not logged in
| re: Queen 2: The Monster Is Loose | |
Posted by:  |
Wilbury 07:39 am UTC 04/06/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Queen 2: The Monster Is Loose - rockfenris2005 07:18 am UTC 04/06/07 |
| I must say my immediate impression at the news that Meat was making an album called BooH3 without Steinman was "Hey, I hear Ringo is making Abbey Road part 2 next year. Should be a hoot!". And then I got into trouble from the admin at mlukfc. Then I came back here after a hiatus, after Jen finally got my emails (apparently Gmail goes straight to her trash, or was it yahoo? Anyway...) It's quite amusing that I've unintentionally drug this conversaion into this board, cause at the Queen online forum there is a continual meeting of the minds between normal people who like music and boring dickhead wankers who think the world will implode if anyone dare refer to "Queen + Paul Rodgers" as just "Queen" :o). I'll use the explanation here that I used there -- Queen's back catalogue and Freddie don't need anyone's personal protection. They stand up just fine by themselves. ;o) > > I just think... Queen is one of the all-time greatest > bands ever and they're acknowledged as that. Freddy died > in 1991/92 (what exact year?) and that would have been the > end of the band. It should have been the end of the band. > I hated "Made In Heaven", that they would actually cull > together vocals by a man who has died, in a desperate > attempt to cash in on the phenomenon. They've had their > success already. Freddy died, he was loved as the voice of > that group, no one is ever going to replace him. Pink > Floyd were OK after Roger left, let's face it he has one > of the biggest ego's in rock, but never the same. "The > Final Cut" without Rick Wright just didn't have that > magic, nor did "The Wall" or "Animals" sound like "Wish > You Were Here" and "Dark Side Of The Moon" because they > weren't a band anymore, they were enacting Roger's > creations. > > It's like, you can't put Abba or The Beatles back > together. You shouldn't try. It just wouldn't be right, > IMO. And I think it's exactly like BAT and TMIL because it > just seems preposterous to say "OK, we're doing a BAT > album but Jim isn't writing the songs", it is Jim's songs > that are remembered the most out of anything Meat ever > did, BAT 2 was done to show the world it was a reunion and > there was no other reason to call it BAT 2, BAT 3 was done > because Meat went all Disney and did the worse sub-par > sequel since "Cinderella II: Dreams Come True". IMO OF > COURSE. > I just think it's wrong. > > If people like it, fine by me. It's never the same. And > people shouldn't expect it is. Meat's fans expected TMIL > to be like the other two, or even better, what I heard and > what I've heard since was complete utter bullshit as > opposed to BAT 1 and 2 which are masterpieces. > > > > Bah hahaha Q2: TMiL. Indeed. > > > > I adore Freddie. I think he's the greatest singer rock has > > ever known. Such force in any range and able to hold such > > weird notes with such easse and an unbelievably gret > > songwriter (and hugely talented pianist too -- yes, please > > someone, do make a joke about Freddie and hugely talented > > pianists :o) ). > > > > But then he died a tragicallly sad death. And it's sad to > > think about. What would be SADDER is if the ssongs that > > Queen made together were locked away in some box not > > allowed to be touched. Fuck that. I love that people sing > > them. I love Brian May and Roger Taylor, i love Paul > > Rodgers, and I love what they're doing together. > > > > Mind you, I dopn't know how to defend against the TMiL > > moniker you've placed on them. That IS kind of funny > > actually :o). > > > > > > > > > > I am totally ignoring any of this is actually happening > > > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Queen 2: The Monster Is Loose - rockfenris2005 07:18 am UTC 04/06/07 |
| Next: | The irony of this in light of my views on TMiL isn't lost on me, and really only sinking in now. lol ... - Wilbury 07:40 am UTC 04/06/07 |
| Thread: |
|