Martyn 90 12.08.2008 10:15 |
The Cosmos Rocks Press release has announced that the album credits will feature a dedication to Freddie Mercury Nice Touch! With thanks to John Deacon and Paul Kossoff as well! |
Daveboy35 12.08.2008 11:44 |
Yeah nice touch boys they could have not mentioned any of them but they have because they TRULY feel they should. |
L-R-TIGER1994 12.08.2008 12:43 |
Probably they felt ashamed for the new album and did it so as to keep Freddie memory clean who knows? |
Tero 12.08.2008 15:04 |
Nice touch or a simple plot to exploit the feelings of the Queen fans... I guess we already know which posters are leaning to which explanation, and there's no way to prove anything one way or the other. I guess that wraps up this discussion. :P |
masterstroke_84 12.08.2008 15:07 |
only a lunatic can think that sort of things... the level of stupidity in some arguments is scary. |
Dan C. 12.08.2008 15:24 |
I never had a doubt in my mind that they WOULD dedicate it to Freddie. I guarantee you that if they didn't, people would piss and moan about it. "Wah! They're not keeping Freddie's memory alive!" "Wah! They're trying to erase Freddie's legacy!" "Wah! Insert random pissy Queen fan response here!" That's about how I think it would be. |
PieterMC 12.08.2008 15:29 |
Basically Brian and Roger are fucked either way. Personally I think it's a nice touch. |
Tero 12.08.2008 15:52 |
What I personally think is that as long as they are using the Queen name, they have to keep mentioning Freddie in an effort to not piss off those people who were fans of the band with four members. If they were releasing solo albums or had come up with a new name for the band, no one would expect them to mention Freddie... Freddie isn't mentioned on the credits of Brian's Live At Brixton Academy and Furia, or Roger's Electric Fire album, and no one thinks Brian and Roger are heartless bastards because of that. The dedication is nothing more than an "insurance" they can use against people who say they're ignoring Freddie as an integral part of the band. |
kingogre 12.08.2008 16:17 |
Tero wrote: What I personally think is that as long as they are using the Queen name, they have to keep mentioning Freddie in an effort to not piss off those people who were fans of the band with four members. If they were releasing solo albums or had come up with a new name for the band, no one would expect them to mention Freddie... Freddie isn't mentioned on the credits of Brian's Live At Brixton Academy and Furia, or Roger's Electric Fire album, and no one thinks Brian and Roger are heartless bastards because of that. The dedication is nothing more than an "insurance" they can use against people who say they're ignoring Freddie as an integral part of the band.Sorry to be starting this discussion again... ;) But dont you think that they, who actually knew the guy, has feelings about his passing? And above all a thousand times more so than some "fans" who were hardly born to even see him perform? You talk like you own the memory of the guy or something.. Therell never be any conclusion about this. No matter what they do about anything theyll do wrong to some people and I think that that says more about those people than the rest of us. |
Penetration_Guru 12.08.2008 16:27 |
Is it one thread per sentence of each press release then? |
Knute 12.08.2008 21:10 |
kingogre wrote:I wouldn't be surprised one bit if Tero believes in that cynical mind of his that Brian and Roger are actually glad that Freddie died.Tero wrote: What I personally think is that as long as they are using the Queen name, they have to keep mentioning Freddie in an effort to not piss off those people who were fans of the band with four members. If they were releasing solo albums or had come up with a new name for the band, no one would expect them to mention Freddie... Freddie isn't mentioned on the credits of Brian's Live At Brixton Academy and Furia, or Roger's Electric Fire album, and no one thinks Brian and Roger are heartless bastards because of that. The dedication is nothing more than an "insurance" they can use against people who say they're ignoring Freddie as an integral part of the band.Sorry to be starting this discussion again... ;) But dont you think that they, who actually knew the guy, has feelings about his passing? And above all a thousand times more so than some "fans" who were hardly born to even see him perform? You talk like you own the memory of the guy or something.. Therell never be any conclusion about this. No matter what they do about anything theyll do wrong to some people and I think that that says more about those people than the rest of us. |
Mrs. Mercury 12.08.2008 21:14 |
I think its cute and appropriate and I imagine it's genuine considering how close they all were. I am a very big Freddie fan but I want to give the new album a chance. Of course it won't be the same, but maybe they will shock the hell out of us and it will be fantastic in a whole new way!! You never know... |
iron eagle 12.08.2008 23:12 |
carrbarus county rocks! execellent reply...... ps. i am suppose to be in stanly county next month-- pfeiffer reunion...suppose to stay in *drumroll* concord....dont know if can get off work yet or not..but thats the plan... |
steven 35638 13.08.2008 00:26 |
Tero wrote: If they were releasing solo albums or had come up with a new name for the band, no one would expect them to mention Freddie... Freddie isn't mentioned on the credits of Brian's Live At Brixton Academy and Furia, or Roger's Electric Fire album, and no one thinks Brian and Roger are heartless bastards because of that.I wish to point out the following. The album 'Happiness?' is indeed dedicated to Freddie, as it states, "dedicated to the tasmanian tiger - thylacinus cynocephalus...but most especially Freddie." In addition, Brian May dedicated his album 'Back to the Light' to Freddie as well. Brian May states "This album is dedicated to Harold May, Alfred Dobson, and Freddie Mercury." You're right to say that the other albums weren't dedicated to him. |
Tero 13.08.2008 02:23 |
Steven wrote:Yes, the FIRST album by both artists was dedicated to Freddie, but all the subsequent ones weren't. That's the point.Tero wrote: If they were releasing solo albums or had come up with a new name for the band, no one would expect them to mention Freddie... Freddie isn't mentioned on the credits of Brian's Live At Brixton Academy and Furia, or Roger's Electric Fire album, and no one thinks Brian and Roger are heartless bastards because of that.I wish to point out the following. The album 'Happiness?' is indeed dedicated to Freddie, as it states, "dedicated to the tasmanian tiger - thylacinus cynocephalus...but most especially Freddie." In addition, Brian May dedicated his album 'Back to the Light' to Freddie as well. Brian May states "This album is dedicated to Harold May, Alfred Dobson, and Freddie Mercury." You're right to say that the other albums weren't dedicated to him. Obviously he isn't THAT much missed by the guys on their solo projects, but they feel somehow necessary to mention him on this solo project... That's quite a coincidence, and makes one think whether a BRP album would be dedicated to him? |
Tero 13.08.2008 02:26 |
Knute wrote: I wouldn't be surprised one bit if Tero believes in that cynical mind of his that Brian and Roger are actually glad that Freddie died.And I wouldn't be one bit surprise if you were ecstatic about Freddie dying and Paul being given a chance to replace him... See, we can both come up with fictional scenarios to make each other sound like heartless bastards. ;) |
kingogre 13.08.2008 04:04 |
Tero wrote:Seriously this is ridiculous...Steven wrote:Yes, the FIRST album by both artists was dedicated to Freddie, but all the subsequent ones weren't. That's the point. Obviously he isn't THAT much missed by the guys on their solo projects, but they feel somehow necessary to mention him on this solo project... That's quite a coincidence, and makes one think whether a BRP album would be dedicated to him?Tero wrote: If they were releasing solo albums or had come up with a new name for the band, no one would expect them to mention Freddie... Freddie isn't mentioned on the credits of Brian's Live At Brixton Academy and Furia, or Roger's Electric Fire album, and no one thinks Brian and Roger are heartless bastards because of that.I wish to point out the following. The album 'Happiness?' is indeed dedicated to Freddie, as it states, "dedicated to the tasmanian tiger - thylacinus cynocephalus...but most especially Freddie." In addition, Brian May dedicated his album 'Back to the Light' to Freddie as well. Brian May states "This album is dedicated to Harold May, Alfred Dobson, and Freddie Mercury." You're right to say that the other albums weren't dedicated to him. Why cant you just forget about those outtakes for a moment and listen to some other music... You must spend every waking moment hating Brian and Roger. |
Tero 13.08.2008 04:28 |
kingogre wrote:Did I mention outtakes in this topic? I don't think I did.Tero wrote:Seriously this is ridiculous... Why cant you just forget about those outtakes for a moment and listen to some other music... You must spend every waking moment hating Brian and Roger.Steven wrote:Yes, the FIRST album by both artists was dedicated to Freddie, but all the subsequent ones weren't. That's the point. Obviously he isn't THAT much missed by the guys on their solo projects, but they feel somehow necessary to mention him on this solo project... That's quite a coincidence, and makes one think whether a BRP album would be dedicated to him?Tero wrote: If they were releasing solo albums or had come up with a new name for the band, no one would expect them to mention Freddie... Freddie isn't mentioned on the credits of Brian's Live At Brixton Academy and Furia, or Roger's Electric Fire album, and no one thinks Brian and Roger are heartless bastards because of that.I wish to point out the following. The album 'Happiness?' is indeed dedicated to Freddie, as it states, "dedicated to the tasmanian tiger - thylacinus cynocephalus...but most especially Freddie." In addition, Brian May dedicated his album 'Back to the Light' to Freddie as well. Brian May states "This album is dedicated to Harold May, Alfred Dobson, and Freddie Mercury." You're right to say that the other albums weren't dedicated to him. Did I say I hate Brian and Roger? No, I didn't do that either. I'm glad we got that sorted out. Perhaps you can now return to the original topic as well. Thanks! |
kingogre 13.08.2008 04:36 |
We have just spent a week discussing the tracklisting, were you directly stated that the reason for you not liking this is that it interfers with the regular releases, i.e. the outtakes. Your conspiracy theories are quite frankly ridiculous. |
Tero 13.08.2008 04:46 |
kingogre wrote: We have just spent a week discussing the tracklisting, were you directly stated that the reason for you not liking this is that it interfers with the regular releases, i.e. the outtakes. Your conspiracy theories are quite frankly ridiculous.Please don't bring other topics in here to distract the actual issue. You say my opinion is a conspiracy theory, and that's your right. So what's your theory? That Brian and Roger just keep forgetting everything about Freddie on every one out of two albums they make, and it's purely a coincidence that this time they do remember him? Don't you find that the LEAST bit odd? |
kingogre 13.08.2008 05:22 |
Tero wrote:No. I find what they have done completely natural. I would have done the same thing.kingogre wrote: We have just spent a week discussing the tracklisting, were you directly stated that the reason for you not liking this is that it interfers with the regular releases, i.e. the outtakes. Your conspiracy theories are quite frankly ridiculous.Please don't bring other topics in here to distract the actual issue. You say my opinion is a conspiracy theory, and that's your right. So what's your theory? That Brian and Roger just keep forgetting everything about Freddie on every one out of two albums they make, and it's purely a coincidence that this time they do remember him? Don't you find that the LEAST bit odd? They are bringing the Queen-name back in a different format. It is only natural that they dedicate it to what was once. Id say that making this album has definitely brought back a lot of memories for them. And why would they dedicate everything they do to Freddie? To suggest they have no feelings about his passing like you do is ridiculous. You did not even meet the man, why do you think your some kind of guardian of hius memory? End of this discussion for me, this is a vast of time. |
Holly2003 13.08.2008 05:29 |
Tero wrote: So what's your theory? That Brian and Roger just keep forgetting everything about Freddie on every one out of two albums they make, and it's purely a coincidence that this time they do remember him? Don't you find that the LEAST bit odd?It's not odd in the slightest. This is the first studio album under the Queen name with a new singer. It makes perfect sense to make a token acknowledgement or gesture to ex-Queen members at this point. And to put this one small dedication into perspective, AC/DC's whole first album with a new singer (Back in Black) was a tribute to their old singer. |
Tero 13.08.2008 05:29 |
I don't have any more intimate knowledge than you do, right? Im not a guardian of Freddie's memory, and you're not the spokesman for Brian and Roger. Plenty of people are happy to say this dedication is a personal tribute with no ulterior motives, and I'm giving an other possible explanation. Neither viewpoint has any actual evidence to back it up, so this is just a speculative discussion about an emotional topic. If you don't like it, that's fine. Nobody's forcing you to read it. |
Tero 13.08.2008 05:35 |
Holly2003 wrote:Let's think about what you said for a moment...Tero wrote: So what's your theory? That Brian and Roger just keep forgetting everything about Freddie on every one out of two albums they make, and it's purely a coincidence that this time they do remember him? Don't you find that the LEAST bit odd?It's not odd in the slightest. This is the first studio album under the Queen name with a new singer. It makes perfect sense to make a token acknowledgement or gesture to ex-Queen members at this point. What you're saying is that this album is dedicated to Freddie only because they are using the Queen name (hence the "token gesture"), right? What I posted earlier was that this dedication is expected because the Queen name is used, and wouldn't be expected from a Brian or Roger album under any other name, right? The dedication is there because it "has" to be there on a Queen album, and not because the members actually want it to be there. How is that NOT a calculated move without a genuine emotional content? |
