Queen Archivist 14.02.2010 16:36 |
Panic not. Lose no sleep over this. I am continuing to do a brilliant job and being generally splendid at all things I undertake in the course of my work. |
emrabt 14.02.2010 16:50 |
Do you ever get tired of this forum, the old cat and mouse, the people who genuinely have reason to be shitty with you, those who think u control what gets released and those that jump on the complain about Greg band wagon? Admittedly there are times u deserve it, but Greg I have seen times when people complain about you for nothing. Of course I have no point to this, so I’ll Slowly fade out… |
Jam Monkey 14.02.2010 16:50 |
I am so glad to hear it, keep up the good work. While you are here though Greg we recently had a thread on Victory, the mythical Freddie/MJ collaboration. Some say it exists, others say is doesn't. Could you settle our little discussion one way or the other? Thanks Craig |
Queen Archivist 14.02.2010 17:03 |
HELLO there Emrabt... Do you ever get tired of this forum, the old cat and mouse, GB: YES, I GET MORE BORED THAN TIRED OF IT. BY NOW I HAVE COME TO BE ABLE TO PREDICT WITH INCREASING ACCURACY WHAT IS GOING TO BE SAID TO ME, OR ABOUT ME, OR SUGGESTED. IT IS PREDICTABLE, BUT THAT'S LIFE. I DON'T TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. TOO MANY THINGS IN MY LIFE ARE SERIOUS ENOUGH WITHOUT QZ BEING ONE OF THEM. the people who genuinely have reason to be shitty with you, those who think u control what gets released and those that jump on the complain about Greg band wagon?IT HAS ALL BEEN SAID BEFORE, MANY TIMES. MANY MANY MANY MANY TIMES. IT IS RARE THAN ANYONE ON THIS SITE SAYS SOMETHING THAT TRULY STRIKES A NERVE OR STOPS ME IN MY TRACKS TO THINK ABOUT SOMETHING.... OR TO RE-THINK SOMETHING. IT DOES HAPPEN, BUT NOT OFTEN. LIKE I SAY, MOST OF WHAT GETS POSTED HERE, DIRECTED AT ME, IS 99% PREDICTABLE. NOTHING PROFOUND OR THOUGHT-PROVOKING. Admittedly there are times u deserve it, THIS IS TRUE. BUT LIKE I'VE SAID A FEW TIMES, I GIVE AS GOOD AS I GET, OR OFTEN MUCH BETTER THAN I GET, AND THOSE WHO DISH IT OUT, CANNOT TAKE IT BACK. THEY GET ALL OFFENDED AND UPSET OR FURIOUS. SOMETIMES I DESERVE WHAT I GET, YES. IT'S A TWO-WAY STREET. BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE ON QZ IN THE PAST HAVE DEFINITELY CONFUSED ME WITH SOMEONE WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT WHAT THEY THINK OF ME, AND SAY ABOUT ME. I DON'T SIT HERE AT HOME UPSET OR EFFECTED (OR IS IT AFFECTED) BY THESE THINGS. IF I DID.... MORE FOOL ME!!! but Greg I have seen times when people complain about you for nothing. YES. TRUE. PEOPLE OF LOW INTELLECT USUALLY. THOSE WHO DO NOT SEE ALL THE ANGLES, AND/OR THOSE WHO DON'T THINK THRU WHAT THEY WRITE IN THESE THREADS. THOSE PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS BE AROUND. Of course I have no point to this, so I’ll Slowly fade out… I WILL TOO. |
Queen Archivist 14.02.2010 17:05 |
While you are here though Greg we recently had a thread on Victory, the mythical Freddie/MJ collaboration. Some say it exists, others say is doesn't. Could you settle our little discussion one way or the other? Thanks Craig IT DOES CERTAINLY EXIST. I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO TELL YOU DETAILS OF THIS, BECAUSE IT IS MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN YOU THINK, BUT - YOU KNOW WHAT'S COMING - I CANNOT SAY MORE. VERY EXCITING THOUGH. |
Queen Archivist 14.02.2010 17:06 |
Queen Archivist wrote: HELLO there Emrabt...Do you ever get tired of this forum, the old cat and mouse, GB: YES, I GET MORE BORED THAN TIRED OF IT. BY NOW I HAVE COME TO BE ABLE TO PREDICT WITH INCREASING ACCURACY WHAT IS GOING TO BE SAID TO ME, OR ABOUT ME, OR SUGGESTED. IT IS PREDICTABLE, BUT THAT'S LIFE. I DON'T TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. TOO MANY THINGS IN MY LIFE ARE SERIOUS ENOUGH WITHOUT QZ BEING ONE OF THEM. the people who genuinely have reason to be shitty with you, those who think u control what gets released and those that jump on the complain about Greg band wagon?IT HAS ALL BEEN SAID BEFORE, MANY TIMES. MANY MANY MANY MANY TIMES. IT IS RARE THAN ANYONE ON THIS SITE SAYS SOMETHING THAT TRULY STRIKES A NERVE OR STOPS ME IN MY TRACKS TO THINK ABOUT SOMETHING.... OR TO RE-THINK SOMETHING. IT DOES HAPPEN, BUT NOT OFTEN. LIKE I SAY, MOST OF WHAT GETS POSTED HERE, DIRECTED AT ME, IS 99% PREDICTABLE. NOTHING PROFOUND OR THOUGHT-PROVOKING. Admittedly there are times u deserve it, THIS IS TRUE. BUT LIKE I'VE SAID A FEW TIMES, I GIVE AS GOOD AS I GET, OR OFTEN MUCH BETTER THAN I GET, AND THOSE WHO DISH IT OUT, CANNOT TAKE IT BACK. THEY GET ALL OFFENDED AND UPSET OR FURIOUS. SOMETIMES I DESERVE WHAT I GET, YES. IT'S A TWO-WAY STREET. BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE ON QZ IN THE PAST HAVE DEFINITELY CONFUSED ME WITH SOMEONE WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT WHAT THEY THINK OF ME, AND SAY ABOUT ME. I DON'T SIT HERE AT HOME UPSET OR EFFECTED (OR IS IT AFFECTED) BY THESE THINGS. IF I DID.... MORE FOOL ME!!! but Greg I have seen times when people complain about you for nothing. YES. TRUE. PEOPLE OF LOW INTELLECT USUALLY. THOSE WHO DO NOT SEE ALL THE ANGLES, AND/OR THOSE WHO DON'T THINK THRU WHAT THEY WRITE IN THESE THREADS. THOSE PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS BE AROUND. Of course I have no point to this, so I’ll Slowly fade out… I WILL TOO. |
mooghead 14.02.2010 17:25 |
Thank you for your answer Greg (or response?). I was the original poster of the 'undermined' thread and am really curious to know exactly what you, and the Queen 'camp', think of all the material that is appearing via leaked multitracks and game rips. I know you would rather these things weren't out there but do you see these things as a threat? I would rather have a partial multi of a minor hit (Fat Bottomed Girls) than a Freddie version of a Cross or Brian solo record, or a work in progress of Black Queen for eg. This stuff is gold. I am left with an even bigger appreciation of Queen's music after hearing this stuff than some outtake or demo from 30 years ago could ever do. |
Queen Archivist 14.02.2010 18:16 |
