QUEENSRYCHE

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

I am repeating myself, but to me, the s/t sounds like a band trying to sound like Queensryche...or a band influenced by Queensryche, as opposed to being THE Queensryche. I'm not saying it's "bad", it just doesn't connect with me. I like the few songs I like on FU better than anything I like on the s/t.

I'll second this. I think it's also interesting that the vibe of the album almost gives it a "Promised Land II" vibe, which kind of tells you where everyone else in the band unplugged from the "progress" the music was making.

What will be telling is the NEXT album by QR. I'm willing to give some unimpressive songwriting on the s/t a pass because it was created at such a harsh do-or-die impasse. I'm definitely not a big believer in the "strife feeds creativity" school of thought, so I get how that can derail things. If the next album, now that the lawsuit is out of the way and audiences are on board with the new singer, is unimpressive - well, that kind of lends creedence to the idea that their tank was empty or near to it and Geoff was the only one presenting meaningful ideas (not GOOD ones, but still meaningful ones).

I also really liked GT's first solo album. It wasn't QR, but it did seem like a genuine "solo" album that allowed him to stretch out, which was kind of cool. It's also a good summer late afternoon listen.

Quote :

and Geoff was the only one presenting meaningful ideas

Surely you mean Geoff and Chris?

Well, post-HITNF it would have just been Geoff barring that window around Tribe.

Quote :

Well, post-HITNF it would have just been Geoff barring that window around Tribe.

Have a look at the credits on Mindcrime II and American Soldier. Jason Slater wrote almost all of those songs. Geoff only contributed the lyrics.

glassprison wrote:

Quote :

Well, post-HITNF it would have just been Geoff barring that window around Tribe.

Have a look at the credits on Mindcrime II and American Soldier. Jason Slater wrote almost all of those songs. Geoff only contributed the lyrics.

Pretty much the case throughout Queensryche's career... The Geoff contributed some lyrics and later on vocal melodies (DeGarmo came up with most of the vocal melodies prior to his leaving - and you can easily tell when you listen to post DeGarmo stuff)

All true. Still, it would be a sad revelation to find that the other guys didn't have anything more substantial to offer on their own.

That's why the next QR album is such an imposing question mark to me. It could prove that they really had it the whole time (in which case, sucks for us because we missed out on some great music for a decade plus) and were just kept from expressing it.

I think they've already proven what they're capable of. I see no reason there will be an improvement next time. If anything, they will rest on their laurels because this was the release that was going to supposedly prove that they don't need DeGarmo or Tate.

Even the title to me is lame and uncreative. The debut EP was already self-titled!

The only thing I heard from QR after "Empire" was "Promissed Land" it wasn´t a truly pleasent experience ... I never tried to give a listen to the other albums that cama after it , but ... if they no longer play "heavy metal" or "metal" by any means why should I invest time , money , whatever in something I would mostly not really get into ?

Headbanger Man wrote:

The only thing I heard from QR after "Empire" was "Promissed Land" it wasn´t a truly pleasent experience ... I never tried to give a listen to the other albums that cama after it , but ... if they no longer play "heavy metal" or "metal" by any means why should I invest time , money , whatever in something I would mostly not really get into ?

QR was never a straight forward "metal" band. Even Rage for Order is pretty odd as metal albums go. I personally love Promised Land and thought it was an interesting evolution. What came AFTER that I mostly could have done without, but I really enjoyed everything to that point.

You'd probably like the new self-titled, because it's very much a return to "metal" sounding stuff. My main complaint is that the songs didn't have a lot of staying power.

Temple of Blood wrote:

I think they've already proven what they're capable of.  I see no reason there will be an improvement next time.  If anything, they will rest on their laurels because this was the release that was going to supposedly prove that they don't need DeGarmo or Tate.

Even the title to me is lame and uncreative.  The debut EP was already self-titled!

And they proved that they're capable of producing a very fine album. It seems to me that many people who have an issue with it being "unimpressive" can't take it on its own merits; it has to be compared to classic Queensryche albums. Which is silly, of course. The new self-titled album is damn good. It's not an amazing album by any means, but there are some great songs on it; and more important, there are no bad songs.

But I tend to think it suffered a bit from being rushed. Sure, they put far more effort into crafting the album than Geoff did with FU, but I think some of the songs could have used a little more time in the tank. The next one, I think, will be far better. It still won't please you and the others who dislike this new incarnation of the band, though. =)

And I agree, I hate when bands have more than one self-titled release. So stupid.

