| kenny8 27.10.2006 06:59 |
Here's a link of a quote from Brian May in 1992 that was disputed here. link |
| andy1962 27.10.2006 09:21 |
queen died when freddie died.i hate it that they still use queen & ??????.why don't they use smile & paul rodgers?????.or smile paul rodgers you now have some money??? |
| nr myatt 27.10.2006 11:22 |
that is really true hes crap anyway now there is nothing to smile about |
| Jjeroen 27.10.2006 11:33 |
Black Sabbath Deep Purple Genesis Pink Floyd Iron Maiden Kiss AC/DC Savatage Van Halen The Who The Doors Golden Earring Guns n Roses Rolling Stones ... ... ... Queen? |
| una999 27.10.2006 11:58 |
really get a bloody life will you. u are not in the band queen and never will be. brian and roger founded the band - they can do whatever the hell they want to do with it. kiss my ass |
| kenny8 27.10.2006 12:28 |
una999 wrote: brian and roger founded the band - they can do whatever the hell they want to do with it. kiss my assNo, they founded A band. Not THE band. The guy with the ideas wasn't on board back then. I don't know why Jimmy Page & Paul Rodgers came up with The Firm, they should've called the band Led Zepplin. |
| mercuryplant 27.10.2006 13:10 |
A DIRTY SHAME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| frank39 27.10.2006 13:15 |
Paul Rodgers was the Brian´s/Roger´s biggest mistake |
| The Real Wizard 27.10.2006 13:19 |
kenny8 wrote: I don't know why Jimmy Page & Paul Rodgers came up with The Firm, they should've called the band Led Zepplin.The Firm had one Led Zeppelin member, not all four. Considering you didn't know how to spell "Zeppelin", you probably don't know a thing about them, so that means you know even less about The Firm. I swear, somehow most of the world's musically ignorant people find a way to migrate to Queenzone. |
| Jjeroen 27.10.2006 13:21 |
This same shit AGAIN?? If you want to download the item presented here, download it. If you want to quarrel ONCE AGAIN about the Queen-name and or Paul Rodgers FUCK OFF AND POST YOUR COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE ONE HUNDRED AND A DOZEN TOPICS THAT ARE ALREADY ON THIS BOARD ABOUT THIS. This is FUCKING annoying! |
| Asterik 27.10.2006 17:19 |
I have no problem with Paul Rogers working with Brian and Roger, he does a good job on the songs and they are making good music. I have a few reservations with Brian and Roger calling themselves Queen however, but I suppose it keeps the flag flying. |
| bohemian 11513 27.10.2006 18:41 |
jeroen wrote: Black Sabbath Deep Purple Genesis Pink Floyd Iron Maiden Kiss AC/DC Savatage Van Halen The Who The Doors Golden Earring Guns n Roses Rolling Stones ... ... ... Queen?NO John = No Queen !!! PS: Of course... NO John = NO... ...Black Sabbath ...Deep Purple ...Genesis ...Pink Floyd ...Iron Maiden ...Kiss ...AC/DC ...Savatage ...Van Halen ...The Who ...The Doors ...Golden Earring ...Guns n Roses ...Rolling Stones... AS WELL!!! PPS: ;-) |
| Smitty 27.10.2006 20:06 |
kenny8 wrote: Here's a link of a quote from Brian May in 1992 that was disputed here. linkI stand corrected. Of course it doesn't matter anyway. |
| kenny8 28.10.2006 00:07 |
Not to you, obviously. I mean, it sounded all very respectful back then, didn't it? I'm annoyed at the ridicule this move has been greeted with in the media. Finally Queen got some well deserved respect, and Freddie was recognised for the genius he was....and they go and do this. It seems the acceptance of mediocrity has seeped through to this level. Queen used to be unique because Freddie Mercury himself was unique in so many ways...and that's what always seperated them from all the other bands. Some of the rubbish and comparisons to other bands I've read here are laughable and juvenile in the extreme. I realise it must be difficult accepting that you'll never get the chance to see the real Queen ever perform. I saw them a couple of times and it's something I know I'll never see the like of again. But it's gone and no amount of sticking your head in the sand, or accepting the sheer greedy, tasteless and tacky idea of a new studio album with a different singer could ever bring back. |
| The Real Wizard 28.10.2006 01:03 |
jeroen wrote: Black Sabbath Deep Purple Genesis Pink Floyd Iron Maiden Kiss AC/DC Savatage Van Halen The Who The Doors Golden Earring Guns n Roses Rolling Stones ... ... ... Queen?Yeah, I've tried that route before, too. For some reason, there are far too many people who believe Queen are exempt from this. Hell, even INXS kept their name. |
| kenny8 28.10.2006 02:06 |
|
| kenny8 28.10.2006 02:12 |
sorry double |
| kenny8 28.10.2006 02:20 |
