QueenZone discussion #902499

s.m. wrote: there is no new queen album, and there will never be a new queen album queen was a group of 4 brilliant individuals queen is no more, because they are missing 2 members they are missing their soul you can´t exist without the soul now they are just brian may and roger taylor, and that bloke that can sing great, exepct when he sings queen songs ( the show must go on on rock honors is a joke, but i wasnt laughing, i was just embarrassed as a queen fan ) a brilliant guitar player, and a brilliant drummer, but no memebers of the supergroup that was unique that is my only comment about the album from those 3 guys

AlexRocks wrote: This WILL be the SIXTEENTH Queen studio l.p. I have been looking forward to Queen continueing for over one decade now. I can't wait!

Bohemian<font size="1"></f! wrote: It´ll be epic... thanx to Paul Rodgers!

kenny8 wrote: "Without Freddie, there isn't a band called Queen" Brian May 1992

innuendo1991 wrote: I can't even watch the 2005 tour songs sung by retard because he puts so many fancy bits in which aren't Queen. He can't reach all of the notes but thinks he can.

NJQueenFan wrote: I think it'll be quite good. Those are 3 extremely talented musicians there. Honestly, I think Freddie and John were somewhat detrimental to Queen at some points. They were the ones that convinced Rog and Bri to stary from hard rock in the 80s....and we were left with crap like Hot Space and 1/2 of AKOM. I'm afraid of what Queen would've been in the 80s had Bri and Rog not been there backing up their rock roots.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Another Roger (re) said: "What a narrowminded way to see Queen. If Brian and Roger want to call it Queen, than it is Queen." According to you, Brian, Roger and anyone who doesn't care who Queen is. To dismiss everyone else's opinion is ironically narrow minded.

scprof wrote: Brian & Roger were the first 2 of the group to get together, so surely they can call the group what they like.

bgordon88 wrote: It's likely to sound like a Paul Rodgers solo album.

Dan Corson II: The Revenge! wrote: I'm interested to see what comes out. But, I DO want Brian and Roger to sing some.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

innuendo1991 wrote: I can't even watch the 2005 tour songs sung by retard because he puts so many fancy bits in which aren't Queen. He can't reach all of the notes but thinks he can.

"Fancy bits in which aren't Queen" mean that something original is being done with Queen's music. Having a Freddie wannabe would be boring. I love the fact that Paul injects his own personality into Queen's music while never insulting the original. And for your information, Paul's vocal range in the 05-06 concerts was just generally as good as Freddie's live range, if not better. once agian proving you know nothing about singing. you might know about guitars, but singing you have no clue.

NJQueenFan wrote: I think it'll be quite good. Those are 3 extremely talented musicians there. Honestly, I think Freddie and John were somewhat detrimental to Queen at some points. They were the ones that convinced Rog and Bri to stary from hard rock in the 80s....and we were left with crap like Hot Space and 1/2 of AKOM. I'm afraid of what Queen would've been in the 80s had Bri and Rog not been there backing up their rock roots.

Very good observation. a horrible obvseration, it was rogers decision to go in a pop direction.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Another Roger (re) said: "What a narrowminded way to see Queen. If Brian and Roger want to call it Queen, than it is Queen." According to you, Brian, Roger and anyone who doesn't care who Queen is. To dismiss everyone else's opinion is ironically narrow minded.

This is a classic argument. It's okay for the first person, S.M., to be closed-minded and intolerant of anything but Fred-Bri-Rog-John, but it's not okay for Another Roger to react and be "intolerant" (if you will) of S.M.'s intolerance. This is the same kind of thing people say when one is "intolerant" of another's intolerant religious beliefs or political stance. With that kind of argument, nobody should have strong opinions on anything, because they'll be criticized for one reason or another.

mike hunt wrote: I might have fucked up the quotes. I just want to say "sir" you know nothing about singing, check out freddie's range in live at the bowl than listen to rodgers. even live at wembly freddie blows rodgers away. Just listen to "who wants to live forever" how can you be taken seriously when you talk such bullshit!

mike hunt wrote: "sir" is the one always bringing up range, I personally think the sound of a persons voice is much more important.

