QUEENSRYCHE

There are plenty of unlikeable people in industry. Tate has been giving us a double whammy though,being a Jack ass and putting out shifty music,imo.

007 wrote:

There are plenty of unlikeable people in industry. Tate has been giving us a double whammy though,being a Jack ass and putting out shifty music,imo.

Exactly. It's not like I'm purging every trace of him from my collection or anything. I'll still enjoy old Queensryche. What's done is done. I'm just choosing not to support the guy any longer. He won't be missed.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

007 wrote:

There are plenty of unlikeable people in industry. Tate has been giving us a double whammy though,being a Jack ass and putting out shifty music,imo.

Exactly. It's not like I'm purging every trace of him from my collection or anything. I'll still enjoy old Queensryche. What's done is done. I'm just choosing not to support the guy any longer. He won't be missed.

Yep, everything up to and including Promised Land is classic...... anything else The Geoff does has no interest to me

La Torre claims that some of the new material reminds him of Rage for Order and Mindcrime. I tend to never believe these kinds of claims, but with him being new to the band, maybe he can be a bit more objective. I don't know.

Guess we'll fine out later this year.

I wish bands wouldn't do that, overdoes it on the expectation that can't be reached.

Dark Horseman wrote:

I wish bands wouldn't do that, overdoes it on the expectation that can't be reached.

yep. I guess its a marketing ploy to keep people interested.

exact33 wrote:

Dark Horseman wrote:

I wish bands wouldn't do that, overdoes it on the expectation that can't be reached.

yep. I guess its a marketing ploy to keep people interested.

Maybe sometimes, yeah, but I think a lot of musicians are simply too close to their body of work that it renders them incapable of being objective. A lot of them, I think, genuinely believe the things they say about their music.

Queensryche, for instance, claimed the last Tate-less album was a lot like their early stuff. It wasn't. Maybe there are elements, like the dual guitar solos or whatever, that were also things they did in the past, but fans generally don't make that connection. They hear "reminds me of Rage for Order" and they expect songs like that, not a few parts.

I do think "Open Road" and "A World Without" could have fit on Promised Land, but that's about it.

My wife recognized the last album as 'ryche right off and when I played Tate's version didn't, for what that's worth.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

007 wrote:

There are plenty of unlikeable people in industry. Tate has been giving us a double whammy though,being a Jack ass and putting out shifty music,imo.

Exactly. It's not like I'm purging every trace of him from my collection or anything. I'll still enjoy old Queensryche. What's done is done. I'm just choosing not to support the guy any longer. He won't be missed.

Yep, besides that was a long time ago and Tate is, mos likely, not the exact same person today as he was back then. But anyways, good music is always worth to be part of one's collection; just because the person(s) behind it are jackasses or whatever, doen's really come into my consideraction when enjoying their music.

Eyesore wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Dark Horseman wrote:

I wish bands wouldn't do that, overdoes it on the expectation that can't be reached.

yep. I guess its a marketing ploy to keep people interested.

Maybe sometimes, yeah, but I think a lot of musicians are simply too close to their body of work that it renders them incapable of being objective. A lot of them, I think, genuinely believe the things they say about their music.

Queensryche, for instance, claimed the last Tate-less album was a lot like their early stuff. It wasn't. Maybe there are elements, like the dual guitar solos or whatever, that were also things they did in the past, but fans generally don't make that connection. They hear "reminds me of Rage for Order" and they expect songs like that, not a few parts.

.

Personally, I tend to think of parts when they say that. It's never possibly to dublicate one's past, not in personality, or looks or whatever. But then I don't have a wish for absolute connection either. I really do think the last album had the QR spirit so to say, and sounded like QR, just not exactly like something they had done before. But then Rage didn't sound like The Warning, either. In fact, I think the last album hade at least more of the original bands heyday spirit than the last couple albums the original band made together. For the next album, I again just expect great songs that to me sounds like Queensryche, like the s/t in that perspective.

Dark Horseman wrote:

My wife recognized the last album as 'ryche right off and when I played Tate's version didn't, for what that's worth.

Yeah. Tate's version didn't have the band, whereas the band minus singer still has 3 of 4 original band, and one of the two main writers, Wilton.

There are songs on FU that sound and feel more like Queensryche than anything on Todd-Ryche...

Anyone remember Mustaine saying that Supercolinder had a Killing is my Business vibe!

Boris2008 wrote:

Anyone remember Mustaine saying that Supercolinder had a Killing is my Business vibe!

IIRC that was Ellefson.

stpatrik wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Dark Horseman wrote:

I wish bands wouldn't do that, overdoes it on the expectation that can't be reached.

yep. I guess its a marketing ploy to keep people interested.

Maybe sometimes, yeah, but I think a lot of musicians are simply too close to their body of work that it renders them incapable of being objective. A lot of them, I think, genuinely believe the things they say about their music.

