NEOLOGiX 24.01.2007 21:56 |
I heartily agree that Queen shouldn't release a new album without Freddie Mercury... and not only without Freddie Mercury, but also without John Deacon. I mean, Queen are like an iconic figure for me. How the hell can they decide to release new music without two of their members. That was what was so great about it - the four of them contributed and made songs together. Who the hell is Paul Rodgers anyway? Queen are known for the falmboyant ways of Freddie on stage - I mean that was one of the great things about Queen. What, is this 50-something Rodgers gonna perform like Freddie? Running around with the Union Jack and the microphone stand? The bastard would have a bloody heart attack. Nobody can ever replace Freddie. He himself said it on Live at Wembley '86, Who Wants To Live Forever - "we'll stay together till we bloody well die, I'm sure of it". Well he's dead, and now two of the surviving members are replacing him???? They're in it for the money OBVIOUSLY. They're disgracing the Queen name by making an album with Paul Rodgers. If they want they should just create a new band and make an album with him. Not Queen + Paul Rodgers. That's bullshit. I think Deacon did the best choice by retiring back in the 1990s. What I'd like to see is the three of them performing live once more, playing their classic songs, and using a good vocalist... some guy who was big in the 70s like Queen... I dunno, maybe Elton John or Paul McCartney or something. |
Lester Burnham 24.01.2007 21:58 |
YOU'RE ALL GOING TO BURN IN HELL FOR THE NEW QUEEN+PAUL RODGERS ALBUM THAT HASN'T EVEN BEEN RECORDED YET!!!! REPENT, SINNERS, REPENT!!!!! THE APOCALYPSE IS UPON IS!!!!! MAKE GOOD WITH LORD MERCURY OR THOU SHALT ALL BURN FOR ETERNITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
john bodega 24.01.2007 22:00 |
RIP SMILE. |
Lester Burnham 24.01.2007 22:02 |
Oh hey Zeb, apparently ol' PT said on his site that the 'oo are coming to Oz later this year. Just wanted to let you know. |
john bodega 24.01.2007 22:05 |
Oh! OH! OH FUCK YEAH If they leave Perth offa the list, I might have to go twist his windmilling arm and teach him a lesson. |
Lester Burnham 24.01.2007 22:10 |
They were in Sydney three years ago... and in Auckland, Brisbane, Adelaide, and Melbourne almost forty years ago... of course, I have no fucking clue if any of those cities are near Perth, and I'm almost certain that Auckland is in New Zealand... |
deleted user 24.01.2007 22:11 |
If I go to Hell for listening to Q+PR, does that mean I'm going to be where Freddie is ? ... Or is that a different level of Hell ? ... Is it walking distance ? ... I always do get them mixed up... Regardless, Hell should be a fantastic place - I hear that anyone who was anyone is there. |
Lester Burnham 24.01.2007 22:13 |
<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: If I go to Hell for listening to Q+PR, does that mean I'm going to be where Freddie is ? ... Or is that a different level of Hell ? ... Is it walking distance ? ... I always do get them mixed up... Regardless, Hell should be a fantastic place - I hear that anyone who was anyone is there.Shh shh, you're interrupting my conversation with Zebonka about The Who! In fact, this thread is now about The Who and all their greatness. |
john bodega 24.01.2007 22:13 |
Oh, Perth is a nice enough place, but it's bloody isolated. I think we're close to Singapore than we are the East Coast - or something ridiculous like that... Anyway it shouldn't be an issue. You'd think The Who have enough money to fly over here!! |
deleted user 24.01.2007 22:15 |
Dr. Perry Cox wrote: Shh shh, you're interrupting my conversation with Zebonka about The Who! In fact, this thread is now about The Who and all their greatness.Well, of course The Who are welcome in Hell, too ! |
Knute 24.01.2007 22:55 |
And yet another mentally deficient finds his way to Queenzone. |
Sweetie 24.01.2007 23:56 |
I disagree, I think they should kick Paul out of a plane, and then get someone with a better voice and nice eyes, but they're not replacing Freddie, they're just continuing there love of music with another artist, but I still think that they shouldn't call it Queen, maybe Death Rides A Sandwich or something |
beautifulsoup 24.01.2007 23:59 |
~yawn~ |
mike hunt 25.01.2007 00:12 |
NEOLOGiX wrote: I heartily agree that Queen shouldn't release a new album without Freddie Mercury... and not only without Freddie Mercury, but also without John Deacon. I mean, Queen are like an iconic figure for me. How the hell can they decide to release new music without two of their members. That was what was so great about it - the four of them contributed and made songs together. Who the hell is Paul Rodgers anyway? Queen are known for the falmboyant ways of Freddie on stage - I mean that was one of the great things about Queen. What, is this 50-something Rodgers gonna perform like Freddie? Running around with the Union Jack and the microphone stand? The bastard would have a bloody heart attack. Nobody can ever replace Freddie. He himself said it on Live at Wembley '86, Who Wants To Live Forever - "we'll stay together till we bloody well die, I'm sure of it". Well he's dead, and now two of the surviving members are replacing him???? They're in it for the money OBVIOUSLY. They're disgracing the Queen name by making an album with Paul Rodgers. If they want they should just create a new band and make an album with him. Not Queen + Paul Rodgers. That's bullshit. I think Deacon did the best choice by retiring back in the 1990s. What I'd like to see is the three of them performing live once more, playing their classic songs, and using a good vocalist... some guy who was big in the 70s like Queen... I dunno, maybe Elton John or Paul McCartney or something.I have a lot of respect for john Deacon for retiring, Queen are no more. I think we all agree on that, but I still think paul, brian, and roger could be a all star rock band. Queen?...it's definitely not queen, it sounds nothing like them. Your showing a bit of ignorance by saying "Who is paul rodgers?" he's only one of the best rock singers in history. |
sparrow 21754 25.01.2007 00:38 |
your face is a mortal sin >.> |
Crezchi 25.01.2007 01:48 |
YAWN. A Mortal Sin? lol. How fucking stupid can one person be? |
pittrek 25.01.2007 02:47 |
Neologix : take a photo of your beloved Freddie and go fuck yourself, dirty asshole. |
The prophet's song 25.01.2007 03:48 |
No one's forcing you to listen to it you know |
Crezchi 25.01.2007 05:32 |
