Are you stupid?!?!? Mercury was Queen, thats the same to call Beatles, The Beatles, without Lennon and McCartney! and Stones without Jagger and Richards!
You can't compare the frontman in ACDC with Mercury, Mercury was a MUCH bigger frontman, he made MANY of Queens best songs, was the man on the stage at their concerts, gave Queen both their name and made Queen more known for people around the world...
you can change a gitarplayer, a drummer or a bassplayer, but its Much More difficult to change a vocalist and a frontman! He was in the most of the news about queen and was and is most remembered in Queen and music in general by peoples!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
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).Ohhh please for god's sake learn your history man. (or woman, whatever) Brian and Roger were in Smile, then Staffell left and THEY asked Freddie to JOIN THEM, not the other way around.
Sure. Freddie was the best front man in any band I've ever seen (IMO), but that does NOT make it HIS band. Every band member wrote No.1 songs, not just Freddie. Freddie was the most recognisable VOICE of Queen, just like Brian was/is the most distinctive guitarist of Quenn. You can tell a Queen track without vocals, just by Brians guitar, it's that distinctive. Freddie himself in several interviews said there was no LEADER of Queen, all 4 were equal in every way.
Chicken anyone? I sure am hungry.
Cheers
Cheers
I never saw Queen as Smile Part II, with Fred replacing Tim. For that extent Queen could be Wreckage II with Roger and Brian replacing the drummer and guitarist. As far as I know, Rog and Brian didn`t ask Fred to join them, they were all without band at the moment and decided to join forces. So the band was founded by the three of them. Then they looked for a bass-player and after some beta testing they found John. Again, I don`t see John replaced anybody, he just filled a position for which they hadn`t had found the right person yet.
Fred designed the logo, but that`s not a very relevant point imo. The name - ditto. Although it is true that perhaps the band wouldn`t be the same if it was named something else. Fred was the main songwriter and arranger and the one who stole the show at Live Aid (as his bandmates accept). So yes perhaps he had a little more importance than the rest if we look that way. And John had less considering that the other three composed more, and the other three played instruments and sang while he only played instrument. Ok some of us do believe he sang a couple of times, but definitely not very important stuff.
Queen without Freddie ... well, Sleeping On The Sidewalk is Fred-free and it sounds Queen to me. But it`s just one 3 minutes song. Queen without John ... Dancer (with all the "dance" influences and everything) does sound Queen and it`s John-free. Nevermore does sound Queen and it`s Roger-free. Melancholy Blues does sound Queen and it`s Brian-free. Also 80% of Don`t Stop Me in which Brian doesn`t do anything, or the entire intro-verse-spacer half of Fat Bots from which John is absent, etc. But those are just ocassional songs. There couldn`t be an entire Queen concert omitting any of the members imo. Maybe one song, but not a concert, let alone an album or much worse: a tour.
And before somebody says it - yes Brian and Roger most likely don`t read this and they don`t give a tiny rat`s arse. Well, I don`t write this for them, I write this for me, I have the right to do it, as much as anybody else. For me Queen without any of the members is just absurd. Brian and Roger are good musicians who now teamed up with a wonderful singer. If they really tour (because you never know if Brian cancells last minute as he did with the Spain gig) that will be certainly one of the highlights of rock concerts in 2005. But it will be not Queen. No matter what the bill, the posters or the news say, that`s not Queen.
Fred designed the logo, but that`s not a very relevant point imo. The name - ditto. Although it is true that perhaps the band wouldn`t be the same if it was named something else. Fred was the main songwriter and arranger and the one who stole the show at Live Aid (as his bandmates accept). So yes perhaps he had a little more importance than the rest if we look that way. And John had less considering that the other three composed more, and the other three played instruments and sang while he only played instrument. Ok some of us do believe he sang a couple of times, but definitely not very important stuff.
Queen without Freddie ... well, Sleeping On The Sidewalk is Fred-free and it sounds Queen to me. But it`s just one 3 minutes song. Queen without John ... Dancer (with all the "dance" influences and everything) does sound Queen and it`s John-free. Nevermore does sound Queen and it`s Roger-free. Melancholy Blues does sound Queen and it`s Brian-free. Also 80% of Don`t Stop Me in which Brian doesn`t do anything, or the entire intro-verse-spacer half of Fat Bots from which John is absent, etc. But those are just ocassional songs. There couldn`t be an entire Queen concert omitting any of the members imo. Maybe one song, but not a concert, let alone an album or much worse: a tour.
And before somebody says it - yes Brian and Roger most likely don`t read this and they don`t give a tiny rat`s arse. Well, I don`t write this for them, I write this for me, I have the right to do it, as much as anybody else. For me Queen without any of the members is just absurd. Brian and Roger are good musicians who now teamed up with a wonderful singer. If they really tour (because you never know if Brian cancells last minute as he did with the Spain gig) that will be certainly one of the highlights of rock concerts in 2005. But it will be not Queen. No matter what the bill, the posters or the news say, that`s not Queen.
Brian and Roger have the right to go on tour, and to use the name of Queen, but the results can be very disappointing.
We all know that every member of the band contibuted to their success, that they were great composers, that everything started with Smile... but Freddie was much more than their lead singer. He was the spirit, the spark, the glamour, the style (half kitsch, half sophisticated), the cinnamon, the chilli of Queen. Nobody can sing like he did. He supervised everything, he polished all the details, and the details gave value to Queen's songs.
