Queen to tour again

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
John has been involved in the musical We Will Rock You though... Not as heavily as Brian and Roger, but he has approved of it.
 
Dutch Partygirl said:
John has been involved in the musical We Will Rock You though... Not as heavily as Brian and Roger, but he has approved of it.

Ah...now THAT I didnt mind. That was a celebration of the life of the band, and their wonderful music. I saw it in London when it was first out, and loved it.:wink:
 
Is it really that good? I haven't seen it yet. I was in London a couple of weeks ago and I was in doubt over wether to go and see it... I didn't...
 
Queen should hire Sammy Hagar to sing...then in a few years when that doesn't work out replace him with Gary Cherone, then when that tanks they could re-enlist Sammy after a failed reunion attempt with Freddie's corpse.

(Actually Cherone would seem a better vocal fit than Paul Rodgers, but what do I know)
 
Ugh, this is shit. Queen WAS Freddie Mercury. I consider Freddie to be a better singer than Bono, and that's saying something. You just cannot replace one of the best vocalists that ever lived. I don't know if they're doing it for the money or what, but it is seriously a load of shit.

I love Queen, yet I'm really questioning this decision. It would be like U2 replacing Bono. I honestly hope no one goes to see them on this tour.
 
I'm with the 'No Queen without Freddie' crowd :up:

I saw Queen 3 times in concert and they were fantastic. Probably the first band that I really fell in love with...

I need to go look at my old concert programs now.
 
I'd like to clarify something up though.

By saying that Queen can't go on without Freddie I don't mean that the remaining three members aren't talented. They are massively talented (just read the credits on the CD's; each of them plays a couple of other instruments and Roger and Brian do wicked backing vocals and sometimes even lead vocals) but without the enormous force that was Freddie Mercury it really isn't Queen anymore.

A frontman that phenomenal is irreplaceable.
 
Last edited:
BrownEyedBoy said:
I'd like to clarify something up though.

By saying that Queen can't go on without Freddie I don't mean that the remaining three members aren't talented. They are massively talented (just read the credits on the CD's; each of them plays a couple of other instruments and Roger and Brian do wicked backing vocals and sometimes even lead vocals) but without the enormous force that was Freddie Mercury it really isn't Queen anymore.

A frontman that phenomenal is irreplaceable.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Brian May is an incredible musician and should continue making music but Freddie Mecury was larger than life and simply can't be replaced.

Continue on as the Brian May Band or something as someone suggested but not as Queen.
 
Aardvark747 said:
I enjoyed it a lot really. I wouldnt go and see any of the other ones like Rod Stewarts or Abba's. This was an exception. And it wasnt at all bad.:wink:

I would fear for the Rod Stewart musical too. But the Abba one (Mamma Mia!) was great! :up: Saw it about three months ago (the Dutch version) and was pleasantly surprised. Great songs, good fit with the storyline. Only the ending was a bit too much slapstick...

Still, I can recommend it if you like Abba songs (a bit).

[/useless sidestep]
 
Dutch Partygirl said:


Brian May did do two tours with the Brian May Band and he played Queen songs during those tours. But have you ever heard him sing lead vocals?? It's awful... I'd rather hear Paul Rodgers sing them then.

I'm not too keen on this either, but I am very interested to see where this will be going...

I disagree. I think his voice, while not as powerful and without the range of Freddie's, isn't horrible. His voice seems so fragile on songs like "Love Of My Life", that it's hard to not feel the emotion in his voice. He is no match for Freddie on rockers like "Hammer To Fall", but I think he's far from awful....
 
Nate Dogg said:


I disagree. I think his voice, while not as powerful and without the range of Freddie's, isn't horrible. His voice seems so fragile on songs like "Love Of My Life", that it's hard to not feel the emotion in his voice. He is no match for Freddie on rockers like "Hammer To Fall", but I think he's far from awful....

I also like Brian May's vocals! :up: Specially on I Want It All. Yeah, he's defenitly not Freddie but I think he can handle some songs. I read somewhere that his solo records were pretty good.
 
TheBrazilianFly said:


I also like Brian May's vocals! :up: Specially on I Want It All. Yeah, he's defenitly not Freddie but I think he can handle some songs. I read somewhere that his solo records were pretty good.

His solo records are pretty good! Not a bad thing to say about them. But Brian is only good at backingvocals and recording vocals in the studio. I have seen the Brian May Band live several times and he just can't sing most of the songs live. Try listening to the live album that the Brian May band released...
 
I love Brian's solo stuff. THAT'S what he should stick to now. Not trying to re-form Queen. It cant ever happen, no matter what he says. I WILL NOT be attending one of these dates in the UK. No way. I really hope John sticks to his guns, and refuses to have any involvement in this.
 
I like it how he said "Queen and Dave Rodgers".

I don't think he means it like "Queen again", but it's rather "a new Queen".

Of course Mercury (and Hutchence) were amazing singers and they are hardest to replace in bands, but if the rest of the members agree and if they do find someone who is a really good singer (I haven't heard Rodgers or whoever INXS will pick yet), I say, why not?

REM go on without Berry.
Doors go on without Morrison. (I like Astbury's voice)
The Who go on without Moon and Entwistle.
Metallica and Red hot chili peppers both lost members and they still play, to say nothing of Rolling Stones.

It doesn't have to end.
 
U2girl said:
I like it how he said "Queen and Dave Rodgers".

I don't think he means it like "Queen again", but it's rather "a new Queen".

Of course Mercury (and Hutchence) were amazing singers and they are hardest to replace in bands, but if the rest of the members agree and if they do find someone who is a really good singer (I haven't heard Rodgers or whoever INXS will pick yet), I say, why not?


Doors go on without Morrison. (I like Astbury's voice)
The Who go on without Moon and Entwistle.
Metallica and Red hot chili peppers both lost members and they still play, to say nothing of Rolling Stones.

It doesn't have to end.

Doors of the 21st century is a tribute band
The Who , Rolling Stones released their real stuff 20 / 15 years ago
Metallica and RHCP has the same core of players , + the spirit of those bands is more flexible ,
 
AFAIK, Doors now is made of the same members they had in the 60's minus Jim Morrison, now Ian Astbury.
What do you mean tribute band? They even kept the name.

As for the rest, splitting hairs. Missing member is a missing member.
 
Last edited:
U2girl said:
AFAIK, Doors now is made of the same members they had in the 60's minus Jim Morrison, now Ian Astbury.
John Densmore is not involved either.
And they label themselves, "The Doors, 21st Century"
 
GibsonGirl said:
Queen WAS Freddie Mercury. I consider Freddie to be a better singer than Bono, and that's saying something. You just cannot replace one of the best vocalists that ever lived.


:up: Why can't they just change their name or perform another tribute concert? Calling the band Queen (after adding a new singer) without Freddie is just plain wrong. :mad: This is damaging the band's reputation.



Most of my rock heroes have passed on:
Freddie Mercury :sad:
Jim Morrison :sad:
Kurt Cobain :sad:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom