Fair points about the tour Raf840, I wasn't cherry picking, I was talking recorded output. Having said that, I had no doubt they'd be great live, as they all can play and perform, having done it for almost 40 years now.
Also fair point about The Beatles breaking up, while Queen didn't. My point was, there isn't a soul on God's green earth who would accept anyhting but John, Paul, George and Ringo as The Beatles. Well, my Beatles were Freddie, Brian, Roger and John. And I think that as their achievements grow, Queen is about the only pop/rock band (ABBA too, but a different beast to Queen, Zep would be the hard rock Beatles) that belong in the conversation with The Beatles as legends. I see them as interchangeable, four members, together until one passed, then the band ended. Again, Brian has the "right" to call himself, Paul and Roger, Queen. If John Deacon chooses to record and tour, he has the "right" to call himself, Bjork, Iggy Pop, Flavor Flav and Whitney Houston Queen also. If you buy that lineup I applaud your open-mindedness. I truly believe that if Brian were touring with Roger and Britney Spears singing people would say that's a sham because she is nothing like Freddie. Yet Paul Rodgers, gifted vocalist and musician, is a starightforward blues man, who is meat, potatoes and a pint of draught at the local pub compared to Freddie, who is filet mignon, caviar and a sparkling glass of champagne. He's Paul Rodgers, an amazing singer, but so far removed from the spirit of Queen in his own works that I could never buy it. Then again, I think Eddie van Halen and Eric Clapton are more idolized than Brian, but if Brian passed on and they got one of those guys, it sure as hell wouldn't be Queen. Maybe in name, never, ever, ever in spirit.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I see them as interchangeable, four members, together until one passed, then the band ended. [/QUOTE]
The Beatles broke up around 1970, Lennon died in 1980.
I think if a member of Queen had been "fired", or left because of some kind of argument, or anything like that, nobody should call themselves Queen.
But the thing here is a little bit different. Queen isn't like Guns'n'Roses, Deep Purple, Pink Floyd... Freddie died. And before he did, he was in a massive hurry to provide as much raw stuff for the band to use in the studio as he could. I see that as a way to encourage them to carry on without him. Besides, if we consider he spent most of 1990 and 1991 nearly dying, we can tell he had enough time to talk to them about what happens once he dies, he had enough time to tell them to finish the band once he died. But he never did. And John said Brian and Roger can still be Queen, once he left. He was invited to join them on the road in 2005, but he declined and said they can carry on with their project using the name Queen.
So, it's a bit different from The Beatles, where they actually broke up and announced it to the press, from Deep Purple, where members started leaving because of fights, from Guns'n'Roses, where Axl annoyed the crap out of everybody, and so on.
Queen never did anything immoral involving the name, they've always used the name with the other members' permission.
I personally think that Freddie + another member or Brian + another member can still be billed as Queen (as long as the other members allow it!), as, like Sebastian pointed out (not sure if it was on this thread or another one), they were the big responsibles for the famous Queen sound, the big responsible for most great songs, and so on. But this is just my personal opinion. John + Roger could call themselves Queen, and it wouldn't be "wrong" if Brian and Freddie were cool about it (in fact, Roger and John DID play together as "Queen" in 1993!!!), I just find it "incomplete".
I see them as interchangeable, four members, together until one passed, then the band ended. [/QUOTE]
The Beatles broke up around 1970, Lennon died in 1980.
I think if a member of Queen had been "fired", or left because of some kind of argument, or anything like that, nobody should call themselves Queen.
But the thing here is a little bit different. Queen isn't like Guns'n'Roses, Deep Purple, Pink Floyd... Freddie died. And before he did, he was in a massive hurry to provide as much raw stuff for the band to use in the studio as he could. I see that as a way to encourage them to carry on without him. Besides, if we consider he spent most of 1990 and 1991 nearly dying, we can tell he had enough time to talk to them about what happens once he dies, he had enough time to tell them to finish the band once he died. But he never did. And John said Brian and Roger can still be Queen, once he left. He was invited to join them on the road in 2005, but he declined and said they can carry on with their project using the name Queen.
So, it's a bit different from The Beatles, where they actually broke up and announced it to the press, from Deep Purple, where members started leaving because of fights, from Guns'n'Roses, where Axl annoyed the crap out of everybody, and so on.
Queen never did anything immoral involving the name, they've always used the name with the other members' permission.
I personally think that Freddie + another member or Brian + another member can still be billed as Queen (as long as the other members allow it!), as, like Sebastian pointed out (not sure if it was on this thread or another one), they were the big responsibles for the famous Queen sound, the big responsible for most great songs, and so on. But this is just my personal opinion. John + Roger could call themselves Queen, and it wouldn't be "wrong" if Brian and Freddie were cool about it (in fact, Roger and John DID play together as "Queen" in 1993!!!), I just find it "incomplete".
Again, Raf840, and what you say totally makes sense, it's what you believe. I believe in Queen as a spirit of music making, not just a name. When John Lennon was still alive, there was always talk of a Beatles reunion. When he died, The Beatles died. The surviving Beatles can tour and record using that name, because they have the "right" to. But no one would accept them because The Beatles were four people.
There are no easy answers to this argument. Jim Morrison's family sued, and won, a case against the surviving Doors members barring them from using the Doors name due to Jim Morrison's obvious association with the band. To the man on the street, Freddie was to Queen what Morrison was the Doors. One of the surviving Doors members wouldn't and won't allowthe use of Doors music for commercial purposes. He said "People lost their virginity to this music, got high for the first time to this music. I've had people say kids died in Vietnam listening to this music, other people say they know someone who didn't commit suicide because of this music. On stage, when we played these songs, they felt mysterious and magic. That's not for rent." Compare this to Brian, who would sell anything as long as it boosts the coffers of QP. He devalues the catlogue by selling great tracks that mean something to people. First time I ever heard WWRY and WATC was live, as NOTW wasn't released in Canada yet. After the concert, I walked down the street in our city, and heard a mass of people singing WWRY, a song that few of them had ever heard. It hit me hard, and to this day, reminds me of the powerful impact music has in people. Contrast that to a lot of young people in America who will grow up thinking that WATC is the song that makes your dick hard due to its use in a Viagra campaign. Is THAT what Freddie wanted?
