| Ziggy_SD 21.02.2006 21:38 |
Ever since the "Queen+" thing came into existence, I've always thought the band crossed the line. Queen Rocks was an okay idea but Greatest Hits III was embarassing. Then the Wyclef Jean thing, then with 5ive, Robbie Williams. Fair enough, the band can do whatever they want, but I found myself cease being a "fan" in '99. Then I just bored with everything they did. It's like everything since has become a series of sequels to the FM Tribute Concert... It's funny to hear things like "Freddie would've loved to record with such-and-such", but let me ask you this: just how many times did Queen actually collaborate with another artist when Freddie was alive? Queen were a very elite band, they did everything by themselves because they knew they didn't need anyone else. So it's quite a joke to hear Brian say things like "Freddie would've loved to work with a boy band or with a rap ensemble or with a blues singer that was, in many ways, the Yin to his Yang". I suppose the most ironic thing is the musical. In it, it discusses how rock n roll has become extinct and is superceded by the talentless manufactured pop stars and how everything is about money and no longer for substance. Go figure... ________________________ Update Not to mention the official website - it seems the whole gettup is just a backbone for the store, where everything is sold at inflated prices. Plus how bout these DVDs and live CDs that get released and re-released an infinite amount of times. It's all marketing - a concert played in 1986 would sell more than a concert played in 1974 because it has that many more popular hits. Just how many 70s concerts have been officially released? The casual fan might not even know about Freddie's outrageous costumes in the 70s, or how unpolished they once sounded, or more importantly, how bloody hungry and keen he was during those earlier performances. |
| John S Stuart 21.02.2006 21:45 |
'Anyone else feel that Queen has become a corporate entity?' No - never... Well would you believe it? |
| Haystacks Calhoun 21.02.2006 22:28 |
Queen has been a corporate entity for over 20 years..... Are you just now noticing, or are you just trying to be difficult? |
| 7Innuendo7 21.02.2006 22:36 |
if you want to swim with the big fishes, make sure you have sharp teeth ;) |
| Ziggy_SD 21.02.2006 23:17 |
I thought it standard to read posts before you reply to them... |
| Asterik 22.02.2006 07:19 |
Queen have never been anti- establishment, anti- corporate rockers. Fred din't go round wearing ethical clothes like that fool Bono, they never talked about saving trees. They have always been corporate and I for one don't have aproblem with it. |
| Togg 22.02.2006 07:37 |
] eer, once you sign to a label you become a business, and as a business you then have multiple mouths to feed. Queen have many different business interests, Queen Prod, Queen Touring, Nightjar, Duck Prod, Goldfinch Prod, to name but a few, all of these companies operate solely to make money, that's what businesses do, every major artist does this not just Queen. Queen are just better at it than many because they have a better product, only a small percentage of the music business is about music. As for Freddie not colaborating, ever heard of Barcelona? or Dave Clark? Look if Brian says Freddie would have liked to do something, who can argue with it, Brian did know him better than anyone on Queenzone I believe. |
| rogertaylor88 22.02.2006 09:49 |
U2 is the most corporative band all over the world (and the rolling stones) but they try to make us believe that that is not true... |
| rogertaylor88 22.02.2006 09:49 |
And the rolling stones admit what they are... |
| ~Blue_Acid~ 22.02.2006 09:53 |
Queen have been a corporate entity since 1975, the moment they hit it big is the moment it all began, its good though cause they kept true on their ideas. I think Freddie would have liked to work with Paul Rodgers or Robbie Williams, but definenlty not with a boyband or rap stars. Besides that who AOBTD remake was to reach a larger audience and its likely that it was recorded before Queen heard it for the first time. And Freddie worked with alot of people,not just Bowie. |
| Togg 22.02.2006 09:53 |
Well it may only be rock n roll, but it's business once you step out of that garage you've been playing in and onto a stage. Like it or not these guys are there to make money and make a lot of it, good luck to them |
| john bodega 22.02.2006 11:32 |
