| GOATHEAD1985 23.08.2011 18:40 |
Which name would you like BM and RT to call themselves?: What name would everyone like them to be called if the go out and on the road or record a album? The reason I ask is ever time they have gone out as 'Queen' some fans (not everyone) get a 'little' upset to say they least. Please lets have some constructive views not just slagging them off or just being negative, which since Ive been on this website has been the case(and Im not trying to start a bitch fest with that comment). May and Taylor, M and T, Leo, Lions? |
| Hangman_96 23.08.2011 18:53 |
Bri & Rog |
| inu-liger 23.08.2011 22:55 |
What would you realistically expect Brian and Roger to do with regards to listening to their fans? Hint: Fuck all |
| Shumway 23.08.2011 23:13 |
I can't take credit for thinking of this, because I read it on a Queen board years ago, but I was always partial to 'Taylor Mayed'. It occurs to me that the person who did coin that name may be among us now. |
| inu-liger 23.08.2011 23:45 |
Taylor Mayed is a terrible suggestion. Seriously, name me ONE band that has done extremely commercially well with a name based on a very lame ass pun! |
| queenboot 24.08.2011 01:30 |
Beavis and Butt-Head |
| muttley15 24.08.2011 01:32 |
It is highly possible that I posted the original suggestion that they could use the name 'Taylor May'd'........its not intended to be an ass pun, and using the surnames of band members certainly didn't do Fleetwood Mac any harm!!! We are all entitled to an opinion however, and I respect yours inu-liger. |
| inu-liger 24.08.2011 01:49 |
All I'm saying is that, it's one thing to base your band name on surnames. It's another to combine those surnames to make a band name that ends up coming across more as a cheap pun, which no one will take them for seriously in the end. |
| muttley15 24.08.2011 02:37 |
It could be said that the name 'Queen' is / was wide open to ridicule, but it didn't seem to harm their career. |
| scollins 24.08.2011 02:55 |
past the sell by date :) or francy and josie :) |
| dagi 24.08.2011 03:01 |
The damage has been done regarding the use of the Queen name, but I still hope they see sense..... Anything but the use of Queen - perhaps the name of an old Queen song / album - that way there is a link to their past. |
| Wijnand 24.08.2011 03:32 |
"Queen" is fine for me... |
| vonkeil 24.08.2011 03:48 |
Wijnand wrote: "Queen" is fine for me... Agreed 100%. |
| Bo Rhap 24.08.2011 04:41 |
Simply Superb. Thats almost as cheap n tacky as most of the names suggested in this thread. Taylor Mayed!!!! Fuck sake.Gimme peace. |
| Pingfah 24.08.2011 04:58 |
dagi wrote: The damage has been done regarding the use of the Queen name, but I still hope they see sense..... Anything but the use of Queen - perhaps the name of an old Queen song / album - that way there is a link to their past. __________________________________________________________________________ What damage? The whole Q+PR thing has sailed blissfully past most people without them ever knowing it was done, there's no "damage" done to Queen's legacy. And Cosmos Rocks was a relative commercial failure, but I can assure you if it had not have carried the name "Queen" on it, it would not have done even as well as it did, and the very lucrative tour would certainly not have raked in all the cash it did. Sticking the Queen name on it certainly hasn't damaged their wallets. |
| mikezep61 24.08.2011 07:46 |
Inu Liger wrote: Taylor Mayed is a terrible suggestion. Seriously, name me ONE band that has done extremely commercially well with a name based on a very lame ass pun! The Beatles!!! They did pretty well for themselves! |
| paulosham 24.08.2011 07:58 |
mikezep61 wrote: Inu Liger wrote: Taylor Mayed is a terrible suggestion. Seriously, name me ONE band that has done extremely commercially well with a name based on a very lame ass pun! The Beatles!!! They did pretty well for themselves! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ha! that was perfect. |
| Major Tom 24.08.2011 08:00 |
Queen. Simple. |
| dsmeer 24.08.2011 09:07 |
Queen - Freddie & John |
| only4customer 24.08.2011 09:38 |
Before we want to introduce the products about Michael Jordan Shoes, i think the first thing to do for us is to introduce Michael Jordan to all the people who like Air Jordan Shoes. After these 23 fans knows more about Michael Jordan, i believe they will be more interested in everything about Michael Jordan, they will be more loyal to Michael Jordan. Michael Jeffrey Jordan (born February 17, 1963) is a former American professional basketball player, active businessman, and majority owner of the Charlotte Bobcats. His biography on the National Basketball Association (NBA) website states, "By acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time."[1] Jordan was one of the most effectively marketed athletes of his generation and was instrumental in popularizing the NBA around the world in the 1980s and 1990s. Retro Jordans Resource: link |
| rhyeking 24.08.2011 09:47 |
I'm fine with Queen. |
| queenboot 24.08.2011 09:55 |
Statler and Waldorf they have the right age....... |
| brENsKi 24.08.2011 10:02 |
paulosham wrote: mikezep61 wrote: Inu Liger wrote: Taylor Mayed is a terrible suggestion. Seriously, name me ONE band that has done extremely commercially well with a name based on a very lame ass pun! The Beatles!!! They did pretty well for themselves! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ha! that was perfect. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 'cept that it wasn't. the beatles wasn't a lame-ass pun. it was a respect to one of their biggest early influences....the crickets.....while also acknowledging that they were a "beat combo" and as for Bri/Roger ...how about.....................sad old Queens |
| mooghead 24.08.2011 10:38 |
Tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber |
| Amazon 24.08.2011 11:43 |
How about May/Taylor? Or May & Taylor? I don't think they should call themselves anything fancy, and I certainly don't think they should call themselves Queen. That name should have died when John departed 14 years ago. |
| dagi 24.08.2011 12:37 |
pingfah wrote: " What damage? The whole Q+PR thing has sailed blissfully past most people without them ever knowing it was done, there's no "damage" done to Queen's legacy. And Cosmos Rocks was a relative commercial failure, but I can assure you if it had not have carried the name "Queen" on it, it would not have done even as well as it did, and the very lucrative tour would certainly not have raked in all the cash it did. Sticking the Queen name on it certainly hasn't damaged their wallets." Your answer says it all. The use of the Queen name should only be used with Deacon / May / Mercury / Taylor material (i.e. 1971 to 1991 + posthumous recordings). The band have a golden legacy and until Brian and Roger took leave of their senses, the Queen name had always been publicly associated with the four member group. If Cosmos Rocks had been given a different name, I doubt it would have sold much less because it predominantly appealed to hard core fans - but by issuing it under a different name, the reputation of "Queen" would have survived relatively unscathed. I speak as a (largely disillusioned) fan who has the complete Queen catalogue, all solo CDs and saw the band + solo members live. I take no pleasure from this. May and Taylor should hang their heads in shame. |
| pittrek 24.08.2011 12:48 |
They can call them anything they want. If they want to be called Queen, I have no problem with it. It's their band |
| master marathon runner 24.08.2011 12:53 |
'Roger the May Queen' -heh heh yer frigger -a-hell ! . Master marathon runner |
| GratefulFan 24.08.2011 13:26 |
Amazon wrote: How about May/Taylor? Or May & Taylor? I don't think they should call themselves anything fancy, and I certainly don't think they should call themselves Queen. That name should have died when John departed 14 years ago. ============================== Why? His decision to leave doesn't seem like sufficient reason to arbitrarily strip the remaining members of the baby and brand they raised for 15 years. They look like Queen, as far as possible considering a dead lead vocalist they sound like Queen, and they feel like Queen. They're Queen, and I think the Queen+ monikers were exactly the right approach, even if I didn't always like what came after the +. |
| mooghead 24.08.2011 13:44 |
I remember this argument from 10 years ago. Yawn. |
| dagi 24.08.2011 14:05 |
mooghead wrote "I remember this argument from 10 years ago. Yawn." Yawn if you want to, but for many this is unfinished business. |
| GratefulFan 24.08.2011 17:39 |
And it's not necessarily the same argument it was 10 or 15 years ago either, because at the time the prevailing factor was likely John's departure. That's well in the past now and they've done other things since as Queen and people have had time to asses how that feels. |
| Robbieboy 24.08.2011 19:30 |
|
| Queenman!! 25.08.2011 01:30 |
pffffff. # Deaf and Blind # The Fox Taylors or Badger Cupping # Money Milkers |
