| D@VID 04.01.2008 05:52 |
Just saw Brian on ITV and he more or less said Queen definetley touring next year.They are going to play the O2 arena in London. |
| banana-wig 18038 04.01.2008 05:55 |
Yeah! Wish they'd given him more time on the programme though - seemed like he was going to mention more about the new album (release date maybe??)...Maybe he will come in with Anita?? |
| Nightjar_ 04.01.2008 07:50 |
link Enjoy |
| violonbleu 04.01.2008 09:12 |
D@VID wrote: Just saw Brian on ITV and he more or less said Queen definetley touring next year.They are going to play the O2 arena in London.Next year = THIS year :-) |
| Sebastian 04.01.2008 09:24 |
That's not Queen, it's Paul Rodgers with two opportunistic cowards, plus some guest musicians. |
| violonbleu 04.01.2008 09:39 |
Sebastian wrote: That's not Queen, it's Paul Rodgers with two opportunistic cowards, plus some guest musicians.Interesting. |
| bigV 04.01.2008 10:00 |
violonbleu wrote:And inaccurate, but everyone's entitled to an opinion.Sebastian wrote: That's not Queen, it's Paul Rodgers with two opportunistic cowards, plus some guest musicians.Interesting. V. |
| john bodega 04.01.2008 10:21 |
Sebastian wrote: That's not Queen, it's Paul Rodgers with two opportunistic cowards, plus some guest musicians.I sense a bit of opportunism in this post. You should stick to analysis of the actual music. And just be thankful that it's not Q+RW. |
| Mr Faron Hyte 04.01.2008 12:06 |
Zebonka12 wrote:I second that.Sebastian wrote: That's not Queen, it's Paul Rodgers with two opportunistic cowards, plus some guest musicians.You should stick to analysis of the actual music. |
| Sebastian 04.01.2008 12:35 |
Mr Faron Hyte wrote:Well, I think they should stick to another name instead of Queen. We're all entitled to our opinions.Zebonka12 wrote:I second that.Sebastian wrote: That's not Queen, it's Paul Rodgers with two opportunistic cowards, plus some guest musicians.You should stick to analysis of the actual music. |
| brENsKi 04.01.2008 13:37 |
Sebastian wrote:you mean like FREE or SMILE ???Mr Faron Hyte wrote:Well, I think they should stick to another name instead of Queen. We're all entitled to our opinions.Zebonka12 wrote:I second that.Sebastian wrote: That's not Queen, it's Paul Rodgers with two opportunistic cowards, plus some guest musicians.You should stick to analysis of the actual music. how about FRILE? or SMEE ? |
| Raf 04.01.2008 13:37 |
Sebastian wrote:And I assume Led Zeppelin are cowards then, for reuniting a couple of times with guest drummers yet labelling themselves "Led Zeppelin"...(?)Mr Faron Hyte wrote:Well, I think they should stick to another name instead of Queen. We're all entitled to our opinions.Zebonka12 wrote:I second that.Sebastian wrote: That's not Queen, it's Paul Rodgers with two opportunistic cowards, plus some guest musicians.You should stick to analysis of the actual music. I haven't seen anyone questioning the legitimacy of Led Zeppelin's use of that name. Maybe people are bitter about Queen using the name because it was the legendary lead singer who died, not the silent bassist or the average drummer...? With all respect, I love your website, I love the brilliant work you do in providing accurate info about Queen's music, but you sound like one of those annoying spammers like Treasure Moment when you enter threads just to moan about Q+PR. |
| monty-- 04.01.2008 13:38 |
But, as there are element of Queen, and two composers from Queen...shirley it's Queen? |
| Sebastian 04.01.2008 13:56 |
And I assume Led Zeppelin are cowards then, for reuniting a couple of times with guest drummers yet labelling themselves "Led Zeppelin"...(?) I haven't seen anyone questioning the legitimacy of Led Zeppelin's use of that name.I think they're cowards too. And I think their concert was way below their level. Maybe people are bitter about Queen using the name because it was the legendary lead singer who died, not the silent bassist or the average drummer...?I personally would complain in any of those cases. Fred + Brian wouldn't be Queen. Fred + John wouldn't be Queen. Fred + Rog wouldn't be Queen. Bri + John wouldn't be Queen. Rog + John wouldn't be Queen, and of course, Bri + Rog aren't Queen. With all respect, I love your website, I love the brilliant work you do in providing accurate info about Queen's music, but you sound like one of those annoying spammers like Treasure Moment when you enter threads just to moan about Q+PR.This is a forum, so we're all here to post what we think. And what I think is what I posted. I'm not saying Fred was the band, I'm not saying Brian and Rog are bad musicians, I'm not denying Paul is marvellous. In fact, I've always said I think Brian + Roger + Paul are a wonderful combination of musicians, I think they've got great chemistry together and I think they could (and will) release high-class material. But they're not Queen, so it's IMO utterly opportunistic and coward to rely on it instead of using a new one (not related with their past). After all, they're a new band, playing new music, and (according to what Bri often claims) not living in the past. |
| Raf 04.01.2008 14:09 |
Sebastian wrote:You can't expect a bunch of 60-year-old guys to sound like a bunch of 25-year-olds, can you? Plant's vocal range alone limits them.And I assume Led Zeppelin are cowards then, for reuniting a couple of times with guest drummers yet labelling themselves "Led Zeppelin"...(?) I haven't seen anyone questioning the legitimacy of Led Zeppelin's use of that name.I think they're cowards too. And I think their concert was way below their level. Sebastian wrote:The thing is, Freddie never said he wanted the band to finish. The only thing we know about his opinion on the subject is that he asked Brian, Roger and John to finish Made In Heaven. After his death, Roger, Brian and John owned the name. John decided to leave, but he gave the other two permission to use the name (if Brian was lying about this, they could've been sued by now, right?). Besides, from the interviews and from Brian's soapbox, we can tell they are working just like the old days, using all the Queen trademarks. Why change the name when we're getting pretty much the same we used to get back in the old days, only with a different voice?Maybe people are bitter about Queen using the name because it was the legendary lead singer who died, not the silent bassist or the average drummer...?I personally would complain in any of those cases. Fred + Brian wouldn't be Queen. Fred + John wouldn't be Queen. Fred + Rog wouldn't be Queen. Bri + John wouldn't be Queen. Rog + John wouldn't be Queen, and of course, Bri + Rog aren't Queen. Sebastian wrote:See previous comment.With all respect, I love your website, I love the brilliant work you do in providing accurate info about Queen's music, but you sound like one of those annoying spammers like Treasure Moment when you enter threads just to moan about Q+PR.This is a forum, so we're all here to post what we think. And what I think is what I posted. I'm not saying Fred was the band, I'm not saying Brian and Rog are bad musicians, I'm not denying Paul is marvellous. In fact, I've always said I think Brian + Roger + Paul are a wonderful combination of musicians, I think they've got great chemistry together and I think they could (and will) release high-class material. But they're not Queen, so it's IMO utterly opportunistic and coward to rely on it instead of using a new one (not related with their past). After all, they're a new band, playing new music, and (according to what Bri often claims) not living in the past. About this being a forum... Yep, you're entitled to show your opinion. But lately you've been writing your opinion in SEVERAL threads. I think we all have already gotten the point - you don't support the way they're using the name. If you keep repeating it over and over everytime someone gets excited about Q+PR news, we'll assume you're just trying to tease everybody whose opinion is different than yours. Yet, once again I'll say... Nothing personal. I really respect you and your work. |
| Pim Derks 04.01.2008 14:21 |
I think it's strange that people care at all how they call themselves. I don't give a fuck if they call it Queen, Queen + Paul Rodgers, Queen II, Smile, Smile Again, Bad Queen Company, Queen Free, Freddie Mercury Was Gay, AIDS is the Cure or 3 Old Farts. As long as we'll get some new music and a great tour like in 2005/2006. |
| Sebastian 04.01.2008 14:50 |
> You can't expect a bunch of 60-year-old guys to sound like a bunch of 25-year-olds, can you? Did I say "their concert was shite because they didn't sound like the albums"? NO. I said "below their level", i.e. "below the level a 63 yo Page, a 59 yo Plant and a 61 yo Jones should have". > The thing is, Freddie never said he wanted the band to finish. He did say that if anyone left Queen, anyone of the four, that'd be the end of the band. Some bands work like football teams (Yes, for instance, or GnR), some others don't. I personally would love a McCartney + Starr + Clapton + Gilmour (for instance) tour, but that wouldn't be The Beatles. Not better, not worse, just not The Beatles (or Cream or Pink Floyd for that matter). Same case here. All of that, of course, IMO. > The only thing we know about his opinion on the subject is that he asked Brian, Roger and John to finish Made In Heaven. All in all I couldn't care less about Fred's opinion on the matter. I've got mine, and mine is... you know. > After his death, Roger, Brian and John owned the name. I'm not talking about law (of course they can call themselves Queen and I can't do anything to stop them), but about ethics, morality and integrity. Not in vain I call them "opportunistic cowards" rather than "dishonest thieves". Again, IMO. > from the interviews and from Brian's soapbox, we can tell they are working just like the old days, using all the Queen trademarks. I completely disagree there. > Why change the name when we're getting pretty much the same we used to get back in the old days, only with a different voice? Because it's a different band. Not only the voice has changed, but the music itself (Paul is more than a singer, he also plays instruments and composes). No Freddie-esque piano, no Deacy bass... that's not Queen. IMO. > But lately you've been writing your opinion in SEVERAL threads. I think we all have already gotten the point - you don't support the way they're using the name. If you keep repeating it over and over everytime someone gets excited about Q+PR news, we'll assume you're just trying to tease everybody whose opinion is different than yours. Do you think I won't be able to sleep if some QZers "assume (I'm) just trying to tease everybody whose opinion is different than (mine)"? No, I can live with that. It's a forum, so I can express my opinion on the matter (and the concept of "several" or "too many" times is relative) as much as I feel like it. > I think it's strange that people care at all how they call themselves. The world would be very boring if all people cared (or didn't care) about the same details. > I don't give a fuck if they call it Queen, Queen + Paul Rodgers, Queen II, Smile, Smile Again, Bad Queen Company, Queen Free, Freddie Mercury Was Gay, AIDS is the Cure or 3 Old Farts. I wish they shared that thought, and changed the bloody name. |