kenny8 wrote:Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:. For some reason, there are far too many people who believe Queen are exempt from this. Hell, even INXS kept their name.And look at the credibility INXS have. Soon to be playing at a club near you. You'd have thought that Queen would descend into the Van Halen type argument? Dave or Sammy?? If you want cred you know who to side with. But so many of the comparisons don't compare. The Stones will be the Stones as long as the ESSENTIAL MIX is intact, Mick, Keith & Charlie. Daltrey & Entwhistle used to tour and as much as Daltrey claimed it was his band, even he knows that without Townshend it's not the Who. AC/DC had their first major success with Back In Black. They never had the world wide profile under Scott as they would later achieve with Johnson. If this new "Queen" album achieves a tenth the success of any old album, I'll be gobsmacked. The Doors finished with Morrison, I don't even know why that's a serious comparison. You can't believe what they did recently with Astbury as credible?? Why not add the "New Cars" to that list. To much hilarity they're on the road without Ocasek or the fellow who looked like Roger Taylor, the other vocalist bassist(?) who sang "Drive"(who sadly passed away)? If anybody thinks Queen & Paul Rodgers will be able to do a Genesis and emerge in 2006 an even more successful outfit, please say so, otherwise what's it for? Keep playing & recording music guys, I love their stuff too obviously, but pay some respect and don't try and pretend you're something you are not. This is obvioulsy aimed to a market that discovered Queen post Mercury and missed experiencing the album/tour cycle. To those who grew up with the band for a period of some years and experienced the highs of things like Bo Rap, Live Aid, Wembley etc and then finally sharing the deep loss of Mercury and the incredible charitable work that followed, this incarnation is a sad greedy footnote to an irreplaceable, much loved and UNIQUE rock band. But INXS is a great comparison, recently when appearing on Rockline IIRC, INXS left a question to next weeks guests, Brian & Roger, about replacing their lead singer as INXS were doing. Oh no, they could never do that they gushed..... |
| Jakobe 28.10.2006 02:30 |
andy1962 wrote: queen died when freddie died.i hate it that they still use queen & ??????.why don't they use smile & paul rodgers?????.or smile paul rodgers you now have some money???They can't do that! Smile died with Tim Staffel dude! |
| s.m. 28.10.2006 04:45 |
kenny8 wrote: Not to you, obviously. I mean, it sounded all very respectful back then, didn't it? I'm annoyed at the ridicule this move has been greeted with in the media. Finally Queen got some well deserved respect, and Freddie was recognised for the genius he was....and they go and do this. It seems the acceptance of mediocrity has seeped through to this level. Queen used to be unique because Freddie Mercury himself was unique in so many ways...and that's what always seperated them from all the other bands. Some of the rubbish and comparisons to other bands I've read here are laughable and juvenile in the extreme. I realise it must be difficult accepting that you'll never get the chance to see the real Queen ever perform. I saw them a couple of times and it's something I know I'll never see the like of again. But it's gone and no amount of sticking your head in the sand, or accepting the sheer greedy, tasteless and tacky idea of a new studio album with a different singer could ever bring back.AMEN |
| Jjeroen 28.10.2006 04:54 |
kenny8 wrote:Dahling, you forgot Purple, Sabbath and Floyd!kenny8 wrote:Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:. For some reason, there are far too many people who believe Queen are exempt from this. Hell, even INXS kept their name.And look at the credibility INXS have. Soon to be playing at a club near you. You'd have thought that Queen would descend into the Van Halen type argument? Dave or Sammy?? If you want cred you know who to side with. But so many of the comparisons don't compare. The Stones will be the Stones as long as the ESSENTIAL MIX is intact, Mick, Keith & Charlie. Daltrey & Entwhistle used to tour and as much as Daltrey claimed it was his band, even he knows that without Townshend it's not the Who. AC/DC had their first major success with Back In Black. They never had the world wide profile under Scott as they would later achieve with Johnson. If this new "Queen" album achieves a tenth the success of any old album, I'll be gobsmacked. The Doors finished with Morrison, I don't even know why that's a serious comparison. You can't believe what they did recently with Astbury as credible?? Why not add the "New