not logged in
| re: The irony of this in light of my views on TMiL isn't lost on me, and really only sinking in now. lol n/m | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 07:01 pm UTC 04/10/07 |
| In reply to: | re: The irony of this in light of my views on TMiL isn't lost on me, and really only sinking in now. ... - Marvello 02:10 pm UTC 04/10/07 |
> > > Queen, hmm, Paul Rodgers hmm. > One must remember that however great Queen were, they were > always bigger than the constituent parts. That seems so true. Even "I'm In Love With My Car", was so resplendent, and probably anywhere else, by any other band, would be one of those trash cuts on a mediocre album. I remember thinking that, it was so great where it was and who it was performed by, but that it would be odd anywhere else. It was one of my favorite songs to hear but there wasn't a Queen cut that wasn't, until Bicycles. At that point, I was wondering what was going on, like a muse was lost. > Since Freddie died John,Brian & Roger have had very little > success in the charts. It's always hard to replace a > frontman, ACDC managed it but i believe trotting the Queen > name out without Freddie would be wrong. Freddie was the front man, sure, but as far as we know, he also wrote the most successful songs. May, Taylor and Deacon can write and perform, and Freddie wrote more. Freddie's name is all over the credits for songwriting. What does that actually mean to the band after he's gone and they have to keep up the catalogue? If John, Roger and Brian want to start with all new songs, then I agree that they should start up as a new band and Paul Rodgers could front it. What of the possibility that to use Freddie's songs, they have to use the name "Queen"? Is there some possible legal wrangling about this whole thing? I also not that > the recent PR/Queen concerts, PR tended to sing mostly the > Queen' conventional rock songs and bypassed most of the > more operatic vocals. I noticed the same thing in the recordings. Do you think that PR decided to take on the challenge without stretching to the vocal heights expected in the other songs? Or maybe they don't think that they could come close. Or there could be other reasons we couldn't know. I always wonder the question, why Paul Rodgers, other than that generally he is well liked and has a good vocal reputation, and I wonder, how Paul Rodgers can actually fill in those highly demanding gaps? David Bowie would be so much the better choice if they wanted to find a name to fit in, imho. Bowie wrote and recorded with Mercury, and they had a good understanding of each other it seems. Was this one of the things discussed openly prior to the new lineup? Paul Rodgers is brave, and maybe not ready for the tar and feathers if his voice were to be compared on Bohemian Rhapsody no matter who wrote it. It is hard to fight a reputation. > If they have the intention of touring an album of new > material i think the Queen name should be shelved, maybe > go with Rodgers, May & Taylor Yes I agree. I think I mentioned that above too. Then I also wonder if they took a new name, would they have to abandon the old catalog, at least Freddie's part? | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: The irony of this in light of my views on TMiL isn't lost on me, and really only sinking in now. ... - Marvello 02:10 pm UTC 04/10/07 |
| Next: | re: NJC: Queen + Paul Rodgers - Lordy 03:35 pm UTC 04/05/07 |
| Thread: | |