Jump to content

Talk:Queensrÿche/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

How do you pronounce it? -- ~

Pretty much like Queens reich. Ben W Bell 06:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Like Queens RIKE? or Queens RAITCH? or Queens RETCH? Don't know how to pronounce Reich. ~
Queens rike, but try and and roll the S and R together ever so slightly. At least that's how I've always heard it pronounced by the band on stage. Ben W Bell 07:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Have moved the discography section to new page titled Queensrÿche discography. This will help reduce the page size constraint on the main page. Will231982 12:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Will231982

Chris DeGarmo tenure

  • It states in the member section Chris DeGarmo was in Queensryche from 1981-1998, and in his biography page it states he was in the band from 1981-1997. Which is it? 68.88.202.10 09:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Second umlaut band?

More like third! (At least) Blue Oyster Cult also has an Umlaut over the O. I don't know how to make an umlaut so I don't want to edit the article to fix it, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.108.82 (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that having a link to the band's Twitter feed is appropriate for this article but my addition was reverted. HyperCapitalist (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It adds no encyclopaedic content. Plus it's available from the band's main webpage anyway. It's no more relevant than linking to their shop, discography or other sub sites. Canterbury Tail talk 22:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

New Album

On the queensryche site Tate says that this week they're starting studio work on their new album.
There are also some albums missing in the discography list:
1991 - Operation Livecrime
2000 - Greatest Hits
2001 - Live Evolution
2003 - Classic Masters
2004 - The Art Of Live
I do not know how to put a image here, but that doesnt matter i hope sombody can chance this for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.219.198 (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

1967??

The band was form and been active since 1967? Michael Wilton formed the band when he was 5??

Vandalism. Pay it no mind. Canterbury Tail talk 23:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Glam Metal

Come on, that's just ridiculous. I am a fan of both Queensryche and Glam Metal and anyone can tell that neither sounds like the other. If the douche that added Glam as a genre finds a source Glam could stay, but until then, whine on some message board that cares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.22.96.246 (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If QR is Glam Metal, is also a Grunge band, and, the Prog Metal definition says that both of those genres are influencing it. I think that we can put glam and grunge as secondary genres. 201.246.95.91 (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Only if you can find a reliable source that describes Queensryche as Glam Metal and Grunge. Canterbury Tail talk 11:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
They're neither, and it's ludicrous to refer to them as either of the genres. Late prog may have a grunge influence, but Queensryche predated grunge by quite a few years. Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 16:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Randy Gone

Why is this former keyboard player not mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.239.145 (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Todd La Torre

It would appear that Geoff Tate has been fired from Queensryche, the band replacing him with Todd La Torre of Crimson Glory and the now presumably defunct Rising West. Loads of reliable sources online. Any opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.162.32 (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it's official: Queensryche Part Ways With Geoff Tate, Name Todd La Torre New Singer --KEN (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Problem is I think it's still up in the air as to whom gets the name Queensryche. Tate or the rest of the group. For now thoug the references are all we have and they're going with the group. Canterbury Tail talk 11:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Tribe years

The Tribe years section of the article is either incorrect or misleading. The phrase "Chris De Garmo [...] nor took part in the supporting tour" is either completely incorrect or only partially correct: Chris certainly played with the band on the "Escape from the Studio American tour" with Dream Theater and Fates Warning, which was the supporting tour for Tribe in North America. Not sure if there were any other tours in 2003, and if DeGarmo took part in them. Hexonut (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? I wasn’t following the band closely back then, but I’m under the impression that DeGarmo was supposed to tour with the band, but for whatever reason it never happened. I found some Blabbermouth.net articles that seem to back this up:
The tour you’re talking about ran from late June to early August. Beforehand QR apparently did some shows in Europe, and afterwards more (headline) shows in the United States. Looks like DeGarmo wasn’t part of any of it, and they went with Mike Stone instead. –Kooma (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox lead singer

In the infobox there is an editor who keeps moving Todd to the beginning of the list despite the fact that he was the last to join the group (lets leave the fact that that group may not have the right to the name Queensryche at all aside.) The Infobox for this clearly states that members are listed in the order they join the group. The editor insists that the Lead Singer must always come first, with no reasoning given. There is no reason to give the lead singer higher importance over another band member, the infobox guidelines are clear on this, and other bands that have changed their lead singer have them listed in order of joining (see INXS, Nightwish as examples.) Unless a good reason can be given for Todd to be placed at the beginning of the list and ignoring the guidelines of the infobox instructions, I'm going to change it back. Canterbury Tail talk 12:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

2 bands make an example of why the newest member goes last? You better go around and find every band that has replacement members and a page on wikipedia and edit those, since that is your made up make believe policy Patriots49ers (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No made up make believe policy here, it's quite clearly stated on the infobox page. And those were the only two I checked anyway. Additionally you've made your bold edits, you've been reverted, etiquette is that you then discuss the edits on the talk page instead of continuing to push the edits (see WP:BRD), and more than one editor has informed you of the infobox instructions. Additionally you haven't given a reason for Todd La Torre (whom incidentally we don't know if he's the lead singer of Queensryche as it hasn't been decided who is Queensryche right now, but that's a complete aside right now until it's settled) to be first. Lead singers are not special members of bands that get precedence and priority over everyone else. Canterbury Tail talk 17:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


Well go through every single band's page and make sure they are listed in the order that they joined. Patriots49ers (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

We're not talking other pages, other stuff exists is not a valid argument. You still haven't given a reason for Todd to be listed first against the instructions for using the templates and infoboxes. Community consensus on the uses are for them to be listed in the order they join a band. Canterbury Tail talk 22:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


If you want the members listed in the order that they joined, make sure all of the pages do so.Patriots49ers (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Other pages are not being discussed here. The instructions for the infoboxes are very clear, and it has been pointed out several times. You are not giving any reason for edits contrary to those instructions and are refusing to discuss the matter with other members of the community. I encourage you to discuss this and give your reasons why you think Todd should be listed first before engaging in more edit warring that will likely result in you being blocked from editing. At least three editors now have reverted your edits yet you just keep edit warring and putting them back without any reason. Canterbury Tail talk 02:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


Other pages are being discussed, sparky. I am trying to make all band pages the same.Patriots49ers (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Timeline end date

I extended the timeline to 01/01/2013 to make recent lineup changes more visible. I did not find official Wikipedia policy on this so I used Iron Maiden's timeline as an example and followed accordingly. If this is changed, please comment here with a reference so that I can refer to it when editing other articles for consistency. Banzairun (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Parker Lundgren member ?

