| GERRYISADICK 20.08.2014 14:48 |
Queen was no doubt one of the greatest rock bands of all time but some people do not admit it. Some even discredit their massive albums sales as none of the main albums ever went to the heights of greatest hits. Queen are also overlooked by many music publications most famously rolling stone which in many of its all time "best" lists mostly keep queen out of the top 10. I mean Queen are obviously the best of the best why don't people recognize them for it. |
| Doga 20.08.2014 15:35 |
Believe or not Queen are very mainstreamey, in England they are probably the biggest band there along with the Beatles, and for a country with bands like The Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zepellin, Rolling Stones, Muse and many others is saying a lot. If you ask for good press reviews, who cares? mainstream media is more worried in sell and gain attention than in show the most important news, and usually are moved by interest. Queen were never a ''press-friendly'' band, and that affect in their reviews. Rolling Stone were never keen with Queen, we don't now the reasons. And to tell the truth, even the band member were never worried about the press, they were more worried about their music, their parties and the fans, is a spiral, the band don't care about the press-the press don't care about the band-the band don't care about the press... And be glad it is that way, when a band/singer have to trust is the press or the social media to stay in the showbiz is because they aren't very talented. |
| mooghead 20.08.2014 15:44 |
"The Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zepellin, Rolling Stones, MUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I am actually laughing out loud on my own in my flat like a lunatic! |
| AlbaNo1 20.08.2014 16:38 |
There are some bands who have untouchable status like the Stones, but there are other "fun" rock bands who have massive sales but dont necessarily get critical acclaim such as Kiss. Id say Queen are somewhere in between in music media perception. Rightly or wrongly. Although check out this,Queen have still got a sh!tload of platinum sales in the US. Theres just more competition from other genres there. link |
| winterspelt 21.08.2014 00:05 |
If you want to find Queen's place in rock, just remember that Queen, despite the fact that they were ignored, overlooked or attacked by the media, are still selling loads of records, selling gigs all around the world, even when they did some weird/awful experiments (Q+5ive, Wycleff, etc etc) their reputation as a band is still as strong as ever, their music is still strong even after Freddie's death. Their reputation and legacy are almost intact and despite the fact that some fans claims Queen died in 1991, as far as I can see, Brian, Roger, Freddie and John are as strong as ever. |
| The Real Wizard 21.08.2014 04:35 |
mooghead wrote: "The Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zepellin, Rolling Stones, MUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I am actually laughing out loud on my own in my flat like a lunatic!Really? Muse are the only British band to have consistent success in the US in the last 20 years. And they can sell out Wembley on multiple nights. The way Queen were incorporating other styles of music into what they were doing in the 70s is exactly what Muse are doing right now. They are excellent players and composers, relevant, and commercially successful. I can't name a single rock band from the last two decades who have achieved what they have achieved. Can you? Indeed, this may not put them in the same league as Zeppelin or The Who - but they're the only British band in the last couple decades who have come remotely close. Sorry for hijacking the thread. |
| McFluid 21.08.2014 06:08 |
^ | Mate i think you forgot Oasis. They achieved a lot more than Muse in the last two decades. Muse are of course better musicians than Oasis, but the Gallagher's band sold a lot more, got the masses involved. Everyone back in the mid 90's wanted to look and act like Liam Gallagher. they wrote classical rock hymns, that got played on the radio a lot more than Muse's succesful singles, i bet just Wonderwall beat any of muse singles in terms of selling, playlist on radio etc. And they changed the history of the music, got a lot of records (selling records, fast sold out of gigs, Knebworth 250.000 people, awards etc etc). Muse is a great band, they can sell out a gig in a stadium very fast, their shows are very powerful. But in terms of rock history i don't think they added much as oasis did in their best days. |
| Costa86 21.08.2014 06:11 |
In my view, which is probably biased because of my huge Queen fandom, Queen are considered the biggest band ever in the UK. Bigger than The Beatles I'd say, although The Beatles were probably more popular in their time, and also possibly a better band. In terms of fame, I think Michael Jackson is the only dead rock star more famous than Freddie Mercury right now. Freddie's never been as big as he is now. You get 14 year old girls going crazy for him on Facebook, it's unbelievable. Elvis and John Lennon would come third and fourth. |
| McFluid 21.08.2014 06:27 |
Costa86 wrote: In my view, which is probably biased because of my huge Queen fandom, Queen are considered the biggest band ever in the UK. Bigger than The Beatles I'd say, although The Beatles were probably more popular in their time, and also possibly a better band. In terms of fame, I think Michael Jackson is the only dead rock star more famous than Freddie Mercury right now. Freddie's never been as big as he is now. You get 14 year old girls going crazy for him on Facebook, it's unbelievable. Elvis and John Lennon would come third and fourth.the top 5 of dead rock star in my point of view is Lennon Hendrix Mercury Cobain Elvis |
| mooghead 21.08.2014 06:30 |
"and also possibly a better band." Curious to know what you mean by this? |
| Vocal harmony 21.08.2014 09:29 |
The Real Wizard wrote:A good point. Muse are huge, and have kept a true musical thread and never sold out. in fact it could be argued that Queens stadium level success in Europe and the UK came after they had more or less forgotton their roots and become a more comercial pop band.mooghead wrote: "The Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zepellin, Rolling Stones, MUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I am actually laughing out loud on my own in my flat like a lunatic!Really? Muse are the only British band to have consistent success in the US in the last 20 years. And they can sell out Wembley on multiple nights. The way Queen were incorporating other styles of music into what they were doing in the 70s is exactly what Muse are doing right now. They are excellent players and composers, relevant, and commercially successful. I can't name a single rock band from the last two decades who have achieved what they have achieved. Can you? Indeed, this may not put them in the same league as Zeppelin or The Who - but they're the only British band in the last couple decades who have come remotely close. Sorry for hijacking the thread. Muse have never done that, and their live presentation is truly awsome. A far better and bigger band on the world stage than Oasis, who at the hight of their fame looked like a bunch of guys playing a pub gig. |
