Mr. Jordy 17.09.2008 01:28 |
I am sitting here typing this, listening to Q+PR play the Ukraine and thinking of all that Queen has been, all that Queen was, and what Queen is today. I must say, I enjoy Paul singing Radio Ga Ga. He puts his soul into the song and that makes his performance special. But not as special as Freddie Mercury singing the pure shit out of that song at Wembley. Every single time I play Radio Ga Ga from Live At Wembley, I get goosebumps. No one will ever sing that song with such force, conviction and majestic power as Freddie. As I listen to The Cosmos Rocks, it makes me miss the force that was and is Freddie Mercury. I agree with those of you who have reported The Cosmos Rocks as more Paul Rodgers than Queen. I am even starting to lean towards the idealogy of Treasure Moment, who has stated time after time that Freddie Mercury was Queen. HOWEVER, I'd like to clarify my feelings... It is obvious that Paul's musical/lyrical style has very, very much influenced what is left of Queen and their new album. As Paul is the current lead singer of this band, such an occurence is only natural. When Freddie was alive, his role as lead singer heavily influenced Queen to sound very Freddie Mercury-ish, which is a signature sound completely but naturally lost on The Comos Rocks. Because of this, I have began to realize that it is Freddie Mercury, his beautiful musical arrangements and his outstanding vocals that I really enjoyed about Queen. To say that "Freddie Mercury was Queen" is not all togther true - but perhaps it was the queen in Queen that gave them the sound that we all are so used to. Perhaps it is because we wonder what could have been if Freddie had lived past 1991 that we are unable to immediately accept Queen projects without him. |
Markman38 17.09.2008 03:11 |
Well here the same. Although I hate the stupendious talk of TM there is a point that Freddie was obviously the big drive in Queen to made a difference between a good rock band and Queen. The last album with a living Freddie (Innuendo) is off course one of the best Albums Queen ever made. I read the interiew with GB on that Brazilian site and I have to agree with hm that they should named it Taylor, May and Rodgers or something like that. This album is not bad, no way, but the use of the name Queen did give me other expectations, higher hopes. As I stated before It's great that May and Taylor moved on ang tried new things with Paul, but it's not the Queen sound from ANATO, ADATR,Innuendo. |
mike hunt 17.09.2008 04:05 |
Get ready for all the steford brian and roger fans. If you don't like the new album these fans will say that you belong to the freddie mercury cult, and your a fan of freddie and not queen. Why can't people admit that freddie was a huge part of the Queen sound, and was the most unique writer of the four. I love all four members of queen, but it doesn't take a genious to know why they were different than any other rock band. If it wasn't for freddie, Queen would have been called 'rich kids' that's how original brian and roger were in 1970, and now we get the 'cosmo rocks' wow, what originality! |
Holly2003 17.09.2008 04:38 |
mike hunt wrote: Get ready for all the steford brian and roger fans. If you don't like the new album these fans will say that you belong to the freddie mercury cult, and your a fan of freddie and not queen. Why can't people admit that freddie was a huge part of the Queen sound, and was the most unique writer of the four. I love all four members of queen, but it doesn't take a genious to know why they were different than any other rock band. If it wasn't for freddie, Queen would have been called 'rich kids' that's how original brian and roger were in 1970, and now we get the 'cosmo rocks' wow, what originality!I'm not going to deny Fred's undoubted talent, but let's face it: without Brian May and Roger taylor in particular, a Fred solo career - esp. from the late 1970s onwards - might've consisted of throwaway pop songs. Personally I think It's Late is Queen's best song - a Brian song of course. It's a shame he doesnt seem to have that kind of songwriting in him any more. |
gnomo 17.09.2008 04:49 |
... well, before the stepfords join in, I'd like to contribute my own point of view, FWLIW ... I think that Mr. Jordy perfectly put into words Freddie's uniqueness and defining influence on all facets of Queen, his "lateral" creativity, his ability to give it his best and bring out the best from the others. And I agree that of course it is his driving force the element that is clearly, obviously missing from TCR, the difference between a good blues-rock album and a great Queen album. And it saddens me deeply, that he's no longer with us, that he'll be no longer gracing us with his unique talents. Yet, I like TCR. Not as "second best" of something that can not possibly exist any more; not as a pale glimpse of what might have been, had he been still alive. Those thoughts do not enter my mind while I listen to it. I listen to it, and I like it, for what it IS. Not despite what it can not be. And I do not even have an issue with the name: as long as it's not "Queen" full stop, it's perfectly fine and fitting for me. Which makes me feel rather awkward, in the middle of all this heated dispute. I keep wondering whether I am the strange one, or the normal one. IMVHO & FWLIW & NOM as usual. |
kingogre 17.09.2008 05:14 |
