Who remains your fav Queen member and why?

They were about avoiding oblivion in a presumed smart and fashionable way.
Opening the vaults could have better result, but resurrecting the dead half of the band spoils all the fun. It's easier to replace them and pretend nothing much happened.

About Frederick... Freddie said in his message to fan club 1991 " this is Frederick Mercury".
I know I didn't said anything new. I say this because of this debate about names. :D

The real question is, why would anyone care which name is used?

Exactly:

- Calling him Fred: Fair.
- Calling him Frederick: Fair.
- Calling him Freddie: Fair.
- Calling him The Great Pretender: Fair.
- Calling him Lover of Life, Singer of Songs: Fair.
- Calling him Farrokh: Fair.
- Telling others what (not) to call him: Fairly idiotic.

To call him anything is to address him via direct communication, which is a little difficult as he's been dead 27 years. All we do is refer to him and can refer to him by whatever variation of his name exists. Fair dinkum. Easy to do on the internet.

However, I doubt very much if anyone here, if Freddie was alive and they were face to face with him, would call him Frederick.

I would - all the 'Freddies', 'Freds' and 'Fredys' I know, I always address them as 'Frederick'. Same as I tend to- with exceptions - use 'Michael' instead of 'Mike' or 'Mick', 'James' instead of 'Jim' or 'Jimmy', etc.

Moreover, I very much doubt if anyone here, if they're so great at knowing what people they don't know would or wouldn't do in hypothetical situations, would waste their time on the internet: they'd use such 'clairvoyance' (not the exact term, but don't really know what to call it) to win the lottery or bet on football, rather than coming up with nonsense here.

[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Your Fairy King wrote:[/b]

John Deacon is the obvious choice. I've lost all respect for Brian and Roger trotting out their greatest hits tour with a voice better suited for Broadway show tunes. Among the departed, Frederick is the obvious choice, because at this point - despite the fact that I've always believed Queen was the perfect sum of its parts - [b]at this point it is evident that Roger and Brian are pretty clueless about what Queen really was as a band.[/b] [/QUOTE]

Potentially very interesting point. Can you elaborate?

[/QUOTE]

Two thirds of Smile performing mainly Queen hits, using their former Queen frontman as a totem to sell tickets...

It seems likely that Brian thinks Queen is his band. He put out the ad that Roger replied to. But Smile failed and Fred was the driving force behind the band Queen. And although he enjoyed the success, fan adoration and cash, I don't think Brian ever forgave Fred for that. In their respective solo careers, Brian is the only one who desperately tried to create the Queen sound. His solo career failed. He couldn't bear that John and Roger worked on MiH without him so he took over that project, and that probably contributed to John calling it a day after No One But You. Musically, Brian has been treading water for 20 years. The only good tracks he's been involved in since the 1990s is Some Things That Glitter, The Call and Invincible Hope. He hasn't composed a good guitar solo since Innuendo.

So I think you're wrong: Brian HASN'T forgotten what made Queen the band it was. It was Fred! And Brian's been living off that legacy since his solo career bombed.

[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]

He hasn't composed a good guitar solo since Innuendo.[/QUOTE]

I do enjoy his work on MIH. YDFM solo is one of my absolute faves.

Holly2003 the quote button doesn't show on my browser (or maybe it's gone) so here is my elaboration on my statement that Roger and Brian are clueless about what Queen is all about (and I would like to amend that and only point my finger at Brian). Four musicians created seven or eight albums with virtually no outside musical support (Baker's castanets and Mike Stone's backup on GOFLB notwithstanding) albums steeped in vocal and guitar overdubs - and then those four blokes went on stage and said, "to hell with attempting to recreate what we have done in the studio. Let's just rock and roll." Despite what diehard fans of bands like Led Zeppelin think, Queen *could* improvise and they *could* jam and they were, as a four piece, incredibly tight. And they remained a four piece rock and roll band playing their material as just that. A rock band. Personally, I don't like the concert sound of the 80s incarnation with keyboards where they didn't belong (and IMO weren't needed). Now, they have who knows how many people on stage, back up singers, second drummers for God's sake, "keyboards".... the current line up is very far removed from a four piece band playing raw versions of their material at break neck speed. The only way it really sounds like Queen is because the doctor's guitar sound is so unique. The rest sounds like a pompous, overblown production with so many people there is no possible room for improvisation or jamming.

