| Queen Matt 27.06.2009 12:32 |
When Freddie died was it like Michael Jackson all over the news for days.and music channels all Freddie & Queen,I was too young to remember. |
| Serry... 27.06.2009 12:58 |
MTV was showing Radio GaGa for about dozen times per day as I remember. They've showed Freddie's images even in our red Soviet TV news in those days. |
| thomasquinn 32989 27.06.2009 13:10 |
The news can't have been too red in November/December 1991... |
| Paulos 27.06.2009 14:26 |
There wasnt the 24 hour news channels back then for stories to dominate, and neither were there many music channels - besides MTV for the minority who had subscriptions to SKY TV. I remember there was a fair deal of coverage of Freddie, particularly in the press, the tabloids ran with it on the front pages for 3 or 4 days, with each day the stories became more distasteful. I remember one headline was sometjing like "Freddie may have killed hundreds". I cant cooment on how the media ran with Freddies death outside of the UK it does feel like theres more coverage of Jacko than Freddie here, although that to an extent is due to the 24 hour media age we live in in 2008, where any news is blown to the biggest size possible to fill the 24 hour schedules. |
| Mayday999 27.06.2009 15:20 |
I can remember that there were lots of reports about him on German TV and they showed some concerts. MTV made a Queen Weekend and showed most of their videos incl. The Magic Years. The newspapers reported a lot about him and other famous victims of the AIDS disease. But I don't think it was like in the UK. In the UK he must have been haunted by the press for months. Over here, in the months after his death, lots of new rumours came up...but we all don't know if these were true e.g. Freddie had an affair with Rudolph Nurejev (famous russian ballet dancer) and so on and on... |
| blackshuck03 27.06.2009 18:46 |
there was endless coverage of freddie's death on tv newspapers etc, was told in uk it was more coverage than death of elvis |
| wstüssyb 27.06.2009 18:51 |
Small newspaper article, and VH1 had a Queen weekend about a month before the tribute concert |
| PieterMC 27.06.2009 19:11 |
I remember non-stop Queen music on the radio. |
| mike hunt 27.06.2009 23:28 |
not even close to michael in the sates. I Remember a small announcement on tv and the radio, but nothing like this, and then freddie got some more attention when the tribute concert was aired, but again, nothing like michael Jackson or elvis. |
| The Real Wizard 28.06.2009 00:33 |
mike hunt wrote: not even close to michael in the sates. I Remember a small announcement on tv and the radio, but nothing like this, and then freddie got some more attention when the tribute concert was aired, but again, nothing like michael Jackson or elvis. True. But Wayne's World gave them one hell of a second wind. |
| mike hunt 28.06.2009 01:31 |
yea, people talked more about Queen when Wayne's world came out then they did when freddie died. I still remember how big they became, all because of that silly movie. If Innuendo was released when wayne's world came out it would have been interesting to see if it would have gotten the attention it deserved. |
| Rock It 28.06.2009 03:22 |
Take a look for yourself: Freddie Mercury Last Appearance in 1990 Freddie Mercury's Death - Part 1 Freddie Mercury's Death Part 2 Freddie Mercury's death (TVP 1, 01.12.1991) News Report on the Death of Queen Singer Freddie Mercury Elton John - A few words about Freddie Mercury Brian and Roger - One Week Later, Part 1 Brian and Roger - One Week Later, Part 2 Queen - Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert (Highlights) Freddie Mercury Tribute |
| Sebastian 28.06.2009 07:18 |
The main difference is that Fred's death was somewhat expected, since by the time he released his announcement he was merely confirming what had been spread for years. Pavarotti, Harrison and others were also ill long before and the last moments were like: day one, they're rushed to the hospital; day two: things aren't looking good; day three: the world lost a genius. With Michael, it was totally unexpected for many, and TMZ allowed the news to be literally global within minutes. As far as I remember, the BBC only had this kind of (virtually 24-hour) coverage with Princes Di, which was another sudden death. |
| Jazz 78 28.06.2009 09:10 |
