IIRC, Roger and John once performed as "Queen"...
Thread
Posts in chronological order
One gig isn't the same as world tours and full-length albums.
Apparently calling themselves Queen was a decision made by the three surviving members of the band.John ,apparently,gave them his blessing.
Anyway,i'm looking forward to the album and the tour if it happens.
Anyway,i'm looking forward to the album and the tour if it happens.
For those of you who feel passionately that BM & RT should not use the name Queen -- okay, let's say you win the argument and almost everyone here agrees with you. Exactly what have you achieved? Do you think they actually will stop using the name because a few dozen people on Queen zone think they shouldn't? they've been doing this for nearly 40 years -- what great achievements have you made in your life that you feel qualified to make such demands? (and don't say "I pay for their fancy cars" etc -- you have a choice whether to buy their cds or not, nobody's twisting your arm up your back). And let's say they do decide to take your advice (or give in to your rants, given the title of the thread), will you be happy you have intimidated/shamed two of your favourite musicians to doing your will? Will your life be any better if they tour under another name? Will their's?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]For those of you who feel passionately that BM & RT should not use the name Queen -- okay, let's say you win the argument and almost everyone here agrees with you. Exactly what have you achieved? Do you think they actually will stop using the name because a few dozen people on Queen zone think they shouldn't? they've been doing this for nearly 40 years -- what great achievements have you made in your life that you feel qualified to make such demands? (and don't say "I pay for their fancy cars" etc -- you have a choice whether to buy their cds or not, nobody's twisting your arm up your back). And let's say they do decide to take your advice (or give in to your rants, given the title of the thread), will you be happy you have intimidated/shamed two of your favourite musicians to doing your will? Will your life be any better if they tour under another name? Will their's? [/QUOTE]
I suppose I would have achieved what you would want to achieve with the opposite admission... A selfish feeling of knowing that I am right and those who think otherwise are wrong. NEITHER side is going to gain anything substantial or meaningful, or change anybody's lives by convincing those with other views.
I suppose we could just sit quietly at our computers refreshing the website where nobody discusses anything, but I wouldn't consider that a good way to spend my time.
I suppose I would have achieved what you would want to achieve with the opposite admission... A selfish feeling of knowing that I am right and those who think otherwise are wrong. NEITHER side is going to gain anything substantial or meaningful, or change anybody's lives by convincing those with other views.
I suppose we could just sit quietly at our computers refreshing the website where nobody discusses anything, but I wouldn't consider that a good way to spend my time.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote:
I suppose I would have achieved what you would want to achieve with the opposite admission... A selfish feeling of knowing that I am right and those who think otherwise are wrong. NEITHER side is going to gain anything substantial or meaningful, or change anybody's lives by convincing those with other views.
[/QUOTE]
If you look back through this thread you will see that I'm not trying to "win", I've been saying the argument is pointless and that those who are getting upset and angry should perhaps get a little bit of perspective. It wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to my life if 'Queen' toured under another name.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote:
I suppose we could just sit quietly at our computers refreshing the website where nobody discusses anything, but I wouldn't consider that a good way to spend my time.[/QUOTE]
Well don't do that then. It wouldn't be my alternative to pointless arguments either.
I suppose I would have achieved what you would want to achieve with the opposite admission... A selfish feeling of knowing that I am right and those who think otherwise are wrong. NEITHER side is going to gain anything substantial or meaningful, or change anybody's lives by convincing those with other views.
[/QUOTE]
If you look back through this thread you will see that I'm not trying to "win", I've been saying the argument is pointless and that those who are getting upset and angry should perhaps get a little bit of perspective. It wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to my life if 'Queen' toured under another name.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote:
I suppose we could just sit quietly at our computers refreshing the website where nobody discusses anything, but I wouldn't consider that a good way to spend my time.[/QUOTE]
Well don't do that then. It wouldn't be my alternative to pointless arguments either.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote:
I suppose I would have achieved what you would want to achieve with the opposite admission... A selfish feeling of knowing that I am right and those who think otherwise are wrong. NEITHER side is going to gain anything substantial or meaningful, or change anybody's lives by convincing those with other views.
