| Stephan 20.05.2009 11:59 |
http://www.amazon.com/Tenement-Funster-Flick-Valley-Version/dp/B002A6PK3O It's real! Dream Theater have re-recorded Tenement Funster, Flick Of The Wrist and Lily Of The Valley. The songs will be released on a bonus disc on their forthcoming album, which is called "Black Clouds & Silver Linings". The bonus disc will also include a cover version of "Stargazer" by Rainbow. You can listen to this particular song on http://www.roccatune.com/de Just use the search function and you'll find a stream of the song. |
| Saif 20.05.2009 12:10 |
Stephan wrote: http://www.amazon.com/Tenement-Funster-Flick-Valley-Version/dp/B002A6PK3O It's real! Dream Theater have re-recorded Tenement Funster, Flick Of The Wrist and Lily Of The Valley. The songs will be released on a bonus disc on their forthcoming album, which is called "Black Clouds & Silver Linings". The bonus disc will also include a cover version of "Stargazer" by Rainbow. You can listen to this particular song on http://www.roccatune.com/de Just use the search function and you'll find a stream of the song. Yeah, I was reading wikipedia for news about their new album and on the page it said it would ship with a bonus disc of cover songs. Was really excited to see they would cover Queen and Rainbow... Don't care too much about Tenement Funster but it'll be cool to hear James LaBrie sing Flick Of The Wrist and Lily Of The Valley. |
| doxonrox 20.05.2009 20:44 |
It's never cool to hear James LaBrie sing anything since the Images and Words album, but I'm interested to hear how Petrucci works these out. |
| FriedChicken 21.05.2009 06:37 |
The sample sounds horrible :( I've expected more of these guys :( |
| *goodco* 21.05.2009 14:58 |
To say these tracks are an 'interesting' choice, is an understatement. I give them credit for what they've chosen. My favorite existing band covering my favorite all-time band. Not sure if it will work or not (Queensryche's cover of 'Innuendo' failed miserably due to Geoff Tate's failing voice and some ot the arraingements). Then again, if they perform it at one of the show's we'll be attending, we'll no doubt enjoy. |
| Richard Orchard 21.05.2009 20:38 |
already pre-ordered my copy [img=/images/smiley/msn/regular_smile.gif][/img] Richard |
| Yara 21.05.2009 22:23 |
*goodco* wrote: To say these tracks are an 'interesting' choice, is an understatement. I give them credit for what they've chosen. My favorite existing band covering my favorite all-time band. Not sure if it will work or not (Queensryche's cover of 'Innuendo' failed miserably due to Geoff Tate's failing voice and some ot the arraingements). Then again, if they perform it at one of the show's we'll be attending, we'll no doubt enjoy. Hi, *goodco*. How are you doing? Such great news! I fully agree with your post. I'd really love if you wrote more often on the website - all the posts written by you which I have read so far were just great. Take this, please, not as a request or demand, no!, but as a compliment. :-))) Good to read you again and I hope I can get my hands on this one very, very soon! I have been receiving many wonderful tips by Queenzoners and whenever I go to the record store in the weekends I bring a little list along with the recommendations. The new one from Dream Theater for sure is going to feature in it! I hope there may be many discussions here about the album later on! Thanks, I wish the best to you and your family and take care! Yara |
| *goodco* 22.05.2009 15:24 |
Thanks for the compliments. As GH wrote on the other thread recently, DT has already proven they can play a 10-15 minute track to perfection. They do over-indulge a bit (understatement), which leads me to having to cut or fade out tracks for my listening enjoyment ('Misunderstood', 'Repentence', and 'Ministry of Lost Souls' come to mind.......and I wish they would have provided an instrumental for 'The Great Debate'......the broadcasting parts are totally unlistenable) Wish I could come across their DC show from last year as a bootleg. Pity they don't provide CDs at their shows, with the tracks played that night from live performances from previous shows. They do provide their Dark Side Of The Moon and Made in Tokyo and other boots..............but I've got them. If anyone can provide me the location from which I could obtain some of their boots, I'd appreciate it. I would also like to find live versions of 'Misunderstood', and the last two tracks from 'Six Degrees' (About To Crash reprise and Grand Finale). Live at Budokan had 'About to Crash' to 'Solitary Shell'.......in different parts, but I'd love the 'raw' final tracks other than the fantastic 'Score' versions. And that 'Misunderstood' would have been included on the 'Chaos' dvd. The mood set by the lighting was terrific. A shame that the whole release did not sound as full as the 'Ant Odyssey' intro, and that the crowd noise was so completely removed. Took away from the feel of their shows. To finish.........I wrote Mr May and his webmistress years ago about how I had hoped Brian would have done something along the lines of 'Six Degrees'. Forget the pop and hopeful hit.......do something that shows off the talent, songwriting, guitar, etc..............never heard a reply. Obviously, Cosmos Rocks did not have any hint of that style. To close.........I know many who don't like James LaBrie's vocals, or think he has 'fallen' since the early days. Well, think of what they've had him sing in recent years. From a listener who grew up with Freddie, Dennis DeYoung, Steve Perry, Kevin Cronin.........lead singers who could SING.....he's not too shabby by any means. Not on their level........but damn good, and he fits. Glad he was with them for 'Scenes', 'Six Degrees', and 'Octavarium'. Now if they'd just get rid of the cookie monster vocal crap, I'd be happy. before anyone makes their snide comments about this being a Q and not a DT list, well, I wish I could find one. But we'll be seeing the medley from Sheer Heart Attack performed soon, live, in person (we hope), so there's my Queen reference. |
| Saif 23.05.2009 01:47 |
The broadcasting bit is exactly the same reason I can't stand Tool's "Third Eye" |
| AC 23.05.2009 14:01 |
*goodco* wrote: My favorite existing band covering my favorite all-time band. I think I'll agree with you here. One of the best news I've heard recently. Can't wait to hear them! |
| Treasure Moment 23.05.2009 20:55 |
DT are skilled but i have yet to hear 1 good catchy song by them. |
| The Real Wizard 24.05.2009 02:41 |
Treasure Moment wrote: DT are skilled but i have yet to hear 1 good catchy song by them. They don't write catchy songs... with the possible exception of Pull Me Under, which was actually a moderate hit. That said, who says their songs have to be catchy? Are you suggesting that catchy hooks are the only thing that can make a song a good song? |
| mike hunt 24.05.2009 02:51 |
Sir GH wrote:I knew you were gonna get your panties in a bunch over that comment, but you have no problem critisizing freddie mercury that he wasn't perfect.Treasure Moment wrote: DT are skilled but i have yet to hear 1 good catchy song by them.They don't write catchy songs... with the possible exception of Pull Me Under, which was actually a moderate hit. That said, who says their songs have to be catchy? Are you suggesting that catchy hooks are the only thing that can make a song a good song? |
| The Real Wizard 24.05.2009 03:55 |
Not sure what you're getting at.. But yes, nobody's perfect. Even the greatest artists of our time have written terrible songs. Likewise, some little-known ones have written great songs. |
| Treasure Moment 24.05.2009 09:33 |
Sir GH wrote:Treasure Moment wrote: DT are skilled but i have yet to hear 1 good catchy song by them.They don't write catchy songs... with the possible exception of Pull Me Under, which was actually a moderate hit. That said, who says their songs have to be catchy? Are you suggesting that catchy hooks are the only thing that can make a song a good song? Yes of course, a good song is a catchy song and they cant write one therfor they arent a good band. |
| The Real Wizard 24.05.2009 11:48 |
Treasure Moment wrote: Yes of course, a good song is a catchy song and they cant write one therfor they arent a good band. Allow me to paraphrase: "Yes of course, my ignorance has convinced me that anything isn't catchy isn't good. My musically and intellectually limited mind cannot possibly fathom other ways in which a song can be good." Catchy hooks are a device in pop music, but not in most other genres. They're only inferior in some way if you label them as such. |
| Treasure Moment 24.05.2009 12:03 |
Sir GH wrote:Treasure Moment wrote: Yes of course, a good song is a catchy song and they cant write one therfor they arent a good band.Allow me to paraphrase: "Yes of course, my ignorance has convinced me that anything isn't catchy isn't good. My musically and intellectually limited mind cannot possibly fathom other ways in which a song can be good." Catchy hooks are a device in pop music, but not in most other genres. They're only inferior in some way if you label them as such. If the song doesnt have anything cathy or emotional it sucks, simple as that. |
| Wiley 25.05.2009 10:58 |
So, there you have it, if your song is not Catchy and/or Emotional TO THIS TreasureMoment GUY then your band must be crap. He does have a point. Everybody likes catchy songs but one could argue that a ballad by "_insert_current_pop_artist's_name_here_" is both emotional and catchy and this guy would still say it's crap. And this only shows us that when it comes to music tastes, it's all subjective. Angels, by Robbie Williams? Total Eclipse of the Heart, by Bonnie Tyler? Making love out of nothing at all, by Air Supply? (Yep, that's to Jim Steinman songs there) Actually, emotional doesn't necessarily mean Sad or Melancholic. You can write a very emotional, sincere and catchy song stating that you "like big butts and you cannot lie..." ;) |
| Mr Mercury 25.05.2009 12:19 |
Treasure Moment wrote: If the song doesnt have anything cathy or emotional it sucks, simple as that. Who the hell is cathy? And what has she got to do with all this? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . By the way TM, I know its typo, ok |
| The Real Wizard 25.05.2009 12:23 |
