QueenZone discussion #1323243

brENsKi wrote: pity freddie isn't still around and he could lay claim to almost half of everything brian every wrote....because of the two of them musically - i suspect brian had more "help"

1sharppencil wrote: "it's freddie's song....but you know what brian...you can claim the fucking bridge, the arsing intro, the cunting fade out, the titting chorus and both twatting verses if you like...but you're getting no song-writing royalties you money-grubber...so how's that grab you?" <-----what he said!

brENsKi wrote:

1sharppencil wrote: "it's freddie's song....but you know what brian...you can claim the fucking bridge, the arsing intro, the cunting fade out, the titting chorus and both twatting verses if you like...but you're getting no song-writing royalties you money-grubber...so how's that grab you?" <-----what he said!

thanks..i felt that was amongst my finest work

brENsKi wrote:

1sharppencil wrote: "it's freddie's song....but you know what brian...you can claim the fucking bridge, the arsing intro, the cunting fade out, the titting chorus and both twatting verses if you like...but you're getting no song-writing royalties you money-grubber...so how's that grab you?" <-----what he said!

thanks..i felt that was amongst my finest work

waunakonor wrote: brENsKi, "Bitter" is defined, in the context I was using it in, as "characterized by intense antagonism and hostility." .

brENsKi wrote:

1sharppencil wrote: "it's freddie's song....but you know what brian...you can claim the fucking bridge, the arsing intro, the cunting fade out, the titting chorus and both twatting verses if you like...but you're getting no song-writing royalties you money-grubber...so how's that grab you?" <-----what he said!

thanks..i felt that was amongst my finest work

brENsKi wrote:

waunakonor wrote: brENsKi, "Bitter" is defined, in the context I was using it in, as "characterized by intense antagonism and hostility." .

i don't hate brian. i don't know him. all i know is what he does...and until 1991 he did alright by me (she makes me and dear friends aside)...then post 91, freddie died and brian's quality control died with him, and at the same time it was replaced by a "McCartney syndrome"...a need to rewrite history to show equal importance. fact is, before 91, brian was probably musically freddie's equal in most respects - but post 91 his constant need to big up himself has dimished what respect i had for him he's behaving like a resentful bitter old man...and it's a pity, because if he hung up the bile, he'd probably still have loads worthwhile to say...musically

Fone Bone wrote: I can deal with "I single-handedly wrote TSMGO"

GratefulFan wrote: I think bitter is entirely the wrong word for Brian. Bitterness has never seemed the issue to me. He's perhaps the most rigid and ego driven of the lot which telegraphs a certain unpleasant intensity at times, but the other side of that coin is a revealing thoughtfulness and chatty introspection that I think benefits us as fans rather uniquely in the rock world. Sometimes I don't think people stop to realize often enough that carrying Freddie's lionized memory in death for public consumption is a duty that has it's significant burdens. For the most part I think he's done it with class and grace.

tomchristie22 wrote: Freddie definitely wrote the lyrics for the middle eight which Brian seems to have claimed - the 'sister, I live and lie for you' part was reportedly written with Kash in mind.

Holly2003 wrote: It's certainly possible. Brian doesn't strike me as the type of person who would do that though. He's not Paul McCartney ...

Dane wrote: So as part of a new documentary providing some new insights I think Brian did a good job explaining how these things occasionally happened. I don't see him complaining, just explaining.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

Holly2003 wrote: It's certainly possible. Brian doesn't strike me as the type of person who would do that though. He's not Paul McCartney ...

Really? You don't think the man who, after more than 20 years of refusing to comment on the issue, claimed* that Queen played Sun City in 1984 to make a statement against (N.B.)apartheid, by playing in the recently constructed 'city of vice'**, a dodgy mega-casino in one of the Homelands, would shy away from revising the songwriting history of his band? * From Brian's Soap Box, Thu 20 Jan 05: "When we were taken to task by the Musicians Union for breaking their embargo on playing in South Africa, I personally went to their meeting and spoke in defence of our decision to go to Sun City, carefully explaining our reasons. At the end of my speech the whole place applauded, and the then president said that he totally understood our point of view, and respected that our motives were good, but they would still like us to pay a fine, because we had broken a ‘Union Law’ ! The compromise we came to was that the money would go direct to the Kutlwanong school for the deaf in Bophutswana, a school for poor children which we already supported by way of the entire proceeds from a “Greatest Hits” album we put out specially for South Africa. The main contents of my speech, were that Boputhatswana was the only ONLY place in South Africa at the time where it was possible to play to a non-segregated audience (I wonder if you or your readers realize this – we had turned down lucrative offers to play in Johannesburg and Cape Town ) – and that we felt we were able to strike a bigger blow against Apartheid by going out there and speaking our minds than by staying away." ** Sun City was a gambling resort constructed by a hotel magnate (Sol Kerzner), and opened in december of 1979. It was located in a so-called Bantustan, or "black homeland", a supposedly 'independent country' called Bophuthatswana that consisted of a number of scattered enclaves, which just happened to be the unusable and impoverished parts of the north of South Africa. Sun City was 'interracial', i.e. blacks and 'coloreds' [everyone who wasn't considered white or black] could get in...if they could afford it, which less than 1% of non-whites actually could. It was the target of Artists Against Apartheid the very next year (1985).

