My Morning Jacket

Off-Topic => Off-Topic Ramblings => Topic started by: dogandponyshow on Dec 23, 2004, 11:01 AM

Title: Queen's new singer
Post by: dogandponyshow on Dec 23, 2004, 11:01 AM
Don't if any of you have heard the Queen is reuniting and Paul Rodgers....former Bad Compnay and The Firm(when he played with Jimmy Page) and even with the band The Law who inculded the former drummer for the Who...Kenny Jones.  Anyway, don't really know what to say other that he has got big shoes to fill.  We will see how it goes.

D.
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: wordawg on Dec 23, 2004, 11:30 AM
Never had any time for Queen. Didn't understand what all the fuss was about to be honest.
Can't see this comination being particularly well advised.  Paul Rogers is one hell of a singer.  At least he used to be.
(He made his name in Free for those old enough to know better than admit it)
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: ben grimm on Dec 23, 2004, 12:58 PM
He still has a kick ass voice, he played my club 3 years ago, it was a great show apart from some unnecessary finger tapping solos in classic songs. He's atop guy as well, super nice, I wish him well.
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Dec 23, 2004, 09:23 PM
yeah I had heard about this a week or so ago--not sure how Paul is going to cover Freddy's vocal range but I am curious to hear what results.
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: SMc55 on Dec 25, 2004, 02:32 PM
QuoteNever had any time for Queen. Didn't understand what all the fuss was about to be honest.

Agreed, but you must admit there are some mighty fine amateur versions of Bohemian Rhapsody about  ;)
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: dogandponyshow on Dec 26, 2004, 06:35 PM
I agree that Queen was a bit over rated but certainly had a serious fan base due to how many albums they put out.

D.

Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: Billo on Jan 01, 2005, 08:09 PM
Queen a bit overrated please...  
  Queen not only wrote great rock songs, they wrote anthems; We Will Rock You,We are the Champions, Bohemian Rhapsody, to name three.  A listener may not have liked what they did but it is hard to ignore their collective genious.  This was the most British of Rock Bands and whether playing a ballad (Somebody to Love) or a rocker (Hammer to Fall) they exceled.  All four members wrote material lending to a real collberative effort to their music.  At their peak they were the epitomy of live music.  Proof can be seen on the Live Aid concert DVD.  In my opinion that particular day's finest 15 minutes of music.
Q? Who did Eddie V.H. choose to do a solo record with in the early eigthies - Brian May
If they weren't indeed Great than why did everyone clamour to sign on for Freddie Mercury's tribute show- from Elton John to Axl to Sabbath (Toni Iommi)
You might think wow is this guy part of the Queen fan club-No, I just own one cd and an appreciation of great music.
Cheers  
Billo    
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: wordawg on Jan 02, 2005, 01:36 PM
QuoteI just own one cd and an appreciation of great music.

Its all about personal opinions, Billo, that's all.
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Jan 02, 2005, 06:17 PM
have to agree with ya Billo--Mr May is awesome!
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: SmoothOprtr on Jan 03, 2005, 03:22 PM
I'm going to agree Queen is overrated- and I enjoy a number of their songs and also have one of their CDs.  While I'm at it, let me piss off some more people :) - I think Bruce Springstein, Areosmith, and the Beatles are all over rated too.  Unserstand I don't define overrated as bad- simply garnering more praise than deserved....
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: EC on Jan 03, 2005, 07:09 PM
I used to think that about Bruce Springsteen until I heard Nebraska.  And then I decided that if he made that, then he was okay.  I also remember seeing a live recording of one of his concerts.  I think he's quite good, and his band is very tight, but I don't find his music all that interesting...  (I know you weren't talking about opinions, more about overrating, but I felt like throwing in my own two cents.)

I love Queen.  They make me rock out.  I love their harmonies.  

Aerosmith I'm not too opinionated on.  Are they overrated?  I'm trying to think of great things people have said about them...

And The Beatles, I would not say are overrated.  

Those are my opinions on the subject.  :)
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: SmoothOprtr on Jan 04, 2005, 06:51 AM
With the Beatles, I get so tired of hearing about how they "invented rock n' roll," how they influenced every single person who ever lived and blah blah blah.  Yes they were pionneers and influential, but there were musicians before the Beatles who were playing rock, other bands that have been equally influential on rock history, and bottom line, there are many bands, in my opinion, who have produced better records (hence my overrated tag).

