| Benn 01.11.2007 06:22 |
Here is the chin of my enquiry with Brian's Soapbox, given the comments made about the DVD: >>>Brian, >>> >>>Reference to your recent soapbox entry: and >>>our boys mixed them with just as much love >>>and care as the rest of the show. >>> >>> >>>Can you explain, then, how they managed >>>to "insert" the performance of 'Jailhouse >>>Rock' in completely the wrong place? >>Hi Ben >> >>Thanks for the note. >> >>Where would you have expected Jailhouse Rock >>to come? >> >>Best wishes >>Jen >>FOR SOAPBOX >Jen, > >I'd have "expected" it to come after 'Sheer >Heart Attack' as per the audience tapes from the two shows. Hopefully, more to follow...... |
| Liquid Scream 01.11.2007 07:15 |
Your answer is in the audio commentary of the DVD. Freddie didn't want to wear the same thing during both shows. To annoy the director he wore pants during the encores of the second night so footage couldn't be alternated between both shows. |
| Benn 01.11.2007 08:09 |
>>Your answer is in the audio commentary of the DVD. And what difference does that make? Queen have taken this opportunity to apparently give what they believe to be the very best representation of this show. The fact is that "Jailhouse Rock" is not in the same position that it was on either night in the set list and, therefore, is NOT the best representation of the show. On the CD - which I am refering to - you can't see Freddie's fucking trousers, so it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever whether his clothes matched or not. What you essentially have is what you'd get if they moved the WWRY / WATC encore and stuck it in after 'Save Me'. It's either laziness or arrogance or stupidity at the very least and ought to be corrected. |
| Togg 01.11.2007 09:30 |
That is rediculas... You expect one shot of Fred in white jean and the next in shorts and there to be no issue with continuity ! If you want the best representation of the show it has to match from a visual point of view. Only an obsessive fan would notice the difference in the set list, however everyone else would have not problem spotting Fred with quick change trousers and back again. If you are going to comment about coninuity, at least think about it first before you shoot yourself in the foot with a stupid comment, I am sure Brian will be highly amused with your feedback! |
| riku_queencdr 01.11.2007 09:46 |
Togg wrote: Only an obsessive fan would notice the difference in the set list, however everyone else would have not problem spotting Fred with quick change trousers and back again.Not (only) obsessive fans but everyone who has some knowledge of Queen's setlists over the years. I don't consider myself as an obsessive fan by any means but I still think it is ridiculous they have put Jailhouse rock in that spot. Especially as they keep giving statements they want to offer us fans the best ever representation of these two shows in Montreal. I really don't give a damn what pants Freddie wore (or if any at all) but it annoys me way more when they say this is "the ultimate Montreal release". It is not. No extra songs (on the DVD) and JR is still in the wrong spot... |
| Benn 01.11.2007 10:54 |
Togg, What is "rediculas" is that you haven't noted that I am refering to the CD release of the show, not the DVD; please see my second post for the reference. I have no interest in the DVD whatsoever as I have already paid for this material twice already. Before you 'lash out', please take the time to fully read what other people are posting before making an arse of yourself. |
| Benn 01.11.2007 10:58 |
.....also note that on the UK release, the sticker on the jewel case reads "Taken from their brilliant concert at The Montreal Forum" Surely, this indicates that it represents a single concert and not butchered together from two nights. Flash and The Hero are also refered to as bonus tracks too. How are they bonus tracks when they were an integral part of the show and not represented on the discs as bonus tracks? Small points, but important in terms of accuracy. |
| Togg 01.11.2007 11:03 |
I read your post carefully, and you seem to fail to take into account that it would make no commercial sense to issue a CD in a different order to the dvd. Never mind that fact that as I said only a hand full of 'fans' will worry about it. But if anyone is proving themself to be an arse it is you with your whinge to Brian |
| Benn 01.11.2007 11:48 |
Togg, >>I read your post carefully, No, you didn't as you STILL seem not to have noticed that I am nat linking the CD release to the DVD release. >>and you seem to fail to take into account that it would make no commercial sense to issue a CD in a different order to the dvd. It doesn't make commercial sense to release something that can be found to have umpteen flaws in it. The CD is not being marketed as "The Soundtrack To The Film Queen Rocks Montreal" and, therefore, anyone with an ounce of sense will see that they are separate entities. The only reference to the DVD is a small not on the inside of the booklet, refering to is as "also available". Also, due to the fact that they are available on separate media, the CD and the DVD will also be looked at by different markets in terms of whose going to buy what, so someone loving the music, but not necesarily the visuals would have no interest in whether Fred wore trousers, shorts or a fucking skirt...... Queen Audiophile: "Hmmm, I wonder why they played JR after CLTCL at Montreal when they never did at any other show.......?" QPL: "Aah, Freddie was wearing trousers at one show and then decided to play games with the director of the film and wear shorts the next night. Wasn't he a clever boy!" QA: "But the Queen Concerts website and the Concert File both say that JR was played as an encore. Which is correct?" QPL: "See the answer to the first question" QA: "But the sound of the audience on the CD really makes me think that they'd been through a great energy number like SHA, so it just doesn't sound right after CLTCL" QPL: "Freddie was wearing shorts though - it wouldn't look right" QA: "But I'm talking about the CD, not the DVD" QPL: "We had to make it look like a real show on the DVD" QA: "But wasn't it advertised originally and explained by Brian as having been cobbled together in the first place from two nights in Montreal?" QPL: "Ummmm.....errrr......yes, but Freddie was wearing trousers at the first show and shorts at the second.......or was it the other way round? Where's Saul Swimmer......!!!!!" QA: "So a CD has been released that's like a jigsaw of a gig. Isn't thst a bit like what happened with 'Live Killers'?" QPL: "Yes" QA: "But they managed to keep roughly the same running order on that release" QPL: "Freddie was wearing shorts on the DVD, so it's been edited to reflect that" QA: "Are you listening at all to me QPL?" QPL: "Hands in the air and sing......"We will, we will, rock you" QA: "Hello!?" QPL: "Tickets for the musical are on a 2-for-1 offer!" QA: "Sheesh!" |
| YourValentine 01.11.2007 12:05 |
LOL @ Benn :) There are liner notes where different pants can be explained and the concert can still have the correct set list. For example the Cream concert in the Royal Albert Hall 2005 was compiled of 2 nights and in the liner notes each song has a date, so the viewer knows when each song was performed. While watching the show I always forget about the 2 nights but I am fully informed about the correct source. Now it's too late, anyway but it's obvious that the history of this product makes people look more critical than ever before. |
| Togg 01.11.2007 12:07 |
Yawn.... I think you are getting a little obsessive about this! |
| Benn 01.11.2007 12:09 |
Togg, And you aren't? Your posting in MULTIPLE threads about this whilst making exactly the same point...... |
| Benn 01.11.2007 12:14 |
YourValentine. "Different pants"? I'd love to think that was a deliberate slip of the keyboard :-))))))))) But you're right. 'Live Killers' was from multiple nights of a tour and presented with no further explanation. Regardless of the overdubs etc, we'r just told that the album represents that period in time. We already knew which two shows QRM came from, so I really don't think it's too much to ask to have the setlist reflect what was played. And including 'Flash' and 'The Hero', why not just tack them on at the end of disc 2 after a suitable pause to denote them as the "Bonus Tracks" they are purported to be as opposed to inserting them in THE RIGHT PLACE........ I swear that, one day, QPL wil release something that's flawless. <<Hides behind his hand in shame for even entertaining the idea!>> |
| YourValentine 01.11.2007 13:51 |
What's wrong with the pants? I am a foreigner... |
| Penetration_Guru 01.11.2007 15:32 |
Why not Jailhouse Rock before SHA? Problem solved...far more representative, no continuity error |
| Mr. Scully 01.11.2007 15:47 |
I don't understand it. If Freddie's pants are the main problem, why didn't they use footage from only 1 night for Jailhouse rock? I'm also angry that despite all the improvement we get once again an incomplete recording with an incorrect tracklist. Thank god it was such a bad concert anyway. I can't imagine watching a butchered version of HamOdeon 1979, for example... |
| Lester Burnham 01.11.2007 18:31 |
YourValentine wrote: What's wrong with the pants? I am a foreigner...When I first read it, I thought it was supposed to be "parts", but I also believe that "pants" is a British word for undergarments, and "trousers" is the word for slacks, jeans, etc. That's how I interpreted it... I'm not sure how it all goes in European countries. |
| YourValentine 01.11.2007 21:58 |
Oh, okay :) |
| YourValentine 01.11.2007 21:58 |
double post |
| Trumpeter 02.11.2007 00:17 |
My memory is somewhat rusty but I was at one of these two concerts that were filmed (also at shows in 78 and 82)and the band started the show with Jailhouse Rock if I recall correctly but not a complete version. I remember finding it odd that they would start a show with a song that wasn't theirs. In any case I was young and those were marvelous virtuoso performances that I will never forget! Be glad that they have been captured and preserved and are being put out for all to enjoy regardless of "the order". |
| riku_queencdr 02.11.2007 03:11 |
Trumpeter wrote: ...the band started the show with Jailhouse Rock if I recall correctlyThey did on The Game tour 1980 but not these two filmed shows. You must have been in the Forum also in 1980 when Queen stopped by! :) |
| Penetration_Guru 02.11.2007 03:44 |
Mr. Scully wrote: I don't understand it. If Freddie's pants are the main problem, why didn't they use footage from only 1 night for Jailhouse rock?I assume that it was only played on the first night. |
| Benn 02.11.2007 05:41 |
Had another, more detailed listen to the CD last night on headphones and I'm just stunned at how they have managed to mask Brian's sound - it literally sounds at times as if he's playing with a curtain in front of the AC30's. Whatever amount of compression they have used on the guitar tracks, it's WAY too much. And, whilst I'm the first to say that Roger's drum sound is excellent throughout, it overpowers bothe the bass and lead guitar too such an extent that some of the cymbal crashes really started to hurt my ears. Mr. Scully is right in that it was a "bad" (by Queen standards) show. How great would it have been if we were talking about Hammy '79 or Earls Court? |
| Togg 02.11.2007 06:34 |
Whatever your view of the CD/DVD the one thing that needs to be considered is both Roger and Brian have been involved in this re-working and both will have had to sign off on the final product, so I would assume from that, that they are both happy with the result! I think as with any audio track a lot will depend on the quality of the equipment you are listening to it on, there is no doubt in my mind that the DVD works very well in surround sound and in stereo. certainly the Bass and drums come off the best, but that would be difficult not to do considering the original. I guess you have to assume that Brian wanted it to sound that way, if he was unhappy with it I guess it would have not been released until he was. |
| Adam Baboolal 02.11.2007 08:41 |
I've never seen anything like this thread on QZ before. A fan annoyed because a song is out of place and therefore makes the whole thing bad? Nah. And I have to echo the idea that the drums overpower the bass, that's rubbish. I've listened to both dvd and cd and that is so wrong, it's not funny. The bass pushes very nicely on this release. I wonder if it's the best I've heard deacy in a long time, it's so good. I still haven't made my mind up about Brian's sound. Also, if the cymbals are hurting your ears, that sounds like either the system you're listening on or having it too loud, etc. I've listened on my studio setup and my normal system and it hasn't had that effect at all. And I've been playing it loud! Adam. |
| Mr Mercury 02.11.2007 09:37 |
I too cant believe that someone is moaning about one song being out of place. Big deal. Get over it is what I say and mailing Brian will not change things either as what is done is done. Beatles fans are a good example to go by imho. They never moaned about the correct running order of Sgt Pepper all those years ago - they just got on with listening an enjoying the music by programming the order on their CD or MP3 player. For those who are interested the running order should have been :- 1 Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band 2 With A Little Help From My Friends 3 Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite 4 Fixing A Hole 5 Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds 6 Getting Better 7 She's Leaving Home |
| Lester Burnham 02.11.2007 10:23 |
<font color=FF9900>Mr Mercury</font> wrote: Beatles fans are a good example to go by imho. They never moaned about the correct running order of Sgt Pepper all those years ago - they just got on with listening an enjoying the music by programming the order on their CD or MP3 player. For those who are interested the running order should have been :- 1 Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band 2 With A Little Help From My Friends 3 Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite 4 Fixing A Hole 5 Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds 6 Getting Better 7 She's Leaving HomeThat's a lame excuse, because that's a studio album and not a live performance. If it had been a live performance and the concert was all disorganized like that, then yeah, maybe there might have been a problem. Sgt Pepper is such a legendary album, that if Paul and George and Ringo and George M. had decided in 1987 (when it was first truly revealed the running order), "Let's use this original line-up instead of the one that people have known for years," can you imagine how many fans and critics would have cried foul of this? You don't mess with perfection! |
| Mr Mercury 02.11.2007 11:37 |
