| QOL Mab 08.09.2010 05:23 |
Why do QPL (GT and GB being the public face thereof) care so little for the view of the fans, who are the ones actually buying (not for much longer though, I'd say) the product? If I was them, I'd be CONCERNED that so many fans are opposed to what has been done with Volume 4 of the Singles Collections. But, alarmingly, they don't care? Why is that? They say power corrupts......... |
| inu-liger 08.09.2010 05:28 |
In Greg's defense, I haven't exactly seen him comment publicly about vol. 4 just yet. Also, he DID explain multiple times his proposed vision of the overall singles collection project as presented to the higher-ups in the development stages, and what basically ended up getting discarded to a heavily watered-down project. I don't think it's quite fair in my view to jump on his back all over this one just yet. Gary on the other hand needs to develop a backbone of his own. I respect the guy and all personally, but I still find it disrespectful to attempt to brush criticisms from multiple people under the carpet and instead issue a series of illogical, sometimes contradictory sugar coated responses. |
| GratefulFan 08.09.2010 07:13 |
QOL Mab wrote: Why do QPL (GT and GB being the public face thereof) care so little for the view of the fans, who are the ones actually buying (not for much longer though, I'd say) the product? If I was them, I'd be CONCERNED that so many fans are opposed to what has been done with Volume 4 of the Singles Collections. But, alarmingly, they don't care? Why is that? They say power corrupts......... =================================== Greatest Hits is currently number 22 and in it's 726th consecutive week on the Canadian Nielsen Soundscan Hard Rock chart. 726 weeks is how long that chart has been in existence, otherwise it would be longer. Concurrently, Absolute Greatest is in the 12th position on the same chart and has made an appearance there for 41 weeks. The 'so many fans' you speak of are a sliver and a pittance relative to what an evergreen product like the highlights of the Queen back catalogue can generate. They're not concerned because there's no real reason to be from a business perspective. |
| rhyeking 08.09.2010 11:49 |
I agree with GF on this one. Though the Singles Collections are only recent releases which appear to somewhat miss their intended market (seasoned fans), the other releases have had one of two goals in mind: 1) Broaden the fan base with commercial-friendly releases (Absolute Greatest), some of which ride the coattails of the current Queen project (GH:WWRY Ed., Stone Cold Classics, etc). 2) Release new material, either in the form of older concerts (Live At The Bowl, Queen Rock Montreal) or new recordings (Return Of The Champions, The Cosmos Rocks, Live In Ukraine). |
| QOL Mab 08.09.2010 18:43 |
I didn't realise, as a kid years ago, when I first got into Queen, that they were such cunts who only care about the ''business perspective''. Thought they respected their fans and were genuinely grateful to have them. How wrong I was. |
| rhyeking 08.09.2010 20:56 |
Music is a business. A very big business. Queen, like most artists, record new material throughout their career for artistic expression and to make money (and to get laid probably). Their record company and management have a responsibilty to them to keep their music in the public conciousness. That means, in addition to the new material they record, things like Hits collections and re-issues are released. The band probably has some veto power over certain releases, but it is in their best interest to be as seen and heard as possible. The more recognizable their music is, the better. Saying they don't care, just because you haven't gotten what you want yet, is like the six year old I saw the other day crying that his dad didn't love him because dad didn't buy him an ice cream cone at the CNE. Appreciate what you've been given, which is 16 studio albums, numerous solo records, live albums and a bunch of other cool stuff. You may not like it all, but it was all released because you and others are fans created the market for it. Don't fault Queen for wanting that market to grow and continue into the future. |
| The Real Wizard 08.09.2010 22:46 |
There is absolutely no reason why they cannot 'grow that market' and please the hardcore fans at the same time. Just look at the track listing of the new Springsteen 'Darkness' boxed set and name one Queen product that comes 1/10th as close. |
| rhyeking 08.09.2010 23:28 |