Thank you for your answer Greg (or response?). I was the original poster of the 'undermined' thread and am really curious to know exactly what you, and the Queen 'camp', think of all the material that is appearing via leaked multitracks and game rips. I know you would rather these things weren't out there but do you see these things as a threat? I would rather have a partial multi of a minor hit (Fat Bottomed Girls) than a Freddie version of a Cross or Brian solo record, or a work in progress of Black Queen for eg. This stuff is gold. I am left with an even bigger appreciation of Queen's music after hearing this stuff than some outtake or demo from 30 years ago could ever do. Hello Mooghead. My view is not dissimilar to yours. I too hear these wonderful things and have even more respect and love of the music than ever. It impresses me all over again. But that aside, it is a HUGE pain in the arse that these things leak out. It enables all kinds of people to do all kinds of things - such as dreadful remixes and other sorts of messing about that is only detrimental on most levels. I must confess that I love to hear the Queen multitrack material too, but i can see why the the people that made that music, who own it, must get deeply pissed off when other faceless individuals think it fine to casually put it out there as if it is theirs to give. It would piss me off too if it was my work they were abusing. |
people on streets 14.02.2010 19:30 |
But that aside, it is a HUGE pain in the arse that these things leak out. . Funny thing to hear from Greg Brooks. |
John S Stuart 14.02.2010 20:59 |
Queen Archivist wrote: While you are here though Greg we recently had a thread on Victory, the mythical Freddie/MJ collaboration. Some say it exists, others say is doesn't. Could you settle our little discussion one way or the other? Thanks CraigIT DOES CERTAINLY EXIST. I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO TELL YOU DETAILS OF THIS, BECAUSE IT IS MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN YOU THINK, BUT - YOU KNOW WHAT'S COMING - I CANNOT SAY MORE. VERY EXCITING THOUGH. Thanks Greg. A good solid definitive answer. And could you please also answer if Andy Gibb's vocal on 'Play the Game' also exists? |
Micrówave 15.02.2010 01:21 |
IT DOES CERTAINLY EXIST. I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO TELL YOU DETAILS OF THIS, BECAUSE IT IS MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN YOU THINK, BUT - YOU KNOW WHAT'S COMING - I CANNOT SAY MORE. VERY EXCITING THOUGH. Trying to understand WHY you cannot say more about this. You are not Michael Jackson's archivist, and I believe HE owns Victory... or his estate. You are not bound by anything there, are you? Now if the track has been "given" to Brian and the rest of Queen, I can understand that. Did this happen? Do Brian and the boys now make residual income off of sales of the "Victory" album? It made a bit of a comeback when MJ died. Why would Michael give this song away? I don't think he was the type to do that, given his status as a hit machine. Ask Paul McCartney about Michael's generosity when it comes to songrights. Surely you can give us something more than "IT DOES CERTAINLY EXIST". Is it a complete song? A ten second clip of The Jackson shouting "Victory" and you can slightly hear Fred? Please give us something more. Please? |
Jam Monkey 15.02.2010 02:04 |
Queen Archivist wrote: While you are here though Greg we recently had a thread on Victory, the mythical Freddie/MJ collaboration. Some say it exists, others say is doesn't. Could you settle our little discussion one way or the other? Thanks CraigIT DOES CERTAINLY EXIST. I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO TELL YOU DETAILS OF THIS, BECAUSE IT IS MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN YOU THINK, BUT - YOU KNOW WHAT'S COMING - I CANNOT SAY MORE. VERY EXCITING THOUGH. Nice one Greg, I appreciate your answer. |
pittrek 15.02.2010 02:40 |
Queen Archivist wrote: Panic not. Lose no sleep over this.I am continuing to do a brilliant job and being generally splendid at all things I undertake in the course of my work. Great. I was starting to be worried :-) |
emrabt 15.02.2010 03:27 |
Micrówave wrote: Trying to understand WHY you cannot say more about this. You are not Michael Jackson's archivist, and I believe HE owns Victory... or his estate. You are not bound by anything there, are you? Now if the track has been "given" to Brian and the rest of Queen, I can understand that. Did this happen? Do Brian and the boys now make residual income off of sales of the "Victory" album? It made a bit of a comeback when MJ died. Yeah he is still under the terms of his contract, and can be sued for breaching it, in this case by BOTH parties. The agreement doesn’t just vanish if someone else is in the recording with Freddie, it will extend to the other parties involved. Same with the contracts and agreements on Jackson’s side. I would like to thank greg for giving us a straight answer. I'm pretty sure we will have it released within 2 years, if it exists of course, it's speculation, but there's nothing like death to sell some tracks, and this will get both fan bases buying. By the way there is no song called Victory on the victory album, just like shear heart attack, it was left off. |
Micrówave 15.02.2010 04:15 |
Yes, I know. I have the album. But I'm still not sure who owns "Victory", the song. Surely not BOTH Michael and Freddie. The Jackson estate owns State Of Shock. There is no way in hell Greg Brooks is the archivist for Michael Jackson. That would require quite a bit more than one person. |
emrabt 15.02.2010 04:33 |
Micrówave wrote: Yes, I know. I have the album. But I'm still not sure who owns "Victory", the song. Surely not BOTH Michael and Freddie. The Jackson estate owns State Of Shock. There is no way in hell Greg Brooks is the archivist for Michael Jackson. That would require quite a bit more than one person. Well I guess Michael Jackson wrote it for victory, so it’s his. Whatever limits Michaels lawyers put on his unreleased stuff at the time also extends to the version of it in the Queen Archives. Both Michaels and Freddie’s estates should benefit from royalties on its release though, if they use the version with Freddies vocals. Of course, none of this is fact, but I assume it’s something similar. |
Togg 15.02.2010 08:41 |
Hey Greg Tog here...long time no speak, as you are in an answering mood I thought I'd drop a couple in. Often wondered if the Queen archive is a full time role for you? how much time per week do you actually have to devote to it? and will it ever be done as-it-were. As for the stuff you probably can't answer here goes one that I have also often wondered about. During the time when Fred recorded The Great Pretender it was rumoured that he had done others in a similar vain. whether or not this is true has never really been clear to me (maybe others) if no, do you think (from what is left in the archive it was ever his intention to do a solo album of covers? if not why did he record that one?? what was his thinking behind doing a one off? just for fun? because it was a fav track? just had some tape left on the reel??? any clue One other quicky, are you transfering Queen archive material into a format that will be (fairly) future proof. Is it all going digital or do you still rely on tapes? Cheers Greg |
coops 15.02.2010 09:08 |
IT DOES CERTAINLY EXIST.
