mooghead wrote "I remember this argument from 10 years ago. Yawn."
Yawn if you want to, but for many this is unfinished business.
dagi
Thread
Posts in chronological order
GratefulFan
And it's not necessarily the same argument it was 10 or 15 years ago either, because at the time the prevailing factor was likely John's departure. That's well in the past now and they've done other things since as Queen and people have had time to asses how that feels.
Robbieboy
Queenman!!
pffffff.
# Deaf and Blind
# The Fox Taylors or Badger Cupping
# Money Milkers
# Deaf and Blind
# The Fox Taylors or Badger Cupping
# Money Milkers
Wijnand
Amazon wrote: How about May/Taylor? Or May & Taylor? I don't think they should call themselves anything fancy, and I certainly don't think they should call themselves Queen. That name should have died when John departed 14 years ago.
1. Freddie, Brian, Roger & John = Queen
2. Brian, Roger & John = Queen
3. Brian and Roger = not Queen
I don't get the difference between 2 and 3...
1. Freddie, Brian, Roger & John = Queen
2. Brian, Roger & John = Queen
3. Brian and Roger = not Queen
I don't get the difference between 2 and 3...
dagi
Champion wrote:
1. Freddie, Brian, Roger & John = Queen
2. Brian, Roger & John = Queen
3. Brian and Roger = not Queen I
don't get the difference between 2 and 3...
-----
There is no difference, they shouldn't have called themselves Queen for No One But You (Only the Good Die Young).
Perhaps the one mitigating factor is that at least when JD was involved, it was essentially *all* the surviving members of the band.
1. Freddie, Brian, Roger & John = Queen
2. Brian, Roger & John = Queen
3. Brian and Roger = not Queen I
don't get the difference between 2 and 3...
-----
There is no difference, they shouldn't have called themselves Queen for No One But You (Only the Good Die Young).
Perhaps the one mitigating factor is that at least when JD was involved, it was essentially *all* the surviving members of the band.
queenboot
Ernie and Bert....
Pingfah
dagi wrote:
Your answer says it all.
The use of the Queen name should only be used with Deacon / May / Mercury / Taylor material (i.e. 1971 to 1991 + posthumous recordings).
The band have a golden legacy and until Brian and Roger took leave of their senses, the Queen name had always been publicly associated with the four member group.
If Cosmos Rocks had been given a different name, I doubt it would have sold much less because it predominantly appealed to hard core fans - but by issuing it under a different name, the reputation of "Queen" would have survived relatively unscathed.
I speak as a (largely disillusioned) fan who has the complete Queen catalogue, all solo CDs and saw the band + solo members live. I take no pleasure from this.
May and Taylor should hang their heads in shame.
_____________________________________________________________________
Well i'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you don't get to say what Brian & Roger "should" do with their own intellectual property. And i'd like to see you kowtowing to what some bunch of whiners think when somebody tells you that you should abandon performing under a brand you spent 40 years building.
It's just sheer arrogance and entitlement on your part, i'm afraid. They should do what YOU think because you spent a few quid on the records they spent most of their lives making. Yeah, right.
Your answer says it all.
The use of the Queen name should only be used with Deacon / May / Mercury / Taylor material (i.e. 1971 to 1991 + posthumous recordings).
The band have a golden legacy and until Brian and Roger took leave of their senses, the Queen name had always been publicly associated with the four member group.
If Cosmos Rocks had been given a different name, I doubt it would have sold much less because it predominantly appealed to hard core fans - but by issuing it under a different name, the reputation of "Queen" would have survived relatively unscathed.
I speak as a (largely disillusioned) fan who has the complete Queen catalogue, all solo CDs and saw the band + solo members live. I take no pleasure from this.
May and Taylor should hang their heads in shame.
_____________________________________________________________________
Well i'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you don't get to say what Brian & Roger "should" do with their own intellectual property. And i'd like to see you kowtowing to what some bunch of whiners think when somebody tells you that you should abandon performing under a brand you spent 40 years building.
It's just sheer arrogance and entitlement on your part, i'm afraid. They should do what YOU think because you spent a few quid on the records they spent most of their lives making. Yeah, right.
