| kdj2hot 09.01.2006 10:14 |
ANyone hear listen to David Lee Roth? He was talking about bands who switch singers and Queen was brought up. A caller mentioned how it wasn't Queen but rather it was billed ats Queen and Paul Rodgers and Roth went off on a rant that sounded like BPP lol. He mentioned how Paul Rodgers don't deserve the same billiing as Queen because Queen is iconic and he doubted that people would know more than a couple of Paul Rodgers song. Here's the interesting part, he mentioned how to him it sounded l;ike a "strong arm" job were Paul Rodgers strong armed his way in to getting billing alongside them because they were desperate to play. (I don't know if he was trying to be cool but he never mentioned Brian May or Roger Taylor by name he just said a "at award shows you can see it in the guitar players and the drummers eye...they were dying to do what they signed up for so many years ago". Something to talk about. Personally I think he's dead wrong because the "Queen plus" name debut way before this tour (Greatest Hits 3 in 1999) so I doubt Paul Rodgers muscled his way to top billing. Also this is coming from a David Lee Roth rant who's mind runs a mile a minute, he was talking about how bands with different singers (he wasn't shy about mentioning van halen) isn't "truth in advertisement" and in defense of his stance when someone mentioned Queen wasn't calling themselves Queen but rather Queen plus Paul Rodgers he probably figured he better foind a point to argue that down. |
| Bobby_brown 09.01.2006 10:38 |
At least he's a Queenfan!! You can't take him too seriously and i will not coment because with DLR you have to hear it so you understand the context and the mood he was at. Take care |
| Fenderek 09.01.2006 11:30 |
DLR is a prat... He can't even sing... |
| doremi 09.01.2006 11:56 |
Since I didn't hear it, I can't say exectly what Roth in fact meant, ormaybe was merelykidding about..but remember... Roth has always been about Roth...and I recently saw him in an interview about him,opposed to Sammy Hagar and Roth said, ''Sammy puts on a party, I AM the party.'' David Lee Roth is a flambouyant, WAY over the top ham who you have to take with a grain of salt, BUT.... I willalways admit, that with Van Halen, the SUM was always greater than the parts. It's amazing how Roth sucked as a solo artist and how Van Halen Sucked with Gary Cherone (who replaced Hagar, who replaced Roth). But...Roth and Van Halen combined...MAGIC! Their chemistry, however off kilter Roth may comes across, WORKS when he's fronting VH. And noone,not even Sammy can top Dance The Night Away, Jump, Running With The Devil, I'll Wait, Dancing In The Street, You Really Got Me, Jamie's Crying..etc. IF Roth was ragging on Queen, take it with a grain of salt, as lord knows he has ragged on Eddie Van Halen enough, yet he still has said he wants to reunite with Eddie. That's just Roth's way. |
| Knute 09.01.2006 12:57 |
What a jackass. He just seized that opportunity to highlight his own situation with Van Halen. He cut his teeth on Paul Rodgers like any other rock singer did at that time. Paul strong arming his name?..LOL! |
| bryans permed poodle 15069 09.01.2006 12:58 |
Of course David Lee Roth is correct. Paul Rodgers is a prat can't sing been in bands no one has heard of and sold no records. Mind you Brian and Roger should have had more sense and not employed him or use the Queen name. |
| kdj2hot 09.01.2006 13:10 |
Oh you can go to link and hear it. Click on 8-9 a.m on Jan. 9th and you can hear it if anyone is interested. I don't know if you guys want to listen to this cause you can't fast forward this. He talks about it once, then goes back to it and goes off on that after someone calls in towards the end. |
| Ray D O'Gaga 09.01.2006 13:41 |
I think everyone knows "Diamond Dave" is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. He's got way more ego and mouth than brains, class or talent - although in fairness, he was good at what he did, what? More than 20 years ago? And how fast do you think Dave would have jumped at singing with "Queen+" if Brian and Roger had called *him*? Woulda made your head swim. He should also talk to whoever did Paul Rodgers' plugs. Dave's had that Donald Trump-esque comb-up-and-over for an awfully long time now. |
