| Mr.Mouth 11.10.2014 09:35 |
Since Freddie died they really did what Freddie predict ,remember when he says "Im just a musical prostitute".. Its hard to admit but itseems that they are thirsty of money,then some Vodka Killer Queen etc,I mean what is next? |
| KumoNin 11.10.2014 10:13 |
They've got more than enough money. |
| brENsKi 11.10.2014 10:17 |
Mr.Mouth wrote: Since Freddie died they really did what Freddie predict ,remember when he says "Im just a musical prostitute".. Its hard to admit but itseems that they are thirsty of money,then some Vodka Killer Queen etc,I mean what is next?you can disapprove all you like - and i do about almost all of the post 1991 stuff. But, consider this: If you had a goose that somehow still produced golden eggs 23 years after its death, would YOU refuse such an easy living? No. you wouldn't. |
| gerry 11.10.2014 11:15 |
Freddie was the one who used to keep May & Taylor in line and as you can now see anything goes in the Queen camp! They used to be a classy elusive group but not anymore and Brian has his fingers in all sorts these days. |
| rocknrolllover 11.10.2014 11:21 |
With Freddie they were creative musicians, without him they lost their charm only Roger still rock from time to time. |
| gerry 11.10.2014 11:28 |
"Charm" is good word to describe the four guys yeah. Brian has done some silly things though like working with " Dappy" and then there was "Wyclef Jean" and "Five" He has done some good work with "Judi Tzuke" and "Jimmy Necco" |
| The Real Wizard 11.10.2014 11:37 |
To demonize Bri and Rog for approving of selling products with the Queen name on it is ridiculous. If you look around in virtually every record store in the civilized world, there are AC/DC, Zeppelin, Beatles, Doors, Floyd and Bob Marley mugs, plates, wallets, buttons and patches. Marshall even has a half-size refrigerator that looks like a amp head and cabinet. link It's 2014. We're in the age of people senselessly spending money on novelty items they don't need. Why not cash in, which also carries the far more important byproduct of keeping your band/company's name in public consciousness ? |
| gerry 11.10.2014 11:52 |
Queen products in record stores are very hard to find but artists like AC/DC, Zeppelin, Doors, Beatles, Floyd etc are ten a penny and easily found. Very strange as Queen are more popular than all those groups. |
| andyb1968 11.10.2014 11:58 |
To be fair I think they are just bad judges sometimes ! The Dappy and Five etc things were all about bringing Queen's music to a younger audience, and guess what, for the most part its worked, and is still working with Glambert ! For us purists we have Rainbow & Let me in your heart again. So far as collaborations go since Queen began there have been some good ones, and some awful ones ! Nothing changes. |
| Mr.Mouth 11.10.2014 12:06 |
brENsKi wrote:Yes I would!Mr.Mouth wrote: Since Freddie died they really did what Freddie predict ,remember when he says "Im just a musical prostitute".. Its hard to admit but itseems that they are thirsty of money,then some Vodka Killer Queen etc,I mean what is next?you can disapprove all you like - and i do about almost all of the post 1991 stuff. But, consider this: If you had a goose that somehow still produced golden eggs 23 years after its death, would YOU refuse such an easy living? No. you wouldn't. |
| gerry 11.10.2014 12:12 |
andyb1968: yes i agree and what i tend to do is just buy the things that a purest Queen fan would go for i.e The rainbow dvd and anything on freddie i think is a good product. |
| Jimmy Dean 11.10.2014 12:14 |
The Real Wizard said it right. No one's ripping off a fan. They're products. The CDs have tracklistings. You know what you're buying. If you buy GH1, GH2, GH3, The Platinum Collection, The Very Best Of Queen, Absolute Queen, GH We Will Rock You Ed, Deep Track 1, 2 and 3, and now Queen Forever... when you already have all the albums... and then you complain Queen is ripping you off... you're the idiot. And if you're complaining Queen is ripping you off because they added 3 new tracks to Queen Forever... so you have to buy the whole album to get it... when you know it's available on iTunes separately... again... you're not being forced to pay for anything. We're in a buyer's market... no one's ripping any one off. People need to filter their needs and wants appropriately. |
| gerry 11.10.2014 12:19 |