pittrek wrote: Neologix : take a photo of your beloved Freddie and go fuck yourself, dirty asshole.Nice. lol. Don't bring Freddie into this. |
QUEENROCKS_1991 25.01.2007 05:42 |
when is the new cd coming out ? cant wait :) |
john bodega 25.01.2007 05:52 |
Well if it's anything like The Who's last effort, I can't wait. |
Sweetie 25.01.2007 06:01 |
I spose I can handle listening to it, I still don't like Paul's eyes though |
Raf 25.01.2007 07:19 |
Stupid newbies who don't read old threads before starting new ones. A bunch of retards have already started threads like this one, and a bunch of people with a bit of brain have already made their point proving that the whole QPR project is not a bad thing. |
NEOLOGiX 25.01.2007 07:36 |
Actually Raf840, you bloody fuckwit, I'm not a newbie, I've actually been a member since Sunday, September 22, 2002, unlike you, who has been only since like August 2006. Check out link - it's the old style forum which gives the Registered date at the bottom of each post. And I know that this topic was started before you bloody dumb piece of motherfucking shit. So fuck you and fuck your little pecker, you son of a motherfucked bitch. |
vtx 25.01.2007 08:24 |
Q+PR! i cant wait for the new stuff. How many times do they have to say its a new band and direction.What is the problem? If you dont like it fine!!!!! just shut your mouths and dream about Queen and the fact you will never see them again...I did in 1991! |
dsmeer 25.01.2007 08:56 |
Why is this world so full of hate people dying everywere and we destroy what we create. Etc Etc If you love Freddie so much, listen to his music |
gnomo 25.01.2007 12:23 |
NEOLOGiX wrote: Queen are like an iconic figure for me. How the hell can they decide to release new musicQuite simply, because they think *that* does not entitle YOU to dictate what they'd better do... |
gnomo 25.01.2007 12:24 |
NEOLOGiX wrote: is this 50-something Rodgers gonna perform like Freddie? (...) The bastard would have a bloody heart attack. (...) some guy who was big in the 70s like Queen... I dunno, maybe Elton John or Paul McCartney or something.Define: coherence... |
Raf 25.01.2007 12:52 |
NEOLOGiX wrote: Actually Raf840, you bloody fuckwit, I'm not a newbie, I've actually been a member since Sunday, September 22, 2002, unlike you, who has been only since like August 2006. Check out link - it's the old style forum which gives the Registered date at the bottom of each post. And I know that this topic was started before you bloody dumb piece of motherfucking shit. So fuck you and fuck your little pecker, you son of a motherfucked bitch.I'm a member since late 2003, but I had to get new accounts twice. And the fact that you've been here for over 4 years should make you ashamed of starting a new thread like this one, as we've been having the same kind of bullshit since the first rumours, in December 2004. Either you're very inexperient here or you're a complete dumbass. |
Mr Faron Hyte 25.01.2007 12:56 |
NEOLOGiX wrote: Actually Raf840, you bloody fuckwit, I'm not a newbie, I've actually been a member since Sunday, September 22, 2002, unlike you, who has been only since like August 2006. Check out link - it's the old style forum which gives the Registered date at the bottom of each post. And I know that this topic was started before you bloody dumb piece of motherfucking shit. So fuck you and fuck your little pecker, you son of a motherfucked bitch.What are they teaching in Maltese schools these days? And besides, everyone already knows that rock'n'roll is the Devil's music, so listening to Queen+/-/anything is already a mortal sin. *yawn* Old business. Moving on - when's that Queen + Paul Rodgers album coming out and how soon can I buy it??? |
Raststätte-Knödel 25.01.2007 13:04 |
I don't mind if Brian, Roger and Paul would relase an album, but NO Queen album!! it's just not Queen, so it shouldn't be called a Queen album!! Queen is John, Freddie, Roger and Brian...after all |
olly1988 25.01.2007 13:20 |
Elton John and Paul McCartney?!!? None of them can do their own songs justice anymore never mind Queen! |
john bodega 25.01.2007 13:34 |
"Paul McCartney?!!? None of them can do their own songs justice anymore never mind Queen!" Elton John, you have a point. His throat surgery in the 80's robbed him of any interesting qualities to his voice. Paul McCartney on the other hand, can still sing Helter Skelter. And he recorded that 40 years ago!! |
Munchsack 25.01.2007 14:50 |
Are we still using cheese as a deterrant? I like cheese, I do. |
Crezchi 25.01.2007 14:52 |
NEOLOGiX wrote: Actually Raf840, you bloody fuckwit, I'm not a newbie, I've actually been a member since Sunday, September 22, 2002, unlike you, who has been only since like August 2006. Check out link - it's the old style forum which gives the Registered date at the bottom of each post. And I know that this topic was started before you bloody dumb piece of motherfucking shit. So fuck you and fuck your little pecker, you son of a motherfucked bitch.I don't see how you were around then, going by your 'MOUTH' you are still only 2 years old. Grow up dude. Watch your mouth. It is one thing to say fuck you or something, but all the grammatically incorrect vulgar display, not acceptable. Chill! |
The Real Wizard 25.01.2007 14:53 |
I still don't understand how people can insist that Queen are F+B+R+J, when plenty of bands changed membership over the years and kept their name. Someone, please explain to me why Queen are exempt from this. |
Crezchi 25.01.2007 14:57 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: I still don't understand how people can insist that Queen are F+B+R+J, when plenty of bands changed membership over the years and kept their name. Someone, please explain to me why Queen are exempt from this.Exactly. And i MUST point this out for you little John Deacon humpers, JOHN WAS NOT A FOUNDING MEMBER OF QUEEN!! There get that in your head, Brian and Roger can do what ever they want with the Queen name, they are founding members, and even Freddie's own mum gave her blessing, what's the problem? |
dobo 25.01.2007 15:03 |