Or...take the other surviving Doors member. He said of the surviving, feuding Doors members "We should, the three of us, be playing these songs because, hey, the end is always near. Morrison was a poet, and above all, a poet wants his words heard. When Morrison was asked what he would most like to be remembered for, he responded, 'My words, man, my words.'" Who's right and who's wrong? So is Brian right to carry on, and sell songs to commercial interests to ensure Queen's music stays relevant? Damned if I know!
There are no easy answers to this argument. Jim Morrison's family sued, and won, a case against the surviving Doors members barring them from using the Doors name due to Jim Morrison's obvious association with the band. To the man on the street, Freddie was to Queen what Morrison was the Doors. One of the surviving Doors members wouldn't and won't allowthe use of Doors music for commercial purposes. He said "People lost their virginity to this music, got high for the first time to this music. I've had people say kids died in Vietnam listening to this music, other people say they know someone who didn't commit suicide because of this music. On stage, when we played these songs, they felt mysterious and magic. That's not for rent." Compare this to Brian, who would sell anything as long as it boosts the coffers of QP. He devalues the catlogue by selling great tracks that mean something to people. First time I ever heard WWRY and WATC was live, as NOTW wasn't released in Canada yet. After the concert, I walked down the street in our city, and heard a mass of people singing WWRY, a song that few of them had ever heard. It hit me hard, and to this day, reminds me of the powerful impact music has in people. Contrast that to a lot of young people in America who will grow up thinking that WATC is the song that makes your dick hard due to its use in a Viagra campaign. Is THAT what Freddie wanted?
Or...take the other surviving Doors member. He said of the surviving, feuding Doors members "We should, the three of us, be playing these songs because, hey, the end is always near. Morrison was a poet, and above all, a poet wants his words heard. When Morrison was asked what he would most like to be remembered for, he responded, 'My words, man, my words.'" Who's right and who's wrong? So is Brian right to carry on, and sell songs to commercial interests to ensure Queen's music stays relevant? Damned if I know!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Or...take the other surviving Doors member. He said of the surviving, feuding Doors members "We should, the three of us, be playing these songs because, hey, the end is always near. Morrison was a poet, and above all, a poet wants his words heard. When Morrison was asked what he would most like to be remembered for, he responded, 'My words, man, my words.'" Who's right and who's wrong? So is Brian right to carry on, and sell songs to commercial interests to ensure Queen's music stays relevant? Damned if I know! [/QUOTE]
That is what I believe, to be honest.
When we hear a Queen song featured in a TV ad, no matter if it's a fast car, Viagra, mobile phones or whatever, it at least shows Queen is still "alive" in people's memory. So many songs made in recent years, and the advertisers prefer to feature a Queen song recorded 20+ years ago. Some people will listen and remember them. Others will listen and start liking the band. Do you remember what happened after Wayne's World featured BoRhap? The single charted again in the US, reaching #2, about 17 years after its original release.
And the tour... Well, I dunno if you were on Queenzone in 2005, but if you were, you'll know what I'm talking about... As soon as tour dates started to be announced, an IMPRESSIVE amount of people joined Queenzone. And on the personal section, some people were discussing a few days ago how a Led Zeppelin website had to close its doors to new members after the reunion gig, due to the large amount of people registering in too little time.
Many people will keep questioning the legitimacy of the new project featuring the name "Queen", but the "real" Queen and even Freddie Mercury hadn't been so "popular" in years. Just see how many young users have joined this board since early 2005... Brian and Roger are successfully showing Queen (and Freddie!) to a brand new audience.
And there's one more thing... You're older (no offense!), and you had the chance to see Queen live on stage, with Freddie on vocals, with new albums being released... I was 1 year old when Freddie Mercury died. When I first got into their music, when I was around 6 years old, my mother told me straight away that the singer was dead. After I grew up a little and started to look for info on the internet and magazines, I saw John Deacon had left the band, and that Roger and Brian only played as "Queen" in a few festivals. So, in my world, in my reality, Queen has always been Brian and Roger. And I've always been taught that they were a "dead" band, that they wouldn't do more than play one or two songs in a few special events. Then, one day, they announce a tour. As you've seen Freddie live on stage, this "Queen" tour might be nothing like Queen. But to me, this is the only "Queen". This is what I can witness, this is my only chance to see my favorite band, as I arrived too late in this world to see the old line up.
And there's one final argument, about whether to use the name or not:
They're playing Queen songs, not solo songs. Hardly anyone would pay to hear songs like The Guv'nor, Nation of Haircuts... Just look back at how "successful" the solo projects were... People are expecting them to play Queen songs. So, what's the point in naming them "May, Taylor and Rodgers" if in the end everybody would want them to play Queen hits?
That is what I believe, to be honest.
When we hear a Queen song featured in a TV ad, no matter if it's a fast car, Viagra, mobile phones or whatever, it at least shows Queen is still "alive" in people's memory. So many songs made in recent years, and the advertisers prefer to feature a Queen song recorded 20+ years ago. Some people will listen and remember them. Others will listen and start liking the band. Do you remember what happened after Wayne's World featured BoRhap? The single charted again in the US, reaching #2, about 17 years after its original release.
And the tour... Well, I dunno if you were on Queenzone in 2005, but if you were, you'll know what I'm talking about... As soon as tour dates started to be announced, an IMPRESSIVE amount of people joined Queenzone. And on the personal section, some people were discussing a few days ago how a Led Zeppelin website had to close its doors to new members after the reunion gig, due to the large amount of people registering in too little time.
Many people will keep questioning the legitimacy of the new project featuring the name "Queen", but the "real" Queen and even Freddie Mercury hadn't been so "popular" in years. Just see how many young users have joined this board since early 2005... Brian and Roger are successfully showing Queen (and Freddie!) to a brand new audience.
