QUEENSRYCHE

When I go see a band I would prefer to have all of their eras represented. If they have a new album I want to hear 3 or 4 songs from it performed live...after all, why bother to even release it if you're not going to play music from it?

I have zero tolerance for old fart fans that only want to hear songs from the band that came out when the listener was a teenager. I've seen these fossils at shows, standing around impatiently if the group plays a new song then all of a sudden springing to life when an old track is played. Makes me want to smack 'em.

Yeah I like all eras represented live too ... if all eras have great songs.

This song is OK. Lacks hooks around the chorus area. As Eyesore said, kindof a "Needle Lies" ripoff part in the verse.

It's just not better than any song they did during the 80s. OK, maybe better than 1 or 2 on Rage for Order.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Yeah I like all eras represented live too ... if all eras have great songs.

This song is OK.  Lacks hooks around the chorus area.  As Eyesore said, kindof a "Needle Lies" ripoff part in the verse.

I never said anything about it being a rip-off. Having the same kind of driving beat does not equate to "rip-off," unless of course you just want to be negative.

As for the song itself, it's not amazing, but it is good. I'm not sure why so many people think good is not good enough. Few albums/songs are amazing despite how we fans might describe them. Most are just good, quality entertainment. Nothing wrong with that at all, and this new song falls into that category.

And it does have a hook. I didn't think there was much of a hook at first either, but it's more subtle than, say, a Def Leppard hook. But it's there and gets catchier upon repeated listens.

Competition in music is important.

Bands are fighting for your ears and your $$$.

Why should I care about a merely "good" new QUEENSRYCHE song when I can pull out HEIR APPARENT (or something similar) and listen to it? I haven't played those songs to death like I have classic QR and frankly they are better.

007 wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

Would you rather hear this song played live when you see them or ANY song they recorded in the 80s?

That applies to a hell of a lot of other bands too. Judas Priest, AC/DC, Iron Maiden, Metallica, Scorpions, Ozzy, Black Sabbath and Deep Purple (If you say '70s instead of '80s)

Maybe they should all stop trying to write new stuff and just play what people want to hear.

Personally I prefer that they mix it up, old and new. Makes for a better experience I think.

So would I but the point that I was trying to make is that Queensryche aren't going to make a better record now than they did in the '80s, neither are the artists that I listed but if you are a big fan then there's nothing wrong with that. Personally I picked up the latest Sabbath and Metallica records, they are now gathering dust and when i want Sabbath or Metallica I head to Sabbath Bloody Sabbath or Ride the Lightning or any number of records that they have made that are better than the latest offerings. I couldn't say that there was much wrong with the Priest, AC/DC, Scorpions or Deep Purple records either but I have better music by all of these bands. The only artist to my mind that is putting out music that is as brilliant now as it was in the '80s is Tom Fischer, but then I'm a total fanboy!

So the original question went back to what you would rather hear, not whether the new stuff was decent or not.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Competition in music is important.

Bands are fighting for your ears and your $$$.

Why should I care about a merely "good" new QUEENSRYCHE song when I can pull out HEIR APPARENT (or something similar) and listen to it?  I haven't played those songs to death like I have classic QR and frankly they are better.

This argument never works for me. Just because someone can listen to something better doesn't mean they want to. Steak is better than a cheeseburger, but sometimes I'd rather have a cheeseburger, you know. And what do you do when you pull out that Heir Apparent album? They're certainly not the greatest band in the world, so do you then put it back on the shelf and pull out something better, then repeat the process till you've reached the greatest album of all time?

Boris2008 wrote:

So would I but the point that I was trying to make is that Queensryche aren't going to make a better record now than they did in the '80s, neither are the artists that I listed but if you are a big fan then there's nothing wrong with that.

And generally this has nothing to do with the bands. It's you. Countless people claim that the first two Keeper albums are Helloween's best, some of the greatest metal albums of all time. I wasn't a fan of Helloween in the 80s or early 90s. I got into them well into the 90s, and quite frankly I don't think those first two Keeper albums are amazing. Some fantastic songs on each for sure, but overall they never blew my wig back. Keeper III, in my opinion, is far superior.

But if I first heard the band in the 80s, no doubt I'd think otherwise.

Eyesore wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

Competition in music is important.

Bands are fighting for your ears and your $$$.

Why should I care about a merely "good" new QUEENSRYCHE song when I can pull out HEIR APPARENT (or something similar) and listen to it?  I haven't played those songs to death like I have classic QR and frankly they are better.

This argument never works for me. Just because someone can listen to something better doesn't mean they want to. Steak is better than a cheeseburger, but sometimes I'd rather have a cheeseburger, you know. And what do you do when you pull out that Heir Apparent album? They're certainly not the greatest band in the world, so do you then put it back on the shelf and pull out something better, then repeat the process till you've reached the greatest album of all time?

The greatest band for that style would be something like QUEENSRYCHE or FATES WARNING and I've already worn all that stuff out.

Yeah, sometime you may want to check something out that you know is inferior (not sure that steak/cheeseburger analogy works) but generally speaking you'll gravitate towards something you think is better.