as far as i'm concerned at the moment Queen consists of Brian May, Roger Taylor & Paul Rodgers if other bands can change members and keep the same name why can't queen do the same AC/DC did and they changed a few members most notably the leadsinger due to him dying so why can Queen not change their leadsinger because he is sadly no longer with us. If Brian and Roger want to call themselves Queen then so be it they are of course 2 of the 3 founding members of a certain band called Queen, and Paul Rodgers is not a bad singer he does not sound bad singing Queen songs he just sounds different to Freddie thats all if you don't like how he sounds then don't listen to him or buy the new Queen album which i personaly can not wait for because even if it is not up to the same standard of previous Queen records (which it will be IMHO) it will still be a lot better than a lot of modern music. So to clarify Paul Rodgers Rocks |
maxpower 25.01.2007 15:07 |
this is tiresome Freddie wasnt just Queen he joint after Brian & Roger so go & fuck yourself to be frank |
Raststätte-Knödel 25.01.2007 15:27 |
I thought Freddie was the founder of the name Queen? |
dobo 25.01.2007 15:28 |
he may of come up with the name but the orginal line up consisted of Freddie,Brian and Roger did it not, as john joined at a later stage |
bitesthedust 25.01.2007 15:30 |
Little history lesson: Brian May, Tim Staffell & Roger Meddows Taylor were originally in a band Smile. After Tim Staffell left to join another band, Freddie Bulsara encouraged Brian and Roger to continue in the music business and together they formed a band called Queen. Freddie designed the crest and helped decide on the band name. Queen did not exist before he joined forces with Brian and Roger. Around 1970-1971, Mike Grose, Barry Mitchell and Doug Bogie were all tried out as bassists with Brian, Freddie & Roger before John Deacon was chosen by the band to be the permanent bass player in the summer of 1971. As far as changing band members is concerned - I'll sound a hypocrite but the Foo Fighters have had 2 drummers and 3 different guitarists since they began in 1995, and to my mind, they are still Foo Fighters. Go figure I guess. |
Crezchi 25.01.2007 15:47 |
<font color=maroon>bitesthedust wrote: Little history lesson: Brian May, Tim Staffell & Roger Meddows Taylor were originally in a band Smile. After Tim Staffell left to join another band, Freddie Bulsara encouraged Brian and Roger to continue in the music business and together they formed a band called Queen. Freddie designed the crest and helped decide on the band name. Queen did not exist before he joined forces with Brian and Roger. Around 1970-1971, Mike Grose, Barry Mitchell and Doug Bogie were all tried out as bassists with Brian, Freddie & Roger before John Deacon was chosen by the band to be the permanent bass player in the summer of 1971. As far as changing band members is concerned - I'll sound a hypocrite but the Foo Fighters have had 2 drummers and 3 different guitarists since they began in 1995, and to my mind, they are still Foo Fighters. Go figure I guess.Actually Queen were called Smile for months, and were actually even billed as Roger Taylor's Smile in Cornwall, Roger's Hometown. And Tim left to join a band called 'Humpy Bong' lol. And they all made the name, not just Freddie, they had to all agree, so he couldn't have just named the band. lol. |
bitesthedust 25.01.2007 15:56 |
Crezchi wrote:Billed as Smile, but Queen in essence.<font color=maroon>bitesthedust wrote: Little history lesson: Brian May, Tim Staffell & Roger Meddows Taylor were originally in a band Smile. After Tim Staffell left to join another band, Freddie Bulsara encouraged Brian and Roger to continue in the music business and together they formed a band called Queen. Freddie designed the crest and helped decide on the band name. Queen did not exist before he joined forces with Brian and Roger. Around 1970-1971, Mike Grose, Barry Mitchell and Doug Bogie were all tried out as bassists with Brian, Freddie & Roger before John Deacon was chosen by the band to be the permanent bass player in the summer of 1971. As far as changing band members is concerned - I'll sound a hypocrite but the Foo Fighters have had 2 drummers and 3 different guitarists since they began in 1995, and to my mind, they are still Foo Fighters. Go figure I guess.Actually Queen were called Smile for months, and were actually even billed as Roger Taylor's Smile in Cornwall, Roger's Hometown. And Tim left to join a band called 'Humpy Bong' lol. And they all made the name, not just Freddie, they had to all agree, so he couldn't have just named the band. lol. As far as the naming of the band - to quote myself: "Freddie designed the crest and helped decide on the band name." |
Smitty 25.01.2007 16:00 |
Imagine is all of these people were just Paul Rodgers with multiple accounts, trying to mess with us. Now THAT'd just be weird. |
Another queen fanatic 25.01.2007 16:06 |
Just a silly grammatical thing to annoy you guys, but freddie said until we die, considering only one of the we is dead, then they will continue to make music. If you read the interviews Brian May said he wants to floow a different route with Queen, and fair enough. besides, if YOU were in his shoes, wouldnt you do the same? Also if you hate Queen and Paul Rogers then set up a seperate website and call it anti-Queenzone or somthing, and stop winging, I thought the whole point of this place was to celebrate in our love of their music, and not their hate in it. Also, surely you have a higher purpose in life than to winge and moan about an album made by a bunch of 60 year olds realsing they dont have a pension? |
Crezchi 25.01.2007 16:17 |
<font color=maroon>bitesthedust wrote:Most of my comment about this was directed towards the peeps who keep saying that Freddie named the band. :) i was just adding to your post.Crezchi wrote:Billed as Smile, but Queen in essence. As far as the naming of the band - to quote myself: "Freddie designed the crest and helped decide on the band name."<font color=maroon>bitesthedust wrote: Little history lesson: Brian May, Tim Staffell & Roger Meddows Taylor were originally in a band Smile. After Tim Staffell left to join another band, Freddie Bulsara encouraged Brian and Roger to continue in the music business and together they formed a band called Queen. Freddie designed the crest and helped decide on the band name. Queen did not exist before he joined forces with Brian and Roger. Around 1970-1971, Mike Grose, Barry Mitchell and Doug Bogie were all tried out as bassists with Brian, Freddie & Roger before John Deacon was chosen by the band to be the permanent bass player in the summer of 1971. As far as changing band members is concerned - I'll sound a hypocrite but the Foo Fighters have had 2 drummers and 3 different guitarists since they began in 1995, and to my mind, they are still Foo Fighters. Go figure I guess.Actually Queen were called Smile for months, and were actually even billed as Roger Taylor's Smile in Cornwall, Roger's Hometown. And Tim left to join a band called 'Humpy Bong' lol. And they all made the name, not just Freddie, they had to all agree, so he couldn't have just named the band. lol. |
