Queen - Brian May Disappointed By John Deacon's Movie Snub

[QUOTE] [b]dagi wrote:[/b]

This is utter nonsense. Anything with just May and Taylor is simply not Queen. Brian has come close to saying this himself.

Brian and Roger should hang their heads in shame with what they've done to the Queen brand. [/QUOTE]

1 - it's not, it's fact. You may not agree, but your opinion doesn't change reality.
2 - I see my previous response made no difference to your thought process. I'm not saying it should, nor do I expect or demand answers from you, however it looks like you don't have a rational response to this debate.
3 - Where did Brian say this, or come close? Source?
4 - Perhaps some of their decisions look questionable to say the least, but this doesn't qualify your argument here.

Edit: there's something wrong with the quote function here.....

[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Thistleboy1980 wrote:[/b]
@ tero - I know you're at the wind up, but for those who are thinking that way: Paul Rodgers never replaced Freddie. He never claimed to, nor did Queen bring him in as such. The album is by Queen AND Paul Rodgers. It's still a Queen project, they just brought in a collaborator.
[/QUOTE]

I'm afraid it isn't quite as clear as you say... There are more aspects than what is the text on the album cover.


One point of view is that Queen created a company (Queen Productions) to control all past and present releases of the band, and none of the QPR projects have anything to do with that company.

The company was based on the principle of four people forming the group known as Queen and equally splitting all the money, and it is quite obvious that the two man group of Brian and Roger cannot be the same group.

The use of the name for their current projects hasn't been (or perhaps cannot be) contested by the other partners, but they have been forced to create a new company (Queen Touring) for handling their current works.
[/QUOTE]

Of course Brian and Roger cannot be the same "group", because they're two men down. Even if they got John, they can still never be THAT group. But they can still be "Queen" - It's a name. The point is that they are every much as part of the name (original and current) as Freddie and John were, and are entitled to use that name. Ergo, the Cosmos Rocks is a Queen project, regardless of the name of the company used as a vehicle to move it.

For the record, Brian and Roger were not forced to set up a new company "Queen Touring Limited". Indeed, that was set up on 5th January 1976. Granted, it was not "registered" as a branch until 2005, however it is part of the same family. It's parent? None other than Queen Productions Limited.

That's public information btw.

So, with that being said, we can safely say that "The Cosmos Rocks" is a Queen album, hasty opinion aside.

Sure, i bought it... Cause it had the queen name on it. Listened to it twice.....

[QUOTE] [b]kosimodo wrote:[/b]

Sure, i bought it... Cause it had the queen name on it. Listened to it twice.....[/QUOTE]

But that doesn't make it not a Queen album.

I've never listened to Flash Gordon OST all the way through, not even once. I think I've only listened to NOTW a handful of times completely. Whilst it's nice to share my listening habits with you, where is it taking the discussion lol?

By the way, BM & RT are using "Queen +" as much as a service to us as it is respect to Freddie. They could easily - and would be within their rights to - get a replacement singer and tour wholly as Queen.

Some folk forget what side their bread is buttered on!!

ffs - this argument is pointless. there is absolutely NO WAY of reasoning with people who would rather accept their own opinion over established fact.

anyhow, here's some others for the naysayers:

Genesis carried on after losing Gabriel and Hackett
yes - have become a karaoke version of themselves
Purple now only have ONE original member - drummer Ian Paice
ALL of the above continue to use the original band name - and there's no issue with the fan-base

it's only here in the world of the "freddie was god sychophants" that it appears impossible. but here's the one indisputable fact:
You may not like what they are doing...or what they produce (i don't) but it doesn't remove their absolute right to carry on as Queen for as long as they like. The records will show all sales and tours were as Queen, and whether there is little "+" or not - it's still queen

^ thank you! I was was going to use the Genesis and Purple examples too. Others are The Four Seasons, The Temptations, Journey, Alice In Chains.....the list goes on.

