[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]innuendo1990 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I think he does a pretty good job.[/QUOTE]
Who? Rodgers? What good in it? He only has spoiled his songs.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Ok Im gonna throw this into the mix.
1 - How come a few years ago everyone wanted to have George Michael fronting Queen and yet its not as ok to have Paul singing?
2 - What if George (or Zucchero - If the Italian press are to be believed) did sing for them? Would the "its not Queen without Freddie" brigade still be up in arms about the bands name?
Personally I think it does work with Paul, but like I said on page one of this thread just not on every song. I also happen to think so with George for some reason. I mean he would do the more Freddie-esq songs some real justice along with the dancier songs, but I just cant see him doing the same justice to the rock stuff. Zucchero, might have been a good compromise for musical styles, but again his vocal range isnt in Freddies league.
1 - How come a few years ago everyone wanted to have George Michael fronting Queen and yet its not as ok to have Paul singing?
2 - What if George (or Zucchero - If the Italian press are to be believed) did sing for them? Would the "its not Queen without Freddie" brigade still be up in arms about the bands name?
Personally I think it does work with Paul, but like I said on page one of this thread just not on every song. I also happen to think so with George for some reason. I mean he would do the more Freddie-esq songs some real justice along with the dancier songs, but I just cant see him doing the same justice to the rock stuff. Zucchero, might have been a good compromise for musical styles, but again his vocal range isnt in Freddies league.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=FF9900>Mr Mercury</font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME] but like I said on page one of this thread just not on every song. I also happen to think so with George for some reason. I mean he would the more Freddie-esq songs some real justice along with the dancier songs, but I just cant see him doing the same justice to the rock stuff. Zucchero, might have been a good compromise for musical styles, but again his vocal range isnt in Freddies league.[/QUOTE]
Agree.
I simply consider, that it was not necessary to begin this project in general. Too many years have passed, no sense to start again.
As to George,he was magnificent in “Somebody to Love” at The Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert.
Agree.
I simply consider, that it was not necessary to begin this project in general. Too many years have passed, no sense to start again.
As to George,he was magnificent in “Somebody to Love” at The Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Killer_Whale wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=FF9900>Mr Mercury</font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME] but like I said on page one of this thread just not on every song. I also happen to think so with George for some reason. I mean he would the more Freddie-esq songs some real justice along with the dancier songs, but I just cant see him doing the same justice to the rock stuff. Zucchero, might have been a good compromise for musical styles, but again his vocal range isnt in Freddies league.[/QUOTE]
Agree.
I simply consider, that it was not necessary to begin this project in general. Too many years have passed, no sense to start again.
As to George,he was magnificent in “Somebody to Love” at The Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert. [/QUOTE]
Yes he was magnificent at that song, but my point with him was he might not have done so well with for instance "Tie Your Mother Down" or "Sheer Heart Attack"
Agree.
I simply consider, that it was not necessary to begin this project in general. Too many years have passed, no sense to start again.
As to George,he was magnificent in “Somebody to Love” at The Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert. [/QUOTE]
Yes he was magnificent at that song, but my point with him was he might not have done so well with for instance "Tie Your Mother Down" or "Sheer Heart Attack"
[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 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!&qu
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!&qu
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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'!
:) [/QUOTE]
Well, now BTR, I'm a little surprised at how ridiculous an analogy you made. You tried to compare apples and oranges.
1. You can't rename a University. I don't care how much money you give.
2. You can't have two NFL teams with the same name.
Owners have been selling their teams for years. Look at the Baltimore Ravens. How do they get any people to go to games after letting the Colts ride out of town? THE SUPERBOWL COLTS, that is. People got over it and became fans again.
Kinda like people will buy the new Queen album regardless of who's singing.
So what point are you trying to make? If an owner sells a beloved team that no one will ever want to go to their games again? Well, that's simply not true.
Personally, I would love to see real coach in college football. Mac sucks, Fran must go, it's pretty crappy down here right now, collegiately speaking... BUT THE GAMES STILL SELL OUT.
Mac Brown took over for John Mackovich 5 years ago and has managed to beat Oklahoma once. BUT THE GAMES STILL SELL OUT.
Using your analogy, when a new coach or owner comes and goes, they should completely re-name the team and stadium, because Freddie was Queen and no one else is allowed to be in Queen... let's not let Brian and Roger decide.
Your turn.
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'!