Lester Burnham wrote:Hi Lester, I know that was a studio album but my point was still the same. Its only one track out of running order on the "new" Queen CD's, not 5 as it is on the Pepper album.<font color=FF9900>Mr Mercury</font> wrote: Beatles fans are a good example to go by imho. They never moaned about the correct running order of Sgt Pepper all those years ago - they just got on with listening an enjoying the music by programming the order on their CD or MP3 player. For those who are interested the running order should have been :- 1 Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band 2 With A Little Help From My Friends 3 Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite 4 Fixing A Hole 5 Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds 6 Getting Better 7 She's Leaving HomeThat's a lame excuse, because that's a studio album and not a live performance. If it had been a live performance and the concert was all disorganized like that, then yeah, maybe there might have been a problem. Sgt Pepper is such a legendary album, that if Paul and George and Ringo and George M. had decided in 1987 (when it was first truly revealed the running order), "Let's use this original line-up instead of the one that people have known for years," can you imagine how many fans and critics would have cried foul of this? You don't mess with perfection! Off topic - are you doing anymore Queen related books Lester? |
| Erin 02.11.2007 11:40 |
<font color=FF9900>Mr Mercury</font> wrote: Off topic - are you doing anymore Queen related books Lester?I hear he's writing a Milli Vanilli book. |
| Maz 02.11.2007 15:20 |
Erin wrote:He'll probably just hire a ghost-writer for that book.<font color=FF9900>Mr Mercury</font> wrote: Off topic - are you doing anymore Queen related books Lester?I hear he's writing a Milli Vanilli book. |
| NOTWMEDDLE 03.11.2007 01:41 |
Lester Burnham wrote:Peter Gabriel resequenced his So album to have In Your Eyes as the closing track instead of either "We Do What We're Told" or the duet with Laurie Sargent as the original vinyl and CD had it and no one complained. Iron Maiden placed Total Eclipse before Hallowed Be Thy Name on the remastered Number of the Beast but no one complained.<font color=FF9900>Mr Mercury</font> wrote: Beatles fans are a good example to go by imho. They never moaned about the correct running order of Sgt Pepper all those years ago - they just got on with listening an enjoying the music by programming the order on their CD or MP3 player. For those who are interested the running order should have been :- 1 Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band 2 With A Little Help From My Friends 3 Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite 4 Fixing A Hole 5 Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds 6 Getting Better 7 She's Leaving HomeThat's a lame excuse, because that's a studio album and not a live performance. If it had been a live performance and the concert was all disorganized like that, then yeah, maybe there might have been a problem. Sgt Pepper is such a legendary album, that if Paul and George and Ringo and George M. had decided in 1987 (when it was first truly revealed the running order), "Let's use this original line-up instead of the one that people have known for years," can you imagine how many fans and critics would have cried foul of this? You don't mess with perfection! |
| Tero 03.11.2007 04:27 |
I'm glad you're all taking it all so lightly when it comes to rearranging the order of the songs... I'm sure Brian will be glad to know (come next live album) that he can put Brighton Rock solo and WWRY as the ultimate concert closer on Budapest, and no one would mind at all. ;) |
| Serry... 03.11.2007 05:48 |
Totally agree with Benn. And for other guys who like to blame QZers for "moaning" in each damned thread - if QP have re-released NATO with the sleeve of DATR instead of the original one and called it as "completest and perfectest re-release of legendary album" - what would you say? Wouldn't you moan? And in the case if you would - but why? It's only fucking sleeve, who cares? A little mistake by "chaps", so what? Brian is moaning about the title that has been used for that concert in the past ("We Will Rock You"), but some Queen fans can't "moan" about incorrect order of the songs though "chaps" has been working on that project for many months. Jesus, we're like in the nazi land where you can't moan though others allowed to do that... |
| YourValentine 03.11.2007 05:54 |
Serry... wrote: Totally agree with Benn. - if QP have re-released NATO with the sleeve of DATR instead of the original one and called it as "completest and perfectest re-release of legendary album" - what would you say? Wouldn't you moan? And in the case if you would - but why? It's only fucking sleeve, who cares?Exactly. Or if QP released an anniversary single of WATC-WWRY and made it WWRY-WATC instead. Oh, wait.. |
| Adam Baboolal 03.11.2007 08:55 |
Utter rubbish. Again, the use of an obvious wrong (WATC then WWRY on single) IS something to moan about. That is an important historical marrying of two songs that should be seen as WWRY then WATC. The other way round goes against the way those two songs have been used for the last 30 years. And again, the whole title being wrong example is yet another rubbish analogy. If the title is wrong, that's plain wrong. Here, we're talking about a song that was only out of place because of one person - Freddie. My advice, blame him. As for the CD, again, blame Freddie. Why? Because both releases, regardless of format, must match each other's content where possible. It's a uniform way of working that is adopted as the standard. Have people nothing better to do with their time than criticise a release because of where -a- song falls in this concert. Adam. |
| Lester Burnham 03.11.2007 10:41 |
NOTWMEDDLE wrote: Peter Gabriel resequenced his So album to have In Your Eyes as the closing track instead of either "We Do What We're Told" or the duet with Laurie Sargent as the original vinyl and CD had it and no one complained. Iron Maiden placed Total Eclipse before Hallowed Be Thy Name on the remastered Number of the Beast but no one complained.OK, that's nice. Ahh, the irony! Moaning about the moaners. I can't tell who's the bitchiest group here. Fact of the matter is that Queen fans will never be happy, and that's a good thing, despite the permanent PMS that everyone seems to have. Why should Queen fans settle for mediocrity? Is it so much to ask that a Queen concert be presented in its full original running order? If the CD were to have Jailhouse Rock in its correct place, but the DVD still had it wrong, imagine the criticism! Imagine the lashing the band would get from the critics! Imagine the outrage, the rioting, the fires, the people taking it to the streets! We can't stand for that!!! Benn had every right to point out the mistake, no matter how petty it may seem. I also don't get where this "duh QZers have no life by spotting these tiny mistakes" comes from. Myself, when I listened to the concert, I was doing some work and thought to myself, "Oh, Jailhouse Rock is in the wrong place. That sucks." And then I went back to work. It only takes a minute to realize this, or two minutes to research it if there's a doubt. I hardly think Benn is up all day and night, hair mangled, writing on his walls "JAILHOUSE ROCK COMES AFTER SHEER HEART ATTACK" over and over, like a man possessed. Come off it. It's a valid point, especially when Brian was so adamant to make QRM the perfect release. Putting Jailhouse Rock in its right place would have been a start. |
| Adam Baboolal 03.11.2007 12:24 |
I'm glad that the placement has been pointed out. But it's not a mistake. It's an intentional placement because of...dum dum dummmmm...Freddie's antics! But I see that regardless of the correct or incorrect placement, as pointed out by Lester, Queen fans will find something to moan about. I don't think that's a good thing. I find it quite sad, really. Anyway, to each their own. Adam. |
| Serry... 03.11.2007 13:01 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: Have people nothing better to do with their time than criticise a release because of where -a- song falls in this concert.Adam, may I ask you the question? Have you nothing better to do with your time than asking us about "FM8 which has the fm7 (aka dx7) sounds" in WWTLF? No, really, is it really so important for the world and for you? I wasn't here for about 6 months, guys, so when this place turned into the refuge of the Queen fans' time keepers and supporters of GB's trademark phrase about Moanzone...? |
| bohemian 11513 03.11.2007 15:04 |
<font color=FF9900>Mr Mercury</font> wrote: 1 Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band 2 With A Little Help From My Friends 3 Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite 4 Fixing A Hole 5 Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds 6 Getting Better 7 She's Leaving HomeJailhouse Rock would have fitted perfectly at the end... She´s leaving home for jail. :-) |
| Pim Derks 03.11.2007 15:21 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: Here, we're talking about a song that was only out of place because of one person - Freddie. My advice, blame him. As for the CD, again, blame Freddie.I think Freddie paid for his stubborness (to not wear the same clothes) exactly 10 years later. |
| Freddie May 03.11.2007 16:07 |
Paul Rodgers would never do something so stupid, such a reasonable man... |
| Adam Baboolal 03.11.2007 22:05 |
Serry... wrote:Your problem is that you don't get why I asked that question, otherwise you'd understand. I had the software that emulated the synth Brian used for WWTLF and I wanted to capitalise on that by using the same sound in my theatre's recording of the song. And in finding that out, the rest of QZ's musicians can now share in that wonderful info from Sebastian's great knowledge of such things! So, yes, it was important for QZ and me. HAH!Adam Baboolal wrote: Have people nothing better to do with their time than criticise a release because of where -a- song falls in this concert.Adam, may I ask you the question? Have you nothing better to do with your time than asking us about "FM8 which has the fm7 (aka dx7) sounds" in WWTLF? No, really, is it really so important for the world and for you? Tell me Serry, why have you been chasing me lately? Adam. |
| Serry... 04.11.2007 01:42 |
"And in finding that out, the rest of QZ's musicians can now share in that wonderful info from Sebastian's great knowledge of such things! So, yes, it was important for QZ and me. HAH!" But there are not only musicians on QZ, and it's not interesting for them at all and you don't have to waste their time on such questions. Do you like such 'logic'? There are some perfectionists on QZ and they're interested in this discussion about JR, so please don't take it to heart if they spend their time on it and 'moaning'. It's their right to do so. "Tell me Serry, why have you been chasing me lately?" Because I can't understand why one of the most respected QZers and veteran of this board is calling other QZers as "moanzoners" as often as you did recently. Especially when it comes to discussions about QP. You weren't that irritable few years ago. |
| Bobby_brown 04.11.2007 10:56 |
As far as i´m concern this is probably their best sound and image concert release until now. And it´s just my opinion. The drums and bass are perfect... especially the bass sounds incredible. Now, we should not forget why this concert was recorded in the first place the way it was. It was meant to be aired on cinemas for people to feel they were part of the show. That´s why you don´t get too many audience shots. But that is not the most important thing. The important thing is that this DVD - more than the others - is a visual experience, because that´s what it was suposed to be. Too bad the director didn´t store the edit tapes, and we´re talking about big loss here. Two nights worth of material were recorded and they could not find "the Flash" and "the Hero", or any other edited part for that manner. Now, this is unprofessional... and this is something that should not happened!- But this is not QP fault. QP in this case didn´t have much to work from. You get the same angles as before, and the same songs, simply because there isn´t more footage to work. Since this DVD is meant to look like 1 concert (taken from 2 sources), doesn´t make much sense to see Freddie dressed in denim trusers again, after "WATC". It would simply cut the flow of the Visual effect they were trying to achieve. This isn´t something they enjoy to do, but in this case QP are not to blame. In my opinion, it´s the best it could be donne. And by the way, let´s not forget that THIS very same concert was used in the past to ridiculize Queen "oficial" DVD's - stating that the 2003 edition had the best image and sound of any Queen DVD. Well, it seems that this concert was badly converted in the past (like Budapest)- resulting in alteration of the pitch of the band. And i´ve already seen here people claiming that the 2003 DVD was better in sound and image than this one - that can be someone´s taste, but it simply isn´t true! For what Brian says, just to clean the film lots of work was donne. And then they had to do some wizzardy to put the thing toghether again. Considering all aspects of this, i think they have made the right decision. Could they have put the CD in the right order?- yes, but they´ve decided to keep the integrity of CD/DVD release. Like Roger says- a Queen concert is a visual experience too, not only auditive. As fans we would like to have everything like it was, and detailed as possible, but in some cases it would make the product less appealing than what it was meant to be. I think this is one of those cases. This is not a "documentary" of that night- so to speak. The thing to do is to add a detailed Booklet of what happened so people could know. Take care |
| Adam Baboolal 04.11.2007 13:49 |
I like the way you've put it Bobby. Adam. |
| Serry... 04.11.2007 23:10 |
Bobby_brown wrote: Considering all aspects of this, i think they have made the right decision. Could they have put the CD in the right order?- yes, but they´ve decided to keep the integrity of CD/DVD release.For the integrity's sake Flash/The Hero should be after God Save The Queen. Bobby, there's such thing as "consistency" and QP's consistency is very strange with the live releases. Whenever they release live stuff it usually doesn't go in that way "let's take master tapes, re-store it, re-mix it, re-fuck it and release it for our dear fans", no, man, that usually goes like this "let's take master tapes, re-store it, remove half of Freddie's speech before Staying Power and pause in Guitar Solo (though we'd left it for DVD), remove a little bit from Tutti Frutti (how many releases of Wembley I've already had untill I got the complete version of Tutti? 3? 4?), re-order tracks for Montreal and then release it". There would be less of the moan if they'd at least once release the record as it is, digitally restored, but not stupid re-edit. P.S. It's a little bit strange when people are happy while Bob (SirGH) is compiling a couple of Freddie's words from Puebla concert from different sources, just to make the recording complete, and the same people don't care about incomplete official recordings... |
