Boy Thomas Raker 03.08.2007 21:18 |
Queen, the band, was an amazing band of four individuals who made the whole greater than any of the parts. However, given the countless errors, lack of quality control and half assed efforts that have been made since his death, I firmly believe that it was pretty much Freddie Mercury who embodied what Queen as a band was. In addition to the bands de facto creative/art director, Freddie named the band, created the logo, and had the greatest input into the bands visual style, which was iconic (II, ANATO and ADATR) and visually arresting (SHA.) When Freddie died, one of the British mags that hated him quoted him as saying, "we just want to be a regal British band, dear." They grudingly said that he accomplished that in spades. Now post-Freddie, we see the Hollywood releases which featured technical; glitches galore and embarassing remixes. The catalogue is a shambles, with GH compilations that are nothing but cash grabs and songs licenced out to everyone with a chequebook. Roger said the cover of Queen Rocks looked lie someone threw up on it. Then, for the definitive collection of their crowning moment, we get archival footage of men on the moon, people walking on the seaside, and Brian's ukelele playing hands. Throw in the ads with Britney, Pink and Beyonce, the endless WWRY remixes/remakes, the staggeringly bad decision to promote WWRY with the Sun, which hounded Freddie during his final months, the Wal Mart album, which stood against everything Freddie stood for as a person, and now the horrid Queen Rocks Montreal collection, and I'm left to believe that Freddie was everything to Queen outside of the music. If it weren't for Freddie's style, vision and taste, Queen would have been Slade or Nazareth, decent bands with no image. Brian and Roger have lost the plot. |
Erin 03.08.2007 22:16 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: the Wal Mart album, which stood against everything Freddie stood for as a personHuh? The Wal-Mart album is quite good, I think. I'm with you on most of what you are saying about the lastest releases, though. |
Lester Burnham 03.08.2007 22:29 |
I think the blame should be shifted toward QPL and their advisers. According to comments I've read over on QOL, Jim Beach and his staff are so steadfast in their beliefs that whatever they do and whatever they release is right, and any dissenting criticisms are wrong. I'm sure that Brian has some hand in what is done, and I'm positive that Roger doesn't care anymore -- he's made his millions, and as long as Brian wants to play music, he's happy. As far as I can tell, Brian is told what QPL thinks is right, and he pretty much just okays it. (I might be wrong on this point. It's just what I've interpreted.) As far as Freddie being Queen... mm, I disagree. Remember, Freddie was in a handful of bands before he joined up with Roger and Brian, and none of them were successful. Smile achieved far more success (comparatively, mind) than any of Freddie's bands. Without Freddie, yes, Brian and Roger might have been Slade or Nazareth; without Brian and Roger, Freddie wouldn't have been anywhere. They needed each other to succeed, and boy did they ever. (For example, listen to "Mr. Bad Guy" and tell me that album compares to anything done by Queen in their hey day. It doesn't.) As far as recent releases go, I believe that Hollywood Records is a major part of the problem. Queen SHOULD NOT be with them. They are the completely wrong record company for Queen, and I've always believed this. Why QPL doesn't renegotiate Queen's back catalog with someone like Rykodisc or Rhino is beyond me. The back catalog is a shambles, I agree, but I don't believe that Roger and Brian are to blame completely. Remember that the likes of DoRo, Live Magic, Rare Live, and the 1988 CD singles (which were hit or miss, at best) were all done when Freddie was still around. Apparently, he also okayed the 1991 Hollywood remixes (which were released between March and June 1991), and loved the dance remix of 'Seven Seas Of Rhye'. I'm certain that Roger and Brian are keeping their eyes on the future with Paul Rodgers (which is a completely different story, and one that I don't want to get into now!) and letting people they trust and believe are leading them in the right direction handle their history. The only problem is, they are going about it all wrong, and I'm disappointed that it's only now that fans are realizing this. |
Erin 03.08.2007 22:34 |
Lester Burnham wrote: As far as Freddie being Queen... mm, I disagree. Remember, Freddie was in a handful of bands before he joined up with Roger and Brian, and none of them were successful. Smile achieved far more success (comparatively, mind) than any of Freddie's bands. Without Freddie, yes, Brian and Roger might have been Slade or Nazareth; without Brian and Roger, Freddie wouldn't have been anywhere. They needed each other to succeed, and boy did they ever. (For example, listen to "Mr. Bad Guy" and tell me that album compares to anything done by Queen in their hey day. It doesn't.)Totally agree. |
Boy Thomas Raker 03.08.2007 23:13 |
The Wal Mart album may be a great album, Erin, however, Wal Mart is a low end, price sensitive, cheap retailer. Philosophically, Freddie wasn't a cheap person. The stories of him keeping high end stores in Japan open after to shop there are legendary. I couldn't ever see him setting foot in a Wal Mart, and I'm sure that he'd see this as a step away from a crppy infomercial. Nothing regal about this release, but I see your point. And Lester, with all due respect as you're one of the great, knowledgeable people on this board, no one at QPL would have a job without Brian and Roger. Brian said he passed on the "Queen of Clubs" dance album after the death of Freddie to "protect the catalogue." I agree Roger doesn't care anymore , but I'm surprised Brian is so weak as a director of QPL. Again, musically, Freddie needed Brian, Roger and John. AWAY from the musical side, though, I believe he was the vision and spark behind what Queen was, and again, who decide to sign with Hollywood Records? Queen! I'm not a Freddie stepford, as I believe Mr. Bad Guy and his solo stuff was passable, and although he was a once in a lifetime talent, he needed the other 3 to bring that to fruition. His DoRo allegiance was mystifying, but IMHO, there have been far more misteps post-Freddie than before his passing. As Kenny8 said in another thread tonight "More proof, as if any was needed that they're a different beast without Fred. Musically as well as visually. I can't imagine Fred signing off on that", (the new cover artwork.) |
