Which name would you like BM and RT to call themselves?

The question was.. " Which name would you like BM and RT to call themselves?" Can a thread on this website be kept light hearted for once? We all know anything we say here is absolutely, unbelievably irrelevant.

I think they should be called Shaggy and Scooby. (we all know which one is shaggy..)

Given their association with the brand, their age, their status.....there is no way that they would use anything but the Queen name. They have no need to think otherwise.

Laurel & Hardy

"Two and a half band"
(Brian, Roger, Spike)

Pingfah wrote: "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."


Except it's symbolic. Names are not just names. They conjure up memories, and they become an intrinsic part of the artist. The Beatles wouldn't be the same if at one point, they changed their name to the Grasshoppers. At least, not to me.

"If people are concerned about the Queen legacy they should be more worried about the fact that The Cosmos Rocks sucked."

Personally, I just ignore it as I don't consider it to be a proper Queen album. What distressed me much more, however, was the WWRY musical. God, that was horrible. I love musicals, and I adore Queen, however it was a match made in hell.

The Paul Rodgers Tribute Experience.

Amazon wrote:

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.
=============================

But Brian and Roger quite deliberately haven't recruited a permanent new vocalist and bassist, so having to wonder if that would seem like Queen anymore is not something we have to sort out. To the significant contrary they have avoided that and spent likely tens of thousands of written and spoken words keeping the legacies of both Freddie and - to their credit all things considered - John, alive and present.  Back in the early 90's even they didn't feel like Queen anymore. Grief and a previously expressed certainty that they never would be should any one of them be gone indicated that that would be the end of that.  But time and perspective seems to have seen them come out of that life altering period and subsequent years that brought even more changes feeling, perhaps ever so tentatively at first, that they just might still feel like themselves after all.  Knowing Brian particularly it probably wouldn't have been without a lot of conversation and a lot of angst. Really, who are we to second guess something like this?  I'm happy to complain about some of the things that they've done as Queen, but not whether they are Queen, which is something I figure they know better than I do.

Grateful Fan has pretty much covered the reasons for why Queen is still Roger and Brian's band name.

A lot of it comes down to context. Comparisons and hypothetical scenarios are inherently flawed. Arguments about why if B&R are *now* Queen, why wasn't, say, "How Can I Go On" (with F&J) considered a Queen track fails to take into the account the context by which the Barcelona album was created (for example). The same goes for suggestions like "What if [J or B or R] started a band by themselves...?" We could argue rationals for and against, but it's all academic since it hasn't happened. And neither side will be able to factor in every variable ("Yeah, but what about [x]...?").

In short (too late, I know), after 1991, the line up of Queen changed. Whether we accept it or not, that's what happened. At the risk of comparing, these things do happen to bands. It would be nice and tidy if the band either broke up then (or in 1995), or if they renamed themselves. They didn't. That's their right. 

The way I look at it, there are different eras of Queen:

Pre-Queen: the Reaction, 1984, Ibex/Wreckage, Smile, Larry Lurex, etc.
Early Queen: B & R & F & Mike Gross or Dougie Boogie, etc.
Classic Queen: B & R & F & J
Current Queen: B & R [& J]

What is currently Queen may change again, at which point I'll reclassify that period and whatever the current Queen incarnation will be separate from what happened before.

Fair enough RhyeKing.  So when John Deacon, Errol Brown from Hot Chocolate, John McEnroe (who has jammed with Deacon) and the guy who programs the drums for Human League go on (hypothetical) tour it's Queen, correct?  B & R can call themselves Queen forever (as can John Deacon if he tours or records with anyone), the spirit and what the band stood for are long gone.  That's why I don't see it as Queen, name issues aside.

Sheer Brass Neck wrote: Fair enough RhyeKing.  So when John Deacon, Errol Brown from Hot Chocolate, John McEnroe (who has jammed with Deacon) and the guy who programs the drums for Human League go on (hypothetical) tour it's Queen, correct?  B & R can call themselves Queen forever (as can John Deacon if he tours or records with anyone), the spirit and what the band stood for are long gone.  That's why I don't see it as Queen, name issues aside.
********************************************

If that were to happen, we'd have to look at what circumstances came about (the aforementioned context) so that John arrived at the decision to continue to use Queen's moniker. Since this is hypothetical, we can't possibly conceive every  of every line of reasoning for or against, but in broad strokes, he might get a pass if, perhaps, the following happened:

a) EB is brought in as a permanent member of Queen, with the line-up being: B & R & J & EB
b) At some later point, Brian retires, or falls ill, so the line-up is: R & J & EB
c) JM is brought in (R & J & EB & JM)
d) Roger quits to reform The Cross, leaving only J & EB & JM & Human League guy to do tour drum programming

My point in the example is not whether they should or shouldn't, but to demonstrate that, basically, things change. 

