| boca 01.02.2007 03:58 |
"Reports from an Australian source on new material... Queen guitarist Brian May has discussed the band's new material, which they have recorded with vocalist Paul Rodgers. Queen Mark II, which also features drummer Roger Taylor, joined forces with the Free/Bad Company vocalist Rodgers in 2005. Queen bassist John Deacon has not wanted to be involved in the post-Freddie Mercury project." Mark II...Oh my God! C'mon people... |
| gnomo 01.02.2007 04:49 |
... well, that's what that "smart" journo called them, not what they call themselves: it's just another news report on a news report on the recent Canadian interview... |
| Ayreon 01.02.2007 06:02 |
What's wrong with it? when they would call it 'Queen' you guys are all over it. When they call it "queen mark II" to me that sounds as a different name, and just given by a reporter. Don't get too excited, this thing will happen no matter what you think or how much rubbish you write on all of the messageboards. And myself and many other fans are really looking formward to it! |
| August R. 01.02.2007 06:58 |
I think Queen Mark II would be PERFECT name for the new line-up. Brian and Roger obviously want to perform under the Queen name, and there’s nothing we can do about it. So why not. Queen Mark II explicitly states that this is a band that has something to do with "the old Queen" but at the same time suggest that this is a new line-up. Mark II, indeed. Even some of the purists might accept this name, since Mark II literally means that the line-up has changed. And that's exactly the case with Queen here. |
| thomasquinn 32989 01.02.2007 07:42 |
Queen Mark II is what I've been saying all along, seeing how similar this is to the Deep Purple-style changes in line-up (in this case from DP mk. II to DP mk. III). |
| dogwithabone 01.02.2007 08:03 |
Does it really matter what the band name will be? Who cares if they'll be called Queen or Queen II or anything else for that matter? What matters is the quality of the music that will be recorded and released to the paying public. I, for one, will be buying any new single/album regardless of name as I can seriously call myself a fan. |
| john bodega 01.02.2007 08:49 |
In any case, it's not quite as hilarious as the idea of there being a Lyrnd Skynrd after their jet lost an argument with gravity. |
| thomasquinn 32989 01.02.2007 08:53 |
Zebonka12 wrote: In any case, it's not quite as hilarious as the idea of there being a Lyrnd Skynrd after their jet lost an argument with gravity.There shouldn't have been one BEFORE that either. |
| john bodega 01.02.2007 10:34 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Oh I wasn't going to open THAT particular can of worms. I was just talking about the moralities of lineup changes...Zebonka12 wrote: In any case, it's not quite as hilarious as the idea of there being a Lyrnd Skynrd after their jet lost an argument with gravity.There shouldn't have been one BEFORE that either. |
| boca 01.02.2007 10:59 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Queen Mark II is what I've been saying all along, seeing how similar this is to the Deep Purple-style changes in line-up (in this case from DP mk. II to DP mk. III).Lol,mark II reminded me also of Deep Purple... |
| Phill the Thrill 01.02.2007 12:19 |
Garbage did it with their second album i belive most of the line up changed so the album was 2.0 in referance to the second album AND the new line up |
| 7Innuendo7 01.02.2007 12:35 |
I wonder why Rodgers agreed to the name, possibly sales?, his other 'supergroup' bands bore names different from the previous donors. My first reaction to 'Queen Mark II' was...um...Lincoln Mark VII? v12 engine please? It doesn't really matter to me if they call it Skiffle & Bits, just publish! |
| mrjordy 01.02.2007 15:20 |
Funny that no one has yet to mention... Queen + Paul Rodgers |
| Micrówave 01.02.2007 15:50 |
As a Rhodes owner, I think it's a great name!!! Queen guitarist Brian May says the Queen legacy band Queen Mark II is readying a new studio album of material recorded with former Free/Bad Company vocalist Paul Rodgers. "We went in the studio...to see what happens, because we've already tested it pretty good on stage and that works great," May says. "And we went in almost unprepared...and came up with some tracks, which I think are really great." May added the tracks are "very different, they're very unlike anything that we've done, or anything that Paul's done." Queen Mark II also features original drummer Roger Taylor, however original bassist John Deacon has declined to be part of the post-Freddie Mercury project. May says he's particularly looking forward to playing the Queen Mark II songs live, "(because) we won't just be nostalgia, we will be: 'This is what we are'." - Undercover |
| i-Fred 01.02.2007 17:25 |
7Innuendo7 wrote: I wonder why Rodgers agreed to the name, possibly sales?, his other 'supergroup' bands bore names different from the previous donors. My first reaction to 'Queen Mark II' was...um...Lincoln Mark VII? v12 engine please? It doesn't really matter to me if they call it Skiffle & Bits, just publish!Rodgers would have allot of nerv trying to Pur swayed them to change the name. |
| kenny8 01.02.2007 19:53 |
