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?
amen to that...
amen to that...
Thread
Posts in chronological order
amen to that...
Lester-
1. If Freddie Mercury was John Lennon, then Brian May would be his Paul McCartney.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Queen's heart and soul died in 1991. The good thing died.
5. 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.
you need to check your stats before you make statements like that on
1. Although the writing credit on beatles singles was always Lennon/Mccartney it was in fact PAUL who wrote most of the beatles hit singles. look at some books on this - you'll realise that they - like queen generally wrote individually but agreed to co-credit
2. Paul "got on with his life" because HE broke up the beatles - for legal reasons - again - check some books on this. Queen didn't break up. Freddie said it was his wish that they carried on - why else would he have recorded so much extra vocal work when he was virtually incapable of standing up - without the help of drugs? - he wanted Queen to go on was long as possible
3. there was no "leader" in queen - you might think there was - but freddie denied this countless times - they were a democracy things/stuff got voted on - and they agreed with a group decision
4. the heart and soul did not die. an important group member died. but hundreds of bands live on after a death - let's name a few then - Blizzard if Oz, ACDC, Deep Purple, Lynyrd Skynyrd, INXS, The who (two members, FREE, KISS, and many many more
5. No it didn't. Queen as we know it ended in 1986 - this was the last time the great man held an audience by the bollox. Albums are Albums - new product, but without live shows there's no "buzz" to look forward to. Even though Queen as we knew it ended. This is just a new queen, for a new generation and a new chapter in the grand story. if it doesn't work out it may be the final chapter - but don't hold your breath - tickets are selling out fast - which means there's a huge market for the "Queen of the new millennium" - give it a chance instead of whingeing about it
Brenski, I will reply to your post now.
1) Yes, Paul McCartney and John Lennon wrote together in the early days. Up until Rubber Soul.
The Beatles are considered to be mainly John's group from 1962 to mid 1967...Paul took over writing most of the poppy hits in 1967 on, while John wrote songs like "Happiness is a Warm Gun" and "Sexy Sadie" which usually prevail as Die Hard Beatles favorites.
In William J Dowldings book titled "Beatle Songs", he determined that John Lennon wrote (81) songs for the Beatles, and McCartney wrote (74).
John had more songs in the top 40, Paul had more songs that cracked the top 20.....I'd say thats a pretty equal partnership.
2) Really a death of a member is a bigger reason for ending a band.... especially when the death is of the chief songwriter...and in the public's eyes...THE BANDS MAIN CHARACTER.
*NOTE- NOT ONE IN ONE HUNDRED AVERAGE PEOPLE COULD NAME ANOTHER MEMBER OF QUEEN BESIDES FREDDIE IN THE U.S.A.
Freddie recorded as much as he possibly could so as much material could be released as possible, I doubt if it was because he was concerned that some 60 yr old singer replacing him wouldn't have any song ideas.
Freddie wanted the others to carry on making music... whether or not he wanted them to replace him...and continue on as Queen...I question that.
3) Freddie denied he was the leader because he was modest....what kind of douche bag is going to say "Just so everyone knows, I'm the king shit around here"...... As everyone around Queen has said, from Brian and John, to Peter and Mack....IF FREDDIE REALLY WANTED SOMETHING (IE: RECORDING JOHN'S SONG AOBTD THAT BRIAN AND ROGER HATED) ....THEN IT HAPPENED.
4) AC/DC really is Angus and Malcom, 2nd... when Bon Scott died, they were early in their career's, and really had , had no success in the USA. Every artist in the world tries to conquer the USA...if you haven't made it in the United States, then its considered by many that you "aren't there yet".
The Who is just 2 men in their sixties touring.
No one who see's The Who really think its 1968, and they are seeing the real thing....
Do you think if Pete Townsend died, they would still be touring as The WHO??
Of course not.
That's why the Queen name should be laid to rest now.
5) Yes, we Queen fans too young to have seen Queen live (I was born in 1978) would have loved to have seen Freddie make everyone look lame.... but I never did.
