I am wondering which status Queen would have today if there was no Queen +.
If
46664
Queen + Five
Queen + Paul Rodgers
Queen + Jessie J at the 2012 Olympics
Queen + at the 2002 Golden Jubilee
Queen + at Prince Trust, Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame & Songwriters Hall of Fame and X Factor + American Idol
Queen + Adam Lambert
and god knows what I forgot to mention
did not happen, If they simply would have retired not made any appearances as Queen and just put out live + best of albums - would their status and receiption on today be different?
Did Queen + hurt their reputation, or did it help to attract a wider audience and to let their legacy grow?
I think Queen + helped to keep Queen somehow vital and helped them to reach more consumers.
Any other opinios?
Well that's 3 Queen+ concerts (soon to be 4) I wouldn't've seen. Plus Kerry Ellis thrice. So I wonder where Brian and Roger would've got their live performing kicks.
Reputationwise, I think it's had very little negative effect. And I think it's kept them in the public eye to some extent.
It's impossible to say what they'd have done if they didn't do this. I think some of the Queen+ collaborations have been a credit to the band's name, others are stains but will be forgotten anyway, completely overshadowed by the original music.
It's a net gain, full stop. No publicity is bad publicity (unless you're Gary Glitter or Bill Cosby). It keeps their name in public consciousness.
But at the end of the day, Queen will largely be remembered for about a decade of solid work. Those dozen or so songs will be enjoyed for decades if not centuries to come.
Yes queen will be remembered centuries from now because of the sheer quality of music produced in a golden age of creativity.
. I really think they'll be probably the most admired of the lot , along with the Beatles, Elvis, the beach boys and possibly ELO,, yes a dozen or so classic songs is enough to cement a reputation to last, along with the extra razzmatazz, (image, controversy , reputation etc..and Queen had everything in abundance.
. The dodgy collabarations will sink in the collective memory and will not Marr the the quality.
PS. Happy Xmas QZ's !
The Queen+ moniker became a joke after a few years. To me, only +Paul Rodgers and +Adam Lambert have worked really well and I'm glad they did it.
Us Queen fans in our early thirties got the worst of both worlds until the last few years. We were too young to have seen the original Queen live with Freddie and had to wait 12-15 years to even have the opportunity to see Brian and Roger on tour. An opportunity that -let's face it- seemed as likely as The Beatles reforming without Lennon and Harrison. It was THAT ridiculous.
Now everybody takes this for granted. Brian and Roger play Madison Square-FUCKING-Garden and nobody bats an eye.
Let's not forget what "rocked our worlds" in the late nighties, early noughties:
- "Queen Rocks has a BRAND NEW QUEEN SONG!" (1997)
- "Roger broke a Guinness World Record with his Cyberbarn gig.. I participated, I got my certificate too!", (1998) - A VHS video collection including 70's gigs is announced... then never mentioned again.
- "Brian and Roger joined 5ive at the 2000 Brits"... I still remember seeing a crappy 320p video stream and getting goosebumps when that staircase opened to reveal Brian and Roger for the solo finale... I must have seen that 4-minute clip a million times.
... Then came Paul Rodgers and it changed everything.
And this is not just the Live thing that's exciting. In 2014 we got one of the MJ tracks and an unreleased Queen track. Oh, yes, and the best fucking Queen Live release ever in Rainbow '74. And a (mostly) sold-out U.S. tour.
... and people whine.
That Chaplin guy (although not a full cohabitation) was GREAT. . As were the few FOO FIGHTERS gigs. Ditto George Michael's.
Paul Rodgers had some good shots in there, but the star of the show was Brian's playing rare bits (BIJOU) and his amazing ability to add depth to BAD COMPANY songs. FREE had a great player who's relatively unsung.
I think their exposure since the tribute concert has been good enough to keep the legend alive. Even if in a bitterly cynical way
For every kid who heard it on AMERICAN IDOL or XFACTOR was a parent or brother to say.. "god, that's nothing like the real thing"
And the AMERICAN IDOL thing was good for me since it had Brian and Roger playing some of the old catalogue again. Especially INNUENDO.
Its promotional even though it's not that great
Wiley wrote:
The Queen+ moniker became a joke after a few years. To me, only +Paul Rodgers and +Adam Lambert have worked really well and I'm glad they did it.
Us Queen fans in our early thirties got the worst of both worlds until the last few years. We were too young to have seen the original Queen live with Freddie and had to wait 12-15 years to even have the opportunity to see Brian and Roger on tour. An opportunity that -let's face it- seemed as likely as The Beatles reforming without Lennon and Harrison. It was THAT ridiculous.
Good point!!!!! I'm 37.........had a chance to see Brian in 93 but it didnt happen...........I probably would have jumped at the chance to see Queen+whoever live even if it was a singer I didn't care for! (as it turns out, it was with one of my favorite singers ever, and one I quickly came to like!)
Also.........I think, at least in the US.....the Paul and Adam collaborations are easily the most known out of all the rest of the Queen + stuff.........if I said 46664 people would think I was giving them my zip code............
I agree with what The Real Wizard said plus I think that they wanted to be "on top again" so they joined to singers/bands which were very popular and trend-y at the time.
Queen would not be in the public consciousness but for the + , ok we've had a lot of dross ! But we've had some real gems, as stated above, if this continues, I will be more than happy :-)