For those who dont want Queen without Freddie

To be completely honest i dont really care that much. I like Queen with Freddie and he cant be replaced but we cant just expect Brian and Roger to sit around and do nothing and if them using the Queen name means that we all get new material than im chuffed. I think that if you like it than great but if you dont than tough luck because we cant do anything about it.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Tannya wrote: [/QUOTENAME]OK, then you should build your own website called ROGER TAYLOR AND BRIAN MAY + EVERYONE and create your own Forum. Let the real QUEEN FANS on QUEENZONE ok?.

Q-U-E-E-N Z-O-N-E

QUEEN = Freddie Mercury (yes FREDDIE MERCURY!), Roger Taylor, Brian May and John Deacon (YES JOHN DEACON!).

Sorry, but this is a place where QUEEN FANS can share things about THE BAND and we love it with Freddie. Please don´t tell me what to do.

Thank You![/QUOTE]NO

PUTA

When Noone But You was released I really loved the song (and still do!) but strongly felt it was just not right to call it a Queen song. I know it would have been even less successful had they released it as Brian, Roger & John (or whatever). But hadn't Brian said something like 'There's no Queen without Freddie' after Freddie died? He really should've stuck to that. I still get excited every time Bri & Rog work together, with or without PR, live or in the studio, but they're not and will never again be Queen. That is simply over, no matter what they may call themselves. Made In Heaven was (at least partially) the last true Queen album because Freddie obviously wanted some of these songs to be finished by the band and released. So what Brian and Roger can give us now as Queen is some unrelased studio or live stuff. Period.

so when peter gabriel left genesis or sid barrett left pink floyd or bill wyman left the stones or john entwistle died,the who and all these other bands should of changed their names or quit the music scene then?
no?
i didnt think so!
queen are now brian and roger with paul
long live queen!

P.S. This is my personal view and I don't mean to hurt or disqualify anybody who feels different.

There is one mighty difference: The Rolling Stones sound the same without Bill Wyman, but Queen just cannot sound the same without Freddie!

No Freddie + No John = No Queen.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sharon G.Queen Fan wrote: [/QUOTENAME]No Freddie + No John = No Queen.[/QUOTE]

That's right!

There is no Queen without Freddie. Don't think that this post will shut anyone up about this. I am pretty sure that the new Paul Rodgers+Queen album will suck and that it will be released to dismal sales. They really are ruining the legacy with their huge egos. Why can't they be more like humble John?

Let talk about a band that had the same thing happend to its lead singer. The Doors. Are they the same band if the had replaced Jim a decade after he passed away?? Jim was the face of the doors he might not have liked that idea as he pointed out many times, but to some extent he was, the same with Freddie, to some extent Freddie was the face of Queen and still is, mainly because Queen was already regraded as one of the best music groups ever, the same as the doors when theyre lead singer passed away. So I dont think there's anything wrong when people say Queen is not Queen with out Freddie even if John was still involved.

I´am absolutly mad about Freddie Mercury....

Roger and Brian can do what they want...they are brilliants...who fucking care about the name..it´s all about music!!! M-U-S-I-C!!!!

I´am absolutly mad about Freddie Mercury.

Queen WAS Freddie!!!

Everyone else is CRAP!!!

Apart from John...Just because...

I REFUSE to open my ears to new sounds!!!

PAUL RODGERS MUST BE PUNISHED FOR TARNISHING THE QUEEN NAME!!!
_______________________________________________

Okay, now to be serious...

The Queen name BELONGS to Brian and Roger now. Since John retired, Queen is their band. There's nothing anyone can change about it, so just give up. This is a VERY tired topic. I say it should be shelved until 2011.

"i wonder if fans of pink floyd,genesis,rolling stones etc gave the groups as much stick as some queen fans do when their line ups changed through the years.probably not."

They never had a Freddie either.

I love the band I'v followed for thirty years going back on their word and recording again as Queen, with somebody else on vocals. The ridicule on the radio is an emabrassment. It is a sell out to use the Queen name on new material. The tour I didn't have a problem with for nostalgia's ske, but to try and come up with new material as Queen without Fred is a dreadful move. Shameful! As if the Crazy Frog licence wasn't bad enough.

I don't get it, who much money do they need?? The Queen moniker now is only there to make money. Let Rodgers, May & Taylor do what they bloody well want, but don't dare call it Queen.

No f*ckin wonder Freddie solo outsells anything by Queen without him on it!!

I reserve the vote to change the name to Paul Rodgers +

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kenny8 wrote: [/QUOTENAME] "i wonder if fans of pink floyd,genesis,rolling stones etc gave the groups as much stick as some queen fans do when their line ups changed through the years.probably not."

They never had a Freddie either.

I love the band I'v followed for thirty years going back on their word and recording again as Queen, with somebody else on vocals. The ridicule on the radio is an emabrassment. It is a sell out to use the Queen name on new material. The tour I didn't have a problem with for nostalgia's ske, but to try and come up with new material as Queen without Fred is a dreadful move. Shameful! As if the Crazy Frog licence wasn't bad enough.

I don't get it, who much money do they need?? The Queen moniker now is only there to make money. Let Rodgers, May & Taylor do what they bloody well want, but don't dare call it Queen.

No f*ckin wonder Freddie solo outsells anything by Queen without him on it!!
[/QUOTE]

*cough*No-one but you*cough*