Parker is not listed as a member of the band on the official homepage http://www.queensryche.com/ (29. June 2011), and I never seen them refer to him as a member of the band. The article says he's been a member since 2009, quite strange it's not mentioned in 2011 at their web page. --KEN (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Lundgren is mentioned along with the rest of the guys in the press releases for the new album and the Shiprocked cruise, he appears in new promotional photos, and he has been with them on a regular basis since 2009, but who knows... I haven’t got the new album yet, I wonder how he is presented in the booklet? –Kooma (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Beein a member and beeing WITH the band is to different things. Dimmu Borgir has as an example three members, but has additional three members when touring, and recording. --KEN (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
True, but OTOH KISS is Paul & Gene... but for all intents and purposes Ace Frehley, Peter Criss et al were/are considered band members though. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The official Queensryche site does not list him as a member under Band (top header bar), that should be the gospel for whether he's in the band or not, not our original research interpretation. Canterbury Tail talk 12:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Then the band hasn't had a 5th member since Chris DeGarmo left 14 years or so ago. Who's been playing the second guitar on half of their catalog? (Well, yeah, 3 different guys, but I digress...) *What* original research? Check this out: [[1]] and click on the image to the right of the Seattle Seahawk. "Parker Lundgren, guitarist for Queensryche, is now teaching guitar lessons online via Skype." If it's on their website (as you say) it's gospel. As far as I can tell, he's just another "member/non-owner" like Peter Criss is to KISS. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. Yes the whole thing is very confusing, and there's no clear idea of what the official stance is here. Canterbury Tail talk 16:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, they treated Kelly Gray and Mike Stone (the other two guys who were in the position) the exact same way: in the band, but not "full/original members". If we take Parker out as a current member, they have to go as former members too. But that's absurd, as they most certainly WERE in the band. KISS is not a duet, and Queensryche is and has always been a 5 man band. There's other media coverage to collaborate too: Eddie Trunk: [2] and Gene Stout: [3] have both covered it (I'm surprised Stout lacks a wikipage, btw). That's one primary source and two third-party sources, what more is really needed? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Feel free to revert my edit and put a ref in. It's all a bit of a mess, but I certainly concede the point. Canterbury Tail talk 22:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, though I take no joy in it... I actually hate that Stone's out of the band and find the new album to be lacking. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
The reference added to Lundgren bein a member says: "Queensryche is always going to be a four piece band and they are always going to have a fill-in guy. So I don’t see myself as part of the band at all and I don’t think anybody else does.". So why is he listed as a member? Still not listed under band members at official website. --KEN (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, he is a member now, after Tate got kicked he is listed at tet NEW official website as a member [4]. But he has not been a official member since 2009, as this article claims. --KEN (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The rights to Operation: Mindcrime

Queensrÿche’s long-time attorney and financial manager (in that power also responsible for overseeing the band's copyrights and repository) wrote a response to a request for information about the rights from zoetifex Studios. In it, he has given a thorough analysis of who owns what. His letter can be found in the declaration of Thomas Osinski on page 85–86. A few sentences from this letter:

  • Geoff Tate was the sole owner of the copyrights in the story and remains the sole owner today. (...) rights to use the story will need to be obtained from Geoff Tate alone.
  • EMI Records owns the copyrights in the recording of the album OMC.
  • The copyrights and publishing rights to the songs on OMC2 are owned and controlled by Queensryche's publishing company.
  • Rhino Records owns the copyrights in the recording of the album OMC2.

So what it comes down to, is that technically the story is indeed owned by Geoff Tate, and the music is owned by EMI Records. This is regardless of whether the band members have contributed to the storyline whilst making the album (Chris DeGarmo even has sole writing credits to the lyrics of one song). The five founding band members do receive royalties for the music. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, good. We just need to make sure we clarify whether the music or just the story is being referred to. Glad I won't have to worry about the use of terms like "supposedly", "allegedly", "some guy told me" when it comes to this issue. Friginator (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
That's the benefit of me having read all the court documents ;-) Could you check if my edit makes the story–music distinction clear enough? There is some more added complexity to all of this, but I don't know whether the Queensrÿche page is the place to fit that in. The problem the band members have with the way things went, is that even though Tate is technically allowed to do with the story as he pleases because he owns the rights, it would have been reasonable if he had (a) informed his band mates in a timely fashion, and (b) include them in the process and earnings. According to the statements, he had done neither. Tate has stated in interviews that the others did help with furthering the story: "But apart from the fantasy elements in 'Operation...' I also included incidents I've encountered and people I've met over the years. Of course, although I came up with the original idea, once it was presented to the rest of the band they quickly added in their own thoughts to develop the story-line still further..." (Geoff Tate, Raw, October 1988). So it is somewhat questionable to see the story separate from the success of the album through which the story became well-known, or to exclude the other persons who have contributed to the story. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Photo including Todd La Torre

The photo of the Queensrÿche lineup featuring Todd La Torre was understandably removed, as it caused the page to be out of balance, giving undue balance to that version of Queensrÿche. At the moment, I do not think I can get a hold of a photo with Geoff Tate's lineup. Perhaps it is possible if I use one of the photos on the page of Todd La Torre? Or would that still give undue weight? By the way, the watermarked photos have been kindly granted by Michael Lindgren personally. He is the band's long-time "house photographer". --Eddyspeeder (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Watermarked photos should generally be avoided according to Wikipedia policies on image use. The fact that it's used with permission is good, but to my knowledge, it's still against policy (assuming logos and watermarks are treated the same). The ideal solution would be to have two photographs, one of each band, with both showing the band performing. Friginator (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Queensrÿche Starring Geoff Tate the Original Voice

Yesterday, I added the name "Queensrÿche Starring Geoff Tate the Original Voice" to the section Queensrÿche#Queensrÿche with Geoff Tate, because I find it relevant that Wikipedia mentions the "official name" an artist chooses to use for his/her own project. This is also why I described my edit as: including official name used for version with Geoff Tate. This edit was subsequently reverted, for the reason: That name was never mentioned on the facebook page, just the Billboard article reporting on it.

I have put the name back in, now describing that they are getting booked under that name. This is supported by a reference to their page with Monterey International, their booking agency, that specifically identifies them under that name, and thus it is warranted that Wikipedia explains or at least mentions the use of this name. Also, the Billboard article was based on an official press release, and the extent to which Facebook is authoritative on such matters is highly questionable. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have started this discussion when I reverted the edit, just to clarify what I meant. I reverted it because it seems unlikely that the name "Queensrÿche Starring Geoff Tate the Original Voice" is anything other than a way of distinguishing Tate's band from the other when booking concerts. The way it was phrased:
"On September 1, Geoff Tate announced a new Queensrÿche lineup featuring Rudy Sarzo, Bobby Blotzer, Glen Drover, Kelly Gray and Randy Gane, under the name "Queensrÿche Starring Geoff Tate The Original Voice".
...seemed misleading. And while the Billboard article claimed that "Queensrÿche Starring Geoff Tate the Original Voice" was the official name announced by Tate, that seems doubtful and there isn't any evidence that he ever did this. The way it's stated now (They are promoted by their booking agent under the name "Queensrÿche Starring Geoff Tate the Original Voice") is fine with me. It was basically a question of how it was phrased. Sorry for not making that clear. Friginator (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that :-) I understand why you felt it was better to remove it, but am glad it has its place again. After all, it's has helped me in explaining the significance of that band name/descriptor better and more subtly. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of Geoff Tate

On the timeline, Geoff Tate is listed as being with the band 01/01/1981–current. My proposal is to change his involvement in the early days to better reflect how it all started. I put this up for discussion first, as I know that the question of whether or not Tate is a "founding member" of the band is a fairly sensitive issue. I'm only touching the main points of interest here, for a more thorough discussion of the band's early days, see in the main article the section From The Mob to Queensrÿche (early 1980s).

