QueenZone discussion #1132253

mr_creosote wrote: There seems to be a constant feeling that so-called fans were let down because the new album is a different style to previous ones, that it is not "classic" Queen. What people seem to forget is there IS NO Queen "sound" - Queen's music has constantly evolved over the years, changing with tastes. Yes, certain elements were constant - but this is one of the things that make musicians legends - The Beatles, Queen, Bowie, The Who, Michael Jackson - all evolved their music over time. Artists who did one style of music and never changed have very rarely "made it" and had lengthy careers. Do you really think that Queen with Freddie would have lasted as long as they did churning out 'Killer Queen'-esque tracks year after year? Yes, some of the songs aren't as good as others from Queen's history, but you can say that about most other albums. Are 'Don't Try So Hard', 'Delilah', 'Party', or 'Tear It Up' anything like 'We Are The Champions' or 'Somebody To Love' in their style or quality - of course not, so why should any of Queen's new music be? The important thing to note is that the majority of these songs are SO different from previous albums - it's obvious that Brian, Roger and Paul aren't trying to recapture the Queen sound, they are simply doing what they feel to be right. And using the name Queen - you try to name another band that has been together for 15+ years and not had a single change in line-up in that time. Some groups like Black Sabbath had line-ups with none of the original members. Brian and Roger were as big a part in the formation and success of Queen as John and Freddie were and they have every right to continue to use the Queen name if they wish. What should be remembered is that Brian and Roger are doing this because they enjoy making music - they are certainly not doing it for the money. There should be a little less of the endless criticism and sniping and a little more appreciation of the sheer guts this must have taken by Brian and Roger to move on. If they were simply cashing in, or walking over Freddie's grave as some people have said, they would have done this years ago. Finally, let's not forget the courage of Paul Rodgers to even try to walk in the shadow of rock's greatest showman. Paul is a very talented, respected and successful singer and musician and he is putting a lot on the line with this collaboration.

mr_creosote wrote: And using the name Queen - you try to name another band that has been together for 15+ years and not had a single change in line-up in that time. Some groups like Black Sabbath had line-ups with none of the original members. Brian and Roger were as big a part in the formation and success of Queen as John and Freddie were and they have every right to continue to use the Queen name if they wish.

mr_creosote wrote: There should be a little less of the endless criticism and sniping and a little more appreciation of the sheer guts this must have taken by Brian and Roger to move on. If they were simply cashing in, or walking over Freddie's grave as some people have said, they would have done this years ago.

Tero wrote:

mr_creosote wrote: And using the name Queen - you try to name another band that has been together for 15+ years and not had a single change in line-up in that time. Some groups like Black Sabbath had line-ups with none of the original members. Brian and Roger were as big a part in the formation and success of Queen as John and Freddie were and they have every right to continue to use the Queen name if they wish.

Why don't you first try to find a band that was together with the same exact line-up for their entire recording career of 20 years, and chose not to continue on after the death of their frontman? Black Sabbath had been going on for 10 years before they replaced Ozzy. They didn't take a fifteen year break to think about what to do.

mr_creosote wrote: There should be a little less of the endless criticism and sniping and a little more appreciation of the sheer guts this must have taken by Brian and Roger to move on. If they were simply cashing in, or walking over Freddie's grave as some people have said, they would have done this years ago.

The guys already moved on with their solo careers, saw it wasn't COMMERCIALLY successful, and decided to return to the Queen name because of that. That doesn't take guts. That's the easy way that guarantees you adoring audiences, and any critics can be written off as Freddie fans and talentless reviewers... That's what's happened at QZ!

mr_creosote wrote: The important thing to note is that the majority of these songs are SO different from previous albums - it's obvious that Brian, Roger and Paul aren't trying to recapture the Queen sound, they are simply doing what they feel to be right. And using the name Queen - you try to name another band that has been together for 15+ years and not had a single change in line-up in that time. Some groups like Black Sabbath had line-ups with none of the original members. Brian and Roger were as big a part in the formation and success of Queen as John and Freddie were and they have every right to continue to use the Queen name if they wish.

inu-liger wrote: Hear hear! But, when the truth slaps the fanboys in the face, what else are they left to do? Cause more random chaos, fairydandy style ;-)

inu-liger wrote: No, that's not what happened at QZ. What happened is radicalist fanboy disease spread among certain people that can't accept change, and want to maintain the status quo, if there ever was such.

inu-liger wrote: Queen certainly didn't take 15 years to decide what to do. Hell, Roger and Brian were playing together, not directly as Queen mind you, for crowds in 1999 (at either Roger's solo show or the guest spot they did at a Foo Fighters concert), and saw that there was a huge response and obviously demand for Queen to continue as a BAND.

