Haha, fantastic!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Most
tellingly of all, Mercury’s appearance on screen during Bohemian
Rhapsody only emphasised that, in Queen’s case, the past is a superior
place and nobody present last night thought otherwise.
That says it all for me.
That says it all for me.
[QUOTE]
[b]LucTonnerre wrote: [/b]
For me it seems that most of the journalists just say the truth that most Queen fans are too scared to admit.
[/QUOTE] QUEEN + PAUL RODGERS suck. Face the fact. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
Sorry let me get to the point - you are talking out of your backside! I would lower myself to using a range of expletives at this point but can't be bothered with wasting my efforts on your posting. What are you doing on Queenzone in the first place?
The only thing that sucks around here is you!
[b]LucTonnerre wrote: [/b]
For me it seems that most of the journalists just say the truth that most Queen fans are too scared to admit.
[/QUOTE] QUEEN + PAUL RODGERS suck. Face the fact. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
Sorry let me get to the point - you are talking out of your backside! I would lower myself to using a range of expletives at this point but can't be bothered with wasting my efforts on your posting. What are you doing on Queenzone in the first place?
The only thing that sucks around here is you!
Hitman wrote:The only thing that sucks around here is you!
You've got it wrong Hitman... You don't have to like Queen+Paul Rodgers to be a Queen fan!!! I've listened to Queen when it was "[b]QUEEN"[/b] probably longer than most of you have been alive!! I could care less about the other!!
[b]
I Love these reviews....makes all your Queen and Paul Rodgers Fans take a little fit!!
[/b]
You've got it wrong Hitman... You don't have to like Queen+Paul Rodgers to be a Queen fan!!! I've listened to Queen when it was "[b]QUEEN"[/b] probably longer than most of you have been alive!! I could care less about the other!!
[b]
I Love these reviews....makes all your Queen and Paul Rodgers Fans take a little fit!!
[/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» wrote: [/b]
[b]I Love these reviews....makes all your Queen and Paul Rodgers Fans take a little fit!!
[/b][/QUOTE]
Ah, so that's your little victory? Some people can't be picky, I guess.
How did it go? Oh yeah: "By unhappy osmosis even I know every last lumpen line of the loathsome (“no time for losers”) We Are The Champions." Did he rub into Paul's nasty face!
[b]«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» wrote: [/b]
[b]I Love these reviews....makes all your Queen and Paul Rodgers Fans take a little fit!!
[/b][/QUOTE]
Ah, so that's your little victory? Some people can't be picky, I guess.
How did it go? Oh yeah: "By unhappy osmosis even I know every last lumpen line of the loathsome (“no time for losers”) We Are The Champions." Did he rub into Paul's nasty face!
Why am I here?Well, first of all, I've been a Queen fan for 33 years now. That's a reason, isn't it?[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]It simply hurts listening to THE COSMOS ROCKS. I appreciate them doing what they want and playing live still is the best thing ever - I do it myself.[/QUOTE]But the thing that I will never understand is:[/QUOTE]How can great musicians like May and Taylor write crap songs like these and be happy with them?[/QUOTE]And I'm not even talking about these embarressing lyrics.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]For me the whole thing can be explained like this:[/QUOTE]If you usually write with your right hand and then try to write a letter with your left hand, then it's works somehow. But it will never be as good as before.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]For me the album feels like that. It's ok but far from what they could have done.[/QUOTE]And all I want to know is WHY.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]It simply hurts listening to THE COSMOS ROCKS. I appreciate them doing what they want and playing live still is the best thing ever - I do it myself.[/QUOTE]But the thing that I will never understand is:[/QUOTE]How can great musicians like May and Taylor write crap songs like these and be happy with them?[/QUOTE]And I'm not even talking about these embarressing lyrics.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]For me the whole thing can be explained like this:[/QUOTE]If you usually write with your right hand and then try to write a letter with your left hand, then it's works somehow. But it will never be as good as before.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]For me the album feels like that. It's ok but far from what they could have done.[/QUOTE]And all I want to know is WHY.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
[b]LucTonnerre wrote: [/b]
Why am I here?Well, first of all, I've been a Queen fan for 33 years now. That's a reason, isn't it?
It simply hurts listening to THE COSMOS ROCKS. I appreciate them doing what they want and playing live still is the best thing ever - I do it myself.But the thing that I will never understand is:How can great musicians like May and Taylor write crap songs like these and be happy with them?And I'm not even talking about these embarressing lyrics.
