QueenZone discussion #1071535

<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: i cannot believe a band as talented as this one - my alltime favourite band - who produced singles like DSMN, Somebody to love, seven seas of rhye and albums like Opera, Races and II have sunk this low, are this bereft of ideas...this is going through the motions and we all know what motions produce .... shit

<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: projects with 5ive, robbie, pepsi, ben elton, and christ knows any other way they can prostitute themselves for 30 pieces of silver - are fekkin shameful...

PieterMC wrote:

<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: i cannot believe a band as talented as this one - my alltime favourite band - who produced singles like DSMN, Somebody to love, seven seas of rhye and albums like Opera, Races and II have sunk this low, are this bereft of ideas...this is going through the motions and we all know what motions produce .... shit

Let's not forget Body Language....

saltnvinegar wrote: I hear what you're saying Brenski but, to be honest, how much does a chart position actually tell us about quality or popularity these days?

Holly2003 wrote: Exactly. The old Queen fan fault of equating success with quality.

drwinston wrote: Sorry, but I can't figure out what DSMN is - anyone?

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: They'll very likely chart higher when they release something that hasn't been available for download previously.

bigV wrote: My new signature is a genuine rant, derived from this thread. Take that! V.

<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:

drwinston wrote: Sorry, but I can't figure out what DSMN is - anyone?

you really have a problem working out the title of one of Freddie's finest compositions? that's almost shameful

vadenuez wrote: Sometimes I'm Amazed how some Queen fans can be so rabidly supportive of any burp coming out from Brian or Roger's mouth nowadays and in the same time they love to bash and turn to pieces anything from Hot Space or The Works.

mike hunt wrote:

vadenuez wrote: Sometimes I'm Amazed how some Queen fans can be so rabidly supportive of any burp coming out from Brian or Roger's mouth nowadays and in the same time they love to bash and turn to pieces anything from Hot Space or The Works.

you speak the truth. hot space and the works get bashed on a regular basis, but this shit song is considered very good?...Anything on hot space and the works blows this crappy song out of the water.

<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: don't judge me just because i dislike something that you regard as quality...

drwinston wrote: Sorry, but I can't figure out what DSMN is - anyone?

Holly2003 wrote: There will never be another Queen II or News of the World.

Holly2003 wrote: there was a time when I was as angry as some of you about what Queen were doing, whether that was GH3, collaborations with crappy pop groups, or the choice of Paul Rodgers as lead singer.

Holly2003 wrote: Now I have learned to accept something: it is what it is. There will never be another Queen II or News of the World. There will, however, be some new music by Brian & Roger, two people I feel I've grown up with over the years. Roger & Brian are not the same people they were 20 years ago. In that regard, some of you have really unrealisic expectations.

Holly2003 wrote: In any event, it's quite possible if Fred were still alive Queen would be producing records you didn't like anyway. In addition, Brian & Roger are getting on a bit: they won't always be with us. You can either accept (if not appreciate or like) what they are doing now, instead of what you want them to be doing, or you're always going to be disappointed.

Brenski wrote: i think there are some people who are completely misinterpreting what i have said...

Zebonka12 wrote:

drwinston wrote: Sorry, but I can't figure out what DSMN is - anyone?

Don't Try Suicide- Oh. wait. Nevermind, I thought I was onto something there.

castaway_girl wrote:

Zebonka12 wrote:

drwinston wrote: Sorry, but I can't figure out what DSMN is - anyone?

Don't Try Suicide- Oh. wait. Nevermind, I thought I was onto something there.

I'm trying to figure it out.... i probably should go look at all my albums.

Brian_Mays_Wig wrote: I agree with everything you say Brenski. It saddens me to see 2 ageing men pissing all over the Queen name. Good on John Deacon. Previous Brian/Roger collaborations: Thank God its Christmas and Machines. Cant wait for the new album. (honest).......not.

Zebonka12 wrote: I actually thought my post might've given it away, but no matter!

Tero wrote: The music might be new (well, only a few years old anyway...) but hardly exciting. There's a reason why Is This The World We Created wasn't a single in 1984, and for that same reason Say It's Not True shouldn't have been a single either. It might have a nice sentiment, but it's just not a particularily good song.

August R. wrote:

Tero wrote: The music might be new (well, only a few years old anyway...) but hardly exciting. There's a reason why Is This The World We Created wasn't a single in 1984, and for that same reason Say It's Not True shouldn't have been a single either. It might have a nice sentiment, but it's just not a particularily good song.

Well said. I just can't understand why they released this song as a single. To give it away as a free download was a nice gesture, but do they really think this song is the best choise for a single release?? Let's face it, SINT is a simple, four chord deal with bad production. Brian's guitar might be a big part of creating that famous Queen sound, but Queen was also known for complex compositions & great arrangements, big vocal harmonies, catchy melodies... Sadly, SINT doesn't have any of those qualities. Imo, SINT was a very bad choise for a first single. Especially so, if they want to promote the forthcoming album with this release.

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote:

August R. wrote:

Tero wrote: The music might be new (well, only a few years old anyway...) but hardly exciting. There's a reason why Is This The World We Created wasn't a single in 1984, and for that same reason Say It's Not True shouldn't have been a single either. It might have a nice sentiment, but it's just not a particularily good song.

Well said. I just can't understand why they released this song as a single. To give it away as a free download was a nice gesture, but do they really think this song is the best choise for a single release?? Let's face it, SINT is a simple, four chord deal with bad production. Brian's guitar might be a big part of creating that famous Queen sound, but Queen was also known for complex compositions & great arrangements, big vocal harmonies, catchy melodies... Sadly, SINT doesn't have any of those qualities. Imo, SINT was a very bad choise for a first single. Especially so, if they want to promote the forthcoming album with this release.

