Brian and Roger are ruining PAUL RODGERS!!!!!

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Fenderek wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Oh, I thought you weretalking me...
Mr Weneslydale, that's my name...[/QUOTE]

Teehee what a wonderful name you have, people often calls me cam, its short for camembert you know? might get it changed to wedneslydale though as i'm not french :(

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>Flash! wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I'm glad Queen are going to stop touring with cheese. Cheese just isn't the same after Freddie died... I don't think cheese could fully cope without Freddie... thats why, lately, it has tasted a little mouldy... time for cheese to retire!
RIP CHEESE![/QUOTE]
RIPE CHEESE!

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]2pink wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I agree, he should fuck off, because nobody wants him![/QUOTE]

All 500,000+ who saw Paul, Brian, and Roger completely agree with you.

Here is an honest question for BPP, Sharon, TeaKettleResurrection, and all the rest of you Freddie fundamentalists who can't get over the fact that Freddie died, yet the band Queen continue in some form:

Did all of the following bands commit cardinal sin by pursuing their musical interests with the band's name after losing a key member for whatever reason? All are striking cases:

Rolling Stones without Brian Jones
AC/DC without Bon Scott
Chicago without Terry Kath, and later without Peter Cetera
The Who without Keith Moon, and later without John Entwistle
Supertramp without Roger Hodgson
Deep Purple without Richie Blackmore, and later without Jon Lord
INXS without Michael Hutchence
Smashing Pumpkins possibly reuniting without James Iha? (D'arcy Wretzky quit after a few albums too)

I am most interested in the responses of at least a half dozen certain people.

Freddie almost made the band. Was Brian Jones a big part of RS? no Was Bon Scott of AC/DC? no

without Freddie i dont see Queen
Queen died with Freddie and Brian&Roger should let Queen go, because theres nothing they can do to bring Queen back. I think they should go as Smile, because they arent Queen. Its just a memory of a legendary band now

Kingdoms wax and wane; Empires cleave asunder and coalesce
When the districts of Zhou weakened,
the seven principalities sprang up
Warring with one another until they settled as Qin
and when Qin had fufilled its destiny
Arose Han and Chu to contend for the mastery
and Liu Beng of Han was the victor

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]biggest_fan_K wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Freddie almost made the band. Was Brian Jones a big part of RS? no Was Bon Scott of AC/DC? no

without Freddie i dont see Queen
Queen died with Freddie and Brian&Roger should let Queen go, because theres nothing they can do to bring Queen back. I think they should go as Smile, because they arent Queen. Its just a memory of a legendary band now[/QUOTE]




I believe,darling,that Freddie wanted Brian and Roger(and John)to continue. And wherever he is now,I'm sure he is watching with content and does not mind Brian and Roger keeping Queen alive;)

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]biggest_fan_K wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Freddie almost made the band. Was Brian Jones a big part of RS? no Was Bon Scott of AC/DC? no

without Freddie i dont see Queen
Queen died with Freddie and Brian&Roger should let Queen go, because theres nothing they can do to bring Queen back. I think they should go as Smile, because they arent Queen. Its just a memory of a legendary band now[/QUOTE]

One reply... typical.

But my point was for all of the examples to be refuted... not just a select couple.

How about Pink Floyd without Syd Barrett, and later without Roger Waters?

My point is: so many bands have lost a key member and continued. It's nothing new. I can't believe all the whining and complaining that has gone on here, all because the founding members of Queen are still using the band name.

About those cases of bands going on without key members I'm most familiar with the Pink Floyd case. They actually lost TWO key members and kept going and I was always surprised by it. I mean, you could argue that Syd Barret "was" Pink Floyd at the begining as Freddie "was" Queen. Syd was the true superstar, excentric and wrote most of the songs in their first couple of albums. Should they have quit in 1968?? We wouldn't have The Wall, Wish You Were Here, Meddle and other great albums. Now THAT would have been a sin!