:) [/QUOTE]
Well, now BTR, I'm a little surprised at how ridiculous an analogy you made. You tried to compare apples and oranges.
1. You can't rename a University. I don't care how much money you give.
2. You can't have two NFL teams with the same name.
Owners have been selling their teams for years. Look at the Baltimore Ravens. How do they get any people to go to games after letting the Colts ride out of town? THE SUPERBOWL COLTS, that is. People got over it and became fans again.
Kinda like people will buy the new Queen album regardless of who's singing.
So what point are you trying to make? If an owner sells a beloved team that no one will ever want to go to their games again? Well, that's simply not true.
Personally, I would love to see real coach in college football. Mac sucks, Fran must go, it's pretty crappy down here right now, collegiately speaking... BUT THE GAMES STILL SELL OUT.
Mac Brown took over for John Mackovich 5 years ago and has managed to beat Oklahoma once. BUT THE GAMES STILL SELL OUT.
Using your analogy, when a new coach or owner comes and goes, they should completely re-name the team and stadium, because Freddie was Queen and no one else is allowed to be in Queen... let's not let Brian and Roger decide.
Your turn.
Taking it one step further, let's use The Professor's analogy:
[QUOTE]Queen as a band is dead and has been since the day freddie died. Freddie was the heart and soul of the band and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this band Queen.[/QUOTE]
Now let's see how stupid that sounds when you substitute:
Chrysler as a automobile manufacturer is dead and has been since the day Lee Iacocca was fired. Lee was the heart and soul of the company and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this car a Chrysler.
The 49ers as a team is dead and has been since the day Terrell Owens left. T.O. was the heart and soul of the team and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this team the San Francisco 49ers.
The Dallas Mavericks as a franchise is dead and has been since the day Roy Tarpley was suspended (again) for drugs. Roy was the heart and soul of the team and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this team The Mavericks.
The World as a place is dead and has been since the day Jesus died. Jesus was the heart and soul of the world and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this The World.
Kinda puts things into perspective, I'd say.
[QUOTE]Queen as a band is dead and has been since the day freddie died. Freddie was the heart and soul of the band and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this band Queen.[/QUOTE]
Now let's see how stupid that sounds when you substitute:
Chrysler as a automobile manufacturer is dead and has been since the day Lee Iacocca was fired. Lee was the heart and soul of the company and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this car a Chrysler.
The 49ers as a team is dead and has been since the day Terrell Owens left. T.O. was the heart and soul of the team and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this team the San Francisco 49ers.
The Dallas Mavericks as a franchise is dead and has been since the day Roy Tarpley was suspended (again) for drugs. Roy was the heart and soul of the team and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this team The Mavericks.
The World as a place is dead and has been since the day Jesus died. Jesus was the heart and soul of the world and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this The World.
Kinda puts things into perspective, I'd say.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Jesus was the heart and soul of the world and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this The World.[/QUOTE]
Oh, unsuccessful comparison.
Oh, unsuccessful comparison.
I actually think Freddie would have got a good giggle out of the Jesus thing.
I am ashamed to admit that, whilst reading along, getting somewhat peeved at the post, because, well...deep down, I resent Paul Rodgers, and, I, absurdly, don't like hearing him sing Queen songs...but, I digress...I was reading along, getting all worked up, drinkin' me coffee, and, Bam! Read the Jesus line, and, laughed out loud.
So, I suppose that means, "Good one, Microwave."
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Killer_Whale wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Jesus was the heart and soul of the world and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this The World.[/QUOTE]
Oh, unsuccessful comparison.[/QUOTE]
I am ashamed to admit that, whilst reading along, getting somewhat peeved at the post, because, well...deep down, I resent Paul Rodgers, and, I, absurdly, don't like hearing him sing Queen songs...but, I digress...I was reading along, getting all worked up, drinkin' me coffee, and, Bam! Read the Jesus line, and, laughed out loud.
So, I suppose that means, "Good one, Microwave."
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Killer_Whale wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Jesus was the heart and soul of the world and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this The World.[/QUOTE]
Oh, unsuccessful comparison.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Killer_Whale wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Jesus was the heart and soul of the world and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this The World.[/QUOTE]
Oh, unsuccessful comparison.[/QUOTE]
nah jesus was a made up figure in a story book
Oh, unsuccessful comparison.[/QUOTE]
nah jesus was a made up figure in a story book
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Taking it one step further, let's use The Professor's analogy:
[QUOTE]Queen as a band is dead and has been since the day freddie died. Freddie was the heart and soul of the band and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this band Queen.[/QUOTE]
Now let's see how stupid that sounds when you substitute:
Chrysler as a automobile manufacturer is dead and has been since the day Lee Iacocca was fired. Lee was the heart and soul of the company and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this car a Chrysler.