Thing is I don't care for semantics like "should it be called Queen anymore" and I don't care how much money they rake in. I was only ever in this shit for the music - nothing else. If you're spending so much time worrying about how corporate they became, you've no one but yourself to blame because you *bought* their stuff, right? Don't rag on about how materialistic and hypocritical a group becomes when they did it with our money. Personally, I think for giving me songs like Bijou, The Prophet's Song and Save Me, they can be as fucking corporate as they want! |
| Boy Thomas Raker 22.02.2006 12:04 |
There's no shame in being a business, and yes, U2 and the Stones are money grubbing bands also. However, U2 is away more forward thinking than QP with their marketing. The goal of QP is to flood the market with product, basically forcing the same product down the consumers throat, and never offering anything new. This helps the bottom line, but it dilutes the creative side of the band, which to be fair, ended in 1991. I just think it's kind of sad that the whole venture appears to be flogging and re-flogging ancient glories, when the whole beauty of 70s Queen was to do new and great things every time out. |
| deleted user 22.02.2006 12:17 |
Those are good pointes, but it's Queen and you gotta love 'em. |
| Sebastian 22.02.2006 12:55 |
> Queen Rocks was an okay idea but Greatest Hits III was embarassing. Rocks sucks compared to virtually every Queen album, Hits I, II and III ditto. Compilations (from any band) more often than not are total pants, not a big surprise. > Then the Wyclef Jean thing, then with 5ive, Robbie Williams. Wyclef is a good artist, 5ive are great singers, Robbie is brilliant at what he does. I think those were good choices to collaborate, the only thing I'm not OK with is the fact that it's labelled as "Queen+" instead of what it really is: "Brian&Roger+" > Fair enough, the band can do whatever they want, but I found myself cease being a "fan" in '99. As Sergey said, you can be a fan of the band's music without being fan of the members' personalities. > It's like everything since has become a series of sequels to the FM Tribute Concert... I've always felt the FM Tribute was actually a BM Tribute. > It's funny to hear things like "Freddie would've loved to record with such-and-such" Perhaps he would. It's difficult to know. > but let me ask you this: just how many times did Queen actually collaborate with another artist when Freddie was alive? With the exception of Sheer Heart Attack and News Of The World, none of the Queen albums are free of extras regarding either instruments, vocals or songwriting. > the Yin to his Yang Montserrat was the Yin to his Yang as well and he loved working with her. Still I don't think it's appropiate, neither from Brian's part nor from ours, to state whether Fred would have liked or disliked something. It's very easy to put words on a dead man's mouth. > I suppose the most ironic thing is the musical. Fred was much more into musicals than the other three put together. And he was probably more into craving fame and money than them as well. > In it, it discusses how rock n roll has become extinct and is superceded by the talentless manufactured pop stars I don't think that's the message. What's manufactured about, say, Britney Spears? The songs are good, the lyrics are good (no matter if she composed them or not), the production is good, the instruments are well executed (more often than not by top session players), she sings well, the arrangements are amazing (more often than not made by orchestral conductors or akin). Then what's the problem? > and how everything is about money and no longer for substance. I don't think Led Zeppelin, Beatles, Pink Floyd, Queen or Black Sabbath made music without thinking of fame & money. > where everything is sold at inflated prices Who's to blame? People who aren't considerate enough to cut their prices or people who aren't wit enough to stop buying such blag? > Plus how bout these DVDs and live CDs that get released and re-released an infinite amount of times. Ditto. > It's all marketing - a concert played in 1986 would sell more than a concert played in 1974 because it has that many more popular hits. Then it's clear that Queen have been a corporate entity always. > U2 is the most corporative band all over the world (and the rolling stones) but they try to make us believe that that is not true... And that's how their business works. > The goal of QP is to flood the market with product I disagree. At least they don't do it so much as others. > This helps the bottom line, but it dilutes the creative side of the band, which to be fair, ended in 1991. Very true. I find it funny and pathetic that Brian claims to "move on" and such and he hasn't. They're playing a set filled by songs which in most cases have been written over two decades ago, and using a name they wouldn't be labelling themselves with if they were "moving away from the past". If he wants to live off memories, good for him, but at least he could have the courage to admit that he's doing that instead of usin |
