I could understand somebody don't like idea of "new Queen". It's OK for me. But you two - L77 and BPP - are extraordinary unbelievable.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Hmmmmm lets see.........they played to 4,000 people?? What a comeback.........My backyard can hold more people than that.....Last time I checked Queen in there true form attracted 100,000 + at Knebworth in 86, wonder who was responsible for that?? I mean they are british and do belong to your country but you wait and see the wakeup call they get when they come to the states, that's even if there even brave enough to make the trip. All I can say is the musical scene overthere must be in a sorry shape if you go this nuts over a half rate tour. and all you stupid fuckers that are just waiting to leap at me and call me a "non" fan and whatever else you can conjure up can go right ahead cuz you all can kiss my white ass on the real.......Keep buying your tickets and wasting your money on the Brian May and Roger Taylor show.......just glad its not my money..........Peace out
Totally agree this tour is a FARCE and ain't Queen. It's Brian + Roger and their new buddy Paul Rodgers. It may be a good show.
BUT IT'S NOT QUEEN IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM.
I have heard the audio from the Brixton shows and it's bloody awful and embarrassing anybody who thinks Freddie would be impressed by this CARP is kidding themselves.
QUEEN 1991 RIP.
FREDDIE WE LOVE YOU ALWAYS WILL
NEVER EVER EVER BE REPLACED.
Where did you hear the audio of Brixton?
Or are you just making shit up.
Because as far as I know there is no audio of Brixton other than that quick video piece on Reuters
Oh, and there is that BoRap clip on wegotit's site, but the audio on that is so brutal, it's unlistenable. The bass frequencies distort like mad. What that person used to film it wasn't up to par.
Hmmmmm lets see.........they played to 4,000 people?? What a comeback.........My backyard can hold more people than that.....Last time I checked Queen in there true form attracted 100,000 + at Knebworth in 86, wonder who was responsible for that?? I mean they are british and do belong to your country but you wait and see the wakeup call they get when they come to the states, that's even if there even brave enough to make the trip. All I can say is the musical scene overthere must be in a sorry shape if you go this nuts over a half rate tour. and all you stupid fuckers that are just waiting to leap at me and call me a "non" fan and whatever else you can conjure up can go right ahead cuz you all can kiss my white ass on the real.......Keep buying your tickets and wasting your money on the Brian May and Roger Taylor show.......just glad its not my money..........Peace out
Hey you want to make a bet that if they come to the states the tour will be a success.
I'll put down $55(about the price of a ticket) that says the tour will be a success.
We'll have to agree to the guidelines. I have a Pay Pal account so we can transfer the money that way.
So how about it?
You ready to put your money where your mouth is?
Im going to crash out now, and when I wake up I'll see if you have responded.
Good post, Steve.
And for once in my life, I agree with William. Although it feels so wrong.
;^)
And for once in my life, I agree with William. Although it feels so wrong.
;^)
Well, I was at the Paris gig, and it was really great. I'll be in Milan, too...
I think everyone can have his opinion about this tour, you can like it or not, but it's a mistake to confond Queen with Freddie Mercury.
Queen was not only Mercury, Mercury was not the whole of Queen.
It's not the same thing without him? Of course, it's not.
Can Paul Rodgers replace him? Of course he can't. Nobody might, and he's maybe not even the best choice (Tony Vincent maybe would have fitted better in that role).
But what were Brian and Roger supposed to do after Freddie's death? To kill themselves? To retire?
Why can't they go on playing their songs?
After all, Paul McCartney is still touring singing Beatles' songs, and yet there are only two Beatles left, and nobody criticizes him for this.
And if you think about it, while the duo McCartney/Lennon wrote almost all of the Beatles' songs, in the Queen the production was much more fairly subdivided between the four members.
I'd say that in the 70's Mercury (mainly) and May were the main creative forces in the group, but in the 80's May, Taylor and Deacon were even more productive and creative than Mercury himself.
Don't the song authors deserve credit for their creativity? Does really only the singer and frontman matter? What is it that makes great a group, only the image and the voice or even the music?
So, should have May or Taylor died in 1991, and should now Mercury and Deacon be touring as Queen, how would you react? Would you be so critic and negative in the same way?
I think everyone can have his opinion about this tour, you can like it or not, but it's a mistake to confond Queen with Freddie Mercury.
Queen was not only Mercury, Mercury was not the whole of Queen.
It's not the same thing without him? Of course, it's not.
Can Paul Rodgers replace him? Of course he can't. Nobody might, and he's maybe not even the best choice (Tony Vincent maybe would have fitted better in that role).
But what were Brian and Roger supposed to do after Freddie's death? To kill themselves? To retire?
Why can't they go on playing their songs?
After all, Paul McCartney is still touring singing Beatles' songs, and yet there are only two Beatles left, and nobody criticizes him for this.
And if you think about it, while the duo McCartney/Lennon wrote almost all of the Beatles' songs, in the Queen the production was much more fairly subdivided between the four members.
I'd say that in the 70's Mercury (mainly) and May were the main creative forces in the group, but in the 80's May, Taylor and Deacon were even more productive and creative than Mercury himself.
Don't the song authors deserve credit for their creativity? Does really only the singer and frontman matter? What is it that makes great a group, only the image and the voice or even the music?
