mike hunt 23.02.2006 04:16 |
This is it, I read queen will release a new album. how will it sell?...will it be welcomed by fans, or will queen fans feel brian and roger are making a mockery of the queen name?...Is this news true or false?...My opinion is mixed, I'm glad brian and roger are working together, and Im curious to see what kind of material they came up with. On the negative, brian and roger have made some bad choices since 1991, why do they insist on using the queen name?...Once upon a time I was proud to be a queen fan, knowing my favorite band was the only band in history (I think) that had all of it's original members from their first to last album, thanks to brian and roger they ruined that cherished legacy forever. |
Thanks 23.02.2006 05:10 |
WUM If not...LINK? |
The Mir@cle 23.02.2006 05:11 |
link My opinion is clear. I don't care how it will be welcomes, but I'm gonna get it :D |
Togg 23.02.2006 05:48 |
Wonderful news, I hope it's correct I think it could prove to be a great album, Paul Rogers has some of my favorite songs under his belt and I look forward to what he will bring to the band. The only sad thing is we are now going to get inundated with numpties who can't string a sentence together and can only think about bashing it. Oh well. |
Ziggy_SD 23.02.2006 06:09 |
If the rumours are true, why don't Brian, Roger and Mr. Rodgers just form a new f*cking band already and let the Queen banner retain an ounce of credibility? If you're out performing Queen and Bad Company songs, it PROBABLY is logical to call yourself Queen + Rodgers... but why the hell would you insist on using the Queen name when you're recording brand new material that has nothing to do with the musicians' previous glories? |
zaiga 23.02.2006 06:18 |
Could it simply be a live CD from their US tour? |
Great King Sam 23.02.2006 06:26 |
The Flash Danny Project wrote: If the rumours are true, why don't Brian, Roger and Mr. Rodgers just form a new f*cking band already and let the Queen banner retain an ounce of credibility? If you're out performing Queen and Bad Company songs, it PROBABLY is logical to call yourself Queen + Rodgers... but why the hell would you insist on using the Queen name when you're recording brand new material that has nothing to do with the musicians' previous glories?Maybe because it is Brian and Roger, who are what we "have left" of Queen, performing with Paul Rodgers, e.g. Queen plus Paul Rodgers. Quite simple when you're not so close-minded. |
KillerQueen_1991 23.02.2006 06:50 |
i dont care i will get it life too short :) ROCK ON QUEEN AND PR |
Ziggy_SD 23.02.2006 06:52 |
Great King Sam wrote:Yes, but if they are recording NEW material - that is, material that has nothing to do with Queen or Paul Rodgers as a separate entity - why should they continue using the Queen + Rodgers banner?The Flash Danny Project wrote: If the rumours are true, why don't Brian, Roger and Mr. Rodgers just form a new f*cking band already and let the Queen banner retain an ounce of credibility? If you're out performing Queen and Bad Company songs, it PROBABLY is logical to call yourself Queen + Rodgers... but why the hell would you insist on using the Queen name when you're recording brand new material that has nothing to do with the musicians' previous glories?Maybe because it is Brian and Roger, who are what we "have left" of Queen, performing with Paul Rodgers, e.g. Queen plus Paul Rodgers. Quite simple when you're not so close-minded. |
Munchsack 23.02.2006 08:19 |
My position is unclear, even to me. Whatever happens, I am buying that album unless there is some unforseeable disaster. They must not call themselves Queen and if Deaky is not involved I don't think the word Queen should be in there at all. MY ALMOST PERFECT SCENARIO: Brian, Roger, Deaky & Paul form a new band with a new name (or Q + PR) and play only new songs. When they play live, however, they should play new songs plus some old Queen songs and All Right Now and also Wishing Well. MY PERFECT SCENARIO: Freddie Mercury is still alive, Queen are still producing masterpiece albums and touring and such. MY PERFECT COUSIN: A brilliant song by Derry punk group The Undertones, available on the album Hypnotised. |
Togg 23.02.2006 08:28 |
Why does it matter? I don't understand it nobody is going to take away and burn all their old material, your not going to lose it so what the hell is the problem? You would have to be mad to not use the brand when you have got such a big name, at the end of the day people want to see what is left of the original line up, if they didn't the tour would have been a disaster, as it was it became a huge success. If they'd gone out and called themselves Brirogpaul, have of the world would have no idea how they were and would have missed the tour. Does anybody seriously think that when people saw Queen were touring they rushed out thinking "I must go see that Freddie he sounds great" and then being disappointed he didn't show up, no, everyone went to see QUEEN. Only a idiot would go out and not use the name if your playing Queen songs, and you no what when they record it will also be a Queen record, because if it isn't then songs like 'Dear Friends' and anything else that was written by only one or two members also have to be seen as none Queen songs, in the history of Queen dozens of songs don't have all the band working on them. |
