> 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 Hot Space. Frederick's favourite singer was not Paul Rodgers. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' Witness testimonies are often inaccurate. Scotland's not in England. 'Bo Rhap' hasn't got 180