yes your right you have to sift the crop and buy what tosses your salad so to speak lol i will be only buying "Let me in your heart again" from Itunes unless Queen have reworked any classic tracks on the new album. |
| Doga 11.10.2014 12:47 |
Let's face it, Brian May and Roger Taylor are evil. They are selling CDs and tickets to music shows, what a monsters!. They should earn their money selling weapons or preying in human weakness like decent citizens do. And to who say they don't do anything cretive since 1991, listen to this: link It was released last year, i didn't know it (my fault), They can do incredible collaborations like this and nothing happens, they use another fella to sing and is the end of the world. |
| brENsKi 11.10.2014 13:07 |
gerry wrote: Queen products in record stores are very hard to find but artists like AC/DC, Zeppelin, Doors, Beatles, Floyd etc are ten a penny and easily found. Very strange as Queen are more popular than all those groups.not on a world level they're not. I've just come back from a holiday in Boston & New England, and queen definitely fall down the pecking order there behind; Beatles, ACDC, Zep, , Michael jackson, Elvis, Madonna Floyd and Mariah Carey and several others. Coincidentally, before you say America is bollox, the USA market is FOUR times that of the UK and the USA pecking order perfectly reflects worldwide sales with Queen coming in just below all of the above with the addition Elton John & Celine Dionne - Queen are 12th in the worldwide sales list So it's easy to see why Queen is a slightly less marketable brand form a merchandise point of view. |
| BETA215 11.10.2014 13:09 |
Jimmy Dean wrote: [...] And if you're complaining Queen is ripping you off because they added 3 new tracks to Queen Forever... so you have to buy the whole album to get it... when you know it's available on iTunes separately... again... you're not being forced to pay for anything. [...]I'm not agree with the quoted part. You can buy separately any Queen Forever track in WAV, FLAC, ALAC or in any lossless format? In this case, you are being forced to buy the full album, if you want to obtain songs legally. |
| The King Of Rhye 11.10.2014 13:47 |
The Real Wizard wrote: To demonize Bri and Rog for approving of selling products with the Queen name on it is ridiculous. If you look around in virtually every record store in the civilized world, there are AC/DC, Zeppelin, Beatles, Doors, Floyd and Bob Marley mugs, plates, wallets, buttons and patches. Marshall even has a half-size refrigerator that looks like a amp head and cabinet. link It's 2014. We're in the age of people senselessly spending money on novelty items they don't need. Why not cash in, which also carries the far more important byproduct of keeping your band/company's name in public consciousness ?Good point........and there are other bands that are worse with the merchandising stuff...................i.e. Kiss! lol..........think of anything you can buy in a store and you can probably get a Kiss-branded version of it somewhere............ |
| The King Of Rhye 11.10.2014 13:51 |
gerry wrote: Very strange as Queen are more popular than all those groups.In what parallel universe are you living where that is true? More popular than the Beatles? Uh...........no.............not even close........... |
| PrimeJiveUSA 11.10.2014 14:01 |
|
| The King Of Rhye 11.10.2014 14:02 |
KumoNin wrote: They've got more than enough money.This might be kinda going off on a tangent here, but....(and maybe this isnt what you meant!).........good lord, I hate it when people say stuff like that...........like making money is a bad, evil, immoral thing (when you get over a certain amount? and who decides what that amount is?) To the best of my knowledge, Brian and Roger aren't doing anything illegal or underhanded to make their money.....so the more power to em, or to any other band or artist that is rakin in the bucks (no matter what I might think of their musical or artistic merit, or lack of it) (going off to re-read my copy of Atlas Shrugged now...) |
| PrimeJiveUSA 11.10.2014 14:04 |
I fact...every band that Gerry listed is more popular and has a bigger "presence" on almost every level tan Queen here in America. at includes Bob Marley and The Doors. Brenski is right, unfortunately. |
| brENsKi 11.10.2014 17:06 |
PrimeJiveUSA wrote: I fact...every band that Gerry listed is more popular and has a bigger "presence" on almost every level tan Queen here in America. at includes Bob Marley and The Doors. Brenski is right, unfortunately.not sure how to take that last word lol |
