- Alternative & Modern Rock
- Classic Rock
- Country & Southern Rock
- Early & Roots Rock
- Funk & Reggae
- Hard Rock & Classic Metal
- Industrial, Dance & Electronica
- Jazz & Fusion
- Latin Rock, Salsa & Flamenco
- Modern Metal & Thrash
- Progressive & Experimental
- Proto, Classic & Post Punk
- Psychedelic & Conceptual
- R & B, Gospel and Soul
- Rap & Hip Hop
Little interesting bit of music news floating around recently. Apparently the collaboration between Paul Rogers and Brian May and Roger Taylor from Queen is ending up being quite a good match. The trio (although I'm sure there's a bassist there somewhere too, it's just not John Deacon) is even planning on recording new material under the name Queen. The group released a track called "Say it's Not True" back in 2007 on World Aids Day... a logical charitable choice... but apparently there were longer recording sessions and they're all digging what they're hearing.
I remember seeing Queen perform with Paul Rogers as part of some awards show (the Rock Awards maybe?) a year or two ago and was pretty intrigued. It's not an obvious match, first because Rogers is obviously NOT Freddie Mercury, the voice Queen fans have grown to expect as part of the band's music, and second because Rogers is quite a different type of vocalist than Mercury, giving the songs more of a bluesy edge than the more operatic Mercury wail. Still, the songs sounded good and in general it seemed like something that was working.
A few concerts or even a tour is quite a different thing from a new album though.
Bands have changed singers before... AC/DC, Black Sabbath to name a few... and people have continued to accept and enjoy their music. It's a very noticeable thing to change the lead voice as that's one of the primary features of any songs. That makes me a little wary of adding to the Queen legacy without Mercury. I don't think Freddie would object or anything like that, I heard he was a big fan of Rogers vocals, it just seems a little strange. I won't say that they should definitely have chosen a different name either, because I don't think that's the problem. I think it's just going to take some time to get used to having a Queen album without Mercury's vocals out in the front. I wasn't around when AC/DC lost Bon Scott, nor was I when Ozzy left Black Sabbath, but I bet their was a similar adjustment period for the fans of each of those bands too, so maybe in time it'll feel completely natural to have a Paul Rogers era Queen.
Really, I think that the songs themselves will make a huge difference. I didn't get the chance to hear the track they recorded and was released on World Aids Day so I can't use that as a guideline, but if the album and the songs are strong, then people will accept it and the adjustment period won't be too rough. If it's not a great album though, then a lot of fans might be more put off by the Rogers collaboration and use of the Queen name.
I've already seen some debate on this subject on some other music websites so people are already voicing an opinion and I'm sure that will continue. Like I think has already come across in this post, I'm still a little cautious and on the fence about it. Whether you're immediately excited about this new album or completely against it though, we should all be interested to see what does result.
Keep an eye out for new music from Queen... should at the very least be worth checking out when the new album finally does surface.