and I'm not alone, the british think so too :www.contactmusic.com/new...

about what my opinion or that others think that Queen is better than the Rolling Stones and the Beatles

cold chisel is the best aussie band!

that was quite the rant. And the songs played during the sporting events are never the ones that should define how good a band really is.

can't believe you can even think about putting Duran Duran above Queen

nanotext has major hostility built up towards Queen, to many sport games with "We will Rock you" or was it "another one bites the dust" ?

freddy mercury rules!

axel rose is a wanker

if my dad heard you say that about Axel...oh man I would not want to be there, lol. My dad is a red head so Axel is basically his idol.

even if he wears a wig, now (axel, not my dad)

I agree with you though, just don't tell my dad

that's weak tony...

what because they wrote it after freddy died? just becuase one member of a band writes a lot of the material does not make the rest of the

band a vehicle for the leader.

that their albums are listenable.

and that all the members add crucial parts, even though freddy wrote most of it.

but I guess its too subjective.

Some of the musicians that have cited the band as an influence include: Anthrax, Ben Folds Five, Blind Guardian, Kurt Cobain,

Def Leppard, Extreme, The Killers, Foo Fighters, Green Day, Guns N' Roses, Helloween ,Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Kansas,

Manic Street Preachers, Marianas Trench, Marilyn Manson, Metallica, My Chemical Romance, Mika,

Muse, Radiohead, The Smashing Pumpkins, Styx, Lady Gaga, Adam Lambert and Dream Theater. Muse, Radiohead, The Smashing Pumpkins, Styx,

Lady Gaga, Adam Lambert and Dream Theater.

so are all those musicians idiots or...

does that qualify as a mark?

that arguing music with nano is like trying to box a rhino.

early styx.

You WILL lose, any you'll probably get gored and/or trampled while you're at it.

nope screw that. nano can be wrong just as easily as the rest of us. he's just stubborn.

Oh, he may be wrong, but you'll still lose.

so anyway, aside from three or four artists that you don't like (who are successful, none the less) do we disregard the rest of the list?

nope

Kilroy: I'm fighting the good fight here. I won't give in

there are artists there from all genres of music.

I accidentally posted a few twice though, my apologies

but, the list is substantial.

championsinmotion.com/im...

don't send me your bad vibes roy. you're just building him up.

I'm waiting tony.

media.giantbomb.com/uplo...

Go Williamnot!!! Go Williamnot!!! Go Williamnot!!! You fight a better fight than I ever could have, I'm with you.

Queen albums have spent a total of 1,322 weeks or twenty-seven years on the United Kingdom album charts;

more time than any other musical act including The Beatles and Elvis Presley

In 2006, the Greatest Hits album was found to be the United Kingdom's all-time best selling album, with sales upwards of 5,407,587 copies,

over 604,295 more copies than its nearest competitor

Their Greatest Hits II album came in seventh with sales upwards of 3,631,321 copies.

the band has released a total of eighteen number one albums, eighteen number one singles, and ten number one DVDs worldwide

Their total album sales have been estimated at over 300 million worldwide including 32.5 million in the United States

alone as of 2004. The band is also the only group in which every member has composed more than one chart-topping single.

Also, on January 2007, it was announced that Queen's Greatest Hits I & II was the most downloaded album on iTunes in the US.

according to: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu...

so even if you don't like queen I hope you agree that they are a popular and influential band

and not just a "Freddy Mercury vehicle"

www.nineinchsandwich.com...

sometimes people have different taste in music

there's nothing inherently "better" about the frequency or patter of any set of sound waves stimulating your ear

musical taste is entirely cultural

why you can be so absolute about this but not science, logic, rationality, etc.

what defines aesthetic value then? What most people find aesthetically pleasing seems like a plausible way to go about defining it

also "great" sounds like it is being equivocated in that argument. If great means popular, then yes, he *was* during those elections. If not

then the argument is invalid

also even if great means popular, W isn't *as* great as lincoln and others because they were considerably more popular

gallery.photo.net/photo/...

also doesn't buy your reductio because you assume that Mariah Carey isn't the greatest female artist of all time but haven't given a reason

I agree popularity probably isn't the only way we should define "best," but without a competing definition it may be the "best" prima facie

give a competing definition with better reasons to support it than an appeal to popularity and your argument will be far more reasonable

www.uslaw.com/pop/wp-con...

doesn't "bloated" have a rather negative connotation already? It's like arguing that killing is wrong because it's murder, when murder means

wrongful killing

ideally we don't want value terms in the definition of a value judgment

maybe one of you could advise me how to argue my case, because if you don't even accept my argument as valid, I can't get very far.

but sure if we take out wikipedia than I guess I have nothing but my personal taste backing me up here.

which is obviously inferior to nano-tony's...

that is bullshit.

but see, you can just say that you think Queen is the best because you're acknowledging that it's your opinion. It's Tony who wants to say

you're wrong, the burden of proof lies with him

if you say so.

fine with the idea of rejecting relativism. But you can't do that and then say that *your* taste in music is right without arguing for it.

indeed

ok ok ok

images.mirror.co.uk/upl/... And another contestant enters the ring!

I am so the guy with fury boots. even if my attack totally misses and I crash to the floor in agony, that is still me.

yea yea yea, so uh, forgive me here, but would you be kind enough to calculate queens score for us from that website tony?

because I am not sure how one would go about finding those numbers...

the same can be said for unpopularity. Most of what counts for "indie cred" seems to be liking the most obscure music you can find

people would refer to the specific musical themes going on in each song. I can respect someone with a lot of musical theory pointing out the

complicated time signatures or unusual harmonies going on in the music instead of just saying it is "good" or "better" or "the best"

what program?

ah

I'm not saying that these are sufficient conditions for "good" music, only that it indicates the person knows what they are talking about

tony, what makes a band good to you, beyond your personal taste?

preference, not definition

if we could say definitively "these things are what makes music good" there wouldn't be any music debates

even if we reject that it's "all relative anyways," there seems to be a subjective element doesn't there?

yes there does... but isn't there more to this than our own taste in musice?

this discussion that is...

music needs to woo its listeners-how they go about doing it is up to musicians-either way it is creating, a noble act

better then our jiving back and forth-finding end results as they started

each with a personal opinion

Is the insecurity of our music taste that deep that we need to gain followers of our cause?

the debate is almost identical to the "what is art?" debate

wooed by radiohead this summer

your question about insecurity goes back to "indie cred" mantra, in which people try to have as few followers as possible, or at least

be ignorant about who else listens to the same stuff

indie bands think they are so original, and raw, to me that sounds unrefined-they counting on just being "artsy"

I think that depends on who considers them indie.

If it's their label then maybe.

But if they're indie in that they are an independently operating band with a truly unique sound...

that's probably the correct way to use that word, but now it has other connotations. Kind of like the word conservative...

But it's also using indie as a label, as self promotion, and then being indie as a descriptor of who they are.

That's the difference I'm talking about. The bands that say they're indie aren't necessarily indie in the other sense.

Just like how no true hipster says they're a hipster.

I knew them before they were big.

Ultimate hipster status.

*shakes head* exactly.

yes sir

www.international-barris...

I love Queen song, Somebody to love.. its cool song.. so hopeless song.. hehe