Similarities between SINT and TATDOOL: - Both were written by Roger Taylor - Both are harmonically simple, with only a few chords - Both have a simple melody - None feature "big vocal harmonies" - No "special" lead guitar work, only a simple "Brian May-esque" solo and a couple of fills - Keyboard/synth Is TATDOOL bad?

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote:

August R. wrote:

Tero wrote: The music might be new (well, only a few years old anyway...) but hardly exciting. There's a reason why Is This The World We Created wasn't a single in 1984, and for that same reason Say It's Not True shouldn't have been a single either. It might have a nice sentiment, but it's just not a particularily good song.

Well said. I just can't understand why they released this song as a single. To give it away as a free download was a nice gesture, but do they really think this song is the best choise for a single release?? Let's face it, SINT is a simple, four chord deal with bad production. Brian's guitar might be a big part of creating that famous Queen sound, but Queen was also known for complex compositions & great arrangements, big vocal harmonies, catchy melodies... Sadly, SINT doesn't have any of those qualities. Imo, SINT was a very bad choise for a first single. Especially so, if they want to promote the forthcoming album with this release.

Similarities between SINT and TATDOOL: - Both were written by Roger Taylor - Both are harmonically simple, with only a few chords - Both have a simple melody - None feature "big vocal harmonies" - No "special" lead guitar work, only a simple "Brian May-esque" solo and a couple of fills - Keyboard/synth Is TATDOOL bad?

vadenuez wrote:

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote:

August R. wrote:

Tero wrote: The music might be new (well, only a few years old anyway...) but hardly exciting. There's a reason why Is This The World We Created wasn't a single in 1984, and for that same reason Say It's Not True shouldn't have been a single either. It might have a nice sentiment, but it's just not a particularily good song.

Well said. I just can't understand why they released this song as a single. To give it away as a free download was a nice gesture, but do they really think this song is the best choise for a single release?? Let's face it, SINT is a simple, four chord deal with bad production. Brian's guitar might be a big part of creating that famous Queen sound, but Queen was also known for complex compositions & great arrangements, big vocal harmonies, catchy melodies... Sadly, SINT doesn't have any of those qualities. Imo, SINT was a very bad choise for a first single. Especially so, if they want to promote the forthcoming album with this release.

Similarities between SINT and TATDOOL: - Both were written by Roger Taylor - Both are harmonically simple, with only a few chords - Both have a simple melody - None feature "big vocal harmonies" - No "special" lead guitar work, only a simple "Brian May-esque" solo and a couple of fills - Keyboard/synth Is TATDOOL bad?

Body Language has exactly the same similarities you mention, except that it was written by Freddie and not by Roger. Is Body Language bad?

Tero wrote:

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote:

August R. wrote:

Tero wrote: The music might be new (well, only a few years old anyway...) but hardly exciting. There's a reason why Is This The World We Created wasn't a single in 1984, and for that same reason Say It's Not True shouldn't have been a single either. It might have a nice sentiment, but it's just not a particularily good song.

Well said. I just can't understand why they released this song as a single. To give it away as a free download was a nice gesture, but do they really think this song is the best choise for a single release?? Let's face it, SINT is a simple, four chord deal with bad production. Brian's guitar might be a big part of creating that famous Queen sound, but Queen was also known for complex compositions & great arrangements, big vocal harmonies, catchy melodies... Sadly, SINT doesn't have any of those qualities. Imo, SINT was a very bad choise for a first single. Especially so, if they want to promote the forthcoming album with this release.

Similarities between SINT and TATDOOL: - Both were written by Roger Taylor - Both are harmonically simple, with only a few chords - Both have a simple melody - None feature "big vocal harmonies" - No "special" lead guitar work, only a simple "Brian May-esque" solo and a couple of fills - Keyboard/synth Is TATDOOL bad?

It's a nice enough album track (at least compared to some of the turkeys that are following it on the album), but it's not a hit single by any stretch of imagination as it failed to chart in the only territory where it was released on its own. (Unless of course you want to count its double-A-side success with Bohemian Rhapsody two weeks after Freddie's death as indicative of the song's quality... I didn't think so either.)

kagezan1313 wrote: Amen, Brenski, a-fucking-men. It's sad when great musicians lose their insight into what serves their memory best. I feel we are doomed to watch Brian and Roger slowly degrade the immortal image of Queen until that great name evokes the same sad disgust we feel when we hear names like Michael Jackson, Gary Glitter, Sinatra, the Stones, artists who either sullied their own memories by self-mutilation, perversion, or by staying in the game long after they had lost the ability to uphold the standards they had set in past eras. You would have thought they'd at least have the good grace to come up with a new band name. You don't see Slash et al billing themselves as Guns'n'Roses or STP - they took a new name for a new band. One half of Queen has no right ethically to bill themselves as the whole.

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: I wasn't talking about commercial success. I was simply pointing out that just because SINT doesn't have big vocal harmonies, complex chord progressions and bla bla bla it doesn't mean it's a bad song, and I picked a song that most Queen fans (including me) really enjoy in order to prove my point.

Knute wrote: What I will never really understand is how people who call themselves huge fans of Queen can be so disparaging towards Brian and Roger.

Knute wrote: I'm trying to think of a greater manifestation of irony on this planet, but it's hard to do.

Knute wrote: So...you love Brain and Roger when they are playing with Freddie and John, but you disrespect them playing with Paul Rodgers? Ok then..It's the name you say! You claim they are pissing on the name? Just exactly how is playing with a guy who is among the greatest rock vocalists on the planet pissing on the name? I don't get it. I mean that. I seriously don't get it. Surely Pepsi commercials that use the music do a far great job of urinating on a rock band's legacy. You could never convince me that playing music with the lead singer of BadCo and Free is damaging the Queen name; but a silly, cheesy play isn't?(if there really was damage to the legacy happening)

Knute wrote: Imagine it the other way around. Does playing music with Brian May and Roger Taylor piss all over Paul Rodgers name? Is he hurting his place and his contributions by doing so? Seems so silly when you think of it that way.

