call themselves Queen???
I mean, it was Freddie who invented the name AND half of the band is missing right now. Freddie and John are not there so how are they ALLOWED to call themselves Queen?
Brian and Roger are NOT Queen. They are members of the late band Queen which consisted of Brian, Roger, John and Freddie. I mean, that is not a matter of opinion...That is a FACT!
Just wondering....
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Don't get me wrong but we had that like a thousand(s) times already...
Well, I haven't been here that long...
Could you tell me then? Are they allowed to do call themselves that?
Could you tell me then? Are they allowed to do call themselves that?
Legal point of you- yes
Any other- up to you
Fred's dead. John supports (apparently) whatever they do just doesn't want to be involved- retired. I guess by elimintaion they're Queen... Who cares anyway- they rocked big time on last tour... Couldn't care less if they're called Queen or Yabadabadi. Everybody knows Mercury's dead- it's not misleading than...
Any other- up to you
Fred's dead. John supports (apparently) whatever they do just doesn't want to be involved- retired. I guess by elimintaion they're Queen... Who cares anyway- they rocked big time on last tour... Couldn't care less if they're called Queen or Yabadabadi. Everybody knows Mercury's dead- it's not misleading than...
No, they aren't, IMO. We've been discussed about that in the late of 2004 in topic ''Do they have to ask John's permission for using Queen name?'' (which was started by someone called Serry Funster in those days).
But as Fenderek wrote - who cares? Roger and Brian still rocks - that's a fact too.
But as Fenderek wrote - who cares? Roger and Brian still rocks - that's a fact too.
Queen is Freddie, Roger, Brian and John. But...on the other hand...way back to 13. April in Vienna, do you know how many happinies shared Brian and Roger to all those people including me staying in the crowd? I never had the chance to see Freddie on stage, but now, I was a step closer to him, because I saw Queen there. There were Roger and Brian but Freddie and John too. Someone thinks they were only on the screen, but I think they were in our hearts and minds. And that is importent. No wether Roger and Brian are allowed to using that magic name. Queen still rocks. Now with 2 members on stage, but with four in our hearts.
I absolutely agree that Roger and Brian rocks and Queen consists of four in our hearts and everything...
But I'm thinking of the legal side of it!
But I'm thinking of the legal side of it!
Jesus get over it. You people make a very valid point - Queen RIP 1991, etcetera... so that's what, fourteen years you've been telling other people to stop playing music because it doesn't fit your narrow view? Go to buggery, if they want to, they will.
In fifty years, what Brian and Roger do has a chance of being remembered and written about. In fifty years, no one will give a stuff that a bunch of assholes were saying RIP 1991 Queen when a couple of the guys were still playing to 1000's of people and giving 'em a good time.
In fifty years, what Brian and Roger do has a chance of being remembered and written about. In fifty years, no one will give a stuff that a bunch of assholes were saying RIP 1991 Queen when a couple of the guys were still playing to 1000's of people and giving 'em a good time.
The difference is they're not making no secret of the incompleteness of the band. It is clear to ALL that they know that they are only half of Queen. Bri and Roger are each 25% of Queen, and have exactly the same rights as the other 50%, dead or alive.
As someone said a while back in the middle of that 20-odd page topic started by knob-head BPP "if you cut an apple pie into four slices and take two slices away, does it mean it is not an apple pie?".
No. Just half.
As someone said a while back in the middle of that 20-odd page topic started by knob-head BPP "if you cut an apple pie into four slices and take two slices away, does it mean it is not an apple pie?".
No. Just half.
The difference is they're not making no secret of the incompleteness of the band. It is clear to ALL that they know that they are only half of Queen. Bri and Roger are each 25% of Queen, and have exactly the same rights as the other 50%, dead or alive.
As someone said a while back in the middle of that 20-odd page topic started by knob-head BPP "if you cut an apple pie into four slices and take two slices away, does it mean it is not an apple pie?".
No. Just half.
Wow! Thanks for remembering that!
To take it a step further (since it is apparently still not clear),
it could almost be seen as wrong to NOT call it Queen.
It's Brian and Roger's decision anyway.
If you're talking about LEGAL point of view the answer is YES. Who's going to sue them? Freddie? His mom? She's apparently supporting what they do... John? Not really- he let them do whatever the hell they want as long as he's not in the potlight... So of course they have the right to use the name- no-one else is claiming it. Apart from BPP but he's a nutcase...
Well, I haven't been here that long...
Could you tell me then? Are they allowed to do call themselves that?
Well if you want to REALLY look into it, Brian and Roger where the first to members. So piss off.
If I may make a point, John Deacon wasn't Queen's first or only bass player, as there were a few before him, so he wasn't even a founding member of Queen. So there you go!
Well, PLEASE do NOT tell me to piss off! I am just asking a question here! There is absolutely no need to talk to me like that.
Well of course they can!! They can do whatever they want and get away with it...Like that britney/pink-stuff and that big ugly whore robbie...We hated it,but we forgive them cause we love them! So why should we get angry when they`re actually doing something great?? The tour was and still is a once-in-a-lifetime chance for fans under the age of 30 to see them live...