[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Apart from all alleged and assumed motives, apart from all unrealistic "what ifs" (like Elton John or Robbie Williams ever considered to front Brian and Roger!), apart from all the allegations that people do do not like the new album must be Freddie maniacs or fanatics:
There is something like personal taste, believe it or not. I like Paul Rodgers, I had lots of fun on the 2005 tour and I am expecting to have a lot of fun on the 2008 tour. I welcomed the decision to tour and record with Paul Rodgers from the start because he has the stamina and the personality to front people like Brian and Roger who are, after all, huge stars.
I listened to the album with an open mind and I think it's not bad but it's nothing compared to a Queen album. That is just my personal taste. I would appreciate it if nobody would suggest I am in any way a lunatic or stuck in the past or just unable to see the merits of the album. In fact I do see the merits of the album but I also see the flaws and I am not a "so-called fan" because I point out the flaws which are considerable imo.
It's not the fact that it is not a Queen album which I find crizicizable, it's just not as good as a Queen album. If other people think it's as good as a Queen album I am not calling them any names or tell them they are not right in their minds. I expect that my opinion is respected in the same way.[/QUOTE]
You're entitled to your taste without anyone calling you a lunatic, I guess. That's how things should be like in a sane world. I think Hot Space is one of the best Queen's albums (the best being News of the World) - one can say my taste sucks, but one can't say that "it's not Queen". It is.
But I hope people understand that Brian and Roger have all the right to go on doing music and presenting themselves as Queen since one of the guys died and the other quit the band. So, although I'm all for respecting people's taste, I guess it's a bit out of touch accusing the guys of ruining Queen's legacy or "using Queen's name", especially because Freddie himself always wanted the band to go on and kept recording stuff up until he died. Brian Jones, Mick Taylor and Bill Willman left the Stones and no one is saying that "there's no more Rolling Stones" or that because Brian Jones was the founder, all Jagger and Richard did from the 70's on is not Rolling Stones. I mean...and Brian Jones was a very important member of the band back in the 60's, maybe much more so than Jagger was.
Now, Brian Roger and Paul ARE Queen! They are not "using" Queen's name. They were as important to the band as Freddie was. What I do think is a bit lunatic is to say they're not Queen and that they're spoiling Queen's legacy and usurping Queen's name! It may not be "Queen as it was before" or "the Queen I liked" but, well, that happened with so many bands...
And as long as it is a matter of personal, inner taste, it's ok - "Ah, I don't think it's Queen anymore, not the Queen I learned to love and respect, there's no Queen anymore". OK. I respect that. I DON'T THINK IT'S LUNATIC. What I do think is lunatic is making of it a moral point and being vocal about it and go out DENOUNCING the guys for using Queen's name. That, yes, I find lunatic.
"Oh, Yara, but I don't think it's Queen anymore, they're using the name improperly and I'll devote my time to bash these guys".
Really? I don't give a damn about this kind of thinking. I just pass over it, I don't read it anymore, it's just pathetic.
Trying to make of it a MORAL QUESTION when it's just music and entertainment is outright ridiculous. That's what I find most sad: it's only entertainment. And people want to make morals out of it.
So, I'm all for you saying "Cosmos Rock is the WORST Queen album and not up to the Queen quality standard". Ok. I have no problem with it. I do think it's a bit awkward when people begin to say: "This is not a Queen album". Well...then I reach for my sanity and try not to turn all this into a moral issue.
By the way, Freddie was by far the member of the band I most admired. I still think that his departure was a huge loss not only for Queen, but for music in general. But I have to be honest enough to recognize that when Queen came to Brazil in 1981 and 1985 it was Brian's name, and not Freddie's, that people couldn't stop shouting.
My taste is awkward. I prefer Cosmos any time over Innuendo - maybe the album I like the least - or "A Kind of Magic."
And I can explain my taste. People may find it sad, stupid, idiotic, but there are reasons behind my taste because music, at least to me, is not only about feeling or emotion, there's a technical and intellectual side to it which is very important too.
