| Piett 14.03.2010 16:08 |
paul rodgers is the wrong singer for queen.he can't sing queen songs well,and is no good entertainer for queen.he turned queen into a paul rodgers band.time for queen to find a new singer. |
| david (galashiels) 14.03.2010 16:27 |
here we go again........... i liked him,i enjoyed the concerts.. and it was.QUEEN+PAUL RODGERS. the boy done well in my opinion. |
| Holly2003 14.03.2010 16:28 |
Well since he sells more albums that what's left of Queen, I think that's only fair. They really should have billed themselves PAUL RODGERS + Queen |
| Piett 14.03.2010 16:37 |
I never liked it that they played so many paul rodger solo songs too.That just does not fit,the paul rodgers solo songs.Boring paul rodger songs anyway. |
| mooghead 14.03.2010 17:39 |
I remember this conversation from 5..6..7.. years ago! Well done! |
| Jam Monkey 14.03.2010 17:42 |
Personally I loved the 3 shows I went to, and there were many more Queen songs played that Paul Rodgers songs. It's true that Paul's voice suited some songs more than others, but what did you expect? I much prefer QPR to no Queen at all, and I really hope they do some more shows in the future. I'm sorry to break it to you but Freddie Mercury is dead, now get over it. This forum gets far too many posts on this topic. I don't know why we can't get in to some decent discussions about Queen, sadly interesting threads on few and far between on QZ. |
| mooghead 14.03.2010 17:46 |
Jam Monkey wrote: I don't know why we can't get in to some decent discussions about Queen, sadly interesting threads on few and far between on QZ. Maybe because Queen ceased to exist nearly 15 years ago.... how many decent topics do you expect??? |
| Piett 14.03.2010 17:53 |
I'm just saying there are much better voices out there that would fit better in queen live. |
| Mr Mercury 14.03.2010 18:11 |
mooghead wrote: I remember this conversation from 5..6..7.. years ago! Well done! Personally I thought I was back in 2004............ glad to see the timewarp hasnt affected me........ |
| brENsKi 14.03.2010 18:21 |
Piett wrote: I'm just saying there are much better voices out there that would fit better in queen live.yes. and they'd ALL want to bring their own solo songs to the tour....so the better the voice, the more of their own songs you would hear.....thereby negating the point of it being Queen+ in the first place |
| Piett 14.03.2010 18:40 |
There are for sure singers that like queen songs,and only wanne sing queen songs,or first make a few new songs with them. |
| theCro 14.03.2010 20:59 |
Piett wrote: From the first moment alot of people agreed with the fact that paul rodgers was the wrong singer for queen.I certainly agree too.He turned queen into paul rodgers band,with paul rodgers songs. get a f*** life and don't put your own opinion into "ALOF OF PEOPLE" *** cu** |
| Piett 14.03.2010 23:00 |
|
| Piett 14.03.2010 23:02 |
theCro wrote:Piett wrote: From the first moment alot of people agreed with the fact that paul rodgers was the wrong singer for queen.I certainly agree too.He turned queen into paul rodgers band,with paul rodgers songs.get a f*** life and don't put your own opinion into "ALOF OF PEOPLE" *** cu** you are definatly a paul rodgers solo fan. |
| Crazy LittleThing 14.03.2010 23:48 |
Piett wrote: From the first moment alot of people agreed with the fact that paul rodgers was the wrong singer for queen.I certainly agree too.He turned queen into paul rodgers band,with paul rodgers songs. Alert Brian and Roger immediately before they do something rash, such as going out on a couple of international tours with him! Whew! Crisis averted! |
| Piett 15.03.2010 00:38 |
Crazy LittleThing wrote:Piett wrote: From the first moment alot of people agreed with the fact that paul rodgers was the wrong singer for queen.I certainly agree too.He turned queen into paul rodgers band,with paul rodgers songs.Alert Brian and Roger immediately before they do something rash, such as going out on a couple of international tours with him! Whew! Crisis averted! good idea.I'll go to court right away,to let paul rodgers stay solo. |
| john bodega 15.03.2010 02:12 |
He's not the wrong singer - his head is just in the wrong place most of the time. It only really worked when he was giving it 150%. Some great moments, but most of the time he was just lame. He sounded bored, and it made me just wish Brian would hop back on the mic. At least he sounds like he's trying. |
| Pim Derks 15.03.2010 02:46 |
Paul Rodgers belting out Fat Bottomed Girls with only 50% of his capacity is still 100 times as good as Brian's version from the 1998 tour. Don't get me wrong, I love Brian and Roger - but Paul is just the better singer, even though there maybe were indeed some point of him cruise controlling. |
| pittrek 15.03.2010 03:24 |
david (galashiels) wrote: here we go again........... i liked him,i enjoyed the concerts.. and it was.QUEEN+PAUL RODGERS. the boy done well in my opinion. Amen, brother. |
| Band Forever 15.03.2010 03:25 |
