| alibat 26.03.2004 08:27 |
Am I the only one who is unconfortable with Brian and Roger using the name Queen? Queen had four very talanted musicians not two and a load of backups not worthy of the name. You can never have Queen without Freddie (or John for that matter). Of course I'm very happy about them working together again but please don't call it Queen cos it isn't. |
| queenmaniac 26.03.2004 08:44 |
you can see on tribute concert dvd documentary that brian said that he don't think it's queen cause there is no freddie. he said that it's them three doing something from queen catalogue with other people. they may be using the name queen but they all know that it isn't queen without any member missing.and i am glad that they are making songs even if it's under name queen than not making songs at all( or not being active at all). better two from queen than nothing from queen members at all! |
| Sebastian 26.03.2004 08:46 |
It's something so overdiscussed, I agree. For me: Brian & Roger: NOT Queen Brian & John: NOT Queen Brian & Freddie: NOT Queen Roger & John: NOT Queen Roger & Freddie: NOT Queen John & Freddie: NOT Queen Brian & Roger & John: NOT Queen Brian & Roger & Freddie: NOT Queen Brian & Freddie & John: NOT Queen Roger & John & Freddie: NOT Queen Roger & John & Brian & Freddie: Queen I know many people now are going to say "then Bijou isn't a queen song...". Well, Bijou was produced by the whole band, plus it's just one song, and imo, one song once in a while without some member doesn't matter if they call themselves Queen. But something is one song or few songs (Melancholy Blues, Sheer Heart Attack...) and something else is a full album or a tour. In that case I'm totally against the name Queen. |
| jorge 26.03.2004 08:55 |
I include myself in the list, in FM Tribute they was Queen, without John are Brian and Roger (to me) Queen Forever ! Freddie Forever ! |
| Mr. Scully 26.03.2004 09:24 |
I think the whole discussion is senseless. If a member of the band leaves, it doesn't mean the name of the band should automatically change. Queen will never be as good as the "old" Queen but they have right to keep the name and I see nothing wrong with that. If you see a problem in it, it means Metallica, Deep Purple and virtually every other band should call themselves in a different way. Or maybe Queen should have changed their name after each of those three bass guitar players left? Brian and Roger aren't Queen. But Brian + Roger + a bass player + a singer can be called Queen. |
| Penis - Vagina 26.03.2004 09:48 |
For some reason I don't mind so much in the case of Queen. Freddie died and John chose to retire so I think the remaining members have the right to carry on with the name. There are some rather sad examples of members stealing their former band's name and using it wrongly.. STYX for example. Only one original guy remains there (Tommy was brought in after they'd been together for many years) and Dennis DeYoung, the man who gave the best voice and the most success to STYX was forced out of the band he helped create due to a temporary illness. So that's an example of when it's wrong to use a band's name falsely. |
| Mitti 26.03.2004 09:57 |
I don't think that Brian and Roger are Queen. Queen had that great think that will never be there without anyone of Queen missing. But I didn't know that Brian and Roger called themselves Queen (together), I was so naief to think that there were called like that by someone else! :s |
| Daburcor? 26.03.2004 10:00 |
I don't care what they call themselves. I know what *I* think Queen is. |
| Pim Derks 26.03.2004 11:14 |
Don't give a shit about how they call themselves, as long as they're still doing something creative. I'm getting tired of the RGG/TYMD/WWRY setlist. I really hope that B+R will do something together when the fuss about the musical is gone.... Hopefully next year or so.... |
| FriedChicken 26.03.2004 11:28 |
To me Queen is the name for the band and the trademark sound, if the trademark sound is there, i have no problems with them wanting to call their band Queen, afterall, it's their band |
| Banquo 26.03.2004 11:46 |
Imagine you are not a mad-Queen fan and just a music fan. You walk into a record shop and see a record labled as "Say Its Not True - By Brian and Roger", you'd think didn't they sing Matchstick Man and Matchstick Cats and Dogs? That was shitty faux-folk by two middle-aged Mancunians I'm not buying that. You walk into a record shop and see a record labled as "Say Its Not True - By Queen", you'd think Hmm a new Queen song I think I'll give that a listen they had some good tunes. Obviously I can't comment on it if they heard The Call. |
| Sebastian 26.03.2004 12:34 |