| malicedoom 21.08.2014 11:16 |
The Greatest Rock Band Ever. Fuck what 'they' think. |
| GERRYISADICK 21.08.2014 11:17 |
^^^^ Yes! |
| Bo Alex 21.08.2014 12:57 |
The Who is a very overrated band. Not in the same league as the big 5 from the UK: Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Floyd and Queen. |
| GERRYISADICK 21.08.2014 12:59 |
Queen last you are a motherfucker |
| The Real Wizard 21.08.2014 13:58 |
McFluid wrote: Everyone back in the mid 90's wanted to look and act like Liam Gallagher. they wrote classical rock hymns, that got played on the radio a lot more than Muse's succesful singles, i bet just Wonderwall beat any of muse singles in terms of selling, playlist on radio etc.Fair play, and you're definitely right. I remember in the 90s how people were comparing Oasis to the Beatles and how ludicrous it sounded at the time, but in hindsight I can't name a single musician of the last 30 years who inspired millions to want a haircut like them. That said - I think Muse will still ultimately come out on top because they have staying power. They have been consistently relevant and successful for over a decade now, while Oasis were more of a fad that lasted a few years (but a big one!!) because of the in-fighting. But ever so often it's conflict that breeds great art. |
| The Real Wizard 21.08.2014 13:59 |
Costa86 wrote: In terms of fame, I think Michael Jackson is the only dead rock star more famous than Freddie Mercury right now. Freddie's never been as big as he is now. You get 14 year old girls going crazy for him on Facebook, it's unbelievable. Elvis and John Lennon would come third and fourth.There's no way Mercury is more popular in death than John Lennon. Lennon was an ambassador for peace and literally changed the world with his music and actions. Freddie would be the first person to tell you he was not bigger than any of The Beatles. |
| The Real Wizard 21.08.2014 14:01 |
Bo Alex wrote: The Who is a very overrated band. Not in the same league as the big 5 from the UK: Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Floyd and Queen.Then make it a top six. The Who were extremely innovative as a live band in the 60s. Watch the Smothers Brothers footage. They wrote the fu&king book. Tommy, Who's Next and Quadrophenia are easily more beloved and influential than any three Queen studio albums. We all love Queen here, but we need to take our blinders off and see the bigger picture. |
| brENsKi 21.08.2014 14:15 |
Costa86 wrote: In my view, which is probably biased because of my huge Queen fandom, Queen are considered the biggest band ever in the UK. Bigger than The Beatles I'd say, although The Beatles were probably more popular in their time, and also possibly a better band. on what basis? - ok let's face some facts here: beatles vs queen in their home UK territory: beatles 17 no1 singles / queen 5 no1 singles beatles 8 no1 EPs / queen 0 no1 EPs beatles 11 no1 albums / queen 7 no1 albums best selling original album titles: Sgt Pepper - 1,000,000 ANATO - 300,000 worldwide album sales: beatles - 2,300,500,000 queen - 350,000,000 the number of beatles albums being sold equates to one for every three people living on the planet. the figure for queen is one in every 20 people on the planet. the only UK thing that queen actually trump the beatles at is sales of Greatest Hits albums - 6 million for greatest hits vol 1. but then the beatles already won the singles argument with the number of no1s. |
| GERRYISADICK 21.08.2014 14:17 |
The beatles are overrated more then any band in history all their songs suck |
| Chief Mouse 21.08.2014 14:34 |
That's a bold statement Jeff. |
| The Real Wizard 21.08.2014 14:37 |
Jefffabiano wrote: The beatles are overrated more then any band in history all their songs suckIf you are remotely a fan of rock music and think that a) Revolver isn't a good or important album or b) The Beatles were not at the forefront of the evolution of music recording in the 60s, you need a full lobotomy. link Please make sure your next post indicates that you have more than a double digit IQ. |
| GERRYISADICK 21.08.2014 14:56 |
No I admit the beatles are integral to the history of rock and the history of recording . But there have been better groups. |
| Oscar J 21.08.2014 17:30 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Please make sure your next post indicates that you have more than a double digit IQ. Hey, 99 is alright. |
| Oscar J 21.08.2014 17:38 |
The Real Wizard wrote: There's no way Mercury is more popular in death than John Lennon. Lennon was an ambassador for peace and literally changed the world with his music and actions. Freddie would be the first person to tell you he was not bigger than any of The Beatles.Don't know about that, there really is an almost exaggerated FM hype going on these days. |
| Oscar J 21.08.2014 17:38 |
D'oh, double post. |
| Oscar J 21.08.2014 17:43 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Tommy, Who's Next and Quadrophenia are easily more beloved and influential than any three Queen studio albums.Interesting statement. While I agree that Queen never really were a very influential band, I think it's safe to say that for example ANATO, NOTW and The Game, for example, are more "beloved" albums. PS: Keith Moon rocks. |
| MadTheSwine73 21.08.2014 18:13 |
Jefffabiano wrote: The beatles are overrated more then any band in history all their songs suckPretty sure this statement alone confirms the fact that you're an absolute idiot, and nothing you say should be taken seriously. Overrated? Maybe. But you can't deny their influence, however big or small, on every rock group that followed. All their songs suck? That's ridiculous, for almost any artist. To say that you genuinely can't enjoy a single Beatles song, I think, is untrue. I'll be honest here, I'm being biased, as they're my favourite artist, in a three way tie between both Bob Dylan and Queen, of course. |
| GERRYISADICK 21.08.2014 18:30 |
Mad I admit they had influence but all their songs sound the same to me and just because I dont like the Beatles does not mean Im an idiot |
