Forums > Queen - Serious Discussion > "Don't mess with our memories." - The future with Queen

forum rss feed
Author

Boy Thomas Raker user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 969 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Aug 06, 13:30 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Even before anything's been announced re: Brian, Roger and Paul recording new material this fall, there's been the inevitable debate about whether it's Queen or not. If you can bare with me during this lengthy post, I'll give you an interesting, hopefully balanced perspective.

The other night, Jon Bon Jovi was the guest on Larry King Live on CNN. The discussion turned to criticism, and whether Bon Jovi listened to it. He said that he could accept valid criticism if someone could honestly say that they had an off night playing live, or this song didn't work in the context of an album if it were based on some kind of reality, not a pre-determined dislike of Bon Jovi as a band. Then Larry King asked if he'd ever taken a critic's words to heart. What Bon Jovi answered struck me as an incredibly honest and totally apropos of the Queen situation for the past few years.

When discussing an "unplugged" album that Bon Jovi did, he desribed how the album bombed saleswise. Bon Jovi said that since his band was actually one of the first bands to do an unplugged type of show, he was shocked when it didn't sell, as he felt Bon Jovi was a great band in an acoustic setting. But he read a review where the critic said "don't mess with our memories." Bon Jovi spoke with the critic who basically said that people loved the songs in their original form, leave them alone as the definitive version already exists and is loved by fans. In other words, by altering what fans already knew and loved, Bon Jovi was messing with "our" memories.

Fast forward to Queen in August 2006. People who want to hear new music in 2006 are very angry at people who don't want Brian and Roger to use the Queen name when recording. Touring is a different beast, and there were people on this board who loved Paul Rodgers and people who said that while musically great, it was like seeing a Queen tribute band. The thing that Brian, Roger and all of the people don't quite get as that our memories are our own. Brian May may very well feel that he has the right through years of hard work to use the name Queen. However, he's not writing the book on Queen. We all are, in our own way. For the people who don't care about a name, that's cool. Your Queen memories may have started in 2004 with hearing a Queen song, and your only live experience is with Paul Rodgers and no John Deacon. That's great, as music shouldn't be exclusionary if you weren't around during Queen's golden years. However, for the folks that believe Queen was and is, Roger Taylor, John Deacon, Brian May and Freddie Mercury, their memories are as strong as your new ones and all of this "new" Queen stuff is "messing with our memories." It doesn't make anyone a bad person if they don't want the name Queen used going forward.

Food for thought.




You know, good times are now.
rocks. user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1808 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Aug 06, 14:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

You make a very valid point there....but that doesnt mean youre not messing with peoples memories who just became fans after freddie's death and they only have seen that as a live expeariance. Im not totally thrilled that theyre going to be billed as Queen, but I'll live with it and be excited about the album anyways.

Boy Thomas Raker user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 969 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Aug 06, 14:16 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I guess my point was more, there are people whenever this discussion occurs use who cap locks and say GET OVER IT!!!, or spew some curse words at the people who don't llike seeing the name used. I would hope that these people understand that to other people, their memory of Queen consists of the four originals, and if they feel that anything going forward with Brian and Roger is not Queen, it's their memories, no one elses. That doesn't make them evil or dinosaurs, it means that they've defined in their minds who Queen was or is.


You know, good times are now.
rocks. user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1808 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Aug 06, 14:33 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Oh i get you, very much so, and I agree with you!

AlexRocks user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1358 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Aug 06, 14:43 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

These previous posts are dumb. It doesn't matter who is playing what music as long as it is good. Just like I don't want to see the original members of group going out and doing bad music. Duh-eee. This is dead hippy ideology proven time and time again by the following bands continueing making great classic music before the original members left...and after. Black Sabbath, KISS, The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, The Who, Guns N' Roses, The Rolling Stones, Whitesnake, Bon Jovi, Def Leppard, Deep Purple, Heart, AC/DC (who by the way have the second best selling album in the world with "Back In Black" with...yes, their second lead singer), and Van Halen. Have you ever heard of these people? It is really important to learn about rock n' roll history before you make such comments. It is very telling who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't.

I am sorry if you are close to death. It is those who are only able to hang on to just the past and can't cope with moving on in the future.