PieterMC 25.01.2007 16:18 |
Can we go ahead and just create a forum for people to bitch about this album? It's only going to get worse as time goes on. |
Penetration_Guru 25.01.2007 16:24 |
NEOLOGiX wrote: Actually Raf840, you bloody fuckwit, I'm not a newbie, I've actually been a member since Sunday, September 22, 2002, unlike you, who has been only since like August 2006. Check out link - it's the old style forum which gives the Registered date at the bottom of each post. And I know that this topic was started before you bloody dumb piece of motherfucking shit. So fuck you and fuck your little pecker, you son of a motherfucked bitch.Oh dear. "Mortal sin"???? Very funny. Carry on, you'll hyperventilate when they release anything... |
bitesthedust 25.01.2007 16:48 |
Crezchi wrote:Fine, my mistake, sorry.<font color=maroon>bitesthedust wrote:Most of my comment about this was directed towards the peeps who keep saying that Freddie named the band. :) i was just adding to your post.Crezchi wrote:Billed as Smile, but Queen in essence. As far as the naming of the band - to quote myself: "Freddie designed the crest and helped decide on the band name."<font color=maroon>bitesthedust wrote: Little history lesson: Brian May, Tim Staffell & Roger Meddows Taylor were originally in a band Smile. After Tim Staffell left to join another band, Freddie Bulsara encouraged Brian and Roger to continue in the music business and together they formed a band called Queen. Freddie designed the crest and helped decide on the band name. Queen did not exist before he joined forces with Brian and Roger. Around 1970-1971, Mike Grose, Barry Mitchell and Doug Bogie were all tried out as bassists with Brian, Freddie & Roger before John Deacon was chosen by the band to be the permanent bass player in the summer of 1971. As far as changing band members is concerned - I'll sound a hypocrite but the Foo Fighters have had 2 drummers and 3 different guitarists since they began in 1995, and to my mind, they are still Foo Fighters. Go figure I guess.Actually Queen were called Smile for months, and were actually even billed as Roger Taylor's Smile in Cornwall, Roger's Hometown. And Tim left to join a band called 'Humpy Bong' lol. And they all made the name, not just Freddie, they had to all agree, so he couldn't have just named the band. lol. |
blerp 25.01.2007 17:15 |
What's up with this sudden outburst of PR complainees? Go find your cum rag. |
sbrown 25.01.2007 19:20 |
NEOLOGiX wrote: I mean, Queen are like an iconic figure for me. How the hell can they decide to release new music without two of their members.Yes, of course, because it's all about you. I'll do you a deal : if the album comes out, don't buy it, and STFU. I'll buy it, and judge it on it's merits, not on what you think is "right". |
sbrown 25.01.2007 19:22 |
Dr. Perry Cox wrote: Oh hey Zeb, apparently ol' PT said on his site that the 'oo are coming to Oz later this year. Just wanted to let you know.I thought they postponed.... In fact, I'm quite sure they put off the Asia/Australia leg because they had other stuff on. BTW, Zeb, the US 2-disc version of Endless Wire is at JB Hi-Fi for $18.99.... |
sbrown 25.01.2007 19:25 |
MercuryLines wrote: I don't mind if Brian, Roger and Paul would relase an album, but NO Queen album!! it's just not Queen, so it shouldn't be called a Queen album!! Queen is John, Freddie, Roger and Brian...after allIt's not called Queen..it's called Queen + Paul Rodgers. I'd say they're keeping the 2 things quite separate. |
john bodega 25.01.2007 21:47 |
sbrown wrote:Oh.... OH, flippin' awesome. It's been ages since I spent any money, and my birthday is coming up. Time to embrace capitalism!!Dr. Perry Cox wrote: Oh hey Zeb, apparently ol' PT said on his site that the 'oo are coming to Oz later this year. Just wanted to let you know.I thought they postponed.... In fact, I'm quite sure they put off the Asia/Australia leg because they had other stuff on. BTW, Zeb, the US 2-disc version of Endless Wire is at JB Hi-Fi for $18.99.... |
john bodega 25.01.2007 21:51 |
As for the rest of the thread; I must've missed that part in the Bible where it said a Q+PR album was a 'mortal sin'. Can't you people hold your fire until it's out? Traditionally, one doesn't knock music until they listen to it. I might have an awful lot of fun shitting on U2 (their latest single didn't shit me that badly, actually) or Robbie Williams, but I have to listen to it first. No patience at all! The album will be out later this year. I'll probably be too busy playing Spore to notice... just shake hands and get over it. |
Lester Burnham 25.01.2007 22:04 |
sbrown wrote:Pete just announced they're going to do some shows in Australia on his site, check it out.Dr. Perry Cox wrote: Oh hey Zeb, apparently ol' PT said on his site that the 'oo are coming to Oz later this year. Just wanted to let you know.I thought they postponed.... In fact, I'm quite sure they put off the Asia/Australia leg because they had other stuff on. |
i-Fred 25.01.2007 22:19 |
WHO GIVES A FUCK! ILL BUY IT!!! AND ILL EAT SHIT AND DIE. |
i-Fred 25.01.2007 22:44 |
AND AGAIN... WHO GIVES FUK... ILL BUY IT. AND ILL EAT SHIT AND DIE. |
Smitty 25.01.2007 23:52 |
My favorite part is the fact that that guy is basically saying "How dare they release an album I won't like. It's a mortal sin!!!1" |
Crezchi 26.01.2007 01:52 |
<b><font color=gold>SMI<font color=1>TTY wrote: My favorite part is the fact that that guy is basically saying "How dare they release an album I won't like. It's a mortal sin!!!1"Yeah, i wonder if it is George W? lol. We will search for those Album-mongers and kill them. |
Sabazzz 26.01.2007 05:40 |
I also dont think that this project (album) would be any worth of Queen releases. Touring with P. Rogers is OK, but releasing new album - NO. Paul isnt so well known and authoritative, or with impresive vocals, what could make this project attain great succcess, which Queen are worth. I think this new album would be a crash, or something like that, comparing by Queen standarts. Return of the champions did prove this. So, there is even such possibility (I'm aware of this very much) that this project would slightly damage the image of Queen in all aspects, so I'd like them calling themselves as B. May, R. Taylor (ex Queen) and P. Rogers, that would be 100 percent true, so I dont see any arguments against this name. I'd like to see May and Taylor (as Queen) collaborating at least with Meat Loaf, Robbie Williams, George Michael, even Elton John, cause they are more famous, greater singers and could stand that success which Queen really earned. That's my point of view. |
