| mickyparise 18.12.2013 04:07 |
Queen guitarist Brian May is disappointed the band's former bassist John Deacon will not be involved in the forthcoming Freddie Mercury biopic. Deacon features on all of the group's 15 albums but has refused to appear alongside remaining bandmates May and Roger Taylor since 1997, missing out on their Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction and their performance at the closing ceremony of the 2012 Olympic Games in London. The retired bassist has read and approved the script for the film, which is based on Mercury's life and stars Ben Whishaw as the tragic frontman, but he does not want to be involved in the project. May tells Rolling Stone, "John doesn't want to be (involved). He's in his own space and we respect that. It's a shame, because we would love to have him around but he doesn't want to be in that arena anymore... he just doesn't want to be walking those roads. "We kinda (sic) mourn for John as well as Freddie in a sense because there ain't nobody quite like John on those four strings. He's an amazing player and it was just the companionship, as part of the group. Hopefully you'll see that in the film - the relationships we've had were very strong. I do know John's read the script and he's in approval." link |
| brENsKi 18.12.2013 07:25 |
that article is definitely one of the worst i've seen as an example of taking things out of context. I know I'm not Brian's greatest fan of the last decade or so, and consequently not known for defending his corner, but....Brian didn't use the words "disappointed" or "snub" from what i can see...Brian said it was "a shame, as there was no one like john" - completely different to what was inferred so the journo is a wanker making things look like they aren't...what's new eh? |
| The Real Wizard 18.12.2013 08:40 |
On the bright side, that's the nicest things we've heard from Brian or Roger about John in quite a long time. |
| AlexRocks 18.12.2013 11:07 |
Fifteen of the sixteen studio l.p.s that is. |
| Mr.QueenFan 18.12.2013 12:21 |
At least John is still involved in a way. Brian stated on a radio interview that John is still the man who studies the contracts to make sure that Queen are not being ripped off. Now he says that John's read and approved the script. It still means something to John. I still have hope that John will be part of the next Queen record, at least on the tracks with Freddie - unless those tracks already have a perfect bass from the original recording by John. Brian is absolutely right about John, he's one of a kind on the bass guitar, and i miss him too. I respect his choices but i would love for him to reconsider working with Queen in the studio to record his magic again. |
| ParisNair 18.12.2013 12:49 |
So nice to hear good things about Johh being said by Brian. Brian acknowledges that John was a very important part of the band as the bassist as well as a person. And they miss him just like they miss Freddie. As for the whoever came up with the headline - middle finger to you. |
| Jazz 78 18.12.2013 14:14 |
It would be great to us fans if John would just put out a statement telling us, "I understand you are all wondering about me but I'm ok, my life is great thanks to you all..." blah, blah, blah etc. etc... Just one will do Johnny! It was US that gave you the life of comfort. I'm a Queen fan from way back so for him not to communicate with us is kind of like turning his back on us. Come on John... give us a Christmas present and let us know how you are! |
| brENsKi 18.12.2013 16:37 |
Jazz 78 wrote: It would be great to us fans if John would just put out a statement telling us, "I understand you are all wondering about me but I'm ok, my life is great thanks to you all..." blah, blah, blah etc. etc... Just one will do Johnny! It was US that gave you the life of comfort. I'm a Queen fan from way back so for him not to communicate with us is kind of like turning his back on us. Come on John... give us a Christmas present and let us know how you are!why should he? he made it clear he retired after 1997. give the guy a break..he owes no-one anything...he gave us loads and deserves to have his privacy and retirement respected - if that's what he wants |
| tomchristie22 18.12.2013 18:38 |
Brenski's right - 'snub' sounds much more abrasive than the respectful decline that Brian describes here. |
| john bodega 19.12.2013 00:02 |
John's a prick |
| Pingfah 19.12.2013 05:07 |
Glad to hear he isn't dead. From the way he words it though, it does kinda sound like they haven't actually even spoken to him. |
| Togg 19.12.2013 05:31 |
I may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back as it were.. I'm not sure of the exact date but I think it was around winter 97, I was in London walking down Knightsbridge and as I walked into a store I noticed two people walk out past me, I looked round and it was John and his wife. I have never been one for bothering celebs, but with John I had to say hello, so i walked quickly up to them, he looked very startled, but was ok, I simply said it was a great honour to meet him and how much I appreciated his bass playing and song writing ability, he thanks me, we shook hands and that was that... Not long after I heard he was retiring and hated meeting people and crowds.... So sorry folks I really hope it wasn't all my fault! |
| thomasquinn 32989 19.12.2013 06:03 |
Zebonka12 wrote: John's a prickFrom what I've seen over the years, he's by far the most decent guy in the whole band. I don't know him personally of course, but he seems like a really nice guy, as opposed to the self-obsessed BM. |
| dudeofqueen 19.12.2013 10:31 |
"There ain't no one quite like John on those four strings." Is that REALLY how Brian would describe John and his contribution? Artistic license being put to good use yet again..... |
| The Real Wizard 19.12.2013 11:56 |
Pingfah wrote: Glad to hear he isn't dead. From the way he words it though, it does kinda sound like they haven't actually even spoken to him.Roger recently said they haven't spoken in about 15 years. They probably only speak through lawyers, which isn't at all unusual when band members go their separate ways. The business will always be running. |
| brENsKi 19.12.2013 12:23 |
dudeofqueen wrote: "There ain't no one quite like John on those four strings." Is that REALLY how Brian would describe John and his contribution? Artistic license being put to good use yet again..... what else is he supposed to say? any less would appear insulting any more sounds insincere he's talking music and explained on a musical level why they miss him. simple but perfect |
