| Another Roger (re) 13.04.2008 18:39 |
I remember when this song was released. I could barely listen to it because it was so emotional. I loved it though. The melody, the singing, the harmonies, the piano. Everything! To me this is a full blooded Queen song with all the Queen elements in it. Its not only a Queen song to me, its one of the best. I recently heard a version of the song from the WWRY musical. It became appearent to me that the song has great qualities melodywise. What do you think of this song? |
| Winter Land Man 13.04.2008 18:51 |
I like it. Great tribute to Freddie. |
| john bodega 14.04.2008 04:19 |
People hear what they want to hear. I wanted more Queen, and that's what I heard. For me, it's as Queen as you can get without Freddie bursting out of a coffin. Some folks don't consider it a real Queen song, and that's fair enough. |
| cmsdrums 14.04.2008 07:19 |
It's as much a Queen song as, say, Sleeping On The Sidewalk, Good Company, Fight From The Inside.... Those (as far as I recall) don't feature Freddie when they could have done. Actually, does John play on Fight Fom The Inside either???) |
| Sebastian 14.04.2008 07:29 |
I don't consider it a Queen song. But I do consider it better than any Queen song. |
| Hitman 14.04.2008 08:12 |
it's definitely Queen imo |
| Emilio 14.04.2008 08:31 |
Brilliant song, I get very emotional when I listen to it alone. And yes, of course it's a Queen song, I think the saddest one to perform for Roger, Brian & John. Probably that's the song that they would never like to sing ever, I don't know if you know what I mean |
| Another Roger (re) 14.04.2008 10:00 |
I know what you mean mate. But they do sing it from time to time :) |
| Khizzy 14.04.2008 10:24 |
Amazing song. Most definitely a Queen song - you can say the same about the stuff on MIH because most of the new bits weren't recorded with Freddie there I guess. Roger / Brian and John are most definitely "Queen" anyway. NOBY is one of the best songs Queen have ever done. |
| rockthecosmos2008 14.04.2008 12:57 |
Yes 100% a queen song, very emotional, i played it at my dad's funeral, he was 41 when he died, a great tribute to freddie |
| Pim Derks 14.04.2008 13:08 |
Sebastian wrote: I don't consider it a Queen song. But I do consider it better than any Queen song.Another example of the wonderful logic of Sebastian :W |
| Micrówave 14.04.2008 13:22 |
Haggis McShagPants wrote: For me, it's as Queen as you can get without Freddie bursting out of a coffin.Well then, you DON'T want to miss the tour this year. Something is going to happen. Something wonderful. |
| Barbie Jupiter 14.04.2008 13:45 |
I agree that this is a fantastic Queen song about Freddie, and with a marvellous video with beautifully matched footage elements with Freddie. Although, i consider it as a tribute to Freddie, not a "Queen song", you know, but "QUeen song for Freddie". |
| mercuryrks 14.04.2008 15:10 |
Great song I'd say it was there way of saying goodbye to a great friend dont matter if its a Queen song or not but I'd say yes it is since there were all 3 real members. |
| Janet 14.04.2008 15:48 |
Absolutely. |
| new one 14.04.2008 15:55 |
A Queen song for sure. Queen songs have always had a certain quality and this has quality by the bucket load. I'm sure it was destined to be a Brian solo effort and Roger convinced him to record it as Queen. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 14.04.2008 17:53 |
To my mind, the last proper Queen song. |
| Knute 14.04.2008 20:40 |
No Freddie No Queen Queen RIP 1991 |
| theCro 14.04.2008 20:53 |
cmsdrums wrote: It's as much a Queen song as, say, Sleeping On The Sidewalk, Good Company, Fight From The Inside.... Those (as far as I recall) don't feature Freddie when they could have done. Actually, does John play on Fight Fom The Inside either???)i agree with you..for those who say no Freddie no Queen, well, there you go, Good Company is just perfect example of QUEEN SONG without Freddie, just like C-Lebrity :) |
| theCro 14.04.2008 20:54 |
Knute wrote: No Freddie No Queen Queen RIP 1991Freddie would not agree with you |
| Dan C. 14.04.2008 21:14 |
Knute wrote: No Freddie No Queen Queen RIP 1991HA! Awesome. |
| Erin 14.04.2008 21:55 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: To my mind, the last proper Queen song.ditto. |
| ...assdude.... 39702 14.04.2008 22:04 |
cmsdrums wrote: It's as much a Queen song as, say, Sleeping On The Sidewalk, Good Company, Fight From The Inside.... Those (as far as I recall) don't feature Freddie when they could have done. Actually, does John play on Fight Fom The Inside either???)but then what about "dear friends".... is that Queen song? |
