To Rod Stewart, Roger Taylor, Brian May & John Deacon
W. K. Mahler
While painting today and listening to WCOD 106.1 fm there was a block of
Rod Stewart played. "Have I Told You Lately" and a few others were
broadcast. I heard this one song and the title eludes me now. There was
the Roger Taylor high pitch backing vocals (yeaaaaaaaa.......etc), the Brian
May lead guitar solo "noodling", the (I can barely hear the work of) John
Deacon bass, there was an string section and the voice of Rod Stewart. Well
out of all that there was definatly Rod Stewart. My point is that I can
imagine Rod Stewart singing with Brian May, John Deacon and Roger Taylor.
Rod Stewart already has been in several bands and his career has been quiet
recently. Remember Sammy Hagar joined Van Halen so how about another
British man joining three other British threesome for an entire recording.
John Deacon, Brian May, Rod Stewart & Roger Taylor, how say you all?
Sincerely,
William K. Mahler
http://www.mindspring.com/~mahlerandmahler/musicality.htm
Jimmy
jimmy
W. K. Mahler
ArdenGuy
Well Taylor and Stewart have almost the same exact singing voice so I fail to
see the point. But I could care less who the singer was as long as the band
returned to their 70s sound, and it may be many years too late for that.
The Real Man's Champion
vinylfreak
mah...@mindspring.com> writes
>Hello,
>
> While painting today and listening to WCOD 106.1 fm there was a block of
>Rod Stewart played. "Have I Told You Lately" and a few others were
>broadcast. I heard this one song and the title eludes me now. There was
>the Roger Taylor high pitch backing vocals (yeaaaaaaaa.......etc), the Brian
>May lead guitar solo "noodling", the (I can barely hear the work of) John
>Deacon bass, there was an string section and the voice of Rod Stewart. Well
>out of all that there was definatly Rod Stewart. My point is that I can
>imagine Rod Stewart singing with Brian May, John Deacon and Roger Taylor.
>Rod Stewart already has been in several bands and his career has been quiet
>recently. Remember Sammy Hagar joined Van Halen so how about another
>British man joining three other British threesome for an entire recording.
>John Deacon, Brian May, Rod Stewart & Roger Taylor, how say you all?
>
>Sincerely,
>
>William K. Mahler
Rod hasn`t been quiet lately.
His album of covers sold very well and got him a couple of more chart
singles to add to his record.
There is talk of a Faces reunion in the future and he will be thinking
of that more than anything else.
Rod Stewart concerts are usually sell outs and not as common as his fans
would wish.
Afraid he is unlikely to even consider any work with any band but his
own.
Can`t see Queen ever getting a replacement?
Maybe together again with the odd guest but not as a unit proper.
>
--
vinylfreak
Jackie
>Can`t see Queen ever getting a replacement?
>Maybe together again with the odd guest but not as a unit proper.
These are only conjectures, but I agree. I doubt Queen would now
re-form as a permanent band, with a new front-man replacing Freddie,
but I could see the three teaming up with various 'guests'. The only
thing that would interest me would be how much creative input, at the
composition stage, the various guests would have. Would they be
content just to sing what B, R and J compose, or would they want to
start changing things, adding things and moving things around. :-0
Jackie.
kent
it'll never happen folks..... as much as i would like to see it. if
brian and roger could work together would be enough to make me happy, but
that doesn't seem likely to happen either as they seem content to do
their own thing with total control over it. i think if they could do
something together it would be better than their solo albums. but, like
jackie said, i can't see them ever adding a permanent replacement for
freddie...... no one can fill those shoes, and the comparisons would bury
the poor soul who tried.
kent,
Pep
> Just a quick suggestion - i mean i have you BEST intentions at heart - i mean
> - that tour, it's gonna be outta site - but don't you need a rehearsal ?
>
> We've got JUST the place - come to SUNNY summer's-end Australia REAL SOON for
> a warm up tour - there's still time, but DON"T DELAY!!! Don't worry, you
> won't regret it - we'll LOVE you to BITS!!!!! There's TONS of Brits here too
> - you'd make their stay in downunder SPECIAL!
>
> But if you can't make it this season - heh, keep it in mind - but hope to see
> you SOON,
Dear Rog,
Forget about boring Aussie-land!
We, the people in Holland, will welcome you much more enthousiasm!!!
And *we* have much more fast cars! :p (there u go Rufie, sorry!!!!)
Hoit, xXx, Pep
At any time, anywhere
If you gotta make love do it everywhere
Pep
I myself won't accept any other Rod Stewart band than the Rod Stewart band
with Elton John and Freddie Mercury, called "Hair, Nose and Teeth" or
"Nose, hair and Teeth" or "Teeth, Nose and Hair" or.........
Hoit, Pep
Sue
kent wrote:
>Jackie wrote:
>> My Vinyl sayeth:
>> >Can`t see Queen ever getting a replacement?
>> >Maybe together again with the odd guest but not as a unit proper.
>> These are only conjectures, but I agree. I doubt Queen would now
>> re-form as a permanent band, with a new front-man replacing Freddie,
>> Would they be
>> content just to sing what B, R and J compose, or would they want to
>> start changing things, adding things and moving things around. :-0
>it'll never happen folks..... as much as i would like to see it. <snip>
> but, like
>jackie said, i can't see them ever adding a permanent replacement for
>freddie...... no one can fill those shoes, and the comparisons would bury
>the poor soul who tried.
Too right! And as for Rodders...
no, no, no, no, No No, NO! Oh Mama Mia, Mama Mia.....
Sue
Matt
kent <gui...@blueridge.net> wrote:
> Jackie wrote:
>
> > My Vinyl sayeth:
> >
> > >Can`t see Queen ever getting a replacement?
> > >Maybe together again with the odd guest but not as a unit proper.
> >
> > re-form as a permanent band, with a new front-man replacing Freddie,
> > thing that would interest me would be how much creative input, at the
> > content just to sing what B, R and J compose, or would they want to
> > start changing things, adding things and moving things around. :-0
> >
>
I'm sick of hearing about odd guest appearing on Queen album's. Do you guys
feel that Brian, John, and Roger can't make it on their own??? Brian and
Roger can sing. I'd prefer if they sang their own songs though, personally I
don't care for the "duet" thing. All three remaining can write good music,
why complicate it?? I've never heard any negative comments on one of
Brian's, or Roger's shows either. They are all talented enough musicians and
don't need the odd guest here and there to fill any gaps.
> it'll never happen folks..... as much as i would like to see it. if
> brian and roger could work together would be enough to make me happy, but
> that doesn't seem likely to happen either as they seem content to do
> their own thing with total control over it. i think if they could do
> something together it would be better than their solo albums. but, like
> jackie said, i can't see them ever adding a permanent replacement for
> freddie...... no one can fill those shoes, and the comparisons would bury
> the poor soul who tried.
>
> kent,
>
Kent is right, Brian seems particurly happy to have total control over his
music. I really wish they would go back to their 70's sound (like Ardenguy
said). I like a lot of the new stuff too, but the music was better when it
was played by them....the machines (drum machines and synth's) don't cut it
in my mind. As I've said before, When the machines took over...A LOT of the
originality was lost.
Matt
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jackie
>I myself won't accept any other Rod Stewart band than the Rod Stewart band
>with Elton John and Freddie Mercury, called "Hair, Nose and Teeth" or
>"Nose, hair and Teeth" or "Teeth, Nose and Hair" or.........
*LOL* I know - that's just so funny isn't it? Did our Fred come up
with that absolute GEM or was it one of the others?
J.
Mark Walton
Best wishes,
Mark Walton
ma...@queen.force9.co.uk
Queen - The Complete Words:
http://www.queen.force9.co.uk
Now with 100% accurate lyrics, Real Audio interviews and rarities,
320+ pictures, animations, UK chart positions and release dates,
MIDI's, rare MP3's and a windows desktop theme.
Jackie wrote in message <36d2be42...@news.demon.co.uk>...
Jdmischief
<< All three remaining can write good music, >>
does John write anything at present?
Written in the Stars....
jenni
Remove 1984 from address when mailing me!
rOOth
It's great news about your tour - wow, it's only a month away..
Just a quick suggestion - i mean i have you BEST intentions at heart - i mean
- that tour, it's gonna be outta site - but don't you need a rehearsal ?
We've got JUST the place - come to SUNNY summer's-end Australia REAL SOON for
a warm up tour - there's still time, but DON"T DELAY!!! Don't worry, you
won't regret it - we'll LOVE you to BITS!!!!! There's TONS of Brits here too
- you'd make their stay in downunder SPECIAL!
But if you can't make it this season - heh, keep it in mind - but hope to see
you SOON,
OBOARTAQAF, xXx
rOOth
> On Sat, 20 Feb 1999, rOOth wrote:
> > Just a quick suggestion - i mean i have you BEST intentions at heart - i mean
> > - that tour, it's gonna be outta site - but don't you need a rehearsal ?
> >
> > We've got JUST the place - come to SUNNY summer's-end Australia REAL SOON for
> > a warm up tour - there's still time, but DON"T DELAY!!! Don't worry, you
> > won't regret it - we'll LOVE you to BITS!!!!! There's TONS of Brits here too
> > - you'd make their stay in downunder SPECIAL!
> >
> > But if you can't make it this season - heh, keep it in mind - but hope to see
> > you SOON,
>
> Dear Rog,
> Forget about boring Aussie-land!
> We, the people in Holland, will welcome you much more enthousiasm!!!
> And *we* have much more fast cars! :p (there u go Rufie, sorry!!!!)
>
> Hoit, xXx, Pep
(I forgive you Pep, wholeheartedly : i always love coming to your country! Good
Luck -) Common Rog, a much better offer - nearer home! (then again, if you've
already bought the tickets, hired the amps, thats cool!!! And your money
miraculously grows into more of ours! Now THAT might change - so seriously, could
you fit them BOTH in? Great plane service linkx the two main cities - go for it
man! Go for it - faster than a car,.... it's ...)
> At any time, anywhere
> If you gotta make love do it everywhere
--
---
ruth :-)
---
vinylfreak
writes
>In article <36CD6220...@blueridge.net>,
> kent <gui...@blueridge.net> wrote:
>> Jackie wrote:
>>
>> > My Vinyl sayeth:
>> >
>> > >Can`t see Queen ever getting a replacement?
>> > >Maybe together again with the odd guest but not as a unit proper.
>> >
>> > These are only conjectures, but I agree. I doubt Queen would now
>> > re-form as a permanent band, with a new front-man replacing Freddie,
>> > but I could see the three teaming up with various 'guests'. The only
>> > thing that would interest me would be how much creative input, at the
>> > composition stage, the various guests would have. Would they be
>> > content just to sing what B, R and J compose, or would they want to
>> > start changing things, adding things and moving things around. :-0
>> >
>> > Jackie.
>>
>
>I'm sick of hearing about odd guest appearing on Queen album's. Do you guys
>feel that Brian, John, and Roger can't make it on their own??? Brian and
>Roger can sing. I'd prefer if they sang their own songs though, personally I
>don't care for the "duet" thing. All three remaining can write good music,
>why complicate it?? I've never heard any negative comments on one of
>Brian's, or Roger's shows either. They are all talented enough musicians and
>don't need the odd guest here and there to fill any gaps.
It`s just speculation or conjectures as Jackie says.
Nobody is disputing Queens ability to release an album as a trio.
It so happens that their work with Elton and G Michael was well received
and a change.
Maybe a few guests would help to break the atmosphere of an album
without Freddie.
There are reports of "tension" and this may help break these down.
>
>> it'll never happen folks..... as much as i would like to see it. if
>> brian and roger could work together would be enough to make me happy, but
>> that doesn't seem likely to happen either as they seem content to do
>> their own thing with total control over it. i think if they could do
>> something together it would be better than their solo albums. but, like
>> jackie said, i can't see them ever adding a permanent replacement for
>> freddie...... no one can fill those shoes, and the comparisons would bury
>> the poor soul who tried.
>>
>> kent,
>>
>
>Kent is right, Brian seems particurly happy to have total control over his
>music. I really wish they would go back to their 70's sound (like Ardenguy
>said). I like a lot of the new stuff too, but the music was better when it
>was played by them....the machines (drum machines and synth's) don't cut it
>in my mind. As I've said before, When the machines took over...A LOT of the
>originality was lost.
>
>Matt
It just isn`t viable for Brian to go back to the seventies sound.
Most groups who tried this or who just stagnated failed miserably and
went broke.
There is some brilliant music with synths and ENO is one of the best
examples of this no matter if it`s Roxy or another of his creations.
Personally I`d love to see him with Bowie on another project like the
Heroes/Low period. (Sheer Genius)
Ga Ga and AOBTD were brilliant tracks.
If Ga Ga hadn`t been such a massive hit we would be calling it a classic
track.
Queen used synths and instruments quite well and it worked for me after
an initial reluctance.
Too much garbage is written about machines today, there is some
excellent music in the Electronic field.
Most of it ignored by some of the media which is still moaning about
Bolan and Dylan going Electric.
>
--
vinylfreak
kent
> Go for it - faster than a car,.... it's ...)
a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive...... it's superman!!!!!!!
oh..... excuse me....... i'm sorry.
> > At any time, anywhere
> > If you gotta make love do it everywhere
ok by me.....
> ---
> ruth :-)
> ---
kent, who is ready for a drink
Matt
vinyl...@vinylfreak.demon.co.uk wrote:
> In article <7akkb9$bb1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Matt <MK...@webtv.net>
> writes
> >In article <36CD6220...@blueridge.net>,
> > kent <gui...@blueridge.net> wrote:
> >> Jackie wrote:
> >>
> >> > My Vinyl sayeth:
> >> >
> >> > >Can`t see Queen ever getting a replacement?
> >> > >Maybe together again with the odd guest but not as a unit proper.
> >> >
> >> > These are only conjectures, but I agree. I doubt Queen would now
> >> > re-form as a permanent band, with a new front-man replacing Freddie,
> >> > but I could see the three teaming up with various 'guests'. The only
> >> > thing that would interest me would be how much creative input, at the
> >> > composition stage, the various guests would have. Would they be
> >> > content just to sing what B, R and J compose, or would they want to
> >> > start changing things, adding things and moving things around. :-0
> >> >
> >> > Jackie.
> >>
> >
> >I'm sick of hearing about odd guest appearing on Queen album's. Do you guys
> >feel that Brian, John, and Roger can't make it on their own??? Brian and
> >Roger can sing. I'd prefer if they sang their own songs though, personally I
> >don't care for the "duet" thing. All three remaining can write good music,
> >why complicate it?? I've never heard any negative comments on one of
> >Brian's, or Roger's shows either. They are all talented enough musicians and
> >don't need the odd guest here and there to fill any gaps.
>
> It`s just speculation or conjectures as Jackie says.
> Nobody is disputing Queens ability to release an album as a trio.
The only reason that I said that is because every time this comes up, most
people seem to talk about a replacement for Freddie. The other three are
capable of the job.
> It so happens that their work with Elton and G Michael was well received
> and a change.
> Maybe a few guests would help to break the atmosphere of an album
> without Freddie.
> There are reports of "tension" and this may help break these down.
>
Tension between who? The remaining Queen members? I don't think either George
or Elton would be a good fit. Elton is good at what he does, but he CAN'T
sing Queen songs. George can sing Queen songs, but his music is different in
style.
> >
> >> it'll never happen folks..... as much as i would like to see it. if
> >> brian and roger could work together would be enough to make me happy, but
> >> that doesn't seem likely to happen either as they seem content to do
> >> their own thing with total control over it. i think if they could do
> >> something together it would be better than their solo albums. but, like
> >> jackie said, i can't see them ever adding a permanent replacement for
> >> freddie...... no one can fill those shoes, and the comparisons would bury
> >> the poor soul who tried.
> >>
> >> kent,
> >>
> >
> >Kent is right, Brian seems particurly happy to have total control over his
> >music. I really wish they would go back to their 70's sound (like Ardenguy
> >said). I like a lot of the new stuff too, but the music was better when it
> >was played by them....the machines (drum machines and synth's) don't cut it
> >in my mind. As I've said before, When the machines took over...A LOT of the
> >originality was lost.
> >
> >Matt
>
> It just isn`t viable for Brian to go back to the seventies sound.
> Most groups who tried this or who just stagnated failed miserably and
> went broke.
Speaking of viable, could it be that much less viable than what they are
doing now?? Don't think so. What groups are you talking about?
> There is some brilliant music with synths and ENO is one of the best
> examples of this no matter if it`s Roxy or another of his creations.
Dunno, whatever I've heard from Roxy Music I've found boring.
> Personally I`d love to see him with Bowie on another project like the
> Heroes/Low period. (Sheer Genius)
I don't like Bowie's voice, or music. To me, his voice sounds unemotional and
flat at times. Tin Machine had some cool guitar work.
> Ga Ga and AOBTD were brilliant tracks.
> If Ga Ga hadn`t been such a massive hit we would be calling it a classic
> track.
I don't know what is brilliant about GaGa, other than it charted due to a
catchy chorus. I find it uninspiring. Same thing with AOBTD, but Freddie is
singing with a lot of power, the bass line isn't much without that vocal.
Also as catchy as these two are, they becomes tiresome just as fast.
> Queen used synths and instruments quite well and it worked for me after
> an initial reluctance.
>
> Too much garbage is written about machines today, there is some
> excellent music in the Electronic field.
> Most of it ignored by some of the media which is still moaning about
> Bolan and Dylan going Electric.
A lot of electronic music does sound good, but for me it is harder to
apprieciate. The average person can sound like genious, all because of a
program.
>
> >
>
> --
> vinylfreak
Ray Martinez
>it'll never happen folks..... as much as i would like to see it. if
>brian and roger could work together would be enough to make me happy, but
>that doesn't seem likely to happen either as they seem content to do
>their own thing with total control over it. i think if they could do
>something together it would be better than their solo albums. but, like
>jackie said, i can't see them ever adding a permanent replacement for
>freddie...... no one can fill those shoes, and the comparisons would bury
>the poor soul who tried.
>
I agree 100%. . .it ain't gonna happen.
vinylfreak
writes
>
>Tension between who? The remaining Queen members? I don't think either George
>or Elton would be a good fit. Elton is good at what he does, but he CAN'T
>sing Queen songs. George can sing Queen songs, but his music is different in
>style.
Roger saying one thing and Brian another.....
>> It just isn`t viable for Brian to go back to the seventies sound.
>> Most groups who tried this or who just stagnated failed miserably and
>> went broke.
>
>Speaking of viable, could it be that much less viable than what they are
>doing now?? Don't think so. What groups are you talking about?
Can`t think offhand though mag`s like Record Collector are usually full
of interviews with rock stars from the 70`s.
All usually reissuing classic albums, new ones or simply speaking of
their careers.
Personally i think Roger has made a great album and i also like Queen's
later stuff.
In the commercial world it would be suicide for them to return to the
seventies sound.
Brian has spoken before about losing money on a tour and reverting to an
older sound would prove similar.
The record company would probably fight him as the press is full of
stories of how they are shedding loads of artists.
>
>> There is some brilliant music with synths and ENO is one of the best
>> examples of this no matter if it`s Roxy or another of his creations.
>
>Dunno, whatever I've heard from Roxy Music I've found boring.
Okay. What about Van Der Graf or Can?
A lot of Prog Rock used synths.
>
>> Personally I`d love to see him with Bowie on another project like the
>> Heroes/Low period. (Sheer Genius)
>
>I don't like Bowie's voice, or music. To me, his voice sounds unemotional and
>flat at times. Tin Machine had some cool guitar work.
>
>> Ga Ga and AOBTD were brilliant tracks.
>> If Ga Ga hadn`t been such a massive hit we would be calling it a classic
>> track.
>
>I don't know what is brilliant about GaGa, other than it charted due to a
>catchy chorus. I find it uninspiring. Same thing with AOBTD, but Freddie is
>singing with a lot of power, the bass line isn't much without that vocal.
>Also as catchy as these two are, they becomes tiresome just as fast.
Maybe you've just settled on a sound belonging to an era?
This is fine by me as i still consider 60`s less commercial soul music
to be the best of any decade.
