> Aha but by your own logic, you should no longer be posting on this issue. You have said your piece. Should you not move on?
When they stop using the name Queen, I'll stop calling them cowards. It's not a threat, and of course they won't stop using it until they feel like it (which has nothing to do with my insights on the matter), but I feel better when I let my opinion out (again). So, again, you can ignore it if you want. As I wrote earlier: a two-sentence complaint by me about the use of the Queen name doesn't take much room in a forum thread. 5+ replies to my comment (trying to make me stop or insulting me, or whatever) do take loads of room that could be used in something else.
> calling them cowards or leeches implies that they've violated what (to you) is some important moral code here.
Yes, to me. But if somebody else thinks they didn't break any moral code (or they did but it's not a big deal), that's all right.
> I really think they should just come up with a new name, but I'm hardly militant about it.
People are different. But in any case I'm not going to record shops to burn all copies of 'Return of the Cowards' I find, nor I paint graffitti with the message "Queen were Freddie, Roger, John and Brian". I'm merely posting my thought on a public forum, which isn't really hurting anybody.
> Does it really matter what they call themselves?
If it didn't, they'd use another name.
> It's not really up to us, If Brian & Roger want to call themselves Queen + Paul Rodgers, is it. It's up to them.
Yes, but it's up to us to express our opinion (glee, frustration, carelessness or whatever) about it if we want.
> People shouldn't be so shallow minded, enjoy it for what it is
I love their music, and I think their 'We Are the Champions' is much better than the Queen one. Live at least. Likewise, I think 'Say It's Not True' is a great song and a great recording (although they could've done it even better and they should have hired a bass player, or find one to join the band). But it doesn't change my perspective on the coward and immoral use of the Queen name.
> Maybe all the negative people's moans, have reached the ears of Brian & Roger, hence the new single labled as "BRIAN MAY, ROGER TAYLOR, QUEEN & Paul Rodgers" this time.
If so, then on a slow but steady rate, this is all working. Another reason to keep doing it.
> Yes, some might say "going from topic to topic with what is virtually a copy-paste message" was cowardly :-)
But it works for me, the same way the Queen name works for them.
> Personally, I think its just boring.
Again, I use 10-20 words, but then get 200-300 as reply...
> for the sake of making everyone else as miserable as he is.
I'm not feeling miserable. I can sleep well, be happy, etc, and I don't give the Queen-name thing much thought, except when I listen to a radio announcer saying "the new Queen single" or see a thread like this. In those cases, I say (or write) "that's not Queen + Paul Rodgers, it's Paul Rodgers with two opportunistic cowards" (or something to that effect), and that's it. Is it obsessive? Maybe, but it's not harmful. Way better than drinking or smoking anyway.
> Beyond that, who gives a shit what they want to call themselves.
If so, they could use another name.
> And the saddest part is that someone who is otherwise obviously a fairly intelligent and reasonable chap as Sebastian can't - or perhaps more accurately won't - let it go.
Nobody's perfect.
> There's nothing meaningless in my post asking Sebastian exactly why he has a bug in his arse that's possessing him to go from thread to thread saying 'cowards' or whatever his word-of-the-day is now.
I've said it before: the reason is that it ruins (for me) what otherwise is a marvellous collaboration and an extraordinary band (although I bother to insist that they
Thread
Posts in chronological order
The fact that they use the Queen name just to make a little more money can't be ignored.
I'm going to have to agree with Sebastian on this one, because it is more or less... wrong. It's not Queen. If they had any sense of humour they'd call themselves "1/2 Queen + PR".
Still, it is their band, their music, and it's their right to call themselves whatever they like.
I'm not complaining, I'm just saying what's on my mind. I think it's great that they're still into music and not retired, like a certain Mr. John Deacon.
I'm going to have to agree with Sebastian on this one, because it is more or less... wrong. It's not Queen. If they had any sense of humour they'd call themselves "1/2 Queen + PR".
Still, it is their band, their music, and it's their right to call themselves whatever they like.
I'm not complaining, I'm just saying what's on my mind. I think it's great that they're still into music and not retired, like a certain Mr. John Deacon.
All this crap from a N'Sync and Abba fan...