[/QUOTE]
If you look back through this thread you will see that I'm not trying to "win", I've been saying the argument is pointless and that those who are getting upset and angry should perhaps get a little bit of perspective. It wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to my life if 'Queen' toured under another name.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote:
I suppose we could just sit quietly at our computers refreshing the website where nobody discusses anything, but I wouldn't consider that a good way to spend my time.[/QUOTE]
Well don't do that then. It wouldn't be my alternative to pointless arguments either.[/QUOTE]
And saying "the argument is pointless" is NOT trying to make it seem like your opinion is more valid? It is after intentionally dismissing those who think otherwise. ;)
I don't know how you view my posts, but I do know that I'm neither upset nor angry when I state that Brian and Roger aren't Queen (because Queen was four members). That's just my opinion, and I'm expressing it typically as a reply to somebody who says that "Queen is four people, unless some of the people have died or left the band, when it's as many people as there are left".
It doesn't change my life either, but I feel it's a valid enough topic to discuss if somebody else opens it for discussion on a public forum. I don't have THAT much else to do, so that I couldn't possible spend fifteen minutes a day in here writing about it.
I suppose I would have achieved what you would want to achieve with the opposite admission... A selfish feeling of knowing that I am right and those who think otherwise are wrong. NEITHER side is going to gain anything substantial or meaningful, or change anybody's lives by convincing those with other views.
[/QUOTE]
If you look back through this thread you will see that I'm not trying to "win", I've been saying the argument is pointless and that those who are getting upset and angry should perhaps get a little bit of perspective. It wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to my life if 'Queen' toured under another name.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote:
I suppose we could just sit quietly at our computers refreshing the website where nobody discusses anything, but I wouldn't consider that a good way to spend my time.[/QUOTE]
Well don't do that then. It wouldn't be my alternative to pointless arguments either.[/QUOTE]
And saying "the argument is pointless" is NOT trying to make it seem like your opinion is more valid? It is after intentionally dismissing those who think otherwise. ;)
I don't know how you view my posts, but I do know that I'm neither upset nor angry when I state that Brian and Roger aren't Queen (because Queen was four members). That's just my opinion, and I'm expressing it typically as a reply to somebody who says that "Queen is four people, unless some of the people have died or left the band, when it's as many people as there are left".
It doesn't change my life either, but I feel it's a valid enough topic to discuss if somebody else opens it for discussion on a public forum. I don't have THAT much else to do, so that I couldn't possible spend fifteen minutes a day in here writing about it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote:
I suppose I would have achieved what you would want to achieve with the opposite admission... A selfish feeling of knowing that I am right and those who think otherwise are wrong. NEITHER side is going to gain anything substantial or meaningful, or change anybody's lives by convincing those with other views.
[/QUOTE]
If you look back through this thread you will see that I'm not trying to "win", I've been saying the argument is pointless and that those who are getting upset and angry should perhaps get a little bit of perspective. It wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to my life if 'Queen' toured under another name.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote:
I suppose we could just sit quietly at our computers refreshing the website where nobody discusses anything, but I wouldn't consider that a good way to spend my time.[/QUOTE]
Well don't do that then. It wouldn't be my alternative to pointless arguments either.[/QUOTE]
And saying "the argument is pointless" is NOT trying to make it seem like your opinion is more valid? It is after intentionally dismissing those who think otherwise. ;)
I don't know how you view my posts, but I do know that I'm neither upset nor angry when I state that Brian and Roger aren't Queen (because Queen was four members). That's just my opinion, and I'm expressing it typically as a reply to somebody who says that "Queen is four people, unless some of the people have died or left the band, when it's as many people as there are left".
