QueenZone discussion #1047828

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 qz

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.

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 voice

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.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: 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 misconcepti

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.

louvox wrote: Paul Rodgers is overrated in my opinion as a singer. I think Roger or Brian are better singers than him.

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.

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 Queen

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).

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.

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..

innuendo1990 wrote: i think its a good singer

louvox wrote: Paul Rodgers is overrated in my opinion as a singer. I think Roger or Brian are better singers than him.

Dusta wrote: I loved Mr Rodgers

kenny8 wrote: As the cult of Freddie continues to spread throughout the mass media

kenny8 also wrote: The recent nostalgia tour also displayed Rodger's lack of a sense of humour

Micrówave wrote: This thread's GREATEST HITS:

Dusta wrote: I loved Mr Rodgers

Me too, especially when the little red trolley would come out

Micrówave wrote: This thread's GREATEST HITS:

kenny8 also wrote: The recent nostalgia tour also displayed Rodger's lack of a sense of humour

Yes, Wierd Al would be a much better choice for a frontman. Or maybe Sam Kinison. Oh, whoops.

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.

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.

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. "

Treasure Moment wrote: he definetly doesnt fit in with queen music, way wrong

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Brian May is a better guitarist than John Lennon and George Harrison combined

<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.

<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.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Microwave, you can't really believe that either of them are in Brina's league as players, do you?

Sebastian wrote: For that matter we could say "give me a song where George has recorded himself a multi-tracked choir ...

<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.

Treasure Moment wrote:

<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

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.

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.

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?

Treasure Moment wrote: no one sees this as queen anyways

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

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.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

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

Yeah... 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 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).

<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.

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".

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.

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.

innuendo1990 wrote: I think he does a pretty good job.

<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.

Killer_Whale wrote:

<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.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: 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!&qu

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'! :)

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.

Micrówave wrote: Jesus was the heart and soul of the world and its IMPOSSIBLE to continue without him and call this The World.

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.

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.

Micrówave wrote: 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.

Treasure Moment wrote:

Micrówave wrote: 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.

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.

Brian-Harold-May wrote:

Treasure Moment wrote:

Micrówave wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: My dearest Microwave: "So what point are you trying to make?"

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.

innuendo1990 wrote: Does anyone knows when the album is coming?

rikyitaliandrummer wrote:

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)

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.

Micrówave wrote:

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.

Treasure Moment wrote: "queen" without freddie is a cover band, simple as that.

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.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

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.

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, fact

Micrówave wrote:

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, fact

Hey Professor! They replaced him. FACT.

Killer_Whale wrote: Treasure Moment I support you.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

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.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

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.

Micrówave wrote: A chick with the nickname "Killer Whale". She sounds lovely. Perhaps you two could go out and eat half a restaraunt.

Micrówave wrote: A chick with the nickname "Killer Whale". She sounds lovely. Perhaps you two could go out and eat half a restaraunt.

Raststätte-Knödel wrote: I just love orcas!! you like them too? :)

Treasure Moment wrote: just coz you are ignorant and dont understand how amazing and irreplacable freddie is..

its ok, enjoy music on your level, you just dont understand.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

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 wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

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.

main point, freddie is the best musician and singer of all time by far and anyone who disagrees doesnt know much about music

QueenMercury46 wrote:

Treasure Moment wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

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.

main point, freddie is the best musician and singer of all time by far and anyone who disagrees doesnt know much about music

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: You really have no clue how to have an intelligent discussion. I truly pity you.

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.

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 :)

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 :)

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.

Wiley wrote:

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.

Sebastian wrote: Listen to 'Helter Skelter' and then 'Good Night'. Hardly "the same all the time".

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.

Wiley wrote:

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 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, JCW

Treasure Moment wrote: My band is alot better than the beatles too, i mean come on, listen to that amateur songwriting....

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

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 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: 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.

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??

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*

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.