Wiley wrote: Total Eclipse of the Heart, by Bonnie Tyler? It's clearly a horrible song because it's not catchy enough. Jim Steinman is talentless because he never worked with Freddie. Maybe if someone from Treasure Moment played on the track I would take it more seriously. We need to sell TM's definition of music to every music psychologist in the world. I think we're onto something here... |
| Mr Mercury 25.05.2009 12:25 |
Wiley wrote: So, there you have it, if your song is not Catchy and/or Emotional TO THIS TreasureMoment GUY then your band must be crap. Your song doesn't need to be catchy. But it does need to have cathy in it (see TM's quote in my last post). So there you have it. The formula for a successful hit is an emotional song all about Cathy. |
| Treasure Moment 25.05.2009 13:41 |
Sir GH wrote:Wiley wrote: Total Eclipse of the Heart, by Bonnie Tyler?It's clearly a horrible song because it's not catchy enough. Jim Steinman is talentless because he never worked with Freddie. Maybe if someone from Treasure Moment played on the track I would take it more seriously. We need to sell TM's definition of music to every music psychologist in the world. I think we're onto something here... Im just saying, the songs ive heard from DT arent good, its not catchy or emotional, they are very skilled but cant write a good song, at least those i heard werent. |
| pittrek 25.05.2009 13:45 |
I love their version of Spread Your Wings - TM did you hear that one ? |
| princetom 25.05.2009 14:01 |
@Treasure Moment:you should listen to the 'Metropolis II'-Album. Although I second your oppinion on most of the songs of DT, this album is DEFINETLY worth listening... ...but the snippet on amazon shows that they can play anything technically. but that's not the point of good music, is it? LaBrie's accent sucks :-D |
| Treasure Moment 25.05.2009 14:28 |
pittrek wrote: I love their version of Spread Your Wings - TM did you hear that one ? no i havent but thats a cover, i want to hear an original song by them thats good. |
| Treasure Moment 25.05.2009 14:29 |
princetom wrote: @Treasure Moment:you should listen to the 'Metropolis II'-Album. Although I second your oppinion on most of the songs of DT, this album is DEFINETLY worth listening... thanks, ill see if some of the songs from that album is on youtube. |
| The Real Wizard 25.05.2009 14:34 |
Treasure Moment wrote: no i havent but thats a cover, i want to hear an original song by them thats good. But what's the point? All you'll do is listen with pre-conceived notions that no musician is better than Freddie, and you'll find some far-fetched reason to say the music is inferior to what your band writes. That said, Images And Words and Scenes From A Memory are solid albums. 6:00, Caught In A Web, New Millennium, and Peruvian Skies are great tunes on their own to start off with. Erotomania and Hell's Kitchen are superb instrumentals as well. Learning To Live is one of the greatest prog rock pieces ever written, up there with anything Yes did in their prime. On second thought, never mind... I've just realized that the filler on Mr Bad Guy is better. |
| Treasure Moment 25.05.2009 14:46 |
Sir GH wrote:Treasure Moment wrote: no i havent but thats a cover, i want to hear an original song by them thats good.But what's the point? All you'll do is listen with pre-conceived notions that no musician is better than Freddie, and you'll find some far-fetched reason to say the music is inferior to what your band writes. That said, Images And Words and Scenes From A Memory are solid albums. 6:00, Caught In A Web, New Millennium, and Peruvian Skies are great tunes on their own to start off with. Erotomania and Hell's Kitchen are superb instrumentals as well. Learning To Live is one of the greatest prog rock pieces ever written, up there with anything Yes did in their prime. On second thought, never mind... I've just realized that the filler on Mr Bad Guy is better. Thats not true, im not saying ONLY freddie is good and there isnt other good music out there, im just saying ive listened to a few DT songs and while very skilled they cant write a GOOD song. Here is a guy that is as skilled as them but the difference being he can write a good catchy emotional song, im pretty sure this song is better than anything DT has ever done: vlink |
| Treasure Moment 25.05.2009 14:55 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcZi6xr3ePw&fmt=18 |
| The Real Wizard 25.05.2009 16:09 |
Treasure Moment wrote: Thats not true, im not saying ONLY freddie is good and there isnt other good music out thereBut you have misguidedly stated in the past that, in all aspects, Freddie is the greatest musician ever. As incredible as he was, nobody can be the whole package. im just saying ive listened to a few DT songs and while very skilled they cant write a GOOD song.Yes, they are very skilled, but the latter is your opinion. Skill can be measured to some degree, but what makes a good song is relative to one's tastes. I can only hope you'll come to understand this some day. Here is a guy that is as skilled as them but the difference being he can write a good catchy emotional song, im pretty sure this song is better than anything DT has ever done: vlink That is also your opinion. To me, it's standard 80s speed metal. Great tune, and he's certainly a great player. |
| Treasure Moment 25.05.2009 16:32 |
Sir GH wrote:Treasure Moment wrote: Thats not true, im not saying ONLY freddie is good and there isnt other good music out thereBut you have misguidedly stated in the past that, in all aspects, Freddie is the greatest musician ever. As incredible as he was, nobody can be the whole package.im just saying ive listened to a few DT songs and while very skilled they cant write a GOOD song.Yes, they are very skilled, but the latter is your opinion. Skill can be measured to some degree, but what makes a good song is relative to one's tastes. I can only hope you'll come to understand this some day.Here is a guy that is as skilled as them but the difference being he can write a good catchy emotional song, im pretty sure this song is better than anything DT has ever done: vlinkThat is also your opinion. To me, it's standard 80s speed metal. Great tune, and he's certainly a great player. Freddie was the complete package though, he wasnt the most skilled piano player ever but he could write A LOT of really good songs in all kind of genres, he could sing any genre better than anyone else and still to this day no one even comes close to him and they never will. His voice and the way he sings will always be the best by far, no one can compare simply. Its just what i think, DT are very skilled but cant write good songs, simple as that, yes its from the 80s but the way you say that is like its outdated and DT somehow are better? if thats standard then i dont know what DT is. |
| Amazon 25.05.2009 19:32 |
Treasure Moment wrote: Freddie was the complete package though... he could write A LOT of really good songs in all kind of genres, Completely agree with the first statement, but disagree with the second statement. He could write a lot of GREAT songs in different genres. [img=/images/smiley/msn/teeth_smile.gif][/img] (As a songwriter, I consider him to be among the very finest of all time and equally as good as Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Wilson, Cohen and any other legendary songwriter.) |
| The Real Wizard 25.05.2009 21:39 |
Treasure Moment wrote: Freddie was the complete package though, he wasnt the most skilled piano player everIf he had Rick Wakeman's technical ability, would he have then been a fuller package? It gives me great pleasure pointing out the inconsistencies in your logic. he could sing any genre better than anyone else He did jazz better than Ella Fitzgerald or r&b better than Stevie Wonder? But he did do death metal better than Cannibal Corpse, and I have the recording to prove it. |
| Saif 25.05.2009 22:53 |
pittrek wrote: I love their version of Spread Your Wings - TM did you hear that one ?I think you're thinking of the by-the-book Blind Guardian cover. Dream Theater have never covered the song, though it would be awesome. |
| The Real Wizard 26.05.2009 13:35 |
The Dream Theater versions of the three Queen songs were released today. Overall, it's superb. They stay true to the originals, yet they infuse their style into the songs to make them their own. Tenement and Flick are executed grandly, but Lily doesn't completely suit LaBrie's voice. Petrucci wisely concocts his own solo in Tenement Funster, as there's really no point in copying May's. But in the context's of DT's flavour of the song, it works perfectly. I've heard hundreds of Queen covers, and these rank among the very best, along with Valensia's Liar, Celine Dion's The Show Must Go On, Joss Stone's Under Pressure, and Weird Al's Bohemian Polka. |
| pittrek 26.05.2009 13:45 |
Saif wrote:pittrek wrote: I love their version of Spread Your Wings - TM did you hear that one ?I think you're thinking of the by-the-book Blind Guardian cover. Dream Theater have never covered the song, though it would be awesome. Oops you're right.. Sorry for the confusion |
| *goodco* 26.05.2009 15:22 |
to Treasure Moment: do ya think ya could copy and paste your replies, rather than taking up so much freaking vacant space? Also, if you have only heard snippets of a few tracks............why reply endlessly on something that you obviously have no educated opinion of? It would be like me commenting on this board if I'd only heard 'Two Sharp Pencils', and then calling myself a Queen fan. Geesh. And, it would be like me hijacking a thread regarding just a few of all the Treasure Moment tracks I have heard, and making an opinion about them. oh, let me digress.....I've never heard any, so I won't comment or hog the board. If you don't know anything about a band, just leave the comment part alone. Your ignorance is not bliss. Moving on to some previous comments............DT with nothing melodic?!?!!?!? Listen to disk two of 'Six Degrees' and 'Octavarium'. The band was ripped by old fans because they had sold out for being TOO melodic (just check the amazon comments). To us, they were the band's two best albums (segments of 'Scenes' notwithstanding), but what do we know? More than you do, sir. Have a good day. |
| Stephan 26.05.2009 16:18 |
Sir GH wrote:
The Dream Theater versions of the three Queen songs were released today. Overall, it's superb.
I've heard hundreds of Queen covers, and these rank among the very best ...
