I really don't know the policy of the site since it is pretty much unmoderated. I really don't care, as long as I am not offending people.
I read other forums which are heavily moderated and I've seen other pages in which there is like an "official" or "editorial" opinion and almost everybody goes along with it.
Sometimes the moderation is good. For instance mi6.co.uk is a James Bond page with a tightly run forum. Not only moderators, even regular posters warn you when you post something inapropriate. Sometimes it's so polite it sickens, haha :). But it works. TreasureMoment would be kicked out of that forum in a heartbeat only for repeating his opinion (sorry, FACTS!!!) in many topics.
Regarding the "Editorial" opinion. Check batman-on-film.com. That page has "News" articles made by the owner of the page saying that the criticism for Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker "is getting silly". Hmmmm, many fans complaining about a new guy filling an old guy's shoes? Sounds familiar.
A thing I like about Queenzone is its unmoderated nature and that everybody can voice their opinion. It's a bit messy but I like it.
Imagine Richard or Barbara determining one day that it is officially unacceptable to criticise Queen+PR and you will be banned if you do so. QZ would BURN!
Well, as sacrilegious as this may seem to some of you, that's what some other places do.
We have full freedom of speech here, but it is our responsability to use it wisely.
I have nothing against people with different opinion as mine. I like when people like Brenski, Sebastian and Tero express their opinions regarding Queen and Paul Rodgers. They are somewhat open to discuss.
However, I get a bit upset (it might not be fair, I know) when new users give the same "contundent" arguments regarding why they shouldn't use the name Queen. It gets boring.
Damn, sorry for the long post. I can't help it.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Knute wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So three years of this same argument gets very tiresome. Queen and QPR can and do exist in the same spaces together because of the ties that bind.
How can a project headed by Brian May and Roger Taylor not bleed into all sections of a Queen messageboard?
It's asinine to assume they won't.
[/QUOTE]
I'll go through this slowly again, in case you just didn't understand it the first time.
This topic (based on the original announcement and circumstances) is supposed to be about Q+PR on tour.
This topic is in the Queen subforum.
There is a separate subforum for Q+PR on tour.
Logic dictates this topic should have been put in the Q+PR on tour subforum.
What's really asinine is to create subforums for easier browsing of a message board, and then ignore the proper use of those subforums when you want something to get more attention.
That's why it deserves negative attention. Not because of Paul Rodgers, and not because "Queen" consists of only Brian and Roger these days... Simply because it was intentionally put (and kept) in a wrong section of the forum. It deserves to be noticed so the next 582 topics this year will go into the proper place, and not clog up the Queen forum. Do you now get my point?[/QUOTE]
Your first sentence just shows you to be the dick that you are.
I don't see you bitching about Treasure Moment whoring his band for the umpteenth time in this section.
That's just one example of the silly ass topics that end up in this section
You are just raising a stink cause you are a big crybaby about the whole Q+PR project.
I should make it a point to post Q+PR topics in Queen forums just to piss you off.
Have a nice day.
How can a project headed by Brian May and Roger Taylor not bleed into all sections of a Queen messageboard?
It's asinine to assume they won't.
[/QUOTE]
I'll go through this slowly again, in case you just didn't understand it the first time.
This topic (based on the original announcement and circumstances) is supposed to be about Q+PR on tour.
This topic is in the Queen subforum.
There is a separate subforum for Q+PR on tour.
Logic dictates this topic should have been put in the Q+PR on tour subforum.
What's really asinine is to create subforums for easier browsing of a message board, and then ignore the proper use of those subforums when you want something to get more attention.
That's why it deserves negative attention. Not because of Paul Rodgers, and not because "Queen" consists of only Brian and Roger these days... Simply because it was intentionally put (and kept) in a wrong section of the forum. It deserves to be noticed so the next 582 topics this year will go into the proper place, and not clog up the Queen forum. Do you now get my point?[/QUOTE]
Your first sentence just shows you to be the dick that you are.
I don't see you bitching about Treasure Moment whoring his band for the umpteenth time in this section.
