| Queen Archivist 20.02.2010 21:57 |
. |
| Queen Archivist 20.02.2010 22:00 |
Queen Archivist wrote: Hello John. Greg here. A few things to say. The first is that it is really irritating when you casually purport to know, somehow, miraculously indeed, and God knows how, exactly what my job entails on a daily basis. The fact is that you have absolutely NO idea at all. You assume that I log tapes all day long whereas in fact that is only one of my tasks and that is more or less done now. I have BUGGER ALL idea about the specifics of the job you do, and so I wouldn't presume to know your duties intimately and spout off about them like I'm your Company M.D or Supervisor. Only an arrogant sod would do that. How arrogant is it for you to presume the things you do, John???? Do I declare to know the details of a Bank Manager's duties without one iota of inside knowledge or firsthand experience? No I do not. Do I presume to tell the QZ community about what Holly or Pitrek's jobs comprise, as If I'm a fly on the wall first hand observer? No of course not. If I did I'm sure they'd call me a dick head. John, you write things such this... 'I don't think anyone would want such a negative job in the first place.' How the Hell can you possibly make such a leap to presume my job is negative???? It's a bloody ludicrous presumption. What evidence do you have? None. You have none at all, but you spout on and on regardless. I spent 4 days last week in the studio watching Queen concert out-takes that no one knew existed. I was as startled as I've ever been. They were on the end of a 2" tape we recently had transferred. HOW IN THE HELL IS THAT REMOTELY NEGATIVE??? I've been logging in great detail the rushes for the Spread Your Wings, Play The Game, Ga Ga, Somebody To Love, Bicycle Race and Crazy Little Thing videos, and watching all the discarded ideas and out-takes. It was greatly fascinating and, watching Freddie laughing and joking and having water tipped all over him, rather moving and poignant. NEGATIVE??????? No John, not remotely. Never EVER that! That's just YOUR ARROGANT ASSUMPTION, based on knowing nothing at all. Again. Not for the first time.Not for the last. You also say... 'Where is the personal creativity, the individuality, the job satisfaction?' John, the job of an Archivist is not supposed to be creative, nor about showing one's individuality. It is about being meticulous and thorough, and, like this week, with certain rushes, bringing long lost gems, some of which they had long forgotten, to the attention of the band. Seeing their reaction is always hugely exciting and unpredictable. And it ALWAYS surprises me what recollections it inspires in them. It is completely spellbinding to see those things and to be the ONE AND PERSON entrusted to do the job thoroughly and miss nothing.... despite what people like you THINK they know about my job. You see... you know nothing. To my astonishment, John, you also say.. 'Sure listening to music is fun, but to take that fun element away and turn it into cataloging every note and nuance is not as glamorous as it would seem. Very soon it would devolve into another slavish factory-type monotonous chore.' You could not possibly be MORE WRONG if you tried until Dooms Day. This shows the extent of your total ignorance of my job. The second my job becomes anything remotely like.... 'another slavish factory-type monotonous chore', I would be off down the road. That is not going to happen. I KNOW it even if you don't. My God! You are WAY WAY WAY WAY off the mark John. Serious genuine question... How can listening to Freddie discussing piano parts with Brian and Roy Baker from 1973, and Roger singing lead vocals on a track that Freddie usually sings, or the sound of Freddie and Roger laughing together like best mates, between takes on the Races sessions, EVER get boring or anything resembling that???? I'm totally baffled at your presumptions of my job, given that you actually know as much about it as I do about your job. It's just crazy to suggest such things. And arrogant beyond belief. Never in a million years could listening to Queen session out-takes and alternative versions, or watching Queen video rushes, become.... another slavish factory-type monotonous chore. John, you said to Rubens, elsewhere on this site.... "But even if he was a troll impersonator - so what? At the end of the day, what difference would it make - the position is still redundant and now serves no useful purpose.' WHAT ON EARTH do you base this on????? What gives you the impression that you know sufficient details about MY job, at the complete other end of the UK from you, hundreds of miles away, to come on here bleeting on like you know everything??? My job entails things on a daily basis that you have NIL idea or concept of. Do you have any idea what maintaining an audio and video archive entails? Do you know the extent of our tape, video and film transferring program? Do you know about the baking of analogue tapes before we can play them and log them? No, you know nothing about this, nor about the quantities involved. Do you know how many requests I have every week or month for myriad Queen footage or audio for radio, TV and film?? No, of course not. Do you know how many licensing requests come my way, or internet things that I monitor? Do you know the extent of my involvement in YouTube, for Queen????????? No, John, you know NONE OF THESE things, and yet you casually impart... 'the position is still redundant and now serves no useful purpose.'' John, with respect to you, you know nothing about my job or about my duties or what I am involved in. You have no clue what I do for Brian or for Queen, or for the Freddie archive, the EMI archive, or the innumerable things that tie me up every single day. So can I suggest you spend your time talking instead about the things you DO know about. You are knowledgeable about Queen. Not as knowledgeable as you THINK you are, but still knowledgeable. Focus on that which you DO understand, and please cease with the guesswork and completely WRONG assumptions. When you proffer moronic comments such as my listening to precious Queen studio banter and film rushes being... 'another slavish factory-type monotonous chore,' you just make yourself look like a bit of a tit, rather than the knowledgeable though arrogant and presumptuous expert I know you to be. |
