| Serry... 12.12.2004 17:53 |
Do they have to ask John's permission for using 'Queen' name on forthcoming tour, in the case if John wouldn't be involved in this or maybe even ask him to write special message to Queen fans with his thoughts about this tour? What do you think? (Please note that I'm not one of those Queen fans who says that Roger can't use sign 'Queen' on his drum kit, but on other side there'll be a lot of fuss about Brian/Roger and 'Queen' name and I guess only one who can stop the fuss is John. IMO. So I'd like to know what do you think about it!) |
| deleted user 12.12.2004 18:21 |
I think he has to say somthing about it. I now he's retired but he cant hide and don't say anything forever. We all want to know what's his feelings about it... Just one interwiew John. Just one and you can go home again and have good times :) But just for us, the fans... We all want to hear you :) |
| John S Stuart 12.12.2004 18:44 |
Do they have to ask John's permission for using 'Queen' name? No. This has previously been faught in the courts by "Status Quo". It was found to be perfectly legitimate for Rick Parfitt and Francis Rossi to be called "Status Quo" despite the legal objections by Alan Lancaster and John Coghlan. This decision can't even be argued on the basis of "founder members" because it was Bassist Alan Lancaster who invited guitarist Francis Rossi to join his band The Scorpions in 1962. After the departure of John Coghlan, and unsatisfied with the direction the new group had taken, founder bassist Alan Lancaster quit the band in 1986. When Rick Parfitt and Francis Rossi recorded tracks for three albums that they were still under a contractual obligation to provide, Lancaster, unsuccessfully, tried to put a stop to the remaining members using the "Status Quo" name without him. The judement was awarded in favour of Parfitt and Rossi along the lines of Gordon Banks, Nobby Stiles, Bobby Charlton and Geoff Hurst et all, are a completely different body of men from David Beckham, Steven Gerrard, Michael Owen and Wayne Rooney. Nevertheless the latter group have as much legal right to call themselves England Football Club as the former. The same is true with bands like "Fleetwood Mac", and "The Rolling Stones". Therefore it would be perfectly legal for the two surviving members to get together and call themselves "The Beatles", "The Who" or even "Queen" - and there is nothing old Deaksie could do about it - even if he wanted to. |
| Serry... 12.12.2004 18:51 |
John, I meant ethical side of it... As I know Brian and Roger have met with John before GHIII release and chat about details of that compilation album, so I think they could do the same now. |
| Whatinthewhatthe? 12.12.2004 18:55 |
Notice beside the name/logo Queen that there's no "TM" (for "trademark"). I wonder why they didn't ever do that -- or was it public domain and they couldn't? |
| deleted user 12.12.2004 18:59 |
Whilst John may have no veto concerning the use of the name "Queen" (as John S. Stuart pointed out; however, there could be a completely different legal basis in the case of Queen. Maybe they've had some special agreement when founding Queen Productions or later on...who knows), he will have a say in many things, because - as far as I know - John still does hold joint rights to all things connected with Queen Productions. So it's not that easy. However, John has allegedly given green light to most of what Bri and Rog have been doing throughout the last 6 years, so he might do it this time as well. |
| John S Stuart 12.12.2004 19:07 |
Philipp: I agree with you & think you are correct. I may be wrong, but after the death of Freddie wasn't the "power-base" dived equally among the remaining three? This would mean that effectly as two-thirds of the whole, Deaksie would be vetoed by Roger and Brian every time, and in effect, have no real say at all? (BTW: That's a question - not a statement of fact!) |
| deleted user 12.12.2004 19:32 |
Good point. It's possible, unless they had a rule saying that decisions must be made unanimously. However, I'm pretty sure that even if John could be outvoted on certain issues (like recording a song with Robbie Williams, for example...), there are certain limits where general law would enable John to categorically obstruct no matter what Bri/Rog say. Any sound recordings or products that Queen Productions hold the rights to cannot be used or changed without John's permission. If I'm not mistaken, it is impossible to release any compilation albums (e.g. GH III, Jewels) or album re-masters (miniatures etc...) without John's consent, because he's a joint owner of all of Queen's recordings and copyright law would enable John to prevent any further steps. |
| John S Stuart 12.12.2004 20:02 |
HeM: Queen NEVER recorded in a studio WITHOUT Deacon. Queen were NEVER a success WITHOUT Deacon. Queen's biggest EVER international hit (and it ain't Bo Rhap) WAS written by Deacon. The train of thought here is that Queen are NOT QUEEN without Freddie or the Deackster. Now, I am NOT saying that Brian and Roger and Paul would NOT kick ass... but they are NOT Queen! I mean I like "Star Trek" and I like "The Next Generation". I like "Free" but I also like "Bad Company". I like "Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac" - but I do NOT like "Fleetwood Mac". Now I know that this is all my personal opinion. But for me, Queen II, or Queen Two, or Queen Too, or Queen The Next Generation, but NOT QUEEN!!! |
| Serry... 12.12.2004 20:06 |
<b><font color=red>HeM Gordon</b></font> wrote: If John Deacon doesn't like, fuck him off! When he joined the band they had already played under the name Queen. The band was "Queen" right after Tim left Smile and Freddie joined. So they tried 3 different bassists before finding John. If Queen existed before Deekey, why can't it exist AFTER him?Maybe because John still exists and because those 3 bassists did nothing at all for Queen? |
| egret 12.12.2004 20:12 |
Why can't they tour as Smile? |
| deleted user 12.12.2004 20:16 |
Because they'd need Tim Staffell to join (otherwise it would cause endless moaning yet again) and he most probably won't want to (unless they change their musical concept quite dramatically). Also because Smile is a far too obscure name to virtually anyone outside the hard core of Queen fans. |
| Serry... 12.12.2004 20:16 |
egret wrote: Why can't they tour as Smile?There's a topic about that, egret. I wonder why too |
| Deacons 1st Choice 12.12.2004 20:20 |
i totally agree with you John! QUEEN IS INDEED NOT "QUEEN" WITHOUT DEACY!!!! ...or Freddie either mind you! I think Brian and Roger should do something else as far as a name goes...i mean, like Mr. Stuart suggested above... Call themselves "Queen Again" or "Queen Phoenix"....some OTHER name besides "Queen". Sorry folks, i'm with JS on this one...Queen are'nt Queen with only 2 members man! |
| Brian_Mays_Wig 12.12.2004 20:48 |