| Tero 14.04.2008 23:32 |
No, not a full-blooded Queen song. It's a tribute song written to intentionally stick out from the rest of the album it was released on. |
| Magic2008 16.04.2008 10:33 |
I very much consider it a proper queen song and is actually one of my favourites. I bought the Queen Rocks album back in the late 1990’s just because it featured the single, even though I had practically every other song on there already! Magic2008 link |
| The Real Wizard 17.04.2008 01:12 |
There are plenty of Queen songs that didn't feature all four members. The only difference with No-One But You is that one of the members had died. So, absolutely, it's a Queen song. |
| Martin Packer 17.04.2008 06:07 |
Some other data points... "Don't Lose Your Head" has Joan Armatrading on vocals. And "Good Old Fashioned Loverboy" likewise. And "Innuendo" has guitar from Steve Howe. Are these then "Queen" songs? I'd argue they (perhaps loosely) ARE. But then I'm IN FAVOUR of QPR - simply because Brian and Roger have found a new way to make music and have fun. |
| john bodega 17.04.2008 08:00 |
Micrówave wrote: Well then, you DON'T want to miss the tour this year. Something is going to happen. Something wonderful.I didn't want to spoil the surprise, but Microwave is right. link This years biggest rock reunion is coming soon. |
| Tero 17.04.2008 10:40 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: There are plenty of Queen songs that didn't feature all four members. The only difference with No-One But You is that one of the members had died. So, absolutely, it's a Queen song....And if we expand this same definition with just the tiniest bit, the same applies to How Can I Go On and Love Lies Bleeding. Just like the question "who is Queen" can be answered differently depending on your personal bias, so does this question have several answers. Personally I think that to be considered a "Queen song", all four members must have had the opportunity to take part in the recording sessions at the same time. Modern Times Rock 'n' Roll is a Queen song because Freddie had the opportunity to perform the vocals himself, and agree that Roger's was better. Mother Love is a Queen song because Freddie had the opportunity to sing and play during the recording sessions. Made in Heaven isn't a proper Queen song. It's a good song improved by the additional work of the other Queen members, but it wasn't meant to be a Queen song when the vocals were recorded. No-One But You isn't a Queen song because there never was the opportunity to veto the Roger/Brian vocals in case Freddie sounded better. It's a nice tribute song, but hardly a Queen song. C-Lebrity is a Roger Taylor song with a bit of Brian May guitar on top. It definitely lacks another perspective to improve it. |
| Sebastian 17.04.2008 13:19 |
Tero wrote: Modern Times Rock 'n' Roll is a Queen song because Freddie had the opportunity to perform the vocals himself, and agree that Roger's was better.Besides, Lord Teeth plays the piano in that song. |
| Mr Mercury 17.04.2008 14:30 |
Zebonka12 wrote:Now I know where Brian keeps his bald patch wig - its under Freddie's armpit.Micrówave wrote: Well then, you DON'T want to miss the tour this year. Something is going to happen. Something wonderful.I didn't want to spoil the surprise, but Microwave is right. link This years biggest rock reunion is coming soon. |
| The Real Wizard 17.04.2008 16:01 |
Tero wrote: ...And if we expand this same definition with just the tiniest bit, the same applies to How Can I Go On and Love Lies Bleeding.Those are on solo albums with only one member of the band, so that's really stretching it. Just like the question "who is Queen" can be answered differently depending on your personal bias, so does this question have several answers.Agreed. The Who can be The Who with 2 of 4 members, and Chicago can be Chicago with 4 of 7 members. I think once you have less than half the members in the core of the band, it's no longer the same band... like Guns and Roses. But... are Yes still Yes, even though they only have 2 of the original 5 members? Steve Howe was there for all the key albums (minus 90125, but that was a different band for stylistic reasons, even though 3 of the 5 original members were there). Howe wasn't there on the first two albums, but he's considered by most to be more of a member of Yes than Tony Kaye. Back to Queen... I don't think having Freddie singing on Heaven For Everyone by The Cross makes it a Queen song, even though Roger was there too. But on Made In Heaven it's a Queen song because all four members are heard on the track, even though one of the four wasn't there for the later sessions. As interesting as it is to discuss this, in the end it truly doesn't matter. The name only matters when it comes to marketing. It should just be about the music, and whether or not it sounds good. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 17.04.2008 21:10 |
