QueenZone discussion #1143172
I've been meaning to ask how is there Queen without Freddie Mercury?
| mickyparise 18.10.2008 00:04 |
by MICKEY NOONAN - Thursday, October 16, 2008 Queen + Paul Rodgers Love them, loathe them or dance naked round your living room on a Friday night to Fat Bottomed Girls, there's no denying that Queen owed their fame to frontman Freddie Mercury. Now that bassist John Deacon has retired, just half of the original line-up remains and, since 2005, their singer has been former Bad Company frontman Paul Rodgers, resulting in the newish, naffish name of Queen + Paul Rodgers. This current tour features tunes from the trio's recent album, The Cosmos Rocks. It's decent arena rock, but 17 years on from Mercury's death, is it really Queen? Nope. However you look at the maths, unless Elizabeth Windsor decides to grow a magnificent 'tache and put in a star turn, calling it Queen is pushing it slightly. Sun, Sheffield Arena, Broughton Lane, Sheffield, 7pm, £39.50 and £49.50. Tel: 0114 256 5656. link |
| the april lady 42449 18.10.2008 09:55 |
What's in a name anyway? Brian and Roger were major contributers to the Queen sound, which is probably why so many Queen fans still want to go see them. I know that's why I did last week. The majority of the songs they chose to sing were in fact written by Brian and Roger having looked back, and there was no doubt that they were massive Queen hits. I miss Freddie as much as the next Queen fan but I would also miss Brian and Roger if they weren't still performing. There is absolutely no need for them to stop, and if they wish to carry on the Queen name, does it really matter? |
| Sheer Brass Neck 18.10.2008 10:44 |
Of course it matters, The April Lady. It's everything in terms of importance. Why aren't Brian, Roger and Paul Rodgers on tour using their respective names? Because there is no brand value. So to answer your question, of course it matters because Brian and Roger have made a controversial choice because sales is their focus these days and Queen sells. |
| Treasure Moment 18.10.2008 13:42 |
of course its not Queen anymore, a retarded monkey would know that. |
| Marcelo_argentina 18.10.2008 14:12 |
I don't think they kept the Queen name for selling...as a Queen Fan I am, I would follow the guys no matter what name they want to use..they don't need to give a name, just play music and I will buy their albums and enjoy their concets..is simple as that....I give a shit about the name, I just want to enjoy music, I am really excited, I love this present moments here on Queenzone...where we are all discusing about shows, new album and all those stuff..I became a Queen fan in late 1991 early 1992 when I was 13 years old...I've been waiting for this moment for 16 years, I am going to see Roger and Brian playing here in Argentina in november, you really care about a name?..they are touring around the world, they are expressing themselves again as musicians, they went on studio recording after so many years...we all know this is not Queen, but if you really like Rock you should be proud of this 60 years old guys...that's my point..I give a shit about a name...and the same happened to other bands...Freddie Mercury was the best, but he died and still lives in our memory, move on..17 years is a lot of time.... |
| April 18.10.2008 15:26 |
Absolutely agree with the above! It's still Brian and Roger. |
| john bodega 18.10.2008 15:33 |
I'm amazed. Do people get paid.... ACTUALLY paid, to write these reviews? Positive or negative, I don't think I've read a music review in the past six months that impressed me or had the slightest substance to it. Fucking hell, this is a fine racket to get into. |
| QueenMercury46 18.10.2008 16:37 |
Treasure Moment wrote: of course its not Queen anymore, a retarded monkey would know that. You're right, only a retarded monkey like you would think that. |
| goinback 18.10.2008 16:44 |
Wow Mickey Noonan, this is a question that was brought up...IN 2004! |
| Treasure Moment 18.10.2008 17:48 |
QueenMercury46 wrote:Treasure Moment wrote: of course its not Queen anymore, a retarded monkey would know that.You're right, only a retarded monkey like you would think that. no you stupid fuck! its a FACT that there is no Queen without freddie and even a low intelligence creature like you should be able to understand that. |
| Marcos Napier 18.10.2008 18:16 |
Here we go again... (cue in that Whitesnake tune) |
| P-Staker 18.10.2008 19:07 |
Zebonka12 wrote: I'm amazed. Do people get paid.... ACTUALLY paid, to write these reviews? Positive or negative, I don't think I've read a music review in the past six months that impressed me or had the slightest substance to it. Fucking hell, this is a fine racket to get into. My thoughts exactly. The only difference between a professional review and an internet rant seems to be how much money you get for it. If you're an editor, call me. |
| the april lady 42449 18.10.2008 19:41 |
The point I was making about whether they continue to use the name Queen or not was that I think everyone that has gone to see them live on this tour or have bought the album would have done so whether they were named Queen or not. Everyone knows it's not Queen as Queen once was because that would obviously be impossible. Ideally, I would have liked them to have used a different name but at the end of the day, it is just a name! Whether they are called Queen or not, they're still fantastic musicians that are worth seeing! |
| joe90 18.10.2008 21:34 |
How is their Queen without Freddie Mercury? The same way there was Fleetwood Mac without Peter Green. Pink Floyd without Syd Barrett or Roger Waters. The Stones without Brian Jones. AC/DC without Bon Scott. Def Leppard without Steve Clark. INXS without Michael Hutchence...etc. Life goes on. Get over it. |
| itailu 19.10.2008 02:42 |
There's no Queen with out Freddie Mercury. I've heard people say that his voice was the Queen sound, but he was much, much more. He was the drive and the diversity of Queen's music and much more then any one can give him credit for. Last week I just had to listen to hear what's all the fuss with this new queen+paul rodgers album. It's not Queen. One can only hope that Mr. May and Mr. Taylor will one day release Queen's vault stuff and maybe a dvd of clips that haven't been digitized yet, Innuendo etc... |
| master marathon runner 19.10.2008 02:53 |
Now look here, i've worshipped queen since '74 so i 've got a very positive attitude to all things queen, but to use the name in the present set-up, naar i dont think so. To peruse the guinness book of british hit singles in the future and to see entries that dont include input from freddie and john, catalogued as queen!- ooh that really hurts me. Let it go lads, let it go.................. |
| Winter Land Man 19.10.2008 03:43 |
I caught John Deacon making out with my Aunt Diane. [img=/images/smiley/msn/shades_smile.gif][/img] I must say, I wish I could of joined in on the fun! |
| Treasure Moment 19.10.2008 04:11 |
itailu wrote: There's no Queen with out Freddie Mercury. I've heard people say that his voice was the Queen sound, but he was much, much more. He was the drive and the diversity of Queen's music and much more then any one can give him credit for. Last week I just had to listen to hear what's all the fuss with this new queen+paul rodgers album. It's not Queen. One can only hope that Mr. May and Mr. Taylor will one day release Queen's vault stuff and maybe a dvd of clips that haven't been digitized yet, Innuendo etc... Exactly! |
| «¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» 20.10.2008 22:02 |
Totally agree.... Here's my question...if they don't need money then why are they still using the Queen moniker?? Why??? simple...the name Queen=money, money, money!! So if they don't need it as many as you believe..then why haven't they donated all concert proceeds to the Mercury Phoenix Trust or to other charities? If they had any respect for the rest of the band members...especially Freddie, then they should of started with a clean slate..including a new band title, a new sound and all "new" music!! There is no Queen without Freddie or John...simple as that!! |
| Jazz 78 21.10.2008 10:10 |
I see we're still beating this dead horse. |
| Micrówave 21.10.2008 11:20 |
There is one way to solve this. Mass Suicide. Everyone who can't stand the name Queen being used should just end it right now. There is nothing left living for, Paul has destroyed all that. Maybe your death (and eloquent note) will be just what Brian May needs to see to end all this. Please begin now. Make sure you give away your collection first. |
| «¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» 21.10.2008 15:49 |
Jazz 78 said: I see we're still beating this dead horse. Of course...this topic will never end..because too many people feel strongly and different about it. So get used to it!! If you don't want to hear the same ol same ol..then go to a different forum!! |
