| cmsdrums 27.04.2018 12:27 |
Admittedly Roger and Brian went on Chris Evans’ radio show to promote Let Me In Your Heart Again, TMBMTLTT and Love Kills, but basically they were tracks bunged onto the end of a compilation album no one wanted. ABBA are already getting more publicity than the Queeen tracks got by trailing their new (and this is brand new, not archive) tracks 7 months in advance, with the promise of premiering on primetime UK and US TV specials. That’s the way to do it. link |
| dysan 27.04.2018 13:24 |
I absolutely adore ABBA. I'm sure these will be bland ballads, but really nice the story has come full circle. |
| dave76 27.04.2018 13:31 |
ABBA recorded two brand new songs recently which will be released later this year. |
| Holly2003 27.04.2018 13:39 |
cmsdrums wrote: Admittedly Roger and Brian went on Chris Evans’ radio show to promote Let Me In Your Heart Again, TMBMTLTT and Love Kills, but basically they were tracks bunged onto the end of a compilation album no one wanted. ABBA are already getting more publicity than the Queeen tracks got by trailing their new (and this is brand new, not archive) tracks 7 months in advance, with the promise of premiering on primetime UK and US TV specials. That’s the way to do it.Good points. I noticed at the time the relative lack of interest in those 'new' Queen tracks and as you say, this is highlighted by the media attention to this ABBA news. When the Beatles Free as a Bird was released in 1995 it won a Grammy, despite being a mediocre effort with relatively poor sound quality. Interest in The Beatles, The Stones, Led Zep continues unabated, whereas Queen are at least one rung below that. (Yet in other areas like sales they are comparable). Interesting. |
| dysan 27.04.2018 13:44 |
How about that new Bowie single Where Are We Now? Was all over the TV news for 2 days. |
| Vocal harmony 27.04.2018 14:22 |
Holly2003 wrote:Queen have never been on quite the same level as The Stons, Beatles or Zeppilin, and in the late 70's ABBA were a much more successful band than Queen, both critically and ticket and album sales.cmsdrums wrote: Admittedly Roger and Brian went on Chris Evans’ radio show to promote Let Me In Your Heart Again, TMBMTLTT and Love Kills, but basically they were tracks bunged onto the end of a compilation album no one wanted. ABBA are already getting more publicity than the Queeen tracks got by trailing their new (and this is brand new, not archive) tracks 7 months in advance, with the promise of premiering on primetime UK and US TV specials. That’s the way to do it.Good points. I noticed at the time the relative lack of interest in those 'new' Queen tracks and as you say, this is highlighted by the media attention to this ABBA news. When the Beatles Free as a Bird was released in 1995 it won a Grammy, despite being a mediocre effort with relatively poor sound quality. Interest in The Beatles, The Stones, Led Zep continues unabated, whereas Queen are at least one rung below that. (Yet in other areas like sales they are comparable). Interesting. The Queen machine has never stopped being present in some form or another. ABBA on the other hand all but disappeared, with all four members choosing their own path away from the band. The fact that they have always said no to working as ABBA again and the fact that ithe original members are still alive has always generated hope for their fans. So yes it always would have been big news if or when they got together to produce something. |
| Another Roger (re) 27.04.2018 14:52 |
I dont think you can compare this new release with Let me in your heart again. LMIYHA was some leftover track. And Queen have released stuff several times and is more watered out when it comes to releases. F.ex Made in Heaven is more compareable because it had new stuff that was meant for a proper release. |
| musicland munich 28.04.2018 05:02 |
A conglomerate of reasons forced that situation. QUEEN isn't average Soccer Mom's music in my part of the world.A lot of Queen fans think that Queen is the centre of the world - no, it's not. Queen is in a bad position in Germany these days.Most fans totally lost their interest in the band. That counts in reinforced measure for their recent "efforts". And keep in mind Queen is just Brian and Roger. No John and ultimately NO Freddie. The only chance to get a bigger media and fan attention is to release stuff from the Innuendo or MIH sessions and create a nice story around it ONCE AGAIN ! If they come around with maybe five "new" tracks fom the Works or AKOM they will get shrugged shoulders here. |
| Sealion 28.04.2018 14:54 |
ABBA has still the original line-up. After 35 years they produced NEW music together. The hype is big, but we will see, if it will still be 3 months after the release. Queen sits between two worlds in the moment: the past and the present. Actually the old Queen died in 1997 after their last album/single. With only two active members left, they do, what they can to keep the fans interested. The vaults are almost empty, I believe. So there is not much they can do to really keep the interest up or even gather masses of new fans. And what they do is releasing, what is left. Plus they are playing live with a new singer. But as long as they are not releasing new music with Lambert, the question is, who wants to see that? Personally I really enjoy these shows. But I do have problems to talk friends into coming along, because: it‘s not Queen. And it‘s fxxxinh expensive. But they only play Queen, meaning old songs. So, in a way -and I hate to say that - they are their own tribute act. New music, that really generates interest on radio would (have) help(ed). But I think it might be too late for that.., My hope: the upcoming movie will generate a lot of interest in Queen. We will see, how that will be handled and what surprises we might get! |
| Star* 28.04.2018 16:09 |
The difference here between Abba & Queen is that Queen ripped the fans off when they said they had new tracks which were amazing and new versions of old tracks, but when the album got released it was very disappointing as the only new track was "Let me in your heart again" and it never got that much publicity. Abba are at least recording fresh tracks which Brian & Roger should have been doing if they went solo instead of playing karaoke games with a clown. I love Abba too but they have kept the fans waiting far too long for this. |
| Graeme Arnott 28.04.2018 16:41 |
Plus Abba have never tarnished their legacy. |
| The Real Wizard 28.04.2018 16:44 |
Vocal harmony wrote: Queen have never been on quite the same level as The Stons, Beatles or ZeppilinReally, even in the UK? I always saw them as being second to The Beatles in the UK, even to this day. They even passed the fab four in the album charts. In the US, certainly - Queen don't register in most people's top 10. But on your side of the pond it's a whole other story. |
| dysan 28.04.2018 16:48 |
I would say Queen are better known than the Beatles in the UK. Same with Bowie being more popular that Elvis now. Not true in the 90s which I'm sure most people of a certain age would reference - but now the landscape has totally changed. |
| Star* 28.04.2018 17:40 |
Vocal Harmony: you are talking utter dung once again saying Queen were never on the same level as The Stones, Led Zep etc...... But Queen have the biggest selling album ever here in the uk with "Greatest Hits" and that is a fact so do not try to worm your way out of this one! |
| Holly2003 28.04.2018 20:33 |
And to think this promised to be an interesting topic ... :( |
| mike hunt 28.04.2018 20:41 |
I like ABBA, cute little band. Sold lots of record, wrote cute little songs, but artistically not in Queens league. You Can't compare the hype of any band getting back their original lineup and recording new songs with what Queen did with Take Me In Your Heart Again. Trust me on this, if Freddie was alive and they recorded a new album it would go to#1 in almost every country. Where Queen fit as an all time great band depends on where your from. In the UK they are regarded as a 2 or 3 band. In America they're behind the likes of The Stones and Zeppelin, but still highly regarded in the classic Rock ERA. Probably between 10 to 15th on the best bands list. |
| mike hunt 28.04.2018 20:45 |
Holly2003 wrote: And to think this promised to be an interesting topic ... :(Yea, those two lovebirds fighting again. Ruining every topic. Get a room already and be done with it. |
| mooghead 28.04.2018 21:34 |
"cute little band. Sold lots of record, wrote cute little songs" Wow. What a fucking idiot you are. |
| mike hunt 28.04.2018 22:33 |
Another Internet tough guy!....ABBA were cute...not sure what I said that was so wrong. They were Good, but do I really think they were as good as The Who or Zeppelin? Or early Queen? Or Hendrix? No I don't, but they were a cute little band. I like them. |
| The Real Wizard 29.04.2018 03:55 |
mike hunt wrote: I like ABBA, cute little band. Sold lots of record, wrote cute little songs, but artistically not in Queens league.SOS is one of the greatest songs ever written. It is literally perfect. They were a lot more than just a cute little band. |
| mike hunt 29.04.2018 04:37 |
They were good.....but wouldn't a comparison of say The Bee Gees, or some other dance artist from back then be better than Queen? Back when ABBA was big, late 70's Queen were a rock band. Yea, Queen had some Dance styled hits in the 80's, but I don't get the comparison. They both sold millions of records, but that's where the comparison ends. I do agree they were very Good, Including the musical. I didn't even know they were releasing new material, so It's not making many headlines In America. |
| bucsateflon 29.04.2018 06:33 |
ABBA is trying on last hooray for their families bank accounts with all the bells and whistles of publicity. Queen's intention was not the same with those new tracks. |
| Star* 29.04.2018 08:42 |
bucsateflon : I disagree with your comment there, Queen (May & Taylor) do things these days to get the money rolling in otherwise they would not do it for sweet charity, The new track "Let me in your heart again" was a forced thing as the record company needed the excuse to release a new album (Queen Forever) and the only way to make that album sell was to include a track featuring new vocals from Freddie, and the other new tracks which we have all heard before featuring MJ were just touched up but rather boring and bland for me. Abba will also be doing this to top there bank accounts up as well, but they have been rather clever with there publicity for this limp charade. Queens breaking news for there new track never made the news on Tv as far as i am aware. |
| dysan 29.04.2018 09:06 |
Abba and Queen are different on the face of it - however to the person on the street only aware of Greatest Hits and what radio stations play they are utterly in the same bracket. Great high quality 70s tunes that conjure up nostalgia for a happier time gone by that either is imagined or real depending on the listener. That said, we think we've been shafted with unnecessary Queen comps. Abba fans 'FFS' more than we do :) |
| dysan 29.04.2018 09:13 |
It's tempting to make a little 10 track abba song comp for those who might not get the depth of their non-singles. Seriously - If you're already familiar with Gold and More Gold and dig them, please do check out things like Eagle (Prog), King Kong Song (I can imagine Freddie singing this Roger Taylor song), Hey Hey Helen (Great plodding glam) TIger. I'm A marionette, My Love My Life, The Visitors, Like An Angel Passing Through My Room, Intermezzo No 1.. |
| Invisible Woman 29.04.2018 09:48 |
I like ABBA. I'm very interested in what these new songs will be.:) I would very much like if Queen would released at least one unreleased song which Freddie sung. |
| Dr Magus 29.04.2018 10:29 |
Globally Queen bow only to The Beatles. I love Abba and am excited to hear a new track, since the original four members are on it. I admire the way Bjorn and Benny haven't sold their souls on some crappy reality show to look for a karaoke loser that would get them a bit of attention in America. |
| dysan 29.04.2018 10:53 |
Would be interesting to do more threads like this. Queen Vs The Doors would be interesting - dead singer, the others carried on without him and even made a posthumous album using leftovers and are now releasing basically everything from the vaults. |
| RMTAYLOR_1981 29.04.2018 10:57 |
calm down before use words like "fucking" and "idiot" to people. In italy everyone knows 20 queen songs and maybe 3 by Abba. Cute little band compared to Queen in terms of versatility and musical range , even if they sold hundreds million |
| Vocal harmony 29.04.2018 10:58 |
I was never an ABBA fan although I don't think I've ever heard a bad ABBA song or rather an ABBA snag I haven't liked. Their albums sold in huge quantities and they were able to play multiple arena shows (six sold out Wembley Arena shows in 79 if memory serves me correctly) with the promoter wanting to double that number. What has struck me is how much of ABBA is actually Benny Anderson. Anyone who saw the Benny Anderson band touring a few years ago couldn't ignore how ABBA like the material and the band it's self sounded. |
| Vocal harmony 29.04.2018 11:13 |