Tero wrote: What's the difference between a "fanboy" of your description and a stepford fan who should unconditionally worship everything the band does, regardless of his or her personal opinion? Do you even think it's possible to have an opinion between these two extremes, or do you see the whole world as black and white as comics?

Tero wrote: The guys already moved on with their solo careers, saw it wasn't COMMERCIALLY successful, and decided to return to the Queen name because of that.

YourValentine wrote: ... I expect that my opinion is respected in the same way.

mr_creosote wrote: There's a difference between unconditionally worshipping everything that Queen do, and respecting their decision as recording artists to release new material. As a group (both with and without Freddie) I believe they have made some pretty big mistakes, I don't blindly agree with everything they do. But I do let their music speak for itself, not pre-judge it based on who is making it.

mr_creosote wrote: Brian could have continued with his solo career after relative success with BTTL, but didn't.

mr_creosote wrote: If they wanted to be commercial only they would have stuck to touring, playing the same old hits night after night, or even got together with Paul and re-recorded the many Queen/Free/Bad Company hits. That would have guaranteed adoring audiences. Through the work with Paul they are risking their (and let's not forget Paul's) existing fan bases.

mr_creosote wrote: At the end of the day Queen are a recording act. Despite what many fans think they can do whatever they like. They don't owe us a thing.

YourValentine wrote: Apart from all alleged and assumed motives, apart from all unrealistic "what ifs" (like Elton John or Robbie Williams ever considered to front Brian and Roger!), apart from all the allegations that people do do not like the new album must be Freddie maniacs or fanatics: There is something like personal taste, believe it or not. I like Paul Rodgers, I had lots of fun on the 2005 tour and I am expecting to have a lot of fun on the 2008 tour. I welcomed the decision to tour and record with Paul Rodgers from the start because he has the stamina and the personality to front people like Brian and Roger who are, after all, huge stars. I listened to the album with an open mind and I think it's not bad but it's nothing compared to a Queen album. That is just my personal taste. I would appreciate it if nobody would suggest I am in any way a lunatic or stuck in the past or just unable to see the merits of the album. In fact I do see the merits of the album but I also see the flaws and I am not a "so-called fan" because I point out the flaws which are considerable imo. It's not the fact that it is not a Queen album which I find crizicizable, it's just not as good as a Queen album. If other people think it's as good as a Queen album I am not calling them any names or tell them they are not right in their minds. I expect that my opinion is respected in the same way.

Yara wrote: Now, Brian Roger and Paul ARE Queen! They are not "using" Queen's name. They were as important to the band as Freddie was.

Tero wrote:

Yara wrote: Now, Brian Roger and Paul ARE Queen! They are not "using" Queen's name. They were as important to the band as Freddie was.

What, are you saying that Paul was as important to Queen as Freddie? That Paul is in Queen now? No wonder the journalists think Paul has replaced Freddie, and some of the posters here at QZ want to write love letters to him. :P

Yara wrote:

Tero wrote:

Yara wrote: Now, Brian Roger and Paul ARE Queen! They are not "using" Queen's name. They were as important to the band as Freddie was.

What, are you saying that Paul was as important to Queen as Freddie? That Paul is in Queen now? No wonder the journalists think Paul has replaced Freddie, and some of the posters here at QZ want to write love letters to him. :P

"They" was meant there as Roger and Brian. I guess it's perfectly clear and no one would be so idiotic as to think that Paul, a guy who wasn't part of the band, was as important to the band at the time as Freddie, a guy who was part of the band. If that's what you read in what I wrote, I just pity you. You really underestimate people. Or you're just dishonest. You choose. Cheers.

YourValentine wrote: Well, Yara - since you quoted me I would appreciate you read the post you quoted. I did not say any of what you suggest I never said Brian and Roger cannot choose the name, that Queen are not Queen without Freddie, that Brian and Rog were cashing in, ruining the legacy or whatever. I only say that I do not like TCR as much as all Queen albums except Flash Gordon. I say that TCR is boring and uninspired compared to all Queen albums, even The Miracle which I dislike. I say that TCR is not a bad album, surely better than lots of other albums I have in my home but not as good as any given Queen album. Btw, I also prefer all my Beatles albums to TCR and all my Mike Oldfield albums and all my Pearl Jam albums....

