| QueenZeppelin 19.01.2016 21:03 |
Does anyone have any links/know of any interviews where Bowie discusses Freddie? Or his thoughts on Queen, as a band? Or Under Pressure? I've always been curious what Bowie had to say about Freddie, Queen, Under Pressure, etc., but I've only come up with maybe 2-3 interviews where he mentions any of the aforementioned subjects. |
| The Fairy King 20.01.2016 06:55 |
I was looking for the same thing. The only thing i could find is the stuff we've already seen in the DoRo-mentaries (hah!). Watched the BBC documentary "Sound & Vision"and there was no mention of Queen, Under Pressure or the Freddie tribute. |
| Richard Orchard 20.01.2016 10:29 |
very vague, but when i saw Bowie he introduced Under Pressure as a song he wrote with Freddie Mercury. Didn't mention Queen or the other guys. I also remember reading a Q & A session on Bowie.Net where Bowie said that Freddie asked him to produce their first album. |
| Back2TheLight 20.01.2016 14:09 |
Can only imagine how differently their debut album would have sounded had Bowie produced it!! |
| Sebastian 20.01.2016 15:53 |
The rumour about Fred asking Dave to produce the debut album was denied by Rog: 'Certainly not! But David was producing Lou at the time. We were taking the down-time. Literally, they'd be coming up the stairs and we'd be going down the stairs. David probably remembers it slightly differently, but I doubt he was being 100 per cent serious. Knowing David, very little he says is!' Source: link |
| cmsdrums 20.01.2016 16:00 |
The Fairy King wrote: Watched the BBC documentary "Sound & Vision"and there was no mention of Queen, Under Pressure or the Freddie tribute.Really? That's ridiculous. |
| matt z 20.01.2016 20:59 |
I'd always heard that he disregarded it until the 90's as an unfinished song. I think it was Gail Ann Dorsey who had it resurrected into his live show. He had never before performed the damn song on his own tours ttbomn. |
| Richard Orchard 21.01.2016 14:04 |
previously, he did say it stood up better as a "demo". i think you are right with Gail Ann Dorsey, who is a massive Queen fan. Her favourite band i believe. R |
| dysan 21.01.2016 15:11 |
|
| The Real Wizard 21.01.2016 19:37 |
cmsdrums wrote:In the grand scheme of things, I bet there are plenty of Bowie fans who wouldn't think this is in the top ten things he did.The Fairy King wrote: Watched the BBC documentary "Sound & Vision"and there was no mention of Queen, Under Pressure or the Freddie tribute.Really? That's ridiculous. It did hit #1, but this is the same guy who did Hunky Dory, Ziggy Stardust, Station To Station, and Low. The Glass Spider tour. Those are pretty groundbreaking things in popular culture. So maybe some feel it'd be warranted to skip over the song if you only have an hour of things to cover. |
| cmsdrums 22.01.2016 03:00 |
The Real Wizard wrote:True - but to me that's like like having a documentary about Freddie and ignoring Barcelona on the grounds of it being an 'offshoot project' that wasn't massively succesful everywhere.cmsdrums wrote:In the grand scheme of things, I bet there are plenty of Bowie fans who wouldn't think this is in the top ten things he did. It did hit #1, but this is the same guy who did Hunky Dory, Ziggy Stardust, Station To Station, and Low. The Glass Spider tour. Those are pretty groundbreaking things in popular culture. So maybe some feel it'd be warranted to skip over the song if you only have an hour of things to cover.The Fairy King wrote: Watched the BBC documentary "Sound & Vision"and there was no mention of Queen, Under Pressure or the Freddie tribute.Really? That's ridiculous. |
| cmsdrums 22.01.2016 03:04 |
Richard Orchard wrote: previously, he did say it stood up better as a "demo". i think you are right with Gail Ann Dorsey, who is a massive Queen fan. Her favourite band i believe. RVery true - back in 2005 she was Brian and Roger's chosen bassist for the Q+PR tour, but Rodgers didn't want her for ego reasons; see it in her own words here: link |
| Sebastian 22.01.2016 08:23 |
cmsdrums wrote: True - but to me that's like like having a documentary about Freddie and ignoring Barcelona on the grounds of it being an 'offshoot project' that wasn't massively succesful everywhere.Barcelona represented roughly 50% (or at least around 40%) of Freddie's off-Queen career. 'Under Pressure' barely represents 5% of David's. Very few (if any) Queen documentaries have delved into Joan Armatrading's participation on 'Don't Lose Your Head', Sidney Sax's work as orchestra leader on the 'Flash Gordon' OST, Steve Gregory's sax solo on 'One Year of Love' or Arif Mardin's orchestration on 'Staying Power'. And if you're gonna use the argument that they don't compare to 'Under Pressure', then there's another one: 'Innuendo'. Also a hit (a No 1 hit, no less) ... but how many minutes (or seconds) do Queen docos spend on mentioning Steve Howe? |
