[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
i cannot believe a band as talented as this one - my alltime favourite band - who produced singles like DSMN, Somebody to love, seven seas of rhye and albums like Opera, Races and II have sunk this low, are this bereft of ideas...this is going through the motions and we all know what motions produce .... shit[/QUOTE]
Let's not forget Body Language....[/QUOTE]
yes but i did cover that in my last paragraph:
"it's a long time since Brian and Roger managed that! - Perhaps it's because the real genuine talent for the extreme/different/innovation has been gone for 16yrs?"
and as bad as body language was it was "different and innovative"[/QUOTE]
hey! SHUT THE *** up!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][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 b
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 b
I'm not putting all the blame on Freddie, you two got it wrong. The thing is, most people here insist that what Brian and Roger do is ruining the band's name, embarassing the fans, etc, etc, and that Freddie wouldn't have wanted to see the band going to that path.
And I was pointing out that Freddie DID let them do some even worse and more commercial stuff in the past, he was part of it. If he was still alive, maybe he would be writing some excellent progressive stuff similar to the Innuendo stuff, maybe he would've gone back to the past and tried to bring back the good old vocal harmonies and guitar orchestrations, or maybe he would be recording shitty pop albums that would make the press insists that the band is too old and keeps struggling to release shitty albums just to make money and keep their name fresh in people's head.
A lot of you are thinking for Freddie. "If Freddie was alive, he would hate it", "That's not the Queen Freddie wanted", bla bla bla. Since when was Freddie predictable? Who the heck expected him to write CLTCL? Who the heck would think he and his band would release those shitty albums (and, by the way, I disagree about Brian's "lousy songwriting" - his songwriting was worse in the 80s, that's true, but between Put Out The Fire and crap like Cool Cat, I prefer Put Out The fire. And Roger's Action This Day and Calling All Girls sounds quite good too... Compared to the rest of the album)? If Freddie had died in 1980 and then the remaining members decided to carry on and released something like Hot Space, the reaction would've been MUCH worse than it was, people would say they knew they couldn't go anywhere far without Freddie, that Freddie was responsible for all the brilliant stuff from Queen II, SHA, ANATO, ADATR, and that they're trying to take advantage of disco just because AOBTD did well in the charts.
Freddie Mercury played his role in staining the band's name. And seriously, the band stained its name much more in the 80s than they did in 90s or in this decade. In the future, how many people will remember they made a commercial with Britney Spears? Not even 10% of the people who'll have The Works at home reminding them that Queen went all the way down quality-wise in the 80s.
@Tero: You pointed out that Queen's worst albums should be seen as part of their evolution as people and musicians. Well, Freddie is dead, he can't really go further anymore. John decided to retire. Those two facts certainly played a MAJOR role in Brian and Roger's songwriting. Freddie's illness itself did it. Compare the songs from Innuendo and the songs that were legitimately written for Made In Heaven to the rest of their legacy. Roger's "Happiness" album shows a quite mellow Roger, which we hadn't seen on the previous albums, released when Freddie was doing fine.
Whatever Brian and Roger do now will be judged - just like those albums that are "part of Freddie and the band's natural evolution" were judged too when they were a present thing rather than a past thing.
But in a few years this new album will be part of the past too - wouldn't you say it IS an interesting way to see what happened to Brian and Roger?
They lost their friend and lead singer, they made a massive tribute, they finished Freddie's last work and released it, John left the band, they did some solo work, spent the second half of the 90s nearly forgotten, just doing small things together, in the 2000's they started collaborating more, they learned that the two of them together drag much more people than only one of them would do, they've been part of yet another fight against AIDS (the whole 46664 thing) ,they got several awards, they were inducted to a few Hall of Fame's, they were heavily critisized by some people for using the band's name, they went on tour with a completely different singer where they saw two completely different things (some sold out venues in most European countri
And I was pointing out that Freddie DID let them do some even worse and more commercial stuff in the past, he was part of it. If he was still alive, maybe he would be writing some excellent progressive stuff similar to the Innuendo stuff, maybe he would've gone back to the past and tried to bring back the good old vocal harmonies and guitar orchestrations, or maybe he would be recording shitty pop albums that would make the press insists that the band is too old and keeps struggling to release shitty albums just to make money and keep their name fresh in people's head.
