BradJarre 09.10.2007 13:43 |
Hello what do you think of paul rodgers. i think its a good singer and he has got a nice voice. what he is doeing with queen right now is just astonishing i mean..they are in the studio working on an new album that is pretty cool. if they are gonna tour next year i am gonna be there and gonna film every song for a bout 1 minute and the entrance and im gonna put it on vcd an put it on youtube and share it on qz |
pittrek 09.10.2007 14:00 |
That man is simply said an excellent singer |
Sebastian 09.10.2007 14:11 |
I think he's an extraordinary singer and a brilliant musician. Thus, they should choose another name because it's a different band. |
BradJarre 09.10.2007 14:18 |
That is true,but they have one excuse:they perform with 2 queen members:P. |
PieterMC 09.10.2007 14:29 |
innuendo1990 wrote: if they are gonna tour next year i am gonna be there and gonna film every song for a bout 1 minute and the entrance and im gonna put it on vcd an put it on youtube and share it on qzGood for you. |
gem27 09.10.2007 14:46 |
i don't think he is an EXTRAORDINARY singer, i think that was Freddie. i don't know, he is ok but i really do find it hard to listen to the cd return of the champions just simply because it is a poor imitation to Freddie. i know he doesn't try to imitate Freddie but comparisons are inevitable as he is singing Queen songs. I don't like listening to the Queen + PR album but i do regret not going to see them live in 2005 when i had the chance. i wish i had seen Brian and Roger play live. i like the versions of Paul's songs on the album much more than the Queen songs. all right now and feels like makin love are great. to sum up i like him but don't like him singing Queen. |
Boy Thomas Raker 09.10.2007 14:51 |
Sebastian, did you see this on Brian's Saopbox, and if so, what do you think? Here is a message .... unprompted, from my friend Garik Israelian, the eminent astronomer. He is, strangely enough, an expert on Queen's music over the years (which is probably why we met), and also an expert on Genesis - a lifelong appreciator of their music. He was asked by E-mail, why we should call ourselves "Queen", these days ... and it made him angry!!! This is what he says ... "I never usually respond to these questions - but yesterday my cup of patience was full because somebody wrote me rather stupid e-mail and I collected all my energy to write a reply. In order to answer the question, I made a comparison with Genesis. When Phil left Genesis in 1996, Tony and Mike hired a new singer (Ray Wilson) and they came up with a new album called Calling All Stations, which was produced in 1997)!!! I was scared to hear this album - I did not know what I would find...and it was called GENESIS (without Phil or Peter). But I trusted Tony and Mike ... I knew that they would NOT abandon their style, technique... And I was 100 % right !!! When I heard this album I said "To Hell with all those stupid critics !! This is 100% Genesis !!! Even without Phil... it was Genesis and nothing else. The new singer was of course not Phil or Peter, but the songs were written for him, for his voice !!! So... Tony and Mike together were "Genesis" because they kept the spirit of the band !! Phil did NOT complain (neither did Peter). And who can say a WORD ?? These people are very intelligent, very strong and real musicians... The same is true with Queen... I think this is an excellent comparison ! I can bring up a similar example with Deeep Purple. In 1973 Gillan and Blackmore left the band, and in 1974 Purple came up with "Stormbringer" - a groundbreaking album - with David Coverdale. Stormbringer is one of the best Purple albums yet, made without their most famous members . Why ? Because, apparently, the spirit of the band was in John Lord and Roger Glover (and probably Ian Pace). I think people should distinguish rock bands from political parties. A Rock Band has a spirit - a style, a certain kind of lyrics, a strategy of live concerts, a unique musical taste and colour, a specific SOUND etc. The singer is NOT the most important member in the band (want examples ? Fleetwood Mac, Genesis, Yes...). I recall an interview with Phil Collins saying that he always thought that drummer is the most important member in the band ! And who can say "NO" ??? Certain musicans are scared to collaborate, to make experiments etc. Just like some scientists ! Some are not. I think a creative person will not stick to one line for many years... He/she MUST try different paths, open different doors. A 'closed' musican is musically 'dead'. I pay my deep respects to people like Peter Gabriel, Sting, Brian Eno, Tony Banks, Rick Wakeman ... musicians who are not scared of new ideas, challenges, tests ... and I hope Brian and Roger will keep collaborating with PR and other musicans in the future. Something new, fresh and healthy will come out from those projects !! Or you dont know who they are !!" cheers ! Garik Then Brian satated "It's interesting that, even prior to all this, Genesis had lost their original fabulous lead singer, Peter Gabriel, who had seemingly led the band in the early days (though this is probably a misconception, because most bands of lasting musical potency are democratic within their own creative world, from the start). In the early days of Prog Rock, who would have thought that Genesis could be Genesis without Peter? And yet, with Phil Collins quietly gliding into the spotlight as singer, Genesis achieved most of their historical worldwide success in the years following this split. I guess .... one rests one's case!" |
BradJarre 09.10.2007 14:57 |
Ive just listened to bohemian rhapsody live at sheffield on youtube. Fucking hell that last bit....NOTHING REALY MATTERS TO ME:fucking hell what a gr8 voice |
Sebastian 09.10.2007 15:34 |
Boy Thomas Raker, yes I did read it, but I keep my opinion: some bands work like football teams, others don't. And IMO, Led Zeppelin, Queen and The Beatles are some of these. Fred + Roger wouldn't be Queen Fred + Brian wouldn't be Queen (e.g. at Live Aid) Fred + John wouldn't be Queen John + Roger wouldn't be Queen John + Brian wouldn't be Queen ...and of course... Brian + Roger aren't Queen Having said that, I do think Paul is astonishing and I love the sound of the three of them (plus Spike, plus Jamie, plus Danny) live, and I'm sure whatever they're doing in the studio must be marvellous. After all, the three of them are brilliant musicians and extraordinary performers. |
Ms. Rebel 09.10.2007 16:30 |
gem27 wrote: i don't think he is an EXTRAORDINARY singer, i think that was Freddie. i don't know, he is ok but i really do find it hard to listen to the cd return of the champions just simply because it is a poor imitation to Freddie. i know he doesn't try to imitate Freddie but comparisons are inevitable as he is singing Queen songs. I don't like listening to the Queen + PR album but i do regret not going to see them live in 2005 when i had the chance. i wish i had seen Brian and Roger play live. i like the versions of Paul's songs on the album much more than the Queen songs. all right now and feels like makin love are great. to sum up i like him but don't like him singing Queen.Totally agree. |
The Real Wizard 09.10.2007 16:31 |
innuendo1990 wrote: Ive just listened to bohemian rhapsody live at sheffield on youtube. Fucking hell that last bit....NOTHING REALY MATTERS TO ME:fucking hell what a gr8 voiceAgreed! That was my favourite moment of the show when I saw them. |
its_a_hard_life 26994 09.10.2007 16:32 |
Lets just say I'm excited to get as many London tickets as possible when they tour! :D |
louvox 09.10.2007 16:55 |
Sebastian wrote: I think he's an extraordinary singer and a brilliant musician. Thus, they should choose another name because it's a different band.I agree. Queen died along with Freddie. They probably won't pick a new name because of the recognition factor. Plus it just makes a complete farce of thier past. Paul Rodgers is overrated in my opinion as a singer. I think Roger or Brian are better singers than him. |
FriedChicken 09.10.2007 17:27 |
One of the best live singers the planet has ever seen. And it's the best thing that could've happened to Queen after Freddie died. I couldn't think of another singer who could perform the Queen material in a way that does justice to the songs. They found pure gold, and I hope they realise it. |
Mr Mercury 09.10.2007 17:29 |
I was surpised when I heard he was gonna be doing the singing for Queen, initially anyway. When I first heard about this, my first thought was how this was gonna work - he's more of a blues/soul singer, whereas Queen are (thanks mainly to Brian) are a rock band. I dont think that his voice suits every song that they did live and by that I mean songs like "Break Free". Somehow for me it just doesnt quite work, but hey, he enjoyed doing it and no doubt other people enjoyed him doing it as well. But for every "Break Free" there is, for me at least, a "Champions" and the way that Paul put more of a bluesy feel to it. I loved what he did there on that song. |
brian-harold-may 26643 09.10.2007 17:35 |
Personally i think he is a fantastic singer, and he deserves alot more recognition than he is getting. However, i am surprised at the responses here, maybe people are growing up. anyway, i still think brian and roger could have sung themselves, and i always thought that, but i also love them working wiht Rodgers. but i do think they could have held it themselves. |
Russian Headlong 09.10.2007 17:59 |
Brilliant. A Legend. |
dobo 09.10.2007 18:08 |
The man is a living legend and if it wasn't for him there would of been no tour in 2005/06 and no new album in 08 |
its_a_hard_life 26994 09.10.2007 18:20 |
Wow, no offense, but I haven't seen so much positive feedback on Paul Rodgers on this forum before...!!! :) Maybe I shouldn't speak too soon.... :P |
Dusta 09.10.2007 18:56 |
I'm not certain I know just where I weigh in on the Queen vs Paul Rodgers with Queen thing, but, I will say that, before he joined Queen, I loved Mr Rodgers, and, he was one of my favorite singers. Now, I find myself feeling some resentment toward him, which, of course, is highly irrational. That being said, I think the comparisons drawn below, by Mr Israelian, are somewhat weak, and, do not really relate to Queen. Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Sebastian, did you see this on Brian's Saopbox, and if so, what do you think? |
Mr Faron Hyte 09.10.2007 21:07 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: One of the best live singers the planet has ever seen. And it's the best thing that could've happened to Queen after Freddie died. I couldn't think of another singer who could perform the Queen material in a way that does justice to the songs. They found pure gold, and I hope they realise it.Completely agree. |
MercuryArts 09.10.2007 23:18 |
louvox wrote: Paul Rodgers is overrated in my opinion as a singer. I think Roger or Brian are better singers than him. Umm, no they're not. They're good, but not that good. |
kenny8 09.10.2007 23:38 |
I like Rodgers, he's perfect for Free and Bad Company, but a terrible fit as a frontman for Queen. The Genesis comparison is interesting, let's see if Queen go onto even greater success with Rodgers than they enjoyed with Freddie like Genesis did with Collins........and who replaced Gabriel?? Oh, their drummer.....wake up Brian! Brian was the guy who used to believe that Queen without Freddie couldn't exist and this about face does nothing to help their credibility. Freddie was unique in so many ways and so influential within Queen that the comparisons to other lead singers aren't worthy. As the cult of Freddie continues to spread throughout the mass media, as people realise how much he IS missed, a new album by "Queen" without him looks set to receive a hostile reception. |
freddielives 25469 10.10.2007 00:02 |
weird, i thought i was back in 2004 for a second...honestly, the man is a ridiculously talented musician. he's also one of the nicest people i have ever met, having done so twice. he exudes an energy and passion that are unseen today, which is why i love him as the frontman for Queen. i don't even know how many people i have had the whole "they shouldn't call themselves Queen" argument with, but the fact that he goes out there with no pretense and does what he loves with the utmost respect for these songs is enough for me. he's an amazing singer and person. |
Dusta 10.10.2007 00:04 |
Also, how long were each of these bands together, before losing their band members? And, how much global popularity had each of them enjoyed, before the change?
And, there is also the manner in which the member left the band.
I am not seeing, in any of the examples layed out for us, a band that had been together for as many years as Queen, nor, enjoyed the kind of popularity Queen enjoyed, with a band member so widely known, and, so considered a central part of Queen, who died in such a tragic way...
Parallels drawn do not seeem, really, as parallel as Mr Garik intended.
I do think that Mr Rodgers is wonderful singer, and, perhaps a great fit with Brian and Roger, for NEW MATERIAL, just not under the name Queen.
