| theCro 16.09.2006 21:10 |
230. A Night at the Opera, Queen link queen should be better rated imo... |
| Joeker 16.09.2006 23:40 |
rolling stone magazine is rubbish and a piece of shit... its worse than Gregs archiving. |
| thewho? 17.09.2006 00:11 |
I clean up my cats shit with that magazine |
| SK 17.09.2006 00:27 |
theCro wrote: 230. A Night at the Opera, Queen link queen should be better rated imo...No, it belongs in that position, people got to learn that there is so much more to music then Queen. that article is old. Queen is great, but top 10 or even top 100 material? nu-uh..not in my opinion and apparantly lots of others. |
| Mr.Jingles 17.09.2006 00:55 |
Rolling Stone has it's own agenda of praising artists they just 'personally' happen to like, and if you're "buddies" with the staff of editors and writers from Rolling Stone then you'll never get a bad review despite of how weak or poor is your work. Music is irrelevant to Rolling Stone magazine. Their business is basically about doing friends a favor to help them sell their records. How else do you expect that an absolutely talentless woman like Yoko Ono gets excellent album reviews when her only remarkable achievement in the music industry was breaking up the greatest band of all time? Explain to me how Queen never got a better review than 3/5 stars, but Paris Hilton's new album gets 3 stars as well? I'll never get tired of saying this... FUCK ROLING STONE MAGAZINE! Freddie was more than right to say that music critics were nothing but a bunch of frustrated musicians. If people truly rely on finding good music based on what Rolling Stone writes, then I just pity them. It doesn't take a rocket scientiest to know that Rolling Stone doesn't know shit about music. |
| deleted user 17.09.2006 01:18 |
Alright, just looking at the list - not even thinking about Queen, I don't agree with it. I like Led Zeppelin, but I think that IV was MUCH better than their debut. In fact, I don't think their debut album was that fantastic at all - pretty monotonous except for a few songs. BUT - this is my personal opinion, so I don't care if someone else disagrees - and I don't want to argue about it. As I've said before, these lists are frivolous - you can't really make a list of "The Top 500 Albums". How do you judge 'better' ? It's personal taste (and, as Mr. Jingles mentioned, connections) for the most part. |
| SK 17.09.2006 01:57 |
<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: Alright, just looking at the list - not even thinking about Queen, I don't agree with it. I like Led Zeppelin, but I think that IV was MUCH better than their debut. In fact, I don't think their debut album was that fantastic at all - pretty monotonous except for a few songs. BUT - this is my personal opinion, so I don't care if someone else disagrees - and I don't want to argue about it. As I've said before, these lists are frivolous - you can't really make a list of "The Top 500 Albums". How do you judge 'better' ? It's personal taste (and, as Mr. Jingles mentioned, connections) for the most part.Led Zepp I was released in '69, it had an impact in '69. Thats why it fared better. Led Zep IV was released in '71. Now if 1V was released in '69 maybe it would have been higher in the list. Cause Led Zep 1 was such a throw back to Jazz, that in 69 it was considerd awesome, by the time IV came out we had a thousand albums just like it. :) |
| deleted user 17.09.2006 02:22 |
SK wrote:I can't definately understand that. But this just reminds me of difficult it is to single out a few albums as "better" or "top". Doing something like that is very subjective (so much to consider, which qualities outweigh which...)... I wouldn't want to be the one to have to do it.<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: Alright, just looking at the list - not even thinking about Queen, I don't agree with it. I like Led Zeppelin, but I think that IV was MUCH better than their debut. In fact, I don't think their debut album was that fantastic at all - pretty monotonous except for a few songs. BUT - this is my personal opinion, so I don't care if someone else disagrees - and I don't want to argue about it. As I've said before, these lists are frivolous - you can't really make a list of "The Top 500 Albums". How do you judge 'better' ? It's personal taste (and, as Mr. Jingles mentioned, connections) for the most part.Led Zepp I was released in '69, it had an impact in '69. Thats why it fared better. Led Zep IV was released in '71. Now if 1V was released in '69 maybe it would have been higher in the list. Cause Led Zep 1 was such a throw back to Jazz, that in 69 it was considerd awesome, by the time IV came out we had a thousand albums just like it. :) |
| deleted user 17.09.2006 03:49 |
