Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > Queen + Paul Rodgers Criticisms

forum rss feed
Author

mr_creosote user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 17 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 08, 17:23 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

There seems to be a constant feeling that so-called fans were let down because the new album
is a different style to previous ones, that it is not "classic" Queen. What people seem to forget
is there IS NO Queen "sound" - Queen's music has constantly evolved over the years, changing
with tastes. Yes, certain elements were constant - but this is one of the things that make musicians legends - The Beatles, Queen, Bowie, The Who, Michael Jackson - all evolved their music over time. Artists who did one style of music and never changed have very rarely "made it" and had lengthy careers. Do you really think that Queen with Freddie would have lasted as long as they did churning out 'Killer Queen'-esque tracks year after year?

Yes, some of the songs aren't as good as others from Queen's history, but you can say that about
most other albums. Are 'Don't Try So Hard', 'Delilah', 'Party', or 'Tear It Up' anything like 'We Are The Champions' or 'Somebody To Love' in their style or quality - of course not, so why should any of Queen's new music be?

The important thing to note is that the majority of these songs are SO different from previous albums - it's obvious that Brian, Roger and Paul aren't trying to recapture the Queen sound, they are simply doing what they feel to be right. And using the name Queen - you try to name another band that has been together for 15+ years and not had a single change in line-up in that time. Some groups like Black Sabbath had line-ups with none of the original members. Brian and Roger were as big a part in the formation and success of Queen as John and Freddie were and they have every right to continue to use the Queen name if they wish.

What should be remembered is that Brian and Roger are doing this because they enjoy making music - they are certainly not doing it for the money. There should be a little less of the endless criticism and sniping and a little more appreciation of the sheer guts this must have taken by Brian and Roger to move on. If they were simply cashing in, or walking over Freddie's grave as some people have said, they would have done this years ago.

Finally, let's not forget the courage of Paul Rodgers to even try to walk in the shadow of rock's greatest showman. Paul is a very talented, respected and successful singer and musician and he is putting a lot on the line with this collaboration.

Cwazy little thing user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 483 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 08, 18:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

mr_creosote wrote:

There seems to be a constant feeling that so-called fans were let down because the new album
is a different style to previous ones, that it is not "classic" Queen. What people seem to forget
is there IS NO Queen "sound" - Queen's music has constantly evolved over the years, changing
with tastes. Yes, certain elements were constant - but this is one of the things that make musicians legends - The Beatles, Queen, Bowie, The Who, Michael Jackson - all evolved their music over time. Artists who did one style of music and never changed have very rarely "made it" and had lengthy careers. Do you really think that Queen with Freddie would have lasted as long as they did churning out 'Killer Queen'-esque tracks year after year?

Yes, some of the songs aren't as good as others from Queen's history, but you can say that about
most other albums. Are 'Don't Try So Hard', 'Delilah', 'Party', or 'Tear It Up' anything like 'We Are The Champions' or 'Somebody To Love' in their style or quality - of course not, so why should any of Queen's new music be?

The important thing to note is that the majority of these songs are SO different from previous albums - it's obvious that Brian, Roger and Paul aren't trying to recapture the Queen sound, they are simply doing what they feel to be right. And using the name Queen - you try to name another band that has been together for 15+ years and not had a single change in line-up in that time. Some groups like Black Sabbath had line-ups with none of the original members. Brian and Roger were as big a part in the formation and success of Queen as John and Freddie were and they have every right to continue to use the Queen name if they wish.

What should be remembered is that Brian and Roger are doing this because they enjoy making music - they are certainly not doing it for the money. There should be a little less of the endless criticism and sniping and a little more appreciation of the sheer guts this must have taken by Brian and Roger to move on. If they were simply cashing in, or walking over Freddie's grave as some people have said, they would have done this years ago.

Finally, let's not forget the courage of Paul Rodgers to even try to walk in the shadow of rock's greatest showman. Paul is a very talented, respected and successful singer and musician and he is putting a lot on the line with this collaboration.


Yep.


