I need answers

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 think it's different because Bonham wasn't the frontman. Lots of bands have replaced random members without too much hassle (plus Zep hardly ever did anything).

Better examples would be

AC/DC (many fans see them as two bands - Bon & Brian)
INXS (God knows how the hardcore felt about a reality TV show)
The Doors (I don't think Ian Astbury is taken seriously as the new face of The Doors)

I'd throw the challenge back at you - name a band who replaced a dead lead singer and DIDN'T get whining from fans....

So why the hatred for the replacement members? The bands are still producing fresh, exciting new music aren't they?

I used to reckon Black Sabbath without Ozzy Osbourne (and later on Bill Ward/Geezer Butler too) was not Black Sabbath, until I gave the other line-ups a chance and realised that there was plenty of great music I until then didn't have a particular interest in exploring.

So, back to the point, is all this Q+PR "hatred" (obviously not everyone's going to like it, I despised the very idea when it first came to be) basically a refusal to accept change?

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Penetration_Guru wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
The Doors (I don't think Ian Astbury is taken seriously as the new face of The Doors)[/QUOTE]

Sensible people don't take Ray Manzerek serious either. In other words: it's not the one guy, it's the entire effort that's ridiculous.

Because Freddie is irreplaceable dear,he was the ultimate performer.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Vilatrista wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Because Freddie is irreplaceable dear,he was the ultimate performer. [/QUOTE]

And how many times did Brian, Roger, and even Paul make it completely clear that Paul is NOT replacing Freddie?

Basically people don't like Paul Rogers because they think he is trying to take Freddie's place in Queen (which by the way he can never do anyway).

Look, I don't have anything against Queen touring and working again. But I simply think Paul Rodgers is not the right man. They become different band under his influence. That's what I hate. Personally, I would be very very happy if Queen continued but just like three of them. And maybe Spike Edney. That means :John, Brian and Roger. No Paul Rodgers, no Danny Miranda, no Jamie Moses...That's completely another band...

It's very simple:

No Freddie + No John = No Queen.

And there you have it.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]boca wrote: [/QUOTENAME]But I simply think Paul Rodgers is not the right man. They become different band under his influence.[/QUOTE]

What's wrong if Queen try yet another direction? Compare Queen II to News Of The World or Hot Space. The Q+PR sound is no bigger of a shift in direction.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sharon G.Queen Fan wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It's very simple:

No Freddie + No John = No Queen.

And there you have it.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for solving that argument. You came in at the exact right time, and showed us all.

But more seriously... If Pink Floyd can be Pink Floyd without Barrett and Waters, if Chicago can be Chicago without Kath and Cetera, Deep Purple can be Deep Purple without Gillan (and now without Blackmore), and Black Sabbath can be Black Sabbath without Ozzy... then Queen can be Queen without Freddie Mercury. Take your "Freddie blinders" off for a moment and look at all the other bands that remained successful without their main men. Maybe for once you can argue against someone's logic instead of repeating yourself with the same mindless rhetoric over and over again. Nobody with decent enough debating skills will take you seriously until then.

True that, Sir GH!

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Vilatrista wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Because Freddie is irreplaceable dear,he was the ultimate performer. [/QUOTE]

And how many times did Brian, Roger, and even Paul make it completely clear that Paul is NOT replacing Freddie?
[/QUOTE]

1972-1991 Queen= Freddie,Roger,Brian,John
1992-1997 Queen= Roger,Brian,John
1997-2004 Queen= Roger,Brian
2004-???? Queen= Roger,Brian,Paul

1992-2004 With a guest singer

Because there are people who think in a bad way and people who think in a good way...But everybody thinks he thinks in the good way...as me :-)

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Vilatrista wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Because Freddie is irreplaceable dear,he was the ultimate performer. [/QUOTE]

It's remarks like this that make me wonder:
Have you ever ventured outside your barn?

[QUOTE]I need answers[/QUOTE]

I need to get laid, but I don't get that either.

My point is: life isn't always fair.