I totally agree with Fenderek. It's like saying a divorced or widowed person has no right to get remarried. Some of you people are exactly the reason celebrities don't go out in public. The hypocricy of the matter is that if those of you who are totally against Roger and Brian putting the Queen name on their projects were given the opportunity to see their show, you would be there in a heartbeat. You are certainly entitled to your opinion either if you are for or against the future of Queen. But for God's sake, don't take it so personally. I'm glad Fenerek spoke up.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Concerning the Camus-quote:
Somehow I very strongly doubt that the question whether two fifty-somethings can or cannot play under a particular name has very much to do with epistemology or metaphysics.
Good on you for trying to raise the intellectual niveau of the board though.
Somehow I very strongly doubt that the question whether two fifty-somethings can or cannot play under a particular name has very much to do with epistemology or metaphysics.
Good on you for trying to raise the intellectual niveau of the board though.
Lester said it well, there is no point in arguing. For some ppl Queen will simply be F+J+R+B and not just R+B, they have the right to their opinion. But B+R are going to tour as Queen, those who don't like it can just have to face that fact. I for one would have like to see them tour under some some other name (UnQueened?) but in the end it's up to B+R. Now ppl just have to decide if they want to see Queen2005 or not.
It is pretty annoying when ppl are discussing the Queen2005 and somebody says "but you are forgetting that Queen was F+R+J+B and not B+R", nobody is forgetting about what Queen was. Everybody is aware the this is not Queen "of the golden age", you don't have to mention it all the time. Your point has been made (again and again and again).
A couple of years ago there were about 4-6 bands touring called The Platters, considering this I think that 50% of the original band is pretty good.
It is pretty annoying when ppl are discussing the Queen2005 and somebody says "but you are forgetting that Queen was F+R+J+B and not B+R", nobody is forgetting about what Queen was. Everybody is aware the this is not Queen "of the golden age", you don't have to mention it all the time. Your point has been made (again and again and again).
A couple of years ago there were about 4-6 bands touring called The Platters, considering this I think that 50% of the original band is pretty good.
Imagine if The Rolling Stones stopped in 1969 when Brian Jones, the original founding member of the band, died.
brian jone was not the singer.
ok,now you'll put ac/dc but it was the very beginning of the band.
replace a singer like freddie with a very unique style and a voice that marks songs so strongly is impossible.
or they rearange the songs or it will be a flop
ok,now you'll put ac/dc but it was the very beginning of the band.
replace a singer like freddie with a very unique style and a voice that marks songs so strongly is impossible.
or they rearange the songs or it will be a flop
Come on ... Rotwang ... I`ve never begged Brian and Roger for an autogramm. I listen to their music and may have went to a concert in the 70s and 80s ... but I don`t care about their life or if they met them personally (I also didn`t read the shit book by Jim Hutton).... I THINK that celebrities are far more afraid of fans who love them so much that they want to be part of their life or reporters who wan`t to have pictures from them at the swimming-pool.
I have stated that thousand times: A rock group exists in one moment in time when all its members are together (Roger and Brian said this in the 70s and 80s too) - so when members are gone its something new (but Queen was freddie, brian, roger and john) - so the "new thing" can have a new name but it cannot be "Queen" for gods sake. It would have been different if Queen had existed before Freddie and John had joined. But it was founded by Freddie, Roger and Brian - and John joined before they recorded their first music - so since Freddie died its gone. You can write a cheap crime novel and print "Alfred Hitchcock" on it - but the content won`t be the same. I think Brian and Roger know this very well, but their egos are more important to them than any< considerations
I have stated that thousand times: A rock group exists in one moment in time when all its members are together (Roger and Brian said this in the 70s and 80s too) - so when members are gone its something new (but Queen was freddie, brian, roger and john) - so the "new thing" can have a new name but it cannot be "Queen" for gods sake. It would have been different if Queen had existed before Freddie and John had joined. But it was founded by Freddie, Roger and Brian - and John joined before they recorded their first music - so since Freddie died its gone. You can write a cheap crime novel and print "Alfred Hitchcock" on it - but the content won`t be the same. I think Brian and Roger know this very well, but their egos are more important to them than any< considerations
Of course it cannot be the same. No-one would disagree with you. To axiomatically deduce from said fact that they can't keep the name is another thing. It's an assessment based on pure emotion.
I'm with Fenderek here. It's their right to do, what they think it's the best.
And I don't catch Peter, why do you think, there couldn't be personal change in a band. What about Yes, Uriah Heep, Deep Purple, Genesis, Black Sabbath etc. etc. All of them went through personal changes (Yes are very good example of this) and despite of this fact, they did usually good music. Well, it's on everyone's opinion which line-up consider to be the best, but IMO it's no need to be so upset with it.
