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?
I wish I had written some things down! I do remember that they opened with "The Hero" . We heard re-recorded "Flash" while the lights moved around, then they were on stage for "The Hero" I'm pretty sure that they didn't do "Liar". It was an amazing show but I remember feeling like it was a little short. I was only 17 at the time and a lot of it has slipped away on me.
Levon Thyme · Member since
sorry, pre-recorded, not "re-recorded."...just the studio version.
alaynasusan · Member since
FriedChicken wrote: 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!
Absolutely, my personal preference and emotion. That's what makes it less appropriate :-)
I just don't like when bands missing a significant amount of members go by the same name as when they were complete, ESPECIALLY with Queen.
alaynasusan · Member since
Sir GH wrote: 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.
It's important simply because half the band is gone and the name Queen stays. I must be in the minority here, and that's fine. But what if it was just Roger Taylor or JUST Brian May? Then would it be okay to either of them Queen? If not, then is it simply math? As long as half the band is present, the name is retained? I have no problem with them playing huge shows and doing well, they could rerecord every Queen song for all I care. I just personally don't like them using the Queen name on all of it. It offends me, dear =-)
