Queen eh?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10878
Printed Date: May 15 2024 at 18:57
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Queen eh?
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Subject: Queen eh?
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 03:03
|
...Then why not add toto? To very similar bands as they both:
Make pop songs that somtimes exceeds 5 minutes and with a rhytm diffrent than 4/4 and then counts as progressive.
Have really bad vocalists
Have guitarists that could go on forever while playing some boring guitar solo.
Have very unorginal lyrics or just plain dumb lyrics.
Is crap
|
Replies:
Posted By: con safo
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 03:04
Welcome to 2 weeks ago!
-------------
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 03:05
|
Yes yes i have not seen it before...but i still can't belivie it.
|
Posted By: lucas
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 03:28
 maidenrulez wrote:
T[w]o very similar bands [Toto & Queen] as they both:
Have really bad vocalists
|
Freddie Mercury and Bobby Kimball are bad vocalists ?
-------------
"Magma was the very first gothic rock band" (Didier Lockwood)
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 03:29
|
Freddie Mercury, bad vocalist?????? 
I'm no big Fan of Queen, but I cant think of any rock vocalist who could sing as well as him. As for them being in the archives, I have my reservations too, but please try to recognise genuine musical skill when it jumps up and bites you so obviously on the arse.
Please dont try to argue that Bruce 'Air raid Siren' Dickinson is a better singer than Mercury..
-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
Posted By: BiGi
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 03:38
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 03:59
Again...
-------------
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 04:11
maidenrulez wrote:
...Then why not add toto? To very similar bands as they both:
Make pop songs that somtimes exceeds 5 minutes and with a rhytm diffrent than 4/4 and then counts as progressive.
Have really bad vocalists
Have guitarists that could go on forever while playing some boring guitar solo.
Have very unorginal lyrics or just plain dumb lyrics.
Is crap
|
You have a lot to learn when you try to put Queen and Toto on the same level ... why don't you email Bruce and ask him what he thinks about Freddie Mercury's vocals? Or even better - email him your post and ask for comments ...
BTW: I don't like Toto, except for their brilliant album "Mindfields".
-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 04:18
|
I generally don't like male vocalists who tries to sing like girls..sorry not my thing
And just because they have had major hits dont certainly mean that the music is good. The songwritings skills on any of the queen members in non present
|
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 04:37
maidenrulez wrote:
I generally don't like male vocalists who tries to sing like girls..sorry not my thing
And just because they have had major hits dont certainly mean that
the music is good. The songwritings skills on any of the queen members
in non present |
You sir, are talking out of you arse. Thread ends here.
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 04:38
maidenrulez wrote:
I generally don't like male vocalists who tries to sing like girls..sorry not my thing
And just because they have had major hits dont certainly mean that the music is good. The songwritings skills on any of the queen members in non present
|
You don't know anything about music, sorry. Only a completely uneducated person would say that. Ask ANYBODY who plays an instrument, they'll simply laugh at you. Or - as I suggested above - ask any of the musicians which you like, you'll always get the same answer.
Sorry if that sounds rude ... it's only the truth.
-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 04:40
Trouserpress wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
I generally don't like male vocalists who tries to sing like girls..sorry not my thing
And just because they have had major hits dont certainly mean that the music is good. The songwritings skills on any of the queen members in non present
|
You sir, are talking out of you arse. Thread ends here.
|
Oh please ive got 4 queen albums and the only song that is likable is Boheimian rhapsody and even that song is way silly. The rest of the classic songs like radio gaga, another one bites the dust and big bottomed girls is just plain plastic pop. Even abba was better.
Queen is crap and i rest my case. I don't mind pop but i need some kind of orginality
|
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 04:41
maidenrulez wrote:
Trouserpress wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
I generally don't like male vocalists who tries to sing like girls..sorry not my thing
And just because they have had major hits dont certainly mean that
the music is good. The songwritings skills on any of the queen members
in non present
|
You sir, are talking out of you arse. Thread ends here.
|
Oh please ive got 4 queen albums and the only song that is likable
is Boheimian rhapsody and even that song is way silly. The rest of the
classic songs like radio gaga, another one bites the dust and big
bottomed girls is just plain plastic pop. Even abba was better. |
What albums might they be? Greatest Hits Volumes 1 to 4?
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 04:46
Trouserpress wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
Trouserpress wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
I generally don't like male vocalists who tries to sing like girls..sorry not my thing
And just because they have had major hits dont certainly mean that the music is good. The songwritings skills on any of the queen members in non present
|
You sir, are talking out of you arse. Thread ends here.
|
Oh please ive got 4 queen albums and the only song that is likable is Boheimian rhapsody and even that song is way silly. The rest of the classic songs like radio gaga, another one bites the dust and big bottomed girls is just plain plastic pop. Even abba was better.
|
What albums might they be? Greatest Hits Volumes 1 to 4?
|
I am pretty sure i have seen some compilation of the greatest hits but that where only 3 volumes? Anyway ive got Queen 2 and that eh a night at the opera thingie, jazz and that movie soundtrack album wich i cant remeber the name of
|
Posted By: BiGi
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 04:47
maidenrulez wrote:
Trouserpress wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
I generally don't like male vocalists who tries to sing like girls..sorry not my thing
And just because they have had major hits dont certainly mean that the music is good. The songwritings skills on any of the queen members in non present
|
You sir, are talking out of you arse. Thread ends here. |
Oh please ive got 4 queen albums and the only song that is likable is Boheimian rhapsody and even that song is way silly. The rest of the classic songs like radio gaga, another one bites the dust and big bottomed girls is just plain plastic pop. Even abba was better.
Queen is crap and i rest my case. I don't mind pop but i need some kind of orginality |
Try some of their earlier efforts (Queen, Queen II, Sheer Heart Attack): they are a worthwhile experience!
-------------
A flower?
|
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 04:48
maidenrulez wrote:
Trouserpress wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
Trouserpress wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
I generally don't like male vocalists who tries to sing like girls..sorry not my thing
And just because they have had major hits dont certainly mean that
the music is good. The songwritings skills on any of the queen members
in non present
|
You sir, are talking out of you arse. Thread ends here.
|
Oh please ive got 4 queen albums and the only song that is likable
is Boheimian rhapsody and even that song is way silly. The rest of the
classic songs like radio gaga, another one bites the dust and big
bottomed girls is just plain plastic pop. Even abba was better.
|
What albums might they be? Greatest Hits Volumes 1 to 4?
|
I am pretty sure i have seen some compilation of the greatest hits
but that where only 3 volumes? Anyway ive got Queen 2 and that eh a
night at the opera thingie, jazz and that movie soundtrack album wich i
cant remeber the name of |
Right-o. And you find NOTHING on them to suggest any kind of
songwriting or instrumental skill? If that's really true and you're not
just spitting petty prejudice then yes, I'm afraid you know bugger all
about music.