| mystic_rhythms 09.01.2006 13:44 |
Bryans Permed Pants wrote: Paul Rodgers is a prat can't sing been in bands no one has heard of and sold no records. Mind you Brian and Roger should have had more sense and not employed him or use the Queen name.And, of course, BPP has to say something like this steaming pile of shit that I have quoted (and I'm already regretting it!) Obviously you haven't gotten the memo: Paul Rodgers is a damn good musician who happens to be known worldwide. Not just as "the guy who toured with Queen". He was, is, and always will be a great lead singer and a fantastic solo artist. He has been the frontman of top bands such as Free (who released four Top 5 albums here in the US), Bad Company (who have sold over 30 million albums worldwide) and has earned Grammy nods for his solo career. I think it's the biggest honor and a definite career booster to be working with Brian and Roger, so Paul is riding high right now, I'm guessing. But no matter; they make a fine match, and have proven it time and time again, from Sheffield to Hyde Park, and soon they will tear through the United States in style. In my humble opinion, Q+PR has proven to be a better success that what anyone would have thought before. Sure, it's not as fantastic as Queen in the past, but it's good enough by today's standards. It sure as hell beats the crap that MTV and radio stations are playing today. So, simply put, Queen + Paul Rodgers is here to stay, and there is nothing you can do about it. |
| Ray D O'Gaga 09.01.2006 13:48 |
I think the Permed Pants is an intentionally cartoonish parody of the Permed Poodle. This assumes I have my Sarcasm Detector on and in good working order. |
| The Real Wizard 09.01.2006 13:54 |
Bryans Permed Pants wrote: Of course David Lee Roth is correct. Paul Rodgers is a prat can't sing been in bands no one has heard of and sold no records.Um... Paul Rodgers is the only person to have led three bands to multi-platinum success. Maybe you haven't heard of Free, Bad Company, and The Firm, but millions of others have. Free was a huge voice and influence on the late 60s blues-rock movement in the UK. Bad Company sold millions of records, and The Firm was a supergroup including Jimmy Page. Get with it. |
| vic 09.01.2006 14:25 |
This is all that needs to be said. Q+P are bringing us the music we all love to a concert format and what more can a fan ask. DLR is dead wrong from a fans point of view. Example. Journey has a new front man and I have had the best time of my life attending their shows when ever possible. Maybe DLR should check out Steve Augeri from Journey. He can get together with Steve Perry and cry about it. |
| Music Man 09.01.2006 14:50 |
I will agree that Paul Rogers has nothing on Queen, but I still think that Queen is such a band that has enough respect and humility to bill Paul Rogers on the same level as them. But David Lee Roth brings up a lot of good points, such as the use of triggering. The problem with him is he lacks tact when promoting his points, so they tend to go idle. But I really wish that a lot of rock bands these days would not trigger and sample as prevalently as they do - it's part of musical integrity. Whenever Queen did not perform something live, they went out of their way to show this. I wonder how much Q+PR uses these effects. I agree with a lot of things he says. He's a true rocker. |
| bryans permed poodle 15069 09.01.2006 15:15 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:I have heard of the FIRM. You see good ol Jimmy Page thought it was inappropriate to come up with a name like Led Zep + Paul Rodgers. Even when Page teams up with Plant they call themselves "Page & Plant" not Led Zep. Brain and Roger should be taking note. I hate what Brian and Roger have done to the name Queen and our beloved FreddieBryans Permed Pants wrote: Of course David Lee Roth is correct. Paul Rodgers is a prat can't sing been in bands no one has heard of and sold no records.Um... Paul Rodgers is the only person to have led three bands to multi-platinum success. Maybe you haven't heard of Free, Bad Company, and The Firm, but millions of others have. Free was a huge voice and influence on the late 60s blues-rock movement in the UK. Bad Company sold millions of records, and The Firm was a supergroup including Jimmy Page. Get with it. |
