| lalaalalaa 18.12.2009 07:38 |
link |
| mooghead 18.12.2009 12:14 |
I agree with everything!!!! |
| Amazon 18.12.2009 12:24 |
I think that Queen should have retired when John retired, with No-One But You being the swansong. While I still regard that as the last genuine Queen song, I think it would have been better for Queen's legacy, if they hadn't continued beyond John's retirement. Based on that, I pretty much agree; I don't agree as to when they should have retired, but I do agree that they shouldn't have entered the 'Queen +' years. BTW, what do people think about the idea of Queen having released a post-MIH album with just Brian, Roger and John, and Brian and Roger sharing lead vocals? |
| ParisNair 18.12.2009 16:19 |
I don't agree. Brian and Roger should continue their work for as long as they feel upto it. They may or may not collaborate with others, its their call and if sharing ideas with other artists sparks their creativity, nothing like it. I do have reservations against them calling their projects Queen+ (I hope we have seen the end of that) but that's another topic of discussion (one that has already been beaten to death). I agreed with the opinion that its time for Rolling Stones to quit recording (if they haven't already). |
| QUEENexpert 18.12.2009 16:42 |
honestly, i disagree. i think they should keep making music but it should just be roger and brian. no guest singers, no new singers. none of that. just brian and roger. thats just my opinion though. |
| TheRobin 18.12.2009 16:49 |
I don't agree with ANY of that. If Brian May and Roger Taylor still have heart for their band, why should they retire!? They were still rocking hard on the stage. But of course people will think that just because Freddie isn't there, Brian and Roger can't perform good, or just shouldn't be there at all. Sorry, it just doesn't work like that. When people realize that Brian and Roger didn't die when Freddie died, people will understand where they were coming from when they decided to tour again. They obviously weren't ready to retire when Freddie died, and they weren't ready to close the Queen chapter. I honestly don't see the problem with them going on and selling out crowds and having a good time performing on-stage the Queen songs they probably thought they'd never perform again. And it's a definite win for the crowd as well who probably thought they'd never see the band live again. "Queen retire already!" Why!? I have a couple of DVD's of the Q+PR shows and I wish I had been a fan earlier so I could have seen these shows in person. They look AMAZING! Hell, I want them to bring it back out one more time so I can be there. I'm only 19, Queen, with Freddie, performed their last show before I was even born, how cool would it be for me to see all the songs I love being performed live this time around!? There IS no valid reason for people to call for Queen to retire, none at all. |
| steven 35638 18.12.2009 17:01 |
I find the article repulsive. As long as they still have the appropriate inspiration, artists should continue to express themselves throug their talents. I think it's quite obvious that Queen (May and Taylor, of course) are not in it for the money anymore. Why would they? They're already filthy, stinking rich. If anything, they are in it for the band's legacy. And to say that the band should have given up long ago is being a bit unfair. They have a right to write and perform songs, just as we have a right to do our jobs until we deem it necessary to retire. And they certainly have a right to use the band's name. They made their livelihood under that entitlement. |
| Sharon G.Queen Fan 18.12.2009 18:14 |
The show must go on. The Queen name must not. |
| steven 35638 18.12.2009 18:26 |
Clever. |
| redspecialusa 18.12.2009 21:00 |
That article was obviously written by a twat. |
| The Real Wizard 18.12.2009 22:38 |
Brian and Roger founded the band and have sold hundreds of millions of records. They can do whatever they please with or without the Queen name, as they've earned it. It's amazing how so many people think their opinion actually matters. If you don't like it, don't buy their new records and don't go to see the shows. What are you ultimately trying to accomplish by raining on someone else's enjoyment of music? As for the article, most of these pseudo-writers are failed musicians, so they're simply bitter of the continued success of others who manage to remain relevant despite not having a hit record in 20 years. |
| andreas_mercury 19.12.2009 00:34 |
why take offence at someone elses opinion? "OH I CRY CRY CRY I FIN THAT ARTICLE OFFENCIVE" isnt that just as stupid as someone finding Q+PR an offence?? you are a weak human being if you cannot listen to both sides me i think brian or roger should sing paul rodgers can stay in the pig farm he came from. |
