[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]AlexRocks wrote: [/QUOTENAME] These previous posts are dumb. It doesn't matter who is playing what music as long as it is good. Just like I don't want to see the original members of group going out and doing bad music. Duh-eee. This is dead hippy ideology proven time and time again by the following bands continueing making great classic music before the original members left...and after. Black Sabbath, KISS, The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, The Who, Guns N' Roses, The Rolling Stones, Whitesnake, Bon Jovi, Def Leppard, Deep Purple, Heart, AC/DC (who by the way have the second best selling album in the world with "Back In Black" with...yes, their second lead singer), and Van Halen. Have you ever heard of these people? It is really important to learn about rock n' roll history before you make such comments. It is very telling who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't.
I am sorry if you are close to death. It is those who are only able to hang on to just the past and can't cope with moving on in the future.[/QUOTE]
You forgot Pink Floyd as a band who made records after some originals either left or were fired. They still made records after Syd Barrett left. They made one album without keyboardist Rick Wright who was fired from the band during The Wall period by Waters. Also, PF made two studio and two live albums without singer, bass player and chief lyric writer Roger Waters. Singer and guitarist David Gilmour joined PF as a fifth member in 1968 and appeared on every album from ASoS to present. Drummer Nick Mason is the lone Floyd member to appear on every PF studio effort. Wright and Mason are the only two PF original members to play every PF gig from 1965/66 college days to present.
Styx are now a joke. Classic Styx was and always will be Dennis DeYoung(the dude who replaced him sounds like a drunk leprechaun), John and Chuck Panozzo, James Young and Tommy Shaw(John Curulewski was great on first five albums and Glen Burtnik was excellent on Edge of the Century).
Genesis tried to soldier on without Phil Collins but Americans were not receptive!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Even before anything's been announced re: Brian, Roger and Paul recording new material this fall, there's been the inevitable debate about whether it's Queen or not. If you can bare with me during this lengthy post, I'll give you an interesting, hopefully balanced perspective.
The other night, Jon Bon Jovi was the guest on Larry King Live on CNN. The discussion turned to criticism, and whether Bon Jovi listened to it. He said that he could accept valid criticism if someone could honestly say that they had an off night playing live, or this song didn't work in the context of an album if it were based on some kind of reality, not a pre-determined dislike of Bon Jovi as a band. Then Larry King asked if he'd ever taken a critic's words to heart. What Bon Jovi answered struck me as an incredibly honest and totally apropos of the Queen situation for the past few years.
When discussing an "unplugged" album that Bon Jovi did, he desribed how the album bombed saleswise. Bon Jovi said that since his band was actually one of the first bands to do an unplugged type of show, he was shocked when it didn't sell, as he felt Bon Jovi was a great band in an acoustic setting. But he read a review where the critic said "don't mess with our memories." Bon Jovi spoke with the critic who basically said that people loved the songs in their original form, leave them alone as the definitive version already exists and is loved by fans. In other words, by altering what fans already knew and loved, Bon Jovi was messing with "our" memories.
Fast forward to Queen in August 2006. People who want to hear new music in 2006 are very angry at people who don't want Brian and Roger to use the Queen name when recording. Touring is a different beast, and there were people on this board who loved Paul Rodgers and people who said that while musically great, it was like seeing a Queen tribute band. The thing that Brian, Roger and all of the people don't quite get as that our memories are our own. Brian May may very well feel that he has the right through years of hard work to use the name Queen. However, he's not writing the book on Queen. We all are, in our own way. For the people who don't care about a name, that's cool. Your Queen memories may have started in 2004 with hearing a Queen song, and your only live experience is with Paul Rodgers and no John Deacon. That's great, as music shouldn't be exclusionary if you weren't around during Queen's golden years. However, for the folks that believe Queen was and is, Roger Taylor, John Deacon, Brian May and Freddie Mercury, their memories are as strong as your new ones and all of this "new" Queen stuff is "messing with our memories." It doesn't make anyone a bad person if they don't want the name Queen used going forward.
Food for thought.
[/QUOTE]
Bon Jovi fell from grace cos of Nirvana. The so-called "three wise men" of music sent Bon Jovi to the gutter. Then after Cobain died, Bon Jovi came back! I'll take Cobain's whining over Jovi's poodle hair!