For me the whole thing can be explained like this:If you usually write with your right hand and then try to write a letter with your left hand, then it's works somehow. But it will never be as good as before.
For me the album feels like that. It's ok but far from what they could have done.And all I want to know is WHY. [/QUOTE]
YES, we fucking heard you lot give such convincing, perceptive insights as "crap" and "shit." You really don't have to do it every three seconds, unless you're really worried the Booker Prize jury will somehow overlook your literary pearls. You might wish to read previous posts and, I dunno, stay on topic. Just a suggestion.
Maybe, just maybe, you'd notice the review is not overly negative ("Rodgers was a curious figure, occasionally brilliant, as when tearing through I Want To Break Free and wrestling in manly fashion with The Show Must Go On"), it's not agreeing with you "it's-all-crap" people. It's just an ugly, dickish hack REGARDLESS of its slant. Namely:
- "Alas, the 58-year-old Teessider married to a former Miss Canada is too sexually uncomplicated to strut in Mercury’s shoes." How is a performer's private life relevant here?!
- "by unhappy osmosis even I know every last lumpen line of the loathsome (“no time for losers”) We Are The Champions." WATC has proven itself the apotheosis of civil, sportsmanlike cheering at stadiums.
- " Free’s All Right Now (a song that is always too soon to hear yet again)." Bullshit for bullshit's sake - it's a classic on which Pete Townsend of The Who publicly congratuled Free.
See? Reading comprehension can be fun. Try it sometimes.
And yes, try to restrain yourself to posting same old rants at least every FOUR seconds. We need some space for real topics, too.
[b]LucTonnerre wrote: [/b]
Why am I here?Well, first of all, I've been a Queen fan for 33 years now. That's a reason, isn't it?
It simply hurts listening to THE COSMOS ROCKS. I appreciate them doing what they want and playing live still is the best thing ever - I do it myself.But the thing that I will never understand is:How can great musicians like May and Taylor write crap songs like these and be happy with them?And I'm not even talking about these embarressing lyrics.
For me the whole thing can be explained like this:If you usually write with your right hand and then try to write a letter with your left hand, then it's works somehow. But it will never be as good as before.
For me the album feels like that. It's ok but far from what they could have done.And all I want to know is WHY. [/QUOTE]
YES, we fucking heard you lot give such convincing, perceptive insights as "crap" and "shit." You really don't have to do it every three seconds, unless you're really worried the Booker Prize jury will somehow overlook your literary pearls. You might wish to read previous posts and, I dunno, stay on topic. Just a suggestion.
Maybe, just maybe, you'd notice the review is not overly negative ("Rodgers was a curious figure, occasionally brilliant, as when tearing through I Want To Break Free and wrestling in manly fashion with The Show Must Go On"), it's not agreeing with you "it's-all-crap" people. It's just an ugly, dickish hack REGARDLESS of its slant. Namely:
- "Alas, the 58-year-old Teessider married to a former Miss Canada is too sexually uncomplicated to strut in Mercury’s shoes." How is a performer's private life relevant here?!
- "by unhappy osmosis even I know every last lumpen line of the loathsome (“no time for losers”) We Are The Champions." WATC has proven itself the apotheosis of civil, sportsmanlike cheering at stadiums.
- " Free’s All Right Now (a song that is always too soon to hear yet again)." Bullshit for bullshit's sake - it's a classic on which Pete Townsend of The Who publicly congratuled Free.
See? Reading comprehension can be fun. Try it sometimes.
And yes, try to restrain yourself to posting same old rants at least every FOUR seconds. We need some space for real topics, too.
Given the inactivity on this board compared to what it used to be, it's obvious that a lot of people have left QZ. But were they all the intelligent posters only, because for the most part, there are very few people left here who know anything about Queen and their chemistry and music. This review has pissed people off because the guy isn't sucking the collective cock of Queen and Paul Rodgers. Let's break it down though, and see if it's unfair:
"Queen? Not really. Freddie Mercury cannot be with us for well-documented reasons, bassist John Deacon prefers to sit at home counting his money and polishing his dignity, leaving guitarist Brian May and drummer Roger Taylor as the half who wouldn’t let things lie."
Like it or not, that is a very common position of tons of people, long time fans and new fans so it's not like he's slandering the new band with a bald faced lie right out of the gate.
