| Mr.Jingles 23.08.2004 11:33 |
Back in November 1995 both Queen's 'Made In Heaven' and 'The Beatles - Anthology' came out almost at the same time, and although there was huge anticipation for both from the fans, it still seems like the media focused almost entirely on The Beatles Anthology. Both albums came out with their own specific documentaries, and unlike 'Champions Of The World', the Beatles Anthology documentary was broadcasted on almost every single country in the world. 'Champions Of The World' got a lot less attention. Does anyone feel like Queen picked the wrong time to release 'Made In Heaven'? |
| Daburcor? 23.08.2004 11:40 |
Wow! I was thinking about this just YESTERDAY! Glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. |
| Mr Coolest Cat 23.08.2004 11:43 |
I was aware of the Beatles anthology at the same time, but i was only interested in the Queen album, so thats all i was really concerned with, and Made in Heaven went on to become one of Queen's best sellers. |
| Mr.Jingles 23.08.2004 11:55 |
I read once that 'Made In Heaven' is Queen's best selling studio album. Is this true? |
| Pim Derks 23.08.2004 11:59 |
It is the best selling Queen studio album indeed. To be honest, I wasn't really surprised that the Beatles got more attention. They WERE a lot bigger than Queen after all. |
| FriedChicken 23.08.2004 13:03 |
true |
| Banquo 23.08.2004 13:09 |
The Anthology film is a thousand times better than Champions of the World. The Beatles are in a league of their own so it came as no surprise to me. |
| Somebody to loveeeee 23.08.2004 14:11 |
If only Queen had been formed ten years earlier. Then again... without The Beatles and Jimi and all, would Brian ever built his guitar, would Freddie become the outrageous (sp?) person that he was, would the four of them ever meet and would I be writing this crap today? |
| deleted user 23.08.2004 16:41 |
ummmm.......... who cares? |
| Sebastian 23.08.2004 18:43 |
Moreover if Queen had been formed 10 years before, John would be just 10 |
| iGSM 23.08.2004 19:59 |
The Beatles still probably would've raped them in record/single sales..unless..Bohemian Rhapsody was penned before...well..all The Beatles #1's. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM! hats. |
| Michael Allred 23.08.2004 21:04 |
It's a shame really, "Made In Heaven" totally blew away the cheap sounding "Free as a Bird" (and that other song, whatever it was called.) The Beatles benefited from great promotion (and yes, the "Anthology" doc is light years better than CotW but....the Beatles doc had a LOT more more to offer with hours and hours of stuff. Queen's was what, 2 hours long?) |
| Lester Burnham 23.08.2004 21:57 |
I dream of the day when we get a 10-hour documentary on Queen's history. |
| Fenderek 24.08.2004 03:47 |
Lester Burnham wrote: I dream of the day when we get a 10-hour documentary on Queen's history.How about- I dream of the day when we get an Anthology Box.. C'MON GUYS!!! Made In Heaven is just an album (regardless of the whole story surrounding it), whereas ANTHOLOGY is a huge box set, full of amazing out-takes, demos and all. If Queen released box set in 1995 and were overshadowed by Beatles- than would be the case. But the way it happened- ANTHOLOGY release was more significant than a Queen album (I'm talking general audience, not Queen fans...) You're comparing release of a huge Box Set to the release of an album... Wait till Queen release their ANTHOLOGY and hope it's going to be half as good as The Beatles one... I don't mind it being twice better, actually... Maybe in 2050... |
| Farlander 24.08.2004 04:21 |
Michael Allred wrote: It's a shame really, "Made In Heaven" totally blew away the cheap sounding "Free as a Bird" (and that other song, whatever it was called.)"Free as a Bird" wasn't that great, but "that other song," "Real Love" was better than pretty much everything on Made In Heaven. |
| iGSM 24.08.2004 07:14 |
I sincerely hope my kids enjoy the Queen box set. Maybe they can visit dads grave once in a while to tell me how awesome it is. |
| Whisperer 24.08.2004 07:28 |
Lord Fenderro (a.k.a. Fenderek) wrote:C'MON! Made In Heaven is QUEEN!!!Lester Burnham wrote: I dream of the day when we get a 10-hour documentary on Queen's history.How about- I dream of the day when we get an Anthology Box.. C'MON GUYS!!! Made In Heaven is just an album (regardless of the whole story surrounding it), whereas ANTHOLOGY is a huge box set, full of amazing out-takes, demos and all. If Queen released box set in 1995 and were overshadowed by Beatles- than would be the case. But the way it happened- ANTHOLOGY release was more significant than a Queen album (I'm talking general audience, not Queen fans...) You're comparing release of a huge Box Set to the release of an album... Wait till Queen release their ANTHOLOGY and hope it's going to be half as good as The Beatles one... I don't mind it being twice better, actually... Maybe in 2050... I'd rather take one new cd of Queen remixes than 100 cd's of ultra rare Beatles stuff. |