Boy Thomas Raker user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 969 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Aug 06, 15:07 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Ironically enough, Alex Rocks, you are the type of person who needs education more than others. Because your world revolves around you, ("just like I don't want to see the original members of group going out and doing bad music"), you've missed the point of the argument. If the point was about classic music being with new members, I would have argued that Brian, Roger and Paul haven't made any good music. Except I wasn't talking about that, and they haven't amde any music. Further, I know you don't know anything about rock history because Van Halen haven't put any music out with DLR since 1984 and people are still arguing 22 years later over Sammy Hagar taking over. And if you think KISS has made good music you could still be in the mindset of a pre-pubescent boy who's never been laid. Great show, yes, musically they're a joke. Freddie Mercury was a once in a lifetime talent. He is irreplaceable. However...

I was not talking about that. I used Jon Bon Jovi's story as an understanding of why certain people feel the way they do. I'm neither asking you or expecting you to care, but just seeing if the stupid people who couldn't form an argument to grasp where other people are coming from, something you are incapable of.





You know, good times are now.
7 seas of Rhye user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1817 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Aug 06, 15:17 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I think Boy Thomas Raker makes a very good point.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdoo21lvza8

^greatest video ever made



"If I get the answer wrong, you can kick me in the nuts" -Sean



I am the most obsessed Queen fan.
Oberon user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 499 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Aug 06, 15:38 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Kinda see the point, but it's still one sided in a way.

i never saw Queen "proper" live, but have followed them since I was eleven (i.e 1986 onwards). I'd have loved to have seen them live, but just missed out.

So, i've been a fan through the releases of Miracle, Innuendo and Made In Heaven, so can't be said to be a recent fan, and yet, I can still get enjoyment from the musical and from Q+PR.

I can distinguish the different aspects of all this history. I agree that Queen "proper" can never be bettered and that it's a shame I never got to see them in concert, but I can appreciate the opportunity to see Brian and Roger solo, and then together with PR etc.

What people seem to have a problem with on this site is that they seem to need to be in one camp or the other. Why not enjoy both? Recognise the genius of four musicians and their works between 1970 and 1991. the work of 3 musicians in 1994/5, and the achievements of 2 or 3 musicians after 1995.

It's all variations on a great body of work, and either enjoy it all, or enjoy part of it, but don't tell someone else that they can't enjoy whatever they want to enjoy.

Discussions are fine, but this whole issue is so subjective it's untrue. We're human, so we rise to whatever bait is put infront of us, but does it really matter? Is it worth getting riled about?


Tatterdemalion and the junketer

There's a thief and a dragonfly trumpeter
Sebastian user not visiting Queenzone.com
Sebastian
Deity: 6327 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Aug 06, 16:01 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

My position isn't related to the memories bit, or at least not in the context Bon Jovi put it. I love it when bands make different arrangements. 'Dream On' with orchestra is wonderful, so is 'Smoke On The Water' by Rock Aid Armenia, or 'All The Way From Memphis' by Dr May. There have been some poor attempts as well, like Paul McCartney's 'Something', which to me isn't just hedious but also hypocrit.

In the case of Queen, if anything, I'd have preferred if they had done more different arrangements during their 80s tours (and drop the keyboard players). I loved the piano version of 'White Queen' and the guitar version of 'Love Of My Life'. Not more than the album ones, not less. They were just different, but more apt for the live set. Same as those songs put together in medleys, or the beautiful 'Teo' in 1979.

I think Paul Rodgers is an amazing singer, and an extraordinary musician all-round (brill composer too). If they were named "Brian May, Roger Taylor & Paul Rodgers", I'd be the first one there. But I can't stand their cowardy (Brian's and Roger's). They say they don't wanna live in the past, yet they play songs which have been composed over 15 years ago (and which became famous on Freddie's voice in the first place).

I always applauded Another World and Back To The Light (albums + tours), I even like those more than anything Queen did. They failed commercially (compared to nearly anything from Queen), but they were very brave and meticulous and professional and creative. Now, it's all about living in the past, trying to re-write history (see Roger's absurd "Paul was Freddie's favourite singer" excuses) and using the Queen name instead of their own because they know that otherwise they wouldn't succeed that much.

