| dont try suicide 11.04.2007 07:57 |
the queen of england sure made a pretty good run in the mid 90's huh? anyway... don't you think it's kinda funny how queen put every band out of business? t-rex, roxy music, 10cc, genesis, yes, uriah heap, sweet, slade, deep purple, mott the hoople, sparks; all were great bands that everyone thought would have great careers, but when queen hit the charts, those bands vanished without a trace. sure they tried to compete with queen, but they all failed. what band from the late 60's and early 70's actually survived with a sucessful career after queen came into the scene? |
| Ayreon 11.04.2007 09:17 |
Are you serious? Most bands you mention are still highly appreciated by millions of musicfans. Surely those bands didn't quit the scene because they couldn't 'compete with Queen'. Try to look at things in a bit broader perspective. Yes, they were a great band. One of the greatest. But there are many other very good bands too. |
| Lester Burnham 11.04.2007 09:31 |
QUEEN ARE THE ONLY BAND THAT EVER MATTERED EVERY OTHER BAND IS SHIT COMPARED TO QUEEN RAWRRRRRR!!!!!!! |
| bigV 11.04.2007 09:52 |
Lester Burnham wrote: QUEEN ARE THE ONLY BAND THAT EVER MATTERED EVERY OTHER BAND IS SHIT COMPARED TO QUEEN RAWRRRRRR!!!!!!!Oh, the irony :D V. |
| dont try suicide 11.04.2007 10:01 |
sure they're appreciated and i'm a big fan of all the bands i mentioned, but they didn't survive very long. they had great runs for a short period but couldn't keep up. |
| Lester Burnham 11.04.2007 10:22 |
dont try suicide wrote: sure they're appreciated and i'm a big fan of all the bands i mentioned, but they didn't survive very long. they had great runs for a short period but couldn't keep up.Genesis ran from 1969ish until 1998, and they're reforming this year. Yes started in 1968 and are still going strong. Not much of a "short period", if you ask me. |
| Joeker 11.04.2007 11:06 |
styx. styx toured with queen in the mid 70's, very successful band. |
| Maz 11.04.2007 11:21 |
Genesis's success was limited in the 1970s. It wasn't until they moved out of the prog rock scene and became more mainstream in the 1980s that they achieved worldwide success. It was Genesis, I believe, that sold out Wembley Stadium for 3 nights in 1986/1987(?) for their Invisible Touch Tour (whereas Queen "only" managed 2 nights). So, just as Queen were declining as an act (no tours after 1986, Freddie's death in 1991), Genesis reached its biggest levels. Besides, Genesis spawned more side projects/solo success than Queen. Save for Freddie's solo efforts and Brian's Back to the Light success, it had little; Genesis, on the other hand, spawned Peter Gabriel, Phil Collins, and Mike and the Mechanics, which all had big hits. Just 2 paragraphs to say: apples and oranges, baby. |
| Lester Burnham 11.04.2007 11:25 |
Zeni wrote: Genesis, on the other hand, spawned Peter Gabriel, Phil Collins, and Mike and the Mechanics, which all had big hits.Don't forget Ray Wilson. |
| Maz 11.04.2007 11:38 |
Lester Burnham wrote:Yeah, but isn't that a little like saying that Queen spawned Roger Taylor?Zeni wrote: Genesis, on the other hand, spawned Peter Gabriel, Phil Collins, and Mike and the Mechanics, which all had big hits.Don't forget Ray Wilson. As much as I loved Calling All Stations, not sure I'd rank Ray's individual success (which I admit I'm not familiar with) in the same category as those other acts. |
| Lester Burnham 11.04.2007 11:40 |
Zeni wrote:I was kidding :-\Lester Burnham wrote:Yeah, but isn't that a little like saying that Queen spawned Roger Taylor? As much as I loved Calling All Stations, not sure I'd rank Ray's individual success (which I admit I'm not familiar with) in the same category as those other acts.Zeni wrote: Genesis, on the other hand, spawned Peter Gabriel, Phil Collins, and Mike and the Mechanics, which all had big hits.Don't forget Ray Wilson. |
| Maz 11.04.2007 11:45 |
Ummmmmmm..... I knew that. Yep, sure did. Sarcasm can never escape me. Nope, not at all. I was in on it from the very beginning. Not getting one over on me. Nope, no siree. Dammit. Make me look like a fool. I'll show you, Burnham. |
| redspecial85 11.04.2007 13:57 |