| Nummer2 05.11.2007 03:47 |
In my opinion it's absolutely inevitable to discuss the placement of Jailhouse Rock, the omission of Flash/The Hero and the obvious and less obvious overdubs. That's what makes the difference between a die-hard fan and the casual listener. So, why not talk about Brian changing clothes between CLTCL (white shirt under black vest) to JR (black t-shirt under white blouse) and back again? May not be as obvious as Freddie's clothes, but nonetheless awkward. And what about Freddie's ventriloquism in Killer Queen? Never wondered about the fact that they used the version of WWRY (fast) where Freddie mixed up the lyrics? Was the other night's opening even worse? One thing appears funny to me: They tried their best to clean up the sound – they even did overdubs – but they had the guts to leave all the F...-words untouched. Even Freddies "Let's go get fucked!"-farewell was left uncut. 5 years earlier they'd cut it, I'm sure. |
| YourValentine 05.11.2007 07:05 |
"So, why not talk about Brian changing clothes between CLTCL (white shirt under black vest) to JR (black t-shirt under white blouse) and back again? May not be as obvious as Freddie's clothes, but nonetheless awkward." That's a good point. The Killer Queen audio-video inconsistency, however, was already corrected in the 2001 edition. |
| Bobby_brown 05.11.2007 10:36 |
edit. |
| The Real Wizard 05.11.2007 17:40 |
I still entertain the possibility that they may have simply used material from the other night in Montreal... there were two! I don't think they would have redone anything, this many years later! Like any official release, it is a multi-track recording, so vocals can be mixed as they please, and they can pick and choose little things here and there, because they have more than one show to pick from. It doesn't make it any less live! That said, until we hear audience recordings of both nights, I don't think we can make any conclusions... unless someone is willing to compare all the versions, checking to see if there are things that sound different. It sure won't be me! |
| Benn 08.11.2007 06:33 |
Just received this from "Brian's Soapbox" after having to chase up a response: "Haven't been able to get that feedback through to Brian as yet - as you know, he's closeted away in recording studio. Endeavouring to find an opportunity." <snigger> |
| Mr Mercury 08.11.2007 08:42 |
Benn wrote: Just received this from "Brian's Soapbox" after having to chase up a response: "Haven't been able to get that feedback through to Brian as yet - as you know, he's closeted away in recording studio. Endeavouring to find an opportunity." <snigger>At least you got some sort of response Benn, although if Brian is really that hard to get to (and he may well have been) then how come he was able to respond to letters about astronomy, QRM's italian chart position, or praise regarding WWRY in New Zealand? But like I said, you got some sort of response which is a lot more than I got when I asked about the "promised" Scots dates for the european leg of the QPR tour. I got nothing. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 08.11.2007 12:57 |
That's true Benn. I would have loved to have got a response on my thoughts re: what people who don't want the Queen name being used think. It's a shame that Brian (or Jen if she filters out tough questions) doesn't answer more things that are tougher to deal with. Instead, he uses the Soapbox to squash people who don't like the musical, or answer softball questions that are positive to him or the band's image. |
| Benn 09.11.2007 05:37 |
Boy Thomas Raker, re: >answer softball questions that are positive to him or the band's image. Absolutely - The Soapbox and, infact, Brian's entire website is an ego-fluffing exercise. Jen started off, I believe, although I may be wrong and stand to be corrected, as the mother of someone in a Queen / Brian tribute band. This escalated to this band's website being used to post "Brian & Queen" news snippetts and then morphed into a "Brian" site which then had official recognition. She's the a-typical Queen t-shirt-wearing, badge-wearing convention-goer that simply will not have anything negative said about the band. Just the right type of person to "police" an "interactive" (and I use that word with EXTREME caution) web-forum and act as a human fire-wall for all correspondance sent to Brian. If your comments don't fit with the positive vibes that Brian needs for his ego, then they simply don't get through. I always had this impression of Brian as someone that was a thinking guy; someone that would take on board any type of constructive criticism etc, but what you read on that website completely wipes out that theory. Take, for example, his rants against people asking for his autograph. Whilst I understand that he doesn't want to be interupted when sitting in a restaurant eating a meal, he has to understand, surely, that people see him as a hero and, after forking out not insubstantial sums of cash over the years to give him his lovely comfortable lifestyle, the simply want a little something in return like a signature or a photograph. Having spent a good amount of time with John Entwistle of The Who, never ONCE did John EVER refuse an autograph or a picture. The guy knew where he came from and who the people were that were responsible for giving him longevity in his career. I don't understand Brian's motivation for having the Soapbox or Letters section of his site - why doesn;t he simply open a one-way blog with no option to offer comment or feedback as there's never any true interaction. The responses he gives to anything are almost always one liners acknowledging something positive. Perhaps the REAL point of that is that Brian DOES understand the mess that the band's catalogue is in and understands the frustration of the hardcire fan, but is simply not allowed to publicly agree........? I'd like to think so..... |
| Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira 11.11.2007 20:32 |
Erin wrote:That is easy! Find somebody to write it for you and learn the coreography! :)<font color=FF9900>Mr Mercury</font> wrote: Off topic - are you doing anymore Queen related books Lester?I hear he's writing a Milli Vanilli book. Cheers, Ogre- |
| Pim Derks 12.11.2007 01:01 |
Benn wrote: Absolutely - The Soapbox and, infact, Brian's entire website is an ego-fluffing exercise. Jen started off, I believe, although I may be wrong and stand to be corrected, as the mother of someone in a Queen / Brian tribute band. This escalated to this band's website being used to post "Brian & Queen" news snippetts and then morphed into a "Brian" site which then had official recognition.Has anyone read the egotrip/biography on Brian's site (link Really disturbing to read, especially for someone who likes to be seen as 'down-to-earth'. These days Brian is claiming credit not only for I Want It All, but also The Show Must Go On. Now, we all know Brian was very involved in writing those songs - but it seems that somehow Brian forgot about the agreement the band made to credit all post-1986 songs to Queen instead of the main writer of the track. I wonder how long it'll take for BoRhap to be credited to Freddie Mercury/Brian May because he wrote the solo or something. |
| Mr Mercury 12.11.2007 08:52 |
Pim Derks wrote:I took Brian's biog on his site with a large pinch of salt. Infact I treated it the same way that I would treat those blurbs you get for movies telling you "This is the greatest movie you will ever see!!!!" or "I was blown away by this!!!" by some journo who was probably paid to write them, yet never watched them.Benn wrote: Absolutely - The Soapbox and, infact, Brian's entire website is an ego-fluffing exercise. Jen started off, I believe, although I may be wrong and stand to be corrected, as the mother of someone in a Queen / Brian tribute band. This escalated to this band's website being used to post "Brian & Queen" news snippetts and then morphed into a "Brian" site which then had official recognition.Has anyone read the egotrip/biography on Brian's site (link Really disturbing to read, especially for someone who likes to be seen as 'down-to-earth'. These days Brian is claiming credit not only for I Want It All, but also The Show Must Go On. Now, we all know Brian was very involved in writing those songs - but it seems that somehow Brian forgot about the agreement the band made to credit all post-1986 songs to Queen instead of the main writer of the track. I wonder how long it'll take for BoRhap to be credited to Freddie Mercury/Brian May because he wrote the solo or something. |
| Bobby_brown 12.11.2007 13:58 |
It´s perfectly normal for the owners of the sites to write good Bios and not to post negative things about him/her. It would be strange if it was otherwise. If he has a site, why would he post negative opinions about his work? Nobody does that, and it´s not a case of henesty. It´s a case of simply doing what he feels is right, not caring with what others think. And i think it´s good to be honest about who was the author of the songs post 1986. He doesn´t need to protect Freddie´s privacy anymore. And he credits "These are the days of our lives" completely to Roger. As long he´s honest about what he says, then it´s ok. And since Roger and John are cool with it, then it´s reaally not that important. I don´t know why fans are picking one everything Brian does or says, but i think that´s not the best way to go about it. Queen isn´t our band, and those are not our songs, so as far as it´s members are ok with the direction they´re taking, then it´s really not of our business. Take care |
| Boy Thomas Raker 12.11.2007 17:57 |
Your points are valid Bobby Brown, but I think Brian's Soapbox is nothing but glorified press releases. It's like brianmay.com is North Korea and all is sunshine and brightness, and anything that isn't is swept aside. From a fan's eductational perspective, it could be an amazing tool, as Brian is one of the smartest men in rock. But Brian, or Jen, tends to answer questions only that flatter Brian or the musical. Benn's question about running order for QRM is valid if we are getting what Brian says is a "definitive" release. Benn's not a spammer attacking Brian, he's asking a legit question as a true fan. When the tour started a few years back, Brian "heard" (from a post on this site) that people where questioning whether backing tapes were being used in FBG on the vocals, and a rhythm track for TATDOOL. He used his Soapbox to brush off the backing vocals saying it was all of them. But he never answered about the taped rhythm track. To me, that's picking your battles. It wouldn't hurt for an honest answer. I realize he can't answer every piece of mail, but Jen has to realize that these are issues. Not addressing them makes QP appear small minded, and bullies. |
| Bobby_brown 12.11.2007 19:18 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Benn's question about running order for QRM is valid if we are getting what Brian says is a "definitive" release. Benn's not a spammer attacking Brian, he's asking a legit question as a true fan. .He´s question is valid, but i think we know the answer , don´t we?- I mean, considering everything Brian said about the missing footage, why it was filmed in the first place, and everything else, i think this answer was already answered. But the way Ben puts it, might be interpreted as ofensive to their work. Ben is implying (even though it´s not meant) that they did this running order by mistake. Wich is not the case! Why on earth would they want to change the order of the songs if it was not for the reasons already stated on this forum? Does it sound better to have "jailhouse Rock" in that place in the set list? Because i don´t know what kind of answer people want to hear. That it was a mistake? And by the way, British press is allways doing a great job saying negative things about everything Queen related. If he wants his site clean of that, then i think he´s a smart guy. People claim that he should be honest, and for what he writes from time to time i think he´s as honest as one can gets (in his position). When we have serious doubts, we should ask, but most questions people want him to answer are just attacks in desguise (like his opinions about fans who don´t aprove Queen+PR). I think that by asking this questions to Brian we are underestimating his inteligence. Take care |
| Serry... 13.11.2007 00:21 |
You knew that I'd reply, B_B, right? :-) "If he has a site, why would he post negative opinions about his work? Nobody does that" The statement alleged to have been made by the defendant is clearly untrue... A lot of musicians posts negative reviews about their work on their sites and mentions them in interviews. And actually problems of Queen with press were not about negative reviews, problems were about non-professional reviews written by some arseholes from the British press. No-one forces him to post the negative about his works, but it makes his site less 'real' (it's not for fans anymore, that's for the press, tribune for his statements about Mika), like all those 'star-blogs' which made by press agents of artists, not by artists themselves. We too much love Brian for being happy about his turning into one of the many speechless PR dolls. "He doesn´t need to protect Freddie´s privacy anymore." I guess Fred didn't ask him to protect his privacy and since it was the band decision about the credits, it's not only Brian who now may break that rule (yeah, there's no Fred anymore, so...). And there's no need for it, isn't? "I don´t know why fans are picking one everything Brian does or says, but i think that´s not the best way to go about it." Same reasons why you always agree with him whatever he says or writes. We have our own opinions and it doesn't have to be the same as Brian's. "It´s really not of our business" Is this the way you'd like people to share their opinions about something? |
| Serry... 13.11.2007 02:09 |
P.S.: "We made the decision that no matter who came up with the idea for the song, it would be credited to Queen, and not individuals, and I think it's the best single decision we ever made. I just wish we made it 20 years ago instead of a couple of years ago, 'cause it makes such a difference to the creation process. I would recommend it to anyone, anyone who is actually a proper group." Brian Harold May, 1991 |
| gnomo 13.11.2007 04:31 |