But that's already going too far.
Cheers, my dear.
Far from being lunatic, I think you're one of the brightest Queenzoners. I love your posts. :-))
*hug*
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Yara wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Now, Brian Roger and Paul ARE Queen! They are not "using" Queen's name. They were as important to the band as Freddie was.[/QUOTE]
What, are you saying that Paul was as important to Queen as Freddie?
That Paul is in Queen now?
No wonder the journalists think Paul has replaced Freddie, and some of the posters here at QZ want to write love letters to him. :P
Now, Brian Roger and Paul ARE Queen! They are not "using" Queen's name. They were as important to the band as Freddie was.[/QUOTE]
What, are you saying that Paul was as important to Queen as Freddie?
That Paul is in Queen now?
No wonder the journalists think Paul has replaced Freddie, and some of the posters here at QZ want to write love letters to him. :P
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Yara wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Now, Brian Roger and Paul ARE Queen! They are not "using" Queen's name. They were as important to the band as Freddie was.[/QUOTE]
What, are you saying that Paul was as important to Queen as Freddie?
That Paul is in Queen now?
No wonder the journalists think Paul has replaced Freddie, and some of the posters here at QZ want to write love letters to him. :P[/QUOTE]
"They" was meant there as Roger and Brian. I guess it's perfectly clear and no one would be so idiotic as to think that Paul, a guy who wasn't part of the band, was as important to the band at the time as Freddie, a guy who was part of the band.
If that's what you read in what I wrote, I just pity you.
You really underestimate people. Or you're just dishonest.
You choose.
Cheers.
Now, Brian Roger and Paul ARE Queen! They are not "using" Queen's name. They were as important to the band as Freddie was.[/QUOTE]
What, are you saying that Paul was as important to Queen as Freddie?
That Paul is in Queen now?
No wonder the journalists think Paul has replaced Freddie, and some of the posters here at QZ want to write love letters to him. :P[/QUOTE]
"They" was meant there as Roger and Brian. I guess it's perfectly clear and no one would be so idiotic as to think that Paul, a guy who wasn't part of the band, was as important to the band at the time as Freddie, a guy who was part of the band.
If that's what you read in what I wrote, I just pity you.
You really underestimate people. Or you're just dishonest.
You choose.
Cheers.
Actually from what I heard Robbie W was almost desperate to front Brian and Roger. I can understand what they didnt want it though
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Yara wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Yara wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Now, Brian Roger and Paul ARE Queen! They are not "using" Queen's name. They were as important to the band as Freddie was.[/QUOTE]
What, are you saying that Paul was as important to Queen as Freddie?
That Paul is in Queen now?
No wonder the journalists think Paul has replaced Freddie, and some of the posters here at QZ want to write love letters to him. :P[/QUOTE]
"They" was meant there as Roger and Brian. I guess it's perfectly clear and no one would be so idiotic as to think that Paul, a guy who wasn't part of the band, was as important to the band at the time as Freddie, a guy who was part of the band.
If that's what you read in what I wrote, I just pity you.
You really underestimate people. Or you're just dishonest.
You choose.
Cheers. [/QUOTE]
I don't choose either of those, as I'm neither dishonest or underestimating.
You already made one undeniable factual error by saying that "Brian Roger and Paul ARE Queen", and the other point is entirely up to the reader to interpret afterwards.
Is it an honest mistake, or do you think (despite Brian's comments and the name of the band) that Paul is a part of Queen?
If you do think so, it's you who deserves all the pity.
Now, Brian Roger and Paul ARE Queen! They are not "using" Queen's name. They were as important to the band as Freddie was.[/QUOTE]
What, are you saying that Paul was as important to Queen as Freddie?
That Paul is in Queen now?
No wonder the journalists think Paul has replaced Freddie, and some of the posters here at QZ want to write love letters to him. :P[/QUOTE]
"They" was meant there as Roger and Brian. I guess it's perfectly clear and no one would be so idiotic as to think that Paul, a guy who wasn't part of the band, was as important to the band at the time as Freddie, a guy who was part of the band.