| Fenderek 24.08.2004 08:07 |
Whisperer wrote: C'MON! Made In Heaven is QUEEN!!! I'd rather take one new cd of Queen remixes than 100 cd's of ultra rare Beatles stuff.Yeah- but I wasn't talking about stepfords- I was talking about general audience... :) |
| Mr.Jingles 24.08.2004 08:30 |
I'm sure most people here who also like The Beatles, saw the release of Anthology about as important or almost as important as the release of 'Made In Heaven'. After The Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert, I thought that Queen were just done and over, and I was just overwhelmed to find out that Queen was going to release a new album with new songs recorded before Freddie's death. Later I found that not all of them were completely recorded after the Innuendo sessions, but nevertheless I was very happy to hear something new and fresh from Queen. They did an excellent job putting all those pieces together, and re-working on all those songs to make them sound way much better than the original versions. |
| Lord Blackadder 24.08.2004 08:39 |
Made In Heaven got to number one. Anthology One didn't (in the U.k). Maybe MIH kept it off the top spot. |
| Virtuoso 24.08.2004 09:31 |
In 95',They had the 5th best selling album in the UK. |
| Whisperer 24.08.2004 14:37 |
Virtuoso wrote: In 95',They had the 5th best selling album in the UK.That's pretty good, considering its late release date! |
| Fairy Feller 24.08.2004 22:28 |
I DONT SEE, AND I DONT HEARD NOTHING ABOUT IT |
| The Real Wizard 25.08.2004 00:30 |
Lord Fenderro (a.k.a. Fenderek) wrote:lol @ Fenderek!Whisperer wrote: C'MON! Made In Heaven is QUEEN!!! I'd rather take one new cd of Queen remixes than 100 cd's of ultra rare Beatles stuff.Yeah- but I wasn't talking about stepfords- I was talking about general audience... :) |
| radio_what's_new 25.08.2004 07:19 |
The singles of Made in heaven were very succesful in the world. The two beatle songs weren't that very succesfull. I think Queen is better than the beatles. The beatles got so many number one singles because they were the first boyband. Really i think they have made acouple of brilliant songs but Freddie penned songs which are ten times better, then most beatles work. |
| The Real Wizard 25.08.2004 11:25 |
radio_what's_new wrote: The singles of Made in heaven were very succesful in the world. The two beatle songs weren't that very succesfull. I think Queen is better than the beatles. The beatles got so many number one singles because they were the first boyband. Really i think they have made acouple of brilliant songs but Freddie penned songs which are ten times better, then most beatles work.Oh, what the hell ever... No band will change the world the way the Beatles did. The Beatles albums were completely revolutionary in their time, and most still stand up today. The only Queen album that meets Abbey Road is A Night At The Opera. |
| Guy 25.08.2004 17:54 |
Sir GH wrote: Oh, what the hell ever... No band will change the world the way the Beatles did. The Beatles albums were completely revolutionary in their time, and most still stand up today. The only Queen album that meets Abbey Road is A Night At The Opera.I agree. As much as I like Queen, music wouldn't be what it is today without The Beatles. I just heard "Strawberry Fields Forever" today and thought of the brilliance of it. The Beatles are uncomparable, and if someone prefers Queen mixes over Beatles songs that's just weird. |
| Rich Tea 25.08.2004 18:17 |
No not weird at all! What a stupid remark! Yes Queen owe the Beatles a lot but so what by the time Queen came around The Beatles were dead! Its a matter of taste I much prefer to listen to Queen and in fact loads of other stuff before the Beatles! I must be really weird then? |
| Guy 26.08.2004 10:42 |
Rich Tea wrote: No not weird at all! What a stupid remark! Yes Queen owe the Beatles a lot but so what by the time Queen came around The Beatles were dead! Its a matter of taste I much prefer to listen to Queen and in fact loads of other stuff before the Beatles!First of all, I never said everyone is obligated to listen to The Beatles. Second of all, I never said I preferred The Beatles over Queen - quite the opposite. Third of all, what does the fact The Beatles didn't exist when Queen was formed has anything to do with what I said? Rich Tea wrote: I must be really weird then?If you're trying to say I'm stupid using sarcasm, I'd like to know why. *I* find it weird that people prefer mixes over new songs, let alone songs of The Beatles. We're all entitled to our own opinions, you know. Oh yeah, and you can be more polite. Thanks in advance. |