Talk:Queen (band)

Archive: 1, 2

Live Aid

As of 2006/09/22, there is no mention in the main article of Queen's command performance at live Aid. Why not? 213.202.149.45 03:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's under the history of Queen article. - Zone46 13:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

...and it is now mentioned in the live performances page.

Queen is/are

It seems people who change 'Queen is' to 'Queen are' never bother to change all the other "is"s to "are"s (or the other way around) in the article. I've come to the point where I really don't care anymore what form of English the article is written in, but I'd like to aim for consistency (my new favorite word when it comes to editing this article), so we should decide what we want it to be (is/are, finding their sound/finding its sound) and keep it that way. - Zone46 13:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should switch the article, Queen are from England where treating collective nouns as plurals is normal.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 12:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, even though, to me, it sounds odd. I believe that the group should be treated as they would be treated in their own country, and Queen are British.Billvoltage 15:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Let's just keep it consistent. - Zone46 17:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I intend, then, to change "is" to "are" (and make the other necessary changes, e.g. "has" to "have" etc.) throughout the article. My previous attempts to do this were all reverted and I got fed up with it, but now it seems there is some sort of consensus, right? If anyone feels they are going to revert my "is" -> "are" changes again then please speak soon, before I do it. Matt 01:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

Seems this has now been done - the ones I found on a quick scan, anyway! Hurrah! Matt 17:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

Why is Freddie Mercury listed as a former member?

Guys, it is pretty silly to refer to Freddie Mercury as a "former member." Among other things, this suggests that the rest of the band achieved some kind of notable success after his death, which is simply not the case. Let's face it, Queen is basically a defunct band, and I find the current designation to be very offensive. 67.190.44.85 01:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You are very much right about that. Queen are still technically active but Freddie has never actually "left the band". He may have passed but he would most definetly still be in the band if he was still to be around today. 65.93.85.3 20:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, he's dead, and they have worked as Queen without him. We have to deal with facts not "what might have been". --kingboyk 16:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, as much as I'd rather not... He should be listed as former. Billvoltage 11:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The article absolutely must state that Freddie is not currently producing music with Queen owing to his demise in 1991. It currently reads in parts like he's still alive and producing music with them! --Shockeroo 17:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't Stop Me Now

maybe it should say in the article that "Don't stop me now" by Queen was voted greatest driving song of all time by UK TV show Top Gear. (and i think it is the best driving song :) )

yeah I guess it could fit into trivia or such... but first it will need a source for quoteing Donny 13:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's already written in the Don't Stop Me Now article, it really doesn't fit in here (this article's big enough as it is, apparently). - Zone46 13:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

spliting the article more?

there is now a new warning that the article is too long. Should it be cut more? We have separated the discography into a new article, which I think was both needed and better for viewing. But now what? makeing new "history" page, with just the summary here? posibly a "live" page also, with the lineups and maybe more detail?

Anyway I think it should be though of a bit before doing....Donny 13:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the article is fine, as long as it doesn't get any longer. There are many other bigger articles, and although there is a lot of info here, but it doesn't need to be really short, either. I suggest trimming some of the 1980s section and just including highlights of Queen plus Paul Rodgers and other stuff in the 1998-present section. - Zone46 20:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes i agree Queen has had a very long and interesting history and needs a long article!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.217.25 (talk • contribs)

(a) I think the new article on the History of Queen is not a bad idea. But I am not happy that Feureau has removed almost all content from the history section in the main article; see also Beatles#History. (b) What do you think about 'Live performances by Queen'? Is it a good idea or should we move its content to the main article? - Candyfloss 16:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I liked all the info on the main page, rather than on separate pages. So what if the article is long? It's not like it's going to get much longer (developments about new albums, performances, and wahtnot should really go under the Queen + Paul Rodgers article, anyway). See my previous post above. It's just my opinion, but I think this page looked a lot better before. - Zone46 16:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I still support the idea of a separate history article with all the details. But I think that the basic info still should be on this page - not just smile onto queen. List great successes and similar. main points: seven seas, killer queen, bohemian rhapsody, rock you, first synths etc... Then in history all of this can be explained till our mouth falls off.