  • Tate's first involvement with The Mob was around September 19, 1981 for "Metalfest '81", after which he also played at some parties with them. Calculating in the rehearsals for Metalfest, I can imagine his involvement spanned from circa 08/01/1981 to 10/30/1981. Note that at that time, The Mob was just a cover band, and Tate was doing well with his band Babylon (who broke up when its members went to college).
  • Tate's second involvement with The Mob was recording the The Mob EP with them in September 1982 (the later Queensrÿche EP). Calculating in rehearsal and songwriting time, this second involvement must have spanned from circa 07/01/1982 to 09/31/1982. At that time, Tate was in the band Myth. This source explains that Kim Harris "talked the 4 guys into signing a management contract with him. Only problem was he couldn't talk Geoff into leaving MYTH, so they half-heartedly set out to find someone else. The new Manager did convince him to take a photo with the band so that they could at least shop the tape."
  • Tate ultimately joined after the Kerrang! review in issue #36 (February 24 – March 9 1983) led to the success of the EP. So this was after February 24 (plus some time to get the buzz started), but before the shows where they opened for Zebra in June 1983. So that must have been around 05/01/1983.

Thus, my proposal is to replace the line 

 bar:Geoff from:01/01/1981 till:end color:Vocals

with 

 bar:Geoff from:08/01/1981 till:10/30/1981 color:Vocals
 bar:Geoff from:07/01/1982 till:09/31/1982 color:Vocals
 bar:Geoff from:05/01/1983 till:end color:Vocals

I would like to hear your thoughts on this. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, boy. In all honesty, this issue has always seemed very petty and ridiculous to me. If it had been brought up a few years ago, I get the feeling that it wouldn't be a subject of controversy. If Geoff Tate helped produce every release by the band from the beginning of their professional career, even before they were called Queensrÿche, how isn't he a founding member? On the back of the original Queensrÿche EP there's a photo of the band, which includes Tate, and at no point is he referred to as a "guest" or "hired" musician of any kind. I mean, is Keith Moon not a founding member of the Who? Are D'arcy Wretzky and Jimmy Chamberlin not founding members of the Smashing Pumpkins? Is Chris Stewart not a founding member of Genesis? Is Syd Barret not a founding member of Pink Floyd? None of these people were there from the very, very, very beginning. But they're all considered founding members because they all made creative contributions the band's first work. They all helped to establish the band.
As for the timeline, if the band wasn't officially started until 1982, why are we even listing 1981? Look at the Beatles. When did their career start? When they changed their name to the Beatles in 1960. Not 1957, when they first started playing together. What I would propose is ignoring the individual dates, and just go by years. The timeline is meant to make things simpler, not more complicated. Why worry about semantics? Friginator (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Friginator! Starting the timeline by 1982 would be fine with me as well. I agree that the "actual" starting point is fairly arbitrary; the band members have played together in various ways, and one could even argue it started with Cross+Fire (1980), because that band was renamed to The Mob, which was later renamed to Queensrÿche. (In that case, you could say only Wilton and Rockenfield are the original founders, which is ridiculous of course.) Even using the moment the band switched from cover songs to original material is arbitrary. So indeed, perhaps it is better to start from the point where we actually speak of Queensrÿche, which can be pinpointed loosely on early 1982.
On a side note, the question why Tate was pictured on the EP even though he was not in the band, depends on which EP you are talking about. The 206 Records one used publicity shots, as the quote I've included in my original post also mentions. This was done for tactical reasons (shopping with labels). The same source also describes how Tate did not co-sign the management contract, but did sign a contract entitling him to earnings if the EP would become a success. At the time of the EMI re-release, Tate was already in the band. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

triryche

Shouldn't this article at least mention their Tri-ryche symbol?

tri-ryche The logo or symbol created for the Progressive metal band from Seattle,Wa.,Queensryche. Early forms of this symbol can be seen on there 1984 release, The Warning. The basic tri-ryche can be found on there 1986 release of, Rage for Order. Through the years the tri-ryche has taken on different forms, but to die hard Queensryche fans the 80's version is the original template. The tri-ryche can be found on every Queensryche album except there self titled 1982 EP. [1]

I agree with you. It took some effort to find a few reliable sources on the topic, but I have found them and added a paragraph on the Tri-Ryche under "Early years". -Eddyspeeder (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Queensrÿche Logo?

Ought there be a subsection explaining the origin of Queensrÿche's logo? I don't anything about it myself, and in fact came here to find out more about it. It's an iconic part of the band; a history and description seems like a worthy addition to this article. 76.167.253.199 (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. It took some effort to find a few reliable sources on the topic, but I have found them and added a paragraph on the Tri-Ryche under "Early years". -Eddyspeeder (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

About the timeline....

I hate to say this, as clearly a lot of work has been put into the timeline, but it just kind of looks like a mess. Maybe if we exclude people who have only been toured with the band? Or what if we just list the roster up until the split until either version releases an album? That would eliminate Todd La Torre, Robert Sarzo, Rudy Sarzo, Simon Wright, Randy Gane, Glen Drover, and Bobby Blotzer (Did Bobby Blotzer ever even perform a single song with the band?). The timeline is supposed to make the lineup easier to understand, but it seems pretty confusing that this point. That's just my opinion, anyway. Friginator (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

After updating the timeline with the two new band members of Tate's version, I also thought to myself: "this timeline is starting to look absolutely ridiculous!" Blotzer did do a couple of performances with them, such as Shiprocked and a NYE concert. As you know, this is just a transition phase, in which there are indeed two coexisting versions of Queensrÿche, but one of them will cease to exist in November. After that, we will probably boot all information about the version that lost in court onto a different page as hopefully they will continue but under a different name, and we can also include the parts of the timeline that belong to that particular version at that page. So my idea would be to either leave things be until November, or we could emphasize that "transition" we are currently in, by stopping the main timeline on June 5, 2012, and then creating two additional timelines, one for each version. That would at least remove the confusion over which part of the band Kelly Gray is in, for example. And it would also deal with the weird "halfway down the list" place Geoff is at. Once a settlement or verdict has been reached, the one timeline will move with the version under a different name, and the other timeline can be incorporated into the main timeline again. What do you think? --Eddyspeeder (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I've made a proposal for this on my sandbox. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The three timelines would probably be the best compromise for now, though it seems strange to use up so much space for two groups that haven't released any music yet. Still, they really help clear up the original timeline. Friginator (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed on the space the three timelines take up. There may be another way though: look at Alice in Chains#Personnel and Alice in Chains personnel. We could do the same with QR, and move out the rest of the personnel section (including the split timeline) to a different page. It is my intention to start working on the various pages of QR's albums, so I could later also expand that page with overviews of in-studio personnel. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like a great idea. I didn't know that page existed. Friginator (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Cool! I actually stumbled upon it while searching for a good template to add the awards section to QR's page. In that sense, AIC is more or less QR's "big brother": same place of birth, a larger fan base, and a page with FA status. Great to steal ideas from :-) Ok I'll start working on Queensrÿche personnel right now based on the AIC page, please feel free to chip in anytime! ;-) --Eddyspeeder (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, done ;-) Also, I was corrected today about the Blotzer performing thing. Tate's Queensrÿche has not performed yet; he did do some solo shows which do include some of his band members (Randy Gane and Kelly Gray). So, my apologies, and Blotzer hasn't performed with Tate. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Multiple Queensrÿche versions, naming consistency

