talon
Member
Posts: 2,933
Location:
|
Post by talon on Oct 2, 2023 22:50:54 GMT -5
Hey guys! It's been...quite awhile! Just wanted to drop in and say happy tour! So interestingly I'll be in NYC at a friend's comedy show while they are at MSG...but I am getting to see them in Boston a few days later! Last chance for the US? Kinda feeling that way!
|
|
talon
Member
Posts: 2,933
Location:
|
Post by talon on May 15, 2019 1:32:25 GMT -5
I will say that after hearing this only the one time, it sounds like the best track he's done in years. Sounds more genuine. Chorus reminded me of a slower version of Counting Crows' Hangin' Around. The track could have used a bridge towards the end to give it a little variety but again - the sound is much better than it's been.
|
|
talon
Member
Posts: 2,933
Location:
|
Post by talon on May 1, 2019 14:57:41 GMT -5
[...] LOL. sorry :D I had never heard of Paul Rogers before Adam joined Queen. He is and was a very accomplished rock singer with great pedogree and I think B and R enjoyed that era. But I think he’s more blues and soul. Queen are very eclectic. I just think Adam suits them more. Like Freddie, Adams a showman. He’s confident, outrageously brilliant. And has brought the Theatre back to Queen. Freddie always used to say Their shows we’re a live theatrical experience. I do too was pleasently surprised how deep they went into Queen post Freddie. They also mentioned Q + PR. But of course QAL are the premiere act. - Full on agree. I didn't expect or even really want a deep delve into QPR when the focus was obviously QAL - I just didn't want to see a complete erasure as if it never happened. It is one of the more important parts of Queen's post Freddie legacy. Quite frankly, I'm not certain there is a QAL if QPR hadn't happened first. After a quick look through youtube videos (I can't imagine a concert video of Adam's having less than 20 views having been posted 8 months ago) I'm going to disagree with Talon a bit on solo careers for Paul Rogers. I think at one time yes but not currently. But it's also so hard to track him as he formed so many bands. On spotify Bad Company and Adam are pretty much tied for listeners but Adam far far outleads in all other social media. I was perhaps a little careless when I said "solo career" I don't mean as Paul Rodgers necessarily. I mean he has a history of great long periods of success...greatest hits albums per se with 2 separate bands, and 2 other respected bands as well. Paul Rodgers with Bad Company has sold out the same arenas that Queen has! So instead of doing gigs where he does 75% Queen and only 25% of his vast catalogue, he wanted to return to his own material and his own arena tours (with Bad Company etc.). Adam unfortunately doesn't have that kind of success yet. I also say looking him by modern standards doesn't work at all. Adam is by far the more modern artist with a more modern fanbase. It's like saying Justin Bieber is mentioned more on social media than Elvis or someone who is a throwback but still performing...Bruce Springsteen. Who's the bigger overall success? Different ages really. Hard to compare the two in that sense. I would say that they were more separate to a degree but at the time it was what they were looking for. They were still not really feeling Queen as much as wanting to make music. At the time Brian was quoted as saying he was actually looking forward to and enjoying playing Paul's material even more than the Queen stuff. Writing the QPR album was a chore partially because Brian was doing his doctorate at the same time and quite frankly, he's just not as prolific anymore. I've detailed this before, but since his last solo album over 20 years ago, he's only written a handful of new tracks and over half of those were quite simplistic, no flights of fancy. He's just not quite the songwriter he used to be. Or at least he's not confident in it. My impression always was that PR was just not pleasant to be around, that he was a bit of an arrogant d***. Kinda bad company, if you catch my drift. In the end, why should Brian and Roger want to put up with that at this stage in their life? Who needs negative energy. The fact that PR has so many band switch-ups going on, seems to speak to that too. I think that might be a bit overstated. I think Paul was an extremely nice man from everything I've heard. Any "negativity" was more aimed at not wanting to do the same thing again which is understandable. I LOVE Brian, but at this point I feel he's just kind of settled in. He doesn't have the same creative drive he used to have...it comes with the territory of being in his 70s...H's more than earned it. I think he just wants to throw the Old Lady around his neck and play the hits to people who want to hear it. " cassie"]My uninformed impression of Queen and PR was that it never looked, sounded, or felt like QUEEN. It was popular, they were performing to arenas again, but.... there was no magic. It didn't rise to the level they were used to. They weren't embraced like the originals. It was some very good blues singer singing their songs and his songs to their accompaniment, but that ain't the spirit of Queen. Lacking that spirit, they didn't have the will or interest in continuing to perform together. It confirmed that Queen was finished. Done with. Over. A thing of the past. Then, this young guy sang BR and WLL on Idol. They had a glimmer. Just mayyyyyybeeeee. Enough curiosity to play on the Idol finale. And the magic returned for 5 minutes. Continuing forward, the seed had been planted. There was this persistent little itch in the back of their minds that said, "Give it a try." Hence, the EMAs. Bam! There was that magic again. They felt it. The audience around in the venue and on TV felt it. And, the rest is history. Can you imagine the thrill that Brian and Roger felt to experience again all the grandeur, excitement, pomp, theater, rabid audience reaction, fun of their previous work? An impossible dream come true. [/quote] I would say I feel pretty informed of Queen's journey. And honestly it was never meant to be Queen. It was definitely meant to be more of new synergistic thing. They hadn't toured. They played a one off at a HOF induction and they felt there was a spark and a connection. So