And there's one more thing... You're older (no offense!), and you had the chance to see Queen live on stage, with Freddie on vocals, with new albums being released... I was 1 year old when Freddie Mercury died. When I first got into their music, when I was around 6 years old, my mother told me straight away that the singer was dead. After I grew up a little and started to look for info on the internet and magazines, I saw John Deacon had left the band, and that Roger and Brian only played as "Queen" in a few festivals. So, in my world, in my reality, Queen has always been Brian and Roger. And I've always been taught that they were a "dead" band, that they wouldn't do more than play one or two songs in a few special events. Then, one day, they announce a tour. As you've seen Freddie live on stage, this "Queen" tour might be nothing like Queen. But to me, this is the only "Queen". This is what I can witness, this is my only chance to see my favorite band, as I arrived too late in this world to see the old line up.
And there's one final argument, about whether to use the name or not:
They're playing Queen songs, not solo songs. Hardly anyone would pay to hear songs like The Guv'nor, Nation of Haircuts... Just look back at how "successful" the solo projects were... People are expecting them to play Queen songs. So, what's the point in naming them "May, Taylor and Rodgers" if in the end everybody would want them to play Queen hits?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So, in my world, in my reality, Queen has always been Brian and Roger. And I've always been taught that they were a "dead" band, that they wouldn't do more than play one or two songs in a few special events. Then, one day, they announce a tour. As you've seen Freddie live on stage, this "Queen" tour might be nothing like Queen. But to me, this is the only "Queen". This is what I can witness, this is my only chance to see my favorite band, as I arrived too late in this world to see the old line up.[/QUOTE]
That's really the heart of the matter, isn't it?
To some people Queen is a "dead" band with a glorious history, and to some people it's anyone using the old name. Some people can accept that the band has ended and can still enjoy its past work, while others are clutching at any straws to see a band that calls itself Queen.
It's not a question of age or year of becoming a fan of the band either, as I didn't become a fan myself until after Freddie's death. It's just a matter of personal opinion whether the best way to honour the band is to a) appreciate the past performances of the four members, or b) to appreciate the current performances of any of its remaining members. I'll go with option a), as in my opinion Queen is four members.
That's really the heart of the matter, isn't it?
To some people Queen is a "dead" band with a glorious history, and to some people it's anyone using the old name. Some people can accept that the band has ended and can still enjoy its past work, while others are clutching at any straws to see a band that calls itself Queen.
It's not a question of age or year of becoming a fan of the band either, as I didn't become a fan myself until after Freddie's death. It's just a matter of personal opinion whether the best way to honour the band is to a) appreciate the past performances of the four members, or b) to appreciate the current performances of any of its remaining members. I'll go with option a), as in my opinion Queen is four members.
Again Raf840, I agree 100% with where you're coming from. I am older than you, got into Queen in '75, saw them 7 times with Freddie from the Races to Hot Space tours, and learned about art, unbridled creativity and the pursuit of perfection from the four original members. To me, no one else can be be Queen but the four people who played from track 1 on Queen, to track 12 on Innuendo. So the Queen name obviously has meaning to me. Being a longer term fan does not make me a better fan than you or someone who joined QZ yesterday. We're all fans, and Queen means different things to all of us. It would be incredibly self-centred for me to believe that someone like you shouldn't get a chance to see your heroes because, or Tero or Sebastian don't believe it's Queen. Hopefully you'll have great memories like I've had on the next tour or the next record. But in my deepest belief, Queen as they were died in 1991, The Beatles died in 1980 and the Who died when Keith Moon died.
When I mentioned The Beatles, you said it was different scenario than Queen because they had split up when Lennon was killed. Fair enough, but say they did what Queen did and got back together in 1996 with Paul, Ringo, George and Mark Knopfler. Do you think people would accept Mark Knopfler, who is 1,000,000 times the guitarist that John Lennon is, as a Beatle? John Lennon is an icon, and to bring in a 4th person and say, "we're not trying to replace John, but Mark's a great player and we're still The Beatles." If this were Beatle Zone, the question would be laughable as to who were the Beatles. In my generation and for my tastes, Queen ARE my Beatles. Freddie is an icon, maybe not Elvis or John Lennon, but he's in tier two, easily one of the top 5 artists of the rock generation. He, in conjunction with the others, but more than the other 3, put the Queen in Queen. With Brian, he had a foil who could bring his vision to life. Brian had a writer whose curious key changes and affected piano playing gave Brian the canvas to become Brian May. They needed each other, but from designing their iconic logo, his songwriting style, his showmanship, to the man in the street, Freddie WAS Queen. I know, you know, we all know he wasn't, but for the world who doesn't post at QZ, Freddie was Queen. Led Zepplin or Black Sabbath or Metallica as band names denote heavineness. The are a million similarly named bands in the heaviness genre. What does The Beatles denote? Or Genesis? Queen? Regal. Splendid. Stylish. The name has a meaning, apart from the homosexual context a lot of people think it is. Freddie brought those things to Queen, and that's why I don't like them using it.
Finally, I'm glad you and others are getting a chance to experience new music and shows from a band that obviously is important to you. I just wish for your sake that you could have been around 30 years earlier and seen this band called Queen. You've never seen nothing like them no never in your life.
When I mentioned The Beatles, you said it was different scenario than Queen because they had split up when Lennon was killed. Fair enough, but say they did what Queen did and got back together in 1996 with Paul, Ringo, George and Mark Knopfler. Do you think people would accept Mark Knopfler, who is 1,000,000 times the guitarist that John Lennon is, as a Beatle? John Lennon is an icon, and to bring in a 4th person and say, "we're not trying to replace John, but Mark's a great player and we're still The Beatles." If this were Beatle Zone, the question would be laughable as to who were the Beatles. In my generation and for my tastes, Queen ARE my Beatles. Freddie is an icon, maybe not Elvis or John Lennon, but he's in tier two, easily one of the top 5 artists of the rock generation. He, in conjunction with the others, but more than the other 3, put the Queen in Queen. With Brian, he had a foil who could bring his vision to life. Brian had a writer whose curious key changes and affected piano playing gave Brian the canvas to become Brian May. They needed each other, but from designing their iconic logo, his songwriting style, his showmanship, to the man in the street, Freddie WAS Queen. I know, you know, we all know he wasn't, but for the world who doesn't post at QZ, Freddie was Queen. Led Zepplin or Black Sabbath or Metallica as band names denote heavineness. The are a million similarly named bands in the heaviness genre. What does The Beatles denote? Or Genesis? Queen? Regal. Splendid. Stylish. The name has a meaning, apart from the homosexual context a lot of people think it is. Freddie brought those things to Queen, and that's why I don't like them using it.