There are some bands that can work better without any of the original members. I think Slash was a much better guitarist than Tracii Guns, and I think Buckethead was even better than Slash. Kiss' new formation is wonderful, although I still prefer the Carr era. Eagles became notably better with Timothy and Mr Walsh. But there are some other cases where it can't happen (to me).

Led Zeppelin without Bonzo wouldn't have been Zeppelin, even if they had enlisted Cozy Powell along. Or Beatles with Chris Squire instead of McCartney; or Simon & Garfunkel with George Harrison instead of Art. And so on.


John hated HS. Fred's fave 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.
Boy Thomas Raker user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 969 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Aug 06, 16:03 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I think you understand my point Oberon, and it isn't to bait people. It's that it seems that anyone who doesn't agree with the people who see Queen as one thing tend to attack people without any sense (see Alex Rocks a few posts back.) The post is for those people, and this has gone on a long time, to see the POV of some of the older fans and their beliefs. I'm not picking a side, although my belief is that Queen proper finished in 1991. I do acknowledge and lots of people do, that if Q + PR didn't tour last year, it would have deprived a generation of fans (and I have a friend over 50 who'd never seen them, was a huge Freddie fan, and was thrilled) so it's not a generational thing. If we all didn't care about Queen, we'd be posting at Israeli-Lebanon or pro/anti abortion sites.


You know, good times are now.
Serry... user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 8271 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Aug 06, 16:13 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

If someone wants to know what Serry thinks about it - read Sebastian's post again.

Mr Mercury user not visiting Queenzone.com
Adam who?????
Mr Mercury
Deity: 4632 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Aug 06, 16:37 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Boy Thomas Raker wrote:

Brian May may very well feel that he has the right through years of hard work to use the name Queen. However, he's not writing the book on Queen. We all are, in our own way. For the people who don't care about a name, that's cool.


Yes but in a way Brian (and Roger and Paul) ARE writing the book on Queen. Its just that this is the next volume thats all. And for me the only people that can mess with our memories is ourselves.

As for those that say that its not Queen without Freddie, etc all I can say is fair enough it aint. But that doesnt necessarily mean that what Brian, Roger and Paul produce in the studio will be crap. I mean there are dozens of examples of bands that suffered line up changes of key members and still produced great albums. I am referring to bands like Pink Floyd (twice - Syd Barratt being replaced by David Gilmour and Roger Waters leaving), Rolling Stones (3 line up changes to my knowledge) and on a similar vein with Status Quo.

That said though, I have to commend you for posting a decent thought provoking thread.


"Normally i can't dance to save my life.

But as soon as I step in dog shit, I can moonwalk better than Michael Jackson."
AlexRocks user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1358 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Aug 06, 17:51 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Um...again I stand by my posts. I didn't attack anyone I just said the posts were dumb! I don't care what you do sexually so why do you care what I have or haven't done? Is that an invitation of some sort? Yikes! ...and by the way say what you want about Sammy Hagar in Van Halen...he did sell more records with them than Roth. KISS wasn't the only group in that list so don't be picky on the facts...let's deal with them all.

OhioBobcat555 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 24 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Aug 06, 18:23 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The statements made by some that Queen are screwing around with fans' "memories" or a thought along that effect is a great joke. It is not only foolish but downright arrogant to believe that Queen's image and/or songs cannot be reproduced or re-formed over the years through different ways.

Look... Freddie would be sitting here right now laughing at some of you that take Queen way too seriously. And hey, I love Queen... but that is probably the main reason outside of talent... they never took themselves seriously!! And they never denied that most of "it" was about the money!!!!

So, therefore a couple of the members reform and call themselves "Queen"... so frickin what? It is still timeless music and to a new era of fans.

And remember, ALL great and timeless music is passed on through time. Did Mozart believe that 250 years later his compositions would be reproduced a thousand times over with various instrument collections and interpretations on sale in compilations at Wal-Mart for $9.99???

To those of you that continue to post... not even mainly this one... about what "Queen" is and "should" stand for... remember that 200 years from now people will continue to get thousands of various compilations of Queen in thousands of unique interpretations... with Bohemian Rhapsody and Tie Your Mother Down on the flute, triangle and cow bell. There may be no justice to that, but it will happen one way or another so stop complaining!