I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO TELL YOU DETAILS OF THIS, BECAUSE IT IS MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN YOU THINK, BUT - YOU KNOW WHAT'S COMING - I CANNOT SAY MORE. VERY EXCITING THOUGH.
Okay, I guess I will appear quite ignorant here, but I have to ask. Why is this something that cannot be discussed? I mean it's a song, not a national security secret. Would just like to understand. Thanks |
mike hunt 15.02.2010 09:19 |
We been through this already....It was over a decade ago I heard this same guy say that lots of great exciting Unreleased material is sitting in the vaults, and ready for release in the next few years. Years and few a more gray hairs later nothing has been released. Now he say's this exciting michael jackson duet is in the vaults, and you all fall for it. |
andreas_mercury 15.02.2010 09:34 |
Queen Archivist wrote: I am continuing to do a brilliant job and being generally splendid at all things I undertake in the course of my work.it would be hard to be BAD or INCOMPETENT at the job of labeling tapes and stacking them ....... lol you are overpaid filing clerk |
andreas_mercury 15.02.2010 09:34 |
mike hunt wrote: Now he say's this exciting michael jackson duet is in the vaults, and you all fall for it .mike you misunderstand him the duet is with MJ, it exists, and it is in the vaults its just not exciting at all ...... |
Micrówave 15.02.2010 14:57 |
Well, I'm saying BULLSHIT. I don't think it exists with Fred. Why would Michael give the track to Fred if he sang on it? The Jackson estate owns this. Greg's knowledge of the track should IN NO WAY interfere with the operations of the Queen machine. It is not co-owned by Queen so Greg (and Queen) are under no obligation to hide any info from the fans. If they know something, they would not be prevented from saying things like: "It's a four minute track with vocals by Freddie". "Brian and Roger have done production work on it" "Michael said 'it sucks, let's shelve it.'" The song did not earn any monetary value, as it was never released, finished, etc. No one's estate would be harmed by discussing these facts or non-facts. Sounds to me like Queen or Greg Brooks is simply trying to keep up the illusions that the fans are demanding this, which they're not. |
Darren1977 15.02.2010 16:44 |
It's the same old bullshit being rehashed. The so called box sets were supposed to be out as early as '93 but nothing has ever come close to that. This has already been discussed hundreds of times. GB is only winding everybody up and as usual people are falling for it. You can't blame him really. Until an offical announcement comes from QP there is no point in discussing it any further. There are loads of leaked tracks to be found on the net, just download them and be happy with those cos that's all we will ever have to listen to. |
Micrówave 16.02.2010 02:50 |
Exactly, Darren. I'm sure Greg will not answer my queries, either. When you're caught, you're caught. I used to actually believe some of the stuff that is brought up by the so-called Queen Archivist. I think the last thread he started, simply informing us of his greatness, was a bit revealling. Queen had their masterpiece, A Night At The Opera. It was pretty much down hill from there, albiet very slowly. It took several years to go from greatness to "huh? What's this?". I believe Greg Brooks has run the same course. He had his masterpiece, The Freddie 'Box Set'. It's been pretty much down hill from there. Why else would someone come on here and slam the fans of the band he works for? Obviously that shows the Brian and Roger do not or never plan to visit this site. It also shows the kind of interest that Queen has for their back catalogue. QPL's approval ratings with the fans are similar to that of George Bush's when he was in office. And both respond the same way!!! I used to believe that Greg Cheney was truly concerned about what he could or could not say with Queens approval. After the last couple of years it's obvious that Queen could care less what the Archivist says or doesn't say. They probably don't even take his phone calls anymore. Perhaps they've decided that they have enough dough, fine. So if he says a Michael Jackson / Queen album exists and there are 10 tracks fully complete, well I am not interested anymore. A guy like Michael doesn't make the same mistake (State Of Shock) twice. There's a better chance that Victory was a Jacksons / Bruce Springsteen collaboration. And THAT might even make Mahler's day! |
Micrówave 16.02.2010 02:52 |
In summary, Greg Brooks = Dick Cheney Victory (with Queen) = The Weapons Of Mass Destruction in Iraq. |
emrabt 16.02.2010 06:03 |
There does seem to be more stuff on the outside than on the inside of Queens archive. Wouldn't surprise me if there's not much more than what we have, not counting DoRo's stuff, re-takes and endless remixes. |
FriedChicken 16.02.2010 08:19 |
Hi Greg, A technical question... How is the music stored in the archive? Is it all on a multitrack tape still, or did they transfer stuff to acetates, or stereo downmixes to tape or maybe even to harddisk? So, for example the stuff you show us at conventions, did you originally find that as a multitrack tape? I remember some years ago in Holland, you showed us a version of Put Out the Fire where the drums where much more prominent, is that how you found it or did someone remix it for the purpose of conventions? Just curious. I think it's a shame that there's so little known about how Queen worked in the studio, and I was wondering if you could shed a light on that matter. |
Goodoldfashionedloverboy 16.02.2010 09:28 |
when Queen Productions release concerts Queen on DVD ? |
Micrówave 16.02.2010 12:30 |
When you learn better English. Geez!!! |
Goodoldfashionedloverboy 16.02.2010 12:56 |
what kind of knowledge of English language in question. I am a Russian Queen fan and I use a translator to write in English and I asked the Queen Archivist quite normal easily accessible and understandable question. It is as close to the Queen production should and must answer the question .. Several times I wrote a letter to Brian May and he is not one of my letter. and then there is an upstart from Russia, who works as a spy in England, and furnishes us with Russian fans the news. Do not forget to say that the Queen disastrous management and success in 80, he became for them due to the fact that most groups by the time it collapsed. He also said that Freddie addict. And another said that the Queen does not represent any interest |
Rubbersuit 16.02.2010 13:18 |
I have a theory that Greg Brooks = Treasured Moment. Think about it, have you ever seen them together? |
emrabt 16.02.2010 13:25 |
Rubbersuit wrote: I have a theory that Greg Brooks = Treasured Moment. Think about it, have you ever seen them together? You're too late, I've already explained things here, currently it's the last post of that topic. |
Rubbersuit 16.02.2010 14:45 |
I can't argue with that logic. Any post that namechecks Leo Sayers is instant truth. Good job! |
FriedChicken 16.02.2010 15:40 |
community wrote: . I am a Russian Queen fan and I use a translator to write in English In Soviet Russia, Translator uses YOU!! |
Goodoldfashionedloverboy 16.02.2010 15:50 |
Queen Archvist escapes as soon as to him asked questions on the merits-and it is called cowardice. To blow dust into the eyes and minds of fans and went away. But this is not important. And above all, he blatantly lied denigrating talent Queen. As possible, listen to and work in the office of Queen productions and also to talk about that the Queen is not so good and there are groups who work more interesting. He or oppression of the official line Queen production according to which Freddie gay and drug addict and Queen another mediocre team. |
Goodoldfashionedloverboy 16.02.2010 15:57 |
I am very interested, why since the death of Freddie Mercury was not issued a single rare concert? |
Goodoldfashionedloverboy 16.02.2010 15:58 |
??? ?????? ?????????, ?????? ? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ??????? ????????? |
lalaalalaa 16.02.2010 16:32 |
