None Dare Call It Queen: A Lament on Reunion/Tribute tours

[R_of_G]

I read this item the other day and was going to post about it then, but since my initial thoughts were a little rant-ish, I thought I'd give it a day or two to percolate and see how I felt about it then. Turns out, I want to rant more about it now then I did then, so here goes...

It's been announced that Adam Lambert, an American Idol runner-up from a few years back, has been named the new lead singer of Queen.

This is what's wrong with music.

More than acts like Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga or whichever flavor of the month bothers you most these days. We've all lived long enough to see seemingly ubiquitous pop acts eventually disappear from the radar screen. Anyone heard from the Spice Girls lately? Once upon a time it seemed they'd never go away and I'm sure many of us (myself included) lamented at the time about the sorry end to which the music industry had surely come.

Far more disturbing is the trend of classic rock acts becoming their own tribute bands. It saddens me to no end to see talented musicians that just cannot seem to accept the reality that their most famous project is over.

This phenomenon seems to come in two varieties.

The first are the "Greatest Hits" shows, bands that haven't done anything relevant in decades getting together again to tours arenas playing only the dozen or so songs that the average fan would know. It's the live music equivalent of Old Timer's Day in sports.

The second, and far more unnverving, are the bands that are missing a key member due to death or their refusal to participate in a reunion project. I suppose Brian May's second attempt to replace Freddie Mercury is less upsetting than watching the continuous cycle of Jimmy Page begging Robert Plant to do a reunion, then criticizing him when he refuses and threatening to get some other singer.

Is it really too much to ask that a player as talented a Brian May (who I absolutely idolize) could form another band? There's no reason whatsoever he has to abandon his catalog of Queen songs. If I went to see a Brian May Band concert and he threw a few Queen numbers into the set I'm sure I'd be quite happy. I wouldn't care that it wasn't Freddie singing because it wasn't being billed as Queen. When you call yourselves Queen and you give me Paul Rodgers or Adam Lambert instead of Freddie, yeah, I'm going to reject it.

As much as I'd like to blame the musicians themselves for not being able to let the past go, or just being in it for the money, or whatever motivations we want to attach to things like this, I think it's also important to look at the demand side of the equation.

The fans are as much, if not more, to blame than the acts themselves.

From a fan standpoint, I can't see any reason for wanting to attend these kinds of shows other than being too young to have gotten a chance to see these bands when they were in their prime. Of course I wish I could have seen Led Zeppelin or Black Sabbath or any number of bands. I wish I could have seen Charlie Parker and Miles and Trane and Monk and Mingus too but you're born when you're born and that's just the way it is.

Anyway, I'm sure I've said more than enough, but just remember, Ringo is McCartney's death away from touring as "The Beatles."

[piebaldpython***]

+1 on all that you said.......and I couldn't have said it any better. KUDOS......

the ONLY exception I can find to the above is how Little Feat has carried on after the death of founding member/lead guitarist Lowell George in 1979. Now, maybe it has something to do with George actually leaving the band to go solo just prior to his death???

[R_of_G]

the ONLY exception I can find to the above is how Little Feat has carried on after the death of founding member/lead guitarist Lowell George in 1979. Now, maybe it has something to do with George actually leaving the band to go solo just prior to his death???

That is one exception that excludes Little Feat. Another is that that they kept on going after Lowell George left. They continued making new music. They didn't stop for twenty years then decide to find a new guitarist and play all their old material so yeah, we can leave Little Feat off of the list of bands to make fun of.

[Tig***]

Will I go see Queen when they tour? No, because without Freddy, Queen only exists in past recordings in my opinion. I watched Paul Rodgers front them in a televised concert, and was sickened by his attempt at singing and his new face work (looks like Chuck Norris now!). It was a sad disappointment.

As for Lambert, he is as close to Freddy's higher register vocals as there is available right now, but on his best day, he can't quite reach Freddy's worst day. Freddy has a magic to his voice that will never be repeated.

I'd love to see Brian May just do his own thing and play a few Queen songs.

