(From BrianMay.com)

As reported by VH1 Classic Radio News:
1 May 09

Next month, Paul Rodgers and the rest of Bad Company will reunite for a tour. The trek, however, is just ten dates, leading many to question why it is so short. Is Paul afraid to travel for fear of catching the Swine Flu? He explained the real reason behind the smaller trek.

“Well, you know, I’ve travelled and I’m not worried about stuff like that. I usually find, to be honest with you, that most of those things are exaggerated way out of proportion. You know, I’m not afraid to travel, it’s just I want to be able to focus more on waking up in one place and working on music, I think really, and that’s really the reason. I think next year I’ll probably be touring my brains out.

The next time Rodgers tours, it probably won’t be with Queen. After spending a lot of time with them the past couple years, it seems he’s amicable parted ways with the legendary group.

“Well, you know, we did a world tour, we did a second tour of Europe and the Far East and Eastern Europe and we did a studio album and I think we’re kind of leaving it there gently. It’s out there for us to do things in the future if there’s something, a huge charity say like Nelson Mandela, I’m always open to that, but I think we are pretty much done.

Fans can see Paul and the rest of Bad Company when the group kicks off their reunion tour on June 20th in Charlotte, North Carolina. For all the dates, head to BadCompany.com.

Source: VH1 CLASSIC RADIO

It was a bad idea from the beginning. Reforming Queen with Paul Rodgers is like having The JImi Hendrix Experience without Jimi Hendrix.

Love him or hate him, Freddie Mercury was a dynamic showman and could not be replaced. Maybe Roger Taylor & Brian May were better served following the model of John Deacon and stay out of Queen related projects. Made in Heaven was a good ending to the Freddie Mercury incarnation of Queen, but to have toured with Queen + Paul Rodgers was not a really good idea.

It was gonna happen sooner or later.

COMPUTERBLUE1984 said:

No it was not! And the thousands who enjoyed the Queen + Paul Rodgers shows will agree! Brian and Roger were part of Queen too, they were the founding members and it was well within their right to pick up the pieces after a respectful break of 14 years, where they tried other stuff! Freddie died and put a screeching halt to their careers, Brian and Roger still live and it was the right thing to finally come back as Queen+! While Paul Rodgers is no Freddie Mercury the shows were still great... and I'm glad they did it, as I never got a chance to see the real and original Queen in concert! And I'm not convinced that this is really the definite end for them!
[Edited 5/10/09 16:35pm]

PatrickS77 said:

Yeah i totally agree, this has always been a raging debate about groups going after losing their singer, people always forget what the others are feeling, what the others brought to the group and also the relations the others still have with each other.

Tommy Shaw of Styx said this back in 2000 when Dennis DeYoung left and got replaced by Lawrence Gowan. Tommy said how Dennis just wanted to be like Brian Wilson and make music and sit home and never play, well it dont work like that, So Tommy and the others made a choice and like it or not they went on.

And thats what others like Queen and Inxs have the TOTAL right to do, they arent trying to replace, we as fans sometimes are getting in the habit of thinking that THEY are trying to replace, but they arent, dont you think Brian and Roger would trade Paul Rodgers for Freddie Mercury right now if they could? I mean come on, but i also feel its THEIR RIGHT to still live....i mean if you lose a family member do you change your last name and stop existing? No

PatrickS77 said:

Here's the thing. Roger & Brian ONLY, does not constitute Queen. I had no issue with them working together again. Great, that's there job, they're musicians, they're friends. But to use the name Queen was just a cynical opportunist stunt designed to inflate both their egos & ticket sales. No matter which way you slice it, it was not Queen.

I think John's silence, which they strangely took as an 'OK', speaks volumes. Let's not forget his thoughts on the 'Queen' & Robbie Williams collaboration.

I sincerely hope this story is true. Having a man pushing 60 embarrassingly wearing leather pants muscle tops vomit over Queen songs for 5 years is more than enough for me.

TyphoonTip said:

You stated it better than I could. Its not about them working together again that bothered me, just the use of the name Queen that did.