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote:

vadenuez wrote:

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote:

August R. wrote:

Tero wrote: The music might be new (well, only a few years old anyway...) but hardly exciting. There's a reason why Is This The World We Created wasn't a single in 1984, and for that same reason Say It's Not True shouldn't have been a single either. It might have a nice sentiment, but it's just not a particularily good song.

Well said. I just can't understand why they released this song as a single. To give it away as a free download was a nice gesture, but do they really think this song is the best choise for a single release?? Let's face it, SINT is a simple, four chord deal with bad production. Brian's guitar might be a big part of creating that famous Queen sound, but Queen was also known for complex compositions & great arrangements, big vocal harmonies, catchy melodies... Sadly, SINT doesn't have any of those qualities. Imo, SINT was a very bad choise for a first single. Especially so, if they want to promote the forthcoming album with this release.

Similarities between SINT and TATDOOL: - Both were written by Roger Taylor - Both are harmonically simple, with only a few chords - Both have a simple melody - None feature "big vocal harmonies" - No "special" lead guitar work, only a simple "Brian May-esque" solo and a couple of fills - Keyboard/synth Is TATDOOL bad?

Body Language has exactly the same similarities you mention, except that it was written by Freddie and not by Roger. Is Body Language bad?

I was merely pointing out that "Brian's guitar might be a big part of creating that famous Queen sound, but Queen was also known for complex compositions & great arrangements, big vocal harmonies, catchy melodies... Sadly, SINT doesn't have any of those qualities" applies to other songs immensely praised by Queen fans - therefore it isn't a valid argument. Queen did a wonderful job with complex compositions, the vocal harmonies, the guitar orchestrations, the perfect rhythm section... But Queen can make good songs with a lot less than that. And they did. @Sebastian: Well, we can invert what you said... It's something Dr May (and Roger, and Rodgers) could do in his sleep, but it's a good song (with a very good solo).

August R. wrote: Now, it's a different situation. SINT is their first new track in ten years, and they promote it as a Queen song. They are trying to convince us that the spirit of Queen is still alive and they chose this song to prove it. I just think it was a bad choice. The first single should have been something that blows our minds and shows us without a doubt that they're back. There's nothing wrong with SINT, but it isn't that impressive.

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: They reworked the song for the 46664 gig held on December 1st, 2007, not to promote their album. Did they even mention whether this song will be in the album or not? Either way, this may sound like utter bullshit to some, but I honestly believe this: I think they only gave it a physical release to amuse the fans. Although it has some "Queen" sound to it (especially because of Brian's guitar solo), they must be well aware that this song is below Queen's standards, below what people would expect from them, and they certainly knew after distributing a song to over 100,000 people without charging, hardly anyone would want to pay for it. So, I assume the physical release is merely a "gift" to the fans, they were just giving us a new Queen studio single to have in our shelf, for the first time in ages, while we wait for the album and for the "real" singles from the album, the ones that will be already written as potential hits.

August R. wrote: 3) SINT is a taster for things to come. This is what QPR music is going to sound like.

August R. wrote:

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: They reworked the song for the 46664 gig held on December 1st, 2007, not to promote their album. Did they even mention whether this song will be in the album or not? Either way, this may sound like utter bullshit to some, but I honestly believe this: I think they only gave it a physical release to amuse the fans. Although it has some "Queen" sound to it (especially because of Brian's guitar solo), they must be well aware that this song is below Queen's standards, below what people would expect from them, and they certainly knew after distributing a song to over 100,000 people without charging, hardly anyone would want to pay for it. So, I assume the physical release is merely a "gift" to the fans, they were just giving us a new Queen studio single to have in our shelf, for the first time in ages, while we wait for the album and for the "real" singles from the album, the ones that will be already written as potential hits.

I do hope you're right, Raf. As I said in my first post, "To give it away as a free download was a nice gesture, but do they really think this song is the best choise for a single release??" I really hope the real treats are still waiting for the release but... Brian's exact words on that recent interview were: "...And then recently we revisited it for the album and suddenly it exploded and became this big epic, which is great, I think, and Paul makes a wonderful job. We all sing on it. I sing, Roger sings and Paul sings the end bit, and it gets big and heavy. We thought it would be a nice sort of introduction to 'What the hell is Queen and Paul Rodgers?" for people who didn't see us on tour last year." I think this comment is what bothers me most. My English isn't perfect but I understood that Brian was saying here: 1) SINT is going to be on the album (or at least they recorded it for the album), 2) SINT is big and epic track (I would use those words to describe songs like Bo Rhap and Innuendo, not SINT) 3) SINT is a taster for things to come. This is what QPR music is going to sound like.

vadenuez wrote: Is Body Language bad?

<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: the comment wasn't about the charts being necessarily more valid...just that DSMN at 81 (and 30yrs old) charted higher than queen's new single... also, let's take a hypothetical.... if everything in the queen vaults was burnt to cinders tomorrow, and the band were bankrupted by poor business ventures and all they had was past reputation.... you could bet your bottom dollar that Bri and Rog would be fekkin hungry, they'd try a darn sight harder to impress than a few lazy collaborative remixes with new bands....and a crappy musical they would work their bollox off to get some cred and sales...cos they'd need it...problem is - they don't need to try...so they don't bother...and loyal fans get a continual stream of (at best)average product but at worst - garbage...shame on them

tilltheendoftime wrote:

<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: the comment wasn't about the charts being necessarily more valid...just that DSMN at 81 (and 30yrs old) charted higher than queen's new single... also, let's take a hypothetical.... if everything in the queen vaults was burnt to cinders tomorrow, and the band were bankrupted by poor business ventures and all they had was past reputation.... you could bet your bottom dollar that Bri and Rog would be fekkin hungry, they'd try a darn sight harder to impress than a few lazy collaborative remixes with new bands....and a crappy musical they would work their bollox off to get some cred and sales...cos they'd need it...problem is - they don't need to try...so they don't bother...and loyal fans get a continual stream of (at best)average product but at worst - garbage...shame on them

Well said, i actually agree with that one mate!