kenny8 wrote: I like Rodgers, he's perfect for Free and Bad Company, but a terrible fit as a frontman for Queen. The Genesis comparison is interesting, let's see if Queen go onto even greater success with Rodgers than they enjoyed with Freddie like Genesis did with Collins........and who replaced Gabriel?? Oh, their drummer.....wake up Brian! Brian was the guy who used to believe that Queen without Freddie couldn't exist and this about face does nothing to help their credibility. Freddie was unique in so many ways and so influential within Queen that the comparisons to other lead singers aren't worthy. As the cult of Freddie continues to spread throughout the mass media, as people realise how much he IS missed, a new album by "Queen" without him looks set to receive a hostile reception. |
Serry... 10.10.2007 00:22 |
I prefer to think about girls than about old men. |
kenny8 10.10.2007 02:01 |
freddielives wrote: weird, i thought i was back in 2004 for a second...honestly, the man is a ridiculously talented musician. he's also one of the nicest people i have ever met, having done so twice. he exudes an energy and passion that are unseen today, which is why i love him as the frontman for QueenSure, he's a great bloke, nobody is suggesting otherwise. He's just not unique to Queen and entwined and identifiable as the front man Freddie was. Freddie Mercury is unreplaceable. In fact, how many bands does Rodgers front? This is not Queen, but rather a couple of guys from Queen with the guy from Bad Company. Completely different scenario than the Genesis type comparisons. |
kenny8 10.10.2007 02:14 |
Dusta wrote:I can bring up a similar example with Deeep Purple. In 1973 Gillan and Blackmore left the band, and in 1974 Purple came up with "Stormbringer" - a groundbreaking album - with David Coverdale. Stormbringer is one of the best Purple albums yet, made without their most famous members . Why ? Because, apparently, the spirit of the band was in John Lord and Roger Glover (and probably Ian Pace).If the spirit of Queen lay in Taylor & May they wouldn't have achieved the success they did. They themselves used to admit that. I have the utmost respect for those guys, but you'd have to be naive to believe they could've replaced Fred whilst he was alive and come up with a groundbreaking album without him. Especially if Freddie was elsewhere doing his own thing. Freddie's influence on Queen is undeniable. He's what, more than the other sum of the parts as great as they were, made the band unique from every angle. Rodger's recent statement about wanting to record a song about meditation displays his total lack of understanding about what Queen were. The recent nostalgia tour also displayed Rodger's lack of a sense of humour, showmanship and theatrics as a front man. |
Holly2003 10.10.2007 04:16 |
Firstly, they can call themselves what they like becasue they ahve earned that right. the meanderings of a bunch of noboides on an internet forum is hardly likely to change their minds. 'Queen + Paul Rodgers' is much better covering Rodgers' old hits than it is covering Queen's. Having said that, I was pleasantly surprised at how good the 'Return of the Champions' DVD was. The spectacle is still there, as is the performance, but it doesn't always feel like a 'Queen' performance. As for Rodgers' voice, he is more of a growler these days compared to his youth. Not particularly fond of it, but that's just a personal opinion. Klaus Meine would've been my choice -- hits the high notes better and is a better showman -- but I guess 'Queen + Klaus Meine' doesn't have quite the same ring as the Queen/Rodgers thing. I think May/Taylor wanted someone 'big', with his own respected back catalogue so they could easily defend what they were doing. |
August R. 10.10.2007 05:01 |
kenny8 wrote: As the cult of Freddie continues to spread throughout the mass media, as people realise how much he IS missed, a new album by "Queen" without him looks set to receive a hostile reception.Sure, this new album will be an easy target for critics. No matter how good (or bad) the album is going to be, people will compare it to old Queen albums... And only because Bri & Rog want to use the name Queen. Personally, I don't care what they call themselves, it's the music that counts. But I think many people (general rock audience) will be having difficulties trying to figure out what this supergroup has to do with Queen. There's no Freddie.. I think QPR is a new band and all this talk about the "spirit of the band" -especially coming from a mouth of a trained natural scientist- is just sad. I really can't tell who it is Brian is trying to convince here.. Anyway, Paul is simply magnificient. Great voice, and a good frontman for the band. |
kenny8 10.10.2007 05:33 |
August R. wrote: But I think many people (general rock audience) will be having difficulties trying to figure out what this supergroup has to do with Queen. There's no Freddie..Yes, and that's what I'm worried about. That and what the general public think of the idea of still calling themselves Queen. We're all fans here. Someone on here can probably reel off Roger's shoe size and the brand of perm lotion Brian uses......but the fact remains that as far as the general public are concerned, when they hear the name Queen they think of Freddie. |
saltnvinegar 10.10.2007 06:57 |
I think it's a little strange and somewhat sad that Brian is now using quotes from 'eminent astronomers' (since when were they the leading expert on all things musical?)to justify and promote the current line-up. He's obviously annoyed that the Q+PR combo hasn't brought quite the support and overall approval he was hoping for. It also seems to me that the more people compare Q+PR to original Queen, the more subtly resentful Brian gets towards Freddie and that is disappointing. As for Paul, like others have said, he has a powerful voice suited well to his area of music. He does seem to rely on throwing out big notes at top volume to cover up his general lack of natural charisma and presence. I can't quite explain it but when I saw Q+PR, Rodgers was professional, hard-working yet somehow underwhelming. Maybe that's what Brian and Roger wanted, someone to front the band but not to steal the limelight away from the music. |
BradJarre 10.10.2007 07:50 |
IS there any information about a new tour in 08? And the album? |
Micrówave 10.10.2007 12:19 |
This thread's GREATEST HITS:
innuendo1990 wrote: i think its a good singerYes, it is. louvox wrote: Paul Rodgers is overrated in my opinion as a singer. I think Roger or Brian are better singers than him.So does everybody. We're just trying to make Freddie and Paul not feel so useless. By the way, I think John is UNDERrated while we're at it. Dusta wrote: I loved Mr RodgersMe too, especially when the little red trolley would come out kenny8 wrote: As the cult of Freddie continues to spread throughout the mass mediaLike a fungus that won't die. kenny8 also wrote: The recent nostalgia tour also displayed Rodger's lack of a sense of humourYes, Wierd Al would be a much better choice for a frontman. Or maybe Sam Kinison. Oh, whoops. |
Dusta 10.10.2007 16:07 |
Ha!
Damn...I loved that little trolley, too. And, the King and Queen that appeared at the other end of the tunnel the Trolley went through!
Okay...I admit I felt odd calling Paul Rodgers, "Paul," since I don't know him...sometimes, it seems a bit surreal to me, to be speaking of Brian, and, Freddie, and, Roger and John, as if I have been properly introduced, and, run into them, regularly, at church...
and, well, I am old enough to have, just for a moment, forgotten the Mr Rogers with the sneakers and sweaters.Micrówave wrote: This thread's GREATEST HITS:Dusta wrote: I loved Mr RodgersMe too, especially when the little red trolley would come out |
bill_lbk 10.10.2007 18:35 |
I love Paul, I first saw him in Manchester in about 1993, not too sure of the year, but on his Muddy Water Blues tour. Me & my mate were by far the youngest people there, but the gig was fantastic. I saw him with Brian at the Gibson do at Wembley a couple of parts of which were fab, Brian bit mainly I suppose. I was also at the UK hall of fame do, where I thought he did ok singing Queen songs. At Brixton he just seemed amazed us singing all the words (many of which he struggled with!). When the Q+PR tour got back to the UK he was in his stride, but I just prefer him doing more bluesy stuff and I find his performance a little to sort of cheesey for queen's theatrics. I think the new album will undoubtedly be interesting, I just wish Brian & Roger would use more people as vocalist if thats what they want to do. After seeing many dates of Brian solo, Roger solo and The Cross (the best they really did was Brian playing with the cross), I would rather see a Queen tour with only Brian & Roger singing. But at least we didn't have a tour with Robbie, forget about how good or bad he might have been, he was just too popular! We would have struggled to get tickets and the screaming teenagers wouldn't be singing the queen songs. |
kenny8 10.10.2007 21:34 |
Micrówave wrote: This thread's GREATEST HITS:Freddie had one of the best senses of humour in rock....nobody was suggestin a comedian for the job, only someone who fails to understand Queen would do thatkenny8 also wrote: The recent nostalgia tour also displayed Rodger's lack of a sense of humourYes, Wierd Al would be a much better choice for a frontman. Or maybe Sam Kinison. Oh, whoops. |
kenny8 10.10.2007 21:38 |
bill_lbk wrote: But at least we didn't have a tour with Robbie, forget about how good or bad he might have been, he was just too popular! We would have struggled to get tickets and the screaming teenagers wouldn't be singing the queen songs.You mean they would have a contempory relevance and an audience of screaming teenagers.....just like the old days?? God forbid Can you imagine it? Sorry Freddie you've built a rabid fan base and Wembley is going to be full of screaming young people. You'll have to go. We're replacing you with some old fart |
kenny8 10.10.2007 21:40 |
saltnvinegar wrote: It also seems to me that the more people compare Q+PR to original Queen, the more subtly resentful Brian gets towards Freddie and that is disappointing.That's one of the most insightful things I've read here. As great a muso as Brian is, it must be hard living in someone's shadow. |
Boy Thomas Raker 10.10.2007 21:49 |
I sent this to Brian's e-mail, and was truly hoping that he'd respond to it on his Soapbox. Given that a week has gone by and the Letters section has been updated a few times, I'm sensing that a response may not be forthcoming, so I'll post it here. For the record, I think Brian is a fabulous musician and a wonderful human being, and I totally respect him and his position on the band name, and hope that my points were valid and well thought out. So, with only pleasntries edited out for brevity's sake... "Re: Garik's thoughts on a band's name, and its importance. As I'm sure you're aware, "who" Queen are, is a major point of contention amongst the fans. I'm a 30+ year follower of the band, and without malice, I'd like you to see the other side of the coin, and maybe sum up what the "it's not Queen without Freddie" camp thinks. I don't sense that the fan's who have a dissenting opinion has anything to do with Paul Rodgers or the fact that he is the lead singer. Unless they're narrow minded, very few people who disapprove of the Queen name being used want you and Roger to stop making music. It has to do with the fact that Queen is not Genesis, Deep Purple, or any other band that has made a line-up change (and virtually all of the bands listed when people use the "new singer" argument were early in their careers and had no choice but to go on. Neither Genesis nor AC/DC had any sales success to speak of, so that can't be compared to a group who was 20 years into their career and financially and creatively established.) For Queen fans, and many historians, in the pantheon of rock music, Queen's musical legacy exceeds all but the Beatles, and as your friend Patti Lupone said, Queen were "a genre unto themselves." That's why people are uneasy with you going on with the name. Queen music was four unique musicans who created an absolutely unique style, Freddie was a huge part of that, and obviously people are passionate about this. In 1986, you did an interview with Guitar for the Practicing Musician for a segment called "In the Listening Room." The first track you critiqued was "Let's turn it on" from Freddie's Mr. Bad Guy album. You used the word "hurt" to describe how Freddie used Paul Vincent to basically play a Brian May harmony part, and commented that while Paul was a great player in his own right, if Freddie wanted your sound he should have used you for the album. Well, if you were no longer in Queen, and Paul Vincent stepped in, that wouldn't be Queen for many peole despite the fact that he successfully replicated your tone and style. They could use the name, but to many people, without Brian May (or Roger, John or Freddie), it wouldn't be Queen. Same thing if you had left the band at any time, and guitar gods like EVH, The Edge or Eric Clapton became the new Queen guitarist. Great players all, but not in the spirit of Queen. Eddie doing his "Eruption" solo in the middle of Brighton Rock may have been cool, it just wouldn't have been Queen, because your (and Roger, John and Freddie's) imprint on the Queen sound is why we love Queen. You've often commented on Freddie's unusual key choices, and his style of piano playing. That won't be replicated by Paul (and no one wants it to be), and again with all due respect, to many fans, Freddie's different chord choices and "oddball" songs like Black Queen, Mustapha and Leroy Brown were a big part of Queen's spirit, and what helped set your music apart. So it's not a Paul/Freddie, lead singer/face of the band thing, it's the fact that all of the original members are beloved and respected, and while new music can and hopefully will be made, for some folks it will be Queen, and others it won't be without any original member not involved. I apologize for the length of this, and as e-mail makes it hard to decipher a person's tone, I'm not an angry, cra |
Dusta 10.10.2007 22:17 |
I especially like the point you outlined in this section of the letter.Boy Thomas Raker wrote: "Re: Garik's thoughts on a band's name, and its importance. As I'm sure you're aware, "who" Queen are, is a major point of contention amongst the fans. I'm a 30+ year follower of the band, and without malice, I'd like you to see the other side of the coin, and maybe sum up what the "it's not Queen without Freddie" camp thinks. I don't sense that the fan's who have a dissenting opinion has anything to do with Paul Rodgers or the fact that he is the lead singer. Unless they're narrow minded, very few people who disapprove of the Queen name being used want you and Roger to stop making music. It has to do with the fact that Queen is not Genesis, Deep Purple, or any other band that has made a line-up change (and virtually all of the bands listed when people use the "new singer" argument were early in their careers and had no choice but to go on. Neither Genesis nor AC/DC had any sales success to speak of, so that can't be compared to a group who was 20 years into their career and financially and creatively established.) For Queen fans, and many historians, in the pantheon of rock music, Queen's musical legacy exceeds all but the Beatles, and as your friend Patti Lupone said, Queen were "a genre unto themselves." That's why people are uneasy with you going on with the name. Queen music was four unique musicans who created an absolutely unique style, Freddie was a huge part of that, and obviously people are passionate about this. " |
kenny8 10.10.2007 22:51 |
Great post, Boy Thomas Raker. I note with interest Brian's comments that he felt "hurt" that Fred didn't use him on Mr Bad Guy. Did Fred ever feel overlooked by not contributing vocals to Starfleet? It's been stated by Brian that Freddie apparently urged him to release his VERY Queen sounding solo album at the time he did. I know the comment was made in 1986, but Brian would go on to re-record Freddie's solo material as "Queen" anyway, which surely would go some way in reducing his "hurt" ....and what of a Freddie solo song, "I Was Born To Love You" being played live by "Queen"+Rodgers?? It's starting to make my head spin....but if Fred's solo compositions were good enough to be called Queen......... |
BradJarre 11.10.2007 05:15 |
What is paul,s vocal range? he has got a lot of power in his voice i know that but what the hell is his range a lot of songs like i want it all are realy screamy. |
Anthony** 11.10.2007 05:29 |
well without him we wouldnt be hearing live queen music ever again would we!! |
BradJarre 11.10.2007 05:33 |
Yeah that is true. i am defanitly going to queen&pr 2008 |
Treasure Moment 11.10.2007 10:52 |
he definetly doesnt fit in with queen music, way wrong |
Micrówave 11.10.2007 11:12 |
Treasure Moment wrote: he definetly doesnt fit in with queen music, way wrongThis, from the resident Queen expert. Maybe they should dig up the guy from Europe and see if he can do it. I think his name was Klaus or Bjorn or something... |
steven 35638 11.10.2007 11:13 |
Paul Rodgers doesn't need to fit in with Queen's music. For as long as I can remember Queen have always experimented with different styles of music. Such as vaudeville, country, opera, glam rock, folk, latin, heavy metal, and the list goes on. So how is this any different? Paul Rodgers is of the 'blues/rock' categorization. This has been yet another step towards diversity in, dare I say, 'Queen's' career. I shun all those whom look upon Queen at this stage in their career and dislike them for it. Queen have neither changed or degraded their legacy. They're expanding their horizons along with upsetting fans, oh my, there's a shocker! Need I remind you all of when Hot Space came out? I think you know what I'm talking about. |
Benn 11.10.2007 11:16 |
Boy Thomas Raker, Re your letter to Brian. You will find that it's a very rare beast, the "star" who openly publishes negative fan reactions, ragardless of whether they are reacting in a constructive manner or not. The gatekeeper (Jen Tunney) has either been instructed to or has singularly chosen to not let Brian see ANYTHING that is not 100% positive. Hence you see Brian replying to letters people send about their dogs wearing Queen t-shirts etc and how wonderful zodiacal light is. Don't hold your breath for even an acknowledgement of the fact that you've sent a letter to him. But, if you were to tell him that you saw a message in the zodiacal light which told you to go and see the WWRY musical and that you now think it's the best musical in the world, I'm sure you'll see it posted.......... |
Boy Thomas Raker 11.10.2007 12:20 |
I agree 100% with you Benn. And again, I was interested in Brian's thoughts because I think that my views and those of scores of fans are pretty moderate, meaning people who'd like to see new music from Brian and Roger, and have no issues with Paul Rodgers as singer or front man. When Garik states "I think a creative person will not stick to one line for many years... He/she MUST try different paths, open different doors. I pay my deep respects to...musicians who are not scared of new ideas, challenges, tests", he's making an argument FOR Brian and Roger to try something new, outside of the safety of the Queen umbrella. Because there is nothing easier than having a fan base that is established. If Brian truly believes that they're making a new chapter, why wouldn't you choose a new name? The bottom line for me is that Queen were four people, who created a unique catalog due to the input from all four. For others, it could be a revolving door of musicians from this point forward. I look at it this way. Brian May is a better guitarist than John Lennon and George Harrison combined, but if Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr got Brian and Nuno Bettencourt, my favourite two musicians ever, to take the guitar spots of George and John on tour next year, it sure as hell wouldn't be the Beatles, and there wouldn't be a soul on god's green earth who'd call that lineup the Beatles. |
Micrówave 11.10.2007 12:54 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Brian May is a better guitarist than John Lennon and George Harrison combinedwhoa.... slow down there partner. |
Boy Thomas Raker 11.10.2007 13:46 |
Microwave, you can't really believe that either of them are in Brina's league as players, do you? |
deleted user 11.10.2007 13:50 |
<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: Paul Rodgers doesn't need to fit in with Queen's music. For as long as I can remember Queen have always experimented with different styles of music. Such as vaudeville, country, opera, glam rock, folk, latin, heavy metal, and the list goes on. So how is this any different? Paul Rodgers is of the 'blues/rock' categorization. This has been yet another step towards diversity in, dare I say, 'Queen's' career. I shun all those whom look upon Queen at this stage in their career and dislike them for it. Queen have neither changed or degraded their legacy. They're expanding their horizons along with upsetting fans, oh my, there's a shocker! Need I remind you all of when Hot Space came out? I think you know what I'm talking about.I completely agree with you. Personally, I think Paul is doing very well. He has an excellent voice. As you and several people have posted before, he adds a blues-rock feel to Queen songs. Though no one can replace Freddie, I believe Brian and Roger have the right to keep making music, with whomever they wish. |
Dusta 11.10.2007 13:57 |
You certainly do have a point, there, and, I do feel a bit of a squirm for it.