| mystic_rhythms 22.02.2006 13:27 |
To be honest, it does seem that Queen has become a corporate entity, but I doubt it is indeed true. Look around you nowadays: what isn't a symbol of corporate domination? Millions of dollars spent and made for advertisement, dozens of great songs completely butchered and misused by those advertisers, and much, much more! I feel that the "Queen +" idea wasn't much of a desparate manuever on the part of Queen Productions; it simply was to reintroduce itself to the newer generation. With the outpour of wannabe pop stars (Britney, etc.) and the failure of reason within the music industry, it was time for Queen to get on the side of the newer generation. This idea was able to keep Queen alive, and was able to rekindle the flame that was mere milliseconds from expiring in front of our eyes. Say what you want, i think it was a lifesaver. And btw I don't believe Queenonline charges too much for its online products, it's about as much here in the US as it is there, so it makes sense. |
| Ray D O'Gaga 22.02.2006 17:10 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Thing is I don't care for semantics like "should it be called Queen anymore" and I don't care how much money they rake in. I was only ever in this shit for the music - nothing else. If you're spending so much time worrying about how corporate they became, you've no one but yourself to blame because you *bought* their stuff, right? Don't rag on about how materialistic and hypocritical a group becomes when they did it with our money. Personally, I think for giving me songs like Bijou, The Prophet's Song and Save Me, they can be as fucking corporate as they want!To borrow a phrase, "sheer bloody poetry". And hooray for the dose of reality. |
| AlexRocks 22.02.2006 19:32 |
Thank god they became a coporoate entity! That means that their l.p.s will stay in print and they might make more! What's wrong with that and trying to make as much money as possible?! I am more scared of the people who don't want to make money! By the way! If you have any dollar that you don't want...give it to me! |
| j_stone2525 22.02.2006 21:31 |
|
| j_stone2525 22.02.2006 21:32 |
Haystacks Calhoun wrote: Queen has been a corporate entity for over 20 years..... Are you just now noticing, or are you just trying to be difficult?Someone with a brain. |
| rc 22.02.2006 21:51 |
First of all, music is a business. That's the first thing you should understand about your favorite band. Yes, they do it because they love it, but also because they need to make a living. trust me, I'm a musician. A classically trained one- not a rock star. (psh I wish) But in addition, I think acts like Britney Spears (NOT Paul Rodgers) cheapen the prestige and legendary music associated with Queen. That's what ruins Queen's legacy. Not corporate greed. Every band has a record label- they have to. The record label basically backs the band and pays for studio time, marketing, etcetera. Without them the band would be nothing. that's just my 2 cents, you're free to disagree. |
| FriedChicken 24.02.2006 08:07 |
Do you guys really think Brian and Roger these days play just for the money? Please man. Brian and Roger have both over 60 million pounds. They can buy a fucking airplane if they want. They play because it's their jobs, they play because it's their hobby, and they play because it's the thing they're damn good at! It's not fair to say Brian and Roger should stop playing because a collegue of them died, and one stops working. It's not fair to say Brian and Roger should stop using the name for a 'company' they've started, and been working hard for in the last 36 years. And it's not fair to say that they can't work with people they want to work with, even if it's a boyband. If coca cola makes a deal with pepsi, would you bother because you don't like to drink pepsi? Should Philips have stopped being a company when founder Gerard Philips died 50 years ago? Should they have changed their name perhaps? |
| Fenderek 24.02.2006 08:20 |
Sebastian wrote: What's manufactured about, say, Britney Spears? The songs are good, the lyrics are good (no matter if she composed them or not), the production is good, the instruments are well executed (more often than not by top session players), she sings well, the arrangements are amazing (more often than not made by orchestral conductors or akin). Then what's the problem?Sebastian- from time to time you really worry me... Really do... |
