Okay, I sat down, gave the thread another read, the only way I can think of responding is as follows :
I don't recall any fuss being made when various (read : CRAP) tribute bands have had names with Queen in the title. Fuck they don't even have John Deacon - what right have they, to use the big Q word, then??
Calling the band Q+PR during their recent tours was a little dodgy, but justifiable. While it wasn't really 'Queen' so-called, there were two of the guys from Queen playing. And they were playing almost entirely a Queen repertoire. The + Paul Rodgers part was no different to them adding David Bowie (though I'm not sure when they adopted the '+' thing).
As far as I'm concerned, it is pushing it to say that this new album is a Queen album.
For some bands, it works, for others it doesn't. I look at "Endless Wire", and I think The Who. The primary songwriter is still there, the singer is still there, and how about that Zak Starkey!?
It wouldn't work if Paul and Ringo tried it. And I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim that it'd work with Queen.
While I acknowledge that it's not Queen - I don't really care about the name. My mind is on what kind of music they'll make. What does Brian consider 'epic', these days?
If it's an album full of Driven By You and Reaching Out clones, I'll be pissed. If it's more like Resurrection, if the instrumentation takes a Made In Heaven bent, I'll be pleased. In either case I'm much more excited by the prospect of new music, than I am about what name they'll be using.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kenny8 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][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[/QUOTE]
HAH I knew I'd seen the magic M word used before I brought it up....
Look, just because some people want to give the music a chance before getting annoyed, doesn't make them a moron.
Doesn't that make *you* the one with a problem here?? We know it's not QUEEN. Who cares?!?!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kenny8 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: Actually... no, I didn't fail that audition.[/QUOTE]
No shit[/QUOTE]
Go on then, guess which movie I was in.
Hint : one of the ones that didn't have 15 endings.
No shit[/QUOTE]
Go on then, guess which movie I was in.
Hint : one of the ones that didn't have 15 endings.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote:Go on then, guess which movie I was in. [/QUOTE]
Planet Of The Apes? 2001? Greystoke? Bonzo Goes To College?
Planet Of The Apes? 2001? Greystoke? Bonzo Goes To College?
brian and roger formed queen - they can do whatever the hell they wasnt to with it. FACT
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]una999 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]brian and roger formed queen - they can do whatever the hell they wasnt to with it. FACT[/QUOTE]
you're more or less correct...
Brian and Roger, along with Tim Staffell formed Smile (i cant remember who the bassist was), but then Tim dropped out to join another band, the bassit left, and Roger and Brian had no bass and no vocals. so Freddie dropped out of Sour Milk Sea and asked to form a band. then Freddie wanted the name Queen, and they agreed.
so it was Brian, Roger, AND Freddie. not just Roger and Brian.
you're more or less correct...
Brian and Roger, along with Tim Staffell formed Smile (i cant remember who the bassist was), but then Tim dropped out to join another band, the bassit left, and Roger and Brian had no bass and no vocals. so Freddie dropped out of Sour Milk Sea and asked to form a band. then Freddie wanted the name Queen, and they agreed.
so it was Brian, Roger, AND Freddie. not just Roger and Brian.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kenny8 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote:Go on then, guess which movie I was in. [/QUOTE]
Planet Of The Apes? 2001? Greystoke? Bonzo Goes To College?[/QUOTE]
.... all wrong. It was Harry and the Hendersons you bumpkin.
I don't think you're striking the proper tone here, you're showing no concern as to what the banana shortage is doing to my people.
Planet Of The Apes? 2001? Greystoke? Bonzo Goes To College?[/QUOTE]
.... all wrong. It was Harry and the Hendersons you bumpkin.
I don't think you're striking the proper tone here, you're showing no concern as to what the banana shortage is doing to my people.
I'm so sick of this same argument already. I also thought at first that maybe they should record under a different name, but you know what, I'm not in the band, nor do I make the decisions. Stop fucking crying about it for God's sake!! Do we all forget that Freddie Mercury was the one who TOLD Brian to keep the band going after his death, or have we become blind to that fact??
So many people are on here whining because they can't get "Face It Alone" or the 28th take of fucking "Soul Brother" and they make it known every day how much it sucks that they don't have every fucking morsel of recorded Queen material. Now, Brian and Roger decide they want to give you NEW material and you bitch and moan again because Freddie isn't involved!!! Did you also cry about "Made In Heaven" and "No One But You?"
