| jamster1111 12.02.2011 13:48 |
Ever since I became a Queen fan I've always had a particular love with that song. I've been listening to that song over and over today and I really don't understand why it didn't become a hit and as popular as songs like BoRhap and Champions? It has a very catchy melody, great lyrics, and not to mention a memorable chorus which many people can sing along to. Can't you imagine it working perfectly as a stadium anthem??? But why doesn't the general public know this song? Maybe it was the way SHA was produced... |
| mooghead 12.02.2011 14:29 |
Because it wasn't a single. |
| AlexRocks 12.02.2011 17:27 |
I ABSOLUTELY love and adore the "Whoa! Whoa! La, la, la!!!" song beyond all belief! With that said...perhaps the lyrics weren't all that inspirational. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 12.02.2011 18:20 |
In The Lap Of The Gods(revisited) is a pop/rock masterpiece that is sadly unknown to the general public. Sadly, that will never change. But we Queen fans surely LOVE it! |
| master marathon runner 13.02.2011 04:25 |
Probably because it's an 'album track' , more suited to its slot ont the album than for commercial dilectation,. There are a number of Queen tracks you could say the same about. I remember back in '75 cursing the heavens at Queens mis- opportunity of not releasing ' Bring Back That Leroy Brown', i was convinced it would be a no. 1, but now i think...... well , maybe its place is on the album. And then take 'Teo Torriate' (Let us Cling Together) , one of the most beautiful pieces of music of all time, with the Record Mirror review saying, (when reviewing 'A Day At the Races') at the time, 'A track that will go down as one of the great all time songs, along with 'Happy Christmas' (War is Over'). But perhaps its place was to see out the album Its all about opinions and tastes. Master Marathon Runner.. |
| Soundfreak 13.02.2011 04:41 |
Some people see "The March of the Black Queen" as a forerunner for "Bohemian Rhapsody". For my ears "In the Lap of the Gods" is the forerunner to "We are the Champions". |
| rhyeking 13.02.2011 13:05 |
There are a number of Queen tracks which I think had a decent shot at doing well in the charts. I never considered ITLOTGR as one, but sure, maybe it could've. I do think, since it was mentioned in the thread, that "Bring Back That Leroy Brown" would have been a mistake to release as a single. It's a good, fun song, but as it single, it would've likely been viewed as "novelty" song and at that stage of their career, the last thing Queen needed was the label of "novelty" act. Arguably, they drifted close a few times ("Killer Queen," "Bohemian Rhapsody," "Bicycle Race," etc.) , but always stayed on the clear, rock side. I could be wrong, but that's my casual thought. |
| PrimeJiveUSA 13.02.2011 13:41 |
Agreed about "Teo Torriate"...it's INSANE that that was not a world-wide hit. Why they released "Tie Your Mother Down" as the next single and not "Teo" is beyond me. I think "Teo" is so timeless, it could be released today and still be a worldwide hit. |
| Jimmy Dean 13.02.2011 17:15 |
Actually, I'm surprised You and I didn't go anywhere... it seems perfectly written for the radio... Deacon tried to re-kindle the success he had with You're My Best Friend... Although it's not as sappy and simple as Best Friend, it still has the catchy melodies, interesting mid-section and powerful performance of a core-Queen song... maybe not right for the era? oh well... |
| jamster1111 13.02.2011 18:25 |
Yeah the top songs which I wonder why they didn't go anywhere or as far as they could have are: 1. In the Lap of the Gods Revisited 2. Teo Torriate 3. Friends Will Be Friends 4. White Queen 5. Doing All Right. |
| rhyeking 13.02.2011 18:55 |
Until BoRhap, Queen tended to stick to what it considered radio-friendly tracks: Keep Yourself Alive Liar The Seven Seas Of Rhye Killer Queen Flick Of The Wrist Now I'm Here Half of them didn't chart, so coupled with their new-found freedom from their crappy record deal with Trident, when it came time for "Bohemian Rhapsody," they took a gamble and it paid off. After that, they got more ambitious and daring with their singles, though they didn't always succeed outside the UK. Their US singles were hit and miss ("Long Away," "It's Late," "Jealousy," "Need Your Loving Tonight," "Calling All Girls," and others all didn't do very well, where "Radio Ga Ga," "I Want It All," "Too Much Love Will Kill You" and some others did reasonably well. Really, though, '80s America was not friendly to Queen thanks to New Wave and MTV one-hit wonders. I believe to this day that "You And I" has hit potential written all over it. Too bad it never got further than an album track and a B-side. Oh well. |
| jamster1111 13.02.2011 23:00 |
jamster1111 wrote: Yeah the top songs which I wonder why they didn't go anywhere or as far as they could have are: 1. In the Lap of the Gods Revisited 2. Teo Torriate 3. Friends Will Be Friends 4. White Queen 5. It's Late |
| mike hunt 14.02.2011 10:55 |
