Sebastian, how do you feel about The Beatles?
Afterall Ringo wasn't their first drummer. Pete Best drummed on the Love Me Do record.
Also, what about Pink Floyd? After Syd left they started to make horrible music?
After Peter Gabriel Phil Collins took the Lead Vocals in Genesis
After Axl left, came back, left came back, kicked out the band he still plays under the name of Guns 'n Roses, but with completely different members.
I never heard a Pink Floyd fan say 'hmm.. no it's not really Pink Floyd anymore, it's just David and that other guy' Or a Genesisfan say 'no, I don't think they should use the Genesis name anymore'
Why would a band stop using a name, which is a trademark, they used for over 30 years.
Should a Multinational Company change it name when one of the presidents dies or leaves?
Mozart CDs are sold, without anyone whining that it's not really Mozart playing
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Afterall Ringo wasn't their first drummer. Pete Best drummed on the Love Me Do record. [/QUOTE]
Minor correction -- session drummer Andy White drummed on their first single, 'Love Me Do' and 'P.S. I Love You'. Pete Best recorded a few songs with The Beatles at Abbey Road Studios, but they were only released on the first Anthology set in 1995.
Minor correction -- session drummer Andy White drummed on their first single, 'Love Me Do' and 'P.S. I Love You'. Pete Best recorded a few songs with The Beatles at Abbey Road Studios, but they were only released on the first Anthology set in 1995.
Fried Chicken, my Almighty one, I know that you asked your question to Sebastian about the Beatles and Floyd et al going on without a group member, but here's my thoughts as I've posted before about Queen without Freddie.
On other elite bands going froward without an original member:
"Of the elite bands, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Van Halen, Guns n Roses and The Rolling Stones and AC/DC were all relatively young men and basically hitting their musical primes when they brought in new members. They were musicians with careers and bills to pay and needed to make the changes to keep their careers going. For example, both Pink Floyd and Genesis were hardly superstar bands (creatively superb, sales wise, no way) when Syd Barrett and Peter Gabriel left the respective bands."
Why is Queen different than these bands?
"Freddie Mercury brought a lot of 'arguably' to the table. He wrote what was 'arguably' the greatest song of the 20th century, he wrote what is 'arguably' the greatest sports anthem of all time, he was 'arguably' the greatest singer of the rock era, he was 'arguably' the most diverse, and successfully diverse writer of the rock era, he was 'arguably' the greatest front man of all time, and he 'arguably' delivered the greatest performance from a rock star (a la Hendrix at Woodstock) of his generation at Live Aid. Remember also, Freddie named Queen. there is a connotation with the name Queen. Regal, majestic, pomp and circumstance. I don't see the same connotation with the names Genesis, The Beatles, or Pink Floyd. In THAT sense of bringing the style to Queen, Freddie was Queen."
Just my opinions, as I've said before, some people will accept it, others won't and it's not for any of us to choose. I believe that Freddie embodied what Queen was all about more than any other ex/dead member, and the only guy who I think brings close to the same is Slash as the danger side of Guns n Roses. Irreplaceable, and Axl can call it what he wants but it's turned into a joke.
On other elite bands going froward without an original member:
"Of the elite bands, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Van Halen, Guns n Roses and The Rolling Stones and AC/DC were all relatively young men and basically hitting their musical primes when they brought in new members. They were musicians with careers and bills to pay and needed to make the changes to keep their careers going. For example, both Pink Floyd and Genesis were hardly superstar bands (creatively superb, sales wise, no way) when Syd Barrett and Peter Gabriel left the respective bands."
Why is Queen different than these bands?
"Freddie Mercury brought a lot of 'arguably' to the table. He wrote what was 'arguably' the greatest song of the 20th century, he wrote what is 'arguably' the greatest sports anthem of all time, he was 'arguably' the greatest singer of the rock era, he was 'arguably' the most diverse, and successfully diverse writer of the rock era, he was 'arguably' the greatest front man of all time, and he 'arguably' delivered the greatest performance from a rock star (a la Hendrix at Woodstock) of his generation at Live Aid. Remember also, Freddie named Queen. there is a connotation with the name Queen. Regal, majestic, pomp and circumstance. I don't see the same connotation with the names Genesis, The Beatles, or Pink Floyd. In THAT sense of bringing the style to Queen, Freddie was Queen."
Just my opinions, as I've said before, some people will accept it, others won't and it's not for any of us to choose. I believe that Freddie embodied what Queen was all about more than any other ex/dead member, and the only guy who I think brings close to the same is Slash as the danger side of Guns n Roses. Irreplaceable, and Axl can call it what he wants but it's turned into a joke.
VERY WRONG THING: Those synth sounds that sound like a spaceship on 'Play The Game'.