Adventure Seeker on an empty street...

www.myspace.com/ampfirerock
new one user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 201 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 17 Sep 08, 19:10 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I aggree. It would have been easy for them to do this earlier if they were just doing it for the money or didn't care about their reputation/legacy. They could have gone out with Robbie Williams after the Knights Tale thing and filled stadiums allover europe with teenagers and screaming girls wondering "when are they going to play angles?" But they didn't they've gone out with one of the most respected rock singers around who doesn't imitate Freddie but brings something new to the songs and gives them a new sort of life by performing them HIS way.

We all love Freddie on here but I'm quite sure that Roger and Brian are not looking to piss on his memory either given that they actually had a personal relationship with him and saw him through the hardest period of his short life along with John as he faded away in front of them. They consider themselves to be Queen now, I sure they know its not the same but its what they've got so they may as waell run with it.

david (galashiels) user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2020 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Sep 08, 17:17 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

robbie williams,bad bad idea.no i think they got it right,q+p =great songs.two diffrent styles but makes a good combination.and yes it must be daunting walking in freds footsteps,but also that bri and rog have to live up to free and bad co reputation as well.

Hugowan user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 66 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Sep 08, 17:42 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Got the album since day 15th.

I liked.

I agree it's not Queen, but Q+PR, a new band.

Favourite songs:

Small
Glitter
C.lebrity
Cosmos

Above all this discussion, I'd say that we all should be very grateful by the fact that this artists are about the age of our parents, and instead of enjoy all the money they have made in their "productive" years (like much of our parents, again), they are exploding what is left of their creativity and musical craftmanship, wich I believe, is still a lot.

I'm not blind, I'm not a full time consumer of the Queen brand. I'm trying to be objective. And I'm aware that maybe we won't have this people around for a very long time because of their ages, so, instead of debating if the cover of the album is a piece o crap, I'll enjoy the good music this trio is creating.

Thanks.
By the way, I'm a musician too.

Tero user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1012 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Sep 08, 00:03 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

mr_creosote wrote:

And using the name Queen - you try to name another band that has been together for 15+ years and not had a single change in line-up in that time. Some groups like Black Sabbath had line-ups with none of the original members. Brian and Roger were as big a part in the formation and success of Queen as John and Freddie were and they have every right to continue to use the Queen name if they wish.


Why don't you first try to find a band that was together with the same exact line-up for their entire recording career of 20 years, and chose not to continue on after the death of their frontman?

Black Sabbath had been going on for 10 years before they replaced Ozzy. They didn't take a fifteen year break to think about what to do.



mr_creosote wrote:

There should be a little less of the endless criticism and sniping and a little more appreciation of the sheer guts this must have taken by Brian and Roger to move on. If they were simply cashing in, or walking over Freddie's grave as some people have said, they would have done this years ago.


The guys already moved on with their solo careers, saw it wasn't COMMERCIALLY successful, and decided to return to the Queen name because of that.

That doesn't take guts. That's the easy way that guarantees you adoring audiences, and any critics can be written off as Freddie fans and talentless reviewers... That's what's happened at QZ!

Grantcdn1 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 104 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Sep 08, 00:54 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I'm just enjoying the album and am pleased that Roger and Brian had a chance to work together again because they have made great music in Queen...

The new album is great....I also really enjoyed Brian and Rogers solo projects....The vocals and songs overall are better on this album than their solo projects

I'm glad they used the name of the band they founded as part of their new name (Queen and Paul Rodgers) and I am glad because of it, that I got to see them play big shows with thousands of fans loving their music...

heck if they called themselves Queensryche I would have liked it too but of course that name was already chosen and they are good in their own right...



inu-liger user not visiting Queenzone.com
inu-liger
Deity: 13057 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Sep 08, 01:21 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Tero wrote:

mr_creosote wrote:

And using the name Queen - you try to name another band that has been together for 15+ years and not had a single change in line-up in that time. Some groups like Black Sabbath had line-ups with none of the original members. Brian and Roger were as big a part in the formation and success of Queen as John and Freddie were and they have every right to continue to use the Queen name if they wish.


Why don't you first try to find a band that was together with the same exact line-up for their entire recording career of 20 years, and chose not to continue on after the death of their frontman?

Black Sabbath had been going on for 10 years before they replaced Ozzy. They didn't take a fifteen year break to think about what to do.



mr_creosote wrote:

There should be a little less of the endless criticism and sniping and a little more appreciation of the sheer guts this must have taken by Brian and Roger to move on. If they were simply cashing in, or walking over Freddie's grave as some people have said, they would have done this years ago.


