| SomebodyWhoLoves 22.01.2007 15:05 |
But why don't the remaining of Queen hire guys like Gary Mullen or that other dude who sing almost exactly like Freddie? |
| Freya is quietly judging you. 22.01.2007 15:12 |
Yes, that is a stupid question. |
| steven 35638 22.01.2007 15:14 |
Would you like me to ask the band for you? |
| deleted user 22.01.2007 15:18 |
I heard that they weren't looking to "replace" Freddie. They would probably get Hell (of a different kind than they're getting from some people now) if they hired a Freddie-imitator. I don't know, personally, I would be a little uncomfortable going to see Brain, Roger, some back-up guys, and a guy who was "trying to be a Freddie clone" (dressing up and patterning stage actions after Freddie). Brian and Roger would probably be uncomfortable, too. Sure, as it is, they have the name "Queen" but no one who is going there is expecting to see Freddie, or anything like him. Unless maybe they're a little "slow". Also, I don't know anything about these other people's song-writing abilities. |
| thomasquinn 32989 22.01.2007 15:25 |
<b><font color=009966>?Freya? wrote: Yes, that is a stupid question.... That was going to be MY line :( You beat me to it. Dammit!!! |
| SomebodyWhoLoves 22.01.2007 15:26 |
Yes, that is true. They would get hell for hiring a Freddie imitator. But that other thread, the guy who did this: link I mean, this guy sounds exactly like Freddie, 95-99%. I'd rather see and hear THIS guy sing and perform Queen songs than Paul Rogers. Nobody can replace Freddie. But if they had a guy who sounded exactly like Freddie, why not hire him, instead of a guy like Paul Rogers who sounds too different, and changes the band too much. My point is, if they are going to perform as Queen again, they should've hired someone who sounds similar to Freddie. Maybe George Michael, or this guy. |
| deleted user 22.01.2007 15:39 |
^ See, that's where we differ. I think that if I'm going to go see half of Queen (Brian and Roger)... I would NOT want a Freddie-look-sound-alike. When I went and saw Q+PR, I was impressed with how they "respected" Freddie but didn't make him the centre of attention (I didn't feel like they were using him to pull on my purse-I-mean-heart strings). Trying to get someone who sounds "just like" Freddie would seem more 'disrespectful' than anything. Even though it was the "old" material with Rodgers, it didn't appear like he was trying to sound like Freddie. This let me enjoy the show and not compare him to Freddie (though some people will do that anyway, especially since half of Queen is still being called "Queen", which I don't really care about). Plus, someone like Paul Rodgers can bring people in to the concert, too. So it's probably a good business move for them. And he can write music, which is good as well. |
| SomebodyWhoLoves 22.01.2007 16:22 |
I disagree that you disagree with me. I think most Queen fans go to Queen concerts because of the past, because of FM. Nobody goes to hear PR sing Queen songs. Why do people go to Queen imitator concerts? I think for the same reason why Queen fans attend Queen + PR concerts. Brian and Roger are kidding themselves if they think this new Queen + PR act is something fans TRULY want. Nobody wants that. Queen + PR is not Queen. But people go because they have nostalgic feelings. Therefore, Queen should give what people want. As close to the original Queen feeling as possible. Nobody wants an entirely new Queen. |
| steven 35638 22.01.2007 17:21 |
SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: I think most Queen fans go to Queen concerts because of the past, because of FM.The past is the past. SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: Nobody goes to hear PR sing Queen songs.Queen fans who are Paul Rodgers fans might want to hear it. SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: Brian and Roger are kidding themselves if they think this new Queen + PR act is something fans TRULY want. Nobody wants that.I want that. |
| Mercuryking 22.01.2007 17:28 |
I completly agree that they should hire MERCURY to sing for them. Especially when they have had all these 100 crappy singers throughout the years singin with them, why not take mercury. |
| 4freddie 23.01.2007 02:25 |
I think since the fans know they will never be able to see Freddie at least let them hear him..........or someone that sounds like him link link link |
| kenny8 23.01.2007 03:06 |
<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: The past is the past....and without it they wouldn't have much of a reason to carry on. |
| Rick 23.01.2007 04:00 |
Because the real Freddie would lost his value and Queen-music would look and sound ridiculous. |
| thomasquinn 32989 23.01.2007 06:02 |
SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: I disagree that you disagree with me. I think most Queen fans go to Queen concerts because of the past, because of FM. Nobody goes to hear PR sing Queen songs. Why do people go to Queen imitator concerts? I think for the same reason why Queen fans attend Queen + PR concerts. Brian and Roger are kidding themselves if they think this new Queen + PR act is something fans TRULY want. Nobody wants that. Queen + PR is not Queen. But people go because they have nostalgic feelings. Therefore, Queen should give what people want. As close to the original Queen feeling as possible. Nobody wants an entirely new Queen.How long will it take you to come to the realization that out of the entire population of this forum, only about 10 people agree with your insane views? You know what that means? That you are NOT in a position to judge what "the fans" like. You don't represent THEM. YOU represent the braindead STEPFORDS. |
