Even without Freddie, I refuse to believe it is Queen without John Deacon.



/the little yellow shorts will live forever!

Queen died with Freddie Mercury.

It's like The Doors releasing a new album without Jim Morrison.

Oh...wait...

kronicfeld: Queen died with Freddie Mercury.

THIS

Lorelle: It's like The Doors releasing a new album without Jim Morrison.

Or Metallica without Cliff Burton.

..Or The Who without Keith Moon.

Oh wait. That actually worked out pretty decent.

HERESY!

ABOMINATION!

Zombie Freddy Mercury shall arise and SMITE the blasphemers!

Hmmm....Freddy's been gone about as long as the first group existed. If you count w/Paul Rodgers as a new group.

Has Paul Rogers EVER been in a band that didn't suck? Because I can't think of one.

/ and you Free fans can suck it

Bort_Flancrest: Even without Freddie, I refuse to believe it is Queen without John Deacon.



/the little yellow shorts will live forever!

Good old John Deacon. He was so quiet and so lovable. Also happened to be an electronic engineer. Fancy that.

That being said, I'm a huge fan and will be buying the album the second it comes out. Sure it won't be the great vocals of Freddie or the incredibly slaved upon harmonics of the early days, but it's still something knew. I'm sure if Freddie hadn't died they'd be touring the world as normal.

Do I care if it doesn't sound Queen? Not really. A chance to see Brian May + Roger Taylor preform live, most definitely!

Paul Rodgers is one of the best rock and blues singers out there.

Queen wants to play some more. Mercury is dead. Let it go and quit whining. Paul has helped resurrect the band. You should be happy. Nothing against Freddie, he was good and all but Paul always has had a much better voice IMHO.

I'd still rather he stayed with Bad Company or better yet, Free.

I will never understand why Queen didn't get Frank Sidebottom to replace Dead Fred.

Anyone who has heard Frank's amazing Queen medley will agree with my logic here.

Musicology101: Queen wants to play some more. Mercury is dead. Let it go and quit whining.

Fine, but don't call it Queen.
Call it Ladies in Waiting or something.

Just saw the show One Night of Queen with Gary Mullens (sp?) singing lead, and he sounds just like Freddie Mercury. He has Freddies down to a tee. Great show.

As a fan it would have been nice to see Brian May and Roger Taylor go the route of getting a sound a like singer, but I can understand why they didn't. I bought the Queen/Paul Rogers live CD, Return of the Champions, listened to it once. Once it was over I ended up putting in the Live at Wembley CD. Queen just isn't Queen without Freddie Mercury. The mixture of Freddie's voice, Brian's guitar, John's bass, and Roger's drums is what made them Queen. Take one of those out, or two since John Deacon is retired, then it really is just the Brian May, Roger Taylor, and Paul Rodgers band.

40below: / and you Free fans can suck it

God, I love Free, but Paul Rodgers has been going downhill for the last several decades. When he was with Free, his voice sounded great and I loved his vocals. When he was with Bad Company, you could tell he wasn't going for any ambitious notes anymore, but he was still listenable, probably one of the better rock singers of the time. But with Queen, it's just ugh. It's just terrible, and the fact that I compare his renditions to Freddie's just makes him sound worse.

I had no idea Frank Sidebottom was actually out of retirement and touring the UK again. It is criminal that Queen did not use his huge talent and instead decide to tour with Paul Rodgers.

Frank doing Queen Medley (new window)

Headline is self-contradictory

When I see Paul Rodgers sing with Queen, I can't help but think of Chuck Norris...



Maybe Chuck Norris can front Queen and have Mike Huckabee play bass...

It's like Nirvana releasing a new album without Kurt Cobain.

Or The Cure without Robert Smith.

there's a band called "keane;" try putting their name into youtube along with "queen"

you might thank me

I'll give it a listen. Freddie was one of a kind and it still hurts that he's gone, but I've always liked Bad Company and Free. Who doesn't crank it up when Alright Now comes on the radio? I also didn't hate The Firm.

udodsgm: Just saw the show One Night of Queen with Gary Mullens (sp?) singing lead, and he sounds just like Freddie Mercury. He has Freddies down to a tee. Great show.

