Thread
Posts in chronological order
sorry double
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kenny8 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:. For some reason, there are far too many people who believe Queen are exempt from this. Hell, even INXS kept their name.[/QUOTE]
And look at the credibility INXS have. Soon to be playing at a club near you.
You'd have thought that Queen would descend into the Van Halen type argument? Dave or Sammy?? If you want cred you know who to side with. But so many of the comparisons don't compare. The Stones will be the Stones as long as the ESSENTIAL MIX is intact, Mick, Keith & Charlie. Daltrey & Entwhistle used to tour and as much as Daltrey claimed it was his band, even he knows that without Townshend it's not the Who. AC/DC had their first major success with Back In Black. They never had the world wide profile under Scott as they would later achieve with Johnson. If this new "Queen" album achieves a tenth the success of any old album, I'll be gobsmacked. The Doors finished with Morrison, I don't even know why that's a serious comparison. You can't believe what they did recently with Astbury as credible?? Why not add the "New Cars" to that list. To much hilarity they're on the road without Ocasek or the fellow who looked like Roger Taylor, the other vocalist bassist(?) who sang "Drive"(who sadly passed away)?
If anybody thinks Queen & Paul Rodgers will be able to do a Genesis and emerge in 2006 an even more successful outfit, please say so, otherwise what's it for? Keep playing & recording music guys, I love their stuff too obviously, but pay some respect and don't try and pretend you're something you are not. This is obvioulsy aimed to a market that discovered Queen post Mercury and missed experiencing the album/tour cycle. To those who grew up with the band for a period of some years and experienced the highs of things like Bo Rap, Live Aid, Wembley etc and then finally sharing the deep loss of Mercury and the incredible charitable work that followed, this incarnation is a sad greedy footnote to an irreplaceable, much loved and UNIQUE rock band.
But INXS is a great comparison, recently when appearing on Rockline IIRC, INXS left a question to next weeks guests, Brian & Roger, about replacing their lead singer as INXS were doing. Oh no, they could never do that they gushed.....[/QUOTE]
And look at the credibility INXS have. Soon to be playing at a club near you.
You'd have thought that Queen would descend into the Van Halen type argument? Dave or Sammy?? If you want cred you know who to side with. But so many of the comparisons don't compare. The Stones will be the Stones as long as the ESSENTIAL MIX is intact, Mick, Keith & Charlie. Daltrey & Entwhistle used to tour and as much as Daltrey claimed it was his band, even he knows that without Townshend it's not the Who. AC/DC had their first major success with Back In Black. They never had the world wide profile under Scott as they would later achieve with Johnson. If this new "Queen" album achieves a tenth the success of any old album, I'll be gobsmacked. The Doors finished with Morrison, I don't even know why that's a serious comparison. You can't believe what they did recently with Astbury as credible?? Why not add the "New Cars" to that list. To much hilarity they're on the road without Ocasek or the fellow who looked like Roger Taylor, the other vocalist bassist(?) who sang "Drive"(who sadly passed away)?
If anybody thinks Queen & Paul Rodgers will be able to do a Genesis and emerge in 2006 an even more successful outfit, please say so, otherwise what's it for? Keep playing & recording music guys, I love their stuff too obviously, but pay some respect and don't try and pretend you're something you are not. This is obvioulsy aimed to a market that discovered Queen post Mercury and missed experiencing the album/tour cycle. To those who grew up with the band for a period of some years and experienced the highs of things like Bo Rap, Live Aid, Wembley etc and then finally sharing the deep loss of Mercury and the incredible charitable work that followed, this incarnation is a sad greedy footnote to an irreplaceable, much loved and UNIQUE rock band.
But INXS is a great comparison, recently when appearing on Rockline IIRC, INXS left a question to next weeks guests, Brian & Roger, about replacing their lead singer as INXS were doing. Oh no, they could never do that they gushed.....[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]andy1962 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]queen died when freddie died.i hate it that they still use queen & ??????.why don't they use smile & paul rodgers?????.or smile paul rodgers you now have some money???[/QUOTE]
They can't do that! Smile died with Tim Staffel dude!
They can't do that! Smile died with Tim Staffel dude!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kenny8 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Not to you, obviously. I mean, it sounded all very respectful back then, didn't it?