You all make good statements to why it shouldn't be a problem to, at least, leak the track onto Youtube or something, but why not just take some action. Go to wherever the Queen gems are located, steal them, then put them on Youtube. Problem solved ;) But seriously folks, people are treating these "secret" songs as if they'd destroy the world if we even listened to a 10 second clip of it. It's just a bunch of nonsense not to at least give us something. If it wasn't for us fans, then there wouldn't be any demos to listen to in the first place. We spend our (or our parent's) hard-earned money and buy Queen's albums, T-shirts, merchandise, ect. for what? To be excluded from these tracks we'd all like to hear. There's nothing else to buy from Queen except for the unreleased material, so it's either they lose money for being stupid, or they give the fans what they've wanted for years. I think as fans we are entitled to something extra. I would settle for a few demos a year instead of not getting anything at all and waiting for this so-called anthology. All the major Queen fans will be dead before this stuff even somewhat parcially surfaces. |
Thistle 16.02.2010 17:39 |
Micrówave wrote: Well, I'm saying BULLSHIT. I don't think it exists with Fred. Why would Michael give the track to Fred if he sang on it? The Jackson estate owns this. Greg's knowledge of the track should IN NO WAY interfere with the operations of the Queen machine. It is not co-owned by Queen so Greg (and Queen) are under no obligation to hide any info from the fans. If they know something, they would not be prevented from saying things like: "It's a four minute track with vocals by Freddie". "Brian and Roger have done production work on it" "Michael said 'it sucks, let's shelve it.'" The song did not earn any monetary value, as it was never released, finished, etc. No one's estate would be harmed by discussing these facts or non-facts. Sounds to me like Queen or Greg Brooks is simply trying to keep up the illusions that the fans are demanding this, which they're not. The track does exist, with Freddie's vocals, and is complete. In fact, there are at least two versions I know of, and have heard. You all doubted State Of Shock and More To Life Than This, but they "leaked". I have heard the two versions of Victory, several years ago, but cannot - like Greg - disclose the information. More for fear of being killed by QPL and by the guy who played it than because I am holding information back for the sake of it. But please believe me, it is there. Whether or not it gets released is another matter, but it is there - and it is exciting. Also the one with Andy Gibb on "Play The Game". Also the tracks is similar vein as "The Great Pretender". This was a leaked tape from Garden Lodge, and I thought that *most* collectors would have at least heard this. |
Micrówave 16.02.2010 22:41 |
Well, Thistleboy, I'm calling you out now. You're afraid of QPL and the guy who played it? What do you think they will do? How would they know it's you? You could create a Treasure Michael account and disclose "this" information. And no, the world would not stop revolving if you did. And I doubt a street fight would break out between you and Jim Beach. There's a duet with Wang Chung that Freddie did, too. I can't tell you anymore, because I'm afraid the guy who played it for me won't play other rare, unused 20 year old songs for me the next time I visit. Bullshit. |
Crazy LittleThing 16.02.2010 22:50 |
Micrówave wrote: In summary, Greg Brooks = Dick Cheney Victory (with Queen) = The Weapons Of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Micrówave wrote: Greg Brooks = Dick Cheney I wrote: Wouldn't that make him Darth Brooks? Someone get that man a giant hat! |
Thistle 18.02.2010 13:59 |
Micrówave wrote: Well, Thistleboy, I'm calling you out now. You're afraid of QPL and the guy who played it? What do you think they will do? How would they know it's you? You could create a Treasure Michael account and disclose "this" information. And no, the world would not stop revolving if you did. And I doubt a street fight would break out between you and Jim Beach. There's a duet with Wang Chung that Freddie did, too. I can't tell you anymore, because I'm afraid the guy who played it for me won't play other rare, unused 20 year old songs for me the next time I visit. Bullshit. OK Microwave, first of all, call me "out"? What the hell is that meant to be? Do you think you're watching some WWE programme or something? Call me out? LOL. Back on topic, what do you need to know? (actually, you don't need to know anything, so I'll rephrase....what would you like to know?) Other than that I've heard the tracks and they exist in full form, with Freddie and Michael clearly heard together, I can't tell you more. To you, there is only black and white. You're not a thinker, you don't see things outside the box. I used to be like that, I can understand, but you also have to understand that you can't know everything and don't need to know everything. If you don't believe they're there, fine - I know better. I don't have to prove myself, and I certainly won't name names. Going back to you not thinking outside the box, I'm not actually worried about QPL, but this sort of thing could get messy for the guy who actually managed to uncover the tracks. I know of examples before. I'm not saying who it is or where it came from, you don't need to know - I'm merely saying it is there, in great quality and as people would hope, with FM and MJ together vocally. In order to know these things you have to know people in the know. You have to get out there and widen your circle of friends. I mean real friends, not cyber chat with somebody you''re never actually going to know. And in order to do that, you have to peel yourself away from your spunk stained laptop and actually go out. It's called socialising and getting a life. I doubt you'd understand, Microwave. |
emrabt 18.02.2010 14:10 |
Thistleboy 1980 wrote: Back on topic, what do you need to know? (actually, you don't need to know anything, so I'll rephrase....what would you like to know?) Other than that I've heard the tracks and they exist in full form, with Freddie and Michael clearly heard together, I can't tell you more. To you, there is only black and white. You're not a thinker, you don't see things outside the box. I used to be like that, I can understand, but you also have to understand that you can't know everything and don't need to know everything. If you don't believe they're there, fine - I know better. I don't have to prove myself, and I certainly won't name names. Going back to you not thinking outside the box, I'm not actually worried about QPL, but this sort of thing could get messy for the guy who actually managed to uncover the tracks. I know of examples before. I'm not saying who it is or where it came from, you don't need to know - I'm merely saying it is there, in great quality and as people would hope, with FM and MJ together vocally. Or to rephrase, in my own confusing way : The speculation around the tracks, is not to be speculated upon anymore, Thistleboy has, he alleges, heard of and played the track which has been speculated about during parts of this thread. So in his opinion, if it’s to be believed, without naming names, the track with both vocals, is in fine enough quality to be released possibly in the near or maybe in the distant future. Now knowing the things you know, about people in the know, Thistleboy knows people who maybe, could have uncovered the track, in a possible messy way. But not knowing who he knows, and him not caring what people think, these people he knows will not get in to trouble over the uncover. so I think we have clear proof? |
Thistle 18.02.2010 14:26 |
