You've probably heard that Paul Rodgers is taking on the role of the new frontman for Queen. They are in the studio right now and should be releasing something in 2008.
What are your thoughts on this? Not just on Paul replacing Freddy, but anytime a valuable member of a band that has died, is replaced? I think of INXS going on the reality show to replace Michael Hutchence and I feel ill. No one can ever replace him. In my mind INXS ceases existing that day. Same with The Doors and Led Zeppelin.
Other bands seem to move on fine after replacing someone who's passed away - The Who for example has lost two its members but still consider themselves "The Who".
16 comments:
Quite simply, without Freddie's voice it ain't Queen. It's a different group. Sort of like the Stones without Jagger, REM without Stipe (although they did do an album as the Hindu Love Gods with Warren Zevon on vocals), Slade without Noddy, The Jimi Hendrix Experience without Jimi Hendrix!
It's one thing to tour with a crucial member replaced, but it is another to record an album. I have one question though, will the album be released under the name Queen or Queen + Paul Rodgers. Because, if they change the name of the band then I think it is a little more acceptable, sort of like how The Doors changed their name to The 21st Century Doors and then due to legal troubles had to change the name again to I believe Riders on the Storm, but even they didn't record a new album.
One group that had even more commercial success was AC/DC. Bon Scott was a great singer, but Brian Johnson helped to keep them from dying.
I agree with you on the INXS thing. I don't even like the guy they picked.
I respect that fact that--up to this point at least--they have NOT pretended that Paul has replaced Freddie ... they have explicitly used "Queen + Paul Rodgers." I like that.
It's not fair to ask 3/4 of the band to give up their hard-earned brand name because of 1/4 being gone--and you know how much I revere Freddie, so that is not an insult in any way. They have done it the right way so far by using the name with Paul as an add on.
I do NOT respect how the Who just slid Kenney Jones right in as The Who if Keith Moon had been a bit player ... or the way that Genesis (with only Tony and Mike remaining from the original band) lost Peter, Steve, and then Phil from the classic line-up and had the balls to call it Genesis with Ray Wilson ... or the way that INXS swapped out Michael for J.D. Szechuan Palace with no mention of the difference. Go on, guys, absolutely ... but PLEASE recognize that it ain't the same.
Led Zeppeliin did it right--they said they couldn't really imagine going on without Bonzo. But if they did, and they called it "Led Zeppelin and Appice" or something, I would both hate it and understand it.
And now it's time for my fingers to rest.
-- david
I think I've mentioned this in the past, but will all due respect to Paul Rodgers(who I like, btw), there is no Queen without Freddy.
I'm not generally a fan of that kinda thing. It's not to say that the new version of the band isn't good. This particular one might be, but it certainly won't be Queen without Freddie. There was that Doors thing a few years back with Ian Astbury, i think. I'm sure that was a pretty cool band, but hardly the Doors with Morrison.
I did see the MC5 reunion live a couple years ago. Marshall Crenshaw replaced the late Fred "Sonic" Smith and two vocalists replaced Rob Tyner, Mark Arm of Mudhoney for the heavier songs and Evan Dando of the Lemonheads for the pop songs. It turned out to be excellent and captured the essense of the MC5. However, I think that was an anomaly, not the norm.
Thanks, these comments are great! I also really like the fact that Queen is not pretending Paul Rodgers is replacing Freddie and I wish I would have said that in my post, but some of you said it here.
Wow - what a bunch of close-minded "fans" you are. If someone within the group dies, you feel that the rest of the group should stop making music, curl up and die along with deceased member. In my opinion, Michael Hutchence, Jim Morrison and Kurt Cobain were selfish assholes who cared nothing about their bands. INXS appropriately mourned the passing of Michael for seven years, their new CD has not one but TWO songs memorializing Michael, they have said repeatedly in interviews that they are not trying to replace Michael but feel that they still have music within them they want to share with the world. INXS was not Michael. INXS was and still is six musicians joining together to make music. Queen is not Freddie. The Doors are not Jim Morrison. You don't have to buy or listen to the music made by these groups which no longer contain all original members but have the maturity to respect the fact that these people have a right to move on with their lives and that includes continuing to make a living doing what they love.
I don't really have a strong feeling on this but would have preferred them to go out as "May, Taylor, Rodgers" or something similar instead of using the Queen name. I guess I'm just getting used to bands flogging the name dry! If the music's good, I'll buy it regardless.
It isn't Queen without Freddie as everybody says but with John Deacon missing as well it's more not Queen if you see what I mean.
I'd have thought the three of them would have enough of a pull without Queen but perhaps it wouldn't be as great?
Anon, I disagree with you (obviously). I think The Doors were Jim Morrison. He could have gathered pretty much any four musicians around him and still had the same impact. I'm not saying the other members of the band didn't contribute to their sound, but who would they have been without Jim?
I think you made a good point about INXS, I haven't checked out the new guy because for me PERSONALLY Michael was the only reason I liked INXS.
You are opinions are welcome here and I am glad you took the time to write but just because someone has a different view doesn't make them close-minded.
Without Freddie out in front, it obviously isn't the same. However, they could have done alot worse in choosing a new lead singer because Paul Rodgers is tops.
I too disagree with Anon. There is a synergy in a good band and the loss of a crucial part of that is hard to recreate. It can be done, but it is rare. Also, I don't see where the idea that none of those guys cared about their bands came from. Jim Morrison was always interested in the Doors being a band, not the Jim Morrison show. When Rolling Stone (or maybe it was another magazine) wanted to do a cover for an INXS story with Michael Hutchence, he wouldn't do it unless it was a group shot, because they were a band. Anyway, in many cases, a band is a special mix of individuals so much so that losing one changes everything. It's not a dig at the remaining members, just a testament to how special the group was.
Bob, I totally admire Jim and Michael for their commitment to their bands, that's how it should be to create good music rather than bickering like some bands seem to do. I know Jim and Michael would not think of The Doors or INXS as "nothing" without them, I hope I didn't imply that. They would not have had those thoughts....but I do :).
I mean really - The Stones without Mick and or Keith? It just could not be done. That's why I think Led Zeppelin deserves so much credit for honoring John B. They could have easily found another drummer, but they knew that HE was the ONLY drummer for Led Zeppelin.
I agree about Zeppelin. After all, how do you replace rock's greatest drummer?
I think is has to be a case by case decision on how I feel about member changes. I didn't mind the Queen thing when it was just a tour, but it's a little more unsettling with an album because it seems like more of a statement and a commitment. Yes, they have the right to record and call themselves what they want, but I would prefer it be Queen and Paul Rodgers rather than just call it Queen. It's not a knock on this version, but just the way it is.
It is never the same, it never is.
anyway I'm back from vacations, and they were tiring i must say. i was in Dubai by the way.
Post a Comment