| Collecting Queen 26.06.2008 14:48 |
Well, I have been reading, listening and watching the diferents reactions of Brian And Roger to this new tour and I must say that I feel disapointed with Roger's comments such as "We know some people will moan, 'Oh, Fred's not on it...' Of course he's not, you dickhead. If they want to know why we're bothering to do this, it's because we're still alive. It's quite simple. If they don't like it, just don't buy the record or come to the show." Classic Rock Magazine. I watched the band last tour in the Madrid gig, the show was OK althought the sound was terrible for moments at the begining and then became better (some technical problem, I heard). I am not happy with the new record, mainly for using the name "Queen". Anyway, I have followed their solo career (even saw Brian playing live in 1998). It's no my intention to come to the show, because I think sooner or later you have to say NO when something is against your thoughts. What I am trying to say is that there's no need to insult the thounsands of people that don't like the Paul Rodgers' era, much more when they have become rich thanks to the huge amount of money that we have spent in buying their records and things like that. What do you think?? |
| Benn 26.06.2008 15:01 |
Just as Roger says - if you don't like it, then fine. Say what you have to say and then retire to the shaddows. What I think he's getting at is the people that C O N T I N U A L L Y bang on about how much they dislike it. He knows as well as anyone that Queen isn't the same without Freddie, but they can do what they like with the band's name - they don't owe anyone anything. No one's heard the album yet, so comment is a waste of time - let's see what happens and go from there. |
| steven 35638 26.06.2008 15:11 |
I can understand your disgust with Roger Taylor's choice of words, but I do happen to agree with him. Brian and Roger are still alive and have much to offer musically. This is their job, and their duty is to keep the Queen name alive. That's the thing some people can't seem to comprehend. What sense is it for them to go under a different name? Does Kiss change their name everytime they get a new guitarist and/or drummer? Did Black Sabbath change their name when Ozzy left the band? Did Boston change their name after their lead singer died? No, in fact Boston hired some guy off of myspace to replace him. Do people really think that Freddie would have wanted them to just retire the Queen name and start fresh because of his untimely death? Once again, I understand your disgust in Roger's vocabulary. Yes, it was very arrogrant of him, perhaps. But then again, he has a point and very much respects his loyal fans. He just wants his followers to understand this is Queen's new era, this is what they're doing NOW, this is who they have become. Just enjoy the music! |
| Sheer Brass Neck 26.06.2008 16:40 |
"This is their job, and their duty is to keep the Queen name alive. That's the thing some people can't seem to comprehend." No, it's their choice. "What sense is it for them to go under a different name?" Financailly? None. Artistically? Tons. "Does Kiss change their name everytime they get a new guitarist and/or drummer? Did Black Sabbath change their name when Ozzy left the band? Did Boston change their name after their lead singer died? No, in fact Boston hired some guy off of myspace to replace him." Are you saying that a guy who ARGUABLY wrote the rock song of the century, ARBUABLY wrote the greatest staadium anthem of all time, ARGUABLY was rock's best front mand, ARGUABLY the possessor of rock's finest and most diverse voice, ARGUABLY led his band to the most famous live appearance of his generations musicians at the world's biggest ever concert, and who is UNARGUABLY one the 100 Greatest Britons is to be compared to a rhythm guitarist from an american stage band who kind of suck musically, an iconic heavy metal singer who can't really sing, or Brad Delp, who with all due respect, was a one album wonder, as Boston's second album sucked and sucked saleswise, and their third was a joke, THESE are the people and bands you use to justify Brian and Roger using the name Queen? If you wanted to further your argument, use John Lennon from the Beatles and John Bonham from Zeppelin and stop there. Irreplaceable members of the two of the three biggest bands of all time. They stopped when a member died, because without that member, who they were ceased to exist. "Do people really think that Freddie would have wanted them to just retire the Queen name and start fresh because of his untimely death?" Not sure. If you can provide definitive proof that Freddie's happy with it, and the musical, and the boy band collaborations since his death, I'd be happy to hear it. Otherewise, someone else can speculate and say "do you really think that Freddie would have wanted them to continue with the Queen name, since he more than anyone is associated with Queen, because of his untimely death?" You can't anser that any more than I can answer your hypothetical question. |
| kingogre 26.06.2008 16:46 |
Agree with the above post. Brian and Roger worked hard for many years to have the success theyve had with Queen. Why should they have to do it all over again when neither Freddie or John who are the only ones who has any reasonable say in the matter would disagree. And I think its bloody time for some new music from them aswell. :) |
| kingogre 26.06.2008 16:47 |
Sorry it should be the post above the above-post. |
| kingogre 26.06.2008 17:04 |
In fact both of the bands you mentioned have "continued" in some way after members died. Beatles recorded new tracks based on Lennon demos for the Anthology box sets and Led Zeppelin have performed several times with different drummers. The reason for Beatles quitting was that Paul McCartney left the group. For a while the others actually gave thought to the idea of continuing with another bassist, some rumours say Klaus Voorman. Prior to this George Harrison had left the group briefly several times during sessions and was replaced by Eric Clapton. Both Paul and John remarked that they were prepared to have him as a permanent member even though this can possibly be explained by the conflicts within the group. Black Sabbath and Ozzy is a great example of a major band that replaced an iconic frontman, they actually did that several times with both Ronnie James Dio and Tony Martin. Another example of this ACDC not to mention Deep Purple whove had MANY important members replaced several times. |
| kingogre 26.06.2008 17:07 |
Freddie was certainly not above commercialism either so dont be too sure about him being against the boyband-collaborations and the musical. |
| Knute 26.06.2008 21:09 |
One thing that makes the Beatles example that everyone throws out an unfit comparison is that Queen never split up. Also unlike Boston, AC/DC, INXS, Black Sabbath, The Who, and countless other examples, Brian and Roger were the only ones to add a qualifier to the name with the whole Queen + Paul Rodgers thing. Of course that doesn't satisfy the detractors who are actively looking for an excuse to voice their objections. But to be honest I'm glad they are using direct language and turning certain people off. They seem to be doing well and selling out concerts without a need for the people who have written them off. So those people can stay home while the Q+PR fanbase grows. It's really a win-win situation. :) |
| The Exhibitionist 26.06.2008 22:42 |
I have to say, the "We're still alive" comment was pretty mean. But he's right. |
| ANAGRAMER 27.06.2008 00:46 |
Roger's always been quite smug, but he does tell it like it is! I think where you stand on this depends on why you like the band; was it the music, or the overall package - If you like Queen because of the camp humour, posturing and costumes then QPR is not for you If it was just the music, then QPR hits the nail right on the head For me, I do think that SOMETHING has got lost in the translation |
| steven 35638 27.06.2008 01:10 |
Sheer Brass Neck,
That was quite a bold argument you put forth.
