| Russian Headlong 18.12.2004 05:50 |
Sure there is no Freddie and of course messrs Taylor and May know that, Deacon is entitled to carry on as a recluse thats his right. What pisses me off is that so many people on this site have a snooty, sneering attitude that going on tour as Queen without FM is heresy. AC/DC lost their frontman and continued to evn greater heights despite the fact that Bon Scott is still revered as a legend The WHO- Daltry and Townsend still plan to tour as the Who despite no Moon and Entwhistle. INXS- Touring without Hutchence THIN LIZZY- Touring minus Phil Lynott, thats probably the closest comparison to Queen minus Fred. BLACK SABBATH, LYNYRD SKYNYRD toured with just one founder member. Face it, why not hear Queen's songs from two original members playing,Quo and Kiss have been playing with just two for years and it has not stopped their popularity. Rogers is a great choice not some pop dick like RW or George Michael and lets face it Taylor/May have made some terrible collaborations in the past few years, 5IVE, RW, pepsi ad oh dear! Time to get back on track. Rock til ya drop! Surely the band has to be called TaylorMay de |
| Daburcor? 18.12.2004 06:17 |
What makes George Michael a dick? The fact that he's an awesome singer? |
| Russian Headlong 18.12.2004 06:30 |
WHAM! Need I say more, Oh sorry he makes serious music now doesn't he. Sure he did somebody to love well at the freddie tribute but look at the pap he turns out, its awful. |
| Daburcor? 18.12.2004 06:54 |
"WHAM!" has some pretty damn good tunes as well. I can see this turning into an argument, So I'll leave now. |
| Sebastian 18.12.2004 07:47 |
I love Wham and think they're cracking. But that's another point. In relation to this: yes many bands have toured or recorded without some of their key members (the most particular case is Aerosmith without Perry in 1978), but the idea of Queen with no Freddie or John is laughable imo, just like INXS without Michael, just ridiculous. Page & Plant surely kick ass, but they're that, Page & Plant, no Led Zeppelin. Before I used to think that the two of them + Roger, Brian & John were the only intelligent people in rock. Well, and the ex-Beatles but they were probably because they didn't need to perform as Beatles to be recognised. When Elton announce George & Ringo at Prince's Trust people already knew who they were. Phil introduced the formed Led Zeppelin guys not as "Led Zeppelin", but as "Robert Plant, Jimmy Page & John Paul Jones" (not neccesarily in that order). So, until 2000 Page, Plant, May, Taylor and Deacon were the only intelligent people in rock. Now, it's only Page, Plant & Deacon. |
| Sonja 18.12.2004 07:48 |
Russian Headlong wrote: WHAM! Need I say more, Oh sorry he makes serious music now doesn't he. Sure he did somebody to love well at the freddie tribute but look at the pap he turns out, its awful.His music may not be the best, I agree. I don't like his style. But that doesn't change the fact that he's an awesome singer with a brilliant voice who's able to sing Queen songs that it makes the hair on your neck go up (Somebody to love) because it's damn similar to Freddie's way of singing. Thinking about it... George Michael would've been a better choice IMO. And all the bands you mentioned in your post are not half as good as they were in the early days. Especially The Who. IMO they could do without Entwistle but not without Keith Moon! |
| iGSM 18.12.2004 07:57 |
There's not the irrelevant babble between songs with out Keith Moon. Ox would still be great to have..but dieing does stuff some things up. |
| the oppositionist 18.12.2004 08:01 |
Russian Headlong wrote: Sure there is no Freddie and of course messrs Taylor and May know that, Deacon is entitled to carry on as a recluse thats his right. What pisses me off is that so many people on this site have a snooty, sneering attitude that going on tour as Queen without FM is heresy. AC/DC lost their frontman and continued to evn greater heights despite the fact that Bon Scott is still revered as a legend The WHO- Daltry and Townsend still plan to tour as the Who despite no Moon and Entwhistle. INXS- Touring without Hutchence THIN LIZZY- Touring minus Phil Lynott, thats probably the closest comparison to Queen minus Fred. BLACK SABBATH, LYNYRD SKYNYRD toured with just one founder member. Face it, why not hear Queen's songs from two original members playing,Quo and Kiss have been playing with just two for years and it has not stopped their popularity. Rogers is a great choice not some pop dick like RW or George Michael and lets face it Taylor/May have made some terrible collaborations in the past few years, 5IVE, RW, pepsi ad oh dear! Time to get back on track. Rock til ya drop! Surely the band has to be called TaylorMay deyou have a good point here. its all about the brand name. fewer people would go if you called it brian may and roger taylor with paul rogers, because less people know them by name. i was discussing a similar point the other day |
