| RS_Protos 01.05.2017 14:20 |
From CLASSIC ROCK JUNE 2008 Are you ready for the negativity that inevitably accompanies the adulation? Taylor: We know some people will moan, ‘Oh, Fred’s not on it . . .’ Of course he’s not, you dickhead. If they want to know why we’re bothering to do this, it’s because we’re sill alive. It’s quite simple. If they don’t like it, just don’t buy the record or come to the show. Queen find themselves in the same situation as Led Zeppelin. Some will cry ‘blasphemy!’, but that won’t stop you. May: There are parallels with Zeppelin, and I know they wrestled with their own dilemma. In the end what you must do is based upon instinct and logic, and how you feel about your work. Rodgers: I was just as wary of calling it Queen as much as anyone else. At first I thought we would use May-Taylor-Rodgers, almost like Crosby, Stills & Nash. But the charge of playing together convinced us it was right. Taylor: That purist attitude is so stupid. Led Zeppelin were correct to do their show at the O2. I was there, it was great. Okay, one of our beloved band members isn’t here any more, but what do we do about that? Do we all die? No, life goes on. |
| Sue Dounim 01.05.2017 21:01 |
there's a big difference between working with the son of your bandmate for one special night in tribute to someone and hiring some reality show contestant to do it just because |
| Elektra 01.05.2017 23:50 |
Sue Dounim wrote: there's a big difference between working with the son of your bandmate for one special night in tribute to someone and hiring some reality show contestant to do it just becauseNo you just dont get it what they said. they are Musicians and love it with Passion. They dont want to sit on their Ass like some other Bands |
| jozef 02.05.2017 00:18 |
Sue Dounim: "there's a big difference between working with the son of your bandmate for one special night in tribute to someone and hiring some reality show contestant to do it just because" Yes, you're right ... exactly so Elektra: "No you just dont get it what they said. they are Musicians and love it with Passion. They dont want to sit on their Ass like some other Bands" Let May-Taylor do what they want, but why like Queen? |
| musicland munich 02.05.2017 01:45 |
The idea of Queen+ isn't too bad at all. But it's beyond me why they didn't teamed up with superstars more often for different singles and maybe albums. Bowie, G.Michael, Rod Stewart, Elton John and others .They could have worked with these singers from time to time. Surly with more interesting results than Cosmos Rocks. |
| YourValentine 02.05.2017 04:13 |
musicland munich wrote: The idea of Queen+ isn't too bad at all. But it's beyond my why they didn't teamed up with superstars more often for different singles and maybe albums. Bowie, G.Michael, Rod Stewart, Elton John and others as. They could have worked with these singers from time to time. Surly with more interesting results than Cosmos Rocks.Listen To Elton John's interview for his 70th birthday, it's on YT. He describes how he is a "working musician", he creates new music all the time and works together with new musicians, not runners-up of casting shows but world class musicians like Lady GaGa. He is the total opposite of Brian and Roger who do nothing but tour their greatest hits every year. I am not blaming them, it's their decision and their carreer but the product is no longer worth my money. I have seen Queen and PR concerts and I have seen Queen + AL concerts and it's not worth to pay 200 euros to see the same old stuff again. I have seen Elton John twice in the last years and I would rather buy one ticket for his show than 5 more tickets for the same old Queen greatest hits thing. They could have worked with great musicians 20 years ago but now they are just frozen in time and re-touring their old stuff followed by a hard core of fans who cannot let go. It's quite sad. |
| Sebastian 02.05.2017 06:37 |
jozef wrote: Let May-Taylor do what they want, but why like Queen?Because they earn much more money that way. |
| Togg 02.05.2017 08:01 |
Every worth while band has lost someone and carried on, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, The Who, ACDC, Genesis, Fleetwood Mac, etc etc... the list goes on, why is anyone even talking about this? Or more to the point why bother coming to a website deadicated to a band where you are never going to get material you like again?? If Queen died is 91, why is this site still here? Just listen to the old records in your bedroom and be done with it, nothing new here, move along.... Seems odd to me that way of thinking, you are not going to learn anything new here, it's the same of stuff over and over, yet the topics that get the most feeback are the one deadicated to new tours new albums, etc.....? but