QueenZone discussion #861715
"Don't mess with our memories." - The future with Queen
| Boy Thomas Raker 18.08.2006 13:30 |
Even before anything's been announced re: Brian, Roger and Paul recording new material this fall, there's been the inevitable debate about whether it's Queen or not. If you can bare with me during this lengthy post, I'll give you an interesting, hopefully balanced perspective. The other night, Jon Bon Jovi was the guest on Larry King Live on CNN. The discussion turned to criticism, and whether Bon Jovi listened to it. He said that he could accept valid criticism if someone could honestly say that they had an off night playing live, or this song didn't work in the context of an album if it were based on some kind of reality, not a pre-determined dislike of Bon Jovi as a band. Then Larry King asked if he'd ever taken a critic's words to heart. What Bon Jovi answered struck me as an incredibly honest and totally apropos of the Queen situation for the past few years. When discussing an "unplugged" album that Bon Jovi did, he desribed how the album bombed saleswise. Bon Jovi said that since his band was actually one of the first bands to do an unplugged type of show, he was shocked when it didn't sell, as he felt Bon Jovi was a great band in an acoustic setting. But he read a review where the critic said "don't mess with our memories." Bon Jovi spoke with the critic who basically said that people loved the songs in their original form, leave them alone as the definitive version already exists and is loved by fans. In other words, by altering what fans already knew and loved, Bon Jovi was messing with "our" memories. Fast forward to Queen in August 2006. People who want to hear new music in 2006 are very angry at people who don't want Brian and Roger to use the Queen name when recording. Touring is a different beast, and there were people on this board who loved Paul Rodgers and people who said that while musically great, it was like seeing a Queen tribute band. The thing that Brian, Roger and all of the people don't quite get as that our memories are our own. Brian May may very well feel that he has the right through years of hard work to use the name Queen. However, he's not writing the book on Queen. We all are, in our own way. For the people who don't care about a name, that's cool. Your Queen memories may have started in 2004 with hearing a Queen song, and your only live experience is with Paul Rodgers and no John Deacon. That's great, as music shouldn't be exclusionary if you weren't around during Queen's golden years. However, for the folks that believe Queen was and is, Roger Taylor, John Deacon, Brian May and Freddie Mercury, their memories are as strong as your new ones and all of this "new" Queen stuff is "messing with our memories." It doesn't make anyone a bad person if they don't want the name Queen used going forward. Food for thought. |
| rocks. 18.08.2006 14:04 |
You make a very valid point there....but that doesnt mean youre not messing with peoples memories who just became fans after freddie's death and they only have seen that as a live expeariance. Im not totally thrilled that theyre going to be billed as Queen, but I'll live with it and be excited about the album anyways. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 18.08.2006 14:16 |
I guess my point was more, there are people whenever this discussion occurs use who cap locks and say GET OVER IT!!!, or spew some curse words at the people who don't llike seeing the name used. I would hope that these people understand that to other people, their memory of Queen consists of the four originals, and if they feel that anything going forward with Brian and Roger is not Queen, it's their memories, no one elses. That doesn't make them evil or dinosaurs, it means that they've defined in their minds who Queen was or is. |
| rocks. 18.08.2006 14:33 |
Oh i get you, very much so, and I agree with you! |
| AlexRocks 18.08.2006 14:43 |
These previous posts are dumb. It doesn't matter who is playing what music as long as it is good. Just like I don't want to see the original members of group going out and doing bad music. Duh-eee. This is dead hippy ideology proven time and time again by the following bands continueing making great classic music before the original members left...and after. Black Sabbath, KISS, The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, The Who, Guns N' Roses, The Rolling Stones, Whitesnake, Bon Jovi, Def Leppard, Deep Purple, Heart, AC/DC (who by the way have the second best selling album in the world with "Back In Black" with...yes, their second lead singer), and Van Halen. Have you ever heard of these people? It is really important to learn about rock n' roll history before you make such comments. It is very telling who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't. I am sorry if you are close to death. It is those who are only able to hang on to just the past and can't cope with moving on in the future. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 18.08.2006 15:07 |
Ironically enough, Alex Rocks, you are the type of person who needs education more than others. Because your world revolves around you, ("just like I don't want to see the original members of group going out and doing bad music"), you've missed the point of the argument. If the point was about classic music being with new members, I would have argued that Brian, Roger and Paul haven't made any good music. Except I wasn't talking about that, and they haven't amde any music. Further, I know you don't know anything about rock history because Van Halen haven't put any music out with DLR since 1984 and people are still arguing 22 years later over Sammy Hagar taking over. And if you think KISS has made good music you could still be in the mindset of a pre-pubescent boy who's never been laid. Great show, yes, musically they're a joke. Freddie Mercury was a once in a lifetime talent. He is irreplaceable. However... I was not talking about that. I used Jon Bon Jovi's story as an understanding of why certain people feel the way they do. I'm neither asking you or expecting you to care, but just seeing if the stupid people who couldn't form an argument to grasp where other people are coming from, something you are incapable of. |
| 7 seas of Rhye 18.08.2006 15:17 |
I think Boy Thomas Raker makes a very good point. |
| Oberon 18.08.2006 15:38 |
Kinda see the point, but it's still one sided in a way. i never saw Queen "proper" live, but have followed them since I was eleven (i.e 1986 onwards). I'd have loved to have seen them live, but just missed out. So, i've been a fan through the releases of Miracle, Innuendo and Made In Heaven, so can't be said to be a recent fan, and yet, I can still get enjoyment from the musical and from Q+PR. I can distinguish the different aspects of all this history. I agree that Queen "proper" can never be bettered and that it's a shame I never got to see them in concert, but I can appreciate the opportunity to see Brian and Roger solo, and then together with PR etc. What people seem to have a problem with on this site is that they seem to need to be in one camp or the other. Why not enjoy both? Recognise the genius of four musicians and their works between 1970 and 1991. the work of 3 musicians in 1994/5, and the achievements of 2 or 3 musicians after 1995. It's all variations on a great body of work, and either enjoy it all, or enjoy part of it, but don't tell someone else that they can't enjoy whatever they want to enjoy. Discussions are fine, but this whole issue is so subjective it's untrue. We're human, so we rise to whatever bait is put infront of us, but does it really matter? Is it worth getting riled about? |
| Sebastian 18.08.2006 16:01 |
My position isn't related to the memories bit, or at least not in the context Bon Jovi put it. I love it when bands make different arrangements. 'Dream On' with orchestra is wonderful, so is 'Smoke On The Water' by Rock Aid Armenia, or 'All The Way From Memphis' by Dr May. There have been some poor attempts as well, like Paul McCartney's 'Something', which to me isn't just hedious but also hypocrit. In the case of Queen, if anything, I'd have preferred if they had done more different arrangements during their 80s tours (and drop the keyboard players). I loved the piano version of 'White Queen' and the guitar version of 'Love Of My Life'. Not more than the album ones, not less. They were just different, but more apt for the live set. Same as those songs put together in medleys, or the beautiful 'Teo' in 1979. I think Paul Rodgers is an amazing singer, and an extraordinary musician all-round (brill composer too). If they were named "Brian May, Roger Taylor & Paul Rodgers", I'd be the first one there. But I can't stand their cowardy (Brian's and Roger's). They say they don't wanna live in the past, yet they play songs which have been composed over 15 years ago (and which became famous on Freddie's voice in the first place). I always applauded Another World and Back To The Light (albums + tours), I even like those more than anything Queen did. They failed commercially (compared to nearly anything from Queen), but they were very brave and meticulous and professional and creative. Now, it's all about living in the past, trying to re-write history (see Roger's absurd "Paul was Freddie's favourite singer" excuses) and using the Queen name instead of their own because they know that otherwise they wouldn't succeed that much. There are some bands that can work better without any of the original members. I think Slash was a much better guitarist than Tracii Guns, and I think Buckethead was even better than Slash. Kiss' new formation is wonderful, although I still prefer the Carr era. Eagles became notably better with Timothy and Mr Walsh. But there are some other cases where it can't happen (to me). Led Zeppelin without Bonzo wouldn't have been Zeppelin, even if they had enlisted Cozy Powell along. Or Beatles with Chris Squire instead of McCartney; or Simon & Garfunkel with George Harrison instead of Art. And so on. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 18.08.2006 16:03 |
I think you understand my point Oberon, and it isn't to bait people. It's that it seems that anyone who doesn't agree with the people who see Queen as one thing tend to attack people without any sense (see Alex Rocks a few posts back.) The post is for those people, and this has gone on a long time, to see the POV of some of the older fans and their beliefs. I'm not picking a side, although my belief is that Queen proper finished in 1991. I do acknowledge and lots of people do, that if Q + PR didn't tour last year, it would have deprived a generation of fans (and I have a friend over 50 who'd never seen them, was a huge Freddie fan, and was thrilled) so it's not a generational thing. If we all didn't care about Queen, we'd be posting at Israeli-Lebanon or pro/anti abortion sites. |
| Serry... 18.08.2006 16:13 |
If someone wants to know what Serry thinks about it - read Sebastian's post again. |
| Mr Mercury 18.08.2006 16:37 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Brian May may very well feel that he has the right through years of hard work to use the name Queen. However, he's not writing the book on Queen. We all are, in our own way. For the people who don't care about a name, that's cool.Yes but in a way Brian (and Roger and Paul) ARE writing the book on Queen. Its just that this is the next volume thats all. And for me the only people that can mess with our memories is ourselves. As for those that say that its not Queen without Freddie, etc all I can say is fair enough it aint. But that doesnt necessarily mean that what Brian, Roger and Paul produce in the studio will be crap. I mean there are dozens of examples of bands that suffered line up changes of key members and still produced great albums. I am referring to bands like Pink Floyd (twice - Syd Barratt being replaced by David Gilmour and Roger Waters leaving), Rolling Stones (3 line up changes to my knowledge) and on a similar vein with Status Quo. That said though, I have to commend you for posting a decent thought provoking thread. |
| AlexRocks 18.08.2006 17:51 |
Um...again I stand by my posts. I didn't attack anyone I just said the posts were dumb! I don't care what you do sexually so why do you care what I have or haven't done? Is that an invitation of some sort? Yikes! ...and by the way say what you want about Sammy Hagar in Van Halen...he did sell more records with them than Roth. KISS wasn't the only group in that list so don't be picky on the facts...let's deal with them all. |
| OhioBobcat555 18.08.2006 18:23 |
The statements made by some that Queen are screwing around with fans' "memories" or a thought along that effect is a great joke. It is not only foolish but downright arrogant to believe that Queen's image and/or songs cannot be reproduced or re-formed over the years through different ways. Look... Freddie would be sitting here right now laughing at some of you that take Queen way too seriously. And hey, I love Queen... but that is probably the main reason outside of talent... they never took themselves seriously!! And they never denied that most of "it" was about the money!!!! So, therefore a couple of the members reform and call themselves "Queen"... so frickin what? It is still timeless music and to a new era of fans. And remember, ALL great and timeless music is passed on through time. Did Mozart believe that 250 years later his compositions would be reproduced a thousand times over with various instrument collections and interpretations on sale in compilations at Wal-Mart for $9.99??? To those of you that continue to post... not even mainly this one... about what "Queen" is and "should" stand for... remember that 200 years from now people will continue to get thousands of various compilations of Queen in thousands of unique interpretations... with Bohemian Rhapsody and Tie Your Mother Down on the flute, triangle and cow bell. There may be no justice to that, but it will happen one way or another so stop complaining! |