they tried a tour. It was extremely successful. They decided to do an American tour. It too was moderately successful. They did dates in Japan and South America which were again LARGELY successful. They did an album and it tanked due to a lot of reasons. At that point there was little more for them to do as a unit besides endlessly tour greatest hits set lists. I think Paul wanted more than to sing Queen's GH for endless tours. Enter Adam who brings with him a newer more modern audience, and a more American audience. And frankly that's what makes the tour work just as much as him being more suited (and willing) to sing Queen's GH. Most of Paul's audience, already were Queen fans or at least they listened to similar music....Adam fans listen to much different music so it was a far different scenario I had points to make and I hope I made them clearly...it's an early drinking day today and I;ve had a few Jack Daniels.....SO feel free to question or point out things you'd like clarification (or a healthy positive debate) I'll respond again :D
|
|
talon
Member
Posts: 2,933
Location:
|
Post by talon on May 1, 2019 0:03:40 GMT -5
My take on the doc airing is totally different. I think this was the agreement made as payment for them performing on the Oscars. Brian alluded to some drama. Adam said they weren’t, then they were. The Oscars needed a big opener having no host and something to pump up as must see tv. I could totally see Jim Beach saying this is what it will cost ABC, two hours of airtime for their documentary. And Philymack added while you are at it, we want two Idol slots for Adam. Abc found a week before they started The Bachelorette, so it all worked out. They got decent ratings for the doc and good press. Was a win, win, win for everyone. Jim Beach has always been a tough negotiator and business man I had thought that they made the film independantly and then looked for buyers, but watching it it seemed they cooperated with ABC from the beginning. The news footage that was shown about the Pulse shooting was ABC's, and also that guy Chris Connelly that's interviewed throughout is from ABC. Do you think that's all last minute's tweeks? Not sure where this may or may not fit into the equation but it may have a part - Queen's US Record deal is with Hollywood Records, a subsidiary of Disney....who also own ABC...might have greased some wheels that way (and for the Oscars for that matter) They also probably did make a lot of it independently. It probably evolved and it began as an internal product and during negotiations, they could easily alter it a bit and go back to splice in the ABC-centric stuff. In the documentary, when the showed the Iheart portion, I swooned. Adam looked like a combination of a model and a rock star. And you could just tell he knew how good he looked. The confidence was electric. And as usual, he was on fire that night with his performance. ETA: Agree with Jablea. ABC's call. Tie in to Idol and soon after Queen and Adam did the Oscars on ABC. It was great timing for them. Glad they did it for whatever reason, lol. I don't think I realized until the documentary, that iHeart was their first US performance together. I'm looking on the wiki page and it looks like they did a US tour as QPR but that was way back in early 2006. With the iHeart performance in late 2013 it wasn't quite a decade but it was pushing close to 9 years. QPR did a 2006 NA tour after 2 quick dates in 2005 which was the first time Queen had been in the US since 1982. I happened to be at that first date in 2005 at the Continental Airlines Arena in East Rutherford, NJ. My first Queen show. Set list was pretty similar to QAL even then lol. Minus a few Queen songs and adding a few Paul Rodgers (Bad Company/Free) songs. Only QPR show I got to see. When they came back in 2006, they came close to me right around the same time my son was about to be born so I couldn't leave my wife thinking she might pop at any time That Isle 2016 performance of WWTLF, was prob the best Recorded version since Freddie Budapest. I would agree with this. I have always said if there was one song in the catalogue that Adam had made a solid claim on it was WWTLF. I do love Freddie at Budapest though as well. As for the rest of the documentary - I was pleasantly surprised. From everything leading up to it I thought they were going to completely skip the QPR portion which to me would have been absolutely wrong. I felt like they were going to have Freddie die, and then make it seem like the band did NOTHING til that Idol day. SO I was glad to see it get mention even if Roger's recollection of why it ended seems....well a bit....revisionist. The truth from back in the day is that the split happened: a. Paul and Brian were starting not to get on due to Paul wanting to change up the setlist more and try new things which Roger had agreed to but Bri was pretty...well satisfied with hits list. b. Frankly (and not to offend) but Paul has more of a solo career to get back to. BUT back to the QAL documentary - I thought it was pretty respectful overall. I enjoyed the Freddie bits of course (even if I've seen that interview before - it's a good one), but it was nice to see different angles. I loved the bits about Adam looking to Spike for cues. I also always love hearing Taylor Hawkins on Queen. I still wish we got the talked about but never materialized Taylor & Taylor tour where Hawkins and Roger were going to do small clubs and do solo stuff, some Foos, some Queen and rock covers. Would be amazing to see. ..Maybe someday.. At the end, it definitely sets up QAL as a premiere touring act...and should help Adam's solo stuff when/if it comes out and maybe will lead to a QAL single...Bond? Just my quick take but it was better than I thought it might be...and just might win some fans over seeing the genesis behind the scenes. *shrug*
|
|
talon
Member
Posts: 2,933
Location:
|
Post by talon on Apr 9, 2019 1:46:50 GMT -5
talon great to see you here! You can watch what they play at the first shows and then still look at tickets last minute. Although they did the same with notw, played spread your wings and it's late and dropped the two new songs... Thanks! Yeah that would be my fear lol. I'm sure I'll get some good vids...
