Thank You Paul (the Voice) Rodgers

it was good to see, queen or queen+,or whatever you want to call them for what was my kids first concert...i liked paul rodgers it,s a shame they seem to be finished...as a singer paul was  or is good,to many critics shouted him down in certain forums.,maybe one day he will return to queen...dont forget when you had paul as a singer you also had a great collection  of music, with an unknown singer ,you would not have had..so you had in theary one of the strongest rock tours of the year.it has been said before.if you dont like it dont buy it.me,i loved it.and would never had missed the chance to go and see them play again .at my age(50+)it was more than likley my last chance to see queen one last time.so good luck paul in whatever you do in the future,as for me.you can return to queen anytime.

I'm really tired of the discussion about the name.

I have my opinion about it but, as Bob indicated, this is not the thread to talk about that. In this topic, as made clear in the first post, we want to thank Paul (and also Queen of course) for what they gave us the last few years. I'm really glad I got to know Paul's music and voice better. It's stunning to see how fantastic he still sounds night after night. Enjoying his abilities doesn't make you a worse Queen-fan, you know.

One of the things that I found great too was what they did with the Free/Bad Company songs. It was really great to hear those songs played by Roger and Brian. Even though it is of course not the Queen we all love there are still plenty of elements of that Queen we all love. Simply because Roger and Brian are half of that band and they still manage to get that typical Queen sound. Ok, it might not be complete because we all know 2 members are absent but it's more than we had the chance to enjoy in the period 1987-2004(FM tribute was a unique event). People should learn to enjoy what they have instead of going on and on and on about what they do  not have. Thanks to Paul we had the chance to enjoy this wonderful journey.

call it what you want !

it is obvious that 2 different roots merged for a while.

never got a chanse in my life to see Queen live as i was one year old when they performed last gig... however, the Queen and Paul Rodgers tour's ... i wanted to go to see them but i havent got a chanse, they were not in my country... and i could not afford trip to another country by that time.. i really would like to see Queen live. howver back to topic, thanks to PAUL for doing this with QUEEN. Thank you for everything, thanks for amazing TCR studio album, thansk for being par of QUEEN! Paul have beautiful voice and he's amazing musician. I'm really sorry because this collaboration did not least longer... Paul good luck, and Queen  good luck finding another established and succesfull singer! (please God, not this one from American IDOL!)!!!!!!!

PAUL YOU ROCK!

[QUOTE]





























































































































[b]L-R-TIGER1994 wrote: [/b]































































[i]QUEEN 2 BOOKLET:QUEEN ARE FREDDIE MERCURY,BRIAN MAY,ROGER TAYLOR,JOHN DEACON.

I think you should know this,as you are[b] the[/b] expert,can you call Paul McCartney and Ringo Star The Beatles?may be you can but tecnically is not Queen of course.[/i]





























































[/QUOTE]
Ringo wasn't a founding member of The Beatles, so I think that'd be a bit different from Brian and Roger, as they are the founding members of Queen.  However, my opinion doesn't count, and I'm big enough to recognize that.  If Ringo and Paul went out with Julian Lennon and Dhani Harrison and called it The Beatles, I'd respect them for doing what they want to do.  It's their art, their legacy, and therefore it's ultimately their choice.

Your argument is a poor one, because it assumes that a band can only have one lineup throughout their entire career.  When did you become the constabulary of band dynamics, deciding that if a band doesn't change their name as members come and go, they must hang up their gloves and call it a day?

Are you suggesting that Fragile isn't a Yes album, Heaven And Hell isn't a Black Sabbath album, and Stormbringer isn't a Deep Purple album?  In that case, then technically, every Beatles album isn't a Beatles album because Pete Best was the original drummer.  And of course, John Deacon was the fourth bass player in Queen, so I guess the debut album through Made In Heaven aren't Queen albums either.

The bottom line is... we as fans do not define what the band is or isn't.  They do, because it's their music.

Stop hijacking this thread.  It's a place for people to share their memories of Q+PR, not a place for you to spout your baseless opinions and childish name-calling.

[QUOTE]

[b]L-R-TIGER1994 wrote: [/b]

[i]QUEEN 2 BOOKLET:QUEEN ARE FREDDIE MERCURY,BRIAN MAY,ROGER TAYLOR,JOHN DEACON.


I think you should know this,as you are[b] the[/b] expert,can you call Paul McCartney and Ringo Star The Beatles?may be you can but tecnically is not Queen of course.[/i][/QUOTE]
I try to avoid flamewars usually, but I got a question which I ask people from time to time - what was the name of the band from 1970 to 1973 ?

I definitely wouldn't dare to make the decision if it's Queen or not Queen - for me it's always been Queen + Paul Rodgers or simply QPR, something like [i]Heaven and Hell[/i], or [i]Andy Scott's Sweet[/i]

[QUOTE]

[b]david (galashiels) wrote: [/b]

it was good to see, queen or queen+,or whatever you want to call them for what was my kids first concert...i liked paul rodgers it,s a shame they seem to be finished...as a singer paul was  or is good,to many critics shouted him down in certain forums.,maybe one day he will return to queen...dont forget when you had paul as a singer you also had a great collection  of music, with an unknown singer ,you would not have had..so you had in theary one of the strongest rock tours of the year.it has been said before.if you dont like it dont buy it.me,i loved it.and would never had missed the chance to go and see them play again .at my age(50+)it was more than likley my last chance to see queen one last time.so good luck paul in whatever you do in the future,as for me.you can return to queen anytime.[/QUOTE]
Totally agree with comments above.  I am and always will be a Queen fan first and a Paul Rodgers fan second.  No way would I ever say that the last 5 years has been some kind of waste.  Personally speaking it made me feel 10-20 years younger and I had a great time.  I can see how some will get negative over the fact that Paul's plans seems to be stopping something that had only really just begun and emphasises that what we had was really Queen + someone else which is a bit of a shame. 