| Pim Derks 04.01.2008 15:02 |
But what does it matter to you Sebastian if they call it Queen or not? I thought you only cared about the music, the art blablabla. |
| vadenuez 04.01.2008 15:03 |
In spite of the name, I wish they load the upcoming shows with new music and put a definitive end to all that stuff about 'trademark sounds', LOML sing-alongs and WWRY/WATC as final encores. If they want to be a band again, then they have to be brave and build A BAND. Otherwise they'll do nothing but keep covering their own songs and live under Freddie's shadow (although they claim they don't do it anymore). |
| Pim Derks 04.01.2008 15:19 |
Agreed, they should drop some of the 'classic' Queen stuff. No more Freddie video's, no more WATC as a finale. |
| Tero 04.01.2008 15:47 |
Pim Derks wrote: Agreed, they should drop some of the 'classic' Queen stuff. No more Freddie video's, no more WATC as a finale.If they did that, how many people in the audience would recognise Bri and Rog as members of the former Queen? They have to play the "classic" Queen stuff if they want to be treated as "Queen", and that's always going to be their number one priority. |
| claudiox 04.01.2008 16:22 |
Personally, I think all this jazz are a pity. Someday we'll miss thoose opportunity and, in absolute, we'll miss everything from today.... Have a brilliant Y 2008 Bye! Claudio |
| olly1988 04.01.2008 16:54 |
I thinks its great!!!!!!!! If you dont like it fuck off!!!! |
| Boy Thomas Raker 04.01.2008 21:02 |
Way to contribute to the conversation Olly. For the record, I'm sure Sebastian doesn't think its great, so if you dont like it, then you fuck off!!!!!!!!!!!! That settles most disputes doesn't it? |
| inu-liger 04.01.2008 21:51 |
Sebastian wrote:So I guess that makes my band Unbalanced cowards too, since I replaced their last drummer, and the original singer quit, leaving the main guitarist to take on dual duties as guitarist AND lead vocalist, while the original bassist is now rhythm guitarist/backing vox, and we have a new bassist filling that spot... Yeah right. :PAnd I assume Led Zeppelin are cowards then, for reuniting a couple of times with guest drummers yet labelling themselves "Led Zeppelin"...(?) I haven't seen anyone questioning the legitimacy of Led Zeppelin's use of that name.I think they're cowards too. So then Van Halen wasn't Van Halen without David Lee Roth, who is now reunited with them, yet they had massive success with Sammy Hagar? (And for the reunion matter, Eddie's son Wolfgang now plays bass with them despite being 16-years-old, instead of Michael Anthony)Maybe people are bitter about Queen using the name because it was the legendary lead singer who died, not the silent bassist or the average drummer...?I personally would complain in any of those cases. Fred + Brian wouldn't be Queen. Fred + John wouldn't be Queen. Fred + Rog wouldn't be Queen. Bri + John wouldn't be Queen. Rog + John wouldn't be Queen, and of course, Bri + Rog aren't Queen. With all respect, I love your website, I love the brilliant work you do in providing accurate info about Queen's music, but you sound like one of those annoying spammers like Treasure Moment when you enter threads just to moan about Q+PR.I second that. Please refrain from that, and start your own moanful topics separately elsewhere PLEASE. And Seb's comments are akin to the American Pokemon dub fan discussions, after Pokemon USA took back the dubbing licence from 4Kids (who did the first eight seasons for the sub) and decided to use their own (read = TAJ Studios) crappy voice actors, which split the fans in half like the Q+PR thing did back at first (despite the major difference being that, now MORE people are more accepting of Q+PR as an actual band that deserves to be called Queen, instead of being merely a self-covers pub band). It's for these spamming reasons that discussions on the voice actors is banned on virtually all major Pokemon fansite message boards and chatrooms. Honestly, I'm disappointed in you Seb, after your childish spamming. I used to have respect for you, but now I've changed my tune. |
| Sebastian 04.01.2008 22:49 |
Dear Lord! Now the great inu-liger lost respect for me! I'll never be able to smile again........ I think Mr Liger's posts aren't even worth reading, so I'll answer to and comment on the others': when it comes to enjoying a song I do only care about the music (that's why I love so much Spice Girls' second album, for instance). But when it comes to rating a product I care about other things too, especially in this case. As I said, I think it's utterly coward and opportunistic, which for other people would be "reasonable". But Brian, Roger and Paul are three wonderful musicians, able to be great without having to pathetically depend on a name, a logo or those "Paul was Fred's idol" statements. My disappointment is that big precisely because it comes from three marvellous artists, who IMO don't need to rely on that. Yet they do, as if they were afraid of selling less than they'd do under the Queen label or as if they (especially Brian) depend on it to feel their work is valuable. In either case, I'd expect much more from three geniuses like Mr Rodgers, Mr Taylor and Dr May. Regarding 'Champions', I do like their version :) If they want to finish off their gigs with something else, that's all right, but I personally wouldn't complain about the use of Freddie's (or John Lennon's, or John Deacon's, etc) pieces. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 05.01.2008 00:52 |
Sebastian, with all due respect as I admire and respect your views, that discussion isn't flying here. Of the few worthwhile posters here who know their stuff, few of them can debate anything regarding the Queen name. It always, always, always reverts to Brian and Roger's "right" to use the Queen name. I have no problem with that, or the fact that the brand is too strong to ignore. But once and for all, let's be honest here. Freddie, to the man on the street, WAS Queen. I know, I know Van Halen, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, The Who, etc. all replaced members. However, if there's been one man in the history of rock music more affiliated with a band name than Freddie Mercury and Queen, please let me know who he was. I may be mistaken, but none of the members of the aforementioned bands had a singer who: a) wrote arguably the song of the century in rock b) wrote one of the two most enduring rock anthems ever c) SANG on the other most enduring rock anthem ever d) put on a legendary performance at the biggest concert of his generation e) was arguably in the discussion for best singer/frontman ever f) was arguably the most unique and diverse writer in his generation in rock g) was so important, he was named one of the greatest Brits of the 20th cnetury h) was the first rock artist to be memorialized on a stamp in Great Britain Other than that, he's pretty replaceable, and there's really not much to choose between him and any replacement in any other band. Paul Rodgers is an amazing singer, but no Freddie when it comes to being a Queen singer. Freddie wouldn't be my cup of tea in Bad Company or Free either. The bottom line is, if Brian and Roger want to be Queen, they can. Brian says that he's bloody well earned the right to call the band Queen. That being the case, so has John Deacon. So if you believe that Queen is Brian, Roger, Paul and any one else they use, as I've said before, you have to accept that if John Deacon were to tour as a funk act with Errol Brown from Hot Chocolate on vocals, the horn section from Average White Band, Prince on guitar and Chester Thompson on drums, that's also Queen. John and Siouxsie Sioux, Adam Ant and the girls from Bananarama are Queen. John, Chris Squire from Yes, Mike Rutherford from Genesis and Paul McCartney all playing bass with no guitar, vocals or drums? That's Queen too. If you don't believe in a name that's cool, but Sebastian's right, if it's a new venture, get out there and fight for an audience. For what it's worth, Bad Company has cache, has gone through a million lineup changes and is pretty generic rock compared to Queen so I think that'd be a better way to go. |
| john bodega 05.01.2008 01:50 |
Not that this matters, but I agree with the idea that a name-change would be in order for an album of all new material. The Q+PR tours were debatable because it was a Queen set... and if some fat, bald git who doesn't even sound like Freddie Mercury can go on a tour using "Queen" in the act name, then I'll be fucked if Q+PR aren't allowed to do the same. However, Sebastian.... it's a bit disingenuous to say that the guys are living in the past. You yourself are living in the past. This opinion of yours was old in 2004. Time to find something new to bitch about, is it not?? To be really fair, most users of this forum would be living in the past by talking about a band that hasn't put out an album of completely new material since 1991... where does one draw the line, exactly? In either case, what is achieved by going into every Q+PR related thread and telling us that the guys in the band are cowards? Either you're right, and everyone else is wrong.... in which case you should just be quiet and content in the knowledge that they're all insane, Or you're wrong, in which case ; clam up!! Honestly, I do agree that it's iffy to put the label of Queen on the new album. When I talk about it with my family, I usually describe it as 'the guys from Queen'. I never call it Queen, because even if it flies as Queen for most of us, there's a bunch of people who'd never accept it. But you know.. what's done is done. If you're going to assert this opinion in every Q+PR thread from now till the death of the last surviving member, you'll only look like an ass, and you're not. We know how you feel. Why don't you put it in your signature or something, so that it takes up less room in the forums? Much love, Zebonka. |
| Dan C. 05.01.2008 05:20 |
Christ, why can't you people get over it and just be happy that they're still working? |
| Sebastian 05.01.2008 07:07 |