It proves the reasons why it is called Soul music.
>
>> Queen used synths and instruments quite well and it worked for me after
>> an initial reluctance.
>>
>> Too much garbage is written about machines today, there is some
>> excellent music in the Electronic field.
>> Most of it ignored by some of the media which is still moaning about
>> Bolan and Dylan going Electric.
>
>A lot of electronic music does sound good, but for me it is harder to
>apprieciate. The average person can sound like genious, all because of a
>program.
I disagree there are a lot of really bad records out there made by Mr
Average and it shows.
Like any genre of music you start to sift out the geniuses.
Some artists like are even being praised by Classical music
makers/journalists/critics.
The 3rd rate bedsit dj`s mixing and making bad imitations are usually
ignored critically by anyone with a good ear.
>Matt
--
vinylfreak
Jackie
>Personally i think Roger has made a great album and i also like Queen's
>later stuff.
>In the commercial world it would be suicide for them to return to the
>seventies sound.
very well be seen in these terms: an older rock musician who just
can't get out of the time warp of when he was successful. I mean,
times change, fashions come and go, and things move on...musicians
too. I think it would be very difficult for Brian, Roger and John to
make a deliberate choice, "okay guys, lets pretend it's the
seventies," and I'm sure, as Vinyl says dramatically, it would
mean.............certain death.
>Brian has spoken before about losing money on a tour and reverting to an
>older sound would prove similar.
Yes, even less successful. You've gotta move with the times. No point
in sticking in a little rut when the whole world has progressed away.
It would please *some* people to be sure, those harking back, those
stuck in the rut too, or those who just prefer that sound *and no
other*. But it would not be a commercial decision, nor a really wise
one!
Jackie. <hoping her hangover is going to dissipate VERY soon>
kent
i think they did a damn good job of recapturing their 70's sound with the
song 'innuendo', and were quite successful at it. that song would fit on
just about any of their 70's albums (except maybe 'jazz' and 'news").
everyone in here seems to like that song (i know there will be a few
dissenters now). how i wish they could have a done a whole album of stuff
like that. i had hoped for more of such music on 'mih'.
kent, who is listening to the song 'innuendo' right now and digging it
severely
Matt
> > >Personally i think Roger has made a great album and i also like Queen's
> > >later stuff.
> > >In the commercial world it would be suicide for them to return to the
> > >seventies sound.
The 70's sound was more original than the newer compositions. Plus Queen will
not be remembered for their later material by most fans, it will be for their
older compositions.
> > I agree with this too. It's such a hackneyed old cliche, and could
> > very well be seen in these terms: an older rock musician who just
> > can't get out of the time warp of when he was successful. I mean,
> > times change, fashions come and go, and things move on...musicians
> > too. I think it would be very difficult for Brian, Roger and John to
> > make a deliberate choice, "okay guys, lets pretend it's the
Not pretend to write 70's music, just put a little more effort into the
writing.
> > seventies," and I'm sure, as Vinyl says dramatically, it would
> > mean.............certain death.
> >
> > >Brian has spoken before about losing money on a tour and reverting to an
> > >older sound would prove similar.
> > Yes, even less successful. You've gotta move with the times. No point
> > in sticking in a little rut when the whole world has progressed away.
> > It would please *some* people to be sure, those harking back, those
> > stuck in the rut too, or those who just prefer that sound *and no
> > other*. But it would not be a commercial decision, nor a really wise
> > one!
> >
> > Jackie. <hoping her hangover is going to dissipate VERY soon>
You too?? My head is HUMMING!
>
> i think they did a damn good job of recapturing their 70's sound with the
> song 'innuendo', and were quite successful at it. that song would fit on
> just about any of their 70's albums (except maybe 'jazz' and 'news").
> everyone in here seems to like that song (i know there will be a few
> dissenters now). how i wish they could have a done a whole album of stuff
> like that. i had hoped for more of such music on 'mih'.
>
> kent, who is listening to the song 'innuendo' right now and digging it
> severely
>
>
I'm not sure that you guy's are understanding me, cause' I agree with most of
what you are saying. Just like Kent pointed out how Innuendo could have been
on any of Queen's 70's albums, I feel a lot of Queen 70's was way ahead of
it's time and I feel a lot of Queen's music from the 70's still sounds fresh
today. I think the main reason I find the 80's less appealing is the lose of
dynamics. The 70's music was like riding a roller coaster, and I feel more
styles were covered per album. But I can't expect them to write what they
don't feel. I just don't hear the unique-ness shine the way it once did.
ArdenGuy
>
>Personally i think Roger has made a great album and i also like Queen's
>later stuff.
>In the commercial world it would be suicide for them to return to the
>seventies sound.
>older sound would prove similar.
>stories of how they are shedding loads of artists.
>
It makes a much better alternative then the 80s sound. Basically, here in the
1990s, any item relating to the horrid decade of bad taste known as the 80s
gets absolutely shitcanned, and I can't think of a single track Queen produced
in the 80s (excluding the Game) that would get any commercial success at all
today. But OTOH, BoRhap went to #1 again in 1991, or can you not remember that
far back? And if we want to call Innuendo their 90s sound, they'd better stay
away from that too (just listen to I Can't Live With You and those obnoxious
electronic drums.) To sum it up, IMODO guitar queen rocked, synthesizer queen
sucked, and synth/guitar queen was very iffish.
vinylfreak
<arde...@aol.comSUCKQITQ> writes
The 80`s are very much coming to the fore with praise being heaped upon
artists who were once uncool.
It doesn't surprise me as we've heard it all before with seventies
artists.
Boring hippies with overlong solos full of self important empty lyrics.
That was the critics angle not so long ago before they discovered how
good many 70`s artists were.
It`s the 80`s now and in five years or so it will be the 90`s.
The 80`s produced many good artists and i liked the new technology.
New romantics differed little from Glam. and the dance revolution was
wonderful and refreshing.
I think another one bites the dust would have made it easily with that
bass line.
Under Pressure, Radio Ga Ga, i want to break free, a kind of magic, who
wants to live forever, innuendo, i`m going slightly mad, the show must
go on, these are the days of our lives, too much love will kill you, you
don`t fool me.
All of these would have made it with little difficulty.
Clever pop songs attract a lot of attention at present.
Rhapsody the reissue went on the back of these were the days.
This helped sales.
I would not dispute the fact that seventies sounding records can do
well.
Just look at placebo, steps, m. manson and all the other seventies
imitators?
They have audiences of younger fans loving the retro look and the young
image.
Older bands have to prove they are moving and not stuck in a time warp.
It`s just the way the industry works.
Peter Gabriel does it well and occasionally gets a hit to repay the
record company.
--
vinylfreak
Sue
M'Lord V <curtsey> rightly writes:
>The 80`s are very much coming to the fore with praise being heaped upon
>artists who were once uncool.
>It doesn't surprise me as we've heard it all before with seventies
>artists.
What goes around comes around. (Or should that be the other way around?)
It's a continuous process. I mean, whoever would have guessed those daft
platforms would come back in fashion again?
>Boring hippies with overlong solos full of self important empty lyrics.
>That was the critics angle not so long ago before they discovered how
>good many 70`s artists were.
>It`s the 80`s now and in five years or so it will be the 90`s.
Is it something to do with the ppl who were young and eager listeners/fans
in the 80's now grown up and becoming the musicians, dj's, music critics
and 'meeja' persons? I guess everyone looks back on the music that gave
them their youthful kicks and thinks of it as a golden age.
<snip>
>I would not dispute the fact that seventies sounding records can do
>well. Just look at placebo, steps, m. manson and all the other seventies
>imitators? They have audiences of younger fans loving the retro look and
>the young image.
I gained a heap of cred with certain youngsters of my acquaintance when
they discovered some old T. Rex albums lurking on my shelf. It was
teenyboppers' stuff then, nowadays Bolan is a cultural reference point.
Sue (wearing a tall hat and a tatooed gown)
jajenili
Sue wrote in message <7b4mo0$m57$1...@supernews.com>...
>
>Sue (wearing a tall hat and a tatooed gown)
>
sooooo sue, what color is the gown?
-mark
ArdenGuy
>This helped sales.
OH COME ON! You ask any bloke with a casual or serious interest in music in
the 90s to name a Queen song and he isn't going to name These Are the FN Days.
I don't even think TATD is even a memorable song, it's just a footnote next to
Bohemian Rhapsody. It's practically a B-side.
>I would not dispute the fact that seventies sounding records can do
>well.
>Just look at placebo, steps, m. manson and all the other seventies
>imitators?
How about Page and Plant? They still sell well, don't they? And weren't they
one-half of the defining band of 70s music? You can debate the answer if you
wish. I don't see Depeche Mode or Talking Heads achieving catalog sales like
Led Zeppelin's.
>They have audiences of younger fans loving the retro look and the young
>image.
Pshaw! The interest in the 70s is not all about hip trends and retro crap.
Platform shoes went with disco, and that's not what Im talking about. Today's
youth listens to older acts like Hendrix, Zeppelin, and Queen because they can
recognize musicianship and can't see it in today's music. That's why they
should return to the style they used in the 70s, because a continuation of
their 80s music would be a horrendous joke music-wise when stacked against
their triumphs 20 years prior.
>Older bands have to prove they are moving and not stuck in a time warp.
Examples, please.
>It`s just the way the industry works.
>Peter Gabriel does it well and occasionally gets a hit to repay the
>record company.
No he does not. He threw together a few hits in the 80s (and really, who
didn't?) and he's still a respected musician, but don't expect him to come out
with another big hit anytime soon.
>
>
>--
>vinylfreak
Jdmischief
image.
>Pshaw! The interest in the 70s is not all about hip trends and retro crap.
>
>Platform shoes went with disco, and that's not what Im talking about. Today's
youth >listens to older acts like Hendrix, Zeppelin, and Queen because they can
recognize >musicianship and can't see it in today's >music.
True, true. but the difference is that there IS musicamanship in the
70's......none, or so it seems, at present day. Talent is out there but it's
not being used much.
Pep
> >>They have audiences of younger fans loving the retro look and the young
> image.
>
> >Pshaw! The interest in the 70s is not all about hip trends and retro crap.
> >
> >Platform shoes went with disco, and that's not what Im talking about. Today's
> youth >listens to older acts like Hendrix, Zeppelin, and Queen because they can
> recognize >musicianship and can't see it in today's >music.
>
> True, true. but the difference is that there IS musicamanship in the
> 70's......none, or so it seems, at present day. Talent is out there but it's
> not being used much.
You're completely right! Funny, yesterday I was talking to a friend 'bout
all those music from the 60s, 70s and 80s. We came to the conclusion that
those were the times real music was written AND got much airplay. Nowadays
it seems that, though of course still real music is written, only the
superficial R&B, HipHop and House gets airplay. Music, written by some
synthesizer, performed by girls with big breasts and boys with smooth
chests, which is forgotten a few weeks after it has hit #1 because it has
nothing deeper in it whatsoever.
Back in the 70s... there really was musicianship. Of course nowadays there
still is, but hidden. Deep inside, somewhere, they're still there. Bands
like dEUS, Zita Swoon, Pyrrho and Wednesday prove that. They're not very
popular though. :(
Hoit, Pep
Sue
Errm.... swan white?
Sue
Sue
Pep wrote:
<snip>
> Nowadays it seems that, though of course still real music is written,
>only the superficial R&B, HipHop and House gets airplay. Music, written by
>some synthesizer, performed by girls with big breasts and boys with smooth
>chests, which is forgotten a few weeks after it has hit #1 because it has
>nothing deeper in it whatsoever.
>Back in the 70s... there really was musicianship. Of course nowadays there
>still is, but hidden.
I think you're right about there being much more restricted radio airplay
these days. They seem to cater for a far narrower range, at least that's
what it feels like in the UK. Either pretty boy-bands and dance music or
Des O'Connor, with not much in between. :-( P'raps I listen at the wrong
times!!
Some youngsters may well listen to 70's things for the musicianship but
this isn't a new phenomenon. Ppl have always referred back to previous
decades to hear where the sounds they love or want to recreate have
developed from. Also, I seem to remember there was just as much dross
getting into the charts in the 70's, but the thing is it's only the quality
stuff, the good musicians or the memorable singles that we all recall now
and look back on it, as I said, as some sort of golden age. You can be sure
in twenty or thirty years time people will look back on the best of what's
around these days, sifting the wheat from the chaff, and say all the same
things about the nineties.
There's still (occasionally!) some new thing gets played on air that makes
you sit up and take notice 'cos it seems different and worthwhile. (Recent
example: Catatonia.) For myself I prefer good old rock with real guitars
and drums but I think every decade has had its outstanding music in
whatever style. We just need a broader range to get airplay so ppl can hear
all that's available. It surely can't be good for the music industry as a
whole to have such a restricted radio shop-window as it were. Is it
different in the States?
Sue
rOOth
> On 26 Feb 1999, Jdmischief wrote:
> > >>They have audiences of younger fans loving the retro look and the young
> > image.
> >
> > >Pshaw! The interest in the 70s is not all about hip trends and retro crap.
> ...... snip....
> Back in the 70s... there really was musicianship. Of course nowadays there
> still is, but hidden. Deep inside, somewhere, they're still there. Bands
> like dEUS, Zita Swoon, Pyrrho and Wednesday prove that. They're not very
> popular though. :(
>
> Hoit, Pep
There was a band on rage (music videos) called Rammstein or something and they sang
in German - heard of them? Very visual show from the looks of it > ruth
David McAuliffe
all the points, may go over some old ground, and may make a fool of
myself but what's new there-
<cracks knuckles>
Your honour, we respectfully submit as evidence that on 26 Feb 1999
04:48:27 GMT, one "arde...@aol.comSUCKQITQ (ArdenGuy)" did write:
>>They have audiences of younger fans loving the retro look and the young
>>image.
>
>Pshaw! The interest in the 70s is not all about hip trends and retro crap.
>Platform shoes went with disco, and that's not what Im talking about. Today's
>youth listens to older acts like Hendrix, Zeppelin, and Queen because they can
>recognize musicianship and can't see it in today's music. That's why they
>should return to the style they used in the 70s, because a continuation of
>their 80s music would be a horrendous joke music-wise when stacked against
>their triumphs 20 years prior.
Should? SHOULD!!!
Music is an evolutionary thing.
Sometimes it's evolution, sometimes it's revolution, but it's always
dynamic.
Any genre of music can be traced back to another. I seem to recall
hearing a rap artist recently ripping "Staying Alive". Without
debating the validity of that particular form, hey, that says
something. Someone has found something useful in some of what a lot
consider to be less tasteful music of the 70s. We all know that rock
and roll goes back to the blues, and rock and roll begat...
And like evolution, sometimes things go into extinction (thank
goodness!) But for any musician to ignore the influence of any genre
is arrogant- even if it was a passing fad. There's some merit in
everything. Sometimes it's harder to find that others.
A ferexample- punk gave us Blondie, Talking Heads, The Clash... Maybe
you don't like them- but I don't see a lot in common between, say
Debbie Harry's and Johnny Rotten's stage personas. John Lydon of today
is a vastly different person to Johnny Rotten. Is Malcolm McLaren a
genius or a wanker? What about the influences of the Sinatras et al on
some of today's stuff, like Harry Connick Jr. I'm not endorsing any of
these- I'm just showing that there are a lot of ebbs and flows and
wheels going full turn.
Musicians today, and to some extent they dictate what the audience
listens to (let's face it- someone has to play it before the lemmings
goes hey this is cool and then it starts getting copied) shouldn't
return to the 70s, or ignore it. They should recognise the influence,
and continue the evolution. If someone says, that Glam sound had some
merit, let's play with it, then go for it. But we shouldn't expect a
copy of T-Rex. Or Gary Glitter (thank goodness). We would hopefully
get a genre relevant to 1999 (is it that late already> Goodness!) but
with the influences of...
On the other hand, the era dictates to some extent the music of the
era. Look at the music of the 20s, 30s, etc. Each was particularly
relevant to the time. That doesn't mean that the music is irrelevant
now- maybe just less so. But it's influences are still present.
You can't say that 70s sounds were all crap, or 80s, or... Each had
merits. Eventually, if the band is driven by money and they get it
wrong, they die off.
To say that a band should return to their x formula and not vary from
it won't work. Because of that funny thing called time they're not
even the same band, even if the members stay the same. Similarly, you
can't just dismiss a band because of something they did 25 years ago.
I enjoy Shakespeare, but I'll be damned if I'm going to sit down and
write my next posting out in olde english. On the other hand, it
doesn't mean I won't quote him. (nah! nah! Not going to!)
Anyway, if Smashing Pumpkins can cite Cheap Trick as one of their
influences...
I enjoy Queen with piano (pre-Game) more than the later stuff. It's
also the music I grew up with. Would I demand a re-release of, say, a
QII type of album? No- it probably doesn't fit into today. Ignoring
the absence of one Mercury, F from the starting line up, I don't think
the guys could do it anyway. They're older, think differently, times
have changed. That doesn't make QII any less of one of my favourites,
or that we should write off Queen as a bunch of old has-beens who
aren't relevant anymore.
The old and the new can get on. Maybe not on the one album, but...
A friend of mine is only a couple of years older than me and is as
passionate about the Beatles as I am about Queen. That reflects the
eras we grew up in. I just hope that Hollyleigh isn't as passionate
about the Spice Girls as she is now when she's my age. Which leads us
onto the difference between paint-by-numbers "commercial entities" and
"artists..." Let's not go there yet.
Some old fool named Dave.
---
When I look back at my relationships- I think I'd rather have the extra
rib.
Matt
I enjoy pre Game as well, but thats because of the style and songwriting.
Believe it or not, nothing sounded like Queen II back then, or even now for
that matter. So I think it would still sound fresh today. No it might not fit
into today, (not much does/ alot of it is the same) but did the sound really
fit back then? I think the music was a lot stronger. To this day I still hear
new things when I listen to that album.
> the absence of one Mercury, F from the starting line up, I don't think
> the guys could do it anyway. They're older, think differently, times
Totally different.
> have changed. That doesn't make QII any less of one of my favourites,
> or that we should write off Queen as a bunch of old has-beens who
> aren't relevant anymore.
>
> The old and the new can get on. Maybe not on the one album, but...
>
> A friend of mine is only a couple of years older than me and is as
> passionate about the Beatles as I am about Queen. That reflects the
Probably cause' the two are interesting, talented and diverse.
> eras we grew up in. I just hope that Hollyleigh isn't as passionate
> about the Spice Girls as she is now when she's my age.
Probably not cause' they aren't that interesting, talented, or diverse.
>Which leads us
> onto the difference between paint-by-numbers "commercial entities" and
> "artists..." Let's not go there yet.
>
> Some old fool named Dave.
>
> ---
Matt
>
> When I look back at my relationships- I think I'd rather have the extra
> rib.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Jimmy
Jdmischief wrote:
> >>The biggest interest is in Bootsy, J. Brown, Zapp and all the funk
> >>disco/soul at present.
>
> Umm, and i think i speak for at least a few, Who are THEY?
>
Bootsy Collins- You would know him as the bassist for Deelite. He has also done
some other stuff ;-)
James Brown - Godfather of Soul.
Frank Zappa- No definition possible.
jimmy
vinylfreak
<arde...@aol.comSUCKQITQ> writes
>>Rhapsody the reissue went on the back of these were the days.
>>This helped sales.
>
>OH COME ON! You ask any bloke with a casual or serious interest in music in
>the 90s to name a Queen song and he isn't going to name These Are the FN Days.
>I don't even think TATD is even a memorable song, it's just a footnote next to
>Bohemian Rhapsody. It's practically a B-side.
I did ask some blokes and some girls too. (You're in trouble on this
group omitting the girls) :-)
My workmate doesn't stop playing Days Of Our Lives.
I nearly began to hate it.
It is a popular track and i find it similar to dusty`s going back or
madonnas this used to be my playground in sentiment.
>
>
>>I would not dispute the fact that seventies sounding records can do
>>well.
>>Just look at placebo, steps, m. manson and all the other seventies
>>imitators?
