Well, I have been reading, listening and watching the diferents reactions of Brian And Roger to this new tour and I must say that I feel disapointed with Roger's comments such as
"We know some people will moan, 'Oh, Fred's not on it...' Of course he's not, you dickhead. If they want to know why we're bothering to do this, it's because we're still alive. It's quite simple. If they don't like it, just don't buy the record or come to the show." Classic Rock Magazine.
I watched the band last tour in the Madrid gig, the show was OK althought the sound was terrible for moments at the begining and then became better (some technical problem, I heard). I am not happy with the new record, mainly for using the name "Queen". Anyway, I have followed their solo career (even saw Brian playing live in 1998). It´s no my intention to come to the show, because I think sooner or later you have to say NO when something is against your thoughts. What I am trying to say is that there´s no need to insult the thounsands of people that don´t like the Paul Rodgers' era, much more when they have become rich thanks to the huge amount of money that we have spent in buying their records and things like that.
What do you think??
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Just as Roger says - if you don't like it, then fine. Say what you have to say and then retire to the shaddows.
What I think he's getting at is the people that C O N T I N U A L L Y bang on about how much they dislike it. He knows as well as anyone that Queen isn't the same without Freddie, but they can do what they like with the band's name - they don't owe anyone anything.
No one's heard the album yet, so comment is a waste of time - let's see what happens and go from there.
What I think he's getting at is the people that C O N T I N U A L L Y bang on about how much they dislike it. He knows as well as anyone that Queen isn't the same without Freddie, but they can do what they like with the band's name - they don't owe anyone anything.
No one's heard the album yet, so comment is a waste of time - let's see what happens and go from there.
I can understand your disgust with Roger Taylor's choice of words, but I do happen to agree with him. Brian and Roger are still alive and have much to offer musically. This is their job, and their duty is to keep the Queen name alive. That's the thing some people can't seem to comprehend. What sense is it for them to go under a different name? Does Kiss change their name everytime they get a new guitarist and/or drummer? Did Black Sabbath change their name when Ozzy left the band? Did Boston change their name after their lead singer died? No, in fact Boston hired some guy off of myspace to replace him. Do people really think that Freddie would have wanted them to just retire the Queen name and start fresh because of his untimely death?
Once again, I understand your disgust in Roger's vocabulary. Yes, it was very arrogrant of him, perhaps. But then again, he has a point and very much respects his loyal fans. He just wants his followers to understand this is Queen's new era, this is what they're doing NOW, this is who they have become. Just enjoy the music!
Once again, I understand your disgust in Roger's vocabulary. Yes, it was very arrogrant of him, perhaps. But then again, he has a point and very much respects his loyal fans. He just wants his followers to understand this is Queen's new era, this is what they're doing NOW, this is who they have become. Just enjoy the music!
"This is their job, and their duty is to keep the Queen name alive. That's the thing some people can't seem to comprehend."
No, it's their choice.
"What sense is it for them to go under a different name?"
Financailly? None. Artistically? Tons.
"Does Kiss change their name everytime they get a new guitarist and/or drummer? Did Black Sabbath change their name when Ozzy left the band? Did Boston change their name after their lead singer died? No, in fact Boston hired some guy off of myspace to replace him."
Are you saying that a guy who ARGUABLY wrote the rock song of the century, ARBUABLY wrote the greatest staadium anthem of all time, ARGUABLY was rock's best front mand, ARGUABLY the possessor of rock's finest and most diverse voice, ARGUABLY led his band to the most famous live appearance of his generations musicians at the world's biggest ever concert, and who is UNARGUABLY one the 100 Greatest Britons is to be compared to a rhythm guitarist from an american stage band who kind of suck musically, an iconic heavy metal singer who can't really sing, or Brad Delp, who with all due respect, was a one album wonder, as Boston's second album sucked and sucked saleswise, and their third was a joke, THESE are the people and bands you use to justify Brian and Roger using the name Queen? If you wanted to further your argument, use John Lennon from the Beatles and John Bonham from Zeppelin and stop there. Irreplaceable members of the two of the three biggest bands of all time. They stopped when a member died, because without that member, who they were ceased to exist.
"Do people really think that Freddie would have wanted them to just retire the Queen name and start fresh because of his untimely death?"
Not sure. If you can provide definitive proof that Freddie's happy with it, and the musical, and the boy band collaborations since his death, I'd be happy to hear it. Otherewise, someone else can speculate and say "do you really think that Freddie would have wanted them to continue with the Queen name, since he more than anyone is associated with Queen, because of his untimely death?" You can't anser that any more than I can answer your hypothetical question.