<font color=FF9900>Mr Mercury</font> wrote: although if Brian is really that hard to get to (and he may well have been) then how come he was able to respond to letters about astronomy... as for the astronomy, the answer is quite simple: like all comets, 17P/Holmes is relevant to the subject matter of his doctorate thesis - all the more as it is displaying some very unusual behaviour - and he's been in need to keep up-to-date on the latest developments, because tomorrow he will be giving a lecture on that at Imperial College London. FWLIW |
| Benn 13.11.2007 12:14 |
Bobby_Brown, re: >>He´s question is valid, Thanks for the support (you and others) - nice to know that there are some relatively intelligent individuals out there amongst the loons. >>but i think we know the answer , don´t we?- I mean, considering everything Brian said about the missing footage, why it was filmed in the first place, and everything else, i think this answer was already answered. This is the crux of the matter - we know the reason for the issues surrounding the DVD element of the release as they have been much publicised. However, my SPECIFIC issue relates to the CD elemnt of the release and has NOTHING to do with the DVD. This leads me to think that the CD was issued simply for the sake of generating a few more sales of product, regardless of it's content. The running order of the CD set NEEDS to be correct, simply because, on it's own, it has nothing other than the music to support it. If you were a newbie to Queen and decided to buy the QRM CD and then, whilst listening, decided to have a look on the web about the show itself and came across the listing on queenconcerts.com, you'd instantly be faced with an innacuracy for which there is, simply, no excuse and, frankly, embarassing. >>But the way Ben puts it, might be interpreted as ofensive to their work. Ben is implying (even though it´s not meant) that they did this running order by mistake. Wich is not the case! I'm implying nothing of the sort. I'm implying that the people in charge of quality control (whatever that is at QPL) on Queen releases have absolutely no idea what they are doing and should be, instantly, fired on the spot and replaced with people that *GIVE A SHIT* about the accuracy, quality and content of Queen material. |
| Adam Baboolal 13.11.2007 15:43 |
It's ironic that the papers and general public accept and enjoy Queen more in this day and age, whereas there's this great turnaround where we see certain fans jump on them now. Especially Brian. Don't you think? I also wonder about all this quoting business. Of what Brian said 16 years ago, etc., cause it's no longer relevant in this case. People change and/or change their minds and you have to understand that before all else. So, something that made perfect sense at the time may not be the same years later. Unfortunately, when quotes are taken from people, they're then adopted by some fans as pure fact. Evidence is probably a better word to use for some here. We must remember that quotes are both of the time and sometimes not for hearing years down the line. There's no black and white. Some are for the present, some for one time only, some for hearing again and again, etc. etc. Adam. |
| Bobby_brown 13.11.2007 16:57 |
Serry<br><font size=1>The FLACer</font> wrote: You knew that I'd reply, B_B, right? :-)Of course i knew :-) where were you? You were very quiet for the last months. Welcome back. Take care |
| Bobby_brown 13.11.2007 16:58 |
edit |
| Serry... 13.11.2007 20:05 |
What's the conclusion? Don't read the interviews, don't trust to Soapbox or what? I always found it funny: when you put the quote which proves your opinion, there's always someone who doesn't agree with you and who'd say "he changed his mind, forget about that quote". They tell me that we don't know what's happening inside the band now so I can't blame Brian for this or that, but on other hand they knows what's happened in Brian's head and with his thoughts. Brilliant tactics. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 14.11.2007 13:11 |
For Bobby Brown, and Adam, and I say this with all due respect because I admire your contributions to QZ, and don't want this to come off as condescending. I assume you guys are relatively youngger fans, maybe in your 20s or 30s. There are fans older than I here, and our experiences don't diminish those of the newer fans. However, there is a sense of perspective that perhaps some of the younger fans don't have, and maybe that'll shed some light on the general unhappiness with QP or Brian. Back in the earliest days of Queen, Brian often referred to Led Zeppelin as "the bible" for the way they did things from a management, and career point of view. Zep did things right, and for the longest time, Queen did also. Everything was done extravagantly from recording techniques, stage presentation, album covers and liner notes. Queen were perfectionists, and it showed. Now, they half ass everything, so I guess we can let it go, or for those of us who remember when a Queen release was highly anticipated, we can bitch on the internet! The mistakes (Hollywood re-releases, terrible album art, useless extras on DVD's, etc.) have been well documented. And whether you, I or the guy next door care to believe, these affect the historical standing of the band. For the last two weeks, the local rock stations have been trumpeting the relase of the Led Zeppelin catalogue on iTunes. This is a huge deal in the rock world, and has been highly publicized by media and anticipated by fans. The Queen catalogue, by comparison, has been plundered and sold off to any third rate filmmaker or record company who will licence a Queen track. So, Queen has flooded the market, often with inferior product that does nothing to add to the band's reputation or legacy, where Zeppelin (or AC/DC) have been very protective with their catalogue, and it's a big day with the Zep catalogue digital release. Whole lotta love hasn't been used in 8 or 10 Disney movies a la WWRY, so there's a real buzz. Whenever there's a Queen release these days, it's for a compilation geared at pop fans. Brian has often complained about Queen not getting a fair shake from critics, but really, if your business model is to flood the market with your singles, multiple times aimed at the casual music fan, your body of work will always be overlooked. Comparing them to Zep and the buzz around the Zep catalogue hammers that point home. The standards have fallen a long way. |
| Bobby_brown 14.11.2007 19:18 |
Benn wrote: This leads me to think that the CD was issued simply for the sake of generating a few more sales of product, regardless of it's content.I don´t have a doubt about it! There´s simply no more market for separated CD/DVD releases. They have to come togheter. And in this case that´s what Queen should have donne. A box with 2CD´s and 1DVD. But Queen are still going in the old fashion way! Take care |
| Benn 15.11.2007 04:41 |
Boy Thomas Raker, re: >>Comparing them to Zep and the buzz around the Zep catalogue hammers that point home. The standards have fallen a long way. And I have no doubt that, if Peter Grant were still alive, the circus that has sprung up around this show on December 10th would not have happened. Bobby Brown, re: >>There´s simply no more market for separated CD/DVD releases. They have to come togheter. And in this case that´s what Queen should have donne. A box with 2CD´s and 1DVD. Why on earth would they do it like that? The consumer's choice is then taken away which would lead to non sales due to people being pissed off at being forced to buy both to get the one they want. The market is there, of course. There are plenty of Queen fans that loved the music but hated them on stage visually because of Fredie's campness. Those people wouldn't necessarily want to have the DVD but would like the CD version........ |
| Bobby_brown 15.11.2007 16:56 |
Benn wrote: Bobby Brown, re: >>There´s simply no more market for separated CD/DVD releases. They have to come togheter. And in this case that´s what Queen should have donne. A box with 2CD´s and 1DVD. Why on earth would they do it like that? The consumer's choice is then taken away which would lead to non sales due to people being pissed off at being forced to buy both to get the one they want.The consumers choice is not taken away IF the box was at the same price. The thing is, Queen products are way overpriced. In Portugal the double CD is almost 20€. The same goes for the 2DVD. At this price they could very well sell the CD/DVD. Everybody would be happy! At least i would. Take care |
| Liquid Scream 15.11.2007 20:46 |
I can't comment on prices anywhere else in the world but here in Canada I got the CD for $13.99 and the double DVD for $14.99 at Best Buy. I later saw the double DVD for $12.75 at Costco. I think that is pretty reasonable. |
| pittrek 16.11.2007 02:25 |
Shit, I've paid 17.99 euro for the 2CD set and 25.99 euro for the 2 DVD set ! |
| Benn 16.11.2007 04:11 |
Bobby, re: >>Everybody would be happy! At least I would!! That's hardly the point is it? QPL are in business "still" to make money by maximising their revenue streams. *YOU* and*I* don't matter to them in the slightest - the £ & $ do. Springsteen released a box set for the re-mastered version of "Born To Run" with a live DVD of "Hammersmith '75". They THEN released a CD version of the live set to compliment under a separate cover. A FAR better way of making the product attractive to as many people as possible. Queen's marketeers have lost the plot. |
| Benn 16.11.2007 04:14 |
All, And further to yet anotherenquiry on a response from Jen, the same old shit is trotted out. >>Just got to be patient. Brian's tremendously >>busy in the studio just now. >> >>Can't sensibly bring up with him the Montreal >>feedback till he's surfaced for more than 30 >>seconds and has started to clear at least some >>of the outstanding matters, otherwise it all >>just backs up. >>Soon I hope he'll get to that feedback. ......but, surely, it all backs up if it's NOT dealt with? She / he has no intention of answering the question IMO, but I'll keep plugging away. |
| MDNA 16.11.2007 05:47 |
Bobby_brown wrote: The consumers choice is not taken away IF the box was at the same price. The thing is, Queen products are way overpriced. In Portugal the double CD is almost 20€. The same goes for the 2DVD. At this price they could very well sell the CD/DVD. Everybody would be happy! At least i would. Take careIt's not just Queen. All music related products are way over priced in Portugal. One of the rasons being the fact tha we still pay 21% VAT (IVA) on music related products when we have a law that states all culture related products should only be taxed at 5%. It seems music isn't culture in this country. I got the DVD now, and hope to pick up the CD later on a discount price. I don't expect to be waiting more than six months for that to happen. |
| idscorpion 16.11.2007 09:08 |
Another thing...does anyone knows anything about "Sex show" - a working title of a Queen songs that Brian mentions in the audio commentaries? Cheers |
| Togg 16.11.2007 09:36 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: For Bobby Brown, and Adam, and I say this with all due respect because I admire your contributions to QZ, and don't want this to come off as condescending. I assume you guys are relatively youngger fans, maybe in your 20s or 30s. There are fans older than I here, and our experiences don't diminish those of the newer fans. However, there is a sense of perspective that perhaps some of the younger fans don't have, and maybe that'll shed some light on the general unhappiness with QP or Brian. Back in the earliest days of Queen, Brian often referred to Led Zeppelin as "the bible" for the way they did things from a management, and career point of view. Zep did things right, and for the longest time, Queen did also. Everything was done extravagantly from recording techniques, stage presentation, album covers and liner notes. Queen were perfectionists, and it showed. Now, they half ass everything, so I guess we can let it go, or for those of us who remember when a Queen release was highly anticipated, we can bitch on the internet! The mistakes (Hollywood re-releases, terrible album art, useless extras on DVD's, etc.) have been well documented. And whether you, I or the guy next door care to believe, these affect the historical standing of the band. For the last two weeks, the local rock stations have been trumpeting the relase of the Led Zeppelin catalogue on iTunes. This is a huge deal in the rock world, and has been highly publicized by media and anticipated by fans. The Queen catalogue, by comparison, has been plundered and sold off to any third rate filmmaker or record company who will licence a Queen track. So, Queen has flooded the market, often with inferior product that does nothing to add to the band's reputation or legacy, where Zeppelin (or AC/DC) have been very protective with their catalogue, and it's a big day with the Zep catalogue digital release. Whole lotta love hasn't been used in 8 or 10 Disney movies a la WWRY, so there's a real buzz. Whenever there's a Queen release these days, it's for a compilation geared at pop fans. Brian has often complained about Queen not getting a fair shake from critics, but really, if your business model is to flood the market with your singles, multiple times aimed at the casual music fan, your body of work will always be overlooked. Comparing them to Zep and the buzz around the Zep catalogue hammers that point home. The standards have fallen a long way.This is very interesting, I too share much of this view as I too am an older fan. When I first came to Queenzone I was somewhat surprised at the level of Queen bashing that went on, however over time I started to realise a good amount of it was justified, and I have to say that I do believe the standards have slipped somewhat, but... I still believe that both Roger and Brian try to deliver products to the best of her ability and at the highest quality, and much if not most of the time they do just that, we may not agree with every choice, but it was taken in a considered way, and not simply just for profits, however, once again they are a business and as such profits do have to come into it in today's world, unfortuantely but fact. Some thing have always slipped through that the band as a whole don't like, the cover of Hot Space, the quality of Live Killers etc. and will always do so. I think the key thing to remember is that genuinly believe in what they do, you don't have to agree with it, you don't have to buy it, but you do have to accept that it's never done because they need the money! it's always a business decision which is very different, it's about cost effectiveness verse quality and cost. Given a completely free hand I suspect Brian is just the same perfectionist he has always been. |
| Benn 16.11.2007 10:25 |
