History & Aim
Ultimate Queen is a 100% fan site, it has no links to Queen, their management or record companies in any way.
The site was launched in 1999, and has been online ever since, during which time there have been some extensive changes. It is one of the biggest and longest running Queen (or any artist) fan sites which is still active. Due to other commitments there may occasionally be a lack of updates, but new content will always be added eventually.
The aim of the site is to achieve the most accurate content about the band and solo activities possible. I don't claim it to be 100% accurate, because that is impossible, and any Queen site which claims to be is either way off the mark or omitting huge sections of their history. Nobody knows some of the details, but what this site assembles is as close to fact as I hope it is able to be. Unlike some sites, Ultimate Queen will never be considered 'complete'.
The site tries to include every official release, in any country worldwide, and at the same time, exclude the unofficial releases. However, this isn't always possible as some overseas releases are either unknown in the UK, or in the case of some countries such as Korea, the artwork and tracklistings make it very difficult to determine whether it is actually an official release or not. All such releases will be included until they are proven to be unofficial.
The site generally includes all song versions which have appeared on official Queen releases, solo releases, and collaborations. It also attempts to include all unreleased songs, though the very fact that they are unreleased means that some are unknown and for others, the details are scarce. Unofficial remixes, cover versions and other tracks are generally excluded, unless they feature Queen or appear on official Queen releases.
Generally speaking, solo content is arranged in the order of Roger, Brian, Freddie, The Cross, and finally John. Ignoring The Cross, this is the order in which each member launched their solo careers, and coincidentally, the order of most solo activity. Unlike some sites, this site also considers Roger's solo work to be independent of The Cross.
Almost all live performances are included, however, I have chosen to omit the many TV appearances for solo projects where a single song is performed, or more often, mimed. Such Queen appearances are included, as they are of slightly more, but still limited, interest.
Finally, if a track was performed at Queen + Paul Rodgers concerts, but without any involvement from Paul Rodgers, this is included as a Queen track within the site. This may lead to some confusion, but it is pointless to include it as Queen + Paul Rodgers if Paul doesn't actually contribute to it.
You will probably notice that there are very few occasions where personal opinion is included on the site, this is because opinion is purely that. I'm a firm believer that while Freddie is sorely missed, Brian and Roger have every right to continue as Queen in whatever way they see fit. There isn't a single post-Freddie song which Brian or Roger have produced which I feel they shouldn't have, and for me some of the worst tracks from Queen's career come from before Freddie's death, and not after.
There are a few Queen releases which I think should never have happened, or at least happened in a different and better way, but on the whole I feel the releases which have come out aren't too bad (with the possible exception of some of the endless Queen and Freddie remixes which have been produced). I find the 'Queen screw their fans for money by releasing the same material over and over again' argument or whinge an incredibly annoying one, as who holds a gun to your head and makes you buy them?
I was a big fan of the Queen + Paul Rodgers collaborations, both live work and 'The Cosmos Rocks' album. Several of the tracks on the album, such as 'Voodoo' or 'Through The Night', are clearly more Paul Rodgers than Queen, but throughout their career, Queen always produced tracks with a completely different sound to the norm, so the collaboration didn't change as much as some people like to think. Queen have never labelled Paul Rodgers as a replacement for Freddie, and to compare them despite the endless differences is naive to say the least. I also feel the album was cruelly under-rated and criminally under-promoted.
I was originally against the live performances with Adam Lambert, mainly because I didn't like his style, and didn't think he was the right fit for the band, being a relatively new singer from a talent show, rather than having an established career himself. However, recent performances have started winning me round. That said, I think it is a massive shame that they have not chosen to work more with Kerry Ellis, as she has an amazing voice which suits the Queen sound well, and having a female singer would end most of the comparisons to Freddie.
I firmly believe that all of Queen are as entitled to their privacy as anyone else, and am appalled at the many leeches, vultures and vermin who have come out of the woodwork for some of the TV documentaries which have been made. The biggest act of sacrilege I have seen so far is not a musical act or performance by Brian or Roger, but by one of the people who was dearest to Freddie, Mary Austin. In 2000, she allowed OK magazine to photograph her in Freddie's former home, despite Freddie spending much of his life trying to protect his privacy and avoiding at all costs the intrusions of the press. In one interview, she managed to do what Freddie spent the best part of 20 years trying to avoid.