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: "This is their job, and their duty is to keep the Queen name alive. That's the thing some people can't seem to comprehend." No, it's their choice.Existentially speaking, yes, we all have a choice. However, in their position, it seems almost impossible not to keep the Queen name alive -- especially with the likes of Kiss, Boston, and Led Zeppelin still on the forefront. Yes, I grant you that John has made the decision to stay out of public eye; however, I promise you he is still financially present. Everybody wants their piece of the pie. Sheer Brass Neck wrote: "What sense is it for them to go under a different name?" Financailly? None. Artistically? Tons.Pardon my language, but artistic, my A$$. That name has stuck by them through thick and thin. Remind you, it's been over thirty years now. That's a rather important name to just throw out the window. Financial goes without saying -- but in their case, money is unavoidable. They have said it countless times that they're not doing this for the money (although they get paid handsomely for what they do). They are musicians, and they're not the only rock stars who do this. The last thing they probably want is to sit on their butts for the rest of their lives. They'd rather work for the money. Sheer Brass Neck wrote: "Does Kiss change their name everytime they get a new guitarist and/or drummer? Did Black Sabbath change their name when Ozzy left the band? Did Boston change their name after their lead singer died? No, in fact Boston hired some guy off of myspace to replace him." Are you saying that a guy who ARGUABLY wrote the rock song of the century, ARBUABLY wrote the greatest staadium anthem of all time, ARGUABLY was rock's best front mand, ARGUABLY the possessor of rock's finest and most diverse voice, ARGUABLY led his band to the most famous live appearance of his generations musicians at the world's biggest ever concert, and who is UNARGUABLY one the 100 Greatest Britons is to be compared to a rhythm guitarist from an american stage band who kind of suck musically, an iconic heavy metal singer who can't really sing, or Brad Delp, who with all due respect, was a one album wonder, as Boston's second album sucked and sucked saleswise, and their third was a joke, THESE are the people and bands you use to justify Brian and Roger using the name Queen? If you wanted to further your argument, use John Lennon from the Beatles and John Bonham from Zeppelin and stop there. Irreplaceable members of the two of the three biggest bands of all time. They stopped when a member died, because without that member, who they were ceased to exist.Firstly, that is precisely what I'm saying. Simply because you feel Brian and Roger are far beyond Boston, Kiss, and Black Sabbath doesn't mean they are. These are all big names in rock and roll -- regardless of how many hits they produced. They still have fans who are just like us. We're not the only lunatics. Secondly, Led Zeppelin didn't exactly call it quits. I believe they recently had their reunion tour, if I'm not mistaken. And, of course, The Beatles ceased to exist due to arguments within the band, not due to the death of John Lennon. Sheer Brass Neck wrote: |
| steven 35638 27.06.2008 01:19 |
ANAGRAMER wrote: Roger's always been quite smug, but he does tell it like it is! I think where you stand on this depends on why you like the band; was it the music, or the overall package - If you like Queen because of the camp humour, posturing and costumes then QPR is not for you If it was just the music, then QPR hits the nail right on the head For me, I do think that SOMETHING has got lost in the translationThat's a wonderful way to look at it. I have to agree with you. |
| Katicas..(L) 27.06.2008 03:44 |
Well Roger is just telling it how it is. People will moan and then you should just turn around and bitch slap 'em and be glad that some Queenie are still alive! |
| Fenderek 27.06.2008 03:47 |
It's funny. This quote is typical Roger. It's easy though to say he's cute or funny or whatever when it's sth from the past. But suddenly- he is saying it now, and- OMG- I don't agree with him! Suddenly Roger, doing and saying things the way he always did, is bad... I think this is the biggest problem for some people. They got used to the fact their band was dead- ergo they don't make mistakes or things the fans may not like... I love that Roger quote, it's perfect. It shows he still has balls. Apparently that's what ROCK is all about... But what do I know- I like Q+PR... |
| YourValentine 27.06.2008 04:01 |
Both Roger and Brian tried to make a solo career after Freddie died - with very limited success. They did not only lose a friend, they lost the heart and soul of the band and therefore their professional life. Surely, Roger had hard times to come to terms with Freddie's death but that was 17 years ago. After 17 years you are over the death of your parents or sibling. After 17 years you should get tired of the lip service that is asked from you day in day out. On the last tour Paul Rodgers was asked in each and every interview how it feels to be in Freddie's shoes and it gets tedious. I cannot blame Roger for being fed up at some point. They are still alive and they should make the best of it, it's their right. How anyone can be offended is beyond me. |
| gnomo 27.06.2008 04:38 |
YourValentine wrote: After 17 years you should get tired of the lip service that is asked from you day in day out. Fenderek wrote: I love that Roger quote, it's perfect. It shows he still has balls. Apparently that's what ROCK is all about... ANAGRAMER wrote: Roger's always been quite smug, but he does tell it like it is!... always been my hero because of that...! Blondie RULEZ!!! :-D |
| Tero 27.06.2008 04:39 |
Benn wrote: Just as Roger says - if you don't like it, then fine. Say what you have to say and then retire to the shaddows.I don't give a damn about what Roger says, but I would like to comment on the above post... ;) How many times am I allowed to "say what I have to say" before you force me to retire to the shadows? Once? Once every time they go on tour? Once every time there's an excessively positive post about QPR on this website? In short... If I have a contrary opinion to Roger's, am I allowed to participate in any discussions here at QZ, or am I supposed to be in the shadows for the rest of my life? Because I think I'd rather leave this message board altogether if I'm not allowed to post my opinions in response to other people's opinions. |
| Togg 27.06.2008 05:58 |
I'm whole heartedly with Roger on this one, I just don't understand people moaning about it not being Freddie any more, like it can change? I remember clearly when Peter Gabriele left Genesis everyone was horrified that they were going to continue without him... Same with Pink Floyd, The Who, etc etc Why participate in a Queen website if you don't like them as they are now, for god sake it's been what 16 years since Fred died...how long do you ahev to wait, half the people complaining were not even born when he was alive and never saw him in concert... Move on, they have If I were Roger I would feel that same hand frankly be a little more pissed about it then he seems to be. His attitude has always been 'if you don't like it don't listen' and I think you will find that was pretty much the attitude of the band as a whole throughout their career, certainly Freddie had that response to naysayers! |
| kingogre 27.06.2008 06:50 |
Very many good posts here. A main point for me is that I would really like to hear new music again and have at least some part of the band touring again. Because whether we like it or not some day we wont have the possibility of that anymore. Its become aparent to me how big part of the Queen sound Brian and Roger were, because it still actually sounds like Queen (minus Freddie of course) when theyre playing. Johns bassplaying is noticeably missing but the musical essence of the sound is still there. |
| pittrek 27.06.2008 06:59 |
There is nothing bad on Roger's attitude. He's a rock star, not a diplomat |
| Tero 27.06.2008 07:46 |
Togg wrote: Why participate in a Queen website if you don't like them as they are nowSo that's what you want? Anybody who doesn't like the "Queen" of today should have no right to be on a website and discuss... say the first 25 years of the band? Just how narrowminded can a person be? |
| Collecting Queen 27.06.2008 07:49 |
Benn wrote: "Just as Roger says - if you don't like it, then fine. Say what you have to say and then retire to the shaddows." Tero wrote: "How many times am I allowed to "say what I have to say" before you force me to retire to the shadows? Once? Once every time they go on tour? Once every time there's an excessively positive post about QPR on this website? In short... If I have a contrary opinion to Roger's, am I allowed to participate in any discussions here at QZ, or am I supposed to be in the shadows for the rest of my life? Because I think I'd rather leave this message board altogether if I'm not allowed to post my opinions in response to other people's opinions" - No more to say Tero ;-) !! |
| Togg 27.06.2008 09:38 |
Tero wrote:Nobody said anything about not 'allowed to participate', I simply asked why would you want to if it infuriates you so much? it's such old news now it's not even news...Togg wrote: Why participate in a Queen website if you don't like them as they are nowSo that's what you want? Anybody who doesn't like the "Queen" of today should have no right to be on a website and discuss... say the first 25 years of the band? Just how narrowminded can a person be? To come here and simply go on about 'it's not the same anymore' is pointless and narrowminded if you want to know what narrowminded is. I've seen so many poeple do that over the years, they come and go and just moan about why is it Paul instead of Freddie or George Michael or some other singer, it seems that it is usually simply to make everyone jump up and down in anger. Frankly I have no interest in who likes what, I am commenting on the fact that I agree with Rogers statement, after so long it's pointless to keep harping on about it. move on and get over it. |