Cars" to that list. To much hilarity they're on the road without Ocasek or the fellow who looked like Roger Taylor, the other vocalist bassist(?) who sang "Drive"(who sadly passed away)? If anybody thinks Queen & Paul Rodgers will be able to do a Genesis and emerge in 2006 an even more successful outfit, please say so, otherwise what's it for? Keep playing & recording music guys, I love their stuff too obviously, but pay some respect and don't try and pretend you're something you are not. This is obvioulsy aimed to a market that discovered Queen post Mercury and missed experiencing the album/tour cycle. To those who grew up with the band for a period of some years and experienced the highs of things like Bo Rap, Live Aid, Wembley etc and then finally sharing the deep loss of Mercury and the incredible charitable work that followed, this incarnation is a sad greedy footnote to an irreplaceable, much loved and UNIQUE rock band. But INXS is a great comparison, recently when appearing on Rockline IIRC, INXS left a question to next weeks guests, Brian & Roger, about replacing their lead singer as INXS were doing. Oh no, they could never do that they gushed..... Most important ones on the list, I'd say! It's just a shame that people get so carried away because of the use of a name. Too bad all the assumptions about people that do like this incarnation in your post are based on your wild guessing and not implyable on me. Actually I WAS already there when Freddie was still around. Yes, I miss him. Yes, I cried my guts out when he died. Yes, I still believe that there is no one that can come close to him whatsoever. And NO Paul does not 'replace' Freddie. (Oh, and I'm sorry to admit that I also already was a fan of Paul Rodger WAY before he went on tour with Brian and Roger. Blasphemous, isn't it?) (AUCH! I even admit that I saw The Cross and went to see quite a number of Taylor and May solo-shows!) I also admit that QPR does nowhere sound close to 'QUEEN'; but I find it a great band in it's own right. It's a shame people get so carried away by a name. That they are not able to look beyond the name and just accept the fact that these are musicians that want to make music. You might have just had a fun day last year, seeing at least two members or your favourite band on stage together and hearing some of the songs of your favourite band, played by at least a part of your favourite band themselves instead of a copycat tributeband or Kerry Ellis. But darling, if YOU prefer to sit at home and listen to old recordings with Freddie, for whatever reason, that's fine. But then please think as an adult and accept th |
| kenny8 28.10.2006 05:17 |
jeroen wrote:It's a shame people get so carried away by a name.That they are not able to look beyond the name and just accept the fact that these are musicians that want to make music.Jesus! It's great that these old rockers want to keep making music, nobody would want to deny them that, but they are not Queen, and should never be confused with such. Like I have said, it's one thing to get the old songs out and cover them in a nostalgia tour, but it's a huge leap to record new material and try to make people believe it is Queen. If it's only a name, why not be done then and call Paul Rodgers Freddie Mercury as well? I mean, as you say it's only a name after all....... another name created by the MAN WHO ALSO CREATED THE NAME QUEEN!! Jesus, I still can't believe I have to stand up for Mercury being the one and only lead singer for Queen on a Queen site!! Thanks Brian & Roger in keeping the respect, see what you've done!! oh yeah Purple, Sabbath & Floyd? All fondly remembered without Gillan, Ozzy and, well, I'm glad you brought this scenario up......Floyd is an interesting one as Waters tours solo still. I'd have to say had a split occurred during Queen's reign, I hate to say this but, who would've had the stronger act? Freddie Mercury solo with a backing band or "Smile"??.....And if Fred was still alive and didn't want to tour with them, HOW MUCH SUCCESS DO YOU THINK BRIAN & ROGER WOULD HAVE TAKING THIS INCARNATION ON THE ROAD AND GETTING AWAY WITH CALLING IT QUEEN????? |
| Rick 28.10.2006 05:33 |
Okay, all Stepfords, "I miss Freddie so much" and "No John = No Queen"-people all gather together in one row and stand on the railroad where the TGV is going. I mean, Freddie already stated. "If I'm dead tomorrow, I won't give a damn." So, what are you waiting for??? Then you all can be where Freddie is. Problem solved. |
| kenny8 28.10.2006 05:34 |
jeroen wrote:(Oh, and I'm sorry to admit that I also already was a fan of Paul Rodger WAY before he went on tour with Brian and Roger. Blasphemous, isn't it?)No, I'm a Rodgers fan too. But you do demonstrate with that example that you simply just don't get it. |