Yara wrote: As for Tero: Yes, I do think they are Queen NOW - Paul, Roger and Brian. The label + is fine, but that's not how it works in reality. They all started to become part of the same composing process. They all started to tour together and play together and plan to record more albums. Commercially you can't distinguish one thing from the other by putting a sign "+" there, but in reality you can't say where Queen ends and Paul Rodgers begins. It's all Queen to me. But if you think it's better to call it Queen +, ok, I respect that. What I find idiotic and lunatic is denouncing Roger and Brian for "using Queen's name". Well, I wrote all that already. Cheers. Sorry if I got your point wrong.

Sheer Brass Neck wrote: "Why don't you first try to find a band that was together with the same exact line-up for their entire recording career of 20 years, and chose not to continue on after the death of their frontman?"

Yara wrote: They have the right to carry on with Queen's name if one of the guys died and the other decided to quit the band. Why can't people understand such a simple point?

Tero wrote: (That "Why don't you first try to find a band that was together with the same exact line-up for their entire recording career of 20 years, and chose not to continue on after the death of their frontman?" was actually written by me... ;)

Yara wrote: They have the right to carry on with Queen's name if one of the guys died and the other decided to quit the band. Why can't people understand such a simple point?

Most people do understand that point, but at the same time those two guys having the right to carry on as Queen doesn't make it the right choice. Like I kinda said before (and you sort of agreed), using that name for the current collaboration of Brian and Roger draws unavoidable comparisons to that illustrious 20 year recording career, comparisons that could EASILY have been avoided with a different name.

mr_creosote wrote: There seems to be a constant feeling that so-called fans were let down because the new album is a different style to previous ones, that it is not "classic" Queen. What people seem to forget is there IS NO Queen "sound" - Queen's music has constantly evolved over the years, changing with tastes. Yes, certain elements were constant - but this is one of the things that make musicians legends - The Beatles, Queen, Bowie, The Who, Michael Jackson - all evolved their music over time. Artists who did one style of music and never changed have very rarely "made it" and had lengthy careers. Do you really think that Queen with Freddie would have lasted as long as they did churning out 'Killer Queen'-esque tracks year after year? Yes, some of the songs aren't as good as others from Queen's history, but you can say that about most other albums. Are 'Don't Try So Hard', 'Delilah', 'Party', or 'Tear It Up' anything like 'We Are The Champions' or 'Somebody To Love' in their style or quality - of course not, so why should any of Queen's new music be? The important thing to note is that the majority of these songs are SO different from previous albums - it's obvious that Brian, Roger and Paul aren't trying to recapture the Queen sound, they are simply doing what they feel to be right. And using the name Queen - you try to name another band that has been together for 15+ years and not had a single change in line-up in that time. Some groups like Black Sabbath had line-ups with none of the original members. Brian and Roger were as big a part in the formation and success of Queen as John and Freddie were and they have every right to continue to use the Queen name if they wish. What should be remembered is that Brian and Roger are doing this because they enjoy making music - they are certainly not doing it for the money. There should be a little less of the endless criticism and sniping and a little more appreciation of the sheer guts this must have taken by Brian and Roger to move on. If they were simply cashing in, or walking over Freddie's grave as some people have said, they would have done this years ago. Finally, let's not forget the courage of Paul Rodgers to even try to walk in the shadow of rock's greatest showman. Paul is a very talented, respected and successful singer and musician and he is putting a lot on the line with this collaboration.

Treasure Moment wrote:

mr_creosote wrote: There seems to be a constant feeling that so-called fans were let down because the new album is a different style to previous ones, that it is not "classic" Queen. What people seem to forget is there IS NO Queen "sound" - Queen's music has constantly evolved over the years, changing with tastes. Yes, certain elements were constant - but this is one of the things that make musicians legends - The Beatles, Queen, Bowie, The Who, Michael Jackson - all evolved their music over time. Artists who did one style of music and never changed have very rarely "made it" and had lengthy careers. Do you really think that Queen with Freddie would have lasted as long as they did churning out 'Killer Queen'-esque tracks year after year? Yes, some of the songs aren't as good as others from Queen's history, but you can say that about most other albums. Are 'Don't Try So Hard', 'Delilah', 'Party', or 'Tear It Up' anything like 'We Are The Champions' or 'Somebody To Love' in their style or quality - of course not, so why should any of Queen's new music be? The important thing to note is that the majority of these songs are SO different from previous albums - it's obvious that Brian, Roger and Paul aren't trying to recapture the Queen sound, they are simply doing what they feel to be right. And using the name Queen - you try to name another band that has been together for 15+ years and not had a single change in line-up in that time. Some groups like Black Sabbath had line-ups with none of the original members. Brian and Roger were as big a part in the formation and success of Queen as John and Freddie were and they have every right to continue to use the Queen name if they wish. What should be remembered is that Brian and Roger are doing this because they enjoy making music - they are certainly not doing it for the money. There should be a little less of the endless criticism and sniping and a little more appreciation of the sheer guts this must have taken by Brian and Roger to move on. If they were simply cashing in, or walking over Freddie's grave as some people have said, they would have done this years ago. Finally, let's not forget the courage of Paul Rodgers to even try to walk in the shadow of rock's greatest showman. Paul is a very talented, respected and successful singer and musician and he is putting a lot on the line with this collaboration.

