To prevent the soon to be tedious arguments over who and what Queen is spilling into every thread, I recommend that every one who is for the use of the Queen name posting here and keeping the other threads clear of a tired topic. Deal?
I don't care if they use Queen in the band name.
Anyway,it doesn't say Queen (including Paul Rodgers as a new member), they say Queen+Paul Rodgers!
They have the right to play music if they want to and I'm sure Freddie would be the last person to shit on that project.
I know, no Freddie, no Queen. But Roger and Brian were the base of Queen too, they were there from the very beginning (it's not like they invited themselves in the 80's to join the band), they contributed a lot to the success of the band. What other band name than Queen+Paul Rodgers could they take for people to recognize them instantly. Half-of-Queen+Paul Rodgers sounds really stupid. As long as they don't hurt anyone, what's the problem? We're gonna get more (and maybe good) music from Rog and Bri, what should we complain?
this is the same people that filled only 70% the arenas on the USA tour and the same people who drink beer and eat his shit while a Queen show is happening...
Think about it.
P.
Elizabeth Knightson wrote: I don't care if they use Queen in the band name.
Anyway,it doesn't say Queen (including Paul Rodgers as a new member), they say Queen+Paul Rodgers!
They have the right to play music if they want to and I'm sure Freddie would be the last person to shit on that project.
I know, no Freddie, no Queen. But Roger and Brian were the base of Queen too, they were there from the very beginning (it's not like they invited themselves in the 80's to join the band), they contributed a lot to the success of the band. What other band name than Queen+Paul Rodgers could they take for people to recognize them instantly. Half-of-Queen+Paul Rodgers sounds really stupid. As long as they don't hurt anyone, what's the problem? We're gonna get more (and maybe good) music from Rog and Bri, what should we complain?
claudiox wrote: it's Queen + Paul Rodgers
my personal point of view
it´s not queen + paul rodgers without danny miranda!
Hahaha :). Good one, Thorsten. But it is true. It will not the same without Danny, Jamie and Spike :(.
It makes perfect sense, though. For a studio venture they don't need anybody else. Live is a different story.
Actually, the mere thought of the three of them playing and recording music together in the same room makes me happy. :)
Looking forward to seeing them on tour once again, if everything goes well. Hope they come to Mexico. If not, weekend dates in Texas, PLEASE! :P
JCW
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: To prevent the soon to be tedious arguments over who and what Queen is spilling into every thread, I recommend that every one who is for the use of the Queen name posting here and keeping the other threads clear of a tired topic. Deal?
Forgot to comment on the topic. This just might be a VERY GOOD idea, although originally meant as a joke, it might just work.
JCW
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: To prevent the soon to be tedious arguments over who and what Queen is spilling into every thread, I recommend that every one who is for the use of the Queen name posting here and keeping the other threads clear of a tired topic. Deal?
What an easy to read sentence.
But thanks, you've just given "a tired topic" more legs....and for the record Brian, Roger and Paul Rodgers are not Queen.
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: To prevent the soon to be tedious arguments over who and what Queen is spilling into every thread, I recommend that every one who is for the use of the Queen name posting here and keeping the other threads clear of a tired topic. Deal?
What an easy to read sentence.
But thanks, you've just given "a tired topic" more legs....and for the record Brian, Roger and Paul Rodgers are not Queen.
But kenny8, if it's an easy to read sentence, why did you post in the wrong thread as there's another thread about it not being Queen, which is where you should be posting?!
My point is, if the album is inevitable, then every thread for the next six months shouldn't be hijacked. For instance, if someone asks "What was Freddie's cat's name", the answer shouldn't be "Delilah, but it doesn't matter because it ain't Queen without Freddie or John."
I just got this wildly funny image in my head of BTR chasing a three-legged dog down the street with "QPR" on the dogtag but answers to "Lucky." With his shoes tied together.
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: To prevent the soon to be tedious arguments over who and what Queen is spilling into every thread, I recommend that every one who is for the use of the Queen name posting here and keeping the other threads clear of a tired topic. Deal?
What an easy to read sentence.
But thanks, you've just given "a tired topic" more legs....and for the record Brian, Roger and Paul Rodgers are not Queen.
But kenny8, if it's an easy to read sentence, why did you post in the wrong thread as there's another thread about it not being Queen, which is where you should be posting?!
It's called irony jackass. Keep going, you're making even less sense as you go along.
masterstroke_84 wrote: this is the same people that filled only 70% the arenas on the USA tour and the same people who drink beer and eat his shit while a Queen show is happening...
Think about it.
P.
I'm thinking about it...
and I've come to he conclusion that ONLY 70% doesn't make much sense.
kenny8, what's with the hostility ;)??? Irony is very hard to understand via electronic communications. Given the fact that you're the sole person prolonging the "it's not Queen" thing in every response you've made for the past two days, I'd think it's ironic that you're not posting your thoughts in the other thread for people who don't think it's Queen. But I'm just a jackass so what do I know?