I believe that Queen should have finished with the release of Made In Heaven. Roger's and Brian's attempts at prolonging their fame are getting tiresome, and my admiration goes to Deacon, who has reclused with the fond memories of Freddie and the band playing at their greatest. I think Freddie is the greatest singer ever to grace the rock/pop scene, and no matter how good people find paul rodgers, i admit that he is a good singer, but can he really compare to Freddie? I think the answer, we all know, is no he can't. This is not his fault, as his range is not the same as Freddie Mercury's, for instance in Hang On In There, on The Miracle album, Freddie reaches a top F in his chest voice, something unprecedented by many, certainly, and his tone is amazing in the upper reaches of his voice. As I am only 17, I realise many will question what I am saying, with the age-old argument that I am too young to know what I am talking about, but as an aspiring singer (I have had lessons at the Royal Academy of Music), I certainly take in his ability, and try to include some of his vocal qualities into my singing. I think for anybody to criticise Freddie is a travesty, many people do not realise just how much of an impact he had on so many people, and even the "young generation" such as myself, who unfortunatly never had the oppertunity to see Queen live, have realised that he was in fact possibly the greatest performer in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Queen + Paul Roger's should not be labelled as that, instead they should choose a different name, for they are only half of Queen, as John will never play again for commercial purposes, and the heart and soul of Queen has passed away. Before anybody says Paul Rodgers is as good as Freddie Mercury, please listen to The Millionaire Waltz(Day at the Races), Seaside Rendezvous(Night at the Opera), I Can't Live With You (Innuendo), and possibly Let's Turn It On (Freddie Mercury Solo), and then contrast Paul and Freddie's voices.