| Tero 27.06.2008 12:03 |
Togg wrote: I simply asked why would you want to if it infuriates you so much?Why would anybody come to this website and post anything? Could it possible be that they are interested in the subject matter and are posting an opinion about the subject matter? Togg wrote: it's such old news now it's not even news...I'm really sorry to say this, but it's still very much current news. Brian and Roger are at this very moment selling tickets to concerts where they are billed as "Queen". Am I allowed to post about the current topics if my opinion differs from yours? (I assume you're in favour of Brian and Roger calling themselves Queen) Are you going to say to EVERYONE writing about Brian and Roger that they are discussing "such old news it's not even news", or do you reserve that honour to those you disagree with? Togg wrote: To come here and simply go on about 'it's not the same anymore' is pointless and narrowminded if you want to know what narrowminded is.As long as it's done in terms of civilised discussion (answering a question, staying on topic, not insulting other posters) it's no more narrowminded or undesired than any positive opinion about QPR. Togg wrote: Frankly I have no interest in who likes what, I am commenting on the fact that I agree with Rogers statement, after so long it's pointless to keep harping on about it. move on and get over it.In my opinion it's pointless to claim that Brian and Roger are Queen, are you now going to keep forever quiet about the subject? I didn't think so, and that's why you can't expect anybody with negative opinions to stay quiet either. So am I or am I not allowed to post my disagreeing opinions on this message board, or are you going to bitch and moan about them? |
| brENsKi 27.06.2008 12:10 |
Knute wrote: One thing that makes the Beatles example that everyone throws out an unfit comparison is that Queen never split up.wrong - queen split up several times.... |
| Darren1977 27.06.2008 12:44 |
What's the problem with his attitude. We should be very fortunate that both Brian and Roger have decided to continue with the Queen name,even if we are not fans of Paul Rodgers. A s Roger has stated numerous times they don't need the money are are happy to tour. To be honest i wouldn't be Paul Rodgers biggest fan but it's surely better to hear half of the band doing something then a bunch of average singers doing karaoke versions like what happened at the Tribute Concert.(apart from a select few of course!) Wouldn't it be great though if John came on for the encore.... |
| kingogre 27.06.2008 12:49 |
Tero wrote: [ Brian and Roger are at this very moment selling tickets to concerts where they are billed as "Queen".You make it sound like its some kind of crime...;) Seriously everyone knows that Freddie is dead so I dont think anyone will be expecting something else. And John supports it. Even Freddies mother does. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but, and this does not apply to you in any way, this anti QPR thing has gotten out of hand. Its now gotten to the point where people are slagging off the 46664-project and even Nelson Mandela just because of it. |
| Micrówave 27.06.2008 13:19 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: If you wanted to further your argument, use John Lennon from the Beatles and John Bonham from Zeppelin and stop there. Irreplaceable members of the two of the three biggest bands of all time. They stopped when a member died, because without that member, who they were ceased to exist.So when the Beatles released that new song that Paul and George reworked for the Anthology LONG AFTER JOHN WAS DEAD doesn't count? So that gig "Led Zeppelin - 1" played as "Led Zeppelin" doesn't count? Sorry, one man doesn't make the band. That's why it's called a band. Now if Barry Manilow died, God forbid, it would be wrong for his band to continue touring as Barry Manilow. |
| Tero 27.06.2008 13:25 |
kingogre wrote:That's your interpretation, but my only intention was to make it sound like "Queen" is still very much a current thing.Tero wrote: [ Brian and Roger are at this very moment selling tickets to concerts where they are billed as "Queen".You make it sound like its some kind of crime...;) Seriously everyone knows that Freddie is dead so I dont think anyone will be expecting something else. And John supports it. Even Freddies mother does. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but, and this does not apply to you in any way, this anti QPR thing has gotten out of hand. Its now gotten to the point where people are slagging off the 46664-project and even Nelson Mandela just because of it. Like you say, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. No matter how many times we discuss the same thing, and no matter which "celebrities" support QPR. |
| kingogre 27.06.2008 13:32 |
Tero wrote:Sure, all right.kingogre wrote:That's your interpretation, but my only intention was to make it sound like "Queen" is still very much a current thing. Like you say, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. No matter how many times we discuss the same thing, and no matter which "celebrities" support QPR.Tero wrote: [ Brian and Roger are at this very moment selling tickets to concerts where they are billed as "Queen".You make it sound like its some kind of crime...;) Seriously everyone knows that Freddie is dead so I dont think anyone will be expecting something else. And John supports it. Even Freddies mother does. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but, and this does not apply to you in any way, this anti QPR thing has gotten out of hand. Its now gotten to the point where people are slagging off the 46664-project and even Nelson Mandela just because of it. I wasnt saying anything about celebrities promoting anything. John has clearly got a say in it and I dont really think that many people would call Freddies mother a celebrity. |
| kingogre 27.06.2008 13:37 |
Micrówave wrote:Great post. Genius :DSheer Brass Neck wrote: If you wanted to further your argument, use John Lennon from the Beatles and John Bonham from Zeppelin and stop there. Irreplaceable members of the two of the three biggest bands of all time. They stopped when a member died, because without that member, who they were ceased to exist.So when the Beatles released that new song that Paul and George reworked for the Anthology LONG AFTER JOHN WAS DEAD doesn't count? So that gig "Led Zeppelin - 1" played as "Led Zeppelin" doesn't count? Sorry, one man doesn't make the band. That's why it's called a band. Now if Barry Manilow died, God forbid, it would be wrong for his band to continue touring as Barry Manilow. |
| Tero 27.06.2008 13:48 |
kingogre wrote:That's why the "celebrities" were in quotation marks.Tero wrote:Sure, all right. I wasnt saying anything about celebrities promoting anything. John has clearly got a say in it and I dont really think that many people would call Freddies mother a celebrity.kingogre wrote:That's your interpretation, but my only intention was to make it sound like "Queen" is still very much a current thing. Like you say, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. No matter how many times we discuss the same thing, and no matter which "celebrities" support QPR.Tero wrote: [ Brian and Roger are at this very moment selling tickets to concerts where they are billed as "Queen".You make it sound like its some kind of crime...;) Seriously everyone knows that Freddie is dead so I dont think anyone will be expecting something else. And John supports it. Even Freddies mother does. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but, and this does not apply to you in any way, this anti QPR thing has gotten out of hand. Its now gotten to the point where people are slagging off the 46664-project and even Nelson Mandela just because of it. Interestingly though, you seem to think both of their opinions are worth more than the regular folk on QZ, or you wouldn't have mentioned them in the first place. ;) |
| Major Tom 27.06.2008 13:57 |
Steven wrote: I can understand your disgust with Roger Taylor's choice of words, but I do happen to agree with him. Brian and Roger are still alive and have much to offer musically. This is their job, and their duty is to keep the Queen name alive. That's the thing some people can't seem to comprehend. What sense is it for them to go under a different name? Does Kiss change their name everytime they get a new guitarist and/or drummer? Did Black Sabbath change their name when Ozzy left the band? Did Boston change their name after their lead singer died? No, in fact Boston hired some guy off of myspace to replace him. Do people really think that Freddie would have wanted them to just retire the Queen name and start fresh because of his untimely death? Once again, I understand your disgust in Roger's vocabulary. Yes, it was very arrogrant of him, perhaps. But then again, he has a point and very much respects his loyal fans. He just wants his followers to understand this is Queen's new era, this is what they're doing NOW, this is who they have become. Just enjoy the music!Not to mention ACDC who hired a guy that sounded and looked like their earlier singer... |
| Sheer Brass Neck 27.06.2008 13:59 |