| beautifulsoup 21.10.2008 22:32 |
mickyparise: "I've been meaning to ask how is there Queen without Freddie Mercury?" And so now you have. |
| opera39 22.10.2008 09:10 |
Wasn't it Roger and Brian who founded the band in the first place? I disagree completely with those who say this is not Queen anymore. That's like saying a family is no longer a family because the father is dead, or the elder son is dead. You've gotta accept Freddie is gone, and move on. This is Queen now, and it rocks. |
| Treasure Moment 22.10.2008 10:29 |
opera39 wrote: Wasn't it Roger and Brian who founded the band in the first place? I disagree completely with those who say this is not Queen anymore. That's like saying a family is no longer a family because the father is dead, or the elder son is dead. You've gotta accept Freddie is gone, and move on. This is Queen now, and it rocks. you are not specially bright if you think its Queen without freddie, without freddie its SMILE, freddie was the one who made the Queen sound, he was THE most important member by FAR. |
| caine 22.10.2008 13:56 |
The name Queen has already been established by 4 great musicians. The last I checked, Paul Rogers and whomever plays bass is not in that group. Afterall, if a name meant nothing, then Page/Plant would have called themselves Led Zeppelin in 1995 when they toured and then put out 2 records. It is bad enough that The Who call themselves the Who. How would we react if only Ringo and Paul Macca got together today and toured under the Beatles moniker? |
| Magic Rat 22.10.2008 13:56 |
It ain't Queen, never can be I'm afraid, without John and Freddie the remainder have no real right to title themselves as such and I for one have NO interest in this sham. I have been a Queen fan since '74 and this just ain't right - pick another name boys and be honest with both us and yourselves. |
| April 22.10.2008 14:12 |
caine wrote: The name Queen has already been established by 4 great musicians. The last I checked, Paul Rogers and whomever plays bass is not in that group. Afterall, if a name meant nothing, then Page/Plant would have called themselves Led Zeppelin in 1995 when they toured and then put out 2 records. It is bad enough that The Who call themselves the Who. How would we react if only Ringo and Paul Macca got together today and toured under the Beatles moniker? You are mistaken. The name is Queen+Paul Rodgers. It's different. Many groups with only two surviving members have retained their original names. In this case Freddie is dead. And John evidently has nothing against their calling themselves so. As for Macca and Ringo, I would find it wonderful if they got together and called themselves the Beatles+. A dream come true. Obviously they dare not. (certainly they don't want to work together in the first place) |
| Sheer Brass Neck 22.10.2008 14:39 |
Opera 39 said: "I disagree completely with those who say this is not Queen anymore." That is well within your rights. Much as many, many people here disagree with those who say it Queen. "That's like saying a family is no longer a family because the father is dead, or the elder son is dead." Actually, it's nothing like that. I read recently that Paris Hilton's grandfather or great-grandfather is leaving his money to charity insted of Paris and Nicky Hilton because he disapproves of the way they conduct themselves. So the Hilton family name was once synonamous with solid business principles and shrewd planning. Now it's all about getting fucked on video, and being a publicity whore. What you, and the "Brain and Roge have the right to call themselves Queen!!!!!!!!" crowd don't, and never will understand because you're all too thick, is that it's not just the name, it's what the name's connotation was. Regal. Ambiguous. Powerful. There is nothing regal or ambitious about Queen + PR. Queen's music was majestic. Brian referred to TCR as "organic." Fuck organic. That's for the Indigo Girls or third rate blues rock bands. Not Queen. "You've gotta accept Freddie is gone, and move on." Please, please, please, please, please. Other than the mentally unbalanced, who on this board does not accept Freddie is gone? Name one person. That is such an idiotic argument it defies belief. I'll throw something out there. Brain and Roger have to accept Freddie is gone, and quit hanging on to the Queen brand and start something new. What's that? Oh, the power of the Queen brand will ensure curiousity sales in the first week before falling off the charts, where a May/Taylor/Rodgers album would probably not chart. "This is Queen now, and it rocks." No it's not, no it doesn't. |
| neetsie2k4 22.10.2008 15:26 |
Can we PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, let this subject go already!!!! |
| April 22.10.2008 16:00 |
Despite your protests they call themselves Queen+PR and they don't give a damn! So take it or leave it! Ok, leave it, good-bye then. And we'll go on, following Freddie's will: show must go on... |
| tjbarrett96 22.10.2008 16:32 |
The ignorance and stupidity of people astounds me these days...... When did Brian, Roger, or Paul say it was supposed to be Queen? Anyone? Did either of them ever say that? In fact, all three of them have said it isn't Queen, isn't supposed to be Queen, and never will be Queen. The name Queen, in modern times, is simply for marketing purposes. You have to admit that Q+PR are very obscure these days. If they never used the name Queen, they would never sell any music! I don't blame them for that. Do you? |
| Queen 4ever 22.10.2008 19:26 |
Weeeellll, you guys, i reaaallyy hate paul rodgers! I really really think that THAT ain't no queen! Honestly, it is real rock, but, the fack that there's Queen without Freddie pisses me off. Deax had aalll the right to leave queen, simply because he felt bad, and cause Bmay and Rog ran to find a new vocalist WITHOUT DEAX PERMISSION! And they needed it, he's in the f*cking, baaand, for Christ sake! I don't say for them not to have a band with that... man, but the name Queen, should be no longer used. |
| slightlymad88 22.10.2008 20:13 |
It's one half of Queen and that's what us young un's under the age of 30-40 have to deal with since science hasn't advanced enough to take us back to 1986 and even if so, we'd probably mess up the time continuum (insert fancy scientific time-travel related jargon her) or whatever it is... I believe Freddie would not have been able to make Queen what it was without Brian May's distinctive guitar sound and Roger May's fantastic drumming, personality and vocal sound. They are brilliant musicians in their own right, It's just I can't imagine anyone in my lifetime (or maybe we'll be lucky) can match the brilliance that was Mercury. It annoys me that they never got a lead singer with a versatility to sing the least rockier numbers. We'll just never have Rodgers singing 'Killer Queen' or 'Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy', will we? Or at least not well. But no, standing by the barrier watching May rock out and Taylor sing 'I'm in love with my car' was a near euphoric experience for my 20 year old self. One can only imagine what it felt like to be in the same auditorium as Mercury. So yeah, back to the point - One half of Queen - yes. But Paul Rodgers and a half of Queen is never going to be catchy. Anyhoo, plenty of bands continue without members...Pink Floyd... The Who, if I'm right...I'm sure there's many more. |
| tjbarrett96 22.10.2008 21:20 |
Queen 4ever wrote: Weeeellll, you guys, i reaaallyy hate paul rodgers! I really really think that THAT ain't no queen! Honestly, it is real rock, but, the fack that there's Queen without Freddie pisses me off. Deax had aalll the right to leave queen, simply because he felt bad, and cause Bmay and Rog ran to find a new vocalist WITHOUT DEAX PERMISSION! And they needed it, he's in the f*cking, baaand, for Christ sake! I don't say for them not to have a band with that... man, but the name Queen, should be no longer used.Um... well... Brian and Roger did have John Deacon's permission actually. He wrote them a letter stating that he approved of anything they planned to do in the future. I believe that was in 2002 (?) after the WWRY Musical Opened. SECONDLY, don't use so many commas and breaks in the paragraph. And pleeeeaaase don't extend the amount of letters in a word to emphasize its importance. THIRDLY, it's not Queen. When did Brian and Roger say it was Queen? Just because the band is named that? Don't judge a book by it's cover. I know it's a cliche, but don't disregard it. The results of the event is what matters. For example, when I first heard of To Kill A Mockingbird, I thought it was about a hitman XD! Once I read it, though, it turned out to be a very unique and enticing novel. |
| tjbarrett96 22.10.2008 21:29 |
