mircal 26.10.2006 05:07 |
I think it will be of good quality. These guys have been playing live for a while now, so they know how to work each other. Who knows who it will appeal to, i know queens fan base is huge so charting high is not a question. But will it produce some high ranking singles??? interested to hear you thoughts people. |
Monsieur Nobs 26.10.2006 05:44 |
I think the album will be quite good. At least it won't be a disaster. Rodgers, May and Taylor together have an estimated studio experience of a 100 years. They should know what is worth to be released. On the other hand I highly doubt there will be a massive success on the single market. |
Togg 26.10.2006 05:58 |
I think we could be in for a very different album than before, if a) what Brian has said is really correct and not Brian being overly happy to be back in the studio, b) Roger has recently produced "Woman you're so beautiful" which is very unlike anything he has before, and c) Paul said he wanted to push Brian and Roger into "jamming on the blues" All in all this may well not please everyone, but I think it sounds pretty interesting, after all Queen never have released what people expected, there has been a lot of mis-direction over the years and what everyone thought they were about to come out with turned out to be incorrect. We wait and see, but yes I think it will be good |
mattsmith 26.10.2006 07:51 |
I am hoping that the new album will be good. Rather than sticking with one type of music, I expect a diverse range of songs which has always been a trademark of Queen. Although I think that the album will be OK, I'm pretty sure that some Queen fans will like it, and others will probably be quite disappointed. We will just have to wait and see what happens. Fingers crossed!! Matt |
Freddies Delilah 26.10.2006 07:58 |
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) |
Dan C. 26.10.2006 07:59 |
I'm interested to see what comes out. But, I DO want Brian and Roger to sing some. |
OZ Queen 26.10.2006 08:22 |
i honestly dont think the album will be any good. it definetly wont be queen, freddie's voice was the sound for queen not paul rodgers, i would rather just see them live than do a new album or simply just brian & roger do the album they both sing , they dont need paul rodgers there. i would still buy it but out of respect of being a queen fan. |
s.m. 26.10.2006 10:05 |
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 |
Another Roger (re) 26.10.2006 10:34 |
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 guysWhat a narrowminded way to see Queen. If Brian and Roger want to call it Queen, than it is Queen. It might be crap, but still its Queen. I expect this album to be very solid. I do not think we will get experimental music like in the 70s. It will be solid rock with some ballads in between. When you say a song without Freddievocal isnt Queen. What do you call Drowse, 39, sail away sweet sister, Some day one day, Loser in the end, Tenement Funster etc? Which band are playing those songs? I am tired of hearing that it cant be Queen without Freddie. Its not up to us to decide. If you dont like it so go to hell. Nobody will miss you. Go and listen to The Feeling, Muse, Green Day instead. I dont care, noone does. |
una999 26.10.2006 15:07 |
i have a feeling it could be like the innuendo album - brian better do some piano on the album, cos it gives it balance. will it be a good album? sometimes i think brian has too much time on his ands with songs - or example, take i can't live with you re-worked for the queen rocks album - every line has a bit of guitar in it, and i just thought it was a bit gimmicky. they have to do something bombastic - don't blame brian and roger - freddie is the one who ruined the band with his lifestyle - that's just a fact. |
bohemian 11513 26.10.2006 15:31 |
It´ll be epic... thanx to Paul Rodgers! Keep in mind all you "young guns" out there... NO Paul Rodgers = NO Queen... just like i.e. NO Debbie = NO Rog!!! |
AlexRocks 26.10.2006 17:12 |
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! |
scprof 26.10.2006 17:51 |
I wonder if they will include the songs that they've already performed live @ the 46664 concerts and the one that PR wrote for the last tour. |
BRYCE THE TROLL 26.10.2006 19:21 |
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!it will not be a "Queen" album becuse "Queen" is not continuing YOU FUCKTARD! |
Hooligan's Holiday 26.10.2006 19:31 |
I think it ought to be teriffic! |
innuendo1991 26.10.2006 19:54 |
