| M-train 29.12.2014 17:07 |
I think I have an answer. A friend, and I were discussing on why today's music sucks so bad, and why do we see lots of the younger generation listening to songs of the 60's, and 70's, and seeming to prefer it to the music of today. I asked the question will we ever see another star that had such ultra huge starpower as Elvis, or a group that caused such a sensation as the Beetles, and to a lesser degree bands like Queen, Zeppelin, Stones, the Who, Kiss, etc. To put it bluntly just about every group that came out in that era, and got playtime, had a great song for the ages. Even the slow sappy songs like those that came from the Captain, and Tennille , and Barry Manillow were great songs. Then you have the more Rock/rollish songs like Tie Your Mother Down, We are the Champions, BoRap, etc. ALL were simply great, outstanding works of art. Not just the instrumental parts, but also the lyrics of some of those songs are just amazing. My friend hit the nail right on the head, and gave me an answer that actually makes sense. He said that when something comes out that is new, and causes such a social sensation as the music of the 60/70's [I would say the 50's, but at that time music was just gaining ground, and by the 60's had busted wide open] it can't ever be re-done, it can only be copied which is why we most likely won't see the likes of the above mentioned. I know some will say that there is good music out there if you look, but that's not what I'm talking about. There are no bands today, and I would say for the past decade, that hold a candle to Queen as far as popularity and style, and none that even come close to the heavy hitters of those days. And, most of today's artist don't have any staying power. You tend to forget them almost before their song finished playing. Even today with the world having a much bigger population [more than doubling since the 60's] Elvis still holds the record for biggest selling Holiday album, overall record sales, and biggest TV audience ever in history for solo performer, then you have the Beetles who's overall record sales were huge vs even the bands of their day. Would have been interesting if our generation had the internet back in the 70's. Youtube would have had to make the number of views listed exponentially. |
| miraclesteinway 29.12.2014 18:00 |
I'm not sure that any band will have the same cultural impact as the early bands, but there are bands who are just as good artistically, although different, of course. Great bands post-1990 have included Manic Street Preachers Radiohead (although both manics and radiohead got quite far up their own arses) Nirvana of course, can't be forgotten The Foo Fighters The Killers Coldplay - they are not artistically great but they're culturally important to a great number of people. Keane had potential, didn't seem to follow it through But in that list of bands, there were none as wide ranging or adventurous as Queen, it's true. Or the Beatles. |
| Day dop 29.12.2014 18:21 |
Overall best selling record sales goes to The Beatles, not Elvis. link |
| Hoopsie 29.12.2014 18:24 |
It sounds as if you believe music wasn't invented before the 60's and 70's. It was, and classics were written even then. And you simply cannot compare pre-digital era sales with the figures we get now when most of what people listen to is basically stolen. Of course there will be greats now and in the future- that's just the way it is. Every generation protests that theirs was the best and eventually every generation is forced, if only by attrition, to pass the torch. You may not like it or enjoy the newer sounds but life and music will always go on. |
| MadTheSwine73 29.12.2014 19:15 |
I think Nirvana and The Foo Fighters will be the Queen and Zeppelin of our generation. They will be the rock bands that people 40-50 years from now will still listen to. Can't say that about many others. |
| The King Of Rhye 29.12.2014 19:24 |
Hoopsie wrote: It sounds as if you believe music wasn't invented before the 60's and 70's. It was, and classics were written even then. And you simply cannot compare pre-digital era sales with the figures we get now when most of what people listen to is basically stolen. Of course there will be greats now and in the future- that's just the way it is. Every generation protests that theirs was the best and eventually every generation is forced, if only by attrition, to pass the torch. You may not like it or enjoy the newer sounds but life and music will always go on.Good post there, I agree completely......I think the op meant "rock music", not just "music", when saying it only really got going in the 60s......or at least I hope so, cus I listen to a decent amount of blues and jazz from around or before that time that is just awesome.......:D |
| M-train 29.12.2014 20:00 |
Yes, rock music. |
| The King Of Rhye 29.12.2014 20:17 |
By the way, totally misleading title to this thread! I first read it and thought you meant you HAVE seen another band like Queen......lol (I guess it cut off "an answer") |
| The Real Wizard 29.12.2014 23:40 |
Muse. Black Holes And Revelations and The 2nd Law are phenomenal albums. |
| The King Of Rhye 30.12.2014 00:33 |
Ya know what my favorite album to come out of the last 10 years........well, uh, since 2000.........is? Not that the bands all that original, but just damn good at what they do...........The Darkness's Permission To Land! For one thing I LOVE Justin Hawkins's voice......like he sang on a song on another album, "an Englishman with a very high voice, singing rock n roll"..........(actually I think he's hit notes that Freddie never did!)...............I'd recommend them to anyone that likes 70s Queen stuff.........they;re very much in that vein............ |
| The King Of Rhye 30.12.2014 00:33 |
oops double post!!! |
| ANAGRAMER 30.12.2014 01:45 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Muse. Black Holes And Revelations and The 2nd Law are phenomenal albums.Yes And live, they are the real deal! |
| Vali 30.12.2014 03:25 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Muse. Black Holes And Revelations and The 2nd Law are phenomenal albums.^^ this except for The 2nd Law ! you really think that was a better album than The Resistance? I love The 2nd Law as a good collection of songs (some of them superb songs, as usual with Muse), but I've always felt it's a disjointed album that lacks the flow that The Resistance and Black Holes had .... Not to mention that I always skip Save Me and Liquid State. I'm sorry for Chris Wolstenholme, but I find those songs really, really subpar, compared to their regular deliveries. Just my personal opinion, of course ! Interesting ... I'm a big, big fan of The Resistance and had great expectations (not fullfilled) with The 2nd Law, but you seem to perceive it just the oposite way ..... and that proves, one more time, the greatness of music :-) |
