Queen: Brian May And Roger Taylor To Perform Under New Band Name?

UG plus: remove banner

search for: in	advanced	+ submit your tab + submit your review + submit your article
fresh tabs / 0-9 a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z / top 100 tabs

UG plus: remove banner


Queen: Brian May And Roger Taylor To Perform Under New Band Name?
artist: queen	date: 12/14/2011	category: general music news

rating: 8.5 / votes: 4

Tweet

Queen: Brian May And Roger Taylor To Perform Under New Band Name?

Brian May has raised questions whether he and Roger Taylor should be performing under the band's name Queen.

The pair have performed live together on several occasions since the death of frontman Freddie Mercury and Bad Company's Paul Rodgers.

The guitarist admitted that performing with only half of the original line-up has sparked debate amongst the group's fans.

UG plus: remove banner

"Are we Queen? In a sense we are but in another sense we never can be. We keep getting asked to do things, which is great, but it's that being Queen thing, I think we'll have to make a film Being Queen, what does it mean?" he told BBC 6 Music.

He added: "The good thing about it is, we are a sort of open book, we can interact with people when it comes up."

Meanwhile, Queen could be set to tour with American Idol singer Adam Lambert, according to reports.

Drummer Roger Taylor has revealed that the band are currently in talks with the singer to join them on a live tour, reports Billboard.

Thanks for the report to Gigwise.com.

POSTED: 12/14/2011 - 08:04 am

print

share

•	Music News
•	Comments
•	Queen News

subscribe to

More Queen news:

+ Queen To Never Perform With Freddie Mercury Hologram	general music news	05/01/2012
+ Queen Top UK's Best-Selling Albums Of All Time	general music news	04/10/2012
+ Queen To Play Four Shows With Adam Lambert	upcoming tours	04/10/2012
+ Queen And Adam Lambert: 'Don't Expect A Freddie Mercury Show'	upcoming tours	03/05/2012
+ Queen And Adam Lambert To Play In Moscow	upcoming tours	02/29/2012
+ view all

comments policy 43 comments posted, 2 removed | this article is 96% spam-free

nico_9550 wrote on 12/14/2011 - 08:52 am / quote |

Please tour south america, I'd be the best thing in life

+19

Jesus_Dean wrote on 12/14/2011 - 09:06 am / quote |

Why don't more bands do this. If a band loses a key member, then give yourself a new name and move on. Everyone knows who you are. Then you can tour with whomever you want and write whatever you want. Just leave the legacy alone.

Minivirus2 wrote on 12/14/2011 - 10:50 am / quote |

THANK YOU! This is exactly what I had suggested after the Adam Lambert(?) article. They're a shadow of what they once were (not in a bad way mind you) and they shouldn't run the risk of tarnishing a magnificent reputation. They're a different band and should act accordingly.

+11

theseasonalist wrote on 12/14/2011 - 10:54 am / quote |

Extremely poor wording in the summary of this news story -- "The pair have performed live together on several occasions since the death of frontman Freddie Mercury and Bad Company's Paul Rodgers." Makes it appear as if Paul Rodgers is also deceased, which he is not.

On the topic of the article, this should have come up a long time ago. Brian May and Roger Taylor are not Queen. Freddie Mercury, while not the sole songwriter for the band, was the image of the band. This applies to every other classic rock act who has lost a key member. If Paul and Ringo toured together, they would not be the Beatles. Brian and Roger T. need to walk away from the Queen name altogether.

guitar67 wrote on 12/14/2011 - 11:00 am / quote |

Bad Company, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Journey, Black Sabbath, Thin Lizzy and many other bands should have had more respect for their former band members after they passed away or left the band.

NHECOS wrote on 12/14/2011 - 11:02 am / quote |

Great musicians should keep making music... Kudos

chickenfoot wrote on 12/14/2011 - 11:14 am / quote |

guitar67 wrote:

Bad Company, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Journey, Black Sabbath, Thin Lizzy and many other bands should have had more respect for their former band members after they passed away or left the band.

zalant wrote on 12/14/2011 - 11:14 am / quote |

Jesus_Dean wrote:

Why don't more bands do this. If a band loses a key member, then give yourself a new name and move on. Everyone knows who you are. Then you can tour with whomever you want and write whatever you want. Just leave the legacy alone.

