[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Well then, you DON'T want to miss the tour this year.
Something is going to happen.
Something wonderful.[/QUOTE]
I didn't want to spoil the surprise, but Microwave is right.
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/2594/2008queench8.jpg
This years biggest rock reunion is coming soon. [/QUOTE]
Now I know where Brian keeps his bald patch wig - its under Freddie's armpit.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME]...And if we expand this same definition with just the tiniest bit, the same applies to How Can I Go On and Love Lies Bleeding.[/QUOTE]
Those are on solo albums with only one member of the band, so that's really stretching it.
[QUOTE]Just like the question "who is Queen" can be answered differently depending on your personal bias, so does this question have several answers.[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
The Who can be The Who with 2 of 4 members, and Chicago can be Chicago with 4 of 7 members. I think once you have less than half the members in the core of the band, it's no longer the same band... like Guns and Roses.
But... are Yes still Yes, even though they only have 2 of the original 5 members? Steve Howe was there for all the key albums (minus 90125, but that was a different band for stylistic reasons, even though 3 of the 5 original members were there). Howe wasn't there on the first two albums, but he's considered by most to be more of a member of Yes than Tony Kaye.
Back to Queen... I don't think having Freddie singing on Heaven For Everyone by The Cross makes it a Queen song, even though Roger was there too. But on Made In Heaven it's a Queen song because all four members are heard on the track, even though one of the four wasn't there for the later sessions.
As interesting as it is to discuss this, in the end it truly doesn't matter. The name only matters when it comes to marketing. It should just be about the music, and whether or not it sounds good.
Those are on solo albums with only one member of the band, so that's really stretching it.
[QUOTE]Just like the question "who is Queen" can be answered differently depending on your personal bias, so does this question have several answers.[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
The Who can be The Who with 2 of 4 members, and Chicago can be Chicago with 4 of 7 members. I think once you have less than half the members in the core of the band, it's no longer the same band... like Guns and Roses.
But... are Yes still Yes, even though they only have 2 of the original 5 members? Steve Howe was there for all the key albums (minus 90125, but that was a different band for stylistic reasons, even though 3 of the 5 original members were there). Howe wasn't there on the first two albums, but he's considered by most to be more of a member of Yes than Tony Kaye.
Back to Queen... I don't think having Freddie singing on Heaven For Everyone by The Cross makes it a Queen song, even though Roger was there too. But on Made In Heaven it's a Queen song because all four members are heard on the track, even though one of the four wasn't there for the later sessions.
As interesting as it is to discuss this, in the end it truly doesn't matter. The name only matters when it comes to marketing. It should just be about the music, and whether or not it sounds good.
"As interesting as it is to discuss this, in the end it truly doesn't matter. The name only matters when it comes to marketing. It should just be about the music, and whether or not it sounds good."
Arrgghhh!!!! Sir GH, no, no, no! You're a very smart guy, but I'm sorry, that argument does not fly. IYHO, the name only matters when it comes to marketing. IMHO, the name, especially the name Queen which signifies a certain style, or pomp, is what the band was, and who the band was. If me and my buddies stage a decent, but inferior version of the WWRY, and I bill myself as Lord GH, I would hope it wouldn't sit well with you. Our version may be good, I may be as good a guitat player as you (not even close), but our show wouldn't be WWRY. You've earned the right to be in the main WWRY show through your talent. I doubt Brian, Roger and Ben Elton would just say "it's only a name" if I had the same show playing. The name means something to them, forgetting trademarks and law. Queen means something to people that has nothing to do with mathematical equations. It was a spirit, and Freddie Mercury was the biggest part of that spirit. Then again, EVH or Eric Clapton are more famous than Brian as guitarists, and it sure as hell wouldn't be Queen with them playing and Freddie singing if Brian had died.
