Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Pages: (2) < 1 [2] >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Topic: Queen Singles Box Set, ... Coming Dec. 1< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
Sir Mustapha Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 2802
Joined: April 2003
Posted: Feb. 02 2009, 17:35

Queen's lyrics never particularly bothered me. They always sounded either too busy with the music to give the lyrics too much thought, or just being straightforward to avoid sounding overly snobbish. Say, as much as Mercury had a penchant for fantasy in their early times, even the workouts of My Fairy King, for example. were always more lighthearted and theatrical than the ridiculous "philosophy" of Led Zeppelin on Stairway to Heaven and alike. There's always a tinge of innocence and wit on Mercury's words -- and by the display of '39, May is really very intelligent.

--------------
Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds.
Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
nightspore Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 4759
Joined: Mar. 2008
Posted: Feb. 02 2009, 18:29

While I agree with Sir M about "39", one criticism you can make of it is one you can make of a great deal of science fiction: it doesn't predict the future thoughtfully enough. In the case of this song, I'd be astonished if a technology that was capable of producing interstellar travel at over 99% of the speed of light weren't sufficiently advanced also to have made great progress in extending the human lifespan and reducing ageing. But of course, if that were so, there would be no song! Such sloppiness with regard to what the future will be like is what generally makes Star Trek etc laughable: we are asked to believe, for example, that at a time when you can "warp" between different star systems there will still be people who are bald and wear glasses! Such programs inevitably don't reflect the future but the time when they were made; just as 1984 was (intentionally) about 1948.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Bassman Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 548
Joined: Feb. 2008
Posted: Feb. 02 2009, 19:03

Ooooh...

This is where I get a chance to flex my Star Trek-geek muscle!

When someone once asked Gene Roddenberry why baldness hadn't been cured by Picard's time, Roddenberry replied that by Picard's time, no one cared if you were bald.

As for the glasses (if Nightspore was referring to Kirk having to wear them in The Wrath Of Khan), Kirk was allergic to the medication that McCoy would normally use for failing eyesight.  An explanation that seems a bit on the thin side, but... hey, what the heck!  It was a nice bit that tied into the movies larger themes of age and loss.

Incidentally, has anyone out there actually bought the Queen box yet?  I'd be interested in their evaluation before I laid out my cash.
Back to top
Profile PM 
nightspore Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 4759
Joined: Mar. 2008
Posted: Feb. 03 2009, 02:55

Quote (Bassman @ Feb. 02 2009, 19:03)
Ooooh...

This is where I get a chance to flex my Star Trek-geek muscle!

When someone once asked Gene Roddenberry why baldness hadn't been cured by Picard's time, Roddenberry replied that by Picard's time, no one cared if you were bald.

I think Roddenberry was thinking on his toes when he was asked that one! But of course, it invites the further question, which should in that case have been answered: why does no one care by then if no one is bald? Hirsute aversion-therapy? Political-correctness conditioning at the toddler stage? The necessity to go into so much detail with so many aspects explains why virtually all far-future science fiction is a failure.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Dirk Star Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sep. 2007
Posted: Feb. 03 2009, 03:39

Yeah but what I wanna` know is,that in the future when all the machines take over.Will we really all be eating "bytes and megachips" for our tea?..Frankly I find that one very difficult to swallow to say the least..

So nobody cares that old Picard is bald,but Deanna Troi is walking around the bridge there done up like a dog`s dinner.There must be some amazing time saving devices for hair styling in the future that`s all I`ll say on the matter.You would have had to have been up at four in the morning to look that good in say... oooooh 1987. :p Funnily enough I watched an old episode of next generation just a couple of weeks back.During the show both Ryker and Troi had to climb up these metal step ladders in engineering about three or four times.And of course every single time Deanna had to go up there,the camera lingered around her rear end for about three or four seconds.While poor old Will meanwhile was`nt even getting a look in you know.He could have been going up there with his arse on fire and nobody would have been any the wiser..Heh heh.. great stuff!..Personaly I always had a bit of a thing for that little redhead in Deep Space Nine with the elastoplast on her nose.But you know I would`nt have kicked Deanna out of bed I must admit.