It doesn't change my life either, but I feel it's a valid enough topic to discuss if somebody else opens it for discussion on a public forum. I don't have THAT much else to do, so that I couldn't possible spend fifteen minutes a day in here writing about it.[/QUOTE]
What I've said is clear and written in plain English. IMO it's not open to the interpretation you have stated. I have no control over your misperceptions :p
I said "those who are getting upset and angry" I didn't say you were. There are a few people getting angry about this. Read the title of the thread for just one example. Their lives would be better (in this instance) if they learned to accept what things are rather than what they want them to be i.e Queen + Paul Rodgers. It's a done deal.
Finally, you are, of course, entitled to write about whatever you like.
I suppose I would have achieved what you would want to achieve with the opposite admission... A selfish feeling of knowing that I am right and those who think otherwise are wrong. NEITHER side is going to gain anything substantial or meaningful, or change anybody's lives by convincing those with other views.
[/QUOTE]
If you look back through this thread you will see that I'm not trying to "win", I've been saying the argument is pointless and that those who are getting upset and angry should perhaps get a little bit of perspective. It wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to my life if 'Queen' toured under another name.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote:
I suppose we could just sit quietly at our computers refreshing the website where nobody discusses anything, but I wouldn't consider that a good way to spend my time.[/QUOTE]
Well don't do that then. It wouldn't be my alternative to pointless arguments either.[/QUOTE]
And saying "the argument is pointless" is NOT trying to make it seem like your opinion is more valid? It is after intentionally dismissing those who think otherwise. ;)
I don't know how you view my posts, but I do know that I'm neither upset nor angry when I state that Brian and Roger aren't Queen (because Queen was four members). That's just my opinion, and I'm expressing it typically as a reply to somebody who says that "Queen is four people, unless some of the people have died or left the band, when it's as many people as there are left".
It doesn't change my life either, but I feel it's a valid enough topic to discuss if somebody else opens it for discussion on a public forum. I don't have THAT much else to do, so that I couldn't possible spend fifteen minutes a day in here writing about it.[/QUOTE]
What I've said is clear and written in plain English. IMO it's not open to the interpretation you have stated. I have no control over your misperceptions :p
I said "those who are getting upset and angry" I didn't say you were. There are a few people getting angry about this. Read the title of the thread for just one example. Their lives would be better (in this instance) if they learned to accept what things are rather than what they want them to be i.e Queen + Paul Rodgers. It's a done deal.
Finally, you are, of course, entitled to write about whatever you like.
[QUOTE]let's say you win the argument and almost everyone here agrees with you. Exactly what have you achieved?[/QUOTE]
Winning the argument and having almost everyone here agreeing with us.
[QUOTE]Do you think they actually will stop using the name because a few dozen people on Queen zone think they shouldn't?[/QUOTE]
Do you think we actually will stop complainig about the name just because a few dozen people on Queen zone think we shouldn't?
[QUOTE]they've been doing this for nearly 40 years[/QUOTE]
Yes, but after 1991, they should've done this under another name (and they did, for some extent)
[QUOTE]what great achievements have you made in your life that you feel qualified to make such demands?[/QUOTE]
Argumentum ad hominem. Pretending we haven't got the right to complain about a product it's like thinking only former presidents could vote, or only newspaper owners could criticise tabloids (in which case Brian should've never said anything about journalists).
[QUOTE](and don't say "I pay for their fancy cars"[/QUOTE]
They've earned those fancy cars with their work, which they've done marvellously. That's why they should keep doing that, but under another name.
[QUOTE]you have a choice whether to buy their cds or not[/QUOTE]
So we have a choice whether to criticise the name or not. And by the way...
[QUOTE]you have a choice whether to buy their cds or not, nobody's twisting your arm up your back[/QUOTE]
You have a choice whether to read our complaints or not, nobody's twisting your arm up your back.