> If you see a problem in it, it means Metallica, Deep Purple and virtually every other band should call themselves in a different way. Or maybe Queen should have changed their name after each of those three bass guitar players left? Those are completely different situations. Some members are impossible to replace. Metallica can still be Metallica without Cliff, but there can't be Metallica without Hetfield or Lars. There can't be Kiss without Paul & Gene, there can't be Led Zeppelin without John Bonham, and they fortunately did understand it. Metallica: Cliff was important to the band sound but he wasn't a major songwriter (although he did the bass arrangements in 'Master Of The Puppets'). Newsted (retired in '01) never gave a major input to the band, he just played the bass and ocassionally sang backing vocals and that was it. Deep Purple and Yes have changed their line-ups a lot but they never had someone impossible to replace, although they were mostly truly virtuosos in their instruments. U2 can be U2 without Adam or Larry, but not without Dave or Paul. Queen is a completely different case. Brian's guitar sound is perhaps the second most recognisable aspect (first being Fred's voice), but the thruth is that they all were equally important: John's melodic bass-lines, Roger's backing vocals... moreover Freddie was the main composer of the band in all the albums except for two (and the co-main in another one). In the albums there are indeed many backing vocal parts without Roger or Brian, just Freddie (the chorus of 'Killer Queen', the intro of 'Bohemian Rhapsody', all of 'Love Of My Life', the chorus of 'Keep Yourself Alive', etc, etc, etc). With the other three bass players they didn't even record an album, with John they had a 20 year career, doing a lot of concerts and albums, it's soooo different. Paul McCartney doesn't need to call himself 'The Beatles' to get people attention because they know him (and Ringo) by their names. Very few people recognise Brian & Roger. Well, bad luck, but it's completely un-ethic and immoral to use the name of the band, and even worse if they get with artists as Robbie or Britney, and if they sang 'No One But You' so horribly out of tune. It's not that they need the money anyway, and about the fame why don't they fight for it their own way? Living on the shadow of a band in which Fred wrote more songs than they two together, and depending just on its name and not on their talent (which is completely over now imo) is the most pathetic thing I've ever seen. No, it isn't: the most pathetic is to destroy Tie Your Mother Down doing it with Five. Now, Brian wrote the song, he can sing it with Shakira if he wants, but he doesn't own the Queen name (I don't mean legally, I mean ethically), so he should leave it alone. Now, let's remember the good times: Roger Taylor (1984): "Queen wouldn't be Queen if one of us left the band" Brian May (1992): "Without Freddie there isn't Queen. We always said that if any one of us disappeared, we said that Queen wouldn't exist any more. That's how I feel about it. I think ... I'm very proud of what we did, I'm very proud of the material. I'm very proud of Freddie and of what we did together. But every thing has a beginning and a middle and an end. And this is the end point" Brian May (1998): "I don't see that we can be Queen without Freddie." Brian May (2000): "I don't really visualize Queen without Freddie" |
| Bob The Shrek 26.03.2004 12:55 |
Queen is a brand name, it sells, end of story. Get used to it. |
| missikay78 26.03.2004 14:32 |
I'm not sure that a sign reading "Brian May and Roger Taylor In Concert" would attract a sellout crowd. The fans on these boards would know who that is, but the general populations wouldn't. I think using "Queen" makes it less confusing. One word, one fantastic band! |
| Little_Queenie 26.03.2004 14:51 |
Queen is just a name, dammit... Of course they are not "Queen" anymore (I mean band) without Freddie, and Rog and John and Brian are all well aware of that. And they said it many times. But if they want to keep the name Queen, fine.. I don't give a damn, as far as I'm concerned they can call themselves whatever they want, for me Queen died November 24th, together with Freddie. But nevertheless I love and appretiate Bri and Rog and John. So if two of them want to call them self Queen - I'm fine with that. You know, I think it's their choice. I also don't like what have they been doing with Britney, 5 etc, but fine... That doesn't make me love them less. I think it's wrong to judge them if they keep using name Queen, if they don't have that right, i don't know who does... After all, it's just a name. |
| Janet 26.03.2004 14:52 |
I could go for "Brian May and Roger Taylor of Queen". |
| brianburnsdavid 26.03.2004 15:11 |