| MadTheSwine73 21.08.2014 18:32 |
Jefffabiano wrote: Mad I admit they had influence but all their songs sound the same to me and just because I dont like the Beatles does not mean Im an idiotI didn't say that you not liking them makes you an idiot, I said that making a statement like that makes you an idiot. |
| GERRYISADICK 21.08.2014 18:35 |
I was not denying their influence just pointing out the fact they are put on such a high pedestal compared to other bands |
| Self Made Man 21.08.2014 18:59 |
It's really not fair calling Queen the best band ever, cause there's so much great ones around, and they're all so different. Actually it's not fair to call any band/artist the best ever. I'd rather say there are some levels of quality (of artistry maybe?), which musicians can reach, and Queen is high as hell, but they're not alone tho. The influence they had to the industry and etc. is another thing, cause Michael Jackson for example is probably one of the most important people in music, he reinvented music videos (he called them short films btw), opened gates for black musicians on MTV, released the best selling album ever, created the most expensive short film ever, sold out 5 Wembleys in row during his first solo tour and everything, but does it mean rest of the artists are shit? Hell no! Sorry if I screwed up something, english is my second language, and it was whole lots of text to write for me :D. |
| Bo Alex 21.08.2014 23:20 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Yeah, probably you're right. I'm from Argentina. Here The Who aren't a real big deal. That fact changes for sure in the UK and maybe in the States. I always considered them in a second lot of big bands, with acts like Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, The Doors and AC DC, among others. That's the impression I've got from my country and being a Queen fan since my childhood.Bo Alex wrote: The Who is a very overrated band. Not in the same league as the big 5 from the UK: Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Floyd and Queen.Then make it a top six. The Who were extremely innovative as a live band in the 60s. Watch the Smothers Brothers footage. They wrote the fu&king book. Tommy, Who's Next and Quadrophenia are easily more beloved and influential than any three Queen studio albums. We all love Queen here, but we need to take our blinders off and see the bigger picture. If you ask me, it would be: 1-Queen 2-Zeppelin 3-Beatles 4- Pink Floyd I really don't like the Stones much, but I recognized the place they earned in rock music history. By the way, Muse are really great, I love them and I've seen them live many times. But I think they "sold out" in the past two albums while they gained a lot of popularity. Radiohead are also a great "modern era" rock band. Oasis is a huge seller but a big meh artistically. |
| winterspelt 22.08.2014 00:31 |
I wont say Beatles suck but to me things are very much this: Sir George Martin > Beatles |
| jondickens1 22.08.2014 01:01 |
Has anyone mentioned The Rolling Stones? Arguably bigger than The Beatles I'd say due to 1) The longevity and 2) Their live performances. And it's the live stage act which will be for me Queen's reason for being top of the pile here. It's not all about album sales worldwide. |
| FlorianS 22.08.2014 01:02 |
Is there any other band on this planet mich does actually CLAIM their place in rock history as much as Queen do? I have the impression that they are not getting tired of telling us, that they invented music video, did Bohemian Rhapsody,. played behind the iron curtain, stole the show at Live Aid, headlined Rock in Rio, conquered South America etc etc, Is there any other band around which insists on their place in rock history that much? |
| brENsKi 22.08.2014 01:26 |
Jefffabiano wrote: but all their songs sound the same to methen i'll say to you what i say to others that utter such unimittigated shite....go away and have a proper listen to Rubber Soul, Revolver, Abbey Road & Sgt Pepper Jefffabiano wrote: and just because I dont like the Beatles does not mean Im an idiotit does when you make statements like this: Jefffabiano wrote:The beatles are overrated more then any band in history all their songs suck |
| ANAGRAMER 22.08.2014 01:40 |
The Real Wizard wrote:You forgot about Coldplay...mooghead wrote: "The Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zepellin, Rolling Stones, MUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I am actually laughing out loud on my own in my flat like a lunatic!Really? Muse are the only British band to have consistent success in the US in the last 20 years. And they can sell out Wembley on multiple nights. The way Queen were incorporating other styles of music into what they were doing in the 70s is exactly what Muse are doing right now. They are excellent players and composers, relevant, and commercially successful. I can't name a single rock band from the last two decades who have achieved what they have achieved. Can you? Indeed, this may not put them in the same league as Zeppelin or The Who - but they're the only British band in the last couple decades who have come remotely close. Sorry for hijacking the thread. |
| Chief Mouse 22.08.2014 01:44 |
ANAGRAMER wrote:The Real Wizard wrote:You forgot about Coldplay...mooghead wrote: "The Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zepellin, Rolling Stones, MUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I am actually laughing out loud on my own in my flat like a lunatic!Really? Muse are the only British band to have consistent success in the US in the last 20 years. And they can sell out Wembley on multiple nights. The way Queen were incorporating other styles of music into what they were doing in the 70s is exactly what Muse are doing right now. They are excellent players and composers, relevant, and commercially successful. I can't name a single rock band from the last two decades who have achieved what they have achieved. Can you? Indeed, this may not put them in the same league as Zeppelin or The Who - but they're the only British band in the last couple decades who have come remotely close. Sorry for hijacking the thread. They are not really a rock band, are they? |
| Rho-d Berth 22.08.2014 03:46 |
I think that the Stones and the Beatles are the most famour, biggest bands ever. Though Queen seems to last longer, still I regularly hear Queen music on the radio. I hardly hear Beatles or Stones. And I think that "We are the Champions", "We will rock you" and "Bohemian Rhapsody" are the most famous songs in their own worldwide. I doubt there are many (non traditional) songs that may be as famous like those songs. So maybe Queen as a band / trademark / power generating machine / hit machine may not be on the same level as Beatles / Stones. The artistic product of Queen however is afaics larger then what the Stones/Beatles produced. |
