ok.computer 15.07.2005 13:55 |
This week sees the hybrid Queen coming to Hyde Park, with, lets face it, minimal support for such a festival. Will they fill it? Tonight will tell. However how relevant is the band in today’s music culture? Is it the band? Or is it merely the canon of music which carries it off? Are people going to see three old rockers, two of whom used to be in what was once the biggest band on the planet? Or is a new generation of fans taking up the mantle? I’m 33, and went to see the hybrid play in Belfast. In an earlier post I noted that around 10% of the tickets were sold in the hour before the gig, as was confirmed to me by a member of staff. I managed a couple of rows from the front, and was truly blown away by the music. But post-gig, it was the photos taken with the wee disposable that were the biggest surprise. Me and my mate were quite obviously the oldest people in the front ten or fifteen rows. Now, 33 isn’t as old as it used to be – nor is it teenaged. But I was amazed that so many teenagers, and those in their early twenties had turned out to see, what is in essence, an aging guitarist and a bloated drummer. Before the cyber-slagging starts, let me qualify a few things. I’m a fairly hardcore Queen fan – albums, singles, memorabilia, bootlegs, even a nicely autographed Hot Space album. (Ok, the music is questionable, but there’s no better album cover for autographs.) May was note-perfect all night, mind-blowing to see close up. Taylor was physically struggling, - and I really WON’T hear any arguments on this, this is a fifty something stoutie drumming for nearly two hours straight. But the voice was perfect, and I have always maintained that he is one of the loudest drummers on the planet – expressive fills, thunderous toms, sharp and sizzling cymbal work. And it’s still there, undiminished. I was lucky enough to have in my sightline across the stage, a young girl, no more than 20 years old. But for once, it wasn’t just post-30 letching that had me staring – she knew every word of every song – even those I would consider more obscure. And by obscure, for a 20 year old, I mean everything that’s not on a Greatest Hits album. I’d love to hear sensible opinion about this. This month’s Rhythm magazine has a very deferential interview between guest interviewer, Taylor Hawkins and Roger. Brian has either been collaborating with or cited as an influence by many of today’s crop of new unstoppables. And this month’s Live8 was all the poorer for having no Queen – how many guests DIDN’T say when asked for a memory of Live Aid, Queen were the band of the day? So where now for Roger and Brian? Live work can’t really be the way forward. Anyone who’s been to a gig on this tour can’t fail to notice that its taking its toll on Roger. Studio work would be welcomed, but marketing it under the title of Queen, even Queen+ is flaunting trades description legislation. Is it merely enough to keep the music alive, from a safe seat in the marketing department? Is it “guest appearance” status from here on in? What say you? I don’t want to hear about the pros-and-cons of the current tour – it has served a purpose and done the boys well. But what do people think: where now for May and Taylor? |
coops 15.07.2005 15:15 |
It will be interesting to see if a studio album is made and if so, how good it will be. If these guys ever come to the states I will go see them, which will mean flying to another city and a few nights in a hotel, but I think it will be worth it. I saw Queen quite a few times when I lived in England and they were always good. I want my wife to see them so she can at least see two of the original guys. Brian and Roger are just as big a part of Queen as Freddie, but boy, as much as I will probably enjoy the show, it just aint Freddie. Perhaps I need to go with a different attitude and perspective. Queen get a lot of Radio play here and I think are very popular. |
Boy Thomas Raker 15.07.2005 16:03 |
That's a great post, and my two cents are they are totally irrelevant. How can music that is in some cases 30+ years old be relevant? However, their catalogue is equal to that of the Beatles. Good music will live forever, and Queen's music is unique and timeless. I think people will always want to hear and see that, young and old alike. And if they have as good a sound as you say, what's not to like? I think that Brian and Roger are caretakers now. They want to play Queen music for a new audience. As much as I love their studio stuff, rock and roll is a young man's game. I have no doubt that "the hybrid!" will play and sing as good or better than any 20 somethings on the record, I just don't know that it would be very interesting lyrically with sex, drugs, struggle, the things that make rock great. There still hasn't been a song written by a rocker over 50 that has any relevance in today's world or the history of rock music. |
Grantcdn 15.07.2005 18:17 |
