| gerry 12.10.2014 04:26 |
|
| TomP63 12.10.2014 04:32 |
Hé Gerry, were did you get this information from? I read on the Queen online forum that LMIYHA was the obvious choice for the single as it already appeared frequently on the UK radio playlists. Tom |
| gerry 12.10.2014 04:37 |
I can confidently confirm that "There is more to life than this" is the new Queen single and it will be record of the week on BBC radio2 starting from tomorrow on Ken Bruce's show. I am disappointed because "Let me in your heart again" would have been the obvious choice, but because william orbitt worked on the Freddie/jackson track the band were pushed to release it. |
| TomP63 12.10.2014 04:43 |
Thank you Gerry, a pity that the new single isn't in fact a new single... Tom |
| gerry 12.10.2014 05:07 |
Hey tomp63 i was very shocked at what was chosen for the new single. i am sure there are more Queen unreleased tracks and that Brian is telling porkies saying that there isnt. |
| brians wig 12.10.2014 05:08 |
OFFS.. LMIYHA has an obvious double meaning and it's by far the better of the 3 songs. Still, as Tom says, unless it's a physical release, I don't suppose it really matters. |
| gerry 12.10.2014 05:12 |
yes i agree LMIYHA is the best song and its a traditional Queen song, it is shocking how id never made "The Works" album and yet "Man on the prowl did" which in my opinion is awful. |
| alberbal12 12.10.2014 05:32 |
I hope they'll release it in physical format... |
| matt z 12.10.2014 05:50 |
Hopefully its not the crappy mix. This is obviously a commercial stretch and WHO WOULDN'T? It'll garner attention to the album (which is currently priced towards a SINGLE CD rate) Marketing decision but kinda disappointing. Of course "let me in your heart again" would be a fitting cadence to the repertoire. But. ... |
| TomP63 12.10.2014 06:27 |
I for one find it rather poor that a 'new' Queen album uses Jackson to get some attention. Really does Queen need Jackson as a verhicle for an abum? |
| gerry 12.10.2014 06:54 |
yeah in my opinion the jackson track should have been dropped and concentrate on Freddie and unreleased tracks. |
| LucasDiego 12.10.2014 07:54 |
Oh no, this song no! |
| brENsKi 12.10.2014 08:34 |
gerry wrote: Hey tomp63 i was very shocked at what was chosen for the new single. i am sure there are more Queen unreleased tracks and that Brian is telling porkies saying that there isnt.it's sound business sense - surely we can all see that? Queen = established fanbase Michael Jackson = established fanbase this maximises potential single (and susequent) album sales as Michael Jackson fans get introduced to Queen |
| john bodega 12.10.2014 08:35 |
Shit song. Hope it tanks. |
| andyb1968 12.10.2014 08:36 |
Poor choice ! But obvious why, Max revenue from Queen and Jacko fans. Dissapointing !! |
| gerry 12.10.2014 08:40 |
Maybe it could be a double "A" sided release with "Let me in your heart again" ? i have heard two radio stations definitely say Queen & jackson song is the new single. |
| brENsKi 12.10.2014 08:43 |
gerry wrote: Maybe it could be a double "A" sided release with "Let me in your heart again" ? i have heard two radio stations definitely say Queen & jackson song is the new single.LMIYHA has got more "legs" as a single in its own right, maybe as follow-up single. no point banging BOTH new tracks on the same single - false economy these days |
| TomP63 12.10.2014 09:03 |
it's sound business sense - surely we can all see that? Queen = established fanbase Michael Jackson = established fanbase this maximises potential single (and susequent) album sales as Michael Jackson fans get introduced to Queen I get the point you're making Brenski, but is it pure business these days? I must admit I have not a clue what the diehard Jackson fans will make of this collaboration. Will they see it as a Jackson track? I understand it is business, but as a first single for a 'new' album I find it a rather strange choice. Tom |
| Vocal harmony 12.10.2014 09:09 |
gerry wrote: I can confidently confirm that "There is more to life than this" is the new Queen single I am disappointed because "Let me in your heart again" would have been the obvious choice, but because william orbitt worked on the Freddie/jackson track the band were pushed to release it.You really are a fool. A single is a marketing tool, with which to hopefully draw attention to an album. By releasing the Jackson track they will effectively be appealing to a wider audience and gaining more critical interest. But you carry on looking at everything Queen related through your narrow field of view. |
| Supersonic_Man89 12.10.2014 09:10 |
Would have been happy with this if the mix was any good, i think Freddie's solo version is a great little song, so i was shocked to see how badly Orbit fucked it up. |