And, if I'd say true, if Brian, Roger and Paul will make good music, I don't give a f**k about what the name of the band will be.
And I don't catch Peter, why do you think, there couldn't be personal change in a band. What about Yes, Uriah Heep, Deep Purple, Genesis, Black Sabbath etc. etc. All of them went through personal changes (Yes are very good example of this) and despite of this fact, they did usually good music. Well, it's on everyone's opinion which line-up consider to be the best, but IMO it's no need to be so upset with it.
And, if I'd say true, if Brian, Roger and Paul will make good music, I don't give a f**k about what the name of the band will be.
I agree, but on other hand - what the hell a lot of Queen fans adviced them what songs to put on GHIII, what gigs you'd like to see on DVDs etc. then? What a hell Queen fans blames the musical and tells about 'Queen Anthology would be much better instead of musicals'?
Maybe we should give them right to do what they wanna do in ALL ways, no just for the ways WE choosed?
Maybe we should give them right to do what they wanna do in ALL ways, no just for the ways WE choosed?
Maybe we should give them right to do what they wanna do in ALL ways, no just for the ways WE choosed?[/QUOTE]
we pay,we make em rich....WE DECIDE
Maybe we should give them right to do what they wanna do in ALL ways, no just for the ways WE choosed?
we pay,we make em rich....WE DECIDE
This is joke, right...?
Peter Cetera U are an ass!
Grow the f*ck up!
Grow the f*ck up!
Reading all those discussions... Everywhere everyone says about the name, about remembering Freddie... about us against the idea or pro... Saying that Queen died in 1991 or not, threatening almost to burn entire collections ( :) )
But- do we own this band...? as fans- it seems like many ppl lost any sense of reality- yes, we buy records and tickets and whatever, but...
we do not own the band, do we?
We may say- I don't like it and not be part of it, but sometimes it goes too far, doesn't it? It's almost as if Queen legacy was OUR property and Roger and Brian are absolutely obliged to do with it what WE (as owners) want... Isn't it a bit weird...? Isn't it THEIR band, THEIR music...? Isn't it THEIR decission to either disband or go on tour...? We liked it in 70s and 80s- no one forced us... They were doing THEIR thing and we just liked it, loved it....
Suddenly, when their changed their mind (doing sth under Queen banner after Fred's death)- we're acting as if someone was stealing sth from us...
It's not THEM who owe us something- WE owe them the right t odo whatever the hell they want- THEIR music changed our lives, THEY were touring for so many years giving us hours of fun, THEY recorded some great albums giving us some memories... And THEY owe us something...?
Just a thought...
We don't own them, but they owe us. Try to remember thanks to whom they have their millions.
You could always write to Brian on his soapbox and ask him to cancel this tour because you are not happy with the use of the name Queen - you plank.
I can't believe the amount of topics that have been started,, most of which are pure conjecture. People are getting fucked up without any tour dates announced, no setlist, no complete band line up - it is complete fucking bollocks. Has it ever crossed people's minds that a European mainland tour may just be to sound out how they are received?
Why not have the courtesy to wait until details are released until you start slagging them off because Freddie can't be replaced.
I, for one, will attend, just to listen to Brian play - the voice of the band may be gone but the sound of that guitar is not!
I can't believe the amount of topics that have been started,, most of which are pure conjecture. People are getting fucked up without any tour dates announced, no setlist, no complete band line up - it is complete fucking bollocks. Has it ever crossed people's minds that a European mainland tour may just be to sound out how they are received?
Why not have the courtesy to wait until details are released until you start slagging them off because Freddie can't be replaced.
I, for one, will attend, just to listen to Brian play - the voice of the band may be gone but the sound of that guitar is not!
"we pay, we make them rich...WE DECIDE"
Oh really ? That's logic ?
Then I bloody wonder why Nestle still haven't reserved a seat at their executive meetings for me, after the countless bars of white chocolate I've bought from them. Buggers...
They owe me after all, right ?
That's really interesting, because I always thought that the special thing about a "trade" is, that it goes both ways and thus doesn't leave debts and obligations. Guess I was wrong.
I never realized that I was making an offering rather than a trade when I bought a piece of Queen merchandise.
Oh really ? That's logic ?
Then I bloody wonder why Nestle still haven't reserved a seat at their executive meetings for me, after the countless bars of white chocolate I've bought from them. Buggers...
They owe me after all, right ?
That's really interesting, because I always thought that the special thing about a "trade" is, that it goes both ways and thus doesn't leave debts and obligations. Guess I was wrong.
I never realized that I was making an offering rather than a trade when I bought a piece of Queen merchandise.