[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kenny8 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]scprof wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Brian & Roger were the first 2 of the group to get together, so surely they can call the group what they like.[/QUOTE]
This again?? They formed Smile. With well stated reluctance they agreed on the name Freddie came up with, Queen.[/QUOTE]
Right, and they still have decided to perform under the name Freddie came up with...so what's your point?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Well, I'm certainly going to give the new album a chance. Yeah, I know it's not going to sound the same without Freddie or John, but at least Brian and Roger are there to make it sound good. I like Paul. He's a good singer. So, we'll have to see what turns out. ;-)
I'm not going to get into the discussion about "Queen not being Queen anymore". But, I was thinking, Freddie would've wanted Queen to go on and John gave his OK for them to continue. I saw Q+PR perform on VH1's Rock Honors and yes it wasn't the same, but they still sounded awesome. As a Queen fan, I'm going to give the new album a listen when it comes out. But no matter what, I will always love the original Queen: Freddie, John, Brian, and Roger!!
I'm not going to get into the discussion about "Queen not being Queen anymore". But, I was thinking, Freddie would've wanted Queen to go on and John gave his OK for them to continue. I saw Q+PR perform on VH1's Rock Honors and yes it wasn't the same, but they still sounded awesome. As a Queen fan, I'm going to give the new album a listen when it comes out. But no matter what, I will always love the original Queen: Freddie, John, Brian, and Roger!!
I am sure that it will be a good album and I hope they'll arrange a new european tour in 2007 to promote the album. Romania is waiting for Queen's first concert here and I think this is our last chance to see them live :(
I'm rather looking forward to hearing what the 3 of them come up with. In my mind, I'm more a fan of the musicians (at this point) rather than what they decide to call themselves...so I'll be buying it regardless.
If Toronto '06 was any indication, then I'm really looking forward to hearing what they come up with. I hope it's a completely new and fresh sound!!!
If Toronto '06 was any indication, then I'm really looking forward to hearing what they come up with. I hope it's a completely new and fresh sound!!!
They are only missing 1 member (John Deacon)...Freddie is dead...it's hard to say it but it's true..Freddie killed QUEEN with his lifestyle...he was just a man..not a God or something...Brian and Roger are in their rights to call QUEEN themselves...and John support any project of his friends....and you FUCKERS think that you miss Freddie...Brian and Roger miss Freddie Mercury more than you...he was their friend...and I think Freddie would be really proud of his boys!!!
THE SHOW MUST GO ON!!!!!!!....AND IT GOES ON!!!!
FUCKERSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!
THE SHOW MUST GO ON!!!!!!!....AND IT GOES ON!!!!
FUCKERSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!
I don't care about the new release as it is not Queen, simple as that. They are all earning from the Queen name but it's not Queen. Look at Rodgers for example, since joining Queen all his previous work is being released and he is doing very well indeed. And Brian telling fans who want live concerts and unreleased songs from the 70's, that it is unhealthy to live in the past. I say to him, who has released DVD and CD live in japan with Rodgers, Stop playing old songs as it is unhealthy to live in the past(but not if you are getting richer Mr May). What a let down, I will never buy this new stuff as it is stopping Real fans from getting Real Queen stuff!!!!!!!!
Y'know... I don't really care that much for Paul Rodger's voice, but I am really looking forward to the cd. I hope Brian and Roger sing a good chunk of the songs, but even if Paul sings them all I will buy it. I admit, I'm curious as to what it will sound like, what will Brian and Roger come up with this time having a bluesy singer.
I would have preferred Brian and Roger sing all songs, but it won't be that way.
I like Brian and Roger, I think that they are excellent musicians, I'm looking forward to it.
BE HAPPY BRIAN AND ROGER ARE STILL INTERESTED IN RECORDING AND PERFORMING!!!
you don't have to buy it if you don't want to...
I would have preferred Brian and Roger sing all songs, but it won't be that way.
I like Brian and Roger, I think that they are excellent musicians, I'm looking forward to it.
BE HAPPY BRIAN AND ROGER ARE STILL INTERESTED IN RECORDING AND PERFORMING!!!
you don't have to buy it if you don't want to...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I want to know what Brian's idea of 'epic' is... while a lot of people hated The Call for it's rant-like nature, I reckon the instrumentation was top notch on that track, and if we get more songs like that, I won't complain.[/QUOTE]
I agree. The Call is a good song. Great synths and guitar work by Brian.