The 49ers as a team is dead and has been since the day Terrell Owens left. T.O. was the heart and soul of the team and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this team the San Francisco 49ers.
The Dallas Mavericks as a franchise is dead and has been since the day Roy Tarpley was suspended (again) for drugs. Roy was the heart and soul of the team and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this team The Mavericks.
The World as a place is dead and has been since the day Jesus died. Jesus was the heart and soul of the world and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this The World.
Kinda puts things into perspective, I'd say.[/QUOTE]
the only one stupid here is YOU and you cant make comparisions like that with Queen. Freddie was like the heart of the body of queen and when that heart stopped beating queen died, simple as that.
John realized this and quit. Brian and roger still want to feel as they did back then and thats ok, just dont call the band queen coz it isnt. Its a cover band.
freddie had a HUGE impact on the band, both his vocals and arrangements and songwriting. Live in denial if you want but the fact remains that without freddie its simply impossible to continue the band and call it queen, all it is is a cover band, Freddie isnt replacable and if you think he is then you are a retard.
[QUOTE]Queen as a band is dead and has been since the day freddie died. Freddie was the heart and soul of the band and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this band Queen.[/QUOTE]
Now let's see how stupid that sounds when you substitute:
Chrysler as a automobile manufacturer is dead and has been since the day Lee Iacocca was fired. Lee was the heart and soul of the company and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this car a Chrysler.
The 49ers as a team is dead and has been since the day Terrell Owens left. T.O. was the heart and soul of the team and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this team the San Francisco 49ers.
The Dallas Mavericks as a franchise is dead and has been since the day Roy Tarpley was suspended (again) for drugs. Roy was the heart and soul of the team and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this team The Mavericks.
The World as a place is dead and has been since the day Jesus died. Jesus was the heart and soul of the world and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this The World.
Kinda puts things into perspective, I'd say.[/QUOTE]
the only one stupid here is YOU and you cant make comparisions like that with Queen. Freddie was like the heart of the body of queen and when that heart stopped beating queen died, simple as that.
John realized this and quit. Brian and roger still want to feel as they did back then and thats ok, just dont call the band queen coz it isnt. Its a cover band.
freddie had a HUGE impact on the band, both his vocals and arrangements and songwriting. Live in denial if you want but the fact remains that without freddie its simply impossible to continue the band and call it queen, all it is is a cover band, Freddie isnt replacable and if you think he is then you are a retard.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Taking it one step further, let's use The Professor's analogy:
[QUOTE]Queen as a band is dead and has been since the day freddie died. Freddie was the heart and soul of the band and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this band Queen.[/QUOTE]
Now let's see how stupid that sounds when you substitute:
Chrysler as a automobile manufacturer is dead and has been since the day Lee Iacocca was fired. Lee was the heart and soul of the company and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this car a Chrysler.
The 49ers as a team is dead and has been since the day Terrell Owens left. T.O. was the heart and soul of the team and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this team the San Francisco 49ers.
The Dallas Mavericks as a franchise is dead and has been since the day Roy Tarpley was suspended (again) for drugs. Roy was the heart and soul of the team and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this team The Mavericks.
The World as a place is dead and has been since the day Jesus died. Jesus was the heart and soul of the world and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this The World.
Kinda puts things into perspective, I'd say.[/QUOTE]
the only one stupid here is YOU and you cant make comparisions like that with Queen. Freddie was like the heart of the body of queen and when that heart stopped beating queen died, simple as that.
John realized this and quit. Brian and roger still want to feel as they did back then and thats ok, just dont call the band queen coz it isnt. Its a cover band.
freddie had a HUGE impact on the band, both his vocals and arrangements and songwriting. Live in denial if you want but the fact remains that without freddie its simply impossible to continue the band and call it queen, all it is is a cover band, Freddie isnt replacable and if you think he is then you are a retard.[/QUOTE]
I thought we were gonna get a serious answer from you for once, then you go and add that to the end.
i ask you, if brian died, and they replaced him, would you care so much? you are such a freddie fan after all.