| SomebodyWhoLoves 23.01.2007 07:07 |
If I represent the brain dead stepfords, then the brain dead stepfords are right! Brian May + Roger Taylor + Paul Rogers is not Queen. People don't go to Queen + PR concerts for new material or new albums. They are not fans of the new weird Queen. They are fans of the old classic Queen. If you don't understand this, then WHO are YOU to call ME braindead? |
| SomebodyWhoLoves 23.01.2007 07:09 |
<font color=blue>Rick wrote: Because the real Freddie would lost his value and Queen-music would look and sound ridiculous.Freddie will never lose his value. As weird and ridiculous as it may look, calling Queen Brian May + Roger Taylor + Paul Rogers is also just as weird and ridiculous. Furthermore, the new "Queen" making a new "Queen" album is ridiculous also. |
| Mercuryking 23.01.2007 07:43 |
SomebodyWhoLoves wrote:Yes, Queen with paul rodgers frankly SUCKS. 1. Paul isnt a great singer, 2. They play the songs so slow it makes u sleep. 3. Freddie would not have approved this.<font color=blue>Rick wrote: Because the real Freddie would lost his value and Queen-music would look and sound ridiculous.Freddie will never lose his value. As weird and ridiculous as it may look, calling Queen Brian May + Roger Taylor + Paul Rogers is also just as weird and ridiculous. Furthermore, the new "Queen" making a new "Queen" album is ridiculous also. |
| Dan C. 23.01.2007 07:52 |
SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: Brian and Roger are kidding themselves if they think this new Queen + PR act is something fans TRULY want. Nobody wants that.I'm a fan, and I TRULY want it. |
| Bob-Plant 23.01.2007 08:06 |
But if they had a guy who sounded exactly like Freddie, why not hire him, instead of a guy like Paul Rogers who sounds too different, and changes the band too much. My point is, if they are going to perform as Queen again, they should've hired someone who sounds similar to Freddie. Maybe George Michael, or this guy. I realize this comparison is a bit of a stretch, but as far as Paul changing the band, sometimes that's a good thing. When Brian Jones left/was dismissed from the Stones, they brought in Mick Taylor and some peole claimed they would never listen to them again, this was an outrage, how could they do that etc. In retrospect, most peole agree this was the golden age of the Stones. Now obviously changing the greatest lead singer in rock history is not the same as changing a guitarist with declining abilities and it is very unlikely that Q + PR will surpass Queen at their best, but maybe we should just give the new album a chance and see what happens. |
| SomebodyWhoLoves 23.01.2007 08:38 |
Dan Corson II: The Revenge! wrote:Yeah sure. Let's see what happens when the new album is released ok?SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: Brian and Roger are kidding themselves if they think this new Queen + PR act is something fans TRULY want. Nobody wants that.I'm a fan, and I TRULY want it. If you are right, then Queen will sell MILLIONS of copies of the new album. if you are wrong, then Queen's latest album will be a failure. The people will speak with their wallets, and I think most people will say NO! |
| Rick 23.01.2007 08:57 |
Bladiebla. Get the hell out of here then. Sjeez. |
| kedo 23.01.2007 09:03 |
All we know that that guy can imitate freddie but can he write new lyric melodies and sing them like freddie??? ammm i really really dont' think so.. he can imitate him (on old songs!!!) but he cannot think and feel like him in order to write new songs |
| Dan C. 23.01.2007 09:11 |
SomebodyWhoLoves wrote:How could I be wrong when I say *I* want something? By the way I never said it would be successful or sell millions of copies. I just said that I wanted it. I could give two shits if anyone else does. When the new album is released, I'll own it and will no doubt enjoy it.Dan Corson II: The Revenge! wrote:Yeah sure. Let's see what happens when the new album is released ok? If you are right, then Queen will sell MILLIONS of copies of the new album. if you are wrong, then Queen's latest album will be a failure. The people will speak with their wallets, and I think most people will say NO!SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: Brian and Roger are kidding themselves if they think this new Queen + PR act is something fans TRULY want. Nobody wants that.I'm a fan, and I TRULY want it. |
| stringsrmagicalzey 23.01.2007 10:33 |
"But why don't the remaining of Queen hire guys like Gary Mullen or that other dude who sing almost exactly like Freddie?" Hello, Why "stupid"? It's a normal common doubt, after all we are Queen fans, aren't we? I think many of us have wondered the same .But there are also all these articles & interviews were both Brian and Roger have pointed out that Freddie was unique,therefore nobody will be able to substitute him , not at all.I think Brian & Roger are two magnificent creative musicians who want to keep up rocking , so they asked Paul to join them just because there was this special chemistry ,and because Freddie looked him up, so...perhaps they do not want another singer who resembles "Freddie" simply because there will never be no one like him, and because they are at a new stage, they are willing to try something different.Of course many of us miss Freddie quite a lot , but I do respect Brian & Roger's decision & their freedom as musicians & artists to do what is best for them. Regards, |