| The Real Wizard 30.12.2014 10:29 |
Vali wrote: except for The 2nd Law ! you really think that was a better album than The Resistance?Very much so. To me The Resistance kind of dies after track 3. United States of Eurasia is just too political and overly Queen ripoffy (is that a word? It is now). MK Ultra dives too deeply into conspiracy quack land. And Matt Bellamy, brilliant as he is, is not an orchestral arranger. The Symphony suite just doesn't sound the way a string arrangement should sound. He just applies his keyboard arpeggio technique to strings, which just makes them superfluous instead of actually adding a new dimension to the music. The 2nd Law, on the other hand, is a return to form - Muse doing what Muse does best, which is sticking to their principles and incorporating other genres of music into what they do. Bringing dubstep into Follow Me is one of the most brilliant decisions in popular music in decades. This is exactly what Queen were doing in the 70s on Sheer Heart Attack through News Of The World - trying out a genre of music once and never again. This is what makes Black Holes And Revelations an excellent album as well. But I do agree that the Chris tracks are the weak spot on the album, although I still say good on them for trying to expand. Interesting ... I'm a big, big fan of The Resistance and had great expectations (not fullfilled) with The 2nd Law, but you seem to perceive it just the oposite way ..... and that proves, one more time, the greatness of music :-)Yup :-) Regardless of these little differences in opinion, I still say they have been, by far, the most interesting rock band of the last decade. |
| brENsKi 30.12.2014 10:44 |
MadTheSwine73 wrote: I think Nirvana and The Foo Fighters will be the Queen and Zeppelin of our generation. They will be the rock bands that people 40-50 years from now will still listen to. Can't say that about many others.ouch!!! Kings of Leon, Killers, Manics, Green day, Muse, RHCPs, White Stripes, Blink, Coldplay, Radiohead, Artic Monkeys, Black Keys, QoTSA, Arcade Fire, Alter Bridge, Pearl Jam, Shinedown, Matchbox Twenty...even My Chemical Romance had their moments. Every decade/generation produces bands that although not mega-huge, will still be listened to in decades to come. Quality always survives the test of time. which is why "lesser known" (in the mainstream) bands like The Band, Velvet Underground, CCR, Love, Zombies, Jefferson Airplane, Buffalo Springfield, Byrds - have ALL produced a handful of songs that will remain in the consciousness of the mainstream for decades to come. |
| Oscar J 30.12.2014 10:58 |
What about Absolution? Isn't that Muse's most consistent album? |
| Vali 30.12.2014 11:02 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Regardless of these little differences in opinion, I still say they have been, by far, the most interesting rock band of the last decade.and I say amen to that ! :-) |
| Vali 30.12.2014 11:05 |
Oscar J wrote: What about Absolution? Isn't that Muse's most consistent album?yeah, many people will say so (and I consider it's a fantastic album), but the one that really made me fall in love with Muse was "Black Holes...". |
| MadTheSwine73 30.12.2014 13:16 |
brENsKi wrote:I said I can't think of many others. Doesn't mean there aren't any :)MadTheSwine73 wrote: I think Nirvana and The Foo Fighters will be the Queen and Zeppelin of our generation. They will be the rock bands that people 40-50 years from now will still listen to. Can't say that about many others.ouch!!! Kings of Leon, Killers, Manics, Green day, Muse, RHCPs, White Stripes, Blink, Coldplay, Radiohead, Artic Monkeys, Black Keys, QoTSA, Arcade Fire, Alter Bridge, Pearl Jam, Shinedown, Matchbox Twenty...even My Chemical Romance had their moments. Every decade/generation produces bands that although not mega-huge, will still be listened to in decades to come. Quality always survives the test of time. which is why "lesser known" (in the mainstream) bands like The Band, Velvet Underground, CCR, Love, Zombies, Jefferson Airplane, Buffalo Springfield, Byrds - have ALL produced a handful of songs that will remain in the consciousness of the mainstream for decades to come. Now that you mention a few though, I think Jack White (and the White Stripes), The Killers, Muse, and The Red Hot Chili Peppers are the only others. I think the others you mentioned will also live on, but not with the same legacy. I really like Arcade Fire, but I can't see them having a legacy like Nirvana, The White Stripes, or Muse, although I hope they have something similar. |
| people on streets 30.12.2014 13:19 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Muse. Black Holes And Revelations and The 2nd Law are phenomenal albums.Muse. I agree. "Origin of Symmetry" & "Absolution" are their best LPs in my opinion. My opinion might have to do with the fact that I became a Muse fan in 2001. I'm not really fond of the direction the band is heading these days. Can't wait for the new LP though... |
| people on streets 30.12.2014 13:22 |
Having said that, these days my absolute favourite live bands are Manic Street Preachers and Suede. |
| gerry 30.12.2014 14:14 |
Queen were a unique clever rock group fronted by the most amazing charismatic front man ever in Freddie Mercury. No band on the planet will ever be as classy as Queen were, and no band will achieve what Queen did, because in the 70s it was difficult to hit the big time, and you had to be bloody good or you got no where, nowadays the music industry is almost disabled because of the dominance of the xfactor where unknowns get catapulted into the big time with no experience and simon cowell & co throw thousands at these unknowns and the hype begins. There will never be another Queen, There will never be another Freddie Mercury, for those of us who have seen this group in all there glory we are blessed, because it will never happen again! |
| brENsKi 30.12.2014 16:23 |
MadTheSwine73 wrote:Now that you mention a few though, I think Jack White (and the White Stripes), The Killers, Muse, and The Red Hot Chili Peppers are the only others. I think the others you mentioned will also live on, but not with the same legacy. I really like Arcade Fire, but I can't see them having a legacy like Nirvana, The White Stripes, or Muse, although I hope they have something similar.the Nirvana thing isn't really a mystery is it? or is it? Rock Star Death Age - and all that bollocks....it guarantees an immortality for a band that were probably only "quite good" - but are since painted as the stuff of legend. Sad really that some of the bands that co-existed -some beat Nirvana to getting a recording contract - and many of which were (imo) much better (Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains & Stone Temple Pilots) - never got the same level of acclaim or recognition. |