| Wijnand 25.08.2011 02:14 |
Amazon wrote: How about May/Taylor? Or May & Taylor? I don't think they should call themselves anything fancy, and I certainly don't think they should call themselves Queen. That name should have died when John departed 14 years ago. 1. Freddie, Brian, Roger & John = Queen 2. Brian, Roger & John = Queen 3. Brian and Roger = not Queen I don't get the difference between 2 and 3... |
| dagi 25.08.2011 02:33 |
Champion wrote: 1. Freddie, Brian, Roger & John = Queen 2. Brian, Roger & John = Queen 3. Brian and Roger = not Queen I don't get the difference between 2 and 3... ----- There is no difference, they shouldn't have called themselves Queen for No One But You (Only the Good Die Young). Perhaps the one mitigating factor is that at least when JD was involved, it was essentially *all* the surviving members of the band. |
| queenboot 25.08.2011 03:05 |
Ernie and Bert.... |
| Pingfah 25.08.2011 03:09 |
dagi wrote: Your answer says it all. The use of the Queen name should only be used with Deacon / May / Mercury / Taylor material (i.e. 1971 to 1991 + posthumous recordings). The band have a golden legacy and until Brian and Roger took leave of their senses, the Queen name had always been publicly associated with the four member group. If Cosmos Rocks had been given a different name, I doubt it would have sold much less because it predominantly appealed to hard core fans - but by issuing it under a different name, the reputation of "Queen" would have survived relatively unscathed. I speak as a (largely disillusioned) fan who has the complete Queen catalogue, all solo CDs and saw the band + solo members live. I take no pleasure from this. May and Taylor should hang their heads in shame. _____________________________________________________________________ Well i'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you don't get to say what Brian & Roger "should" do with their own intellectual property. And i'd like to see you kowtowing to what some bunch of whiners think when somebody tells you that you should abandon performing under a brand you spent 40 years building. It's just sheer arrogance and entitlement on your part, i'm afraid. They should do what YOU think because you spent a few quid on the records they spent most of their lives making. Yeah, right. |
| AlexRocks 25.08.2011 11:20 |
Queen, oh, and they need to start touring and recording again... |
| paulosham 25.08.2011 12:44 |
They should call themselves No Deacon |
| Sheer Brass Neck 25.08.2011 13:19 |
Pingfah and everyone else who doesn't get it, I think everyone understands that they can call themselves what they want because they've earned it, lived it for 40 years etc. And I wish that you'd understand that if people don't agree they have the right to voice that. Isn't this part of the Queenzone forum? Do we only comment on things that are positive to the band? I have a question for all of the people who believe in Brian and Roger using the name while dallying about with Britney Spears, Robbie Williams, the cast of American Idol et al. If John Deacon is the last surviving member and takes his buddy from Hot Chocolate out as the singer, and the guys from Morris Minor and the Majors as the other musicians and they play the music of Queen as a 70s funk band: is that band Queen or is it not Queen? Love to hear answers and rationalizations. |
| Amazon 25.08.2011 13:47 |
Pingfah wrote: "Well i'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you don't get to say what Brian & Roger "should" do with their own intellectual property. And i'd like to see you kowtowing to what some bunch of whiners think when somebody tells you that you should abandon performing under a brand you spent 40 years building. It's just sheer arrogance and entitlement on your part, i'm afraid. They should do what YOU think because you spent a few quid on the records they spent most of their lives making. Yeah, right." You do realize this is an internet site? Everybody here are perfectly aware that Brian & Roger couldn't care less what we think, but that doesn't mean we don't have the right to comment. Plus, if we can't complain, then you have no right to offer them support. Afterall, how can Brian & Roger reject criticism from internet users, but accept support from an internet user? You can't have it both ways, and as for being 'whiners', we don't have to like every move they make. Unless you think that being a fan equals complete submission, in which case, I have an entirely different definition of fan to you. |
| Pingfah 25.08.2011 13:48 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote:Pingfah and everyone else who doesn't get it, I think everyone understands that they can call themselves what they want because they've earned it, lived it for 40 years etc. And I wish that you'd understand that if people don't agree they have the right to voice that. Isn't this part of the Queenzone forum? Do we only comment on things that are positive to the band? I have a question for all of the people who believe in Brian and Roger using the name while dallying about with Britney Spears, Robbie Williams, the cast of American Idol et al. If John Deacon is the last surviving member and takes his buddy from Hot Chocolate out as the singer, and the guys from Morris Minor and the Majors as the other musicians and they play the music of Queen as a 70s funk band: is that band Queen or is it not Queen? Love to hear answers and rationalizations. _______________________________________________________________________________ I wouldn't consider it to be the same band, and I don't consider Bri & Rog to be the same band either, certainly not the band I loved. But neither would I begrudge them using their intellectual property and spend my time whining and pointing my finger at them on the internet, cause it's none of my business. |
| Amazon 25.08.2011 13:52 |
GratefulFan wrote: "Why? His decision to leave doesn't seem like sufficient reason to arbitrarily strip the remaining members of the baby and brand they raised for 15 years. They look like Queen, as far as possible considering a dead lead vocalist they sound like Queen, and they feel like Queen. They're Queen, and I think the Queen+ monikers were exactly the right approach, even if I didn't always like what came after the +." For me, it comes down to maths. All four original members are of course Queen, I consider original three members to be Queen, however with two or less original members (for instance, if Brian recruited a new vocalist, drummer & bass player), it doesn't seem like Queen anymore. I'm not a Queen fan who was horrified that Brian & Roger teamed up with Paul Rodgers (while I don't have the album as I wasn't particularly impressed by it, what horrified and traumatized me was the WWRY musical), but I look at it and I think 'two members? Is that really Queen?' It's like if Paul plays with Ringo at the Olympics next year. Are they the Beatles? What I would have loved was if Brian, Roger, and John had continued following Freddie's death, with Brian & Roger handling lead vocals. While it mightn't have sold so well, I would have bought it as soon as it was released. :D Anyway, I never believed that Queen ended with Freddie's death (I revere him, but he wasn't Queen), however when John left, they ceased being Queen for me, as it's just half the band. There are some groups (such as the Rolling Stones), who forge their identity based on just two members, or perhaps even one (such as Van Halen), but with Queen, all four members were pretty important. If John and Roger had left, I don't think that Freddie & Brian would equal Queen either, as the contributions of Roger and John are too significant to ignore. |
| Pingfah 25.08.2011 14:03 |
Amazon wrote: You do realize this is an internet site? Everybody here are perfectly aware that Brian & Roger couldn't care less what we think, but that doesn't mean we don't have the right to comment. Plus, if we can't complain, then you have no right to offer them support. Afterall, how can Brian & Roger reject criticism from internet users, but accept support from an internet user? You can't have it both ways, and as for being 'whiners', we don't have to like every move they make. Unless you think that being a fan equals complete submission, in which case, I have an entirely different definition of fan to you. _________________________________________________________ OK fair enough, I didn't mean that we have to agree with everything they do, but I guess I don't understand the level of annoyance about it only being Bri & Rog. It's sweating the small stuff. If people are concerned about the Queen legacy they should be more worried about the fact that The Cosmos Rocks sucked. |
| mooghead 25.08.2011 15:56 |
The question was.. " Which name would you like BM and RT to call themselves?" Can a thread on this website be kept light hearted for once? We all know anything we say here is absolutely, unbelievably irrelevant. I think they should be called Shaggy and Scooby. (we all know which one is shaggy..) |
| Woody43 25.08.2011 16:15 |