Currently, on the Wikipedia pages relating to Queensrÿche, we apply the following naming consistency to discern the different versions:

  • "Queensrÿche before the 2012 split" (for "past members" up to June 2012)
  • "Queensrÿche with Todd La Torre" (June 2012–current)
  • "Queensrÿche with Geoff Tate" (June 2012–current)

This is often a point of discussion, as other sources such as the media are also trying to find a way to discern the different versions of Queensrÿche. This is why I wrote this section to clarify the reasons for this naming consistency, supported by a discussion of the other alternatives we have had on Wikipedia throughout June–September 2012. The current naming consistency has been in place since September 2nd, 2012.

That does not mean it cannot be changed; however it does mean that any change in this naming consistency should first be discussed on this talk page, and a consensus reached before it may be changed. If you would like to suggest a different naming consistency, please do so in reply to this post. All suggestions will be seriously considered.

In addition, this naming consistency is only a temporary matter. Once a settlement has been reached or a judge has decided which version of the band is really awarded the name "Queensrÿche", that version will continue to be discussed on the page Queensrÿche, and depending on how the other version will choose to continue, it will be appropriately discussed on its own page. So the naming consistency issue is just a way to present the difference for now.

Discussion of other possible naming conventions

Finding a good naming convention on this page hasn't been easy. There have been different version names, and I will discuss the issue with each of them. Note that I was not involved with editing this page as these names were changed and this naming consistency was reached. I am just clarifying the rationale behind changing the version names, in chronological order:

  • "Eddie, Michael, and Scott's Version" vs "Geoff Tate's Version"
    —> Wikipedia guidelines require the use of last names, so "Eddie, Michael, and Scott" isn't correct.
  • "Original Version" vs "Geoff Tate's Version"
    —> "Original Version" is incorrect, as the original version was Tate/(DeGarmo/)Wilton/Jackson/Rockenfield.
  • "Rockenfeld/Wilton/Jackson Version" vs "Geoff Tate's Version"
    —> Rockenfield/Wilton/Jackson didn't quite cover the entire band.
  • (back to) "Original Version" vs "Geoff Tate's Version"
  • "Queensrÿche with Todd La Torre" vs "Queensrÿche with Geoff Tate"
  • "Original Queensrÿche" vs "Queensrÿche with Geoff Tate"
    —> Wikipedia is neutral. Calling one version the "Original Queensrÿche" even though a Washington State court has allowed two versions to operate under the name "Queensrÿche" indicates a bias in favor of one version over the other.
  • (back to) "Queensrÿche with Todd La Torre" vs "Queensrÿche with Geoff Tate"
    —> Past members weren't in either of these two versions.
  • "Queensrÿche with Todd La Torre" vs "Queensrÿche with Geoff Tate" vs "Queensrÿche before the 2012 split" (for "past members")

The naming convention currently used on the Queensrÿche page chooses "clarity at first glance" and "neutrality" over "accuracy". This consistancy takes the frontman as the recognizable "face" of the respective band, while still making it clear that there are indeed two existing versions of Queensrÿche, without suggesting any favoring of one over the other.

To address a few other options:

  • "Queensrÿche" (or "Official Queensrÿche") vs "Queensrÿche starring Geoff Tate, the Original Voice"
    —> This is the naming convention used by the two versions of the band themselves for booking their concerts. However, naming one version "Queensrÿche" and the other "Queensrÿche With More Words So It Must Be Different From The Other" (even if the version with the long name calls itself that) still suggests a bias towards the one named plainly "Queensrÿche". Wikipedia does not allow favoring one over the other. In order to provide a complete picture, the Queensrÿche page does mention that the version with Geoff Tate themselves make use of the name "Queensrÿche starring Geoff Tate, the Original Voice".
  • "Queensrÿche with Todd La Torre" vs "Geoff Tate's Queensrÿche"
    —> Here, "Geoff Tate's Queensrÿche" is a name used in various media. This would be an acceptable naming convention, although it provides less immediate clarity than the current naming convention. Additionally, is not possible to change the other version's name to "Todd La Torre's Queensrÿche" because he does not "own" this version.

Again, should you have a suggestion for a different naming convention, this is the place to discuss it with other editors on Wikipedia. Only after a consensus is reached about a naming convention that differs from the current one, may this be changed on the Wikipedia-pages regarding Queensrÿche. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Established 1981 or 1982?

This section is to explain why the Queensrÿche page currently mentions the band was established in 1982, even though the band itself indicates this to be 1981 (e.g., 1, 2). In short, it is because starting in 1981 makes things unnecessarily complicated.

Geoff Tate was involved on and off in 1981, and a recent interview with Scott Rockenfield even suggests that Chris DeGarmo was not a founding member. However, the band continued as a five-piece and also set up the Queensrÿche corporations with the five of them, not with just three or four of its members.

As for the timeline, if the band wasn't officially started until 1982, why are we even listing 1981? Look at the Beatles. When did their career start? When they changed their name to the Beatles in 1960. Not 1957, when they first started playing together.

— Friginator, Talk:Queensrÿche#Timeline of Geoff Tate

LRI: I am admittedly a huge fan of Chris DeGarmo and Geoff’s input over the years but to be fair and to clarify, you, Eddie and Michael technically are the original founders of the band, Chris and Geoff joined a bit later right?

Scott: That is correct, yes. We started the whole thing back….back before the beginning of time (laughs). We started playing together back when we were in high school. We all lived in the same area and went to different high schools but all knew each other through the scene and through mutual friends. We were playing together prior to even starting Queensryche.

To make things even more difficult to follow: as you can see at Queensrÿche personnel#Early bands, the actual founding members of Cross+Fire, which later became The Mob, and ultimately Queensrÿche, are Michael Wilton and Rockenfield, with DeGarmo joining them even earlier than Eddie Jackson, which seems to contradict Rockenfield's statement. Furthermore, prior to Wilton meeting Rockenfield and forming a band with him, he had already played in the band Joker with DeGarmo, again contradicting the above answer by Rockenfield.

Case in point: even 1981 is an arbitrary point in time. We could also use 1980, 1979 or even 1978 as starting point, all with different configurations. The demo tape was recorded in 1981 by The Mob, with all five band members who would all form Queensrÿche until DeGarmo left in 1997. The band's name was changed later, nor would they release the demo as an EP until 1982.