Serry... 23.02.2006 08:42 |
"If they'd gone out and called themselves Brirogpaul, have of the world would have no idea how they were and would have missed the tour." It has nothing to do with "Queen spirit lives in us", "Roger and me are Queen" etc. You can't sell out tickets without using Queen name - that's it, nothing more, no need to shout on every corner about spirit and their rights to do this or that. More defence words I hear - more I have feeling that someone is f**ing my brain with the show business crappy rules how to sell tickets and make more money. "in the history of Queen dozens of songs don't have all the band working on them." But there are no any songs which half of the band (Freddie and John) have never heard about even, though it's "Queen" songs. |
Togg 23.02.2006 08:55 |
Serry, between your bad english and my bad typing I have no idea what you said or meant! |
Serry... 23.02.2006 09:02 |
Okay. Then I'd better follow to what you wrote in your signature. |
Queenman!! 23.02.2006 09:17 |
I would call there album "Ghost of a smile". I heard T. Stafell has formed a new band. Out of money I guess. |
Daveboy35 23.02.2006 09:29 |
Hi guys okay let's put things into perspective here so queen are going to release a new album and it's come from the record company in america right?, well i think personally and someone else said this i think it will be a queen+paul rodgers concert album from their forthcoming tour. It makes sense in that respect because they are doing a tour there and with a release to concide the hopeful success of the tour will only help to sell product basically a la ROTC in the uk, business and profitwise it makes a lot of sense to do this. As for using the queen name this old chestnut will never die and will always stir up remarks and controversy we all know that freddie and john are no longer with queen, freddie obviously passed away and JD happy not to be part of the unit anymore but brian and roger were in a band called queen and still are even though 2 members are not. Again business sense and the right to go under the queen banner will continue it's only if paul rodgers brian may and roger taylor recorded BRAND NEW MATERIAL then people will be right to say WELL IT'S NOT QUEEN, because it most probably won't be it won't have freddie or john lyrics on them so they could go under a new name. I don't think it will happen with paul rodgers they will do the tour and then say goodbye and thanks for the experience,but if it is a queen album then it must be tracks with freddie vocals on them which bri and rog are hoping to ressurect and make something decent. That i will kill to get if that was the case i'm sure things will be more clearer when a official source or a definite release makes it set in stone. |
Ian_snake 23.02.2006 09:38 |
Freddie Mercurys the reason we bought them albums as well as Brian,Roger and John. Replacing Freddie with someone else is just silly. Everybodys heard of Queen,they have heard of bohemian Rhapsody,under pressure,We Will Rock You and the other famous songs they wrote. Brian May and Roger Taylor should leave their already famous reputation as it is by not making a new album. If they want money they should keep making new items such as concert DVDs and keep touring. |
Great King Sam 23.02.2006 09:42 |
Angelo_ramerez wrote: Freddie Mercurys the reason we bought them albums as well as Brian,Roger and John. Replacing Freddie with someone else is just silly. Everybodys heard of Queen,they have heard of bohemian Rhapsody,under pressure,We Will Rock You and the other famous songs they wrote. Brian May and Roger Taylor should leave their already famous reputation as it is by not making a new album. If they want money they should keep making new items such as concert DVDs and keep touring.What is it with people? No-one is replacing Freddie. Get over it for fucks sake. I'm just happy that there is even just a rumour of a new album. |
legends never die! 23.02.2006 10:03 |
wait this new album is actual new stuff... or just like live?? AND about this whole name debate whatever.... "What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet;" (romeo and juliet) ------> basically saying that if they change the name.... wouldnt it still be the same music?? oh ye! |
john bodega 23.02.2006 10:41 |
"thanks to brian and roger they ruined that cherished legacy forever." You fucking people can't go 5 seconds without abusing words like 'legacy' that don't actually *mean* anything to soulless cowards like yourself. If you love the old Queen so much *GO AND LISTEN TO IT* and shut the hell up. The original music cannot be 'ruined' by choices they make today. You might disagree with them, I might disagree with them, but the old music (great as it is) will always be there. What a bloody waste of space this 'ruined legacy' crap is; I reckon every post that uses words like that should be filtered into a "Bullshit Forum". |
john bodega 23.02.2006 10:49 |