Queensryche, for instance, claimed the last Tate-less album was a lot like their early stuff. It wasn't. Maybe there are elements, like the dual guitar solos or whatever, that were also things they did in the past, but fans generally don't make that connection. They hear "reminds me of Rage for Order" and they expect songs like that, not a few parts.

.

Personally, I tend to think of parts when they say that. It's never possibly to dublicate one's past, not in personality, or looks or whatever. But then I don't have a wish for absolute connection either. I really do think the last album had the QR spirit so to say, and sounded like QR, just not exactly like something they had done before. But then Rage didn't sound like The Warning, either. In fact, I think the last album hade at least more of the original bands heyday spirit than the last couple albums the original band made together. For the next album, I again just expect great songs that to me sounds like Queensryche, like the s/t in that perspective.

I agree with that. The spirit was there. It was an album that, I think, could have come out after Empire and before Promised Land, a nice transition between the two.

Eyesore wrote:

stpatrik wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Dark Horseman wrote:

I wish bands wouldn't do that, overdoes it on the expectation that can't be reached.

yep. I guess its a marketing ploy to keep people interested.

Maybe sometimes, yeah, but I think a lot of musicians are simply too close to their body of work that it renders them incapable of being objective. A lot of them, I think, genuinely believe the things they say about their music.

Queensryche, for instance, claimed the last Tate-less album was a lot like their early stuff. It wasn't. Maybe there are elements, like the dual guitar solos or whatever, that were also things they did in the past, but fans generally don't make that connection. They hear "reminds me of Rage for Order" and they expect songs like that, not a few parts.

.

Personally, I tend to think of parts when they say that. It's never possibly to dublicate one's past, not in personality, or looks or whatever. But then I don't have a wish for absolute connection either. I really do think the last album had the QR spirit so to say, and sounded like QR, just not exactly like something they had done before. But then Rage didn't sound like The Warning, either. In fact, I think the last album hade at least more of the original bands heyday spirit than the last couple albums the original band made together. For the next album, I again just expect great songs that to me sounds like Queensryche, like the s/t in that perspective.

I agree with that. The spirit was there. It was an album that, I think, could have come out after Empire and before Promised Land, a nice transition between the two.

X2

So apparently Zeuss is producing the new Queensryche albums, and it appears to have annoyed some stupid fans who see bands like Hatebreed in his credits and can't wrap their heads around it. Someone is claiming that Todd has "taken over" the band because, obviously, this producer was his choice. The logic is kind of nonexistent there.

Anyway, even with bands like Hatebreed and Madball on his resume, those albums sound killer! As does the latest Sanctuary, which he did, as well as albums by Revocation, Sanctity, Kingdom of Sorrow, etc.

Hopefully this new album has that kind of heavy sound he seems to be known for.

I don't see a problem with this. Queensryche doesn't want to be seen as a "retro" act, so they want someone current and popular to produce the album. That's fine. I think at this point, they're smart enough to know what the fans are expecting from them and aren't going to go too far off the rails with this new album, as far as sound goes.

They've spent the 2 years now trying to win back the fan-base they lost during the Tate debacle. They'd be retarded to go and trash that goodwill with a totally out-of-left field album.

I didn't think there was a single thing wrong with the production they had before.

I think a new producer is a good idea, the last album did not sound very good at all.

Quote :

some stupid fans who see bands like Hatebreed in his credits and can't wrap their heads around it. Someone is claiming that Todd has "taken over" the band because, obviously, this producer was his choice.

 

Dorks like that are just looking for any excuse to get their undies in a bunch...even over an album that doesn't exist yet. Sheesh.

I never even heard of this "Zeuss" guy till I bought the new Sanctuary album, and I like that CD just fine...so if he's the guy doing the new Queensryche, hey, good for him/them. Whatever. (shrugs)

Could be they just wanted to clear the air, so to speak, and work with someone new with no past ties to the band or it's history. I had no problem with the production on the last album, but if they want to switch it up, I say go for it.

I don't hate the production on the last album as much as other do. Well, I don't hate it at all, actually, but it definitely seemed to lean more toward the higher end of the sound spectrum. I wish it had a bit more heaviness to the mix.

You're all talking about how the album sounds on a sonic/tone/mix level. So, unless Zeuss is also mixing, it's irrelevant. Producing isn't mixing or engineering (although a Producer could do that on his own if he wanted to). A Producer is someone who is there acting as a filter of sorts for the material and the performances...pushing the members for the best takes, making suggestions in terms of arrangements, playing, etc. A Producer is an idea man.

When you guys relate Producer choice to "production quality", you're not connecting the right dots.

The job of a recording engineer is to achieve the sound the producer and the band are envisioning. The engineer doesn't have a say in what the album will sound like, he is an employee who directly answers to the album producer.  A good engineer is also there to point out alternative approaches that might more accurately capture the sound the producer/band is looking for.  

Some producers are more hands-on than others and some producers also engineer the albums themselves.  Yes, some producers are "idea men", but others sit down at the console and get their hands dirty. Many producers started out as engineers to begin with.

There are many different approaches (dots).