>
>How about Page and Plant? They still sell well, don't they? And weren't they
>one-half of the defining band of 70s music? You can debate the answer if you
>wish. I don't see Depeche Mode or Talking Heads achieving catalog sales like
>Led Zeppelin's.
Depeche do sell very well world-wide.
I can`t see where you get the zep as the defining band of the 70`s?
>
>>They have audiences of younger fans loving the retro look and the young
>>image.
>
>Pshaw! The interest in the 70s is not all about hip trends and retro crap.
>Platform shoes went with disco, and that's not what Im talking about. Today's
>youth listens to older acts like Hendrix, Zeppelin, and Queen because they can
>recognize musicianship and can't see it in today's music. That's why they
>should return to the style they used in the 70s, because a continuation of
>their 80s music would be a horrendous joke music-wise when stacked against
>their triumphs 20 years prior.
It`s primarily Bowie, Lou Reed, T.Rex that they listen too.
Pistols, Buzzcocks, Siouxsie and the Ramones for the harder indie crowd.
The biggest interest is in Bootsy, J. Brown, Zapp and all the funk
disco/soul at present.
I hear a thousand indie bands ripping off N. Soul riffs.
I cannot agree about today's bands being devoid of talent.
John Peel still finds and plays great music with great musicians.
Queens earlier work, much as it hurts to say, would be ignored.
>
>>Older bands have to prove they are moving and not stuck in a time warp.
>
>Examples, please.
Bowie, Eno, Steve Hillage. (All i can think of at present)
>
>>It`s just the way the industry works.
>>Peter Gabriel does it well and occasionally gets a hit to repay the
>>record company.
>
>No he does not. He threw together a few hits in the 80s (and really, who
>didn't?) and he's still a respected musician, but don't expect him to come out
>with another big hit anytime soon.
Gabriel is successful and still has critical acclaim because he
experiments with music and vision.
I do expect to hear he is doing well pretty soon.
An album must be due?
--
vinylfreak
ArdenGuy
><arde...@aol.comSUCKQITQ> writes
>>>Rhapsody the reissue went on the back of these were the days.
>>>This helped sales.
>>
>>OH COME ON! You ask any bloke with a casual or serious interest in music in
>>the 90s to name a Queen song and he isn't going to name These Are the FN
>Days.
>>I don't even think TATD is even a memorable song, it's just a footnote next
>to
>>Bohemian Rhapsody. It's practically a B-side.
>
>I did ask some blokes and some girls too. (You're in trouble on this
>group omitting the girls) :-)
>My workmate doesn't stop playing Days Of Our Lives.
>I nearly began to hate it.
>It is a popular track and i find it similar to dusty`s going back or
>madonnas this used to be my playground in sentiment.
>
I don't mean hardcore Queen fans, I mean your average, dullwitted teenybopper.
And I think you might have a bias (no offense) as to the worldwide success of
the song b/c of your workmate.
>>
>>
>>>I would not dispute the fact that seventies sounding records can do
>>>well.
>>>Just look at placebo, steps, m. manson and all the other seventies
>>>imitators?
>>
>>How about Page and Plant? They still sell well, don't they? And weren't
>they
>>one-half of the defining band of 70s music? You can debate the answer if
>you
>>wish. I don't see Depeche Mode or Talking Heads achieving catalog sales
>like
>>Led Zeppelin's.
>
>Depeche do sell very well world-wide.
>I can`t see where you get the zep as the defining band of the 70`s?
Excuse me for forgetting the words hard and rock.
>
>>
>>>They have audiences of younger fans loving the retro look and the young
>>>image.
>>
>>Pshaw! The interest in the 70s is not all about hip trends and retro crap.
>>Platform shoes went with disco, and that's not what Im talking about.
>Today's
>>youth listens to older acts like Hendrix, Zeppelin, and Queen because they
>can
>>recognize musicianship and can't see it in today's music. That's why they
>>should return to the style they used in the 70s, because a continuation of
>>their 80s music would be a horrendous joke music-wise when stacked against
>>their triumphs 20 years prior.
>
>It`s primarily Bowie, Lou Reed, T.Rex that they listen too.
I know no youngsters that listen to any of that (although I know a few Bowie
fans- but they despise his 80s stuff, as do I.) The teens with taste for the
old stuff go for the originators, like Hendrix, Zeppelin, and Queen. They
don't really like any of the imitators like Kiss, Def Leppard, and even T-Rex.
Lou Reed I have no problem with.
>Pistols, Buzzcocks, Siouxsie and the Ramones for the harder indie crowd.
Agreed, but they really had nothing to do with what Queen was doing in the 80s
(ie the mainstream sound)
>The biggest interest is in Bootsy, J. Brown, Zapp and all the funk
>disco/soul at present.
This is stuff that caught fire in the 60s and 70s, not the 80s, although it was
still around.
>I hear a thousand indie bands ripping off N. Soul riffs.
>I cannot agree about today's bands being devoid of talent.
>John Peel still finds and plays great music with great musicians.
>Queens earlier work, much as it hurts to say, would be ignored.
I didn't say good musicians don't exist anymore. Im saying they don't get
enough props anymore, and they would have gotten those props in the 70s.
>
>>
>>>Older bands have to prove they are moving and not stuck in a time warp.
>>
>>Examples, please.
>
>Bowie, Eno, Steve Hillage. (All i can think of at present)
Bowie doesn't even like his 80s material. His 90s stuff is great. Don't know
the others.
>
>>
>>>It`s just the way the industry works.
>>>Peter Gabriel does it well and occasionally gets a hit to repay the
>>>record company.
>>
>>No he does not. He threw together a few hits in the 80s (and really, who
>>didn't?) and he's still a respected musician, but don't expect him to come
>out
>>with another big hit anytime soon.
>
>Gabriel is successful and still has critical acclaim because he
>experiments with music and vision.
No argument.
>I do expect to hear he is doing well pretty soon.
>An album must be due?
But he's no pop star anymore. He can still push records with his
respectability and talent, but we're never going to see another "Sledgehammer."
Jdmischief
Zeppelin, and Queen. They don't really like any of the imitators like Kiss,
Def Leppard, and even
>T-Rex. Lou Reed I have no problem with.
I'm glad to know i have taste! those three are among my faves w/ Cheap Trick,
Styx (oh no i mentioned the styx!!!!!), Van Halen
-=V/-/=-, Rush, oh the list goes on and on and you get the drift.
>>The biggest interest is in Bootsy, J. Brown, Zapp and all the funk
>>disco/soul at present.
Umm, and i think i speak for at least a few, Who are THEY?
Written in the Stars....
vinylfreak
>>I did ask some blokes and some girls too. (You're in trouble on this
>>group omitting the girls) :-)
>>My workmate doesn't stop playing Days Of Our Lives.
>>I nearly began to hate it.
>>It is a popular track and i find it similar to dusty`s going back or
>>madonnas this used to be my playground in sentiment.
>>
>
>I don't mean hardcore Queen fans, I mean your average, dullwitted teenybopper.
>And I think you might have a bias (no offense) as to the worldwide success of
>the song b/c of your workmate.
My mate is a hardcore ballad buyer as are quite a few of my friends.
They are responsible for the massive success of those love compilations.
:-(
None are even big Queen fans, not the group anyway and some are possibly
big queens themselves. :-)
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I would not dispute the fact that seventies sounding records can do
>>>>well.
>>>>Just look at placebo, steps, m. manson and all the other seventies
>>>>imitators?
>>>
>>>How about Page and Plant? They still sell well, don't they? And weren't
>>they
>>>one-half of the defining band of 70s music? You can debate the answer if
>>you
>>>wish. I don't see Depeche Mode or Talking Heads achieving catalog sales
>>like
>>>Led Zeppelin's.
>>
>>Depeche do sell very well world-wide.
>>I can`t see where you get the zep as the defining band of the 70`s?
>
>Excuse me for forgetting the words hard and rock.
Excused although i did think this was possibly your meaning just had to
be certain.
>>>>They have audiences of younger fans loving the retro look and the young
>>>>image.
>>
>>It`s primarily Bowie, Lou Reed, T.Rex that they listen too.
>
>I know no youngsters that listen to any of that (although I know a few Bowie
>fans- but they despise his 80s stuff, as do I.) The teens with taste for the
>old stuff go for the originators, like Hendrix, Zeppelin, and Queen. They
>don't really like any of the imitators like Kiss, Def Leppard, and even T-Rex.
>Lou Reed I have no problem with.
Did i mention i work in a record shop?
Take it from me they buy tons of Bowie and Bolan.
Sadly Zeppelin and Hendrix sales have plummeted.
Sabbath are more popular and AOR is beginning to grow fast.
Lots of young people with good musical taste are buying big vocal
harmonies and AOR fits nicely.
Bowie is always contradicting his views on his 80`s stuff.
Think he sometimes dismisses it because of the critics.
Shame as there was some good stuff.
>
>>Pistols, Buzzcocks, Siouxsie and the Ramones for the harder indie crowd.
>
>Agreed, but they really had nothing to do with what Queen was doing in the 80s
>(ie the mainstream sound)
Not so sure about this.
Punk had a big effect on attitudes towards making music and i can`t
believe Queen ignored it.
>>
>>Gabriel is successful and still has critical acclaim because he
>>experiments with music and vision.
>
>No argument.
>
>>I do expect to hear he is doing well pretty soon.
>>An album must be due?
>
>But he's no pop star anymore. He can still push records with his
>respectability and talent, but we're never going to see another "Sledgehammer."
Not so sure about that?
He does come up with a few surprises and he still has the support
depending on the record of radio DJs.
--
vinylfreak
ArdenGuy
>>>I did ask some blokes and some girls too. (You're in trouble on this
>>>group omitting the girls) :-)
>>>My workmate doesn't stop playing Days Of Our Lives.
>>>I nearly began to hate it.
>>>It is a popular track and i find it similar to dusty`s going back or
>>>madonnas this used to be my playground in sentiment.
>>>
>>
>>I don't mean hardcore Queen fans, I mean your average, dullwitted
>teenybopper.
>>And I think you might have a bias (no offense) as to the worldwide success
>of
>>the song b/c of your workmate.
>
>My mate is a hardcore ballad buyer as are quite a few of my friends.
>They are responsible for the massive success of those love compilations.
>:-(
>None are even big Queen fans, not the group anyway and some are possibly
>big queens themselves. :-)
Still, I find it hard to conceive that BoRhap made it to #1 on the back of
These Are the Days of Our Lives.
A record shop where exactly?
>Take it from me they buy tons of Bowie and Bolan.
>Sadly Zeppelin and Hendrix sales have plummeted.
>Sabbath are more popular and AOR is beginning to grow fast.
>Lots of young people with good musical taste are buying big vocal
>harmonies and AOR fits nicely.
>Bowie is always contradicting his views on his 80`s stuff.
>Think he sometimes dismisses it because of the critics.
You mean he has continually apologized for selling out, which is what he did.
If you take Bowie's 70s stuff, skip a decade to the 90s, then Bowie has had a
sparkling career.
I happen to be on the younger side of twenty, and the musical tastes of people
I've met can be grouped like so.
1. Hip Hop, self explanatory.
2. Alternative, Modern Rock, we're all familiar with this
3. Teenybopper pop (Mostly female teens, although there's a flit in there
every now and then)
4. Punk- the indie bands you've mentioned, lots of stuff from the 80s
5. Metal- Metallica, Slayer, Morbid Angel, death metal groups, lots of stuff
from the 80s but not a lot of stuff thought of as metal back then (ie not Styx,
nor Warrant, nor Great White)
6. Ska/Reggae, often the same peeps as the punks
7. Country music
8. Classic R&R - Zeppelin, Hendrix, the Beatles, U2, the Doors, Pink Floyd,
Lynyrd Skynyrd, Van Halen
9. Old School Metal- Sabbath, Thin Lizzie, Diamondhead, Motorbreath, Zeppelin,
Iron Maiden. Often kind of a mix btw 5 + 8
10. The blues and Jazz - All the old blues masters, the English guitarists like
Clapton and Green, jazz greats like Charlie Parker, Jaco, Miles Davis, John
Coltrane. This is a lot of the stuff I listen to and I know plenty of others
who dig it as well and it's quite surprising.
11. Techno/Electronica/Industrial
12. Folk- Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell,
13. New Age
Most young people I know are 1, 2, 3, or 6. My good friends are mostly 4,
6,8,10
>Shame as there was some good stuff.
>
>>
>>>Pistols, Buzzcocks, Siouxsie and the Ramones for the harder indie crowd.
>>
>>Agreed, but they really had nothing to do with what Queen was doing in the
>80s
>>(ie the mainstream sound)
>
>Not so sure about this.
>Punk had a big effect on attitudes towards making music and i can`t
>believe Queen ignored it.
I think you're going to have to name a song or an album that represents this
relation to the underground punk movement.
>
>>>
>>>Gabriel is successful and still has critical acclaim because he
>>>experiments with music and vision.
>>
>>No argument.
>>
>>>I do expect to hear he is doing well pretty soon.
>>>An album must be due?
>>
>>But he's no pop star anymore. He can still push records with his
>>respectability and talent, but we're never going to see another
>"Sledgehammer."
>
>Not so sure about that?
>He does come up with a few surprises and he still has the support
>depending on the record of radio DJs.
Well if Cher can do it, anything's possible.
Jdmischief
>done
>some other stuff ;-)
>James Brown - Godfather of Soul.
>Frank Zappa- No definition possible.
jimmy, thanks for depleting some of my ignorance! :)~
Jdmischief
>The following sentence is true.
>The previous sentence is false.
caused me???? i'll be thinking about it for days!
David McAuliffe
02:43:08 GMT, one "arde...@aol.comSUCKQITQ (ArdenGuy)" did write:
>>Bowie, Eno, Steve Hillage. (All i can think of at present)
>
>Bowie doesn't even like his 80s material. His 90s stuff is great. Don't know
>the others.
Eno = Brian Eno.
One of the more... Brian Eno.. People the world has ever seen. Truly
one of a kind. Does a lot of (I suppose you'd call it) avant garde
work now, but his origins were in Roxy Music.
Not without his commercialism, though. You know that extremely
distasteful tinkle that Win95 gives out as a warning that it's
booting? Believe it or not, Eno wrote that. <sarcasm>What better
example of a man's talent do you need?</sarcasm>
And he got bucket loads of money for it.
I'm not knocking the guy- it's great work if you can get it!
---
David McAuliffe
1999 23:04:06 GMT, one "Matt <MK...@webtv.net>" did write:
>I enjoy pre Game as well, but thats because of the style and songwriting.
>Believe it or not, nothing sounded like Queen II back then, or even now for
>that matter. So I think it would still sound fresh today. No it might not fit
>into today, (not much does/ alot of it is the same) but did the sound really
>fit back then? I think the music was a lot stronger. To this day I still hear
>new things when I listen to that album.
Consider some of the music around in the early 70s- things like
"Tubular Bells", "Journey to the Centre of the Earth", that sort of
concept album. No, QII did go along with one of the styles of the
times- the big full over-produced theatric sound. I'd have to disagree
that QII was unique- maybe pushing it further than others, less
blatantly concept, but there is a certain theme through most of it.
And a little more biased more to the rock side. But not unique. Did it
fit into the times? Yes. That *was* the times. Look at the clothing,
where everything was loud, flowing, and the colours ran together- like
a lot of the music. I should add from what I remember... Hell, it was
a long time ago now!
>> A friend of mine is only a couple of years older than me and is as
>> passionate about the Beatles as I am about Queen. That reflects the
>
>Probably cause' the two are interesting, talented and diverse.
And maybe it's just because we grew up with them. On the other hand,
Status Quo made a lot of money from three chords.
A very old Dave.
---
Jackie
>Consider some of the music around in the early 70s- things like
>"Tubular Bells", "Journey to the Centre of the Earth", that sort of
>concept album. No, QII did go along with one of the styles of the
>times- the big full over-produced theatric sound. I'd have to disagree
>that QII was unique- maybe pushing it further than others, less
>blatantly concept, but there is a certain theme through most of it.
I agree with this too. 'Queen II' fitted in with the seventies sound
just as the other albums changed and evolved and grew (and fitted)
with their times, and resulted from the changing, maturing band
members. 'Jazz', I would find hard to date according to this discussed
method. 'Queen II' is blatantly seventies, 'Hot Space' eighties and
'Made In Heaven' nineties - but there's always a danger I'm saying
this because I know. We would need to do an objective test! Gather
together a group of people, play them Queen songs, and ask them to
guess which era they think the albums come from.
Also, Matt, it's a very well-worn stereotype that each generation in
turn says their version of "ooooh, they don't make 'em like they used
to." By that I mean that it's such a hackneyed cliche that people
always think "it was better in the past" that I, personally, would try
to avoiding falling into such an obvious and gaping trap. However, it
might very well be that you *prefer* the Queen sounds from the
seventies. Perfectly fair enough. But watch out for the embarrassing
trap of, "it was better in the old days!" All the grannies and
grandpas say that. <grin>
Jackie.
vinylfreak
<arde...@aol.comSUCKQITQ> writes
>
>Still, I find it hard to conceive that BoRhap made it to #1 on the back of
>These Are the Days of Our Lives.
OOPS! Sorry that wasn`t my intention.
I think most people liked both.
There was also the Freddie element that helped it`s sailing to the top
again.
>>Did i mention i work in a record shop?
>
>A record shop where exactly?
In Glasgow and a unique little place too.
Sanity is left at the door and so is taste. :-)
>
>>Take it from me they buy tons of Bowie and Bolan.
>>Sadly Zeppelin and Hendrix sales have plummeted.
>>Sabbath are more popular and AOR is beginning to grow fast.
>>Lots of young people with good musical taste are buying big vocal
>>harmonies and AOR fits nicely.
>>Bowie is always contradicting his views on his 80`s stuff.
>>Think he sometimes dismisses it because of the critics.
>
>You mean he has continually apologized for selling out, which is what he did.
>If you take Bowie's 70s stuff, skip a decade to the 90s, then Bowie has had a
>sparkling career.
A lot of people liked the Let`s dance period.
I know a lot of fans didn`t but it brought him back into the spotlight
with the record buying non fans.
His critics are reappraising their criticism now.
Nobody expected Bowie to go down that road musically and perhaps that`s
why he did it?
I probably like stuff from every category here.
Probably less of 5 and 13.
>
>>Shame as there was some good stuff.
>>
>>>
>>>>Pistols, Buzzcocks, Siouxsie and the Ramones for the harder indie crowd.
>>>
>>>Agreed, but they really had nothing to do with what Queen was doing in the
>>80s
>>>(ie the mainstream sound)
>>
>>Not so sure about this.
>>Punk had a big effect on attitudes towards making music and i can`t
>>believe Queen ignored it.
>
>I think you're going to have to name a song or an album that represents this
>relation to the underground punk movement.
Can`t!
Punk just ridiculed every overblown rock band and it got through to the
public, industry and even the bands.
Don`t think they realised Queen had been doing this occasionally
themselves?
Even though now many say the whole industry overreacted it still saw
bands shortening songs and experimenting with different styles.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Gabriel is successful and still has critical acclaim because he
>>>>experiments with music and vision.
>>>
>>>No argument.
>>>
>>>>I do expect to hear he is doing well pretty soon.
>>>>An album must be due?
>>>
>>>But he's no pop star anymore. He can still push records with his
>>>respectability and talent, but we're never going to see another
>>"Sledgehammer."
>>
>>Not so sure about that?
>>He does come up with a few surprises and he still has the support
>>depending on the record of radio DJs.
>
>Well if Cher can do it, anything's possible.
L.O.L.
Now that killed me!
The ruddy woman has shot straight into the top ten again.
A lesson for Status Quo here?
--
vinylfreak
Jackie
wrote:
>Jackie, do you have ANY idea how much confusion this:
>
>>The following sentence is true.
>>The previous sentence is false.
>
>caused me???? i'll be thinking about it for days!
>
>Written in the Stars....
>
jenni my sweet,
Don't get stuck in a loop... :-)
Jackie.