[QUOTE]And let's say they do decide to take your advice (or give in to your rants, given the title of the thread), will you be happy you have intimidated/shamed two of your favourite musicians to doing your will?[/QUOTE]
I don't think that's a matter of intimidation. But yes, I'd be happy.
[QUOTE]Will your life be any better if they tour under another name? Will their's? [/QUOTE]
We can only speculate. But I hope someday we'll know for sure, once they stop being unethical and coward and choose a new name.
Winning the argument and having almost everyone here agreeing with us.
[QUOTE]Do you think they actually will stop using the name because a few dozen people on Queen zone think they shouldn't?[/QUOTE]
Do you think we actually will stop complainig about the name just because a few dozen people on Queen zone think we shouldn't?
[QUOTE]they've been doing this for nearly 40 years[/QUOTE]
Yes, but after 1991, they should've done this under another name (and they did, for some extent)
[QUOTE]what great achievements have you made in your life that you feel qualified to make such demands?[/QUOTE]
Argumentum ad hominem. Pretending we haven't got the right to complain about a product it's like thinking only former presidents could vote, or only newspaper owners could criticise tabloids (in which case Brian should've never said anything about journalists).
[QUOTE](and don't say "I pay for their fancy cars"[/QUOTE]
They've earned those fancy cars with their work, which they've done marvellously. That's why they should keep doing that, but under another name.
[QUOTE]you have a choice whether to buy their cds or not[/QUOTE]
So we have a choice whether to criticise the name or not. And by the way...
[QUOTE]you have a choice whether to buy their cds or not, nobody's twisting your arm up your back[/QUOTE]
You have a choice whether to read our complaints or not, nobody's twisting your arm up your back.
[QUOTE]And let's say they do decide to take your advice (or give in to your rants, given the title of the thread), will you be happy you have intimidated/shamed two of your favourite musicians to doing your will?[/QUOTE]
I don't think that's a matter of intimidation. But yes, I'd be happy.
[QUOTE]Will your life be any better if they tour under another name? Will their's? [/QUOTE]
We can only speculate. But I hope someday we'll know for sure, once they stop being unethical and coward and choose a new name.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE]let's say you win the argument and almost everyone here agrees with you. Exactly what have you achieved?[/QUOTE]
Winning the argument and having almost everyone here agreeing with us.
[QUOTE]Do you think they actually will stop using the name because a few dozen people on Queen zone think they shouldn't?[/QUOTE]
Do you think we actually will stop complainig about the name just because a few dozen people on Queen zone think we shouldn't?
[QUOTE]they've been doing this for nearly 40 years[/QUOTE]
Yes, but after 1991, they should've done this under another name (and they did, for some extent)
[QUOTE]what great achievements have you made in your life that you feel qualified to make such demands?[/QUOTE]
Argumentum ad hominem. Pretending we haven't got the right to complain about a product it's like thinking only former presidents could vote, or only newspaper owners could criticise tabloids (in which case Brian should've never said anything about journalists).
[QUOTE](and don't say "I pay for their fancy cars"[/QUOTE]
They've earned those fancy cars with their work, which they've done marvellously. That's why they should keep doing that, but under another name.
[QUOTE]you have a choice whether to buy their cds or not[/QUOTE]
So we have a choice whether to criticise the name or not. And by the way...
[QUOTE]you have a choice whether to buy their cds or not, nobody's twisting your arm up your back[/QUOTE]
You have a choice whether to read our complaints or not, nobody's twisting your arm up your back.
[QUOTE]And let's say they do decide to take your advice (or give in to your rants, given the title of the thread), will you be happy you have intimidated/shamed two of your favourite musicians to doing your will?[/QUOTE]
I don't think that's a matter of intimidation. But yes, I'd be happy.
[QUOTE]Will your life be any better if they tour under another name? Will their's? [/QUOTE]
We can only speculate. But I hope someday we'll know for sure, once they stop being unethical and coward and choose a new name.[/QUOTE]
I could also decontextualise your arguments to deliberatly miss the point, but I really can't be bothered.
