Hello what do you think of paul rodgers.
i think its a good singer and he has got a nice voice.
what he is doeing with queen right now is just astonishing i mean..they are in the studio working on an new album that is pretty cool.
if they are gonna tour next year i am gonna be there and gonna film every song for a bout 1 minute and the entrance and im gonna put it on vcd an put it on youtube and share it on qz
Thread
Posts in chronological order
That man is simply said an excellent singer
I think he's an extraordinary singer and a brilliant musician. Thus, they should choose another name because it's a different band.
That is true,but they have one excuse:they perform with 2 queen members:P.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]innuendo1990 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
if they are gonna tour next year i am gonna be there and gonna film every song for a bout 1 minute and the entrance and im gonna put it on vcd an put it on youtube and share it on qz[/QUOTE]
Good for you.
if they are gonna tour next year i am gonna be there and gonna film every song for a bout 1 minute and the entrance and im gonna put it on vcd an put it on youtube and share it on qz[/QUOTE]
Good for you.
i don't think he is an EXTRAORDINARY singer, i think that was Freddie. i don't know, he is ok but i really do find it hard to listen to the cd return of the champions just simply because it is a poor imitation to Freddie. i know he doesn't try to imitate Freddie but comparisons are inevitable as he is singing Queen songs. I don't like listening to the Queen + PR album but i do regret not going to see them live in 2005 when i had the chance. i wish i had seen Brian and Roger play live. i like the versions of Paul's songs on the album much more than the Queen songs. all right now and feels like makin love are great. to sum up i like him but don't like him singing Queen.
Sebastian, did you see this on Brian's Saopbox, and if so, what do you think?
Here is a message .... unprompted, from my friend Garik Israelian, the eminent astronomer. He is, strangely enough, an expert on Queen's music over the years (which is probably why we met), and also an expert on Genesis - a lifelong appreciator of their music.
He was asked by E-mail, why we should call ourselves "Queen", these days ... and it made him angry!!! This is what he says ...
"I never usually respond to these questions - but yesterday my cup of patience was full because somebody wrote me rather stupid e-mail and I collected all my energy to write a reply.
In order to answer the question, I made a comparison with Genesis.
When Phil left Genesis in 1996, Tony and Mike hired a new singer (Ray Wilson) and they came up with a new album called Calling All Stations, which was produced in 1997)!!!
I was scared to hear this album - I did not know what I would find...and it was called GENESIS (without Phil or Peter). But I trusted Tony and Mike ... I knew that they would NOT abandon their style, technique... And I was 100 % right !!! When I heard this album I said "To Hell with all those stupid critics !! This is 100% Genesis !!! Even without Phil... it was Genesis and nothing else. The new singer was of course not Phil or Peter, but the songs were written for him, for his voice !!!
So... Tony and Mike together were "Genesis" because they kept the spirit of the band !! Phil did NOT complain (neither did Peter). And who can say a WORD ?? These people are very intelligent, very strong and real musicians... The same is true with Queen...
I think this is an excellent comparison !
I can bring up a similar example with Deeep Purple. In 1973 Gillan and Blackmore left the band, and in 1974 Purple came up with "Stormbringer" - a groundbreaking album - with David Coverdale. Stormbringer is one of the best Purple albums yet, made without their most famous members . Why ? Because, apparently, the spirit of the band was in John Lord and Roger Glover (and probably Ian Pace).
I think people should distinguish rock bands from political parties. A Rock Band has a spirit - a style, a certain kind of lyrics, a strategy of live concerts, a unique musical taste and colour, a specific SOUND etc. The singer is NOT the most important member in the band (want examples ? Fleetwood Mac, Genesis, Yes...). I recall an interview with Phil Collins saying that he always thought that drummer is the most important member in the band ! And who can say "NO" ??? Certain musicans are scared to collaborate, to make experiments etc. Just like some scientists ! Some are not.