[Photomike666]

Brain May did do his own thing, solo album called Another World released mid 98. I caught the live tour at the Royal Albert Hall, London. Album went to 15 in the US charts

[guitartango]

Queen without Freddie
Beatles without John
Nirvana without kurt

It just doesn't work so just retire or run a farm.

[Spudman***]

Another way to look at it - if you have a successful business and your business partner leaves then you don't rename the business do you? Of course not. You have put your heart and soul into the success of your business and will find a way to keep it going. It's just as much your business as it was your partner's. If you've built a good reputation and can still deliver a product that fans of your business enjoy then why bother changing the name? It's still your business after all.

[Algonquin]

I remember watching this tribute to Freddie and was truly flattened on how good he fit the bill.

[R_of_G]

I remember watching this tribute to Freddie and was truly flattened on how good he fit the bill.

But it wasn't offensive because it was a tribute to Freddie, not a repackaged band with George Michael acting as understudy.

[R_of_G]

Another way to look at it - if you have a successful business and your business partner leaves then you don't rename the business do you? Of course not. You have put your heart and soul into the success of your business and will find a way to keep it going. It's just as much your business as it was your partner's. If you've built a good reputation and can still deliver a product that fans of your business enjoy then why bother changing the name? It's still your business after all.

It's a good point, but not an entirely apt metaphor in most cases.

It's more like you have a successful business and your business partner leaves and the business ceases to exist for twenty or thirty years and then one day you decide that people will still like the product you used to make and despite no longer having the exact means of making the same product, you make what you consider a reasonable facsimile, change the packaging but keep the name.

There are exceptions, Little Feat as PBP noted above being a good example, but they're the exception that seems to prove the rule.

[sunvalleylaw]

I generally agree with the original post. There can be exceptions, and sometimes band members shift over time. Wilco is another example. The Who for that matter. But doing reunion tours basically playing a "Greatest Hits" show with one or two of the original band members of whatever band rubs me the wrong way. I would prefer to see Brian May rocking it in a new group entirely, and pay homage to his roots with some Queen covers.

[R_of_G]

There can be exceptions, and sometimes band members shift over time. Wilco is another example. The Who for that matter.

These are two more exceptions that I think serve to prove the rule.

Look at how Wilco formed in the first place. When Jay Farrar left Uncle Tupelo, Tweedy kept the rest of the band together, they changed their name and over the course of the first few albums they began to change their sound as well. They didn't just replace Farrar and still call themselves Uncle Tupelo, nor did Farrar hire new musicians and call that new band Uncle Tupelo. The lineup changes in Wilco along the way may disturb a contingent of fans here or there, but they remained an active band. They didn't stop for a decade or two and then come back as Jeff Tweedy and four or five random guys he found still bearing the Wilco name.

The Who is quite possibly the band that most exemplifies what it is that irks me about this phenomenon. Obviously it's difficult to blame the Who for going on after Keith Moon died. They were still a very active band with a big following and wanted to keep playing together. We can discuss the relative merits of post-Moon Who albums, but regardless, he died while they were still active.

However, by the time we get to Entwistle's passing they had already become nothing more than their own Who tribute band. That in and of itself made me sad, especially given the respect I have for Townshend and Entwistle (Daltrey is entirely superfluous). When they still toured and played the Super Bowl after Entwistle passed, they were reduced to a cliche of themselves.

When Townshend needs to have a second guitar player play most of the parts because he can't play too loud and someone other than Entwistle is on bass, that ain't The Who no matter how loud Roger Daltrey screams or waves his microphone around over his head.

[Hampus]

Another example is Dee Snider of Twisted Sister. In the late 90's he put together a self tribute band called Dee Snider's SMF. SMF standing for Sick Mother ****ers. They played only old Twisted songs. I saw them twice in '98 and they were great.

I've seen a few of the big ones, but none has come close to SMF, performance wise.

/Hampus

Sent from my cobra phone

[sunvalleylaw]

They didn't stop for a decade or two and then come back as Jeff Tweedy and four or five random guys he found still bearing the Wilco name.

Yes, this was the distinction I was trying to make. As far as the Who goes, I give them a pass too, as they remained active. The tragic passing of band members doesn't mean they can't still be the Who. Granted, age and loss has changed them. But I won't condemn them for still carrying their name.