Relevant....yes absolutely...because their catalogue of music is relevant....relevant because it is just that good to stand the test of time.....most of the artists today will be forgotten 5-10 years from now....while Queen lives on.....Roger and Brian bringing this GIANT around right now is making it even more relevant to a new generation of fans...making Queen live on strong for another 30 years......Queen are truly legendary which is why they are even above The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and Elvis in the UK...I can't wait for their studio work....chances are it won't be as big as it was before but the possibilities are endless...with Paul Rodgers they can bring their songs to new audiences....even ones that weren't so keen on Freddie........and in this day and age...most of the music really sucks...no melody, just a repetive chorus or backbeat and some samples....Queen+Paul Rodgers will actually help save ROCK... THE SHOW MUST GO ON! QUEEN ROCKS FOREVER!! |
Lisser 16.07.2005 10:24 |
BHM 0271 wrote: That's a great post, and my two cents are they are totally irrelevant. How can music that is in some cases 30+ years old be relevant? However, their catalogue is equal to that of the Beatles. Good music will live forever, and Queen's music is unique and timeless. I think people will always want to hear and see that, young and old alike. And if they have as good a sound as you say, what's not to like? I think that Brian and Roger are caretakers now. They want to play Queen music for a new audience. As much as I love their studio stuff, rock and roll is a young man's game. I have no doubt that "the hybrid!" will play and sing as good or better than any 20 somethings on the record, I just don't know that it would be very interesting lyrically with sex, drugs, struggle, the things that make rock great. There still hasn't been a song written by a rocker over 50 that has any relevance in today's world or the history of rock music.I like this post, agree. |
kingogre 16.07.2005 15:55 |
Like the Beatles Queen and their music has become timeless and because of that they are, like the Beatles, never irrelevant. Those great 70's albums are as fun to listen to today as they were when they came. The same can not be said about many of the other bands from that time or many bands from 10 years ago for that matter. Made in Heaven, live at wembley and the greatest hits albums were extremely popular when I was a young teenager in the early 90´s. Queen still felt more like modern bands than veterans even then. Anyway, I dont think that age is really important when it comes to music. Artists like Bruce Springsteen, AC/DC, Iron Maiden are still fabulous(especially in concert) and in no way has-beens. Or look at John Lee Hooker or Muddy Waters who kept their edge for their entire careers. Or Innuendo by that band Queen. |
Suigi 16.07.2005 16:05 |
I feel that because of the current sludge being offered by what are laughingly called "rock stars," most teens my age are turning away from the new stuff, and trying out some of the records their parents listened to, like Beatles, the Who, and of course, Queen. And once they find that they like this stuff, they'll hunt down every last album to try and get their fix. Or is that just me? Anyhoo, in closing, as long as the new generation listen to it, as long as they can relate, as long as somewhere in the world the last notes of Bohemian Rhapsody waft softly into a person's ears, Queen will be relevant. Freddie's smiling, lads. |
Shay 16.07.2005 16:14 |
Agreed. This is a good, thought-provoking post. I think they are still, and always will be, relevant. It says something about them to still be touring after 30+ years and not be playing state fairs or casinos or somewhere like that. On the other hand, I personally (and this is only my opinion) don't foresee them going into the studio and making a new album. I can't speak for other countries, but I think if they made a new studio album, it just wouldn't sell very well here in the U.S. I think rock & roll is a young man's game now. If you look at all the "aging" rockers who still tour out there (e.g., The Rolling Stones, Elton John, Kiss, The Who), new studio albums tend to debut high and sell well in the first couple weeks, then fall off the charts within a couple of months. For example, Elton's last album debuted in the Top 20 but was off the Top 100 within a month, and it hasn't even gone Gold yet...and it was released in Nov. 2004. Same for Kiss -- when they did their big reunion in 1996 and were the top grossing tour that year, they went and made a studio album w/ the 4 original members a year later...and it essentially bombed. It debuted at #3 but was out of the Top 100 in a matter of weeks. I think the majority of the fans at shows want to hear the "classics" 'cos the majority of the fans at shows are your "casual" fans and not "hardcores." When I saw The Rolling Stones in 2003, they played over 20 songs, and only 2 songs were post-1981. Same for Kiss when I saw them in 2004 -- the one song they played post-1983 was essentially the "bathroom break/beer run" song. Even Aerosmith...I saw them in 2003 and when Steven Tyler said they were gonna play a couple songs off their new album, the crowd was like a