Great song, but great songs don't alway's make great singles. It wasn't even released as a single anyway........someone mentioned "Bring Back that leroy brown" Again, great song and one of my all time favorite tunes, but I don't think people were ready for that type of single from Queen, who were still considered a heavy rock band.. killer queen wasn't heavy but it still had more of a rock feel than "leroy Brown' Songs I think should have been top 40's are " you and I" spread your Wings (how did those songs not make it?) Mustapha?.....I know it sounds crazy, but the song was so unique and Queenish that it could have made it. "Let us clinge together" and "it's late" and in America "Don't stop me now" and "play the game" should have been much bigger...... |
| vadenuez 14.02.2011 14:13 |
Total lack of vision. This song had the chance to be revisited (pun intended) and glorified in the 2011 releases. A live version from Hammersmith or Hyde Park would've been the best way to close the SHA 2011 CD showing new audiences which was Queen's grand finale before the WATC days. But no. They'd rather decide to put the Wembley version, which is a one and a half minute medley version with Freddie singing it in a very low tone. The half-witted-sorry-excuse-of-a-business-man one who made this poor decision deserves to be impaled alive, be it Brian, Roger, John, or Mr Beach themselves. |
| dianamascarenhas 19.06.2012 06:14 |
This is simply one of the best songs I have ever heard, if not the best one. Great music, meaningful lyrics, this song is masterpiece. Definitely my favourite. It's unfair that people generally don't know about this song... |
| brENsKi 19.06.2012 10:57 |
why is it "unfair"? that's a ridiculous thing to say...what we know about and don't know about is our own personal choice....you're claiming that queen fans are somehow advantaged by knowing about this song? doesn't work...think about all the great songs queen fans/zep fans/floyds fans etc might never know about...it all kinda equals out |
| dianamascarenhas 19.06.2012 11:07 |
If you don't know about it, how can you chose to know about or not... whatever, this world is full of unknown masterpieces, not fair I repeat. |
| brENsKi 19.06.2012 16:25 |
i really don't want to argue, but i can't agree with you on this.....for these reasons: 1. an inquiring mind will go seek out knowledge of whatever kind 2. if on the day we first learned to read we spent our whole lives doing nothingn but reading, we'd not even get thru 10% of all the english-word books in a lifetime 3. it's all down to choice...let in what we choose to let in, keep out what we choose not to - ie i refuse completely to ever read Lord of the Rings, but if Douglas Adams had written a bus timetable i'd have read it... 4. not listening to or reading about something you never knew about is not the same as having the option taken away from you....knowing about something and being denied it is unfair |
| dianamascarenhas 19.06.2012 16:57 |
ok let me see 1. I agree with you, an inquiring mind will go seek out knowledge of whatever kind - but you can't forget that not everyone has an inquiring mind and yet is still a person able to react to any of the Arts 2.true, again your statement is correct - but still I would not call it choice, but chance 3.partially true - indeed it's a matter of choice, but first comes the chance (which makes the thing actually appear in front of your eyes and right under your nose, so that you make knowledge of its existence) 4.unfairness is a broad concept and I don't really think that should be a matter of discussion this particular forum (that's why I won't keep on talking about it) |
| brENsKi 19.06.2012 17:03 |
it's not "that" wide a concept here's the full definition: un·fair/??n'fe(?)r/Adjective: 1.Not based on or behaving according to the principles of equality and justice. 2.Unkind, inconsiderate, or unreasonable: "you're unfair to criticize like that when she's never done you any harm". you called it unfair, and now you decide to refuse to discuss it further...that my friend is UNFAIR....anyhow i'll take that as a concession on your part |
| thomasquinn 32989 20.06.2012 09:43 |
brENsKi wrote: 2. if on the day we first learned to read we spent our whole lives doing nothingn but reading, we'd not even get thru 10% of all the english-word books in a lifetimeSince the invention of the printing press, there have been approximately 130 million different prints that qualify as "books" (by the type of binding and the length. For instance, scrolls and unbound sheets aren't included because of the former reason, nor posters or pamphlets because of the latter). Let's say you were to devote your entire life to reading. You would live to, say age 85, and you would start reading on your fifth birthday, leaving 80 years to read. This is a very liberal estimate indeed. 80 years = 29 200 days. Say that ten days each year 'go to waste' (i.e. are not spent reading) for various reasons. That leaves 29 200 - (80 * 10) = 28 400 days. Suppose you manage to read an average of two titles a day (there are very long and very short works, so it varies from day to day), that would mean you can read 56 800 books in your life. Let's say we decrease it just a little, and say you can read 50 000 books in a lifetime, max. That would mean you can read less than 0.04% of all books ever printed. Even if we allow for twice the amount of books read (100 000 then, meaning around four a day) AND we estimate that only 5% of all books printed were written in English, we still arrive at only reading some 1,5% of all English-language books in a lifetime. |