Dont try so hard isnt the same quality as we are the champions? who are you kidding? its even BETTER! People always talk about freddie being the greatest showman but what about SINGER? he is THE greatest singer that has ever lived or will ever live! not to mention his songwriting skills are what made Queen big in the first place. You seem to forget that without freddie there is no Queen. smile+ paul rodgers is the right name for them.

Yara wrote: What I said in the second example is QUITE DIFFERENT. I said: ANY BAD ALBUM ISSUED BY ANY BAND IS BOUND TO TARNISH THE BAND'S REPUTATION, and that goes also to Queen. Simple as that. So if you think that TCQ is degrading to Queen's reputation in a MUSICAL SENSE, in the sense that it's not as good as the previous stuff, ok.

I say that TCR is boring and uninspired compared to all Queen albums, even The Miracle

Markman38 wrote: The only problem is the name Queen. That name give expectations (or something like that). The prejudice I had was about the name Queen. And I know I should be warned after all because songs like SINT, The Call or Invincable Hope where allready a sign. I just wonder if the 46664 recordings are ever released how will they credit SINT?? Because now it's credited QPR which is funccy offcourse but at other hand same with Warboys. But back to the main issue.The Queen sound was evolving off course nobody wanted to hear a remake of KYA in 1991, but there where always songs taht stand out, like Was it all Worth it, Innuendo, All God's People, Slightly Mad etc etc. This album just haven't one track that gives me (personal opinion) that suprise, that twist. That could be because Freddie and John aren't involved. That could be because Brian and Roger just wanted to do something really different just to prove that this is another band like they stated.But if it's so important to prove it's a new band or another band why keeping the old name except for the obvious commercial reason, like Greg Brooks said in that Brazilian interview. TCR is indeed a good rock/blues album if you listen to it without prejudice but hoping for a Queen album gives you hope to music on higher or maybe should I say different standards.

Treasure Moment wrote:

Markman38 wrote: The only problem is the name Queen. That name give expectations (or something like that). The prejudice I had was about the name Queen. And I know I should be warned after all because songs like SINT, The Call or Invincable Hope where allready a sign. I just wonder if the 46664 recordings are ever released how will they credit SINT?? Because now it's credited QPR which is funccy offcourse but at other hand same with Warboys. But back to the main issue.The Queen sound was evolving off course nobody wanted to hear a remake of KYA in 1991, but there where always songs taht stand out, like Was it all Worth it, Innuendo, All God's People, Slightly Mad etc etc. This album just haven't one track that gives me (personal opinion) that suprise, that twist. That could be because Freddie and John aren't involved. That could be because Brian and Roger just wanted to do something really different just to prove that this is another band like they stated.But if it's so important to prove it's a new band or another band why keeping the old name except for the obvious commercial reason, like Greg Brooks said in that Brazilian interview. TCR is indeed a good rock/blues album if you listen to it without prejudice but hoping for a Queen album gives you hope to music on higher or maybe should I say different standards.

Exactly and that higher standard can ONLY come with Freddie!

Come on Mr Bad Guy wasn't a great album it was the chemistry between the four of them

Treasure Moment wrote:

Markman38 wrote: The only problem is the name Queen. That name give expectations (or something like that). The prejudice I had was about the name Queen. And I know I should be warned after all because songs like SINT, The Call or Invincable Hope where allready a sign. I just wonder if the 46664 recordings are ever released how will they credit SINT?? Because now it's credited QPR which is funccy offcourse but at other hand same with Warboys. But back to the main issue.The Queen sound was evolving off course nobody wanted to hear a remake of KYA in 1991, but there where always songs taht stand out, like Was it all Worth it, Innuendo, All God's People, Slightly Mad etc etc. This album just haven't one track that gives me (personal opinion) that suprise, that twist. That could be because Freddie and John aren't involved. That could be because Brian and Roger just wanted to do something really different just to prove that this is another band like they stated.But if it's so important to prove it's a new band or another band why keeping the old name except for the obvious commercial reason, like Greg Brooks said in that Brazilian interview. TCR is indeed a good rock/blues album if you listen to it without prejudice but hoping for a Queen album gives you hope to music on higher or maybe should I say different standards.