| kenny8 28.10.2006 05:36 |
<font color=blue>Rick wrote: So, what are you waiting for??? Then you all can be where Freddie is. Problem solved.Thanks for displaying to us the mentality which buys into a Queen without Mercury. Moron |
| Daveboy35 28.10.2006 06:02 |
OH NO NOT AGAIN ANOTHER POST ON THE USING OF THE NAME QUEEN, OH WELL HERE WE GO!!!!!!. I think the issue here is that brian, roger and paul rodgers are making a new album and everyone ASSUMES it will be under the banner name of QUEEN + PAUL RODGERS we don't know that at the moment and anyway why can't they use it??? ,is it because freddie named the group and it's considered sacrilege to do so?? or is it the mythical fantasy of those who live in the past?. Fact remains freddie is no longer here and john has moved on but BM and RT remain and are two quarters of the group so the name should be irrevelant and as JEROEN stated many,many bands have stuck with the name after losing or changing a member so why oh why is it so different with queen. One theory or fact is that freddie was such a showman flamboyant and extragavant and that anyone who might Temporary fill a void is considered not worthy and others no doubt will say they are simply exploiting the name. The real fact is that bm and rt have a oppurtunity with paul rodgers to try something new and unknown and i find that exciting i'm not expecting a queen album because fred and john wouldn't be on it, with harmonies and trademarks they made their own i'm expecting a NEW venture and i'm very excited about it be it with the name queen + paul rodgers or anything else. |
| Crezchi 28.10.2006 06:26 |
This is a retarded discussion but some Queen songs do come to mind for this crap... THE SHOW MUST GO ON JEALOUSY ALL DEAD, ALL DEAD SPREAD YOUR WINGS And a song Freddie liked to sing, FUCK OFF AND DIE, YOU FAG! With that said, and out of the way. Dude, get over it! Your lectures on Queen are not going to change anything! Freddie's own mother gave her blessing, you think your opinion counts more than hers? And another thing, you talk about Freddie creating the name Queen, ok, you got one. BUT Brian and Roger are the only founding members of Queen left! JOHN DEACON was NOT a founding member of Queen!!!!!!!!!! Maybe they should tour with Mike Grose?? lol |
| john bodega 28.10.2006 07:37 |
Thread-starter is a moron. A blind person will buy this new album, listen to it, think it's fantastic, and unless someone tells them that it's got Queen on the label, they probably won't give a shit. Use your ears, you fop. |
| s.m. 28.10.2006 09:13 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Thread-starter is a moron. A blind person will buy this new album, listen to it, think it's fantastic, and unless someone tells them that it's got Queen on the label, they probably won't give a shit. Use your ears, you fop.if that blind person couldt tell that qpr isnt queen, than he isnt just blind, he´s also deaf |
| kenny8 28.10.2006 11:06 |
<font color=ȬB2F><b>Crezchi wrote: JOHN DEACON was NOT a founding member of Queen!!!!!!!!!! Maybe they should tour with Mike Grose?? lolHaving come on board after the other three were already a group, I think the point of John Deacon's departure speaks volumes, actually. Look, the main reason I'm even here is I happen to believe that Freddie was the greatest frontperson in rock. Sue me. "Queen" is over. I repeat let whoever do what they want, but don't call it Queen anymore if another lead singer is involved. A singer who wants to take them down a bluesy path apparently, which sounds interesting, but not Queen. |
| teleman 28.10.2006 13:37 |
Legally they can call it Queen. That is the only requirement. It sure as hell isn't the same "Queen" but if they have a legal right to call it Queen I'm not going to trouble myself with worrying about it. I don't know why there has to be a new thread started everyday about this subject when there are other threads already going. I don't know why there has to be a new thread started in the announce section to discuss this point. Rapidshare links have been posted in threads in the general and serious discussion forums in conjuction with discussions. |
| john bodega 28.10.2006 23:57 |
