Personally i think he is a fantastic singer, and he deserves alot more recognition than he is getting. However, i am surprised at the responses here, maybe people are growing up.
anyway, i still think brian and roger could have sung themselves, and i always thought that, but i also love them working wiht Rodgers. but i do think they could have held it themselves.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Brilliant. A Legend.
The man is a living legend and if it wasn't for him there would of been no tour in 2005/06 and no new album in 08
Wow, no offense, but I haven't seen so much positive feedback on Paul Rodgers on this forum before...!!! :)
Maybe I shouldn't speak too soon.... :P
Maybe I shouldn't speak too soon.... :P
I'm not certain I know just where I weigh in on the Queen vs Paul Rodgers with Queen thing, but, I will say that, before he joined Queen, I loved Mr Rodgers, and, he was one of my favorite singers. Now, I find myself feeling some resentment toward him, which, of course, is highly irrational.
That being said, I think the comparisons drawn below, by Mr Israelian, are somewhat weak, and, do not really relate to Queen.[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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 misconcepti
That being said, I think the comparisons drawn below, by Mr Israelian, are somewhat weak, and, do not really relate to Queen.[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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 misconcepti
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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.[/QUOTE]
Completely agree.
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.[/QUOTE]
Completely agree.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]louvox wrote: Paul Rodgers is overrated in my opinion as a singer. I think Roger or Brian are better singers than him.[/QUOTE]
Umm, no they're not. They're good, but not that good.
Umm, no they're not. They're good, but not that good.
I like Rodgers, he's perfect for Free and Bad Company, but a terrible fit as a frontman for Queen.
The Genesis comparison is interesting, let's see if Queen go onto even greater success with Rodgers than they enjoyed with Freddie like Genesis did with Collins........and who replaced Gabriel?? Oh, their drummer.....wake up Brian!
Brian was the guy who used to believe that Queen without Freddie couldn't exist and this about face does nothing to help their credibility.
Freddie was unique in so many ways and so influential within Queen that the comparisons to other lead singers aren't worthy. As the cult of Freddie continues to spread throughout the mass media, as people realise how much he IS missed, a new album by "Queen" without him looks set to receive a hostile reception.
The Genesis comparison is interesting, let's see if Queen go onto even greater success with Rodgers than they enjoyed with Freddie like Genesis did with Collins........and who replaced Gabriel?? Oh, their drummer.....wake up Brian!
Brian was the guy who used to believe that Queen without Freddie couldn't exist and this about face does nothing to help their credibility.
Freddie was unique in so many ways and so influential within Queen that the comparisons to other lead singers aren't worthy. As the cult of Freddie continues to spread throughout the mass media, as people realise how much he IS missed, a new album by "Queen" without him looks set to receive a hostile reception.
weird, i thought i was back in 2004 for a second...honestly, the man is a ridiculously talented musician. he's also one of the nicest people i have ever met, having done so twice. he exudes an energy and passion that are unseen today, which is why i love him as the frontman for Queen. i don't even know how many people i have had the whole "they shouldn't call themselves Queen" argument with, but the fact that he goes out there with no pretense and does what he loves with the utmost respect for these songs is enough for me. he's an amazing singer and person.
Also, how long were each of these bands together, before losing their band members? And, how much global popularity had each of them enjoyed, before the change?
And, there is also the manner in which the member left the band.
I am not seeing, in any of the examples layed out for us, a band that had been together for as many years as Queen, nor, enjoyed the kind of popularity Queen enjoyed, with a band member so widely known, and, so considered a central part of Queen, who died in such a tragic way...
Parallels drawn do not seeem, really, as parallel as Mr Garik intended.
I do think that Mr Rodgers is wonderful singer, and, perhaps a great fit with Brian and Roger, for NEW MATERIAL, just not under the name Queen.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kenny8 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I like Rodgers, he's perfect for Free and Bad Company, but a terrible fit as a frontman for Queen.
The Genesis comparison is interesting, let's see if Queen go onto even greater success with Rodgers than they enjoyed with Freddie like Genesis did with Collins........and who replaced Gabriel?? Oh, their drummer.....wake up Brian!
Brian was the guy who used to believe that Queen without Freddie couldn't exist and this about face does nothing to help their credibility.
Freddie was unique in so many ways and so influential within Queen that the comparisons to other lead singers aren't worthy. As the cult of Freddie continues to spread throughout the mass media, as people realise how much he IS missed, a new album by "Queen" without him looks set to receive a hostile reception.[/QUOTE]
And, there is also the manner in which the member left the band.
I am not seeing, in any of the examples layed out for us, a band that had been together for as many years as Queen, nor, enjoyed the kind of popularity Queen enjoyed, with a band member so widely known, and, so considered a central part of Queen, who died in such a tragic way...
Parallels drawn do not seeem, really, as parallel as Mr Garik intended.
I do think that Mr Rodgers is wonderful singer, and, perhaps a great fit with Brian and Roger, for NEW MATERIAL, just not under the name Queen.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kenny8 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I like Rodgers, he's perfect for Free and Bad Company, but a terrible fit as a frontman for Queen.