Eyesore wrote:

And they proved that they're capable of producing a very fine album. It seems to me that many people who have an issue with it being "unimpressive" can't take it on its own merits; it has to be compared to classic Queensryche albums. Which is silly, of course. The new self-titled album is damn good. It's not an amazing album by any means, but there are some great songs on it; and more important, there are no bad songs.

I think that's far less important than the number of great songs.

I can't take it on its own merits because it doesn't have many. Any album, regardless of style, needs to have good songwriting.

Quote :

But I tend to think it suffered a bit from being rushed. Sure, they put far more effort into crafting the album than Geoff did with FU, but I think some of the songs could have used a little more time in the tank. The next one, I think, will be far better. It still won't please you and the others who dislike this new incarnation of the band, though. =)

It'll please me if it has great songs. LaTorre is a great singer. So that's covered. They need a great songwriter. I don't see that Wilton (or even DeGarmo any more, as you previously pointed out) can do it any more. I think the album has one really good song. Maybe some pieces that could've been developed into good songs. And a lot of "solid" filler that isn't worth listening to. It's easy for seasoned musicians to create "solid metal album" after "solid metal album". I'm not gonna pat them on the back for phoning in that kind of stuff. I'd rather them do an un-metal album with great songs.

Bands don't really take much time any more to write and test their songs/performances in the rehearsal space and on the road anymore. It's all pieced together on their laptops and through email.

Eyesore wrote:

And I agree, I hate when bands have more than one self-titled release. So stupid.

Peter Gabriel had four self-titled albums (although the fourth one was released as "Security" in some countries).

Temple Of Blood wrote:

Bands don't really take much time any more to write and test their songs/performances in the rehearsal space and on the road anymore. It's all pieced together on their laptops and through email.

That's because they don't have the luxury. They have to keep working/touring these days. I never thought I would consider that any sort of bad thing, but that's downside of the current industry...no money (or not enough money) to sit at home, or in rehearsal, going over and over new songs and taking years to record to make them "right"...they just can't afford that. So, they make them solid, include the elements that fans want to hear, and keep going.

One thing you can say about Tate, he didn't give a damn about what old Queensryche fans wanted...he did what HE wanted and pretended everyone else would catch up eventually. Todd-Ryche laid down a bunch of songs with the "right" chords, changes, transitions, a few high screams, and called it a "Queensryche" album since it sounded like a reasonable facsimile of early Queensryche.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Temple Of Blood wrote:

Bands don't really take much time any more to write and test their songs/performances in the rehearsal space and on the road anymore. It's all pieced together on their laptops and through email.

That's because they don't have the luxury. They have to keep working/touring these days. I never thought I would consider that any sort of bad thing, but that's downside of the current industry...no money (or not enough money) to sit at home, or in rehearsal, going over and over new songs and taking years to record to make them "right"...they just can't afford that. So, they make them solid, include the elements that fans want to hear, and keep going.

Also in this case, Todd-Ryche were pretty much forced to put an album out earlier than they might have liked, both because of the court date and the release of FU. So the next album might be a better indication as to what this version of the band is capable of as they won't need to be in such a rush to put it out.

Great post on another board:

Quote :

Paul Di'Anno fronted a band called Killers and no one seemed to complain. David Wayne released an album called Metal Church and people thought it was cool. And there are so many other examples, but since this is Geoff Tate, "it's just wrong".

I mean, I don't know the details about Geoff Tate's latest efforts, but all I've seen is that no matter what he does, people are going to take a shot at him. He fought in court for the name of the band of which he was way more than just a regular member (if you ask me, he and DeGarmo are the ones that mattered and none of them is with the band anymore), and everybody said he was insane (while the same people would be heard somewhere else saying that X band should not go on as they don't feature Y member anymore) and now he makes a new band and people say he sucks before he even records the first note, for supposedly milking the cow too much.

Well, Geoff Tate is not 20 years old and is not going to start a new band in a bar to see if he gets attention under a pseudonym. He is already famous and expects a certain amount of economical revenue from his efforts, so he'll try to attach his name to something people remember to draw more attention and, believe or not, stupid controversies like this one. It's the same everybody does, but when it's done by the "cool guys", no one complains. Remember when Black Sabbath reunited with Dio and named it Heaven and Hell? No one said they were milking the cow too much, people actually said that they should be just "Black Sabbath". Maybe because people hate Ozzy and Sharon and really liked Ronnie as a person. And Heaven and Hell is a way dumber name than Operation Mindcrime. Again, people hate Tate, so whatever he does just sucks, even if for the same standards used to measure other artists, some guys are usurping his band with a new singer.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Great post on another board:

Quote :

Paul Di'Anno fronted a band called Killers and no one seemed to complain. David Wayne released an album called Metal Church and people thought it was cool. And there are so many other examples, but since this is Geoff Tate, "it's just wrong".