| Oscar J 11.10.2014 17:39 |
brENsKi wrote: not on a world level they're not. I've just come back from a holiday in Boston & New England, and queen definitely fall down the pecking order there behind; Beatles, ACDC, Zep, , Michael jackson, Elvis, Madonna Floyd and Mariah Carey and several others. Among the youth, Queen are probably the most popular rock band that are more than two decades old. At least if you go by Spotify or Facebook followers. |
| EDWOOD 11.10.2014 18:47 |
Well, in the US yes. Although Queen are bigger in the US then some may think. The problem was they couldn't maintain their huge success past 1980 and only had a surge in sales post 1992. Likewise, when their popularity waned in the US they sold more and more in Europe, South America, etc. I think based on all sales (album/singles/DVDS/music videos and recently digital tracks) Queen are the third biggest selling band of all time behind The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. Pretty good when you think they both had a 10-11 year head start and have overall released a lot more albums altogether. Queen have sold a lot less then bands like AC/DC and Pink Floyd in America but when you look at worldwide album sales they nearly hit Pink Floyd's total and beat AC/DC. They're also the second biggest album sellers of all-time in the UK only bested by The Beatles. This is based on research I've see by people who have spent a lot of time looking into sales/charts, etc. it isn't just some opinion from fans. |
| waunakonor 11.10.2014 20:33 |
brENsKi wrote:I'm not sure about anywhere else, but Queen here are definitely more popular than at least Elvis, Madonna, Mariah Cary, Elton John and Celine Dion.gerry wrote: Queen products in record stores are very hard to find but artists like AC/DC, Zeppelin, Doors, Beatles, Floyd etc are ten a penny and easily found. Very strange as Queen are more popular than all those groups.not on a world level they're not. I've just come back from a holiday in Boston & New England, and queen definitely fall down the pecking order there behind; Beatles, ACDC, Zep, , Michael jackson, Elvis, Madonna Floyd and Mariah Carey and several others. Coincidentally, before you say America is bollox, the USA market is FOUR times that of the UK and the USA pecking order perfectly reflects worldwide sales with Queen coming in just below all of the above with the addition Elton John & Celine Dionne - Queen are 12th in the worldwide sales list So it's easy to see why Queen is a slightly less marketable brand form a merchandise point of view. |
| LucasDiego 11.10.2014 21:11 |
The problem of Queen is the marketing, no matter if the band sold few discs, i see many bands with don't have the genious of the queen, but the marketing of them, is very big!! Here in my town, only ONE time, i saw official queen products, doesn't counteins cd and dvd |
| gerry 12.10.2014 04:02 |
primejive usa: You are picking on me for something i never said. i never said every other group is bigger than Queen, that was "The Real wizard" post and not mine. "The King of Rhye Sorry to disappoint you but Queen are a bigger group than the Beatles, they have probably sold more sales than the Beatles and according to "The Record Collector" magazine are the number one group for serious music collectors. Queen have achieved more than the Beatles ever could. |
| tomchristie22 12.10.2014 04:44 |
gerry wrote: Queen have achieved more than the Beatles ever could.Bold. |
| gerry 12.10.2014 05:05 |
Not Bold tom christie 22 just fact! Queen have broken load of worldwide records from record breaking concert attendances to selling over 6 million sales and counting of the first "Greatest Hits" album. They are a very impressive foursome are they not! |
| brENsKi 12.10.2014 05:45 |
we ALL think they're very impressive - but check the worldwide sales lists - outside of the UK they are a big band but not massive: - most of the list is actual albums - NOT Greatest Hits, also many of the Greatest Hits showing have had less sales time since release than Queen's Greatest hits. just look where their G/Hits is in this list - end figure is worldwide sales Band/Artist Title Year Sales Michael Jackson Thriller 1982 42.4 Eagles Their Greatest Hits (1971–1975) 1976 32.2 Shania Twain Come On Over 1997 29.6 Led Zeppelin Led Zeppelin IV 1971 29 ABBA Gold: Greatest Hits 1992 28 Bon Jovi Slippery When Wet 1986 28 Spice Girls Spice 1996 28 Various artists Grease: The Original Soundtrack from