| M-train 30.12.2014 16:32 |
I will agree that the bands of the early to mid 90's were good bands, which is where I remember started to notice a drop in anything IMO note worthy. Even so I don't think any band, or solo artist will ever, even in the coming years, eclipse what bands like Queen, Zep, the Who, Stones, Beetles have done. I'm not trying to piss on any new bands that some of you like and enjoy, I just don't see that star power in the newer bands, the early bands seem to have achieved. |
| The Real Wizard 30.12.2014 16:37 |
brENsKi wrote:Vampire Weekend too. Their first album is one of the best albums of the last decade.MadTheSwine73 wrote: I think Nirvana and The Foo Fighters will be the Queen and Zeppelin of our generation. They will be the rock bands that people 40-50 years from now will still listen to. Can't say that about many others.ouch!!! Kings of Leon, Killers, Manics, Green day, Muse, RHCPs, White Stripes, Blink, Coldplay, Radiohead, Artic Monkeys, Black Keys, QoTSA, Arcade Fire, Alter Bridge, Pearl Jam, Shinedown, Matchbox Twenty...even My Chemical Romance had their moments. Every decade/generation produces bands that although not mega-huge, will still be listened to in decades to come. |
| The Real Wizard 30.12.2014 16:42 |
gerry wrote: No band on the planet will ever be as classy as Queen were, and no band will achieve what Queen did, because in the 70s it was difficult to hit the big time, and you had to be bloody good or you got no where, nowadays the music industry is almost disabled because of the dominance of the xfactorAnd that's where I stopped reading. Did you completely miss the rest of this thread where good music of the last 25 years is being discussed? And you obviously missed all the horribly bad music that dominated the charts in the 70s. Even before disco. Your post is akin to saying all music after 1966 sucks because The Monkees existed. Their manufacturing process was absolutely no different from today's X Factor type of music product and social engineering. Or you can just stay under that rock. |
| The Real Wizard 30.12.2014 16:44 |
Oscar J wrote: What about Absolution? Isn't that Muse's most consistent album?It's a fantastic record - not a single bad cut on it, for sure. But they still hadn't quite shaken off the Radiohead thing. They were trying to sound like Radiohead when Thom Yorke didn't want to sound like Radiohead. He developed an allergic reaction to the pop hook a few years earlier. I'd agree that they found their sound on Absolution, but fully hit their stride on Black Holes and Revelations. |
| The Real Wizard 30.12.2014 16:47 |
brENsKi wrote: Sad really that some of the bands that co-existed -some beat Nirvana to getting a recording contract - and many of which were (imo) much better (Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains & Stone Temple Pilots) - never got the same level of acclaim or recognition.I'd say Pearl Jam did. I'm not sure about the UK and Europe, but in North America they are widely regarded as one of the best and hardest working live bands ever. They haven't had a hit record in quite some time, but they can still sell out any arena. And there's no show - just pure music. On their last tour, for the last song they turned on the house lights and turned off the sound system. After reading about it I wish I'd experienced it, but I passed it up, foolishly. |
| brENsKi 30.12.2014 17:03 |
it was just my twopenneth - but i felt that Cobain dying so tragically cast Nirvana as the gold standard for Grunge when nothing could be further from the truth. Pearl Jam, Soundgarden Stone Temple Pilots and Alice were better bands (imo) with Pearl Jam being the best of the genre. |
| The King Of Rhye 30.12.2014 17:17 |
M-train wrote:, Beetles have done. the BeAtles, dangit.......only 2 Es in that name..........lol |
| oliverd05 30.12.2014 17:34 |
now this is a subject which is quite dear to my heart! im often saying i dont think any band will be as big as Queen were/are its difficult to describe why, i mean i admit i am obviously biased, but i agree with whoever said it, the bands of today just dont have the staying power! its sad really but i dont think that any band will because, the way the music industry is these days especially with the X factor, they've had ten series and only 1 of them as far as i know made it really big on both sides of the atlantic, and even now we've not heard anything from Leona Lewis in a long time! So for me its a difficult subject but one that proves extremely interesting |
| Day dop 30.12.2014 17:41 |
brENsKi wrote: it was just my twopenneth - but i felt that Cobain dying so tragically cast Nirvana as the gold standard for Grunge when nothing could be further from the truth. Pearl Jam, Soundgarden Stone Temple Pilots and Alice were better bands (imo) with Pearl Jam being the best of the genre.I was the right age (being a teen) when Nevermind came out. Nothing any of those other bands released hit people my age as hard as Nirvana did. |
| The King Of Rhye 30.12.2014 17:46 |
oliverd05 wrote: especially with the X factor, they've had ten series and only 1 of them as far as i know made it really big on both sides of the atlantic, and even now we've not heard anything from Leona Lewis in a long time!Maybe that is so, but then again, theres American Idol.....a few big stars came out of that, aside from the obvious......... |
| Viper 31.12.2014 03:38 |
The way the music business is today, I think we'll never see another band such as Queen in our lifetime. |
| Costa86 31.12.2014 03:58 |
I agree that we do have some very good bands - like most others, I'd mention The Killers, Coldplay, Radiohead, Kings of Leon, Muse and even Placebo (Twenty Years and The Bitter End are great songs, and they have numerous other very good ones). |
| Doga 31.12.2014 04:10 |
I am a bit late to the party, but last night i saw this and i almost wet myself: link |
| gerry 31.12.2014 04:59 |
The Real Wizard: Too be honest i do not care for all the 90s groups that happened after Queen, because they brought nothing special to the table. Queen are superior to any group that i have heard and i have heard a lot of groups. In the 70s, other groups worth mentioning are E.L.O Supertramp, The Sweet, real groups who had song after song that was memorable. Music in the 90s was dull, the songs were not as clever as the 70s songs were! There was also good music in the 80s and there was nothing wrong with disco in the 70s, some of the tunes were fab, John Deacon loved Chic! |
| brENsKi 31.12.2014 07:35 |
gerry wrote:The Real Wizard: Too be honest i do not care for all the 90s groups that happened after Queen, because they brought nothing special to the table. Music in the 90s was dull, the songs were not as clever as the 70s songs were!Gerry - i've resisted the urge to tear your comment to pieces on several grounds. But you can save an awful lot of arguments round here if you phrase your sentences with:- "in my opinion" or "i think" or "i feel that" or even just add an (IMO). It makes a huge difference to the context of what you are trying to say. |
