Dunno ... does this sound like a good idea to you?

Queen reforming

Rock legends QUEEN are to reform for a tour next year - with Seventies rocker PAUL RODGERS replacing deceased legend FREDDIE MERCURY on vocals.

Queen guitarist Brian May confirmed the news in a posting on his official website brianmay.com.

A UK tour will definitely go ahead, with the possibility of a European leg and a world tour under discussion. The tour will feature material by both Queen and Rodgers, one-time vocalist with both Free and Bad Company.

The statement on May's website reads: "It really all came about because of the Fender 50th Anniversary gig that I did with Paul Rodgers. We were both so amazed at the chemistry that was going on in 'All Right Now', that suddenly it seems blindingly obvious that there was something happening here."

While Queen's drummer Roger Taylor is definitely taking part, there is no news on whether bass player John Deacon will get involved.

Queen stopped touring in 1986, after frontman Mercury fell ill. He died of an AIDS-related illness in 1991.

It'll be very, very strange to have Queen without Mercury he pretty much defined the band. I'm thinking it'll be very much like hearing a top notch tribute band.

Perhaps if you approached it like a What If, then it might ease the pain. Otherwise WTF??

With all due respect to Brian, Roger and John: I have a feeling that Queen without Freddie Mercury is gonna be like ELO without Jeff Lynne (anybody remember ELO II?). Ugh!

Funny, I thought the same thing about Zoom, the Jeff Lynne solo album he credited to ELO. ELO without Bev Bevan? Ugh.

I guess this is the year for drummers named Roger Taylor to get their bands back together. It worked pretty well for Duran Duran (whose new Album is EXCELLENT, BTW).

Paul Rodgers is an interesting choice, in that he sounds nothing like the late Farrokh Bulsara, so nobody can really compare the two, but at the same time, I don't think he has the range to do most of Queen's catalog. Maybe he could do a passable cover of I Want It All but I just can't fathom how he'd pull off Bicycle or Rhapsody.

And let me be clear: I am a HUGE Paul Rodgers fan. The first Firm album is probably #12 or 15 on my Desert Island Discs list.

IMHO, ELO's 70's stuff made fusion happen as a rock format commercially. In all seriousness their sound made Emerson Lake and Palmer palettable and it was Greg Lake that put King Crimson on the map which gave rise to Brian Eno's works in latter years. Queen without Freddy Mercury is like Paul McCartney staging a Beatles reunion now.

I don't like the idea of this "reformation".

This, on the other hand, I would've wanted to see, but the tix are long gone: Van der Graaf Generator!!!

I don't see a problem with it - could be pretty good, even - but they definitely shouldn't call it Queen. I just watched them play We are the Champions on the UK Rock'n'roll Hall of Fame thingie, and they were very good - Rodgers' voice is just as good as it's always been - but it isn't Queen.

But then, I always thought that McCartney, Harrison and Starr could have played post Lennon (had they wanted to) as The Moondogs.

I'd certainly like to give it a listen. I don't think Rodgers' has the right sound for Queen's songs, but I think any decent band could back Rodgers up while he sings from his old Bad Company days.

Jim

Oh, I dunno. I thought "Zoom" sounded much more like ELO than Bev's "ELO Part 2" abomination.

That's certainly better than the god-awful "Threetles" tag that got hung on 'em!

I couldn't stand "Threetles." The Moondogs seemed so obvious. And ready-made, too.

I liked "The Ladders," which was the proposed name for an early-'70s reunion with John, George, Ringo, and Klaus Voorman on bass.

Voorman, of course, was one of their buddies form the Hamburg days. He drew the covers to Revolver and Anthology, and was the bass player for Manfred Mann during the "Mighty Quinn" era.

Not to mention Paddy, Klaus and Gibson. Plus he did the Anthology artwork. And played bass on John's Plastic Ono Band album (and Imagine?)

...and the Concert For George.

What I liked about "The Ladders" as a name was that it was a contraction of Latter Lads...

Hmmm? I'd prefer they used a different band name. I'm sure there are financial reasons to keep the name. Using the name "Queen" would probably sell more tickets and CDs than "Bad Company".

George Michael would've been my preferred choice if they were going to pick a replacement. I suppose he wasn't up for the gig (hopefully they at least offered it to George.)

