Freddie's #1 Fan Forever 30.08.2005 14:36 |
As I have pointed out in previous threads, it is pretty obvious to most Americans that Freddie Mercury was defining element/star of Queen. In other bands, such as AC/DC, Van Halen or Led Zeppelin, the guitarists are as well or better known than the lead singers. This is not the case with Queen. Even in the UK, it appears that people regard Freddie as the really important member of the band. For instance, Freddie figured prominently in the Millenium Poll a few years ago, in which 600,000 English people voted for their favorite musicians, songwriters, etc. Freddie was ranked pretty highly as a vocalist, a musician and as a songwriter. The only other member of the band who made it into the poll at all was Brian, who was was at #90 (or something like that) as a songwriter. Unlike Freddie, he was not voted as one of the top musicians. I find it intersting that, on this very web site (link one year ago, a poll was done in which Freddie was overwhelmingly voted as the best songwriter. Furthermore, although John and Roger also got a chuck of the minority vote, it is fairly well documented that they received a lot of help from Freddie when they wrote their songs. In fact, Roger even admits that Freddie basically re-wrote both "A Kind of Magic" as well as "Radio Ga Ga". If you watch the "Magic Years" video, you can see evidence of Freddie basically dictating to Brian and Roger how to play (in this case, I think that it was "One Vision"). The other members of the band are very talented guys and they did in fact contribute a lot to Queen as well. However, when Kurt Cobain died, the other members of his band had the courtesy to change their name over to "Foo Fighters". Maybe they had legal rights to the name, but they still decided to do the respectful thing. If Brian and Roger are really such extraordinary musicians, then they, like the Foo Fighters, should have no problem attaining success under a new, more appropriate name. I don't think that there is anything really wrong about going to the Queen + Paul Rodgers shows. Although it would be terribly depressing for me, other people might really enjoy it. On the other hand, I really question the loyalty of the "Queen fans" on this web site who are going around saying that Paul Rodgers is a "better singer" than Freddie. In fact, I find these people infinitely more offensive than the religious fanatics who are writing posts about how Freddie is "burning in hell". My final point is that I feel that it disrespectful of Roger and Brian to continue to use the name "Queen" in order to sell themselves. |
doremi 30.08.2005 14:58 |
100% agree and spot on post. The Foo Fighters was the best argument and example. I adore Brian & Roger, would gladly see them tour. My problem is them cashing in on the Queen brand name, and you are right about the Foos. Hell, when Kurt Cobain died, I would gather ALOT less people had any clue who Dave Grohl was (especially since he was Nirvana's SIXTH drummer),... ... than say would know who Roger and Brian were after Freddie died. ..To add insult to injury, people ONLY knew Dave Grohl as the silent drummer. No one knew he could sing lead vocals, play lead guitar, and write kick ass music on his own...... ..Grohl all but threw himself to the lions from the get go, willing to prove himself and his MANY talents. But...Dave Grohl did the respectful thing, and changed the name of the band and has had smashing success...while PROVING and attaining respect for his talents with his and by his band's original name, instead of riding the coattails and gravy train of Nirvana's name. Now..Grohl KNOWS that people respect him and the Foos for their own talents and merits and maybe, even feels better knowing that people admire him and The Foos as a unique and talented band on its own merits, with no agendas. SAME THING with the rest of Ian Curtis' band, Joy Division. Christ, I STILL don't know off hand and couldn't tell you the names of his bandmates, BUT they changed their name to New Order, after Ian committed suicide, and they have enjoyed a very successful career based solely and purely on their own merits, talents and under their different name. |
gem27 30.08.2005 15:08 |
