Forums > Queen - General Discussion > Feel free to disagree (or agree. I dont care)

forum rss feed
Author

lalaalalaa user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 841 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Dec 09, 07:38 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

http://entertainment.ca.msn.com/music/photos/gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=23000406&page=5

mooghead user not visiting Queenzone.com
mooghead
Deity: 3668 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Dec 09, 12:14 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I agree with everything!!!!

Amazon user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 996 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Dec 09, 12:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I think that Queen should have retired when John retired, with No-One But You being the swansong. While I still regard that as the last genuine Queen song, I think it would have been better for Queen's legacy, if they hadn't continued beyond John's retirement. Based on that, I pretty much agree; I don't agree as to when they should have retired, but I do agree that they shouldn't have entered the 'Queen +' years.

BTW, what do people think about the idea of Queen having released a post-MIH album with just Brian, Roger and John, and Brian and Roger sharing lead vocals?


ParisNair user not visiting Queenzone.com
See right through you!!
ParisNair
Bohemian: 873 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Dec 09, 16:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I don't agree. Brian and Roger should continue their work for as long as they feel upto it. They may or may not collaborate with others, its their call and if sharing ideas with other artists sparks their creativity, nothing like it. I do have reservations against them calling their projects Queen+ (I hope we have seen the end of that) but that's another topic of discussion (one that has already been beaten to death).

I agreed with the opinion that its time for Rolling Stones to quit recording (if they haven't already).

QUEENexpert user not visiting Queenzone.com
QUEENexpert
Champion: 78 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Dec 09, 16:42 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

honestly, i disagree. i think they should keep making music but it should just be roger and brian. no guest singers, no new singers. none of that. just brian and roger. thats just my opinion though.


"Black on, black on, every fingernail and toe we've only begun begun."
TheRobin user not visiting Queenzone.com
TheRobin

add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Dec 09, 16:49 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I don't agree with ANY of that.

If Brian May and Roger Taylor still have heart for their band, why should they retire!? They were still rocking hard on the stage. But of course people will think that just because Freddie isn't there, Brian and Roger can't perform good, or just shouldn't be there at all. Sorry, it just doesn't work like that. When people realize that Brian and Roger didn't die when Freddie died, people will understand where they were coming from when they decided to tour again.

They obviously weren't ready to retire when Freddie died, and they weren't ready to close the Queen chapter. I honestly don't see the problem with them going on and selling out crowds and having a good time performing on-stage the Queen songs they probably thought they'd never perform again. And it's a definite win for the crowd as well who probably thought they'd never see the band live again.

"Queen retire already!" Why!? I have a couple of DVD's of the Q+PR shows and I wish I had been a fan earlier so I could have seen these shows in person. They look AMAZING! Hell, I want them to bring it back out one more time so I can be there. I'm only 19, Queen, with Freddie, performed their last show before I was even born, how cool would it be for me to see all the songs I love being performed live this time around!?

There IS no valid reason for people to call for Queen to retire, none at all.


steven 35638 user not visiting Queenzone.com
Band ten hut!
steven 35638
Deity: 2132 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Dec 09, 17:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I find the article repulsive.  As long as they still have the appropriate inspiration, artists should continue to express themselves throug their talents.  I think it's quite obvious that Queen (May and Taylor, of course) are not in it for the money anymore.  Why would they?  They're already filthy, stinking rich.  If anything, they are in it for the band's legacy.  And to say that the band should have given up long ago is being a bit unfair.  They have a right to write and perform songs, just as we have a right to do our jobs until we deem it necessary to retire.  And they certainly have a right to use the band's name.  They made their livelihood under that entitlement.


"Fuck today, it's tomorrow." - Freddie Mercury
Sharon G.Queen Fan user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 56 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Dec 09, 18:14 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



The show must go on.
The Queen name must not.


Sharon G.
steven 35638 user not visiting Queenzone.com
Band ten hut!
steven 35638
Deity: 2132 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Dec 09, 18:26 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Clever.


"Fuck today, it's tomorrow." - Freddie Mercury
redspecialusa user not visiting Queenzone.com
redspecialusa
Bohemian: 228 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Dec 09, 21:00 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

That article was obviously written by a twat.



"Let us cling together as the years go by; Oh my love, my love.

In the quiet of the night,

Let our candle always burn;

Let us never lose the lessons we have learned." - Brian May
The Real Wizard user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18639 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Dec 09, 22:38 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Brian and Roger founded the band and have sold hundreds of millions of records.  They can do whatever they please with or without the Queen name, as they've earned it.

It's amazing how so many people think their opinion actually matters.  If you don't like it, don't buy their new records and don't go to see the shows.  What are you ultimately trying to accomplish by raining on someone else's enjoyment of music?

As for the article, most of these pseudo-writers are failed musicians, so they're simply bitter of the continued success of others who manage to remain relevant despite not having a hit record in 20 years.



"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca
andreas_mercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
andreas_mercury
Royalty: 1068 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Dec 09, 00:34 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

why take offence at someone elses opinion?
"OH I CRY CRY CRY I FIN THAT ARTICLE OFFENCIVE"

isnt that just as stupid as someone finding Q+PR an offence??  you are a weak human being if you cannot listen to both sides 

me i think brian or roger should sing paul rodgers can stay in the pig farm he came from.

thunderbolt 31742 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thunderbolt 31742
Bohemian: 647 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Dec 09, 01:39 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The writer seems to have a preference for hair metal. How else do you include The Who (THE FREAKING WHO?!) on your list and leave out perpetual hangers-on like KISS, Bon Jovi and Guns 'N Roses?