Eyesore wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

So would I but the point that I was trying to make is that Queensryche aren't going to make a better record now than they did in the '80s, neither are the artists that I listed but if you are a big fan then there's nothing wrong with that.

And generally this has nothing to do with the bands. It's you. Countless people claim that the first two Keeper albums are Helloween's best, some of the greatest metal albums of all time. I wasn't a fan of Helloween in the 80s or early 90s. I got into them well into the 90s, and quite frankly I don't think those first two Keeper albums are amazing. Some fantastic songs on each for sure, but overall they never blew my wig back. Keeper III, in my opinion, is far superior.

But if I first heard the band in the 80s, no doubt I'd think otherwise.

I'm that way with Fates Warning. I like the Ray Alder era WAY better than the first two albums. Actually, I'm a bigger fan of them from A Pleasant Shade Of Gray onward.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

Competition in music is important.

Bands are fighting for your ears and your $$$.

Why should I care about a merely "good" new QUEENSRYCHE song when I can pull out HEIR APPARENT (or something similar) and listen to it?  I haven't played those songs to death like I have classic QR and frankly they are better.

This argument never works for me. Just because someone can listen to something better doesn't mean they want to. Steak is better than a cheeseburger, but sometimes I'd rather have a cheeseburger, you know. And what do you do when you pull out that Heir Apparent album? They're certainly not the greatest band in the world, so do you then put it back on the shelf and pull out something better, then repeat the process till you've reached the greatest album of all time?

The greatest band for that style would be something like QUEENSRYCHE or FATES WARNING and I've already worn all that stuff out.

Yeah, sometime you may want to check something out that you know is inferior (not sure that steak/cheeseburger analogy works) but generally speaking you'll gravitate towards something you think is better.

to me its pretty simple - if you prefer the old stuff then stick to that. I enjoyed the last QR and thought it was a good effort so I bought it. The whole "if its not as good as the 80s stuff then they should not make anymore music" argument does not hold for me. I did not like the albums leading to the 2013 s/t so QR did not get my $. I want good music that is fun and entertaining. I love it when great music comes along but no band that has released multiple albums spanning decades puts out great stuff every release.

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but the new ToddRyche album will be called...Condition Hüman

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but the new ToddRyche album will be called...Condition Hüman

Good thing about the macron; I would've sounded like a real fool telling people it was Condition Hummin'.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but the new ToddRyche album will be called...Condition Hüman

I think in keeping with the QR tradition of letters that don't get umlauts normally being thusly endowed, they probably should have put the umlaut on the M or something...

Here's the new Tater tune:



Doesn't sound half bad.

Actually enjoyed that.

I'm happy that I checked the video out and was beyond surprised by how good it was. It was a very catchy tune that harkens back to the Operation Mindcrime sound.

Quote :

I'm happy that I checked the video out and was beyond surprised by how good it was. It was a very catchy tune that harkens back to the Operation Mindcrime sound.

I'm not sure I hear it harkening back to the OM sound (maybe OMII's "The Hands") but it's one of the stronger performances I've heard from Tate and co. in a while.

Quote :

Good thing about the macron; I would've sounded like a real fool telling people it was Condition Hummin'.

Quote :

I think in keeping with the QR tradition of letters that don't get umlauts normally being thusly endowed, they probably should have put the umlaut on the M or something...

I really liked that Tate track.  I can see where the OM comparison comes in, but I think it begins and ends with the backing track - sort of melodic metal-ish with that orchestrated backdrop.  Vocally, I don't think you can compare Tate here to even OM:II.  

He's definitely working with a severely diminished instrument.  That said, he's using it rather well, so I can only assume that he's either come to terms with what he's got left OR someone on the writing/production team for this record gave him some truth.

Much as I was as outraged as damn near anybody else over his antics a few years back, this track is solid enough that I'll probably be picking up the next album he drops.  This has me excited for an album in a way the Todd-ryche setup hasn't really managed (yet).  Hoping they step up their game on their next release too.  

The most win-win situation a fan could hope for here is having a band that was on a distinct decline split and yield two "good to excellent" separate acts.

Serious musical critique out of the way, what the hell is up with Tate's hair?  I know I made the joke before about something nesting on his head, but that seriously looks like what happens when you wake up hung over and forget that you look like crap before heading out to the mall or something...

New Op:MC track is so generic.  The "heavy" riff is cookie cutter and you just know when it is going to go back to the mellow part.  It's predictable and the vocal melodies are not very inspiring.  

No wonder they cranked this out so quickly.

I'm too distracted by that weasel pelt on Tate's head to notice the music.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

I'm too distracted by that weasel pelt on Tate's head to notice the music.

Pelt? I think that thing is alive and just napping on his dome...

That song's ok but it doesn't make me want to go out and get the release. There are too many other things I'd rather get first.

I really dig this tune. It doesn't have the most natural-sounding transitions, but I love the chorus. Definitely sounds like a re-hashed riff or melody or two, but I can't figure out what it is. Tate's vocals are too high in the mix, I think.

Still, solid tune. Better than expected.

I'm guessing Tate's new album will have one or two songs like that, enjoyable but if that's the best it's not worth investing in.