Mr Faron Hyte 03.08.2007 23:18 |
Erin wrote:And I totally agree with your total agreement.Lester Burnham wrote: As far as Freddie being Queen... mm, I disagree. Remember, Freddie was in a handful of bands before he joined up with Roger and Brian, and none of them were successful. Smile achieved far more success (comparatively, mind) than any of Freddie's bands. Without Freddie, yes, Brian and Roger might have been Slade or Nazareth; without Brian and Roger, Freddie wouldn't have been anywhere. They needed each other to succeed, and boy did they ever. (For example, listen to "Mr. Bad Guy" and tell me that album compares to anything done by Queen in their hey day. It doesn't.)Totally agree. It was a magical mix, friends and neighbors. We all have our favorite member who we all like to think was the architect of the band's success - and the Freddie fans are the most cultish about it - but the truth is, each member was critical to the overall success. Maybe not all at the same time, but over the course of the band's career, each one of them did his share of the heavy lifting. And we all know that. Its just more fun sometimes to put down the guy(s) you don't like as much. My favorite member can beat up your favorite member. Or in the context of the online world, my favorite member was more important and talented than your favorite member, therefore I am better and have better taste than you do. |
Mr Faron Hyte 03.08.2007 23:24 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: The Wal Mart album may be a great album, Erin, however, Wal Mart is a low end, price sensitive, cheap retailer. Philosophically, Freddie wasn't a cheap person. The stories of him keeping high end stores in Japan open after to shop there are legendary. I couldn't ever see him setting foot in a Wal Mart, and I'm sure that he'd see this as a step away from a crppy infomercial.Wow, what a remarkable snob. No, I don't see Freddie ever shopping in a Wal-Mart. I also don't ever see him shopping in a K-Mart, Target, Meijers, or Costco, where thousands of Queen albums are also sold. Freddie did, however, like the money he made, and I sincerely doubt he would have given a shit which interchangable corporate retailer sold his music - as long as he got the royalty. No, the person who seems to feel he's above the low end, price sensitive, cheap retailer is you. |
Lester Burnham 03.08.2007 23:33 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: And Lester, with all due respect as you're one of the great, knowledgeable people on this board, no one at QPL would have a job without Brian and Roger. Brian said he passed on the "Queen of Clubs" dance album after the death of Freddie to "protect the catalogue." I agree Roger doesn't care anymore , but I'm surprised Brian is so weak as a director of QPL.So am I. I honestly don't know what Brian is thinking, and no matter how much I try to reason it in my head, I can't imagine what extras he was talking about (regarding Queen Rocks Montreal) that he considered so exciting. I think he finds himself in the awkward position of being the sole flag-waver of Queen: trying to retain the glory of the past while moving the band in a new direction. It's an unfortunate predicament, but he's also the most high-profile: Roger has stopped caring, and refuses to accept the Internet for being a viable means of keeping in touch with fans; John retired and has shown no signs of life in the past decade. So it's down to Brian, whereas before all four of them had taken (mostly) equal responsibilities. I honestly don't know what Brian thinks, but I do know that the past few years have been pretty detrimental to Queen's history. Recording with Five and Robbie Williams? That Pepsi ad? Hmm... Brian has expressed his approval of these collaborations with almost childish glee, yet pouts and wonders why a mean old critic DARE say anything against him. (As far as Q+PR goes, I think it's great they're being creative again, though the distinction between Queen and the new band should have been drawn a long time ago. As I said before, that's not the point of this discussion, though.) Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Again, musically, Freddie needed Brian, Roger and John. AWAY from the musical side, though, I believe he was the vision and spark behind what Queen was, and again, who decide to sign with Hollywood Records? Queen! I'm not a Freddie stepford, as I believe Mr. Bad Guy and his solo stuff was passable, and although he was a once in a lifetime talent, he needed the other 3 to bring that to fruition. His DoRo allegiance was mystifying, but IMHO, there have been far more misteps post-Freddie than before his passing. As Kenny8 said in another thread tonight "More proof, as if any was needed that they're a different beast without Fred. Musically as well as visually. I can't imagine Fred signing off on that", (the new cover artwork.)The mis-steps comment, sadly, is true. I agree with that and kind of shake my head when I think back on the mistakes they made, starting with Queen Rocks in '97, continuing with GHIII in '99, and so forth. They need a better team, but as long as the albums keep selling, they won't get a better team. I believe that if a Queen compilation is a hit and shifts a million units, then QPL is willing to sacrifice that little shred of artistic integrity, as opposed to releasing a box of rarities or a previously unreleased concert that may only sell 100,000 copies. QPL is a business, and Queen is a brand; they're in it to make money. That may partly be Brian and Roger's faults, but I think the real blame lies with Jim Beach, for believing in this horrendous strategy to begin with. He's a very shrewd businessman, but when Brian and Roger have already made their millions, what more is there to give? There's only so many times that you can package the hits and make it seem new, and they did in in 1981. Every time since then has been a horrible rehash. Even Stone Cold Classics, which many fans abhor, sold respectably and charted well. Yet something exciting like a singles box set is delayed inexplicably. I read on QOL that QPL was informed 18 months ago that Queen Rocks Montreal would undoubtedly fail. Yet it was still decided to go ahead with the release. I just don't understand that one bit. |