Holly2003 13.08.2008 05:48 |
Tero wrote:No it doesn't HAVE to be there. they could easily have made a 'statement' that they are making a new start by not mentioning Freddie. However, they obviously thought that was inappropriate. It is impossible for you or me or anyone to know how much "emotional content" is in the dedication. It is,however, definitely not "odd" as you stated. People make these gestures all the time in everyday life. Going to a funeral, sending a birthday card etc. All normal and reasonable. How much real genuine emotion is in those gestures is only for the sender to gauge. You assign cynical motives when you cannot possibly know for certain, or even make a reasonable assumption of the emotional content of the message. That's not just being cynical (because there's nothing wrong with that) it's illogical. And while people can of course hold and express opinions as they see fit, when they are completely illogical they tend to come across as whacko or obsessed. When aded to your bizarre attempt to make a big issue of "Queen touring Co" evidence is mounting that you are now entering this territory ;)Holly2003 wrote:What you're saying is that this album is dedicated to Freddie only because they are using the Queen name (hence the "token gesture"), right? What I posted earlier was that this dedication is expected because the Queen name is used, and wouldn't be expected from a Brian or Roger album under any other name, right? The dedication is there because it "has" to be there on a Queen album, and not because the members actually want it to be there. How is that NOT a calculated move without a genuine emotional content?Tero wrote: So what's your theory? That Brian and Roger just keep forgetting everything about Freddie on every one out of two albums they make, and it's purely a coincidence that this time they do remember him? Don't you find that the LEAST bit odd?It's not odd in the slightest. This is the first studio album under the Queen name with a new singer. It makes perfect sense to make a token acknowledgement or gesture to ex-Queen members at this point. |
Tero 13.08.2008 06:32 |
Holly2003 wrote: No it doesn't HAVE to be there. they could easily have made a 'statement' that they are making a new start by not mentioning Freddie. However, they obviously thought that was inappropriate. It is impossible for you or me or anyone to know how much "emotional content" is in the dedication. It is,however, definitely not "odd" as you stated. People make these gestures all the time in everyday life. Going to a funeral, sending a birthday card etc. All normal and reasonable. How much real genuine emotion is in those gestures is only for the sender to gauge. You assign cynical motives when you cannot possibly know for certain, or even make a reasonable assumption of the emotional content of the message. That's not just being cynical (because there's nothing wrong with that) it's illogical.It is odd indeed if you look at it from a culture where empty greetings are not common, but I imagine there are some countries in the world where it's the accepted norm to dedicate everything to everyone even if you don't mean it. But like you say, only the sender will know for certain how much emotion there is involved. It's funny how this argument only works for the people who go for the negative interpretation, not the ones with positive interpretations. ;) Holly2003 wrote: And while people can of course hold and express opinions as they see fit, when they are completely illogical they tend to come across as whacko or obsessed. When aded to your bizarre attempt to make a big issue of "Queen touring Co" evidence is mounting that you are now entering this territory ;)Unfortunately for "you", there is a logic to my topics. There are certain implications when some records are dedicated to Freddie and others aren't, and there is a logic to why some Queen releases are attributed to "Queen Productions" while others are attributed to "Queen Touring"... The fact that you choose to take these things at face value without thinking about the reasoning behind them doesn't make the issues any more trivial than analysing the lyrics of the latest "Queen" song. |
August R. 13.08.2008 06:40 |
Tero wrote: [ Yes, the FIRST album by both artists was dedicated to Freddie, but all the subsequent ones weren't. That's the point. Obviously he isn't THAT much missed by the guys on their solo projects, but they feel somehow necessary to mention him on this solo project...I think you're missing the point, Tero. SOLO albums are often very personal. They're attempts to get away from the band (remember Freddie thanked Bri, Rog & John for not interfering on Mr Bad Guy) and show what the artist can do on his own. And that's exactly what earlier solo projects have been like. BTTL and Happiness were dedicated to Freddie, and for a good reason. Those albums were written at the time of Freddie's death and Freddie is very much present on those albums. Later projects by Bri & Rog had very little to do with Freddie. They were solo albums that showed us what was happening in their lives at THAT point. This new project is not a solo album. They're actually a duo+solo artist. But of course you're right about the fact that since it's marketed as Queen+ they're obliged to make the nods to the past. Had it been a P+B+R album... we'll never know, but this is Q+PR, and like Brian said it's a "Queenly" album. B+R made it with Queen in their minds, not as a showcase of three individual solo artists. |
john bodega 13.08.2008 07:13 |
Tero wrote: a simple plot to exploit the feelings of the Queen fans...Can't you go find a moustache to twirl? Tero wrote: The dedication is nothing more than an "insurance" they can use against people who say they're ignoring Freddie as an integral part of the band.Yeah. link What's more likely; that Q+PR are in a boardroom right now, planning on how they can trick us and manipulate us? Or that they might feel like dedicating the album to someone that they worked with for 20 years? I remember Brian mentioning some bloke called Freddie Mercury in the cover of "Back To The Light"... I guess that was a ploy too! Hehe. Tero wrote: Yes, the FIRST album by both artists was dedicated to Freddie, but all the subsequent ones weren't. That's the point.A very, very flimsy point. Why would you dedicate EACH ALBUM to the same person?? That is utterly ridiculous. It might work if you're John Lennon and every 2nd song is about Yoko, but this is different. For a lot of musicians, the music tends to be somewhat topical with regard to what they are feeling when they make a bit of music. It makes sense for some of the music (like "Nothing But Blue") to be about what's going on at the time, and for the first album following the death of a friend to carry a dedication to them. Why would Brian have dedicated "Another World" to Freddie? He'd been dead since 1991 and Brian had lost other people since then. Whether you call this new band Queen + Paul Rodgers, Good Company, or Sgt. Fucking Peppers, it's a new band borne out of the remnants of an old one, and I think it's more than fair to dedicate it to (or at least mention) an ex-member. Use a bit of logic, for Christ's sake. |
Holly2003 13.08.2008 08:10 |
TERO: It is odd indeed if you look at it from a culture where empty greetings are not common, but I imagine there are some countries in the world where it's the accepted norm to dedicate everything to everyone even if you don't mean it. ME: I am talking about the UK. Queen are a British band. In that context, everyday culture clearly means everyday british culture. I am not margaret mead and don't wish to write an anthropological essay explaining and clarifying everything i say for the deliberately obtuse. TERO: But like you say, only the sender will know for certain how much emotion there is involved. It's funny how this argument only works for the people who go for the negative interpretation, not the ones with positive interpretations. ME: In this case the 'negative interpretation' is based on little but one person's nitpicking and bizarre logic. The positive interpretation makes a lot more sense because it can at least be supported by logical analysis. TERO: Unfortunately for "you", there is a logic to my topics. ME: There is a certain logic to it, but not one that carries any weight with anyone except you. TERO: There are certain implications when some records are dedicated to Freddie and others aren't, ME: You can imply a lot of things, but no one but you is taking them seriously. What does that tell you, that you are a lone genius who is somehow able to fathom some hidden logic behind a simple dedication on a record, or that maybe you've got it wrong and are taking all of this far, far too serioUsly and, perhaps, obsessively? TERO: and there is a logic to why some Queen releases are attributed to "Queen Productions" while others are attributed to "Queen Touring"... The fact that you choose to take these things at face value without thinking about the reasoning behind them doesn't make the issues any more trivial than analysing the lyrics of the latest "Queen" song. ME: There is in all probability legal and financial reasons for this, as was discussed in the thread. I don't take them at face value at all: in fact, it is probably one of the more boring subjects on Queenzone, and does very little to hold my attention. The reason you got so many replies is because of the bizarre interpretation you put on it, that "it's strange indeed to change the production company if Brian and Roger still consider themselves Queen" or "is it perhaps a question of artistic integrity and not wanting to be Queen after all"--- and so on. Your thread on the subject ostensibly seems to be about seeking knowledge, but they way you pose your questions (and your replies)is like many conspiracy theorists who ask people to commment on what they pose as "odd" or "strange" occurrences when in fact there is usually a simple and logical explanation that they refuse to accept. A word of advice: a few years back I may have been the only one to support your position, not because I actually beleived it but because of frustration at Queen's lack of output, or not working with people I wanted them to work with. But i've realised something important. Brian may and Roger taylor will do what they want to do and not what we want them to do. They have demonstrated that over and over again. It is what is is and when you learn to accept that as I (mostly) have your relationship with what's left of Queen will be a happier one. They're not going to be around forever: enjoy it while you can and stop fretting over what they choose to call themselves or what they call their touring co. or indeed what small dedications they put on their cds to their former frontman. |
Tero 13.08.2008 08:20 |
Here's my opening post in this topic:
Tero wrote: What I personally think is that as long as they are using the Queen name, they have to keep mentioning Freddie in an effort to not piss off those people who were fans of the band with four members. If they were releasing solo albums or had come up with a new name for the band, no one would expect them to mention Freddie... Freddie isn't mentioned on the credits of Brian's Live At Brixton Academy and Furia, or Roger's Electric Fire album, and no one thinks Brian and Roger are heartless bastards because of that. The dedication is nothing more than an "insurance" they can use against people who say they're ignoring Freddie as an integral part of the band.Pretty much everyone can agree on the first two points, and the third one is an unsubstantiated opinion, just like those other people have been posting in this topic. Without that disagreement, this would be an "I agree" lovefest of the QPR fans. Zebonka12 wrote: What's more likely; that Q+PR are in a boardroom right now, planning on how they can trick us and manipulate us? Or that they might feel like dedicating the album to someone that they worked with for 20 years?It's more likely only as long as you think positive thoughts about Queen. If you start taking into account how much of a business they have become and how little we know of the actual emotions these people have, it becomes just about as likely either way. Zebonka12 wrote: A very, very flimsy point. Why would you dedicate EACH ALBUM to the same person?? That is utterly ridiculous. For a lot of musicians, the music tends to be somewhat topical with regard to what they are feeling when they make a bit of music. It makes sense for some of the music (like "Nothing But Blue") to be about what's going on at the time, and for the first album following the death of a friend to carry a dedication to them.This actually ties in with my point... The first albums were dedicated to Freddie, but all the subsequent ones weren't. They clearly got over the issue of losing Freddie, and now we can start speculating why he's become a dedication again. Some people think it's to appease a minority of the fans, some say it's a token gesture without any emotions behind it, and some say it's highly emotional. I would discredit the third option because they have gotten over the loss of Freddie. Zebonka12 wrote: Whether you call this new band Queen + Paul Rodgers, Good Company, or Sgt. Fucking Peppers, it's a new band borne out of the remnants of an old one, and I think it's more than fair to dedicate it to (or at least mention) an ex-member. Use a bit of logic, for Christ's sake.There is a bit of logic involved, whether you like it or not. No one is denying that it's "more than fair" to dedicate the album to Freddie, and the logic is only in questioning the motives of that dedication. My scenario isn't any more unlikely than "yours". You start from the assumption that the dedication is based on emotions instead of practical issues, and I start from the assumption that it's based on practical issues ("It's expected from them") and not based on emotions. Neither of knows the feelings of the band, so both include an equal amount of assumptions. |
Tero 13.08.2008 08:28 |
Holly2003 wrote: They're not going to be around forever: enjoy it while you can and stop fretting over what they choose to call themselves or what they call their touring co. or indeed what small dedications they put on their cds to their former frontman.This is another "interesting" issue in these topics... What if I just can't get excited about the new lousy material like some people do? There must be a third alternative besides fawning online over every bit of music released with the Queen name and crawling under a rock at home, and it's called discussion. It happens about the issues the participants feel strongly about. I'm not here to please anybody, but at the same time I won't start spamming the board with insulting topics. I'll participate in those discussion which I feel are worth the time and effort, and I expect everybody else to do the same... If nobody else is interested in the same topics, they will die away very quickly. That's pretty much all there is to my messages. |