The only groups I know of that did are Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, and The Stones. I love Pink Floyd, musically appreciate Led Zeppelin, and profoundly respect the Stones. |
| brENsKi 11.04.2007 13:58 |
dont try suicide wrote: sure they're appreciated and i'm a big fan of all the bands i mentioned, but they didn't survive very long. they had great runs for a short period but couldn't keep up.the 'incapables' you mention are:- t-rex, roxy music, 10cc, genesis, yes, uriah heap, sweet, slade, deep purple, mott the hoople, sparks t-rex - marc bolan died, with his band one of the biggest on the planet - are you stupid? roxy music - bryan ferry still makes a good lving genesis - probably much bigger than queen these days - hence their 2007 stadiumtour sweet/slade were glam rock - no trend lasts forever, - and Noddy is still making a good crust - he's even acting - something queen never managed deep purple - not a classic lineup (by any means) but making more money than queen these days come back when you have checked your facts |
| louvox 11.04.2007 13:59 |
dont try suicide wrote: the queen of england sure made a pretty good run in the mid 90's huh? anyway... don't you think it's kinda funny how queen put every band out of business? t-rex, roxy music, 10cc, genesis, yes, uriah heap, sweet, slade, deep purple, mott the hoople, sparks; all were great bands that everyone thought would have great careers, but when queen hit the charts, those bands vanished without a trace. sure they tried to compete with queen, but they all failed. what band from the late 60's and early 70's actually survived with a sucessful career after queen came into the scene?Well maybe so, but Queen also lost their power in the 80's. They released a string of crappy albums from "Hot space through "The miracle". They pretty much became an after thought in The USA |
| Mr Mercury 11.04.2007 14:56 |
dont try suicide wrote: the queen of england sure made a pretty good run in the mid 90's huh? anyway... don't you think it's kinda funny how queen put every band out of business? t-rex, roxy music, 10cc, genesis, yes, uriah heap, sweet, slade, deep purple, mott the hoople, sparks; all were great bands that everyone thought would have great careers, but when queen hit the charts, those bands vanished without a trace. sure they tried to compete with queen, but they all failed. what band from the late 60's and early 70's actually survived with a sucessful career after queen came into the scene?Slade had hits in the 70's, 80's and 90's and only stopped because Noddy Holder had enough of the touring life and packed it in. He then went on to do radio presenting and some acting work. And you could hardly say that Queen put T rex out of business since Marc Bolan lead singer of said group, died as a result of a car accident. Sweets' problem wasnt the result of Queen either, more Brian Connollys' drink habit, which eventually killed him, and was having a major affect on the bands own moral. Deep Purple still tour and sell out venues these days as well, abeit smaller venues than that which they were used to. So the argument that Queen put these bands out of business doesnt quite hold water. Sorry. |
| FVBVA 11.04.2007 15:51 |
queen has nothing to do with other bands,queen is queen,love it or leave it.put it on the first place or the bottom of the list.i put it in the first place, |
| Another queen fanatic 12.04.2007 06:48 |
didnt deep purple and release a half decent studio album recently... but queen + PR will be much better |
| bigV 12.04.2007 07:31 |
Zeni wrote: Genesis's success was limited in the 1970s. It wasn't until they moved out of the prog rock scene and became more mainstream in the 1980s that they achieved worldwide success. It was Genesis, I believe, that sold out Wembley Stadium for 3 nights in 1986/1987(?) for their Invisible Touch Tour (whereas Queen "only" managed 2 nights). So, just as Queen were declining as an act (no tours after 1986, Freddie's death in 1991), Genesis reached its biggest levels. Besides, Genesis spawned more side projects/solo success than Queen. Save for Freddie's solo efforts and Brian's Back to the Light success, it had little; Genesis, on the other hand, spawned Peter Gabriel, Phil Collins, and Mike and the Mechanics, which all had big hits. Just 2 paragraphs to say: apples and oranges, baby.They didn't "only manage" two nights. They only "managed to book" two nights. V. |