And this moronic assertion that they're replacing Freddie. You cannot replace a man like Freddie, especially after he dies so unnaturally. You can only *succeed* him, follow in his place, try to play music that you think he'd be proud of! What numbeciles seem to forget is that Brian and Roger *knew* him. Maybe this Q+PR is a lot of toff and Freddie would have hated it, but in a guessing game over what Freddie would've liked, I think I'd rather listen to people that knew him, than a bunch of snotty fans who wank while listening to ADATR on loop. Heck even John Deacon endorsed it. That means, all of surviving Queen members like it, Freddie's family like it... I can honestly say the opinions of a few fans don't matter a shit in this instance! (backflip) However... if you want my opinion, they probably shouldn't put this out as Queen unless it's got at least one Freddie track on it :D I'm not saying this lightly, because I really don't care what name they use; if it's got guitar orchestration, big vocal harmonies (that Brian helped to think up in the first place) and kickarse Roger drumming then it's Queen-esque enough for me to enjoy anyway. But - I say, don't release it without Freddie songs because I desperately want more :( That is, if there's any left. |
tricias 23.02.2006 10:53 |
I have been a Queen fan since the early seventies. As far as I am concerned Queen is not Queen without Freddie Mercury. |
zaiga 23.02.2006 11:15 |
Zebonka12 wrote: But - I say, don't release it without Freddie songs because I desperately want more :( That is, if there's any left.Maybe they'll put Face It Alone on the album! |
zaiga 23.02.2006 11:18 |
tricias wrote: I have been a Queen fan since the early seventies. As far as I am concerned Queen is not Queen without Freddie Mercury.I agree, but if Brian, Roger and Paul are making a studio album then I'll buy it regardless of what name is on the cover. Who cares about names? I know what I like and don't like about the Queen with Freddie, and what I like and don't like about Q+PR. If they think they'll sell more albums by putting "Queen" on the cover, then bless 'em. It won't diminish anything they did in the 70s, 80s and 90s in my perception. |
Sithmarauder 23.02.2006 16:49 |
I see A little debate started on whether the new album will be a studio recording with Paul Rogers. I think it's safe to say that the new album will be a studio recording based on the fact that the report indicates that it will be the first release in 10 years. If it was going to be live again, it would not be the first release in ten years due to the fact that Queen and PR already released a live album last year. I got the information directly out of Walt Disney's Annual report to shareholders. For those of you who may not know, Disney is the parent company of Hollywood Records (BVMG). |
Cwazy little thing 23.02.2006 18:31 |
Still.... I'll believe it when Brian announces it on his site, and not before.... |
Ziggy_SD 23.02.2006 19:01 |
I can't believe these self-righteous anti anti Q + PR bozos. Just as well as those who have the right to praise BR or RT if they so much break wind, I believe those who are realistic or have any dignity at all equally have the right to express their lack of support for any endeavour the band involves themselves in. It's called Yin Yang, get used to it. |
john bodega 23.02.2006 19:19 |
The Flash Danny Project wrote: I can't believe these self-righteous anti anti Q + PR bozos. Just as well as those who have the right to praise BR or RT if they so much break wind, I believe those who are realistic or have any dignity at all equally have the right to express their lack of support for any endeavour the band involves themselves in. It's called Yin Yang, get used to it.Booring. The fact is, the "anti PR" people as you might call them don't have a leg to stand on, because they already have music to listen to. They can just go back to listening to Queen, and all this whinging about "Queen's legacy" isn't worth anything. People who are "anti anti PR people" as you might call them, have at least a reason to argue because these self righteous faux-Queen-fan bozos are writing shit like RIP 1991. :D |
kdj2hot 23.02.2006 20:01 |
Queen needs to get a song or 2 or 12 on that Pirates of the Carribean soundtrack. Especially if it plays during the film it'll get them a ton of exposure and will be a great way to kick things off. (Whoever who wrote that isn't a really great reporter because it would be more newsworthy if they said "Queen releases their first all original after over 15 years" or something to that effect. |
deleted user 23.02.2006 20:15 |
in retrospect its 3/5 queen which is a magority |
LASPALABRASDEAMOR 23.02.2006 20:53 |
Maybe they think AC-DC did it but to me it is a diferent case , you can get anybody to sing old queen songs to make people remember good times to tribute queen and freddie but replace John and Freddie sorry but is impossible |
TheImpossibleMan 23.02.2006 21:36 |
People need to chill out with this "wrecking the legacy" talk. It's not like Roger and Brian are burning the master tapes to Night at the Opera. I would love for Brian, Roger, and Paul to cut a stuido album. That said, I don't think they should use the name "Queen" because it's only half of the original members. |
