> Queen Rocks was an okay idea but Greatest Hits III was embarassing.
Rocks sucks compared to virtually every Queen album, Hits I, II and III ditto. Compilations (from any band) more often than not are total pants, not a big surprise.
> Then the Wyclef Jean thing, then with 5ive, Robbie Williams.
Wyclef is a good artist, 5ive are great singers, Robbie is brilliant at what he does. I think those were good choices to collaborate, the only thing I'm not OK with is the fact that it's labelled as "Queen+" instead of what it really is: "Brian&Roger+"
> Fair enough, the band can do whatever they want, but I found myself cease being a "fan" in '99.
As Sergey said, you can be a fan of the band's music without being fan of the members' personalities.
> It's like everything since has become a series of sequels to the FM Tribute Concert...
I've always felt the FM Tribute was actually a BM Tribute.
> It's funny to hear things like "Freddie would've loved to record with such-and-such"
Perhaps he would. It's difficult to know.
> but let me ask you this: just how many times did Queen actually collaborate with another artist when Freddie was alive?
With the exception of Sheer Heart Attack and News Of The World, none of the Queen albums are free of extras regarding either instruments, vocals or songwriting.
> the Yin to his Yang
Montserrat was the Yin to his Yang as well and he loved working with her. Still I don't think it's appropiate, neither from Brian's part nor from ours, to state whether Fred would have liked or disliked something. It's very easy to put words on a dead man's mouth.
> I suppose the most ironic thing is the musical.
Fred was much more into musicals than the other three put together. And he was probably more into craving fame and money than them as well.
> In it, it discusses how rock n roll has become extinct and is superceded by the talentless manufactured pop stars
I don't think that's the message. What's manufactured about, say, Britney Spears? The songs are good, the lyrics are good (no matter if she composed them or not), the production is good, the instruments are well executed (more often than not by top session players), she sings well, the arrangements are amazing (more often than not made by orchestral conductors or akin). Then what's the problem?
> and how everything is about money and no longer for substance.
I don't think Led Zeppelin, Beatles, Pink Floyd, Queen or Black Sabbath made music without thinking of fame & money.
> where everything is sold at inflated prices
Who's to blame? People who aren't considerate enough to cut their prices or people who aren't wit enough to stop buying such blag?
> Plus how bout these DVDs and live CDs that get released and re-released an infinite amount of times.
> It's all marketing - a concert played in 1986 would sell more than a concert played in 1974 because it has that many more popular hits.
Then it's clear that Queen have been a corporate entity always.
> U2 is the most corporative band all over the world (and the rolling stones) but they try to make us believe that that is not true...
And that's how their business works.
> The goal of QP is to flood the market with product
I disagree. At least they don't do it so much as others.
> This helps the bottom line, but it dilutes the creative side of the band, which to be fair, ended in 1991.
Very true. I find it funny and pathetic that Brian claims to "move on" and such and he hasn't. They're playing a set filled by songs which in most cases have been written over two decades ago, and using a name they wouldn't be labelling themselves with if they were "moving away from the past". If he wants to live off memories, good for him, but at least he could have the courage to admit that he's doing that instead of usin
John hated HS. Frederick's favourite 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.