The Real Wizard wrote:

tomchristie22 wrote: Freddie definitely wrote the lyrics for the middle eight which Brian seems to have claimed - the 'sister, I live and lie for you' part was reportedly written with Kash in mind.

But there are two middle eights - this, and the guitar solo, which is also a completely different chord progression.

Holly2003 wrote:

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

Holly2003 wrote: It's certainly possible. Brian doesn't strike me as the type of person who would do that though. He's not Paul McCartney ...

Really? You don't think the man who, after more than 20 years of refusing to comment on the issue, claimed* that Queen played Sun City in 1984 to make a statement against (N.B.)apartheid, by playing in the recently constructed 'city of vice'**, a dodgy mega-casino in one of the Homelands, would shy away from revising the songwriting history of his band? * From Brian's Soap Box, Thu 20 Jan 05: "When we were taken to task by the Musicians Union for breaking their embargo on playing in South Africa, I personally went to their meeting and spoke in defence of our decision to go to Sun City, carefully explaining our reasons. At the end of my speech the whole place applauded, and the then president said that he totally understood our point of view, and respected that our motives were good, but they would still like us to pay a fine, because we had broken a ‘Union Law’ ! The compromise we came to was that the money would go direct to the Kutlwanong school for the deaf in Bophutswana, a school for poor children which we already supported by way of the entire proceeds from a “Greatest Hits” album we put out specially for South Africa. The main contents of my speech, were that Boputhatswana was the only ONLY place in South Africa at the time where it was possible to play to a non-segregated audience (I wonder if you or your readers realize this – we had turned down lucrative offers to play in Johannesburg and Cape Town ) – and that we felt we were able to strike a bigger blow against Apartheid by going out there and speaking our minds than by staying away." ** Sun City was a gambling resort constructed by a hotel magnate (Sol Kerzner), and opened in december of 1979. It was located in a so-called Bantustan, or "black homeland", a supposedly 'independent country' called Bophuthatswana that consisted of a number of scattered enclaves, which just happened to be the unusable and impoverished parts of the north of South Africa. Sun City was 'interracial', i.e. blacks and 'coloreds' [everyone who wasn't considered white or black] could get in...if they could afford it, which less than 1% of non-whites actually could. It was the target of Artists Against Apartheid the very next year (1985).

Your interpretation of what Brian said, and his actual quote, don't match up. I'm certain Queen went to South Africa for two reasons, to make money and to broaden their fanbase after they had lost the US market. The point Brian seems to be making is that they were determined to play in SA but, given a choice of a number of venues, they chose one where they could play to a non-segregated audience. Probably that helped them sleep a little better on a mattress filled with £20 notes. However, as weak as Brian's argument is, he is only speaking about their choice of venues within SA, and isn't claiming they went to SA solely as some kind of huge anti-apartheid statement. Nevertheless, he seems to me to be painting a fairly rosy picture of Queen's actions, whereas Fred and to a lesser extent Roger, have openly said they did it for the money. But they were 4 individuals: Brian might have been more politically aware and maybe it was him who pushed for the desegregated venue. From that perspective, it's not unusual that's the argument he would lean towards to defend the band. Fred, on the other hand, might've just told the Musicians Union to fuck off while blowing his nose on a £50 note. But I don't see really what this has to do with the topic we're discussing unless you're trying to prove a pattern of rewriting history. You might add "Paul Rodgers was Fred's fav singer" to that list but I'd like to see a lot more evidence than that to prove to me that Brian is at heart a dishonest and immoral person. ps I always wonder why people get so worked up about Sun City while ignoring Queen played in Argentina, a country run by a fascist junta with a hideous human rights record. What if Queen had played China? Would that have been as bad as playing SA? China executes more people than the USA, after all. Maybe we're more sensitive to racial considerations than political? Considering some of these points does muddy the water a bit for those who only see things in simple binary terms of good and bad.

The Real Wizard wrote: Many (but not all) of the South Africa concerts were played to mixed audiences. In fact, they gave away free tickets to ensure this. Here's a scan.. zero Rands: link I'm sure they meant well, and perhaps the promoter even told them audiences would be mixed. But just imagine if they walked no stage the first night and not a single black person could be seen. Or maybe the first two nights went well, and the third night was all white ... and maybe this upset Mercury to the point that he lost his voice. Who knows..