John S Stuart wrote: HeM: Queen NEVER recorded in a studio WITHOUT Deacon. Queen were NEVER a success WITHOUT Deacon. Queen's biggest EVER international hit (and it ain't Bo Rhap) WAS written by Deacon. The train of thought here is that Queen are NOT QUEEN without Freddie or the Deackster. Now, I am NOT saying that Brian and Roger and Paul would NOT kick ass... but they are NOT Queen! I mean I like "Star Trek" and I like "The Next Generation". I like "Free" but I also like "Bad Company". I like "Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac" - but I do NOT like "Fleetwood Mac". Now I know that this is all my personal opinion. But for me, Queen II, or Queen Two, or Queen Too, or Queen The Next Generation, but NOT QUEEN!!!well put. |
| FriedChicken 12.12.2004 21:15 |
Boooooooooooooooooooring |
| Sebastian 13.12.2004 03:57 |
In fact, from my point of view, Queen wasn't Queen until John got in. John didn't replace any bass-player, they looked for a bass-player until they found the one. So that's the proper start. Of course that's only an opinion. About the legal thing, I don't think they have to send John papers to sign everytime they do a stupid collaboration as "Queen" + Someone, I suppose he already made a kind of statement about "do what you want", obviously still a lot of money would end up in his pocket. While I think it's good for him not to destroy the image of the band with lousy concerts and flawful duets, I'm a little dissapointed that he couldn't even say "hi" at one of the DVD extras or the Bo Rhap thing. |
| quackboy 13.12.2004 04:07 |
in my opinion, john deacon should be back to queen because many fans will love it and the band don't still so mutilated. deacon is a great composer, bass player! please, mister deacon, come back to the light too! |
| deleted user 13.12.2004 04:22 |
John won't come back.... because he seems to be the only person in the world to accept the simple facts... on 24th of november 1991 Freddie died - and so did QUEEN. |
| The Mir@cle 13.12.2004 04:34 |
I think John wants the best for Roger and Brian, but he doesn't want to be involved by himself because he's concerned about his family. I can understand that. I don't think John have big problems using the name Queen. By the way, they gonna call themselves Queen + Paul Rodger so why do we have this discussion?? |
| trustno1 13.12.2004 04:40 |
Peter Cetera wrote: John won't come back.... because he seems to be the only person in the world to accept the simple facts... on 24th of november 1991 Freddie died - and so did QUEEN.Certainly the only one in Queen to accept that. I agree that John won't come back. He won't do interviews, either. Why would he? He has the money, so I shouldn't think he gives a shit. He isn't a celeb-type, and I get the impression that he hated being interviewed, and only did it out of the requirements of the job. Brian and Roger are a f*cking disgrace. They aren't doing it for the love of making music (they could easily do that under their own names, either solo or together). They're doing it to milk and old, dead, once glorious cow. Money and glory. F*ck the two of them! |
| Lord Blackadder 13.12.2004 06:05 |
Why can't you just let them be Queen? They are not trying to replace Freddie, they just want to play to us fans live for the first time in 18 years. How many times have bands like KISS changed they're line up and their fans don't care because it's still KISS but with differant members. Please leave Brian and Roger be. JOhn effectively left Queen and his say in what the rest of Queen do now wouldnt change anything (i.e. if he said you can't go on tour and they said yes we can, then he can't do anything about it really). And why would he be bothered? If he doesn't want to go on tour with them then that's fine and he wouldn't get involved. And as I've said about 10 times, how many people do you think would pay to see Brian May, Roger Taylor and Paul Rogers? Then compare that too the amount of people who would pay to see Queen. There will be a HUGE amount of differance. Brian and Roger are what is left of Queen. One passed away, another retired. We have 2 of the 4 of the greatest band ever, and more importantly, the greatest live act ever. And although Freddie was THE showman and John was THE cool, calm but effective bass player, it wouldn't have been the same without a screaming guitar; brilliant drumming; a blonde rough voiced, rough haired punk and a NATURALLY curly haired guitar genius (and songwriter extraordinaire). We can't have Freddie, and John is doubtful, but we get the other equally important 2. So please stop complaining about something that is out of your hands. It's their band and their name, they can do as they wish in my book. God Save The Queen... |
| Lord Blackadder 13.12.2004 06:14 |
"Brian and Roger are a f*cking disgrace. They aren't doing it for the love of making music (they could easily do that under their own names, either solo or together). They're doing it to milk and old, dead, once glorious cow. Money and glory. F*ck the two of them!" You are a fucking disgrace mate. They want to make music together, as Queen. The band they both love still. And I doubt very much they need anymore money. And you will eat your words if you see them live. And if a new album comes out in the next few years. It will be great. And you will realise what an idiot you really are. Queen fans are without a doubt the most unlikeable people on earth. O.k not most of you, but some of you are. Other bands fans do nothing but lavish praise on how good their band is/were and if they did a tour they would be greatful and excited. I think I'll go and be a Stones fan. |
| deleted user 13.12.2004 06:20 |
You can't compare it with KISS .... KISS was almost always Paul Stanley and Gene Simmons in the first place ... they had different drummers and guitarists and nobody really would notice it. So as long as those two are on board its working. Also the Rolling Stones are not in their original line-up, but as long as Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are together they ARE the Stones. But speaking of Queen all members were equally important (Freddie even a bit more, because in the public eye FREDDIE WAS QUEEN), and I don't think they would have continued if John, Roger or Brian had died. Also, you rate Brian + Roger a bit too high. Brian's guitar playing was certainly important, but they only really became successful, when Freddie came on board. He wrote most of Queen's early classics and all the grandeur about queen was HIS idea. Even the name came from him..... so I think everybody who says: "Freddie is dead, so what" is entirely ignorant of Queen's history. My god, we didn't even have BoRap, We are the champions, Killer Queen, Somebody To Love and countless other songs!!!!!! |
| The Mir@cle 13.12.2004 06:24 |
"*applauses* FINALLY SOMEBODY AROUND HERE WHO ISN'T NARROW-MINDED!!! :)" Read all my posts... It irritates me that it's always about the name Queen... Brian and Roger want to make music together, let them call themselves whatever they like. |
| deleted user 13.12.2004 06:26 |