+ 1 Dream Theater demonstrate how the job has to be done. I really like LaBrie's vocals. Listening to LaBrie performing these 3 Queen songs, I think that all the rumours about this American Idol guy joining Queen are ridiculous. LaBrie should get the job. ;) |
| *goodco* 26.05.2009 18:50 |
After reading the previous two posters reviews, I couldn't wait (for a buck twenty nine, wtf) These were great!!!! It was surprisingly bare bones, almost a garage band type of presentation. Had thought Portnoy or Petrucci would have handled the LVs for 'Tenement', thought that Rudess' synths would have been used as the backing vocals on 'Lily'..........instead, LaBrie was in the forefront, on his own in a way, and the entire presentation was splendid. Screw the 'Progressive Nation' warm up acts..........Brian and Roger, go on tour with these guys. Trade off top billing. Share the stage for various tracks. It would be killer. I know....I am dreaming.....but, one is allowed to dream. It would be bliss. |
| silver_salmon 26.05.2009 20:19 |
I agree! Dream Theater's version are amazing!.....a very nice tribute and version |
| Saif 26.05.2009 23:35 |
Sir GH wrote: The Dream Theater versions of the three Queen songs were released today. Overall, it's superb. They stay true to the originals, yet they infuse their style into the songs to make them their own. Tenement and Flick are executed grandly, but Lily doesn't completely suit LaBrie's voice. Petrucci wisely concocts his own solo in Tenement Funster, as there's really no point in copying May's. But in the context's of DT's flavour of the song, it works perfectly. I've heard hundreds of Queen covers, and these rank among the very best, along with Valensia's Liar, Celine Dion's The Show Must Go On, Joss Stone's Under Pressure, and Weird Al's Bohemian Polka. Goddamnit...is it only available on iTunes? Guess I'll have to wait for the CD. We don't have iTunes here. And c'mon.... do you really rank Celine's TSMGO among the best? Oh well, good for you. :) Dream Theater should at least be Queen's opening act on the next tour. |
| The Real Wizard 27.05.2009 01:28 |
*goodco* wrote: Screw the 'Progressive Nation' warm up acts.......... Myself, I'm very much looking forward to seeing Zappa Plays Zappa. It'll be the perfect precursor to DT. That, and it'll be the closest thing I'll ever get to seeing Zappa. |
| on my way up 27.05.2009 06:58 |
Stephan wrote: Sir GH wrote: The Dream Theater versions of the three Queen songs were released today. Overall, it's superb. I've heard hundreds of Queen covers, and these rank among the very best ...+ 1 Dream Theater demonstrate how the job has to be done. I really like LaBrie's vocals. Listening to LaBrie performing these 3 Queen songs, I think that all the rumours about this American Idol guy joining Queen are ridiculous. LaBrie should get the job. ;) I also like LaBrie's voice, his technique is certainly brilliant. It would be interesting to hear him sing more Queen songs even though I think there are plenty of Queen songs with which he would struggle. Not because he can not sing it technically but because his voice is not as powerful as Freddie's (or Paul's for that matter). I have a version of him singing 'One vision' somewhere and that was certainly not impressive. |
| silver_salmon 27.05.2009 08:50 |
On youtube there is another Queen song played by Dream Theater. In this case: Death on Two Legs alive from 2004...a very nice version...maybe this could be included on the next Dream Theater's official bootleg of Covers Songs link Why Queen can not do Official Bootlegs serious????...grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Brook learn!!, Dream Theater to entertain his fans with good material!!! http://www.ytsejamrecords.com/ Official Bootlegs serious: Not included recording with a very bad quality like the f*** 100 top bootlegs...lah lah lah |
| Mr Mercury 27.05.2009 15:48 |
I think this is a pretty good deal on HMV for this album http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?sku=967798 The album itself, plus an instrumental version of the album, a covers album and a DVD all for £12.99 is a great deal. Are you watching QPL??????? £32 for your Tin Box edition of the Ukraine DVD??? http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?ctx=280;-1;-1;-1;-1&sku=977560 |
| silver_salmon 27.05.2009 17:14 |
Are you watching QPL??????? £32 for your Tin Box edition of the Ukraine DVD??? http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?ctx=280;-1;-1;-1;-1&sku=977560 Jejeje QPL just watching MONEY MONEY MONEY.... |
| Bulsarian 30.05.2009 20:54 |
Treasure Moment wrote:Sir GH wrote:Yes of course, a good song is a catchy song and they cant write one therfor they arent a good band.Treasure Moment wrote: DT are skilled but i have yet to hear 1 good catchy song by them.They don't write catchy songs... with the possible exception of Pull Me Under, which was actually a moderate hit. That said, who says their songs have to be catchy? Are you suggesting that catchy hooks are the only thing that can make a song a good song? Obvioulsy there are millions of fans that don't agree with that. I am not a fan of theirs, but i wouldn't say they are not a good band. I think they are great, just not exactly my taste. Grow up you close minded fool. |
| zedan 01.06.2009 12:09 |
Well I allow myslef to join in the discussion. Queen being my all-time fave, and myself being a huge Dream Theater fan for more than 15 years now, I was a bit scared when I heard DT was going to cover these songs. Once I was able to get my hands on it my feeling was this : Musically it's well played, as always : great musicianship and I liked the double kick drums pattern during Flick Of The Wrist, though I tend to think that Mike Portnoy overplays for ages now. Good point on this cover is John Petrucci's guitar, he just plays what the song requires. Problem is not really vocals. James LaBrie's vocals are most of the time ok. Here these are average (and I have problems with his "and your mad" ) but he definitely doesn't play on the same level as Freddie. Or to compare to vocalists who ever dared to cover Queen songs : Robby Valentine, Valensia, Damian Wilson or who sounds like Queen (Mac from Threshold) what really piss me off in this cover are Mike Portnoy's backing vocals. here again I like his voice but it doesn't fit the songs his BV's lack power and IMO it definitely ruins the song. It's a personal point of view here but I tend to think that this cover is just Portnoy's whim… |
| *goodco* 01.06.2009 14:03 |
to Sir GH: regarding the PN 2009 warm up bands, I am looking forward to the Zappa Meets Zappa as well. As to the others.....no thanks. Also, for their one-off appearance in Columbia, MD, not too excited about Queensryche for some odd reason. Considering DT and Qryche didn't exactly hit it off well on their shared headlining tour a few years back, not sure this is such a good idea. Going back to the Queen covers for a minute. Since these versions are so 'bare bones', I wonder if the 'no synthesizers' line will be included in the liner notes. I do recall the LaBrie 'One Vision' cover mentioned as well. Will have to dig through the pile and wipe off the years of dust since I last listened to it. Now, the FBG bluegrass version on that disk I do remember. And enjoyed, for some odd reason. |
| LucTonnerre 01.06.2009 16:18 |
I just heard the whole piece. Well, what can I say? DT are good musicians, no doubt, but it always seems to me that they lack any kind of soul. It's just technique with them.I know that you can't do it any better than QUEEN did, but why bother anyway?The singer is a bit too "metal" for me and the backing vocals that Portnoy is sooooo proud of are just crap AND WRONG! Some of the guitar harmonies in LILY OF THE VALLEY are also just plain wrong considering harmony rules.Over all the guitars sound like plastic. Not a good sound after all. Ok, I've heard it and propably won't give it another go. |
| zedan 01.06.2009 16:27 |
I'll generally second your post Luc. I didn't mention Lily of the Valley … but LaBrie's opera take is just fake. His falsetto doesn't spontaneous. Don't get me wrong everyone but I heard LaBrie in better contexts and here, it just doesn't work. I'm not spitting on him… seen the man dozen times live, and I truly apprecitate him, so I guess it says it all. |
| Rho-d Berth 03.06.2009 06:15 |
Catchy songs from Dream Theater: - Another Day - Pull me under - Wait for sleep - Lifting shadows of a dream - space-dye-vest - hollow years - take away my pain - through her eyes - one last time - goodnight kiss - solitary shell - I walk besides you - the ministry of lost souls+ |
| The Real Wizard 05.06.2009 01:46 |
A thought to add... Like them or not, Dream Theater have made it in North America, South America, Europe, and Japan. How many other artists can say that? Can we even name 5? |
| Saif 05.06.2009 05:26 |
I listened to the track and it's awesome. One of the best Queen covers but I can see where people might disagree. They covered it to the best of their abilities, in my opinion. A lot of people say that these guys play with no soul. I don't agree but they seem to give of this vibe to a lot of people. I played it to my brother who likes neither band and he says "these guys don't play it like they mean it", whatever that means. :( |
| *goodco* 09.06.2009 01:33 |
Nice little two minute description of the medley by Mike Portnoy at http://www.dreamtheater.net/news_dreamtheater.php#queenmedley |
| Treasure Moment 09.06.2009 03:59 |
Bulsarian wrote:Treasure Moment wrote:Obvioulsy there are millions of fans that don't agree with that. I am not a fan of theirs, but i wouldn't say they are not a good band. I think they are great, just not exactly my taste. Grow up you close minded fool.Sir GH wrote:Yes of course, a good song is a catchy song and they cant write one therfor they arent a good band.Treasure Moment wrote: DT are skilled but i have yet to hear 1 good catchy song by them.They don't write catchy songs... with the possible exception of Pull Me Under, which was actually a moderate hit. That said, who says their songs have to be catchy? Are you suggesting that catchy hooks are the only thing that can make a song a good song? Im just telling it as it is, they cant write catchy songs= not a good band= fact. |
| The Real Wizard 09.06.2009 10:43 |
Treasure Moment wrote: not a good band= fact. In your opinion. Your opinion of what makes a good piece of music is not a universally undebatable fact. Just so you know, they produce their records themselves and have no outside writers, meaning they have complete creative control of their music. So you can't blame the crappy major labels for churning out another lousy band. Maybe they won't go down in history as one of the greatest bands ever, but with fans on six continents, they have one of the most widespread fan bases in the history of music... a kind of success that isn't measured in dollars and cents or record sales, but in respect and appreciation for their art. |
| Treasure Moment 09.06.2009 15:21 |
Sir GH wrote:Treasure Moment wrote: not a good band= fact.In your opinion. Your opinion of what makes a good piece of music is not a universally undebatable fact. Just so you know, they produce their records themselves and have no outside writers, meaning they have complete creative control of their music. So you can't blame the crappy major labels for churning out another lousy band. Maybe they won't go down in history as one of the greatest bands ever, but with fans on six continents, they have one of the most widespread fan bases in the history of music... a kind of success that isn't measured in dollars and cents or record sales, but in respect and appreciation for their art. I have respect for them when it comes to skills but not as songwriters, the whole purpose of making songs is to make something catchy and emotional, something they cant from the songs ive heard. |
| The Real Wizard 09.06.2009 23:26 |
Treasure Moment wrote: the whole purpose of making songs is to make something catchy and emotional Who came up with this rule of thumb, and when? Most of the world of music seems to have missed it... |
