Hated that paul rodgers thought it'd be a good idea to say ya i can front Queen. Now whats this Lambert shit about. Disgrace the Mercury/Queen legend thinking anyone can replace him.Freddy would kick those bandmates asses if he could with all this. There is but one Queen lead singer n hes gone

[img:$uid]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/jonwolslau/cookiehd2-1-2.jpg[/img:$uid] gimme my Queen cookie plez!

[img:$uid]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/jonwolslau/disco.gif[/img:$uid]

[img:$uid]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/jonwolslau/heart.gif[/img:$uid]

[img:$uid]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/jonwolslau/queen-1.jpg[/img:$uid]

[img:$uid]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y60/jonwolslau/gruv-mobile-bg3-1-1-1-1.png[/img:$uid]

It was one sweet moment set aside for us.

Just get the 3 guys on stage n sing, i miss those harmonious voices even tho 1s missing. Cmon just once. The crowd l fill in the missing piece.Bring it back, bring it back
Don't take it away from me, because you don't know -
what it meant to me

[Edited 2/4/12 11:31am]

I agree, jon.

Freddie Mercury IS Queen (well so is Brian May, Roger Taylor and John Deacon). But Queen was Freddie's idea...

I love Freddie to bits...

I love Freddie too but if there was anyone who could "replace" him I would say it should be Adam Lambert! Since he was on Idol he has been all about Queen and his vocal range suits the songs like a glove. I love Adam! He's a rock star.

dancerella said:

I love Freddie too but if there was anyone who could "replace" him I would say it should be Adam Lambert! Since he was on Idol he has been all about Queen and his vocal range suits the songs like a glove. I love Adam! He's a rock star.

[img:$uid]http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyxbexRLVB1ql3hzzo1_500.gif[/img:$uid]

Apparently the Lambert story is a rumor. He claims they may do something but I don't know. There was only one Freddie. To me he is Queen.

Live Aid was the best live performance by any band ever period

bigd74 said:

Live Aid was the best live performance by any band ever period

They KILT it! Freddie definitely knew how to steal the show. Everyone else looked silly!

Timmy84 said:

bigd74 said:

Live Aid was the best live performance by any band ever period

They KILT it! Freddie definitely knew how to steal the show. Everyone else looked silly!

LIVE AID was the top of the mountain of performances, everyone on that bill, was not familar with playing huge crowds like that, Brian May said in the recent documentary, "we had the unfair advantage", also unknown was that Freddie was told not to play that show by his doctors, if you watch that performance Freddie had bad throat condition, and it can be heard at times, but he was a pro, and knew how to get around it. Also something brought up on this documentary was that when Queen went on tour right after this "The Magic Tour" Freddie knew deep down that this would be the end of touring, in fact walking off that stage at Knebworth for the last show, Roger Taylor said "Freddie looked as if he had enough, and that maybe he knew that he was ill at that point already"

Timmy84 said:

I agree, jon.

Freddie Mercury IS Queen (well so is Brian May, Roger Taylor and John Deacon). But Queen was Freddie's idea...

Yeah i have to diagree, not that Freddie can be replaced, but that he was QUEEN. You cant take any member out and still do what they did, Roger Taylor to me is the one that never gets props. this is the guy singing all the high parts in BR, that sound like a girl, and Brian May is so underrated as a vocalist, and John is just ignored because he didnt speak much, but he wrote the bands biggest hits.

Some great music! A bit overrated as a vocalist, but I love some Queen songs even though I do not know their catalogue in depth.

lastdecember said:

Timmy84 said:

I agree, jon.

Freddie Mercury IS Queen (well so is Brian May, Roger Taylor and John Deacon). But Queen was Freddie's idea...

Yeah i have to diagree, not that Freddie can be replaced, but that he was QUEEN. You cant take any member out and still do what they did, Roger Taylor to me is the one that never gets props. this is the guy singing all the high parts in BR, that sound like a girl, and Brian May is so underrated as a vocalist, and John is just ignored because he didnt speak much, but he wrote the bands biggest hits.

Well I did say that Brian, Roger and John represent Queen well too. It just feels incomplete with Freddie dead and John retired. It don't seem like Queen anymore.