A lot of you are thinking for Freddie. "If Freddie was alive, he would hate it", "That's not the Queen Freddie wanted", bla bla bla. Since when was Freddie predictable? Who the heck expected him to write CLTCL? Who the heck would think he and his band would release those shitty albums (and, by the way, I disagree about Brian's "lousy songwriting" - his songwriting was worse in the 80s, that's true, but between Put Out The Fire and crap like Cool Cat, I prefer Put Out The fire. And Roger's Action This Day and Calling All Girls sounds quite good too... Compared to the rest of the album)? If Freddie had died in 1980 and then the remaining members decided to carry on and released something like Hot Space, the reaction would've been MUCH worse than it was, people would say they knew they couldn't go anywhere far without Freddie, that Freddie was responsible for all the brilliant stuff from Queen II, SHA, ANATO, ADATR, and that they're trying to take advantage of disco just because AOBTD did well in the charts.
Freddie Mercury played his role in staining the band's name. And seriously, the band stained its name much more in the 80s than they did in 90s or in this decade. In the future, how many people will remember they made a commercial with Britney Spears? Not even 10% of the people who'll have The Works at home reminding them that Queen went all the way down quality-wise in the 80s.
@Tero: You pointed out that Queen's worst albums should be seen as part of their evolution as people and musicians. Well, Freddie is dead, he can't really go further anymore. John decided to retire. Those two facts certainly played a MAJOR role in Brian and Roger's songwriting. Freddie's illness itself did it. Compare the songs from Innuendo and the songs that were legitimately written for Made In Heaven to the rest of their legacy. Roger's "Happiness" album shows a quite mellow Roger, which we hadn't seen on the previous albums, released when Freddie was doing fine.
Whatever Brian and Roger do now will be judged - just like those albums that are "part of Freddie and the band's natural evolution" were judged too when they were a present thing rather than a past thing.
But in a few years this new album will be part of the past too - wouldn't you say it IS an interesting way to see what happened to Brian and Roger?
They lost their friend and lead singer, they made a massive tribute, they finished Freddie's last work and released it, John left the band, they did some solo work, spent the second half of the 90s nearly forgotten, just doing small things together, in the 2000's they started collaborating more, they learned that the two of them together drag much more people than only one of them would do, they've been part of yet another fight against AIDS (the whole 46664 thing) ,they got several awards, they were inducted to a few Hall of Fame's, they were heavily critisized by some people for using the band's name, they went on tour with a completely different singer where they saw two completely different things (some sold out venues in most European countri
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]LOTS of things have changed to them. It's been over 16 years since Freddie died. That's enough time for a baby to be born, grow up, mature a bit and develop the main personality traits that will guide them for the rest of their lives.
It's enough time to change Brian and Roger in many many different ways. And it'll all be present in the new album. In the future, when some people who are unhappy about the album start badmouthing it, there will probably be someone like you to explain that the album reflects part of Brian and Roger's evolution as humans and musicians.[/QUOTE]Beautifully thought and said, IMVHO.
It's enough time to change Brian and Roger in many many different ways. And it'll all be present in the new album. In the future, when some people who are unhappy about the album start badmouthing it, there will probably be someone like you to explain that the album reflects part of Brian and Roger's evolution as humans and musicians.[/QUOTE]Beautifully thought and said, IMVHO.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]And I was pointing out that Freddie DID let them do some even worse and more commercial stuff in the past, he was part of it. If he was still alive, maybe he would be writing some excellent progressive stuff similar to the Innuendo stuff, maybe he would've gone back to the past and tried to bring back the good old vocal harmonies and guitar orchestrations, or maybe he would be recording shitty pop albums that would make the press insists that the band is too old and keeps struggling to release shitty albums just to make money and keep their name fresh in people's head.[/QUOTE]
Freddie didn't LET the band do anything, as he wasn't the boss of the band. It was a collective decision by the four members, which is obviously impossible with only two members left.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Freddie Mercury played his role in staining the band's name. And seriously, the band stained its name much more in the 80s than they did in 90s or in this decade. In the future, how many people will remember they made a commercial with Britney Spears? Not even 10% of the people who'll have The Works at home reminding them that Queen went all the way down quality-wise in the 80s.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but I really can't take you seriously if you insist that new (albeit of lesser quality) material is worse then recycling a pair of old hits with every pop act who asks for it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]LOTS of things have changed to them. It's been over 16 years since Freddie died. That's enough time for a baby to be born, grow up, mature a bit and develop the main personality traits that will guide them for the rest of their lives.