George Dubya Bush is an international terrorist and the worst president ever...
bas asselbergs user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 212 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Aug 06, 20:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

No matter what Brian, Roger and Paul have done so far, or will do in the future, my memories of Queen from the so called "golden years" are so strong and still alive, that nothing can do any damage to them. My memories from the past have nothing to do with anything that came or comes after Freddies death. And in perspective to Queen with and without Freddie....even with Paul singing on a new "Queen"-album, it will always be Freddie that i'll prefer hearing. Wich doesn't mean i will not appreciate the efforts of "1/2 of Queen + friends, featuring Paul Rodgers"... (as i think they should call the band. But my memories can't be changed. So whatever happens, Brian and Roger can't "mess with my memories" as the thread is called. The future of Queen, lies in the rich past of Queen. And therefor, Queen or Freddie will never be really dead...WE...the fans will keep them alive forever. And no matter in what era, or how many decades away from now, Queen will never stop producing memories in peoples hearts and minds and lives in the future, as long as their music is being played. I think that that will stop only, when planet earth dies....with everything on it. Not one second earlier! (was this still an "on-the-topic-reply" now...?)


lifelong loyal and dedicated Queenfan.
Boy Thomas Raker user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 969 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Aug 06, 21:05 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Hey Bas, I agree with what you say. I guess I was as clear as mud when I said that I understood where Bon Jovi was coming from, and how plenty of people here are set in there ways about who and what Queen is. Personally, as it's not about me, I don't care what they do, as I'll buy it if its good, ans will steer clear otherwise. I guess after seeing this board degenerate in intelligence over the last few years, I made an ill advised attempt to try to bring some understanding of people's positions to the board, and have people steer clear of insults. Speaking of which...

Alex Rocks, I wasn't coming on to you, I just found your comment about me being close to dath incredibly tasteless, and the type of comment I feel brings down the board. Disagree, fine, but if you call me an old geezer ready to croak it's game on, which adds nothing to the board. And I don't care how many records Sammy Hagar sold with VH (I like him far better than Roth BTW, and think Gary Cherone would have been great for VH given a fair shake.) In context of my post (some fans see Queen as one thing), die hard VH fans argue more over Roth/Hagar than anything. I've never said PR sucks or they shouldn't do anything now that Freddie's dead, I said people are passionate about this, respect their opinions. Sorry I tried to stimulate debate, I'll go back the general board and post topics dealing with John Deacon's whereabouts, Freddie's cock size and whether Brian May made his guitar.

:D


You know, good times are now.
AlexRocks user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1358 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Aug 06, 22:31 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Mmmmo.k. Sorry I came with guns loaded and blarin'. I guess I felt the same way of negativity that was or wasn't justified. I'll stop! Sometimes I have felt I have to fight or one might get walked all over! I didn't mean to hurt you...BUT I do agree about Gary Cherone...AND I like Roth...and Hagar! Lol! Bring 'em all on with Van Halen again as far as I'm concerned! They're the ones still alive! Sheesh! Anway, t'was fun...sort of, eh? Have a good day! Bye!~

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

Bohemian: 386 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 18 Aug 06, 23:35 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I can assure that what Brian and Roger do under the name "Queen" is not going to make much of an impact on anything. Although I think that it is really tacky, I don't see any point in getting too mad about it. However, they probably should not be using the name "Queen."

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

Posted: 19 Aug 06, 08:35 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I suppose I can't get worked up over this, because I already sorted this out in my head when Q+PR first started up almost 2 years ago. It's plain and simple to me - it's not Queen. Q+PR was a tolerable name, because they were playing Queen music and PR music, and they were doing it with half of Queen as well.
A new album with no Freddie on it and a Queen title would be really questionable. But I'd still listen to it. The name would cause me no grief - I mean, *I* know it's not really Queen, who the hell do I have to prove it to?


"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
runner70 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 147 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Aug 06, 10:25 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Jon Bon Jovi was referring to the album "this left feels right" - an album with "alternative" versions of old classics. A real horrible affair (and thats my opinion a a longtime fan!) So the "new album" Brian Roger and Paul will put out will be all original material (I do hope so!) so its a different affair