Areosmith was very good live when I saw them, but they were recently inducted into the RNR HOF, while a band like Black Sabbath is still not in.  If you want to talk about influential, Black Sabbath has been incredibly influential, while Areosmith has written the same song for the last ten years while doing lame commercials, halftime shows, and Wayne's World Spots.  

Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: EC on Jan 04, 2005, 08:22 AM
Black Sabbath isn't in the Hall of Fame?

That's the stupidest thing I've heard all day.  
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: SMc55 on Jan 04, 2005, 08:24 AM
Quote
That's the stupidest thing I've heard all day.  

Really??? Today?  ;)
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: EC on Jan 04, 2005, 08:26 AM
Yep.  Only today.  I heard some very stupid things yesterday.   ;)

Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: SMc55 on Jan 04, 2005, 09:05 AM
Yep, actually, you're right. Black Sabbath not being in the HOF is much stupider than comparing the rolling capabilities of rodent poop!
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: antoniostrohs on Jan 04, 2005, 09:49 AM
Sorry but I have to reply about The Beatles being overated.
I Strongly disagree.You may not like their music but the  impact they had on music is forever.They were one of the most innovative bands of the 20th century.Early on they emphasized what was good with Rock n Roll and changed into something new and even more exciting.They were one of the first groups during their era to write and perform their own songs.To this day Lennon and McCartney are one of the best songwriting teams ever.And later George Harrison came in and contributed his own style.They were very influential in not only writing but pioneering advance techniques with multi layed arrangements in to studio recordings.They experimented with avant garde electronics,brought in classical music and unconventional instruments like the sitar to the fore front in rock music.They did things never heard before with their music and were always pushing the boundaries of what you could do with rock music.And I'm sure they owe alot to other artists that influenced them especially Bob Dylan who show everyone what songwriting was about.So it's hard to deny their influence on Rock N Roll even if you might not like their music.But that's just one mans opinion.
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: dogandponyshow on Jan 04, 2005, 11:16 AM
Sabbath surely deserves to be the HOF.  Picked up the box set and have worn it out.  Regarding the Beatles, I am all over the over-rated band.  I can say that I did not have one of their discs and don't think I am missing a thing.  The only one I would get would be the White Album and that would be a reach.  Springsteen is a tough one becasue if you have seen him in concert, he is tough to overlook.  

D.
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: The Boar on Jan 04, 2005, 01:52 PM
Aside from agreeing that Sabbath should be in the HOF, I'll have to play devil's advocate here, dogandponyshow, and completely disagree.  ;D

I've never been an enormous Beatles fan, but I definitely respect the fact that they are one of a few bands that made pop/rock music what it is today. Listen to any of their albums (oops, sorry, that is, if you own them) -- and I mean any of them, even the early stuff -- and you will not only hear something genius but also something that has not been done as well since (despite attempt after attempt ad nauseam). "Overrated" you say? Well I'd never go so far as to say the Beatles are the most exciting/most influential/etc. rock band in history -- I'd only point out that nearly every music critic worth his/her salt does say that. I'll let you argue semantics with them.

As for the Boss, no doubt he means a lot to a lot, and I'll let his supporters on this site argue his strong points. Personally, I respect him in general but can't say that I'm a huge fan of very much of his music. Perhaps I "overlook" him because I haven't "seen him in concert" -- but then again, I've never been one to judge a good live performance as reason enough to like anything other than just that good live performance. Such as studio work, for example.

I'm sure there are countless numbers who'd disagree with this advice, but dogandponyshow, use the money you are spending on Springsteen shows to buy Beatles albums instead. You might learn something.  :)
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: dogandponyshow on Jan 04, 2005, 04:34 PM
I guess is just a matter of what sounds good to you and what doesn't. OVer rated is a word that can mean different things to different people.  Clearly, they are a historical band that will forever own a place as pop/rock legends.  . I have listened to the Beatles many times and for the most part have nor problem with them.  It is more or less than there are many more bands that I enjoy listening to than them. Put it this way and you will probably wonder why....I would rather crank some Judas Priest than listen to Abbey Road.  In regards to Sprigsteen, If you have an opportunity to go to a show, give it a go. And your right, some bands are great in the studio and suck in concert and visa versa and I don't regard a bad that sucks if they don't play a good show or even play, i.e. Alan Parsons Project who did not play for probably twenty years.  I am sure you have been to a show that was flat our horrible by a band that you love their studio work....I know I have.  Anyway, appreciate your thoughts.