Paul Rodgers lacks the Power, and vocal range to emulate Freddie. Perhaps his 50% so called effort is a concession that even if he gave the Queen songs the full gun he still wouldn't nail half the songs, therefore saving his voice for his own tours! Sorry Paul Rodgers fans you cannot hide from the truth, he tried he just aint got it. |
| Soundfreak 15.03.2010 04:57 |
It's somehow sad to see how much energy is wasted on topics like this. It was the chemistry between those three musicians that gave them confidence to add another chapter to the Queen story. And this was the only chance for all those younger fans to see Queen at all. And for the old fans it was some kind of encore. I rarely ever saw a concert audience mixed with so many generations. And the relatively poor sales of their album is not a "Paul Rodgers"-problem. Even Paul McCartney or the Rolling Stones or Fleetwood Mac do no longer sell new material in large quantities, although they still write good songs. The times have changed. Music is no longer that important in the age of the internet. Sometimes I have the feeling that certain fans would prefer that the whole band was dead, so that they could create their own fantasy of some perfect god-like band. But they were human and luckily three of them still are. |
| Rubbersuit 15.03.2010 09:08 |
I have a bad gut feeling that Brian and Roger could be up to something so stupid that we'll long for the days of Paul Rodgers. |
| Canadian May Fan 15.03.2010 09:17 |
Piett wrote: From the first moment alot of people agreed with the fact that paul rodgers was the wrong singer for queen.I certainly agree too.He turned queen into paul rodgers band,with paul rodgers songs. That's funny, because the Q+PR live DVDs and CDs all show mostly QUEEN songs. FAIL. |
| john bodega 15.03.2010 10:05 |
Pim Derks wrote: Paul Rodgers belting out Fat Bottomed Girls with only 50% of his capacity is still 100 times as good as Brian's version from the 1998 tour. Don't get me wrong, I love Brian and Roger - but Paul is just the better singer, even though there maybe were indeed some point of him cruise controlling.Yeah but FBG just isn't a good song for Brian to sing. For all the ones he stank at, there are other Queen ones which suit him better, and where he owns Mr. Rodgers. Which is ridiculous because he's a bloody guitarist. Spot on with the cruise thing though. When PR gave hit a good effort he was great. Most of the rest of the time he wasn't much better than chloroform. |
| Freddie Mercury. 15.03.2010 11:46 |
i think a lot of people have misunderstood the concept of Queen+Paul Rodgers, because it wasn't meant to be Queen with a new lead singer. it was meant to be a new group that createed their own materiel without trying to make it sounlike Queen. a lot of people is mad at Paul Rodgers but it was actually Brian and Roger that contacted him so there is no reason to be mad at Paul Rodgers. i think that he did a great job because he knew that he wasn't a new Freddie Mercury, he was singing the songs in his own way, and i now that he has huge respect for Freddie. |
| GratefulFan 15.03.2010 12:35 |
However it may have failed in execution at times, I think the instincts were right. A singer of their generation credible in a partnership of equals who explicitly did NOT sound and look like Freddie was the right vibe. Something that came out sounding and feeling like a Freddie Mercury tribute act would have been really, really bad. In my view, Roger and Brian's voices could not carry an entire Queen concert and the use of Fred by video is effective only if it's limited. So they need something else for at least part of it. |
| mike hunt 15.03.2010 13:32 |
Zebonka12 wrote:Spot on with the cruise thing though. When PR gave hit a good effort he was great. Most of the rest of the time he wasn't much better than chloroform.Pim Derks wrote: Paul Rodgers belting out Fat Bottomed Girls with only 50% of his capacity is still 100 times as good as Brian's version from the 1998 tour. Don't get me wrong, I love Brian and Roger - but Paul is just the better singer, even though there maybe were indeed some point of him cruise controlling.Yeah but FBG just isn't a good song for Brian to sing. For all the ones he stank at, there are other Queen ones which suit him better, and where he owns Mr. Rodgers. Which is ridiculous because he's a bloody guitarist. I'm not a paul rodger's fan, but what Queen songs does brian own paul?....It sure isn't tie your mother down, or fat bottomed girls....It sure isn't the show must go on, or another one bites the dust. It isn't we are the champions or Crazy little thing called love. I understand being a brian may fan, but paul is a better singer hands down....whether it's singing queen songs or not. |
| Piett 15.03.2010 13:42 |
Canadian May Fan wrote:Piett wrote: From the first moment alot of people agreed with the fact that paul rodgers was the wrong singer for queen.I certainly agree too.He turned queen into paul rodgers band,with paul rodgers songs.That's funny, because the Q+PR live DVDs and CDs all show mostly QUEEN songs. FAIL. but not the live concerts.idiot. |
