Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > Brian and Roger using the name Queen.

forum rss feed
Author

alibat user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 51 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Mar 04, 08:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Am I the only one who is unconfortable with Brian and Roger using the name Queen? Queen had four very talanted musicians not two and a load of backups not worthy of the name. You can never have Queen without Freddie (or John for that matter). Of course I'm very happy about them working together again but please don't call it Queen cos it isn't.

queenmaniac user not visiting Queenzone.com

Be Gentle, I'm a newbie: 14 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Mar 04, 08:44 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

you can see on tribute concert dvd documentary that brian said that he don't think it's queen cause there is no freddie. he said that it's them three doing something from queen catalogue with other people. they may be using the name queen but they all know that it isn't queen without any member missing.and i am glad that they are making songs even if it's under name queen than not making songs at all( or not being active at all). better two from queen than nothing from queen members at all!


we gonna rock it tonight!
Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6327 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Mar 04, 08:46 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It's something so overdiscussed, I agree. For me:

Brian & Roger: NOT Queen
Brian & John: NOT Queen
Brian & Freddie: NOT Queen
Roger & John: NOT Queen
Roger & Freddie: NOT Queen
John & Freddie: NOT Queen
Brian & Roger & John: NOT Queen
Brian & Roger & Freddie: NOT Queen
Brian & Freddie & John: NOT Queen
Roger & John & Freddie: NOT Queen
Roger & John & Brian & Freddie: Queen

I know many people now are going to say "then Bijou isn't a queen song...". Well, Bijou was produced by the whole band, plus it's just one song, and imo, one song once in a while without some member doesn't matter if they call themselves Queen. But something is one song or few songs (Melancholy Blues, Sheer Heart Attack...) and something else is a full album or a tour. In that case I'm totally against the name Queen.


John hated HS. Fred's fave singer was not PR. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' Witness testimonies are often inaccurate. Scotland's not in England. 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices.
jorge user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 448 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Mar 04, 08:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I include myself in the list, in FM Tribute they was Queen, without John are Brian and Roger (to me)

Queen Forever !
Freddie Forever !




And as the seasons turn the days to years

She holds her pictures, hears the silent cheers

The days grow lonely for the dancing Queen

And now she dances only in her dreams...









Mr. Scully user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4257 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Mar 04, 09:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I think the whole discussion is senseless. If a member of the band leaves, it doesn't mean the name of the band should automatically change. Queen will never be as good as the "old" Queen but they have right to keep the name and I see nothing wrong with that.

If you see a problem in it, it means Metallica, Deep Purple and virtually every other band should call themselves in a different way. Or maybe Queen should have changed their name after each of those three bass guitar players left?

Brian and Roger aren't Queen. But Brian + Roger + a bass player + a singer can be called Queen.

Penis - Vagina user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4230 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Mar 04, 09:48 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

For some reason I don't mind so much in the case of Queen. Freddie died and John chose to retire so I think the remaining members have the right to carry on with the name.

There are some rather sad examples of members stealing their former band's name and using it wrongly.. STYX for example. Only one original guy remains there (Tommy was brought in after they'd been together for many years) and Dennis DeYoung, the man who gave the best voice and the most success to STYX was forced out of the band he helped create due to a temporary illness. So that's an example of when it's wrong to use a band's name falsely.

Mitti user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 43 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Mar 04, 09:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I don't think that Brian and Roger are Queen. Queen had that great think that will never be there without anyone of Queen missing. But I didn't know that Brian and Roger called themselves Queen (together), I was so naief to think that there were called like that by someone else! :s


Oh I ain't greedy

But you gotta see my point of view

I was not born yesterday

But you know I must have learned a thing or two
Daburcor? user not visiting Queenzone.com
Daburcor?
Deity: 9478 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Mar 04, 10:00 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I don't care what they call themselves. I know what *I* think Queen is.