| Whisperer 18.12.2004 15:46 |
Queen was 100% Freddie's band. Everything from the multi-meaning name was made his way. Freddie was Queen. If all other members died, Freddie could get some new guys and call themselves Queen. When Freddie is gone, there's no Queen. He was the voice and the face of Queen. The other guys in Queen owe their success to Freddie (they've even admitted this). Now you will of course say that they were all evenly important for the success. They weren't. Just look at what happened after Freddie's death. The saddest part about this new "exciting" tour/album thing is that lots of kids will think that Queen kicked out that fag with the moustache and replaced him with Rodgers. Believe me, there are many people for whom it's a huge surprise that the guy who sang TSMGO, WATC, WWRY and Gaga died 13 years ago. For me, the last Queen concert took place at Knebworth 1986. Any concert after that is something totally different from a Queen concert. |
| Hankster 18.12.2004 16:01 |
Whisperer wrote: Now you will of course say that they were all evenly important for the success. They weren't. Just look at what happened after Freddie's death.They where friends. I'm certain that Freddie would've said the same when Johnny, Roger or Bri died, and that they wouldn't go back to the studio and do a tour for some years .. but people would accept a new Queen with the same frontman much easier than with the same drummer and guitarist; he's the person who is the face of tha band, he has the leading role. But for me, ALL four members are not replaceable, if you want to compair this new Queen to the old one. The old one was unique and the combination of those various talents made the band we love. You can never have that back when one of these man die, no matter which one. But that doesn't say that they can never go on with some-one else .. just see this as a new chapter in the long history of Queen. This is a new Queen. I would've said the same when Bri died in 1991 and they did a tour with a new guitarist. It's not the old Queen, but it's still Queen. |
| Sonja 18.12.2004 16:27 |
Whisperer wrote: Queen was 100% Freddie's band. Everything from the multi-meaning name was made his way. Freddie was Queen. If all other members died, Freddie could get some new guys and call themselves Queen. When Freddie is gone, there's no Queen. He was the voice and the face of Queen. The other guys in Queen owe their success to Freddie (they've even admitted this). Now you will of course say that they were all evenly important for the success. They weren't. Just look at what happened after Freddie's death. The saddest part about this new "exciting" tour/album thing is that lots of kids will think that Queen kicked out that fag with the moustache and replaced him with Rodgers. Believe me, there are many people for whom it's a huge surprise that the guy who sang TSMGO, WATC, WWRY and Gaga died 13 years ago. For me, the last Queen concert took place at Knebworth 1986. Any concert after that is something totally different from a Queen concert.Nah.. I wouldn't say Freddie was 100% Queen. He alone was 50% maybe...He attracted the people with his voice and stage performance. Of course also with his musical talent... But he wouldn't have gotten that far without the others. Queen wouldn't have been what they were without Roger's, Brian's and John's input, despite of Freddie's great talent and stage persona but don't forget the great songs Roger, John and especially Brian contributed. Plus, Freddie could play piano. But Queen were a rockband. Not to imagine Queen without Brian's great guitar skills! Or Roger's drums or John's bass! So 50% of Queen are still here (although one of them is hidden somewhere) so they are able to put up a great show. We shouldn't always compare with Queen of '86 and before cos we won't get the same band, that's for sure. But I'm still not convinced that this tour thing is a good idea. We should remember Queen as they were when they stopped. |
| AlexRocks 18.12.2004 16:37 |
Queen were NOT Freddie Mercury's solo band! All four members collaborated in songwritting and three of the four sang AND Brian and Roger have ALSO had successful solo albums and tours. Listen Freddie made some choices and there were consiquences to them like all that we make and life. Other people can suffer from the ones we make but there is no reason why the other members have to take complete responsibility for Freddie's mistakes. So hail, hail! And long live Queen! |
| Sebastian 18.12.2004 20:11 |
I don't think Roger had a successful solo career. Unfortunately, because it's my favourite and it deserves way more attention. Perhaps if Roger & Brian would have had the success they deserved with wonderful albums such as Electric Fire and Another world, they wouldn't be messing up with the band's name right now |
