Okay, partly agreed ....
but they should make a public excuse for all the shit they did in the past years (including the lame WWRY-musical and the questionable "Greatest Hits 3") ;-)
Thread
Posts in chronological order
nov 1991: queen DID NOT die
what dies was a lot of people's ideas of what Queen is
but if 50% of the founder members of queen want to keep going then queen did not die.
now if the public don't buy thie music/gigs and generally don't buy into it then they may need to rethink their "name" - it's still alive and kicking as an idea until THEY decide to do otherwise, face it people and don't get worked up about what you can't alter
what dies was a lot of people's ideas of what Queen is
but if 50% of the founder members of queen want to keep going then queen did not die.
now if the public don't buy thie music/gigs and generally don't buy into it then they may need to rethink their "name" - it's still alive and kicking as an idea until THEY decide to do otherwise, face it people and don't get worked up about what you can't alter
Well said Sebastian. If Queen+Paul Rodgers were to come to Canada I would definitely go, but the same goes for Brian May. Personally, I think he should stay solo and if Roger wants to join him great, but without Freddie it's not Queen.
For the millionth time, yes, Brian and Roger can and will call themselves Queen. Fine. We understand that. But please tell me why the enablers get upset when others (correctly) point out that on every album there was a "Queen is" or "Queen are" credit naming the four band members? It's because THOSE FOUR WERE THE BAND!!! Roy Thomas Bender wasn't in Queen. Spike Edney wasn't in Queen. And Steve Howe wasn't in Queen for Innuendo. If Queen wanted Spike in the band they would have added him. How would that be different from this scenario? It's not.
Having said that, it's an interesting choice because Paul Rodgers is a terrfic singer miles removed from Freddie. Can't see him handling the more delicate numbers to be honest. Hopefully that means it'll be a rock show with lots of guitar, no material from Hot Space on, and most importantly, no chick singers. That's the sign a band has lost it.
And the final thing that is odd, Freddie was an amazing frontman. Paul Rodgers isn't much of a stage presence. It's going to be bizarre but best of luck to the lot of them.
Having said that, it's an interesting choice because Paul Rodgers is a terrfic singer miles removed from Freddie. Can't see him handling the more delicate numbers to be honest. Hopefully that means it'll be a rock show with lots of guitar, no material from Hot Space on, and most importantly, no chick singers. That's the sign a band has lost it.
And the final thing that is odd, Freddie was an amazing frontman. Paul Rodgers isn't much of a stage presence. It's going to be bizarre but best of luck to the lot of them.
Well stuff you lot i'm going to go and enjoy myself it will be strnage after seeing queen in 84 and 86 tribute and all the solo tours but hey its going to be fab
If John doesnt want to join them.. he can always gather his biggles time friends together and have his own "queen- continuation tribute/whaterver band".. but I think he rather stays with his family and plays bass on the beach with other boys..
HeM:
Queen NEVER recorded in a studio WITHOUT Deacon.
Queen were NEVER a success WITHOUT Deacon.
Queen's biggest EVER international hit (and it ain't Bo Rhap) WAS written by Deacon.
The train of thought here is that Queen are NOT QUEEN without Freddie or the Deackster. Now, I am NOT saying that Brian and Roger and Paul would NOT kick ass... but they are NOT Queen!
I mean I like "Star Trek" and I like "The Next Generation". I like "Free" but I also like "Bad Company". I like "Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac" - but I do NOT like "Fleetwood Mac".
Now I know that this is all my personal opinion. But for me, Queen II, or Queen Two, or Queen Too, or Queen The Next Generation, but NOT QUEEN!!!
Completly true,
However after Bo Rhap there are several songs wich are very high. However John wrote a lot of them.
And I agree completley bout the Queen II or Queen and a half. Cause Queen isn't Queen without Deacon. Queen would have had millions of fans less without Deacon. Like a good friend of mine would never have bought on Fire if it weren't without John.
He wouldn't like Queen without John. Cause it are the songs like another one bites the dust, I want to break free, Back Chat and Friends Will Be Friends wich he adores.
Queen are 4 ecual members, wich all worte legendary numder ones.