| zedan 10.06.2009 01:20 |
Sir GH wrote:I agree here with Sir GH : I missed it and so did LOAD of musicians. Music can be catchy and emotional in so many aspects besides the 3'30 song format…Treasure Moment wrote: the whole purpose of making songs is to make something catchy and emotionalWho came up with this rule of thumb, and when? Most of the world of music seems to have missed it... |
| The Real Wizard 10.06.2009 11:36 |
Brian has posted on his Soapbox about the Dream Theater covers. Interestingly enough, his review isn't much different from mine. So, Mr. Treasure Moment, it's time to get over yourself. If anyone knows what they're talking about when it comes to a Queen cover, it's Brian. Learn something from the doctor. |
| Treasure Moment 10.06.2009 13:08 |
Sir GH wrote: Brian has posted on his Soapbox about the Dream Theater covers. Interestingly enough, his review isn't much different from mine. So, Mr. Treasure Moment, it's time to get over yourself. If anyone knows what they're talking about when it comes to a Queen cover, it's Brian. Learn something from the doctor. Not really, brian is nice to EVERYONE, even britney spears and countless other talentless shit people out there so i dont pay much attention to what he says, also being a doctor or whatever doesnt mean anything as Education=Programming. |
| Sebastian 10.06.2009 13:17 |
For the first time ever, I agree with Treasure Moment. |
| The Real Wizard 10.06.2009 13:27 |
Treasure Moment wrote: Not really, brian is nice to EVERYONE, even britney spears and countless other talentless shit people out there He worked with them, so he said something nice about them. That doesn't mean everything he says about other artists is to be automatically discounted. All you're doing is supporting your narrow-minded views... As for saying his PhD is programming... well, there's no dignifying that with a response... especially since not having an education has done you so well. |
| Treasure Moment 10.06.2009 14:11 |
Sir GH wrote:Treasure Moment wrote: Not really, brian is nice to EVERYONE, even britney spears and countless other talentless shit people out thereHe worked with them, so he said something nice about them. That doesn't mean everything he says about other artists is to be automatically discounted. All you're doing is supporting your narrow-minded views... As for saying his PhD is programming... well, there's no dignifying that with a response... especially since not having an education has done you so well. I always speak the truth, brian is nice to everyone and constantly praises EVERYONE regardless of talent. About education it IS programming and thats a fact, i have studied at university before so you fail once again. |
| Sebastian 10.06.2009 14:39 |
What I disagree with, Bob, is your claim that Brian's the ultimate authority, which also happened recently with the 'Flash Gordon' thing. The way you put it, nobody else is entitled to have an opinion on whether a cover's good or not, or whether an album's a true album or not, because Brian, unlike us, was there, produced, performed, sang, arranged, composed or whatever. OK, according to that logic, Brian should have never ever: - Criticised George Bush: He's not American, he's not a politician, and his (Bush's) wife said he was actually a great president; who is Brian to think otherwise? - Criticised a journalist: Brian's not one himself, and he doesn't know the journalist in question as much as his/her family does (and they probably have very nice things to say about him). - Criticised a tabloid: After all, Brian doesn't own any newspaper, he's (again) not a journalist, and he doesn't know the tabloid in question as well as the owner does (and probably the owner will say nice things about it, who the hell is Brian to think otherwise?). The thing is, at the end of the day, Brian is entitled to criticise Bush, a journalist or a paper if he feels like it, regardless of how others feel about them. So, anybody of us (fan or not, educated or not, musician or not, QZer or not) is entitled not to consider 'Flash' a true Queen album (regardless of Dr May's opinion about it), anyone of us is entitled to like or dislike a cover (regardless of Dr May's opinion about it), etc. |
| The Real Wizard 11.06.2009 00:09 |
Treasure Moment wrote: brian is nice to everyone and constantly praises EVERYONE regardless of talent.To word it differently, maybe he has an ability to focus on the positive aspects of things, a quality which you clearly cannot even fathom. Without getting into why much of the world hates people like Britney Spears for what she represents, maybe Brian actually saw some positive qualities in her and was genuine about it. I am simply entertaining that possibility instead of attaching a pre-determined opinion of him to my commentary about the things he says. Sebastian wrote: What I disagree with, Bob, is your claim that Brian's the ultimate authority, which also happened recently with the 'Flash Gordon' thing. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, I think the person who created the art should have some kind of ownership over what it ultimately is or what it means. That stance can be open to reinterpretation influenced by others, but in the end, the artist's stance on his own work should be the final word. Who am I to tell you that my interpretation of your art is better or more valid than what you know it means? As for the Dream Theater cover, the guys in DT are among the very few people in this world whose take on Brian's art has his personal blessing. Who's blessing could possibly mean more? Likewise, Steve Morse's blessing on DT's take on Odyssey by the Dixie Dregs would be the most that they could possibly ask for. |
| The Real Wizard 11.06.2009 00:52 |
Treasure Moment wrote: i have studied at university before so you fail once again.Yes, yes, your highness... my apologies for forgetting that your experiences speak for everyone else's. Sebastian wrote: anyone of us is entitled to like or dislike a cover (regardless of Dr May's opinion about it), etc.Yes, I realize that. But if it's a Queen cover, and Brian likes it, that should be the ultimate compliment, don't you think? My opinion, while valid, is worth only a fraction of his since it's not my art that has been reinterpreted. OK, according to that logic, Brian should have never ever: - Criticised George Bush: He's not American, he's not a politician, and his (Bush's) wife said he was actually a great president; who is Brian to think otherwise? I see what you're getting at, but let's not change the subject by introducing a completely unrelated subject. Running a country has nothing to do with interpretation of art. One can't have a one-dimensional view of the world with a single method of logic applying to all areas of thought. |
| Sebastian 11.06.2009 09:09 |
Running a country and making a cover start off by the same concept: doing it their own way, making decisions (of course one case involves much more important decisions, but the concept remains), etc. And even if that analogy didn't work, there's still the journalism thing... Brian should, according to that logic, never ever criticise a paper since he doesn't own one and since the paper owner (who knows the paper much better than May does) probably has only or mostly nice things to say about it. Now, an artist's view on his own piece (and technically none of the DT covers was written by Brian btw) should not by any means be regarded as the 'ultimate' word about it, since the artist's even more liable to be biased. May put a lot of great effort on 'Flash' and he'd be sad not to see it regarded as a true Queen album; but then again, some people have disagreed with it (Deacon amongst them), and they're entitled to. There's absolutely no right to 'veto', no matter if he's the producer, arranger, composer, lyricist and performer. It's the 'what if I write a poem in English and say it's in German' all over again; or, to cite a more Queen-like example, it's like the '180 voices in Bo Rhap' all over again. As for having the artist's blessing: I can see your point, and I respect it, but then again, it can't be a 'rule'. Brian (who, again, had nothing to do with creating TT, FotW & LotV, technically Roger's blessing is above his for this one) may praise DT's cover and there can still be room for improvement; or Brian can praise Adam Lambert, Robbie Williams, Britney Spears, Avril Lavigne... and it doesn't mean we've all got to like them because of that. Yes, citing George Bush is a ridiculous example, but that's exactly the point: it's equally ridiculous to put Brian (or anybody else for that matter) in a God-like position where they're the only authority about something that, for some extent at least, is indeed open for different POVs. Not only because of the margin of error (My Fairy King, It's Late, Master Stroke, Bo Rhap again), but also because there are many aspects to consider besides a claim from a person who took part in the original version. At the end of the day, we'll all be biased even if for limited extent, and it's a well-known fact that Brian enjoys covers a lot since he feels they're a great way to spread the author's music. That's not something bad, of course, but it's undeniably an important factor. I don't agree with many of Treasure Moment's posts, especially the one about being shite for not writing a catchy tune, but I do think he (or anybody else) can dislike DT's cover regardless of Brian's opinion of it. Myself, I haven't heard the medley in question, but I can say I do like Robert Plant's Innuendo, and even if Plant himself didn't like it, and even if Freddie came back from the dead and said 'it's pants', that'd be no reason for me to withhold my view. |
| john bodega 11.06.2009 10:33 |
I like Plant's "Innuendo" for what it could have been. He was definitely the right man for the job; it was just a bad day. Listen to Plant singing a mere three or four years later and he was back in top form again. (Well, for an old fella). I still wish that someone had persuaded him to do a recorded version of the song, because if he'd gotten it right then it would've been absolutely smashing. |
| The Real Wizard 11.06.2009 12:01 |
Sebastian wrote: the artist's even more liable to be biased.I disagree. If anything, the original artist is going to be most critical of a cover of his own music. Brian is not the type of person to point out a cover he didn't like (there probably have been thousands), but he happily points out some of those he does like. Brian can praise Adam Lambert, Robbie Williams, Britney Spears, Avril Lavigne... and it doesn't mean we've all got to like them because of that.Of course. But what I was responding to was someone who was trying to discount all of Brian's positive comments about people based on the fact that he said positive things about the above people. he (or anybody else) can dislike DT's cover regardless of Brian's opinion of it. Again, I never said he couldn't. But Brian's opinion is worth a hell of a lot more than TM's, even if TM wasn't an intolerant, closed-minded child caught in an adult's body immune to any kind of growth. I'm speaking purely on an emotional level, as a musician who can relate to the feeling of having the blessing of musicians he admires. Dream Theater's covers of these three Queen songs can be reviewed by thousands of people, but I can guarantee you, nobody's words are going to mean a fraction of what Brian said. |
| Amazon 11.06.2009 13:53 |