john bodega 13.08.2008 08:33 |
Tero wrote: Neither of knows the feelings of the band, so both include an equal amount of assumptions.Let's not get bogged down in semantics. My theory is based on the assumption that Brian May is not Emperor Palpatine (yet). |
Holly2003 13.08.2008 08:35 |
Tero wrote:Well if that's the case I'm sure you''ll make your opinions heard. But at least they'll be based on the music and not the name of the band/company/song title/accompanying text.Holly2003 wrote: They're not going to be around forever: enjoy it while you can and stop fretting over what they choose to call themselves or what they call their touring co. or indeed what small dedications they put on their cds to their former frontman.This is another "interesting" issue in these topics... What if I just can't get excited about the new lousy material like some people do? There must be a third alternative besides fawning online over every bit of music released with the Queen name and crawling under a rock at home, and it's called discussion. It happens about the issues the participants feel strongly about. I'm not here to please anybody, but at the same time I won't start spamming the board with insulting topics. I'll participate in those discussion which I feel are worth the time and effort, and I expect everybody else to do the same... If nobody else is interested in the same topics, they will die away very quickly. That's pretty much all there is to my messages. |
Tero 13.08.2008 08:41 |
Holly2003 wrote: Well if that's the case I'm sure you''ll make your opinions heard. But at least they'll be based on the music and not the name of the band/company/song title/accompanying text.Are you serious? Why should I limit the discussion to music only? |
john bodega 13.08.2008 08:43 |
Tero wrote: Are you serious? Why should I limit the discussion to music only?Because you're a lousy judge of character. |
Tero 13.08.2008 08:46 |
Zebonka12 wrote:I wouldn't say they have that much in common... For starters Brian is a real person. ;)Tero wrote: Neither of knows the feelings of the band, so both include an equal amount of assumptions.Let's not get bogged down in semantics. My theory is based on the assumption that Brian May is not Emperor Palpatine (yet). If you want to go down the road of Star Wars comparisons, one could say that your theory is based on Brian being Luke Skywalker, while the reality is that he's a Han Solo (or whoever)-type mercenary with both good and bad qualities. |
Tero 13.08.2008 08:47 |
Zebonka12 wrote:And I should leave the judging of character to the Brian May fanclub? Please!Tero wrote: Are you serious? Why should I limit the discussion to music only?Because you're a lousy judge of character. |
7Innuendo7 13.08.2008 08:47 |
this is exhausting...a distraction to the music...and lest we forget, Freddie on his 1st solo album thanked B/R/J for *not* getting involved and BTW, a mighty big thanks to David R Fuller for posting the long version of "Love is the Hero" somewhere out in the cosmos |
Holly2003 13.08.2008 08:55 |
Tero wrote:I give up. Enjoy your griping and nitpicking, I'll wait until i hear the album before passing judgment on the music. Still, here's a bone for you to chew on until then: what's your view on the Queen font? Are they disrespecting John or Freddie by changing it? Is it a cynical ploy to rake in the cash? I think we need your opinion on this...Holly2003 wrote: Well if that's the case I'm sure you''ll make your opinions heard. But at least they'll be based on the music and not the name of the band/company/song title/accompanying text.Are you serious? Why should I limit the discussion to music only? |
Tero 13.08.2008 09:01 |
Holly2003 wrote: I give up. Enjoy your griping and nitpicking, I'll wait until i hear the album before passing judgment on the music.I've actually judged only the songs I've heard, which means we're actually in the same boat. Holly2003 wrote: Still, here's a bone for you to chew on until them: what's your view on the Queen font? Are they disrespecting John or Freddie by changing it? Is it a cynical ploy to rake in the cash? I think we need your opinion on this...[SARCASM DETECTOR OFF]I don't think I need to go to great lengths with that topic... I just think it looks very amateurish, and quite a few people seem to agree with that sentiment.[SARCASM DETECTOR ON] |
Knute 13.08.2008 09:38 |
Tero wrote:Yup that's definitely fictional.Knute wrote: I wouldn't be surprised one bit if Tero believes in that cynical mind of his that Brian and Roger are actually glad that Freddie died.And I wouldn't be one bit surprise if you were ecstatic about Freddie dying and Paul being given a chance to replace him... See, we can both come up with fictional scenarios to make each other sound like heartless bastards. ;) Especially the part about Paul being given a chance to replace him. |
john bodega 13.08.2008 09:50 |
Tero wrote: And I should leave the judging of character to the Brian May fanclub? Please!You evidently think that you're surrounded by people who worship Brian May. I think he's done some things in the past that could really put him in the 'Fuckstick' category, but dedicating this album to Freddie is not one of them. It's got the name 'Queen' on it ; why NOT mention Freddie? Do we even know the nature of the 'dedication' yet? |
Nacho_itu 13.08.2008 10:56 |
Ok, let's say this clear. Do you have a life, Tero? Well, I don't think you have one. I'm tired of people moaning about every little word that's about Queen with Paul Rodgers. If you don't like it, please, don't make these STUPID statements. You have a lot of material to listen, have and look for, from 1973 to 1991 to be happy and don't be moaning. Ok?. I'm tired of people like you, people that hates the fact that life goes on. |
kingogre 13.08.2008 13:36 |
Nacho_itu wrote: Ok, let's say this clear. Do you have a life, Tero? Well, I don't think you have one. I'm tired of people moaning about every little word that's about Queen with Paul Rodgers. If you don't like it, please, don't make these STUPID statements. You have a lot of material to listen, have and look for, from 1973 to 1991 to be happy and don't be moaning. Ok?. I'm tired of people like you, people that hates the fact that life goes on.Second every single word. Said I wouldnt return to this but I got pissed off by reading this. It is not a question of two equally speculative theories, it is those of us who believes what is said by the bandmembers and the one person who instead believes in his own fantasies. |
Tero 13.08.2008 15:15 |
Nacho_itu wrote: Ok, let's say this clear. Do you have a life, Tero? Well, I don't think you have one. I'm tired of people moaning about every little word that's about Queen with Paul Rodgers. If you don't like it, please, don't make these STUPID statements. You have a lot of material to listen, have and look for, from 1973 to 1991 to be happy and don't be moaning. Ok?. I'm tired of people like you, people that hates the fact that life goes on.For someone who supposedly has a life himself, you spend an awful lot of time insulting other people... Perhaps you should try to find out what causes that aggression? |
Tero 13.08.2008 15:19 |
Zebonka12 wrote:Reading QZ ceratinly gives me that impression... Just take a look at this topic where a token gesture gets praised by loads of people.Tero wrote: And I should leave the judging of character to the Brian May fanclub? Please!You evidently think that you're surrounded by people who worship Brian May. I think he's done some things in the past that could really put him in the 'Fuckstick' category, but dedicating this album to Freddie is not one of them. It's got the name 'Queen' on it ; why NOT mention Freddie? Do we even know the nature of the 'dedication' yet? That is all it is, and people are trying to make it sound like Brian and Roger are saints for dedicating this album to Freddie. That's just as fucked up as anything I've said in this topic. ;) |
Tero 13.08.2008 15:20 |
Knute wrote:Yet it's just as truthful as the words you've put in my mouth... Think about that for a moment.Tero wrote:Yup that's definitely fictional. Especially the part about Paul being given a chance to replace him.Knute wrote: I wouldn't be surprised one bit if Tero believes in that cynical mind of his that Brian and Roger are actually glad that Freddie died.And I wouldn't be one bit surprise if you were ecstatic about Freddie dying and Paul being given a chance to replace him... See, we can both come up with fictional scenarios to make each other sound like heartless bastards. ;) |
kingogre 13.08.2008 15:41 |
This is not a question of "two opinions of equal merit", youre the one making outlandish statements. The rest of us are not the "Brian May-fan-club", based on what you write it is rather you who seems to hate him. |
Tero 13.08.2008 15:44 |
kingogre wrote: This is not a question of "two opinions of equal merit", youre the one making outlandish statements. The rest of us are not the "Brian May-fan-club", based on what you write it is rather you who seems to hate him.I thought you were supposed to not respond to me? Since you do want to continue this discussion, perhaps you'll be kind enough to explain what makes my statement more outlandish that the opposite statements? Is there any actual proof, or is it just because it's easier to believe positive things about your idol? |
Nacho_itu 13.08.2008 15:53 |
hey, I don't spend an AWFUL lot of time insulting people. In fact writing that took me about 1 minute ;). I know what causes that HIGH LEVEL OF AGRESSION. Stupid statements like those you wrote. I have my life and I try to have fun listening to good music. I don't complain about other peoples life like you do. And, finally, after spending 3 awful minutes writing this, I just say this: grow up. ;) |
kingogre 13.08.2008 15:58 |
Tero wrote:In science the press release and the interviews theyve made would be considered first-hand accounts and so very good evidence in this case.kingogre wrote: This is not a question of "two opinions of equal merit", youre the one making outlandish statements. The rest of us are not the "Brian May-fan-club", based on what you write it is rather you who seems to hate him.I thought you were supposed to not respond to me? Since you do want to continue this discussion, perhaps you'll be kind enough to explain what makes my statement more outlandish that the opposite statements? Is there any actual proof, or is it just because it's easier to believe positive things about your idol? |
Tero 13.08.2008 16:05 |
kingogre wrote:Hah, you must be joking!Tero wrote:In science the press release and the interviews theyve made would be considered first-hand accounts and so very good evidence in this case.kingogre wrote: This is not a question of "two opinions of equal merit", youre the one making outlandish statements. The rest of us are not the "Brian May-fan-club", based on what you write it is rather you who seems to hate him.I thought you were supposed to not respond to me? Since you do want to continue this discussion, perhaps you'll be kind enough to explain what makes my statement more outlandish that the opposite statements? Is there any actual proof, or is it just because it's easier to believe positive things about your idol? Since when have press releases told the truth? :P An analogy from the science world would be like... a researcher claiming that he has seen god. He could tell the truth or believe he's telling the truth, but it would be impossible for any other scientist to prove it. Religious people will take that as a proof of god while atheists will demand something tangible, or even something a bit more objective than first hand account. |
kingogre 13.08.2008 16:21 |
Tero wrote:The press release contains quotations from the band members that taken together with the interviews paints a corroborating picture. It would be enough for someone doing a historical research in say 30 years time.kingogre wrote:Hah, you must be joking! Since when have press releases told the truth? :P An analogy from the science world would be like... a researcher claiming that he has seen god. He could tell the truth or believe he's telling the truth, but it would be impossible for any other scientist to prove it. Religious people will take that as a proof of god while atheists will demand something tangible, or even something a bit more objective than first hand account.Tero wrote:In science the press release and the interviews theyve made would be considered first-hand accounts and so very good evidence in this case.kingogre wrote: This is not a question of "two opinions of equal merit", youre the one making outlandish statements. The rest of us are not the "Brian May-fan-club", based on what you write it is rather you who seems to hate him.I thought you were supposed to not respond to me? Since you do want to continue this discussion, perhaps you'll be kind enough to explain what makes my statement more outlandish that the opposite statements? Is there any actual proof, or is it just because it's easier to believe positive things about your idol? And you do not have even a press release on your side. You are saying that they are fraudulently exploiting the memory of a tragically dead friend of 30 years, surely you agree that is a extraordinary statement? And extraordinary statements demand extraordinary evidence. And for the record Brian May is not my idol, not even close. I enjoy his guitarplaying and his songwriting and he is certainly an inspiration, like many others, to me as a guitarplayer. But according to me there is only one woman/man worthy of being an idol and that is mr. Nelson Mandela. Cheers to you all! |
kingogre 13.08.2008 16:22 |
And god is by nature unscientific ;) |
john bodega 13.08.2008 20:24 |
Tero wrote: That is all it is, and people are trying to make it sound like Brian and Roger are saints for dedicating this album to Freddie.Quotes? |
Tero 14.08.2008 01:20 |
Zebonka12 wrote:Do you have quotes for me likening him to Emperor Palpable?Tero wrote: That is all it is, and people are trying to make it sound like Brian and Roger are saints for dedicating this album to Freddie.Quotes? Didn't think so either. |
kingogre 14.08.2008 01:31 |
No one has said they are saints. This is a nice thing to do, as are the dedications to JD and Paul Kossoff, but nothing more. But to do what you suggest they have done they would have to be villains. And judging by what you have written here and in other threads you really think BHM is. |
P-Staker 14.08.2008 05:56 |
They were friends for over 20 fucking years. Yup, I'm sure the dedication is to keep people on the Internet happy. |
Vali 14.08.2008 07:04 |