I personally would like to see verything here - but I think this will help the featured article thing - it is easier to maintain the artcle quality... Donny 20:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments like "It's ok as long as it doesn't get any longer" are an indication it's time to split. We *want* more information, we just don't want this page to get longer. The right thing to do is create History of Queen, and move the detailed informaiton there, and create a 2-3 paragraph summary here of the key points from 1968 to current day - formation, major successes, Mercury's death, the musical, etc. However with any article like this it's always a bit debatable what is "history" and what is just the topic itself. Stevage 21:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Opening Line

The opening line states that queen are arguably the most famous English rock band. 'Arguably' aside, it is quite ridiculous to say they are or were more famous than the Beatles. I'm no great fan of either, but I think this is just a plain false statement. Anyone agree? HenvY 21:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with fame, and yes Queen are britain's most consistently successful band of the past three decades. Just look at the charts. Thay had 5 number one singles and 4 number one albums in the 70's, 6 number one singles and 6 number one albums in the 80's, 5 number one singles and 2 number one albums in the 90's, and 1 number one single in 2000.(17 singles and 12 albums all together). That's not menchining the compilation and live albums or the DVDs. And there album sales keep climbing. The Beatles had 17 number one singles and 11 number one albums in the 60's.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 05:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What you said aside, Top of the Pops has a page on them (I believe this should be made the refernce, not what is on there now) that says that they are "Arguably Britain's most consistently successful band from the mid-70s onwards, Queen began life as a glam rock unit in 1970." The link for this is here: [1] Billvoltage 01:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Kira Yoshikage

• Kira Yoshikage from the Japanese manga JoJo's Bizarre Adventure has a Stand named Killer Queen. Killer Queen has a tertiary bomb, called Another One Bites the Dust. This bomb is actually a distinct, miniaturized form of Killer Queen, which normally stays with someone who knows Kira's secrets. If someone tries to interrogate that person about Kira, the tertiary bomb will enter their field of vision, get into their eye that way, and induce an explosion.

How do we add that? - Malomeat 00:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I believ should be added to the Killer Queen and not the Queen one... Billvoltage 01:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I just checked out the article you were talking about, and we should mention its first bomb, Sheer Heart Attack (perhaps on the album, and the song (and Another One Bites the Dust on the song page for it also?) Billvoltage 01:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Members vs Former Members

Queen is listed as an active group. However, Deacon is retired and Mercury is dead, and both are listed as active members. Also a user moved Mercury from 'Former' to 'Current' recently, so there's obviously some dispute about that. This is an unusual situation as the group does not really do very much nowadays (there was the recent Queen+ work which was only 2 of the original members plus another, using the Queen name together) The group is generally thought of as the four original members, back when the groupo was actively making music.

I am considering the least confusing way to present this information. Here are some options:

1) List Queen as inactive (inaccurate?)
2) Move Mercury and Deacon to 'Former Members' (confusing?)
3) Add "(Desceased)" after Mercury and "(Retired)" after Deacon in the members box (unusual formatting for Wikipedia I think...)

Any more thoughts/ideas are welcome. --Shockeroo 17:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed you are right. I think that I am against "former" declarations. I believe Queen are the four. But it is still hard to say that they are over and inactive, when the two are using the name. I am not really against that either. Let them play I guess. especialy when doing charities and such. It is their band after all. so that should be covered on the Queen+Paul page.

Maybe an "intermediate" status with some nice name for it. Or maybe that link that was there for a while: "part of Queen+" or became part or somthing...Donny 19:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, as much I wish it weren't so, one of those needs to be done, I either the first or the third, as the second would be confusing, implying Freddie was still alive. I think the first is inaccurate, as you said. So it must be the third Billvoltage 21:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. - Zone46 03:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

OK then. it seems we have at least a kind of an agreement. I shall change it and if anyone objects, please write your reasons and suggestions here Donny 14:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Influence (Re: My Edits on 10/29)

Being a huge fan of Queen, and having read so much about them, I know which of the artists listed truly have cited the British band as an influence and which haven't. Thus, I've thinned the list down a bit, and also got rid of the more dubious inclusions. I also deleted the naming of the songs; anyone truly interested can check out the albums/do a bit of research. The naming of titles for each of the near-dozen genres mentioned just disturbs the flow and makes the section unwieldy and hard-to-read. I also got rid of the "source/cite references" thing, because of all the reasons stated above. A minimal amount of research on each of the bands can verify the claim that QUeen influenced them, however to do it for each of those individual bands would take a great deal of time and is unneccesary for an encyclopedia. CinnamonCinder 18:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, the article has Queen cited as a rap influence, how did that work out?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.91.96 (talk • contribs)

...it goes back to a Rolling Stone review of the Innuendo album where the reviewer claimed that Queen influenced the rap genre without justifying his claim. I personally think that any claim that Queen influenced rap should be dropped.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.217.76.77 (talk • contribs)

No, I don't think it has anything to do with the RS review. In 1980, "Another One Bites the Dust" was a very big hit in the U.S. This song certainly had some influence on hip hop musicians. For example, the classic 1981 single "The Adventures of Grandmaster Flash on the Wheels of Steel" used samples from "Another One Bites the Dust". Queen's music was, for example, also sampled by hip hop group Public Enemy. - Candyfloss 12:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Heehee...and this opens up the debate about how much AOBTD owes its existence to Good Times by Chic. I guess it is difficult to pin down what 'influence' means and whether sampling can be classed as an influence. Also, I dont think Judas Priest were influenced by Queen.