Here's my two cents. I agree with Sir GH that Brian's views on these covers would mean more to DT than anyone else's. The fact that they are getting the creator's seal of approval is awesome and does mean mean much more than if any of us liked the covers. However I agree with Sebastian that at the end of the day, what Brian thinks is not all that important. Sorry Sir GH, but I don't think that the person who created the art should have any kind of ownership over what it ultimately is or what it means. Once an artist released a work, whether it be a song, film or novel, as far as I'm concerned they lose all artistic ownership of it. Flash is obviously one example; as much as Brian considers it to be a proper studio album, I can't bring myself to agree with him. But it's more than that. Although an artist may have their own intended interpretation of a work, once it is released, anyone else IMO can think what they want, provided they can justify their interpretation. Two examples, one musical and one not. George A. Romeo never intended Night of the Living Dead to be a social commentary, yet that is how it eventuated and most people regard it as being a commentary on US race relations. Secondly, there's alot of debate as to whether or not We Are The Champions is about gay pride. Freddie may or may not deny it, but if one sees it as being about gay pride (I'm personally on the fence) then I would argue that person is entirely justified. Personally, I don't really care what artists think about their work, beyong my genuine curiosity, because once a work is out there, I don't think that they can turn around and say, 'but I never intended it that way.' Maybe they never did, but that's life. |
| john bodega 11.06.2009 15:00 |
See that has a lot to do with how much value one places on the perception of the masses, whether a generally accepted truth equates to a solid fact, etcetera... A million fans declaring a song to be about something that it was not originally about does not actually change the meaning of the song. We might all think it does, but at the end of the day the writer is the one who decides. Whether that's actually IMPORTANT is something else ... a song can be a different beast to whoever hears it, doesn't matter if they're the original author or just some schmo on the street. I reckon the artist should always have the final say, up to a point. They should also have the humility to back down and accept what happens to the song. Songs are your children, and at some point they are alone in the big bad world and you just have to let them go where they will. It becomes yet another matter once you introduce covers into the equation. If the cover is at all valid, then it'll be an individual's interpretation of the song, and will possibly have a different meaning. Consider people who cover John Lennon's "Mother". Not everyone who sings that song comes from a broken family; I knew a guy who sang it for his friend instead. Anyway I'm way off topic. What I would like to know is where on Earth the idea of WATC being a gay pride song comes from?? I've only ever heard Freddie talk about it being a sort of "My Way" tune, (sails pretty close lyrically). |
| The Real Wizard 11.06.2009 15:26 |
Amazon wrote: Personally, I don't really care what artists think about their work, beyong my genuine curiosity, because once a work is out there, I don't think that they can turn around and say, 'but I never intended it that way.' Maybe they never did, but that's life. Fair enough all around. But if people see something the artist doesn't see, it doesn't make the people right on all levels. It's their interpretation of the art. But the artist probably won't say "it doesn't mean that," as much as they're saying they didn't intend for it to mean that. However, in a case of defining whether something is an album or a soundtrack (in this case, Brian said it's an album and John said it's a soundtrack), then we have a stalemate. I still maintain that if the entire band agreed that it was an album, then it's an album. But since there is no black and white definition of what an album is versus a soundtrack, why should the artists themselves not be the determining factors of this kind of thing on a case by case basis? |
| Amazon 11.06.2009 15:27 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "A million fans declaring a song to be about something that it was not originally about does not actually change the meaning of the song. We might all think it does, but at the end of the day the writer is the one who decides." Do they though? Songs may not have objectively fixed meanings. It's like films (my speciality) or novels. The Coen brothers may have intended No Country For Old Men to be about one thing, but if I have a different view, and I can back it up, why is their interpetation more valid? The retort to that may be,'but they created it.' (Although it was faithfully adapted from a McCarthy novel, but that's not the point.) The thing is though, that while they may have created it, once NCFOM was released, IMO it became public property. The same thing for music. If Brian regards The Prophet's Song to be about Noah's flood or something, I don't think that is the objective sole interpretation of it. IMO your interpation is just as valid as his, as it arguably became public property. I once had a huge argument with someone about whether or not James Cameron's views on the Terminator films were the most valid since he wrote/directed the first two films, but I still stand by my contention that his interpetation was no more valid than any one else's. "I reckon the artist should always have the final say, up to a point. They should also have the humility to back down and accept what happens to the song. Songs are your children, and at some point they are alone in the big bad world and you just have to let them go where they will." I kinda agree. I don't agree that they should have the final say, as I don't think it matters what they think, but I certainly agree that they should accept what happens to the song. "Anyway I'm way off topic. What I would like to know is where on Earth the idea of WATC being a gay pride song comes from?? I've only ever heard Freddie talk about it being a sort of "My Way" tune, (sails pretty close lyrically)." The whole 'I've done my sentence but committed no crime' thing. Personally I'm not convinced that WATC is a gay pride song, but I can see why others might. |
| Sebastian 11.06.2009 15:32 |
>>> If anything, the original artist is going to be most critical of a cover of his own music. Most critical = Biased. So my point stands. And anyway, I wasn't talking about the covers specifically, but the whole milieu, especially certain aspects like the 'Flash' thing. Another example (not necessarily Queen-related) is when the artist denies by all means that a live DVD has overdubs. They've 'got to' do that for commercial reasons. >>> Again, I never said he couldn't. But Brian's opinion is worth a hell of a lot more than TM's, even if TM wasn't an intolerant, closed-minded child caught in an adult's body immune to any kind of growth. I can see you admire Brian, and you've (accurately) commented how nice he is to comment positive aspects on others. So why don't you take his example and take it easy on TM? >>> Dream Theater's covers of these three Queen songs can be reviewed by thousands of people, but I can guarantee you, nobody's words are going to mean a fraction of what Brian said. Actually, there is one person whose words could (and should) mean a hell of a lot more than everything Brian said about that cover: Roger, who not only participated on the original recording, but also (unlike Brian) actually wrote one of the songs. >>> I agree with Sir GH that Brian's views on these covers would mean more to DT than anyone else's. The fact that they are getting the creator's seal of approval is awesome and does mean mean much more than if any of us liked the covers. Again, Brian's not the creator. Tenement Funster was written by Roger, the other two songs by Freddie. Had it been a Flash or I Want It All cover, it'd be a different story. >>> I don't think that the person who created the art should have any kind of ownership over what it ultimately is or what it means. I think it depends on the case. For instance, Roger's always claimed I'm in Love with My Car is about John Harris; Brian suggested (half-jokingly, perhaps) that it was actually about Taylor himself. Between those two claims, I think Roger's is to be believed, since neither May nor us can actually read minds, so we've got to take Rog's word for it (of course, he could be lying, but we can't possibly know that). A different case is if, for instance, Brian said there are no overdubs on 'Live Killers'. Regardless of his position as co-creator, if the claim is wrong, it's wrong, full stop. Same if, for instance, Roger said his highest note on a released song is on Lap of the Gods, while May said his (Roger's) highest note on a released song is on Bohemian Rhapsody: Taylor was the person who sang them, but he's still wrong; May was a (not the) person who probably witnessed both, but he's also wrong, in that case. But those are still B/W situations. What happens when it's neither black nor white nor grey, but it can be interpreted in endless different ways? For instance, if Roger said Prophet's Song is the heaviest Queen track, and Brian said Dead On Time is. Both songs are written by May, but he's in no way 'owner' of the truth, because for one song to be heavier than another there are loads of different ways we can look at it: decibel-wise, judging drumming patterns, harmonically, by distortion levels on electric guitars, etc. So, neither Brian's claim nor Roger's (nor another person's, whether it's one of those songs or a different tune) is absolutely 'right' or 'wrong', no matter who's who. >>> Flash is obviously one example; as much as Brian considers it to be a proper studio album, I can't bring myself to agree with him. Exactly: BTW I do agree with May on that one, at least partially, because for me it's an album as much as it's an OST. But it's not: 'Brian said so, and he can veto any other perspective because he's Brian.' >>> Although an artist may have their own intended interpretation of a work, once it is released, anyone else IMO can think what they want, provided they can justify their interpretation. Very good insight. Indeed, not all cases are the same. When it comes to saying whether You're My Best Friend was written for Deacon's wife or not, he's the only one who knows; but when it comes to establishing whether Queen were or were not a GH-type of band in the 80's, Brian's, Freddie's, John's and Roger's opinions are just that, opinions, no more valid and no more 'truthful' than anybody else's. >>> Freddie may or may not deny it, but if one sees it as being about gay pride (I'm personally on the fence) then I would argue that person is entirely justified. Yes and no... we can't argue the author's intention, but we can justify a view on the song's socially acquired meaning. Mercury said he was thinking about football when he wrote it, and unless we can read minds (which we can't AFAIK) there's no evidence to suggest he was lying or covering something up or still being in the closet. Now, is We Are the Champions a gay-pride anthem? That's independent of the author's original intention, so, for that question, any of our replies would be as worth as Freddie's. Once the song's released, he's part of the public, like us. >>> See that has a lot to do with how much value one places on the perception of the masses, whether a generally accepted truth equates to a solid fact, etcetera... Which brings the whole '180 voices in Bo Rhap' to the mix... >>> A million fans declaring a song to be about something that it was not originally about does not actually change the meaning of the song. We might all think it does, but at the end of the day the writer is the one who decides. A song could have been originally written/intended about one thing but then socially, individually or subjectively interpreted differently. And for the latter, neither the writer nor anybody else is 'the one who decides'. Same for words: gay meant something different originally, but there's no way whoever coined that term (or said it first) can forbid us to use it the way we do nowadays. >>> I reckon the artist should always have the final say, up to a point. They should also have the humility to back down and accept what happens to the song. Songs are your children, and at some point they are alone in the big bad world and you just have to let them go where they will. I think there's a contradiction in both statements: if 'at some point they are alone...', then there's no way the artist 'should always have the final say'. And again, cases differ: 'who's IILWMC about?' vs 'is My Melancholy Blues a blues song or a jazz song?'. |