slightlymad88 wrote: It's one half of Queen and that's what us young un's under the age of 30-40 have to deal with since science hasn't advanced enough to take us back to 1986 and even if so, we'd probably mess up the time continuum (insert fancy scientific time-travel related jargon her) or whatever it is... I believe Freddie would not have been able to make Queen what it was without Brian May's distinctive guitar sound and Roger May's fantastic drumming, personality and vocal sound. They are brilliant musicians in their own right, It's just I can't imagine anyone in my lifetime (or maybe we'll be lucky) can match the brilliance that was Mercury. It annoys me that they never got a lead singer with a versatility to sing the least rockier numbers. We'll just never have Rodgers singing 'Killer Queen' or 'Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy', will we? Or at least not well. But no, standing by the barrier watching May rock out and Taylor sing 'I'm in love with my car' was a near euphoric experience for my 20 year old self. One can only imagine what it felt like to be in the same auditorium as Mercury. So yeah, back to the point - One half of Queen - yes. But Paul Rodgers and a half of Queen is never going to be catchy. Anyhoo, plenty of bands continue without members...Pink Floyd... The Who, if I'm right...I'm sure there's many more. You know what...I actually agree with you on this. Paul Rodgers is no Farrokh Bulsara, but I do believe he has some great musical potential and talent. And this was just what I was waiting to hear: "I believe Freddie would not have been able to make Queen what it was without Brian May's distinctive guitar sound and Roger Taylor's fantastic drumming, personality and vocal sound." Brilliantly put! As many people suggest, Freddie did not put together Queen. He wasn't the ringleader - he wasn't the dictator - he wasn't the monarch. Freddie was 1/4 of Queen, and it would never be the same without all four members. Brian May has a unique guitar sound, John Deacon had some pretty obscure but equally talented bass riffs (Son And Daughter for instance. That riff was all bass!), Roger Tayor is one of the most powerful drummers I have ever seen, and Freddie Mercury was a genius with a piano and could control his vocal chords like no other human that ever lived. All four of them are responsible for hit singles as well! JD: I Want To Break Free. BM: We Will Rock You. FM: Bohemian Rhapsody. RT: Radio Ga Ga. Without Freddie and John, it's not Queen. But back to everything that I've been saying recently, it's not supposed to be Queen. |
| Marcos Napier 22.10.2008 21:44 |
*kick* Brian and Roger do have the right the use the name Queen, legally, commercially or "morally" so to speak. But did it work? No. Well, sort of. May, Taylor and Rodgers - or any variation - would have been worse and they could have been totally ignored, and the royal tag made them sell a few (a lot) more copies than they deserved. They could have even called themselves The Beatles that it wouldn't make it better. This is far from just having the rights to use the name. |
| yom yom 23.10.2008 03:36 |
Well, I think Freddie was the soul of Queen, the perfect image and voice for Queen, the unique face and personality that means Queen...His charism and appeal are unforgetable and I'm very disapointed with Brian and Roger behaviours. That's not the Queen I like. It hurts me to see them use this name. Without Freddie, the band doesn't exist anymore . |
| Knute 23.10.2008 08:49 |
Fuck Pual rogers Freddy Mercurie 4 evah! |
| P-Staker 23.10.2008 09:17 |
I've been thinking of how to settle this debate once and for all. I'll open a PayPal account and you guys send me money and your view on this problem. Whichever side sends me the most money by next New Year officially wins the argument. I'll keep you posted about the account details. Start smashin' those piggy banks. |
| «¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» 23.10.2008 14:21 |
P Staker said: I'll open a PayPal account and you guys send me money and your view on this problem. Whichever side sends me the most money by next New Year officially wins the argument. In your Dreams!! I think its pretty clear if you go through the posts,how most feel...ha ha ..we win!! QPR=Quit Producing Regret!!! |
| thomasquinn 32989 23.10.2008 14:34 |
Your life must be very empty if you get upset over such a thing as a band producing music you don't agree with. Boohoo fucking hoo. |
| P-Staker 23.10.2008 14:39 |
«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» wrote: P Staker said: I'll open a PayPal account and you guys send me money and your view on this problem. Whichever side sends me the most money by next New Year officially wins the argument. In your Dreams!! I think its pretty clear if you go through the posts,how most feel...ha ha ..we win!! QPR=Quit Producing Regret!!! That's not an impartial method. After all, if you go through audience at a QPR concert you'd see several orders of magnitude more QPR supporters than there are detractors on this board. This would mean QPR is a hit with fans - and you don't want that, do you? The conclusion is, MY way is the ONLY way to settle this argument. And since you're so sexy, I'm giving you a one-time 10% discount - meaning first sum of money you send me counts as 10% more towards the vote! - if you send by Friday. I know, I'm a sucker. |
| the april lady 42449 23.10.2008 16:28 |
I'm finding this quite entertaining! It's funny how angry some people are getting. There was a major, very significant element of Queen on stage in Glasgow a couple of weeks ago. Nobody is pretending it's the same as when Freddie and John were involved. I was still mesmerised by Brian's guitar playing though, which was one of the things I liked about Queen in the first place. I love the fact that they've gone back on tour, whatever they're calling themselves. |
| P-Staker 23.10.2008 16:36 |
ThomasQuinn, what you up to, mate? If people like that realize what you're saying, I'll lose their business! |
| «¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» 23.10.2008 23:01 |
Ha Ha...You do make me Laugh!!! |
| Lillypillyfarrokhfan 24.10.2008 20:52 |
When Freddie died, so did Queen. He was the heart and soul of the band. What I think is "pushing it slightly" is Brian and Roger insisting that they haven't "replaced" Freddie. A new frontman, new tours, new album...............there are no two words about it, he's been replaced. In saying that, if Brian and Roger want to keep going I say go for it. I'm not sure if I'd ever be interested in seeing Queen+Paul Rogers though. Just my opinion. |
| «¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» 10.12.2008 23:13 |
P-Staker wrote:The conclusion is, MY way is the ONLY way to settle this argument. And since you're so sexy, I'm giving you a one-time 10% discount - meaning first sum of money you send me counts as 10% more towards the vote! - if you send by Friday. I know, I'm a sucker. I forgot to ask you awhile back when the topic was current..How'd you know I was so Sexy???[img=/images/smiley/msn/tounge_smile.gif][/img] |
| lalaalalaa 11.12.2008 08:00 |
Wouldn't be Queen without David Bowie [img=/images/smiley/msn/teeth_smile.gif][/img] |
| lalaalalaa 11.12.2008 08:10 |
Yes, Freddie's voice was a part of Queen's diversity as a band but that wasn't the only thing. There was Brian's unique guitar virtuosity, John's bass lines, and Roger's perfect drumming which, according to Brian, is getting better and better. Even Freddie Mercury himself said that they are 4 EQUAL musicians. Why do you people get angry at Paul for doing something that Freddie wanted. You people are basically insulting Freddie by not taking Paul Rodgers since Freddie is unable to perform on this Earth. Brian was the key member of Queen that found the other members (with Tim Staffell's help of course). The Show Must Go On, whether you like it or not. |
| Ken8 11.12.2008 20:00 |
lalaalalaa wrote: Even Freddie Mercury himself said that they are 4 EQUAL musicians. So how does half of the four equal musicians add up to Queen? It doesn't, no matter how much you want to keep fooling yourself |
| Ken8 11.12.2008 20:01 |
Jazz 78 wrote: I see we're still beating this dead horse. No, the only ones beating a dead horse are Roger & Brian. |
| lalaalalaa 11.12.2008 22:07 |
Ken8 wrote:lalaalalaa wrote: Even Freddie Mercury himself said that they are 4 EQUAL musicians.So how does half of the four equal musicians add up to Queen? It doesn't, no matter how much you want to keep fooling yourself I never said that they still equal Queen. They are Queen + Paul Rodgers. If they wanted they could have taken + Paul Rodgers part out and just go with Queen. How would you like that? |
| redspecialusa 11.12.2008 22:22 |
"Oh shit, all that crap again?!" "HAHAHAHAHAHA." |
| Ken8 12.12.2008 01:38 |