Togg, re: >>I still believe that both Roger and Brian try to deliver products to the best of her ability and at the highest quality, and much if not most of the time they do just that, we may not agree with every choice, but it was taken in a considered way, and not simply just for profits, however, once again they are a business and as such profits do have to come into it in today's world, unfortuantely but fact. So, given the climate of unrest within the serious fan community, why is it that they consistently fail to take heed of the people that have the most to loose (in £) with every release that goes by? Admittedly, they shouldn't ever target releases at one area of their fan base, but there appears to be absolutely no straw polling orquestioning of people that spend their hard-earned on Queen product. For example Hasbro have for a number of years been polling Star Wars fans on which figures they woul like to have released. This results in the "Hasbro Fan's Choice" action figure and, in every carse, has met with widespread approval. Why has this not happened with Queen and their archival releases? Answer being that there is no one anywhere near decision-making level that gives the remotest shit about what comes out, when it comes out or how. >>Some thing have always slipped through that the band as a whole don't like, the cover of Hot Space, the quality of Live Killers etc. and will always do so. That may be true, but two blemishes across, what, 10 albums is a pretty decent conversion rate. Seems to me that EVERYTHING that has come out since Freddie died has been a relative disaster and that NOTHING has been close to faultless. That tells it's own story. >>I think the key thing to remember is that genuinly believe in what they do, you don't have to agree with it, you don't have to buy it, but you do have to accept that it's never done because they need the money! it's always a business decision which is very different, it's about cost effectiveness verse quality and cost. You're right, but they keep dangling that old worm out there on the line for the next unsuspecting fish to come along and gobble it up, don't they.......? |
| Boy Thomas Raker 16.11.2007 11:11 |
Good post Togg, and I've always understood that QP is a business first and foremost. Having said that... Queen did make mistakes when Freddie was alive. IMHO, the "quality" issues you mentioned need a historical perspective, which as an older fan you probably remember. When Live Killers was released. punk was all the rage, and the sound was kind of ragged. From a presentation POV, the album cover was a good shot capturing the spectacle of Queen. The inside was filled with photos and great liner notes. Not their best effort, but I thought there was care and diligence in putting it together. The cover for Hot Space was dodgy at best, but at the time, Queen album art was always something people looked forward to. Queen II was iconic, SHA well received and extremely creative, the white/black dynamic of the "twinned" ANATO & ADATR albums, NOTW was outstanding, and even though Jazz was a head scratcher, there was a thought process with the reversed concentric circles and the story of where the word Jazz came from. Hot Space missed the mark, but still, I don't see it as an album where it appears settled on. Today? Roger said it looked like someone vomited on the cover for Queen Rocks. The cover for ROTC is arguably the only thing Queen fans can agree on, and that is the picture and presentation was horrible. My favourite Queen song is It's Late. The first CD I bought when Hollywood Records got the catalogue was NOTW. Remember, CD was supposed to be the ultimate in sound, so I was dying to hear the improvement. I put on It's Late, and the opening skips. Some would say that's no big deal. I'd say that it's your catalogue, that song is a gem, and there's no way you can release that disc without correcting it. People can blame Hollywood or Jim Beach, but it's Brian, Roger, John and Freddie's music. You either care about it, or you don't. I think they don't care as much about the music, presentation or fan wishes (hello boxset!), than they do with filling their coffers. |
| cmsdrums 25.11.2007 09:30 |
As I don't have bootlegs of either of the original Montreal gigs, can anyone enlighten me as to whether there were any really bad errors on either night, or whether any performance of a specific songs was remarkably better than the other night? And were the setlists eXactly the same? If the answer to these questions is no, then I simply can't see any reason why they didn't simply release one of the nights, and ignore the other, and then audio and video would match up to the right performance, and any costume issues would be removed too. Am I being too obvious?? |
| Benn 25.11.2007 15:19 |
cmsdrums, You have an excellent point, but the problem is that the product was already "out there" in the form of the "We Will Rock You" release. The powers that be and their limited imagination decided that they *HAD* to release "We Will Rock You" again to bring it up to DVD standards but were limited by the amount of existing footage available from each individual night. My take on it is that Saul Swimmer kept everything that existed from both nights in his own archive but only ever gave QPL what he wanted them to have. Therefore, the visuals don't exist in complete form in Queen's archive. They then weren't prepared to offer whatever Swimmer's "people" wanted for the complete masters because of the lasting history between the various parties. I also believe that QPL do own the complete AUDIO masters for both nights, but were not prepared - for some reason - to treat the CD and DVD releases as separate product. |
| Adam Baboolal 25.11.2007 15:28 |
That's far too much presumption and assumption all in one post, Benn. It shows how you feel about QP. Adam. |
| Daniel Nester 25.11.2007 15:54 |
Geez, and this is all started from Saul Swimmer effing things up. Don't suppose we should mention that he directed “The Concert for Bangladesh"? George must've been OK with that project, since he co-produced The Beatles' still-unreleased "Let It Be." |
| Benn 26.11.2007 07:49 |
Adam, re: >>That's far too much presumption and assumption all in one post, Benn. It shows how you feel about QP. But the point of THAT is that because everything surrounding Queen and their archives and what has / hasn't been relaesed is is surrounded by cloak and dagger, the only way of having any conversation is with oodles of presumption and assumption. So, apologies for that, but I did sayit was my take on it all. By the way, the latest mail to Brian's Soapbox operator has been met with no response. I even included a link to the WDCS (marine mammal charity) and their anti-whaling campaigns in the hope that it might lend the enquiry more credibility, but, alas, it appears not. I shall have to keep chasing. |
| Benn 28.11.2007 11:25 |
And, still, no response after almost a month - here is the complete transcript of my exchange; read from the bottom up: Hi Jen, Still no response I see. It'll soon be a month since I first made the enquiry for some clarification and yet still have had no firm answer. Is there a problem with my request? Kind regards Benn Kempster ----- Forwarded by Benn Kempster/Hatfield/CCenter on 28/11/2007 16:21 ----- Benn Kempster 26/11/2007 14:47 To: brians.soapbox@clara.co.uk cc: Subject: Re: Queen Rock Montreal - Jailhouse Rock Hi Jen, Again, I see that Brian has obviously been passed letters or mails that he has responded to. If there is no intention of passing this through to Brian, or if he has no interest in the issue I have raised, I'd appreciate the courtesy of being told so. I wish him all the luck in the world in his campaign against the cruelty of whaling and it's wider effect on the planet's resources. Kind regards Benn Kempster ----- Forwarded by Benn Kempster/Hatfield/CCenter on 26/11/2007 14:41 ----- Benn Kempster 20/11/2007 14:15 To: Brian's Soapbox <brians.soapbox@clara.co.uk> cc: Subject: Re: Queen Rock Montreal - Jailhouse Rock Jen, I notice that there has been some activity in terms of Brian's responses on the Letters page, dated 19.11. Given that there is a backlog of "mail", can you tell me where my enquiry is in the queue? Also, I thought that Brian might have taken the time to promte the leading whale and dolphin conservation charity in his posts about the recent launch of the Japanese whaling fleet. The WDCS do a stunning job of raising awareness of these most vulnerable of creatures and need all the help that they can get. Perhaps you would pass this on to Brian (if not the Jailhouse Rock enquiry) in order for a wider audience to be made aware. link Kind regards Benn Kempster Brian's Soapbox <brians.soapbox@clara.co.uk> 15/11/2007 17:37 To: Benn Kempster/Hatfield/CCenter@CCenter cc: Subject: Re: Queen Rock Montreal - Jailhouse Rock HI Ben Just got to be patient. Brian's tremendously busy in the studio just now. Can't sensibly bring up with him the Montreal feedback till he's surfaced for more than 30 seconds and has started to clear at least some of the outstanding matters, otherwise it all just backs up. Soon I hope he'll get to that feedback. Best wishes Jen On 15 Nov 2007, at 16:42, Benn.Kempster@computacenter.com wrote: Hi Jen, Have you had a chance to put this to Brian yet? I'd have expected so given the activity on his Soapbox in the last few days regarding the comet........... Kind regards Benn Kempster ----- Forwarded by Benn Kempster/Hatfield/CCenter on 15/11/2007 16:41 ----- Benn Kempster 01/11/2007 08:35 To: Brian's Soapbox <brians.soapbox@clara.co.uk> cc: Subject: Re: Queen Rock Montreal - Jailhouse RockLink Hi Jen, I'd have "expected" it to come after 'Sheer Heart Attack' as per the audience tapes from the two shows. Kind regards Benn Kempster Brian's Soapbox <brians.soapbox@clara.co.uk> 31/10/2007 17:59 To: Benn Kempster/Hatfield/CCenter@CCenter cc: Subject: Re: Queen Rock Montreal - Jailhouse Rock Hi Ben Thanks for the note. Where would you have expected Jailhouse Rock to come? Best wishes Jen FOR SOAPBOX On 31 Oct 2007, at 17:17, Benn.Kempster@computacenter.com wrote: Brian, Reference to your |
| Wet Willie 28.11.2007 11:33 |
Benn, don't you have better things to do? you know where it was in the show, we know where it was... and then! If you really want it in the 'right place', why not programme your CD player to do so and leave Brian record a new album and concentrate on the release of future better products! ;-) |
| Benn 28.11.2007 11:48 |
Wet Willie, re: >>Benn, don't you have better things to do? Yes, I do, but this has simply taken a rough 5 minutes of my time. Not something I'm too concerned with in terms of conflict with work. >>If you really want it in the 'right place', why not programme your CD player to do so If everyone took such a lassaize faire attitude to obvious and *easily fixed* errors, the next release will be "wrong" as will the next one and the one after that ad infinitum. There is NO official channel for complaint to be made or for issues to be raised that are constructive and, ultimetaly, helpful. Greg Brooks was almost that channel, but for various reasons, he's now gone back into hiding. QPL appear to have no interest. Brian has something of an open channel, and you'd hope he'd care enough about the product that is promoting him and his band to take issues like this seriously. What's evident is either "Jen" won't pass anything through to him that is remotely negative, or, miore disturbingly, Brian simply doesn;t give a fuck about it now he's receiving the royalty checks from the QRM release. >>and leave Brian record a new album and concentrate on the release of future better products! .....or, alternatively, have him put up endless postings about dust and stars as opposed to issues his paying customers have with Queen product? |
| gnomo 28.11.2007 13:18 |
Benn, while I totally agree on your scenario about what material was in possession of what party, I think you might be somewhat missing the point about your message not reaching Mr. May. IF my understanding of the system is correct, when planning his activities for a specified interval of time, he will specify what particular areas of interest and what levels of relevance/urgency he will be "available" to respond to, depending on his current involvements and priorities. As a consequence of what filters he has set up, his staff would *not* forward to him *anything* about *anything else*, unless it's something of truly major impact on his life or business. So, as long the light stays red for QRM issues, you can insist until you're blue in the face, but I doubt you'll get through. The above, in extreme over-simplification, and assuming that my understanding of the system was correct. Of course, I might be wrong, in which case I apologise in advance to everyone involved. Good luck, anyway. |
| Benn 29.11.2007 04:13 |
Gnomo, You have it spot on it seems. However, that approach is, *SIMPLY* unacceptable. If you take it literally, he and QPL (as QPL's only "available" representative) are displaying absolutely NO customer care or interest in feedback from customers relating to product. If a company like Panasonic released a DVD player, but then two months after it's release to stores decided that they weren't going to take heed of any issues customers had witht he product using the excuse that they have "moved on", they'd be faced with an official enquiry from trading standards. Here's the response received overnight which illustrates your point perfectly and proves my theory: >>Hi Ben. >>Time unbelievably stretched. I started work 5 >>AM - must have food .. and sleep!!! Tight >>deadlines. >> >>Only get the answers when Brian is ON a >>particular subject. >> >>If there is an opportunity, you may hear, or >>Brian may think unimportant, compared with >>whatever else on his plate. Can't predict. >> >>Your question is one of many many thousands. >>There are no guarantees or obligation. As >>Brian says "Luck of the draw" - otherwise he >>would drive himself mad. Has to keep moving >>forward. >> >>Getting upset with us doesn't help. >> >>Jen I see this as nothing more than just being brushed off and Brian / QPL being complacent about the release of their product and ignorant towards the concerns of their customers. I *REALLY* shouldn't care about it, but I do, because I care about Queen's product and name being taken seriously; while mistakes and laziness abound the band will continue to be considered third-rate and I don't believe they should be. |
| Holly2003 29.11.2007 04:45 |