It ruined the song for me. Makes me wish they never asked Mack to produce their albums.
It ruined the song for me. Makes me wish they never asked Mack to produce their albums.
the clearest sign as to whether or not someone is a tenor is how comfortable their voice is in their high range and their ability to sing with colour and feeling in this range, WITHOUT resorting to fasetto.
having good falsetto doesn't mean anything, because baritones can often sing falsetto a lot better than a tenor as tenors tend not to need falsetto.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/4/28/1025232/Michael%20Crawford%20Ab3.mp3
this is a shining example of a tenor's ability. no falsetto here. Neither brian or roger have done this controlled live or in studio.
which is why I, and many other people believe the contrary to you.
having good falsetto doesn't mean anything, because baritones can often sing falsetto a lot better than a tenor as tenors tend not to need falsetto.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/4/28/1025232/Michael%20Crawford%20Ab3.mp3
this is a shining example of a tenor's ability. no falsetto here. Neither brian or roger have done this controlled live or in studio.
which is why I, and many other people believe the contrary to you.
Niek, I do admit that the way I feel about the Queen name is controversial, because I do consider Dave + Nicky + Rick to be Pink Floyd, even though their two former songwriting leaders were absent. I do consider GnR to be a football team, changing line-up, and I speak about "my favourite Guns N' Roses" as opposed to "the only true Guns N' Roses".
There are some cases where that simply can't happen IMO. Yes, Ringo wasn't part of The Beatles, but for what? Some months, maybe one year or so ... but The Beatles as we know them, releasing records, doing concerts, were the four of them. George Harrison wrote 'All Those Years Ago' and had Paul and Ringo participating, but still it was a solo song that happened to have three (with Linda) very famous guests, instead of a "Beatles" tune.
Jimmy, Robert and Jonesy got together in Live Aid, but Phil Collins introduced them as "Jimmy Page, Robert Plant and John Paul Jones" (I'm not sure about the order, but that's irrelevant). When Elton John, Bob Dylan and Eric Clapton played 'While My Guitar' with Ringo and George (and I think Phil Collins was there too), it wasn't "Beatles + ..."; same for Page & Plant touring, George and Paul collaborating on Ringo's solo songs, etc.
Even when Brian and Freddie performed together at Live Aid (and they were the two main songwriters of the band, and the two more famous members) they were introduced as "Freddie Mercury and Brian May", not as "Queen".
So, it depends from one act to another (IMO). Queen expressed during all of their run (and I'm not counting the four or five gigs they played with Mike, Barry and Doug) that Queen were the four of them. Of course, songs like 'Rendezvous', 'Leaving Home' or 'Sheer Heart Attack' haven't got all four of them, but those aren't an entire tour or album.
> I never heard a Pink Floyd fan say 'hmm.. no it's not really Pink Floyd anymore, it's just David and that other guy'
Actually David Bowie said that for him Pink Floyd were Syd. Or something like that...
> Why would a band stop using a name, which is a trademark, they used for over 30 years.
Because they're (allegedly) opening a new chapter in their lives, and I'm glad of that. I can imagine Brian, Roger and Paul writing new music (which doesn't necessarily have to be on the same vein as Queen or Free or whatever), laying down astonishing harmonies (the three of them sing marvellously), doing some guitar trio (the three of them are great players), writing a new wonderful chapter in the history of music ... but the fact that they're pathetically using the "Queen" name ruins what otherwise would be an extraordinary event. IMO!
> Should a Multinational Company change it name when one of the presidents dies or leaves?
If it's announced that it'd end if anyone of its presidents left, yes. And I'm not talking here about the legal department, but about ethics.
> Mozart CDs are sold, without anyone whining that it's not really Mozart playing
Who's Mozart? ;)
> Freddie Mercury brought a lot of 'arguably' to the table. He wrote what was 'arguably' the greatest song of the 20th century, he wrote what is 'arguably' the greatest sports anthem of all time, he was 'arguably' the greatest singer of the rock era
My complaint isn't only about Freddie. It's about John Deacon too. Freddie + John WOULDN'T be Queen; Freddie + Roger WOULDN'T be Queen; Freddie + Brian (e.g. Live Aid, Eddie Howell's single) WOULDN'T be Queen; John + Roger WOULDN'T be Queen; John + Brian WOULDN'T be Queen. And of course, Brian + Roger AREN'T Queen. IMO!
> he was 'arguably' the most diverse, and successfully diverse writer of the rock era
I disagree. Diverse ... there were some others on the same level as he was, Brian May included. Successfully diverse ... McCartney, Lennon and the Bee Gees are some counterexamples.