freakin' herd of cattle leaving to go to the restroom or get a beer. Regarding Queen + PR, I think us hardcore fans wouldn't mind a new studio album, but I don't foresee the general public buying one. Being a hardcore Kiss fan also, I haven't seen anything new from them since 1998, and I probably won't again. I think Paul Stanley (Kiss's singer/guitarist) summed it up when asked when they were gonna go back in the studio..."I'm a bit ambivalent about that," Stanley said. "All of our older songs have become so big over time. And I'd have to admit that [new material] could never have those connotations and connections to people. "A lot of people would automatically think that [the new stuff] is not as good, even though it might be better. So why would you bother?" And I sadly have to agree. Same with Queen. I think it's their canon of music which carries them. I agree with BHM 0271's statement in his post in that, "There still hasn't been a song written by a rocker over 50 that has any relevance in today's world or the history of rock music." I also think that IF Queen + PR come to the U.S., the success in the shows over here will weigh in on their decision whether they will make a new studio album, or tour again, etc. If the tour doesn't sell as well as they hope over here, then it's probably a sure bet you won't see a new studio album. That's just my two cents on the subject. |
kingogre 16.07.2005 16:30 |
"sex, DRUGS, struggle, the things that make rock great." Drugs what makes rock great?? Look at pete doherty for example, the drugs are not exactly making him great if you ask me. |
Boy Thomas Raker 16.07.2005 17:49 |
I meant drugs played a part in the way of the "sex and drugs and rock and roll" way. Drugs opened people's minds and expanded their universes around the time of Sgt. Pepper and beyond. I don't think it's a long term career plan, and obviously Queen strayed from that path (except when Freddie snorted half of Colombia in the 80s) but to deny the importance of the drug culture in rock isn't right. I'd rather hear about young Pete Doherty's struggles with smack than Brian or Elton John's struggles about finding happiness while earning a quarter of a million pounds a week. |
djaef 16.07.2005 22:07 |
I think this is an excellent thread which deserves more time than I have right now, but I would quickly add two cents worth. I think they have already decided to do a new album. I fervently hope they continue the Queen + Paul Rodgers moniker ( or a new name, but NOT Queen). I noticed that a lot of news stories running the Hyde Park show story (the angle about Q+ PR inviting all the emergency service workers) called them simply "Queen". This I can't understand. Either that is really sloppy journalism, or that is Brian and Rogers way of slowly slipping back into the Queen name, by way of stealth. I sincerely hope it was just one off sloppy journalism. |
Oberon 18.07.2005 16:40 |
djaef wrote: I think this is an excellent thread which deserves more time than I have right now, but I would quickly add two cents worth. I think they have already decided to do a new album. I fervently hope they continue the Queen + Paul Rodgers moniker ( or a new name, but NOT Queen). I noticed that a lot of news stories running the Hyde Park show story (the angle about Q+ PR inviting all the emergency service workers) called them simply "Queen". This I can't understand. Either that is really sloppy journalism, or that is Brian and Rogers way of slowly slipping back into the Queen name, by way of stealth. I sincerely hope it was just one off sloppy journalism.It could be the management. i think that in marketing terms bM and RT leave that to Jim Beach and their publicists and concentrate on the content artistically, so i doubt they'll go for bringing PR under an all "Queen" banner. I even recall RT saying in one interview that they considered going out as Taylor May and Rodgers but went for the q+PR for marketing purposes. I don't have a problem with that 'cause I see the sense in it. They've done it all very tastefully in my opinioun -being respectful to Fred AND PR almost equally. and I think PR has been remarkably accomodating and generous in letting B + R sing so many songs. It might be that PR can't do more than he has been. He sang less songs early in the tour - RT did magic at brixton i think and BM did IWIA. ANd PR had trouble with his voice early on in the tour, so this might be part of it. new material would be good, but I think that should be under the may/taylor/rodgers style banner and not Queen+pR, but I wouldn't get upset if they did it that way. More touring would be good. I agree that Roger looks like it takes everything he's got to get through it, but he could probably lose some weight and get into shape if they did more tours. His interviews seem to indicate he's well and truly up for more. so, all in all, the future look bright. I think they are relevant and can continue to be. |
dimcyril 19.07.2005 12:45 |
There still hasn't been a song written by a rocker over 50 that has any relevance in today's world or the history of rock music.