"I'm merely posting my thought on a public forum, which isn't really hurting anybody."
Yeah but it does hurt somebody. Everytime I want to read a decent thread on the subject, I have your loving contributions staring back at me from the screen.
The cynic in me reckons using the Queen name to get extra bucks is dodgy, but for fucks sake.... get real, people. The realist in me says the added Queen name will do virtually nothing to the sales figures. The whole world knows Freddie Mercury is dead, so it's not like putting 'Queen' on the CD is going to magically summon forth hordes of admiring teenagers with fat wallets.
It didn't work for 46664. That gig with Brian playing "The Call" and Anastacia singing WWRY was largely ignored... well, it was certainly no Live Aid.
As it was a worthy cause, I think putting "Queen" on the drums to get more attention was justifiable , but in either case, it really didn't do all that much.
Honestly, I would bawl Brian and Roger out for using the name for nefarious purposes - if I thought that such a scheme would pay off in the first place. But it won't. I bet anything that the same crowds would turn out and the same people would buy the music, no matter what the band is called.
Yeah but it does hurt somebody. Everytime I want to read a decent thread on the subject, I have your loving contributions staring back at me from the screen.
The cynic in me reckons using the Queen name to get extra bucks is dodgy, but for fucks sake.... get real, people. The realist in me says the added Queen name will do virtually nothing to the sales figures. The whole world knows Freddie Mercury is dead, so it's not like putting 'Queen' on the CD is going to magically summon forth hordes of admiring teenagers with fat wallets.
It didn't work for 46664. That gig with Brian playing "The Call" and Anastacia singing WWRY was largely ignored... well, it was certainly no Live Aid.
As it was a worthy cause, I think putting "Queen" on the drums to get more attention was justifiable , but in either case, it really didn't do all that much.
Honestly, I would bawl Brian and Roger out for using the name for nefarious purposes - if I thought that such a scheme would pay off in the first place. But it won't. I bet anything that the same crowds would turn out and the same people would buy the music, no matter what the band is called.
> The fact that they use the Queen name just to make a little more money can't be ignored.
Personally, I don't think it's about the money, but press coverage and packed venues. Well, sure, a packed venue means more money, but I don't think it's their main goal.
> All this crap from a N'Sync and Abba fan...
I'm not an N'SYNC and ABBA fan. I like N'SYNC's and ABBA's music, which isn't quite the same. But even if it were, that doesn't invalidate my opinion. Argumentum ad hominem.
> I bet anything that the same crowds would turn out and the same people would buy the music, no matter what the band is called.
I doubt so, although I hope so. I wish someday they change the name and that theory of yours can be confirmed (or denied).
Personally, I don't think it's about the money, but press coverage and packed venues. Well, sure, a packed venue means more money, but I don't think it's their main goal.
> All this crap from a N'Sync and Abba fan...
I'm not an N'SYNC and ABBA fan. I like N'SYNC's and ABBA's music, which isn't quite the same. But even if it were, that doesn't invalidate my opinion. Argumentum ad hominem.
> I bet anything that the same crowds would turn out and the same people would buy the music, no matter what the band is called.
I doubt so, although I hope so. I wish someday they change the name and that theory of yours can be confirmed (or denied).
Actually, Zebonka, there's nothing illogical about my reply to Mr. Faron Hyte's comments which include the following:
"Beyond that, who gives a shit what they want to call themselves."
Sebastian cares. I care. Other people care. People who don't agree with the name issue dismiss and ridicule those who don't take their stand. Why?
"And the saddest part is that someone who is otherwise obviously a fairly intelligent and reasonable chap as Sebastian can't - or perhaps more accurately won't - let it go."
So again, if Sebastian is intelligent and reasonable, why can't he make an argument for what he believes in? He's getting shit on for having a differing POV than most people, and that's absurd. Mr. Faron Hyte basically is telling Sebastian no one gives a shit about his thoughts on the name. In the bigger picture then, why have a forum at all if dissenting opinion isn't allowed, and doesn't mean that if no one gives a shit about Sebastian's post, what the hell is Mr. Faron Hyte doing wasting his time giving a shit about something no one gives a shit about? He should be on an AIDS, global warming or 46664 website talking about things people should give a shit about.