I'm annoyed at the ridicule this move has been greeted with in the media. Finally Queen got some well deserved respect, and Freddie was recognised for the genius he was....and they go and do this.
It seems the acceptance of mediocrity has seeped through to this level. Queen used to be unique because Freddie Mercury himself was unique in so many ways...and that's what always seperated them from all the other bands.
Some of the rubbish and comparisons to other bands I've read here are laughable and juvenile in the extreme. I realise it must be difficult accepting that you'll never get the chance to see the real Queen ever perform. I saw them a couple of times and it's something I know I'll never see the like of again. But it's gone and no amount of sticking your head in the sand, or accepting the sheer greedy, tasteless and tacky idea of a new studio album with a different singer could ever bring back.[/QUOTE]
AMEN
I'm annoyed at the ridicule this move has been greeted with in the media. Finally Queen got some well deserved respect, and Freddie was recognised for the genius he was....and they go and do this.
It seems the acceptance of mediocrity has seeped through to this level. Queen used to be unique because Freddie Mercury himself was unique in so many ways...and that's what always seperated them from all the other bands.
Some of the rubbish and comparisons to other bands I've read here are laughable and juvenile in the extreme. I realise it must be difficult accepting that you'll never get the chance to see the real Queen ever perform. I saw them a couple of times and it's something I know I'll never see the like of again. But it's gone and no amount of sticking your head in the sand, or accepting the sheer greedy, tasteless and tacky idea of a new studio album with a different singer could ever bring back.[/QUOTE]
AMEN
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kenny8 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kenny8 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:. For some reason, there are far too many people who believe Queen are exempt from this. Hell, even INXS kept their name.[/QUOTE]
And look at the credibility INXS have. Soon to be playing at a club near you.
You'd have thought that Queen would descend into the Van Halen type argument? Dave or Sammy?? If you want cred you know who to side with. But so many of the comparisons don't compare. The Stones will be the Stones as long as the ESSENTIAL MIX is intact, Mick, Keith & Charlie. Daltrey & Entwhistle used to tour and as much as Daltrey claimed it was his band, even he knows that without Townshend it's not the Who. AC/DC had their first major success with Back In Black. They never had the world wide profile under Scott as they would later achieve with Johnson. If this new "Queen" album achieves a tenth the success of any old album, I'll be gobsmacked. The Doors finished with Morrison, I don't even know why that's a serious comparison. You can't believe what they did recently with Astbury as credible?? Why not add the "New Cars" to that list. To much hilarity they're on the road without Ocasek or the fellow who looked like Roger Taylor, the other vocalist bassist(?) who sang "Drive"(who sadly passed away)?
If anybody thinks Queen & Paul Rodgers will be able to do a Genesis and emerge in 2006 an even more successful outfit, please say so, otherwise what's it for? Keep playing & recording music guys, I love their stuff too obviously, but pay some respect and don't try and pretend you're something you are not. This is obvioulsy aimed to a market that discovered Queen post Mercury and missed experiencing the album/tour cycle. To those who grew up with the band for a period of some years and experienced the highs of things like Bo Rap, Live Aid, Wembley etc and then finally sharing the deep loss of Mercury and the incredible charitable work that followed, this incarnation is a sad greedy footnote to an irreplaceable, much loved and UNIQUE rock band.
But INXS is a great comparison, recently when appearing on Rockline IIRC, INXS left a question to next weeks guests, Brian & Roger, about replacing their lead singer as INXS were doing. Oh no, they could never do that they gushed.....[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Dahling, you forgot Purple, Sabbath and Floyd!
Most important ones on the list, I'd say!
It's just a shame that people get so carried away because of the use of a name.
Too bad all the assumptions about people that do like this incarnation in your post are based on your wild guessing and not implyable on me. Actually I WAS already there when Freddie was still around. Yes, I miss him. Yes, I cried my guts out when he died. Yes, I still believe that there is no one that can come close to him whatsoever. And NO Paul does not 'replace' Freddie.
(Oh, and I'm sorry to admit that I also already was a fan of Paul Rodger WAY before he went on tour with Brian and Roger. Blasphemous, isn't it?) (AUCH! I even admit that I saw The Cross and went to see quite a number of Taylor and May solo-shows!)
I also admit that QPR does nowhere sound close to 'QUEEN'; but I find it a great band in it's own right.