Holly2003 wrote: Like I said before, it is what it is, not what you want it to be. IMO SINT is pretty good, if not exactly groundbreaking. However, I don't think it has any bearing on what will be on their new album.

Zebonka12 wrote: It harkens back more to the Innuendo album, or "Let Me Live" than anything you'd call classic Queen.

ATM wrote: Brian and Roger are also founding members of Queen so they have the right to do with it what they wish, like it or not. Queen wasn't just Freddie Mercury, it was also John Deacon, Brian May, and Roger Taylor.

Tero wrote:

ATM wrote: Brian and Roger are also founding members of Queen so they have the right to do with it what they wish, like it or not. Queen wasn't just Freddie Mercury, it was also John Deacon, Brian May, and Roger Taylor.

Help me out a bit here... This is the part which defies all logic, and it's come up about a thousand times in the past three years. On one hand you say that Brian and Roger (two members of Queen) are right to cal themselves Queen they choose so, and on the other hand you say that Queen was four members. You say that Queen was four members, not just one, but two members also seems to be perfectly fine. Is there a two member limit, or how does it work? Would it be okay if John and Roger toured as Queen, or does it require Brian in any combination for the band to be Queen? If so, why weren't his solo tours Queen concerts?

Knute wrote:

Tero wrote:

ATM wrote: Brian and Roger are also founding members of Queen so they have the right to do with it what they wish, like it or not. Queen wasn't just Freddie Mercury, it was also John Deacon, Brian May, and Roger Taylor.

Help me out a bit here... This is the part which defies all logic, and it's come up about a thousand times in the past three years. On one hand you say that Brian and Roger (two members of Queen) are right to cal themselves Queen they choose so, and on the other hand you say that Queen was four members. You say that Queen was four members, not just one, but two members also seems to be perfectly fine. Is there a two member limit, or how does it work? Would it be okay if John and Roger toured as Queen, or does it require Brian in any combination for the band to be Queen? If so, why weren't his solo tours Queen concerts?

It works simply because it's the two remaining active members deciding with the blessing of the inactive member to carry on under their brand name. It's the same reason they recorded No One But You under the Queen name. Again, that was a collective decision by the three remaining active members. It has nothing to do with number of members or combinations thereof. When Brian went and toured in 1998 it was on his own volition. He never intended to act on behalf of Queen in that 1998 album and tour. If Q+PR is wrong in any way shape or form then so was No One But You.

.*.Messenger: Jake Pyndle.*. wrote:

Zebonka12 wrote: It harkens back more to the Innuendo album, or "Let Me Live" than anything you'd call classic Queen.

That's not a bad thing.

Holly2003 wrote: For those of you who feel passionately that BM & RT should not use the name Queen -- okay, let's say you win the argument and almost everyone here agrees with you. Exactly what have you achieved? Do you think they actually will stop using the name because a few dozen people on Queen zone think they shouldn't? they've been doing this for nearly 40 years -- what great achievements have you made in your life that you feel qualified to make such demands? (and don't say "I pay for their fancy cars" etc -- you have a choice whether to buy their cds or not, nobody's twisting your arm up your back). And let's say they do decide to take your advice (or give in to your rants, given the title of the thread), will you be happy you have intimidated/shamed two of your favourite musicians to doing your will? Will your life be any better if they tour under another name? Will their's?

Tero wrote: I suppose I would have achieved what you would want to achieve with the opposite admission... A selfish feeling of knowing that I am right and those who think otherwise are wrong. NEITHER side is going to gain anything substantial or meaningful, or change anybody's lives by convincing those with other views.

Holly2003 wrote:

Tero wrote: I suppose I would have achieved what you would want to achieve with the opposite admission... A selfish feeling of knowing that I am right and those who think otherwise are wrong. NEITHER side is going to gain anything substantial or meaningful, or change anybody's lives by convincing those with other views.

If you look back through this thread you will see that I'm not trying to "win", I've been saying the argument is pointless and that those who are getting upset and angry should perhaps get a little bit of perspective. It wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to my life if 'Queen' toured under another name.

Tero wrote: I suppose we could just sit quietly at our computers refreshing the website where nobody discusses anything, but I wouldn't consider that a good way to spend my time.

Well don't do that then. It wouldn't be my alternative to pointless arguments either.

Tero wrote:

Holly2003 wrote:

Tero wrote: I suppose I would have achieved what you would want to achieve with the opposite admission... A selfish feeling of knowing that I am right and those who think otherwise are wrong. NEITHER side is going to gain anything substantial or meaningful, or change anybody's lives by convincing those with other views.

If you look back through this thread you will see that I'm not trying to "win", I've been saying the argument is pointless and that those who are getting upset and angry should perhaps get a little bit of perspective. It wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to my life if 'Queen' toured under another name.

Tero wrote: I suppose we could just sit quietly at our computers refreshing the website where nobody discusses anything, but I wouldn't consider that a good way to spend my time.

Well don't do that then. It wouldn't be my alternative to pointless arguments either.