Matt
jac...@saskia.demon.co.uk wrote:
> A Dave:
> >Consider some of the music around in the early 70s- things like
> >"Tubular Bells", "Journey to the Centre of the Earth", that sort of
> >concept album. No, QII did go along with one of the styles of the
> >times- the big full over-produced theatric sound. I'd have to disagree
> >that QII was unique- maybe pushing it further than others, less
Pushing the overdubs on the guitars and vocals is what made it unique, isn't
it? I disagree with you, I still have yet to hear anything else like it.
Maybe cause you've been listening to it for 25 years you don't find it that
unique? It is certainly distinctive and identifiable by sound, so again I
disagree with you Dave. What other singer sounded like Fred, or what other
guitar player sounded like Brian???
> >blatantly concept, but there is a certain theme through most of it.
>
> I agree with this too. 'Queen II' fitted in with the seventies sound
Well the 70's is the most diverse decade of music that I am familiar with. My
point is I didn't hear another band come out with anything like Queen II,
before or after it was released. I think what makes Queen II sound like a
70's album, it the poor production, which appears at all different points on
the album.
> just as the other albums changed and evolved and grew (and fitted)
> with their times, and resulted from the changing, maturing band
> members. 'Jazz', I would find hard to date according to this discussed
> method. 'Queen II' is blatantly seventies, 'Hot Space' eighties and
> 'Made In Heaven' nineties - but there's always a danger I'm saying
> this because I know. We would need to do an objective test! Gather
The technology that was used for each album, is probably what makes each
album identifiable. Usually if I play a Queen song for sombody I know, they
usually think it is newer than what it actually is. Bohemian Rhapsody is just
as blatently 70's sounding as Queen II, but all the non Queen fans thought it
was a new song (and were all into it) when it was re- released in America in
the early 90's.
> together a group of people, play them Queen songs, and ask them to
> guess which era they think the albums come from.
>
> Also, Matt, it's a very well-worn stereotype that each generation in
> turn says their version of "ooooh, they don't make 'em like they used
> to." By that I mean that it's such a hackneyed cliche that people
> always think "it was better in the past" that I, personally, would try
> to avoiding falling into such an obvious and gaping
Stop it! Your making me feel old!
trap. However, it
> might very well be that you *prefer* the Queen sounds from the
> seventies. Perfectly fair enough. But watch out for the embarrassing
> trap of, "it was better in the old days!" All the grannies and
> grandpas say that. <grin>
Too late...Time for my nap<yawn>
>
> Jackie.
>
Matt
> The following sentence is true.
> The previous sentence is false.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Jdmischief
>
>Don't get stuck in a loop... :-)
too late, i fear.
Written in the Stars....
jenni
ArdenGuy
>In article <19990228155650...@ng-fp1.aol.com>, ArdenGuy
><arde...@aol.comSUCKQITQ> writes
>>
>>Still, I find it hard to conceive that BoRhap made it to #1 on the back of
>>These Are the Days of Our Lives.
>
>OOPS! Sorry that wasn`t my intention.
>I think most people liked both.
>There was also the Freddie element that helped it`s sailing to the top
>again.
From my understanding, it was largely a new audience. I was in gradeschool at
the time, and everyone, *everyone*, went absolutely crazy over the song. And I
seriously doubt any of the hundred or so gradeschoolers I am thinking of had an
affinity for These Are the Days of Our Lives.
>
>>>Did i mention i work in a record shop?
>>
>>A record shop where exactly?
>
>In Glasgow and a unique little place too.
>Sanity is left at the door and so is taste. :-)
>
Well boring old Delaware buys different music from bonny Glasgow, that's all I
can say.
>>
>>>Take it from me they buy tons of Bowie and Bolan.
>>>Sadly Zeppelin and Hendrix sales have plummeted.
>>>Sabbath are more popular and AOR is beginning to grow fast.
>>>Lots of young people with good musical taste are buying big vocal
>>>harmonies and AOR fits nicely.
>>>Bowie is always contradicting his views on his 80`s stuff.
>>>Think he sometimes dismisses it because of the critics.
>>
>>You mean he has continually apologized for selling out, which is what he
>did.
>>If you take Bowie's 70s stuff, skip a decade to the 90s, then Bowie has had
>a
>>sparkling career.
>
>A lot of people liked the Let`s dance period.
>I know a lot of fans didn`t but it brought him back into the spotlight
>with the record buying non fans.
>His critics are reappraising their criticism now.
>Nobody expected Bowie to go down that road musically and perhaps that`s
>why he did it?
He did it to make money. He's said so himself.
And 1 too obviously. My error.
>
>I probably like stuff from every category here.
>Probably less of 5 and 13.
I can't stand 3 and 2 gets on my nerves at times. The rest is cool by me.
>
>>
>>>Shame as there was some good stuff.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Pistols, Buzzcocks, Siouxsie and the Ramones for the harder indie crowd.
>>>>
>>>>Agreed, but they really had nothing to do with what Queen was doing in the
>>>80s
>>>>(ie the mainstream sound)
>>>
>>>Not so sure about this.
>>>Punk had a big effect on attitudes towards making music and i can`t
>>>believe Queen ignored it.
>>
>>I think you're going to have to name a song or an album that represents this
>>relation to the underground punk movement.
>
>Can`t!
>Punk just ridiculed every overblown rock band and it got through to the
>public, industry and even the bands.
>Don`t think they realised Queen had been doing this occasionally
>themselves?
Queen was more than *occasionally* overblown. Maybe their swearing off camp
with the Game is related to the punk scene, and maybe it isn't. I don't mind
the haircuts and new clothes, but the new music sucked.
>Even though now many say the whole industry overreacted it still saw
>bands shortening songs and experimenting with different styles.
There were two movements going in opposite directions in the 80s: New Wave
synth pop and Punk. Queen tried to fit in with the New Wave and got burned.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Gabriel is successful and still has critical acclaim because he
>>>>>experiments with music and vision.
>>>>
>>>>No argument.
>>>>
>>>>>I do expect to hear he is doing well pretty soon.
>>>>>An album must be due?
>>>>
>>>>But he's no pop star anymore. He can still push records with his
>>>>respectability and talent, but we're never going to see another
>>>"Sledgehammer."
>>>
>>>Not so sure about that?
>>>He does come up with a few surprises and he still has the support
>>>depending on the record of radio DJs.
>>
>>Well if Cher can do it, anything's possible.
>
>L.O.L.
>Now that killed me!
>The ruddy woman has shot straight into the top ten again.
>A lesson for Status Quo here?
>
Can a follow-up hit be far behind?
vinylfreak
<arde...@aol.comSUCKQITQ> writes
>>
>>In article <19990228155650...@ng-fp1.aol.com>, ArdenGuy
>><arde...@aol.comSUCKQITQ> writes
>>>
>>>Still, I find it hard to conceive that BoRhap made it to #1 on the back of
>>>These Are the Days of Our Lives.
>>
>>OOPS! Sorry that wasn`t my intention.
>>I think most people liked both.
>>There was also the Freddie element that helped it`s sailing to the top
>>again.
>
>From my understanding, it was largely a new audience. I was in gradeschool at
>the time, and everyone, *everyone*, went absolutely crazy over the song. And I
>seriously doubt any of the hundred or so gradeschoolers I am thinking of had an
>affinity for These Are the Days of Our Lives.
Freddies death just shook many people in the UK.
Even non Queen fans realised a huge part of musical history had just
passed on.
TWTDOOL was played a lot and a lot of people saw it as his farewell
song.
>>
>
>Well boring old Delaware buys different music from bonny Glasgow, that's all I
>can say.
Glasgow is reputed in the industry for it`s diversity and sales.
It is a town that takes its music seriously.
We're the last vinyl specialists in town that sell anything.
It probably explains why not a lot of money is made.
All profits just go on more records.
We are all vinyl enthusiasts beyond the call of duty. :-)
>>
>>A lot of people liked the Let`s dance period.
>>I know a lot of fans didn`t but it brought him back into the spotlight
>>with the record buying non fans.
>>His critics are reappraising their criticism now.
>>Nobody expected Bowie to go down that road musically and perhaps that`s
>>why he did it?
>
>He did it to make money. He's said so himself.
I take everything Bowie says with a pinch of salt.
He is also pretty vain about his image and music.
I doubt if he'd put out a whole album he disliked.
>>>I think you're going to have to name a song or an album that represents this
>>>relation to the underground punk movement.
>>
>>Can`t!
>>Punk just ridiculed every overblown rock band and it got through to the
>>public, industry and even the bands.
>>Don`t think they realised Queen had been doing this occasionally
>>themselves?
>
>Queen was more than *occasionally* overblown. Maybe their swearing off camp
>with the Game is related to the punk scene, and maybe it isn't. I don't mind
>the haircuts and new clothes, but the new music sucked.
>
>>Even though now many say the whole industry overreacted it still saw
>>bands shortening songs and experimenting with different styles.
>
>There were two movements going in opposite directions in the 80s: New Wave
>synth pop and Punk. Queen tried to fit in with the New Wave and got burned.
Punk was almost dead by the time the 80`s arrived in the UK.
Few bands left who made power pop records but it was dance and synth
bands that were taking over.
--
vinylfreak
Erica
vinyl...@vinylfreak.demon.co.uk wrote:
> In article <19990301222416...@ng42.aol.com>, ArdenGuy
> <arde...@aol.comSUCKQITQ> writes
snip, Snip, SNIP
> >>
> >>A lot of people liked the Let`s dance period.
> >>I know a lot of fans didn`t but it brought him back into the spotlight
> >>with the record buying non fans.
> >>His critics are reappraising their criticism now.
> >>Nobody expected Bowie to go down that road musically and perhaps that`s
> >>why he did it?
> >
> >He did it to make money. He's said so himself.
>
> I take everything Bowie says with a pinch of salt.
> He is also pretty vain about his image and music.
> I doubt if he'd put out a whole album he disliked.
I think you're both right to some extent.
The Let's Dance album was legitimate enough. It produced an interesting,
fairly original sound. But when that album achieved such success, Bowie
started chasing after popularity instead of just making good music. That's
where he declined, in his own eyes and the eyes of the critics. That is,
until he linked up with Nine Inch Nails and got his integrity back. So it
wasn't all bad in the 80's for Bowie, but it wasn't all good either.
Da Goddess
--
Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die.
David McAuliffe
1999 19:42:56 GMT, one "Matt <MK...@webtv.net>" did write:
>In article <36da106...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> jac...@saskia.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> A Dave:
>> >Consider some of the music around in the early 70s- things like
>> >"Tubular Bells", "Journey to the Centre of the Earth", that sort of
>> >concept album. No, QII did go along with one of the styles of the
>> >times- the big full over-produced theatric sound. I'd have to disagree
>> >that QII was unique- maybe pushing it further than others, less
>
>Pushing the overdubs on the guitars and vocals is what made it unique, isn't
>it? I disagree with you, I still have yet to hear anything else like it.
Err, I think Mike Oldfield might have been overdubbed just a little
bit... Rick Wakeman was as he went for that Bigger and Better
orchestral type of arrangement. As far as a unique voice goes, most of
my generation can still pick a David Essex or a Bonnie Tyler (OK, a
little bit later in the 70s, but...) a mile off.
There is a lot of music that didn't survive from that era that
certainly makes QII fairly unique- but not totally. Don't say that
because it's the only one to have survived until now it was the only
one.
>Maybe cause you've been listening to it for 25 years you don't find it that
>unique?
And it could be that because I've been listening to other music as
well that I'm in a pretty good position to judge if it is unique.
You've got to remember, as I said earlier, that a lot of music didn't
survive the 70s unless you can find it in a second hand store. Stuff
that didn't make it onto "The Greatest Hits of the 70s" compilations.
The big, flowery, overdubbed, overproduced sound is one genre that was
in. Queen was a- not the- exponent of it.
Put it another way- have you ever heard "Evie" by Stevie Wright? I'd
say not. But it is one of *the* great songs of the era. It was over 10
minutes long- covered both sides of the single. And there is
*everything* in that song.
How about Russell Morris' "The Real Thing"? Overdubs a plenty there.
Distortion. The works. Perhaps *the* most overproduced song ever made.
If you know the producer and his habits, then you'll understand why,
but that's another story. If I said "Molly Meldrum", every Australian
would nod and go yeah, explains it all...
>It is certainly distinctive and identifiable by sound, so again I
>disagree with you Dave. What other singer sounded like Fred, or what other
>guitar player sounded like Brian???
What other band sounds like, say, AC/DC? Two chords and you can pick
it. Same two chords they were using back in about 1976, I think it
was. Angus Young openly admits that they just churn out another 13
songs that rely on the same formula when the contract says they have
to release an album. INXS sounded the same back in the late 70s when
they were still a pub band called "The Farris Brothers" and Michael
Hutchence insisted on wearing a bloody great overcoat on stage (stage
being a descriptive term, and not necessarily an accurate portrayal of
the performance area). The more U2 try to sound less like U2 the more
they sound like U2. Every band is recognisable. Who else sounds like
Bonnie Tyler? The Spice Girls (strangled cats excluded)?
My point? A recognisable sound is not confined to Queen. And at that
stage is wasn't unique- maybe taken that bit further than the others,
but not unique.
>Well the 70's is the most diverse decade of music that I am familiar with. My
>point is I didn't hear another band come out with anything like Queen II,
>before or after it was released. I think what makes Queen II sound like a
>70's album, it the poor production, which appears at all different points on
>the album.
I can name a few that had albums in a similar vein that haven't
survived. Try this one- go and listen to "Welcome To My Nightmare" by
Alice Cooper. Not quite at the Queen end of the spectrum I'm sure
you'll agree, but nevertheless, similarly packaged in many ways. At
least Queen didn't resort to Vincent Price! (If you ask who Vincent
Price is, I'll scream...)
And I'll put my neck out and say if it wasn't for Bohemian Rhapsody,
QII would not have survived either. Yes, they had other hits after
that, but how many people got into Queen because of that one song? If
the Rolling Stones released an album as "Deidre and the Wondergibbons"
would anyone notice?
>The technology that was used for each album, is probably what makes each
>album identifiable. Usually if I play a Queen song for sombody I know, they
>usually think it is newer than what it actually is. Bohemian Rhapsody is just
>as blatently 70's sounding as Queen II, but all the non Queen fans thought it
>was a new song (and were all into it) when it was re- released in America in
>the early 90's.
Can you say that the difference between, say, A Day At The Races and
News Of the World is technology? Maybe it's more application of
technology, and the image trying to be portrayed.
This is how I perceive it- ADATR is a much, well, "classier" for want
of a better word, album overall than NOTW- and probably was intended
to be that way. Yeah, you've got Tie Your Mother Down and maybe White
Man to interrupt that, but somehow that relatively plain black cover
fits the album. NOTW was a much rawer album- it had a lot more "white
space" in it- almost like some songs were done in one or two takes.
Much less production, and quite possibly an attempt to make sure they
didn't get stereotyped. I'd say ADATR is closer to QII, and NOTW is
closer to Sheer Heart Attack. And you've got A Night At the Opera in
there too.
Dynamic? Yes. Unique- probably not.
>Stop it! Your making me feel old!
How do you think I feel? I'm closer to 40 than 35... :-( At least I
don't have long curly... Err.. Wear clogs.
A Dave who had been of voting age for quite a while when "My Sharona"
was released the first time around.
(fx: "My, my, my, my, my... WHOA!")
---
FJA
>
> Queen was more than *occasionally* overblown. Maybe their swearing off
camp
> with the Game is related to the punk scene, and maybe it isn't. I don't
mind
> the haircuts and new clothes, but the new music sucked.
>
> >Even though now many say the whole industry overreacted it still saw
> >bands shortening songs and experimenting with different styles.
>
> There were two movements going in opposite directions in the 80s: New
Wave
> synth pop and Punk. Queen tried to fit in with the New Wave and got
burned.
>
Ugh. I was just listening to Roger's "Sheer Heart Attack". What a load of
crap. And I am a HUGE Roger fan.
He was trying for the punk/new wave feeling and it just didn't work.
Leslie
(I feel so inarticulate!)
Pep
>
> Ugh. I was just listening to Roger's "Sheer Heart Attack". What a load of
> crap. And I am a HUGE Roger fan.
> He was trying for the punk/new wave feeling and it just didn't work.
To me, it definately works. IMO, Sheer Heart Attack is the best
Roger-track from the 70s! (Followed closely by Drowse).
The Roger-tracks from the 70s never cease to amaze me; because esp. some
of the oldest ones (Modern Times Rock & Roll, Tenement Funster, I'm in
Love with my Car, Drowse) I didn't like the first years I heard it; after
a couple of years grew used to it and now love it. Other tracks I still
don't like, esp. The Loser in the End.
However, Sheer Heart Attack I *loved* from the beginning and I still do!
(when played very loud, of course!)
When Roger entered the synth-years of the 80s, his music changed
drastically. To me, it became better: I like GaGa, Machines, AKOM,
Invisible Man & Innuendo more than his 70s tracks, Drowse and SHA (in some
moods) excluded.
Just my 2 (probably worthless) cents...
Hoit, Pep
David McAuliffe
1999 16:26:01 +0100, one "Pep <s960...@hermes.uci.kun.nl>" did write:
>On 2 Mar 1999, FJA wrote:
>>
>> Ugh. I was just listening to Roger's "Sheer Heart Attack". What a load of
>> crap. And I am a HUGE Roger fan.
>> He was trying for the punk/new wave feeling and it just didn't work.
>
Except Sheer Heart Attack was pretty well written before punk et al.
It was meant for the Sheer Heart Attack album, and wasn't finished in
time...
A Pedantic Dave
Matt
acr...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> Your honour, we respectfully submit as evidence that on Mon, 01 Mar
> 1999 19:42:56 GMT, one "Matt <MK...@webtv.net>" did write:
>
> >In article <36da106...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> > jac...@saskia.demon.co.uk wrote:
> >> A Dave:
> >> >Consider some of the music around in the early 70s- things like
> >> >"Tubular Bells", "Journey to the Centre of the Earth", that sort of
> >> >concept album. No, QII did go along with one of the styles of the
> >> >times- the big full over-produced theatric sound. I'd have to disagree
> >> >that QII was unique- maybe pushing it further than others, less
> >
> >Pushing the overdubs on the guitars and vocals is what made it unique, isn't
> >it? I disagree with you, I still have yet to hear anything else like it.
>
> Err, I think Mike Oldfield might have been overdubbed just a little
Since I don't have Mike Oldfield, did he orchestrate the guitar like Brian on
Procession? or overdub a layered vocal arpeggio type thing that appears on
March of the Black Queen towards the begining (right channel I believe?) of
the song.
> bit... Rick Wakeman was as he went for that Bigger and Better
> orchestral type of arrangement. As far as a unique
"Yes" bores the shit out of me, so do most keyboard players.
voice goes, most of
> my generation can still pick a David Essex or a Bonnie Tyler (OK, a
> little bit later in the 70s, but...) a mile off.
I never said Queen was the ONLY unique band, did I??? You just said Queen II
wasn't unique, and I disagree.
>
> There is a lot of music that didn't survive from that era that
> certainly makes QII fairly unique- but not totally.
I still think it is unique the way it pioneered layered guitars and vocals.
Don't say that
> because it's the only one to have survived until now it was the only
> one.
Again, I never did? Where did I give you this impression?
>
> >Maybe cause you've been listening to it for 25 years you don't find it that
> >unique?
>
> And it could be that because I've been listening to other music as
> well that I'm in a pretty good position to judge if it is unique.
Judge????? Dave Queen is not the ONLY band I listen to. I've also listened to
music for a long time, and have owned well over 1200 cd's. I sold a good
portion of my collection because stuff like Rick Wakeman doesn't do anything
for me.
> You've got to remember, as I said earlier, that a lot of music didn't
> survive the 70s unless you can find it in a second hand store. Stuff
> that didn't make it onto "The Greatest Hits of the 70s" compilations.
> The big, flowery, overdubbed, overproduced sound is one genre that was
> in. Queen was a- not the- exponent of it.
Again, if you can point out bands that orchestrated guitar, and made choir
like vocals (without having to hire a choir), I am interested in hearing
about them. If you can't name any? I guess Queen II would be a unique album?