Winning the argument and having almost everyone here agreeing with us.
[QUOTE]Do you think they actually will stop using the name because a few dozen people on Queen zone think they shouldn't?[/QUOTE]
Do you think we actually will stop complainig about the name just because a few dozen people on Queen zone think we shouldn't?
[QUOTE]they've been doing this for nearly 40 years[/QUOTE]
Yes, but after 1991, they should've done this under another name (and they did, for some extent)
[QUOTE]what great achievements have you made in your life that you feel qualified to make such demands?[/QUOTE]
Argumentum ad hominem. Pretending we haven't got the right to complain about a product it's like thinking only former presidents could vote, or only newspaper owners could criticise tabloids (in which case Brian should've never said anything about journalists).
[QUOTE](and don't say "I pay for their fancy cars"[/QUOTE]
They've earned those fancy cars with their work, which they've done marvellously. That's why they should keep doing that, but under another name.
[QUOTE]you have a choice whether to buy their cds or not[/QUOTE]
So we have a choice whether to criticise the name or not. And by the way...
[QUOTE]you have a choice whether to buy their cds or not, nobody's twisting your arm up your back[/QUOTE]
You have a choice whether to read our complaints or not, nobody's twisting your arm up your back.
[QUOTE]And let's say they do decide to take your advice (or give in to your rants, given the title of the thread), will you be happy you have intimidated/shamed two of your favourite musicians to doing your will?[/QUOTE]
I don't think that's a matter of intimidation. But yes, I'd be happy.
[QUOTE]Will your life be any better if they tour under another name? Will their's? [/QUOTE]
We can only speculate. But I hope someday we'll know for sure, once they stop being unethical and coward and choose a new name.[/QUOTE]
I could also decontextualise your arguments to deliberatly miss the point, but I really can't be bothered.
Who Queen are is a belief. If you believe in a name and people don't matter, Queen is an original member (or two, or one plus the others blessing) and whoever they choose. If you believe in a group of people who worked solely as a unit to create unique music, Queen can only be Freddie, Roger, John and Brian. Brian and roger can and will call themselves Queen, but if anyone believes they ARE Queen, they don't know much about the bands history.
Finally, if you beleive that Freddie is equal to the original drummer from Rush, Izzy from Guns and Roses, Oasis' rhythm section then I feel sorry for you. Freddie was a once in a century talent who more than Brian, Roger and John gave Queen their "Queenly" elements. MOTBQ, Lily of the Valley, Nevermore, My Fairy King, outrageous stage presence, a voice from the angels, and a unique personality. He was the glue. Without him there is no Queen. John Deacon brought nothing (great bass playing and writing) to Queen compared to Freddie. It also wouldn't be Quen without him. Believe in the name or believe in the people.
Finally, if you beleive that Freddie is equal to the original drummer from Rush, Izzy from Guns and Roses, Oasis' rhythm section then I feel sorry for you. Freddie was a once in a century talent who more than Brian, Roger and John gave Queen their "Queenly" elements. MOTBQ, Lily of the Valley, Nevermore, My Fairy King, outrageous stage presence, a voice from the angels, and a unique personality. He was the glue. Without him there is no Queen. John Deacon brought nothing (great bass playing and writing) to Queen compared to Freddie. It also wouldn't be Quen without him. Believe in the name or believe in the people.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
They've earned those fancy cars with their work, which they've done marvellously. That's why they should keep doing that, but under another name.
[/QUOTE]
So they keep making the same marvelous work, but its acceptable under one name but unethical and cowardly under another. Ridiculous. Ridiculous, anal-retentive, nitpicking bullshit. I bet you're also a Trekkie. Why don't you try posting that same argument under a different name and see how seriously its taken?
They've earned those fancy cars with their work, which they've done marvellously. That's why they should keep doing that, but under another name.