the same of people slag it off..... so surely after 25 years you've got used to the idea Fred is dead and they have carried on I still go to see all of those bands above, and they all do great shows, (apart from Genesis who I last saw in 2007 then they knocked it on the head) Queen are not the same as they were, but frankly they haven;t been doing the same stuff since 1977/8 By 1979 they werent the same band that produced March of the Black Queen. If Freddie was still alive do you for one tiny moment believe he would have knocked being famous and infront of crowds on the head... no, he'd be out there singing with whomever got him infront of a new crowd be it Rod Stewart or Jedward, he was addicted to fame he was addicted to performing That's why Pete Townsend and Co are still out there doing waht they love, bring it on I say |
| Vocal harmony 02.05.2017 08:19 |
Sue Dounim wrote: there's a big difference between working with the son of your bandmate for one special night in tribute to someone and hiring some reality show contestant to do it just becauseWell that's only half the story. . . After the o2 gig there was a huge offer for them to tour, which they were considering but Plant pulled out. They then planned to tour with a replacement vocalist. Although Jimmy Page was up for it at the time the plans eventually fell through. Your point about about working with the son of your band mate implies that it's fine to tour or play with a relative but not a musician from outside the family. Basically the surviving members of Queen could never work because Freddie had no kids! Wherever Adam Lambert came from he has proved his worth as a singer, he has established a career as a solo artist and toured with Queen enough (and successfully) that the process that brought him to public attention isn't important. After all He isn't the only singer who got a job through a talent search is he? |
| RS_Protos 02.05.2017 08:47 |
I have to agree with "YourValentine" because it's just a greatest hits concert over and over, if some fans like it that's good, i'm not against it, strickly my view. But "Togg", I don't think i have to "move along", this is a Queen site right? not a Queen + AL site. I think if they had better releases(from there vaults) over the last 25 years I would have had a different opinion. To me it seems they are holding off on that until they cash in as much as possible. I think they asked RT once about vault material and he said they don't want to be scrapping the barrel, but that's what they are doing now, cash in as much as possible and when this thing is done they will release vault material. |
| john bodega 03.05.2017 02:02 |
Judge every effort on its musical merit, or lack thereof. No sensible person would deny Brian and Roger their right to have a bit of fun and make some money. But if you think their singer for the evening sounds like crap, you're allowed to say so. It's just as legitimate a feeling as any other. I just tune in for the Brian + Roger stuff anyway, that's what YouTube is for. Ditch the male model, as far as I'm concerned. I won't give my listening time to a guy who spends more time getting dressed than he does getting the songs right. |
| Togg 03.05.2017 03:13 |
|
| Ivo-1976 03.05.2017 04:27 |
I feel like Brian and Roger lost their momentum in the period between '95 and '05. They could've done interesting stuff in that period, but opted to do solo projects in stead of work together. The Paul Rodgers Tour was a peek of what could have been done earlier and better. They were already in their late 50's by then. Nowadays the boys are getting too old. Back-up drummers and slower versions of the songs aren't my thing. I still have lots of respect for Bri and Rog and they have every right to do what they want. Still can't help to have the feeling that there were a lot of lost opportunities along the way. |
| Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira 03.05.2017 06:33 |
As mentioned above, I am part of that "hard core of fans who cannot let go". The thing is I am quite happy about it :) Of course I would rather see B+R producing new material, even if they have a guest singer, but that is up to them. Bring it on, I cannot let go! Here I go again! Cheers, Ogre- |
| Togg 03.05.2017 08:44 |