emrabt wrote: Or to rephrase, in my own way : The speculation around the tracks, is not to be speculated upon anymore, Thistleboy has, he alleges, heard of and played the track which has been speculated about during parts of this thread. So in his opinion, if it’s to be believed, without naming names, the track with both vocals, is in fine enough quality to be released possibly in the near or maybe in the distant future. Now knowing the things you know, about people in the know, Thistleboy knows people who maybe, could have uncovered the track, in a possible messy way. But not knowing who he knows, and him not caring what people think, these people he knows will not get in to trouble over the uncover. so I think we have clear proof? You get most of the point emrabt, but missed it on the part that you think it would not cause trouble for the person who got the tracks. it definitely would. I don't give a flying fuck about QPL, but I wouldn't drop anyone else in it. All that needs to be said is the tracks are there and could definitely be used as part of an official release. But we all know it probably won't happen - all I wanted to say was don't doubt they're in the "archives". |
Goodoldfashionedloverboy 18.02.2010 15:01 |
Freddie Mercury was gay and was not a drug addict. and you are here staged a debate on that Freddie was gay and a drug addict |
Thistle 18.02.2010 15:27 |
community wrote: Freddie Mercury was gay and was not a drug addict. and you are here staged a debate on that Freddie was gay and a drug addict What are you talking about? That it is not the topic here - post this inane drivel elsewhere. |
mooghead 18.02.2010 16:36 |
Thistleboy 1980 wrote:community wrote: Freddie Mercury was gay and was not a drug addict. and you are here staged a debate on that Freddie was gay and a drug addictWhat are you talking about? That it is not the topic here - post this inane drivel elsewhere. He's right. Stop drinking meths, learn English... then come back. Theres a good boy. |
Micrówave 18.02.2010 16:50 |
Thistleboy wrote: (His comments in BOLD, mine are not) OK Microwave, first of all, call me "out"? What the hell is that meant to be? Do you think you're watching some WWE programme or something? Call me out? LOL. I don't watch wrestling, don't even know what WWE stands for. Good for you. Back on topic, what do you need to know? (actually, you don't need to know anything, so I'll rephrase....what would you like to know?) Other than that I've heard the tracks and they exist in full form, with Freddie and Michael clearly heard together, I can't tell you more. To you, there is only black and white. Well, let's clear that up a bit. So you listened to a song and could only tell if Michael and Freddie were singing on it and nothing else? Who's black and white? I'll tell you... it's you, you're a musical moron, obviously. You couldn't tell if this was a demo or a completed track? Real drums & Production? Probably you couldn't tell the difference. You're probably not too up to speed with The Jacksons or the Victory album, so you couldn't tell us if it were in the same vein as that, right? See, there was this band called Toto. They were pretty famous, and they had a guitarist named Steve Lukather, you ding dong. He's all over Thriller and Off The Wall. He's got a pretty easy guitar to spot. Remember Beat It? He's the guitar player throughout except the two-bar solo. Also, David Paich is a very easy keyboardist to spot. Were they on the track? Or do you not know? You're not a thinker, you don't see things outside the box. Actually, I've contributed more to this thread than you. All you've given us is "I've heard the track, it's got Freddie and Michael and that's all I know". Who's the thinker? I've laid out several points, you haven't addressed anything new. I used to be like that, I can understand, but you also have to understand that you can't know everything and don't need to know everything. If you don't believe they're there, fine - I know better. I don't have to prove myself, and I certainly won't name names. Actually, it seems that you're still like that. I like to know facts. That's a funny thing about me. I get curious and it makes me question things. You should try it sometime. You apparently are satisfied with as little information as possible. That's fine - I know better. Yes, cause Going back to you not thinking outside the box, Actually, I think you're living in your own. I'm not actually worried about QPL, but this sort of thing could get messy for the guy who actually managed to uncover the tracks. I know of examples before. I'm not saying who it is or where it came from, you don't need to know - I'm merely saying it is there, in great quality and as people would hope, with FM and MJ together vocally. Blah blah blah. So was Jeff Porcarro playing drums? Or do you even know who that is? He's got a pretty distinct style of playing the hi-hat. In order to know these things you have to know people in the know. You have to get out there and widen your circle of friends. I mean real friends, not cyber chat with somebody you''re never actually going to know. And in order to do that, you have to peel yourself away from your spunk stained laptop and actually go out. It's called socialising and getting a life. I doubt you'd understand, Microwave. Really, well I've shared the stage with Steve Lukather before. Have you? Mr. people-in-the-know? You want to verify it? Find out who played the organ at Colin Hay's wedding in Malibu California. It's a whos-who list of names from the L.A. scene. Babko, Luke, Jimmy Earl, Cleto Escobar III, Luis Conte, Tris Imboden, Bernie Dresel, Lee Thornburg, and me. Who's your circle, smarty pants? Bottom line, you're full of shit. So don't name names, don't give us anything that we can use to verify your bullshit story. If you have any other worthless crap you wanna spew, go right ahead. I'll get you some Greg Brooks pom-poms. You're a faker and have estinguished all credibility that I thought you had. Actually, I thought you were a pretty rationale member of the forum, until you entered this thread. Too bad. "I would rather wait outside the Van for Treasure Moment." |
Thistle 18.02.2010 17:29 |
Microwave, I'll just post straight in instead of copying and pasting that huge rant you just posted, it only serves to clog up the forum. You have just spouted one load of nonsense there and assumed too much by guessing I don't know what the fuck you're on about (and actually do, btw - not all of it, but the majority). Much of the rant actually had no relevance whatsoever to the actual topic. So you have spoken more on this forum? I'm pleased for you that you have the time to do that, but it still doesn't mean that what you are saying is useful. The point of my response is that you said the tracks don't exist, yet I know they do - you were the one who said I was bullshitting, faking and started belittling anything I had to say before you actually went out your way to dig up facts for yourself. You simply cannot do that mate, it's unnacceptable - all you had to say originally was that it is your belief that I may have heard what I think was real, but you think that it may have been doctored because....and then put all that technical jargon and musical history forward to qualify your statement. Instead, you made a petty smart-arsed comment and made out I was talking shit. So don't question my rationality - it's you who who's tring to cause the problem here. You are too cynical and try to make cutting comments to bring people down instead of just having a reasonable debate, which is the whole point of this forum. What kind of response did you expect to get? I couldn't care less who you've shared a stage with mate, really, it just appears that the only time you have in your life is spent in here trying to antagonise people - and you make a good job of it as you are the common denomenator in a lot of arguments around here. Admittedly, I got caught up in that, but I would rather get on with you than argue pointlessly against you and hope that this is just a blip in our queenzone relationship. This is the last I'm going to say on the matter - to you, at least, to avoid any unnecessary animosity. By this, I am trying to extend the olive branch and hope we can get along. You have your opinion, I have what I regard as fact - lets agree to disagree, please. [img=/images/smiley/msn/thumbs_up.gif][/img] |
Micrówave 18.02.2010 17:42 |