I'm not sure, of course is magnificent that sometimes Brian and Roger are playing together, but under the name Queen... it's not really right. Of course they are Queen, but not complete (missing Fred. and John), why don't they try to refound smile, or make a new band? With new ánd old songs, that would be the best I think. |
| nil 26.03.2004 15:14 |
Brian and Roger annoy the hell out of me, John had the sece to retire when Freddie died!! Sorry im getting excitable *fans face with news paper* |
| geeksandgeeks 26.03.2004 15:35 |
I take slight issue with you, Mr. Scully. There's this band I really like called the Dead Kennedys who in recent times have set the record for nasty breakups. The other three members of the band sued their lead singer for some ridiculous amount because he wouldn't let them put a song in a Levi's commercial. Then, they went on a reunion tour (without him) replacing him with some former child actor who also happened to be a complete asshole. Anyone who says that was "the Dead Kennedys" is on crack. And given Brian and Roger's taste in musicians, God knows what they'll pull out of their asses next. NO, before anyone asks, I am not implying that Brian and Roger ever would have sued Freddie over something so stupid. But it's something to think about, no? |
| Rich Tea 26.03.2004 16:15 |
How many times must this be raised. Brian & Roger have every right to call themselves Queen or Smile or The Blonde One & the Curly Haired One! Its there choice if you don't like it tough. The Damned only feature Captain & Dave but they are still The Damned and fucking brilliant they are to! I bet fans of the Drifters are glad message boards are fairly new thing LOL |
| Big Black 26.03.2004 16:30 |
You answer both sides of the argument in your post Rich Tea. 1. Brian & Roger have every right to call themselves Queen or Smile or The Blonde One & the Curly Haired One! Its there choice if you don't like it tough. That is correct. 2. The Damned only feature Captain & Dave but they are still The Damned and fucking brilliant they are to! Herein lies the crux of the problem. Queen, like the Damned, is just a brand name. Queen as they exist in 2004 are a spent force creatively, and so far from brilliant it's a joke. There are those of us who feel that the Queen that existed as a foursome were a force of nature, and arguably the greatest act of all time. Freddie Mercury arguably wrote the song of the century, and was a brilliant songwriter. He arguably had the finest voice in rock, and certainly the most versatile. And he was arguably rock's greatest showman. How do you replace or recreate that. If Fatty dies from finger exhaustion the board will go on, but if Dark Inu Yasha whatever replaced him as the humourist on this board and said "I'm the new Fatty," EVERYONE on the board would lose their freakin' minds. There are no wrong or right answers. It's obviously an emotional issue for people, and my feeling is let them call themselves what they want. However, without Freddie and John, they'll be a shadow of their former greatness. |
| Sebastian 29.03.2004 17:56 |
One more quote, this one's from 1993 by Brian, very true: "In my mind, it just seems like there cannot be a Queen without Freddie and we should probably rather not pretend that there could be." |
| Nickipee 29.03.2004 18:14 |
Eh? When did he come into this thread? *wanders off to bed* |
| Adam Baboolal 29.03.2004 18:42 |
"Deep Purple and Yes have changed their line-ups a lot but they never had someone impossible to replace" Ouch! Anyone who thought that Trevor Rabin wasn't a bad replacement in place of Steve Howe needs their head examined!! The difference is that Queen never wanted to change their line-up. While a band like Yes did it to experiment in place of a departing member or to see what could be done with different line-ups. If the Queen line-up had changed the fans would've split in different ways and said many different things. But the difference here is that Brian and Roger are from the original line-up. What's wrong with that? Just cause they use the name they made, somehow they don't deserve it because someone isn't there?? Just imagine you had a business name that you were being forced not to use anymore because some of the founding partners died. You just have to recognise that it's a brand that they're entitled to. Let it be... Oh Seb...The Beatles? How many of those have we or ever will see again? Not exactly a fair comparison. "the most pathetic is to destroy Tie Your Mother Down doing it with Five." Er...how many people actually know about that? And dwell on it too! lol Who cares? "Queen as they exist in 2004 are a spent force creatively, and so far from brilliant it's a joke." On what do you base this? They haven't done anything with the name, really. Think about it... "However, without Freddie and John, they'll be a shadow of their former greatness." Next time you see Bri or Rog, you tell them that. Peace, Adam. |