I do like a fair amount of Queen`s stuff,but I have to say I`ve never really been too thrilled by their lyrics.I mean I would`nt critiscise them too much,because I don`t think they`re really my kind of thing to be fair.Anyway I always felt Queen were a great singles band regardless of anything else.So imo this singles box set release is probably long over-due I guess.Plus they always seemed to have great b.sides as well,..I`m In Love With My Car,..Dragon Attack...Lily Of The Valley etc...And subject of much interesting discussion here "39" which was a b side in itself of course ..Plenty to choose from no doubt.
Back to top
Profile PM 
moonchildhippy Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1807
Joined: Dec. 2004
Posted: Feb. 03 2009, 04:04

Quote (nightspore @ Feb. 02 2009, 22:29)
While I agree with Sir M about "39", one criticism you can make of it is one you can make of a great deal of science fiction: it doesn't predict the future thoughtfully enough. In the case of this song, I'd be astonished if a technology that was capable of producing interstellar travel at over 99% of the speed of light weren't sufficiently advanced also to have made great progress in extending the human lifespan and reducing ageing. But of course, if that were so, there would be no song! Such sloppiness with regard to what the future will be like is what generally makes Star Trek etc laughable: we are asked to believe, for example, that at a time when you can "warp" between different star systems there will still be people who are bald and wear glasses! Such programs inevitably don't reflect the future but the time when they were made; just as 1984 was (intentionally) about 1948.

I wonder if George Orwell had this vision of a world in the future, however I do  believe that he had the date wrong. 2008 is nearer the mark than 1984.  The UK are the nation under the most survielance from security cameras.  We have the "Nanny State" interfering with every aspect of our lives. I don't blame British people getting angry.  
Incidentally there's a Queen connection here  in That Brian May's  first band (with bassist Tim Staffell) was called 1984. Brian and Tim went on to form Smile with Roger Taylor, they disbanded in 1970, Tim went off to form another band, as Smile weren't getting anywhere, he had introduced Brian and Roger to fellow Ealing Art College student Farookh "Freddie" Bulsara, better known as Freddie Mercury, (Sour Milk Sea, Wreckage, Ibex), and John Deacon (The Opposition) was recruited into the Queen camp in 1971, rumour has it John was the 7th bassist to be auditioned, I don't know how true that is. The rest is history  :)  :D .


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smile_(band)


--------------
I'm going slightly mad,
It finally happened, I'm slightly mad , just very slightly mad

If you feel a little glum to Hergest Ridge you should come.


I'm challenging  taboos surrounding mental health


"Part time hippy"

I'M SUPPORTING OUR SOLDIERS

BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!!
Back to top
Profile PM 
nightspore Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 4759
Joined: Mar. 2008
Posted: Feb. 03 2009, 05:15

Quote (moonchildhippy @ Feb. 03 2009, 04:04)
I wonder if George Orwell had this vision of a world in the future, however I do  believe that he had the date wrong. 2008 is nearer the mark than 1984.  The UK are the nation under the most survielance from security cameras.  We have the "Nanny State" interfering with every aspect of our lives. I don't blame British people getting angry.

MCH: Orwell might well have given the UK the idea (I live in Australia, where our last prime minister, for all his faults, at least avoided the excesses of the "nanny state). It's the old question of whether art imitates life or life imitates art. Many of the employees of NASA were science fiction fans as children...
Back to top
Profile PM 
ommadawn,ah!ooh! Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 60
Joined: Mar. 2008
Posted: Feb. 03 2009, 08:11

Dirk Star:"  Deanna Troi is walking around the bridge there done up like a dog 's dinner."

Now there's a darn good reason to prefer your Lassie to your Pal   :p

Don "A-Ruff!" C.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Ugo Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 5495
Joined: April 2000
Posted: Feb. 03 2009, 08:14

@ Bassman: back on topic and maybe a bit late... :) In Italy the box is about 45 Euros, so if you're a fan of Queen and already have all the albums, it's quite a nice thing to have, because all the singles are packaged in reproductions of the original sleeves, the CDs are black and vinyl-looking, etc. However, I have all the albums AND all of the B-sides and non-album tracks as FLAC files, and I'm not a collector. So, if you're like me, the box is, I think, quite useless. :)

@ Dirk: "'39" wasn't meant to be a b-side; it was meant to be a single on its own, or at least Brian wanted it to be. On the ANatO DVD commentary, Brian said that he always regretted that his track didn't have all of the exposure that it should've had, because the label preferred John's composition over his, for the single, and "relegated" it to the b-side, at a time when seven-inch b-sides were already beginning to count a bit less than a-sides. Only when Pet Shop Boys came about, b-sides started gaining importance again. At least I think so. :D

Also, Deanna Troi is supposed to be...ahem... I don't remember the name of the extraterrestrial race she belongs to, but she's not an earthling. So her elaborate hairstyle is quite justified. :p


--------------
Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian
Back to top
Profile PM 
ommadawn,ah!ooh! Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 60
Joined: Mar. 2008
Posted: Feb. 03 2009, 10:01

Extraterrestrial or not, I could manage-a-Troi     ;)

Oh, and Queen? LOUDEST Band I ever saw! ANATO Tour...
Back to top
Profile PM 
Sir Mustapha Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 2802
Joined: April 2003
Posted: Feb. 03 2009, 12:24

Talk about Queen B-sides, I had never realised that Queen's singles rarely had any non-album B-sides, especially in the 70's, that only had See What a Fool I've Been. I only realised that when I checked out Wikipedia to see if that boxset would bring any rare goodies. Bah. I guess Queen was a concise band.