>
> Put it another way- have you ever heard "Evie" by Stevie Wright? I'd
> say not. But it is one of *the* great songs of the era. It was over 10
> minutes long- covered both sides of the single. And there is
> *everything* in that song.
Never heard of it, or him.
>
> How about Russell Morris' "The Real Thing"? Overdubs a plenty there.
> Distortion. The works. Perhaps *the* most overproduced song ever made.
> If you know the producer and his habits, then you'll understand why,
> but that's another story. If I said "Molly Meldrum", every Australian
> would nod and go yeah, explains it all...
Never heard of him, does he orchestrate guitar?
>
> >It is certainly distinctive and identifiable by sound, so again I
> >disagree with you Dave. What other singer sounded like Fred, or what other
> >guitar player sounded like Brian???
>
> What other band sounds like, say, AC/DC? Two chords and you can pick
Actually it's more then two chords, don't let them fool you. Did you ever
here of Rhino Bucket? They have a good AC/DC type sound.
> it. Same two chords they were using back in about 1976, I think it
> was. Angus Young openly admits that they just churn out another 13
> songs that rely on the same formula when the contract says they have
Too bad in the 80's their music became more anthem like, and less straight
ahead rock. Their formula has changed no matter what Angus or Malcolm says.
> to release an album. INXS sounded the same back in the late 70s when
> they were still a pub band called "The Farris Brothers" and Michael
> Hutchence insisted on wearing a bloody great overcoat on stage (stage
> being a descriptive term, and not necessarily an accurate portrayal of
> the performance area). The more U2 try to sound less like U2 the more
> they sound like U2. Every band is recognisable. Who else sounds like
> Bonnie Tyler? The Spice Girls (strangled cats excluded)?
>
> My point? A recognisable sound is not confined to Queen. And at that
> stage is wasn't unique- maybe taken that bit further than the others,
> but not unique.
So are you saying that you are not unique as person? Are you just another
tpical member of society? Are you JUST ANOTHER DOOR KNOB making the world go
around? It sounds like that is your point. Unless you are performing miracles
maybe? This isn't meant to be offensive, I'm just building off your point.
>
> >Well the 70's is the most diverse decade of music that I am familiar with. My
> >point is I didn't hear another band come out with anything like Queen II,
> >before or after it was released. I think what makes Queen II sound like a
> >70's album, it the poor production, which appears at all different points on
> >the album.
>
> I can name a few that had albums in a similar vein that haven't
> survived. Try this one- go and listen to "Welcome To My Nightmare" by
> Alice Cooper. Not quite at the Queen end of the spectrum I'm sure
> you'll agree, but nevertheless, similarly packaged in many ways. At
And out of key. Do you really think Alice Cooper had the musicianship Queen
had?
> least Queen didn't resort to Vincent Price! (If you ask who Vincent
> Price is, I'll scream...)
>
> And I'll put my neck out and say if it wasn't for Bohemian Rhapsody,
> QII would not have survived either. Yes, they had other hits after
> that, but how many people got into Queen because of that one song? If
> the Rolling Stones released an album as "Deidre and the Wondergibbons"
> would anyone notice?
I know I wouldn't, their totally overated in my mind.
>
> >The technology that was used for each album, is probably what makes each
> >album identifiable. Usually if I play a Queen song for sombody I know, they
> >usually think it is newer than what it actually is. Bohemian Rhapsody is just
> >as blatently 70's sounding as Queen II, but all the non Queen fans thought it
> >was a new song (and were all into it) when it was re- released in America in
> >the early 90's.
>
> Can you say that the difference between, say, A Day At The Races and
> News Of the World is technology? Maybe it's more application of
> technology, and the image trying to be portrayed.
True, it was deliberately image portrayed, but my point was a lot of people
thought BoRhap was new in 1992. So I made a point that a lot of Queen songs
would sound fresh, if re-released today. Kent made a point a while ago that
Innuendo could have fit in on some of Queen's 70's albums, and I agree,
musically. Basically because I hear more effort in the songwriting. What
makes it sound more modern is the synth's. Does a 90's band like Nivana have
a sound that is more technology advanced than Queen's BoRap, not really. But
when you choose a raw sound, it might not sound that technology advanced
anyway. Things are getting off topic.
>
> This is how I perceive it- ADATR is a much, well, "classier" for want
> of a better word, album overall than NOTW- and probably was intended
> to be that way. Yeah, you've got Tie Your Mother Down and maybe White
> Man to interrupt that, but somehow that relatively plain black cover
> fits the album. NOTW was a much rawer album- it had a lot more "white
> space" in it- almost like some songs were done in one or two takes.
> Much less production, and quite possibly an attempt to make sure they
> didn't get stereotyped. I'd say ADATR is closer to QII, and NOTW is
> closer to Sheer Heart Attack. And you've got A Night At the Opera in
> there too.
>
> Dynamic? Yes. Unique- probably not.
Dave I still find it unique in the sense of it's guitar orchestrations and
vocal choirs. I don't know of another group that combines the above. If you
can give an example, great! I'd love to hear more. The album is still one of
a kind to me, so that would at least make it unique to me! So there!
>
> >Stop it! Your making me feel old!
>
> How do you think I feel? I'm closer to 40 than 35... :-( At least I
> don't have long curly... Err.. Wear clogs.
>
> A Dave who had been of voting age for quite a while when "My Sharona"
> was released the first time around.
>
> (fx: "My, my, my, my, my... WHOA!")
> ---
Matt
>
> When I look back at my relationships- I think I'd rather have the extra
> rib.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
FJA
rOOth <tea...@geocities.com> wrote in article
<36DC2382...@geocities.com>...
> FJA wrote:
>
> > (snip some interesting discourse)
> >
> >
> > Ugh. I was just listening to Roger's "Sheer Heart Attack". What a
load of
> > crap. And I am a HUGE Roger fan.
> > He was trying for the punk/new wave feeling and it just didn't work.
> >
> > Leslie
> > (I feel so inarticulate!)
>
> I LOVE Sheer Heart Attack : precisely for that feeling : and cos of the
way the
> chorus vocals work over the other sounds!
>
Well, I was into the original punk scene (the hair, the safety pins, the
clothes) and I found it rather jarring. I couldn't decide whether Roger
actually really liked the music or was trying to copy the mood and the
feeling because it sold well. Has he ever spoken about this topic?
Leslie
ArdenGuy
>The Let's Dance album was legitimate enough. It produced an interesting,
>fairly original sound. But when that album achieved such success, Bowie
>started chasing after popularity instead of just making good music. That's
>where he declined, in his own eyes and the eyes of the critics. That is,
>until he linked up with Nine Inch Nails and got his integrity back. So it
>wasn't all bad in the 80's for Bowie, but it wasn't all good either.
>
>Da Goddess
Don't discount Outside. It's a splendid album.
>
>--
>Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die.
>
The Real Man's Champion
English guys do it better.
rOOth
> (snip some interesting discourse)
>
>
> Ugh. I was just listening to Roger's "Sheer Heart Attack". What a load of
> crap. And I am a HUGE Roger fan.
> He was trying for the punk/new wave feeling and it just didn't work.
>
> Leslie
> (I feel so inarticulate!)
I LOVE Sheer Heart Attack : precisely for that feeling : and cos of the way the
chorus vocals work over the other sounds!
--
---
ruth, who was asked last nite did you see Rod Steward at the local park as if
it had happened yesterday and then found out they were talking about 1972 :-)
---
Jdmischief
>synth pop and Punk. Queen tried to fit in with the New Wave and got burned.
so would they have fared much better in punk? from my little i-was-born-whilst-
this- was-going-on- viewpoint i don't think so.
vinylfreak
writes
>>
>> > (snip some interesting discourse)
>> >
>> >
>> > Ugh. I was just listening to Roger's "Sheer Heart Attack". What a
>load of
>> > crap. And I am a HUGE Roger fan.
>> > He was trying for the punk/new wave feeling and it just didn't work.
>> >
>> > Leslie
>> > (I feel so inarticulate!)
>>
>> I LOVE Sheer Heart Attack : precisely for that feeling : and cos of the
>way the
>> chorus vocals work over the other sounds!
>>
>
>clothes) and I found it rather jarring. I couldn't decide whether Roger
>actually really liked the music or was trying to copy the mood and the
>feeling because it sold well. Has he ever spoken about this topic?
>
>Leslie
Never saw it as punk in anyway but i love those drums on this track.
One of the guys at work put his head up and asked who it was when i was
playing it.
He is not a queen fan at all.
Still didn`t persuade him to try listening to the album. :-(
--
vinylfreak
ArdenGuy
>>synth pop and Punk. Queen tried to fit in with the New Wave and got burned.
>
>so would they have fared much better in punk? from my little
>i-was-born-whilst-
>this- was-going-on- viewpoint i don't think so.
>
>Written in the Stars....
>
That's not what I meant, sorry for not being clearer. What Im saying is they
changed at the drop of a hat with the new trend and it didn't suit them.
>jenni
>
>
>Remove 1984 from address when mailing me!
>
>
>
The Real Man's Champion
David McAuliffe
1999 20:56:10 GMT, one "Matt <MK...@webtv.net>" did write:
>Since I don't have Mike Oldfield, did he orchestrate the guitar like Brian on
>Procession? or overdub a layered vocal arpeggio type thing that appears on
>March of the Black Queen towards the begining (right channel I believe?) of
>the song.
Matt, before you start throwing musical techniques to me, I've got a
red Strat and a black Jazz sitting behind me. Following recent medical
incidents, my hands aren't as quick as they used to be. The shakes
give me great vibrato but a lot of unintentional hammer ons and pull
offs. The loss of flexibility in my hands means that I can't do a lot
of chords properly where there's a bar and a bit of spread required.
Even on an F chord I can only play the bottom 5 strings because I
can't get to that top E string without inviting The Buzz Of Death into
the room. But I'm getting there, and I'm getting the callouses back on
my fingers- which a lot of people have suggested match the ones on the
palms of my hands very nicely. So let's leave our knowledge of musical
terms out of it, OK?
Mike Oldfield is nothing but layers and overdubbs and arrangements for
about 40 minutes. I'm sure you've heard Mike Oldfield. I've mentioned
his work earlier it the thread...
Everyone overdubs vocals. It's one of the oldest techniques in the
book for harmonies. Just because Queen did it 14 times instead of 7
doesn't make it unique. From memory, the story was that it Bohemian
Rhapsody wasn't intended that way. It was "Let's add another one..."
and again and again. Hey, it worked, so let's try it again on
"Somebody To Love".
I've got QII on now, and I haven't heard a "choir arrangement" yet. A
few harmonies with more than the usual number of overdubs, but that's
about it.
Ovedubbed guitars? The Coloured Girls overdubbed guitars too. If I
recall correctly, so did The Easybeats, who begat Vander and Young who
did it too, and who produced...
Lots of people who didn't survive. The Beatles maybe?
>> bit... Rick Wakeman was as he went for that Bigger and Better
>> orchestral type of arrangement. As far as a unique
>"Yes" bores the shit out of me, so do most keyboard players.
What has "Yes" got to do with "Journey To The Centre Of The Earth?"
>I never said Queen was the ONLY unique band, did I??? You just said Queen II
>wasn't unique, and I disagree.
<smartass>My point is that if everyone is unique, then there is
nothing unique about being unique. It's a paradox. By being unique,
you are not.</smartass>
It appears to me- and I could be wrong- as though you are looking at
two parts and saying that the whole is unique on that basis. I'm
looking at the whole package in the context of the times and saying
it's not.
>> There is a lot of music that didn't survive from that era that
>> certainly makes QII fairly unique- but not totally.
>I still think it is unique the way it pioneered layered guitars and vocals.
You are entitled to your opinion based on your experience. I am
entitled to mine based on my experience. They disagree in this case.
>Don't say that
>> because it's the only one to have survived until now it was the only
>> one.
>Again, I never did? Where did I give you this impression?
By saying that you think it's unique, when I believe it's not. And,
it's an expression in common use here.
>> >Maybe cause you've been listening to it for 25 years you don't find it that
>> >unique?
>> And it could be that because I've been listening to other music as
>> well that I'm in a pretty good position to judge if it is unique.
>Judge?????
Again, it's a common expression- well, certainly down here. It's also
easier to type than "during that more that 25 year period I have been
exposed to a broad spectrum of musical tastes, styles and techniques
with which to form an opinion."
>Dave Queen is not the ONLY band I listen to. I've also listened to
>music for a long time, and have owned well over 1200 cd's. I sold a good
>portion of my collection because stuff like Rick Wakeman doesn't do anything
>for me.
It did for a lot of people at the time. Times have moved on, and few
of those sounds have remained. You can't make any sort of value
judgement without referring to the benchmarks of that time.
Is da Vinci's work unique? Who knows what else was going around at the
time.
>Again, if you can point out bands that orchestrated guitar, and made choir
>like vocals (without having to hire a choir), I am interested in hearing
>about them. If you can't name any? I guess Queen II would be a unique album?
Well, the artists I've mentioned so far you haven't known anything
about, so...
I repeat my point about vocal overdubs. Doing it a few more times than
everyone else isn't "unique". Guitar overdubs isn't new either.
>> Put it another way- have you ever heard "Evie" by Stevie Wright?
>Never heard of it, or him.
>> How about Russell Morris' "The Real Thing"? Overdubs a plenty there.
>Never heard of him,
Res ipsa loquitur.
So, does that mean I might be in a better position to form an opinion
because of greater exposure?
>> >It is certainly distinctive and identifiable by sound, so again I
>> >disagree with you Dave. What other singer sounded like Fred, or what other
>> >guitar player sounded like Brian???
>> What other band sounds like, say, AC/DC? Two chords and you can pick
>Actually it's more then two chords, don't let them fool you. Did you ever
>here of Rhino Bucket? They have a good AC/DC type sound.
I meant two chords into the song and you can pick it. Two bars if it's
been a heavy night.
>Too bad in the 80's their music became more anthem like, and less straight
>ahead rock. Their formula has changed no matter what Angus or Malcolm says.
Come on! I had them play live at my school in 1976! We won a radio
competition. One of the few gigs Bon Scott was sober at... Even songs
like "Please Don't Go" are identifiable almost immediately, even
though they were written outside the band.
>So are you saying that you are not unique as person? Are you just another
>tpical member of society? Are you JUST ANOTHER DOOR KNOB making the world go
>around? It sounds like that is your point. Unless you are performing miracles
>maybe? This isn't meant to be offensive, I'm just building off your point.
No, you are misrepresenting my point. To address yours, how far do you
have to go to establish that uniqueness? I'm an Australian. There's 18
million of us. Male. Down to 9 million. Over 6 foot tall- probably a
million. Live in Sydney. 200 000. In my thirties. Maybe 25 000....
When does detail become irrelevant- when you look at the context that
the uniqueness is questioned. If you were to ask for a 6 foot 1 37
year old with a lump in their brain, lives near Sydney and who has
chased love half way around the world, I'm your man. No one else would
be stupid enough to admit it anyway. In the broad context of 70s
music, Queen was not totally mainstream- but not unique.
>> I can name a few that had albums in a similar vein that haven't
>> survived. Try this one- go and listen to "Welcome To My Nightmare" by
>> Alice Cooper. Not quite at the Queen end of the spectrum I'm sure
>> you'll agree, but nevertheless, similarly packaged in many ways. At
>And out of key. Do you really think Alice Cooper had the musicianship Queen
>had?
You are misrepresenting my point again. The point is that The Package
Alice Cooper released wasn't dissimilar to the QII package concept. I
look at the entirety, not a couple of details. As far apart as they
are, the two were similarly packaged. Perhaps you didn't see that.
>> And I'll put my neck out and say if it wasn't for Bohemian Rhapsody,
>> QII would not have survived either. Yes, they had other hits after
>> that, but how many people got into Queen because of that one song? If
>> the Rolling Stones released an album as "Deidre and the Wondergibbons"
>> would anyone notice?
>I know I wouldn't, their totally overated in my mind.
And if QII was released today by Deidre and the Wondergibbons..?
Be in the back racks on special for $5 within the month. And that is
another point- by rereleasing early Queen music you are having to
break into a new market. You'd need publicity and that sort of thing-
and suddenly it's not the music that sells disks, but
Hollywood/EMI/whoever looks after it in your neck of the woods.
Then you've got...
>True, it was deliberately image portrayed, but my point was a lot of people
>thought BoRhap was new in 1992. So I made a point that a lot of Queen songs
>would sound fresh, if re-released today.
So, if the songs would sound so fresh, why aren't there more covers of
1970s Queen songs? Any Queen songs (outside a basketball game or
whatever)? You'd think that with the volumes of material that Queen
released there'd be more.
Is it the overdubbing and orchestrating? Production, not musicianship.
The guitar? Stick a Satriani or a Vai in there. Would using a Strat
instead of the Red Special make it that different?
Surely if they would be good enough to re-release, they would be good
enough to rip. They'd even be easier to sell if they were by
contemporary artists. Although the idea of Celine Dion covering "Get
Down Make Love" is quite nauseating. Come to think of it, the idea of
Celine Dion is quite nauseating.
>Kent made a point a while ago that
>Innuendo could have fit in on some of Queen's 70's albums, and I agree,
>musically. Basically because I hear more effort in the songwriting. What
>makes it sound more modern is the synth's. Does a 90's band like Nivana have
>a sound that is more technology advanced than Queen's BoRap, not really. But
>when you choose a raw sound, it might not sound that technology advanced
>anyway. Things are getting off topic.
They are off that topic, which is why it's in a new thread. It's still
very Queen-based.
Let's look at "It's Late". Technically, a brilliant song. Usual Brian
stuff (left, right and centre, as usual), John's work is perfect.
Commercial? For one, the audience there days is used to wall to wall
noise. When I listen to it now, I'd say that there are too many gaps
in the riff in the verses for today's crowd. I'd say that "wind up and
hit 'em between the eyes with the next bunch of notes" style was well
suited to the song- but it isn't too commercial.
Could the audience be trained to like it? Up to the marketers- and
it's a hell of a risk. To take the previous Celine Dion example, if
she did it and it flopped, well, it's only one song, and she's not
going to ruin her career over it. But to take it with what is in
effect an unknown band with an old sound- too risky. Wasn't Glam
supposed to be making a comeback? I didn't see too many new Glam bands
around.
As an aside, one of the best albums I've ever heard was (don't laugh)
"In Color" by Cheap Trick- very early Cheap Trick. It was so
incredibly raw- a garage band, yes, but it sounded like it was
recorded in a garage. Rick and Tom are good exponents of their crafts,
the music itself isn't great, but that album had an energy in it that
you couldn't produce into it.
>Dave I still find it unique in the sense of it's guitar orchestrations and
>vocal choirs. I don't know of another group that combines the above. If you
>can give an example, great! I'd love to hear more. The album is still one of
>a kind to me, so that would at least make it unique to me!
Right, so it goes back to my point that your opinion is based on your
experience, and mine is based on mine. And they disagree.
>So there!
"So there"? Hollyleigh, would you answer this for me...
Sure, Daddy. "Is not!"
---
rOOth
> rOOth <tea...@geocities.com> wrote in article
> <36DC2382...@geocities.com>...
> > FJA wrote:
> >
> > > (snip some interesting discourse)
> > >
> > >
> > > Ugh. I was just listening to Roger's "Sheer Heart Attack". What a
> load of
> > > crap. And I am a HUGE Roger fan.
> > > He was trying for the punk/new wave feeling and it just didn't work.
> > >
> > > Leslie
> > > (I feel so inarticulate!)
> >
> > I LOVE Sheer Heart Attack : precisely for that feeling : and cos of the
> way the
> > chorus vocals work over the other sounds!
> >
>
> Well, I was into the original punk scene (the hair, the safety pins, the
> clothes) and I found it rather jarring. I couldn't decide whether Roger
> actually really liked the music or was trying to copy the mood and the
> feeling because it sold well. Has he ever spoken about this topic?