lalaalalaa wrote:Ken8 wrote:I never said that they still equal Queen. They are Queen + Paul Rodgers. If they wanted they could have taken + Paul Rodgers part out and just go with Queen. How would you like that?lalaalalaa wrote: Even Freddie Mercury himself said that they are 4 EQUAL musicians.So how does half of the four equal musicians add up to Queen? It doesn't, no matter how much you want to keep fooling yourself What an idiot. So calling themselves Queen + Paul Rodgers instead of just Queen is the lesser of two evils? If they wanted they could try and make believe half of Queen is still Queen, join up with Paul Rodgers and release a substandard album that fails to excite the record buying public and tarnish the name of a once great group. How would you like that? Who cares. It's all over, and by the looks of it, it's ended in tears with a whimper. |
| inu-liger 12.12.2008 03:22 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: Your life must be very empty if you get upset over such a thing as a band producing music you don't agree with. Boohoo fucking hoo. This post is made of win ^ |
| lalaalalaa 12.12.2008 07:52 |
Ken8 wrote:lalaalalaa wrote:What an idiot. So calling themselves Queen + Paul Rodgers instead of just Queen is the lesser of two evils? If they wanted they could try and make believe half of Queen is still Queen, join up with Paul Rodgers and release a substandard album that fails to excite the record buying public and tarnish the name of a once great group. How would you like that? Who cares. It's all over, and by the looks of it, it's ended in tears with a whimper.Ken8 wrote:I never said that they still equal Queen. They are Queen + Paul Rodgers. If they wanted they could have taken + Paul Rodgers part out and just go with Queen. How would you like that?lalaalalaa wrote: Even Freddie Mercury himself said that they are 4 EQUAL musicians.So how does half of the four equal musicians add up to Queen? It doesn't, no matter how much you want to keep fooling yourself Just shut up. If you don't like the album who cares, but it IS a great album. And it isn't over until they are all dead (or retired). You aren't a Queen fan, you are more of a Freddie fan. You could care less about Brian and Roger because you must think it's all about Freddie. QUIT ACTING LIKE IT WAS QUEEN+FREDDIE |
| vadenuez 12.12.2008 13:56 |
lalaalalaa wrote: QUIT ACTING LIKE IT WAS QUEEN+FREDDIE Erm... that's exactly what you're doing, except that you put 'Paul Rodgers' instead of 'Freddie'. |
| vadenuez 12.12.2008 14:10 |
lalaalalaa wrote: Why do you people get angry at Paul for doing something that Freddie wanted. You people are basically insulting Freddie by not taking Paul Rodgers since Freddie is unable to perform on this Earth. Brian was the key member of Queen that found the other members (with Tim Staffell's help of course). Fool me! that's why they called themselves Queen. Because it's a monarchy! According to you, in his deathbed Freddie gathered the remaining members and said "When I'll be unable to keep performing on this earth, Paul Rodgers must continue my legacy... he is your Queen now". And according to you, Brian found Queen along with Tim Staffell (don't look at me with that face, you wrote that). So the line of succession was broken! Tim was supposed to sing after Freddie, not PR... |
| lalaalalaa 12.12.2008 20:20 |
vadenuez wrote:lalaalalaa wrote: Why do you people get angry at Paul for doing something that Freddie wanted. You people are basically insulting Freddie by not taking Paul Rodgers since Freddie is unable to perform on this Earth. Brian was the key member of Queen that found the other members (with Tim Staffell's help of course).Fool me! that's why they called themselves Queen. Because it's a monarchy! According to you, in his deathbed Freddie gathered the remaining members and said "When I'll be unable to keep performing on this earth, Paul Rodgers must continue my legacy... he is your Queen now". And according to you, Brian found Queen along with Tim Staffell (don't look at me with that face, you wrote that). So the line of succession was broken! Tim was supposed to sing after Freddie, not PR... Tim has decided plenty of times not to be in the music business. That does make a pretty good reason why he isn't doing it now. I would have loved Tim to be a part of it again but he doesn't want to. |
| lalaalalaa 12.12.2008 20:22 |
vadenuez wrote:lalaalalaa wrote: QUIT ACTING LIKE IT WAS QUEEN+FREDDIEErm... that's exactly what you're doing, except that you put 'Paul Rodgers' instead of 'Freddie'. No I'm talking about Queen+Paul Rodgers as the band's name. With Freddie, they just called it Queen |
| Ken8 12.12.2008 22:18 |
lalaalalaa wrote:vadenuez wrote:No I'm talking about Queen+Paul Rodgers as the band's name. With Freddie, they just called it Queenlalaalalaa wrote: QUIT ACTING LIKE IT WAS QUEEN+FREDDIEErm... that's exactly what you're doing, except that you put 'Paul Rodgers' instead of 'Freddie'. ....and without Freddie, they still think they can call it Queen...... What a fucking idiot. Remember "Under Pressure"? That was Queen and David Bowie. Compare "Under Pressure" to "TCR".....what's missing? You know if TCR was a resounding success your argument may have carried "some" weight (little actually). It flopped. Some terrible reviews. No US tour by the looks. Credibility as "Queen" is somewhat lacking. ......and it seems to be over already anyway. Thank fuck. |
| lalaalalaa 13.12.2008 00:33 |
Ken8 wrote:lalaalalaa wrote:....and without Freddie, they still think they can call it Queen...... What a fucking idiot. Remember "Under Pressure"? That was Queen and David Bowie. Compare "Under Pressure" to "TCR".....what's missing? You know if TCR was a resounding success your argument may have carried "some" weight (little actually). It flopped. Some terrible reviews. No US tour by the looks. Credibility as "Queen" is somewhat lacking. ......and it seems to be over already anyway. Thank fuck.vadenuez wrote:No I'm talking about Queen+Paul Rodgers as the band's name. With Freddie, they just called it Queenlalaalalaa wrote: QUIT ACTING LIKE IT WAS QUEEN+FREDDIEErm... that's exactly what you're doing, except that you put 'Paul Rodgers' instead of 'Freddie'. OMG I'M F*CKIN SORRY THAT THE ALBUM IS NOT POPULAR. SINCE WHEN DOES POPULARITY EQUAL GREAT SONGS? NEVER The Backstreet Boys were popular, do they produce good albums? |
| mrbadguy86 13.12.2008 12:00 |
All the so-called queenfans who loves the new "queen", would you love The Beatles if they were without McCartney and Lennon? Or Rolling Stones without Mick Jagger \ K-Richards? I really dont think so! This is just pathetic! |
| Marcos Napier 13.12.2008 18:32 |
Don't give them ideas or we might have a new Beetles (har!) with Julian Lennon and that Harrison kid - both at least look a lot like their dads. |
| littlekillerham 13.12.2008 20:08 |
It's not Queen, its Brian May, Rodger Taylor, and Paul Rodgers. |
| Ms. Rebel 14.12.2008 14:46 |
NO FREDDIE - NO QUEEN. FACT. |
| Ken8 14.12.2008 19:25 |
lalaalalaa wrote:Ken8 wrote:OMG I'M F*CKIN SORRY THAT THE ALBUM IS NOT POPULAR. SINCE WHEN DOES POPULARITY EQUAL GREAT SONGS? NEVER The Backstreet Boys were popular, do they produce good albums?lalaalalaa wrote:....and without Freddie, they still think they can call it Queen...... What a fucking idiot. Remember "Under Pressure"? That was Queen and David Bowie. Compare "Under Pressure" to "TCR".....what's missing? You know if TCR was a resounding success your argument may have carried "some" weight (little actually). It flopped. Some terrible reviews. No US tour by the looks. Credibility as "Queen" is somewhat lacking. ......and it seems to be over already anyway. Thank fuck.vadenuez wrote:No I'm talking about Queen+Paul Rodgers as the band's name. With Freddie, they just called it Queenlalaalalaa wrote: QUIT ACTING LIKE IT WAS QUEEN+FREDDIEErm... that's exactly what you're doing, except that you put 'Paul Rodgers' instead of 'Freddie'. Notice how this jackass ignores his/her own point and tries another avenue...... "SINCE WHEN DOES POPULARITY EQUAL GREAT SONGS? NEVER " Ever heard "A Night At The Opera"?? What an idiot. Now ONLY bad albums sell........... That can't be right. TCR didn't sell either. But don't you apologise, you bought it. |
| lalaalalaa 14.12.2008 22:05 |