I think this new album can turn out to be as interesting as the old Queen records. Even without Freddie's songwriting input there's still three 3 great musicians and songwriters. They all have their own unique styles, and I believe, there will be a lot of variety and great musicianship on this record.
I agree. The Call is a good song. Great synths and guitar work by Brian.
I think this new album can turn out to be as interesting as the old Queen records. Even without Freddie's songwriting input there's still three 3 great musicians and songwriters. They all have their own unique styles, and I believe, there will be a lot of variety and great musicianship on this record.
I really have my doubts about this new album. One thing is the touring, but a studio-album is a completly different matter.
I bought the "Return of the Champions"-CD, heared it 5 times or so, but I haven't touched it since.. I really have problems with it. ...or should I say with Paul Rodgers...?
But of course it's nice to hear Roger Taylor and Brian May sing, but you can really tell and feel the difference whith John and Freddie missing.
Another thing that I don't understand that they are daring is to perform John Deacon's songs, like "Another One Bites The Dust".. Mr. Deacon really hate what they're doing so why the ___ are they playing his songs?!?
I rather would see a collection of B-sides and rarities than this new thing. Old live-shows on CD and DVD is what I want. Most of all from the 70's. So many songs that are difficult to get on a live-version. Like "You take my breath away", "Great King Rat", "My Fairy King", "White Queen" etc... It's really not the same on MP3s!!!
The feeling are missing..
I got the Freddie Mercury "Lover of Life Singer of Songs" 2 CD's a couple of weeks ago, and it was OK. But they could have done so much more! One of the highlights was "Love Makin' Love", but that song came out in 2000 I belive on the Complete Solo-box..
PLEASE GIVE SOMETHING "NEW" !!!
Thanks!
ITSM, 23 year old boy from Norway..
I bought the "Return of the Champions"-CD, heared it 5 times or so, but I haven't touched it since.. I really have problems with it. ...or should I say with Paul Rodgers...?
But of course it's nice to hear Roger Taylor and Brian May sing, but you can really tell and feel the difference whith John and Freddie missing.
Another thing that I don't understand that they are daring is to perform John Deacon's songs, like "Another One Bites The Dust".. Mr. Deacon really hate what they're doing so why the ___ are they playing his songs?!?
I rather would see a collection of B-sides and rarities than this new thing. Old live-shows on CD and DVD is what I want. Most of all from the 70's. So many songs that are difficult to get on a live-version. Like "You take my breath away", "Great King Rat", "My Fairy King", "White Queen" etc... It's really not the same on MP3s!!!
The feeling are missing..
I got the Freddie Mercury "Lover of Life Singer of Songs" 2 CD's a couple of weeks ago, and it was OK. But they could have done so much more! One of the highlights was "Love Makin' Love", but that song came out in 2000 I belive on the Complete Solo-box..
PLEASE GIVE SOMETHING "NEW" !!!
Thanks!
ITSM, 23 year old boy from Norway..
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ITSM wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Another thing that I don't understand that they are daring is to perform John Deacon's songs, like "Another One Bites The Dust".. Mr. Deacon really hate what they're doing so why the ___ are they playing his songs?!? [/QUOTE]
Well, John did give his approval to the Q+PR Tour. Where did you got the idea that he hates this new line-up? Besides, John is more than happy to collect those big fat cheques so I don't think he is too upset with the job Rog and Bri are doing.
[QUOTE]
PLEASE GIVE SOMETHING "NEW" !!!
[/QUOTE]
Well, that's exactly what Roger and Brian are doing in the studio!!!
Another thing that I don't understand that they are daring is to perform John Deacon's songs, like "Another One Bites The Dust".. Mr. Deacon really hate what they're doing so why the ___ are they playing his songs?!? [/QUOTE]
Well, John did give his approval to the Q+PR Tour. Where did you got the idea that he hates this new line-up? Besides, John is more than happy to collect those big fat cheques so I don't think he is too upset with the job Rog and Bri are doing.
[QUOTE]
PLEASE GIVE SOMETHING "NEW" !!!