| The King Of Rhye 31.12.2014 07:52 |
gerry wrote: The Real Wizard: Too be honest i do not care for all the 90s groups that happened after Queen, because they brought nothing special to the table.Maybe thats your opinion, but I disagree, when there was stuff like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Dinosaur Jr, Screaming Trees (way way underrated band!), G'n'R, and bands from the 80s that kept going like Metallica...... |
| brENsKi 31.12.2014 08:50 |
oliverd05 wrote:now this is a subject which is quite dear to my heart! im often saying i dont think any band will be as big as Queen were/are its difficult to describe why, i mean i admit i am obviously biased, but i agree with whoever said it, the bands of today just dont have the staying power!well if you take Freddie's demise as Queen's tenure that'd be 1974 (first hit) to 1991 = 17 years so let's not be so unfair on other bands/artists: The Stones and the Who predated queen by almost a decade and are still going strong today. And the band everyone loves to hate - U2 - have been having hits for 10 years longer than queen! But of the new bands - so readily dismissed as "here today, gone tomorrow", perhaps we should give credit where it's due: band - first hit - years to date RHCP - 1989 - 25 Killers - 2003 - 11 kings of leon - 2003 - 11 foos - 1995 - 19 manics - 1992 - 22 muse - 2000 - 14 and that's just a few |
| gerry 31.12.2014 08:53 |
Brenski: Thats unfair to say U2 have been having hits 10 years longer than Queen, if Freddie was still here Queen would tear strips of U2. Silly comment to say. |
| Holly2003 31.12.2014 08:59 |
Day dop wrote: I was the right age (being a teen) when Nevermind came out. Nothing any of those other bands released hit people my age as hard as Nirvana did.Then again, to quote Bart Simpson, making teenagers depressed is like shooting fish in a barrel. Nirvana remind me of the Sex Pistols. They come along seemingly "out of nowhere", shake things up, and are remembered as both rebels and the catalyst for change. However, their actual music isn't that special or memorable. Kurt Cobain wasn't even the best musician or lyricist in the band, and I say that as someone who has a lot of time for him, for the band, and for that era of music. Back on topic, I agree Muse are something special. I only really got into them this year and I'm still discovering new things. I also think Alter Bridge are something special, although they will never be as big as Queen, Zep etc., because the type of music they play isn't that fashionable. ps I also thought for a while that Snow Patrol were in with a chance of becoming really massive, but they blew it by failing to grow beyond Coldplay-type dirges. |
| brENsKi 31.12.2014 09:11 |
gerry wrote: Brenski: Thats unfair to say U2 have been having hits 10 years longer than Queen, if Freddie was still here Queen would tear strips of U2. Silly comment to say.it's not silly. it's fact. freddie isn't here. FACT. so what i have said is 100% accurate. you accuse me of picking an argument with you always...yet YOU come back at me because i state a clear fact....and your counter-argument is based on conjecture. amazing. just for once. stop and read what you typed - and how utterly ridiculous it is. You can't arrive at a factual conclusion in any argument using "ifs" and "maybes". |
| gerry 31.12.2014 09:15 |
It is not fair to make a stupid statement like that! That is so disrespectful to Freddie and the band. What next are you gonna say, ollie murs has had more number ones than john lennon? |
| brENsKi 31.12.2014 09:33 |
this is why it's impossible to discuss anything with you. the point made was about longevity - and on that basis U2 have outlasted queen (your version of queen 1973-1991) by 10 years. U2 are still having hits. fact. for once take a step back and deal with things objectively. take your blinkers off and see the actual facts. it's not about "respect to Freddie and the band" it's about facts. strange thing is - i've not argued a word with you for a week now (i've sat back and watched while you've still fallen out with other people) - yet, even now when you're corrected on a factual basis you seem intent on arguing that YOUR OPINION is correct and FACT is wrong. can you not see how strange that is?. |
| The Real Wizard 31.12.2014 09:35 |
oliverd05 wrote: the bands of today just dont have the staying power! its sad really but i dont think that any band will because, the way the music industry is these daysU2, Green Day and Radiohead have lasted longer than Queen did - with no lineup changes. Compared to 15 years ago, the music industry is in fantastic shape. The internet has made music so accessible. Music is more diverse than it ever has been. The only thing standing in the way of anyone seeing that is their own lack of curiosity. |
| brENsKi 31.12.2014 09:38 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Careful Bob, Your facts are about to get destroyed with the one thing that trumps ALL round here - Gezza Opinionoliverd05 wrote: the bands of today just dont have the staying power! its sad really but i dont think that any band will because, the way the music industry is these daysHate to break it to you, but U2, Green Day and Radiohead have lasted longer than Queen did - with no lineup changes. |
| The Real Wizard 31.12.2014 09:41 |
gerry wrote: The Real Wizard: Too be honest i do not care for all the 90s groups that happened after Queen, because they brought nothing special to the table.You are so completely wrong. Plenty of people would argue that OK Computer is more relevant and influential than any album Queen ever made. gerry wrote: Music in the 90s was dull, the songs were not as clever as the 70s songs were!So you just write off an entire decade of music because you couldn't be bothered to search for something good? What you're saying is actually autobiographical. In the 90s *you* were dull and not as clever as you thought you were in the 70s. The same goes for countless people who pose the same old "things weren't as good as they were when I was a lad" argument. People have been saying that for thousands of years. And nobody with any brains in their head ever took them seriously. Just like now. |
| The Real Wizard 31.12.2014 09:53 |
gerry wrote: Brenski: Thats unfair to say U2 have been having hits 10 years longer than Queen, if Freddie was still here Queen would tear strips of U2. Silly comment to say.This isn't even worth responding to, but... You can't prove that Queen wouldn't have split up in 1992 had Freddie lived. If your argument against U2's longevity is "another band may have been better had history been different" ... then you're obviously not as smart as you think you are. Your blind hero worship and aversion to facts are both just astounding. |