The Real Wizard wrote:In sales terms Queen's big UK album as we all know is greatest hits. Take away the sales figures for that album and they'd slip a long way down the list.Vocal harmony wrote: Queen have never been on quite the same level as The Stons, Beatles or ZeppilinReally, even in the UK? I always saw them as being second to The Beatles in the UK, even to this day. They even passed the fab four in the album charts. In the US, certainly - Queen don't register in most people's top 10. But on your side of the pond it's a whole other story. In the States NOTW was very big but it wasn't a Stones or Led Zeppilin sized release. The singles on The Game gave them another huge push, but they never rose above Arena level ticket sales in America, The Stones, Floyd and Zeppilin outshone the completely plus a plethora of American bands at the time. In the UK Hyde Park was huge, but it was free, the next time they played outdoor UK shows (Hot Space) did not sellout, it took lLive Aid and the following years Magic tour to put them in the big league in the UK The media seems, in general back then and now to an extent to regard the other bang names as somehow being more genuinely big. Certainly when Zeppilin announced their o2 show the world media went nuts with the news and the possibility of a tour to follow. When Queen came out of the shadows in 2005 the news did not compare, as with every Stones tour that has been announced since the mid 80's Queen just don't seem to be quite at the same level |
| moonhead79 29.04.2018 11:21 |
cmsdrums wrote: ABBA are already getting more publicity than the Queeen tracks got by trailing their new (and this is brand new, not archive) tracks 7 months in advanceyes but we must remember a little detail... ABBA are all still alive so they don't need to search in the archives... Obviously Queen can write new material but who sing it? Adam? Could be great... A sort of Queen + Friends with various singers like Elton? Funny but for me not. Or Simply a new Queen album with just Bri & Rog singing... Where are the others archives tracks? I mean My Secret Fantasy, Face It Alone and few more? Today with modern tecnology they can do miracles using bits recorded by Freddie |
| Sebastian 29.04.2018 17:12 |
I agree with Queen being massive in Britain but only in terms of hits compilations. Go compare! Compilations: - Queen GH: 6.1 M - ABBA Gold: 5.3 M - Queen GHII: 3.9 M - Madonna's TIC: 3.7 M - Beatles 1: 3.2 M - ABBA's GH: 2.6 M Non-compilation albums: - Sgt Pepper: 5.2 M - 21: 4.9 M - Morning Glory: 4.7 M - Thriller (aka HS Mk II according to Dr May): 4.4 M - Dark Side: 4.3 M ... - Made in Heaven: 2.4 M - A Night at the Opera: 0.3 M - News of the World: 0.1 M - The Cosmos Rocks: Less than 0.06 M In other words: - For every 61 people in Britain who've got 'Greatest Hits', only one has bought 'News of the World'. - For every person in the UK who's bought 'A Night at the Opera', 14 people have bought 'Dark Side', 15 people have bought the Oasis record and 17 people have bought 'Sgt Pepper' (you know, The Beatles' very own 'ANatO') - For every person in the UK who's bought 'Cosmos Rocks', there are at least 86 who've bought 'Sgt Pepper'. |
| dysan 29.04.2018 17:17 |
A sale is a sale! Like I said earlier in the thread though - if you asked a man on the street to name a song off any of those albums, they'd get most on QGH1 + 2 and Abba Gold. I know this because I watch Pointless |
| mike hunt 29.04.2018 17:18 |
RMTAYLOR_1981 wrote: calm down before use words like "fucking" and "idiot" to people. In italy everyone knows 20 queen songs and maybe 3 by Abba. Cute little band compared to Queen in terms of versatility and musical range , even if they sold hundreds millionI agree |
| mike hunt 29.04.2018 17:20 |
Vocal harmony wrote:You do know that Queen are in the top 10 or 20 of the best selling artists of all time globally right? They sold more records than The Who and Hendrix I believe....The Real Wizard wrote:In sales terms Queen's big UK album as we all know is greatest hits. Take away the sales figures for that album and they'd slip a long way down the list. In the States NOTW was very big but it wasn't a Stones or Led Zeppilin sized release. The singles on The Game gave them another huge push, but they never rose above Arena level ticket sales in America, The Stones, Floyd and Zeppilin outshone the completely plus a plethora of American bands at the time. In the UK Hyde Park was huge, but it was free, the next time they played outdoor UK shows (Hot Space) did not sellout, it took lLive Aid and the following years Magic tour to put them in the big league in the UK The media seems, in general back then and now to an extent to regard the other bang names as somehow being more genuinely big. Certainly when Zeppilin announced their o2 show the world media went nuts with the news and the possibility of a tour to follow. When Queen came out of the shadows in 2005 the news did not compare, as with every Stones tour that has been announced since the mid 80's Queen just don't seem to be quite at the same levelVocal harmony wrote: Queen have never been on quite the same level as The Stons, Beatles or ZeppilinReally, even in the UK? I always saw them as being second to The Beatles in the UK, even to this day. They even passed the fab four in the album charts. In the US, certainly - Queen don't register in most people's top 10. But on your side of the pond it's a whole other story. |
| Holly2003 29.04.2018 17:27 |
I think some are missing the point of this topic. Sure, sales are important, but you can sell lots and be average. Like Bon Jovi. The point surely is that Stones, ABBA, Queen etc have all sold a lot of records but when something new is discovered or released only some bands get lots of media attention. ABBA, for example. And Led Zep, Pink Floyd, or the Beatles. Whereas the announcement of Let Me in Your Heart Again and the others was mostly a damp squib. That's interesting. Maybe there is a "cool" hierarchy, or it's about the amount of respect a band gets. Some of the biggest bands originated in the 1960s whereas Queen was a "second tier" 1970s band. But that doesn't explain everything. It's an odd one. |
| mike hunt 29.04.2018 17:46 |
Holly, The Stones have their classic lineup intact. When was their last big hit? They put out plenty of albums since their heyday. The Who put out their Hard wire CD with no big hits from it. I know some of you don't want too admit it, but Mercury was the star of Queen. Without him people aren't buying the new record, like Cosmos Rockin... Didn't Innuendo top the Charts in almost every country outside of America? How about MIH?.....i also agree Record sales don't mean greatness. Bon Jovi I was a good example someone mentioned as average, but sold a tone of records. |
| Holly2003 29.04.2018 18:05 |
Again, obsession with sales figures won;t explain this. Fred sung on Let Me In Your Heart again, Love Kills etc., so if it;s the fact that the original line up isn;t there any more, and original member Fred sung on those songs, why didn't it sell? But sales is only one factor. Why didn't it get more media attention? ps for me, the classic Stones line up has Mick Taylor in it. pps it was me who mentioned Bon Jovi! :O |
| Sealion 29.04.2018 18:54 |
Marketing is important. Queen couldn‘t really promote the new songs, because Freddie wasn‘t there. So it was impossible to perform these songs on TV for instance. They tried a bit with Lambert singing „Love kills“. I thought, he was good, but it‘s not the same. And maybe just an EP with the new songs would have helped too. That whole „Queen forever“ album/greatest ballads -thing led to people not really recognizing, that there were new songs hidden. Plus, the songs weren‘t that good. They were scratching the barrel. And, if I remember it correctly, they weren‘t allowed to release the better song with Michael Jackson, because MJ management didn‘t allow it. |
| dysan 29.04.2018 19:26 |
Interestingly, I'm not sure I remember much interest in the new MJ solo album a couple of years ago? Perhaps with some acts the nostalgia factor is too great - No one wants new stuff, just new ways to consume the old stuff. Queen included. |
| mike hunt 29.04.2018 19:57 |
Holly2003 wrote: Again, obsession with sales figures won;t explain this. Fred sung on Let Me In Your Heart again, Love Kills etc., so if it;s the fact that the original line up isn;t there any more, and original member Fred sung on those songs, why didn't it sell? But sales is only one factor. Why didn't it get more media attention? ps for me, the classic Stones line up has Mick Taylor in it. pps it was me who mentioned Bon Jovi! :OYea, but let Me In Your Heart and love kills weren't new songs. The Jackson track was weak. Worse than the Mr. Bad Guy version. ABBA is recording new songs with the original lineup. Big difference. If Mercury was alive and they recorded a new album it would get media attention and top the Charts in most countries. America I'm not so sure. |
| mike hunt 29.04.2018 20:01 |
Sealion wrote: Marketing is important. Queen couldn‘t really promote the new songs, because Freddie wasn‘t there. So it was impossible to perform these songs on TV for instance. They tried a bit with Lambert singing „Love kills“. I thought, he was good, but it‘s not the same. And maybe just an EP with the new songs would have helped too. That whole „Queen forever“ album/greatest ballads -thing led to people not really recognizing, that there were new songs hidden. Plus, the songs weren‘t that good. They were scratching the barrel. And, if I remember it correctly, they weren‘t allowed to release the better song with Michael Jackson, because MJ management didn‘t allow it.Glad you mentioned that about Jackson....they didn't allow the better version of the song because they realized how stronger Freddie's voice was than Jacksons. |
| Star* 30.04.2018 09:26 |
just goes to show how important Freddie was in Queen. Without Freddie that band is limp, and has no charisma whatsoever. |
| Holly2003 30.04.2018 10:31 |
And yet Free as a Bird by the Beatles, sung by long-dead John Lennon, got much media attention and won a Grammy. |
| The Fairy King 30.04.2018 11:33 |
People seem to be forgetting that the FM and MJ song also got ignored, which was supposed to be HUUUUUUGE. Don't know what happened there. Of course it's not a very good song...but at least deserved a lot more attention than it got. You can't even stream the song on Spotify. :') |
| Sealion 30.04.2018 11:38 |
^ I think there was never a complete agreement between Queen‘s and MJ‘s managements. Therefore no promo and no spotify. |
| mike hunt 30.04.2018 14:27 |
Holly2003 wrote: And yet Free as a Bird by the Beatles, sung by long-dead John Lennon, got much media attention and won a Grammy.Yea, but that's the Beatles....Queen are big, but no one is as big as The Beatles. It's silly to even bring up The Beatles. Biggest band of all time. Queen are 10 ten globally. Made In Heaven topped the Charts in almost every country for a reason. 4 years after his death. |
| Holly2003 30.04.2018 15:11 |
No it's not silly. In fact, it's totally relevant to a discussion about which bands get media attention years after their heyday. There are other examples, like Led Zep, Pink Floyd, Dylan, Elvis, Hendrix, even Kurt Cobain. As I've said previously, there seems to be reasons besides sales that factor in. You're right -- Beatles are a level above Queen in interest/respect/coolness. I've never said otherwise. besides, I was addressing a specific example by someone else. I would say most of the big 1960s bands are on a level above Queen. |
| mooghead 30.04.2018 19:03 |
Abba once turned down a billion dollars to do a unification tour of the USA. They turned it down because they didn't need the money and didn't want to ruin their legacy (BM and RT are ruining their legacy for the money). It will be interesting to hear the new songs simply because they want to and still feel they have something to offer. Comparing Queen and Abba? They did what Queen did (but sold more records) and did it in just a few years. Comparing any two bands is a bit pointless really. |
| mooghead 30.04.2018 19:04 |
And S.O.S is one of the finest songs ever written.. |
| mooghead 30.04.2018 19:17 |
Caveat.. they weren't offered a billion up front but it was speculated that a tour might gross a billion... however.. big fucking money!! |
| mike hunt 30.04.2018 22:30 |
Well, the numbers for record sales I read was Queen was 14th and ABBA checked in at 19th. Not sure where your getting that ABBA sold more records. That means Queen sold more records worldwide than the Stones and ABBA. Would you like me too send the link? A little research goes a long way people! |
| dysan 01.05.2018 07:38 |
Yet both are behind Rhianna, Eminem and Mariah Carey _shoots self in face_ |
| rockchic65 01.05.2018 07:56 |
mooghead wrote: Abba once turned down a billion dollars to do a unification tour of the USA. They turned it down because they didn't need the money and didn't want to ruin their legacy (BM and RT are ruining their legacy for the money). It will be interesting to hear the new songs simply because they want to and still feel they have something to offer. Comparing Queen and Abba? They did what Queen did (but sold more records) and did it in just a few years. Comparing any two bands is a bit pointless really.Not strictly true, Agnetha became a recluse. She couldn't face all the travelling etc, no idea what's changed recently but even in 2016 she was against it. |