s.m. wrote:Hahahah.... you are some kind of intellectual cripple, I'll explain it to you again.Zebonka12 wrote: Thread-starter is a moron. A blind person will buy this new album, listen to it, think it's fantastic, and unless someone tells them that it's got Queen on the label, they probably won't give a shit. Use your ears, you fop.if that blind person couldt tell that qpr isnt queen, than he isnt just blind, he´s also deaf Listening to just the music, they would *know* it was not Queen. If they were blind (hypothetically) and no one had ever told them they were using the Q+PR name (hypothetically speaking, of course) then the name wouldn't be an issue. They'd judge the music on it's own merits (thinking it was either good, or bad). I merely urge anyone with a brain stem to do the same - judge the music first, then make your pathetic little rants about how much Queen it isn't. You know I've made a startling realisation. If you put together 50000 monkeys and give them all keyboards, you won't get a Shakespeare manuscript. You get Queenzone. |
| kenny8 29.10.2006 06:22 |
It's not about how good the music could be. You've got three great musicians headlining the band. I'll be first to say the music will be worth hearing, of course. But don't let them tell you it's Queen, that's all. |
| openfire 29.10.2006 09:22 |
As Ian Paice is the only original member of a band still called Deep Purple that means in real life this is the "Ian Paice Band" and the guys touring as "Ian Paice & Friends" are Deep Purple ? Fuck ...... missed their gig ..... |
| john bodega 29.10.2006 11:17 |
kenny8 wrote: It's not about how good the music could be. You've got three great musicians headlining the band. I'll be first to say the music will be worth hearing, of course. But don't let them tell you it's Queen, that's all.I totally agree with what you're saying to people, but at the same time, it's like this : It doesn't matter what they tell us it is, does it? We all know it ain't Queen! So does it matter what it's called? As intelligent adults, it's up to us to put our own labels and ideas on things; them putting "Queen" or "Smile" or "Good Company" on the CD case won't really change anything. |
| Fat Lizzy 29.10.2006 18:26 |
God... Why do I still click on topics with titles like this one... Ruined my day FOR THE FUCKING 600.000.000.000.000.002nd TIME, SO LONG S#CKERS! PS: The title is right though... |
| The Real Wizard 30.10.2006 23:52 |
Zebonka12 wrote: you are some kind of intellectual crippleHahaha..!! But actually, I'd prefer the term "intellectual dwarf". |
| john bodega 31.10.2006 02:12 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Oooh I hadn't thought of that one!Zebonka12 wrote: you are some kind of intellectual crippleHahaha..!! But actually, I'd prefer the term "intellectual dwarf". |
| theCro 31.10.2006 09:35 |
QUEEN IS QUEEN, ALL THE SURVIRVING MEMBERS OF QUEEN ARE QUEEN! QUEEN LIVES FOREVER! |
| Katastrophe Mercury 31.10.2006 15:54 |
you've GOT to be kidding. you dumbasses need to just swallow the fact that Brian and Roger want to keep the name Queen. even though Queen will never be the same ever again, Brian and Roger helped form Queen. It was Brian, Roger, and Freddie who formed it. And we're all obviously aware that Freddie's no longer with us, so Brian and Roger still have the right to use that name. If Freddie didn't want them to, i'm sure he would've said something 15 years ago. but he didn't. IN FACT, HE TOLD THEM TO STAY TOGETHER AS QUEEN. you fucking morons think that without Freddie, theres no Queen. there IS Queen, but it'll never be the same. have you forgotten that there were THREE OTHER BAND MEMBERS? if Freddie hadnt died and say Brian left the band for whatever reason, then it STILL wouldn't have been Queen. same goes for Roger and John. if Freddie WAS Queen, then the albums would say "Queen, featuring Brian May, Roger Taylor and John Deacon", and on Freddie's solo projects, then it would've said "Queen" not "Freddie Mercury." so you ignorant idiots say "they shouldn't use the name anymore!"? i'll say it again: Freddie wanted them to stay together as Queen. Freddie wanted them to find a new lead and go on. but yes, Brian, Roger, and John said that theres no replacing him. that's true. but they kept the name for Freddie. if any of you, who have been going ON and ON about this name crap cos "there's no Queen without Freddie" have any true respect for Freddie at all, then you'll swallow it and shut up, for the love of God. you all are SO concerned about the name, when you should be fucking happy that Brian and Roger didnt just REPLACE Freddie with Paul Rogers! why can NONE of you see the glass half full? the immaturity here is so thick you could cut it with a damned knife. do you all seriously think Queen (Freddie, Brian, Roger and John) would be HAPPY to see you all fighting like this? over a NAME? seriously. grow up. |
| Katastrophe Mercury 31.10.2006 15:56 |
edit: internet screwed up on me. ignore this |
