@Samsara: For the second 3-paragraph point, I would say: yes and no.
First off, I think the band has always, since day 1, considered a certain type of metal to be what they wanted to have be a big part of the "signature Queensryche sound." It is a thread that has existed through every album, with possibly the exception of Q2K and D2C, which are probably regarded as their most experimental albums. I think if you asked any of the original members, they would likely agree, even if they might have slightly different perspectives about what that meant (which is understandable and isn't exclusive to QR). Yes, experimentation and change ("evolution," if you want to call it that) are also important facets. But those aren't mutually exclusive.
Nothing I said can be construed as those facets being mutually exclusive. I agree with you.
EDIT - BUT, in re-reading what you wrote, I don't think the band "considered a certain type of metal to be what they wanted" as their sound. I think they just write and played and were influenced, early on, by Priest, Maiden, etc. It just so happened that way. I think their core was something we mocked Tate for a lot during the split: "No Limits." That phrase came up a lot during the research for the book. That indeed was something that they discussed. They WEREN'T just a metal band. And as the band evolved, they got away from that early metal style into something more melodic. So no, I wouldn't say since "Day 1" that they knew what kind of metal to be in their sound would be. I think that evolved over time.
I just think that, with Mike and Ed being the only original members left, we are getting primarily Mike's version of that. And Todd I think feeds and amplifies that.
Exactly. That's exactly what I am saying, bosk. But I'm also saying that particular...not sure of the right word..."brand" of metal is definitive of what the QR sound is. It is PART of it.
I guess one thing I am trying to say here is that I don't feel that the band's constant change, at least in those early years, at all takes away from them having a core metal sound that, in essence, is "the signature Queensryche sound." And I think that sound was always there, even if it sounded different and was expressed differently on the EP and The Warning than on Rage, which was different than Mindcrime, which was different than Empire, which was different than Promised Land, etc.
We aren't disagreeing. But that metal "sound" WAS always there. The way Wilton makes it sound, it sounds like it wasn't present, even on American Soldier, MC II, Tribe, etc. It certainly WAS. But my...point, is that having a metal sound isn't distinctive of what comprised the entirety of what Queensryche sounded like.
Second, I think Tate did the same thing during his time in Queensryche when he took over. To me, the two biggest curve balls in Queensryche's sound were Q2K and D2C. By the time D2C rolled around, I think Tate was just going to do whatever Tate wanted to do, come what may, and that manifested in an album that sounded nothing like the Queensryche we all knew and loved, as well as lots of other things, like the Cabaret tour, for example. Whether or not it was consistent with what Queensryche had done in the past, he felt like he was the only one in charge and was going to steer the ship where he wanted. So let's take that album out of the equation for a second and just chalk it up to being a complete "wildcard." Now let's go back and look at the period after DeGarmo exited. I don't think Tate or anyone else necessarily intended Q2K to be such a departure. There are a number of factors contributing to that album sounding the way it did, not least among them the fact that they were writing with a different person for the first time ever and they were feeling lost without DeGarmo in a lot of ways.
Well, around that time, they were just all in a room and letting Kelly Gray sort of flesh out ideas and contribute. It was a departure in so much that they let someone other than Chris DeGarmo have a large hand in arrangements. And with a new member, it was naturally a departure. Again, not disagreeing that "intent to depart" was a conscious thing. It just was, sure.
But I think what is more important and more telling as far as this discussion is concerned is what happened next. The pendulum swung back. First time that ever happened. And it's understandable, for a lot of reasons. For one thing, DeGarmo was back. But even the songs where he didn't have writing credit sound a whole lot more like "classic Queensryche" than Q2K did. Yes, Tribe had an early 2000s vibe and sound, just as a lot of their earlier albums incorporated sounds that were contemporary to their development and releases. But it had a LOT more in common with pre-Q2K albums than it did with Q2K. It wasn't a continuation of the Q2K sound. It was a "return to form."
I wouldn't at all say the pendulum swung back. I think the style of Tribe was a continued evolution from where Hear in the Now Frontier left off. The mix and production is larger and more reminiscent of older QR records. But the songs take what they learned from HITNF and they went another direction. I see both HITNF and Tribe being very distinct, song-wise. "Sound a whole lot more like 'classic Queensryche'" is not really an objective statement. To me, the stuff with DeGarmo followed a very natural evolution. I see your point, but I think the whole "return to form" thing is something fueled by the fact DeGarmo was there. Of course it's going to sound more familiar. But you could be right, too. I just don't see it as black and white as you painted it.
