| deleted user 12.03.2005 16:10 |
Does anyone feel somewhay...betrayed by John? I dunno... but i feel like John sort of abandoned queen. Yes, I can understand him not wanting to be in the public eye so much, but he seems to want to forget he had anything to do with queen. Its a bit like, Freddie worked with queen til the end, and I have no dobut, that even though the tour might be there last, Brian and Roger will appear in public as queen, even if not to perform, while John just gave up... Anyone else feel the same way? |
| LadyMoonshineDown 12.03.2005 16:29 |
I don't feel 'betrayed' by John because: 1. I personally don't know him. 2. I haven't ever worked with him, let alone play in the same band with him for over twenty years. 3. I am not currently apart of the Queen+Paul Rodgers tour. 4. You're an idiot (ok ok, I had to throw that one in there because this is ridiculous.) None of us should feel 'betrayed' by John. It isn't our personal business. We're just fans. Yes....we have the right to be upset/mad/angry/sad that John won't be taking part in the tour, but betrayed? C'mon people. Unless you've known John and played with him in Queen (in which none of us have) then shush. The man wants his privacy. And I'm sure he doesn't care what online Queen nuts (myself included I suppose) think. As far as I'm concerned, we can feel 'betrayed' all we want; he's not going to care about fans he will never meet. Cheers |
| deleted user 12.03.2005 16:35 |
I wasn't saying that he had to care, I just meant that there are some people who have strong feelings about these sort of things. but then...maybe betrayed was the wrong word... maybe i should have used upset or mad. But you get the general idea of what i meant. |
| Whisperer 12.03.2005 16:48 |
I feel that John was the only living member of Queen who didn't betray Freddie. |
| deleted user 12.03.2005 16:55 |
Oh? How so? Do you feel this tour is a betrayl to freddie because he is being replaced? |
| AC 12.03.2005 17:08 |
No. |
| deleted user 12.03.2005 17:42 |
I was referring specifically to whisperer |
| flash00. 12.03.2005 17:43 |
i do understand your feelings with regards to john, but i dnt feel betrayed, i think hes had enough of it all and prob thinks queen are over now since freddie....i dont know maybe after he last performed as queen with elton maybe he felt that magic spark and energy was gone??! who knows! i dnt know why but i think john is a bit of a lost soul some how since queen, b/c music is his life and he was spotted outside the musical last year so he still possibly is interested in whats going or to see what they done to his songs lolll. whoooooo knows apart from mr deacon but good luck to him anyways as he's earned it. |
| Penetration_Guru 12.03.2005 18:04 |
There are a handful of people who feel the same way as you. But it is just a handful. Personally, I think if you're going to go down this route, I think you should moan about Fred wantonly taking it up the arse without doing us, his loyal stepfords, the basic courtesy of using condoms...or at least leaving us his house to write graffiti on. |
| Scott_Mercury 12.03.2005 18:34 |
I feel John is the smart one. John has said that Queen died November 24th 1991. Freddie was Queen. Queen without Freddie is like your car with no engine....it can't operate. John knew when Queen was over....John didn't betray anyone....John accepted that the band he was part of, ended early because the bands most famous, most recognizable member died young. The Queen name should be laid to rest. Queen is John,Roger,Brian and King Mercury... Tell me that I am wrong....should a concert with Brian, Roger, Paul Rodgers, and a couple hired nobody's be called Queen. Its just dumb. Wait...John Deacon just called...he wants me, him, the drummer from Devo, the singer from Romeo Void, and the DJ from Vanilla Ice to tour....we going to call ourselves Queen. How many of you are coming? How many of you would accept us calling ourselves Queen, with only one original member in it? To me... 2 original members in a band, and calling it Queen isn't much better. |
| Scott_Mercury 12.03.2005 18:37 |
Penetration_Guru....with a name like that, we are to assume you are an expert in taking and receiving it in the ass? If Freddie wanted to dry hump a gorilla, and take a black midget and a can of axle grease to a island for a man on man romp...whats it to you?? He contracted AIDS to be disrespectful to you...his loyal fan?? Who probably downloads every other Queen album. Give me a break... that comment was straight out of the trailer park. |
| LadyMoonshineDown 12.03.2005 18:49 |