Exactly and that higher standard can ONLY come with Freddie!

kingogre wrote: And you have to remember that when some reviewers calls something unimaginative standard rock, then Free and Bad Company is their definition of this.

In the end it matters a lot more how many buys the record than what a few newspaper reporters write about,

and it is quite safe to say it will sell very well.

Tero wrote:

inu-liger wrote: Queen certainly didn't take 15 years to decide what to do. Hell, Roger and Brian were playing together, not directly as Queen mind you, for crowds in 1999 (at either Roger's solo show or the guest spot they did at a Foo Fighters concert), and saw that there was a huge response and obviously demand for Queen to continue as a BAND.

In comparison to other bands, they did take fifteen years to dedice what to do. They didn't announce the band was to continue, they didn't start out a search for a new singer, they didn't continue as a three (or two) -piece group, and they didn't go into the studio the very next year after their figurehead left the group.

runner70 wrote:

Come on Mr Bad Guy wasn't a great album it was the chemistry between the four of them

Exactly. And BTW Treasure Moment suck

Markman38 wrote:

Treasure Moment wrote:

Markman38 wrote: The only problem is the name Queen. That name give expectations (or something like that). The prejudice I had was about the name Queen. And I know I should be warned after all because songs like SINT, The Call or Invincable Hope where allready a sign. I just wonder if the 46664 recordings are ever released how will they credit SINT?? Because now it's credited QPR which is funccy offcourse but at other hand same with Warboys. But back to the main issue.The Queen sound was evolving off course nobody wanted to hear a remake of KYA in 1991, but there where always songs taht stand out, like Was it all Worth it, Innuendo, All God's People, Slightly Mad etc etc. This album just haven't one track that gives me (personal opinion) that suprise, that twist. That could be because Freddie and John aren't involved. That could be because Brian and Roger just wanted to do something really different just to prove that this is another band like they stated.But if it's so important to prove it's a new band or another band why keeping the old name except for the obvious commercial reason, like Greg Brooks said in that Brazilian interview. TCR is indeed a good rock/blues album if you listen to it without prejudice but hoping for a Queen album gives you hope to music on higher or maybe should I say different standards.

Exactly and that higher standard can ONLY come with Freddie!

Come on Mr Bad Guy wasn't a great album it was the chemistry between the four of them

Treasure Moment wrote:

runner70 wrote:

Come on Mr Bad Guy wasn't a great album it was the chemistry between the four of them

Exactly. And BTW Treasure Moment suck

silent stupid creature

Treasure Moment wrote:

Markman38 wrote:

Treasure Moment wrote:

Markman38 wrote: The only problem is the name Queen. That name give expectations (or something like that). The prejudice I had was about the name Queen. And I know I should be warned after all because songs like SINT, The Call or Invincable Hope where allready a sign. I just wonder if the 46664 recordings are ever released how will they credit SINT?? Because now it's credited QPR which is funccy offcourse but at other hand same with Warboys. But back to the main issue.The Queen sound was evolving off course nobody wanted to hear a remake of KYA in 1991, but there where always songs taht stand out, like Was it all Worth it, Innuendo, All God's People, Slightly Mad etc etc. This album just haven't one track that gives me (personal opinion) that suprise, that twist. That could be because Freddie and John aren't involved. That could be because Brian and Roger just wanted to do something really different just to prove that this is another band like they stated.But if it's so important to prove it's a new band or another band why keeping the old name except for the obvious commercial reason, like Greg Brooks said in that Brazilian interview. TCR is indeed a good rock/blues album if you listen to it without prejudice but hoping for a Queen album gives you hope to music on higher or maybe should I say different standards.

Exactly and that higher standard can ONLY come with Freddie!

Come on Mr Bad Guy wasn't a great album it was the chemistry between the four of them

hmm lets see, isnt the song from freddies solo album "made in heaven" in the last official Queen album? hmm yeah it must be a bad song.

