I do.... What a good reply Scott
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Scott_Mercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Bottom Line:
Queen + Paul Rodgers is not Queen as we know it.
Queen plus Paul Rodgers is NOT better than Queen.
Queen plus PR are just...well....different...
...Given those option's, I'll take this.
[/QUOTE]
Couldn't have said it better Scott.
Bottom Line:
Queen + Paul Rodgers is not Queen as we know it.
Queen plus Paul Rodgers is NOT better than Queen.
Queen plus PR are just...well....different...
...Given those option's, I'll take this.
[/QUOTE]
Couldn't have said it better Scott.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]That's not Queen + Paul Rodgers, that's Paul + Spike + Danny + Jamie + Two Opportunist Leeches.[/QUOTE]
thats right.
How does that count as 'QUEEN'?
-All i would like to see is a fucking name change.
Its disgusting to look and see how they abuse the QUEEN name, stick it on anything to make whatever shit they are doing sell better.
thats right.
How does that count as 'QUEEN'?
-All i would like to see is a fucking name change.
Its disgusting to look and see how they abuse the QUEEN name, stick it on anything to make whatever shit they are doing sell better.
look yeah, whether it is has spike or jamie or paul it still has 50% of Queen.... BRIAN and ROGER! hello? lol.... anyway you guys are missing out on alot... they are great live brian roger and paul and the rest :) hehehe :)
I want it
remember Back in Black
Exiles on main street
New Order before Joy Division
everything can happens
i want !!
remember Back in Black
Exiles on main street
New Order before Joy Division
everything can happens
i want !!
I still can't fathom how so many people would actually be UPSET if Roger and Brian made new material, with or without Paul.
> What's a Parasit? Is that similar to a parasite?
Yes, sorry, my mistake.
> I still can't fathom how so many people would actually be UPSET if Roger and Brian made new material, with or without Paul.
If they make new material, good for them, they're great musicians. If they don't and keep playing old songs, good for them, those are great songs. If they wanna join forces with Robbie Williams, good for them, he's a fantastic singer.
The show must go on. The band's name must not.
Yes, sorry, my mistake.
> I still can't fathom how so many people would actually be UPSET if Roger and Brian made new material, with or without Paul.
If they make new material, good for them, they're great musicians. If they don't and keep playing old songs, good for them, those are great songs. If they wanna join forces with Robbie Williams, good for them, he's a fantastic singer.
The show must go on. The band's name must not.
I want them to make an album...I think it would be absolutely sick!!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Scott_Mercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Bottom Line:
Queen + Paul Rodgers is not Queen as we know it.
Queen plus Paul Rodgers is NOT better than Queen.
Queen plus PR are just...well....different.
Whatever you may think, The double live Queen+PR and DVD rock.
It's just kick ass rock and roll...
Do I like these Queen songs better with Paul than with Freddie?
Duh?? Of course not.
But, the songs still kick ass...and being a fan of the blues...I LOVE Paul's bluesy touch to these Queen classics.
It's like hearing some of these songs all over again.
And to be honest...isn't different sometimes good??
I mean... if I am listening to Queen at the Bowl 1982...I don't want to pop that out, and listen to Wembley...
I just heard Freddie sing 90% of the same songs.
I can pop in Queen+PR live cd, and while I am hearing some of the same songs....they sound completely different.
Paul's versions aren't better...
Just different.
And face it guys, when Freddie died, I knew we would never have **better** .... but I will take "different" over nothing.
Without Paul Rodgers...we have nothing.
Hell yes, I would love to hear a new Queen+PR album.
My wet dream is that Deacon would join them...even if he never toured again... I'd love to see in the liner notes of the new cd:
Brian May
John Deacon
Roger Taylor
and filling in for the legend Freddie Mercury, we have the magnificent Paul Rodgers on vocals.
I want the "Queen 1991 RIP" folks to remember that in 1991 the oldest surviving member of Queen (Brian) was a mere 44 yrs old.
All he had known was "Queen" since he was 23 yrs old. As sad as it is...Freddie died.
Not Brian. Not John. Not Roger
What the "1991 RIP" fans are basically saying is:
Brian, Roger, John....due to some poor judgements that Freddie made in his personal life, you are officially dead too in 1991."