| Don Corleone 09.01.2006 18:45 |
Dave is right most of the time. Read his book "Crazy from the heat". The guy is smart, very funny and a great, great singer. Queen plus Paul Rodgers is like Van Halen without David Lee Roth. Not the real thing. |
| Don Corleone 09.01.2006 18:48 |
And listen to classic Van Halen (1978 - 1984). |
| Suigi 09.01.2006 20:00 |
Queen + David Lee Roth? Imagine THAT one, hmm. |
| Sharon G. 09.01.2006 20:07 |
Bryans Permed Pants wrote:I agree.Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:I have heard of the FIRM. You see good ol Jimmy Page thought it was inappropriate to come up with a name like Led Zep + Paul Rodgers. Even when Page teams up with Plant they call themselves "Page & Plant" not Led Zep. Brain and Roger should be taking note. I hate what Brian and Roger have done to the name Queen and our beloved FreddieBryans Permed Pants wrote: Of course David Lee Roth is correct. Paul Rodgers is a prat can't sing been in bands no one has heard of and sold no records.Um... Paul Rodgers is the only person to have led three bands to multi-platinum success. Maybe you haven't heard of Free, Bad Company, and The Firm, but millions of others have. Free was a huge voice and influence on the late 60s blues-rock movement in the UK. Bad Company sold millions of records, and The Firm was a supergroup including Jimmy Page. Get with it. |
| jcrawford79 09.01.2006 20:16 |
David Lee Roth has got to be the biggest douchebag rock has seen since Ted Nugent. |
| Music Man 09.01.2006 22:18 |
jcrawford79 wrote: David Lee Roth has got to be the biggest douchebag rock has seen since Ted Nugent.Um...Axl Rose, anyone? At least Dave and the Nuge are all for fun. They're not actually assholes. And they both can, at times, be very insightful, intelligent, and wise. Axl...never. |
| Knute 10.01.2006 01:13 |
Ray D O'Gaga wrote: I think the Permed Pants is an intentionally cartoonish parody of the Permed Poodle. This assumes I have my Sarcasm Detector on and in good working order.No doubt. The real BPP had a way of getting under the skin. This guy is just silly..lol |
| jcrawford79 10.01.2006 03:31 |
Music Man wrote:While at the same time respecting your opinion, I stand firm in my belief that they are both douchebags of the cheapest variety.jcrawford79 wrote: David Lee Roth has got to be the biggest douchebag rock has seen since Ted Nugent.Um...Axl Rose, anyone? At least Dave and the Nuge are all for fun. They're not actually assholes. And they both can, at times, be very insightful, intelligent, and wise. Axl...never. |
| britishquality 10.01.2006 05:36 |
as much as we all love Queen, how can anyone forget that PR was a megastar before Queen started at the turn of the 70s. Respect due even if you hate him. |
| Serry... 10.01.2006 06:06 |
"You see good ol Jimmy Page thought it was inappropriate to come up with a name like Led Zep + Paul Rodgers. Even when Page teams up with Plant they call themselves "Page & Plant" not Led Zep. Brain and Roger should be taking note." This is where I agree with BPP. Sorry! |
| Fenderek 10.01.2006 06:18 |
Serry... wrote: "You see good ol Jimmy Page thought it was inappropriate to come up with a name like Led Zep + Paul Rodgers. Even when Page teams up with Plant they call themselves "Page & Plant" not Led Zep. Brain and Roger should be taking note." This is where I agree with BPP. Sorry!Gilmour / Mason / Wright was still Pink Floyd- even without Waters Hetfield / Ulrich / Hammett / Newsted was still Metallica- not 3 Guys From Metallica + Noob Collins / Banks / Rutherford were still Genesis- even though before many could say Genesis=Gabriel And so on and so on... There are many examples on BOTH sides... |
| Serry... 10.01.2006 06:37 |
Yes, Tom, but there are diffent kind of examples. "Queen without Mike Grose is not Queen", or "Queen without Freddie and John Deacon is not Queen" - are not the same. It's up to them how do they call themselves, it's their band, not mine, but I feel a little discomfort about that. (When Brian says "Queen are: me and Roger!" - I can't agree with that) |
| john bodega 10.01.2006 07:05 |
Who cares. |
| alibat 10.01.2006 09:45 |
