Is Queen really Queen without Freddie?

Paul Rodgers is a good singer with BC, but no-one is ever going to be able to replace Freddie Mercury's voice or showmanship

Freddie was 50% of Queen ( at least)> It's not Paul Rodgers fault that Freddie can't be replaced.. If you think INXS singer Michael Hutchense is irreplacable, imagine a pure talent and king of the stage like Freddie Mercury... But Paul is an ok singer...

The very best scenario for Queen: the new album is so good that people will forget for one moment Freddie is not the singing voice.. Kind of like Van Halen with Sammy Hagar... it's the closest thing to the real deal.. Hope I made sense...

BTW Sarah, will you attend the show in amsterdam?

No it's not Queen, but if they had to choose a new singer they made the right choice.

My ex ran a large center for retarded kids in L.A. and every year there was a huge one-day biker fund raising event hosted by the Hells Angels on the beach in Ventura. A few years ago the entertainment was Styx, Greg Alman and Paul Rogers. I had the pleasure of meeting and hanging out with him backstage and I have to say I've never met a nicer guy.

As to other bands that have changed singers successfully, AC/DC comes to mind as well as Journey. It's not Journey without Steve Perry but still a decent band.

On the same subject Deep Purple will never be Deep Purple without Blackmore. As good a guitarist as Steve Moorse is, Ritchie just set the bar far too high for anyone to even come close.

That does make sense. And it's true.

No, I am afraid not.

I agree that if they had to replace him it was at least wise to go with somebody who wasn't trying to sound like a clone of Freddie. I also agree he has a good voice. It just is a different band to me but with the same name.

Thats the thing. Freddy WAS the QUEEN!!!

In my opinion it can still be a good band, but it's not the same thing at all without Freddie!

No Freddie No Party.

They aren't trying to mimic the Freddie Era of Queen though. They are trying to have their own thing as well as keeping the link to Bad Company and Queen. I haven't heard the album, but I grew up listening to Queen (Mother was a fan) so I look forward to seeing if it's any good.

Now I trying to think of what band changed lead singers and rose to the same level they were at. I dont mean just touring, the journeys,the styx are like big cover bands. I mean hit records with the new person.

No it's not. It's kind of disrespectful to even call this band Queen.

A great band which survided a change of his leading man would be AC/DC for sure

Current Queen is a shame.

I was kind of hoping that the original singer Tim Staffell would be asked back, he has a great voice and after all he did start the band as "Smile" but it seems he is happy with his own band now "Amigo" And I agree that no one has the voice or charisma of Freddie, god rest his soul !!

AC/DC

Iron Maiden

Well, hit wise, I could say Genesis when it went from Peter Gabriel to Phil Collins. My ears prefer Gabriel but they were as successful, if not more, with Collins. You do have to feel a bit bad for the kid that took over after Collins though.

Speaking of Maiden. Did you see in the news this week that one of the airlines called in to help holidaymakers that were stranded after the British airline went bust was the one Bruce flies for and he flew one of the 'rescue' missions? That would have been a bit surreal for me. In the news coverage he said that he heard the catering arm went bust too so he brought pastries for the passengers.

Freddie IS Queen.

No Freddie = No Queen...

I'm a HUGE fan...and I agree with Scott McD.xxx

No, I hadn't heard about it...Talk about a story... I'll look for the details..

Van Halen is a perfect example.. but ya.. freddie was Queen

no. nobody can`t replace Freddie Mercury

To me, Ozzie was always the voice of Sabbath - I lost interest in the band after Dio took over the mic.

Someone mentioned Styx...same deal. Without Dennis DeYoung, its not Styx (I think Larry Gowan is doin' vocals for them current).

Doobie Brothers also come to mind. Tom Johnston is the only original vocalist I ever liked...the succession of others (worst of which was Mike McDonald) failed to keep the spirit alive.

But yeah - Freddie was Queen. Sure, Brian May's guitar work may still be there, but it ain't the same without Freddie's voice and charisma.

And what's Zeppelin without Jon Bonham? Ok, Jason's got the genetics, but he's no Bonzo.

No one will ever be able to replace Freddie :|

they should have went with Robbie Williams - he's mad enough ;)

You'd thought they had made enough money, but no... a shame really.

