Author Topic: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread  (Read 106840 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline bill1971

  • Posts: 743
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1085 on: October 05, 2017, 03:27:27 PM »
Not to answer for Samsara, but F.U. is NOT a Queenryche album.  Geoff Tate was not in the band and no longer owned the name.  A judge ruled that he could temporarily use it until it could get sorted out whether he was still a part owner of the rights to it.  But it didn't belong to him or anyone in the band.
While I dislike F.U. and Tate's incarnation of Queensr˙che at that point, by your logic, the 2013 self-titled isn't a Queensr˙che album either.

Setzer, I like you QR bootleg youtube page.

Offline Samsara

  • Queensr˙che Biographer and Historian
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Gender: Male
  • Memory flows...like a river.
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1086 on: October 05, 2017, 03:57:13 PM »

Samsara you seem to be a huge QR fan, do you not consider F.U to not be QR because you don't care for Tate or because of the band? It's funny I don't consider the two QR without Tate to be QR. I have nothing against Todd and am not into the whole who is better but to me it just doesn't seem like QR anymore. If I was in Todd's shoes and had that voice , I would take the gig as well. Plus many QR fans seem to really dig to post Tate QR.

Running out, but will answer you tomorrow. :)
Roads to Madness: The Touring History of Queensr˙che (1981-1997) - At the printer! Out in May 2024!

Pre-order now at www.roadstomadness.com!

Offline bill1971

  • Posts: 743
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1087 on: October 05, 2017, 04:01:45 PM »

Samsara you seem to be a huge QR fan, do you not consider F.U to not be QR because you don't care for Tate or because of the band? It's funny I don't consider the two QR without Tate to be QR. I have nothing against Todd and am not into the whole who is better but to me it just doesn't seem like QR anymore. If I was in Todd's shoes and had that voice , I would take the gig as well. Plus many QR fans seem to really dig to post Tate QR.

Running out, but will answer you tomorrow. :)

Ok, but I will not be able to sleep. :)

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12827
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1088 on: October 05, 2017, 04:26:43 PM »
Not to answer for Samsara, but F.U. is NOT a Queenryche album.  Geoff Tate was not in the band and no longer owned the name.  A judge ruled that he could temporarily use it until it could get sorted out whether he was still a part owner of the rights to it.  But it didn't belong to him or anyone in the band.
While I dislike F.U. and Tate's incarnation of Queensr˙che at that point, by your logic, the 2013 self-titled isn't a Queensr˙che album either.
How so?  The band that released the 2013 album owned the name.  That has never been in dispute.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15307
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1089 on: October 05, 2017, 04:29:48 PM »
Wow....bosk and I are 100% together on this one.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12827
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1090 on: October 05, 2017, 04:38:28 PM »
Wow...JD actually responded to one of my posts.  :)
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15307
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1091 on: October 05, 2017, 05:01:31 PM »
Ok....at home....IRL....I literally  :rollin ed
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline Setzer

  • Queensr˙che Aficionado
  • Posts: 100
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1092 on: October 05, 2017, 05:03:54 PM »
Not to answer for Samsara, but F.U. is NOT a Queenryche album.  Geoff Tate was not in the band and no longer owned the name.  A judge ruled that he could temporarily use it until it could get sorted out whether he was still a part owner of the rights to it.  But it didn't belong to him or anyone in the band.
While I dislike F.U. and Tate's incarnation of Queensr˙che at that point, by your logic, the 2013 self-titled isn't a Queensr˙che album either.
How so?  The band that released the 2013 album owned the name.  That has never been in dispute.
Well as you say, at that point in time, nobody really owned the name. Both camps were allowed to use it, as ruled by the judge.
Of course in hindsight, you can say the self-titled was the proper Queensr˙che album. But had Tate won the lawsuit, then what?

