QueenZone discussion #1281754
Hollywood Records and Queen?
| queenUSA 06.08.2011 19:12 |
Is Hollywood Records the best fit for Queen in the USA and Canada? What have they done for Queen lately regarding the 40th anniversary, etc? It seems like not much is going on, while in contrast, Island Records produced the extremely neat Queen Exhibition (March 2011, London) in their territory. Hollywood records is owned by the Walt Disney Company and it's artists seem to trend to the tween market: Selena Gomez & the Scene, Miley Cyrus, the Jonas Brothers. Do any of these artists rise to the caliber of Queen? Are they the contemporaries of Queen? No. Is Hollywood Records set to auto pilot with regard to Queen? We seem to be last in line for releases and I don't know if that is their doing or not. I don't expect anything to change, but thoughts anyone on the current fit or a better fit for Queen in the US and Canadian markets? |
| Thistle 06.08.2011 20:37 |
I didn't think they were still on the HR label in the USA lol, I just assumed that the Island deal was Universal, if you'll pardon the pun. What embarrassing company to be in - Gomez, Cyrus and the Jonas Bros. |
| queenUSA 07.08.2011 07:50 |
^ well, yeah, it does seem to be "embarrassing" as well - especially on the homepage of HR where they are all grouped together visually. Not sure if HR oversees all media placements for Queen in the USA ... such as: 1) the Queen Documentary shown on the Biography channel 2) Redbeard's interview of Brian & Roger on his radio show 3) American Idol stuff (most recently the singing of FBG) 4) Recent airing of Queen's Live Aid performance for the VH1 30th anniversary weekend Bottom Line: The Q exhibition won't be coming to the USA or Canada - unless HR creates their own and they seem to be too passive of a label, with regard to Queen, for that to occur. I wonder how HR handled their own 1991 remaster push in terms of marketing? |
| ole-the-first 07.08.2011 08:04 |
Thistleboy 1980 wrote: I didn't think they were still on the HR label in the USA lol, I just assumed that the Island deal was Universal, if you'll pardon the pun. What embarrassing company to be in - Gomez, Cyrus and the Jonas Bros. ============= Thy're still on HR label in USA. And they released in USA few singles this year, on HR label. The most interesting (for collectors) one is Keep Yourself Alive (Long-Lost Re-Take)/Somebdy to Love (Live at Milton Keynes Bowl Radio Edit)/Somebody to Love promo CD. It was sold on eBay nearly for US $100. I'm very interested in this unique Somebody to Love (Live at Milton Keynes Bowl Radio Edit). Does anybody have this single? |
| DragonflyTrumpeter83 07.08.2011 08:06 |
This topic also made me think of a a couple of questions: Are Hollywood Records just distributing the Universal Records Remasters here in the States? Does Hollywood Records have the right to remaster Queen's back catalog differently/seperately from the way Universal Records remastered it? |
| queenUSA 07.08.2011 08:48 |
DragonflyTrumpeter83 wrote: This topic also made me think of a a couple of questions: Are Hollywood Records just distributing the Universal Records Remasters here in the States? Does Hollywood Records have the right to remaster Queen's back catalog differently/seperately from the way Universal Records remastered it? ================= The answer to the first question is Yes. I just looked at one of my 2011 remaster jewel cases and it says Hollywood Records Inc. Manufactured and Marketed by Hollywood Records. Nowhere on it does it say Island or Universal. The answer to the second question is "maybe," however QPL would have to want to pursue that in the USA and Canada. They won't because it's already been done (1991, HR) and re-done (2011, Island) and the market is flooded with remasters. I hope these answers are correct ... if not, then please help out with better information. |
| Russian Headlong 07.08.2011 15:28 |
Queen really screwed Holywood Records. They signed a record deal with them I think around 1990 yet only got 'new' material from Innuendo and Made In Heaven. They signed knowing Freddie was terminally ill, did Hollywood Records know that, I doubt it, seems sharp practice to me. |
| queenUSA 07.08.2011 16:29 |
Russian Headlong wrote: Queen really screwed Holywood Records. They signed a record deal with them I think around 1990 yet only got 'new' material from Innuendo and Made In Heaven. They signed knowing Freddie was terminally ill, did Hollywood Records know that, I doubt it, seems sharp practice to me. ========================== Thank you for pointing that out because it's a very good (and obvious) point ... but one I didn't consider earlier (to be honest). However, any sympathy for HR is probably not warranted as they are doing just fine. In their top 10 tracks for the week, BoRap and AOBTD are clearly pulling their weight and their top artist (#1 this week) is indicated as Queen by quite a wide margin above their other artists. Nothing like having BoRap & Queen around to keep the bills paid! Here's a look at that breakdown (as shown for today's date) if you have any further interest: link Additionally, consider the "sales bounce" that occurs when an artist dies suddenly (as we have witnessed again with Amy Winehouse in recent days.) One could argue that HR ultimately made out like "the cat that got the cream." |
| dowens 07.08.2011 18:47 |
HR already had their remasters out in the States, that's the only Queen albums you could find. But, I would be interested in knowing why North America wasn't included in the original release dates, but then announced they would be? |
| Sheer Brass Neck 07.08.2011 23:06 |
Or more realistically, HR signed Queen knowing full well that Freddie was sick and that they'd recoup their investment upon his death. |
| GratefulFan 07.08.2011 23:54 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: Or more realistically, HR signed Queen knowing full well that Freddie was sick and that they'd recoup their investment upon his death. ======================= My thoughts were similar. Whether or not HR knew or not it's certain that everybody involved has benefited from Freddie's death. I don't mean that cynically - I think the remaining organization has treated Freddie's memory well and nobody doubts that they'd rather have him here. But the good will that follows on sentimentality and an iconic image that will never age past 45 has doubtlessly helped keep the money, love and opportunities flowing. |
| Sheer Brass Neck 08.08.2011 00:29 |
That's not cynical at all GF. If you're HR asking for 4 albums of new music, and Queen's stuff got released in early '91, then there would have to be knowledge of Freddie's condition considering he died less than a year after Innuendo (Jan or Feb '91) was released in NA. It was for millions of dollars and Queen wasn't exactly world beaters in the US. I think HR knew full well they were getting one album of new stuff, two tops, and would milk the back catalogue after Freddie's death. |
| DragonflyTrumpeter83 08.08.2011 09:00 |
Hey thanks for answering my questions, QueenUSA! :D |