AlexRocks
Queen, oh, and they need to start touring and recording again...
paulosham
They should call themselves No Deacon
Sheer Brass Neck
Pingfah and everyone else who doesn't get it, I think everyone understands that they can call themselves what they want because they've earned it, lived it for 40 years etc. And I wish that you'd understand that if people don't agree they have the right to voice that. Isn't this part of the Queenzone forum? Do we only comment on things that are positive to the band? I have a question for all of the people who believe in Brian and Roger using the name while dallying about with Britney
Spears, Robbie Williams, the cast of American Idol et al. If John Deacon is the last surviving member and takes his buddy from Hot Chocolate out as the singer, and the guys from Morris Minor and the Majors as the other musicians and they play the music of Queen as a 70s funk band: is that band Queen or is it not Queen? Love to hear answers and rationalizations.
Spears, Robbie Williams, the cast of American Idol et al. If John Deacon is the last surviving member and takes his buddy from Hot Chocolate out as the singer, and the guys from Morris Minor and the Majors as the other musicians and they play the music of Queen as a 70s funk band: is that band Queen or is it not Queen? Love to hear answers and rationalizations.
Amazon
Pingfah wrote: "Well i'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you don't get to say what Brian & Roger "should" do with their own intellectual property. And i'd like to see you kowtowing to what some bunch of whiners think when somebody tells you that you should abandon performing under a brand you spent 40 years building.
It's just sheer arrogance and entitlement on your part, i'm afraid. They should do what YOU think because you spent a few quid on the records they spent most of their lives making. Yeah, right."
You do realize this is an internet site? Everybody here are perfectly aware that Brian & Roger couldn't care less what we think, but that doesn't mean we don't have the right to comment.
Plus, if we can't complain, then you have no right to offer them support. Afterall, how can Brian & Roger reject criticism from internet users, but accept support from an internet user? You can't have it both ways, and as for being 'whiners', we don't have to like every move they make. Unless you think that being a fan equals complete submission, in which case, I have an entirely different definition of fan to you.
It's just sheer arrogance and entitlement on your part, i'm afraid. They should do what YOU think because you spent a few quid on the records they spent most of their lives making. Yeah, right."
You do realize this is an internet site? Everybody here are perfectly aware that Brian & Roger couldn't care less what we think, but that doesn't mean we don't have the right to comment.
Plus, if we can't complain, then you have no right to offer them support. Afterall, how can Brian & Roger reject criticism from internet users, but accept support from an internet user? You can't have it both ways, and as for being 'whiners', we don't have to like every move they make. Unless you think that being a fan equals complete submission, in which case, I have an entirely different definition of fan to you.
Pingfah
Sheer Brass Neck wrote:Pingfah and everyone else who doesn't get it, I think everyone understands that they can call themselves what they want because they've earned it, lived it for 40 years etc. And I wish that you'd understand that if people don't agree they have the right to voice that. Isn't this part of the Queenzone forum? Do we only comment on things that are positive to the band? I have a question for all of the people who believe in Brian and Roger using the name while dallying about with Britney
Spears, Robbie Williams, the cast of American Idol et al. If John Deacon is the last surviving member and takes his buddy from Hot Chocolate out as the singer, and the guys from Morris Minor and the Majors as the other musicians and they play the music of Queen as a 70s funk band: is that band Queen or is it not Queen? Love to hear answers and rationalizations.
_______________________________________________________________________________
I wouldn't consider it to be the same band, and I don't consider Bri & Rog to be the same band either, certainly not the band I loved.
But neither would I begrudge them using their intellectual property and spend my time whining and pointing my finger at them on the internet, cause it's none of my business.
Spears, Robbie Williams, the cast of American Idol et al. If John Deacon is the last surviving member and takes his buddy from Hot Chocolate out as the singer, and the guys from Morris Minor and the Majors as the other musicians and they play the music of Queen as a 70s funk band: is that band Queen or is it not Queen? Love to hear answers and rationalizations.
_______________________________________________________________________________
I wouldn't consider it to be the same band, and I don't consider Bri & Rog to be the same band either, certainly not the band I loved.
But neither would I begrudge them using their intellectual property and spend my time whining and pointing my finger at them on the internet, cause it's none of my business.