| Thistle 19.12.2013 12:26 |
Togg wrote: I may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back as it were.. I'm not sure of the exact date but I think it was around winter 97, I was in London walking down Knightsbridge and as I walked into a store I noticed two people walk out past me, I looked round and it was John and his wife. I have never been one for bothering celebs, but with John I had to say hello, so i walked quickly up to them, he looked very startled, but was ok, I simply said it was a great honour to meet him and how much I appreciated his bass playing and song writing ability, he thanks me, we shook hands and that was that... Not long after I heard he was retiring and hated meeting people and crowds.... So sorry folks I really hope it wasn't all my fault!You shouldn't have done that Togg. You are to blame, and my boss knows this. He saw that interaction back in '97, and has never forgiven you. He's passed on a dossier on you as long as Stretch Armstrong's arms, and all he needs to do is give "the word". I can see you right now. :P Seriously, though - I hardly think you "crowding" him was enough to send him into hermits-ville. |
| borap13 19.12.2013 14:55 |
As a journalist myself, I can say what happened here. It wasn't the writer's fault as much as it was the editor for writing a misleading, shitty headline. I tried to comment on this website when I saw the story but they have no place to comment. Don't trust this shitty website - contactmusic - anyway. Do they have any reputation? Nope. |
| Thistle 19.12.2013 15:15 |
borap13 wrote: As a journalist myself, I can say what happened here. It wasn't the writer's fault as much as it was the editor for writing a misleading, shitty headline.I can vouch for that. Had it done to me, and had things "added" to stories by editors too. Whilst it makes the reporter look a dick, it's sensationalism that grabs the attention of most. So it's "best for business". What always irked me more was having things taken out of reports, and being made to look stupid as a result. It was football journalism I used to be part of, but regardless of the subject, an editor can make you look a real douche if you haven't already done it for yourself :p |
| FreddieCat 20.12.2013 09:19 |
Awkward for Brian and Roger. Snub is a stupid word. John apparently just won't reassociate with them. Maybe in the next lifetime. |
| dagi 20.12.2013 10:11 |
Royalty wrote: Fifteen of the sixteen studio l.p.s that is. Which one didn't JD appear on? dagi |
| dagi 20.12.2013 10:11 |
-- deleted, duplicate post. |
| brENsKi 20.12.2013 10:35 |
errrr The Cosmos (un) Rocks????? |
| dagi 21.12.2013 03:47 |
errrr The Cosmos (un) Rocks????? Sorry, but that's not a Queen album. |
| brENsKi 21.12.2013 05:05 |
well it has the name "Queen" on it so as you want to be pedantic, let's play...you may not included it (in your mind) , but if you go to Queenonline.com the discography section includes it - so queen officially include it in their discography |
| dagi 21.12.2013 07:58 |
We all know that Cosmos Rocks is not a Queen album. To some the last proper album was Innuendo and to others it was Made in Heaven. Either of these I'll accept. Anyone who thinks Cosmos Rocks is a true Queen album is deluded. |
| tero! 48531 21.12.2013 08:27 |
It should also be remembered that apparently Paul Rodgers didn't replace Freddie as the singer of Queen, which makes it impossible to have a Queen album where Paul is singing. |
| Thistle 21.12.2013 09:22 |
@ dagi - Cosmos Rocks is a Queen album, regardless of whether or not you agree with that. If we go by the logic that it isn't because there's no Freddie on it, then we may as well say that anything with John Deacon isn't Queen either, because there's no Mike Grose on it. It's just silly. Are Led Zeppelin NOT Led Zeppelin because John Bonham died? Brian and Roger are every bit a part of Queen as Freddie was, and are still entitled to use the name, again whether you like it or not. It really is that simple. If it bears the Queen name, is performed by surviving members of Queen, listed as an official Queen album, by Queen, on the official Queen site, then you can take it is read....it's Queen. Your opinion is yours, but when you look at the facts, you're wrong - and "anyone who thinks Cosmos Rocks is a true Queen album" would be correct. Perhaps you could define "true"? One could argue that, whilst all four members are/were fine musicians and talented songwriters, a huge part of their success, especially on the albums that defined the "Queen sound", may be attributed to the way they were produced in the studio. Does that mean that anything post Roy Thomas Baker is not a "true" album? @ tero - I know you're at the wind up, but for those who are thinking that way: Paul Rodgers never replaced Freddie. He never claimed to, nor did Queen bring him in as such. The album is by Queen AND Paul Rodgers. It's still a Queen project, they just brought in a collaborator. |
| dagi 21.12.2013 12:09 |
This is utter nonsense. Anything with just May and Taylor is simply not Queen. Brian has come close to saying this himself. Brian and Roger should hang their heads in shame with what they've done to the Queen brand. |
| tero! 48531 21.12.2013 14:22 |
Thistleboy1980 wrote: @ tero - I know you're at the wind up, but for those who are thinking that way: Paul Rodgers never replaced Freddie. He never claimed to, nor did Queen bring him in as such. The album is by Queen AND Paul Rodgers. It's still a Queen project, they just brought in a collaborator.I'm afraid it isn't quite as clear as you say... There are more aspects than what is the text on the album cover. One point of view is that Queen created a company (Queen Productions) to control all past and present releases of the band, and none of the QPR projects have anything to do with that company. The company was based on the principle of four people forming the group known as Queen and equally splitting all the money, and it is quite obvious that the two man group of Brian and Roger cannot be the same group. The use of the name for their current projects hasn't been (or perhaps cannot be) contested by the other partners, but they have been forced to create a new company (Queen Touring) for handling their current works. |
| Thistle 21.12.2013 14:45 |