Yes, Thistleboy, I think this is the last you should post on this thread. Once again, in your ramble, you have failed to address EVERY point about the song. As I suspected, you cannot. You have no idea what a Lukather rhythm sounds like, let alone the backbeat of Jeff Porcarro. I'm sure you couldn't recognize Randy Jackson's bass playing either. You know NOTHING about the song. My guess is somebody played you some warped up remix of two different songs, one by Freddie and one by Michael. You, having no musical knowledge, did not recognize this and instead thought "WOW! This must be the secret song." Tell you what, I'll mix up the song FireFlies by Owl City and add the WWRY A Cappella Freddie. We'll tell everybody that we had an exclusive listening party but we can't name names or give any further info... except the FACT that we know that the Queen + Owl City track exists!!! We have heard it!!! |
Thistle 18.02.2010 17:52 |
I don't think I told microwave this was my last post on the thread, did I? I'm sure I told him that it was my last reply to him on the matter, to avoid animosity. Was that not the case? Why does he just make assumptions about people and try to goad them into pointless arguments? Even if I had have given him all the info that he longs for, he would just have argued anyway. Everyone can see I tried with him, if ever the term troll was apt for someone, he's yer man. He's just brought this whole thing down to a childish level like he does with every other discussion he takes part in here, this topic is now completely wasted. Well done "deity" Microwave, yet another accomplishment here on QZ. |
Micrówave 18.02.2010 20:54 |
Still not going to address the real issue, eh? How many verses were there? Was it Verse-Chorus-Verse-Chorus-Bridge-Chorus? What key is it in? These are questions you WON'T answer because if it finally sees the light of day, we'll know you were quite full of it. You're a child, who wants to muck up this thread with psychobabble instead of addressing what you say you've heard. Why don't you take your ball (that you don't want anyone playing with) and go find a private court to play on? By the way, I'm rocking out right now. Freddie singing "Everybody Wang Chung tonight" puts chills in my spine. You guys should really hear this track. Unfortunately I can't say anything more!!! |
Sebastian 18.02.2010 22:14 |
At the end of the day, it's way too easy to write 'I've heard it and I can confirm it exists', and that can easily be true, and can easily be false. Same for, say, claiming to have seen Brian taking off his wig or Rog confirming PR was Freddie's favourite singer. |
Thistle 19.02.2010 15:42 |
Sebastian wrote: At the end of the day, it's way too easy to write 'I've heard it and I can confirm it exists', and that can easily be true, and can easily be false. Same for, say, claiming to have seen Brian taking off his wig or Rog confirming PR was Freddie's favourite singer. I can see where you're coming from, but the questions I was expecting to hear back was who had it, how he/she got it and who it came from - that's why I said I couldn't say more. In essence, it would have been more difficult to say more, that is correct. If I was thinking that the response would have been "who played on it, is it a demo, is it full or partial and how many choruses were on it?", I could have elaborated to the best of my ability, considering I heard both tracks just once and it was around eight years ago. The reason I hadn't answered microwave's questions right away was that he resorted to crying bullshit and namecalling instead of just asking straight out the things he thought he had to know. I'm not being childish (although it could be said that his attempts at flaring our argument with petty, smart-arsed remarks is, however), I'm just fed up with that guy's attitude - why should I answer to him? If the conversation was more polite and rational from his end, fair enough. I am open to debate, that's the point in the forum, but not to demands. I don't know who he thinks he is, but he can go take a fuck to himself if he's going to continue to talk to me the way he has been. There's no need for it whatsoever. For those who are interested in the best of what I can recall from hearing the track (as I say, it was eight years ago and played once, I don't know how I'm expected to remember every little detail) one version sounded experimental - there were the usual ad-libs and fluffed notes, the other sounded a bit more polished, but not in similar vein as one would expect from the rest of the victory album, if indeed it was intended for use then (and yes, Microwave, I'm familiar with the album, the tracks and the sound - I have the thing and am an MJ collector as well as a Queen collector). I don't think that any of them were finished versions, one had a very rough feel and was more of a jam of a few minutes, the other was more structured but definitely not what you'd expect to be a final product (although it doesn't cut out and is a bit longer). It could have been a demo, but I'm no expert. There is something Microwave has been getting at, and that's the allegation that what I heard was some sort of weird mix - but how the hell the potential bootlegger/ faker or whatever managed to get Freddie and MJ singing the same song, bouncing off one another and in similar chord and tempo is anyone's guess. In order for them to mix it up would mean they would have to have recorded the same song at different times - and in a similar vein - for them to be able to have merged the tracks together. Now how likely is that? It doesn't matter what I say or how I describe what I heard, there are still going to be people who do not believe it. Everyone will still have their own opinions on it and they will continue to have the same discussion over and over again. Even if the tracks do get released, in full or sampled form, people will still look back to this discussion and doubt that it is the same track I believe I heard. Geez, folk are even still saying the the state of shock and more to life than this demos are fake. And some food for thought - if they do get released, who says that it won't just be some QPL mix of shit merged together to form what sounds like a track just to shut us all up? (I believe some of that Freddie box set is, btw). |
Negative Creep 19.02.2010 15:45 |
Thistleboy 1980 = Greg Brooks on the windup (not that different to "Queen Archivist" then). An Extremely Nice Chap = Greg Brooks using QueenZone to gather info. Just in case anyone was wondering. |
Thistle 19.02.2010 16:05 |
Negative Creep wrote: Thistleboy 1980 = Greg Brooks on the windup (not that different to "Queen Archivist" then). An Extremely Nice Chap = Greg Brooks using QueenZone to gather info incognito. LMFAO. I can say in all honesty I'm not GB. I wish I had his job, though. Nor am I here on the windup! Far from it, I just wanted to say that I thought the tracks in question were in the archives because I had heard them. Maybe I'm wrong, but maybe I'm right - that's what happens in debates, but I'm not trying to wind anyone up. I wish I had the tracks myself, this would have been settled one way or another. |
Fireplace 19.02.2010 19:46 |
Negative Creep wrote: Thistleboy 1980 = Greg Brooks on the windup (not that different to "Queen Archivist" then). An Extremely Nice Chap = Greg Brooks using QueenZone to gather info. Just in case anyone was wondering. Greg Brooks = All mouth & very little info Thistleboy 1980 = More info on Victory than I ever expected to get Why would everyone who knows something that you don't be a windup? |
Micrówave 19.02.2010 21:19 |