Queen have never really been known for their albums, apart from ANATO and compilations, more than the singles they released off of them. IMO I do think Queen deserves a higher rating (although I am aware that there are much better albums to have been released by other bands so don't accuse me of being an obsessive fan, I don't think Queen deserved top) and I do think that Rolling Stone does go with it's own biased opinions, but had it been a different better magazine and maybe the poll had been 'best song/single' then Queen would have been considerably higher and their would have been more material on the list. I agree with no.1 though, that was obvious, and I do think QUEEN aside that albums like Led Zep IV deserved higher placing. Again though that's my biased opinion. At the end of the day it's like Roger says you are reading someone else's take on things and their point of view. |
| mike hunt 17.09.2006 04:06 |
sk" you make me laugh, if you don't think anato is more creative than GNR or public enemy your nuts!...what are you doing in a queen forum if you think queen don't deserve to be mentioned with bands like nirvana and guns and poses, the sex pistols, ect. nirvana was kids play! |
| s.m. 17.09.2006 04:25 |
queen II, sha, anato, adatr, and notw are all classics read the reviews and you get it that rolling stone hates queens guts they just don´t get it my advice, get over it who cares about f***ing rolling stone read what fellow musicians say about queen, look at the influence you ve got def leppard, metallica, guns and roses, flaming lips, smashing pumpkins, green day, foo fighters, franz ferdinand, darkness etc. etc. citing queen as some form of influence i think that is the only thing that matters the impact they´ve made |
| Glende 17.09.2006 06:48 |
<font color =QUEEEEEEEEEEEEN> BowieQueen wrote: IMO I do think Queen deserves a higher rating (although I am aware that there are much better albums to have been released by other bands so don't accuse me of being an obsessive fan, I don't think Queen deserved top) and I do think that Rolling Stone does go with it's own biased opinions, but had it been a different better magazine and maybe the poll had been 'best song/single' then Queen would have been considerably higher and their would have been more material on the list.Rolling Stone has got a top 500 list of songs as well, and the only Queen-entry is Bohemian Rhapsody at no. 163.... |
| AmeriQueen 17.09.2006 07:05 |
You know, I normally bash American stupidity in not giving Queen more respect, but I must say, even the stupidest of music listeners here aren't dumb enough to put 'ANATO' at 230. All that needs to be said is that the 'Beach Boys' have album #2 on their list. It's like the Grammy awards... Rolling Stone likes to maintain a certain "hip, conniseurs of art" like quality about them. Notice, they never gave the Beatles or Led Zeppelin a grammy, or hardly even a nomination(none other than the losing nomination of the 'Sgt. Pepper' album. Yet a decade or more past their careers, reunion tracks no better in anyway compared to the band's known classics, manage to win grammys('Most High' by Robert Plant and Jimmy Page/'Freebird' and 'Real Love' by the Beatles). I wrote off Rolling Stone Magazine a long time ago when I took the time to analyze their thoughts on the band Def Leppard. Basically they gave a lukewarm review to both 'Pyromania' and 'Hysteria', the two albums that surprised the public and revolutionized music of the time as much as any two albums can. After 4 years post Hysteria, they were without their genius(guitarist Steve Clark died) alive to help them, but with SO MUCH public awareness and anticipation, released a cheesy pop album called 'Adrenalize' which debuted at #1 and quickly went south once the word was out that the album was shit compared to the past two gems. The album singlehandedly trashed their reptuations as musicians of quality, and labeled them instead as a cheeeball pop/rock hybrid in search of commercial success. Their following albums have been considered by most to be both commercial and artistic dissapointments. My point is, ironic enough as it is, Rolling Stone's album critics gave 'Adrenalize' the overall highest review among Def Leppard's catalogue. What does this mean? They couldn't see Leppard's greatness until it was public perception, then they couldn't come down on the band during 'Adrenalize' because the magazine was too commercially conscious of what sells. In short, the RS magazine critics suck ass, illustrating in depth their lack of credibility when it comes to musical discussion. |
| SK 17.09.2006 08:55 |