| The Real Wizard 31.12.2014 09:57 |
Holly2003 wrote: I also think Alter Bridge are something special, although they will never be as big as Queen, Zep etc., because the type of music they play isn't that fashionable.That, and they just aren't being marketed. The labels only market what they deem most profitable. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Bands can still make a decent living playing the theatre circuit. Alter Bridge have 1/10th the fanbase Creed had. In fact, a fair chunk of Creed fans don't even know that the rest of the guys are in this new band now. But they do know that Scott Stapp is at rock bottom with addiction and that his wife left him. That's pop culture for you.. |
| gerry 31.12.2014 10:06 |
Brenski : can you not see what you said? any band will last longer than Queen, did you nor know freddie died in 1991 or do you want fred to make greatest hits 4 5 6 7 8 from his grave? F A C T ! Oh and by the way, i have had some very nice discussions with people on here while you have had your tongue in deep freeze thank you very much. Most people on here are not as argumentative as you, mother theresa! |
| The Real Wizard 31.12.2014 10:17 |
^ just wow. If only you could see how stupid you look to anyone with an IQ over 90. |
| The King Of Rhye 31.12.2014 10:28 |
brENsKi wrote: And the band everyone loves to hate - U2 - have been having hits for 10 years longer than queen!Good point there....I never really was a big of that band myself, but you have to recognize their longevity and success....they were absolutely huge in the 80s and 90s, maybe one of the biggest bands in the world for a while....... I think it would be fair to say they were bigger than Queen from the mid-80s on, at least in the US! (even though nothing outside of the UK matters, according to gerry....) |
| The King Of Rhye 31.12.2014 10:48 |
Total conjecture here, but I think that if Freddie was still alive and Queen were still together, maybe they'd be in the same kinda situation as the Stones or The Who.....having huge selling concert tours, putting out an album once in a while that sells well, but never having anything like the chart success they once did........and I'm not trying to be 'disrepectful' to Freddie here......lol |
| brENsKi 31.12.2014 11:08 |
gerry wrote:Brenski : can you not see what you said? any band will last longer than Queen, did you nor know freddie died in 1991 or do you want fred to make greatest hits 4 5 6 7 8 from his grave? F A C T !existing as a band AFTER queen have gone DOES NOT mean lasting longer. queen existed approximately 18 years (in YOUR world) so bands who existed as a hit-recording concern for more than 18 years have more longevity than queen. YOU do not know what longevity means. here's some bands that didn't last as long as queen: rainbow, your beloved ABBA, poison, the libertines, faces, small faces, Led Zeppelin, now do you get it? gerry wrote:Most people on here are not as argumentative as you, mother theresa!but you've also continued to argue with people - because ANYONE who disagrees with gerry is automatically wrong - even when they prove facts against his conjecture-based opinion. Btw - funny how the only person here that people consistently argue with is YOU...go figure Einstein. gerry wrote:Oh and by the way, i have had some very nice discussions with people on here while you have had your tongue in deep freeze thank you very much.one more thing - my tongue hasn't been in deep freeze...i've had a great family christmas while you've been alone in some town centre eating your Turkey-McBollocks, shouting at pigeons and ranting at Qzoners. happy new year! |
| Day dop 31.12.2014 11:27 |
Holly2003 wrote:Admittedly, Bleach was a bit depressing, but I didn't care for that album, and I didn't pay attention to them until Nevermind, which I didn't find depressing at all.Day dop wrote: I was the right age (being a teen) when Nevermind came out. Nothing any of those other bands released hit people my age as hard as Nirvana did.Then again, to quote Bart Simpson, making teenagers depressed is like shooting fish in a barrel. Nirvana remind me of the Sex Pistols. They come along seemingly "out of nowhere", shake things up, and are remembered as both rebels and the catalyst for change. However, their actual music isn't that special or memorable. Kurt Cobain wasn't even the best musician or lyricist in the band, and I say that as someone who has a lot of time for him, for the band, and for that era of music. Smells like Teen Spirit, Come As you Are and Rape Me - a few that spring to mind, are three of the more memorable tunes from the 90s. Smells Like Teen Spirit in particular. That was probably one of the biggest (along with the album it came from), that in many ways defined much of what the 90's were about music-wise, or at least the early half of the 90's, imo. |
| gerry 31.12.2014 11:33 |
The King of Rhye: you say U2 were the biggest band in the 80s for a while, yet Queen blew them off stage at "Live Aid" in 1985! Plus Queen were voted THE band of the 80s on tv in 1989 on "The end of the 80s show" ITV. Queen personally collected the award. Queen were the greatest group in the 80s easily. |
| ludwigs 31.12.2014 11:45 |
gerry wrote: The King of Rhye: you say U2 were the biggest band in the 80s for a while, yet Queen blew them off stage at "Live Aid" in 1985! Plus Queen were voted THE band of the 80s on tv in 1989 on "The end of the 80s show" ITV. Queen personally collected the award. Queen were the greatest group in the 80s easily.There really IS no possible hope is there? TV voting? Gotta be the final word in truth doesn't it? Bob Sir Wanker, I'm guessing 80 may be a tad too high..... My 'supposing' (wait, it's coming) is that Gezza thinks quotient is something Rossi and the boys best not do. (boom, boom) Say it quickly Gez, you may just get it? (Catch the use of word-play yet?) |
| *goodco* 31.12.2014 11:49 |
The 80s didn't end in '85. U2 was selling out stadiums in the States in '87. Queen sold how many tickets here after '82? oy....there is no hope indeed. I'd give anything if this person would contribute to a thread, rather than hijacking it with his constant 'original' thoughts. |
| The Real Wizard 31.12.2014 11:53 |
