| AB-88 15.07.2011 14:06 |
link Who else could do this? Best two fingers up to The News of The World. |
| brENsKi 15.07.2011 16:25 |
it's 17 f**king years old...it's not best two fingers...cos it's not a current response and it's a piss-poor song also |
| Arnaldo "Ogre-" Silveira 15.07.2011 20:29 |
I kinda like the song. And I LOVE the attitude. =&^D |
| paulosham 15.07.2011 21:19 |
While Roger had the right intention I think the song is pretty shit. I much prefer this. link |
| rhyeking 16.07.2011 01:17 |
It need not be current in order to be relevant. Art's value to its audience, among other things, is to be capable of application long after the original work was created. Art is not created in a vacuum, nor does its influence or relevance have an expiry date applied to it. Topical works can be re-contextualized or be open to interpretation, whereby it gives voice to a new speaker or provides commentary on later happenings. If the ideas expressed, which hold the work together, hold sway to some, then the work becomes salient (or remains so). |
| AB-88 16.07.2011 14:28 |
Regardless how old it is - I think it's an appropriate way to stick two fingers up by Roger after everything that happened when Freddie was ill. |
| brENsKi 16.07.2011 16:20 |
it's only appropriate if you stick to your principles....it appears that Roger didn't.....Queen (hypocritically in my view) have repeatedly used Murdoch's newpapers to advertise various queen "product" you have to ask (to quote queen) "who needs who" ? as it appears Murdoch's empire makes quite a bit of money form QPL's very moralistic stance |
| mooghead 16.07.2011 17:47 |
First of all... thanks for a new post on the subject.. better than adding your opinion to the many others.. Second... the first line should go.. 'Dear Mr Murdoch... thanks for the free cd you gave away in your rag to make money for me.. this tabloid promotion only works one way doesnt it?' |
| rhyeking 16.07.2011 20:18 |
I'm curious how many people here criticizing Queen and Roger are doing so while unreleased "leaked" material is sitting on their hard drive or on their shelf (or both), in possession of it under the guise of being a "collector" and feeling justified because hey, we're fans and Queen owe us for our loyalty and all the money we paid them for their official products. Go on, raise your hands... Now, I'm not taking any higher moral ground here. I'm as interested in unreleased stuff as the next person, but let's face it, we don't have a right to it if Queen or its members didn't provide it to us legitimately. Before you respond that "fans" sharing rare demos is harmless and hardly in the same league as paying for advertising and promoting their work in a media outlet with shady or sleazy "journalistic" techniques while seeming to criticize those outlets, I'll point out that both acts are self-serving, a means to end and somewhat dishonest. And that's what people here are calling Roger/Queen Productions out on. It's grey and imperfect world. If I sound condescending, well, perhaps I am, but I am no more so than the earlier posts made in righteous indignation toward this song. |
| Dr Zoidberg 16.07.2011 21:31 |
Here's a life lesson, kids - everybody's a hypocrite if they live long enough. Most folks just don't have ten thousand people poised to point out their hypocrisy all over the interwebs. |
| GratefulFan 16.07.2011 22:04 |
rhyeking wrote: I'm curious how many people here criticizing Queen and Roger are doing so while unreleased "leaked" material is sitting on their hard drive or on their shelf (or both), in possession of it under the guise of being a "collector" and feeling justified because hey, we're fans and Queen owe us for our loyalty and all the money we paid them for their official products. Go on, raise your hands... Now, I'm not taking any higher moral ground here. I'm as interested in unreleased stuff as the next person, but let's face it, we don't have a right to it if Queen or its members didn't provide it to us legitimately. Before you respond that "fans" sharing rare demos is harmless and hardly in the same league as paying for advertising and promoting their work in a media outlet with shady or sleazy "journalistic" techniques while seeming to criticize those outlets, I'll point out that both acts are self-serving, a means to end and somewhat dishonest. And that's what people here are calling Roger/Queen Productions out on. It's grey and imperfect world. If I sound condescending, well, perhaps I am, but I am no more so than the earlier posts made in righteous indignation toward this song. ============================ Good Christ rhyeking. You've out-douchebagged even yourself here, which is something indeed. |
| rhyeking 16.07.2011 23:09 |
GratefulFan wrote: rhyeking wrote: I'm curious how many people here criticizing Queen and Roger are doing so while unreleased "leaked" material is sitting on their hard drive or on their shelf (or both), in possession of it under the guise of being a "collector" and feeling justified because hey, we're fans and Queen owe us for our loyalty and all the money we paid them for their official products. Go on, raise your hands... Now, I'm not taking any higher moral ground here. I'm as interested in unreleased stuff as the next person, but let's face it, we don't have a right to it if Queen or its members didn't provide it to us legitimately. Before you respond that "fans" sharing rare demos is harmless and hardly in the same league as paying for advertising and promoting their work in a media outlet with shady or sleazy "journalistic" techniques while seeming to criticize those outlets, I'll point out that both acts are self-serving, a means to end and somewhat dishonest. And that's what people here are calling Roger/Queen Productions out on. It's grey and imperfect world. If I sound condescending, well, perhaps I am, but I am no more so than the earlier posts made in righteous indignation toward this song. ============================ Good Christ rhyeking. You've out-douchebagged even yourself here, which is something indeed. =================================== Deal with it. |