I think a creative person will not stick to one line for many years... He/she MUST try different paths, open different doors. A 'closed' musican is musically 'dead'. I pay my deep respects to people like Peter Gabriel, Sting, Brian Eno, Tony Banks, Rick Wakeman ... musicians who are not scared of new ideas, challenges, tests ... and I hope Brian and Roger will keep collaborating with PR and other musicans in the future. Something new, fresh and healthy will come out from those projects !! Or you dont know who they are !!"
cheers !
Garik
Then Brian satated "It's interesting that, even prior to all this, Genesis had lost their original fabulous lead singer, Peter Gabriel, who had seemingly led the band in the early days (though this is probably a misconception, because most bands of lasting musical potency are democratic within their own creative world, from the start). In the early days of Prog Rock, who would have thought that Genesis could be Genesis without Peter? And yet, with Phil Collins quietly gliding into the spotlight as singer, Genesis achieved most of their historical worldwide success in the years following this split. I guess .... one rests one's case!"
Here is a message .... unprompted, from my friend Garik Israelian, the eminent astronomer. He is, strangely enough, an expert on Queen's music over the years (which is probably why we met), and also an expert on Genesis - a lifelong appreciator of their music.
He was asked by E-mail, why we should call ourselves "Queen", these days ... and it made him angry!!! This is what he says ...
"I never usually respond to these questions - but yesterday my cup of patience was full because somebody wrote me rather stupid e-mail and I collected all my energy to write a reply.
In order to answer the question, I made a comparison with Genesis.
When Phil left Genesis in 1996, Tony and Mike hired a new singer (Ray Wilson) and they came up with a new album called Calling All Stations, which was produced in 1997)!!!
I was scared to hear this album - I did not know what I would find...and it was called GENESIS (without Phil or Peter). But I trusted Tony and Mike ... I knew that they would NOT abandon their style, technique... And I was 100 % right !!! When I heard this album I said "To Hell with all those stupid critics !! This is 100% Genesis !!! Even without Phil... it was Genesis and nothing else. The new singer was of course not Phil or Peter, but the songs were written for him, for his voice !!!
So... Tony and Mike together were "Genesis" because they kept the spirit of the band !! Phil did NOT complain (neither did Peter). And who can say a WORD ?? These people are very intelligent, very strong and real musicians... The same is true with Queen...
I think this is an excellent comparison !
I can bring up a similar example with Deeep Purple. In 1973 Gillan and Blackmore left the band, and in 1974 Purple came up with "Stormbringer" - a groundbreaking album - with David Coverdale. Stormbringer is one of the best Purple albums yet, made without their most famous members . Why ? Because, apparently, the spirit of the band was in John Lord and Roger Glover (and probably Ian Pace).
I think people should distinguish rock bands from political parties. A Rock Band has a spirit - a style, a certain kind of lyrics, a strategy of live concerts, a unique musical taste and colour, a specific SOUND etc. The singer is NOT the most important member in the band (want examples ? Fleetwood Mac, Genesis, Yes...). I recall an interview with Phil Collins saying that he always thought that drummer is the most important member in the band ! And who can say "NO" ??? Certain musicans are scared to collaborate, to make experiments etc. Just like some scientists ! Some are not.
I think a creative person will not stick to one line for many years... He/she MUST try different paths, open different doors. A 'closed' musican is musically 'dead'. I pay my deep respects to people like Peter Gabriel, Sting, Brian Eno, Tony Banks, Rick Wakeman ... musicians who are not scared of new ideas, challenges, tests ... and I hope Brian and Roger will keep collaborating with PR and other musicans in the future. Something new, fresh and healthy will come out from those projects !! Or you dont know who they are !!"
cheers !
Garik
Then Brian satated "It's interesting that, even prior to all this, Genesis had lost their original fabulous lead singer, Peter Gabriel, who had seemingly led the band in the early days (though this is probably a misconception, because most bands of lasting musical potency are democratic within their own creative world, from the start). In the early days of Prog Rock, who would have thought that Genesis could be Genesis without Peter? And yet, with Phil Collins quietly gliding into the spotlight as singer, Genesis achieved most of their historical worldwide success in the years following this split. I guess .... one rests one's case!"
Ive just listened to bohemian rhapsody live at sheffield on youtube.