Maz 04.08.2007 00:46 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: The Wal Mart album may be a great album, Erin, however, Wal Mart is a low end, price sensitive, cheap retailer. Philosophically, Freddie wasn't a cheap person. The stories of him keeping high end stores in Japan open after to shop there are legendary. I couldn't ever see him setting foot in a Wal Mart, and I'm sure that he'd see this as a step away from a crppy infomercial. Nothing regal about this release, but I see your point.You know, you've spoken out against Wal-Mart before, and I get the feeling that your anger is more in line with what Wal-Mart represents than with Queen supposedly selling themselves out. Yes, stories exist of Freddie's expensive habits, but that has squat to do with what Queen released in the past. What you are suggesting is that while Freddie was around, he would have insisted that Queen product was only available in high-quality retailers. Somehow, that seems the opposite of the "Bigger the Better in Everthing" Freddie we all know. Now, your Wal-Mart elitism aside, it remains one of, if not the, biggest CD retailer in the United States. Having a series of exclusive releases in the biggest retailer in the country is not a dumb decision. (Personal opinion here, but I've thought that QP has tried to appeal to the youth market too much since the mid-1990s. If they went the Borders/Barnes and Noble route and appealed to middle- or upper-class adults with spending cash, we might get better products) |
Serry... 04.08.2007 01:35 |
Totally agree with Boy Thomas Raker. |
YourValentine 04.08.2007 04:17 |
I think that Queen Rocks and GH3 were released because Queen owed Hollywood Records 6 albums from their 1990 contract. However, all releases after that were okayed by the remaining Queen members and they are to blame. Personally, I believe that in particular Brian May is much behind everything as long as there is publicity and sales involved. He was very outspoken about the alleged low quality release of "We Will Rock You" DVD at a time when QP had not yet released a single DVD with a DTS track themselves. I am stunned about the incredible double standard he has displayed over again. See American Idol, see Rupert Murdoch, see the recent comments about finding cast members through TV casting shows and appearing on Canadian Idol at the same time. Brian himself raised the expectations by promising "exciting extras" on the upcoming DVD and now we find it's 5 minutes of an old second rate TV show! It was not an underpaid employeee, it was Brian May himself who told us that 5 minutes of a second rate TV show should be considered "exciting material" I wonder what Saul Swimmer would think about that. We should not forget that there were excellent releases: The Freddie Mercury Box, Wembley 86 DVD and Milton Keynes DVD. Since we already own Montreal and Live Aid we can pass this release and see if something better comes in the future. |
goinback 04.08.2007 04:38 |
YourValentine wrote: Since we already own Montreal and Live Aid we can pass this release and see if something better comes in the future.Eh...I agree with Brian in redoing something like this simply to get the audio correct...that is VERY much in the spirit of Queen. But if that DVD COVER is used, then I agree that Freddie was the brains of knowing how to market a sophisticated image to people via visual mediums (other than just the music)...which that DVD cover (and being seen on American Idol) TOTALLY RUINS. (Though we don't know if that's really the cover.) I'm not quite sure about the budget Wal-Mart release though... Queen DID have the similar budget "Queen Collection" released here in the US on the cheap-image K-Tel records label in the early '80s, which Freddie may have approved of, though that surprised me even then... |
Sebastian 04.08.2007 07:17 |
> However, given the countless errors, lack of quality control and half assed efforts that have been made since his death What about before his death? Live Magic is sub-par IMO, and Rare Live is total pants. > I firmly believe that it was pretty much Freddie Mercury who embodied what Queen as a band was. I disagree. > Remember, Freddie was in a handful of bands before he joined up with Roger and Brian, and none of them were successful. Yes but we've got to see that in context. Wreckage and the other bands lasted months ... when Queen had been together for months, they weren't successful either. Would Sour Milk Sea become successful, had they stayed together for longer (for instance, until Fred wrote songs like 'Killer Queen')? Could have Smile be a bigger act if they had stayed together, or if they had a different singer (neither Tim nor Freddie)? Maybe, maybe not, we'll never know. > Smile achieved far more success (comparatively, mind) than any of Freddie's bands. Indeed, but then again, it doesn't guarantee anything. > Without Freddie, yes, Brian and Roger might have been Slade or Nazareth; without Brian and Roger, Freddie wouldn't have been anywhere. That's, again, mere speculation. Maybe, maybe not. And btw what about John Deacon? He existed too, you know... > For example, listen to "Mr. Bad Guy" Same old story... > each member was critical to the overall success. Yes but it can't be denied that some were more critical than others. Who wrote the band's first top 10? the first top 3? The first British #1? The first American #1? Who arranged Roger's first #1? Who dominated the vocal side? Who wrote their sports anthem? > each one of them did his share of the heavy lifting. Of course, and that's why IMO Rog+John wouldn't be Queen, Rog+Freddie wouldn't be Queen, John+Fred wouldn't be Queen, John+Brian wouldn't be Queen, Fred+Brian wouldn't be Queen and of course, Brian+Roger aren't Queen. > Recording with Five and Robbie Williams? That Pepsi ad? Hmm... Brian has expressed his approval of these collaborations with almost childish glee, yet pouts and wonders why a mean old critic DARE say anything against him. I actually like Robbie's version. I don't agree with the "Queen+" label there, but musically I think it's wonderful. Same for Brian + Roger + Paul: musically they're astonishing, and by far one of the best acts of the current scene. > though the distinction between Queen and the new band should have been drawn a long time ago. Standing ovation! |
pittrek 04.08.2007 07:35 |
Oh my god, again ???? Freddie was the singer of Queen. Nothing less, nothing more. BTW what is this doing in Serious discussion ? |
Sebastian 04.08.2007 08:11 |
Nothing more? What about his role as songwriter, arranger, producer, pianist? Neither Fred was "just" a singer, nor Brian was "just" a guitarist, nor Rog "just" a drummer, nor John "just" a bass player. |
pittrek 04.08.2007 08:37 |
