To all those who saying its not Queen

Sure there is no Freddie and of course messrs Taylor and May know that, Deacon is entitled to carry on as a recluse thats his right. What pisses me off is that so many people on this site have a snooty, sneering attitude that going on tour as Queen without FM is heresy.

AC/DC lost their frontman and continued to evn greater heights despite the fact that Bon Scott is still revered as a legend

The WHO- Daltry and Townsend still plan to tour as the Who despite no Moon and Entwhistle.

INXS- Touring without Hutchence

THIN LIZZY- Touring minus Phil Lynott, thats probably the closest comparison to Queen minus Fred.

BLACK SABBATH, LYNYRD SKYNYRD toured with just one founder member. Face it, why not hear Queen's songs from two original members playing,Quo and Kiss have been playing with just two for years and it has not stopped their popularity. Rogers is a great choice not some pop dick like RW or George Michael and lets face it Taylor/May have made some terrible collaborations in the past few years, 5IVE, RW, pepsi ad oh dear! Time to get back on track. Rock til ya drop! Surely the band has to be called TaylorMay de

What makes George Michael a dick? The fact that he's an awesome singer?

WHAM! Need I say more, Oh sorry he makes serious music now doesn't he. Sure he did somebody to love well at the freddie tribute but look at the pap he turns out, its awful.

"WHAM!" has some pretty damn good tunes as well. I can see this turning into an argument, So I'll leave now.

I love Wham and think they`re cracking. But that`s another point. In relation to this: yes many bands have toured or recorded without some of their key members (the most particular case is Aerosmith without Perry in 1978), but the idea of Queen with no Freddie or John is laughable imo, just like INXS without Michael, just ridiculous. Page & Plant surely kick ass, but they`re that, Page & Plant, no Led Zeppelin. Before I used to think that the two of them + Roger, Brian & John were the only intelligent people in rock. Well, and the ex-Beatles but they were probably because they didn`t need to perform as Beatles to be recognised. When Elton announce George & Ringo at Prince`s Trust people already knew who they were.

Phil introduced the formed Led Zeppelin guys not as "Led Zeppelin", but as "Robert Plant, Jimmy Page & John Paul Jones" (not neccesarily in that order). So, until 2000 Page, Plant, May, Taylor and Deacon were the only intelligent people in rock. Now, it`s only Page, Plant & Deacon.

Russian Headlong wrote:

WHAM! Need I say more, Oh sorry he makes serious music now doesn't he. Sure he did somebody to love well at the freddie tribute but look at the pap he turns out, its awful.

His music may not be the best, I agree. I don't like his style.
But that doesn't change the fact that he's an awesome singer with a brilliant voice who's able to sing Queen songs that it makes the hair on your neck go up (Somebody to love) because it's damn similar to Freddie's way of singing.
Thinking about it... George Michael would've been a better choice IMO.

And all the bands you mentioned in your post are not half as good as they were in the early days.
Especially The Who. IMO they could do without Entwistle but not without Keith Moon!

There's not the irrelevant babble between songs with out Keith Moon. Ox would still be great to have..but dieing does stuff some things up.

Russian Headlong wrote:

Sure there is no Freddie and of course messrs Taylor and May know that, Deacon is entitled to carry on as a recluse thats his right. What pisses me off is that so many people on this site have a snooty, sneering attitude that going on tour as Queen without FM is heresy.

AC/DC lost their frontman and continued to evn greater heights despite the fact that Bon Scott is still revered as a legend

The WHO- Daltry and Townsend still plan to tour as the Who despite no Moon and Entwhistle.

INXS- Touring without Hutchence

THIN LIZZY- Touring minus Phil Lynott, thats probably the closest comparison to Queen minus Fred.

BLACK SABBATH, LYNYRD SKYNYRD toured with just one founder member. Face it, why not hear Queen's songs from two original members playing,Quo and Kiss have been playing with just two for years and it has not stopped their popularity. Rogers is a great choice not some pop dick like RW or George Michael and lets face it Taylor/May have made some terrible collaborations in the past few years, 5IVE, RW, pepsi ad oh dear! Time to get back on track. Rock til ya drop! Surely the band has to be called TaylorMay de

you have a good point here. its all about the brand name. fewer people would go if you called it brian may and roger taylor with paul rogers, because less people know them by name. i was discussing a similar point the other day

Queen was 100% Freddie's band. Everything from the multi-meaning name was made his way. Freddie was Queen. If all other members died, Freddie could get some new guys and call themselves Queen. When Freddie is gone, there's no Queen. He was the voice and the face of Queen. The other guys in Queen owe their success to Freddie (they've even admitted this).