gnomo wrote: ... well, before the stepfords join in, I'd like to contribute my own point of view, FWLIW ... I think that Mr. Jordy perfectly put into words Freddie's uniqueness and defining influence on all facets of Queen, his "lateral" creativity, his ability to give it his best and bring out the best from the others. And I agree that of course it is his driving force the element that is clearly, obviously missing from TCR, the difference between a good blues-rock album and a great Queen album. And it saddens me deeply, that he's no longer with us, that he'll be no longer gracing us with his unique talents. Yet, I like TCR. Not as "second best" of something that can not possibly exist any more; not as a pale glimpse of what might have been, had he been still alive. Those thoughts do not enter my mind while I listen to it. I listen to it, and I like it, for what it IS. Not despite what it can not be. And I do not even have an issue with the name: as long as it's not "Queen" full stop, it's perfectly fine and fitting for me. Which makes me feel rather awkward, in the middle of all this heated dispute. I keep wondering whether I am the strange one, or the normal one. IMVHO & FWLIW & NOM as usual.Very well said. |
Major Tom 17.09.2008 06:29 |
gnomo wrote: ... well, before the stepfords join in, I'd like to contribute my own point of view, FWLIW ... I think that Mr. Jordy perfectly put into words Freddie's uniqueness and defining influence on all facets of Queen, his "lateral" creativity, his ability to give it his best and bring out the best from the others. And I agree that of course it is his driving force the element that is clearly, obviously missing from TCR, the difference between a good blues-rock album and a great Queen album. And it saddens me deeply, that he's no longer with us, that he'll be no longer gracing us with his unique talents. Yet, I like TCR. Not as "second best" of something that can not possibly exist any more; not as a pale glimpse of what might have been, had he been still alive. Those thoughts do not enter my mind while I listen to it. I listen to it, and I like it, for what it IS. Not despite what it can not be. And I do not even have an issue with the name: as long as it's not "Queen" full stop, it's perfectly fine and fitting for me. Which makes me feel rather awkward, in the middle of all this heated dispute. I keep wondering whether I am the strange one, or the normal one. IMVHO & FWLIW & NOM as usual.Gnomo, the best statement EVER on QZ, bravo! You are indeed the normal one. |
Cwazy little thing 17.09.2008 10:15 |
Yep, Im with you Gnomo. I see it as a new band featuring members of an awesome band I love. And I like it. Its not the greatest album ever made, but its good, clean rock n roll fun. |
Micrówave 17.09.2008 10:37 |
Markman38 wrote: but it's not the Queen sound from ANATO, ADATR,Innuendo.It's funny that you would hold Innuendo in such high esteem as the other two you mentioned. Maybe you just mean the song, then I could take you seriously. But if you're classifying Innuendo the album in the same league as ANATO and ADATR, then YOU are the stepford. Innuendo, in fact, is a shoddy attempt at best. They had a couple of good songs along with the pity card going. Throw in a Hoop diddy, a couple of meows, and a lot of 'head voice'. Then process all of it. I keep hearing the comment about the sloppy guitar playing of Brian. Listen to Innuendo again. It's everywhere. Fact is, bands evolve. Sometimes their fans do not. And that's fine, but to criticize simply because it's not what YOU expect of a band is very close minded. To criticize other people for liking it is utterly insane. |
Ray D O'Gaga 17.09.2008 10:57 |
Mr. Jordy wrote: I am sitting here typing this, listening to Q+PR play the Ukraine and thinking of all that Queen has been, all that Queen was, and what Queen is today. I must say, I enjoy Paul singing Radio Ga Ga. He puts his soul into the song and that makes his performance special. But not as special as Freddie Mercury singing the pure shit out of that song at Wembley. Every single time I play Radio Ga Ga from Live At Wembley, I get goosebumps. No one will ever sing that song with such force, conviction and majestic power as Freddie. As I listen to The Cosmos Rocks, it makes me miss the force that was and is Freddie Mercury. I agree with those of you who have reported The Cosmos Rocks as more Paul Rodgers than Queen. I am even starting to lean towards the idealogy of Treasure Moment, who has stated time after time that Freddie Mercury was Queen. HOWEVER, I'd like to clarify my feelings... It is obvious that Paul's musical/lyrical style has very, very much influenced what is left of Queen and their new album. As Paul is the current lead singer of this band, such an occurence is only natural. When Freddie was alive, his role as lead singer heavily influenced Queen to sound very Freddie Mercury-ish, which is a signature sound completely but naturally lost on The Comos Rocks. Because of this, I have began to realize that it is Freddie Mercury, his beautiful musical arrangements and his outstanding vocals that I really enjoyed about Queen. To say that "Freddie Mercury was Queen" is not all togther true - but perhaps is was the queen in Queen that gave them the sound that we all are so used to. Perhaps it is because we wonder what could have been if Freddie had lived past 1991 that we are unable to immediately accept Queen projects without him.There's a world of difference between a reasonable person expressing an opinion in a reasonable way, and a hysterical, screaming bed-wetter like Treasure Moments and his ilk. That kind of reflexive, ill-considered meandering illicits a equally vitriolic and thoughtless response from people like me because, at least in my case, its fun to wind up and take the piss out of people like that. Its a guilty pleasure. And I take great delight in coining the expression "The Cult of Fred" because