dagi wrote: This is utter nonsense. Anything with just May and Taylor is simply not Queen. Brian has come close to saying this himself. Brian and Roger should hang their heads in shame with what they've done to the Queen brand.1 - it's not, it's fact. You may not agree, but your opinion doesn't change reality. 2 - I see my previous response made no difference to your thought process. I'm not saying it should, nor do I expect or demand answers from you, however it looks like you don't have a rational response to this debate. 3 - Where did Brian say this, or come close? Source? 4 - Perhaps some of their decisions look questionable to say the least, but this doesn't qualify your argument here. |
| Thistle 21.12.2013 15:23 |
Edit: there's something wrong with the quote function here..... |
| Thistle 21.12.2013 15:24 |
tero! 48531 wrote:Of course Brian and Roger cannot be the same "group", because they're two men down. Even if they got John, they can still never be THAT group. But they can still be "Queen" - It's a name. The point is that they are every much as part of the name (original and current) as Freddie and John were, and are entitled to use that name. Ergo, the Cosmos Rocks is a Queen project, regardless of the name of the company used as a vehicle to move it.Thistleboy1980 wrote: @ tero - I know you're at the wind up, but for those who are thinking that way: Paul Rodgers never replaced Freddie. He never claimed to, nor did Queen bring him in as such. The album is by Queen AND Paul Rodgers. It's still a Queen project, they just brought in a collaborator.I'm afraid it isn't quite as clear as you say... There are more aspects than what is the text on the album cover. One point of view is that Queen created a company (Queen Productions) to control all past and present releases of the band, and none of the QPR projects have anything to do with that company. The company was based on the principle of four people forming the group known as Queen and equally splitting all the money, and it is quite obvious that the two man group of Brian and Roger cannot be the same group. The use of the name for their current projects hasn't been (or perhaps cannot be) contested by the other partners, but they have been forced to create a new company (Queen Touring) for handling their current works. For the record, Brian and Roger were not forced to set up a new company "Queen Touring Limited". Indeed, that was set up on 5th January 1976. Granted, it was not "registered" as a branch until 2005, however it is part of the same family. It's parent? None other than Queen Productions Limited. That's public information btw. |
| Thistle 21.12.2013 15:31 |
So, with that being said, we can safely say that "The Cosmos Rocks" is a Queen album, hasty opinion aside. |
| kosimodo 21.12.2013 15:36 |
Sure, i bought it... Cause it had the queen name on it. Listened to it twice..... |
| Thistle 21.12.2013 15:49 |
kosimodo wrote: Sure, i bought it... Cause it had the queen name on it. Listened to it twice.....But that doesn't make it not a Queen album. I've never listened to Flash Gordon OST all the way through, not even once. I think I've only listened to NOTW a handful of times completely. Whilst it's nice to share my listening habits with you, where is it taking the discussion lol? |
| Thistle 21.12.2013 16:07 |
By the way, BM & RT are using "Queen +" as much as a service to us as it is respect to Freddie. They could easily - and would be within their rights to - get a replacement singer and tour wholly as Queen. Some folk forget what side their bread is buttered on!! |
| brENsKi 21.12.2013 16:25 |
ffs - this argument is pointless. there is absolutely NO WAY of reasoning with people who would rather accept their own opinion over established fact. anyhow, here's some others for the naysayers: Genesis carried on after losing Gabriel and Hackett yes - have become a karaoke version of themselves Purple now only have ONE original member - drummer Ian Paice ALL of the above continue to use the original band name - and there's no issue with the fan-base it's only here in the world of the "freddie was god sychophants" that it appears impossible. but here's the one indisputable fact: You may not like what they are doing...or what they produce (i don't) but it doesn't remove their absolute right to carry on as Queen for as long as they like. The records will show all sales and tours were as Queen, and whether there is little "+" or not - it's still queen |
| Thistle 21.12.2013 16:36 |
^ thank you! I was was going to use the Genesis and Purple examples too. Others are The Four Seasons, The Temptations, Journey, Alice In Chains.....the list goes on. But you're right, the argument is pointless. Not only for the reasons you have mentioned, but because the thread is about the movie "snub" lol. It's been hijacked to fuck :p |
| Sheer Brass Neck 22.12.2013 01:07 |
Wow. Wow. Wow. Where to start? "Cosmos Rocks is a Queen album..." No it's not, it's an album by two guys who were in Queen. "...regardless of whether or not you agree with that." Based on what? Your opinion? I believe Cosmos Rocks is NOT a Queen album, regardless of whether or not you agree with that. Therefore it's not a Queen album. "If we go by the logic that it isn't because there's no Freddie on it, then we may as well say that anything with John Deacon isn't Queen either, because there's no Mike Grose on it." Not sure if you own any Queen albums, but on every recorded Queen album they list the band members names. For a reason. Which was they were Queen. "Are Led Zeppelin NOT Led Zeppelin because John Bonham died?" Led Zeppelin has played sparingly, and at the time of John Bonham's death released a statement which said, "We wish it to be known that the loss of our dear friend, and the deep sense of undivided harmony felt by ourselves and our manager, have led us to decide that we could not continue as we were." They said it and honoured that due to the fact the 4 group members were Led zeppelin. The Beatles never played after John Lennon died. Queen did and have done nothing but sully their name trotting out reality show contestants and pop wannabes as part of an attempt to stay valid. "Brian and Roger are every bit a part of Queen as Freddie was, and are still entitled to use the name, again whether you like it or not. It really is that simple." Absolutely true, entitlement was never the issue. Paul, George and Ringo were "entitled" to use the name The Beatles. They didn't. same for Zeppelin, they didn't. They know they had a once in a hundred years thing with 4 people. They ended their time for the most part when a member died. Good choice. "If it bears the Queen name, is performed by surviving members of Queen, listed as an official Queen album, by Queen, on the official Queen site, then you can take it is read....it's Queen." In your opinion. "Your opinion is yours, but when you look