If that's what you read in what I wrote, I just pity you.
You really underestimate people. Or you're just dishonest.
You choose.
Cheers. [/QUOTE]
I don't choose either of those, as I'm neither dishonest or underestimating.
You already made one undeniable factual error by saying that "Brian Roger and Paul ARE Queen", and the other point is entirely up to the reader to interpret afterwards.
Is it an honest mistake, or do you think (despite Brian's comments and the name of the band) that Paul is a part of Queen?
If you do think so, it's you who deserves all the pity.
Well, Yara - since you quoted me I would appreciate you read the post you quoted. I did not say any of what you suggest
I never said Brian and Roger cannot choose the name, that Queen are not Queen without Freddie, that Brian and Rog were cashing in, ruining the legacy or whatever.
I only say that I do not like TCR as much as all Queen albums except Flash Gordon. I say that TCR is boring and uninspired compared to all Queen albums, even The Miracle which I dislike. I say that TCR is not a bad album, surely better than lots of other albums I have in my home but not as good as any given Queen album.
Btw, I also prefer all my Beatles albums to TCR and all my Mike Oldfield albums and all my Pearl Jam albums....
I never said Brian and Roger cannot choose the name, that Queen are not Queen without Freddie, that Brian and Rog were cashing in, ruining the legacy or whatever.
I only say that I do not like TCR as much as all Queen albums except Flash Gordon. I say that TCR is boring and uninspired compared to all Queen albums, even The Miracle which I dislike. I say that TCR is not a bad album, surely better than lots of other albums I have in my home but not as good as any given Queen album.
Btw, I also prefer all my Beatles albums to TCR and all my Mike Oldfield albums and all my Pearl Jam albums....
"Why don't you first try to find a band that was together with the same exact line-up for their entire recording career of 20 years, and chose not to continue on after the death of their frontman?"
Because if people did that Tero, they would have no argument about Queen continuing. Queen's peers musically, and in this type of situation are The Beatles and Led Zeppelin. And whenever people give lists of bands (Styx, Journey, Kansas, Sabbath, Metallica, any one where some band member has died/left), I think the people who use that argument don't know much about music history. Unless any of those bands lost a singer who A) wrote the greatest rock song in history, B) may have been the greatest singer in rock history and C) was featured prominently on a stamp in his adopted home country AFTER being named one of the 100 greatest citizens in the country's previous century, well, you're comparing apples with televisions. Freddie Mercury was irreplaceable, and the great thing about this is that John Deacon was too. And if Brian and Roger were gone, they'd be irreplaceable. Guess I'm a hater and a fossil, but musically, TCR is totally lacking in Queen style flourishes and songs. Queen music was special, they shou;d have used the Bad Company name as musically TCR is right up that generic rock alley.
Because if people did that Tero, they would have no argument about Queen continuing. Queen's peers musically, and in this type of situation are The Beatles and Led Zeppelin. And whenever people give lists of bands (Styx, Journey, Kansas, Sabbath, Metallica, any one where some band member has died/left), I think the people who use that argument don't know much about music history. Unless any of those bands lost a singer who A) wrote the greatest rock song in history, B) may have been the greatest singer in rock history and C) was featured prominently on a stamp in his adopted home country AFTER being named one of the 100 greatest citizens in the country's previous century, well, you're comparing apples with televisions. Freddie Mercury was irreplaceable, and the great thing about this is that John Deacon was too. And if Brian and Roger were gone, they'd be irreplaceable. Guess I'm a hater and a fossil, but musically, TCR is totally lacking in Queen style flourishes and songs. Queen music was special, they shou;d have used the Bad Company name as musically TCR is right up that generic rock alley.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Well, Yara - since you quoted me I would appreciate you read the post you quoted. I did not say any of what you suggest
I never said Brian and Roger cannot choose the name, that Queen are not Queen without Freddie, that Brian and Rog were cashing in, ruining the legacy or whatever.
