I think it's strange that people care at all how they call themselves. I don't give a fuck if they call it Queen, Queen + Paul Rodgers, Queen II, Smile, Smile Again, Bad Queen Company, Queen Free, Freddie Mercury Was Gay, AIDS is the Cure or 3 Old Farts. As long as we'll get some new music and a great tour like in 2005/2006.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
> You can't expect a bunch of 60-year-old guys to sound like a bunch of 25-year-olds, can you?
Did I say "their concert was shite because they didn't sound like the albums"? NO. I said "below their level", i.e. "below the level a 63 yo Page, a 59 yo Plant and a 61 yo Jones should have".
> The thing is, Freddie never said he wanted the band to finish.
He did say that if anyone left Queen, anyone of the four, that'd be the end of the band. Some bands work like football teams (Yes, for instance, or GnR), some others don't. I personally would love a McCartney + Starr + Clapton + Gilmour (for instance) tour, but that wouldn't be The Beatles. Not better, not worse, just not The Beatles (or Cream or Pink Floyd for that matter). Same case here. All of that, of course, IMO.
> The only thing we know about his opinion on the subject is that he asked Brian, Roger and John to finish Made In Heaven.
All in all I couldn't care less about Fred's opinion on the matter. I've got mine, and mine is... you know.
> After his death, Roger, Brian and John owned the name.
I'm not talking about law (of course they can call themselves Queen and I can't do anything to stop them), but about ethics, morality and integrity. Not in vain I call them "opportunistic cowards" rather than "dishonest thieves". Again, IMO.
> from the interviews and from Brian's soapbox, we can tell they are working just like the old days, using all the Queen trademarks.
I completely disagree there.
> Why change the name when we're getting pretty much the same we used to get back in the old days, only with a different voice?
Because it's a different band. Not only the voice has changed, but the music itself (Paul is more than a singer, he also plays instruments and composes). No Freddie-esque piano, no Deacy bass... that's not Queen. IMO.
> But lately you've been writing your opinion in SEVERAL threads. I think we all have already gotten the point - you don't support the way they're using the name. If you keep repeating it over and over everytime someone gets excited about Q+PR news, we'll assume you're just trying to tease everybody whose opinion is different than yours.
Do you think I won't be able to sleep if some QZers "assume (I'm) just trying to tease everybody whose opinion is different than (mine)"? No, I can live with that. It's a forum, so I can express my opinion on the matter (and the concept of "several" or "too many" times is relative) as much as I feel like it.
> I think it's strange that people care at all how they call themselves.
The world would be very boring if all people cared (or didn't care) about the same details.
> I don't give a fuck if they call it Queen, Queen + Paul Rodgers, Queen II, Smile, Smile Again, Bad Queen Company, Queen Free, Freddie Mercury Was Gay, AIDS is the Cure or 3 Old Farts.
I wish they shared that thought, and changed the bloody name.
Did I say "their concert was shite because they didn't sound like the albums"? NO. I said "below their level", i.e. "below the level a 63 yo Page, a 59 yo Plant and a 61 yo Jones should have".
> The thing is, Freddie never said he wanted the band to finish.
He did say that if anyone left Queen, anyone of the four, that'd be the end of the band. Some bands work like football teams (Yes, for instance, or GnR), some others don't. I personally would love a McCartney + Starr + Clapton + Gilmour (for instance) tour, but that wouldn't be The Beatles. Not better, not worse, just not The Beatles (or Cream or Pink Floyd for that matter). Same case here. All of that, of course, IMO.
> The only thing we know about his opinion on the subject is that he asked Brian, Roger and John to finish Made In Heaven.
All in all I couldn't care less about Fred's opinion on the matter. I've got mine, and mine is... you know.
> After his death, Roger, Brian and John owned the name.
I'm not talking about law (of course they can call themselves Queen and I can't do anything to stop them), but about ethics, morality and integrity. Not in vain I call them "opportunistic cowards" rather than "dishonest thieves". Again, IMO.