| dysan 01.05.2018 08:32 |
It's because she is crazy hot |
| mike hunt 01.05.2018 11:53 |
dysan wrote: Yet both are behind Rhianna, Eminem and Mariah Carey _shoots self in face_I was thinking the same thing....that's why record sales don't tell the whole story,. |
| Vocal harmony 01.05.2018 13:50 |
mike hunt wrote:I don't understand quite what you're getting at. I didn't say they weren't a major selling act, I was talking about the fact that a lot of those sales were down to greatest hits albums, a lot of Queen's albums aside from greatest hits haven't sold as well as some albums by other major bands, as Seb went on to point out quite clearly.Vocal harmony wrote:You do know that Queen are in the top 10 or 20 of the best selling artists of all time globally right? They sold more records than The Who and Hendrix I believe....The Real Wizard wrote:In sales terms Queen's big UK album as we all know is greatest hits. Take away the sales figures for that album and they'd slip a long way down the list. In the States NOTW was very big but it wasn't a Stones or Led Zeppilin sized release. The singles on The Game gave them another huge push, but they never rose above Arena level ticket sales in America, The Stones, Floyd and Zeppilin outshone the completely plus a plethora of American bands at the time. In the UK Hyde Park was huge, but it was free, the next time they played outdoor UK shows (Hot Space) did not sellout, it took lLive Aid and the following years Magic tour to put them in the big league in the UK The media seems, in general back then and now to an extent to regard the other bang names as somehow being more genuinely big. Certainly when Zeppilin announced their o2 show the world media went nuts with the news and the possibility of a tour to follow. When Queen came out of the shadows in 2005 the news did not compare, as with every Stones tour that has been announced since the mid 80's Queen just don't seem to be quite at the same levelVocal harmony wrote: Queen have never been on quite the same level as The Stons, Beatles or ZeppilinReally, even in the UK? I always saw them as being second to The Beatles in the UK, even to this day. They even passed the fab four in the album charts. In the US, certainly - Queen don't register in most people's top 10. But on your side of the pond it's a whole other story. The other point that I was making was that in general the media, especially in the 70's didn't view Queen in the same light as the bands I listed in my post. |
| Star* 01.05.2018 14:16 |
VH: From what i gather Queen have sold over 300 million albums worldwide and that does not sound like a band who's records never sold as much as other groups does it ? |
| Vocal harmony 01.05.2018 14:50 |
The figure is between 150 and 300 million depending on what you are reading. That is a massive difference in its self. Figures also say record sales not album sales. So 300 hundred million singles, EP's and albums combined Once again I didn't say they'd sold less or not in huge numbers. I said that there greatest hits sales account for the huge numbers unlike other bands like Floyd or Zeppilin who sold more in many cases of there studio albums, eg, Dark Side Of The Moon outsold any of Queen's studio albums as did a number of Zep albums. If you doubt what I'm saying go back through this thread and read Sebastian's list in which he has taken the time to list actual sales and re read my original post two or three posts before Seb's and when you've done that stop trying to pick arguments. Because again you are miss quoting and taking out of context what I'm saying. |
| Supersonic_Man89 01.05.2018 15:39 |
You can't compare Free as a Bird and Let Me In Your Heart Again? Why? For a few reasons. Queen had already had their posthumous release, same year. Compare Heaven For Everyone and Free as a Bird, if you want to compare (Even then it's unfair... one was unreleased, one was a RT track from 8 years back) Internet. Back then, the majority of people didn't have access to unreleased stuff from old or current bands. Whereas now there is literally plethoras of unreleased stuff from every artist on the net. Trying to say 'Hey, Queen are releasing this unreleased track' barely raises an eyebrow, because it could have already been there already for all people know. A better comparison, but even still flawed... is when they sell unreleased MJ stuff... His first posthumous album was always going to do well, like every artist's first album beyond the grave... but since then.... people quickly lose interest. |
| dysan 01.05.2018 17:18 |
I don't know what angle you're taking here, but pre-internet I didn't have a clue that Heaven For Everyone was a song by The Cross. I was a big big fan around that time (87/88) but wasn't aware of The Cross and didn't think it my cup of tea. I'm pretty sure I wasn't alone. |
| Holly2003 01.05.2018 17:28 |
Sales are part of the equation. There are other ways that the public and media show interest. For example, The Beatles have two deceased members and interest in them is still high. Aside from sales of music, there are art and museum exhibitions (The Beatles Story), memorabilia auctions etc. Any time previously unseen footage is unearthed it's a big event. Same goes for Pink Floyd, Hendrix, Bowie etc. Factoring that in, the We Will Rock You show, the movie, even Queen Extravaganza might demonstrate interest in Queen is still high. However, they're a bit tacky compared to the way some other artists are still being remembered (and I say that in the full knowledge that Dollywood and Graceland exist!). |
| dysan 01.05.2018 17:55 |
Remember when they found that TOTP clip of Bowie doing The Jean Genie in 1/73? It was huge news (He was at his lowest commercial ebb at that point - 2011 or there about) but these newly found Queen things get little or no media fanfare. Not a great like for like, but their whole approach is different and it does them a great injustice. |
| mike hunt 01.05.2018 18:00 |
No Question the studio records don't sell like Floyd and Zeppelin, but those are top 6 bands. I never said I think of Queen on that level of respect. I already made my opinion clear that worldwide I think of them as a top ten band. Take solo artists out and Queen are in the top ten Rock groups as far as record sales. Greatest hits still chart to this day. Even In America It's in the top 100 occasionally. |
| Star* 01.05.2018 18:48 |
Here in the Uk The Record Collector Magazine places Queen as the 2nd most popular band after the Beatles to collect. Elvis was 3rd. |
| Star* 01.05.2018 18:51 |
VH : I was not trying to pick arguments with anyone that is just your fucking twisted brain. You are NOT forced to reply as i was not forcing my comments on You alone so wind your fucking neck in. |
| The Real Wizard 02.05.2018 00:28 |
Supersonic_Man89 wrote: You can't compare Free as a Bird and Let Me In Your Heart Again? Why? For a few reasons. Queen had already had their posthumous release, same year. Compare Heaven For Everyone and Free as a Bird, if you want to compare (Even then it's unfair... one was unreleased, one was a RT track from 8 years back) Internet. Back then, the majority of people didn't have access to unreleased stuff from old or current bands. Whereas now there is literally plethoras of unreleased stuff from every artist on the net. Trying to say 'Hey, Queen are releasing this unreleased track' barely raises an eyebrow, because it could have already been there already for all people know. A better comparison, but even still flawed... is when they sell unreleased MJ stuff... His first posthumous album was always going to do well, like every artist's first album beyond the grave... but since then.... people quickly lose interest.Excellent post. Bang on. |
| mike hunt 02.05.2018 04:27 |
Supersonic_Man89 wrote: You can't compare Free as a Bird and Let Me In Your Heart Again? Why? For a few reasons. Queen had already had their posthumous release, same year. Compare Heaven For Everyone and Free as a Bird, if you want to compare (Even then it's unfair... one was unreleased, one was a RT track from 8 years back) Internet. Back then, the majority of people didn't have access to unreleased stuff from old or current bands. Whereas now there is literally plethoras of unreleased stuff from every artist on the net. Trying to say 'Hey, Queen are releasing this unreleased track' barely raises an eyebrow, because it could have already been there already for all people know. A better comparison, but even still flawed... is when they sell unreleased MJ stuff... His first posthumous album was always going to do well, like every artist's first album beyond the grave... but since then.... people quickly lose interest.Finally someone on Queenzone who uses common sense.....congrats! |
| dysan 02.05.2018 07:28 |
Having woken up this morning to find Dame Vera Lynn all over the news for her Classical Brits nominations I genuinely think it's pointless trying to work it all out. There's some total fucking tools running the media and they will just go with what they like, no matter how much they protest it's in the national interest. |
| dysan 02.05.2018 07:29 |
(no disservice to Vera - she was well tidy) |
| Dr Magus 02.05.2018 09:23 |
Take away the USA and the global record sales of Zep and Floyd and the Stones aren't quite so impressive. Queen sit at the top table despite losing america in the early 80's. A truly global band. |
| dysan 02.05.2018 10:25 |
Ask someone to name or even hum a song by either PF or LZ and they'll struggle. Especially the twats with moustaches who wear t-shirts of either band who work in the coffee shops near me. |
| Holly2003 02.05.2018 10:27 |
dysan wrote: Ask someone to name or even hum a song by either PF or LZ and they'll struggle.Which one's Pink? :) |
| dysan 02.05.2018 12:07 |
'Hi Led.. great show!' |
| thomasquinn 32989 02.05.2018 13:01 |
Apparently I'm in the minority here (which I find rather shocking!) but I absolutely detest ABBA. I consider them the textbook example of bland, formulaic, lowest-common-denominator music. With one cliché after the other, I can see how they appeal to the 'whatever-is-hot-this-week'-crowd, but I am constantly astonished how people like Sebastian and, particularly, Bob, can applaud them as a great band. I just don't hear it. |
| dysan 02.05.2018 14:19 |
What have you heard? |
| Vocal harmony 02.05.2018 18:46 |
happystar wrote: VH: From what i gather Queen have sold over 300 million albums worldwide and that does not sound like a band who's records never sold as much as other groups does it ?That to me looks very much like a reply directed at me. You of course have done your usual, deny and be abusive. It's like a default setting isn't it. |
| Star* 02.05.2018 21:11 |
Vocal Harmony : i will let everyone know on here that you sent me a private message threatening me. you are nothing but a bully and and a thug. If you do not like my opinions you have to play god on here and belittle me, well your reign of playing bully on here is over. Everyone on here is tired of you picking faults with folks opinions and you asking for proof of this or where is the evidence to that well i am not scared of you and if you want to get nasty well bring it on and you will get barred on here. |
| mike hunt 03.05.2018 03:30 |
Just ignore him or her happystar |
| Star* 03.05.2018 06:36 |
Mike: I cannot ignore anyone who wants to threaten me down the high street, and that is what Vocal Harmony has done. i have the message and i may report it to the boss of this site. Vocal Harmony seems to be one unhappy person constantly quizzing everyone about there posts on here and i get it more frequently than most because Vocal Harmony likes to belittle every single thing i post on here. Well its gonna end soon and either Vocal Harmony will get banned from this site or Vocal Harmony needs to grow some and man up and be a lot more mature or get off this site and use facebook. |
| dysan 03.05.2018 06:46 |
Pic or it didn't happen |
| thomasquinn 32989 03.05.2018 09:18 |
dysan wrote: What have you heard?Most of the hits and some album cuts. I don't really know the titles. Well over 25 songs, though. |
| dysan 03.05.2018 10:29 |
Was there no 'in' at all? |
| thomasquinn 32989 03.05.2018 11:15 |
dysan wrote: Was there no 'in' at all?Beg your pardon? |
| MamaQueen 03.05.2018 12:26 |
I thought this was going to be a stupid subject. But, good subject and good posts! |
| dysan 03.05.2018 14:21 |
Was there no 'in' at all? = There was nothing that took your fancy and signposted the slightest whiff of investigate further? |
| thomasquinn 32989 04.05.2018 08:33 |
No, not at all. Don't ask me why, but when I was about 12 (I'm 29 now) ABBA was temporarily very popular with my age-group, so I got to hear quite a lot of it with classmates for a few months, and I can't honestly say that I found it appealing in any way. I've learned a lot more about music since that time, and my opinion has actually declined markedly. Like I mentioned earlier: I find it utterly formulaic (going for the most cliché lines known to music theory), the production style makes my skin crawl (yes, in a bad way) and I can't find any real substance to either the lyrics or the music. Sorry, I just utterly hate ABBA and, while there are other groups I seriously dislike that have undeniable musical merits (I really don't like The Rolling Stones, for instance, and I can't listen to Amy Winehouse although I recognize that she was a fine vocalist), I can't say I've ever noticed anything in ABBA's music that made me think "hmm, that's not my kind of music, but it certainly has quality". |
