Does anybody think they understand any of this?

I spent the afternoon Sunday shaking my head over the 'Queen Extravaganza' which had leaked on QOL's discussion forums the day before it was posted here.  I've since purged most of my disbelief by LOLing at Roger in the comments on the official press release at QOL and pointing out that he was a shameless old tart. I feel better now.

At some point, you've just got to laugh.  Laugh a great big deep WTF laugh.  You've got to laugh when how most of us 'serious' fans see them and how they see themselves experiences such a significant parting of the ways.  Does anybody think they understand any of this?  Are we missing something? Is what's left of Queen missing something?  Are we both missing something?   Why on earth would a musician with a legacy like Roger willingly involve himself - involve himself with passion if we're to take Brian's words at face - in something like this, where the first guy whose audition he'll have to watch apologizes in his submission comments for his "phlegm problem"?   

Ideally without extremes of either excessive cynicism or Stepford like righteousness, and ideally avoiding the word "choice" (because we already know it's [insert band member's name here] "right" to have "choice", does anybody think they have anything like real insight into why this wonderful band seems so determined to blaze such a profoundly different and profoundly pedestrian path?

I ask without judgement here, why do we think this is bad?

So what if they get some bands together and play a big Queen festival? 

How does this hurt their "legacy"? Why are they excluded in fans' minds from drawing attention to themselves in any way *other* than from what they recorded between 1971 and 1991 (which a few extra-curricular exceptions)? 

I can't answer the questions asked in the original post because I have no great insight into the band and because I really, honestly and truly don't see why people get worked up over things like this. If I had to guess, I'd say it's because once Freddie died, certain fans felt nothing should ever change or be added to what they call "The Legacy" and they resent that this occurred. I think, if that's the case, that that possessiveness is misplaced and takes the joy out of being a fan.

Queen made their mark. Short of Brian or Roger (or both) being discovered as mass serial murderers, nothing is going to change that. Time has a way of filtering out the crap, so if this Extravaganza fails, it will be lost to the ages, a footnote in Wikipedia's "2012 in Music". What will remain, as always, are the hits, the albums and the reputation that Queen rocked live.

It has little to do with being excluded in fans' minds minds from drawing attention to themselves, it's just that like everybody else in the world the way you draw attention to yourself matters and affects what happens next.  It certainly does affect their legacy if you accept that the legacy is not yet complete and that what they are doing now and have done before potentially affects everything from who is willing to work with them, through who might seek them out for collaborative work, to how they will be supported and financed for archival/anthology releases.  People who can impact things absolutely can and may draw impressions from somebody who tarts himself out to a potentially half assed and definitely cheesy internet reality venture that are different from those they might draw from somebody who seems to have a bit more respect for himself and bit more reverence for his music.  And it's a cheesy reality venture for a tribute band, which is potentially like cheese with cheese on top of it.  It's not possessiveness, not in most cases anyway, it's simply a predictable cringe in response to cringeworthy behaviour.  Great bands have the option to be above all this if they choose.  Queen don't choose, so the question remains: why?

I can see a lot of people having a problem with it, yes...but I have to say I dont see the problem myself, at the end of the day they are a band, that's it just a rock band, not anything more, why is it a problem if they want to keep the 'spirit' of Queen around long after they have stopped? People all around the world love the music so why not keep it going.

I have to say I dont understand all the destroying the legacy stuff people rant on about, it's just a band and nothing they do now will change what they did back then, what makes me laugh as a long term fan is how many people go on about the legacy who were not around when they are making it, at the time in the 70's-80's Queen were mostly viewed as a joke by much of the public it was only after Freddie died they suddenly had a legacy to look after frankly.

It was hugly unfashionable to like Queen when I was at school in the 70's and even then when they released new albums everyone went mad because it wasn't like the last one...I remember all the fuss about Jazz....nevermind when Hot Space came out!!!!

I my opinion doing things people dont expect is what they do best, it's why I like them becoase they always even now go against the grain of what people think they should do, somehow it almost always works...look at WWRY, everyone said No you can't do a musical...well it's amazingly successful, new peolple have been drawn it to see it and especially people who were too young to see them live, sounds like a pretty smart idea to me, this could be the same, might not work but hey Roger has always been one for pushing the boundaries, and as he said it's his legacy to fuck up....

Roger obviously feels the need to raise Queen's profile in the USA and maybe sell a few more copies of things, so why not?
As far as I'm concerned, if Queen's fan base increases, then we are one step closer to them realising that an (dare I even say it without being swamped by negativity and ridicule??), Archive boxset would actually sell....

People get so excited about these things.  It's only a concert.

In the summertime there are lots of open air free concerts in the USA - they're quite a popular activity considering the economic circumstances of many.  I attended a Beatle tribute one and there were scores of people there of all ages - singing along, dancing and really enjoying the hell out of those Beatle songs.  It went on for hours - all this for the Beatles!!.   I was struck by the feeling of wanting to be there at a similar event only for Queen's music and was thinking how much I'd love that - if they could only hear Queen's music I know the rest of the people around me would love it.  So many Americans need to be introduced or re-introduced to the great British bands in history besides the one they know best: The Beatles.  

