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.
[/QUOTE]
First off I thought, "Oh No!!!, Not This old chestnut of a Topic Again!!!"
But I have to agree with Bob. Queen is Brian & Roger's band, they can do what THEY want with it.
Me personally, I think it's great that the "Queen" name carries on with new material & new tours ect.
But let me ask the question. would all those people who say "John's not there, so it's not Queen" want to download any Pre John gigs from the early 70's when the band was still called Queen?
Holly2003 · Member since
Whay aren't U2 on that list? The've done nothing interesting since Zooropa.
Ah that's right, I forgot: it's because they're "cool".
Interesting there are no black artists among that list. I imagine a list of 10 black atists might raise some eyebrows...
john bodega · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]A Word In Your Ear wrote:[/b]
But let me ask the question. would all those people who say "John's not there, so it's not Queen" want to download any Pre John gigs from the early 70's when the band was still called Queen?
[/QUOTE] That wouldn't be 2 tired old guys jamming it out with a friend, that would be an interesting artifact of musical history. It's also a few years before Deacon was a mentionable influence in the musical direction of the band, so it would be very interesting to hear the development of Brian and Roger after their Smile stuff, and Freddie bridging the gap between the raw talent on Queen 1, and the screeching yob we get to hear on the Ibex stuff.
Mercury 90 · Member since
I think musicians should make music as long as somebody buys there albums, and goes to there concerts!
If the hall is empty, or they sold just one copy of their new album then they should may think about stoping!
Non of that was happening to queen (or the who, the stones, and most of the bands mentioned there)!
Amazon · Member since
A couple of comments. Nobody's opinions matter at the end of the day, however this is a discussion site and we are allowed to express our opinions. Brian and Roger can do whatever they want, but that doesn't mean we (or I) have to like it.
I do think that Brian and Roger should have retired the Queen name upon John's retirement. They can still continue to make music, just don't call it Queen. Benny and Bjorn still make music together, however they don't use the name ABBA. I think the same should apply to Queen.
Amazon · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]A Word In Your Ear wrote:[/b]
But let me ask the question. would all those people who say "John's not there, so it's not Queen" want to download any Pre John gigs from the early 70's when the band was still called Queen?
[/QUOTE]
That wouldn't be 2 tired old guys jamming it out with a friend, that would be an interesting artifact of musical history. It's also a few years before Deacon was a mentionable influence in the musical direction of the band, so it would be very interesting to hear the development of Brian and Roger after their Smile stuff, and Freddie bridging the gap between the raw talent on Queen 1, and the screeching yob we get to hear on the Ibex stuff.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with Zebronka. Plus, in the early days, it was three members (before the fourth had even been hired), and now it's just two members. I do regard Brian, Roger and John to be Queen, but not just Brian and Roger. Also, where do we draw the line? If Roger went off to do solo work, and Brian continued under the Queen name, would that still be Queen? I say no, and I say no to just Brian and Roger being Queen. They can do whatever they want of course, but IMO the last proper Queen song was No-one But You.
TheRobin · Member since
I just don't have a problem with them using the name. They are the founding members and they're onstage performing the Queen songs they helped create! Like I said, they have heart for their band and as long as they have the heart for the music they're performing, a name is probably the most minimal aspect of their live performances - and it just doesn't matter to me.
I wouldn't have a problem if they called themselves "Thjksdbon" I would still consider them to be Queen... unless they went solo, and they wouldn't want to be called Brian May / Roger Taylor from Queen.
Oh well, what they call themselves is of no importance to me at all. I just want to see them live.
PauloPanucci · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sharon G.Queen Fan wrote: [/b]
The show must go on.
The Queen name must not.[/QUOTE]
agree with you!
GratefulFan · Member since
Any history that saw the Queen name die with Freddie would have served an artificial sentimental construction and little else. Brian and Roger tried solo careers, and speaking very broadly nothing really matched their work as members of Queen. That's not because they're lacking as musicians, but because almost without exception the magic formula is stumbled on just once in a lifetime by a relative few. Queen was magic, and that is reason enough to keep that candle burning for a few years yet. Queen as it is, i.e. Roger and Brian and the best of their more recent work along with that incredible back catalogue are beyond a blessing. Why any fan would want to forego that for the sake of being able to tell a nice story is beyond me.
Holly2003 · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]GratefulFan wrote: [/b]
Any history that saw the Queen name die with Freddie would have served an artificial sentimental construction and little else. Brian and Roger tried solo careers, and speaking very broadly nothing really matched their work as members of Queen. That's not because they're lacking as musicians, but because almost without exception the magic formula is stumbled on just once in a lifetime by a relative few. Queen was magic, and that is reason enough to keep that candle burning for a few years yet. Queen as it is, i.e. Roger and Brian and the best of their more recent work along with that incredible back catalogue are beyond a blessing. Why any fan would want to forgo that for the sake of being able to tell a nice story is beyond me.[/QUOTE]