I think Fred's role in the band went far beyond his voice: what about his songwriting (he was the band's dominant composer in most of the albums), his piano playing (piano was the main instrument in many of the most important songs), his arrangements (it was him who re-structured 'Ga Ga' and 'Magic' among several others), and the sole fact he came up with the name of the band. But my complaint isn't about Freddie per se. I think all four of them were fundamental. A theoretical Freddie, Roger and John with a guitar player like Nuno (who plays much better than Bri, plays other instruments, sings fairly well, arranges, composes) or Mick Ronson wouldn't have been Queen. Same for Fred + Bri + Rog, etc. > However, Sebastian.... it's a bit disingenuous to say that the guys are living in the past. You yourself are living in the past. This opinion of yours was old in 2004. Time to find something new to bitch about, is it not?? Time for them to find something new to call themselves, isn't it? > In either case, what is achieved by going into every Q+PR related thread and telling us that the guys in the band are cowards? What is achieved by telling me that? > Either you're right, and everyone else is wrong.... in which case you should just be quiet and content in the knowledge that they're all insane, Or you're wrong, in which case ; clam up!! This isn't a right or wrong thing... it's all a matter of opinion. > If you're going to assert this opinion in every Q+PR thread from now till the death of the last surviving member, you'll only look like an ass, and you're not. I can live with that, but thanks for the advice :) > We know how you feel. Why don't you put it in your signature or something, so that it takes up less room in the forums? My "that's not Queen, but Paul and two leeches" (or akin) messages don't take much room. Other people's replies (and my follow-ups to them) do. > Christ, why can't you people get over it and just be happy that they're still working? Fine. You do that, and I'll keep saying that I'm glad they're still working, but they should do it under another name. |
| its_a_hard_life 26994 05.01.2008 10:05 |
I'm going to enjoy myself! :D This tour is going to be CRAZY. :D |
| Daveboy35 05.01.2008 11:13 |
Brilliant news about QUEEN touring we knew it was only a matter of time and sure enough i think will know the dates by the end of the month. Bring it on guys. |
| john bodega 05.01.2008 11:34 |
"Time for them to find something new to call themselves, isn't it?" Aha but by your own logic, you should no longer be posting on this issue. You have said your piece. Should you not move on? I don't for a minute entertain the idea of following you from thread to thread on this, I'm just curious about the double-standard here. "This isn't a right or wrong thing... it's all a matter of opinion." Hardly... calling them cowards or leeches implies that they've violated what (to you) is some important moral code here. This makes it a matter of right or wrong, doesn't it? I suppose that's a matter of semantics... perhaps 'your opinion of right and wrong'. Hoo, that could get muddled.... Essentially we agree that putting Queen on the new material is questionable *at best*... I really think they should just come up with a new name, but I'm hardly militant about it. I do not understand how you got from that reasoning, to going from topic to topic with what is virtually a copy-paste message. I understand your frustration, but can't you at least be intelligent about it? It is tantamount to spam to not try and take part in the discussion at hand; but rather to just plop in whatever you said in another thread. And, if you have nothing intelligent to say on the subject, or merely can't be assed - you could try not posting. Meh! |
| Erin 05.01.2008 11:44 |
Dan Corson I: A New Beginning wrote: Christ, why can't you people get over it and just be happy that they're still working?Amen, brotha! |
| Maz 05.01.2008 11:53 |
It's unfortunate that this little gem is being overlooked on QZ. I'd like to thank Dark for bringing this to our attention:
<b><FONT SIZE=4>inu-liger</b> wrote: And Seb's comments are akin to the American Pokemon dub fan discussions, after Pokemon USA took back the dubbing licence from 4Kids (who did the first eight seasons for the sub) and decided to use their own (read = TAJ Studios) crappy voice actors, ... It's for these spamming reasons that discussions on the voice actors is banned on virtually all major Pokemon fansite message boards and chatrooms.Let us never forget. |
| Poo, again 05.01.2008 12:58 |
How greedy of Bri and Rog to still use the name Queen. But it's their band, and I'm fine with whatever they do. |
| Dan C. 05.01.2008 14:26 |
Erin wrote:Thank you.Dan Corson I: A New Beginning wrote: Christ, why can't you people get over it and just be happy that they're still working?Amen, brotha! Where did you get that AWESOME picture of Brian and Roger in your profile? |
| A Word In Your Ear 05.01.2008 18:43 |
It's that "same old, same old" time again. Does it really matter what they call themselves? This debate's been going for nearly 8 years now, since Queen (Ahem!!! Brian & Roger, "for all you moaning minnies") teamed up with five. It's not really up to us, If Brian & Roger want to call themselves Queen + Paul Rodgers, is it. It's up to them. People shouldn't be so shallow minded, enjoy it for what it is, "Great Music & Great Shows" Maybe all the negative people's moans, have reached the ears of Brian & Roger, hence the new single labled as "BRIAN MAY, ROGER TAYLOR, QUEEN & Paul Rodgers" this time. I wonder if the new album will be labled the same? |
| Mr Faron Hyte 05.01.2008 18:45 |
Zebonka12 wrote: I do not understand how you got from that reasoning, to going from topic to topic with what is virtually a copy-paste message. I understand your frustration, but can't you at least be intelligent about it? It is tantamount to spam to not try and take part in the discussion at hand; but rather to just plop in whatever you said in another thread. And, if you have nothing intelligent to say on the subject, or merely can't be assed - you could try not posting. Meh!Yes, some might say "going from topic to topic with what is virtually a copy-paste message" was cowardly :-) Personally, I think its just boring. Tantamount to a child who knows he isn't getting his way laying down in the floor and throwing a tantrum in every room in the house 'til the snot flies, just for the sake of making everyone else as miserable as he is. You may also not like the fact that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, but its still going to happen, and every day, so at some point you've just got to shut up and live with it - because regardless of the direction it travels in, the sun is pretty nice. |
| Mr Faron Hyte 05.01.2008 18:49 |
Pim Derks wrote: I think it's strange that people care at all how they call themselves. I don't give a fuck if they call it Queen, Queen + Paul Rodgers, Queen II, Smile, Smile Again, Bad Queen Company, Queen Free, Freddie Mercury Was Gay, AIDS is the Cure or 3 Old Farts. As long as we'll get some new music and a great tour like in 2005/2006.Well said. Its the most fannish and anal retentive of arguments to have, "what they call themselves". Everybody knows who's in the band, how they got there, where they came from, and what catalog of music they're bringing with them. Beyond that, who gives a shit what they want to call themselves. And the saddest part is that someone who is otherwise obviously a fairly intelligent and reasonable chap as Sebastian can't - or perhaps more accurately won't - let it go. Although I rather like "Freddie Mercury Was Gay". |
| August R. 05.01.2008 19:42 |
This interview seems to be the hot topic here on QZ. Sadly, most of you guys seem to have missed the point totally. Let's put these news into perspective. The big news was NOT that they are going to call themselves Queen + Paul Rodgers (though it is kinda interesting that the best thing these three very creative artists can come with is Q+PR. I just hope they didn't put all their creative energy into that, and their music will be more imaginative). Also, the news that they are going to tour this year was hardly a surprize to anyone. No no no. The REAL BIG news was something else. Did you even notice that Brian revealed us that "the hair" isn't going to be there forever? THAT was simply shocking!!! |
| inu-liger 05.01.2008 19:51 |
Maz wrote: It's unfortunate that this little gem is being overlooked on QZ. I'd like to thank Dark for bringing this to our attention:Hehe :P<b><FONT SIZE=4>inu-liger</b> wrote: And Seb's comments are akin to the American Pokemon dub fan discussions, after Pokemon USA took back the dubbing licence from 4Kids (who did the first eight seasons for the sub) and decided to use their own (read = TAJ Studios) crappy voice actors, ... It's for these spamming reasons that discussions on the voice actors is banned on virtually all major Pokemon fansite message boards and chatrooms.Let us never forget. I did forget to mention one bit in that post. Apparently, word is that PUSA has fired TAJ Studios, but nothing else is known at this point... (maybe they're trying to bring back the old VA's in response to the myriad complaints they've gotten from the fans...? That would be a feat in itself, because as we understand, 4Kids has a clause in their contracts with the VA's, that they can't work on 4Kids-dubbed series should those properties get transferred to another studio/company, like Pokemon and One Piece did) And I know Pokemon isn't really relevant in the Queen VS Q+PR isn't "Queen" discussions, but I thought I'd bring it up since, despite voice acting not really being music in this sense even THOUGH it does provide us entertainment nonetheless on the final product, this 'Queen isn't Queen without Freddie/John' debate crap really reminded me about the 4Kids VS PUSA VA situation... The ironic part about this was, even though most fans didn't like the VA's at first, those same VA's eventually found their own way to get comfortable in their roles AND make it work as their own over time, which led to more acceptance among the fans...and then, when PUSA took that work away from them and hired soundalikes, all the fans really got split in half on that, hardcore. I'd even go as far as to say it was and still is more severe than the current(?) Queen VS Q+PR debates, hence the banning of VA discussions on our boards, since it has become akin to political discussions which, as everyone knows is a no-no on virtally all websites and a lot of chatrooms on the Internets since it leads to a lot of needless childish flaming :P So I can't see why the remaining few whiners can't come to terms that, despite all the whining and bitching whatnot, it is not going to bring Freddie back from the dead, and that we *should* embrace the new work from Queen with Paul Rodgers as it is, because this will be the closest thing we'll get to classic Queen (unless John rejoins the band, which would be even closer....those bass lines on the newer songs aren't as inspiring as they used to be, I'll say). I'm personally glad we're getting any new Queen material as it is. After all, it could have turned out to go the Beatles route, with not even the three remaining members of Queen recording any material together before one of those three died (aside from Free As A Bird and Real Love, there was never any new material made with George, Paul and Ringo as "The Beatles" before George died, which was really a shame...nor any three-member concert shows/appearances) |
| Boy Thomas Raker 05.01.2008 21:39 |
Mr. Faron Hyte, with all due respect as I've read lots of your posts over the years and you're a solid member of this board, but why on earth does a fairly intelligent and reasonable chap such as yourself waste your time posting retorts on a place like QZ? Isn't it a little pathetic replying to meaningless posts?, because who gives a shit what people care about a band with bigger issues in the world. |
| Pim Derks 06.01.2008 05:23 |
Would be kinda cool, a "Freddie Mercury Is Gay European Tour 2008" t-shirt, with a huuuuuge picture of Freddie from October 1991 on it. I'd love to wear that. |