| dysan 04.05.2018 12:09 |
Fair dos |
| Holly2003 04.05.2018 12:15 |
I gave in when I heard Super Trouper. My defences fell and I had to admit ABBA did catchy, disposable pop very well. I can see why they have a big following. Not everything needs to be Bob Dylan or Yes. Fred realised that in the 1980s. Sometimes catchy MOR hits the spot and doesn't need any depth. It is what it is. ABBA realised that and it made them world famous and rich. It gave them a devoted fanbase of ordinary, unpretentious people. Good for them. |
| Vocal harmony 04.05.2018 12:58 |
happystar wrote: Mike: I cannot ignore anyone who wants to threaten me down the high street, and that is what Vocal Harmony has done. i have the message and i may report it to the boss of this site. Vocal Harmony seems to be one unhappy person constantly quizzing everyone about there posts on here and i get it more frequently than most because Vocal Harmony likes to belittle every single thing i post on here. Well its gonna end soon and either Vocal Harmony will get banned from this site or Vocal Harmony needs to grow some and man up and be a lot more mature or get off this site and use facebook.First you claim I'm a woman in a lot of your posts, now you're telling me to "grow some and man up" after I sent you a message telling you that come and have a quiet word with you if I see you in the street and if you carry on with the insults you turn too when you run out of things to say. I would like you to post my message to you, since you have made its existence public, on this site. If anyone is that bothered by my posts, views or what I've said in that message to you they can then air their views and make comment if they so wish. |
| Star* 04.05.2018 17:00 |
Vocal Harmony: Best thing you can do is stay out of my way and do not reply to my posts. You obviously enjoy twisting things and causing trouble, even Mike Hunt stated you were a troll. Go and cause friction on facebook. |
| Holly2003 04.05.2018 17:14 |
link |
| mike hunt 04.05.2018 21:03 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: No, not at all. Don't ask me why, but when I was about 12 (I'm 29 now) ABBA was temporarily very popular with my age-group, so I got to hear quite a lot of it with classmates for a few months, and I can't honestly say that I found it appealing in any way. I've learned a lot more about music since that time, and my opinion has actually declined markedly. Like I mentioned earlier: I find it utterly formulaic (going for the most cliché lines known to music theory), the production style makes my skin crawl (yes, in a bad way) and I can't find any real substance to either the lyrics or the music. Sorry, I just utterly hate ABBA and, while there are other groups I seriously dislike that have undeniable musical merits (I really don't like The Rolling Stones, for instance, and I can't listen to Amy Winehouse although I recognize that she was a fine vocalist), I can't say I've ever noticed anything in ABBA's music that made me think "hmm, that's not my kind of music, but it certainly has quality".I actually Agree with you, but I don't want too offend anyone....I was already called an idiot for calling ABBA a cute little band. I won't say I hate them, but they are what they Are, a cute little band. |
| mike hunt 04.05.2018 21:08 |
Holly2003 wrote: I gave in when I heard Super Trouper. My defences fell and I had to admit ABBA did catchy, disposable pop very well. I can see why they have a big following. Not everything needs to be Bob Dylan or Yes. Fred realised that in the 1980s. Sometimes catchy MOR hits the spot and doesn't need any depth. It is what it is. ABBA realised that and it made them world famous and rich. It gave them a devoted fanbase of ordinary, unpretentious people. Good for them.I get what you're saying with Fred In the 80's, but he still had flashes of his brilliant 70's work like It's a Hard Life, Princes Of The Universe, Was It All Worth It, Barcelona that weren't simple pop songs. Actually Roger wrote Ga Ga and Magic....John wrote I Want To Break Free. So It wasn't only Fred. |
| dysan 04.05.2018 21:28 |
I don't see how anyone without any preconceived ideas who appreciates such shite as 'You're My Best Friend', Killer Queen' DSMN etc etc can't see the quality in Abba. |
| mike hunt 04.05.2018 21:47 |
Because within those simple hits they had Black Queens and Fairy Kings and White Queens and Innuendos that weren't simple pop songs. Unless you think Great King Rat is a simple pop song? Just Take A Chance On Me? That's a cute little song. I like them in a cute way.....not in a Wow! This is brilliant sort of way. |
| cmsdrums 05.05.2018 08:14 |
Some of Abba’s Songs are brilliant pop compositions and lyrically (in their second language too) quite superb. The Winner Takes It All and The Name Of The Gameto name but two. Fair enough if you don’t see it though. |
| Invisible Woman 05.05.2018 08:32 |
I like most Eagle, Knowing Me Knowing You and instrumental Arrival. |
| thomasquinn 32989 05.05.2018 12:51 |
dysan wrote: I don't see how anyone without any preconceived ideas who appreciates such shite as 'You're My Best Friend', Killer Queen' DSMN etc etc can't see the quality in Abba.I can't speak for anyone else, but I like Queen *despite* things like You're My Best Friend, not because of them. I do like Don't Stop Me Now. |
| dysan 05.05.2018 16:39 |
Yeah I was really just trying to raise some hackles there. I love them too. Except DSMN. @invisible woman Arrival is amazing. |
| Star* 05.05.2018 17:46 |
Dysan: Killer Queen , Dont stop me now & Your my best friend are all quality Queen tunes. If you do not like them then your a not a true Queen fan. |
| dysan 05.05.2018 18:20 |
lol |
| Saint Jiub 05.05.2018 19:26 |
I should listen to Abba, "The Album" again soon ... it has been a while ...The "mini-musical" is superb ... and not "cute". Also, The Name of the Game is one of my favorite ABBA songs.. |
| Star* 06.05.2018 11:51 |
Abba are a great group and Bjorn is a great fan of the band. He was so impressed with Bohemian Rhapsody that the next year in 1976 he decided to call one of Abba's songs after Rhapsody by naming it "Mamma Mia" from the opera section of Rhapsody ! He did later admit he had nicked those words from Rhapsody lol |
| Sebastian 06.05.2018 12:12 |
happystar wrote: Bjorn is a great fan of the band.Really? A great fan? Source? happystar wrote: the next year in 1976 he decided to call one of Abba's songs after Rhapsody by naming it "Mamma Mia" from the opera section of Rhapsody ! He did later admit he had nicked those words from Rhapsody lolFake news! The coincidence was just that: coincidence, and he said so. 'Mamma Mia' was written, recorded and released before 'Bo Rhap'. |
| mvdk 07.05.2018 15:41 |
I honestly think it's a bit silly to say something about the quality of the music when comparing Queen and Abba. They were making different music for a different audience. It's like comparing Bach with Debussy. It's different in it's style and that doesn't necessarily mean that one is better than the other. Personally I think there is quality in both of them. When you listen to the less familiar songs from Abba, there are some real pearls to discover. And isn't that the same with Queen, take for instance 'Jealousy' or 'Doing All Right'? When you listen to 'I Let The Music Speak', 'The King Has Lost His Crown' or 'I'm A Marionette' I think there is undeniable quality in it. Whether you appreciate that quality or not, that's another question... |
| The Real Wizard 07.05.2018 21:58 |
Sebastian wrote: Fake news!I actually enjoy seeing you say this. With most people it's annoying, as it's usually a showing of cognitive dissonance from those can't deal with new information that conflicts with their beliefs. But with you it's pretty perfect. |
| The Real Wizard 07.05.2018 21:59 |
happystar wrote: Well its gonna end soon and either Vocal Harmony will get banned from this site or Vocal Harmony needs to grow some and man up and be a lot more mature or get off this site and use facebook.Ha, nice try. The person you're attempting to tarnish is one of the most respected members of this forum (and likely several decades older and wiser than you). He worked for the band, and is thus one of the most knowledgeable people here. |
| Star* 08.05.2018 11:57 |
Real Wizard : if VH worked for the band then shame on him for slagging Freddies solo work and saying Lambert is better. Us fans know the music is great where Freddie is concerned. He is NOT a real ardent Queen fan he only worked for the band and one of Freddies slaves. |
| The Fairy King 08.05.2018 12:04 |
mvdk wrote: ..... It's like comparing Bach with Debussy. .Always finish on the Bach....never on Debussy... |
| Sebastian 08.05.2018 16:21 |
happystar wrote: if VH worked for the band then shame on him for slagging Freddies solo work and saying Lambert is better.Assuming VH did that (I'm sceptical of your claims since you lied about 'Mamma Mia'), so what? Having worked for somebody doesn't preclude having your own opinion. Loads of people think Frederick's solo work was lacklustre and mediocre, considering he was such a talented composer who not only could do better, but habitually did. Same for people allegedly claiming Adam is better: they're entitled to that view (or any other). You may agree or disagree, and that's absolutely fine, but that's not by any means an indicator of personal qualities or lack thereof. happystar wrote: Us fans know the music is great where Freddie is concerned.Oh, the true Scotsman fallacy... there's a difference between being a fan and being deluded into thinking everything he did was pure gold. It wasn't. happystar wrote: He is NOT a real ardent Queen fanIf being 'a real ardent Queen fan' implies giving up critical thinking, then it's quite a compliment not to be one. happystar wrote: he only worked for the band and one of Freddies slaves.So nice of you to bring slavery, as if that in any way validated your personal attacks. Between this and the 'Mamma Mia' lies, you don't seem to have too much credibility, do you? |
| mike hunt 08.05.2018 17:33 |
I agree! Freddie is my favorite entertainer/Musician, I'll stick up for him if I feel someone is overly harsh just for the sake of it, but there is plenty of songs and a few albums I don't like. What was he thinking? Those type of songs...In fairness to Happystar, he clearly doesn't like everything Freddie did. He stated he doesn't like Innuendo or Made In Heaven. We also disagreed on Barcelona...I think It's one of his best work, he's not over the moon about it and prefers Hot Space. I think his problem with Vocal Harmony is that VH goes on and on and on and on and on about every Freddie flaw. So I think Happystar is more a proper fan who is not in love with every single thing Fred did. I still remember a member here I think his name is Bob called me a Freddie only fan because I stuck up for Freddie, and didn't like the Queen + thing... Nevermind Brian May is in my top 3 or 4 favorite musicians and own Brian and Roger's solo work. Not very nice Bob! VH is equally Guilty of that nonsense. We don't like Lambert and there is nothing wrong with that... |
| mike hunt 08.05.2018 17:45 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Not sure why VH opinion is more valid than Happystar....Who cares if he worked for them....for all we know he might be working for Brian now telling him too tell everyone how great Adam is and he's God's gift to the human Race. It wouldn't shock me....I love the old Brian, not the version that say's all nonsense like Paul was Freddie's favorite singer Just to promote the tour or Adam is a gift from God, or he was brought to tears after watching Ramek performance of Freddie. Even if those Joyful tears were really tears of horror.happystar wrote: Well its gonna end soon and either Vocal Harmony will get banned from this site or Vocal Harmony needs to grow some and man up and be a lot more mature or get off this site and use facebook.Ha, nice try. The person you're attempting to tarnish is one of the most respected members of this forum (and likely several decades older and wiser than you). He worked for the band, and is thus one of the most knowledgeable people here. |
| Star* 09.05.2018 07:18 |
