Forums > Queen - General Discussion > Why did it take Queen 3 years to enter the RnR Hall of Fame??

forum rss feed
Author

greaserkat user not visiting Queenzone.com
greaserkat
Bohemian: 678 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 25 Sep 07, 15:59 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I know this was probably talked about back in 2001, but I cant remember. Anyways.... Why do you guys think it took Queen 3 years after they were eligible to ener the hall? Shit I know U2 is going to enter the first year they are eligible and Queen were better than u2. Is it because the hall is in the US and we all know how the US in very Queen "friendly." What is your take on it?


Darling, Im not going to be a rockstar, Im going to be a LEGEND!!
Lester Burnham user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 5870 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 25 Sep 07, 16:52 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Considering bands like the Faces / the Small Faces, Rush, Little Feat, and Yes -- among many others -- have yet to be inducted, I think a 3 year wait is relatively good.

brian-harold-may 26643 user not visiting Queenzone.com
brian-harold-may 26643
Bohemian: 349 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 25 Sep 07, 17:11 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Lester Burnham wrote:

Considering bands like the Faces / the Small Faces, Rush, Little Feat, and Yes -- among many others -- have yet to be inducted, I think a 3 year wait is relatively good.



touche, and yes i agree, it is good.

mickyparise user not visiting Queenzone.com
mickyparise
Bohemian: 787 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 25 Sep 07, 21:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Amazing it was only 3 years, considering the USA reaction to Queen......... so not to bad!


R.I.P. PRINCESS

Living Life on Life's Terms
brENsKi user not visiting Queenzone.com
How shall we f**k off, Oh Lord
brENsKi
Deity: 8088 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Sep 07, 06:59 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

you've answered all your own questions really.
as to Queen being better than U2 - well that's subjective isn't it? most of the world would disagree with you right now.U2 are bigger since Joshua Tree - album sales wise, than Queen.

if you put queens albums from 86 to now
A Kind of Magic
Live Magic
Miracle
Innuendo
Made In Heaven
against any FIVE U2 albums form same time period - you will see U2 sell much more


go deo na hÉireann
Mercuryking user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 842 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Sep 07, 07:32 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:

you've answered all your own questions really.
as to Queen being better than U2 - well that's subjective isn't it? most of the world would disagree with you right now.U2 are bigger since Joshua Tree - album sales wise, than Queen.

if you put queens albums from 86 to now
A Kind of Magic
Live Magic
Miracle
Innuendo
Made In Heaven
against any FIVE U2 albums form same time period - you will see U2 sell much more



Excuse me but comparing U2 to queen is just a sin. They are faaar faar under queen in both talent and music.

Please dont compare the two again.

Wiley user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1704 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Sep 07, 11:41 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

He compared the sales of Queen's and U2's albums from 1986 to date and U2 supposedly outsells them, which wouldn't surprise me at all.

Like your bandmate would say, that is a FACT!

Whether we like Queen more or think they are musically superior it's our opinion.

The Edge, while not being as technically skilled as Brian, has a very unique sound. I have never heard Brian sound anything like the intro to "Where the streets have no name". However simple the guitar playing it is there, you have to admit that the sound is typical "Edge".

With this and also by putting up great theatrical shows, they have earned their place in the history of rock and roll and THAT IS A FACT!

hehe :)

Wiley

icefire user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 287 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Sep 07, 12:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

it just calls me to say fuck all that nonsence about u2 better than queen. any of robbie william's concerts of the last tour had many times bigger attendance that queen's hammersmith '75 but that doesn't make him more important. comparing u2 to queen is just like comparing madonna to beyonce or smth..though u2 isnt bad at all :)
QUEEN SPIRIT!!

Micrówave user not visiting Queenzone.com
Delilah, on Medium Power
Micrówave
Deity: 7037 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Sep 07, 12:58 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

icefire wrote:

any of robbie william's concerts of the last tour had many times bigger attendance that queen's hammersmith '75 but that doesn't make him more important.


You are incorrect. Robbie Williams is a lot more important than Queen, it's basic math. Let me explain:

In 2002, the BBC conducted a vote to determine whom the general public considers the 100 Greatest Britons of all time.
Top 100 Britons:

#58 Freddie Mercury (1946–1991), musician with Queen
Brian May, John Deacon, and Roger Taylor not listed

#76 Robbie Williams (*17) (born 1974), musician and former member of Take That

So according to their descriptions, #58 needed three other guys to make that list, #76 made it on his own musical merit AND his former band.

If it makes you feel better, Boy George is #46.

una999 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 598 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Sep 07, 13:38 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Wiley wrote:

He compared the sales of Queen's and U2's albums from 1986 to date and U2 supposedly outsells them, which wouldn't surprise me at all.