I mean, I don't know the details about Geoff Tate's latest efforts, but all I've seen is that no matter what he does, people are going to take a shot at him. He fought in court for the name of the band of which he was way more than just a regular member (if you ask me, he and DeGarmo are the ones that mattered and none of them is with the band anymore), and everybody said he was insane (while the same people would be heard somewhere else saying that X band should not go on as they don't feature Y member anymore) and now he makes a new band and people say he sucks before he even records the first note, for supposedly milking the cow too much.

Well, Geoff Tate is not 20 years old and is not going to start a new band in a bar to see if he gets attention under a pseudonym. He is already famous and expects a certain amount of economical revenue from his efforts, so he'll try to attach his name to something people remember to draw more attention and, believe or not, stupid controversies like this one. It's the same everybody does, but when it's done by the "cool guys", no one complains. Remember when Black Sabbath reunited with Dio and named it Heaven and Hell? No one said they were milking the cow too much, people actually said that they should be just "Black Sabbath". Maybe because people hate Ozzy and Sharon and really liked Ronnie as a person. And Heaven and Hell is a way dumber name than Operation Mindcrime. Again, people hate Tate, so whatever he does just sucks, even if for the same standards used to measure other artists, some guys are usurping his band with a new singer.

I can see the point this person is making, I did not agree with continuing with using the name Queensryche, but it seems no matter what he does, he gets an over amounting degree of hate.

IMO Geoff Tate is very talented songwriter, but he might do better with his own name then Operation: Mindcrime.

Sorry guys, didn't make it to the show. I'm a great big bubble of disappointment.

He was reportedly wearing his vest and hat, from what I heard. Not sure about quality.

I did spend the whole day in prep listening to the first four QR albums in their entirety. That was cool.

On ToB's topic, I think my h8 for t8 is starting to shift some. He DOES come across as a narcissistic douchebag, but most of the hate he gets is undeserved and more of a trend rather than anything viable.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Great post on another board:

Quote :

Paul Di'Anno fronted a band called Killers and no one seemed to complain. David Wayne released an album called Metal Church and people thought it was cool. And there are so many other examples, but since this is Geoff Tate, "it's just wrong".

I mean, I don't know the details about Geoff Tate's latest efforts, but all I've seen is that no matter what he does, people are going to take a shot at him. He fought in court for the name of the band of which he was way more than just a regular member (if you ask me, he and DeGarmo are the ones that mattered and none of them is with the band anymore), and everybody said he was insane (while the same people would be heard somewhere else saying that X band should not go on as they don't feature Y member anymore) and now he makes a new band and people say he sucks before he even records the first note, for supposedly milking the cow too much.

Well, Geoff Tate is not 20 years old and is not going to start a new band in a bar to see if he gets attention under a pseudonym. He is already famous and expects a certain amount of economical revenue from his efforts, so he'll try to attach his name to something people remember to draw more attention and, believe or not, stupid controversies like this one. It's the same everybody does, but when it's done by the "cool guys", no one complains. Remember when Black Sabbath reunited with Dio and named it Heaven and Hell? No one said they were milking the cow too much, people actually said that they should be just "Black Sabbath". Maybe because people hate Ozzy and Sharon and really liked Ronnie as a person. And Heaven and Hell is a way dumber name than Operation Mindcrime. Again, people hate Tate, so whatever he does just sucks, even if for the same standards used to measure other artists, some guys are usurping his band with a new singer.

But here's the difference: Geoff's words and actions never match up. We're talking about a guy who pretty much renounced metal when he was in control, but then when he was ousted from the band starts talking about the "metal" album he's making. He says it's time to move on, to distance himself from Queensryche, and then names his new band Operation: Mindcrime. The list goes on and on.

Yes, some fans are just dinks and will attack Geoff no matter what he does. The majority, however, from what I see online, are just taking him to task because he's full of shit. He lies, he disrespects his fans, he contradicts himself in nearly every interview. That's not the same as Dio and the Black Sabbath guys naming their band Heaven And Hell. It's not the same at all.

