Forums > Queen - General Discussion > Why there is no Queen without Freddie Mercury

forum rss feed
Author

Freddie's #1 Fan Forever user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 386 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 30 Aug 05, 14:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

As I have pointed out in previous threads, it is pretty obvious to most Americans that Freddie Mercury was defining element/star of Queen. In other bands, such as AC/DC, Van Halen or Led Zeppelin, the guitarists are as well or better known than the lead singers. This is not the case with Queen.

Even in the UK, it appears that people regard Freddie as the really important member of the band. For instance, Freddie figured prominently in the Millenium Poll a few years ago, in which 600,000 English people voted for their favorite musicians, songwriters, etc. Freddie was ranked pretty highly as a vocalist, a musician and as a songwriter. The only other member of the band who made it into the poll at all was Brian, who was was at #90 (or something like that) as a songwriter. Unlike Freddie, he was not voted as one of the top musicians.

I find it intersting that, on this very web site (www.queenzone.com) one year ago, a poll was done in which Freddie was overwhelmingly voted as the best songwriter. Furthermore, although John and Roger also got a chuck of the minority vote, it is fairly well documented that they received a lot of help from Freddie when they wrote their songs. In fact, Roger even admits that Freddie basically re-wrote both "A Kind of Magic" as well as "Radio Ga Ga". If you watch the "Magic Years" video, you can see evidence of Freddie basically dictating to Brian and Roger how to play (in this case, I think that it was "One Vision").

The other members of the band are very talented guys and they did in fact contribute a lot to Queen as well. However, when Kurt Cobain died, the other members of his band had the courtesy to change their name over to "Foo Fighters". Maybe they had legal rights to the name, but they still decided to do the respectful thing. If Brian and Roger are really such extraordinary musicians, then they, like the Foo Fighters, should have no problem attaining success under a new, more appropriate name.

I don't think that there is anything really wrong about going to the Queen + Paul Rodgers shows. Although it would be terribly depressing for me, other people might really enjoy it. On the other hand, I really question the loyalty of the "Queen fans" on this web site who are going around saying that Paul Rodgers is a "better singer" than Freddie. In fact, I find these people infinitely more offensive than the religious fanatics who are writing posts about how Freddie is "burning in hell". My final point is that I feel that it disrespectful of Roger and Brian to continue to use the name "Queen" in order to sell themselves.




doremi user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 5193 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 30 Aug 05, 14:58 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

100% agree and spot on post. The Foo Fighters was the best argument and example.

I adore Brian & Roger, would gladly see them tour.

My problem is them cashing in on the Queen brand name, and you are right about the Foos.

Hell, when Kurt Cobain died, I would gather ALOT less people had any clue who Dave Grohl was (especially since he was Nirvana's SIXTH drummer),...

... than say would know who Roger and Brian were after Freddie died.

..To add insult to injury, people ONLY knew Dave Grohl as the silent drummer. No one knew he could sing lead vocals, play lead guitar, and write kick ass music on his own......

..Grohl all but threw himself to the lions from the get go, willing to prove himself and his MANY talents.

But...Dave Grohl did the respectful thing, and changed the name of the band and has had smashing success...while PROVING and attaining respect for his talents with his and by his band's original name, instead of riding the coattails and gravy train of Nirvana's name.

Now..Grohl KNOWS that people respect him and the Foos for their own talents and merits and maybe, even feels better knowing that people admire him and The Foos as a unique and talented band on its own merits, with no agendas.

SAME THING with the rest of Ian Curtis' band, Joy Division. Christ, I STILL don't know off hand and couldn't tell you the names of his bandmates, BUT they changed their name to New Order, after Ian committed suicide, and they have enjoyed a very successful career based solely and purely on their own merits, talents and under their different name.


xyz
gem27 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 243 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 30 Aug 05, 15:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Huh? Dave Grohl did not change Nirvana to the Foo Fighters. He made his own band up when Kurt died. 1.In Nirvana Kurt wrote all the songs for the band. 2.In Nirvana Dave Grohl was the drummer whereas in his own band the Foo Fighters he is song writer, lead guitar and singer. 3. Dave Grohl is the only member from Nirvana to be in The Foo Fighters so its not the same. Queen have been around from the early 70s and Brian and Roger have every right in the world to keep the name Queen and one more thing its isnt even just Queen its Queen+Paul Rodgers. And i dont even like Paul Rodgers!

bryans permed poodle 15069 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 762 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 30 Aug 05, 15:58 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

There are very few loyal Queen fans on this site anymore most have even forgot Freddie was a member of this once brilliant band. The poison that is Queen + PR are doing more to harm the great name of Queen than anything else.

