| stusmith2016 30.06.2010 18:48 |
I got into Queen in the mid '70's and I saw them in concert 5 times - New Orleans and Oakland 1978, Essen and Frankfurt 1980, Frankfurt 1982 and I saw "The Brian May Band" in 1993 when they opened for Guns N' Roses in Birmingham, Alabama. The anticipation I felt when each new album or tour was about to happen was huge and I can honestly say that when I heard that QPR had gotten together and were going to tour I was salivating at the chance to see them in concert and I was praying they would also create some new music to go along with it. I was a bit disappointed when I saw the set list for the 2005-06 tour but I still couldn't wait to get my copy of "Return Of The Champions" and I played it to death. Ironically some of the best material on there, I think, is the Free/Bad Company stuff - again that goes to the set list and having heard the Queen songs so many times before. I was able to see QPR live in San Diego on April 1st, 2006 and man was I pumped up before the show!!! Again the set list was not exactly what I wanted but to see Brian and Roger in concert again was a big, big deal and I thought they played their hearts out. Paul Rodgers has to have one of the most stable and strong in concert voices known to man. I was never a huge Free or Bad Company fan but being a hard rock fan in general I did like the songs I heard on the radio and was very surprised at how well Paul Rodgers could still sing live. While "The Cosmos Rocks" didn't set the world on fire I still listen to it periodically and the anticipaton I felt leading up to its release was just as big for me as it was when I was younger and waiting for the next Queen album/tour. My wish would have been for the guys to do at least one more new album to see how they could further gel because the youtube videos I've seen of the later 2008 concerts show that they were really on fire. Of course I have no idea what the real reason is as to why they decided not to continue but I was wondering if anyone out there knows why it just came to a screeching halt? |
| Wiley 30.06.2010 20:06 |
According to Roger, there was some problem between Brian and Paul and we can only speculate about what that was about. "Creative differences", someone would say. A few days before the first 2005 gig started, Brian was excited about being back on the road and -specifically- about playing Paul's material live. What changed? I think they (and specially Brian) were a bit underwhelmed by the Cosmos Rocks' sales, and maybe they stopped enjoying playing live. Brian didn't want to take risks, to rehearse more songs, etc., Paul (and maybe Roger) got bored playing the same setlists over and over again. They seem to me more 'adventurous' in that sense... like they would jump at the opportunity of simply playing the music they love in front of an audience; while Brian on the other hand has to make sure everything is perfectly rehearsed, the audience is big enough and they sing along to "Love of my Life" night after night. I saw them 4 times in 2005 and a fifth time in San Diego 2006, like the poster above me. THAT SHOW ROCKED!!! Paul was on fire that night, and the audience sang along to his songs as much as with Queen's. |
| The Real Wizard 30.06.2010 20:23 |
Great post, Stu. I think Wiley is right on the money, but there's an additional point - Paul simply moves on from projects pretty quickly. They toured the world twice and did an album. I think he simply wants to do something else, in this case rekindle the old Bad Company fire. Can you share some memories of the Queen concerts you saw - particularly the ones from 1978? Did you take any pictures or anything? |
| philip storey 01.07.2010 03:19 |
Brian is so busy these days with his Animal Rights Campaigns there is no real chance of seeing Queen hit the road again.I think if the CR Album had taken off and they had some hit singles and air play they would have stayed together and had a follow up and another tour. After years of being one of the biggest bands on the planet ,it was always going to be tough to to try and start over again.Maybe PR was a bit miffed that they called themselves QPR and not Queen. If they had called themselves Queen it might have worked better, after all loads of other bands change personal [ Kiss,Purple,Sabbath,Foreigner,Whitesnake] and remain successfull.I think that a lot of fans like myself who followed the band in 74 onwards would have never forgotten Freddie but would have liked QPR or Queen to carry on,as it is all we have at the moment are great memories ! |
| blackshuck03 01.07.2010 04:05 |
Paul rodgers has said the door is still open for then to work together again soon, He says things are great between him and brian and roger, he saw them not long ago and brian gave him a guitar, the reason for the break in QPR work is because paul had planned some solo gigs and the Bad company reunion tour which is still ongoing at the moment. so watch this space in the near future |
| Band Forever 01.07.2010 12:44 |
I believe Paul Rodgers is an ordinary singer if the truth be known; and the public realised this, as much as it may irk Brian and Roger. PR never had that wow factor Freddie possessed as a performer/vocalist, which placed him above the mere mortals of the Rock fraternity. Queen were an amazing Band with their all time classic hits, concerts and style, and I can only imagine Brian and Roger playing with PR must have felt really frustrated performing with a more limited performer, as Roger was quoted, Freddie with his unique talent could take a song and take it to another dimension often done with live renditions of studio tracks, whereas It is well documented already with other singers they have to hold back a bit due to the lack of range of other singers PR included. Queen without Freddie and the Bass meister John Deacon is like a half empty, half full scenario. |
| Wiley 01.07.2010 13:27 |
