Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

rocktivity

(44,883 posts)
2. Queenryche "missed" when they "divested" themselves of their most valuable "assets."
Tue Dec 2, 2014, 11:53 AM
Dec 2014

Last edited Sat Apr 13, 2024, 11:42 AM - Edit history (37)

You're absolutely right about it being so much harder to be a rookie non-Top-40 act these days, and for the need for a new paradigm. The problem with Queensryche's paradigm is that without singer Geoff Tate (and original lead guitarist/co-composer Chris DeGarmo), it comes across more like something that the Kramer character on the Seinfeld show would have come up with. Anything you invest in is supposed to have inherent growth potential -- where is Queensryche's?

If a Bon Jovi or a Rolling Stones or a Judas Priest were doing this because they had lost their record deals, didn't want to invest their own money, and most important, still had their most profitable members, this career move would be intelligible, at least: investing in those bands would be a gamble worth taking.


rocktivity

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Musicians»(Not from the Onion) Got ...»Reply #2