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 04:52
Trouserpress wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
Trouserpress wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
Trouserpress wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
I generally don't like male vocalists who tries to sing like girls..sorry not my thing
And just because they have had major hits dont certainly mean that the music is good. The songwritings skills on any of the queen members in non present
|
You sir, are talking out of you arse. Thread ends here.
|
Oh please ive got 4 queen albums and the only song that is likable is Boheimian rhapsody and even that song is way silly. The rest of the classic songs like radio gaga, another one bites the dust and big bottomed girls is just plain plastic pop. Even abba was better.
|
What albums might they be? Greatest Hits Volumes 1 to 4?
|
I am pretty sure i have seen some compilation of the greatest hits but that where only 3 volumes? Anyway ive got Queen 2 and that eh a night at the opera thingie, jazz and that movie soundtrack album wich i cant remeber the name of
|
Right-o. And you find NOTHING on them to suggest any kind of songwriting or instrumental skill? If that's really true and you're not just spitting petty prejudice then yes, I'm afraid you know bugger all about music.
|
I never said they where bad instrumentalists although i find brian may a bit overrated as a guitarist just as jimi hendrix. But i generally don't think they are good songwriters in terms of both lyrics, melodies and complex arrangements. I can barely hear anything in their music that i have not heard before
|
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 04:59
maidenrulez wrote:
Trouserpress wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
Trouserpress wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
Trouserpress wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
I generally don't like male vocalists who tries to sing like girls..sorry not my thing
And just because they have had major hits dont certainly mean that
the music is good. The songwritings skills on any of the queen members
in non present
|
You sir, are talking out of you arse. Thread ends here.
|
Oh please ive got 4 queen albums and the only song that is likable
is Boheimian rhapsody and even that song is way silly. The rest of the
classic songs like radio gaga, another one bites the dust and big
bottomed girls is just plain plastic pop. Even abba was better.
|
What albums might they be? Greatest Hits Volumes 1 to 4?
|
I am pretty sure i have seen some compilation of the greatest hits
but that where only 3 volumes? Anyway ive got Queen 2 and that eh a
night at the opera thingie, jazz and that movie soundtrack album wich i
cant remeber the name of
|
Right-o. And you find NOTHING on them to suggest any
kind of songwriting or instrumental skill? If that's really true and
you're not just spitting petty prejudice then yes, I'm afraid you know
bugger all about music.
|
I never said they where bad instrumentalists although i find brian
may a bit overrated as a guitarist just as jimi hendrix. But i
generally don't think they are good songwriters in terms of both
lyrics, melodies and complex arrangements. I can barely hear anything
in their music that i have not heard before |
The fact is, though, that Queen were amongst the first to do it at the
time! And don't even dare suggest that Maiden's arrangements are more
complex than Queen's!
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 05:01
Trouserpress wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
Trouserpress wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
Trouserpress wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
Trouserpress wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
I generally don't like male vocalists who tries to sing like girls..sorry not my thing
And just because they have had major hits dont certainly mean that the music is good. The songwritings skills on any of the queen members in non present
|
You sir, are talking out of you arse. Thread ends here.
|
Oh please ive got 4 queen albums and the only song that is likable is Boheimian rhapsody and even that song is way silly. The rest of the classic songs like radio gaga, another one bites the dust and big bottomed girls is just plain plastic pop. Even abba was better.
|
What albums might they be? Greatest Hits Volumes 1 to 4?
|
I am pretty sure i have seen some compilation of the greatest hits but that where only 3 volumes? Anyway ive got Queen 2 and that eh a night at the opera thingie, jazz and that movie soundtrack album wich i cant remeber the name of
|
Right-o. And you find NOTHING on them to suggest any kind of songwriting or instrumental skill? If that's really true and you're not just spitting petty prejudice then yes, I'm afraid you know bugger all about music.
|
I never said they where bad instrumentalists although i find brian may a bit overrated as a guitarist just as jimi hendrix. But i generally don't think they are good songwriters in terms of both lyrics, melodies and complex arrangements. I can barely hear anything in their music that i have not heard before
|
The fact is, though, that Queen were amongst the first to do it at the time! And don't even dare suggest that Maiden's arrangements are more complex than Queen's!
|
1.Maiden is not on the prog archvies.
2.Have you heard sign of the cross, sevneth son of a seventh son,rhyme of the ancient marnier?
Great stuff!!!
|
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 05:02
maidenrulez wrote:
Trouserpress wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
Trouserpress wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
Trouserpress wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
Trouserpress wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
I generally don't like male vocalists who tries to sing like girls..sorry not my thing
And just because they have had major hits dont certainly mean that
the music is good. The songwritings skills on any of the queen members
in non present
|
You sir, are talking out of you arse. Thread ends here.
|
Oh please ive got 4 queen albums and the only song that is likable
is Boheimian rhapsody and even that song is way silly. The rest of the
classic songs like radio gaga, another one bites the dust and big
bottomed girls is just plain plastic pop. Even abba was better.
|
What albums might they be? Greatest Hits Volumes 1 to 4?
|
I am pretty sure i have seen some compilation of the greatest hits
but that where only 3 volumes? Anyway ive got Queen 2 and that eh a
night at the opera thingie, jazz and that movie soundtrack album wich i
cant remeber the name of
|
Right-o. And you find NOTHING on them to suggest any
kind of songwriting or instrumental skill? If that's really true and
you're not just spitting petty prejudice then yes, I'm afraid you know
bugger all about music.
|
I never said they where bad instrumentalists although i find brian
may a bit overrated as a guitarist just as jimi hendrix. But i
generally don't think they are good songwriters in terms of both
lyrics, melodies and complex arrangements. I can barely hear anything
in their music that i have not heard before
|
The fact is, though, that Queen were amongst the
first to do it at the time! And don't even dare suggest that Maiden's
arrangements are more complex than Queen's!
|
1.Maiden is not on the prog archvies.
2.Have you heard sign of the cross, sevneth son of a seventh son,rhyme of the ancient marnier?
Great stuff!!! |
1. I know.
2. The last two, yes. My brother's a big maiden fan and he's played them at me before now. I wasn't exactly bowled over.
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 05:04
|
Well anyway since QUEEN is concidered a prog band THEN you would expect complex arangements?
|
Posted By: Citanul
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 05:07
maidenrulez wrote:
I generally don't like male vocalists who tries to sing like girls..sorry not my thing
And just because they have had major hits dont certainly mean that
the music is good. The songwritings skills on any of the queen members
in non present |
It depends what you mean by songwriting skills. All the members
of Queen wrote songs which were hits, so that means they were able to
write songs that appealed to the general public. Maybe they're
not so impressive from a prog sense, but anyone who can put together
Bohemian Rhapsody must have some decent songwriting skills.
-------------
Be or be not. There is no question. - Yoda, Prince of Denmark
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 05:10
Citanul wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
I generally don't like male vocalists who tries to sing like girls..sorry not my thing
And just because they have had major hits dont certainly mean that the music is good. The songwritings skills on any of the queen members in non present
|
It depends what you mean by songwriting skills. All the members of Queen wrote songs which were hits, so that means they were able to write songs that appealed to the general public. Maybe they're not so impressive from a prog sense, but anyone who can put together Bohemian Rhapsody must have some decent songwriting skills.
|
Well since queen suddenly is PROG then suddenly you have to compare their songwriting skills to other PROG artists. And they are fair enough composers compared to most rock/pop artists but compared to most PROG artists they lack quite a bit.
gee its fun writing PROG with big letters.
|
Posted By: Citanul
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 05:13
maidenrulez wrote:
Citanul wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
I generally don't like male vocalists who tries to sing like girls..sorry not my thing
And just because they have had major hits dont certainly mean that
the music is good. The songwritings skills on any of the queen members
in non present
|
It depends what you mean by songwriting
skills. All the members of Queen wrote songs which were hits, so
that means they were able to write songs that appealed to the general
public. Maybe they're not so impressive from a prog sense, but
anyone who can put together Bohemian Rhapsody must have some decent
songwriting skills.
|
Well since queen suddenly is PROG then suddenly you have to compare
their songwriting skills to other PROG artists. And they are fair
enough composers compared to most rock/pop artists but compared to most
PROG artists they lack quite a bit.
gee its fun writing PROG with big letters. |
Are Asia better songwriters than Queen?
