inu-liger 16.12.2008 20:40 |
Discuss. |
kohuept 16.12.2008 22:24 |
I like mittens! |
Ken8 16.12.2008 22:38 |
Pathetic. You really are bitter. What does another band have to do with Queen? For a start, no other band had to try and replace Freddie Mercury. He was quite an iconic rock star before you were born. On the other hand, The Who, or what remains of them, have produced critically acclaimed albums like "Endless Wire" that have sold in numbers that put "TCR" to shame. To put things into perspective, perhaps you should wonder why The Who are still doing massive tours around the world. The Who headline in the States seemingly whenever they want. The Who tried to tour Australia in the nineties without Townshend. It was cancelled. |
inu-liger 16.12.2008 22:40 |
Sarcasm isn't in your pocketbook dictionary then? |
Ken8 16.12.2008 22:52 |
You say sarcasm, I say bitterness. Sorry "TCR" flopped. You're pathetic for continuously trying to denigrate Queen's legacy in an attempt to give Q+PR a modicum of credibility. |
inu-liger 16.12.2008 23:00 |
Am I sore about TCR flopping sales-wise? No. I don't give a shit about sales numbers, honestly. Would I care if my band's album didn't chart high enough to your standards? No. I just prefer to have a good time playing the music. Unfortunately people like you don't pay attention to quality, but quantity. And how many of you naysayers even bother to buy any of Queen's albums legitimately instead of downloading? Figured not. Edit: link |
Lester Burnham 16.12.2008 23:12 |
"Pathetic. You really are bitter." - I thought it was funny. Then again, I have a sense of humor. "What does another band have to do with Queen? For a start, no other band had to try and replace Freddie Mercury. He was quite an iconic rock star before you were born." - The Who tried to replace Keith Moon, far more iconic a rock star than Freddie. "On the other hand, The Who, or what remains of them, have produced critically acclaimed albums like "Endless Wire" that have sold in numbers that put "TCR" to shame." - Endless Wire hardly sold numbers that put TCR to shame. In fact, Endless Wire only hit #9 in the UK, while TCR hit #5. Townshend later grumbled that he was really unhappy with the way that the album sold, and that promotion was pretty terrible. The last "critically acclaimed" Who album was Quadrophenia, over 30 years ago. "To put things into perspective, perhaps you should wonder why The Who are still doing massive tours around the world. The Who headline in the States seemingly whenever they want." - The Who are doing tours in the States because they toured the States every year or so up until they disbanded. Queen gave up on the States in 1982, and the States gave up on them shortly thereafter. Very much a different story. "The Who tried to tour Australia in the nineties without Townshend. It was cancelled." - No they didn't. Townshend said that Daltrey and Entwistle should go on the road as The Who, with Simon Townshend on guitar, but Daltrey refused and Entwistle didn't want to tour with Daltrey as his "boss". |
inu-liger 16.12.2008 23:18 |
Lester, glad to see someone other than myself saw the humour in this :-) |
Ken8 16.12.2008 23:29 |
Lester Burnham wrote: "The Who tried to tour Australia in the nineties without Townshend. It was cancelled." - No they didn't. Townshend said that Daltrey and Entwistle should go on the road as The Who, with Simon Townshend on guitar, but Daltrey refused and Entwistle didn't want to tour with Daltrey as his "boss". Bullshit, I bought a ticket. It was promoted and cancelled. I even got to meet Daltrey on the promotional tour. I suggest you compare overall world wide sales between "TCR" and "Endless Wire" Although you're argument may end up looking a little silly The Who can tour the States whenever they want to because there is a huge market for them, obviously. |
inu-liger 16.12.2008 23:39 |
Ken8 wrote:Lester Burnham wrote: "The Who tried to tour Australia in the nineties without Townshend. It was cancelled." - No they didn't. Townshend said that Daltrey and Entwistle should go on the road as The Who, with Simon Townshend on guitar, but Daltrey refused and Entwistle didn't want to tour with Daltrey as his "boss".Bullshit, I bought a ticket. It was promoted and cancelled. I even got to meet Daltrey on the promotional tour. I suggest you compare overall world wide sales between "TCR" and "Endless Wire" Although you're argument may end up looking a little silly The Who can tour the States whenever they want to because there is a huge market for them, obviously. Have you graduated elementary yet? Learn to spell "your" correctly, dumbass. |
Ken8 16.12.2008 23:47 |
LOL! That's rich coming from you! |
Ken8 16.12.2008 23:52 |
Lester Burnham wrote: - The Who are doing tours in the States because they toured the States every year or so up until they disbanded. Queen gave up on the States in 1982, and the States gave up on them shortly thereafter. Very much a different story. LOL! The Who Farewell tour was 81 or 82, despite a few reunion shows like Tommy in 89 until they reformed properly |
Lester Burnham 16.12.2008 23:54 |
"Bullshit, I bought a ticket. It was promoted and cancelled. I even got to meet Daltrey on the promotional tour." - So what was your initial point? Because Townshend wasn't there? Here, I did some research. You're partly correct. From link : "It was finally gonna happen! Roger and John were coming to Australia with what was being billed as the "Greatest Hits of The Who" tour. Unfortunately many in the media were referring to it as a tour by The Who which would not sit comfortably with most Who fans given the absence of Pete but hey, if it sold more tickets... Roger and John were to be joined by Zak Starkey on drums and Simon Townshend on guitar but sadly ticket sales were poor, the promoting company went into liquidation, and the tour was cancelled." So it wasn't billed as The Who until the media did so. "I suggest you compare overall world wide sales between "TCR" and "Endless Wire" Although you're argument may end up looking a little silly" - My is argument is that Endless Wire performed worse in the charts than TCR. Do you have any numbers to back up worldwide sales of Endless Wire vs. TCR? Please show them to me. "The Who can tour the States whenever they want to because there is a huge market for them, obviously." - I'm not saying there isn't, and I'm not saying QPR would outsell The Who. I was just answering your question. I saw The Who five times in the US in the past 8 years, including the most recent tour a few weeks ago; I have yet to see QPR. I like TCR, even though it failed to resonate with the general public. Like inu said above, I don't care if it sells 2 million or 200 copies; I like it, that's all that matters to me. |
Lester Burnham 16.12.2008 23:57 |
Ken8 wrote:Lester Burnham wrote: - The Who are doing tours in the States because they toured the States every year or so up until they disbanded. Queen gave up on the States in 1982, and the States gave up on them shortly thereafter. Very much a different story.LOL! The Who Farewell tour was 81 or 82, despite a few reunion shows like Tommy in 89 until they reformed properly Glad to see you got such a charge out of that! I don't understand what you're disputing. And The Who's Farewell Tour was in 1982. |
inu-liger 16.12.2008 23:57 |
So far I've yet to see an actual credible piece of constructive criticism from you, Ken, to support why you don't like TCR or the QPR project. Which is typical for trolls, really.