Shame.


Paul Rodgers - "Gimp Of The Year 2006"
tia user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 290 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 30 Aug 05, 16:09 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Bryans Permed Poodle wrote:

There are very few loyal Queen fans on this site anymore most have even forgot Freddie was a member of this once brilliant band. The poison that is Queen + PR are doing more to harm the great name of Queen than anything else.

Shame.

Oh no, here we go again.


just turn yourself into anything you think that you could ever be
teleman user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 740 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 30 Aug 05, 16:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

BPP says it all himself

Bryans Permed Poodle wrote:

I was going to get a ticket for Cardiff before they SOLD OUT


Sharon G. user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 462 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 30 Aug 05, 18:45 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I agree with Arlene and BPP on this.
No Freddie no John = No Queen. And certainly no "Queen" name.

Q+PR will be a great rock concert I'm sure.
Will it be Queen? Nope.

rockyracoon user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 173 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 30 Aug 05, 19:46 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

tiffmoab and Arlene, those were great posts. I don't necessarily agree with all your conclusions, but the posts were well written and well thought through.

Finances play a BIG part in the decision to form a new band under a new name. Musicians, including Dave Grohl, Brian May, Roger Taylor, etc., have to evaluate whether their royalties (in effect, their income from songwriting and records/CDs/DVDs) will be greater by being on their own under a new name, vs. sharing the royalties with former bandmates if choosing to retain and capitalize on the name of the old group.

Dave Grohl was very successful with some new bandmates under the new name of Foo Fighters, and he didn't/doesn't have to share royalties with the estate of Kurt Cobain or with other Nirvana members. Dave took the risk to go on his own, and it worked out beautifully.

On the other hand, after the death of Freddie Mercury, Brian May and Roger Taylor tried to release new material under their own names, and had very limited success. In their case, they found that keeping 100% of the royalties of a very small pie was nowhere nearly as lucrative as getting a much smaller percentage of a huge pie (and it probably bruised their egos a bit). Hence, they opted to return to the music scene using the Queen name again, even though this requires that they share royalties with John Deacon and with Freddie Mercury's estate. So for Brian and Roger, it just didn't work well when they tried to go out on their own, so they opted to resurrect the power of the Queen brand name. In doing so, they have managed to rake in additional millions. And as Brian has said, Queen (in the aggregate) was much better than any one of the band members.

While musicians and artists aren't always astute as to financial issues, Dave Grohl, Brian May and Roger Taylor have found what works best for them, and have done so by going in opposite directions.

Having said the above, I recognize that decisions are made solely on the basis of money. The artists need to determine for themselves their own comfort zone, what kinds of deals they can work out with the record companies, who they want as bandmates, the lifestyle they want, and whether they need to be superstars and get the adoration of the masses. Believe it or not, there are songwriters who just want to write songs, and have no interest in being performing artists or superstars. But they can still make huge bucks in songwriting royalties.

rockyracoon user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 173 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 30 Aug 05, 19:51 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Whoooops!!! In the last paragraph above, I meant to say that decisions are NOT made solely on the basis of money.

Sorry.

Suigi user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 856 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 30 Aug 05, 19:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

OK, this is SERIOUSLY pissing me off.
We need a poll on this board, a plebiscite of this site:

"IS QUEEN ALIVE?"

or some variation of this whole debate that doesn't tilt it toward one side or the other.
This'll let everyone voice their opinion without being dominated by some more "motivated" posters (BPP, I'm looking at you)


HE ROCKS US STILL.

Proud Supporter of the Queen Lives Compilation
rockyracoon user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 173 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 30 Aug 05, 20:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Yes, Queen is VERY alive!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lymi user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 72 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 30 Aug 05, 21:05 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

For me, Freddie will be Freddie. Roger and Brian can tour if they want, but with other band-name. Not named Queen.