| Projector Freddie 21.02.2010 01:02 |
Can I just say that I've been a longtime reader but not a frequent poster, and Greg, I've always supported you, because I know what it's like when someone thinks they know what your job is like. |
| Projector Freddie 21.02.2010 01:41 |
Not to mention I think you have one of the coolest jobs in the world and would kill to have it. Maybe not kill. |
| geldy 21.02.2010 03:50 |
Radio... BLAH BLAH!!! |
| Micrówave 21.02.2010 04:01 |
My job entails things on a daily basis that you have NIL idea or concept of. Such as 1. Insulting Queen fans 2. Lying 3. proclaiming your self worth 4. misrepresentation 5. cataloging audio and video files 6. drinking 7. internet chat rooms |
| brENsKi 21.02.2010 05:01 |
8. being a dick |
| brians wig 21.02.2010 05:30 |
Queen Archivist wrote: I've been logging in great detail the rushes for the Spread Your Wings, Play The Game, Ga Ga, Somebody To Love, Bicycle Race and Crazy Little Thing videos, and watching all the discarded ideas and out-takes. It was greatly fascinating and, watching Freddie laughing and joking and having water tipped all over him, rather moving and poignant. NEGATIVE??????? No John, not remotely. Never EVER that! Hang on Greg. This is nothing new - you announced at convention in 2008 that they'd recently been found, so how come it's taken two years before you start to log them? |
| pittrek 21.02.2010 05:41 |
Greg - a personal question - why do you use my name as a negative example ? I try to keep out from these childish flamewars so I'm quite surprised to find me mentioned here |
| Queen Archivist 21.02.2010 06:13 |
Pittrek I actually used your name in the above merely as an example of a person whose job I do not know about, that was all. But if I have implied negative things about you in previous threads, and it was unfounded, then I apologise. The first two QZers I could think of was you and Holly. There was no more to it than that. |
| pittrek 21.02.2010 06:19 |
Thanks for the explanation. No worries, I've been only wondering :-) |
| Queen Archivist 21.02.2010 06:30 |
To Microwave.... who is talking out of his bottom... I WILL REPLY IN CAPS..... GB: My job entails things on a daily basis that you have NIL idea or concept of. Microwave: Such as 1. Insulting Queen fans. GB: A LOT OF QZ-ERS INSULT ME FREQUENTLY ON THIS SITE, MICRO OLD CHUM, AND THUS I SOMETIMES GIVE BACK AS GOOD AS I GET. I REGARD THIS AS FAIR AND BALANCED. NO MORE, NO LESS. YOU WOULD PROBABLY DO THE SAME IN MY POSITION, BUT I WOULDN'T BOTHER MENTIONING IT TO YOU BECAUSE I WOULD SEE THE SITUATION FOR WHAT IT IS. UNLIKE YOU. 2. Lying. GB: I HAVE NEVER LIED ON THIS SITE. I HAVE SAID BLATANTLY SILLY THINGS SOMETIMES, AND OUTRAGEOUS AND CLEARLY ABSURD PISS TAKES... I THINK YOU'RE CONFUSING THE TWO THINGS. I HAVE NO NEED TO LIE, WHEN A WIND-UP DOES THE TRICK AND REALLY GETS BACKS UP - PRECISELY AS INTENDED. IF I CANNOT OR WILL NOT ANSWER SOMETHING, I SIMPLY SAY SO... AS YOU SHOULD WELL KNOW BY NOW. 3. proclaiming your self worth. GB: GUILTY. AND I STAND BY IT. IN THIS QZ ENVIRONMENT WHERE NEARLY ALL OF YOU JUST LIKE TO THINK I DO NOTHING OF WORTH. I STAND UP FOR MYSELF WHEN PEOPLE LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, HOLLY, DIG AND KNOCK ME BUT REFUSE POINT BLANK EVER TO AGREE WITH ME HERE WHEN THEY DO SEE MY POINT. IT'S ALL SO IMMATURE AND ONE SIDED, BUT YES I AM AWARE SOME QZ-ERS ARE QUITE YOUNG. THEY PROBABLY ARE TEENAGERS A LOT OF THEM, BUT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW. THEY ARE HAPPY TO JOIN THE HAVE A GO AT GB BANDWAGON, BUT THERE IS NO PROPER BALANCE. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THEY SEE MY POINT, AGREE WITH ME.... BUT THEY CANNOT WILL NOT WANT TO BE SEEN TO AGREE. THAT WOULD NEVER DO. AND THAT IS VERY CHILDISH, DON'T YOU AGREE? 'CAN YOU' AGREE WITH ME INDEED? WHAT WOULD YOUR FELLOW QZ-ERS MAKE OF THAT... YOU'D BE A TRAITOR IN THER EYES. SO I STAND UP FOR MYSELF. THIS IS TRUE. 4. misrepresentation GB: NO, THIS IS RUBBISH. YOU ARE GRABBING AT STRAWS NOW. 5. cataloging audio and video files GB: YES THIS IS PART OF IT. WELL DONE. 6. drinking GB: NOW YOU'RE BEING JUST PLAIN STUPID, AGAIN. I LIKE TEA AND COFFEE. IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN, YOU DOPEY MUPPET TYPE. 7. internet chat rooms GB: VERY VERY OCCASIONALLY, WHEN I'M BORED. NOWHERE NEAR AS MUCH TIME ON THEM AS YOU DO. I HAVE A FULL AND ACTIVE LIFE. YOU NEED TO LOOK AT YOUR OWN TIME SPAN ON HERE BEFORE POPPING AT ME SILLY BOY. IT'S A BIT RICH YOU TELLING ME ABOUT TIME SPENT ON FORUMS, WHEN YOU YOURSELF VIRTUALLY LIVE HERE. POT AND KETTLE SYNDROME OLD SON! |
| Queen Archivist 21.02.2010 06:34 |
Queen Archivist wrote: I've been logging in great detail the rushes for the Spread Your Wings, Play The Game, Ga Ga, Somebody To Love, Bicycle Race and Crazy Little Thing videos, and watching all the discarded ideas and out-takes. It was greatly fascinating and, watching Freddie laughing and joking and having water tipped all over him, rather moving and poignant. NEGATIVE??????? No John, not remotely. Never EVER that! Hang on Greg. This is nothing new - you announced at convention in 2008 that they'd recently been found, so how come it's taken two years before you start to log them? GB: HEY THERE BRIAN'S HAIR.. THIS STUFF IS NEW. I ONLY WATCHED IT LAST WEEK. I NEVER SAW IT BEFORE IN MY LIFE. SO EXCUSE ME BUT YOU'RE TOTALLY AND UTTERLY INCORRECT AGAIN. THE STUFF I MENTIONED YEARS AGO WAS VERY DIFFERENT - ALTERNATE TAKES. NOT THE RUSHES. WE ONLY TRANSFERRED THEM RECENTLY SO IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO VIEW THEM BEFORE RECENTLY. NOW APOLOGISE FOR BEING WRONG. RIGHT NOW AND RIGHT HERE. ARE YOU BIG ENOUGH TO DO THAT?????????????????????????? |
| Holly2003 21.02.2010 06:45 |
boo hoo. go buy some Kleenex and have your emotional breakdown elsewhere. |
| mooghead 21.02.2010 06:57 |
At the end of the day Greg, everyone is jealous of you and people, Brits in particular, dont like people who make them jealous. Thats when the insults and vitriol starts. Some of the things you say can be childish but its so obviously a piss take I cannot believe people bite time after time. Good on you. Hope you are loving the job as much as I know I (and John Stuart) would. ("Jealousy, look at me now......") |