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12827
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1093 on: October 05, 2017, 05:08:07 PM »
Not to answer for Samsara, but F.U. is NOT a Queenryche album.  Geoff Tate was not in the band and no longer owned the name.  A judge ruled that he could temporarily use it until it could get sorted out whether he was still a part owner of the rights to it.  But it didn't belong to him or anyone in the band.
While I dislike F.U. and Tate's incarnation of Queensr˙che at that point, by your logic, the 2013 self-titled isn't a Queensr˙che album either.
How so?  The band that released the 2013 album owned the name.  That has never been in dispute.
Well as you say, at that point in time, nobody really owned the name. Both camps were allowed to use it, as ruled by the judge.
Of course in hindsight, you can say the self-titled was the proper Queensr˙che album. But had Tate won the lawsuit, then what?
No, I never said "nobody really owned the name."  And nobody else said that either.  It was clear that Mike, Eddie, and Scott owned it.  That was NEVER in dispute by anyone.  The only question was whether Tate owned part of it as well.  The judge that ruled on the injunction ruled that he could use it (not that he owned it) until it was decided whether he was also a part owner (among other things to be decided). 
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Setzer

  • Queensr˙che Aficionado
  • Posts: 100
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1094 on: October 05, 2017, 05:30:17 PM »
Not to answer for Samsara, but F.U. is NOT a Queenryche album.  Geoff Tate was not in the band and no longer owned the name.  A judge ruled that he could temporarily use it until it could get sorted out whether he was still a part owner of the rights to it.  But it didn't belong to him or anyone in the band.
While I dislike F.U. and Tate's incarnation of Queensr˙che at that point, by your logic, the 2013 self-titled isn't a Queensr˙che album either.
How so?  The band that released the 2013 album owned the name.  That has never been in dispute.
Well as you say, at that point in time, nobody really owned the name. Both camps were allowed to use it, as ruled by the judge.
Of course in hindsight, you can say the self-titled was the proper Queensr˙che album. But had Tate won the lawsuit, then what?
No, I never said "nobody really owned the name."  And nobody else said that either.  It was clear that Mike, Eddie, and Scott owned it.  That was NEVER in dispute by anyone.  The only question was whether Tate owned part of it as well.  The judge that ruled on the injunction ruled that he could use it (not that he owned it) until it was decided whether he was also a part owner (among other things to be decided).
I'm reading between the lines then.
What about my 2nd point though?

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12827
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1095 on: October 05, 2017, 05:35:40 PM »
What second point?  You mean, what would have happened if Tate won?  As relevant to this point, he could have hypothetically been reinstated to the band (unlikely; people usually get money rather than reinstatement in these types of cases), which would have meant that he was a 1/4 owner.  But even in that case, he would not have had the right to use the band name in a way that the other three did not agree to, which makes the ruling on the injunction even more bizarre.  This wasn't a situation where he had a claim to any superior rights and could have claimed to be the sole or majority owner.  He was trying to argue that factually with the 81% baloney, but there was not legal basis for that, and that could not have stood up in court. 
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline bill1971

  • Posts: 743
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1096 on: October 05, 2017, 06:09:19 PM »
What second point?  You mean, what would have happened if Tate won?  As relevant to this point, he could have hypothetically been reinstated to the band (unlikely; people usually get money rather than reinstatement in these types of cases), which would have meant that he was a 1/4 owner.  But even in that case, he would not have had the right to use the band name in a way that the other three did not agree to, which makes the ruling on the injunction even more bizarre.  This wasn't a situation where he had a claim to any superior rights and could have claimed to be the sole or majority owner.  He was trying to argue that factually with the 81% baloney, but there was not legal basis for that, and that could not have stood up in court.

Whether it is QR or not, I really enjoy The Weight of the World song.

Offline Mladen

  • Posts: 15236
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1097 on: October 05, 2017, 11:58:33 PM »
Legal stuff aside, as long as an album has the band name on its cover, it's an album by the band as far as I'm concerned. I'm not too thrilled about counting Frequency unknown as part of the Queensryche discography, however, since it's easily the worst of the bunch. Same with Squeeze by The Velvet Underground.

Offline MirrorMask

  • Posts: 13432
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1098 on: October 06, 2017, 01:13:51 AM »
Of course I'm no legal expert, but the decision of the judge really baffled me. Why would you even allow for two bands using the same name? there really wasn't any temporary solution? saying to two different parties they can use the same name is such a point of confusion that shouldn't be allowed.

Imagine if John Deacon would be against Brian May and Roger Taylor doing their thing, and a judge would grant them both to be billed as Queen... what a whacky solution it would be?
I use my sig to pimp some bands from Italy! Check out Elvenking (Power / Folk metal), Folkstone (Rock / Medieval metal), Arcana Opera (Gothic/Noir/Heavy metal) and the beautiful voice of Elisa!

