k-m 24.11.2004 18:33 |
"Replacing such a vocalist as Freddie Mercury is impossible" - Brian May, 1996 |
deleted user 24.11.2004 18:39 |
"Impossible, but do-able"- Sean Connery, 'Entrapment' 1999 |
deleted user 24.11.2004 19:05 |
So ? I don't think teaming up with a new singer is the same as "replacing" Freddie. It's something new. That's certainly how Brian sees it. |
deleted user 25.11.2004 06:05 |
Blah, blah ... Brian told everybody in 1992/93 that he is now free from Queen's chains to have his solo career... ten years later Brian's and Roger's solo careers have flopped - and they return to Queen. Well there is nothing to say against that (although it is quite ironic), but the only way to continue as Queen would be Roger, Brian and John ... and nobody else. "No One But You" should have been a blueprint for this. Brian and Roger could sing the stuff (as they did in the 70s) and it would be a good album (hey, they should try to write the kind of good material they did back then). But instead they do this WWRY-shit, team up with Britney and let other people sing the songs only Freddie could have sung properly. The only honest way to continue as Queen would be a three piece (if John would participate) or a two piece (Brian and Roger) .... or LEAVE IT!!!! |
The Mir@cle 25.11.2004 07:19 |
On one of the interviews on the FM Tribute DVD, I hear Brian say that there's still a chance they will appear on stage again as Queen. "Not now, maybe in ten years"... So it’s not that they never considered before Peter Cetera. |
Adam Baboolal 25.11.2004 07:38 |
I sometimes wonder if people consider the frame of mind that Brian and Roger were in when they made comments like the above. I wonder because, people change. We don't hold the same opinions throughout our lives on everything. A lot of the time, our ideas are challenged and that's what I see. Not only that, but also during times like 1992 and 1996 they must have been feeling very differently from how they do now. Coming off of Freddie's death and later in '96 having had to promote the MIH album amongst other things? It's no wonder that these days they can think differently. It's the same idea with a picture of a politician smoking weed in their teens and judging them later in life, instead of looking at the person, then. We can't hold onto the past because it doesn't exist anymore. It was another time, another place. Today is today, not yesterday. I hope people take something from this. Peace, Adam. |
deleted user 25.11.2004 07:44 |
This may be true - but that has nothing to do whith the things I said before. why does everybody around defend Roger and Brian. The two guys should get together and record some new stuff (and, for gods sake, may they call it Queen+), but instead they just rehash the old Queen songs over and over again - and let people sing the stuff that was only written for Freddie's vocals. "No one but you" was not a bad song and they should continue with such things.... but maybe the explanation is simple: they have run out of ideas (and their shaky solo careers may be proof of that) |
k-m 25.11.2004 08:33 |
I am radical - there's no Queen without Freddie Mercury. I don't want them to continue with other singer or as a three-piece or two-piece. I think Mr. May and Mr. Taylor have already showed us enough of what they are capable of, collaborating with such great rock personalities as Britney Spears, Beyonce or freakin' Five. It's very funny though how they change their mind depending on the situation. When they were recording their solo stuff Queen's comeback was out of question. Now, when the musical turned out to be a great success and was followed by a big chart success of "Platinum Collection", and moreover Queen's music came back in some way when The Darkness appeared, Mr. May and Mr. Taylor seem to change their minds. No good. Besides, even if they come back and release something new... What do you think it will be? A new great album, that will once again rule the charts all over the world and make us beg for more? Believe me, you will regret that you supported those guys. |
The Mir@cle 25.11.2004 09:17 |
The discussion about the name goes on and on and on... Is the name that important?? If more people listen to their music because they call themselves Queen, let them! |
deleted user 25.11.2004 09:48 |
Mir@cle.... You just have to read my statement properly ... I didn't say anything about the fact if the name is Queen or Brian, Roger & Co or something else Brian and Roger should record some NEW music under the Queen banner (and they should sing the stuff). But just rehashing old Queen songs again and again and again is very lame for these two talented musicians .... if there is nothing more left I would say they should call it a day. Therefore if they have really run out of ideas I would stick with k-m |
Adam Baboolal 25.11.2004 12:20 |
It's obvious that they haven't run out of ideas because, no musician stops writing unless they choose to. Of course that doesn't mean that they'll be writing great stuff all the time. But that's just the way it is. We have no idea what they have, but the bottom line is that they'll have a ton of material. It happens. There'll be plenty of stuff just lying about after 35 years if they get stuck. And it's not about defending them. It's about presenting both sides of the debate, instead of it coming from one side all the time. Something that happens frequently on this board. Peace, Adam. |
