[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]dobo wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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[/QUOTE]
Interesting remarks. Pink Floyd's compilation Echoes has something like that. It says something like:
Pink Floyd is:
-Syd Barret, Roger Waters, Richard Wright and Nick Mason on tracks...
-Syd Barret, Roger Waters, David Gilmour, Richard Wright and Nick Mason on track...
-Roger Waters, David Gilmour, Richard Wright and Nick Mason on tracks...
-Roger Waters, David Gilmour and Nick Mason on tracks...
-David Gilmour, Richard Wright and Nick Mason on tracks...
5 different formations with 5 band members and it's always Floyd. This case has been brought up before and I wouldn't want to make an issue about it once again.
I don't know if there are Floyd fans that repeat over and over again "Pink Floyd RIP 1968" or "Pink Floyd RIP 1983", when each so called key member left the band.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
It's a combination of 4 groups of people:
1.) Ignorant cynics who have the idea that Freddie carried the other's on his shoulder's and that using the Queen name is a couple of minor guys capitolizing on the name of the major guy. Kind of like the surviving Hendrix group calling themselves the Jimi Hendrix Experience + Slash almost. Freddie's great songs, particularly Bo Rhap, his amazing voice and piano, and above all his gargantuan level of charisma and superstar presence has led the 'Freddie is Queen' inaccurate assumptions.
2.) Whinney Queen fans who either dislike Paul Rodgers, or are still bitter that George Michael or someone else whom they would prefer to front Queen, wasn't picked instead.
3.) These gimpish retards who can apparently read and write, in spite of their having brains limited enough to actually think that this can somehow, someway tarnish the career and legacy of Freddie Mercury. These same post-labotomy patients were the ones slamming Michael Jordan for returning at age 39 to the game he loves, playing for the bottom dwelling Washington Wizards. They view his 2 playoff-missing seasons as a stain on his career, while what I noticed was that he turned 40 one day, the next evening he became the first player over 40 years old to score 40 or more in a basketball game(he scored 42, and had a few more 40 + games after if I remember correctly).
4.) Last but not least, the people whose only real problem is using the Queen name. Some view it as a disrespect almost to themselves to not acknowledge their fresh, creative 2006 group paradigm with an original new band name to represent original new music from an altered source.
I see it this way:
Is it disrespectful to use Queen's name in this? Of course not. They are playing Queen music, half of Queen is involved, and while Axl Rose is about to release a new Guns N'Roses album featuring Axl returning on Vocals, and everyone else replaced by all new, different people, Queen is acknowledging their change with an attached + Paul Rogers to it.
Are Queen capitalizing on their name? Yes, but why should they not? A) It communicates a presence and combination of mutiple members of Queen. B) True, it might mislead those who don't know better that John Deacon is involved since he is a member of Queen, but with Freddie dead, it should go without saying or concern that the Queen name today cannot factor in a living Freddie Mercury. So what's the problem there? C)And if Queen get a couple million pounds more overall than they would without drawing on the Queen name.... WELL BAD ASS!!! I hope they make Ruper Murdoch look poverty strickent by comparison of their wealth. Nobody, and I mean, NOBODY in the entertainment industry deserves flowing rivers of money than Queen's members, in my opinion at least.
1.) Ignorant cynics who have the idea that Freddie carried the other's on his shoulder's and that using the Queen name is a couple of minor guys capitolizing on the name of the major guy. Kind of like the surviving Hendrix group calling themselves the Jimi Hendrix Experience + Slash almost. Freddie's great songs, particularly Bo Rhap, his amazing voice and piano, and above all his gargantuan level of charisma and superstar presence has led the 'Freddie is Queen' inaccurate assumptions.
2.) Whinney Queen fans who either dislike Paul Rodgers, or are still bitter that George Michael or someone else whom they would prefer to front Queen, wasn't picked instead.
3.) These gimpish retards who can apparently read and write, in spite of their having brains limited enough to actually think that this can somehow, someway tarnish the career and legacy of Freddie Mercury. These same post-labotomy patients were the ones slamming Michael Jordan for returning at age 39 to the game he loves, playing for the bottom dwelling Washington Wizards. They view his 2 playoff-missing seasons as a stain on his career, while what I noticed was that he turned 40 one day, the next evening he became the first player over 40 years old to score 40 or more in a basketball game(he scored 42, and had a few more 40 + games after if I remember correctly).
4.) Last but not least, the people whose only real problem is using the Queen name. Some view it as a disrespect almost to themselves to not acknowledge their fresh, creative 2006 group paradigm with an original new band name to represent original new music from an altered source.
I see it this way:
Is it disrespectful to use Queen's name in this? Of course not. They are playing Queen music, half of Queen is involved, and while Axl Rose is about to release a new Guns N'Roses album featuring Axl returning on Vocals, and everyone else replaced by all new, different people, Queen is acknowledging their change with an attached + Paul Rogers to it.
Are Queen capitalizing on their name? Yes, but why should they not? A) It communicates a presence and combination of mutiple members of Queen. B) True, it might mislead those who don't know better that John Deacon is involved since he is a member of Queen, but with Freddie dead, it should go without saying or concern that the Queen name today cannot factor in a living Freddie Mercury. So what's the problem there? C)And if Queen get a couple million pounds more overall than they would without drawing on the Queen name.... WELL BAD ASS!!! I hope they make Ruper Murdoch look poverty strickent by comparison of their wealth. Nobody, and I mean, NOBODY in the entertainment industry deserves flowing rivers of money than Queen's members, in my opinion at least.
Excellent post, AmeriQueen. Three cheers for people with logic. Four for you.
Logic? Hell, I thought that was booted from here LONG ago.
It more or less was, but that was a damn good post AmeriQueen!! You said things that some of us just think of, but just don't for the sake of argument!! You got my vote...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][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.[/QUOTE]
Cheers to that!
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.[/QUOTE]
Cheers to that!
I can't believe that no-one has raised the massive repercussions of Kajagoogoo without Limahl...... (tonguer placed firmly in cheek)