Entre_Perpetuo

Anyway great thread...here's my attempt at a list: Marathon Red Sector A Distant Early Warning The Analogue Kid Subdivisions

...how? It's literally one of their top three most synth filled albums, and the only one of those top three where the guitar really gets blocked out by the sytnth parts regularly.

Yeah, it is one of "those" albums, viz. it is the best-selling rock album of all time(second-best selling in general after Thriller), it is one of the best marketed rock albums, it is one of the most OVERPRODUCED rock albums, it is one of the most overexposed rock albums to the worldwide public and it is an album which contains two songs that are well-known to the 80% of the world's population. The album Rocks doesn't come close to this statistics of BiB. I can see you've got some bad blood with BiB. Understandable, but most of us believe it's reputation is really pretty well earned. Half the songs are some of the greatest and most essential rock songs ever written and played, while the other half sound just as menacing and exciting with maybe a little less finesse. The production was groundbreaking at the time and still sounds heavy, clean, sharp, and minimal to my ears. It's kind of the perfect balance between studio sheen and raw power...sheen power if you will. Plus Brian's voice on that record is astonishing and perfect. Vocalists like that don't come around all too often. I really have no qualms with Back In Black, and it's never disappointed me.

Disagree and disagree. Innuendo is an epic swansong, but actually kind of patchy and frustrating compared to their best releases. Made In Heaven pulls off the near impossible task of paying tribute with new material and without sounding awful or embarrassing, actually coming off as a very touching and well crafted epilogue. It's crafted in such a way that I have a really hard time comparing it to other Queen albums in terms of greatness alone, but the sentimentality is completely perfect, and the Queen flair, while much softer, is always present. Of course I'm sure you meant touring Queen material with different singers under different names, to which I ask you what Freddie's last musical message to the world was (to his own knowledge), being the last track on the last album they released before he passed? The Show Must Go On. He's also known to have said he wanted his legacy kept alive and that the one thing he never wanted was for anyone to make him boring. I think Brian and Roger have done about everything in their power to both keep the Queen legacy alive and strong internationally while always maintaining reverence for Freddie and never letting him become boring. As a band, the most essential thing for Brian and Roger to do was to keep playing Queen songs live for fans around the world, and they have gone out of their way to make sure only the best, most respectful, and most worthy performers would get the opportunity to sing Freddie's parts live for fans who can no longer see Queen live, or never had the chance...like me. For me, to see Queen + Adam Lambert live, would be more than a dream come true, it's a bucket list item. It's as close as I can get to having that singular greatest experience one can have with one's favorite band since I was born after Freddie passed away. It would be one of my most cherished memories. You can bet the next time Queen + Adam Lambert comes to America (please let it happen), I'll be at a show, especially since I had no choice but to miss them when they came in 2014. In short, I disagree that it would've somehow been more respectful of Brian and Roger to simply retire from Queen and act like it was all over after Freddie died. That just doesn't make any sense to me. ...and also John Deacon retired most likely because he had a more difficult time coping with Freddie's death than most, they were really close, and he had never asked to be a superstar when he joined Queen, not like Freddie. He did not retire because out of some sense of honor and dignity. He retired because he just couldn't do it anymore. Sorry to rant.

Yeah they both count don't they. Led Zeppelin definitely does, but Im not 100% on Queen, did they make any new material after Freddie's death? (And not meaning unreleased songs before he died) Timeline goes like this: Queen makes their debut album with Freddie Mercury, Roger Taylor, John Deacon, and Brian May as members. Queen continues under this exact same lineup until Freddie passes away in 1991 The remaining members of Queen release an album with Freddie's unused vocal tracks on it an new backing tracks as a full Queen album John Deacon retires Brian May and Roger Taylor team up with Paul Rogers of bad company for tours and one album of new material under the name "Queen + Paul Rogers," playing some new songs but mostly Queen songs. Brian May and Roger Taylor begin touring with Adam Lambert under the name "Queen + Adam Lambert" What makes up the Queen part of the equation? Hmmm... The remaining members of a band that has never released material under the name Queen using a lineup other than: Freddie Mercury John Deacon Roger Taylor Brian May

