to be the judge... |
ana_libra 30.03.2008 03:04 |
sorry, first line - what The hell |
Mr Faron Hyte 30.03.2008 03:07 |
mrjordy wrote: When Queen + Paul Rodgers first appeared, I was ecstatic. Finally, my favorite band (minus two important characters) was touring. I saw Q+PR live and I loved it. It was the thrill of a lifetime. When album rumors started circulating, I was a bit excited over that possibility, too. Ok, so, I've read on several credible websites that the name of the album shall be The Cosmos Rocks. What a terrible fucking album title. Brian May clearly came up with that one. As if rambling on and on about outer space on his website's soapbox isn't enough. Whatever. Brian's interests are his interests and I respect that, but to give an album such a silly name is just outrageous. And by the way, C-lebrity!? Awful song title. Just awful. I am quickly losing interest in Q+PR and regaining my interest in Queen, with Freddie Mercury.That was a tantrum. You're way overreacting to a title that isn't the album title. Officially the album is untitled. So relax. Save your tantrum for when there's something to legitimately bitch about. And I'm sure "Radio Ga Ga" didn't sound like a super-terrific song title either. Wait til you hear it before you decry its quality. |
Serry... 30.03.2008 03:31 |
Russian Headlong wrote: For all those fans still bitching 'oh it's not Queen without freddie' shut up you snobs."Go and fuck yourself!" to you from all those fans who're still bitching 'oh it's not Queen without freddie'. And then go and listen to your fucking new version of Thin Lizzy. I like QZ for such arguments like "shut up", "fuck off", "get over it", "you moron" etc. it brings some stability in our discussions, some kind of firmness that you're right... |
Daveboy35 30.03.2008 03:26 |
Um bohemian rhapsody strange title yes but is it a great song? i rest my case if you understand,IF AND IT'S A BIG IF it's called the cosmos rocks then great it'S what inside that counts. But saying that i had a thought that if brian may said to the public " guys and gals here's a competition to name the new album and the winner will get free tickets, backstage access etc... i'm sure that would be great. |
Tero 30.03.2008 03:56 |
Gr8 King Rat wrote: I'm still not convinced that that will be the name of the new album. Terrible if it is though..."Surely the name of the live album isn't Rock Montreal?" "That cover must be a mock-up that Play.com made?" "Say It's Not True can't be any indication of how the new album sounds like." I have a news flash for anybody who hasn't been following around the Queen world this millennium: For one reason or another their creative output has regressed to the level of a 16-year old Dutch bootlegger (no offence to the Dutch). The titles are cliched, the artwork is horrible, and the music is amateurish to say the least. Prepare to be rocked indeed! |
ANAGRAMER 30.03.2008 04:27 |
Being objetive about it, the title is meaningless. I don't actually think it matters that much but a bit more imagination would have been nice. Let's hope they change it! Remember Freddie's solo album was going to be called 'Made in Heaven' until weeks before production - nothing's set in stone yet.... |
john bodega 30.03.2008 04:45 |
Serry... wrote: I like QZ for such arguments like "shut up", "fuck off", "get over it", "you moron" etc. it brings some stability in our discussions, some kind of firmness that you're right...You forgot "FACT" |
john bodega 30.03.2008 04:46 |
As for the topic itself; there's probably a dozen 'better' titles that could be given to the new album, but I'd rather have something that wasn't guessed on Queenzone. It'd ruin the surprise. |
Treasure Moment 30.03.2008 06:03 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Dont make me laugh, the beatles is NOWEHRE near Queens level. Its like comparing an amateur shit band with Queen. The beatles is just hype, not actual good musicians. Queen is on a another level, like 1 million times better in every aspect.Russian Headlong wrote: What the fuck are you on about. It's no worse than the Miracle or Hot Space. Who gives a shit what it's called. For all those fans still bitching 'oh it's not Queen without freddie' shut up you snobs. We know it's not the original line up but neither was Zeppelin last December, The Who are just Daltrey and Townsend now, Thin Lizzy do not have Phil Lynott and they recently toured. Get over it, don't be such snobs plenty of bands still have much to offer even if they no longer have their classic line ups, Queen in 2008 are not he same but why shouldn't half the original band still play the music, what is the alternative, tribute bands!Great post. But don't even bother trying to reason with "Treasure Moment" or his two friends here. He's a broken record, brick wall, and a(n often robotic) closed mind all in one. Look... watch what will happen when he replies:Treasure Moment wrote: Exactly, all they are doing now is ruining the incredible legacy as the greatest band on earth EVER.Says who? You? The future can't change the past, so nothing will happen to your precious "legacy" that seems to validate your entire experience. As for your "greatest band" claim, even Queen themselves (and just about every other rational person in the world) accepts that if there is one group of entertainers who hold the torch for all others in their field to follow, it's The Beatles. |
mooghead 30.03.2008 06:17 |
Russian Headlong wrote: What the fuck are you on about. It's no worse than the Miracle or Hot Space. Who gives a shit what it's called. For all those fans still bitching 'oh it's not Queen without freddie' shut up you snobs. We know it's not the original line up but neither was Zeppelin last December, The Who are just Daltrey and Townsend now, Thin Lizzy do not have Phil Lynott and they recently toured. Get over it, don't be such snobs plenty of bands still have much to offer even if they no longer have their classic line ups, Queen in 2008 are not he same but why shouldn't half the original band still play the music, what is the alternative, tribute bands!Nobody is saying they shouldn't tour, its the fact that they are called Queen that people dont like. |
Barbie Jupiter 30.03.2008 06:38 |
masterstroke_84 wrote: Brian May is Queen. The name of the album? it´s just a name... like someone else said: what about "the miracle", "hot space"... even "the game".... or the worst of all "Mr Bad Guy" hahaha.. .Well this is overrated, too, I guess!!! Though Brian May is the most successful of Queen, I would say. As the band, best was just when they were all together. Yeah found bit funny "Mr Bad Guy" title, too.. Though Freddie was really a bad guy. Yeah but let's remember the band name itself, it's actually really freaky.. QUEEN. It's like, calling the rock band "belladonna". XD But now after all they've done, "Queen" name sounds sooooo sooo.. serious, important and majestic. And by the way, I like the new album title:] |
Daveboy35 30.03.2008 07:39 |
Are you for real beatles a amateur shit band? the beatles were queen's template for f***s sake in every aspect, chord changes in songs in terms of writing etc.. . The beatles are my far the greatest band in anyone's eyes musicians included you obviously haven't listened to all the beatles music in depth TRY IT you will be shocked. |
Treasure Moment 30.03.2008 09:16 |
Barbie Jupiter wrote:Brian wasnt even close to be the most succesful member of Queen because without freddie they would NEVER get this huge. Freddie is main reason they are the biggest band in the world.masterstroke_84 wrote: Brian May is Queen. The name of the album? it´s just a name... like someone else said: what about "the miracle", "hot space"... even "the game".... or the worst of all "Mr Bad Guy" hahaha.. .Well this is overrated, too, I guess!!! Though Brian May is the most successful of Queen, I would say. As the band, best was just when they were all together. Yeah found bit funny "Mr Bad Guy" title, too.. Though Freddie was really a bad guy. Yeah but let's remember the band name itself, it's actually really freaky.. QUEEN. It's like, calling the rock band "belladonna". XD But now after all they've done, "Queen" name sounds sooooo sooo.. serious, important and majestic. And by the way, I like the new album title:] |
Treasure Moment 30.03.2008 09:17 |
DAVIDBRENDAM wrote: Are you for real beatles a amateur shit band? the beatles were queen's template for f***s sake in every aspect, chord changes in songs in terms of writing etc.. . The beatles are my far the greatest band in anyone's eyes musicians included you obviously haven't listened to all the beatles music in depth TRY IT you will be shocked.I listened to 25 beatles songs and they almost put me into sleep. VERY amateurish and simple songwriting and most of the songs sounded the same and the singers arent anything to brag about either. Totally overhyped band and nowhere near Queen. |
onevsion 30.03.2008 11:59 |
I kinda have a hate/love relationship with queen for the last couple of years. Styling/design/(product) presentation is dreadfull for the last 15 years or so. I really don't like that side of the group anymore. Brian May has no taste in my honest opninion. BUT i really really really LOVE the fact they are touring again and even making a new studio album with Paul Rodgers. Kitsch or not, i buy it anyway. Dreadfull stage presentation or not, I'm gonna see them anyway. I just love queen. |
Gr8 King Rat 30.03.2008 12:22 |
Tero wrote:Oh God...you have a point. Crap...Gr8 King Rat wrote: I'm still not convinced that that will be the name of the new album. Terrible if it is though..."Surely the name of the live album isn't Rock Montreal?" "That cover must be a mock-up that Play.com made?" "Say It's Not True can't be any indication of how the new album sounds like." I have a news flash for anybody who hasn't been following around the Queen world this millennium: For one reason or another their creative output has regressed to the level of a 16-year old Dutch bootlegger (no offence to the Dutch). The titles are cliched, the artwork is horrible, and the music is amateurish to say the least. Prepare to be rocked indeed! |
deleted user 30.03.2008 13:46 |
Treasure Moment wrote:No Beatles means no Zeppelin and Floyd, no Zeppelin, Floyd, and Beatles mean No Queen, therefore everytime you talk smack about the roots, the bands that inspired queen's early albums, you are insulting Freddie. You, you are not a fan, you are a menace to the true fans and you need to find some other music to obsess over, don't you dare ever claim yourself as a fan again. Why don't you open your fucking mind before you try to understand The Beatles.DAVIDBRENDAM wrote: Are you for real beatles a amateur shit band? the beatles were queen's template for f***s sake in every aspect, chord changes in songs in terms of writing etc.. . The beatles are my far the greatest band in anyone's eyes musicians included you obviously haven't listened to all the beatles music in depth TRY IT you will be shocked.I listened to 25 beatles songs and they almost put me into sleep. VERY amateurish and simple songwriting and most of the songs sounded the same and the singers arent anything to brag about either. Totally overhyped band and nowhere near Queen. |