Can't believe the controversy generated by this issue. As simple as: "Dedicated to Freddie Mercury" nice from you, Bri, Rog & Paul. Tks Anyone seeing hidden conspiracies here by the guys ... ok, I can give you some telephone numbers of some competent therapists |
Tero 14.08.2008 07:06 |
kingogre wrote: No one has said they are saints. This is a nice thing to do, as are the dedications to JD and Paul Kossoff, but nothing more. But to do what you suggest they have done they would have to be villains. And judging by what you have written here and in other threads you really think BHM is.No, I'm not saying they're villains. I'm saying (and others have agreed to these points!) that they have a) gotten so so much over the loss of Freddie that they don't need to aknowledge him all the time, and b) dedicated this album to Freddie and John because they have some sort of moral obligation to do so because of the name they have chosen to use. Does that sound like this dedication is the work of a nice gentleman, and should be praised? No. Does that sound like the dedication is the work of a businessman, and shouldn't be taken that seriously. Yes. You've made it perfectly clear that you have no problems seeing Brian and Roger first and foremost as businessmen, and I believe I've made it equally clear that they should first and foremost be musicians. |
August R. 14.08.2008 08:13 |
Let's look at this situation from another perspective. Let's imagine that B+R didn't dedicate this album to Freddie. I bet we'd still have a huge argument over this here at QZ. The anti-QPR people woulg argue that B+R are greedy bastards who use the Queen name and don't even recognize their old band mates, while pro-QPR people would argue that this is a new band, so there's no need for dedications. Am I right? If we consider the alternative (=not to dedicate the album to Freddie), I think this was a nice gesture by B+R. Nothing to praise to the skies, but still a nice gesture. |
Tero 14.08.2008 08:28 |
...And if we think of the other alternative where Brian and Roger chose to use another band name, we would all agree that they wouldn't have dedicated the album to Freddie at all. It is getting a bit boring to repeat the same point again and again, but they HAVE made a choice of name, they HAVE made a choice of dedication, and they HAVE made a choice of which production company to use. Whether those are conscious and calculated decisions with ulterior motives is open to speculation, and these will remain valid topics to discuss, if you people want to discuss them. No one is forcing you, and I won't continue this by myself. ;) |
john bodega 14.08.2008 11:33 |
Tero wrote: Do you have quotes for me likening him to Emperor Palpable? Didn't think so either.I asked first. |
kingogre 14.08.2008 15:22 |
They are first and foremost people. Where is your evidence that they are heartless people who do not have any feelings about the passing of Freddie? With extraordinary statements like yours the burden of proof is on the one who makes them. |
Tero 14.08.2008 15:37 |
Zebonka12 wrote:The string of "Nice touch"! replies to start this topic are nothing more than efforts to glorify a business transaction. Such empty praises are (in my opinion) comparable to making a saint out of normal men.Tero wrote: Do you have quotes for me likening him to Emperor Palpable? Didn't think so either.I asked first. So... What's the most evil quote of mine you can find in this topic? |
Tero 14.08.2008 15:41 |
kingogre wrote: They are first and foremost people. Where is your evidence that they are heartless people who do not have any feelings about the passing of Freddie? With extraordinary statements like yours the burden of proof is on the one who makes them.They are first and foremost businessmen. They do actions that are "necessary", "expected", and "obligatory" with regards to their career and releases. But that's not the same thing as saying they are heartless or don't have any feelings about Freddie passing away. You won't find a quote of mine saying that. What you will find is me saying they have gotten over their loss, and are still "expected" to dedicate this release to Freddie. In my book that's calculated, not emotional. |
Micrówave 14.08.2008 15:49 |
Tero wrote: Yes, the FIRST album by both artists was dedicated to Freddie, but all the subsequent ones weren't. That's the point. Obviously he isn't THAT much missed by the guysBoy Tero, you hit the nail right on the head. Proof that Brian and Roger are insensitive bastards!!!! I knew it all along and if it were not for you, then the entire Queenzone AND Queen community would have been fooled for several years longer. Thank you! You have truly done us all a wonderful service. I have some further reference you may find useful: 1. When playing the rooftop at the palace and looking up in the sky, Brian DID NOT shout out "I dedicate this note to Freddie". *Heartless Bastard* 2. When receiving his fourth speeding ticket in a short span of time, Roger DID NOT thank Freddie at his hearing an thus lost to right to drive for 30 days. *Heartless Bastard* 3. When performing "All Right Now" at a recent Bad Company reunion show, Paul Rodgers DID NOT thank Freddie Mercury at all... the entire evening! Sure he mentioned touring with Roger and Brian but said nothing about Freddie!!! And last I heard, Brian and Roger DO NOT thank Freddie when: (1) They make a withdrawal at the bank (2) They make a deposit in the bathroom (3) Make love in the sunset on a beach (I assume separately) (4) They release any material including books on Space (5) They change the channel on the TV (6) Sign autographs, when willing. (7) Send Greg Brooks a box of video and audio tapes (8) Pay the guy to cut the grass (9) Ignore John Deacon's phone calls We should all band together and boycott everything they do and break into record stores spray painting "Thank You Freddie" all over the walls while destroying Queen product. Can someone post a link to the on-line petition? |
Tero 14.08.2008 15:52 |
Could you read the message above yours, and tone down a notch on the sarcasm scale? Thanks! |
kingogre 14.08.2008 16:53 |
Arent you going to use your sarcasm detector, or was it warp speed or what was it..;) |
Micrówave 14.08.2008 16:59 |
Tero wrote: Could you read the message above yours, and tone down a notch on the sarcasm scale? Thanks!Deal. Only if you admit that they don't have to acknowledge Freddie in every release after his death. |
Tero 15.08.2008 01:15 |
Of course, that's a given.
In fact here's a quote of mine from the first page of this topic:
Tero wrote: If they were releasing solo albums or had come up with a new name for the band, no one would expect them to mention Freddie... Freddie isn't mentioned on the credits of Brian's Live At Brixton Academy and Furia, or Roger's Electric Fire album, and no one thinks Brian and Roger are heartless bastards because of that. |
kingogre 15.08.2008 01:37 |
Sorry Tero but this is extremely far-fetched. There is a much simpler explanation and there is really no reason to doubt it and definitely no reason to accept what you say. Why is it such a big deal that they have dedicated it to Freddie? And Queen was Freddie, John, Brian and Roger, but they all agree that B and R have the right to tour and record as Queen (Freddie through his estate). And like it or not, but if the former members all decide it is OK then we should accept it. (Here we go again...) |
john bodega 15.08.2008 06:28 |
Occam's fucking Razor, anyone? |
Tero 15.08.2008 09:35 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Occam's fucking Razor, anyone?Sure, I'll take it. But it has to work both ways, not just in your favour. ;) Wikipedia wrote: This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.Your theory ASSUMES that the dedication is a gesture of goodwill, and you cannot prove it. My theory ASSUMES it's a business decision with no deeper feelings. Your theory ASSUMES the this is the first album dedicated Freddie in years because recording together has brought back the old felings about Freddie (or whatever...). My theory ASSUMES that they have dedicated this album to Freddie because it's "expected from them". So what exactly makes your theory superior to mine? What makes it simpler, and makes it have less assumptions? |
kingogre 15.08.2008 14:01 |
Tero wrote:You do not understand what Occams razor is all about I hear..Zebonka12 wrote: Occam's fucking Razor, anyone?Sure, I'll take it. But it has to work both ways, not just in your favour. ;)Wikipedia wrote: This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.Your theory ASSUMES that the dedication is a gesture of goodwill, and you cannot prove it. My theory ASSUMES it's a business decision with no deeper feelings. Your theory ASSUMES the this is the first album dedicated Freddie in years because recording together has brought back the old felings about Freddie (or whatever...). My theory ASSUMES that they have dedicated this album to Freddie because it's "expected from them". So what exactly makes your theory superior to mine? What makes it simpler, and makes it have less assumptions? Coherence is another very important aspect of science. That they really mean something with this gesture is coherent with what we know about how people react to losses of close friends, what dedications in albums are all about and also what Brian and Roger has told us in the past about their feelings about Freddies death. Therefore we it is most plausible that they really mean something with the dedication, unless we have some proof of anything else which we havent. Ergo it is not a matter of two equally plausible theories. |
Tero 15.08.2008 15:00 |
kingogre wrote: You do not understand what Occams razor is all about I hear.. Coherence is another very important aspect of science. That they really mean something with this gesture is coherent with what we know about how people react to losses of close friends, what dedications in albums are all about and also what Brian and Roger has told us in the past about their feelings about Freddies death. Therefore we it is most plausible that they really mean something with the dedication, unless we have some proof of anything else which we havent. Ergo it is not a matter of two equally plausible theories.Don't blame me if the wikipedia defintion doesn't suit you... ;) People react to the loss of their friends. FACT Brian and Roger don't react to the loss of Freddie on every release. FACT What comes afterwards is assumption... Do you assume they are genuinely affected again after all these years, or do you assume it's due to what is "expected from them". Do you assume they are basically nice guys who are thinking about the good of other people, or do you assume they are calculating businessmen. You yourself see them as businessmen, not musicians. Holly2003 thinks the dedication as "expected" from them. Suddenly it starts to sound very coherent to think the dedication isn't such a "nice touch" after all. The motives really aren't quite as obvious as you try to make them sound like. |
kingogre 15.08.2008 15:27 |
No, they are musicians definitely. But in the league they are playing everyone is a businessman. And it doesnt mean they are heartless towards friends who have passed away. We were talking about bonustracks on the record if I remember correctly. Do you think they are businessmen and not musicians since you build your opinion on it? The general behaviour of human beings and the well-documented feelings of Brian and Roger vs. an unclear statement by member of this forum and the general assumptio that they are "businessmen". Surely you must see your "case" is very thin. |
Holly2003 15.08.2008 15:39 |
Tero wrote: |
Holly2003 15.08.2008 15:39 |
Tero wrote:Holly2003 thinks the dedication as "expected" from them.See Post of 8/13/2008 5:48:00 AM |
Tero 15.08.2008 15:46 |
kingogre wrote: No, they are musicians definitely. But in the league they are playing everyone is a businessman. And it doesnt mean they are heartless towards friends who have passed away. We were talking about bonustracks on the record if I remember correctly. Do you think they are businessmen and not musicians since you build your opinion on it? The general behaviour of human beings and the well-documented feelings of Brian and Roger vs. an unclear statement by member of this forum and the general assumptio that they are "businessmen". Surely you must see your "case" is very thin.I've never claimed they were heartless. Pragmatic would be a better one word definition. The general behaviour for humans is to mourn for a certain period, get over it, and move on with their lives. This is what has happened with Brian and Roger... And then we fast forward to present day and the (pragmatic) dedication. We do have "well documented" feelings from Brian and Roger (media reports, it's not like we know them personally) in the past, but since then their feelings have changed immensely. Brian didn't want to continue with Queen, and now he's publicly endorsing it all the way. The problem with this discussion (as has been from the start) is that WE DON'T KNOW HOW THEY REALLY FEEL. Anything presented here is tainted by our personal opinions. A dedication to Freddie isn't a "nice touch" unless they really mean it, and it's just impossible to know. I think this is the point in the discussion where I've grown tired of repeating that same point... It's not like either of us would change our opinions about the band anyway, and there hasn't been anything new introduced for quite a while. Until the next topic. :P |
Tero 15.08.2008 15:49 |
Holly2003 wrote:And this this was what you wrote 20 minutes earlier:Tero wrote: Holly2003 thinks the dedication as "expected" from them.See Post of 8/13/2008 5:48:00 AM Holly2003 wrote: This is the first studio album under the Queen name with a new singer. It makes perfect sense to make a token acknowledgement or gesture to ex-Queen members at this point.Token aknowledgement? This is what it's all about. It can be a "token aknowledgement" with no emotional content, or it can be the most heartfelt personal dedication... You yourself said: Holly2003 wrote: How much real genuine emotion is in those gestures is only for the sender to gauge |
Holly2003 15.08.2008 16:11 |
Nice selective quoting again. Anyone who wants to read what I've said in context can do so without your negative slant on everything. |
john bodega 16.08.2008 00:59 |
Tero wrote: Sure, I'll take it. But it has to work both ways, not just in your favour. ;)I don't think you quite understand the principle of the thing, then. By definition, it means the simpler explanation is often the right one - your theory spends so much time chasing it's own tail , you could bung "Agatha Christie" on the front and people would buy it. How can a dedication to a guy that's been dead for 17 years be motivated by business? I'd like to know just how the sales would be affected either way? I've read Brian's soapbox irregularly ever since I found out that it existed about 4 years ago... judging by the manifest references to Freddie (sometimes on his birthday, or death-day even?? Can't be sure at the moment.... ) I would think that if Brian does just invoke Freddie's name to 'look' upset, he is going to an awful lot of effort to maintain the act. Seems far fetched to me ... ! |