Offline Cruithne

  • Posts: 529
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1099 on: October 06, 2017, 01:14:15 AM »
FU might technically be a QR record but it's hard to take seriously given the circumstances under which it was released. I find it quite easy to ignore because I can just lump it in with the rest of the Tateryche rubbish.

As for rankings I just put them into tiers, with the caveat that Mindcrime is very much the top of the top tier as it's my all time favourite record:

Operation: Mindcrime
Rage For Order
Empire
--------------------------
EP
The Warning
HiTNF
Tribe
S/T
Condition Human
--------------------------
Operation Mindcrime II
--------------------------
Q2k
American Soldier
Dedicated to Chaos
--------------------------
FU

Offline Samsara

  • Queensr˙che Biographer and Historian
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Gender: Male
  • Memory flows...like a river.
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1100 on: October 06, 2017, 08:06:10 AM »

Samsara you seem to be a huge QR fan, do you not consider F.U to not be QR because you don't care for Tate or because of the band? It's funny I don't consider the two QR without Tate to be QR. I have nothing against Todd and am not into the whole who is better but to me it just doesn't seem like QR anymore. If I was in Todd's shoes and had that voice , I would take the gig as well. Plus many QR fans seem to really dig to post Tate QR.

Bill,

I'm just "slightly" a Queensryche fan.  ;) :lol

To answer your question, at first, I didn't consider F.U. to be QR because it was just the Tate with a bunch of guys he slapped together to try and wrestle the band name from Jackson, Rockenfield, and Wilton. I considered the latter to be "Queensryche" because they had three original members, one of whom, through 1990, and again from 1999-2003, was a primary writer in the band. To me, that makes it pretty clear.

As time has gone on, however, I actually think more along the lines (if I am reading what you wrote correctly) that you do. I think "Queensryche" as it is currently constituted, is a very good band that made two good records that I enjoy to varying degrees. But it isn't the Queensryche I was a big fan of. The voices, while similar in some ways, are actually VERY different, as is the writing in the band (both musically and lyrically).

And if you think about that, it only makes sense. Queensryche's main writers were always DeGarmo, Tate, Wilton, with DeGarmo/Tate being the key two guys on Promised Land and Hear in the Now Frontier, as the band gravitated away from Wilton's strength as a writer. DeGarmo/Tate/Wilton is like the heart/soul/balls of what made the band, with Rockenfield and Jackson holding down the foundation.

The foundation and balls are still present, but the heart and soul of Queensryche is very different now. Not bad, just...different. And while it very much appealed to me at the time of the split, it no longer does. I still consider myself a fan, and wish them all the success in the world (as I do Tate). But after seeing the current lineup of Queensryche (both as Rising West and under the band name) eight times, the differences are very striking to me, and I don't really feel the need to go see them again. For me, it's not the same. The music they create and the performances are good, but just don't have the same appeal to me.

Basically, this is my long way of saying I agree with you, and that is also the reason my website is devoted to the original lineup of Queensryche, which most of us I think can agree, is where they were at their best and most distinct. That history is pretty much wiped out from existence, so I try and preserve it as best I can.

Of course I'm no legal expert, but the decision of the judge really baffled me. Why would you even allow for two bands using the same name? there really wasn't any temporary solution? saying to two different parties they can use the same name is such a point of confusion that shouldn't be allowed.

Imagine if John Deacon would be against Brian May and Roger Taylor doing their thing, and a judge would grant them both to be billed as Queen... what a whacky solution it would be?

The decision made absolute sense from a business and legal standpoint. You have two parties. Both require the name in order to make ends meet. You permit them both use of the name and mark in order to continue making a living while the conflict is resolved. It makes total sense from a legal perspective, even if on the surface it looks strange.


Whether it is QR or not, I really enjoy The Weight of the World song.

I like the tune as well. I think Tate oversings it, however, making it hard to listen to seriously.

Roads to Madness: The Touring History of Queensr˙che (1981-1997) - At the printer! Out in May 2024!

Pre-order now at www.roadstomadness.com!

Offline Grappler

  • Posts: 3487
  • Gender: Male
  • Victory, Illinois Varsity
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1101 on: October 06, 2017, 08:08:20 AM »
Of course I'm no legal expert, but the decision of the judge really baffled me. Why would you even allow for two bands using the same name? there really wasn't any temporary solution? saying to two different parties they can use the same name is such a point of confusion that shouldn't be allowed.