martinusx 30.03.2008 14:04 |
Treasure Moment wrote:Ha, though Queen is my favorite band, the Beatles were the masters of music. Their progress and quality of music is unsurpassed! The Beatles were pure art. The best at what they did and the most popular! Never ever seen again since!Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Dont make me laugh, the beatles is NOWEHRE near Queens level. Its like comparing an amateur shit band with Queen. The beatles is just hype, not actual good musicians. Queen is on a another level, like 1 million times better in every aspect.Russian Headlong wrote: What the fuck are you on about. It's no worse than the Miracle or Hot Space. Who gives a shit what it's called. For all those fans still bitching 'oh it's not Queen without freddie' shut up you snobs. We know it's not the original line up but neither was Zeppelin last December, The Who are just Daltrey and Townsend now, Thin Lizzy do not have Phil Lynott and they recently toured. Get over it, don't be such snobs plenty of bands still have much to offer even if they no longer have their classic line ups, Queen in 2008 are not he same but why shouldn't half the original band still play the music, what is the alternative, tribute bands!Great post. But don't even bother trying to reason with "Treasure Moment" or his two friends here. He's a broken record, brick wall, and a(n often robotic) closed mind all in one. Look... watch what will happen when he replies:Treasure Moment wrote: Exactly, all they are doing now is ruining the incredible legacy as the greatest band on earth EVER.Says who? You? The future can't change the past, so nothing will happen to your precious "legacy" that seems to validate your entire experience. As for your "greatest band" claim, even Queen themselves (and just about every other rational person in the world) accepts that if there is one group of entertainers who hold the torch for all others in their field to follow, it's The Beatles. |
Treasure Moment 30.03.2008 14:15 |
martinusx wrote:hahaha what a joke! they are AMATEURS! simple crappy songwriting, there are thousands of bands that better. Just because they were early doesnt mean they are good which they arent. They dont have 1/10000000 the talent of Queen, garbage band.Treasure Moment wrote:Ha, though Queen is my favorite band, the Beatles were the masters of music. Their progress and quality of music is unsurpassed! The Beatles were pure art. The best at what they did and the most popular! Never ever seen again since!Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Dont make me laugh, the beatles is NOWEHRE near Queens level. Its like comparing an amateur shit band with Queen. The beatles is just hype, not actual good musicians. Queen is on a another level, like 1 million times better in every aspect.Russian Headlong wrote: What the fuck are you on about. It's no worse than the Miracle or Hot Space. Who gives a shit what it's called. For all those fans still bitching 'oh it's not Queen without freddie' shut up you snobs. We know it's not the original line up but neither was Zeppelin last December, The Who are just Daltrey and Townsend now, Thin Lizzy do not have Phil Lynott and they recently toured. Get over it, don't be such snobs plenty of bands still have much to offer even if they no longer have their classic line ups, Queen in 2008 are not he same but why shouldn't half the original band still play the music, what is the alternative, tribute bands!Great post. But don't even bother trying to reason with "Treasure Moment" or his two friends here. He's a broken record, brick wall, and a(n often robotic) closed mind all in one. Look... watch what will happen when he replies:Treasure Moment wrote: Exactly, all they are doing now is ruining the incredible legacy as the greatest band on earth EVER.Says who? You? The future can't change the past, so nothing will happen to your precious "legacy" that seems to validate your entire experience. As for your "greatest band" claim, even Queen themselves (and just about every other rational person in the world) accepts that if there is one group of entertainers who hold the torch for all others in their field to follow, it's The Beatles. |
Treasure Moment 30.03.2008 14:16 |
<i>Donny Mars<br>Self Destructive Evil wrote:thats bullshit. Freddie is more inspired by classical music than the shitles. You think beatles could ever write a song like bohemian rhapsody? i didnt think soTreasure Moment wrote:No Beatles means no Zeppelin and Floyd, no Zeppelin, Floyd, and Beatles mean No Queen, therefore everytime you talk smack about the roots, the bands that inspired queen's early albums, you are insulting Freddie. You, you are not a fan, you are a menace to the true fans and you need to find some other music to obsess over, don't you dare ever claim yourself as a fan again. Why don't you open your fucking mind before you try to understand The Beatles.DAVIDBRENDAM wrote: Are you for real beatles a amateur shit band? the beatles were queen's template for f***s sake in every aspect, chord changes in songs in terms of writing etc.. . The beatles are my far the greatest band in anyone's eyes musicians included you obviously haven't listened to all the beatles music in depth TRY IT you will be shocked.I listened to 25 beatles songs and they almost put me into sleep. VERY amateurish and simple songwriting and most of the songs sounded the same and the singers arent anything to brag about either. Totally overhyped band and nowhere near Queen. they are crap compared to Queen. |
Josh Henson 30.03.2008 14:44 |
If you look back on their recent product, this wouldn't surprise me: 1) 1997 - Queen Rocks - great album and cover - where are the pictures??? 2) 1999 - Greatest Hits III - need I say anything? What SHOULD have been the tracklisting (in no particular order): Queen Greatest Hits III 1. Bohemian Rhapsody 2. Somebody To Love (w/ George Michael) 3. Too Much Love Will Kill You 4. Under Pressure (rah mix) 5. Scandal 6. Need Your Loving Tonight 7. Let Me Live 8. Spread Your Wings 9. You Don't Fool Me 10. Body Language 11. I Was Born To Love You 12. Keep Yourself Alive 13. Las Palabras De Amor 13. Heaven For Everyone 14. No One But You 15. Tie Your Mother Down 16. These Are The Days of Our Lives 17. Thank God It's Christmas 3) Queen Stone Cold Classics - read the liner notes - holy crap there are so many inacurracies. I didn't see any new pics, which it claimed on the cover. 4) Q+PR Return of the Champions - where the hell is Under Pressure? HORRIBLE album cover. 5) Queen Rock Montreal - do we need this same album and dvd again??? Another HORRIBLE album cover 6) So it would only be fitting that they would call the album The Cosmos Rocks, a track called C-lebrity or whatever and have a horrible album cover. I'll still buy it and support it but it seems they have a lack of creativity the past 10 years or so when it comes to album sleeve design. |
Dan C. 30.03.2008 14:49 |
I honestly don't give a damn what it's called. They could call it "Freddie Mercury Was a Piece of Shit: The New Legacy" and I'd still check it out. Music is music. Get over it and stop being a bunch of fucking babies. |
August R. 30.03.2008 15:19 |
Treasure Moment wrote: You think beatles could ever write a song like bohemian rhapsody? i didnt think soGo and listen "A Day In The Life" by the Beatles, and you'll realise that they actually wrote a song like Bohemian Rhapsody almost a decade before Freddie did. |
deleted user 30.03.2008 15:31 |
Treasure Moment wrote:Bohemian Rhapsody is structurally a direct take off of John Lennon's A Day In The Life and Happiness Is A Warm Gun, so yes, The Beatles actually did it first.<i>Donny Mars<br>Self Destructive Evil wrote:thats bullshit. Freddie is more inspired by classical music than the shitles. You think beatles could ever write a song like bohemian rhapsody? i didnt think so they are crap compared to Queen.Treasure Moment wrote:No Beatles means no Zeppelin and Floyd, no Zeppelin, Floyd, and Beatles mean No Queen, therefore everytime you talk smack about the roots, the bands that inspired queen's early albums, you are insulting Freddie. You, you are not a fan, you are a menace to the true fans and you need to find some other music to obsess over, don't you dare ever claim yourself as a fan again. Why don't you open your fucking mind before you try to understand The Beatles.DAVIDBRENDAM wrote: Are you for real beatles a amateur shit band? the beatles were queen's template for f***s sake in every aspect, chord changes in songs in terms of writing etc.. . The beatles are my far the greatest band in anyone's eyes musicians included you obviously haven't listened to all the beatles music in depth TRY IT you will be shocked.I listened to 25 beatles songs and they almost put me into sleep. VERY amateurish and simple songwriting and most of the songs sounded the same and the singers arent anything to brag about either. Totally overhyped band and nowhere near Queen. compare these lines, and the literal meanings Mercury Mama, just killed a man Put a gun against his head Pulled my trigger, now he's dead Lennon-Day in The Life He blew his mind out in a car He didn't notice that the lights had changed A crowd of people stood and stared Happiness Is A Warm Gun She's not a girl who misses much Do do do do do do- oh yeah! She's well acquainted with the touch of the velvet hand Like a lizard on a window pane Literal Mercury and Lennon are both describing the accidental death of an innocent man and the knowledge a woman has of the death. Mercury may have left the lyrical similarities there, but Happiness and Rhapsody share a common structure. start out slow Mama... just killed a man.... and Shes not a girl... who misses much... pick up speed Mama! OOOOOOoooOOO, I don't wanna die! and She's well acquainted with the touch of the velvet hand... Steady chant mamamia let me go! and mother superior jumped the gun hard rock spit in my eye... and ..jumped the gun... (later reps) slowdown anyway the wind blows and happiness is a warm gun |
JacquesDaniels 30.03.2008 16:25 |
