Feel free to disagree (or agree. I dont care)

http://entertainment.ca.msn.com/music/photos/gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=23000406&page=5

I agree with everything!!!!

I think that Queen should have retired when John retired, with No-One But You being the swansong. While I still regard that as the last genuine Queen song, I think it would have been better for Queen's legacy, if they hadn't continued beyond John's retirement. Based on that, I pretty much agree; I don't agree as to when they should have retired, but I do agree that they shouldn't have entered the 'Queen +' years.

BTW, what do people think about the idea of Queen having released a post-MIH album with just Brian, Roger and John, and Brian and Roger sharing lead vocals?

I don't agree. Brian and Roger should continue their work for as long as they feel upto it. They may or may not collaborate with others, its their call and if sharing ideas with other artists sparks their creativity, nothing like it. I do have reservations against them calling their projects Queen+ (I hope we have seen the end of that) but that's another topic of discussion (one that has already been beaten to death).

I agreed with the opinion that its time for Rolling Stones to quit recording (if they haven't already).

honestly, i disagree. i think they should keep making music but it should just be roger and brian. no guest singers, no new singers. none of that. just brian and roger. thats just my opinion though.

I don't agree with ANY of that.

If Brian May and Roger Taylor still have heart for their band, why should they retire!? They were still rocking hard on the stage. But of course people will think that just because Freddie isn't there, Brian and Roger can't perform good, or just shouldn't be there at all. Sorry, it just doesn't work like that. When people realize that Brian and Roger didn't die when Freddie died, people will understand where they were coming from when they decided to tour again.

They obviously weren't ready to retire when Freddie died, and they weren't ready to close the Queen chapter. I honestly don't see the problem with them going on and selling out crowds and having a good time performing on-stage the Queen songs they probably thought they'd never perform again. And it's a definite win for the crowd as well who probably thought they'd never see the band live again.

"Queen retire already!" Why!? I have a couple of DVD's of the Q+PR shows and I wish I had been a fan earlier so I could have seen these shows in person. They look AMAZING! Hell, I want them to bring it back out one more time so I can be there. I'm only 19, Queen, with Freddie, performed their last show before I was even born, how cool would it be for me to see all the songs I love being performed live this time around!?

There IS no valid reason for people to call for Queen to retire, none at all.

I find the article repulsive.  As long as they still have the appropriate inspiration, artists should continue to express themselves throug their talents.  I think it's quite obvious that Queen (May and Taylor, of course) are not in it for the money anymore.  Why would they?  They're already filthy, stinking rich.  If anything, they are in it for the band's legacy.  And to say that the band should have given up long ago is being a bit unfair.  They have a right to write and perform songs, just as we have a right to do our jobs until we deem it necessary to retire.  And they certainly have a right to use the band's name.  They made their livelihood under that entitlement.

The show must go on.
The Queen name must not.

Clever.

That article was obviously written by a twat.

Brian and Roger founded the band and have sold hundreds of millions of records.  They can do whatever they please with or without the Queen name, as they've earned it.

It's amazing how so many people think their opinion actually matters.  If you don't like it, don't buy their new records and don't go to see the shows.  What are you ultimately trying to accomplish by raining on someone else's enjoyment of music?

As for the article, most of these pseudo-writers are failed musicians, so they're simply bitter of the continued success of others who manage to remain relevant despite not having a hit record in 20 years.

why take offence at someone elses opinion?
[/QUOTE]"OH I CRY CRY CRY I FIN THAT ARTICLE OFFENCIVE"[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]isnt that just as stupid as someone finding Q+PR an offence??  you are a weak human being if you cannot listen to both sides [/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]me i think brian or roger should sing paul rodgers can stay in the pig farm he came from.[/QUOTE]

The writer seems to have a preference for hair metal. How else do you include The Who (THE FREAKING WHO?!) on your list and leave out perpetual hangers-on like KISS, Bon Jovi and Guns 'N Roses?

Granted, I like lots of KISS and GnR (but Bon Jovi is a no-talent assclown, imho), but you'd have a hard time finding much support outside of hair metal circles for a band whose lead guitarist was plucked from a tribute band, or another band that's seen all of its original members (and most of the replacements for their replacements) move on, save for the lead singer with an ego the size of Wembley Stadium.

I'll say this much, I agree with some of the writer's conclusions, and don't even necessarily disagree with Queen. I'd love to see Brian and Roger keep making music, but I'd also like to see them stop using the "Queen" name. Yes, they're founding members of the band, yes, they can do with it whatever they want, and yes, they have John's approval, but I still wish they'd pick a new name for their future ventures. I've always liked the name, "Jack" for the band--it's a subtle nod to the Queen name while still having a catchy ring to it. I would hope they continued to work on Queen releases in the background--let's get some late-70's material out there!

As for some of the other bands on his list, I think it's worth mentioning that the reason they're still around is because they put on a hell of a show. As beloved as Jeff Scott Soto is in these circles, he nearly killed Journey because as great as his voice is (and as great as I think he'd be paired with Brian and Roger), he just wasn't suited for Journey. Arnel Pineda might not be the boldest choice Journey could have made for a lead singer, but he's exactly what the fans love--a dynamic frontman who sounds exactly like Steve Perry, and a friend of mine who went to see them in concert this summer (I'm still kicking myself for not going) said it was one of the best shows she's been to. Moral of the story: if you have a dedicated fan base and a good back-catalogue, you can last as long as you have one "glory days" member tagging along.

[QUOTE]

[b]Thunderbolt wrote: [/b]

The writer seems to have a preference for hair metal. How else do you include The Who (THE FREAKING WHO?!) on your list and leave out perpetual hangers-on like KISS, Bon Jovi and Guns 'N Roses?[/QUOTE]
The exclusion of Kiss from that list is unforgivable. As for GnR, I have the same problem with them now as I have with "Queen +".

The Who do not belong on that list.  I love a retarded music journalist; they always give me a healthy belly laugh at just the right time.