at the facts, you're wrong - and "anyone who thinks Cosmos Rocks is a true Queen album" would be correct." And you are wrong too to my version of who Queen is. "Perhaps you could define "true"? One could argue that, whilst all four members are/were fine musicians and talented songwriters, a huge part of their success, especially on the albums that defined the "Queen sound", may be attributed to the way they were produced in the studio. Does that mean that anything post Roy Thomas Baker is not a "true" album?" No. Justin Bieber can play some drums. If he joined Zep, I'd really, really, really doubt that people would say it's Zep with him drumming. Lady Gaga is a singer as that's what she seems to do. So is Madonna, because I've heard notes come out of her mouth that don't sound like spoken words. If they joined the Beatles as a replacement singer for John Lennon, the world would be mortified. But Queen fans would lap it up because it keeps them relevant. Queen are, were and always will be the four players who played on all of their albums. For me. If you feel otherwise, you are entitled to. But don't state your opinion as fact, you come off as arrogant at best, clueless at worst. |
| tero! 48531 22.12.2013 02:28 |
It's only the same band in the personal opinion of those people who cannot accept Brian and Roger continuing as solo artists, who hope to recapture some of the past glories with the name Queen. And that inlcudes Brian and Roger themselves! Legally, it's not the same band. Musically, it's not the same band. If John and/or Freddie's estate had at any time disputed the use of Queen name, nobody would even think of calling those two guys as Queen. What it all comes down to is that the other partners of QPL have thrown Brian and Roger a bone that enables them to tour even after their solo careers have dwindled down to nothing. |
| tero! 48531 22.12.2013 02:54 |
brENsKi wrote: Genesis carried on after losing Gabriel and Hackett yes - have become a karaoke version of themselves Purple now only have ONE original member - drummer Ian Paice ALL of the above continue to use the original band name - and there's no issue with the fan-base...And therein also lies the difference between Queen and Genesis/Yes/Deep Purple/Etc. The entire existence of other bands has been marked by major changes, despite which they continued to work. Genesis continued to work after Ant and John left in 1970, after Peter left in 1975, Steve in 1977, and Phil in 1995. If they had chosen to take a ten year break in 1975 and then return as Genesis + Freddie Mercury they would have received an equal amount of doubts as QPR. Or, if Freddie had left Queen in 1975 and be replaced by another singer for the next ten albums, it might be easier to accept the later changes in line-ups. |
| brENsKi 22.12.2013 06:16 |
you're talking about "acceptance" - but this has two separate elements to it 1. the logical acceptance that it is their right to carry on as queen - it's their band after all, accept it and buy/don't buy whichever products you choose 2. the blank refusal to accept their right to carry on with their band as Queen - like an individual objection will somehow make them say "f*cking hell we've hurt a few people by carryring on as queen, think we should change our name" surely most people can see the second option is illogical. I'll say this again - there's nothing they've produced in the last 15 years that i have the slightest interest in, but it doesn't remove their right to continue as Queen. Firstly, they have added the "+" to the "Queen" motif - that's the respect to freddie & John - so they've done enough to continue using the trademark, and secondly whatever pitiful sales TCR achieved worldwide - it'd have been much less had they called it anything but Queen+ - the Queen brand sells Finally, it's good that you cite the examples of purple, yes, genesis et al - because some of the "working breaks" that genesis and purple took were much bigger than Queen - queen were actively releasing albums/dvds and live stuff from 1991 - 2005 |
| Thistle 22.12.2013 10:34 |
Quote function still working oddly! |
| Thistle 22.12.2013 10:44 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: Wow. Wow. Wow. Where to start? "Cosmos Rocks is a Queen album..." No it's not, it's an album by two guys who were in Queen. "...regardless of whether or not you agree with that." Based on what? Your opinion? I believe Cosmos Rocks is NOT a Queen album, regardless of whether or not you agree with that. Therefore it's not a Queen album. "If we go by the logic that it isn't because there's no Freddie on it, then we may as well say that anything with John Deacon isn't Queen either, because there's no Mike Grose on it." Not sure if you own any Queen albums, but on every recorded Queen album they list the band members names. For a reason. Which was they were Queen. "Are Led Zeppelin NOT Led Zeppelin because John Bonham died?" Led Zeppelin has played sparingly, and at the time of John Bonham's death released a statement which said, "We wish it to be known that the loss of our dear friend, and the deep sense of undivided harmony felt by ourselves and our manager, have led us to decide that we could not continue as we were." They said it and honoured that due to the fact the 4 group members were Led zeppelin. The Beatles never played after John Lennon died. Queen did and have done nothing but sully their name trotting out reality show contestants and pop wannabes as part of an attempt to stay valid. "Brian and Roger are every bit a part of Queen as Freddie was, and are still entitled to use the name, again whether you like it or not. It really is that simple." Absolutely true, entitlement was never the issue. Paul, George and Ringo were "entitled" to use the name The Beatles. They didn't. same for Zeppelin, they didn't. They know they had a once in a hundred years thing with 4 people. They ended their time for the most part when a member died. Good choice. "If it bears the Queen name, is performed by surviving members of Queen, listed as an official Queen album, by Queen, on the official Queen site, then you can take it is read....it's Queen." In your opinion. "Your opinion is yours, but when you look at the facts, you're wrong - and "anyone who thinks Cosmos Rocks is a true Queen album" would be correct." And you are wrong too to my version of who Queen is. "Perhaps you could define "true"? One could argue that, whilst all four members are/were fine musicians and talented songwriters, a huge part of their success, especially on the albums that defined the "Queen sound", may be attributed to the way they were produced in the studio. Does that mean that anything post Roy Thomas Baker is not a "true" album?" No. Justin Bieber can play some drums. If he joined Zep, I'd really, really, really doubt that people would say it's Zep with him drumming. Lady Gaga is a singer as that's what she seems to do. So is Madonna, because I've heard notes come out of her mouth that don't sound like spoken words. If they joined the Beatles as a replacement singer for John Lennon, the world would be mortified. But Queen fans would lap it up because it keeps them relevant. Queen are, were and always will be the four players who played on all of their albums. For me. If you feel otherwise, you are entitled to. But don't state your opinion as fact, you come off as arrogant at best, clueless at worst.Oh, FFS. Let's get this straight - I am not offering an opinion. I am stating fact and only fact i.e, what's there, legally and above board, for you to see. If you disagree, good on you, but you are disagreeing not through fact, but through your own personal opinion. 1 - for the last time, Cosmos Rocks is a Queen album. Brian and Roger are "Queen". It's a name. They use it. You can argue the toss all you like, but you've beaten your own argument because you "believe" it's not. But what you "believe" and what is real are two different things. It won't change anything. Your opinion, my opinion, anyone's opinion.... doesn't matter. If you want MY "opinion", I don't personally rate the album. I'd prefer it not to bear the Queen name, but it is a Queen one. Regardless of whether it has 2, 3 or 4 members on it. I won't argue anymore about it after this post. Feel free to continue if you like, but all you're doing is letting your belief get in the way of fact. That's pointless, as opinions don't make anyone right. Facts do. I'm not trying to be offensive or cocky or anything, I'm just trying to show the difference between what we think and what is. 2 - Yes, I do own Queen albums. All of them. Over and over again, in several formats. Thanks. I had noticed the small fact that they list all band members names. This, however, is not what makes them Queen. It's the name "Queen" that makes them Queen. That's why Mike Grose, Barry Mitchell and the like are part of it, even if they didn't record on any albums. Again, you've just dismantled your own argument with this logic. Why? because Brian and Roger are listed as names on the most recent album, The Cosmos Rocks. That makes it a Queen album. Again, this is not personal feelings, as they are irrelevant. It's fact - it's an album under the Queen name, released by members of Queen, by a company run by Queen productions of which Brian and Roger are the directors. 3 - John Bonham died in 1980 and the band said they wouldn't continue "as they were". They didn't, as this was impossible. What they didn't say, specifically, is that they wouldn't use the name "Led Zeppelin". Regardless of whether or not they have played "sparingly", they have still played as "Led Zeppelin", and have continued to live on that brand. Celebration Day was released only last year on multiple formats. You know that big show they played as "Led Zeppelin" at the 02 and made millions from? Why shouldn't they? Fair play to the Beatles, btw. They've played it the way they WANTED TO, not the way they SHOULD, which is two very, very different things. As for Queen "Sullying" the name.....that's your opinion. For the record, I agree to some extent, but that's irrelevant to the argument. Cosmos Rocks is still a Queen album. So will any future releases under the name, until they stop using the name. Again, not wanting to sound like the proverbial broken record, but that's fact. Opinions should NOT get in the way of that. 4 - Again, not MY OPINION. My statements are based on fact. I don't want to sound patronising, and I'm sorry if I do, but you need to know the difference. You're arguing a pointless argument, because what you believe is different to what is reality. Don't let your opinion cloud things. 5 - I'm not wrong about what the version of Queen is. You have your opinion, I have mine - but in amongst that is the truth. That's what I'm driving at. Personally, I don't like the truth, but it is what it is. 6 - Don't be insulting.Judging by your previous posts, it's not really becoming of you. I'm not being arrogant, nor am I clueless. You have argued your entire point through your opinion, and yet have the audacity to say I'm forcing the issue through mine? I'm not. You are. Here is MY opinion: Freddie is my hero, and I can't see past the guy. He is my favourite member of the band, and I think if it wasn't for him, the others would have been talented but unsuccessful. At least not as successful. We'll never know for sure, but that's how I personally see it. When the name "Queen" is mentioned, the automatic thought is Freddie. I can't blame people for that. He WAS the face of the band. The Cosmos Rocks? I like a few of the of the tracks, but don't "feel" the Queen vibe from it. I also think that Brian and Roger have become an embarrassment, and that the name is tarnished. It's become a joke, and many, many of their decisions are questionable. In amongst this, there have been some good moves, but Queen will never be the same. It still doesn't stop them from being Queen, though. |
| dagi 22.12.2013 10:46 |
"Queen are, were and always will be the four players who played on all of their albums." Thank you. Common sense prevails. I may be seen as hard line on this issue, but as a fan for over 30 years, with all the output of CDs, DVDs, solo stuff and an attendee of the last gig in August '86 plus solo concerts, I wouldn't touch anything masquadaring as 'Queen' with a barge poll. What May and Taylor have done is boardering on criminal in my mind. dagi |
| aion 22.12.2013 11:05 |