I've offered my constructive views elsewhere, before you decide to accuse me of the same. Don't go thinking that I have 0 complaints or nitpicks about the album. I do, and I expressed it elsewhere on this forum (that is, if you can be arsed to even start looking around without relying on your mother's nipples to guide you along the way)
As quoted from that page I've been linking to about trolls:
The third cause of trolling is incompetence. If you disagree with something, it's easier to say "you suck" than to figure out and explain exactly what you disagree with. You're also safe that way from refutation. In this respect trolling is a lot like graffiti. Graffiti happens at the intersection of ambition and incompetence: people want to make their mark on the world, but have no other way to do it than literally making a mark on the world. |
Ken8 17.12.2008 00:39 |
Lester Burnham wrote:Ken8 wrote:Glad to see you got such a charge out of that! I don't understand what you're disputing. And The Who's Farewell Tour was in 1982.Lester Burnham wrote: - The Who are doing tours in the States because they toured the States every year or so up until they disbanded. Queen gave up on the States in 1982, and the States gave up on them shortly thereafter. Very much a different story. So the States gave up on Queen after 82, but not The Who...... Seeing you researched the facts about me being "partly" right re a failed Who Tour, why not disprove my contention that "Endless Wire" has outsold "TCR" too? It was sold as The Who. Daltrey said it was his band (to much amusement), but it wasn't the media selling it as The Who, it was Daltrey and Simon Townshend. |
Ken8 17.12.2008 00:43 |
inu-liger wrote: So far I've yet to see an actual credible piece of constructive criticism from you, Ken, to support why you don't like TCR or the QPR project. Which is typical for trolls, really. How fucking ridiculous. You come up with nothing but "Well, I liked it" and crap like "Church Of Freddie" & "Popularity doesn't equal good songs. Never" or some sort of nonsense. Again, talk about living in fantasyland. You know, anyone posting comments about "Church On Freddie" crap on a QUEEN FORUM should look a little closer to home when it comes to calling other people Trolls. Beyond pathetic. And you claim to be in your twenties??? |
inu-liger 17.12.2008 00:44 |
Here's a concept: Instead of relying on others to do your work for you out of laziness, why don't YOU find credible, up-to-date sources to back up your claims regarding record sales figures? |
inu-liger 17.12.2008 00:47 |
Ken8 wrote: Beyond pathetic. And you claim to be in your twenties??? How old are you yourself? Honestly. |
Ken8 17.12.2008 01:20 |
Asks the person who can't do any better than label people trolls for sticking to the FACTS! Just browsing quickly and it appears "TCR" has sold about 250,000 units world wide, which to be fair is better than I would've expected, though still dismal for an international act like "Queen". To put things into perspective though, "Made In Heaven" appears to have outsold that number, in Hong Kong alone. Endless Wire sold over 80,000 units in the US alone in it's first week, and by the end of 2006 had sold over 210,000 copies, and that's just in the US remember! link There is a valid reason why The Who still headline the States, and why Queen+PR look like they'll be lucky if they score support slot for Journey, if they tour at all. Don't ever think it's only because I say so. Let's stick to the facts, as hard as they are for ALL of us to stomach. |
john bodega 17.12.2008 04:44 |
Another great thread guys! |
inu-liger 17.12.2008 05:05 |
Cheers Zebonka :-P |
Ken8 17.12.2008 05:07 |
Lol! Yeah, and I was wondering what I was going to do on my holidays..... What does get me heated is that the failure of "TCR" in the eyes of the general public goes some way in perpetuating the myth that without Freddie, Queen were/are not much. Of course all of us "fans" know different, but the guys themselves haven't really helped us out here. And despite a concerted effort to recapture the States, going so far as appearing on "Idol", that doesn't seem to have amounted to much now either. |
inu-liger 17.12.2008 05:18 |
Queen would do well, first of all, to sack their management and 'promotional' team. Second of all, it would REALLY help if they'd actually *listen* to their fans and give them what they *reallllllllly* want. Singles Collection box = DO NOT WANT Rarities boxset = DO WANT Brian are you listening?? :-P |
Lester Burnham 17.12.2008 08:51 |
"Just browsing quickly and it appears "TCR" has sold about 250,000 units world wide, which to be fair is better than I would've expected, though still dismal for an international act like "Queen". To put things into perspective though, "Made In Heaven" appears to have outsold that number, in Hong Kong alone." - To be fair, MIH has been Queen's best-selling studio album ever, so I think it'd be unfair to compare TCR to that. It'd be more fair to compare TCR to, say, Queen At The Beeb in terms of sales, as that's really the only album it's outsold. "Endless Wire sold over 80,000 units in the US alone in it's first week, and by the end of 2006 had sold over 210,000 copies, and that's just in the US remember!" - Thanks for the numbers. I knew EW sold more than TCR, I just wanted to see some numbers. I think it also has to do with The Who having more of an appeal in the US, and more street / journalist cred, plus better promotion from their management and record company. Not saying that TCR is perfect – far from it – but the record company should really have promoted the album far better than it actually did; TV appearances, interviews, print media, the whole shebang. It may be a shitty record to some people, and to be honest I was skeptical of it at first, but even the shittiest pile of shit could shift more units than TCR ended up shifting. QPR had all the odds against them, and the lack of record company support certainly didn't help. "There is a valid reason why The Who still headline the States, and why Queen+PR look like they'll be lucky if they score support slot for Journey, if they tour at all. Don't ever think it's only because I say so." - Oh I know that. I doubt QPR will go on for much longer after this, if at all. I believe they played their last gigs last month, and life will return to normal for Brian (working on about a million projects at once), Roger (lounging on a yacht somewhere in the Mediterranean), and Paul (going on a solo tour, maybe hooking up with Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr for The Beatles + Paul Rodgers). I'd be REALLY surprised if there was a QPR US tour. "What does get me heated is that the failure of "TCR" in the eyes of the general public goes some way in perpetuating the myth that without Freddie, Queen were/are not much. Of course all of us "fans" know different, but the guys themselves haven't really helped us out here." - Not sure what you mean here, but I think that while Freddie was an integral part of Queen, and his absence works hard against QPR, Freddie wasn't all that successful without the others, either. (In fact, LOLSOS peaked at #6 in the UK, while TCR hit #5. But, I don't know how much LOLSOS sold ... probably not very much.) What Brian and Roger and Paul should have done was to go out as their own band, with a new name, play some smaller venues, abandon the theatrics and the light shows and all that, and that would have freed them from the restrictions that playing under the Queen banner would have. "And despite a concerted effort to recapture the States, going so far as appearing on "Idol", that doesn't seem to have amounted to much now either." - To be fair, TCR hit #47 in the US, which is absolutely astonishing, considering the lack of marketing. But as I mentioned above, I'd be surprised if QPR toured the US. |
