| Crisstti 10.03.2009 23:02 |
link Does The Guardian have something against Queen or what?. This is not the first article of this kind I read... but it is the most vicious. It's a review of Freddie Mercury: The Untold Story (an old article). Just how can someone be so vicious when talking about someone else, who has done nothing to them , who they didn't even know...?. The amount of assumptions the writer makes (like he kept playing music until the end because he was too much in love with himself. Fact. Not possibly because maybe he loved music that much... Not to mention what he says about Queen's music. Just amazing. Isn't The Guardian supposed to be a serious newspaper?. I'd be upset, but the article is really so far out... that I'm not. |
| Marcelo_argentina 11.03.2009 06:43 |
yeah totally agree here, but do not forget that you have the power, they have the paper, but you should know that you have the power...keep the good analysis! |
| Mr Mercury 11.03.2009 06:53 |
Now you know not to read tabloid shit like this. They invariably will attack Freddie's sexuality, etc, with an unerring irregularity. Its nearly always the same with these biography books about the band. 80-90% about his homosexuality and a bit about Brian's guitar and his playing finished off with a bit about Roger and John. Boring. |
| Crisstti 11.03.2009 11:40 |
Mr Mercury wrote: Now you know not to read tabloid shit like this. They invariably will attack Freddie's sexuality, etc, with an unerring irregularity. Its nearly always the same with these biography books about the band. 80-90% about his homosexuality and a bit about Brian's guitar and his playing finished off with a bit about Roger and John. Boring. Yeah, but I thought The Guardian was not supossed to be a tabloid paper... |
| Mr Mercury 11.03.2009 11:51 |
Crisstti wrote:Mr Mercury wrote: Now you know not to read tabloid shit like this. They invariably will attack Freddie's sexuality, etc, with an unerring irregularity. Its nearly always the same with these biography books about the band. 80-90% about his homosexuality and a bit about Brian's guitar and his playing finished off with a bit about Roger and John. Boring.Yeah, but I thought The Guardian was not supossed to be a tabloid paper... Sorry I meant to use "tabloid" as a catch all phrase for all types of newspapers. |
| vadenuez 11.03.2009 15:37 |
What a sad existence must this guy be leading when he's so bitter about a rock singer who died seventeen years ago. |
| Amazon 12.03.2009 13:08 |
Disgusting. Not only does the 'writer' make comments about Queen's music which are so extreme that you would think they killed his cat or something, but he makes fun of a guy dying of AIDS!! Horrifying. More so that the Guardian, one of my favourite papers would publish such filth. It's one thing to dislike Queen and Freddie; however the article goes os over the top that one simply has to ask; what the heck has the 'writer' does with his life?! |
| LozIan 12.03.2009 14:18 |
This guy's a fucking moron. All uncalled-for lambasting of a dead man aside, Brain Salad Surgery is an album by Emerson, Lake and Palmer. And (correct me if I'm mistaken here), I believe Queen cracked American quite readily in the 70's. It was only in the 80's that their stateside popularity began to wane. Add some zealous moral gibberish to these mistakes, and I think any hint of credibility is safely flushed away. |
| A_WintersTale 13.03.2009 09:09 |
I remember this article. It was the same that made Brian so angry when it was released. I think you could still find his comments about it in his soapbox. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 13.03.2009 11:28 |
It sounds a lot like jealousy-denied to me. There's more than just dislike of Freddie and Queen in that piece, there's rage. It's useless, actually, and quite pathetic that someone would feel so put out by the fame of another that nary a shred of credit is given to that other person from birth to death. Seriously, how did this opinion piece ever see print... and how was it allowed to go unchallenged by other Guardian opinions? Certainly someone had the balls to disagree with this publicly, no? |
| emma246000 14.03.2009 10:22 |
That article was positively nasty! Its like bad-mouthing the dead! Ugh!! [img=/images/smiley/msn/angry_smile.gif][/img] |
| Crisstti 14.03.2009 13:12 |
It sounds a lot like jealousy-denied to me. There's more than just dislike of Freddie and Queen in that piece, there's rage. It's useless, actually, and quite pathetic that someone would feel so put out by the fame of another that nary a shred of credit is given to that other person from birth to death. Seriously, how did this opinion piece ever see print... and how was it allowed to go unchallenged by other Guardian opinions? Certainly someone had the balls to disagree with this publicly, no? I think you're right. It must be something like that. I might have missed it, but I think the name of the writer of the article is not there. And it's really lowered my opinion of that newspaper, which I thought was supossed to be a serious one. It seems they let people write anything. I doubt you can find something like that in The Sun. |