That's just one example of the silly ass topics that end up in this section
You are just raising a stink cause you are a big crybaby about the whole Q+PR project.
I should make it a point to post Q+PR topics in Queen forums just to piss you off.
Have a nice day.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Knute wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Your first sentence just shows you to be the dick that you are.
I don't see you bitching about Treasure Moment whoring his band for the umpteenth time in this section.
That's just one example of the silly ass topics that end up in this section
You are just raising a stink cause you are a big crybaby about the whole Q+PR project.
I should make it a point to post Q+PR topics in Queen forums just to piss you off.
Have a nice day.[/QUOTE]
And your penultimate sentence shows what a dick you are. Are we now even?
I don't have the habit of insulting the fellow posters (or their posts) on forums I visit unless they insult me first. I might have a problem with the actual topical discussion they are making, and won't be afraid to say it. (What you said about me being a dick is purely a misunderstanding because you can't see the lighthearted and friendly tone in the text.)
You can go through my past post history (e.g. about half a dozen posts in this topic), and you can see that I am actually trying to achieve intelligent discussion with well founded arguments whenever I see other arguments that are clearly contradictory to mine. I know this is not a Q+PR topic simply because I have been reading it and replying to it, whereas your only contribution was to try and stifle the discussion by saying how silly a four year old argument was.
(And please don't think that I'm such a dick again. As I write the sentences about your only contribution, I'm in a happy mood like I've been all throughout the writing of this message. I'm not angry at anyone, and I'm certainly not saying that you should stop writing in this topic... What I would like you to do however, is take a step back and see what exactly you have contributed to this discussion. The branch of this discussion where people are critisising the off-topical nature of the messages, in which you are participating, has the least to do with the topic title!)
I don't see you bitching about Treasure Moment whoring his band for the umpteenth time in this section.
That's just one example of the silly ass topics that end up in this section
You are just raising a stink cause you are a big crybaby about the whole Q+PR project.
I should make it a point to post Q+PR topics in Queen forums just to piss you off.
Have a nice day.[/QUOTE]
And your penultimate sentence shows what a dick you are. Are we now even?
I don't have the habit of insulting the fellow posters (or their posts) on forums I visit unless they insult me first. I might have a problem with the actual topical discussion they are making, and won't be afraid to say it. (What you said about me being a dick is purely a misunderstanding because you can't see the lighthearted and friendly tone in the text.)
You can go through my past post history (e.g. about half a dozen posts in this topic), and you can see that I am actually trying to achieve intelligent discussion with well founded arguments whenever I see other arguments that are clearly contradictory to mine. I know this is not a Q+PR topic simply because I have been reading it and replying to it, whereas your only contribution was to try and stifle the discussion by saying how silly a four year old argument was.
(And please don't think that I'm such a dick again. As I write the sentences about your only contribution, I'm in a happy mood like I've been all throughout the writing of this message. I'm not angry at anyone, and I'm certainly not saying that you should stop writing in this topic... What I would like you to do however, is take a step back and see what exactly you have contributed to this discussion. The branch of this discussion where people are critisising the off-topical nature of the messages, in which you are participating, has the least to do with the topic title!)
If they dropped Queen and just went with Q+PR I would be agreeable, and may even give them a chance they are not and will never be, Queen. again without Freddie and John and as such, should not tour as Queen
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]gaz.59 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If they dropped Queen and just went with Q+PR I would be agreeable, and may even give them a chance they are not and will never be, Queen. again without Freddie and John and as such, should not tour as Queen [/QUOTE]
That is exactly what they have done.
Watch this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CQfvSFtKWs
That is exactly what they have done.
Watch this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CQfvSFtKWs
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 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]
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.
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...?
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]
Not to mention Deep purple.. MK 3 was hardly worthy to call Deep purple.. but no-one bitched about that.
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]
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.
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...?
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]
Not to mention Deep purple.. MK 3 was hardly worthy to call Deep purple.. but no-one bitched about that.
