Forums > Queen - General Discussion > What BM + RT should've done

forum rss feed
Author

SomebodyWhoLoves user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 842 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Feb 06, 05:47 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Instead of hiring Paul Rogers, they should've hired an unknown but hugely talented singer, someone who could at least do the Queen name justice. Perhaps even a female singer.

They should've hired this new singer, and write a new album. And go on tour supporting this album, and also do a few favorites.

That is what they should've done.


The problem with Paul Rogers is that while he was talented, he wasn't the right singer to try to even replace Freddie Mercury.

The next singer for Queen should be someone who sang as much as possible like Freddie Mercury.

Ex: Although this apparently wasn't possible, George Michael or someone who sings like him, would've made a good replacement for Freddie. No, I am not saying Freddie is replaceable. He's not. But..if you are going to hire a new singer, it has to be someone who sings similarly to Freddie.

Paul Rogers may be talented, but his style is totally different, and not right for Queen's catalog of songs.

I thought the woman who sang I want to break free in the FM tribute concert would've made a good candidate. She sang that song better than Freddie IMHO.







rogertaylor88 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 160 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Feb 06, 06:22 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Do you mean Lisa Stansfield?

englishyob user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 526 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Feb 06, 06:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

If Brian and Roger hired a new singer he would have been classed as a Freddie replacement, Paul Rogers was hired as a singer for Queen that’s why its billed as Queen + Paul Rogers. George Michael wouldn’t have been able to handle Queens more rocky stuff like tie your mother down or hammer to fall etc... He would have been good singing the ballades like somebody to love and days of our live. Paul Rogers was the best chose as a stand in singer. We all know Freddie cant be replaced.

Rick user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 4796 posts
add to buddy list send PM

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

A female singer? Britney Spears?


John: "It's the one thing I wish I could do - sing."

Serry... user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 8271 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Feb 06, 06:38 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Brian's daughter (Freddie was a fan of her!) ;)

Liza Minelli? Barbra Streisand? Cher? Madonna?

bohemian 11513 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1347 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Feb 06, 06:41 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Aretha Franklin... of course!


Shoot for the moon... even if you fail you will land among the stars!

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

Posted: 05 Feb 06, 07:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Britney Spears isn't a singer.

If I were to go back in time and get a female singer, I'd probably grab Bonny Tyler. Amazing rough voice, it wouldn't last long because she's probably ripped her vocal cords to shreds, but yeah, probably the only other human being who could sing Gimme the Prize I reckon.

The coulda-shoulda-woulda game is fun, but in the end what can be done? If sales had an impact, and if this was about money, they might've reconsidered what they're doing. But no, they do it because it's fun so I guess we can all either enjoy it or ignore it.


"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
cherrypotter user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 44 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Feb 06, 07:38 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Genesis with Ray Wilson = shit
Black Sab with Dio = shit
Van Hallen with Hagar = shit
Doors with Ian Astbury = shit
So may the Queen rest in peace, for God sake!


SomebodyWhoLoves user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 842 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Feb 06, 08:14 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I said, UNKNOWN.

If an unknown but fantastic singer who sang like Freddie was hired, AND BM & RT wrote a new album, I bet most of you would approve and be excited about the new record.

I know I'd be excited. I'd buy the record, especially if the new singer was great.

There ARE great singers out there who can sound remarkably like Freddie.

Freddie is irreplaceable not just because of his voice. He had many intangible and tangible qualities that make him hard to replace.

However, his voice alone is not irreplaceable. There ARE great singers out there who are unknown.







SomebodyWhoLoves user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 842 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Feb 06, 08:20 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

What BM + RT should've done is to place an ADVERTISEMENT globally for finding the next Singer of Queen.

I'm 100% sure that somewhere in this vast world of Six BIllion people, there is at least ONE singer who can come close to Freddie Mercury.

The thing about Queen that made it great is that it had a great lead singer.

Most of Queen songs are not truly great. At least I don't think so. What made them great was a great singer. Great singers can make an average song great.

Paul Rogers is a good singer, not great.

Queen (BM +RT) should've hired a great singer.





magicalfreddiemercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
magicalfreddiemercury
Deity: 2693 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Feb 06, 09:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=FF0099>Linda Of The Valley wrote:

So what..at least he's not trying to be Freddie.



IMO, that is precisely the point.