The guys already moved on with their solo careers, saw it wasn't COMMERCIALLY successful, and decided to return to the Queen name because of that.

That doesn't take guts. That's the easy way that guarantees you adoring audiences, and any critics can be written off as Freddie fans and talentless reviewers... That's what's happened at QZ!


No, that's not what happened at QZ. What happened is radicalist fanboy disease spread among certain people that can't accept change, and want to maintain the status quo, if there ever was such.

Queen certainly didn't take 15 years to decide what to do. Hell, Roger and Brian were playing together, not directly as Queen mind you, for crowds in 1999 (at either Roger's solo show or the guest spot they did at a Foo Fighters concert), and saw that there was a huge response and obviously demand for Queen to continue as a BAND.
The following year's collaboration with 5ive, a remake of "We Will Rock You" proved that, as it shot to #1 in the UK singles chart immediately, making them also the only band to have at least one #1 hit in 4 separate decades, let alone the only act to have a joint number one with another 'band' (so to speak....I think that's stretching the point though as 5ive was a boy-band, not a true band in the classic sense)

I think, really they WERE testing out other people in a way to see who they could click with. Hence re-recorded tracks for the further collaborations, bar the 46664 songs (which MIND YOU, and this really bugs me....that the press ignores the fact that NOBY *isn't* the last new song Queen ever made, the fucking dumbasses...) which they did with Treanna Morris, David Stewart and Anastacia, which I actually rather enjoyed than the shite collaborations with people like Bitchney Sneers.

The last thing fans truly wanted was a frontman who was nothing more than a Freddie-wannabe (eg. Robbie Williams, Jeff Scott Solo, Gary Mullen......and Treasure Moment ;-).

This is why I think Paul Rodgers is perfect. He brings a new angle to the band that really works out very well.

inu-liger user not visiting Queenzone.com
inu-liger
Deity: 13057 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Sep 08, 01:23 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

mr_creosote wrote:

The important thing to note is that the majority of these songs are SO different from previous albums - it's obvious that Brian, Roger and Paul aren't trying to recapture the Queen sound, they are simply doing what they feel to be right. And using the name Queen - you try to name another band that has been together for 15+ years and not had a single change in line-up in that time. Some groups like Black Sabbath had line-ups with none of the original members. Brian and Roger were as big a part in the formation and success of Queen as John and Freddie were and they have every right to continue to use the Queen name if they wish.


Hear hear!
But, when the truth slaps the fanboys in the face, what else are they left to do? Cause more random chaos, fairydandy style ;-)

Vali user not visiting Queenzone.com
Vali
Deity: 2053 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Sep 08, 05:26 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

inu-liger wrote:


Hear hear!
But, when the truth slaps the fanboys in the face, what else are they left to do? Cause more random chaos, fairydandy style ;-)


fairdandy ... brrrrrr .... :o

I totally agree with you guys.

cheers!



Bring out the charge of the love brigade
Tero user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1012 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Sep 08, 05:32 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

inu-liger wrote:

No, that's not what happened at QZ. What happened is radicalist fanboy disease spread among certain people that can't accept change, and want to maintain the status quo, if there ever was such.


What's the difference between a "fanboy" of your description and a stepford fan who should unconditionally worship everything the band does, regardless of his or her personal opinion?

Do you even think it's possible to have an opinion between these two extremes, or do you see the whole world as black and white as comics?



inu-liger wrote:

Queen certainly didn't take 15 years to decide what to do. Hell, Roger and Brian were playing together, not directly as Queen mind you, for crowds in 1999 (at either Roger's solo show or the guest spot they did at a Foo Fighters concert), and saw that there was a huge response and obviously demand for Queen to continue as a BAND.


In comparison to other bands, they did take fifteen years to dedice what to do.

They didn't announce the band was to continue, they didn't start out a search for a new singer, they didn't continue as a three (or two) -piece group, and they didn't go into the studio the very next year after their figurehead left the group.

Black fucking Sabbath immediately continued on their life with a different line-up! In the same time it took Brian and Roger to record any new material together as Queen (about 7 years after NOBY), Black Sabbath has gone through about a dozen line-up changes...