C'mon guys... thats bullshit.
No one, including Brian, and Roger, think this is the heyday with Freddie....
But for them..and us, its either this or nothing.
Given those option's, I'll take this.
[/QUOTE]
Wow.... Thats all i can say... Ive been trying to articulate exactly how i feel, and my dear, you could have not said it any better!
So yes, id love to see a new album come out!! And to have them tour again if they desire... :D Because when i saw them in Buffalo it was the greatest night of my life...
I know it wasnt a Freddie show, but i'll never know a Freddie show except on DVDs, but the thing about Queen is it was FOUR individuals coming together in a tour de force to be reckoned with.... So those of you who say "Queen Died in '91" love Freddie and friends... Yes it is sad without Freddie there, but do you really think that he would want things to remain stagnant forever?? NO!
But what i dont understand is how can you say they're dragging the Queen name in the mud?? I mean they are still playing KICK ASS music arent they?? they are Queen songs are they not??? They include elements of Freddie throughout their shows do they not??? They are opening a whole new generation to Queen... And they definatly could have picked a shitty singer, but they didnt settle, this has been a LLOOOONNNG time coming and obviously it felt right to them otherwise, they wouldnt attach the Queen name to it... And Paul Rodgers has a voice, whether you want to admit it or not...
You dont have to agree with that, thats fine. But if you are merely a fan of Freddie and Friends, then say so, dont sit here and say "This is shit what they are doing"...
I would like to understand though how they are dragging the Queen name in the mud... outside of the fact that they are performing without Freddie, but he is dead (sadly, unjustly and unfortunatly for us all and i have cried about it)
Sadly it is without Freddie, but Queen (as each and everyone of them has said throughout the years) is bigger than
Queen + Paul Rodgers is not Queen as we know it.
Queen plus Paul Rodgers is NOT better than Queen.
Queen plus PR are just...well....different.
Whatever you may think, The double live Queen+PR and DVD rock.
It's just kick ass rock and roll...
Do I like these Queen songs better with Paul than with Freddie?
Duh?? Of course not.
But, the songs still kick ass...and being a fan of the blues...I LOVE Paul's bluesy touch to these Queen classics.
It's like hearing some of these songs all over again.
And to be honest...isn't different sometimes good??
I mean... if I am listening to Queen at the Bowl 1982...I don't want to pop that out, and listen to Wembley...
I just heard Freddie sing 90% of the same songs.
I can pop in Queen+PR live cd, and while I am hearing some of the same songs....they sound completely different.
Paul's versions aren't better...
Just different.
And face it guys, when Freddie died, I knew we would never have **better** .... but I will take "different" over nothing.
Without Paul Rodgers...we have nothing.
Hell yes, I would love to hear a new Queen+PR album.
My wet dream is that Deacon would join them...even if he never toured again... I'd love to see in the liner notes of the new cd:
Brian May
John Deacon
Roger Taylor
and filling in for the legend Freddie Mercury, we have the magnificent Paul Rodgers on vocals.
I want the "Queen 1991 RIP" folks to remember that in 1991 the oldest surviving member of Queen (Brian) was a mere 44 yrs old.
All he had known was "Queen" since he was 23 yrs old. As sad as it is...Freddie died.
Not Brian. Not John. Not Roger
What the "1991 RIP" fans are basically saying is:
Brian, Roger, John....due to some poor judgements that Freddie made in his personal life, you are officially dead too in 1991."
C'mon guys... thats bullshit.
No one, including Brian, and Roger, think this is the heyday with Freddie....
But for them..and us, its either this or nothing.
Given those option's, I'll take this.
[/QUOTE]
Wow.... Thats all i can say... Ive been trying to articulate exactly how i feel, and my dear, you could have not said it any better!
So yes, id love to see a new album come out!! And to have them tour again if they desire... :D Because when i saw them in Buffalo it was the greatest night of my life...
I know it wasnt a Freddie show, but i'll never know a Freddie show except on DVDs, but the thing about Queen is it was FOUR individuals coming together in a tour de force to be reckoned with.... So those of you who say "Queen Died in '91" love Freddie and friends... Yes it is sad without Freddie there, but do you really think that he would want things to remain stagnant forever?? NO!