Micrówave 17.12.2008 11:42 |
Wow. After all these numbers and facts, this completly changes everything. I was totally off and misled by 'good 'ol days' syndrome. By God, the numbers just don't lie. I'm so glad we have "numbers" out there qualifying what is and what is not good music. I would be very difficult to actually listen to an album for myself to determine whether I like it or not. And then when I put my "I'd rather be listening to" bumper sticker on, I can feel so damned important that I am the voice of reason in this world of musical idiocy. |
lalaalalaa 17.12.2008 12:44 |
Just because TCR doesn't sell very well, doesn't make the album bad. Basically like when people say they don't like Freddie because "he's gay", it doesn't make him a bad singer. BTW- The Cosmos Rocks did get number 1 in one country ;) |
Wiley 17.12.2008 13:05 |
I am pleasantly surprised that this turned out to be a good thread and there is some discussion going on. I am also happy that it is Queen fans discussing a Queen record with new material for the first time in 13 years and a new "Queen+" tour in more time than that and this has been going on for some months now. I like The Cosmos Rocks. I certainly like it more than Paul Rodgers singing old Queen, which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. It is all down to personal taste in the end. It is a shame that the album was poorly promoted almost everywhere. It could have sold SO MUCH BETTER, but really, who cares? Yes, I would prefer Queen made it big everywhere but those days are over and it is not necesarily a disgrace. They are old now. I am very glad that they took the risk of putting and album out and I really hope they see this as a step in the right direction and not a setback; as a new beginning, not the end. I wish they commit to making the best album they can, actually writing together and really taking time to do it properly. |
Sheer Brass Neck 17.12.2008 13:52 |
But it's the chicken and the egg, Wiley. Queen are arguably among the top 5 bands of all time in the world, probably second only to the Beatles in popularity in all areas other than North America. The record industry is floundering like never before trying to serve up new acts that have no staying power. So if you have a Queen record, the first one since hte death of their iconic frontman, why would you bury it? God knows that Queen product keeps EMI execs in bonus money every year, so people want to buy Queen. Unless you're a Queen apologist, the answer is obvious why they wouldn't throw their money at it: the music is horrible. It betrays everythign Queen stood for, it's pedestrian, warmed over, cliched riddled rock that veers heavily to embarassing. Which in itself is still fine, if there was a killer song or two or three. The songs that people list as the best on the album, Call Me, Still Burnin' and SINT would never, ever, ever have been pitched or got a seconds worth of discussion during the period from Queen to Jazz, maybe even The Game, because they're not strong enough songs. Now though, Brian and Roger have no quality control, witness bad product decisions, inferior artwork and packaging, and that has extended to their song writing. The greatest sin of all is that the album is mercilessly boring. Brian harps about people who want him and Roger "to fade away or die" if they're opposed to the use of the Queen name. He even writes a song about old rockers still having something to say. But all that QPR have to say is a bunch of mid-speed plodding songs with the worst Queen lyrics ever. Of course they wouldn't have sold 10,000 albums without the Queen brand. I've heard it online a few times, and find it horrible, almost like Bad Company which in itself is a crime against humanity, or at least the Queen name. But if they had great killer songs, I'd have scooped it up the second it was in the shops. It's a bad, bad album, undeserving of the Queen name, so maybe that's why there's been no promotion. |
Lester Burnham 17.12.2008 14:14 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: But it's the chicken and the egg, Wiley. Queen are arguably among the top 5 bands of all time in the world, probably second only to the Beatles in popularity in all areas other than North America. The record industry is floundering like never before trying to serve up new acts that have no staying power. So if you have a Queen record, the first one since hte death of their iconic frontman, why would you bury it? God knows that Queen product keeps EMI execs in bonus money every year, so people want to buy Queen. Unless you're a Queen apologist, the answer is obvious why they wouldn't throw their money at it: the music is horrible. It betrays everythign Queen stood for, it's pedestrian, warmed over, cliched riddled rock that veers heavily to embarassing. Which in itself is still fine, if there was a killer song or two or three. The songs that people list as the best on the album, Call Me, Still Burnin' and SINT would never, ever, ever have been pitched or got a seconds worth of discussion during the period from Queen to Jazz, maybe even The Game, because they're not strong enough songs. Now though, Brian and Roger have no quality control, witness bad product decisions, inferior artwork and packaging, and that has extended to their song writing. The greatest sin of all is that the album is mercilessly boring. Brian harps about people who want him and Roger "to fade away or die" if they're opposed to the use of the Queen name. He even writes a song about old rockers still having something to say. But all that QPR have to say is a bunch of mid-speed plodding songs with the worst Queen lyrics ever. Of course they wouldn't have sold 10,000 albums without the Queen brand. I've heard it online a few times, and find it horrible, almost like Bad Company which in itself is a crime against humanity, or at least the Queen name. But if they had great killer songs, I'd have scooped it up the second it was in the shops. It's a bad, bad album, undeserving of the Queen name, so maybe that's why there's been no promotion. In your opinion. |