Huh? Dave Grohl did not change Nirvana to the Foo Fighters. He made his own band up when Kurt died. 1.In Nirvana Kurt wrote all the songs for the band. 2.In Nirvana Dave Grohl was the drummer whereas in his own band the Foo Fighters he is song writer, lead guitar and singer. 3. Dave Grohl is the only member from Nirvana to be in The Foo Fighters so its not the same. Queen have been around from the early 70s and Brian and Roger have every right in the world to keep the name Queen and one more thing its isnt even just Queen its Queen+Paul Rodgers. And i dont even like Paul Rodgers! |
bryans permed poodle 15069 30.08.2005 15:58 |
There are very few loyal Queen fans on this site anymore most have even forgot Freddie was a member of this once brilliant band. The poison that is Queen + PR are doing more to harm the great name of Queen than anything else. Shame. |
tia 30.08.2005 16:09 |
Bryans Permed Poodle wrote: There are very few loyal Queen fans on this site anymore most have even forgot Freddie was a member of this once brilliant band. The poison that is Queen + PR are doing more to harm the great name of Queen than anything else. Shame.Oh no, here we go again. |
teleman 30.08.2005 16:19 |
BPP says it all himself
Bryans Permed Poodle wrote: I was going to get a ticket for Cardiff before they SOLD OUT |
Sharon G. 30.08.2005 18:45 |
I agree with Arlene and BPP on this. No Freddie no John = No Queen. And certainly no "Queen" name. Q+PR will be a great rock concert I'm sure. Will it be Queen? Nope. |
rockyracoon 30.08.2005 19:46 |
tiffmoab and Arlene, those were great posts. I don't necessarily agree with all your conclusions, but the posts were well written and well thought through. Finances play a BIG part in the decision to form a new band under a new name. Musicians, including Dave Grohl, Brian May, Roger Taylor, etc., have to evaluate whether their royalties (in effect, their income from songwriting and records/CDs/DVDs) will be greater by being on their own under a new name, vs. sharing the royalties with former bandmates if choosing to retain and capitalize on the name of the old group. Dave Grohl was very successful with some new bandmates under the new name of Foo Fighters, and he didn't/doesn't have to share royalties with the estate of Kurt Cobain or with other Nirvana members. Dave took the risk to go on his own, and it worked out beautifully. On the other hand, after the death of Freddie Mercury, Brian May and Roger Taylor tried to release new material under their own names, and had very limited success. In their case, they found that keeping 100% of the royalties of a very small pie was nowhere nearly as lucrative as getting a much smaller percentage of a huge pie (and it probably bruised their egos a bit). Hence, they opted to return to the music scene using the Queen name again, even though this requires that they share royalties with John Deacon and with Freddie Mercury's estate. So for Brian and Roger, it just didn't work well when they tried to go out on their own, so they opted to resurrect the power of the Queen brand name. In doing so, they have managed to rake in additional millions. And as Brian has said, Queen (in the aggregate) was much better than any one of the band members. While musicians and artists aren't always astute as to financial issues, Dave Grohl, Brian May and Roger Taylor have found what works best for them, and have done so by going in opposite directions. Having said the above, I recognize that decisions are made solely on the basis of money. The artists need to determine for themselves their own comfort zone, what kinds of deals they can work out with the record companies, who they want as bandmates, the lifestyle they want, and whether they need to be superstars and get the adoration of the masses. Believe it or not, there are songwriters who just want to write songs, and have no interest in being performing artists or superstars. But they can still make huge bucks in songwriting royalties. |
rockyracoon 30.08.2005 19:51 |
Whoooops!!! In the last paragraph above, I meant to say that decisions are NOT made solely on the basis of money. Sorry. |
Suigi 30.08.2005 19:55 |
OK, this is SERIOUSLY pissing me off. We need a poll on this board, a plebiscite of this site: "IS QUEEN ALIVE?" or some variation of this whole debate that doesn't tilt it toward one side or the other. This'll let everyone voice their opinion without being dominated by some more "motivated" posters (BPP, I'm looking at you) |
rockyracoon 30.08.2005 20:28 |
Yes, Queen is VERY alive!!!!!!!!!!!! |
deleted user 30.08.2005 21:00 |
