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

Sheer Brass Neck wrote:

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.

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

Fair play.  Of course you're right in your assessment of Freddie and Queen in the grand scheme of things.

But to go back to my earlier point, we are then creating an invisible rule that states: once your band reaches a certain level of notoriety and influence on popular culture, you must change your name if someone dies or leaves.  But why must it be that criteria?  Why couldn't it be the number of records released, the number of women the bassist shagged, or a limit of ten people having been in and out of the band?

If anything, a band like Yes should have changed their name a dozen times because they've had that many different lineups.  If we should be setting rules, then maybe a band whose membership changes result in a dramatic change in musical output should consider changing their name.  Like when Black Sabbath reunited with their early 80s lineup (with Ronnie James Dio instead of Ozzy), they called it Heaven And Hell.  Ozzy was and still is seen as the face of Black Sabbath, even though Tony Iommi is the only guy to have played on every record.  And even though the band made their intentions of sticking to the 1980-82 era pretty clear, people still walked away from Heaven And Hell shows disappointed that they didn't play Paranoid.  Are their fans thick, or have they simply typecast all things related to Black Sabbath with the 1970-73 output?

Consider Velvet Revolver or Audioslave.  Had Queen + Paul Rodgers did something similar, maybe their album would have been far better-received.  By using the Queen name, they set the bar high, and the public just didn't get what our boys were doing.  Many of the tracks rank up with the old Queen, but without Mercury on the record it didn't stand a chance with the man on the street.  At the end of the day, the public is your boss, as they're the ones who buy the records and come out to the shows.  But mere numbers of people shouldn't have to speak for artistic decisions.  Is band name an artistic decision?  A marketing decision?  A bit of both?

Just trying to get to the root of the psychology of it all..

rhyeking wrote:

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.

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

Depends who it is.

The public just can't separate Queen from Freddie.  I really don't think it's because Queen are more popular than all the other bands we've discussed.  It's one of those things that just happens.  Some groups can recover and others can't.

Supertramp hasn't put out a decent record since Roger Hodgson left, but Genesis became 10x bigger in the 80s with Phil Collins taking over the operation.  Had they called it quits after The Lamb or A Trick Of The Tail, they still would have been hailed as one of the greatest groups of the 70s.

Deity: ....."but Genesis became 10x bigger in the 80s with Phil Collins taking over the operation.  Had they called it quits after The Lamb or A Trick Of The Tail, they still would have been hailed as one of the greatest groups of the 70s."

One very minor difference, Genesis did not recruit a replacement, they continued as a smaller band.

Also, it became obvious that the public accepted Genesis minus Gabriel and that overall their reputation and legacy wasn't diminished. The Queen reputation has.

What BM and RT have done, in my mind at least, is bordering on criminal.

I highly disagree with that.  Queen are more respected now than they were in their prime.  Almost every review in the 70s was a bad review.  Nowadays the gift of hindsight has given Queen legendary status.  Queen have surpassed The Beatles in UK album sales, as a large sum of those sales have been over the past 20 years.

Q+PR played to sold-out arenas all over the world, and Brian and Roger have done plenty to keep the band in the limelight. 

And with all the press of Brian May getting his Ph.D. a few years back, it has merely solidified the fact that Queen stands for top class achievement.

The Pepsi version of WWRY with Britney Spears does not stand out in Joe Public's mind.  Unless you're Gary Glitter, there is nothing one can do to tarnish a reputation built in the past.

Sir GH wrote: Sheer Brass Neck wrote:

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.

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

Fair play.  Of course you're right in your assessment of Freddie and Queen in the grand scheme of things.

But to go back to my earlier point, we are then creating an invisible rule that states: once your band reaches a certain level of notoriety and influence on popular culture, you must change your name if someone dies or leaves.  But why must it be that criteria?  Why couldn't it be the number of records released, the number of women the bassist shagged, or a limit of ten people having been in and out of the band?

If anything, a band like Yes should have changed their name a dozen times because they've had that many different lineups.  If we should be setting rules, then maybe a band whose membership changes result in a dramatic change in musical output should consider changing their name.  Like when Black Sabbath reunited with their early 80s lineup (with Ronnie James Dio instead of Ozzy), they called it Heaven And Hell.  Ozzy was and still is seen as the face of Black Sabbath, even though Tony Iommi is the only guy to have played on every record.  And even though the band made their intentions of sticking to the 1980-82 era pretty clear, people still walked away from Heaven And Hell shows disappointed that they didn't play Paranoid.  Are their fans thick, or have they simply typecast all things related to Black Sabbath with the 1970-73 output?

Consider Velvet Revolver or Audioslave.  Had Queen + Paul Rodgers did something similar, maybe their album would have been far better-received.  By using the Queen name, they set the bar high, and the public just didn't get what our boys were doing.  Many of the tracks rank up with the old Queen, but without Mercury on the record it didn't stand a chance with the man on the street.  At the end of the day, the public is your boss, as they're the ones who buy the records and come out to the shows.  But mere numbers of people shouldn't have to speak for artistic decisions.  Is band name an artistic decision?  A marketing decision?  A bit of both?

