... and thousands and thousands of happy fans all around the world... what other prove do you need?... think about the fans... the younger ones... that didn´t have the chance to see them live... I dont understand people who think they have the right to tell Brian and Roger what to do with his career... let them be happy and the fans too...
P.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
To sell out two full Wembleys or hardly sold out 75% of 5 small halls with 7000 seats - are different cases...
I'd agree with opinion about extra musicians - that sucks! In Queen days Spike/Fred/Morgan appeared on stage to show themselves on 3 mins during CLTCL and even it was too much for them actually. Queen's greatest shows (which are their shows from the 70s) were played only by them...
I'd agree with opinion about extra musicians - that sucks! In Queen days Spike/Fred/Morgan appeared on stage to show themselves on 3 mins during CLTCL and even it was too much for them actually. Queen's greatest shows (which are their shows from the 70s) were played only by them...
wrong...
spike and morgan use to make background sounds in the complete show and backing vocals (for ex. Spike clearly on "Tear it up"... keyboards on "magic".. "who wants to live forever"... "break free"... "impromptu"...."ga-ga"... etc...)
And about Jamie, Brian say that NOW, in these days... he prefers to have an extra guitarrist because he feels more free to improvise and not be forced to do rhythm fills, solos, arrengements, etc.
Spike and Morgan fisher or fred mandel interact with the band the whole show, but they´re only showed onstage in CLTCL..
P.
spike and morgan use to make background sounds in the complete show and backing vocals (for ex. Spike clearly on "Tear it up"... keyboards on "magic".. "who wants to live forever"... "break free"... "impromptu"...."ga-ga"... etc...)
And about Jamie, Brian say that NOW, in these days... he prefers to have an extra guitarrist because he feels more free to improvise and not be forced to do rhythm fills, solos, arrengements, etc.
Spike and Morgan fisher or fred mandel interact with the band the whole show, but they´re only showed onstage in CLTCL..
P.
Thanks for the lesson of Queen's history!
"spike and morgan use to make background sounds in the complete show and backing vocals"
...and...
"Spike and Morgan fisher or fred mandel interact with the band the whole show, but they´re only showed onstage in CLTCL.."
This is what I wrote, didn't I? "In Queen days Spike/Fred/Morgan appeared on stage to show themselves on 3 mins during CLTCL and even it was too much for them actually." So why I'm wrong?
About Moses - I'm not discussing why Brian NOW needs in him, I'm saying that it sucks.
"spike and morgan use to make background sounds in the complete show and backing vocals"
...and...
"Spike and Morgan fisher or fred mandel interact with the band the whole show, but they´re only showed onstage in CLTCL.."
This is what I wrote, didn't I? "In Queen days Spike/Fred/Morgan appeared on stage to show themselves on 3 mins during CLTCL and even it was too much for them actually." So why I'm wrong?
About Moses - I'm not discussing why Brian NOW needs in him, I'm saying that it sucks.
Can someone please explain to me why this whole Q+PR thing is so controversial? Why do so many people hate it?
I mean, look at Led Zeppelin (or should that be Jimmy Page, Robert Plant and John Paul Jones?). When they reunited at Live Aid with Phil Collins and that other guy (Terry Thompson?) on drums, or when they've reunited occasionally with Jason Bonham taking up his father's place at the drums no one's complained. As a matter of fact, nearly everyone's happy that they can see three members of one of the greatest bands of all time perform together. Mind you, this is only on REALLY special occasions.
Now let's look at Q+PR. A similar reformation of another of the world's finest rock bands BUT this reunion has tours and even a new album to look forward to and a lot of people on here and at QOL are up in arms about it. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions and I respect each and every one of your opinions as regarding the new tour.
But it's always really mystified me as to why Queen should receive such backlash for deciding to continue on and make music for the masses to enjoy with some fresh new material in there too.
Could anyone please help me solve this puzzle?
Sorry but I can't find a Q+PR bashing thread (shock shock horror horror) to post this in.
I mean, look at Led Zeppelin (or should that be Jimmy Page, Robert Plant and John Paul Jones?). When they reunited at Live Aid with Phil Collins and that other guy (Terry Thompson?) on drums, or when they've reunited occasionally with Jason Bonham taking up his father's place at the drums no one's complained. As a matter of fact, nearly everyone's happy that they can see three members of one of the greatest bands of all time perform together. Mind you, this is only on REALLY special occasions.