Hey now. Let's keep this topic to where it was originally supposed to be going, shall we? Betrayal WAS in fact the wrong word, unless you were using it in another sense other than describing your personal feelings. However....you did not. Therefore, you had one of my mediocre, temperate lashes of what some might call 'anger.' But I just call it annoyance spewing out, because when I get annoyed, I'll tell people, and I did that exact same thing with you. No need to get off into tangent city guys.... Freddie was not the topic, it was John. Cheers |
| deleted user 12.03.2005 19:08 |
Penetration_Guru wrote: Personally, I think if you're going to go down this route, I think you should moan about Fred wantonly taking it up the arse without doing us, his loyal stepfords, the basic courtesy of using condomsErm... 1- Freddie got AIDS about 1985-7, in which time, AIDS was relatively unknown about, so its a bit unfair to blame freddie, at the times gays probably assumed, since they can't get each other pregnant, whats the point of contraception? (If I'm wrong about this, sorry) 2- I'm going down this route, because i think, from Freddies later work (such as the show must go on) he was aware that his time was nigh, and indicating that he didn't want his death to mean that the almost 20 years of camp glam rock should stop, and that John decided to stop... but maybe i'm over-analysing things... |
| *3*Playful as a pussycat 12.03.2005 19:34 |
well...i must say that i definetly do NOT feel betrayed by John! i am a little sad and disappointed that he decided not to continue but i respect his decision! plus who would i be to say that i feel betrayed...i dont even bloody know him! if you do just so happen to know him, please tell me how to contact him, but i seriously doubt that you do so just try to use a better word to describe how you feel. and if you cant...then, well, i feel bad for you because you are too thick to respect his decision. |
| geeksandgeeks 12.03.2005 19:44 |
I've made all these points about 875,000,000,000,000,000,000 times before, but I'll patiently make them again. 1) Every artist has a certain number of performances in him. John knew what his was, and he ended it when it was up. 2) Queen officially disbanded in 1995. Therefore, Queen is technically no more (and while I'm not going to tell them what they can and can't do with their lives, I do wish Brian and Roger would remember this). There was nothing left for John to abandon. 3) I'd probably quit something too, if one of the major things I could associate with it was the tragic death of a friend. 4) John owes us nothing. |
| LadyMoonshineDown 12.03.2005 20:03 |
geeksandgeeks wrote: I've made all these points about 875,000,000,000,000,000,000 times before, but I'll patiently make them again. 1) Every artist has a certain number of performances in him. John knew what his was, and he ended it when it was up. 2) Queen officially disbanded in 1995. Therefore, Queen is technically no more (and while I'm not going to tell them what they can and can't do with their lives, I do wish Brian and Roger would remember this). There was nothing left for John to abandon. 3) I'd probably quit something too, if one of the major things I could associate with it was the tragic death of a friend. 4) John owes us nothing.Exactly the case. I've tried to explain it thousands of times on here. Hence my temporary leave of absence, if you will. ;) Cheers |
| *3*Playful as a pussycat 12.03.2005 20:30 |
yes...but i dont fully agree with number 2...Queen isnt fully over...it definetly isnt the same but like Brian said, he and Roger are technically Queen...im interested to see how it goes, though. plus we all know that Quen will forever live on in our hearts! |
| Scott_Mercury 12.03.2005 20:31 |
Geeks and Geeks- Exactly, When "Made in Heaven" was complete, and the vaults of usable Freddie material have dried up.... Queen is over. That's why I am still trying to solve this mystery of how Queen is touring.... unless Freddie reserected, and Deacon is back...a new "Queen" tour is impossible. Oh, I see.... its 2 original members with other people?? (major sarcasm) ...then why don't they drop the name Queen?? |
| *3*Playful as a pussycat 12.03.2005 20:37 |
do you want to see the name of Queen disappear? that's probably why theyve kept it |
| Scott_Mercury 12.03.2005 20:42 |
I don't understand your question fully... but just so we are clear... The name of Queen will never disappear. The legacy stands....the Beatles haven't recorded a track since 1969...thats 36 years ago.. I wouldn't say that name has went away. But yes, on any new material..tours...concerts...yes, I want the Queen name to go away...its over. Just as when the Beatles disbanded in 1970, you never had any other members whoring the name out as "The Beatles".... then when Lennon was assasinated, all possibilities of the Beatles were done. 11-24-91 should have been equal to Queen, what Lennon's murder was to The Beatles. |