i disagree, bob dylan's album Time out of Mind is in my opinion the finest of his career. and that is placing up against some formidable albums, blonde on blonde, blood on the tracks, highway 61 revisited, oh mercy etc etc. It was released in sept 1997 which means that his Bobness was 56 at the time. his follow up in 2001 Love and Theft was brilliant too. |
doremi 19.07.2005 12:58 |
djaef wrote: I think this is an excellent thread which deserves more time than I have right now, but I would quickly add two cents worth. I think they have already decided to do a new album. I fervently hope they continue the Queen + Paul Rodgers moniker ( or a new name, but NOT Queen). I noticed that a lot of news stories running the Hyde Park show story (the angle about Q+ PR inviting all the emergency service workers) called them simply "Queen". This I can't understand. Either that is really sloppy journalism, or that is Brian and Rogers way of slowly slipping back into the Queen name, by way of stealth. I sincerely hope it was just one off sloppy journalism.Rolling Stone just did it in their announcement of ''Reunited Queen To Tour America''. I noticed they didn't say Queen+Paul Rodgers. And this was NOT about the emergency services show where it was from a standard boiler plate rushed press release that might have only mistakenly said Queen. See this word for word. link |
Boy Thomas Raker 19.07.2005 14:40 |
That's all well and good about Bob Dylan, dimcyril, but who has heard this song? Acts like Coldplay, 50 Cent and Usher are vital as they are popular and people relate to their music, for better or worse. Even Oasis and U2 have reached their best before date, and they're a lot more current than Queen is in terms of new music. Bob Dylan's song may be wonderful (as was Brian's "We Don't we try again", which I believe was recorded when he was past 50) but no one but the die hard Dylan or May fans knows them so they're still godd songs, but not meaningful in today's world. |
Ray D O'Gaga 19.07.2005 15:16 |
BHM 0271 wrote: ... but not meaningful in today's world."Meaningful" to whom or in what context? If it has meaning to you, its meaningful. But if you mean "meaningful" in the sense that it gets lauded by a bunch of critics and music industry types, who gives a shit? "Relevent" is just a code word for pretentious people with a media megaphone trying to impress each other with how smart they think they are. In what way is Coldplay or U2 or Usher or 50 Cent or anybody in the music business "relevent" to any degree beyond what a critic in the NME or Rolling Stone says it is? Its music. Its entertainment. Its no more or less "relevent" or "meaningful" than anything on TV, at the movie theater, or on the newsstand. People buy it for a time, then move on to the next thing. That's it. It has no more or less relevence than you choose to give it, and no more meaning than you choose to take from it. The opinions of a bunch of ivory tower music and entertainment "journalists" is just a lot of bandwagon-jumping wankery. |
ok.computer 19.07.2005 15:22 |
BHM 0271 wrote: That's all well and good about Bob Dylan, dimcyril, [SNIP] worse. Even Oasis and U2 have reached their best before date, and they're a lot more current than Queen is in terms of new music.Can I just say, while this is VERY off-topic, I don't think we've seen the best of U2 yet. And their relevance is undisputed. Just an opinion. |
ok.computer 19.07.2005 15:31 |
Ray D O'Gaga wrote:You are of course entitled to your opinion, that's what a forum like this is for. However, my original post was "Are they relevant"? Relevant, as listed in the Merriam-Webster means "having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand".BHM 0271 wrote: ... but not meaningful in today's world."Relevent" is just a code word for pretentious people with a media megaphone trying to impress each other with how smart they think they are. Whether you feel that I was asking the question in cultural, musical, or whatever context, or whether I was referring to their place in the general Zeitgeist, you are entitled to answer. I must tell you, however, that I'm not a pretentious person, I don't own a media megaphone, and given that I don't really need to impress anyone with how smart I think am, I'd prefer it if you don't judge. Especially when you don't know me. Cheers |
Boy Thomas Raker 19.07.2005 16:16 |
Not sure if the previous post is directed at me or Ray, but I'm certainly not slagging Queen, but as I stated before, they'll always play great songs with a high degree of musicianship. However, in the context of relevance, my belief is that rock is a young person's game. When Queen broke onto the scene, they were full of ideas and creative energy. Even they will admit that their enthusiasm flagged as they got into to 80s. So I don't see how Queen as a bunch of middle aged men are vital or meaningful in the sense of writing songs that will change the world, in the way they did before. Without having seen the current tour, I think they're a better live band than virtually every new band, just don't know how they can be culturally or socially relevant. |