Given their association with the brand, their age, their status.....there is no way that they would use anything but the Queen name. They have no need to think otherwise. |
| queenboot 26.08.2011 01:53 |
Laurel & Hardy |
| queenboot 26.08.2011 07:00 |
"Two and a half band" (Brian, Roger, Spike) |
| Amazon 26.08.2011 10:44 |
Pingfah wrote: "OK fair enough, I didn't mean that we have to agree with everything they do, but I guess I don't understand the level of annoyance about it only being Bri & Rog. It's sweating the small stuff." Except it's symbolic. Names are not just names. They conjure up memories, and they become an intrinsic part of the artist. The Beatles wouldn't be the same if at one point, they changed their name to the Grasshoppers. At least, not to me. "If people are concerned about the Queen legacy they should be more worried about the fact that The Cosmos Rocks sucked." Personally, I just ignore it as I don't consider it to be a proper Queen album. What distressed me much more, however, was the WWRY musical. God, that was horrible. I love musicals, and I adore Queen, however it was a match made in hell. |
| Fireplace 27.08.2011 20:35 |
The Paul Rodgers Tribute Experience. |
| GratefulFan 27.08.2011 23:59 |
Amazon wrote: For me, it comes down to maths. All four original members are of course Queen, I consider original three members to be Queen, however with two or less original members (for instance, if Brian recruited a new vocalist, drummer & bass player), it doesn't seem like Queen anymore. ============================= But Brian and Roger quite deliberately haven't recruited a permanent new vocalist and bassist, so having to wonder if that would seem like Queen anymore is not something we have to sort out. To the significant contrary they have avoided that and spent likely tens of thousands of written and spoken words keeping the legacies of both Freddie and - to their credit all things considered - John, alive and present. Back in the early 90's even they didn't feel like Queen anymore. Grief and a previously expressed certainty that they never would be should any one of them be gone indicated that that would be the end of that. But time and perspective seems to have seen them come out of that life altering period and subsequent years that brought even more changes feeling, perhaps ever so tentatively at first, that they just might still feel like themselves after all. Knowing Brian particularly it probably wouldn't have been without a lot of conversation and a lot of angst. Really, who are we to second guess something like this? I'm happy to complain about some of the things that they've done as Queen, but not whether they are Queen, which is something I figure they know better than I do. |
| rhyeking 29.08.2011 08:30 |
Grateful Fan has pretty much covered the reasons for why Queen is still Roger and Brian's band name. A lot of it comes down to context. Comparisons and hypothetical scenarios are inherently flawed. Arguments about why if B&R are *now* Queen, why wasn't, say, "How Can I Go On" (with F&J) considered a Queen track fails to take into the account the context by which the Barcelona album was created (for example). The same goes for suggestions like "What if [J or B or R] started a band by themselves...?" We could argue rationals for and against, but it's all academic since it hasn't happened. And neither side will be able to factor in every variable ("Yeah, but what about [x]...?"). In short (too late, I know), after 1991, the line up of Queen changed. Whether we accept it or not, that's what happened. At the risk of comparing, these things do happen to bands. It would be nice and tidy if the band either broke up then (or in 1995), or if they renamed themselves. They didn't. That's their right. The way I look at it, there are different eras of Queen: Pre-Queen: the Reaction, 1984, Ibex/Wreckage, Smile, Larry Lurex, etc. Early Queen: B & R & F & Mike Gross or Dougie Boogie, etc. Classic Queen: B & R & F & J Current Queen: B & R [& J] What is currently Queen may change again, at which point I'll reclassify that period and whatever the current Queen incarnation will be separate from what happened before. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 29.08.2011 09:55 |
Fair enough RhyeKing. So when John Deacon, Errol Brown from Hot Chocolate, John McEnroe (who has jammed with Deacon) and the guy who programs the drums for Human League go on (hypothetical) tour it's Queen, correct? B & R can call themselves Queen forever (as can John Deacon if he tours or records with anyone), the spirit and what the band stood for are long gone. That's why I don't see it as Queen, name issues aside. |
| rhyeking 29.08.2011 12:35 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: Fair enough RhyeKing. So when John Deacon, Errol Brown from Hot Chocolate, John McEnroe (who has jammed with Deacon) and the guy who programs the drums for Human League go on (hypothetical) tour it's Queen, correct? B & R can call themselves Queen forever (as can John Deacon if he tours or records with anyone), the spirit and what the band stood for are long gone. That's why I don't see it as Queen, name issues aside. ******************************************** If that were to happen, we'd have to look at what circumstances came about (the aforementioned context) so that John arrived at the decision to continue to use Queen's moniker. Since this is hypothetical, we can't possibly conceive every of every line of reasoning for or against, but in broad strokes, he might get a pass if, perhaps, the following happened: a) EB is brought in as a permanent member of Queen, with the line-up being: B & R & J & EB b) At some later point, Brian retires, or falls ill, so the line-up is: R & J & EB c) JM is brought in (R & J & EB & JM) d) Roger quits to reform The Cross, leaving only J & EB & JM & Human League guy to do tour drum programming My point in the example is not whether they should or shouldn't, but to demonstrate that, basically, things change. If John were to suddenly come out of retirement and want to record an album as Queen, with guest artists, well, who are we to argue that he *can't* call himself Queen? Really, Brian and Roger would be the only two with a legit claim that he maybe shouldn't. If they weren't around, or didn't care, I suppose it would be controversial among fans, but these things do happen to bands too. There is no one answer. Meat Loaf and Jim Steinman went to court over who had the rights to the title "Bat Out Of Hell." We should maybe feel lucky that B & R & J all agree and that there aren't messy legal actions between them (and Freddie's Estate, too). At that point, it becomes personal preference, like fans of a book hating the movie adaptation. Neither is more right in his/her position, because they're unique representations. Queen at the time of F & B & R & J is different (line up and output-wise) from it's current incarnation (B & R [& J]). I personally don't think one trumps the other. |
| Amazon 29.08.2011 14:32 |
GratefulFan wrote: "But Brian and Roger quite deliberately haven't recruited a permanent new vocalist and bassist, so having to wonder if that would seem like Queen anymore is not something we have to sort out. To the significant contrary they have avoided that and spent likely tens of thousands of written and spoken words keeping the legacies of both Freddie and - to their credit all things considered - John, alive and present. Back in the early 90's even they didn't feel like Queen anymore. Grief and a previously expressed certainty that they never would be should any one of them be gone indicated that that would be the end of that. But time and perspective seems to have seen them come out of that life altering period and subsequent years that brought even more changes feeling, perhaps ever so tentatively at first, that they just might still feel like themselves after all. Knowing Brian particularly it probably wouldn't have been without a lot of conversation and a lot of angst. Really, who are we to second guess something like this? I'm happy to complain about some of the things that they've done as Queen, but not whether they are Queen, which is something I figure they know better than I do." A few introductory comments: First, I want to make clear that this isn't really a big deal for me. I'm no longer as passionate as I once was about 'protecting' my favourite art. I used to passionately care, but now, I'm much more accepting, and so quite honestly their using the name doesn't really concern me. I don't like it, but I would never boycott Queen over their still using the name, especially when I didn't boycott them in response to the WWRY musical (which I hated, and which IMO was a much bigger desecration of the Queen name than their still using it). Second, my perspective is probably different to yours as you've been a Queen fan longer than I have. While I was always aware of their biggest hits and most famous songs (WWRY, WATC, Bo Rhap etc...), I didn't really become a Queen fan until years after Freddie had died. So I can't really comment on what it would