| john bodega 06.01.2008 05:43 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Mr. Faron Hyte, with all due respect as I've read lots of your posts over the years and you're a solid member of this board, but why on earth does a fairly intelligent and reasonable chap such as yourself waste your time posting retorts on a place like QZ? Isn't it a little pathetic replying to meaningless posts?, because who gives a shit what people care about a band with bigger issues in the world.Well that's just a sprawling piece of illogic right there. There's nothing meaningless in my post asking Sebastian exactly why he has a bug in his arse that's possessing him to go from thread to thread saying 'cowards' or whatever his word-of-the-day is now. Unless of course you are talking about someone elses post, in which case ; fire away. One thing puzzling me is how you found the time to wander by the thread when there are bigger issues in the world?? |
| Sebastian 06.01.2008 06:58 |
> Aha but by your own logic, you should no longer be posting on this issue. You have said your piece. Should you not move on? When they stop using the name Queen, I'll stop calling them cowards. It's not a threat, and of course they won't stop using it until they feel like it (which has nothing to do with my insights on the matter), but I feel better when I let my opinion out (again). So, again, you can ignore it if you want. As I wrote earlier: a two-sentence complaint by me about the use of the Queen name doesn't take much room in a forum thread. 5+ replies to my comment (trying to make me stop or insulting me, or whatever) do take loads of room that could be used in something else. > calling them cowards or leeches implies that they've violated what (to you) is some important moral code here. Yes, to me. But if somebody else thinks they didn't break any moral code (or they did but it's not a big deal), that's all right. > I really think they should just come up with a new name, but I'm hardly militant about it. People are different. But in any case I'm not going to record shops to burn all copies of 'Return of the Cowards' I find, nor I paint graffitti with the message "Queen were Freddie, Roger, John and Brian". I'm merely posting my thought on a public forum, which isn't really hurting anybody. > Does it really matter what they call themselves? If it didn't, they'd use another name. > It's not really up to us, If Brian & Roger want to call themselves Queen + Paul Rodgers, is it. It's up to them. Yes, but it's up to us to express our opinion (glee, frustration, carelessness or whatever) about it if we want. > People shouldn't be so shallow minded, enjoy it for what it is I love their music, and I think their 'We Are the Champions' is much better than the Queen one. Live at least. Likewise, I think 'Say It's Not True' is a great song and a great recording (although they could've done it even better and they should have hired a bass player, or find one to join the band). But it doesn't change my perspective on the coward and immoral use of the Queen name. > Maybe all the negative people's moans, have reached the ears of Brian & Roger, hence the new single labled as "BRIAN MAY, ROGER TAYLOR, QUEEN & Paul Rodgers" this time. If so, then on a slow but steady rate, this is all working. Another reason to keep doing it. > Yes, some might say "going from topic to topic with what is virtually a copy-paste message" was cowardly :-) But it works for me, the same way the Queen name works for them. > Personally, I think its just boring. Again, I use 10-20 words, but then get 200-300 as reply... > for the sake of making everyone else as miserable as he is. I'm not feeling miserable. I can sleep well, be happy, etc, and I don't give the Queen-name thing much thought, except when I listen to a radio announcer saying "the new Queen single" or see a thread like this. In those cases, I say (or write) "that's not Queen + Paul Rodgers, it's Paul Rodgers with two opportunistic cowards" (or something to that effect), and that's it. Is it obsessive? Maybe, but it's not harmful. Way better than drinking or smoking anyway. > Beyond that, who gives a shit what they want to call themselves. If so, they could use another name. > And the saddest part is that someone who is otherwise obviously a fairly intelligent and reasonable chap as Sebastian can't - or perhaps more accurately won't - let it go. Nobody's perfect. > There's nothing meaningless in my post asking Sebastian exactly why he has a bug in his arse that's possessing him to go from thread to thread saying 'cowards' or whatever his word-of-the-day is now. I've said it before: the reason is that it ruins (for me) what otherwise is a marvellous collaboration and an extraordinary band (although I bother to insist that they |
| Poo, again 06.01.2008 07:41 |
The fact that they use the Queen name just to make a little more money can't be ignored. I'm going to have to agree with Sebastian on this one, because it is more or less... wrong. It's not Queen. If they had any sense of humour they'd call themselves "1/2 Queen + PR". Still, it is their band, their music, and it's their right to call themselves whatever they like. I'm not complaining, I'm just saying what's on my mind. I think it's great that they're still into music and not retired, like a certain Mr. John Deacon. |
| Freddie May 06.01.2008 07:45 |
All this crap from a N'Sync and Abba fan... |
| john bodega 06.01.2008 09:30 |
"I'm merely posting my thought on a public forum, which isn't really hurting anybody." Yeah but it does hurt somebody. Everytime I want to read a decent thread on the subject, I have your loving contributions staring back at me from the screen. The cynic in me reckons using the Queen name to get extra bucks is dodgy, but for fucks sake.... get real, people. The realist in me says the added Queen name will do virtually nothing to the sales figures. The whole world knows Freddie Mercury is dead, so it's not like putting 'Queen' on the CD is going to magically summon forth hordes of admiring teenagers with fat wallets. It didn't work for 46664. That gig with Brian playing "The Call" and Anastacia singing WWRY was largely ignored... well, it was certainly no Live Aid. As it was a worthy cause, I think putting "Queen" on the drums to get more attention was justifiable , but in either case, it really didn't do all that much. Honestly, I would bawl Brian and Roger out for using the name for nefarious purposes - if I thought that such a scheme would pay off in the first place. But it won't. I bet anything that the same crowds would turn out and the same people would buy the music, no matter what the band is called. |
| Sebastian 06.01.2008 09:57 |
> The fact that they use the Queen name just to make a little more money can't be ignored. Personally, I don't think it's about the money, but press coverage and packed venues. Well, sure, a packed venue means more money, but I don't think it's their main goal. > All this crap from a N'Sync and Abba fan... I'm not an N'SYNC and ABBA fan. I like N'SYNC's and ABBA's music, which isn't quite the same. But even if it were, that doesn't invalidate my opinion. Argumentum ad hominem. > I bet anything that the same crowds would turn out and the same people would buy the music, no matter what the band is called. I doubt so, although I hope so. I wish someday they change the name and that theory of yours can be confirmed (or denied). |
| Boy Thomas Raker 06.01.2008 10:54 |
Actually, Zebonka, there's nothing illogical about my reply to Mr. Faron Hyte's comments which include the following: "Beyond that, who gives a shit what they want to call themselves." Sebastian cares. I care. Other people care. People who don't agree with the name issue dismiss and ridicule those who don't take their stand. Why? "And the saddest part is that someone who is otherwise obviously a fairly intelligent and reasonable chap as Sebastian can't - or perhaps more accurately won't - let it go." So again, if Sebastian is intelligent and reasonable, why can't he make an argument for what he believes in? He's getting shit on for having a differing POV than most people, and that's absurd. Mr. Faron Hyte basically is telling Sebastian no one gives a shit about his thoughts on the name. In the bigger picture then, why have a forum at all if dissenting opinion isn't allowed, and doesn't mean that if no one gives a shit about Sebastian's post, what the hell is Mr. Faron Hyte doing wasting his time giving a shit about something no one gives a shit about? He should be on an AIDS, global warming or 46664 website talking about things people should give a shit about. This has nothing to do with Mr. Faron Hyte either, who I think knows his stuff very well. It just irks me that everyone time someone like Sebastian speaks about the name (and in fairness this isn't a who is Queen thread so his remarks may seem like cheap shots), he's shot down. Zebonka, as you stated in your last post, "...the realist in me says the added Queen name will do virtually nothing to the sales figures", and that's why I find the whole use of the Queen name unappealing. It's strictly for sales, and if they believed in their music, then it should stand alone. As it is, I see that the 3 of them don't feel strong enough that they feel confident making new music without a brand behind it. That's their right, but this line up in now ay shape or form is anything near Queen. If others believe it is, that's great. Sebastian and many others don't, shouldn't that be great for them also? Brian and Roger have the right to do as they please, and so they should. So did Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, George Harrison, Robert Plant, Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones. They chose another path, one that "true" Queen fans would call wrong. If Brian tours with Ringo, McCartney, Eddie Van Halen this summer, you may call it the Beatles. I would call it four guys playing music together, and I value the Queen name as much as the Beatles name. |
| john bodega 06.01.2008 12:26 |
Indeed, I may have misunderstood where your post was aimed. It makes more sense now that I've re-read it. See, I don't mind this thread so much because now Sebastian is in it and not every reply is the same shit. He's taking part in a discussion. Wandering from thread to thread with a one-liner about how cowardly someone is; that's not intelligent discussion. Maybe I didn't make my meaning clear enough.... I don't mind Sebastian dissenting, or even dissenting in more than one thread. I'd like him to do it with a bit of imagination. He's using the Treasure Moment approach and it is *really* below him. |
| monty-- 06.01.2008 12:30 |
