Still using the name Queen can be debated at length by fans such as the above posts about who joined first and who came up with the name. All that means shit to a goose to the general record buying public.
When people think of Queen, they think of Freddie Mercury first. Still using the Queen moniker without Freddie is not going to change that in the minds of people. Whoever they use as a front man will never step out of the shadow of the real Queen's legacy.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Totally tedious to still be debating this now. The remaining members have earned the right to call themselves what they like. Regarding Smile though, the group was going nowhere until Fred joined so to say Queen are just Smile with a new leader singer is bizarre. Neither is Queen "Brian's group": the only thing that can be said really is the Roger & Brian knew each other before they met Fred. So what? That doesn't make Queen "Brian's group". Could Smile with Tim Staffel and Brian come up with The Fairy Fellers Masterstroke, Lilly of the Valley or Bohemian Rhapsody?
It is tedious, Holly, but it's also tedious hearing people use the term "right" to define the debate. John has the "right" to record a new album with the drummer from Devo, Alien Ant Farms' guitarist and Kylie Minogue and Hilary Duff splitting vocals. According to your logic, that lineup is also Queen, because John has the "right" to do it, as he's earned it like Brian and Roger. It's like George Bush having the "right" to do what's happening in Iraq, since he's been elected, he's the leader of America, he has governmental support and has earned his position as president(this time around) fair and square. Whether the public accepts his "right" is an entirely different question.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It is tedious, Holly, but it's also tedious hearing people use the term "right" to define the debate. John has the "right" to record a new album with the drummer from Devo, Alien Ant Farms' guitarist and Kylie Minogue and Hilary Duff splitting vocals. According to your logic, that lineup is also Queen, because John has the "right" to do it, as he's earned it like Brian and Roger. It's like George Bush having the "right" to do what's happening in Iraq, since he's been elected, he's the leader of America, he has governmental support and has earned his position as president(this time around) fair and square. Whether the public accepts his "right" is an entirely different question.[/QUOTE]
If Brian and Roger can't call themselves Queen, who else can? Who has more authority or credibility? It's not like the band went through 20 line up changes, like ELO. There is no competition for the name.
If Brian and Roger can't call themselves Queen, who else can? Who has more authority or credibility? It's not like the band went through 20 line up changes, like ELO. There is no competition for the name.
"Hence, Queen weren't the continuation of neither Smile nor Wreckage, they were a new band, so neither Freddie nor Roger nor Brian were a "third member to join"."
Oh, wouldn't it be lovely if it were that simple!
You've been in bands though, haven't you Seb?? A lot of the time, as much as I hate this idea, a band is sort of an entity... there's no other way to describe this situation than to say that Freddie joined Brian and Roger, because the latter two had an existing way of doing things. Bits of a future band existed, though it wasn't really all that similar to how it turned out (thanks to Mr. Mercury, haw-haw).
If all 3 had their memories wiped before forming the new group, then I think your statement might be more on the mark, but as it stands Smile was heading in a certain direction already; one only needs to hear April Lady or Blag to see that a good chunk of early Queen already existed... err... somewhere in Brian or Rogers head!!
Hmm.
On the idea of them using the Queen name.... I really don't see the point. Is it really going to have that much of an effect on sales as a brand name? If they do as shit a job of promoting it as they have done with some Q+PR stuff already, then it won't do anything. Besides, Queen will never be a stadium-filling band again no matter who is in it or what they call it. (I am, of course, eschewing 46664 stuff and Bob Geldof events.....)
I just don't see the point in them keeping the Queen name. Unless they pull a really big rabbit out of a really tiny hat, I don't see it working to their advantage.
My prediction is that they'll come up with a good album, it'll do modestly well, there'll be a little tour, and people will hum and haw over whether or not it's like Queen.
The name on the cover really won't change any of that, I don't think.
I still stand by my original philosophy of judging this album on it's artistic merits, of course!
Oh, wouldn't it be lovely if it were that simple!
You've been in bands though, haven't you Seb?? A lot of the time, as much as I hate this idea, a band is sort of an entity... there's no other way to describe this situation than to say that Freddie joined Brian and Roger, because the latter two had an existing way of doing things. Bits of a future band existed, though it wasn't really all that similar to how it turned out (thanks to Mr. Mercury, haw-haw).