| kenny8 31.10.2006 20:19 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Thread-starter is a moron.Having had a look at your "website" that's a real pot/kettle statement. Looks like you failed the "Lord Of The Rings" audition. I gotta see this up close...Perth, that's not far from here |
| john bodega 01.11.2006 02:30 |
kenny8 wrote:Actually... no, I didn't fail that audition.Zebonka12 wrote: Thread-starter is a moron.Having had a look at your "website" that's a real pot/kettle statement. Looks like you failed the "Lord Of The Rings" audition. I gotta see this up close...Perth, that's not far from here And anyway, while we're at it - my appearance is no fair indicator of my IQ! As for the site.... if you take it seriously, you're the one doing the knuckle dragging (figuratively speaking, of course!). Come visit! I have pots, I have kettles, and a cauldron befitting my matted hair and broomstick. |
| kenny8 01.11.2006 03:00 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Actually... no, I didn't fail that audition.No shit |
| Smitty 01.11.2006 03:00 |
Dude, you could seriously make a giant batch of Chicken Noodle soup with that cauldron... |
| john bodega 01.11.2006 03:01 |
Okay, I sat down, gave the thread another read, the only way I can think of responding is as follows :
I don't recall any fuss being made when various (read : CRAP) tribute bands have had names with Queen in the title. Fuck they don't even have John Deacon - what right have they, to use the big Q word, then??
Calling the band Q+PR during their recent tours was a little dodgy, but justifiable. While it wasn't really 'Queen' so-called, there were two of the guys from Queen playing. And they were playing almost entirely a Queen repertoire. The + Paul Rodgers part was no different to them adding David Bowie (though I'm not sure when they adopted the '+' thing).
As far as I'm concerned, it is pushing it to say that this new album is a Queen album.
For some bands, it works, for others it doesn't. I look at "Endless Wire", and I think The Who. The primary songwriter is still there, the singer is still there, and how about that Zak Starkey!?
It wouldn't work if Paul and Ringo tried it. And I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim that it'd work with Queen.
While I acknowledge that it's not Queen - I don't really care about the name. My mind is on what kind of music they'll make. What does Brian consider 'epic', these days?
If it's an album full of Driven By You and Reaching Out clones, I'll be pissed. If it's more like Resurrection, if the instrumentation takes a Made In Heaven bent, I'll be pleased. In either case I'm much more excited by the prospect of new music, than I am about what name they'll be using.
kenny8 wrote:HAH I knew I'd seen the magic M word used before I brought it up....<font color=blue>Rick wrote: So, what are you waiting for??? Then you all can be where Freddie is. Problem solved.Thanks for displaying to us the mentality which buys into a Queen without Mercury. Moron Look, just because some people want to give the music a chance before getting annoyed, doesn't make them a moron. Doesn't that make *you* the one with a problem here?? We know it's not QUEEN. Who cares?!?! |
| john bodega 01.11.2006 03:08 |
kenny8 wrote:Go on then, guess which movie I was in.Zebonka12 wrote: Actually... no, I didn't fail that audition.No shit Hint : one of the ones that didn't have 15 endings. |
| kenny8 01.11.2006 09:54 |
Zebonka12 wrote:Go on then, guess which movie I was in.Planet Of The Apes? 2001? Greystoke? Bonzo Goes To College? |
| una999 01.11.2006 11:30 |
brian and roger formed queen - they can do whatever the hell they wasnt to with it. FACT |
| Katastrophe Mercury 01.11.2006 18:20 |
una999 wrote: brian and roger formed queen - they can do whatever the hell they wasnt to with it. FACTyou're more or less correct... Brian and Roger, along with Tim Staffell formed Smile (i cant remember who the bassist was), but then Tim dropped out to join another band, the bassit left, and Roger and Brian had no bass and no vocals. so Freddie dropped out of Sour Milk Sea and asked to form a band. then Freddie wanted the name Queen, and they agreed. so it was Brian, Roger, AND Freddie. not just Roger and Brian. |
| john bodega 01.11.2006 21:46 |
kenny8 wrote:.... all wrong. It was Harry and the Hendersons you bumpkin.Zebonka12 wrote:Go on then, guess which movie I was in.Planet Of The Apes? 2001? Greystoke? Bonzo Goes To College? I don't think you're striking the proper tone here, you're showing no concern as to what the banana shortage is doing to my people. |
| Silversaw 09.11.2006 14:54 |