Got to admit that I was never really happy with Brian and Roger using the Queen name with only half the band, not just for this tour but the collaborations with others over recent years, but at the end of the day it's up to them. But all the same it didn't stop me going to see them. Why would anyone deny themselves a fab night out just because they disagree with the name? Brian and Roger aren't the only ones using a classic band name without half the band. I should imagine there'll be several Who fans with similar feelings. I've said it before, Paul Rodgers is a dammed good singer in his own right with a tremendous back catalogue. Very different to Freddie, but that doesn't make him bad. Freddie was a one off. Many off us may be unhappy that they aren't touring under their own names like Page and Plant but there's nothing we can do about it. We can't twist Johns arm to tour and bring Freddie back. Just enjoy the shows and try not to dwell on the name thing too much. |
| Music Man 10.01.2006 15:04 |
Serry... wrote: "You see good ol Jimmy Page thought it was inappropriate to come up with a name like Led Zep + Paul Rodgers. Even when Page teams up with Plant they call themselves "Page & Plant" not Led Zep. Brain and Roger should be taking note." This is where I agree with BPP. Sorry!Page and Plant are iconic and legendary. May and Taylor are more esoteric. That's about it in a nutshell. |
| The Real Wizard 11.01.2006 12:53 |
Serry... wrote: Yes, Tom, but there are diffent kind of examples.I disagree. Queen without Mercury is the exact same thing as Genesis without Gabriel and Floyd without Waters. Phil Collins and Dave Gilmour are much bigger names now than they were in the early 70s. Do you think Phil Collins would be so huge today had Gabriel remained in Genesis? I honestly don't think so. Dave Gilmour got the spotlight once Waters left in '83, so it's the same thing for him. Music Man wrote: Page and Plant are iconic and legendary. May and Taylor are more esoteric. That's about it in a nutshell.Agreed. |
| bryans permed poodle 15069 11.01.2006 13:26 |
Music Man wrote:Still no excuse to use the name Queen. They should have formed a group with other legends just like Harrison,Petty, Orbison and Dylan did with The Travelling Wilburys's and left the Queen catalogue alone to rest in peace.Serry... wrote: "You see good ol Jimmy Page thought it was inappropriate to come up with a name like Led Zep + Paul Rodgers. Even when Page teams up with Plant they call themselves "Page & Plant" not Led Zep. Brain and Roger should be taking note." This is where I agree with BPP. Sorry!Page and Plant are iconic and legendary. May and Taylor are more esoteric. That's about it in a nutshell. |
| teleman 11.01.2006 14:31 |
Bryans Permed Pants wrote: Still no excuse to use the name Queen. They should have formed a group with other legends just like Harrison,Petty, Orbison and Dylan did with The Travelling Wilburys's and left the Queen catalogue alone to rest in peace.Well, they didn't. Get over it. |
| Music Man 11.01.2006 14:43 |
Bryans Permed Pants wrote:It is a very good excuse.Music Man wrote:Still no excuse to use the name Queen. They should have formed a group with other legends just like Harrison,Petty, Orbison and Dylan did with The Travelling Wilburys's and left the Queen catalogue alone to rest in peace.Serry... wrote: "You see good ol Jimmy Page thought it was inappropriate to come up with a name like Led Zep + Paul Rodgers. Even when Page teams up with Plant they call themselves "Page & Plant" not Led Zep. Brain and Roger should be taking note." This is where I agree with BPP. Sorry!Page and Plant are iconic and legendary. May and Taylor are more esoteric. That's about it in a nutshell. A) Nobody except a few impertinent fans actually has a problem with their use of the name Queen - not even old John Deacon. B) If they expect to turn any revenue from this tour, they sure as hell better call themselves Queen. It's much simpler than "Brian May and Roger Taylor, former members of Queen, + Paul Rogers." Particularly when you consider Queen's younger audience who has no idea who Brian May or Roger Taylor are, yet an appreciation for the band Queen and their music. |
