[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Markman38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Markman38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The only problem is the name Queen. That name give expectations (or something like that). The prejudice I had was about the name Queen. And I know I should be warned after all because songs like SINT, The Call or Invincable Hope where allready a sign. I just wonder if the 46664 recordings are ever released how will they credit SINT?? Because now it's credited QPR which is funccy offcourse but at other hand same with Warboys. But back to the main issue.The Queen sound was evolving off course nobody wanted to hear a remake of KYA in 1991, but there where always songs taht stand out, like Was it all Worth it, Innuendo, All God's People, Slightly Mad etc etc. This album just haven't one track that gives me (personal opinion) that suprise, that twist. That could be because Freddie and John aren't involved. That could be because Brian and Roger just wanted to do something really different just to prove that this is another band like they stated.But if it's so important to prove it's a new band or another band why keeping the old name except for the obvious commercial reason, like Greg Brooks said in that Brazilian interview. TCR is indeed a good rock/blues album if you listen to it without prejudice but hoping for a Queen album gives you hope to music on higher or maybe should I say different standards.[/QUOTE]
Exactly and that higher standard can ONLY come with Freddie![/QUOTE]
Come on Mr Bad Guy wasn't a great album it was the chemistry between the four of them[/QUOTE]
hmm lets see, isnt the song from freddies solo album "made in heaven" in the last official Queen album? hmm yeah it must be a bad song.[/QUOTE]
TROLL
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Markman38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Markman38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The only problem is the name Queen. That name give expectations (or something like that). The prejudice I had was about the name Queen. And I know I should be warned after all because songs like SINT, The Call or Invincable Hope where allready a sign. I just wonder if the 46664 recordings are ever released how will they credit SINT?? Because now it's credited QPR which is funccy offcourse but at other hand same with Warboys. But back to the main issue.The Queen sound was evolving off course nobody wanted to hear a remake of KYA in 1991, but there where always songs taht stand out, like Was it all Worth it, Innuendo, All God's People, Slightly Mad etc etc. This album just haven't one track that gives me (personal opinion) that suprise, that twist. That could be because Freddie and John aren't involved. That could be because Brian and Roger just wanted to do something really different just to prove that this is another band like they stated.But if it's so important to prove it's a new band or another band why keeping the old name except for the obvious commercial reason, like Greg Brooks said in that Brazilian interview. TCR is indeed a good rock/blues album if you listen to it without prejudice but hoping for a Queen album gives you hope to music on higher or maybe should I say different standards.[/QUOTE]
Exactly and that higher standard can ONLY come with Freddie![/QUOTE]
Come on Mr Bad Guy wasn't a great album it was the chemistry between the four of them[/QUOTE]
hmm lets see, isnt the song from freddies solo album "made in heaven" in the last official Queen album? hmm yeah it must be a bad song.[/QUOTE]
Isnt'the title track Made in Heaven not an old Cross song (aka Roger Taylor solo), yeah he can't write good songs. Your missing my point I think the solo album Strange Frontier from Roger Taylor is the best solo (rock)album any Queen member ever made solo but even then Man on Fire didn't peak the charts that high. It was the chemistry between the four of them. ALthough Barcelona is maybe the best solo album bit you cannot say that that is rock
Exactly and that higher standard can ONLY come with Freddie![/QUOTE]
Come on Mr Bad Guy wasn't a great album it was the chemistry between the four of them[/QUOTE]
hmm lets see, isnt the song from freddies solo album "made in heaven" in the last official Queen album? hmm yeah it must be a bad song.[/QUOTE]
Isnt'the title track Made in Heaven not an old Cross song (aka Roger Taylor solo), yeah he can't write good songs. Your missing my point I think the solo album Strange Frontier from Roger Taylor is the best solo (rock)album any Queen member ever made solo but even then Man on Fire didn't peak the charts that high. It was the chemistry between the four of them. ALthough Barcelona is maybe the best solo album bit you cannot say that that is rock
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Raf wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tero wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]inu-liger wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Queen certainly didn't take 15 years to decide what to do. Hell, Roger and Brian were playing together, not directly as Queen mind you, for crowds in 1999 (at either Roger's solo show or the guest spot they did at a Foo Fighters concert), and saw that there was a huge response and obviously demand for Queen to continue as a BAND.[/QUOTE]
In comparison to other bands, they did take fifteen years to dedice what to do.