No, it's their choice.
"What sense is it for them to go under a different name?"
Financailly? None. Artistically? Tons.
"Does Kiss change their name everytime they get a new guitarist and/or drummer? Did Black Sabbath change their name when Ozzy left the band? Did Boston change their name after their lead singer died? No, in fact Boston hired some guy off of myspace to replace him."
Are you saying that a guy who ARGUABLY wrote the rock song of the century, ARBUABLY wrote the greatest staadium anthem of all time, ARGUABLY was rock's best front mand, ARGUABLY the possessor of rock's finest and most diverse voice, ARGUABLY led his band to the most famous live appearance of his generations musicians at the world's biggest ever concert, and who is UNARGUABLY one the 100 Greatest Britons is to be compared to a rhythm guitarist from an american stage band who kind of suck musically, an iconic heavy metal singer who can't really sing, or Brad Delp, who with all due respect, was a one album wonder, as Boston's second album sucked and sucked saleswise, and their third was a joke, THESE are the people and bands you use to justify Brian and Roger using the name Queen? If you wanted to further your argument, use John Lennon from the Beatles and John Bonham from Zeppelin and stop there. Irreplaceable members of the two of the three biggest bands of all time. They stopped when a member died, because without that member, who they were ceased to exist.
"Do people really think that Freddie would have wanted them to just retire the Queen name and start fresh because of his untimely death?"
Not sure. If you can provide definitive proof that Freddie's happy with it, and the musical, and the boy band collaborations since his death, I'd be happy to hear it. Otherewise, someone else can speculate and say "do you really think that Freddie would have wanted them to continue with the Queen name, since he more than anyone is associated with Queen, because of his untimely death?" You can't anser that any more than I can answer your hypothetical question.
Agree with the above post. Brian and Roger worked hard for many years to have the success theyve had with Queen. Why should they have to do it all over again when neither Freddie or John who are the only ones who has any reasonable say in the matter would disagree.
And I think its bloody time for some new music from them aswell. :)
And I think its bloody time for some new music from them aswell. :)
Sorry it should be the post above the above-post.
In fact both of the bands you mentioned have "continued" in some way after members died. Beatles recorded new tracks based on Lennon demos for the Anthology box sets and Led Zeppelin have performed several times with different drummers.
The reason for Beatles quitting was that Paul McCartney left the group. For a while the others actually gave thought to the idea of continuing with another bassist, some rumours say Klaus Voorman. Prior to this George Harrison had left the group briefly several times during sessions and was replaced by Eric Clapton. Both Paul and John remarked that they were prepared to have him as a permanent member even though this can possibly be explained by the conflicts within the group.
Black Sabbath and Ozzy is a great example of a major band that replaced an iconic frontman, they actually did that several times with both Ronnie James Dio and Tony Martin. Another example of this ACDC not to mention Deep Purple whove had MANY important members replaced several times.
The reason for Beatles quitting was that Paul McCartney left the group. For a while the others actually gave thought to the idea of continuing with another bassist, some rumours say Klaus Voorman. Prior to this George Harrison had left the group briefly several times during sessions and was replaced by Eric Clapton. Both Paul and John remarked that they were prepared to have him as a permanent member even though this can possibly be explained by the conflicts within the group.
Black Sabbath and Ozzy is a great example of a major band that replaced an iconic frontman, they actually did that several times with both Ronnie James Dio and Tony Martin. Another example of this ACDC not to mention Deep Purple whove had MANY important members replaced several times.
Freddie was certainly not above commercialism either so dont be too sure about him being against the boyband-collaborations and the musical.
One thing that makes the Beatles example that everyone throws out an unfit comparison is that Queen never split up.
Also unlike Boston, AC/DC, INXS, Black Sabbath, The Who, and countless other examples, Brian and Roger were the only ones to add a qualifier to the name with the whole Queen + Paul Rodgers thing.
Of course that doesn't satisfy the detractors who are actively looking for an excuse to voice their objections.
But to be honest I'm glad they are using direct language and turning certain people off.
They seem to be doing well and selling out concerts without a need for the people who have written them off. So those people can stay home while the Q+PR fanbase grows.
It's really a win-win situation. :)
Also unlike Boston, AC/DC, INXS, Black Sabbath, The Who, and countless other examples, Brian and Roger were the only ones to add a qualifier to the name with the whole Queen + Paul Rodgers thing.
Of course that doesn't satisfy the detractors who are actively looking for an excuse to voice their objections.