-------------
Be or be not. There is no question. - Yoda, Prince of Denmark
|
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 05:15
Citanul wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
Citanul wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
I generally don't like male vocalists who tries to sing like girls..sorry not my thing
And just because they have had major hits dont certainly mean that
the music is good. The songwritings skills on any of the queen members
in non present
|
It depends what you mean by songwriting
skills. All the members of Queen wrote songs which were hits, so
that means they were able to write songs that appealed to the general
public. Maybe they're not so impressive from a prog sense, but
anyone who can put together Bohemian Rhapsody must have some decent
songwriting skills.
|
Well since queen suddenly is PROG then suddenly you have to compare
their songwriting skills to other PROG artists. And they are fair
enough composers compared to most rock/pop artists but compared to most
PROG artists they lack quite a bit.
gee its fun writing PROG with big letters. |
Are Asia better songwriters than Queen?
|
Collectively or individually? 
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 05:17
Citanul wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
Citanul wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
I generally don't like male vocalists who tries to sing like girls..sorry not my thing
And just because they have had major hits dont certainly mean that the music is good. The songwritings skills on any of the queen members in non present
|
It depends what you mean by songwriting skills. All the members of Queen wrote songs which were hits, so that means they were able to write songs that appealed to the general public. Maybe they're not so impressive from a prog sense, but anyone who can put together Bohemian Rhapsody must have some decent songwriting skills.
|
Well since queen suddenly is PROG then suddenly you have to compare their songwriting skills to other PROG artists. And they are fair enough composers compared to most rock/pop artists but compared to most PROG artists they lack quite a bit.
gee its fun writing PROG with big letters.
|
Are Asia better songwriters than Queen?
|
ASIA has always been a big mistake...the only reason why ASIA must have been added must be because the artists did PROG before they came into ASIA and then made plain pop. But ofcourse there are alot of artists that are on this site that are rather dodgy like nightwish or porcupine tree but my main argument was really that TOTO is more prog than queen.
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 05:22
|
Anyone who understands music, will know that Queen were exceptionally talented and unique songwriters. They were capable of writing songs with a conceptual edge and progressive feel, as well as an abilty to effortlessly churn out highly original, well crafted hits.
Even if you dont personally like them, they were more versatile and musically aware than, for instance, Iron Maiden. I listened to Maiden for years as a kid, and despite their obvious technical ability I'm surprised that educated grown man like them dont get bored playing the same mediocre head banging bullsh!t year after year after year.
That said, I'm sure if you asked Bruce Dickinson what he thought of Queen, I'm sure he would hold them in very high regard.
...and I'm not even a Queen fan!!
-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
Posted By: BiGi
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 05:25
Citanul wrote:
Are Asia better songwriters than Queen?
|
To say the least, they were indeed less successful! 
Anyway I believe Asia's biggest hinderance has always been too little daring!
And Queen were far more daring than many other acts!
-------------
A flower?
|
Posted By: Citanul
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 05:26
maidenrulez wrote:
Citanul wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
Citanul wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
I generally don't like male vocalists who tries to sing like girls..sorry not my thing
And just because they have had major hits dont certainly mean that
the music is good. The songwritings skills on any of the queen members
in non present
|
It depends what you mean by songwriting
skills. All the members of Queen wrote songs which were hits, so
that means they were able to write songs that appealed to the general
public. Maybe they're not so impressive from a prog sense, but
anyone who can put together Bohemian Rhapsody must have some decent
songwriting skills.
|
Well since queen suddenly is PROG then suddenly you have to compare
their songwriting skills to other PROG artists. And they are fair
enough composers compared to most rock/pop artists but compared to most
PROG artists they lack quite a bit.
gee its fun writing PROG with big letters.
|
Are Asia better songwriters than Queen?
|
ASIA has always been a big mistake...the only reason why ASIA must
have been added must be because the artists did PROG before they came
into ASIA and then made plain pop. But ofcourse there are alot of
artists that are on this site that are rather dodgy like nightwish or
porcupine tree but my main argument was really that TOTO is more prog
than queen. |
Well you didn't make a very good argument that Toto were more prog than
Queen. Instead you pointed out some vague similarities.
-------------
Be or be not. There is no question. - Yoda, Prince of Denmark
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 05:46
|
If you compare the first maiden album to forexample dance of death you would have to be deaf no to hear that the music has not evolved? The music is still good ol heavy metal but with some nice symphonic elements compined with some more complex arrangements, truly great.
I guess most that think maiden have only heard the 80's maiden...a shame really.
And although a bit vague i wanted to point out that TOTO is equally proggish to QUEEN not that i want any of the bands on this page...
|
Posted By: Citanul
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 06:10
maidenrulez wrote:
If you compare the first maiden album to
forexample dance of death you would have to be deaf no to hear that the
music has not evolved? The music is still good ol heavy metal but with
some nice symphonic elements compined with some more complex
arrangements, truly great.
I guess most that think maiden have only heard the 80's maiden...a shame really.
And although a bit vague i wanted to point out that TOTO is equally
proggish to QUEEN not that i want any of the bands on this page... |
I would agree with you on your points about Maiden. However, you
said that Toto and Queen were both similar in prog terms because they
had dumb lyrics, boring guitar solos, bad singers and were crap.
Hardly an objective, convincing argument.
-------------
Be or be not. There is no question. - Yoda, Prince of Denmark
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 06:17
maidenrulez wrote:
2.Have you heard sign of the cross, sevneth son of a seventh son,rhyme of the ancient marnier?
Great stuff!!!
|
1. I know Iron Maiden very well ... great band.
2. I really like Ryme of the Ancient Mariner ... but the song isn't progressive. Listen to Shadow Gallery - Ghostship ... THAT's progressive.
-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 06:18
Citanul wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
If you compare the first maiden album to forexample dance of death you would have to be deaf no to hear that the music has not evolved? The music is still good ol heavy metal but with some nice symphonic elements compined with some more complex arrangements, truly great.
I guess most that think maiden have only heard the 80's maiden...a shame really.
And although a bit vague i wanted to point out that TOTO is equally proggish to QUEEN not that i want any of the bands on this page...
|
I would agree with you on your points about Maiden. However, you said that Toto and Queen were both similar in prog terms because they had dumb lyrics, boring guitar solos, bad singers and were crap. Hardly an objective, convincing argument.
|
Well i guess i wanted to bash both of them at the same time HOWEVER i think that both toto and queen got progressive elements in some of their songs but that they mainly concentrate on making pop and that is what i hate about both these bands. Ofcourse you can say that indeed yes and genesis and even jethro tull have not all been progressive all the way through i would like to think that they where remebered for their progressive efforts rather than their pop efforts. With toto and queen it is the other way around i would say 90 percent of all their music is using very simple song structures and that holds no interest to me at all.
And i still think that both bands have horrible vocals because of the singing way high notes that would normally be sung by women. I think too many male vocalists is trying to reach high notes and that annoys me quite a bit.
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 06:22
maidenrulez wrote:
Well since queen suddenly is PROG then suddenly you have to compare their songwriting skills to other PROG artists. And they are fair enough composers compared to most rock/pop artists but compared to most PROG artists they lack quite a bit.
gee its fun writing PROG with big letters.
|
"Queen is PROG" ... noone said that. They're in the archives, filed under Art Rock. They were included because their early albums are considered PROG by the owners of the site and some influential members (and by me, incidentally). Nobody said that songs like We are the Champions or I Want to Break Free are PROG.
Calm down a little. I guess that if Iron Maiden were included, you wouldn't want to see Queen fans bashing Iron Maiden with silly arguments like "They are no more progressive than Manowar" or "Bruce Dickinson can't sing".
-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 06:24
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
2.Have you heard sign of the cross, sevneth son of a seventh son,rhyme of the ancient marnier?
