QueenZone discussion #934218
I need answers
| Nathan 26.12.2006 06:40 |
Can someone please explain to me why this whole Q+PR thing is so controversial? Why do so many people hate it? I mean, look at Led Zeppelin (or should that be Jimmy Page, Robert Plant and John Paul Jones?). When they reunited at Live Aid with Phil Collins and that other guy (Terry Thompson?) on drums, or when they've reunited occasionally with Jason Bonham taking up his father's place at the drums no one's complained. As a matter of fact, nearly everyone's happy that they can see three members of one of the greatest bands of all time perform together. Mind you, this is only on REALLY special occasions. Now let's look at Q+PR. A similar reformation of another of the world's finest rock bands BUT this reunion has tours and even a new album to look forward to and a lot of people on here and at QOL are up in arms about it. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions and I respect each and every one of your opinions as regarding the new tour. But it's always really mystified me as to why Queen should receive such backlash for deciding to continue on and make music for the masses to enjoy with some fresh new material in there too. Could anyone please help me solve this puzzle? Sorry but I can't find a Q+PR bashing thread (shock shock horror horror) to post this in. |
| Penetration_Guru 26.12.2006 07:06 |
I think it's different because Bonham wasn't the frontman. Lots of bands have replaced random members without too much hassle (plus Zep hardly ever did anything). Better examples would be AC/DC (many fans see them as two bands - Bon & Brian) INXS (God knows how the hardcore felt about a reality TV show) The Doors (I don't think Ian Astbury is taken seriously as the new face of The Doors) I'd throw the challenge back at you - name a band who replaced a dead lead singer and DIDN'T get whining from fans.... |
| Nathan 26.12.2006 07:28 |
So why the hatred for the replacement members? The bands are still producing fresh, exciting new music aren't they? I used to reckon Black Sabbath without Ozzy Osbourne (and later on Bill Ward/Geezer Butler too) was not Black Sabbath, until I gave the other line-ups a chance and realised that there was plenty of great music I until then didn't have a particular interest in exploring. So, back to the point, is all this Q+PR "hatred" (obviously not everyone's going to like it, I despised the very idea when it first came to be) basically a refusal to accept change? |
| thomasquinn 32989 26.12.2006 10:57 |
Penetration_Guru wrote: The Doors (I don't think Ian Astbury is taken seriously as the new face of The Doors)Sensible people don't take Ray Manzerek serious either. In other words: it's not the one guy, it's the entire effort that's ridiculous. |
| Vilatrista 26.12.2006 15:35 |
Because Freddie is irreplaceable dear,he was the ultimate performer. |
| The Real Wizard 26.12.2006 16:41 |
Vilatrista wrote: Because Freddie is irreplaceable dear,he was the ultimate performer.And how many times did Brian, Roger, and even Paul make it completely clear that Paul is NOT replacing Freddie? |
| Kate4Freddie8 26.12.2006 18:02 |
Basically people don't like Paul Rogers because they think he is trying to take Freddie's place in Queen (which by the way he can never do anyway). |
| boca 26.12.2006 18:41 |
Look, I don't have anything against Queen touring and working again. But I simply think Paul Rodgers is not the right man. They become different band under his influence. That's what I hate. Personally, I would be very very happy if Queen continued but just like three of them. And maybe Spike Edney. That means :John, Brian and Roger. No Paul Rodgers, no Danny Miranda, no Jamie Moses...That's completely another band... |
| Sharon G.Queen Fan 26.12.2006 19:49 |
It's very simple: No Freddie + No John = No Queen. And there you have it. |
| The Real Wizard 26.12.2006 20:49 |
boca wrote: But I simply think Paul Rodgers is not the right man. They become different band under his influence.What's wrong if Queen try yet another direction? Compare Queen II to News Of The World or Hot Space. The Q+PR sound is no bigger of a shift in direction. Sharon G.Queen Fan wrote: It's very simple: No Freddie + No John = No Queen. And there you have it.Thanks for solving that argument. You came in at the exact right time, and showed us all. But more seriously... If Pink Floyd can be Pink Floyd without Barrett and Waters, if Chicago can be Chicago without Kath and Cetera, Deep Purple can be Deep Purple without Gillan (and now without Blackmore), and Black Sabbath can be Black Sabbath without Ozzy... then Queen can be Queen without Freddie Mercury. Take your "Freddie blinders" off for a moment and look at all the other bands that remained successful without their main men. Maybe for once you can argue against someone's logic instead of repeating yourself with the same mindless rhetoric over and over again. Nobody with decent enough debating skills will take you seriously until then. |
| Josh Henson 26.12.2006 20:57 |
True that, Sir GH!