Amazon
GratefulFan wrote: "Why? His decision to leave doesn't seem like sufficient reason to arbitrarily strip the remaining members of the baby and brand they raised for 15 years. They look like Queen, as far as possible considering a dead lead vocalist they sound like Queen, and they feel like Queen. They're Queen, and I think the Queen+ monikers were exactly the right approach, even if I didn't always like what came after the +."
For me, it comes down to maths. All four original members are of course Queen, I consider original three members to be Queen, however with two or less original members (for instance, if Brian recruited a new vocalist, drummer & bass player), it doesn't seem like Queen anymore.
I'm not a Queen fan who was horrified that Brian & Roger teamed up with Paul Rodgers (while I don't have the album as I wasn't particularly impressed by it, what horrified and traumatized me was the WWRY musical), but I look at it and I think 'two members? Is that really Queen?' It's like if Paul plays with Ringo at the Olympics next year. Are they the Beatles?
What I would have loved was if Brian, Roger, and John had continued following Freddie's death, with Brian & Roger handling lead vocals. While it mightn't have sold so well, I would have bought it as soon as it was released. :D Anyway, I never believed that Queen ended with Freddie's death (I revere him, but he wasn't Queen), however when John left, they ceased being Queen for me, as it's just half the band.
There are some groups (such as the Rolling Stones), who forge their identity based on just two members, or perhaps even one (such as Van Halen), but with Queen, all four members were pretty important. If John and Roger had left, I don't think that Freddie & Brian would equal Queen either, as the contributions of Roger and John are too significant to ignore.
For me, it comes down to maths. All four original members are of course Queen, I consider original three members to be Queen, however with two or less original members (for instance, if Brian recruited a new vocalist, drummer & bass player), it doesn't seem like Queen anymore.
I'm not a Queen fan who was horrified that Brian & Roger teamed up with Paul Rodgers (while I don't have the album as I wasn't particularly impressed by it, what horrified and traumatized me was the WWRY musical), but I look at it and I think 'two members? Is that really Queen?' It's like if Paul plays with Ringo at the Olympics next year. Are they the Beatles?
What I would have loved was if Brian, Roger, and John had continued following Freddie's death, with Brian & Roger handling lead vocals. While it mightn't have sold so well, I would have bought it as soon as it was released. :D Anyway, I never believed that Queen ended with Freddie's death (I revere him, but he wasn't Queen), however when John left, they ceased being Queen for me, as it's just half the band.
There are some groups (such as the Rolling Stones), who forge their identity based on just two members, or perhaps even one (such as Van Halen), but with Queen, all four members were pretty important. If John and Roger had left, I don't think that Freddie & Brian would equal Queen either, as the contributions of Roger and John are too significant to ignore.
Pingfah
Amazon wrote:
You do realize this is an internet site? Everybody here are perfectly aware that Brian & Roger couldn't care less what we think, but that doesn't mean we don't have the right to comment.
Plus, if we can't complain, then you have no right to offer them support. Afterall, how can Brian & Roger reject criticism from internet users, but accept support from an internet user? You can't have it both ways, and as for being 'whiners', we don't have to like every move they make. Unless you think that being a fan equals complete submission, in which case, I have an entirely different definition of fan to you.
_________________________________________________________
OK fair enough, I didn't mean that we have to agree with everything they do, but I guess I don't understand the level of annoyance about it only being Bri & Rog. It's sweating the small stuff. If people are concerned about the Queen legacy they should be more worried about the fact that The Cosmos Rocks sucked.
You do realize this is an internet site? Everybody here are perfectly aware that Brian & Roger couldn't care less what we think, but that doesn't mean we don't have the right to comment.
Plus, if we can't complain, then you have no right to offer them support. Afterall, how can Brian & Roger reject criticism from internet users, but accept support from an internet user? You can't have it both ways, and as for being 'whiners', we don't have to like every move they make. Unless you think that being a fan equals complete submission, in which case, I have an entirely different definition of fan to you.
_________________________________________________________
OK fair enough, I didn't mean that we have to agree with everything they do, but I guess I don't understand the level of annoyance about it only being Bri & Rog. It's sweating the small stuff. If people are concerned about the Queen legacy they should be more worried about the fact that The Cosmos Rocks sucked.