sterile discussions (archivist/Queen+PR.. etc etc..)

roy_fokker 25.02.2010 10:09	Lately I've grown a little disappointed by this forum.I've read attacks upon attacks against Greg Brooks.. and, honestly - apart the fact that I do not agree with the language it has been often used - I cannot see the point. The Archivist has given some precious information. Some other he cannot, some other he simply would not know.. but, does he have a contract with us? Is he in any term obliged to this forum? If privacy statements exist, I think it's between Queen and him.. so why should you offend him?Moreover.. the whole thing makes me think.. this forum has become the homeland for people who just complain about everything and throw the baby away with the dirty water (we HAD Bri and Rog touring, Bri and Rog making new studio works, finally something new.. and what did we read here? Complaints. No wonder if they stopped caring about fans opinions. They cannot resurrect Freddie, so don't just complain if they do something without him!) Roger's been out with quite an interesting song, and what was the 'welcome' it received? I am not surprised that newcomers tend to discuss just about when Freddie had first AIDS symptoms or other things related to his illness and which show a pathological curiosity, rather than respect. I know, now I will myself receive offensive replies.. at least I assume it will likely happen. If you'll do that, you'll just confirm that complaints and offenses are the best that many of you can do, lately. And this is - let me tell you - pretty sad. Roy.
inu-liger 25.02.2010 10:35	Excellent! Someone else who also sees through the bullshit! I think too also, a lot of this complaining bullshit stems from a lack of moderation on this board (which has been requested many times by fellow users here over the past decade), which has allowed many personally directed vile towards certain others run rampant throughout the years. This site has lost a lot of its positiveness it had prior to the Q+PR era especially. And that's one thing in itself that really pissed me off about the hypocrites here: They often WISHED for Queen to go back on tour, even if it had a guest vocalist, and yet when Paul Rodgers came into the picture, most everyone went the opposite direction at first - especially before they were even yet to set foot on stage and play. The ensuing contradictory negative reactions REALLY took over here in the form of flamewars, and that really pissed me off, and I know I'm not alone in feeling this.
Micrówave 25.02.2010 10:42	Fair enough. But can you give an example of something The Archivist has given us in the last five years that turned out to be true? If you'll do that, you'll just confirm that complaints and offenses are the best that many of you can do, lately. And this is - let me tell you - pretty sad.
John S Stuart 25.02.2010 11:04	Multiple post (Sorry) - see below
John S Stuart 25.02.2010 11:04	inu-liger wrote: Excellent! Someone else who also sees through the bullshit! I think too also, a lot of this complaining bullshit stems from a lack of moderation on this board (which has been requested many times by fellow users here over the past decade), which has allowed many personally directed vile towards certain others run rampant throughout the years. This site has lost a lot of its positiveness it had prior to the Q+PR era especially. And that's one thing in itself that really pissed me off about the hypocrites here: They often WISHED for Queen to go back on tour, even if it had a guest vocalist, and yet when Paul Rodgers came into the picture, most everyone went the opposite direction at first - especially before they were even yet to set foot on stage and play. The ensuing contradictory negative reactions REALLY took over here in the form of flamewars, and that really pissed me off, and I know I'm not alone in feeling this. First, although I do agree with Microwave above, I really think censorship of Queenzone is not the way forward. That is the reason I (personally) prefer in here to other Queen sites - simply because it is not moderated. Some sites are so Stepfordish that having a discussion like what songs did not work live, would be a taboo and deleted. So even though 'moanzone' may deserve its reputation some times, I think the overall freedom of ideas is the key element which keeps us all hooked.
magicmatze 25.02.2010 13:13	exactly, totally agree, not to forget those people who post sensless comments not belonging to the topic, to increase their number of posts. And all these offense and arguments keep some people away posting/uploading downloads with rare material. Remember how people offend that French guy (not to mentioned that he was no Queen-Fan) who uploaded the Poitiere- & Magic-Rehearsals-Videos. So I believe that no "jewels" will be shared on this forum again, at least from people knowing THIS community.
david (galashiels) 25.02.2010 14:03	forgive my ignorance john but i didnt realise there were other queen sites like this one. i just came across this one years ago and stayed lol. ps..you snowed in yet.