I'm so sick of this same argument already. I also thought at first that maybe they should record under a different name, but you know what, I'm not in the band, nor do I make the decisions. Stop fucking crying about it for God's sake!! Do we all forget that Freddie Mercury was the one who TOLD Brian to keep the band going after his death, or have we become blind to that fact?? So many people are on here whining because they can't get "Face It Alone" or the 28th take of fucking "Soul Brother" and they make it known every day how much it sucks that they don't have every fucking morsel of recorded Queen material. Now, Brian and Roger decide they want to give you NEW material and you bitch and moan again because Freddie isn't involved!!! Did you also cry about "Made In Heaven" and "No One But You?" Obviously Freddie was the most unique and original frontman in history, not to mention his vocal ability and songwriting skills are second to none, but to be a Queen fan you can't just say that Freddie is the band or John is the band or whatever!!! Sure, they could record under a different name...but they've been the ones using this one for 35 fucking years and it's their choice!!!!!! This argument is just old, plain and simple! The more I see some of the nonsensical posts on here the more I realize that a good portion of Queen fans aren't Queen fans at all! Something tells me that if it was Brian who had died and Queen continued without him, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Hell, John is no longer with the band and yet I only saw one or two posts that even mentioned that. Does that mean that John was not an important part of the band's chemistry???? The points some people are trying to make are valid, such as the fact that the band could indeed record under May, Taylor, and Rogers or some other thing. They could...but they aren't! Get the hell over it! Most of the other points presented are nothing more than childish tantrums by people who can't get what they want. And you know what...not all the complaints are even well written!!! Queen Fans? I think maybe not. C.M. PS - Oh wait, I forgot, in most tiny little minds the vocalist for a band IS the only person that matters!!!! Damn my opposing approach to a completely false but widespread misconception. Complain about Ozzy leaving Sabbath; Blackmore and Gillan leaving Purple; Jon Anderson leaving Yes; Dennis DeYoung leaving Styx; Steve Walsh leaving Kansas; Steve Perry leaving Journey; Peter Gabriel and Phil Collins leaving Genesis; there are so many things to cry about... ...why don't you leave Queen alone for a change? |
| Oszmercury 10.11.2006 12:03 |
We've a lot of examples, so why are people makin noise about it... Floyd: without Barrett and again without Waters Purple had has a lot of incarnation and they created great albums Genesis KISS STONES The Doors King Crimson Soft Machine |
| The Real Wizard 10.11.2006 16:33 |
To add to the list: Chicago Van Halen Supertramp |
| Rick 10.11.2006 17:09 |
The Beach Boys too. Only two (Mike Love and Bruce Johnston) of the six members still tour with this name. |
| deleted user 10.11.2006 18:36 |
Deep Purple Black Sabbath |
| deleted user 10.11.2006 19:20 |
Dont forget that even Free suffered from line up changes as well. For instance, Paul Kossoff doesnt play at all on songs like Wishing Well as he had quit the band at that time. Cant remember the name of the guy they got in his place either |
| FriedChicken 10.11.2006 20:12 |
kenny8 wrote:Bullshit! Freddie didn't have much idea's when he started out with Queen. He was very jealous at Brian and Tim, because they were able to write great songs.una999 wrote: brian and roger founded the band - they can do whatever the hell they want to do with it. kiss my assNo, they founded A band. Not THE band. The guy with the ideas wasn't on board back then. |
| john bodega 10.11.2006 21:59 |
"So many people are on here whining because they can't get "Face It Alone"" Can you upload Face it Alone? And, for someone who's telling us to stop whinging, your post was awfully 'Wah-Wah' in nature, or 'Cry-baby'-esque. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 11.11.2006 00:08 |