Imagine if John Deacon would be against Brian May and Roger Taylor doing their thing, and a judge would grant them both to be billed as Queen... what a whacky solution it would be?

Unless the judge is a fan (which is very unlikely), there was no understanding of the situation at first.  Two parties are filing motions saying (I am Queensryche, not the other party).  There were arguments for and against each. 

So the judge acted fairly, essentially saying "until we sort through the details, you can both be 'Queensryche."  Was it confusing to fans and the music industry?  Sure.  But in a legal setting, it was pretty fair, since Tate did have a decent argument for why he was Queensryche (the expiration of the original band contract/agreement and his being able to assume control of a lot of the band's actions), though supporters of the band disagreed, since a 3-1 vote to fire the singer by the other corporate owners is pretty clear-cut that he was not in the band. 

Offline MirrorMask

  • Posts: 13432
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1102 on: October 06, 2017, 08:23:05 AM »
Thanks for the replies. I undersand what you're both saying but I still think that the confusion could have and should have been avoided.

If at all, if Tate lost / settled, it should be concluced that his version of Queensryche shouldn't have existed, and therefore even if was legal at the time to do that, has a settlement came before, he would have never been able to do a "Queensryche" album.
I use my sig to pimp some bands from Italy! Check out Elvenking (Power / Folk metal), Folkstone (Rock / Medieval metal), Arcana Opera (Gothic/Noir/Heavy metal) and the beautiful voice of Elisa!

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12827
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1103 on: October 06, 2017, 08:46:33 AM »
Let me explain the decision another way, because I realize this may still make no sense to the vast majority of people.  And this is a very simplified explanation that leaves out a lot of detail and legal analysis. 

First off, nothing FINAL was likely going to be decided until the thing actually got to trial.  Trial would not have happened for another year or two (or three, or four...) down the road.  Nobody would be hearing the evidence.  Nobody would be issuing a verdict.  Nothing.  Both sides would simply be waiting (and the lawyers doing all the pretrial stuff that goes on for the years before a case gets to trial).  Don't ask why it takes so long; just take my word for it that it does.

Each side was basically asking the court, WAY in advance of the trial date, to prevent the other side from using the Queensryche name and doing other things.  Put another way, they are basically saying to the court:  "We're not going to get to trial and have it decided who actually owns Queensryche for another few years.  During that time, we still have to make a living.  And it would hurt our ability to do so if the other side is using the name.  So even though it isn't decided yet, please order that they can't call themselves 'Queensryche' in the mean time until the trial is decided."  They are asking for an interim order to prevent harm during the course of the litigation.

Now think about it from the perspective of a judge who knows VERY little about the case and may not know anything at all about the band and its inner workings.  On one hand, if he denies one side the use of the name for that few years leading up to trial, and that side were to ultimately win at trial once ALL the evidence is out there to be carefully weighed and considered, the judge would have been proven wrong, and that party would have been harmed during that entire period by being denied the use of the name.  But what if he lets both sides just keep on as they have been?  For one side, that is the wrong result.  But the harm is probably going to be substantially less.  So, from a practical standpoint, a lot of judges are going to opt for the result that has the least risk to both sides.  Here, that was letting both sides use the name until the evidence would eventually be sorted out.

I think, legally speaking, that was the wrong decision.  That is, the judge got it completely wrong.  But it isn't a slam dunk by any stretch, and there are plenty who would disagree with that.  But it wouldn't have made sense for the band to challenge the ruling for at least two reasons I can think of:  (1) Appeals are expensive and take a long time.  Even if the band went through the process and won, they would have had to spend more money than was worth it, and the time it would have taken would have made the result a pyrrhic victory anyway.  (2) The trial court judge has a lot of discretion in making these types of rulings.  Even if there is a strong basis for saying the trial court judge got it wrong, the legal standard for overturning that decision is very high, so most courts of appeal are going to look at it and say, "Unless you can point to specific reasons that show the judge completely abused his or her discretion, we aren't even going to look at this."  The decision is presumed correct, and there has to be almost overwhelming evidence to reverse it.  Think of it kind of like in football where the refs make the wrong call on the field, and almost everybody knows it is the wrong call.  The problem is, once that wrong call is made, it will not be overturned unless there is CLEAR and pretty indisputable evidence in looking at the replay that the call was wrong.  And if you are stuck with camera angles that don't give a clear enough view to make it indisputable, you're stuck with the bad call.