I genuinely think there are a lot of people posting here, there, and elsewhere for whom its a very apt and descriptive phrase. Having said that, there is also a world of difference between fanatics and fundamentalists who have nothing more to bring to the conversation that "Freddie WAS Queen!!!!" and people who have the self-awareness and consideration to express their own feelings in saying "Freddie was Queen *to me*" or "Freddie was my favorite part of Queen and I can't get into or behind this new album". That's a reasonable remark by a reasonable person, as is the acknowledgment of the sad truth that Freddie Mercury is dead. He's been dead for almost 17 years. Everybody would be happier if he were alive and had been making music for the last 17 years. But he's dead, life has necessarily moved on, and everybody's making the best of it. Obviously "the best of it" isn't going to please everyone, but that's the nature of art. To acknowledge that something isn't your cup of tea is only reasonable; to damn people for not being something they obviously cannot be is unreasonable; to go completely off the rails and accuse people of betrayal and treachery and pissing on legacies and on and on and on, because you didn't like a record, is lunacy. Let's be adults, have an adult discussion, and agree to disagree. And for those who can't be adults, let's have fun with 'em. |
Wiley 17.09.2008 11:18 |
I'm gladly surprised to see almost a full page of discussion on this subject with tolerance and people expressing their views in an orderly manner. Hope it lasts. I like The Cosmos Rocks. I like most of what Queen or Brian+Roger do and I get excited with almost whatever new stuff they are making at the time because it's new but I don't think I idealize their output that much. For instance, my attitude towards things like the Pepsi ad were "Ok, the band is appealing to a different market. That is good because, bla bla" but I NEVER THOUGHT THAT THE MUSIC WAS ANY GOOD or that is was a quality work. I liked Queen + Paul Rodgers from the moment I saw them perform together for the first time. It WAS different. There was something in the air. I could see there was chemistry between them. On the other hand, I didn't like the Champions of the World live album. It was not a good performance and it just didn't sound Ok to my ears. It still sounded like something "for the fans" and not something I could feel "proud" and say to my friends "Look, this is Queen's new __something___" (I don't do that a lot, btw). To the 2006 gig I went with my cousin and two friends. It was a thousand times better than the shows I saw in Europe and A MILLION times better than ROTC. Now I listen to the new album and I see it has various music styles, it has great production, it doesn't sound like anything Queen or Paul Rodgers did before and it sounds fresh to me. I didn't think they could pull that off but they proved me wrong. It is not a great-memorable album, it is not perfect, but it is very good. It has enough Queen trademarks here and there for me to like, even if the songwriting is not what it used to be. I like it better than every Queen solo project and AKOM, Flash Gordon or The Miracle (maybe?). Come on, face it. With a title like "The Cosmos Rocks" and the first provisional artwork - tour posters with amateur design, etc. - many fans (me included) were expecting them to deliver a stinker. |
im_on_the_wembley_dvd 17.09.2008 11:45 |
Amen ! IMO and i've been a Queen fan for over 30 years there is so much to say that is better left unsaid.. nothing can be the same again so this is better than nothing, for sure TCR is not Queen but it's got some damn fine songs on it....... maybe if they decide this is a long term project they can go away and spend the time writing better songs - i agree It's Late is one of Brians best written and played songs but he is 30 years older and the world is a different place. As a band a new entity albeit without a new name they rock and TCR is GOOD no not brilliant but live they are something else how many other old bands bring out new material that gets compared to the old better times.. allways Life goes on and THE COSMOS WILL ROCK |
anna_libra 17.09.2008 13:08 |
gnomo for president! let's stop all the fighting once and for good!!! |
SomebodyWhoLoves 17.09.2008 14:49 |
Holly2003 wrote: Personally I think It's Late is Queen's best song - a Brian song of course. It's a shame he doesnt seem to have that kind of songwriting in him any more.You don't get it. Imagine Paul Rogers singing "Its late". Would it still be as good as Freddie's "Its Late". Brian, Roger, and John wrote good songs. But Freddie made them GREAT. Freddie himself was the BEST song writer of the band. That's why he was able to make song's like "Barcelona" and "The Fallen Priest" on his own. Those are Queen signature songs. Freddie is probably 80% to 90% of Queen's success. Brian, Roger, and John without Freddie would never amount to Queen's level of Success. They'd maybe be moderately successful as Smile. Just watch. Queen + PR will BOMB sales wise, and they will never again be heard of. They have just one top 40 single. That's it. That's how Brian and Roger and John would've gone without Freddie. Freddie was 90% of Queen. |
Ray D O'Gaga 17.09.2008 15:34 |