D.
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: antoniostrohs on Jan 04, 2005, 05:41 PM
I agree with you dogandponyshow on Springsteens great live show performances.He is definitely worth seeing.He is also a great songwriter,in my opinion.As far as the Beatles go,I am not a Beatles fanatic my any means and do not have any of their cds,but do have a couple on vinyl.And also do not listen to them unless their being played on the radio or elsewhere.But I just have a great respect them for what they have done for changing the way we listen to music.I probably sound like an old man preaching about youngsters not respecting their elders,if I do,sorry about that.
p.s.You mentioned Alan Parsons,he was the engineer on Abbey Road.
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: EC on Jan 04, 2005, 09:17 PM
Quotep.s.You mentioned Alan Parsons,he was the engineer on Abbey Road.

I did not know that.  Look at that.  My my.

Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: dogandponyshow on Jan 05, 2005, 10:38 AM
Quite intersesting Antonistrohs.....amazing how that works sometimes.

D.
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: marktwain on Jan 05, 2005, 04:40 PM
I'd say the Beatles were influential.  THe Pope's named after 2 of them, right?
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: wordawg on Jan 05, 2005, 04:41 PM
QuoteI'd say the Beatles were influential.  THe Pope's named after 2 of them, right?

Funniest thing I've read all day.
Thank you.
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: marktwain on Jan 05, 2005, 04:54 PM
No problem ;D

I was watching a documentary on the Vatican today, and kept thinking how great it would be to have a Pope George Ringo

(By the way, I'm not Catholic, but I go to Catholic Church.  I hope I'm not offending anyone - just having a little fun.)
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: Oz on Jan 10, 2005, 04:36 AM
QuoteThis was the most British of Rock Bands

Ehm... And that makes them a good band?  ???
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: Oz on Jan 10, 2005, 04:42 AM
The Beatles rule this planet, except for Paul McCarthy and Ringo Starr, ofcourse.  :)

Black Sabbath has a really annoying lead singer, but did kind of (not just them, ofcourse, but you get my drift) heavy metal, wich makes them, ehm, even more annoying, but influential nevertheless and therefor worth at least something, hell, maybe even the Hall of Fame.

I am unable to say anything positive about Queen until I haven't heard 'Bohemian Rapsody' for at least five years, wich is probably never going to happen. Sure, they've made some cool stuff (I like that Bycicle song, for instance, but maybe that's because I'm Dutch), but damn, I wish they'd stick that 'Mamamialetmego' somewhere else than in my ears.

And Eddie van Halen doing a solo record in the eighties... Ah, we shouldn't be discussing that, should we?
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: tomEisenbraun on Jan 10, 2005, 07:52 PM
I'm gonna argue with Queens' over-ratedness. Thing is, I both agree and disagree.

Unfortunately, everyone, knows We Will Rock You, including my little four-year-old sister (this seriously disappointed me), who ran aorund the living room doing the good-ol stomp-stomp-clap to some kid's movie. Also abused would have to be We Are the Champions, and Bohemian Rhapsody. Though I love Bohemian Rhapsody to death, its been abused. Thing is, Queen became so popular for their "anthems" that people forget that they were just a kickass rock band. Songs like "Tie Your Mother Down" are just, well, rockin. Also insane was Freddy MErcury's guitar skills. This guy had so many tricks up his sleeve that got lost behind all the buzz of them being gay and having such a flamboyant stance. Unfortunately, as was the story with a LOT of awesome music from the eighties, their image sort of overshadowed their music.

So in conclusion, yes they are over-rated, but if you dig into their catalog, you'll find that all the fuss is in the wrong direction.

...hey big woman! you made a bad boy outta me...
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: Oz on Jan 11, 2005, 09:58 AM
Well, I'm immediately going to have to confess that I didn't even know Freddy Mercury played guitar. So you've got me there...
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: dogandponyshow on Jan 11, 2005, 12:04 PM
I would have to agree with you O....Brian May played guitar for Queen, not Freddie.  