| Jam Monkey 21.02.2010 07:04 |
Can't we all just get along... |
| Holly2003 21.02.2010 07:15 |
mooghead wrote: At the end of the day Greg, everyone is jealous of you and people, Brits in particular, dont like people who make them jealous. Thats when the insults and vitriol starts. Some of the things you say can be childish but its so obviously a piss take I cannot believe people bite time after time. Good on you. Hope you are loving the job as much as I know I (and John Stuart) would. ("Jealousy, look at me now......") http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/jsi/lowres/jsin149l.jpg |
| John S Stuart 21.02.2010 07:27 |
To Greg Brooks... Hit a nerve did I? In life some of us are crocodiles, others are plovers. Personally I prefer being the former than the latter. Or is that too subtle for you to grasp? Your loving bud... John |
| mooghead 21.02.2010 07:32 |
Holly2003 wrote:mooghead wrote: At the end of the day Greg, everyone is jealous of you and people, Brits in particular, dont like people who make them jealous. Thats when the insults and vitriol starts. Some of the things you say can be childish but its so obviously a piss take I cannot believe people bite time after time. Good on you. Hope you are loving the job as much as I know I (and John Stuart) would. ("Jealousy, look at me now......")http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/jsi/lowres/jsin149l.jpg Perfect. Just what I'm talking about. |
| Holly2003 21.02.2010 07:36 |
mooghead wrote:Holly2003 wrote:Perfect. Just what I'm talking about.mooghead wrote: At the end of the day Greg, everyone is jealous of you and people, Brits in particular, dont like people who make them jealous. Thats when the insults and vitriol starts. Some of the things you say can be childish but its so obviously a piss take I cannot believe people bite time after time. Good on you. Hope you are loving the job as much as I know I (and John Stuart) would. ("Jealousy, look at me now......")http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/jsi/lowres/jsin149l.jpg You don't know what you're talking about, but that's your problem, not mine. |
| Queen Archivist 21.02.2010 07:39 |
John, you took the EASY option again. You read my words, saw that I made my point extremely strongly, and indisputably even by your standards, and then you thought about some kind of response. But you couldn't come up with one. "Sorry Greg, I was wrong" was all it takes. I made my point well, because I detailed facts not ill-informed guess work like you did. You can see that you were 100% wrong to casually suggest what you did, but you are not big enough or eloquent or gracious enough to apologise. It just isn't in you John. It takes a man to admit when he's wrong, and you are very clearly are wrong, as I demonstrated. You're unable to do that. It says a lot about you. John, why can't people like you read a posting like mine, recognise you were in error, and simply admit it? Why is that beyond you? Yes you did strike a nerve. You said things about my job and duties that were plainly wholly in error. I think anyone who truly cares about their job would be offended when a clumsy oaf like you, with no understanding or inside experience, bounds into things he knows nothing about, like an arrogant bull in a china shop. Be a big enough person to respond to the main thrust of my thread, instead of evading it so conspicuously like a cowardly resentful jealous (let's face it) individual who can never admit he's wrong. |
| john bodega 21.02.2010 08:19 |
I don't get it. What is the big deal? GB is an archivist. He gets to handle a bunch of stuff we'll never see. How the fuck can we possibly have stretched that out into several threads dotted over many years? Mooooove along, people, it's not worth discussing. It's not like he can smuggle anything out in his pockets for us. |
| John S Stuart 21.02.2010 09:11 |
Queen Archivist wrote: Be a big enough person to respond to the main thrust of my thread, instead of evading it so conspicuously like a cowardly resentful jealous (let's face it) individual who can never admit he's wrong. Although I agree with Zebonka 12 (above) - here are my final thoughts on the subject. There are many threads in here either started by, or contributed to by your good self. I am not responsible for those - you are. When we actually trawl through your threads and begin to critically analyse their contribution - you betray yourself from the large volume of data you have left behind. Breeding, education, grammer, spelling, vocabulary, style, manners, etiquette, character and personality (or the lack thereof) can all shine through - and can be gleaned - not from me - but from 'Greg in his own words' - and I think that is the important bit to remember. Not what I or others say about you - but what you say about yourself - in your words and your thoughts. (They become the emissary for your mind and your soul). BTW; That does not only just apply to GB - it applies to anyone who has a large body of work to look through - and private correspondence, or forum contributions are among the most personally revealing of all. It was you who stated you did not work for Queen Productions, but were self-employed. Not I. It was you who stated that times were lean and you needed to suppliment income by (perhaps) writing children's books. Not I. It was you who stated that the job was not glamourous and you were shackled to 'the man' Not I. It was you who said that you were forbidden by contract from revealing track details. Not I. You are the one who (in Freddie's words) is "a pr*ck teaser..." - "I will continue to listen to Victory... etc..." to paraphrase. Not I. You are the one who behaves like a cross between an internet troll and an arrogant spoilt child. Not I. So you see, all I have done is held up a mirror to reflect your Queenzone image, which you created. If you do not like that image - that is your problem - not mine. Again to quote valtaire "Judge of a man by his questions rather than by his answers", and you have left us many questions to judge you and your performance on. Finally; This thread is not really about me. Rather, it is about your perceptions and your reactions, which again say far more about you - than they do I. I am neither resentful of you or your job. As far as I am concerned, I am very content with life. An educated, professional background, based upon middle class values. A beautiful home. A lovely wife. Educated, professional children. A doting, adoring grand-child. Life is good, and is measured by more instruments than mere slide-rules. Why would I be resentful? It was you who used the word resentful - I wonder why? |