--------------
Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds.
Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
Ugo Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 5495
Joined: April 2000
Posted: Feb. 03 2009, 13:47

Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Feb. 03 2009, 18:24)
I guess Queen was a concise band.

:) I guess Queen was (is?) an album-oriented band, i.e. they cared much more about albums than singles. And I also guess that all of the non-album bees (such as "A Human Body" - "Play the Game" B-side) are all outtakes from the albums. At least they sound to me like they are. :D

--------------
Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian
Back to top
Profile PM 
nightspore Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 4759
Joined: Mar. 2008
Posted: Mar. 07 2020, 19:02

Quote (moonchildhippy @ Jan. 30 2009, 09:00)
Quote
nightspore   Posted on Nov. 29 2008, 05:39"39" was good too. I think it's about special relativistic time dilation and the twin paradox - if it is, it must be the must unusual subject matter for a folk song ever written!


I love '39, great song  :D, has me tapping my feet everytime.


In the year of '39 assembled here the Volunteers
In the days when lands were few
Here the ship sailed out into the blue and sunny morn
The sweetest sight ever seen.
And the night followed day
And the story tellers say
That the score brave souls inside
For many a lonely day sailed across the milky seas
Ne'er looked back, never feared, never cried.
Don't you hear my call though you're many years away
Don't you hear me calling you
Write your letters in the sand
For the day I take your hand
In the land that our grandchildren knew.
In the year of '39 came a ship in from the blue
The volunteers came home that day
And they bring good news of a world so newly born
Though their hearts so heavily weigh
For the earth is old and grey, little darlin' we'll away
But my love this cannot be
For so many years have gone though I'm older but a year
Your mother's eyes from your eyes cry to me.
Don't you hear my call though you're many years away
Don't you hear me calling you
All the letters in the sand cannot heal me like your hand
All my life
Still ahead
Pity Me.



I was never entirely sure what the lyrics to '39 , were, I did think '39 maybe meant 1939 and the start of WW2, and volunteers meant those signing up for the Navy, Army or RAF, I don't know for sure if volunteers were sought for the forces or if men of the right ages were conscripted. "brave souls" could apply to the servicemen willing to put their lives on the line.

I did think maybe it was about a serviceman missing presumed dead in action who then finds his love many years later, possibly she had married someone else and had kids, and subsequently grandchildren.    "For the day I take your hand
In the land that our grandchildren knew." with the guy being a step grandparent to the grandkids.

Then again coming back the same day, unless maybe it was an RAF bombing raid, but  that was after 1939, and "ship" could be an ambiguos metaphor for a Lancaster, and seas a metaphor for sky, but a plane would have to fly over the see too.

I know that a Queen fan did write and ask what the lyrics to '39 were about. I know it has something to do with Einstein's Theory Of Relativity" in that a spaceship leaves the earth , (and Milky seas , could be a metaphor for Milky Way, as I would imagine that it would look like a sea of stars), travelling faster than the speed of light, and so to the travellers it would seem like a day trip, but on earth the traveller, time would have passed quickly , that he returns to find his grandchildren. Maybe a case of science fiction and science fact.

I've found this where Brian explains the lyrics, which were a a bit ambiguos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%2739_(Queen_song)

Many years later... but the song is about a return from the far future to our "mad dawn" - a trip made by crossing the "milky sea" of Hinduism: the pleroma. Unfortunately the only way I'm going to get Ugo or any of the others to reply to this is to make a pleroma crossing myself  :cool:
Back to top
Profile PM 
32 replies since Nov. 28 2008, 22:20 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Pages: (2) < 1 [2] >






Forums | Links | Instruments | Discography | Tours | Articles | FAQ | Artwork | Wallpapers
Biography | Gallery | Videos | MIDI / Ringtones | Tabs | Lyrics | Books | Sitemap | Contact

Mike Oldfield Tubular.net
Mike Oldfield Tubular.net