Yeah they both count don't they. Led Zeppelin definitely does, but Im not 100% on Queen, did they make any new material after Freddie's death? (And not meaning unreleased songs before he died) Timeline goes like this: Queen makes their debut album with Freddie Mercury, Roger Taylor, John Deacon, and Brian May as members. Queen continues under this exact same lineup until Freddie passes away in 1991 The remaining members of Queen release an album with Freddie's unused vocal tracks on it an new backing tracks as a full Queen album John Deacon retires Brian May and Roger Taylor team up with Paul Rogers of bad company for tours and one album of new material under the name "Queen + Paul Rogers," playing some new songs but mostly Queen songs. Brian May and Roger Taylor begin touring with Adam Lambert under the name "Queen + Adam Lambert"

Thank you. Also the Led Zeppelin point I brought up isn't about Coda. It's about Celebration Day with Bonham's son on drums. Live concert and live album under the name Led Zeppelin, but without John Bonham and with his son. Come to think of it I'm not sure if it counts anymore.

Wikipedia! I am sourcing my evidence from the official Queen website. Anyway, the Wikipedia timeline of Queen members extends well into the 2000s. What does that imply? It implies that Freddie died and John retired. But what you're forgetting is that this threads rules don't care about those details as long as no albums were released with a different lineup under the band name. To put it another way, Led Zeppelin would not count if live appearances were part of the question, as they held at least one concert as Led Zeppelin in the 2000s with Jason Bonham filling in for his late father on drums, even released a live album under this lineup. So it doesn't matter that Brian May and Roger Taylor call themselves Queen and released albums and toured calling themselves Queen. And your example of Led Zeppelin applies. They released an official album without John Bonham. And they aren't touring calling themselves Queen. They are touring calling themselves Queen + ____.

Wikipedia! I am sourcing my evidence from the official Queen website. Anyway, the Wikipedia timeline of Queen members extends well into the 2000s. What does that imply? It implies that Freddie died and John retired. But what you're forgetting is that this threads rules don't care about those details as long as no albums were released with a different lineup under the band name. To put it another way, Led Zeppelin would not count if live appearances were part of the question, as they held at least one concert as Led Zeppelin in the 2000s with Jason Bonham filling in for his late father on drums, even released a live album under this lineup. So it doesn't matter that Brian May and Roger Taylor call themselves Queen and released albums and toured calling themselves Queen. And your example of Led Zeppelin applies. They released an official album without John Bonham. Except earlier in the thread it was decided that Zeppelin do in fact count as a band that never underwent a lineup change.

I was going to mention Queen, but they officially released an album with Paul Rodgers without John Deacon. That was not Queen. It was Queen+! Big different! No. May and Taylor consider themselves Queen. That's why they call themselves Queen. They haven't released any albums under the name "Queen" without all four guys. There was a studio album and a live album under the name "Queen + Paul Rodgers", and they currently tour under the name "Queen + Adam Lambert" with only Brian and Roger remaining from Queen. However, those are technically different names and for all intensive purposes should be counted the same way as if they had called those collaborations MRT or LMT even while playing mostly Queen songs. You're grasping at straws. Brian May and Roger Taylor consider themselves as Queen. Read the link I posted earlier. Read the rules. No new material under the name "Queen" (not "Queen + ____," which is an altogether different name) without all four members present or with new members present = Queen counts. A collaboration between Queen (Brian May and Roger Taylor) and Paul Rodgers. Official Queen discography on the official Queen website. You are rationalizing. I'm not rationalizing. I'm giving you the facts. Queen + Paul Rodgers is not Queen. EDIT: and Brian May and Roger Taylor do not solely constitute Queen. A collaboration between Queen and Paul Rogers. Brian May, Roger Taylor, and Paul Rogers making music together under the name "Queen + Paul Rogers." If they'd have wanted it counted, they'd have just called it Queen.

Wikipedia! I am sourcing my evidence from the official Queen website. Anyway, the Wikipedia timeline of Queen members extends well into the 2000s. What does that imply? It implies that Freddie died and John retired. But what you're forgetting is that this threads rules don't care about those details as long as no albums were released with a different lineup under the band name. To put it another way, Led Zeppelin would not count if live appearances were part of the question, as they held at least one concert as Led Zeppelin in the 2000s with Jason Bonham filling in for his late father on drums, even released a live album under this lineup.