Just trying to get to the root of the psychology of it all..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Queen IS different from all these other bands, but it's conveniently ignored with all these discussions. It's got nothing to do with subjective opinions such as "being legendary", it's about how the changes in line-up have occured. The only truly "legendary" thing about Queen is that it managed to stay in the same recording line-up for twenty years.

By the time Genesis hit it big with Phil Collins as a vocalist, they had already gone through half a dozen changes.

I can guarantee you that if Roger Taylor had replaced Freddie as the singer of Queen back in 1975 before ANATO was released, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Tero! wrote:

The only truly "legendary" thing about Queen is that it managed to stay in the same recording line-up for twenty years.

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

I'd argue that there are plenty of things that make Queen legendary, but you do have a point there.  I can name maybe two or three other bands who have had their longevity..

Sheer Brass Neck wrote: "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."


Brilliant post. :D I couldn't agree more! I will simply add that as well as being the writer of perhaps the greatest rock song of all time (I'm not convinced it definitely was), IMO he was among the greatest writers of all time and every bit as good as Dylan/Cohen/Lennon & McCartney etc...


Tero! wrote: "Queen IS different from all these other bands, but it's conveniently ignored with all these discussions. It's got nothing to do with subjective opinions such as "being legendary", it's about how the changes in line-up have occured. The only truly "legendary" thing about Queen is that it managed to stay in the same recording line-up for twenty years.

By the time Genesis hit it big with Phil Collins as a vocalist, they had already gone through half a dozen changes.

I can guarantee you that if Roger Taylor had replaced Freddie as the singer of Queen back in 1975 before ANATO was released, we wouldn't be having this discussion."

Yes, but that's because Freddie was an unrivaled genius and a 'legendary' artist, whom no musician Genesis has ever had arguably compares to. I don't really understand what you are saying. I mean, are you suggesting that Roger's replacement of Freddie wouldn't have worked for reasons other than Freddie's status?

The root psychology of it, Sir GH, is a fabulous way to look at it , and I think it shapes opinions.  FWIW, here's mine.

I grew up with Queen as a teen in the 70s.  They stood for something then.  Freddie stated in numerous interviews that the band had to compromise some things early on but never was a musical compromise made.  Brian stated in an interview later in their career (this isn't verbatim but thoughts are correct) that they didn't think about whether Little Mary So and So living somewhere would care about the extra vocal harmony or guitar at where 10 am would be in her left headphone, they did it because they stood for something.  Their music was risk taking and ground breaking, and they were adventurous at a time when they hadn't had a level of success anywhere near what they had later in the 80s.  In short, Queen stood for something, musically and artistically.  Now, allow me a little digression.

Steve Jobs of Apple is ill.  Here is a tidbit about him from an employee, with me summarizing the story for space.  A Google employee got at a call on a Sunday morning at church in 2008 and chose to ignore the call and checked his messages after church ends.  The message left was from Steve Jobs saying to call him at home about something urgent to discuss. 

He calls Steve Jobs back, saying he was nervous as it was unusual for Jobs to call on a Sunday and ask me to call his home.  Jobs says, ""I've been looking at the Google logo on the iPhone and I'm not happy with the icon. The second O in Google doesn't have the right yellow gradient. It's just wrong and I'm going to have Greg fix it tomorrow. Is that okay with you?"  The writer continued "...of course this was okay with me. ...but in the end, when I think about leadership, passion and attention to detail, I think back to the call I received from Steve Jobs on a Sunday morning in January. It was a lesson I'll never forget. CEOs should care about details. Even shades of yellow. On a Sunday."  

Leadership.  Passion.  Attention to detail.  All things I think Queen used to stand for and believe in.  I may be wrong, but from my point of view, Queen became big business and forgot what they were.  Shoddy releases, poor customer service, lack of attention to detail, terrible quality control, cynical product choices etc.  So for me, musically they can never be Queen, but that's my selfish take on a name.  The current people who use the Queen name don't stand for anything that the band used to stand for and that's more of a crime than bringing in Paul Rodgers.

dagi wrote:

"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."

Perhaps I'm not an "original fan" - although I'm really struggling to understand what that means -
as I was born the year The Game was released. I agree that Freddie could never be replaced...
really, I get that. But, what we have left are the two founding members, and while they did/do not
possess the flare and presence that Freddie yielded so freely, they were extremely influential to
the band's success throughout years. I understand, still, that Freddie was the one who stepped
in to create distinction and was probably the most influential member as the band gained
momentum and popularity through the seventies. His voice was unmatched. We miss Freddie
terribly. But, we have, active, the two founding members remaining. Let's not downplay their
significance.
They are Queen.

Amazon wrote: Yes,
but that's because Freddie was an unrivaled genius and a 'legendary'
artist, whom no musician Genesis has ever had arguably compares to. I
don't really understand what you are saying. I mean, are you suggesting
that Roger's replacement of Freddie wouldn't have worked for reasons
other than Freddie's status?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is exactly the kind of discussion that I was trying to avoid by saying that the only "truly legendary" thing about Queen was the stability of their line-up.