Treasure Moment wrote:

Markman38 wrote:

Treasure Moment wrote:

Markman38 wrote: The only problem is the name Queen. That name give expectations (or something like that). The prejudice I had was about the name Queen. And I know I should be warned after all because songs like SINT, The Call or Invincable Hope where allready a sign. I just wonder if the 46664 recordings are ever released how will they credit SINT?? Because now it's credited QPR which is funccy offcourse but at other hand same with Warboys. But back to the main issue.The Queen sound was evolving off course nobody wanted to hear a remake of KYA in 1991, but there where always songs taht stand out, like Was it all Worth it, Innuendo, All God's People, Slightly Mad etc etc. This album just haven't one track that gives me (personal opinion) that suprise, that twist. That could be because Freddie and John aren't involved. That could be because Brian and Roger just wanted to do something really different just to prove that this is another band like they stated.But if it's so important to prove it's a new band or another band why keeping the old name except for the obvious commercial reason, like Greg Brooks said in that Brazilian interview. TCR is indeed a good rock/blues album if you listen to it without prejudice but hoping for a Queen album gives you hope to music on higher or maybe should I say different standards.

Exactly and that higher standard can ONLY come with Freddie!

Come on Mr Bad Guy wasn't a great album it was the chemistry between the four of them

hmm lets see, isnt the song from freddies solo album "made in heaven" in the last official Queen album? hmm yeah it must be a bad song.

Raf wrote:

Tero wrote:

inu-liger wrote: Queen certainly didn't take 15 years to decide what to do. Hell, Roger and Brian were playing together, not directly as Queen mind you, for crowds in 1999 (at either Roger's solo show or the guest spot they did at a Foo Fighters concert), and saw that there was a huge response and obviously demand for Queen to continue as a BAND.

In comparison to other bands, they did take fifteen years to dedice what to do. They didn't announce the band was to continue, they didn't start out a search for a new singer, they didn't continue as a three (or two) -piece group, and they didn't go into the studio the very next year after their figurehead left the group.

On the other hand, unlike Led Zeppelin or The Beatles, Queen has never announced they were over and would never use the name again. And it did not take them 15 years to do something, if you consider they put a massive tribute gig together in 1992, finished an unfinished album and released it in 1995, released a new studio single in 1997 and in the early 2000s they started playing more often in festivals under the name Queen (probably because John was the one acting lazy, and once he left, Brian and Roger had some more freedom). The 90s maybe weren't very productive for Queen, but it doesn't mean Queen didn't do anything at all from Freddie's death to the QPR tour.

Markman38 wrote: I just mention The Who, only two of the original 4 members are alive and they made a come-back album after 22 years which was really unbelievable great. That was what I was hoping for carrying the name Queen after all these years

Markman38 wrote:

Treasure Moment wrote:

Markman38 wrote:

Treasure Moment wrote:

Markman38 wrote: The only problem is the name Queen. That name give expectations (or something like that). The prejudice I had was about the name Queen. And I know I should be warned after all because songs like SINT, The Call or Invincable Hope where allready a sign. I just wonder if the 46664 recordings are ever released how will they credit SINT?? Because now it's credited QPR which is funccy offcourse but at other hand same with Warboys. But back to the main issue.The Queen sound was evolving off course nobody wanted to hear a remake of KYA in 1991, but there where always songs taht stand out, like Was it all Worth it, Innuendo, All God's People, Slightly Mad etc etc. This album just haven't one track that gives me (personal opinion) that suprise, that twist. That could be because Freddie and John aren't involved. That could be because Brian and Roger just wanted to do something really different just to prove that this is another band like they stated.But if it's so important to prove it's a new band or another band why keeping the old name except for the obvious commercial reason, like Greg Brooks said in that Brazilian interview. TCR is indeed a good rock/blues album if you listen to it without prejudice but hoping for a Queen album gives you hope to music on higher or maybe should I say different standards.

Exactly and that higher standard can ONLY come with Freddie!

Come on Mr Bad Guy wasn't a great album it was the chemistry between the four of them

hmm lets see, isnt the song from freddies solo album "made in heaven" in the last official Queen album? hmm yeah it must be a bad song.

Isnt'the title track Made in Heaven not an old Cross song (aka Roger Taylor solo), yeah he can't write good songs. Your missing my point I think the solo album Strange Frontier from Roger Taylor is the best solo (rock)album any Queen member ever made solo but even then Man on Fire didn't peak the charts that high. It was the chemistry between the four of them. ALthough Barcelona is maybe the best solo album bit you cannot say that that is rock

Markman38 wrote: I just mention The Who, only two of the original 4 members are alive and they made a come-back album after 22 years which was really unbelievable great. That was what I was hoping for carrying the name Queen after all these years

runner70 wrote: IMHO The Who's Comeback album sucked big time and was a (well deserved) huge flop commercially!

runner70 wrote:

Markman38 wrote: I just mention The Who, only two of the original 4 members are alive and they made a come-back album after 22 years which was really unbelievable great. That was what I was hoping for carrying the name Queen after all these years

IMHO The Who's Comeback album sucked big time and was a (well deserved) huge flop commercially!