| LadyMoonshineDown 18.12.2004 20:23 |
Well, whatever happens will happen, regardless of what we computerites think of it all. I understand the views of those who think Queen going on tour will be a bad thing, and I can understand those who feel that it makes no difference. But really folks....in the long run.... Anyone who means anything in the music business isn't going to give a rats ass, regardless. so let us bicker on! I enjoy it. ;) Cheers |
| L-R-TIGER1994 18.12.2004 20:35 |
Freddie was unique,I don't care what the other bands do. |
| deleted user 18.12.2004 20:42 |
Whisperer: Queen was far from being Freddie's band. Of course BRJ owe they success to Freddie, but so did Freddie to BRJ. They all depended on EACH OTHER. I'm sure Freddie wouldn't have denied that he owed his success to BRJ as well. His entire behaviour speaks against it. He always stressed that he was NOT the frontman, but merely the singer of the group. In interviews he was the first to admit that they worked democratically as a unit. He didn't lapse into autocratic behaviour, never considered Queen to be "his" band. Freddie respected and encouraged well-balanced creative input from all four and their albums reflect that. And he did so, because he KNEW that couldn't achieve the same without the others. The sum is greater than the parts, that was part of the band's credo. Of course, he wrote Bohemian Rhapsody and WATC, but there's so much more to Queen than that, especially looking at were they came from. There's some reason to doubt that Freddie would've made it without BRJ just as much as there's reason to doubt the others would've made it without Freddie. Both Smile AND Freddie weren't going anywhere before they joined forces. And Freddie took quite a while until he developed into the brilliant singer and artist we know. He was lucky to have the band as a backdrop during the earliest years that gave him time to evolve. Both Brian and Roger could theoretically have found convenient places in other fairly successful bands, being the excellent instrumentalists they were. Especially Brian would've had enough offers. It was also him who used to impress people most in the early days (both Smile and Queen), whereas Freddie had his fair share of bad performances in the beginning. Freddie was far from being a musician "in demand" in 1970, his pre-Queen history shows this quite clearly. He was very lucky to find two guys who were willing to try it with this flamboyant and ambitious character, willing and CAPABLE to pursue some of his articstic visions with him. And they influenced EACH OTHER. They evolved TOGETHER. They formed a musical symbiosis. It's all about chemistry. One of the most important things about Queen is, that they were a tight live-unit. Does anyone seriously think that Fred + three other guys could have come anywhere near FBRJ on stage ? Even if Freddie would've managed to start a successful career one day without BRJ, it wouldn't have been a patch on what Queen were, both articistically and commercially. To say that Freddie could have been Queen with other musicians would be abstruse, IMHO. |
| FriedChicken 18.12.2004 20:46 |
I've said it before and I'll say it again....BOOOOOOOOORING Brian and Roger have been working their ass off for the band for 30 years. So they have the fucking right to keep on playing even when one of the people in that band has died. Did Coca Cola stop to excist when the one of the founding people died? |
| deleted user 18.12.2004 20:58 |
It will be nice to go and see Queen tour next year but it just won't be the same without Freddie. And Johns gone too which will make it even less like Queen. Sure It'll still be good though. I'm looking forwardto this new tour as i'll be seeing them next year (hopefully). |
| Whisperer 19.12.2004 03:57 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: Did Coca Cola stop to excist when the one of the founding people died?No, but I'm pretty sure Coca Cola will stop to excist when the coca plants dissapear from Earth. Of course it might change into Coca Cola + green tea, but that just isn't the same, is it? |
| deleted user 19.12.2004 04:44 |
Sonja wrote:You are so right. Freddie was not the only one in the band. He did great things and could reach a lot of people on stage... but the other tree did a great job too. If you can't imagion Queen without Freddie, could you imagine Queen without Brian? or ROger? or John?Whisperer wrote: Queen was 100% Freddie's band. Everything from the multi-meaning name was made his way. Freddie was Queen. If all other members died, Freddie could get some new guys and call themselves Queen. When Freddie is gone, there's no Queen. He was the voice and the face of Queen. The other guys in Queen owe their success to Freddie (they've even admitted this). Now you will of course say that they were all evenly important for the success. They weren't. Just look at what happened after Freddie's death. The