For every ten people saying that Freddie was an unrivaled genius, there are at least five people saying the same thing about Peter Gabriel with Genesis. It's a matter of subjective opinion, and as such doesn't have any relevance here.

What IS objectively legendary is the stability of the line-up, and if that wasn't the case (e.g. if Freddie had left five years into the band), Queen would be just another one of those thousands of bands which had changes.

Tero! wrote: "This is exactly the kind of discussion that I was trying to avoid by saying that the only "truly legendary" thing about Queen was the stability of their line-up.


For every ten people saying that Freddie was an unrivaled genius, there are at least five people saying the same thing about Peter Gabriel with Genesis. It's a matter of subjective opinion, and as such doesn't have any relevance here.

What IS objectively legendary is the stability of the line-up, and if that wasn't the case (e.g. if Freddie had left five years into the band), Queen would be just another one of those thousands of bands which had changes."

Sorry, I was quite tired when I read your original comment, and I wasn't quite sure what it meant. I understand perfectly now. :D

rhyeking wrote: "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)."

Fans should always be careful to not be too obsessive, however I don't think it's a problem with most of the members on this site. The ones that most passionately oppose the continuous use of the name probably accept that legally and actually, it's Brian's & Roger's right to do so.

I was speaking a broad sense.

I wasn't saying that fans who reject the current incarnation of Queen as "Queen" are psychotics foaming at the mouth with hate. Yes we're mostly reasonable, intelligent posters here. 

What I do sense occasionally is that sometimes fans here may feel they know better than the band what is best for Queen. Statements about how they currently shouldn't do X because it will ruin their legacy or lower their previously high standards can imply that the fans believe they possess knowledge of an outcome or expertise that exceeds that of the band itself. I question/challenge that when I get a whiff of it, because to me it reeks of arrogance, since no one can know the future. How Queen will be viewed in another 20 years is anyone's guess. Even saying they're *currently* killing all that they worked for (respect, fandom, "legacy"...) seems to me to impose opinion as fact, where Queen are arguably more popular than they ever were, with a continually growing fan base and critical respect.

Sorry, I'm drifting from my point. Basically, let the band be what the members say it is, enjoy what you love, ignore what you don't, and let history judge the relative successes and failures.

As this thing will never get resolved, a few thoughts.  A Winter's Prophet said:

Perhaps I'm not an "original fan" - although I'm really struggling to understand what that means.

I agree that some people use the "I've been a fan since '71 so your opinions are worthless" argument.  That's ridiculous.  There is no way to measure who is a greater fan than who, so someone who became a fan at Made In Heaven may be a "bigger" fan than someone who saw them at Imperial College.  What the MIH era fan is missing, as all relative newcomers are, is the journey when it happened.  If you weren't there, you can't have the same knowledge of where the band came from, and what they stood for, and how the band changed from a hard rocking outfit in the Zep mold to the pop/rock entity they became.  So, if you were to have got into Queen at the time of their biggest success (and worst music), you wouldn't understand the disillusionment of longer term fans and how Roger Taylor, for instance, was a great writer (Circus magazine listed him at least in the realm with Townshend and Springsteen as a chronicler of youth disenchantment when Fun in Space was released), then we get Don't Lose Your Head and that paled in comparison to his 70s output, including his dogs like Fun It.

"I agree that Freddie could never be replaced."  

For some, that line says it all about why they can't be Queen.

"But, what we have left are the two founding members, and while they did/do not
possess the flare and presence that Freddie yielded so freely..."

For some, that line say says it all about why they can't be Queen.  

"I understand, still, that Freddie was the one who stepped in to create distinction and was probably the most influential member..."

For some, that line say says it all about why they can't be Queen.  

"But, we have, active, the two founding members remaining. Let's not downplay their significance. They are Queen."

No one is downplaying their significance, I'd argue that the biggest argument of why they aren't Queen is that they all had major significance.  I wouldn't call Freddie Mercury, Roger Taylor, John Deacon and Mark Knopfler, or Eric Clapton or Eddie Van Halen Queen if Brian had died.  Some believe in a feeling or band, some believe in a brand.

Brian even hinted that roger and himself have been searching for something over the last 20 years.....He  knows queen is no more,   the general public knows Queen is no more....some bands were able to move on from losing a key member,  like sabbath.    The difference?.....sabbath replaced ozzy pretty quickly,  brian and roger waited 15 years,  and let's not forget 'heaven and Hell" is a borderline classic, a fantastic album.   The cosmo rocks, not so great.....i'm as big a Freddie mercury fan as anyone,  but in all honesty, Ozzy is an iconic figure of heavy metal,  maybe more famous than freddie?.....everyone knows who ozzy is......The problem is that the general public thinks that freddie was Queen,  or at least the special one of the group,  while Sabbath was regarded as 4 equals.......WTF?......the bottom line is Queen tried a new lineup with TCR and it failed.....They should take the hint, and any future albums should be named Brian May and roger Talyor.....no more Queen!