| georgs1963 15.03.2010 14:18 |
Isn't Freddie Mercury the lead singer of Queen ? |
| brENsKi 15.03.2010 15:17 |
i think Paul Rodgers was right for queen because he has shown Brian, Roger and queen fans everywhere:- 1. just how great freddie was 2. that brian shoulda retired the queen name in '98 3. make brian and roger tour using a different band-name - stand on their own four feet - no living off past glories 4. brian and roger shouldn't make music unless they have something worthwhile to sell 5. that they are incapable of doing something different... ...it's funny how without Freddie, the band has just gone thru the motions....much as i hated the works, HS and Magic....at least Freddie took the band in new directions......at least HE took risks and tried new stuff...Brian and Roger are doing little more than milking the emaciated tits of a long-dead cash cow. |
| Soundfreak 15.03.2010 15:34 |
brENsKi wrote: i think Paul Rodgers was right for queen because he has shown Brian, Roger and queen fans everywhere:- 1. just how great freddie was 2. that brian shoulda retired the queen name in '98 3. make brian and roger tour using a different band-name - stand on their own four feet - no living off past glories 4. brian and roger shouldn't make music unless they have something worthwhile to sell 5. that they are incapable of doing something different... ...it's funny how without Freddie, the band has just gone thru the motions....much as i hated the works, HS and Magic....at least Freddie took the band in new directions......at least HE took risks and tried new stuff...Brian and Roger are doing little more than milking the emaciated tits of a long-dead cash cow. I'm just curious: How many people here are having an own band, that lasted more than two or three years? How many people here do have real band experience? |
| Rubbersuit 15.03.2010 15:52 |
Piett wrote:Canadian May Fan wrote:but not the live concerts.idiot.Piett wrote: From the first moment alot of people agreed with the fact that paul rodgers was the wrong singer for queen.I certainly agree too.He turned queen into paul rodgers band,with paul rodgers songs.That's funny, because the Q+PR live DVDs and CDs all show mostly QUEEN songs. FAIL. The concerts were mostly Queen songs too. But you know this don't you troll? BTW: QZ already has it's full quota of D-Bags (see TM + QArchaivist). Go bother the Bon Jovi forums. |
| Piett 15.03.2010 16:40 |
Fact is if they dont search for a better singer,then Queen ended in a bad way.And with a bad album,it was more a paul rodgers solo album: cosmos rocks. |
| mike hunt 15.03.2010 17:49 |
brENsKi wrote: i think Paul Rodgers was right for queen because he has shown Brian, Roger and queen fans everywhere:- 1. just how great freddie was 2. that brian shoulda retired the queen name in '98 3. make brian and roger tour using a different band-name - stand on their own four feet - no living off past glories 4. brian and roger shouldn't make music unless they have something worthwhile to sell 5. that they are incapable of doing something different... ...it's funny how without Freddie, the band has just gone thru the motions....much as i hated the works, HS and Magic....at least Freddie took the band in new directions......at least HE took risks and tried new stuff...Brian and Roger are doing little more than milking the emaciated tits of a long-dead cash cow. couldn't agree more....I miss songs like I'm going slightly mad, those type of songs that only queen could pull off. |
| Piett 15.03.2010 19:09 |
And they needed to fill songs up while paul rodgers was singin,because he isn't a good frontman and entertainer.Like for example we will rock you,the public wasn't enthousiastic enoufgh,so they decided to add the studio tape in background each show. |
| mike hunt 15.03.2010 20:41 |
smilingeorge wrote: Isn't Freddie Mercury the lead singer of Queen ? yea, but he died like 19 years ago, lol. you did know that right? |
| PauloPanucci 15.03.2010 21:26 |
can we forget Paul Rodgers for a few years? let's move on... or it is not possible?(this is not an ironic question) |
| Piett 15.03.2010 21:32 |
Let's hope they fix the damage.And choose another singer.Otherwise Queen will go in history in a wrong way. queen+paul rodgers ewww. |
| mike hunt 15.03.2010 23:52 |
PauloPanucci wrote: can we forget Paul Rodgers for a few years? let's move on... or it is not possible?(this is not an ironic question) don't worry....queen + paul is already forgotten...Only on queenzone does anyone remember that mess. |
| Piett 15.03.2010 23:55 |
glad he's singin his new song and style: link |
| Mr Mercury 16.03.2010 10:01 |
mike hunt wrote:PauloPanucci wrote: can we forget Paul Rodgers for a few years? let's move on... or it is not possible?(this is not an ironic question)don't worry....queen + paul is already forgotten...Only on queenzone does anyone remember that mess. Even then it is only ever brought up by people like Piett - 6 years after the first "I hate Paul" thread was posted............. So excuse me if I dont get over-enthused by this tired old "argument" anymore............... |