No Microwave, since you asked, The Beatles releasing Free as a Bird does not count. It was, what, 5, 8, 10 years after Lennon's death, and it was a studio effort a la Made In Heaven, where it featured four original members. They didn't release that then say fifteen years later that Brian Wilson was a big hero of Lennon's, and he'd now sing for them and they'd still be The Beatles. For whoever posted about Freddie and how he was not above commercialism, to the best of my knowledge during Freddie's life, Queen collaborated from a writing POV with only one artist, David Bowie. The highly repected Joan Armatrading did pointless backing vocals on one song, Billy Squier, who was a big fan of the band and an 80s superstar did BV's that never appeared on Hot Space, and Steve Howe, a genius guitarist and world clas musician, did some fantastic guitar work on Innuendo. So by my account, that's 4 people made up of 1 icon, 1 fantastic musician, 1 well respected singer songwriter and 1 grotesquesly underrated singer/songwrter/musician Queen worked with in Freddie's life. Since he died, Queen have worked with 5ive, Robbie Williams, McFly, Pink, Britney Spears and Beyonce. Many here would make a case for the above as artists, Beyonce and sometimes Pink aside, some wouldn't. Microwave's fave Mr. Manilow has more creative juice than virtually that latter list combined. Finally, most people on earth know all four Beatles names. Most music fans would be able to identify Jagger and Richards as the main Stones, Page and Plant as the main Zep's, Daltrey and Townshend as the main Who guys, Eddie Van Halen and David Lee Roth for VH. I'd doubt that anyone but the hardcore music fan would know of Brian May (in North America, not ROTW.) In the 80s, Roger Taylor was one of the most famous drummers in the world. Sadly, not Queen's Roger Taylor, but his namesake from Duran Duran. I'd hazard 99.9% of the world wouldn't know John Deacon if they tripped over him. People know Freddie Mercury though, and to the average bloke, he was Queen. And with the whole gay/regal/larger than life thing that Queen was, not sure if there was ever a guy in music history who was more identified with his band's name than Freddie Mercury. Having said that, it's their right to call themselves Queen!!!! |
| teleman 27.06.2008 14:19 |
Collecting Queen wrote: Well, blah blah blah No Freddie no Queen blah blah blah What do you think??I think you need to get out more. Maybe get laid, enjoy some fresh air, visit an old friend ... |
| kingogre 27.06.2008 14:38 |
Tero wrote:No, I think you misunderstand me. It is not my intention to say that anyones opinion is more worth than any others. But John was actually a member of Queen you know.. ;) just kiddingkingogre wrote:That's why the "celebrities" were in quotation marks. Interestingly though, you seem to think both of their opinions are worth more than the regular folk on QZ, or you wouldn't have mentioned them in the first place. ;)Tero wrote:Sure, all right. I wasnt saying anything about celebrities promoting anything. John has clearly got a say in it and I dont really think that many people would call Freddies mother a celebrity.kingogre wrote:That's your interpretation, but my only intention was to make it sound like "Queen" is still very much a current thing. Like you say, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. No matter how many times we discuss the same thing, and no matter which "celebrities" support QPR.Tero wrote: [ Brian and Roger are at this very moment selling tickets to concerts where they are billed as "Queen".You make it sound like its some kind of crime...;) Seriously everyone knows that Freddie is dead so I dont think anyone will be expecting something else. And John supports it. Even Freddies mother does. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but, and this does not apply to you in any way, this anti QPR thing has gotten out of hand. Its now gotten to the point where people are slagging off the 46664-project and even Nelson Mandela just because of it. |
| Negative Creep 27.06.2008 14:48 |
DARREN1977 wrote: To be honest i wouldn't be Paul Rodgers biggest fan but it's surely better to hear half of the band doing something then a bunch of average singers doing karaoke versions like what happened at the Tribute Concert.It would be far more dignified if Brian and Roger just continued recording together or as solo artists. If they weren't in it for the money this is exactly what they would be doing... go figure. These people can never have enough money - ook at McCartney, Bono etc. Releasing material mostly sung by some has-been "blues" singer using the Queen monicker will definitely tarnish the Queen legacy. How can it not? There's little chance that this new album will be anything other than subpar based on their ability as musicians (particularly Roger)/songwriters now and the guy they've got singing. Plus, it's about a legitimate if not less than McCartney and Ringo getting together and releasing material as The Beatles. Also, notice how both tours have been put on sale before anyones heard anything. Barely anyone has heard Q+PR perform before the first stadium tour... and this time no one has heard the Q+PR album before tickets have gone on sale. And of course Roger is nasty and defensive about this subject - because he, unlike Brian, knows it's a piss take. |
| kingogre 27.06.2008 15:02 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: No Microwave, since you asked, The Beatles releasing Free as a Bird does not count. It was, what, 5, 8, 10 years after Lennon's death, and it was a studio effort a la Made In Heaven, where it featured four original members. They didn't release that then say fifteen years later that Brian Wilson was a big hero of Lennon's, and he'd now sing for them and they'd still be The Beatles. For whoever posted about Freddie and how he was not above commercialism, to the best of my knowledge during Freddie's life, Queen collaborated from a writing POV with only one artist, David Bowie. The highly repected Joan Armatrading did pointless backing vocals on one song, Billy Squier, who was a big fan of the band and an 80s superstar did BV's that never appeared on Hot Space, and Steve Howe, a genius guitarist and world clas musician, did some fantastic guitar work on Innuendo. So by my account, that's 4 people made up of 1 icon, 1 fantastic musician, 1 well respected singer songwriter and 1 grotesquesly underrated singer/songwrter/musician Queen worked with in Freddie's life. Since he died, Queen have worked with 5ive, Robbie Williams, McFly, Pink, Britney Spears and Beyonce. Many here would make a case for the above as artists, Beyonce and sometimes Pink aside, some wouldn't. Microwave's fave Mr. Manilow has more creative juice than virtually that latter list combined. Finally, most people on earth know all four Beatles names. Most music fans would be able to identify Jagger and Richards as the main Stones, Page and Plant as the main Zep's, Daltrey and Townshend as the main Who guys, Eddie Van Halen and David Lee Roth for VH. I'd doubt that anyone but the hardcore music fan would know of Brian May (in North America, not ROTW.) In the 80s, Roger Taylor was one of the most famous drummers in the world. Sadly, not Queen's Roger Taylor, but his namesake from Duran Duran. I'd hazard 99.9% of the world wouldn't know John Deacon if they tripped over him. People know Freddie Mercury though, and to the average bloke, he was Queen. And with the whole gay/regal/larger than life thing that Queen was, not sure if there was ever a guy in music history who was more identified with his band's name than Freddie Mercury. Having said that, it's their right to call themselves Queen!!!!Brian May is a world-famous guitarist and widely regarded as one of the best there is. Even my dad knows who he is and he dont give a crap about Queen or playing the guitar. Roger Taylor and John Deacon while not equally famous as are also world-famous celebrities and highly regarded in the music world. Incidentally I think 60-75 % of the worlds population wouldnt know of Freddie either if they tripped over him. Daltrey has always been considered the least "necessary" member by music critics while both Keith Moon and John Entwistle were hugely talented and unique musicians who actually were considered unreplaceable during their lifetime. On the contrary Queen is a good example of a band where all four members had as much impact on what went on. Remember all four of them has written a number one hit single, except John who wrote two. Sorry for any harsh language, not my meaning to insult anyone or anything like that. Take care! |
| Tero 27.06.2008 15:13 |
kingogre wrote: No, I think you misunderstand me. It is not my intention to say that anyones opinion is more worth than any others. But John was actually a member of Queen you know.. ;) just kiddingAlright, I'll play along with you... :P John I can understand (although we haven't actually heard any words of support from him... It's just as likely he's staying quiet because he isn't going to go against them out of loyalty and/or money), but what exactly did you mean when you said "Even Freddie's mother does (support it)" Does it mean that even pensioners support it? That everybody supports it? That all the people around Freddie support it? That everyone we know supports it? I'm really curious, because surely her opinion wouldn't matter anymore than mine? |
| Micrówave 27.06.2008 15:13 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: No Microwave, since you asked, The Beatles releasing Free as a Bird does not count. It was, what, 5, 8, 10 years after Lennon's death, and it was a studio effort a la Made In Heaven, where it featured four original members.Ringo was not involved in this production. There were outside musicians used, very sparingly, but they were used. I expect you to destroy that release as soon as possible. :) |
| Tero 27.06.2008 15:23 |
Please don't take this personally, or think that I have any negative feelings about you because of this...