| thunderbolt 31742 19.12.2009 01:39 |
The writer seems to have a preference for hair metal. How else do you include The Who (THE FREAKING WHO?!) on your list and leave out perpetual hangers-on like KISS, Bon Jovi and Guns 'N Roses? Granted, I like lots of KISS and GnR (but Bon Jovi is a no-talent assclown, imho), but you'd have a hard time finding much support outside of hair metal circles for a band whose lead guitarist was plucked from a tribute band, or another band that's seen all of its original members (and most of the replacements for their replacements) move on, save for the lead singer with an ego the size of Wembley Stadium. I'll say this much, I agree with some of the writer's conclusions, and don't even necessarily disagree with Queen. I'd love to see Brian and Roger keep making music, but I'd also like to see them stop using the "Queen" name. Yes, they're founding members of the band, yes, they can do with it whatever they want, and yes, they have John's approval, but I still wish they'd pick a new name for their future ventures. I've always liked the name, "Jack" for the band--it's a subtle nod to the Queen name while still having a catchy ring to it. I would hope they continued to work on Queen releases in the background--let's get some late-70's material out there! As for some of the other bands on his list, I think it's worth mentioning that the reason they're still around is because they put on a hell of a show. As beloved as Jeff Scott Soto is in these circles, he nearly killed Journey because as great as his voice is (and as great as I think he'd be paired with Brian and Roger), he just wasn't suited for Journey. Arnel Pineda might not be the boldest choice Journey could have made for a lead singer, but he's exactly what the fans love--a dynamic frontman who sounds exactly like Steve Perry, and a friend of mine who went to see them in concert this summer (I'm still kicking myself for not going) said it was one of the best shows she's been to. Moral of the story: if you have a dedicated fan base and a good back-catalogue, you can last as long as you have one "glory days" member tagging along. |
| ParisNair 19.12.2009 01:53 |
Thunderbolt wrote: The writer seems to have a preference for hair metal. How else do you include The Who (THE FREAKING WHO?!) on your list and leave out perpetual hangers-on like KISS, Bon Jovi and Guns 'N Roses? The exclusion of Kiss from that list is unforgivable. As for GnR, I have the same problem with them now as I have with "Queen +". |
| john bodega 19.12.2009 02:31 |
The Who do not belong on that list. I love a retarded music journalist; they always give me a healthy belly laugh at just the right time. |
| A Word In Your Ear 19.12.2009 05:24 |
Sir GH wrote: Brian and Roger founded the band and have sold hundreds of millions of records. They can do whatever they please with or without the Queen name, as they've earned it. It's amazing how so many people think their opinion actually matters. If you don't like it, don't buy their new records and don't go to see the shows. What are you ultimately trying to accomplish by raining on someone else's enjoyment of music? As for the article, most of these pseudo-writers are failed musicians, so they're simply bitter of the continued success of others who manage to remain relevant despite not having a hit record in 20 years. First off I thought, "Oh No!!!, Not This old chestnut of a Topic Again!!!" But I have to agree with Bob. Queen is Brian & Roger's band, they can do what THEY want with it. Me personally, I think it's great that the "Queen" name carries on with new material & new tours ect. But let me ask the question. would all those people who say "John's not there, so it's not Queen" want to download any Pre John gigs from the early 70's when the band was still called Queen? |
| Holly2003 19.12.2009 05:48 |
Whay aren't U2 on that list? The've done nothing interesting since Zooropa. Ah that's right, I forgot: it's because they're "cool". Interesting there are no black artists among that list. I imagine a list of 10 black atists might raise some eyebrows... |
| john bodega 19.12.2009 06:03 |
A Word In Your Ear wrote: But let me ask the question. would all those people who say "John's not there, so it's not Queen" want to download any Pre John gigs from the early 70's when the band was still called Queen?That wouldn't be 2 tired old guys jamming it out with a friend, that would be an interesting artifact of musical history. It's also a few years before Deacon was a mentionable influence in the musical direction of the band, so it would be very interesting to hear the development of Brian and Roger after their Smile stuff, and Freddie bridging the gap between the raw talent on Queen 1, and the screeching yob we get to hear on the Ibex stuff. |