| Oberon 15.03.2009 16:31 |
This guy worked at Rolling Stone (link which might say it all? It really is a completely bias piece of writing. To suggest that he kept performing just due to vanity is so one sided. He doesn't even entertain the possibility that it could have been the one thing to keep Freddie from dwelling on his plight. And he all but claims that Freddie infected lovers without a care in the world. I mean, I have no doubt that Fred didn't really contemplate the consequences of his actions, but then neither did thousands, maybe millions of other sexually promiscuous people in the 80s. They knew no better, and as homosexuals really didn't believe there could be any problem. And how this writer can know when / if Fred practiced safe sex, I don't know. Even after '85 (when AIDS really hit the top spot) I don't think the message had really hit home. It always takes 2 to tango, If there's anything I've learnt about Freddie from what I've read, it's that he wanted things his way, and his fame and wealth could provide that, but i never get the sense that he went out of his way to upset people. I recall one story about him badgering a female in a restaurant, being quite obscene, but that is only one such anecdote I can recall. Most stories have been very complementary about him. I'm sure he (and Roger probably) did do lots of coke, but he's never let it be an issue (as far as I know). I don't recall him having tantrums like Elton, or getting in to trouble through drugs - never known him be in rehab or anything. So the vicious nature of the article and the picture it paints of Freddie (and Queen) does seem totally one sideded, and doesn't fit with much of what I've read about the band (both the good and the bad). |
| April 15.03.2009 18:08 |
Freddie was a very kind and generous guy. He did nobody harm. And to write such things about him is disgusting. I can't understand people who are so angry, mean, aggressive to somebody who has done nothing bad to them, as some of you also write. Especially to people who died. This could mean either meanness of character or extreme jealousy. But nothing can ruin Freddie's greatness. |
| Crisstti 15.03.2009 23:33 |
This guy worked at Rolling Stone (link which might say it all? It really is a completely bias piece of writing. To suggest that he kept performing just due to vanity is so one sided. He doesn't even entertain the possibility that it could have been the one thing to keep Freddie from dwelling on his plight. And he all but claims that Freddie infected lovers without a care in the world. I mean, I have no doubt that Fred didn't really contemplate the consequences of his actions, but then neither did thousands, maybe millions of other sexually promiscuous people in the 80s. They knew no better, and as homosexuals really didn't believe there could be any problem. And how this writer can know when / if Fred practiced safe sex, I don't know. Even after '85 (when AIDS really hit the top spot) I don't think the message had really hit home. It always takes 2 to tango, If there's anything I've learnt about Freddie from what I've read, it's that he wanted things his way, and his fame and wealth could provide that, but i never get the sense that he went out of his way to upset people. I recall one story about him badgering a female in a restaurant, being quite obscene, but that is only one such anecdote I can recall. Most stories have been very complementary about him. I'm sure he (and Roger probably) did do lots of coke, but he's never let it be an issue (as far as I know). I don't recall him having tantrums like Elton, or getting in to trouble through drugs - never known him be in rehab or anything. So the vicious nature of the article and the picture it paints of Freddie (and Queen) does seem totally one sideded, and doesn't fit with much of what I've read about the band (both the good and the bad). Not just one-sided, but absurd. So the writer worked in Rolling Stone... I know the press usually didn't like Queen, but were they that vicious about them when they were together (you know, before Freddie died)?. Anyone knows?. Becasue I remember reading that article from NME "Is this man a prat" (which is nowhere as nasty as the Guardian one...), and there the writer commented that he had written a not very nice article about the band, and Freddie was obviously really angry about it... I find that article hilarious, really. He's actually very rude with the journalist. If journalists then were publishing articles anywhere near as vicious as the Guardian one, I can certainly understand why he qould be so angry... |