Now let's look at Q+PR. A similar reformation of another of the world's finest rock bands BUT this reunion has tours and even a new album to look forward to and a lot of people on here and at QOL are up in arms about it. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions and I respect each and every one of your opinions as regarding the new tour.
But it's always really mystified me as to why Queen should receive such backlash for deciding to continue on and make music for the masses to enjoy with some fresh new material in there too.
Could anyone please help me solve this puzzle?
Sorry but I can't find a Q+PR bashing thread (shock shock horror horror) to post this in.
exactly... seems like nothing in the world can make a Queen fan happy... :S
only Freddie resurrecting maybe...
if they didn´t make a tour: complain
if they made a tour: complain
if thet didn´t make a new album: complain
is they make a new new new album: complain
if they tour without Fred: complain
and on and on...
GOD BLESS QUEEN + PAUL RODGERS.
only Freddie resurrecting maybe...
if they didn´t make a tour: complain
if they made a tour: complain
if thet didn´t make a new album: complain
is they make a new new new album: complain
if they tour without Fred: complain
and on and on...
GOD BLESS QUEEN + PAUL RODGERS.
"if they didn´t make a tour: complain"
Who did?
"if thet didn´t make a new album: complain"
Who did?
Who did?
"if thet didn´t make a new album: complain"
Who did?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry Vietinhoff wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"if they didn´t make a tour: complain"
Who did?
"if thet didn´t make a new album: complain"
Who did?[/QUOTE]
People didn't complain much, did they? I did see the odd person (shit, I was one of them) saying "I wish they'd do something".
It wasn't complaining, not compared to what one sees these days.
Who did?
"if thet didn´t make a new album: complain"
Who did?[/QUOTE]
People didn't complain much, did they? I did see the odd person (shit, I was one of them) saying "I wish they'd do something".
It wasn't complaining, not compared to what one sees these days.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Nathan wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Can someone please explain to me why this whole Q+PR thing is so controversial? Why do so many people hate it?
I mean, look at Led Zeppelin (or should that be Jimmy Page, Robert Plant and John Paul Jones?). When they reunited at Live Aid with Phil Collins and that other guy (Terry Thompson?) on drums, or when they've reunited occasionally with Jason Bonham taking up his father's place at the drums no one's complained. As a matter of fact, nearly everyone's happy that they can see three members of one of the greatest bands of all time perform together. Mind you, this is only on REALLY special occasions.
Now let's look at Q+PR. A similar reformation of another of the world's finest rock bands BUT this reunion has tours and even a new album to look forward to and a lot of people on here and at QOL are up in arms about it. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions and I respect each and every one of your opinions as regarding the new tour.
But it's always really mystified me as to why Queen should receive such backlash for deciding to continue on and make music for the masses to enjoy with some fresh new material in there too.
Could anyone please help me solve this puzzle?
Sorry but I can't find a Q+PR bashing thread (shock shock horror horror) to post this in.[/QUOTE]
Well.... I dunno.
It's not 'how many' of the original members are there. It's who you chop out.
The Who : They still have their songwriter (who also happens to be the master of doing brilliant things with very basic chords!), and their singer. Throw Ringo Starr's son on that, and "We've got a hit". Anyone who doesn't see at least a little Who-iness in that, is just a nitwit anyway, so don't talk to them.
Led Zeppelin : I don't know about these guys so much. Bonham is pretty irreplaceable... his son came to be pretty good on drums as years went by, but there just aren't that many reunions to speak of.
However; would the reunions have worked as well if it'd been Robert Plant who was dead?
It's not as simple as saying 'well THAT foursome toured with only 2 or 3 original members', because in some cases it might not work. But in some cases it does work. Hell, I think Oasis could tour without *any* of their original members (and an all new repertoire) and it'd be a vast improvement.
It really is about the personalities you chop out.... it might sound like a double standard, but with some combinations it works - some it doesn't. I'll get shot for saying this but I reckon Queen could've toured without John Deacon. On the other hand, what would a Beatles tour in the 90's be, without John Lennon???
Replacing members works better for bands where the music doesn't matter ; Oasis, Lynrd Skynrd.
To drift off for a moment... I think the justification for calling it Q+PR was flimsy, but morally acceptable. They were playing Queen songs, with Paul Rodgers as a singer. That works for me. However... I don't see how that extends to a new album. Not really Queen is it?