| Mercury 90 19.12.2009 10:23 |
I think musicians should make music as long as somebody buys there albums, and goes to there concerts! If the hall is empty, or they sold just one copy of their new album then they should may think about stoping! Non of that was happening to queen (or the who, the stones, and most of the bands mentioned there)! |
| Amazon 21.12.2009 01:17 |
A couple of comments. Nobody's opinions matter at the end of the day, however this is a discussion site and we are allowed to express our opinions. Brian and Roger can do whatever they want, but that doesn't mean we (or I) have to like it. I do think that Brian and Roger should have retired the Queen name upon John's retirement. They can still continue to make music, just don't call it Queen. Benny and Bjorn still make music together, however they don't use the name ABBA. I think the same should apply to Queen. |
| Amazon 21.12.2009 01:29 |
Zebonka12 wrote:A Word In Your Ear wrote: But let me ask the question. would all those people who say "John's not there, so it's not Queen" want to download any Pre John gigs from the early 70's when the band was still called Queen?That wouldn't be 2 tired old guys jamming it out with a friend, that would be an interesting artifact of musical history. It's also a few years before Deacon was a mentionable influence in the musical direction of the band, so it would be very interesting to hear the development of Brian and Roger after their Smile stuff, and Freddie bridging the gap between the raw talent on Queen 1, and the screeching yob we get to hear on the Ibex stuff. I agree with Zebronka. Plus, in the early days, it was three members (before the fourth had even been hired), and now it's just two members. I do regard Brian, Roger and John to be Queen, but not just Brian and Roger. Also, where do we draw the line? If Roger went off to do solo work, and Brian continued under the Queen name, would that still be Queen? I say no, and I say no to just Brian and Roger being Queen. They can do whatever they want of course, but IMO the last proper Queen song was No-one But You. |
| TheRobin 21.12.2009 02:00 |
I just don't have a problem with them using the name. They are the founding members and they're onstage performing the Queen songs they helped create! Like I said, they have heart for their band and as long as they have the heart for the music they're performing, a name is probably the most minimal aspect of their live performances - and it just doesn't matter to me. I wouldn't have a problem if they called themselves "Thjksdbon" I would still consider them to be Queen... unless they went solo, and they wouldn't want to be called Brian May / Roger Taylor from Queen. Oh well, what they call themselves is of no importance to me at all. I just want to see them live. |
| PauloPanucci 21.12.2009 14:38 |
Sharon G.Queen Fan wrote: The show must go on. The Queen name must not. agree with you! |
| GratefulFan 21.12.2009 18:08 |
Any history that saw the Queen name die with Freddie would have served an artificial sentimental construction and little else. Brian and Roger tried solo careers, and speaking very broadly nothing really matched their work as members of Queen. That's not because they're lacking as musicians, but because almost without exception the magic formula is stumbled on just once in a lifetime by a relative few. Queen was magic, and that is reason enough to keep that candle burning for a few years yet. Queen as it is, i.e. Roger and Brian and the best of their more recent work along with that incredible back catalogue are beyond a blessing. Why any fan would want to forego that for the sake of being able to tell a nice story is beyond me. |
| Holly2003 21.12.2009 18:18 |
GratefulFan wrote: Any history that saw the Queen name die with Freddie would have served an artificial sentimental construction and little else. Brian and Roger tried solo careers, and speaking very broadly nothing really matched their work as members of Queen. That's not because they're lacking as musicians, but because almost without exception the magic formula is stumbled on just once in a lifetime by a relative few. Queen was magic, and that is reason enough to keep that candle burning for a few years yet. Queen as it is, i.e. Roger and Brian and the best of their more recent work along with that incredible back catalogue are beyond a blessing. Why any fan would want to forgo that for the sake of being able to tell a nice story is beyond me. Bravo.[img=/images/smiley/msn/thumbs_up.gif][/img] |