I know it's not up to us, but I agree that with that retard Paul Rodgers, it will be ruined. 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. I love listening to Brian and Roger, they could make an album under the name of something other than Queen but something related. e.g. 'Queen...In another light' or 'Queen...Still going strong'. I dunno, but I think they might need to be careful what they do. (It's just my opinion.) |
NJQueenFan 26.10.2006 20:22 |
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. |
ok.computer 26.10.2006 21:02 |
Bohemian<font size="1"></f! wrote: It´ll be epic... thanx to Paul Rodgers!Don't push your luck... |
Boy Thomas Raker 26.10.2006 21:52 |
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. "I am tired of hearing that it cant be Queen without Freddie." And some people are tired of hearing Brian refer to "Queen" going into the studio this month, when there are no Freddie or John. "Its not up to us to decide. If you dont like it so go to hell." Correct, it's not up to us to decide, but are you comfortable being told to go to hell by someone's who is of the opinion that Queen is Roger, Brian, Freddie and John? "Nobody will miss you. Go and listen to The Feeling, Muse, Green Day instead. I dont care, noone does." For someone who doesn't care, you're very tired of this argument, and agitated enough to tell intelligent people to go to hell because they disagree with you. I'd hate to see your response if you did care. |
BRYCE THE TROLL 26.10.2006 22:37 |
damn,baker good job! |
kenny8 26.10.2006 23:16 |
Watch this space Whilst perhaps musically interesting, the album will be seen as a disgrace and insulting, further elevating the reputation of Freddie Mercury and cheapening that of May & Taylor. It will be seen as a sad greedy footnote to a great career that should've ended with "Made In Heaven" and the occasional charity performance. "Without Freddie, there isn't a band called Queen" Brian May 1992 At the very least I'm hoping that a large wack of proceeds go to AIDS charities, but sadly I doubt it. |
Smitty 26.10.2006 23:20 |
kenny8 wrote: "Without Freddie, there isn't a band called Queen" Brian May 1992Tell me where and when he said that or I am going to have to pull the "BULLSHIT!" card. |
The Real Wizard 27.10.2006 01:43 |
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. 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. 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. |
YourValentine 27.10.2006 03:43 |
kenny8, would you please send me an email YourValentine @ queenzone.com |
Markman38 27.10.2006 04:16 |
If thet fouding members of Queen called it Queen then it is Queen. What a stupid thing for the "fans" to say that they may not use the name. If you don't like ist, don't bother. Stop putting your energy in this. Brian and Roger have every right to use the name. I went to see The WHo this year and yes it was still the Who even without John en Keith. I saw Brian WIlson perfoming Smile and that was just as good as hearing the Beach Boys. Don't forget that someone who started it can use it till the end and we are not inthe position to question that |
kenny8 27.10.2006 07:01 |
"Tell me where and when he said that or I am going to have to pull the "BULLSHIT!" card" Please see here...and write sorry on that "BULLSHIT" card..... link |
Boy Thomas Raker 27.10.2006 10:51 |
Actually, Sir GH, as I'm someone who beleives Queen was the original 4, I must admit I missed S.M.'s post, which is pretty poor as it framed Another Roger's (re) response. I don't agree with his tact either, even though I believe he is right in his assessment. There are polarizing topics here and the opposing sides lash out with no respect for the other sides opinions. I've just found that the "Queen is who Brian and Roger say they are" camp to be far angrier and more irrational than the other side. |
bgordon88 27.10.2006 11:42 |
It's likely to sound like a Paul Rodgers solo album. |
scprof 27.10.2006 11:59 |
Brian & Roger were the first 2 of the group to get together, so surely they can call the group what they like. If it were John & Freddie who were the only 2 left, would people feel the same way about them performing under the 'QUEEN' name. |
kenny8 27.10.2006 12:23 |
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. |
teleman 27.10.2006 14:13 |