This is why the Wikipedia users currently contributing to the Queensrÿche page feel it provides most clarity to a reader not knowledgeable on the subject to use 1982 as starting point, when all five members were on board, and all questions of who was or wasn't in the band had been resolved. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought the demo was recorded in 1982 and released as the Queensrÿche EP in 1983, not 1981 and 1982, respectively? Brett Miller’s Before the Storm contradicts this a bit (it first talks about the recording session, then goes on to say ”It was about a year later in 1982 that the opportunistic owner of Easy Street Records [...] saw dollar signs and talked the 4 guys into signing a management contract with him.”), but look at the images of the original 206 Records pressing of the EP at Ryche Items. It says ”Recorded at Triad Studios, Redmond, WA. Late Summer, 1982” and ”All Songs Rÿche Publishing 1983 (BMI)”. Also, since The Mob, a cover band at that point, played its first show with Tate in September 1981, they wouldn’t have had time to get everything (money, songs) in order to record the demo in 1981. If I’m correct, even 1982 would be somewhat arbitrary. Do we know when exactly they started using the name Queensrÿche? The Kerrang! review of the demo (issue 36, 24 February – 9 March 1983) calls them Queensrÿch, without the trailing e, so apparently it wasn’t set in stone by then. –Kooma (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Great response, you did your homework well! And I agree that 1982 is also arbitrary.
Indeed, I also ran into the apparent "about a year later" contradiction and was having a hard time piecing that together. Michael Wilton describes in his court declaration as if one of the first things they did was go back to Easy Street and give them the demo, but like you said, the Kerrang! review is from 1983, and the 206 Records release states: "All Songs Rÿche Publishing 1983 (BMI)" ( another source to back this up). So that will have to be changed to 1983.
This brings up the question: what year matters? The year they recorded their first album and were already in formation (even though Tate wasn't fully on board yet), which is 1982, or the year they got signed (twice) and released it (twice), which is 1983? --Eddyspeeder (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, looks like the timeline is bit of a haze even for the band members themselves. :)
I don’t think getting signed or releasing an album matters. Some bands go on for years without either (Stam1na from my native Finland comes to mind), but are still very much a band. So out of 1982 and 1983 I guess that would be 1982. I wouldn’t rule out 1981 completely either, especially since the band itself seems to consider it founding year, if that merchandise you linked to is any indication. It’s all explained in the history section anyway, and in the intro we could say that they were ”formed as The Mob in 1981”. But I’m fine with 1982, too.
Btw, too bad that this advertisement doesn’t mention the release date... –Kooma (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Geoff Tate, the voice of Queensryche

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/geoff_tate_seemingly_loses_queensryche_rights_now_presents_himself_as_voice_of_queensryche.html

I guess it's best to wait for the official public announcement, but this source believes his website reveals the outcome. Batvette (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. There are several other sites that infer the outcome (based on good sources and indications pointing in a particular direction), but without an official statement I personally don't want to burn my fingers on it. I hope they'll get that press release out soon! --Eddyspeeder (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolution

There's only one version of Queensryche now, and that's the one with Todd La Torre. Check this page for more info. http://blogs.seattletimes.com/soundposts/2014/04/28/its-official-the-battle-over-the-future-of-queensryche-is-settled/ 209.56.159.12 (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a Fan Looking for Better Information on the Tate line-up