This has nothing to do with Mr. Faron Hyte either, who I think knows his stuff very well. It just irks me that everyone time someone like Sebastian speaks about the name (and in fairness this isn't a who is Queen thread so his remarks may seem like cheap shots), he's shot down. Zebonka, as you stated in your last post, "...the realist in me says the added Queen name will do virtually nothing to the sales figures", and that's why I find the whole use of the Queen name unappealing. It's strictly for sales, and if they believed in their music, then it should stand alone. As it is, I see that the 3 of them don't feel strong enough that they feel confident making new music without a brand behind it. That's their right, but this line up in now ay shape or form is anything near Queen. If others believe it is, that's great. Sebastian and many others don't, shouldn't that be great for them also? Brian and Roger have the right to do as they please, and so they should. So did Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, George Harrison, Robert Plant, Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones. They chose another path, one that "true" Queen fans would call wrong. If Brian tours with Ringo, McCartney, Eddie Van Halen this summer, you may call it the Beatles. I would call it four guys playing music together, and I value the Queen name as much as the Beatles name.
"Beyond that, who gives a shit what they want to call themselves."
Sebastian cares. I care. Other people care. People who don't agree with the name issue dismiss and ridicule those who don't take their stand. Why?
"And the saddest part is that someone who is otherwise obviously a fairly intelligent and reasonable chap as Sebastian can't - or perhaps more accurately won't - let it go."
So again, if Sebastian is intelligent and reasonable, why can't he make an argument for what he believes in? He's getting shit on for having a differing POV than most people, and that's absurd. Mr. Faron Hyte basically is telling Sebastian no one gives a shit about his thoughts on the name. In the bigger picture then, why have a forum at all if dissenting opinion isn't allowed, and doesn't mean that if no one gives a shit about Sebastian's post, what the hell is Mr. Faron Hyte doing wasting his time giving a shit about something no one gives a shit about? He should be on an AIDS, global warming or 46664 website talking about things people should give a shit about.
This has nothing to do with Mr. Faron Hyte either, who I think knows his stuff very well. It just irks me that everyone time someone like Sebastian speaks about the name (and in fairness this isn't a who is Queen thread so his remarks may seem like cheap shots), he's shot down. Zebonka, as you stated in your last post, "...the realist in me says the added Queen name will do virtually nothing to the sales figures", and that's why I find the whole use of the Queen name unappealing. It's strictly for sales, and if they believed in their music, then it should stand alone. As it is, I see that the 3 of them don't feel strong enough that they feel confident making new music without a brand behind it. That's their right, but this line up in now ay shape or form is anything near Queen. If others believe it is, that's great. Sebastian and many others don't, shouldn't that be great for them also? Brian and Roger have the right to do as they please, and so they should. So did Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, George Harrison, Robert Plant, Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones. They chose another path, one that "true" Queen fans would call wrong. If Brian tours with Ringo, McCartney, Eddie Van Halen this summer, you may call it the Beatles. I would call it four guys playing music together, and I value the Queen name as much as the Beatles name.
Indeed, I may have misunderstood where your post was aimed. It makes more sense now that I've re-read it.
See, I don't mind this thread so much because now Sebastian is in it and not every reply is the same shit. He's taking part in a discussion.
Wandering from thread to thread with a one-liner about how cowardly someone is; that's not intelligent discussion.
Maybe I didn't make my meaning clear enough.... I don't mind Sebastian dissenting, or even dissenting in more than one thread.
I'd like him to do it with a bit of imagination. He's using the Treasure Moment approach and it is *really* below him.
See, I don't mind this thread so much because now Sebastian is in it and not every reply is the same shit. He's taking part in a discussion.
Wandering from thread to thread with a one-liner about how cowardly someone is; that's not intelligent discussion.
Maybe I didn't make my meaning clear enough.... I don't mind Sebastian dissenting, or even dissenting in more than one thread.
I'd like him to do it with a bit of imagination. He's using the Treasure Moment approach and it is *really* below him.
Why are people so upset over the name? If the tour was advertised as Paul, Brian and Roger, would you prefer it if the gig was only half full? Or if they played solo songs over Queen songs? There are elements of Queen there and I think that's great. I think Brian and Roger will say this isn't your usual 'Queen' but there's enough of the elemements there to validate the use of the name.