Like your bandmate would say, that is a FACT!

Whether we like Queen more or think they are musically superior it's our opinion.

The Edge, while not being as technically skilled as Brian, has a very unique sound. I have never heard Brian sound anything like the intro to "Where the streets have no name". However simple the guitar playing it is there, you have to admit that the sound is typical "Edge".

With this and also by putting up great theatrical shows, they have earned their place in the history of rock and roll and THAT IS A FACT!

hehe :)

Wiley




To be frank, U2 songs all sound the same. The reason why they sell so much is because they have a great manager - not a great band.

A U2 song can be good, but listen to a whole album, god no! When i hear or see the name U2, usually the $ sign is also in the article.

Bono will not be remembered like Freddie Mercury is remembered, his talent. Bono is nothing special as a singer, they're just big in the US because they play on their Irishness (even though 2 of them are from England...). I mean where you come from matters...why did Freddie hide his roots! (even though us queen fans think it makes him sound more mysterious...and so do i)

brENsKi user not visiting Queenzone.com
How shall we f**k off, Oh Lord
brENsKi
Deity: 8088 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Sep 07, 13:50 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

una999 wrote:

Wiley wrote:

He compared the sales of Queen's and U2's albums from 1986 to date and U2 supposedly outsells them, which wouldn't surprise me at all.
Like your bandmate would say, that is a FACT!
Wiley


To be frank, U2 songs all sound the same. The reason why they sell so much is because they have a great manager - not a great band.

A U2 song can be good, but listen to a whole album, god no! When i hear or see the name U2, usually the $ sign is also in the article.

Bono will not be remembered like Freddie Mercury is remembered, his talent. Bono is nothing special as a singer, they're just big in the US because they play on their Irishness (even though 2 of them are from England...). I mean where you come from matters...why did Freddie hide his roots! (even though us queen fans think it makes him sound more mysterious...and so do i)

you need to get a life U2 have produced at least four excellent albums
and yes - sometimes their music sounds the same...much like queen's music sounded the same....the red special, the mulitpart vox harmonies, the theatrical layerings of each song...how easily you forget...
and U2 (Bono) will be remembered for his humanitarian work...something our beloved FREDDIE NEVER MANAGED
and as for "half of them being English"...if you're born in a stable does that make you a horse? NO - so don;t talk crap...
Clayton's family relocated to Dublin when he was ONE YEAR OLD, the Edge's family relocated when he was FIVE
i think that makes them all Irish


go deo na hÉireann
Wiley user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1704 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Sep 07, 14:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:

you need to get a life U2 have produced at least four excellent albums
and yes - sometimes their music sounds the same...much like queen's music sounded the same....the red special, the mulitpart vox harmonies, the theatrical layerings of each song...how easily you forget...


That's what I mean. Some people here would go on and on about Queen's versatility and how they played every genre. Yes, they did stylewise, but they didn't explore that many different sounds. You can mention the Roy Baker era, the Mack era and the David Richards era. They still sounded like Queen, just as much as U2 sounds like U2, because they each have their own style.

Believe me, for an outsider with a negative opinion of Queen (just like some of you have it with U2) all of their songs can be pretentious over the top layered pieces with no substance. It's all about taste.

Many years ago I used to secretly think that I didn't need to listen to other artists apart from Queen, because they had songs for every mood. Now I know that listening only to Queen is to limit yourself. There is so much more than Queen but you must listen to it without prejudice in order to appreciate it.

In the end, you might not like it and you might think it's crap, but then you would know because you gave it a chance.

Wiley user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1704 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Sep 07, 14:16 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

greaserkat wrote:

I know U2 is going to enter the first year they are eligible and Queen were better than u2.


Yes, they did in 2005. I think that was the first year they were eligible (25 years after their Boy album) but could have been the second if you consider their previous EP or something.

fen user not visiting Queenzone.com

Be Gentle, I'm a newbie: 8 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Sep 07, 15:52 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:

you've answered all your own questions really.
as to Queen being better than U2 - well that's subjective isn't it? most of the world would disagree with you right now.U2 are bigger since Joshua Tree - album sales wise, than Queen.

if you put queens albums from 86 to now
A Kind of Magic
Live Magic
Miracle
Innuendo
Made In Heaven
against any FIVE U2 albums form same time period - you will see U2 sell much more



Mummm...remember that Queen albums sold like hot cakes from early 90's onwards. Besides, in the period you mentioned, U2 realesed more "huge albums" (including their most successful), well, they nearly started selling since 1987. So your comparisson does't look very fair, I would say.

Except for USA, Canada, Queen have been outselling U2 since 1987 up to now.