Because one series of releases (the Singles boxes) missed its mark and they haven't issued an anthology set of demos and outtakes, Queen and Queen Productions are no longer pleasing hardcore fans? Keeping in mind that hardcore fans aren't exclusively those out there who start and end their Queen fandom with John joining and Freddie dying respectively, only *some* "hardcore" fans aren't be catered to, which amounts to a very vocal minority of the record-buying public. Queen will do what interests them, as they always have done. After everything they've given us, I think our respect for them should not be solely dependant on how many releases WE get now. My appreciation for this band does not require a constant influx of new and old material to sustain it. I'm not so selfish as to believe that anything they do which doesn't meet with my approval is somehow tarnishing their legacy or my opinion of them. I understand that others feel differently. |
| tcc 08.09.2010 23:36 |
It is true that the band has so many good concerts that they could just release as it is without any over-dubbing. There is a term called "unplugged" (hope I have used it in the right context). Maybe we can give them some ideas for a basis of selection such as: a. one or two best per tour b. specialty concerts e.g. Kampuchea concert, Budapest concert (first in eastern bloc) c. concerts in which the lesser known hits were sung e.g. Need Your Loving Tonight, Body Language, Life is Real d. poll from fans (dream on ?) I think the problem in the band now is that there is no first among equals. |
| tcc 08.09.2010 23:49 |
In addition to concerts, they could also release a CD of the best live performances of the non-hit songs such as Put Out the Fire, Rock It , Need Your Loving Tonight, Body Language, Life is Real etc. They should specify which concert the song was taken from, instead of the puzzle created in Live Killers. |
| rhyeking 09.09.2010 00:16 |
The Springsteen Darkness release, as discussed in another thread, is a unique situation which doesn't apply to Queen, as Queen do not have a lost album of any sort. Queen actually has 16 original studio albums, the same as Bruce, but that's not accounting for the years of hiatus Queen were on periodically since Freddie's passing. Bruce only recently caught up them, while they were doing solo albums. By 1991, the year of Innuendo (album #14), The Boss had only issued 8 studio albums. If Queen had recorded and released the way Springsteen did, sure, they'd have a vault full of unreleased albums too! But hey, let's look at what Queen have done equivalent to what is on this release, shall we? The Boss Queen Disc 1: The Darkness On The Edge Of Town A Night At The Opera 30th Anniversary Edition (Remastered 4th album) (Remastered 4th album) Disc 2: The Promise (LP 1) A Day At The Races (Unreleased album of material) (RELEASED album of material the band didn't wait 32 years to issue) Disc 3: The Promise (LP 2) News Of The World (Unreleased album of material) (same as above) Jazz (Another whole album recorded in the time it took BS to futz around with Darkness/The Promise) Disc 4 (DVD): Making Of...doc The Making Of A Night At The Opera DVD Disc 5 (DVD) New and old Darkness live footage Queen Rock Montreal & Live Aid DVD (arguably not as interesting as the band recording an entire old album live in 2009, but I chalk that up to Freddie being difficult to work with these days. Substitute Live In Ukraine if you want NEW instead) ANATO in full 5.1 DTS Surround, with accompanying video footage (30th Anniversary release DVD) Disc 6 (DVD): Unreleased Darkness Tour Concert Live At The Rainbow - 1974 (previously unreleased live concert in a boxed set) Also interesting to note, The Promise will feature the Rock Version of Racing In The Street. I wonder how close it will sound to Roger's "fast" version from Strange Frontier. |
| Vali 09.09.2010 03:03 |
rhyeking wrote: Also interesting to note, The Promise will feature the Rock Version of Racing In The Street. I wonder how close it will sound to Roger's "fast" version from Strange Frontier. //////////////////////////////////// Hi rhyeking ! I'm wondering the same too ! can't wait listening to Bruce's version ! |
| GratefulFan 10.09.2010 00:23 |
rhyeking wrote: But hey, let's look at what Queen have done equivalent to what is on this release, shall we? =========================== Hope you didn't fall off your cloud wildly overreaching like that. 'Promise' is a superfan pleasing release that extensively covers a brief, discrete and intensely creative period in multiple formats. It's new and it's exciting and reflects a respect and appreciation for the art and for the most invested fans. You're all over the map from 1975 to 1985, and virtually every release noted except Box of Trix was a standard/casual fan product, or at least not much more than that. Bruce has remastered albums, including a 3 disc 30th anniversary edition of 'Born to Run' that included a 'making of', and released multiple concerts as well. Those are the reasonable comparisons to Queen releases, not 'Promise', for which there is no comparable product in any way. |