| SomebodyWhoLoves 23.01.2007 11:44 |
Dan Corson II: The Revenge! wrote:Because the original assertion was that most FANS do not want NEW material, or attend concerts to see Paul Rogers sing classic Queen songs. They go because of nostlagia, and love for the band's past.SomebodyWhoLoves wrote:How could I be wrong when I say *I* want something? By the way I never said it would be successful or sell millions of copies. I just said that I wanted it. I could give two shits if anyone else does. When the new album is released, I'll own it and will no doubt enjoy it.Dan Corson II: The Revenge! wrote:Yeah sure. Let's see what happens when the new album is released ok? If you are right, then Queen will sell MILLIONS of copies of the new album. if you are wrong, then Queen's latest album will be a failure. The people will speak with their wallets, and I think most people will say NO!SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: Brian and Roger are kidding themselves if they think this new Queen + PR act is something fans TRULY want. Nobody wants that.I'm a fan, and I TRULY want it. Just because YOU say YOU want new albums proves nothing. What would prove anything is if the next album is a success! If, in the entire world, only YOU happen to buy it, are you still going to sit there and argue the point? You'll probably listen to it once, or twice, and conclude it is not a Queen album. Paul Rogers + Brian May + Roger Taylor will never been Queen. |
| SomebodyWhoLoves 23.01.2007 11:48 |
kedo wrote: All we know that that guy can imitate freddie but can he write new lyric melodies and sing them like freddie??? ammm i really really dont' think so.. he can imitate him (on old songs!!!) but he cannot think and feel like him in order to write new songsThat guy doesn't have to write songs! All he has to do is sing them, and with a voice that sounds 95% like Freddie, it's almost as if it is Freddie singing. LOL. Brian May, Roger Taylor are both capable of writing Queen-esque songs. I know this will never happen! But I think Brian and Roger should have formed a new band name if they wanted to create a completely different look, feel, and sound. And this is what they did when they hired Paul Rogers. But I think fans want a singer who sounds as much as possible like Freddie. Let's face it: the Queen sound is Freddie's voice. A large part of that is also Brian's guitar, but more than anything, it's Freddie's voice. Therefore, they should've hired a singer who sounds as much as possible like Freddie Mercury. If that dude who is 95% Freddie's voice looked better, I think he'd be perfect. LOL. |
| Rompez 23.01.2007 12:23 |
Thank god Brian and Roger does not ask "fans" what they want them to do!!! If it would be so, they become dead as interesting and creative musicians. |
| Bob-Plant 23.01.2007 15:21 |
SomebodyWhoLoves wrote:Most of the greatest bands in rock history are most easily identified by their singers voice (Daltrey, Plant, Gilmour, Jagger), the problem for Queen is doubled because Freddie WAS the best. I'd still rather listen to Paul though for the simple reason that if they did use a Freddie imitator, how far does it go before it's parody? Does he then wear a leotard? Use a half mike stand? Do the "daaayyyooos"? The decision to carry on as Queen wil always be subject to question, but it the end the choice was Brian and Roger's and we'll can each decide for ourselves if we wnat to listen/go to shows. NOONE can speak for all fans.kedo wrote: All we know that that guy can imitate freddie but can he write new lyric melodies and sing them like freddie??? ammm i really really dont' think so.. he can imitate him (on old songs!!!) but he cannot think and feel like him in order to write new songsThat guy doesn't have to write songs! All he has to do is sing them, and with a voice that sounds 95% like Freddie, it's almost as if it is Freddie singing. LOL. Brian May, Roger Taylor are both capable of writing Queen-esque songs. I know this will never happen! But I think Brian and Roger should have formed a new band name if they wanted to create a completely different look, feel, and sound. And this is what they did when they hired Paul Rogers. But I think fans want a singer who sounds as much as possible like Freddie. Let's face it: the Queen sound is Freddie's voice. A large part of that is also Brian's guitar, but more than anything, it's Freddie's voice. Therefore, they should've hired a singer who sounds as much as possible like Freddie Mercury. If that dude who is 95% Freddie's voice looked better, I think he'd be perfect. LOL. |
| Oberon 23.01.2007 15:56 |