Mike: Yeah we all know Brian is a very good liar and knows how to get a reaction to the things he wants to sell or promote. You are 100% i am a passionate Queen fan and have been from 1974 and my comments reflect everything i have experienced from the moment i heard them in october 1974. But i am not so stupid like many to accept Lambert just because Brian says "Freddie would have loved him" or "He is the best thing to have happened to Queen since 1991" No i do not thing you can create magic by picking someone out on a tv show, i think these days a lot of hype and media makes the public think they are special when in essence they are not. Lambert is no where skilled on stage as Freddie was and it clearly shows. I do not give a fig if Vocal Harmony worked for the band but hey if i had said that he would be the first to say "wheres the proof" "source"? A lot of sarcastic nymphs on here who in my opinion did not appreciate Freddie, instead they take the piss by making jokes of his teeth, and they think that is acceptable, well its cruel and disgusting. True meaning of the word Queen fan is to cherish and love who they were and enjoy the music from back then. No matter what anyone says on here the true essence of Queen was and always will be 1971 - 1991. Without Freddie & John (magical ingredients) Queen have no appeal to me as they are washed up. |
| rockchic65 09.05.2018 07:59 |
happystar wrote: Mike: Yeah we all know Brian is a very good liar and knows how to get a reaction to the things he wants to sell or promote. You are 100% i am a passionate Queen fan and have been from 1974 and my comments reflect everything i have experienced from the moment i heard them in october 1974. But i am not so stupid like many to accept Lambert just because Brian says "Freddie would have loved him" or "He is the best thing to have happened to Queen since 1991" No i do not thing you can create magic by picking someone out on a tv show, i think these days a lot of hype and media makes the public think they are special when in essence they are not. Lambert is no where skilled on stage as Freddie was and it clearly shows. I do not give a fig if Vocal Harmony worked for the band but hey if i had said that he would be the first to say "wheres the proof" "source"? A lot of sarcastic nymphs on here who in my opinion did not appreciate Freddie, instead they take the piss by making jokes of his teeth, and they think that is acceptable, well its cruel and disgusting. True meaning of the word Queen fan is to cherish and love who they were and enjoy the music from back then. No matter what anyone says on here the true essence of Queen was and always will be 1971 - 1991. Without Freddie & John (magical ingredients) Queen have no appeal to me as they are washed up.While I agree with some of what you said, and I'm a Queen fan since 74 also I think being a fan of Queen means supporting all the members, not just two, so from that perspective I don't agree they are washed up at all, they are out there still doing their thing and making a lot of people very happy. If it wasn't working they wouldn't still be pulling in the fans. Also the Idol thing doesn't wash, Adam was in no way your typical Idol contestant and should never have had to resort to that to get a break. These shows have changed, they're no longer aimed at your local karaoke singer, a lot of the contestants have been doing music and have even put out albums independently before going on the show, it's just a platform to get seen now. Just one more thing and I know you can't speak for everyone but why do people just mention Brian in relation to the Queen + thing, like it's only his decision. I notice on facebook and everywhere Roger never gets any flak, just Brian? Just curious. |
| MisterCosmicc 09.05.2018 09:25 |
ABBA. Can’t stand that music. Their releases are blah. Why did they get huge? |
| Vocal harmony 09.05.2018 11:39 |
Please allow me to set the record straight. Despite what some on here have said my views are, I have never claimed Adam Lambert is superior to Freddie. What I have said (and its there to read if anyone can be bothered to search through the years of argument and debate) is that Lambert appears to be a more consistent live singer than Freddie and seems more able to use the full range of his voice than Freddie was. Whether or not you like the sound or singing style of his voice. It's easy enough to go through the hours of YouTube footage and compare it to audience recordings of the original lineup if you're so enclined. Does this indicate that I think Freddie was bad, no good a second rate singer. . . No it just means I am aware of what were his limitations. When I think back to the 80's I thought Steve Perry of Journey and Ronnie James Dio were more able to deliver a consistently stable vocal live than Freddie, but back then as now Freddie has always been my favourite singer and front man, and on an average night he was better than most and on a good night he was the best. If having an opinion that allows other singers to be compared I'm clearly a mindless heretic! My view of Mr Bad Guy is that it is not a great album, Freddie left to his own devices was no better than any other member of the band, and obviously needed the artistic conflict with the others to bring the best out of him or someone in the studio with him who could match him for vocal ability and musicianship, hence the Barcelona album is so much better because Freddie was being pushed by the amazing talents of the people he was working with. Mr Bad Guy, to me sounds like some great song ideas that were never allowed to mature and as such in places sound like very well produced demos for a future Queen album. It amazes me that Freddie, having escaped the confines of being a band member, ended up with largely faceless session musicians playing a watered down version of what I imagine Brian, Roger and John would have ended up playing. The outcome was not the stunningly amazing album that some expected and the sales certainly didn't reflect what the record company and Freddie had expected and what Freddie's advance needed. These are my views on those two subjects and to me it's frightening that some (Two or three) on here can conclude from this that I am not a Queen fan,or that I'm a Freddie hater or an Adam Lambert fan. I guess if you have a blanket view that everything involving Freddie is untouchable you'll never see anything for what it really is. |
| dysan 09.05.2018 16:19 |
BTW - no one on Pointess named Made In Heaven or The Miracle, or Heaven For Everyone. But some names The rolling stones 1989 album Steel Wheels. |
| Star* 09.05.2018 18:24 |
VH : Lambert been a consistent singer does not necessarily mean he is a better singer than Freddie was. Do not forget Freddie was more physical on stage than Lambert is and he played the hell out of his piano where as Lambert does not push himself to he limits like Freddie did. Freddie used to be drenched from head to toe in sweat because he worked his arse off on that stage and you really cannot compare Adam Lambert to Freddie not even in the same sentence. That is like comparing Madonna to Vera Lynn ! |
| Star* 09.05.2018 18:31 |
Rockchic : Brian gets it in the neck because he has decided Queen is his baby now and Roger just tags along for the money. If Adam Lambert was a serious musician he would not have stayed with the watered down Queen band for so long, its like a baby bird that will not leave the nest He is like the rest and milking it for all its worth for the money and Brian and Roger are the same. The prices for tickets reflect that, and to be frank anyone wanting to pay big bucks to see them are crazy. They are doing Las vegas in september and ticket prices will be even more outrageous there. i still have not read one post on here from a man who is fanatic about Lambert, its always the girls which makes Lambert a teeny bopper just like Bieber. |
| rockchic65 09.05.2018 19:08 |
happystar wrote: Rockchic : Brian gets it in the neck because he has decided Queen is his baby now and Roger just tags along for the money. If Adam Lambert was a serious musician he would not have stayed with the watered down Queen band for so long, its like a baby bird that will not leave the nest He is like the rest and milking it for all its worth for the money and Brian and Roger are the same. The prices for tickets reflect that, and to be frank anyone wanting to pay big bucks to see them are crazy. They are doing Las vegas in september and ticket prices will be even more outrageous there. i still have not read one post on here from a man who is fanatic about Lambert, its always the girls which makes Lambert a teeny bopper just like Bieber.Try reading the posts under Queen's vegas promo on facebook, absolutely loads of guys who have seen Queen numerous times, all raving about the shows and Adam. Just because they aren't on here doesn't mean they don't exist. As to Roger, he might not be as vocal or do as many interviews but he's still invested in what they're doing, you only have to see their interaction onstage. Adam is doing lots of other things besides touring with Queen, they all have their side projects, it's not like they're on the road for the whole year. He's still doing album 4, music out later this year, voice work in a movie, tv stuff coming up etc. He likes to be busy so why not do both, he obviously knows QAL is a time limited thing. If you knew the first thing about him you would realise how wrong your baby bird/nest comment is. |
| mike hunt 09.05.2018 19:33 |
Sorry, but Queen touring with Lambert playing the same old songs while creating nothing new is sort of washed up. I say that With all due respect...that applies to all bands, not Just Queen. |
| rockchic65 09.05.2018 21:43 |
mike hunt wrote: Sorry, but Queen touring with Lambert playing the same old songs while creating nothing new is sort of washed up. I say that With all due respect...that applies to all bands, not Just Queen.Thing is though, Brian feels after The Cosmos Rocks flopped that the fans only want to hear Freddie on recorded songs but they love the live shows. I personally think if they came up with good songs it could work, Adam's voice is more suited to the music than Paul's, but with Adam recording his own album all year and then likely touring and promoting it next year there isn't really much time to work on something together even if they wanted to. |
| mike hunt 09.05.2018 22:50 |
They don't need Adam to record new songs...Brian and Roger could share vocals...Roger still has his voice, I prefer Roger's voice over adam anyway...I think his new song Journy's End would of been a good ending for Queen. Not sure why Roger chose that as a solo song. |
| dysan 10.05.2018 06:02 |
I'd say the LAs Vegas thing is the perfect vehicle for them in their current incarnation. I'm interested to see what they do. |
| rockchic65 10.05.2018 06:36 |
mike hunt wrote: They don't need Adam to record new songs...Brian and Roger could share vocals...Roger still has his voice, I prefer Roger's voice over adam anyway...I think his new song Journy's End would of been a good ending for Queen. Not sure why Roger chose that as a solo song.They could record without him but the point is people keep saying they should record together instead of just touring their old stuff and "becoming a tribute band" so it would make sense to involve Adam from that perspective. If they wanted to record on their own I imagine they would have done it by now, but who knows what they have planned. For me personally I love Queen music so I'm happy to see them tour the old stuff, but I'd love it if they changed the setlist up a bit, there's loads of songs they haven't had a go at yet. Don't expect it will happen though. |
| rockchic65 10.05.2018 06:40 |
dysan wrote: I'd say the LAs Vegas thing is the perfect vehicle for them in their current incarnation. I'm interested to see what they do.Yeah it seems the staging will be a bit different, it's a smaller stage area so it looks like Frank won't be included and I'm sure they'll have to scale everything down a bit. Will be interesting to see what they change for the smaller more intimate venue. |
| Star* 10.05.2018 10:39 |
Why would anyone want Queen & Lambert to do songs Freddie never performed with the band? What is the point cos Freddie was the voice Freddie was the ambience and Freddie was the whole spirit of Queen. Lambert & Queen are no where near as magical as they were with Deacy and Mercury. Its a money making stunt to do as many venues as possible before May & Taylor take ill. |
| rockchic65 10.05.2018 11:12 |
happystar wrote: Why would anyone want Queen & Lambert to do songs Freddie never performed with the band? What is the point cos Freddie was the voice Freddie was the ambience and Freddie was the whole spirit of Queen. Lambert & Queen are no where near as magical as they were with Deacy and Mercury. Its a money making stunt to do as many venues as possible before May & Taylor take ill.Who mentioned songs Freddie never performed? Not that I think it should matter and they haved done a few (SMGO, LK slow version, IWBTLY and IWIA which they still do). No one's comparing Adam to Freddie, most people at the shows just love Queen music and love to hear it live, it's really not that deep. |
| Sebastian 10.05.2018 14:22 |