| TomP63 12.10.2014 09:15 |
But the pure Jackson fans will buy the single, only the single though? Since it is a Queen album, why would 'they' release a single with Michael Jackson? Do 'they' really need Jackson as a verhicle for selling and promoting an album? An album which has only one Jackson track on it? The album title says it all, even the promo for the album is obvious........ |
| Vocal harmony 12.10.2014 09:19 |
TomP63 wrote: But the pure Jackson fans will buy the single, only the single though? Since it is a Queen album, why would 'they' release a single with Michael Jackson? Do 'they' really need Jackson as a verhicle for selling and promoting an album? An album which has only one Jackson track on it? The album title says it all, even the promo for the album is obvious........No they don't, but it gets their name out to potentially more people |
| gerry 12.10.2014 09:43 |
Ironic the album is called "Queen Forever" but contains Michael Jackson! |
| brENsKi 12.10.2014 10:43 |
gerry wrote: Ironic the album is called "Queen Forever" but contains Michael Jackson! forever adverb: 1.for all future time; for always."she would love him forever" 2.continually."they are forever on the move" adjective 1. lasting or permanent. ironic adjective: happening in a way contrary to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this."it was ironic that now everybody had plenty of money for food they couldn't obtain it because everything was rationed" the presence of Michael Jackson does not affect any infinite quality that Queen may imply by using the aforesaid album title. Either you don't understand the meaning of Ironic or you don't understand the meaning of forever - or both. Forever does not mean exclusive of all others. There is no paradox arising from the inclusion of Michael Jackson on an album called Queen Forever. |
| gerry 12.10.2014 10:49 |
Thanks for the school lesson Brenski but bog off this is all about Queen not you. |
| KumoNin 12.10.2014 11:26 |
Gerry is a dick to whoever points out his mistakes, part 745. |
| gerry 12.10.2014 12:26 |
kumoNin: please do not start all this bickering again, this thread is about the new Queen single so please grow up and stop been childish. Brenski knows he is been a twat so he wont get the better of me, and please move on. |
| gerry 12.10.2014 12:32 |
If you read my post carefully when i said ironic that the album is called "Queen Forever" but contains a song with Michael Jackson, i meant you would think with a title like Queen forever it would only contain Queen only tracks and no guest appearances from anyone else. why i have to explain myself on here to a bunch of infants is beyond me. Are you all on heroin or something???? |
| matt z 12.10.2014 15:12 |
(^^ unaware of the behavioral effects of heroin use) But it does almost warrant irony. That the lead single of a QUEEN compilation is in fact a Freddie Mercury solo song featuring another artist recently reworked by said band that's been crappily remixed Not ironic in expectations. Ironic in selection. It's still Queen by new accounts. |
| brENsKi 12.10.2014 16:03 |
gerry wrote:Brenski knows he is been a twat so he wont get the better of me, and please move on.BEDEVERE: What makes you think she is a witch? VILLAGER #3: Well, she turned me into a newt. BEDEVERE: A newt? VILLAGER #3: I got better. VILLAGER #2: Burn her anyway! CROWD: Burn! Burn her! BEDEVERE: Quiet, quiet. Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch. CROWD: Are there? What are they? VILLAGER #2: Do they hurt? BEDEVERE: Tell me, what do you do with witches? VILLAGER #2: Burn! CROWD: Burn, burn them up! BEDEVERE: And what do you burn apart from witches? VILLAGER #1: More witches! VILLAGER #2: Wood! BEDEVERE: So, why do witches burn? VILLAGER #3: B--... 'cause they're made of wood...? |
| *goodco* 12.10.2014 17:59 |
gerry wrote: If you read my post carefully when i said ironic that the album is called "Queen Forever" but contains a song with Michael Jackson, i meant you would think with a title like Queen forever it would only contain Queen only tracks and no guest appearances from anyone else. why i have to explain myself on here to a bunch of infants is beyond me. Are you all on heroin or something????I'll dive into your bog of eternal stench one time, and one time only........with titles such as Queen 'Hot Space', 'A Kind Of Magic', 'Innuendo', 'Greatest Hits' (US, Canada, Japan and other countries), or 'Greatest Hits II' (UK), "you would think it would contain Queen only tracks and no guest appearances from anyone else." Oh, almost forgot Queen 'Jazz', with a guest appearance courtesy of the Big Guy. |
| Mr.QueenFan 12.10.2014 18:30 |