kingogre 19.07.2005 18:52 |
Good post by Ray d´O Gaga! Relevant is a very vague word and if someone is relevant or not depends on how you define the word. As long as there are people that likes it I dont see what is wrong with it. In the end its only about the music and wether or not you like listening to it. Music is not objective, there is no general good or bad. Its all down to what taste you have. There are plenty of artists that have remained vital and developed during their entire careers. Bob Dylan is an excellent example, Bruce Springsteen another. Iron Maiden (though not a favourite of mine, they are still as popular as ever and still making great records), AC/DC, Danzig, the Who, Ray Davies, Iggy Pop etc. That is why to a large part this time is so interesting in music. Because we have all this great new talent( there is plenty if you just look) together with all these great artists that have proven themselves by not only surviving but developing. We have a very wide variety of music to choose from and it is something that everyone can take part in. No matter if youre old or young or man or woman. Music is not only for young people. Today rock & pop is something for all ages. In the end we all grow old and life doesnt end because we do that. (Love sick by Bob Dylan from the album time out of mind has received quite a bit of play and is frequently in the White Stripes setlist.) |
dimcyril 20.07.2005 05:57 |
BHM 0271 wrote: That's all well and good about Bob Dylan, dimcyril, but who has heard this song? Acts like Coldplay, 50 Cent and Usher are vital as they are popular and people relate to their music, for better or worse. Even Oasis and U2 have reached their best before date, and they're a lot more current than Queen is in terms of new music. Bob Dylan's song may be wonderful (as was Brian's "We Don't we try again", which I believe was recorded when he was past 50) but no one but the die hard Dylan or May fans knows them so they're still godd songs, but not meaningful in today's world.hmmm, firstly time out of mind is an album not a song, secondly dylan won a grammy for best album of 1997 for Time out of Mind so it wouldn't appear that it is just hard core dylan fans [of which i freely admit to being one] who appreciate it. also rock music is still relatively young. there haven't been 50 / 60 year old rock stars until fairly recently. therefore who's to say that there will not be other rock stars in their 50s in the future who will produce great works. |
dimcyril 20.07.2005 06:05 |
(Love sick by Bob Dylan from the album time out of mind has received quite a bit of play and is frequently in the White Stripes setlist.)
love sick is a brilliant if bleak song. other artists who have made great albums include paul mccartney with flaming pie also from 1997. which is definately up there with mccartney's best work. agreed he doesn't get the sales or publicity which he had in the beatles. however, he can still do sell out world tours playing enormo venues across europe and north america. also, if he isn't relevant why was he the headliner on live 8. in fact why were the last three acts on the bill in their late 50s or 60s if they are pointlessly out of touch and irrelevant????? i note that most of the newer bands were somewhat low down on the bill. p.s. once again Coldplay are a pile of crap! |
Boy Thomas Raker 20.07.2005 08:56 |
Sorry, dimcyril, I'm familiar with the album, I thought I read song instead. In the big picture I agree with you about new bands versus old and quality. Paul McCartney headlined on the strength of 40 year old songs. Great songs, but I don't what meaning they have today. I think 50 Cent as an artist is a joke (should watch what I say in case he has an e-mail posse who'll track my IP address then shoot me), but kids today love that stuff. Why do you think Elton John hooked up with George Michael (who is great) in the late 80s, then spent the 90s doing duets with every flavour of the day? It's because they're popular, and he wasn't. And how do you become 'relevant'? Go and hang out with today's young stars! You can't tell me that Bri & Rog did WWRY with 5ive because they were their musical peers do you? They did it to boost their profile to a new market. Relveance has nothing to do with talent, but if it were 1977 today I'd politely suggest that Bing Crosby, Kate Smith and Frank Sinatra weren't relevant in a world that contained the Clash, Sex Pistols and Queen. |
gazfred 20.07.2005 16:01 |