So Queensryche were basically stuck with the ruling.  They could have appealed, and I think they would have been right to do so.  But it would not have been worth it to do so, and they likely would have lost for reasons that have little to do with whether the decision was "right" or not.

Man, my "simple" explanation ended up being a LOT longer than I planned.   :-\
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline MirrorMask

  • Posts: 13432
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1104 on: October 06, 2017, 08:51:30 AM »
Well, still I've read it and appreciate it, thanks  :tup

My only confusion was on how a judge, even not a big fan of music, could think that two bands with the same name would be a good idea, like if Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak had a falling out and both would be granted the right to commercialize products branded Apple. But the "When one side wins, the other side will have been damaged for 3-4 years" angle makes sense.
I use my sig to pimp some bands from Italy! Check out Elvenking (Power / Folk metal), Folkstone (Rock / Medieval metal), Arcana Opera (Gothic/Noir/Heavy metal) and the beautiful voice of Elisa!

Offline Samsara

  • Queensr˙che Biographer and Historian
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Gender: Male
  • Memory flows...like a river.
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1105 on: October 06, 2017, 08:59:46 AM »
Simply put, while the decision made things confusing for the public, it made things more equal between the parties, because both were being damaged by the other, instead of one party being damaged while the other one profited until the matter was resolved.
Roads to Madness: The Touring History of Queensr˙che (1981-1997) - At the printer! Out in May 2024!

Pre-order now at www.roadstomadness.com!

Offline Orbert

  • Recovering Musician
  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 19274
  • Gender: Male
  • In and around the lake
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1106 on: October 06, 2017, 09:11:08 AM »
The fact that they all had to make a living in the meantime is not a minor detail, for sure, but it seems like it would make more sense that neither side got to use the name until everything was settled, rather than both sides.  Isn't that how it usually works in the corporate world?  Temporary injunctions, or whatever they're called?

Offline Samsara

  • Queensr˙che Biographer and Historian
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Gender: Male
  • Memory flows...like a river.
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1107 on: October 06, 2017, 09:23:45 AM »
The fact that they all had to make a living in the meantime is not a minor detail, for sure, but it seems like it would make more sense that neither side got to use the name until everything was settled, rather than both sides.  Isn't that how it usually works in the corporate world?  Temporary injunctions, or whatever they're called?

I suppose the judge could have done that, yes. But remember, touring under another name wouldn't given them anywhere near the type of income they get like Queensryche. Promoters were not interested in booking side bands. They wanted to book Queensryche. Rising West looked into it, and there was nothing of note in regard to interest in booking the band under that name (although they would has Queensryche). I am sure Tate heard the same thing, and I am sure all of that was a consideration in what was ultimately decided upon.
Roads to Madness: The Touring History of Queensr˙che (1981-1997) - At the printer! Out in May 2024!

Pre-order now at www.roadstomadness.com!

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12827
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1108 on: October 06, 2017, 09:27:12 AM »
The fact that they all had to make a living in the meantime is not a minor detail, for sure, but it seems like it would make more sense that neither side got to use the name until everything was settled, rather than both sides.  Isn't that how it usually works in the corporate world?  Temporary injunctions, or whatever they're called?

I suppose the judge could have done that, yes. But remember, touring under another name wouldn't given them anywhere near the type of income they get like Queensryche. Promoters were not interested in booking side bands. They wanted to book Queensryche. Rising West looked into it, and there was nothing of note in regard to interest in booking the band under that name (although they would has Queensryche). I am sure Tate heard the same thing, and I am sure all of that was a consideration in what was ultimately decided upon.

Exactly.  Not being able to use the "Queensryche" name was the financial "harm" the judge was likely motivated by in making the ruling.  Orbert, what each side was asking for WAS a temporary/preliminary injunction.  They aren't usually granted.  Their purpose is to preserve the status quo until trial in order to prevent harm.  Here, granting the injunction(s) would likely have caused more harm than prevented.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Orbert

  • Recovering Musician
  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 19274
  • Gender: Male
  • In and around the lake
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1109 on: October 06, 2017, 09:38:22 AM »
Ah, got it.  I understand that the band name is the big draw, and what the fight was all about.  I guess I watch too much TV.  On TV, it seems like judges hand out temporary injunctions like candy, and everyone just suffers until the trial.  But on TV, that's usually later in the week, or next Thursday or something, not years later.