| Vocal harmony 22.01.2016 08:54 |
The percentages of who did what are somewhat missing the point, the difference, which Sebastian seems to have overlooked is that the Barcelona project was billed as a collaboration between two artists, as was Under Pressure. Innuendo was not a Queen and Steve Howe song. Arif Mardin worked on one aspect of Staying Power again it wasn't a Queen and Arif Mardin song and the same applies to Joan Amertrading and Sidney Sax. None had equal billing in the same way Bowie had or Freddie and Monserat had. |
| Sebastian 22.01.2016 10:53 |
Should every Queen doco go out of its way to include info on the 1998 version of 'Another One Bites the Dust'? It's billed as Queen / Wyclef Jean and it charted higher in Britain than the original song (and far higher in Britain than 'Under Pressure' in America). |
| Supersonic_Man89 23.01.2016 05:19 |
I agree essentially with the point you're making Sebastian...and i don't agree Freddie/Montsy collaboration compares but neither do your examples. I think the truth is what you said initially about it being a focus on less than 5% of Bowie's career...if a documentary mentions his collaboration with Queen, surely it should mention his collaboration with John Lennon, Bing Crosby, Mick Jagger, Pet Shop Boys etc. Half the documentary would be about other people! |
| Costa86 23.01.2016 16:37 |
cmsdrums wrote:Dorsey, so talented, yet manages to be the least sexy woman in the world. She's a lesbian, right?Richard Orchard wrote: previously, he did say it stood up better as a "demo". i think you are right with Gail Ann Dorsey, who is a massive Queen fan. Her favourite band i believe. RVery true - back in 2005 she was Brian and Roger's chosen bassist for the Q+PR tour, but Rodgers didn't want her for ego reasons; see it in her own words here: link / |
| Sebastian 23.01.2016 18:06 |
Supersonic_Man89 wrote: I think the truth is what you said initially about it being a focus on less than 5% of Bowie's career...if a documentary mentions his collaboration with Queen, surely it should mention his collaboration with John Lennon, Bing Crosby, Mick Jagger, Pet Shop Boys etc. Half the documentary would be about other people!Yes. I think a much simpler and better reasoning than the examples I mentioned is that 'Under Pressure' represents much more to the Queen world than to the Bowie world, despite David having been such a massive part of its songwriting, arranging, producing and performing. For Queen, it was one of the milestones of their career; for David, it was Tuesday (well ... whichever day that jam session was!). |
| tomchristie22 23.01.2016 18:25 |
I agree with Wizard and Sebastian - it's easy enough for Queen fans to think of Under Pressure as the greatest thing Bowie ever touched, but the fact is it was just a blip (though a brilliant blip) in a phenomenal and eclectic career. |
| no_stairway 24.01.2016 02:52 |
thanks for sharing interview with Gail Ann - it's a shame, she didn't join Queen on tour, it could be amazing, always loved he on stage with Bowie. |
| bitesthedust 24.01.2016 07:56 |
Indeed, A missed opportunity. Brian, Roger & Gail Ann would have been more appealing to me than Brian, Roger & Paul Rodgers. |
| bitesthedust 24.01.2016 07:58 |
Sebastian wrote: Should every Queen doco go out of its way to include info on the 1998 version of 'Another One Bites the Dust'? It's billed as Queen / Wyclef Jean and it charted higher in Britain than the original song (and far higher in Britain than 'Under Pressure' in America).I would rather that particular version was banished completely. |
| k-m 26.01.2016 08:27 |
Sebastian wrote: Should every Queen doco go out of its way to include info on the 1998 version of 'Another One Bites the Dust'? It's billed as Queen / Wyclef Jean and it charted higher in Britain than the original song (and far higher in Britain than 'Under Pressure' in America).Just read a few of your posts and I think you concentrate so much on details that you are completely missing the bigger picture man. It's probably disputable just how much Bowie fans regard UP, but it is a fact it was the second most downloaded and streamed song in the week after his death in the US (Google it). I also wouldn't overestimate it, as I am well aware of the colossal legacy it is up against, but still it was and still is one of Bowie's and Queen's biggest hits. The Wyclef remix... So what that it hit no. 5 in the UK back in 1998? Nobody cares about it these days and people just want the original. Also, if you really want to analyse each song and it's performance inch by inch, then I think you should also take into account the number of weeks it actually spent in the charts. As far as I remember the UK charts in the late 90s, it was usually a high debut and then a very quick descent for many similar hits. I bet it was out of the charts real quick, just like "Innuendo" which you also mentioned earlier. |