OK, you're right, but you know what I was trying to say. That they are or were a BAND, therefore everybody was important. |
Sharon G.Queen Fan 04.08.2007 09:02 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Queen, the band, was an amazing band of four individuals who made the whole greater than any of the parts. However, given the countless errors, lack of quality control and half assed efforts that have been made since his death, I firmly believe that it was pretty much Freddie Mercury who embodied what Queen as a band was. In addition to the bands de facto creative/art director, Freddie named the band, created the logo, and had the greatest input into the bands visual style, which was iconic (II, ANATO and ADATR) and visually arresting (SHA.) When Freddie died, one of the British mags that hated him quoted him as saying, "we just want to be a regal British band, dear." They grudingly said that he accomplished that in spades. Now post-Freddie, we see the Hollywood releases which featured technical; glitches galore and embarassing remixes. The catalogue is a shambles, with GH compilations that are nothing but cash grabs and songs licenced out to everyone with a chequebook. Roger said the cover of Queen Rocks looked lie someone threw up on it. Then, for the definitive collection of their crowning moment, we get archival footage of men on the moon, people walking on the seaside, and Brian's ukelele playing hands. Throw in the ads with Britney, Pink and Beyonce, the endless WWRY remixes/remakes, the staggeringly bad decision to promote WWRY with the Sun, which hounded Freddie during his final months, the Wal Mart album, which stood against everything Freddie stood for as a person, and now the horrid Queen Rocks Montreal collection, and I'm left to believe that Freddie was everything to Queen outside of the music. If it weren't for Freddie's style, vision and taste, Queen would have been Slade or Nazareth, decent bands with no image. Brian and Roger have lost the plot. |
Sharon G.Queen Fan 04.08.2007 09:03 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Queen, the band, was an amazing band of four individuals who made the whole greater than any of the parts. However, given the countless errors, lack of quality control and half assed efforts that have been made since his death, I firmly believe that it was pretty much Freddie Mercury who embodied what Queen as a band was. In addition to the bands de facto creative/art director, Freddie named the band, created the logo, and had the greatest input into the bands visual style, which was iconic (II, ANATO and ADATR) and visually arresting (SHA.) When Freddie died, one of the British mags that hated him quoted him as saying, "we just want to be a regal British band, dear." They grudingly said that he accomplished that in spades. Now post-Freddie, we see the Hollywood releases which featured technical; glitches galore and embarassing remixes. The catalogue is a shambles, with GH compilations that are nothing but cash grabs and songs licenced out to everyone with a chequebook. Roger said the cover of Queen Rocks looked lie someone threw up on it. Then, for the definitive collection of their crowning moment, we get archival footage of men on the moon, people walking on the seaside, and Brian's ukelele playing hands. Throw in the ads with Britney, Pink and Beyonce, the endless WWRY remixes/remakes, the staggeringly bad decision to promote WWRY with the Sun, which hounded Freddie during his final months, the Wal Mart album, which stood against everything Freddie stood for as a person, and now the horrid Queen Rocks Montreal collection, and I'm left to believe that Freddie was everything to Queen outside of the music. If it weren't for Freddie's style, vision and taste, Queen would have been Slade or Nazareth, decent bands with no image. Brian and Roger have lost the plot.yup. and there you have it. |
Boy Thomas Raker 04.08.2007 09:21 |
Fair comment, Maz, and that's what I mean about Wal Mart versus Barnes & Noble. Excluding people like Pittrek who can't decipher a statement that says I wasn't talking musically, I think that Freddie embodied the regal side of Queen. The overdramtic flourishes, the costume changes, the flowers with the thorns picked out, those are Freddie things. I don't see him being party to running promos and contests for WWRY in a rag like the Sun, or creating an exclusive album in one of music's great catalogues for a price conscious retailer. And to digress, I think that Wal Mart is a tremendous problem for Americans and the American economy with their pricing policies. As I stated in another thread, many Americans are as anti-Wal Mart and their policies as Brian is anti-hedgehog killing. I can guarantee that if a fan sent Brian an e-amil on how poor a decision it is to do exclusive business with Wal Mart due to their cost to the health care system by paying low wages or the fact that many Americans are losing jobs as Wal Mart farms out to producers in China to keep their low price poicy in place, Brian would drum up some excuse justifying it and removing himself from the process. He plays both sides of the fence as a businessman (witness his embarrassing back and forth on reality shows, always coinciding with his appearance on one), and I think that QP are more profit oriented, which is fine, but less customer and quality friendly than they've evr been. Who knows, I may be wrong and if Freddie were here it could be worse. And you're right about John Deacon, Seb, I've excluded him in a business sense because nobobdy knows how involved he is in decisions like this. According to Roger and Brian, he sits at home and collects royalty cheques, so in my mind he's not involved in the QP other than giving blessings for everything. |
maxpower 04.08.2007 09:46 |
Can't argue with the poster, I remember Brian May actually saying a few weeks maybe months after Freddie's death "we'll never cash in" - bollocks, the last Queen CD I bought was Queen Rocks because of the single that went with it. Queen Hits III is pile of shite to include solo tracks is the biggest example of cashing in. Some faith has been restored with the DVD releases & the paul rogers link up, but it is a shambles |
LadySonnet 04.08.2007 11:40 |
TAKE A BOW for the guts for actually saying what I've been thinking eversince Freddie's Mercury Collection back in 1992! Dear friend, you are not alone in these thoughts - I ABSOLUTELY agree and support you here! As for those teeny, consumer-oriented, obsessed guys who like everything they are offered under Queen brand just because they can buy it, I don't give a shit! I am only too glad to see loyal people like you to the man who actually brought Queen to stardome. For... let's face it "Smile" are not that good and Paul Rodgers will never reach Freddie's level in terms of artistry! Once again THANK YOU! |