Boy Thomas Raker 25.11.2004 12:23 |
This has been beaten about ad nauseum and the answer is always Brian & Roger can and will do what they want with whatever name they want to. However, expectations will crush them before the first note is recorded. Arguably, Queen's creative peak was ANATO (or II or ADATR.) That's 29 years ago. Since then they've had lots and lots of great songs but wildly uneven albums. Innuendo hinted at a return to forum but was killed by some awful choices (Delilah, Slightly Mad) that didn't fit the tone of the album. Why would we expect Brian and Roger to find their form all of a sudden? IMHO, Queen music between the debut and NOTW is unbeatable. It's the sound of 4 hungry young men pushing creative boundaries and succeeding like no band ever before. After that, money, marriage, egos and bullshit affected the band and while they were a live act without equal, their music was not a patch on the early output. And if you need an example of how time changed them as writers, look at Roger. On songs like Drowse, Fight from the Inside and Tenement Funster, the anger is on the surface of a young guy trying to prove himself. But 20 years later, a song like Dear Mr. Murdoch is a keyboard snoozefest without a drop of energy or venom. He's a talented guy who neds a vehicle once in a while, like Brian. That seldom leads to good art. |
Whatinthewhatthe? 25.11.2004 12:55 |
"Comeback"? They never went away!! (LOL) I should share another name Brian and Roger should consider: "Queen Redux". Essentially a revised version of the original group minus two members (and the addition of two more, or a bassist and revolving guest vocalist). I would love to see a tour someday when time allows, and hear new material if there truly is any! |
BrianHMay 25.11.2004 13:09 |
they should come back with john or without, I think ,it's not about replacing Freddie, just writing a new chapter in the Queen History |
mike hunt 26.11.2004 09:03 |
I think fans or so called fans are bit to hard on Queen. I mean we get all over critics for over looking them, but the fans themselves seem to get all over them, by calling their albums crap or uneven. listen to metallica st. anger is one of the worst albums i ever heard, every Queen album is miles ahead of that music, but so called fans put down most of things they did. I'm not sure who said it, but how can you put down "slightly mad" a borderline classic and video and why put down delila it's a catchy ballad not bad. What i'm trying to say is mabe if they comeback they won't be vintage queen but they will be making good music, cos if you listen to their solo efforts "another world" and electric fire" and put the best tracks from both and throwaway the weaker stuff you'll have a good album. |
QUEEN*1 26.11.2004 09:18 |
I know you cannot replace the irreplaceable but i think the performance of george michael in the tribute concert was absolutely brilliant. I think queen should come back and do some concerts because im 17 and i never got the chance to see them live and it would be great to see them, so they should get someone like george michael to do some concerts or just do another concert like the tribute concert to freddie because that was a great concert. |
The Mir@cle 26.11.2004 09:39 |
I share you're opinion QUEEN*1 |
Whatinthewhatthe? 26.11.2004 09:56 |
QUEEN*1, you would have adored them live -- no-one could touch Freddie as a live performer. He gave 200% with every performance, and every concert I saw was proof of that. Thank God for the live performances caught on tape! |
brENsKi 26.11.2004 09:59 |
billy squier |
Boy Thomas Raker 26.11.2004 10:13 |
Billy Squier would be a great choice. He had an album out about 4 years back that was fantastic. His voice and an acoustic guitar. Tremendous stuff, the type of risk Brian and Roger should be taking. "I'm not sure who said it, but how can you put down "slightly mad" a borderline classic and video and why put down delila it's a catchy ballad not bad." That was me Mike. I said they were awful choices for the album. You have an all-time classic with Innuendo which looked like Queen returning to their risk-taking rock roots with an epic in multiple styles and time signatures. Then a keyboard song that destroys the momentum. Then a rocking Headlong, I can't live with you, then a beautiful ballad. That destroys the flow. Same for Delilah. After a beautiful song like TATDOOL, that's what you get? Teerrible fit. If they pulled Slightly Mad, Delilah and The Hitman it would have been a fabulous album. As for Delilah being a catchy ballad, big deal. I'm one of those prick fans who liked it when entire albums (like the first six) were filled with pieces of art, not "catchy ballads." Listen to the radio, it's filled with catchy ballads. |
brian_may_wannabe 26.11.2004 10:15 |
No one could ever replace Freddie. Freddie is a one-off. In my opinion, there has been no singers before or after Freddie. He is a rarity. Too be another Freddie Mercury, you just have to hit that high note (and I am not talking about Justin Hawkins) and to be able to sing. |
Boy Thomas Raker 26.11.2004 10:17 |
Sorry, double post. |
Whatinthewhatthe? 26.11.2004 11:18 |
What's Billy Squier doing these days? |
Boy Thomas Raker 26.11.2004 11:40 |
