Should Queen retire

adamlee19adamlee19 Posts: 632
Forum Member
✭✭
Im a massive Queen fan expecially when Freddie was around.
But Brian and Rodger are still playing nearly 30 years after Freddies passing.
I watched the new year gig and as good as they were They do look like there showing there age, Expecialy Rodger. Should they just retire and let other bands play there music as a tribute.

should Queen retire. 98 votes

yes
44% 44 votes
no
55% 54 votes
«13

Comments

  • thewaywardbusthewaywardbus Posts: 2,738
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    How is 23 years nearly 30 years? He died in November 1991!
  • Muttley76Muttley76 Posts: 97,888
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I personally wouldn't want to see them in concert anymore because it's not the same, however on the other hand I don't think it's for me to dictate to other people how and when they end their professional career and I feel that as long as they want to continue then they should. Also, a lot of people still seem to really enjoy seeing them perform, so I don't see why they should be needlessly deprived of that.

    I do think at times people under estimate what the other members of Queen bought to the band.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 619
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    who are we to suggest that they should retire ? If they are still enjoying the music, they should carry on. Also they still have to pay the bills ... !
  • Muttley76Muttley76 Posts: 97,888
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Cure - Boys Don't Cry

    no, i don't think that would cure this issue.....;-)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 619
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Muttley76 wrote: »
    no, i don't think that would cure this issue.....;-)

    :) oops wrong thread !
  • Paul_PPaul_P Posts: 269
    Forum Member
    The current line up is more Smile than Queen, no Freddie, no John Deacon.

    They shouldn't need the money, Brian comes across as a bit of mad scientist (which he is) Roger, like a lot of blokes who were good looking when they are young, just looks old. When he came out wearing that hat to take a bow on new years, I thought he looked like a gnome.

    I don't know why, but seeing them with a young lad singing, just seems wrong, I don't get the same feeling with Quo, which is basically another pair of rock dinosaurs belting out the same tunes for decades.

    But Queen without Freddie, ain't Queen.
  • dearmrmandearmrman Posts: 21,515
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Only if they want too...other than that they should carry on until they feel it's time to call it quits.
  • Los_TributosLos_Tributos Posts: 2,100
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If they were going to retire it should've been when Mercury died or when Deacon left. There seems little benefit to them retiring now, while the band members can do what they enjoy for the fans that want to see it.
  • dearmrmandearmrman Posts: 21,515
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Paul_P wrote: »
    The current line up is more Smile than Queen, no Freddie, no John Deacon.

    They shouldn't need the money, Brian comes across as a bit of mad scientist (which he is) Roger, like a lot of blokes who were good looking when they are young, just looks old. When he came out wearing that hat to take a bow on new years, I thought he looked like a gnome.

    I don't know why, but seeing them with a young lad singing, just seems wrong, I don't get the same feeling with Quo, which is basically another pair of rock dinosaurs belting out the same tunes for decades.

    But Queen without Freddie, ain't Queen.

    Deacon is no loss anyway, wasn't that noticeable when he was in the band.
  • adamlee19adamlee19 Posts: 632
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Paul_P wrote: »
    The current line up is more Smile than Queen, no Freddie, no John Deacon.

    They shouldn't need the money, Brian comes across as a bit of mad scientist (which he is) Roger, like a lot of blokes who were good looking when they are young, just looks old. When he came out wearing that hat to take a bow on new years, I thought he looked like a gnome.

    I don't know why, but seeing them with a young lad singing, just seems wrong, I don't get the same feeling with Quo, which is basically another pair of rock dinosaurs belting out the same tunes for decades.

    But Queen without Freddie, ain't Queen.
    Never thought of that really but your spot in its Queens music but its not Queen. Cause theres no Freddie and theres no John Deacon, So its more Smile than Queen,
  • adamlee19adamlee19 Posts: 632
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    dearmrman wrote: »
    Deacon is no loss anyway, wasn't that noticeable when he was in the band.
    Wrote some top songs though another one bites the dust I want to break free.
  • dearmrmandearmrman Posts: 21,515
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    adamlee19 wrote: »
    Wrote some top songs though another one bites the dust I want to break free.

    Yes but they are touring band...don't think they have produced any new material since Freddie...and you could hardly say Deacon was that noticeable on the stage, basically he was just there...so no loss not to have him.
  • adamlee19adamlee19 Posts: 632
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    dearmrman wrote: »
    Yes but they are touring band...don't think they have produced any new material since Freddie...and you could hardly say Deacon was that noticeable on the stage, basically he was just there...so no loss not to have him.
    They did release a new album with Paul Rodgers which was a complete disaster cant remember the name though.
  • lady_xanaxlady_xanax Posts: 5,662
    Forum Member
    Let them be! Your sole objection seems to be that because they're old and no longer attractive, they shouldn't be performing and should make way for young pretty people. It's not like they are turning up at your house and forcing you to listen!
  • maninthequeuemaninthequeue Posts: 2,479
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    dearmrman wrote: »
    Yes but they are touring band...don't think they have produced any new material since Freddie...and you could hardly say Deacon was that noticeable on the stage, basically he was just there...so no loss not to have him.