| Sebastian 26.01.2016 13:03 |
k-m wrote: Just read a few of your posts and I think you concentrate so much on details that you are completely missing the bigger picture man.The bigger picture is that 'Under Pressure' represents far more in the Queenverse than in the Bowieverse. As such, the overwhelming majority of Queen docos (except, of course, the ones that don't get to that period, such as 'From Rags to Rhapsody') will include it (sometimes in detail) but not necessarily the Bowie docos. |
| Holly2003 27.01.2016 01:42 |
Sebastian wrote:k-m wrote: Just read a few of your posts and I think you concentrate so much on details that you are completely missing the bigger picture man.The bigger picture is that 'Under Pressure' represents far more in the Queenverse than in the Bowieverse. As such, the overwhelming majority of Queen docos (except, of course, the ones that don't get to that period, such as 'From Rags to Rhapsody') will include it (sometimes in detail) but not necessarily the Bowie docos. That depends how you measure it. For instance, if you were to compare the two artists using No1 hits in the UK as the comparison, then Queen and Bowie have about the same number (Queen=6; Bowie=5, but I am loathe to count Five's WWRY as a Queen hit), so you could argue that it means about as much to Bowie/Bowie fans as it does to Queen/Queen fans. |
| Sebastian 27.01.2016 02:03 |
You could always add 'Ice, Ice Baby' to their No 1 tally, in which case 'Under Pressure' sort of counts twice. |
| Holly2003 27.01.2016 02:22 |
Sebastian wrote: You could always add 'Ice, Ice Baby' to their No 1 tally, in which case 'Under Pressure' sort of counts twice. I could but I would be wrong to do that and it wouldn't alter my point in any way. |
| Supersonic_Man89 27.01.2016 05:08 |
I understand your point Holly2003...but i don't think artists like Queen, Bowie, Stones, Elton John etc. are measured by number one hits, they mean more than the charts. Luke's shocking fact for why you can't take the charts seriously...Excluding collaborations, Justin Bieber had more UK number one's in 2015 than Queen, Rolling Stones, Michael Jackson, Elton John, Genisis, Prince, The Cure, Bob Dylan, Guns n' Roses, Aerosmith, Paul McCartney, The Smiths, Kate Bush, Eric Clapton had COMBINED for the duration of the 80's. |
| Holly2003 27.01.2016 06:53 |
Supersonic_Man89 wrote: I understand your point Holly2003...but i don't think artists like Queen, Bowie, Stones, Elton John etc. are measured by number one hits, they mean more than the charts. Luke's shocking fact for why you can't take the charts seriously...Excluding collaborations, Justin Bieber had more UK number one's in 2015 than Queen, Rolling Stones, Michael Jackson, Elton John, Genisis, Prince, The Cure, Bob Dylan, Guns n' Roses, Aerosmith, Paul McCartney, The Smiths, Kate Bush, Eric Clapton had COMBINED for the duration of the 80's. Indeed. That's why I offered the remark "That depends how you measure it." So far only k-m and I have offered any observations about how we might test the assertion that UP means more in the Queenieverse(!) than in the Bowieverse. I have no real opinion one way or the other. If I had to guess, I would guess that it does mean more to Queen fans. But for those who are absolutely certain about this, it's up to them to provide the evidence/make a convincing argument. Not that I think this is any way important: it's just a way to keep me amused until I get bored of it :) |
| Sebastian 27.01.2016 10:59 |
Holly2003 wrote: But for those who are absolutely certain about this, it's up to them to provide the evidence/make a convincing argument.I don't think anyone's absolutely certain about this (or about anything for that matter). |
| Holly2003 27.01.2016 17:56 |
I, the Hollyverse, am certain no one has yet offered any evidence, or even a reasonable explanation, as to why UP supposedly means more in the Queenieverse than in the Bowieverse. |
| Sebastian 27.01.2016 22:08 |
Holly2003 wrote: I, the Hollyverse, am certain no one has yet offered any evidence, or even a reasonable explanation, as to why UP supposedly means more in the Queenieverse than in the Bowieverse.Good for you! Congratulations! |
| Holly2003 28.01.2016 01:42 |
Yawn. Bored now. |
| Sebastian 28.01.2016 05:58 |
Holly2003 wrote: Yawn. Bored now.Go away then. |
| k-m 28.01.2016 14:11 |
Just came across this poignant exchange prior to the FM tribute concert: Rudi: What do you want Freddie to be remembered for? DB: Oh Rudi, you're still wearing that jacket? Rudi: (nervous laughter) What do you want Freddie to be remembered for? DB: For better jackets than yours. link |
| Apocalipsis_Darko 28.01.2016 19:19 |
Gail Ann Dorsey is so great... |
| Sebastian 29.01.2016 07:01 |
Apocalipsis_Darko wrote: Gail Ann Dorsey is so great...Totally. |
| The Real Wizard 29.01.2016 12:24 |