Let this start the debate on what constitutes a "key" member. I don't think I've ever heard anyone state that Metallica should have changed their name when Cliff died, and I don't think anyone would argue that it's because he wasn't a "key" member.

Somehow, Kiss has soldiered on without Ace and Peter, all the while under the Kiss moniker.

What about Van Halen? Many suggested a change to Van Hagar when Sammy joined, but really, can you convince a band to change its name when it is the last name of the two consistent members?

I don't know where I'm going with all of this, but just figured I'd throw it out there as food for thought.

chhang wrote on 12/14/2011 - 12:01 pm / quote |

everyone has been saying the same thing for years, seems like they're finaly gonna move on

fifopher wrote on 12/14/2011 - 12:41 pm / quote |

True story, Zalant. In this case, Freddie Mercury was a key member though. In the Metallica case, can you imagine replacing Hetfield's voice with ANYONE else?? Simply inhuman. Usually it's the strict-musician members that can be swapped out... but we all know RHCP wouldn't be the same without Flea (especially live). And don't get me started on G&R...

Jemstar wrote on 12/14/2011 - 12:46 pm / quote |

To be fair Roger Taylor and Brian May have inherited Queen much like the next of kin inherit a deceased loved ones assets. They were part of the Queen "family" and if they burn the family house down and piss away the assets on cheap hookers, cocaine and fast cars then ruin the family name it is their right to do it. Seems they want to honor the name though, not like they arent going to keep making money off of Queen till the day they die anyway.

captainperoxide wrote on 12/14/2011 - 12:56 pm / quote |

[quote]theseasonalist wrote:On the topic of the article, this should have come up a long time ago. Brian May and Roger Taylor are not Queen. Freddie Mercury, while not the sole songwriter for the band, was the image of the band. This applies to every other classic rock act who has lost a key member. If Paul and Ringo toured together, they would not be the Beatles. Brian and Roger T. need to walk away from the Queen name altogether.[/quote
I'd argue that Brian is almost as big a part of the image as Freddie is. Freddie's Freddie, and his voice is instantly recognizable but Brian's guitar playing was a huge part of the band's sound as well. It's not fair to dismiss that.

Having said that, I think they should just grab a new name, a new singer, and head out on the road. I'd pay for a ticket.

captainperoxide wrote on 12/14/2011 - 12:56 pm / quote |

theseasonalist wrote:On the topic of the article, this should have come up a long time ago. Brian May and Roger Taylor are not Queen. Freddie Mercury, while not the sole songwriter for the band, was the image of the band. This applies to every other classic rock act who has lost a key member. If Paul and Ringo toured together, they would not be the Beatles. Brian and Roger T. need to walk away from the Queen name altogether.

I'd argue that Brian is almost as big a part of the image as Freddie is. Freddie's Freddie, and his voice is instantly recognizable but Brian's guitar playing was a huge part of the band's sound as well. It's not fair to dismiss that.

Having said that, I think they should just grab a new name, a new singer, and head out on the road. I'd pay for a ticket.

GaryBillington wrote on 12/14/2011 - 12:57 pm / quote |

Exactly what I thought - I was about to check on google to see if I'd missed the news when I saw your comment!!

As for the bands who shoulld have changed their name conversation, what about AC/DC? Should they have rebranded themselves when Bon Scott died?

Salvo416 wrote on 12/14/2011 - 01:27 pm / quote |

The pair have performed live together on several occasions since the death of frontman Freddie Mercury and Bad Company's Paul Rodgers.

Last time I checked, Paul Rodgers is still alive.

i_am_metalhead wrote on 12/14/2011 - 01:38 pm / quote |

theseasonalist wrote:

On the topic of the article, this should have come up a long time ago. Brian May and Roger Taylor are not Queen. Freddie Mercury, while not the sole songwriter for the band, was the image of the band. This applies to every other classic rock act who has lost a key member.

Honestly, when I hear the name "Queen" the very first person that pops in my head is Brian May, not Freddie Mercury. Sure, he was an extremely talented vocalist and did contribute to the song writing, but to me Brian May's guitar playing is the voice of Queen.

zalant wrote:

Jesus_Dean wrote:

Why don't more bands do this. If a band loses a key member, then give yourself a new name and move on. Everyone knows who you are. Then you can tour with whomever you want and write whatever you want. Just leave the legacy alone.