brENsKi wrote:I agree with this. As a fan i would love to see the release of LMIYHA but if i were in their (Queen, Universal) place i would probably do the same thing. Fact is, it's about making the biggest profit from it, and we shouldn't attack artists based on this, because if labels like Universal didn't make money, Queen and other artists would be out of contract.gerry wrote: Hey tomp63 i was very shocked at what was chosen for the new single. i am sure there are more Queen unreleased tracks and that Brian is telling porkies saying that there isnt.it's sound business sense - surely we can all see that? Queen = established fanbase Michael Jackson = established fanbase this maximises potential single (and susequent) album sales as Michael Jackson fans get introduced to Queen But this doesn't mean that LMIYHA is out of the question. It may be the second single for the Christams market, and it CAN work beautifully around Christmas. A great song about love, with some of the best vocals i've heard from Freddie. Maybe this will push "Queen Forever" to number 1. Competition is strong with the new Pink Floyd album, so i really understant this more agressive move to include the Michael Jakson duet to raise people's awareness about Queen Forever. Let's not forget that Michael Jackson is doing very well on his own right now. In the end, this seems to be the best decision. |
| matt z 12.10.2014 18:36 |
brENsKi wrote:Ah. .. second favorite python film. I've got a soft spot for THE MEANING OF LIFE (even though it's more of a compilation)gerry wrote:Brenski knows he is been a twat so he wont get the better of me, and please move on.BEDEVERE: What makes you think she is a witch? VILLAGER #3: Well, she turned me into a newt. BEDEVERE: A newt? VILLAGER #3: I got better. VILLAGER #2: Burn her anyway! CROWD: Burn! Burn her! BEDEVERE: Quiet, quiet. Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch. CROWD: Are there? What are they? VILLAGER #2: Do they hurt? BEDEVERE: Tell me, what do you do with witches? VILLAGER #2: Burn! CROWD: Burn, burn them up! BEDEVERE: And what do you burn apart from witches? VILLAGER #1: More witches! VILLAGER #2: Wood! BEDEVERE: So, why do witches burn? VILLAGER #3: B--... 'cause they're made of wood...? |
| k-m 12.10.2014 19:27 |
I don't mind it as a single, as long as the mix is fixed. It sounds good in the trailer, so will keep my fingers crossed. They should follow it up with Let Me In Your Heart Again in winter. |
| Wiley 12.10.2014 20:25 |
TMBMTLTT lead single to appeal to a broader base. Let me in your heart again as Christmas single with lots of hype around being "a brand new Queen song". Then Love Kills backed with Let me in your heart again as a Record Store Day limited edition 7" thingie. If they play their cards right, this shitty compilation will sell like pancakes. They could do some fan service by creating some sort of video for the singles (more "Free as a bird", less DoRo compilation crap) and increase sales of physical formats by adding some exclusive remixes or even edits as B-sides... but of course they won't. They'll go for the easy buck. |
| The Real Wizard 12.10.2014 22:20 |
gerry wrote: i am sure there are more Queen unreleased tracks and that Brian is telling porkies saying that there isnt.Of course there is more. But the question is - how much of it is usable? The fact that it took nearly 20 years for ANYTHING new with Freddie on vocals to come out surely must indicate how little there is.. |
| musicland munich 12.10.2014 22:30 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Do you want to hear him sing in German ? I'am not joking about that...he tried..just for some Demos with a more or less well known guitar player ( local wise)gerry wrote: i am sure there are more Queen unreleased tracks and that Brian is telling porkies saying that there isnt.Of course there is more. But the question is - how much of it is usable? The fact that it took nearly 20 years for ANYTHING new with Freddie on vocals to come out surely must indicate how little there is.. You just can't put everything on the market. |
| inu-liger 13.10.2014 00:17 |
Do those demos still exist? ^ |
| musicland munich 13.10.2014 08:18 |
^ It is in question..."officially"...but don't expect him to sing a complete track in german..he was doing his "dedodedodada" thing and combined it with a few Words he know. So there are NO complete tracks like Cliff Richards " Rote Lippen soll man Küssen" ( German version of his "Lucky Lips" Song). If those Demos still exsist - no one will have them till the day that guy is dead - rich musician and no attention seeker - he is a bit like JD,he stepped back from the limelight, not that strict but significant :) A tape recorder was used if I remeber correctly ( not if I was there of course)...no multi tracks I guess. |
| gerry 13.10.2014 08:46 |
