QueenZone discussion #970467

theCro wrote: ..or should i say Queen+Paul Rodgers Album, didnt he became official Queen member now?

azzadude wrote:

<font color=Mercury>Larry Lurex's Girl wrote: *throws up* I think Michael Jackson would be better than PR

Are we talking singing or thowing little sleep overs?

kenny8 wrote: You'll find the new "Queen" album in the bargain bin within a month.

Zebonka12 wrote: I'm going to do something left-of-field and listen to it before I rain shit on it. That is - if it deserves such a response. If it's half as good as Endless Wire, I'll be fine with it.

kenny8 wrote: ...just to make it perfectly clear and for the record...the only living member of Queen I still respect is, of course, John Deacon. His avoidance of Mercury-free Queen projects speaks volumes.

carboengine wrote: On the flip side I have to say seeing Queen + Paul Rodgers in St. Paul a year ago in March was the most fun I have ever had. The Queen Sound was there even if the Queen Voice wasn't.

Zebonka12 wrote: I would genuinely like to see new material under a different name... I've never had an issue with Queen being used up until now for tours and collaborations, but Brian constantly refers to this as the birth of a 'new band'..... well - how about a new name then!? Don't be afraid to let go of the Queen thing, I say. My only reasoning being - this is the 2nd or 3rd time he's said something like this being an all new band, 'unlike anything Queen has done' or Paul Rodgers has done or whatever.

masterstroke_84 wrote: we ALL have to buy that album... give them our support!!!... they deserve it... are we Queen fans?... u dont sound like Queen fans... u sound like jelous-freddie-fans. Give them a chance to prove they rock...

Zebonka12 wrote: I've never had an issue with Queen being used up until now for tours and collaborations, but Brian constantly refers to this as the birth of a 'new band'..... well - how about a new name then!? Don't be afraid to let go of the Queen thing, I say.

bigV wrote:

kenny8 wrote: You'll find the new "Queen" album in the bargain bin within a month.

Yeah, that's what they said about "Made In Heaven". V.

henke1980 wrote: Kenny8...What are you really doing here if you hate, or should I say, dispice Queen so much? You are aware of that this is a fansite for the "former" rock band called Q.U.E.E.N. Do you get a stiffer by entaganizing the real fans?

FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: I think Queen fans are the only people in the world who are so messed up

Adam Baboolal wrote: First, Queen is a brand name and that's why it's retained. Secondly, I wonder about the band Yes and their changing lineup through the years. Does their choice to use the name mean it's not really Yes? Answers on this, please. Adam.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote:

Adam Baboolal wrote: First, Queen is a brand name and that's why it's retained. Secondly, I wonder about the band Yes and their changing lineup through the years. Does their choice to use the name mean it's not really Yes? Answers on this, please. Adam.

Excellent point on why the name is being used, Adam. Fopr me, there is no answer to the question of who is Yes, Queen, Genesis, the Who, etc. It depends if you believe in a name, or the people who make up the name. I fall into the latter category. From my POV, it isn't Queen without Freddie and John. 4 people made Queen what it was. There have been endless discussions about the individual players in Queen and how they stack up. If Les Claypool from Primus, probably a much "better" player than John Deacon were in Queen, it wouldn't be Queen, as his bass sounds different and he plays more like a lead player. If Brian opted out and Eddie Van Halen or the Edge, distinctive stylists with unique sounds like Brian has, took over as Queen's guitarists, I don't think it would be Queen. Unfortunately for Brian and Roger, the perception is that Freddie WAS Queen. We all know different, but for the person who is a casual music fan, Brian, Roger and John are virtually unknown. Most people could name Freddie Mercury. Plus, as I've stated countless times, Freddie brought a lot of arguably to the table. He arguably wrote the greatest song of the rock era, he arguably put on the greatest live performance of his generation, he was arguably the greatest rock singer of all time, he was arguably the most eclectic writer of the rock generation, and he was arguably the greatest front man in rock. I personally don't think that anyone other group has had a member like Freddie to replace. The Who and Zep lost arguably the best rock drummers of all time. But their core creative team remained. Queen lost wayyyyyy more than any other group when they lost Freddie, that's why I don't think comparisons to other groups are valid. None of the ex-members of the Stones, Yes or the Who has been commemorated on a British stamp for the contributions to British society. Freddie was a once in a lifetime talent. This doesn't mean that I don't think that Brian and Roger shouldn't make music, or even think they shouldn't make music as Queen. But for me, none of the 4 is replaceable, and the music they made together was what made me love Queen. For what it's worth.

Adam Baboolal wrote: I wonder about the band Yes and their changing lineup through the years. Does their choice to use the name mean it's not really Yes? Answers on this, please. Adam.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: True, Zebonka, I was talking in terms of where they were career wise. AC/DC had barely cracked the Euro/American markets when Bon Scott died, they were effectively at the start of their career and were hardly a proven act, critically or more important, financially. They HAD to continue as AC/DC, as starting again as Electrical Currents or High Voltage would have been fatal for the AC/DC brand and all of their abilities to earn a living as musicians. Queen, on the other hand, were multi, multi, multi millionaires with loads of platinum albums under their belts when Freddie died. So my feeling is that AC/DC, Genesis, Yes, Rush et al needed to use their names for survival purposes, not exactly the case for Queen.

henke1980 wrote: Do you get a stiffer by entaganizing the real fans?

kenny8 wrote:

henke1980 wrote: Do you get a stiffer by entaganizing the real fans?

No, only from their spelling. Half of Queen doesn't give them the right to call themselves Queen. Especially if the half that remains doesn't include the "irreplaceable" Freddie Mercury. I'll say it again, let Roger & Brian do what they want, but let them have the guts to let the music stand on it's own and not try to pretend it's something it's not...Queen

Zebonka12 wrote: I get a vivid feeling I'm the only person in the room who thinks of the music before thinking of the name of the band!!

Zebonka12 wrote: I get a vivid feeling I'm the only person in the room who thinks of the music before thinking of the name of the band!!

kenny8 wrote:

Zebonka12 wrote: I get a vivid feeling I'm the only person in the room who thinks of the music before thinking of the name of the band!!

You give yourself too much credit. Again. A major part of the musical makeup of Queen is missing. It's foolish to pretend otherwise.

Zebonka12 wrote: "anyone who thinks the AC/DC member changing scenario is similar to the Queen situation" Well... disregarding musical differences, I think those two can be compared. Largely because - Bon Scott was really the best thing about AC/DC. Don't quote me sales figures on "Back In Black" because it's irrelevant :P They cranked out good rocking music without him, fair enough... but it's just not the same. I seriously think that, despite using a total of 5 chords in their career (I'm just taking the piss, I love the older AC/DC...) they couldn't get away with just any chump at the mic. He was one hell of a distinctive singer.