| McFluid 22.08.2014 08:32 |
^ Nirvana. |
| brENsKi 22.08.2014 09:27 |
Rho-d Berth wrote:The artistic product of Queen however is afaics larger then what the Stones/Beatles produced.i think that the fact that queen's only huge-selling Uk album is their greatest hits - shows a certain narrowness/smallness in their artistic product - afa the general music buyer is concernd. the beatles best selling (UK) original album outsells Queen's best-seller 3 to 1 look at the worldwide album figures - much more depth best selling original album titles: Sgt Pepper - 1,000,000 ANATO - 300,000 worldwide album sales: beatles - 2,300,500,000 queen - 350,000,000 as for the stones, i've never liked them, but have to admit again, queen are behind them in the pecking order. the point here is people should stand back and take their own personal preferences out of these discussions...objectivity is the key |
| Costa86 22.08.2014 10:13 |
mooghead wrote: "and also possibly a better band." Curious to know what you mean by this?The Beatles have surely made a bigger mark on music than Queen, and I dare say most of their songs are lyrically superior to Queen's. Melodically, they also have some excellent material. |
| Costa86 22.08.2014 10:16 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Costa86 wrote: In terms of fame, I think Michael Jackson is the only dead rock star more famous than Freddie Mercury right now. Freddie's never been as big as he is now. You get 14 year old girls going crazy for him on Facebook, it's unbelievable. Elvis and John Lennon would come third and fourth.There's no way Mercury is more popular in death than John Lennon. Lennon was an ambassador for peace and literally changed the world with his music and actions. Freddie would be the first person to tell you he was not bigger than any of The Beatles. I really don't know about that. Yes, Lennon left a bigger mark on the world. But in terms of how popular he is right know, I don't think as many younger people are interested in him as they are in Freddie. |
| Costa86 22.08.2014 10:20 |
brENsKi wrote:You have a point. In terms of statistics The Beatles do seem more popular in Britain, as a group. But statistics aren't everything. Also keep in mind that Queen are still active, while The Beatles were last active in 1970. So there isn't any recent news or activity from the Paul and Ringo, in terms of The Beatles.Costa86 wrote: In my view, which is probably biased because of my huge Queen fandom, Queen are considered the biggest band ever in the UK. Bigger than The Beatles I'd say, although The Beatles were probably more popular in their time, and also possibly a better band.on what basis? - ok let's face some facts here: beatles vs queen in their home UK territory: beatles 17 no1 singles / queen 5 no1 singles beatles 8 no1 EPs / queen 0 no1 EPs beatles 11 no1 albums / queen 7 no1 albums best selling original album titles: Sgt Pepper - 1,000,000 ANATO - 300,000 worldwide album sales: beatles - 2,300,500,000 queen - 350,000,000 the number of beatles albums being sold equates to one for every three people living on the planet. the figure for queen is one in every 20 people on the planet. the only UK thing that queen actually trump the beatles at is sales of Greatest Hits albums - 6 million for greatest hits vol 1. but then the beatles already won the singles argument with the number of no1s. |
| Costa86 22.08.2014 10:21 |
Well The Beatles are in the news right now aren't they? Those ISIS bastards. |
| Holly2003 22.08.2014 10:28 |
Other UK bands with worldwide success: ELO, The Police, Dire Straits, Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, Def Leppard, Deep Purple, and U2 (if you stretch UK to "British Isles"). From Wiki: ELO: From 1972 to 1986, ELO accumulated 27 Top-40 hit singles in both the UK and the US, with 20 Top 20 UK singles and 15 Top-20 US singles (as charted by Billboard magazine). The band also holds the record for having the most Billboard Hot 100 Top 40 hits, 20, of any group in US chart history without ever having a number one single. ELO collected 19 CRIA, 21 RIAA and 38 BPI awards,[5][6] and sold over 50 million records worldwide during the group's original 13 year period of active recording and touring. Dire Straits: they became one of the world's most commercially successful bands, with worldwide album sales of over 120 million. Dire Straits won numerous music awards during their career, including four Grammy Awards, three Brit Awards—winning Best British Group twice, and two MTV Video Music Awards. The Police: sold more than 75 million records worldwide and were the world's highest-earning musicians in 2008, thanks to their reunion tour. The band has won a number of music awards throughout their career, including six Grammy Awards, two Brit Awards—winning Best British Group once, an MTV Video Music Award, and in 2003 were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Four of their five studio albums appeared on Rolling Stone's list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. The Police were included among both Rolling Stone's and VH1's lists of the "100 Greatest Artists of All Time". U2: are among the all-time best-selling music artists, having sold more than 150 million records worldwide. They have won 22 Grammy Awards, more than any other band, and in 2005, they were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in their first year of eligibility. Rolling Stone ranked U2 at number 22 in its list of the "100 Greatest Artists of All Time" Black Sabbath are also worth a mention: They were ranked by MTV as the "Greatest Metal Band" of all time, and placed second in VH1's "100 Greatest Artists of Hard Rock" list. Rolling Stone magazine ranked them number 85 in their "100 Greatest Artists of All Time". They have sold over 70 million records worldwide. Black Sabbath were inducted into the UK Music Hall of Fame in 2005 and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2006. They have also won two Grammy Awards for Best Metal Performance. Deep Purple: over 100 million albums sold worldwide. Iron Maiden: sold over 85 million records worldwide |
| Mr. Bed Guy 22.08.2014 13:42 |
Beatles, Stones , Led Zep and others are untouchable. Queen had an untouchable status up to 10-15 years ago, but the numerous eeehm, "activities" of remaining band members (Queen + xyz, musical, etc.) diluted their memorization and status in public. That's my opinium. Therefore I hate these collaborations etc., especially the latest with that painted kid. Sorry. |