If Roger & Brian, want to call themselves Queen, without Freddie & John, it's not up to us, It's up to them. So this argument is really a waste of people's time. There is one easy solution, if you don't like the post-Freddie stuff being called Queen, then don't buy the cds/dvds, don't go to the shows, but it will be all you moaning minnies who will miss out.
Save the cheerleader, save the worl..... (oh sorry wrong catchphrase) what I meant to say was, Rock on Q+PR!!!!!
Save the cheerleader, save the worl..... (oh sorry wrong catchphrase) what I meant to say was, Rock on Q+PR!!!!!
For the same matter, if you don't like seeing complaints about the coward and unethic use of the Queen name, then don't read them. It's not up to you whether we disagree or not with the name and publicly express so, it's up to us.
The fact that this topic has not been moved to the (proper) Queen plus Paul Rodgers tour forum does not reflect any website politics concerning the issue Queen/Queen + PR, use of Queen name and such. It only means that nobody bothered to move it. Queenzone members are used to the ongoing chaos on this website, moderation is random. It's because we don't have mods who spend their day moving around topics. As long as there is no spam and no sharing of official stuff, nobody loses sleep over a wrong forum. We can fight in any forum anytime ;)
I think the basic "website policy " can be described as "each to their own"
I think the basic "website policy " can be described as "each to their own"
For a handful of topics it's probably the best thing to do, but I think (and hope) things will be different once the 582 other topics come in six months from now! ;)
Blah..blah...blah...its NOT Queen but some evil, cringworthy hibrid that is sucking the soul out of the legacy for cash.
Can we move on now......?
Can we move on now......?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]mooghead wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Blah..blah...blah...its NOT Queen but some evil, cringworthy hibrid that is sucking the soul out of the legacy for cash.
Can we move on now......?[/QUOTE]
Hahahaha... Great comment.
I really hope we could move on but I think there will always be nay-sayers and they are entitled to their opinion as well.
I just read a comment regarding the new Smashing Pumpkins album and some fans refuse to call it a proper Smashing pumpkins album because there are only 2 original members. And one of them is the lead singer and main songwriter. Go figure.
Can we move on now......?[/QUOTE]
Hahahaha... Great comment.
I really hope we could move on but I think there will always be nay-sayers and they are entitled to their opinion as well.
I just read a comment regarding the new Smashing Pumpkins album and some fans refuse to call it a proper Smashing pumpkins album because there are only 2 original members. And one of them is the lead singer and main songwriter. Go figure.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Wiley wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I just read a comment regarding the new Smashing Pumpkins album and some fans refuse to call it a proper Smashing pumpkins album because there are only 2 original members. And one of them is the lead singer and main songwriter. Go figure.[/QUOTE]
Freddie Mercury and Brian May wrote over 70% of Queen material; they were by far the most recognisable band members, gave them a big part of their unique sound, shared the largest fandom, communicated the most with the audience, were the only members playing in almost every song on stage (Roger and John were absent in 'Love of My Life' and 'Is This the World We Created'), composed all Queen epics ('Prophet's Song', 'Bo Rhap', 'Father to Son', 'Black Queen'...), wrote most of those beautiful trademark Queen ballads ('Save Me', 'Lily', 'White Queen', 'Love of My Life'...), easily doubled the time spent by the other two in the studio (overdubbing backing vocals and guitars respectively), and a long etcetera.
But... 'Man From Manhattan' isn't credited to Queen + Eddie Howell (or Eddie Howell featuring Queen for that matter); when they played at Live Aid they were introduced as 'Freddie Mercury and Brian May'.
So, if Fred and Brian weren't Queen, it's completely ridiculous to think Rog and Brian are.
Freddie Mercury and Brian May wrote over 70% of Queen material; they were by far the most recognisable band members, gave them a big part of their unique sound, shared the largest fandom, communicated the most with the audience, were the only members playing in almost every song on stage (Roger and John were absent in 'Love of My Life' and 'Is This the World We Created'), composed all Queen epics ('Prophet's Song', 'Bo Rhap', 'Father to Son', 'Black Queen'...), wrote most of those beautiful trademark Queen ballads ('Save Me', 'Lily', 'White Queen', 'Love of My Life'...), easily doubled the time spent by the other two in the studio (overdubbing backing vocals and guitars respectively), and a long etcetera.