Let this start the debate on what constitutes a "key" member. I don't think I've ever heard anyone state that Metallica should have changed their name when Cliff died, and I don't think anyone would argue that it's because he wasn't a "key" member.

Somehow, Kiss has soldiered on without Ace and Peter, all the while under the Kiss moniker.

What about Van Halen? Many suggested a change to Van Hagar when Sammy joined, but really, can you convince a band to change its name when it is the last name of the two consistent members?

I don't know where I'm going with all of this, but just figured I'd throw it out there as food for thought.

Huge +1. There are several bands who have lost key members and have continued on to do great things! Just because you lose a member doesn't mean you can't continue the legacy without them.

JAHellraiser wrote on 12/14/2011 - 01:55 pm / quote |

What if they lose a 'key' member early on in their career? Like Metallica losing Dave Mustaine, and the Beatles losing Stu Suttclife and Pete Best. Do those count or not? Is there a set number of years or albums that bands are able to lose a member but not have to rename themselves? can you imagine how many names bands like guns n roses, rhcp would have?

notsominidude wrote on 12/14/2011 - 02:35 pm / quote |

I think bands should only change their name when either half or less of the original members are left. Or if its an irreplaceable member who played a distinctive part e.g. Frank from Gallows

-1

lemmon182 wrote on 12/14/2011 - 02:59 pm / quote |

When a sporting team loses it's long time captain, should they change their name too..?

necrosis1193 wrote on 12/14/2011 - 03:26 pm / quote |

I would love to see this happen. Both are excellent musicians, excellent writers, and excellent singers - you had to be capable of all three in Queen. But it's just not the same band without all four there, which is impossible without Freddie. I'd love to hear from them again, but just not as Queen.

Horizons18 wrote on 12/14/2011 - 03:36 pm / quote |

It's impossible for them to create new music under the name of Queen and have it be judged objectively. Maybe they should adopt a new name, i'd love to hear Brian creating new stuff.

Iliekgitaz wrote on 12/14/2011 - 03:40 pm / quote |

They should name their band King

Risjuh wrote on 12/14/2011 - 04:03 pm / quote |

What about AC/DC? the've lost a ''key'' member but the still go on

WholeLottaIzzy wrote on 12/14/2011 - 04:08 pm / quote |

Read the article and I was like "Shit the bed, Paul Rodgers is dead?!" :haha: poor wording indeed!

ermonski wrote on 12/14/2011 - 04:15 pm / quote |

Alice in Chains? hmmm

captainperoxide wrote on 12/14/2011 - 04:44 pm / quote |

Not really a band in the same class as Queen, but one of my favorite bands, Reel Big Fish, is still going strong with the original name, and the only remaining original member in a 6-piece band is the frontman, Aaron. The only original member of Social Distortion left is Mike Ness. The example of AC/DC applies as well. They made their name under Bon Scott, but have had many more years of success under Brian Johnson (not to imply they couldn't have had that with Bon, but still).

I think what's important is that the band continuing on must be in the same spirit and direction as the original lineup. AC/DC haven't changed a whit since the 70s, regardless of who's fronting the band, so the name stands, because it's synonymous with the band's direction. Reel Big Fish also has the same spirit it always has.

A band isn't just the sum of its parts, or all the members of the band, it's the music and the spirit behind the music. If that remains the same, it shouldn't matter how many "key" members leave or die (what constitutes a key member anyway, as Jesus_Dean pointed out). If the song remains the same, (pun intended), the band should continue under the same name, because the name is synonymous with the music they make. If the music or spirit changes, change the name, and make a new start.

Just my $0.02

maiden=gods wrote on 12/14/2011 - 04:44 pm / quote |

Velvet Revolver.

WiZoRZ wrote on 12/14/2011 - 05:07 pm / quote |

Axl rose : Am I Guns N' Roses? Hell yeaa! -___- sure

abbydaddy03 wrote on 12/14/2011 - 05:32 pm / quote |

theseasonalist wrote:

Extremely poor wording in the summary of this news story -- "The pair have performed live together on several occasions since the death of frontman Freddie Mercury and Bad Company's Paul Rodgers." Makes it appear as if Paul Rodgers is also deceased, which he is not.

