[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Another Roger (re) wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Can you just get lost? If you dont like it dont bother us with it. There is nothing to be done about it. Cant you just leave and listen to Rolling Stones, Mew, The Coral etc instead?
Who cares about which name they use? If you dont have bigger problems in your lives than that, I dont feel sorry for you.
If Brian and Roger wants to make new material I am thrilled. If that includes using the Queen name its brilliant. Its none of our business which name they are going under.
If you dont like it, get lost. Noone will miss you.
[/QUOTE]
It sounds to me like you are being very narrow minded about all this. The point of forums is for people to chat about different things and share different opinions. If osme people have different opinions to yours, why does it bug you so much?
To me, Queen was the four of them - Freddie, Brian, Roger, and John. Brian and Roger are entitled to do what they want - but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them. If they want to record an album with Paul, fine, they can go ahead. But don't do it under the name Queen. Not without Freddie and John.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=gold>§|\/|1<font color=1>++ÿ wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I reserve the vote to change the name to Paul Rodgers + <font size=1>Queen</font>[/QUOTE]xDDDDDD
People like Sebastian who take this so badly are quite simply reactionaries. They cannot adapt to the fact that the world is an ever-changing place, thus they attempt to stick to old values of which they ignore the anachronistic value.
As John Tosh states in "The Pursuit Of History", one of the most dangerous things separating social memory from historical awareness is the fact that people tend to cling to an idealisation of the past, ignoring its bad sides and dismissing present developments as bad without actually paying attention to them.
It's this crime against common sense that these reactionaries are guilty of.
As John Tosh states in "The Pursuit Of History", one of the most dangerous things separating social memory from historical awareness is the fact that people tend to cling to an idealisation of the past, ignoring its bad sides and dismissing present developments as bad without actually paying attention to them.
It's this crime against common sense that these reactionaries are guilty of.
See, Paul is ok but he has never been the first choice of Queen when we discussed possible replacement of Freddie. I'm sure that Freddie would have made several artistic projects with him if he could BUT he would have never agreed with replacement like that. Moreover he didn't know the b*****d before. Plus he has never had a close overview on Bad Company. Thanks!
One thing here is for sure: They are GODS, and I'm sure they'll make great songs because they can't do it other way
Hello to everyone!
I have just registered to this site ONLY because I saw this discussion board and it raised a very painful subject for me. I graduated from an Arts management program and one thing I learned from University was to make difference between art and business. Now, (funny how the pages turn) I am in politics and from my modest life experience of 32 years I could loud and clear state that Queen+PR is BUSINESS and POLITICS. Strange how quickly Roger and Brian forgot what they, themselves, actually told us sometime ago, in particular: "an honest politician is a contradiction in terms" and "Keep yourself alive" (the context of the whole song)! I wonder too if and whome Freddie himself would appoint for his successer. I doubt this would be Paul Rogers! The saddest part of it all is that the MONEY keeps rolling in all directions and WE can't do anything about that!
Take a bow, John, for your loyalty!
Eliza
I have just registered to this site ONLY because I saw this discussion board and it raised a very painful subject for me. I graduated from an Arts management program and one thing I learned from University was to make difference between art and business. Now, (funny how the pages turn) I am in politics and from my modest life experience of 32 years I could loud and clear state that Queen+PR is BUSINESS and POLITICS. Strange how quickly Roger and Brian forgot what they, themselves, actually told us sometime ago, in particular: "an honest politician is a contradiction in terms" and "Keep yourself alive" (the context of the whole song)! I wonder too if and whome Freddie himself would appoint for his successer. I doubt this would be Paul Rogers! The saddest part of it all is that the MONEY keeps rolling in all directions and WE can't do anything about that!
Take a bow, John, for your loyalty!
Eliza
kenny wrote:
"No f*ckin wonder Freddie solo outsells anything by Queen without him on it!!"
[/QUOTE]
EXCELLENT POINT, kenny!
Regards,
Eliza
"No f*ckin wonder Freddie solo outsells anything by Queen without him on it!!"
[/QUOTE]
EXCELLENT POINT, kenny!
Regards,
Eliza
BRAVO on that one! :)))
Here's a hypothetical question....
Supposing John had died in 1991 and not Freddie - would they be right to call the band Queen after then? Queen plus Danny Miranda maybe?