Ken8 wrote:lalaalalaa wrote:Notice how this jackass ignores his/her own point and tries another avenue...... "SINCE WHEN DOES POPULARITY EQUAL GREAT SONGS? NEVER " Ever heard "A Night At The Opera"?? What an idiot. Now ONLY bad albums sell........... That can't be right. TCR didn't sell either. But don't you apologise, you bought it.Ken8 wrote:OMG I'M F*CKIN SORRY THAT THE ALBUM IS NOT POPULAR. SINCE WHEN DOES POPULARITY EQUAL GREAT SONGS? NEVER The Backstreet Boys were popular, do they produce good albums?lalaalalaa wrote:....and without Freddie, they still think they can call it Queen...... What a fucking idiot. Remember "Under Pressure"? That was Queen and David Bowie. Compare "Under Pressure" to "TCR".....what's missing? You know if TCR was a resounding success your argument may have carried "some" weight (little actually). It flopped. Some terrible reviews. No US tour by the looks. Credibility as "Queen" is somewhat lacking. ......and it seems to be over already anyway. Thank fuck.vadenuez wrote:No I'm talking about Queen+Paul Rodgers as the band's name. With Freddie, they just called it Queenlalaalalaa wrote: QUIT ACTING LIKE IT WAS QUEEN+FREDDIEErm... that's exactly what you're doing, except that you put 'Paul Rodgers' instead of 'Freddie'. A Night At The Opera isn't a great album because it's popular, it's because it has great songs. Now who's the idiot? Nobody said bad albums sale, it's just that you are confusing popularity with talent. |
| Ken8 15.12.2008 09:33 |
SINCE WHEN DOES POPULARITY EQUAL GREAT SONGS? NEVER A Night At The Opera isn't a great album because it's popular, it's because it has great songs. Now who's the idiot? Nobody said bad albums sale, it's just that you are confusing popularity with talent. Kinda hard, reasoning with an illiterate......again, Queen were very popular and had great songs, or are you two telling us that's incorrect now? And no, I don't recall anyone saying bad records "sale" either. Most here can string a sentence together. |
| lalaalalaa 15.12.2008 13:48 |
Ken8 wrote:SINCE WHEN DOES POPULARITY EQUAL GREAT SONGS? NEVERA Night At The Opera isn't a great album because it's popular, it's because it has great songs. Now who's the idiot? Nobody said bad albums sale, it's just that you are confusing popularity with talent. Kinda hard, reasoning with an illiterate......again, Queen were very popular and had great songs, or are you two telling us that's incorrect now? And no, I don't recall anyone saying bad records "sale" either. Most here can string a sentence together. I know that they were popular and had great songs, just don't get the two words mixed up. |
| Ken8 15.12.2008 19:08 |
Ken8 wrote:SINCE WHEN DOES POPULARITY EQUAL GREAT SONGS? NEVER Yep, illiterate |
| inu-liger 16.12.2008 03:36 |
Ken8 wrote:Ken8 wrote:Yep, illiterateSINCE WHEN DOES POPULARITY EQUAL GREAT SONGS? NEVER Piss off to your dorm at the Church of Freddie, you fucking prat. |
| Ken8 16.12.2008 04:01 |
LOL! "Church Of Freddie"....What a put down on a Queen fan forum! Says a lot about the type of Queen "fan" we're dealing with here. Is my membership in the "Church Of Brian May Solo Material" still okay here these days? |
| inu-liger 16.12.2008 04:55 |
Well it clearly seems so that there seems to be an underground cult of 'Classic Queen Fans' formed in recent times, judging by all the trolls who've been popping up lately, esp. around TCR's release. All of whom use the same chidish tactics to piss us off and try to prevent us buying into TCR and its accompanying tour, as if it were a disease. Someone on QOL called me 'sick' for admitting that I own 3 copies of the album because I thought it was *that good*. We can't even have civilized positive topics about Q+PR and/or TCR without you bastards interjecting your doctrine upon us, thus ruining our otherwise-fun topics. So why should you expect us not to try and ruin your anti-QPR threads in return? 'Tit for tat' as they say, unfortunately. And you guys are so fucking close-minded, it's not even funny. Move on. Get a life. I don't care what your church's doctrinal bible says, Freddie's ressurection will never happen, KAPEESH? Losers. |
| lalaalalaa 16.12.2008 05:01 |
inu-liger wrote: Well it clearly seems so that there seems to be an underground cult of 'Classic Queen Fans' formed in recent times, judging by all the trolls who've been popping up lately, esp. around TCR's release. All of whom use the same chidish tactics to piss us off and try to prevent us buying into TCR and its accompanying tour, as if it were a disease. Someone on QOL called me 'sick' for admitting that I own 3 copies of the album because I thought it was *that good*. We can't even have civilized positive topics about Q+PR and/or TCR without you bastards interjecting your doctrine upon us, thus ruining our otherwise-fun topics. So why should you expect us not to try and ruin your anti-QPR threads in return? 'Tit for tat' as they say, unfortunately. And you guys are so fucking close-minded, it's not even funny. Move on. Get a life. I don't care what your church's doctrinal bible says, Freddie's ressurection will never happen, KAPEESH? Losers. AMEN! |
| Ken8 16.12.2008 07:38 |
inu-liger wrote: Well it clearly seems so that there seems to be an underground cult of 'Classic Queen Fans' formed in recent times Losers. You see, this is where your logic is laughable. "Classic Queen Fans" were on here long before Queen+Paul Rodgers was even thought of. To suggest it's some sort of "underground cult" or some sort of cumupance reaction to the failure of "TCR", on a QUEEN FORUM for crying out loud, is pathetic. "TCR" doesn't measure up to classic Queen. Deal with it. |
| Ken8 16.12.2008 07:43 |
inu-liger wrote: We can't even have civilized positive topics about Q+PR and/or TCR without you bastards interjecting..... There's only so many times you can say "Well, I liked it" when there's so many things to say about what's wrong with it, and in hindsight, where it went wrong. Sadly. |
| Ken8 16.12.2008 07:51 |
inu-liger wrote: Move on. Get a life. I don't care what your church's doctrinal bible says, Freddie's ressurection will never happen, KAPEESH? Losers. I can't see what you intend to achieve on here by being negative about the original Queen. You make being a fan of Freddie Mercury sound like a bad thing, on a QUEEN FORUM. Amazing. |
| lalaalalaa 16.12.2008 10:23 |
Ken8 wrote:inu-liger wrote: Move on. Get a life. I don't care what your church's doctrinal bible says, Freddie's ressurection will never happen, KAPEESH? Losers.I can't see what you intend to achieve on here by being negative about the original Queen. You make being a fan of Freddie Mercury sound like a bad thing, on a QUEEN FORUM. Amazing. Well you make being a fan of Paul Rodgers sound like a bad thing. |
| inu-liger 16.12.2008 16:46 |
lalaalalaa wrote:Ken8 wrote:Well you make being a fan of Paul Rodgers sound like a bad thing.inu-liger wrote: Move on. Get a life. I don't care what your church's doctrinal bible says, Freddie's ressurection will never happen, KAPEESH? Losers.I can't see what you intend to achieve on here by being negative about the original Queen. You make being a fan of Freddie Mercury sound like a bad thing, on a QUEEN FORUM. Amazing. Touche. Also, I note that the 'Classic Queen Fans' seem to comprise mainly of 30+ year olds who can actually remember BEING around when Freddie was alive and all. And I wasn't old enough to remember Freddie being alive (having been born in 1986). So maybe this is where a certain line of thought is being drawn? Cos it seems the younger generation is a hell of a lot more accepting than the old folk who'd rather sit there and ramble on about the good ol' days like it was doctrinal FACT instead of being hip and trying something new without complaint ;-) One serious question to those said folk: Do you honestly rank TCR *lower* than the album 'Hot Space" (which be also known as "OOPS"?) No skirting around that ;-) |
| Marcos Napier 16.12.2008 19:10 |
Also, I note that the 'Classic Queen Fans' seem to comprise mainly of 30+ year olds who can actually remember BEING around when Freddie was alive and all. And I wasn't old enough to remember Freddie being alive (having been born in 1986). So maybe this is where a certain line of thought is being drawn? Cos it seems the younger generation is a hell of a lot more accepting than the old folk who'd rather sit there and ramble on about the good ol' days like it was doctrinal FACT instead of being hip and trying something new without complaint ;-)Touche #2. By having nothing to compare with than VHS/DVDs and CDs and stories told about us old guys, TCR/QPR lovers can't understand the differences between these 2 bands. How many times one has been told about a certain "seminal" artist or band and when they go check their works, it's "disappointing". See how much Beatles (or Stones) have an impact in new generations. They think they are Oasis clones. One thing was to sing in front of 200,000 people wearing fake boobs in 1985, in a homophobic country. Anyone does that today and it's "fun". Still, it's not an excuse. It's OK to like TCR and QPR. To say that it's brillliant is what makes me confused. One serious question to those said folk: Do you honestly rank TCR *lower* than the album 'Hot Space" (which be also known as "OOPS"?) Yes. It was not their cup of tea and it was like Britney Spears singing opera, but it's better than an average (as in "any other band could have done it") work like TCR. |
| inu-liger 16.12.2008 19:23 |