Benn wrote: Gnomo, You have it spot on it seems. However, that approach is, *SIMPLY* unacceptable. If you take it literally, he and QPL (as QPL's only "available" representative) are displaying absolutely NO customer care or interest in feedback from customers relating to product. If a company like Panasonic released a DVD player, but then two months after it's release to stores decided that they weren't going to take heed of any issues customers had witht he product using the excuse that they have "moved on", they'd be faced with an official enquiry from trading standards. Here's the response received overnight which illustrates your point perfectly and proves my theory: >>Hi Ben. >>Time unbelievably stretched. I started work 5 >>AM - must have food .. and sleep!!! Tight >>deadlines. >> >>Only get the answers when Brian is ON a >>particular subject. >> >>If there is an opportunity, you may hear, or >>Brian may think unimportant, compared with >>whatever else on his plate. Can't predict. >> >>Your question is one of many many thousands. >>There are no guarantees or obligation. As >>Brian says "Luck of the draw" - otherwise he >>would drive himself mad. Has to keep moving >>forward. >> >>Getting upset with us doesn't help. >> >>Jen I see this as nothing more than just being brushed off and Brian / QPL being complacent about the release of their product and ignorant towards the concerns of their customers. I *REALLY* shouldn't care about it, but I do, because I care about Queen's product and name being taken seriously; while mistakes and laziness abound the band will continue to be considered third-rate and I don't believe they should be.Large companies should and do take account of customer complaints, especially if a product is defective (broken/doesn't work) or if there is a large number of complaints about one issue. I doubt large companies respond to every individual who complains, especially if they see the complaint as trivial. In the overall scheme of things, your complaint is trivial: it is not about a defective or broken product, it's about an "artistic" (for want of a better word) disagreement with a member of the band. Also, you are not among hordes of customers breaking down the doors looking for their money back. In fact, you appear to be the only one complaining about this. |
| Benn 29.11.2007 06:01 |
Holly2003, re: >>In the overall scheme of things, your complaint is trivial: Agreed, but it *appears* that few people "take the time" to complain, although there have been a large number of people that have issue in the same way I do. I've shared private mails with a good 100 people that share the same thought. >>it is not about a defective or broken product, It *IS defective. The contents of the CD do not represent the show's running order and offer an unrealistic representation of the band's performance. They "took the time" to insert "Flash / The Hero" in the correct place a well as other tracks not on the original VHS video release; why not "Jailhouse Rock"? >>it's about an "artistic" (for want of a better word) disagreement with a member of the band. You've lost me there. Which member of the band "disagreed" with either my complaint or "agreed" with the way the CD is sequnced? As far as I can see, it hasn't been acknowledged by *ANYONE* officially...... >>Also, you are not among hordes of customers breaking down the doors looking for their money back. In fact, you appear to be the only one complaining about this. You're right again, of course, although I don't want my money back - I saw the track listing before I bought it and knew what I was getting in to before I handed the reddies over; I'd hoped, in fact that it was simply a typo on the packaging / press releases, but there you go. It's the same old idiots within the Queen community that blindly accept what they are offered as product representative of the band who are responsible for product continually being released and remaining substandard. |
| gnomo 29.11.2007 06:15 |
Benn wrote: Gnomo, You have it spot on it seems. However, that approach is, *SIMPLY* unacceptable. If you take it literally, he and QPL (as QPL's only "available" representative) are displaying absolutely NO customer care or interest in feedback from customers relating to productBenn, problem is, I think, that Mr. May individually (through his own website and his staff) does not consider himself as a "company", nor people as "customers", even when issues about Queen (-related) commercial products are concerned. So, as his webmaster reminded you, from his point of view there is no guarantee nor obligation, a response or acknowledgement being only a kindness on his part. I am not questioning the right or wrong of it all: I am simply stating how things appear to BE from my personal experience. Mr. May apparently being happy with the way things are (= HIS way), I think that changes in the system are quite unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. I can't help feel for his staff, who keep trying to mediate in the narrow clearance between anvil (their boss) and hammer head (the fans)... However, I suspect you'd be much worse off if you tried to get your concerns through to other QPL representatives. Sorry. |
| Holly2003 29.11.2007 10:03 |
Benn, the product is not "defective" because it is not broken. Does the dvd jump or stop? Does the picture break up? Are the menus functions broken?Your argument is about what order you think the concert should be compared to what order brian May, Roger taylor and John Deacon think it should be (for this particular release). I mentioned "artistic" because I couldn't think of another word: you have a disagreement with Brian May about the tracklisting. That's not, by any definition, an argument about a defective product. If you want to talk about "products" and "companies" the bottom line is, as you said, you were aware of the tracklisting and still bought it. |
| Benn 29.11.2007 10:53 |
Holly2003, re: >>the product is not "defective" because it is not broken. The product IS defective because it is not an accurate representation of the show(s) they played. I could be asking the question as to why, when they decided to insert "Jailhouse Rock" where they did, they didn't feel it necessary to move "We Are The Champions" to disc 2 track 3 and "Let Me Entertain You" to disc 1 track 8? >>Does the dvd jump or stop? Does the picture break up? Are the menus functions broken? Once again, for anyone else also not able to read the thread properly: This has nothing to do with the DVD - I don't have it and am not interested in it. This is in regard to the running order of the CD issue of QRM, which, when listened to and with the knowledge of the set lists played at the two Montreal shows, does not represent the running order of the songs as they were played. >>Your argument is about what order you think the concert should be compared to what order brian May, Roger taylor and John Deacon think it should be (for this particular release). Correct, but where is the evidence that any of the band members had any input in to it? Brian's not willing to acknowledge it because he's "moving forward" (or is that stumbling....?), John may well have disappeared off the fact of the earth and Roger says very little about anything in public. I have no idea whether they did have input or not, but would like to "assume" they care enough to ensure that what is out there is an accurate representation, which thwe QRM *CD* is not. >>I mentioned "artistic" because I couldn't think of another word: That's a good word to use. Radiator is another great word. Sphincter and dandruff are other good words to use. ,;-} >>you have a disagreement with Brian May about the tracklisting. I don't - Brian May has not acknowledged my enquiry. Does Brian "agree" that the tracklisting is correct? Or does he "agree" that it should be corrected? Who knows? >>That's not, by any definition, an argument about a defective product. It is - see above. >>If you want to talk about "products" and "companies" the bottom line is, as you said, you were aware of the tracklisting and still bought it. But, how about those people who purchased it but were not aware? Should they continue to be under the impression that a song was played at a certain point in the show when, really, it wasn't? Or should the next pressings of the *CD* be re-sequenced to *get it right*? |
| Benn 29.11.2007 10:58 |
Gnomo, No need to be sorry - you have a very valid set of points. I was never under any impression that he would be obligated to respond or that there were any guarantees in place. I just think that he ought really to be taking heed of issues that affect "product" when, after all, it's the product that keeps the Queen legacy alive. He seems very quick to respond to letters from people agreeing that he's a very clever guy and happy that he's been given the various "gongs" he's had bestowed upon him. But when it comes to nuts and bolts issues and things that may need a little more attention, he (or his representatives) simply brush them under the carpet. |
| Holly2003 29.11.2007 11:13 |
There are lots of good words: after reading your last reply, "obsessed" and "irrational" come to mind. The product is not defective and Brian May is totally within his rights, as is anyone producing any product, to totally ignore irrational complaints from obsessed fans. |
| Benn 29.11.2007 11:31 |
Holly2003, re: >>There are lots of good words: after reading your last reply, "obsessed" and "irrational" come to mind. Obsessed is a little too harsh - overly concerned fits better I think. Irrational? I don't see a trace irrtionality with anything I've raised; you appear to be the one and only person describing theissues as irrational, so perhaps it is *YOU* that is irrational? >>The product is not defective It is. Didn't you read the last response to you? Perhaps you're unable to read......would you like me to call you to explain it - or you call me and reverse the charges.... >>and Brian May is totally within his rights, as is anyone producing any product, to totally ignore irrational complaints from obsessed fans. Absolutely, he is. But, whilst he, his reprasentatives and QPL continue to ignore serious concerns from fans that have invested years of effort following the band, they will continue to be looked upon as not having any semblance of care towards the people that put them in the place they are. Whilst being under the impression that they release great prodcut "for the fans man". BTW, I just saw this on your profile: "I harvest the lips of endangered Black Rhino" Care to give a little explanation to that one at all? Talking of irrational....... |
| Holly2003 29.11.2007 11:41 |
Benn wrote: Holly2003, re: >>There are lots of good words: after reading your last reply, "obsessed" and "irrational" come to mind. Obsessed is a little too harsh - overly concerned fits better I think. Irrational? I don't see a trace irrtionality with anything I've raised; you appear to be the one and only person describing theissues as irrational, so perhaps it is *YOU* that is irrational? >>The product is not defective It is. Didn't you read the last response to you? Perhaps you're unable to read......would you like me to call you to explain it - or you call me and reverse the charges.... >>and Brian May is totally within his rights, as is anyone producing any product, to totally ignore irrational complaints from obsessed fans. Absolutely, he is. But, whilst he, his reprasentatives and QPL continue to ignore serious concerns from fans that have invested years of effort following the band, they will continue to be looked upon as not having any semblance of care towards the people that put them in the place they are. Whilst being under the impression that they release great prodcut "for the fans man". BTW, I just saw this on your profile: "I harvest the lips of endangered Black Rhino" Care to give a little explanation to that one at all? Talking of irrational.......By all means call: it's an American number 1-800-helpsobsessedfansmoveon Iharvest the lips of endangered black rhinos. What is there to get? I sell them to pipette makers. Nice little earner. |
| Benn 29.11.2007 11:50 |
Holly2003, re: >>By all means call: it's an American number 1-800-helpsobsessedfansmoveon Hmmm - just as I thought, yet another "fan" with a point of view but simply not prepared to argue it. Obsessed or not, I give enough of a shit to spend some of my time on it. I did hope for an explanation for the harvesting of Black Rhino lips bit? Perhaps you can be tracked down through an IP address somewhere and reported to CITES for glorifying the slaughter of Black Rhino......hmmmm, something else for me to think about. Or, hopefuly, you'll simply fuck off back to the assylum so that they can keep you topped up with the pills and prevent you from getting any access to a computer. Or perhaps your parents simply forgot to change the "parental controls" feature - maybe get them to have a look at all this and they'll come to their senses. I hope our little exchange has helped. |
| Holly2003 29.11.2007 12:04 |
Benn wrote: Holly2003, re: >>By all means call: it's an American number 1-800-helpsobsessedfansmoveon Hmmm - just as I thought, yet another "fan" with a point of view but simply not prepared to argue it. Obsessed or not, I give enough of a shit to spend some of my time on it. I did hope for an explanation for the harvesting of Black Rhino lips bit? Perhaps you can be tracked down through an IP address somewhere and reported to CITES for glorifying the slaughter of Black Rhino......hmmmm, something else for me to think about. Or, hopefuly, you'll simply fuck off back to the assylum so that they can keep you topped up with the pills and prevent you from getting any access to a computer. Or perhaps your parents simply forgot to change the "parental controls" feature - maybe get them to have a look at all this and they'll come to their senses. I hope our little exchange has helped.Great, now I've got a stalker. |
| Adam Baboolal 29.11.2007 12:05 |
Maybe you'd get a better response to these things if you didn't insult people for 'their' view on this matter that you brought up. And so far, in this thread there are a few people that have bothered to agree with your point on this misplaced song. Which begs the question, why would they (QP) bother to fix this minor error that only a small minority (yourself and..?) have brought up and complained about? Have you not thought that maybe, just maybe, it makes no sense for them to waste money to fix such a minor issue. One of which has gotten through because, well, to them it's not an error. It's good that you've brought it up and now people here know about it, but why haven't I heard about this error before? The WWRY dvd from 2001 was exactly the same layout and had Jailhouse Rock inserted at this time. Adam. |
| Benn 29.11.2007 12:07 |
Holly2003, re: >>Great, now I've got a stalker. No you haven't. Don't flatter yourself. |
| Holly2003 29.11.2007 12:11 |
Benn wrote: Holly2003, re: >>Great, now I've got a stalker. No you haven't. Don't flatter yourself.Jeez, you've got my number, you're after my isp address, the least you could do is a little terroristic threatening. |
| Benn 29.11.2007 12:20 |
Holly2003, re: >>Jeez, you've got my number, you're after my isp address, the least you could do is a little terroristic threatening. I'd never get past the guards on your cell door. More chance of getting a response out of Brian than fooling the security at your mental hospital. |
| Benn 29.11.2007 12:28 |