happystar wrote: Why would anyone want Queen & Lambert to do songs Freddie never performed with the band?Because different people want different things. There's a market for that. I'm personally not interested, but loads of people are, more than enough to make it profitable for them. happystar wrote: What is the point cos Freddie was the voiceExcept when he wasn't. 'I'm in Love with My Car', for instance, is still a very good song. happystar wrote: Freddie was the ambience and Freddie was the whole spirit of Queen.No, he wasn't. He was part of it. A major part of it. But he wasn't all of it. happystar wrote: Lambert & Queen are no where near as magical as they were with Deacy and Mercury.True, but that doesn't change the fact thousands of people are interested. Again, I'm not - I had the chance of going to a few of their gigs and skipped it, and I'm glad I did because I could spend that money on something else (which I definitely enjoyed more) and 'my' place was almost definitely taken by someone who loved the concert and had a great time. It was a win-win situation, also for Maylor and Lambert as they still earned the same amount of money. But, for thousands of people out there, this collaboration is good enough or at the very least 'better than nothing', and fair play to them. It's their money, it's their time, and if they want to spend it on something they'll enjoy, then that's great! happystar wrote: Its a money making stunt to do as many venues as possible before May & Taylor take ill.Yes, and it's working really well. |
| Star* 10.05.2018 15:35 |
I understand what folk do with there money is there affair but to still call the act QUEEN is a little misleading. Sure Roger and Brian are directors just like Freddie and John are but the act is watered down and your not getting the classic line up anymore. Trade mis- discription in my mind and they have a session bass player and even Rogers son gets to play drums. Its a mixed up shook up cash cow. |
| Sealion 10.05.2018 15:59 |
^ It isn‘t a misconception, because they call themselves Queen+Adam Lambert. That‘s not Queen. If they called themselves „The xyz“, then everybody would expect new music. But all they play is Queen-songs. So the name fits. |
| rockchic65 10.05.2018 17:43 |
I don't think it's misleading, its Queen + same as it was with Paul, I don't think anybody going to the shows doesn't know what they're getting. Leaving aside Adam's voice, which some like some don't, the actual show, staging, lighting, lasers etc is awesome and really well done, definitely not watered down. The show is fast paced, no breaks, just a continual stream of songs, they definitely still go by the 'blind'em, 'deafen'em and leave them wanting more ethos. |
| Biggest Band On The Planet 10.05.2018 18:00 |
People say Brian and Roger are only doing it for the money but I don't understand who two multi millionaire could be motivated by money ? |
| Sebastian 10.05.2018 18:19 |
Are you familiar with the concept of always wanting more? PS: I don't really think they're doing it for the money. They won't do it for free, of course, but the money they get is largely spent on logistics and staff salaries and travelling, I reckon. Once all of that's been paid, whatever they get after taxes may be a pittance compared to what they already have, but it's still important in a more symbolic sense. It's not so much 'I need money for a new yatch' as it is 'this money proves people still like us, we're still relevant'. |
| cmsdrums 10.05.2018 19:54 |
dysan wrote: I'd say the LAs Vegas thing is the perfect vehicle for them in their current incarnation. I'm interested to see what they do.Sadly, I’d imagine the usual setlist but minus any ‘deep cuts’ that make it into the current arena shows, so likely even less interesting than ever. The ‘Crown Jewels’ title effectively confirms it’s a greatest hits show, and bearing in mind the location the audience will be made up of a fair few casual tourists as well as the hardcore fans that make it. |
| cmsdrums 10.05.2018 19:56 |
It also wouldn’t surprise me to see a live blu ray release of this run - 10 shows to pool from so Brian can ensure the final edit removes the risk of mistakes which could be there if a single show were recorded for release. |
| Star* 10.05.2018 21:02 |
The whole tour is a big mistake. Bri & Rog should be making new Cds and drop pussy boy. |
| rockchic65 10.05.2018 22:04 |
happystar wrote: The whole tour is a big mistake. Bri & Rog should be making new Cds and drop pussy boy.A very successful mistake then. |
| Saint Jiub 11.05.2018 00:35 |
happystar wrote: The whole tour is a big mistake. Bri & Rog should be making new Cds and drop pussy boy.With a comment like that, I wonder if Mike Hunt still sides with Happystar over Vocal Harmony? |
| musicland munich 11.05.2018 01:09 |
They should take "Pussy Boy" to the studio and record a few new tracks. Let's see what happen. If it's a bust, they still can release "box sets" for the rest of their careers. |
| mike hunt 11.05.2018 01:56 |
Panchgani wrote:I would leave that last part out, but do agree they should be making new music without Adam....I don't hate him or anything I just like their voices for Queen better. Roger iS an underrated singer and Brian could sing the soft ones. I do understand they can't sing a whole tour alone, so. That's where Adam comes in.....I say get John back if healthy record Roger's Journy's End as their last , also their Farwell tour. Saying goodby...it will see lots of tickets.happystar wrote: The whole tour is a big mistake. Bri & Rog should be making new Cds and drop pussy boy.With a comment like that, I wonder if Mike Hunt still sides with Happystar over Vocal Harmony? |
| mike hunt 11.05.2018 02:06 |
Sebastian wrote:This thread should end here! Great post from sebastian....Fredde's obviously was very important when you look at what they did in the last 25 years, while Mercury had a hug impact the other weren't backing his band....May is Fred's equal. Roger is grossly underrated and John is solid. Roger and John should be mentioned a lot more than they do.happystar wrote: Why would anyone want Queen & Lambert to do songs Freddie never performed with the band?Because different people want different things. There's a market for that. I'm personally not interested, but loads of people are, more than enough to make it profitable for them.happystar wrote: What is the point cos Freddie was the voiceExcept when he wasn't. 'I'm in Love with My Car', for instance, is still a very good song.happystar wrote: Freddie was the ambience and Freddie was the whole spirit of Queen.No, he wasn't. He was part of it. A major part of it. But he wasn't all of it.happystar wrote: Lambert & Queen are no where near as magical as they were with Deacy and Mercury.True, but that doesn't change the fact thousands of people are interested. Again, I'm not - I had the chance of going to a few of their gigs and skipped it, and I'm glad I did because I could spend that money on something else (which I definitely enjoyed more) and 'my' place was almost definitely taken by someone who loved the concert and had a great time. It was a win-win situation, also for Maylor and Lambert as they still earned the same amount of money. But, for thousands of people out there, this collaboration is good enough or at the very least 'better than nothing', and fair play to them. It's their money, it's their time, and if they want to spend it on something they'll enjoy, then that's great!happystar wrote: Its a money making stunt to do as many venues as possible before May & Taylor take ill.Yes, and it's working really well. |
| Star* 11.05.2018 10:42 |
May is certainly not Mercury's equal. Mercury had an enigma unbeatable of anyone and his songwriting was streets ahead of May in that department. May was always a bit jealous of Freddie, because Mercury always dismissed May's ridiculous ideas and Mercury squashed them lol May toured on his own and could have done that again, but he choose to use the Queen name to get the money in. I know what is going on here, May is exploiting all the fans and Freddies invention of Queen. I do not like many of Mays choices since Freddie died, he seems a different man and sometimes a very desperate man to get himself noticed. Lambert is his weapon to get female bums on seats and yes it works but it dont mean it is better than the real 4 man british rock group Queen. I do not do gimmicks and this pathetic limp tour is just that. Some people are happy to part with there money and get fleeced but i am not one of those ! |
| Sebastian 11.05.2018 11:45 |
I don't think he's 'exploiting' anyone. People know what they're buying and, for many thousands around the world, it's a quality show and a quality collab. Again, I wouldn't go to any of their concerts, but I'm glad they're doing them and I'm glad they're making so many people happy, including themselves. |
| TomP63 11.05.2018 12:00 |
I say get John back if healthy record Roger's Journy's End as their last , also their Farwell tour. @Mike, why in Heaven's earth should they make a recorded version of Roger's version. There's no need for that, not only is it a solo track, in my humble opinion it is a song which has no connection with Queen whatsoever. Bringing in May or Deacon(??) would not make it a Queen record either. Tom |
| TomP63 11.05.2018 12:01 |
May is certainly not Mercury's equal.............Oh yes he is! Tom |
| Vocal harmony 11.05.2018 13:53 |
TomP63 wrote: May is certainly not Mercury's equal.............Oh yes he is! TomYes indeed. It could also be argued that it was Brian, and Roger, who brought the Queen sound to Freddie. It doesn't take a genius to listen to what Smile recorded and realise that there is a definite link between the production ideas of both bands. In Smile the three part harmony vocals that would become such a big part of Queen are there, The guitar solos on Step on Me and Earth have elements that would turn up later for example in Killer Queen. The bones of the Brighton Rock solo were laid down in Smile. If you listen to early live Queen recordings some of Freddie's phrasing is similar to Tim Staffle. To raise Freddie to the point of claiming he was responsible for every element of Queen's success is so flawed Yes he gave them a name, a visual style, although that could have also been down to Roger and Brian and he gave them a stunning live presence and style. He wasn't a better musician than any of the other band members and his song writing as a whole was no better than Brian's. |
| Holly2003 11.05.2018 14:23 |
Ridiculous. There are elements of Queen in Smile -- how could there not be given Brian and Roger are part of both -- but Fred took a failed band and two musicians going nowhere and created Queen. Fred provided the fantastic lead vocals, wrote most of their top 10 hits in the 1970s, designed the logo, suggested the name, and was the driving force behind their stage identity and how they approached live work. He also wrote Bo Rap, the single song that has come to be identified with the band. Fred wasn't Queen on his own but he was the special ingredient that made Queen work compared to Smile's failure. Without Fred's vision, musical talent, and most importantly, his ability to write hits, Queen would never have existed. |
| cmsdrums 11.05.2018 14:47 |
Holly2003 wrote: Fred.....wrote most of their top 10 hits in the 1970s, .Yes he did...but then again he wrote the minority of their top 10 hits after the 70s, so I'm not sure what point that proves? |
| Holly2003 11.05.2018 15:03 |
Very true. His song writing decreased in quality in some respects when outside factors became more important to him. But without his early songwriting, and especially his hits, Queen would have failed. He wrote Bohemian Rhapsody. That on its own should end the discussion about how important he was to the band's success. In saying that, I'm not criticising Brian. I love most of his songs from the 1970s. |
| mike hunt 11.05.2018 15:22 |
Tom63....Just pointing out a better way for Queen to end their Journey than Playing the old hits with Adam.. That's all....Holly, I do think Freddie had a slight edge on Brian in Impact and is my personal favorite. I Feel Brian is Fred's equal overall. On the same level. Brian wasn't beneath anybody in Rock. I agree with every word you said....this is why I think Vocal Harmony likes causing trouble...and why I'm not a fan. Freddie wrote all those early great songs on those first 5 albums that put Queen on the Map (Not only the hits) Without his voice, writing (underrated as a songwriter) artwork, the Name of the band...his overall vision there would be no Queen. Just give the man his props and move on. Of course Brian with his writing and style did as well, but to say Roger or John had the same Impact as Mercury is Just playing dumb. They were Important and underrated but not on the level of Mercury/May. |
| Vocal harmony 11.05.2018 15:25 |
Holly2003 wrote: Ridiculous. There are elements of Queen in Smile -- how could there not be given Brian and Roger are part of both -- but Fred took a failed band and two musicians going nowhere and created Queen. Fred provided the fantastic lead vocals, wrote most of their top 10 hits in the 1970s, designed the logo, suggested the name, and was the driving force behind their stage identity and how they approached live work. He also wrote Bo Rap, the single song that has come to be identified with the band. Fred wasn't Queen on his own but he was the special ingredient that made Queen work compared to Smile's failure. Without Fred's vision, musical talent, and most importantly, his ability to write hits, Queen would never have existed. |
| Star* 11.05.2018 15:28 |
Holly: Thanks at last someone on here who talks sense over Vocal Harmony. Without Freddie Queen would not be a household name. Freddie wrote the greatest song ever in Bohemian Rhapsody and is considered the greatest rock male vocalist ever. Freddie also stole Live Aid in 1985. I rest my case. |