bgordon88 wrote: It's likely to sound like a Paul Rodgers solo album.Add in elements of Queen a see what happens? For all the other posters, I'm open for good music regardless of how thet label it. Call it Queen, call it Q+PR or call it something else. If it is good I'll listen. If it isn't good then I won't listen. I find it funny that people can say it's sh!t without having heard a thing. I'm sympathetic to those who say the name should be changed but legally they can call it what they want including Queen. Time to get back to life. |
Good_Company50 27.10.2006 15:57 |
Dan Corson II: The Revenge! wrote: I'm interested to see what comes out. But, I DO want Brian and Roger to sing some.I absolutely agree! I would love to have some new stuff by Brian and Roger. I hope they sing more than the "token" one song on the album and not let PR hog all the vocals. |
mike hunt 29.10.2006 02:18 |
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 29.10.2006 02:22 |
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! |
john bodega 29.10.2006 06:40 |
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!Nup. Sir GH is right, in this instance it's you who knows nothing. Wembley was overdubbed. Even with WWTLF, the song on which your argument rests, Paul Rodgers can hit said notes. Rodgers easily matches that performance in 'range', but since WHEN THE FUCK was range important anyway?!? |
mike hunt 30.10.2006 00:34 |
"sir" is the one always bringing up range, I personally think the sound of a persons voice is much more important. |
john bodega 30.10.2006 04:21 |
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. |
Bohemian Rahpsody 30.10.2006 08:05 |
As far as the band name goes, if Freddie came up with it, then maybe he would be happy for it to continue, and with at least two original members in there, they can call it what they wish. I would also imagine that when the band name is released, Brian and Roger will give their reasons for naming it as they so wish. I do feel as though the best years for Queen were when the four of them were there, and so as others have mentioned, call the band Queen+ PR/Queen+Paul Rodgers/Q.P.R. This is a new band name for new fans, and something that a large majority of more veteran Queen fans will appreciate. It just seems right to come back with a new name, for a new band built upon the greatest of Queen (1973-1995). Plus they'll most probably make reference to Freddie somehow, for the first few new albulms, if they'll be a few albulms. Who knows, wait and see, B.R |
mike hunt 31.10.2006 01:25 |
Zebonka12 wrote:I agree with you, it's not like I hate his voice, but it's not nearly one of my favorites.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. |
john bodega 31.10.2006 02:15 |
Unfortunately, most of my favourites are dead or ruined by age! |
Another Person 31.10.2006 09:49 |
You're all talking about an album is not out yet. I'm gonna say it's shit or not once is in my hands. |
stateside fan 31.10.2006 12:54 |
i hope its great but it seems like the are headed in a bluesy boring direction.i find most of Pauls studio work uninteresting at best. |
Micrówave 31.10.2006 13:17 |
***God*** wrote: not once is in my hands.God, you're talking all jibbly-jabbly again. |
Jakobe 01.11.2006 03:23 |
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)Dude, just stop worrying about the legistics and listen to the music. |
john bodega 01.11.2006 11:42 |
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. |
hereyugo 03.11.2006 09:02 |
kenny8 wrote:Right, and they still have decided to perform under the name Freddie came up with...so what's your point?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. |
Bohemian MAY-niac/Deaconite 03.11.2006 11:41 |
Well, I'm certainly going to give the new album a chance. Yeah, I know it's not going to sound the same without Freddie or John, but at least Brian and Roger are there to make it sound good. I like Paul. He's a good singer. So, we'll have to see what turns out. ;-) I'm not going to get into the discussion about "Queen not being Queen anymore". But, I was thinking, Freddie would've wanted Queen to go on and John gave his OK for them to continue. I saw Q+PR perform on VH1's Rock Honors and yes it wasn't the same, but they still sounded awesome. As a Queen fan, I'm going to give the new album a listen when it comes out. But no matter what, I will always love the original Queen: Freddie, John, Brian, and Roger!! |
Aquillas 03.11.2006 14:59 |
I am sure that it will be a good album and I hope they'll arrange a new european tour in 2007 to promote the album. Romania is waiting for Queen's first concert here and I think this is our last chance to see them live :( |
mr. stagger lee 03.11.2006 20:36 |