Freddie, by his own statement, was not Queen. Had Freddie had 3 different musicians would they have been as successful? Who knows, but Freddie's Mr Bad Guy album was a flop and the music on it is poor (not the songwriting or the singin, I hasten to add).
Queen is as much Brian's guitar sound, Roger's drum sound and John's bass sound as it is Freddie's voice. If having a different singer makes it "not Queen", then surely I'm In Love With My Car, '39 and Drowse aren't Queen either.
Furthermore, if you compare the structure, sound and style of the Queen+PR shows with other Queen shows and Brian and Roger's solo shows, you find that the Q+PR shows are very much Queen.
Also, don't forget Queen is a brand name - it is known far more than probably even Freddie's name and so if they want to attract people to the shows it is good sense to use the name - after all, even if they don't want the money, they don't want to play to half empty venues.
Some very valid points have been made about other bands who have carried on after the death or departure of band members.
To say it is not Queen without Freddie or John is like saying that tea isn't tea without milk - of course, it is tea but it just tastes different, some will like it (even prefer it) and others will hate it, but it's not worth arguing over.
Supposing John had died in 1991 and not Freddie - would they be right to call the band Queen after then? Queen plus Danny Miranda maybe?
Freddie, by his own statement, was not Queen. Had Freddie had 3 different musicians would they have been as successful? Who knows, but Freddie's Mr Bad Guy album was a flop and the music on it is poor (not the songwriting or the singin, I hasten to add).
Queen is as much Brian's guitar sound, Roger's drum sound and John's bass sound as it is Freddie's voice. If having a different singer makes it "not Queen", then surely I'm In Love With My Car, '39 and Drowse aren't Queen either.
Furthermore, if you compare the structure, sound and style of the Queen+PR shows with other Queen shows and Brian and Roger's solo shows, you find that the Q+PR shows are very much Queen.
Also, don't forget Queen is a brand name - it is known far more than probably even Freddie's name and so if they want to attract people to the shows it is good sense to use the name - after all, even if they don't want the money, they don't want to play to half empty venues.
Some very valid points have been made about other bands who have carried on after the death or departure of band members.
To say it is not Queen without Freddie or John is like saying that tea isn't tea without milk - of course, it is tea but it just tastes different, some will like it (even prefer it) and others will hate it, but it's not worth arguing over.
It's not exactly Queen anymore anyway. It's Paul Rodgers, Brian May and Roger Taylor.
Queen without Freddie and John isn't Queen.
It's like calling Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr The Beatles when they're clearly not without George and John. It's not the same. Never will be.
Although, i'm sure Bri and Rog's new work with Rodgy will be fab, i still don't get the same vibe that i usually get with the original Queen.
Queen without Freddie and John isn't Queen.
It's like calling Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr The Beatles when they're clearly not without George and John. It's not the same. Never will be.
Although, i'm sure Bri and Rog's new work with Rodgy will be fab, i still don't get the same vibe that i usually get with the original Queen.
I'm not quite sure I get why people make such a big deal out of this still. I think that EVERYONE knew when Freddie passed that things were never going to be the same again. I mean, come on! There is no way to win with some of the whiners here about that! If someone tried to replace Freddie in every way, they'd complain that "He's not as good as Freddie!" So Paul Rogers comes in, and does things in his way, which takes more guts I think, and then people complain that "It's not Freddie!". DUH! Freddie is gone! He's not coming back! It's a lose-lose situation here. I pesonally admire Brian and Roger for keeping the Queen name out there, and introducing a generation of new fans to Queen, even if it's not the same as it was when it was Freddie, Brian, Roger and John. At least it's peaking the interest to hear the older stuff. Yeah, Queen is "a business" now...but you don't think it was when Freddie was still alive? Hello!! Wake up! Any successful musical act is 50% music and 50% business, at the very least. It's awful hard to survive on just music. The problem is, some times acts got into 80% business and 20% music...a la Justin Timberlake and most modern pop stars today.
Would these people rather that Queen just died, along with their fans, never to be ressurrected and enjoyed by any other generations ever again? That's pretty selfish of you if that's the case, and it shows that you weren't devoted to the music at all....you were devoted only to Freddie.
Would these people rather that Queen just died, along with their fans, never to be ressurrected and enjoyed by any other generations ever again? That's pretty selfish of you if that's the case, and it shows that you weren't devoted to the music at all....you were devoted only to Freddie.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr Debauchery wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Here's a hypothetical question....