Obviously Freddie was the most unique and original frontman in history, not to mention his vocal ability and songwriting skills are second to none, but to be a Queen fan you can't just say that Freddie is the band or John is the band or whatever!!! Sure, they could record under a different name...but they've been the ones using this one for 35 fucking years and it's their choice!!!!!!
This argument is just old, plain and simple! The more I see some of the nonsensical posts on here the more I realize that a good portion of Queen fans aren't Queen fans at all! Something tells me that if it was Brian who had died and Queen continued without him, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Hell, John is no longer with the band and yet I only saw one or two posts that even mentioned that. Does that mean that John was not an important part of the band's chemistry????
The points some people are trying to make are valid, such as the fact that the band could indeed record under May, Taylor, and Rogers or some other thing. They could...but they aren't! Get the hell over it! Most of the other points presented are nothing more than childish tantrums by people who can't get what they want.
And you know what...not all the complaints are even well written!!! Queen Fans? I think maybe not.
C.M.
PS - Oh wait, I forgot, in most tiny little minds the vocalist for a band IS the only person that matters!!!! Damn my opposing approach to a completely false but widespread misconception.
Complain about Ozzy leaving Sabbath; Blackmore and Gillan leaving Purple; Jon Anderson leaving Yes; Dennis DeYoung leaving Styx; Steve Walsh leaving Kansas; Steve Perry leaving Journey; Peter Gabriel and Phil Collins leaving Genesis; there are so many things to cry about...
...why don't you leave Queen alone for a change?
So many people are on here whining because they can't get "Face It Alone" or the 28th take of fucking "Soul Brother" and they make it known every day how much it sucks that they don't have every fucking morsel of recorded Queen material. Now, Brian and Roger decide they want to give you NEW material and you bitch and moan again because Freddie isn't involved!!! Did you also cry about "Made In Heaven" and "No One But You?"
Obviously Freddie was the most unique and original frontman in history, not to mention his vocal ability and songwriting skills are second to none, but to be a Queen fan you can't just say that Freddie is the band or John is the band or whatever!!! Sure, they could record under a different name...but they've been the ones using this one for 35 fucking years and it's their choice!!!!!!
This argument is just old, plain and simple! The more I see some of the nonsensical posts on here the more I realize that a good portion of Queen fans aren't Queen fans at all! Something tells me that if it was Brian who had died and Queen continued without him, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Hell, John is no longer with the band and yet I only saw one or two posts that even mentioned that. Does that mean that John was not an important part of the band's chemistry????
The points some people are trying to make are valid, such as the fact that the band could indeed record under May, Taylor, and Rogers or some other thing. They could...but they aren't! Get the hell over it! Most of the other points presented are nothing more than childish tantrums by people who can't get what they want.
And you know what...not all the complaints are even well written!!! Queen Fans? I think maybe not.
C.M.
PS - Oh wait, I forgot, in most tiny little minds the vocalist for a band IS the only person that matters!!!! Damn my opposing approach to a completely false but widespread misconception.
Complain about Ozzy leaving Sabbath; Blackmore and Gillan leaving Purple; Jon Anderson leaving Yes; Dennis DeYoung leaving Styx; Steve Walsh leaving Kansas; Steve Perry leaving Journey; Peter Gabriel and Phil Collins leaving Genesis; there are so many things to cry about...
...why don't you leave Queen alone for a change?
We've a lot of examples, so why are people makin noise about it...
Floyd: without Barrett and again without Waters
Purple had has a lot of incarnation and they created great albums
Genesis
KISS
STONES
The Doors
King Crimson
Soft Machine
Floyd: without Barrett and again without Waters
Purple had has a lot of incarnation and they created great albums
Genesis
KISS
STONES
The Doors
King Crimson
Soft Machine
To add to the list:
Chicago
Van Halen
Supertramp
Chicago
Van Halen
Supertramp
The Beach Boys too.
Only two (Mike Love and Bruce Johnston) of the six members still tour with this name.
Only two (Mike Love and Bruce Johnston) of the six members still tour with this name.
Deep Purple
Black Sabbath
Black Sabbath
Dont forget that even Free suffered from line up changes as well. For instance, Paul Kossoff doesnt play at all on songs like Wishing Well as he had quit the band at that time. Cant remember the name of the guy they got in his place either
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kenny8 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]una999 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]brian and roger founded the band - they can do whatever the hell they want to do with it.
kiss my ass[/QUOTE]
No, they founded A band. Not THE band. The guy with the ideas wasn't on board back then.[/QUOTE]
Bullshit! Freddie didn't have much idea's when he started out with Queen. He was very jealous at Brian and Tim, because they were able to write great songs.
kiss my ass[/QUOTE]
No, they founded A band. Not THE band. The guy with the ideas wasn't on board back then.[/QUOTE]
Bullshit! Freddie didn't have much idea's when he started out with Queen. He was very jealous at Brian and Tim, because they were able to write great songs.