Arrgghhh!!!! Sir GH, no, no, no! You're a very smart guy, but I'm sorry, that argument does not fly. IYHO, the name only matters when it comes to marketing. IMHO, the name, especially the name Queen which signifies a certain style, or pomp, is what the band was, and who the band was. If me and my buddies stage a decent, but inferior version of the WWRY, and I bill myself as Lord GH, I would hope it wouldn't sit well with you. Our version may be good, I may be as good a guitat player as you (not even close), but our show wouldn't be WWRY. You've earned the right to be in the main WWRY show through your talent. I doubt Brian, Roger and Ben Elton would just say "it's only a name" if I had the same show playing. The name means something to them, forgetting trademarks and law. Queen means something to people that has nothing to do with mathematical equations. It was a spirit, and Freddie Mercury was the biggest part of that spirit. Then again, EVH or Eric Clapton are more famous than Brian as guitarists, and it sure as hell wouldn't be Queen with them playing and Freddie singing if Brian had died.
It's 75% Queen.
Some-one (but you) just had to say it!
...it's a nice song, but I don't listen to it that much.
Some-one (but you) just had to say it!
...it's a nice song, but I don't listen to it that much.
Ha ha! Ah, you are quite the character. And flattering. And of course, correct.
I'll rephrase. Of course the name is important as it represents you as musicians, but it should never take precedence over the music itself. But in far too many discussions about Queen + Paul Rodgers, it's the name that's being discussed, not the music - and most of their new album hasn't even been heard yet! It just boggles my mind that people criticize the name of the band as a means of supporting their pre-conceived judgements about music they haven't even heard.
Better?
I'll rephrase. Of course the name is important as it represents you as musicians, but it should never take precedence over the music itself. But in far too many discussions about Queen + Paul Rodgers, it's the name that's being discussed, not the music - and most of their new album hasn't even been heard yet! It just boggles my mind that people criticize the name of the band as a means of supporting their pre-conceived judgements about music they haven't even heard.
Better?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Of course the name is important as it represents you as musicians, but it should never take precedence over the music itself. But in far too many discussions about Queen + Paul Rodgers, it's the name that's being discussed, not the music - and most of their new album hasn't even been heard yet![/QUOTE]
The parts that have been heard so far (The Call, Invincible Hope, Say It's Not True, C-Lebrity) are nothing more than solo rejects. If they weren't being performed under the Queen name, less than 10% of the QZ posters would even have listened to them, and even they wouldn't have liked the songs very much. :/
Using the Queen name has to work in both directions: Not only does it entice more people to listen to the songs in the first place, but it also requires us to compare the new material to Queen songs, not solo material... That means the new songs are falling considerably short of the mark.
The parts that have been heard so far (The Call, Invincible Hope, Say It's Not True, C-Lebrity) are nothing more than solo rejects. If they weren't being performed under the Queen name, less than 10% of the QZ posters would even have listened to them, and even they wouldn't have liked the songs very much. :/
Using the Queen name has to work in both directions: Not only does it entice more people to listen to the songs in the first place, but it also requires us to compare the new material to Queen songs, not solo material... That means the new songs are falling considerably short of the mark.
This thread is on a fast-track to Ridiculous, but thankfully Brian wrote something sensible on his soapbox about studio time.
Man, I forget how much QZ'ers can be off the mark sometimes.
Man, I forget how much QZ'ers can be off the mark sometimes.
Same disputants, same subjects, same arguments, same misunderstanding... The giant endless spiral of the QZ discussions: What is real Queen -> May they use Queen name? -> What's wrong with Brian? -> Is WWRY-musical the real piece of sh*t or not? -> What is real Queen? -> May they...
New faces are not welcome in this battle the BHM arse lickers VS anti-Brianish grumblers.
New faces are not welcome in this battle the BHM arse lickers VS anti-Brianish grumblers.
I quite like the song. To me it is more Queen than some of the music that happened after NBY-Robbie Williams to name one.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry... wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Same disputants, same subjects, same arguments, same misunderstanding... The giant endless spiral of the QZ discussions: What is real Queen -> May they use Queen name? -> What's wrong with Brian? -> Is WWRY-musical the real piece of sh*t or not? -> What is real Queen? -> May they...
