| SomebodyWhoLoves 09.02.2006 11:22 |
In the history of Rock N Roll, there were some truly great bands. And every musician has several artists that have influenced them, and they must, if they are good, try to outdo them, and achieve some measure of recognition, and accomplishments during the life of a band/musician. But I wonder if musicians today think like how PGA golfers must have thought when Tiger Woods entered a tournmant. Why bother? Everyone else is playing for second place. Queen was the best, in the history of Rock And Roll. Yes, they are that great, whether critics choose to recognize it or not. Queen was the best band ever. Professional musicians, even bands like U2, must deep down think and admit, they can never equal Queen. Never. Sure, they may sell more records, win more Grammies, and generally receive more mainstream critical acclaim, but deep down, most musicians must believe Queen was the best. That is why they are literally rock gods, legends. |
| Fenderek 09.02.2006 11:33 |
SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: In the history of Rock N Roll, there were some truly great bands. And every musician has several artists that have influenced them, and they must, if they are good, try to outdo them, and achieve some measure of recognition, and accomplishments during the life of a band/musician. But I wonder if musicians today think like how PGA golfers must have thought when Tiger Woods entered a tournmant. Why bother? Everyone else is playing for second place. Queen was the best, in the history of Rock And Roll. Yes, they are that great, whether critics choose to recognize it or not. Queen was the best band ever. Professional musicians, even bands like U2, must deep down think and admit, they can never equal Queen. Never. Sure, they may sell more records, win more Grammies, and generally receive more mainstream critical acclaim, but deep down, most musicians must believe Queen was the best. That is why they are literally rock gods, legends.Listen- it's only your opinion that Queen were the best. ,Music is not a sport. There's no such thing as "to measure the greatness of the band". Your Queen is the best is someone else's Metallica's the best is someone else's Led Zeppelin were the best and so on and so on. It's not a bloody race, and thank god for that. If Queen were thinking like you do back in 1970- they wouldn't have started thinking "The Beatles are the best -why bother?" |
| Adam Baboolal 09.02.2006 12:08 |
Yeah, I agree with Fenderek. I'd even add the most important thing, we're all individuals and that's what drives the process for a lot of musicians. We strive to make what we like and what we want. These days, it's very easy to get it all done (seriously) at home. Something which I think is both good and bad as it stops some people from really trying to break into the business. That and, of course, the business just keeps getting worse. Ohhh... so many variables! Peace, Adam. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 09.02.2006 12:59 |
I love Queen and think that they were the greatest band ever. However, your Tiger Woods analogy is ludicrous. When he wins a tournament he has objectively beaten all competitors with no grey areas. Low strokes win. Queen can only be the best band ever subjectively. Further, "most" musicians do not think that highly of Queen. Whenever there is an "albums that changed my life" or "greatest albums" feature in a mag, Queen is rarely mentioned. They are loved, admired and respected by musicians, but they were never a "popular" band amongst their fellow musicians, unlike The Who or The Beatles who influenced tons of people. Queen were sadly thought of as lightweights, something I've never understood. |
| deleted user 09.02.2006 14:19 |
What about?: The Beatles The Who The Undertones T-Rex David Bowie Thin Lizzy |
| Daburcor? 09.02.2006 17:08 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: Yeah, I agree with Fenderek. I'd even add the most important thing, we're all individuals and that's what drives the process for a lot of musicians. We strive to make what we like and what we want. These days, it's very easy to get it all done (seriously) at home. Something which I think is both good and bad as it stops some people from really trying to break into the business. That and, of course, the business just keeps getting worse. Ohhh... so many variables! Peace, Adam.Great post, Adam! |
| Adam Baboolal 09.02.2006 17:31 |
Dan Corson wrote:Sometimes, just sometimes...I have a moment of clarity!Adam Baboolal wrote: Yeah, I agree with Fenderek. I'd even add the most important thing, we're all individuals and that's what drives the process for a lot of musicians. We strive to make what we like and what we want. These days, it's very easy to get it all done (seriously) at home. Something which I think is both good and bad as it stops some people from really trying to break into the business. That and, of course, the business just keeps getting worse. Ohhh... so many variables! Peace, Adam.Great post, Adam! Peace, Adam. |
| Gunpowder Gelatine 09.02.2006 19:58 |
There's a line between best and favorite, though. What are the barometers to judge how great music is? Chart position? Number of singles sold? Album cover? Lyrics? Guitar solo? It's based on opinion...I honestly doubt U2 are aspiring to be Queen because they're successful and revered in their own right. It's not about competition or being number one, just about playing music and sending out whatever message you think should be said. |
| LadyMoonshineDown 09.02.2006 21:00 |
SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: In the history of Rock N Roll, there were some truly great bands. And every musician has several artists that have influenced them, and they must, if they are good, try to outdo them, and achieve some measure of recognition, and accomplishments during the life of a band/musician. But I wonder if musicians today think like how PGA golfers must have thought when Tiger Woods entered a tournmant. Why bother? Everyone else is playing for second place. Queen was the best, in the history of Rock And Roll. Yes, they are that great, whether critics choose to recognize it or not. Queen was the best band ever. Professional musicians, even bands like U2, must deep down think and admit, they can never equal Queen. Never. Sure, they may sell more records, win more Grammies, and generally receive more mainstream critical acclaim, but deep down, most musicians must believe Queen was the best. That is why they are literally rock gods, legends.Any good and talented musician will tell you; okay, so they won't tell YOU, but any good and talented musician will surely admit that Queen was a fairly great band with an excellent array of musicians/songwriters. However, any of those good and talented musicians will also say that Queen wasn't the best band to ever grace the ears of the world or of the generation from which they arose. Why? Because they weren't. Simply put. They were amazing beyond a lot of amazement. But they weren't/aren't the best band. Believe it or not, but there IS difference. Cheers |
| teleman 09.02.2006 21:30 |
Since when was it a competition? If you are an artist you will create art whether there is a chance for commercial success or not. Any musician/band creates music for the creative expression. And some will create great music because of that. |
| LadyMoonshineDown 09.02.2006 21:48 |
teleman wrote: Since when was it a competition? If you are an artist you will create art whether there is a chance for commercial success or not. Any musician/band creates music for the creative expression. And some will create great music because of that.Amen. Cheers |
| Knute 09.02.2006 22:00 |
It's getting to the point where I detest the stepford fans as much as the BPP types. |
| That guy who digs energy domes 09.02.2006 22:07 |
LadyMoonshineDown wrote:Id have to agree. Kiss and Aerosmith agreed thatteleman wrote: Since when was it a competition? If you are an artist you will create art whether there is a chance for commercial success or not. Any musician/band creates music for the creative expression. And some will create great music because of that.Amen. Cheers "once you're at the top, you realize there's room for more than one" |
| john bodega 09.02.2006 23:57 |
Queen are still the best. Hahahah... No look, anyone with a half a brain doesn't think 'why bother'. Basically, I've got a guitar magazine with a Brian May interview, and he's describing what it was like for young guitarists like himself when they first heard Jimi Hendrix. They basically took it more seriously from then on, because if they were serious about competing with someone like him they'd have to up their skills somewhat, or just give up for reasons of mediocrity. If anything, having a vastly superior band as an influence is more of a challenge to be better. In my opinion I'll never be the guitarist that Brian May is, but my idea is that we already *have* Brian May, why the fuck would I want to be him? |
| john bodega 09.02.2006 23:57 |
Queen are still the best. Hahahah... No look, anyone with a half a brain doesn't think 'why bother'. Basically, I've got a guitar magazine with a Brian May interview, and he's describing what it was like for young guitarists like himself when they first heard Jimi Hendrix. They basically took it more seriously from then on, because if they were serious about competing with someone like him they'd have to up their skills somewhat, or just give up for reasons of mediocrity. If anything, having a vastly superior band as an influence is more of a challenge to be better. In my opinion I'll never be the guitarist that Brian May is, but my idea is that we already *have* Brian May, why the fuck would I want to be him? |
| Fenderek 10.02.2006 04:00 |
Knute wrote: It's getting to the point where I detest the stepford fans as much as the BPP types.Yep |
| SomebodyWhoLoves 10.02.2006 05:16 |
I disagree with all of you who think there can't be absolutes in music and music can only be judged subjectively. I was talking about judging a band only on technical merits. Remember Live AID? Who was the best that day? Queen of course. Oh wait, I thought you said there can't be any absolutes? Was Queen just lucky that day? Was it just a fluke? If Live AID were repeated annually, guess who'd win each time? Queen. Every single damn time. Case in point: American Idol. The Judges rate an artist purely on technical merits. Each singer is judged on how well she/he can sing, and entertain people. That is not subjective, but technical. In the exact same way, we can judge any band. Queen were technically the most talented, and best band of their day. I'm not talking about subjective feelings. Freddie as a studio and live singer was unparalled even today. The Live AID moment was legendary. Compare that performance with the recent Live AID 2? It looked like everyone was "TRYING" so bad to be the next Queen, including the DAY-Os but they SUCKED. Admit it. Queen in their prime late 70s/early 80s were superior to ANY band of all time! |
| SomebodyWhoLoves 10.02.2006 05:16 |