But... 'Man From Manhattan' isn't credited to Queen + Eddie Howell (or Eddie Howell featuring Queen for that matter); when they played at Live Aid they were introduced as 'Freddie Mercury and Brian May'.
So, if Fred and Brian weren't Queen, it's completely ridiculous to think Rog and Brian are.
Wow! Everyone are playing the O2 Arena. First Led Zeppelin then Queen in September. Now they are talking about Michael Jackson playing there and Dolly Parton is playing there as well over the summer. The Eagles are also starting their world tour there too. Lord have mercy! I ought to kidnap that place and put it in my backyard!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Freddie Mercury and Brian May wrote over 70% of Queen material; they were by far the most recognisable band members, gave them a big part of their unique sound...
But... 'Man From Manhattan' isn't credited to Queen + Eddie Howell (or Eddie Howell featuring Queen for that matter); when they played at Live Aid they were introduced as 'Freddie Mercury and Brian May'.
So, if Fred and Brian weren't Queen, it's completely ridiculous to think Rog and Brian are.[/QUOTE]
I agree with the first part. Yes, they were the most recognizable band members and contributors to the Queen sound as we know it. The 'Man from Manhattan' was not a Queen project at all and as such, it did not feature in any Queen album. Brian and Freddie permormed as themselves in Live Aid. Well, Roger and John performed as 'Queen' once. Both were one offs, as you have said before.
Queen+Paul Rodgers is a new project and Brian and Roger chose to use the Queen name and John doesn't care. I don't see anything bad with that, but that's my point of view. Maybe some people think it's lazy or greedy... well, I don't.
Whether the release flops or not, I don't think it will "hurt Queen's legacy".
In 20 years time people will still remember 70's Queen and maybe no-one but fans will remember the QPR tour and album, as with other less memorable parts of their history.
I just don't see average Joe speaking to average Joe Jr. 20 years from now "Oh, Queen were a great band... too bad they spoilt it all by recording with Paul Rodgers".
What is so wrong about old musicians wanting to re-live their former glories? Touring under another name would have them playing theaters in every country outside the UK. And they would still expect them to play the Queen hits!
Oh, but I'm sure they would feel better by doing what some fans consider "the right thing". Give me a freaking break.
Freddie Mercury and Brian May wrote over 70% of Queen material; they were by far the most recognisable band members, gave them a big part of their unique sound...
But... 'Man From Manhattan' isn't credited to Queen + Eddie Howell (or Eddie Howell featuring Queen for that matter); when they played at Live Aid they were introduced as 'Freddie Mercury and Brian May'.
So, if Fred and Brian weren't Queen, it's completely ridiculous to think Rog and Brian are.[/QUOTE]
I agree with the first part. Yes, they were the most recognizable band members and contributors to the Queen sound as we know it. The 'Man from Manhattan' was not a Queen project at all and as such, it did not feature in any Queen album. Brian and Freddie permormed as themselves in Live Aid. Well, Roger and John performed as 'Queen' once. Both were one offs, as you have said before.
Queen+Paul Rodgers is a new project and Brian and Roger chose to use the Queen name and John doesn't care. I don't see anything bad with that, but that's my point of view. Maybe some people think it's lazy or greedy... well, I don't.
Whether the release flops or not, I don't think it will "hurt Queen's legacy".
In 20 years time people will still remember 70's Queen and maybe no-one but fans will remember the QPR tour and album, as with other less memorable parts of their history.
I just don't see average Joe speaking to average Joe Jr. 20 years from now "Oh, Queen were a great band... too bad they spoilt it all by recording with Paul Rodgers".
What is so wrong about old musicians wanting to re-live their former glories? Touring under another name would have them playing theaters in every country outside the UK. And they would still expect them to play the Queen hits!
Oh, but I'm sure they would feel better by doing what some fans consider "the right thing". Give me a freaking break.