Ivo-1976
This might be the last tour. Nothing lasts forever. Enjoy while you can.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
ggo1
I'm happy with a hits tour as long as they change up a few deeper cuts. I like the NOTW tracks on the current tour, it's a nice touch.
I always feel the time spent on Brian's solo could be better spent but that's probably a minority opinion.
In the past I would have loved Brian and Roger to play a handful of shows at somewhere like the Albert hall where they went deep into back catalogue and solo stuff, not billed as Queen, just as Brian and Roger. Dave Gilmour managed that a few times quite successfully.
But I think Brian's voice is not up to the task anymore. He just about gets by on the few bits he does but I don't think he could manage an hour as a frontman these days.
They seem to be able to make a shedload of money banging out the hits as Queen so it's difficult to blame them for doing it.
I always feel the time spent on Brian's solo could be better spent but that's probably a minority opinion.
In the past I would have loved Brian and Roger to play a handful of shows at somewhere like the Albert hall where they went deep into back catalogue and solo stuff, not billed as Queen, just as Brian and Roger. Dave Gilmour managed that a few times quite successfully.
But I think Brian's voice is not up to the task anymore. He just about gets by on the few bits he does but I don't think he could manage an hour as a frontman these days.
They seem to be able to make a shedload of money banging out the hits as Queen so it's difficult to blame them for doing it.
Costa86
[QUOTE] [b]Ivo-1976 wrote:[/b]
Nothing lasts forever. [/QUOTE]
Except Keith Richards, seemingly.
Nothing lasts forever. [/QUOTE]
Except Keith Richards, seemingly.
RafaelS
[QUOTE] [b]Costa86 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]RafaelS wrote:[/b]
They should have stopped to be called Queen back in 1992 when they did the tribute concert. Queen were four, not three nor two.[/QUOTE]
Oh, shut up.
Well, ok, don't shut up, you have a right for an opinion, but I'm sick of that argument.[/QUOTE]
Everyday I'm amazed to see that I share the same passion with so many retards and morons, but hey queenzone has a reputation of being a cesspool of dipshits.
[QUOTE] [b]RafaelS wrote:[/b]
They should have stopped to be called Queen back in 1992 when they did the tribute concert. Queen were four, not three nor two.[/QUOTE]
Oh, shut up.
Well, ok, don't shut up, you have a right for an opinion, but I'm sick of that argument.[/QUOTE]
Everyday I'm amazed to see that I share the same passion with so many retards and morons, but hey queenzone has a reputation of being a cesspool of dipshits.
RafaelS
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]RafaelS wrote:[/b]
They should have stopped to be called Queen back in 1992 when they did the tribute concert. Queen were four, not three nor two.[/QUOTE]
And every other band who have had line up changes, for what ever reason can carry on as they are, just not this one?![/QUOTE]
And whatever you think, I'm not going to change my opinion.
[QUOTE] [b]RafaelS wrote:[/b]
They should have stopped to be called Queen back in 1992 when they did the tribute concert. Queen were four, not three nor two.[/QUOTE]
And every other band who have had line up changes, for what ever reason can carry on as they are, just not this one?![/QUOTE]
And whatever you think, I'm not going to change my opinion.
CM
Sometimes I think about the old times.
OK, the band in Freddie's days had always an album with every tour.
They all wrote songs back then.
Maybe fans would have been happy with hits tours if they had stopped making new albums in 1980, so they would have spent years until 1986 playing and celebrating only their 70's albums BUT fans would have missed some new music.
Right, we got no Freddie and John these days, but we dont have less new queen (or brian + roger) songs now. We just have none at all!
I think we miss the queen songwriting mixture, while brian and roger spend all their energy with their hits tours.
Its good they do something, but we lost the act of songwriting after Cosmos Rocks.
I would not care about sales anyway...
OK, the band in Freddie's days had always an album with every tour.
They all wrote songs back then.
Maybe fans would have been happy with hits tours if they had stopped making new albums in 1980, so they would have spent years until 1986 playing and celebrating only their 70's albums BUT fans would have missed some new music.
