FriedChicken wrote:
I'd also pick The Cosmos Rocks over 50% of the Queen albums, and the Cosmos tour over every 1980-1986 Queen show.
Poor boy...
antiden
Thread
Posts in chronological order
DaveyLane
dagi wrote: I'm pleased that QPR is no more.
The tour, album and the reckless use of the Queen name caused untold damage to the band's reputation and catalogue.
The sad thing is that I suspect no lessons have been learnt from this episode and BM / RT will continue to work as Queen in the future.
Won't they ever learn?
How did Q&PR damage Queen's catalogue? I don't hear anyone lamenting News Of The World because Paul Rodgers sung We Are The Champions......
The tour, album and the reckless use of the Queen name caused untold damage to the band's reputation and catalogue.
The sad thing is that I suspect no lessons have been learnt from this episode and BM / RT will continue to work as Queen in the future.
Won't they ever learn?
How did Q&PR damage Queen's catalogue? I don't hear anyone lamenting News Of The World because Paul Rodgers sung We Are The Champions......
ct0409
To stay on topic- this is from Bravewords.com:
"According to ContactMusic, Paul Rodgers may tour with Queen again. The vocalist joined Brian May and Roger Taylor to tour as Queen + Paul Rodgers between 2005 and 2009, and while they have all been working on other projects since, the vocalist hasn't ruled out performing with the band again.
When asked if he would tour again with Queen, Rodgers said: "We may do. We left it because we all wanted to do different things. We toured the world twice and after the studio album I didn't feel like there was a lot more we could do. We didn't want to do it forever, but I enjoyed playing the role for a while, so we'll see.""
So QPR is not dead - which will anger some....so let the whining continue;-)
"According to ContactMusic, Paul Rodgers may tour with Queen again. The vocalist joined Brian May and Roger Taylor to tour as Queen + Paul Rodgers between 2005 and 2009, and while they have all been working on other projects since, the vocalist hasn't ruled out performing with the band again.
When asked if he would tour again with Queen, Rodgers said: "We may do. We left it because we all wanted to do different things. We toured the world twice and after the studio album I didn't feel like there was a lot more we could do. We didn't want to do it forever, but I enjoyed playing the role for a while, so we'll see.""
So QPR is not dead - which will anger some....so let the whining continue;-)
Doga
I think at some point they were tired, bu maybe with the passage of time they have could appreciate the collaboration. They do great things. The gig in Kharkiv in front of 350000 was historic, and for all those purist who blame them for name the band Queen + PR... well it was for marketing, thanks to this they had much more demand of tickets and the media focused in their tours than if his name was May + Taylor + Rodgers. Anyway the album could be better... but it fantastic to see again Brian & Roger on stage. Paul is brilliant too
The Real Wizard
e-man wrote:
are no one interested in why the fact that they split up despite claiming otherwise?
================
Nobody really knows.. there is only speculation. A lot of people seem to think there was some friction between Brian and Paul.
For anyone who dismissed the QPR thing and didn't bother seeing the shows because Freddie wasn't there ... you missed seeing half of Queen. Your loss... and an incredible experience for just about everyone else.
are no one interested in why the fact that they split up despite claiming otherwise?
================
Nobody really knows.. there is only speculation. A lot of people seem to think there was some friction between Brian and Paul.
For anyone who dismissed the QPR thing and didn't bother seeing the shows because Freddie wasn't there ... you missed seeing half of Queen. Your loss... and an incredible experience for just about everyone else.
moonie
Yeah I totally agree with Sir GH. I saw them at Newcastle on both Tours. I enjoyed it for what it was. Some of my favourite music, played by some of my favourite musicians & sang by one of my favourite singers. I've seen Queen with Freddie. Magnificent. Sadly, He's not here to be able to do it..I'm glad they did it. I admit TCR didn't really do it for me, but so what? The gigs where great.