Great stuff!!!
|
1. I know Iron Maiden very well ... great band.
2. I really like Ryme of the Ancient Mariner ... but the song isn't progressive. Listen to Shadow Gallery - Ghostship ... THAT's progressive.
|
Hmm the ultra zone? The only steve vai album i got. Strange stuff...anyway i would say that certainly ROTAM got several progressive elements like more intelligent lyrics, alot of timechanges and has some great atmospheare in the midsection combined with sound effects and diffrent approaches to singing. All in all a very nice arangement put together in a very intelligent matter. I would concider that progressive IMO
|
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 06:33
maidenrulez wrote:
Citanul wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
If you compare the first maiden album to forexample dance of death
you would have to be deaf no to hear that the music has not evolved?
The music is still good ol heavy metal but with some nice symphonic
elements compined with some more complex arrangements, truly great.
I guess most that think maiden have only heard the 80's maiden...a shame really.
And although a bit vague i wanted to point out that TOTO is equally
proggish to QUEEN not that i want any of the bands on this page...
|
I would agree with you on your points about
Maiden. However, you said that Toto and Queen were both similar
in prog terms because they had dumb lyrics, boring guitar solos, bad
singers and were crap. Hardly an objective, convincing argument.
|
Ofcourse you can say that indeed yes and genesis and even
jethro tull have not all been progressive all the way through i would
like to think that they where remebered for their progressive efforts
rather than their pop efforts. |
Untrue. Ask the average person on the street what songs they know/remember by those three and you'll get these answers:
- Owner of a Lonely Heart
- I Can't Dance (and countless other examples of 80s piffle)
- Aqualung/Locomotive Breath (Semi-prog at best)
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 06:41
Trouserpress wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
Citanul wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
If you compare the first maiden album to forexample dance of death you would have to be deaf no to hear that the music has not evolved? The music is still good ol heavy metal but with some nice symphonic elements compined with some more complex arrangements, truly great.
I guess most that think maiden have only heard the 80's maiden...a shame really.
And although a bit vague i wanted to point out that TOTO is equally proggish to QUEEN not that i want any of the bands on this page...
|
I would agree with you on your points about Maiden. However, you said that Toto and Queen were both similar in prog terms because they had dumb lyrics, boring guitar solos, bad singers and were crap. Hardly an objective, convincing argument.
|
Ofcourse you can say that indeed yes and genesis and even jethro tull have not all been progressive all the way through i would like to think that they where remebered for their progressive efforts rather than their pop efforts. |
Untrue. Ask the average person on the street what songs they know/remember by those three and you'll get these answers:
- Owner of a Lonely Heart
- I Can't Dance (and countless other examples of 80s piffle)
- Aqualung/Locomotive Breath (Semi-prog at best)
|
id say invisbile touch is the worst of all of those. Anyway id say the average fans of these groups (genesis, yes and jethro tull) would perhaps like them for their progressive efforsts while the average fans of groups like toto and queen would remember their big pop hits.
|
Posted By: M. B. Zapelini
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 06:43
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
Well since queen suddenly is PROG then suddenly you have to compare their songwriting skills to other PROG artists. And they are fair enough composers compared to most rock/pop artists but compared to most PROG artists they lack quite a bit.
gee its fun writing PROG with big letters.
|
"Queen is PROG" ... noone said that. They're in the archives, filed under Art Rock. They were included because their early albums are considered PROG by the owners of the site and some influential members (and by me, incidentally). Nobody said that songs like We are the Champions or I Want to Break Free are PROG.
Calm down a little. I guess that if Iron Maiden were included, you wouldn't want to see Queen fans bashing Iron Maiden with silly arguments like "They are no more progressive than Manowar" or "Bruce Dickinson can't sing".
|
Great point, MikeEnRegalia. This Queen thread seems like an endless discussion. I don't like Queen, although I think they deserve a place right here at ProgArchives, as an Art Rock band. So what I usually do... I don´t visit their page at ProgArchive, I am not interested in what my fellow prog mates wrote about Queen. And PLEASE let's forget about Iron Maiden at ProgArchives - they are great heavy metal, probably the greatest heavy metal band of all time, but they're not prog. If you will judge by lenght of some songs (as "Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner" - a fantastic song, by the way), so Venom would be prog ("At war With Satan" has 20+ minutes)...
-------------
"He's a man of the past and one of the present"
PETER HAMMILL
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 06:44
Can I join in?
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 06:46
M. B. Zapelini wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
Well since queen suddenly is PROG then suddenly you have to compare their songwriting skills to other PROG artists. And they are fair enough composers compared to most rock/pop artists but compared to most PROG artists they lack quite a bit.
gee its fun writing PROG with big letters.
|
"Queen is PROG" ... noone said that. They're in the archives, filed under Art Rock. They were included because their early albums are considered PROG by the owners of the site and some influential members (and by me, incidentally). Nobody said that songs like We are the Champions or I Want to Break Free are PROG.
Calm down a little. I guess that if Iron Maiden were included, you wouldn't want to see Queen fans bashing Iron Maiden with silly arguments like "They are no more progressive than Manowar" or "Bruce Dickinson can't sing".
|
Great point, MikeEnRegalia. This Queen thread seems like an endless discussion. I don't like Queen, although I think they deserve a place right here at ProgArchives, as an Art Rock band. So what I usually do... I don´t visit their page at ProgArchive, I am not interested in what my fellow prog mates wrote about Queen. And PLEASE let's forget about Iron Maiden at ProgArchives - they are great heavy metal, probably the greatest heavy metal band of all time, but they're not prog. If you will judge by lenght of some songs (as "Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner" - a fantastic song, by the way), so Venom would be prog ("At war With Satan" has 20+ minutes)...
|
I did not say that i would like iron maiden included i just said that iron maiden are far more progresive than queen will ever be. And why i call the songs Rhyme of the ancient marnier for progressive i have clearly staded above. And not because of its lenght.
|
Posted By: M. B. Zapelini
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 06:55
maidenrulez wrote:
M. B. Zapelini wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
Well since queen suddenly is PROG then suddenly you have to compare their songwriting skills to other PROG artists. And they are fair enough composers compared to most rock/pop artists but compared to most PROG artists they lack quite a bit.
gee its fun writing PROG with big letters.
|
"Queen is PROG" ... noone said that. They're in the archives, filed under Art Rock. They were included because their early albums are considered PROG by the owners of the site and some influential members (and by me, incidentally). Nobody said that songs like We are the Champions or I Want to Break Free are PROG.
Calm down a little. I guess that if Iron Maiden were included, you wouldn't want to see Queen fans bashing Iron Maiden with silly arguments like "They are no more progressive than Manowar" or "Bruce Dickinson can't sing".
|
Great point, MikeEnRegalia. This Queen thread seems like an endless discussion. I don't like Queen, although I think they deserve a place right here at ProgArchives, as an Art Rock band. So what I usually do... I don´t visit their page at ProgArchive, I am not interested in what my fellow prog mates wrote about Queen. And PLEASE let's forget about Iron Maiden at ProgArchives - they are great heavy metal, probably the greatest heavy metal band of all time, but they're not prog. If you will judge by lenght of some songs (as "Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner" - a fantastic song, by the way), so Venom would be prog ("At war With Satan" has 20+ minutes)...
|
I did not say that i would like iron maiden included i just said that iron maiden are far more progresive than queen will ever be. And why i call the songs Rhyme of the ancient marnier for progressive i have clearly staded above. And not because of its lenght.
|
Sorry, Maidenrulez. Didn't read your quote about Rhyme... Just a question: do you like Blaze's singing? I gave up Maiden when I heard this guy! NOW that Bruce is back I can hear to Maiden again
-------------
"He's a man of the past and one of the present"
PETER HAMMILL
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 07:58
|
I'm not a huge Queen fan but I must agree with most people here - they're great musicians and even The Beatles can't claim hits written by all 4 members (unless you include Octopus' Garden ).
|
Posted By: BiGi
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 08:15
chopper wrote:
I'm not a huge Queen fan but I must agree with most people here - they're great musicians and even The Beatles can't claim hits written by all 4 members (unless you include Octopus' Garden ). |
It appears on the 'blue' album that lists the major hits of the 1967-1970 period...but can it be considered a hit in itself?