saddest part about this new "exciting" tour/album thing is that lots of kids will think that Queen kicked out that fag with the moustache and replaced him with Rodgers. Believe me, there are many people for whom it's a huge surprise that the guy who sang TSMGO, WATC, WWRY and Gaga died 13 years ago. For me, the last Queen concert took place at Knebworth 1986. Any concert after that is something totally different from a Queen concert.Nah.. I wouldn't say Freddie was 100% Queen. He alone was 50% maybe...He attracted the people with his voice and stage performance. Of course also with his musical talent... But he wouldn't have gotten that far without the others. Queen wouldn't have been what they were without Roger's, Brian's and John's input, despite of Freddie's great talent and stage persona but don't forget the great songs Roger, John and especially Brian contributed. Plus, Freddie could play piano. But Queen were a rockband. Not to imagine Queen without Brian's great guitar skills! Or Roger's drums or John's bass! So 50% of Queen are still here (although one of them is hidden somewhere) so they are able to put up a great show. We shouldn't always compare with Queen of '86 and before cos we won't get the same band, that's for sure. But I'm still not convinced that this tour thing is a good idea. We should remember Queen as they were when they stopped. And this isn't the only band in the world that lost a member. I know that this tour will not be as same as when they were 4 of them still in the band. But why don't accept that they just wanna go touring. I was only 2 years old when Freddie died and I never got to see them live. This may be the only chance for us, the young fans, to see them live and if you are not happy with it, then just shut up and leave the disscussions to us :) |
| Whisperer 19.12.2004 05:25 |
Yes, I can imagine Queen without Roger, Brian and especially John. |
| Sebastian 19.12.2004 05:29 |
Thinking about it, PERHAPS Fred's contribution to the quality, success and sound of Queen was bigger than the other's, considering he was the dominant songwriter and arranger, and he played piano (which is the main instrument in many Queen classics) and sang both lead and many harmonies (e.g. in Love Of My Life it's only him). But his contribution is still smaller than the sum of the contribution of Roger, Brian and John imo. Still, I said it before and I'll say it again: Queen without Freddie is absurd. Even Aerosmith culd exist for a little while without Joe (even though it was just one year), but without Steven it couldn't live imo. So, yes, Fred isn't Queen, same as a brain is not a person. But, without the brain, the person dies. There's still heart, legs, arms, lungs, kidneys... but the person is bloody dead. So is the band |
| QUEEN11 19.12.2004 05:36 |
of all these band's mentioned,i'd say the only one that worked was ac/dc,the rest are just a joke,and maybe the ac/dc thing worked,was because they never really stopped at all,brian more or less stepped in straight away,but with queen now going to tour 14 years after freddie died,it's kind of sore to accept.not that it would have been any easier if it would have happened say back in 92,but after all these years,everyone lived with the fond memories of original queen,and with brian saying in lots of various interviews over the years they COULD'NT tour as queen again,but now they are and specially for the older fan's it makes it hard to accept..maybe once we get over the shock of it we'll think differant??just maybe..for all of us queen were,and still are legend's,we all still enjoy the music/watching the video's etc..i for one wish it would stay that way.. |
| Hankster 19.12.2004 05:49 |
QUEEN11 wrote: i for one wish it would stay that way..than stay wtaching the dvd's and listening to the old cd's .. you don't HAVE to go to the concerts, read Bri's soapbox, read the articles and topics about news of the tour, listen to the new studio cd, listen to the new live cd, and watch the new live dvd :p Just watch and listen what you want, but people, don't try to judge what's good or wrong for the band and discuss if the band even still excists(although Bri and Roger won't ever read all this, and I think they don't even care) |
| danielbuzz69 19.12.2004 05:52 |
Freddie is quoted as saying many many times that Queen is NOT just him and that it's comprised of four great musicians. As he said in Brazil (think back to your video collections where he says it) before playing to the female interviewer who was interviewing him up on the balcony |
| Sebastian 19.12.2004 07:27 |
Yes, Fred and the others also said many times that if any of the four of them wasn't there it wasn't Queen |
| Gondorian Queen Fan 19.12.2004 10:01 |
