I think the market will decide.

This isn't really news, is it? Paul Rodgers joined up with Queen in 2004. They've done a couple of tours, a live album, a DVD and a couple of singles since then. They're also billed as 'Queen + Paul Rodgers', rather than just 'Queen'.

is that they are bringing out an album of new material. I can't realy see why they shouldn't if they want to.

I went to see this three legged dog when they played in Dublin and I had a great night. All the sing along, punch the air moments you could want. My only problem was my arm was in a sling at the time so I spent half the night looking for someone in a similar state so we could club together for Radio Ga-Ga but it wasn't to be.

Never liked Freddy Mercury or those squally guitar solos, so my tip would be junk the curly one as well, and there's a chance of a decent outcome. O, and don't let the drummer sing, either.

toured recently. So did "Thin Lizzy".

It used to amuse how the likes of The Temptations and The Four Tops would tour with virtually no original members. Well, pretty soon it will be the bands I loved.

If we don't want to buy a ticket we don't have to. That's why I say that the market will decide. If these three guys can still sell tickets, that means there's a demand. If they can't they'll give up. Probably.
Think of the life of a band. It begins in obscurity. If they're lucky it enjoys a brief period of success and then for one reason or another slides slowly in obscurity. If in the course of that one of them dies or leaves I don't think that brief period of success means that the rest of them have to give up. And they particularly shouldn't do it just because some person who once bought a few of their records finds the idea embarrassing. If you don't like it, look the other way. Don't stop them working. It's their life, not yours.
What if the members of Fleetwood Mac had taken the same decision after Peter Green and Jeremy Spencer had gone out of the tent? And it's no use saying that they were justified because they subsbeuently sold millions of records. It's a job. It's more difficult than the jobs that most of us do, involves more humiliation and uncertainty, offers no pension plan and pays far less money than most of us think.
Leave 'em alone. I won't be going but lots of people will.

This used to be a friendly place where men come together and talk bollocks.

And leave Queen alone. They mean you no harm. If you don't like them, don't concern yourself. Instead, spend the money you've saved by not buying the album on cat food and leg dressings for your friend and put on some music you DO like.

do I have to stop working as well? Or is it just members of successful bands that have to do that? Seems like BS to me. Good luck to them.

...I'll add something to this thread. Had no problem with this as a touring entity- I saw the DVD and it was enjoyable, if slightly 'piecemeal' as Paul Rodgers was coming on and off the stage at various intervals. However, new material is something else for me- I think Queen's sound was SO tied to Freddie's vocals I wonder how they could ever overcome it. Bands I love from that period like Genesis and Yes replaced their vocalist (but when Trevor Horn replaced Jon Anderson, he sang just like Jon Anderson anyway!) but their sound was more tied to the music than the vocals, in my opinion. It's just that bit different for Queen...

However, I'll still definitely buy the album and am willing to be proved wrong. That new single 'Say It's Not True' didn't do it for me but I already knew that as that track had been around a while in some form as they played it in concerts.

As for the music press' relationship with them, I've always been baffled by it. Queen's only 'crime' was being immensely popular and yet they got a huge lot of scorn thrown at them- that NME headline shouting 'Is this man a prat?' with Freddie on the front and a review of 'Jazz' I saw once that claimed they were fascists. That is in no way constructive criticism (and I'm certainly not blinkered when it comes to this band- I think a lot of their albums are quite patchy, myself), it's just vicious.

...I'm off to see King + Peter Frampton.

...that Queen were Freddie Mercury plus three other blokes, and that this will finally convince the three other blokes to jack it in. But I suspect not. I know Queen are a bit off our collective radar but can anyone tell me why their stuff has such longevity? They were voted the best band ever by Radio 2 listeners last year but I can't see it for the life of me.

To call Queen a good singles band is surely damning them with faint praise. To call them rock-lite, or soft metal or whatever, is objectively absurd. Sven above rightly notes that their singles covered many genres (hard rock, baroque opera stylings, rockabilly, disco, pure pop, electro, etc etc); but their best albums did too. A Night At The Opera is probably the best example, containing some terrific songs that weren't hits such as '39 and Prophet's Song (both written by May) and others like You're My Best Friend, written by Deacon, that illustrate how well-off they were for songwriters.

Queen with Paul Rodgers singing is certainly a rum sounding combination, but I like the fact that they haven't gone for an anonymous soundalike. Setting aside the fact that Freddie and Paul are at opposite ends of the Camp Continuum, let's remember that Freddie was a pretty good singer with immense charisma. Paul Rodgers has those credentials at least, surely?

I went to a football match the other week but as soon as the players ran out onto the pitch I realised that something was awry. Instead of Noel Cantwell, Tony Dunne and Bill Foulkes at the back, Paddy, Nobby and Bobby in midfield and Denis the King up front, the team was made up of a whole bunch of imposters.