If all 3 had their memories wiped before forming the new group, then I think your statement might be more on the mark, but as it stands Smile was heading in a certain direction already; one only needs to hear April Lady or Blag to see that a good chunk of early Queen already existed... err... somewhere in Brian or Rogers head!!
Hmm.
On the idea of them using the Queen name.... I really don't see the point. Is it really going to have that much of an effect on sales as a brand name? If they do as shit a job of promoting it as they have done with some Q+PR stuff already, then it won't do anything. Besides, Queen will never be a stadium-filling band again no matter who is in it or what they call it. (I am, of course, eschewing 46664 stuff and Bob Geldof events.....)
I just don't see the point in them keeping the Queen name. Unless they pull a really big rabbit out of a really tiny hat, I don't see it working to their advantage.
My prediction is that they'll come up with a good album, it'll do modestly well, there'll be a little tour, and people will hum and haw over whether or not it's like Queen.
The name on the cover really won't change any of that, I don't think.
I still stand by my original philosophy of judging this album on it's artistic merits, of course!
I am also one of the few who support the carry on of the name. i can see why it pisses some people off but personally it does not bother me. No one knows for sure but in my opinion I can see Freddie being proud of the fact the Queen name (that he thought up of course) is still going strong in 2006/7. Of course I can't know for sure but it is what i like to think. The Queen+ Paul Rodgers thing does not upset me. I think a tour of Brian May, Roger Taylor (Formerly of Queen) plus Paul Rodgers is just stupid but again it is only my thoughts.
1.) He's my favorite famous person of the last 3 years because he is the guy who ressurected Queen, something I had no hope or belief in ever happening. I went from a mindset of little dissapointment on the issue because the idea of Queen returning with a new singer wasn't realistic to me, and if it did happen I'd assume they lost their minds, sold out, and are putting out some cheesy second rate act that would leave me embarrassed for them. I had no idea that it would happen, and that the results would rival other Queen tours in greatness.
2.) I think he's a good songwriter, but several levels beneath any of Queen's 4 members. I think he is musically fantastic and creative in how he uses his voice, a truly talented vocalist.
3.) I think the best intrigue about Rodgers is that he is pure blues, but interestingly he doesn't exclusively pursue blues but rather sings it alongside rock musicians often rock artists with little or no blues style in their repetoire.
4.) I appreciate strongly that he does Queen his own way, and that he continues despite all the anti-PR alleged Queen fans who dissaprove of the new Queen direction intensely because of the damage to their legacy that it does in their eyes and the eyes of all others who are led that direction for a number of reasons, all which I have pondered being formed from reasons ranging from complete and utter stupidity on their part, all the way towards the one barely understandable, acceptable reason that they personally are mad because they just don't dig him. I was the biggest skeptic of all, but see the worst as Brian and Roger doing something which is always good so long as it's music and a worst scenario to me of say Robbie Williams being only a reminder of how great Freddie was.
Overall I love Paul Rodgers more than any celebrity of this 21st Century so far because his actions led to a Queen developement that wasn't my overall top wish among wishes(outside of personal human priorities like love and family) only because I didn't know it was a possible option. I'd never, ever, EVER have experienced a fun event even comparable to the 3 Q + PR concerts I attended in my lifetime had it not been for Mr. Rodgers.
The greatest and strangest thing about all of it is that somewhere during the tour/return of Queen, I went from accepting PR as a necessary component of it all into thinking of him as the 2nd Queen singer whose transformations song by song were at best competitive with Freddie, to at worst an intersting alteration worthwhile, and also how his songs went from a few songs to patiently wade through turned into great songs given the Queen injection and received similarly to Queen live tracks I am less enthused by rather than someone else's crap.
In summary to my overblown post, Paul Rodgers was a really good singer I respected and thought well of, but now he's one of my top 10 all-time vocalists who gave me my #1 all-time favorite gift of a lifetime which was how he broght Queen back, not only in the reunited May and Taylor pairing, but in that his own presence gave the reunion a fresh and beyond interesting and what the word can define in itself, new version of the Queen sound, the overall entity being second only to the original, and a million times fantastic a reunion than if they had toured with the greatest living Freddie imitator of all 6 billion plus people living on Earth.
2.) I think he's a good songwriter, but several levels beneath any of Queen's 4 members. I think he is musically fantastic and creative in how he uses his voice, a truly talented vocalist.
3.) I think the best intrigue about Rodgers is that he is pure blues, but interestingly he doesn't exclusively pursue blues but rather sings it alongside rock musicians often rock artists with little or no blues style in their repetoire.