I was going to mention Queen, but they officially released an album with Paul Rodgers without John Deacon. That was not Queen. It was Queen+! Big different! No. May and Taylor consider themselves Queen. That's why they call themselves Queen. They haven't released any albums under the name "Queen" without all four guys. There was a studio album and a live album under the name "Queen + Paul Rodgers", and they currently tour under the name "Queen + Adam Lambert" with only Brian and Roger remaining from Queen. However, those are technically different names and for all intensive purposes should be counted the same way as if they had called those collaborations MRT or LMT even while playing mostly Queen songs. You're grasping at straws. Brian May and Roger Taylor consider themselves as Queen. Read the link I posted earlier. Read the rules. No new material under the name "Queen" (not "Queen + ____," which is an altogether different name) without all four members present or with new members present = Queen counts. A collaboration between Queen (Brian May and Roger Taylor) and Paul Rodgers. Official Queen discography on the official Queen website. You are rationalizing. I'm not rationalizing. I'm giving you the facts. Queen + Paul Rodgers is not Queen. EDIT: and Brian May and Roger Taylor do not solely constitute Queen.

Also if you still don't agree, read this link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_(band) And scroll down to the official timeline near the bottom of the page. There is no record of Queen releasing an album without Freddie Mercury, John Deacon, Roger Taylor, and Brian May on the record or with any other members of the band.

I was going to mention Queen, but they officially released an album with Paul Rodgers without John Deacon. That was not Queen. It was Queen+! Big different! No. May and Taylor consider themselves Queen. That's why they call themselves Queen. They haven't released any albums under the name "Queen" without all four guys. There was a studio album and a live album under the name "Queen + Paul Rodgers", and they currently tour under the name "Queen + Adam Lambert" with only Brian and Roger remaining from Queen. However, those are technically different names and for all intensive purposes should be counted the same way as if they had called those collaborations MRT or LMT even while playing mostly Queen songs. You're grasping at straws. Brian May and Roger Taylor consider themselves as Queen. Read the link I posted earlier. Read the rules. No new material under the name "Queen" (not "Queen + ____," which is an altogether different name) without all four members present or with new members present = Queen counts.

I was going to mention Queen, but they officially released an album with Paul Rodgers without John Deacon. Under the name Queen + Paul Rodgers, not under the name Queen. Therefor they still count. Semantics. May and Taylor continued under the name Queen. They toured as Queen and released albums as Queen. Check out the discography on the official Queen website. http://www.queenonline.com/en/the-band/discography/cosmos-rocks/ They released new compilations of old Queen material under the name "Queen," which still counts as Led Zeppelin are not disqualified for Coda, nor are any bands disqualified for their post-breakup greatest hits albums. The Cosmos Rocks does not count because they did not call themselves Queen; they called themselves "Queen + Paul Rodgers." Similarly, touring does not count because any time they tour they do not tour under the name "Queen." It's always "Queen + _____"

I was going to mention Queen, but they officially released an album with Paul Rodgers without John Deacon. That was not Queen. It was Queen+! Big different! No. May and Taylor consider themselves Queen. That's why they call themselves Queen. They haven't released any albums under the name "Queen" without all four guys. There was a studio album and a live album under the name "Queen + Paul Rodgers", and they currently tour under the name "Queen + Adam Lambert" with only Brian and Roger remaining from Queen. However, those are technically different names and for all intensive purposes should be counted the same way as if they had called those collaborations MRT or LMT even while playing mostly Queen songs.

I was going to mention Queen, but they officially released an album with Paul Rodgers without John Deacon. Under the name Queen + Paul Rodgers, not under the name Queen. Therefor they still count.

QUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN MUUUUUUSSSSSEEEE ...David Bowie...cuz hehe he's a solo artist, Lolz.

Wait, Rush is the rock band with the largest fanbase in the world? I don't believe it! Key word there is cult. As in, generally out of the public eye as far as music goes, but they've become pretty generally well known in the past couple of years with Beyond The Lighted Stage, the RRHoF induction, more and more Rush books coming out, CA charting so high, and R40. Tony Banks was a huge influence on their post-Peter musical direction, no? Imo it was always Tonys band. Mike wrote a lot on acoustic guitar as well, and by the s/t album most compositions were collaborative efforts between all three members anyway. The keys were always a huge part of the sound, yes, but Tony never wrote everything and never tried to be solely in charge of the band's direction.

Didn't matter that I've never hear this album before. I knew Just What I Needed.

I should've tossed in The Boys Are Back In Town.

That's a false statement and you know it.

Saddle over title track, but BiB over Rocks.

Brad Delp and Tom Sholz? Don't Look Back? :P

August 12th, 1998, I was born. Nope, not feeling old. :)