Brian and Roger using the name Queen.

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

More accurately, Ringo would have to learn to play an instrument

There's another card here, the quality thing:

- Roger's singing isn't what it was. His range is much shorter and he doesn't have the strenght he had until 'Electric Fire' (album & tour). He's very well pitched, he always was, but the quality of his voice is much less

- Brian's singing was always out of tune a lot, but now he maximised that. Plus the strength is minimal. From 'Another World' tour onwards I note that on him. Which is weird because his voice in the album sounds perfect, but in the tour he messes up so many times per minute. Each time it's worse. If you listen to the Pavarotti and friends concert objetcively, forgetting that it's Brian for a moment, you can note it's horrible.

- Brian's guitar playing is much worse too. It's pretty obvious: for more than 20 years he was in constant practice, that he left out now. Compare the 'Bo Rhap' solo of the Jubilee with any solo he played from 1975 to 1986 or in the Tribute.

- Rog's drumming sucks, completely. Again, up to '92 he was a wonderful player, now, wheter we accept it or now, he's not much more than a Ringo

So, if Brian from '76 and Roger from '76 had called themselves 'Queen' I'd criticise the use of the name, but still it'd be a wonderful show. Or any Brian or Roger from '72 to '92, but Brian & Roger from '99 onwards are pathetic.

They have to accept that their time is over, at least corresponding to stadium gigs and that stuff. Rick Wakeman is over 50 and still does wonders, Scorpions still do amazing concerts, but B&R didn't last so long and they have to deal with it. Unless they invent a way to remove ten years out of their age, but otherwise they're done, musically I mean.

They can do other stuff if they want. Roger for instance can dedicate some of his huge fortune (after all he received just as much money as Fred did for 'Bo Rhap' because he had written the B-Side) to produce Treana, a very beautiful woman who, unlike Britney or those girls, is incredibly talented as a singer and songwriter, and deserves a big recognition.

'More accurately, Ringo would have to learn to play something'

eeer, well I think you will find that most drummers who have been taught how to play and are not little boys playing in their bedrooms, respect Ringo for his very talented contribution to music, he is still much in demmand as a session drummer and has created some of the most interesting drum parts throughout his career.

As for Queen and the name thing, YourValentine hit the nail on the head, it's a company a business and no businessman would let something as valuable as that go if they didn't have to. So you don't like what they do, don't buy it end of story.

Ringo almost always wins the 'worst drummer ever' polls. Many of the drum parts in Beatles songs were written by Paul (and the most interesting one imo, Back In The USSR, was played by Paul). His contribution consisted in being part of the Beatles, and his limited skills were fundamental to make the Fab Four what they are. They needed someone like Ringo to "neutralise" the forces, because there was enough ego with J & P. He's very requested as session drummer because of the promotion. If you've got an album of 'Sebastian & Ringo Starr' sales would improve 10000%, not because Ringo's good, but because it's Ringo Starr, the ex-Beatle.

'Ringo almost always wins the 'worst drummer ever' polls'

My point well made, who signs up to those polls, boys in bedrooms that think if your not Neil Peart you are nobody!

Real musicains understand what an effect Ringo had on todays music as they were there at the time, and also know how talented he is, sure his name also helps to sell records, but lets be honest it will not make it fly off the shelves.

Polls are for kids, and every year the new crop of kiddie bands win with a few old favs thrown in to make the kids look cool, i.e. John Bonham after all it's cool to like John, but not Ringo.

You don't have to be flashy to be a talented musicain, drumming is about keeping time and adding to the overall songs feel, and occasionally making a statement, all of which Ringo was the master of, name two other 60's pop drummers that had any real influence on what followed?

Influence caused isn't neccesarily proportional to talent or mastery. If Ringo were in Humpy Bong would have he influenced a lot too? definitely not. Ringo was an ok drummer that played what the songs needed, and he - more for being in the Beatles than for being more than good - is the one of the most famous drummers ever, but that doesn't mean he's "good".

George was a guitarist extremely peculiar who wrote a huge number of easy but unforgettable solos. That's mental virtuosism, but to say he's as good as nearly 200 other rock guitarists (including Brian) just because of the influence he had is an exageration.

Football is the same. Lev Yashin is respected because he was the first goalkeeper in winning a Golden Ball, but to which point he was "the best"? Maybe he did influence many others (as he was influenced by Gyula Grosics and others), but we can't say he's "excellent" for today standards (even in 2nd division we see keepers who can almost fly). There is a good amount on legend in both Lev's and Ringo's cases. Also Paul, John and George for that extent and even Jimmy Hendrix imo.

The only point I now want to make clear is about this spent creativity thing. NO-ONE here can possibly comment on that aspect of things. There's not much to go on. I believe that we can only judge by proper means, e.g. No-One But You - their last proper recording. I don't know about you folks, but I loved it! It still had the feel that was always part of a Queen track. And it was done very well. Even vocally. Also the track - Say It's Not True. A nice departure from their usual rocking away style. Always welcome. And the only other real venture with the Queen name was the musical. Like it or loathe it, it doesn't matter. It's very popular.