If we're tossing arguments using other bands around as having situations similar to Queen's then let's be real. Of the elite bands, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Van Halen, Guns n Roses and The Rolling Stones and AC/DC were all relatively young men and bascially hitting their musical primes when they brought in new members. They were musicians with careers and bills to pay and needed to make the changes to keep their careers going. This is not the case with Brian and Roger. For example, both Pink Floyd and Genesis were hardly superstar bands (creatively superb, sales wise, no way) when Syd Barrett and Peter Gabriel left the respective bands. The Who were all but spent as a creative force when they brought Kenny Jones on board. The Doors never replaced Jim Morrison, and bands like Kiss, Iron Maiden, Savatage, Golden Earring, etc. are all (IMHO) nowhere near Queen's status. Freddie Mercury brought a lot of "arguably" to the table. He wrote what was "arguably" the greatest song of the 20th century. He wrote what is "arguably" the greatest sports anthem of all time. He was "arguably" the greatest singer of the rock era. He was "arguably" the most diverse, and successfully diverse writer of the rock era. He was "arguably" the greatest front man of all time. And he "arguably" delivered the greatest performance from a rock star (a la Hendrix at Woodstock) of his generation at Live Aid. It cracks me up how people on this post and the million others about who Queen are slag people for not loving Queen if they don't like the name change. Funny, if you compare Freddie Mercury to a troubled, drug addled guitarist from Pink Floyd, a rhythm guitarist for The Stones, or the second guitarist in G' n' R', or the replacement werewolf guitarist from KISS, then frankly, that's a fantastic disrespect towards Freddie Mercury. We're all fans, and we know that they can and will call the band what they want. The argument is tired, but remember, none of the aforementioned acts had the person who left their band appear on a stamp in Great Britain. Freddie was a once in a century talent. Since we're big on lists, I'll leave you with my list of who we should be talking about in relation to Queen. Spot the difference from the previous list. The Beatles Led Zeppelin Greatest band ever, greatest rock band ever, ad Queen is the greatest pop/rock band ever. Pretty certain that we know how The Beatles and Zeppelin ended up. This is only my opinion, and I don't care if they do a new album as Queen. Just throwing out some food for thought. |
| tgunn2760 11.11.2006 19:04 |
The band that was closest to Queen's situation was Lynyrd Skynyrd, and they chose to continue with the same name and were quite succesful. I don't think the same can be said about Q+PR, although I have not heard any of their songs. I refuse to. Queen for me ended when Mercury died. Nor is Black Sabbath with Dio the same as Black Sabbath with Osborne. But I have to wonder if Sabbath with Osborn could have have continued to produce quality music at the time they split up. Their last album together was not nearly as good as the previous ones. What the topic started meant to say, though, is that without Mercury Queen would not have had the success they had. And I whole heartedly agree. Who came up with the name Queen, or who the founding members were, is really irrelevant. I doubt that we would even know Deacon and Taylor if they had not the fortune to team up with Mercury. Brian May may have been succesful, but not to the degree things worked out for him with Mercury and Queen. At least in my opinion. |
| The Real Wizard 12.11.2006 23:00 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: Freddie didn't have much idea's when he started out with Queen. He was very jealous at Brian and Tim, because they were able to write great songs.Good point. Most people seem to miss that one. |
| mrbadguy15 14.11.2006 10:11 |
I don't know what the problem is here I mean Roger and Brian are at least the half of the members so they have every right to call there selfs Queen. And everybody van change his mind at anytime, please correct me if I'am wrong. So let us all be happy that they are continue making music. Because they are great musicplayers after all. And they are keeping Queen and the memory of freddie alive. Queen wasn't just freddie it was the 4 of them that's what freddie always said. Don't get me wrong nobody can replace or even get a little bit close to freddie, but it would be a waste if great poeple like brain may and roger taylor wouldn't play music anymore. Greetz |
| mrbadguy15 14.11.2006 10:14 |
I don't know what the problem is here I mean Roger and Brian are at least the half of the members so they have every right to call there selfs Queen. And everybody van change his mind at anytime, please correct me if I'am wrong. So let us all be happy that they are continue making music. Because they are great musicplayers after all. And they are keeping Queen and the memory of freddie alive. Queen wasn't just freddie it was the 4 of them that's what freddie always said. Don't get me wrong nobody can replace or even get a little bit close to freddie, but it would be a waste if great poeple like brain may and roger taylor wouldn't play music anymore. Greetz |