very well thought out and written tiffmoab and arlene |
Lymi 30.08.2005 21:05 |
For me, Freddie will be Freddie. Roger and Brian can tour if they want, but with other band-name. Not named Queen. Freddie will never be replaced. And this tour with Paul Rodgers will going to be the end of Queen, honestly. I'm not saying this to start a fight, it's just what i feel. Freddie was the best singer ever, and someone who sings like him or better than him, hasn't born yet. |
Jakobe 30.08.2005 23:47 |
My God, why is everyone STILL all worked up about this? The European tour is over and as far as we know, after the U.S. tour, no one will ever again see ANYBODY that WAS, IS, OR EVER WILL BE in the great band Queen. So this is why I see no reason for anyone to be against the Queen + Paul Rodgers Tour. It's not going to last forever. It will be over soon, and then everyone will have to go back to listening to Queen on their CD's and DVD's and that will be how it will be until the end of time. Besides, how could this be bad for the band? At it's heart Queen is a business and as we all know, businesses are in the business of doing business. And some of them sure do know how to rock! |
rhyeking 31.08.2005 00:08 |
It's a good thing none of the nay-sayers' opinions actually *matter* to Brian and Roger, and whether they use their band's name rightfully. If that causes you distress, tough! They give the fans what they want. The rest of you seem content to suffer in torment over percieved injustices against a trademark to which you've assigned demi-god status. I respect your opinions and your right to disagree with Brian and Roger. But I thank my lucky stars *they* disagree too. I can't wait till the original studio album by Queen + Paul Rodgers and may its prospect haunt your nightmares. Whether Queen are or are not is not for anyone but Brian, Roger and John to decide. And they've made their position quite clear, I think. Rock On! The King Of Rhye |
Tero 31.08.2005 00:12 |
rockyracoon wrote: Whoooops!!! In the last paragraph above, I meant to say that decisions are NOT made solely on the basis of money. Sorry.No need to apologise... You were right the first time. :P |
Knute 31.08.2005 03:27 |
teleman wrote: BPP says it all himselfLMAO!Bryans Permed Poodle wrote: I was going to get a ticket for Cardiff before they SOLD OUT And apparently the collaboration wouldn't be poison that hurt the Queen name if Robbie Williams were to be the singer instead of PR. Then it would be ok. |
GreatKingSam 31.08.2005 03:46 |
Fuck me... ...why does it bloody matter? It's just single minded "real fans" like BPP who can't get over the fact that they are not touring under the name of Queen, but that of Queen+ Paul Rodgers. Some of you seem to be in a state of denial about it I think. |
Fenderek 31.08.2005 04:04 |
1. They're touring under Q + PR, not just Queen 2. I've got only one thing to say- THEY ARE TOURING ANYWAY, SO YOU CAN MOAN HERE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN AND THEY DON'T GIVE A FUCK, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE A BLOODY THINGBUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! UP YOURS, BPP!!! |
AA 31.08.2005 06:54 |
Thamks for all of the thoughtful responses! But I still have to say, forever & forever, "Queen" IS Freddie, yes, the others are very talented, but it can never ever be Queen again without our Freddie...... And it does seem a bit money-grubbing to me, the whole new tour. Whores, I think! |
Fenderek 31.08.2005 07:22 |
AA wrote: Thamks for all of the thoughtful responses! But I still have to say, forever & forever, "Queen" IS Freddie, yes, the others are very talented, but it can never ever be Queen again without our Freddie...... And it does seem a bit money-grubbing to me, the whole new tour. Whores, I think!Yet they're still touring and they simply don't give a fuck what you or BPP or anyone think and the most importantly- we had about 1265397 threads like this only last month... Queen is not Freddie- in fact reason I became Queen fan was Brian's guitar sound |
Tero 31.08.2005 07:52 |
Fenderek wrote: - in fact reason I became Queen fan was Brian's guitar soundYou're not a real Queen fan! You're just a low-life, Brian loving, Queen hating... Thing! Go back to link where you came from, and leave us real Queen fans alone here! :P |
Q-Nick 31.08.2005 08:58 |
