Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > Do they have to ask John's permission for using 'Queen' name?

forum rss feed
Author

Serry... user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 8271 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Dec 04, 17:53 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Do they have to ask John's permission for using 'Queen' name on forthcoming tour, in the case if John wouldn't be involved in this or maybe even ask him to write special message to Queen fans with his thoughts about this tour? What do you think?

(Please note that I'm not one of those Queen fans who says that Roger can't use sign 'Queen' on his drum kit, but on other side there'll be a lot of fuss about Brian/Roger and 'Queen' name and I guess only one who can stop the fuss is John. IMO. So I'd like to know what do you think about it!)

John S Stuart user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Dec 04, 18:44 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Do they have to ask John's permission for using 'Queen' name?

No. This has previously been faught in the courts by "Status Quo".

It was found to be perfectly legitimate for Rick Parfitt and Francis Rossi to be called "Status Quo" despite the legal objections by Alan Lancaster and John Coghlan.

This decision can't even be argued on the basis of "founder members" because it was Bassist Alan Lancaster who invited guitarist Francis Rossi to join his band The Scorpions in 1962.

After the departure of John Coghlan, and unsatisfied with the direction the new group had taken, founder bassist Alan Lancaster quit the band in 1986. When Rick Parfitt and Francis Rossi recorded tracks for three albums that they were still under a contractual obligation to provide, Lancaster, unsuccessfully, tried to put a stop to the remaining members using the "Status Quo" name without him.

The judement was awarded in favour of Parfitt and Rossi along the lines of Gordon Banks, Nobby Stiles, Bobby Charlton and Geoff Hurst et all, are a completely different body of men from David Beckham, Steven Gerrard, Michael Owen and Wayne Rooney. Nevertheless the latter group have as much legal right to call themselves England Football Club as the former.

The same is true with bands like "Fleetwood Mac", and "The Rolling Stones".

Therefore it would be perfectly legal for the two surviving members to get together and call themselves "The Beatles", "The Who" or even "Queen" - and there is nothing old Deaksie could do about it - even if he wanted to.


"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
Serry... user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 8271 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Dec 04, 18:51 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

John, I meant ethical side of it...

As I know Brian and Roger have met with John before GHIII release and chat about details of that compilation album, so I think they could do the same now.

Whatinthewhatthe? user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2210 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Dec 04, 18:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Notice beside the name/logo Queen that there's no "TM" (for "trademark"). I wonder why they didn't ever do that -- or was it public domain and they couldn't?

John S Stuart user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Dec 04, 19:07 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Philipp: I agree with you & think you are correct.

I may be wrong, but after the death of Freddie wasn't the "power-base" dived equally among the remaining three?

This would mean that effectly as two-thirds of the whole, Deaksie would be vetoed by Roger and Brian every time, and in effect, have no real say at all?

(BTW: That's a question - not a statement of fact!)


"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
John S Stuart user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Dec 04, 20:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

HeM:

Queen NEVER recorded in a studio WITHOUT Deacon.
Queen were NEVER a success WITHOUT Deacon.
Queen's biggest EVER international hit (and it ain't Bo Rhap) WAS written by Deacon.

The train of thought here is that Queen are NOT QUEEN without Freddie or the Deackster. Now, I am NOT saying that Brian and Roger and Paul would NOT kick ass... but they are NOT Queen!

I mean I like "Star Trek" and I like "The Next Generation". I like "Free" but I also like "Bad Company". I like "Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac" - but I do NOT like "Fleetwood Mac".

Now I know that this is all my personal opinion. But for me, Queen II, or Queen Two, or Queen Too, or Queen The Next Generation, but NOT QUEEN!!!


"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
Serry... user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 8271 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Dec 04, 20:06 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<b><font color=red>HeM Gordon</b></font> wrote:

If John Deacon doesn't like, fuck him off!
When he joined the band they had already played under the name Queen.
The band was "Queen" right after Tim left Smile and Freddie joined.
So they tried 3 different bassists before finding John.
If Queen existed before Deekey, why can't it exist AFTER him?


Maybe because John still exists and because those 3 bassists did nothing at all for Queen?

egret user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 109 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Dec 04, 20:12 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Why can't they tour as Smile?


Serry... user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 8271 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Dec 04, 20:16 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

egret wrote:

Why can't they tour as Smile?


There's a topic about that, egret. I wonder why too

Deacons 1st Choice user not visiting Queenzone.com
Deacons 1st Choice
Bohemian: 603 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Dec 04, 20:20 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

i totally agree with you John!

QUEEN IS INDEED NOT "QUEEN" WITHOUT DEACY!!!!

...or Freddie either mind you!