inu-liger 17.12.2008 22:02 |
Lester Burnham wrote:Sheer Brass Neck wrote: But it's the chicken and the egg, Wiley. Queen are arguably among the top 5 bands of all time in the world, probably second only to the Beatles in popularity in all areas other than North America. The record industry is floundering like never before trying to serve up new acts that have no staying power. So if you have a Queen record, the first one since hte death of their iconic frontman, why would you bury it? God knows that Queen product keeps EMI execs in bonus money every year, so people want to buy Queen. Unless you're a Queen apologist, the answer is obvious why they wouldn't throw their money at it: the music is horrible. It betrays everythign Queen stood for, it's pedestrian, warmed over, cliched riddled rock that veers heavily to embarassing. Which in itself is still fine, if there was a killer song or two or three. The songs that people list as the best on the album, Call Me, Still Burnin' and SINT would never, ever, ever have been pitched or got a seconds worth of discussion during the period from Queen to Jazz, maybe even The Game, because they're not strong enough songs. Now though, Brian and Roger have no quality control, witness bad product decisions, inferior artwork and packaging, and that has extended to their song writing. The greatest sin of all is that the album is mercilessly boring. Brian harps about people who want him and Roger "to fade away or die" if they're opposed to the use of the Queen name. He even writes a song about old rockers still having something to say. But all that QPR have to say is a bunch of mid-speed plodding songs with the worst Queen lyrics ever. Of course they wouldn't have sold 10,000 albums without the Queen brand. I've heard it online a few times, and find it horrible, almost like Bad Company which in itself is a crime against humanity, or at least the Queen name. But if they had great killer songs, I'd have scooped it up the second it was in the shops. It's a bad, bad album, undeserving of the Queen name, so maybe that's why there's been no promotion.In your opinion. |
mike hunt 18.12.2008 03:28 |
Lester Burnham wrote: "Just browsing quickly and it appears "TCR" has sold about 250,000 units world wide, which to be fair is better than I would've expected, though still dismal for an international act like "Queen". To put things into perspective though, "Made In Heaven" appears to have outsold that number, in Hong Kong alone." - To be fair, MIH has been Queen's best-selling studio album ever, so I think it'd be unfair to compare TCR to that. It'd be more fair to compare TCR to, say, Queen At The Beeb in terms of sales, as that's really the only album it's outsold. "Endless Wire sold over 80,000 units in the US alone in it's first week, and by the end of 2006 had sold over 210,000 copies, and that's just in the US remember!" - Thanks for the numbers. I knew EW sold more than TCR, I just wanted to see some numbers. I think it also has to do with The Who having more of an appeal in the US, and more street / journalist cred, plus better promotion from their management and record company. Not saying that TCR is perfect – far from it – but the record company should really have promoted the album far better than it actually did; TV appearances, interviews, print media, the whole shebang. It may be a shitty record to some people, and to be honest I was skeptical of it at first, but even the shittiest pile of shit could shift more units than TCR ended up shifting. QPR had all the odds against them, and the lack of record company support certainly didn't help. "There is a valid reason why The Who still headline the States, and why Queen+PR look like they'll be lucky if they score support slot for Journey, if they tour at all. Don't ever think it's only because I say so." - Oh I know that. I doubt QPR will go on for much longer after this, if at all. I believe they played their last gigs last month, and life will return to normal for Brian (working on about a million projects at once), Roger (lounging on a yacht somewhere in the Mediterranean), and Paul (going on a solo tour, maybe hooking up with Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr for The Beatles + Paul Rodgers). I'd be REALLY surprised if there was a QPR US tour. "What does get me heated is that the failure of "TCR" in the eyes of the general public goes some way in perpetuating the myth that without Freddie, Queen were/are not much. Of course all of us "fans" know different, but the guys themselves haven't really helped us out here." - Not sure what you mean here, but I think that while Freddie was an integral part of Queen, and his absence works hard against QPR, Freddie wasn't all that successful without the others, either. (In fact, LOLSOS peaked at #6 in the UK, while TCR hit #5. But, I don't know how much LOLSOS sold ... probably not very much.) What Brian and Roger and Paul should have done was to go out as their own band, with a new name, play some smaller venues, abandon the theatrics and the light shows and all that, and that would have freed them from the restrictions that playing under the Queen banner would have. "And despite a concerted effort to recapture the States, going so far as appearing on "Idol", that doesn't seem to have amounted to much now either." - To be fair, TCR hit #47 in the US, which is absolutely astonishing, considering the lack of marketing. But as I mentioned above, I'd be surprised if QPR toured the US. more idiotic statements from a failed writer, LOLSOS were songs that were decades old and still peaked at #6, how can you even compare?...Also, keith moon wasn't far above freddie mercury as a rock icon. Maybe in america, but not worldwide. Those statements make you look stupid!...why can't the brian and roger cult (trolls) get over the fact that some people Don't like TCR?...it's not a crime. I personally think the album is decent enough. |
Sheer Brass Neck 18.12.2008 03:29 |
Absolutely my opinion Lester. I'm not going to debate mine, yours or anyone elses opinion on whether TCR is phenomenal/middling/pure shit. We believe what we believe. However, as I've always respected your insights and found you to be one of the most intelligent posters on QZ, can you give me any logical reason why a record company wouldn't promote a band with the profile of Queen and Paul Rodgers? I'll be honest, I'm flabbergasted that people think that lack of promotion is an issue, and if it is, why is it? Why wouldn't a record company put all of their resources behind TCR? Brand recognition that is greater than anyone but The Beatles, the novelty of the first non-Freddie Queen album, the exictement of millions of fans who have seen the musical and now want more Queen music. I can't in a million years figure out why the record companies wouldn't get behind TCR, and if you could help me I'd appreciate it, and i'm not being a smart ass either :) |