| mike hunt 11.05.2018 15:47 |
How is this even debatable? Both Brian And Roger both said they were about to give up then came Freddie with these great and crazy ideas and decided to give it more shot. Not giving Mercury credit for Queen is like A Beatles fan not giving Lennon credit. |
| TomP63 11.05.2018 15:48 |
Mike, aha I see what your aiming for and I think you're right. Tom |
| mike hunt 11.05.2018 16:10 |
And without the success of Rye and Especially Killer Queen there might not even be a BO RHap.....without those 3 songs=no Queen. Brian even said it. |
| RS_Protos 11.05.2018 16:10 |
It's called greediness. Make as much money as you can while you can, people who think otherwise are being fooled. Keeping the queen name/legend/music alive is just an excuse, there are many other ways you can do that without this craziness going on now. As musicians over the last 20 years it's been shameful........ |
| mike hunt 11.05.2018 19:06 |
cmsdrums wrote:Are you trying too say I Want To Break Free and those 80's hits had anything to with Queens greatness? The point is there would be no Queen without Seven seas Of Rye, Killer Queen and course their biggest song and one of the best of all time...those 3 songs are what made Queen. Then he kept the ball rolling with Somebody to love and Champions. By the time 80's came around they only needed the occasional big hit to stay relevant. The hits are what got them big, but doesn't tell the whole story of course. Speak with the die hard fans, and their favorites are Queen, Queen 2, SHA, Opera/Races And NOTW. How many songs did Freddie write in that time period? Over 25 songs in their golden era....most were excellent....how many did Roger write? John? Even Brian wrote less. Then you have the nerve to say what's point that Freddie wrote most of the 70's hits! It's his writing and stage presense, the Art work. All the amazing songs he wrote, hits or not.Holly2003 wrote: Fred.....wrote most of their top 10 hits in the 1970s, .Yes he did...but then again he wrote the minority of their top 10 hits after the 70s, so I'm not sure what point that proves? |
| *goodco* 11.05.2018 19:14 |
happystar wrote: Holly: Thanks at last someone on here who talks sense over Vocal Harmony. Without Freddie Queen would not be a household name. Freddie wrote the greatest song ever in Bohemian Rhapsody and is considered the greatest rock male vocalist ever. Freddie also stole Live Aid in 1985. I rest my case.Gerry, do you masturbate before, during, or after all of your rants? Left hand or right hand while you type? You do work yourself into such a lather. Does Momma yell down to you in the basement to keep it down while you b*tch and moan and try to type? A shame that as an old time fan you can never bring anything new or worthwhile to this forum. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. |
| Star* 11.05.2018 19:20 |
Mike Hunt: Great post and straight to the point. You are spot on. Many consider themselves Queen fans on here but are a joke because they never defend what they are supposed to love i.e Freddie who is the most beloved member of Queen. Many accept the crap of today that May & Taylor offer with tongue in cheek and because they get away with it they take the p*ss out of there fans even more by employing an american berk who thinks he is it! Short changed Queen fans swallow the crap and encourage May & Taylor to dish out even more sh*t. |
| TomP63 11.05.2018 20:32 |
Mike, even the die-hards fans raised an eyebrow or two on songs as Body Language, Delilah, Pain is Close, or the less effort Freddie has put into Mr.Badguy, I see myself as die-hard, old school, since I follow the band from Seven Seas. But believe me, Freddie is amazing, in many ways and aspects, but he isn't flawless. I don't care for the Adam thing either, but as Sebastian has put it down nicely, is also my view on Adam and Queen, nothing less or more. Tom |
| mike hunt 11.05.2018 21:27 |
Of course he lost the plot at times...I don't like every song or album he did, but I also don't diminish his Importance to the band. I already stated they all had their part and were great. My comments are directed at a few who try and diminish what he meant to Queen, so I remind them of the facts. That's all. No more going around In circles with this discussion...If you think Mercury had little Impact on the sound of Queen and then claim Queen 2 and ANATO are your favorite albums you look like a fool. He wrote most the stuff on them. Along with Brian of course. |
| TomP63 11.05.2018 22:09 |
So I'm a fool now? I think I stepped on somebody's toes then. Tom |
| mike hunt 12.05.2018 00:06 |
You know what I meant Tom.....I said a person looks like a fool Or just playing dumb (Not saying they are dumb) If they try and say the voice and most prolific writer in the group didn't have a huge Impact on the group....I have no problem with you. Not that you care, but my favorite and most level headed posters on here are you, Sebastian and Holly. Most others have their own agenda. |
| Saint Jiub 12.05.2018 03:21 |
Freddie was just a blossoming seed in the very early days, who needed Roger and Brian as fertilizer to grow. I think the criticism of Freddie is a counter-reaction to the Gerryatric that holds Freddie as the perfect God incarnate. Freddie was the primary driver of the band's success, but he would likely not have succeeded as a musician without Queen. No Brian, No Roger ... NO Queen. Even Freddie said he was not the leader of the band, but was only one of four equal parts |
| mike hunt 12.05.2018 03:42 |
Panchgani wrote: Freddie was just a blossoming seed in the very early days, who needed Roger and Brian as fertilizer to grow. I think the criticism of Freddie is a counter-reaction to the Gerryatric that holds Freddie as the perfect God incarnate. Freddie was the primary driver of the band's success, but he would likely not have succeeded as a musician without Queen. No Brian, No Roger ... NO Queen. Even Freddie said he was not the leader of the band, but was only one of four equal partsHow about all four members were great....Freddie was the driving force for their success is actually my only point. Good post because without each other I think none of them make it. Why? They weren't 19 years old. They were all getting on in years. Freddie was almost 27 when Queen was released, which was getting up there in those days. Brian and Roger were ready to call it a day, but Freddie convinced them to give it one more shot. 4 smart guys had other options. The Question Is, what would have happened if they never found the right Bass player? No John=No Queen.... |
| Saint Jiub 12.05.2018 04:02 |
*goodco* wrote:I've tried masturbating with my left hand while typing many times and every time I get blisters.happystar wrote: Holly: Thanks at last someone on here who talks sense over Vocal Harmony. Without Freddie Queen would not be a household name. Freddie wrote the greatest song ever in Bohemian Rhapsody and is considered the greatest rock male vocalist ever. Freddie also stole Live Aid in 1985. I rest my case.Gerry, do you masturbate before, during, or after all of your rants? Left hand or right hand while you type? You do work yourself into such a lather. Does Momma yell down to you in the basement to keep it down while you b*tch and moan and try to type? A shame that as an old time fan you can never bring anything new or worthwhile to this forum. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Hmmm ... maybe the nth time's a charm. In fact I am doing it right now while watching this video: link Shit I need to go to the emergency room right away. I hope Wally can be saved. |
| mike hunt 12.05.2018 04:43 |
Great video....fred was crazy in his day. |
| Star* 12.05.2018 07:51 |
Panchgani : You are a stupid twat, and shows how infantile your comments really are. if any ones a wanker on here its you mate. i bet you have not got a cock to wank cos your a cunt. |
| Vocal harmony 12.05.2018 12:47 |
Holly2003 wrote: Ridiculous. There are elements of Queen in Smile -- how could there not be given Brian and Roger are part of both -- but Fred took a failed band and two musicians going nowhere and created Queen. . . .I wasn't disputing that Freddie's input and impact was huge. I was making the point the Brian was Freddie's equal. Having members of on band becoming part of another doesn't mean that the framework of the first bands sound will be part of the later. Listen to what Freddie did Pre Queen then compare it to Smile and tell me which sounds more like 70's Queen. By the same token, members of a band can change style sound and image completely thus making your point about Smile and Queen slightly off the pace, go and listen to Very early Status Quo, the sound , the image and then compare it to mid 70's Quo song like Rain. It's pretty obvious that having the same people in a band doesn't mean that a certain sound will be carried forward. Freddie was a brilliant song writer and singer, but he used ( or the band used) Brian's input, guitar sounds and his ideas about three part harmonies, to give all there songs a certain sound, obviously Freddie ran with the idea and created some amazing parts but the Genisis of the Queen sound was in Smile. Was Freddie a superior song writer than Brian, no. Was Brian better than Freddie, no. Just because Freddie was responsible for a lot of their 70's singles doesn't mean that he was a better writer, in fact the only single from their 70's period that was clearly the best song on its album was Bo Rhap. Singles and there chart positions don't reflect on song writing prowess, if it did Stock Aitken and Waterman piss all over Freddie! |
| TomP63 12.05.2018 12:57 |
Vocal Harmony, well written, as with you previous post, I reckon that May have written absolute top notch songs, and of course some hick ups, Dancer for example. For me as an outsider, I believe that Freddie brought out the best in Brian, which of course works the other way also. They needed each other, there were a band with a capital B. Tom |
| Vocal harmony 12.05.2018 13:37 |
TomP63 thank you. It is just a view, there'll be some who don't see it like that. |
| mike hunt 12.05.2018 14:19 |
That's what I been saying from the beginning....I would never say Freddie was Queen. I have heard people say that and it pisses me off. The one thing I'll say is Mercury had a style all is own and sounded nothing like smile. Smile were blues Rock. Nothing like Queen. Even if some of the harmonies were there. He was a genius, even though he wrote some crap. I would say Brian was/is as well...so basically we agree on this stuff, but we're still arguing for some reason. I Just don't see Roger and John on that level...they were a step behind, but still very good. |
| TomP63 12.05.2018 14:25 |
Mike, you are right, the topic was ABBA vs Queen, somehow, somewhere the plot thickens, and nobody spend another word on ABBA, I geuss ABBA found their new Waterloo on the Queen forum ;-) And yes you have stated that Freddie is or for that matter was Queen. Tom |
| Star* 12.05.2018 16:57 |
VH: You said "singles and there chart positions do not reflect on there prowess well i disagree with you there. The singles chart did reflect which songs were popular and sold the most in the 70s and Freddie had more top 3 hits than any other band member. We are the champions (no2) "Somebody to Love" (no2) "Bohemian Rhapsody" (no 1) "Killer Queen" (no2) "Crazy little thing called love" (no2) Which Puts Freddie as king songwriter in Queen by miles. |
| TomP63 12.05.2018 17:08 |
@Mike: And yes you have stated that Freddie is or for that matter was Queen. Correction: You have NOT stated that Freddie is soley Queen. |
| mike hunt 12.05.2018 18:02 |
Thanks for correcting that! That would started this whole argument again.lol....I'm actually fan of all four members. The problem is some people (I'm actually guilty of this) is when they try and make a point they diminish what the other members have done. So if It's a Freddie vs Brian debate I might find faults and exploit Brian's faults If I side with Freddie... Making me sound like a Freddie only fan. Others it might be the other way around. Even if That's far from the truth. I'm actually a huge May fan...his songs are classic. |
| Star* 12.05.2018 18:41 |
Yes all 4 members are awesome as Queen as that was the winning formula, anything after that is really like putting a skoda engine in a rolls royce! Freddie was the engine for Queen. |
| Vocal harmony 13.05.2018 11:37 |
happystar wrote: VH: You said "singles and there chart positions do not reflect on there prowess well i disagree with you there. The singles chart did reflect which songs were popular and sold the most in the 70s and Freddie had more top 3 hits than any other band member. We are the champions (no2) "Somebody to Love" (no2) "Bohemian Rhapsody" (no 1) "Killer Queen" (no2) "Crazy little thing called love" (no2) Which Puts Freddie as king songwriter in Queen by miles.Yes because the singles were not always the best song on the album they came from, so didn't always reflect fully the depth of song writing or playing within the band. As I said Bo Rhap is perhaps the exception. If that wasn't the case, all the albums would be full of substandard songs in support of the chosen single which really would be a marketing exercise. |
