I've made all these points about 875,000,000,000,000,000,000 times before, but I'll patiently make them again.
1) Every artist has a certain number of performances in him. John knew what his was, and he ended it when it was up.
2) Queen officially disbanded in 1995. Therefore, Queen is technically no more (and while I'm not going to tell them what they can and can't do with their lives, I do wish Brian and Roger would remember this). There was nothing left for John to abandon.
3) I'd probably quit something too, if one of the major things I could associate with it was the tragic death of a friend.
4) John owes us nothing.
Exactly the case.
I've tried to explain it thousands of times on here. Hence my temporary leave of absence, if you will. ;)
Cheers
yes...but i dont fully agree with number 2...Queen isnt fully over...it definetly isnt the same but like Brian said, he and Roger are technically Queen...im interested to see how it goes, though. plus we all know that Quen will forever live on in our hearts!
Exactly,
When "Made in Heaven" was complete, and the vaults of usable Freddie material have dried up.... Queen is over.
That's why I am still trying to solve this mystery of how Queen is touring.... unless Freddie reserected, and Deacon is back...a new "Queen" tour is impossible.
Oh, I see.... its 2 original members with other people?? (major sarcasm) ...then why don't they drop the name Queen??
I don't understand your question fully...
but just so we are clear...
The name of Queen will never disappear.
The legacy stands....the Beatles haven't recorded a track since 1969...thats 36 years ago..
I wouldn't say that name has went away.
But yes, on any new material..tours...concerts...yes, I want the Queen name to go away...its over.
Just as when the Beatles disbanded in 1970, you never had any other members whoring the name out as "The Beatles".... then when Lennon was assasinated, all possibilities of the Beatles were done.
11-24-91 should have been equal to Queen, what Lennon's murder was to The Beatles.
The legacy stands....the Beatles haven't recorded a track since 1969...thats 36 years ago..
So then what's 'Free As A Bird' and 'Real Love'? There were also a few other songs recorded by McCartney, Starr, and Harrison in '95 - 'All For Love' and 'Grow Old With Me' - but they weren't released.
Just as when the Beatles disbanded in 1970, you never had any other members whoring the name out as "The Beatles".... then when Lennon was assasinated, all possibilities of the Beatles were done.
Again, not true. The remaining Beatles said for years that it wasn't possible, but yet they still did it. Paul and Ringo could probably still do it today, but "Paul McCartney" or even "Ringo Starr" would attract more attention than, say, Brian's or Roger's own names.
If Brian and Roger had focused on their own solo careers after Freddie died and built up a considerable catalog, then they could've gone out on their own, but I'm glad they feel comfortable enough with each other. And also that they don't listen to dissenting voices and instead do their own thing. More power to them.
I find it interesting that people get their panties in such a bunch with situations they obviously can't control. Brian and Roger are now Queen, whether people want to believe it or not, and if they're going to let a name come between their admiration for what once was and what is now, then they need to seriously reprioritize their life.
Every other band has done it for years - The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, The Faces, The Mothers Of Invention, Little Feat... it's very rare for a band to have such longevity as Queen did, but it's only natural for the remaining members to continue on. And they're not doing it to disrespect Freddie, no matter how cynically you want to look at it. Brian and Roger still love and care about Freddie very much, but there's no reason they should put an end to a good thing.
No john has not betrayed queen, he put his cards on the table a long time ago. He wanted to retire. let the guy be.
Brian and Roger are doing the only job they know how, and that is play music. There are worse singers they could have chosen. But Paul Rodgers is a proven singer no matter what we all think.
If this tour fails, which is looking unlikey, we would not have bought all our tickets to BOO at Rodgers, or just have a right good old time, which, I believe, freddie would have wanted.
The Who is the music of Pete Townsend, with Daltry as his lead voice that the people are framiliar with.
The Rolling Stones is Mick Jagger and Keith Richards....these are the groups songwriters, and two most recognizable faces.
What music do you listen to? Queen had a 18 year recording career....thats not uncommon anymore?
From Aerosmith to The Rolling Stones to ZZ Top to AC/DC (25 yrs now with Brian Johnson alone)...
A 18 yr career is not uncommon.
I'm sorry, but when a band breaks down to 1 or 2 original members...along with some fill in's.... thats just hoaky.
In the case of Queen, if Freddie Mercury and Brian May wanted to tour as Queen, I would be a little iffy on that.....but I wouldn't be quite so bitchy.
As Sebastian's website will show you, Freddie was the chief songwriter, he made John and Roger's song happen, he usually wrote at least 50% of every album alone.....
On top of this, he is the most recognizable member of the band we know as Queen, both in face image and in sound.
If Freddie Mercury was John Lennon, then Brian May would be his Paul McCartney.
When the Beatles were done....Paul got on with his life...ie: Wings, then just, Paul McCartney.
I wish Brian and Roger would do the same.
When your most famous member, chief songwriter, and for all intents and purposes "group leader" passes away... the man who named the group Queen afterall....c'mon...let it go.
Lester, I know Roger and Freddie love Freddie...and I know that they know he can't be replaced by anyone.
But you are not seeing the picture here of "putting a good thing to rest".... we have no choice to put it away....
Its not like Queen broke up for 14 years, then want to get back together.
Queen's heart and soul died in 1991.
The good thing died.
The end came 14 years ago...like it or not (we all don't).
Then...25% of the surving members (deacon) won't be there.
Sure, I'll go out and see 2 of my favorite musicians in the world.... but i"m still going to have a thorn up my ass about the name on the marquee.
Meh, differing opinions. We're both right, I suppose. You have your reasons, which are very good, and I have mine, which I obviously prefer. No sense in getting into a debate over something which we can't control, eh?
No problem brother...we are both die hard Queen fans.
I love the idea of Brian and Rog getting out there are doing what they kick ass at....if Deacon is done, no problem...what does the writer of Another One Bites the dust, and various other household hits top 40 hits, and masterpieces (Spread Your Wings) whose toured the world as the bass man to Freddie Mercury several times over have to prove? NOT A THING.
I, (me) and just very protective of the name Queen...as the equals Deaky, Rog, Bri and King Bulsara to me.
Paul Rodgers is a good singer..no doubt.
The tour will be a succuess...no doubt.
I would feel a million times better if the name "Queen" was reserved for those past moments when our 4 original members together was creating the music we love.
When I'm old and it's time for me to retire, I hope you all just leave me alone. I mean I've been working as a machinist my whole life and now you want me to leave my neglected family and come back? That's my opinion of that. When Freddie died, the other three still had a little bit of Queen left in them. Now John's all done (God bless him), but Roger and Brian still have a little bit of Queen left in them. They are still Queen. I think Queen + Paul Rodgers is a totally acceptable name. I also think that all of you have good points and this is just how I feel.