It's enough time to change Brian and Roger in many many different ways. And it'll all be present in the new album.[/QUOTE]
No one is denying Brian and Roger the right to write new music. No one is denying them the opportunity to develop as musicians, and no one expected them to retire after Freddie died. And their solo careers will testify to all that being true. The ONLY issue is with the reversal on their opinion of whether to use the band name.
Queen was a band of the same four members throughout a legendary 20 year recording career. That ended when one of them died. The remaing members aknowledged that, and continued their evolution as musicians and persons on their solo careers. Until 2004 that is.
The evolution of their material would continue even if they released solo albums, wouldn't it? Combining their solo names (or creating an entirely new one) wouldn't take anything away from that evolution, wouldn't it?
The Queen name isn't a magic word that suddenly enhances their artistic capabilities, or makes them evolve at an accelerated speed. The ONLY evolution that name allows them to make is the commercial one that gives them instant access to bigger audiences (and subsequently more money). In short, it's a marketing trick.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]In the future, when some people who are unhappy about the album start badmouthing it, there will probably be someone like you to explain that the album reflects part of Brian and Roger's evolution as humans and musicians.[/QUOTE]
I would expect that in the future people like me wouldn't aknowledge any releases of the "2-man-era" as legitimate Queen records. I know I won't, because Queen can only be the four members.
But it does open some interesting avenues for your future opinions. Just imagine if in five years' time Roger will be the only member of Queen left, and people will tell you that his work represents the natural evolution of Queen. Will you accept it?
I know EXACTLY what is Queen in my opinion, but where do you draw the line?
Freddie didn't LET the band do anything, as he wasn't the boss of the band. It was a collective decision by the four members, which is obviously impossible with only two members left.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Freddie Mercury played his role in staining the band's name. And seriously, the band stained its name much more in the 80s than they did in 90s or in this decade. In the future, how many people will remember they made a commercial with Britney Spears? Not even 10% of the people who'll have The Works at home reminding them that Queen went all the way down quality-wise in the 80s.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but I really can't take you seriously if you insist that new (albeit of lesser quality) material is worse then recycling a pair of old hits with every pop act who asks for it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]LOTS of things have changed to them. It's been over 16 years since Freddie died. That's enough time for a baby to be born, grow up, mature a bit and develop the main personality traits that will guide them for the rest of their lives.
It's enough time to change Brian and Roger in many many different ways. And it'll all be present in the new album.[/QUOTE]
No one is denying Brian and Roger the right to write new music. No one is denying them the opportunity to develop as musicians, and no one expected them to retire after Freddie died. And their solo careers will testify to all that being true. The ONLY issue is with the reversal on their opinion of whether to use the band name.
Queen was a band of the same four members throughout a legendary 20 year recording career. That ended when one of them died. The remaing members aknowledged that, and continued their evolution as musicians and persons on their solo careers. Until 2004 that is.
The evolution of their material would continue even if they released solo albums, wouldn't it? Combining their solo names (or creating an entirely new one) wouldn't take anything away from that evolution, wouldn't it?
The Queen name isn't a magic word that suddenly enhances their artistic capabilities, or makes them evolve at an accelerated speed. The ONLY evolution that name allows them to make is the commercial one that gives them instant access to bigger audiences (and subsequently more money). In short, it's a marketing trick.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]In the future, when some people who are unhappy about the album start badmouthing it, there will probably be someone like you to explain that the album reflects part of Brian and Roger's evolution as humans and musicians.[/QUOTE]
I would expect that in the future people like me wouldn't aknowledge any releases of the "2-man-era" as legitimate Queen records. I know I won't, because Queen can only be the four members.