It's a shame people get so carried away by a name.
That they are not able to look beyond the name and just accept the fact that these are musicians that want to make music. You might have just had a fun day last year, seeing at least two members or your favourite band on stage together and hearing some of the songs of your favourite band, played by at least a part of your favourite band themselves instead of a copycat tributeband or Kerry Ellis.
But darling, if YOU prefer to sit at home and listen to old recordings with Freddie, for whatever reason, that's fine.
But then please think as an adult and accept th
And look at the credibility INXS have. Soon to be playing at a club near you.
You'd have thought that Queen would descend into the Van Halen type argument? Dave or Sammy?? If you want cred you know who to side with. But so many of the comparisons don't compare. The Stones will be the Stones as long as the ESSENTIAL MIX is intact, Mick, Keith & Charlie. Daltrey & Entwhistle used to tour and as much as Daltrey claimed it was his band, even he knows that without Townshend it's not the Who. AC/DC had their first major success with Back In Black. They never had the world wide profile under Scott as they would later achieve with Johnson. If this new "Queen" album achieves a tenth the success of any old album, I'll be gobsmacked. The Doors finished with Morrison, I don't even know why that's a serious comparison. You can't believe what they did recently with Astbury as credible?? Why not add the "New Cars" to that list. To much hilarity they're on the road without Ocasek or the fellow who looked like Roger Taylor, the other vocalist bassist(?) who sang "Drive"(who sadly passed away)?
If anybody thinks Queen & Paul Rodgers will be able to do a Genesis and emerge in 2006 an even more successful outfit, please say so, otherwise what's it for? Keep playing & recording music guys, I love their stuff too obviously, but pay some respect and don't try and pretend you're something you are not. This is obvioulsy aimed to a market that discovered Queen post Mercury and missed experiencing the album/tour cycle. To those who grew up with the band for a period of some years and experienced the highs of things like Bo Rap, Live Aid, Wembley etc and then finally sharing the deep loss of Mercury and the incredible charitable work that followed, this incarnation is a sad greedy footnote to an irreplaceable, much loved and UNIQUE rock band.
But INXS is a great comparison, recently when appearing on Rockline IIRC, INXS left a question to next weeks guests, Brian & Roger, about replacing their lead singer as INXS were doing. Oh no, they could never do that they gushed.....[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Dahling, you forgot Purple, Sabbath and Floyd!
Most important ones on the list, I'd say!
It's just a shame that people get so carried away because of the use of a name.
Too bad all the assumptions about people that do like this incarnation in your post are based on your wild guessing and not implyable on me. Actually I WAS already there when Freddie was still around. Yes, I miss him. Yes, I cried my guts out when he died. Yes, I still believe that there is no one that can come close to him whatsoever. And NO Paul does not 'replace' Freddie.
(Oh, and I'm sorry to admit that I also already was a fan of Paul Rodger WAY before he went on tour with Brian and Roger. Blasphemous, isn't it?) (AUCH! I even admit that I saw The Cross and went to see quite a number of Taylor and May solo-shows!)
I also admit that QPR does nowhere sound close to 'QUEEN'; but I find it a great band in it's own right.
It's a shame people get so carried away by a name.
That they are not able to look beyond the name and just accept the fact that these are musicians that want to make music. You might have just had a fun day last year, seeing at least two members or your favourite band on stage together and hearing some of the songs of your favourite band, played by at least a part of your favourite band themselves instead of a copycat tributeband or Kerry Ellis.
But darling, if YOU prefer to sit at home and listen to old recordings with Freddie, for whatever reason, that's fine.
But then please think as an adult and accept th
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]jeroen wrote:It's a shame people get so carried away by a name.That they are not able to look beyond the name and just accept the fact that these are musicians that want to make music.[/QUOTE]
Jesus! It's great that these old rockers want to keep making music, nobody would want to deny them that, but they are not Queen, and should never be confused with such. Like I have said, it's one thing to get the old songs out and cover them in a nostalgia tour, but it's a huge leap to record new material and try to make people believe it is Queen. If it's only a name, why not be done then and call Paul Rodgers Freddie Mercury as well? I mean, as you say it's only a name after all.......
another name created by the MAN WHO ALSO CREATED THE NAME QUEEN!!
