[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]August R. wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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.. [/QUOTE]
Yes, and that's what I'm worried about. That and what the general public think of the idea of still calling themselves Queen. We're all fans here. Someone on here can probably reel off Roger's shoe size and the brand of perm lotion Brian uses......but the fact remains that as far as the general public are concerned, when they hear the name Queen they think of Freddie.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I think it's a little strange and somewhat sad that Brian is now using quotes from 'eminent astronomers' (since when were they the leading expert on all things musical?)to justify and promote the current line-up.
He's obviously annoyed that the Q+PR combo hasn't brought quite the support and overall approval he was hoping for. It also seems to me that the more people compare Q+PR to original Queen, the more subtly resentful Brian gets towards Freddie and that is disappointing.
As for Paul, like others have said, he has a powerful voice suited well to his area of music. He does seem to rely on throwing out big notes at top volume to cover up his general lack of natural charisma and presence. I can't quite explain it but when I saw Q+PR, Rodgers was professional, hard-working yet somehow underwhelming. Maybe that's what Brian and Roger wanted, someone to front the band but not to steal the limelight away from the music.
He's obviously annoyed that the Q+PR combo hasn't brought quite the support and overall approval he was hoping for. It also seems to me that the more people compare Q+PR to original Queen, the more subtly resentful Brian gets towards Freddie and that is disappointing.
As for Paul, like others have said, he has a powerful voice suited well to his area of music. He does seem to rely on throwing out big notes at top volume to cover up his general lack of natural charisma and presence. I can't quite explain it but when I saw Q+PR, Rodgers was professional, hard-working yet somehow underwhelming. Maybe that's what Brian and Roger wanted, someone to front the band but not to steal the limelight away from the music.
IS there any information about a new tour in 08?
And the album?
And the album?
This thread's GREATEST HITS:
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]innuendo1990 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
i think its a good singer[/QUOTE]
Yes, it is.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]louvox wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Paul Rodgers is overrated in my opinion as a singer. I think Roger or Brian are better singers than him.[/QUOTE]
So does everybody. We're just trying to make Freddie and Paul not feel so useless. By the way, I think John is UNDERrated while we're at it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Dusta wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I loved Mr Rodgers[/QUOTE]
Me too, especially when the little red trolley would come out
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kenny8 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]As the cult of Freddie continues to spread throughout the mass media[/QUOTE]
Like a fungus that won't die.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kenny8 also wrote: [/QUOTENAME] The recent nostalgia tour also displayed Rodger's lack of a sense of humour[/QUOTE]
Yes, Wierd Al would be a much better choice for a frontman. Or maybe Sam Kinison. Oh, whoops.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]innuendo1990 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
i think its a good singer[/QUOTE]
Yes, it is.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]louvox wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Paul Rodgers is overrated in my opinion as a singer. I think Roger or Brian are better singers than him.[/QUOTE]
So does everybody. We're just trying to make Freddie and Paul not feel so useless. By the way, I think John is UNDERrated while we're at it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Dusta wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I loved Mr Rodgers[/QUOTE]
Me too, especially when the little red trolley would come out
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kenny8 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]As the cult of Freddie continues to spread throughout the mass media[/QUOTE]
Like a fungus that won't die.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kenny8 also wrote: [/QUOTENAME] The recent nostalgia tour also displayed Rodger's lack of a sense of humour[/QUOTE]
Yes, Wierd Al would be a much better choice for a frontman. Or maybe Sam Kinison. Oh, whoops.
Ha!
Damn...I loved that little trolley, too. And, the King and Queen that appeared at the other end of the tunnel the Trolley went through!
Okay...I admit I felt odd calling Paul Rodgers, "Paul," since I don't know him...sometimes, it seems a bit surreal to me, to be speaking of Brian, and, Freddie, and, Roger and John, as if I have been properly introduced, and, run into them, regularly, at church...
and, well, I am old enough to have, just for a moment, forgotten the Mr Rogers with the sneakers and sweaters.[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]This thread's GREATEST HITS:
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Dusta wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I loved Mr Rodgers[/QUOTE]
Me too, especially when the little red trolley would come out
[/QUOTE]
Damn...I loved that little trolley, too. And, the King and Queen that appeared at the other end of the tunnel the Trolley went through!