| The Real Wizard 10.09.2010 01:33 |
Live At The Rainbow - really? A 50-minute compilation full of vocal overdubs that was only available 20 years ago on VHS in very limited quantity is what you're comparing Bruce's latest boxed set to? And you're trying to justify the lack of unreleased Queen songs put out because Springsteen took three years to finish the follow-up to Born To Run? Indeed, you're really reaching here. |
| QOL Mab 10.09.2010 03:21 |
Sorry rhyeking - you're talking crap. |
| rhyeking 10.09.2010 09:55 |
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but more likely it's just that attempt to give these fanatics some perspective will be met with the knee-jerk response of: "Yeah, but you're wrong an didn't account for [X]...!" I took a few minutes to analyze what GF calls Bruce's "intense" "creative" period, but if you want a better look at their respective careers, here goes... Each artists' studio albums are numbered. Queen jump WAY out in front early and consistently with regularly released albums, slowed only by the inconvenient death of Freddie in 1991, after which, Bruce takes15 more years to catch up. 1973 BS: 01) Greetings From Asbury Park, NJ BS: 02) The Wild, The Innocent & The E-Street Shuffle 01) Queen 1974 02) Queen II 03) Sheer Heart Attack 1975 BS: 03) Born To Run 04) A Night At The Opera 1976 05) A Day At The Races 1977 06) News Of The World 1978 BS: 04) Darkness On The Edge Of Town 07) Jazz 1979 Live Killers 1980 BS: 05) The River 08) The Game 09) Flash Gordon Queen: Greatest Hits 1982 BS: 06) Nebraska 10) Hot Space 1984 BS: 07) Born In The USA 11) The Works 1985 Live 1975/1985 The Complete Works 1986 12) A Kind Of Magic 1987 BS: 08) Tunnel Of Love Live Magic 1988 BS: Chimes Of Freedom EP 1989 13) The Miracle At The Beeb 1990 1991 14) Innuendo Queen: Greatest Hits II 1992 BS: 09) Human Touch BS: 10) Lucky Town Box Of Trix Live At Wembley ‘86 1993 BS: In Concert/MTV Unplugged Five Live 1994 1995 BS: Greatest Hits BS: 11) The Ghost Of Tom Joad 15) Made In Heaven 1996 BS: Blood Brothers EP 1997 Queen Rocks 1998 BS: Tracks (Boxed Set) 1999 BS: 18 Tracks Queen+: Greatest Hits III 2000 2001 BS: Live In New York City 2002 BS: 12) The Rising 2003 BS: The Essential Bruce Springsteen 2004 Return Of The Champions Queen On Fire: Live At The Bowl 2005 BS: 13) Devils & Dust 2006 BS: Hammersmith Odeon ‘75 BS: 14) We Shall Overcome – The Seeger Sessions 2007 BS: Live In Dublin BS: 15) Magic Queen Rock Montreal & Live Aid 2008 BS: Magic Tour Highlights EP 16) The Cosmos Rocks 2009 BS: 16) Working On A Dream Live In Ukraine To give Bruce the benefit of the doubt, I've included his solo albums and his E Street Band albums and excluded Queen's solo material because after all, a four on one contest is hardly fair. That said, Bruce has a pretty unmatched level of output for one man, which impresses me as much as David Bowie's level of output. Still, because someone brought up The Darkness/Promise comparison, I'll say it again...nice and slow...using simple words: Queen released their music when they recorded their albums. Bruce, especially in this case, did not. That's why Bruce's vault is full of albums of unreleased songs and Queen's is not. Any other myths you want me to dis-spell? |
| GratefulFan 10.09.2010 10:18 |
The comparison is not between the two careers you insufferable, babbling ass. It's between a worthwhile product that acknowledges devoted fans and the worthiness of the art, and run of the mill products that continually leave devoted fans feeling left out and let down. Unless you think Queen is only capable of producing Greatest Hits packages and standard concert releases and ANATO 30th from their 20 year history - and if you do you think way less of them than the rest of us - you have no point to make. |
| rhyeking 10.09.2010 11:16 |
If "fans" looked past their selfishness, they'd see they've been rewarded by the band many times over, without the need for lavishly packaged, overrated box sets (despite having actually issued the very same). Imagine how much more appreciative one can be without the "What have they done for me lately" attitude. "...insufferable, babbling ass!" That made me laugh out loud. Thanks, GF. I'm going to make that my email signature at work. Awesome. |
| GratefulFan 10.09.2010 11:38 |
Yeah you do that. I'll give it 10 minutes before one or two of your loudest coworkers are over apologizing profusely. |
| 12yrslouetta 10.09.2010 11:44 |