Finally, I'm glad you and others are getting a chance to experience new music and shows from a band that obviously is important to you. I just wish for your sake that you could have been around 30 years earlier and seen this band called Queen. You've never seen nothing like them no never in your life.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Again Raf840, I agree 100% with where you're coming from. I am older than you, got into Queen in '75, saw them 7 times with Freddie from the Races to Hot Space tours, and learned about art, unbridled creativity and the pursuit of perfection from the four original members. To me, no one else can be be Queen but the four people who played from track 1 on Queen, to track 12 on Innuendo. So the Queen name obviously has meaning to me. Being a longer term fan does not make me a better fan than you or someone who joined QZ yesterday. We're all fans, and Queen means different things to all of us. It would be incredibly self-centred for me to believe that someone like you shouldn't get a chance to see your heroes because, or Tero or Sebastian don't believe it's Queen. Hopefully you'll have great memories like I've had on the next tour or the next record. But in my deepest belief, Queen as they were died in 1991, The Beatles died in 1980 and the Who died when Keith Moon died.
When I mentioned The Beatles, you said it was different scenario than Queen because they had split up when Lennon was killed. Fair enough, but say they did what Queen did and got back together in 1996 with Paul, Ringo, George and Mark Knopfler. Do you think people would accept Mark Knopfler, who is 1,000,000 times the guitarist that John Lennon is, as a Beatle? John Lennon is an icon, and to bring in a 4th person and say, "we're not trying to replace John, but Mark's a great player and we're still The Beatles." If this were Beatle Zone, the question would be laughable as to who were the Beatles. In my generation and for my tastes, Queen ARE my Beatles. Freddie is an icon, maybe not Elvis or John Lennon, but he's in tier two, easily one of the top 5 artists of the rock generation. He, in conjunction with the others, but more than the other 3, put the Queen in Queen. With Brian, he had a foil who could bring his vision to life. Brian had a writer whose curious key changes and affected piano playing gave Brian the canvas to become Brian May. They needed each other, but from designing their iconic logo, his songwriting style, his showmanship, to the man in the street, Freddie WAS Queen. I know, you know, we all know he wasn't, but for the world who doesn't post at QZ, Freddie was Queen. Led Zepplin or Black Sabbath or Metallica as band names denote heavineness. The are a million similarly named bands in the heaviness genre. What does The Beatles denote? Or Genesis? Queen? Regal. Splendid. Stylish. The name has a meaning, apart from the homosexual context a lot of people think it is. Freddie brought those things to Queen, and that's why I don't like them using it.
Finally, I'm glad you and others are getting a chance to experience new music and shows from a band that obviously is important to you. I just wish for your sake that you could have been around 30 years earlier and seen this band called Queen. You've never seen nothing like them no never in your life.[/QUOTE] I don't want to be mean to these younger queen fans, but they simply have no idea what made queen the band it was. queen wern't at their best during the magic era, but you still had a feeling of a band that was very much larger than life, while return of the chumps doesn't sound or feel anything like queen. Paul's songs sound great and brian really adds something to his songs, while the queen songs sound like crap. I sold return of the chumps back to the music store, it's embarrassing and weak. Simply not Queen.
When I mentioned The Beatles, you said it was different scenario than Queen because they had split up when Lennon was killed. Fair enough, but say they did what Queen did and got back together in 1996 with Paul, Ringo, George and Mark Knopfler. Do you think people would accept Mark Knopfler, who is 1,000,000 times the guitarist that John Lennon is, as a Beatle? John Lennon is an icon, and to bring in a 4th person and say, "we're not trying to replace John, but Mark's a great player and we're still The Beatles." If this were Beatle Zone, the question would be laughable as to who were the Beatles. In my generation and for my tastes, Queen ARE my Beatles. Freddie is an icon, maybe not Elvis or John Lennon, but he's in tier two, easily one of the top 5 artists of the rock generation. He, in conjunction with the others, but more than the other 3, put the Queen in Queen. With Brian, he had a foil who could bring his vision to life. Brian had a writer whose curious key changes and affected piano playing gave Brian the canvas to become Brian May. They needed each other, but from designing their iconic logo, his songwriting style, his showmanship, to the man in the street, Freddie WAS Queen. I know, you know, we all know he wasn't, but for the world who doesn't post at QZ, Freddie was Queen. Led Zepplin or Black Sabbath or Metallica as band names denote heavineness. The are a million similarly named bands in the heaviness genre. What does The Beatles denote? Or Genesis? Queen? Regal. Splendid. Stylish. The name has a meaning, apart from the homosexual context a lot of people think it is. Freddie brought those things to Queen, and that's why I don't like them using it.
Finally, I'm glad you and others are getting a chance to experience new music and shows from a band that obviously is important to you. I just wish for your sake that you could have been around 30 years earlier and seen this band called Queen. You've never seen nothing like them no never in your life.[/QUOTE] I don't want to be mean to these younger queen fans, but they simply have no idea what made queen the band it was. queen wern't at their best during the magic era, but you still had a feeling of a band that was very much larger than life, while return of the chumps doesn't sound or feel anything like queen. Paul's songs sound great and brian really adds something to his songs, while the queen songs sound like crap. I sold return of the chumps back to the music store, it's embarrassing and weak. Simply not Queen.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Finally, I'm glad you and others are getting a chance to experience new music and shows from a band that obviously is important to you. I just wish for your sake that you could have been around 30 years earlier and seen this band called Queen. You've never seen nothing like them no never in your life.[/QUOTE]
Hey, at least we have the albums and a couple of concert videos available here at QZ. It's not much, but at least it's enough to show the difference between Queen and "Queen". ;)
Hey, at least we have the albums and a couple of concert videos available here at QZ. It's not much, but at least it's enough to show the difference between Queen and "Queen". ;)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Finally, I'm glad you and others are getting a chance to experience new music and shows from a band that obviously is important to you. I just wish for your sake that you could have been around 30 years earlier and seen this band called Queen. You've never seen nothing like them no never in your life.[/QUOTE]
Hey, at least we have the albums and a couple of concert videos available here at QZ. It's not much, but at least it's enough to show the difference between Queen and "Queen". ;)[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I know the 4-piece Queen was much better than the 2-piece Queen. By the time the Q+PR tour was announced, I had already got Wembley, Bowl and WWRY, I had already heard Live Killers and Magic (ugh!), I had already downloaded a nice bunch of concerts here on Queenzone...
