Forums > Queen + Adam Lambert > I need answers

forum rss feed
Author

Nathan user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2305 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Dec 06, 06:40 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Can someone please explain to me why this whole Q+PR thing is so controversial? Why do so many people hate it?

I mean, look at Led Zeppelin (or should that be Jimmy Page, Robert Plant and John Paul Jones?). When they reunited at Live Aid with Phil Collins and that other guy (Terry Thompson?) on drums, or when they've reunited occasionally with Jason Bonham taking up his father's place at the drums no one's complained. As a matter of fact, nearly everyone's happy that they can see three members of one of the greatest bands of all time perform together. Mind you, this is only on REALLY special occasions.

Now let's look at Q+PR. A similar reformation of another of the world's finest rock bands BUT this reunion has tours and even a new album to look forward to and a lot of people on here and at QOL are up in arms about it. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions and I respect each and every one of your opinions as regarding the new tour.

But it's always really mystified me as to why Queen should receive such backlash for deciding to continue on and make music for the masses to enjoy with some fresh new material in there too.

Could anyone please help me solve this puzzle?

Sorry but I can't find a Q+PR bashing thread (shock shock horror horror) to post this in.





Penetration_Guru user not visiting Queenzone.com
Penetration_Guru
Deity: 11013 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Dec 06, 07:06 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I think it's different because Bonham wasn't the frontman. Lots of bands have replaced random members without too much hassle (plus Zep hardly ever did anything).

Better examples would be

AC/DC (many fans see them as two bands - Bon & Brian)
INXS (God knows how the hardcore felt about a reality TV show)
The Doors (I don't think Ian Astbury is taken seriously as the new face of The Doors)

I'd throw the challenge back at you - name a band who replaced a dead lead singer and DIDN'T get whining from fans....

Nathan user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 2305 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Dec 06, 07:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

So why the hatred for the replacement members? The bands are still producing fresh, exciting new music aren't they?

I used to reckon Black Sabbath without Ozzy Osbourne (and later on Bill Ward/Geezer Butler too) was not Black Sabbath, until I gave the other line-ups a chance and realised that there was plenty of great music I until then didn't have a particular interest in exploring.

So, back to the point, is all this Q+PR "hatred" (obviously not everyone's going to like it, I despised the very idea when it first came to be) basically a refusal to accept change?

thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6256 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Dec 06, 10:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Penetration_Guru wrote:


The Doors (I don't think Ian Astbury is taken seriously as the new face of The Doors)


Sensible people don't take Ray Manzerek serious either. In other words: it's not the one guy, it's the entire effort that's ridiculous.




Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

Vilatrista user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 51 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Dec 06, 15:35 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Because Freddie is irreplaceable dear,he was the ultimate performer.

The Real Wizard user is on Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18628 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Dec 06, 16:41 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Vilatrista wrote:

Because Freddie is irreplaceable dear,he was the ultimate performer.


And how many times did Brian, Roger, and even Paul make it completely clear that Paul is NOT replacing Freddie?



"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca
Kate4Freddie8 user not visiting Queenzone.com

Rocker: 31 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Dec 06, 18:02 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Basically people don't like Paul Rogers because they think he is trying to take Freddie's place in Queen (which by the way he can never do anyway).

boca user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 399 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Dec 06, 18:41 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Look, I don't have anything against Queen touring and working again. But I simply think Paul Rodgers is not the right man. They become different band under his influence. That's what I hate. Personally, I would be very very happy if Queen continued but just like three of them. And maybe Spike Edney. That means :John, Brian and Roger. No Paul Rodgers, no Danny Miranda, no Jamie Moses...That's completely another band...


I think I'm banana tree...
Sharon G.Queen Fan user not visiting Queenzone.com

Champion: 56 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Dec 06, 19:49 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It's very simple:

No Freddie + No John = No Queen.

And there you have it.


Sharon G.
The Real Wizard user is on Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18628 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Dec 06, 20:49 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

boca wrote:

But I simply think Paul Rodgers is not the right man. They become different band under his influence.


What's wrong if Queen try yet another direction? Compare Queen II to News Of The World or Hot Space. The Q+PR sound is no bigger of a shift in direction.

Sharon G.Queen Fan wrote:

It's very simple:

No Freddie + No John = No Queen.

And there you have it.


Thanks for solving that argument. You came in at the exact right time, and showed us all.

But more seriously... If Pink Floyd can be Pink Floyd without Barrett and Waters, if Chicago can be Chicago without Kath and Cetera, Deep Purple can be Deep Purple without Gillan (and now without Blackmore), and Black Sabbath can be Black Sabbath without Ozzy... then Queen can be Queen without Freddie Mercury. Take your "Freddie blinders" off for a moment and look at all the other bands that remained successful without their main men. Maybe for once you can argue against someone's logic instead of repeating yourself with the same mindless rhetoric over and over again. Nobody with decent enough debating skills will take you seriously until then.


"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca
Josh Henson user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 693 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Dec 06, 20:57 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

True that, Sir GH!

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

Vilatrista wrote:

Because Freddie is irreplaceable dear,he was the ultimate performer.


And how many times did Brian, Roger, and even Paul make it completely clear that Paul is NOT replacing Freddie?