Freddie will never be replaced. And this tour with Paul Rodgers will going to be the end of Queen, honestly. I'm not saying this to start a fight, it's just what i feel.

Freddie was the best singer ever, and someone who sings like him or better than him, hasn't born yet.


http://groups.msn.com/Freddiebirthday2005



"Freddie Is Hot Like The Sun, If You Touch Him You Could Burn"



Big hugs,



-Lymi
Jakobe user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 197 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 30 Aug 05, 23:47 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

My God, why is everyone STILL all worked up about this? The European tour is over and as far as we know, after the U.S. tour, no one will ever again see ANYBODY that WAS, IS, OR EVER WILL BE in the great band Queen.

So this is why I see no reason for anyone to be against the Queen + Paul Rodgers Tour. It's not going to last forever. It will be over soon, and then everyone will have to go back to listening to Queen on their CD's and DVD's and that will be how it will be until the end of time. Besides, how could this be bad for the band? At it's heart Queen is a business and as we all know, businesses are in the business of doing business. And some of them sure do know how to rock!

rhyeking user not visiting Queenzone.com
rhyeking
Royalty: 1566 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 31 Aug 05, 00:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It's a good thing none of the nay-sayers' opinions actually *matter* to Brian and Roger, and whether they use their band's name rightfully. If that causes you distress, tough!

They give the fans what they want. The rest of you seem content to suffer in torment over percieved injustices against a trademark to which you've assigned demi-god status.

I respect your opinions and your right to disagree with Brian and Roger. But I thank my lucky stars *they* disagree too.

I can't wait till the original studio album by Queen + Paul Rodgers and may its prospect haunt your nightmares.

Whether Queen are or are not is not for anyone but Brian, Roger and John to decide. And they've made their position quite clear, I think.

Rock On!

The King Of Rhye

Tero user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1012 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 31 Aug 05, 00:12 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

rockyracoon wrote:

Whoooops!!! In the last paragraph above, I meant to say that decisions are NOT made solely on the basis of money.

Sorry.


No need to apologise... You were right the first time. :P

Knute user not visiting Queenzone.com
Knute
Bohemian: 807 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 31 Aug 05, 03:27 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

teleman wrote:

BPP says it all himself

Bryans Permed Poodle wrote:

I was going to get a ticket for Cardiff before they SOLD OUT


LMAO!

And apparently the collaboration wouldn't be poison
that hurt the Queen name if Robbie Williams were to be the singer instead of PR.
Then it would be ok.



GreatKingSam user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 670 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 31 Aug 05, 03:46 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Fuck me...

...why does it bloody matter? It's just single minded "real fans" like BPP who can't get over the fact that they are not touring under the name of Queen, but that of Queen+ Paul Rodgers.

Some of you seem to be in a state of denial about it I think.

Fenderek user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4924 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 31 Aug 05, 04:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

1. They're touring under Q + PR, not just Queen

2. I've got only one thing to say- THEY ARE TOURING ANYWAY, SO YOU CAN MOAN HERE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN AND THEY DON'T GIVE A FUCK, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE A BLOODY THINGBUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! UP YOURS, BPP!!!

AA user not visiting Queenzone.com

Be Gentle, I'm a newbie: 2 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 31 Aug 05, 06:54 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Thamks for all of the thoughtful responses! But I still have to say, forever & forever, "Queen" IS Freddie, yes, the others are very talented, but it can never ever be Queen again without our Freddie......
And it does seem a bit money-grubbing to me, the whole new tour. Whores, I think!


Jan Roberts
Fenderek user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4924 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 31 Aug 05, 07:22 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

AA wrote:

Thamks for all of the thoughtful responses! But I still have to say, forever & forever, "Queen" IS Freddie, yes, the others are very talented, but it can never ever be Queen again without our Freddie......
And it does seem a bit money-grubbing to me, the whole new tour. Whores, I think!

Yet they're still touring and they simply don't give a fuck what you or BPP or anyone think and the most importantly- we had about 1265397 threads like this only last month... Queen is not Freddie- in fact reason I became Queen fan was Brian's guitar sound