Jesus, I still can't believe I have to stand up for Mercury being the one and only lead singer for Queen on a Queen site!! Thanks Brian & Roger in keeping the respect, see what you've done!!
oh yeah Purple, Sabbath & Floyd? All fondly remembered without Gillan, Ozzy and, well, I'm glad you brought this scenario up......Floyd is an interesting one as Waters tours solo still. I'd have to say had a split occurred during Queen's reign, I hate to say this but, who would've had the stronger act? Freddie Mercury solo with a backing band or "Smile"??.....And if Fred was still alive and didn't want to tour with them, HOW MUCH SUCCESS DO YOU THINK BRIAN & ROGER WOULD HAVE TAKING THIS INCARNATION ON THE ROAD AND GETTING AWAY WITH CALLING IT QUEEN?????
Jesus! It's great that these old rockers want to keep making music, nobody would want to deny them that, but they are not Queen, and should never be confused with such. Like I have said, it's one thing to get the old songs out and cover them in a nostalgia tour, but it's a huge leap to record new material and try to make people believe it is Queen. If it's only a name, why not be done then and call Paul Rodgers Freddie Mercury as well? I mean, as you say it's only a name after all.......
another name created by the MAN WHO ALSO CREATED THE NAME QUEEN!!
Jesus, I still can't believe I have to stand up for Mercury being the one and only lead singer for Queen on a Queen site!! Thanks Brian & Roger in keeping the respect, see what you've done!!
oh yeah Purple, Sabbath & Floyd? All fondly remembered without Gillan, Ozzy and, well, I'm glad you brought this scenario up......Floyd is an interesting one as Waters tours solo still. I'd have to say had a split occurred during Queen's reign, I hate to say this but, who would've had the stronger act? Freddie Mercury solo with a backing band or "Smile"??.....And if Fred was still alive and didn't want to tour with them, HOW MUCH SUCCESS DO YOU THINK BRIAN & ROGER WOULD HAVE TAKING THIS INCARNATION ON THE ROAD AND GETTING AWAY WITH CALLING IT QUEEN?????
Okay, all Stepfords, "I miss Freddie so much" and "No John = No Queen"-people all gather together in one row and stand on the railroad where the TGV is going.
I mean, Freddie already stated. "If I'm dead tomorrow, I won't give a damn."
So, what are you waiting for??? Then you all can be where Freddie is. Problem solved.
I mean, Freddie already stated. "If I'm dead tomorrow, I won't give a damn."
So, what are you waiting for??? Then you all can be where Freddie is. Problem solved.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]jeroen wrote:(Oh, and I'm sorry to admit that I also already was a fan of Paul Rodger WAY before he went on tour with Brian and Roger. Blasphemous, isn't it?)[/QUOTE]
No, I'm a Rodgers fan too. But you do demonstrate with that example that you simply just don't get it.
No, I'm a Rodgers fan too. But you do demonstrate with that example that you simply just don't get it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=blue>Rick wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So, what are you waiting for??? Then you all can be where Freddie is. Problem solved.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for displaying to us the mentality which buys into a Queen without Mercury.
Moron
Thanks for displaying to us the mentality which buys into a Queen without Mercury.
Moron
OH NO NOT AGAIN ANOTHER POST ON THE USING OF THE NAME QUEEN, OH WELL HERE WE GO!!!!!!.
I think the issue here is that brian, roger and paul rodgers are making a new album and everyone ASSUMES it will be under the banner name of QUEEN + PAUL RODGERS we don't know that at the moment and anyway why can't they use it??? ,is it because freddie named the group and it's considered sacrilege to do so?? or is it the mythical fantasy of those who live in the past?.
Fact remains freddie is no longer here and john has moved on but BM and RT remain and are two quarters of the group so the name should be irrevelant and as JEROEN stated many,many bands have stuck with the name after losing or changing a member so why oh why is it so different with queen.
One theory or fact is that freddie was such a showman flamboyant and extragavant and that anyone who might Temporary fill a void is considered not worthy and others no doubt will say they are simply exploiting the name.
The real fact is that bm and rt have a oppurtunity with paul rodgers to try something new and unknown and i find that exciting i'm not expecting a queen album because fred and john wouldn't be on it, with harmonies and trademarks they made their own i'm expecting a NEW venture and i'm very excited about it be it with the name queen + paul rodgers or anything else.
