Thread
Posts in chronological order
SORRY FOLKS!!
treasure moment wrote:
Besides, there is no queen without freddie,thats impossible, they should just do some other project coz no one sees this as queen anyways
_________________________________________________
Erm...im not sure you have the right to say that and decide that for everyone, many people still view this as queen. me being one of those people, maybe not the old queen, but as queen as its going to get these days.
Whats a name anyway? just enjoy the music!
Besides, there is no queen without freddie,thats impossible, they should just do some other project coz no one sees this as queen anyways
_________________________________________________
Erm...im not sure you have the right to say that and decide that for everyone, many people still view this as queen. me being one of those people, maybe not the old queen, but as queen as its going to get these days.
Whats a name anyway? just enjoy the music!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Paul Rodgers doesn't need to fit in with Queen's music. For as long as I can remember Queen have always experimented with different styles of music. Such as vaudeville, country, opera, glam rock, folk, latin, heavy metal, and the list goes on. So how is this any different? Paul Rodgers is of the 'blues/rock' categorization. This has been yet another step towards diversity in, dare I say, 'Queen's' career. I shun all those whom look upon Queen at this stage in their career and dislike them for it. Queen have neither changed or degraded their legacy. They're expanding their horizons along with upsetting fans, oh my, there's a shocker! Need I remind you all of when Hot Space came out? I think you know what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE]
paul rodgers way of singing just doesnt fit in, he doesnt sing in time, he sings odd time, dont know how to explain it but it just doesnt fit in.
Besides, there is no queen without freddie,thats impossible, they should just do some other project coz no one sees this as queen anyways
[/QUOTE]
Keep an open mind, my friend. Paul Rodgers certainly knows how to sing and most often if not his timing is correct. As for the name that's debatable. You must remember that Brian May is the founder of 'Queen' and that Freddie Mercury was the third member to join. Therefore, Roger Taylor and Brian May have every right to keep the name 'Queen'. However, when it's all said and done the name has no meaning. They're musicians, and damn good ones at that! The music says everything.
paul rodgers way of singing just doesnt fit in, he doesnt sing in time, he sings odd time, dont know how to explain it but it just doesnt fit in.
Besides, there is no queen without freddie,thats impossible, they should just do some other project coz no one sees this as queen anyways
[/QUOTE]
Keep an open mind, my friend. Paul Rodgers certainly knows how to sing and most often if not his timing is correct. As for the name that's debatable. You must remember that Brian May is the founder of 'Queen' and that Freddie Mercury was the third member to join. Therefore, Roger Taylor and Brian May have every right to keep the name 'Queen'. However, when it's all said and done the name has no meaning. They're musicians, and damn good ones at that! The music says everything.
To Brian-Harold-May, and Ramirez, I'd just offer this to your words. The issue is not whether Brian and Roger have the "right" to call themselves Queen. I don't think that anyone here disputes that, or the fact that they were founding members. However, a name isn't just a name when it comes to bands. Within the past few years, lawsuits have been launched against Styx, The Doors and Black Sabbath by ex-members to stop them from touring with the name that the band found success with. Why? Because to many people, Dennis DeYoung was Styx, Jim Morrison was the Doors, and Ozzy Osbourne was Black Sabbath. So obviously, names mean a lot to some people, they mean everything.
And as a balance to Garik's thoughts, he uses Genesis and Deep Purple as examples of bands who went on with new singers (poor choices for examples due to the fact that they were young men, relative newcomers with no true long term success so they had to get new singers or become working stiffs.) There are two other bands who had long, successful runs in the music business. They were called the Beatles, and Led Zeppelin. Neither lost their lead singer, yet they decided that they wouldn't go under their respective names once a member passed on. The greatest pop band and greatest rock band of all time lose a member and stop performing under that name. As these bands have greater legacies than Genesis and Purple, does this mean I can rest my case that more famous bands shouldn't go on?
And as a balance to Garik's thoughts, he uses Genesis and Deep Purple as examples of bands who went on with new singers (poor choices for examples due to the fact that they were young men, relative newcomers with no true long term success so they had to get new singers or become working stiffs.) There are two other bands who had long, successful runs in the music business. They were called the Beatles, and Led Zeppelin. Neither lost their lead singer, yet they decided that they wouldn't go under their respective names once a member passed on. The greatest pop band and greatest rock band of all time lose a member and stop performing under that name. As these bands have greater legacies than Genesis and Purple, does this mean I can rest my case that more famous bands shouldn't go on?
Boy Thomas Raker, re:
>>I agree 100% with you Benn. And again, I was interested in Brian's thoughts because I think that my views and those of scores of fans are pretty moderate,
Given that, I always thoguht that, once Brian had worked on Paul's "Muddy Water Blues" project and had played live with him so often as a guest at various times, Paul was the absolutely ideal front man for Queen. Of all the world-class vocalists still alive, Paul was (is) the only one without current ties to a band. Bad Company's reformation was always going to be short-lived when it happened and Free had folded way before 1976. His solo career, too, only seems to be supported by a smaller section of Bad Co. / Free followers too, so nothing to really trouble the accountants.