But to be honest I'm glad they are using direct language and turning certain people off.
They seem to be doing well and selling out concerts without a need for the people who have written them off. So those people can stay home while the Q+PR fanbase grows.
It's really a win-win situation. :)
I have to say, the "We're still alive" comment was pretty mean.
But he's right.
But he's right.
Roger's always been quite smug, but he does tell it like it is!
I think where you stand on this depends on why you like the band; was it the music, or the overall package -
If you like Queen because of the camp humour, posturing and costumes then QPR is not for you
If it was just the music, then QPR hits the nail right on the head
For me, I do think that SOMETHING has got lost in the translation
I think where you stand on this depends on why you like the band; was it the music, or the overall package -
If you like Queen because of the camp humour, posturing and costumes then QPR is not for you
If it was just the music, then QPR hits the nail right on the head
For me, I do think that SOMETHING has got lost in the translation
Sheer Brass Neck,
That was quite a bold argument you put forth.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"This is their job, and their duty is to keep the Queen name alive. That's the thing some people can't seem to comprehend."
No, it's their choice. [/QUOTE]
Existentially speaking, yes, we all have a choice. However, in their position, it seems almost impossible not to keep the Queen name alive -- especially with the likes of Kiss, Boston, and Led Zeppelin still on the forefront. Yes, I grant you that John has made the decision to stay out of public eye; however, I promise you he is still financially present. Everybody wants their piece of the pie.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
"What sense is it for them to go under a different name?"
Financailly? None. Artistically? Tons.[/QUOTE]
Pardon my language, but artistic, my A$$. That name has stuck by them through thick and thin. Remind you, it's been over thirty years now. That's a rather important name to just throw out the window. Financial goes without saying -- but in their case, money is unavoidable. They have said it countless times that they're not doing this for the money (although they get paid handsomely for what they do). They are musicians, and they're not the only rock stars who do this. The last thing they probably want is to sit on their butts for the rest of their lives. They'd rather work for the money.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
"Does Kiss change their name everytime they get a new guitarist and/or drummer? Did Black Sabbath change their name when Ozzy left the band? Did Boston change their name after their lead singer died? No, in fact Boston hired some guy off of myspace to replace him."
Are you saying that a guy who ARGUABLY wrote the rock song of the century, ARBUABLY wrote the greatest staadium anthem of all time, ARGUABLY was rock's best front mand, ARGUABLY the possessor of rock's finest and most diverse voice, ARGUABLY led his band to the most famous live appearance of his generations musicians at the world's biggest ever concert, and who is UNARGUABLY one the 100 Greatest Britons is to be compared to a rhythm guitarist from an american stage band who kind of suck musically, an iconic heavy metal singer who can't really sing, or Brad Delp, who with all due respect, was a one album wonder, as Boston's second album sucked and sucked saleswise, and their third was a joke, THESE are the people and bands you use to justify Brian and Roger using the name Queen? If you wanted to further your argument, use John Lennon from the Beatles and John Bonham from Zeppelin and stop there. Irreplaceable members of the two of the three biggest bands of all time. They stopped when a member died, because without that member, who they were ceased to exist.[/QUOTE]
Firstly, that is precisely what I'm saying. Simply because you feel Brian and Roger are far beyond Boston, Kiss, and Black Sabbath doesn't mean they are. These are all big names in rock and roll -- regardless of how many hits they produced. They still have fans who are just like us. We're not the only lunatics. Secondly, Led Zeppelin didn't exactly call it quits. I believe they recently had their reunion tour, if I'm not mistaken. And, of course, The Beatles ceased to exist due to arguments within the band, not due to the death of John Lennon.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
"Do people really think that Freddie would have wanted them to just retire the Queen name and start fresh because of his untimely death?"
Not sure. If you can provide definitive proof that Freddie's happy with it, and the musical, and the boy band collaborations since his death, I'd be happy to hear it. Otherewise, someone else can speculate and say "do you really think that Freddie would have wanted them to continue with the Queen name, since he more than anyone is associated with
That was quite a bold argument you put forth.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"This is their job, and their duty is to keep the Queen name alive. That's the thing some people can't seem to comprehend."
No, it's their choice. [/QUOTE]
Existentially speaking, yes, we all have a choice. However, in their position, it seems almost impossible not to keep the Queen name alive -- especially with the likes of Kiss, Boston, and Led Zeppelin still on the forefront. Yes, I grant you that John has made the decision to stay out of public eye; however, I promise you he is still financially present. Everybody wants their piece of the pie.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
"What sense is it for them to go under a different name?"