I hope it can be a success. I hope they will be brave with it and present some of the 70's material: such as The Prophet Song for instance. I hope the concert starts with Procession.  Imagine how "new" that would sound to some people out there?

Let's wait to see what happens with it.  I'm wondering to what degree, if any, Hollywood records will be involved in this effort.

I certainly get that people can see the bright side of this, but I don't get that people don't see an impact on the legacy.  Every decision to do one thing and not the other has some kind of opportunity cost.  A legacy on the simplest level is what you leave behind.  If Brian loses a spot on "It Might Get Loud" (as was hypothetically brought up in another thread) because he's elected to dive head first into theatre music,  that alters the legacy.  If his decision to work with 5ive or Brittany Spears means that brilliant musicians seeking classy and mature collaborations pass him over, that alters the legacy too.  If Roger gets hit by a bus in a year the prospect of undocumented Queen history unique to him being lost forever because he was running an internet talent show instead of getting it onto a multimedia anthology set surely exists. So whether you're happy with what they've done or not, the legacy is surely impacted.   Every new move seems to double down on the commercial and largely superficial populist wager they've made with their careers and legacy. As ever, I simply wonder why.  I  wonder about what factors have propelled this direction. Have they strictly chosen this or are they in some ways simply being swept along by forces largely out of their control. Things like that.

OK, fine, it impacts the legacy.
To help me any maybe some others answer your question, why are you so set on it being a NEGATIVE impact?

Just like the re-release of Bohemian Rhapsody in the early '90s created a resurgence of interest for that song, maybe this could create a renewed interest in the whole catalog.
Maybe working on this project will energize Roger to be more creative instead of sitting in a stuffy room listening to take after take of himself screwing up in order to compile the "precious" box sets - that may drive him nuts to the point where he wants to retire completely.

Point being, you never know how something will work out until it is in the past.  You can't decide that this will have a negative impact on the legacy just because YOU don't like it.

As to whether they've been "swept along" simply trying to be popular (if I understand your point), I think now more than ever, they're exactly where they want to be - minus Freddie, of course.

I hear you, and I agree with you.  At this point, Brian and Roger are just making fools of themselves.  They jump on the latest bandwagon (be it Robbie Williams, or this American Idol-type nonsense), instead of creating new music, touring, releasing decent reissues, etc.  Queen has always been about self-promotion, but this is ridiculous.  Brian and Roger will do whatever earns them money.  They care little-if-any for their long-time fans.  No wonder John quit.

Just seems to me as if they are finding ways to stay in the business, is all. Nothing wrong with that. It's what they do!

If they (Queen) put a cover band together and played in your town, would you go see them? I would and I would take the family. If you refused to because you are holding onto some memory of how they were 30 years or so ago, then you need to get out a little more.

coops wrote: If they (Queen) put a cover band together and played in your town, would you go see them? I would and I would take the family. If you refused to because you are holding onto some memory of how they were 30 years or so ago, then you need to get out a little more.

I certainly wouldn't go - I wouldn't go because I find tribute bands to be..... erm, sad. I go and see bands play their own songs. I don't get a kick out of seeing saddos dressed up in costume mimicking some songs I may or may not like.

There's any number of tribute bands who have been going for years who are apparently very good at what they do...... there's no need for an officially sanctioned one. I can't imagine there's much of a market for it in the US anyway - if it actually gets past the auditions, it'll be one small tour to minute audiences and that'll be that.

At best, they'll find some good musicians and put on a good show.

What I'm always sad about is the negative side of competitions like this.  You see guys like this    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5njJdvawkgo  ...

..  who honestly think that A) this is their big shot, and B) they're talented enough that they have a right to shout anyone down who criticises them (ie. Treasure Moment).  It gives them just another freaking avenue to embarrass themselves.  I mean, seriously - I hate this shit.  I hate it on shows like Idol when they deliberately advance shitty contestants past the screening judges and up to the TV judges, just in order to humiliate them.  Y'know - this stuff doesn't need to be seen.  When you put out bad music (and boy do I know what I speak of) you should have the opportunity to rethink yourself and pull it the fuck out of the public consciousness.  This kind of thing takes that ability away.

This one is even better... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJxenAb3R-w

I feel sorry for Roger or whoever has to actually watch all of these.  But they'll find their talent - it's out there.

[QUOTE]coops wrote: If they (Queen) put a cover band together and played in your town, would you go see them? I would and I would take the family. If you refused to because you are holding onto some memory of how they were 30 years or so ago, then you need to get out a little more. [/QUOTE]

No I wouldn't...   And I'm out playing in cover bands every weekend. 

This is a TRIBUTE band, if they play just one artists' music.   And yeah, I've done those too. 

Thing is, cover bands have been dealing with Artists wanting to get paid whenever their music is played for years now.  This is just simply another vehicle for that.   Do these "musicians" think that they're going to make more $$$ with a Roger Taylor backed Queen Tribute Band?  Get Real!!!  In fact, they'll probably make less because, in the end, Roger just wants to get paid.

And from a club owner / event promotor stand point, are they really going to pay 2X maybe 3X as much for a simple TRIBUTE BAND just because Roger Taylor bought the PA and hired someone to book the band? 

This isn't a very well thought out plan... but then neither was Fun It.