But it does open some interesting avenues for your future opinions. Just imagine if in five years' time Roger will be the only member of Queen left, and people will tell you that his work represents the natural evolution of Queen. Will you accept it?
I know EXACTLY what is Queen in my opinion, but where do you draw the line?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Freddie didn't LET the band do anything, as he wasn't the boss of the band. It was a collective decision by the four members, which is obviously impossible with only two members left. [/QUOTE]
I'm just pointing out that unlike some people like to fantasize, Queen aren't "more commercial" nowadays and they would never be if Freddie had been alive. Freddie, just like the others, was guilty of changing the Queen status from legendary rock band to pop rock act.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I'm sorry, but I really can't take you seriously if you insist that new (albeit of lesser quality) material is worse then recycling a pair of old hits with every pop act who asks for it.[/QUOTE]
And who said Freddie wouldn't have done it if he had been around? His solo career was pure pop music. Back then he collaborated with some pop artists of the time. Michael Jackson, for example. If he had been alive nowadays, maybe he would've collaborated with some artists who are popular nowadays - didn't the Rolling Stones shamefully collaborate with Justin Timberlake?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
No one is denying Brian and Roger the right to write new music. No one is denying them the opportunity to develop as musicians, and no one expected them to retire after Freddie died. And their solo careers will testify to all that being true. The ONLY issue is with the reversal on their opinion of whether to use the band name.
Queen was a band of the same four members throughout a legendary 20 year recording career. That ended when one of them died. The remaing members aknowledged that, and continued their evolution as musicians and persons on their solo careers. Until 2004 that is.[/QUOTE]
"Until 2004 that is". Queen didn't start using the name in 2004.
1992: FM Tribute, DoRo party
1993: Festival (only Roger and John as "Queen")
Up to 1995: in the studio working on Made In Heaven
1997: Bejart Ballet, No One But You single
1998: DoRo party
1999: Guests on Foo Fighters gig
2000: Party It The Park, 5ive gig
2001: Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame, fan club party
2002: Dutch Queen's birthday, Party at the Palace, a couple of performances with the WWRY cast, Walk Of The Fame afterpary
2003: A charity gig, Pavarotti&Friends gig, Songwriters Hall Of Fame, WWRY afterparty, 46664
2004: Lots of WWRY stuff, MTV Russia (guests at an award), Hall Of Fame
These are some examples, not the complete list (missing Queen + Robbie Williams studio collaboration, for example), and up to Hall Of Fame there was hardly any critisize about them using the name. There was some criticism about some of the projects (5ive, for example).
I honestly believe nowadays they're being critisized either because they're actually doing things that make money, or simply because the fans are jealous because Paul Rodgers is there sharing the stage with Brian and Roger just like Freddie used to do.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
The evolution of their material would continue even if they released solo albums, wouldn't it? Combining their solo names (or creating an entirely new one) wouldn't take anything away from that evolution, wouldn't it?[/QUOTE]
This is the band's evolution. The band lost the one who's maybe it's important member, but there are still musicians alive. And they wanna carry on with "Queenish" music.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The Queen name isn't a magic word that suddenly enhances their artistic capabilities, or makes them evolve at an accelerated speed. The ONLY evolution that name allows them to make is the commercial one that gives them instant access to bigger audiences (and subsequently more money). In short, it's a marketing trick.[/QUOTE]
The Queen name is associated with a very specific kind of sound, that often but not always involves Freddie Mercury's voice. There are many good and "Q
Freddie didn't LET the band do anything, as he wasn't the boss of the band. It was a collective decision by the four members, which is obviously impossible with only two members left. [/QUOTE]
I'm just pointing out that unlike some people like to fantasize, Queen aren't "more commercial" nowadays and they would never be if Freddie had been alive. Freddie, just like the others, was guilty of changing the Queen status from legendary rock band to pop rock act.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I'm sorry, but I really can't take you seriously if you insist that new (albeit of lesser quality) material is worse then recycling a pair of old hits with every pop act who asks for it.[/QUOTE]
And who said Freddie wouldn't have done it if he had been around? His solo career was pure pop music. Back then he collaborated with some pop artists of the time. Michael Jackson, for example. If he had been alive nowadays, maybe he would've collaborated with some artists who are popular nowadays - didn't the Rolling Stones shamefully collaborate with Justin Timberlake?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
No one is denying Brian and Roger the right to write new music. No one is denying them the opportunity to develop as musicians, and no one expected them to retire after Freddie died. And their solo careers will testify to all that being true. The ONLY issue is with the reversal on their opinion of whether to use the band name.