What am I getting at? Well, when was the last time we REALLY saw what Brian and Roger could do? To me, their real strengths lie in what material they have hidden away. They always talk about doing something in the studio. Roger says it all the time. But will it ever happen? There will come a time when it does. But for now, there isn't really anything to judge them by. Unless you follow them so much that you hate rehashes. If you're smart, you'll ignore them. Why get yourself down over something silly like an advert!? Go have a banana, it'll cheer you up!

Peace,
Adam.

EDIT: And of course, not forgetting the two DVD-A releases, ANATO and The Game. Both excellent releases.

It is impossible to compare then and now, in music or sport, the time between changes everything, so what you are saying is in 30 years time when a new generation of musicains come along they will wipe away what has gone before... no of course they won't.

I think you will find that pretty well every one of the top 20 drummers today that have made there fortunes in music will put Ringo somewhere in their list of favourite drummers, just read the drumming mags they are full of people quoting him as playing a major roll in todays music.

How can you say he was an OK drummer, that shows how much you know about drumming, he isn't flashy but you don't have to be to be great, fast doesn't = good it's all about feel and I have never heard any professional musicain say Ringo was OK or had no feel for the songs.

As I said before, kids don't understand what effect he had and how groundbreaking he was today because it looks so much cooler to fly round a kit but trust me professionals know him to be very talented.

Fair point Adam, and really this can be debated until we're all blue in the face. I guess what I mean is that when Brian keeps commenting on all of the remakes of WWRY and how they're firing him up with a new challenge, I don't see that as creativity. He wrote WWRY a lifetime ago and the best effort is the iconic NOTW version. Since then he's performed it live everywhere he goes, they did it with 5ive, John Farnham then the Pepsi thing. The original has stood the test of time for 27 years, and will continue to. The other versions only get notice because of the song title, then disappear to be forgotten. That's because there's no substance, and that's not what many people expect from Queen. Maybe throwing himself into the musical is a different form of creativity and I'm judging them too harshly and should say that as songwriters, Brian and Roger appear to have their best days behind them. I agree with you though, I think they have an album in them that could be great, but nobody's getting any younger and they just have to do it.

Ofcouse Brian and Roger don't play as good as 10 years ago, Thats not weird is it? Since they rarely got practice in the last few years.

If McCartney, The Scorpions, The Stones or God knows which other band didn't play for 10 years, their skills would also drop a bit. It's not more than normal


For all you people saying Brian and Roger can't be Queen. Get a life!

"I did quickly realize that Ringo was an excellent drummer for what was required. He's not a technical drummer. Men like Buddy Rich and Gene Krupa would run rings around him, but he is a good solid rock drummer with a steady beat, and he knows how to get the right sound out of his drums. Above all, he does have an individual sound. You can tell Ringo's drums from anyone else's and that character was a definite asset to the Beatles' early recordings."

George Martin

"Ringo Starr was adequate."

Buddy Rich

Not the greatest technician, but a wonderful player and perfect for the Beatles. John Deacon is respected but nobody would ever say that he's the best bass player or hundredth best player in rock. However, he was perfect for Queen and I'd rather have him than Billy Sheehan who could play circles around John technically but doesn't always understand the value of empty space.

John is much better bass player than people use to think. Listen for example to 'Don't Try Suicide', a very excellent precise wonderful line. John went far far beyond the 1 note per measure thing. But that's not what I mean

What I mean is that Bri and Rog should stop making fool of themselves. They can practice to recover their skills (as Ace and Peter did before the 1996 Kiss tour) or just retire and leave the legend instead of trashing it.

i agree with your final comment Sebastian...they've got to do something to stop trashing that legend..they will slowly lose respect..go practice and write an album thats, what we all say..nuff said!

That's Brian who's on blame!!!

He's STUBBORN,SELF-CENTERED and BOSSY !!!

yo yo the way I see it,, it looks like I've started the Queenzones critics to be putting down the beatles and the surviving memebers of Queen at the same time.

First I have to agree with Fairy Mercury with her follow on post after mine...

and to all of you that didnt go to the nitty gritty changes of brian and rogers present voices and shit and smellin the coffee to the original fact that they are the original Veterans of the rock group Queen and nothing could change their statues how ever nicer they are souding now.... I am with you guys all the freakin way!!!!

and leave Ringo alone!! man you guys can be so spikeful... I feel like tellin a die hard geeked up computer onliner of a Beatles fan to kick your asses lol!!

Every so often this topic comes up. The usual responses are generally the same as they are now. It's out of our control. Brian & Roger can do whatever they please w/ the name Queen. We all know that thet aren't "Queen", and I do believe that they know it too. But, it is the name that everyone knows the world over. It is immeditely recognizable much like the "Queen Sound." So as a marketing tool they need to use it. No one outside the Queen circle is gonna pick up on Taylor & May tonight in concert. It would never get anywhere. In order to sell tickets the almost have to use the name. So I have no problem w/ them using it. And if they didn't use it I wouldn't have a problem w/ that either.
Let me put it this way, I am a HUGE QUEEN FAN. (not that anyone else here isn't) I have over two thirds of my life invested in supporting them. I got hooked way back in 1981 before Pressure was released. I had the great fortune to see them in 82. That experience has left me wanting more. So in order to see even 1/2 of my band perform live again it means that the name Queen is being use, so be it! I don't give a damn what they call themselves, be it Queen, Smile, May & Taylor, or Roger and the Hemorrhoids. I want to hear those songs performed live again. 22 years is too long to go w/ out.