Mr Mercury 25.02.2010 15:40	John S Stuart wrote: First, although I do agree with Microwave above, I really think censorship of Queenzone is not the way forward. That is the reason I (personally) prefer in here to other Queen sites - simply because it is not moderated. Some sites are so Stepfordish that having a discussion like what songs did not work live, would be a taboo and deleted. So even though 'moanzone' may deserve its reputation some times, I think the overall freedom of ideas is the key element which keeps us all hooked. I agree. Leave censorship out of this site. I know of another well known fans site that can be so moderated, your posts (and even threads that you started) can be deleted just because they, the Mods, dont agree with what you say.
queen79luca 25.02.2010 15:45	I agree with Roy Fokker ! If someone wants to complain about everything ok, no problem but in a moderate approach!
brENsKi 26.02.2010 09:22	i' like to add a little to this debate. 1. this section of the site is a forum. forum: A public meeting place for open discussion. A medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas and opinions, such as a newspaper, a radio or television program, or a website. 2. why censor opinion? if people don't like something then they have every right to say so. if fans think cosmos was sht then as consumers they can say so. if you bought any other item form a shop and was not satisfied then you can express your dissatisfaction without predudice - why should music be any different? bands like queen, the who, floyd etc have made gazzilions down the years from fan loyalty....and they take all the plaudits when dished out -s they should also expect criticism and complaint when they drop the odd turkey. 3. the archivist: before you so happily criticise those that have criticised GB think about it. Firstly - he releases a "queen live" book - with at least one mistake per page on average. he also asked the fans o this site for help with his next project....and promised things in return - which amounted to nothing more than we already knew. he openly drops by from time to time just to lob another live grenade on the fire.....why would his provocational antagonistic approach yield anything but contempt? finally, in his time here he's "sought help and information" and hinted at anthologies, box sets, interesting live releases and generally "prick teased" queen fans. lets look at what queen product has surfaced in the time he has been here "hinting at significant or interesting releases"...MK Bowl, a shitty live book, a live dvd of qpr, cosmos rocks and another fcking greatest hits... oh dear.....look at the list, and add to it the mindless collaborations....pepsi, 5ive, robbie w, mcfly, wwry musical, and countless others.....this stuff and the "great stuff" that GB keeps hinting at that turns out shit...is why queen's profile is not worth it these days.... look at floyd, the who, zep, beatles....bands who've all lost one or two members but carried on in some field...i don't see a plethora of crap product....but i see a profile that's still worthy of their status in rock.....perhaps their "people" don't visit fan forums and behave like a**eholes? just an idea
Soundfreak 26.02.2010 12:54	brENsKi wrote: look at floyd, the who, zep, beatles....bands who've all lost one or two members but carried on in some field...i don't see a plethora of crap product....but i see a profile that's still worthy of their status in rock. Being new in this place I can't comment on the "archivist" debate with the exception that I have doubt that he is "real". Anyway - I do not see that other bands really give the people what they want. Pink Floyd have not released any archive stuff at all - with the sole exception of a recent release of their very first album. Compared to Queen they must have a real archive of unreleased material including complete albums - but nothing was released. There isn't even a live DVD of the original line up although some material exists. (Don't count "Pompeji") Led Zeppelin have not released any kind of studio anthology, they even erased their performance from Live Aid. Apart from the really great live DVD set there is not much to be found. And the mastering of the albums to this day is lousy. The Beatles had the Anthology several years ago - but that's it. No further live material, the movies "Magical Mystery Tour" and "Let it be" are not available. And the recent remasters offered nothing new at all. The Rolling Stones have no Anthology anything like that. Instead they remaster their 70s albums again and again without any extras. Their hottest time was in the 60s and you will not find any archive material from this time being officially released. There is only "the Who", that so far came up with "Collectors Editions" of their great albums featuring outtakes and rarities. And a wealth of concert DVDs and documentaries. So - all in all and compared to other big names the Queen-output isn't that bad at all.