have been like when they were facing the question of whether to continue or not. The collaboration with Paul Rodgers marked the first time that I had to ask myself if they should still be using the name. Anyway, the way I look at it is that legally, practically, Brian and Roger have every right to decide for themselves whether to continue to use the name- which I don't question- however beyond that, I have the right to question them, which I do. For me, as a fan, a name of a group is of massive importance. It's a symbol of the group's brilliance, represents my memories, and in many cases, has a deep or particular meaning that can not be divorced from the artist, such as The Doors or Guns 'N Roses (which was named after two previous groups but still counts), and Queen. One of Freddie's greatest non-musical decisions IMO was convincing Brian and Roger to choose the name Queen. When it comes to art (painting, cinema, music, literature etc...), I believe that once it is out there, the artist doesn't have the same moral ownership that they had if they didn't release/publish/sell it. George Lucas has the legal and actual right to do whatever he want to Star Wars, however I think the fans have a moral right to question him. It doesn't mean, of course, that he'll listen. Similarly, I think there is a degree of co-ownership over the name. While Brian and Roger will call Queen whatever they want, that does not mean that fans have to consider the post-Freddie/John versions to be 'Queen'. Does that mean we are second-guessing them? Perhaps, but I think it's our right to do so, just as they have the actual right to ignore us. |
| rhyeking 29.08.2011 16:01 |
I've always felt that fandom can become a messy a business when it comes to things like this. The music means something very specific to the listener individually, whether it's a song that perfectly describes how they feel or it's the right song at the right time that is loaded with pleasant memories for them. That connection carries weight for the fan, and that's great, and it's a natural reaction. The problems come from that turning into possessiveness ("fan" derives from "fanatic" for a reason). |
| queenboot 30.08.2011 01:19 |
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde |
| tenement-finster 23003 30.08.2011 16:34 |
Revert back to the Smile name & get Tim Staffell back on board.....As It Began....................... |
| A Winter's Prophet 30.08.2011 20:57 |
"Queen" Period, end of discussion. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 30.08.2011 22:47 |
"Queen" Period, end of discussion. Awesome work A Winter's Prophet! Seven posts and you've put an end to the most contentious and long running topic on QZ. Can't see anyone disagreeing with your statement, well played! |
| dagi 31.08.2011 03:03 |
I disagree and so do I suspect many original fans. It seems to be that those who wish to see the use of the "Queen" name continuing, are young jonny-come-latelys who discovered the band post 1991. |
| Amazon 31.08.2011 07:09 |
dagi wrote: "It seems to be that those who wish to see the use of the "Queen" name continuing, are young jonny-come-latelys who discovered the band post 1991." That's not entirely accurate. While I wouldn't describe myself as a 'jonny-come-lately', I did discover the band post-1991, and I certainly do not want to see the use of the name continuing. Especially after I saw the dreadful WWRY musical. |
| iamhere 31.08.2011 07:41 |
how about calling themselves queen 2.0 been as some people are moaning not me! queen will always been QUEEN |
| ibernard 31.08.2011 08:52 |
The name for Brian and Roger? It's pretty obvious: Four members: Queen Three members: Jack Two members: TEN |
| nickie 31.08.2011 11:22 |
They could tour as "Brian May and Roger Taylor." That says it all for me. |
| louvox 31.08.2011 14:27 |
They should call it "Tailor Made" |
| The Real Wizard 31.08.2011 16:27 |
Does this kind of discussion happen in any other fan forums for groups who have lost original members? Journey, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Supertramp, Chicago and Metallica have all done very well for themselves after losing original members. Why should it be any different for Queen? |
| Sheer Brass Neck 31.08.2011 16:41 |
Because Queen weren't any of those groups. They are part of the holy trinity with the kings of pop being The Beatles, the kings of rock Led Zeppelin and Queen splitting the difference as kings of pop rock. When those groups lost members they disbanded, as their members were irreplaceable. I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. Freddie Mercury was irreplaceable, John Deacon maybe replaceable but not without altering the DNA of the sound. I believe in sound over the name, so I can't see any resemblance to "Queen" without those guys. Not really worried about the name. |
| k-m 31.08.2011 17:11 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: Because Queen weren't any of those groups. They are part of the holy trinity with the kings of pop being The Beatles, the kings of rock Led Zeppelin and Queen splitting the difference as kings of pop rock. When those groups lost members they disbanded, as their members were irreplaceable. I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. Freddie Mercury was irreplaceable, John Deacon maybe replaceable but not without altering the DNA of the sound. I believe in sound over the name, so I can't see any resemblance to "Queen" without those guys. Not really worried about the name. Good point. Although I wouldn't underestimate Mr Deacon's talents - who knows what would happen if ANOBTD or IWTBF never were? They really were career changing hits. As for the name, I think they entered an age when forming a new band doesn't make much sense really, so I would probably go for "Brian May and Roger Taylor" ("of Queen" added on merchandise). Many people recognise Brian anyway, so wouldn't worry too much. And yes, calling themselves "Queen" is rather far-fetched imo. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 31.08.2011 18:28 |
I don't underestimate John Deacon k-m, you are right, he is an enormous part of Queen and the sound, and a more highly regarded (Billy Sheehan, Chris Squire maybe) player would have altered the sound immensely as he played for the song. The argument is old (but always engaging!) about who Queen are or were. Let's put it this way. The Beatles and Zep's legacies were the legacies of their band. Queen's chasing a sales/popularity legacy, and opened themselves up to criticism or questioning by carrying on. Because let's be honest. Paul Rodgers is a wonderful singer, one of the greats. It's guesswork on my part, but I really don't think that Beatles fans would think he'd be a part of The Beatles as the new John Lennon, even if he's not replacing Lennon. Paul Rodgers is a gifted musician, accomplished writer, fabulous singer. Freddie Mercury was an iconic genius. So was John Lennon. Tough to replace them. One band did, one didn't and who's right there? |
| beautifulsoup 31.08.2011 19:15 |
Sir GH wrote: Does this kind of discussion happen in any other fan forums for groups who have lost original members? Journey, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Supertramp, Chicago and Metallica have all done very well for themselves after losing original members. Why should it be any different for Queen? ********************************************************** +1 |
| The Real Wizard 31.08.2011 21:27 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: Because Queen weren't any of those groups. They are part of the holy trinity with the kings of pop being The Beatles, the kings of rock Led Zeppelin and Queen splitting the difference as kings of pop rock. When those groups lost members they disbanded, as their members were irreplaceable. I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. Freddie Mercury was irreplaceable, John Deacon maybe replaceable but not without altering the DNA of the sound. I believe in sound over the name, so I can't see any resemblance to "Queen" without those guys. Not really worried about the name. ======================== Indeed, nobody's debating that ! I'm just pointing out that people have created an invisible rule that a band name must die in certain cases when a band member dies. Who is setting these rules? For 20 years, Queen was four guys. For the next 20, it was less than four guys. It really is that simple. Watch any video of A Kind Of Magic from the last tour in South America '08. It is still Queen. The magic is there. I see your point about the holy trinity, and I like your DNA lingo regarding Deacon. But I still say the founding members of Queen are not exempt from doing what they want with their own name. Add Yes and Genesis to the list. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 31.08.2011 22:32 |