Well, maybe it may not be brilliant in your eyes. At the same time, you guys keep forgetting (or just plain ignoring the fact) that no two Queen albums sounded the same. Queen always took on a new direction, wherever they felt like going, and this continues it. At the same time, this album is a hell of a lot more lively than some of their last albums with Freddie. I certainly applaud for one, the fact that Roger Taylor plays drums on all tracks LIVE, as opposed to using the EuroPop-style synth drums that killed the concept of the albums being Queen as a whole. Programmed drums and bass do not make for a wholly band-sounding song or album, sorry to say. I would go as far as to say TCR is MORE of a classic-type album in terms of production and sound than AKOM, Miracle, etc etc were. You cannot deny that. I am glad they sacked David Richards since then, as I have come to realize that ever since they went with him, the album production values went downhill, songwriting aside (I am not saying they made a load of crap songs, but those songs COULD have ended up better in terms of production and sound, but whatever. That is water long gone under the bridge) |
| inu-liger 16.12.2008 19:25 |
One other thing: Never compare Queen to Bitchney Spears. Her talent is nowhere near that of Queen. Real musicians let alone singers SHOULDN'T need to rely on a stale factory of 'team songwriters' who only try to appeal to tweens. Queen RARELY worked with outside songwriters. |
| lalaalalaa 16.12.2008 19:33 |
Well I can honestly put TCR above A Kind Of Magic and Flash Gordon easily. Not sure about Hot Space cause I like that album. |
| Ken8 16.12.2008 19:56 |
lalaalalaa wrote:Ken8 wrote:Well you make being a fan of Paul Rodgers sound like a bad thing.inu-liger wrote: Move on. Get a life. I don't care what your church's doctrinal bible says, Freddie's ressurection will never happen, KAPEESH? Losers.I can't see what you intend to achieve on here by being negative about the original Queen. You make being a fan of Freddie Mercury sound like a bad thing, on a QUEEN FORUM. Amazing. For one thing, this is not a Paul Rodgers Fan Forum. If he wasn't performing with Queen, we wouldn't be discussing him at any length. But it shows how empty you two are as I've stated numerous times, I am a big fan of Rodgers, and the two remaining members of Queen. The fact remains that "TCR" was underwhelming and a failure, and the very concept of Q+PR was fraught with danger from the start. It's understandable where your bitterness comes from. You never saw the real Queen, were never around in their heyday and have nothing to compare the "TCR" era to the real thing. You're more accepting of a poor piece of work like "TCR" not because you're young, but when it comes to new Queen music, it's all you have short of taking a trip in the TARDIS. You may prefer "TCR" to a lot of the real Queen's back catalogue. Who cares, you're in a very small minority at the end of the day. "Hot Space" may not've been Queen's crowning glory, but a lot more people liked it than "TCR" I wonder why? |
| Ken8 16.12.2008 20:02 |
inu-liger wrote: ....old folk who'd rather sit there and ramble on about the good ol' days like it was doctrinal FACT instead of being hip and trying something new without complaint ;-) You know, I honestly thought you were even younger. What does that say.... You must be real "hip" digging "TCR"...... ....and they say young folk would like any old rubbish. As you yourself say "without complaint" The irony from this girl is hilarious. And as for "doctrinal FACT" Look it up. Nobody here needs to glamourise Queen's past glories. As opposed to you who seems to want to denigrate them in an attempt to give Q+PR more credibility. Pathetic and bitter. Enjoy your collection of Q+PR albums, even though all three of them are the same record. Can't see there being too many more...... |
| inu-liger 16.12.2008 20:36 |
Listen, I'm sick and tired of reading your bullshit arguments over and over about this not being the "real Queen". I'm sick and tired of trying to argue with you assholes over such petty issues as this. And so is everyone else. You guys were at one point yourselves wanting and clamouring to no end for a NEW Queen album, and you KNEW it wouldn't have Freddie on it at all if that were to happen. We all accepted that, no? I'm sure you guys didn't have nowhere NEAR these kind of issues when Brian, Roger and John got back together for the one-off single "No-One But You (Only The Good Die Young)", which was CLEARLY recorded and released under the name Queen. Yet enter Paul Rodgers into the picture, a "nobody" as far you guys were concerned, rather than Robbie "I'm the next fucking Freddie Mercury" Williams or George Michael. And enter also the denigrates of Queen fandom to start bashing PR right from the beginning without even giving him a fucking chance. I think your standards are way too high, for one. I seriously doubt anything can top ANATO, not even Queen II. And I am NOT saying TCR is better than ANATO, so don't you dare go putting words in my mouth. However, I think TCR is more of a Queen album in terms of production and sound than their 80's output ever were, lead singer aside. This album is RAW. It's FRESH, and I don't think ever really gets boring. Whereas their 80's albums had quite some fillers than you'd obviously care to admit. I just don't understand why you guys feel the incessant need to keep on playing your broken records repeatedly even 4 years on. But whatever. People like you always continue the drivel on and on regardless of the feelings of the majority, and continue to drive away the more sensible people away from boards like this and QOL. And you are clearly a minority, as going by apparent tour attendance statistics, surely 1 million fans can't be wrong? And there are what, 20 of you? (Maybe less, taking into account multiple alternate accounts across different boards ;-) |
| Marcos Napier 16.12.2008 20:58 |
inu-liger wrote: (...) I would go as far as to say TCR is MORE of a classic-type album in terms of production and sound than AKOM, Miracle, etc etc were. You cannot deny that. I am glad they sacked David Richards since then, as I have come to realize that ever since they went with him, the album production values went downhill, songwriting aside (I am not saying they made a load of crap songs, but those songs COULD have ended up better in terms of production and sound, but whatever. That is water long gone under the bridge) I never denied it. And about the productions, it was the 80's. I guess they were a bit lost with the new stuff (synths etc.), and it wasn't their cup of tea, which is the same analogy as I did with Britney. I never compared Queen to her - where did you read it? I just said that HS was about the same to Queen as she (or Madonna or any shitty pop artist with auto-tuned voices) in an opera. |
| Marcos Napier 16.12.2008 21:14 |
inu-liger wrote: Listen, I'm sick and tired of reading your bullshit arguments over and over about this not being the "real Queen".Well if there weren't too many people still treating QPR as the "real Queen" it wouldn't happen. I'm sick and tired of trying to argue with you assholes over such petty issues as this. And so is everyone else.Well... stop doing it then. You guys were at one point yourselves wanting and clamouring to no end for a NEW Queen album, and you KNEW it wouldn't have Freddie on it at all if that were to happen. We all accepted that, no?Are you sure that everybody wanted a new album? I speak for myself, and to me it could have easily stopped at Innuendo. I'm sure you guys didn't have nowhere NEAR these kind of issues when Brian, Roger and John got back together for the one-off single "No-One But You (Only The Good Die Young)", which was CLEARLY recorded and released under the name Queen.3/4 is more than 2/4, for the maths in here. And it still was Queen the same way as it is now and all the others. It was a different thing though, more like a final tribute. It was so much more authentic than QPR that even John was in it. to start bashing PR right from the beginning without even giving him a fucking chance."We" gave him a chance, didn't we? He made an album and a big tour, and had a lot of time. However, I think TCR is more of a Queen album in terms of production and sound than their 80's output ever were, lead singer aside. This album is RAW. It's FRESH, and I don't think ever really gets boring. Whereas their 80's albums had quite some fillers than you'd obviously care to admit.Fillers exist in every album. Fresh? Not really. Raw? Hrm. Yes. It needs more cooking time. Maybe if what makes a Queen album that good is the production, let's do as some suggested in other threads and bring back RTB. People like you always continue the drivel on and on regardless of the feelings of the majority,ROFL (sorry) And you are clearly a minority, as going by apparent tour attendance statistics, surely 1 million fans can't be wrong? And there are what, 20 of you? (Maybe less, taking into account multiple alternate accounts across different boards ;-) Ok, I'm not sorry. ROFL. |