Just to keep this reply in line with the original post, I agree, it WOULD be an awful album title. But only considering that it has way too much to do with Dr. Brian's recent accomplishments. By itself, the title suggests all of two (2!) different meanings, which would be more than a lot for some other act like Madonna or such. It still sounds horrible as an album title though, but it wouldn't surprise me. I'll still buy it, and so will a lot of you other buggers. Now, I have to budge in a little on the Beatles argument. I don't know what's so difficult to understand about all (original) Queen members having agreed to think of the Beatles as their influence and having an almost astronomical (pun intended) effect on pop music in general. If this mr. Treasure Moment as he calls himself (I don't care to remember his real name, and don't bother to check it elsewhere) a serious musician, I'd suggest he'd check out the rest of the Beatles catalogue instead of just dropping out at the 25th song he hears. I, for one, couldn't care less about the first 5 albums the band made - it was mostly nonsensical teenage bubblegum pop music that was so hip and cool back then. And, oh the horror, the first two or three albums were half filled with cover tracks. So, I always thought it like this: when the Beatles were unable to write any better music, they first established a good fan base with the pop shite - which, by the way, were sort of genius in their simplicity, if you seriously think about it (I just don't really care for it) - and after they visited India, they started making some interesting music, which would make them the biggest band in the world for some time. Very grown up and different at the time, and ultimately, the music that would be the first real step in creating the British Rock Sound, which Queen and others only took further. Of course, conceptuality and weirdness had already been made earlier by people like Frank Zappa and Miles Davis. Damn, why do I bother... a lecture, here? My 10 favorite Beatles tracks, not in any particular order: "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", "Penny Lane", "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite", "A Day in the Life", "Ticket to Ride", "Happiness is a Warm Gun", "Blackbird", "The Fool On The Hill", "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "I Am The Walrus". |
its_a_hard_life 26994 30.03.2008 18:30 |
Dan Corson III: %100 Fun wrote: I honestly don't give a damn what it's called. They could call it "Freddie Mercury Was a Piece of Shit: The New Legacy" and I'd still check it out. Music is music. Get over it and stop being a bunch of fucking babies. |
StoneColdClassicQueen 30.03.2008 18:43 |
-_- So sick of listening to how loads of people miss Freddie. WHAT ABOUT JOHN FREAKIN DEACON?!?!?! He was f***in important too!!! Ok, now on to my actual post, they can call their album whatever they wish. I just wanna listen to the music that's in the album. I didn't like the title Hot Space either or The Works. (Not to mention the idea of GH III or Queen Rocks) AND, if you miss the old Queen, then go listen to them! GO NUTS! Stop ruining it for us that actually want to enjoy the album and that actually want Queen to continue! TM, you call yourself a real damn fan of Queen?? You're not because you don't at least respect the artists that they admired; you just attack them. Just think (actually THINK): What would Bri, John, or even FREDDIE say if they knew you talked shit about one of their favorite artists? I'll admit, I like The Beatles, but I don't listen to them very often, so I wouldn't know if they're better than Queen or whatnot. But, I have done my research and know that they laid a foundation for future bands, including Queen. GET OVER IT! That's a FACT ok?? A FACT. It's been stated many times. If you don't like The Beatles, that's fine. Just stop posting pointless crap on these boards! We're tired of trying to filter your brain (or whatever you have up there) of all the SHIT it has up there! By the way, that's not the official title. If it was, you probably would have seen some article about it on queenonline or Bri's website. That's it. Carry on now. I'm tired and done. |
The Real Wizard 30.03.2008 19:03 |
Treasure Moment wrote: I listened to 25 beatles songs and they almost put me into sleep. VERY amateurish and simple songwriting and most of the songs sounded the same and the singers arent anything to brag about either. Totally overhyped band and nowhere near Queen.The Beatles (and solo records) have sold over 1.5 billion units worldwide. When your shitty, derivative band sells 150 units, then you can open your mouth. |
deleted user 30.03.2008 20:52 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:amenTreasure Moment wrote: I listened to 25 beatles songs and they almost put me into sleep. VERY amateurish and simple songwriting and most of the songs sounded the same and the singers arent anything to brag about either. Totally overhyped band and nowhere near Queen.The Beatles (and solo records) have sold over 1.5 billion units worldwide. When your shitty, derivative band sells 150 units, then you can open your mouth. a-fucking-men |
Treasure Moment 30.03.2008 21:04 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:oh shut up already with your nonsense! it doesnt matter if you sell 1 trillion albums! rappers and britney spears sell millions of albums as well, that doesnt make then ANY GOOD you moron!Treasure Moment wrote: I listened to 25 beatles songs and they almost put me into sleep. VERY amateurish and simple songwriting and most of the songs sounded the same and the singers arent anything to brag about either. Totally overhyped band and nowhere near Queen.The Beatles (and solo records) have sold over 1.5 billion units worldwide. When your shitty, derivative band sells 150 units, then you can open your mouth. Quality is quality no matter how much it sells and my "derivative band" is better than the shitty amateur beatles about 100 times. |
steven 35638 30.03.2008 21:42 |
The alleged album title is not terrible, but it could be better. In the end, the title is of little relevance to the musical content. |
marcenciels 30.03.2008 21:48 |
all this for a album title not confirmed ? |
steven 35638 30.03.2008 22:33 |
<i>Donny Mars<br>Self Destructive Evil wrote: amen a-fucking-menI shall not judge! ;) |
Treasure Moment 31.03.2008 03:42 |
<i>Donny Mars<br>Self Destructive Evil wrote:YOU are a A - FUCKING STUPIDSir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:amen a-fucking-menTreasure Moment wrote: I listened to 25 beatles songs and they almost put me into sleep. VERY amateurish and simple songwriting and most of the songs sounded the same and the singers arent anything to brag about either. Totally overhyped band and nowhere near Queen.The Beatles (and solo records) have sold over 1.5 billion units worldwide. When your shitty, derivative band sells 150 units, then you can open your mouth. |
Dan C. 31.03.2008 06:08 |
I never have understood why it was fashionable to bash the Beatles of all bands... |
pittrek 31.03.2008 06:31 |
Help I need somebody Help not just anybody Help I'm gonna need someone to help me ignore TM |
pittrek 31.03.2008 06:32 |
BTW WHY do you think that the album will be called "The Cosmos Rocks" ? When was it confirmed ? |
john bodega 31.03.2008 07:54 |
Hilarious. I asked Treasure Moment (during the last Beatles related pissing match) to tell me *exactly* why his band is so much better. Even though they haven't fucking done anything yet but boast about their Myspace. I am still waiting for an answer. If the Beatles are measurably worse than Treasure Moment - that is, if he can tell me in facts and figures how his band is so much better, then I will shut up. Does your singer have a better range than either Lennon or McCartney? Can your guitarist play better slide than George Harrison? Can your drummer play "Oh Darlin'", or maybe "Strawberry Fields" ? Have you written more songs than the Beatles? That would surely make you a better songwriter. Longer songs, maybe? You didn't explain this to me last time. Now's your chance. If it's not just your opinion... if it is indeed "FACT" that you are better than the Beatles, then you will be able to tell me exactly why. And I can shut up and agree with you. Phrases you are not allowed to use : "I listened to 25 of their songs" - irrelevant. I could probably pick 25 of their songs that weren't all that spectacular. You need to quadruple that number to get any real idea of their talent as songwriters. Hell, you picked "Yesterday" as the best one you'd heard..... lame. "They are overrated" - every band is overrated. As soon as a band is called 'the best', it is overrated. Because no human being in history has heard all the music ever created. It is an emotional statement to call a band 'the best' because you don't have a proper basis for comparison. It is not objective, and thus - completely worthless. "They are talentless" - they wrote their own music and played their own songs, albeit with the help of some talented souls such as George Martin, Geoff Emerick and so forth. Even so, they appear to have done better than you have. "My band is just better, FACT" - again, if this is undeniably true, you will be able to prove it to me. Quickly and easily. Unless of course, it's just an opinion that your band is better than the Beatles. In which case, I respect your opinion, but I disagree quite strongly. You can stop writing "FACT" now. I apologise for slightly derailing the thread here. But I have to find out why Treasure Moment is the 2nd greatest band in history when they only have 6 songs available to anyone and I can't buy their music yet. STILL waiting, - Zebonka! |
gnomo 31.03.2008 08:13 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Hilarious. (...) STILL waiting,... looks like you've got a long wait ahead of you ... |
thunderbolt 31742 31.03.2008 08:14 |
Treasure Moment wrote: Dont make me laugh, the beatles is NOWEHRE near Queens level. Its like comparing an amateur shit band with Queen. The beatles is just hype, not actual good musicians. Queen is on a another level, like 1 million times better in every aspect....how did I miss this gem? Listen, I'm a die-hard Queen fan, but I'm also a realist. Queen, like virtually all acts, drew from those who tasted success before them. Led Zeppelin, The Who, Pink Floyd and, yes, even the Beatles' influence can be heard in their music. If the Beatles were truly "just hype," then how do you account for the fact that Paul McCartney's had a successful solo career for the past 40 years? How do you account for John Lennon's penning and performance of "Imagine"--arguably the greatest song ever written? If the Beatles were "just hype," why is it that their songs are still played on radio stations worldwide and were recently featured in a major motion picture? Queen's back catalog hasn't found its way out of commercials lately, and it seems like the only Queen songs you hear on the radio anymore are WWRY, WATC, BoRhap, and occasionally Crazy Little Thing. Hell, even BoRhap seems to have become a scarcity in classic rock stations' catalogs lately. Know what band you'll find literally the entire collection of in virtually any classic rock radio station's catalog? The Beatles. I'm not out to discount Queen--it wouldn't make much sense for me to be here if I didn't think quite highly of them. In fact, I believe that they're quite possibly the most underrated band of all time--if not worldwide, then in North America at the very least. Suggesting that the Beatles are all hype, though, is ridiculous. 500 years from now, some archaeologist-type is going to find an old recording of Hey Jude lying around, pop it in, and get hooked all over again. I doubt if even WWRY will last that long. |