I agree wholeheartedly with what you say Sir GH. However, lots of people post thing like A Winter's Prophet did saying that Brian and Roger are "Queen, period, end of discussion." The people opposed to the name being used seldom say that, it seems there is no room for discussion if you don't believe that Brian and Roger aren't Queen, where the people who don't believe anybody but the original four are Queen seem to accept the reasons (brand recognition, ownership of name, dues paid) for why they continue as Queen, people on the other side say things like A Winter's Prophet did and give no reason other than what they believe. That's weak. As for the other bands, even great bands like Yes and Genesis, they're not comparable. Freddie Mercury is arguably the greatest vocalist in rock and roll, and the writer of arguably the greatest song in rock history, and the centerpiece of arguably the greatest live set in rock history, and arguably the greatest frontman in rock history who created the logo and name of arguably the greatest pop rock band of all time. I'd argue there is no one more identifiable to a band than Freddie Mercury was to Queen. For those reasons, all comparisons to artists as great as Jon Anderson or Peter Gabriel are non-starters as they're amazing artists, but Freddie is in the Lennon/Hendrix/Presley pantheon, Anderson and Gabriel don't belong anywhere near that despite their gifts. IMHO. |
| rhyeking 31.08.2011 23:41 |
Just curious, but would we be having this conversation if (Heaven forbid) John has passed away and not Freddie? Let's suppose John died in a car accident (it would be God awful, but bear with me a sec) in 1992 and Freddie had not contracted HIV. We'd be shocked, saddened and could never hear "Another One Bites The Dust" the same way (sort of the way we subconsciously read too much into "Bohemian Rhapsody" now that Freddie is gone). Then the band, after a bit of respectful distance, maybe a solo album or two, comes back to record a new album, recruiting, say, Neil Murray to cover the bass duties. How many "There's no Queen without John" threads would appear? I imagine a few, perhaps, but we wouldn't spend 20 years debating what is or isn't Queen. After an album or two and a few tours, I think the discussions would fall away, we'd accept whomever filled the roll of bass player (he might even write some good songs, consider that) and would just look forward to the next release and tour. Yet, with Freddie, the from the day he died, many fans were like, "that's it for Queen!" They bought Made In Heaven, maybe liked a few tracks, put it on their shelf as a kind of bookend to the catalogue and still firmly believe that Freddie's death was an insurmountable obstacle that the band could not recover from. I wonder if it's the psychological/emotional connection that a lead singer and front man has with the audience. The voice singing the song carries the weight of the lyrics and creates the bond with the listener. If the voice changes (or vanishes), the resonance is gone. It feels wrong, despite the fact that the writers are still saying something. Can it be overcome? I think so. I don't believe listeners are merely targets that the music must hit, but are just as active in the emotional process, meeting the music halfway once it's created. I think many fans, and I'm not judging them, just observing, refuse to take that step forward to receive what is now being offered. Is it a sense of duty to nostalgia? Is it that the differences in the music and lyrics are too great from what came before for them to equate it with the earlier output? It could be any number of reasons, but I feel it's never too late to meet that music halfway, to listen and maybe find something you like. |
| The Real Wizard 01.09.2011 02:07 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: As for the other bands, even great bands like Yes and Genesis, they're not comparable. Freddie Mercury is arguably the greatest vocalist in rock and roll, and the writer of arguably the greatest song in rock history, and the centerpiece of arguably the greatest live set in rock history, and arguably the greatest frontman in rock history who created the logo and name of arguably the greatest pop rock band of all time. I'd argue there is no one more identifiable to a band than Freddie Mercury was to Queen. For those reasons, all comparisons to artists as great as Jon Anderson or Peter Gabriel are non-starters as they're amazing artists, but Freddie is in the Lennon/Hendrix/Presley pantheon, Anderson and Gabriel don't belong anywhere near that despite their gifts. IMHO. ============================== Fair play. Of course you're right in your assessment of Freddie and Queen in the grand scheme of things. But to go back to my earlier point, we are then creating an invisible rule that states: once your band reaches a certain level of notoriety and influence on popular culture, you must change your name if someone dies or leaves. But why must it be that criteria? Why couldn't it be the number of records released, the number of women the bassist shagged, or a limit of ten people having been in and out of the band? If anything, a band like Yes should have changed their name a dozen times because they've had that many different lineups. If we should be setting rules, then maybe a band whose membership changes result in a dramatic change in musical output should consider changing their name. Like when Black Sabbath reunited with their early 80s lineup (with Ronnie James Dio instead of Ozzy), they called it Heaven And Hell. Ozzy was and still is seen as the face of Black Sabbath, even though Tony Iommi is the only guy to have played on every record. And even though the band made their intentions of sticking to the 1980-82 era pretty clear, people still walked away from Heaven And Hell shows disappointed that they didn't play Paranoid. Are their fans thick, or have they simply typecast all things related to Black Sabbath with the 1970-73 output? Consider Velvet Revolver or Audioslave. Had Queen + Paul Rodgers did something similar, maybe their album would have been far better-received. By using the Queen name, they set the bar high, and the public just didn't get what our boys were doing. Many of the tracks rank up with the old Queen, but without Mercury on the record it didn't stand a chance with the man on the street. At the end of the day, the public is your boss, as they're the ones who buy the records and come out to the shows. But mere numbers of people shouldn't have to speak for artistic decisions. Is band name an artistic decision? A marketing decision? A bit of both? Just trying to get to the root of the psychology of it all.. |
| The Real Wizard 01.09.2011 02:16 |
rhyeking wrote: I wonder if it's the psychological/emotional connection that a lead singer and front man has with the audience. The voice singing the song carries the weight of the lyrics and creates the bond with the listener. If the voice changes (or vanishes), the resonance is gone. It feels wrong, despite the fact that the writers are still saying something. Can it be overcome? I think so. ======================== Depends who it is. The public just can't separate Queen from Freddie. I really don't think it's because Queen are more popular than all the other bands we've discussed. It's one of those things that just happens. Some groups can recover and others can't. Supertramp hasn't put out a decent record since Roger Hodgson left, but Genesis became 10x bigger in the 80s with Phil Collins taking over the operation. Had they called it quits after The Lamb or A Trick Of The Tail, they still would have been hailed as one of the greatest groups of the 70s. |
| dagi 01.09.2011 02:39 |
Deity: ....."but Genesis became 10x bigger in the 80s with Phil Collins taking over the operation. Had they called it quits after The Lamb or A Trick Of The Tail, they still would have been hailed as one of the greatest groups of the 70s." One very minor difference, Genesis did not recruit a replacement, they continued as a smaller band. Also, it became obvious that the public accepted Genesis minus Gabriel and that overall their reputation and legacy wasn't diminished. The Queen reputation has. What BM and RT have done, in my mind at least, is bordering on criminal. |
| The Real Wizard 01.09.2011 02:50 |
I highly disagree with that. Queen are more respected now than they were in their prime. Almost every review in the 70s was a bad review. Nowadays the gift of hindsight has given Queen legendary status. Queen have surpassed The Beatles in UK album sales, as a large sum of those sales have been over the past 20 years. Q+PR played to sold-out arenas all over the world, and Brian and Roger have done plenty to keep the band in the limelight. And with all the press of Brian May getting his Ph.D. a few years back, it has merely solidified the fact that Queen stands for top class achievement. The Pepsi version of WWRY with Britney Spears does not stand out in Joe Public's mind. Unless you're Gary Glitter, there is nothing one can do to tarnish a reputation built in the past. |
| tero! 48531 01.09.2011 09:37 |