Russian Headlong wrote: Sure there is no Freddie and of course messrs Taylor and May know that, Deacon is entitled to carry on as a recluse thats his right. What pisses me off is that so many people on this site have a snooty, sneering attitude that going on tour as Queen without FM is heresy. AC/DC lost their frontman and continued to evn greater heights despite the fact that Bon Scott is still revered as a legend The WHO- Daltry and Townsend still plan to tour as the Who despite no Moon and Entwhistle. INXS- Touring without Hutchence THIN LIZZY- Touring minus Phil Lynott, thats probably the closest comparison to Queen minus Fred. BLACK SABBATH, LYNYRD SKYNYRD toured with just one founder member. Face it, why not hear Queen's songs from two original members playing,Quo and Kiss have been playing with just two for years and it has not stopped their popularity. Rogers is a great choice not some pop dick like RW or George Michael and lets face it Taylor/May have made some terrible collaborations in the past few years, 5IVE, RW, pepsi ad oh dear! Time to get back on track. Rock til ya drop! Surely the band has to be called TaylorMay deWhat about Linkin Park,The Offspring,Sum 41,Limp Bizkit and Hoobastank? |
| bitesthedust 19.12.2004 12:23 |
I believe it isn't Queen, and don't think they should use the name "Queen" but I personally am not looking to change people's opinions.... Freddie is 25% of Queen, John is 25%, Roger is 25%, Brian is 25%. A more accurate billing would be Taylor, May & Rodgers but that wouldn't attract as many people as will Queen + Paul Rodgers. Whether John decides to join them for the tour is up to him, although I personally don't think he will. |
| BackToHuman 19.12.2004 13:36 |
i keep reading all of these posts screaming that this tour can't be Queen without Freddie or John, blahblahblah, and how dare they choose Paul Rodgers blahblahblah. Where are all the posts screaming that Brian and Roger can't possibly/shouldn't play Bad Company songs? (btw -- Paul is clearly not "replacing Freddie", despite what news sources say. if you look at Paul's website, it's pretty obvious -- it's basically worded to sound like he's saying, "I'm takin' some time off from my solo career to help out some friends.") |
| mike hunt 19.12.2004 14:25 |
people get real please, to say if you lost john deacon is same blow as losing freddie mercury is silly, yes, they all had their part to play and they all were great in their own right, but please don't be stupid and say they were complete equals, fred named the band, the logo was his, the art work was his, all the early hits was his, people went to a queen show to see freddie and brian, to a much lesser extent roger, but equal not. history has proven this, after freddies death the boys look lost, a dog without a bone, so please no more arguing about who is equal or not because we all know the facts, and by the way i am for the tour, cos it keeps the name and legacy growing, they talk about it on the american radio stations is pretty cool. even though i think fred was 50 percent of queen, the others (especially brian) are great in their own right. |
| mrbadguy86 19.12.2004 17:15 |
Are you stupid?!?!? Mercury was Queen, thats the same to call Beatles, The Beatles, without Lennon and McCartney! and Stones without Jagger and Richards! You can't compare the frontman in ACDC with Mercury, Mercury was a MUCH bigger frontman, he made MANY of Queens best songs, was the man on the stage at their concerts, gave Queen both their name and made Queen more known for people around the world... you can change a gitarplayer, a drummer or a bassplayer, but its Much More difficult to change a vocalist and a frontman! He was in the most of the news about queen and was and is most remembered in Queen and music in general by peoples! |
| BiggyRat 19.12.2004 22:50 |
Whisperer wrote: Queen was 100% Freddie's band. Everything from the multi-meaning name was made his way. Freddie was Queen. If all other members died, Freddie could get some new guys and call themselves Queen. When Freddie is gone, there's no Queen. He was the voice and the face of Queen. The other guys in Queen owe their success to Freddie (they've even admitted this).Ohhh please for god's sake learn your history man. (or woman, whatever) Brian and Roger were in Smile, then Staffell left and THEY asked Freddie to JOIN THEM, not the other way around. Sure. Freddie was the best front man in any band I've ever seen (IMO), but that does NOT make it HIS band. Every band member wrote No.1 songs, not just Freddie. Freddie was the most recognisable VOICE of Queen, just like Brian was/is the most distinctive guitarist of Quenn. You can tell a Queen track without vocals, just by Brians guitar, it's that distinctive. Freddie himself in several interviews said there was no LEADER of Queen, all 4 were equal in every way. |
| LadyMoonshineDown 19.12.2004 22:50 |
Chicken anyone? I sure am hungry. Cheers |
| Sebastian 20.12.2004 03:22 |