SomebodyWhoLoves wrote:This kind of idiot is exactly what I'm talking about. This guy wants the whole enterprise to fail to prove that a man 17 years dead was 90% of the band. How big of you. If you love Freddie so much, go dig him up. I have a feeling he isn't going to sound too good, you fucking necrophyliac. And thus ends the reasoned discourse.Holly2003 wrote: Personally I think It's Late is Queen's best song - a Brian song of course. It's a shame he doesnt seem to have that kind of songwriting in him any more.You don't get it. Imagine Paul Rogers singing "Its late". Would it still be as good as Freddie's "Its Late". Brian, Roger, and John wrote good songs. But Freddie made them GREAT. Freddie himself was the BEST song writer of the band. That's why he was able to make song's like "Barcelona" and "The Fallen Priest" on his own. Those are Queen signature songs. Freddie is probably 80% to 90% of Queen's success. Brian, Roger, and John without Freddie would never amount to Queen's level of Success. They'd maybe be moderately successful as Smile. Just watch. Queen + PR will BOMB sales wise, and they will never again be heard of. They have just one top 40 single. That's it. That's how Brian and Roger and John would've gone without Freddie. Freddie was 90% of Queen. |
April 17.09.2008 15:45 |
"Nothing can be the same again" - great words! Everything changes, you can't enter the same river. If they tried to compose an album with the same Queen sound, they would never succeed, cause, first, there are only two of them, second, music changes and develops and good musicians should be abreast of the times, not lagging behind, third, it would appear to be immitation. I think it is very clever of them to change. Though risky too: some fans may turn away, others will be hesitant or at a loss. It's a new project, wow! |
Wiley 17.09.2008 17:45 |
Ok, I don't think anybody here is denying Freddie's input with the band contributed greatly to what they eventually were and still are. But what's the point in living in the past? No, sorry, you can do whatever you want but why would you want a Queen-related project to Bomb just to prove your point? And, by the way, if there is one Queen song that suits Paul to a T and I think he would do great singing is precisely IT'S LATE. I don't think Paul could get away with singing songs like Killer Queen, Somebody to Love or Bicycle Race. They don't suit him. But, come on! He is GREAT with songs like Fat Bottomed Girls or Tie Your Mother Down. Also, they now have a new album with new songs. Paul can relax and feel more at ease with the band. I saw the Ukraine video and he seems more comfortable fronting the band. They have certainly come a long way since Brixton! :) |
SomebodyWhoLoves 17.09.2008 17:51 |
Wiley wrote: Ok, I don't think anybody here is denying Freddie's input with the band contributed greatly to what they eventually were and still are. But what's the point in living in the past? No, sorry, you can do whatever you want but why would you want a Queen-related project to Bomb just to prove your point? And, by the way, if there is one Queen song that suits Paul to a T and I think he would do great singing is precisely IT'S LATE. I don't think Paul could get away with singing songs like Killer Queen, Somebody to Love or Bicycle Race. They don't suit him. But, come on! He is GREAT with songs like Fat Bottomed Girls or Tie Your Mother Down. Also, they now have a new album with new songs. Paul can relax and feel more at ease with the band. I saw the Ukraine video and he seems more comfortable fronting the band. They have certainly come a long way since Brixton! :)The point is, if Freddie never sang "It's Late", and Paul Rodgers did, it would be a Good song, but not great. Freddie made a good song into a great song. Therefore, people view Queen as one of the greatest, if not the best band. Freddie made Queen Great. 90% of Queen's greatness is Freddie Mercury. Brian and Roger Taylor, and John Deacon are merely Smile+. "Barcelona", "Fallen Priest" are examples of the "Queen sound". These songs are very complex, like many of early Queen records. This came from Freddie Mercury, not Brian May or Roger Taylor. |
emrabt 17.09.2008 18:06 |
SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: "Barcelona", "Fallen Priest" are examples of the "Queen sound". These songs are very complex, like many of early Queen records. This came from Freddie Mercury, not Brian May or Roger Taylor.Wasn't the Fallen Priest mainly by tim rice, it has alot of his style in it like The Golden Boy. Rice and mercury were very good together, there styles really connected, they should have done more. Barcelona on the other hand is all freddie, and all good :) |
Treasure Moment 17.09.2008 18:15 |
SomebodyWhoLoves wrote:totally agree with you! brian, roger and john made good songs BUT freddie made them great. Its a kind of magic, radio gaga, one vision etc are just some examples of how freddie rearranged the songs and made the much much better than they would have been without his input.Wiley wrote: Ok, I don't think anybody here is denying Freddie's input with the band contributed greatly to what they eventually were and still are. But what's the point in living in the past? No, sorry, you can do whatever you want but why would you want a Queen-related project to Bomb just to prove your point? And, by the way, if there is one Queen song that suits Paul to a T and I think he would do great singing is precisely IT'S LATE. I don't think Paul could get away with singing songs like Killer Queen, Somebody to Love or Bicycle Race. They don't suit him. But, come on! He is GREAT with songs like Fat Bottomed Girls or Tie Your Mother Down. Also, they now have a new album with new songs. Paul can relax and feel more at ease with the band. I saw the Ukraine video and he seems more comfortable fronting the band. They have certainly come a long way since Brixton! :)The point is, if Freddie never sang "It's Late", and Paul Rodgers did, it would be a Good song, but not great. Freddie made a good song into a great song. Therefore, people view Queen as one of the greatest, if not the best band. Freddie made Queen Great. 90% of Queen's greatness is Freddie Mercury. Brian and Roger Taylor, and John Deacon are merely Smile+. "Barcelona", "Fallen Priest" are examples of the "Queen sound". These songs are very complex, like many of early Queen records. This came from Freddie Mercury, not Brian May or Roger Taylor. not to take anything away from john, roger and brian but we have to face the facts that Freddie was the soul of the band and THE reason why they were as good as they were. |