Levon Thyme
I agree with GH...I only got to see Queen with Freddie once on the Hot Space tour. They never came back to the U.S. Q+PR was a chance to see two of my favorite musicians play dozens of my favorite songs...with a really good singer. Between the two tours I saw them 10 times (8 in the UK). If they ever do it again, I'll go again. If it's the only way to see founding members of Queen perform the music of Queen, sign me up.
The Real Wizard
Levon Thyme wrote:
"I only got to see Queen with Freddie once on the Hot Space tour."
Lucky you. Which show did you see?
"I only got to see Queen with Freddie once on the Hot Space tour."
Lucky you. Which show did you see?
alaynasusan
Sir GH wrote: Um, it's their band that they created. Who are you to say how they should use their own band name?
A legacy is not something that can be tampered with. It's not like something from 2008 can make something from 1975 disappear.
With that logic, the following things should have disappeared decades ago:
Yes, Genesis, Supertramp, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Chicago.
But they haven't. Music transcends people, and Brian and Roger understand that. Bands will exist for as long as founding members of the bands exist (and who knows, maybe even afterward, like Yes may soon be - only Chris Squire is left). Queen are not exempt.
Um, it's not THEIR band solely. Queen is four members. I've always been a firm believer in that if one member leaves, the use of the band name should be discontinued. With the lead fucking singer passed on for twenty years now, and John officially departing in '97, what is left? Some bands shuffle through members and retain the name which is fine, but Queen never did that and to start several decades later was irresponsible. I have no desire whatsoever to hear Paul Rodgers sing a Queen song, but even for people who are, why not call themselves Rodgers, May and Taylor?
With as involved as each member was in the band and not one member being inactive in writing, it would be like Ringo and McCartney having a Beatles reunion. Certainly they would have the right to, being "founding members", but it doesn't make it appropriate.
I have nothing against Roger Taylor or Brian May, I just have no interest in seeing or hearing Paul Rodgers + Queen and I feel like they're just sucking everything out of Queen that they can before it becomes truly pathetic. I understand this isn't really a reply to the poster, more of a rebuttal to Sir GH.
A legacy is not something that can be tampered with. It's not like something from 2008 can make something from 1975 disappear.
With that logic, the following things should have disappeared decades ago:
Yes, Genesis, Supertramp, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Chicago.
But they haven't. Music transcends people, and Brian and Roger understand that. Bands will exist for as long as founding members of the bands exist (and who knows, maybe even afterward, like Yes may soon be - only Chris Squire is left). Queen are not exempt.
Um, it's not THEIR band solely. Queen is four members. I've always been a firm believer in that if one member leaves, the use of the band name should be discontinued. With the lead fucking singer passed on for twenty years now, and John officially departing in '97, what is left? Some bands shuffle through members and retain the name which is fine, but Queen never did that and to start several decades later was irresponsible. I have no desire whatsoever to hear Paul Rodgers sing a Queen song, but even for people who are, why not call themselves Rodgers, May and Taylor?
With as involved as each member was in the band and not one member being inactive in writing, it would be like Ringo and McCartney having a Beatles reunion. Certainly they would have the right to, being "founding members", but it doesn't make it appropriate.
I have nothing against Roger Taylor or Brian May, I just have no interest in seeing or hearing Paul Rodgers + Queen and I feel like they're just sucking everything out of Queen that they can before it becomes truly pathetic. I understand this isn't really a reply to the poster, more of a rebuttal to Sir GH.
Levon Thyme
GH: It was Denver, August 30th, 1982.
Togg
Personnally speaking having first goty into Queen in 75 and then seens them live from 80 onwards a number of times right through to the latest Q+PR tour I would say in many ways they played better in the Q+PR tours then they did in the early 80's
there is no doubt in my mind the 86 tour was the best but I loved the Q+PR stuff
I am very happy to see them out on the road in whatever form, dont care if they call it Queen or anything else it's nonesense and as other have said it's their band not ours so they can do what they like, Freddie said you can do anything with the music so he gave his blessing to whatever they decide to do.