If John were to suddenly come out of retirement and want to record an album as Queen, with guest artists, well, who are we to argue that he *can't* call himself Queen? Really, Brian and Roger would be the only two with a legit claim that he maybe shouldn't. If they weren't around, or didn't care, I suppose it would be controversial among fans, but these things do happen to bands too. There is no one answer. Meat Loaf and Jim Steinman went to court over who had the rights to the title "Bat Out Of Hell." We should maybe feel lucky that B & R & J all agree and that there aren't messy legal actions between them (and Freddie's Estate, too).

At that point, it becomes personal preference, like fans of a book hating the movie adaptation. Neither is more right in his/her position, because they're unique representations. Queen at the time of F & B & R & J is different (line up and output-wise) from it's current incarnation (B & R [& J]). I personally don't think one trumps the other.

GratefulFan wrote: "But Brian and Roger quite deliberately haven't recruited a permanent new vocalist and bassist, so having to wonder if that would seem like Queen anymore is not something we have to sort out. To the significant contrary they have avoided that and spent likely tens of thousands of written and spoken words keeping the legacies of both Freddie and - to their credit all things considered - John, alive and present. Back in the early 90's even they didn't feel like Queen anymore. Grief and a previously expressed certainty that they never would be should any one of them be gone indicated that that would be the end of that. But time and perspective seems to have seen them come out of that life altering period and subsequent years that brought even more changes feeling, perhaps ever so tentatively at first, that they just might still feel like themselves after all. Knowing Brian particularly it probably wouldn't have been without a lot of conversation and a lot of angst. Really, who are we to second guess something like this? I'm happy to complain about some of the things that they've done as Queen, but not whether they are Queen, which is something I figure they know better than I do."

A few introductory comments:

First, I want to make clear that this isn't really a big deal for me. I'm no longer as passionate as I once was about 'protecting' my favourite art. I used to passionately care, but now, I'm much more accepting, and so quite honestly their using the name doesn't really concern me. I don't like it, but I would never boycott Queen over their still using the name, especially when I didn't boycott them in response to the WWRY musical (which I hated, and which IMO was a much bigger desecration of the Queen name than their still using it).

Second, my perspective is probably different to yours as you've been a Queen fan longer than I have. While I was always aware of their biggest hits and most famous songs (WWRY, WATC, Bo Rhap etc...), I didn't really become a Queen fan until years after Freddie had died. So I can't really comment on what it would have been like when they were facing the question of whether to continue or not. The collaboration with Paul Rodgers marked the first time that I had to ask myself if they should still be using the name.

Anyway, the way I look at it is that legally, practically, Brian and Roger have every right to decide for themselves whether to continue to use the name- which I don't question- however beyond that, I have the right to question them, which I do.

For me, as a fan, a name of a group is of massive importance. It's a symbol of the group's brilliance, represents my memories, and in many cases, has a deep or particular meaning that can not be divorced from the artist, such as The Doors or Guns 'N Roses (which was named after two previous groups but still counts), and Queen. One of Freddie's greatest non-musical decisions IMO was convincing Brian and Roger to choose the name Queen.

When it comes to art (painting, cinema, music, literature etc...), I believe that once it is out there, the artist doesn't have the same moral ownership that they had if they didn't release/publish/sell it. George Lucas has the legal and actual right to do whatever he want to Star Wars, however I think the fans have a moral right to question him. It doesn't mean, of course, that he'll listen. Similarly, I think there is a degree of co-ownership over the name. While Brian and Roger will call Queen whatever they want, that does not mean that fans have to consider the post-Freddie/John versions to be 'Queen'. Does that mean we are second-guessing them? Perhaps, but I think it's our right to do so, just as they have the actual right to ignore us.

I've always felt that fandom can become a messy a business when it comes to things like this. The music means something very specific to the listener individually, whether it's a song that perfectly describes how they feel or it's the right song at the right time that is loaded with pleasant memories for them. That connection carries weight for the fan, and that's great, and it's a natural reaction. The problems come from that turning into possessiveness ("fan" derives from "fanatic" for a reason).

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

Revert back to the Smile name & get Tim Staffell back on board.....As It Began.......................

"Queen"
Period, end of discussion.