the Motion Picture 1978 28 Whitney Houston / Various artists The Bodyguard 1992 27.4 Fleetwood Mac Rumours 1977 26.8 Britney Spears ...Baby One More Time 1999 26 AC/DC Back in Black 1980 25.9 Bob Marley & The Wailers Legend: The Best of Bob Marley & The Wailers 1984 25 Carole King Tapestry 1971 25 Madonna True Blue 1986 25 Mariah Carey Daydream 1995 25 Norah Jones Come Away with Me 2002 25 Queen Greatest Hits 1981 25 Simon & Garfunkel Bridge over Troubled Water 1970 25 U2 The Joshua Tree 1987 25 Alanis Morissette Jagged Little Pill 1995 24.8 Backstreet Boys Backstreet's Back / Backstreet Boys 1997 24 Backstreet Boys Millennium 1999 24 Linkin Park Hybrid Theory 2000 24 Ace of Base Happy Nation/The Sign 1993 23 TLC CrazySexyCool 1994 23 Pink Floyd The Dark Side of the Moon 1973 22.7 Cyndi Lauper She's So Unusual 1983 22 Oasis (What's the Story) Morning Glory? 1995 22 The Beatles 1 2000 21.6 Eagles Hotel California 1976 21.5 Adele 21 2011 21.3 Guns N' Roses Appetite for Destruction 1987 21.3 Bon Jovi Cross Road 1994 21 Eminem The Marshall Mathers LP 2000 21 Madonna Like a Virgin 1984 21 Meat Loaf Bat Out of Hell 1977 20.5 Santana Supernatural 1999 20.5 Celine Dion Falling into You 1996 20.2 Madonna The Immaculate Collection 1990 20.1 Celine Dion The Colour of My Love 1993 20 Avril Lavigne Let Go 2002 20 Boston Boston 1976 20 Britney Spears Oops!... I Did It Again 2000 20 Def Leppard Hysteria 1987 20 George Michael Faith 1987 20 Eric Clapton Unplugged 1992 20 Lionel Richie Can't Slow Down 1983 20 Madonna Ray of Light 1998 20 Michael Jackson HIStory: 1995 20 Michael Jackson Off the Wall 1979 20 Phil Collins No Jacket Required 1985 20 Prince & The Revolution Purple Rain 1984 20 Shania Twain The Woman in Me 1995 20 Supertramp Breakfast in America 1979 20 Tina Turner Private Dancer 1984 20 Usher Confessions 2004 20 Whitney Houston Whitney 1987 20 Green Day Dookie 1994 20 |
| gerry 12.10.2014 06:19 |
edwood: "Greatest Hits" is the uk's biggest selling album ever released. Abba "Greatest Hits" was second but not close enough to grab the crown from Queen. |
| Oscar J 12.10.2014 07:43 |
tomchristie22 wrote:gerry wrote: Queen have achieved more than the Beatles ever could.Bold. Bwahahaha |
| musicland munich 12.10.2014 08:00 |
brENsKi wrote: we ALL think they're very impressive - but check the worldwide sales lists - outside of the UK they are a big band but not massive: - most of the list is actual albums - NOT Greatest Hits, also many of the Greatest Hits showing have had less sales time since release than Queen's Greatest hits. just look where their G/Hits is in this list - end figure is worldwide sales Band/Artist Title Year Sales . . Backstreet Boys Backstreet's Back / Backstreet Boys 1997 24 Backstreet Boys Millennium 1999 24Who the hell are the "Barebackstreet Boys" ? |
| Jimmy Dean 12.10.2014 08:13 |
BETA215 wrote:You can't expect Queen (or any other capitalist pig recording artist, lol) to accommodate you... They've given the option to allow you to selectively choose what songs you want in the most widely accepted format...mp3. For the few fans like you who only want 3 songs in lossless form AND don't want to buy it in the CD format... I think you see where i'm going with this... you're not being reasonable.... and you are likely part of a limited group.Jimmy Dean wrote: [...] And if you're complaining Queen is ripping you off because they added 3 new tracks to Queen Forever... so you have to buy the whole album to get it... when you know it's available on iTunes separately... again... you're not being forced to pay for anything. [...]I'm not agree with the quoted part. You can buy separately any Queen Forever track in WAV, FLAC, ALAC or in any lossless format? In this case, you are being forced to buy the full album, if you want to obtain songs legally. The clear majority will either want to buy the CD for collection purposes or will download whatever songs they want off itunes.... even if the flac option was available. |
| thomasquinn 32989 12.10.2014 08:24 |
gerry wrote: Freddie was the one who used to keep May & Taylor in line and as you can now see anything goes in the Queen camp! They used to be a classy elusive group but not anymore and Brian has his fingers in all sorts these days.You just make up your own version of reality as you go along, don't you? Your above post has no grounding in fact whatsoever, it's purely wishful thinking on your part. |
| thomasquinn 32989 12.10.2014 08:26 |
