Queen+ Adam Lambert

[Michael Allred]

Originally Posted by Supermallet

It is their legacy, and they are free to use it how they wish. However, it is not up to them how that legacy is perceived. And I would say that Taylor and May have done their utmost to tarnish their legacy in the last twenty years.

I hear that argument all the time. Is doing a Pepsi commercial somehow going to erase "Bohemian Rhapsody" from reality? Of course not. So they do one offs and occasional collaborations, big deal. I would argue that "Hot Space" did far more damage to the band than anything they've done post 1991.

[Michael Allred]

Originally Posted by The Infidel

I'm glad Deacy had the foresight to steer the hell clear of all this.

You're assuming his motivations and have absolutely nothing factual to base that on. He retired, end of story. Until he comes out and says why, you're just filling in the blanks yourself.

[brianluvdvd]

Originally Posted by Michael Allred

I hear that argument all the time. Is doing a Pepsi commercial somehow going to erase "Bohemian Rhapsody" from reality? Of course not. So they do one offs and occasional collaborations, big deal. I would argue that "Hot Space" did far more damage to the band than anything they've done post 1991.

Hey man...I liked Hot Space! Dig the funky horns!

Originally Posted by Michael Allred

You're assuming his motivations and have absolutely nothing factual to base that on. He retired, end of story. Until he comes out and says why, you're just filling in the blanks yourself.

I could have sworn I read a rare interview with him a few years after Freddie died and he said that Queen to him would not exist without Freddie thus he had no interest in carrying on with the Queen name. Granted, the dude is pretty much a fame recluse and has always kept to himself. Hell, he looked like he hated touring and the press in most of the interviews and concerts I have watched.

[Michael Allred]

Originally Posted by brianluvdvd

Hey man...I liked Hot Space! Dig the funky horns!



I could have sworn I read a rare interview with him a few years after Freddie died and he said that Queen to him would not exist without Freddie thus he had no interest in carrying on with the Queen name. Granted, the dude is pretty much a fame recluse and has always kept to himself. Hell, he looked like he hated touring and the press in most of the interviews and concerts I have watched.

Nope, not Deacon. He has not granted an interview in a very very long time and definitely never after Freddie died.

My impression of him was that music was never his passion but rather a lucrative career that he'd be able to live a nice life and take care of his family w/o worry. Retiring for him seemed a no-brainer IMO.

and yes, I too liked "Hot Space" (for the most part) but it essentially kick started their drive towards nowheresville in the US.

[The Infidel]

Originally Posted by Michael Allred

You're assuming his motivations and have absolutely nothing factual to base that on. He retired, end of story. Until he comes out and says why, you're just filling in the blanks yourself.

My statement assumed nothing, and contained nothing that needed to be based on anything. If anything, it was a simple, factual statement in itself. He retired, and in doing so he has, in fact, steered the hell clear of all this.

[TerryW]

Originally Posted by Michael Allred

Yes, Freddie was ONE of the driving creative forces, one. Queen were definitely unique in the pantheon of legend bands where it was an equal partnership, all four men drove it's sound, it's business decisions, etc. Suggesting Queen had only two indentifiable elements comes off as sorely lacking in knowledge of the band's history and true DNA.

As for George Michael? It's rather easy to understand. First the guy has been cracking up due to his drug usage for years now, his voice simply isn't what it used to be and he's one dimensional because he cannot handle any of Queen's many rock numbers.

For me, Queen and The Beatles are very similar in that they were two bands that had equal distribution, musically, creatively and as Michael said, in their business decisions. Everyone had writing credits and hit singles.

The Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert was a perfect example of how to utilize singers' best attributes for certain songs. Not everyone can hit all those notes that Freddie did. George Michael did a great job doing '39 & Somebody to Love but that doesn't mean he can do the rest of the Queen catalog.

[Supermallet]

Originally Posted by Michael Allred

Yes, Freddie was ONE of the driving creative forces, one. Queen were definitely unique in the pantheon of legend bands where it was an equal partnership, all four men drove it's sound, it's business decisions, etc. Suggesting Queen had only two indentifiable elements comes off as sorely lacking in knowledge of the band's history and true DNA.