They didn't announce the band was to continue, they didn't start out a search for a new singer, they didn't continue as a three (or two) -piece group, and they didn't go into the studio the very next year after their figurehead left the group.
[/QUOTE]
On the other hand, unlike Led Zeppelin or The Beatles, Queen has never announced they were over and would never use the name again. And it did not take them 15 years to do something, if you consider they put a massive tribute gig together in 1992, finished an unfinished album and released it in 1995, released a new studio single in 1997 and in the early 2000s they started playing more often in festivals under the name Queen (probably because John was the one acting lazy, and once he left, Brian and Roger had some more freedom).
The 90s maybe weren't very productive for Queen, but it doesn't mean Queen didn't do anything at all from Freddie's death to the QPR tour.[/QUOTE]
The Beatles might have announced they would never use the name again, but that didn't stop them from processing their unreleased material into a single... That sounds a bit like the MIH project if you ask me. ;)
I also wouldn't consider The FM tribute concert or NOBY as them choosing what to do with the band's name, because both Roger and Brian came up with solo albums afterwards instead of doing anything else with the name Queen!
You're right, they were playing together at various charity events as Queen. That still doesn't mean they did any of those things I suggested earlier (search for a new singer, go into studio to record together etc..) or made any decisions about how to continue.
In 2000 they were again in a state of non-existence where they weren't solo artists, bandmembers, singers, songwriters... They were only Brian May and Roger Taylor from Queen, the band that died with Freddie. That wouldn't change until they went into the studio to record a new album with Paul Rodgers... Some 15 years after Freddie's death.
Black Sabbath (which was mentioned in the beginning of this topic as a comparison to Queen) on the other hand took only about six months to find a new singer to replace Ozzy, and 18 months to release a new album.
In comparison to other bands, they did take fifteen years to dedice what to do.
They didn't announce the band was to continue, they didn't start out a search for a new singer, they didn't continue as a three (or two) -piece group, and they didn't go into the studio the very next year after their figurehead left the group.
[/QUOTE]
On the other hand, unlike Led Zeppelin or The Beatles, Queen has never announced they were over and would never use the name again. And it did not take them 15 years to do something, if you consider they put a massive tribute gig together in 1992, finished an unfinished album and released it in 1995, released a new studio single in 1997 and in the early 2000s they started playing more often in festivals under the name Queen (probably because John was the one acting lazy, and once he left, Brian and Roger had some more freedom).
The 90s maybe weren't very productive for Queen, but it doesn't mean Queen didn't do anything at all from Freddie's death to the QPR tour.[/QUOTE]
The Beatles might have announced they would never use the name again, but that didn't stop them from processing their unreleased material into a single... That sounds a bit like the MIH project if you ask me. ;)
I also wouldn't consider The FM tribute concert or NOBY as them choosing what to do with the band's name, because both Roger and Brian came up with solo albums afterwards instead of doing anything else with the name Queen!
You're right, they were playing together at various charity events as Queen. That still doesn't mean they did any of those things I suggested earlier (search for a new singer, go into studio to record together etc..) or made any decisions about how to continue.
In 2000 they were again in a state of non-existence where they weren't solo artists, bandmembers, singers, songwriters... They were only Brian May and Roger Taylor from Queen, the band that died with Freddie. That wouldn't change until they went into the studio to record a new album with Paul Rodgers... Some 15 years after Freddie's death.
Black Sabbath (which was mentioned in the beginning of this topic as a comparison to Queen) on the other hand took only about six months to find a new singer to replace Ozzy, and 18 months to release a new album.
I just mention The Who, only two of the original 4 members are alive and they made a come-back album after 22 years which was really unbelievable great. That was what I was hoping for carrying the name Queen after all these years
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Markman38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I just mention The Who, only two of the original 4 members are alive and they made a come-back album after 22 years which was really unbelievable great. That was what I was hoping for carrying the name Queen after all these years[/QUOTE]
well thats a different band and evidently the members who made their sound are still alive, with Queen however you HAVE to have Freddie to have Queen quality music, he was what made Queen what they were.