RS_Protos wrote: I have to agree with "YourValentine" because it's just a greatest hits concert over and over, if some fans like it that's good, i'm not against it, strickly my view. But "Togg", I don't think i have to "move along", this is a Queen site right? not a Queen + AL site. I think if they had better releases(from there vaults) over the last 25 years I would have had a different opinion. To me it seems they are holding off on that until they cash in as much as possible. I think they asked RT once about vault material and he said they don't want to be scrapping the barrel, but that's what they are doing now, cash in as much as possible and when this thing is done they will release vault material.Well given that Queen is now Queen+AL I guess I might argue that it's whatever they are now... this site doesn't seem to have a lot of discussion about the 1970's it's mostly about why Freddie got AIDS, Slagging of Paul Rodgers or Lambert, my point is they have cashed in, they are doing drinks, games, books films, if there was anything in the vault don't you think they would have released it by now if they were ever going to? there's nothing in there we will ever get to hear.... So apart from possibly a late 70's DVD, I think we've had it all, they may release a full anthology once they stop forever but I bet you it will only be pre-released stauff no out takes. Just like almost every big name band from the 70's they are still out there playing because they enjoy it, They really dont need the money it's about liking what they do, as are Deep Purple, The Rolling Stones, The Who, Iron Maden, ACDC, Bon Jovi, etc etc Surely after 25 years of this people have got used to the idea they are doing it because thats what they do and why stop just because the line up has changed?, that happens in every band. They are not different, but don't wait around here for releases that will never happen, they as a band have moved on a long time ago |
| RS_Protos 03.05.2017 11:23 |
"but don't wait around here for releases that will never happen, they as a band have moved on a long time ago " oh man, i really hope you are wrong....... |
| The Real Wizard 03.05.2017 15:16 |
RS_Protos wrote: I think if they had better releases(from there vaults) over the last 25 years I would have had a different opinion. To me it seems they are holding off on that until they cash in as much as possible.They've done pretty well with live releases - from 74, 75, 81, 82 and 86. It's about as much as most other artists from their era have done. But of course studio stuff is another matter. It's pretty clear that they want the final product to be all we hear, not the process. So with Queen retaining their popularity (they're bigger now in the US than they've ever been since their heyday), why not tour the greatest hits again and again? Brian and Roger have said there will be a few more album tracks in the setlist this time, but the hits will still be there. Just don't kid yourself and think this is a recent decision. Queen became a hits band in 1980, not in 2005. The only major 70s artist who remained an album artist into the 80s was Peter Gabriel, and by 1982 he was broke. There's a reason why bands like Queen and Genesis had to reinvent themselves as hits bands. And it still works. |
| musicland munich 03.05.2017 23:27 |
The Real Wizard wrote: |
| Togg 04.05.2017 06:42 |
RS_Protos wrote: "but don't wait around here for releases that will never happen, they as a band have moved on a long time ago " oh man, i really hope you are wrong.......So do I, but history seems to have shown us that they will chuck out everything they can to keep the name and brand going, and nothing would do that more than unreleased Mercury tracks... so if there were some that were more than a snippet surely it would have been out by now? My guess is there a hundred of snippets but not enough to make a full track, all the usable stuff maybe bar one got put on MIH. So that's that, as for the anthology, well I can see it happening, but now a warts and all version, Brian will never accept people hearing mistakes and out takes, they were all about a finished highly polished product, why change that brand mantra after 40 years? Best we can hope for is the odd DVD from long ago, however I do see them doing an album with Adam.... now, that will not please everyone, but judging by the ticket sales it will sell.... I'd buy it, I love hearing new material, even if it's not up to the glory days, I still get a kick out of hearing the pairing of that guitar and those drums... |
| RS_Protos 04.05.2017 08:49 |
"The Real Wizard" and "Togg", you guys are killing me because you are probably right! What you are saying makes perfect sense! I think I was hoping by now they would have released some more tracks/demos........ Most likely because i'm old and it's hard for me to accept what they are doing, thinking of the past too much....... |