> from the interviews and from Brian's soapbox, we can tell they are working just like the old days, using all the Queen trademarks.
I completely disagree there.
> Why change the name when we're getting pretty much the same we used to get back in the old days, only with a different voice?
Because it's a different band. Not only the voice has changed, but the music itself (Paul is more than a singer, he also plays instruments and composes). No Freddie-esque piano, no Deacy bass... that's not Queen. IMO.
> But lately you've been writing your opinion in SEVERAL threads. I think we all have already gotten the point - you don't support the way they're using the name. If you keep repeating it over and over everytime someone gets excited about Q+PR news, we'll assume you're just trying to tease everybody whose opinion is different than yours.
Do you think I won't be able to sleep if some QZers "assume (I'm) just trying to tease everybody whose opinion is different than (mine)"? No, I can live with that. It's a forum, so I can express my opinion on the matter (and the concept of "several" or "too many" times is relative) as much as I feel like it.
> I think it's strange that people care at all how they call themselves.
The world would be very boring if all people cared (or didn't care) about the same details.
> I don't give a fuck if they call it Queen, Queen + Paul Rodgers, Queen II, Smile, Smile Again, Bad Queen Company, Queen Free, Freddie Mercury Was Gay, AIDS is the Cure or 3 Old Farts.
I wish they shared that thought, and changed the bloody name.
But what does it matter to you Sebastian if they call it Queen or not? I thought you only cared about the music, the art blablabla.
In spite of the name, I wish they load the upcoming shows with new music and put a definitive end to all that stuff about 'trademark sounds', LOML sing-alongs and WWRY/WATC as final encores.
If they want to be a band again, then they have to be brave and build A BAND. Otherwise they'll do nothing but keep covering their own songs and live under Freddie's shadow (although they claim they don't do it anymore).
If they want to be a band again, then they have to be brave and build A BAND. Otherwise they'll do nothing but keep covering their own songs and live under Freddie's shadow (although they claim they don't do it anymore).
Agreed, they should drop some of the 'classic' Queen stuff. No more Freddie video's, no more WATC as a finale.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Pim Derks wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Agreed, they should drop some of the 'classic' Queen stuff. No more Freddie video's, no more WATC as a finale.[/QUOTE]
If they did that, how many people in the audience would recognise Bri and Rog as members of the former Queen?
They have to play the "classic" Queen stuff if they want to be treated as "Queen", and that's always going to be their number one priority.
If they did that, how many people in the audience would recognise Bri and Rog as members of the former Queen?
They have to play the "classic" Queen stuff if they want to be treated as "Queen", and that's always going to be their number one priority.
Personally, I think all this jazz are a pity.
Someday we'll miss thoose opportunity and, in absolute, we'll miss everything from today....
Have a brilliant Y 2008
Bye!
Claudio
Someday we'll miss thoose opportunity and, in absolute, we'll miss everything from today....
Have a brilliant Y 2008
Bye!
Claudio
I thinks its great!!!!!!!! If you dont like it fuck off!!!!
Way to contribute to the conversation Olly. For the record, I'm sure Sebastian doesn't think its great, so if you dont like it, then you fuck off!!!!!!!!!!!! That settles most disputes doesn't it?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE]And I assume Led Zeppelin are cowards then, for reuniting a couple of times with guest drummers yet labelling themselves "Led Zeppelin"...(?) I haven't seen anyone questioning the legitimacy of Led Zeppelin's use of that name.[/QUOTE]
I think they're cowards too.[/QUOTE]
So I guess that makes my band Unbalanced cowards too, since I replaced their last drummer, and the original singer quit, leaving the main guitarist to take on dual duties as guitarist AND lead vocalist, while the original bassist is now rhythm guitarist/backing vox, and we have a new bassist filling that spot...
Yeah right.