"The joy and genius of Queen was the outrageously camp Mercury vying for supremacy with three blokey blokes. More often than not, the tension in a band of four songwriters and three singers resulted in what was genuinely a kind of magic."
That is a spot on assessment of the Queen collective from a song writing POV. Freddie bringing his ethnicity, weirdness and un-rock influences into a hard rocking line-up.
"Since 2004, May and Taylor have replaced Mercury with Paul Rodgers...a harmonica-playing, microphone-stand-twirling, great British bawler."
Not a bad thing unless you want to nitpick and call the use of "bawler" pejorative.
"Alas, the 58-year-old...is too sexually uncomplicated to strut in Mercury’s shoes."
That could be construed as arbitrary and a cheap shot, until...
"Rodgers was a curious figure, occasionally brilliant, as when tearing through I Want To Break Free and wrestling in manly fashion with The Show Must Go On."
Nothing uncomplimentary at all there...
"Yet he fluffed more than one line and when a lighter touch was required, he struggled. Radio Gaga is a nostalgic paean to an idealized childhood, not a hairy-chested romp..."
And there's the problem with anyone who isn't crazy about Paul Rodgers as the lead singer of Queen. Yes, most people realize Freddie is dead, and Paul Rodgers is possessed with a fabulous voice, however, a voice that doesn't have the subtlety or nuances that Freddie Mercury's did. He lacks that lightness; he's never had it and never will. This is debateable, but I couldn't see him doing Lily of the Valley, or LOML as an example and come off as anything but laughable. That's not a knock against Paul Rodgers, it's just that he brings what he brings. It's just what he brings lacks the thing that made Queen what they were vocally. Diversity in singing style and a light touch.
"Queen? Not really. Freddie Mercury cannot be with us for well-documented reasons, bassist John Deacon prefers to sit at home counting his money and polishing his dignity, leaving guitarist Brian May and drummer Roger Taylor as the half who wouldn’t let things lie."
Like it or not, that is a very common position of tons of people, long time fans and new fans so it's not like he's slandering the new band with a bald faced lie right out of the gate.
"The joy and genius of Queen was the outrageously camp Mercury vying for supremacy with three blokey blokes. More often than not, the tension in a band of four songwriters and three singers resulted in what was genuinely a kind of magic."
That is a spot on assessment of the Queen collective from a song writing POV. Freddie bringing his ethnicity, weirdness and un-rock influences into a hard rocking line-up.
"Since 2004, May and Taylor have replaced Mercury with Paul Rodgers...a harmonica-playing, microphone-stand-twirling, great British bawler."
Not a bad thing unless you want to nitpick and call the use of "bawler" pejorative.
"Alas, the 58-year-old...is too sexually uncomplicated to strut in Mercury’s shoes."
That could be construed as arbitrary and a cheap shot, until...
"Rodgers was a curious figure, occasionally brilliant, as when tearing through I Want To Break Free and wrestling in manly fashion with The Show Must Go On."
Nothing uncomplimentary at all there...
"Yet he fluffed more than one line and when a lighter touch was required, he struggled. Radio Gaga is a nostalgic paean to an idealized childhood, not a hairy-chested romp..."
And there's the problem with anyone who isn't crazy about Paul Rodgers as the lead singer of Queen. Yes, most people realize Freddie is dead, and Paul Rodgers is possessed with a fabulous voice, however, a voice that doesn't have the subtlety or nuances that Freddie Mercury's did. He lacks that lightness; he's never had it and never will. This is debateable, but I couldn't see him doing Lily of the Valley, or LOML as an example and come off as anything but laughable. That's not a knock against Paul Rodgers, it's just that he brings what he brings. It's just what he brings lacks the thing that made Queen what they were vocally. Diversity in singing style and a light touch.
Continued...
"Strangely, he needed an autocue, although you suspect May and Taylor hoped their newish singer would be familiar with Queen’s songs by now: after all, by unhappy osmosis even I know every last lumpen line of the loathsome (“no time for losers”) We Are The Champions."
This is entering cheap shot territory. He should know the words by now, but there are other bands out there that use prompters. Then his line about WATC reveals a pre-conceived bias that indicates, maybe, he just doesn't care for Queen one way or another.