They all where very entertaining.
Some people think John is boring, he is not, he's just still, but he's very funny. He's a real London lad, getting a rockers live and it is typical and funny to see that. he also has his very dry funny remarks, like "John what are your dreams?" "Wet".
Or as seen in the killerqueen documantary he acts very strange, very funny. a guy in it said, that John once said: "I went into the studio and now I got all this money, what do i have to do with it?"
And he is a good bass-player wich fits the other three tremendesly.And John has made the right dession. He knew that Queen wouldn't be Queen without Freddie. So he stopped and prefented a tour with Paul, my voice and performance sucks, Rodgers- He prefented to get a lower namethrough things like the Amsterdam concert, casue evrybody who watched it thought: "I mis Freddie".
And now Roger and Brian (don't misunderstand me, they are fucking good) are soiling Queen's (esspecialy Freddie's and bit of John's) legacy. They should be stopped doing that. And that all can be prefented by using a different name.
John is the smartest one, sertenly.
By The Way wouldn't it be horrible that after a long year of waiting on another release that release would be Queen and Paul Rodgers?
.....first of all, i´d like to introduce myself, as this is going to be my first posting in this Community:
I am an 28 years old Queen fan from Germany
.....the first thing i thought, when Roger and Brian announced the so called Queen-tour in spring on German TV-Show "Wetten Dass?": "Great and unbelievable"........Then i thought about John and who would have the burden to step in Freddie´s too large footsteps?.......then i read about this Paul Rodgers.....and i thougt "Paul Who???".........
I have never heard about this guy........but maybe there more commonly known singers in the world?!
I think as well that Queen is not Queen without Freddie and John. But if they tour, i maybe will go to the show, because i never had the chance seeing "Queen" live on stage. I would rather see the three remaining Queen members on stage on their own or with somebody i know.
And as on www.queen-fip.com can be seen songs by this Rodgers guy are played as well, this destroys my idea of what a Queen tour should be.........Queen have too many own songs that should be played.......
....besides.....i liked the show on TV........it rocked and for me it was very emotionally....:)
I am an 28 years old Queen fan from Germany
.....the first thing i thought, when Roger and Brian announced the so called Queen-tour in spring on German TV-Show "Wetten Dass?": "Great and unbelievable"........Then i thought about John and who would have the burden to step in Freddie´s too large footsteps?.......then i read about this Paul Rodgers.....and i thougt "Paul Who???".........
I have never heard about this guy........but maybe there more commonly known singers in the world?!
I think as well that Queen is not Queen without Freddie and John. But if they tour, i maybe will go to the show, because i never had the chance seeing "Queen" live on stage. I would rather see the three remaining Queen members on stage on their own or with somebody i know.
And as on www.queen-fip.com can be seen songs by this Rodgers guy are played as well, this destroys my idea of what a Queen tour should be.........Queen have too many own songs that should be played.......
....besides.....i liked the show on TV........it rocked and for me it was very emotionally....:)
That's why they call it a Queen & Paul Rodgers-tour rather than a Queen tour.
Paul Rodgers is an internationally famous and acclaimed singer. You don't HAVE to know him, but he's certainly far from being a nobody.
Most importantly, however, there have been several collaborations between Brian and Paul throughout the last years, both on stage and in the studio, so he should be well-known to Queen fans anyway
Paul Rodgers is an internationally famous and acclaimed singer. You don't HAVE to know him, but he's certainly far from being a nobody.
Most importantly, however, there have been several collaborations between Brian and Paul throughout the last years, both on stage and in the studio, so he should be well-known to Queen fans anyway
Geez- man
Don't like it-
don't go
Sit at home and listen to Back To The Light and hope for Brian's solo tour... Or just whine about how good they used to be...
I don't give a s**t what are they doing for- even if it's really only for money, as long as I'm going to have a great fun at the gig- WHO CARESS!!!???? That's all that matters. If it's going to be good- who cares about the reason? We can't dissmiss it five months before, without seeing it just because of sentiments... That's pretty much my point...
Those guys changed my life. But it IS just the name- I love the music, not the banner...