Costa86 wrote: Dorsey, so talented, yet manages to be the least sexy woman in the world. She's a lesbian, right?Why does that even matter? Why is sexiness an inherent need for a woman in music or any other profession? link ^ this. |
| The Real Wizard 29.01.2016 12:26 |
Supersonic_Man89 wrote: I understand your point Holly2003...but i don't think artists like Queen, Bowie, Stones, Elton John etc. are measured by number one hits, they mean more than the charts.If it's purely about #1 hits, then we only need to mention people like Dr Luke and the Funk Brothers, and little else comes close. There's more to music than numbers. |
| Enchlore 29.01.2016 15:03 |
k-m wrote: Just came across this poignant exchange prior to the FM tribute concert: Rudi: What do you want Freddie to be remembered for? DB: Oh Rudi, you're still wearing that jacket? Rudi: (nervous laughter) What do you want Freddie to be remembered for? DB: For better jackets than yours. linkWell, Freddie did have some pretty good jackets. |
| Holly2003 30.01.2016 03:42 |
The Real Wizard wrote:No one, and certainly not me, is claiming that it's "purely about #1 hits".Supersonic_Man89 wrote: I understand your point Holly2003...but i don't think artists like Queen, Bowie, Stones, Elton John etc. are measured by number one hits, they mean more than the charts.If it's purely about #1 hits, then we only need to mention people like Dr Luke and the Funk Brothers, and little else comes close. There's more to music than numbers. |
| k-m 30.01.2016 11:18 |
The Real Wizard wrote:I don't think it's particularly wise to compare music to "any other profession", because it's not "any other profession". It's a very peculiar business, the showbiz, as you may have noticed perhaps. And so it happens that sexiness, fashion, good looks and other stuff like that matter a lot in it. Therefore, asking what you asked is like wondering why do people drink tea? I'm not saying I agree or disagree with such a state of things, but that's just the way it is.Costa86 wrote: Dorsey, so talented, yet manages to be the least sexy woman in the world. She's a lesbian, right?Why does that even matter? Why is sexiness an inherent need for a woman in music or any other profession? link ^ this. |
| matt z 31.01.2016 00:48 |
k-m wrote:One thing that trumps that is that most of times beloved and cherished songs sung by women had actually been written by men.The Real Wizard wrote:I don't think it's particularly wise to compare music to "any other profession", because it's not "any other profession". It's a very peculiar business, the showbiz, as you may have noticed perhaps. And so it happens that sexiness, fashion, good looks and other stuff like that matter a lot in it. Therefore, asking what you asked is like wondering why do people drink tea? I'm not saying I agree or disagree with such a state of things, but that's just the way it is.Costa86 wrote: Dorsey, so talented, yet manages to be the least sexy woman in the world. She's a lesbian, right?Why does that even matter? Why is sexiness an inherent need for a woman in music or any other profession? link ^ this. Exceptions abound of course. There ARE the occasional Joni Mitchells and such but realistically.... it comes from the OTHER DOUBLE STANDARD that (*this might be hard for you to understand doing feminazi pc stuff) ..... IF YOU'RE INCREDIBLY BEAUTIFUL/HOT you DON'T HAVE TO BE TALENTED. They'll build a production team around you. Guys have to pull quite a bit more on their own. What's the last great song you can remember being fully written by any of today's top female artists? I'd vouch that the last to do her own was Norah Jones. Of been around the studio with Colbie Caillat and she wasn't as talented as her dad and the group adorning her. You might stretch back to PINK but that might end it. This isn't counting bs like missy Elliott either. Anybodycan throw a dance hip hop thing as long as they have the attitude for DELIVERY (but it still boils down to her being a guy at heart) |
| k-m 01.02.2016 09:20 |
I think the inevitable happened here. Someone commented on Gail Ann Dorset's image and it quickly turned into a discussion on sexism in the industry. I wasn't referring to that though. What surprised me is the fact that even Queen fans don't seem to appreciate that there is more to this than good songs and voices and that image is important. Btw, I think Adele is responsible for what she sings, just like PJ Harvey and Amy Winehouse (was). I agree that if you're mega hot, talent doesn't matter much, but it requires a lot of PR and is short lived usually. |
| The Real Wizard 01.02.2016 09:42 |
k-m wrote: I think Adele is responsible for what she singsShe's not. Look at the credits on her last record - Max Martin is in the picture now. Guys like this write 99% of the music on the radio. link Even Adele is part of the system now. |