Queen was a band of the same four members throughout a legendary 20 year recording career. That ended when one of them died. The remaing members aknowledged that, and continued their evolution as musicians and persons on their solo careers. Until 2004 that is.[/QUOTE]
"Until 2004 that is". Queen didn't start using the name in 2004.
1992: FM Tribute, DoRo party
1993: Festival (only Roger and John as "Queen")
Up to 1995: in the studio working on Made In Heaven
1997: Bejart Ballet, No One But You single
1998: DoRo party
1999: Guests on Foo Fighters gig
2000: Party It The Park, 5ive gig
2001: Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame, fan club party
2002: Dutch Queen's birthday, Party at the Palace, a couple of performances with the WWRY cast, Walk Of The Fame afterpary
2003: A charity gig, Pavarotti&Friends gig, Songwriters Hall Of Fame, WWRY afterparty, 46664
2004: Lots of WWRY stuff, MTV Russia (guests at an award), Hall Of Fame
These are some examples, not the complete list (missing Queen + Robbie Williams studio collaboration, for example), and up to Hall Of Fame there was hardly any critisize about them using the name. There was some criticism about some of the projects (5ive, for example).
I honestly believe nowadays they're being critisized either because they're actually doing things that make money, or simply because the fans are jealous because Paul Rodgers is there sharing the stage with Brian and Roger just like Freddie used to do.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
The evolution of their material would continue even if they released solo albums, wouldn't it? Combining their solo names (or creating an entirely new one) wouldn't take anything away from that evolution, wouldn't it?[/QUOTE]
This is the band's evolution. The band lost the one who's maybe it's important member, but there are still musicians alive. And they wanna carry on with "Queenish" music.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The Queen name isn't a magic word that suddenly enhances their artistic capabilities, or makes them evolve at an accelerated speed. The ONLY evolution that name allows them to make is the commercial one that gives them instant access to bigger audiences (and subsequently more money). In short, it's a marketing trick.[/QUOTE]
The Queen name is associated with a very specific kind of sound, that often but not always involves Freddie Mercury's voice. There are many good and "Q
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]While at least 2 of those people who were in Trident Studios back in 1972 recording songs for Queen's first album are still alive and commited to sound like Queen, and whoever else is alive from the band agrees with them, Queen is alive.[/QUOTE]
So the main issue is this...
To some people Brian and Roger sound as far from Queen as John and Roger would. You're willing to settle for 50%, but 40% is too little for you.
I won't take anything less than 100%, and that was fulfilled as long as all four members were alive and working... Today it isn't the case.
So the main issue is this...
To some people Brian and Roger sound as far from Queen as John and Roger would. You're willing to settle for 50%, but 40% is too little for you.
I won't take anything less than 100%, and that was fulfilled as long as all four members were alive and working... Today it isn't the case.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]While at least 2 of those people who were in Trident Studios back in 1972 recording songs for Queen's first album are still alive and commited to sound like Queen, and whoever else is alive from the band agrees with them, Queen is alive.[/QUOTE]
So the main issue is this...
To some people Brian and Roger sound as far from Queen as John and Roger would. You're willing to settle for 50%, but 40% is too little for you.
I won't take anything less than 100%, and that was fulfilled as long as all four members were alive and working... Today it isn't the case.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that I DOUBT Roger and John would sound like Queen - but if they managed to do it, then I'd definitely accept them as Queen and be excited to see them live.
So the main issue is this...
To some people Brian and Roger sound as far from Queen as John and Roger would. You're willing to settle for 50%, but 40% is too little for you.