well thats a different band and evidently the members who made their sound are still alive, with Queen however you HAVE to have Freddie to have Queen quality music, he was what made Queen what they were.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Markman38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Markman38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Markman38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The only problem is the name Queen. That name give expectations (or something like that). The prejudice I had was about the name Queen. And I know I should be warned after all because songs like SINT, The Call or Invincable Hope where allready a sign. I just wonder if the 46664 recordings are ever released how will they credit SINT?? Because now it's credited QPR which is funccy offcourse but at other hand same with Warboys. But back to the main issue.The Queen sound was evolving off course nobody wanted to hear a remake of KYA in 1991, but there where always songs taht stand out, like Was it all Worth it, Innuendo, All God's People, Slightly Mad etc etc. This album just haven't one track that gives me (personal opinion) that suprise, that twist. That could be because Freddie and John aren't involved. That could be because Brian and Roger just wanted to do something really different just to prove that this is another band like they stated.But if it's so important to prove it's a new band or another band why keeping the old name except for the obvious commercial reason, like Greg Brooks said in that Brazilian interview. TCR is indeed a good rock/blues album if you listen to it without prejudice but hoping for a Queen album gives you hope to music on higher or maybe should I say different standards.[/QUOTE]
Exactly and that higher standard can ONLY come with Freddie![/QUOTE]
Come on Mr Bad Guy wasn't a great album it was the chemistry between the four of them[/QUOTE]
hmm lets see, isnt the song from freddies solo album "made in heaven" in the last official Queen album? hmm yeah it must be a bad song.[/QUOTE]
Isnt'the title track Made in Heaven not an old Cross song (aka Roger Taylor solo), yeah he can't write good songs. Your missing my point I think the solo album Strange Frontier from Roger Taylor is the best solo (rock)album any Queen member ever made solo but even then Man on Fire didn't peak the charts that high. It was the chemistry between the four of them. ALthough Barcelona is maybe the best solo album bit you cannot say that that is rock[/QUOTE]
It is very obvious that Freddie was the one who made them what they were and the one who made their sound the way it was, without him there is no Queen as he basically made their sound.
Exactly and that higher standard can ONLY come with Freddie![/QUOTE]
Come on Mr Bad Guy wasn't a great album it was the chemistry between the four of them[/QUOTE]
hmm lets see, isnt the song from freddies solo album "made in heaven" in the last official Queen album? hmm yeah it must be a bad song.[/QUOTE]
Isnt'the title track Made in Heaven not an old Cross song (aka Roger Taylor solo), yeah he can't write good songs. Your missing my point I think the solo album Strange Frontier from Roger Taylor is the best solo (rock)album any Queen member ever made solo but even then Man on Fire didn't peak the charts that high. It was the chemistry between the four of them. ALthough Barcelona is maybe the best solo album bit you cannot say that that is rock[/QUOTE]
It is very obvious that Freddie was the one who made them what they were and the one who made their sound the way it was, without him there is no Queen as he basically made their sound.
I don't really think the Who is a good comparison either. :P
If Roger Taylor had kicked the bucket in 1991 and the band had made a couple of further albums without him, it was pretty obvious the band wanted to move on.
If they'd also toured internationally with the three remaining members for several months at the turn of the millennium, and decided to reform in the studio before John Deacon's death, there wouldn't be as much opposition to Brian and Freddie making a new album as Queen.
It's all relative, and that 13 year break between Freddie's death and the first Q+PR tour makes all the difference.
If Roger Taylor had kicked the bucket in 1991 and the band had made a couple of further albums without him, it was pretty obvious the band wanted to move on.
If they'd also toured internationally with the three remaining members for several months at the turn of the millennium, and decided to reform in the studio before John Deacon's death, there wouldn't be as much opposition to Brian and Freddie making a new album as Queen.
It's all relative, and that 13 year break between Freddie's death and the first Q+PR tour makes all the difference.
Both Keith Moon and John Entwistle were irreplacable. It still works though for some reason, probably because they found good replacements.
I was actually more upset with Pete Townshend and Roger Daltrey calling themselves the Who, but since then I have come to find it almost natural.
Brian and Roger effectively has been Queen for a long time now and have tried various ways of contiuing working in a what must be a very difficult situation. The musical and all the collaborations are examples of this, the latest is to return to being a band with Paul Rodgers.
Thet need those kind of projects very much, without them Queen would have faded long ago. Apparently the musical is one of major reasons the GH records still sell as much as they do. This tour and record will not exactly change this.
Also remember that their was never any controversy between the band members about them continuing.
I was actually more upset with Pete Townshend and Roger Daltrey calling themselves the Who, but since then I have come to find it almost natural.