Bryans Permed Poodle wrote: The poison that is Queen + PR are doing more to harm the great name of Queen than anything else.Rubbish. When will people see that the public still think of Brian and Roger as MEMBERS of QUEEN, so therefore to continue using the 'brand' is the RIGHT thing to do. Had the Tour have been marketed as Brian May + Roger Taylor + Paul Rodgers, many difficulties would arise. How would people know what songs would be played; is it the three performers individually or together? Are BHM?RMT playing their commercially unsuccessful solo material? Who would know? People see the Queen name at the start, and think of Rock You, Bo Rhap, Champions, Break Free etc. They want to hear the music. And there shouldn't be a problem as AND PAUL RODGERS was added to the end of the Queen name. If they didn't I might have been slightly annoyed, but this was a good move. |
teleman 31.08.2005 09:07 |
Tero wrote:Who's to say who is a fan of Queen and who is not?Fenderek wrote: - in fact reason I became Queen fan was Brian's guitar soundYou're not a real Queen fan! You're just a low-life, Brian loving, Queen hating... Thing! Go back to link where you came from, and leave us real Queen fans alone here! :P |
Fenderek 31.08.2005 09:36 |
Tero wrote:Nope- I'm gonna piss you off for a little while... It really is fun sometimes...Fenderek wrote: - in fact reason I became Queen fan was Brian's guitar soundYou're not a real Queen fan! You're just a low-life, Brian loving, Queen hating... Thing! Go back to link where you came from, and leave us real Queen fans alone here! :P REAL FAN , ay? If that means being put on the same shelf as you- no fucking way I'm a real fan, I don't want to be, NO!!!!!! |
Tero 31.08.2005 09:49 |
Fenderek wrote:You must!!Tero wrote:Nope- I'm gonna piss you off for a little while... It really is fun sometimes... REAL FAN , ay? If that means being put on the same shelf as you- no fucking way I'm a real fan, I don't want to be, NO!!!!!!Fenderek wrote: - in fact reason I became Queen fan was Brian's guitar soundYou're not a real Queen fan! You're just a low-life, Brian loving, Queen hating... Thing! Go back to link where you came from, and leave us real Queen fans alone here! :P You have to worship the mighty John and cast aside those false idols, Freddie and Brian. Only then you can call yourself a real Queen fan! We all know John IS Queen, and anybody who doesn't recognise it will face the eternal torture of Queen+Britney+Beyonce+Pink! Sufferrr!!! |
Tero 31.08.2005 09:59 |
teleman wrote:In case you didn't notice it, I was actually being sarcastic... ;)Tero wrote:Who's to say who is a fan of Queen and who is not?Fenderek wrote: - in fact reason I became Queen fan was Brian's guitar soundYou're not a real Queen fan! You're just a low-life, Brian loving, Queen hating... Thing! Go back to link where you came from, and leave us real Queen fans alone here! :P You know, because of all those posts where people have been branded as "Freddie fans" instead of Queen fans, if they haven't been thrilled with the new line-up... |
queen44 31.08.2005 10:07 |
dont take this the wrong way i mean i listen to queen nearly everyday and there my fave band but forgod sake its just a band |
queen44 31.08.2005 10:12 |
if they want to use the name queen thats fine if they want to use another name thats fine but youre saying all this stuff like ruined youre lifes i mean comeon if you were a real queen fan youd respect brian roger and john as part of queen because there are 4 members of queen who all wrote songs.rember all brian rogerand freddies solo albums they werenot as big and sucsefull as queens albums |
Fenderek 31.08.2005 10:27 |
Tero wrote: You have to worship the mighty John and cast aside those false idols, Freddie and Brian. Only then you can call yourself a real Queen fan! We all know John IS Queen, and anybody who doesn't recognise it will face the eternal torture of Queen+Britney+Beyonce+Pink! Sufferrr!!!NO! BLASPHEMY! Jim Beach=QUEEN You're nota real fan!!! |
lmj 31.08.2005 10:53 |
This is queen. Not Q U E E N. |
bryans permed poodle 15069 31.08.2005 12:51 |
Fenderek wrote:Forget Freddie Paul Rodgers is Queen. No Paul no Queen.Tero wrote: You have to worship the mighty John and cast aside those false idols, Freddie and Brian. Only then you can call yourself a real Queen fan! We all know John IS Queen, and anybody who doesn't recognise it will face the eternal torture of Queen+Britney+Beyonce+Pink! Sufferrr!!!NO! BLASPHEMY! Jim Beach=QUEEN You're nota real fan!!! |