COMPUTERBLUE1984 said:

Again why shouldnt they? they were just as resposible for the writing and success as Freddie was, its a name, that THEY all created, just like INXS did and they had EVERY right to go out with the name, they arent tarnishing anything
they respect the work with Freddie Mercury more than anything, and in both cases of QUEEN and INXS both bands have alot of money, Queen being one of the richest franchises around, they were not doing it for money, they are musicians tand they want to play, who are we to say THEY cant play the songs they wrote, and use the band name they were part of, its not like Freddie got booted from the group, Freddie was the one who told them prior to dieing that he wanted to get in as much work with them so they could carry on, and that he wanted them to work after he was gone. Both of these bands are faced with the issue of losing someone that was part of their worlds for 20-30 years, it was more than a lead singer, it was a brother, and sorry but FANS cant make the call on what they should do with the rest of their lives. Until we are in their shoes and are faced with this, then we can offer a legit opinion.

lastdecember said:

To begin with, to use INXS as another example, or as a defence, is pretty feeble. This is a band that turned to a reality TV show to revive a dead career. They have no credibility, and if this is your idea of respectfully 'carrying on', then I'm quite content to leave this little debate here. I know where you stand.

Now to Queen. Freddie never gave them permission to keep going. Nothing of the sort. Sure he recorded a very small amount of material post Innuendo. But even then there was no overt instruction to do anything with it. Brian, Roger and producer David Richards said this on numerous occasions after Freddie died. The decision to cut and paste Made In Heaven was made to tie up the final chapter of Queen. This was stated by ALL THREE remaining members of Queen during the promotion of that album.

It also apparently took quite a bit of persuading to get John to participate in the 'No-one But You' single. The fact that it was for charity got him over the line; because according to Roger, John's attitude was that Queen was finished. Now John has rarely spoken to the media in the last 20 years, however given that he publicly stated that he wasn't happy with the Queen & Robbie Williams collaboration, particularly the use of the name Queen, it doesn't take much guess work to imagine what he thought of Q + PR. This is despite Brian & Roger's interpretation of his silence as acquiescence.

The one point you alluded to, that I do agree with, is that Queen, more than most bands, were 4 headstrong individuals. Each member had a hand in writing, producing, and even management. Everything Queen did occurred only after a lot of arguing and compromise between all four members. This fact is something that was brought up in almost every Queen interview up to 1991, and has also been confirmed by producers like David Richards, Mack, Roy Thomas Baker etc.... Brian & Roger, Brian particularly, articulated this in a number of interviews just after Freddie died. He emphasised the above point, and also that without the chemistry of the four of them, it would be impossible for Queen to exist.

So this is what Brian & Roger have done. They have assumed that Freddie would have been happy with recent events. Despite the fact that John clearly thinks otherwise. Also despite the fact that 20 years of Queen's history of bickering shows that Freddie was not only unpredictable, but clearly had different ideas to the other members as to how things should be presented. So for Brian and Roger to suddenly emerge 5 years ago and say that Q + PR would have had Freddie's blessing is simply ridiculous. Even they wouldn't have believed that 15 years ago.

Queen was something that was created by four people. Not one or two. So it's those four that have the right to decide it's fate. In the end what we have is two members wanting it one way, one descent-er, and one not able to contribute, and thus an assumption made of his behalf.

That is not Queen.

TyphoonTip said:

Amen!

I mean, I probably wouldn't have had a problem if the trio went out under a different name (was there really a point to using the name Queen? Did they think that Queen fans wouldn't know that Brian & Roger weren't doing something else?). It would be like the Edge and Adam Clayton touring without Larry after Bono dies and calling themselves U2. Fail.

"Ain't nothing like the real thing".

TyphoonTip said:

How do you know?? Do you know what they talked about in the months leading up to his death?? And does he have to give his permission?? Again, he was dying, not the others!


Well, I heard different at the time of release... that he went right into the studio again after Innuendo to give them more material... also by the original members!


Well, that's also well within his right to think that, as it's within Brian and Rogers right to carry on... when Alec John Such decided that he had enough of Bon Jovi, should that band have stopped or when Bill Wyman decided to quit the Stones??


And yet you're only guessing! According to Brian and Roger he's fine with QPR! Besides Paul Rodgers is not Robbie Williams!


It's more ridiculous of you to say whether Freddie would have been fine with it or not... hell, you didn't even know the guy! Brian and Roger knew Freddie for 20 years... so I guess they are in a position to judge what Freddie would think about the situtation... and just because John, supposedly, doesn't want to play with anyone else, other than Freddie, doesn't mean that Freddie would feel the same! And the fact that John just simply retired from music altogether doesn't really say that much what he thinks about Brian and Roger continuing! It would be a different story, if he would still be making music, but refusing to join the others!


Well, one thing is for sure, you have even less right to decide their fate!

