To all those who saying its not Queen

Whisperer:
Queen was far from being Freddie's band.
Of course BRJ owe they success to Freddie, but so did Freddie to BRJ. They all depended on EACH OTHER.
I'm sure Freddie wouldn't have denied that he owed his success to BRJ as well. His entire behaviour speaks against it. He always stressed that he was NOT the frontman, but merely the singer of the group. In interviews he was the first to admit that they worked democratically as a unit. He didn't lapse into autocratic behaviour, never considered Queen to be "his" band. Freddie respected and encouraged well-balanced creative input from all four and their albums reflect that. And he did so, because he KNEW that couldn't achieve the same without the others. The sum is greater than the parts, that was part of the band's credo.

Of course, he wrote Bohemian Rhapsody and WATC, but there's so much more to Queen than that, especially looking at were they came from.
There's some reason to doubt that Freddie would've made it without BRJ just as much as there's reason to doubt the others would've made it without Freddie.
Both Smile AND Freddie weren't going anywhere before they joined forces. And Freddie took quite a while until he developed into the brilliant singer and artist we know. He was lucky to have the band as a backdrop during the earliest years that gave him time to evolve.
Both Brian and Roger could theoretically have found convenient places in other fairly successful bands, being the excellent instrumentalists they were. Especially Brian would've had enough offers. It was also him who used to impress people most in the early days (both Smile and Queen), whereas Freddie had his fair share of bad performances in the beginning.
Freddie was far from being a musician "in demand" in 1970, his pre-Queen history shows this quite clearly. He was very lucky to find two guys who were willing to try it with this flamboyant and ambitious character, willing and CAPABLE to pursue some of his articstic visions with him. And they influenced EACH OTHER. They evolved TOGETHER. They formed a musical symbiosis. It's all about chemistry. One of the most important things about Queen is, that they were a tight live-unit. Does anyone seriously think that Fred + three other guys could have come anywhere near FBRJ on stage ?
Even if Freddie would've managed to start a successful career one day without BRJ, it wouldn't have been a patch on what Queen were, both articistically and commercially.

To say that Freddie could have been Queen with other musicians would be abstruse, IMHO.

I've said it before and I'll say it again....BOOOOOOOOORING



Brian and Roger have been working their ass off for the band for 30 years. So they have the fucking right to keep on playing even when one of the people in that band has died.

Did Coca Cola stop to excist when the one of the founding people died?

It will be nice to go and see Queen tour next year but it just won't be the same without Freddie. And Johns gone too which will make it even less like Queen. Sure It'll still be good though. I'm looking forwardto this new tour as i'll be seeing them next year (hopefully).

FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote:

Did Coca Cola stop to excist when the one of the founding people died?

No, but I'm pretty sure Coca Cola will stop to excist when the coca plants dissapear from Earth. Of course it might change into Coca Cola + green tea, but that just isn't the same, is it?

Sonja wrote:

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.

You are so right. Freddie was not the only one in the band. He did great things and could reach a lot of people on stage... but the other tree did a great job too. If you can't imagion Queen without Freddie, could you imagine Queen without Brian? or ROger? or John?
And this isn't the only band in the world that lost a member.
I know that this tour will not be as same as when they were 4 of them still in the band. But why don't accept that they just wanna go touring.
I was only 2 years old when Freddie died and I never got to see them live. This may be the only chance for us, the young fans, to see them live and if you are not happy with it, then just shut up and leave the disscussions to us :)

Yes, I can imagine Queen without Roger, Brian and especially John.

Thinking about it, PERHAPS Fred`s contribution to the quality, success and sound of Queen was bigger than the other`s, considering he was the dominant songwriter and arranger, and he played piano (which is the main instrument in many Queen classics) and sang both lead and many harmonies (e.g. in Love Of My Life it`s only him). But his contribution is still smaller than the sum of the contribution of Roger, Brian and John imo.

Still, I said it before and I`ll say it again: Queen without Freddie is absurd. Even Aerosmith culd exist for a little while without Joe (even though it was just one year), but without Steven it couldn`t live imo. So, yes, Fred isn`t Queen, same as a brain is not a person. But, without the brain, the person dies. There`s still heart, legs, arms, lungs, kidneys... but the person is bloody dead. So is the band

of all these band's mentioned,i'd say the only one that worked was ac/dc,the rest are just a joke,and maybe the ac/dc thing worked,was because they never really stopped at all,brian more or less stepped in straight away,but with queen now going to tour 14 years after freddie died,it's kind of sore to accept.not that it would have been any easier if it would have happened say back in 92,but after all these years,everyone lived with the fond memories of original queen,and with brian saying in lots of various interviews over the years they COULD'NT tour as queen again,but now they are and specially for the older fan's it makes it hard to accept..maybe once we get over the shock of it we'll think differant??just maybe..for all of us queen were,and still are legend's,we all still enjoy the music/watching the video's etc..i for one wish it would stay that way..

QUEEN11 wrote:

i for one wish it would stay that way..

than stay wtaching the dvd's and listening to the old cd's .. you don't HAVE to go to the concerts, read Bri's soapbox, read the articles and topics about news of the tour, listen to the new studio cd, listen to the new live cd, and watch the new live dvd :p

Just watch and listen what you want, but people, don't try to judge what's good or wrong for the band and discuss if the band even still excists(although Bri and Roger won't ever read all this, and I think they don't even care)

Freddie is quoted as saying many many times that Queen is NOT just him and that it's comprised of four great musicians. As he said in Brazil (think back to your video collections where he says it) before playing to the female interviewer who was interviewing him up on the balcony

Yes, Fred and the others also said many times that if any of the four of them wasn`t there it wasn`t Queen

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

What about Linkin Park,The Offspring,Sum 41,Limp Bizkit and Hoobastank?

I believe it isn't Queen, and don't think they should use the name "Queen" but I personally am not looking to change people's opinions....

Freddie is 25% of Queen, John is 25%, Roger is 25%, Brian is 25%.

A more accurate billing would be Taylor, May & Rodgers but that wouldn't attract as many people as will Queen + Paul Rodgers.

Whether John decides to join them for the tour is up to him, although I personally don't think he will.

i keep reading all of these posts screaming that this tour can't be Queen without Freddie or John, blahblahblah, and how dare they choose Paul Rodgers blahblahblah. Where are all the posts screaming that Brian and Roger can't possibly/shouldn't play Bad Company songs? (btw -- Paul is clearly not "replacing Freddie", despite what news sources say. if you look at Paul's website, it's pretty obvious -- it's basically worded to sound like he's saying, "I'm takin' some time off from my solo career to help out some friends.")

people get real please, to say if you lost john deacon is same blow as losing freddie mercury is silly, yes, they all had their part to play and they all were great in their own right, but please don't be stupid and say they were complete equals, fred named the band, the logo was his, the art work was his, all the early hits was his, people went to a queen show to see freddie and brian, to a much lesser extent roger, but equal not. history has proven this, after freddies death the boys look lost, a dog without a bone, so please no more arguing about who is equal or not because we all know the facts, and by the way i am for the tour, cos it keeps the name and legacy growing, they talk about it on the american radio stations is pretty cool. even though i think fred was 50 percent of queen, the others (especially brian) are great in their own right.