Sir GH wrote: Sheer Brass Neck wrote: As for the other bands, even great bands like Yes and Genesis, they're not comparable. Freddie Mercury is arguably the greatest vocalist in rock and roll, and the writer of arguably the greatest song in rock history, and the centerpiece of arguably the greatest live set in rock history, and arguably the greatest frontman in rock history who created the logo and name of arguably the greatest pop rock band of all time. I'd argue there is no one more identifiable to a band than Freddie Mercury was to Queen. For those reasons, all comparisons to artists as great as Jon Anderson or Peter Gabriel are non-starters as they're amazing artists, but Freddie is in the Lennon/Hendrix/Presley pantheon, Anderson and Gabriel don't belong anywhere near that despite their gifts. IMHO. ============================== Fair play. Of course you're right in your assessment of Freddie and Queen in the grand scheme of things. But to go back to my earlier point, we are then creating an invisible rule that states: once your band reaches a certain level of notoriety and influence on popular culture, you must change your name if someone dies or leaves. But why must it be that criteria? Why couldn't it be the number of records released, the number of women the bassist shagged, or a limit of ten people having been in and out of the band? If anything, a band like Yes should have changed their name a dozen times because they've had that many different lineups. If we should be setting rules, then maybe a band whose membership changes result in a dramatic change in musical output should consider changing their name. Like when Black Sabbath reunited with their early 80s lineup (with Ronnie James Dio instead of Ozzy), they called it Heaven And Hell. Ozzy was and still is seen as the face of Black Sabbath, even though Tony Iommi is the only guy to have played on every record. And even though the band made their intentions of sticking to the 1980-82 era pretty clear, people still walked away from Heaven And Hell shows disappointed that they didn't play Paranoid. Are their fans thick, or have they simply typecast all things related to Black Sabbath with the 1970-73 output? Consider Velvet Revolver or Audioslave. Had Queen + Paul Rodgers did something similar, maybe their album would have been far better-received. By using the Queen name, they set the bar high, and the public just didn't get what our boys were doing. Many of the tracks rank up with the old Queen, but without Mercury on the record it didn't stand a chance with the man on the street. At the end of the day, the public is your boss, as they're the ones who buy the records and come out to the shows. But mere numbers of people shouldn't have to speak for artistic decisions. Is band name an artistic decision? A marketing decision? A bit of both? Just trying to get to the root of the psychology of it all.. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Queen IS different from all these other bands, but it's conveniently ignored with all these discussions. It's got nothing to do with subjective opinions such as "being legendary", it's about how the changes in line-up have occured. The only truly "legendary" thing about Queen is that it managed to stay in the same recording line-up for twenty years. By the time Genesis hit it big with Phil Collins as a vocalist, they had already gone through half a dozen changes. I can guarantee you that if Roger Taylor had replaced Freddie as the singer of Queen back in 1975 before ANATO was released, we wouldn't be having this discussion. |
| The Real Wizard 01.09.2011 10:54 |
Tero! wrote: The only truly "legendary" thing about Queen is that it managed to stay in the same recording line-up for twenty years. ================= I'd argue that there are plenty of things that make Queen legendary, but you do have a point there. I can name maybe two or three other bands who have had their longevity.. |
| Amazon 01.09.2011 16:26 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: "As for the other bands, even great bands like Yes and Genesis, they're not comparable. Freddie Mercury is arguably the greatest vocalist in rock and roll, and the writer of arguably the greatest song in rock history, and the centerpiece of arguably the greatest live set in rock history, and arguably the greatest frontman in rock history who created the logo and name of arguably the greatest pop rock band of all time. I'd argue there is no one more identifiable to a band than Freddie Mercury was to Queen. For those reasons, all comparisons to artists as great as Jon Anderson or Peter Gabriel are non-starters as they're amazing artists, but Freddie is in the Lennon/Hendrix/Presley pantheon, Anderson and Gabriel don't belong anywhere near that despite their gifts. IMHO." Brilliant post. :D I couldn't agree more! I will simply add that as well as being the writer of perhaps the greatest rock song of all time (I'm not convinced it definitely was), IMO he was among the greatest writers of all time and every bit as good as Dylan/Cohen/Lennon & McCartney etc... Tero! wrote: "Queen IS different from all these other bands, but it's conveniently ignored with all these discussions. It's got nothing to do with subjective opinions such as "being legendary", it's about how the changes in line-up have occured. The only truly "legendary" thing about Queen is that it managed to stay in the same recording line-up for twenty years. By the time Genesis hit it big with Phil Collins as a vocalist, they had already gone through half a dozen changes. I can guarantee you that if Roger Taylor had replaced Freddie as the singer of Queen back in 1975 before ANATO was released, we wouldn't be having this discussion." Yes, but that's because Freddie was an unrivaled genius and a 'legendary' artist, whom no musician Genesis has ever had arguably compares to. I don't really understand what you are saying. I mean, are you suggesting that Roger's replacement of Freddie wouldn't have worked for reasons other than Freddie's status? |
| Sheer Brass Neck 01.09.2011 19:07 |
The root psychology of it, Sir GH, is a fabulous way to look at it , and I think it shapes opinions. FWIW, here's mine. I grew up with Queen as a teen in the 70s. They stood for something then. Freddie stated in numerous interviews that the band had to compromise some things early on but never was a musical compromise made. Brian stated in an interview later in their career (this isn't verbatim but thoughts are correct) that they didn't think about whether Little Mary So and So living somewhere would care about the extra vocal harmony or guitar at where 10 am would be in her left headphone, they did it because they stood for something. Their music was risk taking and ground breaking, and they were adventurous at a time when they hadn't had a level of success anywhere near what they had later in the 80s. In short, Queen stood for something, musically and artistically. Now, allow me a little digression. Steve Jobs of Apple is ill. Here is a tidbit about him from an employee, with me summarizing the story for space. A Google employee got at a call on a Sunday morning at church in 2008 and chose to ignore the call and checked his messages after church ends. The message left was from Steve Jobs saying to call him at home about something urgent to discuss. He calls Steve Jobs back, saying he was nervous as it was unusual for Jobs to call on a Sunday and ask me to call his home. Jobs says, ""I've been looking at the Google logo on the iPhone and I'm not happy with the icon. The second O in Google doesn't have the right yellow gradient. It's just wrong and I'm going to have Greg fix it tomorrow. Is that okay with you?" The writer continued "...of course this was okay with me. ...but in the end, when I think about leadership, passion and attention to detail, I think back to the call I received from Steve Jobs on a Sunday morning in January. It was a lesson I'll never forget. CEOs should care about details. Even shades of yellow. On a Sunday." Leadership. Passion. Attention to detail. All things I think Queen used to stand for and believe in. I may be wrong, but from my point of view, Queen became big business and forgot what they were. Shoddy releases, poor customer service, lack of attention to detail, terrible quality control, cynical product choices etc. So for me, musically they can never be Queen, but that's my selfish take on a name. The current people who use the Queen name don't stand for anything that the band used to stand for and that's more of a crime than bringing in Paul Rodgers. |
| A Winter's Prophet 02.09.2011 00:26 |
dagi wrote: "I disagree and so do I suspect many original fans. It seems to be that those who wish to see the use of the "Queen" name continuing, are young jonny-come-latelys who discovered the band post 1991." Perhaps I'm not an "original fan" - although I'm really struggling to understand what that means - as I was born the year The Game was released. I agree that Freddie could never be replaced... really, I get that. But, what we have left are the two founding members, and while they did/do not possess the flare and presence that Freddie yielded so freely, they were extremely influential to the band's success throughout years. I understand, still, that Freddie was the one who stepped in to create distinction and was probably the most influential member as the band gained momentum and popularity through the seventies. His voice was unmatched. We miss Freddie terribly. But, we have, active, the two founding members remaining. Let's not downplay their significance. They are Queen. |
