| Stelios 04.04.2013 05:14 |
It's strange how in all those years the one artist that gained the most iconic status in contemporary music never seemed to acknowledged Queen or F.Mercury. And vice-versa. (a bit strange how Freddie never noticed her) I seem to remember a Madonna's statement on F. Mercury tribute concert but that was probably a formality. So, am i missing something or that's about it? |
| princetom 04.04.2013 10:56 |
so. they never met and never mentioned each other. ok. what's the point ???! |
| Hangman_96 04.04.2013 11:40 |
They've got *almost* nothing in common, methinks. |
| Stelios 04.04.2013 11:56 |
They didn;t need to meet to express some form of opinion. It's not like they had to, but since both shared controversial imagery and were sexually suggestive in their own way there is some kind of connection in the shock value territory. But i guess Madonna was too egocentric to acknowledge Mercury/ Queen and Freddie smart enough to undertsnad Madonna was more marketing and product than genuine artistic experession. No big deal whatsoever... |
| GratefulFan 04.04.2013 12:26 |
I never found Madonna particularly hard not to notice so I can definitely relate. :) |
| david (galashiels) 04.04.2013 17:29 |
misread..thought it said....maradona. |
| inu-liger 04.04.2013 22:31 |
I remember reading somewhere that she wanted to perform at the Freddie Mercury Tribute, but they turned her down due to a complete lack of any proof that she had either praised (eg. naming her inspirations) or made mention of the band previously...or something along those lines anyways. I don't know how much truth there is to that, so take it with a grain of salt. |
| vonkeil 05.04.2013 04:58 |
inu-liger wrote: I remember reading somewhere that she wanted to perform at the Freddie Mercury Tribute, but they turned her down due to a complete lack of any proof that she had either praised (eg. naming her inspirations) or made mention of the band previously...or something along those lines anyways. I don't know how much truth there is to that, so take it with a grain of salt.I asked Brian about this via his soapbox a couple of years ago and his answer was, that "these rumours are not true". They wanted her to perform on the Freddie Tribute and she was keen to come, but then wasn't able for one reason or another. |
| master marathon runner 05.04.2013 09:50 |
I'm glad she didn't appear at the tribute, remember live 8 ? "London, are you ready to fucking rock ?" Not really appropriate for early evening t.v. And Mariah Carey wiped the floor wi' the lot o' them by the way ! |
| mooghead 06.04.2013 13:27 |
She mentions Brian in one of her lyrics actually.."Brian May, and Monroe Deitrich and DiMaggio", its from Vogue. |
| Stelios 06.04.2013 15:24 |
mooghead wrote: She mentions Brian in one of her lyrics actually.."Brian May, and Monroe Deitrich and DiMaggio", its from Vogue....and then she adds Grace Kelly; Harlow, Jean Picture of a band called QUEEN |
| thomasquinn 32989 06.04.2013 15:41 |
Every morning when I get up, I am grateful for another day where Brian May and Roger Taylor haven't stooped to the level of working with Madonna. The further they keep that deranged tart from Queen, the better. |
| matt z 12.04.2013 20:20 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Every morning when I get up, I am grateful for another day where Brian May and Roger Taylor haven't stooped to the level of working with Madonna. The further they keep that deranged tart from Queen, the better.Still would have preferred a new song collaboration "QUEEN + MADONNA" *INSTEAD OF 5IVE and dappy |
| Queen fan 13.04.2013 07:44 |
Mad doñaa was on the American version of live aid, back then she was just some silly girl dancing around a hand bag on about holidays I suppose she didn't seem very much importance back then. Demi's rouses and Freddie in a dress like his would have been good in his moustache look with a pair of pliers and going under to get the high notes, would have been good video anyway. |
| betovyfyk 03.05.2020 19:06 |
To miss the old music artist and want to listen their all song at the one platform then this is the great platform for yourself. Get the all music with lyrics at the essayoneday who provide the all old album free of cost to all music lover. |
| k-m 03.05.2020 21:52 |
She also name-checked FM in one of her recent songs, on her last record. I don't mind Madonna, lots of very good pop songs, her Ray of Light album is mostly great. |
| thomasquinn 32989 04.05.2020 10:11 |
Freddie Mercury: "I'm just a musical prostitute" Madonna: "Hey, that sounds like a solid business plan!" Sorry, couldn't resist. |
| brENsKi 04.05.2020 16:20 |
k-m wrote:She also name-checked FM in one of her recent songs, on her last record. I don't mind Madonna, lots of very good pop songs, her Ray of Light album is mostly great.her Earth Mother album. it certainly improved a very dull decade musically. for me ROL and Like A Prayer are her two great albums. and the title track is a touch of genius. Having Orbit on board was a clever move. Don't Tell Me is also a great tune. the fusion electronica and country works well. and Mirwais' employing his trademark (was it called something like "drop beats")? |