I won't take anything less than 100%, and that was fulfilled as long as all four members were alive and working... Today it isn't the case.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that I DOUBT Roger and John would sound like Queen - but if they managed to do it, then I'd definitely accept them as Queen and be excited to see them live.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]While at least 2 of those people who were in Trident Studios back in 1972 recording songs for Queen's first album are still alive and commited to sound like Queen, and whoever else is alive from the band agrees with them, Queen is alive.[/QUOTE]
So the main issue is this...
To some people Brian and Roger sound as far from Queen as John and Roger would. You're willing to settle for 50%, but 40% is too little for you.
I won't take anything less than 100%, and that was fulfilled as long as all four members were alive and working... Today it isn't the case.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that I DOUBT Roger and John would sound like Queen - but if they managed to do it, then I'd definitely accept them as Queen and be excited to see them live.[/QUOTE]
If it's only a question of sounding like Queen, what's stopping a tribute band from becoming Queen? They would probably be better at it, as the Q(+PR) on tour a few years ago didn't sound more than a mediocre cover band. :/
Maybe they can lease the name to the best imitators once they're too old to tour for themselves? Or even make a franchise out of it, with a "Queen" in every country. :P
So the main issue is this...
To some people Brian and Roger sound as far from Queen as John and Roger would. You're willing to settle for 50%, but 40% is too little for you.
I won't take anything less than 100%, and that was fulfilled as long as all four members were alive and working... Today it isn't the case.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that I DOUBT Roger and John would sound like Queen - but if they managed to do it, then I'd definitely accept them as Queen and be excited to see them live.[/QUOTE]
If it's only a question of sounding like Queen, what's stopping a tribute band from becoming Queen? They would probably be better at it, as the Q(+PR) on tour a few years ago didn't sound more than a mediocre cover band. :/
Maybe they can lease the name to the best imitators once they're too old to tour for themselves? Or even make a franchise out of it, with a "Queen" in every country. :P
I'm sorry, but queen and paul sound nothing like classic queen. it's a totally different band and sound. Raf, do you really think queen + paul sounds more like queen than "the works" did?.. "it's a hard life and hammer to fall" is as classic as you could get. Put out the fire and tear it up are among the worst queens songs ever, so brian's songwriting in the eighties went downhill IMO.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]While at least 2 of those people who were in Trident Studios back in 1972 recording songs for Queen's first album are still alive and commited to sound like Queen, and whoever else is alive from the band agrees with them, Queen is alive.[/QUOTE]
So the main issue is this...
To some people Brian and Roger sound as far from Queen as John and Roger would. You're willing to settle for 50%, but 40% is too little for you.
I won't take anything less than 100%, and that was fulfilled as long as all four members were alive and working... Today it isn't the case.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that I DOUBT Roger and John would sound like Queen - but if they managed to do it, then I'd definitely accept them as Queen and be excited to see them live.[/QUOTE]
If it's only a question of sounding like Queen, what's stopping a tribute band from becoming Queen? They would probably be better at it, as the Q(+PR) on tour a few years ago didn't sound more than a mediocre cover band. :/
Maybe they can lease the name to the best imitators once they're too old to tour for themselves? Or even make a franchise out of it, with a "Queen" in every country. :P[/QUOTE]
Well, if there aren't at least a couple of Queen members together, then obviously it shouldn't get the name. ;P Read my post again ;) I mentioned I see as "Queen" at least 2 members of the band commited to still sound like Queen and have legal permission from any other living member to do it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]mike hunt wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I'm sorry, but queen and paul sound nothing like classic queen. it's a totally different band and sound. Raf, do you really think queen + paul sounds more like queen than "the works" did?.. "it's a hard life and hammer to fall" is as classic as you could get. Put out the fire and tear it up are among the worst queens songs ever, so brian's songwriting in the eighties went downhill IMO. [/QUOTE]
"Nothing"? The songs obviously have a different "feeling" now, because Paul's voice is completely different than Freddie's. But take songs like I'm In Love With My Car, Love Of My Life, TATDOOL... Isn't that basically Queen without's Freddie voice? Have you ever heard a "mediocre cover band" giving THAT Brian May touch to the TATDOOL solo? Have you ever heard a "mediocre cover band" sounding more like Roger than Roger does when he sings IILWMC?