"As interesting as it is to discuss this, in the end it truly doesn't matter. The name only matters when it comes to marketing. It should just be about the music, and whether or not it sounds good." Arrgghhh!!!! Sir GH, no, no, no! You're a very smart guy, but I'm sorry, that argument does not fly. IYHO, the name only matters when it comes to marketing. IMHO, the name, especially the name Queen which signifies a certain style, or pomp, is what the band was, and who the band was. If me and my buddies stage a decent, but inferior version of the WWRY, and I bill myself as Lord GH, I would hope it wouldn't sit well with you. Our version may be good, I may be as good a guitat player as you (not even close), but our show wouldn't be WWRY. You've earned the right to be in the main WWRY show through your talent. I doubt Brian, Roger and Ben Elton would just say "it's only a name" if I had the same show playing. The name means something to them, forgetting trademarks and law. Queen means something to people that has nothing to do with mathematical equations. It was a spirit, and Freddie Mercury was the biggest part of that spirit. Then again, EVH or Eric Clapton are more famous than Brian as guitarists, and it sure as hell wouldn't be Queen with them playing and Freddie singing if Brian had died. |
| ITSM 17.04.2008 22:46 |
It's 75% Queen. Some-one (but you) just had to say it! ...it's a nice song, but I don't listen to it that much. |
| The Real Wizard 18.04.2008 00:40 |
Ha ha! Ah, you are quite the character. And flattering. And of course, correct. I'll rephrase. Of course the name is important as it represents you as musicians, but it should never take precedence over the music itself. But in far too many discussions about Queen + Paul Rodgers, it's the name that's being discussed, not the music - and most of their new album hasn't even been heard yet! It just boggles my mind that people criticize the name of the band as a means of supporting their pre-conceived judgements about music they haven't even heard. Better? |
| Tero 18.04.2008 14:15 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Of course the name is important as it represents you as musicians, but it should never take precedence over the music itself. But in far too many discussions about Queen + Paul Rodgers, it's the name that's being discussed, not the music - and most of their new album hasn't even been heard yet!The parts that have been heard so far (The Call, Invincible Hope, Say It's Not True, C-Lebrity) are nothing more than solo rejects. If they weren't being performed under the Queen name, less than 10% of the QZ posters would even have listened to them, and even they wouldn't have liked the songs very much. :/ Using the Queen name has to work in both directions: Not only does it entice more people to listen to the songs in the first place, but it also requires us to compare the new material to Queen songs, not solo material... That means the new songs are falling considerably short of the mark. |
| john bodega 19.04.2008 01:54 |
This thread is on a fast-track to Ridiculous, but thankfully Brian wrote something sensible on his soapbox about studio time. Man, I forget how much QZ'ers can be off the mark sometimes. |
| Serry... 19.04.2008 07:32 |
Same disputants, same subjects, same arguments, same misunderstanding... The giant endless spiral of the QZ discussions: What is real Queen -> May they use Queen name? -> What's wrong with Brian? -> Is WWRY-musical the real piece of sh*t or not? -> What is real Queen? -> May they... New faces are not welcome in this battle the BHM arse lickers VS anti-Brianish grumblers. |
| *Rain Must Fall* 19.04.2008 18:12 |
I quite like the song. To me it is more Queen than some of the music that happened after NBY-Robbie Williams to name one. |
| Sebastian 19.04.2008 21:56 |
Serry... wrote: Same disputants, same subjects, same arguments, same misunderstanding... The giant endless spiral of the QZ discussions: What is real Queen -> May they use Queen name? -> What's wrong with Brian? -> Is WWRY-musical the real piece of sh*t or not? -> What is real Queen? -> May they... New faces are not welcome in this battle the BHM arse lickers VS anti-Brianish grumblers.May May please please us with some morality? |