I think Brian and Roger should do something else as far as a name goes...i mean, like Mr. Stuart suggested above...

Call themselves "Queen Again" or "Queen Phoenix"....some OTHER name besides "Queen".

Sorry folks, i'm with JS on this one...Queen are'nt Queen with only 2 members man!

Brian_Mays_Wig user not visiting Queenzone.com
Brian_Mays_Wig
Deity: 2934 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Dec 04, 20:48 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

John S Stuart wrote:

HeM:

Queen NEVER recorded in a studio WITHOUT Deacon.
Queen were NEVER a success WITHOUT Deacon.
Queen's biggest EVER international hit (and it ain't Bo Rhap) WAS written by Deacon.

The train of thought here is that Queen are NOT QUEEN without Freddie or the Deackster. Now, I am NOT saying that Brian and Roger and Paul would NOT kick ass... but they are NOT Queen!

I mean I like "Star Trek" and I like "The Next Generation". I like "Free" but I also like "Bad Company". I like "Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac" - but I do NOT like "Fleetwood Mac".

Now I know that this is all my personal opinion. But for me, Queen II, or Queen Two, or Queen Too, or Queen The Next Generation, but NOT QUEEN!!!




well put.


Chom own mudder fukker.
FriedChicken user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 10641 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Dec 04, 21:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Boooooooooooooooooooring


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



(Genesis 1:1)
Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6326 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Dec 04, 03:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

In fact, from my point of view, Queen wasn`t Queen until John got in. John didn`t replace any bass-player, they looked for a bass-player until they found the one. So that`s the proper start. Of course that`s only an opinion.

About the legal thing, I don`t think they have to send John papers to sign everytime they do a stupid collaboration as "Queen" + Someone, I suppose he already made a kind of statement about "do what you want", obviously still a lot of money would end up in his pocket. While I think it`s good for him not to destroy the image of the band with lousy concerts and flawful duets, I`m a little dissapointed that he couldn`t even say "hi" at one of the DVD extras or the Bo Rhap thing.


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.
quackboy user not visiting Queenzone.com

Be Gentle, I'm a newbie: 9 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Dec 04, 04:07 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

in my opinion, john deacon should be back to queen because many fans will love it and the band don't still so mutilated. deacon is a great composer, bass player! please, mister deacon, come back to the light too!


friends will be friens on queenzone. i hope...
The Mir@cle user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Mir@cle
Deity: 3543 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Dec 04, 04:34 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I think John wants the best for Roger and Brian, but he doesn't want to be involved by himself because he's concerned about his family. I can understand that.

I don't think John have big problems using the name Queen. By the way, they gonna call themselves Queen + Paul Rodger so why do we have this discussion??



I got to try al little more,

because I'm an asshole but I'm learning.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfTLkUcQ7QY
trustno1 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 98 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Dec 04, 04:40 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Peter Cetera wrote:

John won`t come back....

because he seems to be the only person in the world to accept the simple facts... on 24th of november 1991 Freddie died - and so did QUEEN.


Certainly the only one in Queen to accept that.

I agree that John won't come back. He won't do interviews, either. Why would he? He has the money, so I shouldn't think he gives a shit. He isn't a celeb-type, and I get the impression that he hated being interviewed, and only did it out of the requirements of the job.

Brian and Roger are a f*cking disgrace. They aren't doing it for the love of making music (they could easily do that under their own names, either solo or together). They're doing it to milk and old, dead, once glorious cow. Money and glory. F*ck the two of them!

Lord Blackadder user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1163 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Dec 04, 06:05 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Why can't you just let them be Queen? They are not trying to replace Freddie, they just want to play to us fans live for the first time in 18 years. How many times have bands like KISS changed they're line up and their fans don't care because it's still KISS but with differant members. Please leave Brian and Roger be. JOhn effectively left Queen and his say in what the rest of Queen do now wouldnt change anything (i.e. if he said you can't go on tour and they said yes we can, then he can't do anything about it really). And why would he be bothered? If he doesn't want to go on tour with them then that's fine and he wouldn't get involved.

And as I've said about 10 times, how many people do you think would pay to see Brian May, Roger Taylor and Paul Rogers?
Then compare that too the amount of people who would pay to see Queen. There will be a HUGE amount of differance.

Brian and Roger are what is left of Queen. One passed away, another retired. We have 2 of the 4 of the greatest band ever, and more importantly, the greatest live act ever. And although Freddie was THE showman and John was THE cool, calm but effective bass player, it wouldn't have been the same without a screaming guitar; brilliant drumming; a blonde rough voiced, rough haired punk and a NATURALLY curly haired guitar genius (and songwriter extraordinaire).