<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: Paul Rodgers doesn't need to fit in with Queen's music. For as long as I can remember Queen have always experimented with different styles of music. Such as vaudeville, country, opera, glam rock, folk, latin, heavy metal, and the list goes on. So how is this any different? Paul Rodgers is of the 'blues/rock' categorization. This has been yet another step towards diversity in, dare I say, 'Queen's' career. I shun all those whom look upon Queen at this stage in their career and dislike them for it. Queen have neither changed or degraded their legacy. They're expanding their horizons along with upsetting fans, oh my, there's a shocker! Need I remind you all of when Hot Space came out? I think you know what I'm talking about. |
Micrówave 11.10.2007 16:01 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Microwave, you can't really believe that either of them are in Brina's league as players, do you?Are you kidding me? We're talking about history makers here. I don't believe I've ever heard John or George play chord style with the treble boosted so high it even makes Carlos say "Wow, that's high". So could John or George play the Bohemian solo better? Maybe not. But look at John's catalog with and after The Beatles. Find a song that Brian wrote that you could put in the same league as Imagine. You can't. Plus we heard Brian play Imagine recently. I'm sure he had some time to learn it and later rehearse it. No offense, but not even close. The Casino was a guitar that was pretty much tailored to John. As far as I know, only 1000 guitars were ever made tailored to Brian. I mean real guitars. Who copies Brian's licks? I mean besides Queen fans. John Lennon is on about page 3 or 4 in Guitar 101. Every guitar player has learned a Lennon tune. I don't think you could say the same for Brian. And George? Let's take a look at who cites him as an influence. Dylan. Hendrix. Petty. Vaughan. Robben Ford. Satriani. Vai. I don't think those guys put Brian in that same league either. Plus, I don't know if Brian can play a Sitar as well as George. Give me a song where Brian has recorded himself playing a Sitar. |
Boy Thomas Raker 11.10.2007 16:33 |
"Find a song that Brian wrote that you could put in the same league as Imagine. You can't." Not disputing their talents as writers. I think I can safely say Brian could easily play all of the Beatles catalogue, including Paul's stuff. I'd be shocked (especially now!), if John or George could play the solo from Dead on Time, It's Late or any of Brian's trickier stuff. That's not a knock against them, it's the fact that music changed and Brian was more of a hard rock guitarist than either of them. "Who copies Brian's licks?" Tons of people. No one copies his signature style because anybody who layers guitars (see Tom Scholtz of Boston) is immediately compared to Brian May. He's made his trademark HIS, something John and George never did. "And George? Let's take a look at who cites him as an influence. Dylan. Hendrix. Petty. Vaughan. Robben Ford. Satriani. Vai. I don't think those guys put Brian in that same league either." You're a fan so I know you know who Brian has influenced, including Kurt Cobain as seen on Brian's soapbox today. Different strokes for different folks, all great players, I just think that George and John couldn't play some of Brian's faster, rockier stuff as nothing in the Beatles catalogue or solo stuff shows that side of them. |
Sebastian 11.10.2007 17:18 |
Is Brian as good songwriter as John Lennon? No. Is Brian an important musical figure in the same league as John Lennon? No. Did Brian influence contemporary music as much as John Lennon? No. Is Brian a more respected/admired musician than John Lennon? No. Are Brian's lyrics as immortal as John Lennon's? No. Are Bran's tunes as frequently covered and practised as John Lennon's? No. Is Brian a better painter than John Lennon was? No. Is Brian a better harmonica player than John Lennon was? No. Was Brian's influence on Lennon bigger than Lennon's influence on May? No. BUT... ...none of the above statements contradict the following: Is Brian a much better guitarist than John Lennon? Yes. And we can make a similar one with George. Oh, and by the way: > We're talking about history makers here. Actually not: we're talking about who's a better guitarist. And in that case, only the ability to play guitar is what matters, not if they were/are geniuses at songwriting (which Lennon and Harrison obviously were), if they were influential, if their music is better known, etc. > Find a song that Brian wrote that you could put in the same league as Imagine. You can't. True, but irrelevant to this discussion. It's like defending John for his Scouser accent. > Every guitar player has learned a Lennon tune. I don't think you could say the same for Brian. True, but irrelevant. > And George? Let's take a look at who cites him as an influence. Dylan. Hendrix. Petty. Vaughan. Robben Ford. Satriani. Vai. I don't think those guys put Brian in that same league either. Probably true, but irrelevant. Hank Marvin was an influence for Brian, but Brian's obviously better (when it comes to guitar-playing). Likewise, IMO, Nuno's much better than Brian, although the latter influenced him and is one of his heroes. > Plus, I don't know if Brian can play a Sitar as well as George. True, but irrelevant. > Give me a song where Brian has recorded himself playing a Sitar. For that matter we could say "give me a song where George has recorded himself a multi-tracked choir like the one Brian did in 'Resurrection'", or "give me a song where George recorded a piano solo like the one in 'All Dead'". And again, it'd be irrelevant when it comes to comparing them as guitar players. |
teleman 11.10.2007 18:26 |
Sebastian wrote: For that matter we could say "give me a song where George has recorded himself a multi-tracked choir ...Not exactly a multi tracked choir but George recorded a nice multi tracked slide guitar part in Give Me Love(Give Me Peace on Earth) I give George a nod over Brian as a slide guitar player. Over all they are so drastically different and I hate comparing musicians like it is a quantifiable competition. As for the original topic. I like Paul Rodgers and think he does a fine job on many Queen songs as well as being very good in his own catalogue. |
Sebastian 11.10.2007 18:34 |
Yes, indeed George was much better at slide. Quite an underrated singer too. |
Treasure Moment 11.10.2007 19:50 |
<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: Paul Rodgers doesn't need to fit in with Queen's music. For as long as I can remember Queen have always experimented with different styles of music. Such as vaudeville, country, opera, glam rock, folk, latin, heavy metal, and the list goes on. So how is this any different? Paul Rodgers is of the 'blues/rock' categorization. This has been yet another step towards diversity in, dare I say, 'Queen's' career. I shun all those whom look upon Queen at this stage in their career and dislike them for it. Queen have neither changed or degraded their legacy. They're expanding their horizons along with upsetting fans, oh my, there's a shocker! Need I remind you all of when Hot Space came out? I think you know what I'm talking about.paul rodgers way of singing just doesnt fit in, he doesnt sing in time, he sings odd time, dont know how to explain it but it just doesnt fit in. Besides, there is no queen without freddie,thats impossible, they should just do some other project coz no one sees this as queen anyways |
brian-harold-may 26643 11.10.2007 19:59 |
|
brian-harold-may 26643 11.10.2007 19:59 |
SORRY FOLKS!! |
brian-harold-may 26643 11.10.2007 20:00 |
treasure moment wrote: Besides, there is no queen without freddie,thats impossible, they should just do some other project coz no one sees this as queen anyways _________________________________________________ Erm...im not sure you have the right to say that and decide that for everyone, many people still view this as queen. me being one of those people, maybe not the old queen, but as queen as its going to get these days. Whats a name anyway? just enjoy the music! |
steven 35638 11.10.2007 22:53 |
Treasure Moment wrote:Keep an open mind, my friend. Paul Rodgers certainly knows how to sing and most often if not his timing is correct. As for the name that's debatable. You must remember that Brian May is the founder of 'Queen' and that Freddie Mercury was the third member to join. Therefore, Roger Taylor and Brian May have every right to keep the name 'Queen'. However, when it's all said and done the name has no meaning. They're musicians, and damn good ones at that! The music says everything.<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: Paul Rodgers doesn't need to fit in with Queen's music. For as long as I can remember Queen have always experimented with different styles of music. Such as vaudeville, country, opera, glam rock, folk, latin, heavy metal, and the list goes on. So how is this any different? Paul Rodgers is of the 'blues/rock' categorization. This has been yet another step towards diversity in, dare I say, 'Queen's' career. I shun all those whom look upon Queen at this stage in their career and dislike them for it. Queen have neither changed or degraded their legacy. They're expanding their horizons along with upsetting fans, oh my, there's a shocker! Need I remind you all of when Hot Space came out? I think you know what I'm talking about.paul rodgers way of singing just doesnt fit in, he doesnt sing in time, he sings odd time, dont know how to explain it but it just doesnt fit in. Besides, there is no queen without freddie,thats impossible, they should just do some other project coz no one sees this as queen anyways |
Boy Thomas Raker 12.10.2007 08:39 |
To Brian-Harold-May, and Ramirez, I'd just offer this to your words. The issue is not whether Brian and Roger have the "right" to call themselves Queen. I don't think that anyone here disputes that, or the fact that they were founding members. However, a name isn't just a name when it comes to bands. Within the past few years, lawsuits have been launched against Styx, The Doors and Black Sabbath by ex-members to stop them from touring with the name that the band found success with. Why? Because to many people, Dennis DeYoung was Styx, Jim Morrison was the Doors, and Ozzy Osbourne was Black Sabbath. So obviously, names mean a lot to some people, they mean everything. And as a balance to Garik's thoughts, he uses Genesis and Deep Purple as examples of bands who went on with new singers (poor choices for examples due to the fact that they were young men, relative newcomers with no true long term success so they had to get new singers or become working stiffs.) There are two other bands who had long, successful runs in the music business. They were called the Beatles, and Led Zeppelin. Neither lost their lead singer, yet they decided that they wouldn't go under their respective names once a member passed on. The greatest pop band and greatest rock band of all time lose a member and stop performing under that name. As these bands have greater legacies than Genesis and Purple, does this mean I can rest my case that more famous bands shouldn't go on? |
Benn 12.10.2007 08:48 |
Boy Thomas Raker, re: >>I agree 100% with you Benn. And again, I was interested in Brian's thoughts because I think that my views and those of scores of fans are pretty moderate, Given that, I always thoguht that, once Brian had worked on Paul's "Muddy Water Blues" project and had played live with him so often as a guest at various times, Paul was the absolutely ideal front man for Queen. Of all the world-class vocalists still alive, Paul was (is) the only one without current ties to a band. Bad Company's reformation was always going to be short-lived when it happened and Free had folded way before 1976. His solo career, too, only seems to be supported by a smaller section of Bad Co. / Free followers too, so nothing to really trouble the accountants. Now, what would have happened if Brian, Roger & JOHN had invited Paul to front Queen in 1994? Would there have been so much opposition if it had al gotten off the ground that much quicker? |
gem27 12.10.2007 09:36 |
Freddie wasn't the third member to join "Queen" as it was Freddie who came up with the name and he was in the band by then. |
August R. 12.10.2007 10:07 |
gem27 wrote: Freddie wasn't the third member to join "Queen" as it was Freddie who came up with the name and he was in the band by then.Freddie joined "Smile" after Tim left and the guys thought they were going to a new direction with this line-up, so they decided to change the name. Still, Roger and Brian are as much founding members as Freddie, so they have every right to use the name..... Why do we have to debate over this every month? |
steven 35638 12.10.2007 10:19 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: To Brian-Harold-May, and Ramirez, I'd just offer this to your words. The issue is not whether Brian and Roger have the "right" to call themselves Queen. I don't think that anyone here disputes that, or the fact that they were founding members. However, a name isn't just a name when it comes to bands. Within the past few years, lawsuits have been launched against Styx, The Doors and Black Sabbath by ex-members to stop them from touring with the name that the band found success with. Why? Because to many people, Dennis DeYoung was Styx, Jim Morrison was the Doors, and Ozzy Osbourne was Black Sabbath. So obviously, names mean a lot to some people, they mean everything.That's an interesting point of view, and I certainly see where you're coming from. People indeed hold a band's name near and dear to the heart and soul of the artist. However, I still can't see why it's up to the 'people' to decide. The band should have that right. And as I've said before, who cares about the name? The music speaks for itself. And if people can't see that then I feel bad for them, they're missing out. |
August R. 12.10.2007 10:20 |
Benn wrote: Now, what would have happened if Brian, Roger & JOHN had invited Paul to front Queen in 1994? Would there have been so much opposition if it had al gotten off the ground that much quicker?That's a good question. I've been wondering about that too. I don't think they could have done it, though. THAT would have meant that they were replacing Freddie. Freddie's death was so tragic and the F.M. Tribute Concert was such a spectacle that if they had continued right after that, it wouldn't have been right. They all thought that Queen was dead and buried and it was time to move on and do something else. |
Benn 12.10.2007 12:05 |
August R, re: >>I don't think they could have done it, though. THAT would have meant that they were replacing Freddie. It wouldn't as they would NEVER have held a press conference / issued a statement that mentioned anything about REPLACING. If they'd done that, they's immediately have alienated almost every fan on the planet. They could have issued something along the lines of what other bands have done "we want to keep the spirit of Freddie alive"; "he would have wanted us to go on and keep the music of Queen alive" etc etc. Simple to do and an easy way of funneling the resulting questions from fans and the media down a particular route. |
gnomo 12.10.2007 12:07 |
Treasure Moment wrote: no one sees this as queen anyways... of course not "queen" - it's "Queen + Paul Rodgers" ... |
Micrówave 12.10.2007 12:15 |
I think we're missing the underlying question in all of these threads. WHY does it really matter if the music is good? You mean to tell me if there's a really good song or two, maybe four on this new record. And you really really like them. In fact, whenever you play that song on the radio in your El Camino, the chicks start climbing all over you. You would consider the name of the band before you bought it? Who does that? You are so offended that Brian May and Roger Taylor, who you obviously consider as your peers now because you've bought their records, are using their old band name that you would boycott their album? Not just boycott, but campaign against others to do the same? They've got a name for people like you. Yes they do. El Macho. Get a grip. It's a frickin' rock band, not your Aunt Cheryl marrying Paul Rodgers. |
The Real Wizard 12.10.2007 12:24 |
Treasure Moment wrote: Besides, there is no queen without freddie,thats impossible, they should just do some other project coz no one sees this as queen anywaysYeah... damn Brian for having an opinion that's different than yours. Maybe you could ask him to see if your opinion should take precedence over his, since you wrote all those great songs and sold millions of records. |
Sebastian 12.10.2007 14:30 |