Moreover...apart from it Ringo has written only one song (Don't pass me by on the White Album) during the Beatles period if we skip the anomalous three-guy collaboration on What goes on from Rubber Soul (the one and only Lennon/McCartney/Starkey credit ever appeared)
-------------
A flower?
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 08:16
|
Maiden were at their best on 'Killers' and 'Number of the Beast'
Their concept tracks thereafter were quite good, with the exception of Alexander the Great from 'Somewhere in Time' (??)
-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
Posted By: BiGi
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 08:24
Blacksword wrote:
Maiden were at their best on 'Killers' and 'Number of the Beast'
Their concept tracks thereafter were quite good, with the exception of Alexander the Great from 'Somewhere in Time' (??) |
I must raise an objection!
IMHO their peak was the Piece of Mind/Powerslave pair!
They started to weaken right after the world tour (even if I like Alexander the Great a good deal)
-------------
A flower?
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 08:29
|
IMO, Queen were a "progressive" band -- they got progressively crappier and more irritating after "Sheer heart Attack." 
-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 08:34
BiGi wrote:
Blacksword wrote:
Maiden were at their best on 'Killers' and 'Number of the Beast'
Their concept tracks thereafter were quite good, with the exception of Alexander the Great from 'Somewhere in Time' (??)
|
I must raise an objection!
IMHO their peak was the Piece of Mind/Powerslave pair!
They started to weaken right after the world tour (even if I like Alexander the Great a good deal) |
Overuled!!
Sorry, BiGi, but I thought 'Piece of Mind' in particular was awful, with the exception of 'Still Life' and one or two others. McBrains drumming was a real come down after Clive Burrs brutal precision on previous albums. Dickinson had began to warble and had apparently lost some strength in his voice. Songs like 'Sun & Steel' and 'Quest for fire' were terribly weak songs; the Iron Maiden idea of filler tracks IMO.
Powerslave was a little better, although I'll never forget feeling despair wash over me at the Hammersmith Odeon as they came on to 'Aces High' laughable lyrics, cliched riffs, all foot up on the monitor nonesense... You knew they were in decline, there were still people in the bar while they were on. That would have never happened on the 'Beast' tour
Apart from all that, they're excellent! 
-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
Posted By: BiGi
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 08:43
Blacksword wrote:
Songs like 'Sun & Steel' and 'Quest for fire' were terribly weak songs; the Iron Maiden idea of filler tracks IMO. |
Agreed...I don't particularly dig them too!
Quest for fire's only remarkable trait is featuring the highest note ever in a Maiden solo (I can't specify the very point...I had the tablature, but my former guitarist borrowed my book and never returned it...  )
-------------
A flower?
|
Posted By: Citanul
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 09:17
chopper wrote:
I'm not a huge Queen fan but I must agree with most
people here - they're great musicians and even The Beatles can't claim
hits written by all 4 members (unless you include Octopus' Garden ). |
On the subject of hits - Queen's album The Works
had four singles, each written by a different band member, and each one
made it into the top 20 (it might even have been the top 10, but I
can't remember exactly).
The only other band I can think of who might have had hits written by
all the members is the Eagles, although I think they tended to
collaborate rather that write the songs on their own.
-------------
Be or be not. There is no question. - Yoda, Prince of Denmark
|
Posted By: BiGi
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 09:51
Citanul wrote:
chopper wrote:
I'm not a huge Queen fan but I must agree with most
people here - they're great musicians and even The Beatles can't claim
hits written by all 4 members (unless you include Octopus' Garden ). |
On the subject of hits - Queen's album <span style="font-style: italic;">The Works</span>
had four singles, each written by a different band member, and each one
made it into the top 20 (it might even have been the top 10, but I
can't remember exactly).
The only other band I can think of who might have had hits written by
all the members is the Eagles, although I think they tended to
collaborate rather that write the songs on their own.
|
Actually the leading writing force was Don Henley/Glenn Frey.
I can't recall any Don Felder, Joe Walsh, Bernie Leadon or Randy Meisner-penned hit at the moment...
-------------
A flower?
|
Posted By: porter
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 10:03
maidenrulez wrote:
Trouserpress wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
I generally don't like male vocalists who tries to sing like girls..sorry not my thing
And just because they have had major hits dont certainly mean that the music is good. The songwritings skills on any of the queen members in non present
|
You sir, are talking out of you arse. Thread ends here.
|
Oh please ive got 4 queen albums and the only song that is likable is Boheimian rhapsody and even that song is way silly. The rest of the classic songs like radio gaga, another one bites the dust and big bottomed girls is just plain plastic pop. Even abba was better.
Queen is crap and i rest my case. I don't mind pop but i need some kind of orginality
|
HA HA HA!! this is really fun, I would suggest you to listen carefully to Mr. Steve Harris' bass lines: THEY ARE THE MO****F***IN' SAME ON EVRY MO****F***IN' SONG HE'S EVER WRITTEN...now WHO IS THE PLASTIC MUSICIAN? And more, if you think Queen don't have originality, you don't know WHAT originality IS, seriously.
-------------
"my kingdom for a horse!" (W. Shakespeare, "Richard III")
|
Posted By: BiGi
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 10:11
porter wrote:
HA HA HA!! this is really fun, I would suggest you to listen carefully to Mr. Steve Harris' bass lines: THEY ARE THE MO****F***IN' SAME ON EVRY MO****F***IN' SONG HE'S EVER WRITTEN...now WHO IS THE PLASTIC MUSICIAN? And more, if you think Queen don't have originality, you don't know WHAT originality IS, seriously. |
Well, I would not put it that way...
Steve Harris is indeed an outstanding bass player, and an excellent composer.
I find Murray and Smith's guitar lines very recurrent from time to time instead...
-------------
A flower?
|
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 10:12
|
I just noticed that "originality" jibe! What piffle!! Queen exude originality from every pore.
|
Posted By: Citanul
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 10:18
BiGi wrote:
Citanul wrote:
chopper wrote:
I'm not a huge Queen fan but I must agree with most
people here - they're great musicians and even The Beatles can't claim
hits written by all 4 members (unless you include Octopus' Garden ). |
On the subject of hits - Queen's album <span style="font-style: italic;">The Works</span>
had four singles, each written by a different band member, and each one
made it into the top 20 (it might even have been the top 10, but I
can't remember exactly).
The only other band I can think of who might have had hits written by
all the members is the Eagles, although I think they tended to
collaborate rather that write the songs on their own.
|
Actually the leading writing force was Don Henley/Glenn Frey.
I can't recall any Don Felder, Joe Walsh, Bernie Leadon or Randy Meisner-penned hit at the moment... |
Yeah, you're right. I checked on Wikipedia, and most of the hits
were written by Henley and Frey, although everyone had a hand in the
songwritng - Hotel California was written by Henley/Frey/Felder and
Take it to the Limit was written by Meisner/Henley/Frey, and the other
members wrote songs that weren't released as singles.
Still, I was trying to think of bands who might have had hits written
by more than one member, and the Eagles came to mind, but I've been
proved wrong.