| david (galashiels) 21.02.2010 09:25 |
any chance of hearing a snipet of.victory?. |
| Jam Monkey 21.02.2010 11:05 |
david (galashiels) wrote: any chance of hearing a snipet of.victory?. Hear hear, but let's not hold our breath |
| Sebastian 21.02.2010 12:28 |
John S Stuart wrote:Queen Archivist wrote: Be a big enough person to respond to the main thrust of my thread, instead of evading it so conspicuously like a cowardly resentful jealous (let's face it) individual who can never admit he's wrong.Although I agree with Zebonka 12 (above) - here are my final thoughts on the subject. There are many threads in here either started by, or contributed to by your good self. I am not responsible for those - you are. When we actually trawl through your threads and begin to critically analyse their contribution - you betray yourself from the large volume of data you have left behind. Breeding, education, grammer, spelling, vocabulary, style, manners, etiquette, character and personality (or the lack thereof) can all shine through - and can be gleaned - not from me - but from 'Greg in his own words' - and I think that is the important bit to remember. Not what I or others say about you - but what you say about yourself - in your words and your thoughts. (They become the emissary for your mind and your soul). BTW; That does not only just apply to GB - it applies to anyone who has a large body of work to look through - and private correspondence, or forum contributions are among the most personally revealing of all. It was you who stated you did not work for Queen Productions, but were self-employed. Not I. It was you who stated that times were lean and you needed to suppliment income by (perhaps) writing children's books. Not I. It was you who stated that the job was not glamourous and you were shackled to 'the man' Not I. It was you who said that you were forbidden by contract from revealing track details. Not I. You are the one who (in Freddie's words) is "a pr*ck teaser..." - "I will continue to listen to Victory... etc..." to paraphrase. Not I. You are the one who behaves like a cross between an internet troll and an arrogant spoilt child. Not I. So you see, all I have done is held up a mirror to reflect your Queenzone image, which you created. If you do not like that image - that is your problem - not mine. Again to quote valtaire "Judge of a man by his questions rather than by his answers", and you have left us many questions to judge you and your performance on. Finally; This thread is not really about me. Rather, it is about your perceptions and your reactions, which again say far more about you - than they do I. I am neither resentful of you or your job. As far as I am concerned, I am very content with life. An educated, professional background, based upon middle class values. A beautiful home. A lovely wife. Educated, professional children. A doting, adoring grand-child. Life is good, and is measured by more instruments than mere slide-rules. Why would I be resentful? It was you who used the word resentful - I wonder why? Best post you've ever written. And curiously, Greg hasn't replied, even though he's often very quick to jump at what you and other people say. |
| john bodega 21.02.2010 12:35 |
As long as we're keeping it civil, fellas. You never know ... any day now, those Queen rarities could be released. Isn't that a nice thought? Of course, I'll be in my 50s, but hey! |
| Micrówave 21.02.2010 13:44 |
To Greg, my replies in BOLD since you chose CAPS. To Microwave.... who is talking out of his bottom... I WILL REPLY IN CAPS..... Actually I talk out my front door, which is pretty much the same. GB: My job entails things on a daily basis that you have NIL idea or concept of. Microwave: Such as 1. Insulting Queen fans. GB: A LOT OF QZ-ERS INSULT ME FREQUENTLY ON THIS SITE, MICRO OLD CHUM, AND THUS I SOMETIMES GIVE BACK AS GOOD AS I GET. I REGARD THIS AS FAIR AND BALANCED. NO MORE, NO LESS. YOU WOULD PROBABLY DO THE SAME IN MY POSITION, BUT I WOULDN'T BOTHER MENTIONING IT TO YOU BECAUSE I WOULD SEE THE SITUATION FOR WHAT IT IS. UNLIKE YOU. Actually you seem to start it 75% of the time. 2. Lying. GB: I HAVE NEVER LIED ON THIS SITE. I HAVE SAID BLATANTLY SILLY THINGS SOMETIMES, AND OUTRAGEOUS AND CLEARLY ABSURD PISS TAKES... I THINK YOU'RE CONFUSING THE TWO THINGS. I HAVE NO NEED TO LIE, WHEN A WIND-UP DOES THE TRICK AND REALLY GETS BACKS UP - PRECISELY AS INTENDED. IF I CANNOT OR WILL NOT ANSWER SOMETHING, I SIMPLY SAY SO... AS YOU SHOULD WELL KNOW BY NOW. Saying "I have NEVER lied on this site" is a lie in itself. "Never" implies that you are 100% certain, you've checked all of the posts you've ever written? 3. proclaiming your self worth. GB: GUILTY. AND I STAND BY IT. IN THIS QZ ENVIRONMENT WHERE NEARLY ALL OF YOU JUST LIKE TO THINK I DO NOTHING OF WORTH. I STAND UP FOR MYSELF WHEN PEOPLE LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, HOLLY, DIG AND KNOCK ME BUT REFUSE POINT BLANK EVER TO AGREE WITH ME HERE WHEN THEY DO SEE MY POINT. You do it without provocation. It doesn't take Holly or anyone else to do anything sometimes. IT'S ALL SO IMMATURE AND ONE SIDED, BUT YES I AM AWARE SOME QZ-ERS ARE QUITE YOUNG. THEY PROBABLY ARE TEENAGERS A LOT OF THEM, BUT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW. THEY ARE HAPPY TO JOIN THE HAVE A GO AT GB BANDWAGON, BUT THERE IS NO PROPER BALANCE. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THEY SEE MY POINT, AGREE WITH ME.... BUT THEY CANNOT WILL NOT WANT TO BE SEEN TO AGREE. THAT WOULD NEVER DO. AND THAT IS VERY CHILDISH, DON'T YOU AGREE? Totally. 'CAN YOU' AGREE WITH ME INDEED? WHAT WOULD YOUR FELLOW QZ-ERS MAKE OF THAT... YOU'D BE A TRAITOR IN THER EYES. SO I STAND UP FOR MYSELF. THIS IS TRUE. Actually, I've (and several others have) stood up for you only to be shot down in a later thread. 