They felt PR was the right choice because he's(way) different from Freddie. They didn't want a replacement, they wanted only to play live again and enjoy it. We can't fault them for that. They happened to get on well with this singer and went with it.

Advertising, auditioning... I don't know. That would seem more like an effort to replace Freddie than simply playing a gig and realizing your music and a certain singer's voice created a sound you like.


"The others don't like my interviews. And frankly, I don't care much for theirs." ~ Freddie Mercury



it was electric7 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 709 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Feb 06, 09:44 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I would hate a female singer!! Unless it were me ...Christina Aguilera or Celine Dion :)

Wilki Amieva user not visiting Queenzone.com
We must all HEAR to believe
Wilki Amieva
Royalty: 1422 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Feb 06, 09:54 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

englishyob wrote:

If Brian and Roger hired a new singer he would have been classed as a Freddie replacement, Paul Rogers was hired as a singer for Queen that’s why its billed as Queen + Paul Rogers. George Michael wouldn’t have been able to handle Queens more rocky stuff like tie your mother down or hammer to fall etc... He would have been good singing the ballades like somebody to love and days of our live. Paul Rogers was the best chose as a stand in singer. We all know Freddie cant be replaced.


Could not possibily agree more.

j@ntje user not visiting Queenzone.com

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

Posted: 05 Feb 06, 09:59 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Roger en Brain sings the songs..Great!!!

Markillo user not visiting Queenzone.com

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

Posted: 05 Feb 06, 10:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Scott Soto

Hippolyte user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 351 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Feb 06, 10:23 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The only thing worse than Paul Rodgers would be some Freddie wannabe. Paul knows he isn't Freddie, so he doesn't try to be. It's the only thing I like about him.

Sharon G. user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 462 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Feb 06, 11:09 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color=FF0099>Linda Of The Valley wrote:

But I don't want a replacement for Freddie. I'm sure many will agree. I don't care if he/she is unkown or famous.

The great thing about Paul Rodgers is that he's an amazingly talented frontman with an excellent voice and a blues/rock background that makes Queen+Paul Rodgers unique. They're NOT Queen, they're an entirely different band. They're much crapper than Queen but that's a given.

Most won't want a freddie copy-cat..no matter how much he/she sounds/acts like Freddie. People don't accept Paul Rodgers, think about if they get an unkown female freddie...you can't do it.

Anyway, it doesn't matter because it's NOT going to happen no matter how much people moan and groan and whinge.

I just don't get people.

Who WOULDN'T be happy that two members from you're favourite rock group are going on tour? It's unbelievable. So they have a new frontman? So what..at least he's not trying to be Freddie.

sheesh




Linda is right on!

SomebodyWhoLoves user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 842 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Feb 06, 12:56 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

OF COURSE nobody can replace Freddie!

NOBODY!!

However, since BM + RT decided to restart Queen, they should've hired a singer who sounds more like Freddie Mercury.

Remember in the FM tribute concert, when George Michael sang Somebody to love?

Although Freddie's version was of course, superior, George Michael did a great job.

My point is, if BM + RT hired someone like George Michael, then I think this attempt at restarting Queen would've been more successful.

Queen + George Michael like singer would've been VERY interesting. A new Queen album featuring a singer like George Michael would've been VERY interesting.

Because George Michael comes close to Freddie Mercury, at least vocally. And that's what Queen is known for. Great singing.

If George Michael and Queen joined to form an album, who here wouldn't buy it? Who here wouldn't go and see them?

I would.

No, it's not Queen, but at least it would be good.



magicalfreddiemercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
magicalfreddiemercury
Deity: 2693 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Feb 06, 13:00 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Okay. I confess... I would buy a Queen + George Michaels album.


"The others don't like my interviews. And frankly, I don't care much for theirs." ~ Freddie Mercury



All I Hear Is Radio Gaga user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1181 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Feb 06, 15:13 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

englishyob wrote:

If Brian and Roger hired a new singer he would have been classed as a Freddie replacement, Paul Rogers was hired as a singer for Queen that’s why its billed as Queen + Paul Rogers. George Michael wouldn’t have been able to handle Queens more rocky stuff like tie your mother down or hammer to fall etc... He would have been good singing the ballades like somebody to love and days of our live. Paul Rogers was the best chose as a stand in singer. We all know Freddie cant be replaced.


I couldn't have said it better.


"Take The First Step In Faith, You Don't Have To See The Whole Staircase, Just Take The First Step."