QueenZone discussion #840930

<font color=red>Quonkers wrote: I've always hated McFly, and I heard this version in HMV in London a few days ago and I hated it. I've heard some McFly fans say that this version is better than Queen's, which is absolute bullshit. Morons.

Togg wrote: I thought they did a pretty good job, I'd like to see the naysayers here do better.

<b><font color="green">The Fairy King wrote:

Togg wrote: I thought they did a pretty good job, I'd like to see the naysayers here do better.

That doesn't take away the fact it's a lame cover. They should at least come up with a new arrangement. Their version doesn't do the songs justice as the singer just shouts instead of singin.

Togg wrote:

<b><font color="green">The Fairy King wrote:

Togg wrote: I thought they did a pretty good job, I'd like to see the naysayers here do better.

That doesn't take away the fact it's a lame cover. They should at least come up with a new arrangement. Their version doesn't do the songs justice as the singer just shouts instead of singin.

And what would everybody say if they did, "Holly cow they have ruined the song for me" Frankly there ain't too many ways you can play that song without losing the point! sometimes they only work in one style and personally I'd say that was one, I guess you could do a reggae version or a punk version but that's not Mc Fly's style is it, they did it in the style of a pop band, funny that ain't it.

zaiga wrote:

Togg wrote:

<b><font color="green">The Fairy King wrote:

Togg wrote: I thought they did a pretty good job, I'd like to see the naysayers here do better.

That doesn't take away the fact it's a lame cover. They should at least come up with a new arrangement. Their version doesn't do the songs justice as the singer just shouts instead of singin.

And what would everybody say if they did, "Holly cow they have ruined the song for me" Frankly there ain't too many ways you can play that song without losing the point! sometimes they only work in one style and personally I'd say that was one, I guess you could do a reggae version or a punk version but that's not Mc Fly's style is it, they did it in the style of a pop band, funny that ain't it.

What's the point of covering a song when you are performing it exactly as the original? Well, the point for McFly is to make a quick buck off someone else's classic, or maybe this is a sincere hommage to Queen, but the artistic value of it is nil. Contrast this with, for example, Stevie Ann's cover of "One Year Of Love", a totally different arrangement breathing new life into an old song, and showing it from a different perspective, making me appreciate the song a lot more than I did before. Now that is adding value to a song, rather than just rehashing the original.

<font color=red>Flash! wrote: Awful. Their second attempt of covering Queen. Just goes to show they never learnt the first time round NOT to do it again!

<font color=indigo>ORGASMIC CHILD<h6> wrote: I have to say that its not that bad!!!!!!!!

mattsmith wrote: I can't believe that so many of you "Queen Fans" are putting this cover down just because you dont like Mc Fly.

<font color=red>Quonkers wrote:

mattsmith wrote: I can't believe that so many of you "Queen Fans" are putting this cover down just because you dont like Mc Fly.

True I don't like McFly, but if I thought it was a good cover I would say so. But I don't, so I didn't. By the way, what Queen song did they cover before?

<font color="red">The Audacity of Kelley wrote: I never heard of this "McFly" person. But now I know what DSMN stand for ! I'm so bad with song initial-things...