We can't have Freddie, and John is doubtful, but we get the other equally important 2. So please stop complaining about something that is out of your hands. It's their band and their name, they can do as they wish in my book.

God Save The Queen...


"I bet you lost your virginity to a mechanical bull"
Lord Blackadder user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1163 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Dec 04, 06:14 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

"Brian and Roger are a f*cking disgrace. They aren't doing it for the love of making music (they could easily do that under their own names, either solo or together). They're doing it to milk and old, dead, once glorious cow. Money and glory. F*ck the two of them!"


You are a fucking disgrace mate. They want to make music together, as Queen. The band they both love still. And I doubt very much they need anymore money. And you will eat your words if you see them live. And if a new album comes out in the next few years. It will be great. And you will realise what an idiot you really are. Queen fans are without a doubt the most unlikeable people on earth. O.k not most of you, but some of you are. Other bands fans do nothing but lavish praise on how good their band is/were and if they did a tour they would be greatful and excited. I think I'll go and be a Stones fan.


"I bet you lost your virginity to a mechanical bull"
The Mir@cle user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Mir@cle
Deity: 3543 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Dec 04, 06:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

"*applauses*

FINALLY SOMEBODY AROUND HERE WHO ISN'T NARROW-MINDED!!! :)"

Read all my posts... It irritates me that it's always about the name Queen... Brian and Roger want to make music together, let them call themselves whatever they like.


I got to try al little more,

because I'm an asshole but I'm learning.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfTLkUcQ7QY
Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6326 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Dec 04, 07:07 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

> My God! Freddie died, and so what?

So what? the band died with him.

> He didn't want the band to die after this!

Freddie, Roger, John and Brian had said in tons of interviews through the years very clever statements about "we`re a band of four", "we`re equally important", "Queen is only Queen with the four of us"...and I still feel that. Queen without Roger isn`t Queen. Queen without Brian isn`t Queen. Queen without John isn`t Queen. Queen without Freddie isn`t Queen

> Isn't Brian an amazing guitarist?

Yes, he`s an amazing guitarist, with a great voice. So instead of damaging the name of the band with lousy collaborations he could form a new band or go solo.

> Isn't Roger a fantastic drummer?

No. He WAS a fantastic drummer. But if you see his drumming at Pavarotti & Friends and their other poor performances of the post-AW/EF era, I think a blind chimpanzee with parkinson plays better.

> So why to finish the band?

Because it`s over

> I want to see Queen playin'!

But you can`t

> My fav. guitarist and drummer are members yet, and will perform some of the greatest songs of the world!

As John S Stuart said, perhaps B&R kick ass, no doubt about that. The thing is ... they`re not Queen

> If John left the band, he doesn't have the right of finishing the band!

John didn`t left. The band died

> they just want to play to us fans live for the first time in 18 years.

They have played live a lot of times in these 18 years. Moreover if they just do it for the fans and not for being on the news then:

a) Why didn`t they play at Benidorm and made hundreds of fans spend half a thousand euro to see them and be stood up?

b) Why can`t they change their name and leave everybody happy?

> How many times have bands like KISS changed they're line up and their fans don't care because it's still KISS but with differant members.

If you think nobody has complained, then you still have to meet loads and loads of Kiss fans

> Please leave Brian and Roger be.

Even if we didn`t want to "let them be", we can`t do anything about it. They already trasehd the name of the band several times, now they`ll do it again and nobody we say can stop it. But, at least we have the right to express our disagreement

> how many people do you think would pay to see Brian May, Roger Taylor and Paul Rogers? Then compare that too the amount of people who would pay to see Queen. There will be a HUGE amount of differance.

Yes. But few lines above you said they did it for the fans. So, if they do it for the fans, it doesn`t matter "how many people do you think would pay". With that in mind, they can change the name, because it`s for the fans

> Brian and Roger are what is left of Queen.

If a person loses his brain and his kidneys, no matter his heart and lungs work, he died. Queen was a "four-people-person", and it`s over as well.

> The band they both love still.

The band... or the fact their names and faces appeared on tv? If it`s the first, then they wouldn`t sell-out as they had done from 2000 onwards. If it`s the second, wel,, there you have an explanation for their lousy actions.

> And I doubt very much they need anymore money.

I don`t think they do it for that. In that way we do agree.

> And you will eat your words if you see them live. And if a new album comes out in the next few years. It will be great.

Great, but not Queen, only Brian, Roger & Someone. Still great, but not Queen. Not better, not worse, just different. Not Queen.

>Other bands fans do nothing but lavish praise on how good their band is/were and if they did a tour they would be greatful and excited.

That`s what I do find stupid. So if Paul McCartney farts in the middle of the concert I have to make a standing ovation? Deep Purple are very famous, and even though they already made their na


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.