| Vocal harmony 13.05.2018 11:44 |
happystar wrote: Yes all 4 members are awesome as Queen as that was the winning formula, anything after that is really like putting a skoda engine in a rolls royce! Freddie was the engine for Queen.I see your point, but in the early 2000's VW bought Rolls Royce and Bentley. They also own Skoda. The Skoda range is built on VW machanics and sometime share the same body design and build. Both Rolls and Bentley were effectively and arguably built with VW power plants, so Rolls and Skoda and Bentley for a long time were related. In about 2012ish Rolls was taken over by BMW. |
| Holly2003 13.05.2018 12:16 |
Queen set out to be a commercial band. They wanted to be rock stars. They wanted fame, fortune, and money. Popular singles supported album sales and Fred's ability to write songs that connected with the public and became popular, successful singles was vital to the band's development and longevity. That is surely so obvious that the point doesn't need to be argued, and yet on and on we go :( Brian wrote great songs and I love virtually everything he did in the early days. Good Company is a work of genius. But without Fred's input Queen wouldn't have been successful. It's was Fred's voice, talent, image and ideas that got Queen up and running. It was his songs and singles that gave Queen the success they needed to keep on going. |
| Holly2003 13.05.2018 12:27 |
ps we were talking earlier about the decline in Fred's song writing in the 1980s. But he was still better than Brian in that period. You can count the number of good songs Brian wrote for Queen after the 1970s on Homer Simpson's hands. And on Fred's deathbed he was still cranking out good songs. Apart from Delilah, which is pants, obviously, but still more interesting than Tear it Up or Still Burnin'. For fuck sake. :) |
| Star* 13.05.2018 13:21 |
VH: Disagree with you again, the singles had to be strong to pull in the listeners to want to buy the albums. Many Queen singles had a duty to be catchy and get the attention of the public and many of them did. "I want to break free" "Radio ga ga" been two examples of that. |
| mike hunt 13.05.2018 14:41 |
Holly2003 wrote: ps we were talking earlier about the decline in Fred's song writing in the 1980s. But he was still better than Brian in that period. You can count the number of good songs Brian wrote for Queen after the 1970s on Homer Simpson's hands. And on Fred's deathbed he was still cranking out good songs. Apart from Delilah, which is pants, obviously, but still more interesting than Tear it Up or Still Burnin'. For fuck sake. :)I agree Holly....Just because there was a decline in his writing doesn't mean his writing was worse than the others...Yea, I Want To Break Free And Ga Ga were the big hits, but my favorite song on the Works Is It's A Hard Life, which was his song...then Hammer to Fall by Brian....Ga Ga was 3rd....Keep passing The Open Windows then Break Free...so In my opinion Freddie had the better songs on The Works even though the big hits came from Roger and John. Break Free was only ok anyway......Is this The World Created? Is nice as well and was a Fred/Brian song. Tear It Up, Prowl were pretty bad though. |
| The Real Wizard 13.05.2018 17:49 |
happystar wrote: Real Wizard : if VH worked for the band then shame on him for slagging Freddies solo work and saying Lambert is better. Us fans know the music is great where Freddie is concerned. He is NOT a real ardent Queen fan he only worked for the band and one of Freddies slaves.The combination of logical fallacies and juvenile sports team mentality towards music is just shameful and pathetic. You are not very bright. Looking forward to you posting a video of Freddie Mercury singing Who Wants To Live Forever live like the album version, the way Lambert does pretty much every night. |
| The Real Wizard 13.05.2018 17:55 |
Holly2003 wrote: ps we were talking earlier about the decline in Fred's song writing in the 1980s. But he was still better than Brian in that period. You can count the number of good songs Brian wrote for Queen after the 1970s on Homer Simpson's hands.Perhaps. But he did write The Show Must Go On pretty much on his own, which forgives all the follies of the previous decade. Who Wants To Live Forever is top notch too. Most artists get a decade of creative peak if they're lucky. Anything good after 1981 with Queen was a bonus, and there was plenty of it. |
| cmsdrums 17.05.2018 15:01 |
Interesting little aside to the 'Freddie vs Brian' as the main creative force debate going on here, but in the latest instalment of 'Ask Phoebe', Peter Freestone states: "While Freddie was quite capable of creating some of the beautiful harmonies recorded by Queen, Brian May was the acknowledged master, and he created some of the most well known pieces of Queen’s multi-layered vocals". By "acknowledged master" I am assuming he means within the band and their immediate musically creative circle, |
| Holly2003 17.05.2018 15:15 |
As far as I can tell, Freestone only worked for Queen from 1979, which was around the time Fred became more interested in a stripped back sound e.g. CLTCL. So Freestone may be telling the truth from his perspective, but he wouldn't necessarily know who was primarily responsible for arranging multi-layered vocals in the early years. That said, if you listen to the multi-track of Brighton Rock and especially the "Oh rock of ages" choir, it's Brian's voice providing the most beautiful (and most complicated?) harmonies. |
| Sebastian 17.05.2018 16:38 |
Exactly, and Freestone only oversaw their studio work from Flash onwards. Brian was/is magnificent (May-estic) at harmonies, but Frederick was as well. |
| The Real Wizard 18.05.2018 03:14 |
^ excellent points. |
| princesslina 18.05.2018 04:21 |
I'll still choose 'Queen' for the best cover song Bohemian Rhapsody- The Mup |
| M-train 06.06.2018 23:01 |
I believe ABBA is one of those groups like the Carpenters. Back when I was growing up in the '60s/'70s hard rockers like myself who listened to bands like Queen, Zep, Deep Purple, Alice Cooper, etc actually liked music from the Carpenters, and ABBA, but would never been seen buying their music. Of course now I don't really give a shit what anyone thinks about the music I like so I've really gotten to admire the songs that ABBA, and the Carpenters did as both groups had some really amazing [Karen Carpenter has the best female voice of all time IMO] female vocalist. In having said that, I've can't really see a ABBA vs Queen as its almost like comparing apples to oranges. IMO, ABBA wins for the pop songs, and Queen for the rock songs. |
| Star* 07.06.2018 06:34 |
M-train: Yeah Abba & Carpenters are among my cd collection and i have a lot of cds from these two incredible bands. Abba are the total opposite of Queen but because these two bands are well household names many like to compare the two. Both have wrote incredible songs and in my opinion both are greater than the Beatles and Elvis. Freddie can knock spots off Elvis with his amazing vocals and power performances on stage! Elvis has always been one of Americas biggest cons and so hyped for such little talent. |
| dysan 07.06.2018 07:02 |
Would there be a Freddie without Elvis though? I'm not so sure. I did a deep dive on Elvis recently and found a lot of stuff to enjoy. Coming from a totally different area to Queen (and 20 years before!) I can understand why he might be seen as the opposite of what Queen were about. |
| Star* 07.06.2018 10:50 |
Dysan: We could say there would not be any Beatles Queen or Abba if Elvis had not been around but going on the hype of Elvis he was and is the most hyped overrated artist ever and that was before simon cowell f***ed the music industry up for ever. |
| dysan 07.06.2018 11:33 |
I think you'd change your mind if you watched Clambake or Roustabout. |
| Star* 07.06.2018 15:32 |
Not really because i do not like Elvis. Freddie has been confirmed as best male vocalist ever and that means better than Elvis. |
| mike hunt 07.06.2018 16:28 |
Elvis was a great singer, and even better performer. Like Freddie was able too sing different styles of music so well. He couldn't write songs though. A legend regardless. |
| The Real Wizard 07.06.2018 18:01 |
happystar wrote: Freddie has been confirmed as best male vocalist ever and that means better than Elvis.Because polls based on some people's opinions represents objective truth? |
| dysan 07.06.2018 19:16 |
I don't remember Freddie's karate being that hot |
| M-train 08.06.2018 00:38 |
You really can't be serious when you speak about Elvis. Have you ever really listened to the man, and I mean really listen to his vocals, they're off the charts. Freddie was a great vocalist in his own right, and I would place him solidly at number 2 behind Elvis. Again, Freddie was an amazing male vocalist, and is one of my favorite singers, but Freddie always sounded like Freddie [not a bad thing]. in all of his songs. Elvis could sing several different songs, and every one of them would sound different. Glen Cambell once said, "Elvis could sing the phonebook, and it would sound good", and I believe him. link link |
| rockchic65 08.06.2018 06:11 |
M-train wrote: You really can't be serious when you speak about Elvis. Have you ever really listened to the man, and I mean really listen to his vocals, they're off the charts. Freddie was a great vocalist in his own right, and I would place him solidly at number 2 behind Elvis. Again, Freddie was an amazing male vocalist, and is one of my favorite singers, but Freddie always sounded like Freddie [not a bad thing]. in all of his songs. Elvis could sing several different songs, and every one of them would sound different. Glen Cambell once said, "Elvis could sing the phonebook, and it would sound good", and I believe him. link linkWow, love American Trilogy, the guy had an amazing voice and completely effortless, before his lifestyle caught up with him. |
| Star* 08.06.2018 06:34 |
M-Train Sadly i disagree with you. Elvis had a good voice but he could not do what Freddie did with his voice, Mercury was miles ahead of Presley and the polls demonstrate this time and time again. Freddie Mercury is untouched and always will be. Nobody else sounds like him, performs like him or even has his magnetic looks, the man is a rock legend. Presley was only stuck on singing slushy love songs or at best mediocre pop songs. |
| Star* 08.06.2018 06:40 |
Wizard: Yes polls give an indication what is popular at the time and i am sorry you do not like that been from canada or america and supporting your Elvis over there, OUR Freddie here in the UK is miles and miles ahead of the boring Mr Presley. Could the boring crooner write a rock opera like Fred did on Bohemian Rhapsody? Or Maybe a powerful melodic pop song like Killer Queen? Mercury had this ability to pull of all sorts of magic with his song writing ability. Presley on the other hand had his songs written for him. cheapskate. |
| rockchic65 08.06.2018 06:48 |
happystar wrote: Wizard: Yes polls give an indication what is popular at the time and i am sorry you do not like that been from canada or america and supporting your Elvis over there, OUR Freddie here in the UK is miles and miles ahead of the boring Mr Presley. Could the boring crooner write a rock opera like Fred did on Bohemian Rhapsody? Or Maybe a powerful melodic pop song like Killer Queen? Mercury had this ability to pull of all sorts of magic with his song writing ability. Presley on the other hand had his songs written for him. cheapskate.You're right about the writing part, Elvis never wrote songs at all, but people go to hear music so from that perspective no one cared who initially wrote his songs. As to polls, they are a reflection of popularity but aren't an accurate reflection of talent. |
| mike hunt 08.06.2018 12:43 |
M-train wrote: |
| M-train 08.06.2018 20:17 |
I'm not trying to turn this into an Elvis vs Freddie thread, but when someone said the man Elvis was boring, is just talking out of their ass. Kinda like saying Freddie don't know how to strut, its a stupid statement. Take a look at Big E in his prime. link |
| mike hunt 08.06.2018 20:34 |
I know all about Elvis...my brother is a die hard fan. I mean serious fan. I agree he's great. His gospel recordings are really good. |
| Star* 09.06.2018 09:35 |
Elvis was not that great to topple Freddie in the greatest male vocalist polls. Everyone knows Mercury is more of a credible performer than Elvis. Even The Beatles were better, |
| rockchic65 09.06.2018 09:56 |
happystar wrote: Elvis was not that great to topple Freddie in the greatest male vocalist polls. Everyone knows Mercury is more of a credible performer than Elvis. Even The Beatles were better,Oh dear, back to the polls again. Did you know Adam is No 2 most technically skilled vocalist of all time according to some poll, way above Freddie at No 8 and lots of other vocalists classed as Rock greats like Plant etc. I guess it must be true, like you intimated the polls don't lie. |
| Star* 09.06.2018 10:18 |
Guess your polls are american based polls then but America would support there own people. Here in the Uk Freddie is always top of the polls as greatest male vocalist ever. Horses for courses i guess. |