Timmy84 said:

lastdecember said:

Yeah i have to diagree, not that Freddie can be replaced, but that he was QUEEN. You cant take any member out and still do what they did, Roger Taylor to me is the one that never gets props. this is the guy singing all the high parts in BR, that sound like a girl, and Brian May is so underrated as a vocalist, and John is just ignored because he didnt speak much, but he wrote the bands biggest hits.

Well I did say that Brian, Roger and John represent Queen well too. It just feels incomplete with Freddie dead and John retired. It don't seem like Queen anymore.

Well i agree but they have to still work, thats why whenever they work whether its with Elton or George Michael etc...its always Queen + (lead singers name) they want it known, but the brand was all of them. I feel the same about INXS though im sure the band wants Michael of course, why should they stop being a band? When Michael died he was 37 and some of that band were early 30's? Why pack it in at that point? plus with INXS they didnt even cut a record till 2005 8 years after his death, and to me they had a really good person in there but he has since been replaced by someone that is a total shift in vocals, so that is very odd.

lastdecember said:

Timmy84 said:

Well I did say that Brian, Roger and John represent Queen well too. It just feels incomplete with Freddie dead and John retired. It don't seem like Queen anymore.

Well i agree but they have to still work, thats why whenever they work whether its with Elton or George Michael etc...its always Queen + (lead singers name) they want it known, but the brand was all of them. I feel the same about INXS though im sure the band wants Michael of course, why should they stop being a band? When Michael died he was 37 and some of that band were early 30's? Why pack it in at that point? plus with INXS they didnt even cut a record till 2005 8 years after his death, and to me they had a really good person in there but he has since been replaced by someone that is a total shift in vocals, so that is very odd.

would never see Queen or Inxs w/out the Gents that lead em its a slap in the face to keep the name.

Why would Queen "need to continue work"? Ain't they all got money? Queen died on November 24, 1991. They need to let it go. Unless they were struggling with MONEY, makes no sense for them to continue right now. Same with INXS after Michael Hutchence's death. It ain't like they're the Temptations, who really did struggle with money problems, or even The Supremes. It ain't that same thing.

jon1967 said:

lastdecember said:

Well i agree but they have to still work, thats why whenever they work whether its with Elton or George Michael etc...its always Queen + (lead singers name) they want it known, but the brand was all of them. I feel the same about INXS though im sure the band wants Michael of course, why should they stop being a band? When Michael died he was 37 and some of that band were early 30's? Why pack it in at that point? plus with INXS they didnt even cut a record till 2005 8 years after his death, and to me they had a really good person in there but he has since been replaced by someone that is a total shift in vocals, so that is very odd.

would never see Queen or Inxs w/out the Gents that lead em its a slap in the face to keep the name.

totally disagree. Especially on INXS, which is one of my all time fave bands and it took me a long time to get around someone up there in his place, but reality is, that in INXS michael was brought into that band which was the "Farris Brothers" the 3 of them created that band, the sound, everything, and lets not forget INXS didnt catch here in america till the 4 record, and explode till the 6th and then america gave up on them 1 album later. I saw INXS with JD fortune at the helm and this is good on his own and with them, they didnt plug someone in his spot to make a go, i mean they have enough money from the last deal they signed in 1996 to live carefree forever, and we know that QUEEN is very close to the richest band in history and probably is.

^ In that case, why would it make sense for Queen to continue functioning? It ain't like they're scraping for gigs unless they were planning an anniversary tour or something... it makes no sense to me. It ain't like they have to fight for their reputation. Roger had his own band for a while after Freddie died. Brian became an aeropsychist. John Deacon definitely is not looking to "recapture the magic". I just can't see them continuing. Guess they're waiting for 2013 to pack it in?

i saw Inxs once, who they opened for that night i dont remember but i remember the band said MH had a cold n wasnt frontn em that night .. it sucked .. saw them at the US fest the rocked.

Timmy84 said:

Why would Queen "need to continue work"? Ain't they all got money? Queen died on November 24, 1991. They need to let it go. Unless they were struggling with MONEY, makes no sense for them to continue right now. Same with INXS after Michael Hutchence's death. It ain't like they're the Temptations, who really did struggle with money problems, or even The Supremes. It ain't that same thing.