Zebonka12 wrote:

mike hunt wrote: "sir" is the one always bringing up range, I personally think the sound of a persons voice is much more important.

Well if thats where the discussion is headed... Paul Rodgers, I like his voice mostly, its good for his kind of music. Things that sorta irk me about his singing is the way he sings the 'ooh' sound, and sometimes when he sings too rough he sounds more like a saxophone. Other than that... I've no real objection to him as a vocalist, but I've sure got others I prefer more.

***God*** wrote: not once is in my hands.

Freddies Delilah wrote: I just wish they had found a new band name. To me, if they had wanted to record something with Paul, then they should've just gone ahead with it - just not with the name Queen. To me, Queen won't ever be Queen without Freddie. But who knows? I just hope I don't start talking ot Queen about someone and they start saying how much they like their lead singer, Paul. By we'll just have to wait. Que Sera Sera. (or however you spell it)

kenny8 wrote:

scprof wrote: Brian & Roger were the first 2 of the group to get together, so surely they can call the group what they like.

This again?? They formed Smile. With well stated reluctance they agreed on the name Freddie came up with, Queen.

Zebonka12 wrote: I want to know what Brian's idea of 'epic' is... while a lot of people hated The Call for it's rant-like nature, I reckon the instrumentation was top notch on that track, and if we get more songs like that, I won't complain.

ITSM wrote: Another thing that I don't understand that they are daring is to perform John Deacon's songs, like "Another One Bites The Dust".. Mr. Deacon really hate what they're doing so why the ___ are they playing his songs?!?

PLEASE GIVE SOMETHING "NEW" !!!

mike hunt wrote: I might have fucked up the quotes. I just want to say "sir" you know nothing about singing, check out freddie's range in live at the bowl than listen to rodgers. even live at wembly freddie blows rodgers away. Just listen to "who wants to live forever" how can you be taken seriously when you talk such bullshit!

"sir" is the one always bringing up range, I personally think the sound of a persons voice is much more important.

Markman38 wrote: Don't forget that someone who started it can use it till the end and we are not inthe position to question that

hereyugo wrote:

kenny8 wrote:

scprof wrote: Brian & Roger were the first 2 of the group to get together, so surely they can call the group what they like.

This again?? They formed Smile. With well stated reluctance they agreed on the name Freddie came up with, Queen.

Right, and they still have decided to perform under the name Freddie came up with...so what's your point?

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

mike hunt wrote: I might have fucked up the quotes. I just want to say "sir" you know nothing about singing, check out freddie's range in live at the bowl than listen to rodgers. even live at wembly freddie blows rodgers away. Just listen to "who wants to live forever" how can you be taken seriously when you talk such bullshit!

"sir" is the one always bringing up range, I personally think the sound of a persons voice is much more important.

And I agree with that. But when people closed-mindedly say how Freddie's range was better than Paul's range - with nothing to back up their statements - that's when I jump in with the facts. I have perfect pitch, and so I know exactly which notes Freddie could hit and which Paul could hit. Virtually every night, Paul hits high C many times during "Can't Get Enough", and Freddie hit that note in concert about 10 times in his entire life. You can't use Live At Wembley as your benchmark, because most of the "magical" moments in that concert from Freddie are from studio overdubs. Freddie could hit high highest notes in the studio and occasionally live, but Paul can consistently hit them in any environment. This is simply because Paul takes care of his voice, and Freddie did not. These are all indisputable facts. Assessing the sound of someone's voice is a matter of taste, but discussing vocal range is not. So for you to make a personal attack and accuse me of talking "bullshit" is pretty petty and low on your part. But I have never expected to have a decent conversation with you. I'm happy to discuss voices or whatever else with anyone here, but whenever the discussion involves you, you just throw your opinions out there as if they're fact, and you're never willing to listen to what someone else has to say. You've made that pretty clear time and time again.

