QueenZone discussion #725210
It is my belief that John would have left the band...
| Togg 21.02.2006 07:53 |
OK, so lets assume that Freddie was still here and Queen had continued touring. I believe john was in such an uncertain state of mind by the early 90's that he would have left the band, or at the very least he would have refused to tour. debate... |
| pcgenius9 21.02.2006 07:55 |
I think whatever, Queen did pretty well because mot groups tend to split up and have members leave after about a year or so... To have a top album out in 1973 and still have a top album out in 1991 is some achievement - with the same lineup. |
| deleted user 21.02.2006 08:39 |
I think that he would have left aswell cos he seemed to be getting bored. If they were still around, i dont think there would be much chance that he would still be there I think that he always felt a bit out of place and weak because the others were so powerful, he was also the last member to be added to the band so that might have had something to do with it, just a hunch. He was the least rock n roll of them all and the most private Private + Rock N Roll +Papparzzi =Bad Mixture |
| Ziggy_SD 21.02.2006 08:42 |
We are good at speculating, aren't we? Truth is, nobody knows what John would've done except John. Then again, nobody knows where Queen would be today if Freddie wasn't homosexual. |
| john bodega 21.02.2006 09:23 |
"if Freddie wasn't homosexual." Possibly the stupidest thing I've read all day. AIDS kills both sides you know! :D Granted, possibility of contraction from female to male is less likely, but there you have it - it does happen, and if Freddie was doing his usual shagging-like-rabbits act, he probably would've gotten something nasty anyway. |
| boca 21.02.2006 09:46 |
FLASH DANNY wrote: if Freddie wasn't homosexual.If Freddie wasn't homosexual, half of the songs, if not more, would never be done. Everything would be totally different. It would be totally different band |
| -luke_taylor- 28432 21.02.2006 10:42 |
If he did of left it wouldnt of been known to none queen fans, the only people out of queen that are known to none queen fans are freddie and brian, no one knows john or roger, only queen fans |
| pcgenius9 21.02.2006 10:55 |
That is a bit of a silly comment. |
| no one but you 28112 21.02.2006 13:36 |
boca wrote:freddie probably wouldn't get aids if he wasn't gayFLASH DANNY wrote: if Freddie wasn't homosexual.If Freddie wasn't homosexual, half of the songs, if not more, would never be done. Everything would be totally different. It would be totally different band |
| DavidRFuller 21.02.2006 14:52 |
I think they just would have taken a break every couple of years. |
| TheImpossibleMan 21.02.2006 15:11 |
Assuming the only change is that Freddie lives, but everything else, like decreased session work and the ceasing of touring still happen, Queen would probably have stopped making albums by the mid-90's. I could see Freddie and Brian working on several solo albums. Maybe around the year 2000 they cut an album, but it isn't really up to their previous standards. Eventually, John retires and the Queen name is officially put to rest. |
| Sharon G. 21.02.2006 19:07 |
Togg wrote: OK, so lets assume that Freddie was still here and Queen had continued touring. I believe john was in such an uncertain state of mind by the early 90's that he would have left the band, or at the very least he would have refused to tour. debate...agree. |
| Ziggy_SD 21.02.2006 21:10 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "if Freddie wasn't homosexual." Possibly the stupidest thing I've read all day. AIDS kills both sides you know! :D Granted, possibility of contraction from female to male is less likely, but there you have it - it does happen, and if Freddie was doing his usual shagging-like-rabbits act, he probably would've gotten something nasty anyway.Surely you must've read something stupider in some magazine or tabloid. Granted, AIDS isn't an exclusively homosexual thing, but I could put my own health on the line when I say that Freddie would still be with us today if he wasn't homosexual. |
| Ziggy_SD 21.02.2006 21:15 |
Togg wrote: OK, so lets assume that Freddie was still here and Queen had continued touring. I believe john was in such an uncertain state of mind by the early 90's that he would have left the band, or at the very least he would have refused to tour. debate...What gave you the impression that John was thinking of leaving the band in the early 90s? He gave an interview whilst making the video of Days Of Our Lives and sounded quite thankful to still be recording. John was probably more of a businessman than a musician at that point in his career so it'd be slightly irrelevant whether or not he was getting bored with the band's musical output. |
| 7Innuendo7 21.02.2006 22:44 |
maybe...john would do a solo project and have 3 hit singles? :D |
| Togg 22.02.2006 04:08 |
FLASH DANNY wrote:He also stated several times how he was going through a "very uncertain time in his life" and it is well known he didn't like touring and being away from the family.Togg wrote: OK, so lets assume that Freddie was still here and Queen had continued touring. I believe john was in such an uncertain state of mind by the early 90's that he would have left the band, or at the very least he would have refused to tour. debate...What gave you the impression that John was thinking of leaving the band in the early 90s? He gave an interview whilst making the video of Days Of Our Lives and sounded quite thankful to still be recording. John was probably more of a businessman than a musician at that point in his career so it'd be slightly irrelevant whether or not he was getting bored with the band's musical output. Couple that with the fact he has now hung up his bass and left the music business, I don't think it's a huge leap to make. But I am not second guessing, just debating. |
| kdj2hot 23.02.2006 19:53 |
Togg your reasoning is brain dead. Why would John refuse to tour? He would've stuck with it as long as the others stuck with it. Their touring schedules probably would've slowed anyway because most of them (except Freddie) had family obligations. He wasn't the only one. Also of note, saying it's extremely not wise to throw out that AIDS kill on both sides. It's very logical to reason that if Freddie wasn't engaging in homosexual activities he would nit have contracted AIDS but if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle so why speculate. |