But between never seeing them live and seeing them as they are today, I'd rather see them as they are.
Like someone said, they aren't ruining the name, neither legacy, unlike some fans think. Like it has been pointed out here, in 20 or 30 years hardly anyone will think of the Q+PR project when they talk about Queen, they'll most likely remember only that after Freddie died, Brian and Roger did a couple of things together. On the other hand, it's been over 25 years since Hot Space was released, and many fans and "Joe Average" people still don't "get" it. It's been some 23 years since The Works was released, and I, who wasn't even here to witness its release still wonder how the Queen who wrote epic songs and anthems in the 70s came up with "Machines", "Man On The Prowl"... And A Kind Of Magic... It embarasses me. Both the album and the tour. And the fact that Freddie was still alive makes it even worse.
I started reading Peter Freestone's book about Freddie this morning, and he points out REALLY often that Freddie was incredibly perfectionist. How can the perfectionist man who came up with the Queen name, who wrote all the complex songs with key changes, tempo changes, complex vocal harmonies and fight the "important" people from EMI in order to release his song uncut, as he cared a lot more about the song than about its potential to sell someday simply decide to stop working like that and start making pop songs in a suitable format to sell?
If I had been a fan back then, I would've been too ashamed to listen to Hot Space a second time, I would've broken The Works in two after listening to it, and simply wouldn't even go to the shop to buy A Kind Of Magic.
Everytime I'm talking to a random person and they mention they've seen the Wembley gig, or that they own Greatest Hits II, or that they like "I Want To Break Free", or anything like that, I immediatly point out that I find Queen's work much better in the 70s and then in Freddie's final months.
With all respect to Freddie, but he did embarass me much more than Paul will ever do.
Hey, at least we have the albums and a couple of concert videos available here at QZ. It's not much, but at least it's enough to show the difference between Queen and "Queen". ;)[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I know the 4-piece Queen was much better than the 2-piece Queen. By the time the Q+PR tour was announced, I had already got Wembley, Bowl and WWRY, I had already heard Live Killers and Magic (ugh!), I had already downloaded a nice bunch of concerts here on Queenzone...
But between never seeing them live and seeing them as they are today, I'd rather see them as they are.
Like someone said, they aren't ruining the name, neither legacy, unlike some fans think. Like it has been pointed out here, in 20 or 30 years hardly anyone will think of the Q+PR project when they talk about Queen, they'll most likely remember only that after Freddie died, Brian and Roger did a couple of things together. On the other hand, it's been over 25 years since Hot Space was released, and many fans and "Joe Average" people still don't "get" it. It's been some 23 years since The Works was released, and I, who wasn't even here to witness its release still wonder how the Queen who wrote epic songs and anthems in the 70s came up with "Machines", "Man On The Prowl"... And A Kind Of Magic... It embarasses me. Both the album and the tour. And the fact that Freddie was still alive makes it even worse.
I started reading Peter Freestone's book about Freddie this morning, and he points out REALLY often that Freddie was incredibly perfectionist. How can the perfectionist man who came up with the Queen name, who wrote all the complex songs with key changes, tempo changes, complex vocal harmonies and fight the "important" people from EMI in order to release his song uncut, as he cared a lot more about the song than about its potential to sell someday simply decide to stop working like that and start making pop songs in a suitable format to sell?
If I had been a fan back then, I would've been too ashamed to listen to Hot Space a second time, I would've broken The Works in two after listening to it, and simply wouldn't even go to the shop to buy A Kind Of Magic.
Everytime I'm talking to a random person and they mention they've seen the Wembley gig, or that they own Greatest Hits II, or that they like "I Want To Break Free", or anything like that, I immediatly point out that I find Queen's work much better in the 70s and then in Freddie's final months.
With all respect to Freddie, but he did embarass me much more than Paul will ever do.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Like it has been pointed out here, in 20 or 30 years hardly anyone will think of the Q+PR project when they talk about Queen, they'll most likely remember only that after Freddie died, Brian and Roger did a couple of things together.[/QUOTE]
Yes, you're absolutely right that in twenty years that's what people will remember. In the overall scheme of things the little missteps are easily forgotten when there are better things to focus on.
People don't think of The Beatles as a mediocre cover band (even though their first releases could easily suggest it) because that's not what their work is like on average. Similarily people (unless they are really obsessed) don't focus on a single Queen album which they despise, and try to see it as a natural evolution of the members.
What worries me is that the current 15-year olds will proudly go to a Queen concert, and come back seeing a tribute band with nothing original in its performance.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]With all respect to Freddie, but he did embarass me much more than Paul will ever do.[/QUOTE]
It's not Paul that worries me, it's Brian and Roger. Together as Queen they have provided a backing track of WWRY/WATC for countless (and talentless) pop acts, as well as performed as a mediocre Queen tribute band. Playing the Queen hits (which clearly weren't suitable for Paul's talents) made it blindingly obvious just how desperately they wanted to be the Queen of old days, and how far from it they really are.
As a backing band to Paul Rodgers they were great. If it was all about the music, they would tour as the Paul Rodgers Experience, and really try to make a name for themselves as a new blues/rock band with some of the most suitable Queen material thrown in as a basis. That might be worth hearing.
Yes, you're absolutely right that in twenty years that's what people will remember. In the overall scheme of things the little missteps are easily forgotten when there are better things to focus on.
People don't think of The Beatles as a mediocre cover band (even though their first releases could easily suggest it) because that's not what their work is like on average. Similarily people (unless they are really obsessed) don't focus on a single Queen album which they despise, and try to see it as a natural evolution of the members.