>
> Leslie
I dunno re last piont, but yeah well according to Macauliffe up top here
Roger's song was recorded before the punk explosion : I dug punk too - but
was not into it as much as you - but could dance spaso at breakneck speed in
same rythm i loved doing it (most of the time you're in the air going crazy)
and to me that's why i love roger's song!! I also love Stone Cold Crazy and
Keep Yourself Alive but i wouldn't say they were punk influence, so maybe i'm
using the wrong adjective.
--
---
ruth :-)
---
Jackie
>Ovedubbed guitars? The Coloured Girls overdubbed guitars too.
sometimes.
>So, does that mean I might be in a better position to form an opinion
>because of greater exposure?
I think it depends on what kind of opinion is being looked for. If
you're after broad comparative or factual knowledge, then someone who
has had a greater degree of exposure might be able to give us a better
idea; but if we're after personal opinions ("this is best", "no,
*this* is best") then it matters not how many times you've heard
something, every opinion is perfectly relevant.
>No, you are misrepresenting my point. To address yours, how far do you
>have to go to establish that uniqueness? I'm an Australian. There's 18
>million of us. Male. Down to 9 million. Over 6 foot tall- probably a
>million. Live in Sydney. 200 000. In my thirties. Maybe 25 000....
>When does detail become irrelevant- when you look at the context that
>the uniqueness is questioned. If you were to ask for a 6 foot 1 37
>year old with a lump in their brain, lives near Sydney and who has
>chased love half way around the world, I'm your man. No one else would
>be stupid enough to admit it anyway. In the broad context of 70s
>music, Queen was not totally mainstream- but not unique.
Everyone, every single person on this earth is utterly unique...which
makes them, of course, utterly average and mainstream. Nothing less
than perfectly ordinary human beings.
>John's work is perfect...
Aha!! A Dave with something to say!! ;-)
>Right, so it goes back to my point that your opinion is based on your
>experience, and mine is based on mine. And they disagree.
This is one of the wisest things we can say.
Jackie.
Pep
> Your honour, we respectfully submit as evidence that on Tue, 2 Mar
> 1999 16:26:01 +0100, one "Pep <s960...@hermes.uci.kun.nl>" did write:
Objection!! Your honour, I didn't write this! It was our dear friend FJA!
I propose to demand a compensation from McAuliffe for this huge injustice!
Well, let's see, $ 1,000 will do fine, my dear! ;)
> >>
> >> Ugh. I was just listening to Roger's "Sheer Heart Attack". What a load of
> >> crap. And I am a HUGE Roger fan.
> >> He was trying for the punk/new wave feeling and it just didn't work.
> >
Hoit, Pep
Matt
acr...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> Your honour, we respectfully submit as evidence that on Tue, 02 Mar
> 1999 20:56:10 GMT, one "Matt <MK...@webtv.net>" did write:
>
> >Since I don't have Mike Oldfield, did he orchestrate the guitar like Brian on
> >Procession? or overdub a layered vocal arpeggio type thing that appears on
> >March of the Black Queen towards the begining (right channel I believe?) of
> >the song.
>
> Matt, before you start throwing musical techniques to
>me, I've got a
Dave, I'm not trying to throw difficult questions at you, I just asked if you
hear similar orchestrations in Oldfields work? Why cause' I would be
interested in his work if you did.
> red Strat and a black Jazz sitting behind me. Following recent medical
> incidents, my hands aren't as quick as they used to be. The shakes
> give me great vibrato but a lot of unintentional hammer ons and pull
> offs. The loss of flexibility in my hands means that I can't do a lot
> of chords properly where there's a bar and a bit of spread required.
> Even on an F chord I can only play the bottom 5 strings because I
> can't get to that top E string without inviting The Buzz Of Death into
> the room. But I'm getting there, and I'm getting the callouses back on
> my fingers- which a lot of people have suggested match the ones on the
> palms of my hands very nicely. So let's leave our knowledge of musical
> terms out of it, OK?
Scuse' me, but I gave a simple example of why I felt it was unique. I think
everyone on this ng understands what I mean about guitar orchestration.
Instead telling eveyone about your hurt hand, again is there guitar
orchestration on Oldfield? $30 is not cheap for an import.
>
> Mike Oldfield is nothing but layers and overdubbs and arrangements for
> about 40 minutes. I'm sure you've heard Mike Oldfield. I've mentioned
> his work earlier it the thread...
>
> Everyone overdubs vocals. It's one of the oldest techniques in the
> book for harmonies. Just because Queen did it 14 times instead of 7
> doesn't make it unique. From memory, the story was that it Bohemian
> Rhapsody wasn't intended that way. It was "Let's add another one..."
> and again and again. Hey, it worked, so let's try it again on
> "Somebody To Love".
Right, but in that particular style on that particular record?? Queen II?? I
haven't heard it.
>
> I've got QII on now, and I haven't heard a "choir
>arrangement" yet. A
Dave, a choir is a group of singers organized and trained to sing together.
So, are you saying there are no "chorus" vocals on Queen II?
> few harmonies with more than the usual number of overdubs, but that's
> about it.
>
> Ovedubbed guitars? The Coloured Girls overdubbed guitars too. If I
> recall correctly, so did The Easybeats, who begat Vander and Young who
> did it too, and who produced...
The Easybeats don't have that sound.
>
> Lots of people who didn't survive. The Beatles maybe?
>
> >> bit... Rick Wakeman was as he went for that Bigger and Better
> >> orchestral type of arrangement. As far as a unique
> >"Yes" bores the shit out of me, so do most keyboard players.
>
> What has "Yes" got to do with "Journey To The Centre
>Of The Earth?"
Rick is a keyboard player, no? He was in "Yes." His music bores me.
>
> >I never said Queen was the ONLY unique band, did I??? You just said Queen II
> >wasn't unique, and I disagree.
>
> <smartass>My point is that if everyone is unique, then there is
> nothing unique about being unique. It's a paradox. By being unique,
> you are not.</smartass>
Yes but, "uni" meaning one and only. Your giving me examples of people who
layer in styles different to Queen II. When I get an example of a band that
actually has both (choir and guitar), great! That is what I am looking for.
Until then Queen II is still unique.
>
> It appears to me- and I could be wrong- as though you are looking at
> two parts and saying that the whole is unique on that basis. I'm
> looking at the whole package in the context of the times and saying
> it's not.
Right, these are the examples that I feel make it unique.
>
> >> There is a lot of music that didn't survive from that era that
> >> certainly makes QII fairly unique- but not totally.
> >I still think it is unique the way it pioneered layered guitars and vocals.
>
> You are entitled to your opinion based on your experience. I am
> entitled to mine based on my experience. They disagree in this case.
>
Is it opinion? Objectively, does another band combine those two trademarks to
make the whole?
> >Don't say that
> >> because it's the only one to have survived until now it was the only
> >> one.
> >Again, I never did? Where did I give you this impression?
>
> By saying that you think it's unique, when I believe it's not. And,
> it's an expression in common use here.
It was meant as one view, not the only unique album in history.
>
> >> >Maybe cause you've been listening to it for 25 years you don't find it that
> >> >unique?
> >> And it could be that because I've been listening to other music as
> >> well that I'm in a pretty good position to judge if it is unique.
> >Judge?????
>
> Again, it's a common expression- well, certainly down here. It's also
> easier to type than "during that more that 25 year period I have been
> exposed to a broad spectrum of musical tastes, styles and techniques
> with which to form an opinion."
>
> >Dave Queen is not the ONLY band I listen to. I've also listened to
> >music for a long time, and have owned well over 1200 cd's. I sold a good
> >portion of my collection because stuff like Rick Wakeman doesn't do anything
> >for me.
>
> It did for a lot of people at the time. Times have moved on, and few
> of those sounds have remained. You can't make any sort of value
> judgement without referring to the benchmarks of that time.
>
> Is da Vinci's work unique? Who knows what else was going around at the
> time.
I'm sure to some people, just like Queen II is to some people.
>
> >Again, if you can point out bands that orchestrated guitar, and made choir
> >like vocals (without having to hire a choir), I am interested in hearing
> >about them. If you can't name any? I guess Queen II would be a unique album?
>
> Well, the artists I've mentioned so far you haven't known anything
> about, so...
What I've heard from them is different than Queen II. Dave your giving me
examples of layers, but do they combine the two that I listed?
>
> I repeat my point about vocal overdubs. Doing it a few more times than
> everyone else isn't "unique". Guitar overdubs isn't
>new either.
Your wrong, because if it pushing it further than another piece of music,
then it would be the ONLY one making it unique.
What Brian was doing back then with the orchestrations was new. Who else did
that?
>
> >> Put it another way- have you ever heard "Evie" by Stevie Wright?
> >Never heard of it, or him.
> >> How about Russell Morris' "The Real Thing"? Overdubs a plenty there.
> >Never heard of him,
>
> Res ipsa loquitur.
>
> So, does that mean I might be in a better position to form an opinion
> because of greater exposure?
Your exposure still hasn't produced an answer, and my answers are apparently
to musically technical. Just because you mention Russell Morris, does not
mean that you've had more exposure. Does he orchestrate guitar? I'm sure
there is music that I am famliar with and you are not.
>
> >> >It is certainly distinctive and identifiable by sound, so again I
> >> >disagree with you Dave. What other singer sounded like Fred, or what other
> >> >guitar player sounded like Brian???
> >> What other band sounds like, say, AC/DC? Two chords and you can pick
> >Actually it's more then two chords, don't let them fool you. Did you ever
> >here of Rhino Bucket? They have a good AC/DC type sound.
>
> I meant two chords into the song and you can pick it. Two bars if it's
> been a heavy night.
>
> >Too bad in the 80's their music became more anthem like, and less straight
> >ahead rock. Their formula has changed no matter what Angus or Malcolm says.
>
> Come on! I had them play live at my school in 1976! We won a radio
> competition. One of the few gigs Bon Scott was sober at... Even songs
> like "Please Don't Go" are identifiable almost immediately, even
> though they were written outside the band.
They are identifiable, but their formula is different. Listen how the sound
(mainly on the guitars), and styles have changed from album to album.
>
> >So are you saying that you are not unique as person? Are you just another
> >tpical member of society? Are you JUST ANOTHER DOOR KNOB making the world go
> >around? It sounds like that is your point. Unless you are performing miracles
> >maybe? This isn't meant to be offensive, I'm just building off your point.
>
> No, you are misrepresenting my point. To address yours, how far do you
> have to go to establish that uniqueness? I'm an Australian. There's 18
> million of us. Male. Down to 9 million. Over 6 foot tall- probably a
> million. Live in Sydney. 200 000. In my thirties. Maybe 25 000....
> When does detail become irrelevant- when you look at the context that
> the uniqueness is questioned. If you were to ask for a 6 foot 1 37
> year old with a lump in their brain, lives near Sydney and who has
> chased love half way around the world, I'm your man.
Great, then you are UNIQUE in that sense.
>No one else would
> be stupid enough to admit it anyway.
"No one?" So you are unique. Am I still misrepresenting your point? I think
you finally hit on mine, and if not what is the definition of unique in your
mind?
> In the broad context of 70s
> music, Queen was not totally mainstream- but not unique.
>
> >> I can name a few that had albums in a similar vein that haven't
> >> survived. Try this one- go and listen to "Welcome To My Nightmare" by
> >> Alice Cooper. Not quite at the Queen end of the spectrum I'm sure
> >> you'll agree, but nevertheless, similarly packaged in many ways. At
> >And out of key. Do you really think Alice Cooper had the musicianship Queen
> >had?
>
> You are misrepresenting my point again. The point is that The Package
> Alice Cooper released wasn't dissimilar to the QII package concept. I
> look at the entirety, not a couple of details. As far apart as they
> are, the two were similarly packaged. Perhaps you didn't see that.
My point was the music, not the package it came in.
>
> >> And I'll put my neck out and say if it wasn't for Bohemian Rhapsody,
> >> QII would not have survived either. Yes, they had other hits after
> >> that, but how many people got into Queen because of that one song? If
> >> the Rolling Stones released an album as "Deidre and the Wondergibbons"
> >> would anyone notice?
> >I know I wouldn't, their totally overated in my mind.
>
> And if QII was released today by Deidre and the Wondergibbons..?
>
Probably, would not get noticed by many.
> Be in the back racks on special for $5 within the month. And that is
> another point- by rereleasing early Queen music you are having to
> break into a new market. You'd need publicity and that sort of thing-
> and suddenly it's not the music that sells disks, but
> Hollywood/EMI/whoever looks after it in your neck of the woods.
>
> Then you've got...
>
Advertising sells, there is none for Queen in the States.
> >True, it was deliberately image portrayed, but my point was a lot of people
> >thought BoRhap was new in 1992. So I made a point that a lot of Queen songs
> >would sound fresh, if re-released today.
>
> So, if the songs would sound so fresh, why aren't there more covers of
> 1970s Queen songs? Any Queen songs (outside a basketball game or
> whatever)? You'd think that with the volumes of
material that Queen
> released there'd be more.
>
There is NO promotion by Hollywood whatoever in the U.S.
> Is it the overdubbing and orchestrating? Production, not musicianship.
The production doesn't write the orchestration. Musicianship is evident if
you listen.
> The guitar? Stick a Satriani or a Vai in there. Would using a Strat
> instead of the Red Special make it that different?
Probably not for those two, but in Brian's hands definatly.
>
> Surely if they would be good enough to re-release, they would be good
> enough to rip. They'd even be easier to sell if they were by
> contemporary artists. Although the idea of Celine Dion covering "Get
> Down Make Love" is quite nauseating. Come to think of it, the idea of
> Celine Dion is quite nauseating.
>
Agreed
I enjoy the rawness Cheap Trick had as well.
> >Dave I still find it unique in the sense of it's guitar orchestrations and
> >vocal choirs. I don't know of another group that combines the above. If you
> >can give an example, great! I'd love to hear more. The album is still one of
> >a kind to me, so that would at least make it unique to me!
>
> Right, so it goes back to my point that your opinion is based on your
> experience, and mine is based on mine. And they disagree.
>
And you are of coarse entitled to your opinion, but I am still interestesed
in hearing something that is close to it musically. See up above for details.
Matt
> >So there!
>
> "So there"? Hollyleigh, would you answer this for me...
>
> Sure, Daddy. "Is not!"
> ---
>
> When I look back at my relationships- I think I'd rather have the extra
> rib.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
FJA
> >
> > Well, I was into the original punk scene (the hair, the safety pins,
the
> > clothes) and I found it rather jarring. I couldn't decide whether
Roger
> > actually really liked the music or was trying to copy the mood and the
> > feeling because it sold well. Has he ever spoken about this topic?
> >
> > Leslie
>
> I dunno re last piont, but yeah well according to Macauliffe up top here
> Roger's song was recorded before the punk explosion : I dug punk too -
but
> was not into it as much as you - but could dance spaso at breakneck speed
in
> same rythm i loved doing it (most of the time you're in the air going
crazy)
> and to me that's why i love roger's song!! I also love Stone Cold Crazy
and
> Keep Yourself Alive but i wouldn't say they were punk influence, so maybe
i'm
> using the wrong adjective.
> --
>
Well, after reading your posts, maybe I stand corrected. I AM getting old.
:-)
Leslie
Andrew Stewart
<vinyl...@vinylfreak.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>A lot of people liked the Let`s dance period.
>I know a lot of fans didn`t but it brought him back into the spotlight
>with the record buying non fans.
>His critics are reappraising their criticism now.
>Nobody expected Bowie to go down that road musically and perhaps that`s
>why he did it?
Good thought. Bowie hates being predictable, even in his
unpredictability. 80s Bowie is just about the most unexpected he could
have been, given what he was in the 80s. If he'd stuck to doing what
he id through the 70s into the 80s and 90s, it would have been...well,
very Lou Reed.
In his own way, 80s Bowie was just as symptomatic of the times as 70s
Bowie was.
(np: Bowie - Earthling)
___________________________________________________________________________
To join 1300 fans receiving a free monthly BOWIE newsletter, send a message
to bowie...@hotmail.com with the subject "Subscribe"
For copies of back issues, check out http://www.angelfire.com/al/bowienews/
Andrew Stewart
<vinyl...@vinylfreak.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>A lot of people liked the Let`s dance period.
>>>I know a lot of fans didn`t but it brought him back into the spotlight
>>>with the record buying non fans.
>>>His critics are reappraising their criticism now.
>>>Nobody expected Bowie to go down that road musically and perhaps that`s
>>>why he did it?
>>
>>He did it to make money. He's said so himself.
>
>I take everything Bowie says with a pinch of salt.
The only thing I believe absolutely that Bowie ever said in interviews
is "I like to lie a lot in interviews".
>He is also pretty vain about his image and music.
>I doubt if he'd put out a whole album he disliked.
Plus he has never ever ever dismissed Let's Dance. He has virtually
disowned Tonight, Never Let Me Down and Tin Machine 2, but the worst
thing he's ever said about Let's Dance AFAIK is that it was a very
good Nile Rodgers album.
(np: Best Of Bowie 69/74)
Andrew Stewart
wrote:
>In article <1x$oLDAZO...@vinylfreak.demon.co.uk>,
>vinyl...@vinylfreak.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
>> In article <19990301222416...@ng42.aol.com>, ArdenGuy
>> <arde...@aol.comSUCKQITQ> writes
>snip, Snip, SNIP
>
>> >>
>> >>A lot of people liked the Let`s dance period.
>> >>I know a lot of fans didn`t but it brought him back into the spotlight
>> >>with the record buying non fans.
>> >>His critics are reappraising their criticism now.
>> >>Nobody expected Bowie to go down that road musically and perhaps that`s
>> >>why he did it?
>> >
>> >He did it to make money. He's said so himself.
>>
>> I take everything Bowie says with a pinch of salt.
>> He is also pretty vain about his image and music.
>> I doubt if he'd put out a whole album he disliked.
>
>I think you're both right to some extent.
>
>The Let's Dance album was legitimate enough. It produced an interesting,
>fairly original sound. But when that album achieved such success, Bowie
>started chasing after popularity instead of just making good music. That's
>where he declined, in his own eyes and the eyes of the critics. That is,
>until he linked up with Nine Inch Nails and got his integrity back.
I think you're on the right track, but you're overestimating the
importance of the NIN link-up. I see it as little more than a
ticket-selling ploy on the US leg of the Outside tour, in the same way
that Morrissey did for the UK leg. Bowie was touring an album that
a) he knew had little or no mainstream appeal
b) he knew was more likely to appeal to a younger fanbase than his own
In those circumstances, calling in NIN (and Morrissey) to bring that
younger fanbase to the table was very sensible, if ultimately not too
successful. NIN fans didn't exactly take to Bowie in their hordes, and
US critics started accusing him of jumping aboard NIN's musical
bandwagon with Outside (and later Earthling), ignoring the fact that
Outside was recorded long before the NIN hook-up had been thought of,
so musically, they had little or no impact on that album, and the fact
that NIN drew so heavily on late 70s Bowie that if 90s Bowie went back
to the same sort of ground (which he already done - two years earlier
- on The Buddha Of Suburbia), it was inevitable that he would sound
like NIN (sounding like him).
Actually, Bowie's return to form really came two years earlier, with
"The Buddha Of Suburbia", arguably the best of his 90s albums. The
real shock is that this album, which can hold its own against his
better 70s work, came so fast after the execrable "Black Tie White
Noise", possibly the lowpoint of Bowie's career.
(np: Best Of Bowie 74/79)
Sue
ArdenGuy wrote:
>>>There were two movements going in opposite directions in the 80s: New
>>>Wave synth pop and Punk. Queen tried to fit in with the New Wave and
>>>got burned.
>>so would they have fared much better in punk? from my little
>>i-was-born-whilst-
>>this- was-going-on- viewpoint i don't think so.
>That's not what I meant, sorry for not being clearer. What Im saying is
>they changed at the drop of a hat with the new trend and it didn't suit
>them.
I suppose the stripped down style of News of The World was a reaction to
New Wave happening in UK, but I don't think they particularly tried to
follow it. I think Brian and Freddie both mentioned at some point that
Roger had got into that scene and kept his finger on the pulse of what was
going on. Really, looking at it from the outside, punk seemed just as much
a hyped up fashion bandwagon as anything it pretended to be standing
against. Where were most of those anarchists half a dozen years later?