| Serry... 20.04.2008 06:31 |
We're playing for the same team "Anti-Brianish grumblers", Seb, for so many years, but nothing changes... |
| Treasure Moment 20.04.2008 14:56 |
yes, i consider it as a queen song because its made by 3 of the members with no outside influence. Its a very touching song and nice tribute to god of music. |
| brian-harold-may 26643 20.04.2008 17:06 |
Treasure Moment wrote: yes, i consider it as a queen song because its made by 3 of the members with no outside influence. Its a very touching song and nice tribute to god of music.no outside influence....im not sure thats important when defining the song. i see what you mean but doin' alright is a queen song and that was written by tim and brian. you coul dgo even further with the word influence and say tie your mother down is thanks to rory gallager ( i know, i can't spell that lol). but that's ridiculous. but i don't think an outside writer helping is too important to be honest. |
| inu-liger 21.04.2008 03:06 |
While we're talking about bands, with deceased members, still continuing and performing otherwise with some or all the surviving members, how have fans reacted to Pete and Roger continuing as The Who? Just curious, really... Also, would you guys ever go see Paul and Ringo as "The Beatles", whether as a one-off or on tour (with Eric Clapton). :P (No chance in hell of that happening, but some few can dream) |
| john bodega 21.04.2008 05:59 |
It works for some bands and not for others. The Who works, partially, because Pete and Roger still put on an awesome show. Roger was the voice and Pete was the writer of their songs; and a badass on stage. The Beatles, it wouldn't work and they knew it. That's why we never got a reunion, outside of the Anthology thing. They did write a 3 piece song but it never got released, which is a bit of a shame. Take a band like Lynrd Skynrd, no one gives a shit who's in that band. See, there's no 'one size fits all' rule for whether or not a band can carry on with different members. Look how many people were in the Mahavishnu Orchestra, or Toto, or Dream Theatre. It really is not about how many people go in and out of the band, it really depends on which members come and go, and how integral they are. And again, everyone has their own ideas over what 'works'. Personally I'm not so fond of any post-Waters Pink Floyd. (Except for "Marooned" and "High Hopes"). But then I'll turn around and say I really fucking loved "Endless Wire" by The Two - cough, I mean, The Who. Returning to the point of the thread, I feel that No One But You basically is as Queen as it can get. For me, personally. It's sappy, but you go through sappy stages when someone you know kicks the bucket or whatever. I love the song. |
| inu-liger 21.04.2008 19:31 |
Zebonka12 wrote: The Beatles, it wouldn't work and they knew it. That's why we never got a reunion, outside of the Anthology thing. They did write a 3 piece song but it never got released, which is a bit of a shame.Really? I wasn't aware of that. The closest they ever got otherwise to being a 3-piece Beatles was on George's "All Those Years Ago" (if ONLY Paul had played bass on it...) |
| john bodega 22.04.2008 01:37 |
The tale goes that the song was a Paul/George collaboration called "All For Love" or some such. There's also a Lennon song that wasn't completed. There's some versions of it on Youtube, including one that's been Beatle-ised.... by WHO I don't know. |
| Serry... 23.04.2008 08:08 |
Take a look at Queen Rocks' sleeve - answer is there: "Queen are: John Deacon, Brian May, Freddie Mercury and Roger taylor 'No-One But You' is of course another story" Another story! |
| QueenZeppelin 25.04.2008 19:28 |
I think it is. It's a wonderful bookend to their long, illustrious career, and a perfect tribute to Freddie. It is, in my opinion, the last true Queen song. Yes, I do consider today's tour to be Queen. And I think they have every right to tour with Paul Rodgers. But in terms of the "classic" Queen...I think this is the last true "classic" Queen song. |
| The Real Wizard 27.04.2008 21:57 |
QueenZeppelin wrote: I think it is. It's a wonderful bookend to their long, illustrious career, and a perfect tribute to Freddie. It is, in my opinion, the last true Queen song. Yes, I do consider today's tour to be Queen. And I think they have every right to tour with Paul Rodgers. But in terms of the "classic" Queen...I think this is the last true "classic" Queen song.Simple. Perfect. Next discussion, please. |
