Paul Rodgers to tour with Queen again?

Well it seems Australia must be the arse end of the world because they say they did a world tour but i dont recall them ever being down under. Maybe now cos the dollar is so high they might tour but wont hold my breathe.

Well Paul certainly relied a lot on lyric monitors, was reluctant to rehearse more Queen songs along the way (he botched One Vision and that was it) and his phrasing was awkward at times.

Jacky summed it up competently : "I thought he could have made more effort to learn the songs, and perhaps how to actually phrase them in some cases".

Yet, two solid tours, some really nice gigs, and the most excitement we had since Made In Heaven is no small thing.

You can count on one hand the singers capable of handling an entire set of Queen songs. Tom Chaplin, whom I really like, is not one of them. George Michael, we'll never know.

Fone Bone wrote: Well Paul certainly relied a lot on lyric monitors, was reluctant to rehearse more Queen songs along the way (he botched One Vision and that was it) and his phrasing was awkward at times.

Jacky summed it up competently : "I thought he could have made more effort to learn the songs, and perhaps how to actually phrase them in some cases".

Yet, two solid tours, some really nice gigs, and the most excitement we had since Made In Heaven is no small thing.

You can count on one hand the singers capable of handling an entire set of Queen songs. Tom Chaplin, whom I really like, is not one of them. George Michael, we'll never know.

I think one of the things which made it work was that Paul didn't sound like Freddie at all, including his phrasing of the songs.
There's a quote somwhere from Brian where he said it was like hearing some of the songs for the first time when Paul sang them. And I had the same feeling several times as well.
LIke it or not, he made them sound like it was Paul Rodgers singing. I for one, am glad.  

I don't think GM could handle an entire Queen set by a mile. People go on about STL from the Tribute, and yes, it was a superb performance. But his 39 and TATDOOL were not nearly as good imo. (though still enjoyable)

Zodiacal_light wrote: Immediately after the split, Roger was on Breakfast TV and was asked who he thought was the best front man they had teamed up with. Roger said " George michael".

Now this was right after TCR tour.

A major kick in the teeth for Rodgers.

As i said before, for me it was Roger who had a major problem with Paul.

I distinctly remember this as well. I thought it was weird and awkward to say the least  (although it was around the time of Absolute Greatest, and not right after TCR)

but during the last 3 years, on the few occasion that Paul has been mentioned, it is Roger who has been complimentary.

(there is one US radio interview with Brian, around the launch of his stereo photo book, where he actually praises Paul and what they did - even brings up the TCR album by his own volition.
But apart from this, Brian has been strangely quiet about the QPR years and seems to almost avoid the topic.)

Fone Bone wrote: Well Paul certainly relied a lot on lyric monitors, was reluctant to rehearse more Queen songs along the way (he botched One Vision and that was it) and his phrasing was awkward at times.

Jacky summed it up competently : "I thought he could have made more effort to learn the songs, and perhaps how to actually phrase them in some cases".

Yet, two solid tours, some really nice gigs, and the most excitement we had since Made In Heaven is no small thing.

You can count on one hand the singers capable of handling an entire set of Queen songs. Tom Chaplin, whom I really like, is not one of them. George Michael, we'll never know.
==============================

I do understand the criticisms of Paul Rodgers that are leveled on more than one front.  But I still think that Brian's and Roger's instincts on this were bang on right.  It needed to be roughly a marriage of equals with somebody with his own independent rock and roll street cred, and most importantly it needed to be somebody who was definitively not Freddie Mercury. Fred was so talented and so unique that virtually everybody who tries to step into the shoes that has a timbre or tone or flick of the write that recalls him in any way comes off as automatically inferior.  Paul Rodgers isn't going to make anybody think of Fred, and I think that's a big part of why it worked.  Funky phrasing and all.

I cant understand the fascination with George Michael as a guest lead singer of Queen songs. He has two modes - pure dancey pop or ballads. Queen live was usually a lot more straight forward a rock performance than the complexity and range of the records so Id have to take someone who was in Free over someone who was in Wham. George Michael would be more suited to being in the musical .