Why are people so upset over the name? If the tour was advertised as Paul, Brian and Roger, would you prefer it if the gig was only half full? Or if they played solo songs over Queen songs? There are elements of Queen there and I think that's great. I think Brian and Roger will say this isn't your usual 'Queen' but there's enough of the elemements there to validate the use of the name. Ok then, let's turn this on it's head. Now, I think it's QUEEN, so why heck did they play 'Last Horizon'? That's a solo song so it shouldn't have been there. It's the same argument. In no way has this damaged Queen's legacy. But it's a damn sight better than seeing Brian and Roger play solo tours. Brian and Roger combined is MAGIC. Look what happened in Wolverhampton '99. Queen spirit was there. Ocean 2001. Spirit was there. I'd have e'm together anyday playing Queen than apart playing solo. Ergo, that's why I like the use of the Queen name. It's personal pride. If they called it 'Taylor Mayed' or something then its dodging the music and it's like they are ashamed to use the name. THEY SHOULD USE THE NAME QUEEN and we should feel proud like they evidently are. |
| john bodega 06.01.2008 12:30 |
"and that's why I find the whole use of the Queen name unappealing. It's strictly for sales, and if they believed in their music, then it should stand alone." I believe you may have misunderstood what I said. If it's true that they won't make more or less money based on the name, then it is irrelevant and obviously not part of the motive behind keeping the name 'Queen', or Queen-related. This perhaps exposes other character flaws in Brian and Roger, but I don't see how it relates back to trying to turn a profit. As soon as the hit single from their new album appears in Coke ads, though, I'd be prepared to eat those words. For the moment, at least regarding this band name... I really cannot see the name change having anything to do with money. It's obviously just an insecurity thing. |
| monty-- 06.01.2008 12:34 |
Remember that pride plays a part. Pride of their history, pride in themselves knowing that they wouldn't sell as well under their own names. It's not totally commercial. There is pride there too. |
| Tero 06.01.2008 14:23 |
monty-- wrote: Why are people so upset over the name?Because a (previously known) name is important in advertising what the band is going to be. In MY personal opinion Brian and Roger (as talented as they may be) just aren't Queen. monty-- wrote: If the tour was advertised as Paul, Brian and Roger, would you prefer it if the gig was only half full? Or if they played solo songs over Queen songs? There are elements of Queen there and I think that's great. I think Brian and Roger will say this isn't your usual 'Queen' but there's enough of the elemements there to validate the use of the name.Believe it or not, some shows on the previous tour were half full. I believe the Stockholm gig which I saw was one of those. The amount of audience didn't detract anything from the experience. What did was the fact that the setlist (songs not really in the singer's style) made the concert experience sound like a mediocre cover band. I've said it for almost three years now: The bast part of the concert was when Paul Rodgers sang his own material, because that's when the performance sounded most natural. I really don't have anything against him, and I also don't have any respect for the NAME of Queen when the end result doesn't justify it. monty-- wrote: Ok then, let's turn this on it's head. Now, I think it's QUEEN, so why heck did they play 'Last Horizon'? That's a solo song so it shouldn't have been there. It's the same argument. In no way has this damaged Queen's legacy."They" played Last Horizon to keep the audience merely unconscious instead of slipping into a coma during the obligatory 10 minute guitar solo. It has nothing to do with the band's legacy as there were about three people awake at that point of the concert. :P monty-- wrote: But it's a damn sight better than seeing Brian and Roger play solo tours. Brian and Roger combined is MAGIC. Look what happened in Wolverhampton '99. Queen spirit was there. Ocean 2001. Spirit was there. I'd have e'm together anyday playing Queen than apart playing solo. Ergo, that's why I like the use of the Queen name. It's personal pride.I don't share that opinion. In my opinion Brian and Roger together sound like... Brian and Roger together. It just doesn't sound like Queen to me. Adding four additional people certainly doesn't make them sound any MORE like Queen. monty-- wrote: If they called it 'Taylor Mayed' or something then its dodging the music and it's like they are ashamed to use the name. THEY SHOULD USE THE NAME QUEEN and we should feel proud like they evidently are.What they are doing right now is nothing short of (ab)using the name to further their own gains. In your opinion (and apparently Brian's as well) it's more important to sell as many tickets as possible, than it would be to use an artistically accurate name. YOU can be as proud as you want when you see that commercial success, but you HAVE to accept that there are going to be people who are equally ashamed that the band has chosen to use a name which doesn't represent them accurately. That is something that goes with people having the freedom to think for themselves. (Which, I might add, was pretty important in the success of Queen in the first place!) |
| Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira 06.01.2008 18:55 |
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:LOL ROTFL :DDSebastian wrote:you mean like FREE or SMILE ??? how about FRILE? or SMEE ?Mr Faron Hyte wrote:Well, I think they should stick to another name instead of Queen. We're all entitled to our opinions.Zebonka12 wrote:I second that.Sebastian wrote: That's not Queen, it's Paul Rodgers with two opportunistic cowards, plus some guest musicians.You should stick to analysis of the actual music. |
| A Word In Your Ear 06.01.2008 19:47 |
Tero wrote: In my opinion Brian and Roger together sound like... Brian and Roger together. It just doesn't sound like Queen to me. Adding four additional people certainly doesn't make them sound any MORE like Queen.Tero, what a load of hogwash!!! of course it sounds like Brian & Roger singing, but does have the Queen sound & that's what's important. I suppose you think that when Freddie sang lead vocals during "Modern times Rock 'n' Roll" & "'39" during the 1970's, that it just didn't sound like Queen. Better get ROGER & BRIAN (not Fred) to sing the vocals. I for one, am still glad, Brian & Roger are still holding onto the Queen torch!! Amen!!!! |
| boy of destiny 06.01.2008 23:16 |
Not to change the subject, but what really killed me about the interview was the first queston they asked Brian about was Brittney Spears. The guy's one of the most influential musicians of our time and instead of asking about his future plans all they care about is his views on a bi-polar pop tart?! No wonder the record industry is dying. |
| Tero 06.01.2008 23:40 |
<font color=olive>A Word In Your Ear wrote: Tero, what a load of hogwash!!! of course it sounds like Brian & Roger singing, but does have the Queen sound & that's what's important.I'm sorry, but n my opinion Brian and Roger do NOT sound like Queen in any respect other than the name their using. <font color=olive>A Word In Your Ear wrote: I suppose you think that when Freddie sang lead vocals during "Modern times Rock 'n' Roll" & "'39" during the 1970's, that it just didn't sound like Queen. Better get ROGER & BRIAN (not Fred) to sing the vocals.When I hear a live version of '39 or Modern Times Rock n Roll in the middle of another hour or two of singing by Freddie, my brain does a fascinating trick and interprets that it's a small anomaly with a logical explanation behind it. Without Freddie there's a small anomaly where the music sounds right, and the majority sounds just plain wrong, and my brain interprets that some vital ingredient is missing. <font color=olive>A Word In Your Ear wrote: I for one, am still glad, Brian & Roger are still holding onto the Queen torch!! Amen!!!!Too bad it's nothing more than a battery operated keychain these days, instead of a flame burning like a beacon of talent above their heads. :P |
| fredswife 07.01.2008 00:44 |
I actually thought this was a four-page long thread discussing the tour. Silly me! |
| vadenuez 07.01.2008 01:31 |
From a legal POV, Brian and Roger have all the right to be called Queen. But the old entity called QUEEN is no more, in the same way that Daltrey & Townshend can't be The Who, Pink Floyd sans Waters couldn't be PF, the Farris bros. sans Hutchence aren't INXS and so on. No matter how hard they try, all those bands were the result of a moment in time and a consecuence of their own experiences living together. The songs and the live shows are only a result, not the band itself. The "classic Queen sound" as many like to call it, is just the final link of a big chain of events including gathering together, writing, brainstorming, fighting, laughing, crying, arguing, writing music, erasing music, touring, partying, dating groupies,... you name it. In Queen's particular case, without Freddie and John any attempt to recreate a certain mood will simply fail. Paul Rodgers must create his own experiences with Brian and Roger and those experiences will be reflected in whatever album/tour they'll be able to come up with. That's why I believe they must search their new own style, instead of getting washed versions of a time that won't come back, simply because they aren't the same anymore. |
| Togg 08.01.2008 05:36 |
Queen is a brand, and just as any company can change it's staff and retain the same name, so can any brand or band. Just because the original four people are not together anymore has no baring on the name, Coke is no longer the same formula, nor does it have any of the same people working for it, however it is still the same product that has moved on. Queen the 'brand' has simply moved on the 'spirit' lives on in whatever form so long as the core of the brand remain in tact. For the record pretty well all major recording artists feel the same about this. Hence Pink Floyd The Who Led Zep Oasis The Beatles (yes the original members were not the same as the ones at the end) Crowded house Genesis Sex Pistols The Eagles Kiss ToTo Rainbow Foreigner Squeeze Wings Level 42 Bad Company The Rolling Stones To name a few off the top of my head The list goes on and on, one notable exception is ABBA In almost every band you care to name people have come and gone, very very few have the original people and have stayed together throughout their history |
| Negative Creep 08.01.2008 07:36 |
What a pointless fucking list. None of those bands frontmen died and then didn't release anything for years and actually said it was the end for the band. Changing personnel of an active band is totally different to resurrecting a dead band with half it's members and not even the main focal point of the band. To suggest that Queen didn't end in November 1991 is laughable. At the end of the day Roger and Brian want their ego's stroking by being able to play arena sized venues - without the name of their old band they would be playing places like Shepherd's Bush Empire... good enough for most bands, but not for Brian May who is under the impression he deserves to be playing venues today the same size as he did with Queen at their peak despite having not released anything of any real worth since. |
| Daveboy35 08.01.2008 07:55 |