| Fenderek 24.02.2006 08:24 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: Do you guys really think Brian and Roger these days play just for the money? Please man. Brian and Roger have both over 60 million pounds. They can buy a fucking airplane if they want. They play because it's their jobs, they play because it's their hobby, and they play because it's the thing they're damn good at!Agreed completely. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 24.02.2006 09:44 |
Sebastian, when you say "What's manufactured about, say, Britney Spears? The songs are good, the lyrics are good (no matter if she composed them or not), the production is good, the instruments are well executed (more often than not by top session players), she sings well, the arrangements are amazing (more often than not made by orchestral conductors or akin). Then what's the problem?" The problem, is that by having lyrics and songs composed by others, with producers and arrangers and session musicians working with her, other than her voice (she sings well???), there is nothing in the product about Britney Spears as a person. Those songs, sounds and arrangements could be for Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, Madonna, Pink et al. They're written for hit appeal with no specific artist targetted. I've read quotes where superstars like Celine Dion and Faith Hill will listen to 200 song submissions from various songwriters before deciding on the cuts that make it to the album. How can that music, which is written for mass appeal sales, be anything but manufactured? Britney Spears is virtually talentless, and will have a sex tape on the market within 2 years to flog her fading image. Guaranteed. |
| g2000 24.02.2006 09:45 |
lets be honest here. they dont do it cos they have to and they also, to some extent, dont do it for the money but its a business so they aint gonna do it for free. I think they do it for the same reason the Who are still going, the same reason bb king is still going, the same reason shirley bassey is still going, the same reason why ozzy is still going. They do it cos they want the adulation, critical aclaim, glamour, but ultimately if they dont do it they wont have anything left to do. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 24.02.2006 10:02 |
|
| Boy Thomas Raker 24.02.2006 10:05 |
BHM 0271 wrote: Aarrgghhh! For the 50 millionth time, other than the BPP brigade of clowns, very few people are opposed to Brian and Roger playing. But please, for the love of God, QUEEN THEMSELVES put it on virtually every album that Queen are/is/were John deacon, Brian May, Roger Taylor and Freddie Mercury. Not Spike Edney, or Steve Howe, or David Bowie. Just the 4 of them. I'm glad that Brian and Roger are out playing at near 60 years of age, and playing loud rock, that's fantastic. However, tons of people believe that the current configuration is no more Queen than I'm the King of England. Are they wrong, while agreeing that it is totally approriate for Brian and Roger to use the name? Yes and no. Fried Chicken, BPP or myself can't define what Queen should be. We have our own beliefs, but for those of us who believe that the band Queen ended in November 1991, we're technically correct. BTW, there's no fan forum or stirring tributes to the late Mr. Phillips at the Phillips Electronics site because business doesn't touch people emotionally like music does. Life goes on, but comparing what most of feel is the greatest band ever to a faceless conglomerate is not a good analogy. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 24.02.2006 10:05 |
Sorry, computer screw up on the postings. |
| john bodega 24.02.2006 12:02 |
<font color=000000>Fenderek wrote:Oh what, I thought he was being sarcastic.Sebastian wrote: What's manufactured about, say, Britney Spears? The songs are good, the lyrics are good (no matter if she composed them or not), the production is good, the instruments are well executed (more often than not by top session players), she sings well, the arrangements are amazing (more often than not made by orchestral conductors or akin). Then what's the problem?Sebastian- from time to time you really worry me... Really do... |
| Fenderek 24.02.2006 12:17 |
