| brENsKi 28.12.2006 13:45 |
i think this forum and queenonline are shining examples of why (generally speaking) queen aren't taken too seriously by the outside world you only have to stumble by other band forums to see that... you don;t get threads like:- "how big was ****'s dick?" "what colour are ****'s eyes?" "did **** really have green hair" "does anyone have photot's of *****kids/house/car/penis?" ffs- we all like a bit of fun....but there's a line...and a search button...BEFORE posting these kinda vacuous questions - think...is it something you REALLY have to know...? or is there just a hint of attention seeking in your character?... let's face it....if some of the postings on QZ are anything to go by....aliens arriving on planet earth would not be blamed for thinking that Queen are nothing more than a bubblegum-disposable pop band with a fanbase of pre-pubescent snot-noses |
| user name 28.12.2006 14:04 |
I can't imagine that online music forums that haven't even existed until long after the band's demise have had any impact on how "outsiders" view Queen. To be honest, I have rarely heard anything but overwhelming respect and admiration for the band, and can only conclude that public opinion among classic rock fans is very, very high. As far as how "seriously" they are taken, I think the biggest reason Queen aren't taken as seriously as bands like Led Zeppelin is because Queen didn't take themselves seriously in the first place. I don't mean they didn't care about what they did, but they were always a "fun" band, weren't they? But their music speaks for itself, and it's very rare that their greatness is ever challenged. |
| Serry... 28.12.2006 14:09 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: public opinion among classic rock fans is very, very high.You're under a delusion. |
| brENsKi 28.12.2006 14:53 |
Serry Vietinhoff wrote:thank you Serry for backing up my point...the music press have never taken quene that seriously...but what kinda view will most music fans get if the so-called "serious discussion" section is their first view of queen fans...."well if their fans have no respect for them, they must be a novelty act"<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: public opinion among classic rock fans is very, very high.You're under a delusion. |
| deleted user 28.12.2006 15:16 |
I'm glad I didn't see any topic like that when I first came here... I would have probably turned and ran for the hills (but, then again, I'm happy living under my rock). I agree that questions I would qualify as "creepy" (for instance, asking for pictures of their kids) would give ANY band a "bad reputation". Then again, who gets the bad reputation ? If the person is objective, the fans - not the band. I mean, if I met a Queen fan who was a jerk or air-head, I wouldn't stop liking Queen. Of course - if someone ran into a community of air-heads, I could see them assuming that only air-heads like Queen (but who needs those people, anyway ?). I'm surprised you say it's not this way for other bands. I would think pea-brains would be interested in other bands. I mean, I'm sure I could find stupid-ass questions on sites about The Beatles. Hell, I would bet I could find commentary on how "hot" their kids are. Of course, I'm not going to. Because I pretend to have dignity. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 28.12.2006 16:25 |
Brenski, I think you are missing a point here. Now, granted that a lot of the topics started here, especially in the personal forum, are really stupid and I know Barb is trying to figure out how to stop this from happening. But that's not the point. First off, the band is basically finished, at least in it's classic form. Has been since Freddie's death. So I have to agree with MusicMan that impressions of Queen are, for the most part, formed by looking at the band itself and listening to the music. Second, you seem to be under the impression that people come to sites like this, thinking "Hey, I've never heard of these guys...maybe they are a cool band!", see the forum topics, and head for the hills. Well, that's not a bad theory, but in most cases it's wrong. Odds are good that if you've never heard of a band, you aren't going to google them or do whatever you do to find this page. Anyone who knows who Queen is and knows the music will already be a fan, and will then come to the site to connect with other fans (like most of us here did). I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that everyone else on the site was a Queen fan (maybe in a moderate sense, but a fan nonetheless) before they came to this site. Third, Queen's following is actually growing because a newer, younger generation is learning about them, and it's not from websites like this. It's from movies that use the music (Like A Knight's Tale) or new bands from today who cite Queen as an influence. In my experience, most people aren't opposed to Queen fans, as most people are fans themselves. The problem seems to be that people know the major songs (WWRY, We Are the Champions and BoRhap for instance) but don't know who did them, or don't know it's the same band. If I tell people that I like Queen, they usually don't know who I mean. But when I name off some of the big songs, they say "Oh yeah! Those are awesome songs! Good!". Anyone who is going to live their lives and base their musical interests and things on what is posted to some stupid internet forum has way too much time on their hands and no life. P.S.- If you are so anti this site, then why are you posting here? |