| deleted user 12.03.2005 20:43 |
I have a better word: Does anyone fell LETDOWN by john? |
| Lester Burnham 12.03.2005 21:44 |
Scott_Mercury wrote: The legacy stands....the Beatles haven't recorded a track since 1969...thats 36 years ago..So then what's 'Free As A Bird' and 'Real Love'? There were also a few other songs recorded by McCartney, Starr, and Harrison in '95 - 'All For Love' and 'Grow Old With Me' - but they weren't released. Just as when the Beatles disbanded in 1970, you never had any other members whoring the name out as "The Beatles".... then when Lennon was assasinated, all possibilities of the Beatles were done.Again, not true. The remaining Beatles said for years that it wasn't possible, but yet they still did it. Paul and Ringo could probably still do it today, but "Paul McCartney" or even "Ringo Starr" would attract more attention than, say, Brian's or Roger's own names. If Brian and Roger had focused on their own solo careers after Freddie died and built up a considerable catalog, then they could've gone out on their own, but I'm glad they feel comfortable enough with each other. And also that they don't listen to dissenting voices and instead do their own thing. More power to them. |
| Lester Burnham 12.03.2005 21:48 |
I find it interesting that people get their panties in such a bunch with situations they obviously can't control. Brian and Roger are now Queen, whether people want to believe it or not, and if they're going to let a name come between their admiration for what once was and what is now, then they need to seriously reprioritize their life. Every other band has done it for years - The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, The Faces, The Mothers Of Invention, Little Feat... it's very rare for a band to have such longevity as Queen did, but it's only natural for the remaining members to continue on. And they're not doing it to disrespect Freddie, no matter how cynically you want to look at it. Brian and Roger still love and care about Freddie very much, but there's no reason they should put an end to a good thing. |
| Dicky Hart 12.03.2005 22:34 |
No john has not betrayed queen, he put his cards on the table a long time ago. He wanted to retire. let the guy be. Brian and Roger are doing the only job they know how, and that is play music. There are worse singers they could have chosen. But Paul Rodgers is a proven singer no matter what we all think. If this tour fails, which is looking unlikey, we would not have bought all our tickets to BOO at Rodgers, or just have a right good old time, which, I believe, freddie would have wanted. |
| Scott_Mercury 12.03.2005 22:42 |
Lester- The Who is the music of Pete Townsend, with Daltry as his lead voice that the people are framiliar with. The Rolling Stones is Mick Jagger and Keith Richards....these are the groups songwriters, and two most recognizable faces. What music do you listen to? Queen had a 18 year recording career....thats not uncommon anymore? From Aerosmith to The Rolling Stones to ZZ Top to AC/DC (25 yrs now with Brian Johnson alone)... A 18 yr career is not uncommon. I'm sorry, but when a band breaks down to 1 or 2 original members...along with some fill in's.... thats just hoaky. In the case of Queen, if Freddie Mercury and Brian May wanted to tour as Queen, I would be a little iffy on that.....but I wouldn't be quite so bitchy. As Sebastian's website will show you, Freddie was the chief songwriter, he made John and Roger's song happen, he usually wrote at least 50% of every album alone..... On top of this, he is the most recognizable member of the band we know as Queen, both in face image and in sound. If Freddie Mercury was John Lennon, then Brian May would be his Paul McCartney. When the Beatles were done....Paul got on with his life...ie: Wings, then just, Paul McCartney. I wish Brian and Roger would do the same. When your most famous member, chief songwriter, and for all intents and purposes "group leader" passes away... the man who named the group Queen afterall....c'mon...let it go. Lester, I know Roger and Freddie love Freddie...and I know that they know he can't be replaced by anyone. But you are not seeing the picture here of "putting a good thing to rest".... we have no choice to put it away.... Its not like Queen broke up for 14 years, then want to get back together. Queen's heart and soul died in 1991. The good thing died. The end came 14 years ago...like it or not (we all don't). Then...25% of the surving members (deacon) won't be there. Sure, I'll go out and see 2 of my favorite musicians in the world.... but i"m still going to have a thorn up my ass about the name on the marquee. |