But this is the kind of thing that really irritates me about all the pro-QPR people:
kingogre wrote: Its become aparent to me how big part of the Queen sound Brian and Roger were, because it still actually sounds like Queen kingogre wrote: Queen is a good example of a band where all four members had as much impact on what went on.It's always the same story: Queen were four equal members whenever we're talking about why Brian and Roger can carry on without Freddie, but they suddenly turn into more than just equal members when we're talking about how the two of them can continue as the entire Queen! There is an obvious conflict which can't be explained with any logic. |
| Danne 27.06.2008 15:40 |
Micrówave wrote:I hope you're joking. Ringo was involved, he played the drums. Quite obvious too, no-one plays 'em like Ringo.Sheer Brass Neck wrote: No Microwave, since you asked, The Beatles releasing Free as a Bird does not count. It was, what, 5, 8, 10 years after Lennon's death, and it was a studio effort a la Made In Heaven, where it featured four original members.Ringo was not involved in this production. There were outside musicians used, very sparingly, but they were used. I expect you to destroy that release as soon as possible. :) |
| kingogre 27.06.2008 15:53 |
Freddies mother runs his estate if Im not mistaken. Also I reckon she if one would know what he would have wanted. You know she kind of knew the guy as far as I know. ;P Queen were a band with four equally important members. That doesnt mean that Brian and Roger cant produce the essence of musical sound. Compare with what it would have sounded like with only Roger and John for example. |
| kingogre 27.06.2008 15:58 |
Of course theyre not the entire Queen. But I dont think anyone belives that. |
| iron eagle 27.06.2008 17:19 |
dont have a problem with Roger's thoughts.. it may sound harsh to some..indignant to others..perhaps even cocky but sometimes the truth hurts.... i saw Q +PR several times...except for a song or two i felt they should not have done... it was a fun show and i had a great time... they hit here again I will go again... btw the new Boston singer was and still is the lead singer and co-founder of the band Stryper |
| Sheer Brass Neck 27.06.2008 18:16 |
Tero wrote: Queen were four equal members whenever we're talking about why Brian and Roger can carry on without Freddie, but they suddenly turn into more than just equal members when we're talking about how the two of them can continue as the entire Queen! There is an obvious conflict which can't be explained with any logic.And that's the whole argument in a nutshell. C-lebrity would probably fairly be in the bottom 5% of Queen music. It's not abysmal, but it's paint by numbers stuff that they could do in their sleep. To some people, it's awesome, because it's Queen. Queen good!!! If this band were named Microwave's Texas Chili with their debut single C-lebrity, we'd ignore them and talk about how cliched the lyrics are and uninspired musically it is. It's just part of the reason that this board is way less active than before, intelligent discussion and opposing POV's are not looked at favourably, it's turning into another QOL. |
| kingogre 27.06.2008 18:19 |
QPR just rocked the sh*t out of Hyde Park. Just so you know. |
| Fenderek 27.06.2008 19:41 |
kingogre wrote: QPR just rocked the sh*t out of Hyde Park. Just so you know.Yep. After what I saw this thread is soooo pointless and irrelevant... |
| Knute 27.06.2008 20:14 |
kingogre wrote: QPR just rocked the sh*t out of Hyde Park. Just so you know.FUCKIN' A! |
| Grantcdn1 28.06.2008 01:24 |
Yes QPR rocked tonight!! proving once again that Roger and Brian are alive and able to make great music with Paul Rodgers.... ....and to the dissenters who object to using the name Queen as in Queen + Paul Rodgers - do you also object to Queensryche, Queens of the Stone Age, Queen Latifa....???? getover it - it is a name that Brian and Roger have been a part of for more than half of their lives QPR will rock the cosmos so you'd better hide underground listening to your 8 tracks and lps....or get out there and let them rock you |
| Tero 28.06.2008 03:45 |
Grantcdn1 wrote: proving once again that Roger and Brian are alive and able to make great music with Paul Rodgers....They didn't actually perform any of the music they'd made together. Are you sure the new music is any good? Grantcdn1 wrote: ....and to the dissenters who object to using the name Queen as in Queen + Paul Rodgers - do you also object to Queensryche, Queens of the Stone Age, Queen Latifa....????No, as they're not claiming to be Queen. I have a feeling you wouldn't like it either if they all (separately) went on tour and called themselves Queen. Grantcdn1 wrote: getover it - it is a name that Brian and Roger have been a part of for more than half of their lives...And they've been called (respectively) Brian May and Roger Taylor for their ENTIRE life. How come they aren't using those names on the tour? Grantcdn1 wrote: QPR will rock the cosmos so you'd better hide underground listening to your 8 tracks and lps....or get out there and let them rock youThere's no need to hide anywhere, as the new material will only be played in the homes of those obsessive Queen fans who will buy anything with the band's name on. In addition to my old cds (you know what they are, don't you?) I can also listen to the radio safe in the knowledge that every radio station in the world (or at least in this country) would rather play any of the actual Queen hits instead of crap like "C-Lebrity". They've had their chance to "rock", and they've released a pile of mud instead. |
| Negative Creep 28.06.2008 09:56 |
Fenderek wrote:Really? Are you sure? I'm sure that Rodgers was still singing and Roger was crap as usual. People AKA Q+PR fans going crazy over this performance as if they've suddenly proved something... despite them not playing any better than last time or even playing any of their new material.kingogre wrote: QPR just rocked the sh*t out of Hyde Park. Just so you know.Yep. After what I saw this thread is soooo pointless and irrelevant... |
| Fenderek 28.06.2008 11:15 |
Negative Creep wrote:Yawn...Fenderek wrote:Really? Are you sure? I'm sure that Rodgers was still singing and Roger was crap as usual. People AKA Q+PR fans going crazy over this performance as if they've suddenly proved something... despite them not playing any better than last time or even playing any of their new material.kingogre wrote: QPR just rocked the sh*t out of Hyde Park. Just so you know.Yep. After what I saw this thread is soooo pointless and irrelevant... |
| thomasquinn 32989 28.06.2008 11:31 |
Negative Creep wrote:Really, is the point so complicated that it can't sink through your thick skull? If you don't like it, don't buy it / don't go to the show, but by making retarded comments like "Roger was crap as usual" you are throwing away what little credibility you had. Of course he's not crap; a guy doesn't suddenly forget 40 years of drumming experience, during which he was *ace*. Nor is Brian suddenly a mediocre guitarist. Nor is Rodgers suddenly a bad vocalist. He might be to your ears, but that would be solely because you are too stubborn to even consider the possibility that life might go on after your favorite singer died. The annoyance shown by you towards this musical project just goes to prove how little life you actually have.Fenderek wrote:Really? Are you sure? I'm sure that Rodgers was still singing and Roger was crap as usual. People AKA Q+PR fans going crazy over this performance as if they've suddenly proved something... despite them not playing any better than last time or even playing any of their new material.kingogre wrote: QPR just rocked the sh*t out of Hyde Park. Just so you know.Yep. After what I saw this thread is soooo pointless and irrelevant... |
| YourValentine 28.06.2008 11:39 |