Iron Maiden can claim hits written by Steve Harris (Run to the Hills
and others), Bruce Dickinson (Bring Your Daughter to the Slaughter) and
Adrian Smith (Wasted Years), but that's only 3 members.
-------------
Be or be not. There is no question. - Yoda, Prince of Denmark
|
Posted By: BiGi
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 10:28
Citanul wrote:
Iron Maiden can claim hits written by Steve Harris (Run to the Hills
and others), Bruce Dickinson (Bring Your Daughter to the Slaughter) and
Adrian Smith (Wasted Years), but that's only 3 members.
|
Bring your daughter to the slaughter a hit??? 
Where?
Anyway, Flash of the blade was written by Dickinson and might be known better than the others because if I recall correctly it was included in a Dario Argento movie soundtrack...
-------------
A flower?
|
Posted By: porter
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 10:34
BiGi wrote:
porter wrote:
HA HA HA!! this is really fun, I would suggest you to listen carefully to Mr. Steve Harris' bass lines: THEY ARE THE MO****F***IN' SAME ON EVRY MO****F***IN' SONG HE'S EVER WRITTEN...now WHO IS THE PLASTIC MUSICIAN? And more, if you think Queen don't have originality, you don't know WHAT originality IS, seriously.
|
Well, I would not put it that way...
Steve Harris is indeed an outstanding bass player, and an excellent composer.
I find Murray and Smith's guitar lines very recurrent from time to time instead... |
you're right, Steve is great at bass, it's just that he always sounds the same to my ears....in his songs the bass line is just the same in evry one he's written, i'm not kidding; I've had some ugly rows in the past with some friends of mine who were oturaged by this theory; but it's true! Try to compare "The trooper" with "Caught somewhere in time" with "The rhyme..." with "Out of the silent planet" with "Alexander the great" with...should i go on? Same 3 notes all the time.....
anyway, I agree that he has a great sound, original style, etc.
-------------
"my kingdom for a horse!" (W. Shakespeare, "Richard III")
|
Posted By: BiGi
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 10:44
porter wrote:
BiGi wrote:
porter wrote:
HA HA HA!! this is really fun, I would suggest you to listen carefully to Mr. Steve Harris' bass lines: THEY ARE THE MO****F***IN' SAME ON EVRY MO****F***IN' SONG HE'S EVER WRITTEN...now WHO IS THE PLASTIC MUSICIAN? And more, if you think Queen don't have originality, you don't know WHAT originality IS, seriously.
|
Well, I would not put it that way... Steve Harris is indeed an outstanding bass player, and an excellent composer. I find Murray and Smith's guitar lines very recurrent from time to time instead... |
you're right, Steve is great at bass, it's just that he always sounds the same to my ears....in his songs the bass line is just the same in evry one he's written, i'm not kidding; I've had some ugly rows in the past with some friends of mine who were oturaged by this theory; but it's true! Try to compare "The trooper" with "Caught somewhere in time" with "The rhyme..." with "Out of the silent planet" with "Alexander the great" with...should i go on? Same 3 notes all the time.....
anyway, I agree that he has a great sound, original style, etc. |
Hmmm...never paid so much attention...I will try!
Thanks for the tip!
Anyway, as you said, the result is great!
-------------
A flower?
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 11:12
|
BiGi wrote:
Citanul wrote:
Iron Maiden can claim hits written by Steve Harris (Run to the Hills
and others), Bruce Dickinson (Bring Your Daughter to the Slaughter) and
Adrian Smith (Wasted Years), but that's only 3 members.
|
Bring your daughter to the slaughter a hit???
Where?
Anyway, Flash of the blade was written by Dickinson and might be known better than the others because if I recall correctly it was included in a Dario Argento movie soundtrack... |
It was a hit here in the UK. I think it even made number 1 in the charts. If I remember rightly it was released at a time of year when the artist needed relativly few sales to make the top spot. It was all done as a bit of a joke, but it turned a few heads!
Can anyone confirm when it was at the top and for how long??
-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 11:39
|
I'm sure you're right - I remember hearing it on the radio a lot. I'll look it up in my book of hit singles tonight.
|
Posted By: Tony Fisher
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 13:18
|
Queen made some fine music, though not prog, IMO. Mercury was not that great live as he had very prominent front teeth which gave him a pronounced lisp live. Clearly, they could engineer this out in recorded material and he was a great frontman.
I can't understand the sniping at Toto. I have their live album and it is sensational. The musicianship is top notch and they had some great songs. Steve Lukather handled the vocals as well as the guitar and did a fine job. Very proggish in parts but a bit too commercial for some.
|
Posted By: Fraja
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 15:27
|
you don't know anything about music if you think that maiden have more complex arrangements!!!!you told that mercury is a bad singer and bohemian rhapsody a sily song....
What are you doing in the Archives anyway?
|
Posted By: Proglover
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 16:04
maidenrulez wrote:
...Then why not add toto? To very similar bands as they both:
Make pop songs that somtimes exceeds 5 minutes and with a rhytm diffrent than 4/4 and then counts as progressive.
Have really bad vocalists
Have guitarists that could go on forever while playing some boring guitar solo.
Have very unorginal lyrics or just plain dumb lyrics.
Is crap
|
I think by now the whole world knows how I feel on this issue. Let me say this, anyone who does not atleast recognize the compositional skills of Freddie Mercury is a musical MORON!!!!!!!!..............Lyrics unoriginal??????...........ummmm not so much my friend.
Queen is any BUT crap. And for the record....there is a difference between RHYTHM (which by the way you spelt WRONG) and meter....which is what you meant to say. Anyone who doesn't know the difference between RHYTHM and METER but then HAS THE NERVE to turn around and criticize the musical credibility of Queen is an idiot.
And for the record, while odd and mixed time signatures are indeed a part of prog rock, just because a song is in an odd meter does not in anyway make it PROG.
It's over people...GET OVER IT....Queen is on the site.....PERIOD!
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: August 30 2005 at 16:04
Blacksword you are correct. It was reached number one in January 1991
for 2 weeks and was in the charts for 5 weeks. Strangely enough, Queen
were number one a few weeks later with "Innuendo".
|
Posted By: porter
Date Posted: August 31 2005 at 10:10
Proglover wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
...Then why not add toto? To very similar bands as they both:
Make pop songs that somtimes exceeds 5 minutes and with a rhytm diffrent than 4/4 and then counts as progressive.
Have really bad vocalists
Have guitarists that could go on forever while playing some boring guitar solo.
Have very unorginal lyrics or just plain dumb lyrics.
Is crap
|
I think by now the whole world knows how I feel on this issue. Let me say this, anyone who does not atleast recognize the compositional skills of Freddie Mercury is a musical MORON!!!!!!!!..............Lyrics unoriginal??????...........ummmm not so much my friend.
Queen is any BUT crap. |
Thank you, proglover!!!
-------------
"my kingdom for a horse!" (W. Shakespeare, "Richard III")
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: August 31 2005 at 10:28
chopper wrote:
Blacksword wrote:
BiGi wrote:
Citanul wrote:
Iron Maiden can claim hits written by Steve Harris (Run to the Hills
and others), Bruce Dickinson (Bring Your Daughter to the Slaughter) and
Adrian Smith (Wasted Years), but that's only 3 members.
|
Bring your daughter to the slaughter a hit???
Where?
Anyway, Flash of the blade was written by Dickinson and might be known better than the others because if I recall correctly it was included in a Dario Argento movie soundtrack... |
It was a hit here in the UK. I think it even made number 1 in the charts. If I remember rightly it was released at a time of year when the artist needed relativly few sales to make the top spot. It was all done as a bit of a joke, but it turned a few heads!