Benn 18.12.2008 06:47 |
Sorry guys - came to this one a bit late......... >>"What does another band have to do with Queen? For a start, no other band had to try and replace Freddie Mercury. He was quite an iconic rock star before you were born." >- The Who tried to replace Keith Moon, far more iconic a rock star than Freddie. They didn't exactly try to *replace* Keith. In fact Pete went on record as saying that Keith was irreplaceable in the immediate statement issued around the band's future straight after Keith's death. Kenney Jones was brough it in because he was a time keeper and thus more predictable. Roger also believed that, at the time, he would be a stabilising influence, which, in the end, he turned out not to be with his substance habits. I'd also say that Freddie was a different *type* of icon to Keith. Keith was never held up to be anything other than a genius drummer and rock-lifestyle-legend. Freddie was more of a universal icon as a front-man has the ability to be because of his position on stage and then, after his death, he was hailed as a symbol of hope for all those likely to end up contracting HIV-AIDS. >>"On the other hand, The Who, or what remains of them, have produced critically acclaimed albums like "Endless Wire" that have sold in numbers that put "TCR" to shame." >- Endless Wire hardly sold numbers that put TCR to shame. In fact, Endless Wire only hit #9 in the UK, while TCR hit #5. Townshend later grumbled that he was really unhappy with the way that the album sold, and that promotion was pretty terrible. The last "critically acclaimed" Who album was Quadrophenia, over 30 years ago. Both "The Who By Numbers" and "Who Are You" were critically acclaimed in various quarters; WBN more so, due to the fact that the material was so deeply personal and reflective of Townshend's "space" from '73-'75. Even scumbag Dave Marsh was positive! Endless Wire received relatively little publicity at all, although it's appearance had been discussed in various quarters and anticipated for some length of time. The Who also did what Queen + Paul Rodgers *DIDN'T* do and played plenty of material from the album on stage to get it out there and this was happening even before the album was released: Fragments A Man In A Purple Dress Mike Post Theme Black Widow's Eyes Wire & Glass Mini-Opera Sound Round Pick Up the Peace Endless Wire We Got A Hit They Made My Dream Come True Mirror Door Tea And Theatre Regardless of whether it was "classic Who" or not, the band made the material work hard for it's living and went out on a limb by getting rid of the safer historic material they had relied on from 1999-2004. >>"To put things into perspective, perhaps you should wonder why The Who are still doing massive tours around the world. The Who headline in the States seemingly whenever they want." >- The Who are doing tours in the States because they toured the States every year or so up until they disbanded. Queen gave up on the States in 1982, and the States gave up on them shortly thereafter. Very much a different story. The Who were always more appreciated in the States more than they were anywhere else. Remember that the types of bands "like" The Who in the UK were almst limitless; the US seemed to appreciate the unique qualities of The Who more. For example, the auto-destructive show endings were ridiculed in the UK by many as being simple waste when economic times were hard. Keith was treated as an English Eccentric as opposed to the great musician he was. Rock music was also widely seen merely as entertainment here rather than the serious art form it was in the US - Pete articulated rock music and was listened to in the US, where he was kind of chuckled at here in the UK. Because of all of this, the band themselves had a higher appreciation for their US audince in many cases than they did for their UK counterparts. It's no co-incidence that the original farewell tour happened in the US. Currently, the band's gratitude towards the US audience is still high and as a result, Pete agrees to go back there as and when he can. It also appears that people over there are more likely to pay the high ticket prices promotors are looking to charge in greater numbers than they are in the UK and Europe. As a result, Pete can clear a number of bills in one fell swoop and he can also assist Roger in keeping his dream of performing constantly with The Who alive. How long that will last is anyone's guess....... >>"The Who tried to tour Australia in the nineties without Townshend. It was cancelled." >- No they didn't. Townshend said that Daltrey and Entwistle should go on the road as The Who, with Simon Townshend on guitar, but Daltrey refused and Entwistle didn't want to tour with Daltrey as his "boss". That tour was to be billed as "Who's Coming?" with Daltrey, Entwistle, Simon Townshend and Zak "Playing the greatest hits of The Who". It was never billed as The Who anywhere and only failed to happen due to lack of ticket sales and the promotor going bust. Pete had said from '83 onwards that Roger and John were free to do what they liked under the banner of The Who, but also knew full well that both they and the band's audience wouldn't be able to accept a Who without Pete in it, wherever they played. John would play Who material anywhere and with anyone - Roger being his "boss" wouldn't have ever come in to it. It's safe to say, though, that, had Pete or Roger died when either Keith or John did, it's extremely unlikely that the band would have been able to continue as they were / are the two most driving forces behind what the band actually is, regardless of the fact that the heart and sould of the band were Keith and John in the engine room of the rythm section. You could say that Brian and Roger have been *I N C R E D I B L Y* brave in venturing out there without the sole driving force behind Queen - would you REALLY miss Roger on drums? Do you REALLY miss John Deacon on bass? As long as someone's providing the beat, the icing on the cake is what really delivers the product, after all......... |
Lester Burnham 18.12.2008 08:54 |