Really so why do you think they've made a NEW ALBUM then if not to tour with billed as queen and i believe that BRIAN does deserve to be playing places like 02 and arenas around the world, they were a part of the legendary group queen and guess what they still are. |
| Togg 08.01.2008 09:25 |
Negative Creep wrote: What a pointless fucking list. None of those bands frontmen died and then didn't release anything for years and actually said it was the end for the band. Changing personnel of an active band is totally different to resurrecting a dead band with half it's members and not even the main focal point of the band. To suggest that Queen didn't end in November 1991 is laughable. At the end of the day Roger and Brian want their ego's stroking by being able to play arena sized venues - without the name of their old band they would be playing places like Shepherd's Bush Empire... good enough for most bands, but not for Brian May who is under the impression he deserves to be playing venues today the same size as he did with Queen at their peak despite having not released anything of any real worth since.You naysayers do make me laugh, Do you seriously think people turn up to concerts these days expecting to see Freddie still fronting them!? If not then one would assume Brian and Roger incapable of filling an arena, however judging by the last tour it would appear they can! If an Artist can fill an arena the size of the O2 then they surely deserve to play there? Brian and Roger have a vast following of fans that just want to hear old and new song alike Why you people can't get your heads around the fact that it's just a name is beyond me, why bother coming to a fan site if you think they died in 91' surely nothing new is going to interest you. The fact is almost every band changes its members but retains the name, get over it. |
| Regor 08.01.2008 11:16 |
Just imagine. Two friends are founding members of a group, that has already been going for about 2 years. Then 2 talented young men join - one of them happens to have an idea for a good new name - and the band keeps going. For the next 2 decades they rehearse and go on tour together. Share hotel rooms, station wagons, trains, tour busses and planes. They eat, drink and party together - and whatever else can be imagined from the heyday of r'n'r. They write songs (in fact, these 2 write more than 50% of the songs of that particular band), design album sleeves, stages, light shows, release albums, singles, videos, earn money (loads of) together - and then suddenly the singer dies. If I had been in that band for 20+ years and experienced what they have together, I'd be pretty pissed off if someone told me to stop using that name. |
| Knute 08.01.2008 11:27 |
fredswife wrote: I actually thought this was a four-page long thread discussing the tour. Silly me!LOL! Yeah right. People just can't get enough of this four year old argument. |
| Sebastian 08.01.2008 12:15 |
Regor wrote: Just imagine. Two friends are founding members of a group, that has already been going for about 2 years. Then 2 talented young men join - one of them happens to have an idea for a good new name - and the band keeps going.That's not true: it's not that Fred joined Roger's and Brian's band and changed its name. The story, as Mercury told it (Tom Browne interview, Xmas Eve '77), is: "Very briefly, Brian and Roger were in a very up tempo raucous band called Smile and I used to be in another band called Wreckage or something, even more up tempo, and we used to be friends, going to collage together and met up. After the first couple of years knowing each other, we decided we'd form a band together and it's as simple as that. We thought our musical ideas would blend" So... they formed a NEW band. The three of them. |
| PieterMC 08.01.2008 13:03 |
Knute wrote:I wish people could just get past it. It becomes tiresome to come to the boards here and on QOL and see endless threads discussing the subject.fredswife wrote: I actually thought this was a four-page long thread discussing the tour. Silly me!LOL! Yeah right. People just can't get enough of this four year old argument. |
| dobo 08.01.2008 13:18 |
Paul Rodgers is a great singer he sings Queen songs in his own style they sound different but they sound great. Brian & Roger play Paul's songs in a different yet great way compared to the orginals. You don't see Free or Bad Company fans (I am a large fan of both these bands) complaining that Brian doesn't play the songs how Paul Kossoff or Mick Ralphs played them the same for Roger with Simon Kirk. The songs are meant to be played and I'd rather they be played with a different singer than not at all |
| monty-- 08.01.2008 13:58 |
There is a significant demand to hear QUEEN songs live from the original composers. Not like the Seventies or Eighties but there is a demand. If you don't believe me, ask someone who saw them in Hyde Park. Awesome. In the Nineties, it was all 'when are the band getting back together'? Now, in the politically correct environment we live in, it's 'you can't play Queen songs because you're not Queen'. Rubbish! |
| vadenuez 08.01.2008 14:24 |
Togg wrote: Queen is a brand, and just as any company can change it's staff and retain the same name, so can any brand or band. Just because the original four people are not together anymore has no baring on the name, Coke is no longer the same formula, nor does it have any of the same people working for it, however it is still the same product that has moved on. Queen the 'brand' has simply moved on the 'spirit' lives on in whatever form so long as the core of the brand remain in tact. For the record pretty well all major recording artists feel the same about this. Hence Pink Floyd The Who Led Zep Oasis The Beatles (yes the original members were not the same as the ones at the end) Crowded house Genesis Sex Pistols The Eagles Kiss ToTo Rainbow Foreigner Squeeze Wings Level 42 Bad Company The Rolling Stones To name a few off the top of my head The list goes on and on, one notable exception is ABBA In almost every band you care to name people have come and gone, very very few have the original people and have stayed together throughout their historyMore than half of your list is filled with bands who retain the name but nowadays are just covering the songs from their own golden years for a smaller fan base and nostalgia (Foreigner, Crowded House, Toto, Level 42). Others are able to change members because they are bands who are owned by one or two musicians, being the rest members just nearly disposable session musicians (Oasis, Wings). Genesis went down the gutter when Gabriel left and Pink Floyd, after a sad trial and two so-so albums, realized cleverly that they won't reach their old heights anymore and disbanded. People don't give a shit about brands, they want good music. If a new face-washed group don't give them what they are expecting, they will move along and look somewhere else, simply as that, and to hell with the brand. Or there's a second choice: tour in smaller venues and play your hits. But don't expect to fill Knebworth with 140,000 souls again if you're not able anymore, just because you call yourselves Queen. |
| Tero 08.01.2008 14:55 |
Togg wrote: Pink Floyd The Who Led Zep Oasis The Beatles (yes the original members were not the same as the ones at the end) Crowded house Genesis Sex Pistols The Eagles Kiss ToTo Rainbow Foreigner Squeeze Wings Level 42 Bad Company The Rolling Stones To name a few off the top of my head The list goes on and on, one notable exception is ABBA In almost every band you care to name people have come and gone, very very few have the original people and have stayed together throughout their history...and just how many of these bands had a 20 year recording career (starting before their first song was released) with the same personnel? Which of them sold a hundred million records before their charismatic frontman was replaced? I've got a few great examples for you as well. Genesis Van Halen Iron Maiden Queen A long, succesful, and even a respected career with a line-up that wasn't their original one. Replacing a charismatic frontman with the wrong type of guy, and very limited commercial or critical success afterwards. The first three have gone to great lenghts to try to sweep that last huge mistake under the carpet by re-hiring their best asset, thus rewriting the ending of their story. Queen doesn't have that luxury anymore. Freddie's gone permanently, and the last chapter of Queen's story is being written now... The only question that remains is whether the story is worthy of the Queen name? I don't know about you, but #90 in the charts doesn't really do it for me. ;) |
| Sebastian 08.01.2008 15:15 |
monty-- wrote: Now, in the politically correct environment we live in, it's 'you can't play Queen songs because you're not Queen'. Rubbish!My complaint is just about the name. If they want to play Queen songs, Beatles songs, Elvis songs, new songs or whatever, I support that, as long as they use another name. |
| Knute 08.01.2008 22:59 |
PieterMC wrote:No doubt.Knute wrote:I wish people could just get past it. It becomes tiresome to come to the boards here and on QOL and see endless threads discussing the subject.fredswife wrote: I actually thought this was a four-page long thread discussing the tour. Silly me!LOL! Yeah right. People just can't get enough of this four year old argument. It is truly beyond tiresome now. |
| Tero 09.01.2008 00:00 |
Knute wrote:Why would anyone expect this to be a topic about Q+PR tour? It wouldn't be at this section of the forum in that case, would it?PieterMC wrote:No doubt. It is truly beyond tiresome now.Knute wrote:I wish people could just get past it. It becomes tiresome to come to the boards here and on QOL and see endless threads discussing the subject.fredswife wrote: I actually thought this was a four-page long thread discussing the tour. Silly me!LOL! Yeah right. People just can't get enough of this four year old argument. In my opinion, as long as the upcoming live performances are discussed as a QUEEN topic instead of a Q+PR topic, It deserves all the shit it gets. :) |
| Regor 09.01.2008 06:36 |
Sebastian wrote:Yeah, I stretched it a bit too far, agreed. But what happened with that new band was a collective experience, and would'nt have happened THAT way with other people. That's in a way also your point, but for me that means Bri and Rog can use the name.Regor wrote: Just imagine. Two friends are founding members of a group, that has already been going for about 2 years. Then 2 talented young men join - one of them happens to have an idea for a good new name - and the band keeps going.That's not true: it's not that Fred joined Roger's and Brian's band and changed its name. The story, as Mercury told it (Tom Browne interview, Xmas Eve '77), is: "Very briefly, Brian and Roger were in a very up tempo raucous band called Smile and I used to be in another band called Wreckage or something, even more up tempo, and we used to be friends, going to collage together and met up. After the first couple of years knowing each other, we decided we'd form a band together and it's as simple as that. We thought our musical ideas would blend" So... they formed a NEW band. The three of them. BTW, I can see your point in that whole discussion, although I do not agree. The only thing that I thougt went a bit too far was the use of the word "cowards". But that was explained, and everything else was part of an interesting discussion. It is always a joy to read your thoughtful and substantiated comments. So no offense! There are other people here who behave stepfordish and childish when it comes to QPR. |