I suspect the last tour was too difficult for Brian, he hates being away from home too long and it was obvious that the relationship between him and Paul was not great each being very forcefull people. so I am sad it finished as I felt it had more life in it, but whatever... I hope they come out again one more time, dont care who sings so long as 'They' are happy with the choice... THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS.
there is no doubt in my mind the 86 tour was the best but I loved the Q+PR stuff
I am very happy to see them out on the road in whatever form, dont care if they call it Queen or anything else it's nonesense and as other have said it's their band not ours so they can do what they like, Freddie said you can do anything with the music so he gave his blessing to whatever they decide to do.
I suspect the last tour was too difficult for Brian, he hates being away from home too long and it was obvious that the relationship between him and Paul was not great each being very forcefull people. so I am sad it finished as I felt it had more life in it, but whatever... I hope they come out again one more time, dont care who sings so long as 'They' are happy with the choice... THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS.
FriedChicken
and what makes a Queen reunion, or a Beatles reunion less appropriate than a The Who, Black Sabbath or Pink Floyd
reunion?
Exactly... your personal preference and your emotion!
reunion?
Exactly... your personal preference and your emotion!
thomasquinn 32989
mooghead wrote: Yes but the early incarnations are always best. Ask any fan of those bands who the best line ups where and/or when the best music was made. I think we all know what the answer would be.
====
Yeah, every Deep Purple fan will surely name the first lineup as their favorite, and From Genesis to Revelations is every Genesis fan's farvorite....
Your theory doesn't hold water.
====
Yeah, every Deep Purple fan will surely name the first lineup as their favorite, and From Genesis to Revelations is every Genesis fan's farvorite....
Your theory doesn't hold water.
The Real Wizard
alaynasusan wrote:
"Um, it's not THEIR band solely. Queen is four members."
No, Queen WAS four members, until 11/24/1991.
"I've always been a firm believer in that if one member leaves, the use of the band name should be discontinued."
But why is that so important to you? When they perform as Queen, they are performing Queen songs. If they wrote three records of new material and toured playing only those new songs, then it would make sense that they would need to change the band name to reflect their changes.
Deep Purple is still Deep Purple without Ritchie Blackmore. Music is bigger than people. The name represents the music and/or the personnel. If Yes can continue on a hundred years from now, then they will. If the music transcends the bounds of time, why should the name change?
Queen's popularity has not waned in the slightest - they played to about a million people between 2005-08. They were condemned by many for playing a "greatest hits" setlist, and these same people condemned them for playing only four songs written by Mercury. But if they could compile a greatest hits setlist comprised primarily of songs written by the other members, then we can therefore conclude that Queen was bigger than Freddie Mercury.
"Um, it's not THEIR band solely. Queen is four members."
No, Queen WAS four members, until 11/24/1991.
"I've always been a firm believer in that if one member leaves, the use of the band name should be discontinued."
But why is that so important to you? When they perform as Queen, they are performing Queen songs. If they wrote three records of new material and toured playing only those new songs, then it would make sense that they would need to change the band name to reflect their changes.
Deep Purple is still Deep Purple without Ritchie Blackmore. Music is bigger than people. The name represents the music and/or the personnel. If Yes can continue on a hundred years from now, then they will. If the music transcends the bounds of time, why should the name change?
Queen's popularity has not waned in the slightest - they played to about a million people between 2005-08. They were condemned by many for playing a "greatest hits" setlist, and these same people condemned them for playing only four songs written by Mercury. But if they could compile a greatest hits setlist comprised primarily of songs written by the other members, then we can therefore conclude that Queen was bigger than Freddie Mercury.
The Real Wizard
Levon Thyme wrote:
GH: It was Denver, August 30th, 1982.
================
Do you recall much about the show? August 1982 is really an anomaly in Queen history... very little is known.
30 years is a long time, so memories may be hazy. But I just wonder, did they play The Hero, Liar?
GH: It was Denver, August 30th, 1982.
================
Do you recall much about the show? August 1982 is really an anomaly in Queen history... very little is known.
30 years is a long time, so memories may be hazy. But I just wonder, did they play The Hero, Liar?