Okay...I admit I felt odd calling Paul Rodgers, "Paul," since I don't know him...sometimes, it seems a bit surreal to me, to be speaking of Brian, and, Freddie, and, Roger and John, as if I have been properly introduced, and, run into them, regularly, at church...
and, well, I am old enough to have, just for a moment, forgotten the Mr Rogers with the sneakers and sweaters.[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]This thread's GREATEST HITS:
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Dusta wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I loved Mr Rodgers[/QUOTE]
Me too, especially when the little red trolley would come out
[/QUOTE]
I love Paul, I first saw him in Manchester in about 1993, not too sure of the year, but on his Muddy Water Blues tour. Me & my mate were by far the youngest people there, but the gig was fantastic. I saw him with Brian at the Gibson do at Wembley a couple of parts of which were fab, Brian bit mainly I suppose. I was also at the UK hall of fame do, where I thought he did ok singing Queen songs. At Brixton he just seemed amazed us singing all the words (many of which he struggled with!). When the Q+PR tour got back to the UK he was in his stride, but I just prefer him doing more bluesy stuff and I find his performance a little to sort of cheesey for queen's theatrics.
I think the new album will undoubtedly be interesting, I just wish Brian & Roger would use more people as vocalist if thats what they want to do. After seeing many dates of Brian solo, Roger solo and The Cross (the best they really did was Brian playing with the cross), I would rather see a Queen tour with only Brian & Roger singing.
But at least we didn't have a tour with Robbie, forget about how good or bad he might have been, he was just too popular! We would have struggled to get tickets and the screaming teenagers wouldn't be singing the queen songs.
I think the new album will undoubtedly be interesting, I just wish Brian & Roger would use more people as vocalist if thats what they want to do. After seeing many dates of Brian solo, Roger solo and The Cross (the best they really did was Brian playing with the cross), I would rather see a Queen tour with only Brian & Roger singing.
But at least we didn't have a tour with Robbie, forget about how good or bad he might have been, he was just too popular! We would have struggled to get tickets and the screaming teenagers wouldn't be singing the queen songs.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]This thread's GREATEST HITS:
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kenny8 also wrote: [/QUOTENAME] The recent nostalgia tour also displayed Rodger's lack of a sense of humour[/QUOTE]
Yes, Wierd Al would be a much better choice for a frontman. Or maybe Sam Kinison. Oh, whoops.[/QUOTE]
Freddie had one of the best senses of humour in rock....nobody was suggestin a comedian for the job, only someone who fails to understand Queen would do that
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kenny8 also wrote: [/QUOTENAME] The recent nostalgia tour also displayed Rodger's lack of a sense of humour[/QUOTE]
Yes, Wierd Al would be a much better choice for a frontman. Or maybe Sam Kinison. Oh, whoops.[/QUOTE]
Freddie had one of the best senses of humour in rock....nobody was suggestin a comedian for the job, only someone who fails to understand Queen would do that
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME] bill_lbk wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
But at least we didn't have a tour with Robbie, forget about how good or bad he might have been, he was just too popular! We would have struggled to get tickets and the screaming teenagers wouldn't be singing the queen songs.[/QUOTE]
You mean they would have a contempory relevance and an audience of screaming teenagers.....just like the old days?? God forbid
Can you imagine it? Sorry Freddie you've built a rabid fan base and Wembley is going to be full of screaming young people. You'll have to go. We're replacing you with some old fart
But at least we didn't have a tour with Robbie, forget about how good or bad he might have been, he was just too popular! We would have struggled to get tickets and the screaming teenagers wouldn't be singing the queen songs.[/QUOTE]
You mean they would have a contempory relevance and an audience of screaming teenagers.....just like the old days?? God forbid
Can you imagine it? Sorry Freddie you've built a rabid fan base and Wembley is going to be full of screaming young people. You'll have to go. We're replacing you with some old fart
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]saltnvinegar wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It also seems to me that the more people compare Q+PR to original Queen, the more subtly resentful Brian gets towards Freddie and that is disappointing.[/QUOTE]
That's one of the most insightful things I've read here.
As great a muso as Brian is, it must be hard living in someone's shadow.
That's one of the most insightful things I've read here.
As great a muso as Brian is, it must be hard living in someone's shadow.
I sent this to Brian's e-mail, and was truly hoping that he'd respond to it on his Soapbox. Given that a week has gone by and the Letters section has been updated a few times, I'm sensing that a response may not be forthcoming, so I'll post it here. For the record, I think Brian is a fabulous musician and a wonderful human being, and I totally respect him and his position on the band name, and hope that my points were valid and well thought out. So, with only pleasntries edited out for brevity's sake...
"Re: Garik's thoughts on a band's name, and its importance. As I'm sure you're aware, "who" Queen are, is a major point of contention amongst the fans. I'm a 30+ year follower of the band, and without malice, I'd like you to see the other side of the coin, and maybe sum up what the "it's not Queen without Freddie" camp thinks.