As a fan it would have been nice to see Brian May and Roger Taylor go the route of getting a sound a like singer, but I can understand why they didn't. I bought the Queen/Paul Rogers live CD, Return of the Champions, listened to it once. Once it was over I ended up putting in the Live at Wembley CD. Queen just isn't Queen without Freddie Mercury. The mixture of Freddie's voice, Brian's guitar, John's bass, and Roger's drums is what made them Queen. Take one of those out, or two since John Deacon is retired, then it really is just the Brian May, Roger Taylor, and Paul Rodgers band.

As a fan, I'd say the opposite. Your suggestion would turn them into an oldies, karaoke act. A sound-alike probably wouldn't be much of a songwriter either, and whether you like him or not, at least Paul Rodgers has written some popular songs in his time.

MikoSquiz: Or The Cure without Robert Smith on antidepressants.

udodsgm: Just saw the show One Night of Queen with Gary Mullens (sp?) singing lead, and he sounds just like Freddie Mercury. He has Freddies down to a tee. Great show.

As a fan it would have been nice to see Brian May and Roger Taylor go the route of getting a sound a like singer, but I can understand why they didn't. I bought the Queen/Paul Rogers live CD, Return of the Champions, listened to it once. Once it was over I ended up putting in the Live at Wembley CD. Queen just isn't Queen without Freddie Mercury. The mixture of Freddie's voice, Brian's guitar, John's bass, and Roger's drums is what made them Queen. Take one of those out, or two since John Deacon is retired, then it really is just the Brian May, Roger Taylor, and Paul Rodgers band.

If you liked Wembley, definitely check out Queen Rock Montreal and Live at the Bowl. However, I HIGLY recommend getting the widely bootlegged copy of a Queen show from the Hammersmith Odeon. It's a board recording and one of the highest quality shows I have. Everyone was on absolute fire that night and it sounds so good. Plus it has great live songs like White Queen, March of the Black Queen, and Bring Back Leeroy Brown which were rarely played live post 1980.

Caption under the photo in TFA: Queen will release their first new album in thirteen years, without their late frontman Freddie Mercury.

Well, thank goodness for that. Could get messy otherwise.

Frees Fire and Water is still a classic. As for Queen... its won't be the same but it could turn out interesting.

If John Deacon ever did go back on tour with Queen, Las Vegas could make a mint with odds on which hair style he would return with.

I don't mind the idea of a band soldiering on without its original singer. AC/DC did quite well after Bon Scott died, and the first few Genesis albums post-Gabriel were actually quite good.

What I do mind is this particular combination of talents. I haven't heard them together yet, but it just doesn't sound right in my head. Not even close.

I mean, I haven't tried a mayonnaise & ice cream sandwich either...but I have a feeling it would just taste wrong.

/two great tastes that taste wrong together!

Musicology101: Paul Rodgers is one of the best rock and blues singers out there.

Queen wants to play some more. Mercury is dead. Let it go and quit whining. Paul has helped resurrect the band. You should be happy. Nothing against Freddie, he was good and all but Paul always has had a much better voice IMHO.

I'd still rather he stayed with Bad Company or better yet, Free.

You might be the only person in the free world to try an attempt to argue Queen is better with Paul friggin' Rodgers. And you'd be high. And wrong.

Paul Rodgers was one of literally dozens of half decent "rock and blues singers" (as you put it) in the 70's, barely rising above the fray. Freddie Mercury was one of the 3-5 most iconic, powerful and inimitable voices in all of rock history.

Yeah, "get over it" ...... I'm sure you'd think it would be no big whoop if Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones toured as Zeppelin with Ian Hunter of Mott the Hoople or Steve Walsh of Kansas and called themselves Led Zeppelin. Ridiculous.

"Much better voice" .... HAH! Generic blues-rock twaddle over Freddie Goddamn Mercury. Hell, you could hate Mercury and Queen and love Free and Rodgers but still have to admit that Mercury's voice was an uncommon weapon that was light-years ahead of Paul Rodgers. It's an inane debate.