| tero! 48531 02.09.2011 09:17 |
Amazon wrote: Yes, but that's because Freddie was an unrivaled genius and a 'legendary' artist, whom no musician Genesis has ever had arguably compares to. I don't really understand what you are saying. I mean, are you suggesting that Roger's replacement of Freddie wouldn't have worked for reasons other than Freddie's status? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is exactly the kind of discussion that I was trying to avoid by saying that the only "truly legendary" thing about Queen was the stability of their line-up. For every ten people saying that Freddie was an unrivaled genius, there are at least five people saying the same thing about Peter Gabriel with Genesis. It's a matter of subjective opinion, and as such doesn't have any relevance here. What IS objectively legendary is the stability of the line-up, and if that wasn't the case (e.g. if Freddie had left five years into the band), Queen would be just another one of those thousands of bands which had changes. |
| Amazon 02.09.2011 11:48 |
Tero! wrote: "This is exactly the kind of discussion that I was trying to avoid by saying that the only "truly legendary" thing about Queen was the stability of their line-up. For every ten people saying that Freddie was an unrivaled genius, there are at least five people saying the same thing about Peter Gabriel with Genesis. It's a matter of subjective opinion, and as such doesn't have any relevance here. What IS objectively legendary is the stability of the line-up, and if that wasn't the case (e.g. if Freddie had left five years into the band), Queen would be just another one of those thousands of bands which had changes." Sorry, I was quite tired when I read your original comment, and I wasn't quite sure what it meant. I understand perfectly now. :D |
| Amazon 03.09.2011 08:34 |
rhyeking wrote: "I've always felt that fandom can become a messy a business when it comes to things like this. The music means something very specific to the listener individually, whether it's a song that perfectly describes how they feel or it's the right song at the right time that is loaded with pleasant memories for them. That connection carries weight for the fan, and that's great, and it's a natural reaction. The problems come from that turning into possessiveness ("fan" derives from "fanatic" for a reason)." Fans should always be careful to not be too obsessive, however I don't think it's a problem with most of the members on this site. The ones that most passionately oppose the continuous use of the name probably accept that legally and actually, it's Brian's & Roger's right to do so. |
| rhyeking 03.09.2011 09:57 |
I was speaking a broad sense. I wasn't saying that fans who reject the current incarnation of Queen as "Queen" are psychotics foaming at the mouth with hate. Yes we're mostly reasonable, intelligent posters here. What I do sense occasionally is that sometimes fans here may feel they know better than the band what is best for Queen. Statements about how they currently shouldn't do X because it will ruin their legacy or lower their previously high standards can imply that the fans believe they possess knowledge of an outcome or expertise that exceeds that of the band itself. I question/challenge that when I get a whiff of it, because to me it reeks of arrogance, since no one can know the future. How Queen will be viewed in another 20 years is anyone's guess. Even saying they're *currently* killing all that they worked for (respect, fandom, "legacy"...) seems to me to impose opinion as fact, where Queen are arguably more popular than they ever were, with a continually growing fan base and critical respect. Sorry, I'm drifting from my point. Basically, let the band be what the members say it is, enjoy what you love, ignore what you don't, and let history judge the relative successes and failures. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 03.09.2011 20:03 |
As this thing will never get resolved, a few thoughts. A Winter's Prophet said: Perhaps I'm not an "original fan" - although I'm really struggling to understand what that means. I agree that some people use the "I've been a fan since '71 so your opinions are worthless" argument. That's ridiculous. There is no way to measure who is a greater fan than who, so someone who became a fan at Made In Heaven may be a "bigger" fan than someone who saw them at Imperial College. What the MIH era fan is missing, as all relative newcomers are, is the journey when it happened. If you weren't there, you can't have the same knowledge of where the band came from, and what they stood for, and how the band changed from a hard rocking outfit in the Zep mold to the pop/rock entity they became. So, if you were to have got into Queen at the time of their biggest success (and worst music), you wouldn't understand the disillusionment of longer term fans and how Roger Taylor, for instance, was a great writer (Circus magazine listed him at least in the realm with Townshend and Springsteen as a chronicler of youth disenchantment when Fun in Space was released), then we get Don't Lose Your Head and that paled in comparison to his 70s output, including his dogs like Fun It. "I agree that Freddie could never be replaced." For some, that line says it all about why they can't be Queen. "But, what we have left are the two founding members, and while they did/do not possess the flare and presence that Freddie yielded so freely..." For some, that line say says it all about why they can't be Queen. "I understand, still, that Freddie was the one who stepped in to create distinction and was probably the most influential member..." For some, that line say says it all about why they can't be Queen. "But, we have, active, the two founding members remaining. Let's not downplay their significance. They are Queen." No one is downplaying their significance, I'd argue that the biggest argument of why they aren't Queen is that they all had major significance. I wouldn't call Freddie Mercury, Roger Taylor, John Deacon and Mark Knopfler, or Eric Clapton or Eddie Van Halen Queen if Brian had died. Some believe in a feeling or band, some believe in a brand. |
| mike hunt 04.09.2011 04:04 |
Brian even hinted that roger and himself have been searching for something over the last 20 years.....He knows queen is no more, the general public knows Queen is no more....some bands were able to move on from losing a key member, like sabbath. The difference?.....sabbath replaced ozzy pretty quickly, brian and roger waited 15 years, and let's not forget 'heaven and Hell" is a borderline classic, a fantastic album. The cosmo rocks, not so great.....i'm as big a Freddie mercury fan as anyone, but in all honesty, Ozzy is an iconic figure of heavy metal, maybe more famous than freddie?.....everyone knows who ozzy is......The problem is that the general public thinks that freddie was Queen, or at least the special one of the group, while Sabbath was regarded as 4 equals.......WTF?......the bottom line is Queen tried a new lineup with TCR and it failed.....They should take the hint, and any future albums should be named Brian May and roger Talyor.....no more Queen! |
| Amazon 04.09.2011 13:05 |
mike hunt wrote: "i'm as big a Freddie mercury fan as anyone, but in all honesty, Ozzy is an iconic figure of heavy metal, maybe more famous than freddie?" If Ozzy is more famous than Freddie, it's only because of the TV show, and that since his death, Freddie's life hasn't been celebrated in the same way as people like Lennon, Morrison, and Elvis etc... I desperately hope that the film changes all of that; he doesn't get nearly the respect he deserves. |
| GratefulFan 04.09.2011 15:01 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: Leadership. Passion. Attention to detail. All things I think Queen used to stand for and believe in. I may be wrong, but from my point of view, Queen became big business and forgot what they were. Shoddy releases, poor customer service, lack of attention to detail, terrible quality control, cynical product choices etc. So for me, musically they can never be Queen, but that's my selfish take on a name. The current people who use the Queen name don't stand for anything that the band used to stand for and that's more of a crime than bringing in Paul Rodgers. ===================== Without intending to excuse shoddy releases, poor customer service etc. etc. it did occur to me that Jobs is one guy at the top and never had to deal with passion, conviction and attention to detail almost breaking up his company. Those very qualities in early Queen eventually wore them out and endangered their future as a band. Now the only two left are the two who were most likely of any of them to seriously clash over artistic differences and perhaps that in part necessitates a level of protective indifference and leaving a lot of the details to others who have different priorities. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 04.09.2011 19:15 |