| ok.computer 23.02.2006 21:40 |
kdj2hot wrote: if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle so why speculate.Actually, if your aunt had balls I'd feel sorry for your uncle. |
| Ready_Coddie 23.02.2006 23:10 |
The fuck you mean if he wasn't gay... note: Homosexuality is in the Genes, its not a state of mind which can be controlled. He tried to surpress his feelings but eventually came out and become far more confident and happy with himself. I think we should support AIDS victims and work on eradicating the disease if we are actually angry |
| Ziggy_SD 23.02.2006 23:56 |
Ready_Coddie wrote: Homosexuality is in the Genes, its not a state of mind which can be controlled.I know this is way OT, but is that a scientific fact? I thought homosexuality was the result of having some kind of supressed or traumatic early childhood or something, at least that's what Freud thought. By that reckoning, I think Freddie had it pretty hard when he won that baby photo competition. Just imagine -- you can't even hold a pen and people are already bombarding you for autographs! That's got to leave a mark... |
| Wilki Amieva 25.02.2006 23:21 |
Oh my Gosh, what a bunch of ignorant commentaries we have here!!! I just cannot believe this. |
| john bodega 25.02.2006 23:38 |
"Surely you must've read something stupider in some magazine or tabloid. Granted, AIDS isn't an exclusively homosexual thing, but I could put my own health on the line when I say that Freddie would still be with us today if he wasn't homosexual." There's a whole world of doctors who disagree with you. Sure, maybe he'd still be here. Maybe he'd still be here if he banged just a different selection of men who'd be slightly luckier. What I was getting at is that there's absolutely no guarantee that you won't cop it off a girl. The transmission is less likely but there you have it. |
| Ziggy_SD 26.02.2006 00:12 |
Fair enough. But you don't hear an awful lot about promiscuous hetero celebs who contract AIDS... |
| Fireplace 26.02.2006 05:00 |
The Flash Danny Project wrote: Fair enough. But you don't hear an awful lot about promiscuous hetero celebs who contract AIDS...Go tell that to Magic Johnson. How many celebrities with AIDS can you name anyway? |
| Joeker 27.02.2006 01:18 |
Sry to spoil the fun back there, but homosexuality is a choice. Until There is hard proof that its in your genes, I stand by what I say. And besides, his parents were straight, thers not really anyway it could be genes. |
| Shun It 27.02.2006 04:26 |
|
| john bodega 27.02.2006 07:55 |
"Fair enough. But you don't hear an awful lot about promiscuous hetero celebs who contract AIDS..." Since when can we rely on celebrity news for an ounce of truth? Besides it's not like AIDS is the only venereal disease that can kill you, move along. "Sry to spoil the fun back there, but homosexuality is a choice." Hahahaha, thanks for that, I haven't heard such a funny joke all day. I didn't choose to be straight, I just am. I believe all sexual orientation is the same. I wouldn't bloody 'choose' to be gay, I can tell you that - apart from the arse-sex, there's the nasty business of having to deal with goose-stepping blockheads like yourself. "Until There is hard proof that its in your genes, I stand by what I say." Now I can agree with you here, inasmuch as there isn't really proof to say *what* causes all the different kinds of sexuality. "And besides, his parents were straight, thers not really anyway it could be genes." If we're to talk genealogy, you've made a misstep here. These things aren't always straight from parent to child. Red hair, for instance, can skip generations at a go. One must also account for mutations! Mutations from generation to generation are what make evolution work. I'm guessing different factors speed up/slow down the process, and make the changes more or less significant.... who knows. But yeah, let's not be too rash. Knowing societies prejudices against anything remotely non-hetero, why the hell would anyone 'choose' to be gay??? (aside from an admirable streak of pride in self). |
| Togg 01.03.2006 12:24 |
kingarthur wrote: Sry to spoil the fun back there, but homosexuality is a choice. Until There is hard proof that its in your genes, I stand by what I say. And besides, his parents were straight, thers not really anyway it could be genes.Now I've heard it all Homosexuality is a choice? and I suppose whether you like hot and spicy food or plain and simple food is a choice! No, we are all born with pre-determined factors that influence our personality. That's why we are all different, did you choose to like Queen or did you just hear them and think to yourself that sounded good? Do you choose to like girls with long legs or girls with big arses, no it just happens. Your comment is one of the most ignorant I've seen in a long time, not since the 80's have I come across just nonsense and homosexuality. Wake up |
| goinback 01.03.2006 20:32 |
(Though I'm not sure what this has to do with John....) I'm gay and I have not even the most minute attraction to the opposite sex. Nothing I've ever tried to do to "cure" myself has ever changed that, just caused more pain. (If someone can tell me how to be attracted to female breasts for instance, then I'd love to hear it! But, you can't.) I could actually date a woman, but since I'd have no physical attraction to her it wouldn't get very far and would just be mean to do that to her (and worse: to the kids if we got married). Freddie on the other hand is sort of a curious case. Personally I think he was bisexual, because he seemed to have at least some attraction to both sexes. I guess if you're attracted to both, then you can sort of slightly make yourself go more toward one or the other somewhat depending on your state of mind; you could pay attention more to one and block the other out, though you're not really changing your sexuality, just ignoring some of the desires. Whenever I hear of a gay person who supposedly changed and went straight (or a straight person who went gay), after looking at their past they always seem to have been bisexual to begin with.... |