[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry... wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"You see good ol Jimmy Page thought it was inappropriate to come up with a name like Led Zep + Paul Rodgers. Even when Page teams up with Plant they call themselves "Page & Plant" not Led Zep. Brain and Roger should be taking note."
This is where I agree with BPP. Sorry![/QUOTE]
Page and Plant are iconic and legendary.
May and Taylor are more esoteric.
That's about it in a nutshell.[/QUOTE]
Still no excuse to use the name Queen. They should have formed a group with other legends just like Harrison,Petty, Orbison and Dylan did with The Travelling Wilburys's and left the Queen catalogue alone to rest in peace.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Bryans Permed Pants wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Still no excuse to use the name Queen. They should have formed a group with other legends just like Harrison,Petty, Orbison and Dylan did with The Travelling Wilburys's and left the Queen catalogue alone to rest in peace. [/QUOTE]
Well, they didn't. Get over it.
Well, they didn't. Get over it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Bryans Permed Pants wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry... wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"You see good ol Jimmy Page thought it was inappropriate to come up with a name like Led Zep + Paul Rodgers. Even when Page teams up with Plant they call themselves "Page & Plant" not Led Zep. Brain and Roger should be taking note."
This is where I agree with BPP. Sorry![/QUOTE]
Page and Plant are iconic and legendary.
May and Taylor are more esoteric.
That's about it in a nutshell.[/QUOTE]
Still no excuse to use the name Queen. They should have formed a group with other legends just like Harrison,Petty, Orbison and Dylan did with The Travelling Wilburys's and left the Queen catalogue alone to rest in peace.[/QUOTE]
It is a very good excuse.
A) Nobody except a few impertinent fans actually has a problem with their use of the name Queen - not even old John Deacon.
B) If they expect to turn any revenue from this tour, they sure as hell better call themselves Queen. It's much simpler than "Brian May and Roger Taylor, former members of Queen, + Paul Rogers." Particularly when you consider Queen's younger audience who has no idea who Brian May or Roger Taylor are, yet an appreciation for the band Queen and their music.
This is where I agree with BPP. Sorry![/QUOTE]
Page and Plant are iconic and legendary.
May and Taylor are more esoteric.
That's about it in a nutshell.[/QUOTE]
Still no excuse to use the name Queen. They should have formed a group with other legends just like Harrison,Petty, Orbison and Dylan did with The Travelling Wilburys's and left the Queen catalogue alone to rest in peace.[/QUOTE]
It is a very good excuse.
A) Nobody except a few impertinent fans actually has a problem with their use of the name Queen - not even old John Deacon.
B) If they expect to turn any revenue from this tour, they sure as hell better call themselves Queen. It's much simpler than "Brian May and Roger Taylor, former members of Queen, + Paul Rogers." Particularly when you consider Queen's younger audience who has no idea who Brian May or Roger Taylor are, yet an appreciation for the band Queen and their music.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry... wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Yes, Tom, but there are diffent kind of examples.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. Queen without Mercury is the exact same thing as Genesis without Gabriel and Floyd without Waters. Phil Collins and Dave Gilmour are much bigger names now than they were in the early 70s.
Do you think Phil Collins would be so huge today had Gabriel remained in Genesis? I honestly don't think so. Dave Gilmour got the spotlight once Waters left in '83, so it's the same thing for him.
[/QUOTE]
Bob, I don't care how big is someone's name, I know that the best Pink Floyd albums (don't know about Genesis, therefore can't judge) were recorded with Waters. Someone disagree? Freddie was soul of the band, soul is gone, Bri and Rog still wants to use Queen name? Okay. It's not my band, I don't own rights to this title, guys still rocks, they still bring fun and joy for fans, but there's no need to shout on every corner "We're Queen! Queen are back!". IMHO.
I disagree. Queen without Mercury is the exact same thing as Genesis without Gabriel and Floyd without Waters. Phil Collins and Dave Gilmour are much bigger names now than they were in the early 70s.
Do you think Phil Collins would be so huge today had Gabriel remained in Genesis? I honestly don't think so. Dave Gilmour got the spotlight once Waters left in '83, so it's the same thing for him.
[/QUOTE]
Bob, I don't care how big is someone's name, I know that the best Pink Floyd albums (don't know about Genesis, therefore can't judge) were recorded with Waters. Someone disagree? Freddie was soul of the band, soul is gone, Bri and Rog still wants to use Queen name? Okay. It's not my band, I don't own rights to this title, guys still rocks, they still bring fun and joy for fans, but there's no need to shout on every corner "We're Queen! Queen are back!". IMHO.