Ok then, let's turn this on it's head. Now, I think it's QUEEN, so why heck did they play 'Last Horizon'? That's a solo song so it shouldn't have been there. It's the same argument. In no way has this damaged Queen's legacy. But it's a damn sight better than seeing Brian and Roger play solo tours. Brian and Roger combined is MAGIC. Look what happened in Wolverhampton '99. Queen spirit was there. Ocean 2001. Spirit was there. I'd have e'm together anyday playing Queen than apart playing solo. Ergo, that's why I like the use of the Queen name. It's personal pride. If they called it 'Taylor Mayed' or something then its dodging the music and it's like they are ashamed to use the name. THEY SHOULD USE THE NAME QUEEN and we should feel proud like they evidently are.
Ok then, let's turn this on it's head. Now, I think it's QUEEN, so why heck did they play 'Last Horizon'? That's a solo song so it shouldn't have been there. It's the same argument. In no way has this damaged Queen's legacy. But it's a damn sight better than seeing Brian and Roger play solo tours. Brian and Roger combined is MAGIC. Look what happened in Wolverhampton '99. Queen spirit was there. Ocean 2001. Spirit was there. I'd have e'm together anyday playing Queen than apart playing solo. Ergo, that's why I like the use of the Queen name. It's personal pride. If they called it 'Taylor Mayed' or something then its dodging the music and it's like they are ashamed to use the name. THEY SHOULD USE THE NAME QUEEN and we should feel proud like they evidently are.
"and that's why I find the whole use of the Queen name unappealing. It's strictly for sales, and if they believed in their music, then it should stand alone."
I believe you may have misunderstood what I said.
If it's true that they won't make more or less money based on the name, then it is irrelevant and obviously not part of the motive behind keeping the name 'Queen', or Queen-related.
This perhaps exposes other character flaws in Brian and Roger, but I don't see how it relates back to trying to turn a profit.
As soon as the hit single from their new album appears in Coke ads, though, I'd be prepared to eat those words.
For the moment, at least regarding this band name... I really cannot see the name change having anything to do with money. It's obviously just an insecurity thing.
I believe you may have misunderstood what I said.
If it's true that they won't make more or less money based on the name, then it is irrelevant and obviously not part of the motive behind keeping the name 'Queen', or Queen-related.
This perhaps exposes other character flaws in Brian and Roger, but I don't see how it relates back to trying to turn a profit.
As soon as the hit single from their new album appears in Coke ads, though, I'd be prepared to eat those words.
For the moment, at least regarding this band name... I really cannot see the name change having anything to do with money. It's obviously just an insecurity thing.
Remember that pride plays a part. Pride of their history, pride in themselves knowing that they wouldn't sell as well under their own names. It's not totally commercial. There is pride there too.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]monty-- wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Why are people so upset over the name?[/QUOTE]
Because a (previously known) name is important in advertising what the band is going to be. In MY personal opinion Brian and Roger (as talented as they may be) just aren't Queen.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]monty-- wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If the tour was advertised as Paul, Brian and Roger, would you prefer it if the gig was only half full? Or if they played solo songs over Queen songs? There are elements of Queen there and I think that's great. I think Brian and Roger will say this isn't your usual 'Queen' but there's enough of the elemements there to validate the use of the name.
[/QUOTE]
Believe it or not, some shows on the previous tour were half full. I believe the Stockholm gig which I saw was one of those. The amount of audience didn't detract anything from the experience. What did was the fact that the setlist (songs not really in the singer's style) made the concert experience sound like a mediocre cover band.