Zebonka12 wrote:I dunno... I somehow think he wasn't...<font color=000000>Fenderek wrote:Oh what, I thought he was being sarcastic.Sebastian wrote: What's manufactured about, say, Britney Spears? The songs are good, the lyrics are good (no matter if she composed them or not), the production is good, the instruments are well executed (more often than not by top session players), she sings well, the arrangements are amazing (more often than not made by orchestral conductors or akin). Then what's the problem?Sebastian- from time to time you really worry me... Really do... |
| Boy Thomas Raker 24.02.2006 12:26 |
Well, a certain Brian May once sung the praises of Britney Spears, and she certainly has her fans so who knows if Sebastian is serious. |
| Serry... 24.02.2006 14:43 |
"The problem, is that by having lyrics and songs composed by others, with producers and arrangers and session musicians working with her, other than her voice" How about Elvis then? I agree with Sebastian - you may hate Britney, you may hate all these young brainless pop-stars with big tits instead of talent etc. etc. etc, but they're working with proffessional session musicians, they're recording in the best studios with using of the best technologies, they use the best composers and lyrics writers (I hope you don't forget WHO used Tim Rice as a writer of lyrics... Someone named Freddie, for instance), you don't have any arguments against their music except complaints like "it's crap, it has no soul, we're rockers - we're cool, blah blah blah". |
| Boy Thomas Raker 24.02.2006 15:00 |
Elvis was a fantastic singer, Serry, who burst upon the scene and changed history. Elvis had a swagger and made the songs his own. He was hyped, but he could deliver. I certainly realize that other artists don't write, produce, etc., but people like Britney Spears are total marketing and manufacturing. Even Queen were thought of as marketing hype because their record company spent 5,000 pounds for a gig at the Marquee. Your argument that Freddie used Tim Rice as a lyricist is ridiculous because Freddie had written lyrics and music on a dozen Queen albums and a solo album by that point, including a few songs that seem to have stood the test of time very well. He wanted a different point of view, and for sake of an argument, I'd say that Freddie had the story for The Golden Boy and Fallen Priest mapped out because that album is incredibly autobiographical IMHO. |
| Sebastian 24.02.2006 15:01 |
> that's just my 2 cents, you're free to disagree. And I do, but that's all right :) > Do you guys really think Brian and Roger these days play just for the money? I don't. I think they do it to fill stadiums and such, otherwise they could have had dignity and use their own names. > It's not fair to say Brian and Roger should stop playing because a collegue of them died, and one stops working. No, I don't think they should stop. I only complain about the use of the name "Queen". Other than that, I think they've chosen good collaborators: Paul is outstanding, 5ive were great, Elton John is a bloody legend. > It's not fair to say Brian and Roger should stop using the name for a 'company' they've started Disagree here. But I agree to disagree as well. > and been working hard for in the last 36 years If they want to do it just for the sake of working they can do it under another name. > And it's not fair to say that they can't work with people they want to work with, even if it's a boyband Exactly, they can choose to work with whomever they want to. > If coca cola makes a deal with pepsi, would you bother because you don't like to drink pepsi? I don't like either. > Should Philips have stopped being a company when founder Gerard Philips died 50 years ago? If the deal was that, yes. Likewise, good old Freddie (and his bandmates) said that if anyone of the four left Queen, anyone of them, that'd be the end of the band. And Roger & Brian did respect that for some time, then they sadly gave up. > Sebastian- from time to time you really worry me... Really do... Don't worry, I'm all right. The world would be so dull if everybody had the same ideas :) > The problem, is that by having lyrics and songs composed by others, with producers and arrangers and session musicians working with her, other than her voice (she sings well???), there is nothing in the product about Britney Spears as a person. And? John Deacon doesn't compose, arrange (most likely) or sing anything in Queen (the album), and that doesn't make him a manufactured product. Or Elvis, or those tons of brilliant classical performers who haven't composed or arranged the material they're playing or singing (how many operas did Pavarotti write?). > They're written for hit appeal with no specific artist targetted. And surely Freddie wrote We Are The Champions to not