| PieterMC 18.09.2008 11:03 |
Maybe Queen + Paul Rodgers Should Be Called Bad Company + Brian + Roger by Paul Cashmere - September 18 2008 The new Queen + Paul Rodgers album has finally arrived and it is the first new album from Queen since Made In Heaven 13 years ago. But is it really Queen? If you take away the Queen name ‘The Cosmos Rocks’ is a great album but it sounds more like a Paul Rodgers record than a Queen record. I love Bad Company, I love Free, I loved Paul’s solo works and I love Queen but Rodgers has such a distinctive voice that this sounds like it should a Paul Rodgers album featuring May and Taylor. Don’t think of it as Queen – Mercury + Rodgers either. The other missing component is Queen bass player John Deacon who bowed out of any reunions but fully supports what Brian May and Roger Taylor are doing. Deacon had such as signature bass sound. Think of ‘Under Pressure’. It was his song. This will be a hard one for the true fans to get their head around. Had they gone to neutral ground and called it by another name other than Queen, we would be hailing it as one of the great rock releases on 2008. Unfortunately, it is so far removed from what Queen sounded like and not all that far removed from what the various Rogers albums sounded like that it is difficult to accept ‘The Cosmos Rock’ as a follow-up to the Mercury legacy. Without a doubt Queen is a big brand. Rogers as a solo artist is a big talent. It is like they have taken his talent and branded it with their name. Calling this Queen is putting the right head on the wrong body. While The Cosmos Rocks doesn’t take us to any new ground with Queen, is a mighty fine album. It will be nice to see Queen + Paul Rodgers on the road. When Paul sings the old songs, he fits into Queen. When Queen play the new songs, they become Paul. |
| Erin 18.09.2008 11:14 |
PieterMC wrote: Had they gone to neutral ground and called it by another name other than Queen, we would be hailing it as one of the great rock releases on 2008.Wow! :-) |
| PieterMC 18.09.2008 11:18 |
What that reviewer says makes perfect sense. Nearly every negative review (press review) I have read moans about Freddie not being there. If they were not using the name they could not make that comparison. I personally couldn't give a crap what they call themselves, but I really don't think they have helped them self from a critical standpoint by using the name. Having said that there is no way in hell that they would pull in crowds of the same size without using the name. IMO. |
| RONALDQUEEI0 18.09.2008 11:21 |
Its so sad that such a good album in my opinion is being railroaded by these comparisons to the original Queen. If they had put it out under a new name I doubt anyone of any great "importance" would take the time to review it. Its the Queen label that is drawing the critic in. The all now seem to be great fans of Freddie and the original Queen. Thats not how I remember the press reaction to them over the years. I struggle to think of a good review of a previous album. And of course the press who now love Freddie, did they not make the last year or so of his life a misery trying to get a picture of a dying man to put in there crappy publications? And it is some of these who claim Brian and Roger should be ashamesd of themselves, I think they shouldd take a good look in the mirror.(no pun intended, Daily Mirror) |
| PieterMC 18.09.2008 11:23 |
It really is catch 22 situation for the band. Use a new name and be largely ignored or use the Queen name and take a hammering in the press and from some fans. |
| RONALDQUEEI0 18.09.2008 11:28 |
PieterMC wrote: It really is catch 22 situation for the band. Use a new name and be largely ignored or use the Queen name and take a hammering in the press and from some fans.That is the problem they face. But its a small price to pay for them I'd imagineas they seemed desperate to work together again. Plus they are filling arenas on tour so I think on the whole they are accepted |
| Mustapha_Ibrahim 18.09.2008 11:59 |
PieterMC wrote: Had they gone to neutral ground and called it by another name other than Queen, we would be hailing it as one of the great rock releases on 2008.AMEN This is exactly how I feel. The album exceeded my expectations, it's really good stuff. But they are just not being honest with both themselves and the fans... Great album. Not Queen. |
| new one 18.09.2008 12:07 |
[But they are just not being honest with both themselves and the fans... Great album. Not Queen. Not being honest with themselves or the fans? Well I as a life long fan was perfectly aware that Freddie and John would not be performing on this album and I really found myself very excited at the thought of a new Queen album. I still consider them to be queen and I don't feel Brian and Roger are cheating me or being dishonest. We are all entitled to our opinion of course but this one seems to rattle on eh? |