But you're right, the argument is pointless. Not only for the reasons you have mentioned, but because the thread is about the movie "snub" lol. It's been hijacked to fuck :p

Wow. Wow. Wow. Where to start?

"Cosmos Rocks is a Queen album..."

No it's not, it's an album by two guys who were in Queen.

"...regardless of whether or not you agree with that."

Based on what? Your opinion? I believe Cosmos Rocks is NOT a Queen album, regardless of whether or not you agree with that. Therefore it's not a Queen album.

"If we go by the logic that it isn't because there's no Freddie on it, then we may as well say that anything with John Deacon isn't Queen either, because there's no Mike Grose on it."

Not sure if you own any Queen albums, but on every recorded Queen album they list the band members names. For a reason. Which was they were Queen.

"Are Led Zeppelin NOT Led Zeppelin because John Bonham died?"

Led Zeppelin has played sparingly, and at the time of John Bonham's death released a statement which said, "We wish it to be known that the loss of our dear friend, and the deep sense of undivided harmony felt by ourselves and our manager, have led us to decide that we could not continue as we were." They said it and honoured that due to the fact the 4 group members were Led zeppelin. The Beatles never played after John Lennon died. Queen did and have done nothing but sully their name trotting out reality show contestants and pop wannabes as part of an attempt to stay valid.

"Brian and Roger are every bit a part of Queen as Freddie was, and are still entitled to use the name, again whether you like it or not. It really is that simple."

Absolutely true, entitlement was never the issue. Paul, George and Ringo were "entitled" to use the name The Beatles. They didn't. same for Zeppelin, they didn't. They know they had a once in a hundred years thing with 4 people. They ended their time for the most part when a member died. Good choice.

"If it bears the Queen name, is performed by surviving members of Queen, listed as an official Queen album, by Queen, on the official Queen site, then you can take it is read....it's Queen."

In your opinion.

"Your opinion is yours, but when you look at the facts, you're wrong - and "anyone who thinks Cosmos Rocks is a true Queen album" would be correct."

And you are wrong too to my version of who Queen is.

"Perhaps you could define "true"? One could argue that, whilst all four members are/were fine musicians and talented songwriters, a huge part of their success, especially on the albums that defined the "Queen sound", may be attributed to the way they were produced in the studio. Does that mean that anything post Roy Thomas Baker is not a "true" album?"

No. Justin Bieber can play some drums. If he joined Zep, I'd really, really, really doubt that people would say it's Zep with him drumming. Lady Gaga is a singer as that's what she seems to do. So is Madonna, because I've heard notes come out of her mouth that don't sound like spoken words. If they joined the Beatles as a replacement singer for John Lennon, the world would be mortified. But Queen fans would lap it up because it keeps them relevant.

Queen are, were and always will be the four players who played on all of their albums. For me. If you feel otherwise, you are entitled to. But don't state your opinion as fact, you come off as arrogant at best, clueless at worst.

It's only the same band in the personal opinion of those people who cannot accept Brian and Roger continuing as solo artists, who hope to recapture some of the past glories with the name Queen. And that inlcudes Brian and Roger themselves!

Legally, it's not the same band.
Musically, it's not the same band.

If John and/or Freddie's estate had at any time disputed the use of Queen name, nobody would even think of calling those two guys as Queen.


What it all comes down to is that the other partners of QPL have thrown Brian and Roger a bone that enables them to tour even after their solo careers have dwindled down to nothing.

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
Genesis carried on after losing Gabriel and Hackett
yes - have become a karaoke version of themselves
Purple now only have ONE original member - drummer Ian Paice
ALL of the above continue to use the original band name - and there's no issue with the fan-base
[/QUOTE]

...And therein also lies the difference between Queen and Genesis/Yes/Deep Purple/Etc.

The entire existence of other bands has been marked by major changes, despite which they continued to work.
Genesis continued to work after Ant and John left in 1970, after Peter left in 1975, Steve in 1977, and Phil in 1995.

