I think they should get george michael and start a band, i know its not the same without freddie but wouldnt it be great to see them back. And i believe george michael is the man because he has a brilliant voice and his career has kinda stopped, but the performance of him in the tribute concert was outstanding.
But honestly i cant see them returning, but its a dam shame because i think they could rule again.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Well you all know about who there were those people who made up Beatles Mania right? Well my mom gave me the idea to make up Queen Mania. I thought about it, but it wans't a good idea. Well, i mean i am a pretty good singer and i can sing most of Freddie's notes and everything, but then i thought, it is kind of like copying rhem, which i would rather not do, because Queen was one of a kind, not saying that the Beatles weren't or anything. For Queen's plans of coming back though, if they call themselves Queen again, I will be sooooooooooo anry!!! They can't name themselves Queen with Freddie. Without Freddoe it's just Que.
BHM 0271 = "Billy Squier would be a great choice. He had an album out about 4 years back that was fantastic. His voice and an acoustic guitar. Tremendous stuff, the type of risk Brian and Roger should be taking."
They were scheduled to do an acoustic session for VH1 in 2001. Then 9/11 happened and put an end to that. So, it's not as if they hadn't been thinking of that very same idea.
"And if Brian and Roger selected Marilyn Manson or one of the blokes from S Club 7 as the new singer would that be okay to carry on the Queen name?"
What an obsurd question. Bad joke...
As for the Queen name thing. Freddie's gone. John has gone as well. Therefore, it's left to Brian and Roger to do anything they wish. Bitch all you want. At the end of the day, it's not our livelyhood on the line. Nor, I'd say, the memories. Because anything new belongs to a different period of time and set up of the band.
Too much time is spent debating the obvious. I don't care about the name anymore. It's not going to tarnish anything they've done in the past. Only Queen extremists would say that.
Peace,
Adam.
They were scheduled to do an acoustic session for VH1 in 2001. Then 9/11 happened and put an end to that. So, it's not as if they hadn't been thinking of that very same idea.
"And if Brian and Roger selected Marilyn Manson or one of the blokes from S Club 7 as the new singer would that be okay to carry on the Queen name?"
What an obsurd question. Bad joke...
As for the Queen name thing. Freddie's gone. John has gone as well. Therefore, it's left to Brian and Roger to do anything they wish. Bitch all you want. At the end of the day, it's not our livelyhood on the line. Nor, I'd say, the memories. Because anything new belongs to a different period of time and set up of the band.
Too much time is spent debating the obvious. I don't care about the name anymore. It's not going to tarnish anything they've done in the past. Only Queen extremists would say that.
Peace,
Adam.
Well you all know about who there were those people who made up Beatles Mania right? Well my mom gave me the idea to make up Queen Mania. I thought about it, but it wans't a good idea. Well, i mean i am a pretty good singer and i can sing most of Freddie's notes and everything, but then i thought, it is kind of like copying rhem, which i would rather not do, because Queen was one of a kind, not saying that the Beatles weren't or anything. For Queen's plans of coming back though, if they call themselves Queen again, I will be sooooooooooo anry!!! They can't name themselves Queen with Freddie. Without Freddoe it's just Que.
Whoa, there...Beatlemania was not "made up" -- it happened, both in the UK and the US. (The fans made it happen, but the press helped a little, in their own way.) When The Beatles came to America in February 1964, it was one of the best things to ever happen, and there's never been anything like it since!
QueenMania? Nope. Past tense, Queen is not a band anymore and hasn't been in the thirteen years since Freddie's passing. Join the fan club, you'll be happy!
Lets face it, I think there is too much talk and not enough action from Brian and Roger.
John isn't getting involved so be it, All Brian & Roger have to do is start touring to see if the interest is still there, which it is and it never will die from Queen fans as there is enough of us to keep a New album or Tour sucessful.
I'm sick & tired of waiting for something new too happen just do it already, its like they can't make their minds up. (What Brian & Roger have to rememeber is that their not getting any younger) Make the fans & yourselves happy by doing something, you wont regret it.