I don't sense that the fan's who have a dissenting opinion has anything to do with Paul Rodgers or the fact that he is the lead singer. Unless they're narrow minded, very few people who disapprove of the Queen name being used want you and Roger to stop making music. It has to do with the fact that Queen is not Genesis, Deep Purple, or any other band that has made a line-up change (and virtually all of the bands listed when people use the "new singer" argument were early in their careers and had no choice but to go on. Neither Genesis nor AC/DC had any sales success to speak of, so that can't be compared to a group who was 20 years into their career and financially and creatively established.) For Queen fans, and many historians, in the pantheon of rock music, Queen's musical legacy exceeds all but the Beatles, and as your friend Patti Lupone said, Queen were "a genre unto themselves." That's why people are uneasy with you going on with the name. Queen music was four unique musicans who created an absolutely unique style, Freddie was a huge part of that, and obviously people are passionate about this.
In 1986, you did an interview with Guitar for the Practicing Musician for a segment called "In the Listening Room." The first track you critiqued was "Let's turn it on" from Freddie's Mr. Bad Guy album. You used the word "hurt" to describe how Freddie used Paul Vincent to basically play a Brian May harmony part, and commented that while Paul was a great player in his own right, if Freddie wanted your sound he should have used you for the album. Well, if you were no longer in Queen, and Paul Vincent stepped in, that wouldn't be Queen for many peole despite the fact that he successfully replicated your tone and style. They could use the name, but to many people, without Brian May (or Roger, John or Freddie), it wouldn't be Queen. Same thing if you had left the band at any time, and guitar gods like EVH, The Edge or Eric Clapton became the new Queen guitarist. Great players all, but not in the spirit of Queen. Eddie doing his "Eruption" solo in the middle of Brighton Rock may have been cool, it just wouldn't have been Queen, because your (and Roger, John and Freddie's) imprint on the Queen sound is why we love Queen. You've often commented on Freddie's unusual key choices, and his style of piano playing. That won't be replicated by Paul (and no one wants it to be), and again with all due respect, to many fans, Freddie's different chord choices and "oddball" songs like Black Queen, Mustapha and Leroy Brown were a big part of Queen's spirit, and what helped set your music apart. So it's not a Paul/Freddie, lead singer/face of the band thing, it's the fact that all of the original members are beloved and respected, and while new music can and hopefully will be made, for some folks it will be Queen, and others it won't be without any original member not involved.
I apologize for the length of this, and as e-mail makes it hard to decipher a person's tone, I'm not an angry, cra
"Re: Garik's thoughts on a band's name, and its importance. As I'm sure you're aware, "who" Queen are, is a major point of contention amongst the fans. I'm a 30+ year follower of the band, and without malice, I'd like you to see the other side of the coin, and maybe sum up what the "it's not Queen without Freddie" camp thinks.
I don't sense that the fan's who have a dissenting opinion has anything to do with Paul Rodgers or the fact that he is the lead singer. Unless they're narrow minded, very few people who disapprove of the Queen name being used want you and Roger to stop making music. It has to do with the fact that Queen is not Genesis, Deep Purple, or any other band that has made a line-up change (and virtually all of the bands listed when people use the "new singer" argument were early in their careers and had no choice but to go on. Neither Genesis nor AC/DC had any sales success to speak of, so that can't be compared to a group who was 20 years into their career and financially and creatively established.) For Queen fans, and many historians, in the pantheon of rock music, Queen's musical legacy exceeds all but the Beatles, and as your friend Patti Lupone said, Queen were "a genre unto themselves." That's why people are uneasy with you going on with the name. Queen music was four unique musicans who created an absolutely unique style, Freddie was a huge part of that, and obviously people are passionate about this.
In 1986, you did an interview with Guitar for the Practicing Musician for a segment called "In the Listening Room." The first track you critiqued was "Let's turn it on" from Freddie's Mr. Bad Guy album. You used the word "hurt" to describe how Freddie used Paul Vincent to basically play a Brian May harmony part, and commented that while Paul was a great player in his own right, if Freddie wanted your sound he should have used you for the album. Well, if you were no longer in Queen, and Paul Vincent stepped in, that wouldn't be Queen for many peole despite the fact that he successfully replicated your tone and style. They could use the name, but to many people, without Brian May (or Roger, John or Freddie), it wouldn't be Queen. Same thing if you had left the band at any time, and guitar gods like EVH, The Edge or Eric Clapton became the new Queen guitarist. Great players all, but not in the spirit of Queen. Eddie doing his "Eruption" solo in the middle of Brighton Rock may have been cool, it just wouldn't have been Queen, because your (and Roger, John and Freddie's) imprint on the Queen sound is why we love Queen. You've often commented on Freddie's unusual key choices, and his style of piano playing. That won't be replicated by Paul (and no one wants it to be), and again with all due respect, to many fans, Freddie's different chord choices and "oddball" songs like Black Queen, Mustapha and Leroy Brown were a big part of Queen's spirit, and what helped set your music apart. So it's not a Paul/Freddie, lead singer/face of the band thing, it's the fact that all of the original members are beloved and respected, and while new music can and hopefully will be made, for some folks it will be Queen, and others it won't be without any original member not involved.