I'm just getting used to my new exposure

Come into my enclosure

And meet my melancholy blues
dobo user not visiting Queenzone.com
dobo
Bohemian: 899 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 27 Dec 06, 06:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

1972-1991 Queen= Freddie,Roger,Brian,John
1992-1997 Queen= Roger,Brian,John
1997-2004 Queen= Roger,Brian
2004-???? Queen= Roger,Brian,Paul

1992-2004 With a guest singer


Visit The Official Kings of Queen Myspace Which I Run: http://www.myspace.com/kingsofqueenfanpage



Trade List: http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=56176
violonbleu user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 493 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 27 Dec 06, 10:30 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Because there are people who think in a bad way and people who think in a good way...But everybody thinks he thinks in the good way...as me :-)


Violonbleu
thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6256 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 27 Dec 06, 13:07 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Vilatrista wrote:

Because Freddie is irreplaceable dear,he was the ultimate performer.


It's remarks like this that make me wonder:
Have you ever ventured outside your barn?


Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6256 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 27 Dec 06, 14:35 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I need answers


I need to get laid, but I don't get that either.

My point is: life isn't always fair.


Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

Wiley user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1704 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 27 Dec 06, 19:26 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

dobo wrote:

1972-1991 Queen= Freddie,Roger,Brian,John
1992-1997 Queen= Roger,Brian,John
1997-2004 Queen= Roger,Brian
2004-???? Queen= Roger,Brian,Paul

1992-2004 With a guest singer


Interesting remarks. Pink Floyd's compilation Echoes has something like that. It says something like:

Pink Floyd is:
-Syd Barret, Roger Waters, Richard Wright and Nick Mason on tracks...
-Syd Barret, Roger Waters, David Gilmour, Richard Wright and Nick Mason on track...
-Roger Waters, David Gilmour, Richard Wright and Nick Mason on tracks...
-Roger Waters, David Gilmour and Nick Mason on tracks...
-David Gilmour, Richard Wright and Nick Mason on tracks...

5 different formations with 5 band members and it's always Floyd. This case has been brought up before and I wouldn't want to make an issue about it once again.

I don't know if there are Floyd fans that repeat over and over again "Pink Floyd RIP 1968" or "Pink Floyd RIP 1983", when each so called key member left the band.

AmeriQueen user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1072 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 30 Dec 06, 14:18 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It's a combination of 4 groups of people:

1.) Ignorant cynics who have the idea that Freddie carried the other's on his shoulder's and that using the Queen name is a couple of minor guys capitolizing on the name of the major guy. Kind of like the surviving Hendrix group calling themselves the Jimi Hendrix Experience + Slash almost. Freddie's great songs, particularly Bo Rhap, his amazing voice and piano, and above all his gargantuan level of charisma and superstar presence has led the 'Freddie is Queen' inaccurate assumptions.

2.) Whinney Queen fans who either dislike Paul Rodgers, or are still bitter that George Michael or someone else whom they would prefer to front Queen, wasn't picked instead.

3.) These gimpish retards who can apparently read and write, in spite of their having brains limited enough to actually think that this can somehow, someway tarnish the career and legacy of Freddie Mercury. These same post-labotomy patients were the ones slamming Michael Jordan for returning at age 39 to the game he loves, playing for the bottom dwelling Washington Wizards. They view his 2 playoff-missing seasons as a stain on his career, while what I noticed was that he turned 40 one day, the next evening he became the first player over 40 years old to score 40 or more in a basketball game(he scored 42, and had a few more 40 + games after if I remember correctly).

4.) Last but not least, the people whose only real problem is using the Queen name. Some view it as a disrespect almost to themselves to not acknowledge their fresh, creative 2006 group paradigm with an original new band name to represent original new music from an altered source.


I see it this way:

Is it disrespectful to use Queen's name in this? Of course not. They are playing Queen music, half of Queen is involved, and while Axl Rose is about to release a new Guns N'Roses album featuring Axl returning on Vocals, and everyone else replaced by all new, different people, Queen is acknowledging their change with an attached + Paul Rogers to it.

Are Queen capitalizing on their name? Yes, but why should they not? A) It communicates a presence and combination of mutiple members of Queen. B) True, it might mislead those who don't know better that John Deacon is involved since he is a member of Queen, but with Freddie dead, it should go without saying or concern that the Queen name today cannot factor in a living Freddie Mercury. So what's the problem there? C)And if Queen get a couple million pounds more overall than they would without drawing on the Queen name.... WELL BAD ASS!!! I hope they make Ruper Murdoch look poverty strickent by comparison of their wealth. Nobody, and I mean, NOBODY in the entertainment industry deserves flowing rivers of money than Queen's members, in my opinion at least.



The Real Wizard user is on Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18628 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 31 Dec 06, 02:41 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Excellent post, AmeriQueen. Three cheers for people with logic. Four for you.


"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca
Dan C. user not visiting Queenzone.com
Dan C.
Royalty: 1544 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 31 Dec 06, 15:15 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Logic? Hell, I thought that was booted from here LONG ago.


"The tri-tone is the Devil's interval, and he demands resolution." - Richard Lloyd
Back2TheLight user not visiting Queenzone.com
Back2TheLight
Bohemian: 639 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 02 Jan 07, 04:47 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It more or less was, but that was a damn good post AmeriQueen!! You said things that some of us just think of, but just don't for the sake of argument!! You got my vote...


I Want It All And I Want It Now!!