But what i dont understand is how can you say they're dragging the Queen name in the mud?? I mean they are still playing KICK ASS music arent they?? they are Queen songs are they not??? They include elements of Freddie throughout their shows do they not??? They are opening a whole new generation to Queen... And they definatly could have picked a shitty singer, but they didnt settle, this has been a LLOOOONNNG time coming and obviously it felt right to them otherwise, they wouldnt attach the Queen name to it... And Paul Rodgers has a voice, whether you want to admit it or not...
You dont have to agree with that, thats fine. But if you are merely a fan of Freddie and Friends, then say so, dont sit here and say "This is shit what they are doing"...
I would like to understand though how they are dragging the Queen name in the mud... outside of the fact that they are performing without Freddie, but he is dead (sadly, unjustly and unfortunatly for us all and i have cried about it)
Sadly it is without Freddie, but Queen (as each and everyone of them has said throughout the years) is bigger than
"The show must go on. The band's name must not."
With regards to the many shows since 1992, and the recent 05-06 tour... I think the Queen+ title was appropriate because they were still playing Queen music.
However - if they elect to record new material, then the Queen name will no longer be necessary because it won't be Queen tunes.
And, if you'll look at Brian's last soapbox, he was blubbering about how excited he was to be in a 'new band'. I know they probably won't, but wouldn't it be nice for Roger and Brian to play in something with a new name, for a change?
I've no objection to them using Queen (or any adaption of it) when they're finishing shows with WWRY or TYMD or whatever songs (that they wrote, mind you) made Queen big, but with this new thing they're speculating about, I'd be happy for a new title.
With regards to the many shows since 1992, and the recent 05-06 tour... I think the Queen+ title was appropriate because they were still playing Queen music.
However - if they elect to record new material, then the Queen name will no longer be necessary because it won't be Queen tunes.
And, if you'll look at Brian's last soapbox, he was blubbering about how excited he was to be in a 'new band'. I know they probably won't, but wouldn't it be nice for Roger and Brian to play in something with a new name, for a change?
I've no objection to them using Queen (or any adaption of it) when they're finishing shows with WWRY or TYMD or whatever songs (that they wrote, mind you) made Queen big, but with this new thing they're speculating about, I'd be happy for a new title.
I want it and I'll be sure to buy it
I don't.
And if they do, I'm not going to buy it or listen to it
And if they do, I'm not going to buy it or listen to it
IT'S OKAY WHEN BRIAN AND ROGER WANT TO DO SOMETHING, BUT WITH THAT PAUL RODGERS - NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!PAUL RODGERS, GO AWAY!!!!!!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Dan Corson wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I still can't fathom how so many people would actually be UPSET if Roger and Brian made new material, with or without Paul.[/QUOTE]
Because I heard new song "Take love" and it's - shit! Far away from Queen. Tottally different style. If they record an album with name "Queen" on it, they'll ruin everything. How you don't understand
Because I heard new song "Take love" and it's - shit! Far away from Queen. Tottally different style. If they record an album with name "Queen" on it, they'll ruin everything. How you don't understand
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]boca wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Dan Corson wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I still can't fathom how so many people would actually be UPSET if Roger and Brian made new material, with or without Paul.[/QUOTE]
Because I heard new song "Take love" and it's - shit! Far away from Queen. Tottally different style. If they record an album with name "Queen" on it, they'll ruin everything. How you don't understand
[/QUOTE]
Totally different style?!?! Have you ever even heard a Queen album? There are lots of different styles and musical experiments on Queen records. I think Brian will come up with a couple of more traditional Queen songs, but IMO it's just great if there is a couple of Paul's blusier tunes on the album as well.
Because I heard new song "Take love" and it's - shit! Far away from Queen. Tottally different style. If they record an album with name "Queen" on it, they'll ruin everything. How you don't understand
[/QUOTE]
Totally different style?!?! Have you ever even heard a Queen album? There are lots of different styles and musical experiments on Queen records. I think Brian will come up with a couple of more traditional Queen songs, but IMO it's just great if there is a couple of Paul's blusier tunes on the album as well.