musicland munich wrote:At the risk of being offensive: they're just like the Backstreet Boys, only they don't just suck but also take it up the rear.brENsKi wrote: we ALL think they're very impressive - but check the worldwide sales lists - outside of the UK they are a big band but not massive: - most of the list is actual albums - NOT Greatest Hits, also many of the Greatest Hits showing have had less sales time since release than Queen's Greatest hits. just look where their G/Hits is in this list - end figure is worldwide sales Band/Artist Title Year Sales . . Backstreet Boys Backstreet's Back / Backstreet Boys 1997 24 Backstreet Boys Millennium 1999 24Who the hell are the "Barebackstreet Boys" ? |
| brENsKi 12.10.2014 08:39 |
musicland munich wrote:que ????brENsKi wrote:we ALL think they're very impressive - but check the worldwide sales lists - outside of the UK they are a big band but not massive: - most of the list is actual albums - NOT Greatest Hits, also many of the Greatest Hits showing have had less sales time since release than Queen's Greatest hits. just look where their G/Hits is in this list - end figure is worldwide sales Band/Artist Title Year Sales .. Backstreet Boys Backstreet's Back / Backstreet Boys 1997 24 Backstreet Boys Millennium 1999 24Who the hell are the "Barebackstreet Boys" ? |
| The King Of Rhye 12.10.2014 09:55 |
gerry wrote: primejive usa: You are picking on me for something i never said. i never said every other group is bigger than Queen, that was "The Real wizard" post and not mine. "The King of Rhye Sorry to disappoint you but Queen are a bigger group than the Beatles, they have probably sold more sales than the Beatles and according to "The Record Collector" magazine are the number one group for serious music collectors. Queen have achieved more than the Beatles ever could.Uh................no! You could MAYBE say that in the UK.............that Queen is the most 'collectable' group......I saw that once somewhere (whatever the hell that means anyway)............. check your facts once in a while...............look at this for one....... link |
| brENsKi 12.10.2014 11:03 |
The King Of Rhye wrote:gerry wrote: primejive usa: You are picking on me for something i never said. i never said every other group is bigger than Queen, that was "The Real wizard" post and not mine. "The King of Rhye Sorry to disappoint you but Queen are a bigger group than the Beatles, they have probably sold more sales than the Beatles and according to "The Record Collector" magazine are the number one group for serious music collectors. Queen have achieved more than the Beatles ever could.check your facts once in a while...............look at this for one....... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums you're wasting your time fella. I posted similar info only a few posts ago in this very thread. Gezza's myopia in relation to queen, knows no fucking bounds. it's almost as tho' he's living vicariously through queen's history and rewriting any history/facts that "do no compute" his rose-tinted view...as he goes. You can't convince him of the facts - no matter how much proof you provide. Gezza once claimed he'd make a great journalist - well on one score he would - he lives by the jouno maxim: "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" |
| the dude 1366 12.10.2014 11:23 |
""Freddie was the one who used to keep May & Taylor in line and as you can now see anything goes in the Queen camp! They used to be a classy elusive group but not anymore and Brian has his fingers in all sorts these days. "" Actually the evidence might points to the contrary. Freddie seemed to hold some discipline within band rehearsals and creativity, but it's more likely that Brian and Roger stopped Freddie from going too far in other ways that may have destroyed the band. |
| The Real Wizard 12.10.2014 22:23 |
brENsKi wrote:Bang on.gerry wrote: Queen products in record stores are very hard to find but artists like AC/DC, Zeppelin, Doors, Beatles, Floyd etc are ten a penny and easily found. Very strange as Queen are more popular than all those groups.not on a world level they're not. I've just come back from a holiday in Boston & New England, and queen definitely fall down the pecking order there behind; Beatles, ACDC, Zep, , Michael jackson, Elvis, Madonna Floyd and Mariah Carey and several others. Coincidentally, before you say America is bollox, the USA market is FOUR times that of the UK and the USA pecking order perfectly reflects worldwide sales with Queen coming in just below all of the above with the addition Elton John & Celine Dionne - Queen are 12th in the worldwide sales list So it's easy to see why Queen is a slightly less marketable brand form a merchandise point of view. |