Right, we got no Freddie and John these days, but we dont have less new queen (or brian + roger) songs now. We just have none at all!
I think we miss the queen songwriting mixture, while brian and roger spend all their energy with their hits tours.
Its good they do something, but we lost the act of songwriting after Cosmos Rocks.
I would not care about sales anyway...
Sheer Brass Neck
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]RafaelS wrote:[/b]
They should have stopped to be called Queen back in 1992 when they did the tribute concert. Queen were four, not three nor two.[/QUOTE]
And every other band who have had line up changes, for what ever reason can carry on as they are, just not this one?![/QUOTE]
One of the things I hate about the internet is that everybody has a shot at everything without knowing SFA about the poster they are replying to. Vocal Harmony seems to be quite a good person and very knowledgeable so I hate doing this, but for me, the "every other band who have had line up changes, for what ever reason can carry on as they are, just not this one?" argument holds no sway. Queen were in no way, shape or form "every other band" or any other band. Their peers were The Beatles and Led Zeppelin. They lost key members and packed it in because they knew they weren't The Beatles or Led Zeppelin without Lennon or Bonham. Not sure if they were right or wrong, but we are seeing half of Queen playing at 3/4 speed. For those who love it, great. But not sure it's Queen and the argument could be made they could have followed the lead of their peers and called it a day. FWIW.
[QUOTE] [b]RafaelS wrote:[/b]
They should have stopped to be called Queen back in 1992 when they did the tribute concert. Queen were four, not three nor two.[/QUOTE]
And every other band who have had line up changes, for what ever reason can carry on as they are, just not this one?![/QUOTE]
One of the things I hate about the internet is that everybody has a shot at everything without knowing SFA about the poster they are replying to. Vocal Harmony seems to be quite a good person and very knowledgeable so I hate doing this, but for me, the "every other band who have had line up changes, for what ever reason can carry on as they are, just not this one?" argument holds no sway. Queen were in no way, shape or form "every other band" or any other band. Their peers were The Beatles and Led Zeppelin. They lost key members and packed it in because they knew they weren't The Beatles or Led Zeppelin without Lennon or Bonham. Not sure if they were right or wrong, but we are seeing half of Queen playing at 3/4 speed. For those who love it, great. But not sure it's Queen and the argument could be made they could have followed the lead of their peers and called it a day. FWIW.
john bodega
^ it has always been a case-by-case thing.
Does anyone really care who died in the Lynyrd Skynnrdr crash, which ones are original members, or how to spell the name at a Lynrdh SKnydhr gig? Nope. They'll lie and say that they do, but they don't.
The Who kind of got away with it as a touring act because the front facing image of the band was not contingent on Moon (however fondly we look back on him). They can just as easily rely on old memories of barechest Roger, or the "this guitar has two seconds to live" poster. Or Quadrophenia imagery, which didn't even need any of the band members to function.
Pink Floyd were on a good wicket (and realistically they could've milked it for another 20 years) because the catalogue was big enough that they could snip the most Watersy of the songs away and still play for two hours - and whether one likes to admit it or not, the 'Big McMega Huge' Pink Floyd that became world famous has a sound, and that sound is David Gilmour singing over Rick Wright.
Another band that really needed its keyboardist more than they seem to realise would be Deep Purple, but they're still active - with a wheezing singer and a very friendly, very skilled but unspectacular guitar player ... but they're there!
What about ELO?? It's an insult to anyone to charge money to anything called 'ELO' and not have Jeff Lynne there, but I'm pretty sure that happened in the 90's. Sounds like a joke to me, but there you go.
You can rattle off endless examples of bands that broke up or had band members die on them, but a pattern emerges - they are all varying degrees of musical compromise, and of what you are personally willing to ignore as a listener.
It is a sheer pretense to nod and say "yeah it's still Queen". For my part I defend Brian and Roger's right to go out and do it, and I'm actually glad that they are! You're a clown if you pretend it's anything that it isn't, though - they're having fun, and they're making money. Queen was a band, and now it's dead, and some ex-members are doing the fans a solid by giving them a chance to get in one place at a time and hear the songs being played at volume.