It is the bands that have not been around for 10 or even 20 years, and one or two guys grab new players, and end up playing greatest hits at some casino or at county fairs, etc., while carrying the old name that bug me more.

[R_of_G]

As far as the Who goes, I give them a pass too, as they remained active. The tragic passing of band members doesn't mean they can't still be the Who. Granted, age and loss has changed them. But I won't condemn them for still carrying their name.

Define "active" in this case. For the latter half of the 80s and the entirety of the 90s all they did was get back together every now and again to cash in on a reunion tour or three and do some charity shows. That's not exactly a band that's still touring regularly and working steadily on making new music. That's a band that's it's own cover band.

Contrast it with a band like the Stones. As god awful as much of the modern Rolling Stones albums have been, at least they still tour regularly and at least they're trying to make new records instead of just going out every five years and raking in the nostalgia dollars.

[Tig***]

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/adam-...n-this-summer/

‘American Idol’ alum Adam Lambert has blasted a reports that he has signed on to tour with Queen this summer. On Friday (Feb. 3), British newspaper The Daily Star claimed that the the legendary rockers would hit the autobahn for a headlining spot on this summer’s touring Sonisphere festival in Europe, with Lambert filling in for the late, great Freddie Mercury. But on Saturday, Lambert took to Twitter to say that the news wasn’t true and was the result of a simple misunderstanding.

“Oooh them clever reporters takin my quotes outta context…. I haven’t confirmed any guest appearances. I was talking about the EMA’S,” reads a post on Lambert’s Twitter page. He followed that with, “That being said, I’m truly flattered by your jump to such glorious conclusions mr journalist!!”

“The EMAs” would be reference to his appearance last November with Queen at the MTV Europe Awards, when they collaborated on a rousing rendition of ‘We Are the Champions.’ Queen guitarist Brian May and drummer Roger Taylor also joined Lambert onstage to rock ‘Champions’ when Lambert won ‘Idol’ back in 2009.

While Lambert’ claims that his comments were taken out of context, a quick look back at exactly what he said does make it seem as he was referring to an event that had not happened yet. “The intention is to pay tribute to Freddie and the band by singing some f—ing great songs,” he told The Daily Star. “There’s no intention in my mind of replacing Freddie,” he added. “That’s impossible. The way I’m choosing to view it is that it’s a great honor and one I’m in no way going to shirk.” Note the future tense of his comments.

[piebaldpython***]

With all due respect to Keith Moon.......losing him was not nearly the same as losing Freddy Mercury or Lowell George who were the heart/soul and major song-writers ( I assume Freddy at least co-wrote some tunes; I know Lowell did) of their bands.

Brian May should just front his own band......and do some Queen material throughout the show to keep those fans happy.

[Eric***]

I get your point, and it's a fair one, but it doesn't bother me that much. After much debate in my own mind, I find music is mostly for enjoyment. Some people enjoy going to see Queen with Brian May and Roger Taylor and whomever else, even if the original members aren't all there and they have been on hiatus for a long time. I feel no real need to begrudge those people that experience just they (the concert-goers) don't share your or my particular worldview on a given topic.

You can take issue with my statement that music is mostly for enjoyment, and I'd understand if you did. It certainly can be far more than that, but I think trying to define it as only one thing leads to a lot of the arguments about what music should be. My point is that music can simply be a source of entertainment and joy for the listener, and some people find that in going to concerts of yesteryear's famous bands and listening to them play their hits. I guess that's up to them. Heck, at least it's Brian May touring and not someone just using the name Queen.

[R_of_G]

You can take issue with my statement that music is mostly for enjoyment, and I'd understand if you did. It certainly can be far more than that, but I think trying to define it as only one thing leads to a lot of the arguments about what music should be. My point is that music can simply be a source of entertainment and joy for the listener, and some people find that in going to concerts of yesteryear's famous bands and listening to them play their hits. I guess that's up to them. Heck, at least it's Brian May touring and not someone just using the name Queen.

I don't take issue at all Eric. If there's one objective truth about music it's that it's entirely subjective. Different people get different things out of it and that's fine.