Now look here, i've worshipped queen since '74 so i 've got a very positive attitude to all things queen, but to use the name in the present set-up, naar i dont think so. To peruse the guinness book of british hit singles in the future and to see entries that dont include input from freddie and john, catalogued as queen!- ooh that really hurts me. Let it go lads, let it go..................
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I caught John Deacon making out with my Aunt Diane. [img=/images/smiley/msn/shades_smile.gif][/img] I must say, I wish I could of joined in on the fun!
[QUOTE]
[b]itailu wrote: [/b]
There's no Queen with out Freddie Mercury.
I've heard people say that his voice was the Queen sound, but he was much, much more.
He was the drive and the diversity of Queen's music and much more then any one can give him credit for.
Last week I just had to listen to hear what's all the fuss with this new queen+paul rodgers album.
It's not Queen.
One can only hope that Mr. May and Mr. Taylor will one day release Queen's vault stuff and maybe a dvd of clips that haven't been digitized yet, Innuendo etc...
[/QUOTE]
Exactly!
[b]itailu wrote: [/b]
There's no Queen with out Freddie Mercury.
I've heard people say that his voice was the Queen sound, but he was much, much more.
He was the drive and the diversity of Queen's music and much more then any one can give him credit for.
Last week I just had to listen to hear what's all the fuss with this new queen+paul rodgers album.
It's not Queen.
One can only hope that Mr. May and Mr. Taylor will one day release Queen's vault stuff and maybe a dvd of clips that haven't been digitized yet, Innuendo etc...
[/QUOTE]
Exactly!
Totally agree....
Here's my question...if they don't need money then why are they still using the [i]Queen[/i] moniker??
Why??? simple...the name [i]Queen=money, money, money!! [/i]So if they don't need it as many as you believe..then why haven't they donated all concert proceeds to the [i]Mercury Phoenix Trust [/i]or to other charities?
If they had any respect for the rest of the band members...especially Freddie, then they should of started with a clean slate..including a new band title, a new sound and all "new" music!!
There is no Queen without Freddie or John...simple as that!!
[i]
[/i]
Here's my question...if they don't need money then why are they still using the [i]Queen[/i] moniker??
Why??? simple...the name [i]Queen=money, money, money!! [/i]So if they don't need it as many as you believe..then why haven't they donated all concert proceeds to the [i]Mercury Phoenix Trust [/i]or to other charities?
If they had any respect for the rest of the band members...especially Freddie, then they should of started with a clean slate..including a new band title, a new sound and all "new" music!!
There is no Queen without Freddie or John...simple as that!!
[i]
[/i]
I see we're still beating this dead horse.
There is one way to solve this.
Mass Suicide.
Everyone who can't stand the name Queen being used should just end it right now. There is nothing left living for, Paul has destroyed all that. Maybe your death (and eloquent note) will be just what Brian May needs to see to end all this.
Please begin now. Make sure you give away your collection first.
Mass Suicide.
Everyone who can't stand the name Queen being used should just end it right now. There is nothing left living for, Paul has destroyed all that. Maybe your death (and eloquent note) will be just what Brian May needs to see to end all this.
Please begin now. Make sure you give away your collection first.
Jazz 78 said:
I see we're still beating this dead horse.
Of course...this topic will never end..because too many people feel strongly and different about it. So get used to it!! If you don't want to hear the same ol same ol..then go to a different forum!! [/QUOTE]
I see we're still beating this dead horse.
Of course...this topic will never end..because too many people feel strongly and different about it. So get used to it!! If you don't want to hear the same ol same ol..then go to a different forum!! [/QUOTE]
mickyparise: "I've been meaning to ask how is there Queen without Freddie Mercury?"
And so now you have.
And so now you have.
Wasn't it Roger and Brian who founded the band in the first place? I disagree completely with those who say this is not Queen anymore. That's like saying a family is no longer a family because the father is dead, or the elder son is dead. You've gotta accept Freddie is gone, and move on. This is Queen now, and it rocks.
[QUOTE]
[b]opera39 wrote: [/b]
Wasn't it Roger and Brian who founded the band in the first place? I disagree completely with those who say this is not Queen anymore. That's like saying a family is no longer a family because the father is dead, or the elder son is dead. You've gotta accept Freddie is gone, and move on. This is Queen now, and it rocks.[/QUOTE]
you are not specially bright if you think its Queen without freddie, without freddie its SMILE, freddie was the one who made the Queen sound, he was THE most important member by FAR.
[b]opera39 wrote: [/b]
Wasn't it Roger and Brian who founded the band in the first place? I disagree completely with those who say this is not Queen anymore. That's like saying a family is no longer a family because the father is dead, or the elder son is dead. You've gotta accept Freddie is gone, and move on. This is Queen now, and it rocks.[/QUOTE]
you are not specially bright if you think its Queen without freddie, without freddie its SMILE, freddie was the one who made the Queen sound, he was THE most important member by FAR.