kingogre 16.08.2008 02:27 |
Tero, youre really pushing it logic-wise.. That we dont know does not equal "anything goes". And that people move on, come on, that doesnt mean they start exploiting the death of their close friens 15 years later. And this is not a question of two sides with different opinions, it is only you who thinks it is this way. But to be honest this isnt a question of "we dont know", we know a whole lot. Have also been reading the sopabox on and off for a couple of years and I agree with Zebonka. From what he writes Brian seems to be a quite emotional guy. Also he apparently had a big lifecrisis when Freddie and his father died at about the same time. Find it very hard to believe that he would so ruthlessly exploit this just 15 years later. |
Tero 16.08.2008 04:16 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Seems far fetched to me ... !No need for further discussion. SEEEMS to you, APPEARS to me. By the way, did you ever find that most vicious quote of mine that made you think of the emperor Perpendicular reference? |
Raf 16.08.2008 08:05 |
Brian has over 80 million pounds, Roger has over 60 million. Paul probably doesn't have much less than those two. Why the fuck would they be so worried about ploting tricks to make the fans buy the album? They do NOT need any money anymore. They're doing this for the fun of making new music and touring. They don't need press attention either: Brian's got quite a lot just because of his book and doctorate, and lately they've often been getting involved with the 46664 project, doing special things related to the WWRY musical, etc, etc. They do not need a new album and a huge evil plan to convince us all that they're making good music and respecting Freddie's legacy (wait... Aren't they ACTUALLY making good music and respecting his legacy?). They do not need attention from the press, neither from the fans. And they don't need the money. As estated above, they've got enough money for a few generations of their families to live with comfort. Plus, they have lots of old tapes in the archives with potential to be released and top the charts (remember On Fire - Live At The Bowl? Remember the Wembley re-release?). I didn't have to "force" anything to write this post. I simply laid down some facts. Your theories, on the other hand, demand a great deal of imagination, which aren't based on any quote by any band member, by any concrete fact at all. You are very, very poor at arguing. What's the point in having accurate spelling and grammar if you make some of the worst rethorical mistakes? |
kingogre 16.08.2008 11:33 |
Well said. I doubt that there is really that much money in an enterprise like this album and tour compared to what they already have and what incomes they have from the regular Queen-activity. And they dont need this kind of cheap publicity campaigns, they got what must be one of the biggest publicity machines in rock behind them. I seriously think that they believe they have something more to prove and that Freddies death prevented them from doing it until they found Paul. |
August R. 16.08.2008 11:50 |
Zebonka12 wrote: How can a dedication to a guy that's been dead for 17 years be motivated by business? I'd like to know just how the sales would be affected either way?Spot on! Who buys an album just because it's dedicated to Freddie? |
john bodega 16.08.2008 13:28 |
Tero wrote: By the way, did you ever find that most vicious quote of mine that made you think of the emperor Perpendicular reference?Find a quote to back up a supposition I never made? Now THAT would be novel! |
Nacho_itu 16.08.2008 13:40 |
As I said before... Tero just has to grow up :) |
john bodega 16.08.2008 23:31 |
Nacho_itu wrote: As I said before... Tero just has to grow up :)Don't hold your breath... It's a discussion I've had (more or less verbatim) with lunar landing conspiracy nuts. Luckily that's more a scientific discussion than anything, and you only have to mention the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment, and the way that the lunar soil moves in a perfect parabolic flight pattern in the old footage (read : not possible in Earth atmosphere), and they shut their faces. How I wish that were applicable to Queen conspiracies, haha! |
Tero 17.08.2008 04:21 |
Zebonka12 wrote:Here's that off-the-cuff hyperbole of yours which I'm referring to. Surely this implies that I think Brian is Emperor Purplepants, or I wouldn't be able to have such a cynical view of his motivations? Or maybe you could tell what you really mean, and I'll apologise.Tero wrote: By the way, did you ever find that most vicious quote of mine that made you think of the emperor Perpendicular reference?Find a quote to back up a supposition I never made? Now THAT would be novel! Zebonka12 wrote 8/13/2008 8:33:00 AM: Let's not get bogged down in semantics. My theory is based on the assumption that Brian May is not Emperor Palpatine (yet). |
Tero 17.08.2008 04:52 |
Raf wrote: They're doing this for the fun of making new music and touring.Actually, that's not strictly true. They did that as solo artists for no significant financial gain, but that wasn't enough for them... In 2004 the same people with 100 million pounds and 200 million sold records started using the name of their old band because they wanted MORE money, BIGGER audience, and MORE recognition in the press. It's quite far from "doing this for the fun of making new music and touring". Raf wrote: They don't need press attention eitherThey don't need it, but they want it. A new band with new material and a new name wouldn't gather so much press attention... Using the old name is guaranteed to bring more press attention. They HAVE known this when they chose the name for the group. In essence your post comes down to Raf wrote: They don't need "x"while anybody on this message board will know by now that they have gotten "x" anyway, and it was bound to happen with the choices they made four years ago. |
john bodega 17.08.2008 05:22 |
Tero wrote: Surely this implies that I think Brian is Emperor Purplepants, or I wouldn't be able to have such a cynical view of his motivations? Or maybe you could tell what you really mean, and I'll apologise.This might come as a shock, but 'it's not always about you'. I was really referring to my own observations of Brian. |
Tero 17.08.2008 05:45 |
Zebonka12 wrote:In this context it certainly does come as a shock, and surely you can see how I could make the mistake? Especially since you didn't find it necessary to tell this before.Tero wrote: Surely this implies that I think Brian is Emperor Purplepants, or I wouldn't be able to have such a cynical view of his motivations? Or maybe you could tell what you really mean, and I'll apologise.This might come as a shock, but 'it's not always about you'. I was really referring to my own observations of Brian. But now that you finally have explained it, I'll be happy to apologise for pressing on that point. |
kingogre 17.08.2008 07:08 |
Tero wrote:And this comes from someone who just yesterday stated that "we dont know the feelings of the band".Raf wrote: They're doing this for the fun of making new music and touring.Actually, that's not strictly true. They did that as solo artists for no significant financial gain, but that wasn't enough for them... In 2004 the same people with 100 million pounds and 200 million sold records started using the name of their old band because they wanted MORE money, BIGGER audience, and MORE recognition in the press. It's quite far from "doing this for the fun of making new music and touring".Raf wrote: They don't need press attention eitherThey don't need it, but they want it. A new band with new material and a new name wouldn't gather so much press attention... Using the old name is guaranteed to bring more press attention. They HAVE known this when they chose the name for the group. In essence your post comes down toRaf wrote: They don't need "x"while anybody on this message board will know by now that they have gotten "x" anyway, and it was bound to happen with the choices they made four years ago. Where did you get this information? Cause I sure havent seen it anywhere before and Ive been following this band for some time. |
Tero 17.08.2008 12:18 |
kingogre wrote:How about using the occam's razor? :PTero wrote:And this comes from someone who just yesterday stated that "we dont know the feelings of the band". Where did you get this information? Cause I sure havent seen it anywhere before and Ive been following this band for some time.Raf wrote: They're doing this for the fun of making new music and touring.Actually, that's not strictly true. They did that as solo artists for no significant financial gain, but that wasn't enough for them... In 2004 the same people with 100 million pounds and 200 million sold records started using the name of their old band because they wanted MORE money, BIGGER audience, and MORE recognition in the press. It's quite far from "doing this for the fun of making new music and touring".Raf wrote: They don't need press attention eitherThey don't need it, but they want it. A new band with new material and a new name wouldn't gather so much press attention... Using the old name is guaranteed to bring more press attention. They HAVE known this when they chose the name for the group. In essence your post comes down toRaf wrote: They don't need "x"while anybody on this message board will know by now that they have gotten "x" anyway, and it was bound to happen with the choices they made four years ago. 1) We know they were perfectly happy to use their solo names until the turn of the millennium. 2) We know they were more than happy to give away the Queen name for every cover version of WWRY. 3) We know afterwards they didn't want to use their solo names anymore. The simplest and most logical path for them to continue was to used the established solo names... Unless you count in the factor that they WANT to use the band name instead. And why would they use the band name? Would they have struggled finding a recording contract? Would they have been denied the possibility of performing in front of audiences? Would anybody have denied them them from playing Queen songs in their concerts? Can you find a single reason (other than larger public recognition) why they would have chosen to RETURN to the use of the Queen name after using their solo names for a decade? (Or maybe this argument only comes down to some people wanting to see any combination of the four members calling themselves Queen...) If they had used the Queen name all long after 1991, I wouldn't have any basis for my claim. Now they have made a change in what they want to be called, and that HAS an ulterior motive beyond music. |
kingogre 17.08.2008 12:57 |
You dont really know what Occams razor is do you? |
Tero 17.08.2008 15:49 |
Really, think about this for a moment. Brian, Roger, Freddie, and John write albums as Queen. Brian and Roger write albums as Brian and Roger. Brian and Roger remix the existing tracks of Queen as Queen. Brian and Roger go into the studio and write an album as Queen. Can you see where the logic fails if you try to pass of all of these as the simplest name choices? This is the part where people get creative with the "Freddie wanted them to continue as Queen" and "John endorses them using the Queen name" arguments of which there is no proof. Without those claims it's absolutely clear that Brian and Roger should use the name "Brian and Roger". All the rest what I said (recognition, audiences, money etc.) are inevitable byproducts and/or reasons for choosing the Queen name instead of another one. |
kingogre 18.08.2008 02:58 |
Occams razor doesnt work that way. What you are doing is something completely else. The simplest explanations are that their solocareers didnt get anywhere even as they worked their asses off so they tired of them or maybe that they felt ready to "be Queen". Cause I dont think they wanted to quit in the first place. Part of why they are doing this now is probably because they feel robbed by the death of Freddie. They were forced to quit even though they still had a lot of music in them. Like Elton John once said: "It must be like having the worlds greatest Cadillac in the garage and not have a driving license". And seriously what is wrong with wanting as many people as possible to hear the music? What would you have done yourself? And a Taylor May Rodgers project would have been a new name as well without relation to their solocareers so the link is really thin. What would have been the point in settling for a lot less people hearing the results of the two years of hard work they put in when they have the right to use one of the biggest brand names in rock history? Cause every member agree that it is theirs to use. As Ive said before there is simply too little money and too much risk in this to be a quick moneygrabber. They want to make music, they want to tour again and they want to show the world that they still can cut it. Do you think Freddie would have agreed with your reasoning? Do you think he would have been pissed off that Brian and Roger is using the Queen-name? Do you think he would have told the others on his deathbed to quit when he was gone? |
john bodega 18.08.2008 03:34 |
kingogre wrote: You dont really know what Occams razor is do you?I don't think he does. However I did link to the Wikipedia article in the hope that people might at least try to understand the principle of the thing. Basically, it's not good enough to come up with a overwrought and complicated explanation for something and say 'it's the simplest explanation'. |
gnomo 18.08.2008 03:40 |
as PieterMC wisely wrote a few pages back: Basically Brian and Roger are fucked either way. |
Tero 18.08.2008 04:13 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Basically, it's not good enough to come up with a overwrought and complicated explanation for something and say 'it's the simplest explanation'.So let's make a whole new principle... We'll call it fuckwit's razor in honour of me. :P What it basically says it that "if two aging rock stars only want to make music, they will use the name that is most descriptive of them in their current situation." It means that the easiest and most logical name choice for Brian and Roger (after releasing albums as Brian and Roger) is to call themselves Brian+Roger. Whenever these rock stars choose to use another name from their past, there is an ulterior motive behind them. Some people say that motive is "Freddie wanted them to continue as Queen" (yet they didn't continue as Queen for a decade...), and some people say the reason is because want to have fame & fortune (yet they already have fame & fortune..). The logical progression from these two opinions are that a) it's a nice touch to dedicate the new album to Freddie, and b) it's yet another calculated move in a long series of calculated moves. |