mike hunt wrote: sk" you make me laugh, if you don't think anato is more creative than GNR or public enemy your nuts!...what are you doing in a queen forum if you think queen don't deserve to be mentioned with bands like nirvana and guns and poses, the sex pistols, ect. nirvana was kids play!I didn't say that, I didn't agree with other choices either, All I'm saying is, if I had a top 100 or whatever Queen wouldn't be very high in it, due to the fact that their have been many wonderful, near perfect albums by many different artists. I'm on a Queen forum because I enjoy Queens music, but do I obbessess over it and believe that every album they ever done should be in the top 10? No, fuck no. |
| SK 17.09.2006 08:57 |
<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote:Yes I definately understand what you mean. But, I think everyone who has musical knowledge can agree that the top 10 is pretty accurate. :)SK wrote:I can't definately understand that. But this just reminds me of difficult it is to single out a few albums as "better" or "top". Doing something like that is very subjective (so much to consider, which qualities outweigh which...)... I wouldn't want to be the one to have to do it.<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: Alright, just looking at the list - not even thinking about Queen, I don't agree with it. I like Led Zeppelin, but I think that IV was MUCH better than their debut. In fact, I don't think their debut album was that fantastic at all - pretty monotonous except for a few songs. BUT - this is my personal opinion, so I don't care if someone else disagrees - and I don't want to argue about it. As I've said before, these lists are frivolous - you can't really make a list of "The Top 500 Albums". How do you judge 'better' ? It's personal taste (and, as Mr. Jingles mentioned, connections) for the most part.Led Zepp I was released in '69, it had an impact in '69. Thats why it fared better. Led Zep IV was released in '71. Now if 1V was released in '69 maybe it would have been higher in the list. Cause Led Zep 1 was such a throw back to Jazz, that in 69 it was considerd awesome, by the time IV came out we had a thousand albums just like it. :) |
| deleted user 17.09.2006 09:02 |
SK wrote:Holy cheese-balls ! I'm NOT kidding, but I meant to write "can" instead of "can't". Maybe I was going to word that differently... wow. That's a devastating spelling switch... !<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote:Yes I definately understand what you mean. But, I think everyone who has musical knowledge can agree that the top 10 is pretty accurate. :)SK wrote:I can't definately understand that. But this just reminds me of difficult it is to single out a few albums as "better" or "top". Doing something like that is very subjective (so much to consider, which qualities outweigh which...)... I wouldn't want to be the one to have to do it.<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: Alright, just looking at the list - not even thinking about Queen, I don't agree with it. I like Led Zeppelin, but I think that IV was MUCH better than their debut. In fact, I don't think their debut album was that fantastic at all - pretty monotonous except for a few songs. BUT - this is my personal opinion, so I don't care if someone else disagrees - and I don't want to argue about it. As I've said before, these lists are frivolous - you can't really make a list of "The Top 500 Albums". How do you judge 'better' ? It's personal taste (and, as Mr. Jingles mentioned, connections) for the most part.Led Zepp I was released in '69, it had an impact in '69. Thats why it fared better. Led Zep IV was released in '71. Now if 1V was released in '69 maybe it would have been higher in the list. Cause Led Zep 1 was such a throw back to Jazz, that in 69 it was considerd awesome, by the time IV came out we had a thousand albums just like it. :) |
| SK 17.09.2006 09:08 |
<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote:No worries, I caught it and understood ^_^. Keep on rockin, if you haven't done so, try listening to those top 10 records they list. Most of them are personal faves of mine(Definately check out Pet Sounds and Blonde On Blonde).SK wrote:Holy cheese-balls ! I'm NOT kidding, but I meant to write "can" instead of "can't". Maybe I was going to word that differently... wow. That's a devastating spelling switch... !<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote:Yes I definately understand what you mean. But, I think everyone who has musical knowledge can agree that the top 10 is pretty accurate. :)SK wrote:I can't definately understand that. But this just reminds me of difficult it is to single out a few albums as "better" or "top". Doing something like that is very subjective (so much to consider, which qualities outweigh which...)... I wouldn't want to be the one to have to do it.