Treasure Moment 31.03.2008 09:36 |
Thunderbolt<br><h6>Courtesy of God wrote:They just are an incredibly overrated band. I mean just listen to their songwriting and singing. It sounds like amateurs picking up a guitar while the compositions of Queen are on top level. Often very complex stuff as well as amazing singing on the songs. You just cant compare the 2 bands.Treasure Moment wrote: Dont make me laugh, the beatles is NOWEHRE near Queens level. Its like comparing an amateur shit band with Queen. The beatles is just hype, not actual good musicians. Queen is on a another level, like 1 million times better in every aspect....how did I miss this gem? Listen, I'm a die-hard Queen fan, but I'm also a realist. Queen, like virtually all acts, drew from those who tasted success before them. Led Zeppelin, The Who, Pink Floyd and, yes, even the Beatles' influence can be heard in their music. If the Beatles were truly "just hype," then how do you account for the fact that Paul McCartney's had a successful solo career for the past 40 years? How do you account for John Lennon's penning and performance of "Imagine"--arguably the greatest song ever written? If the Beatles were "just hype," why is it that their songs are still played on radio stations worldwide and were recently featured in a major motion picture? Queen's back catalog hasn't found its way out of commercials lately, and it seems like the only Queen songs you hear on the radio anymore are WWRY, WATC, BoRhap, and occasionally Crazy Little Thing. Hell, even BoRhap seems to have become a scarcity in classic rock stations' catalogs lately. Know what band you'll find literally the entire collection of in virtually any classic rock radio station's catalog? The Beatles. I'm not out to discount Queen--it wouldn't make much sense for me to be here if I didn't think quite highly of them. In fact, I believe that they're quite possibly the most underrated band of all time--if not worldwide, then in North America at the very least. Suggesting that the Beatles are all hype, though, is ridiculous. 500 years from now, some archaeologist-type is going to find an old recording of Hey Jude lying around, pop it in, and get hooked all over again. I doubt if even WWRY will last that long. Queen made songs in almost all genres while the beatles songs all basically sound the same. Boring amateur stuff. I dont care who they influenced, this or that, all i care about how GOOD they are and they arent good. Just 1 of our compositions prove that they cant compare when it comes to actual musical talent: link |
Treasure Moment 31.03.2008 09:39 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Hilarious. I asked Treasure Moment (during the last Beatles related pissing match) to tell me *exactly* why his band is so much better. Even though they haven't fucking done anything yet but boast about their Myspace. I am still waiting for an answer. If the Beatles are measurably worse than Treasure Moment - that is, if he can tell me in facts and figures how his band is so much better, then I will shut up. Does your singer have a better range than either Lennon or McCartney? Can your guitarist play better slide than George Harrison? Can your drummer play "Oh Darlin'", or maybe "Strawberry Fields" ? Have you written more songs than the Beatles? That would surely make you a better songwriter. Longer songs, maybe? You didn't explain this to me last time. Now's your chance. If it's not just your opinion... if it is indeed "FACT" that you are better than the Beatles, then you will be able to tell me exactly why. And I can shut up and agree with you. Phrases you are not allowed to use : "I listened to 25 of their songs" - irrelevant. I could probably pick 25 of their songs that weren't all that spectacular. You need to quadruple that number to get any real idea of their talent as songwriters. Hell, you picked "Yesterday" as the best one you'd heard..... lame. "They are overrated" - every band is overrated. As soon as a band is called 'the best', it is overrated. Because no human being in history has heard all the music ever created. It is an emotional statement to call a band 'the best' because you don't have a proper basis for comparison. It is not objective, and thus - completely worthless. "They are talentless" - they wrote their own music and played their own songs, albeit with the help of some talented souls such as George Martin, Geoff Emerick and so forth. Even so, they appear to have done better than you have. "My band is just better, FACT" - again, if this is undeniably true, you will be able to prove it to me. Quickly and easily. Unless of course, it's just an opinion that your band is better than the Beatles. In which case, I respect your opinion, but I disagree quite strongly. You can stop writing "FACT" now. I apologise for slightly derailing the thread here. But I have to find out why Treasure Moment is the 2nd greatest band in history when they only have 6 songs available to anyone and I can't buy their music yet. STILL waiting, - Zebonka!About the singer, no he isnt good but then again its just a temporary one until we find someone else. What im talking about is the music, the composition and when listening to the beatles songwriting and comparing it to something we have done like this: link its just on a different level and that is a fact. |
john bodega 31.03.2008 09:53 |
Treasure Moment wrote: What im talking about is the music, the composition and when listening to the beatles songwriting and comparing it to something we have done like this: link its just on a different level and that is a fact.You are correct, it is on a different level. You'd be wrong if you said 'better', though. I'm not shitting on your song, it's not terrible at all. The synth sound is definitely not to my tastes but that isn't important.... Your example about Queen being 'in all genres' whereas the Beatles were all the same boring music.... is just.... INSANE. You don't have to like The Beatles to accept their quality. Fuck, on the White Album alone they cover just as many genres as Queen ever did. Not the same ones, of course, but the variety is there. No one is asking you to like the Beatles, and yes - I do feel they are overrated by "squeeing" little teenagers sometimes, just as they were in the 60's. But FUCK.... there is quality there. Seriously. |
Treasure Moment 31.03.2008 10:26 |
Zebonka12 wrote:well, i heard the 25 songs mentioned earlier and they pretty much sounded the same. I also checked their most popular songs on youtube and it was the same.Treasure Moment wrote: What im talking about is the music, the composition and when listening to the beatles songwriting and comparing it to something we have done like this: link its just on a different level and that is a fact.You are correct, it is on a different level. You'd be wrong if you said 'better', though. I'm not shitting on your song, it's not terrible at all. The synth sound is definitely not to my tastes but that isn't important.... Your example about Queen being 'in all genres' whereas the Beatles were all the same boring music.... is just.... INSANE. You don't have to like The Beatles to accept their quality. Fuck, on the White Album alone they cover just as many genres as Queen ever did. Not the same ones, of course, but the variety is there. No one is asking you to like the Beatles, and yes - I do feel they are overrated by "squeeing" little teenagers sometimes, just as they were in the 60's. But FUCK.... there is quality there. Seriously. |
john bodega 31.03.2008 10:51 |
I think you need to brush up on what critical listening is, then. You expect us to lend a critical ear to your new songs, right? Even though we're basically trained to think they're all crap because you over-hype them so much and treat your listeners like they're stupid.... Still, a critical listener will put that aside if they've got any integrity. Something tells me you don't want to find any quality to Beatles music. So of course, it all sounds the same to you because even if you did hear something okay in there, you're far too proud (or whatever) to admit it. Whatever works for you, of course! I'm just saying; you could learn a bit about music if you weren't so close minded. |
john bodega 31.03.2008 10:54 |
And look, I really won't argue when you say 'overrated' because it's true of many bands, not just The Beatles. I cringe whenever I hear someone sing the praises of Sgt. Pepper. Mediocre album, compared to the ones that came before and after. |
Treasure Moment 31.03.2008 10:58 |
Zebonka12 wrote: I think you need to brush up on what critical listening is, then. You expect us to lend a critical ear to your new songs, right? Even though we're basically trained to think they're all crap because you over-hype them so much and treat your listeners like they're stupid.... Still, a critical listener will put that aside if they've got any integrity. Something tells me you don't want to find any quality to Beatles music. So of course, it all sounds the same to you because even if you did hear something okay in there, you're far too proud (or whatever) to admit it. Whatever works for you, of course! I'm just saying; you could learn a bit about music if you weren't so close minded.No, i would admit that it was good if it was, for example as soon as i heard the song yesterday i thought it was a good song. that "imagine" song isnt so bad either, nothing spectacular but good. |
Micrówave 31.03.2008 12:50 |
In 2008 Treasure Moment wrote: Freddie is main reason they are the biggest band in the world.Bigger than Outkast? |
The Real Wizard 31.03.2008 13:28 |
Treasure Moment wrote: Queen made songs in almost all genres while the beatles songs all basically sound the same. Boring amateur stuff. I dont care who they influenced, this or that, all i care about how GOOD they are and they arent good. Just 1 of our compositions prove that they cant compare when it comes to actual musical talent: linkIt's honestly funny that you think your band has any kind of a future in the music business, on any level, with the attitude you have towards bands other than Queen and your own, never mind The Beatles. If your attitude never changes, then on a human level, I truly do feel sorry for you because you are completely wasting your time. If you do get lucky enough to play any kind of major gig or have a chance to get a record deal (both of which I severely doubt will happen), I'd love to be a fly on the wall when you open your mouth when asked anything about the outside musical world. I sincerely hope it will be recorded for posterity. |