:P
[QUOTE][QUOTE]Maybe people are bitter about Queen using the name because it was the legendary lead singer who died, not the silent bassist or the average drummer...?[/QUOTE]
I personally would complain in any of those cases. Fred + Brian wouldn't be Queen. Fred + John wouldn't be Queen. Fred + Rog wouldn't be Queen. Bri + John wouldn't be Queen. Rog + John wouldn't be Queen, and of course, Bri + Rog aren't Queen.[/QUOTE]
So then Van Halen wasn't Van Halen without David Lee Roth, who is now reunited with them, yet they had massive success with Sammy Hagar? (And for the reunion matter, Eddie's son Wolfgang now plays bass with them despite being 16-years-old, instead of Michael Anthony)
[QUOTE]With all respect, I love your website, I love the brilliant work you do in providing accurate info about Queen's music, but you sound like one of those annoying spammers like Treasure Moment when you enter threads just to moan about Q+PR.[/QUOTE]
I second that. Please refrain from that, and start your own moanful topics separately elsewhere PLEASE.
And Seb's comments are akin to the American Pokemon dub fan discussions, after Pokemon USA took back the dubbing licence from 4Kids (who did the first eight seasons for the sub) and decided to use their own (read = TAJ Studios) crappy voice actors, which split the fans in half like the Q+PR thing did back at first (despite the major difference being that, now MORE people are more accepting of Q+PR as an actual band that deserves to be called Queen, instead of being merely a self-covers pub band).
It's for these spamming reasons that discussions on the voice actors is banned on virtually all major Pokemon fansite message boards and chatrooms.
Honestly, I'm disappointed in you Seb, after your childish spamming. I used to have respect for you, but now I've changed my tune.
I think they're cowards too.[/QUOTE]
So I guess that makes my band Unbalanced cowards too, since I replaced their last drummer, and the original singer quit, leaving the main guitarist to take on dual duties as guitarist AND lead vocalist, while the original bassist is now rhythm guitarist/backing vox, and we have a new bassist filling that spot...
Yeah right.
:P
[QUOTE][QUOTE]Maybe people are bitter about Queen using the name because it was the legendary lead singer who died, not the silent bassist or the average drummer...?[/QUOTE]
I personally would complain in any of those cases. Fred + Brian wouldn't be Queen. Fred + John wouldn't be Queen. Fred + Rog wouldn't be Queen. Bri + John wouldn't be Queen. Rog + John wouldn't be Queen, and of course, Bri + Rog aren't Queen.[/QUOTE]
So then Van Halen wasn't Van Halen without David Lee Roth, who is now reunited with them, yet they had massive success with Sammy Hagar? (And for the reunion matter, Eddie's son Wolfgang now plays bass with them despite being 16-years-old, instead of Michael Anthony)
[QUOTE]With all respect, I love your website, I love the brilliant work you do in providing accurate info about Queen's music, but you sound like one of those annoying spammers like Treasure Moment when you enter threads just to moan about Q+PR.[/QUOTE]
I second that. Please refrain from that, and start your own moanful topics separately elsewhere PLEASE.
And Seb's comments are akin to the American Pokemon dub fan discussions, after Pokemon USA took back the dubbing licence from 4Kids (who did the first eight seasons for the sub) and decided to use their own (read = TAJ Studios) crappy voice actors, which split the fans in half like the Q+PR thing did back at first (despite the major difference being that, now MORE people are more accepting of Q+PR as an actual band that deserves to be called Queen, instead of being merely a self-covers pub band).
It's for these spamming reasons that discussions on the voice actors is banned on virtually all major Pokemon fansite message boards and chatrooms.
Honestly, I'm disappointed in you Seb, after your childish spamming. I used to have respect for you, but now I've changed my tune.
Dear Lord! Now the great inu-liger lost respect for me! I'll never be able to smile again........
I think Mr Liger's posts aren't even worth reading, so I'll answer to and comment on the others': when it comes to enjoying a song I do only care about the music (that's why I love so much Spice Girls' second album, for instance). But when it comes to rating a product I care about other things too, especially in this case.