I hope that Brian and Roger do have some kind of final rally of concerts to let fans appreciate and demonstrate how fun the music of Queen has been for many many years.

As for being the end of the line many performers/musicians are only in mid careers by the time they reach Brian and Rogers ages.  Thanks for the ride Paul; long live Queen - with or without Paul.

[QUOTE]

[b]L-R-TIGER1994 wrote: [/b]

[i]QUEEN 2 BOOKLET:QUEEN ARE FREDDIE MERCURY,BRIAN MAY,ROGER TAYLOR,JOHN DEACON.


I think you should know this,as you are[b] the[/b] expert,can you call Paul McCartney and Ringo Star The Beatles?may be you can but tecnically is not Queen of course.[/i][/QUOTE]



So if a band changes at least one member of the group, they can't go by the same name anymore?  If that is the case, then Ozzy Osbourne has broken the rules on several occasions (or Michael Schenker, or Scorpions, or ect.)

[QUOTE]

[b]lalaalalaa wrote: [/b]

[QUOTE]





[b]L-R-TIGER1994 wrote: [/b]



[i]QUEEN 2 BOOKLET:QUEEN ARE FREDDIE MERCURY,BRIAN MAY,ROGER TAYLOR,JOHN DEACON.


I think you should know this,as you are[b] the[/b] expert,can you call Paul McCartney and Ringo Star The Beatles?may be you can but tecnically is not Queen of course.[/i]

[/QUOTE]
So if a band changes at least one member of the group, they can't go by the same name anymore?  If that is the case, then Ozzy Osbourne has broken the rules on several occasions (or Michael Schenker, or Scorpions, or ect.)

[/QUOTE]
Or Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Sweet, Rainbow, Metallica, Iron Maiden, AC/DC ......................

[QUOTE]

[b]pittrek wrote: [/b]

[QUOTE]

 



[b]lalaalalaa wrote: [/b]



 

[QUOTE]

 



 



 



[b]L-R-TIGER1994 wrote: [/b]



 



[i]QUEEN 2 BOOKLET:QUEEN ARE FREDDIE MERCURY,BRIAN MAY,ROGER TAYLOR,JOHN DEACON.


I think you should know this,as you are[b] the[/b] expert,can you call Paul McCartney and Ringo Star The Beatles?may be you can but tecnically is not Queen of course.[/i]



 

[/QUOTE]
So if a band changes at least one member of the group, they can't go by the same name anymore?  If that is the case, then Ozzy Osbourne has broken the rules on several occasions (or Michael Schenker, or Scorpions, or ect.)

[/QUOTE]
Or Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Sweet, Rainbow, Metallica, Iron Maiden, AC/DC ......................





[/QUOTE]

Megadeth, Alice Cooper, Blue Oyster Cult (?), Toto...............

Bob wrote:

"Ringo wasn't a founding member of The Beatles, so I think that'd be a bit different from Brian and Roger, as they are the founding members of Queen.  However, my opinion doesn't count, and I'm big enough to recognize that.  If Ringo and Paul went out with Julian Lennon and Dhani Harrison and called it The Beatles, I'd respect them for doing what they want to do.  It's their art, their legacy, and therefore it's ultimately their choice"

I totally agree about the "my opinion does not count" statement. The Beatles is a very different story, though. Ringo may not have been a founding member of the Beatles but he was the only original drummer on the records from the start (except for the studio drummer on "Please Please me"). George Harrison survived the split of the Beatles for 30 years and he *always* said the Beatles would reform when "John Lennon is alive again". John Lennon left his estate to Yoko Ono who must be asked about all decisions involving the rights of John Lennon. Therefore it would be very difficult for Paul and Ringo to ignore the wishes of the two dead members and reform under the name of "The Beatles".

In a totally different move Freddie Mercury left all decisions concerning his rights in Queen to Jim Beach knowing that JB would not cast any minority votes and cause the surviving members any trouble. By leaving his vote to Jim Beach he gave the surviving members total freedom in their decisions - knowing that he would soon be dead. John Deacon must be asked permission for all projects with the name "Queen" and he does not seem to mind, so why should anybody else mind? It's funny how some fans seem to think their opinion about the use of the name "Queen" has some sort of moral substance - that's not the case.

Amen

glad it's over. Boring is the word that comes to mind.

yeah..got to agree with the topic starter....... saw six great live shows and to see May and Taylor on the same stage since Wembley 86 and 92 was the best ever!  Not too many bands nowadays could produce such an awe inspiring and memorable show.  Until the next time....................

[QUOTE]

 



[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]



glad it's over. Boring is the word that comes to mind.

[/QUOTE]
[i]Wait to see Queen+Adam Lambert and we will regret everything we´ve said on this thead.[/i]