If they had chosen to take a ten year break in 1975 and then return as Genesis + Freddie Mercury they would have received an equal amount of doubts as QPR.

Or, if Freddie had left Queen in 1975 and be replaced by another singer for the next ten albums, it might be easier to accept the later changes in line-ups.

you're talking about "acceptance" - but this has two separate elements to it

1. the logical acceptance that it is their right to carry on as queen - it's their band after all, accept it and buy/don't buy whichever products you choose

2. the blank refusal to accept their right to carry on with their band as Queen - like an individual objection will somehow make them say "f*cking hell we've hurt a few people by carryring on as queen, think we should change our name"

surely most people can see the second option is illogical. I'll say this again - there's nothing they've produced in the last 15 years that i have the slightest interest in, but it doesn't remove their right to continue as Queen.
Firstly, they have added the "+" to the "Queen" motif - that's the respect to freddie & John - so they've done enough to continue using the trademark, and secondly whatever pitiful sales TCR achieved worldwide - it'd have been much less had they called it anything but Queen+ - the Queen brand sells
Finally, it's good that you cite the examples of purple, yes, genesis et al - because some of the "working breaks" that genesis and purple took were much bigger than Queen - queen were actively releasing albums/dvds and live stuff from 1991 - 2005

Quote function still working oddly!

[QUOTE] [b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote:[/b]

Wow. Wow. Wow. Where to start?

"Cosmos Rocks is a Queen album..."

No it's not, it's an album by two guys who were in Queen.

"...regardless of whether or not you agree with that."

Based on what? Your opinion? I believe Cosmos Rocks is NOT a Queen album, regardless of whether or not you agree with that. Therefore it's not a Queen album.

"If we go by the logic that it isn't because there's no Freddie on it, then we may as well say that anything with John Deacon isn't Queen either, because there's no Mike Grose on it."

Not sure if you own any Queen albums, but on every recorded Queen album they list the band members names. For a reason. Which was they were Queen.

"Are Led Zeppelin NOT Led Zeppelin because John Bonham died?"

Led Zeppelin has played sparingly, and at the time of John Bonham's death released a statement which said, "We wish it to be known that the loss of our dear friend, and the deep sense of undivided harmony felt by ourselves and our manager, have led us to decide that we could not continue as we were." They said it and honoured that due to the fact the 4 group members were Led zeppelin. The Beatles never played after John Lennon died. Queen did and have done nothing but sully their name trotting out reality show contestants and pop wannabes as part of an attempt to stay valid.

"Brian and Roger are every bit a part of Queen as Freddie was, and are still entitled to use the name, again whether you like it or not. It really is that simple."

Absolutely true, entitlement was never the issue. Paul, George and Ringo were "entitled" to use the name The Beatles. They didn't. same for Zeppelin, they didn't. They know they had a once in a hundred years thing with 4 people. They ended their time for the most part when a member died. Good choice.

"If it bears the Queen name, is performed by surviving members of Queen, listed as an official Queen album, by Queen, on the official Queen site, then you can take it is read....it's Queen."

In your opinion.

"Your opinion is yours, but when you look at the facts, you're wrong - and "anyone who thinks Cosmos Rocks is a true Queen album" would be correct."

And you are wrong too to my version of who Queen is.

"Perhaps you could define "true"? One could argue that, whilst all four members are/were fine musicians and talented songwriters, a huge part of their success, especially on the albums that defined the "Queen sound", may be attributed to the way they were produced in the studio. Does that mean that anything post Roy Thomas Baker is not a "true" album?"

No. Justin Bieber can play some drums. If he joined Zep, I'd really, really, really doubt that people would say it's Zep with him drumming. Lady Gaga is a singer as that's what she seems to do. So is Madonna, because I've heard notes come out of her mouth that don't sound like spoken words. If they joined the Beatles as a replacement singer for John Lennon, the world would be mortified. But Queen fans would lap it up because it keeps them relevant.

Queen are, were and always will be the four players who played on all of their albums. For me. If you feel otherwise, you are entitled to. But don't state your opinion as fact, you come off as arrogant at best, clueless at worst.