I'm not sure if the thread title was entirely a sarcastic jab or if it willingly carries the implication that the only ethical thing for Q+AL to do would be to tour new songs, to which I say - please God no. That "Two Fux" song they've been trotting out really got a lot of bile lodged in my throat the first time I heard it, and if it's any kind of hint as to what they'd write together, I'll pass.
It took me long enough to try and forget what Paul Rodgers recorded with them.
Does anyone really care who died in the Lynyrd Skynnrdr crash, which ones are original members, or how to spell the name at a Lynrdh SKnydhr gig? Nope. They'll lie and say that they do, but they don't.
The Who kind of got away with it as a touring act because the front facing image of the band was not contingent on Moon (however fondly we look back on him). They can just as easily rely on old memories of barechest Roger, or the "this guitar has two seconds to live" poster. Or Quadrophenia imagery, which didn't even need any of the band members to function.
Pink Floyd were on a good wicket (and realistically they could've milked it for another 20 years) because the catalogue was big enough that they could snip the most Watersy of the songs away and still play for two hours - and whether one likes to admit it or not, the 'Big McMega Huge' Pink Floyd that became world famous has a sound, and that sound is David Gilmour singing over Rick Wright.
Another band that really needed its keyboardist more than they seem to realise would be Deep Purple, but they're still active - with a wheezing singer and a very friendly, very skilled but unspectacular guitar player ... but they're there!
What about ELO?? It's an insult to anyone to charge money to anything called 'ELO' and not have Jeff Lynne there, but I'm pretty sure that happened in the 90's. Sounds like a joke to me, but there you go.
You can rattle off endless examples of bands that broke up or had band members die on them, but a pattern emerges - they are all varying degrees of musical compromise, and of what you are personally willing to ignore as a listener.
It is a sheer pretense to nod and say "yeah it's still Queen". For my part I defend Brian and Roger's right to go out and do it, and I'm actually glad that they are! You're a clown if you pretend it's anything that it isn't, though - they're having fun, and they're making money. Queen was a band, and now it's dead, and some ex-members are doing the fans a solid by giving them a chance to get in one place at a time and hear the songs being played at volume.
I'm not sure if the thread title was entirely a sarcastic jab or if it willingly carries the implication that the only ethical thing for Q+AL to do would be to tour new songs, to which I say - please God no. That "Two Fux" song they've been trotting out really got a lot of bile lodged in my throat the first time I heard it, and if it's any kind of hint as to what they'd write together, I'll pass.
It took me long enough to try and forget what Paul Rodgers recorded with them.
Vocal harmony
[QUOTE] [b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]RafaelS wrote:[/b]
They should have stopped to be called Queen back in 1992 when they did the tribute concert. Queen were four, not three nor two.[/QUOTE]
And every other band who have had line up changes, for what ever reason can carry on as they are, just not this one?![/QUOTE]
One of the things I hate about the internet is that everybody has a shot at everything without knowing SFA about the poster they are replying to. Vocal Harmony seems to be quite a good person ands very knowledgeable so I hate doing this, but for me, the "every other band who have had line up changes, for what ever reason can carry on as they are, just not this one?" argument holds no sway. Queen were in no way, shape or form "every other band" or any other band. Their peers were The Beatles and Led Zeppelin. They lost key members and packed it in because they knew they weren't The Beatles or Led Zeppelin without Lennon or Bonham. Not sure if they were right or wrong, but we are seeing half of
Queen playing at 3/4 speed. For those who love it, great. But not sure it's Queen and the argument could be made they could have followed the lead of their peers and called it a day. FWIW.
[/QUOTE]
I thank you for the complement! :)
It's a fair point you make, but we should also bare in mind the Beatles had split 10 years before Lennon was shot and hadn't toured since the mid 60's.
Zeppelin played one off charity events and a full set at the o2 which if Page had had his way would have been the catalyst for a world tour, but they were unable to agree on when amongst other details even discussing a Plant replacment when he pulled out.