[QUOTE]Queen as a band is dead and has been since the day freddie died. Freddie was the heart and soul of the band and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this band Queen.[/QUOTE]
Now let's see how stupid that sounds when you substitute:
Chrysler as a automobile manufacturer is dead and has been since the day Lee Iacocca was fired. Lee was the heart and soul of the company and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this car a Chrysler.
The 49ers as a team is dead and has been since the day Terrell Owens left. T.O. was the heart and soul of the team and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this team the San Francisco 49ers.
The Dallas Mavericks as a franchise is dead and has been since the day Roy Tarpley was suspended (again) for drugs. Roy was the heart and soul of the team and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this team The Mavericks.
The World as a place is dead and has been since the day Jesus died. Jesus was the heart and soul of the world and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this The World.
Kinda puts things into perspective, I'd say.[/QUOTE]
the only one stupid here is YOU and you cant make comparisions like that with Queen. Freddie was like the heart of the body of queen and when that heart stopped beating queen died, simple as that.
John realized this and quit. Brian and roger still want to feel as they did back then and thats ok, just dont call the band queen coz it isnt. Its a cover band.
freddie had a HUGE impact on the band, both his vocals and arrangements and songwriting. Live in denial if you want but the fact remains that without freddie its simply impossible to continue the band and call it queen, all it is is a cover band, Freddie isnt replacable and if you think he is then you are a retard.[/QUOTE]
I thought we were gonna get a serious answer from you for once, then you go and add that to the end.
i ask you, if brian died, and they replaced him, would you care so much? you are such a freddie fan after all.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brian-Harold-May wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Taking it one step further, let's use The Professor's analogy:
[QUOTE]Queen as a band is dead and has been since the day freddie died. Freddie was the heart and soul of the band and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this band Queen.[/QUOTE]
Now let's see how stupid that sounds when you substitute:
Chrysler as a automobile manufacturer is dead and has been since the day Lee Iacocca was fired. Lee was the heart and soul of the company and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this car a Chrysler.
The 49ers as a team is dead and has been since the day Terrell Owens left. T.O. was the heart and soul of the team and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this team the San Francisco 49ers.
The Dallas Mavericks as a franchise is dead and has been since the day Roy Tarpley was suspended (again) for drugs. Roy was the heart and soul of the team and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this team The Mavericks.
The World as a place is dead and has been since the day Jesus died. Jesus was the heart and soul of the world and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this The World.
Kinda puts things into perspective, I'd say.[/QUOTE]
the only one stupid here is YOU and you cant make comparisions like that with Queen. Freddie was like the heart of the body of queen and when that heart stopped beating queen died, simple as that.
John realized this and quit. Brian and roger still want to feel as they did back then and thats ok, just dont call the band queen coz it isnt. Its a cover band.
freddie had a HUGE impact on the band, both his vocals and arrangements and songwriting. Live in denial if you want but the fact remains that without freddie its simply impossible to continue the band and call it queen, all it is is a cover band, Freddie isnt replacable and if you think he is then you are a retard.[/QUOTE]
I thought we were gonna get a serious answer from you for once, then you go and add that to the end.
i ask you, if brian died, and they replaced him, would you care so much? you are such a freddie fan after all.[/QUOTE]
of course i would care, brian is very special and is not replacable either, specially if they replaced him after 20 years together.
[QUOTE]Queen as a band is dead and has been since the day freddie died. Freddie was the heart and soul of the band and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this band Queen.[/QUOTE]
Now let's see how stupid that sounds when you substitute:
Chrysler as a automobile manufacturer is dead and has been since the day Lee Iacocca was fired. Lee was the heart and soul of the company and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this car a Chrysler.
The 49ers as a team is dead and has been since the day Terrell Owens left. T.O. was the heart and soul of the team and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this team the San Francisco 49ers.
The Dallas Mavericks as a franchise is dead and has been since the day Roy Tarpley was suspended (again) for drugs. Roy was the heart and soul of the team and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this team The Mavericks.
The World as a place is dead and has been since the day Jesus died. Jesus was the heart and soul of the world and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this The World.
Kinda puts things into perspective, I'd say.[/QUOTE]
the only one stupid here is YOU and you cant make comparisions like that with Queen. Freddie was like the heart of the body of queen and when that heart stopped beating queen died, simple as that.