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: In fact, they are. People like Paul Simon and Elton John got heavy fines and were shunned by numerous venues for several years. The thing is, only die-hard fans still remember it. Joe Public would have to look at a newspaper archive to find info about it. Why? Because Europeans and Americans prefer not to talk about the apartheid-era, because we just weren't as clean as we like to think we were. But to take this away from the Sun City-debacle and into the point I raised the Sun City-concerts for: Queen gets loads of flack in the '80s over Sun City (it's one of the main reasons cited why Queen weren't asked to help record the Band Aid single, for instance, despite latter-day claims that they were asked but 'couldn't make it'), Brian says absolutely nothing about it. Then, in 2005 he gets a bright moment, comes up with an explanation and claims that it's the explanation he already offered 20 years earlier. Brian goes into this kind of revisionism quite a lot recently ("Paul Rodgers was Freddie's favorite singer", "American Idol-type shows are an insult to music / We're going to find a new singer through an American Idol-type show", etc.), the result being that his word alone just isn't good enough anymore. Brian can claim he wrote "the bridge" to SSOR (note that there is plenty of room for interpretation as to what that means, cf. this topic), but that doesn't automatically make it true. There's just no way to establish this beyond reasonable doubt any more, and I think Brian is to blame for that.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Brian can claim he wrote "the bridge" to SSOR (note that there is plenty of room for interpretation as to what that means, cf. this topic), but that doesn't automatically make it true. There's just no way to establish this beyond reasonable doubt any more, and I think Brian is to blame for that.

Holly2003 wrote: In Musician Magazine in 1986 Brian said ""We finally had a chance to take our music to fans who had been buying our records and playing in a non-segregated situation" so this proves that quite soon afterward Brian was speaking about playing to non-segregated audiences and he didn't just fabricate this info 20 years later. link According to Phil Sutcliffe, Brian spoke to him about the Musicians' Union speech in a 1991 interview: link Also in 1991, Brian is interviewed in Q Magazine and basically says exactly what he would much later say on his Soapbox: link

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Mr.QueenFan: "Brian doesn't need to prove anything to you or the other naysayers on this forum. As long as there people like me who absolutelly adore this band and the music, and really suports the Queen+ projects and enjoys that Brian and Roger still love to play together, they will be fine. Trust me!" Ah, right. So this forum is open only to those will absolutely and unconditionally support anything Brian or Roger do. We have a word for those people: stepfords. I seriously hope you are a teenager, otherwise you have a very unhealthy case of hero-worship.

Sebastian wrote: * Brian being whiney about not gaining enough credit: Obvious.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: However, I still firmly hold that the suggestion that it was a conscious political statement against Apartheid is story he invented at a much later date. Brian's original defence offered in the '80s ("this band is not political", etc.) flatly contradicts his later claim that it was a political move against Apartheid. They can't both be true, so one has to be a lie, or at least wishful thinking.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

Holly2003 wrote: In Musician Magazine in 1986 Brian said ""We finally had a chance to take our music to fans who had been buying our records and playing in a non-segregated situation" so this proves that quite soon afterward Brian was speaking about playing to non-segregated audiences and he didn't just fabricate this info 20 years later.link to Phil Sutcliffe, Brian spoke to him about the Musicians' Union speech in a 1991 interview:link Also in 1991, Brian is interviewed in Q Magazine and basically says exactly what he would much later say on his Soapbox:link