<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: Alright, just looking at the list - not even thinking about Queen, I don't agree with it. I like Led Zeppelin, but I think that IV was MUCH better than their debut. In fact, I don't think their debut album was that fantastic at all - pretty monotonous except for a few songs. BUT - this is my personal opinion, so I don't care if someone else disagrees - and I don't want to argue about it. As I've said before, these lists are frivolous - you can't really make a list of "The Top 500 Albums". How do you judge 'better' ? It's personal taste (and, as Mr. Jingles mentioned, connections) for the most part.Led Zepp I was released in '69, it had an impact in '69. Thats why it fared better. Led Zep IV was released in '71. Now if 1V was released in '69 maybe it would have been higher in the list. Cause Led Zep 1 was such a throw back to Jazz, that in 69 it was considerd awesome, by the time IV came out we had a thousand albums just like it. :) |
| Mr.Jingles 17.09.2006 10:02 |
So many Dylan records on that list and I can't even stomach listening to one single song. Those Rolling Stone magazine people sure must be a bunch of hippie stoners. |
| SK 17.09.2006 10:07 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: So many Dylan records on that list and I can't even stomach listening to one single song. Those Rolling Stone magazine people sure must be a bunch of hippie stoners.1)It's a shame Dylan wasn't a hippie, nor did he appeal to them, in matter in fact, they disliked his messages of truth. 2)The fact that Dylans albums are some of the best ever recorded...Queen never even came close, and that's the truth. 3)This article is from 2001. People don't be whiney like your god Brian May No offense to anyone :) In my opinion though, Dylan is far superior to Queen. I think a lot of artists/bands are. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 17.09.2006 10:27 |
SK, you're very knowledgeable about music, which I feel is fantastic given the state of this board and its slavish obsession to everything Queen related. However, if there are 229 better albums in the world "better" than ANATO, I want to visit that world. ANATO contains more musical genius in two tracks (Good Company & Bohemian Rhapsody) than Bob Dylan's entire catlogue. Not talking lyrics, I'm talking music. The American press never warmed to Queen because they didn't understand them. If you're a RS critic and you've been weaned on Bob Dylan's 3 or 4 chord stuff (yes I'm generalizing) then you listen to stuff on ANATO, I doubt you would understand it. It's like Bruce Springsteen being loved by RS. He's a parody of himself, singing about the working man and the woes of blue collar America, even though he's been a millionaire for 30 years now. Critics get that whole meat and potatoes, I've-lost-my-job and my-Chevy's-in-the-shop and the-bossman-works-me-to hard American music thing, but they don't get a dandy who goes to the Louevre or likes to watch bicycle races because it's not part of their world, and they fear what they don't understand. Bottom line, ANATO is wherever people feel it is, whether it's the best 230th best or worst album ever, for my money it's the most musically diverse and creative album ever made. Genius from start to finish. |
| SK 17.09.2006 10:34 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: SK, you're very knowledgeable about music, which I feel is fantastic given the state of this board and its slavish obsession to everything Queen related. However, if there are 229 better albums in the world "better" than ANATO, I want to visit that world. ANATO contains more musical genius in two tracks (Good Company & Bohemian Rhapsody) than Bob Dylan's entire catlogue. Not talking lyrics, I'm talking music. The American press never warmed to Queen because they didn't understand them. If you're a RS critic and you've been weaned on Bob Dylan's 3 or 4 chord stuff (yes I'm generalizing) then you listen to stuff on ANATO, I doubt you would understand it. It's like Bruce Springsteen being loved by RS. He's a parody of himself, singing about the working man and the woes of blue collar America, even though he's been a millionaire for 30 years now. Critics get that whole meat and potatoes, I've-lost-my-job and my-Chevy's-in-the-shop and the-bossman-works-me-to hard American music thing, but they don't get a dandy who goes to the Louevre or likes to watch bicycle races because it's not part of their world, and they fear what they don't understand. Bottom line, ANATO is wherever people feel it is, whether it's the best 230th best or worst album ever, for my money it's the most musically diverse and creative album ever made. Genius from start to finish.Hey, thanks