Brian and Roger using the name Queen.

I could go for "Brian May and Roger Taylor of Queen".

I'm not sure, of course is magnificent that sometimes Brian and Roger are playing together, but under the name Queen... it's not really right. Of course they are Queen, but not complete (missing Fred. and John), why don't they try to refound smile, or make a new band? With new ánd old songs, that would be the best I think.

Brian and Roger annoy the hell out of me, John had the sece to retire when Freddie died!!

Sorry im getting excitable *fans face with news paper*

I take slight issue with you, Mr. Scully.

There's this band I really like called the Dead Kennedys who in recent times have set the record for nasty breakups. The other three members of the band sued their lead singer for some ridiculous amount because he wouldn't let them put a song in a Levi's commercial. Then, they went on a reunion tour (without him) replacing him with some former child actor who also happened to be a complete asshole.

Anyone who says that was "the Dead Kennedys" is on crack. And given Brian and Roger's taste in musicians, God knows what they'll pull out of their asses next. NO, before anyone asks, I am not implying that Brian and Roger ever would have sued Freddie over something so stupid. But it's something to think about, no?

How many times must this be raised. Brian & Roger have every right to call themselves Queen or Smile or The Blonde One & the Curly Haired One! Its there choice if you don't like it tough.

The Damned only feature Captain & Dave but they are still The Damned and fucking brilliant they are to!

I bet fans of the Drifters are glad message boards are fairly new thing LOL

You answer both sides of the argument in your post Rich Tea.

1. Brian & Roger have every right to call themselves Queen or Smile or The Blonde One & the Curly Haired One! Its there choice if you don't like it tough.

That is correct.

2. The Damned only feature Captain & Dave but they are still The Damned and fucking brilliant they are to!

Herein lies the crux of the problem. Queen, like the Damned, is just a brand name. Queen as they exist in 2004 are a spent force creatively, and so far from brilliant it's a joke.

There are those of us who feel that the Queen that existed as a foursome were a force of nature, and arguably the greatest act of all time. Freddie Mercury arguably wrote the song of the century, and was a brilliant songwriter. He arguably had the finest voice in rock, and certainly the most versatile. And he was arguably rock's greatest showman. How do you replace or recreate that. If Fatty dies from finger exhaustion the board will go on, but if Dark Inu Yasha whatever replaced him as the humourist on this board and said "I'm the new Fatty," EVERYONE on the board would lose their freakin' minds.

There are no wrong or right answers. It's obviously an emotional issue for people, and my feeling is let them call themselves what they want. However, without Freddie and John, they'll be a shadow of their former greatness.

One more quote, this one's from 1993 by Brian, very true:

"In my mind, it just seems like there cannot be a Queen without Freddie and we should probably rather not pretend that there could be."

Eh?

When did he come into this thread?

*wanders off to bed*

"Deep Purple and Yes have changed their line-ups a lot but they never had someone impossible to replace"

Ouch! Anyone who thought that Trevor Rabin wasn't a bad replacement in place of Steve Howe needs their head examined!! The difference is that Queen never wanted to change their line-up. While a band like Yes did it to experiment in place of a departing member or to see what could be done with different line-ups.
If the Queen line-up had changed the fans would've split in different ways and said many different things. But the difference here is that Brian and Roger are from the original line-up. What's wrong with that? Just cause they use the name they made, somehow they don't deserve it because someone isn't there?? Just imagine you had a business name that you were being forced not to use anymore because some of the founding partners died.
You just have to recognise that it's a brand that they're entitled to. Let it be...

Oh Seb...The Beatles? How many of those have we or ever will see again? Not exactly a fair comparison.

"the most pathetic is to destroy Tie Your Mother Down doing it with Five."

Er...how many people actually know about that? And dwell on it too! lol Who cares?

"Queen as they exist in 2004 are a spent force creatively, and so far from brilliant it's a joke."

On what do you base this? They haven't done anything with the name, really. Think about it...

"However, without Freddie and John, they'll be a shadow of their former greatness."