John realized this and quit. Brian and roger still want to feel as they did back then and thats ok, just dont call the band queen coz it isnt. Its a cover band.
freddie had a HUGE impact on the band, both his vocals and arrangements and songwriting. Live in denial if you want but the fact remains that without freddie its simply impossible to continue the band and call it queen, all it is is a cover band, Freddie isnt replacable and if you think he is then you are a retard.[/QUOTE]
I thought we were gonna get a serious answer from you for once, then you go and add that to the end.
i ask you, if brian died, and they replaced him, would you care so much? you are such a freddie fan after all.[/QUOTE]
of course i would care, brian is very special and is not replacable either, specially if they replaced him after 20 years together.
My dearest Microwave:
"So what point are you trying to make?"
As I assumed, and still assume you're very clever, my point is that a name is meaningful. I'm not using absurd extreme examples talking about nicknames of university teams being sold to the highest bidder or NFL teams going bankrupt and being taken over by the hated enemy as examples of reason, I did that to highlight the power of the name. You're telling me on one hand that names are meaningless, but on the other hand it seems that to, say, Red Sox fans, Yankees fans, Leaf fans, Cowboy fans and fans all around the world, nicknames or band names are very important. If the oil, illegal handgun and strip club industries ;) go bad and Dallas hits a recession and the Cowboys had to relocate, and a new franchise came back as the Redskins (and I know it wouldn't), I don't believe people of Dallas would accept it. There are emotions associated with the names Redskins, Cowboys, Queen and the Beatles. Otherwise your NFL football team would be Dallas, period. Names are important.
"Chrysler as a automobile manufacturer is dead and has been since the day Lee Iacocca was fired. Lee was the heart and soul of the company and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this car a Chrysler."
This is irrelevant, as is the sports analogy. Chrysler, GM or any business is designed as eternal. The founders or money people of Chrysler didn't make the cars, they hired people to make their cars, and probably fired lots of them in the first days of business. Nobody knows who made the Corinthian leather that was so favoured by Ricardo Montalban. It could be any one of 20 people on three shifts. Nothing about an automobile is personal. They are mass produced assembly line vehicles. Queen was four people from their first record until the death of a member. Names were listed on every album, and we knew who responsible for each note, and still debates occur over it to this day. Apply everything I stated above to a sports team. There will be the Dallas Cowboys a hundred years from now, because they are interchangeable and created to be so. If the name is meaningless, when Roger, Brian and John pass on, if their sons Rufus, Jimmy and Richard along with Kashmira Cooke's son inherit the name is it Queen? To some people sure, to me no.
"So what point are you trying to make?"
As I assumed, and still assume you're very clever, my point is that a name is meaningful. I'm not using absurd extreme examples talking about nicknames of university teams being sold to the highest bidder or NFL teams going bankrupt and being taken over by the hated enemy as examples of reason, I did that to highlight the power of the name. You're telling me on one hand that names are meaningless, but on the other hand it seems that to, say, Red Sox fans, Yankees fans, Leaf fans, Cowboy fans and fans all around the world, nicknames or band names are very important. If the oil, illegal handgun and strip club industries ;) go bad and Dallas hits a recession and the Cowboys had to relocate, and a new franchise came back as the Redskins (and I know it wouldn't), I don't believe people of Dallas would accept it. There are emotions associated with the names Redskins, Cowboys, Queen and the Beatles. Otherwise your NFL football team would be Dallas, period. Names are important.
"Chrysler as a automobile manufacturer is dead and has been since the day Lee Iacocca was fired. Lee was the heart and soul of the company and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this car a Chrysler."
This is irrelevant, as is the sports analogy. Chrysler, GM or any business is designed as eternal. The founders or money people of Chrysler didn't make the cars, they hired people to make their cars, and probably fired lots of them in the first days of business. Nobody knows who made the Corinthian leather that was so favoured by Ricardo Montalban. It could be any one of 20 people on three shifts. Nothing about an automobile is personal. They are mass produced assembly line vehicles. Queen was four people from their first record until the death of a member. Names were listed on every album, and we knew who responsible for each note, and still debates occur over it to this day. Apply everything I stated above to a sports team. There will be the Dallas Cowboys a hundred years from now, because they are interchangeable and created to be so. If the name is meaningless, when Roger, Brian and John pass on, if their sons Rufus, Jimmy and Richard along with Kashmira Cooke's son inherit the name is it Queen? To some people sure, to me no.
I think that, Paul is a GREAT singer, but not like Freddie :D, beacause Freddie is Freddie.....