I disagree with all of you who think there can't be absolutes in music and music can only be judged subjectively. I was talking about judging a band only on technical merits. Remember Live AID? Who was the best that day? Queen of course. Oh wait, I thought you said there can't be any absolutes? Was Queen just lucky that day? Was it just a fluke? If Live AID were repeated annually, guess who'd win each time? Queen. Every single damn time. Case in point: American Idol. The Judges rate an artist purely on technical merits. Each singer is judged on how well she/he can sing, and entertain people. That is not subjective, but technical. In the exact same way, we can judge any band. Queen were technically the most talented, and best band of their day. I'm not talking about subjective feelings. Freddie as a studio and live singer was unparalled even today. The Live AID moment was legendary. Compare that performance with the recent Live AID 2? It looked like everyone was "TRYING" so bad to be the next Queen, including the DAY-Os but they SUCKED. Admit it. Queen in their prime late 70s/early 80s were superior to ANY band of all time! |
| JeroenG 10.02.2006 08:03 |
SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: I disagree with all of you who think there can't be absolutes in music and music can only be judged subjectively. I was talking about judging a band only on technical merits. Remember Live AID? Who was the best that day? Queen of course. Oh wait, I thought you said there can't be any absolutes? Was Queen just lucky that day? Was it just a fluke? If Live AID were repeated annually, guess who'd win each time? Queen. Every single damn time. Case in point: American Idol. The Judges rate an artist purely on technical merits. Each singer is judged on how well she/he can sing, and entertain people. That is not subjective, but technical. In the exact same way, we can judge any band. Queen were technically the most talented, and best band of their day. I'm not talking about subjective feelings. Freddie as a studio and live singer was unparalled even today. The Live AID moment was legendary. Compare that performance with the recent Live AID 2? It looked like everyone was "TRYING" so bad to be the next Queen, including the DAY-Os but they SUCKED. Admit it. Queen in their prime late 70s/early 80s were superior to ANY band of all time!Still it's bullshit. Music isn't about competing. |
| Fenderek 10.02.2006 08:38 |
"I was talking about judging a band only on technical merits." If Dream Theater started to play alongside Brian, Roger or John they wouldn't have a slightest idea iof what's going on. RUSH drummer is few times better than Roger. Petrucci is TECHNICALLY far better guitarist than Brian. If you wre talking only on technical merits than you were even more wrong... "Freddie as a studio and live singer was unparalled even today. " Complete bollocks. TECHNICALLY Freddie wasn;'t that great, especially live. Listenm to any live recording from Japan in 1979. Or few Magic tour nights. Or Works...He was FORCING his voice and by the end of the gig couldn't reach the high notes. I've heard many singers who were TECHNICALLY better. And it doesn't mean shit to be quite hoinest, as they didn't ahve that something. having said that- this "something" is completely impossible to measure... "It looked like everyone was "TRYING" so bad to be the next Queen, including the DAY-Os but they SUCKED." Were Pink Flouyd trying to do it? You're basing the whole Live 8 on one or two performances? Fucking hell, what a stepford... Were Pink Floyd even trying to entertain by pointing out mike and yelling E-ooo? No, they just mesmerized everyone with their music... "Admit it. Queen in their prime late 70s/early 80s were superior to ANY band of all time!" I'm not going to admit iot as I think it's utter bollocks. Queen were MY FAVOURITE BAND of all time (and only in 70s, definitely not in 80s)- but I'm not blind and I acn see that there were many as great bands. They just simply aren't exactly my cup of tea. This is probably one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever seen in my life- more naive and stupid than endless BPP drivel... |
| LadyMoonshineDown 11.02.2006 12:33 |
SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: I disagree with all of you who think there can't be absolutes in music and music can only be judged subjectively. I was talking about judging a band only on technical merits. Remember Live AID? Who was the best that day? Queen of course. Oh wait, I thought you said there can't be any absolutes? Was Queen just lucky that day? Was it just a fluke? If Live AID were repeated annually, guess who'd win each time? Queen. Every single damn time. Case in point: American Idol. The Judges rate an artist purely on technical merits. Each singer is judged on how well she/he can sing, and entertain people. That is not subjective, but technical. In the exact same way, we can judge any band. Queen were technically the most talented, and best band of their day. I'm not talking about subjective feelings. Freddie as a studio and live singer was unparalled even today. The Live AID moment was legendary. Compare that performance with the recent Live AID 2? It looked like everyone was "TRYING" so bad to be the next Queen, including the DAY-Os but they SUCKED. Admit it. Queen in their prime late 70s/early 80s were superior to ANY band of all time!Using Live Aid as an example of musical "superiority" as well as a justification of a musical absolute is ludicris. Why? Because Live Aid wasn't about who could one up the other; it was a benefit concert to help the famine in Africa. Music isn't a competetion. And using Live Aid as one is purely ignorant. Cheers |