Supposing John had died in 1991 and not Freddie - would they be right to call the band Queen after then? Queen plus Danny Miranda maybe?
Freddie, by his own statement, was not Queen. Had Freddie had 3 different musicians would they have been as successful? Who knows, but Freddie's Mr Bad Guy album was a flop and the music on it is poor (not the songwriting or the singin, I hasten to add).
Queen is as much Brian's guitar sound, Roger's drum sound and John's bass sound as it is Freddie's voice. If having a different singer makes it "not Queen", then surely I'm In Love With My Car, '39 and Drowse aren't Queen either.
Furthermore, if you compare the structure, sound and style of the Queen+PR shows with other Queen shows and Brian and Roger's solo shows, you find that the Q+PR shows are very much Queen.
Also, don't forget Queen is a brand name - it is known far more than probably even Freddie's name and so if they want to attract people to the shows it is good sense to use the name - after all, even if they don't want the money, they don't want to play to half empty venues.
Some very valid points have been made about other bands who have carried on after the death or departure of band members.
To say it is not Queen without Freddie or John is like saying that tea isn't tea without milk - of course, it is tea but it just tastes different, some will like it (even prefer it) and others will hate it, but it's not worth arguing over.[/QUOTE]
a few words to Queen as a brand name: you are probably wrong about more people knowing the name "Queen" than "Freddie Mercury" - i think (from a lot of people I talked to in the last 15 years and the media coverage) that both "Queen" and "Freddie" are equally well known. In fact, many people might recognize Freddie on TV or pictures, but could not tell the band he sang for (at least people who have very little knownledge of rock music). You must also remember that in the past (70s and 80s) many non-fans thought, that "Queen" was essentialy Freddie Mercury.
Supposing John had died in 1991 and not Freddie - would they be right to call the band Queen after then? Queen plus Danny Miranda maybe?
Freddie, by his own statement, was not Queen. Had Freddie had 3 different musicians would they have been as successful? Who knows, but Freddie's Mr Bad Guy album was a flop and the music on it is poor (not the songwriting or the singin, I hasten to add).
Queen is as much Brian's guitar sound, Roger's drum sound and John's bass sound as it is Freddie's voice. If having a different singer makes it "not Queen", then surely I'm In Love With My Car, '39 and Drowse aren't Queen either.
Furthermore, if you compare the structure, sound and style of the Queen+PR shows with other Queen shows and Brian and Roger's solo shows, you find that the Q+PR shows are very much Queen.
Also, don't forget Queen is a brand name - it is known far more than probably even Freddie's name and so if they want to attract people to the shows it is good sense to use the name - after all, even if they don't want the money, they don't want to play to half empty venues.
Some very valid points have been made about other bands who have carried on after the death or departure of band members.
To say it is not Queen without Freddie or John is like saying that tea isn't tea without milk - of course, it is tea but it just tastes different, some will like it (even prefer it) and others will hate it, but it's not worth arguing over.[/QUOTE]
a few words to Queen as a brand name: you are probably wrong about more people knowing the name "Queen" than "Freddie Mercury" - i think (from a lot of people I talked to in the last 15 years and the media coverage) that both "Queen" and "Freddie" are equally well known. In fact, many people might recognize Freddie on TV or pictures, but could not tell the band he sang for (at least people who have very little knownledge of rock music). You must also remember that in the past (70s and 80s) many non-fans thought, that "Queen" was essentialy Freddie Mercury.
1. your title lacks john
2. the real title should have been, For those who dont want Queen without their soul and essence
my reply to that topic is, who in the world would want that queen
2. the real title should have been, For those who dont want Queen without their soul and essence
my reply to that topic is, who in the world would want that queen
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=blue>Rick wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And besides, Roger and Brian have all the right to use the name 'Queen'. There were the true founders of this band. Freddie joined them later on.
[/QUOTE]
you should learn the facts first
brian may and roger taylor only formed the smile
along with tim staffel
freedie insigated the making of the group, and gave it it´s name
nice to see that queen fans dont know the band´s history
And besides, Roger and Brian have all the right to use the name 'Queen'. There were the true founders of this band. Freddie joined them later on.
[/QUOTE]
you should learn the facts first
brian may and roger taylor only formed the smile
along with tim staffel
freedie insigated the making of the group, and gave it it´s name
nice to see that queen fans dont know the band´s history
nice to see that queens fans dont know their history
some would rather live in the past and not move on in life either
some would rather live in the past and not move on in life either