| bas asselbergs 18.08.2006 20:24 |
No matter what Brian, Roger and Paul have done so far, or will do in the future, my memories of Queen from the so called "golden years" are so strong and still alive, that nothing can do any damage to them. My memories from the past have nothing to do with anything that came or comes after Freddies death. And in perspective to Queen with and without Freddie....even with Paul singing on a new "Queen"-album, it will always be Freddie that i'll prefer hearing. Wich doesn't mean i will not appreciate the efforts of "1/2 of Queen + friends, featuring Paul Rodgers"... (as i think they should call the band. But my memories can't be changed. So whatever happens, Brian and Roger can't "mess with my memories" as the thread is called. The future of Queen, lies in the rich past of Queen. And therefor, Queen or Freddie will never be really dead...WE...the fans will keep them alive forever. And no matter in what era, or how many decades away from now, Queen will never stop producing memories in peoples hearts and minds and lives in the future, as long as their music is being played. I think that that will stop only, when planet earth dies....with everything on it. Not one second earlier! (was this still an "on-the-topic-reply" now...?) |
| Boy Thomas Raker 18.08.2006 21:05 |
Hey Bas, I agree with what you say. I guess I was as clear as mud when I said that I understood where Bon Jovi was coming from, and how plenty of people here are set in there ways about who and what Queen is. Personally, as it's not about me, I don't care what they do, as I'll buy it if its good, ans will steer clear otherwise. I guess after seeing this board degenerate in intelligence over the last few years, I made an ill advised attempt to try to bring some understanding of people's positions to the board, and have people steer clear of insults. Speaking of which... Alex Rocks, I wasn't coming on to you, I just found your comment about me being close to dath incredibly tasteless, and the type of comment I feel brings down the board. Disagree, fine, but if you call me an old geezer ready to croak it's game on, which adds nothing to the board. And I don't care how many records Sammy Hagar sold with VH (I like him far better than Roth BTW, and think Gary Cherone would have been great for VH given a fair shake.) In context of my post (some fans see Queen as one thing), die hard VH fans argue more over Roth/Hagar than anything. I've never said PR sucks or they shouldn't do anything now that Freddie's dead, I said people are passionate about this, respect their opinions. Sorry I tried to stimulate debate, I'll go back the general board and post topics dealing with John Deacon's whereabouts, Freddie's cock size and whether Brian May made his guitar. :D |
| AlexRocks 18.08.2006 22:31 |
Mmmmo.k. Sorry I came with guns loaded and blarin'. I guess I felt the same way of negativity that was or wasn't justified. I'll stop! Sometimes I have felt I have to fight or one might get walked all over! I didn't mean to hurt you...BUT I do agree about Gary Cherone...AND I like Roth...and Hagar! Lol! Bring 'em all on with Van Halen again as far as I'm concerned! They're the ones still alive! Sheesh! Anway, t'was fun...sort of, eh? Have a good day! Bye!~ |
| Freddie's #1 Fan Forever 18.08.2006 23:35 |
I can assure that what Brian and Roger do under the name "Queen" is not going to make much of an impact on anything. Although I think that it is really tacky, I don't see any point in getting too mad about it. However, they probably should not be using the name "Queen." |
| john bodega 19.08.2006 08:35 |
I suppose I can't get worked up over this, because I already sorted this out in my head when Q+PR first started up almost 2 years ago. It's plain and simple to me - it's not Queen. Q+PR was a tolerable name, because they were playing Queen music and PR music, and they were doing it with half of Queen as well. A new album with no Freddie on it and a Queen title would be really questionable. But I'd still listen to it. The name would cause me no grief - I mean, *I* know it's not really Queen, who the hell do I have to prove it to? |
| runner70 19.08.2006 10:25 |
Jon Bon Jovi was referring to the album "this left feels right" - an album with "alternative" versions of old classics. A real horrible affair (and thats my opinion a a longtime fan!) So the "new album" Brian Roger and Paul will put out will be all original material (I do hope so!) so its a different affair |
| brENsKi 19.08.2006 11:16 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: I was not talking about that. I used Jon Bon Jovi's story as an understanding of why certain people feel the way they do. I'm neither asking you or expecting you to care, but just seeing if the stupid people who couldn't form an argument to grasp where other people are coming from, something you are incapable of.Firstly, i think Alexrocks makes an excellent point. - it's nto about WHO is singing, performing as what name...it's whether the music is good. personally, i don't like the new sound - as it is going "backwards" ie - by taking a more blues/rock type singer onboard they are almost reverting to the Smile sound. I didn't like Smile...so that's MY reason for not liking the current lineup. as regards the "don't mess with our memories" analogy...it's hardly relevant...EVERY band that changed it's lineup continued to perform all the back catalogues - and queen should be no exception. the unplugged reference to Bon Jovi doesn't work - as Unplugged was an experiment that ended up working well and lasting approx 8 yrs....some of the Unplugged artists were given a new lease of life...Kiss, Dylan, Eagles, Oasis to name a few...and Nirvana's set was refreshingly interesting...so it's fair to say this particular critic "jumped a little too early" with his "don't mess with our memories" comment...and hence the number of bands that "went unplugged, messed with the memories" and made it work, means that your analogy just doesn't work. |
| john bodega 19.08.2006 12:24 |
I must be missing something though. One cannot mess with my memories. My memories of Queen are precious to me, and it'd take more than a fucking line-up change to ruin things. Get a goddamn backbone! |
| teleman 19.08.2006 17:03 |