Can anyone confirm when it was at the top and for how long??
|
Blacksword you are correct. It was reached number one in January 1991 for 2 weeks and was in the charts for 5 weeks. Strangely enough, Queen were number one a few weeks later with "Innuendo".
|
Wow quite a good month for rock in the UK!
Its all coming back to me now. Iron Maiden released the single just after Christmas, thats when its easiest to hit No 1.
Innuendo was a brilliant Queen song, and really quite prog I thought. Was it arguably the last/ only prog rock song to hit the top spot in the UK??
Discuss!
-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
Posted By: BiGi
Date Posted: September 01 2005 at 03:25
Citanul wrote:
chopper wrote:
I'm not a huge Queen fan but I must agree with most
people here - they're great musicians and even The Beatles can't claim
hits written by all 4 members (unless you include Octopus' Garden ). |
On the subject of hits - Queen's album <span style="font-style: italic;">The Works</span>
had four singles, each written by a different band member, and each one
made it into the top 20 (it might even have been the top 10, but I
can't remember exactly).
The only other band I can think of who might have had hits written by
all the members is the Eagles, although I think they tended to
collaborate rather that write the songs on their own.
|
I've got it!!!!
The answer was so huge and big that I could not see it!!!
The only other group who had hits credited to other members than the main writers is THE BEATLES!!!
As a matter of fact, Something and Here comes the sun (the first got many covers, also by crooners, and the second gets a fair amount of airplay still nowadays) both written by George Harrison!
-------------
A flower?
|
Posted By: Citanul
Date Posted: September 01 2005 at 03:52
BiGi wrote:
Citanul wrote:
chopper wrote:
I'm not a huge Queen fan but I must agree with most
people here - they're great musicians and even The Beatles can't claim
hits written by all 4 members (unless you include Octopus' Garden ). |
On the subject of hits - Queen's album <span style="font-style: italic;">The Works</span>
had four singles, each written by a different band member, and each one
made it into the top 20 (it might even have been the top 10, but I
can't remember exactly).
The only other band I can think of who might have had hits written by
all the members is the Eagles, although I think they tended to
collaborate rather that write the songs on their own.
|
I've got it!!!!
The answer was so huge and big that I could not see it!!!
The only other group who had hits credited to other members than the main writers is THE BEATLES!!!
As a matter of fact, Something and Here comes the sun
(the first got many covers, also by crooners, and the second gets a
fair amount of airplay still nowadays) both written by George
Harrison! |
The Beatles were already mentioned - read the quote of chopper's comment.
Blacksword wrote:
Innuendo was a brilliant Queen song, and really quite prog I thought. Was it arguably the last/ only prog rock song to hit the top spot in the UK??
Discuss!
|
It's not the only prog song to hit number one - Bohemian Rhapsody was
also number one. It was also re-released after Freddie Mercury's
death, reaching number one again (in fact it has the distinction of
being number one in four different years, as both times it was number
one in December and January). So that would probably make
Bohemian Rhapsody the last prog song to get to number one. I'm
not sure about other prog number ones - Radiohead's Paranoid Android
might be a possibility. Did that get to number one?
-------------
Be or be not. There is no question. - Yoda, Prince of Denmark
|
Posted By: BiGi
Date Posted: September 01 2005 at 04:13
chopper wrote:
I'm not a huge Queen fan but I must agree with most people here - they're great musicians and even The Beatles can't claim hits written by all 4 members (unless you include Octopus' Garden ). |
Citanul wrote:
The Beatles were already mentioned - read the quote of chopper's comment.
|
As far as I can see chopper did only state that the Beatles could not claim hits penned by EACH OF THE FOUR MEMBERS...this consideration could apply to the majority of the foursomes!!!
IMHO I said something slightly different: that actually the Beatles had hits composed by a non-main-writer member.
That said, peace & love to everybody!
-------------
A flower?
|
Posted By: Citanul
Date Posted: September 01 2005 at 05:02
BiGi wrote:
chopper wrote:
I'm not a huge Queen fan but I must agree
with most people here - they're great musicians and even The Beatles
can't claim hits written by all 4 members (unless you include Octopus'
Garden ). |
Citanul wrote:
The Beatles were already mentioned - read the quote of chopper's comment.
|
As far as I can see chopper did only state that the Beatles could
not claim hits penned by EACH OF THE FOUR MEMBERS...this consideration
could apply to the majority of the foursomes!!!
IMHO I said something slightly different: that actually the Beatles had hits composed by a non-main-writer member.
That said, peace & love to everybody! |
OK, I see what you meant. It was just that you included chopper's quote, which confused me slightly.
When you think about it, Queen didn't really have main songwriters in
the way that other bands do. It's true that Mercury and May
composed more songs than Taylor and Deacon, but the latter two also
made a significant contribution. It wasn't a case of just letting
them have one or two songs per album as it seemed to happen with the
Beatles and George Harrison (or the Who and John Entwistle).
-------------
Be or be not. There is no question. - Yoda, Prince of Denmark
|
Posted By: samuel.jeronimo
Date Posted: September 06 2005 at 08:08
maidenrulez wrote:
...Then why not add toto? To very similar bands as they both:
Make pop songs that somtimes exceeds 5 minutes and with a rhytm diffrent than 4/4 and then counts as progressive.
Have really bad vocalists
Have guitarists that could go on forever while playing some boring guitar solo.
Have very unorginal lyrics or just plain dumb lyrics.
Is crap
|
Do you really think so?
-------------
http://www.jeronimosamuel.no.sapo.pt - SAMUEL JERONIMO
|
Posted By: PROGMAN
Date Posted: September 06 2005 at 08:56
Queen is PROG POP.
-------------
CYMRU AM BYTH
|
Posted By: BePinkTheater
Date Posted: September 06 2005 at 12:20
|
Queen is not prog, im sorry.
I love queen, they're one of my all time favourite bands. everything about them is unbelivable, but they are not prog.
they are classic rock alot of innovative ideas, but they are not prog
-------------
I can strangle a canary in a tin can and it would be really original, but that wouldn't save it from sounding like utter sh*t.
-Stone Beard
|
Posted By: erlenst
Date Posted: September 06 2005 at 12:51
maidenrulez wrote:
Citanul wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
If you compare the first maiden album to forexample dance of death
you would have to be deaf no to hear that the music has not evolved?
The music is still good ol heavy metal but with some nice symphonic
elements compined with some more complex arrangements, truly great.
I guess most that think maiden have only heard the 80's maiden...a shame really.
And although a bit vague i wanted to point out that TOTO is equally
proggish to QUEEN not that i want any of the bands on this page...
|
I would agree with you on your points about
Maiden. However, you said that Toto and Queen were both similar
in prog terms because they had dumb lyrics, boring guitar solos, bad
singers and were crap. Hardly an objective, convincing argument.
|
Well i guess i wanted to bash both of them at the same time HOWEVER
i think that both toto and queen got progressive elements in some of
their songs but that they mainly concentrate on making pop and that is
what i hate about both these bands. Ofcourse you can say that indeed
yes and genesis and even jethro tull have not all been progressive all
the way through i would like to think that they where remebered for
their progressive efforts rather than their pop efforts. With toto and
queen it is the other way around i would say 90 percent of all their
music is using very simple song structures and that holds no interest
to me at all.
And i still think that both bands have horrible vocals because of
the singing way high notes that would normally be sung by women. I
think too many male vocalists is trying to reach high notes and that
annoys me quite a bit. |
HAHAHAHAHA. I am sorry if this sounds rude, but you are incredibly
stupid! You don't like male vocalists trying to reach high notes? Yet
STILL you love Bruce Dickinson. The difference between Mercury, (and by
the way, a LOT of other prog vocalists - ever heard Jon Anderson) and
Dickinson is that Mercury actually can reach the high notes without
making it sound like an "air raid siren"
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: September 06 2005 at 12:56
erlenst wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
Citanul wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
If you compare the first maiden album to forexample dance of death you would have to be deaf no to hear that the music has not evolved? The music is still good ol heavy metal but with some nice symphonic elements compined with some more complex arrangements, truly great.