So, should have May or Taylor died in 1991, and should now Mercury and Deacon be touring as Queen, how would you react? Would you be so critic and negative in the same way?
"What are Brian & Roger supposed to do?" They apparently love playing so much...they could do that without out relying on past glories. Instead, they wanna make some quick dough, so they put together a tour under the name of their old band knowing that more people will buy tickets, purely because of the name.
Coming out of Brixton, many people appeared dissatisfied with the performance - many people commenting on Rodgers performance, Roger really struggling - he barely played any of his trademark fills... most people however don't post on Queen forums, so...
Coming out of Brixton, many people appeared dissatisfied with the performance - many people commenting on Rodgers performance, Roger really struggling - he barely played any of his trademark fills... most people however don't post on Queen forums, so...
why starting stupid posts like this?if you go to the concert or like it,it's ok,enjoy it and leave the forum in peace.
???
So, people are entitled to praise the gig/s, but people AREN'T entitled to criticise? Youve been reading Dr Mays Soapbox too long mate.
So, people are entitled to praise the gig/s, but people AREN'T entitled to criticise? Youve been reading Dr Mays Soapbox too long mate.
"they could do that without out relying on past glories"
So, following your reasoning, if Freddie were alive and Brian dead, Freddie could not sing Queen songs anymore? I doubt it.
Well, it's normal than 50 years old rockers propose success from their past, they can't be so creative anymore. But there are many people, like me, that have never had the chance to see Queen live when Freddie was alive, and if Brian and Roger still feel like playing, they have all the rights to do so.
I don't think it is for money, neither. Frankly, I don't think May and Taylor are broken... :-)
So, following your reasoning, if Freddie were alive and Brian dead, Freddie could not sing Queen songs anymore? I doubt it.
Well, it's normal than 50 years old rockers propose success from their past, they can't be so creative anymore. But there are many people, like me, that have never had the chance to see Queen live when Freddie was alive, and if Brian and Roger still feel like playing, they have all the rights to do so.
I don't think it is for money, neither. Frankly, I don't think May and Taylor are broken... :-)
They could quite easily continue releasing solo albums every 4 years or so years and play the venues that they are able to sell out using their own names.
I doubt Freddie would have continued Queen without any one of the other band members. I don't see Ringo & Paul McCartney touring under the name The Beatles with, I don't know, the singer of Hermans Hermits do you?
I doubt Freddie would have continued Queen without any one of the other band members. I don't see Ringo & Paul McCartney touring under the name The Beatles with, I don't know, the singer of Hermans Hermits do you?
McCartney can tour with HIS name, but if he mostly sings Beatles song (as he does), where is the difference?
After all, had they announced a May+Taylor+Rodgers tour, wouldn't it have been the same? Nobody goes to these gigs expecting to find Mercury and Deacon!!!
After all, had they announced a May+Taylor+Rodgers tour, wouldn't it have been the same? Nobody goes to these gigs expecting to find Mercury and Deacon!!!
If the tour had been called "Brian May, Roger Taylor & Paul Rodgers", most people wouldn't even know about it - and they know that, but it would have given the tour a lot more credibility.
Paul McCartney does tour under his own name and does sing Beatles songs - yes. and?? He doesn't tour using the name of his old band.
Paul McCartney does tour under his own name and does sing Beatles songs - yes. and?? He doesn't tour using the name of his old band.
A name is only a name, people know what to expect.
Besides, I repeat, Queen were not only Freddie and Freddie was not the whole of Queen.
Besides, I repeat, Queen were not only Freddie and Freddie was not the whole of Queen.
If the tour had been called "Brian May, Roger Taylor & Paul Rodgers", most people wouldn't even know about it - and they know that, but it would have given the tour a lot more credibility.
Paul McCartney does tour under his own name and does sing Beatles songs - yes. and?? He doesn't tour using the name of his old band.
Thank you. Finally someone who brought this FACT up and realizes it.
Hmmmmm lets see.........they played to 4,000 people?? What a comeback.........My backyard can hold more people than that.....Last time I checked Queen in there true form attracted 100,000 + at Knebworth in 86, wonder who was responsible for that?? I mean they are british and do belong to your country but you wait and see the wakeup call they get when they come to the states, that's even if there even brave enough to make the trip. All I can say is the musical scene overthere must be in a sorry shape if you go this nuts over a half rate tour. and all you stupid fuckers that are just waiting to leap at me and call me a "non" fan and whatever else you can conjure up can go right ahead cuz you all can kiss my white ass on the real.......Keep buying your tickets and wasting your money on the Brian May and Roger Taylor show.......just glad its not my money..........Peace out
A Little extreme, but I agree with most of what you said. Again, I would be happy to see Roger & Brian tour themselves and sing Queen & solo stuff WITHOUT using the Queen banner, or with John along. But geez, I heard the Brixton audio and I agree the sound quality was probably bad due to the idiot reporter that recorded it for Reuters...but I heard Fancourt and Brixton as well and I just do NOT care for Paul Rodgers. Whe Brian and Roger perform, I'm fine...but I cannot swallow Paul Rodgers...if I do..I'll need an alka seltzer. UGH!