Brian_Mays_Wig 18.08.2008 04:56 |
Two words....molehills and mountains. So what if its dedicated to Freddie. Ive read the whole of this topic and really cant get my head around the lot of you arguing! I think 95% of fans would much rather go and see Q+PR than May, Taylor, Rogers whatever and also it appeals to the wider audience as opposed to the die hard fans. Grow up. (oh and for the record, I think its a nice touch to mention Fred and John) |
Holly2003 18.08.2008 05:01 |
Tero wrote:As someone asked earlier, who buys a record because there is a small dedication in the sleeve notes. Wise up tero.Zebonka12 wrote: Basically, it's not good enough to come up with a overwrought and complicated explanation for something and say 'it's the simplest explanation'.So let's make a whole new principle... We'll call it fuckwit's razor in honour of me. :P What it basically says it that "if two aging rock stars only want to make music, they will use the name that is most descriptive of them in their current situation." It means that the easiest and most logical name choice for Brian and Roger (after releasing albums as Brian and Roger) is to call themselves Brian+Roger. Whenever these rock stars choose to use another name from their past, there is an ulterior motive behind them. Some people say that motive is "Freddie wanted them to continue as Queen" (yet they didn't continue as Queen for a decade...), and some people say the reason is because want to have fame & fortune (yet they already have fame & fortune..). The logical progression from these two opinions are that a) it's a nice touch to dedicate the new album to Freddie, and b) it's yet another calculated move in a long series of calculated moves. |
Tero 18.08.2008 05:44 |
Holly2003 wrote: As someone asked earlier, who buys a record because there is a small dedication in the sleeve notes. Wise up tero.No one buys records because of the dedications in them, I've never claimed that. Come to think of it, no one really advertises their dedications beforehand either, or spends a whole paragraph on them at the beginning of a three page press release. You don't suppose there's any reason why the QPR marketing machine sees this as such an important issue to tell the readers? To me that DOES sound odd. |
Holly2003 18.08.2008 06:11 |
Tero wrote:What exactly are you claiming then?Holly2003 wrote: As someone asked earlier, who buys a record because there is a small dedication in the sleeve notes. Wise up tero.No one buys records because of the dedications in them, I've never claimed that. Come to think of it, no one really advertises their dedications beforehand either, or spends a whole paragraph on them at the beginning of a three page press release. You don't suppose there's any reason why the QPR marketing machine sees this as such an important issue to tell the readers? To me that DOES sound odd. |
Tero 18.08.2008 07:10 |
Holly2003 wrote: What exactly are you claiming then?I'm claiming that Brian and Roger have chosen to use the Queen name for own their personal gain, and subsequently made a big deal about dedicating this album to Freddie in an effort to appease that segment of the Queen fans who don't like the two of them using the Queen name. If you don't mind me asking, have you ever seen another press release opening with information about who the forthcoming album is dedicated to? |
Holly2003 18.08.2008 07:57 |
Tero wrote:Why would they give a toss about those fans if they aren't going to buy the cd anyway? Presumably these fans will continue to buy releases of pre-QPR stuff so that's not an issue. Your whole argument is about cynical manipulation of fans for profit and yet you admit there's no profit to be made from "the Queen fans who don't like the two of them using the Queen name". As you say, "No one buys records because of the dedications in them."Holly2003 wrote: What exactly are you claiming then?I'm claiming that Brian and Roger have chosen to use the Queen name for own their personal gain, and subsequently made a big deal about dedicating this album to Freddie in an effort to appease that segment of the Queen fans who don't like the two of them using the Queen name. If you don't mind me asking, have you ever seen another press release opening with information about who the forthcoming album is dedicated to? |
Tero 18.08.2008 08:02 |
Holly2003 wrote: Why would they give a toss about those fans if they aren't going to buy the cd anyway? Presumably these fans will continue to buy releases of pre-QPR stuff so that's not an issue.Yeah, they will continue to buy the products unless they get really pised of at the remains of the band. If they would keep on releasing quality products of the original band, it wouldn't be an issue at all. However if they keep re-releasing the same material over and over again, they are going to have to stay on the good side of every possible fan. |
Holly2003 18.08.2008 08:16 |
Tero wrote:That is so weak. You are getting further and further away from reality.Holly2003 wrote: Why would they give a toss about those fans if they aren't going to buy the cd anyway? Presumably these fans will continue to buy releases of pre-QPR stuff so that's not an issue.Yeah, they will continue to buy the products unless they get really pised of at the remains of the band. If they would keep on releasing quality products of the original band, it wouldn't be an issue at all. However if they keep re-releasing the same material over and over again, they are going to have to stay on the good side of every possible fan. |
Tero 18.08.2008 08:34 |
Holly2003 wrote: That is so weak. You are getting further and further away from reality.If I'm so far off from reality, maybe you with your rational mind can think why Brian and Roger feel it's so important to highlight their dedication to Freddie? The press release (by paragraph) includes: - release date - highlighting their shared credits - dedication to freddie - paul replacing freddie - freddie's stage presence - freddie's admiration of paul - the chemistry between them - structure of the songs - structure of the album - structure of albums by other artists - details of recordinf sessions - details of first songle - review of the first single - list of other songs on the album - different versions of the album - the tour - main information of the album As much as 20% of the three(?) page press release centers around the dedication to Freddie, how Paul is stepping in the place of Freddie who's still worshipped, and how Freddie admired Paul... And this is most of page one! If you can honestly say that's absolutely normal and there isn't even a hint of overcompensation there, I promise never to post in this topic again. ;) |
Holly2003 18.08.2008 08:46 |
Tero wrote:First things first: can you provide any proof that Brian & Roger wrote the press release?Holly2003 wrote: That is so weak. You are getting further and further away from reality.If I'm so far off from reality, maybe you with your rational mind can think why Brian and Roger feel it's so important to highlight their dedication to Freddie? The press release (by paragraph) includes: - release date - highlighting their shared credits - dedication to freddie - paul replacing freddie - freddie's stage presence - freddie's admiration of paul - the chemistry between them - structure of the songs - structure of the album - structure of albums by other artists - details of recordinf sessions - details of first songle - review of the first single - list of other songs on the album - different versions of the album - the tour - main information of the album As much as 20% of the three(?) page press release centers around the dedication to Freddie, how Paul is stepping in the place of Freddie who's still worshipped, and how Freddie admired Paul... And this is most of page one! If you can honestly say that's absolutely normal and there isn't even a hint of overcompensation there, I promise never to post in this topic again. ;) |
Tero 18.08.2008 09:52 |
Holly2003 wrote: First things first: can you provide any proof that Brian & Roger wrote the press release?This is the official statement made in the name of the band, and where this whole discussion started from. This is as official as any other statement featured in the press ("Freddie wanted us to continue as Queen" etc.), and if you don't take it as their opinion, what is there left to believe in? I think you're using this as an excuse to avoid the question, so I'll rephrase it for you... If the press statement was personally written by Brian and Roger, would you think the emphasis on Freddie at the start is standard advertising practice, or would you think it has been intentionally placed there to try and connect this project to Freddie? Hypothetically speaking, of course. Again, if you think it wouldn't be the slightest bit odd, this discussion ends with this message on my part |
Holly2003 18.08.2008 10:03 |
Tero wrote:So your answer is no, you don't have any proof whatsoever that brian & Roger wrote the press statement. Which destroys the credibilty of this particular part of your ...err... "argument".Holly2003 wrote: First things first: can you provide any proof that Brian & Roger wrote the press release?This is the official statement made in the name of the band, and where this whole discussion started from. This is as official as any other statement featured in the press ("Freddie wanted us to continue as Queen" etc.), and if you don't take it as their opinion, what is there left to believe in? I think you're using this as an excuse to avoid the question, so I'll rephrase it for you... If the press statement was personally written by Brian and Roger, would you think the emphasis on Freddie at the start is standard advertising practice, or would you think it has been intentionally placed there to try and connect this project to Freddie? Hypothetically speaking, of course. Again, if you think it wouldn't be the slightest bit odd, this discussion ends with this message on my part Incidentally, don't think I haven't noticed that you are now rambling on about the press release rather then the dedication itself. There's no real reply to my comments posted 8/18/2008 8:16:00 AM is there? Your circular arguments are self-defeating and it's a streeeeeeeeeeeetch way beyond any reasonable logic to argue as you do that Queen + Paul Rodgers have only inserted a dedication to ensure that the Freddie-groupies who WON'T buy anything to do with Q+PR will continue to buy re-releases of older material. |
Tero 18.08.2008 10:14 |
Holly2003 wrote: So your answer is no, you don't have any proof whatsoever that brian & Roger wrote the press statement. Which destroys the credibilty of this particular part of your ...err... "argument".So by that technicality you refuse to give an answer which could be even slightly supportive of my stance? I hope you remember in every discussion from now on that you can trust only those things Brian and Roger has personally told you... That means no more interviews, no more articles, no more press releases, no more Brian May's soapbox. That removes about 99.999% of all reference material, but hey, at least you didn't have to answer my question. ;) |
Tero 18.08.2008 10:17 |
Holly2003 wrote: There's no real reply to my comments posted 8/18/2008 8:16:00 AM is there?You mean this one? Holly2003 wrote: That is so weak. You are getting further and further away from reality.What kind of a "real reply" do you expect from me? Personal insults? |
Holly2003 18.08.2008 10:33 |
Tero wrote:It's not a technicality at all, it gets to the heart of your little side argument. If Brian may and Rogert taylor didn't write it then you can't use it as evidence of the reasoning behind THEIR dedication on the CD. In fact, your argument isn't even that coherent: you are arguing that because the press release mentions the dedication, that means the dedication has some ulterior motive. This argument is simply idiotic. As is clear to anyone not suffering from conspiracy delusions, the bits about the Fred dedication are not quotes from Taylor and May. For all you know, it was written by a PR rep or a managment employee and mentioing the dedicatio had nothing to do with May & Taylor. And yet you are making a huge issue of it.Holly2003 wrote: So your answer is no, you don't have any proof whatsoever that brian & Roger wrote the press statement. Which destroys the credibilty of this particular part of your ...err... "argument".So by that technicality you refuse to give an answer which could be even slightly supportive of my stance? I hope you remember in every discussion from now on that you can trust only those things Brian and Roger has personally told you... That means no more interviews, no more articles, no more press releases, no more Brian May's soapbox. That removes about 99.999% of all reference material, but hey, at least you didn't have to answer my question. ;) As for the rest, a nice attempt to sidetrack once again but I think you know you've argued yourself into a dead end. |
Holly2003 18.08.2008 10:34 |
Tero wrote:Selective quoting from you once again. Here's the gist of it again for you since you appear to have forgotten how and whn your argument died:Holly2003 wrote: There's no real reply to my comments posted 8/18/2008 8:16:00 AM is there?You mean this one?Holly2003 wrote: That is so weak. You are getting further and further away from reality.What kind of a "real reply" do you expect from me? Personal insults? TERO: I'm claiming that Brian and Roger have chosen to use the Queen name for own their personal gain, and subsequently made a big deal about dedicating this album to Freddie in an effort to appease that segment of the Queen fans who don't like the two of them using the Queen name. ME: Why would they give a toss about those fans if they aren't going to buy the cd anyway? Presumably these fans will continue to buy releases of pre-QPR stuff so that's not an issue. Your whole argument is about cynical manipulation of fans for profit and yet you admit there's no profit to be made from "the Queen fans who don't like the two of them using the Queen name". As you say, "No one buys records because of the dedications in them." |
Tero 18.08.2008 10:42 |