The other night, Jon Bon Jovi was the guest on Larry King Live on CNN. The discussion turned to criticism, and whether Bon Jovi listened to it. He said that he could accept valid criticism if someone could honestly say that they had an off night playing live, or this song didn't work in the context of an album if it were based on some kind of reality, not a pre-determined dislike of Bon Jovi as a band. Then Larry King asked if he'd ever taken a critic's words to heart. What Bon Jovi answered struck me as an incredibly honest and totally apropos of the Queen situation for the past few years.
When discussing an "unplugged" album that Bon Jovi did, he desribed how the album bombed saleswise. Bon Jovi said that since his band was actually one of the first bands to do an unplugged type of show, he was shocked when it didn't sell, as he felt Bon Jovi was a great band in an acoustic setting. But he read a review where the critic said "don't mess with our memories." Bon Jovi spoke with the critic who basically said that people loved the songs in their original form, leave them alone as the definitive version already exists and is loved by fans. In other words, by altering what fans already knew and loved, Bon Jovi was messing with "our" memories.
Fast forward to Queen in August 2006. People who want to hear new music in 2006 are very angry at people who don't want Brian and Roger to use the Queen name when recording. Touring is a different beast, and there were people on this board who loved Paul Rodgers and people who said that while musically great, it was like seeing a Queen tribute band. The thing that Brian, Roger and all of the people don't quite get as that our memories are our own. Brian May may very well feel that he has the right through years of hard work to use the name Queen. However, he's not writing the book on Queen. We all are, in our own way. For the people who don't care about a name, that's cool. Your Queen memories may have started in 2004 with hearing a Queen song, and your only live experience is with Paul Rodgers and no John Deacon. That's great, as music shouldn't be exclusionary if you weren't around during Queen's golden years. However, for the folks that believe Queen was and is, Roger Taylor, John Deacon, Brian May and Freddie Mercury, their memories are as strong as your new ones and all of this "new" Queen stuff is "messing with our memories." It doesn't make anyone a bad person if they don't want the name Queen used going forward.
Food for thought.
[/QUOTE]
Bon Jovi fell from grace cos of Nirvana. The so-called "three wise men" of music sent Bon Jovi to the gutter. Then after Cobain died, Bon Jovi came back! I'll take Cobain's whining over Jovi's poodle hair!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red><b>Mr Mercury</b> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Brian May may very well feel that he has the right through years of hard work to use the name Queen. However, he's not writing the book on Queen. We all are, in our own way. For the people who don't care about a name, that's cool.
[/QUOTE]
Yes but in a way Brian (and Roger and Paul) ARE writing the book on Queen. Its just that this is the next volume thats all. And for me the only people that can mess with our memories is ourselves.
As for those that say that its not Queen without Freddie, etc all I can say is fair enough it aint. But that doesnt necessarily mean that what Brian, Roger and Paul produce in the studio will be crap. I mean there are dozens of examples of bands that suffered line up changes of key members and still produced great albums. I am referring to bands like Pink Floyd (twice - Syd Barratt being replaced by David Gilmour and Roger Waters leaving), Rolling Stones (3 line up changes to my knowledge) and on a similar vein with Status Quo.
That said though, I have to commend you for posting a decent thought provoking thread.[/QUOTE]
You forgot Rick Wright was fired from Pink Floyd in 1979 during The Wall sessions.
[/QUOTE]
Yes but in a way Brian (and Roger and Paul) ARE writing the book on Queen. Its just that this is the next volume thats all. And for me the only people that can mess with our memories is ourselves.
As for those that say that its not Queen without Freddie, etc all I can say is fair enough it aint. But that doesnt necessarily mean that what Brian, Roger and Paul produce in the studio will be crap. I mean there are dozens of examples of bands that suffered line up changes of key members and still produced great albums. I am referring to bands like Pink Floyd (twice - Syd Barratt being replaced by David Gilmour and Roger Waters leaving), Rolling Stones (3 line up changes to my knowledge) and on a similar vein with Status Quo.
That said though, I have to commend you for posting a decent thought provoking thread.[/QUOTE]
You forgot Rick Wright was fired from Pink Floyd in 1979 during The Wall sessions.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I was not talking about that. I used Jon Bon Jovi's story as an understanding of why certain people feel the way they do. I'm neither asking you or expecting you to care, but just seeing if the stupid people who couldn't form an argument to grasp where other people are coming from, something you are incapable of.