So the main issue is this...
To some people Brian and Roger sound as far from Queen as John and Roger would. You're willing to settle for 50%, but 40% is too little for you.
I won't take anything less than 100%, and that was fulfilled as long as all four members were alive and working... Today it isn't the case.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that I DOUBT Roger and John would sound like Queen - but if they managed to do it, then I'd definitely accept them as Queen and be excited to see them live.[/QUOTE]
If it's only a question of sounding like Queen, what's stopping a tribute band from becoming Queen? They would probably be better at it, as the Q(+PR) on tour a few years ago didn't sound more than a mediocre cover band. :/
Maybe they can lease the name to the best imitators once they're too old to tour for themselves? Or even make a franchise out of it, with a "Queen" in every country. :P[/QUOTE]
Well, if there aren't at least a couple of Queen members together, then obviously it shouldn't get the name. ;P Read my post again ;) I mentioned I see as "Queen" at least 2 members of the band commited to still sound like Queen and have legal permission from any other living member to do it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]mike hunt wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I'm sorry, but queen and paul sound nothing like classic queen. it's a totally different band and sound. Raf, do you really think queen + paul sounds more like queen than "the works" did?.. "it's a hard life and hammer to fall" is as classic as you could get. Put out the fire and tear it up are among the worst queens songs ever, so brian's songwriting in the eighties went downhill IMO. [/QUOTE]
"Nothing"? The songs obviously have a different "feeling" now, because Paul's voice is completely different than Freddie's. But take songs like I'm In Love With My Car, Love Of My Life, TATDOOL... Isn't that basically Queen without's Freddie voice? Have you ever heard a "mediocre cover band" giving THAT Brian May touch to the TATDOOL solo? Have you ever heard a "mediocre cover band" sounding more like Roger than Roger does when he sings IILWMC?
Okay Raf840, with all due respect, you're getting a little off the rails here. I'm not here to convince you to change your mind, as Queen are who you believe they are, which is fine. Having said that...
"Queen aren't "more commercial" nowadays."
1. Endless licencing of songs. 2. Scores of recycled greatest hits collections. 3. Performances with flavour of the day artists. 4. The musical. You are wrong and couldn't be more wrong.
"Freddie, just like the others, was guilty of changing the Queen status from legendary rock band to pop rock act."
None of them are guilty of anything. They, as a group, made a decision to pursue a less guitar rock sound in the 80s. They wrote some great songs, but the consistency wasn't there because their roots were as a 3 piece live band, not a bunch of guys writing on their own to sequencers and drum machines. It wasn't nearly as good as their 70s output, but it's what makes Queen unique, compared to an AC/DC who pretty much stick to a style and sound that didn't change much from the beginning.
"Back then (Freddie) collaborated with some pop artists of the time. Michael Jackson, for example."
Please tell me you're not lumping Michael Jackson in with 5ive and Robbie Williams and McFly. Please.
"Until 2004 that is". Queen didn't start using the name in 2004."
The reason there was little criticism was because your examples are primarily one-offs. If they want to do a gig for the Hall of Fame, or go into the studi with 5ive and say they're Queen, fine. Now they're saying that without 50% of the band, they're Queen. I won't even mention their most famous and celebrated member who the whole world associates with Queen isn't with them anymore.
"I honestly believe nowadays they're being critisized either because they're actually doing things that make money, or simply because the fans are jealous because Paul Rodgers is there sharing the stage with Brian and Roger just like Freddie used to do."
Nope. They're criticized because people like Tero, Sebastian, myself and scores of others believe in Queen consisting of the 4 members who played on everything from KYA to TSMGO.
"This is the band's evolution. The band lost the one who's maybe it's important member, but there are still musicians alive. And they wanna carry on with "Queenish" music."