I've been a Queen fan since I was a kid. I know all about their history and "true DNA." Perhaps you should read my post a little more closely because I said that Freddie's voice and Brian May's guitar were the two most identifiable elements of their sound. If you played a random person just Freddie singing "Someone To Love," they'd know it was Queen. If you played them just Brian May's guitar parts of "Fat Bottomed Girls," they'd know it was Queen. If you played them Roger Taylor's drums or John Deacon's bass for any Queen song, good look identifying what song it is. The one exception would be "Another One Bites The Dust" for Deacon, and maybe "Under Pressure" if they don't think it's Vanilla Ice. The point is that 99 times out of 100, the most identifiable elements of Queen's sound were Freddie's voice and Brian's guitar. That's not to slight the rest of the band, it's just a fact.

And specifically because all four members had equal input is it easy for me to dismiss their post-Freddie activities. It's not Queen without all four members of the band. Period. Especially if you're talking about some cut-rate hack like Adam Lambert. It's insulting to Freddie's memory. You can eat it up, and pay out the nose to see it, but for anyone who does know about the band's "True DNA" would balk at many of the decisions that the rest of the band have made in Freddie's absence.

P.S. The Works was way worse than Hot Space.

[brianluvdvd]

Originally Posted by Supermallet

P.S. The Works was way worse than Hot Space.

Fucking A!

[Numanoid]

Originally Posted by Supermallet

I think there's a difference. Keith Moon, while an amazing legendary rock drummer, was not the driving creative force behind The Who, nor did he wholly define that band's sound or identity.

I agree, but since another poster said that The Who weren't really The Who anymore, I'm just trying to figure out when they stopped being The Who. After The Ox died? Some other time?

[Supermallet]

Originally Posted by TerryW

For me, Queen and The Beatles are very similar in that they were two bands that had equal distribution, musically, creatively and as Michael said, in their business decisions. Everyone had writing credits and hit singles.

This is a good example, although the distribution wasn't as equal as it was with Queen, but The Beatles were a band where every member had input. And you don't see Paul and Ringo putting together a Beatles+other artist act, even though they could make a gazillion dollars off of it. Even when George Harrison recorded a song with Paul and Ringo, they didn't call it The Beatles. The only two songs they credited to "The Beatles" after their break-up were "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love," songs based off of unfinished Lennon demos done for the Anthology project.

Now, you can question the quality of any particular solo member's output, but you can't say they ever tarnished the legacy of The Beatles as a group. Another example would be Morrissey, who has always said since the dissolution of The Smiths that he won't even consider a reunion, because it'll never be what people want it to be and the band members aren't the same people they were back then.

Compare that to the antics Queen have gotten up to since Freddie Mercury died and it's no surprise I feel the way I do about them.

[Michael Allred]

Originally Posted by The Infidel

My statement assumed nothing, and contained nothing that needed to be based on anything. If anything, it was a simple, factual statement in itself. He retired, and in doing so he has, in fact, steered the hell clear of all this.

I'm glad Deacy had the foresight to steer the hell clear of all this.

Clearly you implied he had reasons for doing so.

[The Infidel]

You really need a hobby.

[cungar]

Originally Posted by Numanoid

Did The Who stop being The Who after Keith Moon died?

Pretty much. Even Pete Townshend has said this many times. And I'm saying that as someone who's seen them several times since then, starting on the 1980 tour. I never once thought I was seeing the band that built the Who legacy.

Musically they haven't done anything memorable since before he died.

[Michael Allred]

I do wonder if after several pages we can actually get back *on topic*?

[arminius]

2 is several?

[Michael Allred]

Originally Posted by arminius

2 is several?

We're on page 4.

[argh923]

Page 3, actually.

[Michael Allred]

Originally Posted by abrg923

Page 3, actually.

OMG I'm not going to get into a discussion on how many pages there are, I see four.

[Matthew Chmiel]

Originally Posted by Supermallet

anyone who does know about the band's "True DNA" would balk at most of the decisions that May and Taylor have made in Freddie's absence.

Fixed.

[Supermallet]

Page 2.

[The Cow]

[arminius]

Originally Posted by Supermallet

Page 2.

Originally Posted by The Cow

yep, the 2 extra pages you see are besmirching the legacy of this thread.

[Michael Allred]

Thread crapping is alive I see.