Page 3 of 4

Re: Queen

Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:28 am
by Deuce Bigolo
You know far too much about the Nolans

I bet your a closet Sheena Easton spokesperson

Give me "The Go Gos" anyday at least their music had a bit of OOMPH!!!!!

cheers
B....OZ

Re: Queen

Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:29 am
by Pervert
There are a number of things that Scotland should be proud of. Sheena Easton is not one.

Mmmmmmmm, Belinda Carlisle.

Re: Queen

Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:48 am
by Deuce Bigolo
Should be Crucified for that 9 to 5 abomination

Got her in the 1982 Virgin Music yearbook being touted as record breaking this and that

In the 1983 Version in the "Where are they Now Section" she'd bitten the big one

One comment by the manager at EMI was a classic.After investing USD200,000 in her he said "We believe that Easton will be the star this year,following Cheryl ladd last year"

Typical of the dross being manufactured at that time

All looks and no substance

cheers
B....OZ

Re: Queen

Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:54 am
by Pervert
I think it's been mentioned here before, but she made the mistake of developing an American twang in her speaking voice. Made her very popular on trips back to Glasgow.

There really was some pish about in the 80s. A lot of good stuff, but some dreadful nonsense as well.

Re: Queen

Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:48 am
by Deuce Bigolo
Your right about the eighties being full of shite with the very very occasional gem depending on your music preferences

I only started buying music in 1982 and you'll not be surprised that most of the music in my collection from the eighties in either greatist hits/compilations

Not much got started in the Eighties that went the distance compared to the 2 previous decades

I Blame MTV & Record Companies....they sucked the creativity out of music and replaced it with Image.I can still recall when a bands clothing line got launched before they'd even recorded a song.Sounds like only something that would happen in a "Clueless Movie".

cheers
B....OZ

Re: John Deacon

Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 11:34 am
by chubbs
a 2 note riff? hark at the talent on show. he ain't mark king, doug wimbish, stanley clarke, les claypool or, come to that, ME!!

Re: Queen

Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2004 11:41 am
by chubbs
consider this, both pink floyd and genesis(!) carried on, with great success, without even employing a new singer, the cheap bastard. queen have got 2 guys who can sing solo and can certainly harmonise in fifths with each other so why bother getting some rock relic in when they can have more pie to themselves? a precedent has been made in the past by to huge bands so why should they even try to replace arguably the graetest frontman there has ever been?

Re: Queen

Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:54 pm
by Deuce Bigolo
Agreed

Pink Floyd could almost get away with anybody from within the band singing because their strength for mine was their unique sound

Genesis...did they ever have a decent singer....gabriel...collins...I rate neither but then each to his own

It either comes from within or it doesn't come at all

cheers
B....OZ

Re: Queen

Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:56 pm
by steve56
gabriel was ok but some of his solo stuff was too complex eg biko etc.

Re: Queen

Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:08 pm
by Pervert
Gabriel looked like a balloon leaving the band when he did. With hindsight, it was the best thing he could have done.