| john bodega 09.01.2008 08:54 |
You've got a point with the word 'coward' there, Knute. I don't know many cowards that go on the road and play arenas without a bullet-proof vest and a crash helmet. |
| Hitman 09.01.2008 12:57 |
ouch...too long posts to read....sebastian i think we ll have a good fun at the O2 arena even if is the "Queen" ÷ paul performing...your point of view is respectable anyway,people shouldnt blame you.. the point is... where is this O2 arena?!??! :P see you there!!! |
| Raf 09.01.2008 13:00 |
Knute wrote:That's because they have the mentality of four-year-olds. :)fredswife wrote: I actually thought this was a four-page long thread discussing the tour. Silly me!LOL! Yeah right. People just can't get enough of this four year old argument. Ignore the moaners and enjoy the music. ;) That's pretty much what I've been doing after trying to argue a bit on this thread. It's pointless arguing, really. Now the biggest argument is "The new single is #90 on the charts". If Q+PR make a bunch of #1 hits, what will the moaners say? "Chart positions mean nothing. Britney Spears charts too". |
| gnomo 09.01.2008 13:57 |
Hitman wrote: the point is... where is this O2 arena?!??!Just in case you really meant the question, this O2 arena (formerly known as the Millennium Dome) is in London, down the Thames river, slightly past Greenwich and roughly opposite the Canary Wharf. It sits right beside the North Greenwich station of the Jubilee tube line. Enjoy this view: link Their website: link How to get there: link HTH |
| Raf 09.01.2008 17:16 |
gnomo wrote:Just to add...Hitman wrote: the point is... where is this O2 arena?!??!Just in case you really meant the question, this O2 arena (formerly known as the Millennium Dome) is in London, down the Thames river, slightly past Greenwich and roughly opposite the Canary Wharf. It sits right beside the North Greenwich station of the Jubilee tube line. Enjoy this view: link Their website: link How to get there: link HTH It's the venue where Led Zep played in December 2007, and the same where the Foo Fighters also played in 2007 featuring Brian and Roger as guests on '39. |
| Knute 09.01.2008 20:17 |
Tero wrote:Oh Tero you're so hardcore.Knute wrote:Why would anyone expect this to be a topic about Q+PR tour? It wouldn't be at this section of the forum in that case, would it? In my opinion, as long as the upcoming live performances are discussed as a QUEEN topic instead of a Q+PR topic, It deserves all the shit it gets. :)PieterMC wrote:No doubt. It is truly beyond tiresome now.Knute wrote:I wish people could just get past it. It becomes tiresome to come to the boards here and on QOL and see endless threads discussing the subject.fredswife wrote: I actually thought this was a four-page long thread discussing the tour. Silly me!LOL! Yeah right. People just can't get enough of this four year old argument. I'm in awe of your intense fandom. |
| Tero 09.01.2008 23:36 |
Knute wrote:Who said anything about fandom or being hardcore?Tero wrote:Oh Tero you're so hardcore. I'm in awe of your intense fandom.Knute wrote:Why would anyone expect this to be a topic about Q+PR tour? It wouldn't be at this section of the forum in that case, would it? In my opinion, as long as the upcoming live performances are discussed as a QUEEN topic instead of a Q+PR topic, It deserves all the shit it gets. :)PieterMC wrote:No doubt. It is truly beyond tiresome now.Knute wrote:I wish people could just get past it. It becomes tiresome to come to the boards here and on QOL and see endless threads discussing the subject.fredswife wrote: I actually thought this was a four-page long thread discussing the tour. Silly me!LOL! Yeah right. People just can't get enough of this four year old argument. I was merely stating that since this topic was posted in the wrong place to begin with, there isn't much point in expecting accuracy from the content either. You're a Paul Rodgers fan first and foremost, so it's perfectly fine for you if people talk everywhere about a project he's involved in. That's nice in its own way, and I can sort of appreciate your loyalty. But you do have to remember that this is (supposed to be) a QUEEN message board. |
| Knute 10.01.2008 18:04 |
I became a Queen fan in 1975. I became a PR fan in 1985. So I'm loyal to both. I really like Q+PR whereas it's obvious you really don't like them. I'm well aware I'm at a QUEEN messageboard. Been coming here for three years now. So three years of this same argument gets very tiresome. Queen and QPR can and do exist in the same spaces together because of the ties that bind. How can a project headed by Brian May and Roger Taylor not bleed into all sections of a Queen messageboard? It's asinine to assume they won't. |
| Dan C. 10.01.2008 22:27 |
Knute wrote: Queen and QPR can and do exist in the same spaces together because of the ties that bind. How can a project headed by Brian May and Roger Taylor not bleed into all sections of a Queen messageboard? It's asinine to assume they won't.My thoughts exactly. |
| Tero 10.01.2008 23:41 |
Knute wrote: So three years of this same argument gets very tiresome. Queen and QPR can and do exist in the same spaces together because of the ties that bind. How can a project headed by Brian May and Roger Taylor not bleed into all sections of a Queen messageboard? It's asinine to assume they won't.I'll go through this slowly again, in case you just didn't understand it the first time. This topic (based on the original announcement and circumstances) is supposed to be about Q+PR on tour. This topic is in the Queen subforum. There is a separate subforum for Q+PR on tour. Logic dictates this topic should have been put in the Q+PR on tour subforum. What's really asinine is to create subforums for easier browsing of a message board, and then ignore the proper use of those subforums when you want something to get more attention. That's why it deserves negative attention. Not because of Paul Rodgers, and not because "Queen" consists of only Brian and Roger these days... Simply because it was intentionally put (and kept) in a wrong section of the forum. It deserves to be noticed so the next 582 topics this year will go into the proper place, and not clog up the Queen forum. Do you now get my point? |
| Wiley 11.01.2008 10:59 |
So we should ditch the Queen+Paul Rodgers Tour sub forum and discuss everything in the Queen Serious Discussion Forum, since it's pretty much the same now. Will this make you happy? (Shit has hit the fan... the Queen fan) Just kidding, man. I wish there was a forum for stupid discussions but we still have to deal with them. I don't mean this one, which is above par by QZ's recent standards. Very few people respect the sub forums' subjects. On the other hand, Face it... the Montreal release was not very exciting for many fans (being the eleventh re-release). The old Queen is doing NOTHING at the moment. We are not getting albums re-released in superb DVD-A or getting boxed sets or getting a 70's concert release. Queen + Paul Rodgers is the current project and it is a bloody exciting one. They are making something NEW and that makes me happy. Whether it turns out to be genius or crap, only time will tell. Queen in their heyday were always highly misunderstood and slammed by critics. I wasn't a fan in those days and I can't compare but I really don't perceive much negativity towards their new project now (only here). I hope they make it to Mexico on tour this year (most likely the next). I'm terribly excited about this and all the Brenski's and TreasureMoment's in the world can't change that :). |
| Tero 11.01.2008 11:44 |
Wiley wrote: So we should ditch the Queen+Paul Rodgers Tour sub forum and discuss everything in the Queen Serious Discussion Forum, since it's pretty much the same now. Will this make you happy?It might be a surprise to you, but it would make me "happy" in a way. At least I would know where the administration of this forum stands, and if nobody besides me complained about it, I would know this isn't exactly my type of crowd. It's very fitting though, that a band releasing half-arsed efforts every year has message boards where people are happy to do whatever is easiest for them. It's a bit like the old saying that the "owner starts to look like his dog". :P |
| Wiley 11.01.2008 16:50 |
I really don't know the policy of the site since it is pretty much unmoderated. I really don't care, as long as I am not offending people. I read other forums which are heavily moderated and I've seen other pages in which there is like an "official" or "editorial" opinion and almost everybody goes along with it. Sometimes the moderation is good. For instance mi6.co.uk is a James Bond page with a tightly run forum. Not only moderators, even regular posters warn you when you post something inapropriate. Sometimes it's so polite it sickens, haha :). But it works. TreasureMoment would be kicked out of that forum in a heartbeat only for repeating his opinion (sorry, FACTS!!!) in many topics. Regarding the "Editorial" opinion. Check batman-on-film.com. That page has "News" articles made by the owner of the page saying that the criticism for Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker "is getting silly". Hmmmm, many fans complaining about a new guy filling an old guy's shoes? Sounds familiar. A thing I like about Queenzone is its unmoderated nature and that everybody can voice their opinion. It's a bit messy but I like it. Imagine Richard or Barbara determining one day that it is officially unacceptable to criticise Queen+PR and you will be banned if you do so. QZ would BURN! Well, as sacrilegious as this may seem to some of you, that's what some other places do. We have full freedom of speech here, but it is our responsability to use it wisely. I have nothing against people with different opinion as mine. I like when people like Brenski, Sebastian and Tero express their opinions regarding Queen and Paul Rodgers. They are somewhat open to discuss. However, I get a bit upset (it might not be fair, I know) when new users give the same "contundent" arguments regarding why they shouldn't use the name Queen. It gets boring. Damn, sorry for the long post. I can't help it. |
| Knute 11.01.2008 19:56 |