Holly2003 wrote:It is a technicality, as this whole topic revolves around a couple of sentences from the press release you now claim has no bearing in this discussion!Tero wrote:It's not a technicality at all, it gets to the heart of your little side argument. If Brian may and Rogert taylor didn't write it then you can't use it as evidence of the reasoning behind THEIR dedication on the CD. The bits about Fred's dedication are not quotes from them. For all you know, it was written by a PR rep or a managment employee and mentioing the dedicatio had nothing to do with NMa & Taylor. And yet you are making a huge issue of it. As for the rest, a nice attempt to sidetrack once again but I think you know you've argued yoruself into a dead end.Holly2003 wrote: So your answer is no, you don't have any proof whatsoever that brian & Roger wrote the press statement. Which destroys the credibilty of this particular part of your ...err... "argument".So by that technicality you refuse to give an answer which could be even slightly supportive of my stance? I hope you remember in every discussion from now on that you can trust only those things Brian and Roger has personally told you... That means no more interviews, no more articles, no more press releases, no more Brian May's soapbox. That removes about 99.999% of all reference material, but hey, at least you didn't have to answer my question. ;) "A dedication to Freddie? The PR rep or management employee must have put that in there, because it's not a quote from Brian!" See how silly it sounds from the other side? |
Tero 18.08.2008 10:50 |
Holly2003 wrote:No selective quoting there. I gave my reply to your question, and your only reply wasTero wrote:Selective quoting from you once again. Here's the gist of it again for you since you appear to have forgotten how and whn your argument died: TERO: I'm claiming that Brian and Roger have chosen to use the Queen name for own their personal gain, and subsequently made a big deal about dedicating this album to Freddie in an effort to appease that segment of the Queen fans who don't like the two of them using the Queen name. ME: Why would they give a toss about those fans if they aren't going to buy the cd anyway? Presumably these fans will continue to buy releases of pre-QPR stuff so that's not an issue. Your whole argument is about cynical manipulation of fans for profit and yet you admit there's no profit to be made from "the Queen fans who don't like the two of them using the Queen name". As you say, "No one buys records because of the dedications in them."Holly2003 wrote: There's no real reply to my comments posted 8/18/2008 8:16:00 AM is there?You mean this one?Holly2003 wrote: That is so weak. You are getting further and further away from reality.What kind of a "real reply" do you expect from me? Personal insults? Holly2003 wrote: That is so weak. You are getting further and further away from reality.If you don't like my theory and don't want to discuss it, that's fine by me. You finished that particular avenue of discussion with the non-topical insults, and I tried to steer the discussion back to the actual topic again. |
Micrówave 18.08.2008 11:02 |
Tero wrote: I tried to steer the discussion back to the actual topic again.Which is that you think Brian should dedicate everything that comes out of his body to Mr. Freddie Mercury. Zebonka mentioned the John Lennon - Yoko connection, and that's a good one to grab onto, I think. Just "imagine" what everybody would start thinking if Brian did that. How would Anita feel? How would Jim Hutton feel? I don't think Brian wants to go down the whole "jealous wife" route again, do you? |
Tero 18.08.2008 11:06 |
Microwave wrote: Which is that you think Brian should dedicate everything that comes out of his body to Mr. Freddie Mercury.Did you actually read the post of mine from which I quoted to you a few pages ago? Here's the whole thing in case you missed it from page one: Tero wrote: What I personally think is that as long as they are using the Queen name, they have to keep mentioning Freddie in an effort to not piss off those people who were fans of the band with four members. If they were releasing solo albums or had come up with a new name for the band, no one would expect them to mention Freddie... Freddie isn't mentioned on the credits of Brian's Live At Brixton Academy and Furia, or Roger's Electric Fire album, and no one thinks Brian and Roger are heartless bastards because of that. The dedication is nothing more than an "insurance" they can use against people who say they're ignoring Freddie as an integral part of the band.Does that sound like I expect them to dedicate everything to Queen? |
Holly2003 18.08.2008 11:07 |
Your argument is weak and devoid of reality. If that is an insult then fine by me. So Brian may and Roger taylor are only including a dedication to Fred on the first new album by Queen with a new singer to ensure that freddie-groupies who won't even buy the album will, however, continue to buy re-releases of old albums. And yet you said yourself that a dedication such as this has no effect whatsoever on whether someone will make a purchase. If that's the case how can it suddenly develop the power to influence the purchasing choices of Queen fans in the future? The answer is, of course, that it can't. It's ridiculous, an obvious case of someone twisting the "evidence" to conform with their pre-conceived notions of guilt rather than looking at the evidence logically and drawing reasonable conclusions from that. |
Micrówave 18.08.2008 11:23 |
In fact, here for you is my OFFICIAL COSMOS ROCKS LINER NOTES for Tero. Just print this page, grab some scissors and scotch tape and amend your CD booklet when it comes: QUEEN + PAUL RODGERS* (*which really means a couple of guys from the former band 'Queen Featuring Freddie Mercury' and Paul Rodgers who really liked Freddie Mercury. 1. Cosmos Rockin' (Dedicated to the Immortal Spirit of Freddie Mercury) .......We wrote this song because we know that somewhere Freddie's got the Cosmos Rockin'!! 2. Time To Shine .......Roger and Paul wrote this and I completely changed the lyrics about when Freddie changed .......our band Smile and took over and made us Shine. 3. Still Burnin' .......Dedicated to the funeral home that handled Freddie's final ceremony. You could cremate .......the body, but the Rock & Roll is Still Burnin' 4. Small .......We wrote this one about how we felt whenever we recorded, toured, partied, with Freddie 5. Warboys .......Dedicated to our AIDS awareness campaign. The battle is far from over!!! .......We miss you Freddie. 6. We Believe .......I wrote this one with Laura Branigan back in 1989 but she's not gonna need the songwriting .......credit anymore so I thought I'd add Freddie's instead. Laura really liked Freddie. 7. Call Me .......Roger's last words to Freddie put in a song. That seems to be Rogers last words to everyone, .......followed by that cheeky little thumb to the ear-pinky to the mouth hand sign. 8. Voodoo .......Paul came up with this crazy way to make him sing better by having a seance with Roger and .......myself. About ten minutes in all the candles blew out and the doors locked. The next thing .......you know, we're having a conversation with Freddie from beyond. And Paul really does .......sound better! 9. Some Things That Glitter .......A song about Freddie and his cats 10. C-lebrity .......We're really behind this song, about how all you need to be is on TV to be .......considered a talent. Freddie was a talent, these kids these days? 11. Through The Night .......Ever since 1991, Roger and I haven't been able to sleep really good. I wrote this .......lullaby with Paul and added some Rock & Roll, every now and then Roger nods off .......right in the middle of the Bridge so we borrowed David Richard's drum machine. 12. Say It's Not True .......Roger's sappy song he wrote about John Deacon leaving the band. Later I completely .......changed the lyrics to bring out his true feelings about losing Freddie. 13. Surf's Up . . . School's Out ! .......A lot of people thought that "Hang Ten" comment Freddie used to say was some .......kind of gay code, but really all Freddie wanted to do was surf. 14. (small reprise) .......We had thirty eight minutes left from Track 13. Here it is. On his way to .......Heaven, Freddie hit a couple of speed bumps. Special Thanks to: Freddie Mercury, Anita Dobson, the lot of whores Roger's been running around with, and Mrs. Paul Rodgers... who all really loved Freddie. No thanks to: John Deacon, Spike Edney, Danny Miranda, Jamie Moses, The Mary Austin Living Trust, and everyone else I have to pay to get this record profitable! |
john bodega 19.08.2008 04:47 |
If they weren't using the Queen name and they dedicated it to Freddie, what would you say then? What if they didn't mention Freddie at all but used the Queen name anyway? I like the possibilities here, ha-ha. |
Togg 19.08.2008 05:04 |
To add my thoughts here seem pointless, as it seems less a discussion and more two camps that will never budge on their opinion. However... Brian and Roger have no need to mention Freddie evrytime they release something, everyone who knows the name Queen will know he was part of that business.. Note I say business, yes it is run as such, why wouldn't it be? they are not money grabbing, nobody is pointing a gun to your head and making you buy anything. You have a choice. Freddie was first and foremost their closest friend, so it seems to me perfectly natural to want to mention him on this album, it is after all the first Queen album without him! If they do others I doubt they will do the same again. DO you really think by putting his name on it fans that think Queen is not Queen without him and going to change their view??? No It is what it is pure and simple, a dedication to a friend lost. As for using the Queen name, I can see no reason why not, They are after all perfectly intitled to do so they were 50% of it, they play the smae music at concerts, so to go out under the name of The ABIGBAND Group and play 98% Queen songs would be rediculas. They wrote or co-wrote the songs so why not play them? As for the argument of why carry on, I'm 100% with Roger, it's what they do... why stop? |
Tero 19.08.2008 10:02 |
Holly2003 wrote: Your argument is weak and devoid of reality. If that is an insult then fine by me. So Brian may and Roger taylor are only including a dedication to Fred on the first new album by Queen with a new singer to ensure that freddie-groupies who won't even buy the album will, however, continue to buy re-releases of old albums. And yet you said yourself that a dedication such as this has no effect whatsoever on whether someone will make a purchase. If that's the case how can it suddenly develop the power to influence the purchasing choices of Queen fans in the future? The answer is, of course, that it can't. It's ridiculous, an obvious case of someone twisting the "evidence" to conform with their pre-conceived notions of guilt rather than looking at the evidence logically and drawing reasonable conclusions from that.One dedication alone doesn't mean that "freddie-groupies who won't even buy the album will, however, continue to buy re-releases of old albums", that's obvious, and something I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED. What that dedication can do, though, is soften the disappointment some people might feel about half of the band continuing as Queen, and make sure they won't drift too far away from the reach of QP when the next "proper" Queen release comes along. The Queen fans aren't just composed of "QPR fans" and "Freddie groupies". There are segments in between those two which could be swayed one way or the other. Even the slightest gesture can mean the difference of selling dozens of records in the future, and it's a move any business CAN'T afford to ignore. You don't have to like my opinions, and you can shrug off any logic and reasoning I have by just saying that "I'm getting further and further away from reality". It's not very nice or productive (let alone indicative of your superior reasoning), but it is absolutely your right. |
Micrówave 19.08.2008 12:12 |
Tero wrote: What that dedication can do, though, is soften the disappointment some people might feel about half of the band continuing as Queen, and make sure they won't drift too far away from the reach of QP when the next "proper" Queen release comes along.In your opinion. You see, that's the problem, Tero. You're so convinced that YOU are correct. But let me clue you in on something. THE DEDICATION VERBIAGE IS NOT VISIBLE UNTIL AFTER YOU OPEN THE CD!!!! So how will they see this dedication without buying the CD? An in-store display copy? I've worked at a record store before and NEVER had anyone come into the store wanting to see the CD booklet before buying the album. 99.99% of people would rather HEAR the CD not read it. But, if the .001% of the Queen listening public (you) want to see that first, knock yourself out. |
Tero 19.08.2008 12:36 |
Microwave wrote:If you had actually read my entire message, you would know by now that I'm not talking about buying THIS release. I'm in fact talking about subsequent Queen releases, and how this triumphant announcement of a dedication is going to reach even those people who will not buy the album.Tero wrote: What that dedication can do, though, is soften the disappointment some people might feel about half of the band continuing as Queen, and make sure they won't drift too far away from the reach of QP when the next "proper" Queen release comes along.In your opinion. You see, that's the problem, Tero. You're so convinced that YOU are correct. But let me clue you in on something. THE DEDICATION VERBIAGE IS NOT VISIBLE UNTIL AFTER YOU OPEN THE CD!!!! So how will they see this dedication without buying the CD? An in-store display copy? I've worked at a record store before and NEVER had anyone come into the store wanting to see the CD booklet before buying the album. 99.99% of people would rather HEAR the CD not read it. But, if the .001% of the Queen listening public (you) want to see that first, knock yourself out. But hey, feel free to ignore this message as well, and write another reply to the message you THINK I wrote instead of the one I actually DID write. That is what you have been doing all the way through this topic. |
Holly2003 19.08.2008 12:59 |