| mooghead 22.08.2014 15:19 |
Costa86 wrote:Can only agree, it's just the word 'better' means nothing when it comes to comparisons. When it comes to making a 'mark' on popular music the Beatles are at 100% and Queen are floating at about 15.....mooghead wrote: "and also possibly a better band." Curious to know what you mean by this?The Beatles have surely made a bigger mark on music than Queen, and I dare say most of their songs are lyrically superior to Queen's. Melodically, they also have some excellent material. |
| mooghead 22.08.2014 15:20 |
But I don't think the Beatles were better at their respective instruments... its a paradox... |
| The Real Wizard 22.08.2014 16:16 |
Jefffabiano wrote: I was not denying their influence just pointing out the fact they are put on such a high pedestal compared to other bandsAs they should be. They have impacted music and popular culture like no other artists in the last half century. |
| GERRYISADICK 22.08.2014 16:21 |
Really its all hype. |
| The Real Wizard 22.08.2014 16:39 |
Hype? Do you have any idea of how many artists of the past 50 years were inspired to create music because of The Beatles? Hate to break it to you, but Queen is one of them. You'll be hard pressed to find any artist from the late 60s or 70s who wouldn't cite The Beatles as being an influence in some way. |
| GERRYISADICK 22.08.2014 16:40 |
Does not mean they are the best |
| The Real Wizard 22.08.2014 16:42 |
Nobody's talking about "best" here. That is arbitrary and based on opinion. Music isn't a contest. We're talking about actual measurable influence. To say all their songs suck is a completely ignorant and incorrect statement to make, considering the influence they've had on musicians and popular culture over the last 50 years. |
| GERRYISADICK 22.08.2014 16:43 |
Its all shitty love songs |
| The Real Wizard 22.08.2014 16:48 |
Through 1965 they're mostly love songs, yes. But have you even listened to Revolver, Sgt Pepper, the White Album or Abbey Road? Until then, I suggest you stop expressing opinions about music you haven't even listened to. |
| GERRYISADICK 22.08.2014 16:49 |
I did listen to it in school in music class Hated then hate it now |
| The Real Wizard 22.08.2014 17:01 |
Is that where you learned Dear Prudence was a love song? |
| GERRYISADICK 22.08.2014 17:02 |
Its still shitty |
| Doga 22.08.2014 18:58 |
Sports fan maybe know a man called Johan Cruyff, once he said when asked for his favourite moment in football (in a different language, so i'll translate the best as i can): People are obssesed making lists, rankings, and picking their favourites, i can't do that, i can't pick just one moment i enjoyed all my career, or for example, who is my favourite children? I can't pick one, i just enjoy the time i spend with them. With women is easy because i only have one wife. (is an extract of a video interview). That means, don't worry trying to know what is the ''best of'', or who is better musician or who sell more. just enjoy the wonderful music of Queen, and if you like other bands enjoy them too, no matter popularity. |
| GERRYISADICK 22.08.2014 19:04 |
Right but the Beatles still fucking suck |
| Sheer Brass Neck 22.08.2014 22:05 |
^^^ Yep, and you're an imbecile posting shit on the internet, how much do you suck? |
| GERRYISADICK 22.08.2014 22:16 |
This is what im talking about Im just saying my opinion and you are all attacking me |
| brENsKi 23.08.2014 06:31 |
Jefffabiano wrote: Right but the Beatles still fucking suckjeez-H-christ !!!! you're incredible. - so the people across the planet who own one of the 2.3 billion beatles albums sold are all gormless fucks who also suck? have YOU any idea how moronic and ridiculous your comments are? go and do one you f**king imbecilic cretin. Jefffabiano wrote: Its all shitty love songswhile their early influences were based in rock n roll - elvis, perkins, cochran, holly and even some orbison, their later stuff is an entirely different story. the second half of their recording career is astonishing in it's variety and arrangement. FACT: The Beatles style and the genres of music they produced between 65-70 varied more than queen's did thru the second 5 years of their recording career. just a few of the examples you can definitely hear in their "2nd half" to consider: folk. victorian ballad, rhythm & blues, psychedelia, metal, music hall, ragtime, rock, soul, country rock, vaudeville, blues, country & western, celtic, classical, baroque and eastern (Indian). You can say what you like, but to compartmentalize them as "it's all shitty loves songs" - proves you to be nothing more than a musical Phillistine and queen-stepford to boot. You disregard groups like the beatles at your own cultural and musical cost - it's your loss - and on that score i pity your ignorance. |
| AlbaNo1 23.08.2014 06:34 |
As for Muse, I have all their albums and they are my sort of band. But in terms of place in history I wouldnt say they are in the public consciousness to any great extent. People aged 10 to 80 will all be able to name Queen/Stones/Beatles/Deep Purple/Zep songs but I dont think so with Muse. They have not transcended to that level. |
| The King Of Rhye 23.08.2014 10:30 |
Jefffabiano wrote: Its still shittyMajor League reference? lol................... Seriously though..............I think anyone that thinks that of the Beatles doesnt know what hes talking about............... |
| GERRYISADICK 23.08.2014 12:19 |
Dear God really is every person in the world supposed to love the beatles |
| brENsKi 23.08.2014 12:45 |
Jefffabiano wrote: Dear God really is every person in the world supposed to love the beatlesnot love. appreciate. read my reply |
| GERRYISADICK 23.08.2014 13:01 |
Sorry they are not the best there are to many other great bands |
| mooghead 23.08.2014 13:13 |
Jefffabiano wrote: This is what im talking about Im just saying my opinion and you are all attacking meYou know that thing where you rub your thumb and index finger at someone and say you are playing the worlds smallest violin just for them? I am doing that.. at you xxx |
| Doga 23.08.2014 15:51 |
Let's be polite, and let's do a little experiment. Hey Jeff, listen to this songs, they are some songs i like from the 60's to now. There are more, these are just a tease. Don't listen to them doing rankings or classifing them or comparing that songs with Queen. Just listen to them trying to enjoy the music, and then, tell me if you like them or not. The Beatles - Tomorrow Never Knows link The Beatles - Helter Skelter link Rolling Stones - Paint It Black link The Who - Heaven and Hell link Led Zeppelin - Kashmir link Pink Floyd - Confortably Numb link Pink Floyd - Echoes link Jane's addiction - Three Days link Blur - Song 2 link Moby - Look Back In link Muse - Blackout link Muse - Plug In Baby link Edit: what the hell, let's add Jene's Adiction and Moby. |