To HeM Gordon .... go back and listen to Queen with Britney "Fucking" Spears ... that says everything about Brian and Roger ... embarrassing! |
| Sebastian 13.12.2004 07:07 |
> My God! Freddie died, and so what? So what? the band died with him. > He didn't want the band to die after this! Freddie, Roger, John and Brian had said in tons of interviews through the years very clever statements about "we're a band of four", "we're equally important", "Queen is only Queen with the four of us"...and I still feel that. Queen without Roger isn't Queen. Queen without Brian isn't Queen. Queen without John isn't Queen. Queen without Freddie isn't Queen > Isn't Brian an amazing guitarist? Yes, he's an amazing guitarist, with a great voice. So instead of damaging the name of the band with lousy collaborations he could form a new band or go solo. > Isn't Roger a fantastic drummer? No. He WAS a fantastic drummer. But if you see his drumming at Pavarotti & Friends and their other poor performances of the post-AW/EF era, I think a blind chimpanzee with parkinson plays better. > So why to finish the band? Because it's over > I want to see Queen playin'! But you can't > My fav. guitarist and drummer are members yet, and will perform some of the greatest songs of the world! As John S Stuart said, perhaps B&R kick ass, no doubt about that. The thing is ... they're not Queen > If John left the band, he doesn't have the right of finishing the band! John didn't left. The band died > they just want to play to us fans live for the first time in 18 years. They have played live a lot of times in these 18 years. Moreover if they just do it for the fans and not for being on the news then: a) Why didn't they play at Benidorm and made hundreds of fans spend half a thousand euro to see them and be stood up? b) Why can't they change their name and leave everybody happy? > How many times have bands like KISS changed they're line up and their fans don't care because it's still KISS but with differant members. If you think nobody has complained, then you still have to meet loads and loads of Kiss fans > Please leave Brian and Roger be. Even if we didn't want to "let them be", we can't do anything about it. They already trasehd the name of the band several times, now they'll do it again and nobody we say can stop it. But, at least we have the right to express our disagreement > how many people do you think would pay to see Brian May, Roger Taylor and Paul Rogers? Then compare that too the amount of people who would pay to see Queen. There will be a HUGE amount of differance. Yes. But few lines above you said they did it for the fans. So, if they do it for the fans, it doesn't matter "how many people do you think would pay". With that in mind, they can change the name, because it's for the fans > Brian and Roger are what is left of Queen. If a person loses his brain and his kidneys, no matter his heart and lungs work, he died. Queen was a "four-people-person", and it's over as well. > The band they both love still. The band... or the fact their names and faces appeared on tv? If it's the first, then they wouldn't sell-out as they had done from 2000 onwards. If it's the second, wel,, there you have an explanation for their lousy actions. > And I doubt very much they need anymore money. I don't think they do it for that. In that way we do agree. > And you will eat your words if you see them live. And if a new album comes out in the next few years. It will be great. Great, but not Queen, only Brian, Roger & Someone. Still great, but not Queen. Not better, not worse, just different. Not Queen. >Other bands fans do nothing but lavish praise on how good their band is/were and if they did a tour they would be greatful and excited. That's what I do find stupid. So if Paul McCartney farts in the middle of the concert I have to make a standing ovation? Deep Purple are very famous, and even though they already made their na |
| deleted user 13.12.2004 07:24 |
I do (for the most part) agree with you, Sebastian only two points: concerning KISS I only wanted to point out that they COULD continue without Peter Criss and Ace - Eric Carr was a even a better drummer - but of course many KISS-fans are still complaining about this. And their "new" drummer (Eric Singer) was already their drummer in the early 90s. But Queen could continue without Freddie. the other point: Why does Britney "Fucking" Spears imply that I don't like pop music - I like Madonna, Cyndi Lauper, Ultravox, Duran Duran, A-Ha, The Cars, Spandau Ballett and Prince (amongst others) - what that was good POP-music. Britney Spears and all of todays pop music are shit!!!! |
| deleted user 13.12.2004 07:26 |
to HeM Gordon... you mean that Britney "Fucking" Spears is your idol, you little teenie I prefer Prince and Madonna |
| deleted user 13.12.2004 07:48 |
sorry ... could NOT continue without Freddie .. writing error |
| deleted user 13.12.2004 08:18 |
Run out of ideas after Sebastians posting ?... probably! ... I like Freddie Mercury I hate Britney Spears (but you seem to like it if she does a song with brian and roger - so you are probably a fan of her!!!) |
| Negative Creep 13.12.2004 08:33 |
It all depends on the legal agreement within a band. As far as i'm aware, John DOES have the ability to stop them from using the name Queen. I'm sure there was an agreement that if one band member wasn't happy with something they had the ability to stop it... even if it was 3 against 1. |
| Fenderek 13.12.2004 08:39 |
I don't care- as long as it's not robbie Williams they're playing with but some extremely talented rock legend- they can use name QUEEN, don't mind. PEOPLE- IT'S JUST A FUCKING NAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's the MUSIC that matters. If Freddie means so much to you- it's because of the MUSIC. The name is just it- five fucking letters. Who gives a fuck???!??!?!??!?!??? Spiritr of Freddie will never die. If Brian and Roger wants to tour- I'll be first on the stadium. And not one but few... And couldn't care less what name do they use... It's almost like religion discussions- everyone gets so freaking excited and the only thong we're talking about is NAME. What changed your life- NAME or THE MUSIC that this band was playing...? And if you don't like it- stay home and put on NATO again. I'll see some great show played by Brian, Roger and Paul... And couldn't care less under which banner... I've got more important problems in my life... |
| Negative Creep 13.12.2004 08:40 |
About Brian & Roger using the name.... I guess it wouldn't be so bad if they were still actively MUSICIANS and were at the top of their game. Theyre quite simply not. Roger struggles to play even the simples beats now and he doesn't seem to be able to put any power behind his playing.... Brian isn't the guitarist he once was either.... how could he be? He hasn't played properly for years, theyre out of shape and out of time. |
| Negative Creep 13.12.2004 08:44 |