While there ate parallels with the stature and position of both bands and Queen the difference seems to be that Queen, well two of the remaining three get on together and want to play and perform.
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]RafaelS wrote:[/b]
They should have stopped to be called Queen back in 1992 when they did the tribute concert. Queen were four, not three nor two.[/QUOTE]
And every other band who have had line up changes, for what ever reason can carry on as they are, just not this one?![/QUOTE]
One of the things I hate about the internet is that everybody has a shot at everything without knowing SFA about the poster they are replying to. Vocal Harmony seems to be quite a good person ands very knowledgeable so I hate doing this, but for me, the "every other band who have had line up changes, for what ever reason can carry on as they are, just not this one?" argument holds no sway. Queen were in no way, shape or form "every other band" or any other band. Their peers were The Beatles and Led Zeppelin. They lost key members and packed it in because they knew they weren't The Beatles or Led Zeppelin without Lennon or Bonham. Not sure if they were right or wrong, but we are seeing half of
Queen playing at 3/4 speed. For those who love it, great. But not sure it's Queen and the argument could be made they could have followed the lead of their peers and called it a day. FWIW.
[/QUOTE]
I thank you for the complement! :)
It's a fair point you make, but we should also bare in mind the Beatles had split 10 years before Lennon was shot and hadn't toured since the mid 60's.
Zeppelin played one off charity events and a full set at the o2 which if Page had had his way would have been the catalyst for a world tour, but they were unable to agree on when amongst other details even discussing a Plant replacment when he pulled out.
While there ate parallels with the stature and position of both bands and Queen the difference seems to be that Queen, well two of the remaining three get on together and want to play and perform.
thomasquinn 32989
[QUOTE] [b]Costa86 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Ivo-1976 wrote:[/b]
Nothing lasts forever. [/QUOTE]
Except Keith Richards, seemingly.[/QUOTE]
Soft tissue can be amazingly long-lasting when infused thoroughly with pure alcohol and certain other chemical compounds...
[QUOTE] [b]Ivo-1976 wrote:[/b]
Nothing lasts forever. [/QUOTE]
Except Keith Richards, seemingly.[/QUOTE]
Soft tissue can be amazingly long-lasting when infused thoroughly with pure alcohol and certain other chemical compounds...
AlexRocks
Well, hopefully they will get a new studio l.p. out at some point, eh! :)
Pingfah
[QUOTE] [b]RafaelS wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]RafaelS wrote:[/b]
They should have stopped to be called Queen back in 1992 when they did the tribute concert. Queen were four, not three nor two.[/QUOTE]
And every other band who have had line up changes, for what ever reason can carry on as they are, just not this one?![/QUOTE]
And whatever you think, I'm not going to change my opinion.[/QUOTE]
It's not necessary to, because your opinion is irrelevant. Queen are out there touring, and calling themselves Queen regardless, and no matter how many times you bleat the same opinion, reality will not shape itself around it.
[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]RafaelS wrote:[/b]
They should have stopped to be called Queen back in 1992 when they did the tribute concert. Queen were four, not three nor two.[/QUOTE]
And every other band who have had line up changes, for what ever reason can carry on as they are, just not this one?![/QUOTE]
And whatever you think, I'm not going to change my opinion.[/QUOTE]
It's not necessary to, because your opinion is irrelevant. Queen are out there touring, and calling themselves Queen regardless, and no matter how many times you bleat the same opinion, reality will not shape itself around it.
philip storey
This will probably be my last Queen show at Birmingham the last show of the UK tour due to health problems.I was looking forward to it but all the negative feedback has put a real downer on it for me.I Think they should have stuck with have stuck with Paul Rogers, but I think the fact that the album flopped and Brian had issues with Paul finished Queen &PR. I saw Queen and Paul on the first tour at Sheffield and there was some great moments the best song on that night was All Right Now.Brians Guitar solo in that song was fantastic.Ijust hope its going to be better than what has be reported so far.