I never saw Queen as Smile Part II, with Fred replacing Tim. For that extent Queen could be Wreckage II with Roger and Brian replacing the drummer and guitarist. As far as I know, Rog and Brian didn't ask Fred to join them, they were all without band at the moment and decided to join forces. So the band was founded by the three of them. Then they looked for a bass-player and after some beta testing they found John. Again, I don't see John replaced anybody, he just filled a position for which they hadn't had found the right person yet. Fred designed the logo, but that's not a very relevant point imo. The name - ditto. Although it is true that perhaps the band wouldn't be the same if it was named something else. Fred was the main songwriter and arranger and the one who stole the show at Live Aid (as his bandmates accept). So yes perhaps he had a little more importance than the rest if we look that way. And John had less considering that the other three composed more, and the other three played instruments and sang while he only played instrument. Ok some of us do believe he sang a couple of times, but definitely not very important stuff. Queen without Freddie ... well, Sleeping On The Sidewalk is Fred-free and it sounds Queen to me. But it's just one 3 minutes song. Queen without John ... Dancer (with all the "dance" influences and everything) does sound Queen and it's John-free. Nevermore does sound Queen and it's Roger-free. Melancholy Blues does sound Queen and it's Brian-free. Also 80% of Don't Stop Me in which Brian doesn't do anything, or the entire intro-verse-spacer half of Fat Bots from which John is absent, etc. But those are just ocassional songs. There couldn't be an entire Queen concert omitting any of the members imo. Maybe one song, but not a concert, let alone an album or much worse: a tour. And before somebody says it - yes Brian and Roger most likely don't read this and they don't give a tiny rat's arse. Well, I don't write this for them, I write this for me, I have the right to do it, as much as anybody else. For me Queen without any of the members is just absurd. Brian and Roger are good musicians who now teamed up with a wonderful singer. If they really tour (because you never know if Brian cancells last minute as he did with the Spain gig) that will be certainly one of the highlights of rock concerts in 2005. But it will be not Queen. No matter what the bill, the posters or the news say, that's not Queen. |
| Leech 20.12.2004 05:15 |
Brian and Roger have the right to go on tour, and to use the name of Queen, but the results can be very disappointing. We all know that every member of the band contibuted to their success, that they were great composers, that everything started with Smile... but Freddie was much more than their lead singer. He was the spirit, the spark, the glamour, the style (half kitsch, half sophisticated), the cinnamon, the chilli of Queen. Nobody can sing like he did. He supervised everything, he polished all the details, and the details gave value to Queen's songs. He is irreplaceable. Brian and Roger know it, and they should act consequently like John does. |
| mike hunt 20.12.2004 14:58 |
ok, mr or mrs leech i agree with you on fred, he was amazing, he did polish the songs to greatness, you cannot replace the queen himself, all that is understood. I go back and forth with this whole tour thing, i hear it on american radio stations, i get excited because queen have been non exsitent here for ages. brian has said paul is not in queen so obviously he's not replacing fred, but he's just working with them, that's why it's not queen, it's queen + paul rodgers, what's the big deal. the "who" did it, so queen could. i'm glad their doing it. |
| agneepath! 11994 20.12.2004 15:09 |
The Artist Formerly Known As Dan Corson wrote: "WHAM!" has some pretty damn good tunes as well. I can see this turning into an argument, So I'll leave now.agreed! call me weird but I prefer George Michael's Wham! songs to his solo ouput. |
| Flashman 20.12.2004 15:16 |
Russian Headlong wrote: The WHO- Daltry and Townsend still plan to tour as the Who despite no Moon and Entwhistle. INXS- Touring without Hutchence THIN LIZZY- Touring minus Phil Lynott, thats probably the closest comparison to Queen minus Fred. BLACK SABBATH, LYNYRD SKYNYRD toured with just one founder member.And none of the above are hardly selling out the major venues are they? THE WHO couldn't fucking give a record away, they ain't had a hit single for 30 flaming years. Mind you, that ain't stopped the Stones. INXS? Only a monkey would desire to see them these days, or maybe someone from Burnley. LYNYRD SKYNYRD - now appearing at the Municipal Hall, Bromley-on-the-Wyre, Ticket sales - 4. And 2 of those are only 'maybes'. These bands have become parodies of their former selves. You might as well go and watch a tribute band. A good one for The Who would be The Why, or The What For? Can't think of one for Lynyrd Skynyrd. Something to do with skidmarks perhaps? You can call it Queen if you like, but you can only dilute something by so much before it starts to leave a nasty taste. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 20.12.2004 20:51 |