I don't think that any of them were finished versions, one had a very rough feel and was more of a jam of a few minutes, the other was more structured but definitely not what you'd expect to be a final product (although it doesn't cut out and is a bit longer). It could have been a demo, but I'm no expert. Ok. Finally, we may be getting somewhere. But now I'm even more confused. So if they were rough mixes, demo sounding, and not very structured, why would you and Greg be insisting that this is some WONDERFUL PRODUCT? I have the Freddie Box Set that John Stuart and Greg Brooks worked on. I don't keep going back and listen to "Horns Of Doom" and think I've got gold here. How many of you have "Message To Queen Fan Club" in their Freddie top ten? Freddie singing de-do-de-do because the words aren't worked out is not something the Queen mass is going to go crazy over. This is just an overhyped demo to see if we can spark some interest in the box sets again. And no one, repeat NO ONE will be allowed to doctor that track now. Not Queen, not The Queen, and not Queen Latifah. Any kind of work on that track now will require approval of The Jackson Estate. That's not gonna happen. Paul McCartney couldn't get a raise for 15 years and he was Michael's friend!!!!! Jimi Hendrix supposedly has nearly 300 unfinished demos. Jimi Hendrix was/is/and will always be in more demand than Queen. So why hasn't someone capitalized on that? It's taken 35 years to get ONE track out. |
Thistle 19.02.2010 21:34 |
nobody said the track(s) was special, but the find IS exciting because it finally brings an end to the "is it or isn't it ?"discussion. Well, obviously it hasn't for some, but you get the general idea - at least we know it's there in some form. |
mooghead 20.02.2010 16:57 |
I have been here for lots of years and microwave is one of those who talks a lot but has nothing to say... like he wants to get his thread count up because it is all he has in his life. Ignorance is bliss. He loves it when you bite. |
Micrówave 20.02.2010 21:17 |
Mooghead is SPOT ON in his critique of me. I bring absolutely nothing to this board... except the Twice Baked Potato recipee a few years ago. |
Goodoldfashionedloverboy 21.02.2010 13:46 |
What about the concert in Knewborth Park 1986? Will be whether this concert released officially? |
Queen Archivist 22.02.2010 11:23 |
community wrote: What about the concert in Knewborth Park 1986? Will be whether this concert released officially?I would like to tell you, but I can't. I'm not allowed. Is this helpful? I like microwave's comment above. Funny. I'm funny as well you know. Oh yes. VERY amusing, me. Did I tell you I was listening to a concert from 1976 we didn't know existed, last night, in the studio with Pete? I can't tell you about it coz it's secret, but it was very very very very a lot very very exciting and rare. I really think you lot will hear it one day, but I can't swear to that. I have been told I'm a carrot-dangling brute who is very annoying. That cannot be right. Take it back. |
Mkls 22.02.2010 11:28 |
"Queen Archivist wrote: Did I tell you I was listening to a concert from 1976 we didn't know existed, last night, in the studio with Pete? I can't tell you about it coz it's secret, but it was very very very very a lot very very exciting and rare. I really think you lot will hear it one day, but I can't swear to that. I have been told I'm a carrot-dangling brute who is very annoying. That cannot be right. Take it back." Fortunately today, most of QZers will be listening to a concert from 1977 we didn't know existed. |
Micrówave 22.02.2010 11:29 |
Actually, Greg, I OWN a complete, full length show from 1973 that I am listening to right now. Extremely raw, but extremely awesome. It's nice that we all seem to have a lot of live shows. It would be even nicer to talk about the content sometime. |
lalaalalaa 22.02.2010 12:51 |
Queen Archivist wrote:community wrote: What about the concert in Knewborth Park 1986? Will be whether this concert released officially?I would like to tell you, but I can't. I'm not allowed. Is this helpful? I like microwave's comment above. Funny. I'm funny as well you know. Oh yes. VERY amusing, me. Did I tell you I was listening to a concert from 1976 we didn't know existed, last night, in the studio with Pete? I can't tell you about it coz it's secret, but it was very very very very a lot very very exciting and rare. I really think you lot will hear it one day, but I can't swear to that. I have been told I'm a carrot-dangling brute who is very annoying. That cannot be right. Take it back. Are you allowed to tell us if Brian May really exists? EDIT- What's the worst thing that could happen to you if you let some of this stuff "leak"? |
The Real Wizard 22.02.2010 22:16 |
Micrówave wrote: Jimi Hendrix supposedly has nearly 300 unfinished demos. Jimi Hendrix was/is/and will always be in more demand than Queen. So why hasn't someone capitalized on that? It's taken 35 years to get ONE track out. Are you sure that's accurate? There have been 5 posthumous Hendrix albums with new studio material released in the last 35 years, and another one is due out next month. |
Lisser :) 22.02.2010 22:39 |
mooghead wrote: I have been here for lots of years and microwave is one of those who talks a lot but has nothing to say... like he wants to get his thread count up because it is all he has in his life. Ignorance is bliss. He loves it when you bite. I've been on QZ going on 7 years and I honestly have no clue who you are or that you even existed on this site. I've never seen you contribute anything at all except for calling Michael Jackson a twisted pedo. Michael Jackson wrote music, wrote lyrics, performed, directed, produced, pioneered, was named the greatest entertainer by Guiness, etc., Even if he were a twisted pedo, which he was not according to the U.S. Court system, does that not mean he wasn't exceptionally talented and that his music was not worthy of listening to? Is it right for you to hush people and say "who cares about Freddie and some twisted pedo singing together?" I don't think it is right for you to say that. I think that is ignorance. If you like music, like the music, listen to it, enjoy it. There is no need for name calling and false accusations. Michael Jackson was found not guilty. There is no doubt he was exceptional but we did not "know" him, it's not for any of us to say and who cares if he's odd anyway? He's still the biggest star we will all ever see in our lifetime. The fans have the music and that's we should go by. All of this paparazzi stalker shit is ludicrous. |
Sebastian 23.02.2010 09:53 |
Lisser: In some ways I agree. While I don't think a person found 'not guilty' is necessarily 'not guilty' (especially if that person's got enough money to buy that 'not guilty'), watch the second minute of this: link Now, a person who didn't know Sheldon (a fictitious character of course, but for the sake of argument) and witnessed only that minute, would instantly think of him as a twisted paedo. However, those who know him are more than aware that molesting children would not be the last thing in his mind: it's not even in his mind! Let's say Leonard didn't interrupt him and Sheldon ended up inviting that girl to his flat and after watching a Curious George cartoon they fell asleep in his couch (he's far too obsessive to sleep anywhere but in a bed but again for the sake of argument....). Again, nothing would happen, but people would suspect otherwise. Maybe that's (at least partly) what happened to MJ: sharing a bed with some kids, while extremely unusual from a statistical POV (even many parents tend not to share beds with their children after they reach certain age), is not necessarily 'sick' or 'twisted' if Michael hadn't got any obscure intention. We'll never know as we can't read minds. At the end of the day, he may have been innocent and just paid a very high price for his (weird but totally harmless) eccentricities, or he may have been guilty and bought his freedom, or a bit of both, etc. But I agree with your main point: wonderful musician, and deeply missed. |
Lisser 23.02.2010 13:56 |