So families that lose parents should change their names? Or if a brother or sister dies than life is over? I never got this analogy especially from fans that werent their at the beginning, i dug INXS from 1979, that first crappy album (which proves they got better with age) INXS members were in their early 30's, also at the time, Michaels death still ruled suicide, was stupid and careless, and in their case this band was "The farris Brothers" then Michael was brought into it, that sound was not created by Michael, yes he was one of the best frontmen ever, as was Freddie, and just because someone is there now, doesnt mean they are replaced, thats the fans theory. Trust me when i saw INXS with JD people were digging it, they werent cursing this guy out for being there, nor were they booing the band for continuing to live when one choose not to.

i think inxs opened for prince in 83 at the long beach arena LB ca

Timmy84 said:

^ In that case, why would it make sense for Queen to continue functioning? It ain't like they're scraping for gigs unless they were planning an anniversary tour or something... it makes no sense to me. It ain't like they have to fight for their reputation. Roger had his own band for a while after Freddie died. Brian became an aeropsychist. John Deacon definitely is not looking to "recapture the magic". I just can't see them continuing. Guess they're waiting for 2013 to pack it in?

John retired and had Freddie still been alive im sure that would have happend anyway. They are musicians, they play, why should they sit on their asses and get old and die? so what they dont have to worry about money, they are entitled, i mean they got ripped off the first 10 years of their career, they are owed plenty. John walked away and as Brian said it was his choice, he doesnt want to do the music scene, regardless of the name of the band, but John has gone on record as saying i give my blessing to what Brian and Roger do.

Having a charismatic front man makes all the difference lol

It's like going to a Doors concert without Jim Morrison and they tried to go on without him but it wasn't the same and they disbanded in 1973. So they were smart to end it when they did. Should've ended right after Jim was reported dead in Paris in 1971.

Of course people think because Queen were equal partners that it's kinda understandable they continued but in hindsight it wasn't.

Of course the front man is not the only reason for bands functioning. When John Bonham died in 1980, Led Zeppelin decided they couldn't carry on and that was partially because there had been growing tension between the band mates for a while, particularly between John Paul Jones and Robert Plant. When The Who's Keith Moon died, they tried carrying on and while they continued to have successful tours, the energy that Keith brought to it was taken from them after his death. Then it got worse when John Entwistle died. And now that Pete has tintius (sp?), the Who are pretty much over too.

The Rolling Stones wouldn't have continued if Mick or Keith left. When Mick and Keith started having issues in the '80s, they halted everything and focused on side projects until the Hall of Fame in 1989.

INXS wasn't that unique to me. Queen had more of a complete package: Freddie, Brian, Roger, John.

They each brought something to the table that they may not have done if with other groups or as solo artists (Freddie's weaknesses shown in his solo projects). It's just interesting how groups work.

Which is why I can't understand why one would wanna continue the band at all.

Timmy84 said:

Having a charismatic front man makes all the difference lol

It's like going to a Doors concert without Jim Morrison and they tried to go on without him but it wasn't the same and they disbanded in 1973. So they were smart to end it when they did. Should've ended right after Jim was reported dead in Paris in 1971.

Of course people think because Queen were equal partners that it's kinda understandable they continued but in hindsight it wasn't.

Of course the front man is not the only reason for bands functioning. When John Bonham died in 1980, Led Zeppelin decided they couldn't carry on and that was partially because there had been growing tension between the band mates for a while, particularly between John Paul Jones and Robert Plant. When The Who's Keith Moon died, they tried carrying on and while they continued to have successful tours, the energy that Keith brought to it was taken from them after his death. Then it got worse when John Entwistle died. And now that Pete has tintius (sp?), the Who are pretty much over too.

The Rolling Stones wouldn't have continued if Mick or Keith left. When Mick and Keith started having issues in the '80s, they halted everything and focused on side projects until the Hall of Fame in 1989.

INXS wasn't that unique to me. Queen had more of a complete package: Freddie, Brian, Roger, John.

They each brought something to the table that they may not have done if with other groups or as solo artists (Freddie's weaknesses shown in his solo projects). It's just interesting how groups work.