[/QUOTE]
Firstly, i think Alexrocks makes an excellent point. - it's nto about WHO is singing, performing as what name...it's whether the music is good. personally, i don't like the new sound - as it is going "backwards" ie - by taking a more blues/rock type singer onboard they are almost reverting to the Smile sound. I didn't like Smile...so that's MY reason for not liking the current lineup.
as regards the "don't mess with our memories" analogy...it's hardly relevant...EVERY band that changed it's lineup continued to perform all the back catalogues - and queen should be no exception. the unplugged reference to Bon Jovi doesn't work - as Unplugged was an experiment that ended up working well and lasting approx 8 yrs....some of the Unplugged artists were given a new lease of life...Kiss, Dylan, Eagles, Oasis to name a few...and Nirvana's set was refreshingly interesting...so it's fair to say this particular critic "jumped a little too early" with his "don't mess with our memories" comment...and hence the number of bands that "went unplugged, messed with the memories" and made it work, means that your analogy just doesn't work.[/QUOTE]
David Gilmour did an unplugged DVD a few years back. He re-arranged Shine On You Crazy Diamond(parts 1-5) to be just acoustic guitar. High Hopes with a choir, cello and cor anglais was excellent. Also doing covers of Syd Barrett, an excerpt from a French opera, a Richard Thompson cover and a song from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.
I was not talking about that. I used Jon Bon Jovi's story as an understanding of why certain people feel the way they do. I'm neither asking you or expecting you to care, but just seeing if the stupid people who couldn't form an argument to grasp where other people are coming from, something you are incapable of.
[/QUOTE]
Firstly, i think Alexrocks makes an excellent point. - it's nto about WHO is singing, performing as what name...it's whether the music is good. personally, i don't like the new sound - as it is going "backwards" ie - by taking a more blues/rock type singer onboard they are almost reverting to the Smile sound. I didn't like Smile...so that's MY reason for not liking the current lineup.
as regards the "don't mess with our memories" analogy...it's hardly relevant...EVERY band that changed it's lineup continued to perform all the back catalogues - and queen should be no exception. the unplugged reference to Bon Jovi doesn't work - as Unplugged was an experiment that ended up working well and lasting approx 8 yrs....some of the Unplugged artists were given a new lease of life...Kiss, Dylan, Eagles, Oasis to name a few...and Nirvana's set was refreshingly interesting...so it's fair to say this particular critic "jumped a little too early" with his "don't mess with our memories" comment...and hence the number of bands that "went unplugged, messed with the memories" and made it work, means that your analogy just doesn't work.[/QUOTE]
David Gilmour did an unplugged DVD a few years back. He re-arranged Shine On You Crazy Diamond(parts 1-5) to be just acoustic guitar. High Hopes with a choir, cello and cor anglais was excellent. Also doing covers of Syd Barrett, an excerpt from a French opera, a Richard Thompson cover and a song from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.
Seeing Queen + Paul Rodgers was the most solid two hours of fun I have ever had. (I became a Queen fan in 2004.) Later I bought Return Of The Champions and was bored with it. The stage lighting was garish - solid blue or solid red or solid green, etc. It looked like the group was immersed in bright vats of Jello. (At the concert I sat close to the stage and wasn't aware of the light show.) The Queen+ dvd didn't seem like a cohesive group to me because there were so many solos. The magic just wasn't there. When I don't want my memories messed with, I'll listen to and savor pure QUEEN. However, being in the same arena as Brian and Roger was an honor, and at the end while many in the audience were yelling MORE MORE MORE, a lot of us were yelling THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! Things for me are not always black and white, but many shades of gray.
[quote]and by the way say what you want about Sammy Hagar in Van Halen...he did sell more records with them than Roth[/quote]
Is it all about sales figures or quality? If you want quality as in playing all the notes in the original recordings, there are plenty of cover bands that can play the classics of any band better than the original band itself. If you want sales, any band with a decent fanbase is enough to do that. Paul McCartney could reform Beatles with 3 monkeys that they would still sell out.
I have my own opinion about the quality of Queen + PR, but this is not what is being discussed here neither it will change anything if I say what I think, they still will be touring/recording/doing whatever they want and should to do - it's their (Brian, Roger and PR's) own business. When I saw Page/Plant in 1996, to me it was like Led Zeppelin. See the coincidences? A missing bass player, a dead member that was one of the keys of their sound... but still, it was Zep and it didn't sound to me like if they were just getting some fan money to buy a new Ferrari or something. With PR though I didn't feel the same, maybe because Freddie was so unique (just count the number of Zep clones around to see the difference).
There have been many and many bands that had to replace their (sometimes most) important members for several reasons, and sometimes the replacements were much better than the original members, sometimes much worse, sometimes much more succesful, sometimes they sounded much different than the previous band lineup (see Phil Collins as main singer of Genesis as a good example of the last 2 situations).