But I myself, will take Freddie, still alive, making studio albums only and no tour....over a replacement for him that is touring.
Brenski, have you heard the Innuendo album?
Sure, Freddie had less than a year to live.... but does that album sound like Queen was over?
Being a touring band doesn't mean shit...The Beatles quit touring in 1965... yet SGT. Pepper, The White Album, and Abbey Road have all done ok...wouldn't you agree??
If Queen truly is four equal parts, then as Freddie said in his 1985 interview "If one of us walks away, or isn't able to perform anymore, then that would be the end of Queen, as that wouldn't be Queen anymore".
Mary Austin says now that Freddie knew he was HIV positive in 1984....and told the band in 1986 at the end of the "Magic" tour....Peter Freestone confims this.
Could Freddie's comment about how if one of them leave, then Queen is over a subtle way of saying..."when I am gone, please do not still call this legacy we have created together Queen with someone else in place of me"....I think it could be.
Will I see Brian and Roger with P.R. if they come near me???
Absolutely!
And I hope they kick ass all over the place.
But all the while, I will know:
1) This isn't Queen.
2) No Freddie = No Queen
3) No Deacon further strenghthens that point.
4) Queen is over. It ended in 1991
5) This is 2 of my favorite musicians Brian and Roger....with some other musicians.
Why is my definition so hard for
1) Yes, Paul McCartney and John Lennon wrote together in the early days. Up until Rubber Soul.
The Beatles are considered to be mainly John's group from 1962 to mid 1967...Paul took over writing most of the poppy hits in 1967 on, while John wrote songs like "Happiness is a Warm Gun" and "Sexy Sadie" which usually prevail as Die Hard Beatles favorites.
In William J Dowldings book titled "Beatle Songs", he determined that John Lennon wrote (81) songs for the Beatles, and McCartney wrote (74).
John had more songs in the top 40, Paul had more songs that cracked the top 20.....I'd say thats a pretty equal partnership.
2) Really a death of a member is a bigger reason for ending a band.... especially when the death is of the chief songwriter...and in the public's eyes...THE BANDS MAIN CHARACTER.
*NOTE- NOT ONE IN ONE HUNDRED AVERAGE PEOPLE COULD NAME ANOTHER MEMBER OF QUEEN BESIDES FREDDIE IN THE U.S.A.
Freddie recorded as much as he possibly could so as much material could be released as possible, I doubt if it was because he was concerned that some 60 yr old singer replacing him wouldn't have any song ideas.
Freddie wanted the others to carry on making music... whether or not he wanted them to replace him...and continue on as Queen...I question that.
3) Freddie denied he was the leader because he was modest....what kind of douche bag is going to say "Just so everyone knows, I'm the king shit around here"...... As everyone around Queen has said, from Brian and John, to Peter and Mack....IF FREDDIE REALLY WANTED SOMETHING (IE: RECORDING JOHN'S SONG AOBTD THAT BRIAN AND ROGER HATED) ....THEN IT HAPPENED.
4) AC/DC really is Angus and Malcom, 2nd... when Bon Scott died, they were early in their career's, and really had , had no success in the USA. Every artist in the world tries to conquer the USA...if you haven't made it in the United States, then its considered by many that you "aren't there yet".
The Who is just 2 men in their sixties touring.
No one who see's The Who really think its 1968, and they are seeing the real thing....
Do you think if Pete Townsend died, they would still be touring as The WHO??
Of course not.
That's why the Queen name should be laid to rest now.
5) Yes, we Queen fans too young to have seen Queen live (I was born in 1978) would have loved to have seen Freddie make everyone look lame.... but I never did.
But I myself, will take Freddie, still alive, making studio albums only and no tour....over a replacement for him that is touring.
Brenski, have you heard the Innuendo album?
Sure, Freddie had less than a year to live.... but does that album sound like Queen was over?
Being a touring band doesn't mean shit...The Beatles quit touring in 1965... yet SGT. Pepper, The White Album, and Abbey Road have all done ok...wouldn't you agree??