> paul rodgers way of singing just doesnt fit in, he doesnt sing in time, he sings odd time, dont know how to explain it but it just doesnt fit in. I disagree, he's brill. > Besides, there is no queen without freddie True > Whats a name anyway? just enjoy the music! What's the music anyway? Just discuss the name! > You must remember that Brian May is the founder of 'Queen' and that Freddie Mercury was the third member to join. False. Freddie, Roger and Brian founded Queen together, and it was Freddie who came up with the name- > However, when it's all said and done the name has no meaning. If the name had no meaning, they could use another one. > Freddie joined "Smile" after Tim left and the guys thought they were going to a new direction with this line-up, so they decided to change the name. Still, Roger and Brian are as much founding members as Freddie, so they have every right to use the name..... Why do we have to debate over this every month? False: Smile was over, Wreckage was over, so they decided to form a band together. Saying Queen = Smile (but with Freddie) is as saying Queen = Wreckage (with Brian and Roger). > WHY does it really matter if the music is good? For some of us it does matter. > You mean to tell me if there's a really good song or two, maybe four on this new record. I'm sure the entire record will be brilliant. I'm not arguing about that. > You would consider the name of the band before you bought it? Who does that? I would. I haven't even bought 'Queen II'... > Maybe you could ask him to see if your opinion should take precedence over his, since you wrote all those great songs and sold millions of records. For that matter Brian should found a paper before criticising journalists. |
gem27 12.10.2007 14:41 |
Sebastian, take a bow my friend. That post is simply brilliant! Yes what's all this about Freddie joining the band Smile and being the third member to do so. What rubbish. Smile has disbanded, Freddie had quit Wreckage because they were based in Liverpool and Freddie didn't like it up there so wanted to stay in London so you had Freddie, Brian and Roger all without a band and they joined together and needed a name. Freddie came up with Queen and the others agreed and the rest was history. |
The Real Wizard 12.10.2007 14:45 |
Sebastian wrote: > Maybe you could ask him to see if your opinion should take precedence over his, since you wrote all those great songs and sold millions of records. For that matter Brian should found a paper before criticising journalists.That makes no sense. Then I might as well tell you to form a band and achieve multi-platinum success before criticizing the choices of musicians. One doesn't have to be a published author to critique a book, a professional athlete to have his reservations about Barry Bonds, or a theologian to say that Jerry Falwell has contributed to American ignorance. It's called discussion and freedom of opinion. |
gem27 12.10.2007 15:19 |
ONE doesn't need to be a published author to critique a book, well then ONE doesn't need to form a band and sell millions of records to critique a musician then by your way of thinking. you go on about freedom of speech and discussion and yet it is you who goes against that by getting upset over what sebastian wrote. |
The Real Wizard 12.10.2007 15:31 |
I didn't state that literally, nor was I upset. I was merely speaking in the antonym to make my point. Of course he's free to criticize Queen, or whoever else makes decisions that he disagrees with. |
Boy Thomas Raker 12.10.2007 15:41 |
"What's a name anyway?" Microwave, my good man, it's EVERYTHING. If it weren't on either side, Brian would just go off and call the new outfit Bring Your Own Boat, or Rich Kids. No way though, as no one knows those names. So it's a two way street, Brian wants to be known as Queen because of brand recognition, people who are against it believe that due to Freddie (and John) being out of the picture, it's a new vehicle that they don't (or won't) recognize as Queen. I agree though, I'll buy the music if it's good, but I'll never consider it Queen. |
Treasure Moment 12.10.2007 15:45 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:this is not an opinion, its a fact, it can never be queen without freddie, freddie was the soul of the band, factTreasure Moment wrote: Besides, there is no queen without freddie,thats impossible, they should just do some other project coz no one sees this as queen anywaysYeah... damn Brian for having an opinion that's different than yours. Maybe you could ask him to see if your opinion should take precedence over his, since you wrote all those great songs and sold millions of records. |
Boy Thomas Raker 12.10.2007 15:48 |
Treasure Moment, with all due respect, you've beaten your one-trick pony into the ground. If there's a soul around here who doesn't know what you stand for they're brain dead, so please, contribute something useful for a change. |
steven 35638 12.10.2007 16:38 |
Some of the things I've just read are rubbish. However, this kind of argument is an impossible one for either side to agree on. Therefore, I'm going to enjoy this! This is how I see it, and I'm going to try and make this as clear as possible: Step 1. Roger Taylor auditions to be Smile's drummer. Brian May admits him into the group. Step 2. Tim Staffel leaves Smile for some other group. Freddie Mercury sees this as his chance to be a part of Brian and Roger's group. Freddie is indeed the 3rd member to join. Step 3. The band wants a new name. All three members compared and contrast all of the 'possible' names for their group. As a group decision they decided to use Freddie's 'Queen' idea. Alright, so if you wish to call 'Queen', the name, Freddie's idea that's fine. However, it was a group decision that all three agreed on. It is also the name that stuck with them for their entire career. Without the title 'Queen' how would the general public recognize them? They wouldn't. And it would seem pointless for them to drop the name after thirty some years of rock royalty. For the fans that are having a fit they should be happy for the '+' after every collaboration. |
August R. 12.10.2007 18:58 |
Sebastian wrote: False: Smile was over, Wreckage was over, so they decided to form a band together. Saying Queen = Smile (but with Freddie) is as saying Queen = Wreckage (with Brian and Roger).I think this is not a simple matter of true/false, black/white. Surely, there's a musical continuation from both bands, but it was Freddie who had admired Smile, and wanted to join them after Tim left. Just how this "joining forces" took place, I don't know. Who does? There are so many stories. Anyway, the continuation from Smile to Queen is quite strong. After Tim left, 2/2 members of Smile were to co-found Queen. Queen played a lot of Smile's material in the early days. The continuation from Wreckage (or Sour Milk Sea) is not that strong. Freddie was jumping from one band to another a lot in 69-70, and musically Freddie only brought a couple of ideas that would later turn into songs like Liar and Stone Cold Crazy (onto which the others would contribute according to SHA credits). And of course, Freddie was technically the last singer of Smile, since they were still billed as Smile on their first gig (even if, at that point they had already changed their name). Anyway, Smile was booked, but it was Queen who appeared on stage. So, it is closer to the "truth" to say that Queen =Smile with Freddie than saying that Queen = Wreckage with Brian & Roger. Still, I'm not sure I would be saying neither of those things. The three of them joined forces and founded a new band and decided collectively to call it Queen. The past experiences of course helped them grow as musicians, and all these little pieces were needed so that Queen would be born. |
August R. 12.10.2007 19:05 |
<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: Some of the things I've just read are rubbish. However, this kind of argument is an impossible one for either side to agree on. Therefore, I'm going to enjoy this! This is how I see it, and I'm going to try and make this as clear as possible: Step 1. Roger Taylor auditions to be Smile's drummer. Brian May admits him into the group. Step 2. Tim Staffel leaves Smile for some other group. Freddie Mercury sees this as his chance to be a part of Brian and Roger's group. Freddie is indeed the 3rd member to join. Step 3. The band wants a new name. All three members compared and contrast all of the 'possible' names for their group. As a group decision they decided to use Freddie's 'Queen' idea. Alright, so if you wish to call 'Queen', the name, Freddie's idea that's fine. However, it was a group decision that all three agreed on. It is also the name that stuck with them for their entire career. Without the title 'Queen' how would the general public recognize them? They wouldn't. And it would seem pointless for them to drop the name after thirty some years of rock royalty. For the fans that are having a fit they should be happy for the '+' after every collaboration.Well said, Cyrillic Freddie. (Maybe you made it even a bit too clear with all the short cuts) ;) |
Sebastian 13.10.2007 07:45 |
> One doesn't have to be a published author to critique a book, a professional athlete to have his reservations about Barry Bonds, or a theologian to say that Jerry Falwell has contributed to American ignorance. It's called discussion and freedom of opinion. That's exactly my point. > This is how I see it, and I'm going to try and make this as clear as possible:Step 1. Roger Taylor auditions to be Smile's drummer. Brian May admits him into the group. Step 2. Tim Staffel leaves Smile for some other group. Freddie Mercury sees this as his chance to be a part of Brian and Roger's group. Freddie is indeed the 3rd member to join. Step 3. The band wants a new name. All three members compared and contrast all of the 'possible' names for their group. As a group decision they decided to use Freddie's 'Queen' idea. All right. This is how I see it: 1. Smile disbands, so Roger and Brian are without a band. 2. Fred quits Wreckage, so he's without a band. 3. Roger, Freddie and Brian decide to join forces and make a new band. Hence, Queen weren't the continuation of neither Smile nor Wreckage, they were a new band, so neither Freddie nor Roger nor Brian were a "third member to join". > Queen played a lot of Smile's material in the early days. Yes but they played Wreckage material too. > And of course, Freddie was technically the last singer of Smile, since they were still billed as Smile on their first gig Yes but that's because the festival had been booked like that and Rog decided to bring Queen, since Smile didn't exist anymore. But it's different to saying "Fred joined Smile" IMO. |
steven 35638 13.10.2007 08:49 |
Sebastian wrote: All right. This is how I see it: 1. Smile disbands, so Roger and Brian are without a band. 2. Fred quits Wreckage, so he's without a band. 3. Roger, Freddie and Brian decide to join forces and make a new band. Hence, Queen weren't the continuation of neither Smile nor Wreckage, they were a new band, so neither Freddie nor Roger nor Brian were a "third member to join".Smile never 'disbanded'. Tim Staffel left the band, but that didn't mean the band was destroyed. Smile needed a new lead singer, so Freddie humbly offered his services and encouraged the group to 'continue' making music. Both Brian May and Roger Taylor were hesitant upon the idea and they were probably thinking to themselves, "is this guy serious?" Of course in the end Roger and Brian allowed Freddie Mercury to front 'Smile'. In fact, Queen were billed as 'Smile' at their very first concert in Truro, United Kingdom. It wasn't until their next performance in London that they finally acquired the name 'Queen'. That was twenty some days later! They'd already been playing as a rock group well before the name 'Queen' ever came into play. Thus, I feel it safe to say that Freddie Mercury was the last lead singer of Smile and the first lead singer of Queen. Freddie also came up with the name, which as I've mentioned before was indeed his idea. However, it was a unanimous decision. All three of them said, 'this will be our name'. Soon after Freddie Mercury's death people assummed Brian May, Roger Taylor, and John Deacon were still 'Queen'. I don't recall ever hearing a dispute about that at the time, and if there ever was it was minor and irrelevant. They continued to work together. Oh no! John Deacon was missing from the band soon after the release of 'No One But You (Only The Good Die Young)'. From my perspective I'd say that people felt it safe to say Queen was no more at this point. John's gone, Freddie's gone. However, just a few years later and Paul Rodgers comes into the scene! All of the sudden the 'Queen' name is argued upon. Should they drop it, should they keep it? This is the real problem, as I'm sure most of you would agree. It's a complicated argument, which I'm afraid to say will never come to a conclusion. If they keep that '+' after every collaboration I won't get my panties in a twist. However, if they do decide to take away that blessed '+' and add Paul Rodgers as the official frontman for this new album I really wouldn't care. And nor should anybody else. I respect Brian May and Roger Taylor's decision. They knew Freddie and John personally. They know what's right for the group. They know that they're rock royalty. This topic has been stressed far too much, I wish people could learn to just give it up. Well, I hope you enjoyed reading my ramblings. Now carry on... |
Boy Thomas Raker 13.10.2007 10:17 |
You're absolutely correct, Ramirez when you state that this topic has been debated ad nauseum. However, it's a hot topic to people, and one that Brian initiated with his astronomer friends colleague on who a band is and accepting it as fact. I also respect Brian and Roger's decision to go forward, but again, it's strictly for business reasons, and that flies in the face of trying new challenges and going down different creative paths that Garik was proposing. Let's be honest here. Forgetting the name Queen for a second, I don't think Brian, Roger and Paul are going to make "Queen" style music. Brian is a predominantly major chord, rock and ballad guy, as is Paul, and Roger is a little different. Stylistically, Freddie was all over the map. From early songs like My Fairy King, to mid period stuff like The Millionaire Waltz, and Mustapha, then later stuff like Body Language, and obviously better known songs like Bo Rhap, ITLOTG and STL, Freddie brought the "difference" to Queen's music. Odd key choices, unique vocal phrasing, experimenting with different genres, a wit and sense of humour and a distinctive touch on the piano. Forget his voice and live presence, those are HUGE factors that are going to be missing with the new lineup from a writing and recording POV. This doesn't mean that the new configuration won't, or can't write good songs, it just means that the essence of Queen, which is the stuff that seperated them from the average rock group, will be missing. BTW, I enjoy your posts, not ramblings at all. We need more people like you here to keep the stupidity that's been here for the last year at bay. |
August R. 13.10.2007 10:59 |
Sebastian wrote: > > Queen played a lot of Smile's material in the early days. Yes but they played Wreckage material too. > And of course, Freddie was technically the last singer of Smile, since they were still billed as Smile on their first gig Yes but that's because the festival had been booked like that and Rog decided to bring Queen, since Smile didn't exist anymore. But it's different to saying "Fred joined Smile" IMO.I must say, I don't like it when people take a sentence out of the context, and base their argument on that. If you read my whole message you'll see that I already gave my thoughts on both of these matters. No offence, Sebastian. I really admire your knowledge and the great work you've done for the whole Queen community. |
Sebastian 13.10.2007 13:59 |
Xmas Eve interview on BBC Radio One: "Brian and Roger were in a very up tempo raucous band called Smile and I used to be in another band called Wreckage or something, even more up tempo, and we used to be friends, going to college together and met up. After the first couple of years knowing each other, we decided we'd form a band together and it's as simple as that. We thought our musical ideas would blend" So it's not that he replaced Tim, it's that they decided to form a band together. |
kenny8 14.10.2007 00:14 |
Still using the name Queen can be debated at length by fans such as the above posts about who joined first and who came up with the name. All that means shit to a goose to the general record buying public. When people think of Queen, they think of Freddie Mercury first. Still using the Queen moniker without Freddie is not going to change that in the minds of people. Whoever they use as a front man will never step out of the shadow of the real Queen's legacy. |