I guess most that think maiden have only heard the 80's maiden...a shame really.
And although a bit vague i wanted to point out that TOTO is equally proggish to QUEEN not that i want any of the bands on this page...
|
I would agree with you on your points about Maiden. However, you said that Toto and Queen were both similar in prog terms because they had dumb lyrics, boring guitar solos, bad singers and were crap. Hardly an objective, convincing argument.
|
Well i guess i wanted to bash both of them at the same time HOWEVER i think that both toto and queen got progressive elements in some of their songs but that they mainly concentrate on making pop and that is what i hate about both these bands. Ofcourse you can say that indeed yes and genesis and even jethro tull have not all been progressive all the way through i would like to think that they where remebered for their progressive efforts rather than their pop efforts. With toto and queen it is the other way around i would say 90 percent of all their music is using very simple song structures and that holds no interest to me at all.
And i still think that both bands have horrible vocals because of the singing way high notes that would normally be sung by women. I think too many male vocalists is trying to reach high notes and that annoys me quite a bit.
|
HAHAHAHAHA. I am sorry if this sounds rude, but you are incredibly stupid! You don't like male vocalists trying to reach high notes? Yet STILL you love Bruce Dickinson. The difference between Mercury, (and by the way, a LOT of other prog vocalists - ever heard Jon Anderson) and Dickinson is that Mercury actually can reach the high notes without making it sound like an "air raid siren"
|
Ah that is mainly Martin Birch fault pressing bruce dickison to do all those stuff on the number of the beast. BUT if you listen to bruce's solo stuff you can hear him sing like he himself feels is natural and i think that comes out alot better. And it can also be heard on the Kevin Shirley albums that his way of singing has improved a great deal
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif -
|
Posted By: noisegenerator
Date Posted: September 06 2005 at 13:32
Blacksword wrote:
Innuendo was a brilliant Queen song, and really quite prog I thought. Was it arguably the last/ only prog rock song to hit the top spot in the UK??
Discuss!
|
I think Innuendo was number one in the UK in January or February 1991. I dont know it exactly.
The single was released shortly before the album release of the same name. Bohemian Rhapsody hit number one again in December 1991.
Innuendo is a great track. After their 80´s pop decade they returend with some more inventive tracks. Sadly, Freddie passed away a few months later.
I still believe that a lot of their early stuff gets much too overlooked. And many people reduce the band to their pop hits, and reduce the band to just one member. (Queen=Freddie, rest is background band). Both is wrong i would say.
So they are already on the site now. We should get on with it. They made some great early albums too and that (probably) deserves to be mentioned under the Art-Rock Section. I agree that they haven´t a full prog album in their catalogue, bute quite a few songs that should be mentioned on a reputable prog site.
ROCK FORUM: "Please move the Queen thread to the Pop section"
POP FORUM: "Please move the Queen thread to the Rock section"
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: September 06 2005 at 16:40
maidenrulez wrote:
erlenst wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
Citanul wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
If you compare the first maiden album to forexample dance of death you would have to be deaf no to hear that the music has not evolved? The music is still good ol heavy metal but with some nice symphonic elements compined with some more complex arrangements, truly great.
I guess most that think maiden have only heard the 80's maiden...a shame really.
And although a bit vague i wanted to point out that TOTO is equally proggish to QUEEN not that i want any of the bands on this page...
|
I would agree with you on your points about Maiden. However, you said that Toto and Queen were both similar in prog terms because they had dumb lyrics, boring guitar solos, bad singers and were crap. Hardly an objective, convincing argument.
|
Well i guess i wanted to bash both of them at the same time HOWEVER i think that both toto and queen got progressive elements in some of their songs but that they mainly concentrate on making pop and that is what i hate about both these bands. Ofcourse you can say that indeed yes and genesis and even jethro tull have not all been progressive all the way through i would like to think that they where remebered for their progressive efforts rather than their pop efforts. With toto and queen it is the other way around i would say 90 percent of all their music is using very simple song structures and that holds no interest to me at all.
And i still think that both bands have horrible vocals because of the singing way high notes that would normally be sung by women. I think too many male vocalists is trying to reach high notes and that annoys me quite a bit.
|
HAHAHAHAHA. I am sorry if this sounds rude, but you are incredibly stupid! You don't like male vocalists trying to reach high notes? Yet STILL you love Bruce Dickinson. The difference between Mercury, (and by the way, a LOT of other prog vocalists - ever heard Jon Anderson) and Dickinson is that Mercury actually can reach the high notes without making it sound like an "air raid siren"
|
Ah that is mainly Martin Birch fault pressing bruce dickison to do all those stuff on the number of the beast. BUT if you listen to bruce's solo stuff you can hear him sing like he himself feels is natural and i think that comes out alot better. And it can also be heard on the Kevin Shirley albums that his way of singing has improved a great deal
|
Number of the Beast is their best album IMO
It's good honest solid metal!
-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
Posted By: erlenst
Date Posted: September 06 2005 at 16:54
maidenrulez wrote:
erlenst wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
Citanul wrote:
maidenrulez wrote:
If you compare the first maiden album to forexample dance of death
you would have to be deaf no to hear that the music has not evolved?
The music is still good ol heavy metal but with some nice symphonic
elements compined with some more complex arrangements, truly great.
I guess most that think maiden have only heard the 80's maiden...a shame really.
And although a bit vague i wanted to point out that TOTO is equally
proggish to QUEEN not that i want any of the bands on this page...
|
I would agree with you on your points about
Maiden. However, you said that Toto and Queen were both similar
in prog terms because they had dumb lyrics, boring guitar solos, bad
singers and were crap. Hardly an objective, convincing argument.
|
Well i guess i wanted to bash both of them at the same time HOWEVER
i think that both toto and queen got progressive elements in some of
their songs but that they mainly concentrate on making pop and that is
what i hate about both these bands. Ofcourse you can say that indeed
yes and genesis and even jethro tull have not all been progressive all
the way through i would like to think that they where remebered for
their progressive efforts rather than their pop efforts. With toto and
queen it is the other way around i would say 90 percent of all their
music is using very simple song structures and that holds no interest
to me at all.
And i still think that both bands have horrible vocals because of
the singing way high notes that would normally be sung by women. I
think too many male vocalists is trying to reach high notes and that
annoys me quite a bit.
|
HAHAHAHAHA. I am sorry if this sounds rude, but you
are incredibly stupid! You don't like male vocalists trying to reach
high notes? Yet STILL you love Bruce Dickinson. The difference between
Mercury, (and by the way, a LOT of other prog vocalists - ever heard
Jon Anderson) and Dickinson is that Mercury actually can reach the high
notes without making it sound like an "air raid siren"
|
Ah that is mainly Martin Birch fault pressing bruce dickison to do
all those stuff on the number of the beast. BUT if you listen to
bruce's solo stuff you can hear him sing like he himself feels is
natural and i think that comes out alot better. And it can also be
heard on the Kevin Shirley albums that his way of singing has improved
a great deal |
Actually I love Maiden as well. Although from time to time, I have some
problems with Dickinson's voice. But anyway, the point is : your point
abourtFreddy Mercury's voice is utterly laughable and you really
should take it back if you don't want to ble labeled tonedeaf the rest
of your progarchives-life It really was a terribly stupid thing to say! But of course, everyone makes mistakes 
|
|