| vessel 02.12.2009 14:45 |
It seems that hollywood records is no longer wanting to promote Queen. They only released Q+PR Live In The Ukraine through Best Buy and did the same with Absolute Greatest. And the U.S. didn't get the book version and the LP version either. So it got me to thinking, could Queen leave Hollywood records and go to some other major U.S. label? and If they did would they re-release the albums again? What would be the best U.S. label for Queen? |
| skip 02.12.2009 19:56 |
vessel wrote: It seems that hollywood records is no longer wanting to promote Queen. They only released Q+PR Live In The Ukraine through Best Buy and did the same with Absolute Greatest. And the U.S. didn't get the book version and the LP version either. So it got me to thinking, could Queen leave Hollywood records and go to some other major U.S. label? and If they did would they re-release the albums again? What would be the best U.S. label for Queen? Record companies are dead. There's no need for them. Go the exclusive release route and the band will make far more money than if they went with a record company. |
| Wiley 03.12.2009 12:10 |
skip wrote: Record companies are dead. There's no need for them. Go the exclusive release route and the band will make far more money than if they went with a record company. Are you sure about that? It's Queen Productions we're talking about. I'm sure they'd find a way to fuck it up. Their "100 Top Bootlegs" project was a mess, their digital releases suck big time and they can't even get a Virtual Store running properly. Coming up: - Official QueenOnline eBay auctions, with "exclusive" material and memorabilia (previously bought on eBay, of course), ran exclusively by a third party company that couldn't care less about the outcome. - Official Queen Twitter channel, reproducing Brian's Soapbox rants in 140 characters or less. Brian will be, of course, 100% behind the project. Everybody knows he loves Twitter :P |
| Serry... 03.12.2009 12:33 |
Signing contract with Queen was very contradictory gesture by HR, 'cause Freddie was obviously dying in the late of 1990. I ain't sure if Queen really needs now in any labels in the States. |
| Benn Kempster 03.12.2009 13:15 |
No one would be interested in Queen in the US now. They'd be better off signing to an independent label and getting their profile up in continental Europe and South America; no one else is bothered at all these days. |
| Back2TheLight 03.12.2009 13:25 |
It's funny...I think us die-hards in the States are used to getting the shaft from both Hollywood Records and QPL for years now. Trying to do this 'pre-order' shit through 7digital online whatever the fuck is a waste of time. They are a rip off, and quite honestly, so is QPL. |
| master marathon runner 03.12.2009 14:41 |
'No one would be interested in queen in the US now' . Well being featured on American Idol requires a high degree of respect and a high profile despite your personal opinion of these 'talent ' shows. |
| Russian Headlong 03.12.2009 17:37 |
Queen Shafted Hollywood Records. When they signed them in 90/91, they damn well knew Freddie was at Death's door and instead of a signing with new albums and material they were left with just the back catalogue to promote. Queen didnt give a shit about their US fans after Hot Space, which lots of Us Fans rejected quite rightly in my view, as disco/pop crap. |
| The Real Wizard 04.12.2009 11:41 |
Russian Headlong wrote: Queen Shafted Hollywood Records. When they signed them in 90/91, they damn well knew Freddie was at Death's door and instead of a signing with new albums and material they were left with just the back catalogue to promote. It's a fair suggestion worth speculating about, but when it comes down to it, the back catalogue will always be more marketable than new albums from an artist well past their commercial peak. Unless you're AC/DC, U2, or Springsteen, your new album will probably go nowhere in the US if you started out in the 70s or 80s. The record companies have made their choices of the select few older artists whose new albums will make them money, and will otherwise market new artists who cater to fads and have an image that will sell. It's been like that for over 20 years now. Like Frank Zappa said in the 80s - "Want to get a record contract? Get a good wardrobe, and get a good barber. Don't even worry about how you play. They're not signing musicians anymore; they're signing models. Make sure you look good." |
| gem27 06.12.2009 13:43 |
I think to say that in 1991 when Hollywood Records signed up Queen it is a little bit naive to think that they did not know that Freddie was going to die soon. Far from shafting them, I would say that I'm sure when he died the Hollywood Records people were over the moon. When someone dies there is always a huge increase in sales of their previous stuff, be it music, books, movies or whatever. |
| mooghead 06.12.2009 15:13 |
. Fucking shithole website |
| Benn Kempster 07.12.2009 12:02 |
master marathhon runner, re: >> Well being featured on American Idol requires a high degree of respect and a high profile despite your personal opinion of these 'talent ' shows. No it bloody well does not. Its open to whichever artist is prepared to have their material bastardised for the gratification of a completely mindless element of the music world. Is it any wonder that The Beatles, The Stones, The Who, Bruce Springsteen etc have never managed to feature on this incredibly high brow piece of entertainment scheduling? |
| Michael Allred 07.12.2009 13:31 |
Benn Kempster wrote: master marathhon runner, re: >> Well being featured on American Idol requires a high degree of respect and a high profile despite your personal opinion of these 'talent ' shows. No it bloody well does not. Its open to whichever artist is prepared to have their material bastardised for the gratification of a completely mindless element of the music world. Is it any wonder that The Beatles, The Stones, The Who, Bruce Springsteen etc have never managed to feature on this incredibly high brow piece of entertainment scheduling? Erm, "American Idol," I do believe, did in fact feature the Beatles....for two weeks in fact. So if the most popular and respected band in the world was on there then.......it's damn well ok if Queen got some time too. |
| The Real Wizard 08.12.2009 17:48 |
Nobody ever said Idol shows were about talent. They're about entertainment. If more people vote on American Idol than at elections, then what's the problem if Beatles and Queen songs reach this many people at once? Sounds like a good marketing strategy to me. |
| Wiley 08.12.2009 19:02 |
Sir GH wrote: Nobody ever said Idol shows were about talent. They're about entertainment. If more people vote on American Idol than at elections, then what's the problem if Beatles and Queen songs reach this many people at once? Sounds like a good marketing strategy to me. "Yeah, but what about artist's integrity?... yadda yadda... street cred... yadda yadda... sell outs... blah blah..." Nah, not really. I sincerely wouldn't mind if Queen had a huge marketing machine like Kiss'. Those guys really know how to sell stuff! I want to buy Queen action figures, I want T-shirts that don't look like shit, I want a Q+PR lunch box. I want Brian May to appear on the TV telling me which conditioner I should use; I want to see Roger Taylor as permanent judge to the X-Factor (the nasty one) and I want John Deacon in a life insurance company commercial. He does seem to know about living the quiet life. :) |