| catqueen 17.07.2011 09:28 |
brENsKi wrote: it's only appropriate if you stick to your principles....it appears that Roger didn't.....Queen (hypocritically in my view) have repeatedly used Murdoch's newpapers to advertise various queen "product" you have to ask (to quote queen) "who needs who" ? as it appears Murdoch's empire makes quite a bit of money form QPL's very moralistic stance hmm... i see what you mean, but how does one AVOID using a Murdoch paper to promote stuff? I mean he owns a fair few of them... In college in first year sociology i did a project on media and was horrified how many papers are owned by the one company, its unreal. |
| brENsKi 17.07.2011 16:50 |
but surely the argument is about having principles, or not. or in Rpger's case apparently choosing when to apply principles..... if Roger really had the principles he claims to have in "that" song then perhaps he doesn't prositute QPL to the one man he loathes, detests, hates, and sees as EVERYTHING that is wrong with the free press.... a man of such high principles as claimed, would take his advertising money to MirrorGroup who own a lont of local newspapers as well as the mirror, sunday mirror and the people.... and if you really want to make a stand...advertise on any commerical tv/radio station that isn't own by murdoch......ITV, channel4 and even channel 5 still have greater numbers of viewers than any single sky channel...or give your money to murdoch's main TV rival...virgin...there are so many solutions...but queen chose the easiest.... shame is that any previous protests are muted completely now...because if you get int bed with the devil, you're gonna end up sucking his c*ck....right now queen have been jizzed on by NewsCorp (to the sum of how ever much it costs to advertise TCR, WWRY and various other things, most of which didnt sell) |
| rhyeking 17.07.2011 20:39 |
No one here has proposed that Roger or Queen or QPL could ever possibly be using this organization against which they have railed to try to do something more noble, to manipulate a corrupt system from within in order to bring about change. By promoting their art in a "sleazy" tabloid, they are subverting the tabloid's standards. |
| john bodega 18.07.2011 01:25 |
It's still a shit song. |
| brENsKi 18.07.2011 07:24 |
rhyeking wrote: .......By promoting their art in a "sleazy" tabloid, they are subverting the tabloid's standards. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ no they're not. the "lack of standards" will always remain the same.....bottom line: newpapers make money thru circulation and advertising....queen had several products to sell.....so they compromised their principles for the bigger God....filthy lucre it's ok for you to kid yourself...enjoy the fantasyland sterile vacuum...but please don't try and pass your beliefs off as facts...all you serve to do is confuse those who are easily impressioned |
| rhyeking 18.07.2011 11:17 |
I'd rather pass on the possibility that the Roger and Queen are human, capable of compromise while still enlightening their audience, over passing on this bitter double-standard and misguided intolerance. A more positive perspective is far less poisonous to impressionable minds than the flawed totalitarian black and white view. Distilling your opinion of Rupert's media outlets as: "Sleaze is what they do, that's the way it is, take it or leave" is not a defense for their irresponsible journalism. It absolves Murdoch's empire of any repercussions of their actions, by implying that they have no choice. By all accounts, they *choose* to take the low road. However, if Queen/Roger/QPL choose to use what they see as a questionable source of information (say, The Sun) to promote what they feel is a little more high-brow, it most certainly subverts the standards of the paper. It attempts to transform the established social order. It undermines the base intentions of the medium be being of greater value to its audience. If the band uses the paper to draw new people to their art, allowing these newcomers to see that there is more to the world than the lowest common denominator, then it is a victory. Oh, and when I qualify a thought as "possibility" or simply with "if," I'm not passing anything on as a fact. What I'm doing is far more insidious: offering up a idea. |
| GratefulFan 18.07.2011 12:16 |