But its not JUST a name. Theyre hardly going to produce any material with fucking Paul Rodgers that would be on par with even Queens worst material so they should leave it alone and MOVE ON. They aren't doing this for the MUSIC but doing it for the MONEY... surely this is quite clear? |
| deleted user 13.12.2004 08:52 |
COMPLETELY AGREED, Negative Creep |
| Fenderek 13.12.2004 08:57 |
Negative Creep wrote: But its not JUST a name. Theyre hardly going to produce any material with fucking Paul Rodgers that would be on par with even Queens worst material so they should leave it alone and MOVE ON. They aren't doing this for the MUSIC but doing it for the MONEY... surely this is quite clear?No it's not... Paul Rodgers isn't a "catchy" name- half of Queen fans never heard of him...For money was thing with robbie or Britney... For money was The Works (that's my opinion anyway...) This is a great rock guitarist with a great drummer (I'm sure after rehearsing they can put their act together!!!) with a great vocalist. Just for fun and because they enjoy it... I definitely want to be part of it- IMO it's toatlly stupid to dissmiss the thing just becuse of sucha thing as NAME... All I care is the MUSIC- if it will be bad- I'll criticise. If it's going to be good- what else do you want. Whinners- wake up- Fred is not going to be ressurected, alright? |
| Lisser 13.12.2004 09:08 |
the_hero wrote:I don't think this is a boring topic. I think its interesting to hear what all of our different opinions are on the possible upcoming tour of Queen's music with Brian, Roger, and Paul.FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: BoooooooooooooooooooringWell said Mr Fried, well said I'm not very concerned about what they decide to call themselves. I guess I look at the name as more of a label and not as important as how appealing the music will be with out Freddie singing it and John playing the bass on it. I think they should call themselves Queen even though I know its not Queen as a whole and as we knew it bc it will be more marketable to the fans that stopped listening as much when Freddie died. It would be to Roger and Brian's benefit to use the name Queen when they go on tour I think. I guess it would be to John's benefit too if he is to get royalites from them touring. I certainly think they will make more money touring with Queen's name. I could be wrong though. I'm going to make every effort I can to see Brian, Roger, and Paul, etc when the dates are announced. I'm excited to hear what they sound like no matter what name they go by. I do want them to call themselves Queen though. I don't necessarily have a good arguement on why I want it, but I just do. I think Freddie would be ok with it and I'm sure John is ok with it too. It's sort of like a father naming his son after him, an honor. I hope that makes sense. That is just my opinion on this though. I don't expect everyone or anyone to share it with me but if you do, cool. But I definitley don't think this is a boring topic. Its one of the better ones considering the poop that's been on here lately. :) |
| deleted user 13.12.2004 09:10 |
We are not whinners ... but when I go to a concert I want to hear a band (or star) that's more or less intact (that means can perform as they always did, like the Stones, Bowie or Duran Duran to name some from the old guard) .... I also said that I even would watch Brian or Roger (but not with some no-name like Paul Rodgers performing Freddie's stuff) Speaking of "The Works" (which is one of my favourite Queen albums), it wasn´t really done only for the money - without the mega-success of this album they would have been finished worlwide (so it was done to recapture their former glory) - that is a fact many Queen fans rather obmit |
| Negative Creep 13.12.2004 09:13 |
Who said Paul Rodgers was a catchy name? Why would it be a catchy name? It HIS name?! And I think you'll find most "old school" Queen fans will know exactly who he is. It IS about the money, otherwise they wouldn't feel the need to use the name Queen. Come on... Brian & Roger aren't so great anymore... theyd need to rehearse for months and get in shape. If they honestly believed they were great muscians theyd be happy to carry on with solo material, or working together under a different guise. |
| Regor 13.12.2004 09:13 |
They are musicians. They want to make music. They want to perform ! That's it ! And it's good. At least in my opinion. I'm gonna get my tickets the day they go on sale - whatever the name of that Project is. We all know it is not Queen. But I want to see them on stage ! If you don't want to see them - don't buy tickets. |
| Negative Creep 13.12.2004 09:14 |
Christ. I think i'll assume something is getting lost in translation here. |
| Fenderek 13.12.2004 09:25 |
Geez- man Don't like it- don't go Sit at home and listen to Back To The Light and hope for Brian's solo tour... Or just whine about how good they used to be... I don't give a s**t what are they doing for- even if it's really only for money, as long as I'm going to have a great fun at the gig- WHO CARESS!!!???? That's all that matters. If it's going to be good- who cares about the reason? We can't dissmiss it five months before, without seeing it just because of sentiments... That's pretty much my point... Those guys changed my life. But it IS just the name- I love the music, not the banner... |
| deleted user 13.12.2004 09:54 |
I think John Deacon's attitude towards Brian and Roger speaks volumes .... it's not about the name, it's because they want to ressurect something that is gone. They could form a new band or go solo and still play a sort of tribute to Queen's music ... nothing to say against that. But you all have to admit that they have run out of ideas - there is no other reason for their trashing of Queen songs together with the likes of Britney Spears, Robbie or 5ive. |
| Fenderek 13.12.2004 10:08 |
Peter Cetera wrote: But you all have to admit that they have run out of ideas - there is no other reason for their trashing of Queen songs together with the likes of Britney Spears, Robbie or 5ive.But that's the thing- Paul Rodgers isn't 5ive or Britney or Robbie... Geez, they finally want to work with someone REALLY GOOD, some GREAT rock vocalist... Oh, whatever... |
| deleted user 13.12.2004 10:27 |
Okay, partly agreed .... but they should make a public excuse for all the shit they did in the past years (including the lame WWRY-musical and the questionable "Greatest Hits 3") ;-) |
| brENsKi 13.12.2004 12:14 |
nov 1991: queen DID NOT die what dies was a lot of people's ideas of what Queen is but if 50% of the founder members of queen want to keep going then queen did not die. now if the public don't buy thie music/gigs and generally don't buy into it then they may need to rethink their "name" - it's still alive and kicking as an idea until THEY decide to do otherwise, face it people and don't get worked up about what you can't alter |
| boy of destiny 13.12.2004 12:21 |
