Cut the money crap. Being a musician is a job. A creative job, but a job in the end. The 'artist should make their art for free' is pure bollocks. Music made of Freddie a rich man and no one in this forum with a straight head would question that and no one certainly would even dare to doubt about his immense talent and the fact that he did it because he loved his music and also because that was he way he chose to get a living in this world. If we are implying that Brian and Roger are greedy bastards because they reunited again to make some money, then we should start saying that the four original members were also greedy bastards when forming Queen back in the distant 1972.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
The guys don't do anything for money now. If they did, it would be for the money but not for themselves: for a charity or something like this. They don't need more money to live confortably their lives!!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]vadenuez wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Cut the money crap. Being a musician is a job. A creative job, but a job in the end. The 'artist should make their art for free' is pure bollocks. Music made of Freddie a rich man and no one in this forum with a straight head would question that and no one certainly would even dare to doubt about his immense talent and the fact that he did it because he loved his music and also because that was he way he chose to get a living in this world. If we are implying that Brian and Roger are greedy bastards because they reunited again to make some money, then we should start saying that the four original members were also greedy bastards when forming Queen back in the distant 1972.
[/QUOTE]
Excellent post.
[/QUOTE]
Excellent post.
I don't care if they do this for money, I only care about the name. I haven't heard what they did with Paul, but to my mind they're all great musicians.
Still that's not Queen, it's just a cover band copying the name.
Still that's not Queen, it's just a cover band copying the name.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I don't care if they do this for money, I only care about the name. I haven't heard what they did with Paul, but to my mind they're all great musicians.
Still that's not Queen, it's just a cover band copying the name.[/QUOTE]
Not this crap again.
Are The Who not The Who? How about the Stones, Pink Floyd, and Chicago?
Still that's not Queen, it's just a cover band copying the name.[/QUOTE]
Not this crap again.
Are The Who not The Who? How about the Stones, Pink Floyd, and Chicago?
I agree to disagree anyway, but for the sake of debating:
Some bands can work with substitutions, some others don't. For me there's no way Paul+Ringo+x+y could be The Beatles. Likewise there's no way Brian+Roger could be Queen (or John+Freddie, or Roger+Freddie, etc). Not in vain Brian and Freddie were introduced as "Freddie Mercury and Brian May" at Live Aid.
The Who without Keith but with John I could accept, but now for me that's not The Who, even though Pino's a genius, but still that's IMO a different band, not better, not worse, just different.
Pink Floyd: Roger sings horribly and isn't precisely a master bassist, even if IMO he's one of the very best composers in his genre (only outdone, IMO, by John, Paul and George). So if Dave & Co perform Roger's songs with people who play and sing better than Roger, that's perfect for me!
Stones: Dunno and couldn't care less.
The thing is, for me, Queen were always (for some extent) very brave and daring: they gained a fanbase playing Zeppelin-esque things, then threw in some piano albums, then became much simpler with 'News', etc. They were brave enough to release 'Bo Rhap' or 'Innuendo' as singles when mainstream music was different.
So, if Brian & Roger were to keep on the habit of being brave and daring they should have used a new name, written new material and risked themselves to fail. But instead they kept the name, the logo, the songs ... they played the safest formula, and that's (IMO) utterly coward, unethical, immoral and thus, utterly anti-Queen.
But as I said, I agree to disagree. For me Live At The Bowl is a Queen DVD; Return Of The Champions is a DVD by six great musicians who are a different band (that happens to include two former Queen members).
Some bands can work with substitutions, some others don't. For me there's no way Paul+Ringo+x+y could be The Beatles. Likewise there's no way Brian+Roger could be Queen (or John+Freddie, or Roger+Freddie, etc). Not in vain Brian and Freddie were introduced as "Freddie Mercury and Brian May" at Live Aid.
The Who without Keith but with John I could accept, but now for me that's not The Who, even though Pino's a genius, but still that's IMO a different band, not better, not worse, just different.
Pink Floyd: Roger sings horribly and isn't precisely a master bassist, even if IMO he's one of the very best composers in his genre (only outdone, IMO, by John, Paul and George). So if Dave & Co perform Roger's songs with people who play and sing better than Roger, that's perfect for me!
Stones: Dunno and couldn't care less.
The thing is, for me, Queen were always (for some extent) very brave and daring: they gained a fanbase playing Zeppelin-esque things, then threw in some piano albums, then became much simpler with 'News', etc. They were brave enough to release 'Bo Rhap' or 'Innuendo' as singles when mainstream music was different.
So, if Brian & Roger were to keep on the habit of being brave and daring they should have used a new name, written new material and risked themselves to fail. But instead they kept the name, the logo, the songs ... they played the safest formula, and that's (IMO) utterly coward, unethical, immoral and thus, utterly anti-Queen.
But as I said, I agree to disagree. For me Live At The Bowl is a Queen DVD; Return Of The Champions is a DVD by six great musicians who are a different band (that happens to include two former Queen members).
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So, if Brian & Roger were to keep on the habit of being brave and daring they should have used a new name, written new material and risked themselves to fail. But instead they kept the name, the logo, the songs ... they played the safest formula, and that's (IMO) utterly coward, unethical, immoral and thus, utterly anti-Queen.[/QUOTE]
You make a good point, but in the end, it's their choice. They were a huge part in creating the Queen of the past, so they're entitled to keep using the name. They don't have much else to gain, so they don't feel the need to change their name. Brian and Roger conquered the world as members of Queen, so it's still Queen, even though it's just part of Queen - and Paul is Paul... thus Queen + Paul Rodgers makes sense.
You make a good point, but in the end, it's their choice. They were a huge part in creating the Queen of the past, so they're entitled to keep using the name. They don't have much else to gain, so they don't feel the need to change their name. Brian and Roger conquered the world as members of Queen, so it's still Queen, even though it's just part of Queen - and Paul is Paul... thus Queen + Paul Rodgers makes sense.