| Lester Burnham 12.03.2005 22:45 |
Meh, differing opinions. We're both right, I suppose. You have your reasons, which are very good, and I have mine, which I obviously prefer. No sense in getting into a debate over something which we can't control, eh? |
| Scott_Mercury 12.03.2005 22:58 |
No problem brother...we are both die hard Queen fans. I love the idea of Brian and Rog getting out there are doing what they kick ass at....if Deacon is done, no problem...what does the writer of Another One Bites the dust, and various other household hits top 40 hits, and masterpieces (Spread Your Wings) whose toured the world as the bass man to Freddie Mercury several times over have to prove? NOT A THING. I, (me) and just very protective of the name Queen...as the equals Deaky, Rog, Bri and King Bulsara to me. Paul Rodgers is a good singer..no doubt. The tour will be a succuess...no doubt. I would feel a million times better if the name "Queen" was reserved for those past moments when our 4 original members together was creating the music we love. |
| LowSammy 12.03.2005 23:33 |
When I'm old and it's time for me to retire, I hope you all just leave me alone. I mean I've been working as a machinist my whole life and now you want me to leave my neglected family and come back? That's my opinion of that. When Freddie died, the other three still had a little bit of Queen left in them. Now John's all done (God bless him), but Roger and Brian still have a little bit of Queen left in them. They are still Queen. I think Queen + Paul Rodgers is a totally acceptable name. I also think that all of you have good points and this is just how I feel. |
| Arden Street 13.03.2005 08:15 |
Can't add much beyond what Scott_Mercury has said, pretty well summer. But meh.. they're doing it and what are we mere mortals to do but lap it all up again! |
| Arden Street 13.03.2005 08:20 |
And to answer the question - definitely not. Reckon he can hold his head the highest of any of the remaining 3. |
| *3*Playful as a pussycat 13.03.2005 09:54 |
Lester Burnham wrote: Meh, differing opinions. We're both right, I suppose. You have your reasons, which are very good, and I have mine, which I obviously prefer. No sense in getting into a debate over something which we can't control, eh?amen to that... |
| brENsKi 13.03.2005 14:26 |
Scott_Mercury wrote: Lester- 1. If Freddie Mercury was John Lennon, then Brian May would be his Paul McCartney. 2. When the Beatles were done....Paul got on with his life...ie: Wings, then just, Paul McCartney. I wish Brian and Roger would do the same. 3. When your most famous member, chief songwriter, and for all intents and purposes "group leader" passes away... the man who named the group Queen afterall....c'mon...let it go. 4. Queen's heart and soul died in 1991. The good thing died. 5. The end came 14 years ago...like it or not (we all don't). Then...25% of the surving members (deacon) won't be there.you need to check your stats before you make statements like that on 1. Although the writing credit on beatles singles was always Lennon/Mccartney it was in fact PAUL who wrote most of the beatles hit singles. look at some books on this - you'll realise that they - like queen generally wrote individually but agreed to co-credit 2. Paul "got on with his life" because HE broke up the beatles - for legal reasons - again - check some books on this. Queen didn't break up. Freddie said it was his wish that they carried on - why else would he have recorded so much extra vocal work when he was virtually incapable of standing up - without the help of drugs? - he wanted Queen to go on was long as possible 3. there was no "leader" in queen - you might think there was - but freddie denied this countless times - they were a democracy things/stuff got voted on - and they agreed with a group decision 4. the heart and soul did not die. an important group member died. but hundreds of bands live on after a death - let's name a few then - Blizzard if Oz, ACDC, Deep Purple, Lynyrd Skynyrd, INXS, The who (two members, FREE, KISS, and many many more 5. No it didn't. Queen as we know it ended in 1986 - this was the last time the great man held an audience by the bollox. Albums are Albums - new product, but without live shows there's no "buzz" to look forward to. Even though Queen as we knew it ended. This is just a new queen, for a new generation and a new chapter in the grand story. if it doesn't work out it may be the final chapter - but don't hold your breath - tickets are selling out fast - which means there's a huge market for the "Queen of the new millennium" - give it a chance instead of whingeing about it |