I think the whole problem with the Q+PR thing is that some fans don't seem to be able to accept any recording or performance of Queen music which wasn't created by the four of them, or in the case of this thread, 2 of them and a mimic. Yes, fans may well have still gone to a gig using such an imitator and enjoyed it, but I don't think Brian and Roger would have enjoyed it, and so it would have been a short lived venture. I personally enjoy listening to any interpretation of Queen music. Some it I like (Q+PR tour, B/R solo tours, musical etc), some of it I find interesting (Robbie Williams, 5ive, Pepsi advert etc). This is because I love the band and the music as well and can separate Queen's representation of the music from that by other people. I accept that Q+PR was a different entity and I enjoyed listening to their re-interpretations of the songs. I think PR is a good singer, and he has a different style. I think on the whole I'd prefer something along these lines than a Freddie mimic. If they just had a singer who couldn't write or create new aspects to the music, then you wouldn't be getting the best out of Roger and Brian I look forward to hearing what Q+PR can come up with both in the studio and on any subsequent tours. It might be good, it might be bad, but I will listen, watch and make my mind up then. |
| SomebodyWhoLoves 23.01.2007 16:53 |
I understand, and what you say could make sense. But Robbie Williams is basically, an untalented Freddie Impersonator. He struts, and acts as if he was FM. And many people in Britain are his fans. So this tells me that people really miss FM, and will pay money to see talentless fakes like Robbie Williams just to see some Freddie Mercury resemblance. I still think that if there was a fantastic singer who COULD step in FM's shoes and perform admirably, then Queen can move on, and even make new songs, and have a second act in their career. I think Paul Rogers is too different. His southern rock blues style of singing is NOT Queen. And this is the problem. Any new recording or album they do will and cannot be Queen. They might as well call themselves an entirely differnet bandname. I know that I will not purchase their new album because Paul Rogers's vocals is further from Queen than Brian May singing, or Roger Taylor, who are also further from Queen than FM singing. I still think they can find a vocalist who is closer than Paul Rogers, Brian May, and Roger Taylor, and perhaps even come close to Freddie Mercury's vocals. Queen was about great vocals in their songs, along with Brian May guitar. Paul Rogers is not a great vocalist, or his style is too different. |
| Dan C. 23.01.2007 20:12 |
SomebodyWhoLoves wrote:That's all well and good, but you KNOW I wasn't talking about the 'original assertion'. I replied to your comment to me. You know, where I said I was a fan and that I wanted it, and you said I was wrong and all that? I just wanted to point out how absurd that statement was.Dan Corson II: The Revenge! wrote:Because the original assertion was that most FANS do not want NEW material, or attend concerts to see Paul Rogers sing classic Queen songs. They go because of nostlagia, and love for the band's past. Just because YOU say YOU want new albums proves nothing. What would prove anything is if the next album is a success! If, in the entire world, only YOU happen to buy it, are you still going to sit there and argue the point? You'll probably listen to it once, or twice, and conclude it is not a Queen album. Paul Rogers + Brian May + Roger Taylor will never been Queen.SomebodyWhoLoves wrote:How could I be wrong when I say *I* want something? By the way I never said it would be successful or sell millions of copies. I just said that I wanted it. I could give two shits if anyone else does. When the new album is released, I'll own it and will no doubt enjoy it.Dan Corson II: The Revenge! wrote:Yeah sure. Let's see what happens when the new album is released ok? If you are right, then Queen will sell MILLIONS of copies of the new album. if you are wrong, then Queen's latest album will be a failure. The people will speak with their wallets, and I think most people will say NO!SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: Brian and Roger are kidding themselves if they think this new Queen + PR act is something fans TRULY want. Nobody wants that.I'm a fan, and I TRULY want it. As far as this being a Queen album or not, it's not. It's a Queen + Paul Rodgers album. Will it be less successful than a Queen album? No doubt. Does that make it bad? Not necessarily. But instead of freaking out about the name, why not just focus on the music? You may be quite surprised. I mean, if there is a song on the album about how they've replaced John and Freddie, and how they've hired Paul as the new singer of Queen (NOT Queen + Paul Rodgers) then yes, I could see where all the negative attention is coming from. However, to go postal over a name is just unfair. Most fans that I've talked to actually DO want to see them live and hear new material. And a few of them have been fans since the get go. I can't pretend to know what Freddie and John would say about it, and frankly, I don't care. Freddie's been dead almost sixteen years, while John has made it quite clear that he's done and has been for nearly ten years. On the other hand, Brian and Roger want to continue working. It's unfair to bash them for wanting to go on and use the name the four of them created TOGETHER. They've moved on, and I think it's time we all did the same. Queen's 'legacy' is