To me it doesn't mean a thing if they have a 'legal right' to call themselves Queen - they might somehow purchase the legal right to call their show Mozart, Talking Heads, Jim Morrison, Buffalo Bill and Darth Vader or whatever but it doesn't mean that you would actually see any of that if you went to see them. Theoretically Paul and Ringo could team up too and start calling themselves The Beatles, they would surely have the legal right for it as well, but if they did that would people all over the world be genuinely celebrating the return of The Beatles? I really don't think so. There are so many wild variations of line-ups changing and bands' names staying and changing that what is the "true" band is really case-specific and comes down the personal opinion of what you accept as 'your band'. An example from the other end is The Fall; probably the whole population of Manchester has passed through that band with only one guy staying but it's still always The Fall, because in this case, one man makes the band. If it's Mark E. Smith and your grandmother on bongos, it's a Fall gig, everybody knows that. Was R.E.M. still R.E.M. after Bill Berry left? Yes - the analogy of a three-legged dog. The band was definitely missing something but it was still R.E.M., wounded but alive. But in case of Queen, I count them with the Beatles and Led Zeppelin as bands whose all four members mattered and when one died, the band died. The group was gone, the magic was gone, and it could not be replaced. You can all consider Brian, Roger and the latest reality TV star as Queen like they wish - it doesn't matter to me. For me the four of them were Queen and their legal right to call themselves whichever or some internet discography won't change it. Going more on-topic, I'd like to remind some of you that John doesn't owe you anything just because you bought a Queen album. He retired a long time ago and isn't going to pop up anymore. Actually I have much more respect for his decisions after Fred's death than I have for Brian and Roger for what they've done during the past 15 years... |
| Thistle 22.12.2013 11:09 |
tero! 48531 wrote: Legally, it's not the same band. Musically, it's not the same band. If John and/or Freddie's estate had at any time disputed the use of Queen name, nobody would even think of calling those two guys as Queen. What it all comes down to is that the other partners of QPL have thrown Brian and Roger a bone that enables them to tour even after their solo careers have dwindled down to nothing.1 - legally, it is. 2 - of course it's not, but that's not the issue 3 - they didn't dispute it, so it's irrelevant 4 - your opinion. You're free to think that, doesn't mean it's true. What is true, however, is that the company has two directors, and those are the members who tour. So nobody's throwing bones. Just baseless conjecture. |
| Thistle 22.12.2013 11:16 |
dagi wrote: "Queen are, were and always will be the four players who played on all of their albums." Thank you. Common sense prevails. I may be seen as hard line on this issue, but as a fan for over 30 years, with all the output of CDs, DVDs, solo stuff and an attendee of the last gig in August '86 plus solo concerts, I wouldn't touch anything masquadaring as 'Queen' with a barge poll. What May and Taylor have done is boardering on criminal in my mind. dagiOpinion and common sense are different. As is fact. Like I said, won't be posting anymore about it, just wanted to tie up the loose ends left from my unanswered posts from yesterday. You can argue the toss, but legally the band is Queen and TCR is a Queen project. What is, is. I don't like it, you don't like it, same can be said for many here - but it doesn't change things. That's all I'm saying - we can have our opinions, but what beats us is fact. I actually agree with your principles, but not your reasoning, as fact trumps thought every time. |
| AlbaNo1 22.12.2013 11:23 |
The artist name on The Cosmos Rocks is Queen + Paul Rodgers. The artist name on the albums Queen through to Made in Heaven is Queen. Ergo The Cosmos Rocks is not a Queen album. Its a Queen + Paul Rodgers album. Its as simple as that. |
| SkyeTV 22.12.2013 13:32 |
I don't think John owes anyone anything and calling his lack of participation in anything a snub is just off. Also, looking through some of the comments about what is Queen and what is not Queen it just looks heated. Scared to say anything, but I can see both sides of the coin. I cannot argue about The Cosmos Rocks being a Queen record, it clearly is. The statement above is simplistic (AlbaNo1). To me, its a Queen album with a guest appearance, hence the +. I like your username, though! Alba really is Numero uno, unless of course it's ment to read as Alba No-one hehehehehehehe Great board. Been reading for a while. |
| dagi 22.12.2013 14:01 |
It's a shame as I stopped buying all output from Brian, Roger and "Queen" because of their misuse of the band's name. If only they'd called themselves something which is associated with Queen (e.g. the name of a Queen track), I wouldn't have taking this stance and would almost certainly continued to buy (and enjoy) their music and attend their concerts. But they've become nothing more than a tribute to the band I love, their cheesy appearances with B rated celebs and the devaluing of the history, brand and legacy of arguably one of the finest bands in history - is just embarrassing and shameful. dagi |
| Thistle 22.12.2013 14:24 |
dagi wrote: It's a shame as I stopped buying all output from Brian, Roger and "Queen" because of their misuse of the band's name. If only they'd called themselves something which is associated with Queen (e.g. the name of a Queen track), I wouldn't have taking this stance and would almost certainly continued to buy (and enjoy) their music and attend their concerts. But they've become nothing more than a tribute to the band I love, their cheesy appearances with B rated celebs and the devaluing of the history, brand and legacy of arguably one of the finest bands in history - is just embarrassing and shameful. dagiThat's more like it buddy. That's a much better articulated, reasoned and more rational approach. I know the subject has been heated, but ^THAT^ is the way this whole thing should be looked at, rather than the exclamation "They aren't Queen". That's all I've been driving at. Sorry to all the folk I've managed to piss off with how I've set about saying what I had to say. I like debate, but don't like arguing because I'm a soppy sod. I just wanted to reiterate that I don't necessarily disagree with anyone's feelings/opinions on this (SBN, tero, Alba) but can't argue with what's reality. I don't like the way things are, but that's just the way it is. Respect to each and everyone of you. |
| ZBGM0 22.12.2013 17:26 |
