Anyone else feel that Queen has become a corporate entity?

To be honest, it does seem that Queen has become a corporate entity, but I doubt it is indeed true.

Look around you nowadays: what isn't a symbol of corporate domination? Millions of dollars spent and made for advertisement, dozens of great songs completely butchered and misused by those advertisers, and much, much more!

I feel that the "Queen +" idea wasn't much of a desparate manuever on the part of Queen Productions; it simply was to reintroduce itself to the newer generation. With the outpour of wannabe pop stars (Britney, etc.) and the failure of reason within the music industry, it was time for Queen to get on the side of the newer generation.

This idea was able to keep Queen alive, and was able to rekindle the flame that was mere milliseconds from expiring in front of our eyes. Say what you want, i think it was a lifesaver.

And btw I don't believe Queenonline charges too much for its online products, it's about as much here in the US as it is there, so it makes sense.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Thing is I don't care for semantics like "should it be called Queen anymore" and I don't care how much money they rake in. I was only ever in this shit for the music - nothing else. If you're spending so much time worrying about how corporate they became, you've no one but yourself to blame because you *bought* their stuff, right?
Don't rag on about how materialistic and hypocritical a group becomes when they did it with our money. Personally, I think for giving me songs like Bijou, The Prophet's Song and Save Me, they can be as fucking corporate as they want![/QUOTE]

To borrow a phrase, "sheer bloody poetry". And hooray for the dose of reality.

Thank god they became a coporoate entity! That means that their l.p.s will stay in print and they might make more! What's wrong with that and trying to make as much money as possible?! I am more scared of the people who don't want to make money! By the way! If you have any dollar that you don't want...give it to me!

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhoun wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Queen has been a corporate entity for over 20 years.....

Are you just now noticing, or are you just trying to be difficult?[/QUOTE]


Someone with a brain.

First of all, music is a business.
That's the first thing you should understand about your favorite band. Yes, they do it because they love it, but also because they need to make a living. trust me, I'm a musician. A classically trained one- not a rock star. (psh I wish)

But in addition, I think acts like Britney Spears (NOT Paul Rodgers) cheapen the prestige and legendary music associated with Queen. That's what ruins Queen's legacy. Not corporate greed. Every band has a record label- they have to. The record label basically backs the band and pays for studio time, marketing, etcetera. Without them the band would be nothing.


that's just my 2 cents, you're free to disagree.

Do you guys really think Brian and Roger these days play just for the money? Please man.
Brian and Roger have both over 60 million pounds. They can buy a fucking airplane if they want. They play because it's their jobs, they play because it's their hobby, and they play because it's the thing they're damn good at!

It's not fair to say Brian and Roger should stop playing because a collegue of them died, and one stops working. It's not fair to say Brian and Roger should stop using the name for a 'company' they've started, and been working hard for in the last 36 years. And it's not fair to say that they can't work with people they want to work with, even if it's a boyband.

If coca cola makes a deal with pepsi, would you bother because you don't like to drink pepsi?
Should Philips have stopped being a company when founder Gerard Philips died 50 years ago? Should they have changed their name perhaps?

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]What's manufactured about, say, Britney Spears? The songs are good, the lyrics are good (no matter if she composed them or not), the production is good, the instruments are well executed (more often than not by top session players), she sings well, the arrangements are amazing (more often than not made by orchestral conductors or akin). Then what's the problem?[/QUOTE]

Sebastian- from time to time you really worry me... Really do...

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Do you guys really think Brian and Roger these days play just for the money? Please man.
Brian and Roger have both over 60 million pounds. They can buy a fucking airplane if they want. They play because it's their jobs, they play because it's their hobby, and they play because it's the thing they're damn good at![/QUOTE]
Agreed completely.

Sebastian, when you say "What's manufactured about, say, Britney Spears? The songs are good, the lyrics are good (no matter if she composed them or not), the production is good, the instruments are well executed (more often than not by top session players), she sings well, the arrangements are amazing (more often than not made by orchestral conductors or akin). Then what's the problem?"

The problem, is that by having lyrics and songs composed by others, with producers and arrangers and session musicians working with her, other than her voice (she sings well???), there is nothing in the product about Britney Spears as a person. Those songs, sounds and arrangements could be for Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, Madonna, Pink et al. They're written for hit appeal with no specific artist targetted. I've read quotes where superstars like Celine Dion and Faith Hill will listen to 200 song submissions from various songwriters before deciding on the cuts that make it to the album. How can that music, which is written for mass appeal sales, be anything but manufactured? Britney Spears is virtually talentless, and will have a sex tape on the market within 2 years to flog her fading image. Guaranteed.

lets be honest here. they dont do it cos they have to and they also, to some extent, dont do it for the money but its a business so they aint gonna do it for free. I think they do it for the same reason the Who are still going, the same reason bb king is still going, the same reason shirley bassey is still going, the same reason why ozzy is still going. They do it cos they want the adulation, critical aclaim, glamour, but ultimately if they dont do it they wont have anything left to do.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]BHM 0271 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Aarrgghhh! For the 50 millionth time, other than the BPP brigade of clowns, very few people are opposed to Brian and Roger playing. But please, for the love of God, QUEEN THEMSELVES put it on virtually every album that Queen are/is/were John deacon, Brian May, Roger Taylor and Freddie Mercury. Not Spike Edney, or Steve Howe, or David Bowie. Just the 4 of them. I'm glad that Brian and Roger are out playing at near 60 years of age, and playing loud rock, that's fantastic. However, tons of people believe that the current configuration is no more Queen than I'm the King of England. Are they wrong, while agreeing that it is totally approriate for Brian and Roger to use the name? Yes and no. Fried Chicken, BPP or myself can't define what Queen should be. We have our own beliefs, but for those of us who believe that the band Queen ended in November 1991, we're technically correct.

BTW, there's no fan forum or stirring tributes to the late Mr. Phillips at the Phillips Electronics site because business doesn't touch people emotionally like music does. Life goes on, but comparing what most of feel is the greatest band ever to a faceless conglomerate is not a good analogy.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, computer screw up on the postings.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=000000>Fenderek wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]What's manufactured about, say, Britney Spears? The songs are good, the lyrics are good (no matter if she composed them or not), the production is good, the instruments are well executed (more often than not by top session players), she sings well, the arrangements are amazing (more often than not made by orchestral conductors or akin). Then what's the problem?[/QUOTE]

Sebastian- from time to time you really worry me... Really do...[/QUOTE]

Oh what, I thought he was being sarcastic.