And saying "the argument is pointless" is NOT trying to make it seem like your opinion is more valid? It is after intentionally dismissing those who think otherwise. ;) I don't know how you view my posts, but I do know that I'm neither upset nor angry when I state that Brian and Roger aren't Queen (because Queen was four members). That's just my opinion, and I'm expressing it typically as a reply to somebody who says that "Queen is four people, unless some of the people have died or left the band, when it's as many people as there are left". It doesn't change my life either, but I feel it's a valid enough topic to discuss if somebody else opens it for discussion on a public forum. I don't have THAT much else to do, so that I couldn't possible spend fifteen minutes a day in here writing about it.

let's say you win the argument and almost everyone here agrees with you. Exactly what have you achieved?

Do you think they actually will stop using the name because a few dozen people on Queen zone think they shouldn't?

they've been doing this for nearly 40 years

what great achievements have you made in your life that you feel qualified to make such demands?

(and don't say "I pay for their fancy cars"

you have a choice whether to buy their cds or not

you have a choice whether to buy their cds or not, nobody's twisting your arm up your back

And let's say they do decide to take your advice (or give in to your rants, given the title of the thread), will you be happy you have intimidated/shamed two of your favourite musicians to doing your will?

Will your life be any better if they tour under another name? Will their's?

Sebastian wrote:

let's say you win the argument and almost everyone here agrees with you. Exactly what have you achieved?

Winning the argument and having almost everyone here agreeing with us.

Do you think they actually will stop using the name because a few dozen people on Queen zone think they shouldn't?

Do you think we actually will stop complainig about the name just because a few dozen people on Queen zone think we shouldn't?

they've been doing this for nearly 40 years

Yes, but after 1991, they should've done this under another name (and they did, for some extent)

what great achievements have you made in your life that you feel qualified to make such demands?

Argumentum ad hominem. Pretending we haven't got the right to complain about a product it's like thinking only former presidents could vote, or only newspaper owners could criticise tabloids (in which case Brian should've never said anything about journalists).

(and don't say "I pay for their fancy cars"

They've earned those fancy cars with their work, which they've done marvellously. That's why they should keep doing that, but under another name.

you have a choice whether to buy their cds or not

So we have a choice whether to criticise the name or not. And by the way...

you have a choice whether to buy their cds or not, nobody's twisting your arm up your back

You have a choice whether to read our complaints or not, nobody's twisting your arm up your back.

And let's say they do decide to take your advice (or give in to your rants, given the title of the thread), will you be happy you have intimidated/shamed two of your favourite musicians to doing your will?

I don't think that's a matter of intimidation. But yes, I'd be happy.

Will your life be any better if they tour under another name? Will their's?

We can only speculate. But I hope someday we'll know for sure, once they stop being unethical and coward and choose a new name.

Sebastian wrote: They've earned those fancy cars with their work, which they've done marvellously. That's why they should keep doing that, but under another name.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Who Queen are is a belief. If you believe in a name and people don't matter, Queen is an original member (or two, or one plus the others blessing) and whoever they choose. If you believe in a group of people who worked solely as a unit to create unique music, Queen can only be Freddie, Roger, John and Brian. Brian and roger can and will call themselves Queen, but if anyone believes they ARE Queen, they don't know much about the bands history.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: If we're going to be nit-picky, Mr. Faron Hyte, what marvelous work are you talking about post-Freedie? Queen with 5ive? Queen with Robbie Williams? Queen with John Farnham? Queen with Britney, Beyonce and Pink? Say it's not true? All of those are shit. Say it's not true is Queen B-side material at best.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: If they tour this year, are Paul, Ringo, Ricky (Martin) and Andrew (Ridgely) The Beatles?

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: I see them as interchangeable, four members, together until one passed, then the band ended.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Or...take the other surviving Doors member. He said of the surviving, feuding Doors members "We should, the three of us, be playing these songs because, hey, the end is always near. Morrison was a poet, and above all, a poet wants his words heard. When Morrison was asked what he would most like to be remembered for, he responded, 'My words, man, my words.'" Who's right and who's wrong? So is Brian right to carry on, and sell songs to commercial interests to ensure Queen's music stays relevant? Damned if I know!

Raf840 wrote: So, in my world, in my reality, Queen has always been Brian and Roger. And I've always been taught that they were a "dead" band, that they wouldn't do more than play one or two songs in a few special events. Then, one day, they announce a tour. As you've seen Freddie live on stage, this "Queen" tour might be nothing like Queen. But to me, this is the only "Queen". This is what I can witness, this is my only chance to see my favorite band, as I arrived too late in this world to see the old line up.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Again Raf840, I agree 100% with where you're coming from. I am older than you, got into Queen in '75, saw them 7 times with Freddie from the Races to Hot Space tours, and learned about art, unbridled creativity and the pursuit of perfection from the four original members. To me, no one else can be be Queen but the four people who played from track 1 on Queen, to track 12 on Innuendo. So the Queen name obviously has meaning to me. Being a longer term fan does not make me a better fan than you or someone who joined QZ yesterday. We're all fans, and Queen means different things to all of us. It would be incredibly self-centred for me to believe that someone like you shouldn't get a chance to see your heroes because, or Tero or Sebastian don't believe it's Queen. Hopefully you'll have great memories like I've had on the next tour or the next record. But in my deepest belief, Queen as they were died in 1991, The Beatles died in 1980 and the Who died when Keith Moon died. When I mentioned The Beatles, you said it was different scenario than Queen because they had split up when Lennon was killed. Fair enough, but say they did what Queen did and got back together in 1996 with Paul, Ringo, George and Mark Knopfler. Do you think people would accept Mark Knopfler, who is 1,000,000 times the guitarist that John Lennon is, as a Beatle? John Lennon is an icon, and to bring in a 4th person and say, "we're not trying to replace John, but Mark's a great player and we're still The Beatles." If this were Beatle Zone, the question would be laughable as to who were the Beatles. In my generation and for my tastes, Queen ARE my Beatles. Freddie is an icon, maybe not Elvis or John Lennon, but he's in tier two, easily one of the top 5 artists of the rock generation. He, in conjunction with the others, but more than the other 3, put the Queen in Queen. With Brian, he had a foil who could bring his vision to life. Brian had a writer whose curious key changes and affected piano playing gave Brian the canvas to become Brian May. They needed each other, but from designing their iconic logo, his songwriting style, his showmanship, to the man in the street, Freddie WAS Queen. I know, you know, we all know he wasn't, but for the world who doesn't post at QZ, Freddie was Queen. Led Zepplin or Black Sabbath or Metallica as band names denote heavineness. The are a million similarly named bands in the heaviness genre. What does The Beatles denote? Or Genesis? Queen? Regal. Splendid. Stylish. The name has a meaning, apart from the homosexual context a lot of people think it is. Freddie brought those things to Queen, and that's why I don't like them using it. Finally, I'm glad you and others are getting a chance to experience new music and shows from a band that obviously is important to you. I just wish for your sake that you could have been around 30 years earlier and seen this band called Queen. You've never seen nothing like them no never in your life.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Finally, I'm glad you and others are getting a chance to experience new music and shows from a band that obviously is important to you. I just wish for your sake that you could have been around 30 years earlier and seen this band called Queen. You've never seen nothing like them no never in your life.