mercury241191 31.03.2008 13:41 |
mrjordy wrote: When Queen + Paul Rodgers first appeared, I was ecstatic. Finally, my favorite band (minus two important characters) was touring. I saw Q+PR live and I loved it. It was the thrill of a lifetime. When album rumors started circulating, I was a bit excited over that possibility, too. Ok, so, I've read on several credible websites that the name of the album shall be The Cosmos Rocks. What a terrible fucking album title. Brian May clearly came up with that one. As if rambling on and on about outer space on his website's soapbox isn't enough. Whatever. Brian's interests are his interests and I respect that, but to give an album such a silly name is just outrageous. And by the way, C-lebrity!? Awful song title. Just awful. I am quickly losing interest in Q+PR and regaining my interest in Queen, with Freddie Mercury. |
mercury241191 31.03.2008 13:47 |
Not a bad title I'd say..remember Brian is actually an alien who was deposited here to bring some great music back to the masses,hence the reference to the title and his interest in astronomy.I defy anyone to date photos of Brian,he looks EXACTLY the same now as in about 1980,so he doesn't age like mere mortals and will still be rocking away when we are all dead and gone...well maybe in another world... |
Donna13 31.03.2008 14:08 |
I wonder ... Maybe Brian overheard Roger talking to his gardener about Cosmos in his flower garden, which really is a great flower and it can also re-seed quite easily, and does well even in rocky soil. Brian has admitted to having a bit of hearing loss - I believe in his left ear. Or ... maybe The Cosmos is the name of a song that Brian was working on, and the guitar solo was so good that Paul said, "Hey, man. The Cosmos Rocks." Then Brian's ears perked up. He knew that Paul was perfectly right. Oh, well. I don't think it is such a terrible name after you get used to it. Let's wait and put it into some context. The picture looks pretty. |
goinback 31.03.2008 19:56 |
Tero wrote: "Surely the name of the live album isn't Rock Montreal?" "That cover must be a mock-up that Play.com made?" "Say It's Not True can't be any indication of how the new album sounds like." I have a news flash for anybody who hasn't been following around the Queen world this millennium: For one reason or another their creative output has regressed to the level of a 16-year old Dutch bootlegger (no offence to the Dutch). The titles are cliched, the artwork is horrible, and the music is amateurish to say the least. Prepare to be rocked indeed!Having been a Queen fan since the '70s, sadly this is exactly what I was going to post. And YES, especially in Queen's legacy, album titles and covers ARE important. Queen was about the entire glossy, sophisticated package, not JUST the music. But even that's losing ground. Other than some mis-steps like the Hot Space album and the "Radio Ga-Ga" song title, it seems Freddie was the one holding things together in terms of what image-wise (album names, covers, etc.) was considered "cool". |
Ken8 01.04.2008 00:53 |
Dreadful title. Laughable, in fact. We'll soon know how the public takes to a "Queen" album without Fred |
Treasure Moment 01.04.2008 07:30 |
Ken8 wrote: Dreadful title. Laughable, in fact. We'll soon know how the public takes to a "Queen" album without FredI dont why they keep doing this, its really silly...to carry on with the Queen name. If they want to play music do it in the solo projects and stop fooling yourselves that this is Queen + something |
Champipple 01.04.2008 11:09 |
I agree that the Cosmos Rocks is a HORRIBLE album title.... I mean are they even trying anymore? It's all corporate branding... practically everything new Queen related has to have ROCK in the title somewhere to cash in on WWRY play and Rock Star and Rock Band..... I bet the cover REALLY sucks too. Whoever is doing design for Queen these days is garbage. I remember when "Return of the Champions" came out, within half a day there was a dozen posts here from people who put together covers 10 times better than the official release. |
Treasure Moment 01.04.2008 12:14 |
Champipple wrote: I agree that the Cosmos Rocks is a HORRIBLE album title.... I mean are they even trying anymore? It's all corporate branding... practically everything new Queen related has to have ROCK in the title somewhere to cash in on WWRY play and Rock Star and Rock Band..... I bet the cover REALLY sucks too. Whoever is doing design for Queen these days is garbage. I remember when "Return of the Champions" came out, within half a day there was a dozen posts here from people who put together covers 10 times better than the official release.They are just delusional these days. They should really drop this Queen+ thing and have some respect for freddie, john and their amazing legacy. |
Micrówave 01.04.2008 12:37 |
What a boring thread. What a boring bunch of fans. No wonder they don't pay attention to this site. Don't you people realize it's 2008 and Freddie is not coming back. Isn't it easier to shut up and not buy the album? There are plenty of us who WILL buy the album and realize that if Paul couldn't sing, he wouldn't have the successful legacy he has. But then, "Paul can't sing" fans are such pros at who can and can't sing, right??? Right. Or maybe you guys could meet at Denny's on every other Thursday and discuss which direction they should steer their music careers and what they should call themselves. Since obviously you haven't anything better to do, and have very little insight to offer... other than "They're ruining Freddie's legacy"!!! Again, it's 2008, he aint coming back. And I think the Aids thing has more impact on his "legacy" then Paul Rodgers singing a few of his tunes. |
john bodega 01.04.2008 12:52 |
Micrówave wrote: Again, it's 2008, he aint coming back.That's what you think. He will be featured on some new tracks. link Straight from Brian's Soapbox. Gentlemen, Freddie is back. |
Champipple 01.04.2008 14:17 |
Paul Rodgers can sing. Cosmos Rocks is a bloody awful title for an album and their covers have sucked big time since Freddie died. They miss his creativity... that's all. Brian and Roger can play with the best of them, but they run Queen like a corporation. |
goinback 02.04.2008 19:27 |
Micrówave wrote: What a boring thread. What a boring bunch of fans. No wonder they don't pay attention to this site. Don't you people realize it's 2008 and Freddie is not coming back. Isn't it easier to shut up and not buy the album? There are plenty of us who WILL buy the album and realize that if Paul couldn't sing, he wouldn't have the successful legacy he has. But then, "Paul can't sing" fans are such pros at who can and can't sing, right??? Right. Or maybe you guys could meet at Denny's on every other Thursday and discuss which direction they should steer their music careers and what they should call themselves. Since obviously you haven't anything better to do, and have very little insight to offer... other than "They're ruining Freddie's legacy"!!! Again, it's 2008, he aint coming back. And I think the Aids thing has more impact on his "legacy" then Paul Rodgers singing a few of his tunes.You're missing the point. A lot of us love that they're touring again and making new music with Paul (and I loved the live shows, even having seen the original 4-piece Queen). And personally I don't mind that they're calling themselves Queen + someone else. Yes, the Freddie vs. Paul thing is so 2004. It's just that the new music so far is a little disappointing, and they seem to be taking a RIDICULOUSLY half-assed approach in everything marketing-wise. A lot of us know they still have it in them, we just want to see the band done justice, and they can't do that while making DVD covers in Microsoft Paint. |
StoneColdClassicQueen 02.04.2008 20:37 |
Zebonka12 wrote:XDMicrówave wrote: Again, it's 2008, he aint coming back.That's what you think. He will be featured on some new tracks. link Straight from Brian's Soapbox. Gentlemen, Freddie is back. Lookin good these days.. |
Brandon 02.04.2008 22:32 |
I wouldn't be too surprised if Freddie "appeared" on a track or two on the new album. And I sure as Hell wouldn't complain! |
Ken8 03.04.2008 02:59 |
Micrówave wrote: What a boring thread. What a boring bunch of fans.You know what's really boring? "Fans" like you that buy into an outfit called Queen carrying on without the unique Freddie Mercury. No, he's not coming back, and they're no use trying to replace him, no matter how good a singer the replacement is. That Paul Rodgers really tears up a stage like the old Queen. What a frontman.... |
Ken8 03.04.2008 03:03 |
Micrówave wrote: Or maybe you guys could meet at Denny's on every other Thursday and discuss which direction they should steer their music careers and what they should call themselves.Or maybe you could sit around and try to convince yourselves that the artwork for "Cosmos Rocks" and "Rocks Montreal" are so 2008..... |
Treasure Moment 03.04.2008 06:21 |
Ken8 wrote:'Micrówave wrote: What a boring thread. What a boring bunch of fans.You know what's really boring? "Fans" like you that buy into an outfit called Queen carrying on without the unique Freddie Mercury. No, he's not coming back, and they're no use trying to replace him, no matter how good a singer the replacement is. That Paul Rodgers really tears up a stage like the old Queen. What a frontman.... Ken8...you are a wise man! |
Knute 03.04.2008 09:55 |
I always find it amusing when the twats crawl out of the woodwork they do the strangest thing. They insist that this could never be Queen while at the same time insist that Q+PR IS Queen, albeit a lesser version of it that's only worthy of ridicule. Even though everybody else has moved on and accepted this is a completely different project, the twats constantly pull up the past while saying you can never go back. Very strange indeed. |
Micrówave 03.04.2008 11:15 |
Ken8 wrote: Or maybe you could sit around and try to convince yourselves that the artwork for "Cosmos Rocks" and "Rocks Montreal" are so 2008.....Oh yes, I sit around worried about the artwork. Are you kidding me Ken8? I'm sure you are really Roger Dean posting on here, right? You know what made AC/DC? The artwork for Back in Black... not the music. You bet. How did Metallica sell all those albums that contained the Stone Cold Crazy cover? Oh yes, it must have been the album cover. The plain black album cover. That makes a band. That gives them justice. |