The Genesis comparison is interesting, let's see if Queen go onto even greater success with Rodgers than they enjoyed with Freddie like Genesis did with Collins........and who replaced Gabriel?? Oh, their drummer.....wake up Brian!
Brian was the guy who used to believe that Queen without Freddie couldn't exist and this about face does nothing to help their credibility.
Freddie was unique in so many ways and so influential within Queen that the comparisons to other lead singers aren't worthy. As the cult of Freddie continues to spread throughout the mass media, as people realise how much he IS missed, a new album by "Queen" without him looks set to receive a hostile reception.[/QUOTE]
I prefer to think about girls than about old men.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]freddielives wrote: [/QUOTENAME]weird, i thought i was back in 2004 for a second...honestly, the man is a ridiculously talented musician. he's also one of the nicest people i have ever met, having done so twice. he exudes an energy and passion that are unseen today, which is why i love him as the frontman for Queen[/QUOTE]
Sure, he's a great bloke, nobody is suggesting otherwise. He's just not unique to Queen and entwined and identifiable as the front man Freddie was. Freddie Mercury is unreplaceable.
In fact, how many bands does Rodgers front? This is not Queen, but rather a couple of guys from Queen with the guy from Bad Company. Completely different scenario than the Genesis type comparisons.
Sure, he's a great bloke, nobody is suggesting otherwise. He's just not unique to Queen and entwined and identifiable as the front man Freddie was. Freddie Mercury is unreplaceable.
In fact, how many bands does Rodgers front? This is not Queen, but rather a couple of guys from Queen with the guy from Bad Company. Completely different scenario than the Genesis type comparisons.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Dusta wrote: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).[/QUOTE]
If the spirit of Queen lay in Taylor & May they wouldn't have achieved the success they did. They themselves used to admit that. I have the utmost respect for those guys, but you'd have to be naive to believe they could've replaced Fred whilst he was alive and come up with a groundbreaking album without him. Especially if Freddie was elsewhere doing his own thing.
Freddie's influence on Queen is undeniable. He's what, more than the other sum of the parts as great as they were, made the band unique from every angle.
Rodger's recent statement about wanting to record a song about meditation displays his total lack of understanding about what Queen were. The recent nostalgia tour also displayed Rodger's lack of a sense of humour, showmanship and theatrics as a front man.
If the spirit of Queen lay in Taylor & May they wouldn't have achieved the success they did. They themselves used to admit that. I have the utmost respect for those guys, but you'd have to be naive to believe they could've replaced Fred whilst he was alive and come up with a groundbreaking album without him. Especially if Freddie was elsewhere doing his own thing.
Freddie's influence on Queen is undeniable. He's what, more than the other sum of the parts as great as they were, made the band unique from every angle.
Rodger's recent statement about wanting to record a song about meditation displays his total lack of understanding about what Queen were. The recent nostalgia tour also displayed Rodger's lack of a sense of humour, showmanship and theatrics as a front man.
Firstly, they can call themselves what they like becasue they ahve earned that right. the meanderings of a bunch of noboides on an internet forum is hardly likely to change their minds. 'Queen + Paul Rodgers' is much better covering Rodgers' old hits than it is covering Queen's. Having said that, I was pleasantly surprised at how good the 'Return of the Champions' DVD was. The spectacle is still there, as is the performance, but it doesn't always feel like a 'Queen' performance. As for Rodgers' voice, he is more of a growler these days compared to his youth. Not particularly fond of it, but that's just a personal opinion. Klaus Meine would've been my choice -- hits the high notes better and is a better showman -- but I guess 'Queen + Klaus Meine' doesn't have quite the same ring as the Queen/Rodgers thing. I think May/Taylor wanted someone 'big', with his own respected back catalogue so they could easily defend what they were doing.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kenny8 wrote: [/QUOTENAME] As the cult of Freddie continues to spread throughout the mass media, as people realise how much he IS missed, a new album by "Queen" without him looks set to receive a hostile reception.[/QUOTE]
Sure, this new album will be an easy target for critics. No matter how good (or bad) the album is going to be, people will compare it to old Queen albums... And only because Bri & Rog want to use the name Queen. Personally, I don't care what they call themselves, it's the music that counts. But I think many people (general rock audience) will be having difficulties trying to figure out what this supergroup has to do with Queen. There's no Freddie..
I think QPR is a new band and all this talk about the "spirit of the band" -especially coming from a mouth of a trained natural scientist- is just sad. I really can't tell who it is Brian is trying to convince here..
Anyway, Paul is simply magnificient. Great voice, and a good frontman for the band.
Sure, this new album will be an easy target for critics. No matter how good (or bad) the album is going to be, people will compare it to old Queen albums... And only because Bri & Rog want to use the name Queen. Personally, I don't care what they call themselves, it's the music that counts. But I think many people (general rock audience) will be having difficulties trying to figure out what this supergroup has to do with Queen. There's no Freddie..
I think QPR is a new band and all this talk about the "spirit of the band" -especially coming from a mouth of a trained natural scientist- is just sad. I really can't tell who it is Brian is trying to convince here..
Anyway, Paul is simply magnificient. Great voice, and a good frontman for the band.