Wiley 17.09.2008 18:30 |
SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: "Barcelona", "Fallen Priest" are examples of the "Queen sound". These songs are very complex, like many of early Queen records. This came from Freddie Mercury, not Brian May or Roger Taylor.I'm sorry. I don't think The Fallen Priest has anything to do with the Queen sound. You could argue Barcelona sounds a bit like Queen because it has lots of Freedie backing vocals but not overall. I think even Driven by You or Back to the Light sound more like Queen than anything on Barcelona. You can yell sacrilege all you want but Paul could potentially give Freddie a run for his money singing It's Late. Not that anybody would give him any credit for it, though. I once played "It's Late" to a musician friend who likes Queen and admires them, thinks Freddie was 99% Queen, etc. I told him that it was the Ultimate Queen song. He said "It is a damn good track, but it doesn't really have typical Queen written on it". |
AmeriQueen 17.09.2008 19:38 |
Yes all you say is true, but there is another way of looking at Queen for myself at least. Brian May and Roger Taylor were Queen. What I mean is that their solo efforts were as much a part of Queen to me as any solo efforts could be, Freddie's too, and this is because they always blew me away. I fell in love with Fun In Space immediately and never thought of if as 'Non-Queen' because I saw almost no difference between the tracks on Fun in Space vs. tracks like No More of the Jazz and Fight From The Inside, two of his songs around the same time that were on Queen albums. Roger played bass, guitar, drums and lead vocals leaving little or even nothing done by the other members of the band. What makes those tracks different other than being agreed upon by the band to include them on News Of The World and Jazz? Nothing! So essentially solo efforts are made up of the same one-man leading effort, but just without the input of other band members, at least nothing beyond what we don't know about because I am sure that at least a few songs amongst the 3 solo members caatalogues contain band developed works abandoned by the band and given back to the original composer for whatever. Man Made Paradise is a Freddie song on Mr. Bad Guy that I know has a Queen version out there somewhere because I heard a 10 second clip of it a few years back. So when I hear Cosmos Rocks it's not about matching against Innuendo, it's about Electric Fire and Another World and what union of the two alongside Paul Rodgers will do next for two Queen members and their long quiet period without an album. For me that scenario passes Brian with flying colors, lets me accept PR because he's a lot better than nothing at all or what else may have been in his place, but I see less Roger than I'd like and of course the Mercury/Deacon absence is obvious. The simple fact is that they will use the Queen brand so long as the use of it encourages concert sales as dominating as they've been, and the truth is that live-wise they leave little to complain about by giving us a show as big a production as they always did with Freddie. |
Mr. Jordy 18.09.2008 00:00 |
To everyone who has replied to my post, thanks for keeping this conversation on an adult level. What I wrote was praising Queen, as they were and Queen, as they are today. Let me say that I do like The Cosmos Rocks. I think that it is a fine album brought forth by three fantastic and wonderfully talented musicians. None the less, the album does make me a bit nostalgic and certainly makes me realize just what a heavy, heavy influence Freddie Mercury was for Queen. That was the point I was trying to articulate. Unrelated to this particular topic, let me also add that Queen + Paul Rodgers as a live act is something not to miss. I have read time after time fellow Queenzoners post something to the effect of "oh, I'm not going to see QPR because it's not Queen." Well, it's what is left of Queen, whether you like it or not. Paul Rodgers does a fine job of fronting the band, even if he slips up and forgets a word here and there. Of course, he's no Freddie Mercury. Who could be? There will never be another - but don't let that fact deter you from seeing a fabulous concert. I absolutely can't fucking wait to see QPR, when they come to the States in 09. I saw the boys play live in Georgia, USA a couple of years ago and I must say, it was one of my most surreal and wonderful experiences. Ever since I was 10 years old, I'd dreamed of seeing Queen live. It wasn't exactly the Queen in which I was accustomed, but it was Queen enough! The concerts carry such an energy about them. The energy is unbelievable, both from the audience and from the band. |
the dude 18.09.2008 00:51 |