be a hit... > I've read quotes where superstars like Celine Dion and Faith Hill will listen to 200 song submissions from various songwriters before deciding on the cuts that make it to the album. There you go: they do have quality control. Then what's the problem? > How can that music, which is written for mass appeal sales, be anything but manufactured? What I say is that "manufactured" shouldn't imo be a synonim of "bad" or "low quality". I don't give a damn whether Max Martin wrote or co-wrote 'I Want It That Way', 'It's My Life', 'Baby One More Time', 'That's The Way It Is', 'It's Gonna Be Me' or 'Since U Been Gone' for his love to music or for his love to dollars. In either case, the songs are tops and the melodies are positively startling. > Britney Spears is virtually talentless, and will have a sex tape on the market within 2 years to flog her fading image. Guaranteed. Really a shame. > They do it cos they want the adulation, critical aclaim, glamour, but ultimately if they dont do it they wont have anything left to do. Agreed. And they'll have more adulation and bigger crowds if they leave dignity behind and use the band's name instead of their own. > Aarrgghhh! For the 50 millionth time, other than the BPP brigade of clowns, very few people are opposed to Brian and Roger playing. I'm not opposed to them playing, I'm only opposed to the use of the band's name. > Fried Chicken, BPP or myself can't define what Queen should |
| Serry... 24.02.2006 15:21 |
BHM 0271 wrote: Elvis was a fantastic singer, Serry, who burst upon the scene and changed history. Your argument that Freddie used Tim Rice as a lyricist is ridiculous because Freddie had written lyrics and music on a dozen Queen albums and a solo album by that point, including a few songs that seem to have stood the test of time very well. He wanted a different point of view, and for sake of an argument, I'd say that Freddie had the story for The Golden Boy and Fallen Priest mapped out because that album is incredibly autobiographical IMHO.For modern generation Britney burst upon the scene, changed history and is fantastic singer, so what? It's a question of what we like - we're fans of rock band, that's why Elvis is closer to us than Britney. For fans of classic music - Elvis is no-one and changed nothing at all. They're going in parallel paths and we can't compare them. About Tim: Freddie asked him to write lyrics, because of lack of time. But my point was - you can use proffessional lyrics writers even if you're a super star and can write lyrics by yourself. Nothing wrong. It says nothing about how much soul you put in the song, IMHO. And by the way - most successful Freddie's solo song wasn't written by Freddie too (The Great Pretender). |
| Boy Thomas Raker 24.02.2006 15:33 |
Hi Sebastian, thoughtful post, and other than the Britney Spears disagreement, which I totally respect BTW, I'm truly on your side and just wanted to clear a few things up. John Deacon DID compose and assist or outright arrange many Queen songs. I have a feeling that Another One Bites The Dust and You're My Best Friend will be performed and heard in the years down the road, can't say that Hit Me Baby or Poison will be. John Deacon created those songs with his talent as a writer and musician on multiple instruments, and sat down at the board to mix and produce them. Britney Spears could be any attractive young girl, and those songs could have been written by anyone for anyone. I can't see her having any control (maybe now) in her early art. Yes, Freddie wrote We Are The Champions hoping it would be a hit. But HE wrote it for the band he was IN. He didn't have Dianne Warren or Max martin funneling songs to him because he got hot and was the flavour of the day. It's Freddie's song, and will be forever. Impossible to see anyone on earth sing it and make it theirs. I could see 15-20 female artists singing Hit Me Baby from the last 5 years. They're generally of decent voice (Hilary Duff style) and big image. IMHO, songs are personal. I think Freddie Mercury was the greatest rock singer ever. However, Brian May delivers Too Much Love Will Kill You in a way Freddie can't because the song (yes, I know it's a co-write) is HIS story. I'm not a big fan of artists who cherry pick hook filled songs first. It may be quality control, but there's not a lot of heart (see Mariah Carey, fabulous pipes, zero emotional impact.) When I said that Fried Chicken, BPP or myself can't define what Queen should be, I meant it for the people who tell people who believe in the excellent Freddie quote that you posted from Circus, that we have the right to believe who we believe Queen is and was. Cheers. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 24.02.2006 15:35 |