"So many people are on here whining because they can't get "Face It Alone""
Can you upload Face it Alone?
And, for someone who's telling us to stop whinging, your post was awfully 'Wah-Wah' in nature, or 'Cry-baby'-esque.
Can you upload Face it Alone?
And, for someone who's telling us to stop whinging, your post was awfully 'Wah-Wah' in nature, or 'Cry-baby'-esque.
If we're tossing arguments using other bands around as having situations similar to Queen's then let's be real. Of the elite bands, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Van Halen, Guns n Roses and The Rolling Stones and AC/DC were all relatively young men and bascially hitting their musical primes when they brought in new members. They were musicians with careers and bills to pay and needed to make the changes to keep their careers going. This is not the case with Brian and Roger. For example, both Pink Floyd and Genesis were hardly superstar bands (creatively superb, sales wise, no way) when Syd Barrett and Peter Gabriel left the respective bands. The Who were all but spent as a creative force when they brought Kenny Jones on board. The Doors never replaced Jim Morrison, and bands like Kiss, Iron Maiden, Savatage, Golden Earring, etc. are all (IMHO) nowhere near Queen's status.
Freddie Mercury brought a lot of "arguably" to the table. He wrote what was "arguably" the greatest song of the 20th century. He wrote what is "arguably" the greatest sports anthem of all time. He was "arguably" the greatest singer of the rock era. He was "arguably" the most diverse, and successfully diverse writer of the rock era. He was "arguably" the greatest front man of all time. And he "arguably" delivered the greatest performance from a rock star (a la Hendrix at Woodstock) of his generation at Live Aid. It cracks me up how people on this post and the million others about who Queen are slag people for not loving Queen if they don't like the name change. Funny, if you compare Freddie Mercury to a troubled, drug addled guitarist from Pink Floyd, a rhythm guitarist for The Stones, or the second guitarist in G' n' R', or the replacement werewolf guitarist from KISS, then frankly, that's a fantastic disrespect towards Freddie Mercury.
We're all fans, and we know that they can and will call the band what they want. The argument is tired, but remember, none of the aforementioned acts had the person who left their band appear on a stamp in Great Britain.
Freddie was a once in a century talent. Since we're big on lists, I'll leave you with my list of who we should be talking about in relation to Queen. Spot the difference from the previous list.
The Beatles
Led Zeppelin
Greatest band ever, greatest rock band ever, ad Queen is the greatest pop/rock band ever. Pretty certain that we know how The Beatles and Zeppelin ended up.
This is only my opinion, and I don't care if they do a new album as Queen. Just throwing out some food for thought.
Freddie Mercury brought a lot of "arguably" to the table. He wrote what was "arguably" the greatest song of the 20th century. He wrote what is "arguably" the greatest sports anthem of all time. He was "arguably" the greatest singer of the rock era. He was "arguably" the most diverse, and successfully diverse writer of the rock era. He was "arguably" the greatest front man of all time. And he "arguably" delivered the greatest performance from a rock star (a la Hendrix at Woodstock) of his generation at Live Aid. It cracks me up how people on this post and the million others about who Queen are slag people for not loving Queen if they don't like the name change. Funny, if you compare Freddie Mercury to a troubled, drug addled guitarist from Pink Floyd, a rhythm guitarist for The Stones, or the second guitarist in G' n' R', or the replacement werewolf guitarist from KISS, then frankly, that's a fantastic disrespect towards Freddie Mercury.
We're all fans, and we know that they can and will call the band what they want. The argument is tired, but remember, none of the aforementioned acts had the person who left their band appear on a stamp in Great Britain.
Freddie was a once in a century talent. Since we're big on lists, I'll leave you with my list of who we should be talking about in relation to Queen. Spot the difference from the previous list.
The Beatles
Led Zeppelin
Greatest band ever, greatest rock band ever, ad Queen is the greatest pop/rock band ever. Pretty certain that we know how The Beatles and Zeppelin ended up.
This is only my opinion, and I don't care if they do a new album as Queen. Just throwing out some food for thought.