This might sound like a weird question...
Do Brian and Roger still regard themselves as being in Queen? But stick the + sign on the end for whatever other performer they're with. Or do they think of Queen+ as a different group to Queen?
I read an argument, where one person was saying it's not Queen anymore, as Queen was Freddie, Roger, Brian, John. and that now, Brian and Roger are Queen+ (and whoever is singing).
The other person argued that Brian and Roger are Queen, and pointed out that the Party at the Palace (in 2002) they preformed as Queen.
I've never seen anything to show it, but I am firmly of the opinion that while they call themselves Queen, the current Queen+ is a legally different entity. It would mean they could split the tour profits in a different way. So while all their artist royalties from Queen records are split 4 ways, maybe Queen + profits are just split between Brian and Roger with Adam getting a hefty salary.
I've posited this before, I Still believe it has merit. It would make sense from an accounting pov, after all, why would Brian and Roger give half away when they are doing all the work?
Queen still have 4 equal partners, Brian, Roger, John and Freddies estate.
Queen+ may just have the 2.
Presumably if this is the case it exists for live performances only, which may be one reason why we see no hint of a Q+AL record.
Queen touring limited is quite clearly Queen and not Queen+
Queen+ is the name they perform under because that what it is, Queen+ who ever they're sharing the stage with. As with many other bands people leave or are no longer there. It doent change the bands name. Roger and Brian are Queen because they are still there. They add to the lineup for what ever purpose, they've never replaced anyone on a permanent basis.
None of the flight cases at gigs are stencilled with anything but Queen or Brian or Roger's names. The hired equipment in the customer labelling says Queen.
Vocal harmony wrote:
Queen touring limited is quite clearly Queen and not Queen+
Queen+ is the name they perform under because that what it is, Queen+ who ever they're sharing the stage with. As with many other bands people leave or are no longer there. It doent change the bands name. Roger and Brian are Queen because they are still there. They add to the lineup for what ever purpose, they've never replaced anyone on a permanent basis.
None of the flight cases at gigs are stencilled with anything but Queen or Brian or Roger's names. The hired equipment in the customer labelling says Queen.
I don't think anyone really regards it as Queen without Freddie and John. But I wouldn't be surprised if Brian does.
ggo1 wrote:
I've never seen anything to show it, but I am firmly of the opinion that while they call themselves Queen, the current Queen+ is a legally different entity. It would mean they could split the tour profits in a different way. So while all their artist royalties from Queen records are split 4 ways, maybe Queen + profits are just split between Brian and Roger with Adam getting a hefty salary.
I've posited this before, I Still believe it has merit. It would make sense from an accounting pov, after all, why would Brian and Roger give half away when they are doing all the work?
Queen still have 4 equal partners, Brian, Roger, John and Freddies estate.
Queen+ may just have the 2.
Presumably if this is the case it exists for live performances only, which may be one reason why we see no hint of a Q+AL record.
The Queen+ name didn't happen until after John left as well. For a few years after Freddie's death, be it the Freddie Mercury tribute, or the No One But You single, they still called themselves Queen. It wasn't until after John left and they put out Greatest Hits III they went under the banner of Queen+.
Vocal harmony wrote:
Queen touring limited is quite clearly Queen and not Queen+
Queen+ is the name they perform under because that what it is, Queen+ who ever they're sharing the stage with. As with many other bands people leave or are no longer there. It doent change the bands name. Roger and Brian are Queen because they are still there. They add to the lineup for what ever purpose, they've never replaced anyone on a permanent basis.
None of the flight cases at gigs are stencilled with anything but Queen or Brian or Roger's names. The hired equipment in the customer labelling says Queen.
I don't think anyone really regards it as Queen without Freddie and John. But I wouldn't be surprised if Brian does.
If you look up the financial Statements of all Queen Firms that are all available online you can see that John is not involved in Queen touring ltd only Maylor. Lamebird is getting a fix salary i assume
Vocal harmony wrote:
Queen touring limited is quite clearly Queen and not Queen+
Queen+ is the name they perform under because that what it is, Queen+ who ever they're sharing the stage with. As with many other bands people leave or are no longer there. It doent change the bands name. Roger and Brian are Queen because they are still there. They add to the lineup for what ever purpose, they've never replaced anyone on a permanent basis.
None of the flight cases at gigs are stencilled with anything but Queen or Brian or Roger's names. The hired equipment in the customer labelling says Queen.
I don't think anyone really regards it as Queen without Freddie and John. But I wouldn't be surprised if Brian does.
They made it clear more than once that they are that delusional and regard themselves as Queen. Sad but true.
Golden Salmon wrote:
I always thought of it like:
Queen's music + special guest
Rather than:
Queen (the guys that count anyway) + random artist
It's a lot less annoying.
On the QUEEN TOURING LIMITED site, it says on the filing page, "15 Aug 2012 Termination of appointment of John Deacon as a director". And on the people page that John Deacon "Resigned on
20 June 2012."
I wonder if that had anything to do with Roger and Brian deciding to tour with Lambert? They started touring with Lambert just after that.