I always treated Queen as a very inventional pop / rock hybrid with some of the best brandable image / sound and most of all singer.

I don't think Queen can quite make the transition, and I don't think it's a good move (not finanicallywise) to record another album.

No matter how good the record CAN be it will always compared and most likely slayed by the orthodox fans.

Simply, to record another album with a Queen name on it there has to be Freddy Mercury, he was the ultimate late 70's 80's rock band frontman and the combination of his flamboyance / charisma / contraversial nature / sick fashion / voice is quite impossible to imitate.

Paul took his own approach and is not trying to fill shoes he can't fit in, respect for that.

The only singer that ever came close to Mercury was George Michael, his live performance in 92 was a highlight, his voice is close in the colour and he is an incredible singer, he is the only singer that would be able to replace Freddie Mercury in my book.

About Ritchie Blackmore - he made the Purple sound in their best era (70 - 73) but he also made the best thing that he left the band in 93 after their 84 reunion.

Someone can say it's not Deep Purple but Ian Gillan's Deep Purple revival these days, it might be partially true and there might never ever happen a real reunion of the MK II lineup, but there simply would be more destruction than good if Ritch stayed in the band.

I am glad for what he did with Rainbow and Ronnie James Dio - time to move on.

Sabbath with Ozzy and Sabbath with Dio are totally different episodes, what one needs is to lighten up on prejudices and listen.

Of course w. Ozzy it was THE revolutional band, it was THE band that started to play something noone ever heard before and that launched the whole darker / heavy movement that some of us enjoy so much.

But Dio put in it his own influence, which is very much obvious if someone listens to the (mainly early) Dio albums, but their work with Tommi Iommi (Heaven n Hell / Mob Rules) is a classic. At the end it also lead to a break up of the lineup.

Different approaches / different episodes - that's all, note that they always played their own and new signature material (even their later reunion 1992 Dehumanizer is a very intense and underrated album more than worth mentioning).

I have seen both lineups live and I am a big fan of both, although I would never want to mix their repertoirs and anything from Ozzy sounds weird if sang by Dio while Ozzy would probably have a hard time to keep up with Dio's voice equilibrism.

Truth be told - I gave Dio a listen back in the day...without prejudice. I simply didn't like it and he sounded like a poor substitute for Ozzie. To me he sounded like he was trying to hard and came across like a caricature - I regarded him more as a poser than the real deal.

Yes, you might say Dio was an entirely different chapter - that may be so. But to me he fronted Sabbath during the decline. IMO...

I agree . . . Paul Rogers is a great talent, but he is Bad Co.

Yeah, I really don't want to put down Paul because he has a great voice. Maybe they just should have formed a new band together.

Definitely NO.

no fucking way. no Queen without Freddie. No Beatles without John Lennon.

Well in theory if they find gay singer with fruit voice maybe it could replace him but somehow i doubt.It will be better to clone freddie.

Truth is, the Dio Era of Black sabbath ain't so bad but there was also a big change when the 70s turned to the 80s.. Most of the big act didn't survive that change (ie Kiss, Sabbath, The Who, Deep Purple, Led Zep). Many of these band lost a member (death, fight, etc..) but the result is the same: there was a huge change and almost none of these classic band survived.

If these albums would have been under a different name, maybe they would have had a chance to have a true fair listenning and a fair judgement. But when it's written Black Sabbath on the cover of ythe album, you'll compare it to Black Sabbath and it won't stand the comparision.

------

On a different note, have you ever thought what its like for bands like Metallica, Pink Floyd and other biggest bands to come out with a new album once you have a masterpiece on the market? You just can't live to the fans expectations. No matter what they will come out with, people will inevitably be disapointed and won't really give the album a chance.

This is why I think Axl Rose should just forget about Chinese Democraty...Expectations of a new Appetite for Destruction are wyyy too high ( especially after a 15 years wait) and no matter how good the songs will or won't be, people will spit on it the very first day its out.

I don't think the Gays will be too happy about that.

They'll never be another Freddie. But I still like queens new stuff.

Is Metallica really Metallica when playing sober?

Good point ...

Can't wait to hear it