I only say that I do not like TCR as much as all Queen albums except Flash Gordon. I say that TCR is boring and uninspired compared to all Queen albums, even The Miracle which I dislike. I say that TCR is not a bad album, surely better than lots of other albums I have in my home but not as good as any given Queen album.
Btw, I also prefer all my Beatles albums to TCR and all my Mike Oldfield albums and all my Pearl Jam albums....
[/QUOTE]
That's why I said you're not lunatic: because you were not making a point which I think is nonsensical. I read all your message, and carefully. ;-)
But I think it's very clear that I used your post to expand on the question. As a bridge, if you like, to discuss a broader issue. I thought your post provided a good opportunity to expand on that question.
I think you're sensible enough to understand that.
Cheers.
--
As for Tero: Yes, I do think they are Queen NOW - Paul, Roger and Brian. The label + is fine, but that's not how it works in reality. They all started to become part of the same composing process. They all started to tour together and play together and plan to record more albums. Commercially you can distinguish one thing from the other by putting a sign "+" there, but in reality you can't say where Queen ends and Paul Rodgers begins. It's all Queen to me.
But if you think it's better to call it Queen +, ok, I respect that.
What I find idiotic and lunatic is denouncing Roger and Brian for "using Queen's name". Well, I wrote all that already.
Cheers. Sorry if I got your point wrong.
I never said Brian and Roger cannot choose the name, that Queen are not Queen without Freddie, that Brian and Rog were cashing in, ruining the legacy or whatever.
I only say that I do not like TCR as much as all Queen albums except Flash Gordon. I say that TCR is boring and uninspired compared to all Queen albums, even The Miracle which I dislike. I say that TCR is not a bad album, surely better than lots of other albums I have in my home but not as good as any given Queen album.
Btw, I also prefer all my Beatles albums to TCR and all my Mike Oldfield albums and all my Pearl Jam albums....
[/QUOTE]
That's why I said you're not lunatic: because you were not making a point which I think is nonsensical. I read all your message, and carefully. ;-)
But I think it's very clear that I used your post to expand on the question. As a bridge, if you like, to discuss a broader issue. I thought your post provided a good opportunity to expand on that question.
I think you're sensible enough to understand that.
Cheers.
--
As for Tero: Yes, I do think they are Queen NOW - Paul, Roger and Brian. The label + is fine, but that's not how it works in reality. They all started to become part of the same composing process. They all started to tour together and play together and plan to record more albums. Commercially you can distinguish one thing from the other by putting a sign "+" there, but in reality you can't say where Queen ends and Paul Rodgers begins. It's all Queen to me.
But if you think it's better to call it Queen +, ok, I respect that.
What I find idiotic and lunatic is denouncing Roger and Brian for "using Queen's name". Well, I wrote all that already.
Cheers. Sorry if I got your point wrong.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Yara wrote: [/QUOTENAME]As for Tero: Yes, I do think they are Queen NOW - Paul, Roger and Brian. The label + is fine, but that's not how it works in reality. They all started to become part of the same composing process. They all started to tour together and play together and plan to record more albums. Commercially you can't distinguish one thing from the other by putting a sign "+" there, but in reality you can't say where Queen ends and Paul Rodgers begins. It's all Queen to me.
But if you think it's better to call it Queen +, ok, I respect that.
What I find idiotic and lunatic is denouncing Roger and Brian for "using Queen's name". Well, I wrote all that already.
Cheers. Sorry if I got your point wrong. [/QUOTE]
I wouldn't call it Queen+ because Brian and Roger can never be Queen without John and Freddie... ;)
The band was those four guys, and that's it.
Like you say, that + means absolutely nothing in the name. Every journalist writes about Paul replacing Freddie as the singer of the band, and some of the fans think so, even when Brian publicly states otherwise.