4. misrepresentation GB: NO, THIS IS RUBBISH. YOU ARE GRABBING AT STRAWS NOW. I remember you vehemently saying Sun City does not exist. A couple years later, the entire Queenzone community is blessed with footage of the event... and not from the Queen camp. I specify the Queenzone community, because that is all who were interested in it. If it was some big sellable product, it would be all over the web. 5. cataloging audio and video files GB: YES THIS IS PART OF IT. WELL DONE. Hey, I know you do SOMETHING!!! 6. drinking GB: NOW YOU'RE BEING JUST PLAIN STUPID, AGAIN. I LIKE TEA AND COFFEE. IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN, YOU DOPEY MUPPET TYPE. I was thinking Adult beverages. 7. internet chat rooms GB: VERY VERY OCCASIONALLY, WHEN I'M BORED. NOWHERE NEAR AS MUCH TIME ON THEM AS YOU DO. I HAVE A FULL AND ACTIVE LIFE. YOU NEED TO LOOK AT YOUR OWN TIME SPAN ON HERE BEFORE POPPING AT ME SILLY BOY. IT'S A BIT RICH YOU TELLING ME ABOUT TIME SPENT ON FORUMS, WHEN YOU YOURSELF VIRTUALLY LIVE HERE. POT AND KETTLE SYNDROME OLD SON! The rent is cheap. The neighbors are nice. Greg, there was a time when you were a very respected member of the community. A lot of us enjoy your brand of humor, but I believe you've been taking it too far as of late. Instead of starting a thread proclaiming how great you are, how about starting one about something worthwhile? Maybe you're going to the UK convention and you could give us an idea about something you'll be presenting? Maybe some behind-the-scenes stories. You don't have to be specific about a certain concert or song. To many of us, you represent Queen and how it feels about it's fans. Have you ever thought about that? They must pay you some kind of stipend to do what you do, so I would expect you to represent yourself in a more positive light. You don't have to get a lobotomy, for Christ's sake, but if you "gave back" a little, we wouldn't mind your humor one bit. We'd like to have the old Indiana Brooks back, as Zeb's photo suggests. |
| Benn Kempster 21.02.2010 13:59 |
Greggy Boy, Once again, you titilate and throw out the chum in order to entice; you think we can't see what you've done in evading the point of your own post? Needing to prompt people into questioning you about the out-takes again with no intention of responding - as with Tiger Woods, *you* are a self-aggrandising prick. On the Ning Nang Nong Where the Cows go Bong! and the monkeys all say BOO! There's a Nong Nang Ning Where the trees go Ping! And the tea pots jibber jabber joo. On the Nong Ning Nang All the mice go Clang And you just can't catch 'em when they do! So its Ning Nang Nong Cows go Bong! Nong Nang Ning Trees go ping Nong Ning Nang The mice go Clang What a noisy place to belong is the Ning Nang Ning Nang Nong!! |
| louis.007 21.02.2010 15:47 |
Well I just want to say hello to Mr Kempster who I haven't heard from in years. From Adam, former editor of the 'Queen Chronicle' - No big deal or high almighty attitude because I produced a fanzine that most liked, it was just a labour of love. I must say that I know a few people on here including those involved in this thread and really do find it highly amusing that grown men should bicker in this way. Greg you have a enviable job... FACT! But to tease with such alarming regularity is only going to backfire due to jealousy and the unavailability of such gems. I have a direct question - When are we going to see, if ever, the proposed Queen rarities box set? A straight answer will be more than sufficient - 2010? Unknown but it will happen? or Never? I'm not asking what's on it but just want to know 'cos I ain't getting any younger! John, Greg, Pittrek, Holly.... you all have your attributes, let's not waste time fighting. |
| Josh Henson 21.02.2010 16:42 |
Uggh, this site has become more of a "let's insult everyone who uses improper English or asks 'stupid' questions that a true diehard Queen fan would never ask or bitch at the Queen Archivist". And I've done my share in the past, but come on guys, this crap is SO boring now. I wonder what jobs alot of you guys actually do have if you can spend ALL day long on here blogging and posting and ranting? Here's the deal. Queen fans want new material. No offense Greg, but no one wants the shitty singles collections, or butchered Q+PR material. They also don't care for crappy studio albums (Cosmos Rocks; lets really be honest, musically and lyrically this album is crap) or another Greatest Hits package. This is all evident by the crappy sales. I have bought EVERY thing Queen has put out until the past few years. I didn't buy the singles collections, live in Ukraine or Absolute Greatest. So what does this say about diehard Queen fans (and I'm sure I'm not the only one)? Do I really need to say it? QUEEN IS BORING NOW. Queen fans, REAL Queen fans want unrealesed concerts (FROM THE 1970's, NOT MORE 1980's SHOWS) that supposedly exist in their entirety, unreleased tracks, etc. etc. What about remastering the real Queen albums and adding bonus tracks and outtakes? Other bands have done this recently. Why not Queen? So, how can we all come together to get it across to QP to start releasing some worthwhile stuff? Whatever happened to the hinted Hammersmith 1975 show? Brian May made it seem that it was getting released. Where the hell is it? This shows a lack of concern by him and Roger Taylor to not make more stuff happen. Oh and QP needs to find a new person to mix the live audio (where the hell are the drums???) and someone else to come up with album cover artwork. Again, let's be honest, Singles Collections, Stone Cold Classics, Return of the Champions, Live in Ukraine (what a joke!...I could have photoshopped a better one), Live in Montreal all had HORRIBLE crappy artwork that my cat could have done better designing them. That felt good. |
| Queen Archivist 21.02.2010 17:06 |