for the compliment and the insight. Yes, its true, Dylan's albums are not known for music(Although Blood On The Track/Desire has lushcious music, I promise you that). As for A Night At The Opera being genious, prehaps. I have listend to this lp ever since I got it on vinyl, and I do truly enjoy it, but it just doesnt click well with the whole "one of the best albums of all time" I mean, come now, lets compare it to a masterpeice like "Pet Sounds" or "Electric Lady Land" it dismisses certain qualities such as blending and keeping a certain such of flow(music wise and spiritualy). It was almost a step backwards theory wise, considering the stuff that only came out a year or two before it("Exile On Main St" "The Rise And Fall Of Ziggy Stardust And The Spiders For Mars"). I also feel ANATO sufferd from bad mixing, I can listen to that album for hours and point out studio flaws and such. As a whole, the album is good and enjoyable to listen to, is it one of the best ever made? Certinately not in my opinion, is it fun,good and enjoyable? yes that is for sure :) |
| dont try suicide 17.09.2006 12:31 |
the only thing that rolling stone got right was making sgt. pepper #1 and pet sounds # 2. |
| Mr.Jingles 17.09.2006 12:42 |
Only lyrically speaking Dylan is superior to Queen. Dylan could never in a million years produce musically complex tracks like 'Bohemian Rhapsody', 'The March of the Black Queen', or 'Innuendo'. Sorry to say that but it's the truth. |
| SK 17.09.2006 14:19 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Only lyrically speaking Dylan is superior to Queen. Dylan could never in a million years produce musically complex tracks like 'Bohemian Rhapsody', 'The March of the Black Queen', or 'Innuendo'. Sorry to say that but it's the truth.Maybe so, but as albums,as music and as a peice of art. His albums are superior, in my opinion atleast :) |
| redspecial85 17.09.2006 17:58 |
To be honest what you're all doing here is comparing apples and oranges; and when Rolling Stone magazine (which is a magazine run by fuck-off's) makes a 100 Greatest Guitarists, or the Top 500 Album List...of course it will be biased, they've been biased for decades now. That list is like comparing apples and oranges. I like Bob Dylan's music...as a lyricist I think he's a genius, however he is not an accomplished musician, or a vocalist (his voice sounds like an old cat being strangled). That being said...he's made some timeless material. Blonde on Blonde, Planet Waves, his live album Before the Flood which was recorded with The Band. All good stuff. The bottom line is...Dylan was known for his songwriting being simple chord progressions with profound and moving lyrics, and an immeadiately identifiable voice...(I'm not saying he's great, just easy to spot) Whereas Queen is known for its complex Baroque influenced guitar overdubs, putting on an incredible live show, having explored nearly every genre of music in their repetoire, and damn near perfect vocal harmonies...You can't compare the Bob Dylan and Queen...its pointless! |
| SK 17.09.2006 18:18 |
redspecial85 wrote: To be honest what you're all doing here is comparing apples and oranges; and when Rolling Stone magazine (which is a magazine run by fuck-off's) makes a 100 Greatest Guitarists, or the Top 500 Album List...of course it will be biased, they've been biased for decades now. That list is like comparing apples and oranges. I like Bob Dylan's music...as a lyricist I think he's a genius, however he is not an accomplished musician, or a vocalist (his voice sounds like an old cat being strangled). That being said...he's made some timeless material. Blonde on Blonde, Planet Waves, his live album Before the Flood which was recorded with The Band. All good stuff. The bottom line is...Dylan was known for his songwriting being simple chord progressions with profound and moving lyrics, and an immeadiately identifiable voice...(I'm not saying he's great, just easy to spot) Whereas Queen is known for its complex Baroque influenced guitar overdubs, putting on an incredible live show, having explored nearly every genre of music in their repetoire, and damn near perfect vocal harmonies...You can't compare the Bob Dylan and Queen...its pointless!Agreed, but I honestly LOVE his voice, prehaps because I grew up listening to his vinyls, but it has a certain charm to it :). I was just so tired of certain Queen fans thinking all the fuckin Queen records deserve to be in the best albums list lol. |
| Mr.Jingles 17.09.2006 18:32 |