The fact is that EVERYONE knew this was going to happen when they started using that Queen name, and they went and used it anyway... And that's why they deserve any criticism they get for not coming up with a new name for this project.
Sorry for ranting about this, it's nothing personal against you. :P
But if you think it's better to call it Queen +, ok, I respect that.
What I find idiotic and lunatic is denouncing Roger and Brian for "using Queen's name". Well, I wrote all that already.
Cheers. Sorry if I got your point wrong. [/QUOTE]
I wouldn't call it Queen+ because Brian and Roger can never be Queen without John and Freddie... ;)
The band was those four guys, and that's it.
Like you say, that + means absolutely nothing in the name. Every journalist writes about Paul replacing Freddie as the singer of the band, and some of the fans think so, even when Brian publicly states otherwise.
The fact is that EVERYONE knew this was going to happen when they started using that Queen name, and they went and used it anyway... And that's why they deserve any criticism they get for not coming up with a new name for this project.
Sorry for ranting about this, it's nothing personal against you. :P
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"Why don't you first try to find a band that was together with the same exact line-up for their entire recording career of 20 years, and chose not to continue on after the death of their frontman?"[/QUOTE]
They have no option because they were as important to Queen as Freddie was. They have the right to carry on with Queen's name if one of the guys died and the other decided to quit the band. Why can't people understand such a simple point?
It's not as if Freddie were forbidding them from calling themselves "Queen". He died.
The guys said: "Well, not it up for us to keep the show going", and they did just that.
What I find stupid is making it a MORAL QUESTION. Because Brain and Roger are not facing criticism. No: they are being denounced by some fans as if they had committed some kind of crime or sin. They have not: they are fully entitled to keep on their band if one guy decides to quit and the other dies some years after recording a song called THE SHOW MUST GO ON.
It's show. Entertainment. Music. Let the guys be, I find it so annoying that people hold them to ethical issues which are not at stake.
And Freddie was the Queen member I most respected and admired. I love John's tunes: that's why I like Hot Space so much and the Game so much.
But he decided to quit. He didn't want to go on. So the guys who were there from the very beginning and which were responsible together for many of Queen's hits have the right to carry on...their band.
Geez!
What is that so hard to grasp?
They have no option because they were as important to Queen as Freddie was. They have the right to carry on with Queen's name if one of the guys died and the other decided to quit the band. Why can't people understand such a simple point?
It's not as if Freddie were forbidding them from calling themselves "Queen". He died.
The guys said: "Well, not it up for us to keep the show going", and they did just that.
What I find stupid is making it a MORAL QUESTION. Because Brain and Roger are not facing criticism. No: they are being denounced by some fans as if they had committed some kind of crime or sin. They have not: they are fully entitled to keep on their band if one guy decides to quit and the other dies some years after recording a song called THE SHOW MUST GO ON.
It's show. Entertainment. Music. Let the guys be, I find it so annoying that people hold them to ethical issues which are not at stake.
And Freddie was the Queen member I most respected and admired. I love John's tunes: that's why I like Hot Space so much and the Game so much.
But he decided to quit. He didn't want to go on. So the guys who were there from the very beginning and which were responsible together for many of Queen's hits have the right to carry on...their band.
Geez!
What is that so hard to grasp?
(That "Why don't you first try to find a band that was together with the same exact line-up for their entire recording career of 20 years, and chose not to continue on after the death of their frontman?" was actually written by me... ;)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Yara wrote: [/QUOTENAME]They have the right to carry on with Queen's name if one of the guys died and the other decided to quit the band. Why can't people understand such a simple point? [/QUOTE]
Most people do understand that point, but at the same time those two guys having the right to carry on as Queen doesn't make it the right choice.
Like I kinda said before (and you sort of agreed), using that name for the current collaboration of Brian and Roger draws unavoidable comparisons to that illustrious 20 year recording career, comparisons that could EASILY have been avoided with a different name.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Yara wrote: [/QUOTENAME]They have the right to carry on with Queen's name if one of the guys died and the other decided to quit the band. Why can't people understand such a simple point? [/QUOTE]
Most people do understand that point, but at the same time those two guys having the right to carry on as Queen doesn't make it the right choice.