| user name 28.12.2006 16:53 |
Serry Vietinhoff wrote:What delusion? Last I checked, Queen had some of the longest lasting, most impressionable tracks of any band of the classic rock era. Most people know more Queen songs than that of any other classic rock band. On classic rock radio stations across the nation, Queen is one of only three or so STAPLE bands that are GUARANTEED considerable airplay, the other two being Led Zeppelin and the Beatles. On rock and roll best of lists, Queen, its members, and its songs consistently rank among the best of the best.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: public opinion among classic rock fans is very, very high.You're under a delusion. Honestly, if anybody is under a delusion, it's you guys. I can honestly only think of a handful of bands that have achieved a comparable amount of greatness and respect from the rock and roll community as Queen. Finally, there still is absolutely no point in considering the effect on public opinion of Queen by the FORUMS of this website or QueenOnline, where only a very small minority of people have been, and where the vast majority of those people are big Queen fans. |
| brENsKi 28.12.2006 18:25 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Brenski, I think you are missing a point here. . First off, the band is basically finished, at least in it's classic form. Has been since Freddie's death. Second, you seem to be under the impression that people come to sites like this, thinking "Hey, I've never heard of these guys...maybe they are a cool band!", see the forum topics, and head for the hills. Well, that's not a bad theory, but in most cases it's wrong. Odds are good that if you've never heard of a band, you aren't going to google them or do whatever you do to find this page. Anyone who is going to live their lives and base their musical interests and things on what is posted to some stupid internet forum has way too much time on their hands and no life. P.S.- If you are so anti this site, then why are you posting here?think you have missed my point...first of all you say band is finished since Freddie died...well it's legacy shouldn't be...not if it's a "to be taken seriously" band....the who, led zep, purple, and many othes have maintained their status depsite deaths and splits as for your "comment re the forum" - if you stumbled into a new club and the members were wankers you wouldn't stay to find out much more and finally, i am not anti this site...i am anti the stepfords who ask banal oft-repeated peurile questions for the sake of being heard |
| iGSM 28.12.2006 19:53 |
Unless you're the Rolling Stone magazine. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 28.12.2006 21:52 |
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:Now you missed some points. I said Queen was done "In It's Classical Form". I don't think their legacy is done...it will never be done as long as organized sporting events continue to play WWRY during breaks. Admittedly the legacy is much larger than that, as it should be. I hope the legacy continues to grow. Also, I'm not one of these people who are Anti Queen and PR...I'm thrilled that they are keeping the music alive!CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Brenski, I think you are missing a point here. . First off, the band is basically finished, at least in it's classic form. Has been since Freddie's death. Second, you seem to be under the impression that people come to sites like this, thinking "Hey, I've never heard of these guys...maybe they are a cool band!", see the forum topics, and head for the hills. Well, that's not a bad theory, but in most cases it's wrong. Odds are good that if you've never heard of a band, you aren't going to google them or do whatever you do to find this page. Anyone who is going to live their lives and base their musical interests and things on what is posted to some stupid internet forum has way too much time on their hands and no life. P.S.- If you are so anti this site, then why are you posting here?think you have missed my point...first of all you say band is finished since Freddie died...well it's legacy shouldn't be...not if it's a "to be taken seriously" band....the who, led zep, purple, and many othes have maintained their status depsite deaths and splits as for your "comment re the forum" - if you stumbled into a new club and the members were wankers you wouldn't stay to find out much more and finally, i am not anti this site...i am anti the stepfords who ask banal oft-repeated peurile questions for the sake of being heard Two: One thing you seem to be missing is the break between fans and the band. Yes, if people come to a board full of wankers (I'll use the british slang here) they won't stay around long to find out more about that forum...it will have no impact on their view of the band, just on that particular forum. Three: Stepfords who say stupid things for the sake of being heard are everywhere in every country in the world on every forum. Calling attention to them like this is giving them what they want. If you want them to go away so badly, start your own forum, spend your entire life policing the content, and ignore the idiots who still manage to weave their way in. |