Great, but you are totally missing the point. Freddie was such an enormous part of Queen music, that without him, going forward on record can't be Queen music! I don't know the entire Paul Rodgers catalogue, but I think it would be fair to call him a blues/rock singer. I doubt that there's a song similar to Fairy Feller's Master Stroke, MOTBQ or Mustapha on any of his albums. Freddie's quirky writing style and odd key signatures were an enormous part of Queen's music. Now you've got a 4/4 major chord blues rocker replacing a stylistic ADD victim when it comes to writing and you're telling me that will lead to "Queenish" music?
"Maybe they also thought this name would sell more, and I can't blame them - but as long as they stick to a classic Queen sound, we can't say they're spreading lies by saying they're Queen."
No "maybe", it's the sole reason. Classic Queen to you may be strictly rock songs. Classic Queen to me is everything. Songs like Nevermore or Lily of the Valley, so light in their vocal delivery, are classic Queen. We won't see the same lightness from Paul Rodgers. Amazing singing, yes. Versatility like Freddie's, not a chance.
"While at least 2 of those people who were in Trident Studios back in 1972 recording songs for Queen's first album are still alive and commited to sound like Queen, and whoever else is alive from the band agrees with them, Queen is alive."
Even if the universally acknowledged co-architect of the Queen sound, and the overwhelming face of
"Queen aren't "more commercial" nowadays."
1. Endless licencing of songs. 2. Scores of recycled greatest hits collections. 3. Performances with flavour of the day artists. 4. The musical. You are wrong and couldn't be more wrong.
"Freddie, just like the others, was guilty of changing the Queen status from legendary rock band to pop rock act."
None of them are guilty of anything. They, as a group, made a decision to pursue a less guitar rock sound in the 80s. They wrote some great songs, but the consistency wasn't there because their roots were as a 3 piece live band, not a bunch of guys writing on their own to sequencers and drum machines. It wasn't nearly as good as their 70s output, but it's what makes Queen unique, compared to an AC/DC who pretty much stick to a style and sound that didn't change much from the beginning.
"Back then (Freddie) collaborated with some pop artists of the time. Michael Jackson, for example."
Please tell me you're not lumping Michael Jackson in with 5ive and Robbie Williams and McFly. Please.
"Until 2004 that is". Queen didn't start using the name in 2004."
The reason there was little criticism was because your examples are primarily one-offs. If they want to do a gig for the Hall of Fame, or go into the studi with 5ive and say they're Queen, fine. Now they're saying that without 50% of the band, they're Queen. I won't even mention their most famous and celebrated member who the whole world associates with Queen isn't with them anymore.
"I honestly believe nowadays they're being critisized either because they're actually doing things that make money, or simply because the fans are jealous because Paul Rodgers is there sharing the stage with Brian and Roger just like Freddie used to do."
Nope. They're criticized because people like Tero, Sebastian, myself and scores of others believe in Queen consisting of the 4 members who played on everything from KYA to TSMGO.
"This is the band's evolution. The band lost the one who's maybe it's important member, but there are still musicians alive. And they wanna carry on with "Queenish" music."
Great, but you are totally missing the point. Freddie was such an enormous part of Queen music, that without him, going forward on record can't be Queen music! I don't know the entire Paul Rodgers catalogue, but I think it would be fair to call him a blues/rock singer. I doubt that there's a song similar to Fairy Feller's Master Stroke, MOTBQ or Mustapha on any of his albums. Freddie's quirky writing style and odd key signatures were an enormous part of Queen's music. Now you've got a 4/4 major chord blues rocker replacing a stylistic ADD victim when it comes to writing and you're telling me that will lead to "Queenish" music?
"Maybe they also thought this name would sell more, and I can't blame them - but as long as they stick to a classic Queen sound, we can't say they're spreading lies by saying they're Queen."
No "maybe", it's the sole reason. Classic Queen to you may be strictly rock songs. Classic Queen to me is everything. Songs like Nevermore or Lily of the Valley, so light in their vocal delivery, are classic Queen. We won't see the same lightness from Paul Rodgers. Amazing singing, yes. Versatility like Freddie's, not a chance.
"While at least 2 of those people who were in Trident Studios back in 1972 recording songs for Queen's first album are still alive and commited to sound like Queen, and whoever else is alive from the band agrees with them, Queen is alive."
Even if the universally acknowledged co-architect of the Queen sound, and the overwhelming face of