What worries me is that the current 15-year olds will proudly go to a Queen concert, and come back seeing a tribute band with nothing original in its performance.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]With all respect to Freddie, but he did embarass me much more than Paul will ever do.[/QUOTE]
It's not Paul that worries me, it's Brian and Roger. Together as Queen they have provided a backing track of WWRY/WATC for countless (and talentless) pop acts, as well as performed as a mediocre Queen tribute band. Playing the Queen hits (which clearly weren't suitable for Paul's talents) made it blindingly obvious just how desperately they wanted to be the Queen of old days, and how far from it they really are.
As a backing band to Paul Rodgers they were great. If it was all about the music, they would tour as the Paul Rodgers Experience, and really try to make a name for themselves as a new blues/rock band with some of the most suitable Queen material thrown in as a basis. That might be worth hearing.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]With all respect to Freddie, but he did embarass me much more than Paul will ever do.[/QUOTE]
It's not Paul that worries me, it's Brian and Roger. Together as Queen they have provided a backing track of WWRY/WATC for countless (and talentless) pop acts, as well as performed as a mediocre Queen tribute band. Playing the Queen hits (which clearly weren't suitable for Paul's talents) made it blindingly obvious just how desperately they wanted to be the Queen of old days, and how far from it they really are.
[/QUOTE]
I don't find it all much lower than their attempt to have more hits throughout the world in the 80s.
It's not Paul that worries me, it's Brian and Roger. Together as Queen they have provided a backing track of WWRY/WATC for countless (and talentless) pop acts, as well as performed as a mediocre Queen tribute band. Playing the Queen hits (which clearly weren't suitable for Paul's talents) made it blindingly obvious just how desperately they wanted to be the Queen of old days, and how far from it they really are.
[/QUOTE]
I don't find it all much lower than their attempt to have more hits throughout the world in the 80s.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Finally, I'm glad you and others are getting a chance to experience new music and shows from a band that obviously is important to you. I just wish for your sake that you could have been around 30 years earlier and seen this band called Queen. You've never seen nothing like them no never in your life.[/QUOTE]
Hey, at least we have the albums and a couple of concert videos available here at QZ. It's not much, but at least it's enough to show the difference between Queen and "Queen". ;)[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I know the 4-piece Queen was much better than the 2-piece Queen. By the time the Q+PR tour was announced, I had already got Wembley, Bowl and WWRY, I had already heard Live Killers and Magic (ugh!), I had already downloaded a nice bunch of concerts here on Queenzone...
But between never seeing them live and seeing them as they are today, I'd rather see them as they are.
Like someone said, they aren't ruining the name, neither legacy, unlike some fans think. Like it has been pointed out here, in 20 or 30 years hardly anyone will think of the Q+PR project when they talk about Queen, they'll most likely remember only that after Freddie died, Brian and Roger did a couple of things together. On the other hand, it's been over 25 years since Hot Space was released, and many fans and "Joe Average" people still don't "get" it. It's been some 23 years since The Works was released, and I, who wasn't even here to witness its release still wonder how the Queen who wrote epic songs and anthems in the 70s came up with "Machines", "Man On The Prowl"... And A Kind Of Magic... It embarasses me. Both the album and the tour. And the fact that Freddie was still alive makes it even worse.
I started reading Peter Freestone's book about Freddie this morning, and he points out REALLY often that Freddie was incredibly perfectionist. How can the perfectionist man who came up with the Queen name, who wrote all the complex songs with key changes, tempo changes, complex vocal harmonies and fight the "important" people from EMI in order to release his song uncut, as he cared a lot more about the song than about its potential to sell someday simply decide to stop working like that and start making pop songs in a suitable format to sell?
If I had been a fan back then, I would've been too ashamed to listen to Hot Space a second time, I would've broken The Works in two after listening to it, and simply wouldn't even go to the shop to buy A Kind Of Magic.
Everytime I'm talking to a random person and they mention they've seen the Wembley gig, or that they own Greatest Hits II, or that they like "I Want To Break Free", or anything like that, I immediatly point out that I find Queen's work much better in the 70s and then in Freddie's final months.
With all respect to Freddie, but he did embarass me much more than Paul will ever do.[/QUOTE] freddie embarrasses you?...ok, little boy. The mans an Icon. It's what brian and roger does that embarrasses the queen name. You don't have to like hot space, but at least they were trying different sounds, some songs were great and others not so great. Brian and roger keep playing the same old songs that they recorded 30 years ago without anything new. Paul has done nothing wrong, he's a excellent singer who sings his own songs perfect, but brian and roger are the ones who are embarrassing these days.
Hey, at least we have the albums and a couple of concert videos available here at QZ. It's not much, but at least it's enough to show the difference between Queen and "Queen". ;)[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I know the 4-piece Queen was much better than the 2-piece Queen. By the time the Q+PR tour was announced, I had already got Wembley, Bowl and WWRY, I had already heard Live Killers and Magic (ugh!), I had already downloaded a nice bunch of concerts here on Queenzone...
But between never seeing them live and seeing them as they are today, I'd rather see them as they are.
Like someone said, they aren't ruining the name, neither legacy, unlike some fans think. Like it has been pointed out here, in 20 or 30 years hardly anyone will think of the Q+PR project when they talk about Queen, they'll most likely remember only that after Freddie died, Brian and Roger did a couple of things together. On the other hand, it's been over 25 years since Hot Space was released, and many fans and "Joe Average" people still don't "get" it. It's been some 23 years since The Works was released, and I, who wasn't even here to witness its release still wonder how the Queen who wrote epic songs and anthems in the 70s came up with "Machines", "Man On The Prowl"... And A Kind Of Magic... It embarasses me. Both the album and the tour. And the fact that Freddie was still alive makes it even worse.
I started reading Peter Freestone's book about Freddie this morning, and he points out REALLY often that Freddie was incredibly perfectionist. How can the perfectionist man who came up with the Queen name, who wrote all the complex songs with key changes, tempo changes, complex vocal harmonies and fight the "important" people from EMI in order to release his song uncut, as he cared a lot more about the song than about its potential to sell someday simply decide to stop working like that and start making pop songs in a suitable format to sell?
If I had been a fan back then, I would've been too ashamed to listen to Hot Space a second time, I would've broken The Works in two after listening to it, and simply wouldn't even go to the shop to buy A Kind Of Magic.