Like I kinda said before (and you sort of agreed), using that name for the current collaboration of Brian and Roger draws unavoidable comparisons to that illustrious 20 year recording career, comparisons that could EASILY have been avoided with a different name.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME](That "Why don't you first try to find a band that was together with the same exact line-up for their entire recording career of 20 years, and chose not to continue on after the death of their frontman?" was actually written by me... ;)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Yara wrote: [/QUOTENAME]They have the right to carry on with Queen's name if one of the guys died and the other decided to quit the band. Why can't people understand such a simple point? [/QUOTE]
Most people do understand that point, but at the same time those two guys having the right to carry on as Queen doesn't make it the right choice.
Like I kinda said before (and you sort of agreed), using that name for the current collaboration of Brian and Roger draws unavoidable comparisons to that illustrious 20 year recording career, comparisons that could EASILY have been avoided with a different name.[/QUOTE]
Well, I fully agree. It may not have been the best choice. And comparing the albums in musical terms is just great. Absolutely fine by me. I just don't like the judgemental aspect, in a moral sense, to many of the criticisms. Judging the album musically is just fine.
I'm all for people saying: "Well, it sucks and I prefer Innuendo".
But I find it annoying when people begin to say: "It sucks, and Brian and Roger are usurping Queen's name and degrading Freddie's memory and destroying Queen's legacy", and so on.
It's music. Entertainment. Let the guys be.
So, I fully agree with you.
If you say to me: "Yara, TCR is the worst album I have ever heard and it's degrading to Queen's reputation", I'll say: "Dear Tero, that's ok. It's your taste. And it's fair to say that any bad album issued by a band is bound to tarnish the band's reputation".
Now, if you were not Tero, but Journalist Tero from The Y Magazine, and started denouncing Brian for usurping Queen's name or dessecrating Freddie's memory, I'd tell you: "Well, Tero, that's nonsense. It's not a moral issue, or it shouldn't be. The guys have the right to...it's only a band, and music, and entertainment..."
I fully agree with what you wrote above.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Yara wrote: [/QUOTENAME]They have the right to carry on with Queen's name if one of the guys died and the other decided to quit the band. Why can't people understand such a simple point? [/QUOTE]
Most people do understand that point, but at the same time those two guys having the right to carry on as Queen doesn't make it the right choice.
Like I kinda said before (and you sort of agreed), using that name for the current collaboration of Brian and Roger draws unavoidable comparisons to that illustrious 20 year recording career, comparisons that could EASILY have been avoided with a different name.[/QUOTE]
Well, I fully agree. It may not have been the best choice. And comparing the albums in musical terms is just great. Absolutely fine by me. I just don't like the judgemental aspect, in a moral sense, to many of the criticisms. Judging the album musically is just fine.
I'm all for people saying: "Well, it sucks and I prefer Innuendo".
But I find it annoying when people begin to say: "It sucks, and Brian and Roger are usurping Queen's name and degrading Freddie's memory and destroying Queen's legacy", and so on.
It's music. Entertainment. Let the guys be.
So, I fully agree with you.
If you say to me: "Yara, TCR is the worst album I have ever heard and it's degrading to Queen's reputation", I'll say: "Dear Tero, that's ok. It's your taste. And it's fair to say that any bad album issued by a band is bound to tarnish the band's reputation".
Now, if you were not Tero, but Journalist Tero from The Y Magazine, and started denouncing Brian for usurping Queen's name or dessecrating Freddie's memory, I'd tell you: "Well, Tero, that's nonsense. It's not a moral issue, or it shouldn't be. The guys have the right to...it's only a band, and music, and entertainment..."
I fully agree with what you wrote above.