fine, and Brian and Roger have done, for the most part, a damn fine job keeping it that way. As far Paul Rodgers, I never really cared for him one way or the other. He had a few songs I liked and that was it. But I have to say, he has impressed me quite a bit. Seeing him go on stage with Queen and pulling off a great show was something I really never would have expected. I went from being VERY skeptical to being a convert. If they work that well together live, I think the album could be fantastic. The simple fact is that they are good musicians. It sucks to see Queen + Paul Rodgers getting the same treatment from Queen fans that Queen always got from the music press. There IS a real chemistry there, and to try and deny them the right to explore that chemistry, no matter what the name, is selfish. |
| Knute 23.01.2007 20:30 |
Why stop at just one Freddie imitator? Get four or five of them. WOW! Imagine the orgiastic waves of pleasure you will have being awash in all that Freddie-ness. Wait! Even better idea! Hand out Freddie masks to all the concert-goers. That way you can see a smiling likeness of Freddie staring back at you every moment you turn your head. It would be divine. A meta-Queen experience for sure. Far better than a re-interpretation of great music with some bluesy bloke. |
| kenny8 23.01.2007 20:36 |
"Brian and Roger want to continue working. It's unfair to bash them for wanting to go on and use the name the four of them created TOGETHER." That's ridiculous. It's more than fair. In the real world it's considered laughable that Queen still exists in some way. When the general public think of Queen, they think firstly of Freddie Mercury. That's something I agree is unfair, but I can't deny it. If proof is needed compare sales of Fred's 60th Birthday compilation to Queen+. Again, try thinking of the Beatles reforming with a couple of ring ins. What's the difference? |
| Dan C. 23.01.2007 20:41 |
I say let them go for it. |
| Wiley 23.01.2007 21:28 |
SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: Paul Rogers is not a great vocalistOk. I was kinda getting part of your point and thought there was some kind of valid argument over here but that phrase made me stop paying attention. Let's say there was a singer almost as "good" as Freddie and sounded almost exactly like him. Mmmm, well, maybe they could have reformed Queen with him and (who knows?) maybe have some success. But I think that in order to be a real band this new person has to "jell" and get together with the other musicians. You just can't expect Brian and Roger to write songs like if they were for Freddie and have this sound-a-like sing them. Queen was a tight unit and (particulary in their last years) collaborated with one another. Having Gary Mullen or any other Freddie impersonator singing with Queen and PRETENDING to be Freddie would be A JOKE! Simply ridiculous, sorry. Paul is a very good singer with a style on his own. He also plays piano and guitar and writes. In the future everyone will have an opinion about this album. Some will like it, some won't. I think Queen in their heyday did pretty much everything different from what the general public expected from them and this is just more of the same. Did they ditch Brian when he fell sick in 74? Did they release a 3 minute radio friendly song as their lead single for ANATO in 75? Did they decide against releasing Champions because people might be offended by it? Did they break up after Sun City? They were always surprising their audience, doing things differently. Freddie might not be around but the Queen spirit carries on with Brian and Roger and the fans, and this spirit drives them. I prefer they GO ON AND CREATE SOMETHING NEW than sit on their asses and count their millions, which they are entitled to do but I still prefer they do something else. I am extremely grateful to Paul Rodgers for being able to bring that spark and excitement back into Brian and Roger's eyes and taking them on the road. Sorry for the long post.. :S Wiley |
| Sweetie 23.01.2007 23:31 |
I have a question, hang on, it'll come to me one day...heh heh heh, come... oh yeah, Why did they get someone old and with evil eyes? why not Felix? |
| Bob-Plant 24.01.2007 08:21 |
Let's try looking at this the otherway; if Brian or Roger or passed away (we'll not consider John because he probably would've opted out anyways), how easy would it be to replace one of them and carry on as Queen if the remiaing two wanted to? Would people be screaming that (insert a name) isn't Roger Taylor? I'm sure some fans would be pissed, but I'll venture the majority would be OK with it. When it comes to Brian, I'm sure they'd find someone to imitate his sound quite well. I'll guess about 60 % of Queen fans would say it was OK, at least while touring on a sort of Greatest Hits tour. But the minute they decided to head into the studio, well there's where fans would be divided about the new sound that would inevitably be made by Brian's absence and his replacement's contribution (or lack there of). Also, Freddie and Roger would probably "dominate" any replacement because the dynamics of the band power would shift by neccessity. As a matter of fact, consider how divided Queen fans are at each album anyways? I mean everytime they changed their sound, they angered some fans and gained new ones. Once the album is released, we can each judge it on it's own merits. |