| Lisser 18.09.2008 12:13 |
PieterMC wrote: It really is catch 22 situation for the band. Use a new name and be largely ignored or use the Queen name and take a hammering in the press and from some fans.This is exactly how I feel. |
| Rien 18.09.2008 12:25 |
Hearing the new album for the first time I also thought it was a Paul Rodgers album, with a familiar guitar sound. I just had to get used to it. It does have some Queen trademarks perhaps, but it has more Roger Taylor and Brian May solo trademarks, and of course Paul's. This new (for me great) album did make me realise the old Queen era ended with the MIH album. (I already knew that, TCR just materialised it) Listening to the album, telling myself this is a NEW band using the name QUEEN (with just Brian and Roger) + Paul Rodgers made me accept the new format and sound of this new band. |
| Mr. Jordy 18.09.2008 14:23 |
Great album. Not Queen. |
| Jekaling 18.09.2008 15:22 |
I think Brian's Into the Light sounded more like a Queen album than the Cosmos Rocks. I really miss these Queen compositions. The tracks from Cosmos seems to be flat and shallow |
| bathump 18.09.2008 17:00 |
I don't understand these 'Queen' sound comments it's been 17 years since the last Queen album even if Freddie and john were involved the sound may have been totally different. The Queen sound of the 70's (the Queen I love) is totally different to the sound of the 80's. You never know if Freddie and John were involved now it may have been any album consisting of songs like Rain Must Fall Delilah Friends will be Friends Pain is close to pleasure You don't fool me A Winters tale These type of songs were what was bad about the 80's/90's output. This new album isn't as flat as songs like these and the lyrics are not as bad either. The album is constantly on my mp3 player. Loving Surfs up at the moment Still don't now why the name is such an issue I couldn't care what they call themselves it's all about the music surely |
| s.m. 18.09.2008 18:54 |
bathump wrote: I You don't fool me A Winters tale These type of songs were what was bad about the 80's/90's output.mhahahhahaha |
| KingMercury 18.09.2008 21:26 |
Jekaling wrote: I think Brian's Into the Light sounded more like a Queen album than the Cosmos Rocks. I really miss these Queen compositions. The tracks from Cosmos seems to be flat and shallowemm its "back to the light" and not "into the light" and please people, stop complaining about the name, it doesnt matter how the band is called, the most important thing is the music that band makes, and i think this album is wonderful!!!!! i was not expecting to listen to a queen album, cause i really know this is a new band! So, it has little trademarks of each band (Queen and Free/Bad co). We were waiting 13 years for this, so i think we could start enjoyning the music and stop to fighting and complaining about if it's or not queen, and if its a Bad Co record with Bri&Rog colaborations... Please... Enjoy!!!!!!!! |
| Knute 18.09.2008 23:47 |
Damn! I was expecting Run With The Pack part II and what do I get? Guitar and vocal harmonies??? Sorry, but I'm not a fan of opera. Thanks for messing up the return of Bad Co guys. I think I'll go run my ticket through a paper shredder now. |
| Grantcdn1 19.09.2008 00:47 |
....critics complaining saying it's not Queen is so lame....they used to complain when it was Queen that it was Queen....they would complain about Freddie......"Queen and Paul Rodgers" IS a different name so I am fine with it...besides no one would no who "green onions" was and therefore we wouldn't even have critics reviewing that album....there are lots of Queen guitar trademarks (that are really Brian's that he used in the band Queen that he founded with the others....Rogers drums are even better than his recent work with Queen...Roger did a lot of the writing too... ....besides how many of these 'critics' are actually music fans or have any background in music....many just did journalism and probably can't play more than three notes themselves.... |
| inu-liger 19.09.2008 01:00 |
Grantcdn1 wrote: Rogers drums are even better than his recent work with Queen...Roger did a lot of the writing too...More like, at the very least, he IS playing drums on the songs, and not being replaced by programmed drums, or sampled/looped phake drumming. :-P |
| Bo Rhap 19.09.2008 07:14 |
I dont know what all the fuss is about.Brian and Roger are perfectly entitled to call themselves whatever they like.They've oked it with John to call themselves Queen and thats fine by me. This is a different version of Queen with a classy singer/lead man in Paul Rodgers. I think this album is brilliant. |