| Sebastian 11.06.2009 15:48 |
>>> But if people see something the artist doesn't see, it doesn't make the people right on all levels. Depending on the case: remember the infamous list of Brian's misremembered 'facts'. >>> However, in a case of defining whether something is an album or a soundtrack (in this case, Brian said it's an album and John said it's a soundtrack), then we have a stalemate. Brian and John don't own the definition of album or soundtrack. In that department, they're as knowledgeable or ignorant as any of us. To define if Best Friend was for Veronica, you only need one point: the author's; to establish if 'Flash' is an album or not, you need to define album as well, and that's not a May or Deacon concept, but a way more ambiguous (and not absolute) one. And btw, can't it simply be both? Album and soundtrack? >>> I still maintain that if the entire band agreed that it was an album, then it's an album. They don't own the definition of album. Neither do we, so we're more or less in the same level there. >>> why should the artists themselves not be the determining factors of this kind of thing on a case by case basis? Because for certain cases there can't be a determining factor. You can establish if Queen's first concert in West Germany was before or after their first concert in the States, and that's something that can be established in absolutes regardless of what anybody (including the band) have to say about it. But if we ask, for instance, 'were Queen better in the States or West Germany?', it's all opinion, and even if the four of them said 'Germany' (for instance), any of us could think otherwise, because, again, we're all public there, including themselves. >>> I can see it myself. The whole 'I've done my sentence but committed no crime' thing. I think many people did a '2+2=5' thing there. The fact he was gay doesn't mean every single thing he said or wrote was related to it. Should now all of Michael Jackson's lyrics be re-interpreted? Should all of Phil Spector's arrangements now mean something different? The cited lyric could refer to loads of different things. Of course, it could be about Fred being gay, but it could also mean about his ethnicity (he was as much of a Farsi as he was homosexual), about being a rockstar (and facing prejudices)... for all we know, it could simply mean that once when he was a kid his father grounded him for not cleaning his room when in reality it'd been his sister who'd made a mess! |
| Amazon 11.06.2009 15:59 |
Sebastian wrote:" "I agree with Sir GH that Brian's views on these covers would mean more to DT than anyone else's. The fact that they are getting the creator's seal of approval is awesome and does mean mean much more than if any of us liked the covers. Again, Brian's not the creator. Tenement Funster was written by Roger, the other two songs by Freddie. Had it been a Flash or I Want It All cover, it'd be a different story." Well, yes, Brian didn't write any of the songs himself, but he's a member of Queen and he worked on each song; personally if I was a member of DT, I would take his praise more seriously than I would almost anyone else. " "I don't think that the person who created the art should have any kind of ownership over what it ultimately is or what it means. I think it depends on the case. For instance, Roger's always claimed I'm in Love with My Car is about John Harris; Brian suggested (half-jokingly, perhaps) that it was actually about Taylor himself. Between those two claims, I think Roger's is to be believed, since neither May nor us can actually read minds, so we've got to take Rog's word for it (of course, he could be lying, but we can't possibly know that)." Well, even with this, if a listener had an alternative interpretation and could justify it, then I think that their interpretation is valid. Inspiration is different to interpretation; if Roger says it was inspired by JH, then nobody can question that, but people can IMO question what it's about. Although in many cases, what it's inspired by may directly relate to what it's about. " "Flash is obviously one example; as much as Brian considers it to be a proper studio album, I can't bring myself to agree with him." Exactly: BTW I do agree with May on that one, at least partially, because for me it's an album as much as it's an OST. But it's not: 'Brian said so, and he can veto any other perspective because he's Brian.' " This is actually one of the few times I've disagreed with Brian about a decision that they've made; in this case casting Flash as a studio album. " "Although an artist may have their own intended interpretation of a work, once it is released, anyone else IMO can think what they want, provided they can justify their interpretation. Very good insight. Indeed, not all cases are the same. When it comes to saying whether You're My Best Friend was written for Deacon's wife or not, he's the only one who knows; but when it comes to establishing whether Queen were or were not a GH-type of band in the 80's, Brian's, Freddie's, John's and Roger's opinions are just that, opinions, no more valid and no more 'truthful' than anybody else's." Thanks. However, again, whether John wrote it for his wife may be different to what it is about; I'm not saying it is, but again, if someone is able to come up with their own interpretation, and can back it up, then I think it's perfectly valid. But just as with IILWMC, what it's about may be directly related to who it was written for. " "Freddie may or may not deny it, but if one sees it as being about gay pride (I'm personally on the fence) then I would argue that person is entirely justified." Yes and no... we can't argue the author's intention, but we can justify a view on the song's socially acquired meaning. Mercury said he was thinking about football when he wrote it, and unless we can read minds (which we can't AFAIK) there's no evidence to suggest he was lying or covering something up or still being in the closet. Now, is We Are the Champions a gay-pride anthem? That's independent of the author's original intention, so, for that question, any of our replies would be as worth as Freddie's. Once the song's released, he's part of the public, like us." I wasn't arguing about Freddie's intention. What I was saying was that his intention is irrelevant; if someone wants to believe it's a gay pride song, that's up to them. |
| Amazon 11.06.2009 16:03 |
Sebastian wrote: >>> I can see it myself. The whole 'I've done my sentence but committed no crime' thing. I think many people did a '2+2=5' thing there. The fact he was gay doesn't mean every single thing he said or wrote was related to it. Should now all of Michael Jackson's lyrics be re-interpreted? Should all of Phil Spector's arrangements now mean something different? The cited lyric could refer to loads of different things. Of course, it could be about Fred being gay, but it could also mean about his ethnicity (he was as much of a Farsi as he was homosexual), about being a rockstar (and facing prejudices)... for all we know, it could simply mean that once when he was a kid his father grounded him for not cleaning his room when in reality it'd been his sister who'd made a mess! Personally, I agree with you. Although I'm myself bi, I didn't actually realise that some people thought it was a gay pride song until I read it on the net. But, like with much of Queen's music, I think it's open to interpretation and if some people believe that WATC is a gay pride song, that's fine by me. :D |
| Amazon 11.06.2009 16:18 |
Sir GH wrote:Amazon wrote: Personally, I don't really care what artists think about their work, beyong my genuine curiosity, because once a work is out there, I don't think that they can turn around and say, 'but I never intended it that way.' Maybe they never did, but that's life.Fair enough all around. But if people see something the artist doesn't see, it doesn't make the people right on all levels. It's their interpretation of the art. But the artist probably won't say "it doesn't mean that," as much as they're saying they didn't intend for it to mean that. However, in a case of defining whether something is an album or a soundtrack (in this case, Brian said it's an album and John said it's a soundtrack), then we have a stalemate. I still maintain that if the entire band agreed that it was an album, then it's an album. But since there is no black and white definition of what an album is versus a soundtrack, why should the artists themselves not be the determining factors of this kind of thing on a case by case basis? I don't think that anybody are 'right on all levels' in so much as I don't think that there is right and wrong, provided one can back up their case. I do agree with you about artists 'saying "it doesn't mean that," as much as they're saying they didn't intend for it to mean that.' In the case of soundtrack versus album, I can't agree that the artists should be the determining factor, as I personally have a fixed view of what I think are studio albums and soundtracks, and Flash simply IMO does not fit the criteria of a studio album. I'll give way to the group on most things (outside of interpretation and song quality) but in regards to whether or not certain albums are studio or OST, I'm with Sebastian; the group doesn't own the definitions. That does not mean, however, that I question whether Flash is an original work, for if Brian says that most/all of the tracks were created by Queen, then I have no choice but to give way to them. But as to whether it's a studio album or an OST, I think it's purely subjective. |
| The Real Wizard 12.06.2009 01:00 |
Sebastian wrote: I can see you admire Brian, and you've (accurately) commented how nice he is to comment positive aspects on others. So why don't you take his example and take it easy on TM?Because it's far too tempting and entertaining not to. I'm all for an intelligent discussion when it's possible, but TM is in a league of his own when it comes to being the antithesis of that. For some odd reason, it gives me great joy to point it out. Actually, there is one person whose words could (and should) mean a hell of a lot more than everything Brian said about that cover: Roger, who not only participated on the original recording, but also (unlike Brian) actually wrote one of the songs.Right, of course. It's just that Roger doesn't have an online platform to say such a thing so quickly, nor does John. So since Brian's all we've got on this medium for now, that's what I meant by saying how his blessing is the best DT could ever hope for. A different case is if, for instance, Brian said there are no overdubs on 'Live Killers'. Regardless of his position as co-creator, if the claim is wrong, it's wrong, full stop. Same if, for instance, Roger said his highest note on a released song is on Lap of the Gods, while May said his (Roger's) highest note on a released song is on Bohemian Rhapsody: Taylor was the person who sang them, but he's still wrong; May was a (not the) person who probably witnessed both, but he's also wrong, in that case.You're changing the subject. Talking about subjective things like a response to a cover song or defining album vs. soundtrack is far different from discussing things for which indisputable facts can prove someone wrong if necessary. Once again, I was talking about interpretation of art, not facts. Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem awfully keen on demonizing Brian for having gotten a few details mixed up in the past, almost as if it's part of an agenda to give his word on any subject less validity than it otherwise could have gotten.But if people see something the artist doesn't see, it doesn't make the people right on all levels.Depending on the case: remember the infamous list of Brian's misremembered 'facts'. And btw, can't it simply be both? Album and soundtrack? Of course! |
| Sebastian 12.06.2009 01:33 |
It's not about 'demonizing' Brian. I'm pretty sure 99% of his claims about Queen or the past are spot on. But amongst that remaining 1% we could find the one about 'Flash'... or not, but there's always the possibility. But yes, I do enjoy reminding (myself, mostly) that even the artists themselves can forget some details about their own work. |