If you don't see the difference between these two band histories and claim they are even remotely similar, you are (with all due respect) an idiot.

mr_creosote user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 17 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Sep 08, 08:21 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Tero wrote:


What's the difference between a "fanboy" of your description and a stepford fan who should unconditionally worship everything the band does, regardless of his or her personal opinion?

Do you even think it's possible to have an opinion between these two extremes, or do you see the whole world as black and white as comics?


There's a difference between unconditionally worshipping everything that Queen do, and respecting their decision as recording artists to release new material. As a group (both with and without Freddie) I believe they have made some pretty big mistakes, I don't blindly agree with everything they do. But I do let their music speak for itself, not pre-judge it based on who is making it.



Tero wrote:


The guys already moved on with their solo careers, saw it wasn't COMMERCIALLY successful, and decided to return to the Queen name because of that.


They didn't return to Queen for commercial reasons, they returned becuase they enjoy working together. Freddie could easily have gone off and had a successful solo career in the eighties, but came back to Queen after each project. Brian could have continued with his solo career after relative success with BTTL, but didn't. If Brian and Roger were solely interested in being commercial they would have plundered the archives for unreleased material and hashed it together. They didn't. They chose to work with a new singer and musician who is totally different in style to Freddie. And they waited until they found the right person... they could easily have toured with George Michael, Elton John or Robbie Williams, but evidently none of them felt right.

If they wanted to be commercial only they would have stuck to touring, playing the same old hits night after night, or even got together with Paul and re-recorded the many Queen/Free/Bad Company hits. That would have guaranteed adoring audiences. Through the work with Paul they are risking their (and let's not forget Paul's) existing fan bases.

At the end of the day Queen are a recording act. Despite what many fans think they can do whatever they like. They don't owe us a thing.

YourValentine user not visiting Queenzone.com
registered July 27th 2001
YourValentine
Deity: 7611 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Sep 08, 10:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Apart from all alleged and assumed motives, apart from all unrealistic "what ifs" (like Elton John or Robbie Williams ever considered to front Brian and Roger!), apart from all the allegations that people do do not like the new album must be Freddie maniacs or fanatics:

There is something like personal taste, believe it or not. I like Paul Rodgers, I had lots of fun on the 2005 tour and I am expecting to have a lot of fun on the 2008 tour. I welcomed the decision to tour and record with Paul Rodgers from the start because he has the stamina and the personality to front people like Brian and Roger who are, after all, huge stars.


I listened to the album with an open mind and I think it's not bad but it's nothing compared to a Queen album. That is just my personal taste. I would appreciate it if nobody would suggest I am in any way a lunatic or stuck in the past or just unable to see the merits of the album. In fact I do see the merits of the album but I also see the flaws and I am not a "so-called fan" because I point out the flaws which are considerable imo.

It's not the fact that it is not a Queen album which I find crizicizable, it's just not as good as a Queen album. If other people think it's as good as a Queen album I am not calling them any names or tell them they are not right in their minds. I expect that my opinion is respected in the same way.


I do not want any google ads here.

Vali user not visiting Queenzone.com
Vali
Deity: 2053 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Sep 08, 10:38 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

YourValentine wrote:

... I expect that my opinion is respected in the same way.


we all expect that, YV; I am on the side of those who like the album very much. Very much ! And I deeply respect those who donĀ“t like it.

But another story is when in many forums I only read "this album is crap crap crap", expressed in absolute terms, as if I had to be forced to dislike the album. That is the attitude that makes me feel angry.


Bring out the charge of the love brigade
Tero user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1012 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Sep 08, 10:54 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

mr_creosote wrote:

There's a difference between unconditionally worshipping everything that Queen do, and respecting their decision as recording artists to release new material. As a group (both with and without Freddie) I believe they have made some pretty big mistakes, I don't blindly agree with everything they do. But I do let their music speak for itself, not pre-judge it based on who is making it.


Here's the problem with websites like QZ or QOL.
People like Inu-Liger )and to smaller degree yourself) assume that any negative response is due to personal issues with Paul Rodgers or Brian and Roger using the Queen name, and everybody else should automatically have a positive view on the album.