"So, in a Faustian accommodation with Rodgers, May and Taylor have re-written Queen’s history to re-position them as meat ’n’ potatoes rockers and omitted the bulk of their great songs (You’re My Best Friend, Now I’m Here, Las Palabras De Amor, Innuendo, Don’t Stop Me Now among many others). It was as if the dazzling, ground-breaking, reflective, wry Queen had never existed."
But if he hates Queen, as so many of you commenters have decided, he wouldn't ever write that Queen were ground breaking, reflective or wry, would he? I mean the new album may be played by fantastic musicians, but it would be a stretch to call one second of it ground breaking, and from a lyrical POV, it is the most obvious, clichéd set of lyrics in Queen history. And with the style of music, calling them "meat ’n’ potatoes rockers" is something that Bad Company has probably been referred to a million times. Straightforward, heavy, a bit obvious in where the songs are going both musically and lyrically. Queen with Freddie was so far from that style it's not funny.
"Instead, ...new songs, including We Believe (improbably even more pompous than its title with its “we believe there’s a deed of obligation to bring reconciliation” line), while comedian Al Murray appeared on Cosmos Rockin’."
Has anyone on the board NOT commented on how bad the lyric writing is on this album? It's not like he's dissing John Lennon at the height of his lyrical powers by pointing out duff lines like the one he stated. And I'd assume the line about Al Murray's appearance is that Freddie wouldn't have featured a TV pub landlord as a guest on an album considering Bowie, and Steve Howe, both musical giants, and token appearances from the well respected Billy Squier and Joan Armitrading represented the only non-Queen musicians (save the horn section on Staying Power) in the catalogue during Freddie's lifetime. This is speculation on the writer's behalf as Al Murray may have been Freddie's hero if he had lived. However, we had no appearance from Kenny Everett on a Queen record during Freddie's life, so the writer is consistent with his "dumbing down" theory about Queen + Paul Rodgers.
"There was a torturous drum solo, an interminable guitar solo and Free’s All Right Now (a song that is always too soon to hear yet again). Most tellingly of all, Mercury’s appearance on screen during Bohemian Rhapsody only emphasised that, in Queen’s case, the past is a superior place and nobody present last night thought otherwise."
A writer who hates drum and guitar solos? Brian's roadies on his BTTL tour called Lost Horizon the "beer song", as it was the time fans went to get beer or take a washroom break. So the writer is not alone in thinking solos are a bit of a waste of time. He doesn't like All Right Now? That's his opinion. Some people love it, some don't. He again may be showing a bias with the snideness of his commentary. And saying that "nobody" thought that the concert in question was worthy compared to the past is speculation. I'd guess the overwhelming majority of people wish they could have seen Queen with Freddie, but given the fact they can't, they're damn happy that Paul Rodgers is keeping the music alive.
So, to an honest, critically thinking fan (hard to find on QZ these days), the writer had a pretty fair take on things in the Queen + Paul Rodgers world. He found greatness in Queen's past, praised Paul Rodgers as a singer in the historical sense, and some of his efforts on the night of the concert. He found him lacking in certain areas, and whether he is trying to replace Freddie (which he's not and rightfully so), of course he is going to be compared and of course he is going to fall short because (OPINION ALERT), nobody can match Freddie Mercury as the singer of Queen. End of story. And you what? Freddie Mercury, whose voice is for my money the best in rock history, bar none, would be a shitty replacement if he were alive and Paul Rodgers was dead and Freddie was fronting Bad Company. That is not his cup of tea musically. He'd be out of his element singing straight-ahead blues stuff. People would be saying that Mercury's lightness that served him well on Killer Queen doesn't jive with Bad Company's straight ahead blues/rock. And they'd be right. Jesus, I long for the days when people had a clue here about who and what Queen was. It's great that newcomers to the band are seeing them, and it's keeping the music alive (like it's in danger of dying), but honestly, the new stuff is so far removed from what Queen music stood for, it's like strangers taking over the name. This would have been a really good Bad Company album, filled with bombastic rockers and Paul Rodgers clichéd writing. It's just a really bad Queen album, and for all the people asking why others and myself come to this board if we don't worship all things Queen, I'll ask why you come here if you are ignorant of what made Queen unique.
"Strangely, he needed an autocue, although you suspect May and Taylor hoped their newish singer would be familiar with Queen’s songs by now: after all, by unhappy osmosis even I know every last lumpen line of the loathsome (“no time for losers”) We Are The Champions."