| Vocal harmony 04.05.2017 10:18 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Just don't kid yourself and think this is a recent decision. Queen became a hits band in 1980, not in 2005. The only major 70s artist who remained an album artist into the 80s was Peter Gabriel, and by 1982 he was broke. There's a reason why bands like Queen and Genesis had to reinvent themselves as hits bands. And it still works.This is so true, but isn't now the time that they could be adventurous. The shows no longer support a huge album buying market which the singles fuelled. If 7000 people left an arena on the next tour saying " what the hell is Ogre Battle the other 7000 would think they had seen the best Queen gig since 1977. But would that really kill off the audience numbers the next time around. |
| The Real Wizard 04.05.2017 13:57 |
RS_Protos wrote: "The Real Wizard" and "Togg", you guys are killing me because you are probably right! What you are saying makes perfect sense! I think I was hoping by now they would have released some more tracks/demos........ Most likely because i'm old and it's hard for me to accept what they are doing, thinking of the past too much.......Literally every artist from 1977 isn't doing what they were doing in 1977 now. Except maybe Kiss. So if you expect them to, you're just setting yourself up for disappointment. I get it - music is an emotional experience, and we want our favourite artists to be true to our memories of them from that special time when we were 20 and full of hopes and dreams, or that time we lost our virginity to a certain song. But if we have that much stake in the outcome, it's probably not going to turn out that well. It's why a lot of old guys stopped seeing Rush about a decade ago, and for every one of them there were 3 kids to replace them. |
| The Real Wizard 04.05.2017 14:01 |
Vocal harmony wrote: This is so true, but isn't now the time that they could be adventurous. The shows no longer support a huge album buying market which the singles fuelled. If 7000 people left an arena on the next tour saying " what the hell is Ogre Battle the other 7000 would think they had seen the best Queen gig since 1977. But would that really kill off the audience numbers the next time around.Which is precisely why they won't be playing Ogre Battle. They want to play arenas and be as big as possible, with that feeling of it being a big event. They could choose the artistic route and do theatres without Adam Lambert, but that's just not what they want to do - they want as many people as possible to know Queen's hits 200 years from now. That's the path they've chosen. Can't blame them. |
| Sebastian 04.05.2017 22:15 |
Togg wrote: they were all about a finished highly polished product, why change that brand mantra after 40 years?It wouldn't be the first time they change it. It's highly unlikely they will regarding demos and outtakes, but it's not because it doesn't fit their old mantra. |
| dysan 05.05.2017 01:56 |
Perhaps they should've gone down the road of a couple of big one off shows every summer with a selection of guest singers. Make it an annual Queen party. I think that would've kept everyone happy.Make it an event, which is the Queen motto. I guess when these things (like PR and AL stuff) get rolling, it's difficult to stop them though. I say good luck to whatever they do. It's never been 100% my cup of tea, but I don't begrudge them taking Queen out for a spin every now and again. |
| Vocal harmony 05.05.2017 08:35 |
A couple of big shows every summer wouldn't satisfy demand and at the same time would be a risk in some countries. The event it's self would have to be bigger than the band to succeed over time. Think Oz Fest! What they are doing now is a version of what they've always done, a Queen tour. The advertising, interviews, hype call it what you wish that creates interest is part of the event. The tour is what they are selling, it's big loud and it's coming to an arena near you. It's a much easier sell than we've got 80,000 tickets to the event of the year, oh by the way it's in another country, on another continent , on the other side of the world. |
| YourValentine 08.05.2017 02:57 |
Togg wrote: Every worth while band has lost someone and carried on, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, The Who, ACDC, Genesis, Fleetwood Mac, etc etc... the list goes on, why is anyone even talking about this? Or more to the point why bother coming to a website deadicated to a band where you are never going to get material you like again?? If Queen died is 91, why is this site still here? Just listen to the old records in your bedroom and be done with it, nothing new here, move along.... Seems odd to me that way of thinking, you are not going to learn anything new here, it's the same of stuff over and over, yet the topics that get the most feeback are the one deadicated to new tours new albums, etc.....? but the same of people slag it off..... so surely after 25 years you've got used to the idea Fred is dead and they have carried on I still go to see all of those bands above, and they all do great shows, (apart from Genesis who I last saw in 2007 then they