    They did the Made In Heaven album released in 1995; and No-One But You (Only the Good Die Young) for the Queen's Rock compilation album in 1997 with John Deacon, after which he rightfully and tastefully bailed out because Queen minus Freddie Mercury is not Queen IMHO..

    There after May & Taylor have gone about flogging a dead horse in the recording studio under the Queen moniker:

    1998 "Too Much Love Will Kill You" with Luciano Pavarotti
    1999 "Another One Bites the Dust" with Wyclef Jean & Pras Michel
    2000 "We Will Rock You" with 5ive
    2001 "We Are The Champions" with Robbie Williams
    2008 "The Cosmos Rocks" album with Paul Rodgers
    2009 "Bohemian Rhapsody" with the Muppets
    2015 "TBA" album with Adam Lambert
  • adamlee19adamlee19 Posts: 632
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    lady_xanax wrote: »
    Let them be! Your sole objection seems to be that because they're old and no longer attractive, they shouldn't be performing and should make way for young pretty people. It's not like they are turning up at your house and forcing you to listen!
    I just asked peoples views on what they think. Not once did I say I think they should retire.
  • blue screenblue screen Posts: 6,412
    Forum Member
    I think it's a bit embarrassing when you see them with Five singing 'We Will Rock You' and their appearances on the X factor. If they want to do it let them but i think i would have retired once Freddie died. Having said that if being a performer is in your blood then it must be difficult to give it up
  • adamlee19adamlee19 Posts: 632
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think it's a bit embarrassing when you see them with Five singing 'We Will Rock You' and their appearances on the X factor. If they want to do it let them but i think i would have retired once Freddie died. Having said that if being a performer is in your blood then it must be difficult to give it up
    I do agree but I remember Freddie once saying if one of them passed on first there would be no Queen as it wouldn't be right. Yet there still going by the name Queen.
  • donna255donna255 Posts: 10,170
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    For those who said John Deacon is no lost, that is how you know a great bass player. You don't notice them just the playing.

    I did enjoy the New Year Eve's thing, but kept comparing where Freddie would have done this or that(like playing the piano).
  • laurence1870laurence1870 Posts: 213
    Forum Member
    I think for younger fans who were too young to see Queen and Freddie live live, or who were born after he died, it's great. I wasn't born until 1993 but I'm a huge Queen fan and I'm going to see them in two weeks and can't wait. For me I know it will not be the same as seeing Queen in 1986, but it's by far the closest I'm ever going to get, so I'm grateful to see even two members of the original band performing those classic songs. And besides, it's not Brian and Rogers fault that Freddie died - does Freddie's death mean they should just quit the band that they created and retire? They don't need the money - they're millionaires - they do it because they are rock stars, and it's in their blood. My impression of Deacon is that he was never too comfortable with the fame and general life of a rock star, so took his retirement early to live the rest of his life with some kind of normality.
  • Paul_PPaul_P Posts: 269
    Forum Member
    I think for younger fans who were too young to see Queen and Freddie live live, or who were born after he died, it's great. I wasn't born until 1993 but I'm a huge Queen fan and I'm going to see them in two weeks and can't wait. For me I know it will not be the same as seeing Queen in 1986, but it's by far the closest I'm ever going to get, so I'm grateful to see even two members of the original band performing those classic songs. And besides, it's not Brian and Rogers fault that Freddie died - does Freddie's death mean they should just quit the band that they created and retire? They don't need the money - they're millionaires - they do it because they are rock stars, and it's in their blood. My impression of Deacon is that he was never too comfortable with the fame and general life of a rock star, so took his retirement early to live the rest of his life with some kind of normality.

    Nobody is saying they should have retired, but to go on hawking the "Queen" name is just wrong, Queen was always much more than the sum of the parts, it's a bit like Velvet Revolver, and the "New" Guns n Roses, VR sounded like GnR until the singer opened his mouth, GnR sound like a cover band with Axl singing badly. But neither is the real deal.
  • Richard1960Richard1960 Posts: 20,344
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why should they retire.?

    They have a back catalogue that is superb and people love listening to the music.

    Why not use the queen name,its all a matter of opinion but to me it all comes down to the music full stop.;-)
  • elnombreelnombre Posts: 3,625
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'd say their sold out UK arena tour pretty much answers the OPs question.
  • barbelerbarbeler Posts: 23,827
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They should have retired immediately after Sheer Heart Attack.
  • The MartianThe Martian Posts: 1,610
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If Marc Martel isn't the lead singer they should just end it.
Sign In or Register to comment.