| inu-liger 16.12.2008 22:21 |
Like I said, keep on rehashing that drivel. It surely never gets old with you guys. Gotta love the sandbox mentality that affects everyone here >.> |
| Ken8 16.12.2008 22:24 |
inu-liger wrote: Yet enter Paul Rodgers into the picture, a "nobody" as far you guys were concerned, rather than Robbie "I'm the next fucking Freddie Mercury" Williams or George Michael. And enter also the denigrates of Queen fandom to start bashing PR right from the beginning without even giving him a fucking chance. I think Marcos Napier has said it best but, again with basing your defence of Rodgers on a false premise. No one has ever suggested Rodgers is a "nobody" Even forgetting the "half of Queen is not Queen", three rock legends have produced an album well below their talents. Nobody had a choice about giving Rodgers a chance, the band made that decision for us no matter what our personal beliefs about carrying on the name of Queen. It flopped. |
| Ken8 16.12.2008 22:26 |
inu-liger wrote: Like I said, keep on rehashing that drivel. It surely never gets old with you guys. Gotta love the sandbox mentality that affects everyone here >.> What, like believing "TCR" is an overlooked masterpiece? You're one of the few living in fantasyland. |
| inu-liger 16.12.2008 22:42 |
Did I say TCR was a masterpiece? No. Did I say TCR was a very good album? Yes. Did I get words put into my mouth once again? Yes. |
| Ken8 16.12.2008 22:48 |
Sorry, What, like believing "TCR" is a "very good album"? You're one of the few living in fantasyland. |
| inu-liger 16.12.2008 22:52 |
Ken8 wrote:inu-liger wrote: Yet enter Paul Rodgers into the picture, a "nobody" as far you guys were concerned, rather than Robbie "I'm the next fucking Freddie Mercury" Williams or George Michael. And enter also the denigrates of Queen fandom to start bashing PR right from the beginning without even giving him a fucking chance.I think Marcos Napier has said it best but, again with basing your defence of Rodgers on a false premise. No one has ever suggested Rodgers is a "nobody" Even forgetting the "half of Queen is not Queen", three rock legends have produced an album well below their talents. Nobody had a choice about giving Rodgers a chance, the band made that decision for us no matter what our personal beliefs about carrying on the name of Queen. It flopped. It flopped because of a clear lack of promotion. Everyone acknowledged that much. Look at Metallica, look at AC/DC. They had shitloads of promotion. Queen? Nada. Not even a single blip on HMV's in-store upcoming release posters! Even HR had the galls to call upon the fans to join a volunteer street team promotion which, while I admit I took part in it - and had fun in doing so, it seems in afterthought a very lazy call on their part, as they obviously could not be arsed to spare $$ for advertising on their part, which is typical really. They'll gladly advertise their greatest hits CD's, but anything else FUCK IT. QPL seriously needs to get their act together, and sack their 'Creative Board of Directors' whoever they may be. This includes Jim Beach. They seriously don't know how to market their releases properly anymore, let alone acknowledging what the fans really want. Did we ask for a singles collection? NO. |
| inu-liger 16.12.2008 22:54 |
Ken8 wrote: Sorry, What, like believing "TCR" is a "very good album"? You're one of the few living in fantasyland. You're the one being a delusional sonofabitch here. |
| Ken8 16.12.2008 22:59 |
It flopped because it wasn't worth investing money for promoting, short of enlisting volunteers. It was decidedly average, and most knew that the moment they heard it. The band even toured behind it for cryin out loud, and the reports that "Queen" were releasing an album of new material with another vocalist made news around the world, obviously for the wrong reasons. Funnily enough, older material by Queen on DVD still seems to top the charts internationally. I wonder why? |
| inu-liger 16.12.2008 23:06 |
How convenient is it then that you guys never pay attention to the positive aspects behind the collaboration, but focus on the negative in order to push fans away from the current Queen projects and essentially keep them to only buying the old Greatest Hits releases over and over then? For one, you trolls never even quote sources behind your fantasy-laden wet dream rumours along the lines of "This is it. It's over", "QPR are splitting up" etc etc. You go spreading your doctrinal bullshit like it's reality. And Brian clearly said on his Soapbox that they are NOT splitting up. Yet you guys once again clearly ignore that, and try to whack around the bush and twist *his* words around to your advantage in any case. This is clearly showing how reliable you guys are as "Queen" fans, classic or not. And this is also moreso illustrating the great divide that's pushing a lot more of the sensible people away from troll-infested boards like this. Wake up and smell the coffee for fuck sakes. |
| inu-liger 16.12.2008 23:13 |
If you need something to cool down with, here's something perfect for you Ken boy: link |
| Ken8 16.12.2008 23:32 |
Here's another fun FACT for you to get bitter and twisted over... How come the week "TCR" was released in Australia it was outsold by Queen's Greatest Hits? Then sank into obscurity........ I mean, "TCR" would have been on the shelf beside it. |
| inu-liger 16.12.2008 23:35 |
No comment, as I live in Canada, not Australia. I can only speak for the lack of promotion that happened here. You'd have to ask our fellow mates from there. |
| inu-liger 16.12.2008 23:37 |
And judging by your throwaway comments about me and other Queen/QPR fans being bitter and all, I think it only shows who the bitter one here really is (Certainly not me) |
| Ken8 16.12.2008 23:40 |
I'd suggest that trend would've been seen in other territories. There was not much promotion for "TCR" downunder either to be fair. But there is no promotion for "Greatest Hits" either...... I guess the vast majority of the record buying public choose to worship at the "Church Of Freddie" instead of joining some small fanatical cult...... ...drink the kool-aid. Please. |
| Ken8 16.12.2008 23:42 |
inu-liger wrote: And judging by your throwaway comments about me and other Queen/QPR fans being bitter and all, I think it only shows who the bitter one here really is (Certainly not me) LOL!! What do I have to be bitter about? I doubted the wisdom of the collaboration from the start, and everything since has confirmed my fears. Sadly. |
| inu-liger 16.12.2008 23:44 |
Ken8 wrote: I'd suggest that trend would've been seen in other territories. There was not much promotion for "TCR" downunder either to be fair. But there is no promotion for "Greatest Hits" either...... I guess the vast majority of the record buying public choose to worship at the "Church Of Freddie" instead of joining some small fanatical cult...... ...drink the kool-aid. Please. Like I said, if the album HAD been promoted (which would have been at the expense of the companies who clearly would rather promote shit tween pop artists than real bands) it would more than certainly have done a lot better. This is not solely a US issue. This is not solely an Aussie issue. This is not solely a UK issue. Whose issue is it clearly then? Simple: EMI, Parlophone, Hollywood Records and their worldwide subsidies. Clearly they didn't want to flood the market with good comeback albums *rolls eyes* |
| Ken8 16.12.2008 23:46 |
inu-liger wrote: Like I said, if the album HAD been promoted (which would have been at the expense of the companies who clearly would rather promote shit tween pop artists than real bands) it would more than certainly have done a lot better. This is not solely a US issue. This is not solely an Aussie issue. This is not solely a UK issue. Whose issue is it clearly then? Simple: EMI, Parlophone, Hollywood Records and their worldwide subsidies. Clearly they didn't want to flood the market with good comeback albums *rolls eyes* Again, no. They didn't want to waste their money promoting bad ones. |
| inu-liger 16.12.2008 23:48 |
Ken8 wrote:inu-liger wrote: And judging by your throwaway comments about me and other Queen/QPR fans being bitter and all, I think it only shows who the bitter one here really is (Certainly not me)LOL!! What do I have to be bitter about? I doubted the wisdom of the collaboration from the start, and everything since has confirmed my fears. Sadly. What fears of mine that are coming true in this case is that you pariahs are treating this as if it were the end of the world. I think the Large Hadron Collider was more of a threat than QPR would ever be :-P We lived through that, didn't we? Anyways, there IS more to life than trolling the boards with the same old shit, ya know. Why can't you fellows just let us be? |