Everytime I'm talking to a random person and they mention they've seen the Wembley gig, or that they own Greatest Hits II, or that they like "I Want To Break Free", or anything like that, I immediatly point out that I find Queen's work much better in the 70s and then in Freddie's final months.
With all respect to Freddie, but he did embarass me much more than Paul will ever do.[/QUOTE] freddie embarrasses you?...ok, little boy. The mans an Icon. It's what brian and roger does that embarrasses the queen name. You don't have to like hot space, but at least they were trying different sounds, some songs were great and others not so great. Brian and roger keep playing the same old songs that they recorded 30 years ago without anything new. Paul has done nothing wrong, he's a excellent singer who sings his own songs perfect, but brian and roger are the ones who are embarrassing these days.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]mike hunt wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Finally, I'm glad you and others are getting a chance to experience new music and shows from a band that obviously is important to you. I just wish for your sake that you could have been around 30 years earlier and seen this band called Queen. You've never seen nothing like them no never in your life.[/QUOTE]
Hey, at least we have the albums and a couple of concert videos available here at QZ. It's not much, but at least it's enough to show the difference between Queen and "Queen". ;)[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I know the 4-piece Queen was much better than the 2-piece Queen. By the time the Q+PR tour was announced, I had already got Wembley, Bowl and WWRY, I had already heard Live Killers and Magic (ugh!), I had already downloaded a nice bunch of concerts here on Queenzone...
But between never seeing them live and seeing them as they are today, I'd rather see them as they are.
Like someone said, they aren't ruining the name, neither legacy, unlike some fans think. Like it has been pointed out here, in 20 or 30 years hardly anyone will think of the Q+PR project when they talk about Queen, they'll most likely remember only that after Freddie died, Brian and Roger did a couple of things together. On the other hand, it's been over 25 years since Hot Space was released, and many fans and "Joe Average" people still don't "get" it. It's been some 23 years since The Works was released, and I, who wasn't even here to witness its release still wonder how the Queen who wrote epic songs and anthems in the 70s came up with "Machines", "Man On The Prowl"... And A Kind Of Magic... It embarasses me. Both the album and the tour. And the fact that Freddie was still alive makes it even worse.
I started reading Peter Freestone's book about Freddie this morning, and he points out REALLY often that Freddie was incredibly perfectionist. How can the perfectionist man who came up with the Queen name, who wrote all the complex songs with key changes, tempo changes, complex vocal harmonies and fight the "important" people from EMI in order to release his song uncut, as he cared a lot more about the song than about its potential to sell someday simply decide to stop working like that and start making pop songs in a suitable format to sell?
If I had been a fan back then, I would've been too ashamed to listen to Hot Space a second time, I would've broken The Works in two after listening to it, and simply wouldn't even go to the shop to buy A Kind Of Magic.
Everytime I'm talking to a random person and they mention they've seen the Wembley gig, or that they own Greatest Hits II, or that they like "I Want To Break Free", or anything like that, I immediatly point out that I find Queen's work much better in the 70s and then in Freddie's final months.
With all respect to Freddie, but he did embarass me much more than Paul will ever do.[/QUOTE] freddie embarrasses you?...ok, little boy. The mans an Icon. It's what brian and roger does that embarrasses the queen name. You don't have to like hot space, but at least they were trying different sounds, some songs were great and others not so great. [QUOTENAME]Brian and roger keep playing the same old songs that they recorded 30 years ago without anything new.[/QUOTENAME] Paul has done nothing wrong, he's a excellent singer who sings his own songs perfect, but brian and roger are the ones who are embarrassing these days.[/QUOTE]
Isn't this thread a complaint at their attempt to make new music?
No offense, but your whole point is gone, as they're actually recording a new album, and you posted this on a thread about their new single.
By the way... Should I take it that whatever they did with Freddie shouldn't em
Hey, at least we have the albums and a couple of concert videos available here at QZ. It's not much, but at least it's enough to show the difference between Queen and "Queen". ;)[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I know the 4-piece Queen was much better than the 2-piece Queen. By the time the Q+PR tour was announced, I had already got Wembley, Bowl and WWRY, I had already heard Live Killers and Magic (ugh!), I had already downloaded a nice bunch of concerts here on Queenzone...
But between never seeing them live and seeing them as they are today, I'd rather see them as they are.
Like someone said, they aren't ruining the name, neither legacy, unlike some fans think. Like it has been pointed out here, in 20 or 30 years hardly anyone will think of the Q+PR project when they talk about Queen, they'll most likely remember only that after Freddie died, Brian and Roger did a couple of things together. On the other hand, it's been over 25 years since Hot Space was released, and many fans and "Joe Average" people still don't "get" it. It's been some 23 years since The Works was released, and I, who wasn't even here to witness its release still wonder how the Queen who wrote epic songs and anthems in the 70s came up with "Machines", "Man On The Prowl"... And A Kind Of Magic... It embarasses me. Both the album and the tour. And the fact that Freddie was still alive makes it even worse.
I started reading Peter Freestone's book about Freddie this morning, and he points out REALLY often that Freddie was incredibly perfectionist. How can the perfectionist man who came up with the Queen name, who wrote all the complex songs with key changes, tempo changes, complex vocal harmonies and fight the "important" people from EMI in order to release his song uncut, as he cared a lot more about the song than about its potential to sell someday simply decide to stop working like that and start making pop songs in a suitable format to sell?
If I had been a fan back then, I would've been too ashamed to listen to Hot Space a second time, I would've broken The Works in two after listening to it, and simply wouldn't even go to the shop to buy A Kind Of Magic.
Everytime I'm talking to a random person and they mention they've seen the Wembley gig, or that they own Greatest Hits II, or that they like "I Want To Break Free", or anything like that, I immediatly point out that I find Queen's work much better in the 70s and then in Freddie's final months.
With all respect to Freddie, but he did embarass me much more than Paul will ever do.[/QUOTE] freddie embarrasses you?...ok, little boy. The mans an Icon. It's what brian and roger does that embarrasses the queen name. You don't have to like hot space, but at least they were trying different sounds, some songs were great and others not so great. [QUOTENAME]Brian and roger keep playing the same old songs that they recorded 30 years ago without anything new.[/QUOTENAME] Paul has done nothing wrong, he's a excellent singer who sings his own songs perfect, but brian and roger are the ones who are embarrassing these days.[/QUOTE]
Isn't this thread a complaint at their attempt to make new music?