> and he 'arguably' delivered the great
There are some cases where that simply can't happen IMO. Yes, Ringo wasn't part of The Beatles, but for what? Some months, maybe one year or so ... but The Beatles as we know them, releasing records, doing concerts, were the four of them. George Harrison wrote 'All Those Years Ago' and had Paul and Ringo participating, but still it was a solo song that happened to have three (with Linda) very famous guests, instead of a "Beatles" tune.
Jimmy, Robert and Jonesy got together in Live Aid, but Phil Collins introduced them as "Jimmy Page, Robert Plant and John Paul Jones" (I'm not sure about the order, but that's irrelevant). When Elton John, Bob Dylan and Eric Clapton played 'While My Guitar' with Ringo and George (and I think Phil Collins was there too), it wasn't "Beatles + ..."; same for Page & Plant touring, George and Paul collaborating on Ringo's solo songs, etc.
Even when Brian and Freddie performed together at Live Aid (and they were the two main songwriters of the band, and the two more famous members) they were introduced as "Freddie Mercury and Brian May", not as "Queen".
So, it depends from one act to another (IMO). Queen expressed during all of their run (and I'm not counting the four or five gigs they played with Mike, Barry and Doug) that Queen were the four of them. Of course, songs like 'Rendezvous', 'Leaving Home' or 'Sheer Heart Attack' haven't got all four of them, but those aren't an entire tour or album.
> I never heard a Pink Floyd fan say 'hmm.. no it's not really Pink Floyd anymore, it's just David and that other guy'
Actually David Bowie said that for him Pink Floyd were Syd. Or something like that...
> Why would a band stop using a name, which is a trademark, they used for over 30 years.
Because they're (allegedly) opening a new chapter in their lives, and I'm glad of that. I can imagine Brian, Roger and Paul writing new music (which doesn't necessarily have to be on the same vein as Queen or Free or whatever), laying down astonishing harmonies (the three of them sing marvellously), doing some guitar trio (the three of them are great players), writing a new wonderful chapter in the history of music ... but the fact that they're pathetically using the "Queen" name ruins what otherwise would be an extraordinary event. IMO!
> Should a Multinational Company change it name when one of the presidents dies or leaves?
If it's announced that it'd end if anyone of its presidents left, yes. And I'm not talking here about the legal department, but about ethics.
> Mozart CDs are sold, without anyone whining that it's not really Mozart playing
Who's Mozart? ;)
> Freddie Mercury brought a lot of 'arguably' to the table. He wrote what was 'arguably' the greatest song of the 20th century, he wrote what is 'arguably' the greatest sports anthem of all time, he was 'arguably' the greatest singer of the rock era
My complaint isn't only about Freddie. It's about John Deacon too. Freddie + John WOULDN'T be Queen; Freddie + Roger WOULDN'T be Queen; Freddie + Brian (e.g. Live Aid, Eddie Howell's single) WOULDN'T be Queen; John + Roger WOULDN'T be Queen; John + Brian WOULDN'T be Queen. And of course, Brian + Roger AREN'T Queen. IMO!
> he was 'arguably' the most diverse, and successfully diverse writer of the rock era
I disagree. Diverse ... there were some others on the same level as he was, Brian May included. Successfully diverse ... McCartney, Lennon and the Bee Gees are some counterexamples.
> and he 'arguably' delivered the great
"Who's Mozart? ;)`
The guy with the mood swings :P
The guy with the mood swings :P
Was he a midfielder or a striker?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Woah, what the?!? I thought you hadn't listened to any of that stuff!! :P[/QUOTE]
I hadn't until last week. Then I watched some videos in YouTube and loved them. 'I Want It All' sounds fantastic, so do 'Pressure', 'Teo' and 'Imagine', and 'Champions' is much better than when the true Queen did it.
So I'm even stronger in my point than I was before: Roger + Brian + Paul is an extraordinary combination, so they should really write a new chapter in music. And of course, new chapter means a new name instead of pathetically living off the past.[/QUOTE]
It's nice to see someone appreciate the new performances - someone with something valuable to say, any road!!
I guess the lines around what we consider to be 'reliving the past' are kinda blurry for some folk. I don't actually mind Q+PR doing what they did. For me, having Freddie on the big screen singing and playing piano was a bit... hmm.... I personally wouldn't do it. But the Love of My Life (with the empty stool waiting for Freddie) was a very nice touch.
If this new album (and new tour) comes along with all new music, I really do not see the need for Queen in the name. I won't shut my eyes and ears to the new stuff on the basis of what the name is, of course.... that'd be stupid. But it would lower my esteem for them a tiny bit. I think they're old enough and rich enough to try something new!!