[/QUOTE]
So they keep making the same marvelous work, but its acceptable under one name but unethical and cowardly under another. Ridiculous. Ridiculous, anal-retentive, nitpicking bullshit. I bet you're also a Trekkie. Why don't you try posting that same argument under a different name and see how seriously its taken?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Who Queen are is a belief. If you believe in a name and people don't matter, Queen is an original member (or two, or one plus the others blessing) and whoever they choose. If you believe in a group of people who worked solely as a unit to create unique music, Queen can only be Freddie, Roger, John and Brian. Brian and roger can and will call themselves Queen, but if anyone believes they ARE Queen, they don't know much about the bands history.[/QUOTE]
That's a VERY good way of putting it. I hadn't thought about it in those exact terms, but that is essentially it.
Queen (the band with four members) has been such a big part of my life that I just can't think of it as a b(r)and name which the active members are entitled to use... To me it's much more than that.
That's a VERY good way of putting it. I hadn't thought about it in those exact terms, but that is essentially it.
Queen (the band with four members) has been such a big part of my life that I just can't think of it as a b(r)and name which the active members are entitled to use... To me it's much more than that.
If we're going to be nit-picky, Mr. Faron Hyte, what marvelous work are you talking about post-Freedie? Queen with 5ive? Queen with Robbie Williams? Queen with John Farnham? Queen with Britney, Beyonce and Pink? Say it's not true? All of those are shit. Say it's not true is Queen B-side material at best. Since you're pretty active in this topic, and no one else will answer my question, tell me:
If they tour this year, are Paul, Ringo, Ricky (Martin) and Andrew (Ridgely) The Beatles?
If they tour this year, are Paul, Ringo, Ricky (Martin) and Andrew (Ridgely) The Beatles?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If we're going to be nit-picky, Mr. Faron Hyte, what marvelous work are you talking about post-Freedie? Queen with 5ive? Queen with Robbie Williams? Queen with John Farnham? Queen with Britney, Beyonce and Pink? Say it's not true? All of those are shit. Say it's not true is Queen B-side material at best. [/QUOTE]
How about the Q+PR tour? With all respect to Freddie, I'd rather watch a Q+PR gig than a Magic Tour one. The Magic Tour kind of embarasses me. In fact, not only the Magic tour itself, but also A Kind Of Magic (both album and song) and The Works. Hot Space was (weak) experimentalism, Works and AKOM were clear attempts to sell discs and fill up arenas, not attempts to make great music, unlike all the stuff they did in the past, and unlike their final work with Freddie.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
If they tour this year, are Paul, Ringo, Ricky (Martin) and Andrew (Ridgely) The Beatles?[/QUOTE]
The Beatles officially broke up. Queen never did. Freddie Mercury never said it was over, he simply died. John Deacon never said it was over, he simply retired and gave the others permission to do it.
Now, someone please tell me: if this is all so disgraceful, shameful, coward and unfair on Freddie, why does John Deacon agree with it? Why doesn't he come out of his dark corner to tell a tabloid about how despicable Brian and Roger are?
How about the Q+PR tour? With all respect to Freddie, I'd rather watch a Q+PR gig than a Magic Tour one. The Magic Tour kind of embarasses me. In fact, not only the Magic tour itself, but also A Kind Of Magic (both album and song) and The Works. Hot Space was (weak) experimentalism, Works and AKOM were clear attempts to sell discs and fill up arenas, not attempts to make great music, unlike all the stuff they did in the past, and unlike their final work with Freddie.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
If they tour this year, are Paul, Ringo, Ricky (Martin) and Andrew (Ridgely) The Beatles?[/QUOTE]
The Beatles officially broke up. Queen never did. Freddie Mercury never said it was over, he simply died. John Deacon never said it was over, he simply retired and gave the others permission to do it.
Now, someone please tell me: if this is all so disgraceful, shameful, coward and unfair on Freddie, why does John Deacon agree with it? Why doesn't he come out of his dark corner to tell a tabloid about how despicable Brian and Roger are?