We know Queen are much loved and liked by the fans as shown by albums sales and their many sold out tours yet they dont appear to be that popular within the media side and yet this week The Rolling Stones are all over the papers and other media because of their 50 year anniversary and they have sold less albums worldwide than Queen so why are the media all over them, I know Queen had a bit of coverage on their 40 year anniversary but nothing like the Stones are getting now.
Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this
Does anybody remember a media explosion for the Rolling Stones 40th anniversary? I don't.
50 Year Anniversary > 40 Year Anniversary.
The Stones deserve it for sticking it out this long, although I don't really like much of their stuff.
The Stones are still together, as mentioned above.
It's a 50 year anniversary, as mentioned above.
The Stones are one of the very few (if any) 60's bands left.
The Stones are more popular in the US than Queen are.
Oooh burned! OK how about still around with a lineup that hasn't changed in a long, long time. ;-) I'm not a big follower of the Stones (obviously!) but I don't think they've changed their lineup since the last time I saw them in the mid-90s?
I heard someone say in the news that Mick Jagger is the best singer and frontman in history of rock. I have to state the obvious: What a load of bullshit!
Another Roger (re) wrote
I heard someone say in the news that Mick Jagger is the best singer and frontman in history of rock. I have to state the obvious: What a load of bullshit!
______________________________________
Agreed
plumrach wrote:
Another Roger (re) wrote
I heard someone say in the news that Mick Jagger is the best singer and frontman in history of rock. I have to state the obvious: What a load of bullshit!
______________________________________
Agreed
I agree too as I saw the Stones in late 80's, I was disappointed.
Rolling Stones represent an era and a mindset. Its supposed to be pure rock, hippies, 70's and all that sex/drugs/liberation stuff. Its what you go out and talk about (not neceseraly what you listen). Its the extrovert and easy to swallow side of rock/youth culture(grown old now). Its like a logo or an etiquette.
Queen are far more complicated to gain that media hype/coverage. Mercury's death brought an amount of salvation but underneath there will always be that "strange" shadow.
plumrach wrote:
Another Roger (re) wrote
I heard someone say in the news that Mick Jagger is the best singer and frontman in history of rock. I have to state the obvious: What a load of bullshit!
______________________________________
Agreed
mooghead wrote:
Wow..... contributors on a Queen fan site think Freddie is better than Mick.
Who'd have thought?
Go out there and ask anyone, anytime. Mick sure has got charisma and charm. But musicality and vocals are not his main stregths. He shines in more sexy-free-controvertial concepts. Like this unbeliveble performance link
How can ANYONE say Jagger is a better singer than Freddie?? I mean thats not just opinion. From a technical mathematical proveable point of view Freddie is technically the better singer. There is just no debate.
BelfastQueenFan wrote:
How can ANYONE say Jagger is a better singer than Freddie?? I mean thats not just opinion. From a technical mathematical proveable point of view Freddie is technically the better singer. There is just no debate.
Jagger is not a singer. He is a performer who sings, an actor and a really charismatisc provocateur of some kind.