|
|
talon
Member
Posts: 2,933
Location:
|
Post by talon on Apr 9, 2019 1:32:22 GMT -5
Hi all :D I still pop in now and again. I'm not going to any shows this year. Combination of finances and I'm just not *overly excited* to hear them do Greatest Hits again...at least not enough to drive 3 hours anywhere and have to stay at a hotel etc. If they came local to me I'd definitely go. But yeah. of course this time they'll probably do the whole of Queen II or Innuendo Then I'll regret it. Ah well. But happy for everyone going! (BTW Love Roger's new song! And you should check it out on all the streaming sites...there's a second track that's got the same name "Gangsters Are Running This World (Purple Version)" BUT it's a completely different song and a real rocker unlike anything we've heard from Rog in years. It surprised me and that's rare in the Queen-world these days! I met up with some other fans this weekend and we were speculating already what year they would count as 50 years. 1970 when Freddie joined Brian and Roger or 1971 when John Deacon completed the band. They will likely celebrate this with a bang though! I would say 1970. The time they had their first appearance under the name „Queen“ (or was that 1971 and they were still Smile in 1970?) . Edit: I was curious and checked the QueenOnline Homepage. It says, that Queen was formed in 1971. According to that, they will celebrate their anniversary in 2021. Their first concerts as Queen were 1970. Their first album was released in 1971. There's been a few different times they've used 1970 and some they've used 1971. In 1990 they celebrated 20 years at the Brits Awards in what was Freddie's final public appearance. And in fact it might be why they decided to use 1970 as the year formed and thus anniversary year - due to Freddie's illness. In 2011, when they switched record labels they re-released the catalogue as part of their "40th" anniversary. SO long story short though I'd believe they'll consider 2021 their 50th.
|
|
talon
Member
Posts: 2,933
Location:
|
Post by talon on Feb 24, 2019 20:33:17 GMT -5
It was a good performance. Very happy to see the big Freddie on the background
|
|
talon
Member
Posts: 2,933
Location:
|
Post by talon on Feb 24, 2019 19:35:51 GMT -5
I get it. I get a bit defensive too at times. I also get wanting to see him shine...and I've gotten past that a bit at the concerts - but in certain times (and this would seem to me to be an obvious one) it makes sense to showcase the band they are celebrating rather than the band they are. But no harm no foul All good. You are a very valued member here, talon . You often provide an important perspective for us and you are a great source of information. Thanks :D
|
|
talon
Member
Posts: 2,933
Location:
|
Post by talon on Feb 22, 2019 0:20:05 GMT -5
Because the film is a nostalgic Freddie love fest and the Oscars are celebrating the film. You can say there is a big swell of Queen still performing etc. and at most festivals, etc. I would agree and see your point. But this is one bit that still is almost exclusively about the past and Freddie's life. That's what the movie is about. *shrug* Makes sense to me. Sorry, I might have gotten a bit defensive regarding the current frontman. I have no issue with all aspects of the success of Bohemian Rhapsody to get recognized. Freddie of course is a big part of it. Still, I am primarily an Adam fan, and selfishly I want to see him shine as much as possible. I get it. I get a bit defensive too at times. I also get wanting to see him shine...and I've gotten past that a bit at the concerts - but in certain times (and this would seem to me to be an obvious one) it makes sense to showcase the band they are celebrating rather than the band they are. But no harm no foul
|
|
talon
Member
Posts: 2,933
Location:
|
Post by talon on Feb 20, 2019 13:53:08 GMT -5
Hard disagree. This was for the most part seen as the Freddie movie... Even Brian and Roger went back and forth about it. And Rami's been thanking Freddie specifically etc. It makes more sense to do more with Freddie than not tbh. I don't think that anybody would want to turn the QAL Oscars performance into a Freddie love fest. Why? What would the purpose be? "Bohemian Rhapsody" was a clever title for the movie and probably a reason why many moviegoers were curious enough to check it out - it hints at the mystery and power behind Queen's music and their former frontman. But let's keep in mind that it's about more than Freddie nostalgia. Queen is still playing and quite sought after lately, and all this would not happen without Adam. He is allowed to shine a bit too, as Brian and Roger need him to keep doing what they love. Because the film is a nostalgic Freddie love fest and the Oscars are celebrating the film. You can say there is a big swell of Queen still performing etc. and at most festivals, etc. I would agree and see your point. But this is one bit that still is almost exclusively about the past and Freddie's life. That's what the movie is about. *shrug* Makes sense to me.
|
|