| GERRYISADICK 23.08.2014 16:10 |
I quite like a good portion of them |
| winterspelt 23.08.2014 16:42 |
Suddenly if one doesnt love Beatles its worst than Florence Foster-Jenkins... |
| GERRYISADICK 23.08.2014 16:46 |
Who |
| Doga 23.08.2014 16:50 |
I didn't knew her, quite a lady. link |
| winterspelt 23.08.2014 17:18 |
Jefffabiano wrote: WhoThis lovely lady: link |
| GERRYISADICK 23.08.2014 17:20 |
Ok the beatles are better than That |
| Sheldon 23.08.2014 17:24 |
I'm sorry to all of you who like/love/adore the Beatles, but I've actually listened to most of their songs and tried to like them. I just can't. They have many catchy tunes, which are nice to listen to every now and then, but mostly I find their music boring sounding and they totally lack the energy that Freddie had and that Mick Jagger has to some extent. If you don't really understand what I mean, listen to the first minute of Who Wants to Live Forever. The few lines sung by Brian are simply horrible in my opinion and the contrast when Freddie starts singing is gigantic. And The Beatles sound to me like those few lines by Brian. They're anemic sounding and looking (like most bands are) and they don't have any larger than life songs or extremely touching or melodic songs and that's why I don't enjoy The Beatles. But what do I know, I enjoy most of the stuff Katy Perry releases and I find AL a better frontman for Queen than Paul Rodgers, George Michael and Robbie Williams combined... |
| Doga 23.08.2014 17:30 |
Sheldon wrote: ... the Beatles, but I've actually listened to most of their songs and tried to like them. I just can't.Is quite all right, everyone should have his own opinion. first minute of Who Wants to Live Forever. The few lines sung by Brian are simply horrible I enjoy most of the stuff Katy Perry releasesI really hope you are trolling. Please, tell me you are a russian troll. |
| Sheldon 23.08.2014 17:33 |
Also, I would like to add something that is relevant to this topic. I would say that while Queen were a little late to the party when it comes to revolutionising pop/rock music, they still are in one way bigger than some other bands that constantly receive more praise. The Stones for example are everywhere with their tongue logo and Jagger ("I've got the moves like Jagger, got the moves like Jagger...), but do people really know and enjoy their music? If you ask people anywhere in the world to name 5 or 10 songs by the Stones and by Queen, I'm pretty sure Queen will win by a far marging. And we're talking about a relatively old band here, not that much younger than the Stones. Same if the questions is in the style of "do you like Queen or the Stones more?". And still our popular culture is full of references to The Stones (and Ramones and Sex Pistols and G'n'R), but relatively few references to Queen and Freddie. |
| Sheldon 23.08.2014 17:41 |
Doga wrote:No, I'm sorry, if I hurt your feelings, but I'm not trolling. I find myself singing along to almost every single Katy Perry song that comes on the radio and I enjoy them. And so do millions of people around the world, there's nothing wrong with it. And it doesn't mean I don't have the right to enjoy and love Queen and Freddie Mercury.Sheldon wrote: ... the Beatles, but I've actually listened to most of their songs and tried to like them. I just can't.Is quite all right, everyone should have his own opinion.first minute of Who Wants to Live Forever. The few lines sung by Brian are simply horribleI enjoy most of the stuff Katy Perry releasesI really hope you are trolling. Please, tell me you are a russian troll. And what comes to Brian's anemic singing, well, it used to be horrible. I rarely listen to the studio version of '39, one of my favourite Queen songs, because of this. I don't enjoy his mumbling, especially when some seconds later in WWTLF Freddie kicks in and shows us how it's supposed to be done. But I have to admit that he does a terrific job on Another World (the song, but also on the album). |
| Doga 23.08.2014 18:39 |
Don't worry mate, my feelings are not hurt, and as i said is ok to have your own music taste, is just i find it strange. I for example prefer the '39 of the studio. Freddie sings better than Brian, no question, but Brian put his soul in that song, adding a dark tone over it, the way Freddie sings it live is more fun, but something is also lost. |
| GERRYISADICK 23.08.2014 23:04 |
Ok sorry for all I said turns out one of my favorite versions of a song was a Beatles version so sorry |
| mike hunt 24.08.2014 00:27 |
queen are my favourite band, but the Beatles are really at number one, then the stones, zep, the who, Hendrix experience, Floyd are 6th. then the mighty queen at 7. The Doors, Sabbath, maybe rush. obviously this list is debatable. |
| mooghead 24.08.2014 01:56 |
Don't forget Muse ;-) |
| mike hunt 24.08.2014 02:12 |
muse are not top ten, good band though |
| queenside 24.08.2014 03:26 |
Sheldon wrote: Also, I would like to add something that is relevant to this topic. I would say that while Queen were a little late to the party when it comes to revolutionising pop/rock music, they still are in one way bigger than some other bands that constantly receive more praise. The Stones for example are everywhere with their tongue logo and Jagger ("I've got the moves like Jagger, got the moves like Jagger...), but do people really know and enjoy their music? If you ask people anywhere in the world to name 5 or 10 songs by the Stones and by Queen, I'm pretty sure Queen will win by a far marging. And we're talking about a relatively old band here, not that much younger than the Stones. Same if the questions is in the style of "do you like Queen or the Stones more?". And still our popular culture is full of references to The Stones (and Ramones and Sex Pistols and G'n'R), but relatively few references to Queen and Freddie.true about those bands but queen is also big part of pop culture. and they have more known songs than almost any other band. and freddie had became an internet meme while jagger, axl or ramones didn't. and you can find their songs often in commercials and also in movies. |
| brENsKi 24.08.2014 03:45 |
mike hunt wrote: queen are my favourite band, but the Beatles are really at number one, then the stones, zep, the who, Hendrix experience, Floyd are 6th. then the mighty queen at 7. The Doors, Sabbath, maybe rush. obviously this list is debatable.you know Mike - we've disagreed on some things here - but this ^^ is well, spot on. althought the running order from 2-6 is up for debate - then names are correct. pity the stepfords can't see this |