Not much. He was disillusioned with music so he wrote a screenplay for a film that got accepted at the Sundance Film Festival. When he realized that the amount of bullshit in movies exceeded music he wrote 'Happy Blue', an all acoustic album, toured with most of his original band in 2001 or 2002, and has disappeared since. Truly a talented singer/songwriter/guitarist who is grossly misundestood based on 'The Stroke' and his awful video for 'Rock me Tonite.' |
moonie 26.11.2004 13:28 |
The thing is, Rogers got a bit of a gut on him nowadays.If they do tour then he'll have to get his arse to the gym well before.Christ, Now I'm Here could kill him! |
Whatinthewhatthe? 26.11.2004 13:46 |
Roger is not fat at all, just has a lot of liquid sloshing around in his midsection. Brian discovered eating a decade ago and is now starting to put on weight, something he's needed for quite a while....he looks good! |
Lord Blackadder 26.11.2004 13:47 |
When did Brian's solo career flop? He only released 2 albums. Both pretty good and did well in charts/number of sales. Especially Back To The Light. I still cannot understand why everyone has such an objection to Bri and Rog being called Queen or doing another album and/or tour. Leave them, alone. If Brian died then Freddie, Roger and possibly John would still be going as Queen if they were together and Brian is as vital as Freddie in Queen in my book. It's up to them what they wanna do. Millions and millions across the world aren't in love with the band Brian May, Roger Taylor and Guest Vocalists. We Love Queen. That's who I wanna see/listen to if something goes ahead. So there... |
AlleeCat 26.11.2004 14:29 |
I think that they're just in a tough spot right now. I mean, there's no replacing Freddie and they KNOW this... more so than any of us could. It's not just a matter of the voice... can you imagine trying to replace that working relationship? Queen was just the same four members from the beginning, they didn't have much coming in from outside throughout their enormous success. It seemed to be the perfect outlet for all four... they understood each other and there was a common goal. There was also a trmendous trust in each-other and a loyalty to what they had built together. Who do you get that you can trust and respect their input and talent in the same way? From the other side... If you're an unknown singer, look at the shoes you have to fill when working with these guys. If you're a singer who's had success with another band... is the dynamic there with these guys who had such a tight relationship as Queen? If you're a solo singer who's had success, are you willing to give up that much personal freedom to work with a killer band who has their own way of doing things? Add to that egos, expectations and contractural obligations from both sides... WHAT A MESS!!! It's easier to rehash old Queen songs with people that want to do so. There's no writing credit issues at least... and less Ego things I would imagine. |
Boy Thomas Raker 26.11.2004 14:54 |
"If Brian died then Freddie, Roger and possibly John would still be going as Queen if they were together and Brian is as vital as Freddie in Queen in my book." Absolutely true Lord. And unwittingly you've explained why it's a mistake to continue on. Put Eddie Van Halen or Mark Knopler in Queen, and as much as they're amazing guitarists in their own rights, they'd destroy the Queen sound. Same with singers. Lou Gramm or Gary Cherone (my choice in spirit) couldn't do justice to Freddie's material. No one can. It's not just singing, it's the whole aura. Whether it's a replacement bassist for John or singer for Freddie, they'll be replacing the irreplaceable. And if Brian and Roger selected Marilyn Manson or one of the blokes from S Club 7 as the new singer would that be okay to carry on the Queen name? |
LadyMoonshineDown 26.11.2004 15:48 |
The only respectable thing for them to do would form as 'Queen' again....but even that would be stupid. Even though they would be keeping the original members that are left, with John as a tossup, it wouldn't really be....well, the same. Of couse that is obvious, but it just wouldn't work out because there is not all four members, and looking at their solo careers....they wouldn't be likely to follow in the same 'queen' sound they did in the 70's, as some would like to see it. If they do.... Let us hope it doesn't flop. |
QUEEN*1 26.11.2004 16:34 |
I think they should get george michael and start a band, i know its not the same without freddie but wouldnt it be great to see them back. And i believe george michael is the man because he has a brilliant voice and his career has kinda stopped, but the performance of him in the tribute concert was outstanding. But honestly i cant see them returning, but its a dam shame because i think they could rule again. |
redyfredy01 26.11.2004 18:06 |
Well you all know about who there were those people who made up Beatles Mania right? Well my mom gave me the idea to make up Queen Mania. I thought about it, but it wans't a good idea. Well, i mean i am a pretty good singer and i can sing most of Freddie's notes and everything, but then i thought, it is kind of like copying rhem, which i would rather not do, because Queen was one of a kind, not saying that the Beatles weren't or anything. For Queen's plans of coming back though, if they call themselves Queen again, I will be sooooooooooo anry!!! They can't name themselves Queen with Freddie. Without Freddoe it's just Que. |