As I said, I think it's utterly coward and opportunistic, which for other people would be "reasonable". But Brian, Roger and Paul are three wonderful musicians, able to be great without having to pathetically depend on a name, a logo or those "Paul was Fred's idol" statements. My disappointment is that big precisely because it comes from three marvellous artists, who IMO don't need to rely on that. Yet they do, as if they were afraid of selling less than they'd do under the Queen label or as if they (especially Brian) depend on it to feel their work is valuable. In either case, I'd expect much more from three geniuses like Mr Rodgers, Mr Taylor and Dr May.
Regarding 'Champions', I do like their version :) If they want to finish off their gigs with something else, that's all right, but I personally wouldn't complain about the use of Freddie's (or John Lennon's, or John Deacon's, etc) pieces.
I think Mr Liger's posts aren't even worth reading, so I'll answer to and comment on the others': when it comes to enjoying a song I do only care about the music (that's why I love so much Spice Girls' second album, for instance). But when it comes to rating a product I care about other things too, especially in this case.
As I said, I think it's utterly coward and opportunistic, which for other people would be "reasonable". But Brian, Roger and Paul are three wonderful musicians, able to be great without having to pathetically depend on a name, a logo or those "Paul was Fred's idol" statements. My disappointment is that big precisely because it comes from three marvellous artists, who IMO don't need to rely on that. Yet they do, as if they were afraid of selling less than they'd do under the Queen label or as if they (especially Brian) depend on it to feel their work is valuable. In either case, I'd expect much more from three geniuses like Mr Rodgers, Mr Taylor and Dr May.
Regarding 'Champions', I do like their version :) If they want to finish off their gigs with something else, that's all right, but I personally wouldn't complain about the use of Freddie's (or John Lennon's, or John Deacon's, etc) pieces.
Sebastian, with all due respect as I admire and respect your views, that discussion isn't flying here. Of the few worthwhile posters here who know their stuff, few of them can debate anything regarding the Queen name. It always, always, always reverts to Brian and Roger's "right" to use the Queen name. I have no problem with that, or the fact that the brand is too strong to ignore. But once and for all, let's be honest here. Freddie, to the man on the street, WAS Queen. I know, I know Van Halen, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, The Who, etc. all replaced members. However, if there's been one man in the history of rock music more affiliated with a band name than Freddie Mercury and Queen, please let me know who he was. I may be mistaken, but none of the members of the aforementioned bands had a singer who:
a) wrote arguably the song of the century in rock
b) wrote one of the two most enduring rock anthems ever
c) SANG on the other most enduring rock anthem ever
d) put on a legendary performance at the biggest concert of his generation
e) was arguably in the discussion for best singer/frontman ever
f) was arguably the most unique and diverse writer in his generation in rock
g) was so important, he was named one of the greatest Brits of the 20th cnetury
h) was the first rock artist to be memorialized on a stamp in Great Britain
Other than that, he's pretty replaceable, and there's really not much to choose between him and any replacement in any other band. Paul Rodgers is an amazing singer, but no Freddie when it comes to being a Queen singer. Freddie wouldn't be my cup of tea in Bad Company or Free either. The bottom line is, if Brian and Roger want to be Queen, they can. Brian says that he's bloody well earned the right to call the band Queen. That being the case, so has John Deacon. So if you believe that Queen is Brian, Roger, Paul and any one else they use, as I've said before, you have to accept that if John Deacon were to tour as a funk act with Errol Brown from Hot Chocolate on vocals, the horn section from Average White Band, Prince on guitar and Chester Thompson on drums, that's also Queen. John and Siouxsie Sioux, Adam Ant and the girls from Bananarama are Queen. John, Chris Squire from Yes, Mike Rutherford from Genesis and Paul McCartney all playing bass with no guitar, vocals or drums? That's Queen too. If you don't believe in a name that's cool, but Sebastian's right, if it's a new venture, get out there and fight for an audience. For what it's worth, Bad Company has cache, has gone through a million lineup changes and is pretty generic rock compared to Queen so I think that'd be a better way to go.