Well said Sebastian. If Queen+Paul Rodgers were to come to Canada I would definitely go, but the same goes for Brian May. Personally, I think he should stay solo and if Roger wants to join him great, but without Freddie it's not Queen. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 13.12.2004 13:45 |
For the millionth time, yes, Brian and Roger can and will call themselves Queen. Fine. We understand that. But please tell me why the enablers get upset when others (correctly) point out that on every album there was a "Queen is" or "Queen are" credit naming the four band members? It's because THOSE FOUR WERE THE BAND!!! Roy Thomas Bender wasn't in Queen. Spike Edney wasn't in Queen. And Steve Howe wasn't in Queen for Innuendo. If Queen wanted Spike in the band they would have added him. How would that be different from this scenario? It's not. Having said that, it's an interesting choice because Paul Rodgers is a terrfic singer miles removed from Freddie. Can't see him handling the more delicate numbers to be honest. Hopefully that means it'll be a rock show with lots of guitar, no material from Hot Space on, and most importantly, no chick singers. That's the sign a band has lost it. And the final thing that is odd, Freddie was an amazing frontman. Paul Rodgers isn't much of a stage presence. It's going to be bizarre but best of luck to the lot of them. |
| jeff payne 1680 13.12.2004 14:43 |
Well stuff you lot i'm going to go and enjoy myself it will be strnage after seeing queen in 84 and 86 tribute and all the solo tours but hey its going to be fab |
| Sicmot 13.12.2004 14:57 |
If John doesnt want to join them.. he can always gather his biggles time friends together and have his own "queen- continuation tribute/whaterver band".. but I think he rather stays with his family and plays bass on the beach with other boys.. |
| dennis 15767 13.12.2004 15:23 |
John S Stuart wrote: HeM: Queen NEVER recorded in a studio WITHOUT Deacon. Queen were NEVER a success WITHOUT Deacon. Queen's biggest EVER international hit (and it ain't Bo Rhap) WAS written by Deacon. The train of thought here is that Queen are NOT QUEEN without Freddie or the Deackster. Now, I am NOT saying that Brian and Roger and Paul would NOT kick ass... but they are NOT Queen! I mean I like "Star Trek" and I like "The Next Generation". I like "Free" but I also like "Bad Company". I like "Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac" - but I do NOT like "Fleetwood Mac". Now I know that this is all my personal opinion. But for me, Queen II, or Queen Two, or Queen Too, or Queen The Next Generation, but NOT QUEEN!!!Completly true, However after Bo Rhap there are several songs wich are very high. However John wrote a lot of them. And I agree completley bout the Queen II or Queen and a half. Cause Queen isn't Queen without Deacon. Queen would have had millions of fans less without Deacon. Like a good friend of mine would never have bought on Fire if it weren't without John. He wouldn't like Queen without John. Cause it are the songs like another one bites the dust, I want to break free, Back Chat and Friends Will Be Friends wich he adores. Queen are 4 ecual members, wich all worte legendary numder ones. They all where very entertaining. Some people think John is boring, he is not, he's just still, but he's very funny. He's a real London lad, getting a rockers live and it is typical and funny to see that. he also has his very dry funny remarks, like "John what are your dreams?" "Wet". Or as seen in the killerqueen documantary he acts very strange, very funny. a guy in it said, that John once said: "I went into the studio and now I got all this money, what do i have to do with it?" And he is a good bass-player wich fits the other three tremendesly.And John has made the right dession. He knew that Queen wouldn't be Queen without Freddie. So he stopped and prefented a tour with Paul, my voice and performance sucks, Rodgers- He prefented to get a lower namethrough things like the Amsterdam concert, casue evrybody who watched it thought: "I mis Freddie". And now Roger and Brian (don't misunderstand me, they are fucking good) are soiling Queen's (esspecialy Freddie's and bit of John's) legacy. They should be stopped doing that. And that all can be prefented by using a different name. John is the smartest one, sertenly. By The Way wouldn't it be horrible that after a long year of waiting on another release that release would be Queen and Paul Rodgers? |
| CAB 13.12.2004 15:53 |
.....first of all, i´d like to introduce myself, as this is going to be my first posting in this Community: I am an 28 years old Queen fan from Germany .....the first thing i thought, when Roger and Brian announced the so called Queen-tour in spring on German TV-Show "Wetten Dass?": "Great and unbelievable"........Then i thought about John and who would have the burden to step in Freddie´s too large footsteps?.......then i read about this Paul Rodgers.....and i thougt "Paul Who???"......... I have never heard about this guy........but maybe there more commonly known singers in the world?! I think as well that Queen is not Queen without Freddie and John. But if they tour, i maybe will go to the show, because i never had the chance seeing "Queen" live on stage. I would rather see the three remaining Queen members on stage on their own or with somebody i know. And as on link can be seen songs by this Rodgers guy are played as well, this destroys my idea of what a Queen tour should be.........Queen have too many own songs that should be played....... ....besides.....i liked the show on TV........it rocked and for me it was very emotionally....:) |
| deleted user 13.12.2004 15:58 |
That's why they call it a Queen & Paul Rodgers-tour rather than a Queen tour. Paul Rodgers is an internationally famous and acclaimed singer. You don't HAVE to know him, but he's certainly far from being a nobody. Most importantly, however, there have been several collaborations between Brian and Paul throughout the last years, both on stage and in the studio, so he should be well-known to Queen fans anyway |
| Serry... 13.12.2004 17:34 |
Fenderek wrote: Geez- man Don't like it- don't go Sit at home and listen to Back To The Light and hope for Brian's solo tour... Or just whine about how good they used to be... I don't give a s**t what are they doing for- even if it's really only for money, as long as I'm going to have a great fun at the gig- WHO CARESS!!!???? That's all that matters. If it's going to be good- who cares about the reason? We can't dissmiss it five months before, without seeing it just because of sentiments... That's pretty much my point... Those guys changed my life. But it IS just the name- I love the music, not the banner...You forgot to tell us how The Works is shitty again... I think you should change your nickname to 'All Queen/Solo albums are crap and you all have to sit at home and never go to Brian/Roger gigs'... |
| Serry... 13.12.2004 17:38 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: BoooooooooooooooooooringDon't read it. There's a lot of topics you'd like to post and read... About gay song writers, blowjobs, size of Freddie's cock etc. |
