Hazel Motes

It's hard enough to replace a mediocre singer in a popular band. But trying to replace the greatest frontman of all time. Yeah, good luck with that.

benedict

If this thread is to continue, I think that most would prefer it not go in this particular direction.

Michael Allred

They are, he's in a tribute band which is exactly where he belongs.

Michael Allred

I'd rather see/hear something first before making any assumptions on it's quality.

Michael Allred

There is no "replacing" involved. It is openly acknowledged. It's simply Queen (and like it or not, Brian and Roger are essentially Queen now) performing with another singer much like they did with Paul Rodgers a few years back.

Michael Allred

Agreed. Open and frank discussion is always welcome but that particular joke was in poor taste.

The Infidel

If he was singing with Brian and Roger he'd still be in a tribute band.

arminius

Queen, like The Who, no longer exist.

Michael Allred

If you prefer to live in the past, sure.

nothingfails

well, Queen like The Who almost never release anything new and their touring is a reminder of how great they USED to be. If Queen wants to prove they are still current, how about do what Van Halen did when Hagar joined and focus solely on new recordings and maybe one or two Mercury tracks, but make the focus about the here and now and the new music.... otherwise they're just playing the role of a tribute band like Journey and so many others.

Michael Allred

Many many bands end up hitting the "greatest hits" period in their careers. People just wanna hear the hits or other familiar songs. It's very difficult to overcome.

Queen tried the "new music" route with Paul Rodgers with "The Cosmos Rocks" album a couple of years ago. It sold...decently...but quickly faded.

I think it's clear Brian May and Roger Taylor just want to perform and have some fun while they still can (both of them are in their 60s if I'm not mistaken.) So they put on a few shows during the year with someone they feel they can click with, why is that such a bad thing? It's not as if they've ever tried to officially bring someone *into* the band. The guys know full well "Queen" will only ever be the four originals, anything else is merely a collaboration with other artists.

Would I like to hear another "Made In Heaven" album? Absolutely! We know for a fact that Brian and Roger have worked on the two demos Freddie did with Michael Jackson but who controls the rights to them, when they'll get released (and how) is totally up in the air. Roger said recently that any new album with Freddie vocals isn't likely to happen because it'd be "scrapping the barrel" in terms of quality. I strongly disagree with that because there ARE some damn good demos out there that have leaked (and who knows how many more hidden in the vaults) BUT that's a huge commitment of time, energy and money.

I'd LOVE for the band to FINALLY release their anthology but they've been dragging their heels on that for years now.

However for now we have four live shows with Lambert in Europe (and I'm hoping for a few US shows as well) to deal with.

Brian and Roger didn't choose this path in life, it was handed to them. Freddie died, John retired but B&R are still alive and want to go out there using the name they worked very hard to make a success. I don't begrudge them one bit.

TerryW

I found nothing tasteless about my comment. I thought it was a clever joke. I have the utmost respect for all people. The joke didn't come from anger. That's why I added the rimshot. Moving on.

Michael Allred

Q+AL have added another concert, this time in Poland.

arminius

I think you are the one living in the past. A time when Queen still existed. What you have now is half the old band and some plug ins. Out of respect for Queen they should call themselves something else. I don't begrudge them doing that material but not under the Queen moniker.

Watching "The Who" at that half time show made me .

Michael Allred

No, when you're stuck with one image, one idea (from the past) being the only thing acceptable and everything else is garbage, shouldn't be given a chance, etc, THAT is "living in the past" (and taking things way wayyyyy too seriously.)

What you're suggesting (out of respect for.....themselves?) is to give up and throw away a name they have worked on for decades for....for what? Roger Taylor said it best, it's their legacy and they'll use it how they wish.

Numanoid

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

TerryW

Brian and Roger performed again on AI (last week) with the current remaining contestants. I particularly liked The Show Must Go On (without the band). It's fine to perform like this but to go out on tour with someone from AI is completely different.

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. Freddie Mercury was one of the driving creative forces behind Queen and was one of the two most identifiable elements of the group's sound (the other being Brian May's guitar).

I cannot fathom why they would want to tour with Adam Lambert instead of George Michael. I'd love to see a Queen+GM concert where they did hits from both artists. But maybe George Michael has too much respect for Freddie to do that.

cungar

It's called living in reality. But keep telling yourself you're going to see Queen in concert.

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.

The Infidel

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

arminius

I saw The Who with and without Keith. While I agree with Supermallet, there was a big difference in the music without Keith. Listen to his drumming, he never lets up. He was not that much part of the creative force but he was a great part of their sound.

Queen without Freddie would be like The Stones without Jagger, no dice.

For a comparison I saw Ten Years After a year or two ago. They had three of the 4 members of the band. But without Alvin Lee, that was not really Ten Years After, as good as Gooch was.

Michael Allred

If you call 5 shows a "tour."

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.

Michael Allred

I saw Queen with Rodgers on their US tour. Was it the original line-up? Of course not but as it stands only May and Taylor remain, they are essentially Queen as we know it.