| SomebodyWhoLoves 24.01.2007 09:47 |
Freddie is the most important part of the Band. He is irreplaceable. Why? Because of his voice. Queen was about great vocals, and great live shows. You can't have that if Freddie is gone. In the past, we'd hear things from Queen like, "We're 4 equal members". I think such statements were made because at the time, they did function like 4 equal members, but in reality, they were never equal. Freddie's death proves that Freddie was more equal than the others. So, as long as Freddie was in the band, losing Brian, Roger, or John could be overcome, I believe. But if you lose the lead singer, then the band is gone, forever. Remember when Freddie said, "The reason for our success? My overall charisma!". I think that is a very true statement. |
| gnomo 24.01.2007 11:23 |
Wiley wrote: I am extremely grateful to Paul Rodgers for being able to bring that spark and excitement back into Brian and Roger's eyes and taking them on the roadAmen!!! |
| Bob-Plant 24.01.2007 15:06 |
SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: In the past, we'd hear things from Queen like, "We're 4 equal members". I think such statements were made because at the time, they did function like 4 equal members, but in reality, they were never equal. Freddie's death proves that Freddie was more equal than the others.That doesn't make sense to me-how did his passing prove he was "more equal"? I'm not saying he can be replaced, I just don't see his death as proving what you're claiming. |
| SomebodyWhoLoves 24.01.2007 17:18 |
Freddie's death was also the end of Queen, signifying the greater importance of Freddie Mercury to the band's existence compared to the other members. Losing any other member would not have the same effect. Since Freddie's death, I think most fans have come to realize that Freddie's importance was so high that he was an irreplaceable member of Queen, whose passing also meant the end of Queen. |
| steven 35638 24.01.2007 17:23 |
SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: Freddie's death was also the end of Queen, signifying the greater importance of Freddie Mercury to the band's existence compared to the other members. Losing any other member would not have the same effect. Since Freddie's death, I think most fans have come to realize that Freddie's importance was so high that he was an irreplaceable member of Queen, whose passing also meant the end of Queen.I understand what you're saying, however, we knew of Freddie's greatness long before his death. The problem I have with what you said is that his death did not signify the end of Queen. It didn't. It was the end of a chapter. I don't know Freddie, and I definitely never met him, but if I were in a band and I passed away I wouldn't want to see the band I worked so hard on to just "give up." If you're lover passed away, would you really want to see him/her never to love again? I'm merely stating an opinion. About you and your idea of an "impersonater" filling the role of Freddie Mercury: What the fuck? Can't you see that would make a lot of fans very upset? I'm happy that Queen(Brian and Roger) found somebody like Paul Rodgers. To me, he isn't filling the role of Freddie Mercury, rather he is collaborating with Queen (and yes, I have no problem with them using the name). This isn't the first time Queen has ever collaborated which I'm sure all of you are aware. Only, this is the first time the band made a collaboration involving a full album and tours. Believe what you want to believe, I'm not here to fight with you. You just need to realize that Brian May and Roger Taylor have a right to use the Queen name, that Paul Rodgers is a great singer, that an impersonater is not what Queen needs, and that an impersonater could actually kill Queen. If I'm being honest, it's a retarded idea. An impersonater? Ha!!! |
| steven 35638 24.01.2007 17:41 |
SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: Paul Rogers + Brian May + Roger Taylor will never been Queen.A correction is in order. Queen + Paul Rodgers [notice the spelling is actually correct and is seperate from both Brian May and Roger Taylor (aka Queen)] is in fact a collaboration between two (not one) very good artists. There is no, and I repeat, no replacement. [just making it clear of my opinion] Now, carry on... |
| Knute 24.01.2007 18:20 |
Exactly Queen + Paul Rodgers will always be Queen + Paul Rodgers. It's very simple. |
| SomebodyWhoLoves 24.01.2007 19:39 |