Mercuryking user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 842 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Sep 07, 16:32 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:

una999 wrote:

Wiley wrote:

He compared the sales of Queen's and U2's albums from 1986 to date and U2 supposedly outsells them, which wouldn't surprise me at all.
Like your bandmate would say, that is a FACT!
Wiley


To be frank, U2 songs all sound the same. The reason why they sell so much is because they have a great manager - not a great band.

A U2 song can be good, but listen to a whole album, god no! When i hear or see the name U2, usually the $ sign is also in the article.

Bono will not be remembered like Freddie Mercury is remembered, his talent. Bono is nothing special as a singer, they're just big in the US because they play on their Irishness (even though 2 of them are from England...). I mean where you come from matters...why did Freddie hide his roots! (even though us queen fans think it makes him sound more mysterious...and so do i)

you need to get a life U2 have produced at least four excellent albums
and yes - sometimes their music sounds the same...much like queen's music sounded the same....the red special, the mulitpart vox harmonies, the theatrical layerings of each song...how easily you forget...
and U2 (Bono) will be remembered for his humanitarian work...something our beloved FREDDIE NEVER MANAGED
and as for "half of them being English"...if you're born in a stable does that make you a horse? NO - so don;t talk crap...
Clayton's family relocated to Dublin when he was ONE YEAR OLD, the Edge's family relocated when he was FIVE
i think that makes them all Irish



Sometimes U2 songs sound the same??? How about ALL the time. They cant produce music for shit.
And his charity work is a fraud , the money doesnt go to where he claims it goes too , stop being so naive.

Freddie is 100 times the better human being even though he didnt do any "charity"

U2 sucks so hard, and that im afraid is a FACT ;P

Micrówave user not visiting Queenzone.com
Delilah, on Medium Power
Micrówave
Deity: 7037 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Sep 07, 16:48 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

If U2's music sounds the same, how come Pop was so "out there"? So much so, that I ended up really liking that album because it was so different.

Also, I have a soundtrack to a movie called "Captive" that was done entirely by The Edge. Incredible stuff, never got much public notice.

To say that U2 is nothing compared to Queen or vice versa is preposterous. Plus a manager being responsible for their success? You might have a misconstrued idea about exactly a manager does. Creative input is about the last thing they're worried about. Have they played some great venues and made a lot of money, yes that's the manager's responsibility. But the quality of the music is something the manager needs to stay away from.

You don't believe me, ask Freddie. He was abundantly clear about that on several occaisions.

Treasure Moment user not visiting Queenzone.com
Treasure Moment
Deity: 3413 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Sep 07, 17:03 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

greaserkat wrote:

I know this was probably talked about back in 2001, but I cant remember. Anyways.... Why do you guys think it took Queen 3 years after they were eligible to ener the hall? Shit I know U2 is going to enter the first year they are eligible and Queen were better than u2. Is it because the hall is in the US and we all know how the US in very Queen "friendly." What is your take on it?


U2 is pure garbage compared to Queen, Queen is soooo far better and talented than them its a joke


Freddie Mercury is God

TREASURE MOMENT: Continuing QUEENs footsteps

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=42215463

Treasure Moment user not visiting Queenzone.com
Treasure Moment
Deity: 3413 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Sep 07, 17:03 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Lester Burnham wrote:

Considering bands like the Faces / the Small Faces, Rush, Little Feat, and Yes -- among many others -- have yet to be inducted, I think a 3 year wait is relatively good.


all those bands are shit compared to Queen


Freddie Mercury is God

TREASURE MOMENT: Continuing QUEENs footsteps

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=42215463

Treasure Moment user not visiting Queenzone.com
Treasure Moment
Deity: 3413 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Sep 07, 17:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:

you've answered all your own questions really.
as to Queen being better than U2 - well that's subjective isn't it? most of the world would disagree with you right now.U2 are bigger since Joshua Tree - album sales wise, than Queen.

if you put queens albums from 86 to now
A Kind of Magic
Live Magic
Miracle
Innuendo
Made In Heaven
against any FIVE U2 albums form same time period - you will see U2 sell much more


U2 should be happy if they could kiss freddies shoes, they are nothing in comparision, pure shit


Freddie Mercury is God

TREASURE MOMENT: Continuing QUEENs footsteps

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=42215463

Lester Burnham user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 5870 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Sep 07, 18:21 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Treasure Moment wrote:

Lester Burnham wrote:

Considering bands like the Faces / the Small Faces, Rush, Little Feat, and Yes -- among many others -- have yet to be inducted, I think a 3 year wait is relatively good.


all those bands are shit compared to Queen


You're so fresh and original :)