Queen's back catalogue value...

Litterick

idiotwindow said:

Kittyfrisk said:

idiotwindow said:

Philly_Q said:

prowla said:

How many original members are in lots of bands?

Rolling Stones, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Uriah Heep, Bay City Rollers, etc.

Rolling Stones - 2
Deep Purple - 1

I think you are being a bit pedantic about Deep Purple. As far as I know, there are still 3 members of the classic line-up (the one everyone thinks of as DP) in the current touring band. Also, Ronnie Wood might not be an original Stone but he has been in the band far longer than Brian Jones ever was.

The clue is in the word 'original' surely? A founding member, not one that came later & stayed longer 

Yes, I noted the word 'original' in my comment. I still think @Kittyfrisk ; is being pedantic. In the context of a band that has been around 40-50 years, "original" members doesn't necessarily have to mean founding members but can equally be ones that have been around from near the beginning or from when the band got into its stride. Ronnie Wood is of course a bit of a stretch (as I acknowledged) but Ian Gillan and Roger Glover are, to all intents and purposes, original members of Deep Purple. I quite like the first couple of albums with Rod Evans et al but they are hardly classic Purple.

I don't mind how many members have been playing for how long, so long as the band is still making new music. A band becoming its own tribute is a sad sight.

dazzajl

Litterick said:

I don't mind how many members have been playing for how long, so long as the band is still making new music. A band becoming its own tribute is a sad sight.

In the case of Queen, it’s very sad not to have any new music. Roger is still making new stuff, as is Brian and of
course Adam is, so I do wonder what the reasons are not to work on something new and hopefully interesting together? Maybe it’s just not worth the risk/judgment to them?

The album from ABBA a few years back might be a good example of why people don’t bother. So much hype for literally years before it was finally released the whole world went MEH and it was forgotten almost overnight. Comments of “ not as good as the classic stuff’ echoing as the flushing sound faded. Well of course not, it was a beautiful bit of fan service and nostalgia. 

Sporky

Philly_Q said:

Sporky said:

Philly_Q said:

Come on guys, if we keep on pedantically arguing about pedantry we should be able to stretch this out to a few mare pages.

I for one admire the use of "mare" to hint at a horse being flogged well after death. 

Sadly @Sporky I'm not that clever.  It must have been some kind of Freudian slip though, there's no auto-correct on this computer and "o" is nowhere near "a" on the keyboard.

I'm still giving you credit for it.

thecolourbox

Kittyfrisk said:

Seems to be around $1 Billion dollars... eek!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy00e8lgynpo

It seems a bit steep, you can get a CD boxset on Amazon featuring 5 or so of their albums for about £50, I reckon you'd get the rest of them and still have change from a tonne

RocknRollDave

I bet Los Palabros Del Amor and Body Language bumped up the cost quite a bit.

Kittyfrisk

thecolourbox said:

Kittyfrisk said:

Seems to be around $1 Billion dollars... eek!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy00e8lgynpo

It seems a bit steep, you can get a CD boxset on Amazon featuring 5 or so of their albums for about £50, I reckon you'd get the rest of them and still have change from a tonne

This is why I'll bet you & I are not rich music biz people 

ICBM

dazzajl said:

In the case of Queen, it’s very sad not to have any new music. Roger is still making new stuff, as is Brian and of

course Adam is, so I do wonder what the reasons are not to work on something new and hopefully interesting together? Maybe it’s just not worth the risk/judgment to them?

While it's not always true, and many bands do go on with a new singer and create worthwhile new music, it's pretty hard to imagine a *proper* new Queen album without Freddie, even if not without John Deacon.

dazzajl said:

The album from ABBA a few years back might be a good example of why people don’t bother. So much hype for literally years before it was finally released the whole world went MEH and it was forgotten almost overnight. Comments of “ not as good as the classic stuff’ echoing as the flushing sound faded. Well of course not, it was a beautiful bit of fan service and nostalgia. 

I actually think that album is very good - no, it's not quite as good as any of their original albums, but it's pretty decent, and most of the songs are better than some of the weaker ones on the originals. It's a different vibe for sure - how could it not be, after forty years? But it's after *forty years* - I really can't think of a better comeback album by any other band after anything even close to that length of time.

dazzajl

ICBM said:

dazzajl said:

In the case of Queen, it’s very sad not to have any new music. Roger is still making new stuff, as is Brian and of

course Adam is, so I do wonder what the reasons are not to work on something new and hopefully interesting together? Maybe it’s just not worth the risk/judgment to them?