QUEENROCKS_1991 26.01.2007 06:09 |
By the way what the cd called and when is that coming out ? Queen and PR still rocks ! freddie passed away john retired to be with all the ladies Move on that what brian and roger is doing :) |
Sabazzz 26.01.2007 06:54 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: I still don't understand how people can insist that Queen are F+B+R+J, when plenty of bands changed membership over the years and kept their name. Someone, please explain to me why Queen are exempt from this.I could explain you, Sir GH, 'cause you are not right. First of all, I'm sorry for you that in your opinion Queen isnt something special, unique, different from what is ussual. On the contrary, I think so, and I believe some or most standarts, that could be aplied to others, could not be aplied to Queen. Second of all, do you imagine U2 without Bono, or Guns Roses without Axl? I dont. But I could easily imagine and even wouldnt notice if some kind of Foo Fighter's guitarist (except Dave Grol) would be changed. So, considering the success of changing band's member, we must consider the role of that member in the band overall, if he is vocalist, the only one vocalist, or drummer, solo or bass guitarist, is he songwriter, if so, is he the only one songwriter in the band, is he charismatic person, spirit of the band or no and other points. TO BE CONTINUED |
john bodega 26.01.2007 07:10 |
"TO BE CONTINUED" Oh please no... we've had enough already. |
its_a_hard_life 26994 26.01.2007 09:02 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "TO BE CONTINUED" Oh please no... we've had enough already.Yeeeeeeeeeeeeees. Threads like these give me headaches. ;) |
Boy Thomas Raker 26.01.2007 10:44 |
I'm pretty certain that this isn't the first thread on this topic :) so I'll dig up my arguments against how people defend the "new" Queen, for what it's worth, from a previous thread. The "Other big name bands have had lineup changes and carried on" argument. True, but Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Van Halen, Guns n Roses, The Rolling Stones and AC/DC were all relatively young men hitting their musical primes with careers to establish and bills to pay for the rest of their life. For example, neither Pink Floyd nor Genesis were superstar bands (creatively superb, sales wise, no way) when Syd Barrett and Peter Gabriel left the respective bands. Queen were multi-millionaires with 30 year career The "Freddie WASN'T Queen" argument. True, Freddie alone wasn't Queen, but he brought a lot of "arguably" to the table. He wrote what was "arguably" the greatest song of the 20th century. He wrote what is "arguably" the greatest sports anthem of all time. He was "arguably" the greatest singer of the rock era. He was "arguably" the most diverse, and successfully diverse writer of the rock era. He was "arguably" the greatest front man of all time. And he "arguably" delivered the greatest performance from a rock star (a la Hendrix at Woodstock) of his generation at Live Aid. When people say Freddie wasn't Queen, they inevitably compare him to people in other bands who were replaced. But comparing Mercury to a troubled, drug addled guitarist (Syd Barrett)from Pink Floyd, a rhythm guitarist (Brian Jones) for The Stones, or the second guitarist (Izzy Stradlin) in G' n' R' is a fantastic disrespect towards Freddie Mercury. The "They can call it Queen if they want to" argument. True, they can, as Brian and Roger were in Queen and we weren't. But, The Beatles are generally acclaimed as the greatest band ever. Led Zeppelin is generally acclaimed as the greatest heavy rock band ever. Queen is the greatest pop/rock band ever. The Beatles and Zeppelin died the minute that one of their members died. Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Robert Plant, Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones can go on as The Beatles or Led Zeppelin. They've chosen not to go on, and respect what they had as a special, once in a lifetime thing. For Brian and Roger to carry on is their right, and certainly not disrespectful to John and Freddie, just a different approach than their biggest peers who went the other way in certain situations. Oddly enough, after seeing Brian on The Hour in Canada, he's so passionate and sincere, for the first time since the QPR lineup was announced, I'm happy that he's carrying on with the Queen banner for his sake and happiness. However, at the end of the day, I think his reasons for carrying on the name is strictly to help sell albums and the Queen brand. Brian acknowledged when he was on The Hour that using the Queen name was controversial and that lots of people were against it. He then gave an impassioned plea (I'm paraphrasing here) saying "we're musicians, do you not want us to make music, and wither away?" Nobody wants Brian and Roger to wither away, but really, and Brian is my favourite Queen writer by far, Freddie defined Queen. His eccentricities, odd key choices, classical influences and unique phrasing made Queen different than their peers. They can call it Queen, but it won't be Queen music without Freddie. |
Smitty 26.01.2007 11:15 |
^ YES!!! Man, I wish I could write like that. |
Hooligan's Holiday 26.01.2007 11:32 |
Dr. Perry Cox wrote:Right on! Long Live The Who!!<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: If I go to Hell for listening to Q+PR, does that mean I'm going to be where Freddie is ? ... Or is that a different level of Hell ? ... Is it walking distance ? ... I always do get them mixed up... Regardless, Hell should be a fantastic place - I hear that anyone who was anyone is there.Shh shh, you're interrupting my conversation with Zebonka about The Who! In fact, this thread is now about The Who and all their greatness. |
its_a_hard_life 26994 26.01.2007 11:55 |