The most generous spin I can put on it that perhaps the mistake was thinking of 'Dr. Mr. Murdoch' as a principled stance in the first place. Perhaps it was just a bunch of bitching set to music. One can certainly be part of a system and still find fault with it and make legitimate criticisms from within. Roger may have never anticipated or intended having the song juxtaposed with his business decisions years later, and he similarly could not have anticipated the scope of these current events that have made the song so immediately relevant when he gave that interview in February. Had he been able to see into the future he may have chosen to openly forgo the benefits of using The Sun for a chance to be a credible voice on it's negative effects on society. That's the best I can do. But truthfully I don't know that reality supports that version all that well. The X-Factor and AI stuff so fast on the heels of C-lebrity was another pile of grist for the mill, both in it's actuality and in Roger's public comments. When he appeared on the Jools Holland show he appeared very much to want to have his cake and eat it too by not so subtly referencing shows "with real music" or something to that affect. One really shouldn't get down in the mud and then sit on a throne and bemoan the filth, not unless you're angling to breed cynicism and a degree of contempt. I think he's uncomfortable with some of his associations, but not uncomfortable enough to do anything meaningful about it. Which has kind of been Roger all along: he's well known for being motivated to social commentary through his music and he's well known for not really giving a crap about what the jabbering masses think. If the song catches on and makes him some money he'll have another chance to make it into something more meaningful than a slightly clumsy moan fest through relevant use of the profits or by allowing it to more closely guide his future decisions. |
| Holly2003 18.07.2011 12:22 |
Indeed. It's the same kind of logic that gives us songs like "everything is broken" by an artist who, I believe, left Britain to avoid paying income taxes. That's one of the reasons why everything is broken -- rich people avoiding taxes! |
| brENsKi 18.07.2011 13:02 |
rhyeking wrote: However, if Queen/Roger/QPL choose to use what they see as a questionable source of information (say, The Sun) to promote what they feel is a little more high-brow, it most certainly subverts the standards of the paper. It attempts to transform the established social order. It undermines the base intentions of the medium be being of greater value to its audience. If the band uses the paper to draw new people to their art, allowing these newcomers to see that there is more to the world than the lowest common denominator, then it is a victory. Oh, and when I qualify a thought as "possibility" or simply with "if," I'm not passing anything on as a fact. What I'm doing is far more insidious: offering up a idea. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ i take your point about your "ifs" and "possibly".....but i think you should be a little more honest here..... you and i BOTH know...(as does anyone but the most purile queen stepford) that what you state above is NOT and NEVER was Queen's intention. it's a businesscase nothing more, nothing less...there is NO moral crusade being performed by Rog and the Doctor.....they are not attempting to subvert any great evil......(it's not Luke and Hans vs Lord vader) they are promoting their product whilst happily drowning in tits bums and jizz while they do it.....because every fool knows, that morals soon fly out the window when there is money to be grabbed.... it's a pity that the last few queen products have been of such a sub-standard, appalingly sh*t quality.......but then that makes queen (circa 2011) and the Sun perfect bedfellows |
| AlbaNo1 21.07.2011 16:05 |
I have to say its totally unrealistic to expect Queen as a mainstream, commercial band to bypass the mass media, much of which appears to be under the ownership or influence of Murdoch. Morally its on a similar level to voting in a general election when you dont totally approve of the parties or political system . Pragmatically you have to work with it. I dont for a second think that Roger is not fully sincere in expressing disdain for the tabloid press in the song and he has been consistent in his attitude. As for the song, I have always liked it and find it pretty amusing lyrically. |
| Major Tom 21.07.2011 16:14 |
Ok song, great voice! |
| brENsKi 21.07.2011 16:36 |
AlbaNo1 wrote: I have to say its totally unrealistic to expect Queen as a mainstream, commercial band to bypass the mass media, much of which appears to be under the ownership or influence of Murdoch. Morally its on a similar level to voting in a general election when you dont totally approve of the parties or political system . Pragmatically you have to work with it. I dont for a second think that Roger is not fully sincere in expressing disdain for the tabloid press in the song and he has been consistent in his attitude. As for the song, I have always liked it and find it pretty amusing lyrically. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ your argument doesn't work. Roger had a pop at Murdoch because he disapproved of Murdoch's press juggernaut and the way it undertook its business. so he either disapproves or he doesn't. and if he does then he boycotts Murdoch's 37% share of UK press and uses the other 63% (mirror, mail, express, guardian, independent, telegraph etc)...there's plenty of other advertising outlets to explore than just NewsGroup Corp. And as for TV...ITV channel 4 and Channel 5 all get higher viewing figures than sky, so there's bigger potential customers there if he wants to advertise on TV. fact is simple, Roger ignored his "hatred" of murdoch the minute he decided he wanted to use the sun/notw for advertising/promotion purposes...someone needs to explain how that doesn't equal double-standards and hypocrisy |
| AlbaNo1 21.07.2011 17:21 |
I think self-contradictory, or lacking in sufficient conviction might be fairer descriptions. You seem to be expecting Roger to behave with a pure morality . His solo songs are obviously more personal , but he clearly feels a duty to support whatever enterprise Queen are involved in. The fact is Queen are not going to cut off almost half their potential audience in their promotions - or even risk incurring a backlash from the tabloid media. |