Micrówave 03.04.2008 11:24 |
goinback wrote: and they seem to be taking a RIDICULOUSLY half-assed approach in everything marketing-wise.Really? J7 wrote: I purchased both and the total was.. well, it looks like this: 4/1/2008 VISA CHECK CARD PURCHASE QUEEN ONLINE STORE DOM GB $35.76 Anyway, that's a heck of a lot of money so I hope it's worth it. I'm thinking I'd have been better off just doing the album club for about $4 and buying the regular CD on the date for $10. *sigh*Your thoughts now? What would you have them do instead? Don't just hurl insults. Have an intellegent retort. How would you market them? You see the promotion of an album does more for sales than a frickin' album cover. And from what I've seen so far, they're promoting the hell out of it. |
goinback 03.04.2008 17:01 |
I already told you, I'd have them NOT design covers in Microsoft Paint 1.1. Everyone remembers the album cover years later, it's more important than the marketing campaign. Do you remember the album cover for Queen II or the marketing campaign behind the album or how much it sold? Whether the album sold a lot at the time isn't necessarily important, it's the ongoing impact the image has on the band. If you market yourself as cheap, then you may sell a lot of albums temporarily but it won't have a long-term effect. Album sales aren't as important as an ongoing image. Image used to be something Queen took very seriously. |
goinback 03.04.2008 17:03 |
Micrówave wrote:Back In Black/Metallica had very stylish album covers actually...when you saw them in a store they stood out and you immediately thought the band was "cool".Ken8 wrote: Or maybe you could sit around and try to convince yourselves that the artwork for "Cosmos Rocks" and "Rocks Montreal" are so 2008.....Oh yes, I sit around worried about the artwork. Are you kidding me Ken8? I'm sure you are really Roger Dean posting on here, right? You know what made AC/DC? The artwork for Back in Black... not the music. You bet. How did Metallica sell all those albums that contained the Stone Cold Crazy cover? Oh yes, it must have been the album cover. The plain black album cover. That makes a band. That gives them justice. The album cover is the most important thing next to the music, because the whole package is a work of art...can you imagine Dark Side Of The Moon without the prism?!? |
Ken8 04.04.2008 05:05 |
You forgot "The White Album" by the Beatles, all classy, classic covers. "The Cosmos Rocks" is a terrible name and the artwork looks like a tacky photoshop job. Just like the Montreal release. Where's the band's famed artistic creativity? Oh that's right, it passed away in 1991. |
Ken8 04.04.2008 05:31 |
Knute wrote: I always find it amusing when the twats crawl out of the woodwork they do the strangest thing. They insist that this could never be Queen while at the same time insist that Q+PR IS Queen, albeit a lesser version of it that's only worthy of ridicule. Even though everybody else has moved on and accepted this is a completely different project, the twats constantly pull up the past while saying you can never go back. Very strange indeed.The only thing that's strange is them using the name "Queen" in any context, and then trying to claim that "they've moved on" or it "is a completely different project" If that is true, then why not have the balls to drop the name "Queen"?? They are having a bob each way, and the idea is artisticlly bankrupt. If this sounds different, why call it "Queen"? Although you can bet they'll try to recapture the old sound. This whole idea is a double edged sword for the band. With so many releases on DVD for instance, how can this modern incarnation compete with it's past? That's the creative and consumer credibility hurdle they face. I'd bet they'd be praying that "Cosmos Rocks" sells half as well as "Hot Space" "The Cosmos Rocks", honestly, what a pathetic title. This whole thing starts to smack of a Brian May solo project that Roger Taylor's allowed to play on. Has Roger Taylor become just a "YES" man these days, or was he always? "The Cosmos Rocks" makes "Electric Fire" sound like a work of genius. Christ, even "Queen At The Beeb" is a better title. At least it tells you what it is....Why not something more imaginative that sums up the current situation.."A New Beginning" or "Through A New Door" or something? "Cosmos Rocks" is cold, bland, corporate sounding, focus group driven rubbish |
john bodega 04.04.2008 05:31 |
Fuck the cover, I'll be listening to this thanks to Mr. John Bittorrent before I buy a copy. |
Soul Brother 04.04.2008 08:09 |
The album is as yet officially untitled and the artwork temporary. These will not be used on final product guaranteed. Queen + PR could learn much from Rush's approach to this - they obviously have some great people involved enusuring that the concept imagery used on the albums runs through to the stage show graphics etc. Bloody amazing. As for the working title. Yes, pants. |
Soul Brother 04.04.2008 08:13 |
link Queen and Paul Rodgers : New Studio album final title tbc Exclusive Fan Club Tour Edition version of the forthcoming brand new Queen and Paul Rodgers studio album, released in Sept 2008. This version comes with exclusive fan club only slip case and exclusive poster. This version is only available from the official Queen Online Store and will not be sold anywhere else. Tracklisting: to be confirmed. Note: The artwork displayed here is not the final artwork for the album. CD Album £11.99 |
Tero 04.04.2008 08:21 |
QOL store wrote: Note: The artwork displayed here is not the final artwork for the album.Yeah... But when you look at these tour posters you realise what's missing from the final artwork. link I said earlier that the graphics on the latest Queen releases looked like the work of 16-year old Dutch bootleggers, but I'd like to apologise to all of them... The poster looks like something an 11-year old girl has been doodling in her journal during class. :/ |
Treasure Moment 04.04.2008 09:39 |
paul REALLY needs to sing in time, i hate his off time singing |
Serry... 04.04.2008 10:23 |
Ken8 wrote: The only thing that's strange is them using the name "Queen" in any context, and then trying to claim that "they've moved on" or it "is a completely different project" If that is true, then why not have the balls to drop the name "Queen"?? They are having a bob each way, and the idea is artisticlly bankrupt. If this sounds different, why call it "Queen"? Although you can bet they'll try to recapture the old sound. This whole idea is a double edged sword for the band. With so many releases on DVD for instance, how can this modern incarnation compete with it's past? That's the creative and consumer credibility hurdle they face. I'd bet they'd be praying that "Cosmos Rocks" sells half as well as "Hot Space" "The Cosmos Rocks", honestly, what a pathetic title. This whole thing starts to smack of a Brian May solo project that Roger Taylor's allowed to play on. Has Roger Taylor become just a "YES" man these days, or was he always?Brilliant post, man! You destroyed them. You annihilated them. TKO. |
Mr Faron Hyte 04.04.2008 11:12 |
Dan Corson IV: Among the Living wrote: Get over it and stop being a bunch of fucking babies.Now there's an idea. |
Micrówave 04.04.2008 12:31 |
Treasure Moment wrote: paul REALLY needs to sing in time, i hate his off time singingAn example, please. Song, album, and precisly what time does it occur? Judging from the songs you've posted on here, the last thing you should be nit-picky about is keeping in time. |
vadenuez 04.04.2008 12:33 |
Ken8 wrote: The only thing that's strange is them using the name "Queen" in any context, and then trying to claim that "they've moved on" or it "is a completely different project" If that is true, then why not have the balls to drop the name "Queen"?? They are having a bob each way, and the idea is artisticlly bankrupt. If this sounds different, why call it "Queen"? Although you can bet they'll try to recapture the old sound. This whole idea is a double edged sword for the band. With so many releases on DVD for instance, how can this modern incarnation compete with it's past? That's the creative and consumer credibility hurdle they face. I'd bet they'd be praying that "Cosmos Rocks" sells half as well as "Hot Space" "The Cosmos Rocks", honestly, what a pathetic title. This whole thing starts to smack of a Brian May solo project that Roger Taylor's allowed to play on. Has Roger Taylor become just a "YES" man these days, or was he always? "The Cosmos Rocks" makes "Electric Fire" sound like a work of genius. Christ, even "Queen At The Beeb" is a better title. At least it tells you what it is....Why not something more imaginative that sums up the current situation.."A New Beginning" or "Through A New Door" or something? "Cosmos Rocks" is cold, bland, corporate sounding, focus group driven rubbishWord, mate! They can call themselves whatever they want and they'll probably be an excellent band doing excellent music. But Queen as a band with a former soul is gone forever. This is a totally different project in the same way Robby Krieger and Ray Manzarek can't resurrect The Doors again no matter how hard they try. All my best wishes to Brian and Roger in their new project but their current musical direction hardly excites me anymore and I can sense that same feeling among many other members here. It's not a "Freddie's gone" thing, it's simply that we can't find the Queen spirit in a two-men-only project. Not as Queen at least. |
Micrówave 04.04.2008 12:36 |
goinback wrote: Everyone remembers the album cover years later, it's more important than the marketing campaign.Are you kidding me? So if a band has a great cover and artwork, that's all you need? How does that translate to airplay? When you hear the Queen songs in commercials today, do you really think the company execs chose that song based on the Album Cover? When they used "Be Good Johnny" for the TV Show Nanny 9-1-1, do you think they liked the Business As Usual album cover sooooo much that they chose that song? When a group tours, why not just display a huge graphic of the album cover? The band doesn't need to come along... well maybe the graphic designer. In fact, my concert weenie is going floppy crazy right now for the ROGER DEAN / RICHARD GREY 2009 WORLD TOUR |
Micrówave 04.04.2008 12:38 |
goinback wrote: Everyone remembers the album cover years later, it's more important than the marketing campaign.Speaking of Yes, who employed the GREAT Roger Dean to do MOST of their album covers: What was the most widely sold album by YES? That would be 90125. And who did that cover??? NOT Roger Dean... Some guy on an Apple IIe computer!!! (kinda makes your Microsoft Paint joke fall flat... in fact it shreds it to bits) Maybe it was the Songs: Owner Of A Lonely Heart, Hold On, Leave It, It Can Happen ya think? |