Tero wrote:

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Finally, I'm glad you and others are getting a chance to experience new music and shows from a band that obviously is important to you. I just wish for your sake that you could have been around 30 years earlier and seen this band called Queen. You've never seen nothing like them no never in your life.

Hey, at least we have the albums and a couple of concert videos available here at QZ. It's not much, but at least it's enough to show the difference between Queen and "Queen". ;)

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: Like it has been pointed out here, in 20 or 30 years hardly anyone will think of the Q+PR project when they talk about Queen, they'll most likely remember only that after Freddie died, Brian and Roger did a couple of things together.

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: With all respect to Freddie, but he did embarass me much more than Paul will ever do.

Tero wrote:

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: With all respect to Freddie, but he did embarass me much more than Paul will ever do.

It's not Paul that worries me, it's Brian and Roger. Together as Queen they have provided a backing track of WWRY/WATC for countless (and talentless) pop acts, as well as performed as a mediocre Queen tribute band. Playing the Queen hits (which clearly weren't suitable for Paul's talents) made it blindingly obvious just how desperately they wanted to be the Queen of old days, and how far from it they really are.

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote:

Tero wrote:

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Finally, I'm glad you and others are getting a chance to experience new music and shows from a band that obviously is important to you. I just wish for your sake that you could have been around 30 years earlier and seen this band called Queen. You've never seen nothing like them no never in your life.

Hey, at least we have the albums and a couple of concert videos available here at QZ. It's not much, but at least it's enough to show the difference between Queen and "Queen". ;)

Yeah, I know the 4-piece Queen was much better than the 2-piece Queen. By the time the Q+PR tour was announced, I had already got Wembley, Bowl and WWRY, I had already heard Live Killers and Magic (ugh!), I had already downloaded a nice bunch of concerts here on Queenzone... But between never seeing them live and seeing them as they are today, I'd rather see them as they are. Like someone said, they aren't ruining the name, neither legacy, unlike some fans think. Like it has been pointed out here, in 20 or 30 years hardly anyone will think of the Q+PR project when they talk about Queen, they'll most likely remember only that after Freddie died, Brian and Roger did a couple of things together. On the other hand, it's been over 25 years since Hot Space was released, and many fans and "Joe Average" people still don't "get" it. It's been some 23 years since The Works was released, and I, who wasn't even here to witness its release still wonder how the Queen who wrote epic songs and anthems in the 70s came up with "Machines", "Man On The Prowl"... And A Kind Of Magic... It embarasses me. Both the album and the tour. And the fact that Freddie was still alive makes it even worse. I started reading Peter Freestone's book about Freddie this morning, and he points out REALLY often that Freddie was incredibly perfectionist. How can the perfectionist man who came up with the Queen name, who wrote all the complex songs with key changes, tempo changes, complex vocal harmonies and fight the "important" people from EMI in order to release his song uncut, as he cared a lot more about the song than about its potential to sell someday simply decide to stop working like that and start making pop songs in a suitable format to sell? If I had been a fan back then, I would've been too ashamed to listen to Hot Space a second time, I would've broken The Works in two after listening to it, and simply wouldn't even go to the shop to buy A Kind Of Magic. Everytime I'm talking to a random person and they mention they've seen the Wembley gig, or that they own Greatest Hits II, or that they like "I Want To Break Free", or anything like that, I immediatly point out that I find Queen's work much better in the 70s and then in Freddie's final months. With all respect to Freddie, but he did embarass me much more than Paul will ever do.

mike hunt wrote:

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote:

Tero wrote:

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Finally, I'm glad you and others are getting a chance to experience new music and shows from a band that obviously is important to you. I just wish for your sake that you could have been around 30 years earlier and seen this band called Queen. You've never seen nothing like them no never in your life.

Hey, at least we have the albums and a couple of concert videos available here at QZ. It's not much, but at least it's enough to show the difference between Queen and "Queen". ;)