I've said it for almost three years now: The bast part of the concert was when Paul Rodgers sang his own material, because that's when the performance sounded most natural. I really don't have anything against him, and I also don't have any respect for the NAME of Queen when the end result doesn't justify it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]monty-- wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Ok then, let's turn this on it's head. Now, I think it's QUEEN, so why heck did they play 'Last Horizon'? That's a solo song so it shouldn't have been there. It's the same argument. In no way has this damaged Queen's legacy.[/QUOTE]
"They" played Last Horizon to keep the audience merely unconscious instead of slipping into a coma during the obligatory 10 minute guitar solo. It has nothing to do with the band's legacy as there were about three people awake at that point of the concert. :P
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]monty-- wrote: [/QUOTENAME]But it's a damn sight better than seeing Brian and Roger play solo tours. Brian and Roger combined is MAGIC. Look what happened in Wolverhampton '99. Queen spirit was there. Ocean 2001. Spirit was there. I'd have e'm together anyday playing Queen than apart playing solo. Ergo, that's why I like the use of the Queen name. It's personal pride.[/QUOTE]
I don't share that opinion. In my opinion Brian and Roger together sound like... Brian and Roger together. It just doesn't sound like Queen to me. Adding four additional people certainly doesn't make them sound any MORE like Queen.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]monty-- wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If they called it 'Taylor Mayed' or something then its dodging the music and it's like they are ashamed to use the name. THEY SHOULD USE THE NAME QUEEN and we should feel proud like they evidently are. [/QUOTE]
What they are doing right now is nothing short of (ab)using the name to further their own gains. In your opinion (and apparently Brian's as well) it's more important to sell as many tickets as possible, than it would be to use an artistically accurate name.
YOU can be as proud as you want when you see that commercial success, but you HAVE to accept that there are going to be people who are equally ashamed that the band has chosen to use a name which doesn't represent them accurately. That is something that goes with people having the freedom to think for themselves. (Which, I might add, was pretty important in the success of Queen in the first place!)
Because a (previously known) name is important in advertising what the band is going to be. In MY personal opinion Brian and Roger (as talented as they may be) just aren't Queen.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]monty-- wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If the tour was advertised as Paul, Brian and Roger, would you prefer it if the gig was only half full? Or if they played solo songs over Queen songs? There are elements of Queen there and I think that's great. I think Brian and Roger will say this isn't your usual 'Queen' but there's enough of the elemements there to validate the use of the name.
[/QUOTE]
Believe it or not, some shows on the previous tour were half full. I believe the Stockholm gig which I saw was one of those. The amount of audience didn't detract anything from the experience. What did was the fact that the setlist (songs not really in the singer's style) made the concert experience sound like a mediocre cover band.
I've said it for almost three years now: The bast part of the concert was when Paul Rodgers sang his own material, because that's when the performance sounded most natural. I really don't have anything against him, and I also don't have any respect for the NAME of Queen when the end result doesn't justify it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]monty-- wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Ok then, let's turn this on it's head. Now, I think it's QUEEN, so why heck did they play 'Last Horizon'? That's a solo song so it shouldn't have been there. It's the same argument. In no way has this damaged Queen's legacy.[/QUOTE]
"They" played Last Horizon to keep the audience merely unconscious instead of slipping into a coma during the obligatory 10 minute guitar solo. It has nothing to do with the band's legacy as there were about three people awake at that point of the concert. :P
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]monty-- wrote: [/QUOTENAME]But it's a damn sight better than seeing Brian and Roger play solo tours. Brian and Roger combined is MAGIC. Look what happened in Wolverhampton '99. Queen spirit was there. Ocean 2001. Spirit was there. I'd have e'm together anyday playing Queen than apart playing solo. Ergo, that's why I like the use of the Queen name. It's personal pride.[/QUOTE]
I don't share that opinion. In my opinion Brian and Roger together sound like... Brian and Roger together. It just doesn't sound like Queen to me. Adding four additional people certainly doesn't make them sound any MORE like Queen.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]monty-- wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If they called it 'Taylor Mayed' or something then its dodging the music and it's like they are ashamed to use the name. THEY SHOULD USE THE NAME QUEEN and we should feel proud like they evidently are. [/QUOTE]
What they are doing right now is nothing short of (ab)using the name to further their own gains. In your opinion (and apparently Brian's as well) it's more important to sell as many tickets as possible, than it would be to use an artistically accurate name.