I've edited a Wikipedia article or another, on-and-off, so I am not going to claim expertise in Wikipedia editing. I know that Wikipedia editors can be very sensitive when someone questions something like this (the Pink Floyd page is a nightmare, from what I gather, with one or two editors dominating the bandwidth and only retreating recently on debates about the band's current status given the new album being released later this year)... so please take my feedback (or more like a question) as a fan and a reader looking for information about the band rather than as someone trying to one-up current editors: it seems to me that any discussion about the existence of two versions of Queensryche co-existing for nearly two years is nearly entirely absent in the article right now. I can't even find a list of the band members that were (are?) in the Tate version. I realize there is a legal agreement now that gives the right to continuity to the La Torre line-up. But I think it would be unfair to convey the history of this controversy as though this legal agreement is *retroactive.* The band did exist in two forms for a substantive amount of time and it seems the page should include a discussion of this, as well as a timeline of the members that rotated in and out of that Tate line-up (which is the main reason I came to visit the page last night). My question is whether it's being debated, at least, whether to put that part of the band history back in more fully or whether there has been a consensus to exclude it? It seems, as a fan, I'd want to be able to read about that period - in fact, it's one of those curious items in music history that, once emancipated from contention, would make very interesting reading but also provide a fuller representation of band history. I always cringe at writing and asking about things like this because it seems it makes editors on Wikipedia way too defensive... please go easy: I'm just curious. --Albertrosenfield1956 (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I have no idea why this appeared TWICE on the Talk page. --Albertrosenfield1956 (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thank God you brought this up. Completely agreed (both on this and the fact that the Pink Floyd talk page is like a perpetual warzone, even before The Endless River). But the way people view the Queensrÿche court ruling as retroactive has done anything but make the articles more streamlined and easier to understand. You'd think a legal ruling would clear things up, but nope! I've intentionally shied away from bringing it up, but the Tate lineup and Frequency Unknown are being treated as if they were never part of the Queensrÿche name, and In my opinion should be restored in both the template and discography page. They were completely represented on a fair and unbiased level prior to the court ruling, but as soon as that was made, everything disappeared like it never existed. Some editors have been less than neutral in their statements (The first edit made read "It's over. This isn't a Queensryche album.", and though I've been watching the Frequency Unknown page (it seems like the most likely target, and keeping it neutral is pretty much all I've done on the subject lately), the whole mess needs to be cleaned up (or made again, depending on your point of view). Tate's lineup isn't even mentioned on the members page, FU isn't listed as an official album in the template (It's Queensrÿche, folks, like it or not) and the entire history of Tate's version of the band is being written out of pretty much every otherwise-related page.
One problem is that some editors seem to be connected to Anybodylistening.net, a fansite for the band (and really the only fansite for the band) which is anything but neutral and reliable. It's a hive for fans to talk about how great the Todd La Torre lineup is great and how the Tate lineup isn't (or wasn't) official--it's certainly not official now, but they've never recognized it as such. The site even claims that Tate wasn't a founding member, something that is incredibly subjective and wouldn't even be questioned if the man wasn't the subject of some new controversy every week.
Basically, I've always refused to take any part in this partisan squabbling, and I'm starting to think that maybe I've been a bit too lenient. Eddyspeeder has done an amazing job over the past couple of years keeping the articles clean and neat, but after the ruling he (or she) started treating the Wilton/Jackson/Rockenfield lineup as if it was the only official version ever, and that anything else was a Tate solo project. If this approach worked, it would completely streamline the band history, timeline, discography, etc and make everything easier to understand. Unfortunately, it simply doesn't work. It's like trying to solve a puzzle by jamming in a piece that almost fits but just isn't right. It would be great if it DID solve everything, but it doesn't, unfortunately. That's how I've seen it, anyway. It really would have been great if all the editors for the Queensrÿche pages had had an organized plan on what to do after the court ruling. Our mistake. Friginator (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I think you're spot-on, Friginator. I'm really coming to this largely as a reader rather than as an editor: I was curious to see where the Tate version was touring, having heard that they would carry on as Queensryche for a bit longer and then it would completely transition to a 'Tate' solo thing. When I went to the Tate website I didn't see the line-up of Sarzo x2, Wright, etc... so I started wondering if it had all come to an end a lot earlier than stated publicly. I later realized that Tate still owns one of the URLs and found the band-listing and current tour but not before coming to Wikipedia and not finding anything. I found that more confusing. To be frank, I liked both versions, so I'm not partial to anything here, I just think it'd be nice to let Wikipedia readers know what happened in those two years in the most factual, fully contextualized way possible! --Albertrosenfield1956 (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I must begin by setting a few things straight here, as this discussion isn't just about whether or not Tate's tour dates are present or missing. There is quite some politics involved, for example in the statement: "One problem is that some editors seem to be connected to Anybodylistening.net" (AL.net). This statement not just among others, but mainly implies me, and this is labeled as a "problem". By the way, I have never made it a secret that I have been on that forum (my nickname is even the same), and was open for anyone to call me out on it.
This is why I feel obliged to first explain what this supposed "problem" with AL.net is. One should distinguish between the website and the forum, which was called "The Breakdown Room" (BdR), and existed until April 2014. Let me clarify here that Wikipedia considers forum discussions "unreliable" as source material, regardless of which forum. But in the case of the BdR, there is more at play, as there are basically two "camps"; one that considers the BdR a forum that allowed for an open and intelligent discussion, and another that sees it as a biased clique holding incorrect or distorted views on Queensrÿche and its history and did not allow contrary visions. I will admit to holding the former belief, as I have not seen any evidence during my time there supporting the other. For example, in the above, the site or forum is accused of coining the view that Tate did not (co-)found the band in response to Tate's dismissal. But this was not at all an opinion that AL.net or the BdR coined, but was documented by Brett Miller from QueensrycheHistory.com, who was closely involved with the Seattle band scene (as a classmate of several of them) and has written down his history of Queensrÿche way back in the 1990s. He already made it clear then, that Tate only joined the band later, and wasn't part of the band while recording the EP, nor while the band was shopping the EP. Yes, Tate played a pivotal role in making Queensrÿche big, there is no question about that. Brett Miller also did not question that and admired Tate, but did clarify that Tate's early involvement were just two one-off appearances, once in the studio and once at a concert. Nothing wrong with that. However, this issue first became a sensitive topic after his dismissal Tate, and evidently an argument for those wanting to place AL.net and/or the BdR in a bad light.
A few remarks on how I see the time that I visited both the BdR and Wikipedia: I was actively working on Wikipedia's pages before joining the forum. I decided to join the forum because it provided all the court documents (which I wanted to read to form my own opinions from the source material) and I didn't want to just leech the files off there. The thread where the court documents were discussed was very interesting and I have asked many a (critical) question there. I did shape my opinions based on the proceedings, but am thankful that Friginator has praised me for doing a good work in which I have tried to provide a neutral and balanced view, both during and after the trial. I have asked forum members to contribute to Wikipedia, which some of them gracefully did. And I believe that it is in order to point out to anyone interested that this forum is now closed, and that the closing statement from the founder is an interesting read. But some will also continue to see that message as a biased one-man's opinion. Read it for yourself, just as I have done with the court documents; test everything, hold fast to what is good.
What saddens me, is Friginator's remark on having been "too lenient" after my edits following the announcement of the settlement details. These edits were never meant as a "final state" of things, even when hardly any changes have been made since. Wikipedia is a collaborative platform, not a place where one person gets to impose his sole views (and there is still the "undo" option). I wanted to lay the ground work. In the past years, collaborating with Friginator was very fruitful. We disagreed over several topics, but usually found a common ground which mostly meant that both of us had to compromise.
Friginator was right that my aim was to try and make the distinction clear, basically by keeping the Queensrÿche page related to the "main lineup" and branching out details of other efforts to separate pages, not just Tate's efforts. It simply is a complex story that could even be explained better using a diagram than with natural language. Also, I encourage others to help out and try to restructure it to become more clear, but to also prevent it from becoming overly lengthy when "fully contextualizing" it. I still believe it is best to keep the section on the court case as brief as possible on the main page, and referring to the 2012 Queensrÿche split page for an extensive discussion (on the related talk page you will see that Friginator and I disagree on this idea). Rising West has also gotten its own page, and I moved Tate's efforts under the Queensrÿche name to the Geoff Tate page. I felt this was warranted, as the details of the settlement stated that Tate would continue under his own name (as is also evident from Queensryche.com), even though it seems that according to the settlement, they can continue playing as Queensrÿche until August. In addition, by now I had expected that the Tates had worked on giving Tate a clearer personal profile, as well as distinguishing Tate's solo band from Tate's Queensrÿche-related project more clearly or at least providing us with some kind of vision on how they intend to go forward, which would have allowed us to also put everything surrounding Tate in a better perspective. It also still seems odd to me that the settlement apparently did not require the Queensryche.com domain and Facebook page to be handed over to R/W/J, since the early court declarations made a big deal out of the Tates "seizing control" over them in 2012. Lastly, that the editors didn't set up a plan on how to present the situation after the settlement or court ruling also stems from how nobody expected for this to drag out for so long. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
As a fan, who has genuinely visited the page for information on both line-ups I feel it seems appropriate to have a section where you discuss the period in which two versions of the band co-existed - and to even list all the line-ups that toured concurrently. It's a pretty important episode in the band's history: concert listings that mixed the band pictures up, the instability of the Tate line-up at first, the concurrent release of albums under the Queenrsyche brand (those can't be unpressed and retracted anymore - if I go to Spotify there they are both... in fact, it should talk about Tate's release of TWO versions of the album on account of criticism over mixing of the first version of "Frequency Unknown"). I think the history itself is quite fascinating. That in and of itself should compel a section on this page, considering that it's such an interesting piece of the band's history. I've been a fan since I was a kid - as I'm sure many readers have been. I liked both versions of the bands, frankly - I really thought one should trump, in the end, but I appreciated the talent in both bands. That period during which I was going to shows for both versions was quite a historic pocket in hard rock and heavy metal music history. It'd be a pity if a section on that wasn't featured here. LA Guns features a "Two LA Guns Versions" section. It seems something like that would be appropriate here. It's also important to note this is a new phenomenon, for the most part: we saw bands like Jefferson Airplane transform into what eventually became Starship, and then saw a Jefferson Airplane tour at the same time as Starship, etc. But this legal instrument of creating a band with the same or roughly the same name, e.g., LA Guns, Great White... Queensryche... that deserves documentation, and each band's page should include that narrative as well. I used to edit a while back and stopped because it gets too contentious. What I worry is sometimes the pages do get filtered a bit too much through our personal opinions. Maybe if I didn't like the Tate version too I may be arguing it doesn't need a place on this page. But I think the reality is too palpable to ignore. I'm logged on to Queensryche on Spotify and just listened to Tate's version of Queenryche ("Frequency Unknown") blend seamlessly into the old, pre-LaTorre version ("Dedicated to Chaos"). If someone is not familiar with the band's history, they may want to understand the distinctions when they visit this article. Just my two-cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertrosenfield1956 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Addition of timeline