a) wrote arguably the song of the century in rock
b) wrote one of the two most enduring rock anthems ever
c) SANG on the other most enduring rock anthem ever
d) put on a legendary performance at the biggest concert of his generation
e) was arguably in the discussion for best singer/frontman ever
f) was arguably the most unique and diverse writer in his generation in rock
g) was so important, he was named one of the greatest Brits of the 20th cnetury
h) was the first rock artist to be memorialized on a stamp in Great Britain
Other than that, he's pretty replaceable, and there's really not much to choose between him and any replacement in any other band. Paul Rodgers is an amazing singer, but no Freddie when it comes to being a Queen singer. Freddie wouldn't be my cup of tea in Bad Company or Free either. The bottom line is, if Brian and Roger want to be Queen, they can. Brian says that he's bloody well earned the right to call the band Queen. That being the case, so has John Deacon. So if you believe that Queen is Brian, Roger, Paul and any one else they use, as I've said before, you have to accept that if John Deacon were to tour as a funk act with Errol Brown from Hot Chocolate on vocals, the horn section from Average White Band, Prince on guitar and Chester Thompson on drums, that's also Queen. John and Siouxsie Sioux, Adam Ant and the girls from Bananarama are Queen. John, Chris Squire from Yes, Mike Rutherford from Genesis and Paul McCartney all playing bass with no guitar, vocals or drums? That's Queen too. If you don't believe in a name that's cool, but Sebastian's right, if it's a new venture, get out there and fight for an audience. For what it's worth, Bad Company has cache, has gone through a million lineup changes and is pretty generic rock compared to Queen so I think that'd be a better way to go.
Not that this matters, but I agree with the idea that a name-change would be in order for an album of all new material.
The Q+PR tours were debatable because it was a Queen set... and if some fat, bald git who doesn't even sound like Freddie Mercury can go on a tour using "Queen" in the act name, then I'll be fucked if Q+PR aren't allowed to do the same.
However, Sebastian.... it's a bit disingenuous to say that the guys are living in the past. You yourself are living in the past. This opinion of yours was old in 2004. Time to find something new to bitch about, is it not??
To be really fair, most users of this forum would be living in the past by talking about a band that hasn't put out an album of completely new material since 1991... where does one draw the line, exactly?
In either case, what is achieved by going into every Q+PR related thread and telling us that the guys in the band are cowards?
Either you're right, and everyone else is wrong.... in which case you should just be quiet and content in the knowledge that they're all insane,
Or you're wrong, in which case ; clam up!!
Honestly, I do agree that it's iffy to put the label of Queen on the new album.
When I talk about it with my family, I usually describe it as 'the guys from Queen'. I never call it Queen, because even if it flies as Queen for most of us, there's a bunch of people who'd never accept it.
But you know.. what's done is done. If you're going to assert this opinion in every Q+PR thread from now till the death of the last surviving member, you'll only look like an ass, and you're not.
We know how you feel. Why don't you put it in your signature or something, so that it takes up less room in the forums?
Much love,
Zebonka.
The Q+PR tours were debatable because it was a Queen set... and if some fat, bald git who doesn't even sound like Freddie Mercury can go on a tour using "Queen" in the act name, then I'll be fucked if Q+PR aren't allowed to do the same.
However, Sebastian.... it's a bit disingenuous to say that the guys are living in the past. You yourself are living in the past. This opinion of yours was old in 2004. Time to find something new to bitch about, is it not??
To be really fair, most users of this forum would be living in the past by talking about a band that hasn't put out an album of completely new material since 1991... where does one draw the line, exactly?
In either case, what is achieved by going into every Q+PR related thread and telling us that the guys in the band are cowards?
