| Biggest Band On The Planet 06.12.2004 20:17 |
Seening as how U2 cliam to be the "worlds biggest rock band" if Queen were still around with Freddie would they be todays "biggest rock band in the world" ? I think they would be, as Queen have miles more talent than U2. |
| Mr.Jingles 06.12.2004 20:22 |
The whole "world's biggest rock band" thing is a title that U2 (mostly Bono) gave themselves, just like when Michael Jackson wanted people to call him 'The King of Pop'. Notice how their careers started to go down the hill after they became too arrogant. |
| Megamike The GREAT 06.12.2004 21:39 |
Without a doubt Queen would be Much bigger... I dare say that they may have even surpassed The Beatles in Popularity.. even re-gain the USA.. I really believe that had Freddie not contracted Aids however, we would not have had The Miracle or Innuendo.. and certianly NOT Made in Heaven.. so.. it really is a mixed bag here.. |
| mike hunt 06.12.2004 23:17 |
i think there's a good chance the miracle and innuendo would in fact be around if fred was still alive, some minor changes yes, but songs like breakthru and invisible man, headlong, i can't live with you, would have been done anyway, obvioulsy made in heaven would have been the one to get the ax, but innuendo was done without 100% fred, just imagine a healthy fred, he would have been better than ever and putting bono to shame, trust me on that. |
| LadyMoonshineDown 06.12.2004 23:21 |
I don't know.... It's hard to say whether they would have gained popularity or would have burned out forever. I would, of course, still listen to them avidly, as all of you I'm sure. Cheers |
| deleted user 06.12.2004 23:46 |
Rock stars have big egos, and I don't think anybody would let Queen christen themselves as the biggest. |
| pouria 07.12.2004 05:12 |
I don't know about now, but if freddie hadn't died, they would have toured the US in the early 90's and that would have helped their popularity increase a lot. I they were still around, they would be something like the Who or the Rolling stone. release one album every 2 or 4 year and then give a big ass world tour then go back and maybe come back with some new material. But def. freddie wouldn't be able to be that energetic and dynamic and surely he would have lost his range and he couldn't hit the high notes that well anymore. and im not quite sure about Roger either. I don't think he has the same stamina as he used to and there is nothing wrong with that; they all would be going through a aging process |
| FriedChicken 07.12.2004 07:22 |
I don't think so |
| FriedChicken 07.12.2004 07:23 |
I mean, just look at the songs from Innuendo and The Miracle.....They weren't really big hits |
| deleted user 07.12.2004 08:10 |
What do you mean???? The songs from "The Miracle" and "Innuendo" were big hits in Europe - The song "Innuendo" was their first number 1 hit in the UK since 1981 and "I Want It All" was number 3 in Britain. And both albums reached the top in the UK as well as in a lot of European countries. Of course, in the USA both albums weren't really more sucessful than the The Works or AKOM. But I also agree that they would have toured the US again in the 90s - just to regain part of their former glory there - and in Europe they certainly would have been as big as the Rolling Stones - through albums and through concert tours. |
| Fenderek 07.12.2004 08:25 |
NO I'm sure at some point they wouln't record the stadium rock, I'm almost sure they would diverse, being with more artistic freedom (shit loads of money that is...)... And being diverse- they wouldn't address the same audience that now buys crap like Coldplay, Travis, Robbie Williams or Blink 182... I'm certain that would be less compromise in their music that on albums like AKOM or Works... Fried Chicken is right- Miracle and Innuendo weren't massively popular- apart from first singles (IWIA and Innuendo)- the rest didn't do so well on the charts... INNUENDO is a great album, with a lot of maturity and musical sophistication- I'm sure the others WOULD follow that direction... AND- looking at showbusiness at the moment and the audience- that wouldn't selll... |
| Oberon 07.12.2004 09:18 |