| brENsKi 24.08.2014 03:51 |
Jefffabiano wrote: Ok sorry for all I said turns out one of my favorite versions of a song was a Beatles version so sorrynice one. and if YOU give em a proper chance you'll find more. i'll give you some examples: listen to "while my guitar gently weeps" "something" paperback writer" "rain" and more from the last four/five albums - honestly Jeff, you will love some of it, even if it's a small amount. and for a killer bit of craft...there's a section on "abbey road" - where Lennon was hooked on other things and usually absent from the studio, Harrison hated being in the same room as McCartney and Ringo was off skiing...it's affectionately called the "abbey road medley" (there are actually two sections to it) because every track is approx 1min30 or so of unfinished songs that Macca and GM spliced together into one fantastic piece of recorded work - long before the times of digital editing and 24-track tape machines. please give this piece of loving genius a try - i hope you won't be disappointed. |
| mooghead 24.08.2014 13:39 |
My favourite Beatles song is a bit of a throw away effort from the Help! album (a hideously underrated album) called 'You're Going to Lose that Girl', I love the way its an answer and reply vocal, something the Beatles should have done a lot more of. And for what its worth I think Katy Perry is a brilliant pop artist, her songs are brilliantly crafted pieces of modern writing, she has a genuinely fantastic voice (I have the Firework multitrack, that lady can sing!), she aint too shabby on the eye either ;-) |
| brENsKi 24.08.2014 16:23 |
it's strange that you say that. because for all of the criticism of their "style" round here. as much as i like and love their later more creative period, i have to say my favourite beatles song - by a long way is also one of their most simplistic - and definitely one for my own funeral song choices: In My Life fantastically complete song - in every way - musical perfection. possibly (IMO) the finest song ever written. |
| mooghead 24.08.2014 16:28 |
I love 'In My Life' the Beatles song I can't stand is 'Nowhere Man'... horrible... |
| GERRYISADICK 24.08.2014 16:34 |
brENsKi wrote:You got me again I have heard "something" but the elvis versionJefffabiano wrote: Ok sorry for all I said turns out one of my favorite versions of a song was a Beatles version so sorrynice one. and if YOU give em a proper chance you'll find more. i'll give you some examples: listen to "while my guitar gently weeps" "something" paperback writer" "rain" and more from the last four/five albums - honestly Jeff, you will love some of it, even if it's a small amount. and for a killer bit of craft...there's a section on "abbey road" - where Lennon was hooked on other things and usually absent from the studio, Harrison hated being in the same room as McCartney and Ringo was off skiing...it's affectionately called the "abbey road medley" (there are actually two sections to it) because every track is approx 1min30 or so of unfinished songs that Macca and GM spliced together into one fantastic piece of recorded work - long before the times of digital editing and 24-track tape machines. please give this piece of loving genius a try - i hope you won't be disappointed. |
| EDWOOD 24.08.2014 20:54 |
I think that some bands/acts legacies will last for a hell of a long time. The Beatles of course are way up there. I think Queen are also. If there is just one song among an handful that will last in the public arena and known by Joe Public in most countries on the planet it will be Bohemian Rhapsody. It will still be listened to centuries from now, unless something kinda bad happens to the planet ;) Also whoever gave the sales figures for The Beatles and Queen were way out BTW. The Beatles haven't sold anywhere near 1 billion records in total worldwide (singles and albums) - I saw a breakdown done by someone who has spent years researching sales data and their worldwide album sales are around 360- 370 million with around 170 million sold in the US. Queen have sold around 180 million albums worldwide. As their sales in the US are only around 42-45 million they aren't THAT far behind when you look at their sales outside North America compared to The Beatles. A lot of these 'billion records sold' claims are either inflated by the record companies or have been collated by people including all the singles, EPs, albums and in some cases counting every track on an album as a separate album! |
| The King Of Rhye 24.08.2014 23:41 |
Sheldon wrote: If you ask people anywhere in the world to name 5 or 10 songs by the Stones and by Queen, I'm pretty sure Queen will win by a far marging. .Whoa there...........I don't know about that! Let's see, I'd say a lot of people can name Satisfaction, Jumpin Jack Flash, Honky Tonk Women, You Can't Always Get What You Want, Brown Sugar, Paint It Black, Sympathy For The Devil, Start Me Up.......... |
| Bruno P. 25.08.2014 00:37 |
180 million? When Freddie died those numbers were around 150 million, I doubt they only sold 30 million since then. However, we will never know for sure. Whoever did that research will never find out the real numbers as most of those albums aren't properly tracked anyway - oh, and yes, those Beatles figures are insanely overrated. I've seen people claiming that they sold 3 billions. Yes, 3 billions. All I know is that Queen are probably up there with the Stones and Zeppelin as far as album sales go which would be around 300m according to most sources. Queen's place in rock story... that's a tough one. Freddie has become one of the most recognizable faces of the past century. They've made like two or three memes of his legendary Wembley pictures and they're everywhere. In fact here in Brazil there's this guy who dresses as a Silver Freddie. Yes, Silver Freddie. He was a part of arguably the biggest comedy show of our country. For those wondering how he looks like, here's his "homage" to Freddie's 65th b'day, lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a9_KsXpH1I Mercury could 0be up there with Presley and Jackson as the most recognizable singers of our time. Brian May is a legend in his own right alongside Angus, Jimi, Eddie and Jimmy. Roger and John are heralded as some of the best drummers/bassists of their era, and rightly so. Queen helped Purple and Led define Hard Rock music... the piano ballads, the strong rockers, they've recorded some of the most known Hard Rock songs that inspired countless artists. Bohemian Rhapsody is probably up there with Stairway to Heaven as the biggest Hard Rock songs of all time and We Will Rock You, well, it used to scare me when I was a little kid. I heard this chorus when I was young and it freaked me out. It wasn't until I was a teenager and pretty much every kid in my class did the We Will Rock You stomp/clap thing in our desks that I got to know the song. Several drum solos I've heard over the past years would have parts of We Will Rock You thrown in. We are the Champions... nearly every person (Not really, but I just wanna make my point) that's champion at something (Anything, really) would sing bits of the song, not to mention those that made it their anthem. School teams, professional teams, TV ads, etc. Love of my Life... well, every Rock in Rio edition there's a emotional homage to Queen. Not only they stole the show at Live Aid in 1985, they stole the show at RIR as well. 350k people were singing Love of My Life with Queen... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlG5ghOxJ34 So yes, they're one of the most known artists of our time. They inspired a lot of known and aspiring artists, just like the Stones, Beatles and Led. Maybe not as much as them, but some of their songs and melodies, as well as Freddie, are probably second to none. |
| brENsKi 25.08.2014 09:38 |
Bruno P. wrote: Mercury could be up there with Presley and Jackson as the most recognizable singers of our time. Brian May is a legend in his own right alongside Angus, Jimi, Eddie and Jimmy. Roger and John are heralded as some of the best drummers/bassists of their era, and rightly so.Mercury - definitely, May - at a pinch - he's in the top ten in some lists, but in others doesn't make top 20, as for Taylor & Deacon - very seldom are they mentioned outside of queen fandom/circles. Bruno P. wrote: Queen helped Purple and Led define Hard Rock music... the piano ballads, the strong rockers, they've recorded some of the most known Hard Rock songs that inspired countless artists. Bohemian Rhapsody is probably up there with Stairway to Heaven as the biggest Hard Rock songs of all time. So yes, they're one of the most known artists of our time. They inspired a lot of known and aspiring artists, just like the Stones, Beatles and Led. Maybe not as much as them, but some of their songs and melodies, as well as Freddie, are probably second to none.i get your point entirely, but they didn't help define Hard Rock Music - Zep/Purple & Sabbs had already had three GOLD album sellers in the US and four HUGE UK selling albums BEFORE queen's first album even hit the shelves. as a music genre it was already well defined and established. it didn't require any help per se. |
| 12yrslouetta 25.08.2014 14:39 |
Best or most influential? I don't think there's an answer. Alot of musicians back in the day would cite The Beatles as they were doing things in the studio that hadn't been done before. Now there's so much music, so many different genres its impossible. |
| luthorn 25.08.2014 20:39 |
I find Queen live performance a lot better than studio albums. A very versatile band that could turn a 'bad' album (hot space) into a fantastic live sound. The Hot Space tour is one of my favorites. Queen could even make other bands' music sound a lot better: Freddie singing Imagine compared with Lennon, sends Lennon back to music school. I am not sure how Stones or Beatles compare live vis a vis their studio albums, as I do not follow them, but it would be nice to hear your opinion. |
| The King Of Rhye 26.08.2014 02:52 |
brENsKi wrote: ]Mercury - definitely, May - at a pinch - he's in the top ten in some lists, but in others doesn't make top 20, as for Taylor & Deacon - very seldom are they mentioned outside of queen fandom/circles.link Saw this recently..........they called John the 13th most underrated bass player! Kinda cool........ |
| brENsKi 26.08.2014 07:38 |
The King Of Rhye wrote:and underlines my point so well. "underrated" is an even better way of saying "seldom mentioned"brENsKi wrote:]Mercury - definitely, May - at a pinch - he's in the top ten in some lists, but in others doesn't make top 20, as for Taylor & Deacon - very seldom are they mentioned outside of queen fandom/circles.link Saw this recently..........they called John the 13th most underrated bass player! Kinda cool........ |
| Bruno P. 26.08.2014 11:56 |
I totally get what you're saying, but look at this reaction on May as this says it all... the crowd reaction as well as Dave Grohl's reaction @ 6:25 are totally awesome. May's a legend to all those musicians in the 80's and 90's that came after him and this is what made him legendary alongside those names I mentioned earlier, not popular appeal - he's got plenty, but definitely not as much as Page or Van Halen or Hendrix. As for Deacon and Taylor, well, they're one of the most influential players of the 70's, but again not as well known as Jones or Bonham. Hard Rock as a music genre was already defined and established, I didn't say they helped to create it, but Queen definitely helped to define it even further. They explored genres that even Zeppelin would never have thought and brought all those influences to Hard Rock. I have to say that several Hard Rock/Rock musicians from the 80's, 90's and even late 70's already told us that and were influencied by Queen or its musicians in some way, shape or form, not only musically but in terms of live shows, marketing, visually, etc. So of course Queen helped to give Hard Rock its huge pop appeal they had in the 70's, 80's and 90's. I would look for some quotes but we all know how several musicians list Queen (and especially Freddie) as one of their influences. |
| brENsKi 27.08.2014 07:32 |
Bruno P. wrote: As for Deacon and Taylor, well, they're one of the most influential players of the 70's, but again not as well known as Jones or Bonham..or Moon/Entwhistle, or McCartney/Starr or Baker/Bruce or butler/ward or mcvie/fleetwood or lee/peart or waters/mason...and that's just as "beat combos"...when you break it down into just drummers or bassists - then neither would make any top20 poll (unless run by a queen fansite :-) ) |
| Bruno P. 27.08.2014 08:42 |
I don't know if all of those names are bigger than John and Roger, at least when we're talking about Hard Rock, but yes, they're not the biggest names from Queen. Those would be Freddie (arguably the greatest singer & frontman ever - countless publications, magazines, fans & musicians named him the very best) and Brian (constantly picked as one of the most influential guitarists of the 70's), easily. Queen as a band has a bigger impact than those names, unless we're talking about Freddie. (Is he as big as Queen, the band? Can't say for sure...) |