John You did not respond to one single thing I said, where I pointed out several aspects that clearly and blatantly demonstrate my job duties are far very very far from how you described them. YOU WERE TOTALLY WRONG TO STATE THE FOLLOWING, BUT ARE NOT MAN ENOUGH TO ADMIT IT. HOW PITIFUL IS THAT??? NOT TO MENTION ANNOYING. I THINK THE WORD 'ANNOYING' WILL NOT BE ALIEN TO YOU. * 'I don't think anyone would want such a negative job in the first place.' * Sure listening to music is fun, but to take that fun element away and turn it into cataloging every note and nuance is not as glamorous as it would seem. Very soon it would devolve into another slavish factory-type monotonous chore.' I told you that you could not possibly be MORE WRONG if you tried until Dooms Day, and that it only shows the extent of your total ignorance of my job. You just ignored these things, and ALL the evidence listed for you, as usual, like you always do and always did, for as long as i can recall. This shows your true character. I proved you wrong, you know it, but you cannot admit it. Even other QZ-ers, like mooghead, can see that jealousy drives much of what you say and suggest, and they have told you more than four or five times that I can remember. Only you cannot see it. This has always been my biggest problem with you, Johnst, that while you are a very knowledgeable Queenie, you just do not know when to be balanced and fair. It's not in you. That's why I severed links with you in the first place. NOT because of any other thing... but simply because you will not address the issues at hand. You skirt around issues and avoid the real points, every time, and it frustrates the hell out of me and most of the other people I know who once dealt with you. You make it impossible to maintain a sensible and fair and balanced dialog, because you avoid the main issues ALL THE TIME and focus instead on the peripheral detail. You go around the houses more than a blind pigeon with magnets sellotaped to its head. Please do not ever become a taxi driver!!!!!!!!!!! |
| david (galashiels) 21.02.2010 18:11 |
go on gb.be brave..give us a snipet of victory. i dont spose you have the complete.it,s late live... now that would go down well lol. |
| brians wig 22.02.2010 04:33 |
Queen Archivist wrote: GB: HEY THERE BRIAN'S HAIR.. THIS STUFF IS NEW. I ONLY WATCHED IT LAST WEEK. I NEVER SAW IT BEFORE IN MY LIFE. SO EXCUSE ME BUT YOU'RE TOTALLY AND UTTERLY INCORRECT AGAIN. THE STUFF I MENTIONED YEARS AGO WAS VERY DIFFERENT - ALTERNATE TAKES. NOT THE RUSHES. WE ONLY TRANSFERRED THEM RECENTLY SO IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO VIEW THEM BEFORE RECENTLY. NOW APOLOGISE FOR BEING WRONG. RIGHT NOW AND RIGHT HERE. ARE YOU BIG ENOUGH TO DO THAT?????????????????????????? I'm sorry Greg. If I'm wrong then I always hold up my hands and admit it. Do you? link 30th March, 2008 Oh, and before you mention it, this was recorded on camera BEFORE you played your archive tracks and before you asked everybody NOT to record said tracks as it would prevent us from hearing anything else in future, so no, those tracks are NOT part of the convention video that was filmed. |
| pittrek 22.02.2010 06:31 |
brians wig wrote:Queen Archivist wrote: GB: HEY THERE BRIAN'S HAIR.. THIS STUFF IS NEW. I ONLY WATCHED IT LAST WEEK. I NEVER SAW IT BEFORE IN MY LIFE. SO EXCUSE ME BUT YOU'RE TOTALLY AND UTTERLY INCORRECT AGAIN. THE STUFF I MENTIONED YEARS AGO WAS VERY DIFFERENT - ALTERNATE TAKES. NOT THE RUSHES. WE ONLY TRANSFERRED THEM RECENTLY SO IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO VIEW THEM BEFORE RECENTLY. NOW APOLOGISE FOR BEING WRONG. RIGHT NOW AND RIGHT HERE. ARE YOU BIG ENOUGH TO DO THAT??????????????????????????I'm sorry Greg. If I'm wrong then I always hold up my hands and admit it. Do you? link Oh, and before you mention it, this was recorded on camera BEFORE you played your archive tracks and before you asked everybody NOT to record said tracks as it would prevent us from hearing anything else in future, so no, those tracks are NOT part of the convention video that was filmed. Oops you're cruel :-) |
| John S Stuart 22.02.2010 06:33 |
brians wig: I tried to click on the above link but it didn't work. However, when I cut and pasted the link into the address bar - it does. link Thanks for that. I wonder if GB will now apologise to you? I seem to recall from childhood it was Jesus who reportedly said: "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee..." - Luke 19:22 (Or to paraphrase my own mail above - this is his words - not yours/mine/ours) Just for clarity - can you put a date to the recording please? (PS: I am not religious as an adult - but that's what years of Sunday school indoctrination does for you - lol!) |
| Dane 22.02.2010 06:58 |
What the FUCK is wrong with the lot of you?!?! John and Greg, deal with this ONE ON ONE.. The only ones really caring about your opinion of eachother (if it wasnt clear already) is yourselves!! This board can do with a LOT less crap like this.. Greg, why do you care if someone presumes to know your job? If it's your credibillity you're worried about... DON'T Defending ones 'online' honor... is THIS the world we created.. ...find something more productive to do, please. |
| pittrek 22.02.2010 07:00 |
Dane wrote: What the FUCK is wrong with the lot of you?!?! John and Greg, deal with this ONE ON ONE.. The only ones really caring about your opinion of each other (if it wasn't clear already) is yourselves!! This board can do with a LOT less crap like this.. Greg, why do you care if someone presumes to know your job? If it's your credibility you're worried about... DON'T Defending ones 'on-line' honour... is THIS the world we created ? .. ...find something more productive to do, please. Probably the first reasonable comment in this thread |
| John S Stuart 22.02.2010 07:18 |
Dane wrote: What the FUCK is wrong with the lot of you?!?! John and Greg, deal with this ONE ON ONE.. The only ones really caring about your opinion of eachother (if it wasnt clear already) is yourselves!! This board can do with a LOT less crap like this.. Greg, why do you care if someone presumes to know your job? If it's your credibillity you're worried about... DON'T Defending ones 'online' honor... is THIS the world we created.. ...find something more productive to do, please. I totally agree with you. I see no reason why this is public - or why it is in a serious discussion thread. However, the thread is addressed to me - so I am really damned if I reply - and damned if I ignore it. Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps I should rise above it - but it is very difficult to ignore a personally loaded thread like this without adding some sort of comment. Unless one has had a personal thread commencing: "To Dane" (or whoever), it is very difficult to appreciate how difficult it is to bite one's tongue. But, I take your point. |