Which is why I can't understand why one would wanna continue the band at all.

Well every band is different, some want to play and some dont, but to say that all should quit when someone leaves as a rule of law i cant buy into. And a few more examples of this

People say Journey should quit now that Steve Perry is gone??? Really Steve Perry was a replacement singer, he wasnt an original member to begin with, now it appears with that, we just want the guy that made the hits WE LIKE, and that is something different.

Styx still continue and make new albums tour worlwide (which they rarely did with Dennis) now Dennis De Young has been out of STYX since 1999, and that can be debated all day about HOW he was the band, when he wasnt, now true he was one of the 3 founding members, but truth be told this band didnt start catching on till Tommy Shaw joined, and now he is their along with 2 of the original members and the drummer that joined in 1995 and Styx's original drummer John Panozzo died in 1996. Now in STYX's case that name is owned by them, they have gone back and "regenerated" alot of the old material, and released it and erased Dennis DeYoung's name from all of their STYX product, if you go to styx's timeline on their website Dennis is not even a member. So that might be shitty, but there were alot of other issues with them, and honestly to me now, STYX is a better sounding band than they were, not slightling Deyong and the original drummer, but Todd Sucherman (drummer) is one of the best on the planet, check him on Youtube and see. so bands can improve too.

Paul Rodgers is an excellent blues/rock singer but he didn't fit, sorry ass experiment, a bit sad even...

George Michael would have been perfect...

oh and Queen always was an EPIC band live, their albums are a bit sorry (for me, their only flawless classic is Night at the Opera), but the live performances and the singles were top-notch

the DVD LIVE AT WEMBLEY 1986 is just one of the best live DVDs I own, perhaps the best one...

[Edited 2/6/12 9:39am]

Timmy84 said:

Why would Queen "need to continue work"? Ain't they all got money? Queen died on November 24, 1991. They need to let it go.

Oh, do they? Why? Maybe it's also not about the money, but the love about performing and doing things together!? And why would they choose small venues, when they also could play big arenas when they use the name Queen?

PatrickS77 said:

Timmy84 said:

Why would Queen "need to continue work"? Ain't they all got money? Queen died on November 24, 1991. They need to let it go.

Oh, do they? Why? Maybe it's also not about the money, but the love about performing and doing things together!? And why would they choose small venues, when they also could play big arenas when they use the name Queen?

with the amazing technology available today, it would be interesting (great, actually) to do a tour with pre-recorded images/voice of Freddie

perhaps it would be too damn expensive, who knows...

lastdecember said:

Timmy84 said:

Why would Queen "need to continue work"? Ain't they all got money? Queen died on November 24, 1991. They need to let it go. Unless they were struggling with MONEY, makes no sense for them to continue right now. Same with INXS after Michael Hutchence's death. It ain't like they're the Temptations, who really did struggle with money problems, or even The Supremes. It ain't that same thing.

So families that lose parents should change their names? Or if a brother or sister dies than life is over? I never got this analogy especially from fans that werent their at the beginning,

Yeah! It's annoying, people telling other people how they should go about with their lives and careers. Bad enough that Freddie died and their careers pretty much was torn out from under their asses. They have every right to continue in every way they see fit. They have earned that right.

And as for it being a bad idea to go on tour with Paul Rodgers, I disagree. It was great seeing them together. I don't care for their album, but the live show was pretty cool! I was glad to finally see Brian and Roger live. I do hope they will go on tour again, I hope though not with that Lambert guy... they shouldn't go out with some casting wannabe, who could be their grandson.

[Edited 2/6/12 10:41am]

JoeTyler said:

PatrickS77 said:

Oh, do they? Why? Maybe it's also not about the money, but the love about performing and doing things together!? And why would they choose small venues, when they also could play big arenas when they use the name Queen?

with the amazing technology available today, it would be interesting (great, actually) to do a tour with pre-recorded images/voice of Freddie

perhaps it would be too damn expensive, who knows...

Yeah, that would be interesting... they had a couple of videos of him during the show, Bijou and Bohemian Rhapsody. But, if they would do a full show with him, I guess some people would also be offended. Somebody should write Brian and ask him what he thinks about that.