Haystacks Calhoun 23.02.2006 21:44 |
Here we go with the idiot parade....again. |
Ziggy_SD 23.02.2006 21:58 |
Well, in an ideal world: 1. Rodgers would leave and do his own thing 2. Brian and Roger, feeling reinvigorated from touring again, would call up John and somehow convince him to join them again 3. The three would then decide to record a new album of original material with different vocalists for each track and credit the album to Queen + Friends. One of them could be George Michael, whom I feel has great chemistry with the band. I'd probably get Elton John again, Paul McCartney, even get Paul Rodgers to return to do his worst, not to mention some collaborations with some contemporary - yet decent - acts; Robbie Williams, Coldplay, whoever (I don't really pay attention to current Top 40). I think this way, they won't be alienating anyone - people can't bitch that they're cashing in on the Queen name and there's no risk of anyone claiming the band are trying to replace Fred, since they're more or less customising their sound to fit the new lead singer. Then of course, there's the inevitable cover of past glory, perhaps Tie Your Mother Down or something. You never know, they could even release a bonus disc with the same artists covering both Queen and their own material. How interesting would it be to hear BM, RT and JD do a cover of a Beatles track with McCartney on vocals? If it ends up a successful thing, it could be a regular thing with new vocalists on each album. Many celebs have actually suggested the band do this, namely Elton John and Bob Geldof. I think it will be a great idea! A mixture of the past, present and future! But wake me when it happens... |
deleted user 23.02.2006 22:21 |
The Flash Danny Project wrote: Well, in an ideal world: 1. Rodgers would leave and do his own thing 2. Brian and Roger, feeling reinvigorated from touring again, would call up John and somehow convince him to join them again 3. The three would then decide to record a new album of original material with different vocalists for each track and credit the album to Queen + Friends. One of them could be George Michael, whom I feel has great chemistry with the band. I'd probably get Elton John again, Paul McCartney, even get Paul Rodgers to return to do his worst, not to mention some collaborations with some contemporary - yet decent - acts; Robbie Williams, Coldplay, whoever (I don't really pay attention to current Top 40). I think this way, they won't be alienating anyone - people can't bitch that they're cashing in on the Queen name and there's no risk of anyone claiming the band are trying to replace Fred, since they're more or less customising their sound to fit the new lead singer. Then of course, there's the inevitable cover of past glory, perhaps Tie Your Mother Down or something. You never know, they could even release a bonus disc with the same artists covering both Queen and their own material. How interesting would it be to hear BM, RT and JD do a cover of a Beatles track with McCartney on vocals? If it ends up a successful thing, it could be a regular thing with new vocalists on each album. Many celebs have actually suggested the band do this, namely Elton John and Bob Geldof. I think it will be a great idea! A mixture of the past, present and future! But wake me when it happens...Queen + Robbie Williams = the reason John Deacon retired |
deleted user 23.02.2006 22:30 |
TheImpossibleMan wrote: People need to chill out with this "wrecking the legacy" talk. It's not like Roger and Brian are burning the master tapes to Night at the Opera. I would love for Brian, Roger, and Paul to cut a stuido album. That said, I don't think they should use the name "Queen" because it's only half of the original members.HALF THE F**KING MEMBERS!!!!!!!!!! IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!! Spike Edney has been a member since the late 80s. so he was there when Freddie died. He left the Band in 1992 after the Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert! He returned for the current tour. Also Freddie had his affairs in order, He felt that Brian, Roger, And John would never be more popular than the day he died. Brian went on a spiritual guilt trip for not attending freddies last video tapings, this led to him considering suicide. John and Roger convinced him that it was the wrong choice. I say "he saved the mans life, let him do as he pleases" about john. |
deleted user 23.02.2006 22:31 |
