| Bohemian Rahpsody 24.09.2006 07:47 |
My apologise if this has been asked before, but I am listening to Innuendo at the momement. It really is a great albulm, as a whole. Although I live for Queen, I do think that they are not a band known for their albulms (other than ANATO or AKOM). I really think that Queen (if darling Freddie hadn't been stolen from us so cruelly)that they would have continued to dominate in the nineties, and perhaps even be one of the most popular bands in the decade. Also, what about the new millenium? In Australia Queen don't seem to be that popular (in Western Australia anyway...), but I'm sure the more intellegent parts of the world know what good music (as this web site shows). So, you're thoughts and ideas. Another thing, do you think any band members would have left if the band had of continued? Something tells me, as Freddie said, that they would "stay together till we f*****g well die I'm sure!" Thank you very much, B.R |
| thomasquinn 32989 24.09.2006 10:29 |
Realize that if Freddie wouldn't have become infected with HIV, everything after "A Kind Of Magic" would have been different. Perhaps we would still have had "Barcelona", but chances are there would've been another group-album in '87 or '88, '89 or '90, etc. |
| bitesthedust 24.09.2006 11:40 |
I believe, and have always done, the cycle of : Studio Album - Tour - Break (for Solo Albums) - Studio Album, would have continued had Freddie not contracted HIV. |
| sara310 24.09.2006 11:50 |
For some reason, I dont think they would have been that good... |
| deleted user 24.09.2006 11:51 |
I think they would have continued the same cycle, album, tour, break, album...etc. But i'm not sure about John because i've always had the feeling that he might have left at some point if the band had continued (no offence to deacon fans) |
| deleted user 24.09.2006 11:52 |
And i think they might've continued the hard rock sound that they had on Innuendo and Miracle. |
| sparrow 21754 24.09.2006 12:29 |
(dont kill me) i think honestly they mightve become jaded like aerosmith (no pun intended from the song,) rolling stones, etc but only if they continued the cycle of studio-tour-break-repeat. i think around 95 they wouldve had a break like back in the early 80s and then come back with a few albums and continue again. they never seemed to run out of ideas! |
| AmeriQueen 24.09.2006 12:30 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Realize that if Freddie wouldn't have become infected with HIV, everything after "A Kind Of Magic" would have been different. Perhaps we would still have had "Barcelona", but chances are there would've been another group-album in '87 or '88, '89 or '90, etc.An EXCELLENT point! Strangely ironic as it may seem, HIV/AIDS may have ended up extending Queen's career rather than ending it. My guess is The Miracle plus everything after it would have been scrapped, or at the very least drastically altered. I think Freddie would have followed up the Barcelona album with a possible small tour of some kind with Ms. Caballe. Approaching the 90's he likely would have continued on with his solo career. My guess is that Freddie would have released a solo album around 1990, and perhaps the focus on this solo project would have led to a massive commercial hit. Meanwhile(in my fictional Queen timeline), Brian May releases his solo album just before Freddie's(89), and has a huge rock hit in 'I Want It All'. He tours and has a relatively successful solo record. Guitar festivals, family life and astronomy would have made an extended break for Brian quite agreeable I would imagine. Deacon appears as a guest on various records, maybe does another 1 song only/soundtrack creation, but is practically retired(like today). Roger moves on with the Cross, eventually disbanding them. Probably Roger's career is the closest in the fictional world, as what happened. Okay, it's 1994 or so, rock has changed but is very popular at the moment. Queen reunites with three fresh members returning from extended absences, and Roger Taylor. The idea of the times was rock going back to it's organic roots and away from the hair band/pop rock sounds of recent years. The Nirvana/Pearl Jam era of music is here, so Queen decides to go throwback album(decision also accepted in lieu of an 8 year hiatus between 'A Kind of Magic' and the fictional '94 album in question. They reinstate their famous "no synthesizers" rule, reunite with Roy Thomas Baker, and the best album and tour of the 90's follows. Live releases follow, a short break is taken, and the next Queen album is in 1997, most likely an album focusing in new musical directions. Roger goes on collecting album cuts of his, every 5 or so cumulating 10 - 12 tracks together for a solo album. Freddie fits a solo record somwhere, but realizes his heart is in Queen. Brian has a solo record somwhere, but spends his downtime from Queen with his various projects and continues his enjoyment of jamming here and there within his music community of friends. I envision John Deacon retiring somewhere around the millenium change, to be replaced live only by somebody(Neil Murray most likely, but maybe Danny Miranda). other than that, I think Queen would still be making albums and touring the world, most likely in similar fashion as The Rolling Stones have done. When you line up all the stronger solo tracks Brian and Roger have done since Freddie's death, you imagine how many of them could have been transformed into incredible Queen songs. Just imagine Freddie singing a Queen version of Brian's 'On My Way Up'. They would have blown our minds! |
| Donna13 24.09.2006 12:39 |
They could have done a film score, musical, opera (if Freddie didn't feel like running around anymore). If Freddie had been well, there would have been no limit. |
| redspecial85 24.09.2006 12:41 |
I think they would've won the states back in the nineties. They probably would've recorded several tracks on an album between '92-'94 in response to the grunge movement. They would've reached their final climax around the new milennium, then they would've been like the Stones as previously stated. Interesting Question. |
