Freddie confirms Queen are not Queen if four members are not there

[QUOTE] [b]Mr Right wrote:[/b]

Indeed Queen were four members but according to May & Taylor Queen can also be two members!
To me that says hypocrisy of the highest level, and they keep using the name Queen to rake the millions of pounds in rather than start a new band and have a clean slate from ripping many dumb people off big time. I am not one of them thankfully.
Paul McCartney never continued The Beatles he formed Wings and the same for the other Beatles they never found new members to continue been The Beatles, and personally that is what Queen should have done instead of milking a the name Queen .
Queen truthfully was 4 band members.[/QUOTE]

A M E N!

[QUOTE] [b]rockchic65 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Mr Right wrote:[/b]

Indeed Queen were four members but according to May & Taylor Queen can also be two members!
To me that says hypocrisy of the highest level, and they keep using the name Queen to rake the millions of pounds in rather than start a new band and have a clean slate from ripping many dumb people off big time. I am not one of them thankfully.
Paul McCartney never continued The Beatles he formed Wings and the same for the other Beatles they never found new members to continue been The Beatles, and personally that is what Queen should have done instead of milking a the name Queen .
Queen truthfully was 4 band members.[/QUOTE]

Serious question, if they are using the name Queen + ........., playing Queen music how is that ripping people off? Everyone who goes to a show knows exactly what they're getting, they aren't pretending to be original Queen, they've made it very obvious in every interview that it's a collaboration, they aren't pretending to be anything other than that, so how can that be ripping people off, they have a choice whether they think it's worth paying to see two of the four members of Queen with a different bassist and singer and if not fair enough, like you they just don't go.
[/QUOTE]

Thn they should call themselves "two of four members of Queen" instead of Queen plus which implies Maylor are Queen you dumbfuck

[QUOTE] [b]runner_70 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]rockchic65 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Mr Right wrote:[/b]

Indeed Queen were four members but according to May & Taylor Queen can also be two members!
To me that says hypocrisy of the highest level, and they keep using the name Queen to rake the millions of pounds in rather than start a new band and have a clean slate from ripping many dumb people off big time. I am not one of them thankfully.
Paul McCartney never continued The Beatles he formed Wings and the same for the other Beatles they never found new members to continue been The Beatles, and personally that is what Queen should have done instead of milking a the name Queen .
Queen truthfully was 4 band members.[/QUOTE]

Serious question, if they are using the name Queen + ........., playing Queen music how is that ripping people off? Everyone who goes to a show knows exactly what they're getting, they aren't pretending to be original Queen, they've made it very obvious in every interview that it's a collaboration, they aren't pretending to be anything other than that, so how can that be ripping people off, they have a choice whether they think it's worth paying to see two of the four members of Queen with a different bassist and singer and if not fair enough, like you they just don't go.
[/QUOTE]

Thn they should call themselves "two of four members of Queen" instead of Queen plus which implies Maylor are Queen you dumbfuck[/QUOTE]

Bit of a mouthful don't ya think, and why should they when they had as much input into "Queen" as the other two. Like I said, they aren't trying to fool anyone.

Legally, they can do it. Financially, they'd be fools not to.

Making money was one of Frederick's favourite activities, so they're honouring him. They're also honouring John by allowing him to keep making millions without moving from his house. They've got his blessing, they don't need yours or mine or anybody else's.

[QUOTE] [b]AlbaNo1 wrote:[/b]

In what sense?


“Deep Purple, along with many other bands had members who were/are more accomplished musicians then the members of Queen.”
[/QUOTE]

Jon Lord, Richie Blackmore, and Ian Paice are all technically superior players to their counterparts in Queen.

And of course, writing that on a Queen forum will get hardcore nutjobs to say "ZOMG QUEEN ARE THE GREATEST EVER, YOU'RE NOT A REAL QUEEN FAN."

But removing that emotional attachment from one's favourite band - the guys in Deep Purple had better chops.

The guys in Yes were a step beyond Deep Purple. The jazz fusion bands like Weather Report and Mahavishnu Orchestra were a step beyond Yes. And nowadays there are 16 year olds on YouTube who destroy all of them.

But that's just chops. Whether or not that matters for creating music to one's taste is another thing, as plenty of great songs have 3 chords. The chops vs musicality debate is an endless wormhole.

I agree with Real Wizzard. Oh, I send you a mail.

[QUOTE] [b]Mr gerryhappystarRight wrote:[/b]
Paul McCartney never continued The Beatles he formed Wings and the same for the other Beatles they never found new members to continue been The Beatles, and personally that is what Queen should have done instead of milking a the name Queen .
Queen truthfully was 4 band members.[/QUOTE]

Paul left The Beatles. So, how in the hell could he ever 'continued The Beatles?'. Besides, they were John's band, and he was more than done with them. And, comparing the two band situations is idiotic.

FFS.....learn your history. And, learn how to write correctly. All the time you spend with your rants could be used to brush up on your composition skills. But, I have to admit, you continue the low brow entertaining.

Carry on.

[QUOTE] [b]Mr Wrong wrote:[/b]

Paul McCartney never continued The Beatles he formed Wings and the same for the other Beatles they never found new members to continue been The Beatles[/QUOTE]

Ever heard of punctuation and spelling? That was atrocious to read.

Also - you're ludicrously wrong. The end of The Beatles and the end of Queen have absolutely nothing in common. Go to Wikipedia before posting nonsense about music history.

But what use is logic with you? When someone points out that other bands continued with new members, you just dismiss them as inferior bands.

Must be nice in that ivory tower.

Goodco The Beatles split up yeah, and there was no attempt to replace Paul they just split up. No ridiculous replacements for Paul they gracefully spilt and Queen should have done the same.

[QUOTE] [b]gerryhappystarRight wrote:[/b]

Goodco The Beatles split up yeah, and there was no attempt to replace Paul they just split up. No ridiculous replacements for Paul they gracefully spilt and Queen should have done the same.[/QUOTE]

Once again, it was John's band. John was done with it all mentally for a couple of years.

Yes, they 'gracefully spilt'. The resulting lawsuits, angst, quarrels, avoidance, and put downs in the press and their solo lyrics were from a 'graceful spilt'.

Carry on.

The Beatles partnership was dissolved. So really they all left.

Even if it was dissolved one of the members may have tried to continue the group? Oh maybe not cos they had more respect.

Respect for what?

Respect for the pride of the band, because Queen have trashed themselves now and have no respect for leaving the bands memory the way it was, instead Queen have now opened a new chapter which has achieved absolutely nothing apart from make them a lot of money singing there hits with a reality nobody, where is the sense in that? They have not recorded any new music since Paul Rodgers was with them and that speaks volumes.

yeah, and TCR is collecting dust these days....They sure wrote a ton of classics since Freddie died.