Well, it is quite logical…..there is no need for any debate…. Yes, officially Queen still exists, Brian and Roger have all rights to use this name and to do whatever they want (they can employ Justin Bieberlake if they want and it will still be OFFICALLY Queen, they can record new album with the lead singer Justin and it will be offically Queen, LOL)…… But in reality (let’s call this people’s perception and common sense) Queen died in 1991. I know that most people will say Freddie was just one of the 4 members (25 %) but in reality he was the main attribute for the band. Let’s not forget why Queen had the big success. Two most important factors were Freddie’s voice and his flamboyant stage persona. Yes, I know other 3 members were also very talented, but there are thousands of people in the world with such talent and they DON’T succeed. I am 99 % sure that if Freddie wasn’t part of the group, Queen would never be famous. You can always replace guitar player or drummer and there won’t be such difference, but you can’t replace one on a million voice and flamboyant character of the frontman. Freddie was the brand of the band. My personal opinion is also that Queen ended in 1991. I believe that with Brain and Roger collaborations with other “artists” can cause more harm than good for the name Queen. They look like they want to do anything “just to stay in the business”. |
| SkyeTV 22.12.2013 20:11 |
ZBGM0 wrote: Well, it is quite logical…..there is no need for any debate…. Yes, officially Queen still exists, Brian and Roger have all rights to use this name and to do whatever they want (they can employ Justin Bieberlake if they want and it will still be OFFICALLY Queen, they can record new album with the lead singer Justin and it will be offically Queen, LOL)…… But in reality (let’s call this people’s perception and common sense) Queen died in 1991. I know that most people will say Freddie was just one of the 4 members (25 %) but in reality he was the main attribute for the band. Let’s not forget why Queen had the big success. Two most important factors were Freddie’s voice and his flamboyant stage persona. Yes, I know other 3 members were also very talented, but there are thousands of people in the world with such talent and they DON’T success. I am 99 % sure that if Freddie wasn’t part of the group, Queen would never be famous. You can always replace guitar player or drummer and there won’t be such difference, but you can’t replace one on a million voice and flamboyant character of the frontman. Freddie was the brand of the band. My personal opinion is also that Queen ended in 1991. I believe that with Brain and Roger collaborations with other “artists” can cause more harm than good for the name Queen. They look like they want to do anything “just to stay in the business”.That's a really good post although you maybe lost it a bit at "in reality Queen died in 1991", if you had stuck to the bit in the middle of that sentence - the bit where you say let's call this people's perception - the whole thing would have been spot on. I reckon that Walt has been pretty much on the button, even if it makes him look like he's being arrogant (or a meth-dealer!!!!). Other than that, I think we all feel the same about the whole situation and lets hope and pray they never look to Bieber for any form of recording 'cos things are realy bad enough as it is!!!!!!! |
| ZBGM0 23.12.2013 04:01 |
SkyeTV wrote: lets hope and pray they never look to Bieber for any form of recording 'cos things are realy bad enough as it is!!!!!!!I wouldn't be surprised. Collaboration with Rustin Fever would make those two much more recognizable. If Brian already collaborated with GaGa, then I wouldn’t be surprised if goes even further. |
| ZBGM0 23.12.2013 10:03 |
Look this video how awesome Brian is. At around 6:27 he appears so glamorous like never before – better then Live Aid. You can also see many other “artists” sitting and watching THE show. link Why this singing guy with black hair didn’t scream eeeeeeerooo di ra ri ra reeeeroo at the end and then all other artists (among them also Rustin Fever, Fitney Fears, Katy Merry etc.) would repeat eeeeeeerooooo ….it would be perfect |
| Thistle 23.12.2013 18:15 |
The singing guy? I was looking for him lol, until I realised it was Lady Gaga you meant haha :) Brian still has it. Never lost it. Just a pity about some of his ventures, though! |
| gerry 08.01.2014 12:38 |
To be honest john was devastated when freddie passed away and he like the rest of us knows Queen is not Queen without good old fred. No matter what May and Taylor do, it will simply not be the same ever again. Queen have turned into there own pathetic tribute show now taking Adam Lambert on tour so maybe john deacon is annoyed with that as well, i know i certainly am. Queen died the night freddie did, end of. All you fools waste your money going to see lambert but it wont be the same regal atmosphere when freddie was around! |
| gerry 08.01.2014 12:54 |
Most people on this thread feel the same as me, about the terrible things Brian May and Roger Taylor have done in the last 20 years or so concerning Queen. The worst and unforgivable is working with Lambo freak and now Brian wants to take the little toe rag on tour, which insults me as an ardent Queen fan of 39 years. For god sakes Bri, drop the piss takes and concentrate on real Queen projects instead of pulling Queens impressive 40 years career through the mud, your making us Queen fans very ashamed and a standing joke among the rock elite! i for one will never buy an album with lamberts voice on it, so please Bri do not insult us Queenies. i have more respect for Deacon because he had respect for Freddie an left Queen, Bri & Rog are now scraping the bottom of the barrel. With regards to releases in the past 20 years, well they have been very poor, not like Beatles fans who get what they want! Even Jacky Gunn promised us all this fantastic Queen box set years ago and it never happened! very disappointing. |
| dagi 09.01.2014 12:37 |
Bohemian wrote: To be honest john was devastated when freddie passed away and he like the rest of us knows Queen is not Queen without good old fred. Really? Please point me to the evidence that JD was 'devastated'. I've read a lot of things in forums over the years along these lines but I've never, ever, seen anything which substantiates these claims. We all know that JD is a private person and perhaps he was significantly affected, but this is just speculation on our part (and in someways hopeful speculation as it implies they were on close terms). Evidence please? dagi |
| Sheer Brass Neck 09.01.2014 23:04 |