He is irreplaceable. Brian and Roger know it, and they should act consequently like John does.
We all know that every member of the band contibuted to their success, that they were great composers, that everything started with Smile... but Freddie was much more than their lead singer. He was the spirit, the spark, the glamour, the style (half kitsch, half sophisticated), the cinnamon, the chilli of Queen. Nobody can sing like he did. He supervised everything, he polished all the details, and the details gave value to Queen's songs.
He is irreplaceable. Brian and Roger know it, and they should act consequently like John does.
ok, mr or mrs leech i agree with you on fred, he was amazing, he did polish the songs to greatness, you cannot replace the queen himself, all that is understood. I go back and forth with this whole tour thing, i hear it on american radio stations, i get excited because queen have been non exsitent here for ages. brian has said paul is not in queen so obviously he's not replacing fred, but he's just working with them, that's why it's not queen, it's queen + paul rodgers, what's the big deal. the "who" did it, so queen could. i'm glad their doing it.
"WHAM!" has some pretty damn good tunes as well. I can see this turning into an argument, So I'll leave now.
agreed! call me weird but I prefer George Michael's Wham! songs to his solo ouput.
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.
And none of the above are hardly selling out the major venues are they? THE WHO couldn't fucking give a record away, they ain't had a hit single for 30 flaming years. Mind you, that ain't stopped the Stones. INXS? Only a monkey would desire to see them these days, or maybe someone from Burnley. LYNYRD SKYNYRD - now appearing at the Municipal Hall, Bromley-on-the-Wyre, Ticket sales - 4. And 2 of those are only 'maybes'. These bands have become parodies of their former selves. You might as well go and watch a tribute band. A good one for The Who would be The Why, or The What For? Can't think of one for Lynyrd Skynyrd. Something to do with skidmarks perhaps?
You can call it Queen if you like, but you can only dilute something by so much before it starts to leave a nasty taste.
I've long come to the conclusion that people hear couldn't form a basis for an argument if their life depended on it. However, it still will continue to irk me no end when people make ridiculous statements, like the comparison of Bon Scott to Freddie Mercury and the replacement of each as a singer.
Bon Scott died after AC/DC's fourth US album. ONE, yes ONE, album had charted in the US. The band was 7 years old, all in their 20s and had a future ahead of them. They'd made little music and less money at the time of Scott's death. Freddie Mercury died in his 40s after 18 years with the band, hundreds of millions of albums sold and a catalogue second to none. AC/DC needed a singer to create music and be musicians, which is what they were and are. Queen needs a singer today to do a greatest hits show because their profile is high because of the musical. There's no shame in that, but comparing a bands survival with a tour for fun, ego and scads of money are not even close.
Bon Scott died after AC/DC's fourth US album. ONE, yes ONE, album had charted in the US. The band was 7 years old, all in their 20s and had a future ahead of them. They'd made little music and less money at the time of Scott's death. Freddie Mercury died in his 40s after 18 years with the band, hundreds of millions of albums sold and a catalogue second to none. AC/DC needed a singer to create music and be musicians, which is what they were and are. Queen needs a singer today to do a greatest hits show because their profile is high because of the musical. There's no shame in that, but comparing a bands survival with a tour for fun, ego and scads of money are not even close.
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.
I had to attach this guy's message with mine because this dude here has made the most sense when it comes to this ridiculous subject. I'm glad somebody understands how stupid this whole idea is and that there is no Queen without Freddie..........Peace
This conversation is missing one very big point, what about those of us who at the time where too young to seen Queen live. Finally we get a chance to see Brian's amazing guitar playing and roger beat out those base lines. Sure there is no freddie and i guess John but for us who have never seen Queen live this is the as near as we will ever get. I for one never thought there would be a tour again. It will be interesting to see how many of you purists actually go to one of these shows. I for one think the chance to hear those songs live is not one to be missed.
I for one think that Freddie would have wanted his frends to do this after all 'The show must go on!!'
I for one think that Freddie would have wanted his frends to do this after all 'The show must go on!!'
I concur. ON WITH THE SHOW!!!
I agree May and Taylor should not call themselves Queen, but I would really enjoy seeing May on stage. To me, Queen is a group which ended in november 1991. Mercury was not the group alone and it is not a question of percentage. Queen is the four members together or is not. Thus Queen last live performance was in 1986 and I will never see them live (what I wish the most is to have been able to be at the Rainbow theatre on March 1974 31st. but not even born yet...). Sad but real.
THIN LIZZY- Touring minus Phil Lynott, thats probably the closest comparison to Queen minus Fred.
Except that in the case of Lizzy one of the two current members was only in Lizzy for one album and the other, while most definitely a fully paid up Lizzy member, was not an original member. I think Queen have a better case.
This conversation is missing one very big point, what about those of us who at the time where too young to seen Queen live. Finally we get a chance to see Brian's amazing guitar playing and roger beat out those base lines. Sure there is no freddie and i guess John but for us who have never seen Queen live this is the as near as we will ever get. I for one never thought there would be a tour again. It will be interesting to see how many of you purists actually go to one of these shows. I for one think the chance to hear those songs live is not one to be missed.
I for one think that Freddie would have wanted his frends to do this after all 'The show must go on!!'
It's only a bloody name.
OK it is not the same group of members from 20-odd years ago but as dennox correctly stated it is the best chance you have of hearing Queen songs played LIVE by original members.