| Sebastian 29.03.2004 18:59 |
About the partnership thing: if they agreed that the society would end in the moment one of them dissapeared, it is wrong that they continue if one of the partners die, because that wasn't the deal. If two of the partners decide to go on with the society just because a new thing wouldn't be so immediatly recognisable it's just a very mediocre and pathetic way to destroy the agreement. It's just like the May credit on 'I Want It All', they should have credited 'Invisible Man' to Roger, 'The Miracle' to Freddie and 'Breakthru' to both for that matter. |
| Big Black 29.03.2004 22:59 |
Adam, as I've always found you to be a very thoughtful poster and a decent guy and I have the utmost respect for you as a musician, I still say with no regret that based upon rehashing the same song in 20 different flavours with inferior artists that Queen are spent creatively. We're all different and have different opinions on what we like. For me, Queen peaked creatively (don't care about commercially, sales mean nothing in relation to art) with ANATO, followed by brilliant albums with ADATR and NOTW. They still made fantastic music, but after that they weren't the same creatively. That's my opinion, it mad be wrong but I stand by it. So as someone who believes that ANATO is equivalent to the Mona Lisa as a work of art it pains me to see Brian and Roger doing 5ive, Robbie Williams, Britney Spears WITHOUT doing anything new. If they did new stuff that'd be different but the perception outside of the Queen world is that they are hanging on by recycling the same old WWRY stuff and it's just sales. A lot of us don't like it, a lot of people think it's great to see the Queen name kept alive. But Adam, as a musician in your heart of hearts I can't believe that you think that what Brian and Roger have "created" in the years since Freddie's death is worthy of the Queen name. And whether I'd say anyhting to either if I met them is neither here nor there. It's because I think they're standards from early in their career were so absurdly high that their current output disaaponts me so. Peace. |
| YourValentine 30.03.2004 02:57 |
The problem is that "Queen" is a company name but many customers don't feel like customers, they feel emotionally involved. From a business point of view it would be totally stupid to abandon the name which is so well known and start from the scratch, why should Brian and Roger do that? To satisfy the emotional needs of their fans? Sebastian introduced ethics into the discussion like it's unethical to use the name. But it's a crystal clear legal situation: Brian and Roger have the right to use the name and of course they make use of their right. In which way that is unethical is beyond me. Being long time fans you can hate their work and think they don't live up to the musical standards they used to uphold (Pepsi commercial!!)but that has nothing to do with the use of the name Queen. The truth is that Brian and Roger will look for their customers elsewhere (musical)and your emotional needs are pretty far down on their priority list. |
| Azmandaman 30.03.2004 03:30 |
ROGER AND BRIAN AND DEACON STILL REPRESENTING LARGE IN THIS WORLD OF GENERATED PRETTY UNTALENTED ACTS AS THE ORIGINAL VETERANS OF THE MIGHTY RAW ROCK GROUP QUEEN!!! and for som who thinks they shouldnt carry the title Queen is like to see you guys get on the mic and try to cover a Queen song all to yourself.... yeah as the original veteran Brian and Roger of the Beatles should carry on.... wooops should that be Queen???? wooops again no not to you guys lol! Beatles will do |
| iGSM 30.03.2004 05:49 |
Holy crap. Brian May, Paul MacCartney, Ringo Starr and Roger Taylor! Best band ever? Of course Ringo would have to learn to play another instrument. |
| fairy_mercury 30.03.2004 06:48 |
you know it's a tough one. like some of you have said, what Brian and Roger have done since 1992 may not seem worthy to the 'old' Queen...but there will never ever again be the 'old' Queen. However, like the others have said they have every right to use the name Queen...god damn it it's their name. If they recorded new material *very unlikely if this musical continues* they would release it under Queen, but it wouldn't be Queen..but we would still accept it as Queen because they are doing what we want them to do...so we sould take the rough with the smooth regarding Brian and Roger *who by the way although i don't agree with himm all the time, he can still do no worng in my eyes...i just love the bloke!* and let them find and continue on the new paths for themselves, but hope they will pull themselves back together and give us new music... ok i'm not making complete sense here, but i know what i'm talking about! Ringo should play the banjo!!..... |