Quote :

Paul Di'Anno fronted a band called Killers and no one seemed to complain. David Wayne released an album called Metal Church and people thought it was cool. And there are so many other examples, but since this is Geoff Tate, "it's just wrong".

Both of those examples are from the prehistoric days before the internet. Now, everyone has a voice, good or bad. If either one of those happened today, it'd be a whole different ball-game. Not really a fair comparison.

Yeah they are totally wrong about Heaven & Hell, once the name was explained to me it was perfect. They wanted to go out and perform the Dio era Sabbath stuff but not the Ozzy stuff (which Ronnie never did well) and knew that if they went out as Sabbath, the fans would expect Iron Man etc.. It makes perfect sense to me. That and the fact that Tony owns the Sabbath name and could do as he pleased, he had not signed a contract with his former bandmates giving them sole use to the name. This is more like if Ozzy had called his solo band Master of Reality!

However, I could see the business reasons for doing this if Queensryche fans were clamouring for more Geoff, but they aren't. If Queensryche were to announce that he was back in the band tomorrow, the reaction would be mostly groans. The fans don't want him, not as Queensryche, Operation Mindcrime or anything else. The only hope that he has as far as I can see is to go off and put his heart and soul into making the kind of music that is truly inside of him at this point in time and hope that people dig it. Trying to cash in on a fanbase that have turned their backs on him is never going to work.

Unless the next QR record is a giant turd and people start to get nostalgic.  

Iron Maiden & Metal Church had fans who still liked the original singer, there was no way the bad feeling towards them that there is for Geoff. There is less bad feeling towards Kim Jong Un than there is for Geoff!   

I'm going to have to second (third?) the notion of Hate for Tate (metal-themed frozen dinners?) being at least half deserved.

The guy is on record being incredibly nasty and disrespectful to his former bandmates, drove the brand into the ground with the cabaret and a string of wretchedly half-baked albums, and so on. And THEN, he's got the brass balls to say that the failures are down to the audience not following his brilliance appropriately.

That, and let's face it, saying you're relieved that the fighting is over when YOU sued your bandmates in the first place is disingenuous at best.

Never heard of Di'Anno, Dio, or Wayne spitting on / threatening band members and doing all sorts of crap to tarnish their old bands name. Then B/S at every possible moment with contradiction/diatribe/rhetoric, insulting everyone's intelligence.
 
Sure both sides of the fence get caught up in all that ad hominem type of stuff. The biggest reason of all is that in at least two of the three  examples given, there was a demand for Di'Anno and Dio fronted Sabbath (Heaven & Hell)   Nobody gives a crap about Tate anymore.  That is why he is so pissed off (IMHO)

By the time David Wayne and Paul D'ianno both formed these tribute acts to themselves, their heyday was long long gone.

These two artist had no demand for them on concert circuit, outside of few festivals.

Queensryche on the other hand may no longer have been a platinum act, but they could tour mid size arenas, played plenty of huge festivals and could still draw a crowd.

manny wrote:

By the time David Wayne and Paul D'ianno both formed these tribute acts to themselves, their heyday was long long gone.

These two artist had no demand for them on concert circuit, outside of few festivals.

Queensryche on the other hand may no longer have been a platinum act, but they could tour mid size arenas, played plenty of huge festivals and could still draw a crowd.

I wasn't referring to David Wayne, said 2 of the 3 examples.  There is more to concerts than the U.S.A.  Di' Anno did quite well over seas with KIllers and for awhile couldn't even procure a visa to come to the States anyways.

It's subjective about Queensryche tours.  The past decade was mostly clubs and state fairs as far as I remember. No festival in the US that would have Queensryche play is far from huge.   Huge is like Wanee or Bonaroo, maybe SxSW.  Not Rocklahoma and the like.

Half of these responses prove my point. The reaction to Tate's decisions is based on who he is personally, not what he is actually doing.

I guess when people listen to "solid" music all the time then the personalities/drama is more interesting and worthy of discussion than the actual music.

Tate is in the same camp with Nugent and Mustaine. Half the criticisms they get no matter what they do are pure nonsense.

Metallica has sucked for decades and don't get the level of hate for everything they do as those three. It's just ridiculous. It's not like Kerry King is a nice guy either, but he gets a pass a lot more than those 3 do.

The metal scene is full of jerks. So what?

Metal fans act like jilted wives.