Brenski: yes i have banged on about my dislikes but that is what discussions are all about. But if i read about other fans who do not like AD then i join in, can you handle that? If you cannot handle that then do not reply =simples. i have had replies from fans who are in agreement with me, but i guess you have overlooked them. Horses for courses lol cheerio now. |
| brENsKi 13.10.2014 09:49 |
gerry wrote:If you read my post carefully when i said ironic that the album is called "Queen Forever" but contains a song with Michael Jackson, i meant you would think with a title like Queen forever it would only contain Queen only tracks and no guest appearances from anyone else. why i have to explain myself on here to a bunch of infants is beyond me. Are you all on heroin or something????"Forever" is a measurement of time, not a measurement of "purity" there is no irony in the title |
| Pingfah 13.10.2014 09:52 |
To my mind, this would be a sound business decision if the track was worthy of either name. In my opinion, however, neither the track nor the mix is of sufficient quality to please fans of either artist, nor the general public at large. It just isn't very good, unfortunately. I don't think it will be much of a hit, even with both these huge names attached to it. |
| brENsKi 13.10.2014 09:55 |
brENsKi wrote:gerry wrote:If you read my post carefully when i said ironic that the album is called "Queen Forever" but contains a song with Michael Jackson, i meant you would think with a title like Queen forever it would only contain Queen only tracks and no guest appearances from anyone else. why i have to explain myself on here to a bunch of infants is beyond me. Are you all on heroin or something????"Forever" is a measurement of time, not a measurement of "purity" there is no irony in the title gerry wrote: Brenski: yes i have banged on about my dislikes but that is what discussions are all about. But if i read about other fans who do not like AD then i join in, can you handle that? If you cannot handle that then do not reply =simples. i have had replies from fans who are in agreement with me, but i guess you have overlooked them. Horses for courses lol cheerio now.it's not a discussion....you're trying to indoctrinate people. i don't like AL (who the fuck is AD?) or this current collaboration - but i don't bang on about it. make your point once and leave it - we ALL know how you feel. why would YOU need to start new threads on the same subject? who the f*ck doesn't already know how YOU feel? |
| gerry 13.10.2014 10:36 |
Listen......... i said if AD is mentioned i will reply. Can you not get that into your thick head mate? i do not have to justify myself to you, who the hell do you think you are? |
| brENsKi 13.10.2014 10:47 |
gerry wrote:Listen......... i said if AD is mentioned i will reply. Can you not get that into your thick head mate?i do not have to justify myself to you, who the hell do you think you are?who is this "AD" of whom you speak? last time I checked "Lambert" hadn't got a "D" in it anywhere There used to be someone else round here who used to spout lies and crap and generally make up stuff about queen - as you do. But the difference was Fatty & his Diary were genuinely intentionally hysterical. You ain't. |
| gerry 13.10.2014 10:53 |
AD = ADAM did you not know that or are you more thick than i thought you were. stop harassing me and go spout off else were. you should know by now i dislike you, and you are very rude and patronising . This site is about Queen not about you alright! |
| inu-liger 13.10.2014 12:23 |
gerry wrote: AD = ADAM did you not know that or are you more thick than i thought you were. stop harassing me and go spout off else were. you should know by now i dislike you, and you are very rude and patronising . This site is about Queen not about you alright!Nobody else here but you uses a small acronym based just on someone's first name alone. Even I was wtf'ing at "AD" |
| musicland munich 13.10.2014 12:25 |
Damn GE ;)...of course someone with half a brain would choose "AL" as a shortcut...don't take it personal...please ! |
| inu-liger 13.10.2014 12:53 |
musicland munich wrote: Damn GE ;)...of course someone with half a brain would choose "AL" as a shortcut...don't take it personal...please !Your pleads for mercy will likely fly over his ever angry head ;) |
| cmsdrums 13.10.2014 15:22 |
To quote the thread title, I've never actually heard of this "There Is More To Life Than This" track.... Is it similar to "There Must Be More To Life Than This"?? |
| brENsKi 13.10.2014 16:10 |
cmsdrums wrote: To quote the thread title, I've never actually heard of this "There Is More To Life Than This" track.... Is it similar to "There Must Be More To Life Than This"??another "completely different track with similar title" buried in the archives? - where would we be without Gezza and his all-round ability to produce factually accurate content? |