| Scott_Mercury 13.03.2005 17:45 |
Brenski, I will reply to your post now. 1) Yes, Paul McCartney and John Lennon wrote together in the early days. Up until Rubber Soul. The Beatles are considered to be mainly John's group from 1962 to mid 1967...Paul took over writing most of the poppy hits in 1967 on, while John wrote songs like "Happiness is a Warm Gun" and "Sexy Sadie" which usually prevail as Die Hard Beatles favorites. In William J Dowldings book titled "Beatle Songs", he determined that John Lennon wrote (81) songs for the Beatles, and McCartney wrote (74). John had more songs in the top 40, Paul had more songs that cracked the top 20.....I'd say thats a pretty equal partnership. 2) Really a death of a member is a bigger reason for ending a band.... especially when the death is of the chief songwriter...and in the public's eyes...THE BANDS MAIN CHARACTER. *NOTE- NOT ONE IN ONE HUNDRED AVERAGE PEOPLE COULD NAME ANOTHER MEMBER OF QUEEN BESIDES FREDDIE IN THE U.S.A. Freddie recorded as much as he possibly could so as much material could be released as possible, I doubt if it was because he was concerned that some 60 yr old singer replacing him wouldn't have any song ideas. Freddie wanted the others to carry on making music... whether or not he wanted them to replace him...and continue on as Queen...I question that. 3) Freddie denied he was the leader because he was modest....what kind of douche bag is going to say "Just so everyone knows, I'm the king shit around here"...... As everyone around Queen has said, from Brian and John, to Peter and Mack....IF FREDDIE REALLY WANTED SOMETHING (IE: RECORDING JOHN'S SONG AOBTD THAT BRIAN AND ROGER HATED) ....THEN IT HAPPENED. 4) AC/DC really is Angus and Malcom, 2nd... when Bon Scott died, they were early in their career's, and really had , had no success in the USA. Every artist in the world tries to conquer the USA...if you haven't made it in the United States, then its considered by many that you "aren't there yet". The Who is just 2 men in their sixties touring. No one who see's The Who really think its 1968, and they are seeing the real thing.... Do you think if Pete Townsend died, they would still be touring as The WHO?? Of course not. That's why the Queen name should be laid to rest now. 5) Yes, we Queen fans too young to have seen Queen live (I was born in 1978) would have loved to have seen Freddie make everyone look lame.... but I never did. But I myself, will take Freddie, still alive, making studio albums only and no tour....over a replacement for him that is touring. Brenski, have you heard the Innuendo album? Sure, Freddie had less than a year to live.... but does that album sound like Queen was over? Being a touring band doesn't mean shit...The Beatles quit touring in 1965... yet SGT. Pepper, The White Album, and Abbey Road have all done ok...wouldn't you agree?? If Queen truly is four equal parts, then as Freddie said in his 1985 interview "If one of us walks away, or isn't able to perform anymore, then that would be the end of Queen, as that wouldn't be Queen anymore". Mary Austin says now that Freddie knew he was HIV positive in 1984....and told the band in 1986 at the end of the "Magic" tour....Peter Freestone confims this. Could Freddie's comment about how if one of them leave, then Queen is over a subtle way of saying..."when I am gone, please do not still call this legacy we have created together Queen with someone else in place of me"....I think it could be. Will I see Brian and Roger with P.R. if they come near me??? Absolutely! And I hope they kick ass all over the place. But all the while, I will know: 1) This isn't Queen. 2) No Freddie = No Queen 3) No Deacon further strenghthens that point. 4) Queen is over. It ended in 1991 5) This is 2 of my favorite musicians Brian and Roger....with some other musicians. Why is my definition so hard for |
| deleted user 13.03.2005 18:44 |
Good posts, Lester. I am not letdown, disappointed, or hurt by John Deacon's actions. I fully respect his decisions to retire (yes, *retire*, which means he will not be working *anymore*) and I think everyone else should do the same. How would any of you people feel if your actions were constantly questioned and said to be "disappointing" or a "letdown" simply because you choose to live your life that way you want to? Btw...Penetration_Guru had an incredibly heavy dose of sarcasm in his post. I think quite a few of you missed that.. |