Personal preference, fine, but "much better voice" as a declarative statement? That's just acid talk, my friend. Musicology 101, that's pretty funny.

thats like quiet riot touring without kevin dubrow

40below: Has Paul Rogers EVER been in a band that didn't suck? Because I can't think of one.

/ and you Free fans can suck it

This. Besides the fact that Bad Company music sucks ass, any band that's name, record, and song all have the same name automatically sucks.

Slu: any band that's name, record, and song all have the same name automatically sucks.

Black Sabbath would like to disagree.

ghoulie_mask

Newsletter, etc.

Dear Queen,

You are not Queen anymore. Get a new farking name.

Thanks.

... or the Beatles without John Lennon.

/i guess he was just on holiday.

John_Rat_Safari: Slu: any band that's name, record, and song all have the same name automatically sucks.

Black Sabbath would like to disagree.

Funny, I think this adds more validity to the theory....

author1701: Caption under the photo in TFA: Queen will release their first new album in thirteen years, without their late frontman Freddie Mercury.

Well, thank goodness for that. Could get messy otherwise.

Or dusty, cough cough.

thats like Styx touring without John Panozzo.

I believe it was last year when Queen + Paul Rodgers toured the US. My wife bought me a pair of tickets for my birthday. It was a wonderful show. Obviously Paul was no Freddie Mercury, but he did not try to be.

/Looking forward to the new album
//What do I know?

bentheguard: I believe it was last year when Queen + Paul Rodgers toured the US. My wife bought me a pair of tickets for my birthday. It was a wonderful show. Obviously Paul was no Freddie Mercury, but he did not try to be.

/Looking forward to the new album
//What do I know?

sorry, I meant 2006

Canadian Canuck

I've been meaning to pick up Queen Rocks Montreal. I've heard it is really good. I also still have on video tape Queen Live in Budapest. Actually prefer that over the video of them at Wembley.

udodsgm: Canadian Canuck

I've been meaning to pick up Queen Rocks Montreal. I've heard it is really good. I also still have on video tape Queen Live in Budapest. Actually prefer that over the video of them at Wembley.

Live at Budapest is wonderful - great sound. You've got to get Queen Rocks Montreal - a return to their peak (or close) and the remastered sound is just stunning.

Freddie Mercury was insanely talented but I'd rather listen to Paul Rodgers. Camp does nothing for me.

/hates "Rocky Horror," too

That's like Milli touring without Vanilli.

Slu: John_Rat_Safari: Slu: any band that's name, record, and song all have the same name automatically sucks.

Black Sabbath would like to disagree.

Funny, I think this adds more validity to the theory....

If you're trying to out-idiot Musicology101, congratulations.

It's sad when a band can't just break up after the death of their front man or one of their key members.

Why can't they just start a new band? Afraid of creating irrelevant music? Guess what, keeping the name ain't gonna help.

TheSuperFunk: It's sad when a band can't just break up after the death of their front man or one of their key members.

Why can't they just start a new band? Afraid of creating irrelevant music? Guess what, keeping the name ain't gonna help.

Because then they'd be playing the same material, but to audiences a quarter the size. It's their band, they can do what they want - it doesn't impact you, so why should you care? Just listen to the old albums.

Maybe the answer would be that bands can only perform together for five years. Plenty of time to make buckets full of cash if you're any good. It would provide a strong incentive to get that 'difficult' second/third/fourth album made and would rid the world of old bands performing their first few compositions for all eternity. Obviously there would be a mandatory 20th anniversary tour for all just so we can giggle at the hairlines and weight gain.

At least they tried to record a new album. Most washed up bands JUST rehash the old songs without recording anything new. It takes a brave washed-up band to attempt to record anything new with their newer, crappier lineup, since everyone is going to hate it no matter what. Since they probably aren't doing it for the money, I say let them do it.

Beatles did it all in about 8 years ('62-'70) so that should be the expiration date on all bands. If you can't change the world by then, give it up.

/Talkin to you, REM