Offline Mosh

  • For I have dined on honeydew!
  • Posts: 3855
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1110 on: October 07, 2017, 10:51:23 AM »
I have to say the self titled album pretty much killed my interest, I didn't even listen to Condition Human when it came out. There's some good music on there, particularly Where Dreams Go To Die and Redemption, but it was pretty obvious that this was being released as a response to Frequency Unknown. I can understand that they were forced to throw their hat in the ring, but everything about it was so contrived that the music felt like an afterthought. The production felt that way too, very bland sound and the loud mastering is awful. I can't play the album on my system's normal volume because it distorts so badly. The whole thing is a total rush job. I also didn't hear much potential in the songwriting without Tate or DeGarmo.

Listening to Condition Human for the first time, it's pretty good! Songs are more fleshed out and the production is infinitely better, probably the best sounding Queensryche album since Promised Land.

Still, I have to echo what Samsara and TAC have both mentioned. It's just not the same. For me, the problem is that the new music lacks vision. The songs are pretty good, but there's no unity within the album the way there was with Tate. A big part of Empire and Mindcrime's appeal was the experience that came with listening to the albums. It kind of reminds me of Floyd after Roger left. The music is decent but the full album experience isn't there. At this point I'm more likely to associate QR with the 80's nostalgia Metal acts that get together for the Rocklahomas etc than with Dream Theater or Fates Warning. The stuff that made their music special just isn't there anymore.

Anyway, this thread was awesome. Thanks for doing it Samsara. This band has a fascinating history and while I can't say my opinions on them have changed all that much, my appreciation for their early material has grown.
New Animal Soup scifi space opera for fans of Porcupine Tree, Mastodon, Iron Maiden: Chariots of the Gods

https://animalsoup.bandcamp.com/album/chariots-of-the-gods

Offline Lowdz

  • Posts: 10386
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1111 on: October 07, 2017, 11:38:32 AM »
I see what you mean. It's just a very good metal album. It lacks variety for me, and the depth of those early albums which were real headphone albums.

Offline Lethean

  • Posts: 4504
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1112 on: October 07, 2017, 12:26:34 PM »
I suppose I do consider the Todd era to be Queensryche. It's definitely not the same as it was before, and those albums don't rank anywhere near Promised Land and before. However, I like them better than the last few QR albums with Tate, and I consider those albums to be QR, so...

It's probably impossible for them to ever reach those heights again. You need DeGarmo and Tate at the top of their games, and I think they both lost it.  Without them there's no chance of getting that QR magic back, but with them is impossible as well because they just don't have it anymore. 

So we have what we have and I think Wilton and co are doing their best and they've made some pretty good music. I wish they'd rehearse more and nail everything live, but it was still nice seeing them with Todd. 

I don't quite put them in the nostalgia act category, but I certainly agree with Mosh that they aren't on the level of DT ir Fates Warning either.

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 15722
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm just a man, thrown into existence by the gods
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1113 on: October 07, 2017, 12:37:36 PM »
The one thing that upsets me about Queensryche live is they don't play Empire in full.
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man
Follow my Spotify:BjamminD

Offline Samsara

  • Queensr˙che Biographer and Historian
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Gender: Male
  • Memory flows...like a river.
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1114 on: October 10, 2017, 08:45:07 AM »
The one thing that upsets me about Queensryche live is they don't play Empire in full.

The full record? They have never done a show where they've done that (even with the original lineup), but in 2009 on the American Soldier tour, they played three suites - Rage for Order, American Soldier, and Empire. Each suite had six or seven songs from each record, and were rotated. For Empire, I'm pretty sure they did all the songs (not at the same show, but overall).

I remember suggesting that 2015 would have been the perfect year to show case Empire on the 25th anniversary of the record. According to setlist.fm, they played 78 shows in 2015. Some of those were opening up for the Scorpions, and of course, festival dates, but there were a ton of their usual fly-in headline dates at casinos and such. The opportunity was there to play Empire in its entirety, and probably generate a lot of interest in seeing the album in full. Most bands electing to do that have seen really nice success (Dream Theater this year for Images and Words, Fates Warning with Parallels, etc.)

But Queensryche elected to play mostly a greatest hits set in 2015. In my opinion, that was probably because they didn't want to invest time in preparing any sort of Empire-based setlist, as that would require a lot of rehearsal and overall time...and they were busy writing and recording Condition Human.