Tero wrote:So you've moved from "Queen fans" to "those Queen fans who won't but the new album" to "some Queen fans". If you keep qualifying your argument, soon you'll be able to name these Queen fans. Or fan.Holly2003 wrote: Your argument is weak and devoid of reality. If that is an insult then fine by me. So Brian may and Roger taylor are only including a dedication to Fred on the first new album by Queen with a new singer to ensure that freddie-groupies who won't even buy the album will, however, continue to buy re-releases of old albums. And yet you said yourself that a dedication such as this has no effect whatsoever on whether someone will make a purchase. If that's the case how can it suddenly develop the power to influence the purchasing choices of Queen fans in the future? The answer is, of course, that it can't. It's ridiculous, an obvious case of someone twisting the "evidence" to conform with their pre-conceived notions of guilt rather than looking at the evidence logically and drawing reasonable conclusions from that.One dedication alone doesn't mean that "freddie-groupies who won't even buy the album will, however, continue to buy re-releases of old albums", that's obvious, and something I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED. What that dedication can do, though, is soften the disappointment some people might feel about half of the band continuing as Queen, and make sure they won't drift too far away from the reach of QP when the next "proper" Queen release comes along. The Queen fans aren't just composed of "QPR fans" and "Freddie groupies". There are segments in between those two which could be swayed one way or the other. Even the slightest gesture can mean the difference of selling dozens of records in the future, and it's a move any business CAN'T afford to ignore. |
Nacho_itu 19.08.2008 14:07 |
OMG.... this thread still goes on... For god's sake, Tero, you are SO right. In fact, we should burn the new album in the streets, because Brian is evil, and so is Roger, and don't even mention Paul!!! oh, old grumpy Brian, I can't believe that you dedicated this album to Freddie... you cheater, you only want money to buy slaves from africa. tero, THANK YOU, really thank you for telling us the truth. |
Micrówave 19.08.2008 14:21 |
Tero wrote: I'm in fact talking about subsequent Queen releases, and how this triumphant announcement of a dedication is going to reach even those people who will not buy the album.I'm starting to wonder if you're just a moron. 1. Subsequent Queen releases? Slow down, buddy. We have had 1 since 1991. So in another 17 years, is any Queen fan going to be alive or able to read the dedication for the 2nd subsequent Queen release? 2. Is Parlophone (and Hollywood) aware of these subsequent releases and ready to shoot the promotional works for them? Don't you think they want to see where this album goes first? (FYI, Hollywood is just barely hanging on right now) 3. Please name a similar "triumphant announcement" that has had similar results? Led Zep? No. Beatles? No. The John Tesh band? No. 4. People who will not buy the album. Why do these people matter? So Brian, Roger, and Paul should write liner notes FOR PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT BUY THE ALBUM. And, using your logic, they will magically know the contents of those liner notes from a Yahoo Liner Notes group, then? Please feel free NOT to address my retorts, as you think I'm not addressing yours. It's fun. Would you like to talk about how the fashion industry is going to use the colors of Mustard in determining the next season's choices? |
Micrówave 19.08.2008 14:25 |
Holly2003 wrote: So you've moved from "Queen fans" to "those Queen fans who won't buy the new album" to "some Queen fans". If you keep qualifying your argument, soon you'll be able to name these Queen fans. Or fan.We're pretty much down to Larry, Bob, and Steve. And Steve's wavering... |
Tero 19.08.2008 14:26 |
Holly2003 wrote: So you've moved from "Queen fans" to "those Queen fans who won't but the new album" to "some Queen fans". If you keep qualifying your argument, soon you'll be able to name these Queen fans. Or fan.I just read through the whole topic again, and I found these three references I wrote about Queen fans: Tero wrote: they have to keep mentioning Freddie in an effort to not piss off those people who were fans of the band with four members. Tero wrote: I'm claiming that Brian and Roger have chosen to use the Queen name for own their personal gain, and subsequently made a big deal about dedicating this album to Freddie in an effort to appease that segment of the Queen fans who don't like the two of them using the Queen name. Tero wrote: What that dedication can do, though, is soften the disappointment some people might feel about half of the band continuing as Queen, and make sure they won't drift too far away from the reach of QP when the next "proper" Queen release comes along."those people who were fans of the band with four members" "the segment of Queen fans who don't like the two of them using the Queen name" "some people might feel [disappointed] about half of the band continuing as Queen" Admittedly you can interpret the first one to mean everyone who has ever been a Queen fan (including the current QPR fans), but it wouldn't really be wise to claim the dedication is trying to appease the QPR fans as well, would it? :P After the context of the two other references to the fans who "don't like half of the band continuing as Queen", all three sound very consistent to me. |
Tero 19.08.2008 14:29 |
Microwave wrote: So Brian, Roger, and Paul should write liner notes FOR PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT BUY THE ALBUM.This isn't actually about a liner note, you know? It's about the majority of page one on the latest press release which is posted on all the Queen message boards and websites. I'd say the message is being announced to everyone, regardless of whether they're buying the album or not. |
Holly2003 19.08.2008 14:43 |
I have emailed brian to tell him that his diabolical plan has worked and that his gesture has, according to tero, saved Brian and Roger from losing literally dozens of sales of the future rerelease of Live Magic. I expect he will go out and buy another mansion to celebrate. |
Tero 19.08.2008 14:50 |
Holly2003 wrote: [a wonderful piece of sarcasm]Did you read the quotes of what I have ACTUALLY written in this topic? Has there been that major shift in the number of people I say this dedication is aimed at? |
kingogre 19.08.2008 15:11 |
"literally dozens" good one..:) |
Holly2003 19.08.2008 15:18 |
Tero wrote:You mean when you said "Even the slightest gesture can mean the difference of selling dozens of records in the future, and it's a move any business CAN'T afford to ignore." I'm sure Brian's devious mind has therefore saved him literally dozens of pounds in future sales. Who knows, with this future wealth now guaranteed by his disingenuis tribute to fred, he may now celebrate by going to the cinema. By himself.Holly2003 wrote: [a wonderful piece of sarcasm]Did you read the quotes of what I have ACTUALLY written in this topic? |
Tero 19.08.2008 16:03 |
Holly2003 wrote:That's a VERY conservative estimate, but the general principle is still the same:Tero wrote:You mean when you said "Even the slightest gesture can mean the difference of selling dozens of records in the future, and it's a move any business CAN'T afford to ignore." I'm sure Brian's devious mind has therefore saved him literally dozens of pounds in future sales. Who knows, with this future wealth now guaranteed by his disingenuis tribute to fred, he may now celebrate by going to the cinema. By himself.Holly2003 wrote: [a wonderful piece of sarcasm]Did you read the quotes of what I have ACTUALLY written in this topic? With those sales increases a one sentence dedication which takes about 10 seconds to write would bring them the amounts of money regular people earn in a day (25 buyers x 10 future releases x £ 0.3 each equals to £75). "I'm claiming that Brian and Roger have chosen to use the Queen name for own their personal gain, and subsequently made a big deal about dedicating this album to Freddie in an effort to appease that segment of the Queen fans who don't like the two of them using the Queen name." "Yeah, they will continue to buy the products unless they get really pised of at the remains of the band. If they would keep on releasing quality products of the original band, it wouldn't be an issue at all. However if they keep re-releasing the same material over and over again, they are going to have to stay on the good side of every possible fan." Like many people around here like to point, record business isn't what it used to be. Physical albums don't sell as much as they used to, because most people have already upgraded their collection from vinyl to cd. "Old" artists rely on their old fans to buy special editions, remasters, and other repackagings of their material, and the LAST thing any band such as Queen (with an impressive back catalogue and inferior current output) wants to do is to alienate the old fans. That would be commercial suicide. So yes, damn right they are pulling every card out of their sleeve to keep up the dwindling record sales, and that means even putting up unemotional dedications. Now, unless you or anybody else has a genuinely new point to make, I'm done with this discussion. |
Holly2003 19.08.2008 16:37 |
Surely if Brian is as devious as you say he would've figured out that fans like yourself would see through his transparently fake dedication to Freddie and therefore not buy future products ... or at least only buy as many as they had planned to if there were no dedication. Such a diabolical mastermind would therefore realise that he would lose as many sales as gain. However, MAYBE that's just what he expects us to think, and he may be playing some kind of extremly intricate double or even triple bluff. In that case, the wording of the dedication becomes extremely important. Adding a few more bits of praise for Freddie could exponentially increase future sales. maybe even into the hundreds of pounds, and Brian could then afford to take Anita to the cinema with him to see Batman, or maybe even Wall-E. However, if he knows that people such as tero would see through that then it makes sense that instead of a dedication Brian would actually have dismissed Fred as only a minor figure in Queen and that, in fact, he, Dr. Brian May was actually the most important member of the band. And that explains why there are so many Brian may songs on the tour. And it also explains why the credits "Mercury/May" will be changed to "DR.BRIAN.MAY/mercury" on all future releases. However, Brian knows that fans who are opposed to Q+PR might not like that and therefore THAT'S why Barry Bulsara is innocent of the murder and, ladies and gentlemen, I can reveal to you now this bombshell, BRIAN MAY KILLED JILL DANDO and buried her body under a big W. A big W... It all makes sense now. |
Micrówave 20.08.2008 11:53 |
Tero wrote:You didn't answer my question. Did you look at the three points above? Waiting for you to give an example of this happening with some other band in the past.Microwave wrote: So Brian, Roger, and Paul should write liner notes FOR PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT BUY THE ALBUM.This isn't actually about a liner note, you know? It's about the majority of page one on the latest press release which is posted on all the Queen message boards and websites. I'd say the message is being announced to everyone, regardless of whether they're buying the album or not. And yes, it is a liner note, nothing less, nothing more. Unless you can tell me (without looking) who Sheer Heart Attack was dedicated to? Or how about Thriller? It sold oodles more copies than any Queen album, maybe all of them! Who was Thriller dedicated to? Tito and Jermaine? No one remembers albums for their dedications. |
Tero 20.08.2008 15:19 |
Microwave wrote: -I promised I wouldn't reply to this topic again, but you have changed my mind for this one time... Read this very carefully because I'm not going to repeat it. I don't think I've ever resorted to personal insults on this message board, but you truly are worthy of that "honour". You are an IDIOT who has deliberately and repeatedly ignored everything I wrote and instead claimed I have written something completely different. Even when I gave you direct quotes of my earlier posts, you claimed I said otherwise. I would call you a RETARD but that would be an insult towards the mentally handicapped people. I have more respect towards stepford fans who will unconditionally love everything that comes out with a Queen label, than low-life pondscum like you... At least they would be trying to discuss something with me and referring to my points instead of just making everything up inside their heads. I hope you don't think I'm angry at you, or that your pointless replies would have any bearing on my future posts on this message board. I just wanted to make it ABSOLUTELY clear why you aren't worth talking to. |
john bodega 21.08.2008 00:49 |
Tero wrote: stepford fans who will unconditionally love everything that comes out with a Queen labelThere really aren't that many of them on Queenzone, chap. Do you even pay attention to the manifest threads and comments heaping crap upon the Robbie Williams thing, the shitty assed version of Another One Bites the Dust, the 5ive thing, the Musical.... ? To you; a stepford is someone who likes anything with a Queen label, that you don't like. Tero wrote: I just wanted to make it ABSOLUTELY clear why you aren't worth talking to.And you did this; by talking to him. Bravo! |
Tero 21.08.2008 01:32 |
Zebonka12 wrote:NO, to me a stepford is exactly what I said: somebody who will unconditionally love anything with a Queen label on.Tero wrote: stepford fans who will unconditionally love everything that comes out with a Queen labelThere really aren't that many of them on Queenzone, chap. Do you even pay attention to the manifest threads and comments heaping crap upon the Robbie Williams thing, the shitty assed version of Another One Bites the Dust, the 5ive thing, the Musical.... ? To you; a stepford is someone who likes anything with a Queen label, that you don't like. Luckily there aren't many of them here at QZ (and I've never claimed there to be), but I would still rather have a discussion with any of them instead of people like Microwave for the reason stated above. |
Micrówave 22.08.2008 12:11 |
Tero wrote: but I would still rather have a discussion with any of them instead of people like Microwave for the reason stated above.Cool. By the way, have you heard the one about the one-legged man at an ass kicking contest? That's you. |
Raf 22.08.2008 18:25 |
Microwave wrote:That was better than 97% of Tero's arguments. And funnier than the other 3%.Tero wrote: but I would still rather have a discussion with any of them instead of people like Microwave for the reason stated above.Cool. By the way, have you heard the one about the one-legged man at an ass kicking contest? That's you. |
Major Tom 24.08.2008 07:44 |
I think it's a nice gesture. Period. I'm not gonna throw my self into any arguments whether it is or isn't. I just think it is. |
Micrówave 25.08.2008 18:52 |
Tero wrote: Now, unless you or anybody else has a genuinely new point to make, I'm done with this discussion.I like ham sandwiches. Do you like ham sandwiches? Why or why not? |