Granted, I like lots of KISS and GnR (but Bon Jovi is a no-talent assclown, imho), but you'd have a hard time finding much support outside of hair metal circles for a band whose lead guitarist was plucked from a tribute band, or another band that's seen all of its original members (and most of the replacements for their replacements) move on, save for the lead singer with an ego the size of Wembley Stadium.

I'll say this much, I agree with some of the writer's conclusions, and don't even necessarily disagree with Queen. I'd love to see Brian and Roger keep making music, but I'd also like to see them stop using the "Queen" name. Yes, they're founding members of the band, yes, they can do with it whatever they want, and yes, they have John's approval, but I still wish they'd pick a new name for their future ventures. I've always liked the name, "Jack" for the band--it's a subtle nod to the Queen name while still having a catchy ring to it. I would hope they continued to work on Queen releases in the background--let's get some late-70's material out there!

As for some of the other bands on his list, I think it's worth mentioning that the reason they're still around is because they put on a hell of a show. As beloved as Jeff Scott Soto is in these circles, he nearly killed Journey because as great as his voice is (and as great as I think he'd be paired with Brian and Roger), he just wasn't suited for Journey. Arnel Pineda might not be the boldest choice Journey could have made for a lead singer, but he's exactly what the fans love--a dynamic frontman who sounds exactly like Steve Perry, and a friend of mine who went to see them in concert this summer (I'm still kicking myself for not going) said it was one of the best shows she's been to. Moral of the story: if you have a dedicated fan base and a good back-catalogue, you can last as long as you have one "glory days" member tagging along.



"Do you think I should keep this mustache? Did you say no? F--- off."
ParisNair user not visiting Queenzone.com
See right through you!!
ParisNair
Bohemian: 873 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Dec 09, 01:53 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



Thunderbolt wrote:

The writer seems to have a preference for hair metal. How else do you include The Who (THE FREAKING WHO?!) on your list and leave out perpetual hangers-on like KISS, Bon Jovi and Guns 'N Roses?

The exclusion of Kiss from that list is unforgivable. As for GnR, I have the same problem with them now as I have with "Queen +".







bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12703 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Dec 09, 02:31 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The Who do not belong on that list.  I love a retarded music journalist; they always give me a healthy belly laugh at just the right time.


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
A Word In Your Ear user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1789 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Dec 09, 05:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



Sir GH wrote:

Brian and Roger founded the band and have sold hundreds of millions of records.  They can do whatever they please with or without the Queen name, as they've earned it.

It's amazing how so many people think their opinion actually matters.  If you don't like it, don't buy their new records and don't go to see the shows.  What are you ultimately trying to accomplish by raining on someone else's enjoyment of music?

As for the article, most of these pseudo-writers are failed musicians, so they're simply bitter of the continued success of others who manage to remain relevant despite not having a hit record in 20 years.

First off I thought, "Oh No!!!, Not This old chestnut of a Topic Again!!!"

But I have to agree with Bob.   Queen is Brian & Roger's band, they can do what THEY want with it. 
Me personally, I think it's great that the "Queen"  name carries on with new material & new tours ect.

But let me ask the question.  would all those people who say  "John's not there, so it's not Queen" want to download any Pre John gigs from the early 70's when the band was still called Queen?








Joyful the sound
Holly2003 user not visiting Queenzone.com
Hot Buttered Soul
Holly2003
Deity: 4707 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Dec 09, 05:48 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Whay aren't U2 on that list? The've done nothing interesting since Zooropa.

Ah that's right, I forgot: it's because they're "cool".

Interesting there are no black artists among that list. I imagine a list of 10 black atists might raise some eyebrows...


"With a population of 1.75 million, Northern Ireland should really be a footballing minnow. Instead, they could be better described as the piranhas of the international game" (FIFA.com)
bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12703 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Dec 09, 06:03 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



A Word In Your Ear wrote:

But let me ask the question.  would all those people who say  "John's not there, so it's not Queen" want to download any Pre John gigs from the early 70's when the band was still called Queen?


That wouldn't be 2 tired old guys jamming it out with a friend, that would be an interesting artifact of musical history.  It's also a few years before Deacon was a mentionable influence in the musical direction of the band, so it would be very interesting to hear the development of Brian and Roger after their Smile stuff, and Freddie bridging the gap between the raw talent on Queen 1, and the screeching yob we get to hear on the Ibex stuff.








"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
Mercury 90 user not visiting Queenzone.com
Mercury 90
Bohemian: 167 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Dec 09, 10:23 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I think musicians should make music as long as somebody buys there albums, and goes to there concerts!
If the hall is empty, or they sold just one copy of their new album then they should may think about stoping!
Non of that was happening to queen (or the who, the stones, and most of the bands mentioned there)!


Keep Yourself Alive

Amazon user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 996 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 Dec 09, 01:17 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

A couple of comments. Nobody's opinions matter at the end of the day, however this is a discussion site and we are allowed  to express our opinions. Brian and Roger can do whatever they want, but that doesn't mean we (or I) have to like it.

I do think that Brian and Roger should have retired the Queen name upon John's retirement. They can still continue to make music, just don't call it Queen. Benny and Bjorn still make music together, however they don't use the name ABBA. I think the same should apply to Queen.