Queensryche sits on a very weird fence. On one hand, they have absolutely embraced nostalgia out of the necessity of making money. They play casinos, fly-in dates for hair metal festivals, etc. Those are all good pay days, and they rely strongly on their back catalog, as opposed to the new material with Todd. On the other hand, they are still continuing to make new music, and try to pepper their setlist with a few songs from it as they go. They also balance out all the hair metal gigs and fly-in dates by doing solid headline runs and some metal festivals.

Simply put, it is an...interesting position they are in. You would think that given their status as both a progressive hard rock band, and their popularity with the hair/pop metal crowd, they'd be in a great spot. And in some ways it is. But I also think they've sort of dropped the ball a bit, not taking advantage of certain things (such as Empire's anniversary, and not properly featuring the two records with Todd in the setlist).

Take 2016. 30th Anniversary of Rage for Order. Truth be told, not a record well known by the mainstream, nor would it generate a lot of huge interest from the promoters. So, they elected not to acknowledge it, other than at some shows saying how it was 30 years since Rage's release, and then playing a couple songs.

But I'd argue this -- on the two headline legs they did in 2016 for Condition Human, how hard would it have been to play for 1 hour, 45 minutes (105 minutes, as opposed to the 85 they typically do these days as a headliner), do all of Rage for Order (50 minutes), then play three songs from self-titled (15 minutes), five songs from Condition Human (25 minutes), and then an encore of Queen of the Reich, Empire, and Take Hold of the Flame.

That...shouldn't have been hard. And it would have both given fans Rage in its entirety, a big chunk of modern QR (seven songs), and an encore of metal hits.

But nope...

I don't really get it, and don't get why they wouldn't see the value in both building good will with the fan base by doing something like that, and staying extremely relevant by featuring a bigger chunk of their most recent material. I know I'm not the only one who thinks they continually shoot themselves in the foot a bit by not doing stuff like that. But hell, I guess it is easier to just pick a setlist, learn it, and then not having to bother really rehearsing, and just do fly-in gigs. It is really a shame. But many fans don't seem to care, so I'm likely in the minority.
Roads to Madness: The Touring History of Queensr˙che (1981-1997) - At the printer! Out in May 2024!

Pre-order now at www.roadstomadness.com!

Offline Kwyjibo

  • Worse troll than Blabbermouth
  • Posts: 6006
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1115 on: October 10, 2017, 08:46:35 AM »
Late to comment on the last records.

The self-titled was a step in the right direction, albeit to short and the production was flawed. Condition Human is as good as they can get imo, almost a return to the classics for me. This band is definitely Queensryche, but not the Queensryche of old. They are probably not able to recapture the magic of those early records but if they keep putting out quality records like Condition Human I won't complain.

And I will never accept FU as a QR album.  ;D

Ranking time:

1. Operation: Mindcrime
2. Empire
3. Rage For Order
4. Condition Human
5. The Warning
6. Queensryche (2013)
7. Promised Land
8. Q2K
9. EP
10. Hear In The Now Frontier
11. American Soldier
12. Operation Mindcrime II
13. Tribe
14. Probably Dedicated to Chaos, but I've never heard it

Thanks Samsara for all the great write-ups and inside information. It was quite a ride.  :tup
Must've been Kwyji sending all the wrong songs.   ;D

Offline MirrorMask

  • Posts: 13432
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1116 on: October 10, 2017, 09:00:38 AM »
I feel your pain Samsara. Well, not for the specific case of Queensryche, since my interested for them waned so much that I still haven't heard the two La Torre albums (will try and fix  this sooner or later), but I imagine what it would be like for DT to play short set with Metropolis, Pull me Under, half Scenes and As I Am at every show and only two songs maximum from a good new album that nobody seems to care about.

I think too shows celebrating Empire and Rage for Order would have been well received.
I use my sig to pimp some bands from Italy! Check out Elvenking (Power / Folk metal), Folkstone (Rock / Medieval metal), Arcana Opera (Gothic/Noir/Heavy metal) and the beautiful voice of Elisa!

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 15722
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm just a man, thrown into existence by the gods
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1117 on: October 10, 2017, 02:39:34 PM »
The one thing that upsets me about Queensryche live is they don't play Empire in full.