Holly2003 14.10.2007 04:02 |
Totally tedious to still be debating this now. The remaining members have earned the right to call themselves what they like. Regarding Smile though, the group was going nowhere until Fred joined so to say Queen are just Smile with a new leader singer is bizarre. Neither is Queen "Brian's group": the only thing that can be said really is the Roger & Brian knew each other before they met Fred. So what? That doesn't make Queen "Brian's group". Could Smile with Tim Staffel and Brian come up with The Fairy Fellers Masterstroke, Lilly of the Valley or Bohemian Rhapsody? |
Boy Thomas Raker 14.10.2007 10:32 |
It is tedious, Holly, but it's also tedious hearing people use the term "right" to define the debate. John has the "right" to record a new album with the drummer from Devo, Alien Ant Farms' guitarist and Kylie Minogue and Hilary Duff splitting vocals. According to your logic, that lineup is also Queen, because John has the "right" to do it, as he's earned it like Brian and Roger. It's like George Bush having the "right" to do what's happening in Iraq, since he's been elected, he's the leader of America, he has governmental support and has earned his position as president(this time around) fair and square. Whether the public accepts his "right" is an entirely different question. |
Holly2003 14.10.2007 11:15 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: It is tedious, Holly, but it's also tedious hearing people use the term "right" to define the debate. John has the "right" to record a new album with the drummer from Devo, Alien Ant Farms' guitarist and Kylie Minogue and Hilary Duff splitting vocals. According to your logic, that lineup is also Queen, because John has the "right" to do it, as he's earned it like Brian and Roger. It's like George Bush having the "right" to do what's happening in Iraq, since he's been elected, he's the leader of America, he has governmental support and has earned his position as president(this time around) fair and square. Whether the public accepts his "right" is an entirely different question.If Brian and Roger can't call themselves Queen, who else can? Who has more authority or credibility? It's not like the band went through 20 line up changes, like ELO. There is no competition for the name. |
john bodega 14.10.2007 11:43 |
"Hence, Queen weren't the continuation of neither Smile nor Wreckage, they were a new band, so neither Freddie nor Roger nor Brian were a "third member to join"." Oh, wouldn't it be lovely if it were that simple! You've been in bands though, haven't you Seb?? A lot of the time, as much as I hate this idea, a band is sort of an entity... there's no other way to describe this situation than to say that Freddie joined Brian and Roger, because the latter two had an existing way of doing things. Bits of a future band existed, though it wasn't really all that similar to how it turned out (thanks to Mr. Mercury, haw-haw). If all 3 had their memories wiped before forming the new group, then I think your statement might be more on the mark, but as it stands Smile was heading in a certain direction already; one only needs to hear April Lady or Blag to see that a good chunk of early Queen already existed... err... somewhere in Brian or Rogers head!! Hmm. On the idea of them using the Queen name.... I really don't see the point. Is it really going to have that much of an effect on sales as a brand name? If they do as shit a job of promoting it as they have done with some Q+PR stuff already, then it won't do anything. Besides, Queen will never be a stadium-filling band again no matter who is in it or what they call it. (I am, of course, eschewing 46664 stuff and Bob Geldof events.....) I just don't see the point in them keeping the Queen name. Unless they pull a really big rabbit out of a really tiny hat, I don't see it working to their advantage. My prediction is that they'll come up with a good album, it'll do modestly well, there'll be a little tour, and people will hum and haw over whether or not it's like Queen. The name on the cover really won't change any of that, I don't think. I still stand by my original philosophy of judging this album on it's artistic merits, of course! |
gem27 14.10.2007 11:48 |
I am also one of the few who support the carry on of the name. i can see why it pisses some people off but personally it does not bother me. No one knows for sure but in my opinion I can see Freddie being proud of the fact the Queen name (that he thought up of course) is still going strong in 2006/7. Of course I can't know for sure but it is what i like to think. The Queen+ Paul Rodgers thing does not upset me. I think a tour of Brian May, Roger Taylor (Formerly of Queen) plus Paul Rodgers is just stupid but again it is only my thoughts. |
AmeriQueen 15.10.2007 00:25 |
1.) He's my favorite famous person of the last 3 years because he is the guy who ressurected Queen, something I had no hope or belief in ever happening. I went from a mindset of little dissapointment on the issue because the idea of Queen returning with a new singer wasn't realistic to me, and if it did happen I'd assume they lost their minds, sold out, and are putting out some cheesy second rate act that would leave me embarrassed for them. I had no idea that it would happen, and that the results would rival other Queen tours in greatness. 2.) I think he's a good songwriter, but several levels beneath any of Queen's 4 members. I think he is musically fantastic and creative in how he uses his voice, a truly talented vocalist. 3.) I think the best intrigue about Rodgers is that he is pure blues, but interestingly he doesn't exclusively pursue blues but rather sings it alongside rock musicians often rock artists with little or no blues style in their repetoire. 4.) I appreciate strongly that he does Queen his own way, and that he continues despite all the anti-PR alleged Queen fans who dissaprove of the new Queen direction intensely because of the damage to their legacy that it does in their eyes and the eyes of all others who are led that direction for a number of reasons, all which I have pondered being formed from reasons ranging from complete and utter stupidity on their part, all the way towards the one barely understandable, acceptable reason that they personally are mad because they just don't dig him. I was the biggest skeptic of all, but see the worst as Brian and Roger doing something which is always good so long as it's music and a worst scenario to me of say Robbie Williams being only a reminder of how great Freddie was. Overall I love Paul Rodgers more than any celebrity of this 21st Century so far because his actions led to a Queen developement that wasn't my overall top wish among wishes(outside of personal human priorities like love and family) only because I didn't know it was a possible option. I'd never, ever, EVER have experienced a fun event even comparable to the 3 Q + PR concerts I attended in my lifetime had it not been for Mr. Rodgers. The greatest and strangest thing about all of it is that somewhere during the tour/return of Queen, I went from accepting PR as a necessary component of it all into thinking of him as the 2nd Queen singer whose transformations song by song were at best competitive with Freddie, to at worst an intersting alteration worthwhile, and also how his songs went from a few songs to patiently wade through turned into great songs given the Queen injection and received similarly to Queen live tracks I am less enthused by rather than someone else's crap. In summary to my overblown post, Paul Rodgers was a really good singer I respected and thought well of, but now he's one of my top 10 all-time vocalists who gave me my #1 all-time favorite gift of a lifetime which was how he broght Queen back, not only in the reunited May and Taylor pairing, but in that his own presence gave the reunion a fresh and beyond interesting and what the word can define in itself, new version of the Queen sound, the overall entity being second only to the original, and a million times fantastic a reunion than if they had toured with the greatest living Freddie imitator of all 6 billion plus people living on Earth. |
The Real Wizard 15.10.2007 01:25 |
^ what he said. |
M.H 15.10.2007 03:32 |
I like Paul Rodgers, he has the voice qualitites that I like. I agree with those who have said about I Want To Break Free, that and A Kind of Magic, one of my top five Queen songs, and I really cant stand him doing it. But most other songs, particularly Wishing Well, which I think he did with Gary Moore, is a brilliant live song. I am happy, now, that he is with Queen, I cant think of anything else of the top of my head. Another thought, will Queen do better in the US now they have Rodgers, who I believe is quite popular in that market? M.H |
rosedewitt 15.10.2007 06:36 |
i don't like him being queen now. his voice is ok. he can sing with brian and roger, but they should change their band's name. |
Micrówave 15.10.2007 14:34 |
You know what this thread reminds me of? All the little dorks who hang out at the science building discussing what happened on Heroes last night and what might happen next week. Next thing you know, you'll all be saying "Paul sucks and that is a FACT". Maybe Treasure Moment was sent here by Freddie to show us what can happen when you Queen-out one too many times. |
Boy Thomas Raker 15.10.2007 16:37 |
Microwave, I know you're a Texan, and you like sports so let's play bullshit poker. Jerry Jones goes tits up, has to sell the Cowboys to Dan Snyder. Jerry Jones makes his money back, and as an Oklahoman, he makes the biggest ever cash gift to the University of Texas in exchange for team naming rights. Welcome to Texas. Home of the Dallas Redskins. Home of the Texas Sooners. You, and the people of Texas would be good with that right? After all, it's just a name. Music's music, football's football, who cares what the name is. I await your reply, and if you say you could live with those names, beware. Haystacks Calhounski's got a .44 and is comin' after ya'! :) |
gem27 15.10.2007 17:23 |
how come the british invented football league's football is a game played with feet and a ball where the american invented football is played mostly with hands and a sphere not a ball? |
Killer_Whale 16.10.2007 07:21 |
Rodgers will never take the place of Freddie. There is no one to take his place. |
BradJarre 16.10.2007 08:50 |
No-one can replace freddie that is a fact but......I think he does a pretty good job. |
Killer_Whale 16.10.2007 09:18 |
innuendo1990 wrote: I think he does a pretty good job.Who? Rodgers? What good in it? He only has spoiled his songs. |
Mr Mercury 16.10.2007 09:28 |
Ok Im gonna throw this into the mix. 1 - How come a few years ago everyone wanted to have George Michael fronting Queen and yet its not as ok to have Paul singing? 2 - What if George (or Zucchero - If the Italian press are to be believed) did sing for them? Would the "its not Queen without Freddie" brigade still be up in arms about the bands name? Personally I think it does work with Paul, but like I said on page one of this thread just not on every song. I also happen to think so with George for some reason. I mean he would do the more Freddie-esq songs some real justice along with the dancier songs, but I just cant see him doing the same justice to the rock stuff. Zucchero, might have been a good compromise for musical styles, but again his vocal range isnt in Freddies league. |
Killer_Whale 16.10.2007 10:38 |
<font color=FF9900>Mr Mercury</font> wrote: but like I said on page one of this thread just not on every song. I also happen to think so with George for some reason. I mean he would the more Freddie-esq songs some real justice along with the dancier songs, but I just cant see him doing the same justice to the rock stuff. Zucchero, might have been a good compromise for musical styles, but again his vocal range isnt in Freddies league.Agree. I simply consider, that it was not necessary to begin this project in general. Too many years have passed, no sense to start again. As to George,he was magnificent in “Somebody to Love” at The Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert. |
Mr Mercury 16.10.2007 10:59 |
Killer_Whale wrote:Yes he was magnificent at that song, but my point with him was he might not have done so well with for instance "Tie Your Mother Down" or "Sheer Heart Attack"<font color=FF9900>Mr Mercury</font> wrote: but like I said on page one of this thread just not on every song. I also happen to think so with George for some reason. I mean he would the more Freddie-esq songs some real justice along with the dancier songs, but I just cant see him doing the same justice to the rock stuff. Zucchero, might have been a good compromise for musical styles, but again his vocal range isnt in Freddies league.Agree. I simply consider, that it was not necessary to begin this project in general. Too many years have passed, no sense to start again. As to George,he was magnificent in “Somebody to Love” at The Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert. |
Treasure Moment 16.10.2007 12:06 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Sebastian, did you see this on Brian's Saopbox, and if so, what do you think? |
Micrówave 16.10.2007 12:27 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Microwave, I know you're a Texan, and you like sports so let's play bullshit poker. Jerry Jones goes tits up, has to sell the Cowboys to Dan Snyder. Jerry Jones makes his money back, and as an Oklahoman, he makes the biggest ever cash gift to the University of Texas in exchange for team naming rights. Welcome to Texas. Home of the Dallas Redskins. Home of the Texas Sooners. You, and the people of Texas would be good with that right? After all, it's just a name. Music's music, football's football, who cares what the name is. I await your reply, and if you say you could live with those names, beware. Haystacks Calhounski's got a .44 and is comin' after ya'! :)Well, now BTR, I'm a little surprised at how ridiculous an analogy you made. You tried to compare apples and oranges. 1. You can't rename a University. I don't care how much money you give. 2. You can't have two NFL teams with the same name. Owners have been selling their teams for years. Look at the Baltimore Ravens. How do they get any people to go to games after letting the Colts ride out of town? THE SUPERBOWL COLTS, that is. People got over it and became fans again. Kinda like people will buy the new Queen album regardless of who's singing. So what point are you trying to make? If an owner sells a beloved team that no one will ever want to go to their games again? Well, that's simply not true. Personally, I would love to see real coach in college football. Mac sucks, Fran must go, it's pretty crappy down here right now, collegiately speaking... BUT THE GAMES STILL SELL OUT. Mac Brown took over for John Mackovich 5 years ago and has managed to beat Oklahoma once. BUT THE GAMES STILL SELL OUT. Using your analogy, when a new coach or owner comes and goes, they should completely re-name the team and stadium, because Freddie was Queen and no one else is allowed to be in Queen... let's not let Brian and Roger decide. Your turn. |
Micrówave 16.10.2007 12:35 |
Taking it one step further, let's use The Professor's analogy:
Queen as a band is dead and has been since the day freddie died. Freddie was the heart and soul of the band and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this band Queen.Now let's see how stupid that sounds when you substitute: Chrysler as a automobile manufacturer is dead and has been since the day Lee Iacocca was fired. Lee was the heart and soul of the company and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this car a Chrysler. The 49ers as a team is dead and has been since the day Terrell Owens left. T.O. was the heart and soul of the team and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this team the San Francisco 49ers. The Dallas Mavericks as a franchise is dead and has been since the day Roy Tarpley was suspended (again) for drugs. Roy was the heart and soul of the team and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this team The Mavericks. The World as a place is dead and has been since the day Jesus died. Jesus was the heart and soul of the world and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this The World. Kinda puts things into perspective, I'd say. |
Killer_Whale 16.10.2007 12:50 |
Micrówave wrote: Jesus was the heart and soul of the world and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this The World.Oh, unsuccessful comparison. |
Dusta 16.10.2007 13:15 |
I actually think Freddie would have got a good giggle out of the Jesus thing.