This is an interesting topic. This is my take. I dont think comparing Springsteen and Queen makes any sense at all. The perception between the artists are million and million miles apart. Springsteen has had incredible critical acclaim throughout his career as an artist and a songwriter so he can release reworkings and lost albums and it would be of huge huge interest. Queen have never had that same critical acclaim and always been dismissed by the media, and never been acclaimed for their songwriting prowess. So reworkings and demos will never be viewed as the same. What Queen always have had though is the singles and the hits. When Queen release yet another greatest hits package and it spends years and years and years in the charts its hard to argue with that from a financial perspective. And lets be honest those numerous greatest hits packages allowed them to put Q+PR together in the 1st place and let them play arenas and stadiums around the world, because of the hits that everyone knows. I went to one of those gigs and they played all the hits for everyone. They didnt play Liar, or Millionaire Waltz for the devoted fans, they just played the hits. And everyone loved it and thats what they wanted to hear. Now when Queen released The Game on DVD A (or whatever) a few years ago that didnt sell very well and Brian May seemed it to be an unworthy exercise as it didnt sell. So much so that this probably wont be repeaated. Now im assuming the "devoted" fans bought that, but when you can keep an album in the charts for years up against a DVDA album that comes and goes before its even released which one would you choose as a business proposition. IMO in the end its about perception and business. Theres no point putting out anything that wont sell. All the business strokes that they make have to be broad. Queen are a huge commercial worldwide entity. Well those are my musings anyway |
| rhyeking 10.09.2010 12:00 |
I got nothing from that last post, GF. Amusingly, after sharing the entire thread with them, my co-workers have no idea what you're talking about either. I'll spare you any more of me being right as I think I've said all I need to in this thread. |
| Holly2003 10.09.2010 12:01 |
12yrslouetta wrote: This is an interesting topic. This is my take. I dont think comparing Springsteen and Queen makes any sense at all. The perception between the artists are million and million miles apart. Springsteen has had incredible critical acclaim throughout his career as an artist and a songwriter so he can release reworkings and lost albums and it would be of huge huge interest. Queen have never had that same critical acclaim and always been dismissed by the media, and never been acclaimed for their songwriting prowess. So reworkings and demos will never be viewed as the same. What Queen always have had though is the singles and the hits. When Queen release yet another greatest hits package and it spends years and years and years in the charts its hard to argue with that from a financial perspective. And lets be honest those numerous greatest hits packages allowed them to put Q+PR together in the 1st place and let them play arenas and stadiums around the world, because of the hits that everyone knows. I went to one of those gigs and they played all the hits for everyone. They didnt play Liar, or Millionaire Waltz for the devoted fans, they just played the hits. And everyone loved it and thats what they wanted to hear. Now when Queen released The Game on DVD A (or whatever) a few years ago that didnt sell very well and Brian May seemed it to be an unworthy exercise as it didnt sell. So much so that this probably wont be repeaated. Now im assuming the "devoted" fans bought that, but when you can keep an album in the charts for years up against a DVDA album that comes and goes before its even released which one would you choose as a business proposition. IMO in the end its about perception and business. Theres no point putting out anything that wont sell. All the business strokes that they make have to be broad. Queen are a huge commercial worldwide entity. Well those are my musings anyway ==================================================================================== If that really is Brian's view then frankly he's an asshole. |
| The Real Wizard 10.09.2010 13:29 |
Great post, 12yrslouetta. You certainly raise some very valid points, but I still maintain that being a singles band for the majority shouldn't have to be a reason not to acknowledge the hardcore fans now and again. They could always release these types of products in much smaller quantity. Hell, they could even do online downloads of unreleased songs and concerts, maybe even for fan club members only, and they would still make a lot of money. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 10.09.2010 23:27 |
I agree, somewhere Queen lost their artistry and drive, and sales become everything. Brian has often bemoaned the lack of critical respect Queen's early stuff gets, but when they have an opportunity to shine some light on the crown jewel of their catalogue, they did an absolute half assed job, replete with amateurish videos that were high school level in quality. Bizarre, but deserving. Not many "musos" take Queen's back catalogue seriously and that's okay, as the band and management don't either. |