My memories of Queen date back over 3 decades. I don't care what other people do or think because it doesn't change my memories. I would be quite happy to see them record under the name 'Rodgers, Taylor and May' but I expect it will be under Q+PR. Big f**kin' deal. I'll give it a chance. If it's good I'll probablt buy it whatever the name is. If it is horrendous I won't buy it and my Queen related momories will be just fine. "Don't mess with our memories" - what a weak argument. If your memories are so weak that you fear having them corrupted by someone's current actions you've got bigger health issues to worry about(alzheimers?) |
| john bodega 19.08.2006 22:50 |
teleman wrote: My memories of Queen date back over 3 decades. I don't care what other people do or think because it doesn't change my memories. I would be quite happy to see them record under the name 'Rodgers, Taylor and May' but I expect it will be under Q+PR. Big f**kin' deal. I'll give it a chance. If it's good I'll probablt buy it whatever the name is. If it is horrendous I won't buy it and my Queen related momories will be just fine. "Don't mess with our memories" - what a weak argument. If your memories are so weak that you fear having them corrupted by someone's current actions you've got bigger health issues to worry about(alzheimers?)Right on! |
| Boy Thomas Raker 19.08.2006 23:25 |
Final post as the stupidity level of this board increasingly frustrates me. Personally, me, myself, and I, posting as Boy Thomas Raker, do not give a flying fuck if it's Queen or not for their future endeavors. I wish it weren't as Queen, but it won't stop me from buying an album if it's good music. I've stated that I'm happy for new fans and don't think my 30 years as a fan counts for more than someone who owns the Miracle and saw them last tour. My point was, after reading through enough nonsensical attack posts over the past year since the tour was announced, that maybe some people don't like this configuration being called Queen, as PERHAPS it sullies their memories of the band. I thought what Jon Bon Jovi stated about people's memories (as the anti-call it Queen group believe the real Queen is dead) was PERHAPS suitable about how this group felt. That being the case, these people aren't FUCKEADS, and FUCKING CUNTS WHO SHOULD DIE!!! Comments like that are idiotic. The people you're making them to are people with opinions. My post, which obviously was not construed properly as now I'm an 80 year old who walks two miles uphill in the snow to contact Queenzone through my Morse code driven telegraph machime, was more a call for civility, and hopefully an opportunity to get away from the inane comments posted in the serious form on a regular basis. In my years here (awaiting alzheimer/dinosaur bashing), it's gone from an informative community to overall dumbness. If you disagree with people, that's great, but please, try to add something to the board other than yapping at people. I will now get off my soapbox. Sincerely, Brian May |
| wstüssyb 20.08.2006 04:22 |
I will now get off my soapbox. Sincerely, Brian May eh? |
| john bodega 20.08.2006 07:26 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Final post as the stupidity level of this board increasingly frustrates me. Personally, me, myself, and I, posting as Boy Thomas Raker, do not give a flying fuck if it's Queen or not for their future endeavors. I wish it weren't as Queen, but it won't stop me from buying an album if it's good music. I've stated that I'm happy for new fans and don't think my 30 years as a fan counts for more than someone who owns the Miracle and saw them last tour. My point was, after reading through enough nonsensical attack posts over the past year since the tour was announced, that maybe some people don't like this configuration being called Queen, as PERHAPS it sullies their memories of the band. I thought what Jon Bon Jovi stated about people's memories (as the anti-call it Queen group believe the real Queen is dead) was PERHAPS suitable about how this group felt. That being the case, these people aren't FUCKEADS, and FUCKING CUNTS WHO SHOULD DIE!!! Comments like that are idiotic. The people you're making them to are people with opinions. My post, which obviously was not construed properly as now I'm an 80 year old who walks two miles uphill in the snow to contact Queenzone through my Morse code driven telegraph machime, was more a call for civility, and hopefully an opportunity to get away from the inane comments posted in the serious form on a regular basis. In my years here (awaiting alzheimer/dinosaur bashing), it's gone from an informative community to overall dumbness. If you disagree with people, that's great, but please, try to add something to the board other than yapping at people. I will now get off my soapbox. Sincerely, Brian MayYou've fallen out of your tree. |
| Mikal 20.08.2006 13:11 |
Some people are irreplaceable and so is Freddie.Brian,Roger and John all wrote great songs but it was Freddie who made Queen what they were.A unique, great band.One of the greatest in the history of rock'n'roll.Brian and Roger should think about the legacy of the band and leave it untouched after Freddie's death.By that I don't mean they should not play these songs live.They just should form a new band and don't call it Queen.Because there is no more Queen. |
| brENsKi 20.08.2006 15:21 |
Mikal wrote: Some people are irreplaceable and so is Freddie.Brian,Roger and John all wrote great songs but it was Freddie who made Queen what they were.A unique, great band.One of the greatest in the history of rock'n'roll.Brian and Roger should think about the legacy of the band and leave it untouched after Freddie's death.By that I don't mean they should not play these songs live.They just should form a new band and don't call it Queen.Because there is no more Queen.wrong! that's your opinion but it doesn't make you right - all four of them made queen sound like queen (until hot space)...yes we all have a our favourite band member - but the songs belong to the band...and you have no justifiable cause to say they shouldn't perform the back-catalogue live ...on that basis you would also ban tribute bands and cover bands from doing other bands songs - because they are not their songs? |
| Donna13 20.08.2006 17:43 |
I would like to hear anything new that they are coming up with. |
| Mikal 21.08.2006 04:33 |