Great Pretender was his biggest hit, and compared to the original it's over the top and overblown, and infinitely inferior. Freddie had the heart to make it his own, I think if he did it in the 70s it would have been superior to the dated production and cheesy instrumentation. No reverence in his voice either. |
| Serry... 24.02.2006 15:37 |
"Freddie had the heart to make it his own" Ditto. So it all depends not on who wrote it, but on how you sung it. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 24.02.2006 15:52 |
True Serry, and I'm not saying that there can't be good cover versions. Rod Stewart makes a lot of old songs his own because of the emotional attachment. It's just that with hand picked songs, it's harder to have an attachment to them. Remember how Freddie's driver recently did a long piece on QOL, and Freddie complained about Brian forcing him to sing another sappy ballad? Brian's sappy ballad could have been about his impending divorce, while Freddie was enjoying life in Munich's gay bars blowing lines of coke off a strippers ass. Mentally he's not there, and it shows a lot when people do other folks songs. Look at american Idol, they've got kids doing Motown songs that were out before those kids were born. Hard to have a bond with a song that has no emotional resonance, no matter how good your voice is. about |
| Sebastian 24.02.2006 18:25 |
> other than the Britney Spears disagreement Blimey ... out of all the pop artists I could have chosen to make my point, I picked up the weakest one :) too late to switch but let's say Spice Girls instead, or NSYNC. > John Deacon DID compose and assist or outright arrange many Queen songs. Yes, of course, but I meant the Queen album (Keep Yourself Alive, Liar...). My point is that: even if John didn't compose in those albums, his contribution was important, even if it was "just" the bass. Likewise, Britney's, Robbie's or Christina's contribution to their records is important even if it's not as big as that of Max Martin or session arrangers. > can't say that Hit Me Baby or Poison will be. Perhaps they will, perhaps they won't. Look at Eternal Flame, for instance: back in 1989 many people perhaps would thought it was just a monthly hit, in the same vein as Baby One More Time or Toxic more recently. But it stuck and imo Eternal Flame is one of those songs we can consider a classic. So who knows... but yeah, I agree time is the greatest innovator, and time is the one who will demonstrate if those tracks will survive it or not. > Britney Spears could be any attractive young girl, and those songs could have been written by anyone for anyone. What I think is that the point tends to get oversimplified by many. Perhaps it IS a bit random that Baby One More Time ended up sung by Britney instead of NSYNC, but I don't think "anyone" would be able to compose that. Many people (I'm not saying you're one of them) are extremely biased and if they find a simple song by a respected band it's instantly a classic (like Creep or Basket Case), while a song equally valuable in both lyrics and simple harmony and minimalistic arrangements is put down (like What's Up or Incomplete). > I can't see her having any control (maybe now) in her early art. From the second album onwards she co-wrote some of the songs. Dear Diary is partly hers, for instance. > He didn't have Dianne Warren or Max martin funneling songs to him I don't mean to debate that point. Of course you're right, but what I mean is that the final result is what matters to me when it comes to enjoying it or not. > because he got hot and was the flavour of the day Again I think it's a little oversimplified. Of course I accept that a huge part of pop acts' success comes from their looks, I'm not that naive. But I don't think they can't sing whatsoever. It's the same as putting Beatles down as saying that all their success is owed to their haircuts, the mammoth marketing behind them and George Martin. > that we have the right to believe who we believe Queen is and was Agreed. > Great Pretender was his biggest hit, and compared to the original it's over the top and overblown, and infinitely inferior. I disagree. Living On My Own had got better chart results and imo a better longevity in some circles. > Look at american Idol That's the worst advice ever :) |
| john bodega 25.02.2006 01:49 |
"compared to the original it's over the top and overblown" That's what makes it so brilliant, so Freddie. "and infinitely inferior." Point blank wrong! |