I think the issue here is that brian, roger and paul rodgers are making a new album and everyone ASSUMES it will be under the banner name of QUEEN + PAUL RODGERS we don't know that at the moment and anyway why can't they use it??? ,is it because freddie named the group and it's considered sacrilege to do so?? or is it the mythical fantasy of those who live in the past?.
Fact remains freddie is no longer here and john has moved on but BM and RT remain and are two quarters of the group so the name should be irrevelant and as JEROEN stated many,many bands have stuck with the name after losing or changing a member so why oh why is it so different with queen.
One theory or fact is that freddie was such a showman flamboyant and extragavant and that anyone who might Temporary fill a void is considered not worthy and others no doubt will say they are simply exploiting the name.
The real fact is that bm and rt have a oppurtunity with paul rodgers to try something new and unknown and i find that exciting i'm not expecting a queen album because fred and john wouldn't be on it, with harmonies and trademarks they made their own i'm expecting a NEW venture and i'm very excited about it be it with the name queen + paul rodgers or anything else.
This is a retarded discussion but some Queen songs do come to mind for this crap...
THE SHOW MUST GO ON
JEALOUSY
ALL DEAD, ALL DEAD
SPREAD YOUR WINGS
And a song Freddie liked to sing,
FUCK OFF AND DIE, YOU FAG!
With that said, and out of the way. Dude, get over it! Your lectures on Queen are not going to change anything! Freddie's own mother gave her blessing, you think your opinion counts more than hers? And another thing, you talk about Freddie creating the name Queen, ok, you got one. BUT Brian and Roger are the only founding members of Queen left! JOHN DEACON was NOT a founding member of Queen!!!!!!!!!! Maybe they should tour with Mike Grose?? lol
THE SHOW MUST GO ON
JEALOUSY
ALL DEAD, ALL DEAD
SPREAD YOUR WINGS
And a song Freddie liked to sing,
FUCK OFF AND DIE, YOU FAG!
With that said, and out of the way. Dude, get over it! Your lectures on Queen are not going to change anything! Freddie's own mother gave her blessing, you think your opinion counts more than hers? And another thing, you talk about Freddie creating the name Queen, ok, you got one. BUT Brian and Roger are the only founding members of Queen left! JOHN DEACON was NOT a founding member of Queen!!!!!!!!!! Maybe they should tour with Mike Grose?? lol
Thread-starter is a moron.
A blind person will buy this new album, listen to it, think it's fantastic, and unless someone tells them that it's got Queen on the label, they probably won't give a shit.
Use your ears, you fop.
A blind person will buy this new album, listen to it, think it's fantastic, and unless someone tells them that it's got Queen on the label, they probably won't give a shit.
Use your ears, you fop.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Thread-starter is a moron.
A blind person will buy this new album, listen to it, think it's fantastic, and unless someone tells them that it's got Queen on the label, they probably won't give a shit.
Use your ears, you fop.[/QUOTE]
if that blind person couldt tell that qpr isnt queen, than he isnt just blind, he´s also deaf
A blind person will buy this new album, listen to it, think it's fantastic, and unless someone tells them that it's got Queen on the label, they probably won't give a shit.
Use your ears, you fop.[/QUOTE]
if that blind person couldt tell that qpr isnt queen, than he isnt just blind, he´s also deaf
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=&#556B2F><b>Crezchi wrote: [/QUOTENAME]JOHN DEACON was NOT a founding member of Queen!!!!!!!!!! Maybe they should tour with Mike Grose?? lol[/QUOTE]
Having come on board after the other three were already a group, I think the point of John Deacon's departure speaks volumes, actually.
Look, the main reason I'm even here is I happen to believe that Freddie was the greatest frontperson in rock. Sue me. "Queen" is over. I repeat let whoever do what they want, but don't call it Queen anymore if another lead singer is involved. A singer who wants to take them down a bluesy path apparently, which sounds interesting, but not Queen.
Having come on board after the other three were already a group, I think the point of John Deacon's departure speaks volumes, actually.
Look, the main reason I'm even here is I happen to believe that Freddie was the greatest frontperson in rock. Sue me. "Queen" is over. I repeat let whoever do what they want, but don't call it Queen anymore if another lead singer is involved. A singer who wants to take them down a bluesy path apparently, which sounds interesting, but not Queen.