im nineteen and feel in a gud position 2 ansa this question. queen are still relevant definitely. bands such as foo fighters the darkness muse help with this. the main reason is the songs. bo rhap, we will rock you, we are the champions, another one bites the dust, radio ga ga can be sang by any person u ask as can dont stop me now, crazy little thing and killer queen just to a smaller extent. and before anyone says that i only know the greatest hits albums, that is not true but lets be honest whilst queen II sheer heart attack anato adatr r classics 2 most queen fans. queens greatest hits 1 and 2 will be bought and loved by everyone for decades yet and are what will keep them relevant. unfortunately this means they mite never listen to the march of the black queen, brighton rock, the millionaaire waltz, spread your wings, its late but thats the way it is. |
Ray D O'Gaga 20.07.2005 16:35 |
ok.computer wrote: I must tell you, however, that I'm not a pretentious person, I don't own a media megaphone, and given that I don't really need to impress anyone with how smart I think am ...All those things being true, then one would logically have to assume I wasn't referring to you. And, for the record, I wasn't. Too sensitive, my friend. Don't take things so personally. Cheers. |
Ray D O'Gaga 20.07.2005 16:48 |
BHM 0271 wrote: ... vital or meaningful in the sense of writing songs that will change the world, in the way they did before.Which Queen song changed the world??? I must've missed that one. ... just don't know how they can be culturally or socially relevant.I really don't know what this means. Culturally or socially relevant in what way and as determined by whom? Again, and no offense meant to anybody, "culturally and socially relevent" sounds like code language for "highly praised by music critics in NME and Rolling Stone". Clearly, Queen have been responsible for some very popular pieces of music and a very few truly innovative pieces of music that may have nudged the locomotive of popular music in one direction or other for a while, and in that regard, there is no reason they could not and cannot be "relevant" again. But to consider them irrelevant and washed up because they're not going to write a song to "change the world" is setting the bar far, far too high. When did they ever write a song that "changed the world"? And for that matter, which pop or rock songs have "changed the world"? Seriously. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but outside of Elvis, the Beatles, and a handful of other artists, I think its a stretch to say any popular music has "changed the world" in any significant way outside of the music business. And based on this: And how do you become 'relevant'? Go and hang out with today's young stars! You can't tell me that Bri & Rog did WWRY with 5ive because they were their musical peers do you? They did it to boost their profile to a new market. Relveance has nothing to do with talent, but if it were 1977 today I'd politely suggest that Bing Crosby, Kate Smith and Frank Sinatra weren't relevant in a world that contained the Clash, Sex Pistols and Queen.it appears that "relevant" to you means "sells a lot of records and gets a lot of media attention and/or a lot of good notices from music critics". Again, you seem to be talking more about popularity than "relevance". Elton teaming up with George and Brian & Roger teaming up with 5ive didn't make either of them any more "culturally and socially relevent" to anybody. They just sold a few more records to people who probably wouldn't have otherwise. And probably a few less records to people who would otherwise have been interested if not for George and 5ive. |
Boy Thomas Raker 20.07.2005 17:53 |
Hey Ray, I don't always have lots of time to post at work :) so I'm not always ultra thorough so hear goes: Which Queen song changed the world??? None. Bohemian Rhapsody changed the music world, which is more what I meant to say, in the sense that they broke the verse/chorus mentality of 3 minute singles, and a lot of their singles early on were odd time signatures and different little things that I feel weren't done before or after. And that's what I'm trying to get at as far as relevance goes. I think NME and Rolling Stone are major bandwagon jumpers and know jack shit about good music. However, music must change, and I don't know how Queen or a revamped Who or Led Zeppelin is 'relevant' in a new world of music. That's certainly not saying that the music would be bad, and I'v never said that. Youth will be served, and I personally can't see a group of 60 year olds being relevant. They are to you and to me and a lot of other people on this board, but there's a big world out there that wouldn't know Queen from Queen Latifah. To sum up, I'm not sure what relevant is. I think it's great they're out there making people happy. Maybe that's the thing that makes them relevant. |