Either you're right, and everyone else is wrong.... in which case you should just be quiet and content in the knowledge that they're all insane,
Or you're wrong, in which case ; clam up!!
Honestly, I do agree that it's iffy to put the label of Queen on the new album.
When I talk about it with my family, I usually describe it as 'the guys from Queen'. I never call it Queen, because even if it flies as Queen for most of us, there's a bunch of people who'd never accept it.
But you know.. what's done is done. If you're going to assert this opinion in every Q+PR thread from now till the death of the last surviving member, you'll only look like an ass, and you're not.
We know how you feel. Why don't you put it in your signature or something, so that it takes up less room in the forums?
Much love,
Zebonka.
Christ, why can't you people get over it and just be happy that they're still working?
I think Fred's role in the band went far beyond his voice: what about his songwriting (he was the band's dominant composer in most of the albums), his piano playing (piano was the main instrument in many of the most important songs), his arrangements (it was him who re-structured 'Ga Ga' and 'Magic' among several others), and the sole fact he came up with the name of the band.
But my complaint isn't about Freddie per se. I think all four of them were fundamental. A theoretical Freddie, Roger and John with a guitar player like Nuno (who plays much better than Bri, plays other instruments, sings fairly well, arranges, composes) or Mick Ronson wouldn't have been Queen. Same for Fred + Bri + Rog, etc.
> However, Sebastian.... it's a bit disingenuous to say that the guys are living in the past. You yourself are living in the past. This opinion of yours was old in 2004. Time to find something new to bitch about, is it not??
Time for them to find something new to call themselves, isn't it?
> In either case, what is achieved by going into every Q+PR related thread and telling us that the guys in the band are cowards?
What is achieved by telling me that?
> Either you're right, and everyone else is wrong.... in which case you should just be quiet and content in the knowledge that they're all insane, Or you're wrong, in which case ; clam up!!
This isn't a right or wrong thing... it's all a matter of opinion.
> If you're going to assert this opinion in every Q+PR thread from now till the death of the last surviving member, you'll only look like an ass, and you're not.
I can live with that, but thanks for the advice :)
> We know how you feel. Why don't you put it in your signature or something, so that it takes up less room in the forums?
My "that's not Queen, but Paul and two leeches" (or akin) messages don't take much room. Other people's replies (and my follow-ups to them) do.
> Christ, why can't you people get over it and just be happy that they're still working?
Fine. You do that, and I'll keep saying that I'm glad they're still working, but they should do it under another name.
But my complaint isn't about Freddie per se. I think all four of them were fundamental. A theoretical Freddie, Roger and John with a guitar player like Nuno (who plays much better than Bri, plays other instruments, sings fairly well, arranges, composes) or Mick Ronson wouldn't have been Queen. Same for Fred + Bri + Rog, etc.
> However, Sebastian.... it's a bit disingenuous to say that the guys are living in the past. You yourself are living in the past. This opinion of yours was old in 2004. Time to find something new to bitch about, is it not??
Time for them to find something new to call themselves, isn't it?
> In either case, what is achieved by going into every Q+PR related thread and telling us that the guys in the band are cowards?
What is achieved by telling me that?
> Either you're right, and everyone else is wrong.... in which case you should just be quiet and content in the knowledge that they're all insane, Or you're wrong, in which case ; clam up!!
This isn't a right or wrong thing... it's all a matter of opinion.
> If you're going to assert this opinion in every Q+PR thread from now till the death of the last surviving member, you'll only look like an ass, and you're not.
I can live with that, but thanks for the advice :)
> We know how you feel. Why don't you put it in your signature or something, so that it takes up less room in the forums?
My "that's not Queen, but Paul and two leeches" (or akin) messages don't take much room. Other people's replies (and my follow-ups to them) do.
> Christ, why can't you people get over it and just be happy that they're still working?
Fine. You do that, and I'll keep saying that I'm glad they're still working, but they should do it under another name.