The Stones are still considered "great" and that's only really on their touring. I think they still release albums (or have done in the last decade) but they don't register much. But they still make loads of money etc. Queen, if still going and touring, would be giving the Stone a run for their money. And I still think they would be releasing albums which made an impact. Remember that they've only really had 3 #1s in the UK, BoRhap, UP and Innuendo. Looking at the Miracle and Innuendo, there's a general trend that the first single does well, and the subsequent ones trail off (this is all UK). I think that trend is not really surprising and indicates that the mass music consumer was interested in a new Queen release, but maybe not in all the other singles. The albums did well, didn't they (in Europe at least). So I think they'd be doing about the same as The Miracle and Innuendo did. I'm not so sure about them touring the USA. There was the thing about Fred not wanted to have to work to get back into the USA - he'd only do it if they could sell stadiums, and that would require record sales to suggest it was possible, which they didn't have. Maybe if he'd lived past the Waynes World revival, it'd've worked out, but not certain by any means. |
| iGSM 07.12.2004 09:21 |
Grunge would have kicked Queen fairly in the scrotum. |
| Mr.Jingles 07.12.2004 10:37 |
None of the Queen studio albums had massive success, at least not to the level of Michael Jackson's 'Thriller', Pink Floyd's 'The Wall', or The Black Album by Metallica. Yet still all of their albums (except 'Hot Space' and 'Flash Gordon') had a fair and nearly equal share of success in album sales and radio airplay. Besides it was Queen's last studio album 'Made In Heaven' the one that went to become their biggest selling studio album ever. In the USA the story would have definitely been different, but worldwide Queen would probably make an album every 4,5, or 6 years and then have a massive promo tour. I think that Freddie's voice would still be in great shape, I mean look at Steven Tyler and the guy sings better today than when he was 30. |
| k-m 07.12.2004 11:49 |
Hmmm... I guess that if Fred was healthy they still would be around. Remember Wembley? "We're gonna stay together until we fucking real die, I'm sure". I think that in the early 90's they would come back to their rock roots, but I think the songs would be very different than the ones from "Innuendo". On the other hand, Freddie was unpredictable, and who knows - maybe he would continue his solo experiments. By the way, I've read an interview with Brian (long ago) and he said that "All God's People" was supposed to be Freddie's solo song. Was Freddie thinking about another solo album, or that's an outtake from "Barcelona"? |
| LadyMoonshineDown 07.12.2004 11:55 |
Peter Cetera... Didn't Freddie say that quote, and not Roger? Well, maybe it's a misunderstanding. Anyway....not to stray to a tangent or anything... In order to be one of the biggest acts, Queen would have had to gone to some big measures, ESPECIALLY within the US. Maybe after Waynes World with the popularity of Bohemian Rhapsody in both the US and Europe, they could have done something to 'boost' them up again. But woo....we are debating over a hypothetical question....isn't that fun? Cheers |
| brENsKi 07.12.2004 12:25 |
how could queen EVER have become bigger than the legacy of the beatles? only 3 singles failed to make no1 (in UK) and two of those are arguably their finest songs oh and the small matter of14 number one UK albums i love queen much more than beatles, but at least i'm objective enought to see they could never be bigger now the U2 argument is a better one - queen are certainly bigger than U2 (although u2 have had 7 no 1 albums)- and while we're at it - U2 have NEVER called themselves the "world biggest band" - this is a label the music press stamps all over whoever is the hottest ticket at any time it was REM for about four years - early 90s, then nirvana, then u2 more recently the chilis and now u2 again |
| Mr.Jingles 07.12.2004 12:38 |
The fact that the music press speaks for what artists are good or not, is complete bullcrap. Although I personally like U2 and REM, a couple of their albums haven't been very good, and yet they get a handful of great reviews from the press. Why should a couple of thousands speak for hundreds of millions? They could keep praising bands like The Strokes, and The White Stripes all they want but in the long run does any one really give a rat's ass about them. They are still thousands of miles away from becoming the music phenomena that critics predict they will be. |
| RockitPJ 07.12.2004 15:03 |
Americans seem to like only what radio plays, especially top 40 radio, which wasn't big on Queen music. So I don't think they would be any bigger now than they were in the 80s and 90s. The thing that bothers me is that when I play Queen music for someone who never heard them, the person ends up liking their music. I think that if Queen received enough airplay by top 40 radio, their popularity would have soared. |
| deleted user 07.12.2004 15:07 |
I bloody hope so. |
| LadyMoonshineDown 07.12.2004 15:13 |