Adam, re: >>Have you not thought that maybe, just maybe, it makes no sense for them to waste money to fix such a minor issue. One of which has gotten through because, well, to them it's not an error. You're right in all you say, but, the wider picture here is that as time goes on, *EVERY RELEASE* the comes along has errors that are easily avoidable. The longer it goes on, the more they become obvious and the more ridiculous they are. It all started for me with the ridiculous captions that accompanied some of the footage on "The Magic Years" and, lo and behold, the SAME errors were to be found on "Rare Live" and then "Champions Of The World". The Hollywood Remasters are still available in the USA with countless mastering and sequencing errors and this is the band's bread and butter in the USA..... No one there cares about the accuracy of the product. And too few care here in the fan community or are prepared to voice their concerns. QRM is, unfortunately, the latest release to feature an easily avoidable and fixable error. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 29.11.2007 14:19 |
Benn, there are apologists who enable the Queen machine to function in the manner it has for years. In Canada, hockey is the big sport. The Toronto Maple Leafs are one of the two big Canadian teams with a great history (think Manchester United or Dallas Cowboys type of popular.) They are currently imploding from a management crisis that is comical. Columnists know the score, which is, everyone who goes to the game (and every game is always a sellout) or buys merchandise enables the Leafs to suck, because they have been bad for 40 years and management has no impetus to change because the cash register is full. To bring that back to the Queen world, the people who lash out at you are the people who buy everything, make excuses for errors and enable QP to sell us the same thing time and time again. Call them Stepfords or lemmings, but as long as you're looked at as a nuisance fan instead of a passionate fan who wants quality, why would QP have to change? You're in the minority, fuck quality. |
| Lester Burnham 29.11.2007 14:39 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Benn, there are apologists who enable the Queen machine to function in the manner it has for years. In Canada, hockey is the big sport. The Toronto Maple Leafs are one of the two big Canadian teams with a great history (think Manchester United or Dallas Cowboys type of popular.) They are currently imploding from a management crisis that is comical. Columnists know the score, which is, everyone who goes to the game (and every game is always a sellout) or buys merchandise enables the Leafs to suck, because they have been bad for 40 years and management has no impetus to change because the cash register is full. To bring that back to the Queen world, the people who lash out at you are the people who buy everything, make excuses for errors and enable QP to sell us the same thing time and time again. Call them Stepfords or lemmings, but as long as you're looked at as a nuisance fan instead of a passionate fan who wants quality, why would QP have to change? You're in the minority, fuck quality.I agree with this. Is it so wrong to want a product, that we've been assured is the definitive release from his particular show, with the correct running order? Recently, the band have started to release live albums that claim to feature complete shows, but when we get them, there are little bits edited out: from Milton Keynes, that whole "It's just a record, no reason to get excited about it!" spiel that Freddie gives prior to Staying Power. Why was that omitted? I can understand why the embarrassing moments during Brian's guitar solo when his lead fell out of the guitar were cut, but Freddie's banter was fun and should have been there. I'm sure people complained and were told to shut up, because it's just a few seconds, you're not buying it for those few seconds, are you?! Well, actually, some people buy it for the complete and correct show, so having those few moments cut from Staying Power, or having Jailhouse Rock in the wrong place may seem pedantic on the outside, but for a band who prided themselves on quality control, this is a rather shitty way of handling their product. Sure, only a few diehard fans may notice it in the long-run, and it won't affect sales at all, but this isn't arguing for the sake of arguing; it's a legitimate and valid point, and the fact that Brian, the only outlet that fans have to communicate with, is basically turning his back to the whole issue because it's not in tandem with what he wants to discuss on his website is just appalling. |
| Adam Baboolal 29.11.2007 17:21 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: You're in the minority, fuck quality.Quality?? Is that what moving one song to the very end of the show means, does it? Wow, what a difference that makes! It's like a whole new record now...not. I'm sick of being called a, "this" or "that" fan. Our opinions on this matter differ. Why does it have to come down to some stupid remark about being a "casual fan" who (apparently) doesn't seem to care about quality. Sorry, but in this one case there is no real quality concern. It is my opinion that when a dvd and cd set are released, at all costs, they are supposed to mirror each other. It's the norm. So, when it's impossible to edit together a video to show how something actually was on the night(s), all related releases (i.e. the cd) must adhere to the same running that is forced onto the dvd. Simple rules. Now, I'm sure that if they'd had the original negatives, and that some loon hadn't gotten rid of them, QP would've thought about editing it into the right place. But it just wasn't possible. Even further, to me, a true Stepford has trouble blaming Freddie for anything. And let's face it, this whole thread wouldn't even exist if Freddie had just played along with the whole "costume" thing. I love that Freddie did it, though! Just a shame that because of it, a thread like this is born. Even more sad is that apparently it's not Freddie's fault, no...it's QP and Brian's fault for not changing the cd to reflect the night's set list. It's the thought that counts, eh..? Apparently not. Adam. EDIT: I accept your opinion on this, but I'm just showing the reality of the situation. Nothing more. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 29.11.2007 19:29 |
Adam, Benn asked a question to Brian's website to find out about running order for what BRIAN MAY!!! said was the definitive release of the Montreal concert. To you, running order obviously isn't an issue. To Benn it is, to others it is, and if you change running order, it is obviusuly not definitive. If Benn's an obsessive idiot, he can take solace in the fact that he is factually correct obsessive idiot. So don't become the sole arbiter of what quality is or isn't. Further, you aren't old enough to even know of what Queen stood for as a band pre-1985, so when people who know what Queen stood for regarding quality releases in the early years, and how abysmal they've become, they are more credible in their knowledge than you. Queen wanted to be like Zeppelin and the Beatles. They've turned into Garth Brooks and Madonna. They're all about product, and yes, fuck quality. The Hollywood catalogue should have never seen the light of day until all sound errors, missing sections, etc. were corrected. What's that? Oh right, they had to be launched around the time of Freddie's death! Better to put flawed product on the market to maximize sales than excellent product that isn't ready for Christmas. That pisses true fans off. Casual fans don't care as long as they have the music. It doesn't make me or Benn or Lester better fans or people, but we care more than the average person. Please allow us to care how we would like to. Also, if it's your opinion that when a dvd and cd set are released, at all costs, they are supposed to mirror each other, and it's the norm, perhaps it's Benn's idea that "definitive" is "definitive", not arbitrary. That's his original point. Is he wrong? Honestly Adam, I think you believe you're more knowledgeable than anyone here on every topic. You pass comment on virtually every fan mix that hits the board, and generally you don't like much of anything from a sound or mixing perspective, and these people are amateurs. Yet whne people have legitimate complaints about a multi million selling band that cuts corners in quality, you lash out at them because they're complaints aren't valid in your eyes. Weird. |
| Adam Baboolal 29.11.2007 23:00 |
Boy Thomas Raker wrote: To you, running order obviously isn't an issue. To Benn it is, to others it is, and if you change running order, it is obviusuly not definitive.Actually, I said it was a good thing that we knew the actual running order. But in this release, it makes sense where it has been placed. As I've already pointed out, QP didn't put Jailhouse Rock where it is. And it would appear that they seem to think it can't be moved because of the same continuity reasons brought about by Freddie's antics. A logical approach is taken where the lesser evil is taken on, i.e. set list modified to keep visual continuity. Like it or not, that's the way these things work. So, it comes down to perception of what one person's quality is to the next person. Hence the disagreement here. Boy Thomas Raker wrote: If Benn's an obsessive idiot, he can take solace in the fact that he is factually correct obsessive idiot. So don't become the sole arbiter of what quality is or isn't.First, I call Benn no names. I certainly wouldn't call him an obsessive idiot. Although, the amount of emails and postings to Jen shown in this thread is a bit disconcerting. And of course, no-one is questioning whether he's right or wrong. He's clearly correct in that JR comes after SHA. It's a fact that we are all clear on. And lastly, I didn't bring up the quality argument. I am merely explaining the way that QP and Eagle thought when putting together this show. I do share the way they've done it because it's the way I would edit it together, e.g. somewhere where visually it all seems to fit and work. Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Further, you aren't old enough to even know of what Queen stood for as a band pre-1985, so when people who know what Queen stood for regarding quality releases in the early years, and how abysmal they've become, they are more credible in their knowledge than you.In-smegging-credible... So, because I'm young, that means I don't have a clue. Thanks for yet another insult. Notice how I don't call you or Benn names, whereas you do and also put people here into categories like "True fan", "Casual fan", "Stepfords", etc. etc. Things are not so black and white. As far as I'm concerned one's age is irrelevant because there are plenty of people and material to get a good idea of the band. I won't go any further on this point because I think it's just ridiculous. Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Casual fans don't care as long as they have the music. It doesn't make me or Benn or Lester better fans or people, but we care more than the average person. Please allow us to care how we would like to.There you go again, name tags. I also like that, in your way of thinking, the casual fan likes to have the music, plain and simple! Also, in reference to the errors on certain HR cd's, I agree they should be fixed. But I'm not gonna let it stop me enjoying the music. That doesn't mean I don't care, now does it? In fact, if you look back, you'll find that I'm a great admirer of the older remasters, rather than the cruddy 2001 versions. So you see, I do care and have reviewed some 2001 remasters to show others what I've heard in them compared to...HR and UK remasters! Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Honestly Adam, I think you believe you're more knowledgeable than anyone here on every topic.Oh please - Yeah right! I pass comment when I like to add my 2 cents, just as everyone else does. I certainly don't think I'm anywhere near as knowledgeable as the next Queen fan here. Boy Thomas Raker wrote: You pass comment on virtually every fan mix that hits the board, and generally you don't like much of anything from a sound or mixing perspective, and these people are amateurs.lol You're ve |
| thunderbolt 31742 30.11.2007 00:22 |
Am I the only one who thinks that Jailhouse Rock works nicely as a quick, rockier energy number before Bohemian Rhapsody than the big, climactic Crazy Little Thing does? |
| Boy Thomas Raker 30.11.2007 00:24 |
Adam, I've posted on here countless times that you're one of the more knowledgeable posters here. However, your history is not liking dissenting opinions. My posts are well thought out, and have been validated with positive comments by people like Lester, Benn and John Stuart. Further, I am not being smug, I am stating a fact that at your age, you CAN'T know what Queen was like in the quality control department unless you were the world's smartest 4 year old, as I'll guess you're mid 20s. So, for those of us who have witnessed the demise of the overall quality of Queen products, it saddens us. You may have become a fan when Queen cared less. But as someone familiar with the catalogue since the 70s, I will tell you that Queen's standards were of the highest order. Again, Roger said the cover of Queen Rocks looked like someone vomited on it. ROTC was arguably one of the worst covers ever, one of the few things Queen fans agree on. The constant licencing and re-licencing of songs for commercials and movies cheapens the brand. I could go on. You're on your way (and since you'll deem this smug or arrogant, I mean it positively) to making a career as an artist. I have your version of My life has been saved on my iPod, and I enjoy playing guitar to it. I don't question your ability or your choices of instruments, and I don't question why Queen did Hot Space or got funky, because they're artists and they make choices good or bad. But, Queen Productions are selling product that is flawed and virtually every time before a release you say "wait until it arrives" before criticizing, then it turns out awful, and it appears that you get indignant with people like Benn for pointing out after a release that it turned out to be shit after all. Finally, I know nothing about you. You have opinions, which I think are great, others do to, and we all can disagree. But you've commented (I know all!) a few times recently about why people are going after you, and I've never said YOU were a casual fan, but you've posted twice in this thread that YOU resent being called a casual fan. If you weren't being selective in what you read, I've stated that being a long term fan doesn't make me any more or less of a fan than someone who discovered Queen last year. And that goes for being a casual fan. I want liner notes, good cover art, songs that are complete and not butchered and proper sound quality. A casual fan doesn't care about any of that as long as WWRY and Radio Ga Ga are on it. That's not an insult, it's a fact of life. Let's move on. |
