Forums > Queen - General Discussion > new release Stone Cold Classics..why?

forum rss feed
Author

biggest_fan_K user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 342 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 02 Apr 06, 20:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/queen/1265181/album.jhtml
Why are they releasing this? What about greatest Flix 1 and 2? What about Queen Rocks? And why the hell do they have 2 Paul Rodgers songs on there!?!


InnuendoMay user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 233 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 02 Apr 06, 20:12 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

PLEASE don't tell me this is the 'new album with Freddie Mercury's vocals on it'? As it said in HR thing a few months back. Please don't let this be it!

its_a_hard_life 26994 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 11046 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 02 Apr 06, 20:13 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

That's strange... yeah i wonder why two of his songs are there :S
It shouldnt have two of his songs... because it still says Queen on the cover... hes not Queen.
Now that it has two of his songs it should be named Queen and Paul Rodgers. Why did they make that mistake?

InnuendoMay user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 233 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 02 Apr 06, 20:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Might be live stuff, it has * next to the names, so they might be from ROTC, just for promotion of the album as it didn't sell too well over there? Or maybe its too promote the tour or the fact that Queen are still around...in a way! I'm just brainstorming, i'm probably wrong, but it is interesting to see his songs on there!

its_a_hard_life 26994 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 11046 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 02 Apr 06, 20:35 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I'm not so bothered about his songs being on there. What bothers me is they still named it Queen on the cover and not Queen and Paul Rodgers. Anyone understands what i mean?
I'm not bothered about Paul and his songs lol.
I'm bothered he's using the Queen name for it though.

InnuendoMay user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 233 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 02 Apr 06, 20:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Yeah i get what you mean, maybe they should have 'With Paul Rodgers Bonus Tracks' or something! Lol!

biggest_fan_K user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 342 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Apr 06, 00:41 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

InnuendoMay wrote:

Yeah i get what you mean, maybe they should have 'With Paul Rodgers Bonus Tracks' or something! Lol!


i agree with you..

biggest_fan_K user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 342 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Apr 06, 00:41 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



RETROLOVE user not visiting Queenzone.com
RETROLOVE
Deity: 2522 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Apr 06, 03:22 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

<font color="#FF00CC">its_a_hard_life wrote:

I'm not so bothered about his songs being on there. What bothers me is they still named it Queen on the cover and not Queen and Paul Rodgers. Anyone understands what i mean?
I'm not bothered about Paul and his songs lol.
I'm bothered he's using the Queen name for it though.



Good question!They should BE REAL CAREFUL when it comes to putting that Queen+Paul Rodgers thing up...for real!


But can you actually listen to the tracks, I didnt see that option anywhere???


Loving the pass, cherishing the present, and looking forward to the future

KillerQueen_1991 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 34 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Apr 06, 09:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Agree i have nothing against Paul but Album say QUEEN


The Show Must Go On
KillerQueen_1991 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 34 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Apr 06, 09:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Agree i have nothing against Paul but Album say QUEEN


The Show Must Go On
KillerQueen_1991 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 34 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Apr 06, 09:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

ooops my mistake i press enter without finishing off my sentence lol


Did freddie sing all right now ?
or did he sing feel like making love nope i think he prefer GET DOWN MAKE LOVE lol

oh well another money making cd :)


The Show Must Go On
bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12700 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Apr 06, 09:07 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

If money has a smell, this release reeks of it.

I would *love* to see how Brian might justify this (watching him gobble like a turkey over the ANATO DVD features was funny enough...) but really, I think it's time they took some risks and did something *new*. They can afford to fail. People will still listen to it; I just wish he and Roger would record an album already.


"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
Mr Faron Hyte user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 565 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Apr 06, 13:35 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The why is pretty simple - a jillion people watch American Idol, and when they go to their local retailer Wednesday or Thursday morning of the 12th or 13th, humming the Queen tunes that they heard the contestants warbling the night(s) before, the record company, band, managers, et cetera, want there to be a product obviously tied-in to the show for them to buy. Its good sales and good promotion. And as for the two Queen + Paul Rodgers live tracks, again its obvious - publicity for the band, the tour and the ROTC release, and its a bone to throw in Paul Rodgers' direction, letting him get in on a bit of the sales pie. Is it a chash in? Absolutely yes. Is it the worst thing that's ever been done? No. The music business is still a business, and as crappy a show as American Idol is, they'd be stupid not to capitalize on the publicity as much as possible, because I guaran-damn-tee you that there will be thousands of people out looking to buy a Queen CD the week those shows air. By putting out a new cheap-and-dirty compilation for those thousands, they're making it that much easier to make sure they pick up sales and get their name out in the Best Buy, Wal-Mart, et cetera, ads, weekly fliers and in-store displays. Why not just buy Queen - Greatest Hits? Because its "old" and thus harder to market than a "new" CD that just has the same old songs on it. Whether it makes sense or not, that's how the business works.