| Sweetie 12.04.2007 08:20 |
Queen suck |
| gem27 12.04.2007 09:38 |
Marc Bolan died in 1977 but T Rex were not a huge group by then. They had faded out a few years before when the hits dried up as you will see if you look at the record books. Marc Bolan died a drugged up bloated version of the superstar singer from 5 or 6 years before. As for Deep Purple making more money than Queen do nowadays i really would doubt that. do you know how many cd's Queen still sells today, i am sure it's more than Deep Purple and Queen Productions still make a mint every year. For people who think the Queen tours used to make the band their money then i think it is on film somewhere Roger or Brian saying the only tour Queen ever made a profit on was their last. Magic Tour 1986. |
| thomasquinn 32989 12.04.2007 11:31 |
dont try suicide wrote: sure they're appreciated and i'm a big fan of all the bands i mentioned, but they didn't survive very long. they had great runs for a short period but couldn't keep up.You have absolutely no understanding of the world of music, clealy. Genesis, a short run? T-Rex? YES a goner?!!! You must be out of your mind. |
| thomasquinn 32989 12.04.2007 11:31 |
dont try suicide wrote: sure they're appreciated and i'm a big fan of all the bands i mentioned, but they didn't survive very long. they had great runs for a short period but couldn't keep up.You have absolutely no understanding of the world of music, clealy. Genesis, a short run? T-Rex? YES a goner?!!! Deep Purple, the band that dominated hard-rock in the '70s??? You must be out of your mind. |
| Saif 12.04.2007 13:03 |
Are we talking about longevity now or about success? Because if we take into point success then Queen is definitely in the top 5 bands worldwide joining Pink Floyd, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin. I know Led Zeppelin weren't THAT big outside the U.S. but where were Deep Purple big? Neither in the UK nor in the US for sure but I heard they were kinda big in Germany or something, not sure. They had a cult following in the UK. If you mean they were more influential, maybe... But by no means did they dominate the '70s in sales... |
| brENsKi 12.04.2007 13:48 |
gemloveswembley86 wrote: Marc Bolan died in 1977 but T Rex were not a huge group by then. They had faded out a few years before when the hits dried up as you will see if you look at the record books. Marc Bolan died a drugged up bloated version of the superstar singer from 5 or 6 years before. As for Deep Purple making more money than Queen do nowadays i really would doubt that. do you know how many cd's Queen still sells today, i am sure it's more than Deep Purple and Queen Productions still make a mint every year. For people who think the Queen tours used to make the band their money then i think it is on film somewhere Roger or Brian saying the only tour Queen ever made a profit on was their last. Magic Tour 1986.ok....your points in turn 1. t-rex - 235 weeks in the UK singles charts - over an 8 year period - that equates to being in the charts one week in every two 2. Deep Purple have for the last twenty years been a much bigger band in the US than Queen have 3. queen's last album only peaked at no21 in UK - yeah, that sold shitloads. and while QPR are selling out 3,000-10,000 capacity venues, Purple are (yet again) doing stadium tours - queen by the way had done NO TOURS last twenty years til QPR just over a year ago. |
| gem27 12.04.2007 14:30 |
what 8 year period? i think you will find that from 1968 when they first charted to 1977 when Bolan died they were on chart in the UK for 229 weeks and thats a 9 year period.their last top 10 single in the UK during Bolan's life was in 1973 same as their last top 10 album. i am sorry but that doesn't ring true that when Bolan died he and T Rex were still on top of their game. Queen didn't tour for 20 years thats true BECAUSE THEY HAD NO SINGER!!!! Queen played at Hyde Park in 2005 which the attendance was approximately 60,000 so that blows the can't play stadium gigs out of the water and also Queen werent as big in the US as Deep Purple? yeah and whats your point. The US dont rule the world. Queen in 1986 werent that big but they sold out stadiums all over Europe. Being big in the US doesnt mean big in the whole world my friend. |