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:I'm quite surprised cause I didn't write that they should not play their back catalogue live.I just don't want them to record anything new under the name Queen.Queen was Freddie,Roger,Brian and John.Now it's only Roger and Brian.Imagine Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney recording new stuff and calling themselves The Beatles now.Mikal wrote: Some people are irreplaceable and so is Freddie.Brian,Roger and John all wrote great songs but it was Freddie who made Queen what they were.A unique, great band.One of the greatest in the history of rock'n'roll.Brian and Roger should think about the legacy of the band and leave it untouched after Freddie's death.By that I don't mean they should not play these songs live.They just should form a new band and don't call it Queen.Because there is no more Queen.wrong! that's your opinion but it doesn't make you right - all four of them made queen sound like queen (until hot space)...yes we all have a our favourite band member - but the songs belong to the band...and you have no justifiable cause to say they shouldn't perform the back-catalogue live ...on that basis you would also ban tribute bands and cover bands from doing other bands songs - because they are not their songs? |
| john bodega 21.08.2006 07:11 |
I have to admit to having double standards in this argument. It doesn't feel right for a new album to have Queen on the label - and yet, it feels right to hear there's a new Who album coming out. Don't ask me why. |
| Togg 21.08.2006 07:42 |
I certainly understand the sentiment from the original poster, however my own view on the matter is rather different. To me 'Queen' was / is more of an idea than simply a band, I loved the experimental side of what they did, folks that hate the 80's years to me just don't understand what Queen means if you like, they miss the point, it was not about being the same as everyone else or finding a pattern and sticking with it, it was about the music itself and how it had to change to stay ahead of the game and interesting, they were never going to be predictable or boxed into one category. They had to change to stay true to what made them individual. So for me all years are as interesting as the last, sure some experiments worked better than others but it was all Queen. i remember when Jazz came out and thousands of Queen fans screamed NOOOO this can't be Queen, same with The Game same with Hot Space and yet again when Radio Ga Ga was released. I just sat back and laughed, thinking these people fools for not understanding that they will never get what they had before from these four people, that wasn't the concept. Now for me (and I recognise not for all) Queen+PR encapsulates the concept and spirit of Queen, so the fact that it's only two of the four is fine, the spirit lives on and when I hear those drums and guitar I know it's Queen no matter what they play. So I personally find all the don't mess with the memories stuff interesting as to me it misses the point of a truly experimental band that was about music more than anything else. I know others will look at this another way, but that's how I view it, there is no issue to get upset with IMO |
| spymyshadow 21.08.2006 09:28 |
I don't think the new album will mess with my memory of queen. actually with its issue it will get clearer than ever who the real queen were. |
| ROCKMAMA 21.08.2006 12:36 |
Well Boy you are sure right of the state of this board! I do also agree with the folks that are awaiting "New" material from Queen +PR but in light of the "new" Def Leppard material that is a album of cover tunes, even RUSH issued a cover tune album last year. The phrase "new" is still sketchy since in the sad state the music industry is in nowdays, with its hip-hop thug/slut trash "songs" taking up much of the video and radio space and cookie cutter pop groups popping up like viruses its no wonder much of the true talented musicians of yesteryear i.e., Eagles, Rush, Queen, Queensryche,The Stones, The Who, etc will always have an audience because there is NO ONE THAT WILL EVER TAKE THERE PLACES or the very least be as good composers, musicians and performers as they are! As it stands now in the so-called Music Industry, of which the Hip-Hop category is run by gang members much like the way Las Vegas was and in some was still run by the mafia! Drug lords and the drug industry + prostitution run DEF JAM and all those labels that produce the cRAP! Rap music started out as a protest music of the black community and had a message but Hip Hop has corrupted the industry in that it prizes THUGISM, GANGS, RAPE AND MATERIALISM and has caused a racial divide in the music indutry that has not been seen in over 50 years! Hopefully it will burn itself out the way of disco...not soon enough for me! It's groups like the All American Rejects, Jet and Gnarls Barkley give me hope for REAL talent not American Idol semi-talent. Lets hope for a muscial revolution real soon people! ROCKMAMA |
| Micrówave 21.08.2006 13:13 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Further, I know you don't know anything about rock history because Van Halen haven't put any music out with DLR since 1984If you're going to bash people, you might want to get your facts straight. "Me Wise Magic" is a great DLR/Van Halen track, released on the greatest hits album.... SEVERAL YEARS AFTER 1984. Mikal wrote: Because there is no more Queen.Queen wasn't Freddie Mercury. In fact, Fred's solo stuff was, at best, mediocre. It's still their band and their choice to make, not ours. If you don't want to buy it, then go buy your Beyonce albums and thank you very much. |
| Micrówave 21.08.2006 13:20 |
Sebastian wrote: Simon & Garfunkel with George Harrison instead of Art.What exactly did Art bring to the table? |
| Mr Faron Hyte 21.08.2006 14:09 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: I guess my point was more, there are people whenever this discussion occurs use who cap locks and say GET OVER IT!!!, or spew some curse words at the people who don't llike seeing the name used.The reason people have begun to respond with that kind of language and attitude, generally, is because its a topic that has been talked to death for several years and people are tired of hearing the same arguments and of making the same counter-arguements, just for the sake of someone who came late to the party and who thinks he has something new and revolutionary to say about it, which in fact is the same thing that a dozen other people have already said. And thus rather than copying-and-pasting from the same done-to-death argument from 2 years ago, they shorthand it by saying "Who care - old news - if you don't like it, quit whinging and get over it". It doesn't have anything to do with intelligence or etiquette, it has everything to do with boredom. Its like coming onto a message board and debating the Hawley-Smoot Act. |
| iron eagle 21.08.2006 18:35 |
sssh its really John D FYI "Can't Get This Stuff No More" and "Me Wise Magic." VH with DLR 1996 rumoured to have recorded new stuff in 2001 with them also... |
| Mikal 22.08.2006 04:01 |
Mikal wrote: Because there is no more Queen.Queen wasn't Freddie Mercury. In fact, Fred's solo stuff was, at best, mediocre. It's still their band and their choice to make, not ours. If you don't want to buy it, then go buy your Beyonce albums and thank you very much. Brian's and Roger's solo efforts were at least as mediocre as Freddie's to be honest.It was four of them that made Queen what it was and this is the main reason for which John refused to join them. Of course it's still their band but calling it Queen while it lacks half of the original line up is ridiculous. |