Hey – I just wanted to ask a question. When I tried to add a modified timeline to the article, I had my edits reverted, saying that timelines are "discouraged". I've been working on nearly 20 band articles, mostly on their band members/timeline sections, and there's always a timeline there. I don't see how they can be discouraged, or why a long-serving and well-known band like this one shouldn't have a timeline. Could I possibly restore it? Thanks – 4TheWynne (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I seem to remember someone bringing this up before and the consensus was that there shouldn't be a timeline. Also, the timeline you added didn't include members from the Tate-led version or Chris DeGarmo's later involvement. Friginator (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to reach a consensus here where a timeline should be included, because if not, then that would make this article one of very few good band articles without a proper timeline with the correct formatting. Also, Chris DeGarmo didn't rejoin the band in 2003; all he did was contribute some music for their 2003 album Tribe. His second involvement, therefore, doesn't need to be included in the timeline. And I don't know what you mean by the "Tate-led" version; as far as I know, the way I represented everyone's tenures in the modified timeline, at least from 1982 onwards, was correct. Could you please explain what you were referring to? Thanks – 4TheWynne (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
What I'm referring to is the lineup that featured Bobby Blotzer, Glen Drover, Randy Gane, Robert Sarzo, Rudy Sarzo and Simon Wright. Friginator (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I've never heard of or seen these guys' names. If they weren't included in the timeline on the personnel page, would it be much of a hassle if the modified timeline was restored without those guys? 4TheWynne (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Queensrÿche personnel is an awful mess of an article, and the fact that those names aren't on it makes it even more of a joke. It needs to be overhauled big time. If you've read the personnel page but never heard of the aforementioned names, the page clearly doesn't serve its basic function. The people I mentioned were in the Geoff Tate-led version of Queensrÿche from 2012-2014. So yes, it would be a problem if the incorrect timeline was restored. Misleading or incomplete information isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Also, if what you say about DeGarmo is true, I'd encourage you to edit the personnel page, as it purports that he was a member of the band in 2003. Friginator (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I've gone onto Geoff Tate's page, and now I see what you mean by the Tate-led version. But it's a different band with the same name, as far as I'm aware. Maybe something unique could be done here; if the original Queensrÿche and the Tate-led version are two separate bands (even before Tate lost the brand to his former bandmates), what if I could include both versions (and both timelines) in the band members section? Surely it would help people to understand that there are two different versions? That would make the personnel page completely useless, and then it could be deleted or something. It wouldn't be misleading information if they are (or at least are now) separate bands. Could I please do it? I'm only asking because you seem to be making the calls here. 4TheWynne (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I've got the section ready, with the two versions. I'll put it in, and let me know what you think. 4TheWynne (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
First off, now the article is cluttered and overly confusing to new readers. Second, it's not accurate to treat Geoff Tate's lineup like it's a different version of Queensrÿche. It was an official version and Frequency Unknown was a continuation of everything that was previously released under the moniker, not just the album itself. I'm going to revert the page to the last clean-looking version. Friginator (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Could I at least add the original-version timeline (as I had it before)? I can't see how having it in the article would make it worse. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 06:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Queensrÿche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

EP

Several times the Queensryche EP has been removed from the discography section with no real reasoning. Some comments of "no EPs in discography" or mentions of "look at the Metallica page", but no actual reasoning given. People removed it, it was boldly added back in, time for discussion. Is there a policy as to why part of a band's catalogue, that has been released commercially and re-released on a couple of occasions and isn't a limited release item unlike some band's EPs, should be excised from their discography? It's a discography, not a albums list, and is even included in the Queensrÿche_discography article. It should be noted that other stuff exists isn't a valid argument for including or not including something. So I'm afraid unless someone can point me at a policy for why this shouldn't be included, or give a valid reason for it's continued deletion, I will add it back in. Canterbury Tail talk 22:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Tate Version of Queensryche Should Have Fuller Acknowledgment Here

I've posted about this before (scrolled up and realized it) but thought I'd mention how I ended up adding this comment now. I was trying to find out something about the Tate version of Queensryche (specifically, an answer to a question about the band members that toured that Tate Queensryche era/line-up). As I go through the Queensryche page, there's a lot of information on the legal case but nothing that illustrates that there were in fact two bands using the exact same name and that made a claim to it until the legal battle was resolved. While the information may be posted elsewhere, it's not clear or easy to find and the problem is that the place where it should be easiest to find is on this page. Unfortunately that was the reality at the time and the article should reflect that. If I was a kid looking for a Queensryche album in 2013, I would've come across albums from both bands. It's reasonable to assume someone would look at those two albums coming out concurrently and wondering who was in each band and finding it curious that the name was used by two different groups. The article delves nicely into the Rising West and split with Tate period... but there should be a whole section devoted to the OTHER Queensryche. This wasn't billed as "Geoff Tate's Queensryche" ... it was Queensryche - another version of it - until it was decided in court that would no longer be the case. I am not partial to one side or the other - just making a case for how the information shared on the page could be clearer for fans.--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

All that (the line-up etc.) is on the Tate page, where it belongs frankly. Karst (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
"Where it belongs [sic] frankly" is subjective: if someone approaches the Queensryche page agnostically - no opinion on Tate vs La Torre Queensryche and maybe a rudimentary knowledge about the band, looking to understand why there are two albums in 2013 with the Queensryche name, and looking to understand the band members in each, the Queensryche article, as is, does a poor job delivering that. I visited the page not as a liberal fan but still as a fan curious enough (and impartial enough) to find out about that period of Queensryche history. I can't imagine other people interested in learning the history of Queensryche in that era being served well by the way the article is written. (It should also be noted: on the Tate Page, a section titled "Queensryche Featuring Goeff Tate" is misleading - no such band ever existed, like Jack Russell's Great White exists as a formal entity... the narrative on the Queensryche and Geoff Tate articles fails the legal case, which is quite fascinating when compared to LA Guns, Great White and perhaps only topped by Ratt, in so far as multiple aberrations of the band go: the Queensryche case is precisely interesting in that era for this reason and the article here could present that objectively: if a kid had walked into a brick and mortar record store in 2013, they would have found both versions of Queenrsyche stocked in the same place in 2013: the articles should both reflect that history accurately).--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Queensrÿche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Queensrÿche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

progressive metal?!