I am ashamed to admit that, whilst reading along, getting somewhat peeved at the post, because, well...deep down, I resent Paul Rodgers, and, I, absurdly, don't like hearing him sing Queen songs...but, I digress...I was reading along, getting all worked up, drinkin' me coffee, and, Bam! Read the Jesus line, and, laughed out loud.
So, I suppose that means, "Good one, Microwave."
Killer_Whale wrote:Micrówave wrote: Jesus was the heart and soul of the world and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this The World.Oh, unsuccessful comparison. |
Treasure Moment 16.10.2007 13:52 |
Killer_Whale wrote:nah jesus was a made up figure in a story bookMicrówave wrote: Jesus was the heart and soul of the world and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this The World.Oh, unsuccessful comparison. |
Treasure Moment 16.10.2007 13:57 |
Micrówave wrote: Taking it one step further, let's use The Professor's analogy:the only one stupid here is YOU and you cant make comparisions like that with Queen. Freddie was like the heart of the body of queen and when that heart stopped beating queen died, simple as that.Queen as a band is dead and has been since the day freddie died. Freddie was the heart and soul of the band and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this band Queen.Now let's see how stupid that sounds when you substitute: Chrysler as a automobile manufacturer is dead and has been since the day Lee Iacocca was fired. Lee was the heart and soul of the company and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this car a Chrysler. The 49ers as a team is dead and has been since the day Terrell Owens left. T.O. was the heart and soul of the team and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this team the San Francisco 49ers. The Dallas Mavericks as a franchise is dead and has been since the day Roy Tarpley was suspended (again) for drugs. Roy was the heart and soul of the team and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this team The Mavericks. The World as a place is dead and has been since the day Jesus died. Jesus was the heart and soul of the world and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this The World. Kinda puts things into perspective, I'd say. John realized this and quit. Brian and roger still want to feel as they did back then and thats ok, just dont call the band queen coz it isnt. Its a cover band. freddie had a HUGE impact on the band, both his vocals and arrangements and songwriting. Live in denial if you want but the fact remains that without freddie its simply impossible to continue the band and call it queen, all it is is a cover band, Freddie isnt replacable and if you think he is then you are a retard. |
brian-harold-may 26643 16.10.2007 15:15 |
Treasure Moment wrote:I thought we were gonna get a serious answer from you for once, then you go and add that to the end.Micrówave wrote: Taking it one step further, let's use The Professor's analogy:the only one stupid here is YOU and you cant make comparisions like that with Queen. Freddie was like the heart of the body of queen and when that heart stopped beating queen died, simple as that. John realized this and quit. Brian and roger still want to feel as they did back then and thats ok, just dont call the band queen coz it isnt. Its a cover band. freddie had a HUGE impact on the band, both his vocals and arrangements and songwriting. Live in denial if you want but the fact remains that without freddie its simply impossible to continue the band and call it queen, all it is is a cover band, Freddie isnt replacable and if you think he is then you are a retard.Queen as a band is dead and has been since the day freddie died. Freddie was the heart and soul of the band and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this band Queen.Now let's see how stupid that sounds when you substitute: Chrysler as a automobile manufacturer is dead and has been since the day Lee Iacocca was fired. Lee was the heart and soul of the company and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this car a Chrysler. The 49ers as a team is dead and has been since the day Terrell Owens left. T.O. was the heart and soul of the team and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this team the San Francisco 49ers. The Dallas Mavericks as a franchise is dead and has been since the day Roy Tarpley was suspended (again) for drugs. Roy was the heart and soul of the team and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this team The Mavericks. The World as a place is dead and has been since the day Jesus died. Jesus was the heart and soul of the world and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this The World. Kinda puts things into perspective, I'd say. i ask you, if brian died, and they replaced him, would you care so much? you are such a freddie fan after all. |
Treasure Moment 16.10.2007 15:53 |
Brian-Harold-May wrote:of course i would care, brian is very special and is not replacable either, specially if they replaced him after 20 years together.Treasure Moment wrote:I thought we were gonna get a serious answer from you for once, then you go and add that to the end. i ask you, if brian died, and they replaced him, would you care so much? you are such a freddie fan after all.Micrówave wrote: Taking it one step further, let's use The Professor's analogy:the only one stupid here is YOU and you cant make comparisions like that with Queen. Freddie was like the heart of the body of queen and when that heart stopped beating queen died, simple as that. John realized this and quit. Brian and roger still want to feel as they did back then and thats ok, just dont call the band queen coz it isnt. Its a cover band. freddie had a HUGE impact on the band, both his vocals and arrangements and songwriting. Live in denial if you want but the fact remains that without freddie its simply impossible to continue the band and call it queen, all it is is a cover band, Freddie isnt replacable and if you think he is then you are a retard.Queen as a band is dead and has been since the day freddie died. Freddie was the heart and soul of the band and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this band Queen.Now let's see how stupid that sounds when you substitute: Chrysler as a automobile manufacturer is dead and has been since the day Lee Iacocca was fired. Lee was the heart and soul of the company and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this car a Chrysler. The 49ers as a team is dead and has been since the day Terrell Owens left. T.O. was the heart and soul of the team and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this team the San Francisco 49ers. The Dallas Mavericks as a franchise is dead and has been since the day Roy Tarpley was suspended (again) for drugs. Roy was the heart and soul of the team and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this team The Mavericks. The World as a place is dead and has been since the day Jesus died. Jesus was the heart and soul of the world and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this The World. Kinda puts things into perspective, I'd say. |
Boy Thomas Raker 16.10.2007 16:12 |
My dearest Microwave: "So what point are you trying to make?" As I assumed, and still assume you're very clever, my point is that a name is meaningful. I'm not using absurd extreme examples talking about nicknames of university teams being sold to the highest bidder or NFL teams going bankrupt and being taken over by the hated enemy as examples of reason, I did that to highlight the power of the name. You're telling me on one hand that names are meaningless, but on the other hand it seems that to, say, Red Sox fans, Yankees fans, Leaf fans, Cowboy fans and fans all around the world, nicknames or band names are very important. If the oil, illegal handgun and strip club industries ;) go bad and Dallas hits a recession and the Cowboys had to relocate, and a new franchise came back as the Redskins (and I know it wouldn't), I don't believe people of Dallas would accept it. There are emotions associated with the names Redskins, Cowboys, Queen and the Beatles. Otherwise your NFL football team would be Dallas, period. Names are important. "Chrysler as a automobile manufacturer is dead and has been since the day Lee Iacocca was fired. Lee was the heart and soul of the company and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this car a Chrysler." This is irrelevant, as is the sports analogy. Chrysler, GM or any business is designed as eternal. The founders or money people of Chrysler didn't make the cars, they hired people to make their cars, and probably fired lots of them in the first days of business. Nobody knows who made the Corinthian leather that was so favoured by Ricardo Montalban. It could be any one of 20 people on three shifts. Nothing about an automobile is personal. They are mass produced assembly line vehicles. Queen was four people from their first record until the death of a member. Names were listed on every album, and we knew who responsible for each note, and still debates occur over it to this day. Apply everything I stated above to a sports team. There will be the Dallas Cowboys a hundred years from now, because they are interchangeable and created to be so. If the name is meaningless, when Roger, Brian and John pass on, if their sons Rufus, Jimmy and Richard along with Kashmira Cooke's son inherit the name is it Queen? To some people sure, to me no. |
rikyitaliandrummer 16.10.2007 18:10 |
I think that, Paul is a GREAT singer, but not like Freddie :D, beacause Freddie is Freddie..... |
Killer_Whale 17.10.2007 03:29 |
Yes, the name is important. And first of all Queen is: Mercury, May, Taylor and Dicon (the great respect to him). If there is no one of them - there is no band as a whole. But Mercury was the obvious leader and genius person. His charisma and power has enveloped the masses. And he exactly remains in memory of people as unusual and picturesque person. Like Mozart, for instance.I hope you understand me. I still love him and I don't want Rodgers in Queen. |
Mr Mercury 17.10.2007 06:07 |
Killer_Whale wrote: Yes, the name is important. And first of all Queen is: Mercury, May, Taylor and Dicon (the great respect to him). If there is no one of them - there is no band as a whole. But Mercury was the obvious leader and genius person. His charisma and power has enveloped the masses. And he exactly remains in memory of people as unusual and picturesque person. Like Mozart, for instance.I hope you understand me. I still love him and I don't want Rodgers in Queen.Who is Dicon? Was he the bass player in Freddie's band? :P |
Killer_Whale 17.10.2007 07:04 |
Haaa, Sorry, Sorry, Deacon. I'm always in a hurry. |
BradJarre 17.10.2007 08:14 |
Does anyone knows when the album is coming? |
Micrówave 17.10.2007 11:20 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: My dearest Microwave: "So what point are you trying to make?"The point I'm trying to make is this. Who gives a @#$! what name they use for an album? Is this a reason to boycott? To be offended or hurt, someone must have done something to you. How can using the name "Queen" seriously affect anybody but maybe John? Maybe Tim Staffel or some other one time associate of the band. But the stance "I'm not buying this album because they used the name Queen" is silly. It sounds like a grudge to me. If the music sucks, OK fine. But to shut the door and join a protest parade for a band's name is plain looney. |
Micrówave 17.10.2007 11:28 |
Treasure Moment wrote: Micrówave wrote: Chrysler as a automobile manufacturer is dead and has been since the day Lee Iacocca was fired. Lee was the heart and soul of the company and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this car a Chrysler. the only one stupid here is YOU and you cant make comparisions like that with Queen. ...you are a retard.Roger Taylor owned a Ford Mustang which was one of Lee Iacocca's first projects. For all we know, Freddie might have actually driven a "K-Car". I thought you were a "know all" when it comes to all things Queen, Professor. I challenge you to provide the Queenzone community with proof of your intellegence. So far, you have failed to meet that stipulation, and are probably frantically looking for a dictionary so you can interpret my post. So go ahead, Einstein. Show us what you've got. I would try to steer clear of the music path, because that's not anything you show much skill in. Why are you here? What purpose do you serve in society? Even a Park Maintenance man has purpose. Yours is clearly eluding all of us. |
rikyitaliandrummer 17.10.2007 11:33 |
innuendo1990 wrote: Does anyone knows when the album is coming?I heard on october 2008 and January 2009 you can find it, in the music stores ^^ (my english it's a shit) |
rikyitaliandrummer 17.10.2007 11:33 |
rikyitaliandrummer wrote:sorry october 2007 and january 2008 ^^innuendo1990 wrote: Does anyone knows when the album is coming?I heard on october 2008 and January 2009 you can find it, in the music stores ^^ (my english it's a shit) |
Micrówave 17.10.2007 11:43 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Nobody knows who made the Corinthian leather that was so favoured by Ricardo Montalban. It could be any one of 20 people on three shifts.Ask, and you shall receive: link The "corinthian" leather was produced in Newark (not Corinth) New Jersey. |
Treasure Moment 17.10.2007 11:47 |
Micrówave wrote:dont play superior, you are an idiot. Im just saying they shouldnt use the queen name now that freddie is dead and john isnt in the band, simple.Treasure Moment wrote: Micrówave wrote: Chrysler as a automobile manufacturer is dead and has been since the day Lee Iacocca was fired. Lee was the heart and soul of the company and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this car a Chrysler. the only one stupid here is YOU and you cant make comparisions like that with Queen. ...you are a retard.Roger Taylor owned a Ford Mustang which was one of Lee Iacocca's first projects. For all we know, Freddie might have actually driven a "K-Car". I thought you were a "know all" when it comes to all things Queen, Professor. I challenge you to provide the Queenzone community with proof of your intellegence. So far, you have failed to meet that stipulation, and are probably frantically looking for a dictionary so you can interpret my post. So go ahead, Einstein. Show us what you've got. I would try to steer clear of the music path, because that's not anything you show much skill in. Why are you here? What purpose do you serve in society? Even a Park Maintenance man has purpose. Yours is clearly eluding all of us. "queen" without freddie is a cover band, simple as that. |
Boy Thomas Raker 17.10.2007 12:02 |
We'll agree to disagree then Microwave, as I understand, and agree with your point as I've stated, but obviously the name is an issue to some people. No one's right or wrong, but I totally see both sides. In my e-mail to Brian, I was hoping to see if he'd see those sides also as he appears to paint everyone opposed to them using the name as people who want Roger and him to wither away and die and never play another note of music, which is nonsense. Personally speaking since I'm not sure if the comments were directed at me, I wouldn't boycott anything over a name, I'm certainly not offended or hurt, and hold no grudge over anything. To symmetrically end on a football note, I'll paraphrase the great Dennis Green. "Queen are who we thought they are!!! If you want to crown Queen + Paul Rodgers, crown their asses." :) |
The Real Wizard 17.10.2007 12:15 |
Treasure Moment wrote: "queen" without freddie is a cover band, simple as that.In YOUR opinion. Plenty of bands have gone on after their main man died or left the band. Bands can do whatever they want to do, as long as they own the rights to the band's name. It is only opinions of people that "determine" (for lack of a better word) whether or not it was a good choice. |
Dusta 17.10.2007 12:48 |
Thank you. I feared I might go to my grave without ever solving that mystery!!Micrówave wrote:Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Nobody knows who made the Corinthian leather that was so favoured by Ricardo Montalban. It could be any one of 20 people on three shifts.Ask, and you shall receive: link The "corinthian" leather was produced in Newark (not Corinth) New Jersey. |
Micrówave 18.10.2007 12:46 |
Yes, I make up for my lack of Queen knowledge by bringing you all little tidbits like this. Plus I got to put Lee Iacocca and Freddie in the same league. THEY can't do that. |
Treasure Moment 18.10.2007 13:08 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:other bands that may be the case, they can continue sometimes but with queen......... its impossible, freddie wasnt only their frontman and singer he was and still is the best musician/frontman/singer of ALL time and thats impossible to replace, factTreasure Moment wrote: "queen" without freddie is a cover band, simple as that.In YOUR opinion. Plenty of bands have gone on after their main man died or left the band. Bands can do whatever they want to do, as long as they own the rights to the band's name. It is only opinions of people that "determine" (for lack of a better word) whether or not it was a good choice. |