Can't agree with you GratefulFan. The scenario I mentioned with Steve Jobs occurred in 2008, 25 or more years after Apple launched. If he's concerned about the colour of a letter on his iPhone, maybe Brain and Roger could care about sections of songs missing (in 1991, not 2011 as in In the Lap of the Gods on HR), horrible artwork (Queen Rocks, Stone Cold Classics) and choices that were less about sales, more about quality. rhyeking mentioned that we don't know better than the band, and I'd agree and disagree/ For sales and popularity, they don't make a wrong step. For credibility and legacy, they don't make a right step. To me, Queen belongs with Zep and The Beatles as the greatest rock acts ever. The way they market themselves is as a sales band, to the detriment of their music. Their decision, but nobody gives a fuck about Madonna's musical legacy although she's sold a shitload of albums. Brian and Roger and QPL don't care about their musical legacy as long as they can get the first spot on The World's Shittiest Spanish Album with Las Palabras de Amor being the opening track. They've succeeded there, I'll give them that. |
| mike hunt 05.09.2011 00:02 |
freddie is an icon, no question about that.....but he's still not on the level of elvis and lennon, and never will be on that level......pretty close though. |
| Amazon 05.09.2011 03:22 |
mike hunt wrote: "freddie is an icon, no question about that.....but he's still not on the level of elvis and lennon, and never will be on that level......pretty close though." In terms of talent, I think he is. Fame? No, definitely not. But in terms of talent and achievement, absolutely. In terms of talent and achievement, there are quite a few people who belong to this group who aren't in it for reasons unrelated to their brilliance. Paul McCartney, for instance. I think he was equally as brilliant, if not more brilliant, than John, yet people elevate John above him. |
| Amazon 05.09.2011 06:57 |
GratefulFan wrote: "Now the only two left are the two who were most likely of any of them to seriously clash over artistic differences and perhaps that in part necessitates a level of protective indifference and leaving a lot of the details to others who have different priorities." Really? I would have thought it was the opposite. My perception was that Brian and Roger were much more interested in rock than in other genres, and so during the 80's, they were less enthusiastic than Freddie & John were about exploring different kinds of music. As such, I would have thought that they would have fewer artistic differences than with the other two members. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 05.09.2011 10:08 |
I guess my final answer to why Queen isn't Queen is located on Google's homepage today. I'm 100% certain that great as they are that the members who left Journey, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Supertramp, Chicago, Metallica, Yes, Genesis and Pink Floyd and any other group will not be featured alongside Charlie Chaplin and John Lennon as they hit their lives milestones on Google. That's why it should be different for Queen. Happy birthday Freddie Mercury, boy genius to the end. |
| mike hunt 05.09.2011 22:38 |
Amazon wrote: mike hunt wrote: "freddie is an icon, no question about that.....but he's still not on the level of elvis and lennon, and never will be on that level......pretty close though." In terms of talent, I think he is. Fame? No, definitely not. But in terms of talent and achievement, absolutely. In terms of talent and achievement, there are quite a few people who belong to this group who aren't in it for reasons unrelated to their brilliance. Paul McCartney, for instance. I think he was equally as brilliant, if not more brilliant, than John, yet people elevate John above him. i agree with that...Freddie was very much underated as a songwriter, he should be mentioned more in that regard. Easily one of the most original and best songwriter's in rock hsstory... |
| GratefulFan 06.09.2011 12:12 |
Amazon wrote: Really? I would have thought it was the opposite. My perception was that Brian and Roger were much more interested in rock than in other genres, and so during the 80's, they were less enthusiastic than Freddie & John were about exploring different kinds of music. As such, I would have thought that they would have fewer artistic differences than with the other two members. ============================ I was probably too narrow when I referred to "artistic" differences. But it's well understood I think that of the four, that particular combination of personalities had the most potential for volatility. Roger's been borderline contemptuous of Brian at times even sitting right beside him in an interview. There was some thing recently where they specifically requested to be interviewed separately. Brian has described his ongoing connection to Roger as 'needing each other', the implication being that it might not be a relationship he would always choose. The vibe I get is like two often incompatible brothers thrown together by fate in a family situation. Lots of love underneath, but it's a relationship that doesn't always easily flow and sometimes needs to be managed. I'm not sure how that shapes artistic and business decisions, but I imagine it must on some level. |
| GratefulFan 06.09.2011 20:05 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: Can't agree with you GratefulFan. The scenario I mentioned with Steve Jobs occurred in 2008, 25 or more years after Apple launched. If he's concerned about the colour of a letter on his iPhone, maybe Brain and Roger could care about sections of songs missing (in 1991, not 2011 as in In the Lap of the Gods on HR), horrible artwork (Queen Rocks, Stone Cold Classics) and choices that were less about sales, more about quality. rhyeking mentioned that we don't know better than the band, and I'd agree and disagree/ For sales and popularity, they don't make a wrong step. For credibility and legacy, they don't make a right step. To me, Queen belongs with Zep and The Beatles as the greatest rock acts ever. The way they market themselves is as a sales band, to the detriment of their music. Their decision, but nobody gives a fuck about Madonna's musical legacy although she's sold a shitload of albums. Brian and Roger and QPL don't care about their musical legacy as long as they can get the first spot on The World's Shittiest Spanish Album with Las Palabras de Amor being the opening track. They've succeeded there, I'll give them that. ================== I'm not disagreeing that they've gotten up to some righteously dubious crap, I think I'm just questioning the specific argument you're making. First, although I enjoyed the Jobs anecdote I think you're really gilding that lily. That depth of perfectionism has a dark side. Jobs' staff used to call working for him 'the hero-shithead roller coaster' because of how his perfectionism led him in part to build them up and brutally tear them down, often on little less than a whim. A recent article I read said they did some of the best work of their lives -- until it took it's psychological toll and they had to leave. The structure of a rock band doesn't allow for that kind of sustained hypervigilance over the realizing of a unilateral vision. And if Jobs had to apply that focused perfectionism to the past and not the future we'd probably end up with something a lot like we've got. An apparent reluctance to allow much in the way of imperfect records of the past out of the vault, and a preference instead to speak through the polished and perfect and tried and true. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 06.09.2011 22:20 |
I agree with you amazon, but my point isn't that Steve Jobs was or wasn't a tyrannical dickhead. It's that the writer of the article felt that it was amazing that after almost 30 years, the owner of the company cared about something so miniscule as a shade of a colour in the word Google. But he did! So when Brian throws in another layer of guitar on All Dead, All Dead he's doing it because he and the band cares. Basix4 on YouTube does a breakdown of the guitars Brian played on that song and it's awesome in its magnitude. Really though, as Brain said, would little Mary So and So from Anytown, UK notice if he left one or two or three banks of guitars off of that? Or if they used a bass drum on WWRY instead of stomping on boards for hours in a church? Of course not. But they were once the Steve Jobs style tyrannical dickheads who fought over everything from what notes to play, to songwriting credits to who got the biggest suites on the road. Because they cared about everything related to Queen. Now, it seems that using the example from the Steve Jobs article, QPL would not only miss the fact that the colour was off, they wouldn't notice that Google was spelled Gogle. |