D.
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Jan 11, 2005, 01:54 PM
the fact still remains that Brian May is recognized far and wide as a tremendously capable guitarist so to write off Queen as over rated is short sighted considering their influence throughtout the industry
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: tomEisenbraun on Jan 11, 2005, 04:30 PM
QuoteI would have to agree with you O....Brian May played guitar for Queen, not Freddie.  

D.

oops. Definitely meant Brian May.
 :-[
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: Oz on Jan 12, 2005, 04:00 AM
Err, okay.  :)

Still, just the fact that a band has a good guitar player, doesn't mean that band is good. Sure, they are good, they have a bunch of good songs, their band members are all musically very skilled, but they're still overrated. I mean, over here in Holland, we have this thing called the Top 2000, wich is like the best 2000 songs of all time, voted by anyone who wants to vote. We've had that since the year 2000 and every fucking year 'Bohemian rapsody' is nr. 1. If that doesn't apply for the label 'overrated', I don't know what does. "Hurray, there's a shit opera part in it, wow, what a masterpiece!" I mean, c'mon!  >:(
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: wordawg on Jan 12, 2005, 06:11 AM
I don't know whether they are good, bad or over rated.
I do know that I didn't rate them.
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: peanut butter puddin surprise on Jan 12, 2005, 06:42 AM
I'm not sure I agree.  Queen isn't necessarily "overrated", but rather "overexposed".  We're almost at 30 years of Bohemian Rhapsody being played nonstop on the so-called "rock" stations, along with all the other radio hits that get played ad nauseum.  If I were in charge of Clear Channel, I would pull Bob Seger, Queen, ZZ Top, Foreigner, and about 50% of the Zeppelin/Stones tunes that get played every four seconds.

But back to Queen:  c'mon, overrated?  No way!  If you consider the context of the rise of Queen, in that time period, it's amazing they even got signed in the first place, let alone become superstars.  Their rise clearly shows the difference between American rock and British/European rock.  Think of American rock from that period:  Boston (file that under "pull when Conaway takes over Clear Channel), Aerosmith, etc.  Now think of British rock:  Zeppelin, the Stones, Bowie...Queen.  Does Queen fit with the "glam" tag, or is it more classic like Zeppelin?  Think of the operatic and classical music flourishes throughout their music:  these guys met at music school, all were professionally and classically trained musicians.  Despite that, they don't fit in as a prog act either.  So for mere classification defiance, they aren't overrated, just overexposed.
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: SMc55 on Jan 12, 2005, 07:14 AM
QuoteI don't know whether they are good, bad or over rated.
I do know that I didn't rate them.

Me too. I don't know why, but I always thought they were a bit of a joke, and not in the same league as, say, Led Zep. And it's not that I didn't like a bit of glam rock, T Rex were my first love.

I did like the sweet stuff, though. You're My Best Friend does far more for me than their other work.
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: peanut butter puddin surprise on Jan 12, 2005, 08:07 AM
Quotenot in the same league as, say, Led Zep

well, then again, who is?  :)
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: SMc55 on Jan 12, 2005, 08:15 AM
Quote

well, then again, who is?  :)

Good point, John
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: antoniostrohs on Jan 12, 2005, 09:22 AM
John,Great point on being overated or overexposed.That can fit a lot of the classic rock genre especially here in the Louisville area.
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: EC on Jan 12, 2005, 09:55 AM
QuoteJohn,Great point on being overated or overexposed.That can fit a lot of the classic rock genre especially here in the Louisville area.

Very much agreed.  Although, I would say that we definitely have overexposure to certain classic rock out here in Toronto, and even moreso in Mississauga where I grew up.  

I believe that I have heard Stairway to Heaven and American Woman and Against the Wind more times than any human being could stand.