[/QUOTE]
Well, that's exactly what Roger and Brian are doing in the studio!!!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]mike hunt wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I might have fucked up the quotes. I just want to say "sir" you know nothing about singing, check out freddie's range in live at the bowl than listen to rodgers. even live at wembly freddie blows rodgers away. Just listen to "who wants to live forever" how can you be taken seriously when you talk such bullshit![/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]"sir" is the one always bringing up range, I personally think the sound of a persons voice is much more important. [/QUOTE]
And I agree with that. But when people closed-mindedly say how Freddie's range was better than Paul's range - with nothing to back up their statements - that's when I jump in with the facts. I have perfect pitch, and so I know exactly which notes Freddie could hit and which Paul could hit. Virtually every night, Paul hits high C many times during "Can't Get Enough", and Freddie hit that note in concert about 10 times in his entire life. You can't use Live At Wembley as your benchmark, because most of the "magical" moments in that concert from Freddie are from studio overdubs. Freddie could hit high highest notes in the studio and occasionally live, but Paul can consistently hit them in any environment. This is simply because Paul takes care of his voice, and Freddie did not. These are all indisputable facts.
Assessing the sound of someone's voice is a matter of taste, but discussing vocal range is not. So for you to make a personal attack and accuse me of talking "bullshit" is pretty petty and low on your part. But I have never expected to have a decent conversation with you. I'm happy to discuss voices or whatever else with anyone here, but whenever the discussion involves you, you just throw your opinions out there as if they're fact, and you're never willing to listen to what someone else has to say. You've made that pretty clear time and time again.
[QUOTE]"sir" is the one always bringing up range, I personally think the sound of a persons voice is much more important. [/QUOTE]
And I agree with that. But when people closed-mindedly say how Freddie's range was better than Paul's range - with nothing to back up their statements - that's when I jump in with the facts. I have perfect pitch, and so I know exactly which notes Freddie could hit and which Paul could hit. Virtually every night, Paul hits high C many times during "Can't Get Enough", and Freddie hit that note in concert about 10 times in his entire life. You can't use Live At Wembley as your benchmark, because most of the "magical" moments in that concert from Freddie are from studio overdubs. Freddie could hit high highest notes in the studio and occasionally live, but Paul can consistently hit them in any environment. This is simply because Paul takes care of his voice, and Freddie did not. These are all indisputable facts.
Assessing the sound of someone's voice is a matter of taste, but discussing vocal range is not. So for you to make a personal attack and accuse me of talking "bullshit" is pretty petty and low on your part. But I have never expected to have a decent conversation with you. I'm happy to discuss voices or whatever else with anyone here, but whenever the discussion involves you, you just throw your opinions out there as if they're fact, and you're never willing to listen to what someone else has to say. You've made that pretty clear time and time again.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Markman38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Don't forget that someone who started it can use it till the end and we are not inthe position to question that[/QUOTE]
Except that Roger Waters couldn't keep the name Pink Floyd. Or was that 2 against 1 during court? :P
Anyway I think this album could hit the charts well, it all depends what the first single release will be like.. when it's catchy to the crowd, the album will score well.
I think some blues and good old rock n roll won't do bad amongst the crowd.
Don't forget that someone who started it can use it till the end and we are not inthe position to question that[/QUOTE]
Except that Roger Waters couldn't keep the name Pink Floyd. Or was that 2 against 1 during court? :P
Anyway I think this album could hit the charts well, it all depends what the first single release will be like.. when it's catchy to the crowd, the album will score well.
I think some blues and good old rock n roll won't do bad amongst the crowd.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]hereyugo wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kenny8 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]scprof wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Brian & Roger were the first 2 of the group to get together, so surely they can call the group what they like.[/QUOTE]
This again?? They formed Smile. With well stated reluctance they agreed on the name Freddie came up with, Queen.[/QUOTE]
Right, and they still have decided to perform under the name Freddie came up with...so what's your point?[/QUOTE]Freddie might have come up with the name Queen... but the other members approved to use the name, therefore co-created the bands name. end of discussion.