| Serry... 13.12.2004 17:44 |
As I understand for some of Queen fans doesn't matter who plays under Queen name... 50% of Queen is Queen... Well.. So now we have to name Killing Time, How Can I Go On, Love Lies Bleeding, some of Elton John's tracks, half of Billy Squier's songs, Nothin' But Blue etc. as Queen songs... There's 50% of Queen on it! |
| NOTWMEDDLE 13.12.2004 18:09 |
Pink Floyd still have 3/4 of their classic lineup. Nick Mason and Rick Wright are the only two Floyd members to perform every Pink Floyd concert despite the fact Rick was kicked out in 1979 by Roger Waters. David Gilmour, contrary to popular belief, didn't replace Syd he was the fifth member of the band for a few months and lasted five shows. The only way Pink Floyd would tour is if they have a new album as the band members have repeatedly stated quote "the day we tour with no new music is the day we become a nostalgia band", end quote. Rick and Nick want to do another tour, David is occupied with family issues at the moment and recording on an undisclosed project. Also rumors of a Floyd tour in 2005 are swirling and Nick(the drummer) states the Floyd will tour once more then retire. I pray and wish these Queen shows with Paul Rodgers hits the US. |
| Want To Live Forever 13.12.2004 18:09 |
We all know John is NOT coming back to Queen We Do We all understand Paul Rodgers is not replacing Freddie We all know Brian and roger are NOT Queen but IMO Brian and Roger can't be called QUEEN without John. They can't play I want to break free, or Another one bites the dust (one of queen's biggest hits), or any other song written by John... Why? because there are limitations. Why? because they are NOT Queen! Remember Jimmy Page and Robert Plant touring under the name "Page & Plant" That's excellent!!! What's next? A new Queen album without John? Think of it... May and Taylor could be touring under the name "Regal Heritage" anyway i hoope they do things right. |
| NOTWMEDDLE 13.12.2004 18:15 |
BHM 0271 wrote: For the millionth time, yes, Brian and Roger can and will call themselves Queen. Fine. We understand that. But please tell me why the enablers get upset when others (correctly) point out that on every album there was a "Queen is" or "Queen are" credit naming the four band members? It's because THOSE FOUR WERE THE BAND!!! Roy Thomas Bender wasn't in Queen. Spike Edney wasn't in Queen. And Steve Howe wasn't in Queen for Innuendo. If Queen wanted Spike in the band they would have added him. How would that be different from this scenario? It's not. Having said that, it's an interesting choice because Paul Rodgers is a terrfic singer miles removed from Freddie. Can't see him handling the more delicate numbers to be honest. Hopefully that means it'll be a rock show with lots of guitar, no material from Hot Space on, and most importantly, no chick singers. That's the sign a band has lost it. And the final thing that is odd, Freddie was an amazing frontman. Paul Rodgers isn't much of a stage presence. It's going to be bizarre but best of luck to the lot of them.Pink Floyd added female backing singers for the 1973 Dark Side of the Moon and 1974/75 Wish You Were Here tours but then dropped the female singers for the Animals tour. Then had four male singers for The Wall shows in 1980 and 1981 and then brought the female singers back for the 1987/88/89/90 and 1994 tours. Queen don't need female backing singers. |
| Sebastian 13.12.2004 18:19 |
Prophetic words by a very clever person: Freddie Mercury (Circus Magazine, late 1977): "If anyone left Queen, anyone of the four, that would be the end of Queen. We are four equal, interwoven parts. And the others just couldn't function the same without each quarter." ---- And this is by a person who was very clever, now he got brainwashed... Brian (Dutch TV, 1992): "I think the only future is the past really. I think there's a great future for the Queen material, and I hope it will always live in some form. But I don't think we can go out and -be- Queen. It doesn't make sense. Without Freddie there isn't a 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." |
| Melancholy Blues 13.12.2004 21:27 |
john is just as much a part of queen as the others are. if brian and roger want to tour and magic new music, great, start a new band with them and paul rodgers and others, but don't call it queen and don't play queen songs written by either freddie or john. |
| Fenderek 14.12.2004 03:40 |
Serry Funster wrote:And in the quote there is a sentence "I LOVE THE MUSIC NOT THE BANNER"... Do you understand English...? Or are you just stupid...?Fenderek wrote: Geez- man Don't like it- don't go Sit at home and listen to Back To The Light and hope for Brian's solo tour... Or just whine about how good they used to be... I don't give a s**t what are they doing for- even if it's really only for money, as long as I'm going to have a great fun at the gig- WHO CARESS!!!???? That's all that matters. If it's going to be good- who cares about the reason? We can't dissmiss it five months before, without seeing it just because of sentiments... That's pretty much my point... Those guys changed my life. But it IS just the name- I love the music, not the banner...You forgot to tell us how The Works is shitty again... I think you should change your nickname to 'All Queen/Solo albums are crap and you all have to sit at home and never go to Brian/Roger gigs'... |
| Queenman!! 14.12.2004 04:39 |
John stands behind Roger and Brian, except the single we are the champions with Robby Williams he wasn't satisfied, but overall it's okay for him. He just don't like to be involved with Queen anymore. Instead he prefers to sit on a chair and being entertained by some female strippers or watching television with his 5 kids! |
| Queenman!! 14.12.2004 04:42 |
John stands behind Roger and Brian, except the single we are the champions with Robby Williams he wasn't satisfied, but overall it's okay for him. He just don't like to be involved with Queen anymore. Instead he prefers to sit on a chair and being entertained by some female strippers or watching television with his 5 kids! |
| YourValentine 14.12.2004 05:02 |
Why should John Deacon have a problem with the upcoming tour when he did not have a problem with the musical, the Pepsi commercial , the collaboration with 5ive etc etc. I have a feeling he is not half as fanatic about the "legend" and "heritage" of a band (which was only a band, for heaven's sake) as some fans. Why should anyone get a heart attack over the question how they name themselves? If the tour is good, it will be a success, otherwise it will be a failure, so why worry in advance? |
| Oberon62AU 14.12.2004 08:52 |
I think you will find that legally EMI or whichever record company is involved will not need John's permission. I guess it depends on how Queen Productions was set up, but these days probably John's only involvement is collecting his royalties for song-writing and performance.