<font color=black>*Space Ace* wrote:Keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeith Mooooooooooooooooooon!!!! :D :D :DDr. Perry Cox wrote:Right on! Long Live The Who!!<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: If I go to Hell for listening to Q+PR, does that mean I'm going to be where Freddie is ? ... Or is that a different level of Hell ? ... Is it walking distance ? ... I always do get them mixed up... Regardless, Hell should be a fantastic place - I hear that anyone who was anyone is there.Shh shh, you're interrupting my conversation with Zebonka about The Who! In fact, this thread is now about The Who and all their greatness. My hyper monkey. |
englishyob 26.01.2007 11:59 |
can leak's fly? |
Hooligan's Holiday 26.01.2007 14:15 |
<font color="#FF00FF">its_a_hard_life wrote:Uhhhhh... Jess...? Whaddya mean...?<font color=black>*Space Ace* wrote:Keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeith Mooooooooooooooooooon!!!! :D :D :D My hyper monkey.Dr. Perry Cox wrote:Right on! Long Live The Who!!<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: If I go to Hell for listening to Q+PR, does that mean I'm going to be where Freddie is ? ... Or is that a different level of Hell ? ... Is it walking distance ? ... I always do get them mixed up... Regardless, Hell should be a fantastic place - I hear that anyone who was anyone is there.Shh shh, you're interrupting my conversation with Zebonka about The Who! In fact, this thread is now about The Who and all their greatness. |
gnomo 26.01.2007 14:39 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Oddly enough, after seeing Brian on The Hour in Canada, he's so passionate and sincere, (...) I'm happy that he's carrying on with the Queen banner for his sake and happiness. (...) They can call it Queen, but it won't be Queen music without Freddie.Thanks for your excellent, sensible and articulate post. If I can add my half cent: I for one have known for years how passionate and sincere both BHM and RMT are, and since the Q+PR project was first announced I've been truly happy that they'd carry on with the Queen banner. Never for a single second I deluded myself that, without the unrivalled talents of FM (and JRD - makes a lot of difference to the sound), it would be anywhere near the Queen music I'd learnt to love - But it's good music all the same, and oddily enough I think it helps keep the Queen name and legacy current and alive and talked about with the young generations. Memory is the only minor form of immortality we're allowed: we really die when there's no longer a living memory of us, someone who remembers our name and can tell our story to those who never met us. When all that is left is a pic and a few words on a grave, then we really are lost in the past forever. Music shares the same destiny: a song dies when there's no longer anyone singing and playing it and making others sing it with passion and meaning and a knowledge of where it came from. When all that is left is a record and a video, then it's really lost in the past forever. Which would be just too sad if happened to Freddie and his music. I feel that, oddily enough, using the Queen name is helping keep the memory alive, not just the record sales. Half cent over, sorry for the intrusion, not meaning to fuel flames, just feeling a bit sad tonight, thanks for your patience ... |
its_a_hard_life 26994 26.01.2007 17:42 |
<font color=black>*Space Ace* wrote:Well, ya know the rumors about Keithy Weithy, don't ya?!?!?! :P<font color="#FF00FF">its_a_hard_life wrote:Uhhhhh... Jess...? Whaddya mean...?<font color=black>*Space Ace* wrote:Keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeith Mooooooooooooooooooon!!!! :D :D :D My hyper monkey.Dr. Perry Cox wrote:Right on! Long Live The Who!!<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: If I go to Hell for listening to Q+PR, does that mean I'm going to be where Freddie is ? ... Or is that a different level of Hell ? ... Is it walking distance ? ... I always do get them mixed up... Regardless, Hell should be a fantastic place - I hear that anyone who was anyone is there.Shh shh, you're interrupting my conversation with Zebonka about The Who! In fact, this thread is now about The Who and all their greatness. He use to drive his car in to swimming pools and windows... Even if it wasn't true, in all honesty, I believe the man WOULD do that if he had the chance to, or the desire.... xD I mean, you don't have to look twice to see how this guy works... He was a timebomb about to explode. :P |
kenny8 26.01.2007 19:51 |
Great post Boy Thomas Raker |
The Real Wizard 26.01.2007 21:43 |
gnomo wrote:Great posts, both of you! Nothing to add!Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Oddly enough, after seeing Brian on The Hour in Canada, he's so passionate and sincere, (...) I'm happy that he's carrying on with the Queen banner for his sake and happiness. (...) They can call it Queen, but it won't be Queen music without Freddie.When all that is left is a pic and a few words on a grave, then we really are lost in the past forever. Music shares the same destiny: a song dies when there's no longer anyone singing and playing it and making others sing it with passion and meaning and a knowledge of where it came from. (...) I feel that, oddily enough, using the Queen name is helping keep the memory alive, not just the record sales. |
Mike S. 26.01.2007 23:04 |
I've always wanted to hear what Billy Joel would sound like doing some Freddie songs. I bet him and Queen would go great together. |
deleted user 26.01.2007 23:27 |
What if the members of Queen were playable characters in "Mortal Combat" ? Could Freddie impale people with his microphone stand ? Would Roger be able to hurl his drum-kit ? ... O, the mysteries of life... |
Lester Burnham 26.01.2007 23:34 |
<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: What if the members of Queen were playable characters in "Mortal Combat" ? Could Freddie impale people with his microphone stand ? Would Roger be able to hurl his drum-kit ? ... O, the mysteries of life...In response to your third question, someone's already beaten you to the punch in asking it: link |
deleted user 26.01.2007 23:55 |
Dr. Perry Cox wrote:I meant in Mortal Kombat (which I now realise I think is spelt with a "K"... eh... video games)! : P<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: What if the members of Queen were playable characters in "Mortal Combat" ? Could Freddie impale people with his microphone stand ? Would Roger be able to hurl his drum-kit ? ... O, the mysteries of life...In response to your third question, someone's already beaten you to the punch in asking it: link (The real-life story is why I brought it up...) Perhaps one of them (I forget which) could use hair-spray as a weapon... I wonder if anyone from Queen has appeared in some home-brew celebrity fighting game... I saw Madonna in one once... |