To me, this Queen + PR will end up (quality-wise) like these many other bands that have internal fights (usually brother vs. brother) and disband then decades later one of the original members decide to reform the band (for fun, money, both, whatever) only to find his "enemy" creating a similar band... one named like (it's an example!) "Brian May and Queen" and the other like "Roger Taylor and Queen" and even sometimes a third one named "No No We Are The Real Queen".
Is it all about sales figures or quality? If you want quality as in playing all the notes in the original recordings, there are plenty of cover bands that can play the classics of any band better than the original band itself. If you want sales, any band with a decent fanbase is enough to do that. Paul McCartney could reform Beatles with 3 monkeys that they would still sell out.
I have my own opinion about the quality of Queen + PR, but this is not what is being discussed here neither it will change anything if I say what I think, they still will be touring/recording/doing whatever they want and should to do - it's their (Brian, Roger and PR's) own business. When I saw Page/Plant in 1996, to me it was like Led Zeppelin. See the coincidences? A missing bass player, a dead member that was one of the keys of their sound... but still, it was Zep and it didn't sound to me like if they were just getting some fan money to buy a new Ferrari or something. With PR though I didn't feel the same, maybe because Freddie was so unique (just count the number of Zep clones around to see the difference).
There have been many and many bands that had to replace their (sometimes most) important members for several reasons, and sometimes the replacements were much better than the original members, sometimes much worse, sometimes much more succesful, sometimes they sounded much different than the previous band lineup (see Phil Collins as main singer of Genesis as a good example of the last 2 situations).
To me, this Queen + PR will end up (quality-wise) like these many other bands that have internal fights (usually brother vs. brother) and disband then decades later one of the original members decide to reform the band (for fun, money, both, whatever) only to find his "enemy" creating a similar band... one named like (it's an example!) "Brian May and Queen" and the other like "Roger Taylor and Queen" and even sometimes a third one named "No No We Are The Real Queen".
Oops. Guilty as charged, I meant 'album after the album 1984' for VH, not 'music after the year 1984 with DLR.
Here is my argument.
1st off, John Bon Jovi is high in the clouds from his career. If he would stretch out for a little peak, he might notice that their day has long passed and any future for them will be more than likely be that of a nostalgia act. Wanted Dead Or Alive is likely the only Bon Jovi hit that will still be in the collective 30 years from now. An acoustic album of re-recorded 80's music, done by the same band long after their prime, is probably not even that interesting to their close fans.
What Queen did was more dramatic, first because it was their first tour in 19 years, second because they had a vocalist who reinterpreted every song, adding a blues feel previously unheard of. This isn't unplugged Queen, it's blues fusion Queen. Unlike Bon Jovi, Queen made their old songs sound fresh and new again.
I guess I don't understand the "mess with our memories" part of your argument. Do you actually feel like anything Brian and Roger may do, no matter how crazy it is, will actually harm your perception of old Queen? What's past is in the past. Queen's evolution could lead to hell, but that wouldn't change where it started from.
There are two extremes with the name situation:
1. Led Zeppelin - Robert Plant and Jimmy Page are clearly the main two members of Zep, but when they came back in the 90's, they chose not to cash in on the Zeppelin name and instead chose to go as 'Jimmy Page and Robert Plant', even though it was clearly a Zeppelin tour.
2. Guns 'N Roses - This is the other extreme, and only instance of cashing in on a name that I have issues with. That is because Axl Rose is all that is left of the original band. 'Chinese Democracy' and 'Appetite For Destruction' will share only the singer, yet still both be Guns N' Roses albums.
Queen made an honorable choice to do the + thing after their name. I find it perfectly appropriate, or at least up to now. With the new album coming, I would prefer a new name, not out of Queen purism, but simply to identify these three with a new identity. It's out of respect for this new creative project which I feel deserves it's own identity.
In the end, it's all so very simple. If you have a problem with what they are doing, than avoid and ignore it. Act like it never happened and that Queen ended in 1991(or 1995 with MIH).
1st off, John Bon Jovi is high in the clouds from his career. If he would stretch out for a little peak, he might notice that their day has long passed and any future for them will be more than likely be that of a nostalgia act. Wanted Dead Or Alive is likely the only Bon Jovi hit that will still be in the collective 30 years from now. An acoustic album of re-recorded 80's music, done by the same band long after their prime, is probably not even that interesting to their close fans.