(Okay, maybe that's not true for Against the Wind.  I have a soft spot for Bob.)
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: ben grimm on Jan 12, 2005, 09:59 AM
I will always have a soft spot for Queen, the kind of magic album was my favourite record in the world when I was 11, I wanted to be a sword fightin' highlander so bad. sure they're very over the top but that was kinda the whole point with them wasn't it?
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: dogandponyshow on Jan 12, 2005, 10:19 AM
Perhaps a blend of a touch over rated and without a doubt they have been over exposed which is to bad. I don't think that Queen was in the "glam" flavor.  Brian May had unique guitar sound that whne you heard it you knew it was Queen.  They had some rockers but they had some duds...a la Crazy Little Thing Called Love and Radio Ga Ga....god awful.

D.
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: ben grimm on Jan 12, 2005, 10:35 AM
Have you heard Electic Six's cover of radio ga ga yet? its a pretty dire version of a pretty dire song. And don't even start me on that vaguely Nazi- esque video that went with it.
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: marktwain on Jan 12, 2005, 11:19 AM
I'll have to agree w/ O.  I just couldn't ever get into Queen, and I don't see what the fuss is about.  

My brother (who actually likes Queen) said it best the other day; he thinks every Queen song sounds like it was written for broadway - maybe that's why I don't like them.
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: SMc55 on Jan 12, 2005, 11:36 AM
Quotesure they're very over the top but that was kinda the whole point with them wasn't it?

I think you're right. Their film music (they also did Flash, which I loved) was perfect for the films, but I couldn't take them seriously in any other way. Brian May lost a bit of credibility, I think, when he started producing incredibly naff songs for an incredibly naff soap star.
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: EC on Jan 12, 2005, 12:07 PM
(please explain "naff".  Is it the UK equivalent to "lame"?)
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: SMc55 on Jan 12, 2005, 12:14 PM
Just remembered you've asked me this before. Sorry for not getting back to you. Yes, I think it means the same as lame. It means very very uncool.

Just looked it up:

ADJECTIVE:
Chiefly British Slang
Unstylish, clichéd, or outmoded.

Yep. That's about it.

Thinking about lame, here we'd use it to mean weak. e.g. "That's a lame excuse."


Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: EC on Jan 12, 2005, 01:32 PM
Thank you!  I like naff.  Gonna use it.

Yes, lame and weak go hand in hand here.  ie, "That is the lamest excuse I have ever heard."="That is the weakest excuse I have ever heard."

Hm, maybe not identical (the lame and the weak), but certainly in the same word group.
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Jan 12, 2005, 01:45 PM
well, I'm not claiming that Queen is worth a big fuss but I am not going to write them off either.  I guess my perspective nobody is making a big deal of them here where I live so I have no reason to view them as over rated.  I think they are fun to listen to and skilled musicians and since nobody here is fussing over them I am not sick of hearing how they are supposedly so great.
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: SMc55 on Jan 12, 2005, 01:46 PM
EC: I love this stuff! Languages, dialects and so on. I recently read a history of the English language and how it's used differently in different places. Fascinating.

By the way I'm writing this listening to your Bermuda Highway. Beautiful  :)
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: EC on Jan 12, 2005, 02:13 PM
QuoteEC: I love this stuff! Languages, dialects and so on. I recently read a history of the English language and how it's used differently in different places. Fascinating.

By the way I'm writing this listening to your Bermuda Highway. Beautiful  :)
:)

Hey, what's the name of the book?  I love when I go somewhere new and hear peoples' vernacular.  Some of my non-Toronto favourites include:
faffing about (wasting time in England)
can ah drink (can of pop in Newfoundland)
"Bless her heart" ("she's a bitch" in AL)
and my favourite
snogging.  Which is a lovely way of saying it.

So, yes.

I think you may be right, mmjfanatic.  If you haven't heard it fifty billion times, it's probably still fun for you.  I remember really enjoying Stairway to Heaven and Hotel California the first 50 times, as well.

And now they make me want to jump out of a moving vehicle.
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: SMc55 on Jan 12, 2005, 03:43 PM
Aaah faffing about - my very favourite occupation  8) It reminds me of some lyrics from one of my fave Paul Simon songs "Slow down, you move too fast. You've got to make the morning last".

The book is The Adventure of English by Melvyn Bragg (Lord Bragg of Wigton).
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: EC on Jan 12, 2005, 03:44 PM
Wicked.  Thank you!

(I like faffin' about as well!!)
Title: Re: Queen's new singer
Post by: MMJ_fanatic on Feb 01, 2005, 05:21 PM
don't you mean wickked pissah?