The full record? They have never done a show where they've done that (even with the original lineup), but in 2009 on the American Soldier tour, they played three suites - Rage for Order, American Soldier, and Empire. Each suite had six or seven songs from each record, and were rotated. For Empire, I'm pretty sure they did all the songs (not at the same show, but overall).

I remember suggesting that 2015 would have been the perfect year to show case Empire on the 25th anniversary of the record. According to setlist.fm, they played 78 shows in 2015. Some of those were opening up for the Scorpions, and of course, festival dates, but there were a ton of their usual fly-in headline dates at casinos and such. The opportunity was there to play Empire in its entirety, and probably generate a lot of interest in seeing the album in full. Most bands electing to do that have seen really nice success (Dream Theater this year for Images and Words, Fates Warning with Parallels, etc.)

But Queensryche elected to play mostly a greatest hits set in 2015. In my opinion, that was probably because they didn't want to invest time in preparing any sort of Empire-based setlist, as that would require a lot of rehearsal and overall time...and they were busy writing and recording Condition Human.

Queensryche sits on a very weird fence. On one hand, they have absolutely embraced nostalgia out of the necessity of making money. They play casinos, fly-in dates for hair metal festivals, etc. Those are all good pay days, and they rely strongly on their back catalog, as opposed to the new material with Todd. On the other hand, they are still continuing to make new music, and try to pepper their setlist with a few songs from it as they go. They also balance out all the hair metal gigs and fly-in dates by doing solid headline runs and some metal festivals.

Simply put, it is an...interesting position they are in. You would think that given their status as both a progressive hard rock band, and their popularity with the hair/pop metal crowd, they'd be in a great spot. And in some ways it is. But I also think they've sort of dropped the ball a bit, not taking advantage of certain things (such as Empire's anniversary, and not properly featuring the two records with Todd in the setlist).

Take 2016. 30th Anniversary of Rage for Order. Truth be told, not a record well known by the mainstream, nor would it generate a lot of huge interest from the promoters. So, they elected not to acknowledge it, other than at some shows saying how it was 30 years since Rage's release, and then playing a couple songs.

But I'd argue this -- on the two headline legs they did in 2016 for Condition Human, how hard would it have been to play for 1 hour, 45 minutes (105 minutes, as opposed to the 85 they typically do these days as a headliner), do all of Rage for Order (50 minutes), then play three songs from self-titled (15 minutes), five songs from Condition Human (25 minutes), and then an encore of Queen of the Reich, Empire, and Take Hold of the Flame.

That...shouldn't have been hard. And it would have both given fans Rage in its entirety, a big chunk of modern QR (seven songs), and an encore of metal hits.

But nope...

I don't really get it, and don't get why they wouldn't see the value in both building good will with the fan base by doing something like that, and staying extremely relevant by featuring a bigger chunk of their most recent material. I know I'm not the only one who thinks they continually shoot themselves in the foot a bit by not doing stuff like that. But hell, I guess it is easier to just pick a setlist, learn it, and then not having to bother really rehearsing, and just do fly-in gigs. It is really a shame. But many fans don't seem to care, so I'm likely in the minority.

Nah, I meant the song. Should've put song. Haha
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man
Follow my Spotify:BjamminD

Offline Samsara

  • Queensr˙che Biographer and Historian
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Gender: Male
  • Memory flows...like a river.
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1118 on: October 10, 2017, 03:13:58 PM »
They do play the whole song, although the bridge to the solo is often messed with, either cutting it short or changing what it says if they don't pipe it in. The lyrics are outdated at this point, so I sorta get it. I like it as well, and think it adds a nice bit of atmosphere to the song.
Roads to Madness: The Touring History of Queensr˙che (1981-1997) - At the printer! Out in May 2024!

Pre-order now at www.roadstomadness.com!

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 15722
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm just a man, thrown into existence by the gods
Re: The Queensr˙che Discography Thread: La Torre-fronted Albums (2013-present)
« Reply #1119 on: October 10, 2017, 03:17:32 PM »
They do play the whole song, although the bridge to the solo is often messed with, either cutting it short or changing what it says if they don't pipe it in. The lyrics are outdated at this point, so I sorta get it. I like it as well, and think it adds a nice bit of atmosphere to the song.

The two times I've seen them with this lineup they cut the entire middle section and went straight into the solo.
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man
Follow my Spotify:BjamminD