brENsKi 26.02.2010 14:33	Soundfreak wrote: brENsKi wrote: look at floyd, the who, zep, beatles....bands who've all lost one or two members but carried on in some field...i don't see a plethora of crap product....but i see a profile that's still worthy of their status in rock. Anyway - I do not see that other bands really give the people what they want. Pink Floyd have not released any archive stuff at all - with the sole exception of a recent release of their very first album. Led Zeppelin have not released any kind of studio anthology, they even erased their performance from Live Aid. The Beatles had the Anthology several years ago - but that's it. No further live material, the movies "Magical Mystery Tour" and "Let it be" are not available. And the recent remasters offered nothing new at all. There is only "the Who", that so far came up with "Collectors Editions" of their great albums featuring outtakes and rarities. And a wealth of concert DVDs and documentaries. So - all in all and compared to other big names the Queen-output isn't that bad at all. Soundfreak, you managed to beat yourself with your own argument by quoting me. If you re-read the part of my text you quoted you'll see that in fact my statement was right. The other artists I named have not deluged us with a mountain of crap. that's why they maintain a high status in rock history. the queen legend will be tainted with all of the shoddy collaborations, the musical and the QPR cosmos cd.... as certain people have said before....it's been over a long, long time.....but - to steal a sex-pistols piss-take album title - queen have been "flogging a dead horse" for 15 years....it would've been much better if Dr May had turned off the life support immediately after No One But You - instead he has kept the band a live in an almost embarrassing constant vegetative state..... as far as output goes. I disagree to an extent. the beatles archive stuff is extensive in every way - i have the three double albums and 8 dvds, and the "love album is certainly something new and interesting...as is Beatles Rockband...and...have you listened to the remasters? or do you even know what a remaster is? because the remastering of those old lps is better than anything we've heard before.... floyd have released two box sets, a triple "piper", various 5:1 mixes of dvds - pulse, DSOTM etc...admittedly it's not loads, but it's quality over quantity. and as for zep: the 2003 live dvd compilation was impressive, as was HTWWW, an extensive BBC sessions cd package, as i said before....what has been released is quality....queen keep releasing rubbish or rehashed product...or mindless collabs...
brENsKi 26.02.2010 14:40	queen79luca wrote: I agree with Roy Fokker ! If someone wants to complain about everything ok, no problem but in a moderate approach! that is your opinion and you're entitled to it and while i respect your right to voice your opinion, i wholeheartedly disagree with it! each individual has the right to voice their own opinion as they feel. so if someone feels Cosmos Rocks was shit, then they have a right to say so. If they think GB is nothing more than a delusional attention-seeking windup merchant, then they also havea right to say that too.... a simple analogy: your favourite beer-maker changes the recipe slightly, and you no longer liek the taste. do you carry on drinking it telling all your firends how great it is, or do you complain and stop drinking it? remember, being a fan of something does not mean being blind to fault, error, or sub-standard product - and you shouldn't accept mediocrity just for the privilege of being a fan.....ffs - being a fan is not being a stepford.
YourValentine 27.02.2010 04:02	The issue of censoring the forums comes up as regularly as the flu - it won't happen. How would you like it if other fans meddled into your posts because they do not like what you say? How would you like it when your topic was deleted just because it's not a serious Queen topic? It's natural that there are not so many serious topics when a band stopped working and it's obvious that tempers go up when peple care about something. We still have many witty, funny and intelligent users - just read their stuff and ignore the numpties. About what Inu-Liger said: if you rermember well, there has always been a lot of fighting on this board and I remember worse time - endless, tedious discussions about Paul Rodgers, personal fights, trolls , idiots. It really has been much worse :-) I even remember the times when you had classic fights with Chad on the old news forum! Apparently, I missed the precious information the Queen Archivist (who is the real Greg Brooks) gave us but that is not the role he chose on QZ. He comes here when he is bored and has a ball when he manages to upset as many fans as possible. You can say that is not what the official archivist of the band should do but as long as Queen do not mind - why should Queenzone mind? He gets the answers he calls for with his messages and he is treated like any other user of this board. The funny thing is that offensive users always get so much more replies than serious people (see treasure moment) - it's us, the users who are responsible for this. If someone posts something interesting and nice - do not hesitate to respond and leave the nutties alone. That is the only way to improve the board.