goinback 04.04.2008 14:12 |
Micrówave wrote:So you remember the radio spots and magazine ads for the Queen II album, rather than the Queen II album cover?!?goinback wrote: Everyone remembers the album cover years later, it's more important than the marketing campaign.Are you kidding me? Queen II didn't sell that well here in the US, but because of the great music AND that awesome cover that people have identified with visually making Queen appear cool (we wouldn't have had the Bo Rhap video without it), it's had a long-term impact on the band even though initially the album's music wasn't that important in the US. (And no, obviously the album cover doesn't make the whole thing, but does have a real impact on the band image-wise for the long-term...and IMHO Yes' 90125 album cover was better than some of Roger Dean's, though as you've said the songs were great on top of it.) |
Ken8 04.04.2008 22:07 |
Soul Brother wrote: The album is as yet officially untitled and the artwork temporary. These will not be used on final product guaranteed. Queen + PR could learn much from Rush's approach to this - they obviously have some great people involved enusuring that the concept imagery used on the albums runs through to the stage show graphics etc. Bloody amazing. As for the working title. Yes, pants."Cosmos Rocks" was visible during the Al Murray show. Frankly, I'm still waiting for the finished title and artwork for "Rocks Montreal" |
Ken8 04.04.2008 22:16 |
Micrówave wrote: What was the most widely sold album by YES? That would be 90125. And who did that cover??? NOT Roger Dean... Some guy on an Apple IIe computer!!! (kinda makes your Microsoft Paint joke fall flat... in fact it shreds it to bits) Maybe it was the Songs: Owner Of A Lonely Heart, Hold On, Leave It, It Can Happen ya think?But that cover was of it's time, as the cover for "The Miracle" was, and neither cover could've been done at home by kids like they could be now. But I agree. If the albulm doesn't sell like 90125 did, it won't be because of the cover. There's too many other factors involved that are working against it to solely blame just the cover or title. |
beautifulsoup 04.04.2008 23:46 |
I don't care about the titles. What I care about is the music. |
The Real Wizard 05.04.2008 00:09 |
Micrówave wrote:Perfectly said.goinback wrote: Everyone remembers the album cover years later, it's more important than the marketing campaign.Speaking of Yes, who employed the GREAT Roger Dean to do MOST of their album covers: What was the most widely sold album by YES? That would be 90125. And who did that cover??? NOT Roger Dean... Some guy on an Apple IIe computer!!! (kinda makes your Microsoft Paint joke fall flat... in fact it shreds it to bits) Maybe it was the Songs: Owner Of A Lonely Heart, Hold On, Leave It, It Can Happen ya think? |
john bodega 05.04.2008 03:58 |
Treasure Moment wrote: paul REALLY needs to sing in time, i hate his off time singingI really don't think you're qualified to judge someone elses phrasing. You don't even HAVE a singer yet. |
john bodega 05.04.2008 03:59 |
beautifulsoup wrote: I don't care about the titles. What I care about is the music.Judging by this thread, you might be in the wrong forum. :) Ho ho ho. |
purple_hamster101 14.04.2008 13:59 |
Well...I actually like this album title. It's sweet how Brian finally got an album with a name he wanted. With all the new "hip" album names, it's nice to have a dorky name. It stands out and besides, I don't think it's that big of a deal, it's the inside that counts.:P |
Treasure Moment 14.04.2008 18:26 |
Haggis McShagPants wrote:that has nothing to do with anything. His voice is ok but he needs to sing in time at least.Treasure Moment wrote: paul REALLY needs to sing in time, i hate his off time singingI really don't think you're qualified to judge someone elses phrasing. You don't even HAVE a singer yet. |
timantt1 14.04.2008 18:43 |
"Well...I actually like this album title. It's sweet how Brian finally got an album with a name he wanted." I have a hard time to believe that Brian would have come up with this name, he just doesn't seem to have humour enough. I believe it must have been Paul or Roger that have suggested this album name as a joke of Brian's astronomy PhD and book. Anyway, I have to agree it's quite awful. |
Knute 14.04.2008 20:11 |
Treasure Moment wrote:Don't be so modest.Haggis McShagPants wrote: I really don't think you're qualified to judge someone elses phrasing. You don't even HAVE a singer yet.and what the fuck, i am closer to freddie than any of you ever will be. i dare you to put up a recording of yourself imitating the master. only my band can emulate his style, sound, and voice. you all are just sheep flocking to the shit bands of mtv. pathetic. open yourself to the goodness of treasure moment and you will see that freddie is not gone, he just needed to find the right support act! I know you are a humble person, but come on! Your are BETTER than Freddie, and that's a FACT. |
Ken8 14.04.2008 23:11 |
purple_hamster101 wrote: With all the new "hip" album names, it's nice to have a dorky name.Oh yeah, it's genius............. |
timantt1 15.04.2008 06:44 |
If they ever do another album, I bet that the name will be "The Bohemian Champions" or even worse "The Bohemian Champions Rock" |
timantt1 15.04.2008 07:03 |
No Beatles means no Zeppelin and Floyd, no Zeppelin, Floyd, and Beatles mean No QueenDo you think that without Thomas Edison we would not have light pulp now? Or without Wright brother we would not have Boing-747 now? Or without Galileo Galilei we would still think that the sun circles earth? etc. I don't think so, if they haven't made them, someone would have come up with these inventions quite soon after. Many times in the history of science, someone else have been close to breakthru with similar invention than those those that are famous. The music was also evolving and existing before Beatles, so without them, someone else would have take their place. There could have easily been Zeps,Pink and Queen without Beatles ever existing. I'm not trying to deny the significancy of Beatles, but thit is just how life, sciences and cultures work and evolves. |
Treasure Moment 15.04.2008 08:22 |
Treasure Moment wrote:stop pretending to be meHaggis McShagPants wrote: I really don't think you're qualified to judge someone elses phrasing. You don't even HAVE a singer yet.and what the fuck, i am closer to freddie than any of you ever will be. i dare you to put up a recording of yourself imitating the master. only my band can emulate his style, sound, and voice. you all are just sheep flocking to the shit bands of mtv. pathetic. open yourself to the goodness of treasure moment and you will see that freddie is not gone, he just needed to find the right support act! |
Treasure Moment 15.04.2008 08:23 |
timantt1 wrote:totally agree with you! you are smart!No Beatles means no Zeppelin and Floyd, no Zeppelin, Floyd, and Beatles mean No QueenDo you think that without Thomas Edison we would not have light pulp now? Or without Wright brother we would not have Boing-747 now? Or without Galileo Galilei we would still think that the sun circles earth? etc. I don't think so, if they haven't made them, someone would have come up with these inventions quite soon after. Many times in the history of science, someone else have been close to breakthru with similar invention than those those that are famous. The music was also evolving and existing before Beatles, so without them, someone else would have take their place. There could have easily been Zeps,Pink and Queen without Beatles ever existing. I'm not trying to deny the significancy of Beatles, but thit is just how life, sciences and cultures work and evolves. |
Champipple 15.04.2008 09:30 |
Do you think that without Thomas Edison we would not have light pulp now? Yes. He didn't invent the lightbulb, he perfected the filament that allowed it to burn longer. He was a great inventor but also a real shark who routinely stole ideas from others. Or without Wright brother we would not have Boing-747 now? Yes. Even they gave credit to numerous earlier sources of design and study (including Leonardo DaVinci). I think they were the first to add "controls" on the flight and certainly advanced aviation greatly, but they didn't pull the idea out of thin air. Or without Galileo Galilei we would still think that the sun circles earth? Yes. Copernicus had documented this in the 16th century. Galileo championed it and was instrumental in proving it, but I highly doubt that we'd still think this if not for this one person. |
vadenuez 15.04.2008 14:18 |
purple_hamster101 wrote: Well...I actually like this album title. It's sweet how Brian finally got an album with a name he wanted.So you mean that the poor bastard's been telling album titles to the rest of the band for more than twenty years and he always received back some muted laughs and Freddie kindly saying "Bri, shhh... back to guitar, please). |
Champipple 15.04.2008 16:57 |
"I wanted to do an album on [paradoxes]. The band told me I was a pretentious fart. They were right." - Brian May Interview |
Barbie Jupiter 15.04.2008 17:17 |
timantt1 wrote: If they ever do another album, I bet that the name will be "The Bohemian Champions" or even worse "The Bohemian Champions Rock"AHhahaha so sarcastic but made me laugh....XDDDD WAHAhaa.. Can't think of a better "worst" album title..XD Ok maybe it will be simplier. "Greatest Cosmos Rocking Hits". Or maybe "Nothin really matters to Cosmos". "If i were THE SUN". |
Barbie Jupiter 15.04.2008 17:21 |
vadenuez wrote:Yeah honestly i also like the title, though it sound kind of silly, but maybe only because we know that Brian is fond of astronomy. And it's really sweet-you see the title adn you think-oh, yes, it's Brian.purple_hamster101 wrote: Well...I actually like this album title. It's sweet how Brian finally got an album with a name he wanted.So you mean that the poor bastard's been telling album titles to the rest of the band for more than twenty years and he always received back some muted laughs and Freddie kindly saying "Bri, shhh... back to guitar, please). |
john bodega 16.04.2008 00:22 |
I'm naked. |
Holly2003 16.04.2008 07:13 |