I understand what you're saying, however, we knew of Freddie's greatness long before his death. The problem I have with what you said is that his death did not signify the end of Queen. It didn't. It was the end of a chapter.Like the end of any book, Freddie's death was in fact, the end of the final, and last chapter for the band. What else can you call it when the last Real Queen album was over 15 years ago? Made In Heaven's status as a real Queen album is debateable since it was released after Freddie's death, and much of the content was rehashed songs that were never released under Queen name. Queen is, whether you like it or not, dead since 1991. Just because Brian and Roger chose to resurrect the name Queen doesn't mean it's Queen. In what way is Queen + PR Queen? 50% of the original members is no longer there! I don't know Freddie, and I definitely never met him, but if I were in a band and I passed away I wouldn't want to see the band I worked so hard on to just "give up." If you're lover passed away, would you really want to see him/her never to love again? I'm merely stating an opinion.Your statement about the lover is illogical. If your gf or wife died, you can have another wife or gf. But would you call your new gf / wife the same name as your former wife? Would you expect your family and friends to also think your new gf/wife is your old gf/wife? I think not! About you and your idea of an "impersonater" filling the role of Freddie Mercury: What the fuck? Can't you see that would make a lot of fans very upset?If Brian and Roger found a singer who sounded 95% like Freddie, I don't think most fans would mind at all! I think they'd be really happy to hear a voice as good as Freddies singing Queen songs! |
| kenny8 24.01.2007 20:00 |
Wiley wrote: I am extremely grateful to Paul Rodgers for being able to bring that spark and excitement back into Brian and Roger's eyes and taking them on the road.It's not Pual Rodgers that's put the sparkle back into their eyes, it's the money |
| QueenTaylor 24.01.2007 21:24 |
kenny8 wrote:your a jerk kenny8....once again I'd like to know why they would want the money...I mean have you seen Roger's houses? They have a talent and they're continuing for their fans...NOT THE MONEY...YOU IDIOT!!! Maybe your just jealous...cause you dont have that much money...your obssessed with this money thing...enough is enough..GOD!! SMITTY is right, you are a jerk!Wiley wrote: I am extremely grateful to Paul Rodgers for being able to bring that spark and excitement back into Brian and Roger's eyes and taking them on the road.It's not Pual Rodgers that's put the sparkle back into their eyes, it's the money |
| john bodega 24.01.2007 22:04 |
This thread is almost as good as SomebodyWhoLoves assertion that all women like to be dominated sexually. As for the 'money' topic going on here - Uhm, they can't be motivated by money. About two or three people in this thread have already said that the new album/tour won't make any money; thus proving how 'bad' it will be. This is why I hate the internet, everyone would've either thrown a punch or shook hands by now if it were in a room somewhere. |
| steven 35638 25.01.2007 20:26 |
SomebodyWhoLoves wrote: Queen is, whether you like it or not, dead since 1991.I'm happy to break it to you, but Brian May, Roger Taylor and even John Deacon are still alive! Do you know what that means? That means if they're up to it, they could actually continue their career under the name "Queen!" Isn't that fantastic? I would love for you to pay close attention to these words... "You know something there was, there's been a lot of rumours lately about a certain band called Queen, and the rumours are that, the rumours are that we're gonna split up, what do you think? They're talking from here! (gestures) My apologies but I say what I want. You know what I mean? So forget those rumours, we're gonna stay together until we fucking well die I'm sure. I keep, I must tell you, I keep wanting to leave but they won't let me, also I suppose we're not, we're not bad for four ageing Queens are we? Really what do you think?"-Freddie Mercury, Live at Wembley Stadium [1986] I'm sure you're brilliant enough and wity enough to realize the most important part of that speech. "We're gonna stay together until we fucking well die I'm sure." Those words should be taken seriously. As far as I'm concerned, from what he said that day he wouldn't want to have seen his band mates to have given up after he past away. When he said that, he didn't mean that once one of them died they should all call it quits, it's when they all die that the end of Queen should be. That being said, I (yes, this is my opinion) believe that Freddie would not have been offended at all if he knew that Paul Rodgers would one day sing the songs that him and his band wrote together as a team. Also, take into consideration of Freddie Mercury's reaction to hearing that one day someone would imitate his vocals and even prance about like him on stage along with the rest of Queen. Did you ever get annoyed when someone would play that game where whatever you said and did they said and did? Ever find that irratating? Imagine how Freddie would feel to see someone in his own band who is actually "replacing" him. It's one thing for a tribute band to imitate Queen, but it's another thing if Queen actually became the tribute band. Think about that for a minute. The great thing about the collaboration between Queen and Paul Rodgers is that they are in no way trying to replace Freddie Mercury. Notice that the title of this new collaboration is called: QUEEN + PAUL RODGERS Not... QUEEN AND THEIR FRONTMAN "PAUL RODGERS!" It's not called Queen...it's called Queen + Paul Rodgers. Paul Rodgers is his own artist...and a fine one at that. |
| steven 35638 25.01.2007 20:30 |
|
| steven 35638 25.01.2007 20:34 |
|
| Sweetie 25.01.2007 20:40 |
Why is everyone soo.. umm Angry when someone posts their opinion? seriously, even when the recordings come out we'll still have the different opinions so don't growl at someone if they have a different one than you |