Next time you see Bri or Rog, you tell them that.

Peace,
Adam.

About the partnership thing: if they agreed that the society would end in the moment one of them dissapeared, it is wrong that they continue if one of the partners die, because that wasn't the deal. If two of the partners decide to go on with the society just because a new thing wouldn't be so immediatly recognisable it's just a very mediocre and pathetic way to destroy the agreement.

It's just like the May credit on 'I Want It All', they should have credited 'Invisible Man' to Roger, 'The Miracle' to Freddie and 'Breakthru' to both for that matter.

Adam, as I've always found you to be a very thoughtful poster and a decent guy and I have the utmost respect for you as a musician, I still say with no regret that based upon rehashing the same song in 20 different flavours with inferior artists that Queen are spent creatively.

We're all different and have different opinions on what we like. For me, Queen peaked creatively (don't care about commercially, sales mean nothing in relation to art) with ANATO, followed by brilliant albums with ADATR and NOTW. They still made fantastic music, but after that they weren't the same creatively. That's my opinion, it mad be wrong but I stand by it. So as someone who believes that ANATO is equivalent to the Mona Lisa as a work of art it pains me to see Brian and Roger doing 5ive, Robbie Williams, Britney Spears WITHOUT doing anything new. If they did new stuff that'd be different but the perception outside of the Queen world is that they are hanging on by recycling the same old WWRY stuff and it's just sales. A lot of us don't like it, a lot of people think it's great to see the Queen name kept alive. But Adam, as a musician in your heart of hearts I can't believe that you think that what Brian and Roger have "created" in the years since Freddie's death is worthy of the Queen name. And whether I'd say anyhting to either if I met them is neither here nor there. It's because I think they're standards from early in their career were so absurdly high that their current output disaaponts me so.

Peace.

The problem is that "Queen" is a company name but many customers don't feel like customers, they feel emotionally involved. From a business point of view it would be totally stupid to abandon the name which is so well known and start from the scratch, why should Brian and Roger do that? To satisfy the emotional needs of their fans? Sebastian introduced ethics into the discussion like it's unethical to use the name. But it's a crystal clear legal situation: Brian and Roger have the right to use the name and of course they make use of their right. In which way that is unethical is beyond me. Being long time fans you can hate their work and think they don't live up to the musical standards they used to uphold (Pepsi commercial!!)but that has nothing to do with the use of the name Queen. The truth is that Brian and Roger will look for their customers elsewhere (musical)and your emotional needs are pretty far down on their priority list.

ROGER AND BRIAN AND DEACON STILL REPRESENTING LARGE IN THIS WORLD OF GENERATED PRETTY UNTALENTED ACTS AS THE ORIGINAL VETERANS OF THE MIGHTY RAW ROCK GROUP QUEEN!!!

and for som who thinks they shouldnt carry the title Queen is like to see you guys get on the mic and try to cover a Queen song all to yourself....

yeah as the original veteran Brian and Roger of the Beatles should carry on....

wooops should that be Queen???? wooops again no not to you guys lol! Beatles will do

Holy crap. Brian May, Paul MacCartney, Ringo Starr and Roger Taylor! Best band ever?

Of course Ringo would have to learn to play another instrument.

you know it's a tough one. like some of you have said, what Brian and Roger have done since 1992 may not seem worthy to the 'old' Queen...but there will never ever again be the 'old' Queen. However, like the others have said they have every right to use the name Queen...god damn it it's their name. If they recorded new material *very unlikely if this musical continues* they would release it under Queen, but it wouldn't be Queen..but we would still accept it as Queen because they are doing what we want them to do...so we sould take the rough with the smooth regarding Brian and Roger *who by the way although i don't agree with himm all the time, he can still do no worng in my eyes...i just love the bloke!* and let them find and continue on the new paths for themselves, but hope they will pull themselves back together and give us new music...

ok i'm not making complete sense here, but i know what i'm talking about!

Ringo should play the banjo!!.....