If Queen truly is four equal parts, then as Freddie said in his 1985 interview "If one of us walks away, or isn't able to perform anymore, then that would be the end of Queen, as that wouldn't be Queen anymore".
Mary Austin says now that Freddie knew he was HIV positive in 1984....and told the band in 1986 at the end of the "Magic" tour....Peter Freestone confims this.
Could Freddie's comment about how if one of them leave, then Queen is over a subtle way of saying..."when I am gone, please do not still call this legacy we have created together Queen with someone else in place of me"....I think it could be.
Will I see Brian and Roger with P.R. if they come near me???
Absolutely!
And I hope they kick ass all over the place.
But all the while, I will know:
1) This isn't Queen.
2) No Freddie = No Queen
3) No Deacon further strenghthens that point.
4) Queen is over. It ended in 1991
5) This is 2 of my favorite musicians Brian and Roger....with some other musicians.
Why is my definition so hard for
Good posts, Lester.
I am not letdown, disappointed, or hurt by John Deacon's actions. I fully respect his decisions to retire (yes, *retire*, which means he will not be working *anymore*) and I think everyone else should do the same. How would any of you people feel if your actions were constantly questioned and said to be "disappointing" or a "letdown" simply because you choose to live your life that way you want to?
Btw...Penetration_Guru had an incredibly heavy dose of sarcasm in his post. I think quite a few of you missed that..
I am not letdown, disappointed, or hurt by John Deacon's actions. I fully respect his decisions to retire (yes, *retire*, which means he will not be working *anymore*) and I think everyone else should do the same. How would any of you people feel if your actions were constantly questioned and said to be "disappointing" or a "letdown" simply because you choose to live your life that way you want to?
Btw...Penetration_Guru had an incredibly heavy dose of sarcasm in his post. I think quite a few of you missed that..
I feel betrayed by John... I can't BELIEVE he slept around on me like that... *sniffle*
Waaaaaaaait! What was that? Shut up! I didn't say anything!
Waaaaaaaait! What was that? Shut up! I didn't say anything!
Wow...
I see you lot have been busy while i was away...
I see you lot have been busy while i was away...
Sheesh.
People obviously have a lot to spew out, don't they? Well....
There is no use in arguing online. No use whatsoever because in the end, no one cares, and no one wins. It's just a fact. I say we all simmer down and try to stick to the subject without having to overdo it and write long essays in a forum. That is a no no because its waaaaaaay too boring to see paragraph after paragraph of something that we don't really care about. Woo.
Cheers
People obviously have a lot to spew out, don't they? Well....
There is no use in arguing online. No use whatsoever because in the end, no one cares, and no one wins. It's just a fact. I say we all simmer down and try to stick to the subject without having to overdo it and write long essays in a forum. That is a no no because its waaaaaaay too boring to see paragraph after paragraph of something that we don't really care about. Woo.
Cheers
Nope just sad he's decided to stay away. But his choice and if i was in his position a few million in the bank good health a love of golf, familie life and strippers then my choice would be to??? well not go on the road anyway
Don't you love it when a post turns into a MASSIVE can of opened worms?
i hate worms...but yes...that's basically what is happening right here...it's quite interesting actually
I feel John did a good thing. When Freddie died That is when the band broke up. I respect what Roger and Brian are doing with the new guy but without Freddie it's just another band. NOT QUEEN!
"Does anyone feel somewhay...betrayed by John?"
No.
No.
I don't think he owe us anything. To retire was his right and we have not to try finding out why he did it, because it's none of our buisness. Of course it would be great to see Brian, Roger and John still together, but that's not the way things are and we have to accept it.
"Does anyone feel somewhay...betrayed by John?"
No.
No.
Disappointed he didn't want to tour, but never betrayed
I wish he would've gone on tour with Brian and Roger, or at least made an appearance once in awhile, but he can do whatever he wants with his life. He does deserve it, after all.