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

"Queen"
Period, end of discussion. 

Awesome work A Winter's Prophet!  Seven posts and you've put an end to the most contentious and long running topic on QZ.  Can't see anyone disagreeing with your statement, well played!

I disagree and so do I suspect many original fans.

It seems to be that those who wish to see the use of the "Queen" name continuing, are young jonny-come-latelys who discovered the band post 1991.

dagi wrote: "It seems to be that those who wish to see the use of the "Queen" name continuing, are young jonny-come-latelys who discovered the band post 1991."


That's not entirely accurate. While I wouldn't describe myself as a 'jonny-come-lately', I did discover the band post-1991, and I certainly do not want to see the use of the name continuing. Especially after I saw the dreadful WWRY musical.

how about calling themselves queen 2.0 been as some people are moaning not me!
 queen will always been QUEEN

The name for Brian and Roger?

It's pretty obvious:

Four members: Queen

Three members: Jack

Two members: TEN

They could tour as "Brian May and Roger Taylor."  That says it all for me.

They should call it "Tailor Made"

Does this kind of discussion happen in any other fan forums for groups who have lost original members?

Journey, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Supertramp, Chicago and Metallica have all done very well for themselves after losing original members.  Why should it be any different for Queen?

Because Queen weren't any of those groups.  They are part of the holy trinity with the kings of pop being The Beatles, the kings of rock Led Zeppelin and Queen splitting the difference as kings of pop rock.  When those groups lost members they disbanded, as their members were irreplaceable.  I don't think anyone would argue otherwise.  Freddie Mercury was irreplaceable, John Deacon maybe replaceable but not without altering the DNA of the sound.  I believe in sound over the name, so I can't see any resemblance to "Queen" without those guys.  Not really worried about the name.

Sheer Brass Neck wrote: Because Queen weren't any of those groups.  They are part of the holy trinity with the kings of pop being The Beatles, the kings of rock Led Zeppelin and Queen splitting the difference as kings of pop rock.  When those groups lost members they disbanded, as their members were irreplaceable.  I don't think anyone would argue otherwise.  Freddie Mercury was irreplaceable, John Deacon maybe replaceable but not without altering the DNA of the sound.  I believe in sound over the name, so I can't see any resemblance to "Queen" without those guys.  Not really worried about the name.

Good point. Although I wouldn't underestimate Mr Deacon's talents - who knows what would happen if ANOBTD or IWTBF never were? They really were career changing hits. As for the name, I think they entered an age when forming a new band doesn't make much sense really, so I would probably go for "Brian May and Roger Taylor" ("of Queen" added on merchandise). Many people recognise Brian anyway, so wouldn't worry too much. And yes, calling themselves "Queen" is rather far-fetched imo.

I don't underestimate John Deacon k-m, you are right, he is an enormous part of Queen and the sound, and a more highly regarded (Billy Sheehan, Chris Squire maybe) player would have altered the sound immensely as he played for the song.  The argument is old (but always engaging!) about who Queen are or were.  Let's put it this way.  The Beatles and Zep's legacies were the legacies of their band.  Queen's chasing a sales/popularity legacy, and opened themselves up to criticism or questioning by carrying on.  Because let's be honest.  Paul Rodgers is a wonderful singer, one of the greats.  It's guesswork on my part, but I really don't think that Beatles fans would think he'd be a part of The Beatles as the new John Lennon, even if he's not replacing Lennon.  Paul Rodgers is a gifted musician, accomplished writer, fabulous singer.  Freddie Mercury was an iconic genius.  So was John Lennon.  Tough to replace them.  One band did, one didn't and who's right there?

Sir GH wrote: Does this kind of discussion happen in any other fan forums for groups who have lost original members?

Journey, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Supertramp, Chicago and Metallica have all done very well for themselves after losing original members.  Why should it be any different for Queen?