Ok It's been almost 4 years since this collaboration has been on and people still have to state the obvious of how it is different without Freddie. On behalf of everyone here who already knows it's different, but want to enjoy QPR while it lasts, please SHUT the F%^k up. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Don't go to the show. Let the rest of us get better seats. There is only a commitment til the end of this tour. It may end. Let me guess. You people that feel the need to remind us of your opinions still buy the new cd, still go to the shows, still love it all, but still complain that it's not the same. Once again, it's time to shut up! Then we have the morons who understate Brian's and Roger's importance to Queen while complaining that John Deacon's absence in QPR is a tragedy. John obviously enjoyed it less and wants to be left alone. Brian and Roger don't have to do this. They want to. It probably burned inside them for a long time. When they finally get the chemistry they need to give us a few years of something near and dear to us and something new, you poop on it. They can never win with some of you. If it was a typical Queen album, then it would be bad for not being different. But now it gets slammed for being something slightly different. It's slammed by some saying it's too Paul Rodgers. Listen to Paul and you will see that he has bended and shaped himself to compromise as well. Paul doesn't need to do this either. I doubt the singer and main writer from Bad Company is financially hurting and says "Ok I guess I'll sing with Queen for the money and sing 3 or 4 of my own. He must want to do it too. He knows he's being compared. Good for him to be professional enough to be himself and do what he does best. His behavior has mad eme admire him even more than before. I am now a huge fan. Give your heads a shake for once. What do you think Freddie would say about this? I have a short list. Perhaps #1. Brian and Roger. What took you so f$%king long? 2. Stop with the F*&king tributes. I've been gone for almost 17 years. 3. You can't please everyone so just forget it. I come here for news. I come here to get excited about music that has given me goosebumps since I was a kid. If you aren't happy with QPR, shut up! If you are only partially happy about QPR, SHUT UP. We've heard enough. If you love what's been going on, speak up. From a normally quiet fan |
April 18.09.2008 14:53 |
Yes, it's a pity John doesn't play with them. But, you are right, he would be playing if he wanted to. The fact is he doesn't feel like doing it. Maybe, he really doesn't want it. Maybe he feels old. We know that Paul Rodgers invited him to join them (am I right?), fans from some national forums wrote letters to him asking him to collaborate, to tour with the guys, but John declined all the invitations. That's his choice. I respect it. But why should the other two follow suit if they feel the fire burning inside and the creative impulse as a driving force? For me it's still Queen and I love that they call themselves Queen, well, certainly +P.R. Long Live Queen!!! |
Markman38 18.09.2008 18:52 |
Hi Microwave, it's good to see people of almost the same age. I agree with you that Innuendo had also some songs that aren't that good but next to the title song I really love I'm going slightly mad, The Show must go on, These are the days of our lives and a big fav is All God's People, but I think that it has mainly to do with the fact that I was a bit dissapointed with the work they produced with The Works, AKOM and a bunch of tracks on The Miracle. I know that bands evolve I'm playing for over 17 years the same band and right now I;m mastering the first demo's we made and we where so proud of back in the old days but comparing to what we are doing today it's so different. But I think TCR is not a question of evolving but a completely different way. They made a break with the past which I can understand because Paul is a completly different singer and composer. I don't know if you also meant the part of critizing other people to me but that is something I don't. I just said that to me it's not the Queen I was used to, I loved and I saw in 1986, although that setlist was also almost a greatest hits show. I respect everybody that loves the new album and one thing is true the track Waboys is defintly growing to me, I really love the energy, the sound the drum works is great. But I just miss gems like Slightly mad, or even completly foolish songs like Delilah. Queen was I think the only band that could record a song about the favorite cat of the singer en get away with that. I'm really glad that Brian and Roger working together these days but even comparing the new album to No one but you, a song I really thought was shit when it was released, and I played it today especially to compare and I have to say that song had more Queen trademarks then teh new album. It almost looks like Brian and Roger wanted to give Paul space to made him feel comfertable and just didn't want to push him more into more Queen trademarks. Maybe the second album will be more Queenlike. It's just like Queen 1 who had lot's of influence of Hendrix and Led Zeppelin and on Queen 2 it became more and more their style. |
Marcos Napier 19.09.2008 10:30 |
It's sad to see that a somehow coherent and intelligent discussion (main subject: "we can disagree after all") is always disrupted by fanatical and senseless remarks as like this "Freddie was Queen" (and vice-versa). What about the Red Special then? It's such a part of the Queen sound too that Freddie tried to emulate its sound in his solo album at times. Freddie was 90% of Queen? OK. According to this math then, TCR is 93% Paul and this might be why Queen fans didn't like it. If Freddie was 90%, the other 3 were 10%, about 3% for each alone then. John is out, so we are left with 6% of Queen in TCR. The rest is Paul. As there is a plus sign in the album title, the math applies here I suppose. As I've said elsewhere - kudos for them to not make Paul be a Freddie clone. But that's all I can compliment them for, I'm sorry. TCR might be a new album of a new band, but its sound is definitely far from being "new" and/or innovative. And that is living in the past somehow as well. |