I agree with RockitPJ. When I play stuff by Queen to my friends who have only heard their hits, they are amazed, and end up being an immense Queen fan (Not more than me of course, because I am god, lol). But that doesn't go for all people.... But it could have made a difference, especially here in the US. cheers |
| Rich Tea 07.12.2004 15:15 |
Weren't Status Quo the biggest Rock Band in the world once according to their own publicity and where are they now? Oh yea Cleethorpes Winter Gardens - Capacity 400 tickets still available!!! |
| Roger_in_Tigerskin_Trousers 07.12.2004 15:37 |
They would be massive I think because of the massive publicity they could generate through mediums like the internet which I think they would have utilised had they still been around. And I don't think they would have become arrogant like U2 and that they would have played down how big they were, well except Roger. |
| Lord Blackadder 07.12.2004 18:01 |
Yes, they would be the biggest. In fact, they still are because in worldwide popularity Queen are miles ahead of U2. I really like U2, but they aren't Queen. When U2 went popish, they went absolutely crap. Queen went pop but still produced some amazing songs and it gave them a whole new audience and some of the biggest anthems ever were made in Queen's poppy years (e.g. IWTBF and Radio Ga Ga). Queen's popularity worldwide makes up for the missing parts in the U.S. Although U2 saying they are "the world's biggest rock band" prob means biggest rock band going today with relevant and fresh stuff. That doesn't include bands like Queen, The Beatles, Zeppelin, The Stones. Which you can't really deny. However, I could not believe U2 went into the U.K Hall Of Fame before The Stones and Zeppelin and Queen And Elton. Who has inspired more artists. The 5 'founding members' should have been (in no particular order) .1. The Beatles .2. Elvis .3. Elton John .4. Queen .5. The Rolling Stones For U.K music Madonna has inspired alot of females so maybe she should have been there, but Marley inspired some of the black artists that followed him, but how has he done more for U.K music than Queen, Elton and all those? Queen inspired... Muse The Darkness Radiohead Extreme Dave Grohl George Michael Katie Melua Guns N' Roses (Axl and Slash anyway) All the way down to new X-facter band G4. In fact just about every Rock artist since in one way or another. People may like U2 and think Bono is a wonderful singer and frontman, but they haven't been inspired like people are inspired by Queen or a member of Queen. There's my 2 cents. Phew... P.S. Queen will never equal The Beatles popularity, but there isnt any shame in being beaten by the second best. |
| LadyMoonshineDown 07.12.2004 18:02 |
Queen inspired the Darkness? Well, maybe that is true, but there is NO comparison between both bands and the music. The Darkness, to be honest, has inspired me to become more homocidal. Woo. Cheers |
| Rotwang 07.12.2004 18:44 |
Not in the states, unfortunately. They would definitely have regal status worldwide. I think they would be like Elton John status now. Who knows, Disney might have approached them to do music for a movie. Hard to say. |
| boy of destiny 08.12.2004 00:18 |
No way. Sorry, but Queen was absolutely dead in North America. They're more popular here in Canada, but still back in high School I used to have to force my friends to even just listen to Queen. The lack of touring, the campy videos, and Freddie's over-the-top flamboyance buried them until "Wayne's World" showed these sheep that Bohemian Rhapsody was cool after all. Queen was my favourite band as a kid, but then lost me after around the Hot Space area. The power of Freddie at Live Aid brought me back and if Queen had toured in support of The Works in North America then maybe they could have regained their following. Sorry, right or wrong without the States no band can be the biggest in the world. |
| Gondorian Queen Fan 08.12.2004 07:26 |
Yeah,I agree with Lord Blackadder.Linkin Park and The Offspring are also ace!:D:D:D:))))). |
| Oberon 08.12.2004 08:49 |
LadyMoonshineDown wrote: Queen inspired the Darkness? Well, maybe that is true, but there is NO comparison between both bands and the music. The Darkness, to be honest, has inspired me to become more homocidal. Woo. Cheersi don't think you have to write music in the same style to have been influenced by them. The influence for the Darkness is probably more evident in the presentation than music. |
| T84K 08.12.2004 13:05 |
I don't think Queen would've been the world's biggest rock band, had they been around today. People today don't seem to appreciate music as did people back in 80's and even early 90's... They don't seem to be sticking with one band through both the good times and the bad. That's why you see so many "one hit wonder" groups out there today. It's unfortunate I think... |
| deleted user 08.12.2004 14:41 |