| inu-liger 16.12.2008 23:51 |
Ken8 wrote:inu-liger wrote: Like I said, if the album HAD been promoted (which would have been at the expense of the companies who clearly would rather promote shit tween pop artists than real bands) it would more than certainly have done a lot better. This is not solely a US issue. This is not solely an Aussie issue. This is not solely a UK issue. Whose issue is it clearly then? Simple: EMI, Parlophone, Hollywood Records and their worldwide subsidies. Clearly they didn't want to flood the market with good comeback albums *rolls eyes*Again, no. They didn't want to waste their money promoting bad ones. I'm not even going to compliment that with a reply to your liking. |
| Ken8 16.12.2008 23:53 |
Because you can't. |
| inu-liger 17.12.2008 00:02 |
Oh I could. But being a close-minded 13-year-old troll, there's no point arguing with you. Now keep on sipping that Kool-Aid. Ohhhhhhh yeah |
| Ken8 17.12.2008 00:35 |
You are ridiculous. TCR was a failure. Fact. There's only so many ways you can pretend otherwise |
| inu-liger 17.12.2008 00:56 |
Clearly, you're an immature little bitch. I've said all I could, but you clearly do not want to listen to my side of arguments, and instead behave like a toddler. This conversation ends now. |
| Ken8 17.12.2008 01:26 |
lol. And so exits inu-liger with her tail between her legs after another session of self delusion and denial. "TCR" tanked. Fact. |
| lalaalalaa 17.12.2008 12:45 |
Ken8 wrote: lol. And so exits inu-liger with her tail between her legs after another session of self delusion and denial. "TCR" tanked. Fact. That's your opinion, you bitter, selfish jerk. |
| lalaalalaa 17.12.2008 12:55 |
Ken8 wrote:lalaalalaa wrote:For one thing, this is not a Paul Rodgers Fan Forum. If he wasn't performing with Queen, we wouldn't be discussing him at any length. But it shows how empty you two are as I've stated numerous times, I am a big fan of Rodgers, and the two remaining members of Queen. The fact remains that "TCR" was underwhelming and a failure, and the very concept of Q+PR was fraught with danger from the start. It's understandable where your bitterness comes from. You never saw the real Queen, were never around in their heyday and have nothing to compare the "TCR" era to the real thing. You're more accepting of a poor piece of work like "TCR" not because you're young, but when it comes to new Queen music, it's all you have short of taking a trip in the TARDIS. You may prefer "TCR" to a lot of the real Queen's back catalogue. Who cares, you're in a very small minority at the end of the day. "Hot Space" may not've been Queen's crowning glory, but a lot more people liked it than "TCR" I wonder why?Ken8 wrote:Well you make being a fan of Paul Rodgers sound like a bad thing.inu-liger wrote: Move on. Get a life. I don't care what your church's doctrinal bible says, Freddie's ressurection will never happen, KAPEESH? Losers.I can't see what you intend to achieve on here by being negative about the original Queen. You make being a fan of Freddie Mercury sound like a bad thing, on a QUEEN FORUM. Amazing. You are so full of it, aren't you? TCR isn't a poor album, like you say. This is only the debut of Queen+Paul Rodgers. This album could take more than a few listens to like it (kinda like Queen II) You must think of yourself as the only one who knows what he's talking about, but you just can't live with other people's opinions because it makes you feel as if you are wrong. I'm not saying you are wrong for hating TCR, but you are wrong for saying it's a poor album as if it was a fact. I prefer most of Queen's catalouge, because: 1. I prefer Freddie over Paul 2. Q+PR doesn't have a big catalouge to choose from To tell you the truth, I'm glad that Brian and Roger have done this instead of laying around watching TV. Try to be more open to other people's opinions and state your opinions in a nicer manner. It would be appreciated. |
| Marcos Napier 17.12.2008 14:34 |
inu-liger wrote:That's very true. But it won't make TCR a good album, would it?Like I said, if the album HAD been promoted (which would have been at the expense of the companies who clearly would rather promote shit tween pop artists than real bands) it would more than certainly have done a lot better. This is not solely a US issue. This is not solely an Aussie issue. This is not solely a UK issue. inu-liger wrote: How convenient is it then that you guys never pay attention to the positive aspects behind the collaboration, but focus on the negative in order to push fans away from the current Queen projects and essentially keep them to only buying the old Greatest Hits releases over and over then?I think you mean that us Freddie-believers [sic] are making some kind of a boycott of QPR in favour of ... the singles collection, for example? We (some at least) aren't encouraging anyone at all to buy the singles collection - not because of the songs, but because of the commercial aspects of it. I feel sad when someone says that we are just "trying to destroy dreams" or something with our "negativity". I just hope that when this project is over that Brian or Roger don't say that they abandoned it because of the negativity they felt at QZ forums. I would be really sad. [sarcasm mode off] For one, you trolls never even quote sources behind your fantasy-laden wet dream rumours along the lines of "This is it. It's over", "QPR are splitting up" etc etc. You go spreading your doctrinal bullshit like it's reality. And Brian clearly said on his Soapbox that they are NOT splitting up. Yet you guys once again clearly ignore that, and try to whack around the bush and twist *his* words around to your advantage in any case.Time will tell. This is clearly showing how reliable you guys are as "Queen" fans, classic or not.Do we have to have a certificate of reliability issued by the fan club or QPL? What is a "reliable" fan to you? And this is also moreso illustrating the great divide that's pushing a lot more of the sensible people away from troll-infested boards like this. As I've said in some other thread, it would be nice and easier to have a forum dedicated just to QPR - I wouldn't bother to be there. And a new site to promote it (here we go again). They are a new band, aren't they? Now I'm confused again. Have you ever thought that some of these people that are "leaving" might be doing that due to both reasons, like because they are seeing people liking and worshipping QPR as it was the 8th wonder and they don't (and can't, unless they like to be called names) agree and prefer to leave? The whole worshipping of a really bad concept/idea/project (the album mostly than the tour and concerts, though) is what annoys me. |
| Crisstti 06.01.2009 17:56 |
Well, meanwhile it certainly isn't Queen, it's as much of Queen as we can possibly have now... and that's not little to say. Maybe they should have called themselves something else, but whatever, it's not something that's gonna make me lose any sleep. As far as I'm concerned, as long as Brian and Roger are enjoying themselves, great for them (and I saw them here in Chile in November, and they were certainly having fun). They were both obviously a very important part of Queen, and they seem like really nice and sweet people. I like them. And great for us, who have had the chance of seeing them live performing Queen songs and some new ones, which seemed good to me. I am a very new fan (not more than three months), and never had the chance to see Queen live, nor was around for most of their career, for that matter. So this is how much of them as I will ever see live. Now, having said that, Freddie is my favourite member of the band (musically speaking), without a doubt. And I love him. And it's clearly not at all the same without him. Like someone else here said, one can only imagine what it would have been to see Queen with him live (well, that and watch videos of them live, of course...). A pair of other things: - Why is it that some people have to get so rude when discussing these things?. I understand that one may feel very strongly about them, but there's no need for name calling and personal insults. It doesn't help any arguments at all. - Why that dissing of young people?. Why is it somehow an insult if someone is 13, or whatever?. That doesn't make their opinions any less valuable. It's just a prejudiced attitude. And a fallacy, for that matter. - Brian and Roger were not just watching TV before doing this. They have been having a career of their own. Well, cheers to everyone. |
| Ken8 06.01.2009 19:44 |
lalaalalaa wrote:Ken8 wrote: lol. And so exits inu-liger with her tail between her legs after another session of self delusion and denial. "TCR" tanked. Fact.That's your opinion, you bitter, selfish jerk. No, as you can see, that was a fact too. |