| i-Fred 25.01.2007 21:47 |
<font color=Mercury>Larry Lurex's Girl wrote: Why is everyone soo.. umm Angry when someone posts their opinion? seriously, even when the recordings come out we'll still have the different opinions so don't growl at someone if they have a different one than youwho is this guy on your profile and why? |
| steven 35638 25.01.2007 21:58 |
<font color=Mercury>Larry Lurex's Girl wrote: Why is everyone soo.. umm Angry when someone posts their opinion? seriously, even when the recordings come out we'll still have the different opinions so don't growl at someone if they have a different one than youActually, some of us might feel resentment towards each other, but I certainly don't! I just love to discuss and share my different opinions. I also enjoy hearing what other fans have to say. These forums would get boring if we all just "got along." |
| steven 35638 25.01.2007 22:21 |
SOMEBODYWHOLOVES wrote: "Your statement about the lover is illogical. If your gf or wife died, you can have another wife or gf. But would you call your new gf / wife the same name as your former wife? Would you expect your family and friends to also think your new gf/wife is your old gf/wife? I think not!" I apologize about that. My bad. What I meant to say was: "If you passed away, would you want your lover to never love again?" I swear to God I will never drink before I go on Queenzone ever again! I can't believe I fucked my words up like that. Once again, sorry about that! |
| i-Fred 25.01.2007 22:22 |
<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote:Who give's a shit what you think. Your nothing, your not worth a mention on a shit... just Kidding...eheheh I agree with what your saying. This place does have allot of resentment for everyone. If your making a spelling mistake, or if you make an error in facts, you will get shot down very quick.... But, who gives toot what the other people think anyway...<font color=Mercury>Larry Lurex's Girl wrote: Why is everyone soo.. umm Angry when someone posts their opinion? seriously, even when the recordings come out we'll still have the different opinions so don't growl at someone if they have a different one than youActually, some of us might feel resentment towards each other, but I certainly don't! I just love to discuss and share my different opinions. I also enjoy hearing what other fans have to say. These forums would get boring if we all just "got along." |
| steven 35638 25.01.2007 22:25 |
^Holy crap! You scared the shit out of me! For a moment there I actually thought I was going to get into a senseless argument that would have absolutely nothing to do with Queen! lol |
| i-Fred 25.01.2007 22:38 |
<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: ^Holy crap! You scared the shit out of me! For a moment there I actually thought I was going to get into a senseless argument that would have absolutely nothing to do with Queen! lolLol...Thats the hesence of this site.. Oh well,,, Friends will be friends. |
| kenny8 25.01.2007 22:44 |
taylormad101 wrote: I mean have you seen Roger's houses?Great reasoning as to why this continuation of "Queen" isn't motivated by greed, you retard. If this album does see the light of day and is received favorably, or approaches the sales of an original "Queen" album, I'll willingly take it all back. Sady it'll probably only denigrate the band's reputation. "Made In Heaven" was a respectable place to stop. |
| steven 35638 25.01.2007 23:02 |
kenny8 wrote:I have to agree, "Made in Heaven" was the most respectable place to stop. However, I fully support Brian May and Roger Taylor's decision to collaborate with Paul Rodgers.taylormad101 wrote: I mean have you seen Roger's houses?Great reasoning as to why this continuation of "Queen" isn't motivated by greed, you retard. If this album does see the light of day and is received favorably, or approaches the sales of an original "Queen" album, I'll willingly take it all back. Sady it'll probably only denigrate the band's reputation. "Made In Heaven" was a respectable place to stop. Here's something for all of you to think about: Perhaps we're underestimating the new album a little too much. |
| john bodega 25.01.2007 23:31 |
"Perhaps we're underestimating the new album a little too much." This'd make sense if it'd been released already. No one knows exactly what it'll sound like. |
| Sweetie 25.01.2007 23:49 |
shemp wrote:He's my father....<font color=Mercury>Larry Lurex's Girl wrote: Why is everyone soo.. umm Angry when someone posts their opinion? seriously, even when the recordings come out we'll still have the different opinions so don't growl at someone if they have a different one than youwho is this guy on your profile and why? actually he's Jason Sellards and he's something something something awesome |
| i-Fred 26.01.2007 00:01 |
<font color=Mercury>Larry Lurex's Girl wrote:He's you dad...ahahahahahahashemp wrote:He's my father.... actually he's Jason Sellards and he's something something something awesome<font color=Mercury>Larry Lurex's Girl wrote: Why is everyone soo.. umm Angry when someone posts their opinion? seriously, even when the recordings come out we'll still have the different opinions so don't growl at someone if they have a different one than youwho is this guy on your profile and why? You just cracked me up. ehehe |