Treasure Moment 19.09.2008 14:53 |
Marcos Napier wrote: It's sad to see that a somehow coherent and intelligent discussion (main subject: "we can disagree after all") is always disrupted by fanatical and senseless remarks as like this "Freddie was Queen" (and vice-versa). What about the Red Special then? It's such a part of the Queen sound too that Freddie tried to emulate its sound in his solo album at times. Freddie was 90% of Queen? OK. According to this math then, TCR is 93% Paul and this might be why Queen fans didn't like it. If Freddie was 90%, the other 3 were 10%, about 3% for each alone then. John is out, so we are left with 6% of Queen in TCR. The rest is Paul. As there is a plus sign in the album title, the math applies here I suppose. As I've said elsewhere - kudos for them to not make Paul be a Freddie clone. But that's all I can compliment them for, I'm sorry. TCR might be a new album of a new band, but its sound is definitely far from being "new" and/or innovative. And that is living in the past somehow as well.As i said before, it should have been called paul rodgers feat brian may and roger taylor. |
Wiley 19.09.2008 17:55 |
Treasure Moment wrote: As i said before, it should have been called paul rodgers feat brian may and roger taylor.But it WASN'T. Live with it. I wish ANATO and ADATR had been originally released as a double album in 1976. But they weren't I wish QPR made videos for C-lebrity and other tracks in the new album. But they haven't - so far. Repeating it won't make it happen, you know? |
Treasure Moment 19.09.2008 18:04 |
Wiley wrote:true, well things will turn out the way they are supposed to anyways, they will understand that this was not the way to go and learn from their mistake.Treasure Moment wrote: As i said before, it should have been called paul rodgers feat brian may and roger taylor.But it WASN'T. Live with it. I wish ANATO and ADATR had been originally released as a double album in 1976. But they weren't I wish QPR made videos for C-lebrity and other tracks in the new album. But they haven't - so far. Repeating it won't make it happen, you know? What i would have loved to see would be if they had just toured with footage of freddie singing both old songs and songs from innuendo. that way they would get full respect and also i believe they would have sold out many big places. Paul rodgers and Queen sound are like mixing oil with water, it just doesnt blend. |
shieldmatron 19.09.2008 19:24 |
I like Paul Rodgers. I like Paul Rodgers singing Free & Bad Company songs. That's what I listen to when I want to hear Paul. When I want to hear Brian & Roger, they are usually joined by Freddie and John. However, Brian & Roger chose to continue on. John chose to retire. The key word is choice. It was their choice. It's my choice not to listen to TCR and I'm okay with it. It's Bri & Rog's choice to use the name Queen and John's okay with that. I think as a community of fans, we should respect that right of choice and not blast anyone who feels differently. |
Marcos Napier 19.09.2008 22:27 |
One thing that I didn't see so far (haven't seen it at all actually) is anyone thinking about the possibility that if Freddie was alive, that in these 17 years if they would/could have made good albums (or any album at all), what style would be they playing (grunge in the 90's? Techno in 2000's?), and even if they would even be still together as a band. How many albums could have existed? 5 (considering about 1 year for recording/composing one for touring and one for resting)? How many would be "Hot Spaces" or "Miracles"? They had (still have) talent, but would it be still in use if Freddie was alive and if the band was Queen as we know it and as some (still) want it to be? It could have been a very different band the same way as it is now, including with a break up sometime in the middle of these 17 years and a singer replacement a la Van Halen - perhaps with Paul as a replacement, who knows. The "old" Queen could have died anyway, just by other means. Blaming Freddie for that isn't that fair. |
Donna13 19.09.2008 23:39 |
Excellent comments from gnomo. I especially liked, "I listen to it, and I like it, for what it IS. Not despite what it can not be." I think it is a delayed grieving process; these new songs are maybe making some people feel the loss of Freddie all over again. I can't believe the number of threads started this week about the album, and instead of just posting in an existing thread, people feel the need to start a new thread. This also makes it seem like people are taking it very personally and are probably in some state of shock or emotional upset (like poor LadySonnet). Ha. I guess I am also part of this group - still getting used to the idea. But this new album grew on me all week, and I love it now! |
Marcos Napier 20.09.2008 10:48 |
I think that the fact that several threads about the subject are being made is because a lot of people (besides the usual trolls of course) are wanting to express themselves and have their messages at least heard for a while (or not) instead of just having their opinions lost inside a giant flame war thread. Notice that some threads evolve to a more serious discussion with very valid points (to which we can agree or not), while others are pure nonsense. |
Donna13 20.09.2008 16:06 |
