The Future of Queen?

I go for option 1, as a Queen fan i think they should not use the Queen name anymore. No one would replace Freddie!

Hasty thoughts, and this coming from a non-fan of Queen who doesn't know that much about their recent work/ line-up.

Hearing Adam Lambert sing, I thought he would be excellent in Queen, and that was before there was any news of him touring/ collaborating with Queen.  The guy was a pro before joining American Idol, and in a way I thought he was devaluing, or I'd say more like debasing, himself by being in American Idol.  I wouldn't expect the Queen name to retire as there's lots of money to be made, but ethically after losing Freddie Mercury, I think it would have been right for the band name to be retired for future releases.  They could still do some stuff, and concerts, but more like a tribute.  In fact, as happens with many bands that don't keep churning out new music, it becomes something of a tribute to itself (playing the standards/ classics).

I don't mind the remaining members doing some concerts with Adam Lambert, and release some tribute-type albums (rehashes of old material), but I'd like to think that they would retire the name and come up with some new material.  Adam Lambert would be a very good lead singer, but they also need a new good composer-musician.  Adam Lambert would probably want Monte Pittman (who worked with Madonna) as they collaborated on The Citizen Vein, but I don't know about having someone who did stuff for Madonna, and I don't think Queen needs a guitarist (maybe a cellist, bassoon, or oboe player.  Don't think they have a sax-man now.  Looking at the last release they didn't even have a pianist... Queen needs a pianist at least -- course they can hire one out as a session musician, but often pianists are good at composition).

Maybe they could rename what's left of the original band X-Queen, or Queen Mark II.


Edited by Logan - June 04 2009 at 12:57

Even though Freddie was the main vocalist, and in my opinion the best vocalist ever in music, and even though he wrote a lot of their songs, I've always considered May and Taylor to be the real core of the band, maybe because they were there before there was a Queen, or maybe just because I like their compositions in general better than those of Mercury or Deacon.  I could see them going on, but I think they are devaluing themselves by playing backing band to someone like Rodgers, Lambert or anyone else.  They are talented enough to front the band.  If they are going to continue as Queen though, they should not bring any other lead vocalists (aside from the previously mentioned Staffel).

Absolutely put the Queen trademark to rest, find a new vocalist partner and give the band a new name, whilst still playing old hits on tour.

Great bands can survive the loss of one legendary singer, but two????

I would go for option 1 or 3. I would like to see Brian and Roger up front.

There was only one replacement for Freddie..............George Michael. Sadly it never happened. Leave it.

i always wonder why John Deacon never made a solo album .he is a great bass player and he wrote fantastic good songs with queen

martinprog77 wrote: i always wonder why John Deacon never made a solo album .he is a great bass player and he wrote fantastic good songs with queen

Edited by June - June 05 2009 at 07:19

Freddie was (the) Queen.

His compositions were always the strongest - and in the early days, among the wildest, next to May's stunning guitar-driven pieces (and not so stunning soft ballads).

I think in order to call it Queen, they at least have to have John Deacon in there, which I'm not ruling out at this point.  If May and Taylor got Deacon back, and heck, let Adam Lambert sing lead for them, I think the result would be just fine.  Freddie was a magnetic front man, but I wouldn't go so far as to call him irreplaceable.  The other three had plenty of compositional input throughout their history.