Now, what would have happened if Brian, Roger & JOHN had invited Paul to front Queen in 1994? Would there have been so much opposition if it had al gotten off the ground that much quicker?
>>I agree 100% with you Benn. And again, I was interested in Brian's thoughts because I think that my views and those of scores of fans are pretty moderate,
Given that, I always thoguht that, once Brian had worked on Paul's "Muddy Water Blues" project and had played live with him so often as a guest at various times, Paul was the absolutely ideal front man for Queen. Of all the world-class vocalists still alive, Paul was (is) the only one without current ties to a band. Bad Company's reformation was always going to be short-lived when it happened and Free had folded way before 1976. His solo career, too, only seems to be supported by a smaller section of Bad Co. / Free followers too, so nothing to really trouble the accountants.
Now, what would have happened if Brian, Roger & JOHN had invited Paul to front Queen in 1994? Would there have been so much opposition if it had al gotten off the ground that much quicker?
Freddie wasn't the third member to join "Queen" as it was Freddie who came up with the name and he was in the band by then.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]gem27 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Freddie wasn't the third member to join "Queen" as it was Freddie who came up with the name and he was in the band by then.[/QUOTE]
Freddie joined "Smile" after Tim left and the guys thought they were going to a new direction with this line-up, so they decided to change the name. Still, Roger and Brian are as much founding members as Freddie, so they have every right to use the name..... Why do we have to debate over this every month?
Freddie joined "Smile" after Tim left and the guys thought they were going to a new direction with this line-up, so they decided to change the name. Still, Roger and Brian are as much founding members as Freddie, so they have every right to use the name..... Why do we have to debate over this every month?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]To Brian-Harold-May, and Ramirez, I'd just offer this to your words. The issue is not whether Brian and Roger have the "right" to call themselves Queen. I don't think that anyone here disputes that, or the fact that they were founding members. However, a name isn't just a name when it comes to bands. Within the past few years, lawsuits have been launched against Styx, The Doors and Black Sabbath by ex-members to stop them from touring with the name that the band found success with. Why? Because to many people, Dennis DeYoung was Styx, Jim Morrison was the Doors, and Ozzy Osbourne was Black Sabbath. So obviously, names mean a lot to some people, they mean everything.
[/QUOTE]
That's an interesting point of view, and I certainly see where you're coming from. People indeed hold a band's name near and dear to the heart and soul of the artist. However, I still can't see why it's up to the 'people' to decide. The band should have that right. And as I've said before, who cares about the name? The music speaks for itself. And if people can't see that then I feel bad for them, they're missing out.
[/QUOTE]
That's an interesting point of view, and I certainly see where you're coming from. People indeed hold a band's name near and dear to the heart and soul of the artist. However, I still can't see why it's up to the 'people' to decide. The band should have that right. And as I've said before, who cares about the name? The music speaks for itself. And if people can't see that then I feel bad for them, they're missing out.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Benn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Now, what would have happened if Brian, Roger & JOHN had invited Paul to front Queen in 1994? Would there have been so much opposition if it had al gotten off the ground that much quicker?[/QUOTE]
That's a good question. I've been wondering about that too.
I don't think they could have done it, though. THAT would have meant that they were replacing Freddie. Freddie's death was so tragic and the F.M. Tribute Concert was such a spectacle that if they had continued right after that, it wouldn't have been right. They all thought that Queen was dead and buried and it was time to move on and do something else.
That's a good question. I've been wondering about that too.
I don't think they could have done it, though. THAT would have meant that they were replacing Freddie. Freddie's death was so tragic and the F.M. Tribute Concert was such a spectacle that if they had continued right after that, it wouldn't have been right. They all thought that Queen was dead and buried and it was time to move on and do something else.
August R, re:
>>I don't think they could have done it, though. THAT would have meant that they were replacing Freddie.
It wouldn't as they would NEVER have held a press conference / issued a statement that mentioned anything about REPLACING. If they'd done that, they's immediately have alienated almost every fan on the planet.
They could have issued something along the lines of what other bands have done "we want to keep the spirit of Freddie alive"; "he would have wanted us to go on and keep the music of Queen alive" etc etc. Simple to do and an easy way of funneling the resulting questions from fans and the media down a particular route.
>>I don't think they could have done it, though. THAT would have meant that they were replacing Freddie.
It wouldn't as they would NEVER have held a press conference / issued a statement that mentioned anything about REPLACING. If they'd done that, they's immediately have alienated almost every fan on the planet.