Sweetie 27.01.2007 02:04 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: I still don't understand how people can insist that Queen are F+B+R+J, when plenty of bands changed membership over the years and kept their name. Someone, please explain to me why Queen are exempt from this.Like INXS? |
john bodega 27.01.2007 05:32 |
"Like INXS?" Yeah but who takes the new lineup seriously? |
maxpower 28.01.2007 07:39 |
How can this be damaging? to the Queen name, it's new product which I'd rather have, with Brian & Roger & Paul perhaps sharing lead vocal duties (like the early albums with Freddie)personally I want something new fresh, they're all too talented to sit around, since Freddie's death Brian & Roger have done two solo albums ( i dont include Furia its a soundtrack)in over 16 years (thats worse than Def Leppard standards lol) How many Queen compilations do we need? Queen Rocks, Hits 3 (which was a total joke as it included solo material)& then Hits 1,2& 3 for me that stuff was far more damaging to the Queen legacy, all the horrendeous single remixes & that total shite that was Queen & Five . How can brand new recordings done with an established singer like Paul Rodgers & a new tour be worse than the above mentioned. Yes Freddie had big shoes, but Paul has equally his own big shoes & dosent need to do this unless he wanted to Thankfully with the DVD releases some of the damage has been repaired |
Bri-Anns Permed Poodle 28.01.2007 15:12 |
This poodle agrees. Leave the name Queen alone. Paul Rodgers has always been a nobody compared to our Freddie. You lot make me sick No respect for the dead. Freddie Haters!!! |
deleted user 28.01.2007 15:26 |
Oh my god, I can't believe you're actually back. Didn't you learn that we don't want your unnecessary bullshit? |
Sabazzz 28.01.2007 15:47 |
Some groups managed to replace their members very succesfully (AC/DC, Genesis after Peter Gabriel), but others no (INXS, Genesis after P. Collins, 21th centuy Doors). It seems that project "Queen Paul Rogers" is to be more INXS type than AC/DC, if you know what I mean. I'm happy for May and Taylor for their new activities with Paul, but this wouldnt match that greatness Queen were with Freddie, even when he was dead and they were just using old recordings of his voice (Made in Heaven). What can you say majestic and good about Queen Paul Rogers concerts, when the best and most touching song from their setlist was...Bohemian Rhapsody, sung by Fredie Mercury himself from a huge screen??? |
Sabazzz 28.01.2007 15:49 |
1 |
Sabazzz 28.01.2007 15:51 |
2 |
Sabazzz 28.01.2007 15:51 |
3 |
QueenTaylor 28.01.2007 16:05 |
Bri-Anns Permed Poodle wrote: This poodle agrees. Leave the name Queen alone. Paul Rodgers has always been a nobody compared to our Freddie. You lot make me sick No respect for the dead. Freddie Haters!!!Kind of true...I mean think of it this way..if there was no Freddie, there would be no Bohemian Rhapsody, one of the greatest songs ever written. Queen wouldn't have been as famous as they were if Freddie wasn't there. So when people say that Freddie is Queen...thats waht they mean. The band members said once, that they wouldn't know whta to do if they hadn't had Freddie there. Replacing a dun , bass, and guitar player is a little easier than replacing a voice because nobody had Freddie's voice and it's impossiblt to even compare to him. Even though replacing Roger, John, and Brian would be realllly tough because they all have so much talent that no one else has. |
Smitty 28.01.2007 19:20 |
Bri-Anns Permed Poodle wrote: Paul Rodgers has always been a nobody compared to our Freddie.Is this even worth arguing about anymore? |
pittrek 29.01.2007 04:37 |
I usually like dogs, but I start to hate poodles :-) >> Leave the name Queen alone Why ? Is it a registered trademark of yours or something similar ? >>Paul Rodgers has always been a nobody compared to our Freddie. If you mean this seriously, you are either an idiot or you know nothing about rock music. >>You lot make me sick That's what I wanted to tell you. >>No respect for the dead. What do you mean with THAT crap ? Did we piss on somebody's grave or did we do some satanistic ritual ? In your "logic" the best way how to show respect for the dead is to show no respect to his followers. Weird logic. >> Freddie Haters!!! Who told you we have something against Freddie ? Or are you so stupid that you don't understand that liking QPR doesn't mean disliking Queen ? Or said differently : if I like apples, that means that I hate oranges ? |
The Real Wizard 29.01.2007 11:37 |
pittrek wrote: if I like apples, that means that I hate oranges ?Wait a minute... you mean... I'm allowed to like both? |
buffguy 2.0 17.02.2008 04:24 |
i think they should chang there name becaus queen paule rogers thing is to long and has no ring to it they could at least shorten it to QPR even though thats a team in the english premier league |
Treasure Moment 17.02.2008 05:05 |
pittrek wrote: Neologix : take a photo of your beloved Freddie and go fuck yourself, dirty asshole.fuck you, dont talk bad about freddie you piece of shit! you are his urine! I also disagree with them wanting to continue with the name Queen and they WILL fail, just wait and see. Alot of Queen fans wont buy this album. If they want to play music do it with another name because you arent fooling the real queen fans. have some respect for freddie, john and your legacy and leave it at that, all you are doing now is ruining it. |
Roger Meadows Tailor 17.02.2008 05:55 |
OMG Arent we all a whole bunch of Treasure Moments on this thread. Brian and Roger could call themselves what they want.They are not under any obligations.They got John's blessing as i'm sure they probably would have got Freddie's.They've got the best damn Rock singer in the planet in Paul Rodgers Paul will never replace Freddie.But then i dont want him to.I want Paul to be Paul. I'm already looking forward to the tour because i will be going to see three absolutely fabulously talented musicians playing together as a band |
paul rodgers 39611 18.02.2008 10:43 |