You forgot to tell us how The Works is shitty again... I think you should change your nickname to 'All Queen/Solo albums are crap and you all have to sit at home and never go to Brian/Roger gigs'...
Boooooooooooooooooooring
Don't read it. There's a lot of topics you'd like to post and read... About gay song writers, blowjobs, size of Freddie's cock etc.
As I understand for some of Queen fans doesn't matter who plays under Queen name...
50% of Queen is Queen... Well.. So now we have to name Killing Time, How Can I Go On, Love Lies Bleeding, some of Elton John's tracks, half of Billy Squier's songs, Nothin' But Blue etc. as Queen songs... There's 50% of Queen on it!
50% of Queen is Queen... Well.. So now we have to name Killing Time, How Can I Go On, Love Lies Bleeding, some of Elton John's tracks, half of Billy Squier's songs, Nothin' But Blue etc. as Queen songs... There's 50% of Queen on it!
Pink Floyd still have 3/4 of their classic lineup. Nick Mason and Rick Wright are the only two Floyd members to perform every Pink Floyd concert despite the fact Rick was kicked out in 1979 by Roger Waters. David Gilmour, contrary to popular belief, didn't replace Syd he was the fifth member of the band for a few months and lasted five shows. The only way Pink Floyd would tour is if they have a new album as the band members have repeatedly stated quote "the day we tour with no new music is the day we become a nostalgia band", end quote. Rick and Nick want to do another tour, David is occupied with family issues at the moment and recording on an undisclosed project. Also rumors of a Floyd tour in 2005 are swirling and Nick(the drummer) states the Floyd will tour once more then retire. I pray and wish these Queen shows with Paul Rodgers hits the US.
We all know John is NOT coming back to Queen
We Do
We all understand Paul Rodgers is not replacing Freddie
We all know Brian and roger are NOT Queen
but IMO Brian and Roger can't be called QUEEN without John.
They can't play I want to break free, or Another one bites the dust (one of queen's biggest hits), or any other song written by John... Why? because there are limitations. Why? because they are NOT Queen!
Remember Jimmy Page and Robert Plant touring under the name "Page & Plant" That's excellent!!!
What's next? A new Queen album without John?
Think of it...
May and Taylor could be touring under the name "Regal Heritage"
anyway i hoope they do things right.
We Do
We all understand Paul Rodgers is not replacing Freddie
We all know Brian and roger are NOT Queen
but IMO Brian and Roger can't be called QUEEN without John.
They can't play I want to break free, or Another one bites the dust (one of queen's biggest hits), or any other song written by John... Why? because there are limitations. Why? because they are NOT Queen!
Remember Jimmy Page and Robert Plant touring under the name "Page & Plant" That's excellent!!!
What's next? A new Queen album without John?
Think of it...
May and Taylor could be touring under the name "Regal Heritage"
anyway i hoope they do things right.
For the millionth time, yes, Brian and Roger can and will call themselves Queen. Fine. We understand that. But please tell me why the enablers get upset when others (correctly) point out that on every album there was a "Queen is" or "Queen are" credit naming the four band members? It's because THOSE FOUR WERE THE BAND!!! Roy Thomas Bender wasn't in Queen. Spike Edney wasn't in Queen. And Steve Howe wasn't in Queen for Innuendo. If Queen wanted Spike in the band they would have added him. How would that be different from this scenario? It's not.
Having said that, it's an interesting choice because Paul Rodgers is a terrfic singer miles removed from Freddie. Can't see him handling the more delicate numbers to be honest. Hopefully that means it'll be a rock show with lots of guitar, no material from Hot Space on, and most importantly, no chick singers. That's the sign a band has lost it.
And the final thing that is odd, Freddie was an amazing frontman. Paul Rodgers isn't much of a stage presence. It's going to be bizarre but best of luck to the lot of them.
Pink Floyd added female backing singers for the 1973 Dark Side of the Moon and 1974/75 Wish You Were Here tours but then dropped the female singers for the Animals tour. Then had four male singers for The Wall shows in 1980 and 1981 and then brought the female singers back for the 1987/88/89/90 and 1994 tours. Queen don't need female backing singers.