Most Queen fans would agree that there are Queen albums quite superior to others, and you can't have an all time top 10 with nothing but Queen albums. Here we debate about the fact that bands like The Beatles, Pink Floyd, or Led Zeppelin were perhaps better than Queen for overall musical quality and lyrical substance. Dylan doesn't rank as high on that category, at least not from the musical aspect. The only solo artists I could see up there are perhaps Elton John, Billy Joel, and Stevie Wonder. |
| her 17.09.2006 19:07 |
SK wrote:No, only as a songwriter. In term of armonies resources, vocal arrangements, versatility, and instruments, I think that Queen is definately better than him.Mr.Jingles wrote: Only lyrically speaking Dylan is superior to Queen. Dylan could never in a million years produce musically complex tracks like 'Bohemian Rhapsody', 'The March of the Black Queen', or 'Innuendo'. Sorry to say that but it's the truth.Maybe so, but as albums,as music and as a peice of art. His albums are superior, in my opinion atleast :) |
| her 17.09.2006 19:33 |
Of course, nobody is saying that all Queen albums have to be in the list, but at least "A night at the opera" (and others like "Queen 2", "A day at the races") deserve to be in the list, in the top 100 or top 50 (in my own opinion). |
| SK 17.09.2006 19:53 |
her wrote::)SK wrote:No, only as a songwriter. In term of armonies resources, vocal arrangements, versatility, and instruments, I think that Queen is definately better than him.Mr.Jingles wrote: Only lyrically speaking Dylan is superior to Queen. Dylan could never in a million years produce musically complex tracks like 'Bohemian Rhapsody', 'The March of the Black Queen', or 'Innuendo'. Sorry to say that but it's the truth.Maybe so, but as albums,as music and as a peice of art. His albums are superior, in my opinion atleast :) Beach Boys trumped Queen in haromonies(Hell the album Pet Sounds is probably the best ever made, probably). It takes a certain amount of spirituality and state of mind to listen to Dylan, you simply cannot throw on a Dylan lp and exspect to fall in love with his music, It takes musical knowledge and such. Anyways, I'm always appreciating peoples opinions and such, so thank you all for replying. |
| Maz 17.09.2006 21:11 |
Tell me this: Why come to a Queen notice board if all you want to do is tell users how great some other band/artist/musician is when compared to Queen? Seems like a waste of time and ego. |
| SK 17.09.2006 21:35 |
Zeni wrote: Tell me this: Why come to a Queen notice board if all you want to do is tell users how great some other band/artist/musician is when compared to Queen? Seems like a waste of time and ego.Because, not everyone is here just to jump on anything that is Queen, some of us have been enjoying Queens music for all our lives. I enjoy Queen yes, but I like other bands/artists as well. I believe it is members like you who are wasting your time and egos, Queen isn't the end all to be all. I come here for the intelligent music discussions. No hard feelings mate. |
| Maz 17.09.2006 21:52 |
SK wrote: I believe it is members like you who are wasting your time and egos, Queen isn't the end all to be all.And I would recommend that you look through my previous posts for any indication that I thought Queen was the Alpha and the Omega of Music. Shows how little you pay attention. However, my original criticism still stands. It would appear that you spend more time telling us why Queen was not the best or why some other act was musically superior than engaging in a discussion about Queen's music. Is it just QZ that you do this, or do you also peruse other notice boards for your so-called "intelligent music discussions"? Do you really expect to get far by constantly reminding us that Dylan wrote better lyrics or that the Beach Boys had better harmonies? If I really cared about that, I'd hang my internet hat elsewhere. |
| her 17.09.2006 21:57 |
SK wrote:OK, no problem, it´s a question of point of view as you said. I´m only trying to point that the magic of "A night at the opera", for example, is enough to make a such list and be high. And I say that because I have read several times what people from that magazine think about Queen, and I have found some fake comments about their albums, I know that they always put Queen below in their rankings.her wrote::) Beach Boys trumped Queen in haromonies(Hell the album Pet Sounds is probably the best ever made, probably). It takes a certain amount of spirituality and state of mind to listen to Dylan, you simply cannot throw on a Dylan lp and exspect to fall in love with his music, It takes musical knowledge and such. Anyways, I'm always appreciating peoples opinions and such, so thank you all for replying.SK wrote:No, only as a songwriter. In term of armonies resources, vocal arrangements, versatility, and instruments, I think that Queen is definately better than him.Mr.Jingles wrote: Only lyrically speaking Dylan is superior to Queen. Dylan could never in a million years produce musically complex tracks like 'Bohemian Rhapsody', 'The March of the Black Queen', or 'Innuendo'. Sorry to say that but it's the truth.Maybe so, but as albums,as music and as a peice of art. His albums are superior, in my opinion atleast :) I agree that some fans tend to put Queen above any other band, but in the same way, I think you are largely underestimating all Queen achievements as musicans. I can´t say that A night the opera is best album, but I can say there is no other album better than it (in my own opinion). |