I've long come to the conclusion that people hear couldn't form a basis for an argument if their life depended on it. However, it still will continue to irk me no end when people make ridiculous statements, like the comparison of Bon Scott to Freddie Mercury and the replacement of each as a singer. Bon Scott died after AC/DC's fourth US album. ONE, yes ONE, album had charted in the US. The band was 7 years old, all in their 20s and had a future ahead of them. They'd made little music and less money at the time of Scott's death. Freddie Mercury died in his 40s after 18 years with the band, hundreds of millions of albums sold and a catalogue second to none. AC/DC needed a singer to create music and be musicians, which is what they were and are. Queen needs a singer today to do a greatest hits show because their profile is high because of the musical. There's no shame in that, but comparing a bands survival with a tour for fun, ego and scads of money are not even close. |
| lyricalassasin77 21.12.2004 01:45 |
Whisperer wrote: Queen was 100% Freddie's band. Everything from the multi-meaning name was made his way. Freddie was Queen. If all other members died, Freddie could get some new guys and call themselves Queen. When Freddie is gone, there's no Queen. He was the voice and the face of Queen. The other guys in Queen owe their success to Freddie (they've even admitted this). Now you will of course say that they were all evenly important for the success. They weren't. Just look at what happened after Freddie's death. The saddest part about this new "exciting" tour/album thing is that lots of kids will think that Queen kicked out that fag with the moustache and replaced him with Rodgers. Believe me, there are many people for whom it's a huge surprise that the guy who sang TSMGO, WATC, WWRY and Gaga died 13 years ago. For me, the last Queen concert took place at Knebworth 1986. Any concert after that is something totally different from a Queen concert.I had to attach this guy's message with mine because this dude here has made the most sense when it comes to this ridiculous subject. I'm glad somebody understands how stupid this whole idea is and that there is no Queen without Freddie..........Peace |
| dennox 21.12.2004 03:32 |
This conversation is missing one very big point, what about those of us who at the time where too young to seen Queen live. Finally we get a chance to see Brian's amazing guitar playing and roger beat out those base lines. Sure there is no freddie and i guess John but for us who have never seen Queen live this is the as near as we will ever get. I for one never thought there would be a tour again. It will be interesting to see how many of you purists actually go to one of these shows. I for one think the chance to hear those songs live is not one to be missed. I for one think that Freddie would have wanted his frends to do this after all 'The show must go on!!' |
| ryancoke 21.12.2004 03:53 |
I concur. ON WITH THE SHOW!!! |
| White or Black 28.12.2004 09:22 |
I agree May and Taylor should not call themselves Queen, but I would really enjoy seeing May on stage. To me, Queen is a group which ended in november 1991. Mercury was not the group alone and it is not a question of percentage. Queen is the four members together or is not. Thus Queen last live performance was in 1986 and I will never see them live (what I wish the most is to have been able to be at the Rainbow theatre on March 1974 31st. but not even born yet...). Sad but real. |
| Dr.Dan 06.05.2005 09:53 |
Russian Headlong wrote: THIN LIZZY- Touring minus Phil Lynott, thats probably the closest comparison to Queen minus Fred.Except that in the case of Lizzy one of the two current members was only in Lizzy for one album and the other, while most definitely a fully paid up Lizzy member, was not an original member. I think Queen have a better case. |
| RohemianBapsody 07.05.2005 11:09 |
dennox wrote: This conversation is missing one very big point, what about those of us who at the time where too young to seen Queen live. Finally we get a chance to see Brian's amazing guitar playing and roger beat out those base lines. Sure there is no freddie and i guess John but for us who have never seen Queen live this is the as near as we will ever get. I for one never thought there would be a tour again. It will be interesting to see how many of you purists actually go to one of these shows. I for one think the chance to hear those songs live is not one to be missed. I for one think that Freddie would have wanted his frends to do this after all 'The show must go on!!'It's only a bloody name. OK it is not the same group of members from 20-odd years ago but as dennox correctly stated it is the best chance you have of hearing Queen songs played LIVE by original members. |