| k-m 05.05.2020 00:59 |
Hell yeah, the title track from ROL was brilliant. And so was Like a Prayer. Never listened to her 'Music' album, but the singles and 'Paradise (Not For Me)' were pretty good. Might actually give it a try on Spotify. Are you referring to the 90s though or just Madonna's 90s as very dull musically? I thought the 90s were really good overall, lots of interesting things happened that decade. I always wonder how Queen would have coped in that decade and I'm pretty sure we all missed out on further classics from them, perhaps with an experimental edge at some point. Such a shame. Unfortunately, in the naughties, things took a turn, not exactly for the better. |
| brENsKi 05.05.2020 05:56 |
k-m wrote:Are you referring to the 90s though or just Madonna's 90s as very dull musically? I thought the 90s were really good overall, lots of interesting things happened that decade. I always wonder how Queen would have coped in that decade and I'm pretty sure we all missed out on further classics from them, perhaps with an experimental edge at some point. Such a shame. .90s in general. don't get me wrong - there was good stuff going on, but (as an old sod) i feel music has been in decline decade upon decade: 60s = music revolution = absolutely brilliant 70s = development and divergence of 60s ideas = excellent 80s = lots of gimmicks some great artists, but just as many gimmick/fashion-led bands 90s = derivative lots of 60s/70s "tribute" acts and pop acts sounded like 70s pop groups - with modern synths/samplers. there were some "great and good" but by and large - it's hard to get into something you know you've heard before. 00s = major decline the great and the good have become few and far between 10s = awful shining lights = bands still around from previous decades. 90s music was (largely) very derivative: 70s-style boy bands - far too many. 60s tributes - oasis, blur, shed 7, kula shaker, supergrass etc, 70s and 80s-style pop acts. as regards "90s classics from Queen": i think the 90s would've been a bad fit for classic rock. the classic rock generation - produced very few (if any) gems during the 90s. |
| The Real Wizard 05.05.2020 07:21 |
brENsKi wrote: 90s = derivative lots of 60s/70s "tribute" acts and pop acts sounded like 70s pop groups - with modern synths/samplers. there were some "great and good" but by and large - it's hard to get into something you know you've heard before. 10s = awful shining lights = bands still around from previous decades.The 90s also produced OK Computer - quite possibly the most original and important rock album since Sgt Pepper, and has yet to be dethroned. Like Pepper, it's a sort of Mason Dixon line that separates everything that came before it and after it (and also rendered the majority of rock to be irrelevant). And the 10s/20s have acts like Snarky Puppy and Jacob Collier who continue to redraw the boundaries of what music can do - both of whom have won Grammys. No doubt the 1965-75 period was almost certainly the most interesting of the last 150 years, due to the combination of growing technological possibilities and a music business that rarely restricted creativity (largely because FM radio hadn't been bought out by advertisers yet). But overall the last 150 years has seen its good music and bad music no matter which period we zero in on. |
| thomasquinn 32989 05.05.2020 09:11 |
There's a warping effect in judging music of the past vs. music of the present, quite simply because most music in any period is lousy and derivative. The thing is, that stuff gets forgotten. Take a random singles top 100 from any date in, say, the early '70s. Most of the tracks on it are virtually or entirely forgotten. The crap disappears, the good stuff is remembered. Making the period look more interesting in hindsight than it would have at the time. I was a child in the '90s and early 2000s, and I absolutely, thoroughly HATED the music played on the radio and fawned over by my peers. And guess what? Nearly all of the crap I hated so much is entirely forgotten. But, it turns out, there was also quite a bit of good stuff - it just got lost in the sea of crap back in the day. Still, I think Brenski has a pretty good point, I do think there's something badly wrong with the music of the late '80s and the '90s (and the early '00s). Some of the things I think are responsible for this: - Engineering and production. It is painfully obvious that the first generation of digital music production was terribly flawed - tinny sound, bad use of compression, misinformed attempts to use analog techniques / apply analog maxims to digital signal processing, etc. etc. Now, this is understandable - in the early days of stereo, people did weird (and with hindsight: silly) things that didn't work too well, in the early days of phonograph recordings, likewise. It takes time to master new technology, but that doesn't change a thing about the