Who is Paul Rodgers?

Mr.Jingles79 wrote:

I know Bad Company, and although I think that Paul Rodgers might make some respectable renditions of Queen songs like 'Tie Your Mother Down' and 'Hammer To Fall', I still think he's going to have an awful hard time fitting on Freddie's shoes, especially when it comes to singing a lot of other songs from the Queen catalog.

I mean, George Michael was perhaps the only possible decent choice if it ever came to Queen touring again with someone. Paul Rodgers just doesn't seem work for me, but I might give it a listen if I have the chance.

The Hell with George Michael I wanted either Paul Rodgers or Rob Halford.

it doesn't matter if we don't know who he was...

altough he's not replacing Freddie, ALL the world is going to be looking to him and listening to him.

the matter is who he is going to be after the tour. (very, very famous)

Yes, I'm sure you're the master of wits yourself, but I think you need to take into consideration other peoples' opinions and that yours is not only the right one. You can't please everyone, and you already said under what circumstances you would see the band.

If I could, I would see them, but they're coming nowhere near America so far. I think it's an exciting prospect to see how they handle this, but I understand that people aren't convinced. Normally, I'm not very up to date on bands like Chicago, but aren't they missing a few members too with replacements? I'm not sure if the lead singer is still there or not, and frankly, it doesn't matter to me - but it's the same with Genesis, of which I'm a fan. Peter Gabriel left in '74, and people thought Phil Collins couldn't handle the lead vocal role. Turns out they were wrong.

I don't understand why people aren't willing to give Paul Rodgers a chance, though. It would be different if you'd heard of him, and I don't recall you saying whether you have or not, but I frankly think Rodgers is a better choice than George Michael or Elton John or Robbie Williams. It gives Queen a chance to try something new.

fully agreed ... Queen was a hard rock band too (besides being a glam rock, stadium rock and pop band - heck, even disco and funk!!) - that is what Queen makes unique

... and here lies the problem: Brian May wants only to play the hard rockers because he thinks it suits Paul Rodgers and Rodgers hasn`t really a great voice (I doubt if BoRap would sound better with him).

OK, I gave Paul Rodgers a try after going to http://www.mercuryparadise.com/ and downloading the performance at the UK Hall Of Fame.

IMO, the guy did an acceptable and decent job as a singer. Of course the first thing that comes to mind are the comparisons with Freddie Mercury, and why we feel like it's so hard (not only for Paul Rodgers) but just about every single great singer on earth to fit Freddie's shoes.
The way Queen fans feel about seeing Brian and Roger with a new singer would be the same as seeing your father dating other women after your mother has been dead for over 10 years (weird analogy, I know). At first it might be hard to accept it, but eventually we might realize that someone perhaps deserves that small shot. Of course no one will ever replace Freddie, and we all know that. But for the sake of those old days that were once and will never be again, it's good to have a small dose of Queen live once again.

The way I see it is that Brian and Roger certainly miss the feeling of seeing people packing football stadiums and cheering them. Imagine not having sex for almost 20 years (another weird analogy), but to me Brian and Roger have a huge craving for connecting themselves to their fans once again, and have thousands of people singing along to their songs at least for once single moment.
Also I feel like another great reason why they're probably going on tour again is because ever since Freddie's death their fanbase has increased to a point where it has either doubled or even tripled. Many of the new fans were not even born when Queen stopped touring or weren't even born when Freddie died. So my guess that they're doing it all for those young kids who feel like the music of the past decade doesn't fit their taste. I mean, just look at all the people on this board. I'd say 2 out of 3 never heard a Queen song on the radio at the time a new album was released.

In the end it doesn't surprise me all the bitching about Paul Rodgers when many of these "fans" say that Queen did mostly shit during the 80s.
Although I think it might be more appropiate to call themselves, Brian May, Roger Taylor, and Paul Rodgers instead of Queen and Paul Rodgers. Of course, the second one catches a lot more attention, but the first one feels like it's right since it's just 50% Queen.

Oh no, QUEEN were wonderful during the 80s - the 70s were their experimental (glam rock) phase and the 80s were their mature (pop) phase - I like both decades

Why do some fans always trash their 80s output???

Who are you (trashing the 00's before they've even started) to talk?

hey peter we agree on something, we both like 80's queen, not sure who said it (to lazy to look) that arn't queen living in the past by playing old songs, yes, that's why there writing new tunes, i believe anyway that there writing new tunes. paul isn't in queen he's working with queen, like, bowie, and michael did. there's nothing wrong with that, and it's better than working with robbie williams, paul is from the same era, and please don't say brian should sing live, he's horrible at singing live, makes me cring hearing him sing wwry, roger taylor is not so bad.

partly agreed, mike



To Penetration Guru ....

Queen released six albums in the 80s (beginning with The Game) and had hit singles to cover an entire Greatest Hits 2 record (puls worlwide hits with Radio Ga Ga, AKOM, I want to Break Free, AOBTD, ...) ... I can`t thrash anything in the 00s because there is nothing there, its that simple (do you really think they will have another NEW single hit, even if the concerts sell out?)

At this stage in their career, I doubt they really care about hit records.

I think that is a problem that is truly solved.... all encyclopedias about the 1980s list 1980 as the first year, and its logical since the decade is called "THE 80S". I think its correct ... take a look at this article from Wikipedia. 1989 is the last year so its exactly a ten year period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s

also The Game sounds really like an early 80s album (the beginning of a new era for Queen

I don't know if this solves anything but half of The Game was recorded in the 70's.

okay we can agree on that, four songs of The Game were recorded in 1979 (according to the CD- booklet) but the album was released in 1980s.

paul rodgers:

a has been that never really was

Are you fucking serious? .... Paul Rogers was huge, at least in America. In the 70's "Bad Company" was a huge success, as was "The Firm" in the 80's.

If Queen were thinking of touring the states I couldn't think of a more respected front man accept for Steven Tyler or maybe Robert Plant.