Hey Neowhatever... The band is mine now. We're calling it Q+PR. Deal with it. Keep it up, and the new album will be called Paul Rodgers + Queen. While you're probably busy watching The Matrix again, maybe you can put in Return Of The Champions for about 15 minutes. I think my performance will pretty much blow your pants off, if they aren't already from watching The Matrix. Now, piss off. I've got to re-write a couple of these Roger tracks so they make sense. Thanks for visiting my website. |
StoneColdClassicQueen 18.02.2008 11:42 |
Paul Rodgers wrote: Hey Neowhatever... The band is mine now. We're calling it Q+PR. Deal with it. Keep it up, and the new album will be called Paul Rodgers + Queen. While you're probably busy watching The Matrix again, maybe you can put in Return Of The Champions for about 15 minutes. I think my performance will pretty much blow your pants off, if they aren't already from watching The Matrix. Now, piss off. I've got to re-write a couple of these Roger tracks so they make sense. Thanks for visiting my website.^ XD that's hilarious!!! Well, I am looking forward to the new album. I was a bit skeptical about Q+PR, but I've learned to accept them :)If you guys can't learn to accept them too, then you're not true fans. They are founding members as mentioned before and have rights to go on with their shows and releases. Just let them live! |
TerrorOfKnowing 18.02.2008 14:49 |
I think there's something about this thread that we're all missing in between these petty arguments ... and that's how hardcore "Mortal Sin" would be for the new Queen+Paul Rodgers album name. |
kenny8 19.02.2008 21:26 |
Who cares? Nobody cares about Queen without Freddie Mercury The fact that Robbie Williams may be dressing as Fred in the 46664 concert only goes to highlight how Queen are remembered |
Treasure Moment 19.02.2008 22:33 |
kenny8 wrote: Who cares? Nobody cares about Queen without Freddie Mercury The fact that Robbie Williams may be dressing as Fred in the 46664 concert only goes to highlight how Queen are rememberedat least robbie willims admits that he is nothing compared to freddie, i liked when he said that because its the truth. Yes, there is no Queen without freddie, its a cover band basically, he was SO important and is totally irreplacable. |
john bodega 20.02.2008 06:31 |
kenny8 wrote: The fact that Robbie Williams may be dressing as Fred in the 46664 concert only goes to highlight how Queen are rememberedThe fact that you seem to have taken that piece of 'news' seriously shows how you're more concerned with repeating your tired rhetoric than with making sense. On the other hand; I do totally agree with your conception that it's Freddie people remember. If I say "Queen" to just about anyone I know, Freddie will come up 8 times out of 10. The rest of the time it's Brian, but that's because I yap with guitarists. |
thomasquinn 32989 20.02.2008 08:10 |
NEOLOGiX wrote: I heartily agree that Queen shouldn't release a new album without Freddie Mercury... and not only without Freddie Mercury, but also without John Deacon. I mean, Queen are like an iconic figure for me. How the hell can they decide to release new music without two of their members. That was what was so great about it - the four of them contributed and made songs together. Who the hell is Paul Rodgers anyway? Queen are known for the falmboyant ways of Freddie on stage - I mean that was one of the great things about Queen. What, is this 50-something Rodgers gonna perform like Freddie? Running around with the Union Jack and the microphone stand? The bastard would have a bloody heart attack. Nobody can ever replace Freddie. He himself said it on Live at Wembley '86, Who Wants To Live Forever - "we'll stay together till we bloody well die, I'm sure of it". Well he's dead, and now two of the surviving members are replacing him???? They're in it for the money OBVIOUSLY. They're disgracing the Queen name by making an album with Paul Rodgers. If they want they should just create a new band and make an album with him. Not Queen + Paul Rodgers. That's bullshit. I think Deacon did the best choice by retiring back in the 1990s. What I'd like to see is the three of them performing live once more, playing their classic songs, and using a good vocalist... some guy who was big in the 70s like Queen... I dunno, maybe Elton John or Paul McCartney or something.Well, then I suppose it is just a good thing that no one has asked your opinion. Seriously, doesn't the fact penetrate your skull that there isn't a limited amount of music? If Q+PR release a new album, that doesn't mean an older album stops to exist, you know. |
thomasquinn 32989 20.02.2008 08:16 |
Treasure Moment wrote:All cover bands tend to share one characteristic: the authors of the songs aren't in them.kenny8 wrote: Who cares? Nobody cares about Queen without Freddie Mercury The fact that Robbie Williams may be dressing as Fred in the 46664 concert only goes to highlight how Queen are rememberedat least robbie willims admits that he is nothing compared to freddie, i liked when he said that because its the truth. Yes, there is no Queen without freddie, its a cover band basically, he was SO important and is totally irreplacable. |
Treasure Moment 20.02.2008 08:29 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:yes thats true, im just saying its ridiculous to call the band Queen without freddie, the man was so incredibly awesome and special and it simply cant be Queen without him.Treasure Moment wrote:All cover bands tend to share one characteristic: the authors of the songs aren't in them.kenny8 wrote: Who cares? Nobody cares about Queen without Freddie Mercury The fact that Robbie Williams may be dressing as Fred in the 46664 concert only goes to highlight how Queen are rememberedat least robbie willims admits that he is nothing compared to freddie, i liked when he said that because its the truth. Yes, there is no Queen without freddie, its a cover band basically, he was SO important and is totally irreplacable. |
kenny8 21.02.2008 03:11 |
Zebonka12 wrote: The fact that you seem to have taken that piece of 'news' seriously shows how you're more concerned with repeating your tired rhetoric than with making sense.No dickhead. It's not whether Williams dresses as Fred or not, it's that the rumour is even newsworthy. |
john bodega 21.02.2008 07:08 |
kenny8 wrote:Doesn't that say more about the people who run the news than it does about the public conception of Queen?Zebonka12 wrote: The fact that you seem to have taken that piece of 'news' seriously shows how you're more concerned with repeating your tired rhetoric than with making sense.No dickhead. It's not whether Williams dresses as Fred or not, it's that the rumour is even newsworthy. |