| Daburcor? 13.03.2005 19:25 |
I feel betrayed by John... I can't BELIEVE he slept around on me like that... *sniffle* Waaaaaaaait! What was that? Shut up! I didn't say anything! |
| Deacons 1st Choice 13.03.2005 23:17 |
Wow... I see you lot have been busy while i was away... |
| LadyMoonshineDown 14.03.2005 01:27 |
Sheesh. People obviously have a lot to spew out, don't they? Well.... There is no use in arguing online. No use whatsoever because in the end, no one cares, and no one wins. It's just a fact. I say we all simmer down and try to stick to the subject without having to overdo it and write long essays in a forum. That is a no no because its waaaaaaay too boring to see paragraph after paragraph of something that we don't really care about. Woo. Cheers |
| jeff payne 1680 14.03.2005 14:01 |
Nope just sad he's decided to stay away. But his choice and if i was in his position a few million in the bank good health a love of golf, familie life and strippers then my choice would be to??? well not go on the road anyway |
| deleted user 14.03.2005 14:57 |
Don't you love it when a post turns into a MASSIVE can of opened worms? |
| *3*Playful as a pussycat 14.03.2005 15:36 |
i hate worms...but yes...that's basically what is happening right here...it's quite interesting actually |
| QUEENFANLos Angeles 30.03.2005 04:47 |
I feel John did a good thing. When Freddie died That is when the band broke up. I respect what Roger and Brian are doing with the new guy but without Freddie it's just another band. NOT QUEEN! |
| StarShine 30.03.2005 09:28 |
"Does anyone feel somewhay...betrayed by John?" No. |
| written_in_the_stars 30.03.2005 09:55 |
I don't think he owe us anything. To retire was his right and we have not to try finding out why he did it, because it's none of our buisness. Of course it would be great to see Brian, Roger and John still together, but that's not the way things are and we have to accept it. |
| RohemianBapsody 30.03.2005 16:17 |
StarShine wrote: "Does anyone feel somewhay...betrayed by John?" No.No. Disappointed he didn't want to tour, but never betrayed |
| Gunpowder Gelatine 30.03.2005 16:23 |
I wish he would've gone on tour with Brian and Roger, or at least made an appearance once in awhile, but he can do whatever he wants with his life. He does deserve it, after all. |
| geeksandgeeks 30.03.2005 18:21 |
<font color = "blue">Night Lord wrote: Don't you love it when a post turns into a MASSIVE can of opened worms?Actually, what you've done is to spark an interesting and honest discussion, and I applaud you. So please, oldbies, let's not ruin it now by griping about how we've talked about this before, and everyone else, please don't make it deteriorate in some other way. We need stuff like this. Playful - I see your point, but the problem is, Brian and Roger are NOT technically Queen. The rock band Queen officially disbanded after the release of Made in Heaven. Queen is now only a symbol - I hate to call it this, but a brand name, if you will, that goes on Greatest Hits albums and the occasional reunion project (ala Rocks). Hollywood Records, or whoever they're with now, owns Queen. The name itself is a symbol, and it should be respected and treated as such - which, IMO, means not using it to attract people who have only ever heard WATC to a concert that, in reality, does not even feature the writer of the song. All dedicated fans would know what "Brian May and Roger Taylor, featuring Paul Rodgers" meant. Back to John. I've put in my two bits on this issue. But since you changed your wording to "let down," Night Lord, I don't know if I'd say that either. I certainly wouldn't object to seeing him again, but I'd be far more let down watching an uninspired middle-aged man who is only there because he can't get enough of the good ol' days wandering around the stage looking lost, than I would be a man who gave us 20+ years of kick-ass bass playing and chose to bow out with dignity when he knew the time was right. When there's nothing left in you to give the world, you have no choice. If BM and RT still have something left, that's fantastic, and more power to them. But if they don't, it would be best for them and us if they would follow their bass player. |
| Penetration_Guru 31.03.2005 14:40 |
Nice to see my point sailing over the heads of imbeciles. |
| newcastle 86! 16483 31.03.2005 17:27 |
absolutely brilliant, this topic will run and run and so it should. scott youve some excellent comments on the beatles, i can relate to that, John was the beatles as freddie was queen. the beatles were resurrected in 95 with the anthology, but they would never dream of taking it on the road,brian and roger have. |