| Treasure Moment 13.06.2009 10:00 |
I just heard their cover, they did a great job. |
| Stephan 15.06.2009 09:03 |
From yesterday's Download Festival ... everybody is dying to know what these 2 had to say to each other... [img]link |
| Stephan 15.06.2009 09:05 |
Brian May & Mike Portnoy .... link |
| The Real Wizard 15.06.2009 11:54 |
Great picture! It seems Brian's taking a great interest in DT now. Imagine DT opening for Bri and Rog in 2010... |
| Stephan 15.06.2009 12:14 |
Imagine Brian & Roger opening for Dream Theater in 2010 ..... [img=/images/smiley/msn/teeth_smile.gif][/img] |
| mmhardky 15.06.2009 18:20 |
By Mike Portnoy: As so many of you are inquiring about Brian May.... After he posted so many kind words about us on his blog last week upon hearing our new Queen cover, our manager reached out and invited him to see us at Download... He ended up coming out and watched our entire show from the stage and said that he LOVED it! He is one of the most generous and kindest musicians of *that* level that I've ever met...what a sweet guy. Yes, I gave him the Special Edition of BC&SL (it's in his hands in the picture) and he hugged it with excitement when I did.... And oh yeah....he was freaking out about all of the background vocals on Flick Of The Wrist and was blown away that I did them all myself! (so take THAT all you MP vox haters on the other DT boards! If Brian May liked em - who was in a band with perhaps the greatest rock vocalist of ALL TIME - then that's all I need!) MP |
| silver_salmon 15.06.2009 22:33 |
Oh yeah!! link Here a pic |
| Yara 15.06.2009 22:46 |
I'm deeply thankful to Dream Theater. I hope I manage to see them live again, though I don't think it'll happen. :-( I still haven't listened to the new album. I went to the store yesterday and it hadn't arrived yet. Grrrrrr. Anyway, even without having listened to the new material, I already praise them not only for bringing back to life some Queen songs, but also for doing such a wonderful selection of songs. It's very beautiful to see such towering musicians getting together and enjoying themselves and knowing that music is the language underlying it all. |
| The Real Wizard 15.06.2009 22:48 |
mmhardky wrote: By Mike Portnoy: As so many of you are inquiring about Brian May.... After he posted so many kind words about us on his blog last week upon hearing our new Queen cover, our manager reached out and invited him to see us at Download... He ended up coming out and watched our entire show from the stage and said that he LOVED it! He is one of the most generous and kindest musicians of *that* level that I've ever met...what a sweet guy. Yes, I gave him the Special Edition of BC&SL (it's in his hands in the picture) and he hugged it with excitement when I did.... And oh yeah....he was freaking out about all of the background vocals on Flick Of The Wrist and was blown away that I did them all myself! (so take THAT all you MP vox haters on the other DT boards! If Brian May liked em - who was in a band with perhaps the greatest rock vocalist of ALL TIME - then that's all I need!) MP Awesome... I love it. |
| Rho-d Berth 16.06.2009 04:09 |
Repeat post: catchy Dream Theater tunes: - Another Day - Pull me under - Wait for sleep - Lifting shadows of a dream - space-dye-vest - hollow years - take away my pain - through her eyes - one last time - goodnight kiss - solitary shell - I walk besides you - the ministry of lost souls That you don't know them doesn't mean they do not exist. Dream Theater has written catchy tunes, but it's not their main interest. |
| Stephan 16.06.2009 09:23 |
I think you should include The Spirit Carries On, Learning To Live and Caught In A Web! |
| *goodco* 16.06.2009 09:57 |
Would appreciate the direct link of Mike Portnoy's comments, please. I have seen his quotes on his website, but they are fans quoting him. Thanks in advance. |
| Rho-d Berth 16.06.2009 13:00 |
link The Spirit Carries On, great call indeed. I'm not sure, I love LTL but maybe it's a bit too long to be catchy. |
| silver_salmon 16.06.2009 13:23 |
Mike Portnoy is the new Queen singer??? lol |
| Holly2003 16.06.2009 13:29 |
Just listened to the 3 songs. Outstanding performances. |
| Sebastian 16.06.2009 13:43 |
silver_salmon wrote: Mike Portnoy is the new Queen singer??? lol Why not? He was Freddie's favourite singer after Adam Lambert and Katy Perry. |
| Stephan 17.06.2009 17:26 |
Imagine Queen (Brian & Roger) and Dream Theater doing a tour together with LaBrie fronting both bands .... |
| The Real Wizard 20.06.2009 11:45 |
From Brian's Soapbox, just to add to the discussion... I was also, by one of those strange alignments of the planets, able to see the band who have just delivered what my mate Rog called (totally unprompted last week) "The best Queen cover job ever". Yes, the redoubtable Dream Theatre. Can't wait to hear from people accusing Brian of fabricating... |
| Stephan 20.06.2009 13:12 |
From Brian May's Soapbox ... "But I was also, by one of those strange alignments of the planets, able to see the band who have just delivered what my mate Rog called (totally unprompted last week) "The best Queen cover job ever". Yes, the redoubtable Dream Theatre. IT was a revelation. Their scope is way beyond covering Ancient Rock Bands, of course ... and actually way beyond Rock, I'd say. They are what would have been called, about 30 years ago - truly 'progressive, with more than a touch of fusion'. But their musicianship is way beyond even that. The whole band are virtuosos ... I'm kind of ashamed I never discovered them before. Their set was completely without any hint of 'playing to the Gallery'. They took their time mapping out their songs, which I can only say succulently drip with the best kind of complexity. Wonderful playing. I will be back for more. So will about 80,000 Classic Rock fans who gave them a great reception in the old "Monsters of Rock" fields - what we all used to know as the Donnington Castle gig. |
| Sebastian 20.06.2009 13:34 |
I do agree with Rog on that one. While I prefer the original Lily of the Valley (my favourite song by Lord Teeth), DT's Tenement Funster and Flick of the Wrist kick the crap out of the originals, especially regarding drums, bass, guitars and low-range harmonies; high ones... not so much. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 20.06.2009 22:55 |
Just purchased it and it's wonderful. Reverent, with original flourishes. Fantastic musicians, and a cover like this shines a light on how diverse early Queen writing was, and with no disrespect to the DT vocals as they're great, Queen's harmonies and size of the harmonies were pretty much unparalleled in rock history. |
| mike hunt 21.06.2009 04:11 |
Sebastian wrote: I do agree with Rog on that one. While I prefer the original Lily of the Valley (my favourite song by Lord Teeth), DT's Tenement Funster and Flick of the Wrist kick the crap out of the originals, especially regarding drums, bass, guitars and low-range harmonies; high ones... not so much. This comes from a man who thinks back to the light is better than every Queen album, lol. |
| Sebastian 21.06.2009 08:28 |
mike hunt wrote:Sebastian wrote: I do agree with Rog on that one. While I prefer the original Lily of the Valley (my favourite song by Lord Teeth), DT's Tenement Funster and Flick of the Wrist kick the crap out of the originals, especially regarding drums, bass, guitars and low-range harmonies; high ones... not so much.This comes from a man who thinks back to the light is better than every Queen album, lol. Yes, so? Does that invalidate my comment? Please God Mike, forgive me for having a different opinion... and you know what? I also think The Dark is better than the 'Races' overture ... OH NO! Will I get death penalty for that or is it just life imprisonment? I've also gotta be careful next time I write Steve Vai plays better than Dr Wig - my salary could be taken by the IRS (International Retarded Society). Btw, I meant absolutely no offence to people who think Queen did better albums than Brian, the overture tops The Dark or May's better than Vai. The whole IRS comment's for those who seem to be insanely obsessed with me and what I write here, to the point of bringing my comments up months or years afterwards. Why do you care anyway? |
| Sheer Brass Neck 21.06.2009 10:42 |
Favouring "BTTL" over any Queen album hardly invalidates Sebastian's comment on the DT performance. But while certainly understanding that opinions are personal and thank God we don't all share the same ones (apart from thinking Treasure Moment is horrid), but Sebastian: BTTL better than any Queen album??? That is incomprehensible given your musical knowledge and insight! Track 1: I'll give that "The Dark" overture is a good piece of music, perhaps great, perhaps awesome. Track 2: "BTTL" is one of Brian's better solo efforts. Well played and well sung and as a solo career opener, not particularly "Queen" like. Track 3: "Love Token" is okay, with lyrics that follow the Sweet Lady template, and we all know how well loved they are. Plus, Brian can't sing heavier stuff very well. Track 4: "Resurrection" is very heavy, very well played, with horrible lyrics, plus Brian can't sing heavier stuff very well. Track 5: "TMLWKY" is fantastic, and IMHO the definitive version which destroys Queen's in every way. Track 6: "Driven by you" is a music-by-numbers, cliche filled commercial for Ford cars. Track 7: "Nothing but blue" is, apart from the mid song flourish where Brian has to add a Brian MAy/Queen moment, what I wished his solo career is/was. Not a very typical songfor him, which is what solo stuff should be. Track 8: "I'm scared", and we are all scared by this, arguably his worst track ever in any setting. Track 9: "Last Horizon" is nice, typical Brian effort where keys and guitar are involved. Track 10: LYHRYH" is '39 in '91. Liked this song better when it was on ANATO. Track 11: "Just one life" is another gem and type of song I'd like to have seen Brian do more. Roger's Fun in space was great because it was Roger music, not Roger/Queen music. Really honest heartfelt song. Track 12: "Rollin' Over" is an obscure cover, not bad, not great, plus Brian can't sing heavier stuff. Please tell me this in not better than all Queen stuff. |
| Holly2003 21.06.2009 10:59 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote:Track 8: "I'm scared", and we are all scared by this, arguably his worst track ever in any setting. Ha! One of those "funny because it's true" moments. But, overall, Brian's solo work is quite good. It stands up pretty well as an individual artists's work. The weakness in his voice that you mention can be mostly glossed over in the studio (not so much live). His singing really improved for Another World and you could see how much effort he put in. Besides, both of his solo efforts are better than TCR, which is a bloody shame given the circumstances. |
| Sebastian 21.06.2009 11:14 |