I'm rather looking forward to hearing what the 3 of them come up with. In my mind, I'm more a fan of the musicians (at this point) rather than what they decide to call themselves...so I'll be buying it regardless. If Toronto '06 was any indication, then I'm really looking forward to hearing what they come up with. I hope it's a completely new and fresh sound!!! |
Matías 04.11.2006 03:11 |
They are only missing 1 member (John Deacon)...Freddie is dead...it's hard to say it but it's true..Freddie killed QUEEN with his lifestyle...he was just a man..not a God or something...Brian and Roger are in their rights to call QUEEN themselves...and John support any project of his friends....and you FUCKERS think that you miss Freddie...Brian and Roger miss Freddie Mercury more than you...he was their friend...and I think Freddie would be really proud of his boys!!! THE SHOW MUST GO ON!!!!!!!....AND IT GOES ON!!!! FUCKERSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!! |
forever 04.11.2006 10:33 |
I don't care about the new release as it is not Queen, simple as that. They are all earning from the Queen name but it's not Queen. Look at Rodgers for example, since joining Queen all his previous work is being released and he is doing very well indeed. And Brian telling fans who want live concerts and unreleased songs from the 70's, that it is unhealthy to live in the past. I say to him, who has released DVD and CD live in japan with Rodgers, Stop playing old songs as it is unhealthy to live in the past(but not if you are getting richer Mr May). What a let down, I will never buy this new stuff as it is stopping Real fans from getting Real Queen stuff!!!!!!!! |
fantasticcircus 04.11.2006 19:17 |
Y'know... I don't really care that much for Paul Rodger's voice, but I am really looking forward to the cd. I hope Brian and Roger sing a good chunk of the songs, but even if Paul sings them all I will buy it. I admit, I'm curious as to what it will sound like, what will Brian and Roger come up with this time having a bluesy singer. I would have preferred Brian and Roger sing all songs, but it won't be that way. I like Brian and Roger, I think that they are excellent musicians, I'm looking forward to it. BE HAPPY BRIAN AND ROGER ARE STILL INTERESTED IN RECORDING AND PERFORMING!!! you don't have to buy it if you don't want to... |
August R. 06.11.2006 11:37 |
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.I agree. The Call is a good song. Great synths and guitar work by Brian. I think this new album can turn out to be as interesting as the old Queen records. Even without Freddie's songwriting input there's still three 3 great musicians and songwriters. They all have their own unique styles, and I believe, there will be a lot of variety and great musicianship on this record. |
ITSM 06.11.2006 11:54 |
I really have my doubts about this new album. One thing is the touring, but a studio-album is a completly different matter. I bought the "Return of the Champions"-CD, heared it 5 times or so, but I haven't touched it since.. I really have problems with it. ...or should I say with Paul Rodgers...? But of course it's nice to hear Roger Taylor and Brian May sing, but you can really tell and feel the difference whith John and Freddie missing. 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?!? I rather would see a collection of B-sides and rarities than this new thing. Old live-shows on CD and DVD is what I want. Most of all from the 70's. So many songs that are difficult to get on a live-version. Like "You take my breath away", "Great King Rat", "My Fairy King", "White Queen" etc... It's really not the same on MP3s!!! The feeling are missing.. I got the Freddie Mercury "Lover of Life Singer of Songs" 2 CD's a couple of weeks ago, and it was OK. But they could have done so much more! One of the highlights was "Love Makin' Love", but that song came out in 2000 I belive on the Complete Solo-box.. PLEASE GIVE SOMETHING "NEW" !!! Thanks! ITSM, 23 year old boy from Norway.. |
August R. 06.11.2006 12:17 |
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?!?Well, John did give his approval to the Q+PR Tour. Where did you got the idea that he hates this new line-up? Besides, John is more than happy to collect those big fat cheques so I don't think he is too upset with the job Rog and Bri are doing. PLEASE GIVE SOMETHING "NEW" !!!Well, that's exactly what Roger and Brian are doing in the studio!!! |
The Real Wizard 06.11.2006 14:21 |
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. |
Leaky Luke 06.11.2006 16:54 |