There was even some Johnny Foreigner running up and down the wing (and falling over rather a lot, no doubt for the want of some decent dubbin on his boots) who had the temerity to be wearing Besty's No. 7 shirt. Unbebleedinlievable! And the farce didn't even end there. Some lamer on the touchline was pretending to be Sir Matt while he was - wait for this - chewing gum!

"Manchester United"? Yeah, right.

There remains a lingering animosity towards the group over their concerts in Sun City during apartheid. At the time this seemed like pure greed for many of us and they've never really been forgiven for it by some.
Throw in the Nuremberg rally feel to some of their hits, and it adds up to a unsettling package.

Has any band successfully overcome the death or loss of their front man and gone on new heights? I'm not a huge Queen fan(I saw them once, at Knebworth) and own a copy of Sheer Heart Attack, but I can see that Freddie had a great sense of humour (even about ballet!) and that no front man could replace that huge personality. They could do the decent thing, like New Order did, and call themselves something different and move on.

P.S. The Stranglers without Hugh Cornwell is like fish without chips... I chose not to keep buying the records but if others want to that's their choice.

.

I thought it was when Sid Vicious met Freddie Mercury at a recording studio and Sid said 'are you still bringing ballet to the masses' and Freddie replied 'Ah Mr Ferocious! We do our best!' and the whole meeting was fairly good-natured apparently.

Watched that Queen/Paul Rodgers DVD again yesterday and I have to admit I did really enjoy watching it- hadn't seen it for a few years.

Still maintaining a dignified silence and counting his money or has he been roped into this chicken in a basket malevolence?0

I can't say I agree with whole Rodgers and Queen thing. Please also see:

http://www.wordmagazine.co.uk/content/new-queen-single-could-be-heaven-o...

They were crap when Mercury was the front man and they will be crap with Rodgers fronting them. It will still be the same old drivel and the same ridiculous guitar solos - in fact Queen would have been much better without Brian May possibly the worst guitarist ever!!

...and we were discussing the imminent reformation of the Beatles to record an album of new material. Would we be so laissez-faire about, say, Robert Palmer, taking over from John Lennon?

Sure, the surviving members of Queen can do whatever they like with their band (brand) and play with whoever they want. Unless they have been investing very unwisely, I doubt whether they need the money, so it must be for the "art".

do my Queef joke now?

I thought this was quite a revelation, to the extent that I actually prefer the singing here.

(Note to fellow Mayophobes: poise your mouse to kill it sharpish at 1:45 - that's where the guitar solo starts.)

I loved Queen and still do really they're my guilty pleasure band and I probably know far too many details for my own good. Queen and Paul Rodgers... knock yourself out guys. Me you couldn't drag me there... new material.. dreadful. Live album, I'd rather not thanks. The new album will consist of a couple of lumpy Brian May rock numbers a couple of ballady things like that once heard never remembered single thing that they were peddling on daytime tv.

If there was ever a case of four people together being better than their constituent parts then Queen were it............ three nerds and a genius. For a songbook that in terms of sheer osmosis into the public consciousness probably rivals The Stones and The Beatles, and as a live act who understood the stadium medium with a frontman who thrived on the scale of the occassion. Live Aid anyone?

What is distressing and now I'm diverging off the path a wee bit is the distinct lack of quality control displayed by May and Taylor, seeing as Mr. Deacon and his string tie have retired. Queen And 5ive, Wylcef. I've always been of the opinion that Brian May comes across as such a nice guy that he wouldn't say no to a hell of a lot. Is it the case that with the Rodger's tour and album and all these frightful collaberations that they are trying to keep Mercury's memory alive or is it the case particularly with all the albums that keep creeping out that they have an awful lot of contract to fulfil

he went on to better things.

...from biting my tongue in half when a very nice lady with whom I work told me that she was hoping to persuade her partner to take her to see "We Will Rock You" for the second time.

...John Deacon obviously. Not just for 'Another one bites the dust' and 'You're my best friend' but for coming over all Zammo like and just saying NO when it was time for the band to become just a brand.

We Will Rock You.. the musical. No thanks

Does anyone really give a shit if Queen sans Freddie go out on tour?

Queen were a great day out in their time, and I saw them but once. If Queen + Paul Rodgers go out and fill arenas and give everyone a good night out, (and from what I hear they do exactly what it says on the tin) why begrudge them.

And I think Brian May and Roger Taylor have every right to call themselves Queen (or King or 2 from Queen)or whatever if that what they want.

Anyone going to these shows and there are plenty going to these shows knows what they are getting.

There must be more pressing things to discuss, like what happened to Paul Rodgers. I don't know if he looks good or is that his D**k where his nose used to be. He certainly looks stretched.

So Chill Pills all round then.

Best forgotten if not forgiven probably sums up this thread!

Hope they include this classic in their set