Zebonka12 wrote: "It's pretty funny how people are all up pauls ass because he's singing with brian." I read this and had a good chuckle. I'm sure there's a couple of million people who'd disagree with the verity of this statement, but hey! Just because they liked the guy and bought his music years before he joined Brian and Roger, doesn't mean they know anything, right? "This forum has turned into the paul rodgers site" Stupid thing to say. We'd be close minded if we couldn't look at other musicians and acknowledge them for what they are. Paul Rodgers is a good singer. Not the best, and really not my type. But he's good. "it's a shame because it was freddie, brian, roger, and john who were the ones who made that great music together." ... yeah. Well - you know, I don't see any problem with people covering Queen music (bar Bohemian Rhapsody - if you love this song, DO NOT COVER IT). They either fail dismally, and people go out and listen to the real thing, or they'll play it well, and people will get a good show out of it. Your stance reminds me of "Brain Damage" - why grow such lovely grass and NOT LET PEOPLE WALK ON IT?? There are other things out there, go and enjoy them. All the old Queen albums are there if you want to reminisce (as I do, regularly!).

mike hunt wrote:people like "knute" and "Sir" drive me crazy because I never seen a person put down hendrix on a hendrix site or rip kieth moon on a who site, this is a fucking queen site!...I come hear to talk about queens music not paul rodgers.

Knute wrote:

mike hunt wrote:people like "knute" and "Sir" drive me crazy because I never seen a person put down hendrix on a hendrix site or rip kieth moon on a who site, this is a fucking queen site!...I come hear to talk about queens music not paul rodgers.

Oh quit your fucking whining mike hunt. I don't put down Freddie at all. Read my post again carefully. Just because I don't kiss your ass and agree with your opinons doesn't mean I'm putting Freddie down. Gee, I dare say that Paul sang notes higher than Freddie live. Boy, I should be nailed to a cross for that. Do you just want a bunch of clones of yourself? Does it really upset you that people like Paul Rodgers on a Queen site? I suppose you could be right about one thing, look:link Where's all the conversation about Queen since PR ruined it all? *rolls eyes* I can't stand people who try and shift the meaning of someone's statements in an effort to polarize a messageboard or win people to his side. It's the biggest form of pussy bullshit IMO. I dare you to point out where I put Freddie down. I'll be waiting for the quotations and analysis.

mike hunt wrote:

Knute wrote:

mike hunt wrote:people like "knute" and "Sir" drive me crazy because I never seen a person put down hendrix on a hendrix site or rip kieth moon on a who site, this is a fucking queen site!...I come hear to talk about queens music not paul rodgers.

Oh quit your fucking whining mike hunt. I don't put down Freddie at all. Read my post again carefully. Just because I don't kiss your ass and agree with your opinons doesn't mean I'm putting Freddie down. Gee, I dare say that Paul sang notes higher than Freddie live. Boy, I should be nailed to a cross for that. Do you just want a bunch of clones of yourself? Does it really upset you that people like Paul Rodgers on a Queen site? I suppose you could be right about one thing, look:link Where's all the conversation about Queen since PR ruined it all? *rolls eyes* I can't stand people who try and shift the meaning of someone's statements in an effort to polarize a messageboard or win people to his side. It's the biggest form of pussy bullshit IMO. I dare you to point out where I put Freddie down. I'll be waiting for the quotations and analysis.

I'm not searching for any quotes for shit, most of your bullshit writings are on queenonline. Let me tell you something, If I was a youngster who came to this site to find out about the genious of queen, I would come away thinking never to buy music from this average band. The lead singer has little talent, most of their albums are crap like the game, hot space, the works, magic and the miracle (almost half their albums) with crappy drum work and weak guitars. Am I saying I like every song and every album?...no, but at least show them some respect by not calling half of their albums crap. You don't see this on the judas priest or Iron maiden sites, Why?....because they have respect for their favorite band. People like "Sir, knute, fendrick, and a few others are the root of the problem. I like to think Mike hunt is doing a good thing for Queenzone and queen by getting rid of the garbege that has taken over this site.