Seb, I'll have to watch that at home. I can't watch youtube videos at work since they are blocked. Thanks in advance for it. To add a few comments to anyone who wants to listen: I do not disagree that sharing a bed with children who aren't your close relatives (niece, nephew), or your own children is odd and just not a good idea to do however it has no bearing on whether or not I like Michael Jackson's music. This is my main stressor. While I do like to point out that he was found not guilty, bc he was, I do that in the hopes that people might think before they say the usual "whacko jacko pedofile" stuff. It's over and he was proven not guilty of the accusations. Of course it's also over bc he's dead, which thank you pittrek for pointing that out in another thread, I know that quite well. I'm also aware that everyday innocent people are proven guilty and guilty people are proven innocent. I am not the judge or jury in any of those cases so I can't do anything about that. No system is perfect, the fact remains that he was found not guilty. I agree there were more things that were odd about Michael Jackson than there were "normal." But if you are the most famous person on earth and you sell more records than anyone else has ever done, if you do the things and accomplish the things that Michael Jackson was able to do that no one else that walks the earth has done, you're alone, you're isolated and probably not many people will be able to relate to you or share your feelings on things. This is how I think I would feel if I were to put myself in the shoes of someone as accomplished as Michael Jackson. I can only pretend to act like I might know. Regardless, whatever he did in his personal life would never change the fact that I love listening to his music and watching him perform. I'm a fan, not his friend, not his judge. I don't think anyone on this board is anything more than a fan, if even that either so no one has a right to pass judgement. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and I respect that right very much, but I would also like to express my opinions too. If everyone let their personal beliefs/morals dictate which people they liked musically or to watch on film, there would be no one left to entertain. Who is perfect and shares all of your same values? People listen to the music that they prefer and that they like. If you don't agree with homosexuality, do you not listen to Queen bc Freddie liked men? |
lalaalalaa 23.02.2010 17:02 |
Let's try to think about how hard Michael's childhood was like. He took a lot of crap from his father. It's hard to be a normal person when your parents aren't good examples. |
Sebastian 25.02.2010 11:43 |
lalaalalaa wrote: Let's try to think about how hard Michael's childhood was like. He took a lot of crap from his father. It's hard to be a normal person when your parents aren't good examples. I disagree: now, I don't, can't and am not interested to know whether Michael was a child molester or not, but if he were, should we excuse him because of his childhood? If so, we should forgive every criminal, because they all had traumas and had 'reasons' (good or not) to do what they did. Everybody should be allow to kill, rape, steal, yell, hit, abuse, defraud, cheat, etc. because all of us, for some extent, have faced traumatic events. Paraphrasing the Eagles, 'the world doesn't owe you a thing, get over it!' |
The Real Wizard 25.02.2010 12:15 |
Sebastian wrote: If so, we should forgive every criminal, because they all had traumas and had 'reasons' (good or not) to do what they did. Everybody should be allow to kill, rape, steal, yell, hit, abuse, defraud, cheat, etc. because all of us, for some extent, have faced traumatic events. That's correct, for criminals. Michael Jackson wasn't a criminal. |
lalaalalaa 25.02.2010 12:41 |
Sebastian wrote:lalaalalaa wrote: Let's try to think about how hard Michael's childhood was like. He took a lot of crap from his father. It's hard to be a normal person when your parents aren't good examples.I disagree: now, I don't, can't and am not interested to know whether Michael was a child molester or not, but if he were, should we excuse him because of his childhood? If so, we should forgive every criminal, because they all had traumas and had 'reasons' (good or not) to do what they did. Everybody should be allow to kill, rape, steal, yell, hit, abuse, defraud, cheat, etc. because all of us, for some extent, have faced traumatic events. Paraphrasing the Eagles, 'the world doesn't owe you a thing, get over it!' I'm not saying we should excuse this behavior. We should try to help these people understand better. |
The Real Wizard 25.02.2010 13:11 |
lalaalalaa wrote: I'm not saying we should excuse this behavior. We should try to help these people understand better. How about we show some empathy for them and understand THEM better? Getting to the roots of crime is how you solve it, not by demonizing them and simply telling them to be more like us. |
Sebastian 25.02.2010 13:25 |
Sir GH wrote:Sebastian wrote: If so, we should forgive every criminal, because they all had traumas and had 'reasons' (good or not) to do what they did. Everybody should be allow to kill, rape, steal, yell, hit, abuse, defraud, cheat, etc. because all of us, for some extent, have faced traumatic events.That's correct, for criminals. Michael Jackson wasn't a criminal. But still there's no excuse for the window incident, for instance. I don't mind MJ's (or anybody else's) eccentricities as long as they don't (potentially or actually) harm anybody: when he bought Neverland, put a zoo, etc. those things didn't affect other people. If he wanted to name his kids 'Blanket', 'Bedsheet', 'Futon' or 'Platypus', that's his problem - worst case scenario, the kids would hate those names and change them as soon as they reached the legal age. When he held the kid outside that balcony or whatever (I don't remember exactly), that's got NO excuse. Neither his fame, nor his hormones, nor the rumours built around him, etc. Same for any sort of behaviour (criminal or not) that (even if just potentially) could harm other people. Sure, none of us lived what Michael had to live, so what? If so, only heads of state should be allowed to vote, as none of us (unless there's a former or current commander in chief in QZ) can actually know what it's like to rule a country; and none of us should be allowed to say 'Blair did this wrong' or 'Bush was a moron' because none of us lived what they lived. None of us could say 'this paper's telling porkies' unless we own the Daily Mail or something like that and we know what it's like to feel the pressure of selling stories (even if they're fake) to make ends meet. None of us could tell the annoying neighbour not to smoke in front of our kids because none of us lived what the annoying neighbour lived and none of us know what it's like to grow with whatever crap the annoying neighbour grew, etc. Only those who have been professional football players could have a say on whether Beckham or Lampard is the appropriate choice for free kicks, as none of the rest of us know what it's like to play before thousands of people in a stadium and millions at home. Only those of us who are whales should have an opinion on the orca that killed the instructor, as none of us know what it's like to be a cetacean. BTW, that could be Michael's revenge as that Willy wasn't freed. Talk about karma... BTW, crimes aren't 'solved'. The best that can be done is preventing more from happening. And there's a biiiiiiiiiiig difference between 'not demonising' people who make harmful or potentially harmful things and simply not being allowed to have an opinion because we didn't live what they had to live. |
Goodoldfashionedloverboy 09.03.2010 14:40 |
Queen archivist big liar |
Penetration_Guru 10.03.2010 04:06 |
Oh dear, what a repetitive series of tangents.... Greg's hinting that there's a "Q+MJ" version of Victory. He then gets abused, and gives abuse back. It's all tremendously tedious. Let him post what he wants, the serious stuff as well as the drivel - most of you can only emulate half of that anyway. Don't respond to him, don't ask him anything, just decide for yourself which category a post falls into, figure out what he's NOT saying (ie "I can't tell you" = "yes", "no" = "not as far as I know"), and move on. |
cmsdrums 10.03.2010 07:46 |
Sir GH wrote: That's correct, for criminals. Michael Jackson wasn't a criminal. He was - a Smooth Criminal (come on, someone had to say it!!) |
Sebastian 10.03.2010 11:11 |
cmsdrums wrote:Sir GH wrote: That's correct, for criminals. Michael Jackson wasn't a criminal.He was - a Smooth Criminal (come on, someone had to say it!!) And I damn the fact it wasn't me who thought of it. |