"more idiotic statements from a failed writer, LOLSOS were songs that were decades old and still peaked at #6, how can you even compare?...Also, keith moon wasn't far above freddie mercury as a rock icon. Maybe in america, but not worldwide. Those statements make you look stupid!...why can't the brian and roger cult (trolls) get over the fact that some people Don't like TCR?...it's not a crime. I personally think the album is decent enough." "From a failed writer" ... y'know, if anyone else had said that, that would have really hurt me, but because it's you... :) Some of my "statements" were said as bait to Ken8, as I'm sure many of his were too, and therefore completely exaggerated. Keith Moon and Freddie Mercury were rock stars in their own ways, and both legends. Obviously, that went over the heads of many people. Here's something that you obviously missed from my statements: I completely understand that people don't like TCR, and I don't really care if they like it, love it, loathe it, or want to use it as a frisbee. I like it, that's what matters to me; I'm not going to force my opinions on everyone else – believe me, I've had that happen to me far too many times by a small group of my fundamentalist Christian friends trying to get me to convert to their particular religion, and it bothers me beyond belief. I just came to the defence of Richard here because he had obviously started a parody thread, and Ken8 got his panties in a bunch, and I happen to really like The Who, far more than I like QPR. Maybe next time you should try reading what I write and taking it with a grain of salt instead of jumping on the defensive. The only serious writing I do is in my failed books. |
Lester Burnham 18.12.2008 09:12 |
"Absolutely my opinion Lester. I'm not going to debate mine, yours or anyone elses opinion on whether TCR is phenomenal/middling/pure shit. We believe what we believe." Indeed! Nor would I force my opinions on anyone else, so I apologize if it came across that way. "However, as I've always respected your insights and found you to be one of the most intelligent posters on QZ, can you give me any logical reason why a record company wouldn't promote a band with the profile of Queen and Paul Rodgers? I'll be honest, I'm flabbergasted that people think that lack of promotion is an issue, and if it is, why is it?" Here's what I think the record company (or QPR's management, perhaps) should have done: - more TV appearances on talk shows to preview the new material (the only one I can think of, because I'm in the US and not the UK, is Later With Jools Holland) - another single, almost immediately after the album was released - played more of the new stuff in their live set That's all promotion that would have helped the album, yet the record company (or QPR's management) figured that Al Murray and a few radio appearances would be it. I'll address some more points below... "Why wouldn't a record company put all of their resources behind TCR? Brand recognition that is greater than anyone but The Beatles, the novelty of the first non-Freddie Queen album, the exictement of millions of fans who have seen the musical and now want more Queen music. I can't in a million years figure out why the record companies wouldn't get behind TCR, and if you could help me I'd appreciate it, and i'm not being a smart ass either :)" I don't think brand recognition is all it's cracked up to be anymore these days. Word-of-mouth, while an excellent selling point, is very limited in doing an effective job. Of course, it didn't help that the reviews were particularly vitriolic, even if most of them were spot-on. (Let's be honest: while I enjoy the album because it's good to hear Brian and Roger playing again, and they're clearly having a good time, it's not to everyone's taste, and I can see why they wouldn't like it. Anyone who claims it's a latter-day masterpiece on a par with anything from Queen's catalog is delusional. It wouldn't make my Top 10 albums released in 2008.) I think people just didn't know that an album was out, and more exposure would have been greatly beneficial, obviously. I think Brian and Roger were figuring they could sell a million copies on brand recognition alone, and were surprised when it failed. Why do you think Brian hasn't really talked about the reception to the album or how great a time he had on the tour? I can't understand either why a record company wouldn't back a high-profile release, but I think the industry has changed drastically from the last time a new Queen album was released, and QPR are still using people set in their own ways about how an album should be promoted, which has hurt them more than helped, I think. Keep in mind that Paul McCartney was disappointed with the way his Driving Rain album sold back in 2001 (which, in my opinion, is more musically and lyrically adventurous than TCR, yet it too was in the charts for 2 weeks, and only peaked at #46 or something in the UK) and promptly dropped EMI, going over to another record company and achieving more sales and success on subsequent albums. I think QPR should have done that, on top of changing the name so that 1) it wouldn't have been compared to Queen, as it inevitable was (and only went to show that people weren't ready for a Freddie-less Queen), and 2) they would have been freed from the restrictions of a Queen live show and really let their hair down and play the hell out of the album and some of their more obscure stuff. But, I think that because Brian and Roger were worried about the bottom-line numbers, they figured that the ultimate road to success was to use the Queen brand, and hey presto, an instant million-seller. Turns out that ain't so... |
john bodega 18.12.2008 09:29 |
The Who win anyway. Because I'm seeing them in April. |
Benn 18.12.2008 11:26 |
Lester, re: >the exictement of millions of fans who have seen the musical and now want more Queen music. Or, could that just be the same couple of thousand who mindlessly go back to see it time after time leaving QPL to believe that they newly convert people in their thousands to the music of Queen? |
Sheer Brass Neck 18.12.2008 14:40 |
"Maybe next time you should try reading what I write and taking it with a grain of salt instead of jumping on the defensive. The only serious writing I do is in my failed books." And that would make you light years ahead of everybody here who in their wildest dreams wishes that they could get into position to have a failed book. 99% of the posters here wouldn't have their posts approved on this board based on bad grammar and idiotic construction of their thoughts, let alone get a meeting with a publisher to discuss a book. Cheap shot by Nike Hunt, uncalled for. |
Bo Rhap 18.12.2008 18:58 |
To finish off the circle I ve saw the original line up of the The Who back in 1975.Just as i've saw the original line up of Queen 9 times. I think that both groups have the right to go out calling themselves by their own original names if they want.Although imho Roger Daltrey has lost it a bit in his vocals.But that is to be expected i suppose.After all the guy is in his 60's. But you know whats funny.I never heard any screaming and shouting from the Who fans when they replaced Keith Moon with Kenny Jones,as like whats going on with the Queen fans with Paul Rodgers. |