| Katastrophe Mercury 24.09.2006 12:50 |
Queen might've made another Highlander soundtrack, since the second movie came out in either 1990 or 1991 (i cant remember). And I can almost bet money on it that Freddie wouldn't have done the great pretender, and we wouldn't have had Innuendo, at least. |
| _Bijou_ 24.09.2006 15:05 |
It's a weird question because if Freddie wasn't ill would 'The Miracle' or 'Innuendo' albums have been made? They probably would have still toured. I would have loved to see Freddie on some of today's telly shows. |
| Baneé 24.09.2006 15:20 |
Bijou In Queens Crown wrote: I would have loved to see Freddie on some of today's telly shows.Yeah!! me too!! :) |
| Forever88 24.09.2006 20:40 |
i definately think brian would have been bigger solo, and so would freddie. as for roger, i think he would have kept on with the cross and the whole felix + arty thing would never have happened |
| slithybill 24.09.2006 23:16 |
Freddie might have continued collaborating with Time Rice, and may have ended up writing songs for Disney animated films (like Elton John or Phil Collins), or even done a full-blown musical... As for recapturing the US, they definitely would have capitalized on the popularity of BhoRhap after Wayne's World. Might've done a thing or two with Mike Myers. Maybe appeared in or written something for Austin Powers??? Maybe Freddie and Elton and Rod Stewart would finally have toured together, or at least recorded together as "Teeth, Hair and Nose"! |
| deleted user 24.09.2006 23:24 |
And maybe John would have won Miss Universe. |
| groover 25.09.2006 01:39 |
<font color=Pink>Celtic Princess wrote: And i think they might've continued the hard rock sound that they had on Innuendo and Miracle.Which version of the Miracle do you own? Mine isnt hard rock at all. |
| Bohemian Rahpsody 25.09.2006 05:28 |
Some very good replies guys, I like it. I know that a comment was made about Freddie not running around anymore, but it seems he most enjoyed himself on stage, so I think he would have continued. I agree with the fact that John would have left the group, he never really seem to do anything much on stage (if he did, my apologies, I haven't seen any live stuff other than a Radio Ga-Ga cut out from Live Aid and some live exerts on GVH 2). But there is a part of me that thinks he may have stayed on, just for the sake of doing so. Also, would they have toured Australia again? I think it would be qreat if QPR came here, they need to remind Australia what a great band they are. Thanks, this really is great! B.R |
| john bodega 25.09.2006 05:59 |
They wouldn't have come to Perth anyway :( Frigging hell, the song is called "WE WILL ROCK YOU", Brian, not "WE WON'T ROCK YOU" or "WE WILL ROCK SLIGHTLY 4000km TO THE EAST OF YOU". Goddamnit! Living this far away from interesting things blows, I might sell my kidneys and move. |
| una999 25.09.2006 06:29 |
Yes Queen in the 90's - it's a major disappointment that he died - they'd be like U2 after all these years. He died at the wrong time - i doubt the miracle and innuendo albums would have come in their entiriety. But yes the concerts - can anyone imagine freddie singing killer queen in 1999?? It's a weird thought! Fuck john lennon! - freddie was the real deal, and i think he's the biggest loss to the music business ever. Why are bands like the Rolling Stones bigger than Queen even though queen were better musicians and a better band - its like america dictates! |
| una999 25.09.2006 06:31 |
although it was only hardcore fans buying their music in the later days - maybe freddie wasn't that good afterall with all his songs and demos. |
| una999 25.09.2006 06:33 |
sorry, MAYBE it was only hardcore fans... Before people start throwing knives at me |
| Bohemian Rahpsody 25.09.2006 06:45 |
The Rolling Stones are bigger now because they are still going. Mick Jagger didn't die, or leave, so their main singer is still rocking. Queen would been one of todays major bands if Freddie had of lived. They would have come up with another majorly commertial hit and wowed young audiances. Ask most teenagers to name more than one Rolling Stone song (they will say 'satisfaction') and they will give you a dazed look. Ask them to name one Queen song and they will give you several. Queen were known for their live shows, thats how they kept going, by giving a bloody good tour and proving to the world that after many years of some of the best music ever penned, they were still champions of the world. B.R PS: Is Zabboka 12 living in WA? |
| Bohemian Rahpsody 25.09.2006 06:46 |
Sorry, I didn't spell it right, apologies ZEBONKA12! B.R |
| its_a_hard_life 26994 25.09.2006 08:01 |
Zebonka12 wrote: They wouldn't have come to Perth anyway :( Frigging hell, the song is called "WE WILL ROCK YOU", Brian, not "WE WON'T ROCK YOU" or "WE WILL ROCK SLIGHTLY 4000km TO THE EAST OF YOU". Goddamnit! Living this far away from interesting things blows, I might sell my kidneys and move.LMAO... Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! That was funny if I must say. Isn't their a WWRY musical in Aussie? |
| john bodega 25.09.2006 08:33 |
Indeed - I live in Perth. Spelled Z-E-B-O-N-K-A, but I'm not picky! Sure there was a WWRY in Australia, but I want to listen to Queen. :P No, to be serious a moment I've heard bits of the cast do it over here and... I'd rather get drunk and do it myself than shell out for tickets to that. |
| una999 25.09.2006 12:16 |
U know i believe they were the greatest - cos they could do it live. Now i prefer studio stuff but if you had queen the beatles or the stones to perform say 5 songs in a room with no audience, i believe queen would easily come out on top. its all due to their pomp! but talent was needed and freddie took over where they needed it. hey but the beatles are the greatest cos why??? maybe its like they say the 60's were the best too. |
| kagezan1313 25.09.2006 18:27 |
Old and bitchy, same as they are now. |