John isn't getting involved so be it, All Brian & Roger have to do is start touring to see if the interest is still there, which it is and it never will die from Queen fans as there is enough of us to keep a New album or Tour sucessful.
I'm sick & tired of waiting for something new too happen just do it already, its like they can't make their minds up. (What Brian & Roger have to rememeber is that their not getting any younger) Make the fans & yourselves happy by doing something, you wont regret it.
Adam wrote:
"They were scheduled to do an acoustic session for VH1 in 2001. Then 9/11 happened and put an end to that. So, it's not as if they hadn't been thinking of that very same idea."
I wrote that Billy Squier's album was like nothing he'd ever done before. B & R were doing a one-off rehash of old material in an unplugged. That's hardly the same idea and hardly a risk? And 9/11 was 3+ years ago. I think that although they've done a work on some musical, they could have rescheduled one day in that time, no?
"What an obsurd question. Bad joke..."
Why Adam? You and others say you want to hear Queen again, and have arbitrarily decided that if it's with Paul Rodgers then that makes it Queen. But if they reformed with non-Queen style singers (like Marilyn Manson to play devil's advocate), is it still Queen if you don't like the singer? So it's not an absurd question, it's a question of who is Queen, and we both know who we think Queen is.
"I don't care about the name anymore. It's not going to tarnish anything they've done in the past. Only Queen extremists would say that."
In your opinion again. That's not even close to a definitive statement. Each time Queen trots out yet another version of WWRY with another singer they are bacoming self-parodying to all but Queen fans. People who don't post here and don't care for Queen will see them singing the same 27 year old song with anyone who is the flavour of the moment. Tell me Adam, do you think that WWRY with 5ive adds to Queen's legacy? I think it devalues the song. Leave the fucking past in the past. Everybody knows that B & R can call themselves Queen and they will (although I hope you were joking about their livelihoods, they're turning into dollar whores of the worst kind with the musical.) But IMHO, I'm as passionate about who Queen is as you are. We disagree. We're not extremists, we're not dinosaurs, we're not bitchers. Queen were gods. Now they're salesmen. I think it's sad that wonderful musicians who are capable of so much more have chosen to become an oldies act. If you don't, I respect your views, that's what makes the world go round.
Peace.
"They were scheduled to do an acoustic session for VH1 in 2001. Then 9/11 happened and put an end to that. So, it's not as if they hadn't been thinking of that very same idea."
I wrote that Billy Squier's album was like nothing he'd ever done before. B & R were doing a one-off rehash of old material in an unplugged. That's hardly the same idea and hardly a risk? And 9/11 was 3+ years ago. I think that although they've done a work on some musical, they could have rescheduled one day in that time, no?
"What an obsurd question. Bad joke..."
Why Adam? You and others say you want to hear Queen again, and have arbitrarily decided that if it's with Paul Rodgers then that makes it Queen. But if they reformed with non-Queen style singers (like Marilyn Manson to play devil's advocate), is it still Queen if you don't like the singer? So it's not an absurd question, it's a question of who is Queen, and we both know who we think Queen is.
"I don't care about the name anymore. It's not going to tarnish anything they've done in the past. Only Queen extremists would say that."
In your opinion again. That's not even close to a definitive statement. Each time Queen trots out yet another version of WWRY with another singer they are bacoming self-parodying to all but Queen fans. People who don't post here and don't care for Queen will see them singing the same 27 year old song with anyone who is the flavour of the moment. Tell me Adam, do you think that WWRY with 5ive adds to Queen's legacy? I think it devalues the song. Leave the fucking past in the past. Everybody knows that B & R can call themselves Queen and they will (although I hope you were joking about their livelihoods, they're turning into dollar whores of the worst kind with the musical.) But IMHO, I'm as passionate about who Queen is as you are. We disagree. We're not extremists, we're not dinosaurs, we're not bitchers. Queen were gods. Now they're salesmen. I think it's sad that wonderful musicians who are capable of so much more have chosen to become an oldies act. If you don't, I respect your views, that's what makes the world go round.
Peace.
no rogers not fat electra, it's all muscle.
Just downloaded the Hall of Fame Performance.... IT SURELY ROCKS!!! What's wrong with Rogers??