I always think that one of the major reasons Queen lasted so long was
*because* they branched out into so many styles and tried different things.
It would be unlikely that anyone would love all of it equally, but it must
surely be a reason why there is such a disparate bunch of ppl of all ages
with seemingly clashing tastes, all mad about the same band. I mean just
look at us lot here! :-)
Sue
rOOth
> Well, after reading your posts, maybe I stand corrected. I AM getting old.
> :-)
>
> Leslie
Bets i beat ya : 45 today!
havva gud one everybody!
Michael Bennett
> > >Never heard of it, or him.
Evie, Parts 1, 2, and 3, is a classic. It's one of those songs (like O
Fortuna, for example), that even if you haven't heard _of_ it, you've
probably still heard it. ie: if somebody played it for you you'd go "I
know that one", but you wouldn't know the title.
> > >> How about Russell Morris' "The Real Thing"? Overdubs a plenty there.
> > >Never heard of him,
I don't know that one, either. But it may be a case of the above.
> > >> What other band sounds like, say, AC/DC? Two chords and you can pick
Which band, maybe, but not which song. AC/DC are sorely lacking in variety
(imho). They're not bad, just don't have variety.
> > >> I can name a few that had albums in a similar vein that haven't
> > >> survived. Try this one- go and listen to "Welcome To My Nightmare" by
> > >> Alice Cooper. Not quite at the Queen end of the spectrum I'm sure
> > >> you'll agree, but nevertheless, similarly packaged in many ways. At
> > >And out of key. Do you really think Alice Cooper had the musicianship Queen
> > >had?
I do. Well, I don't know from musicianship, but certainly the variety of
styles and subjects. Do you know much of his work?
> > You are misrepresenting my point again. The point is that The Package
> > Alice Cooper released wasn't dissimilar to the QII package concept.
How so?
'Nightmare' is one of my favourite albums (below QII, AKOM, and Alice
Cooper Goes To Hell), but I don't think of it as anything like QII. Okay,
they're both fantasy - but in the same way that both _Lord of the Rings_
and _A Nightmare on Elm Street_ are fantasy. There's no comparison.
(BTW, I've always thought WtmN was more like ANATO than anything else -
with the 40's style sound of 'Some Folks', and the hard rock of 'Cold
Ethyl', etc...)
So what similarity do you see?
- Mick
"Sorry, didn't mean to break your heart."
- Marillion, "Kayleigh"
vinylfreak
<and...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>I take everything Bowie says with a pinch of salt.
>
>is "I like to lie a lot in interviews".
Yep.
Wondered where you were?
Normally you are on the case quicker than this when Mr B is mentioned.
:-)
>
>>He is also pretty vain about his image and music.
>>I doubt if he'd put out a whole album he disliked.
>
>Plus he has never ever ever dismissed Let's Dance. He has virtually
>disowned Tonight, Never Let Me Down and Tin Machine 2, but the worst
>thing he's ever said about Let's Dance AFAIK is that it was a very
>good Nile Rodgers album.
Personally i liked the nineties albums a lot.
Some of those mixes he brought out were out of this earth.
Nile Rodgers is cool in my book but it still had that Bowie stamp no
matter what he says.
I love seeing Bowie appear on stage but wish he'd stop these tribute
concerts or do his own stuff.
That Bolan song was murdered on the Brits.
>___________________________________________________________________________
>To join 1300 fans receiving a free monthly BOWIE newsletter, send a message
>to bowie...@hotmail.com with the subject "Subscribe"
>For copies of back issues, check out http://www.angelfire.com/al/bowienews/
--
vinylfreak
vinylfreak
<tea...@geocities.com> writes
Have a great day/year Ruth.
--
vinylfreak
vinylfreak
<svn...@globalnet.co.uk> writes
Yes Yes Yes.
I agree.
Most of the punks went down the road they so hated??
Though our little Siouxsie seems to have stayed true to the punk spirit
with the Banshees and now the Creatures.
Wish I`d gone to see the Creatures in concert now. :-(
My friend is dragging me off to see Suzi Quatro, the Rubettes and Alvin
Stardust in a 70`s concert tour.
Was a bit nonplussed but since raking out some neglected records?
I`m going to have a laugh. :-)
ONE MORE TIME FOR SUZI.....
--
vinylfreak
David McAuliffe
1999 15:22:30 GMT, one "Matt <MK...@webtv.net>" did write:
>> Matt, before you start throwing musical techniques to
>>me, I've got a
>
>Dave, I'm not trying to throw difficult questions at you, I just asked if you
>hear similar orchestrations in Oldfields work? Why cause' I would be
>interested in his work if you did.
I didn't say "difficult questions"- I said you threw a technique at
me.
Why don't you go and listen to Oldfield and form your own opinion? It
is impossible - and where I come from wrong - to convince anyone to
adopt your opinion. Rather, give them the tools with which to form
their own opinion. Basic principle of living. If you agree with me,
fine. If you don't agree with me, fine.
I'm not here to tell you how to think. I'm here to discuss apparently
opposing views. I'm not out to convince you of anything, nor will I be
convinced by you. What I have done is go and drag out some of the old
stuff, and I have listened to you. My stance has changed slightly-
and that comes from my thoughts and is a natural flow from the
discussion.
>> So let's leave our knowledge of musical terms out of it, OK?
>Scuse' me, but I gave a simple example of why I felt it was unique.
I got someone else to read the passage- it had a definite tone about
it. And you later go on to say that I'm avoiding technical issues.
>Instead telling eveyone about your hurt hand,
You apparently didn't make the connection with my later statement
about a lump in my brain. Do a search on "craniopharyngioma", and see
why I call myself a dairy product- low fat and calcium enriched. And
check out "stroke" too.
>I think
>everyone on this ng understands what I mean about guitar orchestration.
I understand what you mean by guitar orchestration. My point is that
it was not unique- it wasn't that common, but not unique. And QII was
not the first album to have this technique in common with overdubbed
vocals- I will name another later in this post.
>again is there guitar
>orchestration on Oldfield? $30 is not cheap for an import.
There is orchestration aplenty in lots of work, and not confined to
guitars. And $30 is what we pay normally. Count your blessings.
If I orchestrate lead electric triangle, am I doing something unique,
or am I applying a technique used on every other instrument to it? I
don't consider it unique. If you do, then all we are discussing is the
difference between personal definitions. I am not a "black and white"
person.
>> Everyone overdubs vocals. It's one of the oldest techniques in the
>> book for harmonies. Just because Queen did it 14 times instead of 7
>> doesn't make it unique. From memory, the story was that it Bohemian
>> Rhapsody wasn't intended that way. It was "Let's add another one..."
>> and again and again. Hey, it worked, so let's try it again on
>> "Somebody To Love".
>Right, but in that particular style on that particular record?? Queen II?? I
>haven't heard it.
You have been saying that QII was unique because of inter alia choral
sequences. I listened to it again to make sure of my ground, and there
isn't anything that I would consider to be choral sequences.
>Dave, a choir is a group of singers organized and trained to sing together.
>So, are you saying there are no "chorus" vocals on Queen II?
While later in your post you went on to say-
>When I get an example of a band that actually has both (choir and guitar),
>great! That is what I am looking for. Until then Queen II is still unique.
I'm confused.
You're arguing that QII was the first album to use vocal overdubbing
and guitar orchestrations to that extent. You want to hear music that
had those magical QII properties of layered guitar orchestrations and
overdubbed chorus arrangements from an album before QII? Easy.
Go and listen to "My Fairy King" on QI. It's all there. A song that
would not be out of place on QII, no? Certainly when you consider "The
Faerie Fella's Master Stroke".
Even snippets of "Jesus" and "Son and Daughter" had the techniques
too, if you want to push the definition. "Liar" maybe. The
orchestration on these is harder and narrower than would go with QII,
but there's definite juxtaposing guitar over guitar. It's not there
just to give bulk to the sound.
And we haven't even gotten onto the technical aspects of tracks like
"The Night Comes Down".
It's through QI. I think there is an identifiable progression from QI
to QII on one hand and QI to Sheer Heart Attack on the other.
And, to my mind, that does not make QII unique, because it wasn't the
first to apply certain techniques. Yes, it featured them, but only
more prominently than QI. So, we'd heard it all before.
>> What has "Yes" got to do with "Journey To The Centre
>>Of The Earth?"
>Rick is a keyboard player, no? He was in "Yes." His music bores me.
"Journey The Centre Of The Earth" was Rick Wakeman, not Yes. Don't tie
solo works to a group. It's like tying Eno's work to Roxy Music's, or
Gabriel to Genesis.
And following your train of thought that keyboard players are boring
and therefore ignored, it sort of cut's Freddie's works out of the
Queen catalogue for you, doesn't it. Certainly on QII, where he is
listed as the keyboard player.
>> It appears to me- and I could be wrong- as though you are looking at
>> two parts and saying that the whole is unique on that basis. I'm
>> looking at the whole package in the context of the times and saying
>> it's not.
>Right, these are the examples that I feel make it unique.
And I am saying that because this frog I'm looking at has got a
slightly larger mouth than the one I looked at before doesn't stop it
being a frog.
>> You are entitled to your opinion based on your experience. I am
>> entitled to mine based on my experience. They disagree in this case.
>Is it opinion? Objectively, does another band combine those two trademarks to
>make the whole?
I read this to say that you are now talking about the band, not the
album, and trademarks, not techniques applied to a particular album.
>> Is da Vinci's work unique? Who knows what else was going around at the
>> time.
>I'm sure to some people, just like Queen II is to some people.
"To some people" does to make it fact- it makes it their opinion.
Truth is fact. Belief is opinion. I don't consider my opinion to be
fact. It is the way I interpret what I perceive. However, as the old
legal maxim goes-
Res ipsa loquitur. Let the facts speak for themselves.
>What I've heard from them is different than Queen II. Dave your giving me
>examples of layers, but do they combine the two that I listed?
They are minor points in the whole package, and techniques not
confined to the band Queen or the album QII.
>> I repeat my point about vocal overdubs. Doing it a few more times than
>> everyone else isn't "unique". Guitar overdubs isn't
>>new either.
>Your wrong,
And you had a go at me for using the word "judge"... Hmmm....
>because if it pushing it further than another piece of music,
>then it would be the ONLY one making it unique.
So that means that me applying a common technique to the lead electric
triangle is unique. Under my definition, I don't call that unique.
It's certainly not ground breaking stuff.
>What Brian was doing back then with the orchestrations was new. Who else did
>that?
Is the work of, say, "The Shadows" in the 60s orchestrated? Does there
being multiple guys in one take and not one guy with multiple takes
make it less orchestrated? Wasn't the technique trying to achieve
having multiple Brian Mays in the studio? I fail to see the
difference. But the noise from the clogs would have been deafening...
>Your exposure still hasn't produced an answer, and my answers are apparently
>to musically technical.
It has produced answers. Maybe you just didn't see them. I'm not going
to tell you how to think- just give you something to consider. Make
your own mind up.
I have yet to see anything in your posts that is too musically
technical. You want to consider what I wrote about "It's Late"?
>Just because you mention Russell Morris, does not mean that you've had more
>exposure.
Do you want to read that again logically and reconsider it???
>Does he orchestrate guitar? I'm sure there is music that I am famliar with
>and you are not.
I know there is. That doesn't mean that the music that I haven't heard
is somehow less valid.
>"No one?" So you are unique. Am I still misrepresenting your point? I think
>you finally hit on mine, and if not what is the definition of unique in your
>mind?
Why don't you go back and re-read it again. Definition is fine, but in
most cases gives a range of meanings. Application is where the true
meaning is. You're applying a specific to a vast range- and that is
fraught with danger. To say that the techniques or combination of
techniques applied to QII were first applied to QII is asking for
trouble. How many other albums were made before QII? I'm sure someone
somewhere- maybe even Deidre and the Wondergibbons (they've been
around for a while)- may have touched on it.
Re Cooper and Queen:
>My point was the music, not the package it came in.
The package I refer to *is* the music, including the production. Go
beyond the notes to the feel of it. Music is about emotions, and good
production enhances those emotions. It's not just a bunch of notes
strung together. To see it another way is to miss the experience. Good
music gets you in.
>> And if QII was released today by Deidre and the Wondergibbons..?
>Probably, would not get noticed by many.
Wasn't it said that it would be fresh and new and exciting and sell...
>> Then you've got...
>Advertising sells, there is none for Queen in the States.
So, it's nothing to do with the music...
>There is NO promotion by Hollywood whatoever in the U.S.
Having been there for a while, I'd have to agree. But that is not the
point- it was said that it would be fresh and new. So why aren't
people doing Queen covers? It would make sense to stand out from the
other music floating around. Musicians know about Queen. Some like
them, some detest them- but they know of them.
>> Is it the overdubbing and orchestrating? Production, not musicianship.
>The production doesn't write the orchestration. Musicianship is evident if
>you listen.
Overdubbing is production. Without that a solo guitarist will have no
orchestration (unless you're Rick Neilson or Steve Vai, of course.)
Remember that this bit is about a cover of any Queen song. The
orchestration is already there to be interpreted. So why aren't people
doing it?
>> The guitar? Stick a Satriani or a Vai in there. Would using a Strat
>> instead of the Red Special make it that different?
>Probably not for those two, but in Brian's hands definatly.
So do we have the same sound? In any event, would the artist be
reproducing or interpreting? I'd suggest that there are many out there
who could reproduce.
Is it the vocal range? Listen to live Freddie. Even he didn't use it.
And you can always change the key.
>And you are of coarse entitled to your opinion, but I am still interestesed
>in hearing something that is close to it musically. See up above for details.
Go out and find it. Make your own mind up. If you want pointers, I
will give them- reluctantly. Because on the search for that elusive
"sounds like QII" sound, you will experience a lot of other stuff. The
scenic route is very enjoyable.
On the other hand, here's a pointer to something else. I don't know
how you'll get this, but nevertheless... If you liked the rawness of
the early Cheap Trick, you might like to try this one. An independent
yet government owned so they're always in trouble radio station down
here called JJJ ran a thing where (basically- there's more to it than
this) people sent in demos- and they are literally garage band demos-
just to try and give people a break. The best stuff was compiled and
released, and it's full of energy.
Did the experiment work? Well, the winners first time around were
three young guys who changed their name on the advice of the record
company- to silverchair. I hear they have made it Top 10 in the US.
I'm not suggesting you try silverchair, but saying that the experiment
worked.
Then you might like to give the Australian band Hunters and Collectors
a listen. Totally different to all of these, but something I like. You
may think it's shit- but you'll know. There's MP3s out there.
Pep
> >What Brian was doing back then with the orchestrations was new. Who else did
> >that?
> Is the work of, say, "The Shadows" in the 60s orchestrated? Does there
> being multiple guys in one take and not one guy with multiple takes
> make it less orchestrated? Wasn't the technique trying to achieve
> having multiple Brian Mays in the studio? I fail to see the
> difference. But the noise from the clogs would have been deafening...
LOL!!! Don't be ridiculous, darling! :-)
(Then again, I guess it would still be quiter as multiple John Deacons...
imagine the multiple Jackie's screaming at them!)
But back to your interesting discussion. I'm afraid I'm not too familiair
with "pre-Queen" music, except for the Beatles and Led Zeppelin. And there
you already have two bands I'd like to nominate to have a certain QueenII
sound. Or am I being very ridiculous now?
Anyway, I think Abbey Road (side B) and songs like LedZep's Battle of
Evermore are full of vocal overdubs etc.
Anyway, Dave, thank you very much for the tip for the other bands. I'll
give it a listen soon!
Hoit, Pep
Matt
acr...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> Your honour, we respectfully submit as evidence that on Wed, 03 Mar
> 1999 15:22:30 GMT, one "Matt <MK...@webtv.net>" did write:
>
> >> Matt, before you start throwing musical techniques to
> >>me, I've got a
> >
> >Dave, I'm not trying to throw difficult questions at you, I just asked if you
> >hear similar orchestrations in Oldfields work? Why cause' I would be
> >interested in his work if you did.
> I didn't say "difficult questions"- I said you threw a technique at
> me.
>
> Why don't you go and listen to Oldfield and form your own opinion? It
> is impossible - and where I come from wrong - to convince anyone to
> adopt your opinion. Rather, give them the tools with which to form
> their own opinion. Basic principle of living. If you agree with me,
> fine. If you don't agree with me, fine.
>
> I'm not here to tell you how to think. I'm here to discuss apparently
> opposing views. I'm not out to convince you of anything, nor will I be
> convinced by you. What I have done is go and drag out some of the old
> stuff, and I have listened to you. My stance has changed slightly-
> and that comes from my thoughts and is a natural flow from the
> discussion.
>
> >> So let's leave our knowledge of musical terms out of it, OK?
> >Scuse' me, but I gave a simple example of why I felt it was unique.
> I got someone else to read the passage- it had a definite tone about
> it. And you later go on to say that I'm avoiding technical issues.
>
Again, I just asked if there were guitar orchestrations in the work of the
artist you mentioned.
> >Instead telling everyone about your hurt hand,
> You apparently didn't make the connection with my later statement
> about a lump in my brain. Do a search on "craniopharyngioma", and see
> why I call myself a dairy product- low fat and calcium enriched. And
> check out "stroke" too.
No, I didn't make the connection. I took is as your own humor and self
critisism, and paid little attention to it since it had little to do with an
answer to my question.
>
> >I think
> >everyone on this ng understands what I mean about guitar orchestration.
> I understand what you mean by guitar orchestration. My point is that
> it was not unique- it wasn't that common, but not unique. And QII was
> not the first album to have this technique in common with overdubbed
> vocals- I will name another later in this post.
I'll read on.
>
> >again is there guitar
> >orchestration on Oldfield? $30 is not cheap for an import.
> There is orchestration aplenty in lots of work, and not confined to
> guitars. And $30 is what we pay normally. Count your blessings.
>
Unfortunatly I am not made of money, and I thought the question concerning
guitar orchestration was simple enough, but apparently it's a lot more
complicated.
> If I orchestrate lead electric triangle, am I doing something unique,
> or am I applying a technique used on every other instrument to it? I
> don't consider it unique. If you do, then all we are discussing is the
> difference between personal definitions. I am not a "black and white"
> person.
I got mine from the dictionary, sorry.
>
> >> Everyone overdubs vocals. It's one of the oldest techniques in the
> >> book for harmonies. Just because Queen did it 14 times instead of 7
> >> doesn't make it unique. From memory, the story was that it Bohemian
> >> Rhapsody wasn't intended that way. It was "Let's add another one..."
> >> and again and again. Hey, it worked, so let's try it again on
> >> "Somebody To Love".
> >Right, but in that particular style on that particular record?? Queen II?? I
> >haven't heard it.
> You have been saying that QII was unique because of inter alia choral
> sequences. I listened to it again to make sure of my ground, and there
> isn't anything that I would consider to be choral sequences.
>
Am I imagining hearing backing vocals? Read the definition of choir that I
previously wrote below.
> >Dave, a choir is a group of singers organized and trained to sing together.
> >So, are you saying there are no "chorus" vocals on Queen II?
>
> While later in your post you went on to say-
>
> >When I get an example of a band that actually has both (choir and guitar),
> >great! That is what I am looking for. Until then Queen II is still unique.
> I'm confused.
>
Obviously
> You're arguing that QII was the first album to use vocal overdubbing
> and guitar orchestrations to that extent. You want to hear music that
> had those magical QII properties of layered guitar orchestrations and
> overdubbed chorus arrangements from an album before QII? Easy.
>
> Go and listen to "My Fairy King" on QI. It's all there. A song that
> would not be out of place on QII, no? Certainly when you consider "The
> Faerie Fella's Master Stroke".
>
> Even snippets of "Jesus" and "Son and Daughter" had the techniques
> too, if you want to push the definition. "Liar" maybe. The
> orchestration on these is harder and narrower than would go with QII,
> but there's definite juxtaposing guitar over guitar. It's not there
> just to give bulk to the sound.
>
> And we haven't even gotten onto the technical aspects of tracks like
> "The Night Comes Down".