gerry wrote: The King of Rhye: you say U2 were the biggest band in the 80s for a while, yet Queen blew them off stage at "Live Aid" in 1985! Plus Queen were voted THE band of the 80s on tv in 1989 on "The end of the 80s show" ITV. Queen personally collected the award. Queen were the greatest group in the 80s easily.Fine, but that still doesn't support your original argument, which is that nothing good has come out of the 90s or beyond. So you're still wrong. Let me tell you a little story... I used to think like you. I used to think Queen were the best band ever, that nobody came close, that A Night At The Opera was the greatest album that had ever been recorded (even though I had only heard a few dozen albums front to back). But many people around me had similar experiences with the music they loved. They had albums that moved them beyond belief, that they found to be hugely influential on them and on others. I decided that they weren't bat-shit crazy, that maybe I didn't know everything, and made the decision to see for myself. And there began my journey of searching for music that may connect with me even more than my favourite band did. Sometimes I was successful, sometimes not. One slight detail - I was 15. So while I know what it's like to blindly think one band is better than all the rest, I didn't take it a step further by adjusting facts presented to me to suit my beliefs. I adjusted my beliefs to suit the facts. And you're pushing 50? Time for a reality check. Queen aren't the greatest band ever. ANATO isn't the greatest album ever. No Queen album is. No awards show is going to "prove" these facts when these things are subjective. Being all high and mighty, insisting your opinions are facts and that rejecting any facts that do not coalesce with your opinion is no way to a) make friends, b) convince anyone that you have anything beyond a double digit IQ, and, most importantly c) help you grow. Time to grow up, dude. |
| gerry 31.12.2014 12:06 |
Goodco: Queens ticket sales were astounding in the 80s,at "Rio" Queen played to 250.000 adoring fans! U2 only had dreams about that one ha ha ! |
| The Real Wizard 31.12.2014 12:09 |
gerry wrote: Goodco: Queens ticket sales were astounding in the 80s,at "Rio" Queen played to 250.000 adoring fans! U2 only had dreams about that one ha ha !link ^ Queen doesn't even register. But guess who does? U2. Please, tell us more about how you know everything about music history. |
| gerry 31.12.2014 12:10 |
Ludwigs: It was a genuine award other wise Queen would certainly have not appeared on british tv to accept the award and freddie would not be at any award show unless it was a special occasion and this was, Queen band of the 80s, get used to that because it is fact and history. U2 must have been stamping there feet with jealousy! ha ha . |
| gerry 31.12.2014 12:13 |
Real wizard: you should change your name because your not a wizard but a fool. i have been a loyal Queen fan for over 41 years and followed all the news and events that went on in the bands career. Are you british or are you from the states?? |
| ludwigs 31.12.2014 12:15 |
gerry wrote: Ludwigs: It was a genuine award other wise Queen would certainly have not appeared on british tv to accept the award and freddie would not be at any award show unless it was a special occasion and this was, Queen band of the 80s, get used to that because it is fact and history. U2 must have been stamping there feet with jealousy! ha ha .How can I possibly compete with your vast and totally superior rational knowledge?? You are just so utterly grounded and I have been put in my place once again with your total monopoly of intelligence. I can't wait until I too reach the mental age of 10. |
| The Real Wizard 31.12.2014 12:15 |
gerry wrote: i have been a loyal Queen fan for over 41 years and followed all the news and events that went on in the bands career. Are you british or are you from the states??What do either of those points have to do with anything? Click on the link in my previous post and consider your ass handed to you. |
| gerry 31.12.2014 12:21 |
ludwigs, & Real Wizard: You obviously do not know your Queen history, but hey you be childish with your name calling because i dont care a fig! "Dont stop me now im having such a good time, im having a ball, dont stop me now if you wanna have a good time , just give ma call, dont stop me now, dont stop me cos im having a good time i dont wanna stop at all...........................................yeah! |
| The Real Wizard 31.12.2014 12:21 |
You bring humanity's collective IQ down with your mere existence. I pity you. |
| ludwigs 31.12.2014 12:24 |
gerry wrote: ludwigs, & Real Wizard: You obviously do not know your Queen history, but hey you be childish with your name calling because i dont care a fig!If you could possibly show me where I called you names? You resort to flippancy just because you can't offer anything of substance. Did you actually get to meet him....the pie-man? |
| The King Of Rhye 31.12.2014 12:26 |
gerry wrote: |
| The King Of Rhye 31.12.2014 12:27 |
double post |
| gerry 31.12.2014 12:28 |
ludwigs: what i told you is true and fact, any respectable Queen fan will tell you Queen were named band of the 1980s. how old are you? |
| Chief Mouse 31.12.2014 12:29 |
Gerry, you could easily turn your posts way better if you didn't claim Queen was THE BEST of the best because it's subjective, and that applies to any band or artist in my opinion. It may be the best for you. And there is a difference. As Wizard mentioned, there are very different bands and each fan of their band thinks they are the best. Also, don't back your theories up by award shows and numbers - neither of them mean nothing, to be honest. And lastly, please put "in my opinion" in your posts, as Brenski somewhere mentioned already. |
| ludwigs 31.12.2014 12:36 |
gerry wrote: ludwigs: what i told you is true and fact, any respectable Queen fan will tell you Queen were named band of the 1980s. how old are you?Well, as you already HAVE read from previous postings, I too have been a fan for 42 years(1 more than you). I am currently 48. 49 in June. Yes, I am also aware of some 'facts' BUT I can act closer to my mental and physical age by being level-headed, not swayed by the press etc. This is where you come hugely unstuck. One thing maturity brings is the ability to see some bigger pictures. Sir Wanker also pointed this trait he (as we all had) when he was 15 but grew up and is very open to big world most of us live in. You are a dinosaur who just can not and will not try to improve your mind. Are you married? Ever have a girl/boyfriend? Do you have any children? Do you work? |
| *goodco* 31.12.2014 12:37 |
gerry wrote: Goodco: Queens ticket sales were astounding in the 80s,at "Rio" Queen played to 250.000 adoring fans! U2 only had dreams about that one ha ha !And Yes played to about 300,000 less than ten days later. So now I know who the band of that decade was! Yes! Indeed! |
| gerry 31.12.2014 12:39 |
I find it astonishing that everybody on here does not care that Queen collected a prestigious award in 1989 for band of the 80s! you may say numbers & award shows mean nothing but they happen to be Queen history, & rubber stamped, and that was not My OPINION it was fact. Sorry to say this again, but Queen really are the best of the best. They have very impressive facts in there biography in the Queen fan club, people on here should buy a copy and educate themselves If you do not agree that Queen were an amazing group then why are you all on here for? All groups have fan sites, and they support the band they are with but on here they don't seem to. This is a strange site for so called Queen lovers? |