What Queen did was more dramatic, first because it was their first tour in 19 years, second because they had a vocalist who reinterpreted every song, adding a blues feel previously unheard of. This isn't unplugged Queen, it's blues fusion Queen. Unlike Bon Jovi, Queen made their old songs sound fresh and new again.
I guess I don't understand the "mess with our memories" part of your argument. Do you actually feel like anything Brian and Roger may do, no matter how crazy it is, will actually harm your perception of old Queen? What's past is in the past. Queen's evolution could lead to hell, but that wouldn't change where it started from.
There are two extremes with the name situation:
1. Led Zeppelin - Robert Plant and Jimmy Page are clearly the main two members of Zep, but when they came back in the 90's, they chose not to cash in on the Zeppelin name and instead chose to go as 'Jimmy Page and Robert Plant', even though it was clearly a Zeppelin tour.
2. Guns 'N Roses - This is the other extreme, and only instance of cashing in on a name that I have issues with. That is because Axl Rose is all that is left of the original band. 'Chinese Democracy' and 'Appetite For Destruction' will share only the singer, yet still both be Guns N' Roses albums.
Queen made an honorable choice to do the + thing after their name. I find it perfectly appropriate, or at least up to now. With the new album coming, I would prefer a new name, not out of Queen purism, but simply to identify these three with a new identity. It's out of respect for this new creative project which I feel deserves it's own identity.
In the end, it's all so very simple. If you have a problem with what they are doing, than avoid and ignore it. Act like it never happened and that Queen ended in 1991(or 1995 with MIH).
Frankly I couldn't care less what they call themselves from this point on, so long as they keep going.
However, from a business perspective it would still make sense to use the Queen name around the world, if they create a new name it will end up in a new shelf in stores and a new category in websites, which will ultimately mean some folks will miss it, not knowing who they or it is.
As I suspect the record companies will be keen to make the most of it, unless they do a major campaign with a major publicity tour to announce it, they will find in the US particularly that the casual fan will not be aware of it, sure we will all know it's out there but Jonny Hicksville in smalltown America will have no clue.
I think it will come down to whether Paul Rodgers is happy to go out under the Queen banner or not.
However, from a business perspective it would still make sense to use the Queen name around the world, if they create a new name it will end up in a new shelf in stores and a new category in websites, which will ultimately mean some folks will miss it, not knowing who they or it is.
As I suspect the record companies will be keen to make the most of it, unless they do a major campaign with a major publicity tour to announce it, they will find in the US particularly that the casual fan will not be aware of it, sure we will all know it's out there but Jonny Hicksville in smalltown America will have no clue.
I think it will come down to whether Paul Rodgers is happy to go out under the Queen banner or not.
If they keep calling themselves Queen, there will be always someone to tell them "No, you're not".
If they pick a different name, they will have the chance to tell the people "We're not Queen, judge us for how we sound NOW".
If they pick a different name, they will have the chance to tell the people "We're not Queen, judge us for how we sound NOW".
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]vadenuez wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If they keep calling themselves Queen, there will be always someone to tell them "No, you're not".
If they pick a different name, they will have the chance to tell the people "We're not Queen, judge us for how we sound NOW".
[/QUOTE]
in this modern age of disposable pop....i think that without the queen name they have no recording contract....
If they pick a different name, they will have the chance to tell the people "We're not Queen, judge us for how we sound NOW".
[/QUOTE]
in this modern age of disposable pop....i think that without the queen name they have no recording contract....
I don't think they need a "recording contract".
The point that Boy Thomas Baker makes certainly is valid. However, 1971-1991 was 1971-1991...so much was established and accomplished by Queen in that expanse of time alone, naturally it would be hard for anyone to accept that they have a new lead singer in Paul Rodgers. Speaking as a fellow musician and a fan...the music industry and Top 40 radio has changed drastically since then (it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that), How could it be a bad thing to ponder and hope that some "real" music would emerge throughout all this crap in popular music. The original Queen was then and this is now Queen+Paul Rodgers. Accept it...reguardless of what they accomplish with this album they're making. I believe its a great idea. Whatever happens with this new album what could possibly shatter or tarnish the audio and video memories we have of Queen with Freddie and John? Nothing, because their legacy is that strong. As far as them getting a recording contract. I have no doubt that record companies have thrown offers at them which include exorbitant amounts of money ever since Freddie's death. Even if they don't find a record deal they'd be satisfied with...there's more than enough money between the three of them they could fund the project independently and all they'd have to do is contract with a company to duplicate and distribute the album accordingly.