>
But it was pushed more on Queen II.
> It's through QI. I think there is an identifiable progression from QI
> to QII on one hand and QI to Sheer Heart Attack on the other.
>
> And, to my mind, that does not make QII unique, because it wasn't the
> first to apply certain techniques. Yes, it featured them, but only
> more prominently than QI. So, we'd heard it all before.
>
Sorry, they might be similar, but not the same.
> >> What has "Yes" got to do with "Journey To The Centre
> >>Of The Earth?"
> >Rick is a keyboard player, no? He was in "Yes." His music bores me.
> "Journey The Centre Of The Earth" was Rick Wakeman, not Yes. Don't tie
> solo works to a group. It's like tying Eno's work to Roxy Music's, or
> Gabriel to Genesis.
>
Sorry I wasn't clearer, they both bore me.
> And following your train of thought that keyboard players are boring
> and therefore ignored, it sort of cut's Freddie's works out of the
> Queen catalogue for you, doesn't it. Certainly on QII, where he is
> listed as the keyboard player.
>
The problem with your prior statement is you cut out my post where I said "I
find MOST keyboard players boring."
> >> It appears to me- and I could be wrong- as though you are looking at
> >> two parts and saying that the whole is unique on that basis. I'm
> >> looking at the whole package in the context of the times and saying
> >> it's not.
> >Right, these are the examples that I feel make it unique.
> And I am saying that because this frog I'm looking at has got a
> slightly larger mouth than the one I looked at before doesn't stop it
> being a frog.
>
So I guess all music is the same to your ears? If a frog is a frog, then an
album must be an album. You can do better than that?
> >> You are entitled to your opinion based on your experience. I am
> >> entitled to mine based on my experience. They disagree in this case.
> >Is it opinion? Objectively, does another band combine those two trademarks to
> >make the whole?
> I read this to say that you are now talking about the band, not the
> album, and trademarks, not techniques applied to a particular album.
>
Read it however you like, it probably be taken differently then I meant it.
> >> Is da Vinci's work unique? Who knows what else was going around at the
> >> time.
> >I'm sure to some people, just like Queen II is to some people.
> "To some people" does to make it fact- it makes it their opinion.
> Truth is fact. Belief is opinion. I don't consider my opinion to be
> fact. It is the way I interpret what I perceive. However, as the old
> legal maxim goes-
>
Well in my opinion "beliefs" stop the mind from functioning, and a
non-functioning min is clinically dead.
> Res ipsa loquitur. Let the facts speak for themselves.
>
Exactly
> >What I've heard from them is different than Queen II. Dave your giving me
> >examples of layers, but do they combine the two that I listed?
> They are minor points in the whole package, and techniques not
> confined to the band Queen or the album QII.
>
I don't find them minor, Aren't those the two minor points that make Queen II
stand out.
> >> I repeat my point about vocal overdubs. Doing it a few more times than
> >> everyone else isn't "unique". Guitar overdubs isn't
> >>new either.
> >Your wrong,
> And you had a go at me for using the word "judge"... Hmmm....
>
Not really, because (again your snipping came in handy since you cut out the
vital part) I responded with the fact that I too can judge.
> >because if it pushing it further than another piece of music,
> >then it would be the ONLY one making it unique.
> So that means that me applying a common technique to the lead electric
> triangle is unique. Under my definition, I don't call that unique.
It it was the "only" technique at that time it would be. Dictionary again.
> It's certainly not ground breaking stuff.
>
Does it have to be to be unique?
> >What Brian was doing back then with the orchestrations was new. Who else did
> >that?
> Is the work of, say, "The Shadows" in the 60s orchestrated? Does there
> being multiple guys in one take and not one guy with multiple takes
> make it less orchestrated? Wasn't the technique trying to achieve
> having multiple Brian Mays in the studio? I fail to see the
> difference. But the noise from the clogs would have been deafening...
>
Your complicating this, there was MORE guitar orchestration on Queen II,
making it unique in that sense. The Shadows were unique in their own sense.
> >Your exposure still hasn't produced an answer, and my answers are apparently
> >to musically technical.
> It has produced answers. Maybe you just didn't see
>them. I'm not going
Answers, but not to a good number of my questions.
> to tell you how to think- just give you something to
consider. Make
> your own mind up.
>
> I have yet to see anything in your posts that is too musically
> technical. You want to consider what I wrote about "It's Late"?
>
> >Just because you mention Russell Morris, does not mean that you've had more
> >exposure.
> Do you want to read that again logically and reconsider it???
>
Yeah, and you have exposure to Russell Morris, and I don't...It still does
not mean that you've had more exposure to music. Dave you are answering the
first parts of my questions and skipping the sencond parts. I don't have all
the time in the world to keep typing, but if you read below you wil notice
that again you dodged the guitar orchestration thing. Simple question, not
answered.
> >Does he orchestrate guitar? I'm sure there is music that I am famliar with
> >and you are not.
> I know there is. That doesn't mean that the music that I haven't heard
> is somehow less valid.
>
So you acknowledge the exposure issue.
> >"No one?" So you are unique. Am I still misrepresenting your point? I think
> >you finally hit on mine, and if not what is the definition of unique in your
> >mind?
> Why don't you go back and re-read it again. Definition is fine, but in
> most cases gives a range of meanings. Application is where the true
> meaning is. You're applying a specific to a vast
>range- and that is
Wrong, I'm applying the word unique to Queen II.
> fraught with danger. To say that the techniques or combination of
> techniques applied to QII were first applied to QII is asking for
> trouble. How many other albums were made before QII? I'm sure someone
> somewhere- maybe even Deidre and the Wondergibbons (they've been
> around for a while)- may have touched on it.
>
I know that no one creates in a vacuum, but I welcomed all of your opinions
including Deidre and the Wondergibbons. I didn't hear of one that layered
vocals and guitars to the extent of Queen II.
> Re Cooper and Queen:
> >My point was the music, not the package it came in.
> The package I refer to *is* the music, including the production. Go
> beyond the notes to the feel of it. Music is about emotions, and good
> production enhances those emotions. It's not just a bunch of notes
> strung together. To see it another way is to miss the experience. Good
> music gets you in.
>
> >> And if QII was released today by Deidre and the Wondergibbons..?
> >Probably, would not get noticed by many.
> Wasn't it said that it would be fresh and new and exciting and sell...
>
I still would find that type of release exciting. What is "and sell..."?
> >> Then you've got...
> >Advertising sells, there is none for Queen in the States.
> So, it's nothing to do with the music...
>
Unfornately not much.
> >There is NO promotion by Hollywood whatoever in the U.S.
> Having been there for a while, I'd have to agree. But that is not the
> point- it was said that it would be fresh and new. So why aren't
> people doing Queen covers? It would make sense to stand out from the
> other music floating around. Musicians know about Queen. Some like
> them, some detest them- but they know of them.
>
Because a lot of the music is complex? Simple sees to do better in todays
world. Most people don't like to make decisions or have to think. Look at
Debbie Gibson and Tiffany (late 80's I believe?). Both sold millions of
albums. Who was buying them? Was there that much baby sitting money going
around? People have the greatest minds (Einstein, Newton) at our disposel,
and they go out and buy albums by 14 year old girls, hearing what they have
to say about love(Shake your Love)? HaHa, anyway.
> >> Is it the overdubbing and orchestrating? Production, not musicianship.
> >The production doesn't write the orchestration. Musicianship is evident if
> >you listen.
> Overdubbing is production. Without that a solo guitarist will have no
> orchestration (unless you're Rick Neilson or Steve Vai, of course.)
>
It's Both, and still, the musician write the orchestration.
> Remember that this bit is about a cover of any Queen song. The
> orchestration is already there to be interpreted. So why aren't people
> doing it?
>
> >> The guitar? Stick a Satriani or a Vai in there. Would using a Strat
> >> instead of the Red Special make it that different?
> >Probably not for those two, but in Brian's hands definatly.
> So do we have the same sound? In any event, would the artist be
> reproducing or interpreting? I'd suggest that there are many out there
> who could reproduce.
>
Reproducing in the studio is the easy part for most. Writing that type of
material seems to be the hard part.
> Is it the vocal range? Listen to live Freddie. Even he didn't use it.
> And you can always change the key.
>
Who could reproduce a Queen II type thing live?
> >And you are of coarse entitled to your opinion, but I am still interestesed
> >in hearing something that is close to it musically. See up above for details.
> Go out and find it. Make your own mind up. If you want pointers, I
> will give them- reluctantly. Because on the search for that elusive
> "sounds like QII" sound, you will experience a lot of other stuff. The
> scenic route is very enjoyable.
>
Are you under the impression that Queen II is the only thing that I listen
to? Thanks for the raw suggestions below.
Matt
> On the other hand, here's a pointer to something else. I don't know
> how you'll get this, but nevertheless... If you liked the rawness of
> the early Cheap Trick, you might like to try this one. An independent
> yet government owned so they're always in trouble radio station down
> here called JJJ ran a thing where (basically- there's more to it than
> this) people sent in demos- and they are literally garage band demos-
> just to try and give people a break. The best stuff was compiled and
> released, and it's full of energy.
>
> Did the experiment work? Well, the winners first time around were
> three young guys who changed their name on the advice of the record
> company- to silverchair. I hear they have made it Top 10 in the US.
> I'm not suggesting you try silverchair, but saying that the experiment
> worked.
>
> Then you might like to give the Australian band Hunters and Collectors
> a listen. Totally different to all of these, but something I like. You
> may think it's shit- but you'll know. There's MP3s out there.
> ---
>
> When I look back at my relationships- I think I'd rather have the extra
> rib.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Andrew Stewart
<vinyl...@vinylfreak.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Wondered where you were?
>Normally you are on the case quicker than this when Mr B is mentioned.
I've been following the thread with avid interest but until now I
didn't really have anything pertinent to add/say. :-)
(np: Best Of Bowie 69/74)
___________________________________________________________________________
rOOth
> On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, David McAuliffe wrote:
> ..... But the noise from the clogs would have been deafening...
>
> LOL!!! Don't be ridiculous, darling! :-)
> (Then again, I guess it would still be quiter as multiple John Deacons...
> imagine the multiple Jackie's screaming at them!)
ROTFL! Brings me back to seeing on TV a Japanese Theme Park where the Dutch clog
dancers doing BoRhap!!
> But back to your interesting discussion. I'm afraid I'm not too familiair
> with "pre-Queen" music, except for the Beatles and Led Zeppelin. And there
> you already have two bands I'd like to nominate to have a certain QueenII
> sound. Or am I being very ridiculous now?
> Anyway, I think Abbey Road (side B) and songs like LedZep's Battle of
> Evermore are full of vocal overdubs etc.
Well anyway Jim Hendrix overdubbed his vocals ; now there's a cool example.
Jackie
>LOL!!! Don't be ridiculous, darling! :-)
>(Then again, I guess it would still be quiter as multiple John Deacons...
>imagine the multiple Jackie's screaming at them!)
You know very well I don't.........*scream* at people. Most
frightfully unseemly!! ;-)
No.
Never. Not me.
Oh no.
I don't scream.
No.
Not once.
Not a bit.
No, never in my life.
Not even if I died and went to heaven and then came back alive.
Hey Pep, let me tell you all about it, boy (and the world will so
allow it) Oooh, give me a little time to choose......
???????????????????
[S'cusi, she seems to have unaccountably broken into song and dance.]
Jackie, the singing water baby in a lily-pool delight, er, although I
say so myself. Hey, look over there: there's some blue powder monkies
praying in the dead of night...!!!!!!!????? Wait a mo. What on *earth*
is this song about....? :-D
David McAuliffe
What was Pep talking about? I'll probably find out next Thursday...
Your honour, we respectfully submit as evidence that on Fri, 05 Mar
1999 09:25:40 GMT, one "jac...@saskia.demon.co.uk (Jackie)" did write:
>No, never in my life.
>Not even if I died and went to heaven and then came back alive.
>Hey Pep, let me tell you all about it, boy (and the world will so
>allow it) Oooh, give me a little time to choose......
>???????????????????
>[S'cusi, she seems to have unaccountably broken into song and dance.]
>
>Jackie, the singing water baby in a lily-pool delight, er, although I
>say so myself. Hey, look over there: there's some blue powder monkies
>praying in the dead of night...!!!!!!!????? Wait a mo. What on *earth*
>is this song about....? :-D
I don't know, but you'd better watch it. Here comes the Black Queen. I
think she's been poking in the pile again.
Take this. Take that.
(Oooh, it's gotten wather wough in here all of a sudden... Niiice...)
---
When I look back at my relationships- I think I'd rather have the extra
rib.
Protect privacy, boycott Intel: http://www.bigbrotherinside.org
Pep
> I think my news feed is coming in out of sequence again. Oh, dear.
> What was Pep talking about? I'll probably find out next Thursday...
Does that mean you also haven't received my 99 declarations of love yet?
:-0
Hoit, Pep
Pep
> >LOL!!! Don't be ridiculous, darling! :-)
> >(Then again, I guess it would still be quiter as multiple John Deacons...
> >imagine the multiple Jackie's screaming at them!)
the incomparable Jackster replied:
> Now listen boyo.
> You know very well I don't.........*scream* at people. Most
> frightfully unseemly!! ;-)
Well, let's count you're denials...
One.
> No.
Two.
> Never. Not me.
three, four
> Oh no.
five
> I don't scream.
six
> No.
seven
> Not once.
eight
> Not a bit.
nine
> No, never in my life.
ten
> Not even if I died and went to heaven and then came back alive.
eleven...
Well, not not not not not not not not not not not = you *do*!!!!
SSSSSSSSCCCCCCCCRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!
> Hey Pep, let me tell you all about it, boy (and the world will so
> allow it) Oooh, give me a little time to choose......
> ???????????????????
> [S'cusi, she seems to have unaccountably broken into song and dance.]
Yeah!!! Tear it up baby!!!
[broken loose into other song and - well, it could in a slight way be
described as - dance]
> Jackie, the singing water baby in a lily-pool delight, er, although I
> say so myself. Hey, look over there: there's some blue powder monkies
> praying in the dead of night...!!!!!!!????? Wait a mo. What on *earth*
> is this song about....? :-D
Err.... sex? drugs? (is there anything else on this world? ;)
Hoit, Pep
Sue
vinylfreak wrote:
Sue writes
>>ArdenGuy wrote:
>>>That's not what I meant, sorry for not being clearer. What Im saying is
>>>they changed at the drop of a hat with the new trend and it didn't suit
>>>them.
>>I suppose the stripped down style of News of The World was a reaction to
(blah blah) <snip>
>>Really, looking at it from the outside, punk seemed just as much
>>a hyped up fashion bandwagon as anything it pretended to be standing
>>against. Where were most of those anarchists half a dozen years
(waffle, waffle) <snip>
Mr Vf:
>Yes Yes Yes.
>I agree.
Someone agrees with me! <astonishment> Yahey!!
Vf:
>Most of the punks went down the road they so hated??
>Though our little Siouxsie seems to have stayed true to the punk spirit
>with the Banshees and now the Creatures.
How about that prog on La Burchill recently? She admitted her NME
writing was all a load of tosh and she hated punk music really!
Vf:
>Wish I`d gone to see the Creatures in concert now. :-(
>My friend is dragging me off to see Suzi Quatro, the Rubettes and Alvin
>Stardust in a 70`s concert tour.
>Was a bit nonplussed but since raking out some neglected records?
>I`m going to have a laugh. :-)
>ONE MORE TIME FOR SUZI.....
Coo thanks mate... ... oh.. you meant *that* Suzi! Did you catch her on
'This Is Your Life'?
Sue
vinylfreak
>Moi:
>>>I suppose the stripped down style of News of The World was a reaction to
>>>New Wave happening in UK, ...
>(blah blah) <snip>
>>>Really, looking at it from the outside, punk seemed just as much
>>>a hyped up fashion bandwagon as anything it pretended to be standing
>>>against. Where were most of those anarchists half a dozen years
>>>later?...
>(waffle, waffle) <snip>
>
>Mr Vf:
>>Yes Yes Yes.
>>I agree.
>
>Someone agrees with me! <astonishment> Yahey!!
Don`t be so modest people have been known to agree with thou before.
All in asylums now and safe from harm. :-)
>
>Vf:
>>Most of the punks went down the road they so hated??
>>Though our little Siouxsie seems to have stayed true to the punk spirit
>>with the Banshees and now the Creatures.
>
>How about that prog on La Burchill recently? She admitted her NME
>writing was all a load of tosh and she hated punk music really!
I never believed ms Burchill ever and had doubts about Danny Bakers
scribbles too.
Punks were never fond of Julie the anarchist either.
>
>Vf:
>>Wish I`d gone to see the Creatures in concert now. :-(
>>My friend is dragging me off to see Suzi Quatro, the Rubettes and Alvin
>>Stardust in a 70`s concert tour.
>>Was a bit nonplussed but since raking out some neglected records?
>>I`m going to have a laugh. :-)
>>ONE MORE TIME FOR SUZI.....
>
>Coo thanks mate... ... oh.. you meant *that* Suzi! Did you catch her on
>'This Is Your Life'?
>
>Sue
No.
I think that`s what made my pal keen on buying the tickets.
Although she has been known to try and belt out Sugar Baby Love from
time to time.
Not a pretty sound at all.
Thank god she hasn`t tried the Prophet Song!!!!
--
vinylfreak
David McAuliffe
99 declarations of love? What? Only 99? Don't you love me any more?
No, that's not a Queen song... You used to bring me flowers... No
that's not one either... I remember when you used to send so many
declarations that the people up link were wondering how many spam
lists I'd gotten myself on to.
I shall now sit patiently by the server waiting, and firing up my
newsreader by the minute to check.
Waiting... Waiting... Waiting... <sigh>
Isn't this new technology wonderful? It used to be the phone. Now they
can't get through because we're on the net.
---
When I look back at my relationships- I think I'd rather have the extra
rib.
Jackie
>>Jackie, the singing water baby in a lily-pool delight, er, although I
>>say so myself. Hey, look over there: there's some blue powder monkies
>>praying in the dead of night...!!!!!!!????? Wait a mo. What on *earth*
>>is this song about....? :-D
>I don't know, but you'd better watch it. Here comes the Black Queen. I
>think she's been poking in the pile again.
>Take this.
Oooh, careful.
>Take that.
Ow!
>(Oooh, it's gotten wather wough in here all of a sudden... Niiice...)
> ---
Wather wough? <bark>
>When I look back at my relationships- I think I'd rather have the extra
> rib.
With sauce or without?
Jackie.
rOOth
> >When I look back at my relationships- I think I'd rather have the extra
> > rib.
> With sauce or without?
>
> Jackie.
<bark>
Oh Davie, glad to know you're on the mend .... ;-)
W. K. Mahler
So with all these responses, will Mr. Stewart please join with Mr. May, Mr.
Deacon & Mr. Taylor for at least one studio album, please?
William K. Mahler
rOOth
Wow William mate you sound like you're made of money! Cos to even suggest a
thing would mean you'd have to put money where your mouth is - i mean could you
imagine, as producer, just how much you'd have to shelve out just in wages for
a thing like that ?!?!? But I mean man, if you...
Don't mind me - just having a bit of fun before i have to be REALLY serious
hehe. Such is life.
Anyway, if i dare go on a bit, i wish some of these guys would tour together,
in a way where they shared resources thereby cutting costs in these shaven ages
: for instance you'd get a three-band deal (sorta like the Trident thingy,
iikwita*, but related to touring in other counties (can include home one).
Take, for instance, down under winter 99 : rod stewart band, elton john,
queenies - probs bm band and rt and tm (jd as roadie that becomes...), led
zeppies jimmy and robert, dave gilmour and roger waters 8-[] come over
together : then tour for a period of time in alternate/rostered cities, etc,
having some overlap....
No, i haven't got any money either!
--
---
ruth :-)
---
* (if i know what i'm talking about)
Jdmischief
>thing would mean you'd have to put money where your mouth is - i mean could
you
i dunno....how much money can he put in his arse?
Written in the Stars....
jenni
Remove 1984 from address when mailing me!