| Mikal 22.08.2006 04:04 |
sorry, the above post should look like this;)
Mircrowave! wrote:Brian's and Roger's solo efforts were at least as mediocre as Freddie's to be honest.It was four of them that made Queen what it was and this is the main reason for which John refused to join them. Of course it's still their band but calling it Queen while it lacks half of the original line up is ridiculous.Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Further, I know you don't know anything about rock history because Van Halen haven't put any music out with DLR since 1984If you're going to bash people, you might want to get your facts straight. "Me Wise Magic" is a great DLR/Van Halen track, released on the greatest hits album.... SEVERAL YEARS AFTER 1984.Mikal wrote: Because there is no more Queen.Queen wasn't Freddie Mercury. In fact, Fred's solo stuff was, at best, mediocre. It's still their band and their choice to make, not ours. If you don't want to buy it, then go buy your Beyonce albums and thank you very much. |
| Q-Nick 22.08.2006 07:03 |
On the subject of JBJ, 'This Left Feels Right' is a bloody good album - expect for the drum machine on a couple of tracks. |
| Donna13 22.08.2006 11:33 |
I think most of the music out there today is what is mediocre (or worse) but I'm hoping it will turn around eventually. |
| john bodega 22.08.2006 12:00 |
Jet suck. |
| brENsKi 22.08.2006 13:07 |
Mikal wrote:another poor point. sorry, but YOU might not want them to...but<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:I'm quite surprised cause I didn't write that they should not play their back catalogue live.I just don't want them to record anything new under the name Queen.Queen was Freddie,Roger,Brian and John.Now it's only Roger and Brian.Imagine Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney recording new stuff and calling themselves The Beatles now.Mikal wrote: Some people are irreplaceable and so is Freddie.Brian,Roger and John all wrote great songs but it was Freddie who made Queen what they were.A unique, great band.One of the greatest in the history of rock'n'roll.Brian and Roger should think about the legacy of the band and leave it untouched after Freddie's death.By that I don't mean they should not play these songs live.They just should form a new band and don't call it Queen.Because there is no more Queen.wrong! that's your opinion but it doesn't make you right - all four of them made queen sound like queen (until hot space)...yes we all have a our favourite band member - but the songs belong to the band...and you have no justifiable cause to say they shouldn't perform the back-catalogue live ...on that basis you would also ban tribute bands and cover bands from doing other bands songs - because they are not their songs? 1. lots of people who never saw the original queen live (i did 5 times) would want to see the songs performed live 2. as 50% of the band still exist - THEY have every right to call themselves queen _ i for one don't buy into it...but i respect their right to call themselves queen and release whatever they like....doesn't mean we have to spend money on it....but we should respect their right - it's their band...and Freddie gave them his blessing anyhow 3. ain't stopped kiss, purple, the who, zep, sabbath, inxs, beatles (in '95), journey, lynyrd skynyrd, yes, genesis, iron maiden, ufo, ac/dc, whitesnake, etc from doing it - so queen are not exclusive either |
| NOTWMEDDLE 22.08.2006 19:00 |
AlexRocks wrote: These previous posts are dumb. It doesn't matter who is playing what music as long as it is good. Just like I don't want to see the original members of group going out and doing bad music. Duh-eee. This is dead hippy ideology proven time and time again by the following bands continueing making great classic music before the original members left...and after. Black Sabbath, KISS, The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, The Who, Guns N' Roses, The Rolling Stones, Whitesnake, Bon Jovi, Def Leppard, Deep Purple, Heart, AC/DC (who by the way have the second best selling album in the world with "Back In Black" with...yes, their second lead singer), and Van Halen. Have you ever heard of these people? It is really important to learn about rock n' roll history before you make such comments. It is very telling who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't. I am sorry if you are close to death. It is those who are only able to hang on to just the past and can't cope with moving on in the future.You forgot Pink Floyd as a band who made records after some originals either left or were fired. They still made records after Syd Barrett left. They made one album without keyboardist Rick Wright who was fired from the band during The Wall period by Waters. Also, PF made two studio and two live albums without singer, bass player and chief lyric writer Roger Waters. Singer and guitarist David Gilmour joined PF as a fifth member in 1968 and appeared on every album from ASoS to present. Drummer Nick Mason is the lone Floyd member to appear on every PF studio effort. Wright and Mason are the only two PF original members to play every PF gig from 1965/66 college days to present. Styx are now a joke. Classic Styx was and always will be Dennis DeYoung(the dude who replaced him sounds like a drunk leprechaun), John and Chuck Panozzo, James Young and Tommy Shaw(John Curulewski was great on first five albums and Glen Burtnik was excellent on Edge of the Century). Genesis tried to soldier on without Phil Collins but Americans were not receptive! |