I agree with Judas Priest not being influenced by Queen, they were formed 5 years before Queen released their debut album. Queenfan4ever 14:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont think Metallica was directly influenced by Queen and recall the drummer saying words to this effect. He did say how they had great repect for them. Also I am curious how The Smiths/Morrissey are influenced by Queen - can anyone enlighten me.

Article infobox.

This article, currently listed as an "example" article on the Template:Infobox musical artist page, does not properly follow the infobox guidelines:

• The genre lists about a half-dozen different subsets of rock. The infobox specifically states to "aim for generality" (specifics of exactly what type of rock a band plays can be explained -- with examples -- in the text). A simple "rock" will suffice here.
• Is Queen still an active group? My overview of the article didn't make this clear to me. If so, who is in the group, or do they play with only two people?
• Former members belong in a "former members" section, even if they are Freddie Mercury. If David Ruffin can survive the indignity of being referred to as a former Temptation, Mercury will be just fine.

...and a minor gripe, which isn't part of the guidelines, but one of professional taste: is the logo really necessary to have in the infobox?

All that being said, I'm replacing this page on the template example page list with a conforming example. --FuriousFreddy 06:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think rock music and pop music (or pop rock) should be the genres to go in the box. - Zone46 20:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Chart positions

I suggest that chart positions be keep out of the introduction as only a small sample of countries are available. Also, new bands tend to have a rapid rise/fall whereas older, established bands often have a more gradual path through the charts. Hence it is not a piece of reliable information.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.55.123.159 (talk • contribs) .

Paul R. and singles in the box

I was thinking that maybe we should have Paul Rodgers listed as a member. Although he is a Queen+ project, they have been together longer then most other Queen+ acts. Also, some other band articles have the bands singles in the box at the bottom, should we do that with Queen? Queenfan4ever 12:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Rodgers is not am member of 'Queen'!

No, I don't think the singles should be added to the box. - Candyfloss 14:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Film & television

In this section, maybe there needs some mention of Starfleet, Metropolis, Biggles, Zabou, Hotel New Hampshire, and perhaps someone knowledgeable might tell us about Spiderman 2, and Pinochio which Brian may have been involved in.

We only want to have things Queen did as a whole in this article.Queenfan4ever 21:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't work out whether or not the linkage between ANATO & ADATR and the Marx Brothers movies should get a mention.

Influence on Rap and Rolling Stone Review

Are we really going to say that Queen influenced the rap genre? Keep in mind, the Stone review that claims that they influenced the rap genre also completely trashes the band and, like most Rolling Stone reviews, shows that the reviewer doesn't really know jack about his subject. As a life long Queen fan, I think that claiming that Queen influenced the rap genre is ridiculous, and relying on Rolling Stone reviews for proof is self-defeating. TheImpossibleMan 12:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I removed it after reading the article a few days ago, but someone reverted it. I vote on removing it again. - Zone46 20:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, whoever keeps adding it back should step forward and say why Queenfan4ever 22:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As instrumentalists

Is it just me or is the "As instrumentalists" section really ugly? What should we do with it?— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 12:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Make it pretty? - Zone46 14:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

We should probably just remove it and put it in the band members seperate articles.69.68.160.160 22:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree too! Let us 'integrate' it into the band member pages. Can some brave soul hit the delete button...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.44.39 (talk • contribs)

The member pages need some work. If anyone is willing to do some major cleanup on the pages and merge this it to them it would be great.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 12:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

References

There have been many books written about Queen (ie.Queen: As it Began), if any one has any of these books please cite them in Queen articles. And remember to use {{Cite book}}.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 06:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

<ref>
{{cite book
|last=
|first=
|authorlink=
|coauthors=
|editor=
|others=
|title=
|origdate=
|origyear=
|origmonth=
|url=
|format=
|accessdate=
|accessyear=
|accessmonth=
|edition=
|date=
|year=
|month=
|publisher=
|location=
|language=
|id=
|doi =
|pages=
|chapter=
|chapterurl=
|quote=
}}
</ref>

Books

Should we try and give a more comprehensive list of books put out on Queen?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.68.233 (talk • contribs)

Yes.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 08:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Return of the champions

Should we really have return of the champions on this page or should we move it to the Queen+Paul page? 69.34.88.183 12:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be on both pages, a brief entry here, but a more in depth one there... It does, afterall, include Queen in it. It should also be on the Paul Rodgers page, if it is not. Billvoltage 23:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)