brENsKi 04.08.2007 12:40 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: The Wal Mart album may be a great album, Erin, however, Wal Mart is a low end, price sensitive, cheap retailer. Philosophically, Freddie wasn't a cheap person. The stories of him keeping high end stores in Japan open after to shop there are legendary. I couldn't ever see him setting foot in a Wal Mart, and I'm sure that he'd see this as a step away from a crppy infomercial. Nothing regal about this release, but I see your point.i have to disagree with you on this. 1. freddie may have had expensive tastes but he was not a snob. and he was fully aware of how he started his working life - on a fucking market stall selling second hand clothes... 2. he would laso be aware of the fact that a great pecrentage of the fans can't afford every full-price release...to them teh Wal-Mart release is a welcome alternative |
Adolfo and the spiders from Mercury 04.08.2007 13:34 |
yeah, brian and roger should stop playing their own songs as well, the nerve! |
Boy Thomas Raker 04.08.2007 14:12 |
It's the idea of how the catalogue is handled, Brenski, more than the venue. I'm a traditionalist, and I believe that the catalogue should be handled in a better way, period. People talk about QP being a business, but as Lester says, how much money do you need? If Queen doesn't sell another album for the rest of time, they'll still have earned more, individually, than possibly every poster on this board combined. They don't NEED to do things like the Wal Mart release, or Barnes and Noble or Harrod's. Every release like this devalues the catalogue and Queen product. Mercedes hasn't recovered from the introduction of their more affrodable C series, since there was a certain cache and snobbiness to driving a Benz, and lowering the price and making it more accessible devalued the brand to its long time drivers. I think of Queen music in the same light. Throwaway, low cost collections like the Wal Mart release, and Stone Cold Classics are cynical cash grabs, have no artisitic appeal or merit, and don't belong in the catalogue. IMHO ;) |
AlexRocks 04.08.2007 14:26 |
Stop the freak out. Most things are all good. They just need a better cover for "Queen Rock Montreal". Otherwise if some compilation sucks or what have you they can put it out of print. Name one other group that hasn't toured the U.S. or the world in almost TWENTY YEARS where the drummer and guitarist could just pick up and have success touring colliseums mere less filling up Hyde Park the way that they did. Phenomenal. This is not divinity it is silly rock n' roll so get off of your high horse before I shoot it and eat it for dinner...I'm hungry stand still now. Please jerk off somewhere else people. There are other websites for that. |
Lester Burnham 04.08.2007 14:32 |
AlexRocks wrote: Stop the freak out. Most things are all good. They just need a better cover for "Queen Rock Montreal". Otherwise if some compilation sucks or what have you they can put it out of print. Name one other group that hasn't toured the U.S. or the world in almost TWENTY YEARS where the drummer and guitarist could just pick up and have success touring colliseums mere less filling up Hyde Park the way that they did. Phenomenal. This is not divinity it is silly rock n' roll so get off of your high horse before I shoot it and eat it for dinner...I'm hungry stand still now. Please jerk off somewhere else people. There are other websites for that.If you'd have read the thread, Alex, no one's talking about Q+PR here: we're talking about the shabby way that Queen's back catalog has been handled, and if you look at it -- and I mean REALLY look at it -- you'll see how true it is. This is a serious discussion, so unless you have something serious to add to it (which, you didn't), don't contribute. Go jerk off elsewhere. |
Boy Thomas Raker 04.08.2007 14:36 |
Hey Alex, I'll go easy on you since it appears English isn't your main language given your sentence and thought structure. However, you may have noticed that there seems to be a great deal of disgust about Queen Rocks Montreal + Live Aid. If you had read the majority of threads over the past few days you'd be aware that the latest QP release is part of a long pattern of inferior releases compared to other bands releases, and even Queen's releases prior to 1991. If you like everything that Queen releases, that is your choice. If others don't like everything that Queen releases, and it appears there are many of us, that is our choice. |
cmsdrums 04.08.2007 15:00 |
I pretty much agree with the main points as to how the Queen name and catalogue are handled. The bottom line comes down to the fact that Jim Beach is an ACCOUNTANT, not a music manager, and therefore is in the business of making money, and does not really have a clue when it comes down to the credibility of the material, yet he seems to have a disproportionate say on what is released. I think that this is summed up by the Freddie 60th anniversary stuff which had no input from musically minded people at all. This is where Brian (and Roger) should put a foot down and insist on WHAT is and isn't released, and JB should then be left to think about HOW this is done from a format, marketing, press angle etc... The deal with The Sun for the WWRY CD is despicable, the Hollywood remixes are uneccessary and mostly poor, the endless Greatest Hits releases, the terrible ANATO 30th Aniversary release... I know that there is the tricky situation that after Freddie's death they obviously became an ex-band, and therefore alongside acts such as The Beatles, could only stay in the public conciousness through careful re-releases of the back catalogue, but I think the problem is that it hasn't been careful at all. Many far less prolific and less important old bands release archive sets, live concerts etc... that remain credible, well thought out, and are aimed at the fans but still carry enough of interest to the general buying public. How Queen cannot/will not manage this I don't know. It seems pretty clear from now on (from quotes by Brian and Greg Brooks amongst others) that releases will not be considered unless they can be, for example, in HD, Blu Ray, Surround Sound etc... This elitist approach means that we could miss out on stuff like Hammy Odeon 75 DVD, Earls Court 77 DVD etc... sinply because a stereo mix and an original colour grade film isn't deemed good enough to release - if stuff doesn't exist in HD or multitrack, then why not just make this clear when releasing it and say that this is the best version possible. No one complained about the quality of the original releases of Budapest, Wembley etc.. on VHS did they? The rave reviews of the Led Zep stuff which included bootlegs footage and old grainy audience shots, TV footage etc.. just goes to show that its the rarity and quality of the performance, not the quality of the media it comes on, that is important. Sorry, I only planned to write a few lines but got carried away!! |