| Sebastian 30.03.2004 07:12 |
> Of course Ringo would have to learn to play another instrument. More accurately, Ringo would have to learn to play an instrument There's another card here, the quality thing: - Roger's singing isn't what it was. His range is much shorter and he doesn't have the strenght he had until 'Electric Fire' (album & tour). He's very well pitched, he always was, but the quality of his voice is much less - Brian's singing was always out of tune a lot, but now he maximised that. Plus the strength is minimal. From 'Another World' tour onwards I note that on him. Which is weird because his voice in the album sounds perfect, but in the tour he messes up so many times per minute. Each time it's worse. If you listen to the Pavarotti and friends concert objetcively, forgetting that it's Brian for a moment, you can note it's horrible. - Brian's guitar playing is much worse too. It's pretty obvious: for more than 20 years he was in constant practice, that he left out now. Compare the 'Bo Rhap' solo of the Jubilee with any solo he played from 1975 to 1986 or in the Tribute. - Rog's drumming sucks, completely. Again, up to '92 he was a wonderful player, now, wheter we accept it or now, he's not much more than a Ringo So, if Brian from '76 and Roger from '76 had called themselves 'Queen' I'd criticise the use of the name, but still it'd be a wonderful show. Or any Brian or Roger from '72 to '92, but Brian & Roger from '99 onwards are pathetic. They have to accept that their time is over, at least corresponding to stadium gigs and that stuff. Rick Wakeman is over 50 and still does wonders, Scorpions still do amazing concerts, but B&R didn't last so long and they have to deal with it. Unless they invent a way to remove ten years out of their age, but otherwise they're done, musically I mean. They can do other stuff if they want. Roger for instance can dedicate some of his huge fortune (after all he received just as much money as Fred did for 'Bo Rhap' because he had written the B-Side) to produce Treana, a very beautiful woman who, unlike Britney or those girls, is incredibly talented as a singer and songwriter, and deserves a big recognition. |
| Togg 30.03.2004 07:29 |
'More accurately, Ringo would have to learn to play something' eeer, well I think you will find that most drummers who have been taught how to play and are not little boys playing in their bedrooms, respect Ringo for his very talented contribution to music, he is still much in demmand as a session drummer and has created some of the most interesting drum parts throughout his career. As for Queen and the name thing, YourValentine hit the nail on the head, it's a company a business and no businessman would let something as valuable as that go if they didn't have to. So you don't like what they do, don't buy it end of story. |
| Sebastian 30.03.2004 07:35 |
Ringo almost always wins the 'worst drummer ever' polls. Many of the drum parts in Beatles songs were written by Paul (and the most interesting one imo, Back In The USSR, was played by Paul). His contribution consisted in being part of the Beatles, and his limited skills were fundamental to make the Fab Four what they are. They needed someone like Ringo to "neutralise" the forces, because there was enough ego with J & P. He's very requested as session drummer because of the promotion. If you've got an album of 'Sebastian & Ringo Starr' sales would improve 10000%, not because Ringo's good, but because it's Ringo Starr, the ex-Beatle. |
| Togg 30.03.2004 07:51 |
'Ringo almost always wins the 'worst drummer ever' polls' My point well made, who signs up to those polls, boys in bedrooms that think if your not Neil Peart you are nobody! Real musicains understand what an effect Ringo had on todays music as they were there at the time, and also know how talented he is, sure his name also helps to sell records, but lets be honest it will not make it fly off the shelves. Polls are for kids, and every year the new crop of kiddie bands win with a few old favs thrown in to make the kids look cool, i.e. John Bonham after all it's cool to like John, but not Ringo. You don't have to be flashy to be a talented musicain, drumming is about keeping time and adding to the overall songs feel, and occasionally making a statement, all of which Ringo was the master of, name two other 60's pop drummers that had any real influence on what followed? |
| Sebastian 30.03.2004 08:30 |
