QueenZone discussion #418114

BiggyRat wrote: Many groups have survived after members have died/left eg. AC/DC, Van Halen, The Who, The Rolling Stones, Led Zepplin, INXS to name but a few.

BiggyRat wrote: For shame you people who say they wouldn't, how can you say you're real Queen fans? How many of the ones here critising are members of QIFC? I know I am.

BiggyRat wrote: "Fairy King" became a Queen fan Early 1991. Nice work check out when I became a Queen fan (1974) i.e. basically since the beginning...

djaef wrote:

BiggyRat wrote: Many groups have survived after members have died/left eg. AC/DC, Van Halen, The Who, The Rolling Stones, Led Zepplin, INXS to name but a few.

Sorry to burst your ballon, but since when did Led Zeppelin do anything as Led Zeppelin after Bonham died? As far as I remember a shitty set at Live Aid was the last time they played using that name. They have not recorded anything, nor toured at all using that name.

BiggyRat wrote: For shame you people who say they wouldn't, how can you say you're real Queen fans? How many of the ones here critising are members of QIFC? I know I am.

For a start, since when do you have to be a member of QIFC to be a """real""" Queen fan? I've been listening to Queen since 1975 - I bought every album they ever released, and I saw them in concert 3 nights in a row when they finally came to my country. Am I a real Queen fan? Of course I fuc*ing am. I thought about joining the Queen fan club back in 76, but didn't bother. Still haven't. Doesn't make me less of a fan though. Just because there are fanatics out there (as opposed to fans) who go to every convention, and have collections valued in the 10s of thousands of dollars, that does not only make them fans. Can you see the logic of that? Where would ""real"" fandom kick in? Do you have to be a card carrying member of QIFC? Do you have to have a huge collection of Queen singles, books etc? Do you have to have seen them live? Do you have to be non-critical in Queen forums? It's ridiculous. I refuse to be judged "not a ""real"" Queen fan" because I don't fit a particular criteria - whether it's that I'm sometimes critical of QP and their decisions, or because I'm not a collector. I'm so sick to fucking death of people who cannot accept criticism of Queen or Brian May and Roger Taylor. Get over it! They are not perfect, never have been, and never will be. Being a fan does not preclude using ones critical faculties. It is NOT mindless bumlicking hero worship. Some of us here are not 17 years old. Imagine how boring a forum like this would be if everyone just agreed that Queen were shit hot and perfect. WTF would be left to talk about? Not a great deal. Not that I'm saying we need to criticise to make conversation, but critique forms a natural and neccesary part of any cultural analysis, and as such it should not be considered negative. Enough said!

BiggyRat wrote: "Fairy King" became a Queen fan Early 1991. Nice work check out when I became a Queen fan (1974) i.e. basically since the beginning...

and if you think that makes YOU more of a fan than anyone else, you are rather sad...

BiggyRat wrote: Idiot. Yes, I do have EVERY album in EVERY format they were EVER released in. Yes I have a VERY expensive and Extensive collection of Queen memorabilia, including many limited edition boxed sets. Yes I went to every concert they ever did in my city.

BiggyRat wrote: Idiot again. Did I say they were the be all and end all? NO. I said I was sick of people SUPPOSED FANS saying how crappy it would be if Brian and Roger (and I did say hopefully John) released something new.

BiggyRat wrote: Idiot 3 times. You could refute my argument about bands who have lost members and still continued on with only ONE example (and a not particularly strong argument either, given a little outfit that went around as "Plant and Page"). Seems to me ACDC, Van Halen, The Who, The Rolling Stones and INXS have all done good stuff after the loss of a major member.

BiggyRat wrote: Tis you who is sad my friend, not I. BTW, as for being a "real" fan just cause I'm in the QIFC means I'm supporting Jacky and Val in their endeavours to keep me up to date with Queen news. Rather than scabbing it for free.

djaef wrote:

BiggyRat wrote: Idiot. Yes, I do have EVERY album in EVERY format they were EVER released in. Yes I have a VERY expensive and Extensive collection of Queen memorabilia, including many limited edition boxed sets. Yes I went to every concert they ever did in my city.

So what? You want a Brownie medal, or a life... Oh no, you actually want a "REAL FAN" medal don't you.... and calling me an idiot is supposed to what? Show me how mature you are? yeah right...

BiggyRat wrote: Idiot again. Did I say they were the be all and end all? NO. I said I was sick of people SUPPOSED FANS saying how crappy it would be if Brian and Roger (and I did say hopefully John) released something new.

Well who are you to determine who are SUPPOSED FANS and who are not? And surely they are entitled to their opinion, regardless. I don't hold much hope for stellar new material from Mr May and Taylor, but it in no way reflects my level of "fandom", a suspect concept in any case. I also fear the prospect of Brian and Roger releasing "rubbish" under the Queen name, diluting the band's reputation. Your problem is that you think that REAL FANS are not allowed to be negative or critical of the bands they like, a point which you have not surprisingly, totally flinched from.

BiggyRat wrote: Idiot 3 times. You could refute my argument about bands who have lost members and still continued on with only ONE example (and a not particularly strong argument either, given a little outfit that went around as "Plant and Page"). Seems to me ACDC, Van Halen, The Who, The Rolling Stones and INXS have all done good stuff after the loss of a major member.

That's debatable. AC/DC is the only band I can see that lost a prominent member and went on to much success. INXS - don't make me laugh. Van Halen - hardly. One album and then... The Who and the Stones - well they didn't lose Townsend or Daltrey or Richards or Jagger did they, so it hardly matters. Queen would still be around today if John Deacon died. The point I made stands. Page & Plant is NOT Led Zeppelin. They had the respect for Bonham NOT to call themselves Led Zeppelin. And their success, if compared to Led Zeppelin's was abso-bloody-lutely miniscule.

BiggyRat wrote: Tis you who is sad my friend, not I. BTW, as for being a "real" fan just cause I'm in the QIFC means I'm supporting Jacky and Val in their endeavours to keep me up to date with Queen news. Rather than scabbing it for free.

Scabbing it for free? That's got to be the most ludicrous argument I've heard in many a month. And besides, everybody knows that INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE. :) You are just avoiding the issues. Do you think you are a "real" fan because you are a member of some bloody fan club and you have sixteen copies of the same song? Doesn't sound real smart to me. You certainly have contributed more to the bank accounts of the various Queen members than I, but I think a fan is simply someone who appreciates a band's music (and not neccesarily 103% of it), and that endevour has an intangible and immeassurable quality which CANNOT be qualified by someone like you. get a life.

The Artist Formerly Known As Dan Corson wrote: I don't care what they'd call it, Queen or not. I'd just like to hear it.

King Frederick wrote: And then there were 2

Fenderek<br><font size=1>Pretentious twat</font> wrote: Greatest Hits 4...?