In the first citation you provide, Brian only states the official reading of Sun City, namely that it was not (officially) segregated (Freddie's comments on the only audio recording we have available imply that black people were only seated in the back, and I am not aware of any photographs showing a mixed audience, but the lack of visual material in general means we can't draw firm conclusions from this). He does not mention anything that resembles "that we felt we were able to strike a bigger blow against Apartheid by going out there and speaking our minds than by staying away.", which he claims was the other half of their main argument  for going to South Africa (Brian's Soap Box, Thu 20 Jan 05, JOHN HARRIS IN THE STONE AGE). I cannot acces a copy of Musician Magazine, as the link you provide only gives a (partial) table of contents, but your quote suggests he did nothing more than say they did not play a segregated venue. You are right that my remark is not completely true when you take it very literally - he did not say absolutely nothing about it for 21 years, but for 19 years, but I think you will agree that he did not say anything about Queen's motivation for playing South Africa in the first place (which he does in 2005, when, again, he says: "we felt we were able to strike a bigger blow against Apartheid by going out there and speaking our minds than by staying away". That suggests it was a conscious political move, and it would make sense for him to explain that in the Musician Magazine article. Does he? If he doesn't, is it the case that the quotation you provide is part of Brian's defence when challenged about their visit to South Africa? Again, I can't read the article, so I have to ask you, as apparently you can access it.You may disagree with me, but I am still of the opinion that the quotation you provide and the quotation from the 2005 Soap Box article are quite different in their wording and implications.What I think is interesting is the quotation in the second article you provide: "We've thought about the morals of it a lot. This band is not political, we are not out to make statements, we play to anyone who comes to listen."We are not political, we do not make [political] statements. I think that flatly contradicts "we felt we were able to strike a bigger blow against Apartheid by going out there and speaking our minds than by staying away". After all, if they were trying to strike a blow against Apartheid, that would be quite some political statement.Furthermore, Brian claims they were quoted in South African newspapers (plural!) saying that "Apartheid should be ended". Now, while I haven't been plowing through back issues of Musician Magazine, I *have* been looking at South African periodicals, and I have been unable to find any quotation resembling this. Of course, there is no way for me to know which periodicals Brian means, as he gives no reference, but said quotation does not appear, in any form I could find, in any of the major periodicals of the day. All I can think of is that it might have appeared in one of the small newspapers that sided with Harry Schwarz and the Democratic Party, the only legal party critical of apartheid at the time.Apparently Brian did discuss the topic with Phil Sutcliffe in 1991, then, but does that constitute publicly discussing it?I will admit that Brian did not manufacture the quoted arguments in 2005. However, I still firmly hold that the suggestion that it was a conscious political statement against Apartheid is story he invented at a much later date. Brian's original defence offered in the '80s ("this band is not political", etc.) flatly contradicts his later claim that it was a political move against Apartheid. They can't both be true, so one has to be a lie, or at least wishful thinking.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Just to keep this short: I don't think Brian is an immoral person, I think "improves", in his head, nearly everything Queen has ever done. I think that's also the reason for him claiming authorship over a number of tracks credited to Queen - Brian remembers his own contributions to those songs, forgets what exactly the others contributed, and honestly remembers that *he* wrote them. Summary: Brian is not an immoral person, but I do consider him an "unreliable witness", which is a term historians use to describe anyone who gives contradictory, ambiguous or incorrect statements, either accidentally or on purpose.

The Real Wizard wrote:... only to a few disgruntled Queen fans who seem to want to have a go at Brian at every available opportunity.

The Real Wizard wrote:To 99.99% of the people who watched that documentary

The Real Wizard wrote:it was an insight into the creative process, with a very clear implication that it was the first of many times this occurred

The Real Wizard wrote:and likely to every band member.

The Real Wizard wrote:to assume that new insight into the band's history coming from his mouth must be wrong by default is a staggering display of arrogance.

The Real Wizard wrote:Queen fans complain about the lack of access to the archives and the band's deeper history as a whole. After so many years, here was some new insight at last, but it didn't suit some people's perception of Brian and their self-professed expertise on his band, so the complaining just continued. It says more about you guys than it does about Brian, that's for sure.

The Real Wizard wrote:Anyone can assemble a bunch of quotes to support an argument. But to make sweeping statements about someone as a person based on a few quotes says more about those people than it does about him.

The Real Wizard wrote: Your inverting language tactic isn't working.

The Real Wizard wrote:It's no more than an attempt to stifle debate

The Real Wizard wrote:to make it appear as if your stance is equally legitimate to others' when it isn't.

The Real Wizard wrote:You are attempting to paint everyone with a binary brush, that one must either pick Brian May apart or worship him.

The Real Wizard wrote:This is a dichotomy that exists only in your mind.

The Real Wizard wrote:There is a middle ground of neutrality.

The Real Wizard wrote:Making assumptions or passing judgement based on things he has said in the past is a conscious choice you are choosing to make.

The Real Wizard wrote:If you don't want to take new insights into Queen's history by Brian at face value, that's your choice. But don't confuse "Brian fabricates stories" with "you choose to assume by default that Brian fabricates stories."

The Real Wizard wrote:People do not need to somehow justify why they listen open-mindedly when others talk.

The Real Wizard wrote:The world is not a black and white place where everything is a duality and one of two positions must be chosen and constantly justified. Try to find the gray.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:That is not a witch hunt - it is responsible hermeneutic inquiry.

Ozz wrote:It's a useless discussion that brings no benefit .

Ozz wrote:When we whine publicly about him, we just bitter ourselves about things that we cannot change.

Ozz wrote:why should i think too much about that if that will make me see in a bitter way every soapbox message from Brian...

Ozz wrote:Its useless...

AdamMethos wrote: Is the random insertion of "Jeremy Kapone" in that post supposed to be some kind of subliminal messaging? ;-)

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Yes, we already know you suck, Jeremy.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Yes, we already know you suck, Jeremy.