| The Real Wizard 12.10.2014 22:24 |
The King Of Rhye wrote: (going off to re-read my copy of Atlas Shrugged now...)You haven't memorized it yet ??! Hang your head in shame, sir. |
| thomasquinn 32989 13.10.2014 04:29 |
Anyone who wastes his time reading Ayn Rand is cutting himself short, no matter who he is. Her plays and novels are below mediocre (and that's not just my opinion, but the general consensus of literary reviewers ever since the '30s) and her so-called 'philosophical works' are just pseudo-intellectual hokum, which is why nearly all academics ignore it, except a precious few who have a neo-conservative agenda to push. Sorry, just had to get that out.
As to the original post you quoted:
The King Of Rhye wrote:This might be kinda going off on a tangent here, but....(and maybe this isnt what you meant!).........good lord, I hate it when people say stuff like that...........like making money is a bad, evil, immoral thing (when you get over a certain amount? and who decides what that amount is?)Making money isn't necessarily a bad thing, DEPENDING ON HOW IT'S DONE. There are numerous ways of making money that harm the economy and society at large. For instance, a group of investors want to buy a large, healthy business for $500 million. They borrow $500 million for a year at, let's say (just for the simplicity of calculation, 10%. They buy the company. Now, they have the company they have just bought borrow money to the limit of its credit-worthiness. Let's say that's $750 million. They pay off their loan, $550 million, and divide the remaining $200 million amongst themselves, and pay taxes over this. So far, so good, right? Now comes the twisted, evil part. The formerly healthy business now has a debt of $750 million. Let's say they have an annual profit of $100 million - at the end of the year, they now have an ARTIFICIAL debt of $650 million. Most countries allow businesses to fiscally write off a debt over the current fiscal year as well as several *preceding* years. So now, the formerly healthy company is deep in debt, and instead of paying taxes, they get a HUGE tax return, paid for by the general population of the country and benefiting those investors who have already made $200 million off their purchase. The credit rating of the formerly healthy company is ruined, and it is often most profitable to split the company up and sell it off bit by bit, thus resulting in increased unemployment. There is also another, oft overlooked, economic factor. Money only has value when it is in circulation. Money that is hoarded is economically unproductive and in real terms, any sum that is hoarded in a given year is extracted from the economy at large. The larger the amount of money an individual has, the larger (generally, this doesn't apply to every individual rich person but it does apply to the whole averaged out) the sum that is hoarded. Say someone has $10 million in gold stashed away. Ok, you pay a small amount of tax on this, but as Thomas Piketty has incontrovertably demonstrated, the rate at which capital appreciates value is far higher than the rate at which it is taxed. But there is something else to take into account here, a concept called "velocity of money": if you take $100 dollars out of the economy, you're not harming the economy by $100 dollars, but by a multiple thereof, because when I spend $100 dollars in a productive way (i.e. to buy goods or services), the person who receives the $100 dollars also gets to spend it, and again and again. In practice, the velocity of money is between 1.5 (in really bad depression situations, in 2009 in the US it was 1.65) and about 2.3. So if it's 2, that means hoarding $10 million dollars harms the real economy by $20 million. So, when the accumulation of wealth results in money being hoarded, this is harmful for the economy and thus society at large. |
| The Real Wizard 13.10.2014 16:15 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Anyone who wastes his time reading Ayn Rand is cutting himself short, no matter who he is... I was being grotesquely sarcastic ! |
| 12yrslouetta 13.10.2014 18:16 |