"Elton John and I became really good friends. I don't mean 'good friends' in that sense. I just mean we slept together." -Billy Joel
Pim Derks user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4283 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Mar 04, 11:14 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Don't give a shit about how they call themselves, as long as they're still doing something creative. I'm getting tired of the RGG/TYMD/WWRY setlist. I really hope that B+R will do something together when the fuss about the musical is gone.... Hopefully next year or so....

FriedChicken user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 10641 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Mar 04, 11:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

To me Queen is the name for the band and the trademark sound, if the trademark sound is there, i have no problems with them wanting to call their band Queen, afterall, it's their band


"On the first day Pim & Niek created a heavenly occupation. Pim & Niek blessed it and named it 'Loosch'."



(Genesis 1:1)
Banquo user not visiting Queenzone.com
Banquo
Deity: 2636 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Mar 04, 11:46 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Imagine you are not a mad-Queen fan and just a music fan. You walk into a record shop and see a record labled as "Say Its Not True - By Brian and Roger", you'd think didn't they sing Matchstick Man and Matchstick Cats and Dogs? That was shitty faux-folk by two middle-aged Mancunians I'm not buying that.

You walk into a record shop and see a record labled as "Say Its Not True - By Queen", you'd think Hmm a new Queen song I think I'll give that a listen they had some good tunes.

Obviously I can't comment on it if they heard The Call.


Guess who's back?
Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6327 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Mar 04, 12:34 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

> If you see a problem in it, it means Metallica, Deep Purple and virtually every other band should call themselves in a different way. Or maybe Queen should have changed their name after each of those three bass guitar players left?

Those are completely different situations. Some members are impossible to replace. Metallica can still be Metallica without Cliff, but there can't be Metallica without Hetfield or Lars. There can't be Kiss without Paul & Gene, there can't be Led Zeppelin without John Bonham, and they fortunately did understand it.

Metallica: Cliff was important to the band sound but he wasn't a major songwriter (although he did the bass arrangements in 'Master Of The Puppets'). Newsted (retired in '01) never gave a major input to the band, he just played the bass and ocassionally sang backing vocals and that was it.

Deep Purple and Yes have changed their line-ups a lot but they never had someone impossible to replace, although they were mostly truly virtuosos in their instruments. U2 can be U2 without Adam or Larry, but not without Dave or Paul.

Queen is a completely different case. Brian's guitar sound is perhaps the second most recognisable aspect (first being Fred's voice), but the thruth is that they all were equally important: John's melodic bass-lines, Roger's backing vocals... moreover Freddie was the main composer of the band in all the albums except for two (and the co-main in another one). In the albums there are indeed many backing vocal parts without Roger or Brian, just Freddie (the chorus of 'Killer Queen', the intro of 'Bohemian Rhapsody', all of 'Love Of My Life', the chorus of 'Keep Yourself Alive', etc, etc, etc).

With the other three bass players they didn't even record an album, with John they had a 20 year career, doing a lot of concerts and albums, it's soooo different.

Paul McCartney doesn't need to call himself 'The Beatles' to get people attention because they know him (and Ringo) by their names. Very few people recognise Brian & Roger. Well, bad luck, but it's completely un-ethic and immoral to use the name of the band, and even worse if they get with artists as Robbie or Britney, and if they sang 'No One But You' so horribly out of tune. It's not that they need the money anyway, and about the fame why don't they fight for it their own way? Living on the shadow of a band in which Fred wrote more songs than they two together, and depending just on its name and not on their talent (which is completely over now imo) is the most pathetic thing I've ever seen. No, it isn't: the most pathetic is to destroy Tie Your Mother Down doing it with Five. Now, Brian wrote the song, he can sing it with Shakira if he wants, but he doesn't own the Queen name (I don't mean legally, I mean ethically), so he should leave it alone.