Dane wrote: Great album... when keeping in mind what Freddie gave to Queen albums. There is no groundbreaking graphical design, no perfect compositions of songs seeming they've always been there... But there IS a very strong, back to basic, having fun, jamming, blues, rock album with a message in its lyrics. VOODOOOOOOOOO

Treasure Moment wrote:

Markman38 wrote: I just mention The Who, only two of the original 4 members are alive and they made a come-back album after 22 years which was really unbelievable great. That was what I was hoping for carrying the name Queen after all these years

well thats a different band and evidently the members who made their sound are still alive, with Queen however you HAVE to have Freddie to have Queen quality music, he was what made Queen what they were.

Treasure Moment wrote:

Markman38 wrote:

Treasure Moment wrote:

Markman38 wrote:

Treasure Moment wrote:

Markman38 wrote: The only problem is the name Queen. That name give expectations (or something like that). The prejudice I had was about the name Queen. And I know I should be warned after all because songs like SINT, The Call or Invincable Hope where allready a sign. I just wonder if the 46664 recordings are ever released how will they credit SINT?? Because now it's credited QPR which is funccy offcourse but at other hand same with Warboys. But back to the main issue.The Queen sound was evolving off course nobody wanted to hear a remake of KYA in 1991, but there where always songs taht stand out, like Was it all Worth it, Innuendo, All God's People, Slightly Mad etc etc. This album just haven't one track that gives me (personal opinion) that suprise, that twist. That could be because Freddie and John aren't involved. That could be because Brian and Roger just wanted to do something really different just to prove that this is another band like they stated.But if it's so important to prove it's a new band or another band why keeping the old name except for the obvious commercial reason, like Greg Brooks said in that Brazilian interview. TCR is indeed a good rock/blues album if you listen to it without prejudice but hoping for a Queen album gives you hope to music on higher or maybe should I say different standards.

Exactly and that higher standard can ONLY come with Freddie!

Come on Mr Bad Guy wasn't a great album it was the chemistry between the four of them

hmm lets see, isnt the song from freddies solo album "made in heaven" in the last official Queen album? hmm yeah it must be a bad song.

Isnt'the title track Made in Heaven not an old Cross song (aka Roger Taylor solo), yeah he can't write good songs. Your missing my point I think the solo album Strange Frontier from Roger Taylor is the best solo (rock)album any Queen member ever made solo but even then Man on Fire didn't peak the charts that high. It was the chemistry between the four of them. ALthough Barcelona is maybe the best solo album bit you cannot say that that is rock

It is very obvious that Freddie was the one who made them what they were and the one who made their sound the way it was, without him there is no Queen as he basically made their sound.

Yara wrote:

Dane wrote: Great album... when keeping in mind what Freddie gave to Queen albums. There is no groundbreaking graphical design, no perfect compositions of songs seeming they've always been there... But there IS a very strong, back to basic, having fun, jamming, blues, rock album with a message in its lyrics. VOODOOOOOOOOO

I don't get it. Too many people enjoying the album. Weren't we supposed to denounce Brian and Roger for abusing Queen's sacred name by releasing such a poor material? For wanting MONEY and AUDIENCE? Bastards. They record stuff and they want, first, people to listen to it, and second, to be rewarded by their work! It's a shame. How these guys are not in jail yet? Freddie didn't like money, he despised all that. He was not like these guys, you know? We're getting too easy on Brian and Roger. Soon these mad guys will actually begin to believe that they are Queen, or have all the right to play as Queen, and that they knew Freddie much more than any of us. They're dangerous.

