3rd January 2007 02:57 PM |
|
|
glencar |
quote: dirtyden wrote:
Sorry glencar...... it refers to the ROCKS OFF LINFIELD FC APPRECIATION SOCIETY......we have only 3 members GAZZA,PARTY DOLL MEG AND MYSELF--------LINFIELD FC are a wee gay football club from norn ireland and freddie mercury was a big fan.....thus keeping with the queen topic !!!!!
Are you Irish? |
6th January 2007 06:13 AM |
|
|
corgi37 |
Oh yeah, the dreaded LZ. Cant believe Stones were ahead of those monsters!
|
6th January 2007 10:31 PM |
|
|
Bruno |
quote: FotiniD wrote:
However, Queen, man! Queen were so much MORE than Radio Ga Ga or all their 80's "hits". Please excuse all the talk that comes next, but Queen were my very, very first love in music and I've "studied" them enough to write a thesis
In fact, in my book, there were three, totally separate and distinct Queen bands:
1. The Classic Queen. With stuff like "Queen" and "Queen II". The real mccoy, or however that's spelled Dark, beautiful melodies, poetic lyrics, a unique, dreamy guitar sound that made all other guitars sound the same. Some of the greatest vocals of all time, four REALLY gifted people who loved what they were doing. A real class act, a band that couldn't be classified in any narrow genre, be it classic rock or prog rock or whatever. They really rocked man. They were it. They were good.
2. The Hit-Machine Queen. The band that started experimenting with all different sounds during the eighties, passing from pop to disco to funk to radio friendly rock, only to try and return to their Classic form in the very early nineties, just before Freddie Mercury died. This is the period that produced stuff like "Radio Ga Ga" and this is the period most people who vote for Queen as their "favorite" act know - also the one most people have in their mind when they're saying Queen were a pile of shit. This is not the real Queen, the way I see it. Just a series of experiments. A prolonged Dirty Work period, if you don't mind the comparison.
3. The New Queen. The Paul Rodgers era + May + Taylor minus Deacon. I don't know what possessed them to get back on the road - be it real, pure love for the music or greed, and I do like to believe it's the first - but I still think they should have changed their name. The tag "Queen" can no longer stand without Mercury, and when they actually leave Deacon out of this as well...
Being a Queen fan during all my adolescense and then a Stones fan, I can understand why the latter would reject the former. Queen were a lot more into "operatics", funny stage antics, flamboyancy and image, a lot more than the Stones were. The Stones were always raunchier, more rock 'n' roll, more defined and true to their roots, but hey, these are two very different bands. And I don't see why one can like the one and not the other at the same time. I still enjoy both.
So before any of you condemn them, I suggest you take some time to play "Queen" and "Queen II" or even "A night at the opera". You might be in for a real surprise.
Thank you (clap sound), lol
Hey, you are not alone! We shared a similar story: Queen was the first band I really liked, back when I was 9 or 1o and my father bought Greatest Hits I and II. Along the years I went throught their records and it got better and better.
As you, FotiniD, I just canīt accept that somebody says they were "talentless". You think they were a fag band? Ok. You think they are overrated? Ok. You donīt like Freddieīs style? Ok. But "talentless" canīt be said.
I think all this bashing is just because you are so jealous that the Stones didnīt make the first place, even if you scream to the world that those lists are bullshit.
Go and listen to "Innuendo" or "These Are The Days Of Our Lives" and tell me itīs a "talentless" band.
|
6th January 2007 10:51 PM |
|
|
ShaneJazz |
Queen being called talentless is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard on this board. No other band had four songwriters that each wrote hit songs. Three of them sang excellently, both on lead vocals and on the famous Queen harmonies. And Brian May is absolutely amazing on guitar. Dislike them for whatever petty reason, but don't insult our intelligence and call them talentless. |
7th January 2007 07:02 AM |
|
|
F505 |
quote: ShaneJazz wrote:
Queen being called talentless is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard on this board. No other band had four songwriters that each wrote hit songs. Three of them sang excellently, both on lead vocals and on the famous Queen harmonies. And Brian May is absolutely amazing on guitar. Dislike them for whatever petty reason, but don't insult our intelligence and call them talentless.
Talentless shit! |
|