Influence caused isn't neccesarily proportional to talent or mastery. If Ringo were in Humpy Bong would have he influenced a lot too? definitely not. Ringo was an ok drummer that played what the songs needed, and he - more for being in the Beatles than for being more than good - is the one of the most famous drummers ever, but that doesn't mean he's "good". George was a guitarist extremely peculiar who wrote a huge number of easy but unforgettable solos. That's mental virtuosism, but to say he's as good as nearly 200 other rock guitarists (including Brian) just because of the influence he had is an exageration. Football is the same. Lev Yashin is respected because he was the first goalkeeper in winning a Golden Ball, but to which point he was "the best"? Maybe he did influence many others (as he was influenced by Gyula Grosics and others), but we can't say he's "excellent" for today standards (even in 2nd division we see keepers who can almost fly). There is a good amount on legend in both Lev's and Ringo's cases. Also Paul, John and George for that extent and even Jimmy Hendrix imo. |
| Adam Baboolal 30.03.2004 08:45 |
The only point I now want to make clear is about this spent creativity thing. NO-ONE here can possibly comment on that aspect of things. There's not much to go on. I believe that we can only judge by proper means, e.g. No-One But You - their last proper recording. I don't know about you folks, but I loved it! It still had the feel that was always part of a Queen track. And it was done very well. Even vocally. Also the track - Say It's Not True. A nice departure from their usual rocking away style. Always welcome. And the only other real venture with the Queen name was the musical. Like it or loathe it, it doesn't matter. It's very popular. What am I getting at? Well, when was the last time we REALLY saw what Brian and Roger could do? To me, their real strengths lie in what material they have hidden away. They always talk about doing something in the studio. Roger says it all the time. But will it ever happen? There will come a time when it does. But for now, there isn't really anything to judge them by. Unless you follow them so much that you hate rehashes. If you're smart, you'll ignore them. Why get yourself down over something silly like an advert!? Go have a banana, it'll cheer you up! Peace, Adam. EDIT: And of course, not forgetting the two DVD-A releases, ANATO and The Game. Both excellent releases. |
| Togg 30.03.2004 08:49 |
It is impossible to compare then and now, in music or sport, the time between changes everything, so what you are saying is in 30 years time when a new generation of musicains come along they will wipe away what has gone before... no of course they won't. I think you will find that pretty well every one of the top 20 drummers today that have made there fortunes in music will put Ringo somewhere in their list of favourite drummers, just read the drumming mags they are full of people quoting him as playing a major roll in todays music. How can you say he was an OK drummer, that shows how much you know about drumming, he isn't flashy but you don't have to be to be great, fast doesn't = good it's all about feel and I have never heard any professional musicain say Ringo was OK or had no feel for the songs. As I said before, kids don't understand what effect he had and how groundbreaking he was today because it looks so much cooler to fly round a kit but trust me professionals know him to be very talented. |
| Big Black 30.03.2004 08:57 |
Fair point Adam, and really this can be debated until we're all blue in the face. I guess what I mean is that when Brian keeps commenting on all of the remakes of WWRY and how they're firing him up with a new challenge, I don't see that as creativity. He wrote WWRY a lifetime ago and the best effort is the iconic NOTW version. Since then he's performed it live everywhere he goes, they did it with 5ive, John Farnham then the Pepsi thing. The original has stood the test of time for 27 years, and will continue to. The other versions only get notice because of the song title, then disappear to be forgotten. That's because there's no substance, and that's not what many people expect from Queen. Maybe throwing himself into the musical is a different form of creativity and I'm judging them too harshly and should say that as songwriters, Brian and Roger appear to have their best days behind them. I agree with you though, I think they have an album in them that could be great, but nobody's getting any younger and they just have to do it. |
| FriedChicken 30.03.2004 09:08 |
Ofcouse Brian and Roger don't play as good as 10 years ago, Thats not weird is it? Since they rarely got practice in the last few years. If McCartney, The Scorpions, The Stones or God knows which other band didn't play for 10 years, their skills would also drop a bit. It's not more than normal For all you people saying Brian and Roger can't be Queen. Get a life! |