| Micrówave 20.06.2012 10:07 |
and you would start reading on your fifth birthdayThat's raising the bar a bit high for this group, don't you think? |
| brENsKi 20.06.2012 10:13 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:so what you're saying then is that i was rightbrENsKi wrote: 2. if on the day we first learned to read we spent our whole lives doing nothingn but reading, we'd not even get thru 10% of all the english-word books in a lifetimeSince the invention of the printing press, there have been approximately 130 million different prints that qualify as "books" (by the type of binding and the length. For instance, scrolls and unbound sheets aren't included because of the former reason, nor posters or pamphlets because of the latter). Let's say you were to devote your entire life to reading. You would live to, say age 85, and you would start reading on your fifth birthday, leaving 80 years to read. This is a very liberal estimate indeed. 80 years = 29 200 days. Say that ten days each year 'go to waste' (i.e. are not spent reading) for various reasons. That leaves 29 200 - (80 * 10) = 28 400 days. Suppose you manage to read an average of two titles a day (there are very long and very short works, so it varies from day to day), that would mean you can read 56 800 books in your life. Let's say we decrease it just a little, and say you can read 50 000 books in a lifetime, max. That would mean you can read less than 0.04% of all books ever printed. Even if we allow for twice the amount of books read (100 000 then, meaning around four a day) AND we estimate that only 5% of all books printed were written in English, we still arrive at only reading some 1,5% of all English-language books in a lifetime. "we'd not even get thru 10% of all the english-word books in a lifetime" thanks for confirming it |
| thomasquinn 32989 20.06.2012 11:12 |
brENsKi wrote:What I'm saying is that you got me thinking and I decided to see what plausible and extreme estimates of the max. possible numbers of books you could possibly read would be. What I would *really* like to know is the average length (ideally in words, otherwise in pages) of these 130 million books - that would mean a *truly* realistic estimate would be possible.thomasquinn 32989 wrote:so what you're saying then is that i was right "we'd not even get thru 10% of all the english-word books in a lifetime" thanks for confirming itbrENsKi wrote: 2. if on the day we first learned to read we spent our whole lives doing nothingn but reading, we'd not even get thru 10% of all the english-word books in a lifetimeSince the invention of the printing press, there have been approximately 130 million different prints that qualify as "books" (by the type of binding and the length. For instance, scrolls and unbound sheets aren't included because of the former reason, nor posters or pamphlets because of the latter). Let's say you were to devote your entire life to reading. You would live to, say age 85, and you would start reading on your fifth birthday, leaving 80 years to read. This is a very liberal estimate indeed. 80 years = 29 200 days. Say that ten days each year 'go to waste' (i.e. are not spent reading) for various reasons. That leaves 29 200 - (80 * 10) = 28 400 days. Suppose you manage to read an average of two titles a day (there are very long and very short works, so it varies from day to day), that would mean you can read 56 800 books in your life. Let's say we decrease it just a little, and say you can read 50 000 books in a lifetime, max. That would mean you can read less than 0.04% of all books ever printed. Even if we allow for twice the amount of books read (100 000 then, meaning around four a day) AND we estimate that only 5% of all books printed were written in English, we still arrive at only reading some 1,5% of all English-language books in a lifetime. It makes one feel very small, and makes civilization seem a lot larger than one usually notices. |
| brENsKi 20.06.2012 12:03 |
and that's just counting those that count as books...once you think deeper and scratch at it you find more stuff... volumes upon volumes of encyclopedias,atlases, text books, plays, car repair manuals (every car ever made has had countless revisions of it's manual everytiem the model is updated), computer language books, guide books - tourist and otherwise, then when you think about all of the books ever written that are now long-lost in the annals of time and man's wasteful disposal, and out-of-print stuff i reckon you could probably double that 130 million |
| AdamMethos 20.06.2012 22:26 |
I LOVE this song! I was a casual fan of Queen (owned the Greatest Hits, AKOM and MIH CDs, and Freddie was the only band member I could name) until following the QE contest and show sucked me into finding out more about the band. I actually heard ITLOTGR for the first time at the Toronto QE show and it was love at first listen. Since then, I play it several times a week, QE versions, Queen versions, they're all good. The Wembley version is my favorite; I just wish they did the whole song. |
| john bodega 21.06.2012 00:52 |
"That would mean you can read less than 0.04% of all books ever printed" Save some time. Skip Twilight. |