YOU can be as proud as you want when you see that commercial success, but you HAVE to accept that there are going to be people who are equally ashamed that the band has chosen to use a name which doesn't represent them accurately. That is something that goes with people having the freedom to think for themselves. (Which, I might add, was pretty important in the success of Queen in the first place!)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr Faron Hyte wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]That's not Queen, it's Paul Rodgers with two opportunistic cowards, plus some guest musicians.[/QUOTE]
You should stick to analysis of the actual music. [/QUOTE]
I second that.[/QUOTE]
Well, I think they should stick to another name instead of Queen. We're all entitled to our opinions.[/QUOTE]
you mean like FREE or SMILE ???
how about FRILE? or SMEE ? [/QUOTE]
LOL ROTFL :DD
You should stick to analysis of the actual music. [/QUOTE]
I second that.[/QUOTE]
Well, I think they should stick to another name instead of Queen. We're all entitled to our opinions.[/QUOTE]
you mean like FREE or SMILE ???
how about FRILE? or SMEE ? [/QUOTE]
LOL ROTFL :DD
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME] In my opinion Brian and Roger together sound like... Brian and Roger together. It just doesn't sound like Queen to me. Adding four additional people certainly doesn't make them sound any MORE like Queen.[/QUOTE]
Tero, what a load of hogwash!!! of course it sounds like Brian & Roger singing, but does have the Queen sound & that's what's important.
I suppose you think that when Freddie sang lead vocals during "Modern times Rock 'n' Roll" & "'39" during the 1970's, that it just didn't sound like Queen. Better get ROGER & BRIAN (not Fred) to sing the vocals.
I for one, am still glad, Brian & Roger are still holding onto the Queen torch!! Amen!!!!
Tero, what a load of hogwash!!! of course it sounds like Brian & Roger singing, but does have the Queen sound & that's what's important.
I suppose you think that when Freddie sang lead vocals during "Modern times Rock 'n' Roll" & "'39" during the 1970's, that it just didn't sound like Queen. Better get ROGER & BRIAN (not Fred) to sing the vocals.
I for one, am still glad, Brian & Roger are still holding onto the Queen torch!! Amen!!!!
Not to change the subject, but what really killed me about the interview was the first queston they asked Brian about was Brittney Spears. The guy's one of the most influential musicians of our time and instead of asking about his future plans all they care about is his views on a bi-polar pop tart?! No wonder the record industry is dying.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=olive>A Word In Your Ear wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Tero, what a load of hogwash!!! of course it sounds like Brian & Roger singing, but does have the Queen sound & that's what's important.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but n my opinion Brian and Roger do NOT sound like Queen in any respect other than the name their using.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=olive>A Word In Your Ear wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I suppose you think that when Freddie sang lead vocals during "Modern times Rock 'n' Roll" & "'39" during the 1970's, that it just didn't sound like Queen. Better get ROGER & BRIAN (not Fred) to sing the vocals.[/QUOTE]
When I hear a live version of '39 or Modern Times Rock n Roll in the middle of another hour or two of singing by Freddie, my brain does a fascinating trick and interprets that it's a small anomaly with a logical explanation behind it.
Without Freddie there's a small anomaly where the music sounds right, and the majority sounds just plain wrong, and my brain interprets that some vital ingredient is missing.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=olive>A Word In Your Ear wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I for one, am still glad, Brian & Roger are still holding onto the Queen torch!! Amen!!!![/QUOTE]
Too bad it's nothing more than a battery operated keychain these days, instead of a flame burning like a beacon of talent above their heads. :P
I'm sorry, but n my opinion Brian and Roger do NOT sound like Queen in any respect other than the name their using.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=olive>A Word In Your Ear wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I suppose you think that when Freddie sang lead vocals during "Modern times Rock 'n' Roll" & "'39" during the 1970's, that it just didn't sound like Queen. Better get ROGER & BRIAN (not Fred) to sing the vocals.[/QUOTE]
When I hear a live version of '39 or Modern Times Rock n Roll in the middle of another hour or two of singing by Freddie, my brain does a fascinating trick and interprets that it's a small anomaly with a logical explanation behind it.
Without Freddie there's a small anomaly where the music sounds right, and the majority sounds just plain wrong, and my brain interprets that some vital ingredient is missing.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=olive>A Word In Your Ear wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I for one, am still glad, Brian & Roger are still holding onto the Queen torch!! Amen!!!![/QUOTE]
Too bad it's nothing more than a battery operated keychain these days, instead of a flame burning like a beacon of talent above their heads. :P