S**tdude wrote:Only Elton and David could get john to re joinThe Flash Danny Project wrote: Well, in an ideal world: 1. Rodgers would leave and do his own thing 2. Brian and Roger, feeling reinvigorated from touring again, would call up John and somehow convince him to join them again 3. The three would then decide to record a new album of original material with different vocalists for each track and credit the album to Queen + Friends. One of them could be George Michael, whom I feel has great chemistry with the band. I'd probably get Elton John again, Paul McCartney, even get Paul Rodgers to return to do his worst, not to mention some collaborations with some contemporary - yet decent - acts; Robbie Williams, Coldplay, whoever (I don't really pay attention to current Top 40). I think this way, they won't be alienating anyone - people can't bitch that they're cashing in on the Queen name and there's no risk of anyone claiming the band are trying to replace Fred, since they're more or less customising their sound to fit the new lead singer. Then of course, there's the inevitable cover of past glory, perhaps Tie Your Mother Down or something. You never know, they could even release a bonus disc with the same artists covering both Queen and their own material. How interesting would it be to hear BM, RT and JD do a cover of a Beatles track with McCartney on vocals? If it ends up a successful thing, it could be a regular thing with new vocalists on each album. Many celebs have actually suggested the band do this, namely Elton John and Bob Geldof. I think it will be a great idea! A mixture of the past, present and future! But wake me when it happens...Queen + Robbie Williams = the reason John Deacon retired |
The Real Wizard 23.02.2006 23:45 |
mike hunt wrote: Once upon a time I was proud to be a queen fan, knowing my favorite band was the only band in history (I think) that had all of it's original members from their first to last album, thanks to brian and roger they ruined that cherished legacy forever.I actually see where you're coming from, as you raise a very good point. Not many long-lasting bands keep the same lineup from beginning to end, but I don't think the legacy is being ruined. They just won't have that statistic to their name anymore. TheImpossibleMan wrote: I would love for Brian, Roger, and Paul to cut a stuido album. That said, I don't think they should use the name "Queen" because it's only half of the original members.Should the Rolling Stones, Chicago, Pink Floyd, and The Who change their names too? S**tdude wrote: HALF THE F**KING MEMBERS!!!!!!!!!! IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!! Spike Edney has been a member since the late 80s. so he was there when Freddie died. He left the Band in 1992 after the Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert! He returned for the current tour.No need to react by calling someone else an idiot in caps, especially when you're wrong. Never once has Spike formally been a member of Queen. |
teddybear 24.02.2006 02:14 |
The Flash Danny Project wrote: If the rumours are true, why don't Brian, Roger and Mr. Rodgers just form a new f*cking band already and let the Queen banner retain an ounce of credibility? If you're out performing Queen and Bad Company songs, it PROBABLY is logical to call yourself Queen + Rodgers... but why the hell would you insist on using the Queen name when you're recording brand new material that has nothing to do with the musicians' previous glories?good point !! |
The Man On The Prowl 24.02.2006 14:49 |
Sithmarauder wrote: I think it's safe to say that the new album will be a studio recording based on the fact that the report indicates that it will be the first release in 10 years. If it was going to be live again, it would not be the first release in ten yearsGreat! Let's hope in some new material! In any case I'm going to get it! Btw, it it true that the new album by Axl Rose, Chinese Democracy, has more that 30 songs and some of them have Brian on guitar? |
deleted user 24.02.2006 16:59 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "thanks to brian and roger they ruined that cherished legacy forever." You fucking people can't go 5 seconds without abusing words like 'legacy' that don't actually *mean* anything to soulless cowards like yourself. If you love the old Queen so much *GO AND LISTEN TO IT* and shut the hell up. The original music cannot be 'ruined' by choices they make today. You might disagree with them, I might disagree with them, but the old music (great as it is) will always be there. What a bloody waste of space this 'ruined legacy' crap is; I reckon every post that uses words like that should be filtered into a "Bullshit Forum".I agree |
gimmetheprize 24.02.2006 20:17 |
mike hunt wrote: This is it, I read queen will release a new album. how will it sell?...will it be welcomed by fans, or will queen fans feel brian and roger are making a mockery of the queen name?...Is this news true or false?...My opinion is mixed, I'm glad brian and roger are working together, and Im curious to see what kind of material they came up with. On the negative, brian and roger have made some bad choices since 1991, why do they insist on using the queen name?...Once upon a time I was proud to be a queen fan, knowing my favorite band was the only band in history (I think) that had all of it's original members from their first to last album, thanks to brian and roger they ruined that cherished legacy forever.It will probably be some album released in America to coincide after the concerts over there, or yet another re-packaging of songs for somewhere like Japan just like Jewells 1 and 2. I do hope a new album does materialise but I will believe it when I see it or hear it and then but a copy myself. |