knocked it on the head) Queen are not the same as they were, but frankly they haven;t been doing the same stuff since 1977/8 By 1979 they werent the same band that produced March of the Black Queen. If Freddie was still alive do you for one tiny moment believe he would have knocked being famous and infront of crowds on the head... no, he'd be out there singing with whomever got him infront of a new crowd be it Rod Stewart or Jedward, he was addicted to fame he was addicted to performing That's why Pete Townsend and Co are still out there doing waht they love, bring it on I sayWell, this is a Queen website, so we can discuss Queen topics, I do not see a problem here. I can criticise the current tour, I have seen concerts with AL from London to Moscow over several years which have all been the same apart from the stage design. I do not ask that Queen should stop, it's all their decision, image and carreer but I can have an opinion. As to the question "what would Freddie have done" I am really surprised you know that answer. I obviously do not know the answer but all I ever heard about Freddie is that he was bored quite quickly and if something new would not come fast he would drop it and move on. I remember Freddie saying in public that running across a stage at old age would be "ridiculous". I do not remember him saying that he wished to repeat his old songs ad infinitum until he was old and grey. I do not remember him saying that it would be great to tour the same stuff with the same old guys forever and ever. Maybe he would have come to that - we often change our minds in life but for all we know about Freddie he was always open to new things, he was interested in opera, musicals art and quite obviously scared of being perceived as an "old bore". |
| Togg 08.05.2017 04:20 |
Freddie, got bored because he was young and full lets face it Cocain most of the time... Back then Roger Brian and John were all different people, all caught up in the excitement of being famous and ruling the world, one thing history has taught us is that after you've tasted that, most people never want to give it up, that's why The Who, Deep Purple, Paul McCartney, and all those other bands are still out there getting a buzz out of playing in front of a crowd. I've spent nearly 40 years playing in a band and there is simply nothing like playing infront of a crowd of people that are enjoying themselves, so every night in pubs around the land, bands made up of people in their 50's 60's and even 70's play every night. I am 100 percent certain that despite what he said Freddie was completely absorbed by fame and fortune, and loved being the centre of attention performing for a crowd. If the only way he could do that was to trott out the 70's and 80's Golden era of Queen I have no doubt whatsoever he'd be doing it. His own solo material never took off, maybe a second album might of, but lets be honest none of the others have so that's why they gravitate to the mothership of Queen Trust me he'd be out there doing it like all the rest of them |
| Sebastian 08.05.2017 06:10 |
Since we're speculating what would've happened (and there's nothing wrong with that), I do agree Fred would still be touring, but I'm nearly convinced (though I shall never be able to prove it) that John would've retired long ago. They'd simply be with another bassist - maybe the loser from a reality programme, and they'd be saying he was John's favourite bass player. |
| Togg 08.05.2017 06:33 |
I suspect you are closer to the truth than we dare to think Sir, yes... At the end of the day, who would have confidently said in the 1970's that Pete Townsend (I hope I die before I get old) would have been still touring as The Who as he approached 70... come on, like all these guys they love it and can't give it up....who would? Yes it might look stupid at times, but they can all still play and draw huge crowds Fred would have been there front and centre like all the rest |
| Togg 08.05.2017 06:46 |
Sebastian wrote:I guess that depends on what side of the fence you are sitting, from our side we see something very different from there's, and they may still feel they have always kept to the defining principals throughout their career, they don't view their releases as we do...Togg wrote: they were all about a finished highly polished product, why change that brand mantra after 40 years?It wouldn't be the first time they change it. It's highly unlikely they will regarding demos and outtakes, but it's not because it doesn't fit their old mantra. |
| The Real Wizard 08.05.2017 14:06 |
YourValentine wrote: I remember Freddie saying in public that running across a stage at old age would be "ridiculous".He also said that after he knew he was infected with AIDS (that interview was from 1987), so that should be taken with a pinch of salt. Great discussion here. |