This is entering cheap shot territory. He should know the words by now, but there are other bands out there that use prompters. Then his line about WATC reveals a pre-conceived bias that indicates, maybe, he just doesn't care for Queen one way or another.
"So, in a Faustian accommodation with Rodgers, May and Taylor have re-written Queen’s history to re-position them as meat ’n’ potatoes rockers and omitted the bulk of their great songs (You’re My Best Friend, Now I’m Here, Las Palabras De Amor, Innuendo, Don’t Stop Me Now among many others). It was as if the dazzling, ground-breaking, reflective, wry Queen had never existed."
But if he hates Queen, as so many of you commenters have decided, he wouldn't ever write that Queen were ground breaking, reflective or wry, would he? I mean the new album may be played by fantastic musicians, but it would be a stretch to call one second of it ground breaking, and from a lyrical POV, it is the most obvious, clichéd set of lyrics in Queen history. And with the style of music, calling them "meat ’n’ potatoes rockers" is something that Bad Company has probably been referred to a million times. Straightforward, heavy, a bit obvious in where the songs are going both musically and lyrically. Queen with Freddie was so far from that style it's not funny.
"Instead, ...new songs, including We Believe (improbably even more pompous than its title with its “we believe there’s a deed of obligation to bring reconciliation” line), while comedian Al Murray appeared on Cosmos Rockin’."
Has anyone on the board NOT commented on how bad the lyric writing is on this album? It's not like he's dissing John Lennon at the height of his lyrical powers by pointing out duff lines like the one he stated. And I'd assume the line about Al Murray's appearance is that Freddie wouldn't have featured a TV pub landlord as a guest on an album considering Bowie, and Steve Howe, both musical giants, and token appearances from the well respected Billy Squier and Joan Armitrading represented the only non-Queen musicians (save the horn section on Staying Power) in the catalogue during Freddie's lifetime. This is speculation on the writer's behalf as Al Murray may have been Freddie's hero if he had lived. However, we had no appearance from Kenny Everett on a Queen record during Freddie's life, so the writer is consistent with his "dumbing down" theory about Queen + Paul Rodgers.
"There was a torturous drum solo, an interminable guitar solo and Free’s All Right Now (a song that is always too soon to hear yet again). Most tellingly of all, Mercury’s appearance on screen during Bohemian Rhapsody only emphasised that, in Queen’s case, the past is a superior place and nobody present last night thought otherwise."
A writer who hates drum and guitar solos? Brian's roadies on his BTTL tour called Lost Horizon the "beer song", as it was the time fans went to get beer or take a washroom break. So the writer is not alone in thinking solos are a bit of a waste of time. He doesn't like All Right Now? That's his opinion. Some people love it, some don't. He again may be showing a bias with the snideness of his commentary. And saying that "nobody" thought that the concert in question was worthy compared to the past is speculation. I'd guess the overwhelming majority of people wish they could have seen Queen with Freddie, but given the fact they can't, they're damn happy that Paul Rodgers is keeping the music alive.
So, to an honest, critically thinking fan (hard to find on QZ these days), the writer had a pretty fair take on things in the Queen + Paul Rodgers world. He found greatness in Queen's past, praised Paul Rodgers as a singer in the historical sense, and some of his efforts on the night of the concert. He found him lacking in certain areas, and whether he is trying to replace Freddie (which he's not and rightfully so), of course he is going to be compared and of course he is going to fall short because (OPINION ALERT), nobody can match Freddie Mercury as the singer of Queen. End of story. And you what? Freddie Mercury, whose voice is for my money the best in rock history, bar none, would be a shitty replacement if he were alive and Paul Rodgers was dead and Freddie was fronting Bad Company. That is not his cup of tea musically. He'd be out of his element singing straight-ahead blues stuff. People would be saying that Mercury's lightness that served him well on Killer Queen doesn't jive with Bad Company's straight ahead blues/rock. And they'd be right. Jesus, I long for the days when people had a clue here about who and what Queen was. It's great that newcomers to the band are seeing them, and it's keeping the music alive (like it's in danger of dying), but honestly, the new stuff is so far removed from what Queen music stood for, it's like strangers taking over the name. This would have been a really good Bad Company album, filled with bombastic rockers and Paul Rodgers clichéd writing. It's just a really bad Queen album, and for all the people asking why others and myself come to this board if we don't worship all things Queen, I'll ask why you come here if you are ignorant of what made Queen unique.