This again?? They formed Smile. With well stated reluctance they agreed on the name Freddie came up with, Queen.[/QUOTE]
Right, and they still have decided to perform under the name Freddie came up with...so what's your point?[/QUOTE]Freddie might have come up with the name Queen... but the other members approved to use the name, therefore co-created the bands name. end of discussion.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]mike hunt wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I might have fucked up the quotes. I just want to say "sir" you know nothing about singing, check out freddie's range in live at the bowl than listen to rodgers. even live at wembly freddie blows rodgers away. Just listen to "who wants to live forever" how can you be taken seriously when you talk such bullshit![/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]"sir" is the one always bringing up range, I personally think the sound of a persons voice is much more important. [/QUOTE]
And I agree with that. But when people closed-mindedly say how Freddie's range was better than Paul's range - with nothing to back up their statements - that's when I jump in with the facts. I have perfect pitch, and so I know exactly which notes Freddie could hit and which Paul could hit. Virtually every night, Paul hits high C many times during "Can't Get Enough", and Freddie hit that note in concert about 10 times in his entire life. You can't use Live At Wembley as your benchmark, because most of the "magical" moments in that concert from Freddie are from studio overdubs. Freddie could hit high highest notes in the studio and occasionally live, but Paul can consistently hit them in any environment. This is simply because Paul takes care of his voice, and Freddie did not. These are all indisputable facts.
Assessing the sound of someone's voice is a matter of taste, but discussing vocal range is not. So for you to make a personal attack and accuse me of talking "bullshit" is pretty petty and low on your part. But I have never expected to have a decent conversation with you. I'm happy to discuss voices or whatever else with anyone here, but whenever the discussion involves you, you just throw your opinions out there as if they're fact, and you're never willing to listen to what someone else has to say. You've made that pretty clear time and time again.
[/QUOTE]
Very good post.
Even Brian said Paul hit notes with Q+PR that Freddie never did live.
Is Brian full of shit too?
Besides just Can't Get Enough, just look at WATC.
Paul consistantly hit that high fighting in the phrase "We'll keep on fighting" that I only heard Freddie hit once on a bootleg. He typically opted for a lower note on the scale.
And Paul has lost range.
Just listen to a Free bootleg.
Now, once again before anyone gets their shorts in a bunch, it doesn't mean that Paul is a better singer than Freddie, but if you are going to use range as a way to try and prove Freddie was superior or whatever, you might want to examine the facts closely.
[QUOTE]"sir" is the one always bringing up range, I personally think the sound of a persons voice is much more important. [/QUOTE]
And I agree with that. But when people closed-mindedly say how Freddie's range was better than Paul's range - with nothing to back up their statements - that's when I jump in with the facts. I have perfect pitch, and so I know exactly which notes Freddie could hit and which Paul could hit. Virtually every night, Paul hits high C many times during "Can't Get Enough", and Freddie hit that note in concert about 10 times in his entire life. You can't use Live At Wembley as your benchmark, because most of the "magical" moments in that concert from Freddie are from studio overdubs. Freddie could hit high highest notes in the studio and occasionally live, but Paul can consistently hit them in any environment. This is simply because Paul takes care of his voice, and Freddie did not. These are all indisputable facts.
Assessing the sound of someone's voice is a matter of taste, but discussing vocal range is not. So for you to make a personal attack and accuse me of talking "bullshit" is pretty petty and low on your part. But I have never expected to have a decent conversation with you. I'm happy to discuss voices or whatever else with anyone here, but whenever the discussion involves you, you just throw your opinions out there as if they're fact, and you're never willing to listen to what someone else has to say. You've made that pretty clear time and time again.
[/QUOTE]
Very good post.
Even Brian said Paul hit notes with Q+PR that Freddie never did live.
Is Brian full of shit too?
Besides just Can't Get Enough, just look at WATC.
Paul consistantly hit that high fighting in the phrase "We'll keep on fighting" that I only heard Freddie hit once on a bootleg. He typically opted for a lower note on the scale.
And Paul has lost range.
Just listen to a Free bootleg.
Now, once again before anyone gets their shorts in a bunch, it doesn't mean that Paul is a better singer than Freddie, but if you are going to use range as a way to try and prove Freddie was superior or whatever, you might want to examine the facts closely.
It's pretty funny how people are all up pauls ass because he's singing with brian. I never remember people ever mentioning paul as a top 3 great, but now that's he's singing with brian and roger he's all a sudden the best ever. To be honest, I don't give a rats ass about range, what I do care about is the sound of the persons voice. This forum has turned into the paul rodgers site, it's a shame because it was freddie, brian, roger, and john who were the ones who made that great music together.