| Big Black 30.03.2004 09:09 |
"I did quickly realize that Ringo was an excellent drummer for what was required. He's not a technical drummer. Men like Buddy Rich and Gene Krupa would run rings around him, but he is a good solid rock drummer with a steady beat, and he knows how to get the right sound out of his drums. Above all, he does have an individual sound. You can tell Ringo's drums from anyone else's and that character was a definite asset to the Beatles' early recordings." George Martin "Ringo Starr was adequate." Buddy Rich Not the greatest technician, but a wonderful player and perfect for the Beatles. John Deacon is respected but nobody would ever say that he's the best bass player or hundredth best player in rock. However, he was perfect for Queen and I'd rather have him than Billy Sheehan who could play circles around John technically but doesn't always understand the value of empty space. |
| Sebastian 30.03.2004 09:35 |
John is much better bass player than people use to think. Listen for example to 'Don't Try Suicide', a very excellent precise wonderful line. John went far far beyond the 1 note per measure thing. But that's not what I mean What I mean is that Bri and Rog should stop making fool of themselves. They can practice to recover their skills (as Ace and Peter did before the 1996 Kiss tour) or just retire and leave the legend instead of trashing it. |
| fairy_mercury 30.03.2004 13:34 |
i agree with your final comment Sebastian...they've got to do something to stop trashing that legend..they will slowly lose respect..go practice and write an album thats, what we all say..nuff said! |
| Lara 31.03.2004 04:57 |
That's Brian who's on blame!!! He's STUBBORN,SELF-CENTERED and BOSSY !!! |
| Azmandaman 01.04.2004 03:14 |
yo yo the way I see it,, it looks like I've started the Queenzones critics to be putting down the beatles and the surviving memebers of Queen at the same time. First I have to agree with Fairy Mercury with her follow on post after mine... and to all of you that didnt go to the nitty gritty changes of brian and rogers present voices and shit and smellin the coffee to the original fact that they are the original Veterans of the rock group Queen and nothing could change their statues how ever nicer they are souding now.... I am with you guys all the freakin way!!!! and leave Ringo alone!! man you guys can be so spikeful... I feel like tellin a die hard geeked up computer onliner of a Beatles fan to kick your asses lol!! |
| MercuryArts 02.04.2004 22:58 |
Every so often this topic comes up. The usual responses are generally the same as they are now. It's out of our control. Brian & Roger can do whatever they please w/ the name Queen. We all know that thet aren't "Queen", and I do believe that they know it too. But, it is the name that everyone knows the world over. It is immeditely recognizable much like the "Queen Sound." So as a marketing tool they need to use it. No one outside the Queen circle is gonna pick up on Taylor & May tonight in concert. It would never get anywhere. In order to sell tickets the almost have to use the name. So I have no problem w/ them using it. And if they didn't use it I wouldn't have a problem w/ that either. Let me put it this way, I am a HUGE QUEEN FAN. (not that anyone else here isn't) I have over two thirds of my life invested in supporting them. I got hooked way back in 1981 before Pressure was released. I had the great fortune to see them in 82. That experience has left me wanting more. So in order to see even 1/2 of my band perform live again it means that the name Queen is being use, so be it! I don't give a damn what they call themselves, be it Queen, Smile, May & Taylor, or Roger and the Hemorrhoids. I want to hear those songs performed live again. 22 years is too long to go w/ out. |
| Azmandaman 03.04.2004 02:35 |
Yay!! we kinda gettin better in exceptance now I think... Mercury Art has got it goin on with your post and how true.... if it was any artist I want the Queen song to be played live it would be Roger and Brian first they are the closest thing to Queen right now in the performing side... and second they are 50% of the Queen machines original lyrical writers. Rock on woohoo!! |
| McLeod 03.04.2004 22:34 |
Agghhhhhh.I DON'T CARE..QUEEN IS QUEEN ...HASTA EL FIN.. |
| April Lady 04.04.2004 07:01 |
Why not? They hold the rights to it, and they are in the business of selling records. Lynyrd Skynyrd still tour and they have lost the lead singer, two guitarists, the bassist, a backing singer and changed drummer. They still have the same character though. |