Story here.
What’s your thought? My thought is it’s probably the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard since the surviving members of the Doors decided to reunite a few years ago–with the frontguy of the Cult as Morrison’s replacement. Brian, Roger, and Dean, as much as you might hate to admit it, Queen died when Freddie died. Reuniting under the Queen name with Paul Rodgers was kinda pathetic, but at least he’s around your age. If they go through with it’ll be “cheesy teen idol with three old guys”. Why not just form a new band with a different name if you’re so desperate to stay in the spotlight?
This just in: Freddie Mercury rises from grave and declares Lambert “Too gay” to front Queen.
Isn’t it true that the American Idol producers have right-of-first-refusal to the top 6 finishers for music contracts.
If so, do you think they’ll let Adam go to Queen.
Who is Dean?
It is actually only two old guys, since John Deacon is retired.Although Queen+PR did use Danny Miranda(from Blue Oyster Cult) as the Bassist who is in his mid 40s.
I have only heard a few songs sung by Adam,I liked him.
My thoughts are… if Queen wants to continue performing(Which I think and hope they do),Roger should sing,he isn’t as good as Freddie was,but he is pretty damn good.
If Roger doesn’t, I wouldn’t mind seeing George Michael or Gary Cherone taking up vocals.
The Queen+PR years were not pathetic,I enjoyed it.The albums they released did pretty good and they played a concert to over 350,000.
LONG LIVE QUEEN! 
I got a chuckle over this Wiki article. Humpy Bong - Wikipedia
Now that’s a band for Adam to front.
Queen died with Mercury, I agree. However, I can understand the remaining band member’s desire to continue on. It’s undoubedly very difficult to go from being in a very famous, very successful band with a hefty paycheck to poor obscurity. At least in Queen’s case, the dismantlement was not a by-product of competing egoes, so it’s easier (at least for me) to accept someone else stepping in.
Many bands have tried to carry on with an essential member of the band MIA and none have succeeded. It’s especially hard to carry on without the lead singer. At the end of the day, the new band ends up being a cover band (albeit a really good cover band) for the old band and can, at best, fill venues that are a fraction of the size they used to play in.
On the one hand, it does seem rather pathetic to go from playing Wembley Stadium to playing the Kansas State Fair. On the other hand, the surviving bandmates are still making a living doing what they (I presume) love to do. We should all be so lucky.
It’ll be as successful as INXS reforming with (who was it again?) some guy who won a TV singing competition.
I can’t imagine the members of Queen are really hurting for money, are they? Their songs are licensed for all kinds of stuff, they still get radio airplay, and they recently had their catalog turned into a stage musical.
AC/DC did alright with a replacement singer. That’s about the only case I can think of though.
And the Sex Pistols of course, they did great without Sid and Johnny.
I’d say Van Halen was successful with a replacement singer after David Lee Roth left.
Styx has had some success after replacing Dennis DeYoung with Lawrence Gowan.
Lynyrd Skynyrd is still selling out stadiums with Ronnie Van Zandt’s brother filling in for him.
Genesis did alright after replacing Peter Gabrial with Phil Collins.
Black Sabbath did fine after replacing Ozzy Osborne with Ronnie James Dio.
Oh, I’d imagine they aren’t. There was an article in Rolling Stone about the band a few months ago (right before the Queen + Paul Rodgers CD came out), and, IIRC, they recorded the album at drummer Roger Taylor’s manor house in rural England.
And, Brian May does have a little side project these days, as a university chancellor (he got his Ph.D in Astrophysics a few eyars ago).
I don’t see the problem. Personally, I thought Paul Rodgers was an awful fit.
You may as well throw AC/DC into that list too… but the other members of Van Halen, Sabbath and Genesis were not well into their fifties (sixties?) when they replaced their frontmen.
Pink Floyd.
Anyway, a lot of these examples are of bands that were still quite popular when they made the switch. Queen is just looking for someone to replace one of the greatest rock vocalists of all time so they can go on tour and collect a paycheck.
Upon review, what RNATB said.
The difference here from all the other situations cited is that Lambert would be joining the band with *significant *hype, popularity, and a built in audience. Some of the other replacement singers cited above had some of those qualities, but this kid is currently at his fame zenith aka “so hot right now”. I’m not saying his career couldn’t get bigger, but it’s pretty damn big now - and millions are interested in what his next move will be. No matter how well they fit and ultimately performed, I don’t think the same could have been said of Sammy Hagar and company.
Personally, I don’t think he could touch Mr. Fahrenheit - but who could? Can’t say I wouldn’t be interested in their sound though. The clincher for me would be *new * songs, not just pale covers.
Don’t know about the others, but since Deacon is out of the music biz by choice I assume he’s doing alright. May is a remarkably prolific musician. His score to the video game Rise of the Robots, for example, turned out to be the only good thing about the most over-hyped game in history.
Yeah, but all of those bands sucked after replacing the lead singer.
According to this site The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines
All 3 surviving members of Queen, and Mary Austin,the woman who received the lion’s share of Freddie’s estate, are all very wealthy.Brian £70m,Roger £65m,John £50m and Mary £30m.
As evidenced by…what exactly?
AC\DC has had numerous hit albums and sold-out tours with the new singer. Same with Van Halen.
Styx were has-beens already, so the change didn’t hurt them.
Genesis had much more commercial success without Gabriel than with him. They did several great records after he left (Trick of the Tail, *Second’s Out *and Duke, which was their best). They started to suck mightily after that, but not because of Gabriel’s absence.
Black Sabbath with RJD was hugely popular, producing several great records and tours. They didn’t start sucking till **Ian Gillan **came on board.
**Lynyrd Skynyrd **…well…OK, I’ll conceed that one.
This a bit different. they aren’t trying to continue, they are trying to resurrect. Paul Rodgers was a horrible choice, but anyone stepping into that will be lame.
They should form a new group and do instrumental rock. That would be GREAT!
To me, there’s a distinction between a band like Styx, and a band like AC/DC.
Styx (and I’d put other bands like Boston and Journey in this camp) isn’t doing much in the way of recording anymore, but they still tour regularly, probably because it can be lucrative. All of these bands, for a variety of reasons, no longer are associated with their original singer, and, thus, in order to tour, they need a new one. (Heck, Boston found their new lead singer at Home Depot. 
)
Bands like AC/DC or Van Halen were still ongoing recording bands who found themselves without a singer. While one can argue whether they were better or worse after the change, they all had significant success after those changes.
Queen did put out the one album with Rodgers; as MadTheSwine notes, none of those guys need to tour for the cash, so I’d tend to put them into the second group of bands.