I think this band is no way near progressive metal, it is justa a glam band that evolved into heavy metal, but it was never and it will never be prog metal. You can't call a band prog metal just because they have concept albums --Dexter prog 18:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This band is a heavy metal band with some prog elements, that's all... --Λeternus 21:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Queensrÿche is progressive metal and will always be so. They are constantly mentioned along the likes of Rush and Dream Theater. While they have had some glam influences in the past (Rage For Order), their musical style maintains a prog metal center point. --acidedge76 10:27 1 May 2007

I agree that they're a proggresive band maybe not by todays standards where you have to wank you guitar like Dream Theatre to be called so. They will be called progressive though because they were one of the founders of the genre (along with Fates Warning etc.) 83.233.110.96 13:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

They were one of teh first Progressive Metal bands in existence..

What does "progressive" mean in an entertainment context anyway? They suck: is that what you're referring to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4F00:6C67:4427:B831:3576:F366 (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I began a discussion recently suggesting that bands should only have members subpages if they have had large numbers of line-up changes. I don't believe that having a members subpage for this band is necessary, as there are only four former members, a lot of the information there can already be found at the main article, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The touring members can simply be listed in the band members section, and there's then no arguing over where the timeline should belong. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 12:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@4TheWynne: 8 months have passed. Don't you think it's time to do the merger? Lewismaster (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Lewismaster, done – it took a while for people to respond, and the original discussion was closed not that long after I made this particular proposal (some six months ago), so I wasn't really in a hurry to do anything. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 02:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Timeline

I added extra info for Michael and Parker Brandon mr Anxiety (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Timeline

An anonymous user keeps reverting my edits on the timeline every time I try to simplify it to each band member's consistent instrument, so I figured it was only fair to open the door to discussion amongst registered users to see if the inclusion of all those extra details is really necessary. Shaneymike (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

This is NOT necessary! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.136.255.165 (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I will leave the parts about lead/rhythm guitar intact for now. Meanwhile, why don't you provide some proof showing those parts are accurate instead of insisting you just know?! Shaneymike (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead and rhythm guitar duties were always split equally until Parker joined in 2009; that is, Chris, Kelly, and Mike all split leads equally (50/50) with Whip until Parker joined. Parker just plays occasional leads and harmony parts with Whip.
Again...proof? Shaneymike (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead vs. rhythm guitar...

Somebody keeps editing the page and listing Chris DeGarmo as a "rhythm guitarist." Can we stop with that? Chris played lead just as much as Michael did when he was in the band, including playing lead on many of the band's biggest hits ("Eyes of a Stranger," "Jet City Woman," and "Silent Lucidity" all come to mind). You look at how it's split up on their first five albums, it becomes evident. Honestly, it seems a little foolish to split the guitarists into "lead" and "rhythm" in a band like this. --208.76.203.145 (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

re: rhythm/lead guitar and backing vocals

I was looking at the timeline and I really don't know whether it is necessary to separate the guitarists into lead and rhythm sections. As previously stated, Chris DeGarmo was way more than a rhythm guitarist; he played lead on at least half of their songs from when he was in the band, including their biggest hit, "Silent Lucidity," so he should be listed as more than simply a rhythm guitarist. However I also don't know whether the other guitarists--Kelly Gray, Mike Stone, Parker Lundgren--also played lead, or whether they were rhythm guitarists and Michael Wilton took over all the lead parts.

In regards to Michael Wilton's status as a backing vocalist, check Resistance, Walk in the Shadows, The Thin Line, Speak, and The Mission from Building Empires and Operation: Livecrime, all uploaded to the band's official page--you can see him singing on those songs. Also, on the articles for Rage for Order and The Warning, he is listed as providing backing vocals. Is this in keeping with the personnel credits on the respective albums? Either way, I will not make any further changes until a consensus is reached. ~[thehappyspaceman] • talk • stalk • block 02:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

2012 Queensryche Split

Hello y'all. I have some questions regarding some information I found about the 2012 Queensryche split which is quite interesting to the whole thing.

1. Brain J. Heaton (owner of QR site anybodylistening.net and the now-defunct QR forum The Breakdown Room, which did several interviews with QR members) stated the following in this March 2021 article about the split;

"All was well until I received a phone call from [Jason] Slater in December 2011. He told me that Geoff [Tate] was in negotiations to sell the movie rights for Operation: Mindcrime for a financial windfall right out from under the nose of his Queensryche bandmates. His plan, according to Slater, was to do that and do one big 25th anniversary tour of the original album in 2013 and walk away at the end of the tour, leaving his bandmates high and dry. I wasn't surprised, but you can imagine the awkward position I was in when Jason asked me not to say anything to [Michael] Wilton.

After I slept on it, knowing I was going to lose a friend (Slater), but trying to make sure the career of another friend (Wilton) was saved, I decided to tell Michael. He appreciated me letting him know and that he'd talk with [Scott] Rockenfield and [Eddie] Jackson. Everyone knows what happened after that and the split of Queensryche that followed. There were two Queensryches, an ugly lawsuit I was involved in as a witness, a settlement in 2014, and life went on.

What was the most difficult thing for me, however, was a phone call I got from Slater in late-April 2012 (a couple weeks after the well-publicized “Brazil Incident” when Tate attacked Wilton and Rockenfield for firing his wife as manager of the band). My family and I were on vacation in Southern California, and after some innocuous chit chat, Jason asked me: “Did you tell Wilton what I told you about Tate's plan for Mindcrime?” I admitted that I did, and you could tell on the other end of the phone how crushed he was. I'll never forget it. I explained to Jason that I was in a tough spot—had I not said anything, the Wiltons would have their livelihood destroyed. But if I did say something, which I did, I knew it would break our trust and destroy our friendship. Slater understood, but said he was disappointed. I knew I did the “right thing.” But it was little comfort, knowing I had lost a friend."

2. Furthermore, in the unauthorised Queensryche biography Building An Empire: The Story of Queensryche (published October 2021),[2] co-authored by Heaton, features the following interview (which the book lists as a new, unique interview, not a web source) with Frequency Unknown guitarist Craig Locicero (of Forbidden) (page 262);

"It wasn't approached to me about rhythm guitar and I didn't just play rhythm guitar by any stretch of imagination," Locicero said. "My name is on there as a rhythm guitarist, but I played basically everything on that record, minus the actual solo breaks." Expanding on his roe, Locicero explained that he played all the acoustic guitars, rhythm tracks, what he drescribe as the "thematic parts" on the album, harmonized sections, and any overdubs that were needed. He also played a significant, but uncredited role in songwriting, estimating that he re-wrote approximately 85 percent of the material."

Of course, though, I'm going to note the biases of both Heaton and Locicero in that they were both friends of Jason Slater, and later in the book Locicero makes a statement about how he believed Slater would not have produced such a poor mix if he was not rushed.

So lots of interesting statements here, but I am unsure if any of them hold due weight. Please offer your thoughts and opinions. Chchcheckit (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ rom Urban Dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tri-ryche
  2. ^ "QUEENSRŸCHE: Unauthorized Biography 'Building An Empire' Due In October". Blabbermouth.net. July 24, 2021. Retrieved 2023-02-12.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queensrÿche/Archive_1&oldid=1161335423"