| gerry 31.12.2014 12:45 |
ludwigs: Are you sure you know how old you are? you say 48, 49 in june, do you not know? i do not get my info from the media, but mainly from official Queen items, approved by the Queen fan club. yes i work, yes i have a partner, and no i do not have children, anything else sir? |
| The Real Wizard 31.12.2014 12:47 |
*goodco* wrote: And Yes played to about 300,000 less than ten days later. So now I know who the band of that decade was! Yes! Indeed!"An answer to all of your answers to yes" !! Btw - earlier this year someone pointed us to some reports that Queen actually played to 350,000 people on the first night in Rio and 250,000 on the second night. So Queen are actually the biggest band of the 80s. Even though Simon and Garfunkel played to half a million in Central Park in 1981. Can't you see that 350,000 is more than a half million? Facts are facts. |
| Day dop 31.12.2014 12:48 |
Queen may be my personal favourites, but I wouldn't suggest for a second they're bigger than The Beatles. I don't think any band was, or will ever be bigger than The Beatles. Just thought I'd throw that one in there. |
| The Real Wizard 31.12.2014 12:49 |
gerry wrote: If you do not agree that Queen were an amazing group then why are you all on here for? All groups have fan sites, and they support the band they are with but on here they don't seem to. This is a strange site for so called Queen lovers?Everyone here loves Queen. We just don't blindly follow Queen like a religion and instead recognize that other bands exist, many of whom have achieved greater things than Queen did. |
| gerry 31.12.2014 12:50 |
goodco: i know too who band of the 80s was because the award is sitting in Brian Mays Mansion. oh yes! |
| ludwigs 31.12.2014 12:53 |
gerry wrote: ludwigs: Are you sure you know how old you are? you say 48, 49 in june, do you not know? i do not get my info from the media, but mainly from official Queen items, approved by the Queen fan club. yes i work, yes i have a partner, and no i do not have children, anything else sir?Yes, there is!! I say I am 48. 49 in June. What part of that perplexes you? It means I am 48 years and 6 months and 2 weeks old! You must be very mentally sub-par if that catches you out. You get your 'best-known Queen fan in your North East area' from official Queen sites. Try to take a step back and think - Would these sites want to just present some facts as average or would they (like their press releases etc) want to offer them as astounding facts? You haven't the capacity to think. |
| gerry 31.12.2014 12:56 |
you either are 48 or 49 , you cant be both sweetie! lol ha ha dont you worry your little brain out i am quite capable of thinking. i know what you said but it does not look right. |
| The Real Wizard 31.12.2014 13:01 |
gerry wrote: you either are 48 or 49 , you cant be both sweetie! lolOh my god. Are you actually that stupid? He said he's 48 now, and will be 49 this coming June. You are just stunningly, stunningly stupid. |
| Chief Mouse 31.12.2014 13:01 |
gerry wrote: you either are 48 or 49 , you cant be both sweetie! lol ha ha dont you worry your little brain out i am quite capable of thinking. i know what you said but it does not look right. He is currently 48. He will be 49 in June. |
| gerry 31.12.2014 13:02 |
yes i know what he said i was just winding him up lol |
| ludwigs 31.12.2014 13:03 |
gerry wrote: you either are 48 or 49 , you cant be both sweetie! lol ha ha dont you worry your little brain out i am quite capable of thinking. i know what you said but it does not look right.Possibly cause it's not written like a Ladybird book! Read back a third time. I am not yet 49! (That comes in June) Or more easily - I am 10 plus 10 plus 10 plus 10 plus 4 and 4! Simple enough for youses? |
| gerry 31.12.2014 13:05 |
Real Wizard: you are stunningly stupid if you can not recognize a wind up! lol i love winding you prats up on here its fab! ha ha ha |
| gerry 31.12.2014 13:08 |
ludwig: Dont tell me you read ladybird books? now you are giving your mental age away now ! ha ha ha bet you like ollie murs as well. |
| ludwigs 31.12.2014 13:15 |
gerry wrote: ludwig: Dont tell me you read ladybird books? now you are giving your mental age away now ! ha ha ha bet you like ollie murs as well.I'm not one of his fans BUT....he is selling well and he appears to be grounded. I read Ladybird books to my son when he was young. Guess you've got those to look forward to soon. - Reading them. Where in the hard North East are you? I have a friend from around Newcastle and he IS a true fan. Goes to all the conventions - even flies to the US for some too, and he is always seeing BM and RT gigs when they were on. Went Montreux last year to visit Fred statue with a lot of other Queenies and is on close terms with Jen and Jacqui. As the North Easts BIGGEST fan ( I meant Rod - Argent) did you make any effort to do anything similar? So, he could ask you how you feel YOU are a true Queen fan compared to him. Seem reasonable? Unfortunately, he likes and listens to other music too |
| The King Of Rhye 31.12.2014 13:17 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Facts are facts.The truth hurts, doesn't it, Hapsburg? Oh sure, maybe not as much as landing on a bicycle with the seat missing, but it hurts! -- Lt. Frank Drebin (just read 'gerry' for 'Hapsburg') |
| The Real Wizard 31.12.2014 13:25 |
gerry wrote: Real Wizard: you are stunningly stupid if you can not recognize a wind up! lol i love winding you prats up on here its fab! ha ha haYou obviously don't know what "winding up" means. You don't wind somebody up by making yourself look like you can't do basic reading comprehension. That's called looking like a complete idiot. |
| Gregsynth 31.12.2014 14:45 |
I'm 24 and 25 at the same time. |
| ludwigs 31.12.2014 14:55 |
Gregsynth wrote: I'm 24 and 25 at the same time.You're the same as me Greg - simple?? ;-) |
| The King Of Rhye 31.12.2014 15:53 |
Hey, well, I'm 17 and 20 at the same time..........;) |
| *goodco* 31.12.2014 16:51 |
To the OP: perhaps rap, punk at its worst, death metal etc created a laziness and so many factions, that musical talents and writing skills went by the wayside to a degree. Jazz and blues and rockabilly and Motown influenced musicians decades later. Instead of four TV stations and a couple of radio stations in your market, with almost complete control, your viewing and listening choices are endless. That's why there will never be another Beatles, Queen, Zep, Stones, etc And with all the countless options available to young people these days, and their attention spans, they may have 50 favorite artists, but when you ask what their favorite album is, they give a blank stare and go 'huh?' The 'hits' are all that count. Quality album tracks seem nonexistent (for the most part) . |