It certainly seems as if Jim Beach can licence Queen tracks for compilations etc [not Queen ones but Various Artist ones] as their business manager etc without much involvement at all from the band.
Steve
Philipp Nothaft wrote: Good point. It's possible, unless they had a rule saying that decisions must be made unanimously. However, I'm pretty sure that even if John could be outvoted on certain issues (like recording a song with Robbie Williams, for example...), there are certain limits where general law would enable John to categorically obstruct no matter what Bri/Rog say. Any sound recordings or products that Queen Productions hold the rights to cannot be used or changed without John's permission. If I'm not mistaken, it is impossible to release any compilation albums (e.g. GH III, Jewels) or album re-masters (miniatures etc...) without John's consent, because he's a joint owner of all of Queen's recordings and copyright law would enable John to prevent any further steps. |
| Oberon62AU 14.12.2004 09:10 |
This is what I dont understand... Freddie is dead. John has retired and no longer publicly wants anything to do with performing/being in Queen. In effect, as far as being in Queen goes, by his own choice, he also is dead to Queen. [More power to him - it is his life to live as he chooses. There is no reason for him ever to comment on this tour, because if he does, he becomes involved again, and he obviously doesnt want to be. Besides - unless it was on video, some fuckwit or other around here who disagreed with him would insist he was 'forced' to agree or some other such paranoid bullshit].
So... no Freddie, no John. All that is left is Brian and Roger publicly continuing the band they have been in all their adult lives. So now they want to go on tour - and I say good luck to them!! Freddie cannot be 'replaced'. But he isnt here - cant be here. They are not going back and replacing him - they are going forward and continuing on without him because they have no choice. Same with John. He hasnt given them a choice in the matter. He retired. His decision. I think its a disgrace the crap Brian and Roger have had poured on them because they didnt have the decency to die when Freddie did, because some people here have to deal with the fact that they are now doing things that these fans disapprove of. Well... youre gonna have to deal with it guys, cos this tour is gonna happen. Go - dont go. Doesnt matter to me. But I think its terrible the way that Brian and Rogers contributions to Queen are being denigrated regularly now like some form of revisionist history because Freddie is dead. Im damn sure Freddie would never have allowed it if he were alive.
Steve
PS As for your comment below Mr Chicago, it wasnt that they only became successful when Freddie came on board, it was that they only became Queen when they formed the band and John joined also. Thats when Queen happened.
<b><font color="red">Peter Cetera</b> wrote: But speaking of Queen all members were equally important (Freddie even a bit more, because in the public eye FREDDIE WAS QUEEN), and I don't think they would have continued if John, Roger or Brian had died. Also, you rate Brian + Roger a bit too high. Brian's guitar playing was certainly important, but they only really became successful, when Freddie came on board. He wrote most of Queen's early classics and all the grandeur about queen was HIS idea. Even the name came from him..... so I think everybody who says: "Freddie is dead, so what" is entirely ignorant of Queen's history. My god, we didn't even have BoRap, We are the champions, Killer Queen, Somebody To Love and countless other songs!!!!!! |
| gabriel79 14.12.2004 09:30 |
if they'll make a concert in my house i won't see it. for chrissake,rog and brian are old and out of shape and paul "whos this guy" rodgers can't sing queen numbers. i'd like to hear they'll call themself rodgers taylor.....sorry,i am kidding. agree with plant+page they're DEFINETELY not queen |
| Serry... 14.12.2004 09:48 |
YourValentine wrote: Why should John Deacon have a problem with the upcoming tour when he did not have a problem with the musical, the Pepsi commercial , the collaboration with 5ive etc etc. I have a feeling he is not half as fanatic about the "legend" and "heritage" of a band (which was only a band, for heaven's sake) as some fans. Why should anyone get a heart attack over the question how they name themselves? If the tour is good, it will be a success, otherwise it will be a failure, so why worry in advance?YV, I don't think he should have a problem about it, I think he has to say his opinion about it. If he'd say "I'm so happy at my home and I wish luck to Brian and Roger on their tour, sorry but I can't be there" - there'll be no problem at all! I just think Brian and Roger have to tell us what John thinks about it and why he's not involved in it, that's all. Is it too hard for them? |
| ~Blue_Acid~ 14.12.2004 12:02 |
the same thing happened with pink floyd, roger water tried sueing but gilmore, mason and the others still got the name. I hope john plays rather then complain and sue |
| Cwazy little thing 14.12.2004 13:01 |
Lets be honest guys - there are no plans to release new material under the name Queen with any other singer or bassist - thats a place NO ONE will, or ever could go. Queen as a music writing/recording entity will never go beyond Brian/Roger for special occasions, nor will they ever release an album, as 2 irreplacable members are gone. In that sense Queen are gone. BUT: As far as performing live - let em use the name - they are one half of Queen performing Queen songs with Paul Rogers - to me it seems sensible to call it Queen and Paul Rogers. Live performances are merely the fantastic oppurtunity for us real fans to see the performers we love playing the music we love - Freddie may be gone, but I for one will relish the chance to see Brian and Roger perform Queen songs, and though I will never say I saw the "true Queen" live, I'll have no problems with ultimately what is simply as has been said - "just a name". Queen are, and forever will be, as a music making entity, the original four members - nothing will ever change that. |
| Fenderek 14.12.2004 13:04 |
BHM 0271 wrote: Hopefully that means it'll be a rock show with lots of guitar, no material from Hot Space on, and most importantly, no chick singers. That's the sign a band has lost it. .I can say only one thing- "FINALLY!!!" I want ROCK GIG!!! I want songs like SSC or White Man. If they don't play AKOM- i won't cry... |