I hadn't until last week. Then I watched some videos in YouTube and loved them. 'I Want It All' sounds fantastic, so do 'Pressure', 'Teo' and 'Imagine', and 'Champions' is much better than when the true Queen did it.
So I'm even stronger in my point than I was before: Roger + Brian + Paul is an extraordinary combination, so they should really write a new chapter in music. And of course, new chapter means a new name instead of pathetically living off the past.[/QUOTE]
It's nice to see someone appreciate the new performances - someone with something valuable to say, any road!!
I guess the lines around what we consider to be 'reliving the past' are kinda blurry for some folk. I don't actually mind Q+PR doing what they did. For me, having Freddie on the big screen singing and playing piano was a bit... hmm.... I personally wouldn't do it. But the Love of My Life (with the empty stool waiting for Freddie) was a very nice touch.
If this new album (and new tour) comes along with all new music, I really do not see the need for Queen in the name. I won't shut my eyes and ears to the new stuff on the basis of what the name is, of course.... that'd be stupid. But it would lower my esteem for them a tiny bit. I think they're old enough and rich enough to try something new!!
I agree wholeheartedly about John's exclusion making it "not Queen", but I came at it from the POV of the man-in-the-street who probably wouldn't know John Deacon from John Entwistle.
By 'successfully' diverse, I meant singles like WATC with a waltz pattern, obviously Bo Rhap, STL and CLTCL. Four enormously popular songs, all totally unlike one another.
By 'successfully' diverse, I meant singles like WATC with a waltz pattern, obviously Bo Rhap, STL and CLTCL. Four enormously popular songs, all totally unlike one another.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
> this is a shining example of a tenor's ability. no falsetto here. Neither brian or roger have done this controlled live or in studio.
Actually Freddie barely had that either.[/QUOTE]
Haha! i actually meant to write brian and freddie. wrote it in a rush... didnt have time to proof read!
I have heard Pink Floyd fans say that pink floyd stopped being floyd when Roger Waters left. but it think this is utter nonesense personally! David Gilmore is an awesome guitarist and musician with or without roger waters. his first self titled solo album in 78' proved this.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OhGMlARMoLM
awesome stuff!
Although roger is also really talented, i think david contributed enough to warrent him carrying on with PF without RW's input. The Devision Bell is one of my all time favourite albums.
HAHA! just found this! Incredible! two legends doin what they do best!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wFHL5b7dIpE
> this is a shining example of a tenor's ability. no falsetto here. Neither brian or roger have done this controlled live or in studio.
Actually Freddie barely had that either.[/QUOTE]
Haha! i actually meant to write brian and freddie. wrote it in a rush... didnt have time to proof read!
I have heard Pink Floyd fans say that pink floyd stopped being floyd when Roger Waters left. but it think this is utter nonesense personally! David Gilmore is an awesome guitarist and musician with or without roger waters. his first self titled solo album in 78' proved this.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OhGMlARMoLM
awesome stuff!
Although roger is also really talented, i think david contributed enough to warrent him carrying on with PF without RW's input. The Devision Bell is one of my all time favourite albums.
HAHA! just found this! Incredible! two legends doin what they do best!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wFHL5b7dIpE
I actually really like David Gilmour (was blown away by "On an Island") but I think the stuff without Roger Waters was less than what I wanted from Pink Floyd.
Gilmour thought Roger Waters was far too bleak in his lyrical output, but at the end of the day it was their ability to put forward bleak things and make it something uplifting that made them awesome!! (Re : the whole of Dark Side of the Moon...)
It didn't make the post-Waters Floyd shitty just because one guy left.... but I do felt they were less Pink Floyd-y. They were good, but not they used to be.
I mean... lyrically also, they needed Waters to trim some things. I really like the song "High Hopes", but there's parts where it could've used a lyricist like him to neaten some lines up.
Having said that, while I like "The Wall" and "Final Cut", they're too Waters-y for me; the balance was out of it by then. I'm far more fond of their output from 68-75. I like stuff from their whole career, through all the line-ups, but it's those 7 years that really make it special for me.
Gilmour thought Roger Waters was far too bleak in his lyrical output, but at the end of the day it was their ability to put forward bleak things and make it something uplifting that made them awesome!! (Re : the whole of Dark Side of the Moon...)
It didn't make the post-Waters Floyd shitty just because one guy left.... but I do felt they were less Pink Floyd-y. They were good, but not they used to be.
I mean... lyrically also, they needed Waters to trim some things. I really like the song "High Hopes", but there's parts where it could've used a lyricist like him to neaten some lines up.
Having said that, while I like "The Wall" and "Final Cut", they're too Waters-y for me; the balance was out of it by then. I'm far more fond of their output from 68-75. I like stuff from their whole career, through all the line-ups, but it's those 7 years that really make it special for me.