| Oi ! Fingers ! 22.02.2010 07:32 |
Ahhh,Can't we all just leave lovely cuddly, beardy Gregy alone ?He ain't a wrong 'un, gawd bless him. And he has a cute ass. |
| Queen Archivist 22.02.2010 10:43 |
I agree with Dane and Oi Fingers! And I agree with Johnny St Stuart, who agreed with Dane and everyone else. I agree with whatever JSS agrees with because that's always nice to do, don't you agree? Johnny mate, can you please give me a wee list of the myriad things currently on QZ that you agree with, and the various people herein you're in agreement with, so that I can formally and VERY Publicly agree too. This would help enormously with me becoming much loved and admired here, which, don't tell anyone, is really crucial to me. By the way.... would you agree with me that quoting the bible on this forum, and/or anywhere else, is decidedly disagreeable? Surely we can agree on this???? Go on Johnny St Stuart, agree with me on this. You know you want to.. You can't resist a good agreeing. Go on! Go on! Love and respect to you and yorn John, and remember, 'But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.(Matthew 5:44,45) OH Bugger and ballbags. I quoted the bible. Damnation! |
| Queen Archivist 22.02.2010 11:18 |
Benn Kempster wrote: Greggy Boy, Once again, you titilate and throw out the chum in order to entice; you think we can't see what you've done in evading the point of your own post? Needing to prompt people into questioning you about the out-takes again with no intention of responding - as with Tiger Woods, *you* are a self-aggrandising prick. On the Ning Nang Nong Where the Cows go Bong! and the monkeys all say BOO! There's a Nong Nang Ning Where the trees go Ping! And the tea pots jibber jabber joo. On the Nong Ning Nang All the mice go Clang And you just can't catch 'em when they do! So its Ning Nang Nong Cows go Bong! Nong Nang Ning Trees go ping Nong Ning Nang The mice go Clang What a noisy place to belong is the Ning Nang Ning Nang Nong!!Benn-der I have gone right off you now. You are a brute and a.... a.... "what is he Pete?" "A THUG?" Yes, Benn-der, you are a thug. You are not getting anything from me for your birthday or Christmas. Your harsh words have really deeply effected me and upset my kilter and that stuff. You have no idea how upsetting it is for me when you say those nasty words at me. "Does he Pete?" "No GB." See! |
| david (galashiels) 22.02.2010 13:12 |
go on greg..victory and it,s late live video.go on man cheer me up. do this for me and i will give you all my queen videos.seems fair. o and by the way..............you dont have a spare.. jfk live aid prog.. do you.. thanks.david. |
| mooghead 22.02.2010 14:44 |
Will you shut up about Victory. Who gives a shit about Freddie singing with some twisted paedo.. |
| mooghead 22.02.2010 14:45 |
Holly2003 wrote:mooghead wrote:You don't know what you're talking about, but that's your problem, not mine.Holly2003 wrote:Perfect. Just what I'm talking about.mooghead wrote: At the end of the day Greg, everyone is jealous of you and people, Brits in particular, dont like people who make them jealous. Thats when the insults and vitriol starts. Some of the things you say can be childish but its so obviously a piss take I cannot believe people bite time after time. Good on you. Hope you are loving the job as much as I know I (and John Stuart) would. ("Jealousy, look at me now......")http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/jsi/lowres/jsin149l.jpg Yet again, brilliant and inciteful. Have a biscuit. |
| Lisser :) 22.02.2010 22:17 |
mooghead wrote: Will you shut up about Victory. Who gives a shit about Freddie singing with some twisted paedo.. Michael Jackson wasn't a twisted pedo. He was brillant and he was found not guilty. I give a shit about his music and I give a shit about Freddie singing with him and would like the opportunity to hear it in my lifetime. |
| The Real Wizard 22.02.2010 23:19 |
Lisser :) wrote:Amen!mooghead wrote: Will you shut up about Victory. Who gives a shit about Freddie singing with some twisted paedo..Michael Jackson wasn't a twisted pedo. He was brillant and he was found not guilty. I give a shit about his music and I give a shit about Freddie singing with him and would like the opportunity to hear it in my lifetime.Another song has been out for years.. link |
| cmsdrums 23.02.2010 07:56 |
Lisser :) wrote: Michael Jackson wasn't a twisted pedo. He was brillant and he was found not guilty.Being found not guilty meant he was a free man, but didn't necessaily conclusively prove his innocence. After all, Elton John was married to a woman, but it didn't prove that he wasn't gay! |
| The Real Wizard 23.02.2010 12:48 |
True. But since he was found innocent, there's no need to call him a pedo. Michael Jackson could also have been a procrastinator, a carpenter, an astronomy enthusiast, a good cook, a good painter, or a good saxophonist. You can't prove he wasn't any of those things. But none of those claims makes publicity or money, which is why it's more popular to call him a pedo despite there being no evidence. I wonder which star popular culture is going to destroy next... When will we learn? |
| pittrek 23.02.2010 13:14 |
Sorry for getting off-topic, but : |
| Lisser 23.02.2010 13:37 |
Sir GH wrote: True. But since he was found innocent, there's no need to call him a pedo. Michael Jackson could also have been a procrastinator, a carpenter, an astronomy enthusiast, a good cook, a good painter, or a good saxophonist. You can't prove he wasn't any of those things. But none of those claims makes publicity or money, which is why it's more popular to call him a pedo despite there being no evidence. I wonder which star popular culture is going to destroy next... When will we learn? Exactly. 100% agree with you. |
| Sebastian 23.02.2010 14:16 |
