Talk:Queen (band)
|
|
| Contents |
First 'animated' stage group since The Beatles?
I did edit or qualify the reference to Queen being the first group to be animated in their stage performances since The Beatles. This seems rather strange as The Who, Jimi Hendrix, et. al. had gone a considerable distance down the road of stage pyrotechnics. Often literally!
- As the person who removed the Beatles reference, rather than get into a drawn-out edit war I'll try very hard to explain why I removed it and will probably do so again (unless you can provide a convincing argument otherwise).
- Let me quote from the neutral point of view policy:
- A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. Some Wikipedia articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, video games, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is, we can agree, out of place in an encyclopedia; we might not all be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest bass guitar player in history. But it is very important information indeed how some artist or some work has been received by the general public, by reviewers, or by some very prominent experts.
- Now, where the hell does your assertion fit in to the above? It doesn't say who makes the assertion. Is it in terms of record sales? Is it by the public perception - if so, can you point me to some polls? Has Rolling Stone or another prominent pop music magazine said so? Has the British recording industry association said so, perhaps? Any prominent music historians, perhaps?
- If you can't provide any of the above, I'll delete the comment again. --Robert Merkel
I know it was a long time ago, but you were right. vaganyik
POV
This article reads like a band bio from their corporate website. I really like Queen, but it needs to be far more objective!! (ricjl 11:40, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC))
Hello, I think that in the Queen (band) article the musical progress section's annotated album list is very clumsy. Opera and Races should definitely be in the same group, and I do not think Queen ever played punk, and even if they did, then definitely not on an album from 1974. The rest is all right with me. Actually, I'd rather not see that annotated list. What about deleting it? user:vaganyik
- Annotated lists can be useful if done right. I don't know enough about Queen to comment on the usefullness of this particular list though. You seem to be more informed about the history of Queen so please do make any changes that you think improve the article and still adhere to our NPOV policy. --mav
Prophetic Queen speech
I just wrote: The Wembley concert, part of a UK tour in 1986, attracted 150,000 people over 2 nights. A memorable and prophetic moment occured when Freddie Mercury told the audience: "There are a lot of rumors lately about a certain band called Queen... that we are gonne split up. What do you think?" Audience: "No!". Freddie: "Forget those rumors, were gonne stay together till we fucking will die, I'm sure!".
It could be mentioned that the number following this was "Who wants to live forever" (but I didn't, because I think it's a little bit overdone).
Pascal 05:36, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Which was at the time their new single....not very phrophetic, but quite a promotional speech.
R&B?
"Queen are widely recognised as pioneers of R&B, glam rock, and stadium rock." But they really aren't R&B, are they? Expert opinions anyone? Rdsmith4 00:47, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert, but I would describe them as R&B. Some of Freddie Mercury's vocals are reminiscent of 50s crooners and pop singers, but I certainly would not describe them as "pioneers of R&B". Tuf-Kat 05:28, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
Songwriting
User:68.100.46.45 has twice changed the content of the "Members" section from calling members of the band "creative equals" to giving Freddie Mercury all the credit. While Mr Mercury may have been an excellent songwriter, I must take issue with the assertion that he was the driving force of the group, as this user has asserted both times. The first time I reverted the edit because two grevious spelling errors coupled with the removal of relevant information made it look rather like hasty vandalism, but instead of reverting the second edit I'm just going to reword it to make it agree with the general consensus about the band's songwriting, and re-insert the sentence or two that the user removed unnecessarily. FYI. Rdsmith4 | Talk 04:47, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
70's?
I remember that Queen was rather slow in getting mass audiences. Much of their early work did not get much air play (in U.S.). They did develop a very loyal following in the early and mid 70's. Their sound was unique, classical vocal harmonization with heavy electric guitar work. It may have been that people during this time were somewhat homophobic and didn't wan't to readily associate with a band called 'Queen'. With Bohemian Rhapsody, people just couldn't dismiss them any longer. 'Killer Queen' is still my favorite. --69.5.156.155 06:15, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Who got them to Knebworth Park?