Soundfreak 27.02.2010 04:50	brENski wrote: "have you listened to the remasters? or do you even know what a remaster is? because the remastering of those old lps is better than anything we've heard before...." Take the original Beatles CDs, raise the level, add a little bit of compression, in few cases a tiny little bit of bass and treble and you will not be able to tell the difference. When you want to hear what could have been done in case of the Beatles - listen to the Anthology DVDs, there you find real improvements, even "I am the Walrus" in true full stereo - "if you know what theat means...." Anyway - different topic. Apart from too many Greatest Hits packages I'm quite happy with the way Queen handle their archive. And I'm quite sure that on other band forums people will complain how bad they are treated by their favorite band and how good for example Queen does. I give you an example how well the Queen fans are treated. When Queen started, there was a band called Sweet, who - apart from their early bubblegum hits - had a lot of musical similarities. While Queen obviously even tolerate fans openly exchanging live recordings and stuff, the guitar player from Sweet sues each and everybody for doing so. Even private people, who sell some "officially released Sweet CD with a different band line up" via Ebay are getting sued by his lawyer. While the "official" Sweet releases contain poor sounding demos and lots of live recordings with bad and false playing(!). I know you will have dozens of arguments how bad Queen treat their fans, but when I look into the world outside I see no reason for this eternal complaining. Some want more......some want even less. Most cases read like people are just complaining that Queen are not doing exactly what t h e y want. Start your own band, then you may get an idea that it's impossible to please everyone.
NEOLOGiX 04.03.2010 22:19	One of the reasons I don't post on this board although I've been a member for 7 and a half years, is the number of virtual arse holes who roam about on occassion here, the type who give GB such a hard time for not really answering questions.
john bodega 05.03.2010 01:45	It's not GB's fault that this forum is full of horrible cunts.
smilebrian 05.03.2010 08:20	Soundfreak, seriously, those Beatles remasters are absolutely superb. I think they go FAR beyond some level boosts and compression. Zep, Floyd, the Stones all seem to handle their "brand" with far more panache than Queen. I agree with brENsKi that their output has been of far greater quality and Queen have with only a couple of exceptions released absolute drivel over the last 15 years. I would much prefer the studio catalogue handled with a great deal more care and bought up to speed though a proper remastering then any amount of box set rarities, outtakes etc. Add some live concert material done properly via blu-ray and that would give the fans (the ones that actually care about the music) a really strong product line-up that the Queen catalogue deserves. All the whining, bitching and sarcasm simply reflects the HUGE frustration genuine Queen fans have over the complete and utter ineptness of the band's releases (and lack of releases!) over the last decade and a half.
Soundfreak 05.03.2010 10:32	smilebrian wrote: Soundfreak, seriously, those Beatles remasters are absolutely superb. I think they go FAR beyond some level boosts and compression. I wish they were...checked them in a studio environment, played them to several people in direct comparison after bringing the old ones to the "new loudness level". And no one was able to tell the difference..... There were some glitches repaired mainly on Past Masters - and that's all. There was a lot of hype created around these releases. The only real plus is, that finally the albums have better covers and booklets.
The Real Wizard 05.03.2010 12:41	Soundfreak wrote: smilebrian wrote: Soundfreak, seriously, those Beatles remasters are absolutely superb. I think they go FAR beyond some level boosts and compression. I wish they were...checked them in a studio environment, played them to several people in direct comparison after bringing the old ones to the "new loudness level". And no one was able to tell the difference..... There were some glitches repaired mainly on Past Masters - and that's all. There was a lot of hype created around these releases. The only real plus is, that finally the albums have better covers and booklets. Indeed. It was all hype. I've compared most of the 2009 remasters to the 1988 CDs, and after adjusting the volume levels to make them equal, there is no difference in the sound itself, with only a few minor glitches removed - things that no average ear would hear. Abbey Road was the only one with any audible improvement, as it simply went through hiss reduction. At the end of the day, it's the same old stereo mixes, and a whole lot of money made. The 1999 Yellow Submarine CD is the only recent Beatles remaster with any major audible improvement. The songs have completely new stereo mixes, and are simply the best the Beatles have ever sounded. To me it's the greatest shame in the recent history of popular music that the entire catalogue of the world's most acclaimed band was not given this kind of treatment.

QueenZone discussion #1220947

sterile discussions (archivist/Queen+PR.. etc etc..)