[/QUOTE]

Oh, FFS.

Let's get this straight - I am not offering an opinion. I am stating fact and only fact i.e, what's there, legally and above board, for you to see. If you disagree, good on you, but you are disagreeing not through fact, but through your own personal opinion.

1 - for the last time, Cosmos Rocks is a Queen album. Brian and Roger are "Queen". It's a name. They use it. You can argue the toss all you like, but you've beaten your own argument because you "believe" it's not. But what you "believe" and what is real are two different things. It won't change anything. Your opinion, my opinion, anyone's opinion.... doesn't matter. If you want MY "opinion", I don't personally rate the album. I'd prefer it not to bear the Queen name, but it is a Queen one. Regardless of whether it has 2, 3 or 4 members on it.

I won't argue anymore about it after this post. Feel free to continue if you like, but all you're doing is letting your belief get in the way of fact. That's pointless, as opinions don't make anyone right. Facts do. I'm not trying to be offensive or cocky or anything, I'm just trying to show the difference between what we think and what is.

2 - Yes, I do own Queen albums. All of them. Over and over again, in several formats. Thanks. I had noticed the small fact that they list all band members names. This, however, is not what makes them Queen. It's the name "Queen" that makes them Queen. That's why Mike Grose, Barry Mitchell and the like are part of it, even if they didn't record on any albums. Again, you've just dismantled your own argument with this logic. Why? because Brian and Roger are listed as names on the most recent album, The Cosmos Rocks. That makes it a Queen album. Again, this is not personal feelings, as they are irrelevant. It's fact - it's an album under the Queen name, released by members of Queen, by a company run by Queen productions of which Brian and Roger are the directors.

3 - John Bonham died in 1980 and the band said they wouldn't continue "as they were". They didn't, as this was impossible. What they didn't say, specifically, is that they wouldn't use the name "Led Zeppelin". Regardless of whether or not they have played "sparingly", they have still played as "Led Zeppelin", and have continued to live on that brand. Celebration Day was released only last year on multiple formats. You know that big show they played as "Led Zeppelin" at the 02 and made millions from? Why shouldn't they?

Fair play to the Beatles, btw. They've played it the way they WANTED TO, not the way they SHOULD, which is two very, very different things.

As for Queen "Sullying" the name.....that's your opinion. For the record, I agree to some extent, but that's irrelevant to the argument. Cosmos Rocks is still a Queen album. So will any future releases under the name, until they stop using the name. Again, not wanting to sound like the proverbial broken record, but that's fact. Opinions should NOT get in the way of that.

4 - Again, not MY OPINION. My statements are based on fact. I don't want to sound patronising, and I'm sorry if I do, but you need to know the difference. You're arguing a pointless argument, because what you believe is different to what is reality. Don't let your opinion cloud things.

5 - I'm not wrong about what the version of Queen is. You have your opinion, I have mine - but in amongst that is the truth. That's what I'm driving at. Personally, I don't like the truth, but it is what it is.

6 - Don't be insulting.Judging by your previous posts, it's not really becoming of you. I'm not being arrogant, nor am I clueless. You have argued your entire point through your opinion, and yet have the audacity to say I'm forcing the issue through mine? I'm not. You are.

Here is MY opinion: Freddie is my hero, and I can't see past the guy. He is my favourite member of the band, and I think if it wasn't for him, the others would have been talented but unsuccessful. At least not as successful. We'll never know for sure, but that's how I personally see it. When the name "Queen" is mentioned, the automatic thought is Freddie. I can't blame people for that. He WAS the face of the band.

The Cosmos Rocks? I like a few of the of the tracks, but don't "feel" the Queen vibe from it. I also think that Brian and Roger have become an embarrassment, and that the name is tarnished. It's become a joke, and many, many of their decisions are questionable. In amongst this, there have been some good moves, but Queen will never be the same. It still doesn't stop them from being Queen, though.