Yeah, I know the 4-piece Queen was much better than the 2-piece Queen. By the time the Q+PR tour was announced, I had already got Wembley, Bowl and WWRY, I had already heard Live Killers and Magic (ugh!), I had already downloaded a nice bunch of concerts here on Queenzone... But between never seeing them live and seeing them as they are today, I'd rather see them as they are. Like someone said, they aren't ruining the name, neither legacy, unlike some fans think. Like it has been pointed out here, in 20 or 30 years hardly anyone will think of the Q+PR project when they talk about Queen, they'll most likely remember only that after Freddie died, Brian and Roger did a couple of things together. On the other hand, it's been over 25 years since Hot Space was released, and many fans and "Joe Average" people still don't "get" it. It's been some 23 years since The Works was released, and I, who wasn't even here to witness its release still wonder how the Queen who wrote epic songs and anthems in the 70s came up with "Machines", "Man On The Prowl"... And A Kind Of Magic... It embarasses me. Both the album and the tour. And the fact that Freddie was still alive makes it even worse. I started reading Peter Freestone's book about Freddie this morning, and he points out REALLY often that Freddie was incredibly perfectionist. How can the perfectionist man who came up with the Queen name, who wrote all the complex songs with key changes, tempo changes, complex vocal harmonies and fight the "important" people from EMI in order to release his song uncut, as he cared a lot more about the song than about its potential to sell someday simply decide to stop working like that and start making pop songs in a suitable format to sell? If I had been a fan back then, I would've been too ashamed to listen to Hot Space a second time, I would've broken The Works in two after listening to it, and simply wouldn't even go to the shop to buy A Kind Of Magic. Everytime I'm talking to a random person and they mention they've seen the Wembley gig, or that they own Greatest Hits II, or that they like "I Want To Break Free", or anything like that, I immediatly point out that I find Queen's work much better in the 70s and then in Freddie's final months. With all respect to Freddie, but he did embarass me much more than Paul will ever do.

freddie embarrasses you?...ok, little boy. The mans an Icon. It's what brian and roger does that embarrasses the queen name. You don't have to like hot space, but at least they were trying different sounds, some songs were great and others not so great. Brian and roger keep playing the same old songs that they recorded 30 years ago without anything new. Paul has done nothing wrong, he's a excellent singer who sings his own songs perfect, but brian and roger are the ones who are embarrassing these days.

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: Isn't this thread a complaint at their attempt to make new music?

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: By the way... Should I take it that whatever they did with Freddie shouldn't embarass me because Freddie was a genius, while what they do without him can be highly stupid and embarassing?

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: Freddie was HIGHLY talented, but he was still human. I think it's pretty obvious Hot Space was an attempt to make something as popular in America as Another One Bites The Dust. In another words, an attempt to make some easy cash. Hot Space isn't bad... But coming from a band like Queen, it's a poorly written and recorded album. Many songs on it are pretty good - but where are the typical Queen arrangements? A massive part of the album even misses the typical Red Special sound!!!

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: The Works was deliberately an attempt to be successful worldwide. It's been said in some documentary that after Hot Space, Queen got "fed up" with the USA, and wanted a project that would give them more popularity in different parts of the world. And then, when promoting that album, they came to Brazil for the second time in their career, they went to South Africa for the first time (ignoring a boycott!), they went to Australia for the first time...

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: Freddie wasn't God. He was human. Very talented, but just as likely to want easy cash as anyone else. If Hot Space and The Works hadn't been released under the name "Queen", I don't think their chart success would've been that good, ESPECIALLY Hot Space, that was released when disco wasn't as popular as it used to be.
So, with all respect... Freddie Merc

<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:

PieterMC wrote:

<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: i cannot believe a band as talented as this one - my alltime favourite band - who produced singles like DSMN, Somebody to love, seven seas of rhye and albums like Opera, Races and II have sunk this low, are this bereft of ideas...this is going through the motions and we all know what motions produce .... shit

Let's not forget Body Language....

yes but i did cover that in my last paragraph: "it's a long time since Brian and Roger managed that! - Perhaps it's because the real genuine talent for the extreme/different/innovation has been gone for 16yrs?" and as bad as body language was it was "different and innovative"

Tero wrote:

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: Isn't this thread a complaint at their attempt to make new music?

I thought this thread was about Brian and Roger pretending to be something they aren't?

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: By the way... Should I take it that whatever they did with Freddie shouldn't embarass me because Freddie was a genius, while what they do without him can be highly stupid and embarassing?

Not really. I would much prefer it if you would treat the material recorded in Freddie's lifetime as an accurate portrayal of how their collective ideas evolved over two decades. That's very different from what half of the band have decided to do fifteen years later. And even that has very little to do with what are so far MY biggest issues with the name: 1) The fact that their touring career has so far been nothing more than a glorified tribute band, and 2)and the fact that their only new release as a two piece band is a something that would have been fucking awful on arguably the worst album album of their career in Freddie's lifetime (The Works).

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: Freddie was HIGHLY talented, but he was still human. I think it's pretty obvious Hot Space was an attempt to make something as popular in America as Another One Bites The Dust. In another words, an attempt to make some easy cash. Hot Space isn't bad... But coming from a band like Queen, it's a poorly written and recorded album. Many songs on it are pretty good - but where are the typical Queen arrangements? A massive part of the album even misses the typical Red Special sound!!!

Do you know that part of being human is evolving? You might start out as one kind of a person, and end up a whole different based on your experiences... You don't think that Freddie could have (shock and horror!) evolved into a different direction as a composer once he got interested in clubs? Does it have to be a deliberate attempt to be more commercial? Besides, as so many people around these discussions like to point out, Queen was FOUR members, not just Freddie. The band couldn't have gone off into a "disco" direction unless the other members were willing. Do you blame Roger and John as well, for not allowing Brian to play his guitar? Should he even have been allowed to play the guitar in the 80's, as the heavy-guitar tracks of Hot Space, Works and Magic are all among the worst compositions of the albums. Maybe "Freddie" did us all a favour by going into a different direction when he realised that Brian was losing his touch as a writer? Maybe that's something that saved the band, and allowed Brian to come back with new energy at the end of the decade.

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: The Works was deliberately an attempt to be successful worldwide. It's been said in some documentary that after Hot Space, Queen got "fed up" with the USA, and wanted a project that would give them more popularity in different parts of the world. And then, when promoting that album, they came to Brazil for the second time in their career, they went to South Africa for the first time (ignoring a boycott!), they went to Australia for the first time...