Micrówave 18.10.2007 14:09 |
Treasure Moment wrote: freddie wasnt only their frontman and singer he was and still is the best musician/frontman/singer of ALL time and thats impossible to replace, factHey Professor! They replaced him. FACT. |
Treasure Moment 18.10.2007 14:12 |
Micrówave wrote:hey, its impossible, factTreasure Moment wrote: freddie wasnt only their frontman and singer he was and still is the best musician/frontman/singer of ALL time and thats impossible to replace, factHey Professor! They replaced him. FACT. |
Killer_Whale 18.10.2007 14:52 |
Treasure Moment I support you. |
The Real Wizard 19.10.2007 09:34 |
Killer_Whale wrote: Treasure Moment I support you.And you're female, so this could be interesting. Here we have a once in a lifetime opportunity... you won't find too many people who will support this guy. You do recall that this is the guy who said his band was better than Mozart, right? Just don't breed, please. |
Treasure Moment 19.10.2007 12:03 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:just coz you are ignorant and dont understand how amazing and irreplacable freddie is..Killer_Whale wrote: Treasure Moment I support you.And you're female, so this could be interesting. Here we have a once in a lifetime opportunity... you won't find too many people who will support this guy. You do recall that this is the guy who said his band was better than Mozart, right? Just don't breed, please. its ok, enjoy music on your level, you just dont understand. |
Killer_Whale 19.10.2007 13:34 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Who has told it? It's a bosh.Killer_Whale wrote: Treasure Moment I support you.You do recall that this is the guy who said his band was better than Mozart, right? Just don't breed, please. Yes, I'm a charming lady. And what? My opinion should coincide with all? |
Micrówave 19.10.2007 15:26 |
A chick with the nickname "Killer Whale". She sounds lovely. Perhaps you two could go out and eat half a restaraunt. |
Treasure Moment 19.10.2007 17:55 |
Micrówave wrote: A chick with the nickname "Killer Whale". She sounds lovely. Perhaps you two could go out and eat half a restaraunt.its ok, you just dont understand music at my level, if you did you would know that freddie is the best musician and singer of all time and no one can compare. |
Killer_Whale 19.10.2007 17:57 |
Micrówave wrote: A chick with the nickname "Killer Whale". She sounds lovely. Perhaps you two could go out and eat half a restaraunt.Haa, ha, you are very very kind, thank you. If you don't like my nickname I can change it specially for you, my dear. 'Orca', how do you find it? You are such rude guy. |
Raststätte-Knödel 20.10.2007 05:15 |
I just love orcas!! you like them too? :) |
Killer_Whale 20.10.2007 05:53 |
Raststätte-Knödel wrote: I just love orcas!! you like them too? :)YES, I love them very much. |
Raststätte-Knödel 20.10.2007 16:26 |
they're the best!! do you have a favorite orca? |
Knute 20.10.2007 21:58 |
What do I think of him? Incredible vocalist. Just listen to BadCo's 'Movin' On' He sings the first two verses with a smokey soulfulness. Then after the solo he come in an octave higher and just tears it up. I can't help but think, damn that's good! He's the real deal as far as heartfelt rock vocals are concerned. |
The Real Wizard 21.10.2007 00:39 |
Treasure Moment wrote: just coz you are ignorant and dont understand how amazing and irreplacable freddie is..Where did I indicate that Freddie can be replaced? its ok, enjoy music on your level, you just dont understand.Haha... on *my* level. You have no idea what level I'm playing at. That's what makes it even funnier than it appears. |
Treasure Moment 21.10.2007 06:09 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:main point, freddie is the best musician and singer of all time by far and anyone who disagrees doesnt know much about musicTreasure Moment wrote: just coz you are ignorant and dont understand how amazing and irreplacable freddie is..Where did I indicate that Freddie can be replaced?its ok, enjoy music on your level, you just dont understand.Haha... on *my* level. You have no idea what level I'm playing at. That's what makes it even funnier than it appears. |
Killer_Whale 21.10.2007 11:37 |
Raststätte-Knödel It's specially for you. link |
Raststätte-Knödel 21.10.2007 12:26 |
thanks! such a great video :) did you make it? |
QueenMercury46 21.10.2007 14:43 |
Treasure Moment wrote:Seriously, when did he ever say he thought Freddie was replaceable? Is that your response to everything?Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:main point, freddie is the best musician and singer of all time by far and anyone who disagrees doesnt know much about musicTreasure Moment wrote: just coz you are ignorant and dont understand how amazing and irreplacable freddie is..Where did I indicate that Freddie can be replaced?its ok, enjoy music on your level, you just dont understand.Haha... on *my* level. You have no idea what level I'm playing at. That's what makes it even funnier than it appears. If someone were to say your mom was fat and ugly you would probably respond with something around the lines of, "FREDDIE MERCURY IS GOD AND NOBODY CAN COMPARE TO HIM!!!! SILENCE YOU LOW BEING WITH NO MUSICAL TASTE!!!!!!!!!!" |
Treasure Moment 21.10.2007 15:08 |
QueenMercury46 wrote:yeah pretty much.......Treasure Moment wrote:Seriously, when did he ever say he thought Freddie was replaceable? Is that your response to everything? If someone were to say your mom was fat and ugly you would probably respond with something around the lines of, "FREDDIE MERCURY IS GOD AND NOBODY CAN COMPARE TO HIM!!!! SILENCE YOU LOW BEING WITH NO MUSICAL TASTE!!!!!!!!!!"Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:main point, freddie is the best musician and singer of all time by far and anyone who disagrees doesnt know much about musicTreasure Moment wrote: just coz you are ignorant and dont understand how amazing and irreplacable freddie is..Where did I indicate that Freddie can be replaced?its ok, enjoy music on your level, you just dont understand.Haha... on *my* level. You have no idea what level I'm playing at. That's what makes it even funnier than it appears. FREDDIE MERCURY IS GOD AND NOBODY CAN COMPARE TO HIM!!!! SILENCE YOU LOW BEING WITH NO MUSICAL TASTE!!!!!!!!!!" |
The Real Wizard 21.10.2007 18:02 |
You really have no clue how to have an intelligent discussion. I truly pity you. |
Treasure Moment 21.10.2007 18:12 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: You really have no clue how to have an intelligent discussion. I truly pity you.sure i can have intelligent discussion but in the particular matter of freddie im just stating facts. The guy was/is the best musician/singer/frontman for all eternity, its simply impossible to be as good as him, everyone is inferior forever. |
The Real Wizard 21.10.2007 18:23 |
But you see, the fact that you can't differentiate between a *fact* and an *opinion* is what makes you unable to have a conversation, at least on this subject. Fact - something that is proven to be true by testable measures, or something that history recorded. Opinion - something which can be debated since it is not a fact by the above definition, and is subject to one's tastes and thoughts. Using those definitions as your guidelines, explain to me why "the guy was/is the best musician/singer/frontman for all eternity, its simply impossible to be as good as him, everyone is inferior forever." Also, perhaps you could tell me what your criteria is for being the "best musician/singer/frontman ever", and why this cannot be debated in your eyes. |
Treasure Moment 21.10.2007 18:45 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: But you see, the fact that you can't differentiate between a *fact* and an *opinion* is what makes you unable to have a conversation, at least on this subject. Fact - something that is proven to be true by testable measures, or something that history recorded. Opinion - something which can be debated since it is not a fact by the above definition, and is subject to one's tastes and thoughts. Using those definitions as your guidelines, explain to me why "the guy was/is the best musician/singer/frontman for all eternity, its simply impossible to be as good as him, everyone is inferior forever." Also, perhaps you could tell me what your criteria is for being the "best musician/singer/frontman ever", and why this cannot be debated in your eyes.if you knew anything about music i wouldnt have to explain why he is the best and that its a fact. Freddie wrote the biggest single of all time. He was the best frontman of all time. He had the best voice of all time with range beyond many singers. He was in the most succesful band of all time. Live aid performance was voted the best concert of all time, beating every single band on the bill. He is simply the best, unbeatable, just for fun tell me someone who is better :) |
Dusta 21.10.2007 22:44 |
Sir, I share your admiration for Freddie, and, admire your courage in putting it out here, for us all to see.
I must tell you, though, that by your assertions, you alienate people. Perhaps this is your purpose? If not, I am sorry, for I think you create an atmosphere of hostility toward Freddie fans.
The, "Facts," you listed are, in fact, all opinions. They can be easily disputed by someone who prefers another type of singer.
I cannot offer you a singer which I think is better, because, in my OPINION, Freddie IS the greatest, for me, but, I tend to think of this in terms of Queen as a whole.
Treasure Moment wrote:Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: But you see, the fact that you can't differentiate between a *fact* and an *opinion* is what makes you unable to have a conversation, at least on this subject. Fact - something that is proven to be true by testable measures, or something that history recorded. Opinion - something which can be debated since it is not a fact by the above definition, and is subject to one's tastes and thoughts. Using those definitions as your guidelines, explain to me why "the guy was/is the best musician/singer/frontman for all eternity, its simply impossible to be as good as him, everyone is inferior forever." Also, perhaps you could tell me what your criteria is for being the "best musician/singer/frontman ever", and why this cannot be debated in your eyes.if you knew anything about music i wouldnt have to explain why he is the best and that its a fact. Freddie wrote the biggest single of all time. He was the best frontman of all time. He had the best voice of all time with range beyond many singers. He was in the most succesful band of all time. Live aid performance was voted the best concert of all time, beating every single band on the bill. He is simply the best, unbeatable, just for fun tell me someone who is better :) |
mike hunt 22.10.2007 01:13 |
it's pretty sad that people actually argue with treasure moment. It's obvious he's looking for attention or he's just plain stupid. Either way, it's sad that the last 2 pages of this thread was spent arguing with a ingnorant kid. As for paul rodgers, I'm not a huge fan of his, but he is one of the best rock singers of all time. I would say top 10 or 15th best in rock history. |
Wiley 22.10.2007 01:36 |
Treasure Moment wrote: Freddie wrote the biggest single of all time. He was the best frontman of all time. He had the best voice of all time with range beyond many singers. He was in the most succesful band of all time. Live aid performance was voted the best concert of all time, beating every single band on the bill. He is simply the best, unbeatable, just for fun tell me someone who is better :)Biggest Single? I believe it was a regular 7" disc like every other. If you mean sales-wise, you're wrong and that's a Fact! I believe Candle in the wind 1997 is still the most sold single in the UK and maybe even the world with about 37 million copies. In the UK it sold (until about 2003, I think) almost 5 million copies while Bohemian Rhapsody did just over 2 million. Best frontman? I agree with you, and that is my opinion as well, not a fact. Someone may find it repulsive to see a 40 year old man with a moustache prancing around the stage in the gayest manner and they might prefer some other frontman. Best voice of ALL time with range beyond MANY singers? So you accept that there are singers with better range than Freddie??? You have come a long way since your first post. I'm proud. Most successful band?? I don't have statistics on this but I think the Beatles might have sold just about 3 to 5 times as many albums as Queen worldwide. Or what do you mean by success? Live aid's performance was not even Queen's best! Sure, they were the best band that day. I think that too. Queen were a terrific live band and could really relate with an audience, mainly because of Freddie's rapport with them. It's good that you share your opinion (yet again) and I agree with you in some items, as long as you don't call them facts. |
Treasure Moment 22.10.2007 05:46 |
mike hunt wrote: it's pretty sad that people actually argue with treasure moment. It's obvious he's looking for attention or he's just plain stupid. Either way, it's sad that the last 2 pages of this thread was spent arguing with a ingnorant kid. As for paul rodgers, I'm not a huge fan of his, but he is one of the best rock singers of all time. I would say top 10 or 15th best in rock history.funny how i see YOU as stupid |
Treasure Moment 22.10.2007 05:49 |
Wiley wrote:there are singers who have the same range, mainly female ones but thats all they have, they dont have his incredible voice.Treasure Moment wrote: Freddie wrote the biggest single of all time. He was the best frontman of all time. He had the best voice of all time with range beyond many singers. He was in the most succesful band of all time. Live aid performance was voted the best concert of all time, beating every single band on the bill. He is simply the best, unbeatable, just for fun tell me someone who is better :)Biggest Single? I believe it was a regular 7" disc like every other. If you mean sales-wise, you're wrong and that's a Fact! I believe Candle in the wind 1997 is still the most sold single in the UK and maybe even the world with about 37 million copies. In the UK it sold (until about 2003, I think) almost 5 million copies while Bohemian Rhapsody did just over 2 million. Best frontman? I agree with you, and that is my opinion as well, not a fact. Someone may find it repulsive to see a 40 year old man with a moustache prancing around the stage in the gayest manner and they might prefer some other frontman. Best voice of ALL time with range beyond MANY singers? So you accept that there are singers with better range than Freddie??? You have come a long way since your first post. I'm proud. Most successful band?? I don't have statistics on this but I think the Beatles might have sold just about 3 to 5 times as many albums as Queen worldwide. Or what do you mean by success? Live aid's performance was not even Queen's best! Sure, they were the best band that day. I think that too. Queen were a terrific live band and could really relate with an audience, mainly because of Freddie's rapport with them. It's good that you share your opinion (yet again) and I agree with you in some items, as long as you don't call them facts. the beatles are nothing compared to queen when it comes to talent and that is a fact actually, think about how many styles of music queen wrote songs in when beatles basically did the same thing all the time. We dont even want to talk about their singers compared to freddie :) |
Sebastian 22.10.2007 07:36 |
Listen to 'Helter Skelter' and then 'Good Night'. Hardly "the same all the time". |
Treasure Moment 22.10.2007 08:31 |
Sebastian wrote: Listen to 'Helter Skelter' and then 'Good Night'. Hardly "the same all the time".i listened to both songs and yes they are different styles but remember that queen nearly played every single style of music while this amateur band played a very few, Queen is billion times more talented band and thats a fact. My band is alot better than the beatles too, i mean come on, listen to that amateur songwriting.... |
Wiley 22.10.2007 10:51 |
Treasure Moment wrote: i listened to both songs and yes they are different styles but remember that queen nearly played every single style of music while this amateur band played a very few, Queen is billion times more talented band and thats a fact.How can you appreciate Queen's versatility and how they played many styles of music? Really, have you heard other artists doing those styles in order to compare and appreciate? I'm sure you think that Innuendo has the best Spanish guitar ever, Love of my life is the ultimate ballad, Bohemian Rhapsody is better than Verdi and Wagner together (I don't think you know them, btw) and Body Language is better than everything on Thriller. Yes, they incorporated varied styles in their music and the mix was great and successful, but I don't think you can appreciate the differences if you haven't actually listened and enjoyed other music. "Queen plays every genre, I don't need to listen to other bands!" I used to say that, when I was 10. |