I actually think that May and Taylor and the rest of the team have done extraordinarily well. Since Mr Mercury died all those years ago they have raised the band to legend status. That has been done by pushing and positioning themselves in certain circles. The numerous compilations is nothing but par for the course - all artists do it. From Bach to Abba to Alice Cooper to Elvis Presley to Michael Jackson. May and Taylor have kept their relevance going and still managed to create new audiences who never even realised they liked Queen. Kids like Queen who werent even born when Mr Deacon retired. Artists still cite them as influences. They are still on the cover of magazines. Even The Rolling Stones writes about them in a positive way. And being a fan since NATO, its incredible that a band so slated everywhere are now loved. It really is strange. If you were around when Queen were up and running youll know that no one ever spoke about them like they do today. Sometimes its hard to believe the critics are talking about the same band (and for all those saying that now Mercury has passed away they are just in it for the money, lets not forget South Africa. It doesnt get lower than that). And you know, you should try and enjoy it because all this will eventually slow down and stop. The machine will grind to a halt. Mr Taylor and May are now nearing 70 and cant keep doing this. And that means no more new tracks. No more new mastering. No more live shows. No more interviews. No more magazine covers. It literally wasnt that long ago when people talked of The Beatles as being the greatest band the world had ever seen. Compilations galore. Now they hardly get a mention. Queen lasting this long is incredible. But eventually age does catch up with you. So im just enjoying the ride while they are still around. And active. |
| The Real Wizard 13.10.2014 18:25 |
^ BANG F&CKING ON. Please post here more often. |
| thomasquinn 32989 14.10.2014 00:42 |
The Real Wizard wrote:I know that (seriously dude, if you were ever to become heavily into Ayn Rand, I'd call the nuthouse in a heartbeat. And maybe an exorcist, just in case), but I still needed to vent. I have Ayn Rand-issues. And Heidegger-issues. Even though he's a *real* philosopher.thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Anyone who wastes his time reading Ayn Rand is cutting himself short, no matter who he is... I was being grotesquely sarcastic ! |
| people on streets 14.10.2014 20:21 |
12yrslouetta wrote: I actually think that May and Taylor and the rest of the team have done extraordinarily well. Since Mr Mercury died all those years ago they have raised the band to legend status. That has been done by pushing and positioning themselves in certain circles. The numerous compilations is nothing but par for the course - all artists do it. From Bach to Abba to Alice Cooper to Elvis Presley to Michael Jackson. May and Taylor have kept their relevance going and still managed to create new audiences who never even realised they liked Queen. Kids like Queen who werent even born when Mr Deacon retired. Artists still cite them as influences. They are still on the cover of magazines. Even The Rolling Stones writes about them in a positive way. And being a fan since NATO, its incredible that a band so slated everywhere are now loved. It really is strange. If you were around when Queen were up and running youll know that no one ever spoke about them like they do today. Sometimes its hard to believe the critics are talking about the same band (and for all those saying that now Mercury has passed away they are just in it for the money, lets not forget South Africa. It doesnt get lower than that). And you know, you should try and enjoy it because all this will eventually slow down and stop. The machine will grind to a halt. Mr Taylor and May are now nearing 70 and cant keep doing this. And that means no more new tracks. No more new mastering. No more live shows. No more interviews. No more magazine covers. It literally wasnt that long ago when people talked of The Beatles as being the greatest band the world had ever seen. Compilations galore. Now they hardly get a mention. Queen lasting this long is incredible. But eventually age does catch up with you. So im just enjoying the ride while they are still around. And active.I do understand your point about :"enjoy while you can" but personally I don't get any joy out of the Q+AL shows. Or BM + Kerry Ellis shows. I enjoy other bands way more these days. Queen was a great band, Brian and Roger did some great solo tours. Q+PR was fun too. But now it's over. For me it is anyway... |