| NOTWMEDDLE 22.08.2006 19:01 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Even before anything's been announced re: Brian, Roger and Paul recording new material this fall, there's been the inevitable debate about whether it's Queen or not. If you can bare with me during this lengthy post, I'll give you an interesting, hopefully balanced perspective. The other night, Jon Bon Jovi was the guest on Larry King Live on CNN. The discussion turned to criticism, and whether Bon Jovi listened to it. He said that he could accept valid criticism if someone could honestly say that they had an off night playing live, or this song didn't work in the context of an album if it were based on some kind of reality, not a pre-determined dislike of Bon Jovi as a band. Then Larry King asked if he'd ever taken a critic's words to heart. What Bon Jovi answered struck me as an incredibly honest and totally apropos of the Queen situation for the past few years. When discussing an "unplugged" album that Bon Jovi did, he desribed how the album bombed saleswise. Bon Jovi said that since his band was actually one of the first bands to do an unplugged type of show, he was shocked when it didn't sell, as he felt Bon Jovi was a great band in an acoustic setting. But he read a review where the critic said "don't mess with our memories." Bon Jovi spoke with the critic who basically said that people loved the songs in their original form, leave them alone as the definitive version already exists and is loved by fans. In other words, by altering what fans already knew and loved, Bon Jovi was messing with "our" memories. Fast forward to Queen in August 2006. People who want to hear new music in 2006 are very angry at people who don't want Brian and Roger to use the Queen name when recording. Touring is a different beast, and there were people on this board who loved Paul Rodgers and people who said that while musically great, it was like seeing a Queen tribute band. The thing that Brian, Roger and all of the people don't quite get as that our memories are our own. Brian May may very well feel that he has the right through years of hard work to use the name Queen. However, he's not writing the book on Queen. We all are, in our own way. For the people who don't care about a name, that's cool. Your Queen memories may have started in 2004 with hearing a Queen song, and your only live experience is with Paul Rodgers and no John Deacon. That's great, as music shouldn't be exclusionary if you weren't around during Queen's golden years. However, for the folks that believe Queen was and is, Roger Taylor, John Deacon, Brian May and Freddie Mercury, their memories are as strong as your new ones and all of this "new" Queen stuff is "messing with our memories." It doesn't make anyone a bad person if they don't want the name Queen used going forward. Food for thought.Bon Jovi fell from grace cos of Nirvana. The so-called "three wise men" of music sent Bon Jovi to the gutter. Then after Cobain died, Bon Jovi came back! I'll take Cobain's whining over Jovi's poodle hair! |
| NOTWMEDDLE 22.08.2006 19:03 |
<font color=red><b>Mr Mercury</b> wrote:You forgot Rick Wright was fired from Pink Floyd in 1979 during The Wall sessions.Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Brian May may very well feel that he has the right through years of hard work to use the name Queen. However, he's not writing the book on Queen. We all are, in our own way. For the people who don't care about a name, that's cool.Yes but in a way Brian (and Roger and Paul) ARE writing the book on Queen. Its just that this is the next volume thats all. And for me the only people that can mess with our memories is ourselves. As for those that say that its not Queen without Freddie, etc all I can say is fair enough it aint. But that doesnt necessarily mean that what Brian, Roger and Paul produce in the studio will be crap. I mean there are dozens of examples of bands that suffered line up changes of key members and still produced great albums. I am referring to bands like Pink Floyd (twice - Syd Barratt being replaced by David Gilmour and Roger Waters leaving), Rolling Stones (3 line up changes to my knowledge) and on a similar vein with Status Quo. That said though, I have to commend you for posting a decent thought provoking thread. |
| NOTWMEDDLE 22.08.2006 19:25 |
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:David Gilmour did an unplugged DVD a few years back. He re-arranged Shine On You Crazy Diamond(parts 1-5) to be just acoustic guitar. High Hopes with a choir, cello and cor anglais was excellent. Also doing covers of Syd Barrett, an excerpt from a French opera, a Richard Thompson cover and a song from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.Boy Thomas Raker wrote: I was not talking about that. I used Jon Bon Jovi's story as an understanding of why certain people feel the way they do. I'm neither asking you or expecting you to care, but just seeing if the stupid people who couldn't form an argument to grasp where other people are coming from, something you are incapable of.Firstly, i think Alexrocks makes an excellent point. - it's nto about WHO is singing, performing as what name...it's whether the music is good. personally, i don't like the new sound - as it is going "backwards" ie - by taking a more blues/rock type singer onboard they are almost reverting to the Smile sound. I didn't like Smile...so that's MY reason for not liking the current lineup. as regards the "don't mess with our memories" analogy...it's hardly relevant...EVERY band that changed it's lineup continued to perform all the back catalogues - and queen should be no exception. the unplugged reference to Bon Jovi doesn't work - as Unplugged was an experiment that ended up working well and lasting approx 8 yrs....some of the Unplugged artists were given a new lease of life...Kiss, Dylan, Eagles, Oasis to name a few...and Nirvana's set was refreshingly interesting...so it's fair to say this particular critic "jumped a little too early" with his "don't mess with our memories" comment...and hence the number of bands that "went unplugged, messed with the memories" and made it work, means that your analogy just doesn't work. |
| carboengine 23.08.2006 14:56 |
Seeing Queen + Paul Rodgers was the most solid two hours of fun I have ever had. (I became a Queen fan in 2004.) Later I bought Return Of The Champions and was bored with it. The stage lighting was garish - solid blue or solid red or solid green, etc. It looked like the group was immersed in bright vats of Jello. (At the concert I sat close to the stage and wasn't aware of the light show.) The Queen+ dvd didn't seem like a cohesive group to me because there were so many solos. The magic just wasn't there. When I don't want my memories messed with, I'll listen to and savor pure QUEEN. However, being in the same arena as Brian and Roger was an honor, and at the end while many in the audience were yelling MORE MORE MORE, a lot of us were yelling THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! Things for me are not always black and white, but many shades of gray. |
| Marcos Napier 23.08.2006 18:03 |