Financailly? None. Artistically? Tons.[/QUOTE]
Pardon my language, but artistic, my A$$. That name has stuck by them through thick and thin. Remind you, it's been over thirty years now. That's a rather important name to just throw out the window. Financial goes without saying -- but in their case, money is unavoidable. They have said it countless times that they're not doing this for the money (although they get paid handsomely for what they do). They are musicians, and they're not the only rock stars who do this. The last thing they probably want is to sit on their butts for the rest of their lives. They'd rather work for the money.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
"Does Kiss change their name everytime they get a new guitarist and/or drummer? Did Black Sabbath change their name when Ozzy left the band? Did Boston change their name after their lead singer died? No, in fact Boston hired some guy off of myspace to replace him."
Are you saying that a guy who ARGUABLY wrote the rock song of the century, ARBUABLY wrote the greatest staadium anthem of all time, ARGUABLY was rock's best front mand, ARGUABLY the possessor of rock's finest and most diverse voice, ARGUABLY led his band to the most famous live appearance of his generations musicians at the world's biggest ever concert, and who is UNARGUABLY one the 100 Greatest Britons is to be compared to a rhythm guitarist from an american stage band who kind of suck musically, an iconic heavy metal singer who can't really sing, or Brad Delp, who with all due respect, was a one album wonder, as Boston's second album sucked and sucked saleswise, and their third was a joke, THESE are the people and bands you use to justify Brian and Roger using the name Queen? If you wanted to further your argument, use John Lennon from the Beatles and John Bonham from Zeppelin and stop there. Irreplaceable members of the two of the three biggest bands of all time. They stopped when a member died, because without that member, who they were ceased to exist.[/QUOTE]
Firstly, that is precisely what I'm saying. Simply because you feel Brian and Roger are far beyond Boston, Kiss, and Black Sabbath doesn't mean they are. These are all big names in rock and roll -- regardless of how many hits they produced. They still have fans who are just like us. We're not the only lunatics. Secondly, Led Zeppelin didn't exactly call it quits. I believe they recently had their reunion tour, if I'm not mistaken. And, of course, The Beatles ceased to exist due to arguments within the band, not due to the death of John Lennon.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
"Do people really think that Freddie would have wanted them to just retire the Queen name and start fresh because of his untimely death?"
Not sure. If you can provide definitive proof that Freddie's happy with it, and the musical, and the boy band collaborations since his death, I'd be happy to hear it. Otherewise, someone else can speculate and say "do you really think that Freddie would have wanted them to continue with the Queen name, since he more than anyone is associated with
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ANAGRAMER wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Roger's always been quite smug, but he does tell it like it is!
I think where you stand on this depends on why you like the band; was it the music, or the overall package -
If you like Queen because of the camp humour, posturing and costumes then QPR is not for you
If it was just the music, then QPR hits the nail right on the head
For me, I do think that SOMETHING has got lost in the translation[/QUOTE]
That's a wonderful way to look at it. I have to agree with you.
I think where you stand on this depends on why you like the band; was it the music, or the overall package -
If you like Queen because of the camp humour, posturing and costumes then QPR is not for you
If it was just the music, then QPR hits the nail right on the head
For me, I do think that SOMETHING has got lost in the translation[/QUOTE]
That's a wonderful way to look at it. I have to agree with you.
Well Roger is just telling it how it is.
People will moan and then you should just turn around and bitch slap 'em and be glad that some Queenie are still alive!
People will moan and then you should just turn around and bitch slap 'em and be glad that some Queenie are still alive!
It's funny. This quote is typical Roger.
It's easy though to say he's cute or funny or whatever when it's sth from the past. But suddenly- he is saying it now, and- OMG- I don't agree with him! Suddenly Roger, doing and saying things the way he always did, is bad... I think this is the biggest problem for some people. They got used to the fact their band was dead- ergo they don't make mistakes or things the fans may not like...
I love that Roger quote, it's perfect. It shows he still has balls. Apparently that's what ROCK is all about... But what do I know- I like Q+PR...
It's easy though to say he's cute or funny or whatever when it's sth from the past. But suddenly- he is saying it now, and- OMG- I don't agree with him! Suddenly Roger, doing and saying things the way he always did, is bad... I think this is the biggest problem for some people. They got used to the fact their band was dead- ergo they don't make mistakes or things the fans may not like...
I love that Roger quote, it's perfect. It shows he still has balls. Apparently that's what ROCK is all about... But what do I know- I like Q+PR...