dimcyril 21.07.2005 09:28 |
BHM 0271 wrote: Sorry, dimcyril, I'm familiar with the album, I thought I read song instead. In the big picture I agree with you about new bands versus old and quality. Paul McCartney headlined on the strength of 40 year old songs. Great songs, but I don't what meaning they have today. I think 50 Cent as an artist is a joke (should watch what I say in case he has an e-mail posse who'll track my IP address then shoot me), but kids today love that stuff. Why do you think Elton John hooked up with George Michael (who is great) in the late 80s, then spent the 90s doing duets with every flavour of the day? It's because they're popular, and he wasn't. And how do you become 'relevant'? Go and hang out with today's young stars! You can't tell me that Bri & Rog did WWRY with 5ive because they were their musical peers do you? They did it to boost their profile to a new market. Relveance has nothing to do with talent, but if it were 1977 today I'd politely suggest that Bing Crosby, Kate Smith and Frank Sinatra weren't relevant in a world that contained the Clash, Sex Pistols and Queen.i seem to be agreeing with what you are writing. that's a shame i thought 'i guess we're falling out' |
john bodega 21.07.2005 10:23 |
Queen's music will never be irrelevant. Basically, you have two kinds of music - music that's just made to entertain, and music that actually has a meaning. In my view Queen have done both. A song that entertains someone in 1970 will always have an audience (however small). And a song that has some emotional meaning will never go out of style because it's message is forever relevant to the people going through said emotion. So yeah. of course they're still relevant. |
Boy Thomas Raker 21.07.2005 11:26 |
As ok.computer asked, "how relevant is the band in today’s music culture? Is it the band? Or is it merely the canon of music which carries it off? Are people going to see three old rockers, two of whom used to be in what was once the biggest band on the planet? Or is a new generation of fans taking up the mantle?" You're right Zebonka, good music will always carry an emotional attachment for people who love it. But since Queen has not released a real studio album since Innuendo, their most current music is 14 years old, probably 15 as Innuendo was released in 1990. Since that time we've seen Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins, Bush, Foo Fighters, Eminem, Pearl Jam, Limp Bizkit, and scores of rap acts take their place at the top of the charts. If you look at ok.computer's question, I'd say that people are going to see them because of their canon of music. It can't be because young people love the new Queen album. Selling 65,000 tickets may make them more relevant than 99% of the acts out there now. But groups like Styx, REO Speedwagon, Loverboy to name a few are doing small classic rock festivals and casino gigs. Are they relelvant today because people go to see them, albeit in lesser numbers than Queen? I don't think so, but that's solely my opinion. The Stones will sell out their North American tour this fall and I don't think they've been relevant since 1980. Eye of the beholder I guess. |
Boy Thomas Raker 21.07.2005 11:27 |
As ok.computer asked, "how relevant is the band in today’s music culture? Is it the band? Or is it merely the canon of music which carries it off? Are people going to see three old rockers, two of whom used to be in what was once the biggest band on the planet? Or is a new generation of fans taking up the mantle?" You're right Zebonka, good music will always carry an emotional attachment for people who love it. But since Queen has not released a real studio album since Innuendo, their most current music is 14 years old, probably 15 as Innuendo was recorded in 1990. Since that time we've seen Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins, Bush, Foo Fighters, Eminem, Pearl Jam, Limp Bizkit, and scores of rap acts take their place at the top of the charts. If you look at ok.computer's question, I'd say that people are going to see them because of their canon of music. It can't be because young people love the new Queen album. Selling 65,000 tickets may make them more relevant than 99% of the acts out there now. But groups like Styx, REO Speedwagon, Loverboy to name a few are doing small classic rock festivals and casino gigs. Are they relelvant today because people go to see them, albeit in lesser numbers than Queen? I don't think so, but that's solely my opinion. The Stones will sell out their North American tour this fall and I don't think they've been relevant since 1980. Eye of the beholder I guess. |
7Innuendo7 21.07.2005 19:10 |
Yes -- completely relevant. Like Elton John said, take the Ferrari out of the garage and drive |