Now, let's remember the good times:

Roger Taylor (1984): "Queen wouldn't be Queen if one of us left the band"

Brian May (1992): "Without Freddie there isn't Queen. We always said that if any one of us disappeared, we said that Queen wouldn't exist any more. That's how I feel about it. I think ... I'm very proud of what we did, I'm very proud of the material. I'm very proud of Freddie and of what we did together. But every thing has a beginning and a middle and an end. And this is the end point"

Brian May (1998): "I don't see that we can be Queen without Freddie."

Brian May (2000): "I don't really visualize Queen without Freddie"


John hated HS. Fred's fave singer was not PR. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' Witness testimonies are often inaccurate. Scotland's not in England. 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180 voices.
Bob The Shrek user not visiting Queenzone.com
Bob The Shrek
Deity: 4014 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Mar 04, 12:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Queen is a brand name, it sells, end of story. Get used to it.


Cleveland May 24 to June 4th 2007 - I came, I saw, I fucked off home again.
missikay78 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Be Gentle, I'm a newbie: 0 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Mar 04, 14:32 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I'm not sure that a sign reading "Brian May and Roger Taylor In Concert" would attract a sellout crowd. The fans on these boards would know who that is, but the general populations wouldn't. I think using "Queen" makes it less confusing. One word, one fantastic band!

Little_Queenie user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 558 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Mar 04, 14:51 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Queen is just a name, dammit... Of course they are not "Queen" anymore (I mean band) without Freddie, and Rog and John and Brian are all well aware of that. And they said it many times. But if they want to keep the name Queen, fine.. I don't give a damn, as far as I'm concerned they can call themselves whatever they want, for me Queen died November 24th, together with Freddie. But nevertheless I love and appretiate Bri and Rog and John. So if two of them want to call them self Queen - I'm fine with that. You know, I think it's their choice. I also don't like what have they been doing with Britney, 5 etc, but fine... That doesn't make me love them less. I think it's wrong to judge them if they keep using name Queen, if they don't have that right, i don't know who does... After all, it's just a name.


Give me a good guitar, and you can say that my hair's a disgrace, oh, just find me an open car - I'll make the speed of light out of this place...
Janet user not visiting Queenzone.com
Janet
Deity: 3937 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Mar 04, 14:52 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I could go for "Brian May and Roger Taylor of Queen".


-If you want the best seat in the house, you have to move the cat.





brianburnsdavid user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 30 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Mar 04, 15:11 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I'm not sure, of course is magnificent that sometimes Brian and Roger are playing together, but under the name Queen... it's not really right. Of course they are Queen, but not complete (missing Fred. and John), why don't they try to refound smile, or make a new band? With new ánd old songs, that would be the best I think.


I think the millionaire waltz is the most Queen gay song.
nil user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4062 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Mar 04, 15:14 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Brian and Roger annoy the hell out of me, John had the sece to retire when Freddie died!!

Sorry im getting excitable *fans face with news paper*

geeksandgeeks user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4296 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Mar 04, 15:35 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I take slight issue with you, Mr. Scully.

There's this band I really like called the Dead Kennedys who in recent times have set the record for nasty breakups. The other three members of the band sued their lead singer for some ridiculous amount because he wouldn't let them put a song in a Levi's commercial. Then, they went on a reunion tour (without him) replacing him with some former child actor who also happened to be a complete asshole.

Anyone who says that was "the Dead Kennedys" is on crack. And given Brian and Roger's taste in musicians, God knows what they'll pull out of their asses next. NO, before anyone asks, I am not implying that Brian and Roger ever would have sued Freddie over something so stupid. But it's something to think about, no?


God wants you to send me some money.



"Seven spades doubled, vulnerable, making seven? You BITCH."
Rich Tea user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 248 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Mar 04, 16:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

How many times must this be raised. Brian & Roger have every right to call themselves Queen or Smile or The Blonde One & the Curly Haired One! Its there choice if you don't like it tough.

The Damned only feature Captain & Dave but they are still The Damned and fucking brilliant they are to!

I bet fans of the Drifters are glad message boards are fairly new thing LOL


Shadow boxing with yourself just seems to get you no where!