The Real Wizard 31.08.2005 13:14 |
<font color=space>sweden_man wrote: very well thought out and written tiffmoab and arleneBut it figures you couldn't bother to read the rebuttals from rockyracoon and gem27, which contained equally valid points. rockyracoon wrote: Whoooops!!! In the last paragraph above, I meant to say that decisions are NOT made solely on the basis of money.Use the edit tool - the left of the three buttons above your post. Fantastic post, really putting things into perspective! |
stringsrmagicalzey 31.08.2005 13:55 |
I do respect your point of view and I also thank God for Brian and Roger are trying to overcome Freddie's death.Fortunaletly they are still alive,fortunately they found their old friend Paul and they are doing music with him.They are sharing their art with us, so thank you Brian, Roger and Paul. Freddie you were unique and you will always be in our hearts. Peace and whole lotta love. |
bryans permed poodle 15069 31.08.2005 14:00 |
stringsrmagical wrote: I do respect your point of view and I also thank God for Brian and Roger are trying to overcome Freddie's death.Fortunaletly they are still alive,fortunately they found their old friend Paul and they are doing music with him.They are sharing their art with us, so thank you Brian, Roger and Paul. Freddie you were unique and you will always be in our hearts. Peace and whole lotta love.Yeah thanks a lot Brian & Roger for sharing this drivel with REAL Queen fans. Much appriciated NOT! |
bitesthedust 31.08.2005 14:02 |
I can't be bothered to answer this question, except to say - if you've read my previous posts regarding the tour, you'll know that I did not and do not support it and "Queen +..." as a whole. Quick memo to BPP - the tour has happened and it looks like there will be more to follow. Deal with it, I have. |
teleman 31.08.2005 14:29 |
Bryans Permed Poodle wrote: I was going to get a ticket for Cardiff before they SOLD OUT Bryans Permed Poodle wrote: Forget Freddie Paul Rodgers is Queen. No Paul no Queen.Looks like BPP has been playing with us |
AmeriQueen 01.09.2005 03:18 |
Your Kurt Cobain thought has no relevance. Cobain wrote all of the Nirvana material that I know of(which means the good albums of Nevermind and In Utero) which would make him far more to Nirvana was than Freddie was to Queen. It would be more of a point also to point out that they use the name Queen if they were recording new music. The Queen in Queen + PR doesn't just stand for the members, it stands for the show. They are saying, here's what's left of Queen doing a Queen concert, with help from this guy. They are trying to cash in on the Queen name, not to confuse, but because that's what this tour is about. This tour is about two guys returning 19 years later to touring along the band they made with two others. Queen is not just a band, it's a legacy of music so by using the name, they are representing a wealth of material which they helped make. Come on people. It's not like there is anyone out there who is excited about this show and expecting the real thing. Everyone knows Freddie is dead, so it shouldn't be such a big damn deal. |
The Real Wizard 01.09.2005 13:42 |
Great post, AmeriQueen. |
RohemianBapsody 01.09.2005 17:56 |
Well put AmeriQueen. It is only the blinkered that think we are expecting the same shows from the past. |
jordanjo 07.03.2006 23:43 |
i agree there is no QUEEN without FREDDIE MERCURY |
goinback 08.03.2006 00:47 |
This is sooo...2005.... |
john bodega 08.03.2006 02:11 |
There are currently 79 topics (at least) on this subject. Please refrain from posting more you cotton brained idiots. |
thenightcomedown 08.03.2006 19:57 |
yeah without Freddie there is nothing |
magicalfreddiemercury 08.03.2006 22:50 |
I mention Queen often, and so many people say the same thing - "Didn't he die?" So, in answer to the original question, to some, there is no Queen without Freddie. However, to true fans - and by that I simply mean people who know more about the band than that their frontman died of AIDS - Queen is about the music and the way it made/makes them feel. I think this is a personal issue. I could never go to see Queen + Paul Rodgers. It would be too sad for me. But there are plenty of people who have let go of that and are willing and eager to hear Queen's music live, on stage, with part of the original band playing their original roles. |