I watched part of the Live Aid DVDs the other night, particularly the Queen segment. They rocked on all kinds of levels. As I recall, they had subsided in popularity around that time and it brought more attention to the band.

With Leo on this one...

George Michael. Best choice, IMHO.

For the most part, I think bands are greater than the sum of their parts. Off hand, I can't think of many bands that were together for a significant period of time (5+ years), who are able to replace a member / members, and still produce viable new music (AC/DC, any one else?). It's especially true of bands who lose their keystone member. That's what I think Freddie was for Queen.

Still, if those guys wanna go out, and play the songs they helped make famous (you know that the boys will learn some of Rodgers' songs), then more power to 'em. Given what I've seen of Brian May since, it's not about money, it's about the music and the live performance vibe. And I really don't object to them using Queen as a name on a tour. It's good advertising, especially when there isn't going to be an album.

Now, if you want something to object to, how about Ian Astbury (of the Cult) fronting "The Doors"? That's a cash grab.

Jason

Since I first saw The Cult do "Fire Woman" on MTV back in '89, I've been convinced that Ian Astbury IS Jim Morrison. Since I read Danny Sugerman's "No One Here Gets Out Alive," I've believed that Morrison faked his death, got himself cleaned up and disappeared into Europe. Get a face lift and adopt a British accent, voila: Ian Astbury.

Conspiracies aside, I'd been waiting for them to team up for years. Too bad Densmore opted out, and Copeland broke his arm.

OK Jason, how about the Rolling Stones?

And depending on your opinion of the output, there's also Kansas, Styx, Blue Öyster Cult, Yes.... I could go on

Hank, I am a really big fan of both the Cult, and the Doors. However, Astbury is too obviously a Morrison fanboy to bring his own take to the music, making it a cover act, instead of a new front man on a band. I think that does a disservice to Astbury, the songs, and Morrison. As for Manzarek, while he's a great keyboardist, producer, and the driving force behind the Doors, he has always been about being rich and famous. This ain't about the music.

Ted, I can't recall hearing anything new from the 70's bands you mention, other than the Stones, in more than 20 years. And as for the Stones, I would gladly sacrifice everything they've done since I was born in 1972 for me to be able to see them live in a bar in 1972. You watch them live, you pick up their greatest hits, and it's pretty much Hot Rocks, anyway.

This new line up of Queen strikes me as 4 old guys who want to go out, make music for fans who want to hear it, and maybe to get that stadium crowd performance "fix" they've been lacking for 15 years. When I compare that to the Stones, the Who, Plant/Page, or the Sex Pistols, regurgitating the same (admittedly great) music over and over again at $100 / ticket, I just think it's a different motivation. I could be wrong.

And as the ultimate comparison, let's hear it for David Bowie and Neil Young, for taking risks in making new music, whether it sells or not (and whether I like it or not). Nostalgia, in my books, gets you that first tour. After that, show me something new to prove this is about more than the "Filthy Lucre"

Jason

Jason - what you actually said was:

Which is why I just tossed out those names. Specifically:

Kansas - lost both Kerry Livgren and Robbie Steinhardt after 6 or 7 albums but still managed to put out a few more (including a pair with guitar great Steve Morse) such as Drastic Measures, Power and In The Spirit of Things without them.

Styx - guitarist John Curulewski left after 3 albums and Tommy Shaw joined, all before Crystal Ball, Pieces of Eight and Paradise Theater.

Blue Öyster Cult - Drummer/songwriter Al Bouchard was fired after 10 albums (1981) and the band carried on with a new drummer, releasing The Revölution By Night. Bassist Joe Bouchard left a couple of years later and was replaced. Their latest release was 2001's Curse of the Hidden Mirror

Yes - Steve Howe and Rick Wakeman left after 6 or 7 albums and were replaced by Trevor Rabin and Tony Kaye and put out 90210 and Big Generator which enjoyed quite a bit of success.

I won't dispute your take on the Stones - I quite enjoy some of the late 70's/early 80's stuff - since, like the output of the other bands mentioned, it's all a matter of opinion.

(and before anyone corrects my mini-histories, yes, I know they're not exactly right, especially for Yes and Kansas, but I'm trying to be brief here!)