Brian and Roger effectively has been Queen for a long time now and have tried various ways of contiuing working in a what must be a very difficult situation. The musical and all the collaborations are examples of this, the latest is to return to being a band with Paul Rodgers.
Thet need those kind of projects very much, without them Queen would have faded long ago. Apparently the musical is one of major reasons the GH records still sell as much as they do. This tour and record will not exactly change this.
Also remember that their was never any controversy between the band members about them continuing.
@TM even you have to admit that I was born to love you and Made in Heaven with the queen touch is much better then the original songs. I made a misstake at the earlier post, I meant Heaven for Everyone off course
What I really hate are all the passive aggressive emoticons that I find in these topics.
" Oh, by the way, I just totally disagreed with you in the most condescending manner - as though my opinion is worth anything more than a fart in a stiff breeze. ;) "
" Oh, by the way, I just totally disagreed with you in the most condescending manner - as though my opinion is worth anything more than a fart in a stiff breeze. ;) "
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Markman38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I just mention The Who, only two of the original 4 members are alive and they made a come-back album after 22 years which was really unbelievable great. That was what I was hoping for carrying the name Queen after all these years[/QUOTE]
IMHO The Who's Comeback album sucked big time and was a (well deserved) huge flop commercially!
IMHO The Who's Comeback album sucked big time and was a (well deserved) huge flop commercially!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]runner70 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
IMHO The Who's Comeback album sucked big time and was a (well deserved) huge flop commercially![/QUOTE]
Would it still be called a flop if your album had sold that many copies?
IMHO The Who's Comeback album sucked big time and was a (well deserved) huge flop commercially![/QUOTE]
Would it still be called a flop if your album had sold that many copies?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]runner70 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Markman38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I just mention The Who, only two of the original 4 members are alive and they made a come-back album after 22 years which was really unbelievable great. That was what I was hoping for carrying the name Queen after all these years[/QUOTE]
IMHO The Who's Comeback album sucked big time and was a (well deserved) huge flop commercially![/QUOTE] how is a top 5 album a flop?...The first single is a top 40 hit. IMO, the album isn't ver good, but it does keep the Queen name alive. Let's face it, freddie or no freddie, anything with the Queen name is gonna sell. their true legends.
IMHO The Who's Comeback album sucked big time and was a (well deserved) huge flop commercially![/QUOTE] how is a top 5 album a flop?...The first single is a top 40 hit. IMO, the album isn't ver good, but it does keep the Queen name alive. Let's face it, freddie or no freddie, anything with the Queen name is gonna sell. their true legends.
Great album... when keeping in mind what Freddie gave to Queen albums. There is no groundbreaking graphical design, no perfect compositions of songs seeming they've always been there... But there IS a very strong, back to basic, having fun, jamming, blues, rock album with a message in its lyrics.
VOODOOOOOOOOO
VOODOOOOOOOOO
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Dane wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Great album... when keeping in mind what Freddie gave to Queen albums. There is no groundbreaking graphical design, no perfect compositions of songs seeming they've always been there... But there IS a very strong, back to basic, having fun, jamming, blues, rock album with a message in its lyrics.
VOODOOOOOOOOO[/QUOTE]
I don't get it. Too many people enjoying the album. Weren't we supposed to denounce Brian and Roger for abusing Queen's sacred name by releasing such a poor material? For wanting MONEY and AUDIENCE? Bastards. They record stuff and they want, first, people to listen to it, and second, to be rewarded by their work! It's a shame. How these guys are not in jail yet? Freddie didn't like money, he despised all that. He was not like these guys, you know?
We're getting too easy on Brian and Roger. Soon these mad guys will actually begin to believe that they are Queen, or have all the right to play as Queen, and that they knew Freddie much more than any of us. They're dangerous.
VOODOOOOOOOOO[/QUOTE]
I don't get it. Too many people enjoying the album. Weren't we supposed to denounce Brian and Roger for abusing Queen's sacred name by releasing such a poor material? For wanting MONEY and AUDIENCE? Bastards. They record stuff and they want, first, people to listen to it, and second, to be rewarded by their work! It's a shame. How these guys are not in jail yet? Freddie didn't like money, he despised all that. He was not like these guys, you know?
We're getting too easy on Brian and Roger. Soon these mad guys will actually begin to believe that they are Queen, or have all the right to play as Queen, and that they knew Freddie much more than any of us. They're dangerous.