[QUOTE] [b]Your Fairy King wrote:[/b]

Holly2003 the quote button doesn't show on my browser (or maybe it's gone) ....... [/QUOTE]

Scroll about 3/4" to the right of the date of the response. The 'arrow' will turn into a 'hand', and then the 'reply with quote' will show up, then click on it (yeah, weird, I know)

Your Fairy King, points well made but taking what you have said at face value, neither The Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd are genuin rock bands or for that matter Fleetwood Mac, The Who, Triumph, Genesis, Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden and countless others who have toured or still tour with extra members.

The number of people on stage doesn't mean a band can't jam. In Queen case the current structure of the show, the amount of moving sections and the need for tightly que'd lighting, laser and video use means that jams are virtually impossible.

[QUOTE] [b]Your Fairy King wrote:[/b]

Holly2003 the quote button doesn't show on my browser (or maybe it's gone) so here is my elaboration on my statement that Roger and Brian are clueless about what Queen is all about (and I would like to amend that and only point my finger at Brian). Four musicians created seven or eight albums with virtually no outside musical support (Baker's castanets and Mike Stone's backup on GOFLB notwithstanding) albums steeped in vocal and guitar overdubs - and then those four blokes went on stage and said, "to hell with attempting to recreate what we have done in the studio. Let's just rock and roll." Despite what diehard fans of bands like Led Zeppelin think, Queen *could* improvise and they *could* jam and they were, as a four piece, incredibly tight. And they remained a four piece rock and roll band playing their material as just that. A rock band. Personally, I don't like the concert sound of the 80s incarnation with keyboards where they didn't belong (and IMO weren't needed). Now, they have who knows how many people on stage, back up singers, second drummers for God's sake, "keyboards".... the current line up is very far removed from a four piece band playing raw versions of their material at break neck speed. The only way it really sounds like Queen is because the doctor's guitar sound is so unique. The rest sounds like a pompous, overblown production with so many people there is no possible room for improvisation or jamming. [/QUOTE]

Thanks for your considered response. I agree with every word.

Except ....

I saw Queen during The Works tour (in Dublin, both nights) and while I knew all of the above, and was particularly disappointed Fred had chosen to be more of a 'frontman' instead of a musician sitting at his piano, the shows were still great. Part of that is the live concert effect -- as a fan you're invested in the show and the spectacle so it almost always sounds better when you're there than it does on bootlegs afterwards.

So I agree with you, except for that, and also maybe jamming, which I think is over-rated. I appreciate the current tour is a spectacle that visually surpasses previous Queen tours but for me it has little musical credibility.

Holly: disagree with you when you say current tour is a spectacle that surpasses previous Queen tours. Did you see the bands giant pizza oven lighting rig back in 1978 or the massive crown they had back in 1976?? Personally i think what they have now visually and musically is considerably watered down to pure piss.

I wish I could quote verbatim what that Scottish kid says on the Magic Years about his favorites.

You're not on here are you? :/

happystar the Pizza oven, while in it's day, was a spectacular lighting rig it wasn't as big as you seem to imagine it to be. On the Crazy tour by scaling it down from 32 rows of lamps to 28 it fitted in The Lyceum in London, Glasgow Apollo and Newcastle City a Hall, all of which have (had in Glasgow's case) very limited stage width.

The 32 row full size rig was 52 feet wide. While the tig structure was mobile (up, down and tilt back) it only move ex at the beginning and end of the show. The lamps were bolted to trusses which were stationary. The 76 crown basically had the 76 Day At The Races lighting rig bolted to the bottom of it. Again the Parcan lamps didn't move.

The current rig comprises three main sections. The halo the overhead structure which can be raised, lowered and tilted back and forward and from side to side containsi intelligentlight sources which can be pointed and focused in any direction and colour changed. The stage level units, again intelligentlight units and Mofoys u dear the riser steps. Three 55 foot trusses behind the upstage video wall, again comprising intelligent units.

Add to that two mobile video wall, four down stage and thrust lighting trusses and lasers, it's a far bigger, more spectacular and complex lighting set up then the Pizza ovens simple colour wash effects.