Now that the thread moved from discussing Roger's comment to the "Queen versus Queen + Paul Rodgers" discussion I want to add something: There is actually no need to get hostile about the subject. I think as long time Queen fans we all prefer Queen over Queen plus Paul Rodgers but since Queen is not to be anymore we have to get over it and deal with what we can get. Personally, I enjoyed the 2005 very much and I am looking forward for the next tour. But I know fans who had an open mind but who actually hated it. It's a matter of taste and we all should respect that. If you don't like the set up with Paul Rodgers, that's okay and nobody should tell you that you live in the past or that you should not post on a Queen board, that's really ridiculous. About the issue if Brian and Roger should use the name Queen - yes they should. They have every legal and moral right to use the name. I think the fans should not be bothered about the reputation or the legendary status of Queen, it's up to Brian and Roger to be bothered. All I care about is the unreleased material, I really want it. |
| kingogre 28.06.2008 12:29 |
Negative Creep wrote:Why did you even become a Queen-fan since you think that at least two of the members are such crap. You must actually have a hard time listening to any of the Queen-albums with all the skipping over songs that where written by Brian and Roger cause you know there are a lot of those.. ;)Fenderek wrote:Really? Are you sure? I'm sure that Rodgers was still singing and Roger was crap as usual. People AKA Q+PR fans going crazy over this performance as if they've suddenly proved something... despite them not playing any better than last time or even playing any of their new material.kingogre wrote: QPR just rocked the sh*t out of Hyde Park. Just so you know.Yep. After what I saw this thread is soooo pointless and irrelevant... I thought last nights performance was fabulous and proved that QPR can handle a stadium crowd at a shared bill. You have every right to think they are crap and say so but say it with respect instead of this attitude that we who like it only do so because well uncritically love everything with the name Queen on it and you are the only one who really knows what is good and not. |
| Tero 28.06.2008 12:44 |
kingogre wrote: Why did you even become a Queen-fan since you think that at least two of the members are such crap.If I may answer this... :D I thought two members of the band was all you needed to be a fan anyway. ;) |
| john bodega 29.06.2008 04:15 |
The only reason Roger has an attitude is because he's on the way out. Just watch the 46664 gig. The man is on his last legs. Time to call the meat wagon. |
| MercuryArts 29.06.2008 14:46 |
ThomasQuinn wrote:BURNED!Negative Creep wrote:Really, is the point so complicated that it can't sink through your thick skull? If you don't like it, don't buy it / don't go to the show, but by making retarded comments like "Roger was crap as usual" you are throwing away what little credibility you had. Of course he's not crap; a guy doesn't suddenly forget 40 years of drumming experience, during which he was *ace*. Nor is Brian suddenly a mediocre guitarist. Nor is Rodgers suddenly a bad vocalist. He might be to your ears, but that would be solely because you are too stubborn to even consider the possibility that life might go on after your favorite singer died. The annoyance shown by you towards this musical project just goes to prove how little life you actually have.Fenderek wrote:Really? Are you sure? I'm sure that Rodgers was still singing and Roger was crap as usual. People AKA Q+PR fans going crazy over this performance as if they've suddenly proved something... despite them not playing any better than last time or even playing any of their new material.kingogre wrote: QPR just rocked the sh*t out of Hyde Park. Just so you know.Yep. After what I saw this thread is soooo pointless and irrelevant... |
| Negative Creep 29.06.2008 16:38 |
Being told that I don't have much of a life by some cunt who's clocked up 2496 posts on here? Ha. I have as much right to comment on these performances as anyone. I'm prepared to like them, but they don't do anything for me... like they won't do for most people, hence them not even being mentioned on adverts for the ITV program. Where did I say Brian was crap? I didn't. I said the band don't gel and they don't. Roger is a crap drummer these days, which is no surprise considering he hasn't played properly for about 20 years and has concentrated on singing. He doesn't seem to have the stamina or strength anymore. |
| kingogre 29.06.2008 18:21 |
I thought Roger was absolutely great, except for maybe a few missed beats. But now youve said that he IS a crap drummer I reckon I was wrong cause youre the one who KNOWS how things are and the others of us just have opinions. ;P (just kidding with you) I thought both Roger and Brian looked great, especially compared to the last tour. Sure they look old but that is because they are. And Id rather have that than all that botox-crap. |
| Brian_Mays_Wig 30.06.2008 00:33 |
I dont think Roger is a crap drummer...yes, its very unlikely that we will ever see Now Im Here played live again, but id like to see some drummers sit behind a kit and sing and play as well as Roger does...and remember, he was ropey and looked like crap at the beginning of the 2005 tour (the long hair revival did him no favours!) but by the time Hyde Park came around he looked great. As for his attitude...so what, sometimes when I watch the Audio Commentary on the DVDs, its funny as fuck listening to Roger...did John get paid to dance in Montreal? A lot more entertaining than listening to Brian ramble on. Roger and Brian's solo work, although mediocre to the record buying public, is a total Jem to Queen fans and it also allowed us to see them live again. As for the QPR thing, people should just get over it, ive been a fan for over 20 years, I broke my heart when Freddie died and still to this day worship the puff..but I cant wait for the album and tour to arrive, as with the last tour. Brian totally does my tits in, with an ego the size of fookin Jupiter and I wish, as with every other fan that John was still around, but hey ho. Just face facts, Paul Rodgers is now the lead singer with Queen....... And im not complaining. Bed time I think. |
| Ken8 30.06.2008 03:42 |
kingogre wrote: I thought Roger was absolutely great, except for maybe a few missed beats.Priceless, just priceless. Yes Roger, we know Freddie is dead. That's the fucking point. They should use that quote to close the "Champions Of The World" documentary, or to promote the Tribute concert. Very tasteful stuff.... We'll all know how many will buy or not buy this incarnation's new music soon enough |
| thomasquinn 32989 30.06.2008 11:53 |
Negative Creep wrote: Being told that I don't have much of a life by some cunt who's clocked up 2496 posts on here?You do note the irony that, although I have a higher post-count, you have been a far more prolific poster here than I am; I've just been around longer. In more than one way, it seems... Ha. I have as much right to comment on these performances as anyone.Sure you do. And I have the right to flame-grill you with tandoori masala sauce when your contribution is similar to Ford's views on history. I'm prepared to like them, but they don't do anything for me...Is it me, or are you contradicting yourself there? like they won't do for most people,I recommend you speak for yourself there, because, judging from DVD, CD and ticket sales, they may not be as big as the old Queen, but they sure as hell seem to be "doing something" for quite a few folks! hence them not even being mentioned on adverts for the ITV program.If I had seen any ITV, I bet I could sum up a number of really big things they never mention in their program adverts; really, this is a bogus argument, proving nothing except that ITV doesn't care about them. Where did I say Brian was crap? I didn't. I said the band don't gel and they don't.So long as you recognize that this is merely your opinion, fine. Roger is a crap drummer these days, which is no surprise considering he hasn't played properly for about 20 years and has concentrated on singing. He doesn't seem to have the stamina or strength anymore.Overblown statement. He's not 20 anymore, but he sure as hell isn't in line to join the old pensioners. |
| Togg 01.07.2008 04:47 |