Maz 04.08.2007 15:05 |
Your Mercedes analogy doesn't work, BTR, because I think there was little about Queen that appealed solely to the upper-crust. This has always been a band that tried to reach as many people as much as possible (introducing videos, large concert venues, multiple greatest hits releases, etc, etc). Now, I do agree with the idea that some releases are cash-grabs, but I think they would have also taken place to some extent with Freddie around. Let's not forget that even Elton John has done similar store-exclusive releases like his 4 DVD box set from a couple years back. I imagine that Freddie would have supported those same kind of releases. One last point - the industry as a whole has changed. Look at Mika's US release - how many different store-exclusive releases were there? I know both Best Buy and Target had exclusive tracks on their Mika CDs, and that this is a patterned followed by many new and old artists releasing CDs today. Heck, QPR did the same thing with the ROTC CD and QP did it with their WWRY GH CD. This is probably a reality of modern music in the age of the digital download more than a sad comment on the tastes of Queen Productions. |
Boy Thomas Raker 04.08.2007 15:30 |
What I meant Maz with the Mercedes analogy was the perception of ownership value, not elitism or snobbiness. Mercedes-Benz were always a top of line company, and the perception from the business community was that becoming a more affordable vehicle in some cases hurt the brand, and what they stood for. Comparing that to Queen, and Freddie's comment that I posted about being a regal band, I think the Queen catalogue is a jewel in the world of music. If the Beatles are the Rolls Royce of music catalogues, Queen is the Bentley. Rolls Royce or Bentley are synonymous with class. They won't be showcasing their vehicles in a used car lot on the side of the road. The Beatles have been very judicious in their licencing, as have Zep and AC/DC for the most part. Queen hasn't. At last count, the song WWRY has been in about 8 or 9 movies over the past 10 years, in addition to re-recording it for an ad with pop stars, plus versions with John Farnham and the cast of WWRY. Has that made the song bettr or more popular? I'd argue that for young people WWRY is the theme to the Mighty Ducks movie or some Disney animation. Plus, it makes Queen appear like a greatest hits band, which Brian didn't want to be known as a few years back. If that's the case, why keep releasing greatest hits packages only? |
Freddie's #1 Fan Forever 04.08.2007 15:49 |
Great post. You make a really great point about the visual elements as well. In fact, one of the aspects that distinguishes Queen from the vast bulk of other commercially successful bands involves the strong visual elements of their live performances, videos and even album covers. Although it is probably politically incorrect to say it, the reason probably stems from the fact that the lead singer of the band was a gay man from India. Most heterosexual white guys, on the other hand, really have no clue about what things look like on a visual level; it is not a coincidence that so many fashion designers are gay men. Anyway, you are correct in pointing out that Brian and Roger lack a sophisticated sense of visual things in general. Watch them in live concerts, and they clearly have no visual flair. Brian in particular spends most concerts nailed to the guitar, perhaps in fear that he will make a mistake. If he had not been so cute, Roger would have been just as bad. By the way, just last night I was watching this video on the making of "I'm Going Slightly Mad," which shows that Freddie is in many ways directing the video: link. What an amazing video! This just further illustrates to me what I am talking about above. The only thing that I do not agree with here is the Wal Mart issue. I am actually really happy to see that so many people in the US are being exposed to Queen in this way. In particular, a large portion of the Wal Wart customers is hispanic. Since Queen was always so popular in South America and Latin America, I just see this as a way to further extend their Latin popularity. |
AlexRocks 04.08.2007 15:56 |
Well for one I don't think I need to appologize for explaining how I think Brian and Roger have done great so far because some how I consfused someone by talking about Queen + Paul Rodgers. That is relevant to the what's being discussed so concentrate. I am sorry if you got dizzy because you read something you didn't agree with. Two whether or not there is something shabby going on with the Queen catelog now or whatever time period is irrelevant for the reasons I gave. Three I never said that I liked everything Queen have released or that I haven't. So I would appreciate if some of you calm down (as I've been like this too for crying out loud) and take a breather. I have just been trying to expand you all's consciousness that there are fans other than us who sit around chatting on a message board who may not feel the same as we do. It is just funny seeing people who haven't sold how ever many millions of records, sold out stadiums worldwide, still do quite well in airplay and public interest be told by some random people how things should be done. |
AlexRocks 04.08.2007 16:04 |
The Beatles have been judicious with their liscensing because Michael Jackson has chosen what to do with it and what not. Good thing too as he deserves it. I think it is great there is so much exposure for Queen. There is nothing like proving to the world how much better everything works with Queen involved! You all have no idea what you all are talking about. This is dead hippie ideology that somehow your assets should not be used because it is too divine. Get a hold of yourselves! |
Maz 04.08.2007 16:21 |