| brENsKi 31.12.2014 17:15 |
gerry wrote:Oh and by the way, i have had some very nice discussions with people on here while you have had your tongue in deep freeze thank you very much. Most people on here are not as argumentative as you, mother theresa!Take a look at your conversations in this thread Gerry - you're arguing with almost everyone - you are the common denominator. You're the one "shouting at pigeons in the street" Effectively, your comment above has you "hoisted upon your own petard". |
| brENsKi 31.12.2014 17:21 |
gerry wrote:Real Wizard: you are stunningly stupid if you can not recognize a wind up! lol i love winding you prats up on here its fab! ha ha hayou are not intelligent enough to intentionally wind anyone up. your abject stupidity winds people up. the very notion that a man of almost 50 who cannot logically distinguish in his own head, the difference between facts and opinions. It beggars belief. The ONLY thing that would mitigate this now would be if YOU actually opened up and admitted that you genuinely do have learning difficulties. But as you've claimed all along that you don't, then it's safe to conclude your educational needs have never been accurately assessed. happy new year. |
| Apocalipsis_Darko 31.12.2014 17:29 |
Rolling Stones, AC/DC, Sex Pistols, Blondie,Tom Waits (solo artist, ok), Alice Cooper (Alice with his band nowdays, Michael Bruce, Dennis Dunaway with his band BlueCope), Depeche Mode, U2, The Who, REM, The Cross ;), The Cult, The Mission, Bauhaus, Axl Rose band, Radiohead, etc ...but if I can, I will change all for a Queen concert with Freddie and John. |
| brENsKi 01.01.2015 05:20 |
i understand what you're saying - but having seen Queen live 5 times between 79-86 - two Magic tours gigs when one (knebworth) woulda been fine, and a MK gig i still don't wholly love to this day. i'd trade a couple of them to have seen either Zep or The Eagles in their prime. So i suppose it's horses for courses. But then i count my blessings when i consider the bands i saw in their prime; purple, ac/dc, inxs, lizzy, ufo, BOC, scorpions, rainbow, whitesnake, ozzy (with RR), motorhead, bowie (serious moonlight tour), elton, even meatloaf was great in his time. however, some of the lesser known obscure bands i saw at the same time hold equal fond regard; grim reaper, cryer, jameson raid. |
| The Real Wizard 01.01.2015 13:03 |
*goodco* wrote: Instead of four TV stations and a couple of radio stations in your market, with almost complete control, your viewing and listening choices are endless. That's why there will never be another Beatles, Queen, Zep, Stones, etc And with all the countless options available to young people these days, and their attention spans, they may have 50 favorite artists, but when you ask what their favorite album is, they give a blank stare and go 'huh?' The 'hits' are all that count. Quality album tracks seem nonexistent (for the most part)That's a pretty good analysis. And I wouldn't say it's worse. It's just different. There won't be many classic albums, but we sure do have a lot of choice and diversity. |
| BETA215 01.01.2015 13:13 |
The Real Wizard wrote: That's a pretty good analysis. And I wouldn't say it's worse. It's just different. There won't be many classic albums, but we sure do have a lot of choice and diversity.Now, a lot of people is starting to launch singles, and then recopile them in a "album". They put all the effort they can in every single, they do a videoclip for every single, they launch them and then they resell the same singles in an album with some extras (remixes by MrNiggaPro). |
| The King Of Rhye 01.01.2015 13:27 |
^^^ Aside from videos obviously, thats pretty much the way albums were put together in the early days of rock n roll........ |
| M-train 06.01.2015 18:13 |
I just found this on another forum. Looks to me like Gene is spot on. link With all of the file sharing today, there just isn't any money in the industry for the next Elvis, or Beetles to exist. Even if a band that had as much talent as Queen were out there somewhere today, they would have to be making music for purely art as with what Gene was saying, today there isn't the support of the record companies. No support means not much money for touring, PR, etc. We would never see this talent emerge as the band would either starve to death, or just have to break up to get other jobs to make money. |
| BelfastQueenFan 06.01.2015 19:25 |
Muse are the only band I have ever discovered that do a passable attempt at big grand orchestral sounding rock which Queen at their very best were, plus pull it off live. |
| mike hunt 06.01.2015 19:58 |
brENsKi wrote: it was just my twopenneth - but i felt that Cobain dying so tragically cast Nirvana as the gold standard for Grunge when nothing could be further from the truth. Pearl Jam, Soundgarden Stone Temple Pilots and Alice were better bands (imo) with Pearl Jam being the best of the genre.Amen to that. Nirvana were never that good. Alice n chains were my favorite from that era. |
| M-train 06.01.2015 20:09 |
I do think that the bands of the early 90's were good, and had a fresh, good sound. But, after that is where I started seeing a void. I was watching a popular group today on of of these Entertainment shows on TV, [don't know the name, sorry] and it was a group of guys singing, and dancing on a stage with nobody on stage playing any instruments. To top it off the music sucked anyway. As a kid I know I wouldn't look up to a band like this to follow, and champion. |
| Pingfah 07.01.2015 04:16 |
mike hunt wrote:Totally. All the bands he mentioned were better than Nirvana, who were good, but those other bands had just as good songs but were all more sophisticated in their delivery.brENsKi wrote: it was just my twopenneth - but i felt that Cobain dying so tragically cast Nirvana as the gold standard for Grunge when nothing could be further from the truth. Pearl Jam, Soundgarden Stone Temple Pilots and Alice were better bands (imo) with Pearl Jam being the best of the genre.Amen to that. Nirvana were never that good. Alice n chains were my favorite from that era. STP particularly are vastly underrated as songwriters and performers. Tiny Music was the album of the 90s for me. And last summer I caught a 3.5 hour Pearl Jam performance in Leeds that blew my mind. |
| brENsKi 07.01.2015 07:45 |
glad some others agree that the Nirvana truth is nothing like the Nirvana legend. As i implied before - if Nirvana are the "gold standard" - the fuck alone knows what that makes the other bands who are better. Pearl Jam being infinitely better (imo) |
| Major Tom 10.01.2015 19:19 |
What about Treasure Moment you guys? |