mr_creosote wrote: There seems to be a constant feeling that so-called fans were let down because the new album is a different style to previous ones, that it is not "classic" Queen. What people seem to forget is there IS NO Queen "sound" - Queen's music has constantly evolved over the years, changing with tastes. Yes, certain elements were constant - but this is one of the things that make musicians legends - The Beatles, Queen, Bowie, The Who, Michael Jackson - all evolved their music over time. Artists who did one style of music and never changed have very rarely "made it" and had lengthy careers. Do you really think that Queen with Freddie would have lasted as long as they did churning out 'Killer Queen'-esque tracks year after year? Yes, some of the songs aren't as good as others from Queen's history, but you can say that about most other albums. Are 'Don't Try So Hard', 'Delilah', 'Party', or 'Tear It Up' anything like 'We Are The Champions' or 'Somebody To Love' in their style or quality - of course not, so why should any of Queen's new music be? The important thing to note is that the majority of these songs are SO different from previous albums - it's obvious that Brian, Roger and Paul aren't trying to recapture the Queen sound, they are simply doing what they feel to be right. And using the name Queen - you try to name another band that has been together for 15+ years and not had a single change in line-up in that time. Some groups like Black Sabbath had line-ups with none of the original members. Brian and Roger were as big a part in the formation and success of Queen as John and Freddie were and they have every right to continue to use the Queen name if they wish. What should be remembered is that Brian and Roger are doing this because they enjoy making music - they are certainly not doing it for the money. There should be a little less of the endless criticism and sniping and a little more appreciation of the sheer guts this must have taken by Brian and Roger to move on. If they were simply cashing in, or walking over Freddie's grave as some people have said, they would have done this years ago. Finally, let's not forget the courage of Paul Rodgers to even try to walk in the shadow of rock's greatest showman. Paul is a very talented, respected and successful singer and musician and he is putting a lot on the line with this collaboration.

rockthecosmos2008 wrote:

mr_creosote wrote: There seems to be a constant feeling that so-called fans were let down because the new album is a different style to previous ones, that it is not "classic" Queen. What people seem to forget is there IS NO Queen "sound" - Queen's music has constantly evolved over the years, changing with tastes. Yes, certain elements were constant - but this is one of the things that make musicians legends - The Beatles, Queen, Bowie, The Who, Michael Jackson - all evolved their music over time. Artists who did one style of music and never changed have very rarely "made it" and had lengthy careers. Do you really think that Queen with Freddie would have lasted as long as they did churning out 'Killer Queen'-esque tracks year after year? Yes, some of the songs aren't as good as others from Queen's history, but you can say that about most other albums. Are 'Don't Try So Hard', 'Delilah', 'Party', or 'Tear It Up' anything like 'We Are The Champions' or 'Somebody To Love' in their style or quality - of course not, so why should any of Queen's new music be? The important thing to note is that the majority of these songs are SO different from previous albums - it's obvious that Brian, Roger and Paul aren't trying to recapture the Queen sound, they are simply doing what they feel to be right. And using the name Queen - you try to name another band that has been together for 15+ years and not had a single change in line-up in that time. Some groups like Black Sabbath had line-ups with none of the original members. Brian and Roger were as big a part in the formation and success of Queen as John and Freddie were and they have every right to continue to use the Queen name if they wish. What should be remembered is that Brian and Roger are doing this because they enjoy making music - they are certainly not doing it for the money. There should be a little less of the endless criticism and sniping and a little more appreciation of the sheer guts this must have taken by Brian and Roger to move on. If they were simply cashing in, or walking over Freddie's grave as some people have said, they would have done this years ago. Finally, let's not forget the courage of Paul Rodgers to even try to walk in the shadow of rock's greatest showman. Paul is a very talented, respected and successful singer and musician and he is putting a lot on the line with this collaboration.

Well said, took the word otta my mouth!!

kingogre wrote: Actually from what I heard Robbie W was almost desperate to front Brian and Roger. I can understand what they didnt want it though

Dane wrote:

Yara wrote:

Dane wrote: Great album... when keeping in mind what Freddie gave to Queen albums. There is no groundbreaking graphical design, no perfect compositions of songs seeming they've always been there... But there IS a very strong, back to basic, having fun, jamming, blues, rock album with a message in its lyrics. VOODOOOOOOOOO

I don't get it. Too many people enjoying the album. Weren't we supposed to denounce Brian and Roger for abusing Queen's sacred name by releasing such a poor material? For wanting MONEY and AUDIENCE? Bastards. They record stuff and they want, first, people to listen to it, and second, to be rewarded by their work! It's a shame. How these guys are not in jail yet? Freddie didn't like money, he despised all that. He was not like these guys, you know? We're getting too easy on Brian and Roger. Soon these mad guys will actually begin to believe that they are Queen, or have all the right to play as Queen, and that they knew Freddie much more than any of us. They're dangerous.

So the album is bad because they use the name Queen? Not very objective... and by the way, I agree with the fact that they are a little too preoccupied by making money off the Queen-machine. But more in the sense of rerererereleasing old material in new packages.