While a number of factors influence whether an album/cd is successful or not, there's no doubt that the cover can make a difference. See Bryan Ferry's 'Country Life' for example (link or the original Guns & Roses 'Appetite For Destruction' cover. Controversy sells, in other words. Can't imagine the cover of 'Cosmos' will have much of an effect one way or the other. The name can also have an influence, especially if it's really naff --- and the 'Cosmso Rocks' is really, really naff. I'm surprised Brian hasn't used 'We Will Rock Two' (or 'Too' as the title of the musical sequel -- but give him time. But I suppose the main worry I have with the new stuff, which I've been looking forward to until now, is how simple it all is. Say It's Not True and C-lebrity are basic, uncomplicated, 3-4 chord songs. The snippet from 'We Got the Cosmos Rockin' (or whatever it's called) is simple 12-bar. I expect a bit more from a 'guitar god' than this... |
Sunshine__123456 21.05.2008 02:21 |
I have to say that I have been visiting Queenzone.com for the last 5 years frequently but haven't written much on it like others. I have been worrying about The Cosmos Rocks. Yes the title is awful but it is only a title. I am worried about the strategy that Queen is chosing now. Since Freddie died, the amount of 'rock' related releases has increased a lot. I mean 'Queen Rocks' from the nineties but also the whole Queen plus PR tour was rock orientated. The new single C-lebrity (again awful title) is a 100% rock song. I am worried we are losing the musical richness Queen has offered us since 1970. We were able to listen to songs for example like Seaside Rendezvous, My Melancholy Blues, Body Language, Was it All Worth it and I'm Going Slightly Mad. All very varied musicly seen. Given the album title and the past work, I am so terrified it'll be a rock album, just a plain rock album with standard songs on it like C-lebrity. That song sounds like you have heard it before but you can't define where... I am hoping on some small songs, like All Dead All Dead or Leaving Home Ain't Easy but not only this ultra macho rock album, suitable for the US market. I am affraid it won't be exciting and new for our ears. Just wanted to share that, are there any of you who have the same fear? |
john bodega 21.05.2008 03:04 |
sunshine__123456 wrote: Just wanted to share that, are there any of you who have the same fear?Fear? Good lord. The day I fear a musical release is the day I need to get some perspective. |
Sunshine__123456 21.05.2008 03:46 |
yes, you know what i mean right. Sorry if I used one wrong word. I am just curious what people's opinion about this matter is, not about the word fear... |
Holly2003 21.05.2008 03:56 |
sunshine__123456 wrote: I have to say that I have been visiting Queenzone.com for the last 5 years frequently but haven't written much on it like others. I have been worrying about The Cosmos Rocks. Yes the title is awful but it is only a title. I am worried about the strategy that Queen is chosing now. Since Freddie died, the amount of 'rock' related releases has increased a lot. I mean 'Queen Rocks' from the nineties but also the whole Queen plus PR tour was rock orientated. The new single C-lebrity (again awful title) is a 100% rock song. I am worried we are losing the musical richness Queen has offered us since 1970. We were able to listen to songs for example like Seaside Rendezvous, My Melancholy Blues, Body Language, Was it All Worth it and I'm Going Slightly Mad. All very varied musicly seen. Given the album title and the past work, I am so terrified it'll be a rock album, just a plain rock album with standard songs on it like C-lebrity. That song sounds like you have heard it before but you can't define where... I am hoping on some small songs, like All Dead All Dead or Leaving Home Ain't Easy but not only this ultra macho rock album, suitable for the US market. I am affraid it won't be exciting and new for our ears. Just wanted to share that, are there any of you who have the same fear?I'm a little concerned also that the new album is going to be comprised of simple rock songs. I love rock music, but I didn't get into Queen because they played AC/DC-type riffs all the time. Sadly, I'm just not sure Brian May has it in him anymore to write (or play?) great music. the guitar solo on C-lebrity was not what I expect from a supposed "guitar god". Say It's Not True was pretty good, but the guitar was still a little bit "Brian May by numbers" Hope he proves me wrong. |
Sunshine__123456 21.05.2008 04:36 |
Holly2003 wrote:Yes exactly, this is what I am also thinking. I hope we are wrong and C-lebrity was not representing the musical direction on the album. I guess we have to have some faith in the guys:)sunshine__123456 wrote: I have to say that I have been visiting Queenzone.com for the last 5 years frequently but haven't written much on it like others. I have been worrying about The Cosmos Rocks. Yes the title is awful but it is only a title. I am worried about the strategy that Queen is chosing now. Since Freddie died, the amount of 'rock' related releases has increased a lot. I mean 'Queen Rocks' from the nineties but also the whole Queen plus PR tour was rock orientated. The new single C-lebrity (again awful title) is a 100% rock song. I am worried we are losing the musical richness Queen has offered us since 1970. We were able to listen to songs for example like Seaside Rendezvous, My Melancholy Blues, Body Language, Was it All Worth it and I'm Going Slightly Mad. All very varied musicly seen. Given the album title and the past work, I am so terrified it'll be a rock album, just a plain rock album with standard songs on it like C-lebrity. That song sounds like you have heard it before but you can't define where... I am hoping on some small songs, like All Dead All Dead or Leaving Home Ain't Easy but not only this ultra macho rock album, suitable for the US market. I am affraid it won't be exciting and new for our ears. Just wanted to share that, are there any of you who have the same fear?I'm a little concerned also that the new album is going to be comprised of simple rock songs. I love rock music, but I didn't get into Queen because they played AC/DC-type riffs all the time. Sadly, I'm just not sure Brian May has it in him anymore to write (or play?) great music. the guitar solo on C-lebrity was not what I expect from a supposed "guitar god". Say It's Not True was pretty good, but the guitar was still a little bit "Brian May by numbers" Hope he proves me wrong. |
P-Staker 21.05.2008 15:52 |
Cosmos Rocks is bad, and Return of the Champions is an even cheesier title. Funny how Queen were much cooler when they were intentionally camp; now it's not just the vocals that are missing, but also a sense of humor - a loss that may prove more serious in the long run. I'd bet my money that Cosmos Rocks will be a straightforward hard rock album. That's what Brian likes, that's what Paul can sing. It's not necessarily a bad thing. The new line-up doesn't live up to the old Queen, but it has the potential to be a good hard rock act in its own right. C-Lebrity has more problems than the bad title; it is an ugly song. It's a mean, humorless, ugly bash. It lacks that good vibe of Queen. Freddie himself said "It destroys the soul to hear that you're all hype, that you have no talent, and that your whole career has been contrived." But for my part, I'm still glad the guys are doing what they're doing. Of course that at 60-something years of age and following Freddie's tragical death they can't be as good as they were in 1975, idealistic and innovative and bursting with energy. So they make (more) blunders; so they write simpler songs. Big deal. When I'm 60, I'll be feeding pigeons in the park and grumbling about the rain. Brian and Roger are on stage playing rock 'n' roll. And for that they have my respect. |
Major Tom 21.05.2008 16:54 |
P-Staker wrote: Cosmos Rocks is bad, and Return of the Champions is an even cheesier title. Funny how Queen were much cooler when they were intentionally camp; now it's not just the vocals that are missing, but also a sense of humor - a loss that may prove more serious in the long run. I'd bet my money that Cosmos Rocks will be a straightforward hard rock album. That's what Brian likes, that's what Paul can sing. It's not necessarily a bad thing. The new line-up doesn't live up to the old Queen, but it has the potential to be a good hard rock act in its own right. C-Lebrity has more problems than the bad title; it is an ugly song. It's a mean, humorless, ugly bash. It lacks that good vibe of Queen. Freddie himself said "It destroys the soul to hear that you're all hype, that you have no talent, and that your whole career has been contrived." But for my part, I'm still glad the guys are doing what they're doing. Of course that at 60-something years of age and following Freddie's tragical death they can't be as good as they were in 1975, idealistic and innovative and bursting with energy. So they make (more) blunders; so they write simpler songs. Big deal. When I'm 60, I'll be feeding pigeons in the park and grumbling about the rain. Brian and Roger are on stage playing rock 'n' roll. And for that they have my respect.AMEN! |
john bodega 22.05.2008 15:24 |
I'm still wondering what Brian's definition of 'epic' is, as he used that word once or twice while describing the new tunes. Haven't heard anything 'epic' yet so I'm a bit worried. I quite liked what "The Call" could have been. I think the rhymes were a bit obvious and the shouty delivery wasn't so great, but the orchestrations 'n' stuff were among his finest. (That is, if he actually wrote them). |
akindofmagic 23.05.2008 00:44 |
agreed... The Call has fantastic orchestration, that suit well with the guitar cascates. Hope it will be in the album |
TREASURE_MOMENT 23.05.2008 12:23 |
Let me add something 'epic' for you to consider. Queen are not Queen without Freddie - Brian and Roger should mastubate my ego and I'll sing for them and give them 'epic'.
Zebonka12 wrote: I'm still wondering what Brian's definition of 'epic' is, as he used that word once or twice while describing the new tunes. Haven't heard anything 'epic' yet so I'm a bit worried. I quite liked what "The Call" could have been. I think the rhymes were a bit obvious and the shouty delivery wasn't so great, but the orchestrations 'n' stuff were among his finest. (That is, if he actually wrote them). |
john bodega 23.05.2008 12:50 |
TREASURE_MOMENT wrote: Let me add something 'epic' for you to consider. Queen are not Queen without Freddie - Brian and Roger should mastubate my ego and I'll sing for them and give them 'epic'.I know you're probably a dummy account but I'll indulge you anyway. I didn't mention the name 'Queen' in the post you responded to. What do you know - I was too busy speculating about the music to give a shit what the label would be. |
TreasureMoment 23.05.2008 13:07 |
This isn't funny! I'm Treasure Moment - cut this out - I'm the only one here that's permitted to be narrow minded rude and totally intolerant to any one else's opinion. |
Winter Land Man 23.05.2008 23:19 |
A lot of girls around this are refer to themselves as 'Cosmo Girls'... maybe Brian, Paul, and Roger refer to themselves as 'Cosmo Grandfather's' |