| Mr Faron Hyte 30.11.2007 01:10 |
Reading all this has been akin to listening to Trekkies argue. Let's just agree that everybody's dick is equally big and move on, kids. |
| gnomo 30.11.2007 03:07 |
Mr Faron Hyte wrote: Reading all this has been akin to listening to Trekkies argue.... well, what's wrong with Trekkies and their discussions, now...? :-P :-P :-P :-P :-P :-P |
| Benn 30.11.2007 04:09 |
Adam, re: >>when a dvd and cd set are released, at all costs, they are supposed to mirror each other. It's the norm. Incorrect. Ziggy Stardust & The Spiders From Mars are different. The Stones' Rock And Roll Circus & 40 Licks are different. Joe Cocker's Mad Dogs And Englishmen film and CD are different. There's no reason on earth why they SHOULD be the same a they will never be played together at the same time, unless, of course, the soundtrack to the film is badly mixed / mastered. They serve different purposes for the viewer and listener at different times. What's more, they weren't released as a "set" which implies they are purchased together. Plenty of people will only have one or the other for the reasons above. >>Now, I'm sure that if they'd had the original negatives, and that some loon hadn't gotten rid of them, For christ's sake. If you like, I'll call you as well as that other guy to explain if you like.....? FORGET that there was EVER a film of the shows. My line of enquiry surrounds the ******CD****** release of the show. The fact that Freddie changed his clothes has no bearing on the *AUDIO ALONE* and is why "Jailhouse Rock" being where it is on the ******CD****** release is such a glaring error. Have a look at the recent re-issue of Zep's "Songe Remains" soundtrack. No wierd insertions of songs in the wrong place there and a decidedly *AVERAGE" Zep show appears as THE definitive version. QPL qould now have to re-issue QRM on CD in order for it to be definitive, which this release already falsely claims to be. |
| Benn 30.11.2007 04:44 |
BTR, re: >>They're all about product, and yes, fuck quality. I remember receiving my copy of the FM Collection box set. I'd had an original CD copy of "Mr. Bad Guy", but traded it with someone for something else in 1990. I'd been SO excited that I could FINALLY upgrade my decidedly dodgy cassette copy of "Mr Bad Guy" and wouldn't have to hunt around for a version of it on CD that didn't cost £100.00 any longer. I opened the bok, was stunned at the presentation of it all. Opened the book and thumbed through the pages - suddenly, I came across 8 full pages where the printing had caused the pages to crease and fold in on themselves - they also hadn't been trimmed properly and it appeared that someone at the plant had decided to simply fold them up and move on. I threw the fucking thing at the wall in absolute rage that such a high price could be charged and yet STILL have absolutely no care taken over what was sent out. I believe four or five other people in the UK also had the same problem. I took my copy back to the shop I bought it from and the guy there was equally shocked to see what it contained, given the price tag - he himself was going to buy a copy as it looked such a quality package even though he wasn't really a Queen / Freddie fan, but decided to wait until he received a few more copies through the shop. I eventually got a replacement, after Parlophone originally claimed that me throwing it against the wall created more damage than was done at the manufacturing stage - after two months thet accepted that my reaction was ONLY caused by the fact that they had manufactured defective product and I received a copy which had been printed correctly. Contrast this wil the joy with which I received my first Queen album, aged 8 - "Jazz", replete with the poster that my parents new nothing about for a further 10 years. Wonderful cover that you could stare at and lose yourself in. Picture of the band in the rehearsal studio and trying to pick out something new in the background each time I opened it. John's bass sound on "If You Can't Beat Them". The sound of "Let Me Entertain You", the montage of tracks during "More of That Jazz". A rich, driving rock sound all the way through from start to finish. All of this because "Bicycle Race" contained a line about Star wars and an older friend of mine though I'd be incensed by it. It's been disaster after disaster in terms of quality since Freddie died - as soon as the creative backbone of the band was no more, the vultures descended in order to try to drain peolpe of as much money for worse value than would have been allowed had Freddie still been alive. And, whether you care enough to complain or not, it's US taking the brunt of it. |
| Pim Derks 30.11.2007 04:49 |
Benn wrote: BTR, re: I threw the fucking thing at the wall in absolute rage that such a high price could be charged and yet STILL have absolutely no care taken over what was sent out. I believe four or five other people in the UK also had the same problem.I agree with you on some points, but claiming the FM Solo Collection was a crap release is just plain nonsense. I too had a wrong copy (Rarities 1 played Rarities 3), but that's just technical stuff - you can't blame QP for a fault at the book binding factory in (I believe) Italy. |
| Benn 30.11.2007 05:00 |
Pim, re: >>I agree with you on some points, but claiming the FM Solo Collection was a crap release is just plain nonsense. I didn't "claim" that it was a crap release. You've assumed that I *think* it was a crap release. I don't and it isn't, although there are errors an omissions, again, that could have been fixed before it was released. >>I too had a wrong copy (Rarities 1 played Rarities 3), but that's just technical stuff - you can't blame QP for a fault at the book binding factory in (I believe) Italy. You and I can. QPL's & Parlophone's reputations rest on the quality of the manufacture of their goods, just as any other company does. SURELY, the binders would have has someone in charge of quality control prior to dispatch, given the value ond profile of what they were making? Despite there beling a clear fault with the product, they tried *initially* to get out of giving me a new copy by claiming it was my fault. Clearly not the case. After shelling out all that cash on the set, were you accepting of the fact that Rarities 1 played Rarities 3? Were you not cross that what you'd received was poorly made? |
| Holly2003 30.11.2007 05:56 |
Benn wrote: Adam, re: >>when a dvd and cd set are released, at all costs, they are supposed to mirror each other. It's the norm. Incorrect. Ziggy Stardust & The Spiders From Mars are different. The Stones' Rock And Roll Circus & 40 Licks are different. Joe Cocker's Mad Dogs And Englishmen film and CD are different. There's no reason on earth why they SHOULD be the same a they will never be played together at the same time, unless, of course, the soundtrack to the film is badly mixed / mastered. They serve different purposes for the viewer and listener at different times. What's more, they weren't released as a "set" which implies they are purchased together. Plenty of people will only have one or the other for the reasons above. >>Now, I'm sure that if they'd had the original negatives, and that some loon hadn't gotten rid of them, For christ's sake. If you like, I'll call you as well as that other guy to explain if you like.....? FORGET that there was EVER a film of the shows. My line of enquiry surrounds the ******CD****** release of the show. The fact that Freddie changed his clothes has no bearing on the *AUDIO ALONE* and is why "Jailhouse Rock" being where it is on the ******CD****** release is such a glaring error. Have a look at the recent re-issue of Zep's "Songe Remains" soundtrack. No wierd insertions of songs in the wrong place there and a decidedly *AVERAGE" Zep show appears as THE definitive version. QPL qould now have to re-issue QRM on CD in order for it to be definitive, which this release already falsely claims to be.I think you need to get over your obsession with this DVD. If it helps, I am willing to give you a 10% discount on my black rhino lips, for use in any pipette-type activity that you might engage in. |
| Benn 30.11.2007 08:35 |
Ho ho, she's back! Holly2003, re: >>I think you need to get over your obsession with this DVD. Clever again, but you've left yourself open to *other people* also thinking that you're an illiterate, incapable of reading posts properly and thoroughly before firing off non-sensical responses. >>If it helps, I am willing to give you a 10% discount on my black rhino lips, for use in any pipette-type activity that you might engage in. "Pipette-type" activity? You'll have to explain that one please. If you haven't got anything interesting or relevant to contribute, then please, sod off to another board you have something in common with. Below would be a good starting point for you, although you may want to dig deeper n order to find specific forums for your specific disorder: link |
| Holly2003 30.11.2007 08:45 |
Benn wrote: Ho ho, she's back! Holly2003, re: >>I think you need to get over your obsession with this DVD. Clever again, but you've left yourself open to *other people* also thinking that you're an illiterate, incapable of reading posts properly and thoroughly before firing off non-sensical responses. >>If it helps, I am willing to give you a 10% discount on my black rhino lips, for use in any pipette-type activity that you might engage in. "Pipette-type" activity? You'll have to explain that one please. If you haven't got anything interesting or relevant to contribute, then please, sod off to another board you have something in common with. Below would be a good starting point for you, although you may want to dig deeper n order to find specific forums for your specific disorder: linkSo you want to haggle then? Okay, I'll make it 15%, if you also buy one of my dolphin teeth necklaces. |
| Benn 30.11.2007 08:52 |
Holly2003, re: >>So you want to haggle then? Okay, I'll make it 15%, if you also buy one of my dolphin teeth necklaces. Yep I was right - can't even answer simple questions. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 30.11.2007 09:09 |
What irks me more than anything about QZ these days is the fact that moderate people with good questions are treated like pariahs if they see anything negative about Queen. If Benn hadn't phrased his question to Brian decently and professionally, I could understand why no response would be forthcoming. He's not trying to bring down the Queen empire, he just wants to know why, if the "boys" were treating QRM with their loving care, why couldn't they have used the actual running order? I e-mailed Jen to ask Brian if he understood that people who weren't keen on the Queen name being used going forward would feel the same if it were him, John or Roger out of the band. I asked a truly legitimate question to a man who is an amazing human being, I didn't attack him or say "stop using Queen" it's not your name to do that. I asked a moderate, well mannered question in response to Brian's standard response that people who don't want to see the Queen name being used want him and Roger to stop making music and shrivel up and die as he phrased it. That is nonsense. It's like the people he called "parasites" a few years back, then he backstepped and apologized. He recently attacked a guitar guy, but when there was a response from the guy he attacked outlining what really happened, Brian removed his post from the site. The point is, bitching about stuff on QZ won't change a thing. If there is a form available to question the people who can affect change, then we should use it. Benn and I have both asked legitimate, well put and respectful questions that are about 100th in a queue of 90 for being answered, because they don't fit in with everything being positive, even though they are not even close to negative questions. And that filters through to QZ where people who pose legitimate questions are treated like they've called Brian and QP Nazis. |
| Adam Baboolal 30.11.2007 09:31 |
I like some of your points BTR, but this thread is too much for me. I need to concentrate on me. Benn, I accept what you're saying on this. Can you return the courtesy and accept what I'm saying? I meant that cd and dvd releases of the same concert -normally- mirror each other. And of course, not everyone in the biz thinks the same way, which is why those releases you mention don't follow that way of thinking. That's all. Adam. EDIT: You've got MLHBS?? Oh no...how embarrassing. I wanted to re-record it recently. Unfortunately, I just found that one of my discs with the original mix file is corrupted. :( Looks like I'll need to start from scratch. Word to the wise - DON'T USE CHEAP CD MEDIA! And if you have, BACKUP onto new discs NOW!! I've noticed quite a few cdr's from 6 years ago going bad...*sigh* |
| Benn 30.11.2007 09:59 |
Adam, re: >>I like some of your points BTR, but this thread is too much for me. I need to concentrate on me. Fair enough - we all have our own things to deal with and, after all, Queen isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. >>Benn, I accept what you're saying on this. Can you return the courtesy and accept what I'm saying? I meant that cd and dvd releases of the same concert -normally- mirror each other. Adam, I accept that you have your own view on this, but I simply can't agree with you. There was an opportunity here and it was missed. As have other opportunites in the past and will continue to be in the future if they are not highlighted. The debate, though, is good and healthy; fun too in many ways ,;-) |
| Adam Baboolal 30.11.2007 10:25 |
lol ok dokey. Peace out folks! Adam. EDIT: I know it's nothing personal. :) |
| Boy Thomas Raker 30.11.2007 10:27 |
"The debate, though, is good and healthy; fun too in many ways ,;-)" Yes! If we're all honest, there are issues with whaling, health care, global warming and war that trivialize this, yer here we are. Ironically, Adam is one of the good guys, and contributes tons here, I hope he doesn't feel that any of the disagreements are personal. I've learned on this thread, and given the current state of this board, this has been interesting. A guy I worked with once said "question up." That means bitching about stuff to people who can't affect change is wasted time, Benn did a good service by questioning the release, and brought a healthy discussion into the open about the type of product QP always release. It won't change until what I call, and not in a negative way, the "casual" fan asks for more than the bare minimum, and the same old, same old greatest hits packages with a new name and cover. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 30.11.2007 13:52 |
Good stuff Adam, I always like your contributions and you're a valuable asset to a place where assets are dwindling. As you'd say, Peace. |