fact that early-period digital recordings fall waaay short of the mark (although there are obviously exceptions). - Laziness and overbearing producers - resulting in a lot of music sounding very much the same. We're talking about the age of Boybands/Girlbands here - manufactured music marketed to people with no opinion of their own who eat up whatever is served up to them as being fashionable and modern. The balance had been shifting from the artists to the record companies for many years before the period we're talking about, but IMHO, it reached its absolute nadir in the late '80s and the '90s. - Distasteful use of computer generated instruments that, with hindsight, sound very poor and badly dated and were already distasteful to some at the time when they were new. |
| MyHumanZoo 05.05.2020 15:25 |
I have to agree on Madonna, I enjoy a lot of her stuff. Ray of Light is my very favorite, Express Yourself and Vogue are good for dancing. I also agree that the best stuff from each decade sticks around and the fluff drops off and is forgotten. So what is considered the best stuff of the 90s that will endure? I’m having a senior moment and really can’t come up with a lot that I loved from the 90s. |
| brENsKi 05.05.2020 16:17 |
MyHumanZoo wrote:I also agree that the best stuff from each decade sticks around and the fluff drops off and is forgotten. So what is considered the best stuff of the 90s that will endure? I’m having a senior moment and really can’t come up with a lot that I loved from the 90s.'cept of course - we ALL remember the annoying (sh*t) novelty hits - and probably will forever. it's impossible to shift those songs from the filing cabinet in the brain marked "trivia". as regards the 90s: oasis were good - if hugely derivative madonna was great/very good. suede, ocs, manics and cast had their moments - if also very much in a "tribute to the past" sort of way. green day were (and still are) fantastic RHCP - at their finest foos - made two wonderful LPs mccartney, pink floyd, rush also produced some great stuff (macca's "Flaming Pie" is excellent. |
| k-m 05.05.2020 20:40 |
Lots of great stuff from the 90s still sticks. Starting from 1990 and Sinead O'Connor, through 1991-92 and bands like R.E.M., Guns N Roses, U2, Metallica through the whole grunge scene and classics from Nirvana, Pearl Jam or Soundgarden, all the way to Britpop and amazing tunes by Oasis and Blur and the whole alternative rock and very interesting acts like Mercury Rev, Garbage or The Smashing Pumpkins. There's actually plenty when I think of it: the Foos, RHCP, Nick Cave, Radiohead, Manics, PJ Harvey, Air and so on, so on. Such a diverse decade too. I agree, the oldies didn't maybe shine through, but bands like Aerosmith and the Stones still managed to produce their last great songs. Queen were younger though, so I assume their creativity would have been higher. Middle and late forties is still not a bad age for musicians. |
| Queen2thebest 08.05.2020 16:31 |
Feel I have to defend the 90s here and say I think it receives plenty of unfair flak. I was born in '76 so entering the mid 90s I had bands and a scene I could follow, Britpop. Ok, lot of it was influenced heavily by the 60s Kinks/Beatles etc. And if OK Computer is mentioned, I'd have to say Dog man star by Suede. Masterpiece. 90s also had good dance tunes, I confess there were awful songs too, but compared to today it was amazing. Loved going to the pub with 50 quid in my pocket and knowing I'd have a great night out, good tunes on the jukebox. That's reason I'll always have soft spot for the 90s |
| brENsKi 09.05.2020 05:55 |
Queen2thebest wrote:Feel I have to defend the 90s here and say I think it receives plenty of unfair flak. .... Loved going to the pub with 50 quid in my pocket and knowing I'd have a great night out, good tunes on the jukebox. That's reason I'll always have soft spot for the 90si think you've probably (accidentally) hit upon the key to why people prefer/think specific music decades are better. when all is said and done - for most - it's about chronistic relevance. usually this is about our early teens - when we start to appreciate music, or when we first start going out as an adult. for some (like myself) there's also the influence of what our parents listened to - which can result in two "favoured" periods. |
| Queen2thebest 09.05.2020 08:38 |
Parents influence can be immense. In my house it was Elvis, Queen, Motown etc. Surprisingly my love of the Doors, Led Zep etc didn't go down well when I blasted it from bedroom, Queen they didn't mind. Guitar bands today are up against it. Looked at the top 10 singles this morning. I've heard of Drake and that's it. Stormzy is an anti white cock, the things he says. And lot of the singles are always 'featuring' another artist |
| Serry... 09.05.2020 14:42 |
|
| brENsKi 09.05.2020 18:12 |
Serry... wrote:excellent spot. |
| Queen2thebest 09.05.2020 19:35 |
Renegade...what a game on speccy! |
| kosimodo 11.05.2020 19:32 |
Still havent heard or seen that drake guy.. (girl?) And... link Couldnt resist :p |