"It sucks, and Brian and Roger are usurping Queen's name and degrading Freddie's memory and destroying Queen's legacy"
"Yara, TCR is the worst album I have ever heard and it's degrading to Queen's reputation", I'll say: "Dear Tero, that's ok. It's your taste. And it's fair to say that any bad album issued by a band is bound to tarnish the band's reputation".
Aren't these two pretty much the same, though? (Except for the Freddie part of course...)
Isn't releasing an unimaginative and uninspired album that tarnishes the band's reputation the same as destroying Queen's legacy?
Honestly, I can say that (in my opinion of course) this album takes away some of that special quality that Queen has, and makes it more average. And because of this new project, the fans over at QZ are degrading Freddie's memory by saying that Brian And Roger were Queen before Freddie even joined, and Freddie isn't really relevant in continuing... It's not like the two of them could be playing in European arenas as Smile, is it?
And suddenly the things you wrote as extreme examples aren't so far fetched after all. ;)
"Yara, TCR is the worst album I have ever heard and it's degrading to Queen's reputation", I'll say: "Dear Tero, that's ok. It's your taste. And it's fair to say that any bad album issued by a band is bound to tarnish the band's reputation".
Aren't these two pretty much the same, though? (Except for the Freddie part of course...)
Isn't releasing an unimaginative and uninspired album that tarnishes the band's reputation the same as destroying Queen's legacy?
Honestly, I can say that (in my opinion of course) this album takes away some of that special quality that Queen has, and makes it more average. And because of this new project, the fans over at QZ are degrading Freddie's memory by saying that Brian And Roger were Queen before Freddie even joined, and Freddie isn't really relevant in continuing... It's not like the two of them could be playing in European arenas as Smile, is it?
And suddenly the things you wrote as extreme examples aren't so far fetched after all. ;)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]mr_creosote wrote: [/QUOTENAME]There seems to be a constant feeling that so-called fans were let down because the new album
is a different style to previous ones, that it is not "classic" Queen. What people seem to forget
is there IS NO Queen "sound" - Queen's music has constantly evolved over the years, changing
with tastes. Yes, certain elements were constant - but this is one of the things that make musicians legends - The Beatles, Queen, Bowie, The Who, Michael Jackson - all evolved their music over time. Artists who did one style of music and never changed have very rarely "made it" and had lengthy careers. Do you really think that Queen with Freddie would have lasted as long as they did churning out 'Killer Queen'-esque tracks year after year?
Yes, some of the songs aren't as good as others from Queen's history, but you can say that about
most other albums. Are 'Don't Try So Hard', 'Delilah', 'Party', or 'Tear It Up' anything like 'We Are The Champions' or 'Somebody To Love' in their style or quality - of course not, so why should any of Queen's new music be?
The important thing to note is that the majority of these songs are SO different from previous albums - it's obvious that Brian, Roger and Paul aren't trying to recapture the Queen sound, they are simply doing what they feel to be right. And using the name Queen - you try to name another band that has been together for 15+ years and not had a single change in line-up in that time. Some groups like Black Sabbath had line-ups with none of the original members. Brian and Roger were as big a part in the formation and success of Queen as John and Freddie were and they have every right to continue to use the Queen name if they wish.
What should be remembered is that Brian and Roger are doing this because they enjoy making music - they are certainly not doing it for the money. There should be a little less of the endless criticism and sniping and a little more appreciation of the sheer guts this must have taken by Brian and Roger to move on. If they were simply cashing in, or walking over Freddie's grave as some people have said, they would have done this years ago.
Finally, let's not forget the courage of Paul Rodgers to even try to walk in the shadow of rock's greatest showman. Paul is a very talented, respected and successful singer and musician and he is putting a lot on the line with this collaboration. [/QUOTE]
Dont try so hard isnt the same quality as we are the champions? who are you kidding? its even BETTER!