hereyugo user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 31 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Apr 06, 14:40 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I never understood why people get upset over these kinds of things. From a fan's perspective it is or at least should be mostly all about the music. The bottomline is you either enjoy it or you don't. If you don't enjoy it, don't buy it. It really is that simple.

From a record company perspective...this is a business. They can sell whatever they can get away with that they think is going to make them money. And this is the same perspective in seeing why they use the Queen name. It's a branding. It's like any other business, they hire and fire different people all the time. People die, people retire, people come and go. For example, when a store you like changes half their workers, should they have to change the name of the store, even though they are offering the very same merchandise? Sure, their service might be different (better, different or worse), but the underlying foundation, the themes, the look and feel are still there?

The bottom line is, who ever is behind the "Queen" name, they are out there selling whatever it is that Queen does. Now if Brian, Roger and Paul decided to stop performing Queen music, then I might protest to change their name.

It's like the Beach Boys. Everyone knows Brian Wilson is and was the mastermind behind the band, but to this day Mike Love, the only remaining original Beach Boy left still tours as the Beach Boys. And he has every right to do it, both morally and legally.

jordanjo user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 82 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Apr 06, 16:46 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

i told you they were replacing Freddie Mercury!!! How dare they put those 2 crappy songs with the QUEEN songs! plus its titled QUEEN? PAUL ISNT QUEEN! Brian and Roger just give it up already, you old pigs! Freddie was QUEEN they will NEVER be successful without him

Bobby_brown user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2300 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Apr 06, 16:59 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Those must be the live tracks. Like in GH3 with Elton and George Michael!

Let´s not take on Paul, because it´s not his fault. In this case it´s bad for him, because he`s not even mentioned on the cover.

I think that Queen and Paul Rodgers deserves other kind of respect and not to be treated with the marketing strategies for dumb asses!!

Take care

its_a_hard_life 26994 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 11046 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Apr 06, 19:50 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Bobby_brown wrote:

Those must be the live tracks. Like in GH3 with Elton and George Michael!



Could be right there. Who knows, we shall see.

RETROLOVE user not visiting Queenzone.com
RETROLOVE
Deity: 2522 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Apr 06, 07:13 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

hereyugo wrote:

I never understood why people get upset over these kinds of things. From a fan's perspective it is or at least should be mostly all about the music. The bottomline is you either enjoy it or you don't. If you don't enjoy it, don't buy it. It really is that simple.

From a record company perspective...this is a business. They can sell whatever they can get away with that they think is going to make them money. And this is the same perspective in seeing why they use the Queen name. It's a branding. It's like any other business, they hire and fire different people all the time. People die, people retire, people come and go. For example, when a store you like changes half their workers, should they have to change the name of the store, even though they are offering the very same merchandise? Sure, their service might be different (better, different or worse), but the underlying foundation, the themes, the look and feel are still there?

The bottom line is, who ever is behind the "Queen" name, they are out there selling whatever it is that Queen does. Now if Brian, Roger and Paul decided to stop performing Queen music, then I might protest to change their name.

It's like the Beach Boys. Everyone knows Brian Wilson is and was the mastermind behind the band, but to this day Mike Love, the only remaining original Beach Boy left still tours as the Beach Boys. And he has every right to do it, both morally and legally.



Good point...


Loving the pass, cherishing the present, and looking forward to the future

Mr Faron Hyte user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 565 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 04 Apr 06, 16:30 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

jordanjo wrote:

i told you they were replacing Freddie Mercury!!! How dare they put those 2 crappy songs with the QUEEN songs! plus its titled QUEEN? PAUL ISNT QUEEN! Brian and Roger just give it up already, you old pigs! Freddie was QUEEN they will NEVER be successful without him


Hurry! Somebody give this woman her medication!