New faces are not welcome in this battle the BHM arse lickers VS anti-Brianish grumblers.[/QUOTE]
May May please please us with some morality?
New faces are not welcome in this battle the BHM arse lickers VS anti-Brianish grumblers.[/QUOTE]
May May please please us with some morality?
We're playing for the same team "Anti-Brianish grumblers", Seb, for so many years, but nothing changes...
yes, i consider it as a queen song because its made by 3 of the members with no outside influence. Its a very touching song and nice tribute to god of music.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]yes, i consider it as a queen song because its made by 3 of the members with no outside influence. Its a very touching song and nice tribute to god of music.[/QUOTE]
no outside influence....im not sure thats important when defining the song. i see what you mean but doin' alright is a queen song and that was written by tim and brian. you coul dgo even further with the word influence and say tie your mother down is thanks to rory gallager ( i know, i can't spell that lol). but that's ridiculous. but i don't think an outside writer helping is too important to be honest.
no outside influence....im not sure thats important when defining the song. i see what you mean but doin' alright is a queen song and that was written by tim and brian. you coul dgo even further with the word influence and say tie your mother down is thanks to rory gallager ( i know, i can't spell that lol). but that's ridiculous. but i don't think an outside writer helping is too important to be honest.
While we're talking about bands, with deceased members, still continuing and performing otherwise with some or all the surviving members, how have fans reacted to Pete and Roger continuing as The Who?
Just curious, really...
Also, would you guys ever go see Paul and Ringo as "The Beatles", whether as a one-off or on tour (with Eric Clapton). :P
(No chance in hell of that happening, but some few can dream)
Just curious, really...
Also, would you guys ever go see Paul and Ringo as "The Beatles", whether as a one-off or on tour (with Eric Clapton). :P
(No chance in hell of that happening, but some few can dream)
It works for some bands and not for others.
The Who works, partially, because Pete and Roger still put on an awesome show. Roger was the voice and Pete was the writer of their songs; and a badass on stage.
The Beatles, it wouldn't work and they knew it. That's why we never got a reunion, outside of the Anthology thing.
They did write a 3 piece song but it never got released, which is a bit of a shame.
Take a band like Lynrd Skynrd, no one gives a shit who's in that band. See, there's no 'one size fits all' rule for whether or not a band can carry on with different members. Look how many people were in the Mahavishnu Orchestra, or Toto, or Dream Theatre. It really is not about how many people go in and out of the band, it really depends on which members come and go, and how integral they are.
And again, everyone has their own ideas over what 'works'. Personally I'm not so fond of any post-Waters Pink Floyd. (Except for "Marooned" and "High Hopes").
But then I'll turn around and say I really fucking loved "Endless Wire" by The Two - cough, I mean, The Who.
Returning to the point of the thread, I feel that No One But You basically is as Queen as it can get. For me, personally. It's sappy, but you go through sappy stages when someone you know kicks the bucket or whatever. I love the song.
The Who works, partially, because Pete and Roger still put on an awesome show. Roger was the voice and Pete was the writer of their songs; and a badass on stage.
The Beatles, it wouldn't work and they knew it. That's why we never got a reunion, outside of the Anthology thing.
They did write a 3 piece song but it never got released, which is a bit of a shame.
Take a band like Lynrd Skynrd, no one gives a shit who's in that band. See, there's no 'one size fits all' rule for whether or not a band can carry on with different members. Look how many people were in the Mahavishnu Orchestra, or Toto, or Dream Theatre. It really is not about how many people go in and out of the band, it really depends on which members come and go, and how integral they are.
And again, everyone has their own ideas over what 'works'. Personally I'm not so fond of any post-Waters Pink Floyd. (Except for "Marooned" and "High Hopes").
But then I'll turn around and say I really fucking loved "Endless Wire" by The Two - cough, I mean, The Who.
Returning to the point of the thread, I feel that No One But You basically is as Queen as it can get. For me, personally. It's sappy, but you go through sappy stages when someone you know kicks the bucket or whatever. I love the song.