Negative Creep wrote: Being told that I don't have much of a life by some cunt who's clocked up 2496 posts on here? Ha. I have as much right to comment on these performances as anyone. I'm prepared to like them, but they don't do anything for me... like they won't do for most people, hence them not even being mentioned on adverts for the ITV program. Where did I say Brian was crap? I didn't. I said the band don't gel and they don't. Roger is a crap drummer these days, which is no surprise considering he hasn't played properly for about 20 years and has concentrated on singing. He doesn't seem to have the stamina or strength anymore.If Queen don't 'do anything for people anymore' why are they still selling out stadiums? You are perfectly entitled to your opinion (let me just say that first because so many people don't seem capable of reading a post without putting words into the authors mouth that were not there) However your statements do sometimes make me wonder what planet you are on Roger's is far from a crap drummer, fast does not equal good... The fact that he used to play songs faster does not mean he was fitter, better or stronger, simply put drumming is much more than hitting things as fast as you can... The fact is when they used to play in the 70's one could argue that he was playing too much for show than for the song. These days they play the songs at the speed they were recorded. This is almost certainly a band decision, not based on whether Roger can manage it, if you know anything about drumming you will know it is harder to play slowly but in time than fast. Roger's style is unique and whilst he has never ranked in the top 5 in terms of technique he has always and still is right up there in terms of solid Rock drumming in the style of John Bonham. Moon was a crap drummer in terms of timing, yet everyone raved about him just because he was fast and overblown... Don't get me wrong I loved him, but if you wanted someone to keep time you might as well has had ROger Daltery hitting a dustbin, it would have been more in time than Moon. Roger Taylor still plays in a style that is very difficult to emulate, he plays the drums as a true instrument and not simply to keep time, when I here people say he can't keep time I go back and listen again to what they are talking about and hardly ever do you hear him miss a beat or waver from the time. Generally people miss hear things or simply make it up to make a fuss in a chat room. Every performer screws up now and then, it's human nature, we are not perfect, however I would love to see any of the nay sayers here stand up and try to come close to the performance of Queen on their worst day... |
| Sheer Brass Neck 01.07.2008 06:19 |
"Every performer screws up now and then, it's human nature, we are not perfect, however I would love to see any of the nay sayers here stand up and try to come close to the performance of Queen on their worst day..." That's true Togg, but the problem with people here who believe Queen can do no wrong is that they're not objective. In all honesty, that was a fair performance the other night. For people who never saw the 70s Queen, they'd think it was awesome. Having seen 70s Queen, I they were workmanlike the other night. A big voice does not make a performer though, and though some missteps were made by all three, they aren't on tour and to expect perfection when they're not road tested is ridiculous. As Brian's always said, it takes a while to get their "road legs" beneath them. So whatever mistakes they made should be excused as they're not really ready for a stadium show with little rehearsal. |
| Togg 01.07.2008 07:57 |
I totally agree, It has to be said that I witnessed and fair number of gaffs by Freddie in his time, from forgetting lyrics to missing cues to mis-playing Bo rap etc etc I felt it had some really good atmosphere and they were obviously keen to be out there, all the talk of mistakes and fluffed lines ends to be put in perspective, Fred did a fair number most times he went out on stage |
| kingogre 01.07.2008 11:07 |
Togg wrote: Roger's is far from a crap drummer, fast does not equal good... The fact that he used to play songs faster does not mean he was fitter, better or stronger, simply put drumming is much more than hitting things as fast as you can... The fact is when they used to play in the 70's one could argue that he was playing too much for show than for the song. These days they play the songs at the speed they were recorded. This is almost certainly a band decision, not based on whether Roger can manage it, if you know anything about drumming you will know it is harder to play slowly but in time than fast. Roger's style is unique and whilst he has never ranked in the top 5 in terms of technique he has always and still is right up there in terms of solid Rock drumming in the style of John Bonham. Moon was a crap drummer in terms of timing, yet everyone raved about him just because he was fast and overblown... Don't get me wrong I loved him, but if you wanted someone to keep time you might as well has had ROger Daltery hitting a dustbin, it would have been more in time than Moon. Roger Taylor still plays in a style that is very difficult to emulate, he plays the drums as a true instrument and not simply to keep time, when I here people say he can't keep time I go back and listen again to what they are talking about and hardly ever do you hear him miss a beat or waver from the time. Generally people miss hear things or simply make it up to make a fuss in a chat room. Every performer screws up now and then, it's human nature, we are not perfect, however I would love to see any of the nay sayers here stand up and try to come close to the performance of Queen on their worst day...I agree completely with this. Ive always felt that Roger is somewhat underrated as a drummer. While not the absolute best he could still be MENTIONED together with Bonham, Mitchell and Baker for example. I do think that he could play in the same style but that he chooses not to because he prefers to keep it simple most of the time. Lots of bands slow their songs down with age, I dont think its all about the fact that they are older but also that with experience they find that its possible to develope the sound more by focusing on groove instead of speed. |
| Holly2003 01.07.2008 11:22 |
kingogre wrote:While not the absolute best he could still be MENTIONED together with Bonham, Mitchell and Baker for example.Funnily enough though, the only place I've seen that happen is on Queenzone. I think he is a respected drummer but there's tendency to say that all Queen band members are at the top of their game and highly influential etc. I haven't seen too many rock stars list Taylor* or Deacon as influences (*Foo Fighters excepted) |
| thomasquinn 32989 01.07.2008 11:43 |
Holly2003 wrote:Citing ones influences is always a 'politicized' and rather random affair; all music you have ever heard before in your life influences you to some extent, as do most non-musical affairs. Even distinguishing between major and minor influence on your own playing is nigh on impossible, and other people's views on the matter are never more than rationalizations.kingogre wrote:Funnily enough though, the only place I've seen that happen is on Queenzone. I think he is a respected drummer but there's tendency to say that all Queen band members are at the top of their game and highly influential etc. I haven't seen too many rock stars list Taylor* or Deacon as influences (*Foo Fighters excepted)While not the absolute best he could still be MENTIONED together with Bonham, Mitchell and Baker for example. The point is, there are few musicians who do not know Queen, and thus Roger Taylor's playing, and thus there will be significant numbers among them who have been influenced to some extent. |
| Holly2003 01.07.2008 11:56 |