I don't think they would be. I mean apart from them all being 50 odd, peoples tastes change don't they? Queen would no doubt carry on making good music, but whether everday people would listen to it is another matter. Of course the fans will never stop loving Queen, but I think there is a time for every band, and Queen have had theirs. If Queen had carried on, I don't think they would have increased their fan base. All thats left of Queen is memories. And good ones at that... |
| redyfredy01 08.12.2004 16:01 |
you bet chya!!!!! |
| *JAZZ* 08.12.2004 16:10 |
QUEEN ARE THE "WORLDS GREATEST ROCK BAND." IF NOT THE "WORLDS BIGGEST ROCK BAND." |
| Debbie1 08.12.2004 17:03 |
YES!!!!!!!! |
| deleted user 08.12.2004 17:10 |
course they would be! queen rock! |
| j0ck3 09.12.2004 01:28 |
I dont think they would tour anymore as Freddie said he would look ridiculous in those Magic Interviews on GVH2 |
| lyricalassasin77 09.12.2004 15:01 |
Take it from somebody who is from the United States. If Queen as a whole where around today and decided to tour here they would sell out every stadium here guaranteed. I don't know how to describe it but there has been a slow rehabilatating process going on here since Freddie's death for a more growing appreciation of what Queen was. True the U.S. kinda ditched them after that god awful "Hot Space" album but alot of strides have been made here where the U.S. realizes how great they where. Look at the Rock & Roll Induction, the big success of We Will Rock You the musical here, and there repackaged "Live at Wembley 86" should all be signs that they could tour here today and have great success. Besides the sheer fact that they hadn't toured here since 82 would be reason enough to pack the seats. Queen are very alive here, believe that! but as far as greatest band in the world, that would be a hard call. I would say though they would be the greatest band in the world past the age of 40......Peace |
| Whatinthewhatthe? 09.12.2004 15:08 |
The Beatles would still be Number One, the Rolling Stones Number Two and *perhaps* Queen as Number Three. If Freddie were still alive and Queen were still selling out stadiums and putting out new albums, the order might have changed...but a little. We can't rewrite history-- let's be thankful of the short time Queen were a band and what they left as a legacy, what we're still enjoying to this day -- the music! That is what matters! |
| Melancholy Blues 09.12.2004 21:49 |
i'm not sure if they would be, but i'd like to think they would. they are definately ALOT better than 90% of the crap on the radio nowdays - all we hear is radio ga ga |
| nicholasr 21.12.2004 15:23 |
Why so much hate fellow queen fans. Queen fans should be music fans not oasis-esque bitter people. I am a fan of both of these genius all-time-greatest bands of the last 20-30 years so I think I can speak unbiased and objectively on this very interesting question. I have no doubts that if Freddie was still alive and well Queen would have forged ahead in the world of rock/pop. The members of Queen are undeniably geniuses. Freddie's hurt and pain should have been expressed more in the latter queen years and Queen's inability to explore new sounds were in stark contrast to the new wave sound of U2's. Unfortunately Bono's performance is fading (as would have Freddie's probably) because both men give 110% live. However U2 are writing better songs now than they ever have if you listen to the last two albums because bono is expressing his pain really well - hats off to U2. U2 and Queen just like the Beatles and Stones...they both are fucking brilliant supergroups!!!!!!!! |
| SomebodyWhoLoves 21.12.2004 16:29 |
I'd like to think Queen could be #1 today because I believe at their peak circa 1981, Queen was the best ever. But I think if Freddie never contracted hiv, he would've focused more on his solo career such as his opera cd. Brian and the others would crank songs for a cd every 3 years but Freddie's creative input for Queen would've diminished. And the consequence would be that the quality of Queen's music would suffer. So I don't think Queen would be #1 today. During the 80s, their musical standards decreased as they became more pop oriented and commercial. They became too rich, too successful, and their motivation to work hard wasn't there like it was in the 70s when they were young, hungry, and made awesome records. Every band has their artistic hey-day. Queen's reign as artistic giants diminished after 1980 but their popularity and commercial success rose. Queen would still be huge, and sell out, but as artists, their best days would be behind them. |
| ryancoke 21.12.2004 18:33 |
Now I love U2, but come on! "WORLD's biggest?" That's pushing it just a tad. |