On the topic of the article, this should have come up a long time ago. Brian May and Roger Taylor are not Queen. Freddie Mercury, while not the sole songwriter for the band, was the image of the band. This applies to every other classic rock act who has lost a key member. If Paul and Ringo toured together, they would not be the Beatles. Brian and Roger T. need to walk away from the Queen name altogether.

Agreed 100%

Mcjimmy wrote on 12/14/2011 - 05:38 pm / quote |

"The pair have performed live together on several occasions since the death of frontman Freddie Mercury and Bad Company's Paul Rodgers." - Where do these people learn English?

It would excellent if they did so though, the music won't be as good as Queen of course but it'd still be excellent. Could they not just do May and Taylor like Page and Plant did or something?

Morgothik wrote on 12/14/2011 - 06:14 pm / quote |

You guys are nuts. Very few bands maintain the same lineup through their entire career be that in the big leagues or just on the local level. The name goes on. The members change.

Spaztikko wrote on 12/14/2011 - 06:16 pm / quote |

NAPALM DEATH FTW!

<Craig> wrote on 12/14/2011 - 07:20 pm / quote |

I think it depends if the person who leaves or dies is a key songwriter, then it kinda depends on the band.

Phil Anselmo left Pantera, and Dime and Vinnie started a new band, same with Rage when de la Rocha left and they formed Audioslave.

Having said that, Kevin Moore left Dream Theater and he was replaced, as was Mike Portnoy, both key players, but if Petrucci left/died/was fired the band would fold. Same if Hetfield left Metallica or Corey left Slipknot, the bands couldn't carry on. Then again, Iced Earth have went through about ten singers, and Scott Ian is the only remaining original Anthrax member.

I think for every band that gets a new member who is accepted, there is one that is rejected when the lineup changes.

Jimmypageclone wrote on 12/14/2011 - 07:34 pm / quote |

I would be cool if they toured as "Smile" - The original name of the band before Freddie Mercury joined.

ds24601 wrote on 12/14/2011 - 07:50 pm / quote |

Jimmypageclone wrote:

I would be cool if they toured as "Smile" - The original name of the band before Freddie Mercury joined.

I thought that was their band before Queen. Like, they formed a new band with Freddie rather than him joining and them changing their name. Oh well, doesn't really matter. Yes, that would be cool! Wonder if Tim Staffell or whatever his name is is still alive...

johnfrance wrote on 12/14/2011 - 10:39 pm / quote |

I like it. Look what happened when Joy Division became New Order after losing Ian Curtis

sherry07 wrote on 12/14/2011 - 10:49 pm / quote |

ds24601 wrote:

Jimmypageclone wrote:

I would be cool if they toured as "Smile" - The original name of the band before Freddie Mercury joined.

I thought that was their band before Queen. Like, they formed a new band with Freddie rather than him joining and them changing their name. Oh well, doesn't really matter. Yes, that would be cool! Wonder if Tim Staffell or whatever his name is is still alive...

That would be AWESOME! As far as I know, yeah Tim is alive. Oh my goodness, that would be so cool!

andreschr wrote on 12/14/2011 - 11:41 pm / quote |

GUNS N ROSES!!!!!

Cameron! wrote on 12/15/2011 - 12:10 am / quote |

Joy Division..New Order...

k0stil wrote on 12/15/2011 - 03:58 am / quote |

black sabbath are in their original line up.guns and roses - i agree.axl rose should have made it as a solo career.
and to keep that on, guns and roses shouldnt be guns and roses since 1980's since tracey guns left

EbonySouth wrote on 12/15/2011 - 06:39 am / quote |

That reads like Paul Rodgers is dead!

edgeyyz wrote on 12/15/2011 - 10:05 am / quote |

Yes. Like Axl should have.

suprnatrulcat wrote on 02/17/2012 - 04:46 pm / quote |

The music industry is a business and you don't change your business name because one of the founders or partners dies. The band is going to continue to perform their old music, continue to make money off of the music and other Queen merchandise. The Queen name will get them better gigs and they'll still remain headliners. Why would you go to the expense of renaming the band - how would it benefit the band?