Rogue588 said:

Well, they go out under a different name... they call themselves "Queen + Paul Rodgers"! Why should they ommitt the name Queen, when they go out and play 80 percent of Queen material?? Just to make some "fans", who think they have a right to tell Brian and Roger what to do, happy??

PatrickS77 said:

I'm going to ignore my "reply to "response posts" only if they have 3 or less exclamation points" rule and say this...

Queen was four people - Freddie Mercury, Brian May, Roger Taylor & John Deacon. End of story.

They should "ommitt" the name in honor of two of the four band members not wanting to/being able to participate in the band. Instead, Brian & Roger felt they could both capitalize on the name "Queen" and use it to invoke nostalgia and whatever else the four members of the band had done for twenty-some odd years (ya know, kinda like they do in Hollywood with all those remakes and "reimaginations"?).

And, please, for the love of pete stop telling us that we can't make the call on deciding their lives or some other such nonsense. We know that. This is a messageboard. A forum for discussion. We have opinions. Might not be the same as yours. Heck, it might not even be the same as the subject in question, but the opinions are still ours. And just as valid.

PatrickS77 said:

Brian and Roger consistently contradict themselves & each other when it comes the 'John' issue. You clearly need to do a lot more research ...about Queen & Freddie generally.

In the end these are the facts. Queen were four people. And it's these four people that have the right to decide Queen's fate. Not any one of them. Not any two of them. No doubt that's a shame for Brian & Roger. But unfortunately that's life. Unfortunately they have chosen to be selfish and tarnish the Queen legacy.

In my opinion, even without Freddie, they could still go on, but just not using Queen. Maybe if they re-named themselves and continued on with their future projects it would not be recall that the group is not complete. If they continue going by Queen, that recalls to mind the entire group of Queen, Freddie included. An example of when Kurt Cobain passed, the group went on without him as Foo Fighters, they had no choice, but if they continued as Nirvana, that would NOT be the same. Just like Journey without Steve Perry is NOT Journey to me.

TyphoonTip said:

Where do they contradict themselves? They pretty much said the same things over the years that John is not interested in Queen anymore, but happy when the checks come in! And regardless of what anyone thinks... it's Brian and Roger who work to keep Queen the band in the public's eyes! John walked away from it all almost 20 years ago and retired at 40!

And stop telling people what they "need" to do, as we certainly don't need and take your advice! Thank you!

FutureGirl said:

Again, why should they, when their set mostly consists of Queen stuff... why should they be forced to start from scratch just because some people have a stick up their ass and think the can decide over the fate of other people?


Bad and stupid example! Kurt Cobain was the brain of Nirvana... Novoselic and especially Grohl were not much more than employees!

PatrickS77 said:

LOL you do not need to take this topic or anyones opinion so seriously. I am not deciding anything for them, I am only stating MY opinion and how I feel about this matter, which I am allowed to do. Thank you Patricks77 for sharing yours. Life does go on no matter what you think or what I think, they will do what they have planned no matter what.

FutureGirl said:

Yes! And that's the great thing! Whatever they decide to do won't tarnish the reputation of Queen, as it is only an addition to what they've already have accomplished... take it or leave it!
[Edited 5/11/09 9:05am]

it's always been an awful idea.

THis was not Queen for me. Made In Heaven was okay, because they used unreleased or solo recordings with FM's voice.

Now, touring is a whole different thing. As if the Beatles would have gone on tour in 1996 - without some JL replacement...

actionthisday said:

THEY SHOULDA GOT GEORGE MICHAEL IN THE FIRST FU**IN' PLACE!!!!!
FREDDIE MERCURY REST IN PEACE.....

They are not Queen without Freddie Mercury. They should have toured under a new name. Same with Guns N' Roses and INXS.

Now - for a band like Van Halen, the band is named after the guitarist (and the drummer too, actually) so they can tour forever if the Van Halen brothers are in the band.

Michael Anthony (the original bassist) left the band, and Wolfgang Van Halen took the spot. So, one could argue that they are MORE Van Halen than before!

TyphoonTip said:

Actually INXS is a perfect example and sorry but you know nothing of what they have done. Pick up the book "Story to Story" written by the band, not some tabloid talking shit or some magazine writer who knows a few hits and one album. INXS success had leveled out here in america but they had just signed a 30 million dollar deal with UNI when they starting touring and then there was Michaels accidental death. The band then did nothing musically as INXS from 1997-2005 with the exception of one-off benefit shows with Terence Trent D Arby and Jon Stevens. If INXS wanted to cash in or revive a dead career, then they would have done this show a year after Michael died, not 8, and also this show was a sham, the lead singer was picked before they even started competition, INXS have said this themselves, once they met JD they wanted him in, however, after awhile JD had the same issues that plagued Michael, and thats cool when you are in your 20's but the members of INXS are all in their later 40's and dont need another singer dieing on them, so he got graceful handshake.