| jondickens1 13.10.2014 23:23 |
I have yet to hear the track. Didn't like Freddie's solo version much to be honest. Where can I listen to it? |
| tomchristie22 14.10.2014 00:40 |
This version isn't much better. I'm sure you've seen how much everyone dislikes the mix, and really, even with the full 'Queen treatment' and a good mix it would still be a boring song. |
| gerry 14.10.2014 06:20 |
jondickens 1 : you can hear the track on itunes. |
| inu-liger 14.10.2014 06:24 |
jondickens1 wrote:I have yet to hear the track. Didn't like Freddie's solo version much to be honest. Where can I listen to it? |
| thomasquinn 32989 14.10.2014 06:54 |
gerry wrote: AD = ADAM did you not know that or are you more thick than i thought you were.I would like to nominate this, despite the stiff competition, for "stupidest remark on QZ in 2014". The following part, namely stop harassing me and go spout off else were. you should know by now i dislike you, and you are very rude and patronising . This site is about Queen not about you alright!I would like to nominate for "most unintentionally ironic silly remark". Talking about people being rude and patronizing after being rude and patronizing literally two sentences before is just beyond stupid. |
| gerry 14.10.2014 07:10 |
know ones listening Thomasquinn so jog on looser, |
| Vocal harmony 14.10.2014 08:03 |
gerry wrote: AD = ADAM did you not know that or are you more thick than i thought you were. stop harassing me and go spout off else were. you should know by now i dislike you, and you are very rude and patronising . This site is about Queen not about you alright!Says the man who writes i hate Adam Lambert on which ever thread he feels like, countless times. . . Oh by the way Gerry your system is floored. AD = Adam does it? well ok then GE would = Gerry. . . i havent lost you yet have i ? sticking to that rule......... BR? now forgive me for not being able to decide here, and im sure you can clear this up for all of us stupid types to understand but does BR = Brian or a member of this forum? |
| Oscar J 14.10.2014 10:37 |
gerry wrote: know ones listening Thomasquinn so jog on looser, Couple of things: No* one's* loser* .* |
| brENsKi 14.10.2014 11:05 |
this^^^. although please note GE - i resisted the urge to say it. |
| gerry 14.10.2014 11:39 |
ha ha ha There is no rules on this site that says i am not allowed to say what and when i want, so shut your mouths bitches and get a life. You all have too much time on your hands. |
| The Real Wizard 14.10.2014 14:27 |
Indeed, there are no rules saying you can't be a complete idiot, so you might as well be one. When that's your last defense.. |
| waunakonor 14.10.2014 19:06 |
link Check out the comment section. Is that you, gerry? |
| LucasDiego 14.10.2014 21:09 |
There is a guy in the forum of queenonline that says that listened a cd promo of the album, and says that the version of there is more to life than this it's the same of the radio, so, it's the shitty version, so sad... |
| thomasquinn 32989 15.10.2014 05:10 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Indeed, there are no rules saying you can't be a complete idiot, so you might as well be one. When that's your last defense..I don't recall who said it, and I'm paraphrasing slightly because I can't find the exact quote, but it is 100% true: People who use freedom of speech as a defense when they get called out on their remarks are themselves illustrating the weakness of their remarks. When the best argument you can put forward in defense of what you say is that it is not technically illegal to say it, you've done more to defeat your own position than any opponent ever could. |
| brENsKi 15.10.2014 09:45 |
waunakonor wrote: link Check out the comment section. Is that you, gerry?as the late. great Frank Sidebottom would say: "It really is - you know it is" |
| Djdownsy 15.10.2014 09:59 |
cmsdrums wrote: To quote the thread title, I've never actually heard of this "There Is More To Life Than This" track.... Is it similar to "There Must Be More To Life Than This"??It took three pages for someone to finally say it. What is becoming of us all? |
| brENsKi 16.10.2014 11:55 |
Djdownsy wrote:lower expectationscmsdrums wrote: To quote the thread title, I've never actually heard of this "There Is More To Life Than This" track.... Is it similar to "There Must Be More To Life Than This"??It took three pages for someone to finally say it. What is becoming of us all? |
| Djdownsy 16.10.2014 19:41 |
brENsKi wrote:Touché..Djdownsy wrote:lower expectationscmsdrums wrote: To quote the thread title, I've never actually heard of this "There Is More To Life Than This" track.... Is it similar to "There Must Be More To Life Than This"??It took three pages for someone to finally say it. What is becoming of us all? |