TBF, he wasn't found 'innocent', but 'not guilty', which is not the same thing. But good point about sax and stuff... BTW, I'm sure I mentioned this here before, but it's quite sad that some great singers (like Michael and even Freddie for some extent) are usually thought to be incapable of being great composers. MJ complained in 'Moonwalk' that people tended to ask him: 'who really wrote those songs?', which disappointed him. For some extent that happens with Freddie as well, in non-Queen circles that is: 'who helped him write the harmonies in Bo Rhap?' 'if he wasn't a guitarist, how could he compose Ogre Battle?'... same with other great songwriters such as Axl Rose or many pop artists (e.g. the Backstreet Boys). |
| Jam Monkey 23.02.2010 15:37 |
I've liked Queen since I was 13, but before that I was a big MJ fan. I still love his work. I realise the man had many faults, and did some things he shouldn't have, but I seriously don't think he ever harmed any children. I prefer to remember him a musical genius. |
| mooghead 23.02.2010 15:46 |
OJ Simpson is innocent too. Love the way he is out there right now looking for the real murderer!! Catholic vicars? Nope, not child abusers. Michael Jackson? Fat white guy... comfortable in his skin. He's misunderstood and we are all ignorant. |
| The Real Wizard 24.02.2010 00:40 |
OJ's blood was on the glove, and everyone in the civilized world with half a brain knows what the catholic church is all about. On the other hand, the father of the boy with the first so-called MJ molestation claim killed himself shortly after MJ died. It's not remotely fair to group MJ in with the above. |
| Micrówave 24.02.2010 03:07 |
That father killed himself because he was dying of cancer. I have never seen Michael Jackson act strange towards children except that ONE interview. I also saw Live In Budapest with John's interview with Emma. Just as creepy. So does that make Queen a pedo? |
| The Real Wizard 24.02.2010 11:17 |
Micrówave wrote: That father killed himself because he was dying of cancer. I don't buy it. My vote goes for guilt. If not, then his timing was quite exquisite, to say the least. |
| Amazon 24.02.2010 12:53 |
Sir GH wrote:Micrówave wrote: That father killed himself because he was dying of cancer.I don't buy it. My vote goes for guilt. If not, then his timing was quite exquisite, to say the least. I don't think we should speculate on why he committed suicidel; certainly we will never know the truth. As for Michael, while I don't think his relationships with children were completely 'normal', I don't think it was because he was a peodaphile. I think it was because he had lost his childhood, and he was attempting to revisit his childhood as an adult; hence all the sleepovers and his talk about sleeping with the kids in the same bed. At the end of the day, I think he was a very lonely man who was struggling to recapture a childhood which had been stolen from him. |
| The Real Wizard 24.02.2010 13:20 |
Fully agreed. I don't think any of us can be in a position to judge the man, because none of our childhoods ended at age 5 when we became child stars. And none of us were forced to take female hormones from then until age 16 to keep our voices up high. |
| thomasquinn 32989 24.02.2010 14:06 |
Sebastian wrote: TBF, he wasn't found 'innocent', but 'not guilty', which is not the same thing. Legally, the two are exactly the same. |
| cmsdrums 24.02.2010 16:37 |
Sir GH wrote: Fully agreed. I don't think any of us can be in a position to judge the man, because none of our childhoods ended at age 5 when we became child stars. And none of us were forced to take female hormones from then until age 16 to keep our voices up high.Speak for yourself!!! cmsdrums (Mrs) |
| The Real Wizard 24.02.2010 22:36 |
cmsdrums wrote:Sir GH wrote: Fully agreed. I don't think any of us can be in a position to judge the man, because none of our childhoods ended at age 5 when we became child stars. And none of us were forced to take female hormones from then until age 16 to keep our voices up high.Speak for yourself!!! cmsdrums (Mrs) Haha! Oh my.. I feel there's a story pending.. |
| Sebastian 24.02.2010 23:31 |
cmsdrums wrote:Sir GH wrote: Fully agreed. I don't think any of us can be in a position to judge the man, because none of our childhoods ended at age 5 when we became child stars. And none of us were forced to take female hormones from then until age 16 to keep our voices up high.Speak for yourself!!! cmsdrums (Mrs) I agree there: if we followed those 'rules', only fish could eat fish, only criminals could judge criminals, only people with wheels and engine could drive, etc. |
| splicksplack 18.03.2010 04:43 |
Why does that twat Brooks get away with homophobic jokes? Calling someone whose name is Benn "Benn-der". Get out of the 70's playground you cunt. And this from someone who looks after the legacy of a gay man. Apologise or I'll come down to St. Christopher Place and very publicy demand that Queen Productions sever ties with you. |
| cacatua 18.03.2010 21:41 |
And for Z and anyone else who doesn't understand how Seinfeld could run for so many years, being a show about nothing.............................Let's see here, what have we - 4 pages so far of much ado about nothing. |
| Benn Kempster 19.03.2010 14:37 |
Re: >>Why does that twat Brooks get away with homophobic jokes? Calling someone whose name is Benn "Benn-der". To be fair, I've called him a few choice things over the years, so I'm OK with it actually. The geezer's a fucking idiot and loves the attention his "title" gets him. Plus he's been able to lord it over hundreds of people here and at those infernal Conventions in terms of the material he's had access to. Let the prick get on with it. Kempo |
| Sebastian 19.03.2010 14:42 |
Benn Kempster wrote: The geezer's a fucking idiot and loves the attention his "title" gets him. |
| Gregsynth 19.03.2010 15:57 |
If I had LOADS of unreleased/hidden Queen material/bootlegs, I wouldn't HOARD it, I would share it with everybody! Just a thought... |
| mooghead 19.03.2010 17:38 |
Nah... I would share it for even rarer stuff that the plebs dont even know about... as would everyone else.. |
| RoyalCarlito 25.03.2010 06:21 |
I'm new here. This Greg Brooks the archivist is a very peculiar character isn't he. Is he really as important as he believes or is he just one of those errand-boys-who've-been-given-the-title-'archivist'-and-let-it-go-to-their-head types? Not quite right in the head if you ask me RC |