I've been very critical of Queen+, but have to admit Queen MkII is a much better name as it clearly makes them out as a different band. Queen+ is misleading in that respect. They're never going to escape their past, not that they'd want to (even if May is getting tired of playing the old stuff) Like Jagger said once "...audiences always go, yeah we like the new songs, but play Brown Sugar!!" |
| Seven_Seas_Of_Rhye II 04.02.2007 00:50 |
I'm one who still cannot come to conclusion in my heart. My God, I don't wanna say it, but... I imagine - if someone passed away earlier than Freddie and John would stay aside like with this 'Queen+'-project. Just guess Freddie+Roger or Freddie+Brian call themselves 'Queen'. I imagine Freddie's saying with his philosophical face: "No, he's gone. We don't ought to... we cannot call ourself 'Queen' anymore. We're possessed by music, yes. But if we're going to tour, to play, it definitely will be NEW name. I don't know... Maybe 'Duck's Boys'". I understand and I want Brian and Roger to tour and play Queen music - remember, guys, how long we waited for their union when they both just made their solo-careers?! But, at least, I see them like 'Queen+Paul Rodgers' with THE SAME LETTERS SIZE (not with big 'Queen' letters and small '+Paul Rodgers') or 'Bad Company + B. May + R. Taylor' or 'Bad Queen' or 'Queen Company' :-) After all thinking it seems to me that Freddie may be permitted to perform under the different name, he was HUGE. But Brian and Roger may not. Without him they cannot gather big venues... But also I see Freddie looking down from the sky, approving all that Brian and Roger are doing now. And saying "Just use the name Queen. Yeah, come on! It can still work good! I'm still with you, with all those songs."... |
| Winter Land Man 04.02.2007 01:08 |
Queen "Mark" II? What's with the MARK? |
| Seven_Seas_Of_Rhye II 04.02.2007 01:23 |
.*.Messenger Of Leah.*. wrote: Queen "Mark" II? What's with the MARK?It's not "Mark II". It's somehing else... |
| goodco 04.02.2007 08:58 |
The yet unannounced band name is "I'm Brian, this is my brother Roger, and my other brother Rodger." How this will all fit on a CD cover or Billboard charts has yet to be worked out. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 04.02.2007 10:33 |
First off, this is from an "Australian source." Given the fact that there is nothing on Brian's site on the morning of Sunday, Feb. 4, this is a rumour like all others, may be true, may be hogwash.
dogwithabone wrote: Does it really matter what the band name will be? Who cares if they'll be called Queen or Queen II or anything else for that matter? What matters is the quality of the music that will be recorded and released to the paying public. I, for one, will be buying any new single/album regardless of name as I can seriously call myself a fan.If you have to ask if it matters what the band name will be, and whether people care about the band name will be I'll take it you haven't visited this board in 2 years and seen the 10,000 posts on "who are Queen?" The fact that you'll buy the music regardless of the name doesn't make you a better fan, or a worse fan. It makes you a fan, and your feelings about the name of the band mean as little, or as much as everybody else's. |
| Gratzi 04.02.2007 10:51 |
goodco wrote: The yet unannounced band name is "I'm Brian, this is my brother Roger, and my other brother Rodger." How this will all fit on a CD cover or Billboard charts has yet to be worked out./:) |
| Seven_Seas_Of_Rhye II 04.02.2007 12:40 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: If you have to ask if it matters what the band name will be, and whether people care about the band name will be I'll take it you haven't visited this board in 2 years and seen the 10,000 posts on "who are Queen?"And yes and not, for me... The name of this touring project is a matter of principal. Really, who cares? I'm sure Freddie doesn't, he is with Brian and Roger to use the name. For Brian and Roger it is an ethical thing. But everytime I think that THEY PLAY QUEEN MUSIC - it can be called 'Queen'. If they go touring with new material with new songs, mainly playing not-Queen songs, yeah, it could be other name. |
| brucegraham36 08.02.2007 07:31 |
Personally, I think that since Brian and Roger were the founding members of Smile and Queen (although it was Freddie who picked the latter name), they should continue to use the Queen moniquer. I think that those of us who saw the Q+PR tour and appreciate the quality of the new format will agree that it's isn't necessary to keep the +PR or add MkII (mark 2) or whatever. Let's not get carried away with what Queen are going to become called. Brian and Roger are as much Queen as Roger Daltry and Pete townsend are the Who, or Jimmy Page and Robert Plant are Led Zeppelin. Paul Rodgers does a phenominal job of covering Freddie's work and I have offered him and the rest of the lads my future spiritual and consumer support. As a lifelong fan, I can only look forward to whatever Bri and Rog produce next, and expect it to equal and surpass the quality of the rest of the Queen catalogue. Personally, my choice for Queen's new name (if a change is innevitable) would be "CHAMPION". |