john bodega 18.12.2008 22:07 |
Bo Rhap wrote: But you know whats funny.I never heard any screaming and shouting from the Who fans when they replaced Keith Moon with Kenny Jones,as like whats going on with the Queen fans with Paul Rodgers. That's because I wasn't born yet. Kenney Jones, in the context of Who drummer, isn't worth the shit on Keith's shoe. Honestly, I don't give a crap if he's a better timekeeper. He was boring, and above all he looks like a horse-fucker. I couldn't have been more pleased when they got rid of him. Can't wait to see them with Starkey |
Lester Burnham 18.12.2008 22:18 |
Kenney was a far better fit than Simon Philips. At least Kenney didn't make The Who sound like a terrible Broadway musical. |
Ken8 19.12.2008 03:12 |
Zebonka12 wrote: The Who win anyway. Because I'm seeing them in April. March here! Turned out to be a good read, this thread |
Ken8 19.12.2008 03:16 |
Lester Burnham wrote: Some of my "statements" were said as bait to Ken8, as I'm sure many of his were too, I think I should admit I have been posting here under the influence of certain substances......Just enjoying the holidays. |
Ken8 19.12.2008 03:27 |
mike hunt wrote:Lester Burnham wrote: Freddie wasn't all that successful without the others, either. (In fact, LOLSOS peaked at #6 in the UK, while TCR hit #5. But, I don't know how much LOLSOS sold ... probably not very much.) I suppose I have to look that up too..... I think it's safe to say Freddie was far more successful solo, but only because he was much more prolific and had a greater public profile. If he wasn't "Made In Heaven" would've been an EP. I'm surprised "Lover Of Life" did so well especially as we already had the songs. Same for the accompanying DVD. "TCR" also had a tour. You can't base sales on chart positions though. "TCR" may have hit No. 5 in a week where there was little competition in the genre. I'd imagine both "LOLSOS" and "Endless Wire" have much longer legs than "TCR" |
Ken8 19.12.2008 03:48 |
Lester Burnham wrote: But, I think that because Brian and Roger were worried about the bottom-line numbers, they figured that the ultimate road to success was to use the Queen brand, and hey presto, an instant million-seller. Turns out that ain't so... I'm sure that was their reasoning behind it. Like I have said, in this "focus group" led era of marketing, I believe the concept of a Freddie-less Queen album was considered too big a risk to invest any real money into promoting. Or having heard it, the record company may have realised they had a potential turkey on their hands from the get-go. I'm also baffled at the seemingly intentional move away from something that sounds readily identifiable as "Queen" Again, I can't figure out why May's solo albums sound more Queen like than what purports to be "Queen" in 2008. |
Benn 19.12.2008 04:29 |
Lester, re: >Kenney was a far better fit than Simon Philips. At least Kenney didn't make The Who sound like a terrible Broadway musical. Simon didn't make them sound like a Broadway musical all on his own. The bad sound came from a number of sources: 1 - John Entwistle was given "direction" as to how he was to play and at what levels. Previously he'd been using Alembics which gave the band a really heavy bottom end on stage (from '75 through to '82 and including Live Aid) and could play L O U D. For the '89 tour, he'd already switched to using Status graphite basses and was playing with full trebble and less bass in order to give him a more "lead guitar" type of sound. The type of bass and his settings combined took away that distinctive, grounding bass sound The Who were renowned for. On top of this, Roger had said that John would have to listen to him in terms of how loud he could play and as a result, there was very little true bass sound at any of the shows. It simply enabled Roger to properly hit keys which weren't coming from Pete any longer. 2 - Steve "Boltz" Bolton playing lead wah-wah heavy solos which couldn't have been further away from the true Who sound. However, Pete only agreed to celebrate the 25 years if he was allowed to play as rythm guitarist and then switch to lead when the mood took him. A genius move in many ways, because his acoustic playing was superb and lead directly to his current style on electric which is now more heavily flamenco influenced. 3 - Chyna, Cleveland Watkiss and Billy Nicholls on backing vocals - a complete departure from the past and completely out of place in a "blokes" band. 4 - The Kick Horns worked very well in places buy were too heavily in the mix on everything. 5 - John Bundrick - again, too high in the mix which tended to wash over everything; absolutely not his fault. The sad thing is that, given the diversity of the material that they played in 1989, if Pete had been in proper shape to take the band out as a four / five piece as they are currently, that tour would have gone down in the band's history as one of their very best. Simon Phillips was / is a quality player and he did bring some interesting flourishes to the material in the way that Kenney was simply unable to do; remember Pete fed of the energy of Keith and, if you see the band currently, he's constantly taking references from Zak as to where to go and what to do. I think Pete thoguht he could do this playing rythm, but, clearly, he couldn't and that meant the driving force of the band on stage was redundant. |
mike hunt 19.12.2008 11:13 |
Lester Burnham wrote: "more idiotic statements from a failed writer, LOLSOS were songs that were decades old and still peaked at #6, how can you even compare?...Also, keith moon wasn't far above freddie mercury as a rock icon. Maybe in america, but not worldwide. Those statements make you look stupid!...why can't the brian and roger cult (trolls) get over the fact that some people Don't like TCR?...it's not a crime. I personally think the album is decent enough." "From a failed writer" ... y'know, if anyone else had said that, that would have really hurt me, but because it's you... :) Some of my "statements" were said as bait to Ken8, as I'm sure many of his were too, and therefore completely exaggerated. Keith Moon and Freddie Mercury were rock stars in their own ways, and both legends. Obviously, that went over the heads of many people. Here's something that you obviously missed from my statements: I completely understand that people don't like TCR, and I don't really care if they like it, love it, loathe it, or want to use it as a frisbee. I like it, that's what matters to me; I'm not going to force my opinions on everyone else – believe me, I've had that happen to me far too many times by a small group of my fundamentalist Christian friends trying to get me to convert to their particular religion, and it bothers me beyond belief. I just came to the defence of Richard here because he had obviously started a parody thread, and Ken8 got his panties in a bunch, and I happen to really like The Who, far more than I like QPR. Maybe next time you should try reading what I write and taking it with a grain of salt instead of jumping on the defensive. The only serious writing I do is in my failed books. ha ha, I guess I shouldn't have said that. I Just hate when people come on a queen site and feel the need to put down it's members. For what it's worth ( I know it's not much) I read your book and think it's fantastic, what are you 22?...A bright future awaits. Brighter than mine, but then again, I can't complain. |