[quote]and by the way say what you want about Sammy Hagar in Van Halen...he did sell more records with them than Roth[/quote] Is it all about sales figures or quality? If you want quality as in playing all the notes in the original recordings, there are plenty of cover bands that can play the classics of any band better than the original band itself. If you want sales, any band with a decent fanbase is enough to do that. Paul McCartney could reform Beatles with 3 monkeys that they would still sell out. I have my own opinion about the quality of Queen + PR, but this is not what is being discussed here neither it will change anything if I say what I think, they still will be touring/recording/doing whatever they want and should to do - it's their (Brian, Roger and PR's) own business. When I saw Page/Plant in 1996, to me it was like Led Zeppelin. See the coincidences? A missing bass player, a dead member that was one of the keys of their sound... but still, it was Zep and it didn't sound to me like if they were just getting some fan money to buy a new Ferrari or something. With PR though I didn't feel the same, maybe because Freddie was so unique (just count the number of Zep clones around to see the difference). There have been many and many bands that had to replace their (sometimes most) important members for several reasons, and sometimes the replacements were much better than the original members, sometimes much worse, sometimes much more succesful, sometimes they sounded much different than the previous band lineup (see Phil Collins as main singer of Genesis as a good example of the last 2 situations). To me, this Queen + PR will end up (quality-wise) like these many other bands that have internal fights (usually brother vs. brother) and disband then decades later one of the original members decide to reform the band (for fun, money, both, whatever) only to find his "enemy" creating a similar band... one named like (it's an example!) "Brian May and Queen" and the other like "Roger Taylor and Queen" and even sometimes a third one named "No No We Are The Real Queen". |
| Boy Thomas Raker 23.08.2006 21:48 |
Oops. Guilty as charged, I meant 'album after the album 1984' for VH, not 'music after the year 1984 with DLR. |
| AmeriQueen 24.08.2006 06:24 |
Here is my argument. 1st off, John Bon Jovi is high in the clouds from his career. If he would stretch out for a little peak, he might notice that their day has long passed and any future for them will be more than likely be that of a nostalgia act. Wanted Dead Or Alive is likely the only Bon Jovi hit that will still be in the collective 30 years from now. An acoustic album of re-recorded 80's music, done by the same band long after their prime, is probably not even that interesting to their close fans. What Queen did was more dramatic, first because it was their first tour in 19 years, second because they had a vocalist who reinterpreted every song, adding a blues feel previously unheard of. This isn't unplugged Queen, it's blues fusion Queen. Unlike Bon Jovi, Queen made their old songs sound fresh and new again. I guess I don't understand the "mess with our memories" part of your argument. Do you actually feel like anything Brian and Roger may do, no matter how crazy it is, will actually harm your perception of old Queen? What's past is in the past. Queen's evolution could lead to hell, but that wouldn't change where it started from. There are two extremes with the name situation: 1. Led Zeppelin - Robert Plant and Jimmy Page are clearly the main two members of Zep, but when they came back in the 90's, they chose not to cash in on the Zeppelin name and instead chose to go as 'Jimmy Page and Robert Plant', even though it was clearly a Zeppelin tour. 2. Guns 'N Roses - This is the other extreme, and only instance of cashing in on a name that I have issues with. That is because Axl Rose is all that is left of the original band. 'Chinese Democracy' and 'Appetite For Destruction' will share only the singer, yet still both be Guns N' Roses albums. Queen made an honorable choice to do the + thing after their name. I find it perfectly appropriate, or at least up to now. With the new album coming, I would prefer a new name, not out of Queen purism, but simply to identify these three with a new identity. It's out of respect for this new creative project which I feel deserves it's own identity. In the end, it's all so very simple. If you have a problem with what they are doing, than avoid and ignore it. Act like it never happened and that Queen ended in 1991(or 1995 with MIH). |
| Togg 24.08.2006 06:51 |
Frankly I couldn't care less what they call themselves from this point on, so long as they keep going. However, from a business perspective it would still make sense to use the Queen name around the world, if they create a new name it will end up in a new shelf in stores and a new category in websites, which will ultimately mean some folks will miss it, not knowing who they or it is. As I suspect the record companies will be keen to make the most of it, unless they do a major campaign with a major publicity tour to announce it, they will find in the US particularly that the casual fan will not be aware of it, sure we will all know it's out there but Jonny Hicksville in smalltown America will have no clue. I think it will come down to whether Paul Rodgers is happy to go out under the Queen banner or not. |
| vadenuez 24.08.2006 13:58 |
If they keep calling themselves Queen, there will be always someone to tell them "No, you're not". If they pick a different name, they will have the chance to tell the people "We're not Queen, judge us for how we sound NOW". |
| brENsKi 26.08.2006 12:01 |
vadenuez wrote: If they keep calling themselves Queen, there will be always someone to tell them "No, you're not". If they pick a different name, they will have the chance to tell the people "We're not Queen, judge us for how we sound NOW".in this modern age of disposable pop....i think that without the queen name they have no recording contract.... |
| Donna13 26.08.2006 14:05 |
I don't think they need a "recording contract". |
| redspecial85 29.08.2006 23:38 |
The point that Boy Thomas Baker makes certainly is valid. However, 1971-1991 was 1971-1991...so much was established and accomplished by Queen in that expanse of time alone, naturally it would be hard for anyone to accept that they have a new lead singer in Paul Rodgers. Speaking as a fellow musician and a fan...the music industry and Top 40 radio has changed drastically since then (it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that), How could it be a bad thing to ponder and hope that some "real" music would emerge throughout all this crap in popular music. The original Queen was then and this is now Queen+Paul Rodgers. Accept it...reguardless of what they accomplish with this album they're making. I believe its a great idea. Whatever happens with this new album what could possibly shatter or tarnish the audio and video memories we have of Queen with Freddie and John? Nothing, because their legacy is that strong. As far as them getting a recording contract. I have no doubt that record companies have thrown offers at them which include exorbitant amounts of money ever since Freddie's death. Even if they don't find a record deal they'd be satisfied with...there's more than enough money between the three of them they could fund the project independently and all they'd have to do is contract with a company to duplicate and distribute the album accordingly. |