| SK 17.09.2006 22:00 |
Zeni wrote:Sorry, I chose poor words, I ment other members who praise anything Queen. I only chose to discuss that Queen wasn't on top of the charts here because it was a list dealing with the whole musical world. I was simply giving my opinion why Queen wasn't number 1 or in the top 10, or top 1000 etc etc. Yes, I do discuss other music on other boards, It's simply a bore when people talk about the same subject "Ooooh ROGER TAYLOR IS HOT" "BRIAN MAY IS A GOD", No one wants to read topics like that all the time, so I decided to make threads like "Most Influential Albums Of Our Times" or "Classic Album-*insert album here*" I provided the community with fun opportunities to show their other tastes in music, and apparantly you are the only one who seems to be taking this in a negative way. I only mention the skillful-ness of other musicians when its challenged, when someone say something like "Queen had the best harmonies" of course I would say something like "In my opinion the Beach Boys trumped them simply because, etc etc" Do yourself a favour mate and don't take my discussions the wrong way. Certinately I also participate in many serious Queen threads. If I didn't like Queen, or thought they were garbage, I wouldn't have joined this board.SK wrote: I believe it is members like you who are wasting your time and egos, Queen isn't the end all to be all.And I would recommend that you look through my previous posts for any indication that I thought Queen was the Alpha and the Omega of Music. Shows how little you pay attention. However, my original criticism still stands. It would appear that you spend more time telling us why Queen was not the best or why some other act was musically superior than engaging in a discussion about Queen's music. Is it just QZ that you do this, or do you also peruse other notice boards for your so-called "intelligent music discussions"? Do you really expect to get far by constantly reminding us that Dylan wrote better lyrics or that the Beach Boys had better harmonies? If I really cared about that, I'd hang my internet hat elsewhere. |
| SK 17.09.2006 22:04 |
her wrote:Hey, nice to see that you replied. I'm not trying to "under-estimate" Queen. oh no, I own all the albums and such and have studied and enjoyed them over the course of many years. I was simply upset because as you said, some people forcefully try to put Queen over any band, its insane, just cause an article/a list, from 2001 says ANATO is number 200 and such, why complain about it? Why complain about the magazine? I was simply just stating that, yes it may not be the best list, but it is compiled quite nicely in the sense that its diverse and represents many great albums. Trust me my friend, I enjoy ANATO as much as the next fan, but certinately, I wouldnt lose sleep over it if it was ranked poorly, and I certinately find myself listening to other albums over it. I enjoy Queen, and I think many of their albums are good but lack proper mixing and prehaps unity. Cheers.SK wrote:OK, no problem, it´s a question of point of view as you said. I´m only trying to point that the magic of "A night at the opera", for example, is enough to make a such list and be high. And I say that because I have read several times what people from that magazine think about Queen, and I have found some fake comments about their albums, I know that they always put Queen below in their rankings. I agree that some fans tend to put Queen above any other band, but in the same way, I think you are largely underestimating all Queen achievements as musicans. I can´t say that A night the opera is best album, but I can say there is no other album better than it (in my own opinion).her wrote::) Beach Boys trumped Queen in haromonies(Hell the album Pet Sounds is probably the best ever made, probably). It takes a certain amount of spirituality and state of mind to listen to Dylan, you simply cannot throw on a Dylan lp and exspect to fall in love with his music, It takes musical knowledge and such. Anyways, I'm always appreciating peoples opinions and such, so thank you all for replying.SK wrote:No, only as a songwriter. In term of armonies resources, vocal arrangements, versatility, and instruments, I think that Queen is definately better than him.Mr.Jingles wrote: Only lyrically speaking Dylan is superior to Queen. Dylan could never in a million years produce musically complex tracks like 'Bohemian Rhapsody', 'The March of the Black Queen', or 'Innuendo'. Sorry to say that but it's the truth.Maybe so, but as albums,as music and as a peice of art. His albums are superior, in my opinion atleast :) |