Someone just changed the article to say Jim Beach arranged the last concert at Knebworth Park, whereas the text originally said it was Roy Thomas Baker. Both the original text and the edit were by (different) anonymous users. I can't find any information about this one way or the other. Could someone who has the appropriate books check whether the edit by 24.88.44.169 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Queen_%28band%29&diff=5441758&oldid=5441716) or the one by 62.6.136.109 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Queen_%28band%29&diff=0&oldid=6873473) is correct? Thanks.
--fvw 15:27, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
I made the change to Jim Beach before quite knowing the rules here, sorry. I'm not entirely sure of the facts as to who arranged the Knebworth gig, but I do know for certain that Roy Thomas Baker was their producer until 1975, never their manager and by 1986 they were produced by themselves & Mack, so if anybody would have arrange an extra gig it would've been their managment (Jim Beach) not Roy Thomas Baker.
User:MAGCOT 2004 Oct 27
It was Gerry Stickells, Tour Production Manager, who got them the gig at Knebworth.
--Magcot 12:44, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Full History?
I think the subtitling of the Decades worked, but it seems to be missing large chunks of important info, like albums following Day of the Races in the 70's, which spawned 'We will rock you' & 'We are the champions' etc Their touring history also seems a bit thin and the strange claim that they only made money on the 1986 tour...these chaps were multi-millionaires by the mid 70's and toured places that had never seen western groups before (1st Band behind the Iron curtain, 1st Band in Argentina before & after the Falklands conflict) Obviously it depends on how detailed it should be, I'm currently reading their own Biography, I'll get more facts and add them on for discussion.
--Magcot 10:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have edited the piece concerning John Deacon's involvment with Queen in the 90s section. Whilst the previous piece says that he is quick to pour cold water on any Queen reunion, he seems to be happy with the current 'Queen' situation, see www.deaky.com/weekly/2003/dw11E.html The comment that he has retired and yet is happy with what Brian May and Roger Taylor are doing also pops up from time to time on the Queen and the Brian May Official Websites.
--paulburgin 24:00 , 8 Mar 2005
Queen-bashing
It appears that someone has managed to put insults in the article without my being able to edit them out.
- Which insults are these, and where are they? You can edit any part of the article - just click "edit this page" up at the top. [[User:Rdsmith4|]] 05:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Popular in the 70es and 80es?
I don't thik Queen was only popular at that time. I think there are many people who like Queen until today. So why not to change that?
No synths?
It was the first Queen album to use synthesizers, which the band had previously resisted fiercely.
Can anyone provide any evidence that the "resisted fiercely" bit is true? According to a 1995 interview with Roy Thomas Baker and Gary Langan (http://www.mercuryparadise.com/hyper/BC_BR.html), it is not:
- "There was no stipulation that we wouldn't have any synths, but the statement 'No synths' was printed on the album sleeves because of people's lack of intellect in the ears department. Many people couldn't hear the difference between a multitracked guitar and a synthesizer. We would spend four days multi-layering a guitar solo and then some imbecile from the record company would come in and say, 'I like that synth!'"
I'd like to tone down or remove the phrase if there are no counterexamples. — mjb 03:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- Moot point. From the inner sleeve liner notes to "The Game": "This album includes the first appearance of a Synthesizer (an Oberheim OBX) on a Queen album". Since I was already correcting the factual error, I took the opportunity to remove the unsupported phrase. If anyone finds documentation to warrant it, I have no objection to someone re-adding the language. Until I read the interview excerpt you provided, I myself always thought the band had an artistic objection to synths in their early days. Skyraider 23:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Dragon Attack Tribute
To say that Dragon attack has "no musicians of note" is extremely biased -- not to say insulting. Just because someone doesn't know the musicians that play on the Album, it doesn't mean the musicians are "of note". As a matter of Fact, Dream Theater, Yngwie Malmsteen, Glenn Hughes, Rudy Sarzo, Marty Friedman (to name a few) are not only very talented musicians, but also appreciated by Bryan May himself.
Hi!
But I think 'of note' means here, that the musicians are not so famous like others.
Anna Makievski 12:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No interest??
Hello!
Is nobody interested in Queen? Because in the discussion is very seldom written something...
The article is quite good, I think.
And has anyone seen Queen live? Did anybody watch the WWRY concert or their tour with Paul Rogers?
Anna Makievski 12:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)