| GratefulFan 10.09.2010 23:40 |
rhyeking wrote: I got nothing from that last post, GF. Amusingly, after sharing the entire thread with them, my co-workers have no idea what you're talking about either. I'll spare you any more of me being right as I think I've said all I need to in this thread. ===================================== Rhyeking! The mice in your parent's basement are not *really* your coworkers. We've talked about this before. Now stop being wrong and making me fight with you on the internet. Just stop it. Stop being wrong. Is that too much to ask? |
| Gregsynth 10.09.2010 23:50 |
GratefulFan = Epic post |
| GratefulFan 11.09.2010 00:02 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: I agree, somewhere Queen lost their artistry and drive, and sales become everything. Brian has often bemoaned the lack of critical respect Queen's early stuff gets, but when they have an opportunity to shine some light on the crown jewel of their catalogue, they did an absolute half assed job, replete with amateurish videos that were high school level in quality. Bizarre, but deserving. Not many "musos" take Queen's back catalogue seriously and that's okay, as the band and management don't either. ================================== You expect Jim Beach and his type to operate like guys who are selling blocks of entertainment widgets. I can live with that. But it's Brian and Roger who I don't always understand. It seems to me the products haven't reflected an appreciation of the fact that there are people still around who are still interested, still hopeful and still waiting. On the onther hand, the bootlegs fly around pretty freely for those who can and want to partake, and most of us have an email or two from Brian himself which is pretty damn special for a fan. That's a lot of work for him times a whole lot of people. I don't know. I can't quite figure out how they feel about 'us', or their catalogue. |
| GratefulFan 11.09.2010 00:07 |
Gregsynth wrote: GratefulFan = Epic post ==================== I'm right, right? I knew it... :) |
| 12yrslouetta 11.09.2010 12:34 |
It is a shame in away but i think that Queen are desperate to stay relevant, so if they did release demos and out takes and self indulgent studio musings to a, lets face it, miniscule fraction of the buying population they dont gain anything. The perception is is that whatever Queen release is huge, so they cant be seen to release anything that people will or can ignore. But i agree, you can have download only purchases from the website to keep things interesting. BUT BUT BUT i think its important to say that when i grew up listening to Queen (the 1st album i listened to was SHA) they were always seen as a corporate obvious band that no one really admitted to liking. They never ever got good reviews and they were never seen as cool or musically relevant or even any good or worth listening to. Bands always rallied against the likes of the huge band like Queen and genesis and elo and so on and so on, hence we got punk, new wave etc etc. But since Freddie has died EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED. They have somehow enhanced the group to become really really well respected and legends and now incredibly everybody loves them. People always mention Queen as a band they really like. Or they like enough of their stuff to buy a greatest hits packages. You cant get more mainstream than being invited on to American Idol. So for all the despair that we or i feel for yet another re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-package of the same singles, on a business level they have definitely succeeded. Without them being as savvy as they have been, and if they didnt always look to appeal to the majority of fans worldwide, who knows where they might be now. Again this is my humble opinion. |
| Wiley 12.09.2010 12:22 |
I agree with all 12yrslouetta said. Queen is a business and if their objective was to get "legendary" status, be widely know and respected, they nailed it. Sir GH's point still stands, though, would it kill them to throw a freakin' bone to the fans every now and then? :P Sadly, most of the times when they seem to be catering for the hardcore fan, they screw up big time (Top 100 bootlegs) or they are discouraged by underwhelming sales and simply discontinue the damn thing (DVDA). As opposed to this, when they release yet another compilation they sell millions of records and make a shitload of money. Apparently: a) They don't want to release something that will not sell millions, so they target all releases for the masses. b) They want to release something for the fans but they don't know how to do it. When they do, they fail miserable and go back to "safe" releases. |