Mindcrime II and American Soldier, despite also containing some unique elements, also sounded like an intentional return to an older Queensryche sound. And I think Tate's chief writing partner, Slater, would have agreed. To paraphrase what I believe he said the mindset was during that period, it was along the lines of his job being to take Tate's ideas, as well as anything Slater could bring to the table on his own, and make them sound like Queensryche. So I think even Tate had a vision of what the "classic Queensryche sound" is, and it isn't drastically different from what the interviewer above and Wilton are suggesting.
Well, Slater isn't here to speak for himself. But I was one of the man's best friends and I can definitively say that your memory is CORRECT, but it wasn't as cut and dry as that. Slater wrote all of Mindcrime II's MUSIC (other than Hostage, which was a leftover from Tribe), giving Stone co-credit since Stone was with him (Stone brought in one song, One Foot in Hell, which Slater re-wrote, as it was a blues thing initially). Slater tried to write things that a Queensryche audience would like, and he did say that. He listened to what folks on The Breakdown Room were saying, and tried to write songs that would 1) connect with Tate, 2) serve the story, and 3) bring back ELEMENTS of older Queensryche. But once it was done, at the end of the day, it sounded very little like the band, since Wilton and Rockenfield weren't on it (much). American Soldier SOUNDED more like the band, because the band actually PLAYED.
In that regard, taking D2C out of the equation as the obvious wildcard aberration that it was, I don't think that the Todd era of the band is really doing anything different than what the post-DeGarmo Tate era was doing after Q2K. It's just that the influences are different, with Tate being the primary expression of that influence during his reign of terror, and Michael and Todd being the primary expression of that influence now. Although change and experimentation were a hallmark of the classic lineup years, I think that ship sailed long before the Todd era.
i don't disagree with any of that. I'll grant you that the post-DeGarmo years (MC II-D2C) were more contrived (perhaps "contrived change?"). But you summed up my point: change and experimentation were a hallmark of the classic lineup years. What the current version of Queensryche is doing is not that, nor is the sound "classic Queensryche" because the lack of evolution and the difference in players/writers.
It's not bad at all, and I like current Queensryche. I just don't think it sounds like the "classic Queensryche sound" because Wilton, from a writing and playing perspective, is the only remaining main songwriter from those classic years. And while Rockenfield wasn't a big writer, his drumming style and nuance was way more influential on that whole sound as well. (Again, apologies to Ed, his bass playing is always killer, but not sure I'd call it a distinctive part of their overall signature sound.)
And I'll also point out that their producer, Zeuss, made it a point to show how they were using all of Wilton's old gear (with the settings marked so they knew how to get the right tones) to make things "sound like" what QR did in the years of the original band. But is a "signature sound" the equipment or the players? It's an age-old argument for sure.
I understand what you're saying Samsara, but I wonder if Queensryche isn't just doing the best that they can do. Maybe DeGarmo (at his songwriting peak) and Tate and Wilton were needed to make back to back to back albums that all sounded different but were all excellent. Then one or more of them lost something in the writing department with HITNF (imo) and the downward spiral began. So maybe the only choice now with the members who are left are: a.) good songs that try (and generally succeed I think) in capturing a Queensryche vibe but the albums aren't very different or b.) Really different sounding albums but with less than good songs.
And if that's the case I don't blame them for choosing a.
Absolutely. And I direct you to what I said in my initial post - I'M NOT BEING NEGATIVE. I think they are doing what they do, and are having a good time doing it, and it sounds good. I guess my question is - is Wilton's style of writing and playing the epitome of "Queensryche's classic sound?" I don't think it is. I think it is one part of it. And the only remaining distinctive part of what that sound truly was.
The four albums with TLT singing, and the last two with different drummers are really good records. But they don't SOUND like the classic Queensryche years to me, except for Wilton. Nor should they. They are all different people. That's why I always shake my head a bit when statements from the band like "classic Queensryche sound" come up. They can't produce that. That sound was very much a product of the writers and players in that original band. I think it's silly to keep saying it, unless they are saying it for marketing purposes. Which, is probably why they are saying that.
Trust me, I'm all for this version of Queensryche. I'd rather them go out and play an hour of the TLT-era material and then a 20-minute encore of classic QR. They are their own unique and distinct era of the band. And I want them to celebrate what they are NOW. Because to me, they are very unlike what the first version of the band was.
Topic: Official Queensryche thread: Kickstart the next album (Read 705770 times)
