Queen eh?

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.

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

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.

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!!

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.

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!!!