Tero wrote:Your first sentence just shows you to be the dick that you are.Knute wrote: So three years of this same argument gets very tiresome. Queen and QPR can and do exist in the same spaces together because of the ties that bind. How can a project headed by Brian May and Roger Taylor not bleed into all sections of a Queen messageboard? It's asinine to assume they won't.I'll go through this slowly again, in case you just didn't understand it the first time. This topic (based on the original announcement and circumstances) is supposed to be about Q+PR on tour. This topic is in the Queen subforum. There is a separate subforum for Q+PR on tour. Logic dictates this topic should have been put in the Q+PR on tour subforum. What's really asinine is to create subforums for easier browsing of a message board, and then ignore the proper use of those subforums when you want something to get more attention. That's why it deserves negative attention. Not because of Paul Rodgers, and not because "Queen" consists of only Brian and Roger these days... Simply because it was intentionally put (and kept) in a wrong section of the forum. It deserves to be noticed so the next 582 topics this year will go into the proper place, and not clog up the Queen forum. Do you now get my point? I don't see you bitching about Treasure Moment whoring his band for the umpteenth time in this section. That's just one example of the silly ass topics that end up in this section You are just raising a stink cause you are a big crybaby about the whole Q+PR project. I should make it a point to post Q+PR topics in Queen forums just to piss you off. Have a nice day. |
| Tero 12.01.2008 04:33 |
Knute wrote: Your first sentence just shows you to be the dick that you are. I don't see you bitching about Treasure Moment whoring his band for the umpteenth time in this section. That's just one example of the silly ass topics that end up in this section You are just raising a stink cause you are a big crybaby about the whole Q+PR project. I should make it a point to post Q+PR topics in Queen forums just to piss you off. Have a nice day.And your penultimate sentence shows what a dick you are. Are we now even? I don't have the habit of insulting the fellow posters (or their posts) on forums I visit unless they insult me first. I might have a problem with the actual topical discussion they are making, and won't be afraid to say it. (What you said about me being a dick is purely a misunderstanding because you can't see the lighthearted and friendly tone in the text.) You can go through my past post history (e.g. about half a dozen posts in this topic), and you can see that I am actually trying to achieve intelligent discussion with well founded arguments whenever I see other arguments that are clearly contradictory to mine. I know this is not a Q+PR topic simply because I have been reading it and replying to it, whereas your only contribution was to try and stifle the discussion by saying how silly a four year old argument was. (And please don't think that I'm such a dick again. As I write the sentences about your only contribution, I'm in a happy mood like I've been all throughout the writing of this message. I'm not angry at anyone, and I'm certainly not saying that you should stop writing in this topic... What I would like you to do however, is take a step back and see what exactly you have contributed to this discussion. The branch of this discussion where people are critisising the off-topical nature of the messages, in which you are participating, has the least to do with the topic title!) |
| gaz.59 12.01.2008 17:29 |
If they dropped Queen and just went with Q+PR I would be agreeable, and may even give them a chance they are not and will never be, Queen. again without Freddie and John and as such, should not tour as Queen |
| Knute 12.01.2008 20:10 |
gaz.59 wrote: If they dropped Queen and just went with Q+PR I would be agreeable, and may even give them a chance they are not and will never be, Queen. again without Freddie and John and as such, should not tour as QueenThat is exactly what they have done. Watch this clip: link |
| Leaky Luke 13.01.2008 14:26 |
<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote:Not to mention Deep purple.. MK 3 was hardly worthy to call Deep purple.. but no-one bitched about that.Sebastian wrote:And I assume Led Zeppelin are cowards then, for reuniting a couple of times with guest drummers yet labelling themselves "Led Zeppelin"...(?) I haven't seen anyone questioning the legitimacy of Led Zeppelin's use of that name. Maybe people are bitter about Queen using the name because it was the legendary lead singer who died, not the silent bassist or the average drummer...? With all respect, I love your website, I love the brilliant work you do in providing accurate info about Queen's music, but you sound like one of those annoying spammers like Treasure Moment when you enter threads just to moan about Q+PR.Mr Faron Hyte wrote:Well, I think they should stick to another name instead of Queen. We're all entitled to our opinions.Zebonka12 wrote:I second that.Sebastian wrote: That's not Queen, it's Paul Rodgers with two opportunistic cowards, plus some guest musicians.You should stick to analysis of the actual music. |
| A Word In Your Ear 13.01.2008 15:49 |
If Roger & Brian, want to call themselves Queen, without Freddie & John, it's not up to us, It's up to them. So this argument is really a waste of people's time. There is one easy solution, if you don't like the post-Freddie stuff being called Queen, then don't buy the cds/dvds, don't go to the shows, but it will be all you moaning minnies who will miss out. Save the cheerleader, save the worl..... (oh sorry wrong catchphrase) what I meant to say was, Rock on Q+PR!!!!! |
| Sebastian 14.01.2008 07:33 |
For the same matter, if you don't like seeing complaints about the coward and unethic use of the Queen name, then don't read them. It's not up to you whether we disagree or not with the name and publicly express so, it's up to us. |
| YourValentine 14.01.2008 16:21 |
The fact that this topic has not been moved to the (proper) Queen plus Paul Rodgers tour forum does not reflect any website politics concerning the issue Queen/Queen + PR, use of Queen name and such. It only means that nobody bothered to move it. Queenzone members are used to the ongoing chaos on this website, moderation is random. It's because we don't have mods who spend their day moving around topics. As long as there is no spam and no sharing of official stuff, nobody loses sleep over a wrong forum. We can fight in any forum anytime ;) I think the basic "website policy " can be described as "each to their own" |
| Tero 14.01.2008 23:41 |
For a handful of topics it's probably the best thing to do, but I think (and hope) things will be different once the 582 other topics come in six months from now! ;) |
| mooghead 17.01.2008 17:48 |
Blah..blah...blah...its NOT Queen but some evil, cringworthy hibrid that is sucking the soul out of the legacy for cash. Can we move on now......? |
| Wiley 17.01.2008 19:06 |
mooghead wrote: Blah..blah...blah...its NOT Queen but some evil, cringworthy hibrid that is sucking the soul out of the legacy for cash. Can we move on now......?Hahahaha... Great comment. I really hope we could move on but I think there will always be nay-sayers and they are entitled to their opinion as well. I just read a comment regarding the new Smashing Pumpkins album and some fans refuse to call it a proper Smashing pumpkins album because there are only 2 original members. And one of them is the lead singer and main songwriter. Go figure. |
| Sebastian 18.01.2008 07:30 |
Wiley wrote: I just read a comment regarding the new Smashing Pumpkins album and some fans refuse to call it a proper Smashing pumpkins album because there are only 2 original members. And one of them is the lead singer and main songwriter. Go figure.Freddie Mercury and Brian May wrote over 70% of Queen material; they were by far the most recognisable band members, gave them a big part of their unique sound, shared the largest fandom, communicated the most with the audience, were the only members playing in almost every song on stage (Roger and John were absent in 'Love of My Life' and 'Is This the World We Created'), composed all Queen epics ('Prophet's Song', 'Bo Rhap', 'Father to Son', 'Black Queen'...), wrote most of those beautiful trademark Queen ballads ('Save Me', 'Lily', 'White Queen', 'Love of My Life'...), easily doubled the time spent by the other two in the studio (overdubbing backing vocals and guitars respectively), and a long etcetera. But... 'Man From Manhattan' isn't credited to Queen + Eddie Howell (or Eddie Howell featuring Queen for that matter); when they played at Live Aid they were introduced as 'Freddie Mercury and Brian May'. So, if Fred and Brian weren't Queen, it's completely ridiculous to think Rog and Brian are. |
| AlexRocks 18.01.2008 10:33 |
Wow! Everyone are playing the O2 Arena. First Led Zeppelin then Queen in September. Now they are talking about Michael Jackson playing there and Dolly Parton is playing there as well over the summer. The Eagles are also starting their world tour there too. Lord have mercy! I ought to kidnap that place and put it in my backyard! |
| Wiley 18.01.2008 10:49 |
Sebastian wrote: Freddie Mercury and Brian May wrote over 70% of Queen material; they were by far the most recognisable band members, gave them a big part of their unique sound... But... 'Man From Manhattan' isn't credited to Queen + Eddie Howell (or Eddie Howell featuring Queen for that matter); when they played at Live Aid they were introduced as 'Freddie Mercury and Brian May'. So, if Fred and Brian weren't Queen, it's completely ridiculous to think Rog and Brian are.I agree with the first part. Yes, they were the most recognizable band members and contributors to the Queen sound as we know it. The 'Man from Manhattan' was not a Queen project at all and as such, it did not feature in any Queen album. Brian and Freddie permormed as themselves in Live Aid. Well, Roger and John performed as 'Queen' once. Both were one offs, as you have said before. Queen+Paul Rodgers is a new project and Brian and Roger chose to use the Queen name and John doesn't care. I don't see anything bad with that, but that's my point of view. Maybe some people think it's lazy or greedy... well, I don't. Whether the release flops or not, I don't think it will "hurt Queen's legacy". In 20 years time people will still remember 70's Queen and maybe no-one but fans will remember the QPR tour and album, as with other less memorable parts of their history. I just don't see average Joe speaking to average Joe Jr. 20 years from now "Oh, Queen were a great band... too bad they spoilt it all by recording with Paul Rodgers". What is so wrong about old musicians wanting to re-live their former glories? Touring under another name would have them playing theaters in every country outside the UK. And they would still expect them to play the Queen hits! Oh, but I'm sure they would feel better by doing what some fans consider "the right thing". Give me a freaking break. |
| Hitman 18.01.2008 11:41 |
gnomo wrote:oh many thanks!Hitman wrote: the point is... where is this O2 arena?!??!Just in case you really meant the question, this O2 arena (formerly known as the Millennium Dome) is in London, down the Thames river, slightly past Greenwich and roughly opposite the Canary Wharf. It sits right beside the North Greenwich station of the Jubilee tube line. Enjoy this view: link Their website: link How to get there: link HTH i really needed the information! grazie ;) |