| mike hunt 18.09.2006 01:59 |
sorry pal, nice try buddy!...you can't go back now, no one said queen deserve #1, but to say they are not in the same league as the sex pistols and guns and poses/nirvana is simply being ingnorant. Those bands don't deserve to be in the top twenty, and I don't care how many top 40 hits they have. |
| shark! 34031 18.09.2006 02:43 |
SK your so unbelievably fucking stupid |
| mike hunt 18.09.2006 02:50 |
he's just looking for attention. |
| shark! 34031 18.09.2006 03:05 |
Of course he is. His profile and signature prove it
again-
shark! wrote: SK your so unbelievably fucking stupid |
| deleted user 18.09.2006 06:09 |
shark! wrote: Of course he is. His profile and signature prove itUh... Freddie DID actually say that... the one in the signature... BUT - I will say that Freddie usually UNDER-rated himself/Queen. |
| SK 18.09.2006 08:07 |
shark! wrote: SK your so unbelievably fucking stupidUh right....Coming from some anonymous person. @Mike Hunt: I never said the Sex Pistols/Nirvana/Whoever was superior to Queen, I was just defending the top 10, cause thats where many people wanted Queen to be and its obvious that albums like Pet Sounds/Sgt Pepper/Highway 61 are some of the best ever made, in my opinion. It's a shame some of you can't take opinions well, it's always been known that I'm a big fan of 60s music and that I've always felt it was superior to Queens discography. It only seems that some of you have a problem with that, not everyone has to think ANATO is the greatest album ever okay? @Audicty: Haha :) someone finally got the joke. Yes Freddie usually didnt give credit to his finer works cause the public shunned them(Queen II, Hot Space etc etc). |
| SK 18.09.2006 08:10 |
Double-Post |
| SK 18.09.2006 08:54 |
Hey, listen up friends, its not in my nature to fight, so lets just agree to dis-agree and move on from this. |
| Mr.Jingles 18.09.2006 09:15 |
shark! wrote: SK your so unbelievably fucking stupidWhy are we bringing this down to personal attacks? |
| Boy Thomas Raker 18.09.2006 09:15 |
I've never seen a post from SK until this thread and I think he's added more than most posters have in their QZ career. He makes valid points for his position, and that's all you can ask for. Someone started a thread about the Magic Tour being the greatest tour of all time. It was Queen at the height of their stadium rock power, but musically it was arguably behind the tours for ANATO, ADATR, NOTW and Jazz. |
| Mr.Jingles 18.09.2006 09:19 |
Personally there's no way how 'Pet Sounds' is in any way better than 'Dark Side of the Moon' or 'Physical Graffitti'. The Beach Boys basically followed the same path The Beatles did, by going from catchy pop tunes to more experimental sounds. |
| SK 18.09.2006 09:23 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Personally there's no way how 'Pet Sounds' is in any way better than 'Dark Side of the Moon' or 'Physical Graffitti'. The Beach Boys basically followed the same path The Beatles did, by going from catchy pop tunes to more experimental sounds.It was the heart and soul of the lyrics and the feel of the album, that makes it so special to some of us :). Thansk for the opinion/insight though. @BoyThomasRaker- Thanks for the kind words, you as well have brought great discussion to this thread(as well as Mr.Jingles). It just seems people don't understand what opinions are, atleast not in the serious discussion section! In the personal section I have made some really cool discussion topics, I think it would be great if you check them out sometime! Cheers! |
| Mr.Jingles 18.09.2006 09:41 |
I strongly disagree with having 'London Calling' on the Top 10. Although I agree that The Clash is one of the best punk bands of all time, it's clear to me that punk is quite some steps below from other rock genres. Don't even make me talk about the Sex Pistols... they're just crap. |
| Donna13 18.09.2006 11:41 |
|
| Mr.Jingles 18.09.2006 12:15 |
Led Zeppelin was constantly snubbed by the Grammys, whereas Captain & Tenille received a couple of awards. Now let's look at what both of them are considered now. |
| Winter Land Man 18.09.2006 22:48 |
kingarthur wrote: rolling stone magazine is rubbish and a piece of shit... its worse than Gregs archiving.Hahaha, you don't know much about Greg Brooks. |