There are just as many people on QZ prejudging the Cosmos Rocks album to be on par with the best Queen works as there are those who hate it because it doesn't have Freddie, but you don't hear anybody challenging that view.

Every single published and unfavourable review is dismissed as ramblings of a talentless critic, and every praising review is said to be a truthful view.

Like YV said much eloquently, there is such a thing as a personal opinion, but unfortunately there isn't much demand for it on these message boards!



mr_creosote wrote:

Brian could have continued with his solo career after relative success with BTTL, but didn't.


Actually he did. What about the Another World album? Or Furia? (Which incidentaly I have both right alongside my Roger Taylor albums... What a typical Freddie-fanboy and Brian % Roger hater I am!)



mr_creosote wrote:

If they wanted to be commercial only they would have stuck to touring, playing the same old hits night after night, or even got together with Paul and re-recorded the many Queen/Free/Bad Company hits. That would have guaranteed adoring audiences. Through the work with Paul they are risking their (and let's not forget Paul's) existing fan bases.


Hah, that's exactly what they did with the previous tour (what a great way to prove they're not interested in fortune and fame :P), and only time will tell how the current tour shapes up to be.

Personally I think the setlists so far prove they are only "playing the same old hits night after night", and I doubt there are going to be any changes in that setup.



mr_creosote wrote:

At the end of the day Queen are a recording act. Despite what many fans think they can do whatever they like. They don't owe us a thing.


Naturally, but it has to work BOTH WAYS.
"Queen" are entitled to record whatever they want with whoever they want, and we have an equal right to praise or complain about everything they do release.

I'm under no obligation to praise the Cosmos Rocks album just because it's the first original material under the "Queen" name for a decade, and if it stinks (as is my opinion), I'll say it out loud.

Yara user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1430 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Sep 08, 11:21 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

YourValentine wrote:

Apart from all alleged and assumed motives, apart from all unrealistic "what ifs" (like Elton John or Robbie Williams ever considered to front Brian and Roger!), apart from all the allegations that people do do not like the new album must be Freddie maniacs or fanatics:

There is something like personal taste, believe it or not. I like Paul Rodgers, I had lots of fun on the 2005 tour and I am expecting to have a lot of fun on the 2008 tour. I welcomed the decision to tour and record with Paul Rodgers from the start because he has the stamina and the personality to front people like Brian and Roger who are, after all, huge stars.


I listened to the album with an open mind and I think it's not bad but it's nothing compared to a Queen album. That is just my personal taste. I would appreciate it if nobody would suggest I am in any way a lunatic or stuck in the past or just unable to see the merits of the album. In fact I do see the merits of the album but I also see the flaws and I am not a "so-called fan" because I point out the flaws which are considerable imo.

It's not the fact that it is not a Queen album which I find crizicizable, it's just not as good as a Queen album. If other people think it's as good as a Queen album I am not calling them any names or tell them they are not right in their minds. I expect that my opinion is respected in the same way.


You're entitled to your taste without anyone calling you a lunatic, I guess. That's how things should be like in a sane world. I think Hot Space is one of the best Queen's albums (the best being News of the World) - one can say my taste sucks, but one can't say that "it's not Queen". It is.

But I hope people understand that Brian and Roger have all the right to go on doing music and presenting themselves as Queen since one of the guys died and the other quit the band. So, although I'm all for respecting people's taste, I guess it's a bit out of touch accusing the guys of ruining Queen's legacy or "using Queen's name", especially because Freddie himself always wanted the band to go on and kept recording stuff up until he died. Brian Jones, Mick Taylor and Bill Willman left the Stones and no one is saying that "there's no more Rolling Stones" or that because Brian Jones was the founder, all Jagger and Richard did from the 70's on is not Rolling Stones. I mean...and Brian Jones was a very important member of the band back in the 60's, maybe much more so than Jagger was.

Now, Brian Roger and Paul ARE Queen! They are not "using" Queen's name. They were as important to the band as Freddie was. What I do think is a bit lunatic is to say they're not Queen and that they're spoiling Queen's legacy and usurping Queen's name! It may not be "Queen as it was before" or "the Queen I liked" but, well, that happened with so many bands...