[QUOTE]
[b]P-Staker wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» wrote: [/b]
[b]I Love these reviews....makes all your Queen and Paul Rodgers Fans take a little fit!!
[/b]
[/QUOTE]
Ah, so that's your little victory? Some people can't be picky, I guess.
How did it go? Oh yeah: "By unhappy osmosis even I know every last lumpen line of the loathsome (“no time for losers”) We Are The Champions." Did he rub into Paul's nasty face!
[/QUOTE]
No, let's get it clear.. not my victory...just the truth.
I was under the impression that this is what this forum is about..having your own opinion, view, conviction, idea, position or perspective??[img=/images/smiley/msn/whatchutalkingabout_smile.gif][/img]
I don't think you can change people's mind on this. Some will just not accept what May, Taylor and Rodgers are trying to accomplish. Oh..and it doesn't make us less [i][b]Queen fans and that we're not over Freddie!! [/b][/i]
I [i]personally think[/i] that the Queen name should of been laid to rest right along with Freddie. (God bless you John Deacon for your personal beliefs). The Cosmo's Rocks is'nt even close to a Queen album and just because May and Taylor are on it..doesn't make it a an instant acceptable, likeable success!
I would of had more respect if they had decided to come up with a new Band name. No matter how much they try and convince "that we're not trying to replace Freddie" Some of us will never see it that way. It is its own controversy.
Paul Rodgers has his own unique singing style and anything he does sing is always going to sound like "Bad Company". Freddie's voice is bullet proof and his voice is what[i][b] defined [/b][/i]Queen. Also along with his showy, confident, flamboyance, and this is something that Rodger's definitely lacks!
I think they're would be less comparisons had they come up with a new band name. I also think allot of you are naive into thinking..."but they're already rich..they don't need more money."
Who in their right mind doesn't want to make more money???
[i]Mrs. Bad Guy is hoping she will not be the victim of verbal abuse and name calling just for having an individual opinion![/i]
[b]P-Staker wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» wrote: [/b]
[b]I Love these reviews....makes all your Queen and Paul Rodgers Fans take a little fit!!
[/b]
[/QUOTE]
Ah, so that's your little victory? Some people can't be picky, I guess.
How did it go? Oh yeah: "By unhappy osmosis even I know every last lumpen line of the loathsome (“no time for losers”) We Are The Champions." Did he rub into Paul's nasty face!
[/QUOTE]
No, let's get it clear.. not my victory...just the truth.
I was under the impression that this is what this forum is about..having your own opinion, view, conviction, idea, position or perspective??[img=/images/smiley/msn/whatchutalkingabout_smile.gif][/img]
I don't think you can change people's mind on this. Some will just not accept what May, Taylor and Rodgers are trying to accomplish. Oh..and it doesn't make us less [i][b]Queen fans and that we're not over Freddie!! [/b][/i]
I [i]personally think[/i] that the Queen name should of been laid to rest right along with Freddie. (God bless you John Deacon for your personal beliefs). The Cosmo's Rocks is'nt even close to a Queen album and just because May and Taylor are on it..doesn't make it a an instant acceptable, likeable success!
I would of had more respect if they had decided to come up with a new Band name. No matter how much they try and convince "that we're not trying to replace Freddie" Some of us will never see it that way. It is its own controversy.
Paul Rodgers has his own unique singing style and anything he does sing is always going to sound like "Bad Company". Freddie's voice is bullet proof and his voice is what[i][b] defined [/b][/i]Queen. Also along with his showy, confident, flamboyance, and this is something that Rodger's definitely lacks!
I think they're would be less comparisons had they come up with a new band name. I also think allot of you are naive into thinking..."but they're already rich..they don't need more money."
Who in their right mind doesn't want to make more money???
[i]Mrs. Bad Guy is hoping she will not be the victim of verbal abuse and name calling just for having an individual opinion![/i]
Great points Sheer Brass Neck and Mrs Bad Guy.
Unfortunately, I don't think any stepford fan have read anything you've just said. They're too busy looking for an enlightened reviewer who could assure them that this is the real Queen and that the champions have indeed returned.
(of course they hate media cause they believe they are biased and keep a strong hatred against Queen for nearly 30 years (!) now - but just show them one paper saying that QPR did good and they'll praise them as wise intelligent reasonable journalists).
Unfortunately, I don't think any stepford fan have read anything you've just said. They're too busy looking for an enlightened reviewer who could assure them that this is the real Queen and that the champions have indeed returned.