Ok, BTR, fair enough point. But, again, let's look at apples and oranges for a moment. You list LedZep, the Beatles, and AC/DC as bands to compare Queen by. First, throw out AC/DC because they are still a thriving band putting out new material. That leaves Zep and the Beatles each in similar positions as Queen where the band no longer exists in its classic lineup and never will again. Therefore, little "new" can be done. What I see as the major difference between Queen and those other guys is Brian and Roger have had little outside success, whereas Page, Plant, Ringo and Macca have to a larger degree. That means they can afford to be more protective of their brand, and QP needs to do things to try and stay relevant in the current music world. I think we can list it as a positive that Queen has yet to do the "70's Classic Rock Concert Series" that plays each summer across North America. |
Boy Thomas Raker 04.08.2007 18:36 |
Contentious argument entirely, Maz, I totally respect your opinions and those of the others, my wording is probably strong but I truly believe that QP is at an all-time low for quality control and decision making. As for Thomas Qu?nn, unless you're the Thomas Quinn who uses red font for his name, your thoughts on everything are pretty worthless. |
Russian Headlong 04.08.2007 21:50 |
There are some valid points here, about some of the fucking awful post Freddie stuff. Well, am I alone in thinking Made in Heaven is 80% shit, the embarrassing Robbie Williams and Pepsi projects are what annoy me. No Freddie was not Queen. He was the Figure head but there is a lot of fucking snobbery from some Queen fans who slag the Paul Rogers recruitment off with no idea of the guys credentials in Rock Music, Free and Bad Compant are bonafide rock legends and I suspect it is the pop fans of Queen who dismiss him, and the guy has just a god a voice as freddie in his own style. Face it if it wasn't for Brian and Roger, queen would have dissolved into a fucking light weight disco outfit in the 80's. Mr Bad Guy, Hot Space, loads of 80's stuff is pop shit is eveidence of this, The best Queen is the hard rockin' ass kickin Queen, the band that live rocked harder than any pure metal band. Too many of the later albums are patchy trying to keep the new found pop fans happy yet not wanting to piss off the old rock fans. I honestly believe Freddie and John ran the risk of totally betraying Queen's metal roots if it had not been for Brian and Roger. AC/DC recovered without Bon Scott, The Who still rock without Moon and Entwhistle, christ Thin Lizzy are touring without Phil Lynott. It's not ideal but the music deserves to go on because its so damn good. The Hollywood Records thing is poor, Queen Rocks is OK, If they had put TYMD and SCC, on the greatest hits instead of the awful GOFLB then there would have not been a need to release it. My biggest regret was that Queen never headlined Donington and that Freddie never came out a admitted he had AIDS like Chuck Panuzzo OF Styx did. |
QueenSite 05.08.2007 03:11 |
Queen was a combination of 4 elements. That's all. |
Treasure Moment 05.08.2007 08:10 |
Yes Freddie was the soul of Queen. Without freddie there is no queen. Freddie is also God :) |
maxpower 05.08.2007 08:22 |
Russian Headlong I agree with every single word you say, going back to queen rocks did we really need that awful remix of i cant live with you, where was dead on time? ogre battle? Queen @ Donington is a great question, i suspect it was all about making more money on your own tours (even though the magic tour in 86 was the only profitable one) This was the line up in 86 Headliners onwards Ozzy Ozbourne, The Scorpions, Motorhead, Bad News, Def Leppard, Warlock. You telling me Queen wouldnt have pulled the crowd? with Def Leppard opening it would have been ideal (Rick Allens first gig after he lost his arm) Even 1985 where ZZ Top headlined with Marillion, Bon Jovi, Metallica, Ratt, Magnum & Metallica's first appearence opened (The Tallica' boys have a very big Queen connection) |
teleman 05.08.2007 13:26 |
Queen WAS Freddie,Brian, Roger and John. Freddie WAS a member of Queen. Another pointless subject yet with some good points made on both sides. There's no doubt that as a business QPL has done some things that many of us who have listened to Queen for decades, find questionable. But as business decisions they are sound. They make money and quite simply that is a good business decision. BTW as I understand John is the one who had the business sense in the band. There is no guarantee that if Freddie was still around he wouldn't have gone along with some of the questionable choices. To think everything he did was regal and he did nothing that was less than perfect is looking at all things Freddie with rose coloured glasses. Freddie was human(no matter what Atheist/Treasure Moment says) and as fallible as any other person. IMO he had a couple of tacky moments. I doubt he'd have had a problem with the WalMart deal. To think he would is to think he was politically sensitive and elitist. To think a little tarnish will be all that's left a few years from now is extreme pessimism. The Queen catalogue will hold up just fine since the bulk of it is outstanding IMO. Haven't you ever polished your silverware? You don't throw away a silver spoon because it has a tarnish spot on it. You get out the polish and clean it up. Time will do the same to Queen's legacy. In decades to come that which stands out as quality will be what is remembered. BTW the ghost of my great great grandfather can beat up the ghost of your great great grandfather :D. |
Treasure Moment 06.08.2007 14:21 |
*(azzadude)* ..GET DOWN MAKE LOVE! wrote: What about the album Made in heaven.. Freddie wasnt there for the final touches, but look how good the album.it also had freddies voice and compositions they made together |
Neinbull 06.08.2007 15:17 |
All I have to say is, Brian and Roger have raped the name queen for the last 15 years. The guys should've burried Queen with Freddie, like John did. |
Grantcdn1 14.08.2007 23:34 |
I'm sorry....but when Freddie took the helm we got Hot Space.......thus he needed the other three to keep himself in check....just like the others needed Freddie to reach their full potential.....the next time Freddie got to do his own thing we got Mr Bad Guy....let's face it - his solo stuff was nothing compared to Queen.....he was 1/4 of the band and a fantastic singer and showman but still 1/4. Queen just needs a better marketing and record company but that was the same as when Freddie was around.... |