| Sweetie 28.12.2006 22:08 |
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: "does anyone have photot's of ******* penis?"Yes Please |
| deleted user 28.12.2006 22:17 |
<font color=Mercury>Larry Lurex's Girl wrote:Mary Austin has a penis ?!<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: "does anyone have photot's of ******* penis?"Yes Please ... Well, I guess that explains a lot... |
| blerp 28.12.2006 22:25 |
Users shouldn't get worked up over silly topics, because we haven't even seen them lately. Most adults and 'mature' teens would just look over these threads and ignore them, not rant about it to their other 'superior, original, Queen fan' companions...oh, and emit inaudible huffs at their computer. |
| user name 29.12.2006 00:10 |
What, was my post too good for a response or something? |
| john bodega 29.12.2006 00:18 |
What a ridiculous thread; and I'll tell you why. Someone mentioned 'music press' and kept a straight face. Like *fuck* the music press mean anything. They start out as a bunch of grotty university students praising anything that'll lend them credence, and when they make it big (NME, Rolling Stone) they'll pick good music at random and shit on it from a great height. Music press.. haha. |
| Serry... 29.12.2006 03:40 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Most people know more Queen songs than that of any other classic rock band. On classic rock radio stations across the nation, Queen is one of only three or so STAPLE bands that are GUARANTEED considerable airplay, the other two being Led Zeppelin and the Beatles. On rock and roll best of lists, Queen, its members, and its songs consistently rank among the best of the best.Are we talking about "public opinion among classic rock fans" or about lists, radios, charts, airplays? I won't hear damned Mozart on radio and won't see him in the charts, but I respect him more than 90% of modern musicians. Among classic rock fans Queen is not so respectful band as you probably think. "Thanks" to Hot Space, The Works, AKOM and all those glam rock attitude during early 70s, gay rumours etc. Queen were too much *special* and unique classic rock band therefore attitude of "classic rock fans" (and even some musicians like Smith, Weller who are represents classic rock music too) - to Queen is very ambiguous. |
| brENsKi 29.12.2006 09:23 |
<font color=>LadyMercury wrote: Users shouldn't get worked up over silly topics, because we haven't even seen them lately. Most adults and 'mature' teens would just look over these threads and ignore them, not rant about it to their other 'superior, original, Queen fan' companions...oh, and emit inaudible huffs at their computer.it's not about getting worked up...far from it..i am not worked up... these are just observations of mine for discussion...and i thought they were quite valid |
| iGSM 29.12.2006 09:30 |
< Hee-hee. u = rite. |
| blerp 29.12.2006 21:30 |
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:I still believe that's the same thing. Without the worked up bit I mentioned.<font color=>LadyMercury wrote: Users shouldn't get worked up over silly topics, because we haven't even seen them lately. Most adults and 'mature' teens would just look over these threads and ignore them, not rant about it to their other 'superior, original, Queen fan' companions...oh, and emit inaudible huffs at their computer.it's not about getting worked up...far from it..i am not worked up... these are just observations of mine for discussion...and i thought they were quite valid |
| brENsKi 30.12.2006 07:50 |
i don't want to labour the point too greatly...but in "queen - general discussion" we have a thread: "Does Jim hutton Have AIDS?" it just gets better |
| john bodega 30.12.2006 08:51 |
I know what you mean... there was this one thread where a guy was making less of Queen's contribution to charity. Remarkable. |
| brENsKi 30.12.2006 09:07 |
huge difference between commenting on an open thread ...and starting a banal one off |
| user name 31.12.2006 00:19 |
Serry Vietinhoff wrote: Are we talking about "public opinion among classic rock fans" or about lists, radios, charts, airplays?Same thing. If a musician makes it high on said "lists," it is indicative that that musician is well-respected in the domain encompassed by the list (Great Bands/Guitarists/Songs/Vocalists/etc.). The way radio works is DJ's will play music which appeals to their fanbase. On a classic rock station, the fanbase would be classic rock fans. Therefore, if a band receives constant airplay on classic rock stations across the entire country (not just one or two, here and there), it is very safe to say that Queen is a well-recognized, popular, and well-respected band within the classic rock community. As far as charts go, they are more or less irrelevant nowadays, as they are time-sensitive and only indicative of the past. Serry Vietinhoff wrote: I won't hear damned Mozart on radio and won't see him in the charts, but I respect him more than 90% of modern musicians.I'm not