Treasure Moment 22.10.2007 11:13 |
Wiley wrote:sure there are other bands too who have good songs, i listen to other stuff too but Queen is the ultimate band.Treasure Moment wrote: i listened to both songs and yes they are different styles but remember that queen nearly played every single style of music while this amateur band played a very few, Queen is billion times more talented band and thats a fact.How can you appreciate Queen's versatility and how they played many styles of music? Really, have you heard other artists doing those styles in order to compare and appreciate? I'm sure you think that Innuendo has the best Spanish guitar ever, Love of my life is the ultimate ballad, Bohemian Rhapsody is better than Verdi and Wagner together (I don't think you know them, btw) and Body Language is better than everything on Thriller. Yes, they incorporated varied styles in their music and the mix was great and successful, but I don't think you can appreciate the differences if you haven't actually listened and enjoyed other music. "Queen plays every genre, I don't need to listen to other bands!" I used to say that, when I was 10. |
Wiley 22.10.2007 13:48 |
All the flaming and insulting apart, I am genuinely interested in knowing which other bands do you listen to. I know you like heavy/death metal. Any band that I might know of? It would be cool to know which are your 10 favourite non-Queen related songs of all time. Do you feel like disclosing that info? Regards, JCW |
Micrówave 22.10.2007 14:09 |
Here's my take: TREASURE MOMENT'S FAVORITE NON-QUEEN RELATED TOP TEN SONG LIST from the home office in Des Moines, Iowa. 10. Love Shack - B52s 9. Dont'cha - Pussycat Dolls 8. Cherry Pie - Warrant 7. The Banana Boat Song - Harry Belafonte 6. Jump - Van Halen (As performed in Greensboro, NC this year) 5. Warrior - Scandal 4. Evergreen - Barbara Streisand 3. The Final Countdown - Europe 2. The Safety Dance - Men Without Hats 1. I Am Woman Hear Me Roar - Helen Reddy and that is a FACT |
Treasure Moment 22.10.2007 16:32 |
Wiley wrote: All the flaming and insulting apart, I am genuinely interested in knowing which other bands do you listen to. I know you like heavy/death metal. Any band that I might know of? It would be cool to know which are your 10 favourite non-Queen related songs of all time. Do you feel like disclosing that info? Regards, JCW95% of the music i listen to outside queen is brutal death metal and i dont think you know those bands but ill post some of the death metal bands in case you want to check it out. ill just mention 10 random non queen songs outside death metal that i like.. vangelis-La Petite Fille de la Mer link tears for fears- sowing the seeds of love link kim wilde-you came link alphaville-forever young link sandra-maria magdalena link pet shop boys-always on my mind(i know its elvis song but i like this version better) link Ennio Morricone - The Ecstasy of Gold link Beethoven - Sonate No.23 F-moll op.57 Appassionata 3rd link Europe- ninja link George michael-father figure link and here is 2 death metal songs if you wanna check out.. Nile-Execration text link Beneath the massacre- Society's Disposable Son link |
The Real Wizard 22.10.2007 18:10 |
Treasure Moment wrote: My band is alot better than the beatles too, i mean come on, listen to that amateur songwriting....Beatles/solo albums have sold 1.5 billion copies worldwide, which makes them the best selling artists in the history of popular music, by far. They are easily the most important entertainers of the last 100 years. They paved the way for virtually everything in and related to the genres of rock and pop that came after them. If you cannot at least appreciate their innovation and acknowledge their influence, then you are a complete moron... and in your language... that is a FACT. As for Freddie... honestly, if the majority of people within a Queen forum think you're out to lunch for posting the things you post, then imagine what people in the outside world must think of you when you discuss music with them. However, that list of 10 songs you posted above... not bad! At least you seem to have some taste and understanding of other music. |
Treasure Moment 22.10.2007 19:07 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:the thing with beatles is that they are more about hype than actual talent, i mean i listened to their songs and its nothing special at all, actually very amateurish. There is NOTHING special with them at all besides that they were early. Queen is in FACT billion times better AND more talented, that cant be discussed, its a fact. If they were better musicians than my band i would admit it but they arent,they are just hype.Treasure Moment wrote: My band is alot better than the beatles too, i mean come on, listen to that amateur songwriting....Beatles/solo albums have sold 1.5 billion copies worldwide, which makes them the best selling artists in the history of popular music, by far. They are easily the most important entertainers of the last 100 years. They paved the way for virtually everything in and related to the genres of rock and pop that came after them. If you cannot at least appreciate their innovation and acknowledge their influence, then you are a complete moron... and in your language... that is a FACT. As for Freddie... honestly, if the majority of people within a Queen forum think you're out to lunch for posting the things you post, then imagine what people in the outside world must think of you when you discuss music with them. However, that list of 10 songs you posted above... not bad! At least you seem to have some taste and understanding of other music. |
The Real Wizard 22.10.2007 21:26 |
Treasure Moment wrote: the thing with beatles is that they are more about hype than actual talent, i mean i listened to their songs and its nothing special at all, actually very amateurish. There is NOTHING special with them at all besides that they were early....in your opinion. Maybe one day you'll realize the difference between facts and your opinions. But honestly, if you are genuinely convinced that the instrumental arrangements and George Martin's production (especially on albums like Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road) were "amateurish", then you are all but a lost cause. Queen is in FACT billion times better AND more talented, that cant be discussed, its a fact.These things CAN be discussed. It's called art. Tastes in art are subject to one's opinions. If you can't see that McCartney was a brilliant bassist and Harrison a unique and influential guitarist, then that's your own fault. That said, it's not all about technical ability. If that was the case, then the Sex Pistols wouldn't have sold any records, and Shawn Lane would be the best guitarist ever. If they were better musicians than my band i would admit it but they arent,they are just hype.The Beatles weren't the greatest musicians ever, but they wrote great songs that have been cherished by billions. After your band achieves platinum status, then you can start comparing your band to The Beatles. I have seen plenty of conceited musicians in my day, but you are by far the worst of them all. Even the dullest of wits wouldn't dare compare themselves in any way to The Beatles. You're one of the few people in the civilized world who isn't able to recognize the simple and complex beauties of The Beatles, which of course is okay, since you're entitled to your opinion. But to say they were all hype and no talent is pretty much the stupidest thing someone can say, especially since you're a budding musician - who should be respecting his peers, not saying that everyone (besides Queen) is worse than his band. If you think music is purely about what are and aren't facts, then become a music historian and stay the hell out of the playing district... not that you're going to get anywhere, anyway. Seriously, how far has your arrogant attitude gotten you so far? |
The Real Wizard 22.10.2007 21:46 |
Treasure Moment wrote: Freddie wrote the biggest single of all time.As far as I'm aware, Elton John's "Candle In The Wind" is the best-selling single of all time, as stated above. He was the best frontman of all time.In your opinion. There are many others who are up there with him. He had the best voice of all time with range beyond many singers.But surely not all. He had a great range, but there are plenty that could outdo him. "Best voice" is a matter of opinion. He was in the most succesful band of all time.Nonsense. Queen are a top 10 band, but nobody touches The Beatles. Also, the Stones, Who, and Zeppelin are equally if not more influential than Queen were. Live aid performance was voted the best concert of all time, beating every single band on the bill.Sure, Queen were the best band at Live Aid. But in the grand scheme of things, there are many shows that were far more groundbreaking - like Jimi Hendrix's performance at the Monterrey festival in '67. I agree with anyone who says Queen were one of rock's all time great bands, but many other bands and artists accomplished just as much as they did, if not more. Your view of music just doesn't seem to include the accomplishments of others, and it's your own fault if you can't acknowledge that. |
Treasure Moment 23.10.2007 06:17 |
I dont care how they influenced others, as i said its more about them being early and hype than actual talent. The songs are pretty boring and amateur like. Only song that was pretty good was "yesterday" from the ones i heard. Nothing in the world can change my view that Queen is million times better band and more talented, and that goes for all the bands that exists. |
john bodega 23.10.2007 10:48 |
" The songs are pretty boring and amateur like. Only song that was pretty good was "yesterday" from the ones i heard." You pick one of the lamer ones?? |
Treasure Moment 23.10.2007 10:55 |
Zebonka12 wrote: " The songs are pretty boring and amateur like. Only song that was pretty good was "yesterday" from the ones i heard." You pick one of the lamer ones??the others are way more lame than that one, its kindergarden music. |
Lester Burnham 23.10.2007 10:58 |
I wonder when we're all going to stop arguing with Treasure Moment, especially several posters within this thread who should know better. Why waste your time feeding the troll? Even if you think to yourself, "Yeah, that really showed him," after writing a particularly convincing argument, he's still going to come back and spout off his usual crap. Seriously, STOP REPLYING TO TREASURE MOMENT. FOREVER. DON'T DO IT AGAIN. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE PLAIN I CAN MAKE IT TO YOU PEOPLE THAT YOU'RE JUST WASTING YOUR TIME. *sigh* |
Treasure Moment 23.10.2007 11:15 |
Lester Burnham wrote: I wonder when we're all going to stop arguing with Treasure Moment, especially several posters within this thread who should know better. Why waste your time feeding the troll? Even if you think to yourself, "Yeah, that really showed him," after writing a particularly convincing argument, he's still going to come back and spout off his usual crap. Seriously, STOP REPLYING TO TREASURE MOMENT. FOREVER. DON'T DO IT AGAIN. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE PLAIN I CAN MAKE IT TO YOU PEOPLE THAT YOU'RE JUST WASTING YOUR TIME. *sigh*you are the troll here, stupid creature |
Micrówave 23.10.2007 12:39 |
Lester: You know a lot about Queen, so I would take your opinion as pretty much FACT. But Treasure Moment seems to be opening our ears to music in a way that is frankly alarming. I find myself digging out old albums that I thought I'd never listen to again: Steve Perry's 2nd solo album. Re-worked and re-hashed, and finally released after four painful attempts, it still only had one real good song on it: You Better Wait. Great song, very Perry, but the rest of it was just plain horrible. Treasure Moment bridges that gap for me. Now I think "For The Love Of Strange Medicine" is a really really good album... AND I CAN PROVE IT!! Simply listen to the first Treasure Moment releases exactly 6 times each while consuming mass amounts of bad Scotch. THEN put on the Perry cut. Fricking amazing. |
Boy Thomas Raker 23.10.2007 23:04 |
Sure, he's a blubbering idiot, but let's give Treasure Moment a second here. He says that: * Freddie wrote the biggest single of all time. Not necessarily true sales wise, but arguably the most popular and best loved in many countries as witnessed by the BBC poll. Not many songs have a TV special dissecting a song as Bo Rhap did, so it's on a very, very, very small list of rock songs of the century. That is a FACT ;) * He was the best frontman of all time. If not the best, but only a Queen hater wouldn't have Freddie on a very, very, very small list of rock's greatest ever frontmen. * He had the best voice of all time with range beyond many singers. No, but in the world of rock and roll, he had few peers. Forgetting range, which is a small function of singing, Freddie was a fantastic singer and interpreter who could do more with a phrase than some artists could with an entire catalogue. * He was in the most succesful band of all time. Meet the Beatles. Queen are there with the others that Sir GH listed, and probably ahead of a lot of them saleswise. * Live aid performance was voted the best concert of all time, beating every single band on the bill. Vote is based on popularity so somewhat frivolous, however, he won over an entire audience that day, and surely they weren't all Queen fans. Why didn't the Who, Page and Plant, Simple Minds, Dire Straits or any other band who we're comparing Queen to get the same response that day? Critically, even the most callous critic would give Queen, and Freddie, their due for their performance at their generations Woodstock. * He is simply the best, unbeatable, just for fun tell me someone who is better :) Apparently not Paul Rodgers or The Beatles according to Treasure Moment! When it comes to a writer who had a fantastically diverse body of work, a frontman who could work a stadium like none before or since, and a singer who could sing all types of music from opera and gospel, to funk and rock, there may be a lot of people who fit into one catagory (hello David Lee Roth), or two (hello Mick Jagger!), there aren't many who had success as writer/singer/performers (in addition to being a fine musician early in his career.) If he's not the best at those three disciplines in rock, it's a hell of a short list. BTW, Treasure Moment, the Beatles are amazing. Accept it. |
Treasure Moment 24.10.2007 03:07 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Sure, he's a blubbering idiot, but let's give Treasure Moment a second here. He says that: * Freddie wrote the biggest single of all time. Not necessarily true sales wise, but arguably the most popular and best loved in many countries as witnessed by the BBC poll. Not many songs have a TV special dissecting a song as Bo Rhap did, so it's on a very, very, very small list of rock songs of the century. That is a FACT ;) * He was the best frontman of all time. If not the best, but only a Queen hater wouldn't have Freddie on a very, very, very small list of rock's greatest ever frontmen. * He had the best voice of all time with range beyond many singers. No, but in the world of rock and roll, he had few peers. Forgetting range, which is a small function of singing, Freddie was a fantastic singer and interpreter who could do more with a phrase than some artists could with an entire catalogue. * He was in the most succesful band of all time. Meet the Beatles. Queen are there with the others that Sir GH listed, and probably ahead of a lot of them saleswise. * Live aid performance was voted the best concert of all time, beating every single band on the bill. Vote is based on popularity so somewhat frivolous, however, he won over an entire audience that day, and surely they weren't all Queen fans. Why didn't the Who, Page and Plant, Simple Minds, Dire Straits or any other band who we're comparing Queen to get the same response that day? Critically, even the most callous critic would give Queen, and Freddie, their due for their performance at their generations Woodstock. * He is simply the best, unbeatable, just for fun tell me someone who is better :) Apparently not Paul Rodgers or The Beatles according to Treasure Moment! When it comes to a writer who had a fantastically diverse body of work, a frontman who could work a stadium like none before or since, and a singer who could sing all types of music from opera and gospel, to funk and rock, there may be a lot of people who fit into one catagory (hello David Lee Roth), or two (hello Mick Jagger!), there aren't many who had success as writer/singer/performers (in addition to being a fine musician early in his career.) If he's not the best at those three disciplines in rock, it's a hell of a short list. BTW, Treasure Moment, the Beatles are amazing. Accept it.yes they are amazingly overhyped and crappy, my band is better. |