inu-liger 20.12.2008 04:34 |
Wiley wrote: I am pleasantly surprised that this turned out to be a good thread and there is some discussion going on. I am also happy that it is Queen fans discussing a Queen record with new material for the first time in 13 years and a new "Queen+" tour in more time than that and this has been going on for some months now. I like The Cosmos Rocks. I certainly like it more than Paul Rodgers singing old Queen, which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. It is all down to personal taste in the end. It is a shame that the album was poorly promoted almost everywhere. It could have sold SO MUCH BETTER, but really, who cares? Yes, I would prefer Queen made it big everywhere but those days are over and it is not necesarily a disgrace. They are old now. I am very glad that they took the risk of putting and album out and I really hope they see this as a step in the right direction and not a setback; as a new beginning, not the end. I wish they commit to making the best album they can, actually writing together and really taking time to do it properly. I too hope they will continue on and make more music together, even if it takes another 2-3 years. I honestly think, what with Brian having said that the money IS moreso in touring than record sales these days anyways, that they weren't as concerned with making huge sales with this album (rather oddly, all things considered....new Queen album in 13 years, first full album without Freddie, etc etc). It did sell modestly, and certainly charted higher than expected by some, but I think, having all been recorded in Roger's Priory Studio with their usual in-house team, it would not have been a *must-sell* in terms of trying to break even on profit as far as financing behind the recordings went. I'm even feeling somewhat this is kind of more a Roger production in that sense, as Brian didn't contribute much in the way of compositions towards the album (which I believe he admitted regretting) due to his multitude of other personal committments to various things during the production of the album, most notably his completing his physics degree in Astronomy |
john bodega 20.12.2008 10:08 |
Disappointed as I might be by TCR, I don't really have anything against the idea of them trying again. It's the height of silliness I guess but I'd like to keep an open mind. Forgetting for a moment that I don't think the songs were up to much this time, I think another flaw is that Brian and Roger didn't get much of a shot at singing. One can say 'Paul is the lead singer now, etc' but in the context of this Q+PR project.... he simply isn't all that outstanding that he can negate the others as singers. I listen to the job they did on "No One But You" and honestly it's just as good, if not better than, what's on TCR. I think they really ought to take a Traveling Wilburys approach to it... try everyone on every song, and see who sounds best. Even if the music isn't up to snuff, the variety invariably helps things a little. I didn't like hearing Paul Rodgers on every track; it exacerbated the feeling (for me, anyway) that the songs were 'samey' and flat. This is pretty disposable wisdom on my part; I'm not the guy with an Ivor Novello award here... (!) but I reckon they can do better. They can start by getting a bass player for the studio, not just for the live shows. |
inu-liger 20.12.2008 13:33 |
Zebonka12 wrote: This is pretty disposable wisdom on my part; I'm not the guy with an Ivor Novello award here... (!) but I reckon they can do better. They can start by getting a bass player for the studio, not just for the live shows. I elect Danny Miranda for studio bass player! :-) Actually, I'm surprised they didn't bring him in, in the first place, even if he were to be credited as session bassist or guest bassist on the sleeves, whatever. Probably would have helped make the songs get recorded faster. |
Ken8 20.12.2008 20:12 |
Zebonka12 wrote: One can say 'Paul is the lead singer now, etc' but in the context of this Q+PR project.... he simply isn't all that outstanding that he can negate the others as singers. I listen to the job they did on "No One But You" and honestly it's just as good, if not better than, what's on TCR. Absolutely. And there's another catch 22 of bringing in a name like Paul Rodgers into a band like Queen. With the respect that Brian & Roger rightfully have for Paul as a vocalist, I don't think they would've considered daring to ask him to only play bass on a few tracks. |
inu-liger 20.12.2008 23:46 |
Ken8 wrote:Zebonka12 wrote: One can say 'Paul is the lead singer now, etc' but in the context of this Q+PR project.... he simply isn't all that outstanding that he can negate the others as singers. I listen to the job they did on "No One But You" and honestly it's just as good, if not better than, what's on TCR.Absolutely. And there's another catch 22 of bringing in a name like Paul Rodgers into a band like Queen. With the respect that Brian & Roger rightfully have for Paul as a vocalist, I don't think they would've considered daring to ask him to only play bass on a few tracks. Um.......I take it you don't realize which two members swapped bass duties on the album? ^_^' |
mike hunt 21.12.2008 01:12 |
I don't think another Queen + paul studio album will be released. I think it's over. |
Ken8 21.12.2008 19:24 |
inu-liger wrote:Ken8 wrote:Um.......I take it you don't realize which two members swapped bass duties on the album? ^_^'Zebonka12 wrote: One can say 'Paul is the lead singer now, etc' but in the context of this Q+PR project.... he simply isn't all that outstanding that he can negate the others as singers. I listen to the job they did on "No One But You" and honestly it's just as good, if not better than, what's on TCR.Absolutely. And there's another catch 22 of bringing in a name like Paul Rodgers into a band like Queen. With the respect that Brian & Roger rightfully have for Paul as a vocalist, I don't think they would've considered daring to ask him to only play bass on a few tracks. Gee, I wonder which two........? I meant, you'd have to give Rodgers SOMETHING to do |