entirely sure how this follows. You won't see him on the charts because he's not a current musician, and you will only hear him on classical music radio stations, which appeal to a very particular and limited audience, hence their lack of presence on the airwaves. Serry Vietinhoff wrote: Among classic rock fans Queen is not so respectful band as you probably think. "Thanks" to Hot Space, The Works, AKOM and all those glam rock attitude during early 70s, gay rumours etc. Queen were too much *special* and unique classic rock band therefore attitude of "classic rock fans" (and even some musicians like Smith, Weller who are represents classic rock music too) - to Queen is very ambiguous.It's not THINK. It's KNOW. As a modern fan of classic rock, I tend to communicate with many fellow classic rock fans. Yes, there are people who don't like Queen, as any band, but Queen are among the most popular of all classic rock bands. The only bands I ever really see more frequently than Queen are Led Zeppelin and the Beatles, and maybe a few others here and there. Any glam rock attitude, gay rumors, or pigeonholes that Queen may have been put into in the 70's and 80's are impertinent now. They are now CLASSIC ROCK, which generally means that all that is left is the MUSIC. People generally develop their opinions on classic rock musicians based entirely upon the music. It's only when music is new or modern where other things, such as sex appeal and image are important. When the music falls into history, you will notice that these things become less and less important. When the Beatles were first popular, it was almost entirely because of their overly promoted image. Nowadays, no one listens to the Beatles for anything other than the music. Elvis is another good example. In fact, for a more modern example, take heavy metal from the 80's. You can't really get more glam or outrageous than that, now, can you? But anyone who listens to that music nowadays isn't doing it for the makeup and androgenous hairstyles...they're doing it for the music. In the end, Queen's music has lasted and remains among the most recognizable and most respected catologs to ever exist. Period. |
| Serry... 31.12.2006 02:42 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Same thing. If a musician makes it high on said "lists," it is indicative that that musician is well-respected in the domain encompassed by the list (Great Bands/Guitarists/Songs/Vocalists/etc.).I'm sorry, Brian, but I'm not gonna continue discussion - if you really believe that "lists", charts and awards indicates the respect of fans (though Queen have never got any Grammy - no respect to Queen in the USA? Or as Mr May wrote - all those awards are about the show business and TV channels interests? I prefer May's version) then we have totally opposite points of view and this discussion is useless. Probably we also have different views on what's classic rock and what's respect... |
| brENsKi 31.12.2006 05:02 |
well said Serry! - the biggest issue here is "classic" vs "respect" - the deifinition of both is obvious. unfortunately, Queen did not have major respect from either the critics (ie the media) or the global audience. yes sure loads of people wnet to see their concerts and buy their records...but that does not conjure an image of respect. the 80s for queen was the decade they lost any respect they had earned. - sun city - snubbing bandaid - being co-erced into liveaid - iwtbf video and losing america - the boobs incident in s/america ...all this at a time when bands like REM, U2, Smiths etc came along and more or less redefined kudos and respect. queen took an another step towards ebcoming out of touch. the beatles are the definition of a band that have both "classic" and "respect" as tags used to define them. they have not done a thing musically for 36 years. but look at the love and devotion that went into the making of anthology, and "real love" and "free as a bird" - and latterly - "love". be honest look at what queen have produced in the last 10 yrs against the beatles in the same time...can you EVER see queen productions producing anything with as much love and reverence applied to it? NO! finally, let's take two band who fit both the "classic" and "respect" tags completely - Floyd and Zep. You know what? i think there is something here that i stumbled on that i never considered before...what have Floyd and Zep got that (say) Queen and Genesis haven't? Respect. and i think it's because by and large Floyd and Zep DIDN'T release singles. Albums bands got more respect in the "70s classic rock" genre. Queen and Genesis (later on) hopped from one "fad" to another trying to shift singles (4/5 an album at sometimes)in order to shift albums. Zep and Floyd just carried on doing their album thing. Two of the most popular and respected (in the UK) "classic rock" songs of all time weigh in at 20 minutes plus between them..."shine on..." and "stairway" ... neither were Uk singles (even edited) The beatles (on the other hand) got away with the singles...because they came along at a time when music was changing...and they changed most of it. Credit where it's due, lots of beatles singles were not on the albums...this was a way of giving the fans new things and NOT ripping them off. |