| Soul Brother 16.03.2010 10:22 |
He wasn't a singer for Queen. |
| Piett 16.03.2010 17:03 |
absolutly wrong singer for queen. |
| Makka 16.03.2010 23:09 |
Although I have nothing against Paul Rodgers as he has put out some fantastic music over the years, I was never happy with the union. Perhaps I am just old fashioned but for me, Queen finished with the death of Freddie. But, I know it has been mentioned on here before somewhere, but if they wanted to collaborate with another singer then George Michael has a fantastic voice and as shown from the Wembley tribute concert, he can sing Queen songs fairly well. But, I would prefer they didn't use the name Queen if they did do another joint venture, though would love them to still play the songs live. Queen + just doesn't work for me! Also, how great would it be to see the 3 remaining members do an album. Nothing But You sounded terrific. Though I know this will probably never happen! |
| Dusta 17.03.2010 22:19 |
I admit to not being a Queen+PR fan, but my reasons were definitely coloured by emotion. Paul Rodgers, in my opinion, is one of the finest singers of his era, and still outsings just about anyone you hear on the radio today. And i've got to give him credit for stepping in for Queen. It can't have been easy, given Freddie's popularity. Also, there is the matter of The Queen Song Thing. I have heard so many other musicians talk of how difficult Queen songs are, vocally. Given all of this, I really do think Paul Rodgers did an adequate job, though I do agree much of the time it sounded as if he wasn't giving a hundred percent. Maybe he wasn't feeling it, really, given the circumstances I mentioned above? Who knows, really. If you were to ask me who I thought WOULD be the right singer for Queen...I expect I'd find something wrong with whomever was suggested. The fact remains that Brian and Roger are very much alive, and still need/want to play, so I can't really blame them for seeking out a singer who'd enable them to do so. Still...I'd rather hear the two of them giving it a go on the vocals. Neither of them are Freddie, but, they ARE what's left of Queen. |
| ILoveQueen20 18.03.2010 05:15 |
Piett wrote: paul rodgers is the wrong singer for queen.he can't sing queen songs well,and is no good entertainer for queen.he turned queen into a paul rodgers band.time for queen to find a new singer. I dont think much of Queen+PR either...but this thread is so pointless. & their names not 'queen' it's Queen. |
| 92Funny 07.06.2010 15:42 |
I personally think its better that Paul Rogers has a very diffrent sound from Freddie, otherwise it would appear they were trying to replace him which I dont think is the case. I not a big fan of Queen plus Paul Rogers but I appreicate the effort. Paul isnt bad, he just cant hold a candle to Freddie Mercury. |
| paul rodgers 39611 07.06.2010 21:27 |
Bite me. What's your paycheck looking like these days? Mine's fine. |
| 12yrslouetta 09.06.2010 15:57 |
Its a tired subject but i just cant help myself. i was lucky enough to see queen 9 or 10 or 11 times live and they were both good and average. i noticed that when they played London (or down south anyway) they seemed to up their game 50%. When i saw them in manchester or birmingham it wasnt half as good. leeds was really good though BUT not as great as they say. some tracks were absolutely fantastic, i remember action and back chat were just brilliant. On their day they were very good. live aid was just jaw dropping but i think its important to say that not all queen gigs were great. Now i got free tickets to see q+pr live and it was a stroll in the park for them, it was ridiculous (i wouldnt have been happy paying for it at all), there was no energy, no spark, tired even, BUT what they did have is songs that everyone could sing along to which made a good show - whilst me had my arms folded bored - everyone loved it so what do i know. paul rodgers is a fine singer i guess, his back catalogue tells us that and in a live environment i thought they actually fitted each other very well (havent heard cosmos). Queen songs are now written in stone, folklore, you cant mess with it. the only way to me it could have been interesting is if they took a left turn and got erm, someone like bjork, or skin, or kos or usher or oh i dont know. before anyone crucifies me for those choices im just thinking of any artists off the top of my head, so different that it would be a genuine collaboration, maybe a reworking. Obviously that wouldnt sell out arenas though which is the point. As i stood at that q+pr gig i quickly realised that pr was just another guy singing the exact same songs exactly the same as theyve already been done, just not as good (not his fault), so whats the point of that?? |
| bigV 10.06.2010 01:25 |
Makka wrote: Also, how great would it be to see the 3 remaining members do an album. Nothing But You sounded terrific. Though I know this will probably never happen! --- Factoid: "Nothing But You" is a song by German musician and DJ Paul van Dyk. V. |