Adam Baboolal 26.11.2004 20:15 |
BHM 0271 = "Billy Squier would be a great choice. He had an album out about 4 years back that was fantastic. His voice and an acoustic guitar. Tremendous stuff, the type of risk Brian and Roger should be taking." They were scheduled to do an acoustic session for VH1 in 2001. Then 9/11 happened and put an end to that. So, it's not as if they hadn't been thinking of that very same idea. "And if Brian and Roger selected Marilyn Manson or one of the blokes from S Club 7 as the new singer would that be okay to carry on the Queen name?" What an obsurd question. Bad joke... As for the Queen name thing. Freddie's gone. John has gone as well. Therefore, it's left to Brian and Roger to do anything they wish. Bitch all you want. At the end of the day, it's not our livelyhood on the line. Nor, I'd say, the memories. Because anything new belongs to a different period of time and set up of the band. Too much time is spent debating the obvious. I don't care about the name anymore. It's not going to tarnish anything they've done in the past. Only Queen extremists would say that. Peace, Adam. |
Whatinthewhatthe? 26.11.2004 21:34 |
redyfredy01 wrote: Well you all know about who there were those people who made up Beatles Mania right? Well my mom gave me the idea to make up Queen Mania. I thought about it, but it wans't a good idea. Well, i mean i am a pretty good singer and i can sing most of Freddie's notes and everything, but then i thought, it is kind of like copying rhem, which i would rather not do, because Queen was one of a kind, not saying that the Beatles weren't or anything. For Queen's plans of coming back though, if they call themselves Queen again, I will be sooooooooooo anry!!! They can't name themselves Queen with Freddie. Without Freddoe it's just Que.Whoa, there...Beatlemania was not "made up" -- it happened, both in the UK and the US. (The fans made it happen, but the press helped a little, in their own way.) When The Beatles came to America in February 1964, it was one of the best things to ever happen, and there's never been anything like it since! QueenMania? Nope. Past tense, Queen is not a band anymore and hasn't been in the thirteen years since Freddie's passing. Join the fan club, you'll be happy! |
OzQueen 27.11.2004 02:43 |
Lets face it, I think there is too much talk and not enough action from Brian and Roger. John isn't getting involved so be it, All Brian & Roger have to do is start touring to see if the interest is still there, which it is and it never will die from Queen fans as there is enough of us to keep a New album or Tour sucessful. I'm sick & tired of waiting for something new too happen just do it already, its like they can't make their minds up. (What Brian & Roger have to rememeber is that their not getting any younger) Make the fans & yourselves happy by doing something, you wont regret it. |
Boy Thomas Raker 27.11.2004 12:01 |
Adam wrote: "They were scheduled to do an acoustic session for VH1 in 2001. Then 9/11 happened and put an end to that. So, it's not as if they hadn't been thinking of that very same idea." I wrote that Billy Squier's album was like nothing he'd ever done before. B & R were doing a one-off rehash of old material in an unplugged. That's hardly the same idea and hardly a risk? And 9/11 was 3+ years ago. I think that although they've done a work on some musical, they could have rescheduled one day in that time, no? "What an obsurd question. Bad joke..." Why Adam? You and others say you want to hear Queen again, and have arbitrarily decided that if it's with Paul Rodgers then that makes it Queen. But if they reformed with non-Queen style singers (like Marilyn Manson to play devil's advocate), is it still Queen if you don't like the singer? So it's not an absurd question, it's a question of who is Queen, and we both know who we think Queen is. "I don't care about the name anymore. It's not going to tarnish anything they've done in the past. Only Queen extremists would say that." In your opinion again. That's not even close to a definitive statement. Each time Queen trots out yet another version of WWRY with another singer they are bacoming self-parodying to all but Queen fans. People who don't post here and don't care for Queen will see them singing the same 27 year old song with anyone who is the flavour of the moment. Tell me Adam, do you think that WWRY with 5ive adds to Queen's legacy? I think it devalues the song. Leave the fucking past in the past. Everybody knows that B & R can call themselves Queen and they will (although I hope you were joking about their livelihoods, they're turning into dollar whores of the worst kind with the musical.) But IMHO, I'm as passionate about who Queen is as you are. We disagree. We're not extremists, we're not dinosaurs, we're not bitchers. Queen were gods. Now they're salesmen. I think it's sad that wonderful musicians who are capable of so much more have chosen to become an oldies act. If you don't, I respect your views, that's what makes the world go round. Peace. |
mike hunt 27.11.2004 17:07 |
no rogers not fat electra, it's all muscle. |
The Mir@cle 27.11.2004 18:03 |
Just downloaded the Hall of Fame Performance.... IT SURELY ROCKS!!! What's wrong with Rogers?? |