People always talk about freddie being the greatest showman but what about SINGER? he is THE greatest singer that has ever lived or will ever live! not to mention his songwriting skills are what made Queen big in the first place. You seem to forget that without freddie there is no Queen. smile+ paul rodgers is the right name for them.
is a different style to previous ones, that it is not "classic" Queen. What people seem to forget
is there IS NO Queen "sound" - Queen's music has constantly evolved over the years, changing
with tastes. Yes, certain elements were constant - but this is one of the things that make musicians legends - The Beatles, Queen, Bowie, The Who, Michael Jackson - all evolved their music over time. Artists who did one style of music and never changed have very rarely "made it" and had lengthy careers. Do you really think that Queen with Freddie would have lasted as long as they did churning out 'Killer Queen'-esque tracks year after year?
Yes, some of the songs aren't as good as others from Queen's history, but you can say that about
most other albums. Are 'Don't Try So Hard', 'Delilah', 'Party', or 'Tear It Up' anything like 'We Are The Champions' or 'Somebody To Love' in their style or quality - of course not, so why should any of Queen's new music be?
The important thing to note is that the majority of these songs are SO different from previous albums - it's obvious that Brian, Roger and Paul aren't trying to recapture the Queen sound, they are simply doing what they feel to be right. And using the name Queen - you try to name another band that has been together for 15+ years and not had a single change in line-up in that time. Some groups like Black Sabbath had line-ups with none of the original members. Brian and Roger were as big a part in the formation and success of Queen as John and Freddie were and they have every right to continue to use the Queen name if they wish.
What should be remembered is that Brian and Roger are doing this because they enjoy making music - they are certainly not doing it for the money. There should be a little less of the endless criticism and sniping and a little more appreciation of the sheer guts this must have taken by Brian and Roger to move on. If they were simply cashing in, or walking over Freddie's grave as some people have said, they would have done this years ago.
Finally, let's not forget the courage of Paul Rodgers to even try to walk in the shadow of rock's greatest showman. Paul is a very talented, respected and successful singer and musician and he is putting a lot on the line with this collaboration. [/QUOTE]
Dont try so hard isnt the same quality as we are the champions? who are you kidding? its even BETTER!
People always talk about freddie being the greatest showman but what about SINGER? he is THE greatest singer that has ever lived or will ever live! not to mention his songwriting skills are what made Queen big in the first place. You seem to forget that without freddie there is no Queen. smile+ paul rodgers is the right name for them.
For Tero (and I give up on trying to make such a simple point): No. It's stupid and idiotic to say that the guys don't have the right to go on with the band and are morally guilty in some way for going on with the band. That's my point. And, well, the best of all, that they are dessecrating Freddie's memory and usurping Queen's name.
As long as the discussion is about music, I'm all for it. When it becomes a moral issue, I'm out and I think it's nonsense, far-fetched and outright ridiculous.
What I said in the second example is QUITE DIFFERENT. I said: ANY BAD ALBUM ISSUED BY ANY BAND IS BOUND TO TARNISH THE BAND'S REPUTATION, and that goes also to Queen. Simple as that. So if you think that TCQ is degrading to Queen's reputation in a MUSICAL SENSE, in the sense that it's not as good as the previous stuff, ok.
If you say that it's degrading to Queen's reputation because these guys shouldn't be there playing as Queen and exploiting Freddie's memory and so on, I'd say that you're an idiot.
That's my point.
And I fail to see why is it so difficult to grasp.
I really do.
As long as the discussion is about music, I'm all for it. When it becomes a moral issue, I'm out and I think it's nonsense, far-fetched and outright ridiculous.
What I said in the second example is QUITE DIFFERENT. I said: ANY BAD ALBUM ISSUED BY ANY BAND IS BOUND TO TARNISH THE BAND'S REPUTATION, and that goes also to Queen. Simple as that. So if you think that TCQ is degrading to Queen's reputation in a MUSICAL SENSE, in the sense that it's not as good as the previous stuff, ok.
If you say that it's degrading to Queen's reputation because these guys shouldn't be there playing as Queen and exploiting Freddie's memory and so on, I'd say that you're an idiot.
That's my point.
And I fail to see why is it so difficult to grasp.
I really do.