Jump to content

Aquamarine

Members
  • Content Count

    5,704
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Aquamarine

  1. "Bubblegum"....now there's a bonafide scapegoat. In 1971 so called bubblegum was still going and The Rolling Stones cash in on it with "Brown Sugar" from their Sticky Fingers album. "Brown Sugar" and "Sticky Fingers" were perfect bubblegum titles.

    You've got to be kidding. That's some of the weirdest logic I ever read.

  2. He's from Chile, give him a break--his English is no worse than a lot of the native speakers here. ;)

    And Cristopher, there's no such thing as an "official" tribute band. If you market yourselves as a tribute band, that's what you will be. But one tribute band is no more official than another. It's got nothing to do with legality, unless your band actually books itself as "Led Zeppelin," then all the lawyers will appear!

  3. Give me a break. I love what Zeppelin was, not what they have become (or at least one of them) and yes, when Robert comes to town, I don't go to see his show. With the response to O2, it is hard to understand how any band or band member can see such a HUGE demand and just say, oh well, sorry to all the fans that made them what they are. Without the fans, they are nothing and certainly could not live the luxury life that Zep fans have paid for.

    Oh I see. It's just another Plant-bashing thread. :rolleyes:

  4. So . . they don't deserve their fans' support, but you will continue to love them. And it's the disappointed fans you can't come to terms with, not the band's decisions. :huh:

    Wanna run that one by us again? There is no logic.

  5. That's really cool because that was approximately the angle I was looking at the stage from! Unfortunately I was a lot further back and a lot of much taller people were standing in front of me . . :P That's obviously daylight, so just before or just as they came on, which I remember was right at sunset.

  6. Anyone else find it odd that the person that started this thread hasn't returned to actually take part in it and that they only have one other post on the board?

    No. This thread is full of people posting just to be provocative, including one provocateur who has returned in so many guises it's hard to imagine him having a life outside these boards, and another who wants to be the world's premier spammer.

  7. 67 doesn't have to be a retirement age but let's be honest. I imagine all of those guys you mention will be slowing things down considerably in the next few years. Q107 here in Toronto said that if a Stones tour were to happen in the next year or so, Richards would be approaching 70 during it. I think a dose of realism needs to be taken by all of us that all of these legends we love will probably be calling it quits in the next few years. If he has chosen to retire, good for him. He deserves it.

    Richards is the youngest in the band! In other words, all the others are approaching it faster, and so what?

  8. "Some of their songs were structured operatically, is about as close as you can get".Of course, it is, they didn't write genuine operas, they just incorporated operatic structures( with an operatic voice", but if the words "rock opera" don't correspond to Queen, I don't know what you mean by "rock operas".

    Into SOME songs. Sheesh.

    Tommy, Quadrophenia, Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, The Wall, etc. Some of them I even liked, such as Ziggy Stardust and S.F. Sorrow (which was earlier).

  9. Your question is" what has glam rock to do with rock opera?", and mine is "Do you know a little band called Queen?"

    And my response is "yes thanks, do you?" They didn't write rock operas (A Night at the Opera's title notwithstanding), and We Will Rock You wasn't produced until long after the band's demise. Some of their songs were structured operatically, is about as close as you can get.

  10. "those bloated extravganzas of the 70's", I know exactly what you mean by that, and I'm sure you prefer,the, how do they call it?

    oh yeah "the serious rock scene".Many critics in the 70's, especially in the US, were quite reluctant towards glam rock and all this new stuff coming from the UK, it was like a sacrilege, suddenly music became more complex than Blue Suede shoe and Like A rolling stone, suddenly some mad rock musicians tried for instance to incorporate opera into rock music.

    Then came the minimalism, and even now a lot of young musicians, are influenced by M jackson and others, and try to ape them.

    What has glam rock to do with rock opera, how can music be MORE complex than Like a Rolling Stone, what has Michael Jackson to do with minimalism? Why am I even bothering? :rolleyes:

    And sorry for the double post, don't want to be a spammer. ;)

  11. I presume you mean the pompous extravaganza perpetrated by crappy bands like Caravan, Foreigner, Chicago, Journey and the like :):):)!!!!!

    I was talking about the 70s, you seem a little confused. I wouldn't include Caravan, but I would include all those huge rock operas/concept albums.

  12. Music has obviously deteriorated over the last thirty years.This change first affected Pop music with M.Jackson, Prince who invented minimalism and the dirty modern sound.

    If there's one thing I totally love, it's the dirty modern sound. Minimalism, too, rather than some of those bloated extravaganzas of the 70s. (As opposed to the good stuff of the 70s.)

×
×
  • Create New...