Fucking hell that last bit....NOTHING REALY MATTERS TO ME:fucking hell what a gr8 voice
Fucking hell that last bit....NOTHING REALY MATTERS TO ME:fucking hell what a gr8 voice
Boy Thomas Raker, yes I did read it, but I keep my opinion: some bands work like football teams, others don't. And IMO, Led Zeppelin, Queen and The Beatles are some of these.
Fred + Roger wouldn't be Queen
Fred + Brian wouldn't be Queen (e.g. at Live Aid)
Fred + John wouldn't be Queen
John + Roger wouldn't be Queen
John + Brian wouldn't be Queen
...and of course...
Brian + Roger aren't Queen
Having said that, I do think Paul is astonishing and I love the sound of the three of them (plus Spike, plus Jamie, plus Danny) live, and I'm sure whatever they're doing in the studio must be marvellous. After all, the three of them are brilliant musicians and extraordinary performers.
Fred + Roger wouldn't be Queen
Fred + Brian wouldn't be Queen (e.g. at Live Aid)
Fred + John wouldn't be Queen
John + Roger wouldn't be Queen
John + Brian wouldn't be Queen
...and of course...
Brian + Roger aren't Queen
Having said that, I do think Paul is astonishing and I love the sound of the three of them (plus Spike, plus Jamie, plus Danny) live, and I'm sure whatever they're doing in the studio must be marvellous. After all, the three of them are brilliant musicians and extraordinary performers.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]gem27 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]i don't think he is an EXTRAORDINARY singer, i think that was Freddie. i don't know, he is ok but i really do find it hard to listen to the cd return of the champions just simply because it is a poor imitation to Freddie. i know he doesn't try to imitate Freddie but comparisons are inevitable as he is singing Queen songs. I don't like listening to the Queen + PR album but i do regret not going to see them live in 2005 when i had the chance. i wish i had seen Brian and Roger play live. i like the versions of Paul's songs on the album much more than the Queen songs. all right now and feels like makin love are great. to sum up i like him but don't like him singing Queen. [/QUOTE]
Totally agree.
Totally agree.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]innuendo1990 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Ive just listened to bohemian rhapsody live at sheffield on youtube.
Fucking hell that last bit....NOTHING REALY MATTERS TO ME:fucking hell what a gr8 voice[/QUOTE]
Agreed! That was my favourite moment of the show when I saw them.
Fucking hell that last bit....NOTHING REALY MATTERS TO ME:fucking hell what a gr8 voice[/QUOTE]
Agreed! That was my favourite moment of the show when I saw them.
Lets just say I'm excited to get as many London tickets as possible when they tour! :D
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I think he's an extraordinary singer and a brilliant musician. Thus, they should choose another name because it's a different band.[/QUOTE]I agree. Queen died along with Freddie.
They probably won't pick a new name because of the recognition factor. Plus it just makes a complete farce of thier past. Paul Rodgers is overrated in my opinion as a singer. I think Roger or Brian are better singers than him.
They probably won't pick a new name because of the recognition factor. Plus it just makes a complete farce of thier past. Paul Rodgers is overrated in my opinion as a singer. I think Roger or Brian are better singers than him.
One of the best live singers the planet has ever seen. And it's the best thing that could've happened to Queen after Freddie died.
I couldn't think of another singer who could perform the Queen material in a way that does justice to the songs.
They found pure gold, and I hope they realise it.
I couldn't think of another singer who could perform the Queen material in a way that does justice to the songs.
They found pure gold, and I hope they realise it.
I was surpised when I heard he was gonna be doing the singing for Queen, initially anyway. When I first heard about this, my first thought was how this was gonna work - he's more of a blues/soul singer, whereas Queen are (thanks mainly to Brian) are a rock band. I dont think that his voice suits every song that they did live and by that I mean songs like "Break Free". Somehow for me it just doesnt quite work, but hey, he enjoyed doing it and no doubt other people enjoyed him doing it as well. But for every "Break Free" there is, for me at least, a "Champions" and the way that Paul put more of a bluesy feel to it. I loved what he did there on that song.