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Vilatrista wrote: Because Freddie is irreplaceable dear,he was the ultimate performer.And how many times did Brian, Roger, and even Paul make it completely clear that Paul is NOT replacing Freddie? |
| dobo 27.12.2006 06:24 |
1972-1991 Queen= Freddie,Roger,Brian,John 1992-1997 Queen= Roger,Brian,John 1997-2004 Queen= Roger,Brian 2004-???? Queen= Roger,Brian,Paul 1992-2004 With a guest singer |
| violonbleu 27.12.2006 10:30 |
Because there are people who think in a bad way and people who think in a good way...But everybody thinks he thinks in the good way...as me :-) |
| thomasquinn 32989 27.12.2006 13:07 |
Vilatrista wrote: Because Freddie is irreplaceable dear,he was the ultimate performer.It's remarks like this that make me wonder: Have you ever ventured outside your barn? |
| thomasquinn 32989 27.12.2006 14:35 |
I need answersI need to get laid, but I don't get that either. My point is: life isn't always fair. |
| Wiley 27.12.2006 19:26 |
dobo wrote: 1972-1991 Queen= Freddie,Roger,Brian,John 1992-1997 Queen= Roger,Brian,John 1997-2004 Queen= Roger,Brian 2004-???? Queen= Roger,Brian,Paul 1992-2004 With a guest singerInteresting remarks. Pink Floyd's compilation Echoes has something like that. It says something like: Pink Floyd is: -Syd Barret, Roger Waters, Richard Wright and Nick Mason on tracks... -Syd Barret, Roger Waters, David Gilmour, Richard Wright and Nick Mason on track... -Roger Waters, David Gilmour, Richard Wright and Nick Mason on tracks... -Roger Waters, David Gilmour and Nick Mason on tracks... -David Gilmour, Richard Wright and Nick Mason on tracks... 5 different formations with 5 band members and it's always Floyd. This case has been brought up before and I wouldn't want to make an issue about it once again. I don't know if there are Floyd fans that repeat over and over again "Pink Floyd RIP 1968" or "Pink Floyd RIP 1983", when each so called key member left the band. |
| AmeriQueen 30.12.2006 14:18 |
It's a combination of 4 groups of people: 1.) Ignorant cynics who have the idea that Freddie carried the other's on his shoulder's and that using the Queen name is a couple of minor guys capitolizing on the name of the major guy. Kind of like the surviving Hendrix group calling themselves the Jimi Hendrix Experience + Slash almost. Freddie's great songs, particularly Bo Rhap, his amazing voice and piano, and above all his gargantuan level of charisma and superstar presence has led the 'Freddie is Queen' inaccurate assumptions. 2.) Whinney Queen fans who either dislike Paul Rodgers, or are still bitter that George Michael or someone else whom they would prefer to front Queen, wasn't picked instead. 3.) These gimpish retards who can apparently read and write, in spite of their having brains limited enough to actually think that this can somehow, someway tarnish the career and legacy of Freddie Mercury. These same post-labotomy patients were the ones slamming Michael Jordan for returning at age 39 to the game he loves, playing for the bottom dwelling Washington Wizards. They view his 2 playoff-missing seasons as a stain on his career, while what I noticed was that he turned 40 one day, the next evening he became the first player over 40 years old to score 40 or more in a basketball game(he scored 42, and had a few more 40 + games after if I remember correctly). 4.) Last but not least, the people whose only real problem is using the Queen name. Some view it as a disrespect almost to themselves to not acknowledge their fresh, creative 2006 group paradigm with an original new band name to represent original new music from an altered source. I see it this way: Is it disrespectful to use Queen's name in this? Of course not. They are playing Queen music, half of Queen is involved, and while Axl Rose is about to release a new Guns N'Roses album featuring Axl returning on Vocals, and everyone else replaced by all new, different people, Queen is acknowledging their change with an attached + Paul Rogers to it. Are Queen capitalizing on their name? Yes, but why should they not? A) It communicates a presence and combination of mutiple members of Queen. B) True, it might mislead those who don't know better that John Deacon is involved since he is a member of Queen, but with Freddie dead, it should go without saying or concern that the Queen name today cannot factor in a living Freddie Mercury. So what's the problem there? C)And if Queen get a couple million pounds more overall than they would without drawing on the Queen name.... WELL BAD ASS!!! I hope they make Ruper Murdoch look poverty strickent by comparison of their wealth. Nobody, and I mean, NOBODY in the entertainment industry deserves flowing rivers of money than Queen's members, in my opinion at least. |
| The Real Wizard 31.12.2006 02:41 |
Excellent post, AmeriQueen. Three cheers for people with logic. Four for you. |
| Dan C. 31.12.2006 15:15 |
Logic? Hell, I thought that was booted from here LONG ago. |
| Back2TheLight 02.01.2007 04:47 |
It more or less was, but that was a damn good post AmeriQueen!! You said things that some of us just think of, but just don't for the sake of argument!! You got my vote... |
| All I Hear Is Radio Gaga 02.01.2007 17:52 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Cheers to that!boca wrote: But I simply think Paul Rodgers is not the right man. They become different band under his influence.What's wrong if Queen try yet another direction? Compare Queen II to News Of The World or Hot Space. The Q+PR sound is no bigger of a shift in direction.Sharon G.Queen Fan wrote: It's very simple: No Freddie + No John = No Queen. And there you have it.Thanks for solving that argument. You came in at the exact right time, and showed us all. But more seriously... If Pink Floyd can be Pink Floyd without Barrett and Waters, if Chicago can be Chicago without Kath and Cetera, Deep Purple can be Deep Purple without Gillan (and now without Blackmore), and Black Sabbath can be Black Sabbath without Ozzy... then Queen can be Queen without Freddie Mercury. Take your "Freddie blinders" off for a moment and look at all the other bands that remained successful without their main men. Maybe for once you can argue against someone's logic instead of repeating yourself with the same mindless rhetoric over and over again. Nobody with decent enough debating skills will take you seriously until then. |
| cmsdrums 28.01.2007 11:49 |
I can't believe that no-one has raised the massive repercussions of Kajagoogoo without Limahl...... (tonguer placed firmly in cheek) |