Sebastian 15.08.2007 07:20 |
> I'm sorry....but when Freddie took the helm we got Hot Space....... Also 'Queen', 'Queen II', 'Sheer Heart Attack', 'A Night At The Opera', 'Jazz', 'The Miracle' and 'Innuendo'. > he was 1/4 of the band and a fantastic singer and showman but still 1/4. Not quite. The singing department was dominated by him (including backing vocals, which he did more than the others in the albums), the songwriting department was dominated by him, the instrumental department was sort of a four-way split (especially in the synth-era), and the arranging department was dominated by him. So, he wasn't "more" than the other three combined but definitely more than any of the other three alone. Which still doesn't change the fact that Freddie + Brian (e.g. at Live Aid) wouldn't be Queen, Freddie + Roger woudln't be Queen, Freddie + John wouldn't be Queen, John + Roger wouldn't be Queen, John + Brian wouldn't be Queen and, of course, Brian + Roger aren't Queen. |
Donna13 15.08.2007 09:19 |
I agree mostly with teleman and Sebastian. |
The Real Wizard 15.08.2007 10:45 |
Treasure Moment wrote:Sure, but the original songs were awful on so many levels, and sounded brilliant and fresh on Made In Heaven. Why? Because of the other three members of the band. If you like the Mr Bad Guy versions better, then you're one of the very few... but in most cases, it's because people have such a blind love for Freddie, and refuse to acknowledge the genius and importance of the other members of the band.*(azzadude)* ..GET DOWN MAKE LOVE! wrote: What about the album Made in heaven.. Freddie wasnt there for the final touches, but look how good the album.it also had freddies voice and compositions they made together |
Boy Thomas Raker 15.08.2007 10:46 |
Grant, re-read the first paragraph from my original post. There is nothing about Freddie WAS Queen from a music POV, I feel he embodied the spirit of them creatively, from stage design, artwork, album covers, costumes and overall presentation. The post has nothing to do with music, but quality control. |
boy of destiny 15.08.2007 11:27 |
Can't argue with this thread. Other bands of the same magnitude such as Zeppelin or Floyd have done a much better job managing their legacy. Brian may be the heart of this band, but Freddie was the soul. |
mike hunt 16.08.2007 00:49 |
Grantcdn1 wrote: I'm sorry....but when Freddie took the helm we got Hot Space.......thus he needed the other three to keep himself in check....just like the others needed Freddie to reach their full potential.....the next time Freddie got to do his own thing we got Mr Bad Guy....let's face it - his solo stuff was nothing compared to Queen.....he was 1/4 of the band and a fantastic singer and showman but still 1/4. Queen just needs a better marketing and record company but that was the same as when Freddie was around....this is one of the most ignorant posts I'v ever read on this site. I agree 100% with sebastion on this one. freddie wasn't the only one who loved the sound of hot space, remember roger was the first one to write a funk song (fun it). If your gonna put all the blame on freddie for the failure of hot space then you better give him all the credit for their successful albums since he did more of the writing than the other three. Remember side black of queen2?...or ANATO?...I also Agree that freddie wasn't the only member of queen and all four members contributed to their success, but to say John or roger were equal to freddie and brian is being simple minded. |
mike hunt 16.08.2007 01:15 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:I Agree with your post. especially brian being a genious, and all three did a good job in creating a solid album in made in heaven. the queen version of MIH and Born to love you were better than the Mr. Bad guy versions, but I still think the best version of I was born to love you is on the freddie box set With only piano and vocals.Treasure Moment wrote:Sure, but the original songs were awful on so many levels, and sounded brilliant and fresh on Made In Heaven. Why? Because of the other three members of the band. If you like the Mr Bad Guy versions better, then you're one of the very few... but in most cases, it's because people have such a blind love for Freddie, and refuse to acknowledge the genius and importance of the other members of the band.*(azzadude)* ..GET DOWN MAKE LOVE! wrote: What about the album Made in heaven.. Freddie wasnt there for the final touches, but look how good the album.it also had freddies voice and compositions they made together |
Daveboy35 16.08.2007 02:39 |
freddie was queen no no no i think you'll find all of the members were queen freddie was just made out to be the leader of queen by the media after his displays of brilliant showmanship and theatriacality of his stage presence. Four great guys make up the unique queen sound and although freddie has gone the band still has the sound that will remove them from any other group, and i have stated this before but if you take away brian and his red special then there is no queen sound. |
goinback 16.08.2007 04:31 |
|
Sebastian 16.08.2007 07:44 |
> remember roger was the first one to write a funk song (fun it). And Roger was the one who got them into synths. |
The Real Wizard 16.08.2007 09:50 |
mike hunt wrote: but I still think the best version of I was born to love you is on the freddie box set With only piano and vocals.Ahhhh yes... that is a great one! |
Richy Mercury 17.08.2007 13:18 |
Grantcdn1 wrote: I'm sorry....but when Freddie took the helm we got Hot Space.......thus he needed the other three to keep himself in check....just like the others needed Freddie to reach their full potential.....the next time Freddie got to do his own thing we got Mr Bad Guy....let's face it - his solo stuff was nothing compared to Queen.....he was 1/4 of the band and a fantastic singer and showman but still 1/4. Queen just needs a better marketing and record company but that was the same as when Freddie was around....Those songs are awesome. I find myself listening to 'Mr. Bad Guy' more than "Back to the Light". What made Queen a special band was Freddie's delivery of the vocals. Listen to any Queen tribute album and you will hear what I am talking about. On the stage, Brian May always finds looking at the ground more interesting than making eye contact. John Deacon never did anything special on stage. His outfit for the Magic Tour was horrible. He stopped caring. The way Roger dressed for the Magic Tour was bad too. Freddie looked bloated compared to the Hot Space tour. |