| Winter Land Man 12.04.2007 15:04 |
dont try suicide wrote: the queen of england sure made a pretty good run in the mid 90's huh? anyway... don't you think it's kinda funny how queen put every band out of business? t-rex, roxy music, 10cc, genesis, yes, uriah heap, sweet, slade, deep purple, mott the hoople, sparks; all were great bands that everyone thought would have great careers, but when queen hit the charts, those bands vanished without a trace. sure they tried to compete with queen, but they all failed. what band from the late 60's and early 70's actually survived with a sucessful career after queen came into the scene?Slade vanished when Queen came along? I don't think so! |
| gem27 12.04.2007 15:41 |
Well Slade didnt exactly vanish but their last number 1 was in 1973 and that was Merry Xmas Everybody and their last top 10 album was in 1974 and was number 6. They went 6 years from 1975 to 1981 without a single top 10 single. They werent exactly a big rival to Queen after 1975 were they? |
| goodco 12.04.2007 18:52 |
Music ended way before Queen became famous per Don MacLean it's a fact |
| Joeker 12.04.2007 23:18 |
dont forget thin lizzy...they had sucess and toured with em as well |
| dont try suicide 12.04.2007 23:58 |
ok how about this. queen never split up during their entire career, kicked an orginal member out, or got heavily into drugs. queen survived! they kept making music. they didn't quit/ give up. whatever. i was drunk when i started this topic. |
| Saif 13.04.2007 00:27 |
... |
| Saif 13.04.2007 01:04 |
gemloveswembley86 wrote: ...top 10 single in the UK during Bolan's life was in 1973 same as their last top 10 album. i am sorry but that doesn't ring true that when Bolan died he and T Rex were still on top of their game. Queen didn't tour for 20 years thats true BECAUSE THEY HAD NO SINGER!!!!...Queen were bigger than Deep Purple in the US. Queen have sold 46 million albums + singles in the US alone, Deep Purple haven't even sold 10 million. Despite what Brenski says, Deep Purple are NOT bigger than Queen in the US. Obviously he hasn't been keeping up with Soundscan because from album sales, since 1991, Queen have registered over 18 million sales. That's more than what Led Zeppelin have sold since 1991. It's probably because of the strength of the "Greatest Hits" album, which itself nowadays sells better than Led Zeppelin IV. Yeah I know I will come under attack now from the elitists here for being a "fanboy" but fact is fact, I am ready to post links for verification. =P But being big in the US does mean a lot in terms of sales. Van Halen have sold 57 million albums within the US, but I doubt they've sold more than 500,000 overseas. Yet they've sold more than The Police have worldwide including the US. Conversely, Led Zeppelin have sold 89 millions albums(109.5x Platinum if you count double albums as two units) in the US alone but they haven't sold much outside. According to Atlantic's official website, they've sold a bit over 29 million outside the US and Robert Plant said that sales outside the US on the Swan Song label were less than 5 million. So, they've sold like 125 million worldwide, but despite having 1/3rd of Led Zeppelin's success in the US, Queen have sold more than them worldwide counting the US. In Japan they've sold over 6.5 million albums(Queen Jewels has sold 2 million copies alone) and 1 million singles(Killer Queen is their best-selling single there). They're tied for best-selling Western band there with the Beatles but they have better sales per album. Overall though, they're the 8th all-time best-selling Western artist. In the UK, Queen have sold 23 million albums and 10.5 million singles. That's 33.5 million records right there, second to only the Beatles(Madonna is third). In Germany, they're the most successful Western act with actual sales of 17 million albums and certified sales of 14 million. They've sold only 2 million singles there so 19 million. In Australia, their