And as long as it is a matter of personal, inner taste, it's ok - "Ah, I don't think it's Queen anymore, not the Queen I learned to love and respect, there's no Queen anymore". OK. I respect that. I DON'T THINK IT'S LUNATIC. What I do think is lunatic is making of it a moral point and being vocal about it and go out DENOUNCING the guys for using Queen's name. That, yes, I find lunatic.

"Oh, Yara, but I don't think it's Queen anymore, they're using the name improperly and I'll devote my time to bash these guys".

Really? I don't give a damn about this kind of thinking. I just pass over it, I don't read it anymore, it's just pathetic.

Trying to make of it a MORAL QUESTION when it's just music and entertainment is outright ridiculous. That's what I find most sad: it's only entertainment. And people want to make morals out of it.

So, I'm all for you saying "Cosmos Rock is the WORST Queen album and not up to the Queen quality standard". Ok. I have no problem with it. I do think it's a bit awkward when people begin to say: "This is not a Queen album". Well...then I reach for my sanity and try not to turn all this into a moral issue.

By the way, Freddie was by far the member of the band I most admired. I still think that his departure was a huge loss not only for Queen, but for music in general. But I have to be honest enough to recognize that when Queen came to Brazil in 1981 and 1985 it was Brian's name, and not Freddie's, that people couldn't stop shouting.

My taste is awkward. I prefer Cosmos any time over Innuendo - maybe the album I like the least - or "A Kind of Magic."

And I can explain my taste. People may find it sad, stupid, idiotic, but there are reasons behind my taste because music, at least to me, is not only about feeling or emotion, there's a technical and intellectual side to it which is very important too.

But that's already going too far.

Cheers, my dear.

Far from being lunatic, I think you're one of the brightest Queenzoners. I love your posts. :-))

*hug*


Yara
Tero user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1012 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Sep 08, 11:40 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Yara wrote:


Now, Brian Roger and Paul ARE Queen! They are not "using" Queen's name. They were as important to the band as Freddie was.


What, are you saying that Paul was as important to Queen as Freddie?
That Paul is in Queen now?

No wonder the journalists think Paul has replaced Freddie, and some of the posters here at QZ want to write love letters to him. :P

Yara user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1430 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Sep 08, 11:54 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Tero wrote:

Yara wrote:


Now, Brian Roger and Paul ARE Queen! They are not "using" Queen's name. They were as important to the band as Freddie was.


What, are you saying that Paul was as important to Queen as Freddie?
That Paul is in Queen now?

No wonder the journalists think Paul has replaced Freddie, and some of the posters here at QZ want to write love letters to him. :P


"They" was meant there as Roger and Brian. I guess it's perfectly clear and no one would be so idiotic as to think that Paul, a guy who wasn't part of the band, was as important to the band at the time as Freddie, a guy who was part of the band.

If that's what you read in what I wrote, I just pity you.

You really underestimate people. Or you're just dishonest.

You choose.

Cheers.


Yara
kingogre user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 425 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Sep 08, 12:22 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Actually from what I heard Robbie W was almost desperate to front Brian and Roger. I can understand what they didnt want it though

Tero user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1012 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Sep 08, 14:48 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Yara wrote:

Tero wrote:

Yara wrote:


Now, Brian Roger and Paul ARE Queen! They are not "using" Queen's name. They were as important to the band as Freddie was.


What, are you saying that Paul was as important to Queen as Freddie?
That Paul is in Queen now?

No wonder the journalists think Paul has replaced Freddie, and some of the posters here at QZ want to write love letters to him. :P


"They" was meant there as Roger and Brian. I guess it's perfectly clear and no one would be so idiotic as to think that Paul, a guy who wasn't part of the band, was as important to the band at the time as Freddie, a guy who was part of the band.

If that's what you read in what I wrote, I just pity you.

You really underestimate people. Or you're just dishonest.

You choose.

Cheers.



I don't choose either of those, as I'm neither dishonest or underestimating.

You already made one undeniable factual error by saying that "Brian Roger and Paul ARE Queen", and the other point is entirely up to the reader to interpret afterwards.

Is it an honest mistake, or do you think (despite Brian's comments and the name of the band) that Paul is a part of Queen?
If you do think so, it's you who deserves all the pity.