| Serry... 11.01.2006 15:19 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Bob, I don't care how big is someone's name, I know that the best Pink Floyd albums (don't know about Genesis, therefore can't judge) were recorded with Waters. Someone disagree? Freddie was soul of the band, soul is gone, Bri and Rog still wants to use Queen name? Okay. It's not my band, I don't own rights to this title, guys still rocks, they still bring fun and joy for fans, but there's no need to shout on every corner "We're Queen! Queen are back!". IMHO.Serry... wrote: Yes, Tom, but there are diffent kind of examples.I disagree. Queen without Mercury is the exact same thing as Genesis without Gabriel and Floyd without Waters. Phil Collins and Dave Gilmour are much bigger names now than they were in the early 70s. Do you think Phil Collins would be so huge today had Gabriel remained in Genesis? I honestly don't think so. Dave Gilmour got the spotlight once Waters left in '83, so it's the same thing for him. |
| john bodega 12.01.2006 00:20 |
Hmmm. On paper it can look ridiculous, it'd be like Paul and Ringo going on tour as The Beatles. But, the Queen name doesn't necessarily mean the act itself, you know, they're playing a setlist that is predominantly Queen material (a fair whack of which was written by the two surviving guys on stage) so it'd actually be *ridiculous* to NOT mention Queen in the name! To be honest, I merely see it as an abbreviation of something silly like "Queen's Music plus Paul Rodgers" or whatever. The fact of the matter is, they've chosen the simplest and shortest name they're going to get, the motive behind it isn't really evil at all because it makes perfect sense. My only quibbles so far have been the name "Return of the Champions" (for that, I'd expect a magnificent lightshow that resurrects Freddie Mercury ala the 2004 Athens Olympics, with that amazing laser light + smoke rendition of DNA) and the fact that Paul Rodgers can't help but throw in the odd 'hit me with your heart and with your soul' crap. Look, it's all very nice to become an arsehole and defend ol' Freddie Mercury and copy+paste shit like "QUEEN RIP 1991" but really. This Q+PR outfit play good music, they make people happy (which is more than what you're doing) and they only drag more attention to Queen. Remind me again - who exactly loses out in all of this? It's not as though Freddie cares. He's dead. And he'll always be the best. Now shuddup. |
| Kaybowser 12.01.2006 01:20 |
"I think everyone knows "Diamond Dave" is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. " you can say that again not to defend Queen in any way. He got screwed twice from one band lol. Not to say he wasn't great with Van Halen, he was. But he thought he was too good for them and he found out "Grass isn't greener on the other side." Specially when you constantly Sh*t on it. I actually like Van Halen PLUS David Lee Roth and some of his solo stuff but the guys ego has never landed and for what he says I wouldn't take him serious. |
| Serry... 12.01.2006 02:09 |
Zebonka, who are you talking with? You both times post your replies after mine and I can't understand - is it for me or for someone else? |
| john bodega 12.01.2006 04:53 |
Nah, if I'm replying to someone I'll usually quote them, or say their name to start off with. To wit - no, I wasn't responding to you. :D |
| Serry... 12.01.2006 05:13 |
Ah, okay, sorry :) |
| Nitrousoxide 14.01.2006 21:52 |
I've never heard Rogers sing, so I can't make a comment about his singing. However, I do respect Queen's effort to say Queen & PR. It just shows respect to FM that Queen is Queen, but will never be the same without their lead. Thus, it will always be Queen and so and so... Look, I could care less about Deacon because he was an avg. musician, a dime a dozen. But, Queen will always be Queen and ***** because they respectfully show it's the members and another lead singer. IMHO, I just think it's in respect to someone they loved and felt wasn't replaceable. Roth should chill. |
| mustafunk 15.01.2006 00:19 |
The real irony here is that if gary fronted queen instead of VH, everyone would have been better off....queen, van halen,...well, I guess DLR would still be a bad DJ, but he'd have less to complain about. |
| bmayfan61 15.01.2006 00:31 |
David Lee Roth can't even sing David Lee Roth songs. |
| papercut 15.01.2006 12:47 |
: ) |
| mr4thofjuly 15.01.2006 13:20 |
Roth is right,this is 25% of what was once Queen,slaughtering their songs each night for a fast buck. |