Many bands do it all over again. I can imagine Van Halen fans being partial to one of their frontmen as, maybe, some James Bond fans being partial to Sean Connery or Roger Moore as being their favorite 007. You can say one is better than the other, but I don't see the point in bitching about something to the level of calling it a blasphemy, which it clearly isn't.

I'd say that every band's case is different, but some of them have found (a tremendous amount of)success after losing one or more original members. I'm not very familiar with Van Halen's case but it's sometimes refered as being a good example of bands carrying out without their original members. I heard on a TV show that David Lee Roth was like the original Coke everybody liked; Sammy Haggar was like Pepsi, a little sweeter in taste but good; and that Gary Cherone was like RC Cola, and no-one really got that, hehe :).

Another example: I know there was this discontent when the Beatle's original drummer was sacked in favor of Ringo Starr. I can almost imagine all the BPP's of the sixties saying NO PETE NO BEATLES, RIP BEATLES 1962. I know this case is an exaggeration but, well, many other "Queen fundamentalists" are, so sue me.

There has to be something a band has to keep in order to make this successful transition. I would like to believe this Queen+PR colaboration is going to last but I know it won't, so I'm enjoying it the best I can. For God's sake... it's Queen! they're back on the road! You can stay at home, listen to your records and live in the past. There's nothing wrong about it. Now, spamming the board, that IS WRONG. The fact that most of the other not so fundamentalistic Queen fans are by far more reasonable persons doesn't mean that you can actually make us change our minds about it. But, then again, I really don't believe this Poodle guy saying Paul Rodgers sucks and prefering Robbie Williams. I like Robbie, I like many of his songs, but I don't think Brian and Roger would've looked good touring with him.

Well, this post is endless. I'm sorry I wrote this much but I think it's better to organize your ideas and actually make an argument instead of just spamming this board. The only bad thing that this new tour brought was some of the most annoying spammers this board has ever known, but in the end, there's far more good in this. Queen has always been a controversial band and it's good that they're actually making some buzz once again.

Rock on Queen!... :)

Wiley

Yeah you don't understand one thing buddy, ITS NOT QUEEN.
And you're comparing Freddie to some drummer. Freddie was the most important member of Queen, without him, there isn't Queen.

i rreally hate fish, i dont eat it ever, i refuse to

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]calcium wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Yeah you don't understand one thing buddy, ITS NOT QUEEN.
And you're comparing Freddie to some drummer. Freddie was the most important member of Queen, without him, there isn't Queen.
[/QUOTE]

i agree with you

JamieSureWould what wrong with fish i real like fish me especially with chips

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]englishyob wrote: [/QUOTENAME]JamieSureWould what wrong with fish i real like fish me especially with chips[/QUOTE]


idk ever since i went scuba diving and saw how cute they were down under the ocean i was like aww im not eating them. PLUS it smells gasly

You're right, it's not Queen. It's Queen+Paul Rodgers. It says so in the publicity and there's nothing you or anyone can do about it. I said that the Beatles' drummer case was an exageration but why don't you consider the case of Pink Floyd? Syd Barret was as important to early Pink Floyd as Freddie was for Queen; also Roger Waters, 15 years later. It would be interesting to see what other band's fans think about those band lineup changes.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You can like or not like this new tour with Paul Rodgers, you can go or not go at all, but I'm sick about reading the same old "this is not Queen" argument. It was briefly mentioned every time Brian and Roger appeared in some TV show or as guests in someone else's concert under the name Queen but it's been discussed to death and it gets really booooring. Now, for a change, someone asks for opinions about other bands' cases and other people say that no other band can compare to Queen. I mean, I know this is a Queen forum, and I'm a loyal fan and collector of the band, but this "RIP QUEEN 1991" thing is very annoying.

Let's talk some other band's cases and see the same phenomenon under different eyes, OR let's talk about what Queen or their band members are currently doing. And what they are doing now is this "QUEEN PLUS PAUL RODGERS TOUR", wether we like it or not :).

Wiley

Er....
....chicken? Deep fried?
And remember who created the cheese topic...
...that's right, it was me, in one of those redundant posts about Mr. Rogers a while back.
So wham bam thank you ma'am. I own. ;)
Cheers