The name Queen has already been established by 4 great musicians. The last I checked, Paul Rogers and whomever plays bass is not in that group. Afterall, if a name meant nothing, then Page/Plant would have called themselves Led Zeppelin in 1995 when they toured and then put out 2 records. It is bad enough that The Who call themselves the Who. How would we react if only Ringo and Paul Macca got together today and toured under the Beatles moniker?
It ain't Queen, never can be I'm afraid, without John and Freddie the remainder have no real right to title themselves as such and I for one have NO interest in this sham. I have been a Queen fan since '74 and this just ain't right - pick another name boys and be honest with both us and yourselves.
[QUOTE]
[b]caine wrote: [/b]
The name Queen has already been established by 4 great musicians. The last I checked, Paul Rogers and whomever plays bass is not in that group. Afterall, if a name meant nothing, then Page/Plant would have called themselves Led Zeppelin in 1995 when they toured and then put out 2 records. It is bad enough that The Who call themselves the Who. How would we react if only Ringo and Paul Macca got together today and toured under the Beatles moniker?[/QUOTE]
You are mistaken. The name is Queen+Paul Rodgers. It`s different. Many groups with only two surviving members
have retained their original names. In this case Freddie is dead. And John evidently has nothing against their calling themselves so. As for Macca and Ringo, I would find it wonderful if they got together and called themselves the Beatles+. A dream come true. Obviously they dare not. (certainly they don`t want to work together in the first place)
[b]caine wrote: [/b]
The name Queen has already been established by 4 great musicians. The last I checked, Paul Rogers and whomever plays bass is not in that group. Afterall, if a name meant nothing, then Page/Plant would have called themselves Led Zeppelin in 1995 when they toured and then put out 2 records. It is bad enough that The Who call themselves the Who. How would we react if only Ringo and Paul Macca got together today and toured under the Beatles moniker?[/QUOTE]
You are mistaken. The name is Queen+Paul Rodgers. It`s different. Many groups with only two surviving members
have retained their original names. In this case Freddie is dead. And John evidently has nothing against their calling themselves so. As for Macca and Ringo, I would find it wonderful if they got together and called themselves the Beatles+. A dream come true. Obviously they dare not. (certainly they don`t want to work together in the first place)
Opera 39 said:
"I disagree completely with those who say this is not Queen anymore."
That is well within your rights. Much as many, many people here disagree with those who say it Queen.
"That's like saying a family is no longer a family because the father is dead, or the elder son is dead."
Actually, it's nothing like that. I read recently that Paris Hilton's grandfather or great-grandfather is leaving his money to charity insted of Paris and Nicky Hilton because he disapproves of the way they conduct themselves. So the Hilton family name was once synonamous with solid business principles and shrewd planning. Now it's all about getting fucked on video, and being a publicity whore. What you, and the "Brain and Roge have the right to call themselves Queen!!!!!!!!" crowd don't, and never will understand because you're all too thick, is that it's not just the name, it's what the name's connotation was. Regal. Ambiguous. Powerful. There is nothing regal or ambitious about Queen + PR. Queen's music was majestic. Brian referred to TCR as "organic." Fuck organic. That's for the Indigo Girls or third rate blues rock bands. Not Queen.
"You've gotta accept Freddie is gone, and move on."
Please, please, please, please, please. Other than the mentally unbalanced, who on this board does not accept Freddie is gone? Name one person. That is such an idiotic argument it defies belief. I'll throw something out there. Brain and Roger have to accept Freddie is gone, and quit hanging on to the Queen brand and start something new. What's that? Oh, the power of the Queen brand will ensure curiousity sales in the first week before falling off the charts, where a May/Taylor/Rodgers album would probably not chart.
"This is Queen now, and it rocks."
No it's not, no it doesn't.
"I disagree completely with those who say this is not Queen anymore."
That is well within your rights. Much as many, many people here disagree with those who say it Queen.
"That's like saying a family is no longer a family because the father is dead, or the elder son is dead."
Actually, it's nothing like that. I read recently that Paris Hilton's grandfather or great-grandfather is leaving his money to charity insted of Paris and Nicky Hilton because he disapproves of the way they conduct themselves. So the Hilton family name was once synonamous with solid business principles and shrewd planning. Now it's all about getting fucked on video, and being a publicity whore. What you, and the "Brain and Roge have the right to call themselves Queen!!!!!!!!" crowd don't, and never will understand because you're all too thick, is that it's not just the name, it's what the name's connotation was. Regal. Ambiguous. Powerful. There is nothing regal or ambitious about Queen + PR. Queen's music was majestic. Brian referred to TCR as "organic." Fuck organic. That's for the Indigo Girls or third rate blues rock bands. Not Queen.
"You've gotta accept Freddie is gone, and move on."
Please, please, please, please, please. Other than the mentally unbalanced, who on this board does not accept Freddie is gone? Name one person. That is such an idiotic argument it defies belief. I'll throw something out there. Brain and Roger have to accept Freddie is gone, and quit hanging on to the Queen brand and start something new. What's that? Oh, the power of the Queen brand will ensure curiousity sales in the first week before falling off the charts, where a May/Taylor/Rodgers album would probably not chart.
"This is Queen now, and it rocks."
No it's not, no it doesn't.
Can we PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, let this subject go already!!!!