That's a nice post, with a respectful way to disagree and interesting points. Well, of course there's a lot of personal opinion at the end of the day (as with the Spice Girls case), but here are my main points: - I don't think Brian's bad for the heavier stuff. I do think he's not as good as Freddie, Roger, Halford, Dickinson, etc., but he's not bad. His exquisite performance on Resurrection is IMO as good as what Fred would've done in the same song, and for the others it's at least 'almost as good'. - Vocal-wise, of course just Brian (or Brian + Chris + a couple of birds) can't hold a candle to some of the great harmonies done by Freddie alone (e.g. Love of My Life), Fred + Brian (e.g. Killer Queen), Fred + Rog (e.g. parts of Bo Rhap's opera), or the three of them (e.g. Somebody to Love, '39), but some of 'BttL' bits are actually very, very well made. Too Much Love for instance, or the Driven By You intro (machine-generated, but the bottomline's that it sounds wonderful). The second chorus in Too Much Love is, both in terms of performance and projection, at least almost as great as any Queen harmony vocal part. - Guitar-wise, I think some of Bri's best work is found here: great choirs (e.g. The Dark, Back to the Light), great soloing (e.g. Resurrection), great acoustic bits (e.g. Too Much Love), great rough rhythm (e.g. Love Token). - Drum-wise, Roger's great, but Cozy's a hell of a lot better. - Bass-wise, John's great, but Neil's a hell of a lot better. - Of course Freddie's a better pianist than Brian, but for Too Much Love, I think May's performance is second to none: people who play much better than him (Freddie included) wouldn't be able to do it that way. And of course, Mike Moran's and Don Airey's skills beat the hell out of Mercury's. - I adore the songwriting in 'BttL', the only song I hate is I'm Scared, but otherwise it's marvellous, and the fact it's mostly co-written by the same person is reflected in a very nice sense of unity. When it comes to classical music, I prefer a Mozart symphony or a Haydn symphony than a compilation of movements by different composers, or a full opera by one composer than a collection of arias from different ones, no matter how great they are; same here: I prefer a full album of May gems (or Mercury gems for that matter) than a compromise of pieces by both. Not all the time, but most of the time at least. - Production-wise, I also love 'BttL', again, the fact it was only one person's choice gave the whole thing a much clearer and stronger fulfilment than when you've got to put four people to agree, or each one to take control of his own material. Last but not least, I'm not trying to convince anybody to think like I do, but since you asked: I consider that 'BttL' tops any Queen album in terms of guitars, bass, drums, keyboards, production and songwriting, and it only 'loses' (and not by far) vocally. Six out of seven is good enough for me! |
| Treasure Moment 21.06.2009 11:43 |
Its an awesome cover, the best queen cover ive heard. |
| Major Tom 21.06.2009 19:18 |
Treasure Moment wrote: Its an awesome cover, the best queen cover ive heard.Say WHAT? Congratulations TM, finally you have made a ordinary, sane post. One that is 100 true aswell. Are you feeling ok? |
| mike hunt 22.06.2009 00:57 |
Sebastian wrote: That's a nice post, with a respectful way to disagree and interesting points. Well, of course there's a lot of personal opinion at the end of the day (as with the Spice Girls case), but here are my main points: - I don't think Brian's bad for the heavier stuff. I do think he's not as good as Freddie, Roger, Halford, Dickinson, etc., but he's not bad. His exquisite performance on Resurrection is IMO as good as what Fred would've done in the same song, and for the others it's at least 'almost as good'. - Vocal-wise, of course just Brian (or Brian + Chris + a couple of birds) can't hold a candle to some of the great harmonies done by Freddie alone (e.g. Love of My Life), Fred + Brian (e.g. Killer Queen), Fred + Rog (e.g. parts of Bo Rhap's opera), or the three of them (e.g. Somebody to Love, '39), but some of 'BttL' bits are actually very, very well made. Too Much Love for instance, or the Driven By You intro (machine-generated, but the bottomline's that it sounds wonderful). The second chorus in Too Much Love is, both in terms of performance and projection, at least almost as great as any Queen harmony vocal part. - Guitar-wise, I think some of Bri's best work is found here: great choirs (e.g. The Dark, Back to the Light), great soloing (e.g. Resurrection), great acoustic bits (e.g. Too Much Love), great rough rhythm (e.g. Love Token). - Drum-wise, Roger's great, but Cozy's a hell of a lot better. - Bass-wise, John's great, but Neil's a hell of a lot better. - Of course Freddie's a better pianist than Brian, but for Too Much Love, I think May's performance is second to none: people who play much better than him (Freddie included) wouldn't be able to do it that way. And of course, Mike Moran's and Don Airey's skills beat the hell out of Mercury's. - I adore the songwriting in 'BttL', the only song I hate is I'm Scared, but otherwise it's marvellous, and the fact it's mostly co-written by the same person is reflected in a very nice sense of unity. When it comes to classical music, I prefer a Mozart symphony or a Haydn symphony than a compilation of movements by different composers, or a full opera by one composer than a collection of arias from different ones, no matter how great they are; same here: I prefer a full album of May gems (or Mercury gems for that matter) than a compromise of pieces by both. Not all the time, but most of the time at least. - Production-wise, I also love 'BttL', again, the fact it was only one person's choice gave the whole thing a much clearer and stronger fulfilment than when you've got to put four people to agree, or each one to take control of his own material. Last but not least, I'm not trying to convince anybody to think like I do, but since you asked: I consider that 'BttL' tops any Queen album in terms of guitars, bass, drums, keyboards, production and songwriting, and it only 'loses' (and not by far) vocally. Six out of seven is good enough for me! Something is wrong with you, lol. I'm serious. |
| mike hunt 22.06.2009 02:19 |
Just heard the covers, good performance. My least favorite out of the 3 is "funster" the vocals lose it for me. flick of the wrist is solid. Probably the best queen cover ever along with metallica's stone cold crazy. |
| john bodega 22.06.2009 14:22 |
Treasure Moment wrote: Its an awesome cover, the best queen cover ive heard.Ha!!! |
| doxonrox 22.06.2009 21:35 |
OK, I just listened to it. Not bad, although Lily of the Valley is weak. Cool of them to give it a go, though. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 24.06.2009 21:02 |
I listened to the covers. Even tho I love DT as players, they still have a long way to go when it comes to putting a song together. I think the songs just don't work their way. First of all, they lack 82376128374612834621834 of the arrangements. I thought the changes they added to the piano actually worsened the lines. The bass is correct, to say the least. Tenement Funster is escentially the same. The solo is utter shit, shred doesn't fit the song at all. It's an up-tempo rock but kinda moderate, you know. It doesn't fit, altought I do think the last scale run over Eb before the last verse was pretty good. The vocals were... correct, I guess. Some notes out of tune but nothing too wrong overall. The backing vocals did an excepcionally good in the job of NOT BEING FUCKING THERE. And the 'young and you're crazy' part sucked balls. Flick of the Wrist was quite a surprise, for all the changes they added. They did it DT style, which is positive I guess. But I don't agree with any of the changes. Those little tempo changes between sections, changing breaks and fills... it sounds like too flat, too basic, rhythmically. Specially the verses. I absolutely loved Petrucci's guitar work here. Perfect playing and the overall phrasing was amazing. The song really worked with his ideas. The vocals are kinda weaker than in Tenement Funster. The backing vocals did both better and worse than in TF. Lily of the Valley is the best number. LaBrie's performance was quite good here. The piano was ok but the changes I thought were really poor. And something very important: you can't replace great backing vocals with a stupid pad of strings. The guitars were great tho. So, that's what I thought. Cheers! |
| Stephan 25.06.2009 16:48 |
"But I was also, by one of those strange alignments of the planets, able to see the band who have just delivered
what my mate Rog called (totally unprompted last week) "The best Queen cover job ever". Yes, the redoubtable Dream Theatre. IT was a revelation. Their scope is way beyond covering Ancient Rock Bands, of course ... and actually way beyond Rock, I'd say." (Brian May)
Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Freddie Mercurois wrote: I listened to the covers. Even tho I love DT as players, they still have a long way to go when it comes to putting a song together. I think the songs just don't work their way. First of all, they lack 82376128374612834621834 of the arrangements. I thought the changes they added to the piano actually worsened the lines. The bass is correct, to say the least. Tenement Funster is escentially the same. The solo is utter shit, shred doesn't fit the song at all. It's an up-tempo rock but kinda moderate, you know. It doesn't fit, altought I do think the last scale run over Eb before the last verse was pretty good. The vocals were... correct, I guess. Some notes out of tune but nothing too wrong overall. The backing vocals did an excepcionally good in the job of NOT BEING FUCKING THERE. And the 'young and you're crazy' part sucked balls. Flick of the Wrist was quite a surprise, for all the changes they added. They did it DT style, which is positive I guess. But I don't agree with any of the changes. Those little tempo changes between sections, changing breaks and fills... it sounds like too flat, too basic, rhythmically. Specially the verses. I absolutely loved Petrucci's guitar work here. Perfect playing and the overall phrasing was amazing. The song really worked with his ideas. The vocals are kinda weaker than in Tenement Funster. The backing vocals did both better and worse than in TF. Lily of the Valley is the best number. LaBrie's performance was quite good here. The piano was ok but the changes I thought were really poor. And something very important: you can't replace great backing vocals with a stupid pad of strings. The guitars were great tho. So, that's what I thought. Cheers! |
| Richard Orchard 29.06.2009 19:01 |
Best cover ever! |
| doxonrox 29.06.2009 22:25 |
Richard Orchard wrote: Best cover ever! Sarcastic? I hope so, because this would easily create a massive debate: link |
| Stephan 30.06.2009 16:25 |
Dream Theater on the album charts: #3 in Holland #3 in Germany probably #8 or something in the U.S. (according to the Billboard Company) and probably #1 or #2 considering "Systematic Chaos" (2007) went on #2 in Italy |
| Stephan 04.07.2009 14:48 |
#6 on the U.S. Billboard charts #1 in Finland #3 in German #3 in Holland #7 in Canada #7 in Norway #5 in Italy (just behind 4 italian artists) #2 in Hungary #2 in Japan #3 in Sweden #7 in Mexico #9 in France and ... #1 on European album charts (according to Billboard) |
| The Real Wizard 04.07.2009 16:45 |
It is a great triumph for all fans and supporters of prog. Come spread the love here... link |
| Angeline 30.08.2009 00:21 |
I find his voice on tenement funster a bit cringe - cheesy and thin. It makes me wince, as a cover they didn't change it enough for it to be interesting therefore it sounds like a tribute version. Seriously am I the only one who thinks this? Flick of the Wrist not so bad. Ew I'm listening to it now, it's all to smooth, glad SHA didn't have prduction like this. |
| Angeline 30.08.2009 00:36 |
I actually appreciate the SHA versions even more. This isn't Stepfordism, I don't hate it because they've 'ruined it', I just dislike it to the point where if that was the original version I wouldn't like it either. Technically of course they do them justice but for some reason the more I listen to the cover the more passionate my dislike of it becomes. The lily of the valley version? It sounds more outdated than the original. Sorry I'm going to end this rant. It's irrational. |
| john bodega 30.08.2009 08:03 |
(shrugs) Took me a while to listen to finally listen to this. I suppose it doesn't help if I disliked 2 of the songs before I even heard the thing! Pretty great performances on all sides. His voice shits me and the guitar lacks .... something. I was going to say 'warmth' but I'll think on it some more. Great job, they're obviously fans of the material! This is obviously not new to QZ but I'd probably prefer to hear their take on a Queen cover. |
| Stephan 01.09.2009 12:06 |
Check out Dream Theater's cover version of Death on two Legs. link It's a live recording (but soundboard!) |
| Unblinking Eye 12.11.2009 19:41 |
I think that they did an excellent cover, but the sound is much fuller, probably because of the sound production. I think they did an excellent job, I've heard a lot worse covers of Queen!! |