Now you will of course say that they were all evenly important for the success. They weren't. Just look at what happened after Freddie's death.

The saddest part about this new "exciting" tour/album thing is that lots of kids will think that Queen kicked out that fag with the moustache and replaced him with Rodgers. Believe me, there are many people for whom it's a huge surprise that the guy who sang TSMGO, WATC, WWRY and Gaga died 13 years ago.

For me, the last Queen concert took place at Knebworth 1986. Any concert after that is something totally different from a Queen concert.

Whisperer wrote:

Now you will of course say that they were all evenly important for the success. They weren't. Just look at what happened after Freddie's death.

They where friends. I'm certain that Freddie would've said the same when Johnny, Roger or Bri died, and that they wouldn't go back to the studio and do a tour for some years .. but people would accept a new Queen with the same frontman much easier than with the same drummer and guitarist; he's the person who is the face of tha band, he has the leading role. But for me, ALL four members are not replaceable, if you want to compair this new Queen to the old one. The old one was unique and the combination of those various talents made the band we love. You can never have that back when one of these man die, no matter which one.

But that doesn't say that they can never go on with some-one else .. just see this as a new chapter in the long history of Queen. This is a new Queen. I would've said the same when Bri died in 1991 and they did a tour with a new guitarist. It's not the old Queen, but it's still Queen.

Whisperer wrote:

Queen was 100% Freddie's band. Everything from the multi-meaning name was made his way. Freddie was Queen. If all other members died, Freddie could get some new guys and call themselves Queen. When Freddie is gone, there's no Queen. He was the voice and the face of Queen. The other guys in Queen owe their success to Freddie (they've even admitted this).

Now you will of course say that they were all evenly important for the success. They weren't. Just look at what happened after Freddie's death.

The saddest part about this new "exciting" tour/album thing is that lots of kids will think that Queen kicked out that fag with the moustache and replaced him with Rodgers. Believe me, there are many people for whom it's a huge surprise that the guy who sang TSMGO, WATC, WWRY and Gaga died 13 years ago.

For me, the last Queen concert took place at Knebworth 1986. Any concert after that is something totally different from a Queen concert.

Nah.. I wouldn't say Freddie was 100% Queen. He alone was 50% maybe...He attracted the people with his voice and stage performance. Of course also with his musical talent...
But he wouldn't have gotten that far without the others.
Queen wouldn't have been what they were without Roger's, Brian's and John's input, despite of Freddie's great talent and stage persona but don't forget the great songs Roger, John and especially Brian contributed.
Plus, Freddie could play piano. But Queen were a rockband. Not to imagine Queen without Brian's great guitar skills! Or Roger's drums or John's bass!

So 50% of Queen are still here (although one of them is hidden somewhere) so they are able to put up a great show.

We shouldn't always compare with Queen of '86 and before cos we won't get the same band, that's for sure.

But I'm still not convinced that this tour thing is a good idea.
We should remember Queen as they were when they stopped.

Queen were NOT Freddie Mercury's solo band! All four members collaborated in songwritting and three of the four sang AND Brian and Roger have ALSO had successful solo albums and tours. Listen Freddie made some choices and there were consiquences to them like all that we make and life. Other people can suffer from the ones we make but there is no reason why the other members have to take complete responsibility for Freddie's mistakes. So hail, hail! And long live Queen!

I don`t think Roger had a successful solo career. Unfortunately, because it`s my favourite and it deserves way more attention. Perhaps if Roger & Brian would have had the success they deserved with wonderful albums such as Electric Fire and Another world, they wouldn`t be messing up with the band`s name right now

Well, whatever happens will happen, regardless of what we computerites think of it all.

I understand the views of those who think Queen going on tour will be a bad thing, and I can understand those who feel that it makes no difference. But really folks....in the long run....

Anyone who means anything in the music business isn't going to give a rats ass, regardless. so let us bicker on! I enjoy it. ;)
Cheers

Freddie was unique,I don't care what the other bands do.