I apologize for the length of this, and as e-mail makes it hard to decipher a person's tone, I'm not an angry, cra
I especially like the point you outlined in this section of the letter.[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
"Re: Garik's thoughts on a band's name, and its importance. As I'm sure you're aware, "who" Queen are, is a major point of contention amongst the fans. I'm a 30+ year follower of the band, and without malice, I'd like you to see the other side of the coin, and maybe sum up what the "it's not Queen without Freddie" camp thinks.
I don't sense that the fan's who have a dissenting opinion has anything to do with Paul Rodgers or the fact that he is the lead singer. Unless they're narrow minded, very few people who disapprove of the Queen name being used want you and Roger to stop making music. It has to do with the fact that Queen is not Genesis, Deep Purple, or any other band that has made a line-up change (and virtually all of the bands listed when people use the "new singer" argument were early in their careers and had no choice but to go on. Neither Genesis nor AC/DC had any sales success to speak of, so that can't be compared to a group who was 20 years into their career and financially and creatively established.) For Queen fans, and many historians, in the pantheon of rock music, Queen's musical legacy exceeds all but the Beatles, and as your friend Patti Lupone said, Queen were "a genre unto themselves." That's why people are uneasy with you going on with the name. Queen music was four unique musicans who created an absolutely unique style, Freddie was a huge part of that, and obviously people are passionate about this.
"[/QUOTE]
"Re: Garik's thoughts on a band's name, and its importance. As I'm sure you're aware, "who" Queen are, is a major point of contention amongst the fans. I'm a 30+ year follower of the band, and without malice, I'd like you to see the other side of the coin, and maybe sum up what the "it's not Queen without Freddie" camp thinks.
I don't sense that the fan's who have a dissenting opinion has anything to do with Paul Rodgers or the fact that he is the lead singer. Unless they're narrow minded, very few people who disapprove of the Queen name being used want you and Roger to stop making music. It has to do with the fact that Queen is not Genesis, Deep Purple, or any other band that has made a line-up change (and virtually all of the bands listed when people use the "new singer" argument were early in their careers and had no choice but to go on. Neither Genesis nor AC/DC had any sales success to speak of, so that can't be compared to a group who was 20 years into their career and financially and creatively established.) For Queen fans, and many historians, in the pantheon of rock music, Queen's musical legacy exceeds all but the Beatles, and as your friend Patti Lupone said, Queen were "a genre unto themselves." That's why people are uneasy with you going on with the name. Queen music was four unique musicans who created an absolutely unique style, Freddie was a huge part of that, and obviously people are passionate about this.
"[/QUOTE]
Great post, Boy Thomas Raker.
I note with interest Brian's comments that he felt "hurt" that Fred didn't use him on Mr Bad Guy. Did Fred ever feel overlooked by not contributing vocals to Starfleet? It's been stated by Brian that Freddie apparently urged him to release his VERY Queen sounding solo album at the time he did.
I know the comment was made in 1986, but Brian would go on to re-record Freddie's solo material as "Queen" anyway, which surely would go some way in reducing his "hurt"
....and what of a Freddie solo song, "I Was Born To Love You" being played live by "Queen"+Rodgers?? It's starting to make my head spin....but if Fred's solo compositions were good enough to be called Queen.........
I note with interest Brian's comments that he felt "hurt" that Fred didn't use him on Mr Bad Guy. Did Fred ever feel overlooked by not contributing vocals to Starfleet? It's been stated by Brian that Freddie apparently urged him to release his VERY Queen sounding solo album at the time he did.
I know the comment was made in 1986, but Brian would go on to re-record Freddie's solo material as "Queen" anyway, which surely would go some way in reducing his "hurt"
....and what of a Freddie solo song, "I Was Born To Love You" being played live by "Queen"+Rodgers?? It's starting to make my head spin....but if Fred's solo compositions were good enough to be called Queen.........
What is paul,s vocal range?
he has got a lot of power in his voice i know that but what the hell is his range a lot of songs like i want it all are realy screamy.
he has got a lot of power in his voice i know that but what the hell is his range a lot of songs like i want it all are realy screamy.
well without him we wouldnt be hearing live queen music ever again would we!!
Yeah that is true.
i am defanitly going to queen&pr 2008
i am defanitly going to queen&pr 2008