As for John Deacon, both Roger and Brian have said, he gave his approval to everything, after all he gets a check to, hes owner of the name also, John basically did not wanna play anymore, with anyone.

PatrickS77 said:

A few things...

1) You clearly don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Queen. (i.e. Factual information. Things that people in (& outside) the band actually said and did.)

2) You obviously don't read posts before responding to them.

3) As another poster has pointed out, for you, this has turned into a personal issue. Your posts seem to be just as much about attacking me as they are the points I'm making.

I seem to remember a similar ridiculous exchange with you regarding MJ's Invincible album; with you saying that I was wrong for 'thinking' the album was a steaming pile of horse shit.

I should've learned my lesson then. I have now. I'm off to listen to Living Colour's cover of 'Talkin' Loud & Sayin' Nothin', and I imagine you will go on listening to Invincible and The Cosmos Rocks convincing yourself they're both great albums.

Cheers.
[Edited 5/11/09 18:34pm]

TyphoonTip said:

First of all never talked on any MJ thread, dont care for the guy at all, and think that he treats his fans like shit for false rumours over the last decade, so you are thinking of someone else, dont care about him at all.

As for Queen, both Brian and Roger were quoted as saying that John decided to not go on tour but gave his blessing, if John is saying other things now, well so be it, but Brian and Roger are on record as saying what they did, but i guess the two of them are lying, but for the record John wanted out way back even when Freddie was alive, going into the MIRACLE recordings, which is also documented.

AS for INXS, calling them a feeble excuse bothers me because its a similar circumstance, they didnt use the show, the show used them, the show CAME TO THEM, JD was already picked, but under the contract they had to do this show to launch him , this is all well documented within their book and current interviews and JD's interviews.

As for dead careers, well Queen outside of Hits collections were dead in america with the exception of waynes world's spoof, they hadnt mattered here since 1983, something Roger Taylor said going into the Miracle record, he said that they were "too busy selling everywhere else"

As for knowing about Queen and Inxs, i know plenty, so you got the wrong person on that, as for INXS im guessing that 98% of this forum know nothing else unless it came from KICK and yet wanna dictate what they should do.

And for the last thing, what this thread is about. Simply put its up to the band, not us, the only way we can say we KNOW is if we are in their place and have gone through it, sorry, but just tossing up ideas like, they are doing it for the money, well guess what EVERYONE does things for money, why do you wake up and go to work? Secondly you cannot tarnish something you have created, i dont care if INXS let Vanessa Hudgens front the band for an album IT WOULD NOT TARNISH WHAT THEY DID, nor would it if Queen uses Paul Rodgers, George Michael, Elton John or whomever they choose to do shows, albums, whatever, the legacy is their and cannot be taken from them, unless we want to say its tarnished, if thats the case, then we have to look within and wonder why we are trying to take something away from people that all worked for things.

Psssst...i'm pretty sure Typhoon was talking to PatrickS. Ya know, the one he quoted...

Oh, and the one with MJ as his avatar.

And, also, do you really think Brian & Roger would go on record saying "Well, yeah, we ran the idea of hiring PR by him. He told us to fuck off, but we said "F-that noise! We're 2/4ths of Queen, man!""




Yeah, I don't think so either...

Rogue588 said:

Gotcha read it wrong, my apologies....still say INXS is a good examp;e however, not a feeble one

TyphoonTip said:

Hmm, I think I know just enough! Thanks!


I do read the posts, that's the problem!


I'm not sure how you got on that plane! I don't even remember ever talking to you, so much for it being "personal"! I just think it's ridicilous when some "fans" or whatever people think that they have the right to tell others what is the right thing to do for them!


I do remember that... but when you're wrong, you're just simply wrong!


I never said, that Invincible is a great album, I'm merely saying that it's not as bad as everyone makes it out to be! There are some good songs on the album! And for the record, even though I enjoyed the QPR shows, I personally think that Cosmos rocks is a bland and boring album and has not much to do with the Queen sound we know, but still I wouldn't go as far as calling it "a steaming pile of horse shit" just because I happen to not like it for whatever reasons!

lastdecember said:

Amen!