While it's not always true, and many bands do go on with a new singer and create worthwhile new music, it's pretty hard to imagine a *proper* new Queen album without Freddie, even if not without John Deacon.

dazzajl said:

The album from ABBA a few years back might be a good example of why people don’t bother. So much hype for literally years before it was finally released the whole world went MEH and it was forgotten almost overnight. Comments of “ not as good as the classic stuff’ echoing as the flushing sound faded. Well of course not, it was a beautiful bit of fan service and nostalgia. 

I actually think that album is very good - no, it's not quite as good as any of their original albums, but it's pretty decent, and most of the songs are better than some of the weaker ones on the originals. It's a different vibe for sure - how could it not be, after forty years? But it's after *forty years* - I really can't think of a better comeback album by any other band after anything even close to that length of time.

I liked the new ABBA album too, maybe it helped not going in with overly high expectations?

I also like the Cosmos Rocks album too. Classic Queen? No. But an ejoyable listen with some great Queen'ness to it and a might performance from Paul Rogers? Absolutely. 

stickyfiddle

If we’re having an argument about whether Ronnie Wood is an original Rolling Stone, he’s an edge case - of anything anyone’s ever heard of he only played on Start Me Up, Beast of Burden, Miss You and Emotional Rescue. And 2 of those are shite. 

Queen without Fred isn’t Queen, but it still appears to be a good band putting on a great show. I’d go if they ever came here. 

Philly_Q

stickyfiddle said:

If we’re having an argument about whether Ronnie Wood is an original Rolling Stone, he’s an edge case - of anything anyone’s ever heard of he only played on Start Me Up, Beast of Burden, Miss You and Emotional Rescue. And 2 of those are shite. 

Should we nominate?  I don't mind Start Me Up or Miss You, and I can't remember the other two so I'll say they're shite.

Cols

Ronnie’s been in the Rolling Stones for 49 years, I think he counts.  Hardly his fault they’d done all their decent stuff before he joined.

guitars4you

Cols said:

Ronnie’s been in the Rolling Stones for 49 years, I think he counts.  Hardly his fault they’d done all their decent stuff before he joined.

Agree - A bit like someone saying Joe Walsh is not part of The Eagles 

guitars4you

If I was a member of Queen then I'd have no problem selling my business for a billion $'s - Especially at this stage of my 'career' - Gives my family and all who follow, a bloomin' good step up any ladder with investments and trusts that they are more in control off 

stickyfiddle

I was being slightly facetious about Ron, bless him. I'm not a fan of the stuff the band has done since he joined, but he's definitely a Rolling Stone  

Philly_Q

guitars4you said:

Cols said:

Ronnie’s been in the Rolling Stones for 49 years, I think he counts.  Hardly his fault they’d done all their decent stuff before he joined.

Agree - A bit like someone saying Joe Walsh is not part of The Eagles 

I don't really give a shit, but I'll say it just for the sake of keeping the thread going... the post which started this all off was about original members, not longevity. 

Nobody's saying longstanding band members aren't really members of their respective bands (although there are probably many cases where the Johnny-come-latelies are paid employees, and not partners or shareholders in the band as a business).

Reverend

guitars4you said:

Cols said:

Ronnie’s been in the Rolling Stones for 49 years, I think he counts.  Hardly his fault they’d done all their decent stuff before he joined.

Agree - A bit like someone saying Joe Walsh is not part of The Eagles 

Although  in this case, it was Joe that did his best stuff before joining. 

merlin

I'm not and never have been a member of Queen. If I were, I'd put my old songs down, breathe a sigh of relief and take the cash. Maybe start a new project....

idiotwindow

Philly_Q said:

guitars4you said:

Cols said:

Ronnie’s been in the Rolling Stones for 49 years, I think he counts.  Hardly his fault they’d done all their decent stuff before he joined.

Agree - A bit like someone saying Joe Walsh is not part of The Eagles 

I don't really give a shit, but I'll say it just for the sake of keeping the thread going... the post which started this all off was about original members, not longevity. 

I don't really care much either  but I'll wade back in to the thread nonetheless and say that it really depends upon how insistent you are on "original" members also being "founding" members. If you go and see a band that have been around a few years, I think most people want to see "original" members in the sense of those having been in the band during the most important period (e.g. Ringo Starr) rather than just being a founder member (e.g. Pete Best). Going back to Deep Purple (which prompted my original involvement in the thread), really only the most intransigent pedant is going to insist that Ian Gillan and Roger Glover are not original members of the band.

Cols

And I really must point out that Gilmour isn’t an original member of Pink Floyd…

guitars4you

Reading another article and this came up so I quote ———

The appeal is through tax as sale of an asset is taxed at a lower rate than earnings from that asset.