I was 26 when he passed and from I recall here in the States was that it was usually a short news story for a few days and then it just passes. The media carried Freddie's death but NOTHING compared to what Jackson's passing has spawned. Both were iconic figures but we watched Michael Jackson grown up since he was 11. Listened to his music, reach milestones, break records etc. But then his personal problems overshadowed the talent. Financial woes, accusations of his relationships with young boys, being sued for failed business dealings and now we discover alleged abuse of perscription drugs. At least we know what Freddie died from and there was no need for investigations. Freddie never had to deal with the controversies that Jackson has had to deal with. Both of them left behind an amazing body of work but Jackson leaves more questions than answers. |
| kosimodo 28.06.2009 13:46 |
Queen was played a damn lot on radio.. The show must go on was on the hitlists when he died. Barcelona, Living on my own were huge after he died. Bo Rhap went to the top together with days of our lives. We are the champions was big again. Queen with Freddie were everywhere.... News was just different back then.... I, for one, had to take of from work.. and first returned after new year... |
| brians wig 28.06.2009 13:56 |
Suddenly, after non-availability in the UK for many years, all the record stores were flooded with USA copies of the "Mr Bad Guy" album, at which point my original 1985 CD with all the extended mixes on it became worthless :( |
| mike hunt 29.06.2009 01:54 |
no question freddie was/is much bigger in the uk than he is in the states. From what I heard it was a huge story over there. The media trying to take pictures of a sick freddie any way they can. I wonder if freddie and michael would ever admit (if they were alive) that they wish they wern't famous. |
| Brian_Mays_Wig 30.06.2009 05:14 |
I was 14 when he died and had been a fan for 4 years. I had the News of the World (tabloid!) delivered on the sunday morning with the headline "Freddie, Ive got AIDS"..........then at about 10:30pm there was a newsflash on ITV saying he had died. Then I sat crying with my mum for about 2 hours! The tabloids on the whole were very kind to Freddie, seeing as they had been hounding him for 2 years, there were pages and pages of tributes, I have virtually all of them still, but there were also the ones, like someone wrote before..."How many more Freddie"......making him out to be a murderer or something, which I chose to ignore! The following morning, it was all over the tv breakfast shows and all over the papers. What we have got to remember is that back in 1991, there was nowhere near as much media coverage as there is these days - im sure if it had been Freddie who had died last thursday, he would be receiving just as much coverage as Jacko has had - maybe not on a global scale, but at least in the UK, Europe, South America and Asia. But for at least 2 weeks after he had died, the UK tabloids had some sort of story, and then of course the re-release of Bo Rhap. If we would have had downloads back then, im sure the charts would have been full of Queen songs. Things were a lot different 18 years ago! |
| ILoveQueen20 30.06.2009 07:03 |
mike hunt wrote: no question freddie was/is much bigger in the uk than he is in the states. From what I heard it was a huge story over there. The media trying to take pictures of a sick freddie any way they can. I wonder if freddie and michael would ever admit (if they were alive) that they wish they wern't famous. All the Media do that to try and get a story, (I think its worse in America), but the Media was worse with MJ than though. I think Freddie sort of Liked being famous Cos he Loved what he was doing & he sort of managed to keep his private life sepaerate, were as MJ was pushed into music & being famous from a young age thats probally why he had such a messed up life..... |
| Jjeroen 30.06.2009 08:27 |
ILoveQueen20 wrote:mike hunt wrote: no question freddie was/is much bigger in the uk than he is in the states. From what I heard it was a huge story over there. The media trying to take pictures of a sick freddie any way they can. I wonder if freddie and michael would ever admit (if they were alive) that they wish they wern't famous.All the Media do that to try and get a story, Sorry... as someone working in the media, I just HAVE to respond to that... Not ALL media do so, thank you very much. TABLOID-press does so, decent press does not. It is a true pitty that especially the UK people have such a negative view on 'the' press - but that just comes down to the amount of tabloid press they have around. I'm happy to say that we have a much more decent atmosphere over here. The majority of the (written) press is still to be considered serious over here. ANYWAY; of course Michael Jackson's death anno 2009 has a much larger coverage in all kinds of media. But when Freddie died, the news was also