No offense, but your whole point is gone, as they're actually recording a new album, and you posted this on a thread about their new single.
By the way... Should I take it that whatever they did with Freddie shouldn't em
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Isn't this thread a complaint at their attempt to make new music?[/QUOTE]
I thought this thread was about Brian and Roger pretending to be something they aren't?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]By the way... Should I take it that whatever they did with Freddie shouldn't embarass me because Freddie was a genius, while what they do without him can be highly stupid and embarassing?[/QUOTE]
Not really.
I would much prefer it if you would treat the material recorded in Freddie's lifetime as an accurate portrayal of how their collective ideas evolved over two decades. That's very different from what half of the band have decided to do fifteen years later.
And even that has very little to do with what are so far MY biggest issues with the name:
1) The fact that their touring career has so far been nothing more than a glorified tribute band, and 2)and the fact that their only new release as a two piece band is a something that would have been fucking awful on arguably the worst album album of their career in Freddie's lifetime (The Works).
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Freddie was HIGHLY talented, but he was still human. I think it's pretty obvious Hot Space was an attempt to make something as popular in America as Another One Bites The Dust. In another words, an attempt to make some easy cash. Hot Space isn't bad... But coming from a band like Queen, it's a poorly written and recorded album. Many songs on it are pretty good - but where are the typical Queen arrangements? A massive part of the album even misses the typical Red Special sound!!! [/QUOTE]
Do you know that part of being human is evolving? You might start out as one kind of a person, and end up a whole different based on your experiences... You don't think that Freddie could have (shock and horror!) evolved into a different direction as a composer once he got interested in clubs? Does it have to be a deliberate attempt to be more commercial?
Besides, as so many people around these discussions like to point out, Queen was FOUR members, not just Freddie. The band couldn't have gone off into a "disco" direction unless the other members were willing. Do you blame Roger and John as well, for not allowing Brian to play his guitar? Should he even have been allowed to play the guitar in the 80's, as the heavy-guitar tracks of Hot Space, Works and Magic are all among the worst compositions of the albums. Maybe "Freddie" did us all a favour by going into a different direction when he realised that Brian was losing his touch as a writer? Maybe that's something that saved the band, and allowed Brian to come back with new energy at the end of the decade.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The Works was deliberately an attempt to be successful worldwide. It's been said in some documentary that after Hot Space, Queen got "fed up" with the USA, and wanted a project that would give them more popularity in different parts of the world. And then, when promoting that album, they came to Brazil for the second time in their career, they went to South Africa for the first time (ignoring a boycott!), they went to Australia for the first time...[/QUOTE]
Again, Queen was FOUR members according to the almost everyone on this board. Do you blame this on Freddie, or all of the members?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Freddie wasn't God. He was human. Very talented, but just as likely to want easy cash as anyone else. If Hot Space and The Works hadn't been released under the name "Queen", I don't think their chart success would've been that good, ESPECIALLY Hot Space, that was released when disco wasn't as popular as it used to be.
So, with all respect... Freddie Merc
I thought this thread was about Brian and Roger pretending to be something they aren't?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]By the way... Should I take it that whatever they did with Freddie shouldn't embarass me because Freddie was a genius, while what they do without him can be highly stupid and embarassing?[/QUOTE]
Not really.
I would much prefer it if you would treat the material recorded in Freddie's lifetime as an accurate portrayal of how their collective ideas evolved over two decades. That's very different from what half of the band have decided to do fifteen years later.
And even that has very little to do with what are so far MY biggest issues with the name:
1) The fact that their touring career has so far been nothing more than a glorified tribute band, and 2)and the fact that their only new release as a two piece band is a something that would have been fucking awful on arguably the worst album album of their career in Freddie's lifetime (The Works).
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Freddie was HIGHLY talented, but he was still human. I think it's pretty obvious Hot Space was an attempt to make something as popular in America as Another One Bites The Dust. In another words, an attempt to make some easy cash. Hot Space isn't bad... But coming from a band like Queen, it's a poorly written and recorded album. Many songs on it are pretty good - but where are the typical Queen arrangements? A massive part of the album even misses the typical Red Special sound!!! [/QUOTE]
Do you know that part of being human is evolving? You might start out as one kind of a person, and end up a whole different based on your experiences... You don't think that Freddie could have (shock and horror!) evolved into a different direction as a composer once he got interested in clubs? Does it have to be a deliberate attempt to be more commercial?
Besides, as so many people around these discussions like to point out, Queen was FOUR members, not just Freddie. The band couldn't have gone off into a "disco" direction unless the other members were willing. Do you blame Roger and John as well, for not allowing Brian to play his guitar? Should he even have been allowed to play the guitar in the 80's, as the heavy-guitar tracks of Hot Space, Works and Magic are all among the worst compositions of the albums. Maybe "Freddie" did us all a favour by going into a different direction when he realised that Brian was losing his touch as a writer? Maybe that's something that saved the band, and allowed Brian to come back with new energy at the end of the decade.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The Works was deliberately an attempt to be successful worldwide. It's been said in some documentary that after Hot Space, Queen got "fed up" with the USA, and wanted a project that would give them more popularity in different parts of the world. And then, when promoting that album, they came to Brazil for the second time in their career, they went to South Africa for the first time (ignoring a boycott!), they went to Australia for the first time...[/QUOTE]
Again, Queen was FOUR members according to the almost everyone on this board. Do you blame this on Freddie, or all of the members?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Freddie wasn't God. He was human. Very talented, but just as likely to want easy cash as anyone else. If Hot Space and The Works hadn't been released under the name "Queen", I don't think their chart success would've been that good, ESPECIALLY Hot Space, that was released when disco wasn't as popular as it used to be.
So, with all respect... Freddie Merc
People who defend the current use of the Queen name often get into diminishing Freddie's labour, musicianship or importance. People who attack the current use of the Queen name often get into enhancing Freddie's labour, musicianship and importance.