Hmmm.
On paper it can look ridiculous, it'd be like Paul and Ringo going on tour as The Beatles.
But, the Queen name doesn't necessarily mean the act itself, you know, they're playing a setlist that is predominantly Queen material (a fair whack of which was written by the two surviving guys on stage) so it'd actually be *ridiculous* to NOT mention Queen in the name!
To be honest, I merely see it as an abbreviation of something silly like "Queen's Music plus Paul Rodgers" or whatever. The fact of the matter is, they've chosen the simplest and shortest name they're going to get, the motive behind it isn't really evil at all because it makes perfect sense.
My only quibbles so far have been the name "Return of the Champions" (for that, I'd expect a magnificent lightshow that resurrects Freddie Mercury ala the 2004 Athens Olympics, with that amazing laser light + smoke rendition of DNA) and the fact that Paul Rodgers can't help but throw in the odd 'hit me with your heart and with your soul' crap.
Look, it's all very nice to become an arsehole and defend ol' Freddie Mercury and copy+paste shit like "QUEEN RIP 1991" but really. This Q+PR outfit play good music, they make people happy (which is more than what you're doing) and they only drag more attention to Queen.
Remind me again - who exactly loses out in all of this? It's not as though Freddie cares. He's dead. And he'll always be the best. Now shuddup.
On paper it can look ridiculous, it'd be like Paul and Ringo going on tour as The Beatles.
But, the Queen name doesn't necessarily mean the act itself, you know, they're playing a setlist that is predominantly Queen material (a fair whack of which was written by the two surviving guys on stage) so it'd actually be *ridiculous* to NOT mention Queen in the name!
To be honest, I merely see it as an abbreviation of something silly like "Queen's Music plus Paul Rodgers" or whatever. The fact of the matter is, they've chosen the simplest and shortest name they're going to get, the motive behind it isn't really evil at all because it makes perfect sense.
My only quibbles so far have been the name "Return of the Champions" (for that, I'd expect a magnificent lightshow that resurrects Freddie Mercury ala the 2004 Athens Olympics, with that amazing laser light + smoke rendition of DNA) and the fact that Paul Rodgers can't help but throw in the odd 'hit me with your heart and with your soul' crap.
Look, it's all very nice to become an arsehole and defend ol' Freddie Mercury and copy+paste shit like "QUEEN RIP 1991" but really. This Q+PR outfit play good music, they make people happy (which is more than what you're doing) and they only drag more attention to Queen.
Remind me again - who exactly loses out in all of this? It's not as though Freddie cares. He's dead. And he'll always be the best. Now shuddup.
"I think everyone knows "Diamond Dave" is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. "
you can say that again not to defend Queen in any way.
He got screwed twice from one band lol.
Not to say he wasn't great with Van Halen, he was. But he thought he was too good for them and he found out "Grass isn't greener on the other side." Specially when you constantly Sh*t on it.
I actually like Van Halen PLUS David Lee Roth and some of his solo stuff but the guys ego has never landed and for what he says I wouldn't take him serious.
you can say that again not to defend Queen in any way.
He got screwed twice from one band lol.
Not to say he wasn't great with Van Halen, he was. But he thought he was too good for them and he found out "Grass isn't greener on the other side." Specially when you constantly Sh*t on it.
I actually like Van Halen PLUS David Lee Roth and some of his solo stuff but the guys ego has never landed and for what he says I wouldn't take him serious.
Zebonka, who are you talking with? You both times post your replies after mine and I can't understand - is it for me or for someone else?
Nah, if I'm replying to someone I'll usually quote them, or say their name to start off with. To wit - no, I wasn't responding to you. :D
Ah, okay, sorry :)
I've never heard Rogers sing, so I can't make a comment about his singing. However, I do respect Queen's effort to say Queen & PR. It just shows respect to FM that Queen is Queen, but will never be the same without their lead. Thus, it will always be Queen and so and so... Look, I could care less about Deacon because he was an avg. musician, a dime a dozen. But, Queen will always be Queen and ***** because they respectfully show it's the members and another lead singer. IMHO, I just think it's in respect to someone they loved and felt wasn't replaceable. Roth should chill.
The real irony here is that if gary fronted queen instead of VH, everyone would have been better off....queen, van halen,...well, I guess DLR would still be a bad DJ, but he'd have less to complain about.
David Lee Roth can't even sing David Lee Roth songs.
: )
Roth is right,this is 25% of what was once Queen,slaughtering their songs each night for a fast buck.