----
Can I just ask; wasn't this thread technically about the *sound* quality, comparing Queen gigs to Q+PR?
In which case, I'd say it'd be a no brainer.... surely the technology has gotten better. But I haven't been to either, so I can't say.
I mean, look at Led Zeppelin (or should that be Jimmy Page, Robert Plant and John Paul Jones?). When they reunited at Live Aid with Phil Collins and that other guy (Terry Thompson?) on drums, or when they've reunited occasionally with Jason Bonham taking up his father's place at the drums no one's complained. As a matter of fact, nearly everyone's happy that they can see three members of one of the greatest bands of all time perform together. Mind you, this is only on REALLY special occasions.
Now let's look at Q+PR. A similar reformation of another of the world's finest rock bands BUT this reunion has tours and even a new album to look forward to and a lot of people on here and at QOL are up in arms about it. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions and I respect each and every one of your opinions as regarding the new tour.
But it's always really mystified me as to why Queen should receive such backlash for deciding to continue on and make music for the masses to enjoy with some fresh new material in there too.
Could anyone please help me solve this puzzle?
Sorry but I can't find a Q+PR bashing thread (shock shock horror horror) to post this in.[/QUOTE]
Well.... I dunno.
It's not 'how many' of the original members are there. It's who you chop out.
The Who : They still have their songwriter (who also happens to be the master of doing brilliant things with very basic chords!), and their singer. Throw Ringo Starr's son on that, and "We've got a hit". Anyone who doesn't see at least a little Who-iness in that, is just a nitwit anyway, so don't talk to them.
Led Zeppelin : I don't know about these guys so much. Bonham is pretty irreplaceable... his son came to be pretty good on drums as years went by, but there just aren't that many reunions to speak of.
However; would the reunions have worked as well if it'd been Robert Plant who was dead?
It's not as simple as saying 'well THAT foursome toured with only 2 or 3 original members', because in some cases it might not work. But in some cases it does work. Hell, I think Oasis could tour without *any* of their original members (and an all new repertoire) and it'd be a vast improvement.
It really is about the personalities you chop out.... it might sound like a double standard, but with some combinations it works - some it doesn't. I'll get shot for saying this but I reckon Queen could've toured without John Deacon. On the other hand, what would a Beatles tour in the 90's be, without John Lennon???
Replacing members works better for bands where the music doesn't matter ; Oasis, Lynrd Skynrd.
To drift off for a moment... I think the justification for calling it Q+PR was flimsy, but morally acceptable. They were playing Queen songs, with Paul Rodgers as a singer. That works for me. However... I don't see how that extends to a new album. Not really Queen is it?
----
Can I just ask; wasn't this thread technically about the *sound* quality, comparing Queen gigs to Q+PR?
In which case, I'd say it'd be a no brainer.... surely the technology has gotten better. But I haven't been to either, so I can't say.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]masterstroke_84 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]a question for the people who have the honour to see both shows:
In terms of SOUND QUALITY, wich one was better?...
P.[/QUOTE]
Technology, whether digital or analog... does it realy matter? My new hearing aid works digital anyway... so, that´s an easy one to answer!!!
Queen in the seventies sounded way better to me than nowadays... keep in mind it was "state of the art" live sound technology they used way back then.
Just listen to BoRhap in, let´s say, 1986 and compare it with 2005/2006! What a difference!!!
PS: ...even "All Right Now" sounded better to me when Fred used to sing it on stage in 1978! ;-)
...just talked to Trip and he confirmed! There´s no way colouring the hair if it turns grey...
...just get used to it!!!
BUT AT LEAST HAVE FUN... :-)
...4 more to go till eternity guys!!!
In terms of SOUND QUALITY, wich one was better?...
P.[/QUOTE]
Technology, whether digital or analog... does it realy matter? My new hearing aid works digital anyway... so, that´s an easy one to answer!!!
Queen in the seventies sounded way better to me than nowadays... keep in mind it was "state of the art" live sound technology they used way back then.
Just listen to BoRhap in, let´s say, 1986 and compare it with 2005/2006! What a difference!!!
PS: ...even "All Right Now" sounded better to me when Fred used to sing it on stage in 1978! ;-)
...just talked to Trip and he confirmed! There´s no way colouring the hair if it turns grey...
...just get used to it!!!
BUT AT LEAST HAVE FUN... :-)
...4 more to go till eternity guys!!!