4.) I appreciate strongly that he does Queen his own way, and that he continues despite all the anti-PR alleged Queen fans who dissaprove of the new Queen direction intensely because of the damage to their legacy that it does in their eyes and the eyes of all others who are led that direction for a number of reasons, all which I have pondered being formed from reasons ranging from complete and utter stupidity on their part, all the way towards the one barely understandable, acceptable reason that they personally are mad because they just don't dig him. I was the biggest skeptic of all, but see the worst as Brian and Roger doing something which is always good so long as it's music and a worst scenario to me of say Robbie Williams being only a reminder of how great Freddie was.
Overall I love Paul Rodgers more than any celebrity of this 21st Century so far because his actions led to a Queen developement that wasn't my overall top wish among wishes(outside of personal human priorities like love and family) only because I didn't know it was a possible option. I'd never, ever, EVER have experienced a fun event even comparable to the 3 Q + PR concerts I attended in my lifetime had it not been for Mr. Rodgers.
The greatest and strangest thing about all of it is that somewhere during the tour/return of Queen, I went from accepting PR as a necessary component of it all into thinking of him as the 2nd Queen singer whose transformations song by song were at best competitive with Freddie, to at worst an intersting alteration worthwhile, and also how his songs went from a few songs to patiently wade through turned into great songs given the Queen injection and received similarly to Queen live tracks I am less enthused by rather than someone else's crap.
In summary to my overblown post, Paul Rodgers was a really good singer I respected and thought well of, but now he's one of my top 10 all-time vocalists who gave me my #1 all-time favorite gift of a lifetime which was how he broght Queen back, not only in the reunited May and Taylor pairing, but in that his own presence gave the reunion a fresh and beyond interesting and what the word can define in itself, new version of the Queen sound, the overall entity being second only to the original, and a million times fantastic a reunion than if they had toured with the greatest living Freddie imitator of all 6 billion plus people living on Earth.
^ what he said.
I like Paul Rodgers, he has the voice qualitites that I like. I agree with those who have said about I Want To Break Free, that and A Kind of Magic, one of my top five Queen songs, and I really cant stand him doing it. But most other songs, particularly Wishing Well, which I think he did with Gary Moore, is a brilliant live song. I am happy, now, that he is with Queen, I cant think of anything else of the top of my head.
Another thought, will Queen do better in the US now they have Rodgers, who I believe is quite popular in that market?
M.H
Another thought, will Queen do better in the US now they have Rodgers, who I believe is quite popular in that market?
M.H
i don't like him being queen now. his voice is ok. he can sing with brian and roger, but they should change their band's name.
You know what this thread reminds me of?
All the little dorks who hang out at the science building discussing what happened on Heroes last night and what might happen next week.
Next thing you know, you'll all be saying "Paul sucks and that is a FACT". Maybe Treasure Moment was sent here by Freddie to show us what can happen when you Queen-out one too many times.
All the little dorks who hang out at the science building discussing what happened on Heroes last night and what might happen next week.
Next thing you know, you'll all be saying "Paul sucks and that is a FACT". Maybe Treasure Moment was sent here by Freddie to show us what can happen when you Queen-out one too many times.
Microwave, I know you're a Texan, and you like sports so let's play bullshit poker. Jerry Jones goes tits up, has to sell the Cowboys to Dan Snyder. Jerry Jones makes his money back, and as an Oklahoman, he makes the biggest ever cash gift to the University of Texas in exchange for team naming rights. Welcome to Texas.
Home of the Dallas Redskins.
Home of the Texas Sooners.
You, and the people of Texas would be good with that right? After all, it's just a name. Music's music, football's football, who cares what the name is. I await your reply, and if you say you could live with those names, beware. Haystacks Calhounski's got a .44 and is comin' after ya'!
:)
Home of the Dallas Redskins.
Home of the Texas Sooners.
You, and the people of Texas would be good with that right? After all, it's just a name. Music's music, football's football, who cares what the name is. I await your reply, and if you say you could live with those names, beware. Haystacks Calhounski's got a .44 and is comin' after ya'!
:)
how come the british invented football league's football is a game played with feet and a ball where the american invented football is played mostly with hands and a sphere not a ball?
Rodgers will never take the place of Freddie.
There is no one to take his place.
There is no one to take his place.
No-one can replace freddie that is a fact but......I think he does a pretty good job.