AlbaNo1 wrote: I cant understand the fascination with George Michael as a guest lead singer of Queen songs. He has two modes - pure dancey pop or ballads. Queen live was usually a lot more straight forward a rock performance than the complexity and range of the records so Id have to take someone who was in Free over someone who was in Wham. George Michael would be more suited to being in the musical .

Right. That explains why he sung Somebody to Love so badly at the Tribute Concert. lol

@ e-man & Grateful Fan

I don't disagree guys. Paul Rodgers had the cred to front this project indeed, and he's proven good enough a singer to deliver a entire set of Queen songs, which is why it was a very good choice in the first place.

I'm just saying he could have put in that extra mile of work by knowing the songs better, and by learning new ones along the way.

On the other hand, Adam Lambert or Robbie would have been a disgrace. GM, then again, did a great job on STL but would he have outperformed Paul Rodgers on a two world tour course ? Not so sure, so let's be grateful for Paul "Hmmmm wanna rock and roll tonight baby" Rodgers ;-P

Freddie was unique and had a vocal range and also a stylistic range as wide as hardly anybody else has.
The Tribute was proof enough how many big singers had problems stepping in his shoes even just for one song.

So any choice of a singer would have been a compromise.
And Paul Rodgers definitely was a good compromise. People who were there have seen it and they had a very entertaining evening. Probably the last chance of a Queen concert with as much original members as possible.

Those who still cry out against him - and it's already years ago and absolutely pointless - have not been there and definitely would have complained about anybody....

Holly2003 wrote: AlbaNo1 wrote: I cant understand the fascination with George Michael as a guest lead singer of Queen songs. He has two modes - pure dancey pop or ballads. Queen live was usually a lot more straight forward a rock performance than the complexity and range of the records so Id have to take someone who was in Free over someone who was in Wham. George Michael would be more suited to being in the musical .

Right. That explains why he sung Somebody to Love so badly at the Tribute Concert. lol
     Im not saying he wouldnt be good on some of the songs , but could you imagine him turning his hand to We Will Rock You (fast version) or Sheer Heart Attack? And to be honest while he hit and held all the notes at the Tribute I dont find has voice to have that much character.

To each their own I guess.  I find George Michael's voice to be one of the most rich and expressive in pop music ever.

I hope they make another European tour!

Tony

My webpage: http://xoomer.alice.it/tonyhomepage

I thought the comments made by Paul Rodgers were interesting.
I read an interview with Brian some time ago in which he said that by the time the Queen+PR tour had reached south America they decided that they should call it a day to save their friendship!
It's interesting in this thread, that most people seem to be pointing the finger at PR or BM.
A few facts no one here seems to be aware of are...
During the first tour there was a point where Roger Taylor wasn't happy with Paul's input. 
At some of those shows, Paul was leaving the stage for Brian or Roger to become the vocalist, not a planned part of the show.
During the cosmos tour PR was spending almost no time with 'The Queen Organisation' back stage. At a party after one of the London shows he and his wife left immediately after thee show. 
Queen had Jeff Scott Soto on standby in case PR decided not to go on, or asked to leave!
Paul Rogers has never spent long periods of time, apart from Bad Co, in bands. 
I don't think being part of something bigger than him is really his thing. I think he is aware that Queen may be thinking about some live work again. The idea of playing some big shows may be appealing.
The only show Queen will play this year will be a private PMT gig in September.
Hopefully there will be a tour next year. My guess is that Jeff Scott Soto will be ton the short list. He has the range and knowlege to cope with the songs and the size of the audiences Queen play to.

I really doubt they had Jeff Scott Soto on stand-by.

Vocal harmony wrote: I read an interview with Brian some time ago in which he said that by the time the Queen+PR tour had reached south America they decided that they should call it a day to save their friendship!

During the first tour there was a point where Roger Taylor wasn't happy with Paul's input. 

At some of those shows, Paul was leaving the stage for Brian or Roger to become the vocalist, not a planned part of the show.

Queen had Jeff Scott Soto on standby in case PR decided not to go on, or asked to leave!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you provide any sources for this info?