To be honest John was devastated when freddie passed away. Proof please. and he like the rest of us knows Queen is not Queen without good old fred. You. me and millions of others, yes. Millions of others, Queen is a brand and they don't agree with us. No matter what May and Taylor do, it will simply not be the same ever again. Agreed. Queen have turned into there own pathetic tribute show now taking Adam Lambert on tour so maybe john deacon is annoyed with that as well. Maybe. i know i certainly am. If you weren't in the band your opinion is meaningless. Queen died the night freddie did, end of. Debatable, but you are probably not going to get tons of argument here. All you fools waste your money going to see lambert but it wont be the same regal atmosphere when freddie was around! Agreed, but it's their money and if you can't see the real deal, if you want to see 50% of the band members playing what represents 30% of Queen stood for spend that money. Most people on this thread feel the same as me, about the terrible things Brian May and Roger Taylor have done in the last 20 years or so concerning Queen. Lots, yes. Most, debateable. The worst and unforgivable is working with Lambo freak and now Brian wants to take the little toe rag on tour, which insults me as an ardent Queen fan of 39 years. He's a shadow of Freddie, but B & R are happy to get out and sing Queen songs. It sullies their legacy but pretty sure you are and I are not on their radar for what insults them. For god sakes Bri, drop the piss takes and concentrate on real Queen projects instead of pulling Queens impressive 40 years career through the mud, your making us Queen fans very ashamed and a standing joke among the rock elite! Yes!!! But he doesn't give a fuck! I for one will never buy an album with lamberts voice on it, so please Bri do not insult us Queenies. Some people will. I hate the idea of Adam Lambert singing Queen songs but Brian doesn't care. Don't buy it. i have more respect for Deacon because he had respect for Freddie an left Queen, Bri & Rog are now scraping the bottom of the barrel. With regards to releases in the past 20 years, well they have been very poor, not like Beatles fans who get what they want! The Beatles are artists. Queen are a brand. They fucked it up with all of the emphasis on sales. Zeppelin and The Beatles have their legacy sealed as artists and their legacy hasn't diminished in the years sinc the death of a band member. Queen's profile has increased, but their creative rep has suffered immensely since Freddie's death. IMHO. |
| gerry 10.01.2014 12:40 |
At least Deacy is loyal to Freddie, and Brian thinks he is the leader of Queen now by doing what he wants and destroying Queens legacy by touring with Adam FREAK Lambert. i have been a Queen fan since 1974 but refuse to support them now with Lambert. Queen 1971 -1991 i will always support and thats it. |
| gerry 10.01.2014 13:00 |
Just want to say to that stupid person on here Queen is not a brand they are respected artists just like Zeppelin, stones, beatles etc..... They appear in the rock and roll hall of fame, and a brand could never do that! secondly just because Bri puts out an album like the cosmos rocks under the name of Queen, does not make it a Queen album, its just a marketing trick to make money. Queen were 4 men and freddie founded the name. how could it be a real Queen album with just 2 original members and with paul rodgers and a session musician who plays bass as there is no John Deacon. Its all to do with money at the end of the day as Bri & Roger knows anything with the name Queen will get the attention. |
| Thistle 10.01.2014 13:49 |
I have always agreed with the sentiment that a Queen album isn't really a Queen album without Freddie or John. But that's just sentiment. Whilst the others survive, they are free to use the name they were a part of, and do. Yes, using the name is a marketing ploy, but it's still their name to use. Whilst they do, anything they put out will be a "Queen" album. We can think what we want, and be as sentimental as we want, but they really are just a brand now, and business is business. I think this old argument is now becoming very clouded as some of the points are crossing over and getting way mixed up. |
| gerry 13.01.2014 09:07 |
you have to love old Deacy cos he is the most sensible of the 3 surviving members of Queen. i would love to know what he thinks about adam lambert bumming Queen where ever they go nowadays? probably pretty disgusted like us all. |
| gerry 13.01.2014 09:16 |
DAGI: john Deacon made the decision to leave Queen after the Freddie Tribute shows, it was reported in the sun i think where Deacon said he couldnt continue working in the business without Freddie and that Queen wouldnt be the same again without Freddie. John had an enormous respect for Freddie, and he did go into a bad state of depression after Freddie passed away. i think he did 2 more things before quitting Queen, which where working on the single "only the good die young" and on "Made in Heaven" album. Also read his responce to paul Rodgers joining Queen, which was "oh my god"! |
| brENsKi 13.01.2014 09:55 |
gerry wrote: DAGI: john Deacon made the decision to leave Queen after the Freddie Tribute shows, it was reported in the sun i think where Deacon said he couldnt continue working in the business without Freddie and that Queen wouldnt be the same again without Freddie. Also read his responce to paul Rodgers joining Queen, which was "oh my god"!Gerry - while i'd like to agree with you on this - you do make it extremely difficult: 1. using "i think" shows that you don't even know the exact quote or source 2. saying it came from The Sun is tantamount to relegating it to nothing more than playground gossip. After all, you're using your citation of truth as being the same "newspaper" that hacked celebs' mobile phones and invaded Freddie's privacy when he was dying. 3. You should name your source for the JD (Paul Rodgers) quote - unless it's The Sun again 4. Strange how YOUR own Freddie principles go out the window when you need to use the Filth peddlers (the Sun) as a source There's still the question of all those "old unfinished" queen demos...I've started a thread elsewhere on this - go have a look Gerry, i'd be interested in your views :-) |
| tomchristie22 13.01.2014 19:24 |
gerry wrote: ...Brian thinks he is the leader of Queen...Brian and Roger created Queen in 1970(? correct me if I'm off). Like it or not, they have the right to do whatever they want with it. |
| The Real Wizard 13.01.2014 19:30 |
gerry wrote: ...Brian thinks he is the leader of Queen...Well, someone has to be. Preferably someone who isn't dead. If John is retired and Roger is focused on his solo career at the moment, who does that leave? Seriously, get a hobby or something. You're so bitterly angry about this, almost as if it's something that personally affects you. |
| M-train 14.01.2014 12:24 |
JD kinda reminds me of Ex Slade frontman Noddy Holder. Noddy absolutely refuses any kind of ties with his old band mates as far as any new projects, or reunions are concerned. |