Ok, you may want to kill me for this but: I think Paul Rodgers, is a more consistant live touring singer than Freddie was, and that today he sings better than ever. Maybe he has better technique or something or maybe his songs are less demanding. Paul lacks a lot in the showmanship/flamboyancy/entertainment value, but that's only because we are used to men in tights that sing like girls. Freddie live was a force of nature, an outstanding and very charismatic performer with a God given voice, but he was a MUCH BETTER studio singer, don't you think? |
| Band Forever 01.07.2010 15:41 |
A message to Wiley regarding PR what technique do you call singing half the note and not in the correct key? Freddie used to max out their songs whereas PR just does enough not his band or music, probably protecting his voice and no range. Freddie late 70's onwards changed his stage persona to a much harder edge with no tights and ballet pumps to be seen thank goodness. It was more in tune with the mainstream audience rather than playing to those other folks. To be honest the flamboyant stuff was quite trivial and cringeworthy and should not in anyway overshadow the talents of this World Heritage band, when Freddie seriously got down with the music there was and still to this very nobody better. |
| Projector Freddie 01.07.2010 17:44 |
What was notable about the 4/1/2006 San Diego gig is that Paul had sprained his ankle the night before and they still rocked it. |
| Mr Butambul 01.07.2010 20:55 |
Love RETURN OF THE CHAMPION, PR sure did justice to some of the songs..while made some other songs great ( FAT BOTTOM and WE ARE) |
| The Real Wizard 01.07.2010 22:21 |
Band Forever wrote: "PR just does enough not his band or music, probably protecting his voice and no range." No range? Tell me, exactly how many times did Freddie Mercury sing We Are The Champions properly in concert? I count about 5 times out of about 300 we've heard so far. Paul Rodgers, on the other hand, consistently nailed it just about every night. Tastes aside and stage presence aside, the fact of the matter is Paul Rodgers in his 50s takes much better care of his voice than Freddie did in his prime. Freddie had three golden years for his voice in the early 80s, but Paul has been consistently strong for decades. Freddie Mercury is my all-time favourite singer, but the reality is, on a night to night basis, overall he was not a consistent singer. |
| Benn Kempster 02.07.2010 06:23 |
My take on it all is that Briad just wanted to keep trotting out the same old Queen single hits night after night and this didn't sit well with Paul wanting to develop the live act and bring in more interesting material. Remember, in the days of Free, Paul and the band would "rarely" play older material in front of new material and would be developing future songs on the stage to gauge audience reaction. Brian's as likely to take a risk on anything as Paul is to be reserved; from that perspective, the "marriage" was doomed to fail. |
| roy_fokker 02.07.2010 09:32 |
Nice question.. I tend to think that it would have been no surprise if they had just split after the first tour.. but instead they rather enthousiastically made a studio album and another world tour: to me, these were all signs of an enduring collaboration. Something might have happened during the second tour.. and, you know, the way it all came out, with Paul announcing some sort of 'stop', Brian never ever mentioning the thing anymore, Roger talking about a sort of 'fall-out' between the latter two.. it really looks like some problems have emerged along the way. I made a few suppositions, namely: - Paul seemed to be willing - in not eager - to tour, while Brian publicly admitted that he felt tired after the long touring (age?); not forgetting, Brian has lots of other interests, so I wouldn't see him full-time busy with albums/touring; - Paul might have suffered the 'queen' label (also in the concerts setlist it was pretty clear that Queen were the main course!) like a limitation of his personality: not forgetting, Freddie's heritage is almost unbearable, and Queen fans have often been rather critical (now, in a moment in which NOTHING happens, I wonder whether those professionists of complaints are still so happy): - Cosmos' Rocks is a pretty honest record.. IMHO it is mostly influenced by Roger, apart from a couple of numbers which explicitly recall Brian's style (We believe, Some things that glitter).. I would not say that the compositive inspiration has fallen down (see Roger announcing new material, Brian writing rather interesting songs for Kerry Ellis).. I'd rather say that they might have realised that it did not fully reach the 'range' of moods, styles and lyrical potentials that Queen albums used to achieve (including also some solo records, e.g. Back to the Light). I was personally hoping that cosmos rocks represented a sort of 'shakedown', like it happened, for instance, with the return of Europe (the band): their album 'Start from the Dark' was simply the prelude of much better and more complex works. I just wonder what all this silence might mean.. Brian talks of wild animals, Roger announced a tour and an album but nothing happens.. Paul leaves an open door but it seems that no-one cares about it to be still open. What do you think? Will we have to expect other years of 'almost-no-news' in the near future? Roy. |
| matt z 02.07.2010 18:41 |
Probably creative differences. While the band is indeed a powerhouse, and PR has a great voice. There were too many songs that just sounded contrived on the album. What they needed was to Blow people away. I mean, i STILL can put on ANOTHER WORLD, and ELECTRIC FIRE and feel the spirit of great musicians. It's even (and in the case of Roger) and ESPECIALLY present in the lyric and bend. It was probably the album sales as well, that QPR hit the used shelves quick. Just MY opinion It was great to hear the guys muse in a different style, and the SHOWS were STILL epic... i regret not having caught them live...but there were so few shows here in the US |