They could have issued something along the lines of what other bands have done "we want to keep the spirit of Freddie alive"; "he would have wanted us to go on and keep the music of Queen alive" etc etc. Simple to do and an easy way of funneling the resulting questions from fans and the media down a particular route.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]no one sees this as queen anyways[/QUOTE]... of course not "queen" - it's "Queen + Paul Rodgers" ...
I think we're missing the underlying question in all of these threads.
WHY does it really matter if the music is good? You mean to tell me if there's a really good song or two, maybe four on this new record. And you really really like them. In fact, whenever you play that song on the radio in your El Camino, the chicks start climbing all over you.
You would consider the name of the band before you bought it? Who does that?
You are so offended that Brian May and Roger Taylor, who you obviously consider as your peers now because you've bought their records, are using their old band name that you would boycott their album? Not just boycott, but campaign against others to do the same?
They've got a name for people like you. Yes they do. El Macho.
Get a grip. It's a frickin' rock band, not your Aunt Cheryl marrying Paul Rodgers.
WHY does it really matter if the music is good? You mean to tell me if there's a really good song or two, maybe four on this new record. And you really really like them. In fact, whenever you play that song on the radio in your El Camino, the chicks start climbing all over you.
You would consider the name of the band before you bought it? Who does that?
You are so offended that Brian May and Roger Taylor, who you obviously consider as your peers now because you've bought their records, are using their old band name that you would boycott their album? Not just boycott, but campaign against others to do the same?
They've got a name for people like you. Yes they do. El Macho.
Get a grip. It's a frickin' rock band, not your Aunt Cheryl marrying Paul Rodgers.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Besides, there is no queen without freddie,thats impossible, they should just do some other project coz no one sees this as queen anyways[/QUOTE]
Yeah... damn Brian for having an opinion that's different than yours. Maybe you could ask him to see if your opinion should take precedence over his, since you wrote all those great songs and sold millions of records.
Yeah... damn Brian for having an opinion that's different than yours. Maybe you could ask him to see if your opinion should take precedence over his, since you wrote all those great songs and sold millions of records.
> paul rodgers way of singing just doesnt fit in, he doesnt sing in time, he sings odd time, dont know how to explain it but it just doesnt fit in.
I disagree, he's brill.
> Besides, there is no queen without freddie
True
> Whats a name anyway? just enjoy the music!
What's the music anyway? Just discuss the name!
> You must remember that Brian May is the founder of 'Queen' and that Freddie Mercury was the third member to join.
False. Freddie, Roger and Brian founded Queen together, and it was Freddie who came up with the name-
> However, when it's all said and done the name has no meaning.
If the name had no meaning, they could use another one.
> Freddie joined "Smile" after Tim left and the guys thought they were going to a new direction with this line-up, so they decided to change the name. Still, Roger and Brian are as much founding members as Freddie, so they have every right to use the name..... Why do we have to debate over this every month?
False: Smile was over, Wreckage was over, so they decided to form a band together. Saying Queen = Smile (but with Freddie) is as saying Queen = Wreckage (with Brian and Roger).
> WHY does it really matter if the music is good?
For some of us it does matter.
> You mean to tell me if there's a really good song or two, maybe four on this new record.
I'm sure the entire record will be brilliant. I'm not arguing about that.
> You would consider the name of the band before you bought it? Who does that?
I would. I haven't even bought 'Queen II'...
> Maybe you could ask him to see if your opinion should take precedence over his, since you wrote all those great songs and sold millions of records.
For that matter Brian should found a paper before criticising journalists.
I disagree, he's brill.
> Besides, there is no queen without freddie
True
> Whats a name anyway? just enjoy the music!
What's the music anyway? Just discuss the name!
> You must remember that Brian May is the founder of 'Queen' and that Freddie Mercury was the third member to join.
False. Freddie, Roger and Brian founded Queen together, and it was Freddie who came up with the name-
> However, when it's all said and done the name has no meaning.
If the name had no meaning, they could use another one.
> Freddie joined "Smile" after Tim left and the guys thought they were going to a new direction with this line-up, so they decided to change the name. Still, Roger and Brian are as much founding members as Freddie, so they have every right to use the name..... Why do we have to debate over this every month?
False: Smile was over, Wreckage was over, so they decided to form a band together. Saying Queen = Smile (but with Freddie) is as saying Queen = Wreckage (with Brian and Roger).
> WHY does it really matter if the music is good?
For some of us it does matter.
> You mean to tell me if there's a really good song or two, maybe four on this new record.
I'm sure the entire record will be brilliant. I'm not arguing about that.
> You would consider the name of the band before you bought it? Who does that?
I would. I haven't even bought 'Queen II'...
> Maybe you could ask him to see if your opinion should take precedence over his, since you wrote all those great songs and sold millions of records.
For that matter Brian should found a paper before criticising journalists.