Markman38 wrote: Don't forget that someone who started it can use it till the end and we are not inthe position to question thatExcept that Roger Waters couldn't keep the name Pink Floyd. Or was that 2 against 1 during court? :P Anyway I think this album could hit the charts well, it all depends what the first single release will be like.. when it's catchy to the crowd, the album will score well. I think some blues and good old rock n roll won't do bad amongst the crowd. |
Leaky Luke 06.11.2006 16:57 |
hereyugo wrote:Freddie might have come up with the name Queen... but the other members approved to use the name, therefore co-created the bands name. end of discussion.kenny8 wrote:Right, and they still have decided to perform under the name Freddie came up with...so what's your point?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. |
Knute 06.11.2006 21:02 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Very good post.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. Even Brian said Paul hit notes with Q+PR that Freddie never did live. Is Brian full of shit too? Besides just Can't Get Enough, just look at WATC. Paul consistantly hit that high fighting in the phrase "We'll keep on fighting" that I only heard Freddie hit once on a bootleg. He typically opted for a lower note on the scale. And Paul has lost range. Just listen to a Free bootleg. Now, once again before anyone gets their shorts in a bunch, it doesn't mean that Paul is a better singer than Freddie, but if you are going to use range as a way to try and prove Freddie was superior or whatever, you might want to examine the facts closely. |
mike hunt 06.11.2006 23:52 |
It's pretty funny how people are all up pauls ass because he's singing with brian. I never remember people ever mentioning paul as a top 3 great, but now that's he's singing with brian and roger he's all a sudden the best ever. To be honest, I don't give a rats ass about range, what I do care about is the sound of the persons voice. This forum has turned into the paul rodgers site, it's a shame because it was freddie, brian, roger, and john who were the ones who made that great music together. |
john bodega 07.11.2006 00:31 |
"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 07.11.2006 01:14 |
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!).Zebonka, First of all I agree with everything you said, and I know paul had plenty of fans before he ever played with brian and roger. I meant on "this site" people are up his ass and never mentioned paul before he hooked up with queen. It was always freddie vs robert plant, never was paul in the discussion of greatest singers ever. I personally don't have a problem with paul, he's a good enough guy and vocalist. I grew up hearing his music in the 70's, but never liked him enough to buy his music. paul is respected in music, but when the subject turns to mercury people have that look "he's a musical god" like hendrix or the who. 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. |
john bodega 07.11.2006 02:22 |
"I come hear to talk about queens music not paul rodgers." Your post is all fair enough. However, this one comment makes me think - why look in a thread that is discussing the new album? Since it probably won't have Freddie on it, one would take it for granted that we might be talking about another singer. Fair crack of the whip though, I understand getting annoyed at excessive discussion of 'other musicians'. But, I suppose, don't take it too hard? Discussion of other bands sometimes livens things up a bit. |
Knute 07.11.2006 18:58 |
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 08.11.2006 03:56 |
Knute wrote: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.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. |
Knute 08.11.2006 20:24 |
mike hunt wrote:Thanks for the laugh.Knute wrote: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.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. What a bunch of exaggerated, over-the-top, self-important delusional garbage. If that youngster you speak of had any brains he would see right thru your silly little megalomaniac diatribe. Also, what a typical weak response from a liar: "Oh I won't search thru your posts." The reason you won't is because you'll never find a quote from me saying that half of Queen's albums are crap or you will never find a post from me putting Freddie down. I have a ton of respect for him. He was the first rock singer I ever saw live. You're exactly the head-stuck-up his own ass type of Queen fan I can't stand. Jackass! |