Again, Queen was FOUR members according to the almost everyone on this board. Do you blame this on Freddie, or all of the members?

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: Freddie wasn't God. He was human. Very talented, but just as likely to want easy cash as anyone else. If Hot Space and The Works hadn't been released under the name "Queen", I don't think their chart success would've been that good, ESPECIALLY Hot Space, that was released when disco wasn't as popular as it used to b

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: LOTS of things have changed to them. It's been over 16 years since Freddie died. That's enough time for a baby to be born, grow up, mature a bit and develop the main personality traits that will guide them for the rest of their lives. It's enough time to change Brian and Roger in many many different ways. And it'll all be present in the new album. In the future, when some people who are unhappy about the album start badmouthing it, there will probably be someone like you to explain that the album reflects part of Brian and Roger's evolution as humans and musicians.

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: And I was pointing out that Freddie DID let them do some even worse and more commercial stuff in the past, he was part of it. If he was still alive, maybe he would be writing some excellent progressive stuff similar to the Innuendo stuff, maybe he would've gone back to the past and tried to bring back the good old vocal harmonies and guitar orchestrations, or maybe he would be recording shitty pop albums that would make the press insists that the band is too old and keeps struggling to release shitty albums just to make money and keep their name fresh in people's head.

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: Freddie Mercury played his role in staining the band's name. And seriously, the band stained its name much more in the 80s than they did in 90s or in this decade. In the future, how many people will remember they made a commercial with Britney Spears? Not even 10% of the people who'll have The Works at home reminding them that Queen went all the way down quality-wise in the 80s.

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: LOTS of things have changed to them. It's been over 16 years since Freddie died. That's enough time for a baby to be born, grow up, mature a bit and develop the main personality traits that will guide them for the rest of their lives. It's enough time to change Brian and Roger in many many different ways. And it'll all be present in the new album.

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: In the future, when some people who are unhappy about the album start badmouthing it, there will probably be someone like you to explain that the album reflects part of Brian and Roger's evolution as humans and musicians.

Tero wrote: Freddie didn't LET the band do anything, as he wasn't the boss of the band. It was a collective decision by the four members, which is obviously impossible with only two members left.

Tero wrote: I'm sorry, but I really can't take you seriously if you insist that new (albeit of lesser quality) material is worse then recycling a pair of old hits with every pop act who asks for it.

Tero wrote: No one is denying Brian and Roger the right to write new music. No one is denying them the opportunity to develop as musicians, and no one expected them to retire after Freddie died. And their solo careers will testify to all that being true. The ONLY issue is with the reversal on their opinion of whether to use the band name. Queen was a band of the same four members throughout a legendary 20 year recording career. That ended when one of them died. The remaing members aknowledged that, and continued their evolution as musicians and persons on their solo careers. Until 2004 that is.

Tero wrote: The evolution of their material would continue even if they released solo albums, wouldn't it? Combining their solo names (or creating an entirely new one) wouldn't take anything away from that evolution, wouldn't it?

Tero wrote: The Queen name isn't a magic word that suddenly enhances their artistic capabilities, or makes them evolve at an accelerated speed. The ONLY evolution that name allows them to make is the commercial one that gives them instant access to bigger audiences (and subsequently more money). In short, it's a marketing trick.

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: While at least 2 of those people who were in Trident Studios back in 1972 recording songs for Queen's first album are still alive and commited to sound like Queen, and whoever else is alive from the band agrees with them, Queen is alive.

Tero wrote:

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: While at least 2 of those people who were in Trident Studios back in 1972 recording songs for Queen's first album are still alive and commited to sound like Queen, and whoever else is alive from the band agrees with them, Queen is alive.

So the main issue is this... To some people Brian and Roger sound as far from Queen as John and Roger would. You're willing to settle for 50%, but 40% is too little for you. I won't take anything less than 100%, and that was fulfilled as long as all four members were alive and working... Today it isn't the case.

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote:

Tero wrote:

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: While at least 2 of those people who were in Trident Studios back in 1972 recording songs for Queen's first album are still alive and commited to sound like Queen, and whoever else is alive from the band agrees with them, Queen is alive.

So the main issue is this... To some people Brian and Roger sound as far from Queen as John and Roger would. You're willing to settle for 50%, but 40% is too little for you. I won't take anything less than 100%, and that was fulfilled as long as all four members were alive and working... Today it isn't the case.

I'm saying that I DOUBT Roger and John would sound like Queen - but if they managed to do it, then I'd definitely accept them as Queen and be excited to see them live.

Tero wrote:

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote:

Tero wrote:

<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: While at least 2 of those people who were in Trident Studios back in 1972 recording songs for Queen's first album are still alive and commited to sound like Queen, and whoever else is alive from the band agrees with them, Queen is alive.

So the main issue is this... To some people Brian and Roger sound as far from Queen as John and Roger would. You're willing to settle for 50%, but 40% is too little for you. I won't take anything less than 100%, and that was fulfilled as long as all four members were alive and working... Today it isn't the case.

I'm saying that I DOUBT Roger and John would sound like Queen - but if they managed to do it, then I'd definitely accept them as Queen and be excited to see them live.

If it's only a question of sounding like Queen, what's stopping a tribute band from becoming Queen? They would probably be better at it, as the Q(+PR) on tour a few years ago didn't sound more than a mediocre cover band. :/ Maybe they can lease the name to the best imitators once they're too old to tour for themselves? Or even make a franchise out of it, with a "Queen" in every country. :P

mike hunt wrote: I'm sorry, but queen and paul sound nothing like classic queen. it's a totally different band and sound. Raf, do you really think queen + paul sounds more like queen than "the works" did?.. "it's a hard life and hammer to fall" is as classic as you could get. Put out the fire and tear it up are among the worst queens songs ever, so brian's songwriting in the eighties went downhill IMO.