| Saint Jiub 08.05.2017 20:27 |
The Real Wizard wrote:YourValentine wrote: I remember Freddie saying in public that running across a stage at old age would be "ridiculous".He also said that after he knew he was infected with AIDS (that interview was from 1987), so that should be taken with a pinch of salt. ... I was thinking the same thing, but could not remember when He said that. |
| musicland munich 08.05.2017 22:37 |
Panchgani wrote:Wasn't it John Deacon in 85/86 who said something like " it's hard to get him ( Freddie) touring" ?The Real Wizard wrote:I was thinking the same thing, but could not remember when He said that.YourValentine wrote: I remember Freddie saying in public that running across a stage at old age would be "ridiculous".He also said that after he knew he was infected with AIDS (that interview was from 1987), so that should be taken with a pinch of salt. ... |
| Togg 10.05.2017 04:09 |
ALL of the comments about Freddie not wanting to tour are based on two things, firstly they pretty much all felt like that after each tour and needed time to rest, particularly after the long US tours, and secondly all the newer quotes from Freddie were after he knew something was wrong and he was unwell, he'd suspected it for sometime so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out he was trying to gently let people know he may not be doing the same thing in the future. Had he been fully well all bets off... he liked money and fame and adulation too much |
| noorie 10.05.2017 08:03 |
^^^^ Absolutely! BUT, I doubt he'd have kept on rehashing the same old stuff. He would have kept Queen relevant and interesting. I think he'd have been bored doing the greatest hits catalogue over and over and over.... That has been Freddie's (and Queen's) greatest strength - to try new things all the time, to move in new directions. Queen+ is just very predictable and boring. |
| dudeofqueen 10.05.2017 09:58 |
Togg, re: >At the end of the day, who would have confidently said in the 1970's that Pete Townsend (I hope I die before I get old) would have been still touring as The Who as he approached 70. Roger WANTS to continue touring and singing whilst he can. Pete tours in support of Roger and the publicity / mileage The Teenage Cancer Trust's cause receives alongside The Who brand and partly as a thank you to Roger for his love and support. If it were "up to" Pete, he wouldn't be touring. |
| Vocal harmony 10.05.2017 12:04 |
dudeofqueen wrote: Roger WANTS to continue touring and singing whilst he can. . . . If it were "up to" Pete, he wouldn't be touring.Of course it's up to him, as much as anyone. If he didn't want to he wouldn't. What ever the reasoning for any band member to be on the road is the enjoyment of playing, the crowd reaction and even the money are all major reasons for them to want to do it. If it was for charitable reasons (profile lifting) Townsend could achieve more by doing TV interviews as TV reaches potentially millions rather than 10 or 15 thousand a night who are there for the music anyway. I'm sure Pete donates but I'm also sure that the takings at every gig don't go into a chatitabke bank account. |
| Wiley 11.05.2017 05:14 |
I'm loving the opportunity to still see Brian and Roger doing Queen songs live. Throw the odd novelty track into the setlist every couple of shows or so and I'm the happiest. I have no hopes for a rolling setlist - not since May-ish 2005. Now, a brand new Roger solo album... that would be something. Or a Brian solo album for that matter (no Kerry Ellis), but that one seems the least likely alternative. |
| Togg 11.05.2017 05:38 |
dudeofqueen wrote: Togg, re: >At the end of the day, who would have confidently said in the 1970's that Pete Townsend (I hope I die before I get old) would have been still touring as The Who as he approached 70. Roger WANTS to continue touring and singing whilst he can. Pete tours in support of Roger and the publicity / mileage The Teenage Cancer Trust's cause receives alongside The Who brand and partly as a thank you to Roger for his love and support. If it were "up to" Pete, he wouldn't be touring.Nonesense, Pete can make his mind up to stop anytime he wants to, he loves playing live, and said so at an interview around the Hyde Park gig not long ago, he's still stunned by how many young people come to see them and gets a great kick out of playing, you can see it in his face nevermind what he says about enjoying it, he's still doing the stuff he jibed about 'old' people doing in the 60's, both he and the Stones are the 'original' iconic youth rebellion bands of their day, that funnily enough carried on doing the same thing for 50 years, the very thing they were rebelling against in their youth |