| deakys ghost 14.12.2004 13:11 |
I'm sure there's a part of John who misses the buzz of recording and touring but too much water has gone unfer the bridge for him to return now, would be great though. I'm sure the increased royalties will help him though and ease the pain ha ha! As for Pink Floyd they established a post 1987 company to deal with their new recordings to avoid Waters having any control/rows over copyright. I assume that Deacon remains a director of Queen Productions as a directorship is for life (?). I further assume that Mary Austin inherited Freddie's share of the company and this is controlled on her behalf by Beach. I would suggest that Johns permission is all that is required for Taylor and May to use the name. |
| Lisser 14.12.2004 13:18 |
I doubt John will complain or sue. I'm sure he is fine with whatever Brian and Roger do. If they sound horrible and make asses of themselves, he's not up there with them making an ass of himself. If they make millions off the tour or new material, he'll collect his part of the money. Nothing can go wrong for John this way. Smart guy...but for the record, I DO wish he'd come out of retirement and play. I don't blame him though for not. Wasn't John Queen's accountant for a bit in the early days? I thought I heard that somewhere. I'm probably wrong though. |
| deakys ghost 14.12.2004 13:45 |
John was rumoured to have been the band spokesman way back in the early days until they realised that he said bugger all! never heard of him dealing with the finance of the group in the early years but he's a man of mystery is Deacon John, anythings possible...except a tour! |
| trustno1 15.12.2004 05:08 |
Lord Blackadder wrote: "Brian and Roger are a f*cking disgrace. [snip] You are a fucking disgrace mate. They want to make music together, as Queen. The band they both love still. And I doubt very much they need anymore money. And you will eat your words if you see them live. And if a new album comes out in the next few years. It will be great. And you will realise what an idiot you really are. Queen fans are without a doubt the most unlikeable people on earth. O.k not most of you, but some of you are. Other bands fans do nothing but lavish praise on how good their band is/were and if they did a tour they would be greatful and excited. I think I'll go and be a Stones fan.I'm not interested in seeing Queen without Freddie Mercury. As a concept, Queen without Freddie is laughable. Think about it! Certain people can be replaced; certain people can't. |
| deleted user 15.12.2004 09:34 |
deakys ghost wrote: John was rumoured to have been the band spokesman way back in the early days until they realised that he said bugger all! never heard of him dealing with the finance of the group in the early years but he's a man of mystery is Deacon John, anythings possible...except a tour!It's true though. John was the one in control of the business-side, taking important financial decisions, pretty much all the way through. He even had the odd spokesman-moment. In Sao Paolo, for instance, he publicly expressed the band's dismay at the fact that they weren't allowed to play Maracana-stadium in Rio. It's strange, John is generally said to be rather shy and uncommuncative, but there are many moments that seem to contradict this image, where he appears to be surprisingly lively and talkative. |
| Lisser 15.12.2004 09:50 |
I agree with you Phillip...I'm wondering if anyone knows what worldy topics do get John's attention. I wonder if he has a special interest in aiding poverty, removing land mines, environmental issues, etc. I'm sure we can assume he is interested in helping financially to find a cure for AIDS/HIV. I guess its possible that he just sits at home and watches movies all day!! He is entitled I suppose. I just wonder how he manages to stay out of the press' eye so well, he's got to leave his home some time. Is the press not interested in stalking John? Good on him if they aren't. He's lucky. If I had money like John Deacon, I'd be out spending it on vacations, shopping, etc. I wonder what he does with his time. He is an interesting character. It seems like very few things bother him but the occasional issue that comes up he will speak strongly about if it moves him. |
| jeff payne 1680 15.12.2004 10:39 |
Nope 5 years ago John agreed to Brian and Roger using the Queen name. He's happy with them using the name to do with what ever they want. He is still a member of Queen productions and usually attends board meetings every 2 - 3 years |
| Rotwang 15.12.2004 10:45 |
No they don't. He does, however, have to be paid royalties. |
| Want To Live Forever 16.12.2004 22:14 |
We all know John is NOT coming back to Queen We Do We all understand Paul Rodgers is not replacing Freddie We all know Brian and roger are NOT Queen but IMO Brian and Roger can't be called QUEEN without John. They can't play I want to break free, or Another one bites the dust (one of queen's biggest hits), or any other song written by John... Why? because there are limitations. Why? because they are NOT Queen! Just because as Queen they can make more bucks on a tour than with a diffrent name is not a valid reason!!!!!!!!!! Remember Jimmy Page and Robert Plant touring under the name "Page & Plant" That's excellent!!! What's next? A new Queen album without John? Think of it... May and Taylor could be touring under the name "Regal Heritage" anyway i hoope they do things right. |
| Norman 19.12.2004 14:28 |
John S Stuart wrote: "I may be wrong, but after the death of Freddie wasn't the "power-base" dived equally among the remaining three? This would mean that effectly as two-thirds of the whole, Deaksie would be vetoed by Roger and Brian every time, and in effect, have no real say at all?" (Sorry but I haven't worked out how to quote on this board) In his will Freddie passed his control in any companies to Jim Beach. That means the decision making members of Queen are now Brian, Roger, John and Jim Beach. Depending on how "Queen" is organised it may be that any one member can veto any decision. I'd be interested to know if that is the case. |
| ryancoke 21.12.2004 04:09 |
Deacon = UNDERRATED! In fact, I hear that where he lives, nobody recognizes him as the fantasmic bassist of Queen. Any truth to this? |