only big-selling album is Greatest Hits I, which is the 5th best-selling album of all time in Australia with sales of 1.1 million+. I have no idea how much they've sold in total there but it can't be more than 1.8 million because Elton John, being the best-selling artist there has sold less than 3.2 million. In France, they've sold 7 million albums and singles - both Greatest Hits albums are certified diamond for 1 million sales but they've sold more because there isn't a certification higher than diamond. Pink Floyd is much bigger in France though. In Italy, they've sold slightly more, 7.5 million albums(Greatest Hits I - 1 million, Greatest Hits II - 1.7 million, Made in Heaven - 900,000) and singles but they're the second best-selling band there behind Pink Floyd(considering both foreign and local acts). They've sold 3 million between the three countries of Scandinavia. In Norway they're the best-selling act of all time. In Sweden "Greatest Hits II" is the best-selling album of all time by a foreign artist and the second best-selling overall, behind "Gyllene Tyder" or something like that(ABBA Gold Greatest Hits is 4th, Nevermind by Nirvana is 7th). It sold half a million copies there. Not too sure about Denmark, but they've sold no less than 700,000 million there. 1.2 million in Norway(slightly more than Pink Floyd), 1.3 million in Sweden, and ~700,000 in Denmark. In Finland, GH I is the all-time best selling foreign album, with 135k sales. They've s |
| dont try suicide 13.04.2007 02:10 |
|
| Maz 13.04.2007 13:04 |
bigV wrote:Point conceded to the Flying V, though I think the intention of my original comment still stands.Zeni wrote: Genesis's success was limited in the 1970s. It wasn't until they moved out of the prog rock scene and became more mainstream in the 1980s that they achieved worldwide success. It was Genesis, I believe, that sold out Wembley Stadium for 3 nights in 1986/1987(?) for their Invisible Touch Tour (whereas Queen "only" managed 2 nights). So, just as Queen were declining as an act (no tours after 1986, Freddie's death in 1991), Genesis reached its biggest levels. Besides, Genesis spawned more side projects/solo success than Queen. Save for Freddie's solo efforts and Brian's Back to the Light success, it had little; Genesis, on the other hand, spawned Peter Gabriel, Phil Collins, and Mike and the Mechanics, which all had big hits. Just 2 paragraphs to say: apples and oranges, baby.They didn't "only manage" two nights. They only "managed to book" two nights. V. |
| Asterik 14.04.2007 16:49 |
Zeni wrote: So, just as Queen were declining as an act (no tours after 1986, Freddie's death in 1991), Genesis reached its biggest levels. |
| Lester Burnham 14.04.2007 17:12 |
Asterik wrote:You're not sorry, that's for sure. As a live act, Queen became non-existent after 1986, through no fault of their own, which let other bands become bigger and more prominent (Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones, Genesis, U2, etc.). As for Genesis, say what you want about their "whiny prog rock", but between 1986 and 1992, with only two studio albums, they had six Top Twenty UK and Top Ten US singles and three Top Ten UK and Top Twenty US singles. Compare that to Queen's five UK Top Ten and four UK Top Twenty singles in that same time period (not to mention their complete lack of charting in the US, except for the odd occasion). From a singles chart point of view, Genesis were clearly on the rise.Zeni wrote: So, just as Queen were declining as an act (no tours after 1986, Freddie's death in 1991), Genesis reached its biggest levels.I'm sorry, but I really can't agree with that. Queen didn't "decline" as an act from 1986 to 1001; they couldn't tour because their lead singer was temrinally ill. It had no impact on the quality of the records- arguably they wre better- nor their commercial clout as both The Miracle and Innuendo wen to number one in the UK and Innuendo the song gave them their first UK number one single since 1981. Queen did not decline! And why you're bothering to defend the whiny prog rock of Genesis I don't know. However, the original post about Queen's power is just stupid to begin with, as is most of the original poster's claims. |