I don't have anything against people starting threads. I never start them but I guess I should get over that fear. It's just that I always am so much more interested in what other people have to say (that's what I tell myself) and my own mind is blank blank blank when it comes to starting new threads. I was going to start one on the weather, but that got taken. However, it has been more than several new threads started on The Cosmos Rocks album reviews. It has been really too much to keep up with but I guess if it were one giant-ly long thread on The Cosmos Rocks, that would take away some of the creativity of these thread starters who are coming up with their own thread just to highlight their own opinion. |
Marcos Napier 20.09.2008 19:55 |
Donna13 wrote: who are coming up with their own thread just to highlight their own opinion.Opinions which, as I've said, would be lost in the middle of QZ X TM flamewars. |
theCro 20.09.2008 22:04 |
my opinion is like this: Freddie is dead for 17 years.. Briand, Roger, Freddie and John were making Queen albums from 70's till 90's.. WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD THEY NEED TO CHANGE THEIR NAME? after 30 years of working on something you abandon it? no. this is WRONT. why would you do this. I'm pretty much SURE that Freddie would approve them going with Queen flag. He would probably love to see/hear Paul singing his song. come one guys, be smart and stop acting like morons. be like in 'We Believe' song from QPR.. Queen = Brian May, Roger Taylor, Freddie Mercury & John Deacon. John opted out, Freddie is dead, so its QUEEN + PAUL RODGERS. they have all rights to use QUEEN NAME, and yes, it's very moral if you ask, why shouldnt it be? grow up.. Queen and Paul Rodgers are rocking the world! |
Bo Rhap 20.09.2008 23:52 |
gnomo wrote: ... well, before the stepfords join in, I'd like to contribute my own point of view, FWLIW ... I think that Mr. Jordy perfectly put into words Freddie's uniqueness and defining influence on all facets of Queen, his "lateral" creativity, his ability to give it his best and bring out the best from the others. And I agree that of course it is his driving force the element that is clearly, obviously missing from TCR, the difference between a good blues-rock album and a great Queen album. And it saddens me deeply, that he's no longer with us, that he'll be no longer gracing us with his unique talents. Yet, I like TCR. Not as "second best" of something that can not possibly exist any more; not as a pale glimpse of what might have been, had he been still alive. Those thoughts do not enter my mind while I listen to it. I listen to it, and I like it, for what it IS. Not despite what it can not be. And I do not even have an issue with the name: as long as it's not "Queen" full stop, it's perfectly fine and fitting for me. Which makes me feel rather awkward, in the middle of all this heated dispute. I keep wondering whether I am the strange one, or the normal one. IMVHO & FWLIW & NOM as usual.I agree with you Gnomo.Its important to remember that this is a new version of Queen.The old Queen died when Freddie died. Whilst i will always be a Freddie fan first and foremost,i feel its important for Brian and Roger to move on and come out with new stuff.And Paul is the best man to do it with. |
mike hunt 21.09.2008 01:52 |
SomebodyWhoLoves wrote:Freddie was 90% of queen is bullshit. They all had their part, and remember brian's guitar sound and songwriting was huge. My problem is when the brian and roger cult come on this site and try to dismiss freddie's input. We all have our favorite members, but to try to dismiss the most original writer and personality is plain silly. For the people who keep bringing up Mr. bad guy as proof that freddie wasn't good on his own tend to forget the great 'barcelona' that album has more originality and creativity than most queen albums. The bottom line is freddie mercury was a huge part of that band, and to say otherwise makes you look that much more ignorant.Holly2003 wrote: Personally I think It's Late is Queen's best song - a Brian song of course. It's a shame he doesnt seem to have that kind of songwriting in him any more.You don't get it. Imagine Paul Rogers singing "Its late". Would it still be as good as Freddie's "Its Late". Brian, Roger, and John wrote good songs. But Freddie made them GREAT. Freddie himself was the BEST song writer of the band. That's why he was able to make song's like "Barcelona" and "The Fallen Priest" on his own. Those are Queen signature songs. Freddie is probably 80% to 90% of Queen's success. Brian, Roger, and John without Freddie would never amount to Queen's level of Success. They'd maybe be moderately successful as Smile. Just watch. Queen + PR will BOMB sales wise, and they will never again be heard of. They have just one top 40 single. That's it. That's how Brian and Roger and John would've gone without Freddie. Freddie was 90% of Queen. |
mike hunt 21.09.2008 02:11 |
I'm Judging the new album on it's own. I'm not trying to compare the cosmo rocks against Innuendo or god forbid ANATO or ADATR. I look at this new album as something new, so when I hear the almost embarrassing the 'cosmo's rockin' my first thought is "this is horrible" or 'surf's up...schools out' is one of the worst songs I'v ever heard. I still don't like 'celebrity' and the studio version if 'say it's not true. These songs arn't very good by anyone's standards, let alone Queen. The album isn't all horrible. I think 'small' is very good, and 'some things that glitter' is perfect. I also like 'voodoo' and 'time to shine,' but 4 or 5 songs out of 13 isn't my idea of a good album. 'war boys' has grown on me a little, It reminds me of a weaker version of white man. |