**********************************************************

+1

Sheer Brass Neck wrote:

Because Queen weren't any of those groups.  They are part of the holy trinity with the kings of pop being The Beatles, the kings of rock Led Zeppelin and Queen splitting the difference as kings of pop rock.  When those groups lost members they disbanded, as their members were irreplaceable.  I don't think anyone would argue otherwise.  Freddie Mercury was irreplaceable, John Deacon maybe replaceable but not without altering the DNA of the sound.  I believe in sound over the name, so I can't see any resemblance to "Queen" without those guys.  Not really worried about the name.

========================

Indeed, nobody's debating that !  I'm just pointing out that people have created an invisible rule that a band name must die in certain cases when a band member dies.  Who is setting these rules?

For 20 years, Queen was four guys.  For the next 20, it was less than four guys.  It really is that simple.  Watch any video of A Kind Of Magic from the last tour in South America '08.  It is still Queen.  The magic is there.

I see your point about the holy trinity, and I like your DNA lingo regarding Deacon.  But I still say the founding members of Queen are not exempt from doing what they want with their own name.  Add Yes and Genesis to the list.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you say Sir GH.  However, lots of people post thing like A Winter's Prophet did saying that Brian and Roger are "Queen, period, end of discussion."  The people opposed to the name being used seldom say that, it seems there is no room for discussion if you don't believe that Brian and Roger aren't Queen, where the people who don't believe anybody but the original four are Queen seem to accept the reasons (brand recognition, ownership of name, dues paid) for why they continue as Queen, people on the other side say things like A Winter's Prophet did and give no reason other than what they believe.  That's weak.

As for the other bands, even great bands like Yes and Genesis, they're not comparable.  Freddie Mercury is arguably the greatest vocalist in rock and roll, and the writer of arguably the greatest song in rock history, and the centerpiece of arguably the greatest live set in rock history, and arguably the greatest frontman in rock history who created the logo and name of arguably the greatest pop rock band of all time.  I'd argue there is no one more identifiable to a band than Freddie Mercury was to Queen.  For those reasons, all comparisons to artists as great as Jon Anderson or Peter Gabriel are non-starters as they're amazing artists, but Freddie is in the Lennon/Hendrix/Presley pantheon, Anderson and Gabriel don't belong anywhere near that despite their gifts.   IMHO.

Just curious, but would we be having this conversation if (Heaven forbid) John has passed away and not Freddie? Let's suppose John died in a car accident (it would be God awful, but bear with me a sec) in 1992 and Freddie had not contracted HIV. We'd be shocked, saddened and could never hear "Another One Bites The Dust" the same way (sort of the way we subconsciously read too much into "Bohemian Rhapsody" now that Freddie is gone). Then the band, after a bit of respectful distance, maybe a solo album or two, comes back to record a new album, recruiting, say, Neil Murray to cover the bass duties. How many "There's no Queen without John" threads would appear? I imagine a few, perhaps, but we wouldn't spend 20 years debating what is or isn't Queen. After an album or two and a few tours, I think the discussions would fall away, we'd accept whomever filled the roll of bass player (he might even write some good songs, consider that) and would just look forward to the next release and tour.

Yet, with Freddie, the from the day he died, many fans were like, "that's it for Queen!" They bought Made In Heaven, maybe liked a few tracks, put it on their shelf as a kind of bookend to the catalogue and still firmly believe that Freddie's death was an insurmountable obstacle that the band could not recover from.

I wonder if it's the psychological/emotional connection that a lead singer and front man has with the audience. The voice singing the song carries the weight of the lyrics and creates the bond with the listener. If the voice changes (or vanishes), the resonance is gone. It feels wrong, despite the fact that the writers are still saying something. Can it be overcome? I think so. I don't believe listeners are merely targets that the music must hit, but are just as active in the emotional process, meeting the music halfway once it's created. I think many fans, and I'm not judging them, just observing, refuse to take that step forward to receive what is now being offered. Is it a sense of duty to nostalgia? Is it that the differences in the music and lyrics are too great from what came before for them to equate it with the earlier output? It could be any number of reasons, but I feel it's never too late to meet that music halfway, to listen and maybe find something you like.