Work cancelled today because of snow. So I'm spending the time in my ongoing project of ripping my vast CD library to my computer.
I decided to use my new library program to rearrange the tracks from The Warning into their originally intended order. This is the first time I can remember hearing it this way, and I like it quite a bit better. It's obvious that the song flow was intended for this order.
You guys are getting a ton of it up there. Been getting a ton of pics from family and friends.
Yeah, The Warning in that originally intended order is the way to go. I got into QR at the end of the Rage cycle (1987), and so my first experience was listening to Rage, and then Mindcrime. After that, I got Live in Tokyo, and it wasn't until 1990 that I went back and got the Warning. And it never really clicked for me. I mean, I liked my favorites well enough (NM 156, Roads to Madness, Take Hold), but it wasn't until I learned of the real track order that I fell in love with the ALBUM. They really put a good amount of thought into that running order, and it is a shame the label changed it to lead with the title track because it was the first single.
re: Rockenfield - remember, there are three sides to every story. Scott is staying silent, which is smart, because he knows he won't win a public war of words with the band. I don't think I know the ENTIRE story, but the details that I know that ARE NOT public have me (even though I am not really a fan of the current band) on the band's side. But again, as with every case, there are legalities involved. They have a band agreement where Wilton-Jackson-Rockenfield own the corporation. What's in that agreement is what rules the day, GENERALLY.
But as with everything, each situation is unique. I will say this. My gut feeling is that this is ALL about money, even if everyone flatly denies it. It always is. For example, lets say Scott went on parental leave, notified the band. They agree, and Casey comes on to do a few months worth of dates. Well, as a majority shareholder, Rockenfield is still entitled (again, depending on what the band agreement says, which I have not seen) to his share of the band's profits, after expenses, even if he isn't playing. He's an owner. Say the band didn't pay him (again, this is ALL hypothetical), because they paid Casey, and didn't think it was right that Scott sat out and wanted his cut, so they didn't give him the right amount of money. If you were Scott, wouldn't you be pissed?
If that was you, what would you do? I don't know what Scott did or didn't do, but as an owner, and with power to make fiscal decisions for the band, you have to wonder if all this is about a monetary disagreement or acts associated with that (payment or non-payment). In my experience, shit like this ALWAYS comes down to money. And as Queensryche has success in the public war of words with Tate, they are now getting out in front of this publicly again, with Scott staying silent.
No one knows exactly what went on, but if you believe it ISN'T about cash, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you...
Topic: Official Queensryche thread: Kickstart the next album (Read 694766 times)