everywhere. All printed media had publications, all tv and radio stations did something to rembember him. I remember hearing Queen everywhere, on every radio channel for weeks and weeks. And then indeed came the hits, so there was more and more. On the day and week after Freddie died there was a lot on tv as well - in the Netherlands anyway. I remember sitting sobbing next to the tv on one hand and the radio on the other hand, switching between the two with a stack of tapes on the table trying to record as much of it as possible. ;-) All kinds of music programms like Countdown and Popformule played Queen exclusively, there were documentaries, concerts being broadcast (Montreal, Budapest) and of course MTV had quite some news coverage, documentaries (Magic years in high rotation), video's and several Queen-weekends. But let's indeed not forget that media anno 2009 is much different then back then. There was no 24 hour coverage in those days. CNN did not excist, there was no internet. Also nowadays media are much much more hype-sensitive. (Or is it the public that is more hype-sensitive and the media responds to that wish??) And, as also said before, when it comes to popularity and impact to popular music and society as a whole, MJ was certainly a level higher then Freddie or Queen. |
| ILoveQueen20 30.06.2009 15:00 |
Jjeroen wrote: Sorry... as someone working in the media, I just HAVE to respond to that... Not ALL media do so, thank you very much. TABLOID-press does so, decent press does not. It is a true pitty that especially the UK people have such a negative view on 'the' press - but that just comes down to the amount of tabloid press they have around. I'm happy to say that we have a much more decent atmosphere over here. The majority of the (written) press is still to be considered serious over here. ANYWAY; of course Michael Jackson's death anno 2009 has a much larger coverage in all kinds of media. But when Freddie died, the news was also everywhere. All printed media had publications, all tv and radio stations did something to rembember him. I remember hearing Queen everywhere, on every radio channel for weeks and weeks. And then indeed came the hits, so there was more and more. On the day and week after Freddie died there was a lot on tv as well - in the Netherlands anyway. I remember sitting sobbing next to the tv on one hand and the radio on the other hand, switching between the two with a stack of tapes on the table trying to record as much of it as possible. ;-) All kinds of music programms like Countdown and Popformule played Queen exclusively, there were documentaries, concerts being broadcast (Montreal, Budapest) and of course MTV had quite some news coverage, documentaries (Magic years in high rotation), video's and several Queen-weekends. But let's indeed not forget that media anno 2009 is much different then back then. There was no 24 hour coverage in those days. CNN did not excist, there was no internet. Also nowadays media are much much more hype-sensitive. (Or is it the public that is more hype-sensitive and the media responds to that wish??) And, as also said before, when it comes to popularity and impact to popular music and society as a whole, MJ was certainly a level higher then Freddie or Queen. Arhhh!!!! Ok!, Ok! I was genreally talking about most media thats why i said all...I dont work in the media myself so I dont wnat to get to deep into this, Sure there are some decent newspapers... ect that you can trust but it seems like the (bad) Media sees one pic and makes up headlines & articles they often use misleading titles too so dont have a go at me, I'm just saying what I think... |
| mike hunt 01.07.2009 02:46 |
I don't think a mercury or plant will ever be as popular as a pop icon like michael jackson. Doesn't mean he's better though. |
| Dusta 01.07.2009 23:17 |
Honestly, here in the states, I don't recall hearing very much about Freddie's death at all, and, I recall being somewhat saddened by that fact. In my little world, Freddie, and, Queen, were as big as MJ. I grew up listening to both, though I do admit that Queen edged out MJ as my musical taste evolved. I recall hearing very little on MTV(perhaps it was simply a matter of perspective. Could there ever have been enough, for this Queen fan? Perhaps not), or on the networks. And, what little I did hear involved jokes about Freddie,and negativity surrounding his sexual preference and the manner of his death. I was actually relieved to learn, as the age of the internet expanded, that Freddie's passing got a great deal more attention in other countries. I felt he deserved it, though I don't suppose he cared as much as I did. |