(of course they hate media cause they believe they are biased and keep a strong hatred against Queen for nearly 30 years (!) now - but just show them one paper saying that QPR did good and they'll praise them as wise intelligent reasonable journalists).
[QUOTE]
It's just a really bad Queen album, and for all the people asking
why others and myself come to this board if we don't worship all things
Queen, I'll ask why you come here if you are ignorant of what made
Queen unique. [/QUOTE]
Absolutely brilliant comment, to conclude a no less brilliant post.
Absolutely brilliant comment, to conclude a no less brilliant post.
Vadenuez said: Great points Sheer Brass Neck and Mrs Bad Guy.
[img=/images/smiley/msn/teeth_smile.gif][/img] Thank you Vadenuez... and I agree...that was an amazing breakdown of the article Sheer Brass Neck!!
I just wanted to give you my opinion on the one part of the article to what I think it means..coming from a woman's perspective anyway[i][b]:Alas, the 58-year-old...is too sexually uncomplicated to strut in Mercury’s shoes."
[/b][/i]I think that he is comparing the two men physically. I don't believe its a cheap shot at his sexuality at all.
You have Paul Rodgers who is stocky and really kind of rough on the edges and is the type of guy who would probably look real good on the back of a [i]Harley [/i]dressed in leather.(I don't want to stereotype..but it is what it is)
Then you have the scrumptious Freddie Mercury who ooozed Sexuality. That man was pure Sexy and extremely attractive. Even the way he and walked around on stage was something to watch. I watch the old concerts on DVD and he is captivating...really! Some people have it and Paul Rodgers doesn't. Believe me..I know sexy when I see it..and Freddie definitely had it!!
[img=/images/smiley/msn/teeth_smile.gif][/img] Thank you Vadenuez... and I agree...that was an amazing breakdown of the article Sheer Brass Neck!!
I just wanted to give you my opinion on the one part of the article to what I think it means..coming from a woman's perspective anyway[i][b]:Alas, the 58-year-old...is too sexually uncomplicated to strut in Mercury’s shoes."
[/b][/i]I think that he is comparing the two men physically. I don't believe its a cheap shot at his sexuality at all.
You have Paul Rodgers who is stocky and really kind of rough on the edges and is the type of guy who would probably look real good on the back of a [i]Harley [/i]dressed in leather.(I don't want to stereotype..but it is what it is)
Then you have the scrumptious Freddie Mercury who ooozed Sexuality. That man was pure Sexy and extremely attractive. Even the way he and walked around on stage was something to watch. I watch the old concerts on DVD and he is captivating...really! Some people have it and Paul Rodgers doesn't. Believe me..I know sexy when I see it..and Freddie definitely had it!!
Aaaargh.
I'm NOT fucking trying to argue Queen vs Q+PR here, I'm saying that rummaging through one's sexuality or calling Freddie's masterpiece We Are the Champions "loathsome" is unfair because...
No, wait, never mind. If you want to make every single Queenzone thread into this same old tired discussion, yeah, don't let me stop your fun.
I'm NOT fucking trying to argue Queen vs Q+PR here, I'm saying that rummaging through one's sexuality or calling Freddie's masterpiece We Are the Champions "loathsome" is unfair because...
No, wait, never mind. If you want to make every single Queenzone thread into this same old tired discussion, yeah, don't let me stop your fun.
People who keep on saying these bullshits are missing something...I was in Milan, i saw them play and i saw all the people and the expectations they had! Stop compare Paul with Freddie, stop think john is right while Brian and Roger are wrong, because nobody in the audience was thinking that! Like I said on this site some weeks ago, we are going to miss these woderful musicians when they won't be on the road anymore! I think everybody should thank brian, roger and paul because they give us the chance to listen to wonderful songs once again! and thanks to them, the creativity, the power and the art of freddie mercury still live on!!! and don't forget...i think they have a lot of courage playing again with this new formula: they are 60 years old, they do have a lot of money and thanks to people like the one who wrote this awful article, they are aware they must fight a lot of crab and bad criticism! do you still think they are still doing that for money??? i don't think so, because it's not worth it! enjoy Queen, enjoy Paul Rodgers and stop being dorks! Plus, in Udine (italy) Red Hot Chilli Peppers played one hour and a half...In milan Queen played two hours and a half...Who is doing that for money???