| Pim Derks 06.07.2010 12:43 |
Another World and Electric Fire are dull albums compared to Cosmos Rocks. Put the best of those albums together and it doesn't get anywhere near Cosmos Rocks overall. Though I do agree that Cosmos Rocks missed a huge rock epic like Business. |
| Holly2003 07.07.2010 11:34 |
Good topic but we can only guess. Brian, Roger and Paul Rodgers know why, and I doubt they'll ever tell the full story. If I had to guess, I would put it down to Brian's rather depressing conservative nature with regard to set lists and live shows. They messed up Time to Shine in Antwerp and it was never played again. My guess is that was Brian's doing. As he said himself, he'd rather bang out another tired version of TYMD than try anything interesting on stage. I think Rodgers just got bored with the whole thing and left. |
| Pim Derks 11.07.2010 06:00 |
How I wish they'd played tracks like Voodoo, Warboys and Time To Shine at every gig. Too bad they only got played a couple of times each. I still can't believe they didn't do Small and Still Burning. Would be great to have Still Burnin' merge into We Will Rock You at the end of the show. Maybe if we kill all badgers and foxes Brian will once again focus on music? :D |
| Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira 11.07.2010 17:00 |
Pim Derks wrote: How I wish they'd played tracks like Voodoo, Warboys and Time To Shine at every gig. Too bad they only got played a couple of times each. I still can't believe they didn't do Small and Still Burning. Would be great to have Still Burnin' merge into We Will Rock You at the end of the show. Maybe if we kill all badgers and foxes Brian will once again focus on music? :D LOL that's a good idea!!! |
| mike hunt 19.07.2010 16:08 |
Sir GH wrote: Band Forever wrote: "PR just does enough not his band or music, probably protecting his voice and no range." No range? Tell me, exactly how many times did Freddie Mercury sing We Are The Champions properly in concert? I count about 5 times out of about 300 we've heard so far. Paul Rodgers, on the other hand, consistently nailed it just about every night. Tastes aside and stage presence aside, the fact of the matter is Paul Rodgers in his 50s takes much better care of his voice than Freddie did in his prime. Freddie had three golden years for his voice in the early 80s, but Paul has been consistently strong for decades. Freddie Mercury is my all-time favourite singer, but the reality is, on a night to night basis, overall he was not a consistent singer. I agree with Band forever on this one........i don't know about range or whatever, but paul's missing something......can't explain it. like he just goes through the motions. no feeling in his singing. I'm talking about how he sings the queen songs, not his own. Every song is sung the same way with him....freddie was able to sing different styles even live. somebody to love then he could sing a song like sheer heart attack.......love of my life then he sings tie your mother down. some of these songs he sings better live IMO.. I know sheer heart attack i prefer his live voice over the studio. before you go into a paul rodger's hissy fit I do agree fred was inconsistent from night to night. he's still a better singer than paul hands down. not even close. there's more to singing than hitting notes. |
| mike hunt 19.07.2010 16:10 |
Holly2003 wrote: Good topic but we can only guess. Brian, Roger and Paul Rodgers know why, and I doubt they'll ever tell the full story. If I had to guess, I would put it down to Brian's rather depressing conservative nature with regard to set lists and live shows. They messed up Time to Shine in Antwerp and it was never played again. My guess is that was Brian's doing. As he said himself, he'd rather bang out another tired version of TYMD than try anything interesting on stage. I think Rodgers just got bored with the whole thing and left. Going by record sales i think everyone got tired of the whole thing.......they were missing something. |
| The Real Wizard 19.07.2010 16:18 |
mike hunt wrote: "there's more to singing than hitting notes." I agree. Overall Freddie was the far superior singer - nobody's debating that. In fact, Freddie is my all-time favourite rock singer. But someone claimed that Paul Rodgers has no vocal range which just plain isn't true. Thousands of singers have better consistency with their vocal range than Freddie did, and Paul is one of them - even at age 60. Nobody's arguing that this automatically makes them a better singer. It's just one of many technical aspects of the human voice. If you like oranges more than bananas, that is a matter of preference. But you can't argue the superiority of oranges in every conceivable way simply because you like them more. And for the record it was Paul who messed up the first chorus of Time To Shine in Antwerp. |
| Gretsch6120 31.07.2010 09:58 |
With the new 'Queen' charity gig coming up and no sign of Paul being on board, does that serve as a strong indicator that he will never perform with Queen again? |
| jeffuk49 31.07.2010 16:44 |
which is a huge shame |
| Micrówave 05.08.2010 13:38 |
It's funny to still see people slamming ol' Paul, I'm sure they are far better musicians. Why doesn't Queen just hire one of you Queenzoners who can clearly see Paul has no business singing? They'd be back on top of the Rock world in no time!! |
| Double-U 19.08.2010 04:57 |
richjohnson26 wrote: With the new 'Queen' charity gig coming up and no sign of Paul being on board, does that serve as a strong indicator that he will never perform with Queen again? Dear Richjohnson, can you give an explanation about the charity gig you mentioned, please? I think I slept to long. regards W. |
| IReallyLoveQueen 23.08.2010 15:25 |
I LOVE QUEEN |