ThomasQuinn wrote:The way the discussion is developing here is to suggest that Roger is among the top rock drummers of all time, and that he can be mentioned in the same breath as... yadda yadda. As I said, that rarely happens except on Queenzone. I mean, does anyone seriously suggest that Roger is as good as Neil Peart? But I take your point about Queen's influence as a whole --although that's a different point and I would argue even that is overstated. I think its become fashionable (as you say) to say that Queen are huge influence even when there's little or nothing in a band's output to suggest a Queen influence. Do any Foo Fighters songs sound like Queen songs, for example? Does their guitarist play like Brian May? Not to say that Queen haven't influenced bands like Extreme but,as I said, not unnaturally Queen fans tend to exagerate their influence quite a bit.Holly2003 wrote:Citing ones influences is always a 'politicized' and rather random affair; all music you have ever heard before in your life influences you to some extent, as do most non-musical affairs. Even distinguishing between major and minor influence on your own playing is nigh on impossible, and other people's views on the matter are never more than rationalizations. The point is, there are few musicians who do not know Queen, and thus Roger Taylor's playing, and thus there will be significant numbers among them who have been influenced to some extent.kingogre wrote:Funnily enough though, the only place I've seen that happen is on Queenzone. I think he is a respected drummer but there's tendency to say that all Queen band members are at the top of their game and highly influential etc. I haven't seen too many rock stars list Taylor* or Deacon as influences (*Foo Fighters excepted)While not the absolute best he could still be MENTIONED together with Bonham, Mitchell and Baker for example. |
| kingogre 01.07.2008 12:12 |
Not being mentioned very often is what I would call underrated.. ;P No, Roger is not one the best rock drummers of all time (and even less one of the best drummers ever in general as few rock drummers are). My suggestion was rather that he belongs to the second league after those and that he in terms of style and influences can certainly be compared to those I mentioned. That said I feel he is one of the classic rock drummers if you could put it that way and has a far greater ability and more achievements than people often say. All of Queens members were extraordinarily talented musicians, it is in many ways a supergroup. I dont think its at all controversial to say that. |
| kingogre 01.07.2008 12:23 |
The influence of Queen on other artists is a very interesting topic and could really be developed a lot. Personally Ive gotten the feeling that a lot of Queens influence has more to do with the stage act than the music. They were pioneers of stadium rock and how to bring rock into an arena. While most bands just plugged in and then played as usual Queen made a big show out of it and made music that was especially written and arranged to fit a stadium crowd. They were also among the first to really incorporate light, smoke and other effects as a natural part aswell as using especially designed stages. For example the stage Metallica used at least a couple of years ago was the clearly influenced by Queens from the late 70s and early 80s. I also feel they have influenced many with their kind of business-like approach to their music and their career. They were almost always very concious about presenting a product that would be successful and market it in a way that would notice. That said though Brian May is definitely a very influential guitarist. Freddie was absolutely unique but in terms of stage performance he has definitely been influential. |
| 1977Robert 01.07.2008 13:34 |
Hi all. My opinion: Roger and Brian "use" the name Queen for their tours at this moment. That is clear. The fact that they can get along well with Paul, is nice for them, but their sound is far away from Queen, with all respect for the whole band. If they gave themselves a new name (and in my opinion they should do that), then they will play for half-full stadiums. Roger, Brian and John were standing in the shadow of Freddie, HE was the one that made Queen so big, and nobody else. Not a single song sung by Roger or Brian hit the charts (except after Fred died). Have you seen Roger singing in front on the stage? He doenst know where to put his hands during singing, he has NO showman's attitude. Keep him playing his drums (and let him sing the love with my car-song), that is what he always did, and what he does best. He is a fine drummer, but to be honest; he was just a lucky guy... |
| kingogre 01.07.2008 13:42 |
1977Robert wrote: Hi all. My opinion: Roger and Brian "use" the name Queen for their tours at this moment. That is clear. The fact that they can get along well with Paul, is nice for them, but their sound is far away from Queen, with all respect for the whole band. If they gave themselves a new name (and in my opinion they should do that), then they will play for half-full stadiums. Roger, Brian and John were standing in the shadow of Freddie, HE was the one that made Queen so big, and nobody else. Not a single song sung by Roger or Brian hit the charts (except after Fred died). Have you seen Roger singing in front on the stage? He doenst know where to put his hands during singing, he has NO showman's attitude. Keep him playing his drums (and let him sing the love with my car-song), that is what he always did, and what he does best. He is a fine drummer, but to be honest; he was just a lucky guy...With all due respect that is so overblown I cant help feeling you are just trying to pick a fight or something. Pardon me if Im wrong though. Each to his own I guess... |
| Togg 02.07.2008 04:14 |
Holly2003 wrote:kingogre wrote:Well if you go to the drum web sites or read magazines like modern drummer or sound on sound you will find that they do actually get quoted an amazing amount for being the insparation to many of today's performers.While not the absolute best he could still be MENTIONED together with Bonham, Mitchell and Baker for example.Funnily enough though, the only place I've seen that happen is on Queenzone. I think he is a respected drummer but there's tendency to say that all Queen band members are at the top of their game and highly influential etc. I haven't seen too many rock stars list Taylor* or Deacon as influences (*Foo Fighters excepted) |
| john bodega 02.07.2008 08:20 |
1977Robert wrote: Roger, Brian and John were standing in the shadow of Freddie, HE was the one that made Queen so big, and nobody else.Yeah, that's why Mr. Bad Guy was so fucking awesome. He finally got rid of those other freeloaders and the music got even better. He was of course, only joking when he asked the session guitarist on that album to play like Brian. That was just to stop him from being too good. |
| Holly2003 02.07.2008 08:32 |
Togg wrote:Holly2003 wrote:Really? Drumming magazines aren't on my reading list right now (ahem) but i used to read a lot of rock mags when I was younger and I don't recall Roger being mentioned once. Maybe you could point me to an example? I'm prepared to be wrong for the frist time (double ahem).kingogre wrote:Well if you go to the drum web sites or read magazines like modern drummer or sound on sound you will find that they do actually get quoted an amazing amount for being the insparation to many of today's performers. Roger is in fact very often sited as a huge influence. John less so to be fair but they spring up in all sorts of places as people that made other take up playing in a band.While not the absolute best he could still be MENTIONED together with Bonham, Mitchell and Baker for example.Funnily enough though, the only place I've seen that happen is on Queenzone. I think he is a respected drummer but there's tendency to say that all Queen band members are at the top of their game and highly influential etc. I haven't seen too many rock stars list Taylor* or Deacon as influences (*Foo Fighters excepted) |
| Brian_Mays_Wig 02.07.2008 17:52 |
1977Robert...who is Freddie? BTTL, EF, FIS, AW, Happiness and SF are all far better albums than Mr Bad Guy! I remember reading an article a long time back where Steve Harris from Maiden cited John as one of his main influences! Strange but true! |
| Dusta 04.07.2008 12:36 |
Interesting that each page of this thread has only a single post. Is it me? Is my pc wacking out? |
| queentel 07.07.2008 01:23 |
I got that the other day, thankfully its all gone back to normal, thought i was going mad, slightly mad that is. Shall i add to this thread? and cause more trouble, all i can say that opinions are like assholes, everybodys got one. So i wont, unless you ask me personally, theres enough opinions on here, i would be just adding fuel to the fire. Terry |